Search

Over the next three years, the California State Board of Education (SBE) and the California Department of Education (CDE) will refine the college and career readiness (CCR) measures in the state's school accountability system. Determining which measures to use, given that they need to be robust, useful, equitable, and cost effective--and effectively measure a complex set of factors--has proven to be a challenging process for these state agencies to date. To inform their work, this report captures how state and county officials, high school teachers, community college instructors, CCR program administrators, high school students, and community college students view California's current CCR measures. It focuses particularly on what teachers and students think makes certain CCR programs successful, based on their experiences. The study answers two questions: (1) How do officials from the state and county offices of education view CCR programs and the state's College/Career Indicator (CCI)?; and (2) What are students', teachers', and administrators ' perspectives on CCR programs? While this qualitative study reflects only the views of a small number of stakeholders, their ideas and concerns warrant consideration by policymakers. This report finds that students, teachers and local administrators embrace California's commitment to college and career readiness (CCR), but have deep concerns about implementation. [This report received research support from Laura Tobben and Stacey Sural.]

This brief focuses on the potential role of County Offices of Education (COEs) in bridging the state's vision for college and career readiness with the implementation needs of local districts and schools. After summarizing the work of 10 COEs that are known for supporting districts in increasing college and career readiness, the brief raises questions and outlines concerns in this area for COEs across the state.

Student transfer processes from the California Community Colleges (CCC) to the California State University (CSU) have been simplified somewhat over the past few years, but they remain complex and confusing for most transfer students, according to students, administrators, and staff at several community colleges and CSU campuses. Transfer processes--from planning and course-taking at a community college to applying to and enrolling at a CSU campus--remain burdensome for students, despite the services provided by institutions and the implementation of the new associate degree for transfer (AD-T). Many transfer students, to make it through, employ strategies that were described to us as trial and error. College administrators, staff, and students said that students need more help interpreting transfer requirements. These findings are based on research by the Education Insights Center (EdInsights) examining policies and practices in California that support student transfer from the community colleges to the CSU. Previous research has documented the complexity of transfer processes in California. In 2010, the state enacted the Student Transfer Achievement Reform Act to streamline transfer from the community colleges to the CSU by creating a new degree, the AD-T. This research examined how students experience policies and practices related to transfer from community colleges to CSU in the context of the AD-T, which was implemented in 2012. Findings are drawn from interviews with 26 administrators and staff at six community colleges and four CSU campuses, and from focus groups at the four CSU campuses with 64 students who had successfully transferred from a community college. The following are appended: (1) Research Methodology; (2) Comparison of Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) and CSU GE-Breadth Requirements; and (3) Comparing Transfer Requirements for Business Administration Majors at Two CSU Campuses. Contains endnotes.

This brief shares the perspectives and concerns of high school teachers in two districts regarding implementing the Common Core State Standards, specifically as the Common Core pertains to preparing more students for college and well-paying careers. The brief also makes state policy recommendations for ways to support teachers in their efforts to increase students' college and career readiness, including through fostering alignment between K-12 and postsecondary and workforce partners.

The focus of this paper--and the series of which it is a part--is on improving student learning during the crucial period spanning grade 12 and the first year of college in order to build momentum for college success. In the introductory paper to this series, "Why 12th Grade Must Be Redesigned Now--and How," Jobs for the Future names this period the "transition zone" and argues that it is time for high schools and colleges to consider taking joint responsibility for the college and career readiness of students during these two years. This series suggests a "shared transition zone," in which secondary and postsecondary education systems and institutions would collaborate in key ways to bridge existing gaps and substantially increase the percentage of youth prepared for college and careers. While high schools and colleges have their own distinct roles in educating students--and are trying to make improvements in their respective systems--their shared interest in student success comes closest to converging at the end of high school and the beginning of college. The needs of young people leaving one institution and entering another are quite similar, but the leaps in academic and cultural expectations are quite large. We suggest that it is at this juncture where sharing responsibility for the same students in a shared transition zone can have a greater effect than acting apart. In this paper, the authors outline the principles of co-design, co-delivery, and co-validation that must guide the new partnerships between high school and college campuses and systems to raise college readiness and success. They describe the practices of exemplary partnerships around the country and suggest policies to promote the development of more partnerships that can spread this innovative work. [For the first paper in this series, "Why 12th Grade Must Be Redesigned Now--and How," see ED560768.]

The early years of the implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in California were complicated by the Great Recession as well as by a significant devolution of finance and programmatic control to the local level through the Local Control Funding Formula. The state charted a steady course and took a systematic approach to CCSS implementation, making policy changes in such areas as assessment and accountability to create a framework that supported the standards. Postsecondary systems also made policy shifts to align with the CCSS. This research outlines policymakers' and educators' hopes for how the CCSS can support improvements in students' college and career readiness, and it provides early evidence about both similarities and disconnects between those expectations and implementation activities in high schools and districts. Policymakers and educators are optimistic about the potential of the CCSS to improve college and career readiness, yet there is initiative fatigue, confusion about how to integrate the many college and career readiness-focused reform efforts underway in California, and a lack of clear guidance about how to implement the CCSS. Interviewed high school educators expressed a desire for more clarity about such issues as: (1) the expectations of the state's postsecondary systems for their various degree and certificate programs; (2) how to connect those expectations to teaching and learning in high schools; and (3) instructional strategies that will support the intent of the CCSS with regard to college and career readiness. The report outlines key findings regarding state education leaders' expectations compared with educators' experiences with CCSS implementation. The report also offers a series of policy recommendations, intended to serve as a bridge between where the state is today and all of the interconnected activities that will likely be needed to substantially improve students' college and career readiness through the CCSS. The recommendations acknowledge that the state is in a new era of local control and that policymakers are still determining which policy levers are effective and appropriate in that environment. A detailed description of the research study is appended.

As education reforms increasingly focus on the needs of students as they cross education systems and enter the workforce, regional partnerships, or consortia, are developing across the country to meet a wide range of students' needs. While regional partnerships have existed in different forms for decades to serve community needs, current partnerships are focusing on connecting education systems to prevent students--particularly traditionally underserved students--from falling through the cracks. Specific efforts can include: aligning curricular expectations across high school and college to reduce the need for remedial coursework; working with business partners to develop curricular pathways, degree programs, and certificate programs that will help students find meaningful employment and help regions meet workforce needs; and improving student support services to increase high school and college graduation rates. There is a great deal of experimentation with different kinds of regional partnerships across California. This report is aimed at encouraging new and existing partnerships to learn from the growth and development of current partnerships. It highlights issues that support or impede consortia processes, their work to support student success, and their sustainability. The information used in this report came from 37 interviews with stakeholders from 19 regional consortia located throughout California. The audiences for this report are three-fold: (1) education, community, and business leaders engaged with regional partnerships; (2) state agency staff who could provide an enabling environment for regional partnerships to thrive; and (3) philanthropic organizations that support cross-sector collaboration. While it is too early to draw conclusions about effective strategies, there are some clear implications that arose from this research. For example, representatives of all the consortia noted that building trusting relationships is one of the largest challenges faced by these consortia in the early stages, and constant attention and time must be devoted to maintaining them for the long run. Having a base of trusting relationships makes it easier to develop and maintain a common agenda to serve the larger community. The job of facilitating trust-building conversations and activities falls to the lead organization, which must be viewed as the appropriate entity for that work by all of the participating entities from the start. This report describes the following strategies suggested by representatives of the studied partnerships: (1) Start with a coalition of the willing; (2) Focus on a few main goals; (3) Foster involvement of key leaders; (4) Leverage existing networks; (5) Create opportunities for cross-system communication and collaboration; (6) Embed activities in existing organizations; and (7) Use data to motivate action and inform activities. The report concludes with suggestions to help state policy and philanthropic communities better support regional partnerships. [To access the policy brief "Regional Cross-System Education Partnerships and the Need for Supportive State Policies. Policy Brief," see ED574460.]

Across focus groups consisting of current and former community college students in four states (Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas), a consistent message resounded: Students want to be more connected to their colleges, from the moment they enter until the day they complete their studies. They want to feel more connected to faculty, staff, and peers. They want to be more engaged by their classes and to feel more supported by services they receive. And they want to see colleges be more deliberate in ensuring those connections. "Connection by Design" is the second of two reports based on student focus group discussions conducted in spring 2012 by staff from WestEd and Public Agenda. It supports the findings from the first report, Student Voices on the Higher Education Pathway (Public Agenda & WestEd, 2012), about college students' desire to receive transparent, accessible, accurate, and timely information leading up to and during their college experiences. In addition, it analyzes students' ideas about their community college experiences as they related to several strategies for increasing college completion rates. The focus groups discussed information delivery methods and student supports, including orientation, student success courses, advising, and alert systems; instructional services, including developmental education and entry into a program of study; and career preparation and exploration. Overall, students understand the pros and cons of choosing educational goals and entering into a program of study soon after starting college versus exploring a variety of options for one or more years. Most wish that their college had provided them with more structured opportunities to explore their options. (Contains 3 footnotes.)

This paper presents findings from five separate investigations undertaken as part of the Texas College and Career Readiness Initiative, a legislatively mandated program to increase the number of students attending and succeeding in college. It highlights activities designed to improve alignment between high school and college. These activities include defining what constitutes college readiness, validating the definition against entry-level college courses, developing "reference courses" as benchmarks for college expectations, exploring the relationship between college readiness in cross-disciplinary skills and expectations in two-year certificate courses, and analyzing the degree to which placement tests measure the knowledge and skills defined as college ready. The paper considers findings within a broader policy context to illustrate significance for Texas and for other states. The following are appended: (1) Texas College and Career Readiness Cross-Disciplinary Standards; (2) Scale Items & Rationale Statements for Examining the Alignment between the Texas College and Career Readiness Standards and Entry-Level College Courses at Texas Postsecondary Institutions; (3) Reference Course Profile: English Composition II; and (4) Scale Items & Rationale Statements For Alignment Between the CCRS [College and Career Readiness Standards] and Entry-Level CTE [Career and Technical Education] Courses. (Contains 22 tables and 3 footnotes.) [This report was prepared by the Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC).]

There is substantial work being done--in California and nationwide--to develop college readiness standards; expand concurrent enrollment programs; communicate clearly about the key cognitive strategies necessary for postsecondary success (e.g., analytical thinking); improve student supports; and implement other approaches to improve students' postsecondary readiness and success. This report focuses on assessment and placement processes, pivotal pieces of this picture because they determine which level of courses students will be placed in when they begin community college. This study had two main purposes. One was to examine and describe the set of policies and practices that shape assessment and placement in California's community colleges. The other was to hear directly from students--whose voices are crucial yet generally missing in the policy process--about their assessment and placement experiences. The authors then compared the policies' supportive intent with the reality of the students' experiences--as well as with observations from counselors and matriculation officers--to draw conclusions about how the policies and practices may need to be adjusted. These findings add to a body of research showing that California's K-12 and community college systems are not currently structured to support successful transitions from high school to community college for a large proportion of students. An appendix presents the methodology used in this study.

California policymakers have pursued various strategies for raising student achievement over the past half-century. The state's schools now advance demanding curricular standards which are among the most rigorous in the nation. These are in the form of "content" and "performance" standards. This paper, stemming from a Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) seminar, examines the idea of crafting "opportunity to learn (OTL) standards"--how the state might collect and analyze indicators of school quality that are predictive of student achievement. The idea is not new. Such standards were put forward by Congress over a decade ago. However, questions remain regarding which quality indicators can be feasibly monitored and which are empirically related to achievement gains. Developing, implementing, and monitoring such a system would be challenging. But, as the PACE seminar participants discussed, a well-designed OTL system would provide a tool in helping parents, the public, and policymakers know whether students are receiving the resources they need to succeed. (Contains 40 endnotes.)

This case study is part of a broader research project examining state policies and governance structures that span K-12 and postsecondary education. The New York Board of Regents oversees all education in the state and has been in place for over 200 years; this lends the regents' office a legitimacy and tradition unlike any other state education governance structure in the nation. This report explores how connected New York's education policies and reforms are across pre-K, K-12, and postsecondary education (called PK-16), with a focus on state-level initiatives, governance, and related structures. Aside from research conducted in New York City, this project did not explore these issues in relation to local or regional issues. The New York field research was conducted in May 2004. The main research questions included the following: (1) To what extent is PK-16 reform perceived as a state policy concern? What are the incentives and disincentives for improved connections? (2) What are the main goals and objectives of current state-level PK-16 reforms? Who is responsible for developing and implementing those changes? and (3) What have been the main successes and failures to date? In presenting the findings, this report first describes the context of PK-16 reform and governance in New York. It then presents a summary of major PK-16 reforms, an analysis of PK-16 challenges, and a concluding overview of the opportunities for PK-16 reform in New York. The New York Interview Protocol is appended. (Contains 35 endnotes.) [For "The Governance Divide: A Report on a Four-State Study on Improving College Readiness and Success. National Center Report #05-3," see ED508097. For the Oregon case study, see ED508101. For the Florida case study see, ED508098. For the Georgia case study, see ED508099.]

This case study is part of a broader research project examining state policies and governance structures that span K-12 and postsecondary education. Florida has implemented some of the most sweeping education governance changes of any state; all levels of education are housed in the Department of Education, which is overseen by a commissioner who reports to the governor. This study examines Florida's recent K-20 reforms, with a focus on state-level initiatives, governance, and related structures. The primary research questions included the following: (1) To what extent is K-20 reform perceived as a state policy concern? What are the incentives and disincentives for improved connections? (2) What are the main goals and objectives of current state-level K-20 reforms? Who is responsible for developing and implementing those changes? (3) What have been the main successes and failures to date? Interviews were conducted with state-level policymakers, administrators, business leaders, researchers, and others involved in reforms. This report begins with a summary of recent relevant political, governance, and education reforms in order to provide a context for later discussions of specific K-20 efforts. It outlines the previous policies and programs that contributed to the development of a K-20 foundation in the state. Next, the report summarizes the content of the current K-20 reforms, their effects, and the challenges they face in aligning K-12 and postsecondary education. The report concludes with reflections about the sustainability of the K-20 reforms and the role of the current governance structure in their development and implementation. The Florida Interview Protocol is appended. (Contains 20 endnotes.) [For "The Governance Divide: A Report on a Four-State Study on Improving College Readiness and Success. National Center Report #05-3," see ED508097. For the Georgia case study, see ED508099. For the New York case study, see ED508100. For the Oregon case study, see ED508101.]

This case study is part of a broader research project examining state policies and governance structures that span K-12 and postsecondary education. Oregon has been a leader in K-16 reform through its development of the Proficiency-based Admission Standards System (PASS), which articulated postsecondary expectations and linked them with K-12 reforms. This study, while being cognizant of these fast-paced changes, provides a snapshot of Oregon's K-16 reform efforts as of March 2004, with additional contextual and historical information collected from previous research from Stanford University's Bridge Project, and with follow-up interviews with selected participants in fall 2004 to identify key changes between March and August 2004. In presenting the findings, this report first describes the context of Oregon's education reforms, including descriptions of each relevant agency and public education entity. The report summarizes the major statewide K-16 reforms and outlines some of the key accomplishments as well as challenges to K-16 reform in the state. The report then offers a short summary of changes in the state from March to August 2004 before concluding with thoughts about the present and future of K-16 reform in Oregon. The Oregon Interview Protocol is appended. (Contains 32 endnotes.) [For "The Governance Divide: A Report on a Four-State Study on Improving College Readiness and Success. National Center Report #05-3," see ED508097. For the New York case study, see ED508100. For the Florida case study, see ED508098. For the Georgia case study, see ED508099.]

This case study is part of a broader research project examining state policies and governance structures that span K-12 and postsecondary education. Georgia was the first state to have state and regional P-16 councils, and its regents' office in the University System of Georgia oversees a variety of projects that focus on connecting K-12 and postsecondary education. The Georgia field research was conducted in September 2003. Two central questions that this report seeks to answer are: (1) What types of governance structures and related policies enable, or create difficulties for, P-16 reforms? (2) How necessary is a P-16 governance framework in order to create and institutionalize P-16 reform? To examine these questions and issues, this report describes the history of and context for P-16 reform and governance in Georgia. It then presents a summary of major P-16 projects and policies, and an analysis of the state's major P-16 accomplishments and challenges. The report concludes with thoughts about the present and future of P-16 reform in the state. The Georgia Interview Protocol is appended. (Contains 23 endnotes.) [For "The Governance Divide: A Report on a Four-State Study on Improving College Readiness and Success. National Center Report #05-3," see ED508097. For the Florida case study, see ED508098. For the New York case study, see ED508100. For the Oregon case study, see ED508101.]

This report, supported by case studies in Florida (ED508098), Georgia (ED508099), New York (ED508100), and Oregon (ED508101), identifies and examines policy options available to states that are interested in creating sustained K-16 reform. The findings move the K-16 agenda forward by proposing a set of state policy levers that can be used to create meaningful changes for students. In addition, this report identifies the role of other factors-- such as leadership and state culture and history--in implementing and sustaining K-16 reforms within states. The findings of this research demonstrate the real challenges--and opportunities--that states face as they seek to improve transitions between high school and college. This report provides state leaders with real-world policy choices, showing the kinds of steps several states have taken, and the implications of these policy decisions over time. The report also offers recommendations to help states transform ad hoc approaches into sustained action and institutionalized, long-term K-16 reforms. Every state needs to increase the percentage of students who complete high school and finish some form of postsecondary education; existing governance structures and policies cannot meet this overwhelming need. For most states, these structures and policies must be revised in significant ways. As the findings reveal, the responsibility for reform cannot be carried by one sector, but rather must be shared across systems to reach common ground, focusing on improving K-12 and postsecondary education for all students. "Education Performance in Four States" is appended. (Contains 54 endnotes and 1 figure.)