Search News


Browse Archives

News

Defining 'College Ready,' Nationally

September 21, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

That too many young people come out of high school ill-prepared for college or the work force is little disputed. The questions of why that's so and how to fix the situation, however, have too often resulted in finger pointing, with many college faculty members complaining that high schools are asking too little of their students and high school officials saying that colleges send mixed signals about what they want students to be able to do.

The stagnation and even deterioration created by that logjam has contributed to the situation in which the United States now finds itself: sliding down the list of countries in the proportion of young adults with college credentials, prompting President Obama and others to propose investing tens of billions of dollars to get more people into and out of college. But despite a lot of talk, the "holy grail" solution to the preparation problem -- better aligning high school and college curriculums so that more students leave K-12 ready to do college work or with work-ready skills -- has often seemed out of reach.

Today represents a milestone, though, for a potential breakthrough that could have major implications for higher education. The Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association have released common standards for core curriculums in mathematics and reading and writing that, because of a confluence of events, could create a set of widely embraced national (but not federal) standards for what high school students need to know to be "college ready" or to have the skills to enter the work force. (Comments are invited through October 21.)

All states but Texas and Alaska have signed on to the groups' Common Core Standards Initiative, the federal government has tied participation in the project to qualifying for a huge new pool of federal funds for school districts, and the American Council on Education (in conjunction with scholarly societies) is organizing teams of college faculty members to review the standards. (Note: This paragraph has been updated from an earlier version to correct an error.)

While the process of stitching the standards down into high school curriculums and linking them upwards to colleges' admissions or placement policies will take years, K-12 and higher education experts who have toiled in this terrain for years describe the development of the core standards as clearing a major hurdle.

"This is the first time the K-12 people have stood up and said, 'College readiness is our goal,' " says Kati Haycock, president of Education Trust, which advocates for low-income students. "Higher ed people ought not to underestimate how big a deal this is."

"Progress in this area has been painfully slow, and it is a very long road from agreeing on standards to fully implementing them and ultimately assessing their effectiveness," says Molly Corbett Broad, president of the American Council on Education. "But every journey starts with a first important step, and this is the first time we have seen this kind of momentum."

Getting to This Point

The formal process of developing national standards may be just coming into public view, but serious work on improving the college readiness of high school students has been underway for more than a decade.

"Back in 1990s, it started being clear to us that a whole lot of kids who were following all the rules and doing fine on exams in high school were entering college and finding themselves having to take remedial courses and learning things they should have learned in high school," says Haycock. That suggested a clear lack of "alignment" between what students were learning in high school and what they were expected to be able to do once they got to college.

To attack that problem, Education Trust in 2001 teamed up with the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Achieve, Inc., to create the American Diploma Project. Its goal was to bring governors, state superintendents of education, business executives and college leaders in a state together to raise high school standards and align them with the requirements of colleges and employers.

The focus was on states for a variety of reasons, but not least because of the opposition that can arise among states' rights advocates whenever talk turns to creating "national" standards in education -- since "national" often equates to "federal."

State by state, in 35 of them, teams of officials have worked through the American Diploma Project to develop high school standards that have been approved by college faculty members and have buy-in from public colleges -- which in various ways have sought to connect their own admissions or placement standards to the high school goals.

The state-by-state progress has been useful, but the international data showing slippage in the United States' standing prompted groups to redouble their efforts to find a more cohesive approach, says Scott Montgomery, deputy executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers. "It struck us that other countries that have national curriculums have advantages over us," he says. "We asked, what could we legitimately do in that regard that was state-led, not federally led, that would increase rigor, and that would aim to make people college ready?"

Despite its state-by-state focus, the American Diploma Project provided a ready-made head start toward a common national curriculum. That's because the individual state groups used as one of their key starting points a set of benchmarks developed by the diploma project, such that "the results of the state processes had way more in common" than they had differences, says Haycock of Education Trust.

"That foundation allowed people to start dreaming that this was a moment to actually go to common nationwide standards," she adds.

The school officers' group and the National Governors Association announced the formal creation of the common standards effort in June, in conjunction not only with Achieve but with ACT, Inc., and the College Board, too. (Note: This paragraph has been updated from an earlier version to correct an error.)

Backing From Washington

That effort has received a big push from another source: the Obama administration. Although direct involvement by the federal government could be a death knell for many school-based initiatives, given the pushback from local school boards against involvement in curriculum setting, the administration has lent its weight to the project with its favored tool: money.

As part of the economic stimulus legislation that Congress enacted last winter, Education Secretary Arne Duncan agreed to set aside $350 million (as part of the administration's Race to the Top fund) for states to develop new tests and other measures tied to the Common Standards initiative. More fundamentally, the rules for states to participate in the $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund (which is designed to stimulate innovation among high schools) require that states join the Common Standards effort to tap into the federal money.

The tight timeline for distributing the federal stimulus money has sped up the process for implementing the core standards initiative. The second draft of the standards (which update earlier drafts for mathematics and reading/writing and were developed by panels of educators, including some university professors) will, upon their release today, be reviewed by panels quickly convened by the American Council on Education based on advice from the Modern Language Association and the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences.

"We felt it was really important that faculty around the country see that the standards were reviewed by organizations that had credence and in a way that was independent" of the groups that created the standards, said Jacqueline E. King, assistant vice president for policy analysis at ACE.

Once the national standards have been agreed on, an enormous amount of work remains to be done by the Common Standards project to "back map" the standards down through the secondary and elementary school grades, so that teachers in various grades know what they need to do to keep their students on track to meet the standards by the time they near high school graduation -- and students can tell at various steps along the way whether they're on track.

At the same time, to make the standards meaningful for students once they leave high school, colleges will need to decide if and how they want to use the guidelines in their own policies. Exactly what that looks like will vary from state to state and probably institution to institution, says Haycock of Education Trust, because of the great variation in the expectations at more and less selective public colleges, two-year and four-year.

Some may use the core standards as placement tools, says King of ACE, like the California State University System has done with its Early Assessment Program to gauge the college readiness of 11th graders in the state. Other institutions may adapt their course requirements for admissions to ensure that they match those that the Common Standards effort has deemed to make students "college ready."

The standards are not designed to be used to create admissions tests, says Haycock of Education Trust, because they are focused on content (what students should know and be able to do) not performance (how well they do those things). But as higher education administrators and professors and faculty members have blamed high school teachers for producing too many students who can't do college-level work, K-12 instructors have sometimes bristled because of the wide variation in how different colleges define quality.

"What the teachers are saying is, 'We'll step up, but you can't hold us accountable for multiple different definitions of what we need to step up to,' " Haycock says.

"There's a different standard for credit bearing work in English at [the University of California at] Berkeley and at a California community college," she says. "But you can decide that certain students are entering with weaker writing skills than others, and that they can and should do something else. The goal here is to get to a common and high standard that should be sufficient to allow students to get to the next step."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Defining 'College Ready,' Nationally

  • I smell another College Board/ACT test coming on...
  • Posted by Standards Skeptic on September 21, 2009 at 7:00am EDT
  • Interestingly, the board that developed the draft national standards in mathematics, for example, includes only one person who has had any K-12 classroom experience (not current), and is heavy with people from Achieve, ACT and the College Board. They wrote the draft on a very tight timeline with almost no input from outside their echo chamber. I suspect that the "standards" will not have much relevance to the actual intellectual requirements of entry-level college study, but that they will provide a bonanza opportunity for the testing companies.

  • Defining College Ready
  • Posted by Sally in Chicago at City College on September 21, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • Why do I think we're on our way to becoming Saudi Arabia, which gives every child a free college education. And yet, when they graduate engineers and scientists, there are not enough jobs for them, thus they have to leave the country.
    I am opposed to this emphasis -- all the time -- on getting a college education. How about a vocational or technical education, where people can use their labor to do things to earn a living? Technical institutes and vocationals are just as good as college.
    The knowledge-based society of occupations just failed two years ago throwing a slew of people out of work. How many analysts do we need in this country?

  • Posted by Jim on September 21, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • I agree with the previous post. I don't at all agree with the notion that every student should go to college. When I graduated high school, we had three programs: academic (college prep), vocational, and DECA. Some years after I graduated, the high school cut voc/DECA. The whole high school is now considered college prep. Granted everyone (regardless of career track) should get a good education but to assume that everyone is on the college track is absurd.

  • College Readiness in Texas
  • Posted by Wallace Johnson , Asst. Director College Readiness at South Texas College on September 21, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • Your article fails to mention that Texas is far ahead of most states in developing college and career readiness standards and aligning said standards with high school curricular standards. Initiated in 2006 under a legislative mandate, the College and Career Readiness Standards in Texas were drafted by teams of public school and higher education faculty in the key content areas of English/Language Arts, mathematics, natural science, and social science/social studies. Facilitated by curricular alignment experts from the University of Oregon (led by Dr. David Conley) this project is currently at the level of phased implementation and under new legislation, college and career readiness will be tied to public school accountability measures beginning in 2011.

  • The full conversation
  • Posted by Ross Miller , Sr. Dir. of Assessment at Berkeley College on September 21, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • The standards movement has, for years, been talking about preparation for postsecondary education -- all students prepared for college OR a technical career etc. The high school curricula for both are remarkably similar -- identical in some schools with the highest levels of math, science, arts, and humanities. Read about the SREB model "high schools that work" or some of the books by Marc Tucker, etc. for ideas on how all kids with varied ideas for the kinds of careers they will pursue, need the highest level of preparation for what comes after high school --- regardless of whether it is college or some other education.

     

  • It's not about college instead of the workforce
  • Posted by Lisa , Assessment on September 21, 2009 at 10:00am EDT
  • It is not at issue that vocational education has value, and is an appropriate pursuit for many students in high school. However, to be successful in the workforce, they need the same (if not higher!!) reading, writing, critical thinking/problem solving, and computational skills as someone entering formal post-secondary education. High schools should be challenged and supported to raise the bar for all of their students, so that they may be successful at whatever they do upon graduation.

  • An important start but not necessarily for standardized testing
  • Posted by David Shupe , Chief Innovation Officer at eLumen Collaborative on September 21, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • High school graduates' readiness for college was one of my areas of responsibility when I was System Director for Academic Accountability for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system. From that position, it was clear that there were several obstacles to making progress. The first and foremost was stating the aligned expectations in a way that was acceptable to both sides. The second, just as important, was that they were stated in a way that could be put into practice. The conventional articulation of course syllabi clearly was not working: even though the respective high school courses officially included certain expectations, and satisfactory completion of these courses was part of students' transcripts, the percentage of college-entering students testing into remedial courses remained high and growing. The primary innovation (this was 8 years ago) was to encourage high schools to administer to high school sophomores and juniors the same test many of them will encounter when first showing up for college.

    The potential agreement described in this article addresses the first obstacle and could be an important new beginning. The proposed standards, stated as expected student learning outcomes, are clear and straightforward and have a reasonable chance of remaining so through the next review steps.

    The second obstacle -- how to put this into practice -- remains. The comment by "Standards Skeptic" that this will lead to another standardized test is clearly a concern, but it is no longer the only alternative to the conventional course transcript approach. Systematically tracking student learning outcomes individually demonstrated in courses is much easier and more sophisticated than even five years ago. I presented this alternative to both the College Board and to ACT in 2002. (They were uninterested.) Nevertheless it has been quietly moving forward as an alternative to testing how a student does on a given day. This should encourage those who are working to achieve consistent standards.

     

  • The Achilles Heel of the Standards Movement
  • Posted by Merilee Griffin , Recent Ph.D. graduate at Michigan State University on September 21, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • The problem with standard-setting lies in the almost universal failure to recognize that different types of knowledge require different types of standards and assessments, and to provide appropriate descriptions and measures for the most cognitively complex outcomes.

     

    Outcomes that require students to produce a single right answer or best answer require convergent thinking, and they are easily described in concrete ways and appropriately tested with multiple-choice exams. This is the kind of thinking is necessary for mastery of content knowledge in the disciplines and for many skills, such as those in mathematics or spelling.

     

    Outcomes that require divergent thinking, however, such as writing, critical thinking, problem-solving, evaluation, and some analytic tasks, cannot be adequately described in outcome statements or measured by tests. Often, these are the skills that high schools do not challenge students to accomplish, but they are the grist of a solid undergraduate education.

     

    Curriculum guides, outcome statements, and standards in writing and critical thinking use words such as “logical,” “appropriate,” “fully-developed,” “evidence-based,” and “clear” to describe the desired level of student achievement, but such words are invariably subjective and open to a range of interpretation. What seems “logical” to a high school teacher may not be viewed as logical at all by a first-year composition teacher at a community college or a professor of philosophy at a liberal arts college.

     

    Outcome statements in divergent-thinking areas must be operationalized to be meaningful to the thousands of teachers who will read them and attempt to teach to the required level. That can be accomplished by using many samples of student work that illustrate the various levels of accomplishment (scorepoints), accompanied by commentary and analysis. Then teachers must have the opportunity to practice analyzing and scoring student work, comparing their assessments with those of leaders in their field. Fortunately, this work is made relatively accessible, cost-effective, and flexible by putting it online, as my recent research on online assessment communities illustrates.

     

    The failure to operationalize standards in the higher cognitive skills is the Achilles heel of the standards and accountability movement. The accompanying failure to develop appropriate assessments that are as cognitively complex as the desired outcomes merely compounds the problem.

  • There Must Be Multiple Definitions
  • Posted by Eric Gates , Sr. Consultant at ALEkS Corporation on September 21, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • First, I agree with some of the others saying "College Ready" is too broad and simple.

    Second, SOME majors, such as engineering, Pre-Med, Sciences, Mathematics, etc... demand a clearly focused and tight set of capabilities, while others have more flexibility.

    Third, Most students pursuing advanced education today don't realize it, but they are preparing for jobs that do not yet exist, so my advice is to avoid pursuing a single career in undergraduate education, in favor of a broad, liberal education.

    (For example, English majors from good schools get into top Medical schools all the time, lawyers come from all undergraduate fields, etc...)

    The best colleges and universities today generally perform best at preparing students to be college professors. This practice needs some re-thinking in light of today's rapidly increasing rate of economic and social change.

  • Our kids can do it!
  • Posted by Liza Dittoe , Founder at DPR on September 21, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • Have you seen the documentary films called Two Million Minutes?

    In Two Million Minutes 1 we see the ISSUES - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZnSG6gg1vs&feature=channel_page (film's trailer)

     

    In it's sequel, we see the SOLUTIONS - http://www.youtube.com/user/2MillionMinutes (film's trailer)

     

    As Craig Barrett, former Chairman of Intel says in the 2nd film, "I think that the children in the United States are capable of so much more than we ask of them. They are incredibly smart. They are so smart that they see exactly how high you set the bar, and that's about all they're willing to go normally."

     

    "We've just been afraid as a society to raise the level of expectation. These kids could do it. Kids at BASIS [Charter] School are taking on high school [courses]. They're doing it in middle school. Those are not specially selected kids. It's the same demographics as the rest of the universe. Why don't we just accept that they can do it, and accept that as a society we need them to do it if we want to be competitive?"

  • Based on a faulty premise
  • Posted by Kathy on September 21, 2009 at 11:30am EDT
  • This entire debate is based on 2 faulty premises:

    1) College entrance requirements SHOULD BE high school exit requirements. I would argue high schools educate a widely diverse population, including many who simply do not WANT to go to college and others who will not perform well enough in high school to meet those requirements. What about those students? Where are they left?

    2) A college prep curriculum is necesary for everyone to be successful in the workforce. This contradicts an article published just last week in the Chronicle. I have seen research that actually assesses the science and math requirements of the fastest growing occupations, and there is absolutely no requirement for even Algebra I for many of them, much less trigonomety and physics.

    If we really want to reform high schools, and link them with higher education, it is going to take a lot more work and serious planning, with numerous options for students and curriclum linked to those options. One size does NOT fit all.

  • Core?
  • Posted by John Thompson , Assoc Prof at Buffalo State College on September 21, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • The document states: "These documents are not an attempt to demonstrate everything that a student should learn; rather, we have focused on two areas – English-language Arts and Mathematics. The standards have incorporated 21st century skills where possible. They are not inclusive of all the skills students need for success in the 21st Century, but many of these skills will be required across disciplines." Still, the inherent danger is that when one starts referring to "core" areas and excludes some areas (e.g., technology literacy), they never really get included and/or given sufficient attention and priority. Also, when discussing 21st century skills, there's a caution when the substantiating "evidence" is based on past (e.g., 20th century) thinking. No one would argue against ELA and math being core competencies, but the 21st century demands more than "just" reading and math skills.

  • need more than outcomes
  • Posted by Bradley Bleck , English Instructor at Spokane Falls Community College on September 21, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • I will first admit to only a cursory reading of the standards, but based on a project I've been involved in here in Washington (the state) we have found that standards in and of themselves are not enough, at least for our efforts.

    We are also, in our College Readiness (maybe we need a new name--but we figure if you are ready for college, you are ready for a prof/tech program or the workplace in general) working on more than seemingly quantifiable, or in being able to quantify, to some degree, behaviors. For instance, student success can be gauged by how much intellectual curiosity a student exhibits, which might manifest itself in doing research beyond assignment expectations and the like. A student who is intellectually curious, about whatever, is more likley to succeed in college, in a tech/prof program, an apprenticeship or whatever it is they do after their secondary education. Behaviors of this sort are what we want to emphasize (we have a whole raft of them) because they will serve students well no matter what they do once they leave high school behind. We don't ignore the "can develop a focused thesis statement" sorts of outcomes, but find they must be coupled to verifiable "habits of mind" if they are going to have value.

  • "Doing fine"?
  • Posted by Susan , Dir. Inst. Research & Asmt on September 21, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • "'Back in 1990s, it started being clear to us that a whole lot of kids who were following all the rules and doing fine on exams in high school were entering college and finding themselves having to take remedial courses and learning things they should have learned in high school," says Haycock."

    Doing fine? High schools adjust their curricula to suit the level at which students come to them. Students bring a nine year history (K - 8) to high school. Start reform early.

  • Sally and Susan
  • Posted by DFS on September 21, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • Sally and Susan are right:

    Sally, without the target jobs sector there will be no job growth -- unfortunately, DearLeader has decided that private enterprise must be outlawed.

    Susan, of course the high school teachers work with what they are given. So do college professors. If some prior education sucks, then let's stop sucking! Actually require 'teachers' and 'schools' to make sure that students learn something about reading, writing and arithmetic, instead of such popular bullshit like Heather Has Two Mommies.

  • The more they stay the same.....
  • Posted by Reid Cornwell , Director of Research at The Center for Internet Research on September 21, 2009 at 7:00pm EDT
  • In 1892 a learned committee of Academicians convened to determine exactly the same thing as this article. The result has come to be known as "The Committee of Ten" report. This has been the basic framework for all educational standards since and its most current manifestation is NCLB. We all know what a disaster that has been. So, "The more things change the more they stay the same."

    Why do we have such a compulsion to MCDonaldize education?

  • Re: More Readiness Studies
  • Posted by Dr. Anthony Husemann , Director of Graduate Studies at International College of the Cayman Islands on September 22, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • Typically, as others have noted, for Commissions like this one, few to no K-12 educators are included on the panel of experts. In fact, so many commissions to study K-12 ed have come and gone, with little to no input from those trained and experienced in the same that it boggles the mind to even consider what outcomes have been proposed this time. What "new directions" are mapped out? What new benchmarks have been set? What difference will it really make? Why do we keep having to establish another "distinguished panel" to determine standards for our schools? Perhaps it is as Santayana said and Lincoln once quoted, and I paraphrase, "if you don't learn from historical mistakes, you're bound to repeat them." Put another way, no one on these Commissions ever seems to learn anything from history. Or, rather, from our educational leadership and management courses where we emphasize the necessity of formulating educational plans that include "all stakeholders." We then, systematically, leave out some of the very best educated and most experienced in the field from being stakeholders in those plans. Why do we do that? Let me make a modest suggestion-our media tell us to do so. Back in the early 80's I read two education-related articles from a leading news magazine. One called school principals "low-level-petty-bureaucratic-puppets" and the other, later article referred to teachers as "the largest pseudo-profession in the country." With that attitude well-entrenched in the public's view of teachers and their bosses, just why would anyone actually consider them worthy of consulting, anyway? Go ask Wall Street what to teach. Or NBC. Or Congress. Just DON'T ask teachers or school principals. I mean, what would they know about it, anyway? Maybe, a lot! Let's try a NEW national study. Survey 50,000 school teachers and principals and see what they think those benchmarks might need to be. Might work. For a change.

  • College preparation
  • Posted by m. howe , Instructor, English Comp at Purdue on September 23, 2009 at 12:00pm EDT
  • This article doesn't make me comfortable that appropriate changes will take place to prepare students for college. Where are comments with regard to secondary schools and post-secondary institutions working together to create the bridge from one to the other? Where is the guarantee that smaller classes will be created so that instructors will be able to conference with students with regard to their writing processes? Research in English education has outlined what needs to be practiced in classrooms to help students obtain greater successes in critical thinking/writing and reading. Until these changes are implemented, money will be spent unwisely, time will be wasted, and students will be shortchanged.

  • Writing Skills
  • Posted by Susan , Dir. Inst. Research & Asmt on September 23, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • Students must learn to write in the very early grades. In my day we started in grade two. With fear of god instilled in us, we were college-ready by the end of high school (even those who did not proceed directly to college). I felt that my children needed to have two years of AP English to learn what I learned. The chair of the high school English department admitted to me that writing was not stressed enough in the early grades in our school district. The comprehensive level of English was camouflaged with a College Prep B title to differentiate it internally from the real College Prep level (level A). I was told that by Junior year the Honor's level English courses were, more accurately, a continuation of College Prep; AP English courses were, more accurately, a continuation of Honors English courses. The pace must be set much earlier than high school for a high school - college articulation bridge to work the way we'd want it to work. (Yes, I went to parochial school, and did so a VERY long time ago, and I realize I didn't address literature.)

  • We need a common base
  • Posted by Ed Nuhfer on September 23, 2009 at 8:15pm EDT
  • Having a minimum literacy base for citizens is a good idea whether or not citizens attend college.

    People with 6th grade reading and writing abilities are now getting college diplomas. In some states, high school chemistry is not even a college entrance requirement. In my first course taught at Idaho State University, I discovered that over 80% of my introductory geology students had never had a high school chemistry course. This meant that they were unprepared to even read the textbook that was written for the majority of the nation's freshmen. These were not "bad" students, "disruptive" students or students not interested in learning, but they had been dumped on badly by their state's K-12 systems. Over 90% came from a fairly isolated five-county community, and had no idea how different expectations were in other parts of the country. They were great young adults who had been woefully unprepared and kept unaware of it I quickly adjusted my course to better meet their needs, but it was sad to see their situation from the perspective of experiences in several other states.

    Professors need people who can read and write at a SOLID high school level. So does the nation. We face huge technological, environmental, economic, and ethical challenges right NOW. We need citizens sufficiently knowledgeable and prepared to deal with them. The citizen who lays brick, repairs diesels, and does landscaping nevertheless votes and is affected fully by these challenges.

     

  • Merilee Griffin
  • Posted by DFS on September 24, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • The Achilles' Heel of Reality:

    (1) Did such-and-such happen?
    "I must point out that I have a different concept of reality, stemming from a different learning style."

    (2) Why did such-and-such happen?
    "I must point out that I have a different concept of reality, stemming from a different learning style."

    Need we go on? I suppose your PH.D. will illuminate the world.

  • Posted by D. Petra on September 24, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • While you may not believe that all students should receive the educational preparation for attending college, this has been a federal goal for at least the last 12 years. It shouldn't be a surprise to see such efforts as this one.