2350.5
.147
2004
IGSL
UCB

 

 

PACE WORKING PAPER SERIES 04-1

* Improving the Transition
from High School to
Postsecondary Education

INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENTAL
STUDIES LIBRARY

FEB 03 2017
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Policy Analysis for California Education
University of California, Berkeley and Davis
Stanford University

April 2004 "*

I
1‘

 

 

 

WORKING PAPER SERIES 04-1

Improving the Transition
from High School to

Postsecondary Education

Papers by:

Michael W. Kirst
Anthony Lising Antonio
Andrea Conklin Bueschel

Stanford University

April 2004

A Policy Analysis for
California Education

PACE

 

 

Table Of contents

Preface ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1

What do California Students and Parents Know about College?
by Anthony Lising Antonio .......................................................................................................................... 3

Linkages and Disjunctures: California's K—12 and Community College Sysetms
by Andrea Conklin Bueschel .................................................................................................................... 3’1

Using a K—12 Assessment for College Placement
by Michael Kirst ................................................................................................................................................ 65

Summary of Findings ................................................................................................................................... 7’!

Policy Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 73

Preface

PACE presents three working papers on the inadequacies and difficulties of successful transition
from high school to college. These papers are derived from The Bridge Project, a six-state study
of K—1 6 issues. Readers of these papers may want to read the final Bridge Report, Betraying the
College Dream. and look at other six-state comparative studies on the Bridge website
(http://www.Stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/). The website will help locate California in the
national K-1 6 context.

These three papers do not attempt to cover all aspects of K—16 and transition issues.
Consequently. the policy implications at the end are based solely on these studies. While the
media has focused a disproportionate amount of its attention on the highly selective UC system,
these studies provide fresh perspectives on the issues of college preparation, transition, and
success for the vast majority of California students who attend the broad-access institutions—the
California State University system (CSU) and community colleges.

Anthony Lising Antonio provides an overview of what California students and parents know
about college. and when they know it. His survey results are alarming and reveal widespread
ignorance or misinformation about college requirements. readiness, and needed actions to be
successful at college. For example, at CSU and community colleges, the placement exam given
to entering first-year students is a crucial education standard, but students know little about the
placement process or the content of the exam. Students incorrectly think their high school
graduation standards are equivalent to college placement standards.

Andrea Bueschel summarizes case studies of the Los Rios Community College District (by
KC. Boatsman) and some of its feeder high schools. She analyzes how and why prospective
high school students receive vague and conflicting signals about academic college readiness.
Moreover. she provides some significant contextual data on California students” transition from
high school to community college.

Michael Kirst provides a concrete example of how to improve K—1 6 transition and placement
and send clearer academic standards signals to high school students. He describes how CSU and
the California State Board of Education concluded negotiations in 2003 that merged CSU
placement standards into the existing statewide California standards tests (CST) given to all
students in Grades 1—1 1. CSU set the minimum test scores that high school juniors would need to
reach. and agreed to accept the CST in lieu of its own placement exam for those students. Low-
scoring high school students will receive specific recommendations to avoid remediation in
college in summer 2004, and can use their senior year for intensive preparation to meet CSU
placement standards.

Policy implications from these three papers conclude this publication. Some of these
recommendations have low or no cost requirements.

       

 

’3
male; :o’sxd , ‘a
,4

v ‘3} .:

 

 

 

Section 1

What do California Students and Parents
Know About College?

by Anthony Using Antonio
with the assistance of Samuel HBersoIa

In this report we explore the aspirations California students have for postsecondary education
and their knowledge about college costs, placement exam policies. and admission policies. Such
an examination is important because students whose aspirations align poorly with their college
knowledge are likely to be unprepared for the challenges of college.

For instance. such students may not have taken sufficiently rigorous courses in high school. They
also may have acquired inaccurate or inadequate information which may lead them to make poor
college choices: they may end up selecting an insufficiently challenging school, a school they
cannot afford, or a school without a strong academic program in the student’s primary interest.

Generally we found that students have high postsecondary aspirations. Almost half desire to
attend college at one of the University of California campuses, the state‘s most selective
university. Despite these high aspirations. students also demonstrated rather poor knowledge of
college costs and policies, knowledge that may be important for making successful transitions to
college. Tuition was consistently overestimated, admission criteria were misunderstood, and
students‘ knowledge of academic placement appeared to be based more on guesswork than fact.

Methodology and sample

The Sacramento Metropolitan Area and surrounding cities was chosen as the target population
for this study. Within this geographic area, we chose two high schools in each of three area
school districts at which to collect data. Our aim was to choose schools that were located near
two public. four—year institutions— the University of California at Davis and California State
University Sacramento. This was to ensure that our sample of students would view the two
universities as their local UC and CSU options and theiefore would likely seek out information
on those institutions policies and practices.

Schools and districts were selected with regard to the following criteria: racial diversity, UC
eligibility rates, UC- and CSU—going rates, SAT-I scores, and STAR scores. In addition, we
considered the percentage of students on free or reduced lunch as an indicator of school
socioeconomic status. Within high schools and districts, we attempted to choose schools that
would provide contrasts in socioeconomic status, racial composition, and academic performance.
while also selecting schools that normally send a respectable number of students to the two local
public universities. The characteristics of the six sampled high schools are summarized in Table l.

 

TABLE 1. Selection Characteristics of Sampled High Schools.

 

District High % % Reduced/ % completed % enrolled % enrolled l 111] gr Stanf. 9
School* White free lunch UC a-freqs @ UCD (#) @ CSUS (#) (% >49th pct)

l Applewood 48 16 15 5 (na) 5 (na) 42V 46M
Haverhill 44 17 22 7 (58) 6 (33) 33V 50M

2 Bridgeport 29 49 44 6 (50) 13 (79) 32V 45M
Three Palms 51 14 36 7 (47) 12 (94) 50V 64M

3 Bellview 30 24 37 14(51) 4 (72) 44V 53M
Center City 35 56 37 3 (46) 8 (83) 28V 44M

 

na: Data not available.
* School names are pseudonyms.

As Table 2 shows, we divided the six schools into three levels of performance (low, middle, and
high) according to the combined verbal and math scores of eleventh graders on the 1997
Stanford-9 test. Sampled schools in Districts 2 and 3 each represented a low- and high-
performing pair within the district. District 1 had only two comprehensive high schools.
however. and these schools were average-performing within the Northern California context.

 

TABLE 2. SChOOI Performance Designations.

District High School* Combined Math/Verbal

 

Performance SAT-9 Score School

1 Applewood 88 Middle
Haverhill 83 Middle

2 Bridgeport 77 Low
Three Palms l 14 High

3 Bellview 97 High
Center City 72 Low

 

*School names are pseudonyms.

The two comprehensive high schools in District 1. Applewood and Haverhill. are good
representatives of “middle-performing schools.” Academic performance indicators place the two
high schools squarely in the middle of the State achievement levels and in the middle of their
respective “similar school” cohorts.

About one-fifth or less of their graduates complete the A—F requirements for the University of
California, and approximately one-fifth matriculate directly to a four-year college or university.
About one-third of the students at each school take the SAT-l. and average verbal and math
scores for each hovers around 500. the national average. Note that higher percentages of

graduates in the low-performing schools complete UC A-F requirements, which illustrates some
of the limitations of these performance designations based upon test scores.

The two District 2 high schools included in the Study only opened within the last decade, reflecting
the area‘s rapid growth. Racial composition and socioeconomic status varied most in this district.
According to the 1999 Stanford-9 results, Bridgeport was the lowest-performing among the five
comprehensive high schools in this district while Three Palms was the highest-performing.

Teachers and administrators describe Three Palms as “college preparatory,” which was clearly
evident in the main office, which housed elaborate displays of impressive college matriculation
statistics. Despite the fact that both schools in this high-performing district offer a Wide array of
Advanced Placement courses (approximately a dozen AP courses each), Three Palms students
earn AP credits at a rate twice that of students at Bridgeport and students statewide.

District 3, an urban district in Northern California, is one of the largest in the state and has its
share of urban challenges. For example, according to a district study, at the end of the 1998—99
school year nearly half of the 9th graders in the district did not acquire the units needed to
advance to the 10th grade. Furthermore, on average, 9th graders in District 3 earned three grades
of D or F during that academic year. Bellview High, which is located in an upper-middle-class
residential neighborhood, is known for its rigorous academic program and high academic
achievement, and is the district’s highest—performing school.

In contrast. Center City High School is one of District 3’s lowest-performing high schools.
According to 1999 Stanford-9 results, just over 10% of the students at Center City were
performing above grade level, compared to nearly half of the students at Bellview. Furthermore,
only a quarter of the seniors at Center City met the UC A-F eligibility requirements, whereas
over half of Bellview‘s seniors met these requirements.

 

 

“ We targeted 9m and 1 1'17 graders who were likely to be interested
in college (those in honors and college prep courses). ”

 

 

Within each school, we selected a stratified sample of students and their parents for participation
in our study. Our selection matrix was a 2x2 design (grade level x honors track) in which we
targeted students in 9th grade, 1 1th grade, honors track, and non-honors (but “college—prep”)
track. In other words, we targeted 9th and 11th graders who were likely to be interested in college
(those in honors and college prep courses) as opposed to those who were least likely to be
interested (those in the basic-level courses).

At each high school this selection matrix resulted in a target sample of students in four English
classrooms: one 9th grade college prep class, one 9th grade honors class, one 11‘h grade college
prep class, and one 1 1th grade honors class. English classrooms were chosen to delineate students
by grade level and academic track because, unlike mathematics courses, the classrooms were
homogeneous with respect to grade level. Since each of the schools had no formal tracking of
students, we took into account students” current English and math courses in our analyses, as
described below in the findings section.

We surveyed students and their parents in the spring quarter of the 1998-1999 academic year
using a questionnaire specifically designed for the study. Parents were asked to complete a 15-
minute survey and an attached consent form. The parent survey collected data on family
socioeconomic status, their knowledge of local college admission requirements, and their
specific behaviors associated with obtaining information about college.

Returning students signed consent forms and were given approximately 30 minutes during class
to complete a 27-question survey. The student survey was designed specifically for this study
and gathered data on student behaviors, aspirations, and beliefs related to going to college. The
final sample consisted of 451 students and 433 parents. There were 418 cases in which complete
student and parent survey data was obtained.

Slightly more young women (63%) participated in our survey than young men. As teachers
explained, honors courses are predominantly female; thus, our sample was skewed in this
direction. In addition. more 11th graders (53%) than 9th graders (47%) participated. In terms of
socioeconomic status (SES), students tended to fall in our mid-SES and high-SES categories,
with only 21% falling into the bottom third of our SES scale.1

The sample was racially and ethnically diverse. Students of Asian descent comprised almost 40%
of our sample, yet student demographic information for the two counties in which our six schools
reside indicates that only 17% of the high school population is of Asian descent. This
oversampling of Asian-American students is likely due to the fact that our sample included
college preparatory and honors students only, and Asian-American students tended to be
overrepresented in these tracks.

In contrast. African-American and Latino students were undersampled (1 1% African-Americans
in our sample vs. roughly 15% overall within the two counties. and 10% Latinos in our sample
vs. roughly 16% within the two counties). Whites made up 27% of the sample.

Focus group interviews were also conducted with 8—10 students from each sampled classroom.
Although this report focuses on the analysis of survey data, qualitative data from interviews are
also provided for additional explanation of findings.

FINDINGS

In our analysis we look at student aspirations for postsecondary education as well as student
“college knowledge”2 in terms of their understanding of tuition costs. curricular requirements.
placement tests, and admission selection criteria. Student aspiration and college knowledge are
analyzed for differences by grade (9th vs. 11th), race. socioeconomic status (SES). school

 

I Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by a composite of two variables, maximum parental education and family income.
both taken from the parent survey. Maximum parental education was scaled from 1 (less than high school) to 7
(graduate/professional degree) and was taken as the higher level of attainment among the mother and father. Family income was
scored 1 (below $15.000 a year) to 12 (over $100000 a year). SES was computed as the sum of the two measures. For cross-
tabular analyses. we divided these 8138 values into three major categories: low-SES (2 to 7). middle-SE8 (8 1013). and high-SES
(14 to 19). The sample tended toward the mid- and high-SE8 categories (38.5% and 40.1%. respectively). Only 71 students
(21.4%) were categorized in the low-SES category.

2 McDonough. RM. (1994). Buying and selling higher education: The social construction of the college applicant. Joumal of
Higher Education. 65 427-446.

6

 

performance. academic track, and use of key agents. In a final section, we present a brief analysis
of parents‘ college knowledge based on the data collected from parent surveys.

Student Aspirations for Postsecondarv Institutions

In our survey we asked students to state their interest in attending ten types of postsecondary
institutions. Students were allowed to check as many institutions as they wished.

 

‘
#—

 

“Juniors may have greater knowledge than fi‘eshmen of their
chances for admission across institutions, and include their local
community college as a ‘safety school.

 

 

Aspirations by Grade

As Table 3 shows. the juniors in our sample expressed greater interest than the freshmen in
attending three institutions: a local community college, UC campuses other than UC Davis
(LlCD). and CSU campuses other than CSU Sacramento (CSUS). The largest difference by grade
was associated with interest in a community college. Eleventh graders are nearly twice as likely
to include the two-year institution on their list of postsecondary options. One explanation for this
difference in postsecondary aspiration is that juniors may have greater knowledge in terms of
institutional variety (schools further from home) and of their objective chances for admission
across institutions, thereby including their local community college as a “safety school.”

 

TABLE 3. Postsecondarv Aspirations by Grade.

Percent Among

 

9th 1 lth Total t-test
Institution (n=2 1 4) (n=23 7) (n=451) p-value
Local community college 19.6 39.2 29.9 .000
UC Davis 51.4 45.1 48.] .185
Other UC campus 42.5 52.3 47.7 .038
CSU Sacramento 27.6 36.2 26.8 .737
Other CSU campus 19.2 27.4 23.5 .039

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Aspirations by Race

Small cell sizes in the cross tabulations make it difficult to render strong inferences with respect
to racial differences. However, we feel it is instructive to note a few interesting trends in the
analyses by race. In Table 4, we find that white, Latino, and multiracial students were the most
likely to include their local community college on their postsecondary options list.

The students in all three Asian-American subcategories, along with multiracial students, showed
a greater interest in UCD than the other racial groups. Chinese-American students showed by far
the greatest interest in other UC campuses. Furthermore, Southeast Asians showed the most
interest in CSUS. Finally, African-American students were least interested in other CSU
campuses while white students were the most interested. In fact. the interest in other CSU
campuses among African-Americans was less than one-third that of white students.

 

TABLE 4. Postsecondary Aspirations by Race.

 

 

Race
African- White Latino Chinese- SE Other Multi- Total
Am. Latina Am. Asian Asian racial

Institution Aspired (%) (n=48) (n=120) (n=44) (n=54) (n=52) (n=59) (n=69) (n=450)
Local community college 25.0 34.2 34.1 25.9 21.2 28.8 36.2 30.0
UC Davis 33.3 40.8 45.5 57.4 53.8 57.6 53.6 48.0
Other UC campus 29.2 54.2 38.6 70.4 30.8 49.2 49.3 47.6
CSU Sacramento 27.1 22.5 27.3 22.2 36.5 32.2 23.2 26.4
Other CSU campus 10.4 35.0 22.7 16.7 17.3 16.9 30.4 23.6

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Aspirations by SES

Aspiration trends with SES are shown in Table 5. One expected trend was confirmed: high-SES
students showed greater interest in UCD (61%) than low—SES (45%) and middle-SES students
(48%). Similarly, and perhaps more telling, is the fact that interest in other U C campuses
increased with 8138, with high—SES students aspiring to these schools at twice the rate of their
low-SES counterparts.

The opposite is true, however, for interest in the less selective CSU S. Among low-SES students,
40% indicated interest compared to only 23% of high-SE8 students. Finally. mid—SES students
indicated the greatest interest in their local community college (35%), which was significantly
greater than the aspirations among students from hi gh-SES families.

 

TABLE 5. Postsecondary Aspirations by SES.

 

 

 

SES t-tests (p-values)
Low-SES Mid-SE8 Hi-SES lo-mid mid-hi lo—hi

Institution Aspired (%) (n=62) (n=121) (n=130)

Local community college 32.3 34.7 21.5 .728 .021 .124
UC Davis 45.2 47.9 60.8 .721 .042 .043
Other UC campus 32.3 49.6 66.2 .023 .007 .000
CSU Sacramento 40.3 28.9 23.1 .106 .305 .014
Other CSU campus 22.6 24.8 28.5 .740 .513 .379

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Aspirations by Grade Point Average

Figure 6 shows students’ interest in UC, CSU, and local community colleges as a function of
students’ self-reported grade point average (GPA). Interest in community colleges and GPA
were inversely proportional: the stronger the student‘s GPA, the less interested he/she was in
attending a community college. Among the “C” students, 52% were interested in the community
colleges, while only about 7% of the “A/A+” students were interested in these colleges.

Regarding interest in only the two four—year schools, students in our focus groups consistently
reported that one needed a higher GPA to gain admission to UCD than to CSUS. On the surveys,
interest in both campuses increased with GPA from C to B-. Within this grade range, interest in
C SUS was generally greater than interest in UC. However, for students with a GPA of B or
better. interest in UCD was consistently greater than interest in CSUS, and interest in CSU
decreased with GPA while interest in UC increased.

 

FIGURE 62 Interest in UCD, 53C State, and Community Colleges
(9th & 1 1th grades)

 

 

70 A
60 .
50

 

 

——-A— % interest in UCD

warm % interest in CSUS

s i' -0- -% interest in CCC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These trends may indicate students’ awareness of UC’s eligibility index, which sets the lower
boundary for eligibility at a 2.8 grade point average (B-). In other words, if the eligibility
requirements that the UC system signals to students are strong, students with at least a B average
should know that they are UC-eligible and therefore aspire for this more selective system.

These trends are generally consistent even when comparing students’ aspirations across school
performance. Figure 7 shows interest in UCD by school performance and self—reported GPA.
However, interest in UCD for students with C+ and B- averages was markedly lower in the high-
performing schools, and the jump in interest at the “B” level is greatest in those schools as well.
This difference suggests that the students in high-performing schools have better information
about UCD requirements and are more realistic about their college aspirations.

 

 

FIGURE 7: Interest in UC Davis by School Performance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

70 s_ h-
-o—- -|ow—

60 1 performing

50 R schools
i+mid- rf '

‘0/040 3 schofi‘fs ormlng;

30

20 i—k—high-
' performing

10 schools

0 . . .
C 0+ 8- GEA B+ A— A/A+

 

 

Aspirations by School Performance

Interest in the UC campuses (Davis and other UC campuses) was significantly greater for students
in high— and middle—performing schools than in low-performing schools. Only about 37% of
students in low-performing schools aspired to UC campuses other than Davis, compared to about
54% among students in higher-performing schools. In other words, students in the higher-
performing schools appear to be more “mobile” in their aspirations for more selective institutions.

Interestingly, while there was no significant difference in interest in CSUS by school performance,

there were significant differences in interest in the other CSU campuses. In this case. the more “mobile”
students are those at the middle-performing schools, who were twice as likely than were students at
the low- or high—performing schools to indicate interest in other CSU campuses (37% vs. ~18%).

Aspirations by Academic Track

We divided students into three academic categories or tracks, depending on the level of their
current math and English courses: 1) non—honors (neither math nor English honors). 2) single—
honors (either math or English honors), and 3) dual-honors (both math and English honors). Our
analysis confirmed some expected trends. First, interest in a local community college decreased
among students in higher—level academic tracks. Second, dual-honors students indicated a greater
interest in the UC campuses than did non-honors students. Third, single— and dual—honors
students indicated a greater interest in other UC campuses than did non-honors students.

The contrasts are stark. Compared to non-honors students, dual-honors students are 59% less
likely to aspire to a community college (18% vs. 44%), 51% more likely to aspire to UCD (59%
vs. 39%), and nearly one-and-a-half times more likely to aspire to a UC campus other than UCD
(64% vs. 26%). Like those in high-performing schools, higher—track students appear to be more
mobile and selective in their postsecondary aspirations.

lO

Aspirations by Use ofKey Agent

Use of a key agent is defined as speaking at least once to a parent, teacher, counselor, or higher
education outreach officer about college admission requirements. As shown in Table 8, a greater
percentage of students spoke to their teachers than to their counselors. Juniors had significantly
greater contact than freshmen with their teachers. counselors, and college representatives.

The greatest difference between fieshmen and juniors is that less than half of the freshmen had
spoken to a counselor about college admission, whereas over three-fourths of the juniors had done
so. Although one cannot conclude that discussions with parents net the same quality of information
likely available from educators parents remain as the primary information agent utilized by students.

 

TABLE 8. USE Of Key Agents by Grade.

Percent talking about
admission at least once

 

9th 1 1th Total t—test
Key Agent (n=2 1 4) (n=237) (n=451) p-value
Parents 91.6 92.4 92.0 .740
A teacher 72.3 84.9 79.0 .001
A counselor 44.9 76.9 61.7 .000
A college representative 29.6 39.2 34.7 .032

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Aspirations of students who reported use or non-use of the four key agents varied somewhat.
Students who had spoken to a parent. teacher, or college representative at least once about college
admission requirements were significantly more likely to show interest in the UC campuses.
Teachers appear to be an important source of information for students; students who had spoken
to a teacher were significantly more likely to indicate interest in attending a four-year institution.

 

 

“Teachers appear to be an important source of
information for students.

 

 

For example. among those who spoke to teachers about admission, over 50% aspired to UC
campuses other than Davis. compared to just 35% among students who did not consult a teacher.
An even greater difference is evident for aspirations to CSUS, in which interest nearly doubled
among students who spoke to teachers (30% vs. 16%). Surprisingly, interest in each type of
institution was not significantly different between those students who had and who had not
spoken to a high school counselor.

To summarize briefly. in terms of postsecondary aspirations, students of Asian descent from
higher SES families, in higher academic tracks, from higher—performing schools, and with higher

11

GPAs displayed a greater aspiration for the most selective tier, the UC. and displayed greater
geographic mobility in their aspirations as well.

Student Knowledge O‘F College Tuition

Our survey asked students to provide a dollar amount for their “best guess of the cost of tuition
for one year” at UC Davis, CSU Sacramento, and their local community college. excluding “the
cost of books. housing. [and] other expenses.” For the 1998—99 academic year UCD charged an
annual tuition of roughly $4.000, CSUS charged roughly $2,000, and the community colleges
charged roughly $300. Across the board, students tended to greatly overestimate these costs. The
gross overestimation may be due to students’ interpreting the question as asking for total college
costs. despite their explicit exclusion in the wording of the question. Overestimation of college
costs. however. is not unusual.3

On average. our sample of students estimated annual tuition costs of nearly $3 0.000 for UCD,
nearly $27.000 for CSUS, and just over $10,000 for a local community college. Standard
deviations for the estimates were also quite large, indicating a very poor sense of college tuition
among students ($77.400 for UCD, $72.800 for CSUS, $37,400 for a community college). When
we informed students in the focus groups of the actual costs. students laughed in disbelief at
what they perceived as great affordability. When asked why students overestimated these costs.
one student in our focus groups remarked. “because people make such a big deal of it.” The
following analysis looks more closely at students’ cost estimations.

Knowledge of Tuition by Grade

Table 9 displays the mean tuition estimates, as well as the proportions of students estimating
tuition within two times or over five times the actual cost.

 

TABLE 9. Knowledge of Tuition by Grade.

 

 

Grade
9th 1 1th Total t-test

Institution (n=198) (n=223) (n=42 l) p-value
UC Davis

Mean estimate 39.599 $21.429 $29.974 16

9:6 within twice the actual cost 41.1 39.7 40.4 753

96 more than five times the actual cost 22.9 16.5 19.5 .083
CSUS

Mean estimate $39.376 $15.l 70 $26.548 .001

96 within twice the actual cost 32.7 31.6 32.2 .810

% more than five times the actual cost 37.9 26.6 31.9 .010
Local Community College

Mean estimate $15.147 $5.744 $10.151 .010

0/0 within twice the actual cost 27.1 34.2 30.9 .105

90 more than five times the actual cost 56.5 42.6 49.2 .003

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

 

3 See. for example. Tomatzky. Cutler. & Lee. 2002. College Knowledge: 1171a! Latino Parents Need to Know and ”77." They
Don '1 Know It. Claremont. CA: The Tomas Rivera Policy Institute.

12

Defining “gross overestimation” as guessing beyond five times the actual cost of tuition and
“within target” as guessing within twice the actual cost, a greater percentage of students grossly
overestimated the cost for community college than for the CSU and UC. On the other hand, a
greater percentage of students (40%) were within target for UCD than the other two sectors. One
explanation for the latter result is that the ranges for all three institutions were so high that the
students were more likely to guess “within target” for the highest-priced institution (UC Davis)
and more likely to “grossly overestimate” the lowest-priced institution (community college).

That 9th graders possess relatively less accurate information than their older peers concerning
college access and entry is not surprising, and even somewhat expected, given the reality that
college entrance is several years off for them. Therefore, in the subgroup analyses that follow for
knowledge of tuition, admission policy, and placement policy, we only examine 11th graders.

Knowledge of Tuition by Race
Among our seven racial/ethnic categories, Southeast Asian 11th graders were the most likely to

overestimate the three tuition costs (Table 10). While Latinos also overestimated the costs, they
offered mean estimates that were closest to the actual values.

 

TABLE 10. Knowledge of Tuition by Race (11th Graders Only).

 

 

Race
African- Chinese- Other Multi—
Am White Latino/a Am SE Asian Asian racial Total
Institution (n=48) (n=120) (n=44) (n=54) (n=52) (n=59) (n=69) (n=450)
UC Davis
Mean estimate $19,883 $14.066 $11622 $19262 $51,193 $19,604 $22,243 $21,429

0/6 w/in twice actual cost 31.6 43.3 43.5 41.4 34.5 27.6 48.6 39.6
%more than 5 times cost 15.8 11.9 13.0 24.1 27.6 17.2 10.8 16.6

CSUS
Mean estimate $16,678 $11,035 $8,533 $10,610 $33,978 $12,604 $17,903 $15,170
% w/in twice actual cost 26.3 34.3 39.1 44.8 24.1 17.2 32.4 31.5

% more than 5 times cost 36.8 36.9 17.4 17.2 44.8 24.1 21.6 26.8

Local Community College

Mean estimate $8,467 $4,073 $1,397 $4,133 $15,817 $4,532 $3,862 $5,744
% w/in twice actual cost 42.1 34.3 34.8 41.4 27.6 20.7 37.8 33.6
% more than 5 times cost 26.3 41.8 26.1 41.4 58.6 58.6 37.8 43.0

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Knowledge of Tuition by SES

Knowledge of tuition appears to increase with SES (Table 11). Low—SES students had mean
estimates that were statistically greater than the mean estimates of high—SES students. As with
the analyses of aspiration, the differences were stark. For low—SES students, the estimates for
UCD and CSUS were roughly four times greater than the estimates among high—SES students.
High—SES students were statistically more likely to guess within twice the actual costs of UCD

13

and CSUS than their middle-SE8 1 1th-grade counterparts. For the local community college, the
mean estimate for low—SES students was over six times greater than the mean estimates for high-
SES students and four times greater than the mean estimates for middle—SES students.

 

TABLE 11. Knowledge of Tuition by SES (1 1th Graders Only).

 

 

 

SES t-tests (p-values)
Low-SES Mid-SES Hi-SES lo-mid mid-hi lo-hi
Institution (n=36) (n=59) (n=62)
UC Davis
Mean estimate $47.39] $16,521 $12,095 .068 .751 .034
% within twice actual cost 38.9 25.9 50.8 .202 .005 .238
% more than 5 times cost 19.4 12.1 13.1 .358 .865 .431
CSUS
Mean estimate $31,561 $12,942 $8,430 .054 .573 .016
% within twice actual cost 27.8 20.7 41.0 .464 .016 .169
% more than 5 times cost 36.1 27.6 19.7 .363 .329 .078
Local Community College
Mean estimate $17.162 $4.297 $2,675 .031 .742 .014
% within twice actual cost 25.0 32.8 37.7 .440 .202 .569
% more than 5 times cost 61.1 39.7 36.1 .044 .690 .018

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Knowledge of Tuition by School Performance

In our analysis by school performance, an important and somewhat surprising finding is that
students in the middle-performing schools generally provided tuition estimates that were closer
to the actual values than those provided by students in high- and low—performing schools. The
only significant difference in the means, however, was for community college tuition. The mean
tuition estimate among students in low-performing schools ($9021 per year) was over four times
the mean for students in middle-performing schools ($1939 per year). These students were also
the most likely to overestimate grossly the cost of UCD and community college.

Similarly, students in the high-performing schools were generally most likely to fall in the
“within target” range for tuition estimates. However, the only significant difference among our

1 1th graders was found for tuition estimates to CSUS, where 44% of students in high-performing
schools were “within target” compared to only 19% among those in middle—performing schools.

Knowledge of Tuition by Academic Track

By academic track, non-honors 1 1th graders were more likely than their single- and dual-honors
counterparts to overestimate tuition costs for the three institutions. For each postsecondary
option, tuition estimates by non-honors students were at least twice those offered by single- and
dual- honors students. Statistically significant differences were found only among CSUS
estimates, however.

14

Knowledge of Tuition by Key Agent

Finally, our analysis suggests that key agents also influence students“ knowledge of college
tuition. Students who spoke to their parents about college admission were three times more likely
to guess within twice the cost of CSUS and community college, compared to students who did
not speak to their parents. Similarly, a majority (~70%) of students who had not spoken to their
parents about college admission requirements grossly overestimated the cost of community
college, compared to just 40% among students who had spoken to their parents.

Speaking with high school counselors also appears to improve students” knowledge of tuition,
particularly with respect to CSUS. Overall, students who spoke to counselors were more likely to
provide tuition estimates that were “within target” and not “grossly overestimated” for CSUS.
This pattern does not hold for estimates of UCD’s costs, however. Interestingly, students who
spoke to their counselors were significantly more likely to grossly overestimate the cost of UCD
than students who did not speak to their counselors. This finding may reflect poor counseling, or
simply that students are confused by the information they receive from counselors.

 

 

“Although students understood the relative tuition costs
among the three types of institutions, they greatly
overestimated these costs. ”

 

 

In sum. although the trend in responses may indicate that students understood the relative tuition
costs among the three types of institutions. students greatly overestimated these costs. Knowledge
of tuition appears to increase with SES, and the community college cost estimate for students in
low-performing schools was over four times that of their counterparts in middle—performing
schools. Non-honors students were the most likely to overestimate the three tuition costs.

Students who had spoken to their parents about college admission were less likely to grossly
overestimate and more likely to estimate within target. In focus groups, students spoke of college
costs as an important factor in their ability to attend college. They expressed the need to receive
more information on college costs. As one student put it, “That’s what we should talk about
more. too, in school—is how much it costs.”

Student Knowledge of Curricular Requirements For College Admission

In our survey, we asked students to write down the number of years of study required for
admission to UCD and CSUS in each of six subject areas (English, math, social science,
laboratory science. foreign language, and visual/performing arts). For each university, we
calculated the percentage of students who guessed the number of years correctly for each subject.
Generally, knowledge of curricular requirements was extremely poor. Only 2.5% of all students
in the sample knew the correct number of years for all subject areas required by UCD, and only a
handful of students (<l%) knew the requirements for CSUS.

Because of these extremely low levels of knowledge, we also constructed a more liberal
measure, the percentage of students who provided the correct number of years required for at

15

least half (three out of six) of the subject areas. In terms of the latter measure, students knew
more about CSUS’s subject requirements (about 50% got 3 or more correct) than UCD’s
requirements (only 29% got 3 or more correct). In focus groups, students consistently expressed
that it was more difficult to gain admission to UCD (i.e., had more requirements) than to CSUS.

Students in focus groups expressed some confusion as to what was required for high school
graduation, and what was required for admission to the CSU and UC. For these college-bound
students, their expectations for college may have replaced the requirements their high school set
for all students. Consequently, these students focused more on, and therefore displayed greater
knowledge of, what it took to gain admission to college than what it took to merely graduate
from high school. Only a few students were familiar with the term “A through F” and its
meaning, but most students mentioned having seen a list of university requirements that their
high school provided them.

Many students spoke of a booklet given to them by their school counselors during class
scheduling that listed the UC and CSU course requirements. Most understood that the
universities expected a few more years of study than their high school in certain subject areas,
but only a few could pinpoint these differences. Students expressed some confusion, however, as
to what the universities required and what the universities recommended.

Only a few students were able to articulate, for example, that their high school required only one
year of foreign language whereas the universities required two, and that their high school
required two years of math whereas the universities required three years of college—preparatory
math (beyond basic math and pre-algebra).

Knowledge of Curricular Requirements by Grade

Table 12 shows the percentage of 9th and 11th graders that gave the correct number of years
among six subjects required for admission to UCD and CSUS. Overall, the two subject
requirements that students knew best were for English and a foreign language. The math
requirement was the third most accurately reported requirement for UCD. but was less well-
known among CSUS requirements than English, math, and visual/performing arts. Juniors
generally had better knowledge of the curricular requirements than freshmen.

l6

 

TABLE 12. Knowledge of Curricular Requirements by Grade.

 

Grade
9th 1 1th Total t-test
Course Requirement (n=214) (n=237) (n=451) p-value
UC Davis
% Know English requirement (=4 yrs) 80.4 91.1 86.0 .001
% Know foreign lang req (=2 yrs) 47.2 53.6 50.6 .176
% Know math requirement (=3 yrs) 31.3 50.6 41.5 .000
90 Know soc science req (= 2 yrs) 32.2 29.5 30.8 .536
% Know lab science req (=2 yrs) 22.0 34.6 28.6 .003
% Know visual/perf arts req (= 0 yrs) 2.8 2.5 2.7 .858
% Know 3 or more of6 requirements 36.9 56.1 47.0 .000
C SU Sacramento
% Know English requirement (=4 yrs) 69.6 80.2 75.2 .010
% Know foreign lang req (=2 yrs) 57.0 73.4 65.6 .000
0/0 Know visual/perf arts req (= 1 yr) 46.1 51.9 49.2 .233
% Know math requirement (=3 yrs) 35.5 51.5 43.9 .001
% Know lab science req (=1 yr) 9.3 9.3 9.3 .982
% Know soc science req (= 1 yr) 1 1.2 7.2 9.1 .137
”/6 Know 3 or more of6 42.5 61.1 52.3 .000

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Table 12 also shows that knowledge of English requirements (over 75% correct) was much
stronger than knowledge of mathematics requirements (under 50% correct). To explore how
inaccurate students‘ estimates of the mathematics requirements were, we noted whether

responses were underestimated or overestimated.

 

 

“Students tended to overestimate rather than underestimate the
three-year math requirement for CS U and UC. ”

 

 

The following table shows that. generally speaking, students tended to overestimate rather than
underestimate the three—year math requirement. Nearly half of the students overestimated the
number of years for math for UCD. and one third of the students overestimated the number of

years for math for CSUS. Moreover. freshmen were more likely than juniors to overestimate the

number of years needed for both campuses. In other words, students tended to assume that the

English and math requirements were identical.

l7

 

TABLE 13. Knowledge of Math Requirements by Grade.

 

 

Grade
9th 1 1th Total t-test

Knowledge of Math Requirement (n=208) (n=236) (n=444) p-value
UC Davis

% Underestimate (< 3 years) 12.1 7.3 9.5 .088

% Correct (=3 years Math) 32.5 51.7 42.7 .000

% Overestimate (> 3 years) 55.3 41.0 47.7 .003
CSU Sacramento

% Underestimate (< 3 years) 19.2 24.2 21.8 .194

% Correct (=3 years Math) 36.5 52.1 44.8 .001

% Overestimate (> 3 years) 44.2 23.7 33.3 .000

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data

Knowledge of Curricular Requirements by Race

Because Juniors generally know the curricular requirements better than freshmen all remaining
analyses include 11h graders only. Note that for analyses by race cell sizes are small so tables
should be interpreted with caution. As shown 1n Table 14, African- American students were
among the least likely to report correctly the number of years of math and English required for
each campus, and for knowing at least three of the six subject requirements for CSUS. Chinese
American students displayed the most accurate knowledge overall of UCD curricular
requirements and were the most likely to know three of the six CSU requirements.

Latino and Southeast Asian students appeared to have some specific but incomplete knowledge.
For example, while 87% of Latinos knew the CSUS English requirement (the highest among all
groups), only about 22% knew at least three of the subject requirements (the lowest among all
groups). Similarly, while Southeast Asian students were among the most likely to know the UCD
requirements (overall and particularly the math requirements), these students were the least
likely to provide the correct number of English courses required for CSUS.

 

TABLE 14. Knowledge of Curricular Requirements by Race (1 1th Graders Only).

 

 

Race
African- Chinese- Other Multi-
Am White Latino/a Am SE Asian Asian racial Total
Course Requirement (n=19) (n=67) (n=23) (n=29) (n=29) (n=29) (n=37) (n=235)
UC Davis
% Know English (=4 yrs) 84.2 92.5 95.7 96.4 89.3 96.6 94.4 93.1
% Know math (=3 yrs) 42.1 53.7 47.8 60.7 57.1 48.3 50.0 51.7
% Know 3 or more 0f6 36.8 32.8 30.4 44.8 37.9 34.5 24.3 34.5

CSU Sacramento

% Know English (=4 yrs) 78.9 86.6 87.0 79.3 72.4 80.0 75.0 80.9
% Know math (=3 yrs) 44.4 59.7 56.5 44.8 44.8 56.7 50.0 52.1
% Know 3 or more of6 42.1 61.2 21.7 72.4 62.1 62.1 32.4 53.2

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

18

Since only about half of the students knew the math requirements. whereas well over 80% of the
students knew the English requirements, we ran further analysis on the responses for math alone.
African—Americans were the most likely to overestimate the requirements. In addition, Latinos
and Southeast Asians were the most likely to underestimate the math requirements for UCD
while Chinese Americans and Southeast Asians were the most likely to underestimate the math
requirements for CSUS.

Knowledge of Curricular Requirements by School Performance, Academic Track. and Use of
Key Agent

No significant difference was found in knowledge among the three school performance levels
with respect to the math and English requirements for UCD. For CSUS, students in high-
performing schools were more likely than their counterparts in lower—performing schools to
know that four years of high school English are required for admission (90% vs. 79%).

Patterns are slightly different when looking at knowledge of all the requirements. Students in the
high—performing schools were again more likely to know at least three of the six curricular
requirements for UCD (67%) than their counterparts in middle-performing (48%) and low—
performing schools (54%), but for the CSUS requirements, the highest proportion of students
who knew three or more of the course requirements were among those at low-performing schools
(65%). Less than half of the students in high-performing schools could correctly name at least
three of the six course requirements at CSUS.

Looking specifically at knowledge of the math requirements by school performance, students in
low-performing schools were more likely than students in middle-performing schools to
underestimate the required number of years of math for UCD and CSUS. Furthermore, students
in middle-performing schools were the least likely to underestimate these requirements but these
students were also the most likely to overestimate these requirements as well. These data suggest
that students in middle-performing schools receive less information and therefore have less
knowledge about the courses needed for admission to the four—year colleges.

 

 

”Academic track and knowledge of curricular requirements were
directly related: dual-honors students displayed the
most knowledge. "

 

 

Academic track and knowledge of curricular requirements were directly related: dual—honors
students displayed the most knowledge, while non—honors students displayed the least. Over 60%
of dual-honors students knew at least three of the course requirements for UCD and over 70%
knew them for CSUS. Less than half of the non—honors students possessed this same level of
knowledge. Interestingly, dual—honors students were more likely than non-honors students to
underestimate the math requirements for CSUS. This pattern may indicate that the higher-aspiring
dual-honors students undervalue the entrance requirements to the less selective CSU campus.

19

Patterns of knowledge related to interaction with key agents produced mixed results. Students
who spoke to teachers at least once about college admission requirements were more likely than
those who did not talk to teachers to know the CSUS math requirement exactly and less likely to
underestimate this requirement. On the other hand, students who spoke to a high school
counselor were twice as likely to underestimate the number of years of CSUS math requirement,
and those who had spoken to a college representative were three times more likely to
underestimate the number of years of math required for UCD.

In sum, students possessed more knowledge of the course requirements for CSUS than for UCD.
Based on survey data as well as focus group responses, students in honors courses displayed
more specific knowledge than students who were in college-preparatory courses. Furthermore,
students in the high-performing schools were the most knowledgeable of UCD’s requirements,
while students in the low-performing schools were the most knowledgeable of CSUS’s
requirements. Overall, students indicated the greatest understanding of the English requirements
and much less understanding of the mathematics requirements.

Student Knowledge of University Placement Exams

Our survey asked students to identify the subject areas in which CSUS and UCD test students for
placement. The question read in the following way: “In what subjects does CSU Sacramento and
UC Davis test new students to place them in college—level courses? Students were able to mark
any number of the following five subjects: English, mathematics, laboratory science, foreign
language, and visual and performing arts. The correct answer is that both universities conduct
placement tests in math and in English only. UCD administers the Subject A exam for English
placement and the Mathematics Development Testing Program (MDTP). CSUS administers the
Entry Level Mathematics (ELM) test and the English Placement Test (EPT).

Knowledge ofPlacemenr Exams by Grade

When counting the students who had indicated that each university required an English or math
placement exam irrespective of their answers for the other three subjects. knowledge of the
exams appears extremely high (Table 15). The greater than 90% figures, however. are a result of
students assuming that colleges require placement tests in all subjects. The number of students
who knew the policies accurately—that exams are required only for math and English——is
actually quite low. Less than one in five (17%) students knew the UCD placement policy at that
level. and less than a third knew the CSUS policy. Eleventh graders were more than twice as
likely as ninth graders to know that math and English were the only two subjects tested at either
state university.

 

TABLE 15. Knowledge of University Placement Exams by Grade.

 

Grade
9th 1 1th Total t-test

Placement Exam (n=214) (n=239) (n=453) p-value
UCD

% Know English Placement 92.5 95.4 94.0 .206

"/0 Know Math Placement 93.0 94.9 94.0 .389

0/6 Know English and Math (both and only) 10.3 23.6 17.3 .000
CSUS

% Know English Placement 93.9 95.8 94.9 .376

% Know Math Placement 93.0 93.7 93.3 .773

% Know English and Math (both and only) 16.8 39.7 28.8 .000

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Knowledge of Placement Exams by Race

Table 16 shows 1 1th graders‘ knowledge of placement exams by race. In contrast to African-
Americans‘ relative lack of knowledge of curricular requirements mentioned earlier, African-
American students displayed the greatest knowledge of the two placement exam requirements for
UCD and were equally knowledgeable to students of other races of the two exams required by
CSUS. Chinese-Americans were the least knowledgeable about UCD and Southeast Asians were
the least knowledgeable about CSUS.

 

TABLE 16. Knowledge O'F Required University Placement Exams in English and Math
by Race (1 1th Graders Only).

 

 

Race
African- Chinese- Other Multi-

English and Math Am White Latino/a Am SE Asian Asian racial Total
Placement Exam (11:19) (n=67) (n=23) (n=29) (n=29) (n=29) (n=37) Q1=235)
% Know for UCD 22.9 20.0 15.9 11.1 17.3 15.3 15.9 17.3
% Know for CSUS 29.2 29.2 27.3 31.5 21.2 33.9 30.4 29.1

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Know-ledge of Placement Exams by School Per ormance, Academic Track, and Use of Key Agent

In general. knowledge of the English and math placement exams at the two universities was
fairly low and not differentiated by type of school, track, or key agent. Similar to the analyses
above. knowledge of the two CSUS exams appears greater among students than of the two UCD
exam requirements. Surprisingly, 11th graders who did not ta1k to a high school counselor about
admission were more likely to know the placement policy for UCD (35%) than were students
who did talk to a high school counselor (20%). This trend was similar for knowledge of CSUS
placement policy. but not statistically significant.

Although students displayed a low level of specific knowledge of university placement exams,
students expressed the desire to know more about these tests and to be better prepared to take
these tests. Teachers and administrators expressed their growing concern over issues of
university placement and remediation. Students spoke about how their schools prepared them for
the subject requirements and SATs needed to gain admission to college, but most did not
mention whether schools provided help on how to succeed once they were in college. As one
English 11 Honors student at Applewood expressed:

I think they should prepare us better for the placements tests so that we don’t get
stuck in basic classes. I think we should have the opportunity to know not necessarily
what’s on the test, but have a good idea of it so that we know what to expect.

Knowledge of College Admission Selection Criteria

In our focus groups we asked students about the selection criteria for UC Davis and CSU
Sacramento. Students generally stated that UCD was more difficult to get into, that students
needed a high GPA, and that extracurricular activities mattered. In our survey we gathered more
specific data, asking students to rate the importance of 15 possible criteria for admission to UCD
and CSUS.

Using a five-point scale, students rated each criterion as either: “single most important,” “very
important,” “moderately important, minor importance,” or “not considered/not important.” In
order to evaluate the “accuracy” of these responses, we compared them to the rankings of same
criteria provided by the admission directors at the respective institutions.

33 (L

We examined student knowledge of specific criteria rated by the UCD and CSUS admission
offices at the two extremes———as important (“single most important” or “very important”) or
unimportant (“not considered/not important”). Seven of the fifteen criteria were rated as
important by the UCD official and four criteria were rated important by the CSUS official (see
criteria listed in Table 17). Three criteria were deemed important by both universities: high
school grades, SAT—I, and high school courses. Two criteria were deemed unimportant for both
universities: ability to pay and race.

Knowledge of Admission Criteria by Grade

Knowledge of the criteria that might be termed “traditional admission criteria" was quite high
(Table 17). From 80% to over 90% of students correctly marked as important selection criteria
grades, test scores. high school courses, and in the case of UCD, the application essay. Almost
half the students failed to recognize senior-year grades as an important criterion for CSUS,
however. And, similar proportions did not view volunteer work and exceptional talent in a
specific area as important for UCD.

Knowledge of criteria deemed “unimportant” was extremely poor. Less than 1 0/0 of the total
sample correctly identified as unimportant to UCD three criteria (high school reputation, ability
to pay, and letters of recommendation), and as unimportant to CSUS three criteria (SAT—II, class
rank, and ability to pay).

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Nine out of ten students placed importance onfactors that are not
considered in the admission process. "

J

 

 

 

l.

 

 

 

In other words. approximately nine out of ten students overestimated the importance of these
admission criteria; they placed importance on factors that are not considered in the admission

process. Given the public awareness of efforts to remove race from college admission policies in

California. it is not surprising that a sizeable proportion of students (~40%) correctly marked it
as unimportant. However, the conjugate result suggests that a majority of students still believe
race to be a factor of some importance in admission policy at both public institutions.

Table 17 also shows that for both universities, juniors were more likely than freshmen to know

that a student‘s ability to pay for college was not an important admission criterion. On the other
hand. freshmen were more likely to know that race was unimportant. Two additional significant

differences were found between freshmen and juniors. F irst, juniors were slightly more likely

than freshmen to know that the application essay was a very important criterion for admission to

UCD (87% vs. 80%). Conversely. 90% of freshmen knew that the SAT-II was an important
criterion for admission to UCD compared to just 78% of the juniors.

 

TABLE 17. Knowledge of Admission Criteria by Grade.

 

 

Grade
9th 1 1th Total t—test
Admission Criteria (n=208) (n=237) (n=451) p-value
% Correct for UC Davis
Important Criteria
High school grades 92.4 92.4 92.4 .994
SAT~1 or ACT 89.] 88.7 89.9 .882
SAT-II 89.6 78.6 83.8 .001
Student’s HS curriculum 85.8 82.6 84.1 .340
Application essay 80.2 87.0 83.8 .051
Exceptional talent 57.8 55.7 56.7 .651
Volunteer work 51.7 47.7 49.6 .400
Unimportant Criteria
High school’s reputation 4.8 6.4 5.6 .463
Ability to pay 4.7 10.6 7.8 .021
Letters of recommendation [.0 1.3 1.1 .753
Race 44.8 34.9 39.6 .032
% Correct for CSU Sacramento
Important Criteria
High school grades 87.2 80.7 83.7 .061
Senior year grades 73.5 42.8 57.0 .000
SAT-I or ACT 90.0 81.5 85.5 .010
Students HS curriculum 86.7 77.8 81.5 .007
Unimportant Criteria
Geographic background 27.8 24.7 26.1 .464
SAT-ll 1.0 2.9 2.0 .137
Rank in class 2.4 2.9 2.7 .707
Ability to pay 3.8 12.2 8.3 .001
Race 44.5 35.2 39.6 .043

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

I‘Q
U9

Knowledge of Admission Criteria by Race

African-Americans were the only group that placed greater importance on standardized test
scores (SAT-l, SAT-II, ACT) than on high school grades. Among the criteria deemed important
by the UC and CSU admission officers, the importance of volunteer work was underestimated,
especially among white students. Although the ability to pay for college is not considered in
UCD admission policy, all of the multiracial 11th graders in our sample gave some importance to
this factor, and even the group that displayed the most knowledge, Chinese-Americans,
erroneously cited ability to pay as an important factor at a rate of over 75%.

A majority of students within each racial group continues to believe that race is considered in
admission. The previous beneficiaries of affirmative action, however, are among the most likely
to maintain that belief. For the UCD criteria, for example, about 75% of African-American

students and almost 80% of Latinos marked race as a factor in admission. Similar patterns are
evident in the data for CSUS.

Two additional patterns in the data are unique to CSUS, however. First, although about 80% of
all 11th graders understand the importance of high school grades for admission to CSUS, almost
one-third of Chinese American and multiracial students downplay its importance. Regarding the
importance of senior-year grades, almost 60% of the 11th grade sample underestimated their
importance, including almost 80% of African-Americans—the largest among all racial groups.

Knowledge of Admission Criteria by School Performance, Academic Track, and Use of
Key Agent

We found significant differences in 11th graders’ knowledge of admission criteria by school
performance. For UCD, students in the low-performing schools (82%) were less likely than
students in the mid-and high—performing schools (91% and 94%) to correctly ascertain the
importance of the SAT—I and one’s high school curriculum. These students were also more likely
to underestimate the importance of having an exceptional talent, compared to their peers in high—
performing schools. Interestingly, students attending the middle-performing schools were the
least likely to overestimate the importance of a high school‘s academic reputation.

Among the CSUS criteria, only two showed significant differences by school performance.
Almost 90% of the students in middle-performing schools correctly estimated the importance of
high school curriculum for admission, a figure greater than that among students in high-
performing schools (70%). Although the proportion is quite low (~6%). students attending low—
performing schools were the most accurate regarding the lack of importance of the SAT-ll for
admission to CSUS.

Analysis by academic track indicates striking differences in knowledge of CSUS criteria among
dual-honors and non-honors students. In every “very important" criterion, students in the highest
track undervalued the criterion much more than their non-honors counterparts. The most striking
difference is students’ assessment of the importance of senior-year grades. Only one quarter of
dual-honors students correctly believe senior grades to be important for admission, compared to
about 60% among non-honors students. Conversely, knowledge of UCD admission criteria is
distinguished very little by academic track.

24

It is apparent. then, that the significant undervaluing of CSUS admission criteria by dual-honors
students is likely due to their low estimation of the university’s academic competitiveness.
Compared to non—honors students, dual-honors students also better understood that ability to pay
was not important for UCD admission (17% vs. 4%) and the SAT-II was not important for CSUS
admission (6% vs. ~0%).

Finally. in our analysis of admission criteria knowledge by use of key agent, we found some
significant differences. Surprisingly, students who had not spoken to a parent were much more
likely to understand that ability to pay did not matter for admission to both universities. Those
who had not spoken to a parent about admission were more than three times as likely to
understand this criterion for UCD (33% vs. 9%) and more than twice as likely for the CSUS
policy (29% vs. 11%). A similar trend was apparent with regard to use of a counselor and the
“ability to pay" criterion for UCD.

“Negative" parent effects were also evident for knowledge of the CSUS policy regarding SAT—I
and class rank. where students were again more likely to understand the importance of the
admission criterion if they did not speak to a parent about admission. There were two expected
trends or positive relationships with use of a key agent. Students who had spoken to a teacher or
a college representative were more likely to correctly understand the importance of the
application essay for UCD. and counselors appeared to positively impact understanding of one’s
class rank in the admission process for CSUS.

 

 

"Parents ' estimates of tuition were more accurate than student
estimates. while their knowledge of curricular requirements
was less accurate. "

 

 

Parent Knowledge of Postsecondarv Policies

In this final section. we include a brief analysis of parent data. We looked specifically at parent
knowledge of tuition costs and curricular requirements at UCD and CSUS. In general, we found
no evidence of a relationship between student knowledge and parent knowledge. Parents”
estimates of tuition were more accurate than student estimates, while their knowledge of
curricular requirements was less accurate.

Parent Knowledge of Tuition

In terms of mean estimates, parents were much closer to actual tuition costs than were students.
Still. compared to actual annual tuition of approximately $4,000 (UCD), $2000 (CSUS), and
$300 (local community college), parents still greatly overestimated these costs at about $16,000,
$11,000, and $5,000, respectively (Table 18). Unlike the analysis of the student data, there were
no significant differences in tuition estimates between parents of 9th and 11th graders.

 

TABLE 18. Parent Knowledge of Tuition.

Mean Estimate

 

9th 1 1th Total t-test
Institution (n=172) (n=l 56) (n=343) p-value
UC Davis $15,942 $17,021 $16,271 .860
CSUS $10,145 $11,936 $11.006 .669
Local Community College $4.566 $5.459 $4.907 .795

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Looking at all parents across SES and school performance categories, we observe the expected
patterns clearly. As shown in Table 19, parents from higher SES backgrounds estimate tuition
costs much more accurately than do mid- and low-SES parents. Because of large standard
deviations in tuition estimates as well as small cell sizes for the low-SES parents, however, only
the mid-SES versus hj-SES differences were statistically significant. The bottom panel of the
table indicates that parents of children attending the low-performing schools are also most likely
to overestimate tuition costs at any of the three public institutions.

 

TABLE 19. Parent Knowledge of Tuition by SES and School Performance.

 

 

 

 

 

Mean Estimate bv SES t—tests (p-values)

Low-SES Mid-SES Hi-SES lo-mid mid-hi lo-hi
Institution (n=44) (n=lO6) (n=l27)
UC Davis $35.050 $12.504 $9.213 .222 .020 .162
CSUS $27.880 $8.737 $5.528 .208 .015 .142
Local Community College $17.298 $3.047 $1.569 .249 .090 .203

Mean Estimate bv School Performance t-tests (p-values)

Hi-Perf Mid-Perf Lo-Perf hi-mid mid-lo hi—lo
Institution (n=l l3) (n=1 1 1) (n=1 19)
UC Davis $10.389 $9.830 $27.867 .600 .028 .033
CSUS $6.040 $7.600 $19.298 .082 .048 .025
Local Communitv College $1.821 $1.815 $11.1 13 .986 .057 .057

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Parent Knowledge of Curricular Requirements

Parent knowledge of the curricular requirements for admission to UC D and C SUS was no better.
and perhaps a bit weaker. than that of students. The number of parents who knew the required
number of years for all six subjects was exceedingly low. Only 4 out of 433 parents knew all the
requirements for UCD, and just 5 knew the requirements for CSUS. As was true for students, the
two requirements that parents knew best—although at a lower percentage than students—were those
for English and foreign language. For example, nearly 90% of the students in our sample correctly
reported the four-year English requirement for UCD, compared to just two-thirds of the parents.

26

Also, fewer parents appeared to know the math requirement (Table 20). While few parents knew
all of the curricular requirements for either university, 40% knew at least three of the UCD
requirements and about 43% knew at least three of the CSUS requirements. These proportions
were slightly higher among the student responses. Unlike the student data, there were no
significant differences in knowledge between parents of 9th and 11th graders.

 

TABLE 20. Parent Knowledge of Curricular Requirements by Grade.

Percent Among

 

 

9th 1 1th Total t-test
Course Requirement (n=215) (n=218) (n=433) p—value
UC Davis
Know English requirement (=4 years) 68.8 68.8 68.8 .995
Know foreign lang req (=2 years) 50.7 43.1 46.9 .1 15
Know soc science req (= 2 years) 34.9 31.7 33.3 .476
Know lab science req (=2 years) 33.5 32.6 33.0 .839
Know math requirement (=3 years) 31.2 25.2 28.2 .17]
Know visual/perf arts req (= 0 years) 7.4 7.8 7.6 .889
Know 3 or more of6 requirements 42.8 37.6 40.2 .273
CSU Sacramento
Know English requirement (=4 years) 60.0 61.5 60.7 .755
Know foreign lang req (=2 years) 54.9 57.3 56.1 .608
Know visual/perf arts req (= 1 year) 48.4 42.7 45.5 .234
Know math requirement (=3 years) 31.2 35.8 33.5 .310
Know lab science req (=1 year) 14.0 10.6 12.2 .282
Know soc science req (= 1 vear) 7.0 9.6 8.3 .317
Know 3 or more of6 45.6 39.9 42.7 .234

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Table 21 illustrates the extent to which parents under- or over—estimated curricular requirements.
Earlier in this section, we noted that students incorrectly reported math requirements because
they tended to overestimate the number of years of math required for admission, particularly for
UCD. Most parents also overestimated the math requirement for UCD but tended to
underestimate the requirement for CSUS.

Given that the math requirement for both universities is three years, parents may be erroneously
assuming a higher requirement for the more selective UC campus, while many students assume
the maximum number of math courses (4) is required for either school. Levels of parent and
student knowledge do not appear to be related. Correlations between the number of requirements
guessed correctly by parents and students are also somewhat weak (r = 0.15, p<.01 for CSUS and
r = 0.24, p<.01 for UCD).

 

TABLE 21. Parent Knowledge of Math Requirements by Grade.

Percent Among

 

9th 1 1th Total t-test

Knowledge of Math Requirement (n=215) (n=218) (n=433) p-value
UC Davis

Underestimate (< 3 years) 29.3 32.6 30.9 .463

Correct (=3 years Math) 31.2 25.2 28.2 .171

Overestimate (> 3 years) 39.5 42.2 40.9 .574
CSU Sacramento

Underestimate (< 3 years) 41.9 36.7 39.3 .27

Correct (=3 years Math) 31.2 35.8 33.5 .31

Overestimate (> 3 years) 27.0 27.5 27.3 .899

 

Note: Subgroup sample sizes may differ from total due to missing data.

Surprisingly. we found no significant differences by school performance or 8138 for parent
knowledge of three or more curricular requirements for either university. One additional
distinguishing factor surfaced in our analysis. however. Parents who reported receiving course
requirement information from their child‘s school were significantly more likely to know at least
three of the CSUS requirements compared to those who said they had not received such
information (49% vs. 34%. respectively). A similar but smaller difference regarding UCD
requirements was also evident but not statistically significant.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

I Using the selectivity of the institutions as a measure of the level of students‘ aspirations.
students of Asian descent. from higher SES families. in higher academic tracks. from higher—
performing schools. and with higher GPAs displayed the highest aspirations.

I Although students understood the relative costs of the three types of institutions. they greatly
overestimated the costs. Students in low-performing schools were most likely to grossly
overestimate the cost of UCD and a community college. and students in the high-performing
schools were most likely to fall within the target range.

I Students knew more about CSUS’s requirements than UCD's. Students also demonstrated
the most accurate knowledge of English course requirements and much weaker knowledge of
mathematics requirements. On our surveys and in our focus groups. students in honors
courses displayed more specific knowledge than students in college-preparatory courses.
Furthermore. students in the high-performing schools were the most knowledgeable about
UCD'S requirements. while students in the low-performing schools were the most
knowledgeable of CSUS's requirements.

— r —
— fi -

 

 

“Students generally had a poor understanding of the English and
math placement exams at the two universities. "

— —
r 1’

 

 

 

 

I Students generally had a poor understanding of the English and math placement exams at the
two universities. Less than 30% of students knew CSUS’s placement exam policy and less
than 20% of students knew UCD’s policy.

I Students in the high- and mid-performing schools generally displayed a greater
understanding of admission selection criteria than students in the low-performing schools.

I Overall, 60% of all students and two-thirds of 1 1th graders incorrectly rated race as an
important criterion for admission to UCD and CSUS.

I Over 90% of juniors believed incorrectly that the ability to pay for college was a factor in
UCD‘s and CSUS‘s admission selection processes.

I Levels of parent and student college knowledge appear to be unrelated. Parents“ estimates of
tuition were more accurate than student estimates. while their knowledge of curricular
requirements was less accurate.

About the Author

Anthony Lising Antonio is assistant professor of education at Stanford University, and assistant
director of the Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research. Much of his research focuses
on equity in access to higher education and college choice. Along with Andrea Venezia and
Michael Kirst, he recently completed Berraying the College Dream, a research report
documenting the disparities in college knowledge among students in high- and low—performing
high schools from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds.

 

Section 2

Linkages and Disjunctures:
California's K—12 and
Community College Systems

by Andrea Conklin Bueschel
Stanford University

with case study research by K. C. Boatsman
Santa Rosa Junior College

INTRODUCTION

This research seeks to better understand the transition from high school to community college by
examining the policies and practices that shape this juncture.1 It is hoped that the findings will
play a part in strengthening the linkage between higher education and the K—12 educational
system by l) strengthening the preparation of high school students for college; 2) increasing
college persistence and completion rates; and 3) providing better articulation between K—l2
curriculum frameworks. standards. and assessments, and those of higher education.

This report for Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) provides descriptive analyses of the
policies as well as the disjunctures that exist in both educational systems, and especially how they
affect California community colleges. The original data comes from two California community
colleges in the Sacramento metropolitan area, Cosumnes River College and Sacramento City College.2

This research focuses on:

I The admissions and placement policies and practices for recent high school graduates who
are attending community college.

I The transition environment for these students, and whether there are observed disjunctures
between high school and community college curricula. skills assessments, and course
placement. >

I The types of transition services and programs available to students from high school to
community college. and from community college to a four—year institution.

 

I This research was conducted as part of The Bridge Project: Strengthening K—16 Transition Policies, a five—year
study conducted in several states. This project. sponsored by the Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research
(SIHER), was supported by The Pew Charitable Trust and the National Center for Postsecondary Improvement
(NCPI) and its sponsor, the US. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

3 Additional community college research for the Bridge Project was conducted in Baltimore County, Maryland, and
Metropolitan Portland. Oregon.

Rationale

Community colleges are understudied in higher education research, though they are the point of
entry for many higher education students. Over 1,100 community colleges in the US. serve over
half of the US. undergraduate enrollment. In California they play a particularly important role.
The California community college system has 108 colleges and serves 2.9 million students,
making it the largest system of higher education in the world (http://wwvccccoedu).

Additional reasons for more research on community colleges include:

I Completion rates of first-time, degree-seeking students at community colleges are quite low
for both associates’ and bachelors’ degrees (Choy 2002).

 

“California community colleges provide most of the costly
postsecondary academic remediation needed by Students to
complete a two- orfour—year degree.

 

' California community colleges provide most of the costly postsecondary academic
remediation needed by students to complete a two- or four-year degree.

' Some California community colleges have an extensive history of collaboration with high
schools. Other postsecondary educational institutions may benefit from these types of
partnerships.

I In times of economic downturn and increasing tuition, more people look to the community
college for postsecondary education and training. An understanding of the role of these
institutions in the preparation of young people for the job market can benefit policy
development.

Given the large and significant role community colleges play in US. higher education, the
Bridge Project and PACE researchers undertook this study.3

RESEARCH METHODS

The qualitative study, focusing on two California community colleges. consisted of interviews
with key administrators, faculty, and staff; focus groups with students; and document review,
including websites. Data were collected in 2001.4 Andrea Venezia and Michael Kirst, directors

 

3 The research for the California case studies was conducted by KC. Boatsman. Additional analyses and
crosscutting work were done by Andrea Conklin Bueschel. This report contains additional resources and some
updates not included in either the technical report by Boatsman or the crosscutting analysis by Bueschel.

4 Technical aspects of data collection and protocols used are available at http:/bridgeproject.stanford.edu or by
contacting the authors.

32

of the Bridge Project for the Stanford Institute on Higher Education Research, designed the
national study and provided the interview protocols used in this community college study.

Administrators. faculty, and staff interviewed by the researchers held key positions, and thus
were able to offer input on a range of topics, including counseling, assessment, admissions,
partnerships, orientation, instruction, curriculum. and outreach. The student focus groups
included mostly students who matriculated soon after completing high school, as well as some
older students. and were representative of community college students in terms of gender and
ethnic diversity. In some cases the focus groups were drawn from existing groups, such as an
activity board or a college remedial class. Although the student sample may be biased
towards more actively engaged students (since all participants were volunteers), students
were still quite candid and critical in their comments, while also highlighting positive aspects
of their experiences.

The documents we reviewed included institutional publications such as catalogs and schedules of
classes; handouts and informational fliers given to students; documents required of students such
as the application for admission; research reports where available; campus websites; and other
documents as appropriate.

In the report. we first provide a survey of the current literature on community colleges in the US.
and their connections to other educational systems, both K—12 and four—year institutions relevant
to California. Next we present an overview of findings from the research in California. The
report concludes with policy recommendations and suggestions for additional research.

CONTEXT FOR CALIFORNIA AND U.S. COMMUNITY COLLEGE EDUCATION

Background
History

The first two—year institution5 in the United States was Joliet Junior College, which opened in
Illinois in 1901 (AACC website). The growth in community colleges, especially since the 19605,
has been dramatic. and has surpassed that of four-year institutions. Between 1960 and 1990,
four-year college enrollment doubled, while enrollment for two-year institutions increased five-
fold (Rosenbaum 1999, citing NCES data). The dramatic growth in the 19605 was due in part to
a newly-created national network of two-year institutions.

By the late 19905 there were 1,166 public and private community colleges, or about 1,600 when
separate. multiple-campus colleges are included (AACC website). Over 100 million students
have attended community college since the first one opened in 1901, pursuing everything from
automotive technology to high school degree completion to English language acquisition to

 

5 Although this report uses the term “community college” for all two-year institutions, some references may still use
“junior college." For the purposes ofthis report, the terms are interchangeable.

«a
D.)

advanced mathematics. Currently, over half of the undergraduates enrolled in the U.S. attend
community colleges (Bailey 2002).6

Enrollment Profile

Community college students represent a wide diversity of backgrounds. Students in two-year
institutions are likely to be older, more ethnically and racially diverse, and less affluent than their
four-year counterparts. The following profile of community college students is based on data
from the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), in conjunction with other
surveys:

I 58% are women.

I 30—60% are members of a racial minority group.

I 32% are 30 years or older, while 36% are 18—22 years.

I 64% attend part-time.

I 65% depend on their parents financially (compared to 95% of four-year students).
I half are the first in their families to attend college.

I 12—28% already have a postsecondary degree.

Of California community college students in the fall of 2000:

I 56% were women.
I 48% were 24 years old or younger.
I 41% were white (http://www.cccco.edu/divisions/tris/mis/reports.htm).

Community colleges are the least expensive higher education option, which explains in part why
such a wide range of students takes advantage of them. The average tuition for community
colleges nationally is around $1.500, considerably less than for four-year institutions (AACC
website). California‘s community colleges don’t charge tuition. and their fees are among the
lowest in the country. At the time data was collected for this report. there was no tuition. and
student fees were only $1 l/unit.7

Community colleges also have a different faculty profile than their four-year counterparts.
Doctorates are not required for faculty at California community colleges. and there is a higher
percentage of part-time and adjunct faculty. Approximately two-thirds of public community
college faculty are on part-time appointments. and all faculty members are paid less than their
four—year counterparts (AACC website). Two—year colleges also have a distinct mission of access
in higher education, which helps to account for their diverse student population.

One of the most significant trends in community college attendance is that they serve as the
point-of-entry for some students who wouldn’t otherwise participate in postsecondary education.
Low—income students, students of color. recent immigrants. and students who are the first in their
families to attend college are often over-represented in two-year institutions. Because many of

 

6 A recent survey. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (2002). notes that only one in six of all two-
and four-year undergraduates meets the stereotype of college student. that is, 18 to 24 years old. living on campus.
and attending school full-time. A majority ofthe rest of the undergraduates attends community colleges.

7 Califomia‘s recent budget crisis has affected community college funding. so these fees have been raised. although
they are still below national two—year and four-year average college tuitions.

34

these students do not believe that they have access to four-year institutions, the community

colleges are the only way for them to expand their educational opportunities and prepare for
a career.

According to the Census Bureau, about 85% of the growth in the national population of 18—24
year olds will come from minority and immigrant families over the next decade. Over 40% will
come from low-income families (Kirst and Bracco 2002). In 2010, the California K—12 system
will be 60% Latino, 20% white, 12% Asian/Asian American, and 8% African American
(California State Department of Education 2002). Given these trends, community colleges are
likely to play a growing role in the higher education system.8

Mission

California community colleges are defined by their commitment to being open-access
institutions. Generally, if a student can benefit from education, that student is welcome.
This philosophy has ensured that community colleges continue to serve students from all
backgrounds.

The mission of community colleges has broadened. “Starting primarily as junior colleges with
an emphasis on academics. the [community] colleges are now complex institutions taking on a
broad array of educational, social. and economic functions” (Bailey and Averianova 1999).
Because these institutions were created to serve the public so directly, most feel obliged to
respond to the changing needs of the community. Some critics contend that community colleges
need to narrow their focus in order to provide better service in fewer areas. Others argue that the
mission dictates the need to continue to offer a wide, and often growing, set of services and
programs.

Later in this report, research findings document this dilemma between the community college’s
charge to maintain its commitment to open access, and the need to uphold standards for both
college-level work and industry-level expectations. Faculty and staff on community college
campuses are often explicitly committed to the open-access mission. Indeed, they believe that
they are best positioned to respond to the needs of the community, but struggle as open-access
institutions to find ways to meet those needs given limited resources. Grubb notes the particular
struggle of those trying to balance the various standards in their departments and institutions with
maintaining open and flexible policies (Grubb 1999).

The mission of community colleges will likely ensure that they will continue to be necessary
resources for all people in their communities. “Responding to educational needs often ignored by
other institutions. community colleges have been profoundly transformed. . .These functions of
community colleges define its unprecedented social and economic significance. No other
institution has demonstrated so much flexibility in adapting to the community’s needs” (Bailey
and Averianova 1999, p. 5).

 

8 This growth is contingent, in part, on available financial support for low-income students.

Remediation and Preparation

In its reporting on higher education, the mainstream media has often fixated on the issue of
remediation. News stories frequently contain quotes from politicians expressing alarm that
college students, particularly those at four-year institutions, can’t read or write well enough to
handle college material. For some policymakers, the “solution” is to move all or most remedial
work to the community colleges. “A number of state and large urban public college systems are
considering or have begun to implement policies that would locate all remediation within the
community college sector (see. for example, Florida, Massachusetts, Georgia. Texas, Virginia,
and the CUNY system in New York City)” (Shaw 1997).

The need to remediate students who enter their institutions with limited basic skills has made
remedial education9 an increasingly important function for community colleges. Remedial
courses address basic levels of reading, writing, and mathematics, skills that should have been
taught before and during high school.10 Though remedial courses are offered on college
campuses, they are not considered college-level work. and therefore usually cannot receive
college—level credit.

 

“Various surveys report remediation rateS Ofbem’een 33% to 95%
of entering community college Students.

 

It is quite difficult to track exactly how many students require remediation. because some are
assessed to need it yet never enroll in the required courses. At community colleges. not all
students are degree- seeking, so they are not required to enroll in these courses, despite
assessment results. Various surveys report remediation rates of between 33% to 95% of entering
students. depending on how it is measured and which group of students IS included (for example.
only degree— —seeking students) (Shults 2002; The Abell Foundation 2002). Clifford Adelman.
senior research analyst at the U. S. Department of Education estimates that over 60% of
community college students receive some sort of remediation 1

Our focus in this study is on high school students who enter community college. Unfortunately
statistics on community college students are generally combined with those on students attending
four—year colleges which further complicates making useful estimates. While currently there 15
no composite remediation figure for California the remediation rates in the case study colleges
in this study were around 40% (see section on Remedial Education/0v erall Preparation later 1n
this report).

 

9 The terms “developmental" and “basic skills" are also used. “Remedial" is used most often by researchers. All will
be used here

‘0 Bridge research did not evaluate the effectiveness of instruction for native speakers and English Language
Learners although other research has focused on it In addition. most of the literature does not address how those
skills are assessed For an example. see Grubb (1999) Bridge Project research focuses on placement tests and their
role in the high school to college transition. They will be discussed further 1n the section on Findings.

H Personal communication between C. Adelman and M.W. Kirst (April 2002).

36

Remediation in higher education highlights an important disjuncture between the K—12 and
higher education systems. The spiraling growth in remediation reported in the 19908 suggests
that it is not just returning students who are “rusty” in algebra who need basic skills help. Rather
there seem to be more students leaving high school without having mastered these skills in the
first place.

While community colleges are perceived as welcoming of all students who want an education, as
Rosenbaum points out, they have failed to adequately communicate their standards for college-
level work. After completing a nationwide study, Rosenbaum concluded, “Students’ failures
arise not from barriers inside colleges, but from a failure of colleges (and especially community
colleges) to convey clear information about the preparation that high school students need in
order to have a strong chance of finishing a degree” (Rosenbaum 1999). By linking preparation
to students" persistence in completing their higher education, Bridge researchers focused on a
significant issue: translating access into success (Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio 2003).

Rosenbaum argues that if students are aware in advance of what it takes to succeed, they will
adjust their behavior in high school and work to achieve at a higher level before matriculating.12
He notes that a sizable minority of students he surveyed (46%) agreed with the statement, “Even
if I do not work hard in high school. I can still make my future plans come true” (Rosenbaum
1999). This “second chance” message from community colleges seems to be coming through
clearly for these students.

The message they are not hearing is that if they do not complete high school coursework
successfully, they may not be able to take the college courses they want or get college-level
credit until completing non—credit remedial work. As noted in later sections, many students are
surprised by their lack of preparation, unaware that with remedial coursework it will take longer
to complete their requirements and is likely to cost more because of the additional courses.

Despite the problems that can arise with unclear signals and lack of preparation, many
community college staff contend that the idea of second chances is integral to their school
mission. In his work, Bailey found support for this view. “Weak high school preparation will
also continue to create a role for community colleges, essentially giving students a second
chance to prepare for college—level work” (Bailey 2002). At the same time, staff acknowledge
that more needs to be done to better prepare first-time students for college-level work.

Rosenbaum argues that the way to preempt remediation and subsequent failure in college is to
communicate the importance of students’ “first chance” to be successful in high school. He
believes that the “college—for—all" norm may harm more students than it helps (Rosenbaum
2001). “Second chances are a fundamental American tenet. However, open-admissions policies
and remedial programs inadvertently convey to students that high school is irrelevant and that
there are no penalties for poor effort” (Rosenbaum 1999).

 

12 Although not conclusive, Bridge researchers have found that there are many possible influences and structures
that could help address this signal (see also Rosenbaum 2001).

37

K—1 6 Links

K—16 reform efforts range from elementary curriculum alignment to transfer between selective
universities. This report focuses on the transition between high school and college. The failure to
adequately prepare high school graduates and their subsequent need for remediation in college
calls attention to the lack of alignment of standards between the two systems. While not all
students who complete high school have to or do go to college, a vast majority state an aspiration
to go, and upwards of 70% will actually enroll in a postsecondary institution within a few years
after high school (The Education Trust 1999).

 

“T he failure to adequately prepare high school graduates and
their need for remediation in college calls attention to the lack of
alignment of standards between the two systems. ”

 

Rosenbaum argues that not all of the blame lies with the colleges, or in their failure to
communicate standards. “. . . [High school] guidance counselors do not tell students what level of
high school achievement is needed for them to succeed in community college, so students are

lulled into a complacency that leaves them unprepared for getting a college degree” (Rosenbaum
2001, p. 80).

Bridge Project research by Kirst and others has described the importance of signals for students.
“The current fractured systems send students, their parents, and K-12 educators conflicting and
vague messages about what students need to know and be able to do to enter and succeed in college.
For example, [Bridge] research found that high school assessments often stress different knowledge
and skills than do college entrance and placement requirements” (Venezia et a1 2003, p. 2).

The roots of this problem first began when the US. created two separate mass education systems
(K—12 and higher education) that rarely collaborated to establish consistent standards.
Historically, economically disadvantaged students are overrepresented in non—honors courses and
do not receive college admissions-related information from either school or non-school sources
(Kirst and Venezia, forthcoming). According to Kirst et al, improving the policy signaling
process and the alignment of K—1 6 policies will require mutual and collaborative actions by both
K—12 and community colleges.

Perhaps most importantly, implicit in Rosenbaum’s research is the notion that people and
institutions from different educational sectors should work together to communicate appropriate
signals to students. Otherwise this lack of coordination can have additional detrimental effects on
students: “Poor information allows many students to have high hopes but to use their high school
experiences poorly, and thus they seem to be personally responsible for their failures”
(Rosenbaum 2001).

Less well-prepared students are more likely to attend two-year colleges, often because they do
not meet entrance requirements for four-year institutions. What students may not realize is that,

38

despite their preparation, where they attend college is likely to affect their chances of completing
their degree. As Melguizo (2003) explains, “The results of this study suggest that after
controlling for academic preparation, the type of institution attended had a large and significant
impact in the odds of completion” (pp. 23—24). Next we look at issues of persistence and
PPtransfer. as well as completion. '

Transfer/ Persistence/ Completion

Another key juncture for K—1 6 work is between institutions of higher education. One researcher
found that “70 % of recent high school graduates who begin their college careers at two-year
institutions expect to earn a bachelor’s degree” (Schneider 2003, p. 57). In other reports, from
one—quarter to over one—half of community college students report their intent to transfer (a
notoriously tricky measure to track) (Cooley 2000; CCSSE 2002). Almost as hard to track is the
actual rate of transfer for community college students.

Part of what makes this data difficult to collect, according to Choy, is that so many community
college students attend more than one institution. They often go back and forth between
institutions. Because most institutions consider students successful if they persist from term to
term at the same institution, some students continuing their education elsewhere may get missed.
As Choy notes. “Looking only at institutional data, it is difficult to track students’ success
because they do not always follow a straight path to a degree” (Choy 2002).

Reported rates of transfer from two-year to four-year institutions range from 14% or 15% to
about 40% (Rosenbaum 2001; Wellman 2002; Young 2002). Regardless of the actual
percentage. consistently fewer students actually transfer than say they want to.13

Persistence and completion data is related to the issue of preparation. Additional analyses
suggest that high school students who are less well—prepared for college and take remedial
courses are less likely to persist, transfer. and complete their education. Rosenbaum reports that
“only 13.9% of seniors with low grades attained their college plans” (Rosenbaum 2001). Bailey
also sees a connection between poor preparation and lower rates of transfer and persistence.
“Developmental education is a central component of the colleges“ mission to provide access;
however, large numbers of poorly prepared students complicate college efforts to improve
transfer and graduation rates” (Bailey 2002).

 

13 Again noting the difficulty in tracking transfer data. Wellman (2002) says that one-third of all first-time, degree-
seeking students transfer within four years of enrollment—one-fourth of four-year students and 43% of two-year
students. Rosenbaum‘s research finds that about 60% of seniors who plan to get a postsecondary degree fail to get
any degree in the next ten years. and the rates are worse for low-performers (Rosenbaum 2001). Young (2002)
reports that 37% of students finish their bachelor’s degree in four years, and one-quarter finish their associate’s
degree in two years. A recent ACE report cites that “among those [community college students] who intended to
earn a bachelor’s degree, only 39% actually transferred” (Choy 2002, p. 20). Bailey finds that “less than one tenth of
students who begin in two—year colleges ever complete a bachelor’s degree” (Bailey, 2002, p. 61). Schneider found
that students who started at two-year institutions “are 28% less likely to receive a bachelor’s degree than comparable
students who began their postsecondary career at a four-year institution” (Schneider 2003, p. 57). Although four—
year completion rates are not as good as they should be. starting at a community college is considered a risk factor
for completion: “Starting at a two-year institution rather than a four-year institution with the intention of earning a
bachelor’s degree also was associated with a greater likelihood of leaving postsecondary education without having
earned a degree (46% versus 23%)” (Choy 2002, p. 20, citing US. Department of Education data). Again, it is clear
that there must be better coordination of signals and expectations in order to begin to improve the level of work for
entering students and, therefore, their chances of persistence and completion.

There are many other examples of K—1 6 links in the existing literature. These include dual-
enrollment programs for high school students at community colleges, honors programs in
community colleges for high-achieving students intending to transfer to selective universities
(Winter 2002), and forums for faculty from high schools and colleges to discuss curriculum
alignment and expectations. Examples of these emerge in the research conducted for this study.

In the next section of this report, we look at the findings from research in California, including
state-specific context issues for California community colleges.

EVOLUTION OF THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM
Context for the State

California has made great strides in aligning standards with assessments in K—l2, as evidenced
by the development and implementation of the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
program. Unfortunately, efforts to improve compatibility and coherence between K—12 and
higher education have lagged behind such efforts. A recurring theme in the interviews conducted
for earlier Bridge Project research was the almost complete absence of communication between
policymakers involved with postsecondary education (especially community colleges) and their
policymaking counterparts in secondary education.

Clearly the lack of communication, mission, and shared history between the K—12 and higher
education sectors of public education has resulted in the current state of misalignment among
policies that affect postsecondary transitions to higher education. Ironically, the separation of
these two systems, while intended to increase efficiency, may actually have had the opposite
effect with respect to serving the K—1 6 educational needs of the state.

California Master Plan for Higher Education.
The Master Plan for Higher Education in California helped to clarify the role and function of
community colleges in the state. The first version of the plan, which was written in 1960, created

a three-tiered system of higher education:

' the University of California, a system of selective research universities for the top one—eighth
of Califomia’s matriculating students;

I the California State University, a larger system of moderately selective institutions for the top
one-third of California’s matriculating students; and

I the Community Colleges, the most extensive system of institutions open to any student able
to benefit from continued education.

According to the Master Plan (as summarized by the University of California Office of the president):

The California Community Colleges have as their primary mission providing
academic and vocational instruction for older and younger students through the

40

first two years of undergraduate education (lower division). In addition to this
primary mission, the Community Colleges are authorized to provide remedial
instruction, English as a Second Language courses, adult noncredit instruction,
community service courses, and workforce training services
(http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/masplan).

The Master Plan established the principle of universal access to postsecondary education in
California at the community college level, where all students “capable of benefiting from
instruction" were to be admitted. What resulted was two systems continuing down a path of
uncoordinated policy development surrounding secondary school student preparation and
success at California community colleges.

Today there are 108 community colleges in the California System. A l6-member Board of
Governors. appointed by the state’s governor, oversees the 72 district, lOS-campus system. But
local community colleges maintain considerable discretion, and the state does not have the final
say in many crucial areas. For example, there is no statewide uniform placement exam, as there
is in some other states. Additionally, faculty and staff are employed by the district, not the state,
which is different from the four-year institutions in California.

The Board of Governors is granted authority by the state legislature to develop and implement
policy for the colleges in the system. The Board of Governors' Regulations for California
Community Colleges are published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Division 6. In
2001. the California Community College system served between 2.5 and 3 million students,
making it the largest system of higher education in the world.

Despite its size, it is expected to grow even larger based on projections for significant growth
among Califomia’s 18- to 24-year olds over the next several years. According to Hayward et al.
(2003), “The demand for higher education is expected to grow by 714,000 students between now
and the year 2010.” Because a majority of these new students are likely to begin higher
education in community colleges, including large populations of Latino students, “it is expected
that almost three-fourths of this growth will occur in California‘s community colleges” (ibid.).
There are many other issues associated with this kind of growth including budget, space, and
time resource limitations, so it is likely that the community colleges will need to be at the center
of policy discussions.

It is helpful to put this information in a larger context. Although for years California’s system of
higher education has been a national model, it currently does not have a good record of reaching
or graduating students. “California ranks 35th out of the 50 states in the ratio of baccalaureate
degree awards to high school graduates six years earlier and 46th in the number of baccalaureate
degrees awarded per 100 graduates” (Hayward et al. 2003). California community colleges must
play a more vital role in increasing four-year college graduation rates by preparing the large
group anticipated to start at community colleges and then transfer to four-year institutions, as
well as providing coherent vocational education.

In the context of K—16 education, California’s community colleges have not played a significant
role in any of the efforts to align policies or practices across sectors. Although there are many
formal articulation agreements between the two- and four-year institutions, in their findings,
Hayward et al. highlight the weak high school-community college connection and the many missing

41

or misaligned K—14 signals or policies. They argue that better high school-community college
coordination will improve successful transfer. “Common understanding regarding course expectations.
course sequencing. and student academic performance at the community college and high school
levels are part of the academic connection that facilitates transfer” (Hayward et al. 2003).

Limited capacity exacerbates the problem of lack of coordination between high schools and
community colleges. Those authors argue that “strengthening the academic connection between
community colleges and high schools would have multiple benefits. including making
expectations clear to students, sharing expertise and resources, and streamlining course
progression" (ibid. p. 49).

Additionally, opportunities for faculty collaboration within and across sectors. cross-cutting
work on curriculum (for example, on the California Standards Tests). improved dual enrollment,
and strengthened and consistent outreach can create better educational experiences and improved
completion and transfer rates (Hayward et al. 2003). It is worth focusing on and investing in
these efforts because those community college students who are able to transfer to four-year
schools tend to perform as well as students who enter as freshmen. Clearly the role of
community colleges in California’s higher education system is significant and growing.
especially for students of color.14

OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA CASE FINDINGS
Background/ Mission

While community college campuses serve different communities and populations. as with
community colleges nationally, these schools share a strong commitment to providing
educational opportunity to any student who can benefit from it. From 12% to 28% of students
attending community colleges already have bachelors‘ or other advanced degrees: anywhere
from 25% to 80% require some remediation. The commitment to meet students where they are is
the most defining characteristic of community colleges and also often the greatest challenge.
Below are descriptions of the campuses studied.

Sacramento City College.

Sacramento City College (SCC) was founded in 1916. As a result of a March 1964 election. it
joined American River College to form the newly-organized Los Rios Junior College District. In
1970 the district name was changed to the Los Rios Community College District when the
district opened a third campus. C osumnes River College. In the fall 2000 semester. Sacramento
City College enrolled 21.186 students. The student body is 58% female. ethnically diverse (42%
white. 21% Asian, 15% Hispanic. 12% black) and relatively young (55% of the students were 24
years of age or less compared to 48% of community college students statewide). International
students at the college come from approximately 55 different nations. As one administrator put
it, “our campus is blessed with wonderful diversity."

 

M Projections for growth are greatest in Southern California and the Central Valley. areas with large Latino
populations.

42

Cosumnes River College

Cosumnes River College (CRC) was founded in 1970 as the third college in the Los Rios Community
College District. Although it enrolls over 16,000 students, it has the feel of a small campus. The
student population is just over half of that of its sister colleges, American River and Sacramento
City. There is a physical center to the campus. and a busy student center, which probably allows
for more casual interaction than at the other two campuses in the district. On average, there is

less ethnic and racial diversity at CRC, and, like other campuses, there are more women than men.

According to the district research office, 35% of 1999 graduates from the top 25 feeder high
schools attended a Los Rios college in the fall of 1999 (LRCCD Research Brief, January 2001;
LRCCD High School Graduation Data).

Student View of Institutional Mission

The reasons for attending community colleges are as diverse as the student body. In the focus
groups. researchers heard students cite location, cost, specific programs, lack of other options,
and convenience. Several of these responses (and others) mirrored the mission of community
colleges cited above to provide convenient, low—cost education. Consistently researchers also
heard students refer to community college as an opportunity for a “second chance” at a college
education. Below are some typical student explanations for their choices.

I chose CRC because I live five minutes away, and I also went to high school
across the street.

I came here because I really didn’t know what I wanted to do yet. And it’s like the
only school that’s somewhat near me. . .and it’s cheap.

I didn’t have a high school diploma, and I really needed to do something, and I
hadn’t had a job, didn’t have any job skills. . .so I came here.

Based on focus group data. it appears that the message of access, convenience, and second
chance seems to be reaching students before they apply to community college. However, they
seem to know considerably less about enrollment and matriculation requirements.

Below we describe in greater detail some of the logistical aspects of admissions, financial aid,
tuition. placement. and preparation issues, as well as student understanding of these policies.

Admission/ Enrollment

Because the institutions in this study, like most community colleges, maintain an open
admissions policy, admissions staff do not perform a traditional gatekeeping role. While they do
some recruiting at area high schools, the admissions office serves primarily as the point of entry
for enrollment and registration, and is often the first unit at a college to communicate placement
requirements. Students can show up the day before classes start and enroll for that term,

providing they have met certain basic requirements.15 This ease of enrollment embraces both the
missmn of the institution—providing opportunity for all—and the challenge of working with
students who may have little sense of what they want.

In compliance with state mandates, both Sacramento City College and Cosumnes River College
have an open admissions policy. Students may apply in person or through the mail. The
application can be downloaded at the colleges” websites, is distributed to all feeder high schools,
is available at various locations on campus, and is mailed to individuals upon request. At the
time data was collected for this study, both schools had plans underway to provide online
registration within two years time.

Once an application is received, applicants are sent a letter informing them of the next steps to
take in order to matriculate to the college. Since admission is open, students may apply at any
time of the year. The college recommends (but does not require) that new students under the age
of 21 submit high school transcripts.

At the community colleges studied, recent high school graduates made up a significant subset of
enrolled students. There are reports of some community colleges trying to attract recent high
school graduates who might otherwise start at four-year institutions (see the New York Times
article by Winter on higher achieving students attending community colleges). The growth in
enrollment of recent graduates has also raised concern because it highlights their lack of
preparation, a trend that will be discussed in greater detail later on.

Given the high percentage of recent high school graduates attending community colleges, the

institutions in this study tend to have relationships with area or district high schools. Admissions
staff members provide general orientations to high school students about community college. In
many cases, existing programs and partnerships (see “Outreach/Special Programs/K-l6 Links” later
in this report) are the point of contact between high school students and the community colleges.

Unlike community colleges in other states, which recruit as many students as possible for their
programs, most California colleges and community college districts generally do not have
aggressive secondary school outreach practices. There is even a funding disincentive in place for
recruiting too many new students. Even when colleges go “over cap” by enrolling more students
than projected by the Chancellor’s Office (using past enrollment figures). the overall
apportionment is not increased. Therefore, the average amount the college gets paid per Full
Time Equivalent Student (FTES) is lowered, meaning that less is spent on each student.

Thus, unless a community college is experiencing declining enrollment, there is no economic
incentive to increase enrollment by recruiting more students. This policy is particularly significant
given that the number of students seeking admission to California community colleges is
expected to grow by over half a million students over the next ten years (Hayward et a1 2003).16

The combination of open admissions and increasing enrollments poses a dilemma for community
colleges. They must still find a way to maintain academic standards for college-level work. As

 

‘5 The most common requirements for admission are a high school diploma or GED, or being 18 years or older. For
high school students (and in some cases international students) there are often different procedures.

'6 Community colleges with large numbers of Latino students could be harmed the most. as Latinos are the fastest
growing population of college students.

44

one Bridge Project researcher noted, the open admissions policy may convey the impression that
any student may register for any course. Also in effect, however, are mandatory placement tests
and course placement policies that require remedial education prior to college-level enrollment.

 

. ”California community colleges must still find a way to maintain
academic standards for college-level work despite open
admissions and increasing enrollments. "

 

Although there are courses that don’t require passing the placement exams, some disciplines outside
of English and mathematics require certain performance levels on those exams (for example, a
certain level of reading comprehension for a history course). In many community colleges, open
admissions is preserved by ensuring that the first course in a prerequisite sequence is open to
students of all abilities. In general, staff members are committed to the open admissions policy and
philosophy, as there are always examples of students whose lives are changed by the experience.
As one instructor noted, “As a community college, we are prepared for anyone. We really are.”

Tuition

While California community colleges do not charge tuition, until recently there was an $11 per
unit enrollment fee (well below the national average). Given the current budget crisis in
California. however, this fee was raised to $18 per unit for fall 2003, still lower than the national
average. In addition, there are often other fees that community college students must pay for
things such as parking, technology, student activities, etc. All the institutions in this study also
charge higher fees for out—of—state and international residents. In most cases, some of the applied
programs such as dental hygiene have higher fees associated with them.

Financial Aid

Both of the institutions in the study have financial aid offices that coordinate federal, state, local,
and institutional support for all students who qualify. All of the campuses have seen an increase
in demand for aid in recent years. The downturn in the economy and the “echo boom” (children
of baby boomer—aged parents) are offered as explanations. One of the most difficult aspects of
the job for community college financial aid officers is the timing of aid requests. Unlike most
four-year college students, many community college students don’t know several months in
advance that they need to apply for federal and state financial aid. Aside from a general lack of
awareness about filing deadlines, many students don’t decide to attend community college until
right before the academic term begins. It can come as a surprise when students realize they will
not be able to get financial aid immediately upon enrolling.

Another point of concern is financial aid for developmental or remedial education. A student
who requires several terms of financial aid for non-credit work must be careful not to use up
eligibility for government support. Currently, there is a 150% rule for federal funding that

allows for additional pre-credit coursework and provides additional eligibility, provided it
compensates for secondary-level coursework.17

Placement

Placement policies highlight several of the important disjuncture issues raised by the six-state
Bridge Project. Our findings showed that a majority of students were unaware of the need to take
placement tests before registering at any college or university, let alone what the content of those
tests might be. In our broader research, community college students were particularly surprised
to learn this, given the general understanding that anyone can attend a community college.
Placement tests communicate, indirectly and belatedly, that there are standards for college-level
work, and many students are surprised when their skills are assessed below that level. One
student explains what she discovered in the testing process:

I took an assessment test and as everybody knows, I do really horrible at tests
because I have test anxiety. So I ’m placed in classes that are like really way too
easy for me. Like when it comes to just assignments and stuff like that. And then I
was out of math for three years. And so I know that the math, I was placed

correctly, but the English I was not placed correctly because of the time constraint
and all of that kind of stuff.

Assessments vary from state to state and from campus to campus (and in some places from
department to department). In most places, reading, writing, and math skills are assessed.
California’s definition of assessment is broadly inclusive and is a product of Title 5. While it
affords individual colleges a fair amount of latitude in their choice of assessments, the freedom
to choose also results in some confusion for both students and staff. Individual campuses and
districts may choose assessment instruments from the Chancellor’s list, or they may use other
forms of assessment (including instruments they have developed themselves such as writing
samples). However, these must have gone through content review, criterion or consequential
validation, and other tests for reliability and non-bias as appropriate (see California Community
Colleges Matriculation Standards/Regulations, and California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office Assessment Standards).

There are no standard placement tests in the California Community Colleges, and colleges in the
same district often use different placement assessments. There is a list of approved assessments
from the Chancellor’s Office. The placement process is proscribed by Title 5, which disallows
any single instrument from being used to place students into the curriculum. Instead. multiple
measures must be used. In practice, campuses often use an assessment test score in conjunction
with other predictors of student success, such as high school GPA, recent related coursework,
etc. These policies create challenges and confusion at all levels, as one administrator explains:

You know, every time we go to explain either to the high school or to the four-
years the kind of legislation that now we live under in terms of our assessment
process [for placement], they just shake their heads. They cannot believe the
rigorous guidelines that we have to fall under with this stuff. And how much time

 

'7 The 150% rule covers support for the number of credits for a degree (100%), plus additional support (up to 50%)
for students who need remedial courses above the elementary level.

46

and money and energy that it consumes just to keep ourselves floating in the
assessment process.

Although Sacramento City College (SCC) and Consumnes River College (CRC) are in the same
district, they do not use the same assessments for placement. For English and math, SCC uses
Education Testing Service‘s ACCUPLACER (Reading Comprehension and Sentence Skills
subtests for English. and Arithmetic, Elementary Algebra, and College Level Math subtests for
math). For English as a Second Language, the college uses Levels of English Proficiency
(LOEP) along with a campus-administered writing sample. Since the ACCUPLACER and LOEP
tests are available on—line, students may drop in and take the assessments on a space-available
basis from Monday through Thursday or on Saturday.

Approximately 10,000 students per academic year take placement tests at SCC’s Assessment
Center. and each student takes an average of 3.2 tests, for a total of about 32,000 tests administered
annually. Students are required to pick up their placement test results in person to protect
confidentiality. and results are not released to anyone other than the student, not even parents.

Cosumnes River College uses placement tests approved by the Chancellor’s Office (along with
other multiple measures. as required by Title 5) to place students in English and math courses.
For English. the college uses the C TEP or College Test for English Placement. For math, it uses
the MDTP or Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project, an assessment also used at CSU and UC.

Approximately 6,000 placement tests are administered per academic year through the CRC
assessment center. Since it does not have a dedicated testing facility, the center schedules
classrooms on an as-available basis for placement tests. The tests are free-of-charge and are
administered on a regular. well-publicized schedule. Students may retake the placement test
twice within a six-month period. In line with Title 5 regulations, all placement instruments have
been articulated with the college curriculum, and minimum passing scores have been established
through a research-based process.

As Kirst (2000) points out, one of the shortcomings of the present placement testing system used
by community colleges is its lack of standardization and signaling, which can be overwhelming
for students who are often required to take multiple assessments. “In the southeast United States,
for example. in 1995 there were 125 combinations of 75 different placement tests devised by
universities with scant regard to secondary school standards.” Given that most recent high school
graduates have already faced several standardized tests in high school—one of the consequences
of extensive K—1 2 reforms in California—it is not clear how students are made aware of and
keep track of the many assessments they are expected to take.

At the time of data collection for this study, the three sister colleges in the Los Rios district each
used different placement tests for math, English, and ESL, and did not have a cooperative agreement
to honor each other’s placements. Inevitably this creates a confusing situation for students.

Many of the staff were asked by researchers about the possibility of using one of the existing
K—l2 statewide assessments for placement. California already has high school assessments that
measure students’ skills and abilities. However, none of the respondents had considered this
option, even those who had been part of committees responsible for exploring possible
assessment tools for placement at their schools. While a few acknowledged this possibility, they

47

indicated that the K—1 2 statewide assessments would likely be used in conjunction with, but not
in place of, the1r existing placement exams. Consequently, any policy change would not reduce
the number of assessments students face in the transition from high school to college. 18

One administrator suggests What is needed to remedy the situation:

It is clear to me that if anything is going to be done it needs to be at our initiative
and with our perseverance. It is not going to come the other way [from K—12] or it
hasn’t. Perhaps that will change. I think the key is getting faculty departments
together. It needs to have administrative support even though it cannot come from
the administration.

However, even if faculty could agree to use the California K—12 assessments for placement into
the community college curriculum, the state examination would still have to go through community
college question-by-question content validation, and the cut—off scores would have to be normed
and validated on a campus-by-campus basis, as required by Chancellor’s Office standards.

Students were also asked about placement and the assessment process. Interestingly, student
reaction to the placement process in the focus groups was varied. While some students talked
about being surprised by the placement, few reported being upset about the requirement.19
Particularly for recent high school graduates, testing and assessment are a very common part of
their educational experience. As one student explains,

When I took [the] assessment tests, they gave the math portion. . .1ast...So I just
kinda like filled in answers so I didn’t want to take it anymore. So then when I got
my test results back it said that it was inconclusive and I had to take another one.
So I took another one. And I did pretty good on that one. So they put me in a math
class. And I was in two classes, I had to take two math classes before I could take
the statistics class. And those two classes were pretty much a waste of time.

Given the responses in the student focus groups, the fact that the placement test could often be
retaken seems to have lowered the stakes for most students.

Bridge Project researchers also found varied reactions among students in several states to the
outcomes of the assessment. Some staff report students being stunned by their poor performance
on the placement tests. For some students, this is the first time they realize that most of the
courses they can enroll in are college preparatory. and therefore cannot be taken for college-level
credit. It is at this point that students become aware of their lack of preparation for college. and
in some cases, the consequences of not working hard in high school.

In California. however, most students said they were not concerned about their placement test
results. They understood the need for them and were generally fine with where they were placed.
In the words of one student:

 

'8 The California State University is using K—l2 assessments (for example, Grade 1 1 English and math tests) for
freshman placement. Perhaps community colleges will consider that option.

1()Students who had access to their local community college assessments while they were still in high school were
less likely to be surprised. Some institutions have partnered to expose students to expectations from the community
colleges. Some of these partnerships will be described later.

48

I had to] start back with English at the remedial college level, which is still high
school level. But now because of the steps I had to take, I mean in my music
classes, extra credit, I write essays. In my English 1A class I’m writing essays and
getting A‘s and B‘s. ...And I can see that if you take those steps it gives you the
strength and it makes the class a lot easier.

Regardless of when students become aware of the community colleges’ placement requirement,
it is clear that all of the colleges are communicating it to students soon after admission, since it is
often required before students are allowed to register for courses. The responses below are
typical of students’ recollections as to when they first learned about the placement requirement:

All I know is l was supposed to take the assessment test or I couldn’t take English
or math.

My best friend told me, and through high school in my junior and senior year I
always heard grades above me talk about goin’ to CRC and takin’ their
assessment tests or going to a UC and taking their tests.

The teachers in high school told me.
In our schools they had announcements, like in the career center they had posters

and bulletins that you need to take the assessment tests and the dates that you
could take them.

 

“Placement tests play an important role in community colleges,
particularly given the absence of admissions
entrance examinations. "

 

Placement tests play an important role in community colleges, particularly given the absence of
admissions entrance examinations. While California's public educational system places
tremendous emphasis on the K—12 state assessments, they are not used to guide placement
decisions at either community colleges or postsecondary technical schools. They are used
primarily to reward or punish elementary and secondary schools depending on how well they
meet achievement goals. In fact, state law specifies that these K—12 tests cannot be part of high
school students~ transcripts. Consequently, community colleges could not find out the results
even if they wanted to.

49

Advising/ Counseling

Community college advisors spend a majority of their time on scheduling and academic
planning. 20 Inevitably there are too few advisors and counselors for the several thousand
students found at most state community colleges. At some colleges. there IS a more formal
distinction drawn between advisors and counselors: counselors usually possess different
professional training and deal with personal student issues.

Advisors are prepared to work with anyone who comes through their door, but often have limited
options to offer students who are not yet ready to handle college-level material. The issue of
academic preparedness is central to how well staff members can serve their students. Every day
community college staff struggle with the best way to preserve the mission of the institution
while confronting the practical issues of underprepared students.

Although some students complained about not knowing what classes to take or what
requirements to meet, others reported that help was available provided they sought it out. Even
so. most of the respondents indicated their campuses could use more staff for advising. Below
are a couple of student responses about how they first learned what was expected of them at a
community college:

Totally the counselors. I mean they pretty much guided me the whole way. . .my
interest was business. and my counselor was telling me that along with the
business courses. I would have to take some general education courses for me to
get my Associates. and entrance requirements to get into a four-year. so they
pretty much helped me set it up.

It was initially a counselor that was like, “Here. you‘ve been out of school for a
bit. This might help you." Even encouraged me to go back. I was one point away
from being eligible to take English lA. She was like go back and take the test
again. I'm sure you could get one more point. And sure enough I did. So it was
mostly the counselor.

Remedial Education/ Overall Preparation

As is clear from our literature review and the early findings from the Bridge Project. the level of
academic preparation of community college students is of central importance. Not only is it a
constant reminder of the lack of alignment between the K—12 and postsecondary educational
systems. but it presents a tremendous challenge to those charged with addressing the gap.

All community colleges offer remedial or dev elopmental courses This function has been part
of their mission from their inception. “‘ In the past. the assumption was that returning students

 

20 Students can be exempt from counseling ifthey meet the following criteria: 1) they possess an associate degree or
higher. or 2) they satisfy at least two of the following and do not wish to participate in counseling: they want to
upgrade theirjob skills; they are enrolled in fewer than six units: they are concurrently enrolled in another post-
secondary institution; or they do not possess a degree or have an occupational objective.

:1 For further information and discussion of remedial/developmental education. see Grubb (1999) and Koski and
Levin (1997).

50

who were rusty in their skills would need opportunities to review basic concepts. However, in
recent years it has become clear that many recent high school graduates, as well as many
returnlng students, have never learned the basic skills in the first place.

On all of the campuses in this study, staff were asked to describe the characteristics of entering
students who lacked basic skills. Math faculty at Cosumnes River College reported that students
entering from high school often placed two levels below the highest math class they took in high
school. CRC math instructors are now meeting regularly with high school math instructors to try
to develop a uniform teaching approach.

Researchers found numerous other local, informal partnerships had formed as a result of the
increasing numbers of underprepared high school students entering community colleges. This
trend is primarily responsible for the changes in and strengthening of placement policies. Although
the reported remediation rates range from small minorities of students in some community
college programs to sizable majorities in others, all of the colleges consider remediation an
important issue. 23 Below is some data on remediation at the campuses in our study.

The course numbering sequence at Sacramento City College shows all remedial education in the
200—299 range, which includes non-degree applicable credit courses. Generally, remedial
coursework is offered in math, English, and ESL. although there are other non-degree applicable
200-level courses (e.g.. some human career development courses, tutoring, etc.). At SCC, one-
quarter of the math sections offered are considered remedial, while approximately two-fifths of
the English and ESL sections are considered remedial.

One administrator explained that these numbers would actually be higher if not for the large and
well—regarded adult education program in Sacramento, which remediates many students before
they enter Sacramento City College. At CRC, one—third of the math sections are considered
remedial, while nearly two-thirds of the English and English-as-a-Second Language sections
offered are considered remedial (39% of English, 77% of ESL).

The students also talked about their lack of preparation. Some expressed frustration with their
high schools, upset that they had been passed along or told that their performance was
acceptable. Several students focused on their behavior and skills, rather than content knowledge.
Some responses:

In my high school they didn’t prepare you for college at all. Well I had college
prep classes, but my school, they’re so quick to pass you ...when I got here I was
so used to bein’ in a fly-by [easy] class, I was like, OK, these teachers, they don’t
care if I come or not. I’m not gonna come. But when I got my transcript it was a
totally different story. I was like, they’re not playin’ here.

I felt that my study skills were a problem. When I was in high school, I never
learned how to study. And now, I have to.

 

23 California State University requires students who do not complete remediation within a set timeline to enroll in a
community college and leave CSU.

23 One of the challenges of this research is getting accurate counts of remedial courses and enrollments. Given the
growing numbers of students taking remedial courses in college, most community colleges now conduct regular
institutional research not only on enrollment, but also on student persistence and completion.

51

I wasn’t prepared. . .the first couple of semesters here I was spending like hours
and hours and hours of studying. And I talked to an EOPS counselor and she said,
well, you don’t have any study skills. So she had me take. . .study skills. And now
I’m doing much better. You know, I don’t have to study ten hours a day just to get
a B. But I wasn’t prepared. I thought I was, but I wasn’t.

There were also students who felt prepared for college and who attributed their success to it.

I felt like I was really prepared from high school. But it was hard for me my first
semester. I didn’t want to be here. I really wanted to be at Berkeley. And my
grades weren’t as high as they were in high school. But I got the hang of it here
and I said you know, I still want to go to Berkeley, and so in order to do that I
need to get out of here first. So, it was really rough. Just because a community
college, like, my friends claimed it had the reputation of being an extension to
high school, and it really isn’t. And I was really grateful thatI came here
because the atmosphere... really brings you down to earth. So, I thought my
transition was like, it took a while to get there, but it’s good.

I think I was well prepared for college. Because in high school I was really good.
I wasn’t skipping any classes like my friends did. They would go like, let’s go to
the movies, let’s skip this Class. But I thought that it’s wrong, if you’re in high
school and you want to graduate and get a good grade you have to work hard.
And I think I was really prepared. It’s helped me to be good in college.

Remediation, and the related issue of preparation, will continue to be a central focus for
community colleges. It will also provide the best opportunities for partnerships with K—12 and
the four-year institutions. Examples of K—1 6 links are described below.

Transfer/ Persistence

Although intent data is difficult to track in community college, more and more students in two-
year colleges aspire to complete their degrees at four-year institutions. Nationally, 70% of recent
graduates who enter community colleges aspire to get a bachelor’s degree, but many fewer
actually complete them. (Schneider 2003). Many of the students in the focus groups described
plans, often very specific, for getting their bachelors” degrees. One challenge to tracking intent is
that students don’t need to complete the associate’s degree to transfer to a bachelor’s program.
There are various agreements between two-year and four-year institutions regarding the transfer
of students. In some cases, the articulation agreements are quite formal, offering statewide
standards for all public institutions. In others the partnerships are local, between two institutions,
including some private colleges.

In California, the Master Plan for Higher Education charges the UC and CSU systems with
giving preferential admissions to qualified California community college students. Generally a
student is considered qualified if they have completed 56 transferable units with a grade of C or
better. There are no specific intersegmental transfer policies—~each community college or district
must work out articulation agreements with individual UC and CSU campuses. Some individual
community college campuses and districts have developed Transfer Articulation Agreements and

52

specific guaranteed admissions plans with public and private four-year colleges and universities.
Both SCC and CRC have multiple articulation agreements with institutions throughout the state.
For both colleges, CSU-Sacramento is the most popular place to transfer.

In addition to individual Transfer Centers in California, there is an official statewide repository
of transfer information in the form of a web-interfaced database, called ASSIST (Articulation
System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer). Designed for student as well as
professional use. this database lists by institution accepted transferable courses, and specific
articulation agreements between two campuses. All public postsecondary institutions in
California are included in the database, but private/independent colleges are not.

Persistence and completion data can also be difficult to track, in part because student intent data
is difficult to track (e. g., Did that student intend to take only one class?) Most community
college researchers try to track term-to-term persistence. As noted in the literature above, generally
persistence rates are lower at two-year than four-year colleges. The explanations offered include
the different populations (age and background), different financial and family commitments,
different levels of preparation, and different intentions (some students leave after completing a
coherent set of vocational education courses). It is clear, however, that students who are required
to take remedial or developmental coursework are less likely to persist or complete.

Community college students do not often follow a linear path through their postsecondary
education. In an effort to understand better how students in the Portland Metropolitan Area were
progressing. several postsecondary institutional researchers studied student paths. They found
not only that two-thirds of students” followed a “swirl” academic path (moving in and out of
several institutions), but that the nature of that swirl affected the students’ progress and
attainment (Bach et al. 2000). Perhaps not surprisingly, within the current system, those who
followed the traditional, linear path were most successful in attainment.

Outreach/ Special Programs/ K—1 6 Links

All of the community colleges in this study have relationships with secondary schools, from
formal articulation agreements to informal relationships between individuals on the campuses.
All of the institutions provide opportunities for high school students to get to know the
community college. In most cases, high school students can enroll in community college classes
on campus (with appropriate permission and a skills assessment), can take community college
courses and receive college credit for them at their high school, and can take one of the
community college assessments in high school (to give them a sense of community college
standards). among many other options. Unfortunately, there are limitations to these partnerships.
As one administrator notes,

I think people [in the high schools] are overworked. . .they’re just terribly
overworked. ...Teachers are having incredible demands [placed] on them with the
extra pressures from the accountability and the testing, and popular opinion of
education systems being a sorry sort.

Despite multiple points of connection between systems, there was a very clear message from all
of the community college respondents that the K—12 reforms— including new academic
standards and assessments in the high schools—have had very little or no bearing on what

happens at the community colleges. The colleges are still going to conduct their own assessments
of students” skills and abilities; they want no part of the myriad reforms going on in K—12. Part
of the reason for thls 1s that many community college administrators know very little about the

K—1 2 reforms, and often their limited information comes from having children in the system or
from the local media.

 

“The K—1 2 reforms— including new academic standards and
assessments in the high schools—have had very little bearing on
what happens at the community colleges. “

 

One thing that became clear in the course of this research is that although there are few, if any,
formal K—l6 efforts state— or system-wide, there are many local partnerships between K—12 and
the community colleges. Below are some examples.

' At SCC, the Assessment Center offers placement tests during the spring at local high schools
through a program called Senior Assessment for College (SAC). High school seniors are
invited to complete basic skills assessment in math and English on their high school campus,
and then are invited to attend an orientation at Sacramento City College. Once they complete
the process, which includes some counseling at orientation, they are granted priority registration.
Approximately 1,200 students were assessed at 16 local high schools in spring 2001.

I English 1A and 1C are taught regularly by Sacramento City College faculty at neighboring
McClatchy High School. The college is limited to offering only coursework that is above
high school level at the high school site, and at times it is difficult to get enough qualified,
interested students to enroll in these classes. Still, the English department plans to offer
classes at other local high schools in the future.

. Sacramento City College has many innovative programs with four-year colleges and
universities. CSU Sacramento offers students at Sacramento City College the chance to take
one free class through the Crossover Enrollment Program. This program allows students who
are enrolled in nine units at SCC to enroll in one class at CSUS for no fee other than the cost
of books and materials. UC Davis allows students who have fall semester Transfer
Admissions Agreements (for guaranteed transfer) on file to take one free class the spring
prior to their full-time enrollment at UC Davis.

0 At CRC, various faculty members interact regularly with high school teachers, especially in
the areas of math, English, and ESL. The math instructors discuss high school graduation
requirements and better ways to articulate high school math with college math. Math
instructors at both levels have also discussed approaches to teaching math with the goal of
coordinating services.

The college English faculty has a long-standing relationship with local high school English
teachers. In the past, high school English teachers would suggest course placement for
former students now enrolling in English courses at Cosumnes River College. When the

54

college realized this practice was contrary to Title 5 regulations, it was discontinued, but the
two groups of English instructors continued to meet. Currently, the high school instructors in
the Elk Grove Unified School District are hired as readers to evaluate and norm the final
essay examination for CRC students enrolled in English 57. In addition, many of the CRC
courses offered at the high schools are taught by high school instructors who meet the
minimum qualifications to be community college instructors.

These various partnerships. both formal and informal, are good examples of practical ways to
strengthen K—1 6 articulation. It is clear that there are many people who are committed to finding
ways to make students” educational experiences a series of successful transitions. While at present
these efforts remain primarily local in scope. they provide models for possible wider-ranging
plans. One of the respondents sums up the sentiment expressed by many others in this study:

Probably just like everybody else [I believe it should be] a seamless flow for the
students. The content. the knowledge they had in high school, should be a
foundation for them to be successful in college. That transition should be as
smooth as possible. They should be able to walk into those [college] classes and
feel confident.

SUMMARY

Below is a summary of findings from the study. These were based on data from the Bridge
Project, and augmented by findings in other research literature.

There is a growing population of younger students on community college campuses. Some
are recent high school graduates, while many others have not completed high school. The
community colleges have increased opportunities for students to take college-level courses
while still in high school. There are also examples of other arrangements, such as making
these courses available to home-schooled children.

The mission of the community college was evident in the two schools studied. They offered
students low-cost. convenient alternatives in an educational environment of open access and
high standards. Staff and faculty were clearly committed to working with students of all abilities.

The growth in the percentage of younger students attending community colleges has
highlighted the lack of preparedness of many high school graduates. Unlike older returning
students who tend to be a bit “rusty” in basic skills due to the time that has elapsed since they
graduated from high school, some recent high school students have never mastered the
material. As one California staff member says, “We’re seeing students coming out of high
school [who are] not ready for community college work, and community college students not
ready at the CSUs." Additional remediation is necessary, but the disjuncture in academic
preparedness highlights the need for better alignment of standards and expectations.

Many students entering community college do not seem to appreciate that they will not be
able to handle college—level work if they didn’t achieve at a certain level in high school. As
one instructor explains,

U1
U1

The transition between high school and the community college is an odd one for
many people. For some students, the first year of community college is grade 13.
It seems that they are just continuing on—all of their friends are coming here,
they are just moving along with the pack. There’s not even necessarily (for some
of the first-year students) an acknowledgement. . .that this is even college.

I Despite a lack of information about the multitude of required placement tests, students
generally weren’t upset about having to take them. Although some mentioned being unhappy
With the results, fairly liberal policies to retake exams allow for some negotiation.

I The connection between two-year and four-year colleges is becoming more formal in some
places. While articulation agreements are common, only co—admit or dual enrollment
arrangements produce specific curricular discussions about standards and expectations
among members of the campuses.

I Many faculty talk about the tension of being “in—between.” Community colleges can be
perceived as an extension of high school and the start of a bachelor’s degree; they accept
anyone who enters, but have advanced and restricted entry programs. Most believe strongly
in the community college mission. but acknowledge the difficulty of balancing it. One
administrator compared community colleges to Janus, the two-headed Roman god of gates
and doors, who must look in both directions—behind and ahead. The administrator said the
community college must, “look in two directions. Any change we make in this level has to
work with the sequence of getting people ready for transfer as well.”

I There is a general lack of awareness on the part of administrative staff and faculty of K—12
reform efforts—especially standards and assessments faced by high school students, and in
some cases also K—l6 efforts. What community colleges know tends to be a result of general
perception (e.g., media coverage) or of personal connection (e. g., child in the K—12 system).
There is little sense of any statewide formal efforts to work between the systems, as for
example, by using one of the high school statewide assessments as a placement tool.
However, individual partnerships between specific community colleges and high schools
seem to be flourishing.

I Students speak positively about their choice to attend community college, usually

highlighting convenience, cost, and smaller class size. They note that there is no
“handholding,” but that resources are available to those who seek them.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

The study’s findings point to the need for a number of changes in policies and practices that
affect California students’ transition from high school to college.

56

Track signals to students regarding expectations and requirements for entering
community college.

High school students are getting the message that two-year institutions are open to everyone,
but many do not understand what is expected of them in college, nor the level of academic
preparation required of them to handle college-level work.

Track more carefully the signals around placement.

The issues surrounding community college placement were significant in this report, but are
often only addressed in other research as it relates to remediation. Unlike in other states,
California students in this study were not surprised by placement requirements or test results.
It may be that some of the early signals students are receiving from high schools, friends, and
counselors have helped communicate some of these expectations, although not for specific
content and skills. It is worth looking more closely at how that information is communicated
to students and whether this makes a difference.

 

“It is important to communicate clearly what is expected
of entering students.

 

The large number of secondary school students now entering the community college system
in California warrants that K—12 and community college educators place greater emphasis on
the role of placement tests before students graduate from high school. It is clear that
remediation lowers a student’s chances of completing college, increases costs, and is not the
best way for a student to start college, as remedial students are less likely to persist. Given
these factors, it is important to communicate clearly what is expected of entering students.

The legislature should repeal the ban to include California standards tests in high
school transcripts.

Community colleges can use these tests for placement information, which would not only
reduce costs, but would prevent surprises for students unaware of postsecondary placement.
In addition. if students are aware that colleges and universities will have this information,
they might be more likely to try harder on the standards tests, providing more reliable data to
both high schools and colleges.

Study more deeply the issue of the lack of academic preparation.

The lack of adequate preparation for college is a growing and persistent issue, particularly for
recent high school graduates. This report highlights some of its consequences. However,
there is need for more research on the most effective ways to use existing points of
connection and develop new ones between the K—12 and community college systems in order
to address this problem.

57

Create a larger role in K—16 work for community colleges.

Few community colleges have had any role in state and national K—16 reform efforts. It
would appear that the informal and local partnerships with K—12 would make community
colleges prime candidates for intersegmental coordination. However, any proposed solutions
will have to address the fact that community colleges are already strapped for resources, and
will need additional funds to take on new leadership roles.

Community colleges should review the K—12 state standards and assessments.

Each subject matter exam for the California Standards Test has five levels (advanced,
proficient, basic, below basic, well below basic). Perhaps one of these performance levels
could be equated to community college placement standards for credit—level, non-remedial
courses. After taking the test in tenth or eleventh grade, high school students could be
advised about where they are likely to place in the community college curriculum, based on
their current academic achievement. The senior year could then be used for intensive
academic preparation to avoid community college remediation.

Send clearer signals about realistic transfer possibilities.

Despite a decrease in the skills and abilities of many entering community college students,
many students who enter a two-year institution expect to transfer to a four-year program.
Rosenbaum (2001) talks about how to temper those aspirations and to provide alternatives.
Students need to understand not only what it takes to succeed in transfer, but that basic
literacy skills are necessary for occupational and vocational programs too. While higher
aspirations can influence attainment, a lack of good information about what it takes to
transfer, particularly before entering community college. means that many students are not
persisting or completing, despite their aspirations. Good data is needed on persistence and
completion, and data on student aspirations will help to complete the picture.

Conduct more research on the community college role as the point of entry for
specific populations.

Community colleges are the place where a majority of first-generation students and students
of color begin their college education. Since students from these groups are expected to begin
attending California community colleges in increasing numbers, it is especially important to
understand the progress of students of color, immigrant students. and low-income students,
and how they navigate the system and enter college.

Collect more and better data on students moving in and through community colleges.

Data are notoriously difficult to collect on community college campuses. More and more
colleges have formal institutional research operations, and more states are developing or
refining statewide data-sharing systems. Even so. the transitory and “swirling" nature of
student enrollment means that some of the data collection problems will continue to be

difficult to address. The California K—1 2 system plans to use student identifiers to track
cohorts of students as part of the federal No Child Left Behind compliance.

' Focus a greater percentage of higher education research on the community colleges.

Not enough research is being conducted on California’s community colleges. As a result,
there are many gaps in current knowledge. Some areas for future study include: the links
between community colleges and other educational segments; student progress within and
between multiple institutions; the historical tension of access and standards; the faculty and
staff experience at two-year vs. four-year institutions; and other policies and practices that
affect successful delivery of education (e.g., financial aid policies, programs for at—risk
students. etc.).

California community colleges play a central role in the United States system of postsecondary
education. yet the amount of research on community colleges is not commensurate with that role.
Given the growing number of students participating in a community college
education—particularly students of color, low-income students and first generation students—it
seems clear that this population and these institutions warrant greater attention.

REFERENCES

The Abell Foundation. (2002). Baltimore City Community College at the crossroads. A report to
thefoundation.

American Association of Community Colleges. (2002). AACC Website. http://aacc.nche.edu

Bach. S.K.. et al. (2000). Student Attendance Patterns and Performance in an Urban Post-
Secondary Environment. Research in Higher Education 41(3): 315—330.

Bailey. T. (2002). Community colleges in the 21St century: Challenges and opportunities. In The
knowledge economy and postsecondary education: Report of a workshop. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.

Bailey, T. and I. Averianova. (1999). Multiple missions of community colleges: Conflicting or
complementary? Community College Research Center (CCRC) Brief. New York, NY:
CCRC.

Bartindale. B. (2001). Dual-track UC entry guarantee is proposed. San Jose Mercury News, July
17.

California Community Colleges. Chancellor‘s Office documents.
California master plan for higher education.

California Postsecondary Education Commission performance indicators of California higher

education, 2000.
California Postsecondary Education Commission data on transfer.
California Postsecondary Education Commission transfer study.
Project Assist.

Impac (intersegmental major preparation articulated curriculum).

California Postsecondary Education Commission reports.

California community colleges good practice for the implementation of prerequisites.
Partnershipfor excellence.

University of California transfers.

Transfer capacity and readiness in California community colleges.

California community colleges matriculation standards/regulations, and ed code.
Chancellor ’s ofiice list of approved assessment instruments.

California community colleges chancellor’s oflice assessment standards.

AB 1918, access to transfer information for Community College Students Act, 2000.

California State Department of Education. (2002). Personal communication from William Padia.

Choy, SP. (2002). Access and persistence: F indingsfi’om 10 years of longitudinal research on
students. American Council on Education, Center for Policy Analysis: Washington, DC.

Community College Survey of Student Engagement, (2002). Engaging community colleges : A
first look. Austin, TX : Community College Survey of Student Engagement.

Cooley. R.J. (2000). The American community college turns 100: A look at its students,
programs. and prospects. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Cosumnes River College documents: matriculation plan, 1999—2000; consent forms; interview schedule;
student consents; student newspaper; student guide; 2001-2002 college catalog; summer/fall
2001 class schedule; orientation schedule; general information; org chart; curriculum; assessment
schedule; orientation packet; counseling/transfer handouts; newspaper.

Day. PR, Jr. and RH. McCabe (1997). Remedial education .' A social and economic imperative.
Executive Issue Paper published by American Association of Community Colleges.
Washington, DC : American Association of Community Colleges.

The Education Trust. (1999). Ticket to Nowhere. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.

Gehring. J. (2001). High school, with a college twist. Education Week, March 14.

Grubb, W.N. (2002). Using community colleges to reconnect disconnected youth. Menlo Park,
CA: The Hewlett Foundation.

—-. (2001). From black box to pandora '5 box: Evaluating remedial/developmental education.
New York, NY : CCRC.

—. (1999). Honored but invisible. New York and London: Routledge.

Hayward, J. et a1. (2003). Ensuring access with quality to California ‘s community colleges.
(N CPPHE). San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

Hebel, S. (2000). States without affirmative action focus on community-college transfers. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, May 26.

60

Ignash, J.M. (1997). Implementing effective policies for remedial and developmental education.
In New directionsfor community colleges. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jenkins. C. (2002). Many high school grads unprepared for college. The Washington Post,
December 25.

Kirst. M. W. (2000). The senior slump. In National cross talk. San Jose, CA: National Center for
Public Policy and Higher Education.

—. (1998). Improving and aligning K—1 6 standards, admissions, and
fi'eshman placement policies. Technical Report 2-06. Stanford, CA: National Center for
Postsecondary Improvement.

—. (1997). Strengthening the bridge between higher and secondary
education: Admissions and placement policies. Proposal for the Pew Charitable Trusts.
Stanford: Stanford University.

Kirst. M. W. and K. Bracco. ( 2002). Bridging the great divide. Stanford, CA: Bridge Project.

Kirst. M. W. and A. Venezia. eds. (Forthcoming) From High School to College. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey—Bass.

Koski. W.S. and HM. Levin (1997). Accelerating the education of remedial students in
postsecondary education. Stanford. CA: National Center for Postsecondary
Improvement.

Los Rios Community College District documents; executive summary of the 2000 external
environment scan and the internal environment scan report card; key issues for planning:
an executive summary of the 2000 external environment scan and the internal
environment scan report card; California Community Colleges Board of Governor’s grant
(fee waiver); advanced education (high school concurrent enrollment); application for
admission and supplemental data form; access to student records; financial aid;
University of California Office of the President dual admissions program; fall 2000
student profile; research briefs; student demographics; Sacramento City College —
institutional effectiveness report 1998—99; high school graduates data; student right to
know data; Sacramento City College transfers; Cosumnes River College transfers.

Melguizo, T. (2003). What types of colleges did a better job graduating minorities in the 19805
and 19905? Unpublished paper. Burlingame, CA.

The National Center for Higher Education and Public Policy. (2002). Measuring Up 2002: The
state-by—state report card for higher education. Retrieved from

http://measuringup.highereducation.org/2002/stateprofi1enet.cfm.

Nora, A. (2002). Reexamining the Community College Mission. Retrieved from
http://vm*vxv’.aacc.nche.edu.

61

Phillippe, K.A. and M.J. Valiga. (2000). Faces of the future .' A portrait of America '5 community
college students. Washington, DC : American Association of Community Colleges.

Rosenbaum, J. (2001). Beyond collegefor all. New York: Russell Sage.

—. (1999). Unrealistic plans and misdirected efforts: Are community colleges getting the right
message to students? New York: Community College Research Center.

Sacramento City College Documents: matriculation plan; interview schedule; consent forms;
general information; summer 2001 schedule of classes; 2000-2001 catalog; 2001-2002
catalog; fall 2001 schedule of classes; 2001-2002 student guide; honors; natriculation;
student information; “Matric Matters”; senior assessment for college; assessment;
orientation packet; curriculum committee; transfer handouts; counseling handouts;
financial aid information; newspaper.

Schevitz, T. (2001). Plan to expand UC admissions postponed — program financing falls through.
Retrieved September 20. 2001 from SFGate.com. http://sfgate.com/cgi—
bin/ articlec gi?file=/ chronicle/ archive/ 2 001 / 09/20/ MN 8063 3 .DTL

Schneider. B. (2003). Strategies for Success: High School and Beyond. In Brookings Papers on
Education Policy. D. Ravitch (ed). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Shults. C. (2002). Remedial education : Practices and policies in community colleges.
Washington, DC : American Association of Community Colleges.

Shaw. KM. (1997). Remedial education as ideological battleground: Emerging remedial
education policies in the community college. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
l9(3):284—296.

Venezia. A. et a1. (2003). Betraying the college dream: How disconnected K—12 and
postsecondary education systems undermine student aspirations. Stanford. C A: Stanford
Institute for Higher Education Research.

Walhaus. R. (1998). Statewide K—1 6 systems: Helping underprepared students succeed in
postsecondary education program. Denver. CO: State Higher Education Executive
Officers.

Walleri. R.D. et al. (1998). Building a community of learning: A comprehensive approach to
assisting at-risk students. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College
6(1)(fall): 15-26).

Wellman. J.V. (2002) State policy and community college-baccalaureate transfer. San Jose, CA:
The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education ; Washington. DC: The
Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Winter, G. (2002). Junior colleges try niche as path to top universities. The New York Times.
December 15.

62

Young, J .R. (2002). Third of students transfer before gaining degrees, Education Department
study finds. The Chronicle for Higher Education, December 19.

About the Author

Andrea Conklin Bueschel is a doctoral candidate in the School of Education at Stanford
University and a researcher at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. She
has also served as an admission officer, college administrator, and managing director of an
educational consulting firm. Her research spans educational experiences from high school to
doctoral programs. with a particular focus on students who aspire to be the first in their families
to attend college.

 

section 3

Using a K-12 Assessment FOI“
College Placement

by Michael W. Kirst

(Editor '5 Note: This paper benefitted greatlyfiom a speech given by Dr. David S. Spence,
executive vice chancellor of California State University, at a conference sponsored by the
National C enterfor Higher Education and Public Policy, Los Gatos, California, June 2003.)

Across the nation, high percentages of high school graduates are entering college, but
increasingly they need remediation to succeed there. As a result, colleges are expending a great
deal of resources on remediation instead of college-level education. At the same time, large
numbers of students never get past the first year of college because of inadequate high school
preparation, particularly in mathematics and language arts.

In the California State University (CSU) system, with 408,000 students on 23 campuses,
remediation rates have risen over the past decades. along with concerns among the public and
state policymakers about the high number of poorly—prepared students entering CSU from
California public high schools. High remediation rates raise questions concerning the quality of
public schools. and about the K—12 content standards and accompanying state tests developed by
the California State Board of Education.

Furthermore, the high level of CSU remediation is expensive. About 25,000 out of 40,000 first—
time CSU students need some form of remediation. The university must absorb the cost of
providing classes not offered for college credit. Parents and students bear additional expenses
because remedial courses do not count toward graduation; consequently, students take longer to
finish degrees.

 

“CS U is the first statewide system to adopt a [(—12 state
assessment as its own placement testforfirst-year students. ’

!

 

In the mid-19905. this problem prompted the CSU Board of Trustees to establish the Trustees”
Subcommittee on Remedial Education to explore solutions. As a result, the state has modified
the exam administered to all eleventh graders to better align it with the academic preparation
required of students to enter CSU and to succeed in college. CSU is the first statewide system to
adopt a K—l2 state assessment as its own placement test for first—year students. This is an
important breakthrough in K—1 6 assessment policy, and it promises to provide clearer signals to
high school students who have been uninformed about the discrepancy in standards between
their high school grades, tests. and CSU placement.

65

This policy can also help reorient the high school senior year so it becomes an intensive
academic experience that supports students’ placement in college-level classes rather than in
remedial ones. In short, this is a rare collaboration between secondary and postsecondary
education in California to solve a mutual problem that neither sector can solve on its own.

Evolution of- the Problem

By state policy, CSU accepts the top third of California high school graduates, most of whom
have a 3.0 average in the same number of academic courses that are required for entering the
system.1 Except for students with high SAT scores, however, all incoming CSU students must
take placement tests in English and entry-level mathematics before they can enroll in any classes
their first semester or quarter. Students who don’t meet the cut-off scores on either test must take
and pass remedial courses before enrolling in the typical course sequence that leads toward the
general education degree. If test scores are particularly low, a student mayfirst need to pass a
lower-level remedial course, then advance to a higher-level one.

The CSU central office determines the cut-off scores, but each institution determines the specific
process of remediation and development, including the specific courses and number of levels that
must be completed. At Sacramento State, for example, placement tests serve as gatekeepers to
Math 1 and English 1A, which begin the typical course sequence in those subjects. Students take
the math test only once: it is not re-administered after completing remedial coursework as a
check for mathematics understanding.

Currently, more than half of entering freshmen taking the CSU placement test require
remediation in English or math before beginning college-level coursework (47% fail English,
37% math). It was numbers like these that led the CSU Board of Trustees to establish the
Trustees” Subcommittee on Remedial Education. In January 1995, a study committee presented
the trustees with background information on remediation in the CSU, along with several
preliminary recommendations.

Initially the trustees proposed that by fall 2001 all regularly admitted freshmen should attain
proficiency in English and math. However, after a series of public hearings, the CSU trustees
established benchmarks for a 12-year period for reducing remediation. The first of these targets
was that, by 2001 , the need for remediation for regularly admitted freshmen would decline by
10% from 1996 levels, and by 2004 it would decline by 50% from 1996 levels. By the trustees’
final target date of 2007, only 10% of the regularly admitted freshmen would need remediation.

Two other proposals surfaced in 1995 to mitigate remediation. The first was to delay admission
to students needing remediation until they could demonstrate they were prepared for college-
level work. The other was that CSU bill high schools for the cost of remedial coursework to
bring students’ performance levels up to college—level expectations. Neither proposal was
supported by the public, but CSU did accept their underlying premise: that CSU could best reach
its remediation targets for 2007 with a solution that spanned the state‘s K—12 and postsecondary
education systems.

66

As CSU acknowledges. meeting the 10% remediation goal by 2007 will require three key steps:
I High school teachers and students must understand CSU placement standards.

I K—12 schools and students must know as early as possible about their progress in meeting
CSU standards.

I K—2 students who are not ready for college—level math and English classes must be helped
before they reach CSU.

Actions to Solve the Problem

In the late 19905, CSU began to discuss the remediation problem with a K—1 6 voluntary body
called the lntersegmental Coordinating Committee (ICC) of the California Education
Roundtable. The Roundtable brings together representatives from all levels of education in the
state. It consists of the heads of the three California public higher education systems (the
University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges), plus
a representative from the private colleges and the state’s K—12 chief state school officer, who is
elected. The ICC is comprised of high-level administrators under each of the Roundtable leaders.

After consulting with ICC , CSU decided to try several new strategies to lessen remediation.
Reflecting the key steps needed to reach the 2007 goal, these initially focused on: increasing
communication with K—12 schools on placement standards and assessments; encouraging high
school juniors to take the CSU placement test; and providing high school preparation for students
with low scores.

This approach proved insufficient, however. The state already required so many K~12
assessments that schools and students resisted taking CSU’s placement test. California has a
High School Exit Exam, based mostly on seventh- to ninth-grade standards, as well as the
California Standards Tests, which reflect the state’s eleventh-grade standards. Moreover, the cost
and staff needed for CSU to assist the huge California K—12 education system was daunting.
Furthermore, several studies demonstrated significant discrepancies between required K—12 state
tests and CSU’s placement exams (Le 2002; Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio 2003).

Rather than administer another exam to high school students, in the late 1990s CSU decided to
negotiate directly with K—12 policymakers to merge CSU placement standards into the existing
California Standards Tests, which are given to all students in eleventh grade. A new policy and
test design group was formed, representing CSU and the California State Education Department
(an advisory group to the California State Board of Education and the CSU Trustees). This group
examined test items from several K—12 tests for their relationship to CSU standards, as well as
for similarities between K—1 2 and CSU standards.

The State Board of Education negotiated with CSU to enhance the existing K-12 standards-
based tests to meet CSU placement standards. For example, as CSU requested, a writing sample
was added to the existing K—12 multiple-choice language arts test, as was an increased focus on
Algebra 2 in the math test.

To develop this more comprehensive program of assessing eleventh graders’ readiness for
college, CSU gained support from the legislature, the California State Board of Education, the

67

CSU Department of Education, the University of California, California Community Colleges,
CSU faculty, and organizations of K—12 teachers and administrators. The development of an
augmented eleventh—grade state assessment proceeded with these multiple stakeholders in mind.

In 2003 CSU set the achievement scores that high school juniors would need to reach to be
exempt from its placement exams, and the state then sent test results to incoming seniors by

August 1. Low-scoring students can now use the senior year for intensive preparation to meet
CSU placement standards.

common K—1 6 Standards

The merged CSU and K—l2 assessments strategy has many advantages, making this new K—16
collaboration deserving of close scrutiny by other states with high remediation rates. First, it
gives a timely, targeted signal to students and schools of the need for added K—l2 preparation.
Moreover, by coordinating K—1 6 standards, it reduces the total testing time for students in high
school and at CSU. It also raises the stakes for statewide high school tests. Previously students
saw no purpose for the eleventh-grade test because the SAT was used for admission and CSU
had a separate placement test. This new strategy increases the academic focus during the senior
year of high school for students who are not meeting CSU’s placement standards.

 

“The merged CS U and [(—12 assessments strategy
gives a timely. targeted signal to students and schools of the
needfor added K—1 2 preparation. "

 

Just as important. the strategy reforms and consolidates multiple K—1 6 school assessments. While
providing better data for K—1 6 accountability concerning K—12 student preparation for CSU.
Instead of the previous lack of alignment between the standards for exiting high school and those
for entering CSU. there are now common standards and performance levels across secondary and
postsecondary education.

The CSU placement initiative is likely to be more successful than prior policies for a number of
reasons. First. both secondary and postsecondary education will be working together. Previously,
secondary educators had been unaware of CSU‘s placement standards. and high school students
had not received clear signals about what they needed to know in order to avoid taking
remediation courses in college. Moreover, CSU has discovered that a top-down strategy from the
university is insufficient. and that collaboration with the K—12 system holds greater promise.
And finally. given the present state of tight and even shrinking state budgets. combined
assessments are likely to save the state money and testing time.

68

References

Le. Vi-N. (2002). Alignment among secondary and postsecondary assessments infive case study
states. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Venezia, A. Kirst, M.W., and Antonio, AL. (2003). Betraying the college dream: How
disconnected K—12 and postsecondary education systems undermine student aspirations. Final
policy report from Stanford University’s Bridge Project. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for
Higher Education Research.

About the Author

Michael Kirst, professor of education at Stanford University, brings years of personal
experience in government education policymaking at both the federal and state levels to his
classrooms and research. He is codirector of Policy Analysis for California Education, a research
consortium that includes Stanford and UC Berkeley. A former president of the California State
Board of Education. he presently serves on the management committee of the Consortium for
Policy Research in Education. His current research focuses upon the disjuncture between K—12
and postsecondary education policy, as outlined in a recent report, Betraying the College Dream.

 

1 The University of California accepts the top 12% of state high school graduates. but the two systems require the same number
and type of high school courses.

69

 

summary O'F Findings

As these three PACE research papers demonstrate, California secondary school students have
higher educational aspirations than ever before, yet these aspirations are being undermined by
disconnected educational systems and other barriers.

Over the past few decades, parents, educators, policymakers, business leaders, community
members, and researchers have told California students that, in order to succeed in our society,
they need to go to college. Most high school students have heard that message, and they are
planning on attending college. But California has created unnecessary and detrimental barriers
between high school and college, barriers that are undermining these student aspirations.1

 

“T he current educational systems send conflicting messages about
what is expected of students in college. ”

 

I Articulation is poor between the K—12 and higher education systems.

The current fractured educational systems send students, their parents, and K—12 educators
conflicting and vague messages about what is expected of students to enter and succeed in
college. This is part of the reason why the percentage of California’s students (35%)
proceeding from high school to college is below the national average (39%) (North Dakota is
the highest state at 59%)2.

PACE researchers found that California high school assessments often stress different
knowledge and skills than do college entrance and community college placement
requirements.3 Similarly, the coursework between high school and college is not connected.
Students graduate from high school under one set of standards, and three months later are
required to meet a whole new set of standards in college. In addition, current data systems are
not equipped to address students“ needs across K42 and postsecondary systems. This means
that no one is held accountable for issues related to student transitions from high school to
college, including the need for remediation and postsecondary dropout rates.

I Inequalities among high schools impact students’ college preparation.

Since a majority of students plan to attend college, it makes sense to help all students learn
about their postsecondary options and prepare for college. There are, however, some deep
inequalities among high schools and between different high school populations in areas such
as college counseling, college-preparatory courses, and connections with local postsecondary

 

1 See Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education, Governance Working Group Report (Sacramento,
CA, 2001).

2 National Center for Higher Education and Public Policy, Measuring Up: 2002 (San Jose: NCHEPP, 2002).

3 These conclusions are derived from three PACE papers and other data collected for the Bridge project at Stanford
University. See Michael Kirst and Andrea Venezia, From High School to College (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass,
2004).

71

72

institutions. High schools also vary greatly in the opportunities they provide students to learn

about college, such as arranging for students to visit nearby institutions and for college
recruiters to visit their high school.

High school students who are in accelerated curricular tracks and aspire to UC receive clearer
signals about college preparation than do their peers who plan to attend community colleges.
Many students in middle- and lower-level high school courses are overlooked by
postsecondary education outreach efforts, or by college counseling staff in their high schools.
This situation is exacerbated by the number of counseling positions in the state 5 schools
(California ranks 50h in the number of counselors per students 1n grades K-12 (one for every
1,011). economically disadvantaged parents often lack experience and information
concerning college preparation. In short, these inequalities are most pronounced for students
entering the less selective postsecondary institutions.

Student knowledge of curricular requirements and college costs is sporadic and vague.

Only 2 5% ofh 9th graders 1n California knew all the A—G course requirements. About one-
third of the 9h graders knew the A— G math requirements for UC and CSU. The community
colleges do not transmit explicit signals about any course requirements. In our sample, on
average the estimated tuition costs per student were $30.000 for UC Davis, $27,000 for
Sacramento State. and $10,000 for a community college. However, the actual tuition costs
per student were only $4.000 at UC, $2.000 at CSU, and $300 at community colleges.

Because counselors are so scarce, California teachers play a major role in helping
students prepare for college, yet they do not have the resources they need to give
students accurate information.

Teachers often took a greater role in helping students prepare for college than did counselors.
but teachers lack connections with postsecondary institutions and up-to-date admission and
placement information. Also, the teachers who were most active in helping students prepare for
college were usually teachers of honors and college preparatory courses. Prospective community
college students received the least counseling due to community colleges‘ open enrollment
policy that requires admitting all high school graduates regardless of academic preparation.

The distribution of college preparation information to parents is inequitable.

Parents with no college education know less about academic preparation and college
standards than college-educated parents. Consequently. students are less aware of
postsecondary options. tuition costs. and required preparatory courses.

Students are generally unaware of the content of UC, CSU, and community college
postsecondary course placement exams.

Knowledge about specific placement tests and academic standards was general in nature and
incomplete. But failure of placement tests almost always results in students starting in
remedial and non-credit courses, delays in program completion. and higher costs for both the
student and the college.

POIiCV Recommendations

The following policy recommendations are not intended to be comprehensive, but rather are
derived from the three PACE working papers contained in this report.

Strategies for Immediate Implementation

Given the above problems, what should we strive to change? Our research found that the
following four strategies are most promising for immediate reform:

Provide all students, their parents, and educators with accurate, high-quality,
information about, and access to, courses that will help prepare students for college-
level standards.

Students need clear and repeated signals about how to succeed in postsecondary education.
For example, mathematics courses that exceed Algebra 2 and are taken in the senior year, are
strong predictors of bachelor degree completion.

Focus on the institutions that serve the majority of students.

Shift media, policy, and research attention to CSU and community colleges, since these are
the schools attended by the vast majority of recent high school graduates (approximately
85%). While completion rates are very high for UC students, they are very low, in
comparison. for community college students, who are the least well-prepared of all students
entering college. Since two-thirds of CSU graduates come through the community colleges, it
makes sense to spend a majority of outreach and secondary school counseling resources on
these two groups. Increasing the rates of student success at these colleges is a sound public
investment both in terms of California’s civic and economic well-being.

 

“Expand the focus programs from access 10 college to
success in college. ”

 

Create an awareness that getting into college is not the hardest part for most
students—learning to handle college-level work while still in high school is.

Expand the focus of local and state programs from access to college to include access to
success in college. This includes access to the resources and information necessary to prepare
well for college and to make informed decisions. High school course content, academic
counseling. college outreach. and other programming needs to reflect this so that students are
clear about what it takes to succeed in college, including community college.

73

I Bring together representatives from K—12 and higher education to implement change.

Reforms across the two education systems will be difficult if not impossible to implement
without meaningful communication and policy-making institutions that span K—16. For a
start, California college stakeholders must be brought to the table when K—1 2 standards and
assessments are developed or revised. Higher education institutions were not represented
when California completed its K—12 academic content standards in 1997. Likewise.
California K—12 educators must be engaged as postsecondary education admission and
placement policies are under review. For example, outreach funds need to be included as part
of a larger K—1 6 policy focus. and not merely connected to budgets of higher education
institutions. Since outreach for college preparation is not Viewed as a K—12 budget concern
and therefore is not part of its funding stream, it can be cut more easily.

Future Implementation Strategies

The following are several other important, long-range steps that California’s K—12 and
postsecondary systems can take to improve the transition from high school to college.

' Ensure that community colleges publicize their academic standards so that students,
their parents, and educators have accurate college preparation information.

Low-income families and prospective community college students are most in need of this
information. Specifically, we suggest that local community colleges establish a test score
range on the California Standards Test (given to all students in grades 10—11) that is likely to
place students in or out of remediation. This credit-level standard for community college
English and math courses needs to be disseminated to prospective students and their families
at the same time they receive test results from the California standards test. Since local
community colleges use several different placement tests. this CST range would send a clearer
signal to prospective community college students concerning their college readiness. California
community colleges should study the 11th grade CST to see if it should be added to the
approved list of community college placement tests. At the same time. UC should continue
its exploratory research for possible use of the CST as part of comprehensive admissions.

 

“Sequence undergraduate requirements so that appropriate
senior-year courses are linked to postsecondary general
education courses.

 

I Sequence undergraduate general education requirements so that appropriate senior-
year courses are linked to postsecondary general education courses.

74

The “senior slump" is a widespread issue in California high schools.1 Some California
students regress academically during their senior year—particularly if they take few college
preparatory courses. The senior year needs to be an intense academic experience for all

students planning to attend postsecondary education, and can be, providing students know
they are underprepared for college success.

I Expand successful dual (concurrent) enrollment programs between high schools and
colleges so that they include all students, and not just those who plan to attend highly
selective colleges.

Historically most high school students participating in dual enrollment programs have been
enrolled in honors and advanced placement courses. However, students who plan on
attending CSU or community college can also benefit from such programs. Dual enrollment
at the community college level is being revamped to de—emphasize physical education
courses, but much more needs to be done. California still lacks a clear policy on the college
readiness purposes or effective design of dual enrollment. Dual enrollment can provide
realistic information to students about the skills they will need to succeed in college, and
improve motivations through interesting courses. It can also promote institutional
relationships between colleges and high schools.

I Collect and connect data from all education sectors.

California K—l 6 institutions should create common identifier numbers for students as they
proceed from high school through college. These student numbers would be used by all parts
of the K—1 6 system. This would make it possible to analyze the relationship between
secondary school student course-taking patterns, the need for college remedial work, and
longitudinal trends on what happens to students after they complete college remedial
coursework. Current law prohibits school districts from reporting California Standards Test
(CST) scores on high school transcripts. This law should be repealed so that postsecondary
education can receive CST scores. This would encourage students to take the CST seriously,
reduce redundant placement testing, and help reduce remediation.

I Implement a California Education Commission to oversee K—16 articulation.

All of these recommendations will be easier to accomplish and implemented more effectively
if there is an overall organizational base for K-16 policymaking and oversight. California’s
proposed Master Plan for K—1 6 recommended just such a structure. Called the California
Education Commission (CEC), as conceived the organization should provide a good start on
K—l6 policymaking.2 The CEC would:

0 Provide long-range analysis and planning for meeting the educational needs of
preschool through postsecondary education.

 

1 See Michael W. Kirst, Overcoming the Senior Slump (San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education, 2001).

2 Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education, The California Master Plan for Education (Sacramento,
CA, 2001).

75

Provide policy and fiscal advice, based on data analysis, that represents the public
interest in California’ education system.

Serve as California’s statewide education data repository.

Evaluate the extent to which all public education institutions are operating
consistent with state policy priorities.

Advise the Legislature and the Governor on the potential and actual impacts of
major education policy proposals or initiatives.

Coordinate statewide articulation of curriculum and assessment between the pre—
K—12 and postsecondary education sectors.

Sponsor and direct intersegmental programs that benefit students making the
transition from secondary school to college and university.

Coordinate outreach activities among the secondary, postsecondary, and school-
to—work sectors.

PACE concurs with the Master Plan’s governance working group recommendation that the
Governor assume a major role in K—1 6 coordination and devise a plan to greatly enhance K—1 6
data.3 Only the Governor can bring together the four different systems that comprise K—1 6 (UC,
CSU, CC, and K—12) in California. But concerted efforts by policymakers, educators, parents,
and students is also needed to improve student access to success in postsecondary education.
While implementing these recommendations will not magically eliminate the dozens of other
reasons why California students are not prepared adequately for college, it will go a long way
toward improving transitions from high school to postsecondary education.

 

3 Ibid, pages 17—20.

76

. BERKELEY LIBRAR

H‘fln‘m II H Mini»

Cll‘le77Ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

412‘

Policy Analysis for California Education PACE
‘ University of California, Berkeley and Davis
Stanford University

3653 Tolman Hall

Berkeley, CA 94720-1670

Telephone: (510) 642-7223
http: //pace.berkeley.edu