Pressing Forward : Increasing and Expanding Rigor and Relevance in America's High Schools [1 ed.] 9781617355981, 9781617355967

Citation preview

Pressing Forward Increasing and Expanding Rigor and Relevance in America’s High Schools

A volume in Research on High School and Beyond Becky Smerdon and Kathryn M. Borman, Series Editors

   

This page intentionally left blank.

Pressing Forward Increasing and Expanding Rigor and Relevance in America’s High Schools

edited by

Becky Smerdon Quill Research Associates, LLC

Kathryn M. Borman University of South Florida

INFORMATION AGE PUBLISHING, INC. Charlotte, NC • www.infoagepub.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Pressing forward : increasing and expanding rigor and relevance in America’s high schools / edited by Becky Smerdon, Kathryn M. Borman. p. cm. -- (Research on high school and beyond) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-61735-596-7 (pbk.) -- ISBN 978-1-61735-597-4 (hardcover) -ISBN 978-1-61735-598-1 (ebook) 1. Education, Secondary--United States. 2. School improvement programs--United States. I. Smerdon, Becky. II. Borman, Kathryn M. LA222.P74 2011 373--dc23                           2011031948

Copyright © 2012 Information Age Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America

Contents Preface................................................................................................... vii 1 Pathways in America’s High Schools..................................................... 1 Becky Smerdon, Aimee Evan, Kathryn Borman, and Arland Nguema 2 State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools...... 29 Jennifer Dounay Zinth 3 Educational Policy in Practice: Implementing the “AP for All” Movement in Two Florida High Schools............................................. 49 Ashley Spalding, Aimee Eden, and Rebekah Heppner 4 Adding “College-Ready” Coursework to a “Career-Ready” Pathway: Implications for Dropping Out of High School................. 83 Ben Dalton and Robert Bozick 5 CTE Schools and Labor Market Outcomes in Young Adulthood: A Case Study in a Large Urban School District............111 Ruth Curran Neild and Vaughan Byrnes 6 Dual Enrollment: A Bridge Between High School and College..... 135 Kellie Kim and Becky Smerdon 7 Student Experiences in Early College Schools................................. 151 Susan Cole, Helen Duffy, Kaeli Keating, and Andrea Berger 8 Virtual High Schools: Forging Another Pathway with Web-Based Schooling................................................................ 169 Kellie Kim



v

vi   Contents

9 From Sticks to Carrots to Getting it Done: How Converging Visions and Common Action are Generating New Standards of Practice for American High Schools............................................ 189 Kristine Kilanski, Becky Smerdon, Nettie Legters, and Aimee Evan 10 Preparing Students for Life after High School................................ 219 Becky Smerdon, Kathryn Borman, and Aimee Evan

Preface Just 15 years ago, we began every proposal, manuscript, and presentation vehemently arguing that high schools matter. Even though the field of high school research was rich and incredibly strong, we often faced tough crowds who argued that adolescence is too late to intervene and the return on investment too small. That was, of course, before the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation sparked a media and policy campaign that turned the spotlight on high schools. Gone are the days when one had to make the case for high schools; high schools have moved to center stage, as have the calls for rigorous and relevant high school experiences. When we planned this book, we sought to learn from the influx of interest in high schools and subsequent reform efforts. We believed, and still do, that the high schools we have are, for the most part, not the high schools we need. But with significant policy shifts and large-scale reform initiatives, we were interested in taking stock of the potential changes. Certainly there has been a lot of movement at the high school level over the past decade, but do we have reason to be optimistic about secondary education? We solicited manuscripts from researchers who have been studying a broad range of high school issues, and we were purposeful in our solicitations; our goal is to examine high schools from different vantage points to determine if we are able to trace attempts to improve and expand rigor and relevance across a broad swath of high school programs, models, and policies. For this reason, we have included chapters that examine rigor and relevance through the broad contours of high school organization, practices, and policies. We also include a series of chapters that examines traditional high school programs and attempts to expand access to rigorous courses Pressing Forward, pages vii–x Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

vii

viii   Preface

(such as Advanced Placement) or increase the rigor of career-oriented programs (such as career and technical education). The book then shifts to chapters that examine somewhat more innovative approaches to expanding access to rigorous and relevant programs and courses, such as developing new high school models. In Chapter 1, we argue that the current modus operandi of high school reform is likely to produce a lot of activity without significant, sustainable improvement. Expanding choices (a theme that dates back to the creation of the comprehensive high school) without sufficient focus on content and clear plans to evaluate the quality of those choices is likely to result in more of the same—fragmentation, well-positioned students thriving, historically underserved students remaining underserved. In Chapter 2, Jennifer Dounay turns our attention to content, describing state policy trends that have increased content specificity and rigor. Dounay argues that policy shifts— from changes in graduation requirements to the adoption of Common Core State Standards—reflect a growing belief that expectations and opportunity should not depend on where students live (or their demographic characteristics, for that matter) and signal attempts to remove the chance involved in receiving a good high school education. Chapter 3 provides a cautionary tale of expanded choices that are not coherently integrated into the high school program. Specifically, Spalding and her colleagues argue that the expansion of the Advanced Placement program (AP for All) is falling short. They concede that AP for All has certainly enrolled more students in AP courses—many of whom are from underrepresented groups. But they also argue that significant numbers of these students are not gaining proficiency in the content, in large part because they are not academically prepared for such rigorous coursework (and not earning scores high enough to earn college credits). The AP developer, College Board, is clearly benefitting from AP for All, but clearly many students are not. Chapters 4 and 5 examine changes in vocational education, rebranded as career and technical education (CTE) in recent years. Ben Dalton and Robert Bozick (Chapter 4) examine the potential of CTE to keep high school students in school. Federal, state, and local policymakers have embraced the belief that making high school rigorous and relevant by combining career-oriented curriculum with academic, college-preparatory courses will keep students in high school and prepare them for college and career. Dalton and Bozick argue that CTE courses are all well and good, but academic courses are critical for high school graduation. They, like others, are dubious of CTE/academic content integration and make the case for keeping students focused on taking the appropriate balance of academic and CTE courses. In Chapter 5, Ruth Curran Neild and Vaughan Byrnes remind readers that in distressed urban districts, CTE high schools may not

Preface    ix

provide a clear path to college, but may indeed provide a respite from dangerous and chaotic schools and provide a place where high school graduation is somewhat more likely. A sobering chapter indeed, as we consider the goal of graduating all students college- and career-ready. Chapters 6 and 7 examine accelerated pathways that allow high school students to earn college credits while in high school. Kellie Kim and I (Smerdon) argue that despite growing popularity and the presumed benefits of dual enrollment programs, we are not even aware how many students in the United States are dually enrolled, let alone how many program participants are actually earning college credits. What we do know is that states’ dual enrollment policies vary widely, with only a few states with policies that support equal access (e.g., free tuition for students and families) and ensure that students experience the full benefits of the program (e.g., earn college credits, take courses on college campuses). We further argue that dual enrollment programs may be part of the solution to improving secondary education and preparing students for life post–high school. But until we answer fundamental questions of access, impact, and cost-effectiveness, we run the risk of making poor investments or, worse yet, increasing existing attainment gaps. Chapter 7 is a departure from previous chapters, describing student experiences in a unique high school model—Early College Schools (ECSs). ECSs serve students who are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education and offer them the opportunity to simultaneously pursue a high school diploma and earn college credit. Susan Cole and her colleagues argue that the ECS model is a promising alternative approach for designing high schools in the 21st century, particularly for ensuring that students who are traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary education are college ready. ECS students’ experiences suggest that the unique features of the ECS learning environment—particularly the academic plans that provide students with authentic college experiences, the academic and social supports that help students navigate through ECSs, and the supports that help students make a smooth transition to college—have successfully prepared and launched ECS students into postsecondary education. Chapter 8 continues the departure from traditional high schools, describing the latest trend in distance learning: virtual high schools. Kellie Kim argues that the growth of online learning has been fueled by optimism and shrinking budgets. Like dual enrollment, there are no recent national estimates of online learning or students who enroll in them, let alone any rigorous studies that examined the outcomes of virtual schooling on various student outcomes. Thus, the hopes and expectations of those who believe that virtual schools will transform K–12 education have not yet been tested. We simply do not know, for example, if virtual schooling will close gaps in opportunity and achievement or further widen the gap by unin-

x   Preface

tentionally restricting access to certain groups of students who may benefit most from the flexibility of time, place, and pace (e.g., students without disabilities, rural students). Kilanski and her colleagues bring readers back to the 30,000 feet view, describing the increasingly shared vision of a “good high school,” which is converging among secondary school reform practitioners. Indeed, Chapter 9 is flush with research describing characteristics of effective high schools and descriptions of schools where these characteristics are in place. Unfortunately, the authors argue, the research community still has a long road to travel to provide solid guidance for states, districts, and schools that are struggling to improve outcomes for high school students, and for organizations funding or supporting high school improvement that want to know whether and why their investments and efforts are successful. In other words, we know a lot about what good high schools look like; we know very little about how to create them. Which brings readers back to the fundamental issue raised in Chapter 1: Is there reason to believe that all of this reform activity will lead to improvement? In the final chapter, we discuss conclusions we’ve drawn reading the chapters in this book as well as other education reform literature. But first, we describe the skills high school students need in order to thrive when they leave high school. We argue, as have many others, that it is not enough to have strong skills in content areas such as English, mathematics, history, science, and technology—students need to learn how to learn. State and federal assessment results are clear that high schools have not done well with content areas, leaving us to question how well they will do with these more complex, nuanced skills. In closing, a number of valued colleagues supported us in writing this book, and we’d like to especially thank Meagan Bullock and Nancy Greenman. —Becky Smerdon Kathryn Borman

Chapter 1

Pathways in America’s High Schools Becky Smerdon, Aimee Evan, Kathryn Borman, and Arland Nguema

High schools are organized to accomplish two seemingly discrete goals: prepare students for college or prepare students for work (Bidwell, 1965; Dewey, 1900; Oakes, 1990; Sorokin, 1927; Waller, 1932). Traditionally organized into tracks—academic (college preparatory), vocational (manual work preparatory) and general (nonmanual work preparatory)—students typically are sorted or self-selected into considerably different educational experiences, in turn leading to very different academic and economic outcomes (Gamoran, 1988; Oakes, 1990). Students in the academic track typically enroll in high-level mathematics and science courses such as Algebra I and II, Calculus, Chemistry, and Physics, as well as Advanced Placement courses—all required by most colleges and universities. By contrast, students in the general and vocational tracks typically enroll in basic mathematics coursework covering topics such as computation, applied mathematics, and pre-algebra, and take fewer and less-rigorous science courses. These tracks also tend to affect the future economic well-being of students as well, with students in the academic track typically earning 74% more than students in the vocational track (NCES, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Pressing Forward, pages 1–27 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

1

2    B. SMERDON et al.

High school tracks and the courses associated with them were designed to accommodate a growing diversity of skills, interests, and needs as education in the United States transitioned from a luxury of the wealthy to a right of all children and youth. With this transition, the high school population and the number of high schools grew dramatically (500% and 70%, respectively, over the past 50 years), as did the number and types of courses offered at the secondary level. In the mid-1980s, Powell and his colleagues compared the vast array of course offerings in high schools with “shopping malls,” offering something for every student-consumers’ interests (Powell, Farrar, & Cohen, 1985). Among the offerings were rigorous courses that challenged students and fostered higher-level thinking and problem-solving skills, alongside courses that did little more than allow students to add credits to their transcripts. Differentiated curriculum has resulted in considerable social stratification in educational opportunities and outcomes, and continues to remain a concern (Allensworth, Nomi, Montgomery, & Lee, 2009; Lee & Ready, 2007). More than 3 decades of research has shown that attempts to respond to student diversity—whether with respect to their skills and interests or assumptions about them—through tracking and course offerings have been both unsuccessful and unjust. In the world of student coursetaking, research demonstrates that more is not necessarily better (ACT, 2007; Teitelbaum, 2003). Students who take advanced courses perform better on standardized tests than do those without advanced coursework (Attewell & Domina, 2008; Gamoran & Hannigan, 2000); and students who complete a rigorous high school curriculum have better college outcomes than their counterparts who complete less-demanding coursework (ACT, 2004). According to one U.S. Department of Education report (Adelman, 2006), the academic intensity of the student’s high school curriculum is the most critical predictor of bachelor’s degree attainment and how a student performs in postsecondary coursework (Warburton, Bugarin, & Nuñez, 2001). Specifically, most students (95%) who earned bachelor’s degrees had accumulated more units of mathematics than their peers and had taken Calculus, pre-Calculus, or Trigonometry during high school. These students also are more prepared for entering the workforce after high school (ACT, 2007). Postsecondary education is indispensible for a vast majority of livable-wage careers; however, for students who do not attend college, a rigorous course load will get them farther in their career than if they pursue a less rigorous course load (Agodini, Deke, Novak, & Uhl, 2004). Equally important, research (e.g., Oakes, 1990) demonstrates that tracking, and the coursetaking behaviors associated with it, stratifies students based on racial/ethnic background and socioeconomic status; students in the vocational and general tracks—a majority of whom are historically underserved students—experience lower expectations, lower quality and less-

Pathways in America’s High Schools    3

experienced teachers, and limited access to rigorous content and instruction (Allensworth et al., 2009). Once enrolled in the vocational or general tracks, it is virtually impossible to move into the college preparatory track. As early as ninth grade, a significant number of students find themselves on a path of poor academic experiences and inadequate preparation for life beyond high school. Thus, through tracking and attendant coursetaking guidelines (both formal and informal), the traditional comprehensive high school maintains and expands gaps between historically underserved and well-served students. These issues have not gone unnoticed. Indeed, research published during the 1990s and early 2000s supported de-tracking and a constrained, academic curriculum to remove “bad” course choices, improve achievement, and reduce achievement gaps (Lee, 2002; Lee & Bryk, 1988; Lee, Burkam, Chow-Hoy, Smerdon, & Geverdt, 1998; Lee, Croninger, & Smith, 1997; Lee & Ready, 2007). In recent years, enormous efforts have been made to improve the quality of students’ educational experiences regardless of which high school track they are in and what their post–high school plans are. For example, states have been standardizing and raising the bar for high school diplomas, adopting new high school graduation requirements, and increasing the number of credits in core academic subjects all students need to earn. Each reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Standards Movement of the 1980s and 1990s focused more attention on the need to align conceptions of what students should know and be able to do. In response, states revised standards, revamped assessments, and, as required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB), set the goal of ensuring that all students are proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014. However, we have yet to witness the American school system meet its goals, although reform efforts persist. The reform agenda of 2010 expands previous efforts to increase the specificity of inputs and outcomes and to raise accountability. The Obama administration’s blueprint for reauthorization of ESEA calls for all students to be college- and career-ready by 2020, simultaneously raising the bar and extending the timeframe. The administration also requires states to adopt common college- and career-ready standards—the widely adopted Common Core State Standards—in order to be competitive for the more than $4 billion in discretionary federal education funds; Common Standards provides goals to prepare students for college and career and set a benchmark for what each student should know and be able to do at each grade level from kindergarten to high school graduation. However, the current administration is not looking for students to just being ready. The Department of Education’s “Transforming American Education” initiative (2010) has also set a goal of increasing the proportion of college graduates who have a 2- or 4-year college degree from the current rate of 39% to 60% by the year 2020.

4    B. SMERDON et al.

Efforts to increase specificity and accountability have not, however, resulted in a constrained curriculum or fewer coursetaking options in America’s high schools. In fact, states and districts have started to provide an even greater number of course options to students through dual enrollment programs, online courses, and virtual high schools. Indeed, the opportunities are nearly limitless, expanding access to Advanced Placement courses, college courses, and unique or specialized courses that could never be offered in every student’s brick-and-mortar high school. Are these opportunities a good thing? History has taught us to be cautious; providing more curriculum choices does not guarantee that all choices are equally good. We cannot continue to provide anything less than a high-quality education for all students. Anything less for all students is unjust and undemocratic. An equitable education for all Americans is necessary to create informed citizens who can thrive and be competitive in the “flatworld” economy; and completion of rigorous courses in core academic subjects at the secondary and postsecondary levels is part of this education. What Courses Should High School Students Take? Starting in the early 1980s, many states adopted or added requirements patterned after the New Basics coursetaking standards recommended by the National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) for high school graduation (Alexander & Pallas, 1984; Chaney, Burgdorf, & Atash, 1997). First articulated in “A Nation at Risk” (NCEE, 1983), the New Basics recommendations called for all high school students to complete 4 years (or four credits1) of English; 3 years each of mathematics, science, and social studies; and a half-year of computer science. For college-bound students, the New Basics also called for the completion of 2 years of a foreign language. Since then, many states have enacted minimum graduation requirements that focus on the number and types of courses students take in high school and on passing standardized subject-specific proficiency or competency state tests. (State policy is discussed in detail in Chapter 2.) Since 1987, mathematics and science requirements have notably increased; 31 states have adopted policies increasing requirements to three or more credits in science, and 37 states have increased requirements to three or more credits in mathematics (see Figures 1.1–1.4). States also increased credits required in Social Studies, with 34 states requiring three or more credits to graduate. English requirements have remained fairly constant (Stillman & Blank, 2009). Of the 50 states, including the District of Columbia, 45 have policies governing the minimum credits required for a high school diploma. However, there is great variation among these state policies. For example, the total

Pathways in America’s High Schools    5

 

 

Figures 1.1–1.4  Course credit requirements from 1987 to 2008 in Mathematics, Science, English/Language Arts, and Social Studies, by year and number of credits required. Source: Stillman & Blank (2009). Key State Education Policies on PK–12 Education: 2008.

number of credits required for graduation ranges from 1.5 in one state to 24 in another. However, states and districts are responding to the call for preparing graduates for college and career by requiring a college preparatory curriculum for all students. Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana, for example, provide a college preparatory curriculum as the default curriculum for all students (Stillman & Blank, 2009). A growing number of states are increasing the credits required to earn a diploma and are specifying that students complete particular higher level courses to graduate. Achieve, High Schools that Work, ACT, and other national organizations have specified minimum requirements for what they consider a rigorous high school diploma. Requirements are both rigorous and highly similar across these organizations. Most states also define the number of credits required within each subject area. Of the five subject areas included in the New Basics curriculum—English, mathematics, science, social studies and foreign language—English continues to be heavily emphasised in all states: 40 states require four or more

6    B. SMERDON et al.

credits in English. Some states have gone above and beyond New Basics: 11 states require more than three credits in mathematics, 7 states require more than three credits in social studies, and 3 states require more than three credits in science. In addition, 10 of the 16 states requiring students to take a foreign language to graduate require two credits (Stillman & Blank, 2009). In addition, 26 states require specific mathematics courses, most frequently (as required in 24 states), Algebra I. Specific science courses are required in 21 states as well. The most specified is biology, as required in 15 states. Only 11 states specified a mathematics course higher than Algebra I, and no states specify Chemistry or Physics (Stillman & Blank, 2009). Coursetaking Behaviors When states began to increase the number of courses required to receive a high school diploma, the average number of credits earned by high school graduates increased from 21.7 credits in 1982 to 25.8 credits in 2004. The average number of science and mathematics courses completed by public high school graduates was a large part of this credits increase. These increases in credits have not coincided with a decline in other coursework; credits earned in other subjects also have increased, with the exception of vocational coursetaking (see Figure 1.5).

Figure 1.5  Average number of credits earned by high school graduates in various subject areas, 1982 and 2004. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study of 1980 Sophomores, “First Follow-up” (HS&B:80/82); and Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002/04), “High School Transcript Study” Adapted from figure presented in Findings from the Condition of Education, 2007.

Pathways in America’s High Schools    7

As Figure 1.5 illustrates, students have not just been earning more credits since 1982; they have been earning many of those credits in higher level courses. For example, high school graduates earned 3.1 credits in algebra and more-advanced mathematics courses in 2004 in contrast to 1.9 in 1982; in Chemistry, credits earned increased from 0.4 to 0.7; and in Physics, from 0.2 to 0.4 during this same period. The percentage of graduates who completed a year of Geometry increased from 47% to 76%; the percentage who completed a semester or more of Algebra II increased from 40% to 67%. Last, the percentage who completed a semester or more of analysis/PreCalculus increased from 6% to 28%. In science, the same trends are evident (see Figure 1.6). However, after more than 20 years of an increased academic courseload nationwide, only slightly more than one third of students (36%) in 2004 had completed NCEE’s recommended New Basics curriculum (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). National data also show that White students were more likely than African Americans, Latino, and Native American students to have completed advanced science and mathematics courses (Planty, Provasnik, & Daniel, 2007). Moreover, White students are overrepresented in the highest level mathematics courses, such as Calculus. This is particularly important because coursetaking behaviors can play an important role in reducing achievement gaps. Taking challenging math courses through at least Algebra II, for example, halves the gap in college completion rates between White students and their African American and Latino peers (Adelman, 2006).

 

Figures 1.6 and 1.7  Percentage of high school graduates who completed differing levels of science and mathematics courses, by highest level of coursework completed: Selected years: 1982–2004. Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, High School and Beyond Longitudinal Study of 1980 Sophomores, “First Follow-up” (HS&B: 80/82); and Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS: 88/92), “Second Follow-up, High School Transcript Survey, 1992”; Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS: 2002/04) “High School Transcript Study”; and NAEP, 1987, 1990, 1994, 1998, & 2000 High School Transcript Studies (HSTS). Adapted from figures presented in Findings from the Condition of Education, 2007.

8    B. SMERDON et al.

Coursetaking as Preparation for Careers Traditionally, the primary goal of vocational education has been to prepare non–college bound students for entry-level jobs after high school. Federal support for such educational opportunity dates back to 1917. During this time, vocational education focused on preparing students with the skills needed for employment in the growing U.S. industrial base (Agodini et al., 2004). Vocational education typically is grouped into three broad categories: “Family and Consumer Sciences,” comprises introduction and higher level coursework in home economics, child development, food and nutrition; “General Labor Market Prep,” including keyboarding, word processing, industrial arts, and internships; and “Specific Labor Market Prep,” occupational courses including introduction and higher-level courses about specific occupations, from agriculture, business and marketing to distribution. Perhaps the most enduring belief about vocational education is that its purpose is to serve only the non–college bound, potential dropouts, or students with special needs (Stone, 1993). However, given the wide variety of classes comprising vocational education, almost all high school students—97%—take at least some vocational courses, and 87% take at least one occupationally specific vocational course (NCES, 2005, Table H72). Students most commonly took courses in business, communication, and design. African American and Latino students are more likely to take vocational courses than White or Asian students (NCES, 2005). Mane (1999) found that enrollment in vocational education increased employment, earnings, and hourly wages among high school graduates who were not college bound. Bishop (1995) also found vocational education to have a positive effective on labor market outcomes, especially if students obtained jobs related to the training they received during high school. However, others (e.g., Hoffer, Rasinski, & Moore, 1995) found that only some vocational education areas were related to an increase in earnings among students who worked right after high school. In addition, the more vocational education credits high school graduates took, the less likely they were to earn a postsecondary credential (NCES, 2000, Table H43). Lower test scores may contribute to this. Test scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reveal that students taking a vocational track scored more than 30 points below students in the academic track on the twelfth-grade mathematics exam (NCES, 2005). Over the past decade, an increasing number of researchers and policymakers have argued that treating academic and career preparation as separate goals, intended for two different groups of students, is a disservice to everyone. They recommend eliminating vocational courses and programs not providing strong academic preparation, and upgrading the quality and

Pathways in America’s High Schools    9

content of all career and technical education to provide all students with the skills and preparation they need to be successful in higher education or the work place. A 2006 ACT report provides empirical support that high school students need the same skills whether they are headed to college or to the workforce. The report containing these recommendations is one of an increasingly large and growing body of literature indicating that students should be educated to the same high standards, regardless of their post–high school plans. The Common Core State Standards, mentioned earlier in this chapter, were designed to help provide all students with an equal opportunity for an education to prepare them to attend college or enter the workforce. In response, vocational education has received several face lifts over the past 20 years, beginning with the 1990 reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, and strengthened considerably in the more recent 1998 and 2006 reauthorizations. Federal policy now expects career and technical education (CTE)—the new and improved version of vocational education—to contribute not only to students’ employment success, but also to their academic achievement, completion of high school and transition to postsecondary education training (Chapters 4 and 5 discuss career and technical education in more detail.) Coursetaking Organized Around Programs As described earlier, coursetaking historically has been organized by track—academic, vocational, and general. However, coursetaking also has been organized into different programs that often correspond to each track. Advanced Placement (AP), for example, is an advanced, college preparatory program allowing students to qualify for college credits based on course completion exam scores. Students enrolled in AP courses typically are a subset of students in the academic track. Only rarely would students in the vocational or general tracks take AP courses. Other programs or curricular arrangements may correspond less directly with the tracking structure. Dual enrollment programs, for example, include courses in both core academic subject areas and career and technical education. Because high academic requirements preclude some students from participating, dual enrollment is typically reserved for the academic elite. Virtual high schools provide students with AP courses, as well as credit recovery courses in general mathematics. Advanced Placement For more than 50 years, Advanced Placement (AP) classes have been the accelerated pathway to postsecondary success and have provided opportu-

10    B. SMERDON et al.

nities for students to obtain college credit in numerous subjects. AP courses and their end-of-course examinations are developed and administered by the College Board. Students who score a 3.0 or better on a 5.0 point scale may earn college credit or advanced college standing in the subject area in which the course/exam was taken. There are no formal requirements a teacher must satisfy to be a qualified AP teacher, but AP teachers are likely to be more highly educated and have permanent teaching certifications, compared with the general teaching force (College Board, 2005). In recent years, the number of students taking AP courses has increased (College Board, 2009). Between 1997 and 2005, the number of students taking AP examinations increased 111%—from 566,720 to 1,197,439. More-recent figures double this number. According to the College Board (2010), close to 3 million tests were taken in 2009 alone, with English Language, English Literature, U.S. History and Calculus among the most prevalent. The recent “AP for All” movement has considerably expanded AP opportunities to more students, with the largest gains in AP coursetaking consisting of students previously underrepresented in these courses. Over the period from 1997 to 2005, the participation of White students increased 105%, compared with 213% for Latino students, 177% for African American students, 124% for Native American students, and 114% for Asian students. As a result, the participation of minority groups increased from 27% of all students taking AP examinations in 1997 to 33% in 2005. Conversely, the percentage of White students taking AP examinations declined from 66% in 1997 to 4% in 2005 (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). But, despite these gains, African American, Latino, and Native American students are still underrepresented in AP courses. Overall, 67% of high schools offered AP courses in 2002–2003. The larger the enrollment of a school, the more likely that school was to offer AP. Public schools located in rural areas were less likely to report offering AP courses (50%) than public schools in cities (77%), urban fringe areas (87%), and towns (72%). Because the rural schools tended to be low-minority schools, public schools enrolling minority students making up less than 6% of the enrollment were less likely to offer AP courses than schools with higher minority enrollments (NCES, 2009). Although the number of students and the percentage of minorities taking AP examinations have increased each year, the annual average scores have remained about 3.0, out of a possible 5.0. While the number of students exposed to college-level material is increasing, this exposure does not necessarily translate into an increased number of students being proficient and earning college-level credit, especially among historically underserved students. Significant gaps remain. The examination scores of White and Asian students have remained relatively constant across all subjects, averaging about 3.0 and 3.1, respectively, while the scores of students in other

Pathways in America’s High Schools    11

Figure 1.8  Increase in numbers of students earning a score of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, or better. Source: The College Board, data referenced in Findings from the Condition of Education 2007.

racial/ethnic groups have declined. For example, the average scores of Latino students declined across all examination subjects, from 3.1 in 1997 to 2.5 in 2005. The percentage of examinations resulting in a qualifying score of 3.0 or better decreased from a high of 65% in 1997 to a low of 59% in 2005 (see Figure 1.8). At the same time, the number of examinations with a score of at least a 3.0 increased 111%, from 579,865 to 1,225,845. As indicated in Figure 1.8, the number of examinations with a score of 1.0 or 2.0 increased 163%—from 319,598 to 839,200 (Planty et al., 2007). Because of these statistics, there has been a recent outcry that current AP classes are advanced in name only and not in the level of rigor. The jury is still out on whether access to these rigorous courses is enough. Some research (e.g., Gonzalez, O’Connor, & Miles, 2001) indicates that, regardless of test outcome, simply being in an AP class helps students develop stronger content mastery in math and physics compared with not taking an AP class. Critics also argue that exposure is not enough. They advocate that, to increase the likelihood of students earning college credit, supports are needed. Research (e.g., Dougherty, Mellor, & Jian, 2006; Hargrove, Godin, & Dodd, 2008) has shown that taking the AP class and test is key—students who took the AP course and the AP exam earned higher GPAs and more credits in college, and were more likely to graduate from college when compared with stu­dents who took only an AP course or a non-AP course in the same subject. This was shown to be so even after attempting to take students’ achievement levels into account. International Baccalaureate The International Baccalaureate (IB) program was founded in 1968 and is governed by a nonprofit organization, the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO), based in Switzerland. The program was originally designed for the children of diplomats who attended school in multiple countries to provide a route for high school graduates to fulfill the requirements set by the education systems of different nations. The program continues to have an international emphasis, although it is now offered to a much

12    B. SMERDON et al.

broader population of students. The IBO offers three levels of programming, beginning at age 3, but is best known for the Diploma Program (DP) offered during the last 2 years of high school. To date, there have been over one-half million graduates since 1970. Like AP students, those who participate in an IB program enjoy significant advantages for college admittance and have greater success in postsecondary settings than their non-IB peers (IBO, 2007). To offer IB, schools must go through an intensive review process and ongoing evaluations by the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO, 2010). During the last 2 years of high school, International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IBDP) students complete courses at “standard” (SL) and “higher” (HL) levels in six subject areas: two languages, individuals and societies, mathematics and computer science, the arts, and experimental sciences. The curriculum for IBDP classes is developed by IBO and is rigorously reviewed over a 5 to 6 year roll-out period (IBO, 2010). In addition, students study Theory of Knowledge, write a 4,000 plus-word Extended Essay and perform 150 hours of Creativity, Action and Service. Students take externally graded written examinations, common to all IB schools, at the end of the 2-year program. An IB diploma is awarded to students who earn a minimum number of points. Based on standards set by individual college and university admissions offices, credit or advanced standing is awarded. Overall, only 2% of schools in the United States offered IB courses in 2002–2003. Over the past 20 years, however, IB has grown quickly and consistently in both the number of schools and the number students participating. Over the last 5 years, the number of IBDPs offered around the world increased by 63%, from 1,315 to 2,149 (IBO, n.d.). Of the 138 countries that offer IB, the United States has the largest number of programs (714), the majority of which (91%) are located in public schools. The number of IB offerings in the United States is predicted to double in the near future (IBO, 2010). Offering an IB program is expensive and time-consuming, in comparison with other programs. Teachers must undergo professional development to be IB certified, and schools may require additional staff and special facilities. They are reviewed extensively to ensure they can offer an IB program with strict fidelity. Today, more than 56% of all U.S. schools with IB programs are located in only eight states. As participation in the IBDP has grown in the United States, so has access for low-income and minority students (Siskin & Weinstein, 2008). However, historically underserved students remain underrepresented in IBDP; in 2008, less than 25% of participants were minority students. White students accounted for 59%, Asians for 16%, Latinos for 12%, African Americans for 10%, and multirace 3% (IBO, 2010). Although about 30% of schools offering IBDP received federal Title I funds in 2008, only 15% of IBDP partici-

Pathways in America’s High Schools    13

pants came from low-income families, as measured by free/reduced lunch eligibility (IBO, 2010). In light of the expansion of IBDP in the United States, and the lack of rigorous research on its impact, important questions remain about participation and impact in general. Student admission to an IBDP is very competitive. The criteria most often used to qualify students for entrance include GPA, test scores, and recommendations (Siskin & Weinstein, 2008), as well as high-level prerequisite courses such as Algebra II/Trigonometry, Chemistry and/or Physics, and level III of a foreign language by the end of tenth grade. Although the IBDP is a 2-year course of study for students between the ages of 16 and 19—eleventh and twelfth graders—the admissions process often begins in the ninth grade, when students enter the Preliminary International Baccalaureate (PIB) course of study (IBO, 2008). Strong academic records with a history of taking honors-level courses are seen as very important indicators of students’ ability to succeed in the IBDP (Siskin & Weinstein, 2008). Dual Enrollment Another opportunity for high school students to earn college credit is through dual enrollment programs (sometimes called concurrent enrollment). The U.S. Department of Education reports that college credits earned in dual enrollment programs prior to high school graduation reduce the length of time it takes to earn a college degree by almost half a year (Adelman, 2006). Dual enrollment is a program whereby students simultaneously earn high school as well as college credit for a particular course. Like AP and IB, dual enrollment also exposes students to collegelevel material. Unlike AP and IB, where postsecondary credit is given at the discretion of colleges and received by students only after they have been accepted to a college, in a typical dual enrollment program, students enroll in a college course and earn college credit while still enrolled in high school (Kleiner & Lewis, 2005). In addition, dual enrollment students take college courses rather than courses intended to be taken by high school students with college-level content, as is the case with AP or IB courses. In 2002–2003, among institutions offering a dual enrollment program, 80% offered classes on a college campus, while 55% offered courses on a high school campus, and 12% offered classes at some other location. Public 2-year institutions tend to offer courses at the high school, while public and private 4-year institutions offer courses on their campuses. Courses can be taught either by college faculty or by high school teachers with special credentials to teach college-level classes (Kleiner & Lewis, 2005). In 2002–2003, nearly 700,000 high school students took courses for college credit through dual enrollment programs, primarily at public 2-year

14    B. SMERDON et al.

postsecondary institutions (Kleiner & Lewis, 2005). A majority of postsecondary institutions in 2002–2003 (Waits, Setzer, & Lewis, 2005) had academic eligibility requirements for high school students to participate in dual enrollment courses. These requirements varied by institution and included criteria such as minimum grade point averages (GPA), college placement tests, high school class ranks, recommendations from a principal or guidance counselor, and strong high school attendance. Of the postsecondary institutions offering dual enrollment, nearly half required a minimum GPA between 2.75 and 3.24, with minimum GPA requirements lower at 2-year compared with 4-year institutions (Waits et al., 2005). Not surprisingly, dual enrollment students are more likely to have higher GPAs than their peers. Although dual enrollment programs typically and narrowly have targeted the most academically advanced students, they also provide opportunities for students with less notable academic records. While 92% of schools offering dual enrollment offered courses with academic foci, a full half of them indicated they offered courses with Career and Technical Education (CTE) foci as well (Kleiner & Lewis, 2005). One third of 2002–2003 dual enrollment participation was in CTE courses, suggesting that students bound for elite universities are not the sole targets of dual enrollment. In recent years, dual enrollment has received a great deal of attention as a program that has the potential to improve outcomes for a wider range of students. The program has many benefits for students, including saving time and money in college tuition; increasing high school rigor; reducing postsecondary remediation; increasing matriculation and retention in college; reducing high dropout rates by increasing student motivation and aspirations; and helping students acclimate to college life (R. W. Clark, 2001; Dual enrollment, 2003; Martinez & Brady, 2002). Unfortunately, as yet there are no national data on the courses students take as part of the dual enrollment program. Nearly all states have dual enrollment policies, some of which are established by state law. Many policies not only encourage students to participate in dual enrollment courses, but support their participation on many levels as well. Policies such as Ohio’s Post-secondary Educational Options (PSEO) have helped catapult dual enrollment participation over the last 10–15 years (Blanco, Prescott, & Taylor, 2007). Specifically, between 1998 and 2004, Ohio showed an increase of 48% in public institution dual enrollment. Participation as a whole, however, still is very low, with only 1.2% to 1.7% of public high school students enrolling in dual enrollment classes. Students in Ohio’s PSEO had an increasing presence in colleges, going from 1.8% to 2.4% when measured as a proportion of all public undergraduates (Blanco et al., 2007). One of the prevalent critiques of dual enrollment coursetaking is the concern that students will be taking easy electives rather than rigorous, col-

Pathways in America’s High Schools    15

lege-level coursework. The majority of courses in which students enrolled in PSEO’s program fell into three broad subject groups, with 37% in Arts and Humanities, followed by 27% in Social and Behavioral Sciences, and 21% in Natural Science and Mathematics. The remaining course categories—Business, Engineering, Education, Health, and Other—added up to about 15% of the total courses in which students enrolled (Blanco et al., 2007). Of the top 2006 PSEO courses enrolling students, Arts and Humanities courses accounted for more than half of the enrollment, or 6,692 students. Social Sciences was the second largest area with 4,869 students taking classes in Psychology, Sociology, Government, and other social studies, while Natural Science and Mathematics courses came in third with 1,190 students enrolling in Algebra I, Chemistry, and Biological Sciences classes. In addition to taking core academic classes, most students took more than one PSEO course simultaneously, with the portion of students taking more than six credit hours per semester remaining stable at 48% or 49% from fall 1998 to fall 2004 (Blanco et al., 2007). With respect to access, dual enrollment is the most prevalent accelerated coursetaking program available to high school students. All but three states in the United States have a program or policy that allows high school students to enroll in college courses for both high school and college credit (Krueger, 2006). Approximately half of the country’s postsecondary institutions have dual enrollment programs (Waits et al., 2005) and 71%, or nearly three quarters of high schools offer dual enrollment (Kleiner & Lewis, 2005). Among public schools that offered dual credits, however, schools with the highest minority enrollment were the least likely to offer these courses when compared with schools with lower minority enrollments (Planty et al., 2007). (Chapter 6 describes dual enrollment in more detail.) Career Academies While AP, IB, and dual enrollment all tend to have been aimed at students in one track, career academies attempt to meld the best of all tracks for all students. Career academies have been used as a school reform mechanism for roughly 40 years. The title “career academy” is a broad term that often captures many different types of programs. Most programs labeled “career academies” (a) are small learning communities; (b) employ a career-theme-embedded college preparatory curriculum; and (c) partner with employers, the community and/or local postsecondary institutions to provide students with opportunities for internships, job shadowing, job talks, and other motivating activities that provide students with real-world connections (Stern, Dayton, & Raby, 2000). There are two types of career academies: (a) the school within a school career academy, where a small learn-

16    B. SMERDON et al.

ing community is embedded in a comprehensive high school; and (b) the whole school career academy, where the entire school is structured around career academies, necessitating every student in the school to be enrolled in one. By infusing the practical and procedural knowledge within a collegepreparatory curriculum, career academies attempt to meld the vocational education track or vocational coursetaking with the academic/collegepreparation track (CASN, n.d.). Career academies emphasize the real connections between learning and earning by grouping students together for several periods every day with a core group of teachers who teach a curriculum designed to expose students to the skills and knowledge relevant to a career field or “theme” such as the health sciences, information technology, culinary arts, or architecture. In doing so, career academies have been credited with increasing student interest in and exploration of careers, as well as student engagement and motivation, especially among students who might not otherwise be engaged with school. Career academies also have been linked to higher levels of interpersonal support during high school, often through cohorts, and higher student participation in career awareness and work-based learning activities. At-risk students attending career academies have been less likely to drop out than those not in a career academy. Also, they have taken more courses and are more likely to graduate on time (Kemple & Snipes, 2000). One study (Maxwell & Rubin, 2001) in a California school district found that career academies increased student academic knowledge and skills, GPA, high school completion rates, and the probability that students would attend and graduate from a postsecondary institution. The study also found that career academies decreased the likelihood of needing later English remediation. Another study (Kemple & Willner, 2008) found that career academy students, especially young men, earn more in the marketplace than do non-career academy students. Kemple & Willner (2008) found that students attending a career academy were more likely to build a high school transcript that combined academic and career or technical courses. Smith’s 2002 qualitative study found that students in career academies were still expected to meet graduation requirements in English, math, and social and natural sciences; and that these core requirements tended to serve as starting points for academy curriculum courses. Since the aim is to consciously design the curriculum to span both the thematic aims of the academy and the school district requirements for graduation, the point of departure becomes the curriculum. In the 2003–2004 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Schools and Staffing Survey, 4,800 high schools nationwide reported having at least one career academy (Strizek, Pittsonberger, Riordan, Lyter, & Orlofsky, 2006). Several states have legislation supporting career academies. California provides support through multiple funding streams for nearly 500

Pathways in America’s High Schools    17

Partnership Career Academies at hundreds of high schools. Florida supports career academy creation in every single one of its districts across the state. Many school districts, often in large urban areas, either have networks of academies or have restructured all high schools into small learning communities, many of which are career academies. Miami-Dade County Public Schools, the New York City Department of Education, and the Houston Independent School District are just a few of the urban systems that have supported and promoted the career academy model as a major strategy for high school reform efforts. While a precise count has yet to be tallied, a reasonable estimate is that about 1 million students are now in career academies nationwide. However, while there has been significant growth in career academies in recent years, it is estimated that nationally, only about 5% of public high school students attend a career academy (Brand, 2009). Virtual High Schools The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) National Technology Plan released in March 2010 emphasizes virtual and online learning as a viable path for using technology to improve learning. Virtual or online learning is a type of distance education, which, as the name suggests, means that the student and teacher are not in the same physical location. Virtual courses could be delivered via live or prerecorded audio or video, and/or by computer technologies such as the Internet. They can take place at locales in the student’s district or from other places, including a postsecondary institution (Arafeh, 2004). Online courses are defined as Internet courses using synchronous or simultaneous computer-based instruction and asynchronous or nonsimultaneous computer-based instruction. A blended or hybrid class also has been created. These classes blend online and face-to-face time between students and teachers; thus, a substantial proportion of the content is delivered online, but several face-to-face classes are included as well. Research (e.g., Lewis, Alexander, & Farris, 1997; Lewis, Snow, Farris, & Levin, 1999; Waits & Lewis, 2003) suggests that distance education course offerings and enrollments have expanded greatly at postsecondary education institutions, and they continue to do so. As the challenges of overcrowded schools, student demand for courses, and offering of advanced courses to students in rural settings becomes more prevalent, virtual education courses in schools are of increasing interest to both policymakers and school districts (McDermon, 2005; Southwick, 2003; U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Research indicates that virtual education allows schools and school districts to widely expand the variety of courses available to students including advanced mathematics and science, foreign languages, or AP and soon

18    B. SMERDON et al.

IB courses and may help allow for more flexibility in student scheduling and instructional delivery (Cavanaugh, 2006; T. Clark, 2001, 2003; Doherty, 2002; Kennedy-Manzo, 2002; Thomas, 1999; Trotter, 2002; Wildavsky, 2001; Yamashiro & Zucker, 1999). Students may also participate in virtual courses for credit recovery purposes (i.e. to pass failed required courses) (Cavanaugh, 2006). SAT test preparation courses have also been important virtual course offerings, especially at the high school level (Borja, 2007; Interactive Educational Systems Design, 2002; Miller, 2007). To date, most virtual courses tend to be taken as supplemental to what the students are offered in their brick-and-mortar schools. NCES reported that 57% of public secondary schools in the United States provided access to students for online learning by 2005 (Setzer & Lewis, 2005). In April 2006, Michigan became the first state to require online learning for high school graduation. According to the Sloan Consortium, the overall number of K–12 students engaged in online courses in 2007–2008 was estimated at 1,030,000. This represents a 47% increase since 2005–2006. Alabama added a high school graduation distance/online learning requirement as well in 2008 (Allen & Seaman, 2008). According to relatively recent literature, students participating in online learning, on average, seem to perform equally well or better academically than do their peers taking traditional courses (Smith, Clark, & Blomeyer, 2005). Students are not the only ones reaping the benefits of going virtual. Studies show that teachers who teach online as well as traditional face-toface classes reported that thinking about teaching their classes a different way (i.e., virtual) led to positive improvements in their traditional classes too (Smith et al., 2005). Virtual high schools have cropped up as a way to meet varied student needs at elementary and secondary instructional levels (Berge & Clark, 2005; T. Clark, 2001). In this scenario, students may enroll and “attend” all of their classes, not just a few of their courses, at a virtual or full-time cyber school. Most virtual schools tend to be at the high school level, however, some virtual schools are also offering courses at the middle and elementary school levels. By 2007, a total of 24 states had established virtual schools (Technology Counts, 2007). Almost all states—45 of the 50 states plus Washington DC—have a state virtual school or online initiative, fulltime online schools, or both (see Figure 1.9). The funding models for such state-sponsored efforts remain different across the country. Some arrangements are entirely dependent on state funding; others draw upon a mix of state and federal funding, and still others collect tuition or course fees from school districts and parents (Borja, 2005). (Chapter 8 describes virtual high schools in more detail.)

Pathways in America’s High Schools    19

Figure 1.9  Source: Keeping pace with K–12 online learning (2009).

As We Move Forward with Multiple Pathways Education is perhaps the most important function of state and local governments. Compulsory school attendance laws and the great expenditures for education both demonstrate our recognition of the importance of education to our democratic society. It is required in the performance of our most basic public responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity . . . is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. [emphasis added] —Brown vs. Board of Education, May 17, 1954

There is little doubt that the caliber of the U.S. education system will determine the future health of our economy. High-quality public education is especially critical today, as advances in the U.S. economy have made cognitive skills more important than ever in determining one’s success. But even after billions of dollars spent on decades of reform, far too many of our students are still leaving high school without the skills needed to thrive. Recent efforts to improve secondary education and workforce quality have raised the bar for high school success from simply graduating students to graduating all students college-ready and career-ready as well. Reports of high dropout rates, high levels of postsecondary remediation and inequita-

20    B. SMERDON et al.

ble outcomes for historically underserved students have resulted in the increased channeling of resources toward improving academic intensity and other efforts to bridge the gap between high schools and postsecondary institutions (e.g., Adelman, 2006; American Institutes for Research & SRI International, 2006; Armstrong, 2005; Krueger, 2006). And true to these efforts, research also shows that students are taking more rigorous courses. But the question remains: Are students learning more? Although GPAs have risen (Planty et al., 2007), data on standardized tests suggest that the answer is no. As academic coursetaking has been rising, twelfth-grade NAEP scores have remained flat or gone down—six points lower in reading in 2005 (the most recent assessment year for grade 12) than in 1992, while grades 4 and 8 have increased since then (NCES, 2007; Snyder & Dillow, 2010). NAEP mathematics scores rose only slightly in twelfth grade (2000 being the most recent comparable assessment year for twelfth grade2) from 294 to 300; though it is important to note that less than 25% of twelfthgrade students could perform at a twelfth-grade level of proficiency.3 In science, the twelfth-grade score again decreased from 150 to 147 from 1996 to 2005 (the last year science was assessed) (Snyder & Dillow, 2010). In terms of leveling the playing field for all students, the expansive achievement gaps on NAEP have remained unchanged in the last 20 years as well (NCES, 2005). Proficiency rates among African American, Hispanic, and Native American twelfth-grade students are abysmal. In 2005, only 6% of African Americans and Native Americans were proficient in mathematics, while Hispanics did not fare much better at 8%. We have certainly begun the work of dismantling the traditional pathways in high school, but only time will tell if we have been successful in ensuring that students are flourishing. How do we account for the simultaneous increases in rigorous coursetaking and GPAs and the lack of improvement in test score data? Shireman (2004) provides one plausible explanation: “If schools just change the names of the courses . . . students will not have learned anything more” (p. 4). In a nutshell, content matters. We understand that. American governors and chief state school officers have released the long-anticipated Common Core State Standards, a common set of internationally benchmarked standards designed to ensure that the nation’s students are prepared to compete in the changing global economy. The Common Core represents the first step toward a single, coherent vision of what students should know and be able to do at each grade level, regardless of who they are and where they live. Indeed, the Common Core has been heralded as the first step toward retooling the nation’s educational system and reclaiming the country’s position as an international leader. It is from these Common Core standards that curriculum, assessments, training and professional development, and

Pathways in America’s High Schools    21

policies are expected to flow and apply to all students regardless of who they are and where they live. But history has taught us to be cautious. The devil is in the implementation and ensuring that all students are, at the very least, exposed to—and have the opportunity to master—high standards. This would require that the traditional system of tracking, more recently called multiple pathways, will need to be overhauled. Opportunity to learn is currently a function of the school that students attend and the differentiated curricular arrangements or tracking in those schools. Unfortunately, whether schools offer AP, IB, dual enrollment, vocational education, or a career academy is also largely dependent on the school attended by the student. Latino students, for example, are far less likely to attend high schools offering Trigonometry or Calculus than are White or Asian students (Adelman, 2006). Thus, in many respects, a high-quality education remains a luxury of the wealthy rather than a right of all children. The Common Core Standards were designed to address these issues, providing expectations for what all students should learn, thereby providing guidance on the content they should be taught. With the Common Core, there is hope that the lines between tracks in the traditional tracking system may become blurred as students from multiple tracks enroll in these programs, or even erased as the formal track structure is replaced by multiple, fluid pathways, and we may move one step closer to the goal of providing all students in every school and every state the opportunity to master rigorous content to prepare them for college and career. History shows that it repeats itself until we learn from our mistakes. So far, we have paid too little attention to the lessons of history.

Notes 1. For our purposes, a course credit is equal to a year-long class. The basic unit of coursework measurement is the course credit or sometimes referred to as a “Carnegie unit.” A Carnegie unit is a standard of measurement used for secondary education that is equivalent to the completion of a course that meets one period per day for one school year, where a period is typically at least 40 minutes. 2. Because of changes in assessment content and administration, the results for 2005 could not be directly compared with those from previous years 3. Based on the 2005 test administration. Also, fourth-grade Math scores rose 13 points and 10 points in eighth grade from 1990 to 2000.

22    B. SMERDON et al.

References ACT. (2004). Crisis at the core: Preparing all students for college and work. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT. (2006). Ready for college and ready for work: Same or different. Iowa City, IA: Author. ACT. (2007). Benefits of a high school core curriculum for students in urban high schools. Retrieved from http://act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/core_curriculum.pdf Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Agodini, R., Deke, J., Novak, T., & Uhl, S. (2004). Vocational education and postsecondary outcomes: Eight years after high school. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Alexander, K. L., & Pallas, A. M. (1984). Curriculum reform and school performance: An evaluation of the “new basics.” American Journal of Education, 92(4), 391–420. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States, 2008. Newburyport, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Allensworth, E., Nomi, T., Montgomery, N., & Lee, V. E. (2009). College preparatory curriculum for all: Academic consequences of requiring algebra and English I for ninth graders in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 367–391. American Institutes for Research & SRI International. (2006). Evaluation of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s high school grants initiative: 2001–2005 final report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Arafeh, S. (2004). The implications of information and communications technologies for distance education: Looking toward the future. Arlington, VA: SRI International. Armstrong, J. (2005). States strategies for redesigning high schools and promoting high school to college transitions [Issue brief]. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Attewell, P., & Domina, T. (2008). Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(1), 51–71. Berge, Z. L., & Clark, T. (2005). Virtual schools: Planning for success. New York: Teachers College Press. Bidwell, C. E. (Ed.). (1965). The school as a formal organization. Chicago: Rand McNally. Bishop J. H. (1995). Vocational education and at-risk youth in the United States. Vocational Training European Journal, 6, f34–42. Blanco, C., Prescott, B., & Taylor, N. (2007). The promise of dual enrollment: Assessing Ohio’s early college access policy. Cincinnati, OH: KnowledgeWorks Foundation. Borja, R. R. (2005, May 5). Cyber schools’ status. Education Week, 24(35), 22–23. Borja, R. R. (2007, March 30). Students opting for AP courses online. Education Week, 26(31), 1, 16, 18. Brand, B. (2009). High school career academies: A 40-year proven model for improving college and career readiness. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. Brown vs. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Pathways in America’s High Schools    23 Career Academy Support Network. (n.d.). What is a career academy. Retrieved from http://casn.berkeley.edu/resources.php?r=247 Cavanaugh, S. (2006, October 25). To tailor schedules, students log in to online classes. Education Week, 26(9), 1, 24. Chaney, B., Burgdorf, K., & Atash, N. (1997). Influencing achievement through high school graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 229–244. Clark, R. W. (2001). Dual credit: A report of programs and policies that offer high school students college credits. Seattle, WA: Institute for Educational Inquiry. Clark, T. (2001). Virtual schools: Trends and issues. A study of virtual schools in the United States. San Francisco: Distance Learning Network. Clark, T. (2003). Virtual and distance education in American schools. In M. Moore & W. Andersen (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 673–699). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. College Board. (2005). 2005 AP teacher standards. Retrieved from http://apcentral. collegeboard.com/apc/public/repository/ap05_teacherstandards_46509. pdf College Board. (2009). College-bound seniors: 2009 SAT data and reports: Total group profile report. Retrieved from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/cbs-2009-national-TOTAL-GROUP.pdf Dewey, J. (1900). The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Doherty, K. M. (2002, May 9). Students speak out. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc02 Dougherty, C., Mellor, L., & Jian, S. (2006). The relationship between Advanced Placement and college graduation. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Achievement. Dual enrollment: Accelerating the transition to college. (2003). Issue paper from the high school leadership summit. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education. Gamoran, A. (1988). The impact of academic course work on labor market outcomes for youth who do not attend college: A research review. Unpublished manuscript prepared for the National Assessment of Vocational Education. Madison, WI: Author. Gamoran, A., & Hannigan, E. C. (2000). Algebra for everyone? Benefits of collegepreparatory mathematics for students with diverse abilities in early secondary school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(3), 241–254. Gonzalez, E. J., O’Connor, K. M., & Miles, J. A. (2001) How well do Advanced Placement students perform on the TIMSS advanced mathematics and physics tests? Boston: Boston College, The International Study Center, Lynch School of Education. Hargrove, L., Godin, D., & Dodd, B. (2008). College outcomes comparisons by AP and non-AP high school experiences. College Board Research Report No. 2008–3. New York: The College Board. Hoffer, T. B., Rasinksi, K. A., & Moore, W. (1995). Social background differences in high school mathematics and science coursetaking and achievement (NCES 1995). Washington, DC: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

24    B. SMERDON et al. Interactive Educational Systems Design. (2002). Online courses and other types of online learning for high school students. New York: Apex Learning & Blackboard Inc. International Baccalaureate Organization. (n.d.). IB fast facts. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/facts/fastfacts/index.cfm International Baccalaureate Organization. (2007). Research on the IB. International Baccalaureate Organization. http://www.glynn.k12.ga.us/NEEDWOOD/ IB_Info/IB_Research.pdf (accessed June 20, 2010). International Baccalaureate Organization. (2008). A review of research relating to the IB diploma programme. Cardiff, Wales: Author. International Baccalaureate Organization. (2010). United States IB profile 2009–2010. Author. Retrieved from http://www.ibo.org/iba/countryprofiles/documents/ US_CountryProfile.pdf Kemple, J., & Snipes, J. (2000). Career academies: Impacts on students’ engagement and performance in high school. New York: MDRC. Kemple, J. J., & Willner, C. J. (2008). Career academies: Long term impacts on labor market outcomes, educational attainment, and transitions to adulthood. New York: MDRC. Kennedy-Manzo, K. (2002, May 9). Sizing up online content. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc02 Kleiner, B., & Lewis, L. (2005). Dual enrollment of high school students at postsecondary institutions: 2002–03 (NCES 2005-008).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Krueger, C. (2006). State Notes P-16: P-16 collaboration in the states. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Lee, V. E. (2002). Restructuring high schools for equity and excellence: What works. New York: Teachers College Press. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1988). Curriculum tracking as mediating the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 61, 78–94. Lee, V. E., Burkam, D. T., Chow-Hoy, T., Smerdon, B. A., & Geverdt, D. (1998). High school curriculum structure: Effects of coursetaking and achievement in mathematics for high school graduates. An examination of data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988 (Working Paper No. 98-09). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Development. Lee, V. E., Chow-Hoy, T., Burkam, D., Geverdt, D., & Smerdon, B. A. (1998). Sector differences in advanced coursetaking in high-school mathematics: A private school effect or a Catholic school effect? Sociology of Education, 71, 314–335. Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., & Smith, J. B. (1997). Coursetaking, equity, and mathematics learning: Testing the constrained curriculum hypothesis in U.S. secondary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 99–121. Lee, V. E., & Ready, D. D. (2007). Schools within schools: Possibilities and pitfalls of high school reform. New York: Teachers College Press. Lewis, L., Alexander, D., & Farris, E. (1997). Distance education in higher education institutions (NCES 98–062). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Pathways in America’s High Schools    25 Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., & Levin, D. (1999). Distance education at postsecondary education institutions: 1997–98 (NCES 2000-013). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Mane, F. (1999). Trends in the payoff to academic and occupation-specific skills: The short and medium run returns to academic and vocational high school courses for non-college-bound students. Economics of Education Review, 18, 417–437. Martinez, M., & Brady, J. (2002). All over the map: State policies to improve the high school. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. Maxwell, N. L., & Rubin, V. (2001). Career academy programs in California: Outcomes and implementation. Berkeley, CA: The Regents of the University of California. McDermon, L. (2005). Distance learning: It’s elementary! Learning and Leading with Technology: The ISTE Journal of Educational Technology Practice and Policy, 33(4), 28. Miller, P. (2007, April 4). Virtual learning still going strong. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www2.edweek.org/rc/articles/2007/04/09/sow0405. h26.html NCES. (2000) The National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88/2000; 4th follow-up, 2000). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. NCES. (2005). America’s high school graduates: Results from the 2005 NAEP High School Transcript Study (NCES 2007-467). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. NCES. (2007). The nation’s report card: 12th grade reading and math 2005 (NCES 2007468). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2009). Public-Use data files and documentation (FRSS 85): Dual credit and exam-based courses in U.S. public high schools: 2002-03 (NCES 2009-031) [Data file]. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/downloads.asp National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 112–130. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities to learn mathematics and science. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corp. Planty, M., Provasnik, S., & Daniel, B. (2007). High school coursetaking: Findings from the condition of education 2007 (NCES 2007-065). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Powell, A. G., Farrar, E., & Cohen, D. K. (1985). The shopping mall high school: Winners and losers in the educational marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Setzer, J. C., & Lewis, L. (2005). Distance education courses for public elementary and secondary school students: 2002–03 (NCES 2005–010). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Shireman, R. (2004). “Rigorous courses” and student achievement in high school: An options paper for the governor of California. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Higher Education.

26    B. SMERDON et al. Siskin, L. S., & Weinstein, M. (2008). Supplemental survey to creating support structures and services for Title I high schools implementing the International Baccalaureate programs. API Initiative. New York: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education and Social Policy. Smith, R., Clark, T., & Blomeyer, R. L. (2005). A synthesis of new research on K–12 online learning. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Smith, T. J. (2002). Course taking, test preparation, and career academy programs findings from a field study. New York: MDRC. Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2010). Digest of education statistics 2009 (NCES 2010013). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Sorokin, P. A. (1927). Social and cultural mobility. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Southwick, J. (2003). Distance education in the rural K–12 environment. Computers in the Schools, 20(30), 27–32. Stern, D., Dayton, C., & Raby, M. (2000). Career academies: Building blocks for reconstructing American high schools. Berkeley: University of California, Career Academy Support Network. Stillman, L., & Blank, R. K. (2009). Key state education policies on PK–12 education: 2008. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Stone, J. (1993). Debunking the myths. Vocational Education Journal, 68(1), 26–27, 56. Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006). Characteristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school libraries in the United States: 2003-04 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2006-313 Revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office. Technology counts: 10th annual report of the editorial projects in Education Research Center. (2007, March 29). Education Week, 26(30). Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/toc/2007/03/29/ index.html Teitelbaum, P. (2003). The influence of high school graduation requirement policies in mathematics and science on student coursetaking patterns and achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 31–57. Thomas, W. R. (1999). Electronic delivery of high school courses: Status, trends, and issues. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board. Trotter, A. (2002, May 9). E-Learning goes to school. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/sreports/tc02 U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Educational attainment in the United States: 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce: Economics and Statistics Administration. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2004). Toward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expectations. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: Author.

Pathways in America’s High Schools    27 Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000–2001 (NCES 2003–017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Waits, T., Setzer, J. C., & Lewis, L. (2005). Dual credit and exam-based courses in U.S. public high schools: 2002–03 (NCES 2005–009). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., & Nuñez, A. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation and postsecondary success of first-generation students, NCES 2001–153. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Wildavsky, B. (2001, October 7). Want more from high school? U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/articles/011015/ archive_011072.htm Yamashiro, K., & Zucker, A. (1999). An expert panel review of the quality of virtual high school courses: Final report. Arlington, VA: SRI International.

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 2

State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools Jennifer Dounay Zinth

High school pathways and their evolution over recent decades is the primary focus of this book. An emerging convergence of college- and careerreadiness as a singular goal for secondary students is a key theme addressed in every chapter, as is the opportunity for all high school students to access a high-quality education. This chapter sets the broader policy context for these issues, addressing three questions: Who decides what students will need to learn before they graduate from high school? What are students supposed to learn before they graduate? How have expectations for what students should know and be able to do changed over time? At first blush, the answers to these questions seem relatively simple. State policymakers set high school performance expectations (expressed as graduation requirements, standards, curricula, and state-level assessments), which are then implemented by districts and classroom teachers. In virtually every state, minimum graduation requirements are adopted in law either by the legislature or the state board of education. Since the 1990s, the course content has been determined by state boards of education or specialized Pressing Forward, pages 29–48 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

29

30    J. D. ZINTH

state-level committees through so-called K–12 content standards describing the “content” that students in various grade levels and subject areas should learn, and “performance standards” defining the levels of learning students should achieve (McBrien & Brandt, 1997). State assessments (for the most part designed by assessment development companies and aligned to the aforementioned standards and curricula) are administered to gauge the degree to which students have mastered key content. Beneath these simple answers are complex interactions between policy, implementation, and geography. In our decentralized education system, what high school graduates are expected to know and be able to do is a direct function of where they live and attend school. Standards, graduation requirements, and assessments vary, sometimes dramatically, by state, as well as by district within a given state. Assessment—when high school students take assessments and in which subject areas—varies by state as well (although, at a minimum, federal law requires that students be tested in reading/English language arts and math at least once in grades 10–12, and that science be assessed in grade 9 and again at some point in grades 10–12). Not surprisingly, the implementation of state policy also varies substantially across districts and high schools, even within the same state. For example, the path from state policy to classroom instruction is not straight and narrow. Teachers are expected to integrate state standards into the curriculum, standards often too numerous and/or too vague for teachers to do so in a comprehensive and consistent manner. Variation in policies and implementation inevitably begs questions of equal application of high expectations and equal access to high-quality educational experiences for all students. Policy shifts in recent decades—from changes in graduation requirements to the adoption of the Common Core state standards—reflect a growing belief that expectations and opportunity should not depend on where students live (or their demographic characteristics, for that matter). In fact, states have witnessed a veritable gold rush of policy activity in the past decade as legislatures and state boards of education work to enhance the “rigor” of the high school experience while simultaneously ensuring that more students are following academically rigorous pathways. To this end, states have been increasing the number, specificity, and academic challenge of the courses that all students must complete, particularly in math and science. In a handful of states in which graduation requirements were entirely or almost entirely set at the district level, legislatures have stepped in and set statewide high school graduation requirements. This chapter describes trends in state policies designed to establish more-rigorous and relevant expectations and experiences for high school students—trends that in many ways have culminated in the nascent Common Core state standards and consortia developing common assessments.

State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools    31

Changes in Coursetaking Requirements to Graduate One of the most readily apparent trends in state education policies in recent years is the increase in the number and rigor of mathematics courses in the default high school curriculum. While certainly not commonplace a decade ago, completion of 3–4 years of mathematics is increasingly the norm for earning a high school diploma. A total of 18 states and the District of Columbia required the Class of 1999 to complete 3 years of math; only one state (Alabama) required 4 years of math (Education Commission of the States, 1998). Fast forward to the Class of 2011: three years of math is now required in 27 states, and 10 states and the District of Columbia currently call for four years of math. Four states will require 3 years of math effective with the Class of 2012 or later, and eight states will add a 4th year of math with a future graduating class (Dounay, 2008c; Dounay Zinth, 2010c). Regarding rigor, just three states (Arkansas, Texas, and South Dakota) had adopted policies as of January 2005 to require all students to complete the Algebra I, geometry, Algebra II sequence. Of these, Texas’ Class of 2008 would be the first, followed by Arkansas’ and South Dakota’s Class of 2010. Following an upsurge of policymaking that began in the 2005 legislative session, the number of states now requiring this sequence has doubled to six (plus the District of Columbia), effective with the Class of 2011, and 10 more states will join them in the Class of 2012 or later, for a total of 16 states (and the District of Columbia) that will require the Algebra I, geometry, Algebra II sequence by the Class of 2018. These totals do not include states such as Ohio and New Mexico, which require math coursetaking to include Algebra II, but do not specify the high school math courses leading up to Algebra II (Dounay, 2008c; Dounay Zinth, 2010c). Similar changes are taking place in the number and rigor of science units in the default high school curriculum. For the Class of 1999, three units of science was the expectation in 12 states and DC, with just one state (Alabama) requiring completion of four science units (Education Commission of the States, 1998). By contrast, 31 states require three science units for the Class of 2011, with five states increasing expectations to three units for the Class of 2012 or later, and a potential sixth state, Washington, pending legislative approval as of this writing. Alabama, Texas, and the District of Columbia currently require four Carnegie units of science, to be joined by three more states effective with a future graduating class. States are also increasingly expecting some or all of the mandatory science units to be laboratory units. Most amendments to science graduation requirements between 2005 and 2010 either require three units of science to be lab-based, or specify that more science units be lab-based than was previously required (Dounay, 2008d; Dounay Zinth, 2010c).

32    J. D. ZINTH

Although this trend is not as pronounced as those for math and science courses, there is also an undeniable move toward the inclusion of foreign languages in the default high school curriculum, so as to better align graduation requirements with postsecondary admissions requirements and effectively prepare more students for the global economy and workplace. Most members of the Class of 1999 were not required to complete any units of a foreign language—students in the District of Columbia were the exception (Education Commission of the States, 1998). The story is slightly different for the Class of 2011: in addition to the District of Columbia, three states (New Jersey, New York, and Texas) now include foreign language units in the default high school curriculum, with six states to add foreign language as a requirement for future graduates (Dounay, 2008a). And while the number of math and science (and to a lesser degree foreign language) courses in the default high school curriculum is on the rise, the total number of Carnegie units required in many states has changed relatively little since the late 1990s. To accommodate more required courses, states are reducing the number of elective or other units specified in state law that are not core academic units (i.e., English, math, science and social studies), and replacing these units with math and science credits (Dounay, 2008e; Education Commission of the States, 1998). College-Ready for All Up to this point, trends in graduation requirements have been framed as changes to the “default” high school curriculum. This wording is intentional, as recent state policy activity has also redefined long-standing curricular arrangements by eliminating multiple curricular tracks in favor of a “college-ready-for-all” diploma. Georgia, Tennessee, and North Carolina, for example, all previously required students to select from two to four high school diploma tracks. The tracks varied in the number and intensity of math and science credits required and often allowed students in the lesschallenging track(s) to either complete fewer total Carnegie units or forego higher-level math and science courses and take career/technical education courses. Since 2007, all three of these states have moved to replace their multiple diploma pathways with a diploma program that incorporates the hallmarks of a college-ready diploma—4 years English; at least 3 years math (including the Algebra I, geometry, Algebra II sequence); 3 or more years science, primarily composed of lab sciences; and at least 3 years social studies (ga. comp. r. & regs. 160-4-2-.48; tenn. comp. r. & regs. 0520-01-03.06(2); 16 n.c. admin code 6D.0503). Even among states that have established a college-ready default diploma, however, many states have created avenues to opt out, allowing students

State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools    33

to select a less-rigorous high school curriculum. The difference between the default and opt-out curriculum varies across states, as do provisions for when students may elect to opt out of the default. Opt-out provisions in most states allow the number and/or academic intensity of the student’s math courses to be reduced; and in states in which foreign language is part of the college-ready curriculum, these credits may also fall to the wayside in the opt-out curriculum (Dounay Zinth, 2010b). It is important to point out that not all states with a college-ready default curriculum have established opt-out provisions for general education students—policies in Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, and Kentucky, for example, suggest that opt-out options are intended only for students with disabilities (Dounay Zinth, 2010b). Further, in some states, the opt-out option is monitored to ensure that high school students are not exercising this option in high numbers or with undue persuasion or pressure from the adults around them. Texas, for instance, has set measures into place to discourage such practices (these include permitting special accreditation investigations to be triggered if a suspiciously high number of students are taking the lowestlevel curriculum; requiring accountability report cards to parents to indicate the percentage of students, disaggregated by student subgroup, who are completing the minimum, default, and advanced high school curriculum options; and requiring parents to sign consent forms when their child elects into the minimum high school curriculum (tex. educ. code ann. § 39.057(10) and (11), § 39.301(C)(4), § 28.025(b-6)). The legislation also ensures that students who have a change of heart are not “locked in” to the lower-level program; it adds a provision that a student who had selected the minimum high school program “may, upon request, resume taking courses under the recommended high school program” (tex. educ. code ann. § 28.025(b-8)). Some states provide district incentives to increase high school students’ participation in a college preparatory curriculum. For example, Arkansas has set a financial “carrot” into policy to encourage districts to help students complete the state’s rigorous “Smart Core” curriculum. Legislation approved in 2009 creates the Arkansas Smart Core Incentive Funding Program. The program is established to help public high schools’ efforts to encourage students to complete the Smart Core curriculum; and promote student support programs, including “(a) tutoring, (b) quality after-school and summer programs that may include the College Preparatory Enrichment Program (CPEP), literacy, math and science specialists in elementary school; and (c) professional development for mathematics, science, literacy, foreign language, and Advanced Placement instruction;” and (d) support “school counselors to improve student services” (ark. code ann. § 6-15-215(c) (the “ark. code ann.”). Arkansas districts receive incentive funds based on the percentage of students in any high school in the district who complete the Smart Core pro-

34    J. D. ZINTH

gram. A full award is made if 100% of a high school’s graduates complete the Smart Core program. Awards are incrementally reduced if 95%–99% or 90%–94% of a high school’s graduates complete the Smart Core program; no award is made if fewer than 90% of a high school’s graduates finish the Smart Core curriculum. The legislation also discourages high schools from “counseling out” academically weaker students in order to achieve a higher percentage of graduates completing the Smart Core program—if a high school’s graduation rate falls below that high school’s average graduation rate for the 3 previous years, the district is not eligible to receive the high school’s full award. The award will be reduced by the percentage the high school’s graduation rate in the preceding school year dropped below the average of its graduation rate for the previous 3 school years (ark. code ann. § 6-15-215). Tiered Diploma Systems in an Age of “College-Ready-for-All”? In contrast to the rigorous diploma systems that provide an “escape hatch” in one or more specified subject areas for students who feel unable to complete the default curricular requirements, tiered (also known as differentiated) diploma systems provide a special diploma, or an endorsement on the standard diploma and/or student transcript, for students who complete requirements beyond those for the standard diploma, such as earning additional course credits, achieving benchmark scores on state assessments, or other types of achievements determined by state policy (e.g., passing a certain number of Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate exams, completing a senior project). Contrary to what might be expected, states as a whole are not doing away with honors diplomas as they raise the bar for earning the default diploma. It is true that some states have eliminated the honors diplomas or certificates of mastery identified by ECS in 2000 and 2007.1 However, it is also true that many of the states that were offering honors diplomas/endorsements in 2000 or 2007 have upped the ante for a standard diploma, yet still offer an honors diploma or endorsement (though the name of and requirements for this recognition may have changed; Dounay, 2008b; Dounay Zinth, 2010c; Weitz, 2000).2 Some states have likewise increased expectations for students to earn an honors diploma. For example, the Ohio legislation approved in December 2006 that created the rigorous “Ohio Core” diploma also increased expectations for earning an Academic Diploma with Honors and a CareerTechnical Diploma with Honors, effective with the Class of 2011. To earn either revised diploma, students must now complete four (rather than three) math, science, and social studies credits. The science credits must include

State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools    35

chemistry and physics (ohio rev. code ann. § 3313.61; ohio admin. code 3301:16-02). Meanwhile, other states are adopting or exploring adoption of new differentiated diplomas. Hawaii, which created the special Board of Education Recognition Diploma in the mid-2000s, approved in March 2008 the Board of Education Recognition Diploma with Honors for students who meet the Recognition Diploma requirements and achieve a 3.0 or higher grade point average. (Interestingly, the state board raised the requirements for the Board of Education Recognition Diploma at the same time it created the Board of Education Recognition Diploma with Honors [Hawaii Department of Education, n.d.]). Colorado’s so-called “CAP4K” legislation (2008 S.B. 212) directs the state board by July 2011 to adopt criteria for the award of (a) endorsed diplomas that indicate a student has demonstrated postsecondary and workforce readiness, plus (b) an endorsement “that would indicate extraordinary academic achievement or exemplary demonstration . . . of postsecondary and workforce readiness” (colo. rev. stat. § 22-7-1009(1) and (2)). And, perhaps with an eye to implementing a differentiated diploma system in the future, Florida’s 2010 legislature asked the state to conduct a study on the different types of high school diplomas offered in other states. The study must provide information regarding differentiated high school diploma options and endorsements that other states offer, including the criteria for awarding the diplomas or endorsements, the differences in courses required for college and career pathways, the advantages and disadvantages of offering a range of diploma options, and any barriers other states have encountered when implementing differentiated diploma options.” (Section 14, 2010 Florida S.B. 4)

Fewer States Devolving Diploma Requirement-Setting to the Local Level One last note on trends in state policies to increase rigor in high school graduation requirements: there has been an unmistakable shift away from policies requiring all (or virtually all) course requirements to be determined locally. Less than a decade ago, ECS identified eight states—Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania—in which all or nearly all high school diploma requirements were set at the district level. In policymaking activity that began in the mid-2000s, the majority of these states adopted statewide graduation requirements, with only Colorado, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania leaving graduation standards in the control of local districts (Dounay Zinth, 2010c). Even these three remaining states have recently established options

36    J. D. ZINTH

or parameters for high school diplomas. For example, although Colorado’s state constitution requires that all curricular mandates be set at the local level, the aforementioned CAP4K legislation permits districts to “identify postsecondary and workforce readiness as a graduation requirement” (CO Const. Art. IX, § 15; colo. rev. stat § 22-7-1016(3)). Massachusetts is encouraging students to complete the “MassCore” curriculum, which includes 4 years each of English and math, three years of a lab-based Science, three years of history, two years of the same foreign language, one year of an arts program and five additional “core” courses such as business education, health, and/or technology. MassCore also includes additional learning opportunities including AP classes, dual enrollment, a senior project, online courses for high school or college credit, and service or work-based learning. (Massachusetts Department of Education, n.d.)

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania, already directing districts to include a culminating project and local assessments aligned with state standards in locally determined graduation requirements, amended administrative code in 2008 and 2010 to require students to pass so-called Keystone exams (end-ofcourse assessments) in English, math, science and social studies (or equivalent measures) (22 pa. code § 4.24). The addition of the Keystone exams as a graduation requirement is potentially substantial—the state’s Race to the Top application declares that “Pennsylvania is committed to working with postsecondary institutions so Keystone Exams serve as placement measures for college, thereby ensuring that students who are proficient on the Keystones will be ready for credit-bearing coursework” (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2010). Relevance: The content of graduation requirements, and how students earn them In addition to making graduation requirements more rigorous, states have taken action in the last decade to add “relevance” to the high school experience by (a) allowing advanced students to earn credits by demonstrating knowledge and skills in lieu of seat time, (b) embedding project-based learning into diploma requirements, and (c) requiring students to develop individual graduation plans, providing a direct connection between high school coursetaking and postgraduation aspirations. The section that follows sets forth the current state policy landscape on these approaches. Proficiency-based credit: The notion that students should be granted academic credit for knowledge and skills acquired outside the classroom has clearly taken hold in the last decade. While some states have permitted districts to award proficiency-based credit for a number of years, the practice is

State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools    37

increasingly becoming a standard component of state-level graduation policy nationwide. By March 2007, ECS had identified 35 states that allowed students to earn credit for demonstrating proficiency (Dounay, 2007). Since then, more states have made credit via demonstration of mastery an option (Dounay Zinth, 2010c). Policies vary from narrower approaches allowing a bilingual student to earn foreign language credit for demonstration of fluency in the second language, to broader policies that permit credit to be earned in unspecified subject areas by showing mastery of the course content. For example, New Jersey state board policy provides that high school graduation credit expectations “may be met in whole or in part” via experience-based learning, including demonstration of competency (n.j. admin. code § 6A:85.1(a)(2)). Rhode Island is taking a slightly different approach by supplementing coursework requirements with exhibitions of content mastery rather than having proficiency demonstrations supplant traditional seat time. In addition to Carnegie unit expectations, high school students in the state must demonstrate proficiency in six subject areas—English language arts, math, science, social studies, the arts, and technology (r.i. code r. § L-6-3.1). Each district uses two of three approaches—digital portfolio, exhibition, or Certificate of Initial Mastery—to evaluate applied learning (r.i. code r. § L-6-3.2; McWalters, 2005). New Hampshire has one of the most comprehensive policies in the nation. New Hampshire administrative rule states that “the local school board shall require that a high school credit can be earned by demonstrating mastery of required competencies for the course, as approved by certified school personnel,” and all subject areas must be included; thus, districts must require that every high school “have in place competency assessments for all courses offered through the high school” (n.h. code admin. r. ann. ed. n.h. code admin. r. ann. ed. 306.27(d), (I)). Graduation projects: A small number of states are seeking to infuse relevance into the high school experience by asking students to complete a senior project or graduation project in addition to Carnegie unit requirements. ECS research indicates that Pennsylvania, Washington and the District of Columbia now require students to complete some form of project in addition to Carnegie unit requirements; they will be joined by Idaho, effective with the Class of 2013; Connecticut, effective with the Class of 2018; and Ohio (at a date yet to be determined as of this writing) (Dounay, 2007; Dounay Zinth, 2010c). Other states are not creating a graduation project mandate, but making clear in state policy that the option must be made available. Rhode Island does not require every student to complete a project, but includes it as one option to choose from in meeting the proficiency requirement. Alternatively, effective September 2013, all South

38    J. D. ZINTH

Dakota high schools will be required to offer a capstone experience or service learning and, beginning with the Class of 2017, students will complete one unit chosen from any combination of capstone experience or servicelearning; career and technical education; or world language (s.d. admin. r. 24:43:11:02(5); South Dakota Department of Education, 2009). Graduation projects, however, are not universally embraced in every state that has begun down this path. North Carolina, whose state board in 2005 approved a policy including graduation projects in state diploma requirements effective with the Class of 2010, enacted legislation in 2009 barring the state board from implementing graduation projects on a statewide basis until the Class of 2015 (although local boards may require students to complete a graduation project) (n.c. gen. stat. ann. § 115C-81(b)). The same legislation called for the general assembly’s Program Evaluation Division to “study the cost and effectiveness of a statewide high school graduation project requirement.” The title of the study, released in April 2010, says it all: “High School Graduation Project Requirement Should Remain a Local School District Decision.” The study estimated the initial cost for statewide implementation at $6.6 million, yet the division’s “analysis did not reveal compelling empirical evidence that completing a project yields intended student outcomes” (North Carolina General Assembly, Program Evaluation Division, 2010). In July 2010, the legislature repealed the deferred graduation project requirement altogether (though statute still permits local boards to include graduation projects as a district-level requirement) (2010 N.C. H.B. 1864). Individual graduation plans: For years, some states have required students to develop a plan identifying a post–high school goal (i.e., enrollment in a 4-year postsecondary institution or technical certificate program, entry into the workforce or military) and the high school courses a student would need to successfully complete to be prepared to achieve that goal. Students typically develop graduation plans in grade 8 or the beginning of grade 9 in conjunction with a parent and school staff member, though in some states graduation plans are generated as early as grade 6. Students are not “locked in” to these plans; policies typically provide for plans to be revisited annually and amended if a student’s interests or aspirations turn in a different direction. Today, these individual graduation plans are increasingly becoming de rigueur as states revise high school graduation requirements. In 2007, ECS had identified 22 states (and the District of Columbia) that required all students to sign on to a specified high school course of study; just as with proficiency-based credit policies, more states have adopted individual graduation plan policies in the last several years (Dounay, 2007; Dounay Zinth 2010c).

State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools    39

Rigor and Relevance via High School Assessments Increasing rigor by requiring students to earn more Carnegie units or complete courses with more imposing-sounding names (e.g., Algebra II) is unlikely to substantially improve students’ readiness for college and career if there is no mechanism to ensure that the courses are actually rigorous. What of state assessment approaches that combine rigor and relevance? While any of the state-set curricular approaches already set forth in this chapter might arguably intertwine rigor and relevance, end-of-course exams and college-ready high school assessments, in particular, clearly set high expectations for students and make clear the link between high school success and college opportunities. Modify Existing State Assessments California is perhaps the only state in the nation to have incorporated college-ready items into an optional addendum to standardized state assessments. The state’s Early Assessment Program (EAP) provides additional questions on the grade 11 California Standards Tests in English and math. Students are informed if their scores meet state-set benchmarks (and, as a result, they are not required to take placement tests upon admission to a California State University [CSU] system institution), or if additional work in these subjects is needed during their senior year. The CSU Diagnostic Writing Service and Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project help students pinpoint strengths and weaknesses in these subject areas (California State University, n.d.). Online resources—csumathsuccess.org and csuenglishsuccess.org—provide resources to help teachers and students alike understand and prepare students for the EAP. Administer End-of-Course Exams Many of the same states that have adopted “college-ready” graduation requirements have also shifted from so-called standards-based assessment systems to end-of-course assessments. While the former often test content accumulation from earlier grade levels, the latter primarily measures content from the grade level and subject area in which the tests are administered. As of the 2009–2010 school year, 18 states were administering end-ofcourse assessments, and at least six more states had adopted policies regarding statewide end-of-course tests but had not implemented these to date (Dounay Zinth, 2010a). In addition, state policymakers have been

40    J. D. ZINTH

discussing aligning end-of-course assessments with college admission and placement requirements, but few states have taken these discussions to the implementation level. Indiana and Texas are exceptions. Effective with the Class of 2011, Indiana high school students must complete the “Core 40” (40 being the number of semester credit hours students need to earn to graduate) curriculum and pass the end-of-course exams in Algebra I, English 10, and Biology to be eligible for admission to a 4-year public postsecondary institution in the state (ind. code ann. § 21-40-4-2(b); Indiana Department of Education, n.d.). Texas is now in the process of transitioning from a standards-based state assessment to end-of-course exams in 12 subject areas. Legislation calls for these assessments to also contain college-ready measures, and for the development of specialized grade-12 courses to help students not achieving the college-ready measure be ready for postsecondary entry upon high school graduation (tex. educ. code ann. § 39.023, 39.0232, 39.0233(a), 39.024, 28.014). Use ACT and SAT Tests An increasing number of states—Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, and Wyoming among them—are administering the ACT to all high school juniors; Maine is the only state administering the SAT statewide. Proponents suggest that covering the cost of these assessments helps lower- and middle-income students; and mandating students to take the assessment may encourage college-going among some students who did not previously consider themselves college material. However, others argue that not requiring schools in these states to “do anything” with the assessment results during students’ senior year of high school is a wasted opportunity. Illinois legislation provides one promising model for putting ACT results to good use. Established through legislation enacted in 2007, the state’s 3-year College and Career Readiness Pilot Program calls for a small number of community colleges in the state to partner with one or more high schools to use ACT scores to (a) diagnose college readiness; (b) reduce the need for postsecondary remediation in reading, writing, and math; (c) align high school and college curricula; (d) provide resources and academic support to high school seniors through remedial or advanced courses and other interventions; and (e) evaluate the effectiveness of readiness intervention strategies (110 ill. comp. stat. 805/2-25). A June 2010 brief suggests that sites are making progress toward the stated goals of the legislation (Office of Community College Research and Leadership, 2010). On July 26, 2010, Governor Quinn of Illinois signed legislation extending the pilot, subject to

State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools    41

appropriation, for 3 more years and to seven additional sites (or to as many sites as allowed for by available funding) (2010 S.B. 3705). Racing to the Top: Will the Common Core State Standards and Assessments Change Everything? Not many years ago, the notion of “national standards,” or a “national curriculum” or “national assessments” (apart from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which is not tied to states’ accountability systems, and, until recently, schools could elect not to participate in) was considered heretical in most state policy circles. Yet the nexus of continually disappointing performance on nationwide assessments (and stubborn achievement gaps on these measures), less-than-stellar performance in international comparisons, huge variation in the content and rigor of statelevel assessments, and worries about America’s future economic capacity may have spurred state leaders to set aside their previous reservations. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, administered since 1969, allows Americans to compare performance of subgroups of students, and the nation as a whole, in grades 4, 8, and 12. Grade-12 NAEP performance in reading has not changed appreciably since the 1990s (in fact, 2009 grade-12 NAEP scores were lower than those in 1992). While the 2009 NAEP grade-12 math scores showed some improvement since 2005, the achievement gap in reading and math between White students and their Black and Hispanic peers did not change significantly (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010). Students in the United States participate in three international assessments: the PISA, the TIMSS, and the PIRLS. The PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment), administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), tests 15-year-olds in industrialized nations on reading, math, and science (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, n.d.). In the most recent administration of the PISA in 2009, the United States was in the middle of the pack in reading and science, trailing more than a dozen nations in reading, and “statistically significantly below the OECD average” in math. The mean score in the United States in reading dropped 5 points between 2000 and 2009 (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 2010). Hanushek, Peterson, and Woessmann (2010) editorialize upon the latest PISA results in these words: No less than 30 of the 56 other countries that participated in the [PISA] math test had a larger percentage of students who scored at the international equivalent of the advanced level on our National Assessment of Educational

42    J. D. ZINTH Progress (NAEP) tests. . . . In short, the percentages of high-achieving math students in the U.S.—and most of its individual states—are shockingly below those of many of the world’s leading industrialized nations. Results for many states are at the level of developing countries.

The TIMSS, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, assesses 4th and 8th graders every four years—2007, the fourth administration of this assessment, was the last for which results have been released. While the showing for the United States on the 2007 TIMSS might appear to be more impressive than on the PISA (for example, 4th and 8th graders scored above the scale average in both math and science), the average U.S. 4th-grade score in math trailed those in eight nations. The average U.S. 8th-grade math score was lower than those in five nations, and in science lagged behind those in nine nations. While math scores of U.S. 4th graders rose between 1999 and 2007, their counterparts in several nations made larger gains. There was no perceptible difference in average science scores of U.S. 4th and 8th graders between 1995 and 2007, while seven countries did see average 4th-grade science score gains, and five countries saw average 8th-grade science score gains over the same period of time (Gonzales et al., 2009). The PIRLS tests 4th graders in reading every five years (the last administration for which scores are available was in 2006). U.S. 4th graders scored behind ten other jurisdictions in 2006. U.S. students’ average scores in 2006 were no better than those in 2001, while eight jurisdictions saw increases in their average scores over the same period of time (Baer, Baldi, Ayotte, & Green, 2007). How is this mediocre (at best) performance on international assessments expressed in terms of student performance on state-adopted assessments? Gary Phillips, Vice President and Chief Scientist with the American Institutes for Research (AIR), published the results of a study in 2010 to compare proficiency standards on state assessments against the benchmarks used on the TIMSS and PIRLS, to provide “a mechanism for calibrating the difficulty and gauging the global competitiveness of each state standard [as well as] an international common metric with which to compare state expectations.” The result? Phillips discovered there were two standard deviations—a difference “more than twice the size of the national black-white achievement gap”—between the state with the highest standards and that with the lowest standards. Phillips writes, “In many state testing programs, a gap this large may represent as much as four grade levels.” Reconfiguring 2007 state results against an international performance standard resulted, in 8th-grade mathematics for example, in Massachusetts (with high standards) rising from “one of the lowest performing states to the highest achieving state in the nation.” His report suggests that allowing each state

State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools    43

to set its own performance objectives under No Child Left Behind “is fundamentally flawed, misleading, and lacking in transparency.” Rising Above the Gathering Storm compares the United States against other nations on a number of indicators of economic competitiveness and innovation. While it suggests that the United States “is still the undisputed leader in the performance of basic and applied research,” it notes that other nations are following the example of the United States and gaining ground on key indicators. The report cites the 2001 Hart-Rudman Commission on national security, which preceded the terrorist attacks of September 11 of that year: “The inadequacies of our system of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine” (National Academy of Sciences, 2005). So, perhaps in response to these numerous and widespread concerns, the Common Core Standards movement was launched in 2009 by two national organizations representing state policymakers—the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). These standards (and their related assessments) might be considered the latest expression of recent trends to raise high school expectations for all students and reduce the vast differentiation in graduation requirements and assessments across and within states. The standards in English language arts and math, developed “in collaboration with teachers, school administrators, and experts” and released in June 2010, infuse rigor and relevance into the high school experience, in that they are purportedly “aligned with college and work expectations; . . . include rigorous content and application of knowledge through high-order skills; . . . are informed by other top performing countries, so that all students are prepared to succeed in our global economy and society; and are evidence-based” (Common Core Standards, n.d. a). As of December 2010, the District of Columbia and 40 states had approved the Common Core Standards for their jurisdiction (Common Core Standards, n.d. b). And of course, new assessments are needed to evaluate student mastery of these new standards. To this end, states have joined one or both of two newly created, federally funded testing consortia: the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), with 31 member states as of December 2010; and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), with 26 member states as of December 2010 (Florida Department of Education, n.d.; State of Washington, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, n.d.). Assessments developed by both consortia will test English language arts and mathematics in grades 3–8 and high school, and will be implemented starting in the 2014–2015 school year. The SBAC will use open-source technology and comprise online, adaptive summative assessments, interim adaptive assessments, and performance tasks,

44    J. D. ZINTH

as well as tools and resources to allow teachers and students to “diagnose a student’s learning needs, check for misconceptions, and/or to provide evidence of progress toward learning goals” (SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium, n.d.; State of Washington, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, n.d.). Like the SBAC, the PARCC will be computer-based, and will provide yearend assessments, along with interim (“through-course”) assessments that include performance tasks. As the name suggests, the PARCC will place a strong emphasis on college-readiness. Almost 200 two- and four-year postsecondary institutions in member states are collaborating with the partnership—higher education leaders and faculty will assist in developing the high school assessments, and these institutions will use assessment results as one criterion for placement in credit-bearing courses. While high schoollevel assessments will evaluate students’ college readiness, assessments in grades 3–8 will indicate whether students are on track to achieve college readiness by the end of high school (PARCC, n.d.). Of course, adopting the standards and joining one or both of the testing consortia are only the first steps—states will now need to address such areas as teacher preparation and professional development (to ensure teachers are familiar with and have the knowledge and skills to teach content that may be a departure from earlier state standards); curricula (to ensure that content delivered in the classroom is aligned with the standards); textbooks (will new textbooks aligned with the standards need to be adopted?); and accountability systems (if the Common Core Standards are higher than a state’s former standards, is it fair to use existing accountability measures, under which more schools and districts may be subject to sanctions?) In any event, the creation of the Common Core Standards and testing consortia represent a monumental shift in state-level thinking and action around high school curricula and assessments. Put differently, states may have decided that continuing on the state policy trajectory described earlier in this chapter (incrementally increasing the rigor of high school graduation requirements, adjusting state assessments) was not going to significantly move the needle on raising student achievement and closing performance gaps—the improvements needed in student outcomes call for taking drastic action that just a few years ago would have been unthinkable. At any rate, only time will tell how the new standards and assessments impact existing state efforts to elevate the rigor and relevance of the high school experience or serve as the impetus for new, heretofore unimagined approaches for enhancing high school rigor and relevance.

State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools    45

La plus ça change? Since the 1990s, states have taken a common set of approaches in hopes of increasing the rigor and relevance of the high school curriculum—adopting state-specific content standards; raising graduation requirements (particularly in math and science); replacing lower-level curricular options with a single college-ready track; monitoring and providing supports for schools to help students complete more-challenging high school expectations; integrating relevance into the curriculum by allowing students to earn credit via demonstrations of proficiency, requiring students to complete projects in addition to Carnegie units, and requiring the development of individual graduation plans to help students see the connection between high school coursetaking and their future academic and career goals. States have also retooled existing assessments or adopted new assessments to underscore these college-ready and “rigor for all” aspirations. And although some of the aforementioned state curricular and assessment programs have yet to be fully implemented, to date, efforts show only modest progress (and by some measures, no progress) in raising student achievement for all students, or closing the achievement gap, or helping the United States regain its former (at least perceived) position as a world leader in K–12 student achievement. Additionally, as Gary Phillips’ recent research (2010) makes clear, state-set “proficient” levels under No Child Left Behind do not indicate students’ true knowledge and skills. The Common Core standards and assessments movement takes a new approach. Regardless of race, income, or geography, students in the 40 states participating in the Common Core movement will be held to common, high expectations. It is possible that, unlike the current state of affairs, general education students will not be able to opt out of these standards. Will the Common Core standards and assessments be the innovations that allow the United States to finally move the needle on the grade-12 NAEP and to replace Finland or Korea as the nation that continually shines on international comparisons? Or will unforeseen challenges arise, and we will have to concede: plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose—the more things change, the more things stay the same. Notes 1. States that no longer offer or that plan to phase out the honors diploma/ endorsement they offered in the last decade: Arizona (the “honors endorsement” permitted by statute is now the “High Honors Tuition Program,” or “AIMS Scholarship”), Delaware, Florida (Gold Seal Vocational Endorsement now part of the Florida Bright Futures Scholarship Program, rather than strictly an endorsement on the diploma), Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota,

46    J. D. ZINTH Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia (County Warranty Seal or Stamp and Warranty for Postsecondary Education no longer offered, Certificates of Achievement still in administrative rule). 2. States that offered an honors diploma/endorsement in 2000 or 2007 and still offer an honors diploma/endorsement in 2011(may not be same one): Alabama (while the former Advanced Academic Endorsement is becoming the “first choice” diploma, an “Advanced Career and Technical Endorsement” and a “Career and Technical Endorsement” are still available), Arkansas (still in legislation but not clear whether still in application), California, Connecticut (still in legislation but not clear whether still in application), Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia.

References Baer, J., Baldi, S., Ayotte, K., & Green, P. (2007). The reading literacy of U.S. fourthgrade students in an international context: Results from the 2001 and 2006 progress in international reading literacy study (PIRLS) (NCES 2008–017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. California State University. (n.d.). The early assessment program: Helping high school students meet college expectations in mathematics and english. Retrieved July 26, 2010, from http://www.calstate.edu/eap/documents/eap_program_description.pdf Common Core Standards. (n.d. a). About the standards. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards Common Core Standards. (n.d. b). In the states. Retrieved September 1, 2010, from http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states Dounay, J. (2007). Additional high school graduation requirements and options. Retrieved July 26, 2010, from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=740 Dounay, J. (2008a). High school graduation requirements: Foreign language. Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=905 Dounay, J. (2008b). Honors/college prep diploma or endorsement. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=736 Dounay, J. (2008c). High school graduation requirements: Mathematics. Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=900 Dounay, J. (2008d). High school graduation requirements: Science. Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=902 Dounay, J. (2008e). High school graduation requirements: Total number of units. Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=908 Dounay Zinth, J. (2010a). End-of-course exams: A growing trend in high schoollevel assessments. Progress of Education Reform, 11(2). Retrieved July 26, 2010, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/85/33/8533.pdf Dounay Zinth, J. (2010b). [Opt-out provisions for high school graduation requirements]. Unpublished raw data.

State Policies to Increase Rigor and Relevance in High Schools    47 Dounay Zinth, J. (2010c). [Updated high school graduation requirements]. Unpublished raw data. Education Commission of the States. (1998, November). High school graduation requirements. Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/13/28/1328.doc Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Partnership for assessment of readiness for college and careers. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://www.fldoe.org/ parcc/ Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2008). Highlights from TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S. fourthand eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009–001, Revised). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Hanushek, E. A., Peterson, P. E., & Woessmann, L. (2010, November). U.S. math performance in global perspective: How well does each state do at producing high-achieving students? Retrieved January 17, 201,1 from http://www.hks. harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG1019_HanushekPetersonWoessmann. pdf Hawaii Department of Education. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions (FAQ) about the BOE recognition diploma. Retrieved July 26, 2010, from http://graduation.k12. hi.us/pdfs/BOE_FAQs.pdf Indiana Department of Education. (n.d.). End-of-course assessment infocenter. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from http://www.doe.in.gov/eca/ Massachusetts Department of Education. (n.d.). MassCore—College and career readiness. Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/hsreform/ masscore McBrien, J. L., & Brandt, R. S. (1997). The language of learning: A guide to education terms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McWalters, P. (2005, June). The Rhode Island high school diploma system. Retrieved July 26, 2010, from http://www.ride.ri.gov/HighSchoolReform/DOCS/PDFs/ HIGH%20school%20reform/HSDiploma_v071405.pdf National Academy of Sciences. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). The nation’s report card: Grade 12 reading and mathematics 2009 national and pilot state results (NCES 2011-455). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. North Carolina General Assembly, Program Evaluation Division. (2010, April 28). High school graduation project requirement should remain a local school district decision. Final Report to the Joint Legislative Program Evaluation Oversight Committee; Report Number 2010-01. Retrieved July 26, 2010, from http://www. ncga.state.nc.us/PED/Reports/documents/HSGP/HSGP_Report.pdf Office of Community College Research and Leadership. (2010, July). How Illinois’ college and career readiness (CCR) pilot sites address five key goals. University

48    J. D. ZINTH of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved August 1, 2010, from http://occrl. illinois.edu/files/InBrief/Brief-CCR-2010.pdf Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.). FAQ: OECD PISA. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://www.pisa.oecd.org/document /53/0,3746,en_32252351_32235731_38262901_1_1_1_1,00.html Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Executive summary. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://www.oecd. org/dataoecd/34/60/46619703.pdf Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). (n.d.). Race to the Top assessment proposal summary. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://www.fldoe.org/parcc/pdf/prosum.pdf Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2010, June). Race to the Top: Application for phase 2 funding (CFDA Number: 84.395A). Retrieved July 25, 2010, from http://www.education.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/ PTARGS_0_2_60986_7238_0_43/http;//www.portal.state.pa.us;80/portal/ server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_123593_828570_0_0_18/PA_RTTT_Phase_2_ Application_and_Budget_Narrative_Optimized_6-1-2010.pdf Phillips, G. (2010, October). International benchmarking: State education performance standards. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://www.air.org/files/AIR_ Int_Benchmarking_State_Ed__Perf_Standards.pdf SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium. (n.d.). A summary of core components. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://www.k12.wa.us/SMARTER/pubdocs/SBACSummary2010.pdf South Dakota Department of Education. (2009, December 4). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved July 26, 2010, from http://doe.sd.gov/oatq/gradrequirements/documents/FAQs.pdf State of Washington, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (n.d.). The SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium. Retrieved January 17, 2011 from http://www.k12.wa.us/SMARTER/ Weitz, J. (2000, January). Differentiated high school diplomas. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/13/82/1382.doc

Chapter 3

Educational Policy in Practice Implementing the “AP for All” Movement in Two Florida High Schools1 Ashley Spalding, Aimee Eden, and Rebekah Heppner

We’re pushing the honors and the AP on the kids. That’s the sort of thing that we’ll do is push. Push, push, push, push. And we get in trouble; I mean, there’s ramifications of that. These kids will struggle. —Counselor at Monroe High School

Introduction In recent years, a growing number of education reform efforts have focused on improving high school graduation rates and preparing more students to enter college. New programs, including the Early College High School Initiative, the Comprehensive School Reform Program, and Race to the Top, have been designed to improve education quality and better prepare students for life after high school graduation. Not to be left behind, Ad-

Pressing Forward, pages 49–81 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

49

50    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

vanced Placement (AP), an older, traditionally exclusive, college preparation program has expanded in an effort to increase the rigor of high school coursework and enrollment in AP courses. As one of several accelerated high school programs (other academic programs with similar goals are International Baccalaureate2 and dual enrollment3), AP courses expose students to college-level curricula and provide the opportunity for students to earn college credit if they pass the standardized exam offered for each of the 33 AP courses. Developed in the 1950s as a program for the most academically advanced students, AP has gradually become a staple of many high schools’ curriculum and has most recently expanded to enroll a more diverse group of students (e.g., historically underrepresented groups). The expansion of the AP program in recent years has indeed been dramatic; between 2000 and 2008, the number of U.S. high schools offering AP exams increased by about 30% to 17,400 (College Board, 2009), and student enrollment in AP increased by about 70% (Wakelyn, 2009) to 1.7 million students (College Board, 2009). AP course offerings have also grown and changed over time—from courses in 11 subjects during the program’s pilot in 1952 (College Board, 2010) to a peak of 38 courses in 2006 (Dounay, 2006). This expansion can largely be explained by the “AP for All” movement, a response to federal and state initiatives to increase access to accelerated courses and reduce achievement gaps. Also known as “open enrollment” or “open access,” AP for All encourages students from underrepresented groups to enroll in AP courses. To date, expansion efforts have been occurring so rapidly that very little is known about how efforts to increase AP access may affect the AP program, AP courses, the high schools that offer the program, and the students in those high schools. This chapter investigates the implementation of AP expansion in two Florida high schools to provide insight into the impact of AP for All policies on schools. We specifically consider how the schools are (a) translating AP expansion policy into practice, (b) managing the increase in un(der)prepared4 students enrolled in AP classes, and (c) supporting un(der)prepared students enrolled in AP courses. Our examination of the school case studies suggests that although AP expansion has increased AP participation, the policy’s scope is too narrow—and the level of expansion too wide—to affect real positive change in the educational opportunities and academic successes of students from historically underrepresented groups. What is AP? The AP program was developed to transition a small number of gifted high school students into college coursework (Lacy, 2010). The program

Educational Policy in Practice    51

emerged in response to two Ford Foundation studies that concluded that secondary schools and colleges should work together to avoid repetitious coursework. A pilot program was launched in 1952 in 7 high schools and by 1955 had been expanded to 27 schools. The College Board, a nonprofit organization, began administering the program (it then became known as the “College Board’s Advanced Placement Program”),5 and the program grew steadily over the decades that followed (College Board, n.d. a). By the 2008–2009 school year, there were over 17,000 high schools participating in the AP program (College Board, 2009). Currently, the College Board offers 33 AP courses in a variety of areas including art, history, foreign languages, science, and mathematics. AP courses enable high school students to experience college-level rigor and also earn college credit if they pass the standardized AP exams offered for each of these subject areas. There is a fee (currently $87 per exam) associated with taking these exams; however, a federal grant program provides the resources for states to subsidize exam fees for low-income students. The state of Florida pays AP exam fees for all students, regardless of income. According to the College Board, over 90% of U.S. 4-year universities and colleges offer college credit for AP courses (College Board, n.d. b). College Board’s administration of the AP program includes setting and enforcing guidelines for AP course content and providing training for AP teachers. The College Board does not provide or prescribe specific course materials for AP classes; however, since 2006 the College Board has conducted annual AP course audits, including syllabi review and approval by college faculty, to ensure that the content of AP courses taught in high school classrooms aligns with the College Board’s specifications for the courses. Although the College Board does not have formal requirements for teachers of AP classes, they have published a list of recommended informal professional “standards.” These include a bachelor’s degree in a content-related field or significant mastery of content knowledge; the ability to effectively teach diverse groups of learners and encourage critical thinking, problemsolving, and communication skills; and participation in ongoing professional development (College Board, 2005). The College Board provides—and recommends—AP teacher training in the form of workshops and summer institutes, but the training is not required for teaching AP courses.6 AP for All AP was originally intended for a small number of students who exhibited exceptional academic performance. Although the program specifications have never prescribed formal selection criteria for enrollment, as implemented within high schools organized by academic levels or tracks, racial/

52    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

ethnic minorities, students from low-income families, and students who are less academically accomplished have traditionally been excluded from AP (Russell, 2007). The expansion of AP to increase access to these courses for members of historically underrepresented groups is part of an assemblage of programs and initiatives to reform secondary education to enable students to graduate from high school college-ready. A primary goal of a number of these policies and programs, including AP expansion, is to reduce the achievement gap that exists between students from different racial/ ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds. In some settings, implementing AP for All has reduced or effectively eliminated traditional, school-level enrollment guidelines including teacher referrals or sufficient scores on standardized tests. According to results of a national survey of AP teachers, two thirds responded that their high school actually has formal or informal policies of encouraging as many students as possible to take AP classes, and slightly more indicated that their high school’s AP classes were generally open to any student who wants to take them (Duffet & Farkas, 2009). Federal initiatives provide incentives for states and school districts to expand AP (for instance, through state-mandated AP course offerings), so that the AP for All movement has become a federal education reform effort (see Table 3.1 for a summary of federal and Florida initiatives). Federal support for the expansion of AP began in earnest in 2000, when the U.S. Department of Education (ED) initiated the Advanced Placement Incentive Program (APIP) as part of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. This turning point is reflected in the numbers—in 2000–2001, students took 1.4 million AP exams, and by 2008–2009, students sat for 2.9 million exams (College Board, 2009). APIP provides discretionary grant funds for which state and local educational agencies or national nonprofit educational entities can apply to use for activities that expand access to and participation in AP programs, particularly for low-income individuals. Activities may include teacher training, pre-AP course development, coordination between grade levels to prepare students for AP courses, books and supplies, and increased availability of online AP courses (ED, 2010a). The AP Test Fee Program (also part of NCLB) is another federal grant program that supports AP growth in states, awarding grants to state educational agencies to cover part or all of the costs of AP test fees for low-income individuals. From 2005 to 2010, the total amount of these awards increased from $5.2 million to $18 million (ED, 2010b). In 2006, President George W. Bush called for the training of 70,000 new AP math and science teachers and a tripling of the number of students who successfully complete AP science and math courses within 5 years (NSF, 2006). President Obama’s administration has continued this emphasis on AP (as well as International Baccalaureate and dual enrollment) as a strate-

ED

ED

APIP

AP Test Fee Program

1997

1994

1980

Year

2008

2005

Grants to increase the participation of 2000 low-income students in both pre-AP and AP courses and tests. Grants to cover part or all of the costs of AP test fees for low-income individuals 2004

AP Expansion National Funding for 51 pilot high schools in Project Governors 6 states to expand AP courses to Association minority and low-income students. Center for Best Practices Exam fee College Board Fee reductions of $22 per exam for reductions students with financial need.

SLCs

Program run by private, non-profit organization U.S. Department of Education (ED)

AVID

Programmatic strategy for closing the achievement gap and making the college dream accessible to all students. Grants to support the implementation of SLCs and activities to improve student academic achievements in large public high schools

Organization Description

Initiative

National

Florida

Florida Legislature & College Board

FLVS

School grades Florida Legislature

School grade formula changed to emphasize, among other factors, AP exam participation and pass rates.

Act that provides teacher training for AP and other support for minority academic achievement

Incentive program that financially rewards school sfor increasing student participation and achieve-ment in AP courses and exams

Online AP courses, increasing accessibility to AP courses

Organization Description

Florida FLDOE & Partnership College Board

Florida Virtual School One Florida Initiative

Initiative

Table 3.1  Policies, Programs, and Legislation Affecting AP Expansion

Educational Policy in Practice    53

54    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

gy to close achievement gaps through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, encouraging “districts to use funds provided by the act to adopt more rigorous curricula” (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2010, p. 182). Numerous state policies have been designed in response to federal initiatives for more AP, although they take different approaches to AP and its expansion. For example, only three states mandate that all high schools offer AP courses; eight states have implemented policies designed to identify high-potential AP students; 11 states provide financial incentives or support to schools or districts for AP courses; 27 states fund AP trainings for teachers; and 28 states offer virtual AP courses (ECS, 2009a–e). State policymakers, alongside colleges, promote increased AP enrollment by awarding extra grade weight for AP course grades (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2010). There are other national-level stakeholders influencing the drive to increase AP enrollment. The National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Education Commission of the States (ECS) promote state policies that are favorable to AP expansion (Dounay, 2006; Wakelyn, 2009). The NGA Center advises states about policy and program changes that would impact AP enrollment and success, recommending strategies that include expanding access (by dropping certain prerequisites, recruiting minority students in groups to ensure social support, and using virtual-learning technology to reach rural students), building teacher capacity, offering extra support for students, and creating incentives for students and schools. ECS recommends a comprehensive state AP policy framework to “set uniform expectations for the offering and provision of AP courses and test taking opportunities/requirements and makes it possible for all students to reap the full benefits of the AP program” (Dounay, 2006, p. 3). The College Board has also advocated for increased access to AP courses by collaborating with states and districts, as well as by supporting efforts to reduce or eliminate the exam fee for students from low-income families (Wakelyn, 2009). The College Board has introduced Pre-AP initiatives and AP Vertical Teams to prepare middle-school students to take advanced courses in high school (College Board, 2005). Vertical Teams of middle and high school teachers in specific content areas work together to prepare students for rigorous high school AP coursework. Likewise, the PreAP initiative provides middle and high school teachers with professional resources and strategies to allow them to best prepare students for AP and college-level courses. Implementation of AP for All The implementation of AP for All has occurred alongside other national programs and initiatives—and many of these may work to support the goals

Educational Policy in Practice    55

of AP expansion. For example, AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) is a program run by a private nonprofit organization (AVID Center) that works in concert with AP and other accelerated coursetaking options. AVID has been utilized by many schools to address achievement gaps, since it places into rigorous courses (including AP) students who traditionally do not go on to 4-year colleges and universities, are considered academically average, and are the first in their families to go to college. The program also provides these students with additional courses (such as college-entry skills, writing, and academic study skills) and support (AVID, 2010b). AVID currently serves over 400,000 students in nearly 4,500 elementary, middle, and high schools across the country. AVID courses provide students with organizational and study skills, as well as critical thinking skills. The program also offers enrichment and motivational activities “that make college seem attainable” (AVID, 2010a). AVID has been shown to increase AP coursetaking and college attendance (Guthrie & Guthrie, 2000; Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996; Watt, Huerta, & Lozano, 2007). Another program designed to improve student academic achievement affecting AP participation and performance is the ED’s Smaller Learning Communities program (SLC), which provides grants to support the implementation of SLCs in large public high schools with enrollments of 1,000 or more students (SLCP, 2010a). Part of the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, ED began awarding SLC discretionary grants in 2001 with the reauthorization of NCLB. One of the SLC program’s priorities, added in 2007, is to “increase opportunities for students to earn postsecondary credit through Advanced Placement (AP) courses, International Baccalaureate (IB) courses, or dual credit programs” (SLCP, 2010b). Grantees’ use of SLC program funds is flexible and varied; we are not aware of any research that examines the impact of the SLC program on AP enrollment, performance, or outcomes. While AP expansion is driven by federal and state policies and initiatives, AP for All is ultimately implemented by high schools. School administrators and other school personnel must determine how to enroll an increasing number of students in AP and prescribe criteria to determine how students should be admitted to these classes. Teachers must provide rigorous content to an increasing number of students, many of whom are not well prepared for AP coursework. AP expansion has proven particularly challenging for schools with large numbers of un(der)prepared students and few resources (Burney, 2010; Lichten, 2010). Although College Board initiatives (Pre-AP and Vertical Teams) address the greater numbers of un(der) prepared students enrolling in AP courses, it is unclear the extent to which these programs are being utilized by schools and how effective they are. Schools are essentially on their own in implementing AP for All and managing its challenges.

56    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

Despite the important role of schools in implementing AP expansion, very few studies have focused on the experiences of schools in delivering AP coursework to increasingly diverse groups of students. A few studies have examined how school-level factors influence AP participation and performance (Burney, 2010; Conger, Long & Iatarola, 2009; Klopfenstein, 2004; Kyburg, Hertberg-Davis, & Callahan, 2007; Paek, Braun, Ponte, Trapani, & Powers, 2010). However, very little is known about the inevitable challenges faced by schools implementing AP for All, as well as school-level policies, practices, and supports intended to assist less well-prepared students with success in AP courses. Understanding the difficulties schools face in implementing AP expansion and how schools manage these challenges is the focus of this chapter. The following case studies of two public high schools in one Florida district7 provide some insights into how schools are implementing AP expansion. Based on our interviews with school administrators, counselors, and teachers of accelerated courses, and focus groups with students in accelerated courses,8 we found that schools serving large numbers of un(der)prepared students face significant challenges in implementing the policy. These case studies provide an in-depth understanding of the effects of large-scale policies as they are implemented and experienced on the ground in order to inform future policy in this area. The Case Studies State Context: AP in Florida In Florida, AP-related initiatives began with the education reforms enacted during Jeb Bush’s first gubernatorial term. In collaboration with the College Board, Governor Bush started the One Florida Initiative in 2000, which included an incentive program that financially rewards schools for increasing student participation and achievement in AP courses and exams. In 2004, the state legislature passed the Florida Partnership for Minority and Underrepresented Student Achievement Act (called The Florida Partnership), allowing the Florida Department of Education to contract with the College Board to prepare minority and underrepresented students for postsecondary success. Through the partnership, the College Board provides teacher training and professional development to middle school teachers and administrators to help prepare students for advanced courses in high school. In addition, the College Board supplies evaluation data to enable schools and districts to improve and expand their AP programs (OPPAGA, 2010). The Partnership also established free PSATs for all tenthgrade students so that the resulting test scores could be used to identify students likely to succeed in AP courses (Holstead, Spradlin, McGillivray, &

Educational Policy in Practice    57

Burroughs, 2010; OPPAGA, 2010). Less-direct policy changes, such as how the state calculates school grades,9 also impact the level of AP participation in Florida. New legislation passed in 2008 (and in effect for the first time during the 2009–2010 school year) changes the formula Florida uses to grade schools to emphasize, among other factors, AP exam participation and exam pass rates. These policies and practices have fueled rapid growth in AP enrollment in Florida. According to the College Board (2010), 28% of twelfth graders in Florida took at least one AP exam in 2004; by 2009, the AP exam participation rate for twelfth graders increased to 40%. By comparison, AP examtaking across the nation increased at a much lower rate, from 20% to 26% nationally during the same time period. Today, 430 public schools across Florida offer AP, and access to AP courses has also been expanded with the introduction of Florida Virtual High School in 1997, which today offers 14 AP courses online. Passing rates on AP exams have not, however, grown at a similar pace. In Florida, the AP exam pass rate declined from 56% of tests taken in 2000 to 43% in 2009 (Matus, 2010). Florida provides an interesting context for studying AP for All because the growth of AP participation in the state is particularly impressive. Equally important, the expansion of AP has increased AP participation among historically underrepresented students in Florida. And pass rates of these students have also increased; between 1999 and 2007, “the number of Hispanic and African-American students in Florida that passed an AP exam more than tripled” (Ladner & Lips, 2009, p. 6). Hispanic students made up 22% of the 2009 graduating class overall, and they made up more than 27% of AP examinees scoring a 3 or higher on at least one exam (College Board, 2010). But while Florida’s Hispanic population has the highest performance in the nation, with pass rates nearly eight times greater than that of the lowest-performing state (Arizona), progress for African American students is less impressive. Although African American students made up nearly 20% of the 2009 graduating class, they only account for 6.3% of the successful examinee population—up from 5.7% in 2004 (College Board, 2010). Participation of low-income students in AP courses has doubled in the past 5 years—from 9% of the AP examinee population in 2007 to 18% in 2009. Of the successful AP examinee population, 16% was low income in 2009 (up from 9% in 2004; College Board, 2010). District Context: Open AP Enrollment The district housing our two high schools is among the largest in the nation. Like all districts in Florida, it is countywide and covers a large population base, serving nearly 50,000 students. Considered an urban district,

58    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

it includes a major metropolitan area, its surrounding suburbs, and a few smaller municipalities. The district comprises a diverse demographic, including almost 30% African American and just over 30% Hispanic students. At the time of our visit, the district’s school board had recently approved an agreement with the order of a judge that would give it unitary status, releasing it from nearly 50 years of federal supervision of desegregation. Of the district’s 2007 graduates, 40% took AP classes, compared with the statewide participation rate of 37% (OPPAGA, 2008). This district has had an open-access policy for AP for the past 3 years, and the number of AP tests taken by students has increased 80% in the past 2 years alone. Based on the school district’s Web site and recent newspaper articles, AP participation has increased over 500%, and the participation of students from underrepresented groups has increased more than 900% over the past 10 years. AP teachers in this district are financially rewarded ($50) for each student enrolled in their AP class who passes the related AP exam with a score of 3 or higher. The district has an active AVID program, which provides support in most of the high schools for a select group of students not traditionally considered college bound. Between 2003 and 2008, the district received several grants to implement SLCs in multiple schools; SLCs are functioning in both schools described in this chapter. The Schools Our two case study high schools—Monroe and Cleveland10—are large (2,500–3,000 students) 4-year, Title I high schools, which enroll a student body that is both racially/ethnically diverse and includes a high number of students from low socioeconomic status households (see Table 3.2). Demographically, these schools are ideal for studying AP for All, as many students from underrepresented groups (intended to benefit from AP for All) are in attendance, and these are also the types of schools for which AP expansion can be particularly challenging (Lichten, 2010). Both schools are organized into SLCs, have AVID programs, and offer AP and dual enrollment courses. Monroe High School is a well-established school that has been open for nearly 20 years. It is located in a suburban area on the far edge of the district and has a magnet International Baccalaureate (IB) program. In 2009, Monroe’s enrollment was approximately 60% Hispanic (twice that of the district), 15% African American (half that of the district), and 60% free/reduced lunch. Data for the 2006–2007 school year indicate that over 60% of AP Calculus students were Hispanic and nearly 10% of AP Calculus students were African American. For the 2009–2010 school year, 17 AP courses were offered. The school also has relatively high rates of participation in dual enrollment by Hispanic and African American students. After being orga-

Educational Policy in Practice    59 Table 3.2  Summary and Comparison of State, District and School Data, 2009

Demographics African American Hispanic White Asian Free/reduced lunch FDOE Grade 2009c AP Enrollment 2009 Total 10th–12th graders Number AP test takers % 10th–12 graders in AP Number AP courses offered

AP Performance 2009 Number AP exams taken 2009 Percent AP exams 3 or higher

U.S.

Florida

District

Monroea

Cleveland

14% 16% 62% 5% 40%b n/a

23% 23% 49% 2% 34% n/a

30% 30% 65% 5% n/a A

15% 60% 20% 10% 60% B

40% 15% 40% 5% 50% D

11,750,000 798,629 n/a n/a

353,036d 58,394 41%c 10 (avg/ school)

36,000 10,500 30% n/a

2,400 1,000 40% 17

2,000 450 22% 24

n/a

233,851

18,000

1,300

800

n/a

43%

43%

35%

27%

Note: All denographic data in this table were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau, the district, or school unless otherwise noted. All AP information in this table was derived from data provided by the College Board. ©2009 by the College Board. All rights reserved. a Racial categories add to 105% due to rounding, which was done to maintain the anonymity of the school. b 2001–2002 data from the National Center for Education Statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/ Pubs2003/100_largest/tables/table_c.asp) c School Grades as calculated by the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) d 11th and 12th graders

nized according to the traditional high school model for 15 years, Monroe recently transitioned into SLCs with the help of a $1.5 million federal grant. The school is now organized into six “houses,” each with a different academic focus (e.g., the focus of one house is STEM—Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics). Many members of the large Hispanic student population at Monroe are first-generation immigrants or children of immigrants, and the counselors told us that most parents had not attended college. Because the Hispanic student population at this school is new to the United States, they may not be familiar with the education system. This is an important school characteristic considering that Florida has been credited with eliminating the “equity and excellence” gap for Hispanic students, based on those who

60    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

achieve a score of 3 or higher on AP exams (College Board, 2010). While the percentage of Hispanic students enrolled in AP courses is high at this school, their exam pass rates are significantly lower than state-level rates; the gap still exists at this particular school—a fact that is obscured by statelevel data. Cleveland High School is a much newer school than Monroe; it opened only 5 years ago in a separate small municipality on the opposite edge of the district. The student body here is also diverse, over 40% African American (compared to 30% in the district) and 15% Hispanic (compared to 30% in the district), and it also serves many students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (see Table 3.2 for full demographic breakdown). The school had the highest level of participation in AP Calculus by African American students in this district in 2007. Cleveland offered 24 AP classes in 2009–2010, significantly higher than the statewide average of 10. In most core classes there are more sections of honors than of “regular.” For example, at the time of our visit, there were 14 sections of honors chemistry but only 4 of “regular” chemistry. While the school offers dual enrollment, participation is very low. Cleveland was created to be “a different kind of high school” (as described by an administrator) and was organized by SLCs, or houses, at the outset. The houses are structurally separate, and student assignment to particular houses is random, but according to school administrators, there is an attempt to achieve a demographic balance in each house. Cleveland was modeled after a school in the Midwest with similar demographics, and one of the goals of the Midwest school is that every student will take at least one AP class. It is important to note, however, that although portions of the school structure and philosophy at Cleveland are modeled after this Midwestern school, other components are unique. Open enrollment philosophies. Both schools consider themselves to be open access for AP. Open enrollment policies have allowed Cleveland and Monroe to increase the number of students in accelerated courses and to include more students from underrepresented groups and economically disadvantaged families who might not otherwise have such opportunities (see Table 3.2 for a summary and comparison of select state, district, and school data). At Cleveland, AP participation has tripled in the 5 years since the school opened,11 from approximately 130 to 450 students taking exams. AP enrollment at Monroe has also increased significantly between 2007 and 2009, from 700 to nearly 1,000 students taking exams (FLDOE, 2010).12 Cleveland has been open access since it was founded, while Monroe has implemented this policy only over the past 3 years. As they work to implement AP for All, both schools simultaneously implement other mandated programs as well as their own initiatives—and many of these programs affect AP participation. At Cleveland, the vision

Educational Policy in Practice    61

that “every child will graduate” supports participation in AP as students receive “bonus” grade points for AP that help them meet graduation requirements. As an example of the strong feelings shared by many in support of open access at Cleveland, one of the school’s counselors described how he felt watching students initially reluctant to try an honors class actually succeed and go on to take AP and apply to college: “It’s just like freeing someone from chains . . . and it’s breaking that chain once and for all and that goes from one generation to the next, to the next, to the next and the next.” Cleveland administrators adhered to the belief promoted by the College Board that the experience of an AP class itself has benefit, regardless of grades and AP exam scores: “We believe that exposure to the level of rigor, regardless of what the outcome is on the College Board test, will help prepare them for college”—although research shows that students do not benefit from AP coursetaking unless they become proficient in the subject area, which is generally measured by students’ scores on the AP exam (Bailey & Karp, 2003; Duffy, 2010; Geiser & Santelices, 2004; Klopfenstein, 2010; Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009). Monroe did not use the College Board’s rhetoric as strongly, but emphasized expanding opportunity to more students: I mean, my first reaction would be, “Yeah, let’s just make it a little harder to get in to AP.” But then . . . what does that do to the rest of the population? . . . I think the lesser of the two evils would be to leave it open, expose as many kids as possible to that type of an environment and challenge them, because a handful of them are going to come out the other side benefiting from that. A few might not, but most of them will benefit from it. (Counselor, Monroe) If a child is willing—feels that they want to take up the challenge and try it— they should be given that opportunity. (Teacher, Monroe)

While both schools have embraced AP for All in theory, in practice, they have faced challenges in implementing it successfully and coherently, as we will demonstrate below. In the section that follows, we examine the experiences of the two schools in implementing AP expansion. We discuss (a) how the schools translate AP for All into practice, (b) the challenge schools face in implementing AP for All with an un(der)prepared student population, and (c) the supports the schools utilize to assist un(der)prepared students in AP courses. Findings School implementation of AP for All. Although schools throughout the state are accountable for increasing AP participation, no concrete guidelines

62    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

have been prescribed by policymakers or the College Board for deciding, in the era of AP for All, how the implementation of AP expansion should/will fit with existing school structures, how the additional AP course offerings at schools should be staffed, and who belongs in AP courses. Schools must work out for themselves how to juggle a broad range of academic programs and educational policies and initiatives, select and support AP teachers now responsible for educating students with a variety of academic backgrounds (unlike more homogenous AP courses that predate the AP for All initiative), and approach the AP student enrollment process. School Structure AP expansion in schools has not occurred in a vacuum; it has been implemented alongside other programs and within an existing school context (see Table 3.3 for a summary of these). In some situations, AP for All fits well with existing school structures; however, this is not always the case. At both Cleveland and Monroe, there were some aspects of the school structures that were supportive of AP expansion and other aspects that presented additional challenges. In both schools, for example, SLCs worked to support the goals of AP for All. The staff at Monroe sees a relationship between their implementation of the SLC model, with its cornerstones of rigor, relationships, relevance, and reading, and the growth of AP participation as a way to increase the rigor of secondary education: We’re trying to implement rigor; more rigor, more rigor. I mean, rigor is a big word around here (laughs). . . . It all came with the Small Learning Communities, because the push is rigor, relationship, relevance to careers . . . when you develop an attitude at a school that involves rigor and building relationships with kids and building relevance . . . you know, the kids tend to . . . pick up on it, and they run with it. (Counselor, Monroe)

While Monroe administrators link the SLC model to AP via its rigor principle, at Cleveland the focus is on the relationship-building made possible through SLCs. Cleveland believes that teachers and counselors can influence more students to participate and succeed in accelerated courses such as AP if closer relationships with students are built within SLCs: Relationships with your students are important, because if a student feels safe with you, if they feel you’re accessible and you’re interested in them and that you care about them as people, there’s just not very much they won’t do. And they’ll try. . . . Sometimes they just surprise themselves with what they can do. (AP Chemistry teacher, Cleveland)

AP does not exist in schools in isolation from other accelerated course options—and at times these programs compete with AP for students and

Educational Policy in Practice    63 Table 3.3  School Structure Program

Monroe

Cleveland

Magnet IB

Yes, for IB Yes—AP students have access to certain IB courses Yes—in-school and at community college; Encouraged by school counselors resulting in high participation rate Yes—open enrollment; Encourage rigorous courses with teacher/counselor recommendation Yes—recently adopted SLC model; 6 houses organized by academic focus; Emphasis on academic rigor Yes—strong leadership, very active

No No

Dual enrollment

AP

SLC

AVID

Yes—at community college only; Discouraged by school counselors resulting in low participation rate Yes—open enrollment; Encourage all students to take AP and provide extra academic support for all students Yes—from school’s inception; 4 houses to which students are “randomly” assigned; Emphasis on relationship-building Yes—muted presence

resources. IB and dual enrollment offer alternatives to AP that include the same potential benefits of college credit and bonus points on high school grade point averages. In Florida, IB is only offered at a few schools in each district, including Monroe, but the IB application process is open to all students as a magnet program. Although the IB program competes with AP for students, its presence at Monroe also provides added opportunities for non-IB students to take accelerated classes. The non-IB students here are allowed to take certain classes, such as AP Calculus, with the IB students (although this is not the case at every IB school). Without the IB program, some of the AP classes might not have been offered due to budget restrictions regarding class size and teacher allocations. Monroe and Cleveland take very different approaches to dual enrollment: at Monroe, dual enrollment is treated as a good alternative to AP for some students, but at Cleveland students are discouraged from participating in dual enrollment (in favor of AP). Dual enrollment participation at Monroe has grown dramatically in the last few years, from 10 students five years ago to 150 students currently. The growth in this program is primarily due to one counselor who strongly believes that this option offers advantages over AP for the students at this school. He told us that many of Monroe’s students from economically disadvantaged households receive college credit through dual enrollment but, because they often do not pass the AP exams, they frequently do not receive college credit for AP classes. Like IB, the dual enrollment program at Monroe competes with AP, and many students take both AP and dual enrollment classes.

64    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

Unlike Monroe, dual enrollment at Cleveland is actively discouraged. There are no classes offered for dual enrollment on the high school campus, and only 20 students were going off-campus to take dual enrollment classes at the time of our visit. Although administrators admitted that some students prefer dual enrollment, they still discourage it and strongly endorse AP as an alternative, in part because college admissions officers have told them that AP courses carry more weight on college applications; they also quote, as noted above, the College Board philosophy that students benefit from AP even if they don’t pass the AP exam and receive college credit. In contrast, five dually enrolled students who participated in a focus group interview were very excited about the opportunity to earn free college credits and complained that there is not enough information about the dual enrollment program readily available to students at Cleveland. Some students complained that their counselors discouraged them from taking dual enrollment courses and pushed them to take AP despite their prior experience in AP courses and their stated future goals. By encouraging AP at the exclusion of dual enrollment, Cleveland supports AP for All but may be denying some students the opportunity to earn free college credits—which, as pointed out by a counselor at Monroe, may be particularly important for students with few economic resources13—or take courses that they consider to be a better fit for their needs and goals. In these schools, AP for All must be implemented within existing school structures. While some structures, like SLCs, complement AP expansion, others, such as existing accelerated programs and courses offerings, can prove more problematic. For instance, at Cleveland, implementing AP for All has meant limiting dual enrollment as an option for students. Who Teaches AP Courses? Teacher Selection and Support Within the schools, AP expansion has had a dramatic effect on many teachers. The issues AP teachers face in the classroom, how teachers are selected to teach AP, and the types of support and training teachers need to effectively teach AP students were all issues raised by teachers and administrators at Cleveland and Monroe (see Table 3.4 for a summary of these issues in the two schools). Many AP teachers at Cleveland and Monroe are struggling to teach large numbers of students they believe to be un(der) prepared for AP coursework in their AP courses. The AP curriculum has not changed with AP for All, so teachers must now teach the same curriculum to students with very different levels of preparation, which is clearly a significant challenge. Staffing these classrooms with experienced teachers—and providing supports and professional development opportunities for these teachers—seems critical for a successful teaching and learning environment amidst AP for All. However, this is not always the case in practice. Identifying teachers to teach AP courses, which have increased in num-

Educational Policy in Practice    65 Table 3.4  Implementation of AP for All Process

Monroe

Cleveland

Student selection

No formal system; Based on teacher and/or counselor recommendation; Allow students and parents to override teacher/counselor recommendations No formal process for teacher selection AP teacher mentoring; College Board trainings

No formal system; No minimum requirements; All students are encouraged to take Honors and AP courses; Students/parents make their own choices No formal process for teacher selection Professional Learning Communities; AP teacher mentoring; College Board trainings

Teacher selection Teacher support

ber over the last several years, is informal and varied. At both schools, AP teachers said that rather than seek out the opportunity themselves, they had been approached by school administrators about teaching their subject areas at the AP level. For example, an AP Calculus teacher at Monroe said, The assistant principal talked to the principal and asked me to teach AP Calculus . . . they called me in and they talked to me about it. And I thought okay, the low level is hard to teach . . . I don’t want to deal with the behavior, so I’ll try to deal with the academic students. . . . I accept . . . to teach AP Calculus. But when I walk out her office, the principal’s office, I thought why I was stupid because I accept this. Got a lot of work for me. (AP Calculus teacher, Monroe)14

Similarly, an AP Physics teacher at Cleveland said, “I was the only physics teacher [in the school], so they said, ‘Are you willing to put in the effort to teach AP Physics B?’” Teachers who were selected to teach AP classes were described by administrators as having positive prior teaching results and the willingness to make the extra commitment required to teach AP—but these teachers were not always the most experienced: We don’t necessarily assign the most experienced teachers to the high-level courses, because in some cases, to be quite frank with you, the most experienced or the best teachers we have sometimes, are the, we need them with our lowest-level students. But we look at data, number one. Number two is we look at desire, and it’s open. A teacher doesn’t have to wait 6, 7, 8 years to teach an AP class here, waiting for someone to retire, because we just don’t do it that way. (Administrator, Cleveland)

The Monroe AP Calculus teacher quoted previously was actually hired to teach calculus after only her first year of teaching because the assistant

66    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

principal saw potential in her to excel in such a position (and in fact her students scored well on the AP Calculus exam). AP students seemed to be aware of the issue of AP teacher selection and sometimes talked about un(der)prepared teachers: Yeah, sometimes . . . the teachers . . . the courses get thrust on them. They kind of say, “Okay, who wants to teach AP Statistics?” No one raises their hands, they say, “You have a free period, you teach it.” And then they don’t necessarily know what they’re talking about, and then a lot of the students suffer because they’re not . . . trained in that area. (AP student, Cleveland)

AP teachers are obviously a significant factor in students’ success in these courses. A recent study suggests that professional development opportunities for teachers, among other teacher factors, have an effect on students’ AP exam performance (Paek et al., 2010). With AP expansion, large numbers of AP teachers are needed, and schools must work out how to fulfill these staffing needs. Some teachers selected to teach AP may lack experience and AP training, although these are not the only characteristics of a good AP teacher. Schools support AP teachers in different ways and to different degrees. For example, all teachers at Cleveland are part of Professional Learning Communities, which involve regular collaboration with other teachers of the same subject in order to maintain curricular standards; this teacher support was specifically described as benefitting teachers of AP classes. We also have a model in place . . . we have Professional Learning Communities in place where we require teachers, it’s nonnegotiable, every week, to collaborate with their colleagues if their colleague teaches the same subject matter. And in that collaboration, they are to talk about three things: what is it we are supposed to be teaching, because you and I can both look at a set of standards, and we may both have a totally different interpretation of what those standards mean. (Administrator, Cleveland)

In addition, a new district-level initiative pairs new AP teachers with more-experienced AP teachers—both schools are participating in this initiative. The more-experienced teachers serve as mentors, and pairs might be matched either within the school or within the district. The College Board supports teachers primarily through its regional trainings. However, according to school administrators and counselors, it can be challenging for schools to enroll teachers in these trainings, due to budgets and/or difficulty enrolling teachers for a limited number of trainings. It is also difficult for teachers who have to make a time commitment to attend such trainings. AP teachers often talked about their commitment to their students, and this can impact their desire and ability to attend trainings:

Educational Policy in Practice    67 I talked to the administrator already. I said, “Please let me go to training during summer, I do not want to leave my students.” Because . . . there are a lot of concepts to be covered and I don’t want them to sit there with the substitute. . . . I don’t want them when they take there the AP exam and say, “Mrs. X15 didn’t cover this concept!” (AP Calculus teacher, Monroe)

Another way that the College Board supports teachers is through its Web site, AP Central: It’s part of the College Board Web site and it’s really great for teachers to go to, to get lesson plans, teaching strategies. They’re able to actually ask other teachers; they can post questions and it, it does help them out a lot. (Counselor, Cleveland)

Regardless of teacher qualifications, the success or failure of students under AP for All should not be viewed as primarily the responsibility of teachers. While schools seem to be attempting to recruit the most qualified teachers and provide support and professional development opportunities for managing these new classroom environments, such efforts alone cannot correct all of the challenges associated with AP for All. In our site visits, the most frequently mentioned challenge was the enrollment of large numbers of un(der)prepared students in AP. It is unlikely, for example, that teaching experience and training can elicit high performance in AP calculus from a student with only minimal proficiency in basic math (an actual scenario in which a Monroe teacher found herself). Who Takes AP Courses? Student Recruitment and Enrollment Process One positive aspect of AP for All is that it encourages AP participation for students who would not traditionally have enrolled and who may have taken fewer rigorous courses in the past and may have lower academic achievement. On the other hand, it may not be practical for all students to take AP courses. Schools must determine which students will benefit from the experience of being in each AP class—which students have enough preparation to be challenged without being “set up to fail,” a phrase we encountered numerous times during our visits to the schools (see Table 3.4 for a summary of student selection at Monroe and Cleveland). These determinations are critical for the success of students and schools, but neither school had yet developed a satisfactory system for making such decisions. Despite the evaluation data offered by the College Board and the Florida Partnership to help identify AP-ready students, the schools did not discuss using these methods. This is how an assistant principal at Monroe, where 40% of tenth–twelfth graders were enrolled in AP in 2009, described the school’s enrollment process:

68    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER The counselors go around and they do their spiel in the classrooms, and they’ll speak with the teacher of that class, like the history teachers and so on, and they’ll have what you call a pre-signup. . . . And they might call that student in and say, “Are you sure this is what you want?” . . . So then you get a little bit of fine-tuning . . . Don’t want to set them up for failure. . . . So it’s preregistering. It’s teacher’s input. It’s parental input. And sometimes you’ll find for a small percentage of students it’s their own motivation. (Administrator, Monroe)

The students in our focus groups at Monroe described a screening process that includes identification of students to be moved into more-rigorous courses, but they expressed a belief that their advisors would not put them into a situation they could not handle: Your guidance counselors and your teachers have to know that you’re a certain type of person that’s going to work hard and actually qualifies to be in the class, because if they don’t think that you can do it, if they think that you’re not going to excel in the class, then I don’t think that they would, you know, recommend you to take the class. So, you have to have a certain level of intelligence to even be in the class. (AP student, Monroe)

At Cleveland, where 22% of tenth–twelfth graders were in AP in 2009, open access has meant that not only are there no minimum requirements for prior performance, but that all students are encouraged to take AP courses. Cleveland begins the process with students selecting courses themselves, and the students have been strongly encouraged by teachers and counselors to choose higher level classes. We have open enrollment. Now, I won’t say—yes, I’ll say it—it’s open enrollment with counseling. In other words, we do not have a rigid set of prerequisites for our courses. Now, they are counseled and there are certain things, and we are not going to stick, you know, kids that haven’t even finished Geometry or Algebra I into, like, AP Physics, like that. But you know, we have certain parameters, but not necessarily like most traditional type . . . where at other schools, honestly, they wouldn’t even have that opportunity. Because of the prerequisites, they wouldn’t even know. They’d be the regular ed kid. (Administrator, Cleveland)

As a group, administrators, counselors, and teachers at Monroe were less consistent in their support of the open enrollment policy than those we interviewed at Cleveland, who were all supportive of open access. Both approaches, however, have resulted in un(der)prepared students being placed into AP classes, which has significant implications for both students and teachers. Administrators at both schools used the analogy of a pendu-

Educational Policy in Practice    69

lum that had swung too far in describing the movement toward open access for AP. One counselor at Cleveland explained it this way: I guess by following the recommendations of College Board, we have actually gotten the pendulum to swing from a traditional, more restrictive approach toward offering students Advanced Placement courses or honors courses. We’ve actually swung past the middle, which is ideally where we want to be, or a little bit on the high end. . . . We just got to the point where a number of our students weren’t being successful, and there was a really big push from the top for us to pack those classes, so that’s what we did. And now we are realizing we could do a better job. (Counselor, Cleveland)

An assistant principal at Monroe used the analogy to describe his view of this dilemma, with which his school was also grappling: Sometimes I feel we swing the pendulum from one end to the next. With open enrollment and more kids getting exposure to AP classes—that’s good—but it’s also damaging, I feel, to some who are not ready yet and have a bitter experience and will never take another AP class in their life. . . . On the other hand, the whole method of just teachers’ recommendations, sometimes there was some little bit of bias in there . . . so that had its problem, too, but it’s relatively minor compared to the big open policy. So having more kids exposed to it is good, but it should be a little bit more fine-tuned. (Administrator, Monroe)

Both of these administrators expressed frustration with the situation created by the AP for All policy. However, while Monroe school faculty and staff worry that they may have damaged the students by placing them in courses for which they were not prepared, the open enrollment process at Cleveland was merely viewed by staff as in need of some revision. Administrators and counselors at Cleveland told us they are now going to be more actively involved in students’ decisions to take AP, although they were adamant that this did not mean open enrollment was ending. The school has no intention of using test scores or specific grades to be selective in placing students; the advice of the administrators to the counselors, as described by one counselor, is now to “use your best professional judgment . . . because we can’t go by numbers . . . there are a lot of intangibles that come into play.” Students and parents here will still have the option to choose an accelerated class, but next year they may be told that the teachers and counselors did not recommend it. Some students will now be encouraged by their counselors to start in a less rigorous course (e.g., honors instead of AP) with the option of requesting to move to a more rigorous class if they find it too easy (instead of beginning the year in the more rigorous class and having to drop out of the course if it is too difficult for them).

70    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

Even at Monroe, where teachers and counselors have already been more actively involved in the students’ course selections, we heard rumblings that changes were needed, more “fine-tuning.” An administrator expressed it in terms of not being fair for students to have such a strong push into AP: It has its place, but I don’t like to see a fully open door on exposed students who might be hurt, so to speak, academically. The learners are very young, and we have to do everything to nurture them and to make sure that they have a better experience through their 4 years here in high school. So it has its place, but we’ve got to be a little bit careful in what we’re doing. (Administrator, Monroe)

Neither AP expansion policies nor the College Board provides guidelines (i.e., selection criteria) for enrolling students in AP courses. Clearly, AP for All is somewhat inclusive, but each school must determine for itself how inclusive. Although Cleveland has more-fully embraced AP for All, both schools are attempting to be more selective in AP enrollment as they face the challenges associated with large numbers of un(der)prepared students in AP courses. Un(der)prepared Students: The Primary Challenge to Implementing AP for All. In both Cleveland and Monroe high schools, AP for All has meant that a large number of academically un(der)prepared students are now enrolled in AP courses. This can been seen in their low pass rate on AP exams; in 2009 only 35% passed at Monroe and 27% at Cleveland. While providing rigorous coursework to students traditionally left out of AP is in many ways the goal of AP expansion policies, the prevalence of such large numbers of un(der)prepared students in some high schools (i.e., often those serving students from historically underrepresented groups) poses quite a challenge for teachers, students, and schools. Although the schools’ open access policies are a major part of the reason that un(der)prepared students are enrolling in AP, we found that school administrators, counselors, and students often feel pressured into placing students into more rigorous courses than they might be prepared for. For instance, at Cleveland, the belief in AP for All as an important strategy for increasing college readiness among students from historically underrepresented groups has been so widespread that some students report feeling pressure to enroll—and some counselors report feeling pressured to enroll students—in AP courses even if it might not be a good fit. The strong open access philosophy that exists at Cleveland has also helped foster an environment in which there is significant peer pressure to be in honors and AP classes, and some students are hesitant to decline the opportunity or drop a class, even if they are failing:

Educational Policy in Practice    71 Honestly, there’s a new thing this year, some kids want to take AP just to say they’ve taken an AP class, but don’t care if they pass or not, which is really the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I’m not quite sure what happened there. (AP Physics teacher, Cleveland)

A counselor at Monroe expressed the problem of un(der)prepared students enrolling in AP courses this way: Honestly, I feel like there for a while we were experiencing tremendous pressure to get students into accelerated programs, and perhaps we were given directives that every student should be in at least one AP class, and that’s not true. When you have students not being successful, then that gives you a real pause for whether or not you’ve done a good service to them by putting them in that program. There’s nothing worse to me than to see a child who’s in over their head. I want to get them out of there. It’s like watching a bully beat up a kid, you know, get them out of there. I don’t want them, I don’t want them hurt anymore. (Counselor, Monroe)

The presence of so many un(der)prepared students in AP courses makes for a difficult situation for teachers who often report to counselors and administrators that students have been “misplaced” in courses for which they are not prepared. A Monroe counselor reported the following: Now, this year we have a sort of catastrophe happening in pre-calculus, because there are a lot of kids in there that the teacher believes are misplaced. So we’ve asked, “Then give us a placement test!” You know, we don’t know how to make that decision . . . it appeared they had the academic preparation, so we would put them in the next level. (Counselor, Monroe)

The Cleveland AP teachers’ frustration with the situation is illustrated by this math teacher’s comments: Open enrollment does not mean anyone can sign up, which is what we’ve been doing the last few years. We’ve just been letting anyone sign up. . . . in the AB calculus, the first year calculus, we’ve had a lot of students in there who had no business being in a calculus classroom. . . . basically they’re getting D’s and F’s in pre-Calc and move on to Calculus, just because it’s next, all right? So we have students in there who are just there to take up space. They don’t plan on doing any work. They don’t even plan on sitting for the exam. They’re just there because their counselor told them to sign up for it. That’s not what open enrollment is supposed to be. (AP Math teacher, Cleveland)

The issue of students being “misplaced” in AP classes also may have serious consequences for the students themselves. As discussed previously, despite school representatives at both schools sharing the belief that par-

72    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

ticipation in AP courses alone is associated with positive outcomes, there is no research that shows that just being exposed to AP material—but not gaining competency in the subject area/s—is beneficial for students. As expressed in several of the above quotes, numerous teachers, counselors, and administrators closely involved in implementing AP for All expressed concern that students were being “hurt” and that the experience was “damaging.” No studies have examined the effect that such an experience has on a student (beyond the obvious consequences of a lowered GPA). Although school faculty and staff point to misplacement in AP courses as the cause of un(der)prepared students in AP courses, obviously other factors are at play. Clearly, the entire K–12 educational system plays a role in the large numbers of students—especially from underrepresented groups—un(der)prepared for AP coursework. Students arrive at high school without a strong academic background on which to build in high school in order to graduate college ready. While the College Board and the Florida Partnership have made efforts to better prepare students for advanced courses in high school, it is difficult to see the results of such efforts at the high school level. Because the push to increase enrollment in AP has been implemented at both Cleveland and Monroe High Schools without visible, similar actions at the middle, or even elementary, schools, both high schools have had to address the problem of un(der)prepared students in AP courses and do so in a short time frame. One way that the schools try to prepare more students for AP once they are in high school is by promoting honors-course participation in the freshman and sophomore years. Honors courses are offered with an open access model at both schools, and interviewees at Cleveland spoke of a direct effort to “close the gap” between honors and AP so that the students who get to AP will be better prepared. However, both schools expressed concern that these courses had been diluted by the efforts to include more students in them. Despite expressing his support of open access, a counselor at Monroe recognizes the impact this dilution of honors has on upper-level classes and AP classes: You know, you have a kid who has an A in Algebra II honors and then you put him in Trigonometry or pre-Calculus and they’re just dying in those classes, you wonder about the rigor in that honors class. . . . I see them hit a wall. And it’s not just a few kids; it’s more than a handful that hit that wall. (Counselor, Monroe)

The opening of honors courses to “all” not only replicates the issue of un(der)prepared students in AP, it academically deprives the students who are prepared for rigorous honors courses that could prepare them for AP. Because AP for All is not being implemented in a more comprehensive way beginning with preparation at the elementary and middle school levels,

Educational Policy in Practice    73

the high schools are left—with very little support from the College Board, the state, or the district—trying to prepare students for rigorous AP coursework while simultaneously working toward meeting basic graduation requirements, implementing reform initiatives, and meeting new standards. .

How Schools Support Un(der)prepared Students in AP Despite schools’ efforts, it is clear, as described earlier, that un(der)prepared students nonetheless end up in AP classes. Because AP expansion at Cleveland and Monroe high schools has resulted in more un(der)prepared students in AP classes, these schools and their district must find ways to support students and help them succeed (see Table 3.5 for a summary of supports they have in place). While the College Board has developed the “pre-AP” and Vertical Teams programs in an effort to help prepare students before and during their AP coursetaking, schools are essentially on their own in supporting un(der)prepared students. Both high schools have strategically marshaled existing structures, programs, and resources to support un(der)prepared students in AP, and Cleveland has developed a school model that addresses the challenge. Academic support systems are integral to the “different kind of high school” model at Cleveland and work to support students enrolled in AP courses. These supports are in place for all students but impact the openaccess philosophy by helping students to succeed in accelerated classes. For example, every student at Cleveland has a “research” class every day; students are in classrooms with assigned teachers but can choose to visit tutoring centers available for specific subjects, or classrooms of their other teachers to seek help. According to an administrator, We have built in time and built in support for all of our students during the day, every single day. During our lunch time, we have a block of time built in that we call research, but it’s sort of like a study hall, and it’s to be used by the Table 3.5  Supporting Un(der)prepared Students Support

Monroe

Cleveland

AVID

Program is “large and aggressive;” “Research class” teaches study skills to improve success in Honors and AP courses None discussed

Program not emphasized by our interviewees, but is seen as providing support for students

Schoolinitiated supports Tutoring

Informal tutoring by teachers

Universal research period; Mastery learning; Exam re-takes and minimum scores (these supports are described above) Formal tutoring center

74    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER students for what they would like for it to be used. For our AP students—at our school you can request any teacher you want for study hall, or the teacher can request you—so guess what our AP teachers and our AP students do? They want to be together during study hall because that gives them extra time to work on the concepts. (Administrator, Cleveland)

Cleveland also uses a form of “mastery learning” in all classes, including AP, which provides un(der)prepared students with support in their rigorous coursework. The school’s implementation of mastery learning comprises a liberal policy for “retakes” of tests and homework and a grade minimum of 50%. To retake exams or resubmit homework, the students must show that they have made some effort, such as seeking tutoring, to improve their knowledge of the topic. Failing grades on any test or assignment are limited to a lowest score of 50%, allowing students a better chance of recovering their course average to achieve a passing grade. An administrator shared that, “It’s pretty controversial, but this is the policy of our school because we think it’s the right thing to do for kids.” These practices can be seen to support un(der)prepared students in AP classes, as students have the opportunity to seek out help from tutors and teachers and have multiple chances to show they have “mastered” the content.16 These strategies of student support show how Cleveland is an example of a school that embodies the environment Kyburg and colleagues (2008) have observed is important for the success of underrepresented students in AP (and IB)—promoting a pervasive and consistent belief that the students can succeed and providing a “scaffolding” to support and challenge able students (such as extracurricular help and lunchtime discussion forums). Through its vision of every student graduating and various supports, Cleveland clearly promotes the belief that students can succeed and also provides the structure to support and challenge able students. While Cleveland has implemented these school-level strategies to support un(der)prepared students who enroll in AP courses, Monroe depends more on the national AVID program. The AVID program can clearly be seen as a way to encourage students who might not otherwise take rigorous courses: We challenge them [AVID students] right up front with honors and AP in ninth grade on. And generally they kick and scream for the first half of their ninth grade year and then they start settling in . . . they start understanding the benefit of it and they start excelling. (Counselor, Monroe)

Alongside their rigorous coursework, AVID students take “research” classes, similar to those offered in the general non-AVID curriculum for students at Cleveland, which provide them with academic support by teaching them study skills and note-taking and helping them deal with the chal-

Educational Policy in Practice    75

lenges of accelerated courses in order to improve their chances of success. At Monroe, the AVID students also have their own Small Learning Community and take their core academic courses together during the first 2 years. Both schools use the AVID program as a strategy to support AP students, but AVID enrollment at both schools is limited to certain qualified students who are identified as needing extra assistance. At Monroe, which serves thousands of students, only 130 to 150 students in each ninth-grade cohort begin the AVID program, and through attrition, fewer than 50 students may be in the program by graduation. Regarding which students have the opportunity to participate in AVID, the counselor responsible for AVID at Monroe said they use a rubric that includes being a member of an underrepresented group and students “in the middle” in terms of FCAT scores,17 grades, and prior coursework. There is an AVID program at Cleveland, but it was not mentioned very often in interviews, even by the counselor responsible for it.18 We were told that the school does identify “bubble” students for extra support through AVID, meaning those who could either proceed to accelerated courses or to a less rigorous curriculum. Counselors and teachers at both Cleveland and Monroe also discussed tutoring as a support mechanism for un(der)prepared students. A counselor at Cleveland described tutoring as part of the overall support system in place for all students: After school, we also have a tutoring center; one for math, one for science, and one for writing. So during the lunchtime, students can go to a classroom that’s designated for each of these subject areas. Besides one teacher being in it, the honors society students are in there, and they’re the ones that are able to sit down with the students one-on-one and give them the assistance that they would need if they have a question or don’t understand something. So it’s a great thing that we have, and I think that’s a really big part of why students are successful is because we have so much support for them. (Counselor, Cleveland)

When asked about other supports for AP students, representatives at Monroe also described tutoring programs, but admitted that much of the tutoring is informally provided by teachers who stay late or come in early, and most of it is directed toward students who are struggling to graduate, not those who are in AP courses. Because neither state/federal expansion policies nor the College Board provide supports for un(der)prepared students enrolled in AP classes, schools are faced with the task of supporting these struggling students. In response, schools utilize existing structures and programs strategically to help support these students, but it is not clear how effective these efforts have been.

76    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER

Discussion/Conclusions This chapter has described how schools are implementing AP expansion by examining the experiences and practices of two schools in one school district in Florida faced with (a) translating the AP expansion policy into practice, (b) managing the increase in un(der)prepared students enrolled in AP classes, and (c) supporting these un(der)prepared students enrolled in AP classes. AP for All has effectively increased the number of students exposed to AP coursework; however, high schools struggle with the responsibility (and lack of support) for remediating and/or supporting un(der)prepared students who traditionally would not enroll in these courses. Implementing AP for All presents a significant challenge for many high schools because of the rising number of un(der)prepared students enrolling in AP courses. Students begin high school with varying levels of academic preparation, and schools must try to prepare students for AP in grades 9 and 10, prior to AP enrollment (usually in grades 11 and 12). Despite these attempts at preparation, many students enter AP classes un(der)prepared, and schools face the difficult challenge of supporting these students (by drawing on existing resources such as AVID) in order to give them a positive experience in rigorous coursetaking. A primary goal of AP expansion is to provide academic rigor to high school students traditionally not considered as candidates for college-level coursework and, in doing so, improve students’ postsecondary outcomes. The College Board has advertised AP as a program that “isn’t just for top students or those headed for college. AP offers something for everyone” (College Board, 2004). And many faculty and staff members interviewed at Monroe and Cleveland echoed the idea that students benefit from just the experience of being in AP classes and gaining exposure to college-level material, even if they earn poor grades and fail to pass the AP exams associated with their coursework. In practice, however, the AP expansion is falling short. Our case study schools have successfully increased AP participation by students from underrepresented groups; however, despite the presence of numerous supports and preparation strategies, AP exam scores remain low, in large part because students are not academically prepared for such rigorous coursework. Although very little scholarship has addressed the issue of what happens to students who enroll in AP classes academically un(der)prepared, clearly many students are not benefitting from AP for All. By examining how schools are implementing and adapting to AP expansion, this chapter provides insight into the policy’s limited focus on increasing AP enrollment (which does not address systemic problems with primary and secondary education), the veracity of claims about the benefits of AP participation alone (regardless of the level of proficiency gained in

Educational Policy in Practice    77

the subject area), and critical questions about which students can actually succeed in AP courses. While our discussion here is limited to two high schools, the issues raised have important implications for the expansion of AP and other accelerated programs. The existing high school-level strategies for preparing and supporting un(der)prepared AP students are clearly not enough. By emphasizing AP as a cure for the lack of academic rigor afforded many students from historically underrepresented groups, AP for All shifts the attention away from why students are un(der)prepared in AP in the first place. In this way, the AP expansion focuses only on the high school curriculum and not more systemic problems with the K–12 educational system, such as educational inequities that have led to the academic underpreparation of many low-income and racial/ethnic minority students (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2010; Lichten, 2010). Notes 1. The data presented in this chapter were collected during fieldwork for an NSF-funded project on rigorous coursetaking in Florida high schools; NSF REESE # 0815250, Kathryn M. Borman, Becky Smerdon, and Will Tyson, coprincipal investigators. 2. The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme is an internationally recognized, 2-year rigorous academic program offered in some public high schools in the United States. Students participate in a structured curriculum and take exams their senior year; students who complete the program and pass the exams receive an International Baccalaureate diploma. Most colleges and universities offer some college credit for IB coursework. 3. Dual enrollment is a program through which high school students are simultaneously enrolled in both high school and college courses. 4. We use this term to describe both students who are truly unprepared for AP coursework and also those who are not well prepared for AP courses. At the schools in our study, we found that both unprepared and underprepared students are enrolled in AP courses. 5. The first AP examinations in 1954 were administered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) (Lacy, 2010). 6. There are fees associated with attending AP teacher trainings. 7. Two of more than twenty high schools in the school district. 8. Our research activities focused on accelerated STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) courses. 9. Public schools in Florida are evaluated according to a letter-grade system. 10. These are the pseudonyms to which the schools are referred throughout the chapter. 11. Cleveland opened as a 9–12 school.

78    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER 12. Although Monroe’s AP exam numbers are larger than Cleveland’s, it should be noted that it is a slightly larger school and offers an IB program. IB students take a higher-than-average number of AP exams, making comparisons between the schools difficult. 13. In Florida, there is no cost to the dual enrollment student and no limit on the number of credits that can be earned (FLDOE, n.d.). 14. This interviewee is a nonnative speaker of English. 15. The teacher’s actual name has been omitted here. 16. Of course, based on the low AP exam pass rates at Cleveland, these strategies do not necessarily mean that participating students will pass the exams. 17. The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test—the standardized test administered to public school students in Florida (grades 3–11) in order to measure academic proficiency. 18. The model of Cleveland’s entire school includes many elements that are similar to the AVID curriculum, such as every student having a “research” class each day (described above).

References AVID. (2010a). Intro. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.avid.org/intro. html AVID. (2010b). Mission. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.avid.org/ abo_mission.html Bailey, T., & Karp, M. (2003). Promoting college access and success: A review of credit-based transition programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Adult and Vocational Education. Burney, V. (2010). High achievement on Advanced Placement exams: The relationship of school-level contextual factors to performance. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 116. College Board. (n.d. a). The history of the AP Program. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/program/history/8019.html College Board. (n.d. b). Welcome to the college board’s Advanced Placement Program. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.collegeboard.com/html/ap/ index.html?s_kwcid=TC|7002|advanced%20placement||S||5534947844 College Board. (2004). Get with the program. New York: College Board. College Board. (2005). College board honors Advanced Placement community on program’s 50th anniversary [Press release]. Retrieved September 7, 2010, from http:// www.collegeboard.com/press/releases/47343.html College Board. (2009). Annual AP program participation 1956–2009. College Board. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://professionals.collegeboard.com/ profdownload/annual-participation-09.pdf College Board. (2010). AP report to the nation: The 6th annual AP report to the nation. College Board. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://professionals. collegeboard.com/data-reports-research/ap/nation/2010

Educational Policy in Practice    79 Conger, D., Long, M., & Iatarola, P. (2009). Explaining race, poverty, and gender disparities in advanced coursetaking. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(4), 555–576. Dounay, J. (2006, February). Advanced Placement. Policy Brief. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/67/44/6744.htm Duffet, A., & Farkas. S. (2009, April 29). Growing pains in the Advanced Placement Program: Do tough trade-offs lie ahead? Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.edexcellence.net/publicationsissues/publications/growing-pains-in-the-advanced.html Duffy, W., II. (2010). Persistence and performance at a four-year university: The relationship with advanced coursework during high school. In P. Sadler, G. Sonnert, R. Tai, & K. Klopfenstein (Eds.), AP: A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program (pp. 139–163). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Florida Department of Education. (n.d.). Dual enrollment. Retrieved December 12, 2010, from http://www.fldoe.org/articulation/pdf/dualenrollfaqs.pdf Florida Department of Education. (2010). ACT/SAT/AP data. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.fldoe.org/evaluation/act-sat-aparch.asp Geiser, S., & Santelices, V. (2004). The role of Advanced Placement and honors courses in college admissions. Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3ft1g8rz Guthrie, L. F., & Guthrie, G. P. (2000). Longitudinal research on AVID 1999–2000: Final report. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.avidonline.org Holstead, M. S., Spradlin, T. E., McGillivray, M. E., & Burroughs, N. (2010, Winter). The impact of Advanced Placement incentive programs. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Education Policy Brief, 8(1). Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V8N1_Winter_2010_EPB.pdf Johnson, K. A. (2004, September). Pell grants vs. Advanced Placement. BNET. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_ m1272/is_2712_133/ai_n6201931/ Klopfenstein, K. (2004). Advanced Placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity? Economics of Education Review, 23, 115–131. Klopfenstein, K. (2010). Does the Advanced Placement Program save taxpayers money?: The effect of AP participation on time to college graduation. In P. Sadler, G. Sonnert, R. Tai, & K. Klopfenstein (Eds.), AP: A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program (pp. 189–218). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Klopfenstein, K., & Thomas, M. K. (2009). The link between Advanced Placement experience and early college success. The Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 873–891. Klopfenstein, K., & Thomas, M. K. (2010). Advanced Placement participation: Evaluating the policies of states and colleges. In P. Sadler, G. Sonnert, R. Tai, & K. Klopfenstein (Eds.), AP: A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program (pp. 167–188). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Kyburg, R., Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. (2007). Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs: Optimal learning environment for talented minorities” Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(2), 172–215.

80    A. SPALDING, A. EDEN, and R. HEPPNER Lacy, T. (2010). Access, rigor, and revenue in the history of the Advanced Placement Program. In P. Sadler, G. Sonnert, R. Tai, & K. Klopfenstein (Eds.), AP: A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program (pp. 17–48). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Ladner, M., & Lips, D. (2009, January 7). How “No Child Left Behind” threatens Florida’s successful education reforms. Heritage Foundation. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/01/ How-No-Child-Left-Behind-Threatens-Floridas-Successful-Education-Reforms Lichten, W. (2010). Whither Advanced Placement—Now? In P. Sadler, G. Sonnert, R. Tai, & K. Klopfenstein (Eds.), AP: A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program (pp. 233–243). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Matus, R. (2010, January 7). Florida education chief agrees AP program overenrolled. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved August 8, 2011 from http://www.tampabay .com/news/education/k12/florida-education-chief-agrees-states-ap-program -overenrolled/1063907 Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The consequences of untracking low-achieving students. New York: Cambridge University Press. NSF. (2006). NSF awards $1.8 million to study high-school Advanced Placement work in math and science [Press release]. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www. nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=106929 OPPAGA. (2008). Student participation in accelerated programs has increased. Report No. 08-70. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/ MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/0870rpt.pdf OPPAGA. (2010). Department of Education Acceleration Programs. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/profiles/2028/ Paek, P., Braun, H., Ponte, E., Trapani, C., & Powers, C. (2010). AP biology teacher characteristics and practices and their relationship to student AP exam performance. In P. Sadler, G. Sonnert, R. Tai, & K. Klopfenstein (Eds.), AP: A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program (pp. 63–84). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Russell, A. (2007, April). Update on Advanced Placement. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www. aascu.org/media/pm/pdf/april2007.pdf SLCP (Smaller Learning Communities Program). (2010a). Vision and history. Retrieved October 1, 2010 from http://slcp.ed.gov/about/vision-history/ SLCP (Smaller Learning Communities Program). (2010b). Priorities. Retrieved October 1, 2010 from http://slcp.ed.gov/about/priorities/ U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). Advanced Placement incentive program grants. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/apincent/ index.html U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Advanced Placement test fee program. Retrieved August 30, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/apfee/index. html

Educational Policy in Practice    81 Watt, K. M., Huerta, J., & Lozano, A. (2007). A comparison study of AVID and GEAR UP 10th-grade students in two high schools in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(2), 1–29 Wakelyn, D. (2009, August). Raising rigor, getting results: Lessons learned from AP expansion. NGA Center for Best Practices. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0908APREPORT.PDF

This page intentionally left blank.

Chapter 4

Adding “College-Ready” Coursework to a “Career-Ready” Pathway Implications for Dropping Out of High School Ben Dalton and Robert Bozick

Introduction As described in earlier chapters of this volume, states have taken strides to enhance the rigor and relevance of the high school curriculum by increasing course requirements and creating policies to encourage participation in accelerated academic programs. State efforts have been accompanied by federal legislation designed to enhance the academic rigor of vocational education, thereby, adding “college-ready” to what was intended to be a “career-ready” pathway. The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Act, commonly referred to as Perkins II, passed into law in 1990 (Prager, 1994),1 required vocational programs receiving federal funding to Pressing Forward, pages 83–109 Copyright © 2012 by Information Age Publishing All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

83

84    B. DALTON and R. BOZICK

place greater emphasis on both work experience and on academic coursetaking. Perkins II was followed by a series of legislative reauthorizations (culminating in the current Perkins IV, passed in 2006) extending this emphasis and adding support for work-based experiences, advanced technology training, professional development for teachers and administrators, and increased reporting and measurement of vocational outcomes. These efforts have sought to challenge long-held perceptions of voc-ed as the province of academic underachievers taking machinery and welding courses. Now referred to as Career and Technical Education or CTE, this curricular approach is one that aims to integrate (rather than separate) academic coursetaking and technical training for careers. In a college- and career-ready framework, the high school curriculum would make few distinctions between college-bound and work-bound students, preparing both for further education and productive membership in a global and specialized economic environment. Specifically, current policy aims to create academic courses that include practical, work-based applications and occupational courses that focus on academic concepts and theories to underscore methods and processes used in the workplace. These curricular changes are difficult to implement, however. Teachers in core academic subjects are still trained in schools of education, and use methods and approaches that often neglect job skills such as working in teams or solving problems in fast-paced environments. Further, it is often easier for administrators to introduce a few academic exercises into existing CTE courses than to achieve integration and rigor through collaborative planning among teachers across academic and technical areas. Despite some public relations success in reducing the stigma attached to the voced label—CTE content areas encompass engineering, health sciences, and other areas leading to and requiring postsecondary degrees—CTE still largely attracts low-achieving students who typically do not aspire to college. In these ways, the separatism that defines the academic/vocational track model persists. Although this “within-course” integration is slow to materialize, more common is the adoption of requirements that CTE students take a certain number of academic courses. Indeed, following the A Nation at Risk report, most states moved to require the “new basics” of 4 years of English and 3 years of math, science, and social studies, requirements that apply to all students (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2008). There are no doubt exceptions at either end, with forward-thinking districts and states radically overhauling their curricular structures to move toward integration, while others maintain extreme separatism. For the time being, however, CTE is largely implemented through individual occupational courses that are taken alongside academic courses.

Adding “College-Ready” Coursework to a “Career-Ready” Pathway     85

Does CTE Help or Hurt? In addition to targeting the acquisition of academic and occupational skills, the Perkins legislation lists high school completion as a major goal of CTE, under the premise that practical learning will maintain the interest of those students who otherwise might be uninterested in a class schedule filled with academic courses only. At the same time, by encouraging the integration of academic and occupational content and aiming to improve the rigor and quality of CTE courses, recent reforms may contribute to dropping out by alienating academically disinclined students. These ideas are rooted in the developmental perspective of high school dropouts, depicting a process of disengagement spanning the elementary and middle school years, culminating in withdrawal from high school without a diploma. As early as first grade, youth receive signals about their abilities to succeed—through grades, test scores, and daily feedback from their teachers and their peers (Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbani, 2001). Low achievers, for example, are often held back a grade and placed into low-ability groups during elementary school and remedial courses in middle school (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1994; Oakes, 1985). The signals low-achieving students receive about their ability and their potential to succeed threaten their sense of self and reduce their motivation to work hard (Alexander et al., 2001). In high school, those with a history of academic difficulty are likely to find little reward in academic courses and may decide to drop out. This is especially true if teachers make little effort to relate core academic content to the practical plans of students not intending to attend college immediately after graduation from high school. Providing CTE is one means to meet the needs of these students by making schooling relevant to their current lives and future plans. Without interest or demonstrated success in academic subjects, many students with low educational expectations may see almost no value in continuing through school, and less direct and immediate value in working. CTE provides students a strong reason to stay in school and make at least some effort in academic courses to which they otherwise would show little attachment. Despite the broader changes in CTE over the past decades, occupational courses are still perceived to be less challenging than academic courses, and as such, CTE can provide low-achieving students an easy pathway to a diploma. Under the best of circumstances, CTE can link work-based concepts and skills with academic content, demonstrate the application of these skills in both a classroom and work environment, and provide practical knowledge best suited to students’ nonacademic career goals. However, the research on whether CTE provides these benefits is mixed. A handful of studies support the contention that the provision of an occupationally focused curriculum reduces the odds of dropping out (Arum,

86    B. DALTON and R. BOZICK

1998; Cellini, 2006; Elliott, Hanser, & Gilroy, 2002; Kemple & Snipes, 2000; Maxwell & Rubin, 2002). For example, in his analysis of the High School and Beyond (HS&B) Longitudinal Study, Arum found that increased business and trade-technical coursework was associated with higher odds of school completion, particularly in states that allocated sufficient funds for occupational education. Similarly, Cellini’s analysis of the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97) shows that participation in tech prep programs is positively related to completing high school. A handful of career academy evaluations finds like results (Elliott et al., 2002; Kemple & Snipes, 2000; Maxwell & Rubin, 2002). However, other studies suggest CTE increases the odds of dropping out. Ainsworth and Roscigno’s (2005) examination of NELS:88 finds that credits in “blue collar” vocational courses (e.g., machine shop, plumbing, drafting, but not agricultural or service sector courses) are associated with an increased risk of dropping out of high school. Crain and colleagues (1999) analyzed the outcomes of approximately 9,000 urban students assigned to either a career magnet program (academic coursework accompanied by focused career coursetaking and internships) or a regular curriculum in a comprehensive high school.2 Those in career magnet programs had higher dropout rates than those in comprehensive schools. Yet other studies find that CTE is unrelated to dropping out of high school (Agodini & Deke, 2004; Kemple & Scott-Clayton, 2004; Neumark & Joyce, 2001; Pittman, 1991), and some find mixed results (Catterall & Stern, 1986). These studies suggest that in at least some cases, CTE could have the unintended consequence of pushing students out rather than keeping them enrolled through graduation. Two studies (Plank, 2001; Plank, DeLuca, & Estacion, 2008) suggest that the relationship between CTE coursework and dropping out is actually curvilinear, which may explain the null and/or mixed findings seen in previous analyses that assume linearity. Using data for a nationally representative sample of high school students from 1992, Plank used the cumulative ratio of CTE credits to academic credits as a means to capture the time-varying intensity of CTE participation over the course of high school. He found that students, particularly those who are low achievers, have the lowest odds of dropping out when they earn three Carnegie units of CTE for every four academic units. However, their odds of dropping out increase if they earn greater or fewer CTE credits per academic course. Plank, DeLuca, and Estacion replicated this analysis with the NLSY97 and found the same pattern, albeit weaker, with an older group of students. In this replication, students have the lowest odds of dropping out when they earned one CTE unit for every two academic units. Taken together, these two studies suggest that CTE may be most effective in preventing dropping out when it is balanced with academic coursework.

Adding “College-Ready” Coursework to a “Career-Ready” Pathway     87

However, their findings may be driven by academic coursetaking rather than by a specific balance between CTE and academic courses. Students who take more CTE credits could be substituting for academic courses and failing to reach graduation requirements; similarly, students who take very few CTE credits may be doubling up on academic courses in an attempt to catch up to requirements after previous experiences of course failure. The present study examines this possibility by analyzing separate measures of academic and occupational credits earned as well as the measures of course mix used by Plank (2001) and Plank et al. (2008). Methodological Challenges Overall, the evidence on the efficacy of CTE for preventing school dropout is mixed. A number of methodological limitations to previous studies may have precluded firm conclusions on the effectiveness of CTE in enhancing learning and preventing dropping out of high school. These methodological limitations include measurement problems regarding the structure and timing of coursetaking, and the use of data that predate recent reforms in occupational education. Each are described in turn. Measurement of Coursetaking. Studies of CTE’s effects have typically operationalized coursetaking in one of two ways: (a) with a categorical measure indicating different curricular pathways such as academic concentrator, vocational concentrator, dual concentrator, and general curriculum (Agodini, 2001; Kaufman, Bradby, & Teitelbaum, 2000; Plank, 2001); or (b) with a continuous measure indicating the number of Carnegie units earned (Rasinski & Pedlow, 1998). Both are limited in that they do not capture the relative balance of CTE courses with academic courses, particularly important in the Perkins IV policy environment that stresses students take both CTE and academic courses. The first approach classifies students based on meeting certain criteria (e.g., students who earn three credits in vocational courses are classified as vocational concentrators). This approach, however, does not consider the total number of credits that students earn. For example, consider two students: student A earned 17 academic credits and 5 vocational credits while student B earned 21 academic credits and 3 vocational credits. Both would be considered vocational concentrators, although the second student has both a higher total and a higher percentage of academic credits than the first student. The second approach is more flexible in that it measures the total number of credits students earn. However, it is not sensitive to the constraints of students’ course schedules. Since course schedules are largely a zero-sum arrangement, an additional course in an occupational subject usually means one fewer course in an academic subject. These tradeoffs are not captured when simply summing total cred-

88    B. DALTON and R. BOZICK

its earned. Consequently, the findings from past research that rely on these approaches are less able to gauge the relative balance of vocational and academic courses that students take—a key part of assessing curricular influences. Timing of Coursetaking. The timing of coursetaking is a particularly thorny issue when establishing the relationship between CTE and dropping out of high school. By design, a negative relationship exists between coursetaking and dropping out: the longer students remain in school, the more courses they take. Additionally, the bulk of CTE coursetaking, especially courses that are geared toward specific labor market preparation, takes place in the last 2 years of high school, after a large portion of students who are disengaged from academic coursetaking have already dropped out. Without accurately locating the timing of coursetaking in relation to enrollment across all 4 years of high school and without explicitly considering the underlying monotonic relationship between coursetaking and high school persistence, studies risk misidentifying the magnitude and direction of the relationship. Old Data. As CTE has rapidly evolved, data collected for the purposes of understanding its efficacy have become outdated more quickly. Evidence based on data from the 1980s does not reflect the efforts of the Perkins II and III legislation, and evidence based on data from the 1990s does not reflect the rapid expansion of technology and schools’ attempts to adapt to this. Therefore, it is not clear how CTE, as it is administered in the current policy environment, affects students. The present study will contribute to the research base on CTE by addressing these limitations where possible. First, this study will use multiple measures of coursetaking, including those that capture the relative mix of CTE and academic courses, to evaluate the effectiveness of CTE. Second, the analysis will employ event history models to capture the process of dropping out as it evolves over the course of high school. This approach will help minimize the timing problems associated with previous CTE dropout studies. Finally, this project explores the experiences of a recent cohort of high school students who attended high school following the passage of the 1998 Perkins legislation (Perkins III). Data This analysis uses data from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002), a National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) study designed to monitor the academic and developmental experiences of students as they proceed through high school and into young adulthood. ELS:2002 is a nationally representative study of approximately 17,590 students3 who were tenth graders in 2002. A base-year (BY) interview took place in 2002,

Adding “College-Ready” Coursework to a “Career-Ready” Pathway     89

and sample members participated in two follow-up surveys: a first follow-up (F1) in the spring of 2004, when most sample members were high school seniors, and a second follow-up (F2) in 2006 when most were 2 years out of high school. Additionally, transcripts were collected from all participating sample members. This study uses data from the BY survey, the F1 survey, and the transcript study. These components are briefly described in turn.4 Although the sample includes students in both public and private high schools, all analyses in this report are based on public school students, as private schools are not required to meet Perkins goals and rarely make occupational courses a centerpiece of their curriculum. Base-Year Survey. ELS:2002 used a two-stage sampling procedure. In the first stage, a sample of 750 high schools, both public and private, were selected with probabilities proportional to their size. In the second stage, approximately 30 students were randomly sampled from each school on the condition that they were in the tenth grade in the spring term of the 2001– 2002 school year. Of 17,590 eligible students, 15,360 completed a survey about their school and home experiences (for an 87% weighted response rate, based on eligible students). Of the 15,360 who completed the survey, 14,540 completed cognitive assessments in mathematics and reading (for a 95% weighted response rate, based on survey participants). Their parents, teachers, principals, and librarians were surveyed as well. First Follow-Up Survey. Of the originally selected sample members, 14,710 were reinterviewed (for a 95% weighted response rate) in the spring of 2004. Some of the sample members were still in their BY school, while others had transferred to a new school or were not in school because they graduated early, dropped out, or were home schooled. Similar to the BY design, the F1 included a student questionnaire and cognitive test in mathematics. High school seniors in the BY schools were typically surveyed and tested in group sessions at their schools. Seniors who had transferred to another school, dropped out, graduated, or entered a home schooling situation were usually interviewed via telephone. Transcript Study. Starting in the winter of 2004–2005, almost 1 year after most sample members had graduated from high school, transcripts were requested for all sample members who participated in at least one of the first two student interviews (BY or F1). The sample included 16,370 students, of whom transcripts were obtained for 14,290 students, for a weighted response rate of 91%. Sample Selection The sample used here represents public high school students who were sophomores in the 2001–2002 school year, who had at least 1 academic

90    B. DALTON and R. BOZICK

year’s worth of transcript information, and for whom information about their final graduation status was available; the final sample consists of 11,300 sample members who met these criteria. These students would have graduated in the spring of 2004 if they maintained on-time grade progression and met graduation requirements. More detail on the analytical sample can be found in the Appendix. Analysis Methods As noted, prior research has been compromised by less-than-adequate research designs that have not accounted for the temporal relationship between coursetaking and dropping out. The present analysis addresses timing of measurement issues through the use of event history models. This technique, also called hazard modeling or survival analysis, explicitly examines the dropout rate for each period of time covered by the data, creating estimates that adjust for timing differences in dropping out of high school.5 However, since some dropout events occur prior to the tenth grade, and the ELS:2002 data follow students from tenth grade on, early dropout behavior cannot be observed (in the parlance of event history modeling, these events are “censored”). According to ELS:2002’s predecessor study, the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 (NELS:88), which began with eighth graders instead of tenth graders, about 6.8% of eighth graders were dropouts by tenth grade, and another 7.6% of tenth graders were dropouts by twelfth grade (McMillen & Kaufman, 1996). Nevertheless, because most CTE coursetaking takes place in the last 2 years of high school (eleventh and twelfth grades), the relationship between CTE coursetaking and dropping out is likely to be accurately represented in the results presented here. Measures Dependent Variable The key dependent variable in this analysis is the timing of the first dropout episode. ELS:2002 data indicate whether the student had ever dropped out of high school by the time of the F1 interview. Students are considered to have ever dropped out by F1 if they were reported dropouts at the time of the F1 interview or if they had been reported as a dropout in any of three enrollment status updates conducted between the BY and F1 interview. If students were currently dropouts, they were administered a questionnaire that was tailored toward the dropout experience. On this questionnaire, dropouts were asked to report the month and year they first left school.

Adding “College-Ready” Coursework to a “Career-Ready” Pathway     91

From this questionnaire, valid date information was obtained for 830 analytic sample members. If the reported dropout date was not obtainable from the dropout interview, then we used the month and year of their school exit from their school transcripts. For dropouts who lacked valid dropout date information from either the student interview or from transcript-indicated leave information, the last semester in which they passed a course—also derived from the transcript file—was used. In sum, 830 dates were obtained from the F1 interview, 130 dates were obtained from high school transcripts when the interview did not have a valid date, and 20 dates were obtained from the last passed semester as indicated in the transcripts. Thus, a total of 990 dropouts are included in the final analytic sample. Following Agodini and Deke (2004), all dropout dates were calibrated to approximate semesters of an academic school year. This allows courses (existing on a semester basis) to be aligned with dropout dates. All dropout dates from September through January were considered to have occured during the fall semester of their respective year, and all dropout dates between February through August were considered to have occured during the spring semester of their respective year. In all cases, one final adjustment was made. Dropout dates were compared with the last semester during which a student passed a course. If a dropout passed a course during the semester in which the interview or transcript indicated he or she left school, the dropout date was changed to the subsequent semester. Exposure to the risk of dropping out begins the spring semester of the 2001–2002 school year, the semester they entered the study, and extends through the spring semester of 2003–2004, the semester when they should be graduating if they had progressed through high school on time. Students remain at risk through the fall semester of the 2004–2005 school year, one semester beyond their expected date of high school graduation. The dependent variable is coded 0 for all semesters in which the student is enrolled and 1 for the semester the student dropped out of high school. As is typical in event history modeling, individuals are removed from the risk set once they drop out (i.e., experience the event); they no longer contribute person-semesters (i.e., observations) to the analysis. Individuals who graduated or were still enrolled by the fall 2004–2005 semester are censored. During the entire risk period, approximately 8% of the analytic sample dropped out. Independent Variables The principal independent variables are three sets of coursetaking measures: (a) a variable for cumulative academic courses and a variable for

92    B. DALTON and R. BOZICK

cumulative occupational courses; (b) a single variable for the percentage of total credits that were occupational courses; and (c) a single variable for the ratio of cumulative occupational courses to academic courses, which replicates the approach of Plank and colleagues (Plank, 2001; Plank et al., 2008). In the context of this analysis, “cumulative” is defined as coursetaking up through the previous semester. For example, cumulative academic courses for the fall semester of the 2003–2004 school year would include all academic courses earned through the spring of the 2002–2003 school year. Models including the ratio of occupational courses to academic courses also include a squared term of that ratio to test for possible curvilinearity in the effect of occupational coursetaking. We classify academic and occupational courses according to the Secondary School Taxonomy (SST), as defined by NCES (Bradby & Hoachlander, 1999). The academic curriculum contains six subject areas: mathematics, science, English, social studies, fine arts, and non-English language. Occupational studies are defined as “specific labor market preparation” courses covering one of 10 fields or clusters: agriculture and natural resources; science, technology, engineering, and mathematics; architecture and construction; business; computer and information sciences; health sciences; manufacturing, repair, and transportation; communications and design; personal services and culinary arts; and public services. A course classified as a CTE course cannot be classified as an academic course (or vice versa). By the end of their first year in high school (2000–2001), sample members had earned on average a little more than a third (0.35) of a credit in an occupational course. As high school students progress, they earn more occupational credits each year—on average, 0.8 in the typical sophomore year, 1.6 in the typical junior year, and 2.5 in the typical senior year. We also rely on observed covariates to control for preexisting differences among students. In spite of efforts to boost the academic rigor of CTE courses as well as efforts to change the image of CTE as not your typical “voc-ed,” CTE still largely attracts students from low socioeconomic backgrounds who are disengaged from school (Ainsworth & Roscigno, 2005; Planty, Bozick, & Ingels, 2006). Therefore, it is important to control for socioeconomic and academic background variables when assessing the relationship between CTE and dropping out. The models in the present analysis control for a host of student characteristics and experiences known to influence CTE participation and school withdrawal. These variables are race/ethnicity, poverty status, native language, sex, family structure, educational expectations, grade retention, parent’s education level, student’s employment status, tenth-grade reading and mathematics standardized test scores, academic disengagement index, academic preparation index, grade point average (GPA) in the ninth grade, school poverty level, school region, and school urbanicity. Because they are not central to the research questions posed in this analysis, and be-

Adding “College-Ready” Coursework to a “Career-Ready” Pathway     93

cause of the volume of literature that examines their relationship to dropping out, these variables are used simply as controls; they are not reported in the main body tables or reviewed in the discussion. Findings Occupational Coursetaking and Dropping Out The descriptive results, presented by semester, are shown in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Table 4.1 shows the number of dropouts and the percentage of total sample members who were dropouts in each semester. Semester-by-semester dropout rates are generally low (2% or less). Less than 1% of the sample dropped out during the spring of their sophomore year (2001–2002), but this rose to nearly 2% by the following year (spring of 2002–2003). The semester after modal high school completion (Fall 2004) saw half of the remaining students (about 160 overall) drop out during that semester (the remaining students have censored observations). Table 4.2 shows the average number of accumulated academic and occupational courses for both continuing enrollees and dropouts. The statistically significant differences between enrollees and dropouts are starred in the enrollee columns. The first two panels of Table 4.2 indicate that except for the last semester, where statistical testing was not supported, dropouts on average accumulated fewer academic credits than their enrolled peers. However, dropouts and enrolled students earn similar numbers of occupational credits. Only in the spring semester of the tenth grade (2001–2002) did they earn fewer occupational credits. Differences in academic coursetaking ranged between three and five credits, with the largest differences occurring in the 2003–2004 school year. Table 4.1  Dropout Rates by Semester: Sophomore Class of 2002 Semester

Number of Dropouts

Dropout rate (weighted)

Spring 2001–02 Fall 2002–03 Spring 2002–03 Fall 2003–04 Spring 2003–04 Fall 2004–05

110 170 200 210 200 80

0.94 1.56 1.90 2.06 2.13 49.70

Total dropouts

990

8.00

Note: N = 11,300 Source: Education Longitudinal Study of 2002, Base Year and First Follow-Up, National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.

1.5 1.8 2.1

9.3

11.3

12.9

14.3**

**

†

15.9

14.6

Spring 2003–04

Fall 2004–05 1.9

1.9

1.4

1.1

1.0

0.3

Dropout

13.0 †

10.2 **

9.6**

8.8 **

8.1**

7.6

Enrolled

12.3

13.1

12.7

12.6

13.0

7.5

Dropout

Percent of cumulative course credits that were occupational

13.0

†

12.9

**

12.1**

11.1

**

10.3**

10.0

Enrolled

12.3

17.8

16.7

17.6

18.8

12.9

Dropout

Ratio of cumulative occupational to academic course credits

Note: N = 11,300; The following indicates that enrolled students and dropouts were statistically significantly different at the designated p levels: * p