Pathways to Academic Success in Higher Education : Expanding Opportunity for Underrepresented Students [1 ed.] 9780203850756, 9780415875257

Citation preview

Pathways to Academic Success in Higher Education

Pathways to Academic Success in Higher Education: Expanding Opportunity for Underrepresented Students examines two major challenges facing the nation. The first is preparing high school students for college, a reform that has been tackled largely through state policy initiatives. The second is creating new pathways to academic success for underrepresented students in higher education, a challenge that must be addressed within a decentralized system of higher education. Part I: Illustrates use of a state data system to inform action research projects in colleges and universities. Part II: Provides action research using a state data system to inform colleges and universities. Part III: Focuses on the future of policy and organizational initiatives to improve opportunity. This book integrates studies conducted over nearly a decade and offers guidance on how best to understand and promote retention and success once students have gained access. Research projects were funded by the Lumina Foundation and the Ford Foundation and involved extensive collaboration among government agencies, as well as Foundation offices, researchers, public officials, and administrators and faculty from diverse college campuses. The result was innovations in both analysis methods and intervention strategies. Edward P. St. John is Algo D. Henderson Collegiate Professor of Higher Education at the University of Michigan. Glenda Droogsma Musoba is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Florida International University.

Pathways to Academic Success in Higher Education Expanding Opportunity for Underrepresented Students

Edward P. St. John University of Michigan

Glenda Droogsma Musoba Florida International University

First published 2011 by Routledge 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 Simultaneously published in the UK by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010. To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk. © 2011 Taylor and Francis All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data St. John, Edward P. Pathways to academic success in higher education : expanding opportunity for underrepresented students using state databases and action inquiry / by Edward P. St. John and Glenda D. Musoba. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Minorities—Education (Higher)—United States. 2. College preparation programs—United States. 3. Academic achievement—United States. I. Masoba, Glenda D. II. Title. LC3727.S7 2010 378.1’9829—dc22 2009051977 ISBN 0-203-85075-0 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 13: 978-0-415-87525-7 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-0-203-85075-6 (ebk)

Contents

Figures and Tables Acknowledgments

vii xi

1 Introduction

1

PART I

Reforming Academic Preparation

11

2 Rationales for Reform

13

3 A National Challenge

25

4 Academic Preparation

47

PART II

Expanding Postsecondary Opportunity 5 Pathways Approach

75 77

6 Low-Income Students

100

7 College Transitions

123

8 Persistence and Academic Support

145

9 Making Changes

168

10 Degree Attainment

207

PART III

Pathways to Academic Success

233

11 Reforming Policy

235

12 Conclusion: Change on Campuses

253

v

vi • Contents

Notes References Index

274 282 293

Figures and Tables

Figures 3.1 3.2

3.3 3.4

3.5

3.6 3.7 3.8

3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13

College enrollment rates for 18- to 24-year-old high school graduates. National trends in continuation rate (percentage of high school graduates going to college) and grant/tuition ratio (average state grant per FTE in state public and private colleges divided by public tuition charge). Difference in college enrollment rates for African Americans and Latinos/as compared to White high school graduates. Trends in Pell Maximum, average cost of attendance (COA) at public four-year colleges, and the gap between the Pell Maximum and COA. Racial/ethnic representation in all public four-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the United States population. Black representation in public four-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population in 2006. Latino/a representation in public four-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population in 2006. Racial/ethnic representation in all public two-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the United States population. Black representation in public two-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population in 2006. Latino/a representation in public two-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population in 2006. Indiana College continuation rate. Racial/ethnic representation in Indiana public four-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population. Racial/ethnic representation in Indiana private non-profit postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population.

vii

27

28 29

30

33 35 36

37 38 39 40 41 42

viii • Figures and Tables

3.14 Racial/ethnic representation in Indiana postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population. 3.15 Average amount of undergraduate in-state tuition and fees for the public higher education system (in 2006 dollars). 3.16 State need-based undergraduate grants per FTE (in 2006 dollars). 5.1 IPAS campus inquiry model. 5.2 Role of preliminary evaluation in the IPAS process for the short loop through inquiry. 5.3 Academic Pathways theory of change used in IPAS. 9.1 Stage appropriate life-calling developmental model.

43 44 45 84 86 91 183

Tables 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3

4.4 4.5 4.6

4.7 4.8

4D.1

4D.2

State Policy Indicators for Selected Years, 1990–2005 32 Trends in Indiana K-12 Education Success 49 Indicators of Test Taking and College Enrollment for the Class of 2000 53 Comparison of Relative Positions of States for the 2000 Graduating Class for Average Combined SAT Score Based on Predicted Values from Regression Models with Two National Data Sets 55 Descriptive Statistics for Variables in OLS Regression Models of Combined SAT Score for National and Indiana Analyses 58 Variables Significantly Associated with SAT Scores in Indiana and the U.S. 60 Average Predicted Point Differentials on SATs Associated with Taking Advanced High School Courses in Indiana and the U.S. Controlling for Background and Achievement Variables 61 Diploma Types and Minimum Requirements 62 The Predicted SAT Point Differential Associated with Different Curriculum Types, Controlling for Background and Achievement for Students in the Class of 2000 in Indiana and the U.S. 63 Advanced Coursework Analyses: National and Indiana Individual Regression of Combined SAT Score for All Students with the Full Set of Background and High School Course Variables 71 Diploma Type Analyses.* OLS Regression of Diploma Type with Combined SAT Scores as the Outcome Comparing Honors Diploma and Core 40 Diploma with Regular Diploma as the Reference Group with Background Variables 73

Figures and Tables • ix

4E.1

Variance and Model Fit Estimates for the HLM Model of State Policy and SAT Score 4E.2 Achievement Analysis: HLM Model of Intercepts and Slopes as Outcome for SAT Score (State-level Findings only) 5.1 Overview of the Stages in the IPAS Process 5.2 The Challenges Chosen for Action Inquiry at Partner Campuses 5.3 The Role of Evaluation in IPAS 6.1 Comparison of Scholars and Comparison Group (Other Pell Recipients among Freshmen Indiana Residents) 6.2 Breakdown of Independent Variables by Diploma Types for Scholars and Comparison Group 6A.1 Multinomial Regression Predicting Diploma Type (Regular Diploma and Missing as Comparison) 6A.2 Multinomial Regression Predicting Diploma Type (Regular Diploma and Missing as Comparison) African American Only 6A.3 Multinomial Regression Predicting Diploma Type (Regular Diploma and Missing as Comparison) White Only 7.1 Descriptive Statistics for Variables in the Analyses of College Destinations 7.2 Multinomial Logistic Regression Analyses of the Influence of Background, Preparation, Summary SAT Scores, and Student Aid Packages on College Destinations 7A.1 Multinomial Logistic Regression Analyses of the Influence of Background, Preparation, SAT Scores, and Student Aid Packages on College Destinations 8.1 Descriptive Statistics for Variables in Three Analyses of Early Persistence 8A.1 Logistic Regression Analyses of Within-Year Persistence of Fall to Spring Semester in the First Year 8A.2 Logistic Regression Analyses of Persistence of Spring First Year to Fall Second Year 8A.3 Logistic Regression Analyses of Persistence for Continuous Enrollment of Fall or Spring First Year to Spring Second Year 9.1 Descriptive Breakdown by Major Choice for Variables in Analyses of Major Choice 9.2 Descriptive Statistics Comparing Students Who Changed Major with Those Who Did Not 9.3 Descriptive Statistics Examining Transfer for Students Who Were Still Enrolled after Three Years 9.4 Summary of Significant Variables from the Logistic Regression Predicting Transfer

74 74 80 85 87 105 106 118 121 122 127

129

142 148 162 164 166 171 175 186 189

x • Figures and Tables

9.5 9A.1 9A.2

Destination Campus by Type for Students Who Transferred Logistic Regression Predicting Transfer Multinomial Analysis of Transfer Destination: Types of FourYear Colleges Compared to Two-Year Colleges (only transfer students included in analysis) 9A.3 Multinomial Analysis of Four-Year Campuses Chosen by Transfers, Compared to Two-Year Colleges (only transfer students included in analysis) 10.1 Descriptive Data on Attainment Four Years after High School Graduation for Students Who Graduated in 2000 and Enrolled in College in 2000–2001 10.2 North Carolina Covenant: Program Features that Link to Student Outcomes and Potential Areas for Evaluation Research 10.3 Graduation Rates after Four Years at the University of North Carolina for Covenant Eligible and Other Students Entering in 2003 (year before Covenant) and 2004 (first year of Covenant) 10A.1 Multinomial Analysis of Persistence after Four Years for Students Starting in Public Colleges: Comparison of Those Who Earned a Four-Year Degree, a Two-Year Degree and Those Still Enrolled to Students Who Withdrew

191 198

200

204

210 226

228

231

Acknowledgments

Pathways to Academic Success in Higher Education: Expanding Opportunity for Underrepresented Students examines two major challenges facing the nation: Preparing high school students for college, a challenge that has been tackled largely through state policy initiatives; and creating new pathways to academic success for underrepresented students in higher education, a challenge that will be addressed within a decentralized system of higher education. The book summarizes and documents key findings from research on K-12 education policy (part I) and action research using a state data system to inform colleges and universities in their work to expand opportunity (part II). The conclusions (part III) focus on the future of policy and organizational initiatives to improve opportunity for underrepresented students. This book integrates studies conducted as part of seven projects that took place over nearly a decade: 1. The Pathways Project was funded by Lumina Foundation through a subcontract with the Indiana Commission for Higher Education (ICHE) in 2002. The purpose of the project was to build and analyze a database from SAT student descriptive questionnaires provided by the College Board and student records of college enrollment provided by ICHE and the Independent Colleges of Indiana, Inc. (ICI). The first year of the project involved analyses of SAT tests, summarized in chapter 3. 2. Lumina Foundation contracted with the Indiana Education Policy Center for the Financial Indicators project. Between 2002 and 2004, the project team analyzed patterns of academic success during the first two years of college for the 2000 Cohort. Chapters 6 through 9 demonstrate new ways of viewing college transitions, persistence, major choice, and academic pathways within states systems of higher education. 3. The Indiana Project for Academic Success (IPAS) used analyses of the high school class of 2000 as part of the assessment phase of the project. The 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 academic years were added for this study, enabling us to track the cohort all the way through four years of college. Case studies from technical assistance projects initiated as part of IPAS are included in part II. 4. As part of a planning project completed in 2007 for the Lumina Foundation, we updated the policy indicators for analyses of access to higher education. This provided an opportunity to complete analyses of the role

xi

xii • Acknowledgments

of public policies in promoting academic preparation and college access (chapter 2). 5. Analyses of high school preparation, conducted as part of an evaluation of Indiana’s Twenty-first Century Scholars Program (2007–2008), provided an opportunity to complete our analyses of the role of public policy in academic preparation (chapter 5). 6. A planning grant from Ford Foundation for Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education included funding to update indicators of minority representation in higher education used to illustrate the serious challenges for minority access to four-year colleges in the United States (chapter 2). 7. The Michigan capacity building grant for the Projects Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education has provided support for the development of state indicators (chapter 3) and for further testing of action approaches recommended in part III, as well as support for the production of the book manuscript. This book would not have been possible without this support. The opinions expressed in this book are the authors’ and do not represent policies or positions of funding agencies. The program officers at Lumina were supportive of this work. Derek Price, Jill Wohlford, Jerry Davis, and Robert Dickenson worked with us on our early Indicators and Pathways projects. Sam Cargile was Project Officer for the Indiana Project on Academic Success, which extended our research on student success to provide technical support for colleges and universities in Indiana. Mary Williams was Project Officer for the recent evaluation of the TwentyFirst Century Scholars Program. The project officers provided thoughtful and critical advice at several points during these studies that proved vital to the success of the study. Jerry Davis provided guidance in the design of these studies and, along with Robert Dickenson, critically reviewed the project report from the financial indicators study. Jill Wohlford has provided guidance across most of these projects. Stan Jones, Indiana’s Commissioner for Higher Education during the first six studies, enabled the project teams to develop longitudinal data fi les used for many of these studies. He recognized that the College Board surveys on the SAT could be linked to the ICHE and Independent Colleges of Indiana (ICI) student information systems (SIS), providing cohort data that could be used to examine a number of student outcomes. Other members of the ICHE staff—including Jeff Stanley, Kent Weldon, and Jeff Weber—were exceedingly helpful with the design of this study and the review of earlier reports. At the ICI, both Hans Giesecke and Patrick Alles were remarkably helpful in the design of this study, providing access to the student enrollment data for private colleges.

Acknowledgments • xiii

Gregory Anderson at the Ford Foundation was an outstanding program officer, encouraging innovative use of data systems and inquiry methods to support reforms that expand educational opportunity for low-income students. John B. Williams (Vice President of the Public Welfare Foundation) and William T. Trent (Professor of Educational Policy at the University of Illinois) have served as Co-Principal Investigators of the Ford Planning Grant. The support from Projects Promoting Equity in Higher and Urban Education has been crucial in pulling this book together as part of an extended effort to build an understanding of the ways data systems can be used to inform reforms by practitioners in educational systems. Project personnel at the Indiana Education Policy Center (now the Indiana Center for Evaluation and Education Policy) contributed substantially to the early phases of this project. Choong-Geun Chung assisted with many of the analyses of the 2000 Cohort. Leigh Kupersmith, Publications Coordinator for the policy center, provided technical support on manuscript production throughout both projects. Ontario Wooden, a research associate, was a key staff member in the first year of the Financial Indicators study and coauthored several reports on the project. Tina Tuttle, a research associate for the IPAS project, also provided support for these studies. The collaboration with Charlie Nelms, Vice President for Institutional Development and Student Affairs at Indiana University (and now President of North Carolina Central University) was crucial to the Indiana Project for Academic Success. Dr. Nelms conducted a planning project for the Lumina Foundation in 2002–2003 resulting in the development of IPAS. The IPAS provides technical support to Indiana University campuses and other colleges and universities in Indiana. The intent of IPAS was to use research to inform planning and program development that would foster improvement in student attainment. Jeff McKinney and Pauline Reynolds, staff members for the retention project, joined the team for the IPAS. Mike Wilkerson served as coordinator of the retention project and coedited a volume in the New Directions in Institutional Research monograph series as an outgrowth of the retention project. Don Hossler, professor of higher education at Indiana University, served as project director for the last year of IPAS. Graduate students and staff at the University of Michigan collaborated on the interviews used for the case studies presented in part II. We thank Nathan Duan-Barnett (now at SUNY-Buffalo), Amy S. Fisher, and Krystal Williams for their work on conducting and transcribing interviews used in chapters 6 through 9. Nate Daun-Barnett, Krystal Williams, Karen Moronski, and Daniela Pineda provided assistance with updating and expanding the state indicators used in part I. Phyllis Stillman provided editorial support for completion of the manuscript. These contributions are sincerely appreciated. Finally, Phillip Bowman, Director of the National Center for Institutional

xiv • Acknowledgments

Diversity (NCID) at the University of Michigan, has played a crucial role in providing a home for my research. Not only is NCID the organizational home of the Promoting Equity projects, but Phil has become a partner in the change initiatives in higher education that have become one of my central academic and social concerns. The financial support from the Lumina and Ford Foundations are sincerely appreciated, along with the support of colleagues who contributed to the project that made this book possible. The interpretations in this book are the authors’.

1 Introduction

The United States is in the midst of a massive systemic transformation of its high schools. The old model of comprehensive high schools provided general education for most students, along with college preparatory courses for some and vocational courses for others (Conklin & Curran, 2005). The new goals are for all students to be prepared for college during high school and for a majority of students to attain two-year or four-year college degrees. The collegeready standard for high school graduation is also often stated as workforce ready. By merging the workforce and academic standards into one new higher standard for graduation, a mandate for radical and rapid change has been put in place. Even more recently there has been a new push in higher education to improve rates of degree attainment (Bowen & McPherson, 2009; Carey, 2008). This new emphasis on graduation rates is also workforce related and is often framed as a challenge for the United States to compete internationally in the new global economy. Achieving these goals of transforming high schools and improving college graduation rates will require both centralized policy and decentralized action within complex systems of education. Yet the organization and control differ dramatically for K-12 and higher education in the United States. States are the locus for reform of high schools because they have control over graduation requirements1 and most have raised these standards. In contrast, many institutions of higher education (IHEs) enjoy substantial autonomy, as do their faculty because of their academic freedom, so change initiatives in IHEs need to use decentralized methodologies, possibly as part of statewide initiatives. Summary This book addresses the complex issues related to system change using analyses of state and national databases and case studies of organizational change. We start each chapter with a summary. Pathways to Academic Success in Higher Education: Expanding Opportunity for Underrepresented Students Using State Databases and Action Inquiry (hereafter referred to as Pathways) examines the systemic change of U.S. education in three steps:

1

2 • Introduction

• Part I: Reforming Academic Preparation. A transformation of the K-12 system has been underway for three decades. There has been a concerted effort by states and the federal government to raise the standard for secondary education since publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). A new standard, now widely endorsed by states (e.g., Conklin & Curran, 2005; Hoff man, Vargas, Venezia, & Miller, 2007), emphasizes college preparation for all. The change from a national system of comprehensive high schools to college preparatory education for all students is a systemic change that requires more than raising standards (St. John, 2006), an issue that is of major concern in this volume. The chapters in part I provide a national assessment of progress in preparation, along with a case study of the State of Indiana, which is the focus of our research. • Chapter 1 examines the evolution of policy arguments about access as rationales for changing the educational system. • Chapter 2 uses a state indicators database of educational policies and outcomes (http://www.ncid.umich.edu/promotingequity/) to examine the relationship between graduation requirements and access both nationally and in Indiana. • Chapter 3 uses a national sample from the College Board 2000 high school seniors who responded to the SAT questionnaire (about 95% of test takers) along with a state sample for Indiana to examine the relationship between high school courses and test scores. • The chapters in part I illustrate that progress toward the goal of improving preparation has been uneven across the states, but Indiana stands out in the early 21st century as having forged a new path. Many groups are now arguing for a massive expansion of higher education (e.g., Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, 2007; Conklin & Curran, 2005). Unfortunately, progress toward this goal has been modest. During the early 2000s, the enrollment rate for college-age citizens did not substantially improve in spite of these widely held goals. The reasons for the lack of progress are complex. Part of the problem relates to the failure of states to adequately fund public higher education (St. John, 2006), but the problem is more complex than implied by an economic perspective alone. Public colleges and universities enjoy substantial autonomy from states (Schmidtlein & Berdahl, 2005). In this nationally decentralized system of higher education, we argue that campuses are the appropriate locus of change; they must create the new pathways to college success. • Part II: Expanding Postsecondary Opportunity. States have a crucial role to play through both finance and facilitation. In part II we test an approach to using state databases with student records as a basis for informing inquirybased change at the campus level.

Introduction • 3

• Chapter 4 explains our approach to framing and facilitating interventions in higher education. • Chapter 5 examines how a state program that guaranteed aid for lowincome students (Twenty-first Century Scholars) was associated with academic preparation during high school.2 • To assess critical challenges, we analyzed a longitudinal cohort database of Indiana students in the high school class of 2000 who enrolled in the state’s public and private colleges and universities. We examined college transitions (chapter 6), academic support (chapter 7), changes in majors and colleges (chapter 8), and degree attainment (chapter 9). • The focus in chapters 6 through 9 is on how campus officials used this information to design and refine interventions focused on improving persistence and extending opportunity to more students. Multivariate studies are provided in appendices to these chapters. Major Themes Pathways was written for practitioners (faculty and administrators who are or seek to be engaged in reform), policy makers in government agencies who seek to collaborate with researchers on improving educational opportunities in their states and institutions, researchers who seek to provide analyses to inform and support educational reform in K-12 and higher education, and graduate students who want to learn about action research methods in higher education. As an introduction, we focus on the three themes of the volume: 1. To increase the number of students who obtain college degrees, it is necessary to focus on expanding opportunity for underrepresented students. 2. To do that, it is necessary to shift the focus in policy and practice from raising standards as a policy emphasis to creating new and diverse academic pathways of high quality educational opportunity. 3. To enable the systemic changes to transform educational systems it is necessary to build organizational capacity for change, including an explicit focus on research-informed interventions in colleges and universities. Theme 1: Expanding Opportunity for the Underserved The focus on expanding opportunity for underserved students runs through all three parts of this book. Educational policy that centers on raising standards has resulted in an approach to research and development that focuses on replicating best practices, exporting practices from well-funded educational institutions to institutions that are not as well funded. The assumption has been that replication of best practices will ensure that students in underfunded schools will have the same level of preparation and academic success

4 • Introduction

available to them as their better-funded peers. This assumption is problematic for both high schools and colleges. In part I, we examine the results of state efforts to reform high schools and introduce the alternative of capacity building based on inquiry. In part II, we present the results of our efforts to work with IHEs in the State of Indiana using an inquiry-based approach to educational reform. The research and cases presented illustrate that it is possible to use this approach to expand opportunity, but the result of this work falls far short of system transformation. These analyses demonstrate examples of targeted reform rather than large scale change, which we expect is also possible. Below we briefly introduce our approach to integrating a focus on expanding opportunity for underrepresented students into analyses of K-12 reform and higher education interventions. Our emphasis on underrepresented students is based on Nussbaum’s (1999, 2000) theory of human capabilities. She argues that education to a level sufficient to support a family is a basic human right, especially for women. Given the emphasis on college-preparatory (Conklin & Curran, 2005) and workforce education (Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, 2007), high school reforms that emphasize advanced Math and literacy for all students can appropriately be considered part of a new human capabilities standard. If all high school students had a chance to graduate with this level and quality of preparation, they would be eligible academically to attend college. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the opportunity to attend college as a human capabilities standard akin to a basic right for all high school students, including the underserved. Race/ethnicity, socioeconomic class, and gender are critical to all policies and practices that focus on expanding opportunity, whether or not the problem is explicitly recognized. In the context of antiaffirmative action rhetoric, the language of reform frequently shifts when issues of race and class are raised. In higher education, the litigation over the Gratz and Grutter cases in the early 2000s (e.g., Moses, & Cobb, 2001) often quieted discourse on the underlying problem of class and race, as did the focus on individual benefits over the public good (Pasque, 2007). In K-12 education, the language of “success for all” and “no child left behind” supplanted terms like the disadvantaged and equal education in the policy discourse. Yet for the sake of the public good, it is crucial to consider how public policies and organizational practices influence opportunity for low-income and ethnic minority students because these excluded groups must be included if the goals of expanding opportunity are to be realized. Throughout our collaboration on the development of educational and financial indicators (used in part I) and in the use of state databases (parts I and II), we included a focus on underrepresented groups in the assessment and evaluation research. While many of the policies and interventions we study did not always have improving equity as an official intent, we present

Introduction • 5

research and analyses in this book that address the underlying issues of race and class.3 In part I, we address issues of racial inequality in preparation for and access to higher education in the United States as well as in Indiana. We focus on racial inequality in the national assessment because: (a) inequality in opportunity for African Americans and Hispanics continues to be one of the most challenging issues in American society; and (b) data on race/ ethnicity for national and state populations was more consistently available for 1992 to 2006, the period studied in part I, than was data on income. Since there are changes in the distribution of income over time along with inflation or deflation, income comparisons continue to be problematic in trend studies of college preparation and access. Take Pell grants for example. We cannot use Pell eligibility as a source of comparison in trends for college students because: (a) the Pell maximum changes from year to year so that some students may be eligible one year and not the next; and (b) this variability in aid eligibility can mislead efforts to discuss trends in access for low-income students. Consequently, trends in racial/ethnic representation continue to be the best indicators of inequality and underrepresentation in trend studies, which are part of our foci in part I. In the studies of interventions in part II, we discuss how we used the assessment research to raise issues related to race and class for policymakers and practitioners. We could consider income differences along with race in these studies because we were using a cohort database for which information on income and aid was collected.4 In fact, the first study in part II (chapter 5) focuses on low-income students in the 2000 Cohort, which provides an interesting contrast to the study of academic preparation by all SAT takers in the cohort in part I (chapter 3) comparing the Indiana cohort to a national sample. In many cases, the interventions undertaken did not have an explicit focus on race and income even though they addressed issues that could reduce inequality. There is an underlying problem with how public higher education has been financed in recent decades. If we treat education to a college preparatory level as a basic right, then we must not only be concerned with expanding opportunity but also with equity in the distribution of opportunity for postsecondary education whether or not opportunity is expanded. In other words, low-income students should not be the last served, nor should they be the first left out of the educational system when methods of public finance change or when private markets are introduced. While affirmative action provided a means for elite universities to remedy inequality by race during the late 20th century, the extent of equality and inequality across income groups remains largely dependent on public finance strategies. Changes in access to higher education, especially four-year colleges, are closely linked to strategies used in the public financing of education.

6 • Introduction

We view public finance as an underlying issue in inequality related to our interpretation of John Rawls’s theory of justice. In his discussion of distribution of right, Rawls (1971, 1999, 2001) was careful to distinguish the roles of merit and equity as being important and necessary. If there is not prior inequality, then individuals should have a right to compete based on merit. However, since there are inequalities in both the opportunity to prepare for college and in the ability to pay the costs of attending college, both government agencies and institutions of higher education have an obligation to equalize opportunity. In a postaffirmative action period, the obligation of addressing prior inequality is still incumbent on states and governments in our view (St. John & Musoba, 2002). While academic issues are central to the problem of inequality in opportunity, the public financing of K-12 and higher education also plays a major role. While we focus on the role of state policy in raising standards, we do not neglect the role of school funding or of college costs and student aid. When examining state policies on high school preparation (part I), we consider the role of public finance along with state standards on preparation. There have been gains in access to advanced courses in high school, and there is a link between preparation and enrollment in four-year colleges. Untangling these relationships between policy trends and educational outcomes is our major focus. We use multivariate analyses in this process; these analyses are used primarily as background (and are appended to the chapters in which they are discussed). Thus we provide assessment of the role of K-12 policies and public finance strategies in promoting access. Financial aid is considered in the studies of interventions in part II. Chapter 5 examines the Indiana Twenty-first Century Scholars Program, a nationally important comprehensive reform that expands opportunity for low-income students. The analyses examine the influence of the Scholars program on academic preparation of low-income students. In addition, the assessment studies of student outcomes in chapters 6 through 9 consider the impact of aid on a range of student outcomes. While the campus-based interventions studied in part II were primarily concerned with changes in academic programs and student services, the factors within the control of practitioners on campuses, the role of financial aid was a consideration throughout the reform process. We did not consider the differential roles of merit- and need-based aid in chapters 6 through 9 because of our focus on academic success and interventions that might improve the academic success of underrepresented students in a state that made a substantial investment in need-based aid. Theme 2: Creating Academic Pathways While raising educational standards can improve college preparation, such policies also narrow the educational pathways available to high school stu-

Introduction • 7

dents. When high schools raise the required number of college preparatory courses, students have less opportunity for specializations (e.g., vocational options in high school). The number of electives also decreases. For example, students specializing in music or the arts may have to take private courses in order to prepare for college if their school cannot provide advanced courses. While we recognize this is a potential problem, our focus is on expanding opportunity for students to prepare according to the current standards and the chances students will find pathways through college that fit their educational interests and needs.5 While our national assessment (part I) focuses on the association between high school graduation standards and student outcomes, especially graduation and test scores, we recognize the importance of examining different patterns of academic preparation during high school. We examine the relationship between implementation of higher standards in states and college enrollment rates, demonstrating that progress is uneven at best. We also take a close look at one state—Indiana—that made progress toward improvement in access in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In addition to considering the role of state and K-12 policies, we consider the long term effects of high school policies on academic success during college. The Indiana studies in parts I and II consider the role of college preparatory courses for students in the 2000 high school cohort on subsequent college success. Our analyses track the students through high school and college, examining outcomes related to preparation, enrollment in four-year colleges, transfer from two-year to four-year colleges, and degree attainment. During the period studied, Indiana required all high schools to offer college preparatory curriculum but did not require it as a minimum standard for high school graduation. In this context, this represented an opportunity for many students to gain access to preparatory courses that had not been available when their parents attended high school. While not evenly distributed around the state, access to advanced high school courses was an important issue for Indiana students, as it has been in national studies of academic preparation (Adelman, 2005; St. John, 2006). Theme 3: Partnerships in Change Although difficult, it is possible to build partnerships that involve researchers, educational organizations, and state agencies in a systematic and decentralized change process that focuses on expanding educational opportunity, opening new pathways to historically underrepresented students. Recently, states and the federal government have supported the development of statelevel, student-record databases, but there have been few prior efforts to use these databases to inform organizational change in IHEs. The argument often used to propose student-record databases is that schools and IHEs should be

8 • Introduction

held accountable. Accountability schemes based on setting standards and monitoring progress have had mixed effects in K-12 education and are largely inconsistent with the history of a decentralized, corporate model of governance in higher education. In K-12 education, a tension has emerged between a public system and an emergent private system with institutions that function as minicorporations with chief executives autonomous from school districts. Higher education, in contrast, has centuries of experience with decentralized systems with corporate-style boards. Colleges and universities have a remarkable ability to adapt, as the past two decades of strategic changes in enrollment management and budgeting illustrate. The challenge in higher education is to develop a capacity within colleges and universities to make adaptive changes that expand opportunities for underserved students. This book demonstrates the alternative to centralized change: the decentralized, research-informed approach to expanding opportunity. In part II we examine a set of action initiatives undertaken by teams of faculty and administrators in colleges and universities. These campus-based teams engaged in reviews of research, identification of campus challenges, evaluation of past interventions, and the design and testing of new programs. The Indiana Project on Academic Success (IPAS; 2005) provided research using state databases as well as technical support to campus teams engaged in reforms. With modest funding, IPAS was able to offer some notable results to different campuses. This approach to reform could be used in the reform efforts within colleges and even high schools; in Part III, we examine this possibility. About Pathways Pathways presents a national assessment of progress on academic preparation and a state-level case study (part I); demonstrates an approach to using student-record databases in analyses that inform inquiry-based reforms within educational organizations that seek to expand opportunity for underrepresented students while pursuing strategies that promote excellence for all students (part II); and provides guidance for states, school districts and high schools, and institutions of higher education about how to adapt this model in their organizational contexts (part III). As a research monograph, Pathways addresses two challenges facing states and educational organizations in their efforts to expand opportunity for underrepresented students. First, the critical need for a new generation of research that examines patterns of preparation in high schools, college enrollment, and college success within state systems of K-12 and higher education is addressed. While the two systems are increasingly theorized as a single entity, K-16 education, it is also necessary to consider the diverse pathways to student success between and within the two systems. To examine how the high school and higher educa-

Introduction • 9

tion systems influence access and academic success, we: (a) use state indicators for policy and student outcomes to provide a national assessment and situate the Indiana case; (b) analyze national databases along with an Indiana cohort fi le of students who graduated from high school in 2000 to build an understanding of academic preparation; (c) analyze the 2000 Cohort of Indiana college students to provide studies identifying academic challenges that are faced by students in Indiana higher education; and (d) use action inquiry methods to support reforms at college campuses in the state, often integrating campus data on program participation with state databases. These combined analyses introduce a new approach to using national, state, and campus data systems to support and inform educational reform. Second, Pathways illustrates how research can be organized to inform efforts in IHEs to improve access and student academic success. While accountability schemes are widely advocated for state higher education systems (e.g., U.S. Department of Education, 2006), we argue that state assessment research can be used to inform educational improvements as an alternative to top down accountability in higher education. Analyses of the 2000 Cohort in Indiana provide a statewide assessment that could inform institutional initiatives. Collaborating colleges received institutional research support, including campus level analyses they could compare to statewide results. Collaborating two-year and four-year campuses engaged in an assessment process to identify critical challenges, then, using action inquiry, tested new reform strategies. Workgroups on the campuses addressed challenges by building an understanding of the sources of the problem, looking internally and externally for possible remedies, assessing potential remedies, developing plans for testing reform, and implementing the reforms as action experiments including an evaluation phase (St. John, McKinney, & Tuttle, 2006; Musoba, 2006b). Brief case studies of institutional reform efforts are presented to illustrate how campus teams used institutional research to inform campus reform efforts.

Part I Reforming Academic Preparation

2 Rationales for Reform

Research is often used as a tool to argue for specific reforms. In contrast, we argue that research should be used to assess current conditions, evaluate past practices, and inform organizational change through adaptation of successful practices to meet local needs. This chapter examines how reform rationales have shaped educational research and policies. Summary In the past half century there has been an evolution of rationales used in federal, state, and institutional reform efforts, including: • Rationale 1: Expand Access to Higher Education through development of state systems of comprehensive high schools, community colleges, and four-year colleges. • Rationale 2: Equalize Opportunity across Income and Racial/Ethnic Groups by removing financial barriers and compensating for any educational disadvantages of underrepresented students. • Rationale 3: Improve Educational Excellence for All Students as a means of improving the competitiveness of American education. • Rationale 4: Improve the Academic Pipeline to College by emphasizing academic preparation in high school—especially in advanced Math—as an alternative to comprehensive high schools with multiple diploma types and variability in rigor. • Rationale 5: Double the Number of College Graduates as a means of expanding opportunity and enabling economic development. Multiple rationales are often embedded in federal programs in K-12 and higher education, creating contradictory incentives and demands. A clear focus on equality of opportunity for all students is needed along with, but not in place of, efforts to expand opportunities for students who have been denied access to quality preparation and who cannot afford to pay for college.

13

14 • Reforming Academic Preparation

Major Rationales for Reform Over the years, five reform rationales have been used in the United States which converge in support of contemporary initiatives to improve preparation, access, and academic success. This started with (a) providing mass high school and higher education with universal access and (b) ensuring equal opportunity for an education. During the late 20th century, a greater emphasis was placed on (c) promoting excellence in educational systems and (d) creating an educational pipeline from K-12 through higher education. Now, reform groups advocate (5) doubling the numbers of low-income students who attain a college education in the early 21st century. Each of these evolving reform rationales has influenced the emphasis on academic success now evident in U.S. education. Rationale 1: Expand Access to Higher Education The national goal of providing mass education with universal access for qualified students is widely, but not necessarily uniformly, accepted. Expanding college access and college success have become major challenges for reformers at all levels of the educational system. The movement toward mass higher education, from the expansion after World War II to the accommodation of the baby boom generation lasting through 1980, contributed to the development of a dynamic, diversified, and decentralized national system of higher education. While many prognosticators argued that enrollment would drop in the last two decades of the 20th century (Carnegie Commission for Higher Education, 1973; Freeman, 1976; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1980), in fact enrollment rates for high school graduates expanded substantially after 1980 as institutions developed means of maintaining and even expanding, in spite of predictions to the contrary. College enrollments in the 1980s and 1990s were consistently higher than midrange NCES estimates as a result of growth in college participation rates for traditional-age students (St. John, 2003). As some form of college education became a necessity for access to the middle class, more students chose to pursue higher education. With the increase in enrollment rates in the 1980s and 1990s, many students became the first generation in their families to go to college. Less than one-third of high school graduates enrolled in college in the 1970s, but by 2000 the rate had increased to 45% (St. John, 2003). Unfortunately, high schools had not sufficiently adapted to provide the necessary curriculum to prepare students for this expansion in college enrollment. College educators questioned the preparation of high school students (McCabe, 2000), and policy analysts argued that improvements in academic preparation should be a higher priority than need-based grants (Finn, 2001; King, 1999). While balanced logic would have argued that both types of policy should be used to promote access (Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2002), there had already been a substantial decline in federal grant aid. The rationale

Rationales for Reform • 15

for maintaining a commitment to need-based aid had been undermined in part by the continued expansion in college enrollment rates. In the early 21st century, the issues of improving preparation and expanding opportunity are inexorably linked. With the growth of college enrollment rates, high schools are now confronted with the challenge of providing college preparatory education to the majority of their students. Many argue this will require a restructuring, if not a rethinking, of high schools (e.g., Toch, 2003). Improvement in preparation is critical, whether or not there is an expansion of college participation rates, reflected in the fact that almost one-third of college freshmen require remedial support (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2006). Rationale 2: Equalize Opportunity across Income and Racial/Ethnic Groups Gaps in college participation between income and ethnic minority groups have always been a problem in American higher education. Although the goal of ensuring equal opportunity for education is widely accepted, there is no consensus about the means that should be used to move toward this goal. After the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, the federal government began promoting desegregation of public systems of education. The nation’s system of education has been through multiple rounds of litigation over desegregation, but schools were more segregated by race in the late 20th century than before Brown (Fossey, 1998; Orfield, Bachmeier, James, & Eide, 1997; Orfield & Eaton, 1996). While some colleges began to use affirmative admissions policies that explicitly considered race, many public colleges remained segregated until the Supreme Court’s Adams v. Richardson decision (1973). However, in the 1978 California Board of Regents vs. Bakke decision, the Supreme Court decided race could not explicitly be considered as a criterion in admissions. Thus, constraints were placed on affirmative action at the same time that the federal government began to require and monitor desegregation. Then, in 1991, the Supreme Court’s Fordice decision (United States v. Fordice, 1992) refocused the remedies of desegregation on historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), even before some states had complied with the requirements to desegregate predominantly White colleges and to strengthen public historically Black colleges and universities. To secure more funding to strengthen them under these conditions, The HBCUs had to propose programs that would attract Whites, while predominantly White colleges had no requirement to integrate other that assuring that they did not discriminate on race (St. John & Hossler, 1998). Prior to the start-up of desegregation efforts in higher education, federal education legislation of the 1960s and 1970s had helped equalize opportunity in some outcomes (e.g., access) and put the educational system on a

16 • Reforming Academic Preparation

trajectory toward equality in other outcomes (e.g., high school graduation) (St. John, 2003). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), passed originally in 1965, provided additional educational funding for schools with high percentages of low-income students. The long-term effect of these policies became evident by the early 1970s, as the percentage of students graduating from high school rose. In addition, the Higher Education Act (HEA) also enacted in 1965, enabled colleges and universities to provide need-based grant aid to low-income students. In the 1972 reauthorization of the HEA, the federal government created Pell grants,1 portable, voucherlike grants that ensured low-income students an opportunity to enroll if they were admitted to college. Between 1975, when Pell was fully implemented and 1978, when the Middle Income Student Assistance Act (MISAA) was passed, the percentage of minority high school graduates enrolling in college was essentially equal to the percentage of White high school graduates who enrolled. The equity in access realized through implementation of Pell Grants (as Basic Educational Opportunity Grants [BEOG] in 1973) declined after 1978 (St. John, 2003). After MISAA, campus aid administrators began to redirect Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants from low-income students to middle-income students (St. John & Byce, 1982). The MISSAA also expanded eligibility for Pell grants to include middle-income students, which limited the percent of Pell dollars going to low-income students. After that time, as an artifact of the need analysis formula used for Pell, substantial grants were awarded to middle-income students before needs were met for low-income students. Pell was never fully funded thereafter, as the program deviated from its original intent of equalizing opportunity for low-income students. After 1980, the federal government failed to increase funding for Pell grants while college costs increased, substantially eroding the purchasing power of the program (Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2001, 2002). Federal efforts toward access shifted from grants to loans and from the lowest income students to reducing the financial burden for middle-income families. This shift was part of a new argument that differences in high school Math courses, rather than the decline in federal grants, was the explanation for the gap in enrollment that opened after 1980 (Pelavin & Kane, 1988, 1990). In subsequent years, states implemented higher Math standards, the federal government substantially increased loans, and Pell grants continued to decline (St. John, 2003, 2006). As a consequence of these developments, the percentage of African American high school graduates attending college declined while the overall percentage of students enrolling increased (St. John, 2003). Loans helped moderate-income families pay the rising costs of attendance, but lowincome families had substantially more problems because, on average, they had to borrow much more money to pay for a public four-year college. By 1992, the percentage of high-income high school graduates attending four-year colleges had increased substantially, while the percentage of low-

Rationales for Reform • 17

income students had actually declined slightly (Ellwood & Kane, 2000), as had federal support for equal opportunity. In the 1990s, state need-based grants played a central role in promoting equal opportunities to enroll and persist in college in some states. Studies of public college students in Washington State (St. John, 1999) and Indiana (Hu & St. John, 2001; St. John, Hu, & Weber, 2000, 2001) found that state grants played a critical role in equalizing opportunity across income and ethnic groups in public colleges, controlling for student background, achievement, and the type of college (e.g., research institutions) attended. In addition, analyses of the impact of state aid for low-income college students showed that Indiana’s Twenty-first Century Scholars—low-income eighth graders who were given a commitment from the state for scholarships2 equaling tuition—were more likely than their peers to apply for college, enroll, and persist (Musoba, 2004b; St. John, Musoba, Simmons, & Chung, 2002; St. John, Musoba, Simmons, Chung, et al., 2004). Studies that examined state merit grant programs have indicated they improve enrollment, but also increase inequalities. Studies that analyzed enrollment patterns in Georgia (Dynarski, 2002a, 2002b) and New Mexico (Binder, Ganderton, & Hutchens, 2002) consistently found that merit grants were associated with increased enrollment rates, especially for Whites enrolling at public four-year colleges. Merit grants expanded the college choices for low-income students who qualified, but most funds went to those who would have been able to afford to attend college anyway. More recently, a national study of state grants in the 1990s found that state funding for nonneed (mostly merit) grants was associated with reduced high school graduation rates, while funding for need-based grants was associated with increased high school graduation rates (St. John, Chung, Musoba, Simmons, et al., 2004). The same study found that funding for merit and need-based grants was associated with improved college enrollment rates for high school graduates overall, but that funding for needbased grants had a more substantial influence because it improved access for qualified students who could not otherwise pay for college. Thus, a second challenge facing states in the early 21st century is to provide need-based grants sufficient to equalize enrollment opportunity across income groups within state systems of higher education. In a national context characterized by rising net costs after expected family contributions (EFC) for low-income students, state funding for need-based grants is increasingly necessary to equalize enrollment opportunity for similarly prepared students across income groups. However, most states fall short of the standard necessary to ensure equal opportunity (St. John, 2006; St. John, Chung, et al., 2004). Equal opportunity does not equate with equal rates across groups in high school graduation, college enrollment, or college graduation. However, since there is a history of movement toward equalizing opportunity, evident in the United States between 1954 and 1980, along with evidence of relatively equal college-going rates in the 1970s after many of these policies had been in effect

18 • Reforming Academic Preparation

for a sustained period but before the decline in the purchasing power of aid, there is sound reason to use differences in rates across income and racial/ethnic groups as indicators of inequality. In particular, the movement away from the emphasis on equal opportunity toward excellence for all has altered this trajectory with respect to equal opportunity. Rationale 3: Improve Educational Excellence for All Students The rationale of promoting educational excellence through accountability now dominates K-12 policy and lurks at the edge of the nation’s higher education system. The excellence movement got off to a quick start with the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). In the 1980s, most states implemented state-level curriculum standards under the assumption that raising standards would improve educational outcomes. In particular, the research finding that college enrollment was associated with taking Algebra in middle school (Pelavin & Kane, 1988, 1990) and with taking other advanced Math courses in high school (Adelman, 1999, 2006; Berkner & Chavez, 1997) increased the emphasis on enhancing Math requirements for high school graduation and raising Math standards. The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 required all states to have an aligned system of standards and testing. However, research on the effects of state education policies raises questions about the efficacy of these new excellence initiatives. A study using a state-level database for the 1990s found that increased Math requirements (graduation requirements and standards) were associated with higher average SAT scores in states, but with lower high school graduation rates (St. John, Musoba, & Chung, 2004); Math requirements had no association with college enrollment rates. These findings indicate that increases in graduation requirements have a positive influence on test scores, but are cause for concern with respect to the equity outcomes of high school education: It appears that although many students attained higher levels of achievement, a group of students became discouraged and withdrew from high school probably because of the increased academic demands and their perception that they would be unable to reap the benefits of this preparation because they could not pay for college. The linkage between improvements in high school preparation and expansion of college access is far more complex than previously assumed. The positive association between Math courses and SAT scores evident in research (chapter 3) could mean that increasing requirements might improve college attainment (degree completion) because students would be better prepared for college. On the other hand, test scores are not the only achievement variables that influence eventual college attainment; for example, high school grades can predict college completion as well as SAT scores. Given the complexity of relationships, including the negative association between increasing

Rationales for Reform • 19

requirements and high school graduation rates (St. John, Musoba, & Chung, 2004), it is crucial that states develop a better capacity to assess the impact of high school reforms on college attainment. Finding an approach to educational improvement that emphasizes both improving quality for all and equalizing opportunities for students who start out in life without economic wealth has proven an elusive goal when preparation is the dominant goal in education policies. Over time, the emphasis in education research began to focus on the correlates of college access and college success. Given the strong correlation between Math courses in high school and eventual college success, the focus shifted to raising requirements as a means of filling the pipeline (i.e., graduating college-prepared high school students), a widely used strategy in the 1990s and 2000s. This approach pushed some people out of the system when there was not adequate support to improve the teaching of the newly required advanced courses. Rationale 4: Improve the Academic Pipeline to College While the academic pipeline concept is widely accepted, it has only recently been introduced and is not well understood. The logic of the academic pipeline assumes that college enrollment is the outcome of a sequence of prior actions: aspiring to attain a higher education, taking a preparatory curriculum, taking entrance exams, and applying for college and student aid (Berkner & Chavez, 1997). Not only are there logical problems with the single-pipeline model (St. John, 2002), but serious statistical errors were made leading to overestimations of the effects of academic preparation. For example, how variables like parents’ education and family earnings correlate was not considered when statistical tables were interpreted (Becker, 2004; Heller, 2004), an approach that made it too easy for policymakers to overlook inequalities in financial opportunity for prepared students to enroll. The problems with the narrow conception of a single pathway to college used in the pipeline studies may go beyond statistical errors in these studies. Not all colleges require SAT or ACT exams or early application for enrollment. Specifically, it is possible to gain access to community colleges by taking different steps. When the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) used test scores as part of their index for preparation, they excluded from their analysis of college enrollment large numbers of students who did, in fact, enroll in college (St. John, 2003); however, half of the low-income students who met the academic standards proposed by NCES (Berkner & Chavez, 1997) did not enroll in four-year colleges (Fitzgerald, 2004). Considering the large percentage of low-income students who start their college education in community colleges (about 25% of low-income students who met the NCES qualification standard), often motivated by a lack of funding opportunities, there is substantial reason to question the notion that requiring more Math

20 • Reforming Academic Preparation

will solve the problem of inequality in access to four-year colleges for lowincome students. These analyses (Berkner & Chavez, 1997; Horn, 1997) also systematically overlooked the fact that their own tables demonstrated that more than half of low-income students who were academically prepared, using the NCES definition of academic qualifications, did not gain access to four-year colleges (Fitzgerald, 2004). Clearly, there were important considerations of college access not addressed in the NCES models. At a minimum, this means that policymakers and college educators needed a better understanding of the multiple pathways by which different students prepare for and enter into college and how they succeed after entering. These reports were misleading, especially for advocates of diversity within the current system. When states set out to make major changes in high school graduation requirements, they should establish a baseline of information on the effects of extant policies on preparation before new requirements are put into place. In Indiana, for example, it was important to assess how high school diploma options (Regular, Core 40, and Honors)3 influenced college success in order to provide a baseline against which to compare the effects of the new requirements to make the basic college preparatory diploma (Core 40) the default curriculum for all students. Given prior research, it is important to consider issues related to high school graduation rates as well as rates of college enrollment and degree attainment. Thoughtful and well-designed evaluation research is needed to examine the impact of the new accountability-based reforms on preparation for college, high school graduation rates, and college enrollment. To build a research-informed understanding of these issues, it would be necessary to track successive cohorts of students from high school through college to assess whether the change in preparation influenced college success. Given the infrequent availability of national longitudinal studies, along with the fact that such studies often do not include a sufficient number of students for state-level analyses, it is necessary to develop state-level assessment and evaluation studies. Pathways provides the baseline assessment for a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of high school reforms on college success for one state, Indiana. Based on our findings, we also suggest strategies for reconstructing the pipeline concept to reflect the diversity of pathways to and through college. Rationale 5: Double the Numbers The new call to double the number of low-income students who attain college degrees (Hoffman, Vargas, Venezia, & Miller, 2007; Kazis, Vargas, & Hoffman 2004) provides a compelling new rationale, but it comes at a time when the commitment to equalize opportunity is weaker than it was in past decades. At two national meetings on the theme of ”double the numbers,” Jobs for the Future (JFF) pulled together a diverse group of researchers, philanthropists,

Rationales for Reform • 21

and policymakers to discuss strategies for expanding the educational pipeline, with the goal of increasing the number of college-prepared low-income students and doubling the number who attain at least two-year degrees. The large array of foundations and groups represented at this meeting—including both liberal and conservative foundations—indicated a potential for creating a common interest in the goal of expanding opportunity for low-income students. However, from the review above it is evident both that large numbers of low-income students were left behind during the efforts to expand college access in the late 20th century. Even now, there is little consensus about the means that can best address this challenge. For example, Pennington (2003) advocated providing more funding for institutions, on a per capita basis, as a means of raising low-income student attainment. However, there is abundant evidence that need-based grant aid is needed to ensure financial access for low-income, college-prepared students (Fitzgerald, 2004; Lee, 2004), a condition that was not met in most states during the 1990s (St. John, Chung, Musoba, et al., 2004) and, as is evident in the analyses that follow, is not being met in the early 21st century. The access debate highlights a tension between those who explain gaps in attainment across income and racial groups as a problem of academic preparation and those who explain these gaps as a problem of financial access. College access must be understood to be both academic access, the necessary academic preparation to gain admission to and succeed in college; and financial access, the necessary financial resources to enroll and sustain enrollment. We have argued that both academic access and financial access are necessary for lowand middle-income students to have academic success during college (St. John & Musoba, 2002) and extend this argument in Pathways. At the very least, it is important to build an understanding of the role academic preparation plays in promoting and ensuring academic access for lowincome students. The State of Indiana provides a reasonable locale to study this issue because there is strong evidence that student grant programs—especially the Twenty-first Century Scholars Program—help equalize opportunity for prepared low-income students (St. John, Musoba, Simmons, et al., 2004). Therefore, analyses of the role and influence of high school preparation on college success in Indiana can inform national debates about college preparation and college access. Pathways explicitly focuses on issues related to patterns of enrollment and educational choices by college students. To improve academic success in college, we first need to understand the educational choices students make. Armed with that assessment information, it is possible to design local interventions that will ultimately enable students to make better choices. Most importantly, we examine diverse “academic pathways” to and through college. By examining the sequence of educational decisions students make, from choosing majors and colleges through decisions about taking advantage of

22 • Reforming Academic Preparation

college resources, students chart their own paths, especially when they change majors and colleges. Rethinking the Roles of Policy and Practice While the five rationales appear to support the same general goals of expanding access and improving degree completion, policies constructed based on multiple, competing rationales can be contradictory and give mixed signals and incentives to schools, colleges, and students. In our view, assessment of educational progress in states can help inform policymakers and practitioners about possible strategies for overcoming these difficulties, so it is important to consider how these policies are rationalized and implemented, as well as how colleges and universities adapt practice after new public policies are implemented. Chapter 3 examines how policies and related outcomes have evolved, with a focus on how policies relate to outcomes. We examine how evolving rationales influence opportunities for reform in high schools and colleges before discussing our approach to untangling the role of policy so that we can illuminate understanding of the roles of practitioner interventions and innovation. In part II we demonstrate how action research can inform adaptation within colleges to expand opportunity in the face of contradictory policies. We start this process with our reflections on the ways the rationales for access have shaped public policy for schools that prepare college students and the higher education institutions that serve students. Policy Contexts for Academic Preparation There are mixed incentives built into public policy on education which complicate efforts to expand opportunity and improve quality. Public K-12 education systems are routinely subjected to public mandates for reform. In contrast, private K-12 schools, including charters, have somewhat more autonomy (Harrington-Lueker, 2002). Public schools with high percentages of low-income students are most subject to policy mandates because of their dependency on federal aid through Title I of ESEA. The current role and influence of Title I on education reform illustrates how policy levers from one era are adapted for another. The old rationale of equal opportunity had a focus on funding low-income service schools in the ESEA Title I program but has been reconstructed over time as new rationales emerged. Title I originated as a program for promoting compensatory education programs that provided supplemental aid to schools serving low-income students, under the theory that this approach would help equalize opportunity. Over time, the federal government has tried different approaches that mandate comprehensive school reform for schools with low scores, providing large grants for schools that take a schoolwide approach (Wong, 2003). The

Rationales for Reform • 23

schoolwide reforms redirected funding from supplemental support for groups thought to be in need to educational improvement for the whole school, often without support for students who were the original target population. Title I has become the major mechanism for NCLB. Schools are now penalized by losing federal funding if they do not meet mandates for improvement, so they tend to target students at the margin, students with the best chance of meeting the test standards, a pattern evident in a recent study of school principals in Indiana (Flowers, 2010). If this new pattern of behavior becomes pervasive, less attention will be given to “all students” and low-income students. The policy levers on education reform are tightly focused on public high schools that serve low-income students. The federal program serving these schools has contradictory intents and penalizes schools for failure to meet certain goals. Most other schools—charter schools and public schools that serve mostly middle- and upper-income children—are not as likely to be penalized as a result of these legislative mandates: If schools do not receive or need Title I funding, they are not as easily bothered by mandates threatening the loss of this funding. In addition, mainstream schools (i.e., schools that are not highly dependent on federal Title I funding) have a greater capacity to respond to state mandates and incentives, including requirements or encouragement to offer a higher level of preparatory courses. The high schools serving low-income students are caught in the middle of a challenge to raise scores for students at a certain margin and find it difficult to adjust to new requirements. Thus high schools that serve low-income students face mandates that can undermine efforts to respond to newer mandates to raise educational standards. Higher Education Policy It is now widely recognized that federal student aid is not being adequately funded. In particular, the federal funding for Pell grants has lagged behind increased college costs,4 adding to the difficulties facing low-income students seeking to maintain enrollment in four-year colleges. Since the early 1990s there have been attempts to link increases in funding for Pell to the development of new accountability schemes, an approach influenced by the excellence movement of the period (St. John, 1994); additional Pell funding has been tied to student enrollment in science and Math majors while maintaining minimum grade point averages.5 In higher education, the inadequacy of federal student aid has complicated state efforts to maintain equal access. States have also gone through waves of policy reforms in higher education that have responded to different and contradictory policy rationales. One example of such contradictory policies is the conflict between college desegregation policies to remedy a historical legacy of segregation and the implementation of merit grant programs. In Louisiana, a state merit grant program giving virtually free tuition to all traditional students who met predetermined

24 • Reforming Academic Preparation

academic standards undermined state efforts to implement court-ordered desegregation at Louisiana State University (Inoue & Geske, 2007). A similar pattern seems to be evident in Georgia, where implementation of state merit grants advantage enrollment in four-year colleges, including the University of Georgia (Dynarski, 2002a, 2002b). However, merit aid can be mixed with other policies to equalize effects. For example, the gap between minority and White enrollment in Florida increased due to the combination of the top 20% admissions plan (basing college eligibility on high school class rank) and the state’s generous merit program with multiple methods of qualifying (St. John & Moronski, 2008). The bottom line is that state and institutional leaders must develop an awareness of the different combinations of policies that might undermine educational opportunity. Assessing National and State Progress To assess national progress on preparation, access, and college completion, it is necessary to consider the role of state policy in K-12 education and student aid. The availability of student aid can influence student decisions about preparation during high school (Bishop, 2004a, 2004b; St. John, 2006), which means that increased educational requirements is not the only policy linking to educational outcomes. In our view, it is necessary not only to assess national progress and redirect federal policy toward achievement of national goals, but for states to assess how their policies relate to measurable outcomes. Chapter 3 illustrates that it is possible to conduct state assessments by comparing state and national trends on policies and outcomes, as we demonstrate in Indiana. Using this approach, multivariable models provide a sound empirical basis for making judgments about whether apparent links between policies and outcomes hold up. It is also possible to gain visibility into the possible causes of progress toward or away from state educational goals and provide visibility into inequalities across groups. Such research should be used to inform state policymakers and educational practitioners about challenges they face and inform their efforts to design and test interventions focused on addressing critical challenges to equity and quality in educational delivery. Colleges and universities develop outreach, financial aid, and academic strategies within complex contexts influenced by state education and public finance policies. Most colleges and universities, including most private institutions, draw students from their states and regions and are highly interdependent with state policies. Only the elite private colleges that draw most of their students from out of state can be aloof from these state policies without suffering in enrollment and financial well-being. The assessment of progress toward the goals of improving preparation and promoting equity are highly relevant to administrators and faculty in higher education.

3 A National Challenge1

The U.S. Department of Education has made a substantial financial investment in studies that examine linkages between academic preparation and college outcomes, but most of these studies did not examine evidence related to the effects of state policies on these outcomes. Requirements for high school graduation rose during recent decades, but there is uneven progress in educational opportunity, especially for low-income and minority students. Summary The assessment of national progress reported in this chapter finds: • Growth in enrollment rates for traditional college-age students in the 1980s and 1990s, followed by a flattening of enrollment rates in the 2000s. Enrollment rates appear to be related to state investment in need-based grants relative to public tuition charges. • Disparities in the rate of enrollment opened in the 1980s, after a period of near equality in college enrollment rates in the latter half of the 1970s for Latinos and African Americans compared to Whites. The reopening of the gap corresponded to the decline in the purchasing power of Pell grants. However, in 2005 to 2007 there was an increase in college-going rates. • An examination of disparities in enrollment rates across racial/ethnic groups finds more substantial underrepresentation of Hispanics and African Americans in public four-year colleges, although African Americans gained some representation compared to Whites after 1992 while Latinos/ as substantially lost representation. The racial disparities in enrollment opportunities vary substantially across states, indicating the need for more in-depth study of state policies and interventions in state universities. Indiana, the case study in Pathways, provides a complex case. Key findings from the review of outcomes and trends in Indiana include: • Indiana had higher high school graduation rates than the U.S. average in the 1990s and 2000s, although the rate declined during this time period in Indiana as it did nationally.

25

26 • Reforming Academic Preparation

• Indiana improved its college continuation rate (percent of high school graduates enrolling in college) compared to the national average in the 1990s and early 2000s, a development that corresponded with growth in investments in need-based grants which increased substantially faster in Indiana than the U.S. average. • Indiana improved only modestly in the representation of African Americans and Latinos/as in public four-year colleges, but unequal representation was eliminated in private colleges and public two-year colleges. As a result of K-12 reform, public funding for schools and student grants, and other factors, Indiana nearly leveled opportunity for minorities to enroll in higher education, even though disparities persisted in the public four-year system of colleges and universities. • The role of education reforms and interventions within public colleges and universities within the Indiana system are examined in subsequent chapters. National Progress on Preparation and Access In the United States and most developed countries, it is appropriate to consider education as a basic right, given that enrollment in K-12 education is generally a requirement and universal attainment of high school education can be considered a national goal as well as an individual right. Completion of high school has been considered a right for all and the minimum requirement for a high school education is now widely defined as including a college preparatory curriculum. The National Governor’s Association (Conklin & Curran, 2005) and other groups (e.g., Hoffman, Vargas, Venezia, & Miller, 2007) have advocated for this new standard. Unfortunately, there is evidence that educational inequalities in schools for underrepresented minority (URM) students have never been fully remedied (Fossey, 1998; Orfield & Eaton, 1997). Since the standards for high school graduation are at the center of the debates about college access, we need to ponder how policies on preparation and public finance relate to college access. However, financial aid and college costs are closely linked to both access and diversity in higher education. Our analyses consider critical national measures of access and diversity, followed by an examination of how these changes correspond to implementation of K-12 and state finance policies. Critical Measures of Access and Diversity An examination of trends in college enrollment rates for the traditional college-age population (Figure 3.1) provides an indicator of the extent of access to higher education for those students who took appropriate steps to enroll. An examination of trends in access since the 1970s reveals: (a) a relatively stable

A National Challenge • 27 50.0% 43.2%

45.0%

46.1%

2005

2007

39.1%

40.0% 35.0%

46.8%

42.3% 33.7% 32.6%

32.5%

31.8%

1970

1975

1980

30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 1985

1990

1995

2000

Figure 3.1 College enrollment rates for 18- to 24-year-old high school graduates. Data from NCES Digest of Education Statistics 2008, Table 204. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, National Center for Instutional Diversity (NCID) at the University of Michigan.

rate of enrollment growth in the 1970s, a time when the size of the college cohort was growing (i.e., the baby boomer generation) although enrollment rates did not increase; (b) followed by an increase in enrollment rates from the early 1980s to 2005; and (c) a leveling (or modest decline) between 2005 and 2007. This indicator of trends in college access from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) summarizes information from the Current Population Surveys published yearly by the U.S. Census Bureau. If all students in K-12 schools had equal access to a college preparatory education, then during periods of expansion like the 1990s we would expect to see increased equity across groups in access to higher education, perhaps even equalizing of prior inequalities. When building an understanding of college-going rates, it is important to recognize the correspondence between state support of need-based grants and college continuation for high school graduates. Figure 3.2 compares two trends between 1992 and 2004: the college continuation rate, a ratio of high school graduates to college freshmen developed by Tom Mortenson (2002); and the ratio of grant funding per student to public tuition charges (adjusted by weighted FTE enrollment by type of public college). The college continuation rate indicates the percentage of graduates who enroll in college the year after high school.2 The trend in college continuation rates was relatively flat in the 1990s, consistent with the trends in participation rates (Figure 3.1). If high school graduation requirements had remained constant during this period, then the trend might be flat as a consequence of the lack of change in preparation. However, as discussed below, the standards

28 • Reforming Academic Preparation 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1992

1994

1996

1998

National College Continuation Rate

2000

2002

2004

2006

National/Grant Tuition Ratio

Figure 3.2 National trends in continuation rate (percentage of high school graduates going to college) and grant/tuition ratio (average state grant per FTE in state public and private colleges divided by public tuition charge). Data from Postsecondary Education Opportunity, NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, and National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

for graduation did improve, as did other indicators of academic preparation, so there is reason to question the assumption that graduation requirements explain college going, which had been central to the logic of the pipeline rationale of the late 1990s. The ratio of funding per FTE for student aid to public tuition provides an indicator of a state’s effort to maintain a balanced approach to public finance. States that rank high on this indicator can have low tuition and modest grant aid or high tuition and high grant aid.3 The relationship between changes in policy and changes in educational outcome should not be overlooked. What is striking in this comparison is that the trend line for states’ efforts in student aid relative to tuition corresponds so closely with the trend in college continuation (Figure 3.2). As financial affordability increases, enrollment increases. These trends are consistent with fi xed-effects regression analyses that indicate state funding per FTE for grants, controlling for other factors (demographics, state tax rates, and public tuition) was positively associated with college continuation rates during this period (St. John, 2006). Given the rising price of college, state investment in grants appears to be a major factor in enrollment rates. The exception to the pattern noted above was seen between 2004 and 2006. The ratio of funding for need-based grants to tuition declined slightly while the college continuation rate jumped to its highest level, over 60%. This recent jump is counter to trends during the prior period and could be attributable

A National Challenge • 29

to educational improvements and/or to increased access to two-year colleges, possibilities that merits study. Inequality in opportunity to enroll in college is measured by comparing enrollment rates across racial groups, using the enrollment rate for Whites compared to other groups as an indicator of inequity in opportunity (see Figure 3.3). This trend analysis reveals that enrollment (i.e., our indicator of college access) for Latinos/as and Blacks compared to Whites was nearly equal in the mid-1970s, when Latinos/as had higher rates of college enrollment than Whites, and Blacks and Whites had a nearly equal enrollment rates. A disparity in opportunity emerged in the 1980s and has persisted. Enrollment rates for African Americans ranged between 4.4 to 8.9 percentage points below that of Whites after 1980, while Latinos/as have had a growing disparity, reaching a differential of 11 percentage points this century. These trends illustrate that the details of inequality in the opportunity to enroll in higher education have changed over time. The mid-1970s was an unprecedented period of racial/ethnic equity in enrollment opportunity, although mean college enrollment rates stayed the same. In contrast, there has been enrollment growth since 1980, but inequality in the opportunity to enroll has emerged and persisted for some URM students. In spite of the 4.0% 3.2%

2.0% 0.0% -0.8%

-2.0% -2.2%

-4.0% -4.5%

-4.9%

-6.0% -8.0%

-7.2%

-7.2% -8.1% -7.7% -8.6% -8.8%

-8.9%

-10.0%

-7.7% -8.5%

-7.9%

-11.2%

-12.0%

-11.7%

-14.0% 1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

African American Gap

1995

2000

2005

2007

Latina/o Gap

Figure 3.3 Difference in college enrollment rates for African Americans and Latinos/as compared to White high school graduates. Data from NCES Digest of Education Statistics 2008, Table 204. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

30 • Reforming Academic Preparation

growth in college continuation rates between 2005 and 2007 (Figure 3.2), disparities have increased for African Americans (by .5 percentage points, from –7.2% to –.7%), but dropped substantially for Hispanics (by 2.7 percentage points, from –11.2% to –8.5%). The changes in opportunity to enroll correspond with the opening of the gap between the maximum Pell award and the average cost of attendance at public colleges (Figure 3.4). The trend has been toward a widening of the gap in unmet need for full-need students (i.e., students with zero expected family contribution who receive full Pell awards). Compared to Whites, the enrollment gap narrowed for African Americans and did not change for Hispanics after 1990 (Figure 3.3) while the Pell gap continued to grow (Figure 3.4), so trends in federal student aid alone are not even a prima facie explanation for the oscillations in the enrollment gap; state grants play a role in access along with graduation requirements and federal aid, so we need to dig deeper into the data. In combination, these trends reveal increased enrollment rates after 1980 correspond with inequality in enrollment opportunity for URM students, although the most recent two-year period (2007–2009) partially differed from this overall pattern. Increases in enrollment rates reveal an extension of opportunity to enroll in college as an educational outcome closely related to the basic right to high school education. If this right was equitably avail-

Constant 2006-07 Dollars**

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$0

($5,000)

($10,000) 1975-76

1980-81

Maximum Pell Award

1985-86

1990-91

1995-96

2000-01

2005-06

Public Four-Year Tuition, Fee, Room, and Board

2006-07 Funding Gap

Figure 3.4 Trends in Pell Maximum, average cost of attendance (COA) at public four-year colleges, and the gap between the Pell Maximum and COA. Data from College Board: Trends in College Pricing 2005, Table 4a; Trends in College Pricing 2007, Table 4b; Trends in Student Aid 2005, Table 8a; Trends in Student Aid 2007, Table 8b. **Dollar amounts adjusted to July 2006 to June 2007 (CPI-U). © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

A National Challenge • 31

able and if interventions in K-12 education benefited all students equally, there would be reason to expect a narrowing of inequalities when opportunity expands, a condition that clearly has not been evident in the past quarter century. Following Rawls’s theory of distributive justice and principle of strict egalitarianism, all should have equal access to educational opportunities. This egalitarianism (principle 2) was violated after 1980 because of the growing inequality for URM students. Education Policies and Equity in Higher Education Trends and correlations in the relationships between Math courses completed in high school and both enrollment and degree attainment have been widely reported (Adelman, 1995, 1999, 2005; Berkner & Chavez, 1997; Choy, 2002a, 2002b; Pelavin & Kane, 1988, 1990). Based on these statistics, several groups have advocated increasing requirements for high school graduation (Conklin & Curran, 2005; Hoff man et al., 2007) as part of a pipeline rationale. Yet the consideration of one subject, Math, ignores the high correlation between the opportunity to take rigorous Math courses and the opportunity for an overall rigorous curriculum, attending a high school with qualified certified teachers, access to quality information about the college-going process, and other factors known to be associated with college going. Advocacy rationales for Math education also overlooked the relationships between implementation of new standards for high school graduation and related outcomes. There have been substantial changes in policies since 1995. So while correlations for this older group of students continue to be referenced, the consequences of policy changes have not been widely considered. Recent research indicates that increased graduation requirements were positively associated with test scores, but not with high school graduation or college enrollment rates (DaunBarnett, 2008; St. John, 2006). Trends in state K-12 policies related to graduation (Table 3.1) illustrate the substantial changes that have taken place. Most states adopted new Math standards between 1990 and 1995; the number of states requiring three or more Math courses for graduation more than doubled between 1995 and 2005, and the number of states requiring at least Algebra I for graduation grew from two in 1995 to 22 in 2005. As noted above, college enrollment rates increased during this period, so implementation of these K-12 policies did correspond with enrollment gains, as some argued it would. Given that most states have changed policies in the past 15 years or so, it is important to consider the role of K-12 policies in promoting enrollment and equalizing enrollment opportunities across diverse groups. As of 2005, the report is mixed. It is not as dire as prior assessments (St. John, 2003, 2006), but the trends in inequality are still troubling.

32 • Reforming Academic Preparation Table 3.1 State Policy Indicators for Selected Years, 1990–2005 1990

1995

2000

2005

7

46

50

50

Requires 3 or more math courses for graduation

11

12

21

28

Requires 1 or 2 math courses for graduation

33

31

24

17

Policy related Variables State established content standards in math

Requires at least Algebra I or above

0

2

12

22

High School Curriculum is locally controlled

6

7

5

5

Offers an honors diploma

15

17

19

22

15**

12

14

19

Percentage of schools participating in AP*§

45%

51%

58%

62%

Percentage of students taking SAT∞

42%*

41%

44%

49%

3.2

3.32

3.79

3.96

500

504

505

508

Exam required for high school diploma*

9th Grade cohort size (millions) Outcomes of Interest SAT Verbal mean SAT Math mean

501

506

514

520

SAT Combined

1001

1010

1019

1028

*Based upon numbers reported in 1991. **This number is higher than anticipated but cannot be externally validated. § Reflects the median percentage for AP and the median dollars per FTE for K-12 expenditures. † Dollars reported are unadjusted. ∞ These numbers reflect the national figures reported by Educational Testing Service. Source: © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban adn Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Inequity in Access to Four-Year Colleges Access to four-year colleges is central to the debates about: (a) affirmative action, because admission to most public four-year colleges is constrained and based on preparation; (b) student financial aid, because declines in maximum need-based grant awards can constrain access to four-year colleges because they cost more than two-year colleges; and (c) curriculum policy, because improvements in preparation in Math are directly linked to enrollment in four-year but not in two-year colleges which often have open admissions. For more than two decades the disparity in college enrollment was attributed to disparities in preparation for college. Some progress has been made in preparation during this decade, as illustrated in the prior section, but enrollment growth has leveled and disparities in enrollment opportunity have not been narrowed. It is time to take a closer look at education policy in relation to access to both four-year and two-year colleges. The review of trends above illustrates that educational reforms have failed to remedy inequality in access to higher education. Moreover, we have not yet considered differential patterns of access to four-year and two-year campuses within public systems of higher education.

A National Challenge • 33

The research on enrollment rates indicates that cost in relation to available student financial aid has a very substantial influence on whether students can enroll (Heller, 1997; Jackson, 1988; Manski & Wise, 1983; St. John, 2006; St. John & Noell, 1989). When need-based student financial aid is constrained to a level below the need of the poorest of society, they will not be able to pay for more costly public colleges (i.e., public four-year colleges); on the other hand, those in the middle may receive sufficient aid, on the basis of their need, to make the margin of difference to pay for the more costly public colleges. In these same conditions, the poorest in society will be limited to enrollment in the least costly public colleges (i.e., two-year colleges) as an artifact of constraints on the maximum amount of aid available. The differentials in enrollment opportunity appear to fit this pattern. Changes in aid that began in the early 1980s that include an emphasis on loans and tax credits over grants benefit middle-income students more than the lowest-income students. Trends in representation by group in public four-year and two-year colleges reveal a pattern of inequality. Our measure of representation places a ratio of group FTE to total FTE in the numerator and uses the percentage of the group in the population as the denominator. An examination of trends in representation in public four-year colleges reveals that between 1992 and 2006 (Figure 3.5) Whites were consistently represented in public four-year colleges nearly 1.80 1.60

Representation Ratio

1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Asian Black Latina/o Native American White

1992 1.569207 0.749197 0.580921 0.885102 1.036763

1994 1.640461 0.790479 0.623766 0.983182 1.020830

1996 1.667310 0.808234 0.635186 1.060624 1.011395

1998 1.636669 0.810238 0.619210 1.077664 1.008202

2000 1.627285 0.846541 0.519664 1.214553 1.021415

2002 1.584252 0.863316 0.542058 1.255642 1.012979

2004 1.538029 0.885133 0.550009 1.283809 1.008285

2006 1.527494 0.885682 0.573375 1.281524 1.005556

Figure 3.5 Racial/ethnic representation in all public four-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the United States population. Data from NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and U.S. Census Bureau. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

34 • Reforming Academic Preparation

equaling their percentage of the population (a 1.0 representation ratio). Asian Americans maintained overrepresentation (with ratios ranging between 0.4 and 0.6 above their representation in the population). In contrast, African Americans were represented in public four-year colleges at about a 0.75 ratio of their representation in the population in 1992, although there was substantial improvement during the period, from 0.75 in 1992 to 0.89 in 2004. It is possible African Americans gained increased access to public four-year colleges as a result of improved graduation requirements. However, Latinos/as were represented in public four-year colleges at about 0.58 of their proportion of the population in 1992 and dropped to 0.57 in 2006. This drop in representation may be attributable to changes in the census, which resulted in a larger percentage of immigrants being counted. Nevertheless, there was substantial underrepresentation for Latinos/as in public four-year colleges while African Americans gained representation, cutting the gap in half. There was a great deal of variation across states in 2006 in representation of African Americans in public four-year colleges (Figure 3.6). Nineteen states had representation equaling the group’s share of the state population (1.0 or higher). Thirteen stated ranked below .8, a level that obviously indicates substantial underrepresentation. States with high representation rates included states with low percentages of minorities (e.g., North Dakota and Iowa) and some of the states with historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs; e.g., North Carolina and Tennessee). However, not all states with HBCUs ranked high on this indicator. A recent fi xed effects regression analysis of this database found that African Americans were more likely to be underrepresented in states in which they had high representation in the state’s population (Williams, Penida, & St. John, 2009). There was also variation across states in representation of Latinos/as in public four-year colleges (Figure 3.7). Only three states had representation at least equaling representation in the population. Two of these states (West Virginia and Vermont) had relatively low percentages of Hispanics in the population and the third (Florida) had a high percentage of Cuban Americans among its Latino/a population. However, the national representation, along with the indicators for most states, was below .6 indicating extreme underrepresentation of Hispanics in public higher education. Latinos/as continue to be substantially underrepresented in public four-year colleges. Two-Year Colleges While access to four-year colleges can be partially dependent on preparation, many two-year colleges maintain open access so changes in preparation per se are not as large a factor in enrollment rates for these institutions. In contrast to representation in four-year colleges, inequalities in access to two-year colleges are not as substantial. The representation of Blacks in public two-year colleges

A National Challenge • 35 Idaho North Dakota New Mexico West Virginia Vermont District of Columbia Arkansas Oregon Wyoming Iowa Tennessee Montana North Carolina Kentucky Oklahoma Mississippi Arizona Maine Alabama Florida South Dakota Texas Maryland New Hampshire Nevada Massachusetts New York Rhode Island United States Utah Pennsylvania New Jersey Washington Louisiana Alaska Delaware California Ohio Illinois Missouri Connecticut Indiana Minnesota Colorado Virginia Georgia Nebraska Michigan South Carolina Kansas Wisconsin Hawaii 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Figure 3.6 Black representation in public four-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population in 2006. Data from NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and U.S. Census Bureau. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

increased between 1992 and 2004, while the representation of Whites declined slightly (Figure 3.8). In 2006, Whites were less represented in public two-year colleges than Latinos/as and Blacks. Latinos/as were slightly underrepresented (.9 representation ratio) and African Americans were overrepresented (1.08 ratio). As with four-year colleges, the dip in representation of Latinos/as in 2000 was attributable in part to the changes in the census resulting in a better

36 • Reforming Academic Preparation West Virginia Vermont Florida New Mexico Ohio New Jersey New York Texas Louisiana Michigan Alabama Missouri Maryland Indiana Iowa Alaska Montana North Dakota Maine Delaware United States New Hampshire Pennsylvania District of Columbia Idaho California Nevada Kentucky Washington Virginia Tennessee Connecticut Wisconsin Massachusetts Oklahoma Illinois Arizona Mississippi Wyoming Colorado South Carolina Rhode Island Nebraska Oregon South Dakota Arkansas Kansas Minnesota Georgia North Carolina Utah Hawaii 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Figure 3.7 Latino/a representation in public four-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population in 2006. Data from NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and U.S. Census Bureau. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

count of immigrants. In contrast, Asian Americans were consistently overrepresented in public two-year colleges as they were in public four-year colleges. The representation of ethnic groups in community colleges varies substantially across states. African Americans were represented at rates exceeding their percentage of the population in most states (Figure 3.9); only 14 states

A National Challenge • 37 1.80 1.60

Representation Ratio

1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 Asian Black Latina/o Native American White

1992 1.519867 0.881191 1.067718 1.442761 0.957586

1994 1.602154 0.921279 1.157529 1.545134 0.926544

1996 1.545393 0.928794 1.179015 1.537066 0.914017

1998 1.617621 0.941702 1.177150 1.551661 0.894765

2000 1.594635 1.004356 0.984556 1.617262 0.900069

2002 1.535014 1.035427 0.966279 1.680286 0.888122

2004 1.411339 1.073252 0.933807 1.685740 0.892579

2006 1.396809 1.078327 0.932429 1.649707 0.885365

Figure 3.8 Racial/ethnic representation in all public two-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the United States population. Data from NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and U.S. Census Bureau. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

had less than equal representation for African Americans. On the other hand, Latinos/as were underrepresented in public two-year colleges in most states (Figure 3.10). Uneven Progress Trends indicate a flattening rate of growth in access for traditional-age students in the 2000s. Many national groups have argued for expanded opportunity, but there has been modest and unequal progress in spite of substantial improvement in requirements for high school graduation. National indicators reveal that the flattening of opportunity has been related to the costs of higher education relative to the availability of need-based aid, at least before 2005. The inequality in underrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos/as also appears to be related to public finance of higher education rather than to shifts in preparation policies. From the trends, it is apparent there has been uneven progress toward improved representation of Latinos/as and African Americans in public higher education, especially in public four-year colleges. There is evidence of progress for African Americans, but not for Latinos/as, although trends in

38 • Reforming Academic Preparation Vermont West Virginia North Dakota Maine Massachusetts Minnesota Utah Iowa Connecticut New Hampshire Montana Colorado Arizona Kansas Oregon Arkansas Rhode Island Washington California Georgia Wyoming Pennsylvania New Mexico Florida New Jersey Ohio Indiana North Carolina Oklahoma Texas Louisiana Nebraska United States South Carolina Mississippi Tennessee New York Illinois Kentucky Alabama Delaware Virginia Maryland Wisconsin Missouri Michigan Idaho Alaska South Dakota Hawaii Nevada District of Columbia 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Figure 3.9 Black representation in public two-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population in 2006. Data from NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and U.S. Census Bureau. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

representation of this group are biased downward by changes in census collection procedures. The Indiana Case The Indiana case study presented in this book considered representation of minorities and low-income students as an integral part of educational reform.

A National Challenge • 39 Massachusetts Connecticut Vermont West Virginia New Jersey Illinois Pennsylvania Ohio United States New Mexico Rhode Island Maine Colorado New York Texas Louisiana Maryland California Virginia Arizona Iowa Kansas Florida Delaware Wisconsin Michigan Washington Wyoming New Hampshire Missouri Nebraska Utah Oregon Oklahoma Montana Idaho Kentucky South Carolina Indiana Alaska Arkansas Alabama North Dakota Minnesota Nevada North Carolina Tennessee Mississippi Georgia South Dakota Hawaii District of Columbia 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Figure 3.10 Latino/a representation in public two-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population in 2006. Data from NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and U.S. Census Bureau. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

In this section, we set the stage for the case, by: examining trends in high school graduation and college enrollment in Indiana; comparing trends in minority representation to national trends; and examining changes in public finance in the state compared to trends in the region and the nation. The topic of academic preparation is examined in the next chapter, and the chapters in

40 • Reforming Academic Preparation

part II focus specifically on strategies used by Indiana colleges and universities to address challenges related to underrepresented students. Progress in Access Between 1992 and 2005, Indiana increased college continuation rates more substantially than the national average (Figure 3.11). In 1992, the college continuation rate in Indiana was 51% compared to a national average of 54%. By 2004, Indiana had a continuation rate of 62% compared to a national rate of 55%. However, the national rate leaped to 62% in 2006 compared to 63% in Indiana, so the United States overall had more substantial gains between 2004 and 2006 than Indiana. For the 2000 Cohort of high school students, the group studied in the remainder of Pathways, 60% of the graduates in Indiana enrolled compared to 56% of high school seniors nationally. Minority Representation Trends in minority participation provide an indicator of how well the state system is doing in K-12 preparation. Unfortunately, Indiana’s programs have not equalized opportunity for enrollment of students of color in public fouryear colleges (Figure 3.12). There was some improvement: between 1992, when the first Twenty-first Century Scholars cohort entered college, and 2006 the 70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Indiana United States

1992 0.505037 0.542858

1994 0.550425 0.571293

1996 0.579799 0.585730

1998 0.605475 0.572519

2000 0.600399 0.565454

2002 0.620126 0.567376

2004 0.621244 0.555127

2006 0.634434 0.615669

Figure 3.11 Indiana College continuation rate. Data from Postsecondary Education Opportunity. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

A National Challenge • 41 3.50

Representation Ratio

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 Asian Black Latina/o Native American White

1992 2.774274 0.682464 1.101612 1.207577 1.007316

1994 2.907449 0.688851 1.168357 1.518036 1.001000

1996 2.743680 0.717030 1.180200 1.553210 0.996426

1998 2.542579 0.758514 1.078036 1.570517 0.995809

2000 2.196641 0.726311 0.682868 1.418250 1.018307

2002 2.190039 0.715696 0.631749 1.360549 1.021070

2004 2.150022 0.745244 0.641437 1.548928 1.010797

2006 2.145017 0.763733 0.628075 1.638432 1.007000

Figure 3.12 Racial/ethnic representation in Indiana public four-year postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population. Data from NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and U.S. Census Bureau. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

ratio of African American full-time equivalent students (FTE) to total FTE students in public four-year colleges, compared to the percentage of African Americans in the state’s population, rose from 68% to 76%. However, the representation of Latinos/as in Indiana public higher education declined in the early 2000s as it did nationally. In contrast, the ratio of African American representation in private colleges (Figure 3.13) rose more substantially and nearly equaled Whites in 2006. In addition, the gap in enrollment rates for African Americans and Whites in the entire state system (Figure 3.14)—the combination of all public and private colleges—had narrowed substantially and nearly equalized with ratios of 0.96 for African Americans and 0.97 for Whites. These trends indicate that the combination of policies in Indiana enabled some equalization of enrollment opportunities in the state’s system, in spite of continued inequalities in public four-year colleges. Substantial progress was made after implementation of the Twenty-first Century Scholars program, especially in the private sector, which was more responsive to the Scholars Program than public four-year colleges (Lumina Foundation, 2008). Thus the Indiana story is complicated. The state made progress toward minority representation largely through the expansion of opportunity in

42 • Reforming Academic Preparation 3.00

Representation Ratio

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.00

0.00 Asian Black Latina/o Native American White

1992 2.162096 0.692070 1.356426 1.176670 0.954772

1994 2.399772 0.706884 1.363644 1.309724 0.962216

1996 1.996857 0.659462 1.362683 1.502278 0.985087

1998 1.680012 0.781670 1.166084 1.494649 0.963604

2000 1.589863 0.814993 0.768067 1.510605 0.974631

2002 1.551370 0.920478 0.750465 1.781506 0.953002

2004 1.633734 0.929897 0.727275 1.686288 0.957688

2006 1.590723 0.910488 0.687859 1.546265 0.962767

Figure 3.13 Racial/ethnic representation in Indiana private non-profit postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population. Data from NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and U.S. Census Bureau. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

private two-year colleges and private universities. The apparent resistance to diversity in public four-year colleges is troubling. Trends in Financial Access The progress in Indiana’s college continuation rate corresponds with improvement in the financing of higher education in the state. Like other states in the Great Lakes region, Indiana’s tuition rose at a higher rate than the national average, raising the average price paid by students in public colleges (Figure 3.15). However, Indiana differed from others states in the region and the United States in the public funding of need-based student aid. Trends in state funding for need-based aid per FTE are presented for the United States, Indiana, and other Great Lakes states in Figure 3.16. In this graphic, it is evident that Indiana was the outlier in the region and the U.S. In Indiana, state funding for grants more than doubled between 2000 ($605 per FTE) and 2006 ($1,240). This more than adjusted for tuition. Unlike most states, Indiana maintained a commitment to linking increases in student aid to increases in tuition. The Twenty-first Century Scholars Program has been helping low-income students prepare for and enroll in college.

A National Challenge • 43 3.00

Representation Ratio

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 Asian Black Latina/o Native American White

1992 2.325852 0.755871 1.129526 1.335587 0.989976

1994 2.482654 0.780556 1.179656 1.539208 0.984853

1996 2.292595 0.776697 1.199192 1.605714 0.987865

1998 2.051408 0.868729 1.067789 1.593535 0.975734

2000 1.812173 0.848654 0.689923 1.542659 0.994295

2002 1.747998 0.918415 0.645863 1.514147 0.987243

2004 1.712474 0.946691 0.645942 1.566265 0.981963

2006 1.728547 0.959047 0.627558 1.596528 0.974779

Figure 3.14 Racial/ethnic representation in Indiana postsecondary institutions as a proportion of the state population. Data from NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System and U.S. Census Bureau. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

The state promised to provide grants equaling tuition if low-income students (as evidenced by being eligible for Federal subsidized lunches) took steps to prepare for college and apply for aid. During this period, the state also held the maximum award for the high-need students at an amount nearly equaling tuition.4 As a result of making this commitment to low-income students, the state emphasized meeting need for all students. The link between funding for need-based student grants and enrollment is evident in the Indiana case, as in national trends and empirical studies (e.g., Heller, 1997; Kane 1999; Paulsen, 2001a, 2001b; St. John, 2006). What is complicated about the Indiana case, as with the national trends, is the disparity in enrollment opportunity in public four-year colleges for minority students. Summary of Indiana Context The underrepresentation of Latinos/as in public four-year colleges is a serious problem in Indiana as it is in the rest of the country. This challenge is complicated by issues related to immigration to and migration across the United States, along with the same preparation, information, and financial issues that confront other groups. Indiana has not made progress on confronting this

44 • Reforming Academic Preparation $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 $1,000 $0 United States Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Pennsylvania Wisconsin

1992 $2,736 $4,298 $3,337 $3,844 $3.252 $4,003 $5,487 $2,745

1994 $2,976 $4,619 $3,676 $4,208 $3,372 $4,148 $5,728 $2,974

1996 $3,122 $5,015 $4,068 $4,323 $3,744 $4,397 $6,073 $3,177

1998 $3,192 $5,260 $4,039 $4,435 $4,012 $4,607 $6,199 $3,456

2000 $3,207 $5,486 $4,109 $4,578 $3,924 $4,666 $6,516 $3,593

2002 $3,485 $5,791 $4,650 $5,017 $4,621 $5,365 $7,143 $3,859

2004 $4,133 $6,512 $5,316 $5,296 $5,682 $6,727 $7,954 $4,707

2006 $4,346 $6,831 $5,570 $5,842 $6,030 $7,086 $8,207 $5,047

Figure 3.15 Average amount of undergraduate in-state tuition and fees for the public higher education system (in 2006 dollars). Data from NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

challenge in spite of implementation of the Twenty-first Century Scholars Program and other innovations in the state. There is no doubt that Indiana faces serious problems with respect to minority representation, especially in public four-year colleges. However, the system that evolved—with substantial investment in need-based student aid (as noted above) and reform of curriculum (discussed in the next chapter)—enabled students of color to gain enrollment opportunities in the state. In particular, the expansion of enrollment opportunities in private four-year colleges is noteworthy. Conclusions Given the history of segregation and inequality in K-12 education, disparities in the opportunity to enroll in higher education provide a critical indicator as to whether equity has been achieved in college access. It is too frequently forgotten (and therefore merits repeating) that in the late 1970s there was near equality in college enrollment rates for Latinos/as and Blacks compared to Whites in spite of inequities in K-12 preparation. The 1970s are now history, but the decades of academic-centered reforms since have not brought about the same levels of equity. Student financial aid policies played a substantial role in increasing the disparity in college enrollment rates after 1980. In particular, the decline in

A National Challenge • 45 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 United States Illinois Indiana Michigan Minnesota Ohio Pennsylvania Wisconsin

1992 $414 $911 $478 $415 $850 $319 $717 $357

1994 $486 $1,041 $545 $440 $959 $406 $889 $409

1996 $475 $1,120 $590 $456 $827 $375 $902 $383

1998 $501 $1,193 $685 $456 $898 $381 $923 $395

2000 $437 $968 $605 $354 $764 $316 $881 $373

2002 $431 $821 $966 $300 $721 $357 $824 $332

2004 $468 $739 $1,132 $247 $636 $396 $792 $373

2006 $458 $804 $1,240 $216 $714 $401 $913 $388

Figure 3.16 State need-based undergraduate grants per FTE (in 2006 dollars). Data from National Association of State Student Grant & Aid Programs. © 2009 Promoting Equity in Urban and Higher Education Project, NCID at the University of Michigan.

the purchasing power of Pell grants (grant maximums compared to the average cost of attending public four-year colleges) corresponds with the development and continuation of the disparity gap in enrollment opportunities across racial/ethnic groups after 1980. In addition, trends in state funding for needbased grants per FTE as a percentage of tuition, a critical indicator of a state’s efforts to equalize opportunity, correspond directly with the changes in the percentage of high school graduates going to college between 1992 and 2004. Thus, there is substantial evidence that both state and federal student financial aid policies play a role in equalizing opportunity. State requirements for high school graduation provide an indicator of the minimum standards for education as a basic right available to all. These standards rose through the 1990s and especially in the early 2000s. The increases in the percentage of students completing college entrance exams, higher Math SAT scores, and higher high school graduation rates after 2000 attest to the success of the excellence movement. However, college enrollment rates for high school graduates did not increase after 2000, a period of K-12 improvement during which there was an expanding pool of college-prepared students. Thus, the argument that differences in K-12 education explain disparities in college enrollment opportunities, a rationale advanced by federally funded studies after 1980, did not prove true. When improvements in high school preparation were realized, the racial/ethnic gap in college enrollment rates

46 • Reforming Academic Preparation

persisted, indicating that raising K-12 standards as a strategy for improving educational policies is a flawed notion if there is not adequate financial aid to ensure financial access to higher education. The next chapter focuses on the problem of preparation. There seems a strong belief among educational researchers and policymakers that increasing requirements should resolve the gap in access and degree attainment (e.g., Conklin & Curran, 2005; Hoff man et al., 2007), yet the disparity in access to public four-year colleges for underrepresented minority students seems to defy this logic. Indiana provides an excellent case to examine in depth as a means of untangling underlying problems and possible remedies. The Indiana case is intriguing because it provided national leadership in the 2000s in both financial aid (noted in this chapter) and in education reform (noted in the next chapter). The consequence was an equalizing of opportunity to enroll in public higher education, even though barriers to access persisted in the state’s public four-year colleges.

4 Academic Preparation1

The role of high school courses in preparation for college as measured by standardized tests is examined in this chapter. The research summarized was originally conducted for the Indiana Commission for Higher Education when the state was deliberating whether to raise requirements for high school graduation. At the time, the state required all high schools to offer a preparatory curriculum but did not require this standard for graduation. Summary The 2000 College Board (CB) student descriptive questionnaires for national samples of high school seniors were examined and compared to the population of Indiana SAT takers in the 2000 Cohort. Our analyses focus on the impact of high school curriculum on SAT scores in Indiana and the United States as part of the context for the assessment study in Indiana. The State of Indiana has a higher percentage of high school students who take the SAT exam than most other states, with a rate of 60% compared to a national rate of 44% in 2000. The appended OLS regression models measured the influence of student background, high school grades, and curriculum on SAT scores. Key findings include: • In both Indiana and the nation, advanced courses in Math, Science, History, English, Literature, and Foreign/Classical Languages were positively associated with SAT scores when controlling for background and achievement. • In both Indiana and the nation, advanced Math courses explained more variance in SAT scores than did other types of courses. • In both Indiana and the nation, the combinations of advanced courses included in Indiana’s Core 40 (college preparatory) and Honors (advanced) Diplomas were also positively associated with SAT scores. • A higher percentage of SAT takers in Indiana completed the advanced courses associated with the Honors Diploma, while a higher percentage of students in the nation took courses associated with Core 40 requirements. • The State of Indiana ranked 43rd on state average SAT scores and ranked 33rd for scores of public high school students, adjusted for student demographic characteristics and state participation rates. 47

48 • Reforming Academic Preparation

Subsequent to these analyses, the State of Indiana raised the graduation requirements for students in the state, a topic discussed below.2 The CB Indiana high school seniors, studied in this section and part II, were not subject to the new requirements. The underlying assumption of our work with the ICHE was that the policy requiring schools to offer college preparation courses would change test scores. To test this proposition further, we completed a national two-level analysis, adding state polices on graduation requirements at the second level and using our base regression model at the individual level: • Controlling for individual characteristics, there were mostly modest or negative associations between graduation requirements and SAT scores. In fact, raising Math graduation requirements had a slight negative correlation with individuals’ SAT scores. • Adjusted average K-12 school funding was significantly and positively associated with students’ college readiness. School funding was the only state policy variable positively associated with SAT score. The role of school funding obviously should not be overlooked in efforts to improve college preparation. In addition, these findings cause us to caution policymakers about the assumption that raising graduation requirements would raise test scores, a conclusion we made explicit in our official report on the subject. However, we recognize there are other reasons for states to raise graduation requirements, including ease of college transition (see chapter 6) and workforce preparation. Therefore, we only advise caution and call attention to funding when raising requirements, rather than recommending that such policies should not be adopted. Indiana’s Approach to High School Curriculum By the early 2000s, Indiana had become a national success story with respect to improving college access (chapter 3). The curriculum reforms in Indiana had not been examined before we undertook this study. In addition to improving college access, high school curriculum reforms can have a sustained impact on academic success in college. In fact, in addition to financing colleges and college students, encouraging and facilitating academic preparation is one of the few policy initiatives available to states that seek to improve academic success beyond high school for their citizens. This chapter examines the role of academic preparation in the academic success of Indiana students in the high school class of 2000. It compares Indiana students to students in other states, using data provided by the College Board, along with other data on Hoosiers in the class of 2000 collected by Indiana agencies. The research approach used in this study can be replicated

Academic Preparation • 49

by other states that seek to assess the effect of their education and public finance policies on the academic success of their citizens. Indiana’s approach to improving college access merits national attention because it combines: (a) a comprehensive set of policies on graduation and achievement; (b) financial incentives to schools, colleges, and students; and (c) encouragement for students in middle schools and high schools to prepare academically and to apply for financial aid and college admission. A brief summary of those policies is presented in appendix 4A. An overview of Indiana’s balanced access model and a review of trends related to the direct impact of education policies on academic preparation follow. We reconsider the question: Does policy on high school curriculum influence course taking and SAT scores? A review of trends during the 1990s provides insight into this linkage, but it does not provide a basis for claiming a significant statistical association.3 Indiana has a statewide postsecondary encouragement program and education policies (required graduation curriculum options, financial inducements for schools and students) that could influence students to complete a college preparatory or Honors Diploma and to take the SAT. These cohort analyses confirmed what was already known about relationships between high school courses and achievement on college entrance examinations. Trends in diploma types (Table 4.1) reveal that the percentage of students completing a college preparatory curriculum has improved, as has Table 4.1 Trends in Indiana K-12 Education Success Graduation Year

Percentage Core 40 Diplomas*

Percentage Honors Diplomas

Percentage Participation in SAT

Average SAT Score

8

57

970

1990

972

1991 1992

9

1993

10

61

974

973

1994

12

60

981

1995

13

58

986

1996

14

57

988

1997

15

57

991

1998

43

19

59

997

1999

49

21

60

994

2000

55

24

60

999

2001

58

26

60

1000

*Core 40 was legislated in 1994, so the first graduating class was 1997–98. Participation in SAT rates were unavailable for 1990 and 1992. Source: Percentage Core 40 and honors after 1997: http://mustang.doe.state.in.us/TRENDS/core40_sub. cfm?year=2003 Percentage honors prior to 1997: http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/sas1.sh. SAT participation rate and score: www.collegeboard.com.

50 • Reforming Academic Preparation

participation on the SAT and, in the late 1990s, SAT scores. Test scores rose slightly over time as the percentage of SAT test takers with preparatory diplomas increased, but from these trends it is not possible to confirm linkages between specific education and finance policies in Indiana and the improvement in preparation-related outcomes. Although there is substantial reason to reach this conclusion, it is not possible to discern the causes for the increase from these trends—whether the education requirements, school funding, and encouragement had an effect. It cannot be entirely coincidental, because schools must offer a preparatory curriculum for students to complete these courses. While the extent to which specific policies influenced these shifts remains uncertain, it is possible to examine the effects of the curriculum on SAT scores of high school students and college success for those who enroll in the state higher education system. Below, we explore the specific linkages between high school curriculum and student outcomes. In addition to state rankings on SAT scores, we examine how curriculum relates to SAT scores, college destination, and persistence, controlling for background and other factors known to influence these outcomes. Study Approach To assess the impact of high school curriculum, it is important to build an understanding of how Indiana compares to other states. We summarize two sets of descriptive statistics and regression analyses. The first set examines statistical associations between high school courses and SAT scores and also considers related analyses of state rankings on SAT scores. The second set of analyses focuses on the relationship between high school curriculum and college enrollment and persistence. Detailed tables on the multivariate analyses are appended for interested readers.4 The methods used for the comparisons and analyses of the association between academic preparation and academic success are summarized below. A Comparison of Indiana and the Nation The analyses in this chapter examine the association between the preparatory courses students took in high school and their SAT scores,5 an outcome that could be compared to a national sample. We examine similarities and differences between course-taking patterns among SAT-takers in Indiana and the U.S. population, as well as consider how SAT scores in Indiana compare to other states, making adjustments for participation rates. This establishes the comparability between the Indiana case study and the nation as a whole. The first set of analyses use College Board questionnaires for all Indiana public high school students in the class of 2000 and a national sample of public high

Academic Preparation • 51

school students who completed the detailed questionnaires on the SAT (see appendix 4B for a discussion of the College Board databases and the coding of this data). Two sets of comparisons are made between Indiana and the nation with respect to SAT scores. First, we present summative analyses of the association between high school courses and SAT scores. These analyses examine the association between different types of advanced courses and SAT scores, providing educators and policymakers with reliable information on appropriate measures of association. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was used to examine test scores, using model specifications described in appendix 4B. Ordinary least squares regression is an appropriate method of analysis for continuous outcome measures like SAT scores. Second, we used several methods of adjusting average state SAT scores for variability in participation rates. Research documents that high SAT participation rates in states are associated with lower state average test scores (Powell & Steelman, 1996). However, making statistical adjustments for participation rates only modestly changes the ranking of states. We used the national sample of students and our regression analyses of these students as a basis for one set of adjustments. We also used analyses of state data fi les to illustrate an alternative method of adjustment. In addition to providing information for other states, these comparisons provide a basis for understanding the implications of the analyses of the Indiana cohort for the national sample. There is no comparable national database for tracking students, but other states can replicate or extend the methodology we used in this study. Limitations Using appropriate statistical methods and logical models, we were careful to control for family finances and financial aid, variables that did not receive adequate consideration in recent national studies (Becker, 2004; Heller, 2004). However, there are still potential sampling errors associated with the analysis of panel surveys (Becker, 2004), since the variables being analyzed are not random treatments. Courses are not randomly assigned to students, they make choices about their high school courses. Also, there is variability in the availability of Honors courses in different locales (St. John, Simmons, et al., 2002), and students were not randomly assigned to high schools. The current arguments about statistical methods, including random assignment and experimental design, substantially confound attempts to use generally accepted statistical methods with panel surveys—either state or national databases. It is important that these debates continue and that further analyses be conducted. However, in the interim, policy analysts should use proven methods and sound logic, informed by generally accepted theory and extant

52 • Reforming Academic Preparation

research. Our statistical models, discussed in detail in the appendices, were developed based on extensive reviews (St. John, 2003; St. John, Asker, & Hu, 2001; St. John, Cabrera, Nora, & Asker, 2003; St. John, Kline, & Asker, 2001). Given these considerations, especially the need to refine the methodologies used in statistical research on education, we are cautious to describe these analyses as statistical measures of association. They establish a relationship between the curriculum students completed in high school and a sequence of outcomes (SAT scores, college destinations and persistence in the state system). These analyses provide a reasonable assessment of the academic pathways model developed in Indiana. However, we stop short of making causal inferences from these analyses for the reasons noted above. Further, the analyses were limited to public high school students. The database from the College Board for Indiana included only students in public schools, an artifact of the data agreement for the project,6 whereas the national random sample included students who attended different types of schools. Therefore, we selected only public high school students from the national database, so we would have a better comparison group.7 However, because of this limitation, our analyses do not consider all high school students in Indiana or the United States. A Comparison of Indiana to the Nation There is substantial evidence that taking college entrance examinations (i.e., ACT or SAT) and having a moderate to high score on these exams are associated with enrollment in four-year colleges (Berkner & Chavez, 1997; St. John, 1991). One possible way for colleges to expand college enrollment is to encourage more students to take these tests. In Indiana, the Indiana Career and Postsecondary Advancement Center and high school counselors encourage students to take the PSAT and the SAT. However, while we might expect that increasing participation in the SAT (or the ACT) would improve college enrollment rates, it is also possible that increases in SAT taking could reduce the state’s rankings on SAT scores, an indicator occasionally used to make judgments about the quality of state education systems. SAT Participation and College Enrollment For the high school class of 2000, there was a strong set of relationships between taking the SAT and PSAT and college enrollment rates (see Table 4.2). However, these same variables did not correlate as strongly with high school graduation rates. The percentage of high school students in a state that takes the SAT is negatively associated with the state’s average score. Indiana has a higher than average participation rate on the SAT, while it ranks lower on the state average

Academic Preparation • 53 Table 4.2 Indicators of Test Taking and College Enrollment for the Class of 2000

Indiana Percentage Indiana Rank U.S. Percentage

HS Graduation Rate

College Enrollment Rate for HS Grads

Percentage HS Seniors Who Took the SAT

68 %

60%

60%

36

17

15

67%

57%

44%

*Percentage is of juniors (an additional 27% of sophomores take the PSAT). Source for HS grad and college enrollment data: Mortenson Postsecondary Opportunity Newsletter at http://www.postsecondary.org/archives/Reports/Spreadsheets/Public%20High%20School%20 Graduation%20Rates%20by%20State.htm Source for SAT and PSAT data: http://www.collegeboard.com

score. Indiana encourages more students to take the SAT, therefore potentially lowering its average score (Powell & Steelman, 1996). The SAT, or another college admissions test, is one step in the process of college admissions for traditional-age students. While there are concerns about the overemphasis on test scores, college admissions offices use the SAT as a national benchmark to compare students from different schools, and this is expected to continue until a better assessment is available (Gose, Selingo, & Brownstein, 2001). While class rank and high school grades also predict college success, Bridgeman, McCamley-Jenkins, and Ervin (2000) reported an adjusted correlation of .52 between SAT scores and college first-year grades. There is a difference between participation and achievement. The fact that SAT exams and most other tests are norm referenced means that higher participation rates on the tests are often associated with lower test scores. As noted above, higher participation rates in the SAT are positively correlated with college enrollment rates. This leaves a challenge for states: As they make efforts to expand participation rates in tests and college, they can expect to have lower state average scores as an artifact of more students taking these exams. In Indiana, the average SAT score increased in the 1990s, while the exam participation rate remained relatively stable. Therefore, it is possible that changes in the percentage of students completing the preparatory curriculum improved SAT scores. Adjusting State SAT Scores for Participation The correlation between participation rates on the SAT and average SAT scores coupled with multivariate studies that indicate statistical association (Powell & Steelman, 1996) raise questions about how the rankings of states on SAT scores should be undertaken. Since there is not an agreed-upon adjustment method, we compared two methods of adjusting for participation rates; one used national indicators in a state-level database, and the other used the national College Board individual student record database. With each data set,

54 • Reforming Academic Preparation

we made adjustments based on demographic characteristics of the populations then we also added participation rates. The rankings using the four methods are compared in Table 4.3, with Indiana indicated in bold (see appendix 4C for a discussion of adjustment methods). The rankings for Indiana are: • Forty-third for the unadjusted state average reported by the College Board; • Thirty-fift h with adjustments using state average demographic indicators and participation rates; • Thirty-sixth with adjustments for background, using analyses of student fi les for students in public education systems; • Thirty-third with adjustments for student background and state participation rate, using student fi les for public high school students and state indicators. Indiana’s ranking among states on the average SAT score improves using any of these adjustments. Considering the emphasis these rankings get in comparing state education systems, it is important to consider the meaning of those rankings in light of the adjustments. From the perspective of educators in Indiana, it is noteworthy that the state ranked 33rd for public high school students for the class of 2000. However, other states may choose to emphasize other ranking schemes. Curriculum and SAT Scores The balanced access model—developed based on reviews of the literatures on access and persistence in sociology, economics, and K-16 education (St. John, 2002, 2003)—provided the basis for discerning the variables associated with SAT scores.8 First, we compare the composition of test takers in Indiana, using appropriate associated variables, followed by a summary of the regression analyses. SAT Takers in Indiana Compared to the U.S. While a higher percentage of SAT takers in Indiana and the United States are female, in both data sets around 54%, there are modest differences in the demographics in Indiana compared to the nation (Table 4.4): • Indiana has lower percentages of African Americans and Hispanics than the nation, both in the percentage of SAT takers and in the population. • A higher percentage of Indiana SAT takers were from homes in which English is the first language (98% in Indiana compared to 93% in the nation). • A higher percentage of Indiana SAT takers had parents with two-year degrees (31% compared to 26%), reflecting efforts to expand participation in the SAT more than the presence of a population with two-year degrees.9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Position

North Dakota Iowa Wisconsin Minnesota South Dakota Kansas Illinois Missouri Utah Nebraska Michigan Oklahoma Louisiana Arkansas Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Kentucky New Mexico Wyoming Montana Idaho Ohio Colorado Washington

Actual position published by College Board for 2000

Minnesota Iowa South Dakota North Dakota Wisconsin Kansas Missouri Utah Nebraska Illinois Michigan Wyoming Kentucky Oklahoma Colorado Tennessee Arkansas Alabama Idaho Ohio Louisiana Montana Mississippi West Virginia New Mexico

Predicted position based on state demographics and participation rate

National State Average Data Set

Wisconsin North Dakota Iowa Minnesota Illinois South Dakota Kansas Missouri Mississippi Utah Nebraska Louisiana Arkansas Kentucky Michigan Wyoming Montana Alabama Oklahoma Tennessee Idaho Ohio Colorado Washington Oregon

Actual position based on public high school students in the random sample Minnesota Kansas Wisconsin Wyoming Iowa Utah Illinois North Dakota Nebraska South Dakota Kentucky Idaho Missouri Arkansas Oklahoma Michigan Colorado Montana Ohio West Virginia Vermont Tennessee New Mexico New Hampshire Washington

Predicted position based on student demographic info regression

National Individual Level Random Sample Data

Minnesota Kansas Wisconsin Iowa Utah North Dakota Wyoming South Dakota Nebraska Illinois Arkansas Missouri Kentucky Oklahoma Idaho Michigan Louisiana Tennessee New Mexico Montana West Virginia Ohio Alabama Mississippi Colorado

Predicted position based on student demographic info & SAT participation rate regression

(continued)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Position

Table 4.3 Comparison of Relative Positions of States for the 2000 Graduating Class for Average Combined SAT Score Based on Predicted Values from Regression Models with Two National Data Sets

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Position

Table 4.3

Continued

Oregon Arizona New Hampshire West Virginia Alaska Nevada Massachusetts Vermont Connecticut Maryland California New Jersey Virginia Hawaii Rhode Island Maine New York Indiana Florida Delaware Pennsylvania Texas North Carolina Georgia South Carolina

Actual position published by College Board for 2000

Washington Nevada Arizona Alaska Oregon New Hampshire California Massachusetts Maryland Indiana Virginia Vermont Connecticut Maine Rhode Island Hawaii Florida Texas Pennsylvania Delaware North Carolina New Jersey Georgia New York South Carolina

Predicted position based on state demographics and participation rate

National State Average Data Set

Arizona New Mexico New Hampshire Alaska West Virginia Vermont Massachusetts Maine Connecticut Nevada California Rhode Island New Jersey Maryland New York Virginia Indiana Pennsylvania Florida Texas North Carolina Georgia South Carolina Hawaii Delaware

Actual position based on public high school students in the random sample Oregon Alaska Louisiana Arizona Connecticut Massachusetts Maine Rhode Island Nevada Alabama Indiana Mississippi Pennsylvania Hawaii New Jersey Virginia New York North Carolina Maryland California Delaware Florida Texas Georgia South Carolina

Predicted position based on student demographic info regression

National Individual Level Random Sample Data

Arizona Nevada Alaska Washington Oregon Vermont New Hampshire Indiana Hawaii Maine Rhode Island Massachusetts California Pennsylvania Connecticut Texas Virginia Florida North Carolina Maryland Delaware New Jersey Georgia South Carolina New York

Predicted position based on student demographic info & SAT participation rate regression

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Position

Academic Preparation • 57

• Indiana SAT takers were more likely to be from rural locales and less likely to be from cities or suburbs, reflecting the success of LearnMore, Indiana’s (formerly ICPAC) postsecondary encouragement outreach effort, as well as the population distribution (Hossler, Schmit, & Vesper, 1999). Indiana SAT takers were more likely to aspire to a bachelor’s degree (31% compared to 25%) and less likely to aspire to an advanced degree, reflecting the fact that Indiana had made an effort to increase postsecondary awareness. By including more first-generation students, we would expect fewer to aspire to a graduate degree, but because students in the sample have taken one of the steps to prepare for college (the admissions exam), we expect more to aspire to the four-year degree. There were also modest differences in preparation. A lower percentage of the SAT takers in Indiana had A-grades (28% compared to 36%) and, conversely, a higher percentage had C-grades or lower (19% compared to 12%), a reflection of the efforts to expand participation in the SAT. The percentages of students taking more advanced Math and Science coursework were higher in the national sample than the Indiana sample. Similarly, students in the national sample were slightly more likely to have taken Honors coursework in History and English and more likely to have taken an advanced literature course. These results would all be expected when a greater percentage of the overall student population takes the SAT, such as in Indiana. The Association between Curriculum and SAT Scores The regression analyses (appendix 4D) provide information about the association between background and SAT scores, as well as between curriculum and SAT scores. Two separate analyses were used when considering the influence of high school curriculum—as individual courses and as types of curriculum (college preparatory and Honors compared to regular)—controlling for background. Below, we review the associations between background and SAT scores before examining the three types of curriculum packages. Student Background The statistical relationships between background variables and SAT scores were similar in Indiana and the nation; the same variables had positive and negative associations for both groups in all of the regression analyses with the exception of the geographic locale variable. There was not a significant difference between cities and suburbs or towns in the state model, but they were significantly different in the national sample. Table 4.5 presents the variables that were positively and negatively associated (Alpha .01) with SAT scores in Indiana and the nation. These patterns are consistent with decades of research on the SAT: • Students from underrepresented minority groups have lower SAT scores than Whites and Asians.10

58 • Reforming Academic Preparation Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics for Variables in OLS Regression Models of Combined SAT Score for National and Indiana Analyses Variable

Category

National Percentage

Indiana Percentage

Gender

Female © Male

55.2 44.8

54.6 45.4

Race/ ethnicity

All other races/students © African American Hispanic American

81.0 10.7 8.3

92 5.8 2.2

Home Language

English as only or first language © English is not student’s first language

92.6 7.4

98.4 1.6

Parent Education

Parents are high school graduates or no response © Parents did not finish high school Parents’ highest ed is 2 year degree Parents’ highest ed is BA degree Parents’ highest ed is graduate ed

23.3 3.8 26.8 20.2 25.8

26.8 1.7 31.2 19.1 21.2

Family Income

Middle income ($30-70,000) © Family income is less than $30,000 Family income is above $70,000 No family income reported

34.8 19.3 25.8 20.1

43.5 15.1 25.8 15.7

Locale

Suburbs/town/no response © Large/medium-sized city Rural area

55.7 32.5 11.8

51.6 26.9 21.5

Postsecondary Aspirations

Student aspires to a bachelor’s degree © Student did not respond regarding aspirations Student was undecided regarding aspirations Aspires to an AA/certificate/other Aspires to a master’s degree Aspires to a doctoral degree

23.3 10.4 16.4 3.2 27.7 19.0

30.5 8.4 16.9 4.6 24.8 14.7

GPA

B grade point average © C or lower GPA A GPA No reported GPA

43.8 11.6 36.7 7.9

47.4 18.8 28.1 5.7

Class Rank

The lower 90% © Student has top 10% class rank

82.3 17.7

83.2 16.8

Prior Testing

Student had not taken the PSAT © Took the PSAT exam prior to the SAT

27.9 72.1

26.9 73.1

Math

Student’s highest math course was Algebra II or lower © Precalculus or trigonometry Calculus

38.6 40.0 21.4

44 37 19

Science

Student did not take physics © Student took high school physics

55.3 44.7

59.2 40.8

History

Student took no honors courses in history © One history honors course Two or more history honors courses

72.7 11.6 15.7

87.6 8.1 4.3

Academic Preparation • 59 Variable

Category

National Percentage

Indiana Percentage

English

Student did not take honors © Student took honors English

65.0 35.0

73.6 26.4

Literature

Student did not take historical literature © Student took literature from different historical periods

55.1 44.9

58.7 41.3

Foreign Language

Student took three or less years © Student took four or more years of foreign/ classical language Student did not take any foreign/classic language Student did not respond regarding f/c language

64.8 23.4

66.5 21.3

2.8 9.0

5.4 6.8

Classical Language

Student did not take Latin © Student took Latin in high school Student did not respond regarding Latin courses

49.5 6.8 43.7

59.3 5.8 34.9

Academic Index

20 or more years of study in six academic subject areas © 19-19.5 years of study 18-18.5 years of study 17-17.5 years of study 16-16.5 years of study 15-15.5 years of study 15 years of study No response on number of years of study

37.4

37.9

10.4 9.2 7.4 5.5 4.2 6.1 19.8

10.3 8.8 6.9 6.1 4.6 8.7 16.7

Regular diploma © Core 40 but not honors diploma Honors diploma Missing diploma type coursework data

36.5 30.7 13.0 19.8

39.8 29.4 14.1 16.7

High School Degree Type

Combined SAT verbal and math score State SAT participation rate Number of cases

Mean

Mean

1014.1 58.1 74311

997.6 35137

© is the reference category in regression analysis.

• Students from high-income families and families with high levels of parent degree attainment had higher SAT scores than students whose parents only finished high school. • Higher aspirations and grades were associated with higher scores, along with unreported or undecided aspirations. It may be that students who indicated they were undecided were choosing between a BA and graduate degree rather than whether to go to college. • Students from urban and rural locales were less likely to score well on the SAT than students from suburban areas. These patterns are already well established in the research literature (Burton & Ramist, 2001; Camara & Schmidt, 1999; College Entrance Examination

60 • Reforming Academic Preparation Table 4.5 Variables Significantly Associated with SAT Scores in Indiana and the U.S. Positively Associated with SAT Scores

Negatively Associated with SAT Scores

Male (vs. female) African American (vs. White and other) Hispanic (vs. White and other) English not primary language in the home (vs. English primary language in the home) Parents w/ two-year, four-year and graduate degrees (vs. parents w/ high school) (vs. parents w/ high school) Parents w/ BA (vs. parents w/ high school) Parents w/ graduate degree (vs. parents w/ high school) Family income over $70K (vs. income of $30-70K) (vs. income of $30-70K) No income reported (vs. income of $30-70K)

Parents did not finish high school

Income less than $30K

Urban and rural locale (vs. town/suburban locale) Rural locale (vs. town/suburban locale) Undecided or no response on aspirations (vs. aspire to BA/BS)* Undecided aspiration (vs. aspire to BA/BS) Masters’ aspiration (vs. aspire to BA/BS) Doctoral aspiration (vs. aspire to BA/BS) A grades (vs. B grades) No GPA reported (vs. B grades) Top 10% class rank (vs. lower rank) Took PSAT (vs. did not take PSAT) Each aspect of a rigorous curriculum: precalculus, calculus, physics, honors history, honors English, extra English class, more years of foreign and classical language

Aspire to AA degree (vs. aspire to BA/BS)

C grades (vs. B grades)

*Descriptive data (high school curriculum and grade point average) suggest the undecided students were probably deciding between a four-year and graduate degree rather than deciding whether to go to college.

Board, 1998; Jencks & Phillips, 1998; Pallas & Alexander, 1983; Rothstein, 2002; Stricker, Rock, Pollack, & Wenglinsky, 2002; Young, 2001), so there were no surprises in Indiana or the nation for the 2000 high school cohort. Nevertheless, we needed to control for these statistical associations when we examined how curriculum variables were associated with SAT scores. Associations between High School Courses and SAT Scores Most analyses of high school preparation focus on advanced Math courses. The current analyses examined the influence of more types of advanced courses11 in a single equation, controlling for background as noted above (see

Academic Preparation • 61 Table 4.6 Average Predicted Point Differentials on SATs Associated with Taking Advanced High School Courses in Indiana and the U.S. Controlling for Background and Achievement Variables SAT Differential Controlling for Background Courses

Comparison Group

Pre-calculus/Trigonometry Calculus Physics 1 Honors history 2+ Honors history Honors English Literature/Historical period 4+ yrs of foreign/Classical language No foreign/Classical language No response on language Latin No response on Latin R2 for full model

Algebra II or less Algebra II or less No physics No honors history No honors history No honors English No historical literature 1-3 yrs. study 1-3 yrs. study 1-3 yrs. study No Latin No Latin

U.S.

IN

55 109 25 32 42 38 32 38 -61 31 31 4 0.53

54 96 26 30 36 40 29 20 -59 12 8 NS 0.41

Table 4.6, based on appendix 4D). Advanced Math courses, especially Calculus, compared to taking Algebra II or less, were associated with a substantial SAT point differential. Students who took Calculus scored, on average, 109 points higher than students who did not take coursework beyond Algebra II. However, most other types of advanced courses were also associated with improved SAT scores. For example, in the U.S. sample, taking four or more years of Foreign/Classical Languages was associated with a plus 38 SAT point differential compared to one to three years, while no Foreign/Classical Languages had a negative point differential of 61 points. The total spread in SAT points associated with the range between no Foreign/Classical Languages and four or more years was about 100 points. These analyses lead to a related hypothesis: Packaging curriculum into different diploma types—the combinations of courses related to college preparatory and Honors Diplomas—could also be associated with improvements in SAT scores. This question is examined below in the second analysis. Diploma Types The diploma options in Indiana differentiate the Regular Diploma from the Core 40 (college preparatory) and the Honors Diploma based on the number and types of advanced courses students take (see Table 4.7). The Core 40 requires more advanced courses in Math, Science, and Language than the Regular Diploma. The Honors Diploma requires an additional seven advanced academic courses beyond the Core 40 with further criteria for which courses. We used these course structures to classify the students’ self-reported curriculum that appeared in the Student Descriptive

62 • Reforming Academic Preparation Table 4.7 Diploma Types and Minimum Requirements Subject Area

General Diploma

College Preparatory Diploma (Core 40)

Honors Diploma

English/ Language Arts

8

8: Literature, Composition, and Speech

8: Literature, Composition, and Speech

Mathematics

4: Algebra I or Integrated Math I

6-8: Algebra I and II and Geometry

8: Algebra I and II, Geometry, and more advanced math, such as Calculus, Trigonometry, or AP Statistics

Social Studies

4: U.S. History, U.S. Government, and other

6: US History, US Government, World History or Geography, Economics, and other

6: U.S. History, U.S. Government, and credits in World History, Geography, or Economics

Science

4: More than one area of science represented

6: Laboratory in Biology I, Chemistry I, Physics I, or more advanced

6: Laboratory in Biology I, Chemistry I, Physics I, or more advanced

Foreign Language

Can be part of the 8 “other areas”

6 -8: must include 6 credits in one language or 4 each in two languages

Fine Arts

Can be part of the 8 “other areas”

2: Visual or Performing Arts

Other Areas

2: Above subjects or technology competency

8: Either more advanced in above subjects, or in computers, or a career/ technical area

Physical Education and Health & Safety

1: In each

1: In each

1: In each

Electives

16

2-4

9

Total Credit Hours

40

40

47

College Access

Eligible for regular admission at 2-year campuses and some four year

Eligible for regular admission at a 4-year public campus, recommended by 2-year campuses

Eligible for regular admission at a 4-year public campus, recommended by 2-year campuses

Questionnaire:12 Regular, College Preparatory, and Honors Diploma types, and one additional category for missing information. The regression analyses (appendix 4D) coded the variables for diploma type to compare Honors and preparatory curricula to Regular Diplomas.

Academic Preparation • 63 Table 4.8 The Predicted SAT Point Differential Associated with Different Curriculum Types, Controlling for Background and Achievement for Students in the Class of 2000 in Indiana and the U.S. Curriculum Type (compared to regular)

Point Differential U.S.

Point Differential IN

Core 40/ Not honors

37

31

Honors

96

75

Not reported

10

10

R2 full model

0.46

0.47

The analysis confirms that, controlling for background and achievement, students who complete the Core 40 have higher predicted SAT scores than students with Regular Diplomas (by 37 points in the nation and by 31 points in Indiana). The differentials were even greater for students taking Honors Diploma coursework (Table 4.8). However, it should also be noted that the final model R 2 for curriculum (diploma) types was lower than for specific courses. In other words, controlling for different courses predicted the overall SAT score slightly better than the model using curriculum. However, both models explained a substantial portion of the variance in scores. The Relationship between Graduation Requirements and SAT Scores To further test whether there were relationships between states’ policies and SAT scores, we conducted a multilevel analysis of test scores with the base model appended (Table 4E.1) and adding state K-12 policies, as documented in chapter 3, at the second level. Multilevel models provide findings regarding the influence of individualand group-level variables. Hierarchical linear modeling is an appropriate approach to examine the influence of state policy on student achievement for individual students nested within states. The state policies examined included high school exit exams, the percentage of schools in the state offering AP courses, the percentage with high Math graduation requirements, the extent of the implementation of standards-based reform, and the average instructional expenditures. Using the national student sample (n = 100,000) from the College Board13 and state policy variables, the analyses considered the effects of state education policy on student readiness for college. The HLM regression model showed individual-level variables had a greater influence on readiness for college than state-level factors. The interclass correlation from the unconditional (null) model showed that only about 9% of the variance in SAT score could be attributed to state-level factors (see Table 4E.1, appendix 4E). While the majority of the variance was attributable to individual differences, level-two variables did offer an independent influence on

64 • Reforming Academic Preparation

the outcome. The decrease in the deviance between the prior and final model shows that the final model was an improvement. The significant individuallevel variables were virtually identical to the single level analyses of SAT score presented above and, therefore and are not discussed here (for a full discussion of the individual level analysis see Musoba, 2006a). Among the state-level variables, some policies were significant, but several appeared to have no relationship with the achievement they were designed to raise (see Table 4E.2, appendix 4E). The percentage of schools in the state offering Advanced Placement courses appeared to have no relationship with individual student achievement. Likewise, the degree of implementation of educational standards and the presence of high school exit exams were not significantly related to student achievement. Higher requirements in Math for high school graduation had, in fact, a negative association with SAT score. Analyses examining the impact of the Math requirements policy on the coefficient or slope of the relationship between Math course taking and SAT scores showed a positive relationship between Math policy and the coefficient for advanced Math courses for both levels, but the relationship was significant only for pre-Calculus or Trigonometry (but not Calculus) compared to finishing with Algebra II or lower (Table 4E.2, appendix 4E). States with high Math requirements have steeper slopes than states with low Math requirements. In other words, states with high Math requirements have a stronger relationship between advanced coursework or pre-Calculus and SAT scores than states with low requirements. Not only does Math course taking affect SAT scores, but policies that require additional course work strengthened that relationship, which made taking advanced courses more important in those states with the policy. This suggests that the policy may be moving some students who might have stopped at Algebra II to take the next level of courses and the policy is having its desired effect. However, this relationship was not influential in relation to taking Calculus. Since the SAT does not cover Calculus, the relationship between policy, student behavior, and the abilities measured by the SAT may not be significant. Adjusted average K-12 school funding was significantly and positively associated with students’ college readiness. School funding was the only state policy variable positively associated with SAT score. This finding, because of the additional controls in this model (including individual differences in students and other state policies), make this an important addition to the school funding debate, confirming the importance of adequate funding for education. Consistent with prior research, the percentage of students in a state taking the SAT exam was negatively associated with SAT score, though the coefficient was small. Participation rate also helped control for nonpolicy differences between states. These findings demonstrate that while there is a relationship between high school courses and SAT scores, policies requiring more advanced courses do

Academic Preparation • 65

not always have their intended effects on achievement. Requiring more high school Math courses for graduation actually had a negative association with SAT scores, while K-12 funding had a positive association with this outcome. This research demonstrates that claims that requirements matter while funding does not (Finn, 1990; Paige, 2003) clearly misrepresent the facts about the role of public policy in educational achievement. Conclusions The State of Indiana has taken steps to require a college preparatory curriculum as the standard diploma. This approach reflects the general trend in U.S. states toward increasing requirements for high school graduation. The analyses of the associations between high school courses and SAT scores revealed the impact of all types of advanced courses on test scores across racial and income groups. When the two approaches to examining the impact of curricula are compared, it is apparent that a breakdown of the types of advanced courses students took in high school explained more variation in test scores than did the type of diploma students completed for both Indiana and the nation. The primary implication of these analyses is that taking advanced courses is important for high school students—all types of advanced courses were associated with higher scores. In Indiana it is possible for students to complete an Honors Diploma without completing Calculus. The number of advanced Math courses is the requirement for the diploma, not the type of courses taken. Therefore, requiring a more advanced curriculum for graduation does not diminish the importance of providing guidance for high school students in course selection. All students can benefit from an opportunity to develop their knowledge and expertise. Advanced Math skills may have the most substantial influence on SAT scores, but it is important to keep in mind that half of the total SAT score is in Mathematics. Furthering all forms of advanced coursework is important. This analysis also showed that advanced coursework was important for all students, not just high-achieving students: Higher SAT scores were associated with more rigorous coursework across ethnic and income groups. These same analyses were run separately for the ethnic groups with similar findings (Musoba, 2004a). For all groups, individual-level variables and rigorous curriculum choices were more important than state policies. While there are diverse paths to achievement and it is important to distinguish between requiring and encouraging advanced coursework, it is clear that students who take a more rigorous curriculum generally show higher achievement as measured by the SAT. Indiana was one of the first states in the nation to endorse a college preparatory curriculum (Core 40) as the standard diploma, a policy implemented for students entering high school in 2006. This is a policy now advocated as a national model (Conklin & Curran, 2005). If students want to complete a

66 • Reforming Academic Preparation

noncollege preparatory degree formerly known as a Regular Diploma, they need a parent’s signature. In this new context, most students will have to complete Algebra I and II, Geometry, a foreign language, and more courses in other college preparatory subjects. For the past decade, high schools in Indiana have been required to offer the Core 40 option.14 However, the condition of the curriculum in Indiana and other states did not vary substantially. Prior to the new requirement, which is when this analysis took place, only about 43% of the SAT takers in Indiana and in the nation met or exceeded the new college prep requirement level. The lessons learned from Indiana’s experience (discussed in chapter 5) should be informative for other states considering this policy option. Indiana differs demographically somewhat from other states that may raise curriculum requirements. For the 2000 Cohort, national SAT takers were less likely to be from middle-income families than were students in Indiana. African Americans and Latinos/as were better represented in the national population than in Indiana. Thus, to the extent that diversity and poverty are critical issues in the debate about preparation and access, the Indiana case may not be perfectly representative. To explore this question of comparability further, we examine the relationships between the independent variables, including curriculum, and SAT scores for Indiana and the national sample in the next chapter. This helps build an understanding of possible differences in the impact of changes in curriculum policy on student preparation and college access. The examination of the relationship between state education policies and student achievement revealed that increased graduation requirements did not improve achievement for students in the high school class of 2000. Increasing the number of Math courses required for graduation was actually associated with lower test scores, while school funding had a positive association. These findings further confirm the absurdity of the neoconservative argument that regulation matters but funding does not (Finn, 1990, 2001; Paige, 2003). In fact, this research suggests that the best way for policymakers to raise student achievement is to raise instructional expenditures. Now, with the Spelling Commission report (U. S. Department of Education, 2006), the higher education community is faced with the prospect that the simplistic regulatory logic will be imposed on higher education. Before reaching conclusions about the problematic nature of this policy path, it is important to take a closer look at the role and influence of public policies on achievement and educational attainment. Appendix 4A: Indiana Education Access Policies K-12 Academic Policies in Place for 2000 Cohort Honors Diploma The Indiana Academic Honors Diploma was enacted in 1987 to recognize students who had taken 47 credits in rigorous academic

Academic Preparation • 67

subject areas including Language Arts, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, Foreign Language, Fine Arts, Health and Safety, and Physical Education. All Indiana high schools are required to offer the Honors Diploma. As of 1997, students who graduate with an Academic Honors Diploma and a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.0 may qualify for a state grant premium of 100% of demonstrated need for approved tuition and mandatory fees (Indiana Administrative Code 511 IAC 6-7-6.5). Incentive Funding for Honors Diplomas In order to increase participation in the Honors program and support school costs to offer the diploma, the state provided a bonus ($800 in 1997 budget) in the school funding formula for each student who earned an Honors Diploma. Dual Enrollment In 1987 the Indiana General Assembly adopted a postsecondary enrollment program, under which 11th and 12th graders could enroll in courses at institutions of higher education (IC 20-10.1-15). Raising Curriculum Requirements After 1988, a minimum of 38 credits were necessary for high school graduation with 22 required in the academic core. Beginning with students who entered high school in the 2000–2001 school year, the minimum was increased to 40 credits with 24 in the academic core (Indiana Administrative Code 511 IAC 6-7-6.5). Incentive Funding for Advanced Placement In 1990, the Indiana Department of Education began covering the cost of Advanced Placement (AP) exams for students who had taken the required College Board AP course work in Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Calculus, Environmental Science, Statistics, and English Language and Composition, as well as the cost of teacher training to teach these courses. This program was implemented to encourage students to pursue a more rigorous and demanding course of study. Since 1994, Indiana has required all schools to provide AP Math and Science courses (IC 20-10.122). Core 40 Diploma In February 1994, the State Board of Education and the Commission for Higher Education jointly adopted the Core 40 initiative to better prepare high school students for college. The Core 40 identifies the minimum coursework in academic subjects for admission to college. Two-year institutions recommend Core 40 for admission and most four-year institutions require it. As of 1998, students who graduate having met prescribed Core 40 requirements and with a cumulative grade point average of at least 2.0 may qualify for a state grant premium of 90% of demonstrated need for approved tuition and mandatory fees.

68 • Reforming Academic Preparation

High School Graduation Qualifying Exam The GQE was given for the first time to the Class of 2000 in their sophomore year (1997) as a requirement to receive a high school diploma. It was determined that all graduates should demonstrate ninth grade competency in English and Mathematics. In 1999, HB1050 tightened the graduation examination requirements and required all students to take the exam in 10th grade (IC 20-10.1-16-13). Standards and Accountability Schools with a low percentage of students with passing rates on the high school graduation exam are awarded additional funding in the school funding formula. Appendix 4B: The College Board Data and Variable Coding Data National Individual-Level SAT Taking Sample Educational Testing Services (ETS), by way of the Indiana Commission for Higher Education, provided a random sample of 100,000 U.S. test takers from the 2000 Cohort. Of the 100,000 cases, 5,497 elected not to complete the student descriptive questionnaire and were removed as were 2,943 cases without an identified state of residence. In telephone conversations with staff at ETS and their staff members’ casual look at the data, it was learned that many of these were international test takers or students living outside the United States. An additional, 465 students were from U.S. territories or had military addresses (AA, AE, AP, AS, GU, MP, PR, VI) and were removed, leaving 91,095 public and private high school test takers. Of those, 74,311 were identified as attending public high schools. Indiana Individual-Level SAT Taking Cohort Educational Testing Services by way of the Indiana Commission for Higher Education provided a data set of the Indiana public high school graduates from the graduating class of 2000 who took the SAT. There were 33,448 usable cases out of the initial 35,137 students in this database. Of those eliminated cases, most had not completed the Student Descriptive Questionnaire. Variable Coding In these analyses the following independent variables from the SAT data were analyzed (not all variables were in all models): • Males were compared to females. • A design set of dummy variables for African Americans and Hispanics were compared to a combination of Whites; a small number of other students who were Asian Americans, Native Americans, students who identi-

Academic Preparation • 69

• •

•

•

•

•

• •

•

•

•

fied themselves as other race, and students who did not respond to the race question were also compared to Whites. Students whose primary home language was a language other than English were compared to students whose only or primary language was English. A design set of variables regarding levels of parents’ education was created using a combined variable of the highest level of mother’s or father’s education. Students with parents who did not finish high school, parents who had a two-year degree, parents with a bachelor’s degree, or parents with a graduate education were compared to students whose parents had high school diplomas and students who did not respond to the question. Students from low-income families (less than $30,000), students from highincome families (above $70,000), and students who did not report their family income were compared to students from middle-income families (between $30,000 and $70,000). Students from large- or medium-sized cities and students from rural areas were compared to students from towns, suburban communities, and students who did not respond to the question. A design set of dummy variables was created to compare students’ educational aspirations after high school. Students who aspired to a graduate degree or associate of arts degree as well as students who responded undecided or did not respond were compared to students who aspired to a bachelor’s degree. A design set of variables based on students’ high school grade point average compared students with A and C or lower grades, as well as students who did not report their grade point average, against students with B grades. Students who ranked in the top 10% of their high school class were compared to all other students in the sample. As a rough measure of practice effect, preparation, or sophistication in the college preparation process, students who had taken the PSAT prior to taking the SAT were compared to students who had not taken the exam. The College Board did not provide data on whether a student had taken the SAT prior to this administration. The percentage of students in a state taking the SAT was matched to the individual cases from that state. This variable was left as a continuous variable in the regression models and was relevant as a covariate only in the national model. High school coursework in Mathematics was categorized into a design set of variables representing three levels of Mathematics education. Students who had taken pre-Calculus or Trigonometry and students who had taken Calculus in high school were compared to students whose highest Math course was Algebra II or lower. Students who had taken high school physics were compared to students who had not as a measure of science preparation. Coursework in biology

70 • Reforming Academic Preparation

•

•

•

• •

and chemistry was prevalent among virtually all students in the sample; therefore, physics was selected as the best distinguishing measure. Taking Honors coursework in History distinguished a rigorous curriculum in that subject so students with one year and students with more than one year of Honors History were compared to students with no Honors coursework. In English, two measures were used to distinguish a rigorous curriculum. Students with Honors English coursework were compared against students with only non-Honors English coursework. Further, while virtually all students had taken an American literature course, taking a historical literature course distinguished those students with more coursework in high school English. Foreign language was compared using the number of years of coursework. Students with four or more years in high school as well as students with no high school foreign language coursework were compared against students who had one to three years. Those students who did not report their level of foreign language coursework were also compared against those with one to three years. Latin was dummy coded comparing students who reported taking Latin to those who did not. A separate regression analysis which included all the same variables except the curriculum variables examined the high school diploma type as a predictor. Students who had the coursework to meet the Indiana criteria for an Honors or Core 40 diploma were compared to students who only had the coursework for a regular diploma.

Two separate regression analyses were conducted. Both included the student descriptive variables. The first (Table 4D.1) included the specific measures of rigor in the subject areas of Math, English, Science, History, and Foreign Language. The second (Table 4D.2) considered the type of diploma the student received based on our calculations using their self-reported coursework. Because the outcome variable, SAT score, was a continuous variable, OLS regression was the appropriate technique. In interpreting Tables 4D.1 and 4D.2, note the comparison group for individual variables that were categorically coded. Appendix 4C: Adjustment of State Rankings on SAT The two sets of actual SAT state averages in Table 4.3 are the first and third column of rankings. The first are the actual rankings based on all students in each state taken from the College Board (CB) Web site. The second set of actual SAT state averages was calculated based on the random national sample of 74,311 public high school test takers. There are subtle differences in the two

Academic Preparation • 71

actual ranking columns because of the smaller sample and the inclusion of private high school students in the CB rankings. Both are offered to give a sense of the representativeness of the national sample. The adjustments to the state rankings using the individual level national data fi le were the average of the predicted values for each participant based on their values for the independent variables placed in the regression equation (columns four and five). In other words, using the coefficients from the regression, a predicted SAT score was calculated for each student and the average predicted score of the students became the state average. The first set of predicted values (fourth column of rankings) adjusted the rankings using the regression equation with only the demographic characteristics of the students in each state. The second set of rankings (fift h column) adjusted for both the demographic characteristics and the percentage of students in each state taking the SAT (the SAT participation rate). The adjustments to the state rankings (column two) using a different data set that had state-level averages rather than individual-level data follows the same procedure of substituting the values on the independent variable for each case (in this instance the state) into the regression equation to get a predicted state average SAT score. Then the states were reordered based on their predicted values when taking into account the state demographics and participation rate. Appendix 4D: Regression Analyses of Curriculum and SAT Scores Table 4D.1 Advanced Coursework Analyses: National and Indiana Individual Regression of Combined SAT Score for All Students with the Full Set of Background and High School Course Variables National Variables

Indiana

Unstand. Beta

Stand. Beta

Sig.

Unstand. Beta

Stand. Beta

Sig.

Male African American Hispanic American

49.00 -101.09 -58.34

1.06 1.77 2.01

*** *** ***

56.63 -107.98 -22.81

0.16 -0.14 -0.02

*** *** ***

English is not student’s first language

-30.55

2.12

***

-64.39

-0.04

***

Parents did not finish high school Parents’ highest ed is 2 year degree Parents’ highest ed is BA degree Parents’ highest ed is graduate ed

-31.63 15.00 35.95 58.73

3.02 1.58 1.73 1.71

*** *** *** ***

-13.03 13.72 33.18 46.58

-0.01 0.04 0.07 0.11

* *** *** ***

Family income is less than $30,000 Family income is above $70,000 No family income reported

-23.52 16.69 27.05

1.54 1.39 1.63

*** *** ***

-5.87 6.25 21.10

-0.01 0.02 0.04

** *** ***

Large/medium-sized city Rural area

-20.74 -28.31

1.17 1.65

*** ***

-6.50 -17.30

-0.02 -0.04

*** ***

(continued)

72 • Reforming Academic Preparation Table 4D.1 Continued National Variables

Indiana

Unstand. Beta

Stand. Beta

Sig.

Unstand. Beta

Stand. Beta

Sig.

32.07

2.36

***

25.55

0.04

***

Student did not respond regarding aspirations Student was undecided regarding aspirations Aspires to an AA/certificate/other Aspires to a master’s degree Aspires to a doctoral degree

27.01

1.64

***

17.69

0.04

***

-26.37 19.08 35.54

3.05 1.45 1.66

*** *** ***

-26.34 18.29 32.70

-0.03 0.04 0.07

*** *** ***

State SAT participation rate

-0.35

0.03

***

C or lower GPA A GPA No reported GPA

-44.60 51.99 68.33

1.74 1.39 2.56

*** *** ***

-55.22 60.39 34.71

-0.12 0.15 0.04

*** *** ***

Student has top 10% class rank

62.97

1.64

***

62.54

0.13

***

Took the PSAT exam prior to the SAT

29.90

1.31

***

20.85

0.05

***

Precalculus or trigonometry Calculus Student took HS physics One history honors course Two or more history honors courses Student took honors English Student took literature from different historical periods Student took 4 or more years of foreign/classical language Student did not take any foreign/ classic language Student did not respond regarding f/c language Student took Latin in HS Student did not respond regarding Latin courses

54.79 109.38 24.69 32.41 42.48 38.45 32.31

1.29 1.78 1.18 1.79 1.78 1.44 1.09

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

53.80 95.99 26.20 30.21 35.71 39.59 28.74

0.15 0.21 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.08

*** *** *** *** *** *** ***

37.78

1.30

***

19.94

0.05

***

-61.10

3.16

***

-59.02

-0.07

***

31.41

2.23

***

12.41

0.02

***

30.54 3.63

2.11 1.12

*** **

8.27 0.31

0.01 0.00

**

Number of cases Adjusted R2

74311 0.542

33448 0.541

Academic Preparation • 73 Table 4D.2 Diploma Type Analyses.* OLS Regression of Diploma Type with Combined SAT Scores as the Outcome Comparing Honors Diploma and Core 40 Diploma with Regular Diploma as the Reference Group with Background Variables National Variables Male African American Hispanic American

Indiana

Unstand. Beta

Stand. Beta

Sig.

Unstand. Beta

Stand. Beta

Sig.

54.11 -110.37 -61.17

1.12 1.91 2.16

*** *** ***

63.50 -113.76 -24.81

0.18 -0.14 -0.02

*** *** ***

English is not student’s first language

-23.57

2.28

***

-52.74

-0.03

***

Parents did not finish high school Parents’ highest ed is 2 year degree Parents’ highest ed is BA degree Parents’ highest ed is graduate ed

-30.62 18.90 47.06 73.63

3.26 1.71 1.86 1.84

*** *** *** ***

-14.75 18.68 41.95 57.69

-0.01 0.05 0.09 0.13

* *** *** ***

Family income is less than $30,000 Family income is above $70,000 No family income reported

-26.78 20.50 27.59

1.66 1.50 1.76

*** *** ***

-8.85 9.81 18.98

-0.02 0.02 0.04

*** *** ***

Large/medium-sized city Rural area

-15.18 -39.41

1.26 1.78

*** ***

3.30 -20.96

0.01 -0.05

N/S ***

32.40

2.51

***

22.28

0.03

***

34.09

1.77

***

19.67

0.04

***

-36.84 32.45 60.92

3.29 1.56 1.77

*** *** ***

-41.28 29.00 50.89

-0.05 0.07 0.10

*** *** ***

-84.11 92.11 22.44

-0.18 0.23 0.03

*** *** ***

Student did not respond regarding aspirations Student was undecided regarding aspirations Aspire to an AA/certificate/other Aspire to a master’s degree Aspire to a doctoral degree State SAT participation rate C or lower GPA A GPA No reported GPA

-0.36

0.03

***

-69.88 84.80 62.58

1.85 1.46 2.67

*** *** ***

Student has top 10% class rank

97.31

1.73

***

87.71

0.19

***

Took the PSAT exam prior to the SAT

51.83

1.39

***

34.73

0.08

***

Core 40 but not honors diploma Honors diploma Missing diploma type coursework data

37.32 96.11 9.70

1.37 1.87 1.63

*** *** ***

31.01 74.98 10.14

0.08 0.15 0.02

*** *** ***

Number of cases Adjusted R2

74311 0.465

33448 0.472

*Results are for best approximation of diploma type with available data. Career track and computer coursework data are limited or unavailable.

74 • Reforming Academic Preparation

Appendix 4E: State Level Policy Variables The multilevel model of state policy variables along with individual level demographic and academic preparation variables examined the relationship between state education policies and student readiness for college as measured by the SAT. The model simultaneously considered multiple state policy variables with variability between states in a cross-sectional analysis. Table 4E.1 Variance and Model Fit Estimates for the HLM Model of State Policy and SAT Score Model

Null/ Uncondit.

Final Model

Variance Estimates τ00 Level 2 variance/intercept variance τ10 0 Level 2 Slope variance precalc/trig τ11 Level 2 Slope variance calc σ2 Level 1 variance Ρ Interclass Correlation

3819.9 168.47

181.71 323.57 21027.7

40739.15 0.086

Model Fit Estimates Deviance for prior model^^ # of Parameters in prior model Deviance # of Parameters Significance of change in deviance Reliability of intercept Reliability of precalc/trig slope Reliability of calc slope

1163365.31 1 1162900.17 7 *** 0.761 0.485 0.554

0.964

^^Prior model is model with level-one and -two variables but level-two variance and covariance fixed. (Source: Musoba, 2006a)

Table 4E.2 Achievement Analysis: HLM Model of Intercepts and Slopes as Outcome for SAT Score (State-level Findings only) State Level Variables

Coeff.

SE

Sig.

% Schools w/ A P Standards Implementation Rank High School Exit Exams High Math Grad Requirements (3+) K-12 School Funding SAT Participation Rate

0.11 -0.21 3.79 -14.36 0.92 -0.47

0.17 0.18 5.20 5.39 0.26 0.13

N/S N/S N/S * *** ***

13.09 10.20

5.20 6.78

* N/S 90910

Math policy/Math course taking/SAT Slope/Highest math is Precalc Slope/Highest math is Calc Number of cases

Note: * p < .05, ** p