Category: Equity

Federal Spending Bill Boosts Education Funds in California

Congress recently agreed on a $1.3 trillion spending bill to keep the federal government operating through September 2018. Nearly six months behind schedule, the omnibus spending bill includes a $3.9 billion increase for the US Department of Education (DOE), even though the president had proposed a $9 billion (13%) budget cut that involved scaling back or eliminating more than 30 DOE programs. Since funding for most of these programs is based on student headcounts, California is expected to receive more federal money this year.

One contentious issue in the president’s budget was a $1.4 billion increase for public and private school alternatives. Congress rejected increases for the new Furthering Options for Children to Unlock Success grants—the president’s signature proposal—and the Education Innovation and Research program. Instead, it increased funding for the charter schools grant program by $58 million, a much smaller amount than the president—and Secretary DeVos—had proposed.

The spending bill also excluded a proposed 15% funding cut for Perkins grants and the elimination of the Preschool Development grants. In the previous school year, California received $113 million for Perkins grants, which support career technical education programs in high schools and community colleges. California is also expected to receive more money from the Department of Health and Human Services for programs such as the Child Care Development Block Grant and Head Start.

Congress voted to maintain funding for Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, which the president also wanted to eliminate. Commonly referred to as Title II, this program supports the recruitment and development of high-quality teachers and principals, with a particular focus on serving students from low-income families. Title II is the third-largest DOE program, and California schools received more than $200 million Title II funds in the most recent school year.

At the postsecondary level, Congress increased funding for the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant by $107 million. The president proposed eliminating this $732 million program, which provides need-based grants to help low-income undergraduate students with college costs. The spending bill also increased funding for the federal work-study program by 14%, reversing the president’s proposal to cut it by almost half.

Historically, federal funds have been a small fraction of school district revenues, but they have become an increasingly important funding source, particularly for high-need schools. All in all, the new spending bill will support California’s ongoing efforts to improve educational outcomes for all of its students.

Testimony: How an Integrated Data System Could Improve Education

Jacob Jackson, research fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center, testified before the Senate Committee on Education in Sacramento today (April 11, 2018). Here are his prepared remarks:

Thank you Chair Allen, Vice Chair Wilk, and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jacob Jackson and I am a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research organization and does not take positions on legislation. My comments today are about the potential benefits of a statewide, longitudinal student data system and are based on research that PPIC and others have conducted.

Right now, educational institutions and government agencies already collect plenty of data. The California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) tracks students from kindergarten through grade 12. Each public system of higher education (the community colleges, California State University, and the University of California) keeps track of its students while they are attending that institution. And the Labor and Workforce Development Agency collects data on the earnings of Californians over time. However, these data sources remain largely separate—which prevents the state from understanding how students move across educational institutions and into the workforce. Below are three key considerations in thinking about the potential value of an integrated data system.

A statewide longitudinal data system could help answer important questions for California. The lack of an integrated data system leaves California unable to answer basic questions about educational progress, workforce development, and equity. Such questions include:

  • Is the state’s educational pipeline working? Who applies to which colleges? Does starting at a community college hurt students’ chances of earning a bachelor’s degree?
  • How does education affect workforce outcomes? In what ways are academic coursework and performance during K–12 related to future earnings? What are the economic returns to different Career Technical Education (CTE) pathways?
  • Are state interventions working? Are districts that receive extra funding through the Local Control Funding Formula getting better at sending students to college?
  • Are state investments paying off? What are the impacts of early childhood education on long-term educational and economic outcomes?

College and career readiness is one area where a longitudinal data system could help inform policy. The Common Core State Standards and the Smarter Balanced assessments are aimed at preparing K–12 students for college and career success. PPIC projects that California will face a shortfall of 1.1 million college graduates if current trends in college-degree production and demand for college-educated workers persist. Getting students ready for college is an important goal for the state. In fact, California’s K–12 scorecard will soon start holding districts accountable for their college and career readiness. The College Career Indicator contains metrics about high school course completion and standardized test measures. But due to the lack of linked data, high schools do not actually know which of their students go to which colleges, whether students need remediation once they get there, and whether students succeed in their academic goals. High schools also lack data on if or when students enter the workforce and how successful they are in their career. A statewide longitudinal data system can connect high school performance with outcomes in college and career, which could in turn provide schools, researchers, and policymakers the feedback they need to improve college and career readiness policies and programs.

Though our current ability to link data across sectors is limited, doing so has already produced important insights. Occasionally, researchers or institutions can link together data on a project-by-project basis. Here I list two examples that uncovered important insights and that would not have been possible without longitudinal data. First, PPIC researchers Sarah Bohn and Shannon McConville’s work on Career Technical Education in health fields linked educational data from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office with earnings data from the state’s Unemployment Insurance system. Their work showed that CTE credentials in health generally have sizeable economic returns. The research also indicated which certificates result in higher wages and showed that earning multiple, short-term credentials yields significant economic returns. My own research with Michal Kurlaender and Scott Carrell of UC Davis connected community college data to high school data to show that incoming student characteristics play a big role in determining college-wide outcomes and rankings. These findings are especially important given the initial conversations around performance funding for California’s community colleges.

It is clear that a statewide longitudinal data system could provide new information and insights that are not currently available or possible. There still may be concerns about organization, privacy, security, costs, and ownership of the data, but if the state is willing to meet those challenges—as many other states have done—this tool could help California evaluate and improve its system of education. Linking K–12, college, and earnings data would allow policy experts to determine which policies and programs produce the best and most efficient outcomes for students, colleges, and the state as a whole.

Testimony: Reforming Key Policies at the Community Colleges

Olga Rodriguez, research fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center, testified before the Assembly Higher Education Committee in Sacramento today (April 3, 2018). Here are her prepared remarks:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. My name is Olga Rodriguez and I am a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC is a nonpartisan policy research organization and does not take positions on legislation. My comments are based on research we have conducted at PPIC on California’s community colleges.

Every year, California’s community colleges identify hundreds of thousands of students as not ready for transfer-level courses in math and English. Since these courses are required to transfer to a four-year college, students deemed underprepared are placed in developmental (also known as remedial or basic skills) courses to prepare for college work. These placement decisions have profound effects: our study finds that 80% of entering students take at least one developmental course in math, English, or both, and very few of those students complete a college-level math or English course, or transfer to a four-year college after six years.

Despite the critical role of assessment and placement, historically there has been little clarity about how colleges across the state assess and place students into math, English, and English as a Second Language (ESL) sequences. The overwhelming majority of colleges do not have this information publicly available in their college catalog or on their website. To help fill this information gap, in spring 2016 we surveyed all 113 community colleges in the state; 82 of the colleges participated in the survey. They reported on the policies used to assess and place students into transfer-level math and English as well as the highest level of ESL during the 2014–15 academic year. The broad goal of the survey was to provide policymakers and practitioners with a descriptive landscape to improve understanding of the policies used across the state to assess and place students into math, English, and ESL courses. These results provide an important baseline prior to the implementation of assessment and placement reforms. I describe our findings below.

  • First, community colleges varied in how they identified college-ready students. We find that the use of assessment tests was widespread; 100% of colleges reported using assessment tests for math, English, and ESL placement. However, there was variation in the types of tests used and how they were used. For example, while more than half of colleges reported using the Accuplacer test to assess college readiness in math, cut scores ranged from 25 to 96 out of 120. A student with a score of 58 (the median score used by colleges) would be deemed college ready at half of these colleges, but not at the other half. The lack of consistency means that access to college courses—credit-bearing courses that students need in order to transfer to four-year colleges—is determined not only by students’ performance on the test, but also by the policies at the college where they enroll. This wide variation may be especially challenging for the 40% of students who eventually enroll in more than one community college campus, as they could be deemed college ready at one college but referred to remediation in another. These policies end up undermining opportunities to transfer between campuses and provide mixed signals about what it means to be ready for college-level courses. Furthermore, assessment and placement practices have implications for equity. Students of color are more likely to attend colleges that set higher math cutoff scores, which means these students have less access to the math classes they need to advance.
  • Second, the use of multiple measures was sparse and unsystematic. In California, the use of other measures in addition to placement exams (known as multiple measures) is mandated by law. In fact, research shows that measures such as high school achievement data do a comparable or better job at predicting college success compared to assessment tests. But while assessment tests were standard practice, there was substantial variation in the types of other measures used across colleges and across subjects. Additional measures included high school GPA, grades in prior English and math coursework, results from the Early Assessment Program (EAP), and counselor or instructor recommendations, among others. Overall, we find that 61% of colleges used grade in last math course, and 40% used grade in last English course; but only about one-third of colleges used high school GPA for placement into math and English courses. Even fewer colleges used these measures for ESL placement (8–12%). In addition, while some colleges used multiple measures in a systematic way for all students, up to 30% of colleges only used multiple measures if students requested it or challenged their placement. Uneven implementation of multiple measures may aggravate inequities if students with cultural and social capital are more likely to take advantage of these policies.
  • Third, assessment and placement in ESL needs more attention. Each year, about 30,000 students enroll in ESL, and these students may be especially disadvantaged by current policies. Compared to English and math, in ESL, fewer colleges offered exemption opportunities and test preparation activities. Additionally, our findings suggest that a lower proportion of colleges used high school achievement data for ESL placement, indicating that English Learners may not be benefitting from one of the most promising methods of improving placement accuracy.
  • Finally, ongoing reforms aim to promote more consistent and accurate placement policies. With the support of the governor, the legislature, and the system office, a significant amount of resources have been devoted to improving assessment and placement at community colleges. The passage of Assembly Bill 705 will help address this issue by mandating that all colleges use high school achievement data for the assessment and placement of all students. Still, if colleges have the autonomy to set their own rules for placement, and if colleges do not fully inform students of their placement rules, this will be a cause for concern as uneven access to transfer-level courses has significant implications for student success.

In sum, assessment and placement policies should help students reach their academic goals—not stand in the way of those goals. As colleges work to enhance the efficacy of developmental education, implementing evidence-based practices that accurately assess students’ college readiness will be critical. A more equitable and efficient system for assessment and placement is a vital step in helping all students achieve their academic goals.

Five Factors for Successful Online Learning

Governor Brown’s budget proposal requested a $100 million initial investment, along with $20 million annually, to establish a new online college that would be part of the state’s community college system. This college would initially focus on short-term certificate programs for non-traditional students ages 25–34 who are already in the workforce. In the long term, this college would seek accreditation, provide pathways to transfer to a four-year college, and compete with established online course providers like Arizona State Online and the for-profit University of Phoenix.

Tens of thousands of students already take online courses offered by California’s community colleges. In fact, the share of student enrollment in these courses has increased 9 percentage points over the past decade to more than 13% in 2016–17. The new online college, if established, is likely to accelerate this trend.

Previous PPIC research has identified five key factors to help ensure student success in online programs:

  1. Use a systems approach to course design. In this model, an instructional designer works with faculty, media developers, and programmers to develop an online course. This approach recognizes the fundamental differences between online and face-to-face instruction and allows instructors to focus on the subject matter and student engagement.
  2. Provide professional development. Effective online instruction requires distinct strategies. For example, to guide discussion online, instructors must gauge student engagement and develop appropriate norms without the usual visual and auditory cues. Rapid changes in technology and the isolated nature of online instruction also make professional development and mentorship particularly important.
  3. Set student expectations. There is a common misconception that online courses are easy. On the contrary, students in online courses often struggle with the autonomy, time management, and digital literacy necessary to succeed. Successful online programs use orientation courses to set expectations and clarify the differences between online and face-to-face education.
  4. Create community. Communication is essential to foster a constructive learning environment and positive peer interactions. Online courses that encourage regular and effective communication among students and between students and their instructor develop a better sense of community and improve the likelihood of student success.
  5. Take advantage of the online environment. Online tools offer unique insights not available in face-to-face pedagogy. Data on student engagement (e.g., did students view the syllabus or access additional course resources?) can provide clues for how to improve student outcomes. Online learning also facilitates personalization and can be adapted to different learning styles and special needs.

In 2013–14, the community college system launched the Online Education Initiative (OEI), which promotes these best practices and has established online course standards and faculty training in pedagogy and course design. As the state moves forward with its proposal to create a new online college, the OEI could play a key role. Overall, the line separating online and face-to-face learning is not as stark as many suppose. Most college courses already incorporate some online aspects, whether it’s an online course management system, chat room, or video conferencing. As the online and face-to-face worlds continue to merge, furthering our understanding of best practices for online instruction will be critical to student success in higher education as a whole.

Video: Improving English Courses at California’s Community Colleges

California’s community colleges are in the midst of numerous reforms to improve developmental—or remedial—education. Developmental education is supposed to help prepare students for college work but it has long been an obstacle to student success: most students in developmental classes never go on to complete a college-level course in English or math. A recent report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) looks at the effectiveness of some of these reforms in English. It finds that one reform in particular shows real promise. Called one-semester acceleration, it’s a highly intensive course that leads directly to a college composition class. Still, there is much room for improvement, especially for underrepresented students.

PPIC researcher Marisol Cuellar Mejia presented findings from the report in Sacramento this week. In a discussion following the presentation, panelists talked about promising initiatives underway in developmental education. Many of the current efforts to more accurately place students in appropriate classes and transform course sequences are motivated by AB 705, a legislative proposal signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown last fall. Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin, who authored the bill, said it provides flexibility to the state’s individual community colleges “but with clear requirements that colleges use the best of multiple measures—including high school performance—in placing students.” The bill also instructs colleges to maximize the possibility that students pass a transfer level class within a year.

Laura Hope, executive vice chancellor for educational services at the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, described the central challenge involved in full-scale implementation of reforms across the state’s 114 community colleges as an instructional paradigm shift. “It’s about changing minds and hearts about student capacity and the belief that they don’t come to us just a jumble of deficits . . . It’s about shifting that mindset away from fixing students into activating students.”

Summer Serpas, assistant director of the California Acceleration Project, underscored the professional support that teachers will need as a larger and more diverse group of students move out of developmental courses and into transfer-level ones: “These students are capable of doing the work, but they come in needing [additional] support.” Serpas said it will be critical to learn from colleges that have already adopted successful reforms, including accelerated pathways and the “co-requisite” model, in which students enroll directly in college composition with concurrent support.

Retraining Workers for the Future Economy

As the economy continues to shift toward computers and digital technology—and braces for a potential future with more robots—workers have been called upon to adapt and learn new skills. New industries and new kinds of jobs may lead to economic growth, but whether these gains are shared by all of California’s workers depends critically on their retraining. And that retraining, in turn, depends on the ability of educational institutions to also adapt to new labor market needs.

While workers can sometimes learn new skills on the job or on their own, other times retraining means obtaining a new credential and returning to the classroom. That’s especially true for people who work in technical industries that are being reshaped by forces like routinization, automation, and outsourcing.

California’s higher education system has an important role to play in delivering retraining options. The state’s community colleges are the primary provider, with hundreds of programs in skilled trades and applied sciences and technologies. Notably, community colleges offer retraining options at a much lower cost to students than do private for-profit two-year colleges, another major provider. In addition, many community college programs show substantial economic returns for students—especially in health professions.

Effective retraining through the state’s colleges would help ensure that all Californians are productive and self-sufficient, which would benefit not just families but also employers and the state economy. However, the current model of higher education was largely built for 18-year-old, first-time freshmen and does not necessarily work for older, returning students, who are almost certainly balancing training with career, family, and other demands.

Flexible course scheduling—for example, through online courses or “distance” education—is one way to better reach workers. California’s community colleges are the clear leader in offering online options. PPIC research has highlighted some limitations to online training and outlined ways to improve student outcomes. Online courses for technical programs may require additional innovation, especially those that require hands-on training. Governor Brown’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2018–19 includes funding for a fully online community college that has the potential to bring innovation to how retraining opportunities (and educational opportunities, broadly speaking) are offered to Californians.

For individuals or training programs not amenable to online options, expanding course offerings near job centers is key. Cal State Los Angeles’s satellite campus in downtown LA aims to do exactly this. Information about the job market is also crucial—and California’s community colleges have taken a big step in the right direction by providing easily accessible information on the labor market outcomes of different colleges and programs across the state.

Retrained workers may pursue all kinds of new skills, but career technical programs, most of which are in community colleges, are particularly important because they offer short-term credentials in industry-relevant fields. Efforts to make career technical programs more flexible—through, for example, online courses, convenient locations, and partnerships with employers—are critical to filling student, employer, and state needs in a rapidly changing workplace.

Learn more
 Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

 

Testimony: How Can California Produce More College Graduates?

Hans Johnson, director and senior fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center, testified today, February 6, 2018, before the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance and the Assembly Higher Education Committee. The master plan defined a strategy to meet the state’s education needs in 1960—but today, California faces new challenges. The topic of today’s hearing: how to meet the state’s future economic need for more college graduates. Here are his prepared remarks.

PPIC’s work has revealed a serious gap between the number of highly educated workers that California’s future economy will need and the number the state is on pace to produce. We call this the workforce skills gap—and it’s quite large. To meet economic demand and secure a more prosperous future for our state, California’s higher education institutions will need to produce 1.1 million more college graduates by 2030.

Admittedly, doing so is an ambitious goal. But there is significant room for improving how many students graduate from college—especially if we consider that currently only about 30 percent of California’s 9th graders will earn a bachelor’s degree.

PPIC has quantified the role of each university segment—the University of California, the California State University, and private nonprofit colleges in California—in closing the workforce skills gap. Overall, the number of bachelor’s degrees would need to increase by about one-third over baseline projections. Almost half of the gains would need to occur at CSU, the nation’s largest public university system. UC and private nonprofit colleges would also play an important role.

Most immediate to today’s conversation about goal setting for the state’s public systems, PPIC has identified the combination of increases in freshman eligibility, transfer, and completion rates necessary to close the gap.

Our preferred approach—a closing-the-gap scenario—combines increases in eligibility, transfer, and graduation rates, as shown below. Along with increases in enrollment and completion at private institutions, reaching these targets would fully close the workforce skills gap.

In our scenario, each target would be reached gradually through a phase-in period. In the first few years, projected increases would be minimal as the systems would enroll more students and implement policies to improve completion and transfer. But within five years, the increases would become quite large. By 2020–21, CSU would award almost 25,000 additional bachelor’s degrees; UC would award more than 12,000.

For the purposes of setting annual goals, we are identifying annual targets in new freshmen enrollment, transfer, and completion rates that would match the closing-the-skills gap degree targets. Enrollment and transfer targets depend on graduation rates and time to degree—meaning that enrollment increases could be lower if graduation rates improve and students complete their degrees more quickly. For example, students who take 12 units per semester will take five years of continuous enrollment to earn the 120 units necessary for graduation.  If those students instead took 15 units per semester, they would graduate in four years and free up additional space for other students.

It has been a couple years since PPIC first developed our projections, and we’ve now been able to chart early progress by the systems. Later you will hear in detail from the segments about their plans, but right now I am happy to report some good news: the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded at UC and CSU is actually higher than our initial scenario called for.

Of course, we are just at the start of our projection period, and to close the gap the numbers must ramp up quickly after the first few years. Nonetheless, growth in graduation rates and enrollment has led to a notable expansion in degrees awarded at both systems. Over the past two years, UC and CSU combined have awarded 295,000 bachelor’s degrees—21,000 more than in our closing-the-gap-scenario and 23,000 more than in our baseline scenario. In addition, the number of transfer students has increased 8%, also higher than in our closing-the-gap scenario.

In addition, community colleges and CSU have adopted new goals for student success that are entirely consistent with PPIC’s closing-the-gap scenario. CSU’s new graduation initiative calls for reducing time to degree and increasing both four-year and six-year graduation rates. CSU’s goal of a 70% six-year graduation rate by 2025 is in line with and in fact slightly more ambitious than our scenario. In their new “Vision for Success,” the community colleges have adopted a goal to increase transfer to UC and CSU by 35% over the next five years, a goal that is entirely consistent with our work.

There is an important additional benefit of meeting these goals: reducing equity gaps. Today, students who have been underrepresented in higher education—including Latino, African American, low-income, and first-generation students—make up a majority of California’s high school graduates. Strong increases in college preparation among the state’s high school graduates are expanding the pool of potential college graduates, with the share of students—including African American and Latino students—completing the college preparatory requirements of UC and CSU reaching an all-time high. Ensuring that the growing number of prepared high school graduates have meaningful access to and success in higher education will not only help California meet its economic challenges, it will ensure that higher education continues to serve as a ladder of economic and social mobility.

Our focus at PPIC has been on college graduates with at least a bachelor’s degree, but we acknowledge the importance of other postsecondary training. We have a series of reports and ongoing projects that identify successful vocational pathways and high value awards (certificates and associate degrees) offered by the state’s community colleges. Lande Ajose of California Competes will discuss in more detail the need for sub-baccalaureate post-secondary education. We also acknowledge the importance of post-baccalaureate education, including professional and academic graduate degrees offered primarily by UC and the state’s private nonprofit colleges. Those degree holders have the best labor market outcomes in the state.

Figuring out how to pay for all these increases is no easy task and will be discussed later in this hearing.  Let me alert you to two projects underway at PPIC that will help shed light on this issue. One will examine the role that tuition policy could play and the other will focus on capital finance. In addition, we will continue to monitor affordability issues, including student debt, identified by respondents to the PPIC Statewide Survey as the number one higher education issue.

Finally, it is worth noting that the governor has proposed a funding formula for the community colleges that for the first time will provide additional funding based on student outcomes and enrolling low-income students. PPIC has argued that this approach has the potential to incentivize investment by the state’s higher education systems in areas that further state priorities.

 

Video: Keeping Students on Track for College

Only about 30% of California 9th graders are expected to earn a bachelor’s degree—a startling statistic in a state that faces a shortfall of college graduates. A new PPIC report finds that the vast majority fall off the path to a college degree in the last two years of high school or the first two years of college.

Report coauthor Niu Gao presented the analysis in Sacramento last week, along with recommendations for tackling the problem. Among them: updating high school graduation requirements, offering more of the college preparatory courses required for admission to California State University (CSU) or the University of California (UC), and improving placement policies in both high schools and community colleges to ensure that students take the classes needed to progress.

Gao’s presentation was followed by a panel discussion among experts who work in this area. In a conversation moderated by Hans Johnson—report coauthor, and director and senior fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center—participants touched on challenges, as well as potential solutions.

Jorge A. Aguilar, superintendent of the Sacramento City Unified School District, noted that while more students are completing college prep courses—known as a–g courses—many aren’t making it to or through college. Part of the problem, he said, is the “fundamental disconnect between K–12 and higher education.” Having worked in both sectors, he noted there are insufficient incentives for school districts to focus on persistence in higher education and for higher education to work with K–12 on the issue.

Kimberly Rodriguez, chief education advisor to Kevin de León, state senate president pro tempore, addressed one of the report’s key recommendations: increasing state high school graduation requirements in math. She noted that requiring a–g courses for graduation has been much discussed at the state level.

“The biggest barrier has always been money,” she said. “Because once you require it, the state is on the hook.” Implementation is also complicated, she said, requiring planning and attention to infrastructure—as districts that have already adopted these requirements have found.

The third panelist, Jim Dragna, talked about a promising initiative. Known as the “graduation czar” at CSU Sacramento, he supervises the Finish in Four program. Students are asked to pledge to take 15 credits a semester—the number needed to graduate in four years—and are provided extra resources to ensure they stay on track.

“Student progression problems have been with us so long that they’ve become part of the culture,” he said. So, he continued, “we tackled the culture.”

California Needs More College Prep Courses

Most California high school graduates are not ready for college. Despite the steady improvements over the past decade, less than half of graduating seniors in the class of 2016 completed the a–g requirements, the set of courses high school students must complete to be eligible for admission to the University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU). The completion rate is substantially lower among Latino (37%), African American (34%), economically disadvantaged (37%), and English Learner (10%) students.

PPIC’s new report looks at the role of several institutional factors that may improve the completion rate, including high school graduation requirements, course placement policies and practices, and academic counseling and advising. But there is another significant barrier: not every high school in California offers the full a–g course sequence.

During the most recent school year (2016–17), 12% of California high schools did not offer the full math sequence, which includes algebra 1, geometry, and algebra 2. Similarly, 14% of high schools did not offer four years of a–g approved English courses. High-poverty schools (where more than 75% of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) and high-minority schools (where more than 75% of students are African American or Latino) were just as likely as schools overall to offer the full sequence. But small schools (those at the bottom 25th percentile of the enrollment distribution) and rural schools were much less likely to do so. Close to 40% of small schools did not offer the full science sequence, which includes two years of approved science courses, and more than a third did not offer the full math or English sequence.

The difference in course offerings has contributed to low a–g completion rates at small and rural schools. For instance, the average a–g completion rate is 46% among all high schools, but only 30% or so among small or rural schools.

College Prep Blog Table

To improve student readiness for college, districts and schools need to increase the number of a–g approved courses. However, some schools may face capacity and resource limitations, such as not having enough qualified teachers. One solution is to establish a regional or statewide virtual school network so students in small or rural schools can enroll in online courses offered by other districts. Several states—including Florida (Florida Virtual Education), Wisconsin (Wisconsin Digital Learning Collaborative), Texas (Texas Virtual School Network), and Georgia (Georgia Virtual School)—have in recent years partnered with school districts to provide academic courses and test prep for all middle and high school students. California’s UC Scout program is a step in the right direction, providing a full set of online a–g courses accessible at no cost to students at participating schools.

Video: Reforming Remedial Math in Community College

Developmental—or remedial—education is one of the largest barriers to student success in California’s community colleges. The good news is that reforms are underway, and a new report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) looks at the effectiveness of some of these reforms in math. PPIC researcher Olga Rodriguez presented the report in Sacramento this week. One reform the researchers studied is an alternative to traditional algebra-based courses and is designed for students in majors—particularly those in the liberal arts and humanities—that require only statistics. The report finds that students in this statistics sequence substantially outperform their peers who take traditional developmental math.

In a discussion following the presentation, panelists addressed the issue of why this math alternative is not more widely available. Myra Snell, math professor at Los Medanos College and cofounder of the California Acceleration Project, said the reasons range from the logistical to the cultural. Most math professors are not trained in statistics. Further, there is a deeply held belief among faculty that intermediate algebra is essential. She said that this “gets in the way of them rethinking what might be best for students.”

Laura Metune, vice chancellor of external relations at the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, noted the necessary shift in emphasis from encouraging campuses to try multiple interventions to investing in alternatives with the best chance of helping more students achieve their academic goals.

Nikki Edgecombe, senior research scientist at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University, noted: “If we know that students who are completing a statistics-level pathway are completing their transfer-level math at a significantly higher rate, but we hold on to the old system as well, it’s safe to say we’re doing a lot of students a disservice.”

She continued: “To be honest, there are a lot of bad ideas out there. We need to have the moral courage to identify what those are and fashion solutions for students.”

Learn more

Read the report Reforming Math Pathways at California Community Colleges
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center