Getting Our Students to Work: What’s Working and What’s Not

1. Getting Our Students to Work: What’s Working and What’s Not

2. College Preparedness Robert SpohrVice President for Academic AffairsMontcalm Community College

3. Ground Rules • We understand that there are many problems with educating children, including: • Parents • Finances • Society • Legislative meddling and mandates • BUT! • These aren’t going to change, so let’s look at where we are.

4. History • During the 1970s a “right to fail” philosophy was adopted, so no placement testing was used (Zeitlin & Markus, 1996). • High cost of dropouts and failure led to educators and legislators to prod for placement testing (Cohen & Brawer, 1985)

5. Entering Students Not Prepared • In the 1990s mandatory placement took hold and mandatory assessment and placement was considered critical (Boylan, 2002) • Mismatch between students’ college preparedness and the technical demands of our economy (deCastro & Karp, CCRC).

6. The Problem • Disconnect between what high schools require for graduation and what colleges seek (Lubrano, 2011) • Over 75% of students arrive unprepared for college-level work (CCCSE) • Over half of students who test into developmental courses dropout of college (WSJ)

7. What students say, the beginning • Before starting classes, 85% of students said they are academically prepared for college (CCCSE) • 75% tested into at least one developmental course (CCCSE)

8. What students say after testing “I was always good in every subject I had taken, so it was a shock to me because I was on the border line” (CCCSE).

9. What students say after starting • “I can honestly say my high school didn’t prepare me for college…” “I was getting my butt kicked in college. I didn’t have the proper background” (B- gpa)(Lubrano, 2011). • “Go from not studying at all or not reading, to having to read and having to study every night is a difficult process” (CCCSE)

10. What students say after starting (continued) • “I had been warned about all the challenges of college, and I believed that things were going to be a lot differentand a lot harder, but I still didn’t prepare and I am kind of having trouble because of it” (CCCSE). • YouTube, “Students Speak, Are We Listening? • Even more things community colleges need to work on.

11. So…What Do We Do?

12. James Wm Taylor, Ph.D., R.R.T. Dean of Health, Science & Technology Collaboration

13. Rationale & Goals • Community College’s • receiving inquiries about direct credit, dual enrollment opportunities • Accountability measures at state leading toward ‘success data’ • Goal examine the literature

14. Results • Literature is sparse!

15. Objectives • Review literature findings • Review Credit Based Transition Programs • Present some history/trends/data • Allow time for discussion

16. Findings • Confusion/inconsistency in literature • “we need a new vocabulary” (Hoffman 2003)

17. Terminology ? • School based credit • College based credit • Post Secondary Incentive Programs • University High Schools • Middle Colleges • Early Colleges • College Academies • ….and more • Direct credit • Transcripted credit • Dual enrollment • Dual enrollment w/high school instructors • Dual enrollment w/ college instructor teaching at high school • Concurrent Enrollment • Virtual college credit

18. Trends • Secondary to post secondary transitions are increasing! (National Center for Educational Statistics 2005) • 2002-2003, 1.2 million students in dual credit • 74% (855,000) on secondary site • 23% (262,000) on post secondary site • Remainder were on line courses

19. Credit Based Transition Programs • Definition (Helfgot, 2001) • Trends • High school attrition unacceptable • Pursuit of post secondary education unacceptable • “20,12,5,2” (Dr. Michael Crow, President Arizona State) • Michigan secondary graduation 75% (CEPI 2010)

20. Promoting College Access and Success: A Review of Credit Based Programs • Thomas Bailey & Melinda Mechur Karp • Community College Research Center • Teachers College of Columbia University • Office of Vocational and Adult Education • U.S. Department of Education • November 2003

21. Goals Bailey & Karp (2003) • Prepare students for academic rigor of college • Provide more realistic information about skills • Help secondary faculty help students • Expose non college bound students to college • Provide curricular options • Improve motivation • Lower costs of post secondary • Promote secondary-post secondary relationships

22. Types of Programs (Bailey & Karp 2003) • Singleton Programs • “offerings of single college courses” • Comprehensive Programs • “multiple college level offerings • Enhanced Comprehensive Programs • “multiple college offerings and student services”

23. Types of Programs – cont. (Bailey & Karp 2003) • Singleton Programs • “offerings of college courses” • e.g. Advanced Placement • 37 courses in 22 subject areas, 90% of post secondary accept (College Board 2008) • AP students perform as well on college courses (Morgan & Ramist 1998) • AP students more likely to pursue more courses (Morgan & Maneckshana 2000) • AP students greater college success in all subjects (Willingham & Morris 1986) • Some tech prep programs used…not preferred method (Bragg 2001)

24. Types of Programs – cont. (Bailey & Karp 2003) • Comprehensive Programs • Focus on the academic rigor only (as opposed to psychosocial aspects) • International Baccalaureate • e.g. Running Start Program (Washington State) • Uses “dual credit”, enrolled post secondary with credit ‘back transferring’ to high school • Most tech prep programs • Focus on academic preparation w/career specific training, often use articulated credit

25. Running Start • Gomez 2001 • 1996-97 Gpa 2.70, slightly higher than control • 41% graduated U of Washington in 4 years compared to control 31% • Gpa at U of Washington is 3.42, higher than control

26. Tech Prep Programs • Taylor 2010 • Compared health career tech prep to non • 93% enrolled in post secondary • Bragg 2001 • Compared tech prep to non tech prep • 65% tech prep enrolled in post secondary • Brodsky & Arroya 1999 • Compared tech prep to non tech prep • 11thand 12th grade tech prep had higher gpa • Tech prep students had lower SATs

27. Types of Programs – cont. (Bailey & Karp 2003) • Enhanced Comprehensive Programs • e.g. Middle Colleges

28. Middle Colleges • “Educational ideas are rarely new; they simply reemerge at different times under different circumstances and are put forth by different people” (Kisker 2006)

29. Middle Colleges – cont. • Leonard Koos (University of Minnesota), 1930s • Developed 6:4:4 plan • 6 years primary, grades 7-10th middle school, grades 11 -14 in high school • Described that first two years in college was ‘closer’ to last two years in high school than in last two years in a college

30. Middle Colleges – cont. • (Wenschler 2001, retrospective study • LaGuardia Middle College • Students performed better than alternative schools, higher graduation rates than city, more likely to earn Associates than Baccalaureate

31. Middle Colleges - cont. • Greenberg 1998 • Los Angeles Middle College High School, City as School, College Now (at risk programs) • College Now comparable, others lower gpas than control

32. Pitfalls in Credit Based Transition • Lekes (2007) projected benefits worthy, limited research to confirm value of dual credit • Pennington (2004) “dual enrollment does not necessarily accelerate degree completion” • Karp & Hughes (2008) not much is known “about its effectiveness as a strategy for increasing a students’ college success”

33. Faculty Concerns • “Academic performance in dual enrollment courses have begun to raise alarm” (Tinberg & Nadeau 2011) • Assumptions that secondary schedules are light enough to allow courses yet students can’t meet college placement standards …faculty should oppose dual enrollment (Dougan 2005)

34. Conclusions - Taylor • More research is needed • Anecdotal information positive, goals worthwhile • Relationships between secondary & post secondary essential • Cautiously move forward and gather data