Last month, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order to create the "Arizona Ready" Education Council. Superceding the P-20 council Governor Brewer formed through earlier executive orders, the Arizona Ready Education Council will build upon the goals and strategies identified by the previous entity.
Is the council a new P-20 council for the state? While the executive order and related press release do not use the term "P-20", the council's diverse membership, and focus on improving student outcomes at key junctures (3rd grade reading, high school graduation, and baccalaureate completion) and improving teacher quality, suggest that the group is intended to function as such.
It will be important for the council to incorporate voices from the early learning community as the group works towards one of the objectives identified in the press release: to improve the number of 3rd graders reading at grade level from 73% to 94%. It is not clear that the council includes an explicit "P" representative at this time, yet the early years are critical for any state that intends to move the needle on 3rd grade reading proficiency.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Nevada: Getting serious about aligning data systems
My last post in December concerned state efforts to create "homework assignments" for P-16 and P-20 councils, to help ensure they provide recommendations on issues of key interest to state leaders. And in fact, last fall Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval issued an executive order creating a homework assignment for his state's P-16 council around the state's data systems.
The executive order directs the council to conduct a "collaborative review" of the state's data systems and provide recommendations for the design and implementation of a quality P-16 data system for both student and educator data. The council's efforts must be coordinated with the recommendations developed by the Teachers and Leaders Council regarding a performance evaluation system. All the P-16 council's data efforts must be completed by August 1, 2012.
The council also has a redesigned Web site that allows the public to better track progress in these efforts.
The executive order directs the council to conduct a "collaborative review" of the state's data systems and provide recommendations for the design and implementation of a quality P-16 data system for both student and educator data. The council's efforts must be coordinated with the recommendations developed by the Teachers and Leaders Council regarding a performance evaluation system. All the P-16 council's data efforts must be completed by August 1, 2012.
The council also has a redesigned Web site that allows the public to better track progress in these efforts.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Creating homework assignments for P-20 councils
P-20 councils need to have meaningful work to do--without it, they are perceived as window-dressing. In this context, "meaningful work" often means developing recommendations the council has reached consensus on, that are given to governor and legislature as the fodder or foundation for policy changes.
To get a state P-16 or P-20 council to develop recommendations on an issue, some legislatures have effectively created a homework assignment for the council. One of the clearest examples is from Texas, where statute enacted several years ago directs the P-16 council to recommend to the commissioner of education and the higher education coordinating board a "college readiness and success strategic action plan" that includes specified elements.
Another Texas provision directs the P-16 council to work with the State Center for Early Childhood Development to create a school readiness certification system for certifying the effectiveness of preK and other early childhood programs in preparing children for kindergarten.
To get a state P-16 or P-20 council to develop recommendations on an issue, some legislatures have effectively created a homework assignment for the council. One of the clearest examples is from Texas, where statute enacted several years ago directs the P-16 council to recommend to the commissioner of education and the higher education coordinating board a "college readiness and success strategic action plan" that includes specified elements.
Another Texas provision directs the P-16 council to work with the State Center for Early Childhood Development to create a school readiness certification system for certifying the effectiveness of preK and other early childhood programs in preparing children for kindergarten.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Dual enrollment: Getting students to a degree more efficiently?
I was recently asked whether there's any research indicating that dual enrollment program participants ultimately earn fewer total credits when completing a postsecondary degree. A 2009 Florida study does provide at least a partial response to this question.
The report notes that 40% of students surveyed at Florida's largest universities believed that "acceleration credits" (dual enrollment, as well as IB, AP and other options) allowed them to "progress through college in a shorter time period". Data support these students' perceptions. Students graduating from Florida's state universities in the 2006-07 academic year who had completed acceleration credits attempted an average of 128 credit hours of college courses, whereas their average peer who had not earned acceleration credits attempted 140 credit hours.
Unfortunately, the study doesn't separate the results by the type of accelerated credit students earned. Nor do the authors speculate why students earning acceleration credits of any kind finished a college degree with fewer credits. And granted, this is just one study in just one state. However, it's hard not to be at least a little interested reading that "This difference equates to almost a semester of college courses, which represents a substantial savings in higher education costs to both the state and students. The state benefits from the freed instructional slots and classroom space that allow other students to progress through these classes."
One might argue that students earning acceleration credits are more academically motivated--but on the other hand, there are various ways academically motivated students might earn more college credits than the average student. Academically motivated students might choose double majors (or even triple-majors--this author was one of those crazy people)--although students in the Florida report noted that acceleration credit allowed them to pursue double majors and dual degrees. Students in general--including academically motivated students--might also earn more total college credits by switching majors mid-college careers (been there, done that, too), turning all those credits that once went towards a major into a mighty expensive minor, with a lot of excess credit hours in tow. More academically motivated students might even have greater motivation to switch colleges (transitioning to a more selective college, for example), resulting in credits that are only recognized as "electives" at College #2.
Another thought might be that dual enrollment courses allow students to "try on" different academic disciplines at a more rigorous level before starting college, so that students are less likely to accumulate too many credits in one discipline before switching degree areas, if they decide to change majors at all. And--particularly when students complete dual enrollment courses on a college campus---dual enrollment allows students to "try on" a college at the same time they "try on" a discipline, so that students may decide to apply at (or decide to avoid!) the postsecondary institution where they had their dual enrollment experience, again avoiding those credit hours not recognized at College #2 after things at College #1 don't work out.
I would love to see more research on this point--are dual enrollment students less likely to change majors once they enter college? Are they more likely to enroll in the postsecondary institution partnering in the dual enrollment experience than their peers in the same geographic area who did not participate in dual enrollment? Are there other factors that lead dual enrollment students to complete a college degree in fewer credit hours? Or in fact, will studies in other states not bear the same results as those in Florida? In an era where states are trying to simultaneously raise college completion and attainment rates and keep postsecondary costs down, such research would be extremely valuable.
The report notes that 40% of students surveyed at Florida's largest universities believed that "acceleration credits" (dual enrollment, as well as IB, AP and other options) allowed them to "progress through college in a shorter time period". Data support these students' perceptions. Students graduating from Florida's state universities in the 2006-07 academic year who had completed acceleration credits attempted an average of 128 credit hours of college courses, whereas their average peer who had not earned acceleration credits attempted 140 credit hours.
Unfortunately, the study doesn't separate the results by the type of accelerated credit students earned. Nor do the authors speculate why students earning acceleration credits of any kind finished a college degree with fewer credits. And granted, this is just one study in just one state. However, it's hard not to be at least a little interested reading that "This difference equates to almost a semester of college courses, which represents a substantial savings in higher education costs to both the state and students. The state benefits from the freed instructional slots and classroom space that allow other students to progress through these classes."
One might argue that students earning acceleration credits are more academically motivated--but on the other hand, there are various ways academically motivated students might earn more college credits than the average student. Academically motivated students might choose double majors (or even triple-majors--this author was one of those crazy people)--although students in the Florida report noted that acceleration credit allowed them to pursue double majors and dual degrees. Students in general--including academically motivated students--might also earn more total college credits by switching majors mid-college careers (been there, done that, too), turning all those credits that once went towards a major into a mighty expensive minor, with a lot of excess credit hours in tow. More academically motivated students might even have greater motivation to switch colleges (transitioning to a more selective college, for example), resulting in credits that are only recognized as "electives" at College #2.
Another thought might be that dual enrollment courses allow students to "try on" different academic disciplines at a more rigorous level before starting college, so that students are less likely to accumulate too many credits in one discipline before switching degree areas, if they decide to change majors at all. And--particularly when students complete dual enrollment courses on a college campus---dual enrollment allows students to "try on" a college at the same time they "try on" a discipline, so that students may decide to apply at (or decide to avoid!) the postsecondary institution where they had their dual enrollment experience, again avoiding those credit hours not recognized at College #2 after things at College #1 don't work out.
I would love to see more research on this point--are dual enrollment students less likely to change majors once they enter college? Are they more likely to enroll in the postsecondary institution partnering in the dual enrollment experience than their peers in the same geographic area who did not participate in dual enrollment? Are there other factors that lead dual enrollment students to complete a college degree in fewer credit hours? Or in fact, will studies in other states not bear the same results as those in Florida? In an era where states are trying to simultaneously raise college completion and attainment rates and keep postsecondary costs down, such research would be extremely valuable.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
P-20: Where are we now?
As part of an American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) event here in Denver last month, I was invited to host a small conversation with attendees on the idea of P-20. Below are a few of the points I thought we might cover in the conversation--they will likely be fleshed out in a forthcoming ECS publication:
Where are we with the whole idea of P-20 councils? We have seen a substantial amount of attrition in the number of P-20 councils since ECS launched its national database on state-level P-16 and P-20 councils in 2008. However, we have seen pockets of growth, as a new council has been created in Vermont, and councils are under consideration elsewhere.
What about P-20 governance? This seems to some degree to be the policy successor of the P-20 council, as a number of states considered efforts this year to consolidate agencies.
Is there another way to improve alignment besides a P-20 council or P-20 governance? Some states have adopted legislation to mandate collaboration among agencies with authority for various components of the P-20 pipeline. Ohio 2009 H.B. 1 is one example--while the legislation did away with the state's erstwhile P-16 council, the Partnership for Continued Learning, it mandated collaboration on oversight and implementation related to early learning, strategic planning, data sharing, high school assessments, teacher recruitment and preparation, and more. These initiatives have undergone further refinement in subsequent policymaking.
What else is out there on this issue? I think this is where attendees' eyes rolled back in their heads, as I rattled off a list of the all the ECS resources on P-20. Sorry attendees! At any rate, if readers of this blog have questions on any of this, feel free to contact me directly at 303.299.3689 or jdounay@ecs.org.
Where are we with the whole idea of P-20 councils? We have seen a substantial amount of attrition in the number of P-20 councils since ECS launched its national database on state-level P-16 and P-20 councils in 2008. However, we have seen pockets of growth, as a new council has been created in Vermont, and councils are under consideration elsewhere.
What about P-20 governance? This seems to some degree to be the policy successor of the P-20 council, as a number of states considered efforts this year to consolidate agencies.
Is there another way to improve alignment besides a P-20 council or P-20 governance? Some states have adopted legislation to mandate collaboration among agencies with authority for various components of the P-20 pipeline. Ohio 2009 H.B. 1 is one example--while the legislation did away with the state's erstwhile P-16 council, the Partnership for Continued Learning, it mandated collaboration on oversight and implementation related to early learning, strategic planning, data sharing, high school assessments, teacher recruitment and preparation, and more. These initiatives have undergone further refinement in subsequent policymaking.
What else is out there on this issue? I think this is where attendees' eyes rolled back in their heads, as I rattled off a list of the all the ECS resources on P-20. Sorry attendees! At any rate, if readers of this blog have questions on any of this, feel free to contact me directly at 303.299.3689 or jdounay@ecs.org.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Texas: Tackling postsecondary remediation
Texas legislators this year sent a clear message to public postsecondary institutions--fix remediation. And certain terms--evidence-based, best practice, modular, online--surfaced again and again in enacted 2011 legislation in the Lone Star State.
H.B. 1244, for example, requires institutions of higher education to offer a range of developmental coursework, including online coursework, or instructional support that integrates technology, to effectively address students' particular developmental needs. H.B. 1244 also requires developmental education to be based on research-based best practices (hooray!) that include assessment, differentiated placement and instruction, faculty development, support services, program evaluation, integration of technology with an emphasis on instructional support programs, non-course-based developmental ed. interventions, and course-pairing (allowing a student to simultaneously take a developmental and a credit-bearing course). The bill also calls for the higher education coordinating board to provide professional development programs, including on differentiated instruction methods to address students' diverse needs, to faculty and staff who provide developmental courses.
But wait, there's more! H.B. 1244 also requires learning outcomes to be developed for developmental ed. courses, and for these to be used to determine when a student is ready for credit-bearing coursework. These learning outcomes are to be developed by the higher education coordinating board based on established college and career readiness standards and student performance on assessments. The legislation likewise permits an institution of higher education to waive tuition for a student participating in a non-semester-long developmental education intervention, including course-based, non-course-based, alternative-entry/exit, and other intensive developmental education activities).
Unfortunately, while modular remediation targeted at student need can be found at individual institutions, it is rare for these approaches to be adopted in legislation. More on Texas' remediation innovations in future posts.
H.B. 1244, for example, requires institutions of higher education to offer a range of developmental coursework, including online coursework, or instructional support that integrates technology, to effectively address students' particular developmental needs. H.B. 1244 also requires developmental education to be based on research-based best practices (hooray!) that include assessment, differentiated placement and instruction, faculty development, support services, program evaluation, integration of technology with an emphasis on instructional support programs, non-course-based developmental ed. interventions, and course-pairing (allowing a student to simultaneously take a developmental and a credit-bearing course). The bill also calls for the higher education coordinating board to provide professional development programs, including on differentiated instruction methods to address students' diverse needs, to faculty and staff who provide developmental courses.
But wait, there's more! H.B. 1244 also requires learning outcomes to be developed for developmental ed. courses, and for these to be used to determine when a student is ready for credit-bearing coursework. These learning outcomes are to be developed by the higher education coordinating board based on established college and career readiness standards and student performance on assessments. The legislation likewise permits an institution of higher education to waive tuition for a student participating in a non-semester-long developmental education intervention, including course-based, non-course-based, alternative-entry/exit, and other intensive developmental education activities).
Unfortunately, while modular remediation targeted at student need can be found at individual institutions, it is rare for these approaches to be adopted in legislation. More on Texas' remediation innovations in future posts.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Dual enrollment: Another possible explanation for participation rates
As I mentioned in yesterday's post, U.S. Department of Education data suggest that in the 2007-08 school year, just under 7 out of 10 public high schools offered "dual enrollment for high school and college credit". The theory for this 30% non-participation rate put forward in yesterday's post was that these high schools may be in rural areas, in which collaboration between high school and postsecondary faculty may be complicated by long distances for staff to travel to collaborate face-to-face.
Another theory may be that these high schools are in states in which students do not automatically receive both high school and postsecondary credit for completing a dual enrollment course. While researching the ECS 50-state dual enrollment database launched December 2008, I was surprised to discover that in 13 states, state policy does not specify whether students automatically earn both high school and college credit. In several other states, students earn only high school or postsecondary credit automatically, and must go through an application process to earn credit from the other education "silo". In still other states, one type of dual enrollment program automatically awards both high school and postsecondary credit, while another program does not, which must create confusion for students and parents, and a headache (and loads of paperwork) for school counselors and postsecondary staff.
Given that many states have put processes in place to ensure the quality of dual enrollment offerings (i.e., requiring teachers to meet adjunct faculty criteria, requiring postsecondary institutions to approve course syllabi, textbooks, or requiring high school instructors teaching dual enrollment courses to use the same syllabi, textbooks, end-of-course exams and grading practices as used when the course is taught to traditional postsecondary students), it would seem that any state requiring dual enrollment courses to undergo both high school (or district) and postsecondary approval and/or meet clear standards of quality should automatically award both high school and postsecondary credit. There are enough other issues to go around to save our headaches and paperwork for.
Another theory may be that these high schools are in states in which students do not automatically receive both high school and postsecondary credit for completing a dual enrollment course. While researching the ECS 50-state dual enrollment database launched December 2008, I was surprised to discover that in 13 states, state policy does not specify whether students automatically earn both high school and college credit. In several other states, students earn only high school or postsecondary credit automatically, and must go through an application process to earn credit from the other education "silo". In still other states, one type of dual enrollment program automatically awards both high school and postsecondary credit, while another program does not, which must create confusion for students and parents, and a headache (and loads of paperwork) for school counselors and postsecondary staff.
Given that many states have put processes in place to ensure the quality of dual enrollment offerings (i.e., requiring teachers to meet adjunct faculty criteria, requiring postsecondary institutions to approve course syllabi, textbooks, or requiring high school instructors teaching dual enrollment courses to use the same syllabi, textbooks, end-of-course exams and grading practices as used when the course is taught to traditional postsecondary students), it would seem that any state requiring dual enrollment courses to undergo both high school (or district) and postsecondary approval and/or meet clear standards of quality should automatically award both high school and postsecondary credit. There are enough other issues to go around to save our headaches and paperwork for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)