All California high school students have a right to an education that provides the knowledge and skills they need for successful active citizenship, for productive work, and for college, if they choose it. All high school students have a right to a fair chance to seek admission to any of California’s public colleges and universities. Today, many California high school students do not have these basic educational rights. This bill takes a critical first step toward making sure that they do.
After years of negotiation, CSU and UC now agree on a desirable pattern of high school courses for college preparation, and they agree on the criteria those courses should meet. At the same time, employers have come to recognize that "ready for college" and "ready for work" are not mutually exclusive, and that skills and knowledge high school graduates need to enter the workforce are the same skills and knowledge they need for going directly to college. A student who is adequately and appropriately prepared for either choice should be prepared for both.
The decision about whether to go to college (and what type of college) or directly to work must be the student’s. Having said that, Californians must recognize that many students’ choices are limited by a lack of information, opportunity, and encouragement to take the high school courses that allow students to choose. These and other constraints must be eliminated. That’s what this bill does.
In the rest of my time, I would like to provide a researchers’ perspective on three important things this bill would do and four equally important things that the bill does not do. I would also like to suggest that the committee consider amending the bill in one potentially very productive way.
This bill levels the course-taking playing field in high schools
Today’s high schools rely on counselors’ decisions and/or students’ choices as the basis for deciding which courses students will take. Neither of these strategies results in equitable access to college preparation or ensures that students have choices when they graduate from high school. National and California studies both show that African American, Latino, and low-income students are less likely to be placed in or choose college preparatory classes at the same rates as whites and Asian students with comparable achievement (Oakes, 1995; Lucas, 1999; Welner, 2001). Part of the reason for this is that White and middle class parents, particularly those who themselves went to college, understand better the differences among the various classes that are offered by high schools and what they mean for their children’s chances after high school. They also understand better how parents can intervene at school to make sure that students are in the "right" classes (Oakes, 1995; Useem, 1992). Most high schools have far too few counselors to provide sufficient information and guidance. Many well-off families turn to private college counseling services (McDonough, 2001); less-well off families must depend on their informal information sources which are often less than accurate. For example, one immigrant parent I spoke with recently was shocked to learn that none of his daughter’s 9th grade classes counted for college eligibility. He had worked hard to enroll her in a highly regarded high school, because, in his home country, all of the courses at "good" high schools prepared students for college.
This bill prevents "high stakes" mistakes
Currently, because a college readiness curriculum is not the default, even students who intend and choose to take college preparatory classes are not automatically enrolled in the right number and/or sequence of classes. Rather, students and the counselor (if there is one who is working with the student) must select the proper courses each year and ensure that they are taken in the right order. Unfortunately, that does not always happen. Studies of California students’ coursetaking reveal that considerable numbers of students "miss" meeting the CSU and UC eligibility requirements because they took one course too few, or because they took the wrong course, or because they took courses in the wrong order (e.g., they took a lab science course before taking a prerequisite mathematics course). These are "mistakes" with serious consequences for students’ future education and life chances. Making college readiness courses the "default" would eliminate most, if not all, of these errors.
This bill promotes higher student achievement
Students enrolled in challenging academic classes score higher on achievement tests than students in less challenging classes; they feel more challenged, have higher aspirations, do more homework, and go on to take more advanced courses later on in high school. While this may seem obvious if the students in the challenging classes are higher achieving to begin with, several studies demonstrate that students in challenging classes show these academic gains even when we compare their achievements to students with equivalent levels of achievement who were not in challenging classes (Braddock and Dawkins, 1993; Welner, 2001).
This bill does NOT require a one-size-fits-all curriculum or limit local flexibility
Establishing A-G as the default curriculum could prompt creative curriculum work in the high schools, especially in collaboration with public postsecondary institutions. There is nothing in this bill that prevents districts and schools from developing various types of course alternatives that successfully meet the A-G course requirements. Courses could be developed and approved that exhibit greater flexibility in pedagogy and content than now exists and still satisfy the UC/CSU criteria. This does not mean a relaxing of the intellectual rigor of the courses or stepping outside the California Standards. It is consistent with what some outstanding schools now do, and what many schools and departments within the CSU and UC are recognizing as optimal.
This bill does NOT inhibit high-quality career preparation.
If California schools hold their career preparation programs to both college readiness requirements and the highest workforce standards, students will graduate ready for rapid career advancement through on-the-job experience, workplace apprenticeships, and postsecondary opportunities. This means, rightly enough, that the knowledge and skills in college preparatory academic courses and in courses leading more directly to the workplace will overlap considerably in their intellectual rigor. This is appropriate, as adaptability in employment becomes more important in one’s career than any initial set of career skills. However, this does not mean that career-oriented courses must sacrifice applied approaches to content or the experience-based teaching methods that are often very effective in engaging students and helping them learn.
This bill does NOT prevent students from graduating from high school
As this bill recognizes, California is currently in no position to require that all students complete the college preparatory course pattern as a condition for promotion from one grade to the next or for graduation from high school. Over time, I hope that the legislature will follow up on this important first step by guaranteeing that all students have adequate resources and well-qualified teachers. A further important step would be to augment the college readiness curriculum with learning supports that enable all students to complete the course pattern successfully. Without these in place, it would be wrong to punish students for the failures of the educational system.
This bill does NOT undermine the "open admissions" policy of the California Community Colleges
In no way does this bill undermine the "open admissions" policies of California’s community colleges that make real the State’s promise of access to postsecondary education for all Californians. Rather, it makes it far more likely that students choosing to attend California’s community colleges will enter those colleges prepared to take non-remedial college-level courses. It addresses the all too common misconception that students planning on community college have the option of selecting a less academically rigorous program of study in high school. This widespread phenomenon contributes to low expectations for many students and significant deterrents to their success in obtaining an AA degree, a vocational certificate, or transferring to a 4-year university.
One suggested amendment
Finally, I submit for the Committee’s serious consideration one amendment: All students who successfully complete the college readiness high school curriculum (pass all UC and CSU approved courses with a grade of C or better) and also complete the state’s other coursetaking requirements (e.g., physical education) be awarded a high school diploma without taking the High School Exit Exam. My arguments are these: Completion of a pattern of courses that have met the rigorous criteria set by UC and CSU is a much higher standard than a test that many students are able to pass in the 9th grade. It is a far more comprehensive indicator of student accomplishment than one that asks students to respond to a smattering of language arts and mathematics items in a single sitting. It is also likely to be a far better predictor of college success.
References
----------
Braddock, Jomills H., and Dawkins, Marvin P., (1993) Ability Grouping, Aspirations, and Attainments: Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988. The Journal of Negro Education 62, 3 (Summer, 1993), 324-336.
Lucas, S. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
McDonough, P. (2001) Access, Equity, and the Privatization of College Counseling Review of Higher Education.
Oakes, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Matchmaking: The dynamics of high school tracking decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 32: 1, 3-33.
Useem, Elizabeth. (1992). "Middle Schools and Math Groups: Parents' Involvement in Childrens' Placement." Sociology of Education 65: 263-279.
Welner, K. G. (2001). Tracking in an era of standards: Low-expectation classes meet high-expectation laws. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 28(3).
See also:
----------
