The Problem of College Readiness

William G. Tierney, Julia C. Duncheon

• Publisher: SUNY Press
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781438457253
• Topic: Didattica
• Subtopic: Istruzione superiore

Though more students are entering college, many drop out, especially those who are low income and/or of color. To address this problem, educational stakeholders have focused on the concept of "college readiness, " or the preparation a student needs to succeed in college. However, what it means to be college ready and how to help more students become ready are questions without clear answers. By way of historical and contemporary analyses, this book uses California as a case study to demonstrate how the state has endeavored to make postsecondary opportunity accessible for all students. The contributors also explore the challenges that remain and address what states and schools can do to improve college readiness and completion.

Part I

INTRODUCTION

1

THE PROBLEM OF COLLEGE READINESS

JULIA C. DUNCHEON

Contemporary economic trends and social concerns have propelled postsecondary attainment into the center of the education policy agenda (Executive Office of the President, 2014). Although a high school diploma historically signified adequate training for the workforce (Baker, Clay, & Gratama, 2005), the modern knowledge-based economy increasingly requires tertiary degrees (Dohm & Shniper, 2007). College completion is associated with myriad benefits such as increased earnings and job satisfaction, higher levels of civic engagement, and lower crime rates (Baum & Ma, 2007; Camara, Wiley, & Wyatt, 2010; OECD, 2009). Yet postsecondary attainment remains stratified by race, ethnicity, and class (Rosenbaum & Becker, 2011). Educational stakeholders have thus focused on enhancing college access and success (Kirst & Venezia, 2004). As President Obama declared in 2009, “a good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity—it is a prerequisite.”

While larger proportions of high school graduates are entering college relative to prior generations, many students leave prior to degree completion (Ashtiani & Feliciano, 2012). Approximately 56% of four-year university students and 30% of two-year students obtain a degree (Symonds, Schwartz, & Ferguson, 2011). Table 1.1 presents data on students’ high school to college pathways. High rates of remediation, or non-credit-bearing coursework for students underprepared in English and math, present further cause for concern (Bettinger, Boatman, & Long, 2013). Nationally, remedial enrollment exceeds 20% in public four-year institutions and 50% in community colleges (Complete College America, 2012). Remediation is associated with increased likelihood of attrition and time-to-degree (Flores & Oseguera, 2013).

TABLE 1.1. High school to college pipeline: Nationwide outcomes for the year 2010

For every 100 9th graders	# Graduate from high school	# Enroll in college after high school	# Are still enrolled their sophomore year	# Graduate within 150% time
In the U.S.	74	46	31	21
In California	74	46	30	22

Source: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (n.d.)

Underrepresented students—those who are first-generation, low-income, and/or of color—face particular challenges pertaining to higher educational access and completion. For instance, only about 30% of students from the bottom income quartile enroll in college relative to 80% from the top quartile (Bailey & Dynarski, 2011). In 2009, 35% of blacks and 29% of Latinas/os ages 18 to 24 were enrolled in higher education compared to 46% of whites (Kim, 2011). Despite the pervasive assumption that Asian students are the “model minority” (The Education Trust-West, 2012), the college enrollment rates of many Asian Pacific subgroup populations (e.g., Vietnamese, Hmong, Laotian, Cambodian, Pacific Islanders) trail behind those of whites (Teranashi, 2011). Underrepresented students also experience lower rates of completion on average relative to the general population (Aud et al., 2013). Low-income students are six times less likely than their higher-income peers to earn a bachelor’s degree by age 25 (Bailey & Dynarkski, 2011). From 2010–2011, 39% of whites ages 25 to 29 held a bachelor’s degree or higher compared to 20% of African Americans, 13% of Latinas/os (Aud et al., 2012), and 12%–14% of Laotians, Hmong, and Cambodians (Teranashi, 2013). Part of the problem is that underrepresented students are more likely than their traditional counterparts to attend less-selective institutions for which they are overqualified (e.g., community colleges; Roderick, Coca, & Nagaoka, 2011) or take remedial courses (Complete College America, 2012; see Table 1.2), factors that are associated with lower likelihood of graduation.

Enhancing higher educational attainment is not simply a matter of enrolling more students in college. High school students must graduate with the knowledge and skills necessary to pursue their postsecondary objectives (Achieve, 2011). Educational researchers and policymakers have thus focused on college readiness (Collins, 2009). A college-ready student is prepared to enter a postsecondary institution without need for remediation and navigate the system to obtain a degree (Conley, 2008; ConnectEd, 2012). Stakeholders aim to define the elements of readiness and enact policies to facilitate students’ movement through the K-16 pipeline (Callan, Finney, Kirst, Usdan, & Venezia, 2006; Foley, Mishook, & Lee, 2013).

TABLE 1.2. Average U.S. remediation rates among incoming college students, Fall 2006

	Entering two-year colleges	Entering four-year colleges
African American	67.7%	39.1%
Latina/o	58.3%	20.6%
White	46.8%	13.6%
Other race/ethnicity	48.9%	16.9%
Low-income	64.7%	31.9%
Total	51.7%	19.9%

Source: Complete College America (2012)

The college readiness agenda has revealed the misalignment between secondary and postsecondary contexts and encouraged greater rigor in high school curricula (ACT, 2005; Venezia & Voloch, 2012). Readiness discourse has also enhanced transparency around the skills and knowledge needed for postsecondary success (Venezia, Callan, Finney, Kirst, & Usdan, 2005), supporting more unified college preparation efforts across schools and classrooms (Achieve, 2004; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009). Encouraging all students to attend college also combats negative stereotypes about the achievement potential of traditionally underrepresented students (Dougherty, Mellor, & Smith, 2006). College readiness efforts thus reflect concern for educational equity (Symonds et al., 2011; Washington et al., 2012).

Yet despite consensus around the importance of college readiness, it remains an elusive concept—what exactly constitutes readiness, how it should be measured, and how it can be enhanced via policymaking are not clear-cut (Olson, 2006). As Lee (2012) has asserted, “there is a dearth of empirical research to inform national educational policies and standards for college readiness” (p. 52). Although college readiness gets enacted at the school and district level, states shape those responses. Accordingly, the collection of studies in this book addresses this concern through the lens of college readiness policy in one state—that of California. The national trends in high school to college pathways and remediation outlined above are reflected in California as well (see Tables 1.1 and 1.3). This volume provides insight into the current state of reform via studies of statewide policy design, implementation, and outcomes, as well as the experiences of underprepared students. Insofar as efforts to improve college readiness occur on a statewide level, documenting what takes place in one state enables readers to reflect on efforts in other states as well.

TABLE 1.3. Remediation rates among incoming students at California State University, Fall 2013

	Needing remediation in math	Needing remediation in English
African American	53.8%	46.1%
Latina/o	38.8%	42.0%
White	15.4%	12.1%
Other race/ethnicity	23.6%	33.1%
Total	29.1%	32.1%

Source: CSU Proficiency Rates (n.d.)

Investigating the policy landscape requires first examining the definitions, assumptions, and policies that characterize the college readiness agenda. First, what does it mean for a student to be college-ready? I discuss how the multifaceted nature of college readiness creates challenges for stakeholders. Second, how is college readiness measured? Which elements of readiness are addressed, and which are left out? I then turn to a discussion of college readiness policies designed to prepare high school students for postsecondary education. How have reforms addressed college readiness? What obstacles remain? Through considering these questions, I offer insight into the current state of the readiness agenda and its ongoing complexities. I close with previews of subsequent chapters.

Defining College Readiness

College readiness is a deceptively nuanced construct that differs from postsecondary eligibility (Connect Ed, 2012; Lombardi, Conley, Seburn, & Downs, 2013). High schools have traditionally been responsible for making students eligible for higher education, which involves completing a particular course of study and required college admissions tests (Balfanz, 2009; Conley, 2012). Daniel Almeida offers further insight into the historical development of college readiness in chapter 2. However, because many eligible students do not obtain degrees (Attewell, Lavin, Domina, & Levey, 2006; Johnson, 2012), college readiness scholars have broadened the college access agenda to include persistence (Bragg & Durham, 2012; Flores & Oseguera, 2013).

College readiness is characterized according to a range of outcomes (Porter & Polikoff, 2012; Stemler, 2012). Conley (2007) and ACT (2007) have defined college readiness as the level of preparation needed to avoid remedial placement and succeed in credit-bearing college courses. Others have emphasized degree attainment: “students are college-ready when they have the knowledge, skills, and behaviors to complete a college course of study successfully” (Mijares, 2007, p. 1). Some have not specified specific outcomes: “an accumulation of knowledge and experiences that prepare students for college” (Maruyama, 2012, p. 253).

The readiness agenda has grown more complex with the recent integration of career goals. College and career readiness implies the need to prepare students for both higher education and the workplace (Hooley, Marriott, & Sampson, 2011; Lippman, Atienza, Rivers, & Keith, 2008). While some have suggested college readiness and career readiness are synonymous (Achieve, 2013; ACT, 2007), others have asserted they have subtle, or even significant, differences (Conley, 2012; ConnectEd, 2012). For instance, college coursework may require a broader knowledge base than vocational training (Rosenbaum, Stephan, & Rosenbaum, 2010). Although this book focuses on college readiness, conceptions of readiness vary depending on how college and career objectives are specified. Below I discuss how college readiness is characterized in the literature and the challenges associated with defining the construct.

The Elusive Nature of Defining College Readiness

College readiness researchers have shown that successful college students possess a diverse range of skills and knowledge (ACT, 2007; Bloom, 2010). Others also have outlined the specific components of college readiness (Conley, 2012; ConnectEd, 2012; McAlister & Mevs, 2012), which I summarize in three broad categories: cognitive academic factors, non-cognitive academic factors, and campus integration factors (see Table 1.4). Consistent with most readiness scholarship, I define non-cognitive as factors not measured by traditional achievement indicators (e.g., standardized exams; Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Campus integration factors may therefore be considered non-cognitive as well, but do not pertain directly to academics.

TABLE 1.4. Components of college readiness

Cognitive academic factors	Non-cognitive academic factors	Campus integration factors
• Content knowledge	• Mindsets	• College knowledge
• Cognitive skills	• Behaviors	• Relationship to self and others

Cognitive academic factors. Cognitive academic factors include the content knowledge and cognitive skills required for success in entry-level college coursework (Barnett et al., 2012; Porter & Polikoff, 2012). First, students must acquire core content knowledge (Adelman, 1999, 2006; Conley, 2010). Students need to master the basics in main academic subjects and develop proficiency in math, reading, and writing (Byrd & Macdonald, 2005; Long, Iatarola, & Conger, 2008). Second, college readiness entails cognitive skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, metacognition, communication skills, research skills, and systems thinking, which facilitate learning across disciplines (ConnectEd, 2012; NRC, 2012).

Non-cognitive academic factors. The academic preparation required for college readiness also includes non-cognitive abilities, or mind-sets and behaviors (Farrington et al., 2012). Mind-sets are the attitudes, beliefs, and emotions students have about themselves and schooling (Dweck, Walton, & Cohen, 2011). Examples include engagement, motivation, self-efficacy, and persistence (Robbins et al., 2004). Academic behaviors enable students to engage with content and maximize learning (Conley, 2012; Kuh, 2007). College-ready behaviors involve help-seeking, motivation, goal-setting, time management, self-efficacy, self-regulation, study skills, and task completion. Researchers have pointed out t...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Acknowledgments
• PART I: Introduction
• PART II: Using Theory, Policy, and Practice to Analyze a State Response
• PART III: Conclusion
• Contributors
• Index
• Back Cover