Although most U.S. states have now adopted the common core college- and career-ready standards for all their students, many high schools continue to operate on an old premise—that only the best and the brightest will go on to college, with the rest needing a lower dose of academics sprinkled with some occupational training.
We've put fancy window dressing on the latter, with rhetoric about "career pathways" that will lead non-college-bound students into good jobs. But those words ring hollow when one looks at the facts. In its analysis of more than 15,000 high school transcripts from nine diverse school districts in California, the Education Trust-West, a small nonprofit education policy and advocacy organization dedicated to closing opportunity and achievement gaps, found a pattern of schooling that should disturb us all.
By and large, non-college-bound students take a weak academic load and disconnected electives that sometimes include a course or two in nonrelated career or technical fields. As a result, far too many graduates are bound for low-level jobs, prepared for neither college nor career. Sadly, low-income students and students of color suffer the most.
It's clear that our high schools must stop undereducating so many of our students by sorting them into a non-college track. Although not everyone will go to a four-year college, our graduates need the academic skills that will help them achieve success in a variety of postsecondary pursuits—whether two-year colleges, apprenticeships, or other training programs—as well as in a career.
One School District's Journey
During my tenure in the mid-1990s as superintendent of schools for the San Jose Unified School District in California, we raised our graduation requirements to coincide with the minimum entrance requirements for the state of California's public universities. We did this with some trepidation because there were no urban districts like ours to look to for guidance.
Our rationale was simple. First, believed that all graduates should have the option to go on to college if they chose. A two-tiered education system that determined early on whether students were "college material"—or not—was simply wrong. It was time to stop limiting postsecondary options for most students, particularly low-income students and students of color, the majority of the students we served. For us, providing all students with a rigorous academic course of study was a moral imperative, necessary to elevate the value of a high school diploma for students grossly underserved by our schools. For them, the diploma had been little more than an empty promise. We wanted it to be much more.
Second, the world is changing, and the global economy is a reality. Good jobs with opportunity for advancement now require at least some postsecondary training, and success in any postsecondary education program requires strong math, communication, critical-thinking, and problem-solving skills. Students could only develop these 21st century skills if rigorous academic standards were in place. It was simply not good enough to continue to set minimal requirements for the majority of students.
Third, through a series of focus groups and community conversations, our students and parents told us over and over that the education provided in San Jose Unified was mediocre at best. Students said that it was easy to slide through high school doing little, that they could do more if we expected more of them. For many, school was boring, and no one pushed them to excel. Although the vast majority of students from all backgrounds expressed the dream of going to college, far too few students were enrolled in the courses that would get them there. They told us that if certain courses were important to getting into college, we should make them take those courses.
Some Impressive Results
At first, critics inside and outside the district argued that our higher expectations would lead to more dropouts, lower grades, and outright failures in demanding courses. None of this materialized.
In 1998, before our reforms began, only about 30 percent of seniors in San Jose Unified School District's comprehensive high schools graduated with the coursework and grades that qualified them for college. By 2008, that number had risen to 50 percent. In fact, graduation rates were among the highest in the United States for urban schools, even though our requirements for graduation were well above those in most other school systems.
But that's not all. There was an 11 percent increase in the number of Latino students earning five or more advanced placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) credits. The statewide achievement index rose 83 points for white students and more than double that—179 points—for Latinos. The overall gap between these two groups closed by 37 percent. And even though the curriculum became more demanding, the average student grade-point average remained steady.
Students benefited at the elementary school level as well. By establishing a common set of exit requirements, we created a trickle-down effect. The gap between the academic performance index for elementary school Latino and white students narrowed by 41 percent.
Setting the Academic Floor
I don't dispute that quality career and technical training in high school can add real value to a student's education experience. Yet I would argue that the mission of high schools is to place academic rigor front and center. A college-preparatory course of study needs to set the floor for what high schools are expected to deliver, at a minimum, for all students.
To qualify for entry into either of the two state university systems in California, students need to have taken a minimum of three years of math (four are recommended); a minimum of two years of science (three are recommended); four years of English; two years of history and social science; a minimum of two years of a world language (three are recommended); one year of visual and performing arts; and one year of a college-prep elective. Links between such a college-preparatory academic core and career and technical pathways can enrich and expand many students' education opportunities. There's plenty of room in a four-year course of study for both.
For example, California's Linked Learning program sees multiple career pathways as a powerful way to bring rigor and relevance into high schools. Linked Learning acknowledges that academic rigor (that is, college-preparatory coursework) sets the academic floor. For reformers seeking to reinvent high schools as college- and career-readiness institutions, Linked Learning provides a promising approach. It advocates, appropriately, for both/and—not for either/or.
The Audit: What We Found
My work at the Education Trust-West recently involved helping other school districts head down a path of college readiness for all. Building on the San Jose experience, we created a series of tools for others to use when embarking on this journey. The educational opportunity audit examines students' journeys through high school and helps educators and community partners uncover structural and systemic barriers to college readiness. On the basis of the audit, the district then develops a blueprint for action, which plots out a path to providing all students with access to a college-preparatory course of study and to success in and beyond school.
Although the nine districts we worked with were quite diverse—rural and urban, wealthy and poor, large and small—they all faced similar challenges. The audit revealed that their students faced similar barriers to receiving a high-quality education.
Algebra: The Biggest Chokepoint
It's no surprise that math presented the most significant challenge to college readiness. However, what did surprise us was the fact that repeated Algebra I failures were way too common. Students were often required to retake the course as many as three times before they passed—and without the benefit of interventions that might have helped them succeed.
To make matters worse, once students with multiple Algebra I failures finally passed the course, they never moved on to Algebra II. Instead, they were typically assigned to lower-level math classes that would give them enough credits to graduate. This was a big shock to many of the teachers and administrators participating in our audit processes. Indeed, teachers who became aware of this disturbing pattern dubbed it "regressive math," a term that powerfully describes one of the ways we cheat students out of a meaningful education for the sake of getting them through to a diploma.
Incomplete World Language Sequences
The audit revealed that many students took just one year of world language—not the two years that state universities in California require. Schools were advancing neither second language proficiency nor college eligibility for these students. Further, no accommodations were in place for English language learners, who were often proficient in their primary languages but had no mechanism to obtain credit for their fluency.
Few Interventions to Prevent Course Failure
There were no systematic interventions designed to prevent failure. For example, no support classes were built into the master schedule to help struggling students master challenging content. The only intervention classes supplanted rather than supplemented the regular classes, and these classes tended to be remedial.
Further, because only a set number of college-preparatory classes were offered, the master schedule sometimes created access barriers for students who had conflicting needs. For example, a senior who needed to retake a world language class to improve a D grade for college eligibility might find that the language class was scheduled during the same period as another class that he or she needed to take to complete the college-preparatory sequence.
There were conflicts with advanced placement courses as well. For example, one high school offered only one course in AP English literature and one course in AP Spanish language—but both courses were scheduled during the same class period, so a student couldn't take both.
Lack of Clarity
Nearly all the students in the focus groups indicated that they wanted to go to college. However, there was often a disconnect between their aspirations for college and the courses they enrolled in. In addition, many students indicated that the school had placed them in low-level classes from the start. They believed they could have succeeded in tougher classes, had they been given access to them.
Teacher focus-group participants believed that far too many students came to high school ill-prepared to tackle a rigorous curriculum and that placing all students in college-preparatory classes would require them to water down the curriculum. Counselors expressed concern about inconsistent rules among schools regarding who had access to college-preparatory coursework. Echoing their children, parents thought that college readiness should be the goal for all, yet they felt ill-informed about what it would take to help get their children college ready.
Lack of Rigor
Other findings showed that elementary and middle school students had inadequate preparation to succeed in a rigorous high school course of study. At the opposite end of the spectrum, most seniors—even college-bound students—often took courses with little academic rigor during their senior year.
Overall, the findings of our audit work make it clear that structural barriers that prevent access to rigorous coursework as well as low expectations for many students—particularly low-income students and students of color—have perpetuated a system in which many students are not getting a good education.
The Blueprint: What Schools Can Do
To address the barriers uncovered in the audit, the districts created a detailed action plan to create the conditions for access to and success in a rigorous course of study. Here are a few examples of what some districts have done.
Algebra Failures
In addressing the problem of algebra failures, several districts have created double blocks for students who need more time to master the content, with the understanding that schools need to adjust the variable of time to meet student needs. Some districts creatively schedule students into support classes, giving them the opportunity to enter and exit as soon as they master the content standards they struggle with rather than having them stay in a double block for an entire semester or year.
World Language Access
In addition to adding a two-year requirement for a world language, some districts have added courses such as sign language, which many colleges will accept in lieu of traditional second languages. Districts have also expanded alternative ways to certify mastery of a second language by, for example, offering credit on the basis of a student's demonstrated proficiency in SAT II exams in world language. This approach is proving beneficial for those whose first language is not English.
Supports and Interventions
In addition to offering support classes, such as double blocks of algebra, districts have often added a seventh period to a traditional six-period school day to expand opportunities for students to make up credits or improve grades. Districts are also extending the week and running intervention classes on Saturdays for students who struggle.
Moreover, summer school has become more than a seat-time, credit-recovery mechanism. Districts have reconceptualized it as an extended-year opportunity for students to shore up the prerequisite skills they need to advance to a higher-level course in the fall. In several districts, tutorial periods have been built into the master schedule each week, freeing up time for struggling students to go to their teachers for extra help.
Attention to Rigor
Districts we worked with are looking at the high school course of study holistically to ensure that students take meaningful courses during all four years. They are eliminating frivolous courses and strengthening both academic and career pathways so that students are exposed to increasingly challenging content as they progress through high school.
Some districts have raised the number of units needed for graduation to ensure strong academic and career pathway preparation. Several have addressed the issue of lack of senior year rigor by requiring a full schedule senior year that may include a capstone math class and a capstone career and technical education class that leads to a certificate.
The Bottom Line
Although the idea that not all graduates will go to college—so they don't need to take college-prep courses—strikes a chord with many, the reality is that whether students go to a four-year college or to other postsecondary training, they do, indeed, need the same rigorous academic preparation in high school. It's time to agree that all high school graduates deserve an opportunity to go to college if they choose. That should be our minimum expectation.
It's as simple as that. We need our schools to be gateways, not gatekeepers. At least, let's make that the starting proposition for America's promise to our youth.
