Three of the 10 states (Indiana, New Jersey, and New Mexico) did not provide CCR definitions, but indicated that the definitions are in progress. Four of the 7 states that provided definitions (Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oklahoma) define college and career readiness as having the knowledge, skills, and preparation to be successful in college and careers, but they do not specify what those knowledge, skills, and preparation are.

The remaining three states provide more language but also take a broader approach to defining CCR. Kentucky, for example, cites the Association of Career and Technical Education (ACTE) to define career readiness as including “core academic skills and the ability to apply those skills to concrete situations to function in the workplace and in routine daily activities. Employability skills and technical, job-specific skills related to a specific career pathway are essential in any career area.” 

Colorado identifies the need for measurement tools in its definition, but does not specify which measurement tools should be used. Colorado’s application says that content knowledge and learning and behavior skills should be demonstrated, “through the completion of increasingly challenging, engaging, and coherent academic work and experiences, and the achievement of proficiency shown by a body of evidence including postsecondary and workforce readiness assessments and other relevant materials that document a student’s postsecondary and workforce readiness.”

Georgia’s definition lists examples of the type of skills graduating students should have, but does not go into great depth about what these looks like and how to measure them. According to their definition, CCR is when, “all students graduate from high school with both rigorous content knowledge and the ability to apply that knowledge through higher-order skills including, but not limited to, critical thinking, problem solving, communication and collaboration.”

The lack of specificity about how CCR is defined and can be measured could lead to confusion when it comes time to implement state plans. Federal, state, and district policymakers and administrators will need to work together to specify expectations and define the outcomes and measurement tools to ensure expectations have been met.

The article focused on the efforts of states and districts across the nation to utilize data systems to identify and support at-risk students.  Two of the data systems highlighted were the National High School Center’s Early Warning System High School and Middle Grades Tools.  The EWS Tools rely on nationally validated indicators of risk, such as attendance, behavior and course performance, to identify students who are off track.  Once these students are identified using the data gleaned from the Tools, districts and schools can then focus resources on those students who might need more support.

One such district is Washington Local Schools in Toledo, Ohio, which was also featured in the article.  Washington Local recently adopted the EWS Tools and is now in the process of creating appropriate supports for at-risk students identified by the Tools.  Other districts in Virginia and California are also using the EWS Tools through collaborations between the National High School Center and the state departments of education.

EWS Tool users can connect to members of Washington Local’s EWS Teams, as well as other users through our new EWS Community of Practice. The Community of Practice, a free online forum, features discussion and collaboration on the setup and implementation of the EWS Tools. 

At the event, presenters made the case that in order to develop a successful dual enrollment program, staff at all levels must communicate and collaborate. According to Julie Alexander, Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs in the Florida Department of Education, the increase of participation in dual enrollment requires the state, colleges, and districts to work together to share resources. Chad Aldeman, a Policy Advisor in the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development from the U.S. Department of Education, said that barriers need to be broken between high schools and postsecondary institutions so that data about how students from individual high schools are performing in college is shared with the high schools. Katherine Hughes, the Assistant Director for Work and Education Reform Research at NCPR, suggested that instituting a dual enrollment program could be a catalyst to spark conversations between high school and college staff about whether high school seniors are really ready for college and how well the high school curriculum aligns with the needs of college. 

All presenters agreed that more data is needed to assess the impact of dual enrollment on high school students. Cecilia Speroni, a researcher from NCPR, identified the need for a randomized experiment to determine the effect of course location on the impact of dual enrollment programs. Chad Aldeman noted that a study is needed in order to identify the barriers that are keeping states from scaling up their dual enrollment programs.

The event demonstrated that more research is also needed to determine which students are the best candidates for dual enrollment programs, and to understand the effects of dual enrollment on students at various levels of academic proficiency and engagement. Julie Alexander reported that Florida requires that students have a 3.0 grade point average (GPA) or higher to participate in a dual enrollment program, and argued that this eligibility requirement was necessary to ensure that students in the program will be successful. Katherine Hughes disagreed, and noted that most states leave eligibility requirements up to their schools and colleges so that blanket restrictions do not keep dedicated students from participating. California, for instance, purposely targets at risk students by enrolling students who would not normally enroll.

For more information on the new studies and the event, check out AYPF’s Forum Brief webpage.

• Dual Enrollment: A Strategy for Improving College Readiness and Success for All Students
  Sponsoring Organizations: American Youth Policy Forum & National Center for Postsecondary Research
  Date/Time: Friday, February 10, 2012, 11:45am-1:30pm Eastern
  Location: Capitol Hill, Washington, DC
  RSVP: aypf@aypf.org

• 2012 NCCEP/GEAR UP Capacity-Building Workshop
  Sponsoring Organization: National Council for Community and Education Partnerships
  Dates: Sunday, February 12, 2012 – Wednesday, February 15, 2012
  Location: Hilton New York, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York

• IDRA Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program Seminar on Dropout Prevention
  Sponsoring Organization: Intercultural Development Research Association
  Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2012
  Location: San Antonio, Texas

• 24th Annual At-Risk Youth National FORUM: Connecting the Dots of Collaboration
  Sponsoring Organization: National Dropout Prevention Center/Network
  Dates: Sunday, February 19, 2012 – Wednesday, February 22, 2012
  Location: Kingston Plantation, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

• 19th Annual International Conference of the Learning Disabilities Association of America
  Sponsoring Organization: Learning Disabilities Association of America
  Dates: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 – Saturday, February 25, 2012
  Location: Hilton Chicago, Illinois

• How the New Common Education Data Standards Can Support Policy and Practice [Webinar]
  Sponsoring Organization: Data Quality Campaign
  Date/Time:  Thursday, February 23, 2012, 2:00 – 3:30pm Eastern

• What States and Nonprofits Are Doing to Encourage Early High School Graduation [Online Chat]
  Sponsoring Organization: Education Week
  Date/Time: Monday, February 27, 2012, 1:00pm Eastern

• GraduateFIRST: The Dropout Prevention Destination [Webinar]
  Sponsoring Organization: The National Dropout Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities
  Date/Time: Tuesday, February 28, 2012, 12:00pm – 1:30pm Eastern

• National Leadership Summit on Online Learning
  Sponsoring Organization: International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL)
  Date/Time: Wednesday, February 29, 2012, 9:00am. to 4:00pm Eastern
  Location: Rayburn House Office Building, B-339, Washington, DC
  RSVP: spiciacchio@inacol.org by 2/15/12

Are you going to any of these events? Tweet us at @NHSCatAIR and let us know!

However, the new studies aren’t uniformly positive. One of the studies, “Determinants of Students’ Success: The Role of Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment Programs,” found that dual enrollment students were 12% more likely to go to college and 7% more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree than non-dual enrollment students, but these strong effects were seen only for those students who took dual enrollment classes on college campuses. Students who took dual enrollment classes exclusively on the high school campus showed no statistically significant gains.

The second study, “High School Dual Enrollment Programs: Are We Fast-Tracking Students Too Fast,” compared students whose GPA was just above and just below the cut-off to qualify for dual enrollment and found no better outcomes in general for the dual enrollment students. However, further analysis indicated that the students who took a rigorous college algebra class were 16% more likely to go to college and 23% more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree than similar students who did not take that particular class.

These findings could be used to call into question dual enrollment program models in which college courses are offered on the high school campus. They also suggest that dual enrollment programs should focus on basic academic preparation instead of letting students choose from a range of courses.  However, through our extensive work in the field, we have learned that dual enrollment programs often face challenges that confound these seemingly straightforward approaches to program design. 

For example, one California program we studied served students from extremely disadvantaged backgrounds with little knowledge or experience of college. It was difficult to both recruit and retain these students and the program structure developed around efforts to engage them. Because many of the students lacked transportation, the program located the dual enrollment courses on the high school campus; many students said they could not participate if the courses were held at the college. Program staff also discovered that the key to retaining students in the program was offering courses in topics relevant to their lives, such as “Academic and Life Success” and “The Multicultural Journey.”  The students found these classes challenging but meaningful, and once they were offered, retention increased. The hope is that even a high-school based college experience can create the foundation and momentum for students to eventually take the next step onto a college campus.

Thus, while the new studies are important in helping us understand the program components that are associated with the strongest student outcomes, individual programs must always take into account the most effective ways to reach their students.  Rather than adhering to a rigid blueprint for structure and delivery, program administrators should develop systems to measure student outcomes and use the resulting data to continually adjust and improve their dual enrollment programs.

Guest Author: Dr. Katherine Hughes is the Assistant Director for Work and Education Reform Research at the Community College Research Center (CCRC), Teachers College, Columbia University and a senior staff member of the National Center for Postsecondary Research.

The EWS community is designed to connect users working with the National High School Center’s Early Warning Intervention and Monitoring System (EWIMS), the EWS Middle Grades Tool, and EWS High School Tool with the Center’s technical assistance, resources and tools, and with other users working in a similar capacity. Join now to start a discussion with other school and district staff, ask a question to the National High School Center, or comment on a resource. 

To join the EWS Community of Practice: 

• Navigate to http://community.betterhighschools.org.
• Complete the “Join and Learn More” form in the upper right corner of the home page.
• After you register, you will receive a verification email from nhsccommunity@air.org containing your password and additional instructions on accessing the Community of Practice. Our system will automatically send you a message immediately after you register, so please check your spam/junk folder if it does not reach your inbox within a few minutes of registering. If you do not receive it all, please email Marshal Conley (mconley@air.org) for assistance.
• ​Login to the Community using the password from the verification email.
• Click the image for the Early Warning Systems group on the community home page and click the “Join” button when you reach the Early Warning Systems home page.

We look forward to interacting with you in our community! Please feel free to contact us at EWS@betterhighschools.org with any questions or comments you might have about the Community of Practice or early warning systems.

The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth (Civic Enterprises, January 2012). This report presents a detailed picture of the size of “opportunity youth” in the U.S., their demographic makeup and activities, as well as the social and fiscal costs they present. Opportunity youth may have dropped out of high school or college and been unable to find work; may have been involved in the criminal justice system; may have mental or health conditions that have inhibited their activities; or may have care-giving responsibilities in their families.

Waiving Away High School Graduation Rate Accountability? (Alliance for Excellent Education, January 2012). The state waiver process currently underway presents an opportunity to strengthen college and career readiness among the nation’s high school students. Unfortunately, the waiver applications as submitted may also have the unintended consequence of weakening high school graduation rate accountability—a major indicator of how well high schools are preparing students for future education and work.

The Costs of Online Learning (Thomas B. Fordham Institute, January 2012). The latest installment of the Fordham Institute’s Creating Sound Policy for Digital Learning series investigates one of the more controversial aspects of digital learning: How much does it cost? In this paper, the Parthenon Group uses interviews with more than fifty vendors and online-schooling experts to estimate today’s average per-pupil cost for a variety of schooling models, traditional and online, and presents a nuanced analysis of the important variance in cost between different school designs. 

Preparing for Change: A National Perspective on Common Core State Standards Implementation Planning (Education First & EPE Research Center, January 2012). This study is intended to inform state policymakers, SEA staff, and other stakeholders interested in better understanding the progress states have made toward implementing common standards. This work should also be of particular use to those providing technical assistance or resources to states regarding CCSS implementation.

Year Two of Implementing the Common Core State Standards: States’ Progress and Challenges (Center on Education Policy, January 25, 2012). This report, based on a fall 2011 survey of 35 Common Core State Standards-adopting states (including the District of Columbia), examines states’ progress in transitioning the new standards.  

A Public Education Primer: Basic (and Sometimes Surprising) Facts about the U.S. Education System, 2012 Revised Edition (Center on Education Policy, January 19, 2012). The 2012 Public Education Primer highlights important, and sometimes little-known, facts concerning the U.S. education system, how things have changed over time, and how they may change in the future. Together, these facts provide a comprehensive picture of the nation’s public schools, including data about students, teachers, funding, achievement, management, and non-academic services.

Reflections on a Half-Century of School Reform: Why Have We Fallen Short and Where Do We Go From Here? (Center on Education Policy, January 27, 2012). Upon his retirement from the leadership of CEP, Jack Jennings reviews in this paper the three major school reform efforts of the last 50 years, proposes an agenda focused on the classroom, and advocates for the creation of a federal civil right to a good education to advance that agenda.

*Resource descriptions provided by the sponsoring organization.

Participants are encouraged to download resources, create and engage in online discussions, and attend Webinars with national experts. Over 80 resources have already been uploaded by the administrator on high school-related issues, including college and career readiness, early warning systems, and adolescent literacy.

The community is free and available to the public.  To sign up, go to http://www.schoolturnaroundsupport.org/user/register and create a username and password.  Under the dropdown for “User role,” indicate “secondary” if you work on middle or high school-related issues, and select “Join Secondary Schools” under Groups.

The professional development package contains six one to three hour modules on recommended practices and includes interactive opportunities for participants to view media and try out tools. The six modules are appropriate for a range of audiences, including professional development and technical assistance providers, principals and reading specialists, teacher leaders and coaches, and classroom teachers. High school content area teachers can also benefit from learning about these practices and should be encouraged to participate in staff development sessions. Modules can be conducted as standalone workshops or presentations or can be combined for a full day professional development, depending on the audience and the length of time available for the presentation.

• Module 1 introduces DWW, highlights the website’s special features, and demonstrates how resources within each practice are organized.
• Module 2 addresses adolescent literacy and goes into depth on four adolescent literacy practices.
• Module 3 focuses on implementing effective dropout prevention practices for both schoolwide and targeted approaches.
• Module 4 covers the topic, Helping Students Navigate the Path to College. This module addresses four research-based practices for increasing students’ access to postsecondary education.
• Module 5 demonstrates how resources from the three topics can be integrated into one workshop addressing an overall approach to implementing the practices. This module focuses on using data and providing targeted interventions to support students in developing literacy skills, staying in school, and being prepared for postsecondary education. 
• Module 6 features the National High School Center Early Warning System (EWS) Tool 2.0.[1] It includes the tool, a Technical Manual, and the Early Warning System Implementation Guide. The EWS Tool v2.0 enables schools and districts to identify students who may be at risk of dropping out of high school and to monitor these students’ responses to interventions.

More information about the professional development modules can be found at: http://dww.ed.gov/inaction/profdevpack.cfm.

Guest Author: Marlene Darwin is a Senior Research Analyst at the American Institutes for Research. She is the co-project director for the Doing What Works Initiative.