Giving Future College Students a "FARE" Chance: A Comprehensive P-16 College-Readiness Pro
Introduction
In recent years, a college degree has been more and more widely viewed as the marker of career readiness and a ticket to social mobility. It is because of this that there has been a growing effort to attract and provide all students with access to higher education. According to a 2015 study by the US Department of Education, students of color are not enrolling in college at rates as high as their white counterparts (US Department of Education, 2015). With deterrable factors such as rising tuition costs and low levels of academic readiness affecting the decision and ability to attend college, intervention programs have played a significant role in promoting college access and retention among students from underrepresented communities, particularly those from low socioeconomic backgrounds and students of color. These programs typically take the form of additional academic support both in and out of the classroom, workshops that educate students on the college application process and the various ways to finance a college education, as well as mentor-mentee relationships with professionals and community members.
From the curriculum side, there has also been much effort in rebuilding K-12 standards of education to ensure that students are college-ready. During 2009, in partnership with governors, K-12 leaders established a goal of college and career readiness, as defined through standards in English language arts and literacy and mathematics. This set of standards, now known as the Common Core, are benchmarked to the highest-performing US states and world countries, and they are partly a result of framework established by college and university faculty to ensure that students are developing knowledge and skills that are most crucial for postsecondary success through classroom curriculum (Jones and King, 2012).
There have been improvements in reading and math test scores among students in states that have adopted Common Core (for example, Kentucky), however it is still too early to tell if Common Core is the definitive reason for this progress (Loveless, 2012). With Common Core’s potential impact in mind, might there be a possibility to implement a non-academic counterpart to Common Core that focuses primarily on college and career readiness? If so, what might this program look like?
Literature Review
To explore this topic further, it is important to review the existing literature on the topic of collaboration between K-12 and higher education. The literature reviewed here explore (1) some of the factors that either promote or impede this collaboration, (2) new educational movements that have impacted policy strategy, (3) the non-academic factors beyond Common Core that influence college attendance, and (4) the research gaps and undervalued insights from studies and existing intervention programs.
Much of the literature on the topic of college preparation during K-12 characterizes intervention programs and restructuring efforts as disconnected and siloed. Historically, there has been a lack of coordination between the public K-12 and postsecondary sectors, which impedes favorable transitions between the systems and reduces educational opportunity for many students -- preparing students only to receive a high school diploma but not necessarily to embark on a college journey (Venezia, 2003).
One of the most supported reasons for this disconnect between K-12 and postsecondary institutions is the lack of diversity in knowledge and experience among those who participate in policy reform discussions (Perna and Armijo, 2014). Often times, politicians are overrepresented, while educators are underrepresented (Davis and Hoffman, 2008). Political tensions and historical patterns need to be disrupted in order for policies to be reformed. Overall, researchers agree that work needs to be done to understand new incentives for higher education to collaborate with K-12 in developing student-centered reforms. States should consider large-scale changes in their curriculum standards, assessment initiatives, data collection, governance and accountability efforts in order to create a cohesive system (Venezia, 2003).
In response to the growing disconnect, new educational movements such as P-16 (preschool through baccalaureate degree) and P-20 (preschool through post-baccalaureate education) have been introduced to the college preparation policy reform stage (Perna and Armijo, 2014; Davis and Hoffman, 2008). These movements promote considerations similar to those presented by Venezia; however, there is an added emphasis on the expansion of dual credit and concurrent enrollment programs.
Furthermore, there is existing analysis on some of the non-academic factors that contribute to the college enrollment of underrepresented students, such as: personality traits, financial resources, and coping skills (Wyatt, 2010), as well as the role of non-parent family and community support (George Mwangi, 2015) and the importance of the aspirational capital found in the social networks of potential students (Dyce, Albold, and Long, 2012). These non-academic factors should be explored further by educators and policymakers because college readiness is a function of a complex set of interdependent attitudes and behaviors, and not just cognitive ability and economic circumstance (Gaertner and McClarty, 2015).
Finally, there are insights from existing programs that can help to inform strategy, particularly the influence of computer and technology skills (Goode, 2010) and the growing need to support English-language learners (ELLs) who encounter substantial impediments to higher education (Kanno and Cromley, 2015). Jennifer Gigliotti adds district collaborations with employers as an area for strategic opportunity in her review of Rice University’s Center for College Readiness (2012), while Olcay Yavuz supports more focus on first-generation students and those with special learning needs and low initial GPAs (2016).
Most non-academic-related college preparation intervention programs are introduced at the high school level, and there is the most data around programs at this stage. However, there is limited research around what non-academic-related interventions exist at the elementary and middle school levels. Middle school factors explain 69% of the variance in college readiness, and results suggest that non-academic factors, such as motivation and behavior, contribute to preparedness for college (Gaertner and McClarty, 2015). There does not seem to be much research on an existing comprehensive non-academic counterpart to Common Core. This is due in large part to the absence of conclusive outcomes regarding the effects of Common Core. This gap in research serves as a challenge, in that it does not provide a benchmark to which a proposed program may be compared; however, various elements and findings from the existing literature can be combined to begin the blueprint for such a program.
A Proposal: The FARE Program
Borrowing elements of the Common Core State Standards is helpful in creating a college readiness program that is not focused solely on curriculum. This program, to be called FARE (Foundation, Accumulation, Reaction, Execution) should have similar objectives: ensuring that students will be better prepared for college, need less remediation, and be more likely to complete a degree (Jones and King, 2012). A consortia of states would come together, just as they did to create Common Core, to outline the specific details of the program. The school districts that fall at or lower than the lowest quartile below the average college participation rate in their respective state would participate in FARE. If states need to cap the number of participating school districts, priority should be given to school districts with high numbers of students who are first-generation or have special learning needs. Funding would be provided by the governors and state school chiefs, with additional support from both private and public foundations that are invested in promoting college access. The program would touch all levels of K-12; however, in contrast to Common Core, this program would extend throughout two to four years of post-secondary education, thus making it a “P-16” program. Unlike Common Core, the FARE program would be managed and implemented by external hired professionals and volunteers, instead of being self-managed by the districts. To ensure that students’ college preparation through the FARE program is scaffolded, there will be four distinct stages: (1) the Foundation stage from pre-kindergarten through fifth grade, (2) the Accumulation stage during middle school (grades six through eight), (3) the Reaction stage during high school (grades nine through twelve), and (4) the Execution stage during post-secondary education, whether it be at a two or four year institution. Each stage would be comprised of various activities and initiatives -- clearly outlined for students, parents/families, and schools -- all in an effort to contribute to college readiness. A key difference between Common Core and FARE is the inclusion of the family and community in college readiness efforts. Utilizing the home and community as resources for activities that can increase school achievement is imperative (George Mwangi, 2015). Standards of success would also be determined for each stage, and failure to meet benchmarks would result in incremental loss of funding towards the program in underperforming states.
The Foundation Stage (Pre-Kindergarten to Fifth Grade)
To complement the foundational English and mathematics skills being developed in elementary school through Common Core, students would be required to participate in English literacy and mathematics workshops outside of the classroom. Consistent exposure to this content at this stage is crucial since students who have mastered English literacy and mathematics knowledge will be prepared for entry-level, credit-bearing English and math courses without the need for remediation (Jones and King, 2012). Additionally, students would be required to take computer skills courses because students’ varied experience with computers results in disparate comfort levels with technology that impact their academic, social, and career aspirations (Goode, 2010). For parents and the community, FARE efforts would focus on cultivating aspirational and social capital. College access programs that celebrate, recognize, and nurture the aspirational capital found in the social networks of potential students can become the catalyst needed to dissipate blockages found in the college pipeline (Dyce, Albold, and Long, 2012). Efforts need to be made to address public schools that allow low levels of teacher preparedness, particularly in largely minority and poor communities (Yun and Moreno, 2006). In response, FARE will aim to ensure that elementary school teachers are attaining professional development and proper training.
The Accumulation Stage (Sixth Grade to Eighth Grade)
Middle school is a pivotal point, with student motivation and behavior at this stage playing key determinants in students’ preparedness for college. It is during this time that students and their families should heavily be exposed to a college-going culture by accumulating adequate information, and that schools should collect knowledge on their students via assessments to start determining the needs of their students and any potential barriers to their college readiness. The Boston COACH Program, a high school intervention program implemented at three public high schools in Boston, showed favorable outcomes in student likelihood to attend college. Some of the elements of the Boston COACH Program included campus tours and exposure to the college application process such as essay writing and financial implications (Avery and Kane, 2004). Where the Boston COACH Program fell short was in its lateness in introduction. Elements of the Boston COACH Program would perhaps be better suited for introduction at the middle school level, considering the potential influence on the motivation and behavior of middle school students. During this stage, the FARE Program would seek to provide middle school students with familiarity of what it takes to attend college (specifically the academic expectations) well-before they enter high school. While the focus at this stage is student exposure to the implications of attending college, parents and the non-parent family community should also be exposed to similar information. Borrowing the College Readiness Access and Success Program (CRASP) implemented in Paterson, New Jersey, parents and families of students could benefit from home visits wherein FARE personnel would disseminate proper information to them about the college enrollment and funding process. These CRASP home visits resulted in students being more likely to enroll in postsecondary institutions (Yavuz, 2016). At this accumulation stage, FARE would assist middle schools in conducting student assessments that measure personality traits, learning abilities, leadership potential, and career predictions. Results of these assessments can inform the areas to both reinforce and develop within students, so that schools can appropriately advise students on decisions such as types of institutions to attend or careers to consider, as well as intervene with any specialized solutions before it is too late (Wyatt, 2010). During this time, it is also imperative that outreach and support be given to English-language learners (ELLs), since this population is challenged by the early stages of college planning (ie. aspirations and college qualifications stages) (Kanno and Cromley, 2015). The intent of this stage is to shift to an earlier delivery of college-going information that has historically been introduced to students and families at the high school level.
The Reaction Stage (Ninth Grade to Twelfth Grade)
Currently, most college readiness programs are introduced during the later half of high school, at which point it may be too late to circumvent barriers such as low GPAs, an aversion to writing essays, and lack of motivation to attend college (Avery and Kane, 2004). The high school period should be a time to react to the information and knowledge attained at the Accumulation stage in middle school. High school should be the time when students, families, and schools collectively position students for a college education, instead of simply introducing them to one. During the Reaction stage, FARE would continue providing students with access to information regarding how to access and fund college, a factor that has been cited as an important impediment to college access (Long, 2012). At this stage, students will also be able to consult their personal networks for advice because parents and families would have already received this helpful information at the Accumulation stage. This intentional structure ensures that students are not simultaneously educating both themselves and their families about college-going implications. At this stage, FARE would provide parents and families with workshops and resources to encourage students to expand or reinforce students’ college decisions (George Mwangi, 2015). Furthermore, FARE would provide high schools with additional support in counseling students. With high school being a time to react, students require adequate support in their decision-making and preparation. While the American School Counselor Association recommends a ratio of 250 to 1, the average ratio of students to counselors in middle and high schools is around 500 to 1 (Yavuz, 2016). To prevent students from being under-counseled in high school, FARE would allocate additional volunteers and professionals to share the counseling workload in high schools. This would result in a lowered student to counselor ratio without burdening schools financially.
The Execution Stage (Two- to Four-Year Institutions)
Finally, FARE will extend past high school and into the time when a student is enrolled in college. At this stage, persistence and retention is the focus for students. The Penn State Transitions Program can be used as inspiration for the deliverables at this stage. This program improves study skills, including time management, test-taking, note-taking, and general organization; it develops skills in basic research, college-level writing, and presentations (Gigliotti, 2012). Studies show that parent and community involvement does not end once students attend college (George Mwangi, 2015). With this in mind, FARE would provide workshops and resources to parents and community members on how to continue supporting their students throughout their college journey. For institutions at this execution stage, FARE would assist them with cultivating partnerships with employers and local organizations to provide career-related support by serving as internship host sites or mentors. FARE would also encourage articulation agreements between community colleges and four-year institutions, which could help to influence more completion of four year degrees overall.
Program Limitations
Limitations inevitably exist with every large-scale program. Some may argue that because of the qualification requirements to participate in the program, beneficiaries of the FARE Program may predominantly be students of color, which may have unintended consequences on student behaviors, such as stereotype threat (Steele and Aronson, 1995). However, most P-12 and postsecondary education staff and faculty must address the persistent social inequalities in education resulting in low numbers of underrepresented students of color who enroll, persist, and graduate from college (Bethea, 2016). Additionally, a “one size fits all” approach may be too idealistic, given that state context matters and there are varying contributing factors involved in each state’s college participation rates and ability to meet the benchmark standards to continue participating in FARE. Because Common Core is being used as a starting point for the FARE Program and there is no empirical evidence yet about its impact, there is a huge gap in determining how FARE might be evaluated. Moreover, the additional time and effort that students would be investing towards their participation in FARE Program elements (workshops, assessments, etc.) might interfere with their academic studies and obligations.
Conclusion
Attainment of a college degree continues to be a crucial milestone for those aspiring to escape a cycle of poverty and unemployment. The good news is that many efforts have been made to improve student learning outcomes and increase postsecondary graduation rates, for example through the implementation of the Common Core State Standards meant to improve English-language literacy and mathematics skills in K-12 to make students college-ready (Jones and King, 2012). However, if there are to be clearer and more consistent indicators about what students need to know and be able to do to persist in college, then collaboration between K-12 and higher education must become stronger. They must be equal partners in the effort to prepare all students to graduate from high school ready for college (Venezia, 2003). When it comes to addressing college access, there must be a shift from a culture of intervention to a culture of integration. By exploring a non-academic counterpart to Common Core that impacts students, their families and communities, as well as their schools, and prepares them for college, there is an opportunity to move the needle in college participation among students from low-income backgrounds and underrepresented communities. The FARE Program is a viable scaffolded response to the college-going dilemma, distinguished by its mission to establish strong foundations, encourage the accumulation of necessary information to influence college participation, develop strategic reactions to barriers and impediments, and support students through the execution and actualization of their plans to attend college.
References:
Avery, C., & Kane, T. J. (2004). Student perceptions of college opportunities. The Boston COACH program. In College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 355-394). University of Chicago Press.
BETHEA, K. A. (2016). College Prep and Access from the Perspective of DIVERSITY COLLEGE ADMISSION PROFESSIONALS. College & University, 91(3), 2-11.
Davis, R. P., & Hoffman, J. L. (2008). Higher Education and the P-16 Movement: What Is To Be Done?. Thought & Action, 123, 134.
Dyce, C. c., Albold, C. A., & Long, D. d. (2012). Moving From College Aspiration to Attainment: Learning From One College Access Program. High School Journal, 96(2), 152-165.
Gaertner, M. N., & McClarty, K. L. (2015). Performance, perseverance, and the full picture of college readiness. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 34(2), 20-33.
George Mwangi, C. A. (2015). (Re)Examining the role of family and community in college access and choice: A metasynthesis. Review Of Higher Education, 39(1), 123.
Gigliotti, J. (2012). Rice University: Innovation to Increase Student College Readiness. Continuing Higher Education Review, 76166-174.
Goode, J. (2010). Mind the Gap: The Digital Dimension of College Access. Journal Of Higher Education, 81(5), 583-618.
Jones, A. G., & King, J. E. (2012). The Common Core State Standards: A Vital Tool for Higher Education. Change: The Magazine Of Higher Learning, 44(6), 37-43.
Kanno, Y., & Cromley, J. G. (2015). English Language Learners' Pathways to Four-Year Colleges. Teachers College Record, 117(12),
Long, B. T. (2012, June). Supporting access to higher education: The college preparation and financial assistance programs of the war on poverty. In Legacy of the War on Poverty Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.
Loveless, T. (2012). Measuring Effects of the Common Core. The 2015 Brown Center Report on American Education. Brookings Institution.
Perna, L. W., & Armijo, M. (2014). The Persistence of Unaligned K–12 and Higher Education Systems: Why Have Statewide Alignment Efforts Been Ineffective?. Annals Of The American Academy Of Political & Social Science, 655(1), 16-35.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(5), 797.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2001 through Spring 2015, Fall Enrollment component. See Digest of Education Statistics 2015, table 306.10.
Venezia, A. (2003). Connecting the Systems: What Can Postsecondary Education Do To Work with K-12 To Help Students Better Prepare for College?. Peer Review, 5(2), 27-30.
Wyatt, J. N. (2010). The Development of a Multidimensional College Readiness Index.
Yavuz, O. (2016). Educational Leadership and Comprehensive Reform for Improving Equity and Access for All. International Journal Of Education Policy & Leadership, 11(10), 1-21.
Yun, J. T., & Moreno, J. F. (2006). College Access, K-12 Concentrated Disadvantage, and the Next 25 Years of Education Research. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 12-19.
Appendix:
The FARE Program
The FARE Program (Foundation, Accumulation, Reaction, Execution) is a college-readiness program proposal that borrows from various successes of existing and past intervention programs. It provides a comprehensive approach from level P-16 that outlines non-academic deliverables to students, families and communities, and schools.
Foundation (P-5)
Student: Reading and Writing Workshops; Technology and Computer Workshops; Tutoring Services
Family: Workshops to Cultivate Aspirational Capital
School: Provide Professional Training and Development for Teachers
Accumulation (6-8)
Student: Host College Tours; College Application Workshops; Planning for High School courses
Family: Financial Literacy Workshops; College Application Workshops
School: Assist with Administering Assessments (Personality, Learning, Leadership, Career, etc.)
Reaction (9-12)
Student: Financial Literacy Workshops; College Preparedness Workshops
Family: Student Support Workshops
School: Provide Additional Counselor Staff Support to Avoid Under-counseling Students
Execution (13-16)
Student: Coping Skills Workshops (time management, studying, note-taking, etc)
Family: Student Support Workshops
School: Promote Partnerships with Local Employers (to serve as internship hosts or mentors; Promote Partnerships for Articulation Agreements