Policy Brief: College Preparation - Infrastructure, Information, and Interventions
A college education has long been regarded as the gateway towards success. Compared to those who do not finish college, college graduates have higher earning potential, have access to more job opportunities and employment benefits, and have a significantly greater impact on the potential success of their children and families. That being said, it is imperative that all young students be given equal and proper resources and opportunities to pursue a college education in order to have a chance at success that is not determined by their family’s socioeconomic background.
Within the United States education landscape, there have been many attempts in the last fifty years or so to provide low-income youth with access and opportunity to a college degree: after-school programs that promote arts and athletics; SAT-prep courses; financial aid workshops; mentorship programs; summer college immersion experiences; and more. However, in spite of all these resources and with rising college tuition costs, even the most high-achieving low-income students are not applying to selective institutions (Hoxby & Avery, 2012). Test scores are not significantly raised by these external programs that provide support by and for the community; it is the quality of one’s K-12 school system that is truly able to impact these scores (Dobbie & Fryer, 2011) and ultimately impact one’s future with regards to college, employment, and quality of life. Furthermore, Avery and Kane deduce that an intervention that only provides information about tuition, financial aid, and likely wages is unlikely to be effective at changing the percentage of low-income students who go to college (2004).
This week’s readings share a theme of a low-income student’s need for: (1) high-quality school inputs (highly-qualified and trained teachers, advanced technology, strong curriculum, etc.); (2) information about the college-going process that is presented in an unbiased and objective manner; (3) intervention programs that go beyond addressing short-term barriers (such as low test scores and poor literacy in financial aid sources) at a very late stage in the pre-college years when it is practically too late to remedy the long-term barriers that exist for this population, such as lack of cultural capital and an aversion to writing essays (Avery & Kane, 2004).
A recommendation for addressing this lack of college attendance among low-income students would be an integration (instead of an intervention) of college preparation into core curriculum all throughout K-12. A college preparation class might also be mandated alongside math, English, science, etc. Components of this class might include: SAT prep, financial aid literacy, field trips to colleges, navigating the college selection process, career development, social skills required to succeed in college, assignments that strengthen writing skills specifically for standardized tests and college applications, etc.
Some may argue that the length of a school day is already long enough and should not be extended even more to accommodate an extra class. A counterargument to this would be to replace the physical education requirement with this new course. While rampant childhood obesity is a concern, there are many other opportunities in place that encourage students to stay active and fit: recess, school sports, as well as community sports leagues. Another measure to incorporate college preparation into the school day might be to reassess the value of homeroom and study hall periods and explore ways to better utilize the time allotted to these classes. College may not necessarily be the path for every child which may lead some people to argue that enforcing college preparation is wrong. To address this argument, there may be ways to combine both college and vocational readiness into such a course.
College preparation must move away from being seen as a supplement, and instead move towards being seen as a fundamental part of the K-12 education system.
------------------------------
References:
Avery, C. & Kane, T. J. (2004). Student perceptions of college opportunities: The Boston
COACH Program. In C. M. Hoxby College choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 355-391). Chicago: University of Chicago Press and the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Dobbie, W. & Fryer, R. (2011). Are high quality schools enough to increase achievement among
the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3 (3).
Hoxby, C. & Avery, C. (2012). The missing "One-Offs": The hidden supply of high-achieving, low income students. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER Working Paper No. 18586).