May/June 2004

By Patte Barth and Kati Haycock

[The following is a chapter from the book, Double the Numbers: Increasing Postsecondary Credentials for Underrepresented Youth, edited by Richard Kazis, Joel Vargas, and Nancy Hoffman, published by the Harvard Education Press May, 2004.]

The only way to ensure that all high school students graduate ready to succeed in college and careers is to require the same high-quality college preparatory curriculum for all students. Although this strategy runs the risk of limiting the proliferation of creative-learning programs at the high school level, Patte Barth and Kati Haycock argue that the benefits of this new, common, high-standards curriculum, particularly for low-achieving students in poorly performing schools, outweigh the risks of reducing program options for older adolescents.

Inexorably, the aspirations of American high school students rise: more and more young people want education and training beyond high school. Indeed, nearly three-quarters of our high school graduates now go on to two- or four-year institutions within two years, and others follow within a few more years. This is good news, because today's economy makes postsecondary education or training essential to anybody who wants a decent foothold.

Unfortunately, we have a way to go before our high schools and colleges meet the rising aspirations for skills and knowledge. The now-familiar statistics are sobering:

·         Although elementary schools have grown more effective over the past two decades, the value added by secondary schools has declined.

·         While achievement problems are by no means unique to low-income and minority students, their problems are much more severe. At the end of high school, African American and Latino students have skills that are indistinguishable from white students at the end of middle school.

·         About half of all newly enrolled college students must take some form of remediation; nearly one-third never make it to the sophomore year of college.

·         Only about half of the students who enter college complete a postsecondary degree within six years. The numbers aren't pretty for any student group, but they are worst for students who are black, Latino, or from low-income households.

The single most important thing we can do to help students succeed after high school is to provide a challenging high school curriculum. Why? Because the biggest contributor to success in college isn't a student's SAT or ACT score, nor is it GPA or rank in class. Rather, the single best predictor of college success is the quality and intensity of a student's high school curriculum.

The relationship of high school course-taking to college success is clearest in mathematics. Research from the U.S. Department of Education shows that high school students who complete math higher than Algebra 2 (e.g., trigonometry or pre-calculus) earn a college degree at twice the rate of those whose high school math curriculum was less rigorous (Adelman 1999).

Differences in high school course-taking across subjects may explain much of the lower college completion rates of African American and Latino college freshmen. The variation in overall graduation rates for college freshmen from different population groups is alarming. But most of those differences disappear among students who have completed a robust college prep curriculum. (See Chart 1)  

Benefits beyond College Success

College preparatory courses do not benefit just students who know they are college-bound. A growing body of evidence shows that such a curriculum has benefits for virtually all kids.

All kids? Many Americans, including many educators, doubt that all young people are capable of learning subjects like algebra. All Japanese kids, maybe. Even all Russian kids. But for some reason, not our students.

These views are dead wrong. All students benefit from taking high-level courses, regardless of their academic record prior to enrollment.

1. Students of all abilities learn more in college-prep courses.

Researchers have looked closely at what happens with different types of students when enrolled in different high school curricula. Their analysis, summarized in Chart 2, found that even students who enter high school in the lowest quartile of performance post higher gains in college-prep courses than in the vocational courses they typically enroll in.

These findings are mirrored in the experience of the Southern Regional Education Board's High Schools That Work Initiative (HSTW), a school wide reform model created primarily to improve achievement among vocational students. When efforts to raise standards in vocational courses did not produce desired across-the-board gains, participating schools were encouraged to take these so-called "work-bound" students and place them into college-prep courses for part of the day. HSTW schools that enroll large numbers of such students in high-level courses are raising student achievement and simultaneously increasing the overall percentage of program completers even though vocational track students have been traditionally among the lowest achieving and at the highest risk of failing (Frome 2001).

2. Students are more likely to pass high-level courses than low-level ones.

Teachers often hesitate to place low-achieving students into tough courses for fear it will set them up for failure. Yet we're learning that low-achieving students are typically no more likely to fail more difficult classes than they are in the watered-down ones where we often warehouse them. Indeed, when bottom-quartile students are placed in a low-level English course, nearly half-47 percent-fail. Put the same students in a college-prep English course, and failure rates decline by about half (see Chart 3).

Skeptics argue that if all students were placed in a high-level curriculum, course failure rates would skyrocket. But this did not happen when the El Paso area school districts opened its college-prep track to more students. Throughout the 1990s, El Paso high schools focused on expanding student enrollments in rigorous courses. Since then, El Paso has shown that it is quite possible both to increase enrollment in college-prep courses and simultaneously increase the number of students passing these courses (see Chart 4).

Skeptics also worry that a high-level curriculum will force more students to drop out. This does not seem to be happening in El Paso. A recent national study reports that graduation rates in this high-poverty high-Latino district are 14th highest among the nation's 50 largest school districts--a group that includes such affluent suburban communities as Fairfax County, Virginia, and Montgomery County, Maryland (Green and Winters 2002).

The experience in the San Jose, California, school district has been similar. San Jose changed its placement policy in 1997 to require all students to complete the curriculum required for admission into California's two public university systems. In 2002, the first students under the new policies graduated with impressive results. San Jose students' progress in reading and math outpaced the state average, with African Americans and Latinos posting the greatest gains. Between 1998 and 2002, test scores for African American 11th graders in San Jose rose seven times as much as their peers statewide. Most important, dropout rates did not increase, even as the more rigorous and demanding curriculum became the default.1

3. Students are likely to be better prepared for work, too.

A college-prep curriculum also contributes to another important goal for many students: success in finding and keeping a well-paying job.

In today's economy, the skills and academic abilities needed to find and succeed in a well-paying job are merging with those needed to succeed in college.

Manufacturing, for example, has for many years been the occupational haven for youth who leave high school without a diploma. In 1973, 51 percent of factory jobs were held by dropouts; by the year 2000, only 19 percent were. The proportion of factory jobs held by individuals with at least some college tripled and their wages held steady or dropped only slightly, while the real wages of high school graduates and dropouts in manufacturing fell (Carnevale and Desrochers 2002). Good jobs in manufacturing can pay over $40,000 a year and tend to require four to five years of postsecondary education or apprenticeship. The skills required to get into these programs often include mastery of algebra, geometry, trigonometry, chemistry, physics, or statistics.

It's not just in manufacturing, either. In unpublished research conducted for the American Diploma Project, the National Alliance of Business surveyed officials from 22 fields about the high school-level skills they believe are most useful for their employees to bring to the job. The employers unanimously cited the need for strong reading ability, mathematical reasoning, and problem-solving skills. Indeed, the list generated by employers looked almost exactly like the lists subsequently generated by college faculty from across the country.

Curricular Misalignment: The Norm, Not the Exception

A college-preparatory curriculum has clear benefits to efforts to give certain students real choices at the conclusion of high school. Nonetheless, large numbers of American high school graduates--including many bound for college--do not complete such a curriculum. Why is that?

For starters, many college-bound students simply don't know which high school courses are necessary not just to enter college but also to begin credit-bearing courses. According to a recent report from Stanford University's Bridge Project, one of most common student misconceptions about college readiness is that meeting their high school graduation requirements prepares them for college. Across the six states in this study, fewer than 12 percent of students surveyed knew the curricular requirements for admission to their public postsecondary institutions (Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio 2003).

Even parents and school counselors are often misled into thinking that courses needed for admission are the same as college readiness. This can be a particular problem in two-year and other open-access colleges. While these colleges may admit anyone with a high school diploma, these new freshmen will find themselves still taking high school-level courses if they fail to pass placement exams. Only the campus will have changed.

Higher education has not been as helpful as it should be. Rather than coming to statewide agreement on which courses students should take in high school to be ready for college, many states leave this decision to individual institutions, leaving students to figure out what each institution wants.

State requirements for the high school diploma are often no more helpful. Eight states leave course requirements entirely to local school districts. Many more specify the number of courses necessary in a particular subject area, but not their content. When K-12 and postsecondary systems are clear in defining content standards, those definitions almost never match. In only one state-Oklahoma--is there cross-sector agreement on both number and topics.

In a few states, course requirements for high school graduation exceed those for college entry. But the effect in most states is that the curriculum required for graduation--sometimes including even the curriculum labeled "college prep"--falls short of what students need to succeed in two- or four-year institutions (Somerville and Yi 2002). For new high school graduates this means that their high school diploma is no guarantee they meet postsecondary education's course requirements--or have the skills they need to get a good job.

Bold Action in the States

The idea of aligning requirements for high school graduation with those for entering postsecondary institutions is beginning to take hold not just in leading school districts-for example, San Jose, El Paso, and Ysleta, near El Paso--but at the state level, too.

Texas has taken a major step toward aligning K-12 and higher education by making college-prep courses the recommended curriculum for all students. Beginning with the class entering ninth grade in 2004, students will automatically be enrolled in this 24-unit curriculum unless they and their parents explicitly choose for them not to be.

Policymakers in Indiana are poised to do much the same thing. In 1994, Indiana's Education Roundtable, which works across the K-12, higher education, and business sectors, put forth a plan to raise educational standards in the state. In response, the legislature established the college-prep sequence of courses, called Core 40, as the recommended curriculum for all high school students. However, even though students were required to begin the sequence, they weren't necessarily expected to complete it.

The Education Roundtable is now promoting the Core 40 as the required curriculum for high school graduation. It further recommends that the Core 40 assessments be aligned not only with college admissions criteria, but also with standards for college placement. As a further incentive to students, Core 40 completion could be tied to state financial aid eligibility.

Making the college curriculum the "default" curriculum is the very least all districts and states should do: more than any other step, this change immediately signals society's expectation that all young people can and should be prepared not for college or for work but for both. Guidance counselors and savvy parents should not be the only ones who know which courses will prepare students for college.

Why Not Standards Instead of More Course Requirements?

States and districts across the country have invested considerable time, effort, and resources in developing a system of K-12 standards and assessments, in part to get away from the tyranny of the Carnegie unit. Are we now advocating a return to the not-so-good ol' days of promotion by seat time, or worse, the imposition of dual requirements that will literally strangle high school students and their teachers?

No such thing.

We recognize the implicit dangers of course requirements. Schools and districts might try to change course names rather than course content, as in the past. Requiring a core curriculum for most of students' four years in high school might also discourage innovative learning programs and dampen enthusiasm for alternative curriculums that might also be high level.

But at the moment, high schools are organized around courses, and states and districts have leverage over how courses are included in graduation requirements. Moreover, abundant research shows that certain courses have a strong relationship to later success in the workplace and in college, and that students who take a course called "Algebra" are better off than if they had taken "Consumer Mathematics."

Still, not all "Algebra" is created equal. States, districts, and schools have a lot of work to do to help teachers of courses with the same names make sure they are teaching to the same standard--including providing model lessons, sample assignments and student work, and benchmark assessments.

We believe that requiring a rigorous common curriculum is the best way states and districts can begin to provide all students the education they need and deserve. Eventually, we hope there will be multiple ways for students to access and engage with the same content. In the meantime, these courses are better than their watered-down alternatives. 

Break the Logjam

A strong "default" curriculum for all students is an important next step for most states and districts, but many other steps must also be taken before the curriculum is perfectly aligned and working well for every young person. And K-12 cannot do all the heavy lifting.

Higher education needs to take a long overdue look at admissions and placement policies. Not only are these often inconsistent with high school graduation requirements, they are also inconsistent among postsecondary institutions, and even between admissions and placement into college-level work in the same institution.

Clearly, a consensus about what "college ready" means is needed. And because this curriculum will be the standard for all secondary students, the content needs to be justified with better reasons than "that's the way it's always been done." Research shows, for example, that Algebra 2 in high school is a strong predictor of college success and beyond. What about other mathematics, notably probability and statistics? This strand of math is conspicuous by its absence from admissions and placement tests, but it is necessary for work and citizenship in addition to other disciplinary studies. What level of reading and writing skills are likewise predictive?

Business also has a responsibility to be thoughtful and explicit about the skills that are valuable in the workplace. Business organizations in many states are actively involved in education reform. As in Texas and Indiana, their advocacy can do a lot to promote policy change.

Implementing the new common curriculum will raise another set of issues. Schools will need enough teachers qualified in their subjects and in strategies for helping all students master high-level content.2 Also, schools will need new models for structuring time and support for students and teachers alike. And they will need aligned assessments for both individual diagnostic use in the classroom and for school accountability. 

Above all, schools will need to break the logjam of outdated beliefs that defines the present high-school diploma.

The knowledge and skills that today's young people need to succeed in the 21st century far exceed those that were enough for their counterparts a mere generation ago. The only prediction we can confidently make about future jobs is that they will change--and change yet again. Even those youngsters who go directly to work after high school will likely find themselves needing more training and education at some point in their working lives. So our eyes--and our energies--must be focused on ensuring that they leave high school with the foundation they need to access that additional learning, as well as to participate fully in family and civic life. A common college-prep curriculum is the shortest path toward meeting that goal.

Authors

Patte Barth is the editor of Thinking K-16, published by The Education Trust, a child advocacy organization based in Washington D.C.

Kati Haycock is the director of The Education Trust.

Notes

1. Calculations by the Education Trust-West, based on 2002 data from the California Department of Education.

2. For this to work, higher education absolutely must increase production of teachers in certain shortage areas.

References

Adelman, Clifford. 1999. "Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor's Degree Attainment." Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Carnevale, Anthony P. and Donna M. Desrochers. 2002. "The Missing Middle: Aligning Education and the Knowledge Economy." Prepared for the Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Frome, Pamela. 2001. "High Schools That Work: Findings from the 1996 and 1998 Assessments." Prepared by the Research Triangle Institute for the Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Greene, Jay P. and Marcus A. Winters. 2002. High School Graduation Rates in the United States. New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

Somerville, Janis and Yun Yi. 2002. "Aligning K-12 and Postsecondary Expectations: State Policy in Transition." Washington, DC: National Association of System Heads.

Venezia, Andrea, Michael W. Kirst, and Anthony L. Antonio. 2003. "Betraying the College Dream: How Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student Aspirations." Final policy report from Stanford University's Bridge Project. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research.

To buy Double the Numbers: Increasing Postsecondary Credentials for Underrepresented Youth online, click here for our secure webpage.

Click here to browse all the Harvard Education Press titles in print.