There is no shortage of blame in this country in regard to the educational system. Teachers are getting blamed for not getting the job done; some parents are blamed for being too involved and not allowing teachers to do their jobs; other parents are blamed for not being involved enough and letting the schools raise their children; colleges are blamed for being too expensive and inaccessible; and it goes on and on. I would like to shed light on the disconnect between the K-12 system and higher education, and bring to your attend one way in which Colorado is attempting to address the issues. It is not my intent to "blame" either side, as I believe both K-12 and higher education have fallen victim to a variety of societal ills, some of which we will be addressing in class.
It is unfortunate that these two educational entities are often in competition with one another for state funding. of course, when each is in the habit of having to justify every decision made to the public in order to receive funding it becomes all too easy to point fingers for what it not going right, rather than accepting responsibility and holding themselves accountable. We hear and read about some alarming statistics ...he number of students from every ethnicity who are graduating from high school; how underprepared high school graduates are for college-level coursework; and the trends of how various students are scoring on standardized tests.
Dating back to 1983, the state of Colorado has been allowing high school students to complete college work, operating under a PSEO (Post Secondary Education Options) agreement. The PSEO allows 11th and 12th graders to either concurrently enroll in college courses or to take a dual enrollment course. In my time working with incoming college freshmen and their parents, it was evident to me, the kind of student who would take advantage of these options to start earning college credit early. It tended to be the students who wold appear to be high-achievers, often coming from more affluent school districts. they were the students who had done well on their ACT exams and carried decent grade point averages. They had parents who were involved in their education, but more than anything they were students who had high school counselors involved with their education. in other words, they were already on someones educational radar and at some point, not only were they introduced to the program, but someone from their high school administration signed off on their participation in a PSEO.
How does one get on the education radar of the school administration? Well, they must of been identified as being "college bound" at some point in their education. These are the same students who have been encouraged to take Advanced Placement courses, and they have been set up from very early on in high school to complete their HEAR (Higher Education Admissions Requirements). These students most likely entered high school knowing that college wasin their future.
I attended a workshop last week, where one of the sessions was about state policy regarding concurrent education and the gap that the Colorado Department of Education is attempting to bridge. Housebill 1319 and Statebill 285, the "Concurrent Enrollment Program Acts" will redefine the rules regarding PSEO's and broaden access to the programs. One is the ASCENT program which allows high schoolers the option to stay in high school for an additional year (making high school 5 years long) and take college courses in that 5th year. The second program, concurrent education, allows a school district to work out an agreement with a neighboring community college or 4-yr institution, where high school students would be permitted to take identified college courses for both college and high school credit.
The goal of the policies is to improve coordination by creating a coordinating board through College In Colorado. Before, the PSEO’s were really only for college bound high school students, under the new policy, students could also take classes that would apply to career and technical trades, broadening access to the type of student who will take advantage of the program.
Who funds this? It is my understanding that the school district will fund both of these programs. I believe each district can establish the criteria in which they will pay the bill, however. For example, one district may say that a student has to pay the tuition bill up front, then achieve a certain grade and be reimbursed from the district, while another districts may pay the institution of higher education upfront as a third party and never have an awareness of the grade a student receives.
What I like most about this evolving policy, is that students are now, under the new policy, permitted to take remedial coursework…allowing them to catch up and putting themselves in a better place to be successful on a college campus…on the school districts dime. At the beginning of this blog, I said I would not place blame. But I do beleive a district should be at least partially responsible for remediating students.
I think the Department of Education just may have gotten this one right! I am cautiously excited to see how this policy will play out in the coming years. I do continue to worry that not all students will learn of their options in enough time to take advantage of them, however. The program rolls out for Fall 2012, stay tuned!
This would be interesting. I wonder what kind of culture this would create among high-school students, as some will choose to graduate in four years and others in five. Most high school students I know are eager to get out of high school, either to be done with school or get on to college.
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to hear why you think a district should be responsible for remediating (i.e. correcting a fault) students. I think we should provide opportunities for students to catch up (or get ahead) but how is this any different than a district just paying for community college classes?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the relationship between school districts and higher education institutions has not been optimal. I also concur that the current concurrent enrollment programs have benefited students who typically come from affluent school districts
ReplyDeleteI applaud the initiative of the Colorado Department of Education to coordinate efforts between school districts and higher education institutions to broaden access to concurrent education to a diverse group of students.
Hopefully some of the students who will definitely benefit from these programs are first generation, low-income, students but also immigrant students whose first language is not English.
I look forward to hearing more about these programs and hopefully more stories of students' success
You are very right that K-12 schools often compete with higher education for resources. This year we will all be voting on Prop 103 to raise sales and property taxes in our state by just a slight amount, and this tax hike will also come with a sunset date. Should it pass, it will alleviate a very small amount of pressure from our K-12 financial woes but still leaves higher ed in the dark.
ReplyDeleteThis may (or really, it may not) ultimately help with this sense of competition. Colorado also ranks very high on the list of educated states in the nation (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/smallbusiness/1102/gallery.smartest_states/3.html), yet our K-12 system and funding for higher education puts us at the bottom of the national barrel (http://www.greateducation.org/statistics-faqs/statistics/).
So why work to improve education if we're so high up on the most educated list? I speculate this is because of transplants (like me) who earn educational credentials in another state and then come to Colorado for a myriad of reasons.
We hear you loud and clear, Colorado legislature, that education is just not an important part of our state's budget.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBruce Benson, President of the University of Colorado System sent a message to the CU community earlier this month (https://www.cusys.edu/presnews/2011/09/) regarding this exact topic. He basically said that students could save tens of thousands of dollars by participating in these programs. Fair enough, but is anyone asking how K-12 school districts are going to pay the tuition bills for these programs? Basically Mr. Benson suggested having school districts pay for students' first year of college. I support the concept of increasing access to higher education, but I do not understand the economics of how having strapped secondary school districts foot the bill to do it.
ReplyDeleteI also happen to be reading the state ballot information booklet describing the details of Proposition 103. Reading the “arguments against” section actually makes me angry. Specifically it says that "Communities can seek local options and private resources if they feel that their schools need more funding. Similarly, pursuing higher education is an individual choice and should not be further subsidized by the state." Those two sentences offer a glimpse into the assumptions made by those who wrote this section of the booklet. The argument assumes that all districts have equal opportunity to raise taxes through mill levies (ad valorem taxes meaning that they are based on real estate values) , which is patently false. Local tax revenues vary significantly, with some of the wealthiest districts having the ability to generate large sums of money whereas other districts with limited or depressed real estate values have to instill higher tax rates to generate the same revenue.
On the other hand, the “arguments for” section provides a lot of generalities regarding what the $2.9 billion in additional tax collections will pay for without providing any details. While the dollar amount per person seems small, the increase in taxes amounts to “about 8% more than under current law.” That is certainly a significant tax increase. So, what’s the answer?
I work closely with the concurrent enrollment office at my institution and the numbers are growing quickly. At one of our sister colleges they have tripled their concurrent enrollment numbers in the past 2 years. The program provides free college access for low income and undocumented students, which is significant incentive. For those who plan right, they can earn an associates before they are done with high school.
ReplyDeleteWhile we do see a lot more concurrent enrollment, we are not seeing a lot of ASCENT students at this time. Starting to plan for college in the 9th grade would be challenging for most (I know it would have been for me when I was in high school). We are working with some of our schools to help educate parents on what a terrific program this could be for their children. Imagine cutting 2 years off the cost of college for parents? As a future mom, I know I have already been thinking about how my child could benefit from this program (if it is still around).
The funding mechanisms are challenging. All students (resident or non) are eligible for COF while in concurrent enrollment or the ASCENT program. Students can also take remedial courses, which does seems odd considering those are the courses they should be learning in high school to prepare them for college. While I am not certain about the future of these two programs, especially given the lack of financial support from CO legislatures, I do think it can be success in bridging K-12 and colleges/universities.
I work closely with the concurrent enrollment office at my institution and the numbers are growing quickly. At one of our sister colleges they have tripled their concurrent enrollment numbers in the past 2 years. The program provides free college access for low income and undocumented students, which is significant incentive. For those who plan right, they can earn an associates before they are done with high school.
ReplyDeleteWhile we do see a lot more concurrent enrollment, we are not seeing a lot of ASCENT students at this time. Starting to plan for college in the 9th grade would be challenging for most (I know it would have been for me when I was in high school). We are working with some of our schools to help educate parents on what a terrific program this could be for their children. Imagine cutting 2 years off the cost of college for parents? As a future mom, I know I have already been thinking about how my child could benefit from this program (if it is still around).
The funding mechanisms are challenging. All students (resident or non) are eligible for COF while in concurrent enrollment or the ASCENT program. Students can also take remedial courses, which does seems odd considering those are the courses they should be learning in high school to prepare them for college. While I am not certain about the future of these two programs, especially given the lack of financial support from CO legislatures, I do think it can be success in bridging K-12 and colleges/universities.
Jill - you are correct! Colorado is one of the most educated states in the country because of all of the people who have moved here with degrees obtained out-of-state. Unfortunately, when it appears that we're such a highly educated state, it's hard to get tax payers to vote to put money toward education. The sad thing is Colorado students are the ones who suffer from this, at all ages, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting for me to read the different opinions about concurrent enrollment. I think Beau has an interesting point about how many students will want to take advantage of the 5th year in high school. While I appreciate the cost savings a program like this will provide parents (with my first child on the way and who KNOWS what higher ed costs will look like in 19 years), I have to agree with Robyn when she asks how on earth K-12 districts are going to fund this cost?
Also, working in Admissions, I don't know how much I support the idea of graduating high school with an associates degree. Two reasons for this - I think that there is something to be said for student development over the course of a traditional 4-year program that is completely lost when a student comes to college with that much credit at 18 years old. They are thrown into upper-division courses with students who are developmentally much "older" than them if only technically by a year or two and then they are graduating at 19-20 years old and entering the job market with graduates who could possibly be much older.
Secondly, with certain bachelors degree programs having such specific requirements for graduation, this means a student must know when they start their junior year of high school what they want to "be when they grow up" so they can plan their college curriculum accordingly to fit the bachelors degree requirements. Otherwise, they are taking courses that will not fit into their degree, they have false hopes that they can graduate in two years at the university and the cost of these courses was still incurred by the high school.
At a staff meeting this morning we got the recent concurrent enrollment numbers --- 15% of our student body are concurrent enrollment and/or ASCENT students! This has not come without some serious growing pains - one of those was developing relationships with our area high schools. The majority of our concurrent enrollment students take their college level classes in their high school - one way to help leverage cost. While I did use the term growing pains I would also argue that those growing pains are already yielding some great benefits.
ReplyDelete1.) High school teachers who want to teach college level courses are vetted in the same manner we vet adjunct instructors - masters degree or 18 graduate level credits in the content you plan to teach. One of the benefits for K12 is that teachers will be in a better position to draw on what it takes to help students become "college ready".
2.) Our department Chairs and other faculty specifically assigned to work on concurrent enrollment spend a great deal of time in the high schools observing teachers. In a faculty meeting today multiple people brought up the idea of having our high school teachers come over and do some workshops on classroom management and teaching pedagogy.
Each sector of education has, in my mind, been allowed to operate in their own silos for too long. This is a systemic issue and one that must be dealt with by having all the players at the table - to a certain extent the economy is already forcing all of us in education to reconsider the system and the pipelines by which students can earn a bachelors degree. Hence access programs like concurrent enrollment. As a practioner who has worked for both two-year and four-year institutions I'm looking forward to the conversations between these sectors about developing better pipelines for students!