Improving College Readiness - Midwestern Higher Education ... · PDF filein higher education and student affairs at institutions in the MHEC region. ... Financial Planning and Literacy;

Improving College Readiness:Perspectives for Research, Policy, and Practice

Proceedings and Commentary on theMidwestern Higher Education Compact 7th Annual Policy Summit:Ready or Not Here They Come—Ensuring the College Success of All Students

Improving College Readiness:Perspectives for Research, Policy, and PracticeChris Rasmussen and Leah Reinert, Editors

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements iv

Letter from MHEC President v

Chapter 1 6A Framework for College Readiness and the MHEC Policy Summit

Chapter 2 14The Cognitive Dimension of College Readiness: Curriculum and Academic Preparation

Chapter 3 22The Social Dimension of College Readiness: Awareness, Aspirations, and Motivation

Chapter 4 32The Monetary Dimension of College Readiness: Financial Planning and Literacy

Chapter 5 42The Role of Foundations, Non-Profi t Organizations, and Higher Education Institutionsin Promoting College Readiness

Chapter 6 48The Role of K-12 Schools, Professional Associations, and Corporations inPromoting College Readiness

About the Authors 54

Resources 57

Acknowledgements

This monograph was edited by:

Chris Rasmussen, Midwestern Higher Education CompactLeah Reinert, University of Minnesota

Copy editing assistance was provided by Ann Grindland, with publication design by Christopher Bohnetof xt4, inc. Please direct any comments about the monograph or requests for additional information toChris Rasmussen, MHEC vice president for research and policy analysis, at [email protected].

The 7th annual MHEC policy summit, the graduate student policy summit intern program, and thispublication were made possible in large part by a generous grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The views and opinions expressed in this monograph are those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ectthe views, opinions, or perspective of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Any errors of commission oromission are the responsibility of the authors alone.

Additional support for the policy summit was provided by ACT, Dell, Inc., Iowa Student Loan, and the American Institutes for Research through its REL Midwest affi liate.

About the Midwestern Higher Education Compact

The Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC) is a non-profi t regional organization established bycompact statute to assist Midwestern states in advancing higher education through interstate cooperationand resource sharing. MHEC member states are Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

MHEC seeks to fulfi ll its interstate mission through programs that

• Enhance productivity through reductions in administrative costs;• Encourage student access, completion, and affordability;• Facilitate public policy analysis and information exchange;• Facilitate regional cooperation;• Encourage quality higher education programs and services; and• Encourage innovation in the delivery of educational services.

2012 MHEC Leadership

Chair: Mr. Jeffrey Haverly, South Dakota State SenateVice Chair: Dr. Randolph Ferlic, University of Nebraska System Board of RegentsPast Chair: Mr. Robert Downer, Iowa Board of RegentsTreasurer: Mr. Edward Maloney, Illinois State SenatePresident: Mr. Larry Isaak

© Copyright 2012 Midwestern Higher Education Compact.All rights reserved.

Dear Colleague,

On behalf of the Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC), I am pleased to present this summary ofproceedings and commentary on MHEC’s 7th annual policy summit—Ready or Not Here They Come: Ensuringthe College Success of All Students—held in Iowa City, Iowa, November 14-15, 2011. I am particularly pleased with the contributions made to the event and to this monograph by the graduate students who were selectedas interns for the summit.

A major goal of MHEC for our policy summits is to facilitate dialogue and collaborative problem solvingamong a diverse set of stakeholders representing higher education, state government, K-12, business, andnon-profi t organizations. Our 7th annual summit focused on three core dimensions of college readiness:academic preparation, fi nancial literacy, and non-cognitive variables such as awareness, motivation, andresilience. Addressing these core components of readiness is critical to ensuring that students enter highereducation institutions ready to engage in college-level work and that they have the required knowledge,skills, and maturity to complete a postsecondary credential. This is increasingly necessary in order for ournation’s young people and their families to have the opportunity for success and fi nancial security.

The policy summit interns were selected through a competitive process and hail from graduate programsin higher education and student affairs at institutions in the MHEC region. The interns contributed to theevent by documenting and helping to facilitate one of the summit program tracks or themes. Theirsummaries of summit proceedings are enhanced here by a discussion of current and relevant research,examples of public policy, and illustrations of promising practices that illuminate, motivate, and promotecollege readiness and success.

We are grateful for policy summit sponsorships from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Dell, Inc., ACT,Iowa Student Loan, and REL Midwest. Special kudos go to April Hansen of ACT; Greg Nichols, John Parker,and Marc Hendel of Iowa Student Loan; Sara Wraight and Lisa Shimmel of REL Midwest; and ElizabethVaade of WISCAPE, who provided invaluable assistance in organizing the summit program and helpingwith logistics. Additional thanks go to Linda Baer, formerly a senior program offi cer with the Bill & MelindaGates Foundation, for her assistance in securing sponsorship funds for the summit and for the graduatestudent internship program.

Finally, I want to thank all of the speakers, moderators, panelists, participants, and MHEC staff memberswho traveled to Iowa City to engage in the critical dialogue to ensure that all students graduate from highschool college ready and successfully complete their fi rst year of postsecondary studies.

Sincerely,

Larry A. Isaak, PresidentMidwestern Higher Education Compact

6 Midwestern Higher Education Compact – www.mhec.org

Chapter 1

A Framework for College Readiness and the MHEC Policy SummitLeah Reinert, University of MinnesotaChris Rasmussen, Midwestern Higher Education Compact

Since 2005, the Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC) has held an annual policy summit exploring a timely issue or challenge with implications for higher education research, policy, and practice. The summit brings together a diverse range of stakeholders to engage in cross-sector dialogue and collaboration related to the given theme. Past summits have addressed topics including the education to workforce connection, the Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education, the “Diffi cult Dialogues” needed to achieve college attainment goals while containing costs, and the contribution of higher education to economic development and community revitalization.

The 7th annual MHEC policy summit, Ready or Not Here They Come: Ensuring the College Success of All Students, held November 14-15, 2011, brought over 200 participants from the K-12, higher education, government, business, and non-profi t sectors to Iowa City, Iowa to discuss issues surrounding college readiness and success.

The summit focused on three core dimensions of college readiness: Curriculum and Academic Preparation; Financial Planning and Literacy; and Awareness, Aspirations, and Motivation.

Each of the three program tracks included presentations and discussion related to current research, policy strategies, and promising practices for improving college readiness. The primary “deliverable” of the summit was the knowledge gained by participants through presentations and networking, and the heightened energy and motivation of participants to return to their home communities to improve their practice, implement new programs, and develop policies to advance students’ college readiness. An additional key deliverable from the 2011 summit is this monograph, which is mostly the work of policy summit interns—graduate students in higher education and student affairs who were identifi ed through a competitive process to provide general support for the summit, to document the proceedings of the event, and to write a follow-up chapter aligned with one of the summit tracks or themes..

Each of the chapters in this monograph highlights recent research, public policy, and promising practices that illuminate, motivate, and promote college readiness and success. For the purposes of the policy summit and for this monograph,

college readiness is operationalized as a student entering higher education ready to engage in college-level work—without the need for remediation—and with the required knowledge, skills,and maturity to successfully complete the fi rst year.

Interns were advised to consider the following sources when conducting a comprehensive review of available literature and information for their respective chapters:

• Published research addressing college readiness (either relative to a specifi c domain—academic,non-cognitive, fi nancial—or related to the role of specifi c entities in promoting readiness),

including journal articles, white papers, government reports, and monographs from think tanks, researchcenters, and policy organizations.

Improving College Readiness: Perspectives for Research, Policy, and Practice

7

• Recent public policies designed to promote, structure, and incent individual actions andorganizational activity to improve college readiness and success (again relative to a specifi cdomain or involving specifi c entities), including legislation, regulations, and actions of executive

agencies such as state higher education and K-12 departments.

• Programmatic initiatives and other promising “on the ground” practices within and by schools,colleges, and non-profi t organizations (relative to a given domain or specifi c to a particularentity or sector).

The college readiness imperative

The U.S. Department of Education’s 2008 publication A Nation Accountable notes that the global economy,demographic shifts, and higher degree demands from employers are putting pressure on educationalinstitutions and systems to increase degree production while controlling costs and maintaining quality. Dueto the increased importance of postsecondary attainment, renewed attention is being directed in many circles toward improving the degree to which students are prepared for college and ensuring that they have the toolsto succeed in earning their degrees.

Efforts to improve and advance college readiness reside not just within schools and educational systems,but also among consortia, compacts, foundations, associations, businesses, advocacy groups, and othernon-profi t organizations. With individual states setting college and career ready goals, No Child Left Behind waivers requiring college and career readiness standards, and the Common Core State Standards and related benchmarks advancing, it is important for all stakeholders to be fully engaged in dialogue on how to improve the college and career readiness of our nation’s youth.

Defi ning college readiness

Defi nitions of college readiness vary depending on the purpose of a given study, article, or initiative. For the purposes of the policy summit and for this monograph, a student is deemed “college ready” when she or he enters higher education ready to engage in college-level work—without the need for remediation—and withthe required knowledge, skills, and maturity to successfully complete the fi rst year. In our operationalizationof the term, readiness encompasses not just cognitive capacity and related academic skills, but also educational awareness, aspirations, and motivation, as well as fi nancial awareness and literacy.


David Conley (2008) defi nes college readiness as a student’s preparation to succeed at the college level, without the need for remediation, in four key areas: cognitive strategies, content knowledge, transition knowledge and skills, and learning skills and techniques. This well-rounded framework on college and career readiness follows the strategy of the 2011 MHEC policy summit in looking at areas beyond the academic realm:

• Within the key cognitive strategies, Conley (2008) lists several thinking skills students need to be college ready. These skills include problem formation, research, interpretation, communication, and precision and accuracy

• Important content knowledge skills include structure of knowledge, challenge level, value, attribution, and effort.

• Access skills in the key transition knowledge and skills category include postsecondary awareness, postsecondary costs, matriculation, career awareness, role and identity, and self-advocacy.

• Finally, the action oriented key learning skills and techniques category includes ownership of learning and learning techniques.

Implications for improving college readiness

College readiness is important to students, to employers, and to the broader society. Lumina Foundation (2010) cites the lower unemployment rates of college graduates as one of the important drivers of its “Goal 2025” initiative. The college degree will only grow in importance for job attainment, given that by 2018, 63 percent of all jobs in the U.S. will require postsecondary education, according to the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Similarly, The College Board highlights that over half of the fastest growing professions in the U.S. require some level of postsecondary education and that four-year college graduates earn 62 percent more than individuals without bachelor’s degrees (Baum, Ma, & Payee, 2010). The benefi ts of earning a postsecondary degree include not just individual fi nancial returns, but societal benefi ts such as increased

political and civic involvement, higher job and life satisfaction, and higher rates of volunteerism.

Students who are underprepared for college often fi nd themselves in remedial coursework. Remediation is costly to institutions and to taxpayers and is a signifi cant obstacle to degree completion. Bill Tierney and Lisa Garcia (2011) estimate the cost to institutions of providing remedial education to be between $2 and $3 billion annually. Conley (2007) notes that remediation also negatively affects individual students through the time and money required for what are mostly non-credit bearing courses, the increased time required to earn a degree, and the reduced chance of graduating with a meaningful credential.

One of the more telling statistics that illuminates the need to improve college readiness is the gap between the percentage of students who aspire to attend college and the percentage who actually earn a degree. Overall, 93 percent of middle school students report having the desire to go to college. Of those, 70 percent graduate from high school, 44 percent enroll in higher education institutions, and 26 percent graduate from college within six years (Conley, 2012). Clearly, students believe that higher education is important to their future, but they often lack the skills and knowledge to fulfi ll their aspirations. Conley (2007) notes that it is important for schools to provide information and resources to promote awareness of and preparation for college, given that schools are likely the only place where this type of “privileged” knowledge can be made available to everyone.

Policy summit highlights

The MHEC policy summit agenda included speakers, panelists, and exhibitors who represented foundations, professional associations, colleges and universities, K-12 school systems, research and policy organizations,

9

advocacy groups and other non-profi ts, state governmental agencies, and corporations. Jamie Merisotis, president and CEO of Lumina Foundation for Education, delivered the opening keynote address of the summit. Merisotis discussed Lumina’s Goal 2025 and challenged participants to increase the proportion of adults with high-quality postsecondary degrees and credentials to 60% by the year 2025. Merisotis emphasized the need for collaboration from all stakeholders in helping prepare students for college as well as in supporting them to complete their degrees. While the remaining policy summit sessions addressed different areas of educational support and success, there were many themes repeated throughout the event.

Following the opening address, participants divided into three different tracks according to their interests. One of the common themes across presentations in the three tracks was the need to work towards decreasing the achievement gap among different groups of students while increasing overall retention and graduation rates. This challenge includes providing additional and more effective forms of support to racial minority and low-income students. In the Curriculum and Academic Preparation track, coordinated by the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education (WISCAPE), presenters discussed different aspects and challenges of the achievement gap and the importance of increasing the rates of degree attainment. Current research was presented by Elizabeth Vaade of WISCAPE and April Hansen of ACT, while Elaine Johnson of the Illinois Community College Board discussed collaborative efforts of the legislature, public universities, and community colleges in Illinois to implement the Illinois College and Career Readiness Act.

Also in the Curriculum and Academic Preparation track, Jan Clinard and William MacGregor discussed efforts to develop and implement the Writing Assessment program in the Montana University System and the effect of the program on decreasing the need for remedial courses once students enter college. A panel representing a public 4-year university, a public 2-year college, and a public school district in the St. Cloud (MN) area addressed collaborative efforts in that community to decrease the achievement gap in immigrant students and students of color through the Access and Opportunity Center.

The Awareness, Aspirations, and Motivations track and the Financial Planning and Literacy track each addressed the need to educate parents, families, and students on strategies and methods to help students learn and prepare for college. The sessions in these tracks introduced participants to resources and examples of helpful materials to educate students and families on fi nancial aid and the costs of college as well as the importance and economic enhancements that a college education provides to the individual. The Regional


Education Laboratory (REL) Midwest sponsored and coordinated the Awareness, Aspirations, and Motivation track. In the fi rst session Nicole Farmer Hurd, executive director of the National College Advising Corps, addressed the need to educate students early in their high school years about the academic curricula and other steps they need to take in order to prepare properly for college. This includes knowing the important core courses that help prepare students for college and increasing student and family awareness of fi nancial aid and the application process. Following Hurd, a panel of higher education institution and non-profi t organization representatives introduced strategies and programs that employ to decrease the achievement gap and increase college success.

Iowa Student Loan sponsored and coordinated the Financial Planning and Literacy track. Marc Hendel, Senior Research Analyst with Iowa Student Loan, addressed the investment value of college and doubts in the general public of the economic returns of a college degree. Hendel provided data to demonstrate the economic and societal benefi ts to college degree attainment. Hendel also highlighted the consequences of college loan defaultsfor student borrowers and the decrease in quality of life that often occurs for borrowers with heavy debt burden. Hendel then moderated a panel of fi nancial aid and college planning experts who discussed strategies for promoting fi nancial literacy among prospective and current college students. Day Two of the summit began with a session on parent and family engagement strategies with Jackie Starr of the Parents of Power Program in the Brooklyn Center (MN) School District, and Patty Montague of the Marist School (GA), who represented the National Association for College Admissions Counseling (NACAC). BothStarr and Montague focused on the need for the support of and engagement from families and parents to help foster student preparedness for college. Starr’s presentation included a discussion of the consequences ofinadequate schooling and preparation for students’ academic futures.

The target audience of the Parents of Power program is parents who need encouragement or education on how to assist their children towards academic success and college attendance.

Montague introduced NACAC’s guide of activities established to assist students from grade school to secondary school on the steps they need to take to gain access to and succeed in college.

Following Starr and Montague’s presentations, Mark Hudson of Dell, provided examples of the infl uence of technology, specifi cally the Internet, on information gathering and learning. Hudson’s presentation includedan online participatory component using “back channel” technology. The use of this tool helped highlightthe multiple layers of learning that students are accustomed to in today’s digitally enhanced educationalenvironment. Because of the increasingly global economy and demanding learning environments, as well asthe ubiquitous presence of technology in most students’ lives, Hudson emphasized that learning environments must adapt to the infl uence of technology in how students obtain knowledge.

Following this session, Linda Baer, senior program offi cer with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, moderated a panel of local institutional leaders and student success professionals who discussed efforts to improve the readiness and success of incoming students, strategies for decreasing the achievement gap, and efforts to help students who require remediation upon entering college. The closing presentation was made by Jose Cruz of The Education Trust. The presentation, entitled “Replenishing Opportunity in America,” highlighted existing gaps in achievement, opportunity, and access for low-income and minority students and presented examples of schools, districts, and universities that have narrowed or eliminated the achievement gap. Along with these examples, Cruz highlighted action strategies for advocates and stakeholders in the movement towards increasing access and success for all students. The closing presentation inspired attendees to refl ect on the causes of achievement gaps and various strategies to decrease or eliminate those gaps. Cruz provided hope and inspiration to attendees for their return home.

11

Data from the American Diploma Project

In addition to the initiatives listed above, the group Achieve, Inc., in partnership with The Education Trust and Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, launched the American Diploma Project (ADP) in 2005, focusing on aligning curriculum and assessment requirements in secondary schools so that every high school graduate is collegeand career ready (Achieve, Inc., 2012a). A total of 35 member states have committed to one or more of theinitiatives and programs that ADP has established to increase the number of students graduating collegeready. Of the 12 MHEC member states, seven are members of ADP: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

ADP has established four action items to reduce the percentage of high school students who are not prepared for college. The action items include 1) aligning high school standards and assessments; 2) requiring studentsto complete a college and career ready curriculum; 3) building statewide assessments to measure collegereadiness; and 4) developing a system of accountability that tracks and promotes college and career readiness education and preparation. From this and other research, ADP provides data for each state on how well high schools are preparing students and how well postsecondary institutions are helping students to completetheir degrees (Achieve, Inc., 2012b).

The table below includes data for each of the MHEC states from ADP and helps to illustrate why increasingcollege readiness is an important focus for MHEC and its member states.

21 ACT /1509 SAT

Percentage of entering 9th

graders who earn a college degree within 10 years

Nation 42% 26

State

Illinois

Michigan

North Dakota

Indiana

Minnesota

Ohio

Kansas

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Iowa

Missouri

South Dakota

Adults (25-64)with college

degrees

45%

35%

49%

38%

41%

45%

40%

46%

39%

40%

36%

50%

Six-year completionrate

for enteringstudents at

4-yearinstitutions

59%

57%

58%

56%

53%

56%

58%

61%

57%

47%

54%

46%

56%

20

24

28

22

22

26

26

26

22

30

18

25

Average ACTor SAT score

(ACT max=36;SAT max=2400)

20.7

1476

22.9

21.8

22

22.1

22.1

22.2

21.6

22.1

19.7

21.5


Conclusion

At a time when the economic recovery is sluggish or stalled—and when so many Americans struggle to fi nd adequate employment—access to, preparedness for, and success in higherand postsecondary education is more important than ever.

The complex array of issues associated with college readiness provides legislators, policymakers, scholars, and others with a long list of potential areas of focus to ensure that the nation can meet its human capital needs well into the future.

13

References

Achieve, Inc. (2012a). The ADP network. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/adp-network

Achieve, Inc. (2012b). The states. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/states

Baum, S., Ma, J., & Payea, K. (2010). Education pays 2010: The benefi ts of higher education for individuals and society. New York, NY: The College Board.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2012). Programs and partnerships. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/programs/Pages/overview.aspx

Conley, D. T. (2007). Redefi ning college readiness, Volume 3. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.

Conley, D. T. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education, 144, 3-13.

Conley, D. T. (2012). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high school [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from https://www.epiconline.org/fi les/pdf/20120326_OEASYM_Conley.pdf

Goal 2025. (2012). Lumina goal 2025. Accessed from: http://goal2025.org/

Lumina Foundation. (2010). A stronger nation through higher education: How and why Americans must achieve a “big goal” for college attainment. Indianapolis, IN: Author.

Nelson, L. (2010, January 19). To reach Obama’s 2020 goal, colleges need to support adult students, panelists say. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Accessed from: http://chronicle.com/article/To-Reach-Obamas-2020-Goal/63646/

The College Board. (2012). The college completion agenda. Retrieved from http://completionagenda.collegeboard.org/

Tierney, W. G. & Garcia, L. D. (2011). Remediation in higher education: The role of information. American Behavioral Sciences, 55(2), 102-120.

U.S. Department of Education. (2008). A nation accountable: Twenty-fi ve years after a nation at risk. Washington, D.C.: Author.


Chapter 2

The Cognitive Dimension of College Readiness: Curriculum and Academic PreparationMin Young Cha, University of MinnesotaLeah Reinert, University of Minnesota

Access to colleges and universities in the United States, once considered a privilege afforded to a very few, has extended far beyond an initial societal and intellectual elite. Increasing the percentage of citizens with some sort of postsecondary degree or credential has become the urgent call of many of the country’s political and education leaders, but how well prepared are students seeking these postsecondary credentials? The nation’s prosperity depends on enhancing student achievement and college readiness. Researchers, practitioners, and policymakers are moving this discussion about student achievement and college readiness beyond stereotypes of students and conventional approaches to college preparation and are challenging us to attempt changes based on research, innovation, and effi ciency.

Those in the public and educational policy community agree that many high school students are neither academically prepared to advance and succeed in college nor vocationally competent to compete internationally, particularly in the fi elds that require rigorous mathematical knowledge and scientifi c understanding (Matthews, 2010). To meet this challenge for better education, several initiatives have been introduced, including the adoption of the Common Core Standards; the competition for Race to the Top federal grants intended to spur innovation and reforms in state education; and the implementation of programs that improve the rigor of the high school senior year, such as dual enrollment, early college high schools, and other accelerated learning opportunities.

College readiness

College readiness has been defi ned as “the level of preparation a student needs in order to enroll andsucceed—without remediation—in a credit-bearing general education course at a postsecondary institution that offers a baccalaureate degree or transfer to a baccalaureate program” (Conley, 2007, p. 5).

The academic readiness of students at the postsecondary level of education is critically dependent on the courses taken in high school.

In fact, according to Adelman (2006), a rigorous high school curriculum is the strongest indicator of bachelor’s degree completion, particularly for students from underrepresented groups. High school math courses in particular promote college readiness. For example, whether a student takes Algebra 2 is the most salient predictor for readiness (Long, Iatarola, & Conger, 2009).

Generally there is no shared understanding among stakeholders about what constitutes a college-ready curriculum despite research showing that a rigorous academic curriculum and the level of mathematics coursework in high school are critical for success in college as well as in the workplace. Both students and instructors lack a shared understanding of what is needed to be “college ready.” Less than 12 percent of students knew the curricular requirements of their public postsecondary institutions, according to a study across six


15

states (Barth, 2003; Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio, 2003). Findings from the 2009 ACT National Survey indicate that there are considerable differences in the perception of what constitutes college readiness among high school teachers and college instructors. This discrepancy in perception is common across all core content areas, such as writing, mathematics, reading, and science.

Reaching consensus on what it means to be college ready is not easy (Barth, 2003). Secondary and postsecondary systems of education have separate management and accountability systems. Postsecondary institutions defi ne standards for college level coursework and remedial courses; K-12 level institutions establish the curriculum for college preparatory courses. Neither consults or collaborates with the other to the extent that is needed (Venezia et al., 2003).

Achievement gap

Academic preparation for college was one of three core dimensions featured during MHEC’s 7th annual policy summit on college readiness—Ready or Not Here They Come: Ensuring the College Success of All Students. Summit speaker April Hansen, director of postsecondary services at ACT, reported that only 25 percent of all students who take the ACT meet college readiness benchmarks on all tested subjects.1 According to ACT’s national college readiness indicator, approximately 75 percent of 2006 high school graduates who took core curriculum courses were not academically prepared to take entry level college courses (ACT, Inc., 2007). Of course, this lack of academic readiness has fi nancial implications for students, postsecondary institutions, and taxpayers.

The disparity in achievement across racial and ethnic lines is perhaps the most troubling in the area of college readiness. Racial and ethnic minority students tend to be academically less prepared for college level courses (Long et al., 2009). Summit presenter Elizabeth Vaade, policy analyst at the Wisconsin Center for the Advancement of Postsecondary Education, noted that disparities and gaps along racial and ethnic lines still exist and continue to grow in education. First-generation, low-income, and minority students do not attend college or obtain college degrees at the same rate as their peers. This student population is often in need of remediation in the fi rst year in college, typically with the greatest remediation needs seen associated with an educated populace in mathematics and science. Since increasing the number of individuals graduating with college degrees is both a private and a public good, this disparity will not only include increased social inequality but also diminish the civic and public benefi ts.

Research fi ndings and existing school improvement initiatives suggest that a more rigorous (“college-prep”) core curriculum needs to be established and provided for all students, regardless of their current academic achievement level or economic background (Barth, 2003). To this end, the examples below represent recent policy and program initiatives that focus on accountability, assessment, and evidence. Above all, the alignment of curriculum and learning assessment between higher education and K-12 education is critical for better transition and readiness (Callan, Finney, Kirst, Usdan, & Venezia, 2006). Although Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) are currently the two most representative advanced curriculum tracksfor high school students, their use alone cannot guarantee that more students will have the necessarycollege-level academic preparation and credit needed (Plucker, Chien, & Zaman). Common Core State Standards

Research indicates that educational curriculum content standards differ among the states and also differ from those advocated by discipline-specifi c professional associations. For instance, many state standards are not adequately aligned to those advocated by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)2 or the National Science Education Standards (NSES), with exceptions of a few states such as New Jersey, Illinois,

1 All MHEC policy summit presentations can be found on the MHEC website under Policy Research and Resources: Publications and Presentations.2 Links to this association and other resources can be found in the appendix.


and Oklahoma, that mention the use of NCTM in their standard policies. At the same time, a small set of common core standards of content do exist (Porter, Polikoff, & Smithson, 2009). Nevertheless, a coherent setof standards and curriculum guidelines across the various levels of the education system has been scarce inthe United States.

To promote content standards that remain consistent and accountable across states, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Offi cers initiated the CommonCore State Standards for English language and mathematics throughout K-12. Although teachers are not obligated to adopt these standards, the goal of this initiative is to reduce the disparity in academic rigor of curricular content across the states. Moreover, states adopting these standards will be given incentives—fl exibility in using existing federal funds, support for revising state accountability structures, and opportunities for other types of fi nancial assistance. In addition to balancing educational rigor across the curriculum, these standards are also expected to better align K-12 curricula with core competencies required in higher education and the workforce. Further, the higher education community will be involved with assessment development so that the results can be utilized for exempting students from remedial courses at the college level (King, 2011).

Examples of policy and practice

Speakers at MHEC’s college readiness policy summit presented information about programs and initiatives that assess high school student college readiness, encourage enrollment in high school college preparatory courses, and align secondary and postsecondary curriculum and course standards. The Montana University System Writing Assessment, the Illinois College and Career Readiness Act, and the Access and Opportunity Program of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities were featured at the summit. Their programs and others are outlined below as examples of programs that are working to increase college readiness through academic preparation in a rigorous curriculum.

Assessment and early preparation

Montana University System Writing Assessment (MUSWA)

Jan Clinard and William MacGregor highlighted the success of the Montana University System Writing Assessment (MUSWA), a program that has reduced the number of students needing remedial courses on

17

college level writing by more clearly aligning college-level standards with the assessment given to students. In spite of the challenges of increasing costs for remedial courses and students’ under-preparedness, MUSWA proved that a better way to improve college readiness can be found and achieved with concerted efforts from committed visionary leadership, statewide uniform assessment, and ownership by fi eld practitioners.

Because of MUSWA, the proportion of students at or above the profi cient level has increased from 37.8 percent to 75 percent among all participants regardless of college aspirations.

High schools located in American Indian reservation areas that used MUSWA also showed a noticeable increase in the number of students at or above the profi cient level (Montana University System, 2011).

Early College High School Initiative

Provided as an alternative to high school courses and as an opportunity for students to earn college creditswhile in high school, the Early College High School Initiative provides students who attend at-risk high schools with social and intellectual environments that encourage adaptation to college-level courses and obtainment of the equivalent of up to two years of college credit (Plucker et al., 2006). Early College High Schools offer a setting for students to exceed conventional expectations that limit their progress. For example, the Hidalgo Independent School District in Texas illustrates how a culture that encourages college education can help two-thirds of their high school seniors earn at least one full semester of college credit while still enrolled in high school (Nodine, 2010). Although it is located in one of the most economically destitute metropolitan areas in Texas, this initiative has successfully imbued the local district with a college culture. Higher expectations for student leadership have encouraged students to take more rigorous college-level courses. Moreover, this initiative also established a partnership with local K-12 schools, community colleges, and universities, successfully aligning the expectations of postsecondary institutions with the curricula taught at K-12 schools. For example, junior high school students are encouraged to take Algebra 1 at the eighth grade level rather than in ninth grade and to take more Advanced Placement (AP) courses in high school. The Texas Higher Education Assessment (THEA) serves as the mechanism to qualify students for courses that could count for dual credit, credit at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. Additionally, THEA also monitors student progress toward college readiness. Students were supported by a seamless institutional network that connected them to their next stage, keeping expectations of academic achievement high.

The Early Assessment Program at California State University

In conjunction with the State Board of Education and the California Department of Education, California State University (CSU) developed the Early Assessment Program, which provides high school juniors with the opportunity to assess their college-level math and English skills. This statewide assessment program is intended to give students enough time to progress toward a college-level curriculum. If students pass the required level on the assessment and they have adequate preparation for placement, this test can exempt them from placement tests at CSU. An obvious benefi t of this program is that students who need assistance can save time by preparing themselves for college-level courses while still in their senior year of high school. CSU has fewer college-level students who need remedial classes as a result (Callan et al., 2006).

Get Ready, Get Credit in Minnesota

By encouraging high school students to take college-level credits early and by using assessments, Minnesota’s Get Ready, Get Credit program follows a two-step process geared toward preparing students for college. First, students take state-funded tests (ACT Explore for 8th graders and ACT Plan for 10th graders) to gain fi rst-hand knowledge about their readiness for college. Students who take college-level courses are encouraged to take the College Board’s College Level Examination Program (CLEP) at the state’s expense, a program that allows


students to earn college credit by demonstrating their mastery of college-level material in introductory subjects such as composition and literature, mathematics, science, history and social studies, foreign language, and business. High school students are allowed to advance into college-level content and courses, enabling them to progress academically even when their high schools do not offer the curriculum needed. At the same time, the program can save students money by reducing the number of terms they are enrolled in college.

Curriculum and standards

The Illinois College and Career Readiness Act

At the MHEC policy summit, Elaine Johnson from the Illinois Community College Board presented information about the pilot project developed by the Board called the Illinois College and Career Readiness Act (IL CCR Act). Enacted to help students transition from high school to higher education, the IL CCR Act was developed from a bill sponsored by Senator Edward Maloney to help students transition from high school to higher education to reduce the need for remedial education. In Illinois, 50 percent of fi rst-time, full-time college students need remedial or developmental coursework. A few of the activities initiated at the CCR pilot sites included, an analysis of the curriculum gap, textbook and syllabus sharing across systems, and early placement testing. These activities assist with the goal of aligning the high school curriculum with the college curriculum. Of the 1,284 community college students who participated in CCR in 2009 and 2010, 584 transitioned into higher level and college credit courses. With the help of over 200 higher education institutions in the state, the IL CCR Act is examining the data to determine the areas of assistance most needed to help students prepare for college and decrease their need for remedial education (Baber, Barrientos, Bragg, Castro & Khan, 2009).

The Area Access and Opportunity Center, St. Cloud

Also featured at the MHEC policy summit was a partnership developed among four-year and two-year public colleges and universities that are part of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System and a local school district to address the achievement gap for racial and ethnic minority students in Minnesota. Robert Johnson, Julia Espe, and Phil Schroeder presented information demonstrating the importance of collaboration and a one-stop approach in serving underrepresented populations for college readiness. Since the enrollment of students of color soared from less than 5 percent to nearly 30 percent in School District 742 between 1988 and 2011, funding went toward the state initiated Access and Opportunity Program (AOP) Center in St. Cloud to decrease the achievement gap between White, affl uent students and low-income and racial and ethnic minority, immigrant, and fi rst-generation students in that area. The AOP Center then developed a partnership among the local four-year and two-year public colleges and universities and the local school district to assist in diagnosing problems, identifying obstacles, and working towards decreasing that achievement gap.

Collaborative efforts among the different levels of institutions resulted in improved program outcomes, including increased academic achievement, college readiness, and college persistence among students of color, low-income, fi rst-generation, and immigrant students.

Located within public schools, the AOP Center provides a model for a unique comprehensive service for college readiness. Staff members help students prepare for college by introducing postsecondary options, mentoring, tutoring assistance, summer programs, English language learning services, curriculum planning, and test preparation. The contact with the staff members makes a critical difference for the underserved population because many students, particularly underrepresented students, often miss out on information and communication with experienced sources. AOP has served more than 1,400 students since 2008, and students served by the AOP have demonstrated noticeable improvements in Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) and Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) test scores. Following the AOP initiative, several grassroots movements emerged among various organizations, such as private community institutions, faith communities, and a student success task force, that also encourage college education for underserved groups.

19

Indiana’s Twenty-fi rst Century Scholars Program

Indiana implemented several changes aimed at increasing the numbers of its citizens that complete a postsecondary degree or certifi cate. In addition to providing a more academically rigorous college preparatory curriculum, beginning in 1990 Indiana implemented fi nancial aid policies to encourage and support low-income students in enrolling in college preparatory courses. Among the eighth grade students who qualify for federal free and reduced lunch programs, those who made a pledge to fi nish high school with at least a “C” average and to enroll in postsecondary institutions in Indiana were provided with fi nancial support for higher education by the state. With differentiated support rates of 80, 90, and 100 percent of tuition fees depending on the rigor of the high school diploma completed, this program has encouraged more underrepresented students to take a college-preparatory curriculum. As a result, the proportion of students who completed a “Core 40,” the honors diploma, has increased across each ethnic/racial group (African American: from 23 percent to 47 percent; Hispanic: from 29 percent to 51 percent; White: from 45 percent and 67 percent; and multi-racial: 36 percent to 66 percent). Given that the courses a student takes is a strong indicator for college readiness (Plucker et al.), the increased proportion of underrepresented students who earn an academically more rigorous high school diploma indicates their higher chances of success in higher education (Callan et al., 2006).

Universal Algebra Policy Access to a particular math curriculum at the right time is critical for advancement into college. For example, access to an algebra class is closely related to taking other math classes of a higher level and successful advancement into postsecondary education. Additionally, this access to a rigorous math curriculum eventually helps students obtain jobs that require skills in advanced technology. Although there has been a noticeable increase across the U.S. in Algebra I enrollment at the eighth grade level for the past 20 years, overall achievement has been decreasing, indicating the disproportionate preparedness levels of students. To increase enrollment in all higher education institutions and to ensure better achievement levels in algebra, a universal algebra policy has been initiated. This policy has resulted in an increase in enrollment, particularly from minority and low socioeconomic (SES) students. Increased time of instruction and support for low-achieving students will strengthen the infl uence of this policy (Stein, Hillen, Sherman, & Kaufman, 2011).


Conclusion

The curriculum and academic preparation for postsecondary education undertaken by students will have signifi cant consequences beyond the student’s own experiences. Whereas a well-aligned curriculum motivates students toward achieving academic goals and helps them progress toward successful careers, a misaligned curriculum not only leaves defi cits in a student’s education but can also result in increased institutional costs as well as costs to society as a whole. Policymakers, researchers, and practitioners, therefore, must focus on creative planning and collaborative strategies that ensure college readiness, degree completion, and competency in the workforce.

Postsecondary education could do more to promote efforts to inform high school students, or even middle school students, which high school courses comprise the core curriculum (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010). Increased attention needs to be devoted to assisting middle school students and high school seniors to make the best use of their secondary educational opportunities.

Improved alignment of K-12 education and postsecondary education can equip students to enter the workforce with greater foundational skills and competencies.

Local secondary and postsecondary institutions working collaboratively can affect the changes needed to better prepare students academically for whatever postsecondary and career plans students have. Local community colleges and universities can act as a resource by providing student assessments of readiness. At the national level, efforts to align K-12 education with postsecondary education are ongoing. The American Diploma Project, the Bridge Project, Standard for Success, and ACT Standards for Transition are just a few of them. Evidence-based, core standard-based, data-driven research will enrich the process as well. What will ultimately contribute most to a more rigorous curriculum, equally accessible to all students, is a concerted effort and willingness to address this issue collaboratively among K-12 and higher education leaders as well as state legislators and practitioners.

Finally, access to a rigorous secondary curriculum is not simply about having enough high school graduates taking the right kinds of courses for college preparation and future success in the workforce. The issue of preparedness is also closely related to whether we will continue to perpetuate social inequality or whether we will take measures to break that cycle. Strategically helping minority and low-income students gain access to and succeed in a college-oriented curriculum will further the goal of producing the increased numbers of citizens with college degrees or certifi cates that are needed in this country. State policymakers, school board members, community leaders, counselors, teachers and parents are encouraged to leverage their respective resources to address the issue of preparedness for the benefi t of our nation’s future.

References

ACT, Inc. (2009). Focusing on the essentials for college and career readiness: Policy implications of the ACT National Curriculum Survey results 2009. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.

ACT, Inc. (2007). Rigor at risk: Reaffi rming quality in the high school core curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/rigor_report.pdf.

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf

21

Baber, L. D., Barrientos, J. I., Bragg, D. D., Castro, E. L., & Khan, S. (2009). The Illinois college and career readiness act: Year-one evaluation results. University of Illinois of Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved from http://occrl.illinois.edu/fi les/Projects/ccr/Report/CCRYear_One_Report.pdf

Barth, P. (2003). A common core curriculum for the new century. Thinking K-16, 7(1), 3-29.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). What’s next? The assessment challenges facing states. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/whats-next-assessment-challenges.pdf

Callan, P., Finney, J., Kirst, M., Usdan, M., & Venezia, A. (2006). Claiming common ground: State policymaking for improving college readiness and success. The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.highereducation.org/reports/common_ground/common_ground.pdf

Conley, D. (2007). Redefi ning college readiness. Educational Policy Improvement Center. Retrieved from https://www.epiconline.org/fi les/pdf/Redefi ningCR_Vol3.pdf

King, J. (2011). Implementing the common core state standards. American Council on Education. Retrieved from http://www.californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/Executive/StudentSuccessTaskForce/ImplementingTheCommonCoreStateStandards_2011.pdf

Long, M., Iatarola, P., & Conger, D. (2009). Explaining gaps in readiness for college-level math: The role of high school courses. Education Finance and Policy, 4(1), 1-33.

Matthews, D. (2010). A stronger nation through higher education. Lumina Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/A_Stronger_Nation-2012.pdf

Montana University System. (2011). Writing profi ciency. Retrieved from http://mus.edu/writingprofi ciency/index.asp

Nodine, T. (2010). College success for all: How the Hidalgo independent school district is adopting early college as a district-wide strategy. Jobs for the Future. Retrieved from http://www.jff.org/sites/default/fi les/college_success_for_all.pdf

Plucker, J., Chien, R., & Zaman, K. (2006). Enriching the high school curriculum through postsecondary credit-based transition programs. Center for Evaluation & Education Policy, 4(2), 1-12.

Porter, A., Polikoff, M., & Smithson, J. (2009). Is there a de facto national intended curriculum? Evidence from state content standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 238-268.

Stein, M., Hillen, A., Sherman, M., & Kaufman, J. (2011). Algebra: A challenged at the crossroads of policy and practice. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 453-492.

Venezia, A., Kirst, M., & Antonio, A. (2003). Betraying the college dream: How disconnected K-12 and postsecondary education systems undermine student aspirations. The Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research. Retrieved from http://www.stanford.edu/group/bridgeproject/betrayingthecollegedream.pdf


Chapter 3

The Social Dimension of College Readiness: Awareness,Aspirations, and MotivationKelly Slay, University of Michigan

Ask any number of high school students if they would like to go to college, and chances are they will answer “yes.” In fact, the proportion of high school students who have expressed aspirations to obtain a bachelor’s degree has increased steadily to levels above 80 percent over the past decade (U.S. Department of Education, 2004; ACT, Inc., 2011). Most striking is that these high aspiration levels are consistent across racial and ethnic groups and family income, with low-income students having aspirations that meet or exceed those of high-income students (College Board, 2011).

While these fi gures may be encouraging, in many cases, especially with regard to African American and Latino students, educational aspirations do not always translate into degree attainment. For example, as of 2009, only 29.4 percent African Americans and 19.2 percent of Latinos age 25 and older, compared to 69.1 percent of Asian Americans and 48.7 percent of Whites held an associate’s degree or higher (Lee, Edwards, Menson, & Rawls, 2011). Roderick, Nagaoka, Coca, & Moeller’s (2008) longitudinal analysis of enrollment patterns among high school graduates in the Chicago Public School District, which has a student population that is 90 percent African American or Latino, underscores this phenomenon (Chicago Public Schools, 2009). Of the students who aspired to earn a four-year degree, only 59 percent actually submitted applications, 51 percent were accepted to at least one four-year college or university, and only 41 percent actually enrolled in the fall after graduation (Roderick et al., 2008). We can presume that an even smaller proportion earned a baccalaureate degree.

The aspiration attainment gap, relatively low degree attainment despite relatively high aspirations, is increasingly common among African American and Latino students as well as students fromlow-income families (Carter, 2002; Deil-Amen & Tevis, 2010; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009).

Closing this gap is critical to advancing the nation’s college completion agenda, a systematic effort toincrease the proportion of 25-34 year olds with associate and baccalaureate degrees to 55 percent by 2025 (Lee et al., 2011).

Central to closing the aspiration attainment gap are two considerations that emerge relevant to the college completion agenda. First, to “increase social mobility and augment the nation’s human capital,” Bowen, Chingos, & McPherson (2009, p. 104) suggest that considerable gains can be made among racial and ethnic minorities and particularly those from “modest backgrounds.” Second, these gains can likely be made through programs and policies that seek to improve students’ college readiness. Exposure to low levels of academic preparation not only limits access to postsecondary education, but also increases the likelihood students will not persist to graduation (Bowen et al., 2009). Efforts to improve college readiness have the potential to increase degree attainment rates overall, but particularly among groups where the largest gains can be realized (i.e., racial minority and low-income students). This chapter provides a synopsis of research, policy, and practice relevant to the social or noncognitive aspect of college readiness. I fi rst begin with a description of the elements that comprise the conceptualization of college readiness and follow with a summary of research. Next, I discuss state level college readiness policies. Finally, specifi c programmatic initiatives presented at the MHEC policy summit are described.


23

College readiness defi ned

Historically, college readiness has been determined by high school GPA, performance on achievement tests (i.e., high school exit exams, state merit exams, and the ACT and SAT), and completion of minimum coursework required for four-year college admission (Roderick et al., 2009); however, current disparities in college enrollment and completion rates suggest these factors are not necessarily equitable nor are they comprehensive indicators of readiness (Bowman, 2011; Sedlacek, 2011). Although academic preparation in high school is an important component of college readiness, it is not the lone factor (Sedlacek, 2004, 2011). Awareness of the college-going process as well as the development of non-cognitive skills—behaviors that refl ect motivation, self-awareness, help-seeking behaviors and social problem-solving skills—are critical elements of college readiness that may help reduce the aspiration attainment gap and consequently increase degree attainment rates among marginalized student groups (Conley, 2007; Roderick et al., 2009).

Awareness of college-going process

A student’s college readiness is partly determined by access to relevant information about the college-going process, including coursework required for college admissions, eligibility for fi nancial aid, and the types of institutions compatible with the student’s background. Studies have concluded that racial and ethnic minorities and low-income students are generally least likely to have access to such requisite information, which in turn limits their ability to engage effectively in the college search process (McDonough, 1997; Plank & Jordan, 2001; Roderick et al., 2009). This partly explains the tendency of these students to “undermatch” to less-selective four-year institutions or community colleges, even when they have a higher socioeconomic (SES) status or possess academic qualifi cations similar to their White or more affl uent peers (Kurlaender, 2006; Roderick et al. 2008; Thomas & Perna, 2004). This is particularly problematic since students who are undermatched to a less selective institution have lower graduation rates (Bowen et al., 2009). This leads to an important question about college knowledge. Where does it come from and how is it shared?

The transmission of information about college has been frequently examined in the context of social capital, defi ned by Bordieu (1986) as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network . . . or membership in a group” (p. 247). In educational research, the notion of social capital is commonly invoked to underscore the role of social networks available through family, peers, and high school in transmitting college-relevant knowledge to students. The key insight of such research is that gaining access to college is not solely a function of the student’s academic achievement, but is also contingent on having the right social connections.

FamilyParents and siblings can play an important role in providing college-bound students with information aboutthe college-going process, although the methods used and overall effectiveness may differ across racial and ethnic groups (Cejda, 2006; Perna & Titus, 2005; Smith, 2009). Specifi cally, African American students receive a smaller enrollment “premium” for each unit of parent-student discussion about education compared with students from other racial groups (Perna & Titus, 2005). Moreover, an ethnographic study of the involvement of low socioeconomic African American parents in decisions about college choice suggested that most parents lacked familiarity with the roadmap to college and evaluated college options mainly in terms of the potential economic returns of a degree (Smith, 2009). It was diffi cult for the parents to see other values of a college education, such as personal development, an expanded social network, and learning opportunities. Cejda’s (2006) qualitative study of 20 Chicanas in a Los Angeles high school revealed that older siblings often replace parents as information sources due to language barriers and their parents’ overall unfamiliarity with the college-going process.


Peers

Research has indicated that peers not only provide supportive environments for thinking about and preparing for college, but they also infl uence college choice and enrollment (Griffi n, Allen, Kimura-Walsh, & Yamamura, 2007; Pérez & McDonough, 2008; Sokatch, 2006).

Similarly, low-income and minority youth are particularly likely to be infl uenced by their peers in selecting and enrolling in a postsecondary institution (Pérez & McDonough, 2008; Sokatch, 2006).

For example, the college planning by the friends and peers of a student is a critical factor for a low-income student from an urban high school, according Sokatch’s (2006) analysis of four-year college enrollment. Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, and Person (2006) discovered that Hispanic students guided their college choice process by observing the enrollment patterns of previous cohorts in the same social network. Results of Holland’s (2011) qualitative analysis of African American peer infl uences indicated same-age peers (ratherthan older peers) served as positive sources of academic and social support. Respondents reported that they sought advice from their peers and received information about college preparatory programs that was usefulin making future plans.

High school

Beyond family and friends, students may develop a greater awareness about college through their high school social network (Perna & Titus, 2005; Roderick et al., 2008, 2011). Accordingly, Stanton-Salazar (2010) emphasized access to institutional agents or non-familial contacts such as teachers, counselors and other staff, who can share knowledge and assist students with the college admissions process. Within the high school these individuals can also help foster a college-going culture that refl ects a shared commitment among teachers and staff and expectations for engagement in the college planning process (Conley, 2007). Roderick et al. (2008, 2011) demonstrated the potential impact of a college-going culture in their study of Chicago high school graduates, which revealed that students were most likely to enroll in a four-year institution when they had attended high schools characterized by an established pattern of students attending four-year colleges; teachers who take responsibility for preparing and supporting students in navigating the college application process; and a large proportion of students who have fi led a FAFSA. Partnerships between high schools and colleges may also expand and reinforce a college-going culture. Specifi cally, Engberg and Wolniak (2009) found that students

25

attending high schools with a stronger historical relationship with a particular college or university were likely to matriculate at that institution, thus suggesting that social networks between high schools and four-year institutions correlate positively with college enrollment.

Non-cognitive skill development

Although core academic skills and content knowledge are used commonly to defi ne college readiness, the literature points to important fi ndings about the utility of non-cognitive skills in predicting college outcomes (Robbins et al., 2004; Sedlacek, 2004). According to Conley (2007), non-cognitive skills include a range of behaviors—study skills, time management, help-seeking behaviors and problem solving skills that refl ect self-awareness, self-monitoring and self-control. Roderick et al. (2009) further suggests, “meeting the developmental demands of college requires behavioral, problem-solving, and coping skills that allow students to successfully manage new environments and the new academic and social demands of college” (p.190). The application of non-cognitive variables in college readiness has become increasingly common as evidenced by the rise in non-cognitive assessment tools and intervention studies. The assessment tools determine students’ psychosocial skills and potential level of risk, while the intervention studies expose students to study skills, learning strategies, anxiety management, and self-management components, followed by an evaluation of student outcomes (Burkum, Robbins, & Phelps, 2011). In both cases, stakeholders are interested in correlations between non-cognitive constructs and student outcomes such as retention and GPA.

The use of non-cognitive measures dates back several decades to the foundational work of Sedlacek and Brooks (1976). Together, they proposed seven dimensions that were positively correlated with high school GPA and persistence among African American students. The measures were further refi ned to include a total of eight dimensions, which now comprise the Noncognitive Questionnaire (NCQ), a tool that despite criticism from other researchers (see Thomas, Kuncel, & Crede, 2007) is often used in higher education admissions, student support services and scholarship programs (i.e., Gates Millennium Scholars) as a measure of student potential and outcomes. The eight dimensions are positive self-concept, realistic self-appraisal, understanding and ability to deal with racism, preference for long-term goals, availability of a strong support person, leadership, community involvement, and knowledge acquired in a fi eld.

Positive self-concept

According to Sedlacek (2010), positive self-concept is the demonstration of “confi dence, strength of character, determination and independence” (p. 4). Sedlacek (2004) suggests that a positive self-concept and high levelsof confi dence, character, and determination increases the likelihood that students will persist in college even when faced with diffi cult circumstances.

Realistic self-appraisal

A student’s self-refl ective assessment of her strengths and weaknesses is considered to be a realistic self-appraisal (Sedlacek, 2004). According to Sedlacek (2010), realistic self-appraisal correlates with grades, retention, and graduation among college students. The correlation is even stronger for African Americans among all three variables.

Understanding and ability to deal with racism

This construct describes how students are able to handle specifi c challenges with which they are confronted.It is also an indicator of how well minority students are able to achieve social and academic integration attheir institution.


Preference for long-term goals

Students with a preference for long-term goals effectively plan ahead, set goals, and are able to delay gratifi cation (Sedlacek, 2004). Sedlacek (2004) also reports these students are more likely to do better incollege than their peers without an orientation toward long-term goals.

Availability of strong support person

This construct describes a student’s access to someone who is actively engaged in advising and directing himor her, not just someone who is serving as a role model. It is also the degree to which the student relies solely on his or her own resources (Sedlacek, 2004). Leadership

Students who exhibit leadership show initiative and are actively involved in extracurricular activities. Sedlacek (2004) asserts that this leadership often looks different for nontraditional students. As an example, nontraditional students may show leadership by getting involved in their community, church, or other activities specifi c to their culture (Liu & Sedlacek, 1999). Community involvement

The community involvement construct is an assessment of the student’s identifi cation with a geographic, cultural, or racial group and demonstrated activism within the community or group (Sedlacek, 2004).

Knowledge acquired in a fi eld

This construct examines students’ experiences in a given fi eld gained through academic study and opportunities outside of the classroom. Sedlacek (2004) has suggested that students from diverse backgrounds employ nontraditional methods in learning about various fi elds and career options.

A role for policy

As part of its College Completion Agenda, the College Board has developed ten recommendations to increase degree attainment rates in the U.S.

With the current counselor-teacher ratio in U.S. high schools at 457 to 1, one of the recommendations is that colleges bolster middle school and high school college counseling capacity (College Board, 2011).

Recently, the states of Washington and Kentucky successfully enacted policies around this recommendation.

In Washington, the “Navigation 101”1 program was fi rst developed at one school but was then implemented at several districts around the state before being offi cially supported by the Washington State Legislature (State of Washington, Offi ce of the Superintendent of Schools, 2008). The program includes fi ve key components: small group meetings with an advisor or teacher to discuss coursework, skills, and college plans; portfolios to help students refl ect on progress and plans to improve; data collection; student-led scheduling; and a student-led conference in which students share their achievements, dreams, and future plans with advisors, teachers, and family members. The Individual Learning Plan in Kentucky is an electronic comprehensive college and career-counseling program that seeks to connect students’ high school coursework with postsecondary goals (Kentucky Department of Education, 2011). Students begin working with an advisor in sixth grade to explore careers or identify postsecondary institutions that match their skills, interests, and academic profi le. Additionally, students use the plan to track and refl ect on their community service experiences, college or career planning activities, and extra-curricular involvements (Kentucky Department of Education, 2011).

27

The state of North Carolina has also taken up a charge to improve college and career readiness. In 2011, the North Carolina Community College System and the Department of Public Health began developing guidelines to implement the “Career and College Promise” legislation, which was passed by the general assembly and endorsed in May 2011. The legislation allows high school juniors and seniors to dually enroll in structured community college pathway programs that provide routes to employment, college transfer, or associate’s degree completion. Students must meet certain requirements, including a satisfactory GPA, the completion of a PLAN assessment (a test administered by ACT in the tenth grade), and in some cases profi ciency in math, reading and English (North Carolina Career & College Promise, 2012). Although the intention of this policy is to ensure college readiness for North Carolina high school students, unlike the Individual Learning Plan and Navigation 101, the mechanisms to accomplish this goal are ambiguous. While it appears that students who are involved in the program will have access to more information about the college admissions process, it is unclear whether the policy will emphasize non-cognitive skills as a component of college readiness. Indeed, while policymakers acknowledge the importance of college readiness, the reality is that most policies still focus on academic preparation as the key imperative in improving college readiness and not necessarily on a comprehensive approach that improves academic preparation, awareness, and non-cognitive skills.

Programmatic initiatives

During the Midwestern Higher Education Compact’s 7th annual policy summit, practitioners, researchers, and policymakers gathered to exchange best practices related to the role of aspirations, awareness, and motivation in developing college readiness among high school students.2 Nicole Farmer Hurd, executive director of the National College Advising Corps (NCAC), shared evidence-based recommendations for use by educators in addressing challenges specifi c to improving college readiness for underrepresented student populations, such as creating a college-going culture through developing a college leadership team comprised of parents, faculty, and staff; implementing a college decision day; or incentivizing students through key application steps tied to prom or other popular senior year events. Elizabeth Tankersley-Bankhead, executive director of the Missouri College Advising Corps, later added to the discussion by explaining NCAC’s innovative approach to raising college enrollment and completion rates among low-income, fi rst-generation, and underrepresented high school students.

1 Links to this association and other resources can be found in the appendix.2 All MHEC policy summit presentations can be found on the MHEC website under Policy Research and Resources: Publications and Presentations.


The program places well-trained, recent college graduates of four-year partner institutions into many of the nation’s lowest performing high schools to advise students on college admissions, completion of fi nancial aid, and enrollment.

As an example of how to create a college-going culture earlier in the education pipeline, Mary Lou Dresbach, director of outreach and partnerships at the Minnesota Offi ce of Higher Education, described the “Get Ready” program, which serves fi fth through twelfth grade students from low-income families and racial/ethnic groups traditionally underrepresented in postsecondary institutions. Get Ready staff work primarily within middle and high schools to develop a college-going culture by implementing several types of activities, including skill-building (e.g., goal-setting), tutoring, career exploration, college visits, summer academic camps, parent workshops, and teacher development. Adding to the discussion, Bobbi Hagist, student services director at Kirkwood Community College, shared that her outreach efforts to students as early as eigth grade included the use of social media, informational sessions with parents, and the awarding of scholarships. The “ACCESS” scholarship in particular provides full funding for an associate’s degree at Kirkwood to eighth grade students who commit to graduating from high school in good standing.

Summer bridge programs provide an alternative or an add-on strategy to targeting college readiness in high school. Typically designed to reduce the need for developmental education among recent high school graduates, summer bridge programs may also help students psychologically adjust to college, become familiar with social support services and student networks that are available to support them, and expose students to non-cognitive skills that will help them meet the demands of their new environment. During the policy summit, Joseph Green, executive director of the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) at Marquette University, described the success of the summer bridge program offered as a component of his institution’s Student Success Services program, one of several federally funded programs that fall under the TRIO umbrella.

While four-year institutions are generally more apt to offer summer bridge opportunities to incoming freshmen, community colleges around the country are constructing similar programs. In 2009, Texas began a collaborative effort with the National Center for the Postsecondary Research (NCPR) to study the impact of eight developmental summer bridge programs on student outcomes, seven at community colleges and one at afour-year open-enrollment institution. The key components of the programs include: accelerated math, reading and writing classes; academic support; a college knowledge component; and a $400 stipend. Preliminary fi ndings indicate that program participants and members of the control group enrolled in the fall or spring semester at similar (high) rates; however, program participants were more likely to attempt high-level reading, writing, and math courses compared to students in the control group. Finally, with regard to college knowledge, program participants expressed being better prepared to navigate college after being exposed to information about the campus, student services, and resources (Wathington et al., 2011).

Conclusion

As the nation forges ahead in pursuit of improving enrollment and completion rates, we should be reminded of insightful research and successful policies and practices that can support this effort. Furthermore, stakeholders must go beyond the traditional conceptualization of college readiness as being synonymous with academic preparation. In order to decrease the aspirations attainment gap and increase college enrollment and completion, policymakers, practitioners, and researchers must embrace a more comprehensive approach to college readiness that includes an awareness of the college-going process and non-cognitive skill development.

29

References

ACT, Inc. (2011). The condition of college and career readiness. Iowa City, IA. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/cccr11/index.html

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.

Bowen, W., Chingos, M., & McPherson, M. (2009). Crossing the fi nish line: Completing college at America’s public universities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bowman, P. J. (2011). Need for a 21st century merit agenda. In P. J. Bowman & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Diversity, merit and higher education: Toward a comprehensive agenda for the 21st century (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: AMS Press.

Burkum, K., Robbins, S., & Phelps, R. (2011). Admissions, academic readiness, and student success: Implications for growing a diverse education pipeline. In P. J. Bowman & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Diversity, merit and higher education: Toward a comprehensive agenda for the 21st century (pp. 207-232). New York, NY: AMS Press.

Carter, D. F. (2002). College students’ degree aspirations: A theoretical model and literature review with a focus on African American and Latino students. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: A Handbook of Theoryand Research. Bronx, NY: Agathon Press.

Cejda, M. (2006). Understanding the role of parents and siblings as information sources in the college choice process of Chicana students. Journal of College Student Development, 47(1), 87-104.

Chicago Public Schools. (2009). Academic and Enrichment. Retrieved from http://www.cps.edu/Pages/home.aspx.

Conley, D. ( 2007). Toward a more comprehensive conception of college readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center. Retrieved from http://www.collegiatedirections.org/2007_Gates_CollegeReadinessPaper.pdf

College Board. (2011). Complexity in college admission: The barriers between aspiration and enrollment forlow-income students. Washington, D.C.: College Board Advocacy & Policy Center. Retrieved from http://advocacy.collegeboard.org/sites/default/fi les/11b-4062_AdmissComplex_web.pdf

Deil-Amen, R., & Tevis, T. L. (2010). Circumscribed agency: The relevance of standardized college entrance exams for low SES high school students. The Review of Higher Education, 33(2), 141-175.

Engberg, M. E., & Wolniak, G. C. (2009). Navigating disparate pathways to college: Examining the conditional effects of race on enrollment decisions. TC Record, 111(9), 2255-2279.

Griffi n, K. A., Yamamura, E., Kimura-Walsh, E. F., & Allen, W. R. (2007). Those who left, those who stayed: The educational opportunities of high-achieving Black and Latina/o students in magnet and non-magnet Los Angeles high schools. Educational Studies, 42(3), 229-247.

Holland, N. (2011). The power of peers: Infl uences on postsecondary education planning and experiences of African American students. Urban Education, 46, 1029-1055.


Kentucky Department of Education. (2012). Individual Learning Plan. Retrieved from http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional+Resources/ILP++Individual+Learning+Plan/

Kurlaender, M. (2006). Choosing community college: Factors affecting Latino college choice. New Directions for Community College Research, 133, 7-16.

Lee, M. J., Edwards, K., Menson, R., & Rawls, A. (2011). The complete completion agenda 2011 progress report. New York, NY: The College Board. Retrieved from http://completionagenda.collegeboard.org/sites/default/fi les/reports_pdf/Progress_Report_2011.pdf

Liu, W. M., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1999). Differences in leadership and co-curricular perception among male and female Asian Pacifi c American college students. Journal of The Freshmen Year Experience, 11, 93-114.

McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

North Carolina Career & College Promise (2012). Governor Purdue’s career and college promise. Retrieved from http://www.careercollegenc.org/docs/CareerCollegePromise.pdf

Perna, L.W., & Titus, M. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485–518.

Perez, P., & McDonough, P. (2008). Understanding Latina and Latino college choice. A social capital and chain migration analysis. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7, 249-265.

Plank, S., & Jordan, W. (2001). Effects of information, guidance, and actions on postsecondary destinations: A study of talent loss. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 947-979.

Robbins, S., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.

Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Coca, V. (2009). College readiness for all: The challenge for urban high schools. The Future of Children, 19(1), 185-210.

Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., Coca, V., & Moeller, E. (2008) From high school to the future: potholes on the road to college. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/downloads/1835ccsr_potholes_summary.pdf

Rosenbaum, J., Deil-Amen, R., & Person, A. (2006). After admission: From college access to college success. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Sedlacek, W. E., and Brooks, G. C, Jr. (1976). Racism in American education: A model for change. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Sedlacek,W. E.(2004). Beyond the big test: Noncognitive Assessment in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31

Sedlacek, W. E. (2010). Noncognitive measures for higher education admissions. In P. L. Peterson, E. Baker, & B. McGaw (Eds.). International encyclopedia of education (pp. 845-849). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Sedlacek, W. E. (2011). Using noncognitive variables in assessing readiness for higher education. In P. J. Bowman, & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Diversity, merit and higher education: Toward a comprehensive agenda for the 21st century (pp. 187-206). New York, NY: AMS Press.

Smith, M. J. (2009). Right directions, wrong maps: Understanding the involvement of low-SES parents to enlist them as partners in college choice. Education and Urban Education, 41, 171-196.

Sokatch, A. (2006). Peer infl uences on the college-going decisions of low socioeconomic status of urban youth. Education and Urban Society 39(1), 128-146.

Stanton-Salazar, R. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth and Society, 43, 1066.

State of Washington Offi ce of Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2008). Navigation 101 Grantee Handbook. Olympia, WA: Author.

Thomas, L., Kuncel, N., & Crede, M. (2007). Noncognitive variables in college admissions: The case of the noncognitive questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 635-657.

Thomas, S.L., and Perna, L.W. (2004). The opportunity agenda: A reexamination of postsecondary reward and opportunity. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 19, pp. 43–84). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). The Condition of Education 2004. (NCES 2004-077). Washington, D.C.: Author.

Wathington, H., Barnett, E., Weissman, E., Teres, J. Pretlow, J., & Nakanishi, A. (2011). Getting reading for college: An implementation and early impacts study of eight Texas development summer bridge programs. New York, NY: National Center for Postsecondary Research.


Chapter 4

The Monetary Dimension of College Readiness: Financial Planning and LiteracyGabriel Serna, Indiana University BloomingtonBrad Weiner, University of Minnesota

Recent economic concerns have been associated with high unemployment rates and consequent challenges for state and federal governments in generating tax revenues. As a result, public expenditures for various services have come under increased scrutiny.

Although higher education has seen dramatic decreases in state appropriations, particularly in the past decade, until recently there has been little debate about the returns that result from obtaining a college degree.

Indeed, over the past decade the research literature has almost unanimously supported the notion that a college education drives both economic and non-economic benefi ts to individuals and society (Barrow & Rouse, 2005; Baum & Payea, 2004; Heller, 2001a, 2001b; Mumper, 1996; Trostel, 2010).

Nonetheless, recent media reports have implied that college is not the best bet, and that students might achieve similar opportunities by skipping it entirely. This chapter highlights the current debates surrounding the increasing costs associated with obtaining a college education; how students and families are paying for college; current fi nancial planning and fi nancial literacy initiatives to help students and families prepare for the price tag; and fi nally the impact of student loan debt on future earnings and lifestyle choices.

Paying for college

Mark Hendel, a senior research analyst at Iowa Student Loan,1 gave an in-depth presentation at the MHEC policy summit about fi nancial planning for college and provided data refuting the notion that college is not a worthwhile investment.2 Even so, there remains a signifi cant disconnect between prospective students’ understanding of the value of college and their ability to save money and ultimately pay for higher education while avoiding unmanageable debt burdens upon graduation.

Hendel’s presentation focused on four policy-oriented research questions:

1. Is the cost of college worth the investment? 2. How do students pay for college? 3. How do students and families pay for college? 4. What is the impact of student loan debt on the borrower’s life after college?

To answer the fi rst question, he provided recent survey data:

• A May 2011 survey by Gallup and Lumina Foundation shows that 69 percent of adults in theUnited States agree or strongly agree that college is “essential for getting a good job.”


33

• A February 2011 Iowa Student Loan survey indicated that 87 percent of students agreed that collegewas important “to be successful in life.”

Hendel presented a host of commonly cited data highlighting the economic and societal benefi ts correlated with college degree attainment. Indeed, college graduates on average earn more than their lesser-educated peers. They are less likely to use tobacco, they minimize public expenditures on social welfare programs, and they are more likely to be civically engaged and vote. After presenting the numerous public and private benefi ts of college degree attainment, Hendel shifted the conversation from whether individuals should pay for college to how students can effectively manage mounting fi nancial costs.

First, Hendel outlined the role that student debt plays in the lives of current students. Using national survey data, Iowa Student Loan found that a majority of 16-17 year olds polled indicated that they believed they should be entirely responsible for the cost of college. A majority of respondents also stated that the price of college attendance would be a factor that could “defi nitely” or “possibly” infl uence their college-going plans.

Many students realize that college is expensive, and Hendel stated that this is an indication that students are considering the costs associated with college before simply jumping into debt to fund a college education. What is striking, however, is while the majority of students surveyed believed that they should pay for college themselves, only 22 percent had begun to save for college. This data suggests that a disconnect exists between students’ understanding of college costs and their fi nancial planning. This disconnect is compounded by the outdated belief that it is possible to work one’s way through college. This notion has proved increasingly diffi cult as college costs have increased, wages have remained stagnant, and the number of fl exible campus jobs has diminished.

With limited savings, inability to fund one’s own education, rising costs, and the increasingly large labor market returns on college degree attainment, many students naturally turn to borrowing. Iowa Student Loan collected survey data aimed at understanding the infl uence of increased loan debt on college students and recent graduates.

Hendel showed that parents polled in this survey stated that of those who discussed parental assistance with covering their students’ college costs, most parents had already started to save. However, a small proportion

1 Links to this association and other resources can be found in the appendix.2 All MHEC policy summit presentations can be found on the MHEC website under Policy Research and Resources: Publications and Presentations.


of the respondents said that this discussion had caused household distress. While a majority of students are paying for college with a combination of grants, scholarships, parental income, and savings, about 15 percent of college costs are sourced by debt. What is also clear from the data is that the borrowing undertaken by parents and relatives has actually declined. Hendel believes that the culture of borrowing may have changed recently and that parents are more sensible about debt.

Not all policymakers agree that this increased reluctance to use loans to cover tuition is a positive trend. A 2008 report from the Institute for Higher Education Policy explains some startling facts about loan or debt aversion that may cause certain students to avoid enrollment, choose less expensive schools, stop out to work, or seek alternative funding mechanisms that go unreported in fi nancial aid data. This is particularly true for students from low-income families, minority backgrounds, and/or immigrant groups (Cunningham & Santiago, 2008). Individuals are naturally averse to fi nancial loss and are hardwired to avoid risk, even when the potential gains outweigh the costs.

As Hendel and others have noted, a college education is a necessary credential for entry into the 21st century knowledge economy.

Policymakers must fi nd viable policy tools to help students understand the costs and benefi ts associated with a college education. In the same vein, practitioners must fi nd ways to convince young people of the value of higher education, while giving students the tools to choose educational and funding options that maximize that value and minimize long-term fi nancial distress.

Effect of student loan debt on lifestyle

After outlining the ways in which students and families pay for college, Hendel turned to the effect of student loan debt on current students and recent graduates. Citing survey data collected by Iowa Student Loan, Hendel answered three questions:

1. Do borrowers with high student loan debt-to-income ratios have a more diffi cult time repaying their student loans than borrowers with lower student loan debt-to-income ratios? 2. Are various lifestyle choices affected more for borrowers with high student loan debt-to-income ratios than they are for borrowers with lower student loan debt-to-income ratios? 3. Are borrowers with high student loan debt-to-income ratios as satisfi ed with their lifestyle and career path as borrowers with lower student loan debt-to-income ratios?

Although several important conclusions can be found in the particulars of Hendel’s presentation, his fi ndings were nonetheless clear. First, he suggested that debt-to-income (DTI) is not a particularly good predictor of loan delinquency or default. However, it does predict a number of lifestyle and life cycle changes, including delayed vacation, education, car, and home purchases. One of the most compelling fi ndings was that 94 percent of respondents had indicated that they had already minimized expenses in order to repay loans. This suggests that students are already spending a signifi cant portion of disposable income on debt service. He also provided evidence that the future fi nancial security of students is at risk when they exit higher education with large loan burdens. For example, the study found that an inverse relationship exists between DTI and establishing savings or retirement accounts. In other words, when students are burdened with large debt service payments, their long term fi nancial security may be compromised.

Hendel’s presentation shed new light on the unforeseen consequences of student borrowing and the often overlooked period of delinquency that reduces quality of life for borrowers but does not infl uence default rates cited in government reports.

35

Examples of current initiatives

Representatives from multiple Iowa fi nancial literacy organizations, including Rod Reed from the Iowa Jump$tart Coalition, Jessica Schultz from the Iowa College Access Network (ICAN), Nancy Ankeny from the Iowa College Student Aid Commission, and Marc Hendel from Iowa Student Loan provided in-depth presentations on current fi nancial literacy and planning initiatives from each organization. Following these presentations, the attendees were asked to discuss the importance of fi nancial literacy and planning. Participants emphasized the importance of including fi nancial planning and literacy coursework and programs in the K-12 educational core curriculum. They also discussed ways to involve both students and families early in the process. Finally, the discussion focused on the benefi ts of simplifying the fi nancial aid process, an explanation of the true costs of a college education, and the effect of diminishing state support for higher education and the resulting impact on tuition and fee levels.

At the beginning of the discussion, a participant suggested incorporating a class on fi nancial literacy as a requirement in the K-12 system. Although this point was discussed at length, fi nancial literacy often already is interspersed throughout the required curriculum. However, few states require a fi nancial literacy class. Nonetheless, many of the representatives from Iowa fi nancial literacy organizations provided numerous possible programs and events that could be useful to students and families as well as curriculum and courses that could be added to current core requirements.

For example, Rod Reed, president of the Iowa Jump$tart Coalition, which includes a number of public and private partnerships, stated that his organization hosts two events annually to increase the fi nancial literacy of Iowans. These events include “Money Smart” week in April and a fi nancial literacy conference in July. Although historically the coalition has been focused on K-12, Reed explained that the national coalition has expanded to higher education and now maintains a Jump$tart clearinghouse, where searches can be carried out for free, and fi nancial planning materials are available, including self-directed modules for every level of education.

Similarly, Jessica Schultz from The Iowa College Access Network (ICAN) and Nancy Ankeny from the Iowa College Student Aid Commission provided information on programs that utilize interactive fi nancial literacy tools such as “Life Store,” “Buttonwood,” and “EverFi.” To promote fi nancial literacy and planning, both organizations emphasize communication with students and families about preparing for college. ICAN, for example, offers two programs aimed at juniors in high school, including one focused on credit and money management. The goal of this program is for high school students to consider different scenarios about the appropriate use of credit and paying for college. The second program, called Life Store, asks students to create a budget that maintains a positive balance by the end of the exercise. This allows them to understand how budgeting plays a central role in minimizing or eliminating signifi cant debt burdens. By streamlining the Life Store, representatives from ICAN are able to condense the exercise into a 45-minute presentation intended for the typical high school academic period.

The Iowa College Student Aid Commission uses EverFi and will soon implement Buttonwood software packages as part of a program that makes interactive fi nancial literacy tools freely available to all Iowa high school students, even though they are primarily targeted toward eleventh and twelfth grades. These programs are intended for in-class delivery, which can be used to fulfi ll a 21st Century class component of the Iowa core requirements. There are 10 learning modules, each taking between 35-45 minutes to complete. This also includes a reporting structure to track module success by individual students or groups. As of the 2011-2012 academic year, 60 high schools and 2,600 students are using the EverFi program with plans to implement a self-guided fi nancial literacy program from Buttonwood.


Finally, Marc Hendel of Iowa Student Loan remarked that his organization has noted that Iowa student loan debt continues to be among the highest in the country. In response, Iowa Student Loan created a taskforce to develop ways to increase borrowers’ fi nancial literacy and teach appropriate uses of student loan debt. One initiative called “The Student Loan Game Plan” includes an online module that helps students understand student loan debt by explaining the ramifi cations of various fi nancial decisions on predicted future earning potential. Every applicant that comes to Iowa Student Loan for a supplemental private loan must complete a module asking how much they intend to borrow over time. The module also provides multiple alternatives to borrowing, which can be immediately implemented. Finally, the module guides students through several decisions to personalize a debt-to-income ratio after college and assists them in developing a budget, further illustrating the consequences of student loan debt. There are also cosigner modules to educate those who may not understand the responsibilities of the cosigner. Since this program started in March 2010, approximately $2.5 million less in student loan debt has been disbursed from Iowa Student Loan.

Timing and transparency

The timing of fi nancial planning and literacy programs and the transparency of the fi nancial aid process remain as key challenges for improving fi nancial literacy and reducing student loan burdens.

Financial planners are nearly unanimous in their belief that saving and planning early is advantageous.

Nevertheless, early intervention in college planning is diffi cult, particularly when involving both the student and family. According to the board of Iowa Student Loan, middle school is the best starting point to introduce programs aimed at helping students prepare for fi nancing their college education.

At the summit, a spirited discussion ensured about the culture surrounding debt and how it has changed. Several participants argued that students and families have lost touch with “real” costs due to the expansion of credit markets, online banking, and the ubiquity of credit and debit cards. A 2002 report (Braunstein & Welch, 2002) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of the Federal Reserve supports this idea by asserting that new technologies have brought a variety of credit products to the market that are cheaper and easier to deliver. These same technologies also allow for a greater marketing reach among consumers, necessitating an even greater need for consumer education and protection to reduce predatory lending practices. Greater consumer education and planning may also focus attention on the shifting balance of payment from the public to students and their families to pay for the rising costs of college attendance.

Summit participants continued to discuss various methods to teach fi nancial literacy and planning for postsecondary education. The values and views held by students and their families may be infl uenced by family members and peers who also lack basic fi nancial literacy. Early intervention might be the best option, but logistical challenges due to family sensitivities and privacy regulations must be addressed. A Federal Reserve (2002) report provides some guidance on this issue and explains that fi nancial literacy programs are most effective when they are voluntary and individualized. Classroom style, “one-size-fi ts-all” approaches leave little opportunity for the detailed attention normally given by certifi ed fi nancial planners. Instead, students and families might receive a blanket prescription for fi nancial management, which is not tailored to individual risk tolerance.

Summit participants debated whether fi nancial literacy programs would do anything to simplify the fi nancial aid application process and make actual college costs more transparent and comparable among institutions. Simplifi cation and transparency in the fi nancial aid process has gained national policy attention due to President Obama’s call to simplify the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) by exploring

37

electronically fi led tax returns that automatically populate FAFSA data fi elds. A 2009 study by Bettinger,Long, & Oreopolus showed that FAFSA submissions effectively tripled when H&R Block tax professionals provided basic information and assistance to moderate-income families with college-aged students. Thesesmall but simple policies are at the core of what behavioral economists Richard Thaler & Cass Sunstein (2009) call a “nudge.”

While policymakers, fi nancial aid practitioners, and colleges have made efforts to increase fi nancial aid fi lings, the process by which aid is awarded remains opaque. One participant suggested that families might not save for college because they believe it will adversely affect their fi nancial aid offers. While this might be true, students are unlikely to receive enough fi nancial aid to make up the resulting difference. Still, researchers, policy makers, and practitioners have little data to explain why individuals fail to submit applications for federal student aid (FAFSA), and this presents opportunities for greater exploration.

Rising tuition and fees

The fi nal conversation for summit participants attending the session devoted to fi nancial preparedness focused on the way in which America fi nances college. Colleges and universities levy tuition and fees at the start of each term, and those amounts can (and as the last two decades have shown, will) increase. These increases are a primary driver of student borrowing. One of the most pressing issues in higher education fi nance is the increasing price of obtaining a college education and, more specifi cally, rising tuition and fees. Winston (2003) makes this point clear in his article on tuition theory by stating that “no economic aspect of higher education is of greater importance to the public, policymakers, and parents than the setting of tuition” (p. 1). Given tuition trends and the dwindling purchasing power and number of state and federal grants (Maag & Fitzpatrick, 2004), scholars have joined in the concern about shifting student support from grants to loans for tuition payment (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2004; Heller, 2001a, 2001b; Thelin, 2004). Although federal policy, and more recently state policy, has promoted college affordability through aid programs, students, and in many cases students’ families, have incurred large amounts of debt paying for higher education (Heller, 2001a, 2001b).

Additionally, signifi cant importance and discussion was given to the fact that families are paying much more and states are paying less for a college education, an assertion supported by much of the research literature


(Archibald & Feldman, 2006, 2008, 2011; Cheslock & Gianneschi, 2008; McLendon, Hearn, & Mokher, 2009; Tandberg, 2008). Therefore, it becomes more important to ensure that students and families know the benefi ts of obtaining a postsecondary degree and understand the realities of fi nancing that education. Since state support continues to decrease and tuition and fees (and student loan debt) continue to increase, predicting future costs and planning for those costs remains challenging. This problem is made worse by the piecemeal, incremental cost increases that occur during the student’s education. With few exceptions, total costs are only available immediately before the start of a semester and tuition changes are often published in the summer, well after an individual student has made a price-sensitive enrollment decision.

Clearly, there are logistical challenges as college budgets, particularly in the public sector, remain unpredictable. Still, there are many opportunities for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to experiment with new fi nancing mechanisms and fi nancial literacy tools that benefi t both institutions of higher learning and students. One summit participant proposed the outlining of the total cost of a college education, which might be more useful in the decision-making process and education programs designed to improve fi nancial literacy. There are many online tools and calculators to help project college costs including, ACT, The College Board, FinAid.org, and individual institutional websites. Furthermore, there are free data-driven websites that can be employed to monitor budgeting progress and savings, including Mint.com, Bankrate.com, and Budgetpulse.com.Technology and the marketplace might also present innovative mechanisms for college funding. Recently the number of peer-to-peer educational loans arranged through matching websites has increased. According to the research fi rm Celent, peer-to-peer loans totaled $647 million in 2007 (fi naid.org) although it is unclear what percentage went for educational funding. Still, the microfi nance model, pioneered by Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus and expanded globally through social websites like Kiva.org, could easily transfer tohigher education.

Conclusion

The economic and non-economic benefi ts that accrue to individuals as well as society with having a more highly educated populace should be highlighted (Barrow & Rouse, 2005; Baum & Payea, 2004; Heller, 2001a, 2001b; Mumper, 1996; Trostel, 2010).

Although recent news reports have sought to undermine these benefi ts, research has clearly shown that going to college is still very much worth the investment.

Additionally, much like investments in other areas of life, investments in higher education require fi nancial literacy, planning, and preparation. However, if the results of recent survey polls are correct, the majority of students and families are not as aware of fi nancial strategies that can help them develop literacy about college costs and appropriate ways of paying for them even though they are aware of the benefi ts of a postsecondary education in spite of expenses incurred.

Similarly, fi nancial planning and literacy play a role in helping students and families fi nance their higher education and in teaching them how to live with this debt once they have obtained a degree. Because student loans have become an essential resource for covering tuition and fee payments (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2004; Heller, 2001a, 2001b; Thelin, 2004), students should be taught the appropriate uses of debt, especially given the long term consequences this debt will have on their lifestyle choices after completing college, as Marc Hendel of Iowa Student Loan reminded summit participants.

To this end, multiple nonprofi t organizations such as the Jump$tart Coalition, the Iowa College Access Network, the Iowa College Student Aid Commission, and Iowa Student Loan have intitiated fi nancial planning and literacy programs. These programs range from conferences and resource clearinghouses to interactive

39

budgeting curriculum and modules intended for fi nancial literacy education in middle and high school. These initiatives underscore the central place that fi nancing and planning for college costs has come to occupy.

Finally, families and students are shouldering more and more of the costs associated with a college education while states are withdrawing their support (Archibald & Feldman, 2006, 2008, 2011; Cheslock & Gianneschi, 2008; McLendon, Hearn, & Mokher, 2009; Tandberg, 2008). As this takes place, the task facing policymakers, researchers, and practitioners is highlighting the short- and long-term benefi ts associated with a college degree while simultaneously relating the realities of fi nancing a college education, which typically includes incurring some student debt. In the very same way, this process must also incorporate education on the appropriate uses of student loan debt as well as the effects that incurring this type of debt will have on lifestyle choices after leaving college.

As student loans become a ubiquitous part of higher education fi nancing, teaching students and families valuable strategies for planning and preparing early for college will likely translate into increased rates of college-going, less student loan debt, and an increased ability to create and maintain a solid fi nancial position and future.

References

Archibald, R., & Feldman, D. (2011). Why does college cost so much? New York: Oxford University Press.

Archibald, R., & Feldman, D. (2008). Explaining increases in higher education costs. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 268-295.

Archibald, R., & Feldman, D. (2006). State higher education spending and the tax revolt. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 618-643.

Barrow, L., & Rouse, C. (2005). Does college still pay? The Economists’ Voice, 2(4), 1-8.

Baum, S., & Payea, K. (2004). Education pays 2004: Trends in higher education: The benefi ts of higher education for individuals and society. New York. NY: The College Board


Bettinger, E., Long, T., & Oreopolus, L. (2009). The role of simplifi cation and information in college decisions: Results from the H&R Block FAFSA experiment; NBER working paper 15361. Cambridge, MA: NBER.

Braunstein, S., & Welch, C. (2002). Financial literacy: An overview of practice, research, & policy. Washington, D.C.: The Federal Reserve.

Cheslock, J., & Gianneschi, M. (2008). Replacing state appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The case of voluntary support. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(2), 208-229.

Cunningham, A., & Santiago, D. (2008). Student aversion to borrowing: Who borrows who doesn’t. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy and Excelencia in Education.

Hearn, J., & Holdsworth, J. (2004). Federal student aid: The shift from grants to loans. In E. St. John, & M. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Heller, D. (2001a). Trends in the affordability of public colleges and universities: The contradiction of increasing prices and increasing enrollment. In D. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Heller, D. (2001b). The changing dynamics of affordability, access and accountability in public higher education. In D. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Maag, E., & Fitzpatrick, K. (2004). Federal fi nancial aid for higher education: Programs and prospects. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation.

McLendon, M., Hearn, J., & Mokher, C. (2009). Partisans, professionals, and power: The role of political factors in state higher education funding. The Journal of Higher Education, 80(6), 686-713.

Mumper, M. (1996). Removing college price barriers: What government has done and why it hasn’t worked. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Tandberg, D. (2008). The politics of higher education funding. Higher Education in Review, 5, 1-36.Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about heatlh, wealth, and happiness. New York: Penguin Books.

Thelin, J. (2004). Higher education and the public trough. In E. St. John, & M. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales. Balitmore, MC: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Trostel, P. (2010). The fi scal impacts of college attainment. Research in Higher Education, 51, 220-247.

Winston, G. (2003). Toward a theory of tuition: Prices, peer wages, and competition in higher education. Discussion Paper No. 65. Williamstown, MA: Williams Project on the Economics of Higher Education.

41


Chapter 5

The Role of Foundations, Non-Profi t Organizations, and Higher Education Institutions in Promoting College ReadinessSummer King, Southern Illinois University Carbondale Blanca Rincon, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Foundations, nonprofi t organizations, and higher education institutions—independently and in partnership with each other—play a critical role in promoting college readiness. By providing information, research, and assessments about effective college readiness programs, these organizations help shape public awareness and inspire public dialogue. They invest their strengths and resources in programs that advance a common goal—to improve postsecondary success for even greater numbers of students.

College readiness involves the development of multiple cognitive and non-cognitive competencies, which in recent years has been operationalized as “the level of preparation a student needs in order to enroll and succeed—without remediation—in a credit-bearing general education course at a postsecondary institution that offers a baccalaureate degree or transfer to a baccalaureate program” (Conley, 2008, p. 3). Students who are “college ready” demonstrate a capacity for understanding the foundations of the area of study that they are undertaking as well as the ability to adapt to the cultural norms of an academic environment (Conley, 2008).

Pathways to College,1 in collaboration with the Institute for Higher Education Policy (2010), has identifi ed fi ve areas of support critical to the development of the “mindset and disposition” of college readiness—emotional, instrumental, informational, appraisal, and structural support. While it is not within the scope of this chapter to discuss each of these competencies in detail, these areas of support can provide a broader understanding of the elements needed for college readiness, and they can guide efforts in reshaping the policies and practices that direct our delivery of college readiness education and intervention programs. Both holistic affective and cognitive student development is necessary for college readiness and success. Consideration of the whole student is required, as is thoughtfully coordinated infrastructures and holistic student support services. These supports, in addition to the well-researched need for increasing the rigor and intensity of high school curricula, can together provide “momentum toward completing a bachelor’s degree” (Adelman, 2006).

Nonprofi t organizations (NPOS)

Nonprofi t organizations play an increasingly important role in promoting college readiness and offer an array of strategic approaches to help students succeed. Specifi cally, nonprofi ts have been involved in partnerships with foundations, schools, and policy centers to address one or more of the college readiness factors outlined above. These initiatives include the dissemination of information for policymakers and practitioners, data-driven recommendations, program-level interventions, and advocacy for college readiness. Outlined below in more detail are the roles of nonprofi ts at the policy and research, programmatic, and advocacy levels.

Policy and research

Some nonprofi ts have taken a policy approach to the college-readiness puzzle by issuing policy briefs and providing informative interactive tools on their websites. Achieve and the Institute for Higher Education Policy are two nonprofi t organizations that have dedicated several research studies, informative brochures, and policy briefs to the topic of college readiness.


43

The Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) is a nonpartisan organization that seeks to promote access for all students, specifi cally underserved students, through the use of policy and practice-oriented research. IHEP has contributed to the dialogue around college readiness through research-oriented publicly available briefs, such as “Removing Roadblocks to Rigor” and “Corporate Investments in College Readiness and Access.” IHEP manages the Pathways to College Network, which advances an action-oriented framework for increasing college readiness. This framework draws attention to the need for fi ve critical areas:

1. High expectations, which supports a college-ready culture; 2. Academic rigor, which requires completion of the Common Core Standards; 3. Social support, which promotes peer mentorship, parental support, and access to college knowledge; 4. Data use, which uses data-driven recommendations for accountability purposes; and 5. P-16 alignment, which aligns academic standards with curriculum expectations and coordinated assessments, and provides early college options.

Achieve is a bipartisan, nonprofi t education reform organization that is dedicated to supporting standards-based education reform at the state level. In 2005, Achieve launched the American Diploma Project, a partnership of governors, state education offi cials, postsecondary leaders, and business executives working together to align high school standards, graduation requirements, and assessment systems. Achieve regularly conducts research on graduation requirements, implementation of the Common Core State Standards, and evaluations of high stakes exams. Similar to IHEP, Achieve provides an online toolbox aimed at facilitating the transition from high school to college. The Postsecondary Connection, for example, is an online resource that provides tools and data and strategies for education leaders to ensure college access and success.

Program level

Several college-access programs created by nonprofi t organizations provide interventions that seek to enhance college readiness for underserved populations. Gandara & Contreras (2009) noted that these intervention programs provide focused attention from “outside the system,” thus providing a new perspective on educational issues. The authors highlight several nonprofi t college readiness programs such as the “I Have a Dream Program” and the “Posse Program.”

1 Links to this association and other resources can be found in the appendix.


I Have a Dream (IHAD) is a nationwide nonprofi t program that aims to inspire students to attain college degrees by providing scholarships and supplemental resources. Evaluation fi ndings at two Chicago program sites indicate that high school-going graduation rates nearly doubled for Latina/o and African American students, and college rates tripled compared to similar schools that did not have the program.Posse is a nonprofi t program that highlights the importance of overlooking traditional markers for ability or college readiness, such as high stakes tests. Posse believes that support networks are critical for urban, underserved students’ college success. The program groups urban youth into “posses” before the students begin their studies at one of 26 selective postsecondary institutions nationwide that have partnerships with the program and offers participants a full tuition scholarship. Posse provides students an eight-month leadership training program and additional support throughout their college-going years. Posse graduates boast a 90 percent college completion rate.

Advocacy

Nonprofi t advocacy organizations are also playing a key role in the college readiness dialogue. For example, by disseminating information on college readiness, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute and The Education Trust serve as advocacy agents to corporate, policy, and practice-oriented stakeholders. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) is a nonprofi t and nonpartisan organization dedicated to providing leadership development and educational services. CHCI partnered with AT&T in a college readiness program, Ready to Lead (R2L), which provides leadership training to high school youth throughout the country. Students are provided with tools focused on higher education, fi nancial literacy, and leadership development, and they are supported by CHCI alumni and peer leaders who identify with students’ backgrounds, needs,and interests.

The Education Trust is a nonprofi t advocacy group that seeks to close the gaps in opportunity and achievement for low-income and underrepresented communities.

Education Trust analyzes local, state, and national data to better understand opportunity gaps and to advocate for best practices.

Recently, The Education Trust, in collaboration with a variety of foundations, nonprofi t organizations, student groups, and other higher education stakeholders, launched Save Pell, an initiative designed to infl uence governmental action regarding the preservation of funding for the federal Pell Grant.

At the MHEC policy summit José Cruz of The Education Trust urged policymakers, researchers, educators, and practitioners alike to position themselves as leaders, advocates, and activists for equitable educational opportunities for all students.2 Cruz recommended an action strategy that included the following suggestions:

• Reform underfunded K-12 institutions in ways that do not cluster low-income students; set and maintain high performance standards; and demand high-quality instructors; • Preserve need-based fi nancial aid and rethink inequitable fi nancial aid policies that disadvantage underrepresented minorities and low-income students; • Identify, validate, and swiftly replicate successful K-12 schools, school districts, and postsecondary institutions; and • Cultivate leaders and followers willing to participate in a collective movement that advances the

success of all youth at all educational levels.

Leaders and fi rst followers, Cruz maintained, can galvanize support and catalyze action in preventing opportunity loss, in preserving current gains, and most importantly, in increasing opportunity growth.

45

Foundations

Foundations can also function as cultural catalysts for positive change and often excel at developing rapid response and emergent-need changes in the educational landscape in ways systems stymied by bureaucracy, underfunding, and/or ineffi ciency cannot. Positioned most generally as advocates, funders, and shapers of educational research, policy, and practice, foundations are increasingly involved in developing interventions that advance college readiness and completion at all points in the educational pipeline (“Guiding Principles,” 2008). These initiatives are often the result of strategic partnerships.

The National Center for Transforming School Counseling is an example of one such collaboration. The MetLife Foundation, in partnership with The Education Trust, is attempting to reform K-12 counseling in ways that enhance college readiness. In this program, school counselors are educated and trained to become assertive change agents who promote “educational equity, access to a rigorous college and career-readiness curriculum, and academic success for all students” (http://www.edtrust.org/dc/tsc/vision).

Foundations also shape policy and practice by exposing gaps in current research and barriers in current practices. While we know, as Conley (2008) suggests, that “college is the fi rst place we expect young people to be adults,” we also know that college is increasingly populated by students well beyond their transition into adulthood. Policies and practices that best serve young students in transition may not meet the needs of adult college students or enhance their college readiness. Alarmingly, few comprehensive, high profi le, program-level initiatives exist to ensure adult college student readiness, despite demographic evidence that the need for such readiness programs continues to grow.

As part of their commitment to postsecondary credential completion, the Gates Foundation has reported that only 25 percent of students fi t the full-time, non-employed, residential student profi le so commonly associated with college attendance and college readiness initiatives. If, as their data suggests, 75 percent of today’s college students exhibit one or more nontraditional characteristics, support programs must incorporate research, policies, and support practices designed to meet the cognitive and non-cognitive needs of nontraditional students that refl ects the diversity within the group of adult learners. Examining existing Adult Basic Education and Prior Learning Assessment programs may prove a useful starting point for foundations and nonprofi t organizations interested in refi ning an understanding of adult learner college-readiness competencies and developing a more holistic understanding of diverse adult learner needs.

Lumina Foundation has focused the nation’s attention on the need to increase college access and success, sounding the call for and leading the way toward improved college readiness and success for traditionally underserved populations, including adult learners. Lumina Foundation advocates increasing the percentage of Americans with high quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by 2025. To meet this “big goal,” Lumina Foundation has established three critical outcomes: student attainment of comprehensive college knowledge, including academic, social, and fi nancial profi ciencies; improved postsecondary degree completion; and improved effi ciency and productivity within higher education to better serve all students.

Lumina Foundation has sponsored a multitude of college-readiness and completion initiatives to support these outcomes and has developed strategic partnerships that attempt to streamline adult students’ return to higher education and shorten their time to degree. In its partnership with the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL), Lumina has advanced research and practices that address the emergent need for adult student services and adult student assessment. The Prior Learning Assessment program assesses and awards adult learners valuable institutional credits for knowledge they bring with them to college, thus reducing their time to degree. Lumina has also provided key support for Project Win-Win, a collaborative

2 All MHEC policy summit presentations can be found on the MHEC website under Policy Research and Resources: Publications and Presentations.


credential completion initiative for students with near complete degree requirements. These programs in no way encompass the breadth of Lumina’s work, but they typify Lumina Foundation’s commitment to access, enrollment, and college success, and underscore Lumina’s position as a key stakeholder in focused educational imperatives designed to support and graduate traditionally underserved students.

Conclusion

Economic and social concerns drive the need to increase the nation’s educational attainment rates.

As we enter into a knowledge-based global society, more of the nation’s citizenry must pursue postsecondary education in order to compete beyond domestic boundaries.

The nation also needs to address disparities in educational attainment rates for adults, fi rst-generation,low-income, and traditionally underserved students of color. The movement towards ensuring that all domestic students are provided with access and opportunities to pursue a higher education comes at a time when the United States is experiencing a monumental demographic shift. The so-called “minority” populations are becoming the majority. This shift is of concern particularly given the growth of the Latina/o population, specifi cally Mexican Americans, who are among the least educated ethnic groups in the United States.Indiana has been at the forefront of establishing college-ready initiatives that aim to close this achievement gap. Specifi cally, Indiana’s 21st Century Scholars program is a model for state-level initiatives. The Scholars Program targets low-income eighth graders and aims to increase their college-going rates. The students, who pledge to enroll in a college-prep curriculum while maintaining a C average, receive a fi nancial incentive in the form of a tuition subsidy. The program has three tuition incentive tiers. Those who graduate from high school could have 80 percent of their tuition and fees covered; for those who successfully complete a more rigorous Core 40 curriculum, 90 percent of their tuition and fees could be subsidized; and those that receive the Academic Honors Diploma could receive a subsidy covering the total amount of college and fees at a public institution. The Scholars Program provides an innovative approach to college readiness by targeting resources to underserved populations, providing support mechanisms such as tutoring and mentorship, promoting a rigorous curriculum, establishing standards for college entry, and providing incentives for college success.

Public and private stakeholders have, together and separately, offered a variety of educational initiatives designed to maximize the public and private benefi ts associated with increased postsecondary degree completion. The often-cited Obama Initiative, which seeks to reclaim the United States’ former status as the world leader in producing college graduates, has been echoed by Lumina Foundation’s 60 percent by 2025 “Big Goal.” These initiatives could increase the educational attainment rates within the United States, which have remained stagnant over the past 40 years. According to The Georgetown University Center on Education and The Workforce, by 2018, 63 percent of jobs will require a postsecondary credential. Within a changing, competitive, global economy, college degrees ensure their holders increased access to the middle class and the social, economic, and personal benefi ts contained therein. Never have readiness initiatives for higher education been more important than they are today, particularly those targeted for at-risk and underserved populations.

47

References

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Conley, D. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education, 144, 3-13. DOI: 10.1002/he

Gandara, P. & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino educational crisis: The consequences of failed policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Guiding principles. (2008). Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/Pages/guiding-principles.aspx

Pathways to college network. (2010). Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.ihep.org/programs/pathways.cfm


Chapter 6

The Role of K-12 Schools, Professional Associations,and Corporations in Promoting College ReadinessJamilah Jones, University of ToledoVaughn Love, Michigan State University

Our public education systems are regularly criticized for failing to produce college-ready students. Although the defi nition for college-ready varies between stakeholders, for the purposes of this chapter, being a college-ready student means having the academic, fi nancial, and cultural competencies to succeed in college. Glenn Seaborg, member of President Reagan’s 1983 National Commission on Excellence and co-author of the commission’s report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, suggested, “Alarming deterioration of our pre-college educational system during the past 15 to 20 years…adversely affects the capacity of individuals to adapt to the changing demands of our complex age and the ability of our nation to compete in today’s world of high technology” (Seaborg, 1983, p. 219). Nineteen years after A Nation at Risk, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which reauthorized the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, received bipartisan support as a measure to address growing concerns over the educational achievement gap of learners in the American public pre-college educational system. Still, 10 years after NCLB, Arne Duncan, secretary of education in the Obama administration, sited signifi cant fl aws with the promise of reform under NCLB, including the creation of artifi cial “goal[s] of profi ciency that encouraged states to set low standards to make it easier for students to meet the goal” (Duncan, 2011).

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP), which produces the well-known Nation’s Report Card, began objectively measuring U.S. student performance in 1969 in core areas of mathematics, reading, writing, science, U.S. history, civics, geography, economics, and the arts (Kessinger, 2011). Results from the 2011 assessment of mathematics for fourth and eighth graders were stronger than all previous years of assessment; however, deeper investigations suggest that only 40 percent of fourth graders and 35 percent of eighth graders scored at or above profi ciency (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Ten years after NCLB and nearly three decades since the National Commission on Excellence, the pre-college education system in the U.S. still appears to fall short in many cases to deliver profi cient and globally competitive learners.

After a devastating recession, the global competitiveness of the United States is an issue of great concern,and there is little argument that a skilled and educated workforce is needed to maintain the nation’scompetitive advantage.

While education reform and college readiness have historically been discussed in academic research, public policy debates, and within circles of practitioners, recent concerns about public education and college readiness have also gained the attention of the private sector and various professional associations. .

Corporations

Corporations seek to promote college readiness for numerous reasons, and the methodologies they employ vary.Technology companies, like publicly-traded K-12 Inc.,1 leverage online learning platforms, curriculum focused on content mastery, and one-on-one tutoring to offer full-time online public schools in many states across the


49

country. Meanwhile, media companies like Alloy Media + Marketing offer local school districts satellite receivers and technological equipment in exchange for the right to broadcast Channel One programming to the majority of a contracting school district’s students on a near daily basis (Blokhuis, 2008).

Other private sector interests in education are less controversial because they are inherently part of the reform agenda and genuinely promote college readiness. Many of these corporations have leveraged their foundations’ philanthropic arms to provide grants and loans for college-readiness initiatives. For example, the Walton Family Foundation of Wal-Mart has been extremely instrumental in funding various Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) college preparatory public charter schools. KIPP preparatory charter schools have been lauded in the education reform community and were made widely known in documentaries like Waiting for Superman (Chilcott, 2011) and The Lottery (Sackler, 2010) for their ability to close the educational attainment gap and promote college going among the primarily low-income students they serve. In 2007 alone the Walton Family Foundation invested $117 million dollars, with the strategy of promoting college readiness through public charter school initiatives (Robelen, 2008a). In addition to these philanthropic endeavors, AT&T has pledged $100 million (its largest philanthropic thrust to date) to national drop-out prevention (Robelen, 2008b), while Target Corporations plans to spend a total of over one billion dollars to support education by the end of 2015.

Aside from utilization of foundations to provide grants and loans, U.S. corporations have also extended their business models to include client-specifi c consulting. Authors from the Center for Research on Information Technologies and Organizations noted that, “While many other PC [personal computer] companies have been unable to handle the demands of time-based competition, Dell has continued to thrive in such an environment. The key to Dell’s success has been its direct sales and built-to-order business model” (Kraemer, Derick, & Yamashiro, 1998). Dell Inc. has taken yet another approach to remaining competitive and simultaneously assisting districts in promoting college readiness through the promotion of technology. Dell™ Professional Learning Service is an extension of client services that helps “to develop customized outcome-based learning programs, incorporating one-on-one instruction, coaching and modeling, and sharing sessions for teachers and district leaders” (Dell, 2011).

1 Links to this association and other resources can be found in the appendix.


For example, Penellas County Schools (PCS) in Florida were established clients of Dell Inc. when they engaged their Professional Learning Services to help them implement Moodle (a web 2.0 learning platform) and provide in-service professional development for district teachers to help them adopt the technology. Because of the partnership, PCS saw a 6.8 percent increase in graduation, more students completing online assignments, and improved test scores (Dell, 2011).

During the MHEC policy summit, Mark Hudson, a K-12 education consultant for Dell Inc., delivered a plenary session focused on how changes in the methodology of accessing information are infl uencing teaching and learning.2 Hudson addressed the ways in which new technologies have necessitated a variety of changes in the 21st Century classroom and contrasted those to the legacy that is the “traditional learning environment.”

Hudson argued for the betterment of the teaching and learning environment through a seamless integration of technology. Citing the skill sets promoted by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, he argued that employers in the global economy are demanding innovative learning environments that produce students who are multifaceted and adaptive. Hudson noted that Project Tomorrow’s annual Speak Up Survey reported that nearly 50 percent of middle school and high school students said they carried some type of smart phone in late 2010, a nearly 47 percent increase from fall 2009. The overwhelming message of Hudson’s presentation was that learning environments can no longer be static because the learners who participate in them are not.

Professional Associations

Another key presentation at the MHEC policy summit featured the college-readiness resources and training materials from the National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC). Patty Montague, representing NACAC, shared materials that can assist families with the process of identifying the appropriate postsecondary institution for students. She pointed out the labor statistics that make clear the connection between sustained employment and higher levels of educational attainment.

Montague also highlighted the educational achievement gap between low- and high-income students that has persisted since the 1960s.

She illustrated the utility of associations like NACAC in providing critical research, training, advocacy, and curriculum for counseling and enrollment professionals.

51

Professionals in the fi eld of education have an obvious stake in the college-readiness and access arena. Organizations such as the National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP), the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), and the National Association of College Admissions Counselors (NACAC), among others, direct a considerable portion of their resources, research, and advocacy towards the issue. The focus of these organizations directly infl uences all those working in education. Professionals working in secondary schools are under increasing pressure to prepare students for postsecondary success. Those professionals within the higher education system have a vested interest in gaining more and better prepared students, particularly as current economic conditions have made institutions less reliant on government funds and more reliant on student tuition and fees.

Professional organizations focus their attention on three aspects of college readiness: research, advocacy, and professional development. The research projects taken on by professional associations include a broad spectrum of theory-to-practice efforts designed to offer professionals best practices for the fi eld, academic research provided for scholarly journals, and discussion papers intended to bolster support for advocacy issues. For example, NASFAA provides a platform to publish research on fi nancial aid issues in its Journal of Student Financial Aid. Research projects undertaken by NASFAA include topics such as a study of the workload burdens placed on fi nancial aid administrators due to increased regulatory and compliance requirements, the failure of college tax credit programs such as the HOPE and Lifetime Learning tax credits to achieve their objectives, and an examination of issues on affordability and access for undocumented students (Diaz-Strong, Gomez, Luna-Duarte, & Meiners, 2011).

As a collective body for individual professions, professional associations create an opportunity for advocacy on behalf of a particular career or on issues that are intricately tied to that profession. Associations serving those in higher education are able to represent the concerns and agendas of professionals on a large scale (Arredondo & Castillo, 2011). Associations advocating on behalf of educators or administrators at the local, state, and federal level have the advantage of leveraging collective resources towards select initiatives. An admittedly non-comprehensive survey of professional associations reveals that advocacy efforts focus on awareness, preparation, and affordability. NACAC’s (2011) policy recommendations emphasize the organization’s support for federal funding for college access programs such as GEAR UP and Upward Bound, recommendations of national rigorous curriculum guidelines for secondary schools, and increased access to need-based fi nancial aid. NASFAA lists among its chief advocacy concerns the Dream Act and student loan relief (2012). The NASSP advocacy agenda focuses on college preparation with policy recommendations on graduation rates, funding for career and technical education, and federal legislation for initiatives such as NCLB and the Perkins Act (NASSP, 2005, 2011). There are currently calls for greater collaboration among higher education affi liated professional associations in order to increase infl uence, share resources, and broaden organizational perspectives (Arredondo & Castillo, 2011).

Professional development opportunities serve as a means to not only offer supplementary education for individuals but also to share best practices developed within the fi eld. During Montague’s policy summit presentation, she demonstrated practical exercises that practitioners could deploy, using the Step by Step: College Awareness and Planning of Families, Counselors, and Community curriculum developed by NACAC. This curriculum was designed to assist parents with understanding the college admission process and to strengthen the likelihood of students gaining admission to the institution of choice. Montague used “The Great Sorting Game” from NACAC’s Step by Step (2011) publication to highlight factors other than GPA that colleges consider in selective admission processes. This exercise is particularly effective with high school students. Step by Step (2011) also includes activities and best practices for use with a variety of stakeholders—for students ranging from middle school to late high school as well as for parents and guardians.

2 All MHEC policy summit presentations can be found on the MHEC website under Policy Research and Resources: Publications and Presentations.


Finding appropriate partnerships among stakeholders was an additional theme that recurred throughout the MHEC policy summit. One such example of a successful partnership was illustrated through the Parents of Power Program (POPP) located in the Brooklyn Center School District in Minnesota and coordinated by Jackie Starr. Starr described her community organization’s partnership with the Brooklyn Center School District and the ways it engaged parents in the college access process. She cautioned that many parents disengage from the educational system due to previously negative personal experiences with it.

Starr noted that it is often necessary to coach parents on effective interventions with theeducation system on behalf of their children, interventions that could be social, behavioral, or academic in nature.

The program helps parents cultivate the necessary skills to positively engage with school staff, thus increasing the likelihood that the students will persist in their educational attainment.

Conclusion

The increased national attention on education and college readiness is warranted in our current economic climate, which has been marked by severe and pervasive unemployment of individuals with low levels of educational attainment. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011), persons with high school diplomas have higher rates of unemployment and lower median weekly earnings than those who hold a four-year degree. As national concern for college-readiness grows, nontraditional stakeholders will continue to emerge, voice their concerns, and levy their infl uence on issues of college access. Corporations and professional associations are among the newest nontraditional stakeholders with vested interests in college readiness. The strategies for improving college readiness by corporations and associations have been diverse, playing both insider and outsider roles. The most profi cient strategies are not readily identifi ed because of the correlative nature of social science research, including education. What is certain is improving college readiness must include innovations that in tandem focus policymakers on a success agenda as vital, professional associations on innovating practice and pedagogy, and engaging businesses as advisors on the skills needed from learners.

References

Arredondo, P. & Castillo, L. (2011). Latina/o student achievement: A collaborative mission of professional associations of higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(1), 6-17.

Blokhuis, J. C. (2008). Channel One: When private interest and the public interest collide. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 343-363.

Chilcott, L. (Producer). (2011). Waiting for Superman [DVD]. United States: Paramount Home Entertainment.

Dell. (2011). Case Studies: Pinellas County School. Retrieved from http://content.dell.com/us/en/k-12/k-12-solutions-featured-solutions-professional-learning.aspx

Diaz-Strong, D., Gomez, C., Luna-Duarte, M. E., & Meiners, E. R. (2011). Purged: Undocumented students, fi nancial aid policies, and access to higher education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 10(2), 107-119.

Duncan, A. (2012, January 8). After 10 years, it’s time for a new NCLB [Homeroom: The offi cial blog of the US Department of Education] Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/blog/2012/01/after-10-years-itpercentE2percent80percent99s-time-for-a-new-nclb/

53

Kramer, K.L., Dedrick, J., & Yamashiro, S. (1998). Refi ning and extending the business model with information technology: Dell computer corporation. Retrieved from Personal Computing Industry Center, UC Irvine website: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7vn6n4z3

Kessinger, T. A. (2011). Efforts toward educational reform in the United States since 1958. American Educational History Journal, 38(1/2), 263-276.

National Association for College Admission Counseling. (2011). College access agenda for the 112th Congress. Arlington, VA: Author.

National Association for College Admission Counseling & Center for Student Opportunity. (2011). Step by step: College awareness and planning for families, counselors and communities. Arlington, VA: Author.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2005). What counts: Defi ning and improving high school graduation rates. Retrieved from http://www.nassp.org

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2011). NASSP and Coalition Letter on Funding for Career and Technical Education. Retrieved from http://www.principals.org/Content.aspx?topic=NASSP_and_Coalition_Letter_on_Funding_for_Career_and_Technical_Education

Robelen, E. W. (2008a). Walton family puts stamp on educational landscape. Education Week, 28(11), 18-22.

Robelen, E. W. (2008b). AT&T commits $100 million to dropout prevention. Education Week, 27(34), 8-9

Sackler, M. (Producer). (2010). The Lottery [Motion picture]. United States: Great Curve Film.

Seaborg, G.T. (1983, July). A call for educational reform. Science, 221(4607), 219.

U.S. Department of Education (2011). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2011, national assessment of educational progress at grades 4 and 8 (NCES Publication No. 2012-458). Retrieved from nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001457.pdf

U.S. Department of Labor Statistics (2011). Education pays… Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm


About the Authors

Min Young ChaMin Young Cha is a doctoral student in the higher education program at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Her current research interests include the experiences of contingent faculty, organizational effectiveness, and human resource policies in universities. Min previously worked for the Korean Educational Development Institute in the Offi ce of Higher Education and is currently a research assistant in the Offi ce of Institutional Research at the University of Minnesota. She graduated from Yonsei University in South Korea with a bachelor’s degree in education and a master’s degree in lifelong learning/human resource development.

Jamilah JonesJamilah Jones is a doctoral candidate in higher education administration at the University of Toledo and an administrator at Northwest State Community College. Her research interests include college readiness and developmental education, the role of the community college, and ABLE/GED learners. Jamilah also holds positions on various educational boards, including the Editorial Board for The Learning Assistant Review.She was also the recipient of a University of Toledo Presidential Fellowship.

Summer KingSummer King earned her bachelor’s degree in English and her master’s degree in higher education from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Her functional area experience includes multicultural programming and non-traditional student services, and her research interests span issues of equity, access, engagement, and success. As an emerging student affairs practitioner, Summer hopes to incorporate elements of design thinking and positive psychology into her service to students and into her work as a social justice advocate.

Policy Summit Graduate InternsL to R Front: Blanca Rincon, Aaron Horn, Brad Weiner, Summer King,Vaughn Love, Min Young Cha, Jamilah JonesL to R Back: Kelly Slay, Gabriel Serna, Leah Reinert

55

Vaughn LoveVaughn Love is pursuing a master’s degree in student affairs administration at Michigan State University. As a former AmeriCorps member, she worked with high school students on college awareness and access strategies. Vaughn earned an M.A. in history from Indiana University Bloomington and a B.A. in history from Western Michigan University. Her professional goal is to work in an area supporting college student access and success.

Chris RasmussenChris Rasmussen is MHEC’s vice president for research and policy analysis. As vice president, Chris leads a comprehensive program of policy research and programmatic initiatives designed to inform decision making and improve practice in higher education. Chris received his Ph.D. from the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan, his master’s degree in counseling and student personnel from Minnesota State University at Mankato, and a Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in biology from Gustavus Adolphus College.

Leah ReinertLeah Reinert is a doctoral student in higher education at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities and a graduate research assistant at the Midwestern Higher Education Compact. Her primary research interests include faculty issues, gender equity, diversity in higher education, and pedagogical strategies. Leah earneda B.S. in university studies and an M.S.Ed. in higher education administration from Southern IllinoisUniversity Carbondale.

Blanca RinconBlanca Rincon is a doctoral student in the department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research interests include issues of access and retention for underrepresented students in higher education, specifi cally within science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). She has been a research assistant for Project STEM Trends in Enrollment and Persistence for Underrepresented Populations (STEP-UP) for three years. Blanca is a recipient of the National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship, which will allow her to pursue her own research efforts that will examine climate issues for Latina/o students within STEM. She has also served as an intern for the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) and would like to pursue a career as an educational researcher.

Gabriel Ramón SernaGabriel Ramón Serna is a Ph.D. Candidate in the education policy program at Indiana University Bloomington. He specializes in researching the economics and fi nance of higher education as well as administration and governance of public institutions. His current research examines the intersection of state fi scal policies and support to public higher education. Gabriel has served in multiple capacities during his career in higher education, including as director of programming in the Department of Residence Life at New Mexico State University and as the assistant director of admissions at the University of Kentucky. Gabriel’s career goals include continuing his research on price-sensitive students, college-choice, and state fi nancing of publichigher education in addition to teaching courses in the economics and fi nance of higher education and quantitative methodology.


Kelly SlayKelly Slay is a doctoral student and research assistant in the Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education at the University of Michigan. Prior to her doctoral studies, Kelly spent four years in Chicago working on college readiness programs such as GEAR UP, as well as educational policy and initiatives in various segments of the P-20 pipeline while earning her master’s degree in public service management and higher education from DePaul University. Her research interests center around issues of social justice, college readiness, college choice, access and equity in higher education, and the use of non-cognitive variables in college admissions policies.

Brad WeinerBrad Weiner is a data analyst and doctoral student at The University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. In 2011 he served as a graduate research assistant with the Midwestern Higher Education Compact. His primary research interests involve the globalization of the higher education marketplace, campus internationalization strategies, philanthropy, and university fi nance. Brad has spent the last decade in a variety of enrollment management and admissions roles and remains interested in state and federal policies affecting college choice, fi nancial aid, student persistence, and degree completion. He holds a B.A. in English from the University of Kansas and an M.Ed. in higher education administration from Vanderbilt University.

57

List of Websites and Resources CitedACCESS Scholarship - Kirkwood Community College: http://www.kirkwood.edu/site/index.php?p=13169

Achieve, Inc.: http://www.achieve.org/

ACT, Inc.: http://www.act.org/

ACT Standards of Transition: http://davetgc.com/ACT_Standards_for_Transition.html

Alloy Media + Marketing: http://alloymarketing.com/

American Diploma Project: http://www.achieve.org/adp-network

Bankrate money management: http://www.bankrate.com/

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Pages/home.aspx

The Bridge Project: http://www.du.edu/bridgeproject/

Buttonwood: http://www.iowacollegeaid.gov/FinancialLiteracy/buttonwood.html

California State University Early Assessment Program: http://www.calstate.edu/eap/

Center for Access and Opportunity (AOP): http://www.stcloudstate.edu/cao/

The College Board: http://www.collegeboard.org/

Common Core State Standards Initiative: http://www.corestandards.org/

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute: http://www.chci.org/

Council for Adult and Experiential Learning: http://www.cael.org/home

Council of Chief State School Offi cers: http://www.ccsso.org/

Dell, Inc.: http://thepowertodomore.dell.com/sub-page-dynamic-1219PP 41036K.html?slide=2

Education Opportunity Program – Marquette University: http://www.marquette.edu/eop/

The Education Trust: http://www.edtrust.org/

Educational Policy Improvement Center: https://www.epiconline.org/

EverFi: http://www.everfi .com/

Financial Aid: http://www.fi naid.org/

GEAR UP: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/gearup/index.html

“I Have a Dream” Foundation: http://www.ihaveadreamfoundation.org/html/

Illinois Community College Board: http://www.iccb.org/index.html

Indiana 21st Century Scholars Program: http://www.in.gov/ssaci/2345.htm

Individual Learning Plan: http://www.education.ky.gov/kde/instructional+resources/ilp+-

+individual+learning+plan/

Institute for Higher Education Policy: http://www.ihep.org/

Iowa College Access Network: http://www.icansucceed.org/

Iowa College Student Aid Commission: http://www.iowacollegeaid.gov/

Iowa Jump$tart Coalition: http://iowajumpstart.org/

Iowa Student Loan: http://www.studentloan.org/

K-12, Inc.: http://www.k12.com/

Knowledge is Power Program: http://www.kipp.org/


Lumina Foundation: http://www.luminafoundation.org/

MetLife Foundation: http://www.metlife.com/about/corporate-profi le/citizenship/metlife-foundation/index.html

Minnesota Get Ready Program: http://www.getreadyforcollege.org/

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities: http://www.mnscu.edu/

Mint money management: https://www.mint.com/

Moodle: http://moodle.org/

National Association for College Admissions Counseling: http://www.nacacnet.org/Pages/default.aspx

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators: http://www.nasfaa.org/

National Center for Postsecondary Research: http://www.postsecondaryresearch.org/

National Center for Transforming School Counseling: http://www.edtrust.org/dc/tsc

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: http://www.nctm.org/

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices: http://www.nga.org/cms/center

National Science Education Standards: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4962

Navigation 101: http://www.navigation101.com/login

Parents of Power Program: http://brooklyncenterschools.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=168610&type=d

Partnership for 21st Century Skills: http://www.p21.org/

The Posse Foundation: http://www.possefoundation.org/

Project Tomorrow: http://www.tomorrow.org/index.html

Project Win-Win: http://www.ihep.org/projectwin-win.cfm

Ready to Lead (R2L) Program: http://www.chci.org/ready_to_lead/

Standards for Success Project: https://www.epiconline.org/college_ready_services/standards_development

Texas Higher Education Assessment: http://www.thea.nesinc.com/

Thomas B. Fordham Institute: http://www.edexcellence.net/

Upward Bound: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/trioupbound/index.html

59

Midwestern Higher Education Compact (MHEC)1300 South Second Street, Suite 130Minneapolis, MN MN 55454-1079Phone: (612) 626-8288Fax: (612) 626-8290

www.mhec.org

© Copyright 2012 Midwestern Higher Education Compact.All rights reserved.