Suchergebnisse

Brief of report investigating the fact that too many students who graduate from high school are underprepared for college-level coursework. To address this problem, states are increasingly administering assessments in the 11th grade to measure students' college readiness. Some states are also beginning to offer transition curricula, developed by secondary and postsecondary faculty, that are designed to help at-risk students avoid remediation and become better prepared for the challenges of college. Based largely on interviews with stakeholders in California, New York, Tennessee, and West Virginia, this report describes how these four states have developed initiatives related to early college readiness assessments and transition curricula. Leaders in each state have made particular choices in the design of each program, including what assessment to use; how to determine what level of performance on an assessment aligns with college-level expectations; whether transition curricula should focus on math, English, or both; and how students should be placed into transition courses. In comparing the development of these interventions across states, we identify several central challenges: Given that high school students will attend different colleges and pursue different college programs, how should college readiness be defined? Should transition curricula focus on having students pass remedial placement tests, or should the curricula cover a broader range of skills needed for success in college courses? Should transition courses be offered to all low-performing students or only those who are nearly college ready? While early college assessments and transition curricula are promising approaches for improving students' college readiness, findings from our study suggest that strong collaboration between the K-12 and higher education sectors in developing these initiatives is essential for ensuring that the skills and knowledge taught and assessed in high school are well aligned with those needed for success in college. What is more, program designers need to carefully consider competing priorities concerning initiative goals, populations served, and course content. The study also suggests that state-level commitment to improving college readiness in the form of legislation may be helpful in building support and momentum for these initiatives. More research is needed on the impact of these two interrelated and relatively new interventions. CCRC plans to pursue additional research in the four states discussed in this report.

Too many students who graduate from high school are underprepared for college-level coursework. To address this problem, states are increasingly administering assessments in the 11th grade to measure students' college readiness. Some states are also beginning to offer transition curricula, developed by secondary and postsecondary faculty, that are designed to help at-risk students avoid remediation and become better prepared for the challenges of college. Based largely on interviews with stakeholders in California, New York, Tennessee, and West Virginia, this report describes how these four states have developed initiatives related to early college readiness assessments and transition curricula. Leaders in each state have made particular choices in the design of each program, including what assessment to use; how to determine what level of performance on an assessment aligns with college-level expectations; whether transition curricula should focus on math, English, or both; and how students should be placed into transition courses. In comparing the development of these interventions across states, we identify several central challenges: Given that high school students will attend different colleges and pursue different college programs, how should college readiness be defined? Should transition curricula focus on having students pass remedial placement tests, or should the curricula cover a broader range of skills needed for success in college courses? Should transition courses be offered to all low-performing students or only those who are nearly college ready? While early college assessments and transition curricula are promising approaches for improving students' college readiness, findings from our study suggest that strong collaboration between the K-12 and higher education sectors in developing these initiatives is essential for ensuring that the skills and knowledge taught and assessed in high school are well aligned with those needed for success in college. What is more, program designers need to carefully consider competing priorities concerning initiative goals, populations served, and course content. The study also suggests that state-level commitment to improving college readiness in the form of legislation may be helpful in building support and momentum for these initiatives. More research is needed on the impact of these two interrelated and relatively new interventions. CCRC plans to pursue additional research in the four states discussed in this report.

This study examines the primary policy instruments through which state performance funding systems influence higher education institutions in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The authors interviewed personnel at nine community colleges and nine universities about the use of four policy instruments: (1) financial incentives, (2) communication of program goals and methods, (3) communication about institutional performance, and (4) enhancement of colleges' capacities to improve student outcomes. The authors examine the immediate impacts of these instruments on college budgets, campus awareness of performance funding goals and institutional performance, and institutional capacity, as well as their impacts on efforts to improve student outcomes. In all three states, policymakers relied mainly on financial incentives to induce change at community college and university campuses. State officials also made efforts to communicate with campus leaders and staff about performance funding and institutional performance, though these efforts varied in their intensity and their level of campus penetration. The authors find very limited evidence of state efforts to build campus-level capacity for organizational learning and change. Besides documenting main trends, the authors also analyze how interviewee responses varied by state, by type of institution (community college or university), by institutional capacity to respond to the demands of performance funding, and by position the interviewee held in the institution.

A new form of performance funding often called performance funding 2.0 (PF 2.0) represents a major shift in performance funding. Unlike earlier forms of performance funding that took the form of a bonus on top of the base state funding for higher education, PF 2.0 is embedded into the base funding itself. PF 2.0 programs are seen as promising means to significantly improve institutional performance due to the fact that they typically tie a larger portion of state funding to performance indicators than do PF 1.0 programs. Additionally, PF 2.0 programs aim to be more stable than PF 1.0 programs, as PF 2.0 performance indicators are written into the regular state funding formula itself and are not separate programs that can be easily dropped. Using three perspectives within policy theory—the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Policy Entrepreneurship theory, and policy diffusion theory—this paper examines the political forces supporting the enactment of PF 2.0 in three leading states and compares these forces with those involved in the enactment of PF 1.0 performance funding programs.

This study reviews the theories of action espoused by state-level performance funding advocates and implementers in Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The study found that these espoused theories of action are incompletely articulated, with significant gaps in the specification of policy instruments, desired institutional changes, and possible obstacles and unintended impacts that need to be countered. Performance funding is conceived largely as stimulating changes in institutional behavior and student outcomes by providing financial inducements and securing institutional buy-in. Less attention is paid to other policy instruments, such as providing information on institutional performance to the colleges and building up the capacity of institutions to engage in organizational learning and change. The states' espoused theories of action for performance funding are, thus, narrower than those for state and federal K-12 accountability programs, which put much more emphasis on information provision and capacity building. Moreover, the espoused theories of action for performance funding in the three states miss important possible obstacles to and unintended impacts of performance funding. This report argues that insufficiently articulating the theories of action for performance funding makes it less likely that it will be successful and avoid undue harm.