Black teachers: How to recruit them and make them stay
Lessons in higher education: What California can learn
Keeping California public university options open
Superintendents: Well-paid and walking away
The debt to degree connection
College in prison: How earning a degree can lead to a new life
The new mantra for high schools is college and career readiness.
The response from many school districts across the state is to require all high school graduates to meet a single measure of college readiness based on the eligibility requirements for the California State University.
Meanwhile, California’s new accountability system now includes five alternative ways of measuring college and career readiness based on combinations of test scores, course completions and grades. These mixed responses not only will fail to ensure that California students are prepared for college and careers; they may deny diplomas to otherwise prepared students.
The requirements for a public high school diploma in California depend on where you attend school. The California Education Code sets a minimum state requirement of 13 year-long courses, but allows school districts to impose their own graduation requirements. Most districts require an average of 20 to 24 courses between the 9th and 12th grades. In addition, more than half of school districts across the state now require high school graduates to meet the eligibility requirements of the California State University (CSU) system, which is a set of 15 courses in seven subject areas (known as a-g courses) with a grade C or better.
However well intentioned, this response is problematic.
Requiring students to meet the eligibility requirements of a four-year college does not ensure that students are prepared for college. More than a third of all freshmen enrolled in the CSU system are now required to take remedial classes. These students, despite meeting eligibility requirements, are clearly not college ready. In fact, research finds that students need a high school grade point average (GPA) of at least a 2.5 to be successful in college.
Some districts have actually lowered rather than raised the GPA requirement in order to get more students to graduate. The Los Angeles Unified School District, for example, adopted the a-g course requirement beginning with the class of 2016, but lowered the required GPA to 1.0. Getting a “D” reflects very little learning or preparation for college.
Also, why should all students have to meet the eligibility requirements for admission to a four-year college if they don’t want a job that requires that much schooling? According to projections by the Public Policy Institute, less than 40 percent of the jobs in California in 2030 will require a four-year college degree. If students can demonstrate readiness for a trade or community college program, shouldn’t they be granted a high school diploma? After all, some of these middle level jobs pay better than jobs held by 4-year college graduates.
The state’s response to college and career readiness adds further confusion.
Of the five alternative measures of college and career readiness in California’s new accountability system, only one is based on graduates meeting the CSU eligibility requirements. Other measures are based on different requirements, such a completing a sequence of career and technical education courses that can prepare students for technical occupations or taking dual enrollment (high school/community college) courses. So a school could report students as college and career ready in the state accountability system based on one or more of these five measures, but deny some of those very same students a diploma because they did not meet the one measure that their district requires for graduation — completion of the coursework needed for admission to CSU.
How do we explain this confusing state of affairs to students and parents?
If districts want more students to be college and career ready, they should embrace multiple measures that capture a broader array of skills and knowledge, and multiple pathways to achieve them. These include career and technical education courses that not only develop technical skills, but also communication, collaboration and other so called “social-emotional” skills that research has shown are highly predictive of success in both college and the labor market. Just as the state has developed multiple indicators of college and career readiness, districts could provide multiple pathways to earn a diploma that meets state standards — something other states have embraced.
Another option is for each student to have a post-graduation plan showing evidence of their commitment and preparation to college, trade program, work or military service. The Chicago Public Schools have adopted this requirement beginning with the class of 2020.
To truly serve and prepare all students for success in college, careers and civic life, districts should adopt a broader measure of student success in setting their graduation requirements. To ensure equity, they could initially assign all students to the a-g option as a graduation requirement beginning in the freshman year, but allow them to opt out of that requirement and select another option to demonstrate college and career readiness (such as a career pathway) in conjunction with a documented post-graduation plan.
The consequences for students and the welfare of the state are dire if we don’t get this right.
•••
Russell W. Rumberger is Professor Emeritus at the Gevirtz School of Education at UC Santa Barbara and Director of the California Dropout Research Project.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Panelists discussed dual admission as a solution for easing the longstanding challenges in California’s transfer system.
A grassroots campaign recalled two members of the Orange Unified School District in an election that cost more than half a million dollars.
Legislation that would remove one of the last tests teachers are required to take to earn a credential in California passed the Senate Education Committee.
Part-time instructors, many who work for decades off the tenure track and at a lower pay rate, have been called “apprentices to nowhere.”
Comments (2)
Comments Policy
We welcome your comments. All comments are moderated for civility, relevance and other considerations. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.
KAVO 5 months ago5 months ago
The root of the problem is the admissions requirements for California's State Universities. Bryan Caplan's "The Case Against Education" explains the issues quite clearly. I can attest that the college prep courses I took in high school were far more difficult (and unnecessarily so) than any courses I took at University. Caplan notes the ridiculous requirement for 2 or more years of a foreign language yet less than 2% of high school students could even … Read More
The root of the problem is the admissions requirements for California’s State Universities. Bryan Caplan’s “The Case Against Education” explains the issues quite clearly. I can attest that the college prep courses I took in high school were far more difficult (and unnecessarily so) than any courses I took at University. Caplan notes the ridiculous requirement for 2 or more years of a foreign language yet less than 2% of high school students could even order off a menu in a foreign country after all of this time in school. The only way to learn a foreign language is through immersion programs, such as being a foreign-exchange student. Nevertheless, why is this required for college?
I also took a long list of mind-boggling math courses in high school that I never used in college. What was that all about? As the author notes, about 40% of jobs don’t require a degree, so why does the average kid need to go in debt $30K to prove he’s “smart”? (There’s some irony in there somewhere).
Thankfully I somehow accumulated enough credits to only go a half-day in the 12th grade, so I was able to start my career in radio broadcasting a year early. (I think I even got high school credit for it.) I can tell you by age 15, I was “done” with school and wanted to get to work so I could buy the things I saw on TV with my own money.
I think this view is typical of most teens. We need to find a way to start transitioning to the workforce as soon as kids enter high school.
Bruce William Smith 6 years ago6 years ago
We need to get this right, but the suggestions provided here are not of much use. Instead, California and other states should consider the Swiss approach to maturity: its "Maturität" translates roughly as "college and career readiness," but entails the actual completion of training – not some specious "readiness" to begin it – by age 18 for most of its young adults, with such training being specified locally by cantons (roughly the equivalent of American … Read More
We need to get this right, but the suggestions provided here are not of much use. Instead, California and other states should consider the Swiss approach to maturity: its “Maturität” translates roughly as “college and career readiness,” but entails the actual completion of training – not some specious “readiness” to begin it – by age 18 for most of its young adults, with such training being specified locally by cantons (roughly the equivalent of American administrative districts) according to their projected local economic needs; only a minority of youth are prepared for university in the colleges of Switzerland or of an outstanding local district like Singapore.