Archived Information

*Thinking K-16*

Vol. 5, Issue 1 A Publication of The Education Trust Winter 2001

**Youth at the Crossroads**

**Facing High School and Beyond**

Over the last several months, we've had a slew of requests, most notably
from the National Commission on the High School Senior Year, for a
summary of data we've been gathering on the outcomes of high school.

We are delighted to oblige. As most of our readers know, the Education
Trust's Achievement in America and Education Watch series describing
student outcomes kindergarten through college are in wide use,
especially in communities and states trying to understand what's behind
the achievement gap separating low-income and minority students from
other young Americans. But we'd never before had the time---and the
support---to drill down into the data on those all-important high school
years and present it in an easy to digest format. We are grateful to
both the National Commission and to the Pew Charitable Trusts for this
opportunity.

Because high school sits at the junction between K-12 and higher
education, these findings will have special significance for the readers
of *Thinking K-16*. Many of you are devoting your full time attention to
smoothing out the disjunctures between the two systems, and are working
hard to knit the two systems together in a coordinated effort to improve
achievement and close gaps between groups K-16. As more and more energy
and dollars are finding their way to high school reform, we thought you
might find it helpful to have a piece summarizing available data that
could be distributed and used to jump-start local reform work.

For that reason, this *Thinking K-16* appears on our web site in a form
that makes it easy to download, print and copy.

**So What Did We Learn?**

As you will see, there is plenty in here to be concerned about. Even the
so-called good news conceals some troubling patterns. For example, an
analysis of the data shows that the celebrated math gains of our 17 year
olds aren't the result of anything that happens in the high school
years, but carry over from a boost in the math performance before grade
8. In reading the picture is bleaker. Our elementary and middle schools
are sending students to high school with higher reading skills, yet
students graduate able to read no better than their peers did a decade
ago. And despite growing enrollments in college prep and AP courses, the
effects on learning have not been great.

Indeed, while our international competitors have improved their high
school completion rates, ours have remained the same for nearly 30
years. Once first, the U.S. now ranks 17th.

**An Achievement Gulf---of Our Own Making**

But for us the most galling---and most galvanizing---facts are these:

Near the end of high school, African American and Latino youngsters have
skills about the same as White students near the end of junior high
school.

During the 1990s, these gaps grew wider even as employment, income and
other social gaps grew narrower.

Though some continue to argue otherwise, it is now overwhelmingly clear
that these patterns are not the inevitable result of poverty, racism, or
other social conditions. Rather, schools and school systems themselves
are contributing mightily to that gap by taking the young people who
have less to begin with, and then giving them less in school, too.

**Moving Forward**

Fortunately, however, there are around the country individual schools,
districts, indeed whole states that are tackling these inequities head
on and getting results. Achievement is going up and gaps between groups
are closing.

To be sure, there are proportionately fewer success stories at the high
school level than at the elementary or middle school level. That's
hardly surprising, in our view, because most of the reform energy to
date has focused on the lower grades.

But attention is now turning to the high school, and none too soon. For,
as is clear in the following pages, it turns out that the widespread
assumption that better prepared students would allow high school
teachers, finally, to "do the job that they were hired to do," was
wrong. During the 1990s, students did enter high school better prepared.
But the value added during those high school years actually declined.

Let's get busy.

**Kati Haycock**

Director

**Are Today's High School**

**Graduates Ready?**

*by Kati Haycock and Sandra Huang*

It's been 17 years since the National Commission on Excellence in
Education called the nation to action on the quality of public
education. And nearly 11 years have passed since the National Education
Goals were first conceived. Where are we? Are today's students better
educated when they leave high school than their predecessors back when
all this got started?

This publication provides an overview of available data on this
question. We'll look first at student achievement. Then we'll turn to
high school completion rates over time.

In general, the data suggest an object at rest in a world that is
rapidly rushing by.

-   High school completion rates have remained the same for nearly 30
    years.

-   Indeed, after decades of leading the world in high school
    completion, the U.S. currently ranks 17th.

-   The situation is hardly more encouraging for what students know and
    can do.

-   Despite some improvements in the reading skills students bring with
    them to high school, today's high school students are reading no
    better when they leave than did their peers a decade ago.

-   Even in math and science, where recent gains among 17 year olds have
    been widely celebrated, it turns out that those gains are
    attributable to improvements below grade 8.

-   While students are taking and completing more college preparatory
    courses, the effect on student learning has not been great, raising
    serious questions about the rigor of those courses.

Consequently, while our elementary age students perform relatively well
on international tests in mathematics and science, we're scoring below
most developed countries in both subjects by grade 12. And we do so not
because our young people make no growth during their secondary years,
but because their peers in other countries grow considerably more.

All these problems are worse for students from minority groups, as well
as those from low-income families. Dropout rates are higher---and
increasing; achievement levels are lower---and, in some cases,
declining.

These patterns of underachievement have significant costs both to the
students themselves and to the colleges and employers that receive them.
Unaddressed, they also pose a serious threat to the economic and social
health of our communities.

Fortunately, through the good efforts of educators and community
activists around the country, there are some shoulders on which we can
stand to see a better future. We end this publication with a look at
some core building blocks for rethinking high school education.

**STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT**

**What Do We Know About Achievement Trends?**

On most indices, today's high school students are performing at about
the same levels as did their counterparts during the early 1980s. A
little higher on some tests, a little lower on others, but on the whole,
achievement changed very little over the last two decades. The patterns
are different for different subjects and different racial and ethnic
groups, however. Here's a look at each.

**By Subject...**

-   In mathematics and science, overall achievement is up. In both
    subjects, the average performance of 17 year-olds on the National
    Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has gone up between 10 and
    13 points since the early 1980s---about a full grade level. The
    gains in mathematics are consistent with improved scores on the
    mathematics portion of the SAT over the same time period.

-   In reading, achievement is down. The declines among 17-year-olds on
    the NAEP reading exam are slight, but troubling because these
    students actually entered high school with somewhat better reading
    skills than did their predecessors. Over the same period, scores on
    the verbal SAT have been flat.

**By Group...**

We made real progress during the 1970s and early 1980s in raising
achievement among minority students, substantially narrowing the gap
separating them from other young Americans. In the 1990s, however, that
gap grew wider again.

-   In reading, achievement among African Americans and Latinos climbed
    substantially through the 1970s and 1980s, but gaps separating them
    from other students widened somewhat during the 1990s.

-   The patterns in mathematics achievement look very similar, with the
    gap reaching its narrowest in 1990, then holding steady for Latinos,
    while widening for African Americans. In fact, the White-Black gaps
    are now approximately 10 points wider than at the beginning of the
    1990s---about a full grade level.

**What Does Student Achievement Look Like Near the End of High School?**

Trends aside, it is useful to know something about what students
actually know and can do by age 17. Here's a look at what the NAEP
long-term trend assessments tell us about knowledge and skills.

-   Too few 17 year-olds can read and understand the kinds of text that
    are common both in college and in our modern office economy.

-   • By age 17, only about 1 in 17 students can read and gain
    information from specialized text---something like the science
    section in your local newspaper. The numbers are much worse for
    students of color. Only 1 in 50 Latinos and 1 in 100 African
    American 17 year-olds can read at this level, compared to about 1 in
    12 Whites.

-   The ability to read and understand complicated---if somewhat less
    specialized---information is important to success in college and,
    increasingly, in the workplace. Yet only about half of all White 17
    year-olds, less than one-quarter of Latinos, and less than one-fifth
    of African Americans can read at this level.

-   Though there have been gains in mathematics, surprisingly few 17
    year-olds can demonstrate strong knowledge and skills.

-   Only about 1 in 12 of all 17 year-olds can comfortably do multi-step
    problem-solving and elementary algebra---a finding that may surprise
    those who know that 91% of those students took at least one algebra
    course.

-   Once again, there are big differences among the races, with 1 in 10
    White students able to perform the above skills, compared to only 1
    in 30 Latinos and 1 in 100 African Americans.

-   At a far more basic level, 7 in 10 Whites have mastered the usage
    and computation of fractions, commonly used percents, and averages,
    compared to only 3 in 10 African American and 4 in 10 Latino 17
    year-olds.

Near the end of high school, in fact, African American and Latino
students have reading skills that are virtually the same as those of
White students in 8th grade. The pattern is the same in math.

**How Much of This Learning Occurred During the High School Years?**

Given the expansion of pre-school education and the recent attention to
elementary grades, is it reasonable to ask how much of the learning
represented in these assessments actually occurred during the high
school years? Here, the data give cause for concern.

-   First, in reading and mathematics, students make more growth between
    grades 5 and 8 than they do during their high school years. Only in
    science is growth greater during the high school years.

-   Second, in all three subjects, today's American 17 year-olds are
    making less growth during their high school years than did their
    earlier counterparts.

Thus, although achievement is up in math and science, virtually all of
the gains in mathematics and science during the last decade can be
attributed to increased learning prior to high school.

The reading data are even more troubling, because they challenge the
common hope that many high school problems will right themselves if
entering students are better prepared. In reading, youngsters during the
mid-1990s actually entered high school better prepared. But they left
reading at slightly lower levels than their earlier counterparts.

**Students in Other Countries Gain More in High School.**

Many Americans aren't terribly surprised to learn that students aren't
making much growth during their secondary school years. They've
succumbed to a widespread view that adolescents, especially those in
middle school, are incapable of sustained intellectual activity, at
least in part because of "raging hormones." In other countries, though,
adolescents are expected to make considerably more growth---and they do
so with great regularity.

These differences are clear when we compare American students'
performance in math and science at three benchmark grade levels to that
of their counterparts in other developed and developing nations.
American students do relatively well in both subjects at grade 4: near
the top of the pack in science and in the upper middle tier in
mathematics. By twelfth grade, however, their relative position has
fallen precipitously.

-   While only one country does better than we do in grade 4 science, by
    the 12th grade, we outperform only Cyprus and South Africa. Our 12th
    graders end up in the same position in mathematics.

-   Even our top students---those enrolled in our most rigorous
    classes---perform poorly against their international counterparts.

-   Remember, our relative performance plummets not because our students
    make no growth in high school, but because their counterparts in
    other countries make considerably more growth.

**HOW MANY STUDENTS MAKE IT THROUGH?**

Now that we know something about what students are learning by the close
of high school, it may be useful to inquire about how many actually make
it to graduation day.

Unfortunately, this is perhaps the most elusive of all education
indicators. Different states and communities use varying definitions of
dropout. Moreover, in many parts of the country, record-keeping systems
are so bad that they simply cannot keep up with our increasingly mobile
population.

Here, however, is a look at what the different data sources say.

**Annual Dropout.** Each year, almost 1 of every 20 youngsters leaves
high school. But there are vast differences among students from
different racial and economic groups.

-   During a typical year, we lose about 1 out of 30 Whites, 1 out of 20
    African Americans, and 1 out of 10 Latinos.

-   At the same time, students from poor families are considerably more
    likely to leave high school than students from affluent families.

-   The gap between groups widened during the 1990s.

**Completion by Various Ages**

-   By age 18-19, data from the U.S. Census indicate that about 82% of
    all young people have completed high school. Of these, about 72.5%
    have earned a regular diploma, with another 9.8% earning a GED or
    other certificate.

-   By age 22-24, 86.3% of all young people have completed high school,
    10.4% through an equivalency program.

-   During the 1990s, the proportion of completers with regular diplomas
    went down, while those with alternate certificates nearly doubled .

-   After leading the world for decades in the proportion of young
    people earning a secondary diploma on time, the U.S. now ranks 17th.

**Racial and Gender Differences**

-   In the 18-24 year old group, about 90% of Whites, and 94% of Asians
    have completed high school. Among African Americans, the rate drops
    to 81%, while among Latinos, it is only 63%.

-   About 83% of males in this age group completed high school, compared
    with 87% of females.

Regardless of how completion is computed, the sad result is the
same---at the end of the 1990s, American high schools had less success
graduating students than they did as the decade began. Overall
"completion" rates remained flat only because many students who left
eventually obtained a GED or other similar certificate.

**And After High School?**

What happens to the graduates after they leave high school?

-   About two-thirds of those who obtain high school diplomas enter into
    some form of postsecondary education the following fall. Within two
    years of high school graduation, that number rises to about
    three-quarters.

-   Just as there are racial and gender differences in high school
    graduation, college entry rates also differ among the groups.

-   As many as half of all college students do not have adequate
    academic preparation, and are required to take remedial courses.

Not surprisingly, students' lack of adequate preparation contributes to
stunningly high college dropout rates:

-   More than one quarter of the freshmen at 4-year colleges and nearly
    half of those at 2-year colleges do not even make it to their
    sophomore year.

-   Even at relatively selective 4-year colleges and universities, only
    about half of college freshmen earn a bachelor's degree within six
    years---and the success rates vary for different groups, with fewer
    than 40% of African American and Latino undergraduates persisting to
    a degree, compared to two-thirds of Whites and Asians.

-   And although more and more of the students who begin their
    postsecondary careers in 2-year colleges aspire to earn a bachelor's
    degree, their chances of earning that degree are low and declining.
    According to a recent study, above-average students who aspired to a
    bachelor's degree and whose parents attended college were 38% less
    likely to acquire a BA in five years if they begin their
    postsecondary work in 2-year colleges, compared to similar students
    who begin in 4-year colleges. (Schneider and Stevenson, 1999)

**Cumulative Effects**

The cumulative effects of these winnowing processes look very different
for different groups of young people.

-   Students from families in the top income quartile are about seven
    times as likely as students from families in the bottom quartile to
    earn a bachelor's degree by age 24.

-   Young African Americans have about half the likelihood White
    students have to earn a bachelor's degree by age 29; young Latinos
    are only one-third as likely as Whites.

**THE COSTS**

In earlier times, results like these were reasonably tolerable. For
those with strong backs and willing hands, there were decent jobs
available that didn't require diplomas or advanced-level skills. Things
are different today, and not just in the workplace. As citizens and
parents, we face increasingly complex issues that require us to have
higher level skills and knowledge.

There are still jobs available for high school dropouts, but these are
shrinking as a portion of all jobs. Real wages and benefits have been
declining since 1979 and are no longer sufficient to support a family.
These jobs rarely provide opportunities for advancement, and are often
held temporarily by young people while they are attending school or by
new immigrants while they gain a foothold in their new country.

For high school graduates without postsecondary education, things are
getting tougher, too. They also face a decline in real wages. In
addition, the jobs they apply for often require them to show minimal
competency as a condition for being hired. According to regular surveys
conducted by the American Management Association, for example:

-   More than 40% of employers test literacy and mathematics skills.

-   Failure rates on these exams have climbed from 18.9% in 1996 to
    35.5% in 1998---not, interestingly, because applicant skills are
    going down but because job requirements (especially in the
    manufacturing, wholesale and retail segments of the economy) are
    going up.

-   The number of companies providing remedial programs declined from
    24% in 1993 to 14.5% in 1999, which places more importance on the
    level of skill applicants bring with them.

Jobs for college-educated workers, on the other hand are growing---both
as a share of all jobs and as a share of the 30 fastest-growing new
jobs. Indeed, of these new jobs projected over the coming decade, about
70% will require at least some postsecondary education.

Salaries, too, are the highest for young people with college, and,
especially at the BA and post-baccalaureate levels, are increasing.

**What Counts? Both Degrees and Skills**

More education leads to higher wages. But actual knowledge and skills
matter, too.

-   Among males with only a high school diploma, for example, those with
    high-level literacy skills earn about 32% more than those with
    low-level skills.

-   Differences are even bigger for college graduates, with
    highly-skilled graduates earning an average of \$15,000 more per
    year than graduates with basic skills only.

**The Demographic Imperative**

These trends are amplified for members of racial and ethnic minority
groups.

-   The acquisition of both credentials and skills has a greater impact
    on the earnings of minorities, than of Whites. With a college degree
    and equal test scores, earnings for African American males are only
    about 7% less than their White counterparts. Among high school
    dropouts with equal skills, on the other hand, earnings of African
    American males are almost half those of White males.

-   Unfortunately, education levels and skills are not usually equal
    across groups. Disproportionately low attainment and skills have
    disadvantaged African American, Latino and Native American workers
    as job and salary growth have favored more highly educated workers.

Long a concern among minority leaders, these patterns are increasingly
worrisome to others, especially employers. Forward-looking educators
have known for some time that, given the increasing diversity of the
student population, it is nearly impossible to improve overall
achievement without improving the achievement of minorities. Likewise,
employers now know that their future is also dependent upon the
increasing success of minorities.

A quick look at the demographic profile of the U.S. school-age
population tells the story. In 1950, Whites accounted for 86% of
school-age youth. By 2000, their share had declined to 65%. In 2040,
Whites for the first time will comprise less than 50% of the school-age
population, with Latinos comprising a full 28%; African Americans, 14%;
Asian Americans, 8%; and Native Americans, 1%.

**RESULTS TO MATCH OUR NEEDS**

Clearly, we need to improve education in high school and beyond,
especially---though certainly not exclusively---for members of minority
groups. Of course it would help if there were changes outside of
schools: if parents had more time to spend with their children, if
poverty didn't crush so many spirits, and if the broader culture didn't
bombard young people with so many ultimately destructive messages. But
because both research and experience make it clear that what schools do
matters a lot, we'll concentrate here on educational practices and
policies that work.

The patterns in the data argue essentially two things:

-   First, to have any kind of chance of gaining solid footing in the
    economy of the 21st Century, students will need at least some
    postsecondary education. We can no longer think of high school as a
    culminating experience for anyone.

-   Second, to have any chance of success in postsecondary
    education---or, for that matter, in the world of work---high school
    students must regularly engage in rigorous, intellectually
    challenging work, and must make substantially more growth during
    their secondary school years than they do now.

**1. Goals Matter**

Back in 1983, The National Commission on Excellence in Education worried
aloud about a rapidly diversifying high school curriculum, describing it
as "...cafeteria style...in which the appetizers and desserts can easily
be mistaken for main courses." This trend toward the "shopping mall"
high school actually began in the 1920s when the purpose of high school
became confused. In response to increasing enrollments, especially new
immigrants, high schools began to offer vocational courses for students
not headed for college or managerial jobs. For these students, academic
work was replaced by courses in "industrial arts," "bookkeeping," or
"office practices." The general idea was that a few students needed to
be educated to lead, with the remainder simply trained well enough to
follow orders.

Since 1983, we have made progress. More and more high school students
are completing the academic sequence recommended by the Commission, and
fewer and fewer students are taking "general" or "vocational" courses.
But this progress has not been nearly as fast as the increases in
college going. Almost three-quarters of high school graduates go on to
postsecondary schooling, while fewer than half have completed a full
college preparatory program.

These gaps are not surprising to people who spend a lot of time in
schools talking with teachers or counselors. They see much the same
thing as did the pollsters who talked to students, parents and teachers
in a recent MET Life survey--- students and parents had high
expectations of going to college, while teachers expected considerably
less. Indeed, teachers and counselors often seem to think that college
going rates haven't changed since they went to college.

Today's needs are different. Regardless of whether our new high school
graduates aspire to careers requiring university degrees or technical
certificates, the prerequisites are virtually the same---algebra,
geometry, laboratory sciences and strong communication skills. But the
absence of a coherent vision for high school sends mixed messages to
teachers, counselors and students about what they should be working
toward.

To cut through the old attitudes, we cannot equivocate. And we cannot
simply do what A Nation At Risk did---merely exhort schools to
"increase" the numbers of students in rigorous academic courses. Unless
they have no choice, many adults will continue to channel some of the
students in their charge---especially those who are poor or
minority---into less demanding curricula. And the research bears out
that the quality and intensity of high school curriculum is the single
most important predictor of college completion.

The purpose for high school, then, should be crystal clear: all
graduates will be ready to pursue postsecondary education and training
without remediation.

Both sides of the educational system, however, have been slow to respond
to these new imperatives by taking on the work at the juncture of K-12
and higher education.

-   While every state except one now has standards for all elementary
    and secondary students, the standards were typically established
    without the participation of higher education as a sector. The
    result in most states is a gulf between the K-12 goals and the
    skills needed to begin college-level work.

-   The tests that most states administer to high school students are
    not aligned with the tests used for college admissions or for
    placement into college-level courses. In many cases, the high school
    tests address content that does not exceed the 9th or 10th grade
    level (Education Trust, 1999).

Higher education has important work to do, too. For starters, that work
needs to include coming to cross-institutional agreement on the
knowledge and skills necessary for students to begin credit-bearing
work---and how to assess that. For too long, colleges and universities
have avoided their responsibilities in this arena by claiming that their
diverse missions make such agreement impossible. That intransigence has
left high schools with far too many targets to prepare for.

Turning this situation around requires a clear educational goal. That,
indeed, is precisely what the most successful schools seem to be doing:
raising their sights, narrowing their purposes and focusing their
energies.

**2. Curriculum Matters**

Goals for high-level learning won't do much good, however, without a
curriculum to match.

For a long time, it has been evident that students who take more
rigorous coursework in high school learn more and perform better on
tests. Indeed, the more they take the better they do.

-   In mathematics, for example, students who complete the full college
    preparatory sequence perform much higher on NAEP than those who
    complete only one or two courses. The same pattern is true in NAEP
    science and on the SAT.

-   Research also shows the positive impact of more rigorous coursework
    on work-bound students and students who enter as low-achievers.

-   Yet while increasing numbers of students are following an "academic"
    track, progress is not fast enough.

-   While almost three quarters of high school grads are going on to
    higher education, only about half of them complete even a mid-level
    college preparatory curriculum (4 English, 3 each in math, science
    and social studies). If you also include two years of Foreign
    Language and a semester of Computer Science, the numbers drop to
    about 12%.

-   The numbers are worse for African Americans, Latinos, and low-income
    students (Education Trust, 1999).

These patterns are disturbing, because the quality and intensity of high
school coursework is the single-most important determinant of who
succeeds in college---more important than class rank or scores on
college admissions tests. And remember, curriculum rigor is important
for work-bound students too.

**3. Teachers Matter**

Especially during their secondary school years, students need teachers
who know their subjects and how to teach them.

-   Results from a recent Boston study of teacher effects are fairly
    typical. In just one academic year, the top third of teachers
    produced as much as six times the learning growth as the bottom
    third of teachers. In fact, 10th graders taught by the least
    effective teachers made nearly no gains in reading, and even lost
    ground in.

-   Groundbreaking research in Tennessee and Texas revealed that these
    effects are cumulative and hold up regardless of the race, class or
    prior achievement of the students. (Haycock 1998)

Despite the importance of teaching to improving student achievement,
large numbers of secondary teachers---between 18 and 28% in each of the
four core academic areas---do not have even the equivalent of a college
minor in their teaching field. The situation is worse in schools with
concentrations of minority or low-income students.

-   In every subject area, students in high poverty schools are more
    likely than other students to be taught by teachers without even a
    minor in their fields.

-   The differences are often greater in predominantly minority high
    schools. In math and science, for example, only about half of the
    teachers in schools with 90% or greater minority enrollments even
    meet their states' minimum requirements to teach those
    subjects---far fewer than in predominantly White schools.

The patterns are similar no matter which measure of teacher
qualifications you use---experience, certification, academic
preparation, performance on licensure tests: we take the students who
are most dependent upon their teachers for subject matter learning and
assign them teachers with the weakest academic foundations.

Some may wonder what might happen if this pattern were reversed.
Research from Texas on what happens when initially underachieving
children are taught by top tier teachers provide some clues. By the time
those students reach the high school years, they are outperforming
initially high achieving students who are taught by bottom tier
teachers.

**4. Challenging Assignments and High Expectations Matter**

Researchers in both the U.S. and overseas have amassed considerable
evidence on the critical importance of high expectations in the form of
challenging lessons and assignments. Fewer than 3 in 10 teenagers,
however, think their school is "very academically rigorous."
Unfortunately, the data suggest that they are not wrong.

-   In mathematics, more than 80% of 8th grade lessons in the U.S. are
    rated "low on content," while fewer than 30% of German lessons and
    fewer than 10% of Japanese lessons are similarly rated. (TIMSS,
    1998)

-   The pattern seems to be the same at higher grade levels. The science
    content taught in the U.S. at grade 11, for example, is typically
    taught in grade 9 elsewhere, while the mathematics content usually
    taught in grade 9 in the U.S. is typically taught in grade 7
    elsewhere. (TIMSS, 1998)

-   Almost one quarter of the nation's 17 year-olds read less than 5
    pages per day both in school and for homework. Over the past 15
    years, schools have increased reading assignments for both 9 and 13
    year-olds, while practices for 17 year-olds have remained unchanged.

-   Furthermore, many students are getting grades that are not supported
    by corresponding performance.

-   Students who take the SAT, for example, are reporting higher and
    higher GPAs over the last decade, yet scores have systematically
    declined across all GPA categories.

-   The situation is worse in schools with concentrations of minority
    and poor students, who often receive As for work that would earn a C
    in another school. (Education Trust, 1998)

There are also troubling signs that teachers feel less responsibility
than they should for student achievement. Nearly two-thirds agree that
student success is "largely due to factors beyond me." (Metropolitan
Life, 2000)

These patterns can and are being turned around in communities and states
that are systematically expecting more from their high school students.
In New York, for example, a decision to require all students to take and
pass Regents Examinations has resulted not in the calamity that many
predicted, but in systematic improvements in teaching and learning.
Indeed, of the seniors newly required to take and pass the Regents
English exam last year, 97% of students who completed all other
graduation requirements met the Regents requirement. In the coming
years, students will also have to pass Regents exams in math, social
studies and science.

In Texas, several high schools that replaced outmoded ways of teaching
algebra are now not just getting their students through the course but
to pass the state's end-of-course examination as well. Statewide, the
pass rate for low-income students on the end of course exam is only 44%;
but in these schools, the rate tops 67%.

**5. School Size Matters**

When students are taught in smaller, more personal environments, they
tend to do better. Poor and minority students see even stronger
benefits, with school size offsetting other disadvantages common to high
poverty, high minority schools. While school size by itself is not
enough to overcome all other problems or deficiencies, it is a good
start to providing the kind of connected environment that will
facilitate student learning.

-   In several recent studies, small high schools were shown to weaken
    the "power" of poverty. Assessment results in Georgia showed that
    its smaller schools reduced the power of poverty by half across
    grade 11, and by two-thirds in grade 11 English alone.

-   Going to a smaller scale brought promising early results to
    Baltimore's Patterson High School. Identified in 1994-95 as
    reconstitution eligible, Patterson worked intensively to implement a
    schools-within-a-school model. Prior to reform, 80-90% of the
    school's teachers said the school was not conducive to student
    achievement; only one year later, that number dropped to 20-30%. By
    the second year, Patterson's School Performance Index rose from
    second to the worst, to second best of Baltimore's nine
    comprehensive high schools. (Legters, 1999)

**MOVING AHEAD K-16**

Over the past several years, many thoughtful and creative people have
put forward wonderfully compelling images of how high school in
general---or the senior year in particular---might be reinvented.

Others, with pretty powerful logic, have argued that the very dollars
that might fuel these reinvigorated institutions would be better
invested in the early childhood years. "Take those 13 years of dollars
and drop them down to two years," they say.

The real danger, though, is to conceptualize next steps in a narrow or
linear way, for instance, higher education dictates what it wants and
K-12 responds. For, in truth, most of the problems that characterize
secondary education in this country---unclear and differential
standards, uneven teaching, little curricular coherence---are found in
higher education as well. Indeed, these two systems are intertwined in
so many places that neither can solve its own problems without the
other's cooperation.

No matter how we conceptualize the task at hand---improvement or
reinvention, whole high school or senior year, one school or an entire
district or state---tackling it well requires a cross-cutting, K-16
vehicle. Working together, a coherent K-16 system will make sure that
our youth at the crossroads will be well-prepared for their journey,
regardless of which route they choose.

Actions for Communities and States

As this issue of *Thinking K-16* goes to press, education and civic
leaders are gathering in communities all across the country to begin the
process of rethinking high school level education.

When creative people start sketching out their dreams for high school
education, and especially when we have a chance to actually see those
dreams being carried out in real schools here and there around the
country, it's oh-so-tempting to simply sign on for the ride. Small,
highly personal schools where no student can fall between the cracks?
You bet! Rich, engaging, interdisciplinary curricula organized around
distinctive themes? Sign us up!

We would remind our readers, however, that these kinds of passions are
precisely what has fueled the many previous false starts in high school
reform. This time, it's important that we are careful to build from the
beginning on both the research and the lessons learned in earlier
efforts.

As is clear in the previous section, this means that it is critically
important to:

-   ***Get up-front agreement on the central goal of high school
    education: what, in other words, should a high school diploma enable
    a student to do?***

-   ***Eliminate curricular paths that do not equip students with the
    skills they need to obtain the postsecondary education they will
    inevitably need.***

-   ***Assure that all teachers are masters of the subject matter they
    are teaching.***

-   ***Require a high level of rigor in high school assignments.***

-   ***Break large schools into smaller learning environments that are
    more personal for both students and teachers.***

Beyond defining what needs to change, there are also important lessons
about structuring of the reform process.

1.  **Don't tackle high schools in isolation: create a K-16 (or at least
    7-16) structure to clarify goals and plot out a linked set of
    reforms.**\
    Efforts to focus on just one level of education will inevitably
    flounder unless they are nested within a broader structure. For one
    thing, one level of education cannot by itself grapple
    authoritatively with the issue of goals. To have real meaning for
    students, for example, diplomas must mean something to the
    institutions that students care about---colleges and future
    employers. Also, one level of education does not usually control all
    of the means to reach those goals---for example, better prepared
    teachers or students. For both of these reasons, then, a K-16
    structure is critical to the long-term success of a high school
    revitalization effort.

2.  **To be a genuine partner, higher education has to put its own house
    in order.**\
    In most states, there is no statewide definition of college-ready.
    Colleges admit whom they please. And then, after admission, they
    administer placement tests---usually in reading, writing and
    math---to distinguish between students who are ready for
    credit-bearing study and those who need "remedial" work. But each
    college uses a different test and/or a different cut score.\
    While it may well be appropriate for colleges with different
    missions to admit students on a range of criteria relevant to their
    individual institutions, we find it reasonable to ask that they
    agree at least on the core reading, writing and mathematics skills
    necessary to begin college-level work. After all, these skills
    mediate access to all subjects, regardless of institutional mission.
    Higher education faculty in at least three states---Florida,
    Massachusetts, and Georgia have already come to such agreements.\
    The refusal of higher educators elsewhere to come to similar
    agreements on a common definition of college ready leaves high
    school teachers without a clear goal to shoot for. For example, a
    recent SREB study found that local high schools in one region had as
    many as 75 different exams to game. Moreover, it leaves American
    high schools incredibly vulnerable. They can be beaten mercilessly
    in the press for an increase in the number of their graduates
    requiring "remediation" in college---not because preparation
    actually got worse (indeed, it may have gotten better), but because
    this graduating class attended a slightly different mix of
    institutions (with a different mix of tests) than the previous one.\
    If this reform effort, unlike the previous one, is not to die under
    the weight of multiple goals and multiple measurement systems,
    higher education needs to do its part by coming to agreement across
    two- and four-year institutions on what students need to know and be
    able to do to begin credit-bearing coursework.

3.  **Include Student Voices.**\
    We've been surprised over the past few months by how many high
    school reform efforts have either no student involvement, or only
    token involvement. This is a serious mistake, especially for those
    who are concerned about rigor. In our experience, students---both
    current and graduates---are not just the most astute observers of
    the strengths and weaknesses of their schools, but also the most
    likely to agree that their work needs to be harder. They are also
    the first to question practices that no longer make sense, but have
    been around so long that the adults forget why they do them. To
    leave students out is a serious mistake.

4.  **Let Your Data Do the Driving.**\
    We've walked you through the major lessons in the national data, but
    there is no substitute for a parallel exercise with your own data.
    Every community ought to begin by looking closely at what its own
    data have to say about student achievement in and beyond high
    school. Then, as your work proceeds, come back to the data regularly
    as you gauge your progress and plot mid-course corrections.\
    Remember, though, that not all data are numeric. There are other
    high school artifacts that can tell you a lot about what's really
    going on. By analyzing master schedules, for example, you can learn
    a lot about what---and who---individual schools value. By collecting
    and analyzing sample assignments within and across schools, you will
    also learn about the range of expectations for different students.
    Information on teacher assignments will also tell you a lot about
    who is teaching whom.

5.  **All action is NOT local. States must examine their role.\
    **As local schools and communities begin to tackle problems in high
    school level education, they will often run up against state
    policies that get in the way of improving practice. Perhaps the most
    difficult fall under the general heading of time for both students
    and teachers.\
    Standards-based reform is, of course, an effort to change the metric
    in K-12 from seat-time to actual learning. Rather than continuing to
    hold time constant and let learning outcomes vary, the whole idea is
    to hold high level learning goals for all students, and let time
    vary as needed. This will inevitably mean that students who are
    behind should get extra instruction. But it can also mean that
    students who are moving faster should move into higher education
    more rapidly than the usual four-year high school program.\
    Unfortunately, many states that purport to be "standards-based" also
    adhere to rigid Carnegie unit requirements for high school
    graduation. They specify in endless detail exactly how many classes
    of what sort and how many instructional minutes in each students
    should get in order to earn a diploma. These requirements often
    preclude schools whose students enter furthest behind in their
    skills from doing what they know they should do---that is, drop
    almost everything else and triple up on instructional time in the
    core skill areas. Thus both schools and students get caught behind
    the old and the new rules. The same is true with time for teachers:
    while virtually everybody acknowledges that teachers need focused,
    intensive professional development during the school day to improve
    their effectiveness, rigid state rules can preclude schools from
    providing it.\
    State policies can also interfere with the goal of moving students
    along at a faster pace. The current obsession with AP courses is a
    good example. Many states---and indeed the federal government---are
    rewarding schools for adding more and more AP courses. Indeed the
    fastest growing part of the high school curriculum at the moment is
    AP---or college-level---courses. At the same time, the fastest
    growing part of the college curriculum is remedial---or high
    school-level courses. We wonder whether it makes sense for us to
    keep trying to do each other's work. Might some of those students in
    AP be better off in actual college courses taught by college
    professors? And wouldn't that free up some of our best-educated high
    school teachers to teach the students who MOST need their help?\
    Getting states and local districts to imagine new ways to structure
    high schools means giving up some old notions about what high school
    is. But one thing this *Thinking K-16* makes clear is that the old
    ideas are already obsolete. Our youth need to compete in a world
    that values knowledge and high-level skills as never before. We need
    a new approach to high school that will ensure that every young
    person is prepared to succeed in that world. It's time we got
    started.

**WHAT ABOUT STUDENTS WHO ENTER WAY BEHIND?**

One of the most common questions we get from high school teachers these
days goes something like this: \"Students are entering my classroom with
reading and writing skills at about the 4th or 5th grade level. How am I
supposed to get them prepared for the state exam that they have to pass
at the end of next year in only 42 minutes a day?\"

The truthful answer, of course, is \"you can't,\" at least not in that
small amount of time. If students like these are going to succeed in
meeting high standards, then they need extra instruction.

Up until recently, that didn't happen. Students who entered school
behind their peers got the same amount of instruction as everyone---or,
frankly, even less. In other words, we held time constant, and let the
results vary. For low-achieving students, that meant creating a pathway
through middle and high school that stayed well below the route taken by
others.

Now, research tells us clearly that such students can achieve at much
higher levels, but that they may need ***more instruction and support***
to get there.

Around the country, states and communities are acting on this knowledge
in different ways.

-   Kentucky provides extra funding to high poverty schools to lengthen
    instruction for the children who need it. At their option, schools
    may add before-school or after-school instruction, Saturday school,
    or summer sessions.

-   Maryland, which is about to implement a new assessment system for
    high school graduation, has put together a comprehensive plan to
    provide assistance to students who need it. That plan emphasizes
    support for struggling 7th and 8th graders to give them a stronger
    foundation for high school work. This year, the Maryland Legislature
    appropriated 12 million new dollars toward this extra instruction.

-   Massachusetts has also provided extra dollars to high schools to
    provide extra instructional supports for students who do not perform
    well on the new MCAS exam which will soon be required for
    graduation.

School districts have also been creative about how to provide that help.

-   The San Diego school district leaders developed a blueprint
    outlining how they would provide extra instruction for students who
    were below grade level when they entered middle or high school. In
    general, that plan requires doubling---and in some cases even
    tripling---instructional time in literacy, mathematics or both, and
    teachers were provided with specialized training.

-   The Lancaster, Pennsylvania, school district is responding to these
    same challenges with a new \"Fast Track\" pilot in one middle school
    that combines programs and resources in a very different way for
    students who enter well behind their peers. The goal is to
    simultaneously fill in basic literacy skills (using an Open
    Court-type approach), while simultaneously using Paideia and other
    approaches to foster higher-order skills.

**REFERENCES**

American Management Association, *1999 AMA Survey on Workplace Testing:
Basic Skills, Job Skills, Psychological Measurement*, 1999.

Bottoms, Gene. *"Report of the SREB High Schools That Work 1998
Secondary School Teacher Survey"*, 1998.

Education Trust, *Education Watch: State and National Data Book, Vol
II,* (p. 20) 1998.

Education Trust, "Ticket to Nowhere: The Gap Between Leaving High School
and Entering College and High Performing Jobs", *Thinking K-16*, Fall
1999.

Fine, Michelle and Janis Somerville. *Small Schools, Big Imaginations: A
Creative Look at Urban Public Schools,* Cross City Campaign for Urban
School Reform, 1998.

Haycock, Kati, "Good Teaching Matters," *Thinking K-16*, Education
Trust, Washington, DC, Summer 1998.

Legters, Nettie. "Whole School Restructuring for Urban Comprehensive
High Schools". CRESPAR, *School and Classroom Intervention: Middle and
High School, Report \# 31*, January 1999.

Jordan, Heather, Robert Mendro and Dash Weerasinghe. *Teacher Effects On
Longitudinal Student Achievement.* Institutional Research Division,
Dallas Public Schools, 1997.

*Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Education
at a Glance: OECD Indicators.* Centre for Educational Research and
Innovation, 2000.

The Rural School and Community Trust. *School Size, Poverty and Student
Achievement*, December 1999.

Schneider, Barbara and David Stevenson. *The Ambitious Generation:
America's Teenagers, Motivated but Directionless*. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1999. Chapter 9, "The Ambition Paradox".

National Commission on Excellence in Education *A Nation At Risk,* 1983.

US Department of Education, NCES, NAEP *Summary Data Tables (All
years),* nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/TABLES/SDTTOOL.HTM

US Department of Education, NCES, OERI. "Pursuing Excellence: A Study of
U.S. Twelfth-grade Mathematics and Science Achievement in International
Context", *Initial Findings from the Third International Mathematics and
Science Study* (TIMSS), 1998.

Who's Who Among American High School Students, 1998 *Annual Survey.*

Yanez, Darlene and Melanie Wenrick. *Improving Algebra I End-of-Course
Exam Scores: Evidence from the Field.* Charles A. Dana Center, 2000.

*Thinking K-16* is published by Editor: Patte Barth

The Education Trust, Inc. Graphics Editor:

1725 K Street, N.W., Suite 200 Autumn Richardson

Washington D.C., 20006

www.Edtrust.org