Statewide College Admissions, Student Preparation, and

129 Pages·2012·1.81 MB·English

DOCUMENT RESUME
HE 031 068
ED 416 804
AUTHOR Russell, Alene Bycer
Statewide College Admissions, Student Preparation, and
TITLE
Remediation Policies and Programs. Summary of a 1997 SHEEO
Survey.
State Higher Education Executive Officers Association.;
INSTITUTION
American Coll. Testing Program, Iowa City, IA.
PUB DATE 1998-01-00
NOTE
128p.
Tests/Questionnaires (160)
Reports - Descriptive (141)
PUB TYPE
PC Not Available from EDRS.
EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MFO1 Plus Postage.
Academic Standards; *College Admission; College Bound
DESCRIPTORS
Students; *College Preparation; College School Cooperation;
Competency Based Education; Developmental Studies Programs;
*Educational Policy; High Schools; Higher Education;
National Surveys; Program Effectiveness; Remedial
Instruction; *State Programs; State Standards; *Transitional
Programs
ABSTRACT
This report presents findings of a nationwide study of
student transitions from secondary to postsecondary education that is based
on a survey of state higher education agencies and site visits to six states.
The report finds a growing role for state higher education agencies in
setting minimum college admissions requirements, coexistence of traditional
admissions criteria with newer competency-based requirements, and expanding
collaboration between postsecondary systems and the K-12 sector in program
development. After an introduction, statewide admissions policies are
addressed, including types of statewide admissions requirements; their
perceived success; competency-based admissions; and open-door, conditional,
and other admissions policies. The following section summarizes data on types
of student preparation programs and their perceived success. Next, statewide
remediation policies are analyzed in terms of types of policies and their
perceived success. The final section identifies other state-level student
transition issues, such as use of incentive funding and competitive grants.
Among eight appendices are: the survey instrument and summaries of statewide
college admissions policies; and state data on open door, conditional, and
other admissions policies; on programs to improve student preparation and
remediation projects; on use of incentive funding to promote institutional
change; and on collection and research efforts.
(DB)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
from the original document.
********************************************************************************
°
0
0
vey
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND
DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE,
AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIA FOR ERIC
COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION
CtonlRes
Office of
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
CENTER (ERIC)
%Xis
SHEEO
document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Minor changes have been made to
2A
a,
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
improve reproduction quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this
document do not necessarily represent
official OEIll position or policy.
Information for Llfe's Trandtions
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
Statewide
College Admissions,
Student Preparation,
and Remediation
Policies and
Programs
Summary of a
1997 SHEEO Survey
Alene Bycer Russell
JANUARY 1998
SI-IEED
STATE HIGHER EDUCATION EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
Inform! len for Wet Transitions
ACT is a not-for-profit organization that provides a wide range of
assessment, career planning, research, and related services. Founded in
1959, ACT currently provides more than 100 programs and services
for educators, learners, and business organizationsincluding career
guidance and information programs, professional certification and
licensure, research services, data management services, and scholarship
support services. Varied in design and purpose, all ACT programs have
the same basic intentto help people achieve their educational and
career goals by providing information for life's transitions.
The State Higher Education Executive Officers is a nonprofit,
nationwide association of the chief executive officers serving statewide
coordinating boards and governing boards of postsecondary education.
Its objectives include developing the interest of the states in supporting
quality higher education; promoting the importance of state planning
and coordination as the most effective means of gaining public
confidence in higher education; and encouraging cooperative relation-
ships with the federal government, colleges and universities and other
institutional state-based associations. Forty-nine states and Puerto Rico
are members.
©1998 by ACT, Inc. and the State Higher Education Executive Officers.
All rights reserved.
CONTENTS
List of Tables
iv
List of Appendices
iv
Foreword
Acknowledgments
vii
Introduction
1
Statewide Admissions Policies
3
Scope and History of State Involvement
3
Types of Statewide Admissions Requirements
7
Perceived Success of Statewide Admissions Requirements
13
Competency-based Admissions
13
Open-door, Conditional, and Other Admissions Policies
17
Future Directions
19
Statewide Student Preparation Programs
19
Types of Student Preparation Programs
20
Perceived Success of Statewide Student Preparation Programs
23
Statewide Remediation Policies
24
Types of Statewide Remediation Policies
25
Perceived Success of Statewide Remediation Policies
26
Other State-level Issues Regarding Student Transition
26
Influences Behind State Involvement
26
Use of Incentive Funding and Competitive Grants
26
Collection of Data and Evaluation of Effectiveness
28
Overall Impact of Policies and Programs
29
Conclusion
31
References
32
Appendices
33
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Adoption of Statewide Admissions Requirements by Type of Board
4
Table 2.
Types of Statewide Admissions Requirements
8
Table 3.
Summary of Coursework Required for Admission
10
Table 4.
Summary of State Involvement in Competency-based Admissions
14
Table 5.
"Heavy" Influence in Developing State Policies and Programs
27
Table 6.
Impact of Admissions, Student Preparation, and
Remediation Policies and Programs
30
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
33
Appendix B: Statewide College Admissions Policies:
State-by-State Summary
43
Appendix C: Summary of Open-door, Conditional, and
Other Admissions Policies
71
Appendix D: Summary of Statewide Programs to Improve Student
Preparation for College
83
Appendix E: Summary of Statewide Remediation Policies
100
Appendix F: Summary of Statewide Use of Incentive Funding to
Promote Institutional Change Regarding College Admissions,
Student Preparation, and Remediation
109
Appendix G: Summary of Statewide Data Collection and
Research Efforts to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Admission,
Student Preparation, and/or Remediation Policies and Programs
111
Appendix H: Survey Respondents
114
6
iv
Foreword
baseline data on current state policies and
For more than 10 years, the State Higher
initiatives in three broad areas: admissions
Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) has
policies and practices, student preparation
supported school-college collaboration initia-
programs, and remediation policies. To
tives. At various times SHEEO projects have
supplement the survey, SHEEO and ACT
focused on improving the preparation and
staff, along with representatives from educa-
access of students underrepresented in under-
tion agencies across the country, conducted
graduate degree programs, on the transition
site visits in six states that are demonstrating
between education and work, and on student
leadership in two areasthe development of
transitions from secondary to postsecondary
systemic linkages of K-12 and postsecondary
education. The last of these is the focus of
programs (called K-16 or P-16 systems) and
our current work, in collaboration with ACT.
changes in college admissions policies and
The Study of State Strategies that Support the
practices to more effectively align with school
Successful Transition of Students from
restructuring efforts. The results of those
Secondary to Postsecondary Education was
visits will be reported in a series of subse-
guided by our interest in better understanding
quent strategy briefs and other publications.
the role of higher education in ensuring that
We hope that you will find the data and
students are prepared for successful collegiate
analyses helpful in your own examination
experiences. Information was collected and
of these important issues, and we encourage
analyzed through two activitiesa 50-state
the use of these materials as background for
survey of state higher education agencies and
collaborative discussions between K-12 and
site visits to six states: Colorado, Georgia,
postsecondary education leaders. We also
Maryland, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin.
welcome your comments and suggestions
SHEEO and ACT will disseminate the
for future study.
outcomes of this study over the next year
James R. Mingle
through a variety of venues. This comprehen-
Executive Director
sive survey report by Alene Bycer Russell,
State Higher Education Executive Officers
Research Associate for SHEEO, provides
Acknowledgments
survey instrument, and, most of all, the many
For the past several years, the State Higher
staff members of the SHEEO agencies and
Education Executive Officers association
system offices who took the time and effort to
(SHEEO) has been examining the linkages
complete this survey. A few additional indi-
between the K-12 sector, postsecondary
viduals deserve special mention for their
education, and the workplace. In October
contributions to this study: James R. Mingle,
1996, in collaboration with ACT, SHEEO
Executive Director of SHEEO, Robert
embarked on the Study of State Strategies that
Wallhaus, consultant to SHEEO, Jeanine
Support the Successful Transition of Students
Grinage, New York, chair of the SHEEO
from Secondary to Postsecondary Education.
Committee on School/College/Work
Based on a 50-state survey conducted by
Transitions, and two ACT staff members
SHEEO earlier this year, this report is the first
Donald Carstensen, Vice President,
major publication to emerge from this study.
Educational Services Division, and Thomas
Esther M. Rodriguez, Associate Executive
H. Saterfiel, Senior Vice President, Workforce
Director of SHEEO, deserves recognition
and Professional Services.
for her ongoing leadership in this area and
One of the aims of this project has been
for helping SHEEO sustain a commitment
to provide national information that is
to these issues over the years. With the
comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date.
support of the SHEEO Committee on
The information contained in this report
School/College/Work Transitions, her vision
reflects what was current at the time these
and hard work have made possible this study
data were collected, from January through
of student transitions. I am grateful for her
May 1997. We encourage readers to keep us
direction and assistance in undertaking
current with developments in their states, and
this survey.
we welcome your comments on this report.
I also wish to thank the participants at the
Alene Bycer Russell
project design meeting in Iowa City, Iowa
Research Associate
which took place in fall 1996for their
State Higher Education Executive Officers
review and critique of early drafts of the
vii
Introduction
Practices, and Procedures, provides some
explanation of these trends. Jointly sponsored
In the fall of 1996, the State Higher Education
by the American Association of Collegiate
Executive Officers (SHEEO) began the study
Registrars and Admissions Officers, ACT, the
of State Strategies that Support the Successful
College Board, Educational Testing Service,
Transition of Students from Secondary to
and the National Association of Collegiate
Postsecondary Education, co-sponsored by
Admission Counselors, this study compared
ACT. This study, which includes a survey of
results of institutional surveys conducted in
state higher education agencies, continues the
1979, 1985, and 1992; it found that the num-
work of SHEEO and other organizations in
ber of state higher education agencies exercis-
examining the scope and types of statewide
ing "primary responsibility for establishing
admissions policies, student preparation
broad admissions guidelines" for four-year
programs, and remediation policies.
public institutions grew from 9 to 30 states
during this period, and the number of state
The 1995 SHEEO report College Admissions:
legislatures exercising similar responsibility
A New Role for States noted that, historically,
grew from 14 to 26 states (Breland et al.
colleges and universities have set their own
1995). Nevertheless, the majority of institu-
admission requirements with relatively little
tions still saw themselves as "mainly responsi-
involvement by states (Rodriguez 1995).
ble" for setting specific admissions policies.
This began to change in the early 1980s,
however, largely as a result of several reports
Along with changing responsibilities for
published during this period citing the
admissions policies, this same study found
underpreparation of high school students
evidence that college admission policies
for college. (Most often cited is the 1983
themselves had changed over the years.
publication A Nation at Risk by the National
The most recent institutional survey described
Commission on Excellence in Education.)
in the Breland report asked retrospective
Improving student success in college, reduc-
questions comparing the present (1992) to
ing the need for remediation, and ensuring
five years earlier. It found that in 32 percent
timely graduation became common concerns
of institutions, the coursework requirements
and subjects of public policy debate. Hoping
reported were higher in 1992 than five years
to strengthen student preparation for college
before, and in 48 percent of institutions, the
and to reduce the need for postsecondary
high school GPA/class rank requirements, as
remediation, state higher education agencies
well as test score requirements, reported were
and state legislatures responded by adopting
higher (Breland 1995).
statewide admissions requirements.
Over the decades of the 1980s and 1990s,
These new roles for state agencies served
a key concern has arisennamely, that
largely to support and guide institutional
imposing higher admissions standards might
efforts to raise the admission floor; ultimate
limit access to postsecondary education for
authority for admissions requirements and
underrepresented groups, and certain racial
decisions remained largely with institutions.
and ethnic groups in particular. State higher
A 1995 report, Challenges in College
education agencies are addressing this issue
Admissions: A Report of a Survey of
by taking a broad look at postsecondary
Undergraduate Admissions Policies,
systems and needs. By connecting admissions
1
requirements to institutional role and mission,
surveys from the early 1990s are also now
states can maximize access while supporting
outdated: Admissions Requirements in
greater selectivity at some institutions. State
Multi-Campus Systems of Public Higher
agencies also are developing policies and
Education in the United States (Todd 1992)
programs to provide early outreach and
surveyed members of the National
academic supports for high school students
Association of System Heads (NASH)
to increase access. In addition, they are
about admissions requirements; and
coordinating work with state departments
Raising Standards: State Policies to Improve
of education and local school districts to
Academic Preparation for College (Flanagan
better prepare students for college.
1992) looked at statewide postsecondary
admissions requirements and feedback
During the past two decades, K-12 reform
from colleges to high schools on student
efforts have proceeded in many states
preparation.
and have had additional impact on higher
education admissions policies. To link K-12
State-level Education Reform: Collaborative
standards to college admissions, some states
Roles for Postsecondary Education reported
are pursuing the development of competency-
on a SHEEO survey of collaborative
based admissions standards (Rodriguez 1995).
state-level education reform efforts, listing
Other states are developing K-16
which activities addressed admissions
initiatives and school-college collaborative
standards, competency standards, curriculum
activities to improve student preparation
development, data collection, early outreach,
for college.
postsecondary options, and other topics.
Based on a survey of SHEEO members, this
Although state-level activity in these areas
took a significant step toward systematic data
has been considerable since the 1980s, the
collection but did not provide much detail on
national data available to describe them have
the issues (Rodriguez 1994). SHEEO's more
been somewhat limited. As for previous
recent College Admission Requirements:
national surveys, either their scope was
A New Role for States (Rodriguez 1995),
limited or their findings are now out of date.
while thorough in content, focuses on efforts
Other reports, based on less comprehensive
in only 10 states. Two recent reports published
data collection efforts, have provided exam-
by the Education Commission of the States
ples of activities or in-depth information on
focus on selective issues related to school
selected states only. For example, an early
reform: Comprehensive (P-16) Standards-
SHEEO study, Higher Education and School
based Education, is based on empirical
Reform: Creating the Partnership, focused on
data from Colorado (Griffith, 1996), and
state efforts for bringing schools and colleges
Responding to School Reform contains
into closer working partnerships. The report
discussions by David T. Conley on Oregon's
cited examples of state activities related to
proficiency-based admissions system, Larry
admissions policy, early intervention, high
Rubin on college preparation and admissions
school feedback, resource sharing, and
in Wisconsin, and Jon Rogers on education
collaborative structures; however, it was not
reform in Florida (Education Commission
comprehensive and is now out of date
of the States 1996).
(SHEEO 1991). Two noteworthy national
1 0