Expanding Community College Courses Offered on High School Campuses Issue Should the San Mateo County Community College

Conclusions 11

• CL1 Page 52
  The Community Colleges now offer courses on ten high school campuses in the County, whereas in 2005-2006 they offered courses on only two high school campuses in the County. SSFUSD Response: Agrees
• CL2 Page 52
  Some of the advantages for high school students are: saving some of the costs of a college education (classes are tuition-free), possibly shortening the time needed for attaining college graduation, making the transition to college from high school easier and giving some students confidence in their ability to succeed in college. SSFUSD Response: Agrees
• CL3 Page 52
  Although high school students can concurrently enroll in a community college at the college campus site, many do not have the transportation resources or scheduling flexibility that allow them to do so. SSFUSD Response: Agrees
• CL4 Page 52
  The Community Colleges receive concurrent enrollment dollars from the state for the number of students enrolled in their courses on high school campuses, and the high schools receive Average Daily Attendance (ADA) for their funding. SSFUSD Response: Agrees
• CL5 Page 52
  Offering Community College courses on high school campuses can expand the kinds of courses offered at high schools by enlisting the cooperation of the teacher unions when appropriate. SSFUSD Response: Agrees
• CL6 Page 8
  The board of Trustees of the San Mateo County Community College District encourage the three colleges in the district—Canada, College of San Mateo, and Skyline—to expand the college courses offered on all the high school campuses in the County. • At Half Moon Bay High School, CSM offers an Adobe Photoshop class and ELD class. Next year, they will offer a horticulture class and art class.
• CL7 Page 2
  The Board of Trustees of Jefferson Union High School District, South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo Union High School District, Sequoia Union High School District, Cabrillo Unified School District and La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District encourage their high schools to actively collaborate with the Community Colleges to offer college courses on their high school campuses. • Currently, the HMBHS administration is working with the CSM Coastside to establish a career mentoring program for the students at the high school. CSM Coastside is also looking at offering other courses at their new location or the high school to complement the high school’s curriculum. We are looking at the broadcasting program, art program, and agriculture program. • Martha Tillman has done a great job with bringing greater coastside access to CC resources. Her schedule for the fall is ambitious though the current schedule of offerings would probably best serve our non-college bound students. • Additionally we can use CC in much the same way Carlemont does to offer some high level courses that our enrollment requirements would not sustain. Carlmont uses the CC to offer business management courses and international business courses that are linked to the new Mandarin Language program. There are a few other high level college track courses that are also offered on the campus. The school had to get used to some non-HS students attending but they worked through those issues with clear rules, placement and time of classes. I could see other languages, higher math courses, business courses being offered. • Sciences might be tougher as lab class availability is probably limited during the school day. CC might be interested in linking with our Ag program as it is fairly unique in the county. • Working with CC might also facilitate partnering/planning between CUSD and La Honda Pescadero on some HS offerings.
• CL8 Page 21
  Create data systems to track student progress across educational levels and institutions.
• CL9 Page 21
  Publicly report on student progress and success from high school to postsecondary education. Conklin and Sanford (2007) promoted the idea of a college‐ready nation. They commented on the refocus of the mission of the nation’s high schools to increasing college readiness and advocated for setting a bold public goal for integrating various aspects of high school and college/university as a way to realize the new mission. A high school diploma is no longer the ticket to guaranteed success in life. It’s commonly known that a college degree would boost an individual’s lifelong earnings. Conversely, having a college degree would also reduce one’s chances of unemployment. The unemployment rate in 2006 showed that a person with only a high school diploma was twice as likely to be unemployed as someone with a college degree (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). Students of color and student from low income families are more likely to end their education at the high school level and are more likely to be unemployed. Therefore, high school students must be encouraged to progress to college with the right support, tools, and a bridge that leads them from high school to college. To this end, Tell and Cohen (2007) argued that “the Academic Standards for college and work must be embedded in the high school curriculum”. 1 In an op‐ed piece for Palo Alto Weekly, Kirst opined that unless postsecondary education and high schools work more closely together, many of the high school students’ college dreams will evaporate (Kirst, 2005). 4 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper San Mateo County high schools and the three community colleges have long recognized the need for building bridges between high schools and college. SMCCCD currently offers a number of college classes at selected local high schools. In fall 2006, there were 28 sections offered at the high schools. Even with a relatively small number of sections (28), the subject areas were broad (Table 5). No matter where the classes are offered and by which college faculty, the success rates are all higher than the overall success rates in our district (Table 3). Recently, the Sequoia, San Mateo, and Jefferson Union High School Districts have all expressed interest in expanding the effort to make the blending of high school and college academic life of students seamless and transition from high school to college easier. As an additional impetus, in a 2005 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report SMCCCD was asked to increase the academic opportunities to high school students through vocational education and Middle College programs. The Grand Jury further recommended that SMCCCD colleges “offer college‐ level academic courses on a high school campus.” As a result, the Board of Trustees’ goals for 2007 Goals state that “In response to direction from the Board, Chancellor, the San Mateo County Grand Jury and growing national trends, the District will encourage the Colleges to form task forces with their feeder high schools to address high school‐college curriculum articulation and devise strategies for offering college classes on high school sites.” 5 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT LANDSCAPE Figure 1 below shows that in SMCCCD in fall 2006, 50% (560 of 1,1202) of all concurrent enrollment students were high school students taking classes on high school campuses. Distribution of 3 Types of Concurrent Enrollment in SMCCCD (fall 2006) MIDDLE COLL 113 10% HS CAMPUS 560 50% COLL CAMPUS 447 40% Figure 2 below shows that the distribution of college courses taught on high school campuses (HS Campus) varies by the 3 colleges in SMCCCD, with Cañada College leading in the total number of concurrent enrollment students at high schools. Concurrent Enrollment Headcount by Type (fall 2006) 315 400 300 56 144 200 234182 81 58 Skyline College 100 61 College of San Mateo 0 Canada College COLL CAMPUS HS CAMPUS MIDDLE COLL 2 The count is from querying Banner tables in spring 2007. Banner tables are dynamic with changes happening, even after a semester has ended. This is due to the fact that concurrent enrollments involve multiple entities, parents, high school counselors, and applications sometimes are input manually. The official count of fall 2006 concurrent enrollment was 1,278 reported as of Jan 15, 2007. 6 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper Figure 3 below illustrates the five year trend in student headcount (fall semesters only) for all three types of concurrent enrollment. Due to the expansion of course offerings (sections) in fall 2006, the number of students rose by a large margin in fall 2006. Table 2: Average units of concurrent enrollment students (fall 2006) HeadCnt Units Taken Avg Units College courses taught on high school campuses 560 1,891.5 3.4 Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 448 1,735.0 3.9 Middle College students 112 1,306.5 11.7 All District Students* 27,005 173,964 6.4 *Including concurrently enrolled students. Table 3 indicates the success rates of College Campus (high school concurrent enrollment students on college campuses) and HS Campus (concurrent enrollment students in college courses taught on high school campuses) courses using combined data from fall 2002 to fall 2006. Table 3: Success and retention rates of concurrent enrollment students (fall 2006) Success Rate Retention Rate College courses taught on high school campuses 80.6% 92.1% Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 74.6% 88.9% Middle College students 75.5% 87.7% All District Students 69.1% 84.2% Success rate is defined by grades of A, B, C, and CR (credit). Retention rate is defined by all grades except Ws. All district students include concurrent enrollment students as well. 7 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper Table 4: Historical success and retention rates of concurrently enrolled students and all district students Success Retention Fall 2002 College courses taught on high school campuses 75.5 85.5 Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 92.9 92.9 All District Students 69.8 81.5 Spring 2003 College courses taught on high school campuses 77.3 87.4 Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 87.5 95.2 All District Students 70.9 81.9 Fall 2003 College courses taught on high school campuses 66.3 78.1 Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 93.5 94.6 All District Students 67.9 80.1 Spring 2004 College courses taught on high school campuses 70.1 82.9 Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 94.2 96.1 All District Students 68.7 81.7 Fall 2004 College courses taught on high school campuses 80.3 91.5 Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 82.0 91.3 Middle College Students 58.8 88.7 All District Students 70.1 85.0 Spring 2005 College courses taught on high school campuses 75.4 88.9 Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 86.9 95.6 Middle College Students 71.9 91.0 All District Students 70.5 84.1 Fall 2005 College courses taught on high school campuses 71.9 81.1 Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 89.7 94.3 Middle College Students 60.2 80.7 All District Students 64.4 77.6 Spring 2006 College courses taught on high school campuses 86.0 93.3 Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 83.7 87.9 Middle College Students 79.5 91.1 All District Students 68.4 82.6 Success rate is defined by grades of A, B, C, and CR (credit). Retention rate is defined by all grades except Ws. All district students include concurrent enrollment students as well. In Table 4, success and retention rates for all four groups of students are shown (Middle College data available starting fall 2004). Without first considering Middle College students, in all instances, except fall 2003, All District Students’ success rate was lower than the concurrently enrolled students either on a college campus or on high school campus. This information is visually displayed in Figure 4. Keep in mind, concurrent enrollment students are also included in the All District Students, which may have raised the success and retention rates of all district students slightly. Middle College students’ 8 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper success rate was lower in the first two years after the program started in the district, but has remained higher than that of the All District Student since then3. Figure 4 shows historical success rates of concurrent enrollment compared to that of All District Students dating back to fall 2002. Data came from Table 4. By removing the retention rates to show only the success rates, it helps the reader to see the differences historically over a span of 5 years that success rates of concurrent enrollment have been generally higher than that of All District Students. In earlier years, success rate of students enrolled in college classes on high school campuses were higher than those enrolled on college campuses. But in recent years, the rate for both these types of concurrent enrollment has been appearing to be similar. 100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 9 supmaC egelloC supmaC SH stnedutS tcirtsiD llA supmaC egelloC supmaC SH stnedutS tcirtsiD llA supmaC egelloC supmaC SH stnedutS tcirtsiD llA supmaC egelloC supmaC SH stnedutS tcirtsiD llA supmaC egelloC supmaC SH egelloC elddiM stnedutS tcirtsiD llA supmaC egelloC supmaC SH egelloC elddiM stnedutS tcirtsiD llA supmaC egelloC supmaC SH egelloC elddiM stnedutS tcirtsiD llA supmaC egelloC supmaC SH egelloC elddiM stnedutS tcirtsiD llA Fall 2002 Spring Fall 2003 Spring Fall 2004 Spring 2005 Fall 2005 Spring 2006 2003 2004 segatnecreP ni setaR sseccuS Figure 4. Success Rates of Concurrent Enrollment Students compared to All District Students (fall 2002 ‐ spring 2006) 3 Data for spring 2007 is available by contacting the Office of Vice Chancellor, Educational Services & Planning. Phone 650.358.6880. SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper Table 5 below indicates the course enrollments in the college courses offered on high school campuses in our county as of fall 2006. Enrollment* Percent ART Ceramics 90 15% MATH Analytical Geometry/Calculus I 66 11% CHIN Elementary Chinese I 57 10% CRER College Success 56 9% ANTH Cultural Anthropology 29 5% ART Sculpture 26 4% CRER Life and Career Planning 26 4% ESOL English Comp‐Nonnative Speaker 26 4% GEOG Cultural Geography 25 4% MUS. Advanced Chorus 23 4% MUS. Choir 24 4% MUS. Music of the Americas 27 4% TAGA Elementary Tagalog I 23 4% CIT PC Maint/Systems Upgrades, I 17 3% ENGL Basic Writing Skills 16 3% CRER Hermanos Seminar 13 2% EDUC Introduction to Education 14 2% ENGL ENGL Prep‐HS Exit Exam 14 2% GRA Adobe Illustrator I 18 2% GRA Adobe Photoshop I 13 2% ENGL Writing Development 10 1% PLSC American Politics 10 1% *End of Term enrollment. ** All data provided by ITS. 10 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper GUIDING PRINCIPLES It is important as we expand our concurrent enrollment program that we clearly state our fundamental beliefs in the name of Guiding Principles. We believe that four guiding principles reflect our core values. They are Being Student‐Centered, Deference to Curriculum and Faculty, Being Responsive to Community Needs, and Evidence‐Based Decision Making. Each of them is described below. Being Student­Centered Students are the reason educators choose the teaching profession. Nothing can replace the pride and joy of seeing students succeed. To be student‐centered is to ask questions on every action we take, “Will this action serve the learning needs of the students we serve? “ Deference to Curriculum & Faculty Curriculum belongs to faculty in both systems. Faculty senates are consulted in all aspects of curriculum development. Curriculum and the teaching process is within the purview of the faculty. Being Responsive to Community Needs A key element of our college and district mission statements is to respond to the needs of the communities we serve. Our communities expect a closer working relationship between the colleges and San Mateo County high schools, and an expansion of concurrent enrollment opportunities for high school students. As a community supported organization, we have an obligation to fulfill this need. Evidence­Based Decision Making In developing concurrent enrollment with our feeder schools, we will use the best data and evidence to ensure that the partnership is student‐ centered and that the partnership provides measurable outcome benefits for both high schools and colleges. Assessment of the work of the partnership will be continuous using various means and research methods available. 11 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper RECOMMENDED RESPONSIBILITIES Curriculum is the responsibility of the faculty. Resource development and allocation are the responsibility of the SMCCCD. The three colleges will initiate contact with the high schools to form partnerships and plan for course delivery. Recommended College Responsibilities ‐ It is recommended that each of the three colleges form taskforces with their feeder high schools. ‐ It is recommended that the taskforce carryout the following duties: o Identify a taskforce leader or concurrent enrollment coordinator/liaison for the purpose of fostering a collaborative partnerships of both systems, communicating concerns and decisions and coordinating concurrent enrollment processes o Address high school‐college curriculum articulation issues by developing course crosswalk and communicating to high schools the offering of college credit courses per Ed Code 48800(a) and Title 5 55002(a). o Examine curriculum offerings in both systems and develop course offering proposals o Work with the District Curriculum Committee and District Faculty Senate in new course approval (as needed), articulation proposals, and program review o Comply with existing laws governing concurrent enrollment practices o Ensure the quality of the courses offered o Determine resource needs o Work with college and high school authority in planning for meetings, reviewing marketing materials, and communicating with parents o Encourage faculty to participate in teaching concurrent enrollment courses o Draft operational and performance reports 12 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper Recommended District Responsibilities ‐ It is recommended that the Vice Chancellor of Educational Services and Planning co‐chair a taskforce with faculty formed by members from the district to provide the following: o Work with the Educational Services Council to review and recommend plans for concurrent enrollment regarding resource allocations o Review, provide legal counsel and recommend for approval any contracts and MOUs (Memorandum of Understandings) between the high schools and the district o Work with the District Research Council, Cal‐PASS, and the County Office of the Superintendent and high schools and districts in collecting, analyzing and reporting educational outcome data o Report to the Chancellor’s Cabinet and update the shared governance entities in the district on an ongoing basis 13 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper Q & A The following questions and answers are grouped by the types of questions. They are: • Legal questions • Faculty related questions • Student services questions • Student success questions Legal Questions What are the laws governing concurrent enrollment? Myers in 2002 provided a brief review of the legislative history of concurrent enrollment in California. Myers wrote “The formal work of the legislature was enumerated primarily in SB 292 signed into law in July, 1996, and subsequent changes to the State Educational Code Sections 76000‐76002 and 48800‐
• CL10 Page 2
  The Board of Trustees of the San Mateo County Community College District and the Board of Trustees of Jefferson Union High School District, South San Francisco Unified School District, San Mateo Union High School District, Sequoia Union High School District, Cabrillo Unified School District and La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District continue to work with the appropriate teacher unions to resolve any conflicts that may arise as concurrent enrollment programs are implemented. • We continue to work with our teachers’ association in support of concurrent enrollment implementation. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Elizabeth Schuck, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Cabrillo Unified School District [] Enhancing “High School‐to‐College” Success Enhancing High School and College Partnerships in San Mateo County [This document addresses the need, rationale and benefits for enhancing concurrent enrollment as well as guiding principles and strategic approaches to dealing with program expansion. It emphasizes the importance of a student‐ centered and faculty‐driven approach to concurrent enrollment. The document also addresses specific questions related to legal issues, student success and faculty and student services concerns.] September, 2007 Revised January, 2008 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1 THE NEED FOR BUILDING BRIDGES ........................................................................................................... 3 CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT LANDSCAPE ................................................................................................ 6 GUIDING PRINCIPLES .............................................................................................................................. 11 Being Student‐Centered ...................................................................................................................... 11 Deference to Curriculum & Faculty .................................................................................................... 11 Being Responsive to Community Needs ............................................................................................. 11 Evidence‐Based Decision Making ....................................................................................................... 11 RECOMMENDED RESPONSIBILITIES ........................................................................................................ 12 Recommended College Responsibilities ............................................................................................. 12 Recommended District Responsibilities ............................................................................................. 13 Q & A ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Legal Questions ................................................................................................................................... 14 Student Success Questions ................................................................................................................. 17 Faculty Questions ................................................................................................................................ 18 Student Services Questions ................................................................................................................ 19 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 21 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper Former SMCCCD Academic Senate President Nick Kapp first suggested and participated in drafting the original version of the whitepaper with Jing Luan, Vice Chancellor for Educational Services & Planning in January 2007. The first draft was shared with AFT President Ernie Rodriguez in March 2007 and later versions of the draft were reviewed at the Chancellor’s Council and shared with SMCCCD Academic Senate President Patty Dilko, CSM Faculty Senate President Jeremy Ball, Cañada Faculty Senate President Martin Partlan and Skyline Faculty Senate President Carla Campillo. Portions of the white paper were presented at the SMCCCD Concurrent Enrollment Roundtable in May 2007. One version of the white paper was shared with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Vice Chancellor for Human Resources Harry Joel and Director of Community and Government Relations Barbara Christensen should be specially thanked for their time and energy in reviewing and editing the drafts. Counselor Steve Morehouse should be thanked for his critique and edits of the document. Thanks also go to Skyline President Vicki Morrow, Cañada President Tom Mohr, and CSM President Mike Claire for their valuable input. The white paper would not have been possible without the vision and support from Chancellor Ron Galatolo and many faculty and staff who have taught concurrent enrollment, managed concurrent enrollment, provided counseling, and researched the subject. Enhancing “High School‐to‐College” Success ‐ Enhancing High School and College Partnerships in San Mateo County For most Americans, the transition from high school to college today is as chancy and vexing as crossing a bridge over a river where builders on one bank have ignored what those on the other are doing. Only the fortunate will be able to make it across. - CHESTER E. FINN JR. INTRODUCTION The State economy, taxpayers, community colleges, high schools and students in particular will benefit if concurrent enrollment programs are expanded. These programs help meet the educational needs of high school students; enhance partnerships between high school and college faculties; make the transition from high school to college seamless; and reduce the financial obligations of students and parents by potentially eliminating a semester or more university tuition. In addition, concurrent enrollment programs expose many non‐college bound students to higher education. Our research shows the following about concurrent enrollment student success rates: Table 1: Success and retention rates of concurrent enrollment students (fall 2006) Success Retention College courses taught on high school campuses 80.6% 92.1% Concurrent enrollment students on college campuses 74.6% 88.9% Middle College students 75.5% 87.7% All District Students 69.1% 84.2% Success rate is defined by grades of A, B, C, and CR (credit). Retention rate is defined by all grades except Ws. All district students include concurrent enrollment students as well. As early as 2001, 19 states had adopted statutes on concurrent enrollment and 14 more had state board policies in place encouraging concurrent enrollment (Boswell 2001). Research has shown substantial success in learning outcomes of concurrent enrollment beyond the economic benefits to parents and society. In a study published by researchers from the National Research Center for Career & Technical Education and the Community College Research Center at Columbia University, concurrent enrollment students, particularly students of color, in the state of Florida and City of New York were found to have benefited from taking college courses while in high school. Specifically, the study found SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper that concurrent enrollment students were more likely than their peers to graduate from high school, to enroll in college, to persist to a second semester while in college, and to pursue a bachelor’s degree (Karp, Calcagno, Hughes, Jeong, Bailey, 2007). All types of concurrent enrollment are trending upward. Research and position papers have demonstrated that other states are steaming ahead in supporting concurrent enrollment (Kirst 2006, Boswell 2001, and Chapman 2001). Parents have come to embrace concurrent enrollment. Yet, certain issues remain. Some of the issues expressed are concerns about faculty availability and qualifications, teaching minors vs. adults, as well as concerns about union issues and financing. Some of these notions may gradually dissipate when concurrent enrollment continues to be refined and is proven to be a successful educational strategy. As concurrent enrollment is poised for more growth in our district, these issues must be addressed and resolved through a genuine belief in partnerships and trust. This document will examine the concurrent enrollment practices in this county, identify opportunities and challenges, and provide guidelines and goals in enhancing the bridge between high schools and our community colleges: Cañada, College of San Mateo, and Skyline. Three Types of Concurrent Enrollment When a high school student takes a college course, s/he is considered a concurrent enrollment student or dual enrollment student. There are three types of concurrent enrollment in our district: Students taking courses on a college campus, high school students taking college classes on a high school campus, and Middle College students who study primarily on a college campus for all their courses. For more information, please also consult the Q&A at the end of this document. 2 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper THE NEED FOR BUILDING BRIDGES In 1983, the publication of a landmark article called A Nation At Risk touched off a national debate on how best to pull America out of complacency with mediocrity in education and how to increase Math and English completion rates in high schools. Since then, change in the policies, practices, and pedagogy of American high schools and colleges have escalated dramatically, but problems still exist. High school dropout rates remain high, large numbers of students leave high school unprepared for college, and various societal forces and subcultures compete for students’ attention. In 2007, an article commissioned by the Educational Testing Services called “Perfect Storm – Three Forces Change Our Nation’s Future” effectively summarized the issues K‐12 and postsecondary education professionals currently face. Our economy is going global, leaving the government less able to protect and support its own workforce and masses. America is the only developed nation that has a growing population and is becoming increasingly diverse. Students of color, particularly African American and Latino youths, are increasingly lagging behind Whites and Asians in academic readiness measured by various means. These three forces, not necessarily negative, jointly exert pressure on our educational system. The convergence of these three forces meant divergent skill distributions among U.S. population groups, a fast changing economy submitting to global influences and a nation in search of common grounds among diverse cultures and values. Locally speaking, in San Mateo County, the shift in demographics and competitiveness is clear over time. While the overall population growth has stagnated at less than 1% a year, dramatic changes among ethnicities have occurred. At 47% in 2006, Whites are no longer the majority. Latinos are projected to become the majority in less than 20 years, which is just one generation from now. At the same time, high school age students attending our colleges are increasingly underprepared. At SMCCCD, more than 70% or 7 in 10 incoming high school graduates are placed in remedial math courses and over 60% in basic skill English classes and many are placed in both. To search for a remedy, policy makers and scholars have increasingly begun to look at the disconnected education pipeline. Katherine Boswell, Executive Director of the Office of Community College Research and Leadership, stated succinctly: “America has the most disconnected education pipeline in the world” and we are now beginning to see the consequences. Again, directly quoting Boswell, “An oft‐cited example of this disconnect is the high‐stakes standards and tests that states have increasingly mandated for secondary students to demonstrate certain skills mastery before being allowed to graduate from high school. These standards and tests however, bear little or no relationship to college admittance tests (typically the SAT or ACT). And the college admittance tests in turn, have little or no relationship to tests that determine the placement of students in college‐level general education courses.” High school faculty and counselors teach and inform students in ways very different than the students will actually experience once they step on a college campus (Finn, 2006). The disconnect between secondary and postsecondary systems causes many issues, including preventing students from using their senior year to fully prepare for college level work. Instead, many 3 SMCCCD CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT Whitepaper high school seniors take easy classes, cut corners, or work long hours at after‐school jobs. Tedrow called the high school senior year teenagers’ wasteland (Tedrow, 2007), which was based on research conducted by McCarthy and Kuh in 2005. As a solution, Tedrow stated “At the very least, senior year should include dual‐enrollment courses that result in community college credit.” In the book Minding the Gap – Why Integrating High School with College Makes Sense and How to Do It (Harvard Education Press), Anthony Carnevale (2007) discussed why grade 12 is not the right end point for anyone anymore. The most significant disconnect is the lack of a meaningful relationship between what the high school curriculum emphasis is and what the college teachers will expect. The greatest manifestation of this disconnect is the unacceptable number of students who cannot take college level classes. Kirst in 2006 wrote in the Chronicle and called this disconnect a chasm and listed several strategies to immediately and effectively rectify the situation (Kirst, 2006): 1
• CL11 Page 2
  Offering Community College courses on high school campuses is an advantage for the students who take them before graduating from high school. Offering these courses benefits the students, the high schools and the Community Colleges.

No Responses Found 7

Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.