1. Linking Secondary
and Postsecondary Education: Implications for Illinois from a National Study
Michael Kirst
Stanford University
|
|
|
Presentation to the |
|
Illinois Education Research Council |
|
January 9, 2002 |
|
|
|
|
The historic separation of policy and practice
between higher education and K-12. |
|
Student standards are established in separate
orbits. |
|
K-16 faculty rarely interact and work on
curriculum and assessment. |
|
No institutionalized entity at the state
or regional level to make policy or integrate K-16 practice. |
|
No organized group lobbies for K-16 linkages. |
|
No data or accountability system with incentives/sanctions
for K-16 performance. |
|
|
|
|
Nobody loses a job for poor K-16 linkage
or performance. |
|
Outreach programs fragmented and rarely
evaluated. |
|
Creates incoherent policy, misdirected
incentives, and inadequate student preparation. |
|
Students lack signals and information to
succeed at postsecondary level. |
|
Low SES students suffer the most, including
remediation and non-completion. |
|
State assessments/accountability system
breakdown in grades 9-12. |
|
|
|
|
High level of remediation at postsecondary
level partly due to differences in content, format, and scope of
assessments administered to prospective college students |
|
Different tests to prospective college
students do not measure same kinds of skills and knowledge |
|
So students receive conflicting signals
regarding competencies needed for postsecondary (and work) success |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are the K-12 academic content standards
similar or dissimilar to the academic content in entry-level courses
at the college and university level? |
|
Does your state K-12 assessment ask students
to know and do the same things that are required by your state's
public universities? |
|
Do your schools have a sufficient number
of counselors whose main role is to advise students about college
options? |
|
Do all students have early, repeated access
to college preparation information? |
|
7. More questions
|
|
|
Do your universities have outreach programs
that connect the universities with local schools and districts?
Are these outreach programs coordinated with national, state, and
nonprofit outreach programs? |
|
Are there articulation agreements between
your state's public universities, community colleges, and high schools? |
|
Does your state have a statewide higher
education placement examination? If not, how do collegesā tests
relate to each other or the content of the stateās K-12 assessment?
How can your state consistently assess
its needs regarding student remediation? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can your state agencies (K-12, community
colleges and higher education) link their databases in order to
assess needs throughout the K-16 continuum? |
|
Can policymakers and researchers tell whether
there are inequalities in terms of who enters and graduates from
college? |
|
Can they address issues of college preparation
by tracking student success in higher education by district or by
school? |
|
|
|
|
Do you have a statewide accountability
system? Does it hold high schools accountable for offering college
preparatory work, including Advanced Placement courses? Does it
hold higher education institutions accountable for graduating its
students? |
|
Is there a stable/permanent entity or mechanism
that will allow K-12 and higher education stakeholders to work together
and overcome fragmentation concerning policy alignment, faculty
interaction, and K-12 information systems? |
|
|
|
|
The traditional separation of educational
governance into a K-12 governing board and one or more higher education
boards needs to be reexamined. |
|
Joint budgeting is needed in certain areas
to allow projects that cut across system boundaries to function. |
|
The education agency staff must learn to
work together to set reasonable policies that allow the systems
to work together toward common goals. |
|
In many cases ad hoc commissions are the
best tools to begin the alignment process. |
|
11. Reform Implications
(continued)
|
|
|
The natural suspicion that exists between
high school teachers and postsecondary faculty must be broken down. |
|
The complex problems of poor performing
schools should not be masked behind policies that legitimize the
grading system in place in those schools. |
|
All incentive and sanction systems should
be designed to encourage K-16 systems to interact where appropriate. |
|
12. Final Thoughts
on Illinois K-16 Policies
|
|
|
Ensure that schools have a sufficient number
of counselors whose main role is to advise students about college
options. |
|
Use Prairie State Achievement Exam
as a factor in college admissions. |
|
Use Prairie State Achievement Exam writing
sample in admissions. |
|
Have higher education institutions set
proficiency levels for the PSAE that meets placement expectations. |
|
Include K-16 indicators in an Illinois Accountability System. |
|
Clarify requirements for grades 10-14 . |
|
Reconceptualize the academic purpose of
senior year as preparation for college/university, e.g. senior math
courses used to place in college credit-level courses. |
|
Expand dual enrollment in K-12/post-secondary
programs. |
|
Create higher education incentives for
completion of degrees. |
|
Ensure the future of a K-16 entity to deliberate
and recommend policy on these issues. |
|