LB
2350.5
.C35
2012
IGSL
UCB

 

 

 

k
1,

 

 

 

 

,4:

 

 

 

 

-. ITS EFFECTIVENESS

g, AND THE OBSTACLES}; ”  
To SUCCESSFUL ’
  PROGRAM

i IMPLEMENTATION

MARCH 2012

 

LSQSsoé

c’éé'
2612

\(SSC/
UCB

INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMEN
T
STUDIES LIBRARY AL

FEB l 6 20117
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Acknowledgments ‘ I

 

Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) is an independent, non-partisan research center based
at Stanford University, the University of California Berkeley, and the University of Southern California.
PACE seeks to define and sustain a long-term strategy for comprehensive policy reform and continuous
improvement in performance at all levels of California’s education system, from early childhood to
postsecondary education and training. To accomplish this goal, PACE bridges the gap between research and
policy, working with scholars from California’s leading universities and with state and local policymakers to
increase the impact of academic research on educational policy in California.

Between 2009 and 2011 PACE managed the California Diploma Project (CDP), which brought together
representatives from the multiple segments of California’s fragmented education system to strengthen the
alignment of standards and expectations. Much of the work of the CDP focused on the Early Assessment
Program (EAP) as a key lever to expand opportunities for California students. This report describes the
EAP, discusses the work of the CDP, and recommends steps that California can take to further strengthen
alignment within the educational system. The CDP was supported by grants from The Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and the James Irvine Foundation.

This report on California’s Early Assessment Program was written by Hilary McLean of Capitol Impact,
LLC. McLean is a public affairs and communications expert with two decades of experience in Sacramento.
At Capitol Impact, LLC, she works on a variety of education policy reform projects including serving as the
deputy director of the Linked Learning Alliance and as the Communications Director for the California
Office to Reform Education (CORE).

Before joining Capitol Impact, McLean served as Communications Director for the California
Department of Education and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Iack O’Connell, and as Chief
Deputy Press Secretary for Governor Gray Davis, where she developed and managed communications
strategy on a wide variety of political and public policy issues.

Any errors of fact or interpretation in the report are the responsibility of PACE and its Directors, and
not of our funders.

Founded in 1983, PACE:

I Publishes policy briefs, research reports, and working papers that address key policy issues in
California’s education system.

I Convenes seminars and briefings that make current research accessible to policy audiences throughout
California.

I Provides expert testimony on educational issues to legislative committees and other policy audiences.

I Works with local school districts and professional associations on projects aimed at supporting policy
innovation, data use, and rigorous evaluation.

TableofContents "

I. Introduction

11. What is the EAP?

III. EAP as Focal Point of the California Diploma Project: California’s
Implementation of the American Diploma Project

IV. Research Evaluating EAP’s Successes and Identifying Challenges

V. Opportunities and Challenges for Expanding EAP Use and Effectiveness

VI. The Future of the EAP through Common Core Implementation and Other Efforts
to Better Align K-12 and College-Readiness

VII. Conclusion and Recommendations

Works Cited

Appendix A

 

13

19

21

23

26

 

ncreasing college completion rates is a
goal of most policymakers and education

    

leaders across the country. Currently, 56
$

percent of California high school graduates
it» attend some postsecondary institution
upon graduation (Johnson, 2009). Many of these
students drop out before completing a degree, and
rates of completion vary across all segments of
higher education. According to the National Center
for Education Statistics, graduation rates within

six years are 79 percent for University of California
(UC) and 46 percent for California State University
(CSU) (as cited in California Postsecondary
Education Commission, n.d.). Of the 60 percent

of California Community College (CCC) students
who declared their goal as obtaining a degree,
certificate, or transfer to a four-year institution,
only 24 percent succeeded in earning an associates
degree, a certificate, or in transferring to a four-year
institution within six years (Shulock and Moore,
2007).

One cause for low college completion rates is
the students’ lack of college preparation. Students
who graduate from high school unprepared for
credit-bearing coursework are required to take
remedial courses at their institution of higher
education before they can start earning credit
towards a degree. Higher education institutions
thus provide this remediation in order to prepare
freshman students for the academic rigors of
college. Currently, more than 60 percent of new
college students entering the CSU system require
remedial coursework in the areas of mathematics,
reading, and writing before they can enroll in
credit-bearing courses (CSU, n.d.). In the CCC

rates of remediation are much higher: over 83
percent in mathematics and 72 percent in English
(California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office [CCCCO], 2009). The need for remediation
is evident in the UC system that provides
remediation to 26 percent of freshmen in college‘
level writing (Legislative Analyst’s Office [LAO],
2011). This high level of remediation is costly both
for higher education institutions and for students,
as remediation lengthens the time to completion
and reduces the probability that students will
graduate with college degrees.

The reasons that students graduate from
high school unprepared for college—level work
are complex, but a lack of alignment between
California’s K—12 standards and post-secondary
education expectations is one key reason why so
many students arrive at college unprepared to
succeed in college—level work. For example, the
majority of the CSU’s incoming college students
have a grade point average greater than 3.0, a
measure of relative success in high school, yet
the majority of these students lack the academic
preparation to succeed in college-level work and
must take some sort of remedial coursework
(Knudson, R., Zitzer—Comfort, C., Quirk, M., and
Alexander, R, 2008).

One way that this misalignment of standards is
being addressed in California is through the Early
Assessment Program (EAP). The EAP identifies
whether college-bound high school students are
prepared for credit—bearing college coursework,
serving as an early warning system that gives
unprepared students an opportunity to address
deficiencies while still in high school.

The EAP is the result of an intersegmental

effort originally led by the California State
University (CSU), the California State Board of
Education, and the California Department of
Education (CDE) to coordinate and articulate
consistent standards between secondary and post-
secondary institutions. EAP has been lauded as a
necessary tool that breaks down barriers between
K- 12 and higher education, encourages a college-
going culture, and helps students reorganize their
senior year to increase college-readiness.

Development of the EAP marked a major
milestone in California’s effort to establish
consistent standards of college—level expectations.
It brought together multiple educational sectors to
discuss educational goals and outcomes, to define
college-readiness, and to formulate a program to
strengthen system alignment. Differences persist
among the multiple educational sectors on how
best to determine factors that indicate future
college success, but EAP provides a much more
consistent message to high school students about
the expectations and skills needed to do college-
level work.

The EAP is important scaffolding for the
dialogue defining college-readiness. At the
same time, however, higher education segments
emphasize that there are other skills and expect—
ations, beyond math and literacy, needed for
students to be sufficiently prepared for the rigors of
postsecondary work.

This report discusses EAP providing a
history of its development, reviewing successes, and
examining challenges. We also look at the future
of the EAP and how this innovative program is
being considered a national model for assessing
high school students’ college-readiness. Lastly,
this report discusses the future of the EAP in the
context of the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS), and provides recommendations on ways to
improve the implementation of the EAP.

 

.1 . roviding remedial education is an
‘ 5‘:- expensive cost borne by institutions

: a 1' of higher education, students, and

1,. taxpayers. Among its 23 campuses,

’5 U9 CSU enrolls more than 40,000
freshmen a year, and provides remedial education
to more than 60 percent of those new students
(CSU, n.d.), at an estimated annual cost of $30
million.

In an attempt to significantly reduce costs in
the 19905, CSU examined the issues of remediation
(Kirst, 2010; Goen-Salter, 2008). Understanding
that remediation is a problem that overlaps
educational sectors and thus cannot be addressed
by one segment alone, CSU initiated a collaborative
effort with the California State Board of Education
and the California Department of Education (CDE)
to create the EAP (Kirst, 2010). CSU faculty and
K— 12 educators collaborated to develop the EAP
test questions and writing prompts. Administration
ofthe EAP began in 2004.

As a founder of the EAP, CSU was initially
the only institution of higher education to use it
as a diagnostic tool to measure college-readiness,
waiving placement tests for qualified students. In
2008, Senate Bill 946, authored by Senator Jack
Scott was passed. SB 946 authorized CCC to use
EAP test results for assessment and placement
purposes beginning in the 2009-2010 academic
school year. The bill established EAP as a voluntary
program for CCC participation, but it did not
allocate any new funding to cover implementation
costs. The bill assigned several key administrative
EAP roles to the CCCCO including: receiving the
EAP test results; providing data to participating
community colleges; providing technical assistance

to community colleges; and submitting a report

to the Legislature on EAP implementation by
2015. Given their autonomy and local governance
structures, all CCC campuses and districts select
their own placement tests for incoming students.
They can use the EAP test results instead of their
own placement exams if they choose to participate
in the program. Today, 49 community colleges use
EAP results and 13 more community colleges are in
discussions about using them to waive placement
exams (CCCCO, 2011).

The EAP aims to address the underlying issues
that contribute to the misaligned standards between
secondary and post—secondary education. There are
three components within EAP:

1. College-Readiness Indicator — EAP provides
rising high school seniors with test results that
signal their readiness for college-level work in
English and mathematics.

2. Student Support — High school students who
are underprepared for college—level work in
English can improve their college—readiness
during their senior year by enrolling in
Advanced English or in a course developed as
part of the EAP program called the Expository
Reading and Writing Course (ERWC). CSU
faculty, K— 12 English teachers, and content
specialists developed ERWC specifically to
prepare students for college-level English.
Students who do not have ERWC available at
their high school have access to online learning
tools on the EAP website. The EAP website also

provides online learning tools in mathematics
to help students deemed “not ready” or
“conditionally ready” increase their college—
readiness in math.

The EAP online resources help bridge the
gap for students who are close to passing
EAP. In 2010, CSU reports that the CSU
Math and English Success websites received
approximately 175,000 visits, which is a 17
percent increase from the prior year (CSU,
2011). The availability of online resources
opens up another route for students seeking
to prepare themselves for college-level
coursework.

3. Professional Development — The CSU
has embedded the EAP expectations into
their teacher pre—service training programs.
CSU faculty have also created professional
development programs for high school math
and English teachers to help them better
prepare students for the expectations of
college-level work. This includes courses to
support the teaching of the Expository Reading
and Writing Course and an online tool to help
teachers improve students’ writing skills.

EAP is a voluntary program designed to send
an early signal to rising high school seniors about
their college-readiness in mathematics, reading,
and writing, enabling them to take necessary
actions during their senior year to correct
deficiencies. Students choose whether or not to
participate in the EAP, although some districts have
policies that direct all eligible students to take the
exam. Students must also elect to make their EAP
results available to CSU or CCC. School districts
may elect to implement curriculum and teacher
professional development designed to address
deficiencies identified on the EAP.

EAP is not tied to college admissions; rather,
it is a diagnostic tool to indicate whether students
have mastered the academic skills needed for
college-level, credit-bearing coursework. EAP may
also help to determine placement in mathematics
and English courses.

EAP augments the California Standards Test

(CST), which high school juniors take during

the spring semester. The augmented CST was
developed to minimize additional testing burdens
on students and consists of 15 additional multiple-
choice questions in English, 15 additional multiple-
choice questions in mathematics, and a 45-minute
essay writing assignment. The math component

is only available to students who have taken or are
enrolled in Algebra II or higher—level math courses.
The essay component is forty-five minutes long
with a format and scoring rubric identical to CSU’s
English Placement Test.

Students receive their scores in August, before
or shortly after the start of their senior year and
may use the school year to take action to increase
their college-readiness. EAP scores are determined
by combining the student performance on the
CST, on the augmented test questions, and on the
essay. Students who score “ready for college” are
exempt from taking CSU and participating CCC
placement exams in math, reading, and writing
and can enroll in credit-bearing courses upon
enrollment in college. Students who receive scores
“not ready for college” or “conditionally ready” have
the opportunity to take action during their senior
year to increase their college-preparedness. The
CSU and participating CCC also waive placement
assessment exams of students who are deemed
“conditionally ready” in math if the student pursues
the necessary action to improve their college-
readiness during their senior year. Because the EAP
is a voluntary program, students have the option of
deciding whether to release their test results to the
CSU, to CCC, or to both.

k.)

chieve is a national nonprofit
education reform organization
created in 1996 by governors and
business leaders, to raise academic
standards across the country.
Achieve’s research identified an expectations gap
between the demands of secondary and post-
secondary education, and subsequently founded
the American Diploma Project (ADP) Network
in 2005 to make college-and career-readiness a
priority across the country. The ADP Network
consists of 35 states that educate approximately
85 percent of the nation’s public school students
(Achieve, 2009). Through the ADP Network,
governors, state education officials, postsecondary
leaders and business executives work together to
improve postsecondary preparation by aligning
high school standards, graduation requirements
and assessment and accountability systems with the
demands of college and careers. In 2008, California
joined the ADP Network and implemented the
California Diploma Project (CDP) so as to close
the expectations gap and to better align California’s
college-readiness standards.

CDP, managed by Policy Analysis for
California Education (PACE), assembled a coalition
of policy, education, and business leaders interested
in more effectively preparing students for college
and careers. The CDP’s stated mission is to:

1... Define course content to prepare high school
students for college and the workforce;

L‘s: Ensure that EAP is accessible and responsive to
students across the multiple education sectors;

 

I Define standards and expectations among the
multiple educational sectors to continue to
support student needs; and

I Expand the understanding of the importance
of aligned standards and assessments.

As a result of this work, California’s education
leaders reached consensus and signed a CDP
statement of agreement that EAP can serve as a
common indicator of readiness for non-remedial,
credit bearing baccalaureate—level work in all
of the colleges and universities in California.

The signatories to the agreement were then-

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Iack
O’Connell, University of California President Mark
Yudof, California State University Chancellor
Charles Reed, California Community Colleges
Chancellor Iack Scott, then-President of the
Association of Independent California Colleges and
Universities Jonathan Brown, ConnectEd President
Gary Hoachlander, and California Business for
Education Excellence President Greg Jones. This
agreement established for the first time a fixed
point in the policy and lexical chaos surrounding
“readiness” in California, and made a significant
step toward aligning expectations between K—12
and higher education. The statement that they
signed is included as Appendix A in this report.

 

n 2009, CDP sought the assistance of

Achieve to analyze the content and validity

of the Early Assessment Program and

to determine the degree to which the

EAP measures college-readiness among
students. To do this, Achieve brought together a
group of experts to analyze EAP’s assessments in
English, Algebra II, and Summative Mathematics.
Examined criteria included content centrality,
performance centrality, source challenge,
and level of cognitive demand. The analysis
benchmarked the EAP against California grade
level standards, the CSU’s entry—level mathematics
exam and English Placement Test, the Statement
of Competencies in Academic Literacy and
Mathematics from the Intersegmental Committee
of the Academic Senates (ICAS), and the ADP
benchmarks.

In a 2009 report, An Analysis of the Early
Assessment Program ( EAP) Assessment for
Algebra II, Summative High School Mathematics,
and English, Achieve concluded that the EAP
assessments address essential knowledge needed
to perform credit-bearing coursework as outlined
by CSU faculty. Furthermore, they found that the
EAP augmentations provide rigor, are a reliable
test of college-readiness, and concluded that use
of EAP could be reasonably expanded beyond the
CSU. Achieve made further recommendations to
strengthen EAP as a measure of college-readiness.

The EAP test covers two levels of mathematics:

Algebra II and Summative Mathematics. The
mathematics components assess a range of
knowledge in Algebra 1, Algebra II, and Geometry.
Achieve’s analysis concluded that EAP tests

critical knowledge needed to perform college-
level mathematics and that the EAP items in
mathematics require students to make connections
across mathematic domains.

Achieve’s recommendations for improving the
mathematics component of EAP (2009, p. 18) are
to:

I Develop and include a select number of more
cognitively—demanding selected-response items
in order to assess thinking at the strategic level;

I Explore the addition of a limited number of
constructed—response items;

I Screen items for complicated or lengthy
arithmetic that present an inappropriate source
of challenge for students without calculators;
and

I Select items that would balance coverage to
include other important, college-ready content
that is in the CST blueprint.

'Ihe EAP also includes three English language
arts components with reading items, writing items,
and the writing essay. Achieve’s analysis concluded
that EAP tests critical knowledge to perform
college-level coursework in English; that there is
rigor in the reading passages; and that the writing
essay assesses critical thinking skills. Furthermore,
the reviews concluded that the EAP writing test is
a “fair and honest” assessment of a student’s ability
to analyze an argument and write an expository
passage.

To enhance the English portion of EAP,

Achieve recommended (2009, p. 31):

I Selecting questions on reading passages that
are as text dependent as possible in order to
test students’ abilities to derive meaning from
the college-level passages provided;

Convening faculty representatives across the
three higher education segments to conduct
a cross-segment analysis of the direct writing
assessment and identify opportunities for
alignment; and

Communicating a cross-segment outreach
effort to educators, students, and communities
regarding the expectations that students must
meet in order to demonstrate college-readiness

for credit—bearing courses in English.

Achieve’s recommendations to broaden
the scope of EAP have been echoed by other
educational leaders who want to improve and
expand the use of the EAP to improve K- 12
alignment with higher education in California.
These considerations will be discussed in greater
detail in Section V of this report.

EAP Effectiveness in Reducing Remediation
Rates

While EAP is a voluntary program, student
participation has grown consistently (Figure 1).
The participation rate for the English component
is significantly higher than participation in
mathematics as the pool of eligible students is
smaller for the latter; only students who have
completed or who are enrolled in Algebra II or
higher-level math can take the math assessment.

FIGURE 1: Participation Rates of High School Juniors in CST and EAP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Subject CST EAP CST EAP CST EAP CST EAP CST EAP
English 418,154 312,167 440,763 342,348 446,153 352,943 447,783 366,949 451,575 378,870
95% 71% 95% 74% 96% 76% 96% 79% 96% 81%
Math* 184,709 137,067 201,827 141,648 209,873 147,885 220,321 169,478 231,357 178,667
42% 31% 44% 31% 45% 32% 47% 36% 49% 38%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Data: California State University retrieved from www.calstate.edu/eap, data is calculated based on
total enrollment in Grade 11.(*Tota| 11th grade participation in Algebra II and summative math).

FIGURE 2: English Test Results 2006-2010

 

 

 

100 —

85 83 82 83
g 80 — I \-
FL
§ 60 ~ I Ready for College
“5 0 Not Ready for College
0)
g 40 —
C
a.» 21
E 20 — 15 ‘9 1.7 1.6/0
D. . v V v

0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Data: Early Assessment Program retrieved
from www.ca/state.edu/eap

FIGURE 3: Math Test Results 2006-2010

 

 

 

 

 

6O _
g 45 45 44 43 43
is 1‘- _ _ _'—_\__L.fi—-—‘i=—-—.!
‘5; 40 _ 43 43 42 44 42
Q)
L: I Ready for College
8 0 Not Ready for College
9 A Conditional
E 20 — 15
<1) 13 13
E 1.2 13 . . 0
CL

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Data: Early Assessment Program retrieved
from www.ca/state.edu/eap

Figure 2 shows the trend of test results from
2006-2010 for test—takers of the English portion
of the EAP. From 2006-2009, the percentage of
students scoring “ready for college” in English
remained relatively flat; however, there was
slight improvement in 2010 when 21 percent of
juniors who took the English portion of the EAP
demonstrated college—readiness, an increase from
16 percent the previous year.

Figure 3 shows the trend of test results from
2006-2010 for test takers of the math portions
of EAP (Summative Math and Algebra II). The
percentage of students demonstrating readiness in
math remained flat between 2006 and 2009, with
a slight improvement the following year. In 2010,
15 percent of juniors who took the math portions
of the EAP demonstrated college-readiness, an
increase from 13 percent the previous year.

While rising participation and passing rates
have been lauded, one of the stated goals of the
EAP, significant reduction in remediation rates
statewide, has not yet been realized. The goal of the
program initially was to reduce remediation to 10
percent of incoming freshman by 2007 (Knudson,
Zitzer-Comfort, Quirk 8r Alexander, 2008; Goen-
Salter, 2008). To verify this, researchers from
University of California, Davis and California State
University Sacramento (CSUS) examined how
participation in EAP affected new college students’
needs for remediation (Howell, Kurlander, and
Grodsky, 2009). The authors acknowledge that
the strength of EAP is in providing an early signal
to high school students about their academic
preparation, yet conclusive data was needed to
determine if, in fact, students who received EAP
results were taking action to minimize their
need for remedial education once in college. The
researchers conducted a longitudinal study and
looked at data for students at CSUS, whom they
found to be representative of the general CSU
student population based on socioeconomic and
ethnic/racial composition. The study found that
participation in EAP reduces the probability of
freshman students taking remediation in college
by 6.2 percent in English and by 4.3 percent in
math. However, some have suggested that the slight
improvement in the reduced remediation rate is
due to the professional development component

of the EAP (Gewertz, 2011), and not necessarily
because students are taking action their senior year
as a result of their EAP scores.

While this is the first study that has examined
data to validate the effectiveness of EAP to reduce
remediation, the conclusion that remediation rates
have gone down has not been embraced by all the
higher education community. William Tierney
and Lisa Garcia question the study’s findings based
on the research methodology; they contend that
EAP information about test results is not enough
to reduce remediation rates (Tierney and Garcia,
201 1).

Another study by researchers at four CSU
campuses examined the professional development
component of the EAP and the effectiveness of
the ERWC curriculum. Specifically, the research
team conducted a quantitative and qualitative
analysis to determine the effectiveness of the ERWC
curriculum and the English proficiency rates of
students whose teachers participated in the EAP
professional development (Fleming, Grisham, Katz,
and Suess, 2005). This study looked at data from
2004-05, the first year the EAP ERWC curriculum
was piloted, to determine if the professional
development and the curriculum were an effective
strategy to increase student preparation in
English. The researchers found that students who
experienced the ERWC curriculum improved their
proficiency in English more than students who were
not exposed to the ERWC curriculum (Fleming,
Grisham, Katz, and Suess, 2005). Furthermore, the
study found that ERWC’s professional development
had a positive impact on high school teachers’
understanding of the skills students must possess
in writing and reading so they can be academically
successful at the college level.

While caution must be taken when considering
the implications of studies with small sample
sizes, this early research suggests that the EAP is
successful on the individual level. However, on the
aggregate level, the trends indicate that the EAP’s
results in improving college-readiness remain flat.
Reducing remediation rates of incoming freshmen
continues to be the primary goal of the program,
but remediation levels have not diminished since
the implementation of EAP. Therefore, more
research is needed to examine the efficacy of the

10

EAP and how to best use this program to aid in
effectively preparing students for success in college.
The U.C. Davis School of Education has
received funding from the federal Institute
of Education Sciences to answer a number of
important questions about the EAP. The project,
led by Michal Kurlaender, is reviewing data from
all 23 CSU campuses to determine if the EAP is
reducing remediation rates; whether the EAP has
a differential impact on students of color and/ or
poverty; whether the EAP “early signal” changes
college application behavior; whether the EAP
changes students’ behavior in their senior year;
and whether the EAP has an impact on overall
outcomes at the high school level. The CCC is also
conducting regional pilot studies at Santa Rosa
Junior College, Sierra College, and Antelope Valley
College to help improve the understanding and
implementation of the EAP among community
colleges and local feeder high schools.

Regional Initiatives that Utilize EAP
Anticipated to Yield Additional Data

The EAP is being used by several regional
intersegmental consortiums to measure how well
they prepare students for college, and to address
regional shortfalls in college access and success.
Regional initiatives in Long Beach and the Inland
Empire show that various, and often competing,
educational segments can work collaboratively
to address mutual concerns and to improve
student outcomes. As statewide remediation
rates have remained largely unchanged since the
implementation of EAP, there is hope that these
regional initiatives will be successful in reducing
the need for remediation, documenting in turn how
EAP can be used in collaborative efforts to achieve
positive outcomes for students.

The Long Beach College Promise

The Long Beach College Promise is a
partnership between the Long Beach Unified
School District (LBUSD), Long Beach City College
(LBCC), and CSU Long Beach (CSULB) based on
a joint commitment to develop a well~educated
workforce to sustain and advance the Long Beach
economy. This collaborative initiative, launched
in 2008, is designed to increase the number of

students in the region who succeed in college and
complete college academic programs on time with
a highly valued degree, credential or certification.
The Long Beach Promise is premised on students
entering college better prepared for credit-
bearing work. It provides financial incentives
to attend college in the region (one semester
free of tuition at LBCC), guarantees admission
at CSULB to LBUSD students who complete
minimum college preparatory or minimum
community college transfer requirements, and
provides outreach to students and their families
starting in middle school to ensure that college
entrance requirements are fulfilled and students
remain on track for success. Replicating the EAP
framework, Long Beach’s collaborative effort
recognizes that cooperation is required from all
segments to align the educational pipeline in order
to improve educational outcomes for students. One
of the project’s goals is to eliminate the need for
remediation for LBUSD students who are admitted
at CSULB.

The Long Beach College Promise recognizes
that college-readiness is a strong determinant
of college success and that some students need
additional incentives and encouragement to remain
on the path to college preparation. The College
Promise specifies that by 2012 all LBUSD students
will participate in EAP. The EAP is voluntary, but
the expectation that all students take the EAP is
part of the culture within Long Beach Unified
and all students are scheduled to take the test.
Participation therefore is structured to require
students who do not wish to take the EAP to
opt-out, rather than putting the onus on students
to opt—in to take the EAP. Long Beach Unified
students who do not score “ready for college” on the
EAP are required to take remedial courses during
their senior year, instead of electives.

Directing participation of all students in
the EAP is a systematic approach to identifying
those who are in need of additional academic
support their senior year. This effectively delivers
a consistent message to secondary students and
educators about the expectations in the K-12 and
higher education systems. Mandated participation
by all students has the potential to impact EAP data
as students have various postsecondary paths; not

all aspire to obtain college degrees, and not all may
take the exam seriously.

Long Beach Unified School District students
who take and pass remedial courses in their senior
year are automatically eligible to take credit bearing
courses at Long Beach Community College or CSU
Long Beach. The significance of this arrangement is
that the faculty at CSU Long Beach and Long Beach
Community College are trusting Long Unified high
school teachers to provide effective remediation to
prepare students for college level work. Providing
such remediation has traditionally been the domain
of higher education. Early data show promising
results from the Long Beach Promise, although
it is still much too early to measure the true
effectiveness of this program and draw conclusive
results. The Silicon Valley Education Foundation
reports the following (2011):

I In 2010, 500 students were granted free tuition
to LBCC.

I From 2007 to 2009, the college—going rate of
LBUSD graduates rose from 68 percent to 74
percent.

I In 2010, about a third of the 5,600 LBUSD high
school graduates enrolled in LBCC.

I In 2011, CSULB enrolled 650 LBUSD
graduates compared with 450 the prior year.

Thus far, the Long Beach College Promise
provides encouraging results and is an example
of how the EAP can be used as a strategic part of
regional collaborative efforts to address college—
readiness.

inland Empire: Federation for a Competitive
Economy (FACE)

The Inland Empire‘ lags behind much of
California in academic achievement and economic
opportunity. Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties have low levels of college education
among their workforce, with 20 percent of Riverside
County adults 25 years or older possessing a college
degree, and 18 percent of San Bernardino County
adults possessing a college degree, much lower than
‘ For purposes ofthis paper, the Inland Empire is defined as

Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and excludes eastern Los
Angeles County.

the statewide average of 30 percent (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2009).

To address the burgeoning issues hampering
the region’s economic productivity as well as the
cost and consequence of remedial education,
business leaders and education leaders from the
region’s K-12 community and higher education
segments joined forces to establish the Federation
for a Competitive Economy (FACE). FACE is a
collaborative in the Inland Empire that includes
leaders from the region’s business, higher
education, and K-12 communities. The focus of
FACE is to improve education in the Inland Empire
so the region can retool and improve its economy.

As an intersegmental collaborative, the work of
FACE has been informed by the work of the Long
Beach Promise. Participating entities include UC
Riverside (UCR), CSU San Bernardino (CSUSB),
Cal-Poly-Pomona, community college districts
including the San Bernardino Community College
District and Riverside Community College, and
the County Offices of Education in San Bernardino
and Riverside Counties.

FACE has prioritized the expansion of the
EAP in the Inland Empire in order to improve
alignment across segments and thus provide clearer
and more accurate messages to students, parents
and educators to increase the likelihood of student
success. Since college-readiness and completion
are a top concern for FACE, the use of EAP as a
focal point has universal appeal to the multiple
stakeholders in the region. FACE has also identified
the skills assessed by the EAP as skills needed
for entry—level jobs: reading comprehension,
mathematics and algebraic thinking, and basic
writing skills.

FACE has articulated four goals:

1. Expand the number of Inland Empire
community colleges implementing EAP in
cooperation with the CCCCO;

2. Work with the region’s County Offices of
Education, Cal—Poly-Pomona, and CSUSB
to increase awareness among students and
educators about EAP and why it matters;
expand EAP implementation in regional
school districts by creating a culture of

11

12

expectation that all students will take the

test (by instituting an opt—out rather than an
opt—in policy); and develop clear and accurate
messages for students, parents, and educators
about the importance of EAP and what it takes
to be college-ready.

3. Improve EAP results, particularly in
mathematics, through targeted Algebra
Academies and increased teacher professional
development opportunities.

4. Support UCR’s study of EAP for possible use as
an indicator of college-readiness and as a tool
for reducing the need and associated cost of
remedial education at 2 and 4-year institutions
in the Inland area.

The EAP implementation, expansion, and
research from this regional initiative is anticipated
to yield rich data that can inform other regional
and statewide efforts to more effectively use the

EAP to improve college-readiness and college
success.

The regional initiatives in Long Beach
and the Inland Empire are demonstrating how
educational, business and community leaders can
work collaboratively to address regional workforce
development needs and to improve student
outcomes through improved alignment between
K-12 and postsecondary institutions. The EAP can
be a valuable tool in these efforts to strengthen and
align the educational pipeline.

,. {..,,.\‘.,‘..... r . _‘ ‘7..,.,.,, .—..,

e CSU founded the EAP, the
program is currently used most

\‘

1;: Becaus

\ g \_ v/ extensively by this organization.
‘ However, the CSU is still grappling
with the challenge of increasing college-readiness
before students enroll. As stated earlier, a major
goal of the program, to reduce remediation, has not
yet been realized. Despite increasing participation
in EAP, the lack of K-12 curriculum alignment

and the lack of student follow-through to improve
college—readiness are two issues that are stymying
progress.

The CSU’s most prominent challenge is
determining how to continue to improve the
alignment of curriculum and assessment standards
at the K- 12 level. More effort is clearly required
to ensure the K-12 system fully understands the
expectations of higher education and is willing to
make the cultural shift, signifying acceptance of the
responsibility to prepare students for college-level
work.

There are a number of ways that student
readiness for college-level work could be improved.
For example, the CSU has provided professional
development to high school English and math
teachers. To date, 6,006 educators have participated
in ERWC and 1,592 educators have participated in
EAP math teacher training (CSU, 2011), yet more
teachers need to participate in the professional
development component of EAP.

Increased student follow—through, once they
get the early signal about their college-readiness,
could also be highly effective. The need for
remediation could be reduced if more students
used EAP results to take action to improve college—

 

readiness during their senior year. In 2010, the
CSU initiated Early Start, a program that utilizes
EAP as its platform to further reduce remediation
and increase student success. The stated goal of
the program is to prepare students sooner for
college-level work. Starting in 2012, Early Start
will require high school students who score “not
ready for college—level work” to take remediation
prior to their first year at a CSU campus. Early Start
will implement several components to achieve this
goal: expanding existing student programs, such
as Summer Bridgez, to help students learn needed
skills to ease their transition from secondary
to postsecondary education; increasing usage
of online learning tools; and renewing regional
partnerships and collaboration among the CSU
campuses, community colleges, and K-12 systems.
Requiring high school students who are not
ready for college—level work to take remedial
actions during their senior year is an important
breakthrough as historically EAP has never
required follow-up actions from students. Simply
providing students and educators with information
about the status of college-readiness has not proven
to be enough of a motivating factor to change
behavior and impact remediation rates. However,
it remains to be seen how much remediation rates
will change since students can still be admitted to
the CSU even if they require remediation freshman
year. Once this program is fully implemented in
2012, the CSU will have to consider how much

3 Summer Bridge programs are residential programs for
incoming college freshmen that provide students with an
orientation to college life, review basic skills, and provide
academic advisement and other support as they prepare for the
rigors of university work.

14

remediation is unacceptable before students are
denied admission to a CSU campus.

Another important step would be improving
communication about what college-readiness
means so the message is clearly understood by
high school teachers, college faculty, parents, and
students. While both the K-12 system and the
CSU have made great strides in getting messages
to students about the advantage of taking the EAP,
there is still progress to be made to ensure that
students know what to do with the results, and that
teachers are aware of the professional development
options to help students increase college-readiness
in their senior year.

Furthermore, California as a state could clarify
the goal of college-readiness relative to the K-12
experience. For example, the California High
School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) sets a much lower
bar of expectations regarding the knowledge and
skills that students must possess to graduate from
high school, which starkly contrasts with academic
expectations of higher education as represented in
the EAP. When the CAHSEE was established, the
rigor of the test was intended to increase over time.
Increasing the level of expectation for students
graduating from high school is one way to clarify
and strengthen alignment between K- 12 and higher
education expectations.

Finally, the CSU is currently investigating
ways to give students more precise feedback about
the status of their college-readiness by modifying
the English component in EAP and adding a
“conditionally ready” test result, similar to the math
components (CSU, 2011). How these changes, if
implemented, will impact student readiness and
remediation rates remains to be seen.

California Community Colleges (CCC)

A recent breakthrough in California’s efforts
to improve alignment between K-12 and higher
education is CCC participation in the EAP and the
growing acceptance of using EAP test results for
course placement at community college campuses.
Since the implementation of Senate Bill 946, an
increasing number of community colleges are
accepting EAP test results in lieu of requiring
students to take their current placement tests. As
of this writing, 59 of California’s 112 community

colleges accept at least one component of the EAP
test results as a waiver to their college’s assessment
(e.g. English, Math, or Math Conditional). Sixteen
of the 59 community colleges are engaged in
discussions about utilizing additional components
of the EAP test results, and nine additional
community colleges are having discussions about
initiating EAP participation (CCCCO, 2011).

The expanding use of EAP among the CCC
is an important step in increasing the consistency
of expectations for college-readiness between
K- 12 and California’s higher education systems.
Local autonomy has led many of the CCC to
establish their own placement tests, with varying
expectations and requirements for credit—bearing
work. Variability in CCC assessment tests sends
mixed signals to prospective community college-
bound students and to the K-12 system. The use of
EAP by CCC as well as CSU clarifies and unifies
messages about college-readiness. The EAP can
also act as a lingua franca for students who may
enroll simultaneously or sequentially in more than
one community college; without the EAP “ready for
college” passport, they might assess at college—level
in one community college and at a remedial level at
another college just miles away.

Despite this successful start in EAP
implementation among the CCC, there is much
room for progress. Currently 70 percent of all
college students in California are enrolled in
community colleges (Johnson, 2009). In order to
maximize the benefit of the EAP for California
students, progress needs to be made in recruiting
the remaining 63 community colleges that do not
use any portion of the EAP test results. Many of
the community colleges that do not yet utilize
EAP are intently watching the progress of the
early implementers and awaiting data on how
EAP implementation has served the needs of
community colleges. There are several studies and
pilot programs underway regarding EAP use at the
community college-level. Results from these studies
were not available at the time of this writing.

To improve the use of EAP among CCCs, the
community college system will have to address
several challenges. These include: the lack of
funding to support EAP implementation; the CCC’s
traditional lack of uniformity among placement

standards; and the fear that prospective community
college students will confuse the EAP with
admission requirements and therefore discourage
enrollments to the CCC. To further the usefulness
of the EAP to the CCC, consideration might also be
given to expanding the number of EAP questions
in order to produce more diagnostic information to
determine more precisely where students fit on the
placement and remediation spectrum.

The law authorizing the CCCs to implement
the EAP has two voluntary implementation levels.
First, it gives statutory permission to community
colleges to use EAP test results in place of their own
placement exams. The second level is much more
comprehensive and folds the community colleges
into the existing EAP framework, aiming for better
coordination among the educational segments, and
authorizing an EAP coordinator within each CCC.
The task of the specialized EAP coordinator is to
provide outreach to local K— 12 school districts, and
to work collaboratively on curriculum alignment
standards with K- 12 communities and CSU
campuses in the region. The EAP coordinator
plays a crucial role in facilitating collaborative
work on the alignment of standards throughout
the educational pipeline and in disseminating
information to K-12 schools, students, and families
about the rigors and expectations of the community
colleges. Yet, Senate Bill 946 provided no funding
for EAP coordinators or other EAP implementation
costs, and with CCCs facing additional budget cuts,
the lack of funding for EAP coordinators remains
a significant obstacle (CCCCO, n.d.). The CCC is
seeking grants and pursuing funding from private
sources to support the implementation of regional
EAP pilot programs (CDE, 2011); thus far, such
support funding has been provided by the William
and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the James Irvine
Foundation and the Walter S. Johnson Foundation.

Another challenge to effective implementation
is that, because each community college has
the authority to administer its own placement
exams, the CCCs continue to send K—12 students
conflicting messages regarding their academic
preparedness for college-level work (Bueschel and
Venezia, 2006). The CCC does not operate as a
coherent system, but rather as 112 independent
colleges. The “Open Access” orientation of the

CCC results in the campuses educating a diverse
population seeking two-year and four—year
college degrees, certificates, career preparation,
and recreational learning. Because of this “Open
Access” orientation to admissions and college
recruitment, many prospective students are
confused and unaware that in order to enroll in
credit—bearing, non-remedial courses, they must
pass placement exams or meet certain academic
standards (Venezia, Bracco, and Nodine, 2010).
Many students mistakenly think that graduating
from high school is sufficient preparation for
college-level work, and they do not realize that
the California High School Exit Exam tests at the
10th grade English proficiency level and at the 9th
grade math proficiency level (LAO, 2008). Not
having a consistent message about college-level
academic expectations contributes to the challenges
community colleges face in using the EAP
effectively to improve student outcomes.

The CCC also must overcome concerns
expressed by some educators that students will
mistake EAP for an admissions indicator (Neimand
Collaborative, 2010), potentially discouraging
students who lack proficiency from pursuing
postsecondary education (Gewertz, 2011). Some
worry about how the EAP will affect their current
programs and their level of funding (Neimand
Collaborative, 2010). CCC are attempting to
address these fears through better communication
about EAP so that students and educators
understand that the EAP is a diagnostic tool, not
tied to admissions, to determine if students can
perform college-level work.

Finally, the usefulness of the EAP could
increase for CCC if the test were expanded and
cut-scores were differentiated to provide more
nuanced information about students’ performance
levels and remediation needs. Currently, results
on the English portion of the EAP only indicate
whether students are ready for college or not; they
do not give enough information to determine
where students fit on the spectrum of remediation.
Community colleges typically offer courses in
a sequence starting at least two, and as many as
six, levels below the EAP-equivalent of “ready
for college”. Given the brevity of the current
test, there aren’t enough items on the EAP to

15

16

derive a more precise understanding of student
performance levels and remediation needs to make
this placement. However, California is expected to
transition into a computer—adaptive testing system
as assessments aligned to the Common Core

State Standards are implemented. Development

of adaptive online exams is a focus of the Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC),

one of two assessment consortiums developing
assessment systems aligned to the Common Core
State Standards. California is now a governing
state in SBAC. Implementation of an online system
for EAP could make differentiating among levels
of student skill sets more feasible. A redesigned
EAP that provides more precise information about
how much remediation students require if they
score “not ready for college” could be used for
more granular placement purposes, increasing

the programs’ usefulness and leading to increased
participation by CCC.

The community colleges would like to deepen
their own placement instruments, but lack the
resources to contemplate doing so. In addition, the
colleges want to move to a common assessment in
English and in mathematics. A more robust EAP,
redesigned based on the new SBAC assessments,
could help meet both needs.

University of California (UC)

The UC system currently remains on the
sidelines regarding use of BAP—though the
regional initiative in the Inland Empire discussed
earlier includes research at the UC level to study
EAP test results and effectiveness. Fundamentally,
the UC remains skeptical that, when compared to
its internal placement tools and practices, EAP adds
enough value to warrant adoption of a common
instrument to measure college—readiness. For
example, the EAP focuses on Algebra II proficiency,
yet in meeting UC admission requirements the vast
majority of UC-bound students have completed
higher level math courses. The UC system has
also resisted participation in EAP out of fear that
the college—readiness indicator will be confused
with college admission, which is a particular
concern for the more selective campuses (Neimand
Collaborative, 2010).

Despite these barriers, many observers hope

that a frank review of incoming UC students’
academic needs will push the UC system to
reconsider its position regarding EAP participation,
and make the EAP a tool used by all segments of
California’s public higher education. While UC’s
policy is that students admitted for enrollment

are prepared for credit bearing non-remedial
baccalaureate level work, in fact, 26 percent

of freshmen entering the UC system require
remediation in writing (LAO, 2011). Remediation
rates vary among UC campuses, from about 8
percent at UC Berkeley to 64 percent at UC Merced
(LAO, 2011). This wide range reflects the degrees
of selectivity among UC campuses and provides
evidence of the need to have a common college-
readiness standard.

If the UC system were to reach agreement with
the K-12 and other higher education systems on
how to define and measure college-readiness, then
a much stronger message would be sent to students
and secondary institutions throughout California
about expectations for postsecondary-level work.
Knowledge of these expectations would improve
K— 12 and higher education alignment and create
clearer educational pathways for students.

K-12 Schools

There are several issues that impede the
successful implementation of EAP at the K-12
level: a lack of funding; the need for better
communication and better institutionalized
relationships with higher education; competition
for attention with other issues affecting education;
and the challenges associated with raising the bar
for what students are expected to accomplish.

Public education has been forced to address
deep statewide and local budget cuts over a series
of years and the ongoing statewide fiscal crisis
makes successful implementation of any program
problematic. Since EAP is a voluntary program,
the EAP curriculum is not uniformly available
statewide; it is only offered by high schools that
have chosen to pilot and adopt the ERWC course
materials. This is a direct result of the lack of
funding to implement new programs (Neimand
Collaborative, 2010). Research by Daves-Rougeaux
and the Education Data Partnership point out
that only 120 out of 1,206 high schools currently

offer the ERWC curriculum (as cited in Tierney
and Garcia, 2011). In order for EAP to be more
effective, additional professional development must
be made available statewide to English teachers

in ERWC and math teachers in EAP math (Kirst,
2010).

Secondly, for a long time secondary education
has received mixed messages about what it takes
for students to be academically successful in college
(Bueschel and Venezia, 2006). There are misaligned
perceptions between secondary teachers and
postsecondary faculty on how prepared graduating
high school students are for college-level
coursework. For example, 10 percent of high school
teachers believe their students are not prepared for
college-level writing, as compared to 44 percent of
college faculty (Sanoff, 2006). Similarly, 9 percent
of high school teachers believe their students are
not prepared for college-level math, as compared
to 32 percent of college faculty (Sanoff, 2006).

This misalignment of college—level expectations
between high school teachers and college faculty
contributes to students’ confusion about the level
of preparedness necessary to be ready for credit—
bearing work in college.

In order for EAP to be used successfully,
relationships between California’s K- 12 and higher
education systems need to be fortified (Tierney 8:
Garcia 2011). Stronger relationships would foster a
better understanding of college-level expectations,
increasing the awareness of skills students need
to succeed in college-level work. With better
understanding, high school counselors and K-12
teachers would more likely encourage students
to take action based on their EAP results. High
school counselors, teachers, and administrators
need to understand the benefits of EAP in order
to deliver the message to students and families
about the importance of college-readiness and how
remediation in college can hamper students’ college
success.

Effective EAP implementation is also
hindered in the K-12 system by the many pressing
educational issues competing for attention. In an
era when the progress of students meeting state
K-12 standards is measured by state and federal
accountability systems, many secondary educators
devote their attention to issues like meeting student

proficiency targets, and they do not View aligning to
college-readiness standards as imperative (Neimand
Collaborative, 2010). An anecdotal report from
one study in a predominantly low-income school
district suggests that some educators may be more
focused on high school graduation and college
admission than on college-readiness (Tierney and
Garcia, 2011).

Finally, a significant challenge to K-12
implementation of EAP is that it dramatically
raises the bar for What students are expected to
accomplish in high school. Increased student
participation in EAP in most districts would result
in a large percentage of students scoring “not ready
for college,” and that percentage would be much
higher than the percentage of students not meeting
the California High School Exit Exam requirement.
The prospect of explaining to parents and others
the positive impact of the EAP despite initially low
passage rates is a big challenge for local educators,
one that most of them would prefer not to take on.

The implementation of Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) and the development by SBAC
of aligned computer-adaptive assessments may help
to better align K-12 standards and college-level
expectations, and lead more effectively to students
being prepared for college success as well as for
high school graduation.

Students

As mentioned earlier, the need for better
communication to improve student understanding
about the program is a major factor in EAP
effectiveness. More than 80 percent of all students
who take the CST participate in EAP. Although
participation has increased since the inception of
the EAP, many students still lack knowledge and
understanding about EAP and do not know what to
do with the EAP test results. Timing is also an issue
as EAP results do not arrive before the start of the
senior year for many students, making it difficult
for them to make the necessary schedule changes.
By the time students get their EAP “early signal,”
the school’s course schedule is set, and students
may not have access to the appropriate courses
to improve college-preparedness, particularly at
schools that do not provide the academic support
specific to the EAP. Many students are also unaware

17

18

or confused by the requirement to proactively
authorize release of their EAP score to CSU and
CCC.
EAP test results are reported on the state

STAR Student Report, which is a strategy meant to
increase cost-efiiciency. However, listing the EAP
test results on the STAR report along with a great
deal of other assessment information makes it hard
to find for students (Kirst, 2010), and other than a
referral to an EAP website address, no substantive
information explaining the EAP is included in this
report. Increased marketing and messaging to K- 12
students and parents could increase awareness and
understanding about EAP and resolve this issue.

Many students lack knowledge about what to
do with the EAP test results and what to do if they
are determined to be “not ready” or “conditionally
ready” for college. One focus group of students
in Los Angeles found that the overwhelming
majority were not familiar with EAP; thus, they
did not know what to do with the test score
information (Tierney and Garcia, 2011). The key
value of the EAP is that it provides an early signal
to students about their college-readiness, giving
them time to address areas of weakness. However,
this opportunity is lost if students do not know
what actions to take to improve their deficiencies.
Adding to this concern, students may not be fully
aware of the impact of remediation on their college
trajectory or the increased cost that it entails
(Tierney and Garcia, 2011).

Critics point to the limited time students
have to take action based on the delivery of EAP
results. By the time students receive the test
results in August, it may be too late or too difficult
to transfer into courses that will improve their
college-readiness (Gewertz, 2011). Furthermore,
this “early signal” comes years too late for students
who are far behind. Shortcomings in proficiency
should be identified and addressed at much earlier
grade levels, thereby aiding many students who
are significantly unprepared for college-level work.
Earlier intervention would most benefit students
who are community college-bound because, as a
group, they are less academically prepared than
their four-year college-bound peers (Venezia,
Reeves, and Nodine, 2010.) Likewise, students
who lack proficiency in English require early
intervention, or they may fall too far behind,
lacking the skills to enroll in courses that could
significantly improve their reading and writing
proficiency such as Advanced Placement or Honors
English (Tierney and Garcia, 2011.)

Even if all students have a clear understanding
of the EAP early signal, there remains limited
access to the specific EAP curriculum that can
prepare deficient students for college—level
coursework (Kirst, 2010). As mentioned earlier,
the ERWC curriculum is not available statewide.
While online courses are available, there is little
data to support how effective online options are at
improving student preparedness for college-level
coursework.

 

he expanded implementation of

the EAP has resulted in large part

because of the focused efforts of

the California Diploma Project

(CDP) to bring California’s varied
education segments to the table in order to focus
on improving alignment and expectations between
K-12 and higher education. In fall 2011, the CDP
hosted a convening of its signatories to further
discuss career-readiness and how SBAC will
incorporate a meaningful standard of readiness
for college, like the EAP, in the development of an
assessment system aligned to the Common Core
State Standards.

The CDP has been instrumental in getting all
three segments of California’s higher education
systems and the K-12 system to agree that EAP
can serve as a common measure of readiness for
non-remedial, credit-bearing baccalaureate-level
work. Yet challenges remain, including agreement
on course content and course sequencing, inter-
and intra-segmental transfer policies in post-
secondary education, and the integration of college
and career ready standards. Keeping K- 12 and all
three segments of higher education engaged in the
college-readiness dialogue is critical to the Viability
of any future policy solutions.

In addition to CDP, there are several
entities emerging as catalysts to keep the various
segments engaged in college—and career—readiness
discussions. These include leaders of regional
collaborative efforts in Long Beach and the Inland
Empire; both of which are leading by example and
are expected to yield data that will inform and
motivate further alignment efforts. In addition,
the Linked Learning Alliance and ConnectED, the

California Center for College and Career, support
expanding the “Linked Learning” approach to
high school reform designed to prepare students
for college and careers, and are deeply engaged

in efforts to improve the practical alignment
between high school outcomes and college success.
Finally, many education stakeholders expect

the implementation of the Common Core State

‘ Standards and associated curriculum, assessments

and professional development will bring about
fruitful discussions regarding K-12 and higher
education alignment in California.

As discussed earlier in this report, leaders of
regional collaborative efforts in the Inland Empire
and Long Beach are promoting local efforts to align
K- 12 standards with college-and career-readiness;
whether or not they are successful, the results
from these pilot projects will have deep impact
on statewide policy discussions. Particularly in
this era of limited resources, programs that can
demonstrate how to increase efliciency and achieve
student success will greatly influence other local
and statewide education policy decision makers.
However, the formation of these regional models
is the result of longstanding intersegmental
relationships; replicating these models will require
the willingness of all educational segments to
collaborate in good faith.

The Linked Learning Alliance and ConnectED,
a lead player in the movement to support the
Linked Learning approach, are entities that have
engaged all of California’s education segments
as well as business, labor, research, community,
and other education stakeholder organizations
in dialogue around high school reform efforts
aimed at improving students’ college and career

19

20

preparation. The Linked Learning Alliance and

ConnectEd support and facilitate efforts to
improve student preparation for college and career
by integrating rigorous academics with career
focused, technical education, work-based learning,
and support for students. While the Alliance and
ConnectEd support preparing students with the
academic rigor in reading and math necessary to
succeed in credit—bearing college coursework, the
Linked Learning approach is also intended to give
students broader skills with real world applications,
such as cross-discipline problem solving, and other
more complex criteria recognized as necessary

for college and workforce success. The Linked
Learning Alliance and ConnectEd will continue to
be important drivers in the discussion about ways
to measure these factors through augmentation or
evolution of the EAP.

As regional pilots and advocates of the Linked
Learning approach keep segments engaged in
discussion about K- 12 and college alignment,
the work over the next few years is likely to be
influenced deeply by the implementation of the
CCSS and aligned assessments.

Common Core State Standards

The California State Board of Education
adopted the CCSS in August 2010, joining 45
other states and territories that have adopted the
Common Core. By 2014, California will implement
CCSS by developing new curricular frameworks,
adopting new instructional materials, providing
professional development support for teachers
and administrators in the new standards and
curriculum, and by providing new assessments
online (CDE, 2010).

The CCSS initiative reflects the expectation
that K-12 must deliver rigorous content and
core knowledge to students in mathematics and
literacy for them to succeed in college and careers.
CCSS builds on California’s already rigorous
standards, but it enhances them by specifically
aligning K-12 standards in English and math with
college and career expectations so that all students
graduating from high school can be prepared for
credit-bearing academic college courses and for
21st century workforce training programs. CCSS
implementation marks a new opportunity to use

the lessons learned from the EAP. The EAP is

seen as national model as it signifies progress in

the alignment of K-12 assessments with higher
education placement policies; the EAP also brought
a diverse group of educational segments together

to discuss and agree on skills students require to

be academically prepared for college-level work
(King, 2011). CCSS suggests that each state must
have a collaborative dialogue between its respective
secondary and postsecondary institutions to discuss
and define college-readiness based on their own
needs and standards (King, 2011).

It is notable that EAP has received much
more praise and recognition as a college-readiness
model with high standards of math and English
at the national level than within California itself
(Neimand Collaborative, 2010). Despite this
contradiction, California’s EAP model is the best
method currently available in the nation to assess
and signal to students their preparedness for
college-level coursework, providing them with
an opportunity to correct deficiencies before they
enter college.

While it is too soon to know precisely what
assessment products will be produced by either
assessment consortium, the lessons learned in
California with the EAP have been reviewed
carefully by leaders of both assessment consortia.
PARCC has committed to make college—
readiness central to its strategy; it is hoped that
California will have great influence in ensuring
a similar focus with SBAC. Consequently, the
EAP framework is expected to be embedded
in the new CCSS assessment system. As CCSS
implementation occurs, it is very likely that new
diagnostic tools could replace the EAP or allow
for its evolution. This evolution could include
components that measure student competencies
in broader disciplines in addition to English and
math, so that EAP would be more reflective of
the deeper knowledge and learning skills desired
for varying careers and for success in college.

As these resources become available, California
policymakers will have to decide whether EAP
continues to be the best diagnostic tool to
determine readiness for credit—bearing college-level
work and, if not, how to modify or replace it with
new assessments aligned to the CCSS.

 

hile EAP is a groundbreaking
initiative that successfully
engaged leaders of multiple
educational sectors in
discourse and led to
agreement on mutual goals, its effectiveness in
reducing remediation rates still remains to be
seen. Currently, regional efforts and new research
projects are underway that may demonstrate how
EAP can be an effective tool to reduce remediation
levels. Data from the community colleges that have
implemented EAP will also inform evaluations of
the program’s effectiveness.
In the meantime, this report offers the
following recommendations to make EAP more
effective:

I Officially define the EAP standard as a
common measure of readiness for non—
remedial, credit—bearing baccalaureate-level
work across all higher education institutions
in California. By establishing a clear target,
students will have an incentive to prepare
themselves for college—level work and school
districts will be encouraged to reorganize their
curricula to ensure that students are doing the
necessary coursework, particularly in math,
required to participate in EAP and meet the
readiness standard.

I Increase and improve messages about EAP to
K-12 schools, students, and parents to inform
them of the expectations of higher education.
California’s multiple education segments must
improve their communication and outreach
strategies to optimize the value of EAP. All

systems in California need to send a stronger
message to students about what the EAP
results mean.

Expand opportunities for students to

take action in their senior year to correct
deficiencies by making ERWC curriculum and
teacher professional development more widely
available.

Improve the timeliness of EAP test results to
improve students’ ability to schedule their
senior year. If EAP results were distributed
in July rather than in August, high school
administrators and counselors would have
more time to accommodate student course
needs.

Increase student participation in EAP. When
more students know about the EAP and
understand what to do with the results, the
program has greater potential to increase
college-going and persistence rates in
California. The emerging research around
the EAP will be important to persuade CCC
and UC faculty that it is an effective tool for
measuring college-readiness by addressing
remediation and improving college-readiness,
even for elite students.

Strengthen the role of the K-12 system by
addressing academic deficiencies before
students reach their senior year. The earlier
students take action to improve areas of
deficiency, the better prepared they are
when they commence their postsecondary

21

22

education, increasing in turn their probability
of success and degree completion. Because of
the complexity and overlap of the remediation
problem, CDE should become more involved
in raising awareness about the remediation
problem and lead the effort among the
education segments to work collaboratively in
this effort.

Replace the CAHSEE with the EAP to establish
a clear target of college—readiness for students
and educators.

Redesign and expand the EAP so that

results provide more precise information for
college placement and about the amount of
remediation students require if they score “not
ready for college.” Include an EAP focus in any
assessment system aligned to the Common
Core State Standards. PARCC has committed
to placing college—readiness at the center of

its strategy; as a governing state in SBAC,
California should insist that college-readiness
be central to the SBAC strategy as well.

I Broaden the test to include more
comprehensive measures of proficiency and
readiness to capture the full range of cognitive
and other skills required for students who are
entering college or the workforce.

Regardless of potential modifications to the
EAP or whether California opts for a new
assessment tool to measure college-readiness,
all segments of California’s education
community should continue joint efforts to
further align the standards and expectations
of college-readiness so that California can

be more successful in preparing students

to succeed in postsecondary education and
careers.

 

I Achieve (2009, October). An analysis of the
Early Assessment Program Assessments for
Algebra II, Summative High School Mathematics,
and English. Washington, DC. Retrieved on
February 11, 2011 from http://www.stanford.
edu/group/pace/PUBLICATIONS/CDP/
AchieveFINALEAPReportOct2009.pdf.

I Bueschel, A.C. 8r Venezia, A. (2006). Local
Pathways and Statewide Policies Aligning
Standards and Curricula. New Directions for
Community Colleges, 135, Fall. Wiley Periodicals,
Inc. Retrieved on February 18, 2011 from http://
www.acteonline.org/uploadedFiles/About_CTE/
files/LocalPathways.pdf.

I California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office (2009). Basic Skills Accountability Report.
Retrieved on March 20, 2011 from http://www.
cccco.edu/ Portals/ 4/ TRIS/ research/ Basic_Skills/
systempdf.

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Oflice (2011, April 29). California
Community Colleges Accepting Early
Assessment Program (EAP) Results.

Retrieved on May 4, 2011 from http://www.
cccco.edu/ChancellorsOflice/Divisions/
StudentServices/EarlyAssessmentProgram/
CommunityCollegeEAPParticipants/tabid/ 1746/
Defaultaspx.

.2 California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office (n.d.). Senate Bill 946 Early Assessment
Program Highlights. Retrieved on

February 11, 2011 on http://www.stanford.
edu/group/pace/PUBLICATIONS/CDP/
WhatdoesSB946dofortheCCCsupdated10-12-09.
pdf.

52

California Community Colleges Student
Success Task Force (2011, October)
Refocusing California Community

Colleges Toward Student Success DRAFT
RECOMMENDATIONS. Retrieved

on November 1, 2011 from http://
californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/
Portals/ 0/ DocDownloads/ PressReleases/
SEP201 1/PDF__%203tudent_Success_Task.
California Department of Education (2010,
November). Common Core State Standards:
Development of an Implementation Plan.
Retrieved on March 10, 2011 from httpzl/www.
cde.ca.gov/be/pn/pn/ctcsbeagenda08nov2010.
asp.

California Department of Education (2011).
Early Assessment Program. Retrieved on
February 11, 2011 from http://cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/
ps/eapindex.asp.

California Postsecondary Education
Commission (n.d.). Graduation Rates:
Graduation Rates for Students Starting
College in 2001. Retrieved on May 15, 2011
from http2//www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/
GradRates.asp.

California State University (n.d.) Early
Assessment Program. Retrieved on February
11, 2011 from http://www.calstate.edu/EAP/
California State University (2011). Committee
on Education Policy: Agenda for Meeting on
January 25, 2011. Retrieved on May 4, 2011
from http://www.calstate.edu/bot/agendas/
Ianl 1/EdPol.pdf.

Callan, P.M, Finney, ].E., Kirst, M., Usdan,
M., & Venezia, A. (2006, March). Claiming
Common Ground: State Policymaking for

23

24

Improving College Readiness and Success.
The Institute for Educational Leadership,

The National Center for Public Policy

and Higher Education, and the Standard
Institute for Higher Education Research.
Retrieved on March 15, 2011 from http://
www.highereducation.org/reports/common_
ground/common_ground.pdf.

DataQuest (n.d.). Dropouts by Grade,

State of California for the Year 2008-

09, (Reported and Adjusted). California
Department of Education. Retreived on June
1, 2011 from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
DropoutReporting.

Fleming, D., Grisham, D., Katz, M.L., Suess,
E. (2005). Pilot Study Evaluation of the

Early Assessment Program’s Professional
Development in English 2004-05. Teacher
Education and Public School Programs
Academic Affairs, Office of the Chancellor,
California State University. Retrieved on
March 20, 2011 from http://www.csuchico.edu/
eapapp/PDFflles/EAP_ReportFinal.pdf.
Gewertz, C. (2011, January 26).
College—Readiness Program Hard to

Gauge. Education Week. Retrieved

on March 14, 2011 from http://web.
ebscohost.com.proxylib.csus.edu/ehost/
delivery?hid=17&sid=cac9f4e8—dd70—46a3—
8fc6—5b6024610230%405essionmgr14&vid:4.
Goen-Salter, S. (2008). Critiquing the Need

to Eliminate Remediation: Lessons from San
Francisco State. Retrieved March 15, 2011 from
http://www.eric.ed.govz80/PDFS/EJ830552.pdf.
Howell, J., Kurlaender, M., & Grodsky, E.
(2009). Postsecondary Preparation and
Remediation: Examining the Effect of the
Early Assessment Program at California

State University. Sacramento, CA: California
State University Sacramento. Retrieved on
February 15, 2011 from http://www.stanford.
edu/group/pace/PUBLICATIONS/CDP/
PostsecondaryPreparationandRemediation
EAdef.

Johnson, H. (2009, July). Educating California:
Choices for the Future. San Francisco, CA:
Public Policy Institute of California. Retrieved
on September 19, 2009, from http://www.ppic.

org/content/pubs/report/R_609HJR.pdf

King, J. (2011, January). Implementing the
Common Core State Standards: An action
agenda for higher education. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.

Kirst, M. (2010). Final Report to Hewlett
Foundation for Grant “Early Assessment
Working Group” #00006395 California
Community Colleges and the Early Assessment
Program Progress and Challenges. Stanford
University.

Knudson, R., Zitzer-Comfort, C., Quirk, M.,

81 Alexander, P. (2008). The California State
University Early Assessment Program. Heldref
Publications. Retrieved on March 13, 2011
from http://content.epnet.com.proxy.lib.csus.
edu/pdf9/pdf/2008/CLH/01May08/32193156.p
df?T=P&P=AN&K=32193156&EbscoContent
=dGJyMNLe808eqa84y9waLCmr0mep7FSs6
a4SbWWxWXS&ContentCustomerszJyMP
GququrLRJuePfgeyx%2BEu3q64A&D=aph.
Legislative Analyst Office (2008). Back to
Basics: Improving College Readiness of
Community College Students. Retrieved on
March 23, 2011 from http://www.cos.edu/eli/
files/ccc_readiness_0608.pdf.

Legislative Analyst Office (March, 2011).
Higher Education: Answers to Frequently
Asked Questions ~ Are Entering Freshman
Prepared for College—Level Work? Issue 2.
Retrieved on April 20, 2011 from http://www.
lao.ca.gov/sections/higher_ed/FAQs/Higher_
Education_lssue_02.pdf.

National Center for Public Policy and Higher
Education (2008). Measuring Up 2008: The
National Report Card on Higher Education,
Report on California. San Jose, CA. Retrieved
on March 10 from http://measuringup2008.
highereducation.org/ states/ report_cards/ index.
php?state:CA&myYear=2006&cat=10yr.
Neimand Collaborative (2010, March).

From College Ready to Course Ready: The
Message Framework for Promoting the

Early Assessment Program in California.
Washington, DC.

I Policy Analysis for California Education (n.d.).

California Diploma Project. Stanford: Stanford
University. Retrieved on March 10, 2011 from

http://pace.berkeley.edu/cdp/x.

I Sanoff, A. (2006, March 10). What Professors
and Teachers Think: A perception gap over
Students’ Preparation. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 52 (27), B9.

Shulock, N., 8: Moore, C. (2007). Rules of
the Game: How State Policy Creates Barriers
to Degree Completion and Impedes Student

Success in the California Community Colleges.

Institute for Higher Education Leadership
Policy, California State University Sacramento.
Silicon Valley Education Foundation (March
21, 2011). Keeping The Promise In Long
Beach. In Thoughts on Public Education.
Retrieved on March 23, 2011 from http://
toped.svefoundation.org/ 201 1/ 03/ 21/ keeping—
the—promise-in-long-beach/.

I Tierney, WC. 8: Garcia, L.D. (2011).

Remediation in Higher Education: The Role of
Information. American Behavioral Scientist,
55:102. Retrieved on March 14, 2011 from
http://abs/sagepub.com/content/55/2/ 102.

US. Census Bureau (2009). 2005-2009
American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates: Data Profile Highlight —

California. Retrieved on April 22, 2011

from http://WWW.factfinder.census.gov/
servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&_
name:8z_state=O4000USO6&Submit.
x:13&Submit.y=7&_county=&_cityTown=&_
zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph&_
submenuId=factsheet_1.

Venezia, A., Bracco, K.R., 8r Nodine, T.

(2010). One—shot deal? Students’ Perceptions
of Assessment and Course Placement in
California’s Community Colleges. San
Francisco: WestEd.

25

26

Statement Signed By California Diploma
Project Signatories
8 April 2010

We come together in a shared commitment
to California’s economic future. We believe
that California’s position as a global leader in
innovation and creativity is inextricably tied to the
success of our state’s education system—preschool
through college (P—16)——in preparing students for
citizenship and careers in a complex, competitive
global environment.

'Ihe technical and policy analyses conducted by
Achieve for the California Diploma Project provide
a foundation for development of policies and
reforms in curricula, instruction, and educational
practices that will bring about closer alignment
between students’ performance in secondary
school and their readiness for college and careers.
Specifically, and as a first step toward a more
comprehensive approach to defining and assessing
readiness, the CDP has determined that satisfactory
performance in Reading/ Language Arts and
Mathematics as measured by the augmented 11th
Grade California Standards Tests (CST) used in
the Early Assessment Program (EAP) is one initial
indicator of the skills and knowledge needed to
enter non-remedial, credit-bearing baccalaureate-
level courses in California’s two-year and four—year
post-secondary education institutions. The EAP
assessment measures many of the expectations
articulated by the Inter—segmental Committee of
Academic Senates (ICAS), as well as the knowledge
and skills represented in California’s K-12 academic
standards, at a level that is consistent with national
and international academic standards and
assessment benchmarking.

 

We therefore commit ourselves to work
together to establish satisfactory student
performance on the EAP assessment as a common
indicator of readiness for non-remedial, credit-
bearing, baccalaureate-level coursework in all of
California’s colleges and universities. We recognize
that the unique needs and circumstances of
different segments and institutions will determine
the specific ways in which this indicator is put
to use. We further commit ourselves to work
collaboratively to improve the EAP assessment
and associated student outreach, intervention,
and academic preparation programs to ensure
alignment across all sectors.

We strongly support further work to establish a
better aligned P-16 education system that will help
all of California’s students to graduate from high
school ready for college and careers, by providing
students and their parents and teachers with clear
and consistent information about what it means
and what it takes to be ready. Among the next steps
we envision are:

I A collaborative and comprehensive effort by
all postsecondary institutions to help students
get ready for college, beginning with programs
already in place to support students in high
school through the EAP.

I Expanded use of the EAP assessment in all
postsecondary institutions as one indicator
of students’ readiness for placement in non—
remedial, credit—bearing baccalaureate-level
coursework.

I Adoption of curricula and instructional
strategies in P—12 schools to increase the
number of students who meet standards and
academic proficiency expectations for post-
secondary success.

Support for increasing the rigor of assessment
and accountability systems to more fully
assess the additional knowledge, skills and
habits of mind that young people need to be
ready for college and careers, and that give
students meaningful early signals (e.g., success
in English and math in grades eight and

nine) about whether they are on track toward
readiness.

27

 

 

 

 

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

IlllllllIll!Hill"lllllllllflfllll"llllHllllNlfllfllIll!

772E]

Policy
Analysis for

IA California

PACE Education

 

http://www.edpo|icyinca.org