Ready, Set, College? 1
College Readiness in Jeopardy
A Review of the Literature
Deborah Davis
Education Instruction & Curriculum 6601, Section 51
Professor Liu
June 07, 2010
Abstract
Concerns have been raised for years over whether high school graduates are ready for college. In order to determine that response, one must determine what is generally required of high school students, of college freshman, and whether those requirements meet. This literature review provides a perspective on College Readiness and gives direction towards fulfillment of educational desires.
College Readiness in Jeopardy
A Review of the Literature
Much literature has been written whether or not high school graduates are ready for college. In 2006, Stephan G. Katsinas and V. Barbara Bush(last names only – by APA) wrote a detailed article “Assessing what matters: Improving College Readiness 50 Years Beyond Brown” in which arguments about the [then] new No Child Left Behind Act are addressed. In 2007, Zulmara Cline, Joan Bissell, Anne Hafner, and Mira-Lisa Katz questioned whether there was more than fulfilling eligibility requirements in “Closing the College Readiness Gap.” In 2008, David T. Conley presented an article “Rethinking College Readiness” where he addresses variance in high school preparedness and the consequences.
Toward an understanding of the literature reviewed, and the comparison between those pieces, there are a few striking questions.
1. What is readiness?
2. Why is there a gap?
3. What can be done?
All three articles address all three questions, from a varying perspective and to varying degrees.
What is Readiness?
Best defined by Conley, readiness is “the degree to which previous educational and personal experiences have equipped them for the expectations and demands they will encounter in college(need page number).” Conley goes on to(further presented) a concept based on “four facets: key cognitive strategies, key content knowledge, academic behaviors, and contextual skills and knowledge” (p. 3).
Conley’s work provides sound definitions, but presents a slightly more convoluted perspective. However, Cline and others allow that the focus should be on “preparing students to succeed in college-level work rather than on fulfilling basic eligibility requirements that are primarily course- and grade-based.” Cline construes the problem in terms of the “50 percent of entering freshmen system wide [who] need remediation in English or mathematics.” That 50 percent is out of the 33 percent of high school seniors should(should be delete?)“should be eligible to enter the California State University system” (p. 30).
Cline’s desire to close the gap is echoed extensively by Katsinas and Bush. They define readiness as “a seamless system that improves articulation and degree completion, and that promotes a positive trajectory from our nation’s secondary schools into higher education” (p. 772). They further present their objectives in terms of three positive and two negative outcomes from high school.
Why is there a gap?
College instructors expect more from students. To make inferences and interpretations, to analyze and argue, to research and relate conclusions are all part and parcel of the expectations of college students. High school teachers are more likely to present the material slower, allow more time for responses, and generally expect less of the students. Pace is dramatically hastened as a student who may have been expected to lightly review two texts is required to consume and interpret several (Conley, 2008, p. 5). As Conley states, “In short, the differences in expectations between high school and college are manifold and significant” (p. 6).
Cline explains that “Statistics show that the dropout rate at the university level is significantly higher among those who arrive at college academically under prepared” (p. 30). Such an ideal may seem patently obvious, but students “often struggle in their first year as they attempt to meet strict college readiness requirements, often requiring a year or more of remediation” (p. 31). Cline refers to “habits of mind,” helping students succeed (p. 31). One of the interesting points is that in this area, Cline is actually quoting Conley’s article.
Katsinas and Bush present their issues of concern focused around the placement exams and the “quality of the test-taker’s college preparation” (p. 777). Their article further presents that a lack of college level course work leads to the natural consequence of an unprepared graduate (p. 777). While the Katsinas and Bush article presents a focus on under-privileged and minority students, there is a broad perspective application to those in the rural areas as well.
What can be done?
The ability for students to successfully matriculate to college and complete the first year without remediation is a harbinger for success through commencement. Beyond that, it is found that students who are challenged through high school will have greater success, not only in college, but in life.
To that end, Conley advises that students be challenged throughout their academic careers. Further, that key cognitive strategies, academic knowledge, academic behaviors, and information and its access, are critical elements to success (p. 7-10). “College knowledge is distributed inequitably in society” (p. 10). His baseline conclusion is that students who want to be college ready need to be set a standard of readiness, not just eligibility. For many who are eligible are unready.
Cline, et al, lays out the program incorporated in California. This broad program encompasses curriculum options, professional development for educators, and assessment methods (p. 31). “Students are encouraged to think rhetorically,” and they develop an ability to respond appropriately (p. 31). Assessments improved markedly under the new curriculum as administered by the newly trained educators. Consequently, students were better prepared for college, and more successful, requiring little to no remediation (p. 32).
According to Katsinas and Bush, “about 2/3 of high school graduates go on to college” (p. 780). The article addresses the matter that “the assessment mechanism drives system performance” (p. 781). The intense problem, also presented, is “the internal pressure” and focus on “micro-outcomes such as standardized, in-classroom test scores” (p. 781). Further, this article recommends and emphasis on “larger macro level indicators associated with . . . Positive outcomes of high school” (p. 781).
Conclusion
These three articles may have different foci, but the emphasis is the same. There is a difference between eligible for college and ready. When President George W. Bush said “We expect every child to learn” (Katsinas and Bush, 2006, p. 784), no one could disagree with that statement, but no one wanted classrooms mired in testing requirements and paperwork. While Katsinas and Bush were directing their work to the advances made and not made in the minority education community, their points stand equally valid among all students. Conley’s recommendation that “high schools and colleges can use the same language to communicate what it takes” (p. 12) is well taken. As Conley states, “Making certain that they are not just eligible but prepared will help students achieve their goals and help colleges function more effectively” (p. 12). Cline’s presentation that schools should “work together to ensure equitable opportunities for all students” would allow for students to be well prepared.
The distractions of high-standard testing have lured students and teachers away from the focus of the education they want to achieve. The solutions are out there. It is this author’s perspective that all that remains if for the students to place their desires squarely in front of them and set out on the race to success. Ready, set, College!
This literature review was very well written. No wonder you are such a qualified English professor to teach composition and writing.
You’ve earned 98/100 =A.
a)Quality/Clarification (thoroughness, depth, accuracy, and comprehensiveness) -30 pts.30/30
b)Grammar/Readability (correct spellings, language, mechanics, and sentence structures, etc) – 20pts. 18/20(Need a proof reading to remove typos or oral expressions)
c)Organization (Correctly presentation of the authors’ study purposes, methodologies and research findings; appropriate analysis and synthesis to present potential relationships if any) – 25 pts. 25/25
d)Punctuation (completion/submission on time) – 25 pts25/25
References
Cline, Z, Bissell, J, Hafner, A, & Katz, M. (2007). Closing the college readiness gap. Leadership, 37(2), 30-33.
Conley, DT. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education, 144(WI), 3-13.
Katsinas, SG., & Bush, VB. (2006). Assessing what matters: improving college readiness 50 years beyond Brown. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30, 771-786.