by Kenneth J. Barnes, Ph.D.
Introduction
As access to
higher education increased in the 1970s with the expansion of community
colleges, so did the demands to
prepare high
school students for college entry. With more and more students entering
college rather than opting for a full-time job or entering the armed services,
the need for quality programs and opportunities that would equip these
students to make a successful transition from high school to college became
apparent. Educators recognized the need to research new ways of facilitating
the movement of students from secondary to post-secondary institutions
during this time as costs for education were rising and economic resources
became scare (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1973). Educational
institutions responded by developing collaborative initiatives to provide
for such a transition from school to college by forming linkages with other
educational institutions at all levels. These early collaborations
provided the affordable means for post-secondary institutions to communicate
directly with secondary schools and to create opportunities to share resources
with one another.
This study investigated one such school-college linkage in New York State which, while growing rapidly, raised important academic and financial questions. Specifically, this research examined the practices of community colleges of the State University of New York (SUNY) that are providing college credit courses which are deemed to be college-level, but are taught by high school teachers to high school students within the regular high school academic schedule [known as school-based college-level learning, Johnstone, forthoming; Barnes, 2001].
School-Based College-Level Learning
The school-based form of college-level learning is logistically a convenient way for individual colleges to make arrangements with a nearby school or school district to offer college-level courses. Thus, high school students can take college classes without leaving the familiarity of their surroundings, and and the high school instructors are presumed to teach the equivalent of college-level classes in various subject areas.
School-based learning is also problematic, and controversy exists as to whether such courses are truly equivalent to the sponsoring college's courses in content and rigor (i.e. same in syllabi, tests, assignments, texts, grading) and whether teacher quality is adequate for that particular college-level course. With school-based learning, quality assurance is a concern: whether the learning (even limited to subject matter mastery) is genuinely college-level. Therefore a fundamental concern is that since school-based learning relies on high school teachers and courses given in the high school without external assessment for quality control, "leaving them open to the suspicion on the part of college and university faculty that courses in the high school environment taught by high school teachers cannot be counted upon to be legitimately college-level" (Johnstone, 1998).
A Research Agenda
In light of the rapid growth of SUNY community college school-based programs, the community colleges were selected as the primary focus for this study, instead of the four-year colleges and university centers. Although the fundamental issue in college-level learning in high school [CLLHS] is whether the learning is indeed college-level, this study attempted to answer a prior, more descriptive question: What is the extent and nature of school-based college-level learning sponsored by SUNY community colleges?
There are obvious reasons for colleges to sponsor school-based college-level learning. These include: (a) revenue generation [from FTE student headcounts, upon which base aid is given]; (b) minimal instructional costs to the community college due teaching being conducted in the high school by high school teachers; (c) ease of course registration; (d) college marketing advantages from enlisting students while they are still in high school; and (e) stimulation of additional collaborations between the high school and community college. Finally, for the student, the opportunity exists to obtain and transfer school-based college credit; this is preferable to the more rigorous AP programs where the grade is based on a single examination.
In New York State, community colleges have been facing budgetary shortfalls and increasing revenue through such college-level courses offerings may be the beginning of a trend to expand existing markets to include high school attendees into the headcounts for FTE revenue. Such institutional behavior is contrary to the historical expansion of SUNY community colleges when "responding to economic growth" was the motivating factor. Meanwhile, rapid growth rates of school-based course offerings are generating revenues faster than quality assurance policies and procedures can be put in place.
A Review of the Literature on College-Level Learning
A review of
the literature on college-level learning shows an abundance of new research
by Johnstone and the University at Buffalo's Learning Productivity Network
of Barba, Crooks, Cusker, Barnes and Del Genio. In Johnstone's 1998
"College-Level Learning in High School: Promises, Threats and Challenges",
he states that "the promise of college-level learning lies
in its potential
to lessen the duplication between the high school and college curricula,
to get the high school student more quickly into the context and expectations
of collegiate learning....". This suggests that curriculum coordination
is needed at both the secondary and college levels as school-based courses
are developed. Such credit potential gives rise to college and school
collaborations as competition among colleges increases and high school
students respond along with parents to the possibilities to earn college
credit and save money.
These practical outcomes are directly linked to Johnstone's earlier writing (as Chancellor of SUNY, 1988-1994), "Learning Productivity: A New Imperative for American Higher Education" (Johnstone, 1993). Here, Learning Productivity is defined as "more learning for the same costs or equal learning for less cost."
A major focus of this school-based college-level learning study is the increasing participation by community colleges with high schools. High school students simultaneously taking college-level courses for college credit while meeting the requirements for secondary school graduation is on the rise. Research by Crooks (1998) regarding state enhancement of college-level learning for high school students, points out that "college-level learning is growing in this country as state advocates of state reform favor college-level learning as a means to raise educational standards, increase academic rigor and expand student opportunities." For example, lawmakers in Minnesota, considered the most active state with respect to promoting CLLHS instituted a series of state enhancements for collegiate learning in the 1980s, based on the notion that colleges might force secondary schools to become more responsive to the needs of students and parents (Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, March 1996).
Methodology
Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were applied to collect data for analysis within these four sectors: community colleges; high schools; SUNY; and New York State Education Department [NYSED]. A questionnaire ("Addendum" Questionnaire given to SUNY's community college presidents or vice presidents) was to obtain data from the 30 SUNY community colleges (29 of 30 questionnaires were completed and analyzed).
In addition four SUNY community college case studies were conducted along with these colleges' partnering high schools. The college case study participants included: community college president, vice president for academic affairs, a member of the faculty senate and the faculty union. The high school participants included: principal, "adjunct" teachers, and teacher union representatives. And finally, interviews with staff of SUNY and NYSED were conducted and policy documents were examined and analyzed.
This research attempted to address the following questions:
The number of high school student participants more than doubled as the number of school-based course sections increased over 60% from 1998-1999. Logistically, the school-based form of college-level learning is a convenient way for individual colleges to make arrangements with a nearby school or school district to offer college-level courses. Thus, high school students can take college classes without leaving the familiarity of their surroundings, and the high school instructors are presumed to teach the equivalent of college-level classes in various subject areas.
In New York State, the funding formula encourages school-based college-level learning because FTE (full-time Equivalent) aid is available to all community colleges that enroll high school students in credit programs (using a formula of 1 FTE = $2,125 per student FTE revenue from the state to the college). This funding formula for state aid is the same for all community college students--including high school students. During the time of this study, the extent of SUNY community college participation in school-based learning has dramatically increased, along with FTE reimbursements for high school student headcounts. Also, the study has determined that these same students are simultaneously counted by their school districts for base aid funding and by the community colleges in FTEs. Such practices result in the taxpayer paying twice for one-time instruction taught in the high school with little or no costs borne by the community college. The four SUNY community college case study figures reveal FTE revenue alone with a net of $1,324,512 for one year, 1998-1999 (based on $2,125 per FTE to the community college, that's without tuition and chargeback revenue).
For the high school, the case study principals and teacher "adjuncts" identified their reasons for participation in a school-based program, such as: (a) affordability of college credit early to students/parents and increased credit transferability for "time to degree" savings; (b) student/teacher self esteem values are heightened; (c) college-level course alternative to AP exists; (d) "block scheduling" accommodates year to semester course conversions and gives additional time for labs; (e) enrichment of the school's curriculum to meet college standards; and, (f) decrease course redundancy. However, adequate funding for professional development was found at only one of four case studies. And, no extra funds to compensate high school teacher "adjuncts" to teach school-based courses was found in either the questionnaire or case study data.
For the high school teacher "adjuncts" teaching these school-based courses, they placed a high value on the need for the college to ensure school-based evaluation and professional development. In regard to remuneration, school-based compensation equity issues were secondary to them.
For the most part, case study community college senate and union leaders' view the administration's justifications that such learning increases enrollments is-- unproven. And, the instructional quality of high school teachers teaching college-level courses is suspect, and there are no college funding mechanisms in the budget to provide an adequate quality assessment of teaching in the high schools.
The research questionnaire and case studies revealed that from "on-paper" course syllabus, texts, assignments and teaching credentials are consistent among the community colleges and high schools. However, only one of the four case studies provided contractual funding to the department chairs to conduct evaluative school-based assessment reviews at the high school.
On the other hand, a school-based program serves as a college-level learning alternative to Advanced Placement (AP). Unlike AP, school-based learning opens access to a variety of students. AP is more elitist than School-Based and AP is taught to the exam that serves to provide credit validation. The fact that a school-based course has no external validation is part of the objection raised by those critics from the four-year colleges who claim that these courses are not equivalent to the course taught on the college campus. Yet, discussions with school leaders indicate that the lack of external validation itself is not the main problem since New York State secondary schools have only minimal validation in the Regents exams, and most states have none. Moreover, college courses usually have no external validation.
Conclusions
The study is the first of its kind to provide a descriptive analysis of school-based learning while participation in such programs continues to rise among SUNY community colleges. The findings of this study should be useful to a number of parties, especially prospective or currently participating institutions offering school-based learning. Many states have been encouraging college-level learning in high school programs. This research presents information which can inform college and school administrators decisions about school-based college-level programs. The amount of the involvement in school-based programs by the institutions participating in this study, as well as the range of their policies, structures, support and practices will provide the basis for a deeper understanding of this phenomenon.
If school-based learning continues with such rapid growth, without adequate funding to provide professional services and evaluative quality assessment, academic integrity may be threatened. Such failure may affirm skepticism of four year colleges and universities that insist that college-level learning only takes place on a college campus.
To conclude, a disjunction exists as the rapidity of school-based growth is absent from the agenda of state policy to question school-based quality and finances. As the financial motivation for community college engagement in CLLHS becomes more suspect, school-based learning should be more closely examined. The findings from SUNY and the New York State Education Department interviews for policy and documents--produced these cooperative guidelines (excerpts below) which are available to SUNY community colleges in: SUNY Guidelines on college credit courses in high schools and SUNY Guidelines on Academic Good Practice.
First, "The quality of the teaching of the course is to be reviewed at each offering by full-time college faculty, ..., and end-of-term evaluation by the department or division chair."
And, "The appointing institution has a commitment to support the professional development of the high school teacher."
Recommendations
Boards of Trustees
and states should mandate funding that is necessary for college faculty
and high school teacher professional development, evaluation and assessment,
to guarantee that school-based quality control is in place at the high
school. Responsible leadership will ensure financial equity to alleviate
the overburdened high schools and preserve the essence of the college credit
course guidelines for New York State and other states whose colleges participate
in college-level learning with high schools. Academic standards for
such innovative credit programs which foster values of high esteem for
teachers and students, resulting in
"time to degree"
savings for parents and students must be maintained. Only then, can quality,
not expediency and self-interest, become a characteristic of school-based
college-level learning.
References
Barnes, Kenneth J. (2001) College-Level Learning in High School: A Study of SUNY Community College Sponsorship of "School-Based" College Credits in Participating High Schools. Unpublished dissertation, SUNY Buffalo.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (1973) Continuity and Discontinuity: Higher Education and the Schools.
Crooks, Kimberly (1998) State Enhancement of College-Level Learning for Hih School Students: A Comprehensive National Policy Study and Case Studies of Progressive States. Unpublished dissertation, SUNY Buffalo.
Johnstone, D. Bruce (1993) Learning Productivity: A New Imperative for American Higher Education. Studies in Public Higher Education: State University of New York.
Johnstone, D. Bruce (1998) "College-level learnin in high school: Promises, threats, and challenges," A research paper proposal to the Association for the Study of Higher Education 1998 Annual Conference. Miami Florida, Spring 1998.
Johnstone,
D. Bruce and Beth Del Genio (forthcoming) College-Level Learning in
High School: Purposes, Policies and Practical Implications. Washington,
DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities.