As early as 1952, educators were claiming that high school students could successfully complete their first two years of baccalaureate coursework in high school.  The reason for this assertion was that bright high school students were duplicating their high school course work in college, becoming intellectually bored and in the process losing interest in their educational pursuits.

Remarkably, today’s high school students are indeed overwhelming participating in collegiate study during their high school years.  In fact, the College Board reports that in 1999, almost 700,000 students were participating in the Advanced Placement Program in an attempt to receive college credit while still in high school (The College Board, 1999).  In forty-five years this program has grown from administering fewer than one thousand AP exams in its first year, to administering nearly one million exams in 1999 (The College Board, 1999).  Astoundingly, the College Board projects that in the year 2010, two million students in 23,000 US high schools will be participating in the Advanced Placement Program annually (The College Board, 2000).   This call for AP coursework in America’s high schools is not solely driven by the organization that sponsors the Advanced Placement Program.  In 2000, United States Secretary of Education, Richard W. Riley, referred to AP as an educational “gold standard” and challenged every high school across the country to “offer at least one Advanced Placement class by the year 2002, and to add at least one new course each year over the next ten years” (The College Board, 2000).

Of further interest, new research has found that community colleges are also increasing their involvement in college-level learning in the high school [CLLHS]and the number of participating high schools and students is growing at a significant rate (Barnes, 2001).   Perhaps even more compelling is the fact that college-level learning in high school programs are found in every state across the country (Crooks, 1998).

It has been determined that students, colleges, and universities are increasingly becoming involved in college-level learning in high school.  However, questions still remain regarding the ways in which colleges and universities formulate CLLHS policy in an attempt to harness the benefits of college-level learning in high school, and contemporaneously balance college-level learning in high school with their own unique educational philosophies and institutional needs.

In an effort to begin to respond to these stated issues, Johnstone identifies college-level learning as a means to increase a student’s learning productivity or educational achievement, through intellectually challenging a student to perform at his or her potential (Johnstone, 1993).  The Learning Productivity model focuses on college-level learning as a practice that may simultaneously increase student learning while decreasing educational costs by reduced years paying college tuition and lessening the drain in resources [financial and human] through less curricular redundancy and academic drift.

Years of research have determined that students who have participated in college-level programs enter the college classroom more prepared academically, more motivated and disciplined for college study and are more certain of their educational track Casserly, 1968, 1986).  College admissions offices have also interpreted college-level learning involvement as a measure of student’s academic ambition, which may be a favorable asset to students when seeking admission to selective colleges and universities (Herr, 1991; and Johnstone and Del Genio, forthcoming).  Universities also benefit from college-level learning programs because they admit better prepared students who are academically ready for advanced level college courses and therefore reduce the enrollment pressure on introductory freshman courses.  College-level learning in high school also benefits taxpayers by reducing costs to educate students who require fewer university courses to graduate (Adler, 1986).

College-level learning also has its opponents.  Issues of course quality, the transferability of college-level course credits, and skipping important entry college courses have all been cited as concerns in the proliferation of college-level learning in high school (Crooks, 1998; Radcliffe and Hatch, 1961; and Reisberg, 1998).   More specifically, higher education faculty have questioned the quality of college-level courses taught in high school.  Potentially, students may be advancing over necessary coursework and as a result are entering the sequent course under prepared.  The Lafayette College director of admissions expressed his reluctance to embrace college coursework in high school by exclaiming, “We believe a college-level course should be offered on a college campus, taught by a college professor, with college students in the room.  That’s the fundamental reason we do not recognize some of these gypsy courses” (Reisberg, 1998).

In reference to the Learning Productivity model, it may be anticipated that college-level learning in high school is significant both educationally and financially, especially considering that more and more students are entering higher education with college-level credit.  However, this educational and financial significance is only fully met when institutional policy is designed to embrace or encourage the utilization of college-level credit toward the baccalaureate.   Of further relevance is the notion that the level or degree to which institutions encourage college-level learning may be due to factors external (e.g. state system mandates, state legislation) as well as internal (e.g. educational and institutional philosophy) to the institution.

In an effort to reveal institutional policies for college-level learning in high school, a national study (Johnstone and Del Genio, forthcoming) was conducted that probed individual college and university CLLHS policies according to specific models.  This study confirmed speculation that the “proportion of entering students carry Advanced Placement credits would generally track [institutional] selectivity” (Johnstone and Del Genio, forthcoming) and as such those institutions with strict admissions standards were more likely to have their entering freshmen with “appreciable amounts of potential AP credits” (Johnstone and Del Genio, forthcoming).  This study also substantiated the educated assumption that orientation of college/university CLLHS policy toward granting graduation credit and thus “encouraging early graduation would also vary by selectivity” (Johnstone and Del Genio, forthcoming).  And finally, this national study also confirmed the well anticipated finding that the “most selective colleges and universities would be oriented toward the Advanced Placement program” (Johnstone and Del Genio, forthcoming) due to AP’s externally validated examination and the program’s history of serving the most academically ambitious and motivated high school students.

The Johnstone and Del Genio national quantitative study provides the only nationally expansive research regarding college/university CLLHS policies, and college/university purposes and practices for college-level learning in high school.  As a direct result of the aforementioned national study, additional questions emerged that conceivably may only be investigated through a qualitative research study. Therefore, this research, while being informed by the Johnstone / Del Genio national study has been designed as a comparative case study that investigates college and university reasons for, and histories of, its CLLHS policies and practices.  Furthermore, while the Johnstone / Del Genio national study surveyed chief academic officers, this research extends the inquiry to the different stakeholders within the institution including admissions personnel, faculty, chief undergraduate officer, and academic provost, and therefore offering a more comprehensive interpretation of CLLHS policy formation.

Specifically, this research is an investigation of institutional purposes for college-level learning in high school and the ways in which educational philosophy and institutional needs have influenced the design of current CLLHS policies.  Furthermore, this comparative study also examines the methods in which the participating colleges and universities have chosen to encourage college-level learning in high school in general and across the three CLLHS models [Advanced Placement, college-based and school-based].  In addition, the study explores the differences in response to college-level learning in high school from college/university administration and their faculty.  And finally, the study inquires into the institutional goals for college-level learning in high school.

College-Level Learning Models

The most noteworthy models of college-level learning have been categorized into three distinct groups :  (a) Examination-Based: The College Board’s Advanced Placement Program (AP) and the International Baccalaureate Program. (b) College or University-Based: courses are taken on the college/university campus with a regular college or university faculty member.  Instruction may also take place in the high school with the college instructor coming to the high school or instruction may take place via distance learning technology (i.e., interactive, synchronous television transmission). (c) School-Based: course are taught at the high school, by a high school teacher, who may be accorded adjunct status by the sponsoring college or university.

Methodology

This research study utilized qualitative research methodology to determine institutional policy[s] and practices for college-level learning and the rationale for these policies.  A database comprised of 451 US colleges and universities was utilized to identify case studies as well as to provide a national perspective of college and university college-level learning in high school [CLLHS] policy[s] and practices.

Institutions that were identified for case study were categorized in the following two groups: (1) High CLLHS Potential and High CLLHS Accommodation: institutions that have a significant number of entering freshmen with college-level credits and these institutions have generous CLLHS accommodation policies; or (2) High CLLHS Potential and Low CLLHS Accommodation: institutions that have a significant number of entering freshmen with college-level credits and these institutions have conservative CLLHS accommodation policies.

The Carnegie Classification (1994) was used for the purpose of selecting diverse case studies and to employ maximum variation among potential case studies so multiple situations may be represented.  COFHE membership was also used to identify potential case studies for the purpose of ensuring “most selective” colleges and universities.  The five cases for study were identified through purposeful sampling procedures (i.e., selectivity, willingness to participate in the study, and accessibility).
These following institutions were identified for study:

• Cornell University: Research I / COHFE / private,
• University of Michigan: Research I / public,
• SUNY Geneseo: Doctoral I – Masters II (collapsed classifications) public,
• Boston College: Doctoral I – Masters II (collapsed classifications) private,
• Wellesley College: Baccalaureate I / COFHE / private.

College/University Motivation for CLLHS

In the final analysis, the colleges and universities that were studied have responded to college-level learning in high school not for the purpose of having their students graduate early, but to enrich their students’ academic careers, to screen their student applicants for admission, and to ensure their students have the necessary academic preparation to succeed in a university classroom.

Each college and university had specific rationales for the way in which the institution responded to college-level learning in high school.  Regarding early graduation, faculty and academic administrators did not want their students to graduate early by using college-level credits to reduce time to the baccalaureate degree.   Colleges with a strong general educational philosophy -- Geneseo College, Wellesley College, and Boston College -- were concerned that students, by accepting college-level credit, would use these courses taken in high school to replace the college’s liberal arts or general education requirements.  The general education curriculum for these institutions is central to their students’ education, and as such creates a unifying undergraduate experience.   By contrast, the more research-oriented institutions -- Cornell University and the University of Michigan -- while not having a university-wide general education requirement, encourage their students to utilize their college-level learning in high school coursework so they may be placed directly into advanced level courses.  Being granted advanced placement does not, for these research-oriented universities, imply reducing the amount of credit toward the baccalaureate degree.  Instead, students are encouraged to take more upper-division level courses throughout their four undergraduate years.

Although this study’s research-oriented universities responded to CLLHS for the purpose of academic enrichment, this was not the sole motivation.  By nature of the high academic standards of the institutions studied, all cases encouraged student applicants to enroll in available college-level courses while in high school.  Successfully completed college-level coursework, especially Advanced Placement courses, was an indicator for these institutions’ admissions committees of the level of academic motivation and preparation of prospective students.  With the majority of student applicants at these colleges and universities completing college-level coursework, those that did not take advantage of these opportunities in high school find themselves at a distinct disadvantage when being considered for admission.

CLLHS: The Intersection of Policy and Philosophy

In this study, college-level learning in high school was found in some cases to assist in the fulfillment of educational and institutional goals.  In other cases, disparate educational and institutional goals were competing to harness the benefits of college-level learning in high school.  In these situations, institutional CLLHS policy and practice must balance both educational and institutional objectives.  For example, when Geneseo College began its evolution toward a selective liberal arts-oriented institution, a general education curriculum was constructed to capture the essence of the liberal arts.  At the same time, CLLHS participation was identified as a device to screen for academically talented and prepared students.  Furthermore, generous CLLHS accommodation policies were utilized to attract and recruit the top students -- which increasingly meant those with college-level learning experiences.  While Geneseo began to admit an increasing percentage of their incoming students with college-level coursework, Geneseo gradually was recognized as an academically prestigious institution.  As an additional benefit, these academically successful students (largely with CLLHS experiences) were prepared to take full intellectual advantage of the College’s liberal arts curriculum.  Today, despite Geneseo’s generous CLLHS accommodation practices, students are not relinquishing their liberal arts education.  From this perspective, Geneseo College has effectively managed to utilize CLLHS to serve both institutional needs and educational goals.

Other studied institutions, while not being in the process of increasing their institutional selectivity rankings, are also balancing the presence of CLLHS with their educational and institutional goals.  Deep applicant pools, national and international reputations, premiere academic programs, and world renowned faculty, have created remarkable conditions in which Cornell University, the University of Michigan, and Wellesley College have been, for the most part, able to dictate their purposes for college-level learning in high school.  Despite the appearance of an ideal situation, these institutions have also voiced important ideological concerns regarding the presence of CLLHS in secondary and higher education.  For these institutions, college-level learning in high school raised serious questions regarding equity of opportunity in secondary and postsecondary education.  It was repeatedly suggested that the disparity in access to CLLHS courses is increasing the knowledge gap between economically advantaged and disadvantaged students.  Further discussion also revealed grave concern regarding a student’s motive for participating in college-level learning in high school. Rather than being driven by intellectual curiosity, faculty and academic administrators voiced concern that students may be taking college-level courses for material advantage -- or for acceptance into prestigious colleges and universities.

Institutional concerns are not always driven by academic philosophy or policies.  At Boston College, college-level learning in high school was viewed cautiously because of its ability to disrupt enrollment formulas and the institution’s strictly regulated financial model.  Interestingly, because of Boston College’s current institutional position and its freedom from state or system regulations, academic administrators and faculty are able to ensure CLLHS policy can be crafted that supports both educational ideals and institutional needs.  Only Boston College among the cases was able to frame its purposes and policies for CLLHS that do not offend its educational ideology or compromise its institutional needs.  Therefore, Boston College has found itself in a unique position by being able to capture the benefits of CLLHS without ceding to its liabilities.

Even in those situations in which colleges and universities are considered free from external pressure surrounding the formation of CLLHS policies, college-level learning in high school has become, perhaps unwittingly, assimilated into high education.  Colleges and universities demand their student take these courses for selection purposes, faculty demand students are prepared for intellectually demanding courses, and the undergraduate curriculum relies on college-level experiences to augment a student’s baccalaureate education.  Therefore, college-level learning in high school is interpreted, with all its liabilities, as an integral part of a student’s educational experience: from acceptance to college or university to maximizing one’s learning productivity.

University Involvement in CLLHS: A Series of Contradictions

As colleges and universities attempt to capture the benefits of college-level learning in high school, some distracting concerns are also evident.  For example, the quality of college-level learning in high school is perceived as being incomparable to university experiences, even for those institutions that encourage CLLHS for academic enrichment and grant advanced placement.  For all colleges and universities studied, the most persistent concerns regarding academic quality and intellectual engagement surfaced with school-based courses.  Accordingly, most institutions did have policy in place that limited the acceptance of school-based coursework.

An uneasiness was evident in discussions with some study participants who perceived CLLHS distracting genuine intellectual motivation and curiosity.  Faculty and administrators found themselves conflicted by the demand for students to take CLLHS courses for acceptance to university and the degree to which this demand was circumventing the true reason for learning.  Further tension emerged as participants discussed their institution’s desire for students to engage in college-level learning in high school [and therefore are contributing to the perpetuation of CLLHS] for the purposes of academic preparation and educational enrichment, and at the same time voiced concern over a disparity in access to college-level courses and the subsequent impact this may have on the racial, ethnic and economic diversity of college/university campuses.  So while colleges and universities have identified CLLHS to assist in meeting their educational and institutional goals, paradoxically college-level learning in high school is also considered by faculty and academic administrators as an unwanted challenge to the traditional definition of secondary and postsecondary education; has raised questions regarding the essence of a university education; and has been perceived as limiting access to postsecondary education due to inequitable opportunities to engage in CLLHS.  The most compelling contradiction, despite these delineated concerns, is that colleges and universities do not object to creating and marketing their own CLLHS programs.

A Conclusion

For these selective colleges and universities, an historic purpose for CLLHS -- student academic enrichment in high school and college -- was found to be the primary motivation for student and institutional involvement in college-level learning in high school.  Advancement into sophomore or junior level courses secures a student’s ability to participate in additional upper-division courses throughout his/her undergraduate years.   Alternatively, this academic advancement may also be translated to mean ‘exempt’ from taking general education courses.

Traditionally, general education has been perceived as the unifying undergraduate experience that contemplates the broader issues of the human condition and assists in constructing an intellectually based world-view and as such, constitutes a critical element of a student’s baccalaureate education.  With college-level learning in high school encroaching on general education in our most esteemed American institutions of higher education, the value of a “liberal arts education” may be diminished.  (Of consequence, the study did find that an overarching general education curriculum no longer exists in two of America’s most prestigious research universities.)  Perhaps this study of college and university CLLHS policy formation has additional merit as it provokes greater reflection into the meaning, purpose, and value of higher education.

Throughout this study, it was generally found that academic philosophy was guiding the creation of college-level learning in high school policy.  If educational goals are significantly contributing to the development and purpose for CLLHS policy, ultimately students will be affected by these policies.  Therefore, colleges and universities should be forthright in their intentions for student participation in CLLHS, and equally as forthright in communicating to students and their parents the use of these credits toward the baccalaureate degree.

As repeatedly noted throughout this research, school-based programs received at best little respect.  For most of the case studies, a restrictive policy was initiated to limit or deny the use of school-based credit.  Unfortunately, for students in rural or urban districts that do not have the population or resources to provide Advanced Placement courses, these students may be at a disadvantage both in their chances for admission to these prestigious institutions, and academically for those admitted to the degree that CLLHS experiences were intended to augment their undergraduate education.  Finally, an unintended consequence of disparity of opportunity across CLLHS models may be that participation in a specific college-level program could be found to be directly related to a student’s race, socio-economic status, and geographic locale.  Ultimately, this may effect the level of diversity found at our most selective colleges and universities and equally as important, a student’s personal, educational, and professional opportunities.

Despite a readily apparent dissonance between CLLHS and educational philosophy, these studied cases were not only capitalizing on college-level learning through sponsorship of programs, but in some cases [Cornell University and the University of Michigan], were expanding the CLLHS typology to meet unique institutional goals.  By expanding the typology, these institutions introduced a new CLLHS paradigm that, by design, offered either limited credit or no credit for a student’s successful completion of college-level work.  In essence, CLLHS was captured to project this institutional value: education for the pure sake of learning.

References

Adler, Henry L (1986) “How colleges and universities employ credit and placement for
advanced academic studies”. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 263 842).

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, Learning Productivity Network: The State University of New York at Buffalo.

Casserly, Patricia A. (1968a) “What college students say about AP – 1963, Part I,” College Board Review v69.

Casserly, Patricia A. (1986) “AP Revisited,” College Entrance Examination Board. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 278 719).

The College Board Web Site (August 31, 1999) “Percentage of schools in AP.”
<http://www.collegeboard.org/index_this/press/senior99/html/apschlch.html>

The College Board Web Site (August 31, 1999) “School report of AP examinations (by state), News from the College Board. <http://www.collegeboard.org/index_this/press/senior99/html/apexams.html>

The College Board Web Site (April 5, 2000) “College Board president launches National Action Plan to bring Advanced Placement Program (AP) to every high school.” http://www.collegeboard.org/press/html9900/html/000405.html>

Crooks, Kimberly A. (1998) State Enhancement of College-Level Learning for High School Students: A Comprehensive National Policy Study & Case Studies of Progressive States. Unpublished dissertation, Learning Productivity Network: The State University of New York at Buffalo.

Johnstone, D. Bruce (1993) “Learning Productivity: A new imperative for American higher Education,” Studies in Public Higher Education, n3. Office of the Chancellor, SUNY: Albany, New York.

Johnstone, D. Bruce and Beth Del Genio (forthcoming) College-Level Learning In High School: Purposes, Policies And Practical Implications. American Association of Colleges and Universities: Washington, DC.

Radcliffe, Shirley and Winslow R. Hatch (1961) “Advanced standing: New dimensions in higher education,” No. 8. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 145 734).

Reisberg, Leo (June 26, 1998) “Some professors question programs that allow high-school students to earn college credits,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, A39.