The unprecedented work to design assessment systems for the Common Core State Standards is bringing together K-12 and higher education in new ways. But it is also forcing new and sometimes uncomfortable discussions about the heart and soul of the enterprise: the meaning of college readiness.
Both the collaboration and the tensions were on display here recently as K-12 and collegiate leaders from the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, one of the two federally funded state assessment consortia, met to discuss a draft definition of college readiness in mathematics and English/language arts that would undergird the performance levels on its tests in 2014-15.
At issue was the approval of a draft statement to circulate for further input. But three hours of discussion by the three dozen K-12 and higher education representatives from 18 states couldn鈥檛 produce the necessary consensus, so the statement will undergo further revision and a vote before its release. A revised draft was released for public comment July 12.
The draft discussed at the June 20 meeting would deem 鈥渃ollege ready鈥� students who scored at 鈥淟evel 4鈥� or above on a five-level test. Level 4 would be pegged to the 鈥減roficient鈥� level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress and be set so that 75 percent of students who reached that level would earn Cs in entry-level, credit-bearing courses in English composition and literature, or college algebra and introductory statistics.
For the 11th grade test, scoring at Level 5 would mean that students are 鈥渧ery likely to succeed鈥� in those courses, and scoring a 4 would mean they are 鈥渓ikely to succeed,鈥� according to the draft statement. Those who score 3鈥檚 鈥渕ay succeed,鈥� while 2鈥檚 are 鈥渦nlikely to succeed and 1鈥檚 鈥渧ery unlikely鈥� to do so.
On the tests in grades 3-8, the draft describes those who score at Level 5 as 鈥渧ery well prepared to engage successfully in further study,鈥� while a 4 means they are 鈥渨ell prepared,鈥� a 3 means students 鈥渕ay need some targeted support,鈥� a 2 means they 鈥渨ill likely need targeted support,鈥� and a 1 means they 鈥渨ill likely need intensive intervention.鈥�
The Meaning of C
As soon as those guidelines were unveiled, the questions and disagreements began.
Mitchell D. Chester, the commissioner of education in Massachusetts and the chairman of PARCC鈥檚 governing board, asked whether the likelihood of earning a C was a good proxy for college success.
鈥淲hen I went to college, a C was not good. Has the world changed since then?鈥� Mr. Chester said, prompting chuckles around the room.
Ron Jackson, the commissioner of Georgia鈥檚 system of technical colleges and a member of PARCC鈥檚 college-readiness advisory group, said that formula figured large in the group鈥檚 discussions.
Talks had focused on setting the Level 4 cutoff score so that 67 percent of students reaching it would earn B鈥檚 in entry-level, credit-bearing college courses. That 67 percent was revised to 75 percent, and the B changed to a C. That happened because higher education representatives agreed that a C is a passing grade, Mr. Jackson said, and because it would be a 鈥渢ough sell鈥� to persuade state legislators and others鈥攚ho will decide whether to use the PARCC results to let students skip remedial college work鈥攖hat students aren鈥檛 college-ready unless they are likely to earn Bs in entry-level, credit-bearing courses.
Michael Cohen, the president of Achieve, a Washington-based group that manages PARCC, asked educators whether the proposed language would 鈥渞aise the bar,鈥� essentially making it tougher for students to get into credit-bearing courses. Answers suggested that at least in some states, it would.
Debra Stuart, a vice chancellor with the Oklahoma regents for higher education, said that currently about half the students who pass state college-placement tests earn Cs in entry-level courses. David Crook, a dean for research and assessment at the City University of New York, said that about 60 percent of the students who pass the New York regents exams in high school with a 鈥渃ollege ready鈥� score of 75 earn Cs or better in CUNY entry-level English/language arts courses.
Much of the debate centered on the proposed language to describe students鈥� level of mastery.
Some higher education representatives, for instance, questioned the description of high-scoring high school students as 鈥渧ery likely to succeed.鈥� They noted that many factors come into play for college success that won鈥檛 be gauged by the PARCC assessment, such as persistence and motivation. PARCC officials acknowledged as much, including in the draft language phrasing that says the tests seek to gauge only the academic skills necessary for college.
Mr. Jackson and some other higher education representatives suggested that the 鈥渨ell prepared鈥� language from the grade 3-8 description be extended to high school, so students scoring at Level 4 would be deemed 鈥渧ery well prepared鈥� for entry-level, credit-bearing courses.
Others favored the success-oriented language, saying it gives a clearer signal that preparation would actually translate into good performance. 鈥淭hose nuances are important,鈥� said Deborah Grossman-Garber, the assistant commissioner for planning and policy at the Rhode Island board of governors for higher education.
One revision that was floated before the group, focusing on the potential need for intervention or supports for students who scored 3 or below, drew a frustrated response from some board members.
Tony Bennett, the commissioner of education in Indiana, questioned why the test had to have five scoring levels if Level 3 would invite remediation in high school or college. He pushed for four levels, with a clear 鈥渃ollege ready鈥� determination at Level 4.
鈥淛ust tell the truth,鈥� said Bernard J. Sadusky, Maryland鈥檚 interim superintendent of schools. 鈥淎re you likely to succeed?鈥�
Some saw value in a Level 3 category for its potential to describe students鈥� college readiness with 鈥渁 nuanced approach,鈥� instead of 鈥渆ither black or white,鈥� as Jeffrey Nellhaus, who oversees PARCC assessment development, said.
Others said a Level 3 score could help trigger interventions for students on the cusp of being college-ready and could help colleges better evaluate what students need when they enter.
Deborah Gist, Rhode Island鈥檚 commissioner of education, said she could envision community colleges sitting down with entering students who had scored a 3 and evaluating their broader records, including their grade point averages, to decide course placement and appropriate supports.
Students who score a 3 in 11th grade could also be good candidates for senior-year coursework to boost their skills, said Mr. Jackson.
Some participants in the meeting found the meaning of a Level 3 score problematic to explain to lawmakers and others in their home states.
鈥淚n most people鈥檚 minds, college readiness is either you are or you aren鈥檛,鈥� said Stan W. Heffner, Ohio鈥檚 superintendent of schools. If a Level 3 score means students are ready for college with appropriate supports, that 鈥渨iggle room鈥� could be confusing, he said.
Other Issues
Some higher education representatives also took issue with the specific courses named in the proposed description. Instead of connoting the chance of success in English composition and literature, they would prefer that a college-ready score predict success in composition and a wide range of courses in various disciplines that demand reading skill, Mr. Jackson said.
Another part of the draft came in for criticism, too. It proposed that the college-ready determination be honored for 16 months, to accommodate students who don鈥檛 go directly into college, or who don鈥檛 take math or English their senior year in high school. But Mr. Jackson said he and his colleagues oppose that, because they have found that students who are continuously enrolled in math and English through their senior year do better in their college courses.
Despite the tensions and disagreements in the debate about the meaning of college readiness, the leaders around the table agreed that the conversation is important.
鈥淣o matter what the resolution on this is, this is a great signal of joint communications,鈥� said Janet Barresi, Oklahoma鈥檚 schools chief.
鈥淗ow powerful to have higher ed. and K-12 sitting together on this,鈥� Massachusetts鈥� Mr. Chester said. 鈥淭hat is huge.鈥�
