I will introduce legislation to double Utah’s college completion rate over the next 8 years. Currently, our state system graduates about 40% of its students. By comparison, BYU graduates its students at twice that rate. With slight changes to existing programs, the institutions in the Utah System of Higher Education (“USHE”) can graduate 80% of their students by 2020. This legislation will fit well with Governor Herbert’s existing goal of having 66% of our population obtain a post-secondary degree, since that would be a mathematical impossibility with our current completion rate.
The reason for Utah’s low completion rate is poor college preparation. Students requiring developmental courses likely will not graduate college. Yet, the vast majority of students entering the USHE system do require developmental courses. Thus, it is to be expected that most will not complete.
Students who require developmental courses in college have less than a 25% likelihood of completing – no matter where they go to college. Some might want to dispute this statistic, by pointing to their own experience. They went to college unprepared, but managed to complete. The key is to understand that those individuals do not disprove the well-established rule. Rather, those individuals simply are part of the 25% of unprepared students who manage to complete. For every one of those individuals, there are three others who went to college unprepared and did not complete.
To increase college completion rates – and to reach Governor Herbert’s lofty 2020 goals – our task must be to increase the readiness level of students entering the USHE system. Do that, and completion rates will follow.
The good news is that Utah is tremendously well-positioned to accomplish this task. We have significant experience actually doing it. As I described in this post, we already know how to effectively remediate struggling students. We first determine their academic weaknesses. Then, we address those items with an adaptive learning program that constantly assesses mastery while teaching, so that students either master the task at hand and move on to the next task or, if they don’t master it, circle back and readdress the task. This kind of individualized assessment and instruction is a must for real progress. And, remember, this kind of remediation happens every day on our college campuses.
But that speaks to the root of our problem. We remediate our students too late. Once students hit college, they have a clock working against them. As Stan Jones from Complete College America points out, the longer it takes a college student to get through college, the less likely it is for that student to complete. Remediation works against the clock, and it adds significant expense to the cost of college. Thus, we are remediating our students after they have reached a point when their deficiencies likely will preclude them from graduating. Therefore, my plan is to have USHE work with our K-12 system, to package USHE’s remedial expertise for use by K-12 students and, to the desire they want to use it, Utah’s school districts and charter schools.
Under our current system, not suggesting fault by anyone, it is a nearly impossible for our hard-working K-12 instructors to individualize their instruction, without these adaptive instructional tools. Without these tools, we simply cram too many students in a classroom – with too wide a range of abilities – to expect individualized instruction. We teach the herd. Some students are bored, and others are lost. But, with these tools, all students can receive instruction appropriate to their level of understanding.
The assessment tool would be available online, free to students and their families. (Unlike the ACT/SAT testing, students could retake this test as many times as they want, each time learning the specific things they need to work on). On a strictly voluntary basis, students could take the test and, on their own, work to complete the individualized instruction. However, the experience of our colleges suggests that the remedial education works far better with accompanying classroom instruction. Thus, Utah high schools should offer the remedial courses as part of their curriculum. However, some school districts might not want to deliver the courses or might want to address college readiness in other ways. Thus, the decision whether to offer the courses as part of the high school curriculum would best be left to the discretion of each school district and charter school. Where public schools decide not to offer the courses as part of the curriculum, it can be expected that private providers would step up and offer the classroom component of the course for families that are able and willing to pay for the extra advantage.
USHE institutions spend tremendous sums of money dealing with the effects of unprepared students. Were an effective program to eliminate many of those remediation costs, USHE institutions would benefit from the savings. Thus, it can be expected that each institution would provide financial incentives to encourage incoming students to utilize the assessment and, if necessary, the remedial tools, before enrolling at the institution.
Development of an effective remediation program for high school students, while still in high school, will significantly boost college readiness and, as a result, college completion rates. But, the goal, of course, is not to remediate high school students, but, instead, to have them acquire core competencies as they progress through the K-12 system. We also can do that, and we are working to do that. I have tremendous faith in the leadership being provided by Superintendent Shumway and our State Board. But, it will take more time and money to address the systemic issues than it will take to develop the USHE remediation program. Thus, if handled properly, the USHE remediation program that I outline here will provide a bridge, with one-time money, to allow public education to move forward with the college/career readiness program that it currently is developing.
My plan is to start with a USHE remedial math program, because this is our area of greatest need. I will seek a one-time appropriation of $5 million, which I believe is a realistic sum, based on USHE’s experience developing concurrent enrollment classes. In developing these assessment and instruction tools, Utah will benefit from the significant baseline resources USHE currently has – specifically, the experience of our USHE institutions in providing remedial courses – and we benefit from USHE’s experience in delivering concurrent enrollment courses to Utah high school students.
As soon as we have learned valuable lessons from our remedial math courses, we will utilize those lessons to improve our USHE math remediation program and to add a remedial English course.
We can do this. And, by doing this, we will significantly improve our State and the lives of thousands of our citizens. Governor Herbert called a moonshot. This is his rocket.
I am in total support of your desire to increase our states higher education graduation rate. The comparison of the state schools to BYU’s rate is not a fair comparison since BYU has different admission standards and therefore has a distinct advantage when it comes to freshmen students, which in turn relates directly to graduation rates. With that said “when and where do we start”. I would love to be a part of anything secondary and post secondary that will increase student access and academic success. It is about time we adressed our states weakness concerning post secondary graduation rates.
Rick,
Thanks. As to your stated reason why it is not fair to compare state schools to BYU, well, that actually is my entire point. BYU does better because it admits better prepared students. Yes. Likewise, to do better, Utah schools also need to admit better prepared students, meaning that USHE must work w/ Utah public schools to develop college-readiness courses that will make sure that the students going to Utah schools likewise are prepared.
Assuming my previously stated observations about programs like Southwest High are correct, what savings would be realized by implementing what would amount to Adult Early Intervention in the High Schools over a traditional curriculum? Don’t you already have that with the Alternative High Schools and Adult Education, anyway? It seems like a tremendous risk to take to apply it to the general student population. Now, on the other hand, if you are simply encouraging teachers,counselors and parents to steer college bound students with academic insufficiencies to free online independent study programs as a personal option outside of the curriculum, go for it.
Predictive assessments through the ACT, SAT, placement exams, and High School grades may catch some potential failures, but often the only viable assessment of a student’s ability at the college level is the first year’s GPA. The structures already in place, admissions and placement requirements, academic warning/probation/suspension, while sometimes unpleasant, do a good job of getting people into the program that is right for them, getting them into Developmental courses, if needed, or getting them out of Higher Ed altogether (like it or not, it is usually for the best, and they can, and often do, try again later and succeed.).
Open Enrollment institutions provide the academic safety net for our USHE students. Students who do not have adequate academic skills to enter competitive entry schools have the opportunity to improve and graduate with a Certificate, an Associate of Applied Science, or an Associate Degree, and if their grades warrant it, they may apply to transfer to a more prestigious institution. I agree that most of our institutions of higher learning could solve some of their enrollment and graduation issues by applying/raising admissions standards, however, I believe that it is imperative that there remain a level of institution that can act as a safety net for those who need some time to adapt to the academic and financial rigors of higher education, or to restart an aborted or failed attempt earlier in life. SLCC and the ATCs are in the best position to provide this environment. (There is some movement to decrease SLCC’s student population by increasing admissions requirements, but I think that is a bad idea. While there is a need for another 4-year college in Salt Lake County, like UVU to the South, or Weber to the North, there will always be a need for an Open Community College in the Salt Lake Valley. Don’t allow mission creep to take away a needed asset in Utah’s population center.)
I am a bit concerned that you are directing your comments at all of USHE. Certainly there is considerable variability of graduation rates within that blanket 40% rate. I would be interested to know if there is any breakdown of graduation rates by institution. I would hope that the U and USU, with their more rigorous admissions requirements, would have far better results than SLCC. If that is the case, I would have to say that it is what it is. You have already screened for the better students. Those with lower academic abilities, for whatever reason, or fewer financial resources, will be attending the smaller regional 4-year institutions, or SLCC or an ATC. After that, graduation rates will be more a function of financing and evolving goals.
Gov, Herbert’s goal for increasing graduation rates is a noble idea, but if he starts applying an iron bed to the full spectrum of students in USHE, he risks making the lives of a lot of voters miserable.
There is tremendous pressure these days for everyone to have at least an Associate Degree. Many people who, in my time would have been content with their High School Diploma and some specific training, are now pressured to get a degree. Not everyone is cut out to be successful in Higher Ed. A lot of what makes an excellent student is innate. For the same reason you can’t train a 5′10″ Point Guard in Basketball to be a 6′10” Center, you can’t (o.k., maybe rarely) turn a poor student into an excellent student, and sometimes not even into an average student.
We were not created with a cookie cutter. We all have our place in the World, but it is up to the individual to find it, not the State. We should all be given equal opportunity, but when you try to mandate equalized outcomes, you must move to the lowest common denominator. Is that really going to be good for our Society, Economy and Culture?
Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew,
I’m not sure your comments relate to the actual content of my post. Education is development of competencies and, with those, critical thinking and communication skills. In math, for example, each competency builds on the previous foundation. We move from addition to subtraction, to multiplication, to division, etc. Technology now can help assess what students know/don’t know, and it can help tailor instruction to fill those gaps. My plan is to determine our students’ weaknesses and remediate them. If, of course, you see things differently, that is your prerogative. But, the only thing my plan puts at risk is a status quo that is failing our students.
Sen Urquhart,
Thank you for your response,
I admit, my comment was to some extent a continuation of my previous posts but it does address the subject.
To be more specific, I disagree with your statement that low graduation rates are a result of poor preparation under USOE. There are myriad reasons why students choose to quit or interrupt their schooling. Poor preparation is only one of them.
I disagree that it is USOE’s responsibility to prepare all of its students for college. It is my opinion that it is the college bound students’ responsibility to use what resources are available while they are the responsibility of USOE to prepare themselves for college. Your voluntary (student, not District) option would fit nicely.
I do not have the same level of confidence that you exhibit in individualized/independent study schemes.
It is my opinion that people develop intellectually and emotionally at different rates. Many people are not ready for Higher Ed right out of high school, but may be very successful later in life. Many people will never succeed in Higher Ed, no matter how capable the remedial/developmental scheme.
I do not feel that moving Developmental funds from USHE to USOE will obviate the need for Developmental funding with USHE. If you have money for both, great.
I think the systems already in place do, or can do what you want.
Perhaps you should start out with a resolution to encourage the voluntary option for individual students?
Thanks,
Andrew
I apologize for not addressing your final comment, “…the only thing my plan puts at risk is a status quo that is failing our students.”
Those are strong words and I am not in complete disagreement with the “failing our students” part. I strongly disagree with your statement that your plan only puts at risk the status quo. What you propose is a radical shift in the way education is practiced in the State. A flawed status quo may still be preferable if your plan proves equally, or more, inadequate to the task.
Now, if you proceed in the slow, measured way you propose, perhaps all will turn out wonderfully. $5 million is not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things and it would be interesting to know if independent study is a viable alternative to conventional classroom presentation. A 6 to 8 year study might provide the foundation needed for system wide implementation.
Research is used to justify action. The problem is that for every study that supports a given position, you can often find one or more that proves the contrary — especially in education. My observation over the years has been that, in the end, might makes right.
My concern is that you seem to be very eager to see this plan implemented. It certainly has the potential to dramatically improve the academic success of our students, with the added potential of reducing costs significantly. I would hope that, should the results from your pilot program, or anywhere along the path toward full implementation, not meet your original expectations of academic success, you will be able to back off and look for other alternatives. However, once institutional momentum kicks in, there may be no turning back until the whole thing crashes, though hopefully it won’t.
I remember the educational fads of the ’60’s and ’70’s: The New Math, Phonetics, Open Classrooms. I always felt slighted because the New Math was introduced in the next year younger than mine. It nags me still that that may be why I never became an engineer.
On the other hand, I had a roommate in college. He was a literature major and a pretty good author, but he couldn’t spell to save himself. He was a victim of the Phonetics experiment.
Muir School, in Bountiful, was an award winning design with an open classroom layout. Fortunately, they were able to successfully convert it back to conventional separate classrooms, once the euphoria wore off and reality set in. Other schools were not so fortunate and had to be abandoned.
In a post to a previous discussion, I mentioned my daughter’s experience in Summer School. Independent Study may be very successful for a particular type of student, but for her, it didn’t work very well — in my estimation. I am sure that it could be argued that the plan was fine but it was not implemented properly. Maybe so, but the same could be said of the current structure, could it not? My wife has encountered a number of Early Enrollment students who obtained their High School Diplomas through programs similar to those you have described. On taking the placement tests, many of them were placed in Developmental courses. Some of those who placed into “regular” courses struggled. Some did just fine. Should I take that to justify condemnation of Independent Study? Maybe.
If you have stayed with me this far, what I am saying is don’t get caught up with a fad. The conventional classroom has stood the test of time, and many fads. Independent Study can be a great supplement to conventional education, for some. Don’t commit to a major shift in education policy until you can prove, without equivocation, that what you propose will work with the majority of students, that you can deal with those for whom it doesn’t, and that it shows significant improvement in academic performance in USHE (Performance in Concurrent Enrollment Classes shouldn’t count. I won’t hold you to improved graduation rates, but it would be a plus).
On the other hand, you are a State Senator and Chair of the Higher Education Appropriations Subcommittee and you likely have the power to leverage whatever you feel is right — and I hope, for the sake of our students, that you are.
Good luck with your endeavors.
Respectfully,
Andrew
I can see Utahs four year institutions simply raising their admissions standards to meet BYU’s standards and then calling it good. Just like SUU is doing. Raise admissions standards and you equally raise the quality of student. I support your concept of helping the high schools better prepare the student than higher Ed raising admission standards.
Rick,
I think the U, USU, and SUU should raise their standards incrementally. It would help high school students know that something is expected. And, it would help those institutions achieve their lofty missions. But, as I believe you are suggesting, it is, to some degree, like squeezing a tube of toothpaste; it just pushes the unprepared students elsewhere — if we don’t better prepare them.
I very excited to get a tutorial at noon today on Shmoop, which, apparently, does what I am suggesting (assessing student’s educational deficits and, then, prescribing an individualized remediation plan) for — wait for it — $2/students. Solutions are out there that simply didn’t exist a few years ago!