levers f change · 2014. 9. 24. · or enter an ivy league institution. levers f change: ... a...

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

R E P O R TM A Y 2 0 0 7

EdSource® is a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization established in California in 1977.

Independent and impartial, EdSource strives to advance the common good by developing and widely distributing trustworthy, usefulinformation that clarifies complex K–12 education issues and promotes thoughtful decisions about California’s public school system.

IN 1992,THE CALIFORNIADepartment of Educa-tion issued Second to None: AVision of the New CaliforniaHigh School. That documentarticulated a set of goals forthe state’s public educationsystem that—at the time—wereconsidered ambitious:

“More of our students must beeducated to higher levels than everbefore. At least 25% of those in thestate’s high school graduating classesshould earn bachelor’s degrees; another25% should earn associate degrees orequivalent degrees from a communitycollege; and at least 40% should makea successful transition from school towork after graduating; reducing thedropout rate to under 10%.”

Today, 15 years later, those goalsremain out of reach in California.Many say a credible estimate is thatonly seven out of every 10 studentsgraduate from high school on time.About half of those graduates godirectly to college. And for every twoCalifornia high school graduates whoimmediately enter a four-year publicuniversity, three enroll in communitycollege. The data are less clear re-garding how many go on to earn a

bachelor’s orassociate’s degree. Many students whodo not immediately enroll in a publicpostsecondary institution do get thereeventually, but they often struggle todevelop the basic reading, writing, andmath skills they need to succeed.

In other words, California’s highschools have yet to reach the goalsdescribed 15 years ago. Nonetheless,there is pressure to set the academic bareven higher. There is currently a call forthe state’s high schools to reduce drop-out rates dramatically and improve basicliteracy and numeracy skills. Manypeople also want more students—particularly those from historicallyunderserved groups—to have access torigorous courses that prepare them foruniversity admission and more generallyfor postsecondary success.

It is ironic that while the expecta-tions continue to increase, for most

students in Califor-nia the high school

experience—or atleast the organization

of the high schoolcurriculum—looks very

similar to what their parentsexperienced. Students take a

familiar set of courses to meet gradu-ation requirements; and in most highschools, those courses vary dependingon whether students are seen as beingon the path to college or not. In manyhigh schools, graduation requirementsdo not align with postsecondary readi-ness or workforce expectations.

Discussions about how to improvehigh schools have been going on fordecades, often focused on their or-ganizational structure. Increasingly,however, the high school reformdiscussion is focusing more deeply onthe curriculum—what gets taught,how, and to whom. There is littleconsensus about the solutions, and theconversations are often emotionallycharged. High school success is highstakes for students and the adults whocare about them, whether they areworking hard to pass the CaliforniaHigh School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)or enter an Ivy League institution.

Levers f Change:Opportunities to Strengthen

California’s High School Curriculum

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

E D S O U R C E R E P O R T

2 ● Levers for Change ● May 2007

There is substantial agreementabout some of the major goals thatCalifornia should pursue for its large,diverse high school population andabout where the education system fallsshort. Virtually everyone agrees that allstudents need a solid high schooleducation and that the current drop-out rate must be significantly lowered.

(See Figure 1.) Compelling evidenceshows that having a high schooldiploma is absolutely necessary forsuccess in today’s economy. Theconsensus is also growing that somepostsecondary education or training isessential for almost any young personwho wants access to a good career anda middle-class lifestyle.

At the same time, too many oftoday’s high school graduates do notpossess the skills they need to beprepared for work and postsecondaryeducation. And many schools do notprovide all their students with the quality of curriculum and instructionneeded to develop those skills. Putbluntly: some students receive a greateducation while others do not, and low-income students of color aredisproportionately in the latter cate-gory. This concern is reinforced byemployer surveys that indicate frus-tration with entry-level workers andhigh remediation rates for English and math in California’s communitycolleges and many California StateUniversity (CSU) campuses.

The consensus begins to fall apart,however, when people consider whichhigh school curricular reforms wouldhelp the greatest number of studentsreach these goals. People differ onwhether a lack of rigor or a lack ofstudent engagement is the biggerproblem—and whether rigor andengagement need to be viewed as separate issues. Some see college andworkforce preparation as opposites,and others see them as fundamentallythe same in today’s society. Someadvocates believe that the most impor-tant thing is that local schools offerengaging, varied options for students.Others believe that the state must beforceful in setting more uniformexpectations for all.

Overlaying all these issues is thequestion of the capacity of Califor-nia’s public school system to developthe skills of high school educators and provide adequate support forstudents’ needs. It is unrealistic tothink that schools can improve simplybecause they want to or state officialssay they should. The changes that needto occur will require a significantinvestment in professional develop-ment for teachers and principals, and

figure 1 High school completion data point to a difficult problem

Of great concern are the social and economic costs when students drop out of high school. In California, highschool completion is reported using a variety of measures, all of which are, at best, only estimates. Regard-less of the measurements used, however, it is clear that high school completion rates are lower for studentsfrom low-income families, English learners, African Americans, and Latinos.

For the purposes of federal accountability, schools use a graduation rate measure that divides the number ofgraduates by the number of dropouts plus graduates. The table shows graduation rates for various studentgroups based on that calculation and how they compare to the overall rate of 85%.

Graduation Rates for 2004–05 Based on the Federal NCLB Graduation Rate Measure

In a 2003 study entitled “Connected by 25,” researchers Michael Wald and Tia Martinez cite data indicatingthat a substantial proportion of young people do not finish high school on time, but only between 5% and 7%of “youth will reach age 25 without having successfully transitioned to independent adulthood.”This has beenfairly stable over the last several decades despite high school reforms and other interventions. That suggeststhat for some young people, the lack of readiness to tackle certain academic material may be “normal” giventheir circumstances. Those young people may need different options (such as continuation high schools) or adifferent timetable for academic engagement (i.e., options to move more slowly until they are ready toconnect, perhaps through community college).

Data: California Department of Education (CDE) EdSource 5/07

AfricanAmerican

Asian White OverallMultiple/No

Response

74%

94% 91%

83% 85%

Perc

ent

Gra

duat

ing

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Hispanic/Latino

79%

PacificIslander

83%

Filipino

92%

NativeAmerican/Alaskan

81%


May 2007 ● Levers for Change ● 3

it will require that schools have thestaff and programs in place thatsupport successful student engage-ment and learning.

A serious discussion about thesedifficult issues may be getting startedin California. State policymakers,educators, advocates, and researchersare increasingly focused on how toimprove the high school curriculum asa key strategy for serving studentsbetter and preparing more of them forpostsecondary success, particularly inthe schools that need the most help.

In undertaking this discussion,California faces both political andpractical obstacles, including a lackof consistency regarding how impor-tant concepts are defined and strong differences in how the problems are perceived.

This report addresses these chal-lenges by exploring three key leveragepoints related to high school curricu-lum and to the challenge of ensuringthat all students—and particularly

economically disadvantaged students—have access to rigorous, engaging highschool instruction. The first is thestate’s academic content standards.Although these standards are the offi-cial blueprint for what students needto know and be able to do, they maynot currently have enough influenceover what gets taught in classrooms.The second is the powerful role that postsecondary admission and placement requirements play in deter-mining high school course work. Andthe third is Career Technical Educa-tion (CTE), a topic of increasingfocus in California. This reportexplores the ways these strategiescomplement and conflict with eachother, and identifies opportunities forhigh school improvement. It alsodescribes a new movement in Cali-fornia that advocates a “multiplepathways” approach that seeks toalign all three strategies to betterprepare all students for college and careers.

California’s academic contentstandards specify a strong basic high school educationCalifornia’s academic content stan-dards—which outline by subject areaand grade level what state officialsbelieve students need to know and beable to do—have been lauded assome of the “deepest” and “widest”in the country. They call for studentsto know a great deal about a widevariety of issues and subjects. But thestandards have not been imple-mented consistently across the state,and there is concern that thestudents who would benefit the mostare receiving the least exposure to arigorous, engaging curriculum. Theextent to which there are mechanismsin place at the high school level tobuild capacity and incentives forschools to meet the standards is alsoquestionable.

California began adopting its voluntary content standards in 1997Between 1997 and 2005, California’sState Board of Education adoptedacademic content standards in sixtraditional subject areas. In 2005, the board also adopted a set ofstandards for Career Technical Edu-cation that align with the academicexpectations.

The academic content standardsare, for the most part, grade-levelspecific, though less so for grades9–12. These standards are volun-tary, but they drive the state’scurriculum adoption process. In thecase of the four core academic areas,they also form the basis for Cali-fornia’s mandatory student assess-ment system. ● The science standards are grade-

specific through grade 8. At the high school level, they are separatedinto five scientific fields: physics,chemistry, biology/life sciences,earth sciences, and investigation/experimentation.

● The mathematics standards aregrade-specific through grade 7 andthen are separated into eightcourses—Algebra I through calculusand two levels of probability andstatistics.

● The history/social science stan-dards are both grade-specific(except for grade 9, which has nostandards) and course-specific inthe secondary grades, based on theassumption that schools follow theorder recommended by the state.

● Finally, the English language artsstandards are grade-specific; but atthe high school level, grades 9/10and 11/12 are specified together. In the other three subject areas—

visual and performing arts, physicaleducation, and CTE—the standardsguide curriculum development, but thestate has not developed mandatory testsfor them.

UC and CSU Eligibility is a Driving Force Behind Which Courses are Taught in High Schools ................7

Will New Career Tech Education Standards Spur a Major Overhaul in the Classroom? ................15

Multiple Pathways Approach Tries to Circumvent “Dual and Dueling” Views of High School Curriculum ......................................22

Obstacles and Opportunities Exist for Strengthening California’s High School Curriculum ........................25

This report was written by:Andrea Venezia, Ph.D., senior policy associate,WestEdMary Perry, deputy director, EdSource

With research support from:Isabel Oregón, research associate, EdSourceBrian Edwards, senior policy analyst, EdSource

EdSource thanks the James Irvine Foundation for underwritingthe development and dissemination of this publication.

Inside This Report

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

California’s content standards are considered among the nation’s most rigorousCalifornia’s standards are often heldup as models for other states. Forexample, in 2006 the conservativeFordham Foundation gave Californiaan “A” overall and ranked the statefirst. The average grade it awardednationally was a “C-.”

Fordham’s positive commentsabout California’s standards includedthe following: ● English: “Their balance and depth

is impressive. The standards areclear, they are specific, they aremeasurable, and they address allareas fully.”

● Mathematics: “If any state has mathstandards right, it’s California.”

● Science: “[The standards andframeworks] are both brief andcomprehensive. They use plainlanguage and, unlike many oftheir peers, they avoid errors andambiguity.”

● U.S. History: “California’s stan-dards are excellent and should serveas a model for other states.”

● World History: “Its standards tell

the world’s story very well…thestate deftly guides educatorsthrough the material from worldreligions to modern world politics,and it never slips in providing in-depth information.”

Local school districts remain the decision makers when it comes to the high school curriculumCalifornia’s academic content stan-dards provide guidelines that statepolicymakers expect school districts tofollow, but they are not mandates onwhat will be taught in the state’s highschools. California’s 329 unified and88 high school districts choose theirown graduation requirements (withinstate parameters), design their ownhigh school courses, select theircurriculum materials, and decide howstudents will be placed in thosecourses. That flexibility inevitablyresults in differences in what is taughtand affects the overall quality ofinstruction among various districts.

The variation in size and circum-stance among California schools anddistricts also contributes to differ-ences in both the scope and quality

of the high school curriculum. Ahigh school of 200 students inLassen County faces different chal-lenges than one with 4,000 studentsin Los Angeles. The capacity of a500-student high school district toprovide the professional develop-ment its staff needs to implement anew curriculum is markedly differentfrom the resources a 75,000-studentunified district can bring to bear. Toa large extent, the state takes a hands-off approach to curriculum andprofessional development at the highschool level, at least compared tohow it has approached grades K–8.

State law stipulates a course ofstudy for grades 7–12 and a set ofminimum high school graduationrequirements (see the box to the left).Local school boards retain legal author-ity to set local courses of study andgraduation requirements that exceedthe state minimums; as a result, thoserequirements also vary by district.

Within this basic framework, thecourses high schools develop, theinstructional materials they choose,and the capacity of their teachers todeliver the curriculum combine todrive what students learn. Therefore,the mechanisms used to decide highschool curricular materials carrygreat weight. Currently, those mecha-nisms are only loosely tied to thestate standards.

The California State Board ofEducation (SBE) provides substan-tial guidance regarding what itexpects schools to teach and studentsto learn. Every six to eight years, theSBE adopts a new curriculum frame-work for each subject, placing thecontent standards in an overarchinginstructional approach and describ-ing criteria by which instructionalmaterials are to be evaluated. Usingthose criteria, California’s 18-member Curriculum Commissionevaluates and recommends materials



California’s Minimum High School Graduation Requirements● Social Science: Three years (including U.S. history and geography; world history, culture, and geog-

raphy; one semester of American government and civics; and one semester of economics).

● English: Three years.

● Mathematics: Two years (including Algebra I as of 2004).

● Science: Two years (including biological and physical sciences).

● Foreign Language or Visual and Performing Arts: One year.

● Physical Education: Two years.

Approximately a third of the students who graduate from California high schools complete the coursesequence for eligibility to a four-year university. The postsecondary options open to the remaining two-thirds are less clear. The community colleges do not publicly articulate readiness standards to highschools, nor do high schools have that information regarding most industry or workforce paths. Studentsare often left following their high school’s minimum graduation requirements and expecting that theywill be prepared for something productive and fulfilling immediately after high school.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

for adoption by the SBE in gradesK–8. State instructional materialsfunds are provided to purchase thosematerials.

In sharp contrast, the SBE doesnot adopt instructional materials forgrades 9–12. Districts select their ownmaterials for those grades. To qualifyfor state textbook monies, districtsmust certify that their materials alignwith state standards. They have severaltools available to help guide curricu-lum development, most notably thestate’s curriculum frameworks. Inaddition, they can use the “standardsmaps” some publishers submit withtheir materials that specify how thematerials align with the content standards. Finally, the CDE websiterecommends a process for highschools to follow when establishing a standards-aligned instructional pro-gram and lists questions districtsshould ask during that process.

Professional development, par-ticularly tied to specific curriculumprograms, is largely left to local dis-tricts. State support pays for threedays of noninstructional time forteachers per year. In addition, someprofessional development in readingand math has been made availablethrough Assembly Bill 466.

State policy includes few leveragepoints for implementing the standards Concerns about high school reform inCalifornia have intensified as thestate’s accountability system has shed abright light on student performance.The state’s Academic PerformanceIndex (API)—a composite indexshowing school-level performancebased on students’ scores on the Cali-fornia Standards Tests (CSTs) and theCalifornia High School Exit Exam(CAHSEE)—has consistently shownhigh schools to be lower performingthan elementary and middle schools.Since California introduced the API

in 1999, all levels of schools haveimproved; but high schools have doneso most slowly. (See the box above formore about high school performancemeasures.)

The most direct strategies thatstate policymakers have adopted toinfluence the high school curriculumare state tests. In particular, theCAHSEE sets a minimum standardfor what students need to know toreceive their much-coveted diploma.Although tougher than not having anexam, passing the CAHSEE is notthe equivalent of proficiency in allcore subjects through 12th grade. It

also falls well short of what isexpected for admission to a four-yearuniversity. Less clear to students andparents—and perhaps to someeducators—is that the ability to passthe CAHSEE is likely not enough toprepare a student for success incommunity college. That is particu-larly true for the more demandingprograms, including transfer pro-grams to a four-year university.

In addition, the CAHSEE coversonly English language arts and math, afar cry from the kind of comprehen-sive learning across subject areas that isexpected of high school students. (See



California’s testing and accountability systems shed light on high school performanceHigh school test taking and results on the California Standards Tests (CSTs) indicate that reforms inrecent years have had some positive effects on the curriculum students take and on their performance.

● Between 2003 and 2006, enrollment in Algebra I increased dramatically, as did enrollments ingeometry and Algebra II but to a lesser degree.

● A larger percentage of students are scoring proficient on CSTs in these subjects.● Enrollments in biology, chemistry, and physics have also increased.● A higher percentage of students at each grade level (9–11) are scoring proficient or advanced on

the English language arts CST as well.

California’s Academic Performance Index (API) raises concerns.● The median API for high schools has consistently been lower than that for elementary or middle

schools. For 2006, the median API Base score for high schools is 700, compared with 758 forelementary schools and 724 for middle schools (on a scale of 200 to 1,000).

● High schools have also had less success meeting their API growth targets. For 2006, 39% did socompared with 58% of elementary schools and 43% of middle schools.

Data for high schools making adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on the No Child LeftBehind (NCLB) metric are more difficult to interpret.Tenth grade scores on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE)—which only covers math andEnglish language arts—are the primary measure of AYP. In addition, schools can fail to meet federal goals based on either participation rates or scores for any subgroup of students.● Less than half of the high schools in California participate in Title I. About a third of California’s

1,048 Title I high schools are in Program Improvement (P I) because they failed to make AYP underNCLB. That represents about 13% of all high schools in the state.

● A larger proportion of elementary and middle schools are in Title I and thus are eligible for PI. About a third of Title I elementary schools and two-thirds of Title I middle schools are in PI.

Data: California Department of Education (CDE)

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

the box above for more informationregarding the CAHSEE.) It is alsodebatable that an assessment is themost appropriate lever to ensure orspur student learning.

The California Standards Testscover all four core subject areas, andhigh schools must administer themto students in grades 9 through 11.These tests are used to judge theeffectiveness of schools and districts,but students experience no partic-ular consequences based on their

performance. Although CST resultsare reflected in schools’ API scores,they also have very little impact on whether a school or district meets federal expectations for ade-quate yearly progress (AYP). Tenth-grade students’ scores on the CAHSEE largely determine a high school’s AYP.

Taken as a whole, the CSTs as theyare currently implemented and re-ported appear to be a rather weak leverfor compelling high schools to align

their instruction with the state’sdemanding academic standards,though they do indicate how well highschools are teaching to state standards.Little else in state policy currently putspressure on high schools to take on theserious and demanding work of align-ing their curriculum and instructionwith the high standards adopted by thestate of California. To the extent align-ment is occurring, it is through theactions of school districts and theimplementation of local policies.

An important question concernsthe capacity of educators to accom-plish this goal, particularly absenthigh-quality and targeted professionaldevelopment for teachers. In AimingHigh, which the California Depart-ment of Education (CDE) bills as ahow-to document for implementing astandards-based educational system,ample and appropriate professionaldevelopment is characterized as essen-tial. The document states bluntly thatthe state’s three days of paid profes-sional development “will not providenearly enough time to implementstandards-based reform.” It urges localschools and districts to find additionaltime through strategies that includecoaching, paying for additional days,ongoing staff collaboration, andonline programs.

Some people believe that the prob-lem is compounded by the fact thatmany teachers are not fully creden-tialed in the subjects they are teaching.According to a 2006 report by theCenter for the Future of Teaching and Learning (CFTL), substantialportions of the state’s high schoolteachers are teaching “out of field.”CFTL considers teachers as teachingout of field if they are fully creden-tialed but do not have subject-matterauthorization in their assigned subject.Based on that definition, they found12% of math teachers, 15% ofEnglish teachers, 18% of social science

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



CAHSEE Expectations and Content Coverage

All students are required to take the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) in the 10th grade. Ifthey fail to pass either part—English language arts or math—they have two more opportunities in 11thgrade and three more in 12th grade to retake one or both parts.

For both parts, a scale score of 350 is needed to pass. That equates roughly to 55% correct on themathematics section and 60% correct on the English section.

For purposes of school and district accountability under federal law, the adequate yearly progress (AYP)goal is proficiency on these tests, which requires a somewhat higher score—about 70% correct inEnglish and 75% in math.

CAHSEE is generally recognized as a stronger minimum standard for high school graduation than waspreviously in place in California. That said, it falls well short of the level required for students to takeon college-level course work.

The English section addresses state content standards through grade 10. In reading, this includesvocabulary, decoding, comprehension, and analysis of information and literary texts. In writing, thiscovers writing strategies, applications, and the conventions of English (grammar, spelling, and punctu-ation). Approximately half the questions are on writing, with one essay—a choice of an expository essay,biography, persuasion piece, or business letter. A student can pass the English section with a failing score on the essay.

The mathematics section addresses state standards for sixth and seventh grades, plus Algebra I.The exam includes statistics, data analysis and probability, number sense, measurement and geome-try, mathematical reasoning, and algebra. Students are also asked to demonstrate a strong foundationin computation and arithmetic, including working with decimals, fractions, and percentages.

The full test blueprints for both sections—which list the specific standards tested and the number ofquestions per standard—are at: www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/hs/resources.asp

In spring 2006, student performance on the CAHSEE raised alarm as it became clear that about 37,755students—or about 8.6% of California’s high school seniors—would not pass. Preliminary results for theclass of 2007 are somewhat better according to an April 2007 release from the California Departmentof Education.



teachers, and 20% of physical scienceteachers were teaching out of field.

Strengthening the alignment ofhigh school curricula with the 9–12academic content standards could helpimprove California’s high schools. If allof California’s high school studentswere proficient based on the standards,and instruction was done in an engag-ing way, students would at a minimumhave a good high school education.Many believe the standards are highenough that they would be wellprepared for success at the Universityof California (UC) or CSU campuses.However, existing state policies toeither encourage or require districts tocomplete that alignment are relativelylimited. Local educators’ lack of capac-ity to do so is a serious obstacle as well.

UC and CSU eligibility is a drivingforce behind which courses aretaught in high schools While California’s academic contentstandards are voluntary, every highschool must provide its students withaccess to the courses required for UCand CSU admission. University eligi-bility is a very potent incentive for highschool students and teachers. Whensurveyed, the vast majority of studentssay they want to go to college, mostparents want their children to beprepared for college, and high schooleducators know that their students’college-going rates are an importantand highly visible measure of theirschool’s success. Those realities makeuniversity eligibility requirements animportant leverage point for improv-ing high school curricula and in-struction in California.

Those requirements are oftenreferred to—in shorthand—as the“college prep” curriculum. And inCalifornia that is often synonymouswith the completion of the “a-g”course sequence required for eligibilityfor the state’s two public university

systems. That shorthand obscures thedeeper question of what specific skillsand knowledge students need tosucceed at college-level academics, andthe broader question of what studentsneed to know for success in otherpostsecondary settings and in theworkforce.

What does college preparation orpostsecondary preparation really meanin terms of the high school curricu-lum? In California, the answers to thatquestion lie along a continuum thatfirst and foremost reflects the expecta-tions and requirements of the state’sthree-tiered system of public universi-ties and colleges: the UC system, theCSU system, and California Commu-nity Colleges. Beyond that, there is agrowing consensus that most highschool graduates will need some kindof postsecondary education. Manyargue that the skills and knowledgerequired for student success in techni-cal training programs—or in today’swork world more generally—are quitesimilar to what is required for collegeacademics.

The UC system takes the lead insetting college preparation standardsin CaliforniaAs the most selective public postsec-ondary system in the state, UC drivesmuch of the public policy on universityadmission, and thus on postsecondarypreparation. The course requirementsfor UC eligibility, commonly called the “a-g” requirements, are a primeexample of this. The “a-g” require-ments are fundamentally course-takingrequirements. In California, thoserequirements are often synonymouswith the words “college preparation”without policymakers or the publicclearly understanding what they actu-ally include or how they affect thequality of high school instruction. Tomake things even more confusing,students, their parents, and teachers

often assume that college prep curricu-lar paths in high school will makestudents eligible for UC or CSU, butthese paths are not always aligned with“a-g.”And little attention has been paid

What is “college prep”?Broadly defined, “college prep” might be seen asthe combination of course taking and studentlearning that prepares a student for success in apostsecondary learning environment. Those post-secondary options include technical institutes,community colleges, the California State University(CSU) system and similar four-year colleges, andmore selective universities such as the University ofCalifornia (UC) system. The preparation needed togain admission to each of these options differs interms of course requirements but not in the basicexpectation that students need a strong groundingin high school academics, particularly English andmathematics.

Students wanting to attend a technical program orpursue a two-year degree at a community collegehave a vast array of options but little guidance abouthow to prepare. Generally, students need to masterhigh school–level work to qualify for these programsand be successful, but specific course-takingrequirements may be minimal or nonexistent.

Students wanting to be eligible for the CSU system(or comparable private and public universities)need to take the 15 courses included in the “a-g”requirements but may not want or need to takeadditional college prep courses.

Students seeking admission into the most selectiveUC campuses (and other highly selective universi-ties) generally not only need to meet the “a-g”requirements, but also must take additional rigor-ous academic courses, often including AdvancedPlacement (AP) and honors classes.

If “college” is a term now used to cover all these post-secondary options, then college prep also includes abroad spectrum of expectations for students.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

defining commonly used terms

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



to how the “a-g” requirements relate tothe state’s more recently adoptedacademic content standards or theextent to which the courses requiredare relevant for entry into the commu-nity colleges or the workforce.

Historically, the CSU and UCsystems had different, but similar,course requirements. They aligned theirexpectations in fall 2003. Students mustsuccessfully complete at least 15 quali-fying “a-g” courses to be eligible foradmission to either university system.At a minimum, success means a “C”grade, but each system also has a minimum expectation for students’cumulative grade point averages and

standardized test scores. The box onpage 9 outlines the general courserequirements by subject, including howmany years of each a student must take.

UC’s Board of Admissions and Rela-tions with Schools (BOARS) establishesthe subject areas and course sequencesthat make up the “a-g” requirements.BOARS is a committee of the Univer-sity’s Academic Senate and includesfaculty representatives from each of the10 UC campuses. The Academic Senatesets the conditions for admission, subjectto final approval of the Board of Regents.CSU has agreed to accept this and is notinvolved in “a-g”policymaking or in thecourse-approval process.

The UC Office of the President(UCOP) states that the “a-g” require-ments are meant to ensure thatentering students:● Can participate fully in a first-year,

university-level program in a broadvariety of fields of study;

● Have completed the necessarypreparation for university-levelcourses, majors, and programs;

● Have attained a body of knowledgethat will provide breadth andperspective to more advanced studies; and

● Have acquired essential criticalthinking and study skills. The “a-g” requirements set out a

general framework that students mustfollow to be eligible for UC or CSUadmission at the end of high school.These requirements are similar touniversity admission requirementsthroughout the United States. However,California is distinctive in the extent towhich its public university systemapproves the specific courses that qual-ify as “college prep.”

UC and CSU aligned course-takingrequirements in 2003 CSU’s adoption of the “a-g” sequencein 2003 followed decades of discus-sion about raising the system’seligibility requirements.

When California’s Higher Educa-tion Master Plan was adopted in 1960(see the box above), there was extensivediscussion about the need to change theentrance requirements for the then-state colleges (now CSU). At that time,students’ grade point averages (GPAs)per se were not considered. Studentsneeded a total of 14 A’s and B’s insemester grades and to complete sevenyear-long courses (other than ROTCand physical education) to be admitted.There was a substantial effort to intro-duce some kind of subject-matterrequirement, but it failed during theMaster Plan discussions.

Major Features of the California Master Plan for Higher Education

Compared with other states, California has a clear and relatively transparent organizational structurefor its postsecondary education systems.The state’s Master Plan, adopted in 1960, established a prin-ciple of universal access and choice. It also differentiated between the three higher-education systemsbased on their function and admission pools.

Each segment has its own governance system, and the California Postsecondary Education Commissionacts as a coordinating body. The functions of the three segments differ as follows:

● University of California (UC) is California’s primary academic research institution. It provides undergrad-uate, graduate, and professional education and has exclusive jurisdiction for doctoral degrees (CSU canaward joint doctorates) and for instruction in medicine, law, dentistry, and veterinary medicine.

● California State University (CSU) has as its primary mission undergraduate education and graduateeducation through the master’s degree (including professional and teacher education).

● California Community Colleges (CCCs) provide academic and vocational instruction for older andyounger students through the first two years of undergraduate education (lower division).The commu-nity colleges are also authorized to provide remedial instruction, English-as-a-second-languagecourses, adult noncredit instruction, community service courses, and workforce training services.

The Master Plan also specifies which students are to be admitted to each system:

● The UC institutions select applicants from among the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class;

● The CSU campuses select applicants from among the top one-third (33.3%) of the high school graduating class; and

● The community colleges admit any student who is a high school graduate or age 18 and capable ofbenefiting from instruction. (Under certain circumstances, high school students and 16- and 17-year-olds can also attend.)

For both the UC and CSU systems, the goal is for the specified portion of high school graduates to havea place—but not necessarily at their first-choice campus or in their first-choice major.



In the mid-1970s, high schoolsacross the country departed fromstructured college prep courses, andCSU found that it had a largerproportion of underpreparedstudents than before. In the late1970s, CSU introduced courserequirements in English and mathematics, but that did not havemuch effect on students’ academic readiness. Years of debate aboutstrengthening the requirementsensued with little action.

In the late 1990s—when CSUremediation rates were at about 50% inmathematics and English—the CSUand UC systems began conversationsabout aligning their course-takingexpectations. As a UC Academic Senatememorandum from Oct. 25, 1998stated: “Alignment of the UC and CSUcourse pattern requirements would be amajor boon to high school students,their parents, and their counselors, whenplanning for college attendance atpublic institutions of higher learning inthe State of California.”

Both UC and CSU leadersbelieved that their systems stood togain by aligning the eligibility require-ments. CSU hoped it would admitbetter-prepared students, and UC sawthis as a way to increase its pool ofprospective students to the 12.5%stipulated by the Master Plan. (It wasat slightly more than 11%.) Thechange, which went into effect in fall2003, augmented what was thencalled “a-f ” by adding a requiredcourse in visual and performing arts,formerly just a CSU requirement.(See the box above.)

The quality of “a-g” courses is farfrom uniformThe courses provided in California’shigh schools, whether or not they arelabeled as college prep, are only as good as the quality of instruction,curricular materials, and level of

student engagement found in class-rooms. UC’s course approval andquality control processes are cruciallinks between the policy of requiringthe “a-g” courses and the actualcontent to which students are exposed.The approval and monitoring pro-cesses have both been openly criticized,and the approval process has recentlybeen strengthened significantly.

The course-approval process hasbeen improved in recent years In order for a course to qualify as partof the “a-g” sequence, high schoolsmust submit the course description

for approval by the UC system. Beforea California high school can establishan “a-g” course list, it must either beaccredited by the Western Associationof Schools and Colleges, or be acandidate for accreditation.

Every year, UC asks principals toupdate their high school’s course list,and the vast majority of high schoolsthroughout California comply withthat request. If a course list is notupdated, UC uses the most recent listavailable; but students can suffer theconsequences because they may notreceive credit for a new “a-g” course ifit is not reflected on the official list.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

General Admission Requirements for UC and CSU by Subject Area

The “a-g” requirements include:

(a) History/Social Science—Two years, including one year of world history, cultures, and geography andone year of U.S. history (or one-half year each of U.S. history and civics or American government).

(b) English—Four years of college preparatory English that include:

● Reading. Extensive reading of a variety of literary genres and full texts, including classic and modern.

● Writing. Frequent and regular writing, including substantial, recurrent practice writing extensive,structured papers. Student must demonstrate understanding of rhetorical, grammatical, and syntac-tical patterns, forms, and structures.

(c) Mathematics—Three years of college preparatory mathematics that include the topics covered inelementary and advanced algebra and two- and three-dimensional geometry. Four years are stronglyrecommended.

(d) Laboratory Science—Two years of laboratory science providing fundamental knowledge in at leasttwo of these three disciplines: biology, chemistry, and physics. Three years are strongly recommended.Courses are allowed that incorporate applications in some other scientific or career-technical subjectarea, or that constitute the final two years of a three-year sequence in Integrated Science with rigorouscoverage of at least two of the foundational subjects.

(e) Language Other Than English—Two years in a single language other than English (including Ameri-can Sign Language). Three years are recommended. Courses should emphasize speaking andunderstanding and include instruction in grammar, vocabulary, reading, and composition.The minimumperformance objectives are: 1) sustain a brief conversation on simple, everyday topics and know thebasic structural patterns in the present, past, and future tenses, the subjunctive, and commands; and2) summarize orally and in writing the main points of a relatively simple reading passage.

(f) Visual and Performing Arts—One year of dance, drama/theater, music, or visual art.

(g) College Preparatory Elective—One year, chosen from additional “a-f” courses beyond those usedto satisfy the requirements above, or courses that have been approved solely for use as “g” electives.



Although UC expects principalsto update the list, typically it is highschool teachers who are responsiblefor drafting course descriptions forapproval. The preferred deadline forsubmission is every February, and thereviews are completed by April orMay so schools have time to inform

students of any changes for theupcoming school year. However,schools may submit new coursesand/or update their course list at anytime through mid-October. Thecourse list is then used by studentswhen they apply to colleges inNovember.

In deciding whether to approve acourse, UC looks for evidence that itmeets both subject-specific expecta-tions and general guidelines agreedupon by UC faculty. The latterincludes such things as: ● Is academically challenging; ● Involves substantial reading and

writing; ● Includes problems and laboratory

work, as appropriate; ● Shows serious attention to analyti-

cal thinking as well as factualcontent; and

● Develops students’ oral and listen-ing skills. By all accounts, the “a-g” course-

approval process has improveddramatically over the past six years.Since 2002–03, high schools havesubmitted updates and additions totheir course lists online. Prior to that,it was a paper-and-pencil process

completed predominantly by one UCemployee. UC did not provide feed-back for schools about why courseswere not approved, and the entireprocess was not seen as user-friendlyfor high schools. Questions about thequality and consistency of the reviewprocess led to other major changes.

For example, a team—headed by anarticulation coordinator and includingseveral part-time course reviewers withextensive admissions experience—now reviews the courses.

UC provides online checklists thatoutline the criteria against whichsubmitted courses will be evaluated.Assuming a school provides the neces-sary course information, the mostcommon reasons a course could berejected include:● Insufficient academic or theoretical

content;● Focus is too narrow or specialized;● Addresses too many topics or

shows a lack of depth;● Too much focus on skills related to

application rather than theory;● Too much focus on tools and

technology rather than contentknowledge; and/or

● A lack of prerequisites.Individual reviewers read the

submissions, bringing any questionablecourse descriptions to the full commit-tee for discussion. UC does not reviewthe qualifications of high school teach-ers who will be teaching the course orotherwise go beyond an examinationof the materials submitted.

When one school has had a courseapproved, others can use the samecourse curriculum without having togo through the approval process. As aformer UCOP employee stated,“There is a tremendous reliance onbootstrapping.” Schools can use thisprocess for entire programs of studyas well. For example, CDE developedan agriculture curriculum and coursesequence that is approved by UC.When a school adds those courseofferings, they are automaticallyapproved as long as the school uses theapproved curriculum.

Several years ago, an effort tostreamline the process included theformalization of “program status” forpreviously approved curricula offeredthrough various organizations orprograms, such as Advanced Place-ment (AP), International Baccalaureate(IB), AVID (Advancement Via Indi-vidual Determination), RegionalOccupational Programs (ROPs), andthe California Department of Educa-tion’s Agriculture Education Program.These programs must meet severalcriteria, including having a standard-ized curriculum taught consistentlyfrom school to school, providingnecessary professional developmentfor teachers, and maintaining programoversight and monitoring. Programsare re-evaluated by BOARS every fiveyears or so. A similar approval processis available for courses consistentlytaught at different schools within thesame district.

As a result of this process, UCrecently found that the AP programwas not meeting the criteria because itlacked the type of professional devel-opment expected to ensure curricularconsistency. UC gave the CollegeBoard two years to come into compli-ance, and as a result the College Boardis now auditing its AP courses.

Experts do not seem overly con-cerned about the automatic processes

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

Many argue that the skills and knowledge required for student success in

technical training programs—or in today’s work world more generally—

are quite similar to what is required for college academics.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



for course approvals. However, theycited more general problems with thelack of systematic quality control oncecourses are approved.

UC does not monitor the quality ofcourses once they are approved Currently, UC does not have a processfor monitoring or re-evaluating acourse once it has been approved.Courses stay on the list even if theywere approved decades ago, andschools rarely inform UC if a coursehas been revised. This lack of asystematic quality-control processmeans that some courses likely do notmeet the university’s expectations and,consequently, students might not bereceiving the kind of college prepara-tion they need.

UC created a plan several years agofor conducting regular re-evaluationsof previously approved courses, but ithas not been implemented. Experts seethis as largely a resource and capacityproblem within the UC system givencurrent funding and staffing levels.

These experts acknowledge thatthere is likely a high degree of vari-ability in the quality and content of“a-g” courses in high schoolsstatewide. One reason may be becausethe “a-g” course requirements aresomewhat general guidelines, ratherthan specific standards in the currentsense of the word. The guidelines donot provide much help for teachersregarding the specific knowledge andskills required, or how to reach thosegoals. Further, interpreting “a-g”requirements has been difficultbecause the universities do not speakwith one voice. For example, somefaculty members want students tomaster procedural math and takederivatives, but others want moreconceptual approaches to math. Con-sequently, it is hard for BOARS todevelop highly specific language aboutthe expected content of “a-g” courses.

More specificity may be on the way. A new UC task force will be workingto add details to the mathematics and science course expectations and to reference the “a-g” requirements to high school content standards.

In addition, once a course isapproved, high schools can assign

whichever teacher they wish to theclass. There are no ongoing require-ments regarding teacher credentialsor training.

The state aligned its standards-based test with CSU readinessexpectations Although the lack of consistent coursequality has implications for UCstudents’ readiness, it is a more substan-tial issue for CSU-bound students. UCapplicants are the state’s highest-performing students, and many go aboveand beyond the minimum “a-g” courseexpectations to compete for a spot attheir top-choice institution within California and at selective campusesnationwide. For example, although theofficial systemwide requirement is forhigh school students to complete 15 “a-g” courses, the majority of studentswho are admitted to a UC campus takefar more. The average student who gains admission to UC completes about23 UC-approved courses.

By design, the pool of prospectivestudents is not as competitive forCSU. They tend to take fewer “a-g”courses and can qualify for admissionwith a lower overall grade point

average and lower college admission test (SAT or ACT) scores. If the qual-ity of courses they take at their highschool is poor, then they are morelikely to find themselves underpre-pared for college work.

When the CSU admission require-ments were changed in 2003, about half

of CSU entrants were being placed inremedial courses. Although enteringfreshmen that year had taken the “a-g”sequence, the remediation problemsremained.

Consequently, in November 2003,after conversations with facultymembers about student readiness intheir classes, CSU took a further step.The system announced the develop-ment of the Early Assessment Pro-gram (EAP)—an attempt to increasestudent readiness that includes: ● The augmentation of the 11th

grade California Standards Tests(CSTs) in mathematics and Englishlanguage arts to include items thatindicate readiness for CSU;

● Teacher preparation aligned withCSU’s expectations; and

● Recommendations for new coursework for 12th graders who needadditional help to prepare forcollege. Faculty members told CSU

administrators that entering studentsneed to learn better how to read criti-cally, analyze, synthesize, write, and do college-level mathematics. CSUdecided that an early warning system, coupled with the teacher and

Experts acknowledge that there is likely a high degree of variability

in the quality and content of UC-approved “a-g” courses in high

schools statewide.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



instructional supports, would be thebest way to make those changes. Partic-ipation in the program is voluntary forboth school districts and students.

In 2006, according to CSUonline data, about half of all highschool juniors in the state took theexpanded CST in English languagearts, and 23% were assessed ascollege ready. About a third ofjuniors took one of the two CSTs inmath, and slightly more than 55%were judged to be ready for college-level work.

So far, remediation rates in CSUhave not improved, remaining at about50%. But other data from the CSUsystem provide further perspective andare more encouraging. A web-based report of remediation rates for the entering freshmen in 2005 and theirstatus a year later indicates that moststudents are able to “demonstrate fullproficiency” within a year of theiradmission. That year, 55% of regularly

admitted first-time freshmen neededremediation based on CSU entrancetests. A year later, according to CSU,83% of those students had demon-strated proficiency, and 74% were still enrolled.

Because EAP went into effect soonafter the UC/CSU alignment of the“a-g” courses, it is difficult to tell whateffect either reform alone has had onstudent preparation for CSU.

Do all students need to take the “a-g” sequence?The number of students thatcomplete the full “a-g” sequence, gainadmission to CSU or UC, and stillneed remediation suggests a problem.It may be that the courses are not trulyaligned with university expectations.This situation might indicate that notall “a-g” classes are taught well, thatquality varies across schools, andperhaps that the UC “a-g” course-approval process could be improved.

Data also indicate troublingdisparities in the educational opportu-nities offered at different schools andto different groups of students.Despite state law requiring them to doso, many high schools do not offer alltheir students access to the completeset of “a-g” courses. Others offer theclasses, but the actual content is in-sufficient to prepare students foruniversity-level work.

UCLA’s Roadblocks to College reportfound that “many of the state’s highschools provide insufficient collegepreparatory classes, too few qualifiedteachers to teach those classes, andtoo few counselors to guide studentsalong the path to college.” Accordingto that report, in 2004–05 fewerthan half (45%) of California’scomprehensive high schools offeredenough “a-g” courses to enable allstudents to take them.

It seems reasonable to assume thatthese disparities in course offeringswould be reflected in similar statisticsfor UC/CSU eligibility based on stu-dent course completions. As Figure 2shows, the available eligibility rate dataare consistent with this, showing thatwhile 35% of high school grad-uates overall complete the “a-g”courses, only 25% of African Ameri-can students and 24% of Latinostudents do so.

Much of the recent public andpolitical debate about the highschool curriculum has been abouthow to ensure that all students areprepared for the UCs, the state’smost selective public universitiesand some of the most selectivenationally. Politically, this makessense. UC has historically drivenmuch of the upper-end curricularchange in the state’s high schools,and the state needs to be concernedabout the lack of historically underserved students entering andsucceeding in UC institutions.

figure 2 CSU/UC Eligibility* Rates by Ethnic Group for 2004–05

Data on UC/CSU eligibility indicate that traditionally disadvantaged ethnic groups are substantially lesslikely to complete the course sequence. The eligibility rates below relate to course taking only and do notreflect all the requirements students must meet for admission, such as the ACT and SAT college admissiontests.These course-taking rates have held relatively steady in recent years despite standards-based reformefforts and local initiatives to increase student access to these courses.

Student Ethnic Group % Eligible

African American 25.2%

Asian 58.7%

Filipino 46.6%

Hispanic/Latino 24.0%

Native American/Alaskan Native 23.1%

Pacific Islander 27.7%

White 40.9%

Multiple/No Response 31.0%

Total Eligible 35.2%

* Based on completion of “a-g” courses only.


© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



A strong, vocal advocacy move-ment has focused on expanding collegeaccess by making the “a-g” courses thedefault curriculum in California highschools. Their concerns—fueled bythe realities of unequal access in manyhigh schools—are that the generaleducation (noncollege-prep) and voca-tional education options becomedumping grounds that rob primarilypoor and minority students of thechance to go to college.

Others question whether requiringevery student to take the full coursesequence required for admission toCalifornia’s four-year universities willmeet the needs of the majority of thestate’s high school students, or be rele-vant and engaging for them. Althoughthe state has a responsibility to ensurethat all high school students haveequal access to information about UCand CSU preparation and to “a-g”courses, the majority of Californiastudents who matriculate to collegedirectly from high school will enter acommunity college. The full battery of“a-g” courses is not necessary foradmission there, and it is not clear thatthose courses are needed for students’success in many programs. The Cali-fornia Postsecondary EducationCommission reports that 6.8% ofCalifornia high school graduates in2005 attended UC that fall, 10.7%attended CSU, and 29.0% attended acommunity college.

Entrance requirements for communitycolleges vary by campusCalifornia’s community colleges areconspicuously absent from most statepolicy discussions of college readi-ness. That disconnect is importantfor several reasons. Some studentsenter community college intendingto transfer to four-year universities,but even more attend with the hopeof getting the education or trainingthey need to enter a technical field

and find a good job. Althoughcommunity colleges do not havecourse-taking requirements foradmission, they do have standardsthat students must meet to take thecollege-level, credit-bearing coursesthat make those goals attainable.

Stanford University BridgeProject researchers who interviewedstudents for a 2003 report, Betrayingthe College Dream, found that manyhigh school students, their parents,and even their counselors and teachers are uninformed about theacademic preparation needed tosucceed at community colleges. TheBridge Project reported a seriousdisconnect between the K–12 systemand community colleges regardingacademic standards and placementpolicies. For example, many highschool students believe that commu-nity colleges have no standards, andconsequently that they do not needto take particular courses to prepare.Graduates are often surprised anddismayed to learn that though theyreceived a high school diploma, theyare placed in remedial classes at thecommunity college.

Remediation rates for California’scommunity colleges are particularlydifficult to track, but many com-munity college districts report that about 75% of their incomingstudents are not ready to take college-level work in English language artsand mathematics. These numbersinclude both students who proceeddirectly from high school to collegeand returning adults.

A strong tradition of local auton-omy for the community colleges meansthat each community college district or campus has its own academic standards, course prerequisites, andplacement exams. The chancellor’soffice does not have a strong mandate

to create systemwide changes in theseareas, and academic senates at thecampus and state levels are quitepowerful. So for a variety of reasons,these variations are strongly entrenchedand have to date been resistant tostatewide efforts for change.

In March 2007, the CaliforniaCommunity College Board of Gover-nors created a task force to examinethe feasibility of developing “a batteryof state-owned and approved onlinetests” that could be used at the variouscampuses. This task force is scheduledto complete its work and present itsfindings in October 2007.

Getting beyond the slogan of “collegefor all” to what postsecondarypreparation really means for highschool curriculaA rigorous comparison of the “a-g”sequence to the state’s mandatory highschool graduation requirements, thepreparation needed for communitycollege work, and the state’s academiccontent standards would be enlighten-ing for educators and policymakers.And it would help make current poli-cies more transparent for students. Forexample, if being proficient on theacademic standards would increasestudents’ chances of being ready forcollege-level course work, knowing

Statewide data indicate troubling disparities in the educational

opportunities offered at different schools and to different groups of

students in California.



that might change some students’study habits. In addition, the findingscould help schools identify in whichareas they need to strengthen theircurricula to ensure that all studentshave access to the postsecondarysegment they want to pursue.

On the face of it, the main differ-ences are that the “a-g” sequencerequires students to take a foreignlanguage for at least two years;complete the math sequence of Alge-bra I, geometry, and Algebra II, ratherthan just Algebra I; and take labora-

tory sciences instead of more generalscience courses. These course require-ments are substantial barriers for somestudents. They are also subject areasthat perennially have a shortage ofqualified teachers. Although necessaryfor admission to most traditionalfour-year universities (including theUC and CSU systems), these spe-cific courses may not be essential to a student’s ability to succeed in a rigorous postsecondary program atcommunity college or a technicaltraining school.

Course taking is not the only wayto evaluate student readinessNationally, the American DiplomaProject is detailing postsecondary andworkplace readiness standards basedon skills and knowledge, not coursetaking. Its research shows that the“real world” expectations developedthrough their initiative “are signifi-cantly more rigorous than current highschool standards, resulting in anexpectations gap that explains whymany high school graduates are notprepared to succeed when they arriveat college or the workplace.”

In his book, College Knowledge: Whatit Takes for Students to Succeed and What WeCan Do to Get Them Ready, University ofOregon professor David Conley pre-sents a comprehensive look at the corecontent knowledge, habits of mind,and foundational capabilities (e.g.,critical reading, reasoning and logic,interpretation, analysis, a spirit ofinquiry) that he and his colleagueshave labeled “Standards for Success.”His work shows that college prepara-tion entails more than the learning ofacademic knowledge and skills.

This national work highlights theimportance of California schoolsensuring that the courses studentsmust take for university admission alsoprepare them for university-levelacademic work. At a minimum, these

courses must meet the standards artic-ulated by UCOP in its course-approvalprocess. Doing so will set the barhigher for all high school curricula.Local educators also need to make surethat students and parents have a clearunderstanding of both the courses andthe skills needed to pursue the fullrange of postsecondary options, fromimmediate employment after highschool graduation to enrollment in themost elite university.

The state can support this effortby providing the resources and train-ing schools need to counsel studentsregarding their opportunities andchoices. It can also encourage thepostsecondary sectors to state theircourse-taking requirements clearly andpublicly and to work with K–12 toconnect expectations across thesystems. EAP could provide a goodmodel in terms of embedding post-secondary expectations into K–12courses and assessments, and aligninghigh school teacher professional development with postsecondaryexpectations.

This all needs to be done withoutcreating dead-end curricular tracks forstudents or only offering challengingcourse work to those most economi-cally advantaged. The state may needto take an active role in changing thecurrent status quo to ensure that allstudents have access to the coursework needed to pursue further educa-tion at the community college, CSU,or UC of their choice, or through acareer-preparation program. The statecould provide more rigorous oversightor local schools and districts couldmake a more concerted effort to giveevery student a realistic chance to take“a-g” courses if they choose and to getthe support they need to succeed. Newprograms in Los Angeles UnifiedSchool District and elsewhere thatrequire schools to offer “a-g” coursesto all students might provide an

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

What is Career Technical Education (CTE)?CTE is not traditional vocational education, whichemphasizes preparing students for entry-levelpositions and does not typically lead to postsec-ondary education.

In some European countries, CTE takes placethrough a dual system that places students eitherin formal apprenticeship systems or in schoolswhere students also learn related academiccontent. Typically, this type of system steers youngpeople into one path or the other at about age 15.

It is common for students to take CTE courses afterthey graduate from high school at communitycolleges and some private institutions. Typicallytwo years in length, these programs include occupational content and supportive academic course work.

New forms of CTE offered in high schools haveemerged since the late 1980s.These often attemptto integrate academic and occupational learning,and they keep open students’ options for college.

The California Department of Education websiteofficially defines CTE as: “A multiyear sequence ofcourses that integrates core academic knowledgewith technical and occupational knowledge toprovide students with a pathway to postsecondaryeducation and careers.”


© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



increased understanding of how thiscan be done and the challengesinvolved.

Will new Career Tech Educationstandards spur a major overhaulin the classroom?A third area of focus for curricularimprovement in high schools involvesa dramatic strengthening of the strandtraditionally referred to as vocationaleducation and now called Career andTechnical Education (CTE). TheCTE movement’s primary goal is tointegrate academic knowledge andskills into courses that are academi-cally rigorous and also relevant andengaging. Many advocates believe thatthis blend would help address part of the drop-out problem as well as increase student motivation andperformance more generally.

An important spokesperson forthis movement is Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger, who has used hisoffice to raise the visibility of CTEissues, sponsor related legislation, andpush for additional funding. Legisla-tors, researchers, and other state policy-makers are also taking notice. Theconcurrent reauthorization of federallegislation adds more momentum.

Advocates for a new approach tocareer-focused education in the form of CTE hope proposedchanges will help ensure that morestudents graduate from high schoolready to enter postsecondary educa-tion and a well-paying, flexiblecareer. However, there are many CTEteachers and others in the field whoview CTE through a more tradi-tional lens—as vocational coursesthat lead primarily to the workforceafter high school. This tension loomslarge in discussions regarding California’s new CTE content stan-dards and accompanying curriculumframework. Others raise concerns

about how CTE fits into the largercontext of the high school curricu-lum. They say that even if the newCTE standards were implementedmany classes would still fall short offulfilling “a-g” expectations.

California is moving from “voc ed”to CTE instruction based on new CTE standardsThroughout most of the 20th cen-tury, high school vocational education

programs focused mostly on job skills. The programs were often re-served for students who were eithernot viewed as “college bound” or whowere struggling academically. Conse-quently, vocational education has hada stigma attached to it. It has beenconsidered less rigorous and of lowerquality than traditional academics—aperception that many experts concurwas often true. Starting in the early1990s, however, state and federal

A variety of CTE programs and courses exist in California● Regional Occupational Centers and Programs (ROCPs): Created in 1967, ROCPs were intended to

serve students on a regional basis mostly because of the expensive equipment needed for someprograms. Statewide, courses are available today in more than 100 diverse career areas, such asforensic science, engineering, manufacturing, technology, automotive technology, graphic design,digital pre-press, and healthcare. High school students frequently spend part of the school day in atraditional academic program and the other part focusing on a vocation—either in a program offeredat their high school, a regional center, or an industry site, such as a hospital or automotive dealer.

By law, ROCPs must offer courses that meet current labor market demand.They work with other localagencies and businesses to design programs accordingly and update course content annually.

During the 2003–04 school year, 74 ROCPs served approximately 336,000 (about 37%) of Califor-nia’s high school students age 16 and older. According to the California Association of RegionalOccupational Centers and Programs (CAROCP), enrollment was highest in business/informationtechnology programs and in industrial/technology education. In addition, more than 630 ROCPcourses are approved for college credit by community colleges and universities.

● Career or Partnership Academies: Academies are school, district, and local industry partnershipsthat provide integrated academic and CTE instruction to students, at least 50% of whom must beat risk of dropping out of school. The model is a three-year program for students in grades 10–12.

These programs focus on a particular career area, such as health or digital arts and media. Studentswork with the same group of teachers over several years, focusing on both academics and job skills.The goal is to prepare students for college entrance and work success. Corporations or businessorganizations often sponsor and participate in these academies, which generally are configured asa “school within a school.”

In 2004–05, the state provided a total of $23 million to support 289 career academies, whichserved about 2% of high school students. In January 2007, Superintendent of Public Instruction JackO’Connell announced his intention to sponsor legislation to increase the number of academies to500. State budget issues may preclude a major new investment in the short term, however.

● Tech Prep Programs: These programs also attempt to integrate academic and technical education,but they combine two or more years of high school education with two years of postsecondary educa-tion to prepare students for higher-wage employment and/or further education. In 2003–04, 80 Tech Prep consortia of high schools, community colleges, ROCPs, business, and industry were operat-ing in California. The programs are almost exclusively administered by community college districts.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



policymakers’ goals for vocationaleducation began to change along withthe name.

In 1994 the federal School-to-Work Opportunities Act focusedsupport on the integration ofacademic and vocational course work.It was viewed as a key high schoolreform element that might betterprepare students for employment in aconstantly changing world. Theresponse in California includedcreation of a variety of CTE initia-tives, particularly between 1994 and1997. (See the box on CTE programson page 15.) The passage of thePublic Schools Accountability Act in1997 slowed the CTE momentum aspolicymakers and educators focusedon the development and implementa-tion of standards-based reforms.

The state adopts CTE standardsand a curriculum frameworkStandards-based education, with itsemphasis on a high level of academicachievement for all students, pushedthe discussion of CTE off theeducation reform agenda for many

years as California developed andadopted content standards, assess-ments, and an accountability systemthat focused on core academicsubject areas. In 2002, legislationpassed requiring the state to apply its standards approach to CTE bydeveloping content standards and acurriculum framework.

The State Board of Educationofficially adopted the CaliforniaCareer Technical Education ModelCurriculum Standards in May 2005.Developed for grades 7–12, thesestandards integrate the state’s aca-demic content standards withindustry-specific knowledge and skills. The expectation is that schoolswill prepare students for both theworkforce and some form of post-secondary education.

Most recently, the SBE officiallyadopted a new CTE curriculumframework in January 2007. Theframework is intended to:● Guide schools in implementing

the standards in relevant and rigor-ous ways;

● Give examples of best practices;

● Provide information to middle and high school teachers on therelationship between the CTE standards and their academicunderpinnings; and

● Outline the relationships schoolsneed to develop with business andcommunity partners to ensure thatstudents can apply academic, CTE,and employability standards in real-world settings and as preparationfor postsecondary education. In its development of the stan-

dards and framework, CDE solicitedinput from multiple groups and enti-ties, including business and industry,community colleges, organized labor,UC, CSU, classroom teachers, schooladministrators, pupils, parents andguardians, CDE, representatives ofthe Legislature, and the Labor andWorkforce Development Agency.

The framework is organized intosix broad career areas that contain 15industry sectors, each of which hastwo or more career pathways (seeFigure 3). Each pathway includes asequence of courses that focus onapplying academics and developing

figure 3 The organizational structure for California’s CTE approach includes a multitude of career pathways

A multitude of career pathways are organized into the 15 industry sectors indicated on this table, which are grouped into six general career areas.

Agriculture Education Business & Marketing Education Health & Human Services

Agriculture & Natural Resources Business & Finance Health Services

Information Technology Public & Private Education Services*

Retail & Wholesale Trade Public Services

Home Economics & Careers In Technology Industrial & Technology Education Arts, Media & Entertainment Technology

Fashion & Interior Design Building Trades & Construction Arts, Media & Entertainment Technology

Hospitality, Tourism & Recreation Energy & Utilities

Public & Private Education Services* Engineering & Design

Manufacturing & Product Development

Transportation

* Public and Private Education Services is listed under both Home Economics and Health and Human Services.


© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



technical skills. The state developedstandards for each industry sectorand each pathway.

California’s CTE standards andframework are comprehensive andrigorousFor the state’s CTE standards, the keybuilding blocks are the career path-ways within each industry sector. Eachpathway represents a sequence ofacademic and technical coursesintended to teach students based onstate standards and prepare them formore advanced postsecondary work inthat specific career area. There are twotypes of standards for each industrysector: foundation standards that allstudents need to master and pathwaystandards that are specific to eachcareer. Each standard includessubcomponents that elaborate onspecific knowledge and skills.

The foundation standards cover11 areas described as “essential to allstudents’ success.” The first twoareas—academics and communica-tions—align with the state’s academiccontent standards, but they do notinclude every standard. Matrices inthe standards document detail theextent of this alignment for eachindustry sector. The other foundationstandards include career planning andmanagement; technology; problemsolving and critical thinking; healthand safety; responsibility and flexibil-ity; ethics and legal responsibilities;leadership and teamwork; technicalknowledge and skills; and demonstra-tion and application.

The pathway standards are built onexisting Career Technical Educationstandards, the state’s academic contentstandards where applicable, and appro-priate standards established by businessand industry. Each career pathway hasbetween three and 12 standards, andeach standard has anywhere from twoto six subcomponents.

During the standards-developmentprocess, there was concern about howfully CTE teachers, particularly thosewith industry backgrounds, couldimplement the standards. In somecases, the standards were adjusted

accordingly. The standards thereforealign with California’s content stan-dards, but they do not encompass oraddress each one.

A guiding principle behind the CTEstandards-development process—based onresearch in the field—was that “studentslearn through the interaction of de-clarative and procedural knowledge.”Declarative knowledge provides infor-mation (facts, events, concepts, andprinciples), and procedural knowledge iswhat the learner is able to do with theinformation. The interaction betweenthese two types of knowledge gives stu-dents the ability to adapt and use infor-mation and skills in real-world situations.

California’s standards set a highbar for CTE courses and are gener-ally viewed as an internationalmodel for rigor and for includingacademic content. For schools thatchoose to use them, the expecta-tions should be rigorous anddemanding. The curriculum frame-work, in turn, helps educatorsdevelop courses based on the stan-dards. As such, the frameworkfocuses on transferable knowledgethat will enable students to changecareers more readily because theyhave mastered the conceptual andacademic underpinnings of the

procedural knowledge they havebeen taught.

For example, a recommendedassignment for a certified nursing courseincludes having students take eachother’s blood pressure and then write a

manual about the process. That assign-ment gives students specific proceduralknowledge and also addresses standardsin writing, technology, and the applica-tion of learned knowledge.

CTE implementation issues aresubstantial, but opportunities existTurning the state’s vision for the CTEcurriculum into reality in high schoolclassrooms is a long-term challenge.Local schools, districts, and ROCPshave to embrace the vision and developtheir capacity to implement it. Policy-makers are looking at ways to change acomplex system for credentialing CTEto reinforce the evolving expectationsfor educators, but professional devel-opment for current teachers is alsoessential. Strengthening relationshipsbetween community colleges andK–12 might also hold promise.

Implementing the CTE standardsis the responsibility of localschools, districts, and ROCPsThe state’s adoption of the new CTEstandards and framework does notcarry any mandates for local highschools and districts. They are notrequired to offer courses in any of the15 industry sectors, align their existingcourses with the new standards, or

A guiding principle behind the Career Technical Education standards-

development process was that “students learn through the interaction

of declarative and procedural knowledge.”

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



stop teaching courses in less demand-ing vocational fields, such ascosmetology. In addition, no stan-dardized, aligned, CTE assessmentsand no accountability mechanismrelated to the standards and frame-works exist. As a result, the overallimpact of the standards and frame-works depends entirely on howschools and districts implement them.

On the other hand, new CTEprograms and changes in some estab-lished programs could compel localeducators to align their offerings withthe standards in order to receive fund-ing. For example, the 2006 renewal ofthe federal Perkins Act requires thatCalifornia develop a new state plan forthe use of future funds. In December2006, WestEd prepared a needsassessment as part of that process. Inseveral places its recommendationsfocus on ways that the CTE ModelCurriculum Standards can be used,including a suggestion that they could provide the basis for student

assessments. That approach would beconsistent with a standards-basedsystem that holds schools accountablefor the results, rather than the imple-mentation, of a particular program.

The current teaching force is notwell prepared to teach CTE as ithas been newly envisioned A serious obstacle to creating CTEcourses built on the state standards isthe limited availability of a CTEteaching force capable of implement-ing this new vision. One issue is ashortage of CTE teachers, reflectingthe fact that CTE programs oftencompete with industry for teachersand that decreased interest in CTE inrecent years has also reduced thesupply of candidates. A second issue isthe training and current certificationrequirements for new CTE teachers.Experts also express concern aboutthe professional development neededto help existing high school teach-ers—whether they work in CTE or

traditional academics—to effectivelyteach the new brand of CTE courses.

One long-term strategy forstrengthening CTE teacher capacity isto leverage the teacher credentialingprocess to ensure that all newly creden-tialed teachers can teach to the newCTE standards. However, the currentprocess presents challenges in thatregard and is yet another area wherepolicymakers are targeting reforms.

Currently, more than 175 CTEcredentials exist. The large number ofcredentials reflects the state’s attemptover time to include all industries andtrades in its instructional programs.Schwarzenegger is among those onrecord saying that the number of special-ized credentials has created an overlybureaucratic and complex credentialingprocess. In 2007, the governor said hisadministration would sponsor legisla-tion to base the number of credentialson the 15 industry sectors identified inthe new CTE standards. The intent is tosimplify the credentialing process toimprove recruitment efforts, help CTEteachers move more easily across subjectareas, and provide districts with moreflexibility to hire CTE teachers andexpand course offerings.

Another recurrent concern amongexperts is that the designated subject-credential requirements do not provideenough training for teachers to be ableto teach to the new CTE standards.(See the box above for the current min-imum requirements.) For example,California does not require holders ofthese special subject and vocationalcredentials to pass the California BasicEducational Skills Test (CBEST)unless the credential also requires abachelor’s degree.

Team teaching may build capacityof current high school teachers Many observers express concern thatthe effort to integrate academic andCTE knowledge and skills in a

Current Minimum Requirements for Vocational Education Credentials in California

To get a preliminary credential, regular high school teachers generally must have a bachelor’s degree,pass a state exam, complete a credential program, and demonstrate subject-matter knowledge asappropriate. They have further educational requirements in order to secure a permanent credential.

In contrast, the minimum requirements for the preliminary vocational education credential in “desig-nated subjects” include:

(a) Five years or the equivalent of adequate, successful, and recent experience in, or experience andeducation in, the subject named on the credential.

(b) Possession of a high school diploma or the passage of an equivalency examination as designatedby the commission.

(c) Completion of two semester units or passage of an examination on the principles and provisions ofthe U.S. Constitution.

(d) Passage of an approved examination of basic reading, writing, and mathematics skills.

(e) If an examination in the subject is necessary or desirable, such an examination may also be required.

The preliminary credential must be renewed within five years.That renewal requires the teacher to havecompleted two years of successful teaching (or the equivalent), an approved program of personalizedpreparation, and completion of specified courses in health education.



classroom cannot succeed if teachersdo not know how to combine thosetwo areas. Historically, in teacherpreparation programs, academic teach-ers do not learn how to teach in anapplied way, nor do CTE teacherslearn how to teach the academic coreof a technical area. For example, aconstruction teacher can do thetrigonometry required to figure out aroof angle, but she might not be ableexplain the mathematics behind thecalculations. The mathematics teachercan explain the concepts, but he oftencannot apply it to building a bridge orapartment building.

One suggestion is that these teachers could provide a strongercurriculum to students—and oneconsistent with the CTE standards—by using a team-teaching approach. Apractical obstacle to this, however, isthe common divide within traditionalhigh schools between their academicand CTE faculty. When CTE coursesare offered in separate ROCPs, thatdivision can be even more pronounced.

For California high schools tomove successfully into this newapproach to CTE, the instructionalcapacity issues must be seriouslyaddressed. That will likely requiretechnical and academic teachers tocollaborate in new ways, a process thatcould be facilitated both througheffective professional developmentand increased awareness of existingmodel programs. The availability ofresources—in terms of funding, time,and expertise—could be a centralingredient to making such capacitybuilding possible.

California’s community collegescould be strong partners in localCareer Tech Education efforts California’s community colleges play acentral role in preparing students forthe workplace. They could be moreeffective, however, in assisting with the

development and implementation ofCTE-related programs and policies inthe state’s high schools. For example,they could do a better job of signalingto high schools the knowledge andskills necessary for students to be ableto succeed in course work or degree

programs that lead to particularcareers. Some local and regional CTEcollaborations between high schoolsand community colleges exist now,ranging from formalized relationshipsat ROCPs to more informal course-or pathway-related activities. But thisis not done systematically throughoutthe state or within all the CTE areaswhere it would be valuable.

Historically, community collegeshave had minimal involvement instatewide K–12 reforms, and this wastrue for the development of the newCTE standards. Policymakers havetried to improve this situation inrecent years. For example, a newEconomic Development and CareerTechnical Education Reform Initia-tive, passed in 2005 (Senate Bill 70),provides funds for “Quick Start”Part-nerships in part to strengthen CTElinkages and pathways between highschools and community colleges.

K–12 and community college partnerships break down barriersbetween the two systems and offeralternatives to studentsThroughout California, dual-enrollment programs—in which highschool students take college-levelcourse work during high school—are

also common. In addition, variousgroups are exploring different modelsthat integrate academic and CTEcurricula and connect K–12 withcommunity colleges.

An example is the Early CollegeHigh Schools model. Promoted by the

Foundation for California Commu-nity Colleges in partnership withCDE and the California Commu-nity Colleges Chancellor’s Office(CCCCO), these programs blendhigh school and college so thatstudents can complete two years ofcollege while in high school. Theprograms provide support services forstudents in the middle school andearly high school years to ensure thatall students in the program will beready for college-level work. Theefforts focus on students who aretraditionally underrepresented inpostsecondary education.

The CCCCO also runs 13Middle College High Schools(MCHS) that serve approximately2,000 students. These programs focuson providing traditionally underrepre-sented “high-potential” students witha quality high school education andaccess to community college coursesand services. High school studentsattend classes on a community collegecampus, earn credit toward a highschool diploma, and have an opportu-nity to take college courses and toreceive academic counseling. Theprograms leverage greater use of CTEresources, including laboratories andequipment.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

California’s standards set a high bar for Career Technical Education

courses and are generally viewed as an international model for rigor

and for including academic content.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



These partnerships with com-munity colleges are generallydiscrete programs offered to a fewstudents. However, UC has recentlypaid more attention to what isneeded to certify CTE courses asfulfilling the “a-g” requirements, anaction that could have a moreuniversal impact on the curricula inCalifornia high schools.

UC course approvals are a linchpinin the effort to unite academics with Career Tech EducationIn an acknowledgement of thesubstantial rigor incorporated in someCTE courses, UC began two decadesago to approve CTE programs andcourses that meet its course criteria.Senate Bill 813 (The EducationalReform Act of 1983) set the stage for

this. The bill mandated specific highschool graduation requirements inEnglish, history, science, mathematics,fine arts/or foreign language, andphysical education, but CTE courseswere not part of the requirements.However, the Legislature also stipu-lated that local education agencieswere to provide alternative methodsfor students to meet mandated

figure 4 Comparison of High School Graduation Requirements, CTE Recommendations, and UC/CSU “a-g” Requirements

Subject Area State High School Recommended Career UC/CSU “a-g” Subject Graduation Requirements* Technical Education Area Requirements

History/Social Science 3 years 3 years 2 yearsIncluding U.S. history & geography, Including U.S. history & geography, 1 yr world history/world history/culture/geography, world history/culture/geography, cultures/ geography,American gov’t/economics** American gov’t/economics** plus 1 yr U.S. history/gov’t

English 3 years 4 years 4 years

College preparatory English

Mathematics 2 years 2–3 years 3 yearsIncluding algebra At least algebra & geometry; Algebra, geometry,

intermediate algebra for many paths intermediate algebra

Laboratory Science 2 years 2–4 years 2 yearsIncluding physical and Specific courses depend From biology,biological sciences on CTE area of focus chemistry, and physics

Foreign Language 1 year 2 years 2 yearsEither foreign language or Same languagevisual and performing arts

Visual and Performing Arts 1 year 1 year 1 yearEither foreign language orvisual and performing arts

Electives: General 1/2 year 0 years 1 yearHealth***

Electives: Career Technical 0 years 2–4 years 0 yearsSpecific requirements depend on CTE focus area

Physical Education 2 years 2 years 0 years

SUBTOTAL 13.5 courses (units) 18–23 courses (units) 15 courses (units)

Remaining Electives 8.5 courses (units) 0–4 courses (units) 7 courses (units)

TOTAL REQUIRED 22 courses (units) 22 courses (units) 22 courses (units) FOR GRADUATION (220 credits) (220 credits) (220 credits)

* The governing board of any school district may require additional course work for graduation.** UC accepts economics in the elective area, rather than the history/social science area.

*** The State Education Code does not require a semester course but rather a list of topics that can generally be accomplished in less than a semester.




graduation requirements, including“practical demonstration of skills andcompetencies, supervised work experi-ence or other outside school experience,interdisciplinary study, independentstudy, and credit earned at a postsec-ondary institution.”

This provision enabled CTE educa-tors to design integrated courses thatcould meet graduation requirements inmany of these mandated academicareas—and also meet UC expectations.Although the record is not entirely clear,the first known CTE courses to meetUC admission requirements came fromtwo agriculture programs located in theSan Joaquin Valley in the mid-1980s.

In 2003, the Superintendent of PublicInstruction Jack O’Connell began activelyencouraging CTE educators to developrigorous, standards-based CTE coursesthat could meet UC admission require-ments. Since then, UC has approved anincreasing number of CTE courses.

Even with this increased emphasis,however, fewer than 20% of CTEcourses meet the “a-g” requirements,according to an analysis completed byUCOP in 2005–06. This analysisgrouped CTE courses into six broadcategories (agriculture, business, healthcareers, home economics careers/tech-nology, industrial and technologyeducation, arts and entertainment, andother career-technical industry sectors)and then reported which of the “a-g”subject-matter areas they fit. Mostnotably, there are very few approvedcourses in history/social science (21),English (19), mathematics (5), orlanguages other than English (2). Thebulk of the CTE approved courses arein laboratory sciences (684), visual andperforming arts (2,107), and collegepreparatory electives (1,183). Almost10% of the 914 high schools thatUCOP reviewed did not have any “a-g”approved CTE courses.

These numbers indicate how manycourses in each area are approved, nothow many are offered throughout thestate. Once a course receives approval forone high school, it can be offered byothers. So although only five math CTE

courses have been approved, more thanfive classrooms/high schools likely offerthe courses. There is some agreementthat a greater number of CTE coursescould be submitted to UC and approved.Yet, there is also some agreement that itis neither appropriate nor desirable for allCTE courses to seek “a-g” approval.

UCOP also examined the differ-ences and compatibility between theminimum course-taking requirementsfor high school graduation, recom-mended CTE courses of study in highschool, and the “a-g” requirements (seeFigure 4). For the CTE courses, UCOPreferenced specific course sequencesrecommended by CDE. In manyschools, students complete CTEprograms with many fewer courses.

UC concludes its analysis by statingthat “it is manageable for a student to meetall three sets of requirements (high schoolgraduation, CTE recommendations,UC/CSU eligibility) while completing theminimum number of units for high schoolgraduation (22 units/220 credits).”Thisconclusion is based on the fact that stu-dents need to take 15 approved courses tobe eligible for UC admission. However, asnoted earlier, in order to be competitive atmost UC campuses, students generallycomplete more than 15 “a-g” courses.

Recognizing this need to go beyondthe “a-g” courses, the analysis discussesopportunities for students to take morethan six courses per year through theuse of more flexible school bell sched-ules and/or taking summer school and

community college classes. Ultimately,it concludes that when “students takefull advantage of extended opportun-ities to complete coursework, it ispossible for a student to take enoughcollege preparatory coursework to becompetitively eligible for the mostselective UC campuses, while simul-taneously completing recommendedCTE coursework.”Within this context,the UCOP analysis demonstrates thatthe task is more manageable whenstudents have an opportunity tocomplete “a-g” approved CTE courses.However, when students attend highschools that do not offer enough “a-g”courses, have few or no “a-g” approvedCTE courses, and/or are operating ona traditional six-period day schedule,they may face barriers to meeting thesemutual goals.

The situation with CSU is some-what different, in part because offundamental differences between thegoals of UC and CSU that are often lostin the larger discussion. Although bothsystems have the same course-takingrequirements, they have a very differentoverall focus. In addition, it takes fewer“a-g” courses to be competitive foradmission into the majority of CSUcampuses. That means there could likely

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

UC has recently paid more attention to what is needed to certify CTE

courses as fulfilling the “a-g” requirements, an action that could have

a more universal impact on the curricula in California high schools.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



be more opportunity for a studententering CSU to complete both theminimum required “a-g” courses and aCTE pathway. Given that the CSUsystem is also more oriented to aprofessional education—in contrast toUC, which is a research-based univer-sity system—the match between

students interested in CTE and thoseinterested in a CSU education holdsparticular promise.

Multiple pathways approach triesto circumvent “dual and dueling”views of high school curriculum The tensions between traditionalacademic and CTE curricularapproaches in high schools are historicand run deep. Based partly on thehistorical structuring of the compre-hensive high school into separatetracks, some experts characterize thehigh school curriculum as dualsystems that are constantly duelingover how high schools ought to beteaching students. Recent debates inCalifornia that have pitted the “a-g for all” advocates against CTE suppor-ters illustrate the point.

Many people on the “academicside” claim that far too often low-level, occupation-specific CTE hasbeen the “dumping ground” forLatino, African American, and low-income students. It has removed themfrom the college preparatory curricu-lum and curtailed their postsecondaryopportunities. They want policies thatensure that all students have access torigorous academic course work.

Others on the “CTE side” believethat the high school curriculum needsto include more options for highschool students who intend to pursuefurther education but also wish to gaincareer skills and better understand theconnection between learning andearning. They are often concerned that

the current standards movement andthe push for schools to meet account-ability targets—combined with theemphasis on preparing more studentsfor university admission—is forcingCTE courses out of middle and highschools. One consequence is thatschool is less engaging for students.

Nationally, and in California,there is increasing interest in refocus-ing this “dual and dueling” discussionby promoting a vision for how highschools can provide curricula that areengaging, rigorous, and preparestudents both for postsecondaryeducation and for a career after highschool. That vision is often referred toas multiple pathways. One challenge,however, is that the term itself is notuniversally recognized and can also bedefined many different ways.

For example, it might initiallyappear that the traditional highschool already offers multiple path-ways by having separate coursesequences that lead to postsecondarypreparation and to workforce prepa-ration, as well as the general educationsequence for students who are unsureabout their goals.

However, current reform move-ments that focus on multiple pathways

strongly advocate a departure from thatorganization of high school courses andstudents. Reformers say that the tradi-tional system generally has beenineffective and particularly unfair anddamaging to low-income, AfricanAmerican, and Latino students. Manypoint to the general education track, inparticular, as not preparing studentswell for life after high school, regardlessof their aspirations. Students who havenot completed the “a-g” sequence or aCTE program are arguably notprepared for much of anything, and thatgroup represents a substantial portionof today’s high school graduates.

Most multiple pathway advocatesreject the notion that instructionshould be organized with college-bound students on a separate pathfrom those who either are not likely togo on to college or who school offi-cials label as unable to do so. As apaper by Jobs for the Future states,“Multiple pathways do not implymultiple standards—but rather clearstandards at various levels and manyways of moving toward the standards.”

Do multiple pathways provide a newvision for California’s high schoolcurricula?In California, support for connectingCTE and postsecondary preparationis gaining momentum, including somenotable new initiatives. ConnectEd:The California Center for College andCareer is a nonprofit effort recentlyformed to “support the demonstra-tion, expansion, and replication ofpromising practices and programs thatprepare students for success in collegeand career.” This new organization isworking to expand the number ofmultiple pathway options for Califor-nia high school students.

In support of this work, UCLA’sInstitute for Democracy, Education,and Access (IDEA) recently released aset of papers entitled “Multiple

The tensions between traditional academic and CTE curricular

approaches in high schools are historic and run deep....Recent debates

have pitted “a–g for all” advocates against CTE supporters.



Perspectives on Multiple Pathways:Preparing California’s Youth forCollege, Career, and Civic Responsi-bility.” The authors concluded thatcourses that combine CTE andacademic curricula have the potentialto reform California’s high schools inways that will benefit the state’s diversestudent body. IDEA is a network ofUCLA scholars and students, profes-sionals in schools and public agencies,advocates, community activists, andurban youth whose mission is to makehigh-quality public schooling andsuccessful college participationroutine occurrences in low-incomeneighborhoods of color.

The current multiple pathwaysmovement in California—as definedby ConnectEd and IDEA—calls forevery curricular pathway to have threeessential components:

1) a college-preparatory academiccore (satisfying the “a-g” courserequirements for entry into Califor-nia’s public universities);

2) a professional/technical corewell grounded in academic and real-world standards; and

3) increasingly more demand-ing opportunities for field-based learning that deepen students’ under-standing of academic and technicalknowledge through application inauthentic situations.

Each pathway also providesstudents with support services, such assupplemental instruction, counseling,and transportation. Although thestructural components may vary, thegoal is the same: all pathways preparestudents to succeed in college andcareer, not one or the other.

IDEA acknowledges that the multi-ple pathways vision “seeks to change acentury-old tradition that continues tomake sense to most people” and thatthe shift would be difficult to achieve.The authors are also emphatic,however, that such a shift is necessary

if all students are to have real oppor-tunities in today’s society—simplyreorganizing the high school structurewill not be sufficient for Californiaschools to achieve that goal. The reportmakes several policy recommendations,including the convening of a jointK–12/postsecondary education plan-ning committee; analyzing cost andfeasibility issues; and investing incurriculum development and teacherprofessional development.

Developing teachers’ skills mightrepresent the most difficult challenge,and it is a significant focus forConnectEd. Its major activitiesinvolve developing illustrative exam-ples of what successful multiplepathways look like and working tobuild a network of schools through-out California that is dedicated tostrengthening and expanding multi-ple pathways.

At the classroom level, high-quality CTE includes the integrationof academic and CTE curricula;adherence to high industry-drivenstandards; opportunities for interest-driven, hands-on, and appliedlearning; the integration of careerexploration and experiences in theworkplace; and the teaching ofhigher-order thinking.

ConnectEd has as a central goalthe increased visibility of effectiveprograms already in existencethroughout the country and supportfor their replication. In many cases, theprograms have staff and resourcesdedicated to helping local educatorswho wish to move in this direction.(The box on page 24 describes severalmodel programs that exemplify themultiple pathways approach and thatConnectEd staff see as effective.)

California’s network of Partner-ship Academies also includes manyexamples of effective programs. AMarch 2007 profile of California’sPartnership Academies highlights

What are multiple pathways?Advocates of high school reform continue tograpple with this term as they use it to definetheir various approaches to the high schoolcurriculum.

Most advocates agree on the goal: provide allstudents with access to a rigorous core curriculumand help them achieve high standards while alsoallowing for enough choice and flexibility withinthe high school curriculum to meet students’diverse interests and post-graduation goals.Student engagement is key. The goal is to makesure all students develop skills and knowledgesuch that they will have many options when theygraduate from high school and later in their livesand careers.

The term “multiple pathways” also refers to specificmodels for reforming the way academic and careertechnical content are taught in high schools andthe extent to which the two are integrated intostudents’ educational and life experiences. Thosemodels differ in significant ways and also challengeareas of the traditional curriculum, which canevoke strong feelings among advocates.

Some advocates use multiple pathways to explic-itly refer to various high school course sequencesthat emphasize a career focus (e.g., health,construction, engineering) and that blend CTE and“a-g” requirements.

What is postsecondary education?The term includes any of the various educationaloptions open to students after the completion ofhigh school, including certification programs forspecific trades or industries, additional academiccourse work, a two-year associate’s degree, a four-year bachelor’s degree, and so on.

What is meant by entering the workforce?Educators and advocates use this phrase to referto entry into a career that offers advancementand will eventually pay enough to support a familyof four.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



Arthur A. Benjamin Health Professions High School,Sacramento City Unified School District(http://schools.scusd.edu/healthprofessions)Health Professions High School, which began accepting freshmen inSeptember 2005, is one of Sacramento City Unified School District’s“small, focused high schools.” The high school was conceived in part toaddress a shortage of new, qualified health care workers in the Sacra-mento area. It is aimed at students who want to investigate careers inmedicine or veterinary medicine.

Each year the school enrolls about 180 freshmen who participate in anacademically rigorous curriculum focused on science. Using an EarlyCollege model, students begin college work in high school and partici-pate in leadership training and workplace learning with health carepartners. The school is open to students within the district or in otherSacramento-area school districts.

Students are expected to at least complete calculus by the time theygraduate. Besides the more traditional biology, chemistry, and physicscourses, students must also take health and biomedical science for fouryears as well as courses on nutrition, microbiology, and anatomy andphysiology.The school emphasizes hands-on learning and works to placestudents in job shadowing opportunities and then internships in a healthcare field that interests them. During their junior and senior years,students participate in such internships or take a college or RegionalOccupational Program (ROP) course in their area of interest. Seniorsmust also study research methodologies and complete a senior project.

Students learn “in an extremely supportive environment that blendspositive relationships with adults, a solid academic foundation, andcommunity-centered learning,” according to Principal Matt Perry.

Project Lead the Way (www.pltw.org)A not-for-profit organization with programs in high schools and middleschools in California and across the nation, Project Lead the Way (PLTW)introduces students to the scope, rigor, and discipline of engineeringand engineering technology. The overall purpose of PLTW is to makemath and science relevant to students by emphasizing hands-on, real-world projects. Students synthesize knowledge and learn how to resolveproblems within the context of a particular subject, thereby helpingthem to make connections and see the value in what they are learning.

The high school program—which includes a four-year sequence ofcourses—was also created to attract more students to engineering andhelp them determine if it is a career they would like to pursue. According

to PLTW, students who participate in the program are more likely to besuccessful in college engineering courses, thus reducing the attritionrate, “which currently exceeds 50% nationally.” In addition, a specificgoal of the 40-week middle school program is to attract girls and minor-ity students to technology and related career fields.

Students either improve existing products or invent new ones, with anemphasis on analyzing potential solutions and communicating ideas toothers. Working cooperatively as a class or in small groups, studentsfocus on one project over an extended period of time, with activitiesgeared to an increasing level of complexity.

A key component of the PLTW program is teacher education because thecurriculum requires teachers to use cutting-edge technology and soft-ware that require specialized and ongoing training.

Ford Partnership for Advanced Studies (www.fordpas.org)The Ford Partnership for Advanced Studies (Ford PAS) is an academicallyrigorous, interdisciplinary curriculum and program that provides studentswith the content knowledge and skills necessary for future success inareas such as business, economics, engineering, and technology. TheFord Motor Company Fund and Education Development Center Inc. (EDC)created the inquiry- and project-based program, which offers five semester-long elective courses that link learning in traditional aca-demic subjects with realistic applications.These links are forged throughcommunitywide, cooperative efforts and innovative partnerships that join local high schools, colleges and universities, and businesses.

The learning modules within the courses are designed so that skills andcontent knowledge develop as students move from one module to thenext, and the realistic applications prepare students for the challengesthey will face in postsecondary education and the workplace. For exam-ple, in a semester-long course, Planning for Business Success, studentsbecome managers of a fictitious local band trying to break into thenational music scene. Through case studies and computer simulations,they learn about marketing and finance.They also debate ethical issuesinvolved in marketing. Eventually, they create a business plan that theythen pitch to potential “investors” from the community.

In addition to the semester-long courses, Ford PAS offers five modulesthat can be used independently as units in existing courses in econom-ics, engineering, physics, statistics, and U.S. history.

Ford PAS also assists teachers through online courses and forums,professional development institutes, technical assistance, and confer-ences that provide networking opportunities.

Model CTE Programs


© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



some substantial successes for theseprograms and documents their overallsuccess in having students eligible foruniversity admission when they gradu-ate. Published by ConnectEd and theCareer Academy Support Network(CASN), the profile says that theseprograms “offer some of the mostpromising strategies for deliveringmultiple pathways to both postsec-ondary education and career—forat-risk students, as well as a cross-section of all students.”

Currently, almost all the evidenceabout this approach comes fromprograms like these, which involveself-selected students and teachers.Little rigorous evaluation exists aboutwhether this approach, if it wereimplemented statewide, would lead toincreased high school graduation, agreater proportion of students beingready for and completing some formof postsecondary education, andincreased workforce preparation.There is a great deal of hope, however,that done well, this way of teachingand learning offers an alternative thatcould improve academic and careeropportunities for a large proportionof students. Further, it is one way tointegrate all three of the curriculumapproaches or levers mentioned in thisreport—standards, “a-g” require-ments, and CTE—and to encouragemore alternatives for students.

Obstacles and opportunities existfor strengthening California’shigh school curriculumRegardless of the means, the end goalsof California’s current high schoolreform efforts converge in manyplaces. There is widespread agreementthat the state’s public educationsystem needs to:● Increase high school comple-

tion rates;● Offer curricula and instruction that

engages students in learning;

● Improve students’ academicachievement;

● Narrow current achievement gapsamong ethnic groups of stu-dents; and

● Increase the number and percent ofstudents—particularly of tradition-ally underrepresented students—

who are well prepared for postsec-ondary education and work afterhigh school. The curriculum offered in Cali-

fornia high schools—and the qualitywith which it is taught—is an impor-tant lever for achieving all these goals.As this report has summarized, thestate currently has three powerfullevers for strengthening that curricu-lum—its 9–12 academic contentstandards; university (UC and CSU)eligibility requirements and post-secondary placement standards (UC, CSU, and community college);and reforms of Career Technical Education.

These three mechanisms are notparticularly well coordinated anddepend heavily on the abilities of localeducators for their effective imple-mentation. It seems clear that none ofthem can be used in isolation to meetthe needs of every California studentor create positive change in every highschool. The demands and the chal-lenges are too varied and complex.Each leverage point for improving thecurriculum, however, contributes tothe whole and has a place in the state’semerging discussion of the highschool curriculum.

The state’s academic contentstandards, for example, have estab-lished a rigorous set of expectationsfor what students need to know andbe able to do. A crucial issue in theimplementation of standards remainsthe capacity of districts, schools, andteachers to align their curriculum

with these demanding expectationsand ensure that the curriculum isengaging for students. Educatorsneed high-quality professional devel-opment and sustained support to doso. Equally potent is the question ofwhat incentives they have to do thathard work and what tools they havefor motivating students—particu-larly those students who struggle themost academically or who have theleast sense of why school achieve-ment matters.

Aside from getting a high schooldiploma, one of the most salientincentives for students is going tocollege. Students and parents are clearthat people with college degrees aremore successful economically, and thedemand for college preparation andaccess has grown. For the most recentdiscussions of the high schoolcurriculum in California, collegepreparation has generally been trans-lated into completing the “a-g” courserequirements, in part because thatprovides some clarity and focus. Inreality, that has obscured what itmeans to prepare for postsecondaryinstitutions other than UC or CSUand has not always provided theappropriate information for UC or

Students who have not completed the “a-g” sequence or a CTE program

are arguably not prepared for much of anything, and that group represents

a substantial portion of today’s high school graduates.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



CSU readiness either. Data also showthat students from historically disad-vantaged groups are less likely to evencomplete the course work needed foradmission to four-year universities.

There has been a great deal ofdebate in California about mandatingthat all high school students completethe “a-g” sequence. But the issues andopportunities are more nuanced thanthe dualistic view that students musttake the “a-g” course sequence or theywill not get a rigorous high schooleducation. The “a-g” requirements donot take the place of California’sacademic content standards. They do

not constitute a curriculum per se,there is minimal quality control, andthey do not necessarily result instudent readiness for college-levelcourse work. Strong indications existthat the current processes for courseapproval and monitoring by them-selves do not and cannot ensure thatthe “a-g” courses provide theacademic rigor and effective instruc-tion that students need. Again, localhigh school educators are the criticalcomponent in determining whetherthat happens.

Increasing the percentage ofcurrently underrepresented students

who attend and succeed in UC andCSU institutions is important toCalifornia’s future. However, theadmission of every California highschool graduate into a four-yearuniversity simply cannot happen. Thecapacity of California’s publicuniversities makes it unlikely thatattendance can grow much beyondthe current levels, and not everyyoung person wants to pursue a bach-elor’s degree. Those realities reinforcethe need to broaden students’,parents’, and educators’ visions andunderstanding regarding what it takesto succeed in other postsecondarysettings, such as community collegesand the workplace. Central to this aresupport services and adult-studentrelationships that enable all studentsto get the help and guidance theyneed to think and plan beyond theirhigh school years. A key issue ismaking sure that students’ aspirationsare not diminished by adult percep-tions or expectations of them—anissue that state policy cannot impactvery much.

In 2006, state policymakersaddressed one facet of this issue byearmarking $200 million to encour-age school districts to increase thenumber of counselors in middle andhigh schools. For a number of years,California has ranked at the bottomamong the states in the ratio of guid-ance counselors to students, and thenew program’s goal is to raise the ratioto the national average. This goal isconsistent with expert opinion thatadequate counseling services helpcreate a “college culture” in highschools. (See the box above for moreon this program.)

The state also needs to considerits obligation to the approximately30% of students who do notcomplete high school on time.Improving the curriculum so they canunderstand how learning is relevant

California institutes a new counseling program

The most recent data (from 2004–05) show that the state’s ratio of K–12 students to counselors isabout 1,000-to-1—twice the national average. In 2006–07, California’s Legislature appropriated$200 million for an ongoing program to increase the number of counselors serving students in grades7–12. The stated goal of the legislation is to bring the student-counselor ratio down to 500-to-1 ingrades 7–8 and 300-to-1 in grades 9–12. It is estimated that the $200 million translates to about$71 per student.

Schools must spend this money to provide counseling services by people who hold a valid pupil person-nel services credential. This credential is an umbrella for four specializations: counseling, social work,psychology, and child welfare and attendance services. In addition to more detailed requirementsregarding meeting with and providing information to students and their parents, districts must alsosubmit an annual report on their counseling activities to the California Department of Education.

College counseling is one of a set of conditions consistent with the development of a college culturein high schools. Traditionally, counselors have been responsible for providing students with the neces-sary information and resources to prepare for college. Students need early and high-quality informationabout postsecondary preparation, choices, and financial aid. This need is particularly acute forstudents who have no relatives, siblings, or peers who attended college and thus must rely on some-one at the school site to provide that information. And for all students, counselors have the potentialto provide more specific, accurate, and up-to-date information than can noneducators or teachers.

An issue not specifically addressed in California’s program is that counselors today have so manyresponsibilities that college counseling is often neglected. Over the past 30 years, counselors’ profes-sional responsibilities have evolved and multiplied. The three main tasks of counselors today arescheduling, disciplining, and monitoring students who might drop out. After diffusing day-to-day crises,administering tests, and completing other tasks, counselors may have limited time for college advis-ing. However, this infusion of counseling resources might also prompt new approaches in high schoolsthat are under pressure to improve their students’ prospects after graduation.

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.



to their lives—and their potential foradult success—might be a crucialpart of the solution. Many surveys ofstudent opinion echo the findings ofthe 2006 High School Survey ofStudent Engagement, which reportedthat a large portion of students isdisengaged from school, in partbecause the class work seems uninter-esting or irrelevant.

For these reasons, CTE has reso-nance—but its rigor needs to match itsrelevance. State standards are a promis-ing first step for pulling this portion ofthe high school curriculum into the21st century in terms of academicexpectations. Central to that is theongoing work toward a curriculumthat serves students better by empha-sizing not only job skills, but also theunderlying knowledge that helpsensure long-term success. Educatorcapacity is a huge issue here as well.

Multiple pathways is one proposalfor how high schools in California canrestructure their curricula in a way thattaps into all these approaches. Thephilosophy is to redefine the con-versation away from students eitherpreparing for college or for work.Instead, the high school curriculumwould incorporate high academicstandards and applied learning,preparing students for adult successregardless of the path they choose.

This report identifies severalimportant leverage points that canimprove the high school curriculum somore students finish high schoolprepared to take on challenging post-secondary options. These include:● Improving instruction and content

to align with the state’s academic

standards so that more students aremastering them at higher levels;

● Strengthening teacher and princi-pal professional development and aligning it to the specific demands of standards-based instruction in California;

● Improving access to and quality of “a-g” course work across high schools;

● Increasing the availability of high-quality CTE courses and pathwaysthat are academically robust andthat provide engaging hands-onexperiences; and

● Providing students with thesupport, encouragement, and

guidance they need to take chal-lenging courses and to understandtheir postsecondary options andhow to reach them.California needs all these levers

in place if it is to strengthen thehigh school curriculum. A keyseems to be to use them in concert

instead of seeing them as beingopposites. No single approach tothe high school curriculum providesthe answer for every student, and noone set of reforms will be best inevery situation. There are manycurricular options that combinerigor and relevance, and many waysto organize high schools so studentshave stronger relationships withcaring, skilled adults. Perhapsaccepting the need for multiplestrategies is the most importantstep California can take tostrengthen its high school curricu-lum and improve all its students’chances for adult success.

No single approach to the high school curriculum provides the

answer for every student, and no one set of reforms will be best in

every situation.


Davis Campbell, PresidentPresident, California School Boards AssociationGovernance Institute

Lawrence O. Picus, Vice PresidentProfessor, Rossier School of Education,University of Southern California

Martha Kanter, Fiscal OfficerChancellor, Foothill-De Anza Community College District

John B. Mockler, SecretaryPresident, John Mockler & Associates, Inc.

Ray BacchettiScholar in Residence, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching

Pam BradyPresident-elect, California State PTA

Christopher CrossChair and CEO, Cross & Joftus, LLC

Gerald C. HaywardPartner, Management Analysis & Planning, Inc.

Santiago JacksonAssistant Superintendent, Division of Adult and Career Education, Los Angeles Unified School District

Jacqueline JacobbergerPresident, League of Women Voters of California

Kelvin K. LeeSuperintendent (Retired), Dry Creek Joint Elementary School District

Donna LillyCo-president, American Association of UniversityWomen–California

Paul J. MarkowitzTeacher, Las Virgenes Unified School District

Ted OlssonManager (Retired), Corporate Community Relations, IBM Corporation

Amado M. PadillaProfessor of Education, Stanford University

Peter SchragContributing Editor, Sacramento Bee

Don ShalveyCEO and Co-founder, Aspire Public Schools

Krys WulffDirector-at-large, American Association of University Women

2006–07 EdSource Board of Directors

Trish WilliamsEdSource Executive Director

520 San Antonio Rd, Suite 200, Mountain View, CA 94040-1217 • 650/917-9481 • Fax: 650/917-9482 • [email protected]

www.edsource.org • www.californiaschoolfinance.org • www.ed-data.k12.ca.us

© C

opyr

ight

200

7 by

EdS

ourc

e, I

nc.

Works and Organizations CitedAmerican Diploma Project. www.achieve.org

California Department of Education. Aiming High: High Schools for the 21st Century. 2002.www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/ahgen.asp

California Department of Education. California Career Technical Education Model Curriculum Standards: Grades Seven Through Twelve. May 2005. www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fd/documents/careertechstnd.pdf

California Department of Education. California High School Career Technical Education Courses Meeting University of California A-G Admission Requirements for 2006–2007. October 2006.www.ucop.edu/a-gGuide/ag/content/CDE-UCApprovedCTECourses2006-07.doc

Callan, Patrick M., and Joni E. Finney. “Multiple Pathways and State Policy: Toward Education and Training Beyond HighSchool.” The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. June 2003. Commissioned by Jobs for the Future.Boston, MA. www.jff.org

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. High School Survey of Student Engagement.http://ceep.indiana.edu/hssse

Conley, David. College Knowledge: What it Takes for Students to Succeed and What We Can Do to Get Them Ready.San Francisco. Jossey-Bass. 2005.

ConnectEd, The California Center for College and Career. www.connectedcalifornia.org

ConnectEd and the Career Academy Support Network. A Profile of the California Partnership Academies 2004–05.www.connectedcalifornia.org

Early College High School. www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/hs/echsgen.asp

Finn Jr., Chester E., Liam Julian, and Michael J. Petrilli. “The State of State Standards 2006.” The Fordham Foundation.August 2006. www.edexcellence.net

Middle College High School. www.cccco.edu/divisions/ss/mchs/mchs.htm

Oakes, Jeannie, et al. “Multiple Perspectives on Multiple Pathways: Preparing California’s Youth for College, Career, andCivic Responsibility.” UCLA. February 2007. www.idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/mp/index.html

Oakes, Jeannie, et al. “Removing the Roadblocks to College: Fair College Opportunities for All California Students.” UCAll Campus Consortium on Research for Diversity and UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access. November2006. http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/roadblocks/pdf/RemovingRoadblocks.pdf

University of California. 2007 Guide to ‘a-g’ Requirements and Instructions for Updating Your School’s ‘a-g’ Course List.2007. www.ucop.edu/a-gGuide/ag/a-g/welcome.html

University of California Academic Senate Memorandum, October 25, 1998.http://academicsenate.ucdavis.edu/ra/a&eprpsl.html

University of California Office of the President. California High School Career-Technical Education Courses MeetingUniversity of California A-G Admission Requirements for 2005–2006. www.ucop.edu

Venezia, Andrea, Michael W. Kirst, and Anthony L. Antonio. “Betraying the College Dream: How Disconnected K–12 andPostsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student Aspirations.” 2003. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for HigherEducation Research.

Wald, Michael and Tia Martinez. “Connected by 25: Improving the Life Chances of the Country’s Most Vulnerable 14–24 Year Olds.” William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Working Paper, November 2003.www.hewlett.org/Archives/Publications/connectedBy25.htm

WestEd. “A Statewide Assessment of California's Career Technical Education System.” December 2006. San Francisco,CA: WestEd.

levers f change · 2014. 9. 24. · or enter an ivy league institution. levers f change: ... a...

Documents