partnerships for college readinessgreater collaboration around data and indicators related to...

Partnershipsfor College Readiness

prepared by the Annenberg Institutefor School Reform at Brown University

ABOUT THE COLLEGE READINESS INDICATOR SYSTEMS PROJECTThe Annenberg Institute for School Reform (AISR) at Brown University and the John W. Gardner Center for Youthand Their Communities (JGC) at Stanford University have each received three-year grants from the Bill & MelindaGates Foundation to work together to select a network of sites and develop models for College Readiness Indicator Systems. As part of this collaborative effort, AISR and JGC develop, test, and disseminate effectivetools and resources that provide early diagnostic indications of what students need to become college ready.The two organizations work closely with the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University ofChicago, which also has received a grant from the Gates Foundation to develop and test CRIS-related toolsbased on their work with the Chicago Public Schools. The CRIS sites are Dallas, New Visions for Public Schools(New York City), Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and San Jose, California.

For more information, visit http://annenberginstitute.org/cris

ABOUT THE ANNENBERG INSTITUTE FOR SCHOOL REFORMThe Annenberg Institute for School Reform (AISR) is a national policy-research and reform-support organization,affiliated with Brown University, that focuses on improving conditions and outcomes for all students in urbanpublic schools, especially those attended by traditionally underserved children. AISR’s vision is the transformationof traditional school systems into “smart education systems” that develop and integrate high-quality learningopportunities in all areas of students’ lives – at school, at home, and in the community. AISR conducts research;works with a variety of partners committed to educational improvement to build capacity in school districts andcommunities; and shares its work through print and Web publications.

Rather than providing a specific reform design or model to be implemented, AISR’s approach is to offer anarray of tools and strategies to help districts and communities strengthen their local capacity to provide andsustain high-quality education for all students.

http://annenberginstitute.org

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors wish to thank the many dedicated leaders and staff from district central offices, higher education, foundations, community organizations, and chambers of commerce in the five CRIS sites who tookthe time to participate in interviews for this study. Without their generous collaboration and candor in sharingtheir successes and challenges, we would not havebeen able to carry out the study and share the impor-tant lessons and best practices on college readinessthat emerged from our analysis.

Prepared by: Jaein Lee, Sara McAlister, Jacob Mishook, andGabriel Santner

Editing:Margaret Balch-Gonzalez

Graphic Design: Haewon Kim The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown

University proudly celebrates its 20th anniversary andreaffirms its commitment to urban public education reformand our mission to ensure equitable, high-quality learningopportunities for all children and communities.

© 2013 Annenberg Institute for School Reform atBrown University

Contents

1 IntroductionDistricts and Their External Partners: What We Know 1

About This Study 2

3 FindingsDiffering Approaches and Levels of Engagement 3

Formal Data-Sharing Partnerships 4

Informal Partnerships 5

The Role of Intermediary Institutions 6

A New Focus on College Completion 9

Key Challenges 10

12 Building Robust Partnerships for College Readiness Lessons Learned about Data-Sharing Partnerships 12

Community-wide Approaches to College Readiness: Emerging Best Practices 13

14 References

CO L L E G E RE A D I N E S S IN D I C AT O R SY S T E M S 1

Introduction

In recent years, the education spotlight in theUnited States has shifted from high school

graduation to postsecondary success, along withthe recognition that to thrive in today’s economyrequires more than just a high school diploma. Inresponse, local, state, and federal policymakers andpractitioners, working with their community part-ners, have turned their attention to equipping stu-dents with the skills and knowledge required toobtain a postsecondary degree.

This shift has been accompanied by a wealth ofpolicies and initiatives aimed at preparing studentsto enter and succeed in college, led by educationpolicymakers, philanthropies, and nonprofitorganizations, along with an increasing role forintermediary organizations – those which act asbrokers, facilitators, and mediators between otherentities that may have very different roles, cultures,and expertise. The goal of college readiness isembedded in federal priorities such as Race to theTop, multi-state initiatives such as Common CoreState Standards, and assessment consortia tied tothese new, higher standards.

Some of these initiatives have created new oppor-tunities for community-based organizations(CBOs) and universities to partner with K–12school districts and schools around college readi-ness. It is clear that districts cannot do this workalone in an era of heightened expectations,increased student need, and shrinking educationbudgets. Community-based organizations, higher-education institutions, civic institutions, and parentand student organizing groups all have an interest

in preparing young people for higher education –and they have capacities that can help communitiesreach college readiness goals.

As more partners collaborate with each other andwork with students, many have begun to recognizethat sharing data among the different organiza-tions can help measure the impact of their strate-gies, reduce redundancies in their efforts, andprovide targeted student aid. But, while there is arobust literature around district-community part-nerships and their sharing of data, there is muchless written about such partnerships specificallydesigned to bolster college readiness. Thus, ourinterest in this exploratory study was to learn howdistricts and their external partners collaboratethrough data sharing and systems of early indica-tors of progress toward college readiness goals infive sites where the Annenberg Institute for SchoolReform (AISR) at Brown University and its part-ners are supporting the College Readiness Indica-tor System (CRIS) initiative (see sidebar on nextpage).

Districts and Their External Partners: What We Know There is a long history of school districts partner-ing with community-based organizations andhigher-education institutions. We know fromresearch that successful partnerships have the fol-lowing qualities:

• Shared visions, norms, and responsibilities (Bennett& Thompson 2011; Goldring 2005; Edens &Gilsinan 2005). Research has found that success-ful partnerships require shared visions, responsi-bilities, and cultural norms among involvedpartners (Bosma et al. 2010; Goldring & Sims2005; Núñez & Oliva 2009; Bruce et al. 2011).To establish and maintain this mutual commit-ment, some scholars recommended that deci-sion-makers and on-the-ground practitionerscome together to decide collectively on imple-mentable interventions and supports for students(Dougherty, Long & Singer 2009; Moran et al.2009; Núñez & Oliva 2009).

Partnerships forCollege Readiness

2 Partnerships for College Readiness

• Use of data to strengthen internal capacity and inter-relationships (Moran et al. 2009; Dougherty, Long & Singer 2009; Vernez et al. 2008). Datacan strengthen not only individual organizations’internal capacities, but also the relationshipsbetween partners (Dougherty, Long & Singer2009; Sanders 2008). Data are also instrumentalfor organizations to discuss their partnershipprogress and alter interventions and supports forstudents when necessary (Moran et al. 2009).

About This StudyWhile prior research has focused on after-schooland higher-education collaborations with districts,there has been less written about collaborationsthat are specifically focused on college readiness.As states begin to implement the Common CoreState Standards, there will be a greater need forcollaboration between districts and their partnersto support students, especially as many school dis-tricts are simultaneously facing a time of increasedbudget austerity. Furthermore, calls for greatercollaboration across citywide institutions (e.g.,Broader, Bolder Approach to Education) mayunderestimate the technical, cultural, and institu-tional challenges for such work to be effective.This study provides useful examples from theCRIS network for districts and cities consideringgreater collaboration around data and indicatorsrelated to college readiness.

Given the gap in knowledge about partnerships forcollege readiness and recognizing their impor-tance, this exploratory study examined the follow-ing research questions:

• How are CRIS districts and their local externalorganizations – higher education and commu-nity-based organizations – collaborating aroundissues of college readiness?

• How are partners developing, sharing, and actingon college readiness indicators?

• What are some of the current challenges – insti-tutional, cultural, and technical – to these part-nerships?

AISR’s interest in better understanding the con-nection between districts and external partnersgrows out of our work as part of the CollegeReadiness Indicator Systems (CRIS) initiative,funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.CRIS brings together three thought partners –AISR, the John W. Gardner Center for Youthand Their Communities at Stanford University,and the Consortium for Chicago SchoolResearch at the University of Chicago – and fivelarge, urban districts and support organizations– Dallas Independent School District, NewVisions for Public Schools in New York City, theSchool District of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh PublicSchools, and San Jose Unified School District –to jointly develop, test, and disseminate effectivetools and resources that provide early diagnos-tic indications of what students need to becomecollege ready. One of AISR’s key roles in thispartnership is to develop knowledge and toolsthat help districts and their community partnersthoughtfully and productively collaboratearound college readiness.

For more information, see www.annenberginsti-tute.org/cris

ABOUT THE COLLEGE READINESS INDICATOR SYSTEMS INITIATIVE


The five sites involved in this study representdiverse urban districts, ranging from approxi-mately 25,000 to 150,000 students, and wereselected based on their work emphasizing collegereadiness. After a preliminary literature review, weconducted forty-three interviews in the sites withmembers of the district office, CBOs, higher-edu-cation institutions, and other key stakeholders. Seethe sidebar for more detail on interview methods.

Findings

Several clear findings emerged from the fiveCRIS sites.

• There are multiple types of partnerships and levels ofengagement between districts and partners, rang-ing from informal, ad hoc groups of organiza-tions who meet to discuss common interests incollege readiness to formal partnerships withmemoranda-of-understanding and detailed data-sharing agreements.

• Data-sharing around college readiness is a key fea-ture of many partnerships, though there are sig-nificant technical and potential privacy issuesthat make sharing data difficult.

• Intermediary organizations are emerging in manyCRIS sites to raise the profile of college readi-ness across their communities, as well as play “airtraffic controller” to help coordinate the manygroups focused on preparing young people forhigher education.

• A number of partners are now extending their supports from college readiness to college completion asmany recognize that college entrance does notguarantee students’ success in college.

Differing Approaches and Levels of EngagementWhile the importance of cross-sector partnershipsaround college readiness was echoed at all our site interviews, the levels of engagement andapproaches varied widely across the five sites.Some already had a well-established data systemshared among the partners. Some have recentlybegun developing formal data-sharing agreementsand analyzing their data. Others continue to relyon their personal relationships and student waiversto provide college readiness supports and evaluatetheir programs’ effectiveness. Many respondentsregretted their lack of current capacity to develop acontractual agreement around data sharing, whichhas proven to be the stronger model for collegereadiness partnerships.

We developed three separate interview protocols:for district office, CBOs, and higher-educationinstitutions. We used a snowball samplingmethod, beginning with our site liaisons and theirpartner organizations, including CBOs andhigher-education institutions. We also used websearches to identify additional CBOs for inter-views. The interviewees recommended furthercontacts as well as key stakeholders in theirrespective sites. These key players included uni-versity faculty and researchers, foundation staff,leaders of parent engagement organizations andother organizations involved in college readinessissues, and chamber of commerce staff. In-personand phone interviews were each about one hourin duration.

INTERVIEW METHODS

1 For the University of California admission requirements, known asA-G Eligibility, see http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/requirements/index.html.


Nonetheless, given the challenge of data sharing,especially with community-based organizations,CBO partners pointed out that their current rela-tionships, either as ad hoc groups or personally,served them well in responding to their school district and school partners’ need and providingsupports to students. Regardless of the partnershiptype – data sharing or non-data sharing – manypartners recognized that shared visions and goalsare critical in developing cross-sector partnershipsto support their students for college and career.

Formal Data-Sharing PartnershipsDeveloping contractual partnerships – for exam-ple, by signing a memorandum of understandingor a data-sharing agreement – was noted by part-nering organizations as critical in establishingeffective partnerships, especially around data shar-ing. Research asserts that successful partnershipsrequire shared visions, responsibilities, and culturalnorms (Bosma et al. 2010; Goldring & Sims 2005;Núñez & Oliva 2009; Bruce 2011 et al.), and for-mal contracts can serve as a tool to promote effec-tive communication between partners, providingopportunities to develop shared goals and respon-sibilities (Bennett & Thompson 2011). Observa-tions in our sites confirmed that their contractualdata-sharing partnerships, while mainly addressingways of collecting and sharing data, also served as a critical instrument in establishing shared goalsand priorities in supporting students for collegeand prompted further collaborations beyond datasharing.

Formal agreements between two organizations(usually a district or school and a nonprofit or uni-versity) encourage them to consciously addressmany elements that make a partnership effective. Acontract can:

• clearly define each group’s roles, which researchhas shown to make the partnership more effec-tive (Bennett & Thompson 2011) – e.g., the col-lege application process includes various areas ofchallenge in which students may need support,and splitting up these responsibilities betweenorganizations can be greatly beneficial;

• provide increased incentives for organizations toconnect and communicate, sometimes leading toindividuals from each organization being placedwithin their partner’s premises (e.g., a districtallowing external college access providers to beco-located with school-based counselors on acampus);

• help ensure that partners have a more equal rolein decision making and reciprocal support, ratherthan the more powerful partner dominating thepartnership (Edens & Gilsinan 2005).

Partnerships with Postsecondary InstitutionsPartnerships based on data-sharing agreementshave been especially prominent between schooldistricts and postsecondary institutions.

While K–12-postsecondary partnerships have beenpracticed for many years (Núñez & Oliva 2009),collaborations at the district level that were specifi-cally around college readiness data were found tobe promising in supporting students at a scalelarger than on a school-by-school basis. For exam-ple, a data-sharing partnership between CRIS net-work member San Jose Unified School District(SJUSD) and the University of California atBerkeley (UC Berkeley) allowed low-performingschools in the district to provide college readinesssupports based on the reports generated by theUC Berkeley’s Transcript Evaluation Service pro-gram. For this partnership, the district shares thestudents’ transcripts with UC Berkeley to be evalu-ated based on the university’s admission bench-marks.1 In return, UC Berkeley uses thisinformation to support their guidance counselorfellowship program (UC Berkeley Fisher FellowsProgram) and the participating schools to betterserve SJUSD students in preparing for college.


Another partnership under this data-sharing agree-ment is centered around pre- and post-surveys on college knowledge administered to all studentswho are enrolled in schools participating in theTranscript Evaluation Service. SJUSD uses theresults to understand what knowledge studentsneed in order to succeed in college. Through thedistrict-postsecondary data-sharing collaboration,the Transcript Evaluation Service has not onlyincreased the number of students applying to andenrolling in University of California systems, buthas also helped shape a strong guidance counselorfellowship program at UC Berkeley.

Partnerships with NonprofitsPittsburgh provides an example of a partnershipbetween a district and a nonprofit that includes aformal agreement around data. United Way’s Be a6th Grade Mentor program enlists communityvolunteers in Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS) tomentor middle school students weekly for at leastone school year. The program includes both closepartnerships with school-based staff and a memo-randum of understanding between United Wayand the district.

United Way and local university evaluators workedwith the district to develop indicators aroundattendance and grades. United Way receives datafrom PPS around these indicators for participatingstudents through a formal data-sharing agreement,which enables them to more effectively evaluatethe program. In return, United Way also shares itsinternal survey and evaluation results monthly withpartners, including the district, for both individualschools and the program overall. According to aUnited Way staff member, the data-sharing agree-ment was the result of a lengthy and intenseprocess with the district, which ultimately servedto strengthen the partnership and ensure access toinformation that would improve services to stu-dents and the program overall.

Informal PartnershipsWhile all CRIS sites agree on the importance ofdata, not all districts have the conditions and/orthe capacity to readily establish contractual part-nerships around data with their external partners.Nevertheless, without data-sharing partnerships inplace, some sites showed some promising practicesthrough varying levels of engagement thatemerged as critical in developing strong partner-ships on college readiness indicators and supports.

Informal Access to Student-Level Data In contrast to postsecondary institutions, not manyCBOs had formal data-sharing agreements withschool districts. CBOs often struggled to get stu-dent-level data and were limited to aggregateddata. While many CBOs pointed at the local poli-cies on the Family Educational Rights and PrivacyAct (FERPA) as a barrier, some also mentioned thedifficulty of working with schools and districts dueto their distinct organizational structures and time-lines. In fact, research has found that distinct orga-nizational structures and work pace can besignificantly challenging in public-private organi-zation partnerships, especially for K–12-CBOpartnerships, and access to information is espe-cially challenging for CBOs in getting timely datato support their students (Acar & Robertson 2004).

As an alternative, many CBOs and some privatepostsecondary institutions request waivers fromtheir students and parents directly or rely on theirpartnering organizations’ staff to obtain data onstudents they serve. For instance, Dallas Independ-ent School District (DISD) has partnerships with anumber of CBOs to collaborate specifically on col-lege knowledge. Under this agreement, partneringorganizations’ college advisors come to campus towork with counselors and provide direct services tostudents. However, due to their non–school staffstatus, these advisors rarely have access to campusdata systems and have to rely on school counselors,who are already burdened with high caseloads, torun data for them.

However, through their strong personal relation-ships with local high school guidance counselors,Philadelphia Futures continues to work with stu-dents recommended by counselors and provideprofessional development workshops for coun-selors. Philadelphia Futures described theirapproach of working on a school-by-school basisas effective, in spite of the limited time andresources at the central office level to engage in aformal partnership. Although Philadelphia Futuresneeds to collect and rely on individual studentwaivers to access their students’ data, due to thelack of a data-sharing agreement with the district,they highly value their current partnerships withindividual schools, which are based on trust and ashared vision – important elements of a strongpartnership. A Philadelphia Futures representativestated, “We have really good relationships withcounselors. When people understand what we pro-vide, they trust us.”

The Role of Intermediary InstitutionsAs different stakeholders come together to collab-orate around college readiness efforts, intermedi-ary institutions have begun surfacing in some ofour CRIS sites and taken up the role of strength-ening college readiness partnerships in their com-munities. The role of intermediary organizations isespecially critical in mediating between organiza-tions of different backgrounds – public and private– and facilitating their collaborations in supportingstudents for college readiness. Ellen Goldring andPearl Sims (2005) note that while partneringorganizations often need to represent their respec-tive organizations, intermediary organizations willalways represent the interest of the new partner-ship (pp. 233–234). At our sites, we observed twotypes of intermediary organizations: one that is ledat the community level (“umbrella” organizations)and another led at the district level.


After three years of this informal access to studentdata, DISD was finally able to solve this limitedaccess by developing a data portal that counselorsand partnering college advisors can equally accessand input data of the students they serve together.Thus, although CBO partners’ access to data islimited to the students they serve, many agreedthat this informal access to data is the best alterna-tive for them to keep track of the students theyserve and measure their programs’ effectiveness.Thus, many CBOs reiterated the importance ofmaintaining strong relationships with their districtand postsecondary partners.

Non-data PartnershipsDistinct from data-sharing partnerships, whichoften require some type of a contractual agree-ment, most non-data partnerships take place with-out establishing any formal contracts. Theyprimarily focus on identifying shared visions andgoals, as well as addressing the gaps in supportsprovided by different organizations. While someof these partnerships were created in clearly struc-tured ad hoc committees, many of the partnershipsobserved in our sites seemed more informallyestablished through personal connections betweengroups or individuals.

Within the CRIS network, the PhiladelphiaFutures organization illustrates the strengths andchallenges of informal partnerships between dis-tricts and external organizations. PhiladelphiaFutures is a nonprofit that works to build collegeknowledge and academic preparedness in highschool students starting in ninth grade, matchthem with a college that fits their ability and inter-ests, and support them throughout their time incollege. Although this organization has a rich his-tory of helping students in Philadelphia and hasseveral formal partnerships with Pennsylvania uni-versities, it has only an informal partnership withthe School District of Philadelphia.


2 The term “umbrella” organization derives from its role of embrac-ing different partners under one shared mission and set of goalsand of representing the partners as one entity.

3 Commit! was modeled after the collective impact strategies ofStrive Cincinnati (www.strivetogether.org). Commit! was estab-lished based on examples learned during a tour around thecountry organized by the chamber of commerce and someschool district board members to identify best practices of part-nerships in urban districts.

4 The Council has three committees: Work Ready, Project U-turn,and College Ready.

The Emergence of Community-Led UmbrellaOrganizationsIntermediary organizations, also referred to asumbrella organizations,2 are seen as advocates and leaders to advance the common interests andgoals of its partners. Through the emergence ofumbrella organizations, some community partners,including CBOs and business organizations, beganto proactively participate in their school districts’decision-making processes and support collegereadiness for their community’s students. Forinstance, Commit! Dallas is a nonprofit organiza-tion operating as an umbrella organization thatcomprises about fifty local partner organizationsfrom different sectors – local funders, school dis-tricts, higher-education institutions, faith groups,and business organizations.

For a large county like Dallas, Commit!’s leader-ship and collaborations of different sectors wereespecially critical in supporting their students toincrease the number of college graduates andskilled workers in the county.3 With a student pop-ulation of over 300,000 in fifteen school districts,Dallas-area education leaders have always foundthe issue of student mobility – about one-third ofstudents cross district boundaries yearly – to beespecially challenging for individual school dis-tricts in supporting their students. Recognizing the need for coordination across districts and local support organizations, Commit! has begun to emerge as the “backbone” entity, not only connecting partners, but also linking common

indicators and shared measurement systems of stu-dent learning across districts and advocating for adata-driven community.

A similar approach has emerged in Philadelphiathrough the Council for College and Career Suc-cess, an initiative led by the mayor’s office.4 Underthe Council, the College Ready committee’s threework teams – data, postsecondary readiness, andcollege completion – have convened stakeholdersfrom higher-education institutions, school dis-tricts, and CBOs to develop and provide supportand intervention at the city level. According to a College Ready committee leader, CBOs inPhiladelphia have been very proactive in providingsupport to students for college and career readi-ness. However, they often do not have a unifyingvision that aligns their work to the needs of theschool district. Thus, the Council’s work teams seetheir goal as aligning the community’s work andthe school district’s priorities.

In addition to bringing partners together, CollegeReady work teams play a critical role in linkingdata systems among higher-education institutions.In the case of Philadelphia, the majority of univer-sities are private and the state has no governanceover them to require any data sharing. Thus, dataexchange is especially challenging, not only for theschool district, but also among universities. As anintermediary entity, the College Ready work teamshave been leading the collaborations among post-secondary institutions – public and private – todevelop and use a common data-measurement sys-tem. This partnership has examined data specifi-cally on Philadelphia students to better inform andsupport the district in preparing its students forcollege readiness and success.


School Systems as Intermediary between Schoolsand CBOsAnother type of intermediary capacity has beenobserved with district office staff as the moderatorsbetween schools and CBOs. In this case, CBOswork directly with schools to provide customizedsupports based on the campus’s specific needs,while they sign a formal contract with the districtcentral office – which, as the main contractor,manages a systematic procedure of reporting andevaluations for all participating CBO partners.

This intermediary role also exists at a more infor-mal capacity, as observed in New Visions for Pub-lic Schools, a school system supporting a networkof over seventy schools in New York City. Identify-

ing the right support in a large city like New YorkCity is equally difficult for both CBOs and schools.New Visions plays a critical role in identifying thespecific needs of a school and connects them toappropriate CBOs that can meet those needs.According to some of the CBO partners workingin New Visions schools, they do not have any for-mal agreements with New Visions, but their long-term relationship with New Visions has allowedthem to earn schools’ trust and develop strongpartnerships with schools they serve. While CBOscan approach schools directly, CBO partners andschools both seem to value the role of New Visionsas an intermediary organization that elevates thelevel of trust between the partners.

Nearly 40 percent of New York City pub-lic school graduates enroll in the CityUniversity of New York (CUNY) system inthe first fall after high school graduation,and New York City public school gradu-ates make up 70 percent of CUNY stu-dents. In 2010, the New York CityDepartment of Education (NYCDOE) andCUNY won a $3 million grant from theBill & Melinda Gates Foundation toaccelerate their work of aligning the twosystems to improve college readiness andsuccess. One of the major initiatives ofthis partnership, called Graduate NYC!,is a linked K–16 data system that allowstracking of individual students and thedevelopment of “Where Are They Now?”reports that provide all New York Cityhigh schools with data on the persistenceand success of their graduates who enrollin the CUNY system.

AN INTERMEDIARY THAT ALIGNS K–12 AND POSTSECONDARY COLLEGE READINESS: GRADUATE NYC!

Recognizing the central role of CBOs insupporting college readiness and access,Graduate NYC! has developed severalinitiatives to support CBOs’ access todata and better connect schools, students,and programs. Through one of these ini-tiatives, ACCESS Data, CBOs can definea cohort of students, provide unique iden-tifiers, and receive a cohort-level reporton CUNY persistence and achievementdata. Graduate NYC! uses the linkeddatabase to assemble these reports. Inaddition to providing the data, participat-ing CBOs attend workshops on usingdata for program evaluation.

In fall 2012, Graduate NYC!, CUNY, theNYCDOE, and Options Center at God-dard Riverside, which provides collegeaccess counseling and professional devel-opment for counseling professionals,launched the NYC College Line. College

Line includes an online directory of col-lege access programs searchable byneighborhood, program focus, language,and many other features, as well as acomprehensive collection of onlineresources and videos and a feature thatallows young people to ask questions ofcollege advisors. Graduate NYC! alsohosts a series of “community best prac-tices forums” throughout the year thathighlight topics of interest to collegeaccess providers, such as New York City–specific data tools and supports forundocumented students.

For more information on the NYCDOE/CUNY data-sharing collaboration, see http://annenberginstitute.org/publication/data-collaboration-new-york-city-challenges-linking-high-school-and-post-secondary-data.


A DISTRICT-CBO PARTNERSHIP:Dallas Independent School District’s Academic Readiness and College Access Program

The Academic Readiness and College AccessProgram (AR&CA) is a formal partnershipbetween the Dallas Independent School District(DISD) and CBOs to share data and providesupports to students for college readiness andsuccess. This collaboration was created to sup-port DISD’s needs in helping high school stu-dents prepare for college (e.g., collegeentrance exams, parent engagement in collegeapplication, the financial aid process). In the2011-2012 academic year, advisors from thethree selected partners – Education Is Freedom,Academic Success Program, and the PrincetonReview – provided direct services to over6,000 high school seniors (about 80 percentof the senior class) in close collaboration withcampus staff, especially counselors.

In addition to the programmatic support, thepartnership requires DISD and AR&CA pro-gram partners to establish a formal data-shar-ing agreement to exchange data on studentsserved on campus. While AR&CA partnersreceive each student’s grades and schedules,DISD collects monthly reports and updates onthe progress of their students. One of the bene-fits of this partnership is that the partners cannow use a common template, allowing DISDstaff to have a comparable set of indicators tomeasure and evaluate AR&CA partners’ effec-tiveness. All service providers meet once amonth with the district’s Director of Collegeand Career Readiness to discuss their progressand receive updates on students’ FAFSA (FreeApplication for Federal Student Aid) comple-tion status and improvements at the schoolsthey serve. Although the AR&CA partners donot collaborate directly, these monthly meetingshave also served as a networking mechanismamong the partners.

As John Kania and Mark Kramer (2011) noted, asuccessful collective impact is seen when partici-pating partners “abandon their individual agendasin favor of a collective approach to improving stu-dent achievement” (p. 36). However, mainly focus-ing on the partnership goals or developing acommon approach is often challenging for thosewho also have to manage their organization’s ownagenda. Therefore, intermediary organizationshave emerged as an important asset in making surethat the collaborations around college readinessand success can be sustained under a unifyingvision and set of goals and provide resources thatcan facilitate the partnership between organiza-tions from different sectors.

A New Focus on College CompletionA change that we noticed across all partnering sec-tors is the shift in focus from college readiness tocollege completion. A researcher at a postsec-ondary institution in Philadelphia explained thatthe college dropout issue is becoming more seriousamong students entering junior year than those infreshman year. According to recent statistics fromthis institution, about 75 percent of its first-yearstudents take remedial courses, and 50 percent ofthose drop out in their junior year. For years, post-secondary institutions provided academic andemotional support to first-year students, but fewsupports exist for students beyond the first year.Similar concerns were also raised among CBOsthat have supported students for college readiness,especially those who serve students who are fromlow-income families and first-generation college-goers. Recognizing that college entrance is notenough to ensure students’ college success, somepartnerships have begun to extend their collabora-tions of support beyond high schools.

This shift to supporting students for college com-pletion is especially prominent among CBOsworking with students from low socio-economicbackgrounds and low-performing schools. Havinghad little adult support for college readiness out-side of school, many students continue to needguidance even after enrolling in college. Recogniz-ing this need, some CBOs – like Philadelphia

be streamlined from K–12 through college toensure their students’ success. Although DCCCDand DISD8 have been providing supports to stu-dents in their respective sectors, for the first timethey are collaborating on developing remediationstrategies and holding themselves mutuallyaccountable for their students’ college readinessand success.

According to the National Center for EducationStatistics, only about 58 percent of studentsenrolled at a four-year institution graduate in sixyears (USDOE 2012), and this rate is significantlylower for minority and low-income students. Thisresult is especially distressing as the demand forcollege degrees in our current economy continuesto grow. While recognizing the need to extendtheir support even after college enrollment, vari-ous stakeholders have also acknowledged their limited capacity to provide that support indepen-dently. Thus, collaborations between K–12, CBOs,and postsecondary institutions have become criti-cal in ensuring that students receive a continuumof support as they graduate from high school,matriculate into higher education, and movethrough postsecondary institutions to completion.

Key ChallengesThe districts and external organizations describedin this study are, to a large extent, forging new ter-ritory in developing partnerships around collegereadiness. As these relationships grow and deepen,several key challenges have emerged.

Partnership Alignment under the Concept of“College Readiness” Districts, schools, and partners already had mis-sions and values in place before “college readiness”emerged as a goal for all students. They are now inthe process of realigning mission, resources, andsupports and services to better reflect that goal.One challenge is that schools and districts areunder enormous pressure to help students passstandardized exams required for graduation, whichare often not aligned with college expectations and


Futures in Philadelphia, Bottom Line in New YorkCity, and Academic Success Program in Dallas –have prolonged their commitment throughout col-lege by providing academic supports, as well asadvising on employability, financial aid, and otherlife and non-cognitive skills. In some instances,some students decide to drop out of college forfamily reasons or other personal challenges. AtPhiladelphia Futures, they maintain a policy thattheir staff continues to work with these studentsuntil they return and complete college.

In some cases, this shift to college completion isprompted by state policy changes. For instance,Texas has recently announced that the communitycollege funding formula will be based on collegecompletion rather than enrollment.5 This state-level funding policy change has created a sense ofurgency in some school districts and postsecondaryinstitutions, especially in large districts. DallasCounty Community College District (DCCCD),the largest community college district in the state,enrolls about 72,000 students in degree-grantingprograms every fall,6 yet two-thirds of theirenrollees end up in remedial classes.7

This issue was also a particular concern for DallasIndependent School District (DISD), since 60 per-cent of its students enroll at DCCCD. Given theirshared concern, DCCCD and DISD agreed thatsupports for remediation and completion should

5 College completion may be defined differently. For instance, astudent who finishes the remediation class, a student who trans-fers to a four-year college, or a student who earns an associate’sdegree while enrolled in a four-year college can all be consid-ered as college completion.

6 If non-credit students are included, about 120,000 students areenrolled at DCCCD.

7 Interview with a DCCCD representative.8 According to a DCCCD representative, the district’s datashowed that the number of DISD’s graduates taking remedialcourses has been decreasing over the years. This promising out-come was another reason why DCCCD wanted to establish apartnership with DISD.


can distract from college readiness goals. As wenoted earlier, research on effective cross-sectorpartnerships has demonstrated the importance ofregular, ongoing communication and shared deci-sion making about supports and interventions forstudents. But the shortages of time, resources, andstaff facing urban schools and many communityand higher-education partners make communica-tion difficult. Many interviewees identified highrates of district and staff turnover and the largecaseloads of guidance counselors and other studentsupport staff as hindrances to aligning vision andgoals. Intermediary organizations, either schooldistricts themselves or outside “umbrella” organi-zations, may be best positioned to help schools anda wide array of higher-education and communitypartners establish shared goals, measures, andmechanisms for communication.

District Leadership TurnoverThe challenge of college readiness alignmentacross districts and external partners is exacerbatedby frequent district staff turnover. Several CRISdistricts have had significant changes in districtleadership in the past two years. This potentiallynot only threatens the continuity of college readi-ness as a key goal but also disrupts relationshipsbuilt between districts and their partners.

Supporting Students between High School Graduation and College MatriculationThe period of time between high school gradua-tion and matriculation into higher education is acritical period for effectively preparing youngadults for the demands of college, but supports areoften not geared toward this “bridge” between thetwo systems. A number of CBOs have begun toexplore strategies for supporting students duringthis critical transition point. For example, CUNY’sAt Home in College program and Bottom Line inNew York City recruit current college students toact as summer caseworkers, checking in regularlywith new graduates and ensuring that they are tak-ing appropriate steps to enroll and prepare fortheir first semester of college.

SUPPORTING STUDENTS THROUGH COLLEGE COMPLETION: BOTTOM LINE

Several CBO and higher-education partnersworking with New Visions have developed sup-ports that follow students through their collegecareers, recognizing that even well-prepared stu-dents often struggle once they enroll in college.

One such partner is Bottom Line, which wasfounded to provide college access supports forlow-income students and first-generation college-goers in Boston and has since expanded to sev-eral other cities. Bottom Line’s strategy includestwo programs: College Access and College Suc-cess. In New York, Bottom Line partners withseven New Visions high schools to provide tutor-ing, college match assistance, and intensive sup-port with college applications and essaysthrough ten to fourteen highly structured one-on-one sessions across students’ senior year. Gradu-ates of College Access who matriculate at atarget college (current target colleges includefourteen four-year colleges in the CUNY systemand two four-year SUNY colleges) continue toreceive one-on-one and group support focusedon four areas: academic success, employability,life skills, and financial aid through the CollegeSuccess program. An external evaluation of Bot-tom Line’s work in Boston found that participationin the College Success program increased a stu-dent’s chances of graduating from a four-yearcollege by 27 to 45 percentage points com-pared to participation in only College Access.


Building Robust Partnerships forCollege Readiness

Adopting college readiness as a goal is a criticalfirst step for districts and partner organiza-

tions, but the work of developing coherent systemsthat utilize their capacities and talents in a collabo-rative fashion is a tremendous challenge. TheCRIS sites we studied provide a rich source of les-sons learned and promising best practices.

Lessons Learned about Data-Sharing PartnershipsSharing data is an important foundation for a suc-cessful partnership for college readiness. We foundseveral elements that have helped maintain andcreate effective data-sharing partnerships in CRISsites.

Formal agreements and strong student data sys-tems are the most effective ways to match inter-ventions with student need. One of the most important elements in maintain-ing shared goals in the area of college readiness is afirm data-sharing agreement between partners. Ifexternal partners do not have broad access to stu-dent information from the school or district thatthey work with, it will greatly inhibit their abilityto match student indicators with interventions. Itcan be very effective if universities and districtsengage in data-sharing partnerships, as it allowsfor the longitudinal data for every student to becollected. If universities do not connect their ownstudent records with high school student records,it can be very difficult for school districts to mea-sure which of their current practices are effectivein preparing their students for college.

CRIS districts that have entered into data-sharingagreements on the district level have shown prom-ising results in matching interventions with thestudents who need the most help (New Visions andCUNY, DCCCD and DISD, San Jose and UCBerkeley). Data sharing does not only happenwhen formal agreements are in place, but it is mosteffective to share data systematically, on a districtlevel. If districts focus on installing strong studentdata systems internally, they will have an easiertime sharing these data with external partners. It isimportant to note that colleges and universities areusually capable of either housing or analyzing dis-trict-level data and can be valuable partners in cre-ating effective data-sharing systems.

All partners should have common visions andgoals surrounding their data needs. When organizations are sharing or receiving datafrom a district, their use of the data should haveclear goals that match the vision of the district, andhelp their group promote college readiness. Anexample of such an arrangement is the PittsburghPromise's use of high school student data (GPA,attendance, enrollment history) in determining eli-gibility for its scholarships. Without these datafrom the public schools, it would be very difficultfor the Pittsburgh Promise funds to reach theappropriate students.

It is important to connect data systems. Limited access to data not only occurs betweenpartnering organizations, but also internally withina district and its schools. For instance, collegeadvisors from ASP Dallas work with counselorsand students on high school campuses. However,due to their non-school staff status, these advisorsrarely have access to school data systems, and haveto rely on district guidance counselors who arealready burdened with high caseloads to run datafor them. A similar problem occurs among coun-selors who do not have the same access to data thatteachers have. These disconnected data systemsoften frustrate practitioners – both internal andexternal – in collaborating to support students. Asan alternative, some CBOs and postsecondary


institutions now request waivers from students andparents to access their students’ data. However,respondents explained that this approach, thoughhelpful, is limited and creates misalignment of dataamong the partners. More promisingly, bothDISD counselors and external college access part-ners have access to the district’s new data portal,which has information on students’ progress oncollege readiness (e.g., FAFSA completion).

When entering into a data-sharing agreement,it is important to have a deep understanding oflocal and federal FERPA interpretations. One of the challenges raised in the interviews wasaround the local policies on the Family Educa-tional Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Someinterviewees explained that despite FERPA’s flexi-bility at the federal level, states and districts oftenhave strict interpretations resulting in data-sharinglimitations. Fortunately, with the recent reautho-rization of the Higher Education Act, some statesrevised their definition of data sharing amonginstitutions, and facilitated the exchange of stu-dent-level data across districts and postsecondaryinstitutions. However, this change does not applyfor most CBO partners, who receive only aggre-gated data and expressed the need of student-leveldata when providing direct services to students.

Community-wide Approaches to College Readiness:Emerging Best PracticesAll of the communities profiled in this study havedeveloped promising work in at least one area ofcollege readiness partnership. For example, severalsites, including Dallas, San Jose, and New Visions,are working through thorny data and privacy issuesto provide a comprehensive and longitudinal lookat students’ college readiness. Sites are also work-ing to build, through cross-sector partnerships,system-wide buy-in, ownership, and mutualaccountability around college readiness. Commit!Dallas and the Pittsburgh Promise are helping toalign entire communities and regions around col-lege and career readiness outcomes. These kinds of partnerships may also lead to better transitionsupports for young people as they transition from

high school to college, as with several of NewVisions’ partnerships, as well as better targeting ofcommunity and higher-education supports for stu-dents in the K–12 system.

The issues of siloed systems, disconnected data,and unclear goals for collaboration are certainlynot unique to college readiness work, or even toeducation. The growing recognition that support-ing students to succeed in college and careerrequires a broad range of cross-sector partnershipshas nurtured a rich field of collaboration that raisesimportant questions and promising solutions forpartnerships built on data and evidence. The workof the CRIS sites provides important examples ofthe kind of necessary community-wide approachesto college readiness that move beyond the purelyschool district-centered models to ones based oncollaboration, mutual accountability, and trust.


References

Acar, M., and P. J. Robertson. 2004. “Accountabil-ity Challenges in Networks and Partnerships:Evidence from Educational Partnerships in theUnited States,” International Review of Adminis-trative Sciences 70, no. 2:331–344.

Bennett, J. V., and H. C. Thompson. 2011.“Changing District Priorities for School–Busi-ness Collaboration,” Educational AdministrationQuarterly 47, no. 5:826–868.

Bosma, L. M., R. E. Sieving, A. Ericson, P. Russ,L. Cavender, and M. Bonine. 2010. “Elementsfor Successful Collaboration Between K-8School, Community Agency, and UniversityPartners: The Lead Peace Partnership,” Journalof School Health 80, no. 10:501–507.

Bruce, M., J. Bridgeland, J. Fox, and R. Balfanz.2011. On Track for Success: The Use of Early Warn-ing Indicator and Intervention Systems to Build aGrad Nation. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprisesand Everyone Graduates Center.

Dougherty, V., M. Long, and S. Singer. 2009.Making the Numbers Add Up: A Guide for UsingData in College Access and Success Programs. Indi-anapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation.

Edens, R., and J. F. Gilsinan. 2005. “RethinkingSchool Partnerships,” Education and Urban Soci-ety 2005, no. 37:123–138

Goldring, E., and P. Sims. 2005. “Modeling Cre-ative and Courageous School LeadershipThrough District-Community-University Part-nerships,” Educational Policy 19, no. 1:223–249.

Kania, J., and M. Kramer. 2011. “CollectiveImpact,” Stanford Social Innovation Review (Win-ter).

Moran, C., C. R. Cooper, A. López, and B. Goza.2009. “Developing Effective P–20 Partnershipsto Benefit Chicano/Latino Students and Fami-lies,” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 8, no.4:340–356.

Núñez, A.-M., and M. Oliva. 2009. “Organiza-tional Collaboration to Promote College Access:A P-20 Framework,” Journal of Hispanic HigherEducation 8, no. 4:322–339.

Sanders, M. G. 2008. “Using Diverse Data toDevelop and Sustain School, Family and Com-munity Partnerships,” Educational ManagementAdministration & Leadership 36, no. 4:530–545.

U.S. Department of Education, National Centerfor Education Statistics. 2012. The Condition ofEducation 2011, http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40.

Vernez, G., C. Krop, M. Vuollo, and J. S. Hansen.2008. Toward a K-20 Student Unit Record DataSystem for California 695. Santa Monica, CA:RAND Corporation.


prepared by

� Box 1985Providence, Rhode Island 02912

� 233 Broadway, Suite 720 New York, New York 10279

[email protected]

www.annenberginstitute.org

Twitter: @AnnenbergInst

Facebook: www.facebook.com/AnnenbergInstituteForSchoolReform

This article is available at:http://annenberginstitute.org/publication/partnerships-college-readiness

partnerships for college readinessgreater collaboration around data and indicators related to...

Documents