Home ::
The Commission for a College Ready Texas (CCRT) was appointed in April 2007 by Governor Rick Perry. The goal of the Commission is to provide support to the statutorily-created vertical teams and to the State Board of Education (SBOE) regarding the requirements of legislation passed in 2006, which requires the vertical teams to define college readiness and the SBOE to realign high school curriculum and develop instructional resources and professional development for educators. The Commission is charged with producing a report to the SBOE, the Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB), the Commissioner of Education and the Commissioner of Higher Education about its findings, including the elements of college readiness, and recommendations on how college readiness can be defined clearly and specifically, based on research and public testimony. The CCRT posted its 115-page draft report for public comment late Friday, November 2, 2007, with comments due by noon on Monday, November 5, 2007. TCTA submitted general comments by the deadline, but due to the extremely short window of opportunity for comment, TCTA hopes for additional opportunities for more thorough comment and review. Following are the comments submitted Monday, November 5, 2007.
We certainly appreciate this opportunity to comment on the draft Commission for a College Ready Texas report; however we note that the time allowed for comment was extremely short, given that the draft report was available Friday afternoon, November 2, 2007, with comments due by Monday at noon, November 5, 2007. We truly believe that a draft report of this magnitude should allow for a more reasonable amount of time for public review and comment.
As a general comment, we start by noting that we appreciate the work done by the CCRT and the difficulty of its task. We also appreciate the draft report’s focus on addressing dropout issues, building the “soft skills” sought by employers, and focusing on career and technology as a part of the solution.
However, we are keenly aware that some of the main premises upon which the report’s recommendations are based have been significantly challenged by other research findings, and we believe that it would lend credibility to the report to at least acknowledge and respond to these conflicting findings. For example, the report states that “The essential knowledge and skills required for post-secondary readiness, no matter what option is chosen, are the same, although many students may want to consider even more rigorous coursework.” The statement is based upon findings by ACT and Achieve. However, the ACT findings were reviewed by the Education Testing Service in a June 2006 study, High School Reform and Work: Facing Labor Market Realities, which found that the ACT findings were only applicable to relatively high-level work. In the ETS report, the author combed through reams of data and found no support for the claim that those headed directly from high school to lower level posts in the workplace need to be qualified for college-level courses. For example, he cites a 2001 survey by the National Association of Manufacturers about why companies reject applicants for hourly production jobs. Sixty-nine percent of employers cited ''inadequate basic employability skills (attendance, timeliness, work ethic, etc.),'' while just 32 percent noted ''inadequate reading/writing skills,'' 21 percent pointed to ''inadequate math skills,'' and 8 percent referred to ''lack of degree or vocational training.''
While we note and appreciate the fact that the draft CCRT report does state “The most frequent concern expressed by employers is the shortage of qualified and trainable workers who posses solid academic knowledge and other workplace skills such as persistence, a strong work ethic, good attendance and punctuality, and the ability to work in teams”, we’re not sure this statement truly captures the findings presented by surveys of employers, such as one conducted in early 2006 by the Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the Society for Human Resource Management which conducted a survey of 431 human-resource officials. According to an article on the survey by eSchool News in November, 2006, the objective of the survey was to examine employers' views on the readiness of new entrants to the U.S. workforce--recently hired graduates from high schools, two-year colleges or technical schools, and four-year colleges. "The future workforce is here, and it is ill-prepared," concludes the report. Business leaders report that while the three "Rs" are still fundamental to every employee's ability to do the job, applied skills such as teamwork, critical thinking, and communication also are essential for success. In fact, these applied skills trump basic knowledge skills in the view of employers. The survey found, however, that too many new entrants to the workforce are not adequately prepared in these skills. According to the article, other excerpts from the survey were that 58 percent of employers said critical-thinking and problem-solving skills are "very important" for incoming high school graduates' successful job performance--yet 70 percent of respondents rated recently hired high school graduates as deficient in critical thinking. Looking toward the future, nearly three-fourths of survey participants ranked "creativity/innovation" as among the top five applied skills projected to increase in importance for future graduates.
Additionally, according to a survey conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, which surveyed 305 business executives and 510 recent college graduates in November and December 2006, what employers want from college graduates, the poll found, is the ability to work in teams, write and communicate, think on the spot and solve real-world puzzles. And, according to a January 2007 article in the San Antonio Express-News on the issue, top Texas scientists at a conference in Austin said weak K-12 math and science education is also crippling American students in a global economy. "Employers across the country are screaming that college graduates do not write well," said Carol Geary Schneider, president of the association, highlighting one of the main complaints from employers. "There is a reason. They have not practiced writing." The solution, she said, is for every student to get a liberal education — one that fosters a broad worldview and teaches critical thinking skills that cut across disciplines. "Employers feel strongly that this is not a multiple-choice world," Schneider said. According to the poll, half of recently employed college graduates expect to always be working in the same field, which means the ability to adapt trumps specific knowledge in any one field, Schneider said.
We note that one of the recommendations in the draft CCRT report is “The K-12 public school curriculum must be designed and implemented to expand and improve students' abilities to gather, analyze, evaluate, and use information in real situations to ensure that all students graduate, and graduate with the prerequisite knowledge and skills to succeed after high school. Thinking and reasoning skills, based in appropriate content-specific knowledge, are of primary importance”. However, another of the recommendations contained in the draft report is “Academic learning must be the priority for classroom instruction. Skills, such as punctuality, reliability, persistence, strong work ethic, effective study habits, time management, and the ability to work in teams are sometimes dismissed as “soft skills” but are critical to college and workplace success. Effective instruction can foster these habits, but development of these skills should not be the focus of classroom instruction.”
We find these two recommendations to be confusing. Given the importance of “soft” and applied skills to employers, we believe that these recommendations by the CCRT don’t adequately address how these skills will be developed in students. If it is the commission’s recommendation/expectation to add to the duties of public schools the duty of developing in students these skills in addition to academic skills, then the Commission needs to make recommendations for fashioning a supportive infrastructure to do so, including releasing the public schools of some current duties. Moreover, we urge the Commission to give thought to how those outside of public education can assist in this effort, such as partnerships with local businesses to provide apprenticeship opportunities to students.
We note that another of the draft CCRT report recommendations is that “Career and technical education provides students with engaging course options. This curriculum must constantly challenge and guide students to improve and expand their thinking and reasoning skills, to make use of content information in rigorous ways, and to recognize real-world applications of these skills. The standards must reflect expectations for college readiness, including the ability to succeed academically in post-secondary education.” We appreciate the recommendation, but again note that it does not go far enough in addressing how career and technical education might be integrated with academics to perhaps foster more of the “soft skills” that are needed for success in the workplace. For example, we note that in February 2007, UCLA released a survey of scholarly studies, the basic conclusion of which is that there's promise in simultaneously teaching academics and skills, preparing students for college and careers. According to an article on the studies in the LA Times, the buzz phrase for this is "multiple pathways." “In the lickety-split new work world, being skilled at learning and adapting to new tasks will be more important than specific knowledge or expertise, researchers say.”
Additionally, an October 2007 study released by the Education Policy Research Unit at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado urged the fostering of “multiple pathways through high school” that provide students with opportunities to develop multiple conceptions of standards. According to an October, 2007 Education Week article on the study, that idea involves creating more theme-based programs, or pathways, somewhat akin to the academic majors and concentrations of postsecondary education, the paper says. “Some pathways could be broadly occupational, such as business or medical occupations, and others could focus on such issues as social justice or environmental concerns, they suggest. [A]ll of them would provide room for examining the important occupational, political, and social issues of adult life in the process of teaching disciplinary subjects, the authors write.”
Given these findings, we believe that the CCRT should address the concept of multiple pathways in its report.
Regarding the CCRT’s recommendation that “As standards for college readiness are introduced into Texas public schools, vigorous steps must be taken to ensure high expectations for all students”, we note the October 2007 study released by the Education Policy Research Unit at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado, which argued that discussions of “rigor” too often use a narrow definition that neglects higher-order-thinking skills, applications of learning in unfamiliar settings, and academic depth in favor of breadth. The expanded view of rigor that the authors advocate includes an emphasis on students’ demonstration of their depth of learning, rather than their familiarity with a vast array of content areas. They also call for keener attention to helping students acquire more-sophisticated levels of understanding, including higher-order-thinking skills, and to ensuring that they can apply learning in unfamiliar settings.
We did not find that the draft CCRT report addressed this issue, and we believe that it must do so.
Additionally, the Education Policy Research study points out that those calling for higher standards have been weak on ideas for how to help schools meet those standards. Although we appreciate the CCRT’s recommendation that “education leaders should identify mechanisms and strategies to assist students in bridging the gap between current standards and standards for college readiness, including better utilization of the High School Allotment and other state grants and programs” and that “Standards alone can not address the problems identified in this report. Rather they provide goals to be reached. Reaching these goals requires a substantial effort in K-12 education to support curriculum and teacher development, which are delineated in House Bill 1, 79th Legislature, 3rd Called Session”, we believe that the CCRT should be more specific about how to fashion a supportive infrastructure in public schools to accomplish this.
Regarding one of the CCRT’s requirements for New College Readiness Standards, that “Requirements for acquiring a high school diploma from Texas public schools should include successful completion of courses which indicate college readiness including, but not limited to, Algebra II, Physics, and Statistics”, we note that in its report, ACT recommends that students take four years of English, at least three years of mathematics (including rigorous courses in Algebra I, geometry, and Algebra II), three years of science (including rigorous courses in biology, chemistry, and physics), and three years of social studies. We are curious why the CCRT recommendation doesn’t match up with ACT’s recommendation regarding Science courses?
Finally, one of the chief premises upon which the draft CCRT report relies is captured in one of the initial statements in the report, that “Today’s knowledge-based, global economy requires all youth to acquire education after high school to be competitive, successful, and earn an adequate income.” Although we aren’t making a judgment about the correctness of this premise, this is one of the main examples of an area in which there is conflicting research and evidence. For example, an October, 2007 report by Georgetown University and the Urban Institute, assessed the evidence on science and engineering education, quality, and workforce demand.
Following are excerpts:
Policymakers and industry leaders are once again concerned about the adequacy of the science and engineering (S&E) workforce. A growing number of reports claim that a lack of sufficient numbers of scientists and engineers entering the workforce is threatening the United States’ economic health and dominant position in global innovation. The primary causes of an impending workforce shortage, it is argued, are the mediocre preparation of domestic students in the educational pipeline and an ongoing decline in their interest in pursuing S&E careers. To address the assumed crisis, the consensus recommendation of business groups, public policymakers, and educators is to expand and improve science and math education from kindergarten through college, and to more aggressively court foreign S&E students and workers.
This paper examines the assumptions about the state of the educational pipeline and the purported workforce shortages. Despite this nearly universal support for upgrading science and math education, our review of the data leads us to conclude that, while the educational pipeline would benefit from improvements, it is not as dysfunctional as believed. Today’s American high school students actually test as well or better than students two decades ago. Further, today’s students take more science and math classes, and a large number of students with strong science and math backgrounds graduate from U.S. high schools and start college in S&E fields of study.
Graduate schools have an ample pool of qualified four-year graduates to draw from but seem unable or unwilling to do so. Surprisingly few of the many students who start along the path toward S&E careers take the next steps to remain in an S&E career. If there is a problem, it is not one of too few S&E qualified college graduates but, rather, the inability of S&E firms to attract qualified graduates. The pool of graduates with an S&E degree exceeds the number of S&E job openings each year, even though employers may not be as successful as they would like in attracting or retaining graduates into an S&E career.
The various policy reports focusing on increasing the science and math preparation at the K–12 level almost uniformly fail to ask the question our analysis suggests—has the increase in the absolute numbers of secondary school graduates and the increase in their math and science performance levels provided an adequate number of domestic S&E college majors?
The pool of S&E-qualified secondary and postsecondary graduates is several times larger than the number of annual job openings. The flow of secondary school students up through the S&E pipeline, when it reaches the labor market, supplies occupations that make up only about a twentieth of all workers. So even if there were deficiencies in students’ average science and math performance, such deficiencies would not necessarily deplete the requisite supply of S&E college majors. Even if modal test scores or course-taking was by some measure low, the size of the graduating student body is so large that there would still be a sufficient number of students who test above average and who are fully qualified for the relatively small number of S&E jobs. While improving average math and science education at the K–12 level may be warranted for other reasons, such a strategy may not be the most efficient means of supplying the S&E workforce.
Our analysis at the aggregate level does not find a shortage of potential S&E students or workers. However, this conclusion is put forth with one caveat: the analysis of all S&E students and workers may not apply equally to the trends and problems faced in specific fields or by domestic minority groups. A fine-grained analysis of specific industries, occupations, and populations is needed to identify the weakness in the U.S. education system. We are, indeed, conducting this level of analysis for future reports. The S&E world includes a broad range of knowledge, types of related jobs, and a great diversity of students and workers with academic performance and employment trends different from the overall averages. A better understanding of S&E workforce demand and education and workforce development will identify areas where public and private policy could be most effectively targeted.
In the final section of the paper, we note that employer reports of hiring problems should not be taken as prima fascia (sic) evidence of labor market shortages. Moreover, education and immigration policies that are based on that assumption can undermine future economic and labor-market strength. We consider these often overlooked, negative long-term consequences of implementing well-meaning but misguided policies.
High school students’ exposure to science and math has increased over time. In 1982, high school graduates earned 2.6 math credits and 2.2 science credits on average. By 1998, the average number of credits increased to 3.5 math and 3.2 science credits. Further, the share of students who take algebra early increased from 1986 to 1999. The percentage of 13-year-olds enrolled in algebra and in prealgebra rose 38 and 78 percent, to 22 and 34 percent from 16 and 19 percent, respectively (NCES 2001a). Students from all racial/ethnic groups, and both male and female students, significantly increased science and math course-taking, albeit differential achievement rates between groups remain. Table 1 shows the trends from 1990 to 2000.
Current policy is driven by the twin perceptions of a labor market shortage of scientists and engineers and of a pool of qualified students that is small in number and declining in quality. Math and science education are viewed as the primary policy levers to increase labor market supply, supplemented by increased immigration. But those policy proposals that call for more math and science education, aimed at increasing the number of scientists and engineers, do not square with the educational performance and employment data that we have reviewed. Our review of the data finds not only little evidence to support those positions and, in fact, the available evidence indicates an ample supply of students whose preparation and performance has been increasing over the past decades. We are concerned that the consensus prescriptions are based on some misperceptions about efficient strategies for economic and social prosperity.
It is difficult to conclude that the major economic “threats” to the United States are related to the performance levels of U.S. students as compared to students in other countries. Our major economic competitors, particularly emerging nation behemoths, are not among top test scoring nations. In fact, a sizeable portion of U.S. students perform at the top of the scale and graduate in substantial numbers. The logic of the education crisis reports fails on several of their key points. These reports focus on countries that score higher than the United States, primarily just on math, and then conclude these countries pose a “threat” to the U.S. economy. Should U.S. policy be driven by test score performance of students in Flemish Belgium, Latvian-speaking Latvia, or even Singapore, with 4.5 million people and a workforce of 2.4 million (one-sixtieth the size of the U.S. workforce)? How will these countries find the capital and the numbers of workers needed to “steal” any major portion of a U.S. industry?
Perhaps one should, instead, look at the countries that are “competing” with the United States and examine the ways in which they are doing so and the ways in which the United States is, in comparison, deficient. As noted, nearly all the major global powers are not even on the list of leading test scoring countries. One of the countries that is a leading technology force, Singapore, is trying to emulate U.S. innovation and creativity and de-emphasize strict math and science test performance.25 Will better math and science performance increase the number of software programming jobs remaining in the United States? This seems unlikely until the Beijing or Bangalore wage is on parity with U.S. wages. Will better math and science education improve innovation? There is little empirical support for the argument that more math and science education will produce more scientists and engineers which, in turn, will increase the level of innovation. Nor does research establish that better test scores will improve the innovation performance of scientists and engineers who enter the workforce. Some even argue that science and engineering are less important economic drivers than they were in the past (Hill, 2007).
We believe that the CCRT should at least acknowledge and address the issues raised by this report, given the vast disparities between its findings and those relied upon by the CCRT.
Again, we truly appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft CCRT report and look forward to working further with the CCRT on the report.
Holly Eaton
Director of Professional Development and Advocacy
Texas Classroom Teachers Association
Web posted: 11/05/07
