Essential Questions for Postsecondary Completion: Postsecondary Completion

Degrees and Certificates Awarded. Annual number of certificates, associate degrees, bachelor’s and graduate degrees awarded; disaggregated by age group, gender, race/ethnicity, Pell status (at any time), remedial status (at any time), transfer/first-time students and discipline. Measures how many undergraduate degrees and certificates the state’s system of postsecondary education and its public colleges and universities are awarding annually, and to measure change over time (Complete to Compete).

Graduation Rates. Number and percentage of entering undergraduate students who graduate from a degree or certificate program within 100%, 150% and 200% of program time. Disaggregated by degree/credential type, race/ethnicity, gender, age group, Pell status (at time of entry) and remedial status (at time of entry). Measures the rate at which students graduate from a public institution of higher education (Complete to Compete).

College completion, disaggregated by key population metrics. Significantly increasing college completion will require closing the gaps in success rates for low-income and minority students, as well as ensuring the success of targeted subgroups such as adults, transfer students, part-time students and students who required remedial education. The metrics should also facilitate measuring progress on a state’s specific postsecondary goals, such as increasing the number of graduates in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) or health fields. To understand and track improvement, outcome and progress metrics must be disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, income (Pell Grant recipients), age group, student attendance status, transfer versus native-to-the-institution students, degree type and discipline. States may also wish to flag within their data systems those students who graduated from high schools within the state (“in-state” students). For all of these metrics, the standard rule of nondisclosure of personally identifiable information applies. States and institutions should not publicly report disaggregated data that pertain to a sample size (N) of 10 or fewer students (Complete to Compete).

Graduation rates for (a) first-time, full-time associate degree-seeking students; (b) first-time, part-time associate degree-seeking students; (c) Transfer at entry associate degree-seeking students; (d) first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students; (e) first-time, part-time bachelor’s degree-seeking students; (f) transfer at entry bachelor’s degree-seeking students; (g) first-time, full-time certificate-seeking students; (h) first-time, part-time certificate-seeking students (Complete to Compete).

Transfer Rates (for community colleges only). Annual number and percentage of students who transfer from a two-year campus to a four-year campus by race/ethnicity, gender, age group, Pell status (at time of entry) and remedial status (at time of entry). Measures the proportion of students successfully transferring from two-year institutions of higher education to four-year institutions of higher education (Complete to Compete).

Time to degree. Average length of time in years a student takes to complete an associate degree, a bachelor’s degree, or a certificate of one year or greater normal program time. Start with the degrees/certificates awarded in a specified year and determine how many total years and months elapsed from the first date of entry to the date of completion. Partial years should be expressed as a decimal. Average the number of years across students and report by degree type. Measures the average length of time in years and number of credits to complete a certificate or undergraduate degree by student entry status, race/ethnicity, gender, age groups, Pell status (at any time), remedial status (at any time) and discipline (Complete to Compete).

Credits to degree. Average number of credits a student has accumulated when they earn an associate degree, a bachelor’s degree or a certificate of one year or greater. Start with the degrees/certificates awarded in a specified year and determine the total number of credit hours each student completed since first enrolling. Average the number of credit hours across students and report by degree type. Measures the average length of time in years and number of credits to complete a certificate or undergraduate degree by student entry status, race/ethnicity, gender, age groups, Pell status (at any time), remedial status (at any time) and discipline (Complete to Compete).

Enrollment in Remedial Education. Annual number and percentage of entering first-time undergraduate students who enroll in remedial math, English/reading or both math and English/reading courses; by race/ethnicity, gender, age groups, Pell status (at time of entry). Measures the proportion of undergraduate students who enroll in remedial coursework at public institutions of higher education (Complete to Compete).

Field of study for bachelor’s degree recipients, by race and ethnicity. For instance, degrees organized as STEM fields, business, education, health care fields, social sciences, humanities, general studies and other applied fields. This report defines “other applied fields” as personal and consumer services; manufacturing, construction, repair and transportation; military technology and protective services; architecture; communications; public administration and human services; design and applied arts; law and legal studies; library sciences; and theology and religious vocations. (Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education).

Success in Remedial Education. Annual number and percentage of entering first-time undergraduate students who complete remedial education courses in math, English/reading or both and complete a college-level course in the same subject; by race/ethnicity, gender, age groups, Pell status (at time of entry). Measures the proportion of undergraduate students who complete remedial education and go on to complete college-level coursework in the same subject within two academic years (Complete to Compete). 

Some College, No Credential (SCNC) population: U.S. adults who left higher education without receiving a postsecondary credential. Additional measurements for SCNC population: Re-enrollment after stopout, completion of a first credential, and perseverance as indicated by continuing enrollment into a second academic year. Recent Stopouts consists of students who were newly identified as SCNC this year, having been stopped out (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center).

Potential Completers: Students with at least two years of full-time equivalent enrollment in the last decade. Individuals in this group are called Potential Completers because the combination of credits accumulated and the relative recency of their prior enrollment makes them the most likely to be able to complete a degree or other credential  (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center).

Reasons for not starting or not finishing college. Survey responses include: (a) too expensive; (b) family responsibilities; (c) wanting to work; (d) simply not being interested in college; (e) not being admitted/low grades; (f) benefits of attending college were not worth the cost. Family responsibilities are the most common reason given for not completing a degree after starting college, cited by 38 percent of the respondents who dropped out as a reason for not continuing their education (Federal Reserve, Economic Well Being).

Educational attainment of adults ages 25 and older, disaggregated by race and ethnicity. A 2022 report by the American Council on Education observed the levels of educational attainment continued to rise for all racial and ethnic groups, yet the gaps — such as those for non-White, non-Asian adults who were less likely to get a college degree — remained large. (Note, data sourced from U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey) (Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education).

Undergraduate Completions across award levels, by race and ethnicity. A 2022 report by the American Council on Education observed that while postsecondary completions increased for all racial and ethnic groups, some consistently experienced poorer outcomes than those of other groups. Regardless of the institution type at which they began, Black or African American students were less likely than their peers from other racial and ethnic groups to complete a degree or certificate (Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education).

Institution-level Enrollment. Annual unduplicated number of students enrolled over a 12-month period at public institutions of higher education, disaggregated by attendance status at entry (full-time or part-time), race/ ethnicity, gender, age and Pell recipient status at entry. Enrollment should be reported for each public institution, and aggregated by sector and by certificate-seeking, associate degree-seeking, bachelor’s degree-seeking, and undetermined or courses-only. Measures the number of students enrolling at public institutions of higher education and to measure changes in enrollment over time, overall, and for specific subgroups (Complete to Compete).

Completion Ratio. Annual ratio of undergraduate degrees and certificates (of at least one year in expected length) awarded per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate students at the state level, disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, and degree type. Measures the proportion of certificates (of at least one year in expected length) and undergraduate degrees awarded relative to undergraduate student enrollment at public institutions of higher education (Complete to Compete).

Market Penetration. Annual ratio of undergraduate degrees and certificates (of at least one year in program length) awarded relative to the state’s population aged 18-24 years old with a high school diploma. Measures the proportion of certificates (of at least one year in program length) and undergraduate degrees awarded at public institutions of higher education relative to the young adult age cohort for a state (Complete to Compete).

Completions per student: The number of completions divided by the number of FTE students (based on 12-month enrollment) in a given year expressed as completions per 100 FTE. Measures the twelve-month FTE undergraduate enrollment and undergraduate credentials (certificates, associate’s, bachelor’s) conferred in a given year. Disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, age, credential level, program of study (at exit), academic preparation (at any time), economic status (at any time), first-generation status, enrollment status (at entry), attendance status (at any time). Additional related metrics include: Change in number of completers; Change in FTE enrollment; Completion rates (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Learning outcomes assessments are used by institutions to demonstrate educational effectiveness transparently, effectively communicate program goals and outcomes to a variety of audiences, and fulfill accreditation requirements. While not in use in federal data collections, learning outcomes data can be used by the institution and state to measure the quality of programs and institutions of higher education. For example, in 2012 and 2013, Massachusetts commissioned the Multi-State Collaborative for Learning Outcomes Assessment to compare outcomes with other states in partnership with AAC&U and SHEEO. Using the VALUE Rubrics as a common language, colleges and universities in Massachusetts used several metrics to create composite indicators of student learning, including: pass rates on national licensure exams and mean scores on graduate entrance exams. States and institutions use these exams as evidence that college students accumulated knowledge and skills while enrolled. Precollege and post-college scores are examined to gauge quality of learning and inform curricular or instructional changes (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Graduate Education Rate: The number and percentage of bachelor’s recipients enrolling in post baccalaureate or graduate programs in one, five and 10 (optional) years of completion. Disaggregated by program of study (at exit),enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time while enrolled), academic preparation (at any time while enrolled), economic status (Pell ever), race/ ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Other metrics related to Graduate Education Rate include: Relationship between undergraduate program of study and graduate program of study; Income, gender, or racial gaps in graduate education, especially STEM programs; Relationship between debt and graduate education enrollment or graduate program of study (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Outcome Rates – Graduation rate: The percentage of students in a cohort who earn the credential sought at their initial institution, up to 200% of program length. Measures twelve-month incoming student cohorts by credential level sought, enrollment status, and attendance intensity at entry (e.g., FTFT, FTPT, TFT, TPT). Disaggregated by academic preparation, economic status (at entry), race/ ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status, and program of study (at entry). Should be captured at least at 100%, 150% and 200% of program length, and should be reported in real-time, not retroactively (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Outcome Rates – Success rate (graduation rate + transfer rate): The percentage of students in a cohort who either graduate with the credential initially sought at the initial institution or transfer to a longer program at the initial or subsequent institution(s), up to 200 percent of program length. Measures twelve-month incoming student cohorts by credential level sought, enrollment status, and attendance intensity at entry (e.g., FTFT, FTPT, TFT, TPT). Disaggregated by academic preparation, economic status (at entry), race/ ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status, and program of study (at entry). Should be captured at least at 100%, 150% and 200% of program length, and should be reported in real-time, not retroactively (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Outcome rates provide a more complete picture of how effectively students achieve their postsecondary objectives, highlight institution-level student success, and best reflect the information needed by students, policymakers, and institutions to understand and improve student outcomes. Outcome rates are used in tandem with persistence and retention rates to explore student mobility and success in higher education even more fully (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Completers: The number of students who complete a credential in a given year. Measures all completers in a given year by credential level attained. Disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, age, academic preparation (at any time), economic status (at any time), first-generation status, program of study (at exit), and part-time (at any time) and transfer status. This completers metrics recommends counting the number of students who complete, as opposed to the number of credentials completed (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Other metrics related to completers: Cross tabulations of credentials awarded by key disaggregates (e.g., race and gender); Distribution of credentials awarded by program of study; Distribution of credential awarded to underrepresented populations; Credentials awarded to underrepresented populations in STEM; Time and credits to credential (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

The number and percentage of youth working full-time or attending school / college as their primary activity. Individuals not working full-time or attending school/ college as their primary activity are considered “Opportunity Youth” (The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth).

Opportunity Youth Intensity Measure: This approach gives youth a weighted value equal to 1 if they are completely an opportunity youth and zero if they are fully employed or in full-time education. So, a person who is in college half-time (and not working) is counted as 0.5 of an opportunity youth; a person who works for three months of the year is counted at 0.75; and a person who does both these activities in the same year is counted as 0.25. This method captures the balancing of work and education, as well as measuring low engagement of youth; and it sheds more light on what opportunity youth might be able to do (The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth).

Chronic Opportunity Youth: These individuals are most likely different from students who are intermittently out of school or unemployed. Chronic status may be triggered by involvement in juvenile crime and vice versa. We distinguish chronic opportunity youth as a subset of all opportunity youth: the former are likely to require different supports and policy interventions from those youth who are partially attached to the labor market or enrolled part-time in higher education (The Economic Value of Opportunity Youth).

A high school’s promotion power, that is, the school’s impact on the long-term success of its students, as indicated by high school graduation, college or career readiness, college enrollment and persistence, and success in the job market. Measures of promotion power aim to fairly compare schools serving different populations of students. The measures are based on statistical models developed by Mathematica that identify schools’ contributions to students’ long-term outcomes separately from other factors, such as prior achievement and demographic characteristics (Mathematica, The Promotion Power Impacts of Louisiana High Schools).

Institutions can compare graduate education rates with the mission of their programs to see if their credentials are in fact preparing students for their intended outcomes – either employment or further education. If graduate education rates are not consistent with expected student outcomes (i.e., the continuing education rate is low for a program that should be the foundation for graduate school education), then leadership can evaluate why student pathways are inconsistent with the institution’s or program’s goals. Because this metric is disaggregated by program of study, institutions also can evaluate the enrollment of specific populations of students into graduate programs, specifically for the STEM fields, and measure whether students enroll in a program similar to that of the undergraduate degree (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Institutions can use counts of completing students to demonstrate productivity and their institutional contribution to the workforce and society. Especially when disaggregating by demographic characteristics, top-performing institutions can make the case that they are contributing large numbers of underrepresented college graduates. Alternately, these data on completers could show that some institutions are producing very few graduates in certain fields (e.g., STEM) or from certain student groups (e.g., African Americans) or a cross between the two (e.g., African American STEM graduates). These results can trigger the college to investigate the cause for small numbers or gaps and evaluate whether their credential awarding patterns align with institutional goals and workforce needs. Students and policymakers can employ this metric to examine the types of students that succeed at a particular college, contributing to informed school selection and strategic policies that advance those institutions that serve all students well. For example, many states include the number of credentials awarded or students completing — particularly for underrepresented student groups — in their outcomes-based funding formulas (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

The Completions per Student metric is intended to show how effectively institutions turn credential-seekers into credential-holders. Some institutions use this metric to illustrate student progress toward graduation. For example, the University of Texas-El Paso uses a similar degree-production ratio that compares the total number of FTE undergraduates enrolled four years earlier with the total number of baccalaureate degrees awarded that year. These data can supplement the traditional IPEDS graduation rates by capturing completions regardless of whether the student began with a first-time, full-time status, although the more inclusive completion rates recommended as part of this framework can alleviate this issue. Policymakers can also use this metric, in conjunction with success rates, to determine how many credentials institutions award in relation to how many students they enroll. Some states, like Tennessee, include a similar completion per 100 FTEs metric in their outcomes-based funding models (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Learning outcomes: Public display of student learning goals, assessments, and outcomes using the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment’s (NILOA’s) Transparency Framework. Institutions also should consider using Lumina Foundation’s Degree Qualifications Profile (DQP) and the Association of American Colleges & Universities’ (AAC&U’s) Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) Rubrics to develop, refine, and measure mastery of learning outcomes. Disaggregated by credential level, economic status (Pell ever), race/ethnicity, and academic preparation, program of study (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Learning outcomes strive to quantify what students learn through their credential program. States and institutions should use these rubrics and assessment tools to benchmark progress on student outcomes and to refine teaching and curriculum to improve student learning. Institutions can use these tools to understand where gaps in student learning exist, especially for specific student groups (e.g., low-income students and students of color), restructure and revise course structure and content, and continuously improve student academic achievement (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Critically examine and refine how students connect with college by having recruitment, advising and academic departments ask these questions: How can we improve understanding among high school students about the credential program opportunities offered by the college? How can we motivate and guide students to prepare to enter a college-level program of study as soon as they graduate high school? Can we more effectively recruit students from adult basic skills, non-credit vocational, and community-based education programs into college-level programs of study? (Get with the Program).

Ideas for increasing the number of new students entering the college motivated and prepared to enter a college-level program of study: (a) Create marketing materials for use with prospective students showing the major program streams offered by the college, where each stream is designed to lead in terms of further education and (for CTE programs) career advancement, and what students who want to enter a given stream need to do to succeed in it; (b) Partner with feeder high schools to provide orientation to college program options and requirements as well as early assessment of college readiness, beginning in the sophomore year; (c) Reorient dual or concurrent high school–college enrollment programs to encourage high school students to enter college-level programs, not just take college-level courses, while they are still in high school; (d) Build “bridge” programs that enable adult basic skills students to advance to college-level programs, especially in career–technical fields (Get with the Program).

Questions that colleges’ advising staff, in partnership with developmental education and academic departments, should be asking regarding students’ entry into a program of study: What guidance and support can we provide to help students develop clear goals for college and careers and choose a program of study as soon as possible? What approaches to remedial instruction are most effective for preparing academically underprepared students to enter and succeed in a program of study? How can we help students who are attempting to enter a program of study pass the gatekeeper courses that often prevent students from getting on a program path?  (Get with the Program).

Ideas for increasing the rate and pace at which students enter a program of study: (a) Require all degree-seeking, first-time college students to develop a program completion plan; (b) Require all first-time college students to take a three-credit college success course (ideally in their first term) that exposes students to college program options and requirements, helps them develop a program completion plan tied to goals for further education and employment, and provides instruction in “college success skills,” such as note taking, test taking, and time management; (c) Customize remedial offerings for each major program stream (e.g., liberal arts, STEM, business, allied health, engineering technologies, etc.) with contextualized instruction to ensure that students are mastering the basic skills and knowledge that are essential for success in the given stream; (d) Require students who need remediation to take a prescribed set of courses that includes a college success course, customized remedial instruction, and an introductory college-level survey course in a program area of interest (Get with the Program).

Questions that academic departments, in consultation with student services staff, should be asking regarding student progress: Are we effectively tracking and advising program concentrators to ensure that they are making progress toward completion? Are our programs well structured so that students can complete them as quickly as possible? Are required courses offered when students need to take them? (Get with the Program).

Ideas for accelerating rates of student progress and program completion: (a) Strongly recommend that all students declare a program of study within the first year and require them to keep up-to-date a program completion plan; (b) Improve instruction and integrate supports into coursework to help students pass gatekeeper courses in each program area; (c) Assign concentrators to program faculty advisors who will regularly meet with them to ensure that they are progressing according to their program plans; (d) Ensure that the courses required to complete each program are offered regularly and on a schedule convenient to students (Get with the Program).

Questions that academic departments and top administrators should be asking regarding student completion: Are our academic program options and requirements clearly defined for students entering the college and for program majors? How are we assessing whether students are mastering the skills and knowledge that our programs seek to teach them? What can we learn from baccalaureate program faculty, employers, and program alumni to ensure that our programs prepare students to succeed in further education and (with career–technical programs) advance in the labor market? (Get with the Program).

Ideas for ensuring that programs of study are coherent and prepare for success in further education and (for CTE) employment: (a) Consolidate program offerings into a small number of program streams (such as liberal arts/transfer, business, allied health and nursing, engineering technology, education, consumer services, etc.), each with a limited set of clearly specified programs leading to credentials; (b) Clearly map out for each program a prescribed sequence of courses, limiting the number of elective courses; (c) Regularly communicate with faculty and administrators in partner baccalaureate programs to ensure that program curricula are aligned with transfer requirements; (d) Regularly communicate with employers to ensure that CTE programs are meeting labor market requirements; (e) Survey recent graduates for their suggestions for how the programs they completed could be improved (Get with the Program).

Offer structured programs of study – Research in behavioral economics and other fields suggests that students perform better when offered a limited set of clearly defined program options that have well-structured or prescribed paths to completion (see Scott-Clayton, 2011) (Get with the Program).

Provide contextualized instruction – Evidence is promising for approaches to teaching basic skills in the context of instruction in content area subject matter (see Perin, 2011) (Get with the Program).

Acceleration – Evidence suggests colleges may be able to increase the rate at which students needing remediation advance to college-level study through various approaches, including restructuring of courses using instructional technology and “mainstreaming” higher-level remedial students into college-level courses with added support (see Edgecombe, 2011) (Get with the Program).

Integrated student supports – Community college students are more likely to benefit from student support services that are integrated into the educational experience and that help students (a) create social relationships, (b) clarify aspirations and enhance commitment, (c) develop college know-how, and (d) address conflicting demands of work, family, and college (see Karp, 2011) (Get with the Program).

Strong, outcomes-oriented leadership. College leaders, including not only top administrators but also faculty leaders, deans, and department chairs, need to agree on and communicate a clear and compelling vision for improving student outcomes and set ambitious goals that faculty and staff will want to work to achieve (Get with the Program).

Broad-based engagement and supporting professional development. Obviously, substantial change in community college practice will not happen without the active support and involvement of faculty and student services staff. Therefore, college leaders need to empower faculty and staff from across divisions to address the questions outlined above; identify priority areas for improvement; and implement, evaluate, and further improve changes to practice. Leaders also need to provide resources for professional development that strategically supports the efforts by faculty and staff in the redesign work. This reframes professional development as an activity that supports the collective involvement of faculty and staff in the redesign process rather than an activity that mainly supports professional growth of faculty and staff as individuals (Get with the Program).

Evidence-based improvement. To the extent possible, decisions on how to improve practice should be supported by evidence. Colleges should assess the effectiveness of earlier efforts to improve student success. Moreover, any new innovations should be evaluated to ensure they are helping to improve student outcomes (Get with the Program).

Attention to cost-effectiveness and productivity. Colleges should evaluate not just the effectiveness of innovations but also their costs. In general, the goal should be to increase organizational productivity—that is, to increase rates of student success and improve student learning outcomes without requiring net additional staff and monetary resources (Get with the Program).

Re-engaging with the Some College, No Credential (SCNC) population has broad benefits for states, institutions, and students. For states, seeing additional SCNC students earn credentials can help to increase the attainment levels of their workforces and make their economies more competitive. For institutions, SCNC students can help address enrollment shortfalls amid a shifting demographic landscape. Perhaps more importantly, helping SCNC students through completing their first credentials can advance institutional missions to drive social mobility for students of all backgrounds. For SCNC students, reengaging with higher education can mean reclaiming dreams and aspirations along with the chance to realize social and economic mobility by earning credentials that start or advance careers and boost earnings (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center).

States and institutions could look to the Potential Completer population to help reach their re-engagement and attainment goals in equitable ways. Hispanic, Black, and Native students are well-represented in this group, which is almost twice as likely to complete credentials within two years of re-enrollment as their other SCNC peers. Potential Completers who earn credentials are also more likely to earn associate and bachelor’s degrees than other SCNC re-enrollees (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center).

Percentage of students enrolled in a credit or non-credit CTE program who earn at least one industry-recognized credential (Education to Workforce).

Percentage of program participants who have completed at least one industry-recognized credential (Education to Workforce).

Providing an Incentive to establish industry-recognized credential programs: Successful states encourage school districts to offer industry certification courses to students by creating a financial incentive tied to performance and/or by adopting these industry-recognized credentials into the school accountability rating system (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Labor Market Alignment: States use labor market data from their workforce agencies and workforce development boards to identify the credentials most in-demand and focus their programs to meet those needs (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Data Collection and Reporting: Data collection and reporting allows states to identify progress in certain credentialing areas, monitor and assess student interest and program quality, and analyze the demographics of credential earners to ensure equal access (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Employer Engagement: Employer engagement and communication helps inform which pathways and occupations are in demand, and the education and training students need, leading schools and districts to better align offerings with labor market need (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Interagency Collaboration and State Policy: Collaboration between state agencies and coordination of various state policies ensures these programs serve students and business well. Each stakeholder undertakes distinct aspects of the work in close collaboration with public and private sector partners (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Statewide Communication: States must promote credential programs to schools, districts, and the students to be served, as well as to their families. Every stakeholder must be a part of the communication strategy to inform students and parents of the opportunity to earn industry-recognized credentials and the benefits of doing so (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Build stronger employer signaling analyses to identify the industry-recognized credentials that are valued by industry by using specific criteria, including the extent to which employers: (a) state in their job postings and advertisements which credentials are required or preferred for hiring; (b) use the credential as a factor in selecting candidates for interviews and/or in determining which candidates are chosen for a job; (c) offer higher wages for those who have earned the credential; and/or (d) use a common credential within the same industry, providing portability across employers (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Identify which industry-recognized credentials count for credit toward postsecondary education and training, noting that credentials with the greatest postsecondary currency:  (a) are transferrable for postsecondary course credit or credit hours in core program courses; (b) count toward hours in an aligned apprenticeship program at the postsecondary level; and/or (c) “stack” to allow students to progress to a more advanced industry credential within a specific field (e.g., machining levels 1, 2, and 3) or to a postsecondary certification, an associate degree, a bachelor’s degree or beyond within a given field (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Build a cross-sector priority industry-recognized credential list spanning the education and workforce systems that is backed by labor market data and has demonstrated postsecondary value, which includes: (a) designing and executing a systematic, evidence-based process across K-12, higher education, and workforce development that utilizes a balanced collection of primary and secondary sources, including both real-time and lagging labor market data, to decide which credentials fall above and below the line;  (b) maintaining the identification process through annual or biennial reviews to update and validate the list over time to ensure it reflects changing workforce needs; and (c) undertaking longitudinal analyses that track credential holders into the marketplace to be certain that credentials identified as high value do in fact lead to greater employment outcomes for learners over time (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

States can take their high-value credential identification work a step further by developing new technology-based approaches to streamline employer signaling, establishing industry-recognized credentials that are the industry-accepted standard, and building cross-state agreements to award postsecondary credit for both youth and adults seeking to upskill (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Inspire and support students’ high-value credential attainment to show the clear value proposition such credentials offer by: (a) communicating the workforce and higher education benefits of credentials of value; (b) removing financial and access barriers to earning high-value industry credentials; (c) enabling priority industry credentials to count for postsecondary credit or hours; and (d) making attainment of high-value industry credentials a graduation expectation (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Spark school and district prioritization of high-value credential attainment, encouraging and rewarding them for offering more pathways that lead to credentials and increasing the number of students who earn them by: (a) providing funding for high-value industry credential attainment; (b) recognizing schools and districts for success and improvement; and (c) making high-value credential attainment count in accountability systems (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Recognize and emphasize the importance of high-value credentials statewide to communicate to the public that attainment of high-value industry-recognized credentials matters by: (a) leveraging the program of study approval process to ensure that career pathways are anchored in high-value credentials; and (b) publicly reporting high-value credential attainment for all students and schools (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

States can leverage additional opportunities to advance their work by counting high-value industry-recognized credentials in postsecondary attainment goals, leveraging online credential databases to capture and promote priority credentials, and harnessing collective buying power by partnering with other states to lower credential price points (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Set a new minimum data threshold for collection through one of two different approaches:  (a) execute data-sharing agreements with each vendor offering a credential from the state’s high-value list to receive student-level data on exam taking and passage rates by credential type; or (b) initiate secure data transfers of individual student credential certificates from schools and districts (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Create a standardized reporting framework that allows for tracking high-value credentials tied to specific pathways and courses (Education Strategy Group, Credential Currency).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Delaware and Ohio integrate credentials into the school curriculum and career preparation activities like work-based learning opportunities and internships (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Delaware established its Delaware Pathways program in 2014 with 27 students in an advanced manufacturing pathway. The state saw a growing gap between the needs of employers and the skills students possessed as well as a gap in the number of black, Hispanic and low-income students who left high school with the skills to pursue higher education or a middle skill job. Today, there are 14 pathways serving over 9,000 students in fields such as finance, healthcare and information technology. In collaboration with business, secondary and postsecondary institutions and families, Delaware aims to enroll 20,000 students in pathways by 2020 (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: In Ohio, students can earn industry-recognized credentials as one of 13 career fields with a choice of over 250 in-demand credentials. The program is included in one of three pathway options for high school graduation supported by the Ohio Department of Education. The program was developed in 2014 by a coalition of 15 school districts, Columbus State Community College, and various community and business partners in four industries – Information Technology, Logistics, Healthcare and Advanced Manufacturing. Students in any district can sign up for an industry-recognized credential course. Ohio includes the awarding of industry-recognized credentials as a measure of how well schools prepare students for life after high school on school report cards (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Florida, Wisconsin and Louisiana have implemented similar models, but have adopted incentives – bonus funding for schools and districts for each student who earns an industry certification – to dramatically increase the number of students earning high-value industry recognized credentials in high-wage, in-demand fields. As a result, these states see student demand and enrollment in the program increase year over year. Each state’s incentive program was created by an act of the legislature and receives its funding through legislative appropriation (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Wisconsin’s program was enacted by the state legislature in 2013 and capped funding at $3 million with incentives set at $1,000 per student. Funding is limited to $1,000 per pupil regardless of the number of approved credentials students earn. The program was oversubscribed in its first year and incentives were prorated at $882 per student. In 2018, the program budget increased to $3.5 million. Student demand for this program continues to grow. The incentive program is managed by the Department of Workforce Development (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Louisiana’s program began in 2014 with 14,473 students who earned national or state industry based credentials. In 2017, over 41,000 high school students attained a credential. Louisiana distributes incentives through its Career Development Fund which is uncapped and currently stands at $12 million. The incentive rate is $241 per student, per credit for each student who enrolls in an industry-recognized credential course in a high demand pathway through the JumpStart career diploma pathway. For example, if students participate in a two-credit course and a two-credit internship, the school would receive $952 as an incentive. After four years of implementation and increasing student demand, 2018 was the first year in which industry recognized credential courses were a requirement for high school graduation. The program is run through the Louisiana Department of Education (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Industry-based credential programs across the country: Florida’s program is the oldest. It was enacted by the legislature in 2007 and is funded through the Florida Education Finance Program which funds the operation of schools. The program began with 803 students earning industry certifications. The initial cost of the incentive program was $550,000 for the 2007-2008 academic year. By 2015-2016, the state investment was $50 million as a result of rising student demand. Incentives ranged from $416-$832 per student in 2016-2017. During the 2017-2018 school year, 105,131 students earned over 120,000 industry-recognized credentials. Student enrollment in the program continues to rise each year. Florida has included industry certifications in high school grading formula since 2010 (Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education).

Outcomes six years after transfer for students who transferred to four-year public institutions (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Outcomes six years after transfer for students who transferred to four-year private nonprofit institutions (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Outcomes six years after transfer for students who transferred to four-year private for-profit institutions (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Baccalaureate outcomes six years after transfer by Carnegie Classification of transfer destination institution (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Eight-year baccalaureate outcomes of students who began at four-year and two-year institutions (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Completion and persistence outcomes are disaggregated by gender, enrollment intensity, transfer institution type, length of pretransfer enrollment at a two-year institution, and time lapse between two- and four-year institution enrollments (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Strategic transfer: Formal transfer from a community college to a four-year college and formal transfer from one four-year college to another were positively associated with degree completion, but wandering from one school to another was not. In fact, the nomadic multi-institutional attendance behavior increasingly known as ‘swirling,’ held a significant and negative relationship to degree completion (The Toolbox Revisited).

Outcome Rates – Transfer rate: The percentage of students in a cohort who transfer into longer programs at the initial or subsequent institution(s), up to 200 percent of program length. Measures twelve-month incoming student cohorts by credential level sought, enrollment status, and attendance intensity at entry (e.g., FTFT, FTPT, TFT, TPT). Disaggregated by academic preparation, economic status (at entry), race/ ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status, and program of study (at entry). Should be captured at least at 100 percent, 150 percent, and 200 percent of program length, and should be reported in real-time, not retroactively (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Baccalaureate attainment among two-year and four-year starters (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Length of enrollment in two-year institutions and baccalaureate attainment (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Stop-out time between two-year and four-year enrollments and baccalaureate attainment (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Equity Index for a target student demographic group: The percent of Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) Earners who are of a target student demographic group divided by the percent of Degree/Transfer Aspirants who are of that student demographic group. An Equity Index score of less than 1.0 shows that the target student group is under-represented among ADT earners, relative to the degree/transfer-seeking population (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Community college students complete at least 60 semester credits before transferring to university. Transferring to a university is a typical outcome measure for community colleges, and is generally assumed to signify a student having earned two years of credit toward a bachelor’s degree. Under the typical understanding of transfer, a student completes at least 60 semester credits of lower-division coursework at a community college and then moves to a university to complete an additional 60 credits of upper-division coursework for the typical bachelor’s degree requiring a total of 120 credits. However, few students follow this ideal transfer path to the baccalaureate, moving on to a university after accumulating far fewer than 60 credits. A 2009 study of California Community College (CCC) student outcomes by C. Moore et al. found that transfer students who did not complete a transfer curriculum were less likely to have completed the important gateway courses in English and math within two years of enrolling in the CCC. They may have entered college with lower levels of academic preparation, requiring enrollment in remedial coursework in these subjects. Policies requiring early enrollment in English and math for degree-seeking students, and effective practices for getting underprepared students through developmental coursework expeditiously, would likely get more transfer-oriented students on the pathway to completing a full transfer curriculum. The students not completing a transfer curriculum were also less likely to have taken a college success course, giving them less opportunity to gain an understanding of the transfer process through the curriculum in those courses. A primary factor distinguishing students who did complete a transfer curriculum from those who did not was completing at least 20 credits in the first year. Students who did not complete a transfer curriculum had a substantially lower credit completion ratio in the first year, likely contributing to their lesser likelihood of accumulating 20 credits. Examples of interventions in response to this finding include integrating supplemental instruction into courses with high drop/failure rates, instituting “early alert” systems to identify students having trouble in courses, and implementing policies that limit the number of course withdrawals (Steps to Success).

Transfer-out rate: The number of transfer students who started at the community college divided by the number of students in the community college’s fall cohort (National Student Clearinghouse, Tracking Transfer).

Transfer-with-award rate: The number of transfer students who started at the community college and earned a certificate or associate degree from that college prior to their earliest enrollment at a four-year institution, divided by the number of transfer students in the community college’s fall cohort (National Student Clearinghouse, Tracking Transfer).

Transfer-out bachelor’s completion rate: The number of transfer students who started at the community college and earned a bachelor’s degree from any four-year institution within six years of community college entry, divided by the number of transfer students in the community college’s fall cohort (National Student Clearinghouse, Tracking Transfer).

Transfer-in bachelor’s completion rate: The number of transfer students in the fall cohort who started at any community college and earned a bachelor’s degree from the four-year institution within six years of community college entry, divided by the number of transfer students in the fall cohort who started at any community college and enrolled at the four-year institution. Transfer students who enrolled at multiple four-year institutions were counted for each four-year institution (National Student Clearinghouse, Tracking Transfer). 

Community college cohort bachelor’s completion rate: The number of students who started at a community college and earned a bachelor’s degree from any four-year institution within six years of community college entry, divided by the total number of students in the community college’s fall cohort (National Student Clearinghouse, Tracking Transfer).

Racial, ethnic and economic composition of two-year colleges: A study by Wassmer, R. et al. shows that community colleges with higher percentages of either Latino or African American students have lower 6-year transfer rates. The findings also confirm the results of other studies: community colleges with higher transfer rates tend to have younger student populations, students with higher socioeconomic status and better academic preparation, and a greater focus on academic programs (Wassmer, R. Effect of Racial/Ethnic Composition on Transfer Rates in Community Colleges).

Advisors guide transfer students on taking courses aligned with planned degree: Students who do not seek a degree or certificate from a two-year institution before transferring may benefit from more careful guidance on course-taking so as to take more courses that count towards bachelor’s degree requirements upon transfer (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Advisors inform students of the potential negative relationship of a longer stop-out between two-year and four-year enrollments to bachelor’s degree completion. Indeed, in this era of postsecondary educational accountability, when certificate or degree completion has become a key metric for determining institutional effectiveness, it behooves community college policymakers to seek out institutional policy levers for increasing the proportion of students who complete their degree before transferring and transfer immediately upon completing their degree programs (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Create academic support programs for delayed-entry transfer students. Students who had a longer stop-out before enrolling in a four-year institution may need more assistance because they are transitioning not only to a four-year institution, but also back to postsecondary education in general. It may be wise for campus administrators at four-year institutions to create academic support programs for delayed-entry transfer students, much like the targeted support programs at many institutions that assist native first-year students who have been identified as at-risk (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Institutions implement customer relations management tools (CRMs) to enhance student success. These tools use student enrollment information to communicate directly to students regarding their course-taking behaviors and related enrollment patterns and about the optimal paths for course taking and transfer to four-year institutions (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

In 2+2 systems, policies guarantee the transfer and application of general education and pre-major course credits across institutions in a system and ensure transfer students can seamlessly enter university ready for upper-division major coursework. These  systems provide more clarity for students and advisors about credits that transfer and apply to specific majors across a state or system. However, to take advantage of these policies, students must select their major early on. Further, in practice, variation in lower-division major requirements may persist to some degree across institutions in 2+2 systems (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students).

In credit equivalency systems, policies have guarantees for the transfer and application of general education and some pre-major course credits across institutions in a system for all programs, the most popular programs, or programs with very specific lower-division coursework (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students).

In institution-driven systems, policies guarantee the transfer and application of general education course credits, but the application of pre-major credit to majors and major-ready status are largely determined by individual institutions. In credit equivalency and institution-driven systems, community college students interested in transfer must select their major and destination institution early on to know what courses they need to take to stay on track to earning a bachelor’s degree (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students).

Develop “transfer college knowledge” early and at key milestones in students’ academic career. Developing transfer college knowledge is not intended to be an additional task for secondary and postsecondary counselors, but rather should provide some structure and improve the limited time they already may have with students. Elements of transfer college knowledge could be used as a basis for a checklist or agenda of items to review with high school students interested in attending community college. Similarly, the list could be used with community college students during an orientation session on transfer or during a student success course focused on transfer. Additionally, such tools could be used to structure advising sessions where community college or university advisors check-in with students at the beginning of their first term and later, as students move through their college career and prepare to transfer (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students).

Improve data systems and conduct research on credit mobility to determine policy effectiveness. States should pursue a robust research agenda that examines credit mobility and credit loss. Specific questions states might pursue include the following: Within a state, how many credits are transfer students bringing with them to university and how many of those apply to their majors? How do average credits transferred and applied to a major vary based on where students are transferring from/to? How do average credits transferred and applied to a major vary based on degree program? How do average credits transferred and applied to a major vary based on students’ socioeconomic status, whether they are first-generation college students, and other characteristics that might illuminate equity gaps in the problem of credit loss? (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students).

Community college students interested in transfer would benefit from guided transfer pathways. Under a guided pathways model, community colleges provide students with more guidance and structure through intake processes and career counseling that encourage and help students select a major and career path, offer clearer curricular maps for majors or fields of interest, and give ongoing student supports. In particular, guided meta-major or interdisciplinary program pathways may support students who are undecided about their major and future career pursuits (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students).

Potential transfer students would benefit greatly from more intentional efforts to develop their transfer college knowledge starting in high school and continuing throughout their time at community college. Reviewing the elements of transfer college knowledge could help structure the content of orientation sessions, student success courses, and check-ins with community college and university advisors (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students).

State-level and system-level transfer policy reforms must be continuously evaluated, to better understand both the complexities of implementation and the extent to which the policies are achieving their intended goals. The next step for research is to begin to understand at a more systematic level the impact of recent developments in transfer policies on students’ credit mobility and bachelor’s degree completion. Continuing to highlight effective ways to ensure transfer students do not lose the credits they earned or accumulate excess elective credits is essential to supporting the degree completion of millions of community college students each year, many of whom are the first in their families to go to college and who seek an affordable path to a bachelor’s degree and, ultimately, a gainful career (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students).

A study of transfer student outcomes by the National Student Clearinghouse reinforces the importance of the transfer function of community colleges in not only contributing to individuals’ success in postsecondary education but also in helping to achieve the national goals for college completion. Students who transferred to a four-year public institution had the highest baccalaureate completion rate (65%), which is related to the number of credits students were able to transfer from their two-year institutions because of articulation agreements in place in many states (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Given that two-thirds of the transfer students in this cohort transferred without the benefit of a two-year credential, policymaking should focus on enabling students to align coursework with bachelor’s degree requirements and transfer more credit hours (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

State and federal policymakers should also consider creating incentives through financial aid programs or reduced tuition and/or statewide communication campaigns that encourage students starting at community colleges to carefully monitor the transferability of their courses, which would reduce their time-to-degree and, in all likelihood, the amount of debt they accrue on their way to earning a four-year degree. Policymakers should be interested in this point especially because federal financial aid policies have recently moved toward limiting eligibility or subsidies based upon an evaluation of whether or not a student is making progress toward completion in a timely fashion (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Include private and for-profit institutions in statewide articulation agreements. A study by the National Student Clearinghouse shows that students who transferred to four-year private for-profit institutions had the lowest bachelor’s degree completion rate six years after transfer. This might be related to the fact that those students were least likely to benefit from the alignment of their pretransfer credit hours with coursework at the four-year institution, highlighting the need for statewide articulation agreements to include private for-profit institutions (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Improve access to two- to four-year transfers and encourage national calls for state policies and institutional practices that support more community college students who aspire to this pathway (National Student Clearinghouse, Baccalaureate Attainment).

Refine policies to better meet the needs of undecided students: Use policy to assist institutions in creating and maintaining guided pathways with support. For example, North Carolina community colleges require that by 30 hours, students must meet with an advisor to select a major and destination institution, and all students must take a student success course in which they map out their educational plan (Altstadt, 2014). Florida developed eight meta-major academic pathways; when students enroll, their advisor provides them with a pathway for the meta-major they are most interested in. Then, by 30 credit hours, students select a destination institution, and an advisor informs them of the common prerequisite courses for that institution (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students). 

Refine policies to better meet the needs of undecided students: Education systems could work together to develop a smaller number of transfer pathways at community colleges that lead to multiple bachelor’s degree programs at four-year universities. This policy approach might limit the likelihood of taking the wrong course for a major if the student persisted in the same broad field during their college career. This is the same idea as meta-major transfer pathways. In Florida, systemwide meta-major transfer pathways specify a set of agreed-upon general education and pre-major courses for a set of degree programs or majors in the same field at four-year institutions in the state or system (Altstadt, 2014) (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students).

Refine policies to better meet the needs of undecided students: Create bachelor’s degree programs for college students, both transfer and native, who are uncertain about their path and want meaningful opportunities to explore different fields without accumulating excess credits. This might look like an interdisciplinary program. For example, in Washington, a community college transfer student who wanted to change majors was able to switch to an interdisciplinary major at university, which prevented any credit loss (Improving Credit Mobility for Community College Transfer Students).

The Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) is a specific type of associate’s degree in California designed to make it easier for students to transfer from a California Community College to a California State University (CSU). Earning an ADT guarantees admission to a CSU, though not necessarily to a specific campus or major, and provides priority consideration for admission. It also allows students to complete their bachelor’s degree with a maximum of 60 additional units at the CSU. A study by the Campaign for College Opportunity studies ways to strengthen California Community College’s Transfer of ADT-earning students. (California Community Colleges).

Articulate a bold, intersegmental vision for transforming community college transfer with clear goals and benchmarks for improving timely transfer and completion, and for reducing racial equity gaps: (a) Align lower division coursework, so that completion of a single-degree pathway will allow students to transfer to four-year colleges; (b) Increase the number of community college students transferring annually to a 4-year public or private, non-profit college college; (c) Decrease the number of credits accumulated by students on their path to transfer and to earning their degrees; (d) Reduce and close racial equity gaps, as well as regional disparities, in student outcomes (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Uplift and strengthen the ADT pathway, so that it becomes the preferred method of transfer for community college students across the state (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Communicate the benefits of the ADT to students as early as high school, and again at the front end of their community college journey (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Establish ongoing professional development and staff training, so counselors and faculty have the necessary tools to guide students onto the pathway (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Prioritize the ADT for more transfer-seeking students by automatically placing students in an ADT pathway if one is available in the academic major they intend to pursue (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Phase out terminal associate degrees that do not give students the ability to transfer all their credits or provide them with on-ramps back into postsecondary in pathways for which equivalent ADTs have been developed (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Grow the number of subject offerings in STEM, where pathway development has lagged by identifying pathways where the 60-credit lower division pathway cap is impeding the development of ADT degree pathways, and determine a suitable alternative cap for STEM, health, and other higher than 60-credit majors. Examine industry relevance and emerging subject area majors to ensure the ADT can meet future workforce demands (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Ensure the state’s two- and four-year colleges have the capacity, sufficient resources, and right incentives to enroll and support all students seeking a path to complete a four-year degree (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Reverse longstanding community college system underinvestment in essential student support services and policies that promote successful transfer, such as through dual enrollment opportunities, advising, and public awareness campaigns

Fund state universities to serve an increasing number of community college transfer students (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Prioritize state funding to the two- and four-year campuses that will help close racial equity gaps and improve timely college completion rates for transfer students

Encourage state 4-year universities to guarantee admission to ADT students, with a higher GPA threshold if appropriate, by tying their institutional aid to ADT enrollment expectations (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Encourage state 4-year universities to honor its admissions guarantee to ADT students at local campuses by establishing ADT enrollment goals and benchmarks and tying institutional aid to these expectations (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Create a transfer implementation and oversight body to enable more seamless coordination between the state’s two-year and four-year colleges and private nonprofit institutions (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders). 

Establish an intersegmental committee that can provide state level guidance and accountability to tackle persistent barriers to the scaling of the ADT program and enable a statewide focus on simplifying transfer in the state (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Ensure the state’s Cradle-to-Career data system can answer vital questions about academic trajectories and outcomes for students who follow different pathways to their degrees (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Analyze system-level data and collect more qualitative student-level feedback to drive decisions regarding the ADT pathway; where students are falling off the path, and how to better support students pursuing bachelor’s degrees (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Develop an equity index made up of data disaggregated by race/ethnicity, gender, and other relevant demographic characteristics to ensure higher education institutions are working for students of all backgrounds (College Opportunity, Chutes or Ladders).

Percentage of high school students who enroll in and pass at least one early college course (AP, IB, or dual credit) (Education-to-Workforce).

Percentage of students enrolled in early college coursework who earn credit-bearing scores on end-of-course tests (for example, a score of 3 or higher on AP tests or 5 or higher on IB tests) or earn postsecondary credit within their dual enrollment courses (Education-to-Workforce).

Rate of completion of college-level courses/ credits in high school (Urban Institute, Robust and Equitable Measures to Identify Quality Schools).

The percentage of students who have shown potential to be successful in advanced coursework who have successfully completed at least one course. “AP Potential,” developed by the College Board, identifies students who are predicted to have a greater than 60% chance of earning a passing score on a particular AP exam based on their performance on the PSAT or SAT. Similar metrics can be developed using state assessment data and/or course grades for projecting potential for success with dual enrollment, industry-recognized credentials, IB, or other options that enable a student to earn early postsecondary credit while in high school. For instance, Equal Opportunity Schools has found success in using non-test-based methods for predicting advanced course potential, especially among students of color (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

High school students successfully complete early college coursework (Advanced Placement [AP], International Baccalaureate [IB], or dual credit). There is growing evidence that participation in accelerated postsecondary pathways (such as early college high schools and dual enrollment) has a positive impact on students’ high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment and completion (Education-to-Workforce).

Number of AP, IB, and dual enrollment courses offered, overall and by subject (Education-to-Workforce).

Percentage of students in an early college course who take the relevant end-of-course test needed to earn credit (for example, AP or IB test), overall and by subject (Education-to-Workforce).

Student subgroup representation in AP courses. Black and Hispanic students disproportionately are underrepresented in rigorous course programs, depriving them of the opportunity to build strong academic transcripts required at elite universities and of the preparation needed to succeed in college. In 2016, Black students were 15.3 % of all students in public schools, but just 7.3 % of all students who took at least one AP exam. In that same year, Hispanic students comprised 26.4 % of public school students but just 22.4 % of AP test-takers (Civic Enterprises, Building a Grad Nation). 

Rate of completion of college-level courses/ credits in high school. (Urban Institute, Robust and Equitable Measures to Identify Quality Schools).

The What Works Clearinghouse panel recommends that schools enhance their college-ready curriculum with opportunities for prepared students to take college or college-level courses. This includes dual enrollment arrangements that allow students to take college courses for high school and college credit; AP courses; and the International Baccalaureate (IB) program, which also can prepare students for the academic demands of college and facilitate some students’ admission to more selective schools. (What Works Clearinghouse, Helping Students Navigate the Path to College).

The College Board found that students who met the SAT College and Career Readiness Benchmark score of 1550 were more likely to have taken honors or AP courses, more likely to have taken higher-level mathematics courses (e.g., precalculus, calculus, and trigonometry), and more likely to be in the top 10 % of their high school graduating class than their peers who did not meet the SAT Benchmark (College Board, SAT Report on College and Career Readiness).

San Antonio ISD uses College Board’s AP Potential data to identify students’ likelihood of success in each AP course, grouping them into 10-point probability bands. Counselors use the data to target outreach and guide course enrollment, while schools adjust offerings based on student potential  —  adding high-interest courses like AP Computer Science Principles and replacing low-enrollment ones like AP Physics with dual enrollment. Schools also receive an “AP enrollment report card” to track and improve alignment between student potential and actual enrollment (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

The Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) launched an AP activation campaign to boost enrollment in advanced coursework. Each year, the Commissioner sends letters to 10th and 11th graders identified with AP Potential. Since the campaign began, AP participation and performance have significantly increased  —  overall enrollment rose 64% over a decade, with Hispanic student participation increasing over 231%. AP success, defined as a score of 3 or higher, is part of the state’s accountability system, encouraging schools to prioritize access. CSDE also established a statewide AP credit policy ensuring students earn college credit for passing scores, supported by a data-sharing agreement that automates score reporting to public colleges (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

To expand access to advanced coursework, Washington became the first state to adopt an automatic enrollment policy  —  Academic Acceleration  —  which places students who meet state exam standards into more rigorous math, ELA, or science classes. The policy aims to increase equity, particularly for historically underrepresented students (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

Early College high schools: Use targeted outreach and admissions strategies to prioritize access for historically marginalized groups. Avoid selective admissions criteria like prior academic achievement or test scores, and instead focus on potential and interest (AIR).

Early College high schools: Build integrated support systems  —  including dedicated counselors, success coaches, and access to college advisors  —  to help students persist in dual enrollment courses and plan for postsecondary success (Community College Research Center, Columbia University). 

AP Leadership Team – Establish a committee of teachers and administrators to examine data, create and model an access-centered vision, and maintain a general continuity in policy and programming for the school’s AP classes (College Board, Broadening Access to Advanced Placement).

AP Listening Session – Collect input from students on ways to improve the AP program and barriers to participation (College Board, Broadening Access to Advanced Placement).

AP Ambassadors – Set up a program for students to take a leadership role in recruiting their peers for AP classes (College Board, Broadening Access to Advanced Placement).

AP Boot Camp – Offer an event to build community, leadership capacity, and study skills in students enrolled in AP classes (College Board, Broadening Access to Advanced Placement).

AP Information Event – Share information about AP with students and families, focused on AP course offerings and potential alignment with students’ educational and career goals (College Board, Broadening Access to Advanced Placement).

AP Prep Sessions – Host review sessions by experienced AP readers or other successful AP teachers to support students as they prepare for AP Exams (College Board, Broadening Access to Advanced Placement).

AP Course Availability and Sequencing – Intentionally add AP courses that serve as a gateway for expanding access to rigorous coursework (College Board, Broadening Access to Advanced Placement).

San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD) leveraged the data in the College Board’s AP Potential report to generate a series of customized reports that list the potential to succeed for every student at every high school campus for every AP course offered by the College Board. Rather than simply using the binary definition of AP Potential  —  either a student has potential or does not  —   SAISD went further by grouping students into 10 percentage point bands, starting at having a zero to 10 % chance of passing the AP exam in a given course prior to enrolling to having a 90 to 100 % chance. The school-level report lists the potential for all incoming students to help guide their advising practices around enrollment in advanced coursework, with school counselors targeting outreach to students who were identified with potential  (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

At the state level, the Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) has launched an AP activation campaign to encourage students identified with potential to enroll in advanced coursework. Each year, the Commissioner sends a signed letter directly to every 10th and 11th grade student identified with AP Potential. Since starting the campaign, the state has seen an increase in the number of students enrolling in AP coursework, as well as in taking and passing AP exams (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

To break down historic access barriers, Washington became the first state in the nation to adopt an automatic enrollment policy for advanced mathematics, English language arts, and science classes in all high schools. The policy, known as Academic Acceleration, automatically places students who meet standards on state-level exams in the next more rigorous course in the corresponding content area. While intended to increase access to advanced coursework for all students, the policy is particularly aimed to support students who have been historically underrepresented  (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

Create data-sharing infrastructure between K-12, higher education and workforce systems to monitor and support student transitions, similar to Economic Mobility Systems.

high schools can partner with local postsecondary institutions to offer dual enrollment courses that allow high school students to earn postsecondary credits with both academic and career and technical concentrations. During the 2010-11 school year, 82 % of high schools reported students enrolled in dual credit courses with an academic or CTE focus, while 53 % of all postsecondary institutions reported high school students took courses for college credit within or outside of dual enrollment programs. (Civic Enterprises, Building a Grad Nation). 

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) defines dual credit as a system where eligible high school students enroll in college courses and receive both high school and college credit. These courses can be taught on high school campuses by approved instructors or on college campuses. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) assigns service areas to public colleges, facilitating partnerships between high schools and colleges to offer dual credit opportunities (Texas Education Agency).

Houston ISD has implemented initiatives to increase student participation in advanced academic programs, including AP, IB, and dual enrollment courses. Notably, the district expanded the number of high schools offering the University of Texas’s OnRamps dual enrollment courses from 15 to 33, resulting in a significant increase in student enrollment and college credit attainment. These efforts aim to enhance college readiness and provide equitable access to advanced coursework (Houston Chronicle).

Percentage of young people classified as “Opportunity Youth” in a community, disaggregated by race, ethnicity and gender.  Opportunity Youth are defined as young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are not in school and not working. Oppor­tu­ni­ty youth often come from com­mu­ni­ties with high­er lev­els of pover­ty or lim­it­ed resources. Many of these young peo­ple have dis­abil­i­ties, expe­ri­ence with home­less­ness or have crossed paths with the child wel­fare or juve­nile jus­tice sys­tems. Youth of col­or are also dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly rep­re­sent­ed in this group. While these teens are some­times called ​“dis­con­nect­ed youth,” the term ​“oppor­tu­ni­ty youth” is increas­ing­ly pre­ferred, as this phrase is more pos­i­tive and reflects the poten­tial of these young peo­ple to become thriv­ing adults if pro­vid­ed the right opportunities.  (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of opportunity youth who have earned a high school diploma but no further education (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who receive public insurance (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who have children (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who live in poverty (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who have a disability.  Includes cognitive difficulty, independent-living difficulty, self-care difficulty, hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, and ambulatory difficulty (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who are uninsured (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth ages 16 – 17 who are not living with parents

Percentage of opportunity youth who are married (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth who are living in institutionalized group quarters

Percentage of opportunity youth who have limited English proficiency (Measure of America).

Percentage of opportunity youth ages 21 – 24 who have completed at least a bachelor’s degree (Measure of America).

Teachers in alternative schools report a high level of engagement and motivation from students in their classes (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Number of students in alternative high school settings taking and passing end-of-course exams, dual-enrollment courses and college entrance exams (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Students in alternative high school settings are applying college-readiness skills in their academic classes, including higher-level Questioning, Writing to Learn, and Collaborative Group Work (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Percent of students in alternative high school settings applying to and being accepted to postsecondary education and training (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of students enrolling in postsecondary programs (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of students who are either in school or employed a year after graduation (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of Opportunity Youth who participate in youth-adult partnerships. Through the formation of youth–adult partnerships and mentoring, the paths of opportunity youth can be redeveloped by implementing supports and spaces where youth are able to showcase their strengths and potential (AIR, Expanding the Evidence Base for Reconnecting Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of Opportunity Youth who are successfully reengaged in education or work. Reengagement involves staff, typically at a school or dropout recovery center, identifying young people who have stopped attending school and then reaching out to those students through letters and phone calls and by visiting students’ homes. Staff establish a connection with young people to learn more about their interests and goals and then work to identify an appropriate placement (e.g., traditional high school, alternative educational setting, or high school equivalency program) to help them complete their high school degree and prepare for postsecondary opportunities or a career (AIR, Expanding the Evidence Base for Reconnecting Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of Opportunity Youth who are engaged in paid opportunities for work-based learning. Through paid work-based learning opportunities, young people can gain crucial on-the-job experience and build important professional connections that support long-term job stability, all while receiving the financial compensation necessary to sustain their focus on professional learning (AIR, Expanding the Evidence Base for Reconnecting Opportunity Youth).

Percentage of Opportunity Youth receiving wraparound services. Wraparound services may include childcare, mental health services, supplemental nutrition assistance, living stipends, and transportation stipends. Providing wraparound services is a common strategy employed by comprehensive programs that serve opportunity youth and is part of a wholistic approach to mitigating the numerous barriers that opportunity youth face (AIR, Expanding the Evidence Base for Reconnecting Opportunity Youth).

Connecting opportunity youth with a coach or dedicated academic advisor to help prepare young adults for college and navigate college when they arrive (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Providing opportunity youth access to community-based programs designed to help students become familiar with the college campus, develop positive academic habits, and develop general skills required to succeed in college (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing access to afford­able, acces­si­ble high-qual­i­ty ear­ly child­hood edu­ca­tion, espe­cial­ly in low-income com­mu­ni­ties, sets the stage for aca­d­e­m­ic suc­cess and decreas­es dis­par­i­ties by income and race (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing equi­table access to high-qual­i­ty K–12 edu­ca­tion, includ­ing ensur­ing that schools in low-income areas have ade­quate resources, coun­selors and sup­port ser­vices as well as pos­i­tive envi­ron­ments and non-puni­tive dis­ci­pline policies (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Strength­en­ing ear­ly-warn­ing sys­tems in schools and com­mu­ni­ties to iden­ti­fy youth who are strug­gling and to con­nect them with need­ed sup­port, whether relat­ed to aca­d­e­mics, dis­abil­i­ties, fam­i­ly issues, health care, men­tal health or oth­er needs (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Ensur­ing that flex­i­ble learn­ing expe­ri­ences are avail­able and tai­lored to youth needs and offer­ing strong sup­port for the tran­si­tion from high school to post­sec­ondary path­ways, espe­cial­ly in areas with high­er rates of youth disconnection (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Increas­ing access to youth devel­op­ment pro­grams — such as men­tor­ing, after-school and civic engage­ment — helps youth form rela­tion­ships with sup­port­ive adults and mean­ing­ful­ly con­tribute to their community (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing equi­table access to high-qual­i­ty employ­ment oppor­tu­ni­ties, such as intern­ships, appren­tice­ships and career and tech­ni­cal train­ing programs.

Cre­at­ing tar­get­ed plans to address the unique needs of com­mu­ni­ties with high rates of oppor­tu­ni­ty youth (Annie E. Casey, Who Are Opportunity Youth).

Jobs for the Future’s Back on Track Postsecondary Success model lays out three overlapping phases: Enriched Preparation, Postsecondary Bridging, and First Year Supports. Enriched preparation integrates high-quality college/career-ready instruction with strong academic and social supports. Postsecondary Bridging builds college/career-ready skills and provides informed transition counseling. First Year Supports offer appropriate supports to ensure postsecondary persistence and career success (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

Opportunity Works was a three-year effort led by JFF with the Aspen Institute Forum for Community Solutions (AFCS) to help opportunity youth — young people ages 16 to 24 not in school or meaningfully employed — access postsecondary and career pathways. Based on the Back on Track framework, seven cities undertook cross-sector collaborative approaches with diverse partners to provide supportive enhanced preparation and postsecondary/career bridging for eligible young people, with a particular focus on young men of color.  A study by the Urban Institute found that Opportunity Works has a positive and significant impact on postsecondary persistence and completion for program participants in South King County. The magnitude of the impact is large: about 17% of Opportunity Works program participants in South King County were awarded a college degree or a non-degree credential in up to five years after program entry, compared with 2% of the comparison group. Most of the graduation effects are because of increases in non-degree credentials awarded to participants. But the Urban Institute also found suggestive evidence that Opportunity Works increases South King County program participants’ likelihood of graduating with a two-year college degree (positive effects but imprecisely measured) (Urban Institute, Effects of the Back on Track Model on College Persistence and Completion).

The Back on Track framework fosters the growth and scale of programs aimed at improving the postsecondary success of opportunity youth. Back on Track is characterized by three program phases: (a) Enriched preparation: recruits high school noncompleters ages 16 to 24 and provides them with the curriculum, support and coaching essential for educational success and career readiness, as well as support in completing a high school credential; (b) Postsecondary/career bridging: helps students bridge to college and/or careers. This phase caters to opportunity youth who already have or are very close to obtaining high school credentials and helps them build the skill set essential for postsecondary achievement; and (c) First-year support: provides support to students to gain the skills necessary to persist through their first year of college or career (Urban Institute, Effects of the Back on Track Model on College Persistence and Completion).

Goodwill Excel, Austin: Excel is part of a charter network managed by Goodwill, Inc. catering both to older youth (18 to 26) and adults (26 to 50). It offers both diplomas and GEDs and has a flexible schedule to allow for its older clientele to work and/or take care of their families (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

American YouthWorks/Youthbuild, Austin: American Youthworks is a nonprofit organization that offers a Youthbuild program, providing the opportunity for young adults in Austin to take control of their education through combining completion of a high school credential with attainment of skills and certifications in one of several industry areas, work experience in that area, and preparation for and successful transition to postsecondary education and/or training. To support students in each of these areas, the school faculty includes professionals who come with expertise in a particular technical/occupational area, teachers who have been more traditionally trained to deliver instruction in traditional high school subject matter to help students prepare for the GED or meet the TSI requirements and prepare for college coursework, and transition experts who teach courses such as Adult Life and Mental Toughness II to help smooth the path to college and/or workplaces (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

Restore Education, San Antonio: Restore Education is unique among the five sites in promoting a high degree of individualization and in offering only a GED, with no diploma option. Most students spend the majority of their school hours working to prepare for the GED in one-on-one sessions with paid instructional staff and volunteer tutors from the community. The program also offers group English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, as well as classes to help students who want to prepare to meet the requirements for the TSI and workforce training classes (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

Texans CAN Academy, Fort Worth: The Fort Worth CAN Academy is part of a statewide charter network of schools, all of which focus on serving at-risk students who were struggling academically and/or socially in their high schools and seeking an alternative to the traditional school system. The academy offers a halfday high school-level academic program, where students proceed from subject-area class to subject-area class, much as in a traditional high school. In the second half of the day, students participate in classes focused on attaining industry certifications and dual-enrollment classes that carry college credit (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

College and Career Center, La Joya: The La Joya ISD College and Career Center is a district alternative program offering older students the opportunity to complete high school or earn a high school equivalency degree while also preparing for postsecondary education, careers, and the military. A majority of the students are English learners, needing to build up their language skills simultaneously with preparing for postsecondary education and life. The center shares a building with the La Joya Early College High School and also serves as one of the campuses of South Texas College. Unusual hours accommodate a nontraditional population, many of whom attend part-time for a year or even less. Classes are offered in the mornings, afternoons, evenings, and even on weekends for students who work and/or have child care responsibilities (JFF, Supporting Dropout Recovery Programs to Focus on Postsecondary Success).

Portland YouthBuilders (PYB), a YouthBuild USA affiliate program, and its partner, Portland Community College, have collaborated to identify college-ready standards in mathematics, reading, and writing and then modified program courses to embed these standards. Through extended instructional periods and interdisciplinary units of instruction with such high-interest themes as “social justice,” PYB faculty introduces students to literary analysis and research skills essential to success in college. In math, PYB staff members are continuing to work with the college’s faculty on mapping the curriculum to align with college preparation. The partners also track students’ progress in postsecondary bridging programs to determine whether further adjustments are needed during the enriched preparation phase of the Back on Track model (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

West Brooklyn Community High School, a New York City Transfer School for over-aged and undercredited students, is a partnership between the NYC Department of Education and Good Shepherd Services. Three years ago, West Brooklyn initiated a College Culture Committee to focus on postsecondary awareness and planning across the school, and to assess how well its instructional strategies align with building college-ready skills and behaviors. As a result, staff saw the need for a more targeted focus on the development of high-level cognitive skills across all content areas. They developed a peer observation protocol that all teachers use to observe one another’s classes and provide feedback on the use of college-ready instructional strategies. In addition, staff plan and facilitate college and postsecondary planning activities during advisories called Community Leaders (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Improved Solutions for Urban Systems (ISUS), an affiliate of the National Youth Employment Coalition in Dayton Ohio, has created dropout recovery career and technical charter schools focused on in-demand careers — construction, advanced manufacturing, renewable energy and health care. Through an articulation agreement with Sinclair Community College, designated ISUS teachers can be certified as adjunct faculty to teach college-approved curricula leading to Associate’s degrees in health care and other selected fields. To support this postsecondary bridging, ISUS has lengthened the school day and school year. Once enrolled at Sinclair, students can also earn nationally recognized “stackable” industry credentials, Associate’s degrees, and apprenticeships (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

New York City’s College Access and Success initiative brings together the New York City College of Technology (City Tech), Cypress Hills Local Development Corporation, Good Shepherd Services, and the Youth Development Institute. Each month, Cypress Hills, Good Shepherd, and City Tech staff — including the Provost, the Dean of Curriculum and Instruction, academic advisors, and case managers — meet to discuss the progress of students in the program. At the meetings staff review data about student courses and performance, as well as qualitative information about students’ performance and lives. Discussions of individual students yield guidance on how to help each one, and staff members come to agreement on follow-up actions (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

In Massachusetts, a partnership with Massasoit Community College (MCC) has enabled YouthBuild Brockton to add a focus on college-ready instruction, as well as to offer a supported dual enrollment class, taught by an MCC instructor. Shepherded by Mark Showan, executive director of YouthBuild Brockton, and Amanda Huggon-Mauretti, special programs coordinator at MCC, the partnership’s graduates are well prepared to succeed in the postsecondary bridging program the college runs for high school and GED graduates. MCC, like many community colleges, is enrolling a growing number of very underprepared young people who have to take developmental education courses before engaging in any college-level work. By establishing bridge programs and partnerships with organizations like YouthBuild, the college has gained a steady supply of motivated young adults who are better prepared for college, and many of them have continuing support from their sending programs. Among these supports, two YouthBuild staff check in on students regularly to help ensure they have what they need to succeed. The scale of the bridge program and continuing support make it possible for Huggon-Mauretti to oversee the bridge programming, act as YouthBuild’s liaison at the college, and serve as the academic advisor to all YouthBuild students after they complete the bridge program and enroll in the college (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

In a region of Texas with large numbers of 18- to 26-year olds who are disconnected from school and work, the PharrSan Juan-Alamo Independent School District teamed up with South Texas College to create the College, Career, and Technology Academy (CCTA), a college-connected dropout recovery school. CCTA’s slogan exemplifies the goal the academy is designed to achieve: “You didn’t graduate from high school? Start college today!” For years, dropouts had shown up at South Texas College seeking to enroll and gain credentials, but entry required a high school diploma or GED. Thus, Dr. Shirley Reed, the founding president of the college, responded immediately when Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Superintendent Dr. Daniel King proposed a joint venture. Both knew a partnership was essential to creating a pathway through postsecondary for this large number of young people. Registration for college courses, facilitated by staff from both South Texas College and CCTA, occurs when students enroll at the academy. Even while completing high school requirements, students can select from among a limited number of “mini-mesters” — shortened dual enrollment courses that include career-oriented certificate courses offered at the college. They can also take a College Success course that helps them develop study skills, explore career interests, and understand their options for high-payoff credentials. Dual enrollment courses are funded by the state, as specified in Texas legislation designed to improve college and career readiness (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Improving Data: Opportunity youth need information about the education and labor market outcomes they can expect to achieve to help them learn about and choose the best institution and program of study. Policy should enable data systems that link students’ education and workforce outcomes and then make that data available, understandable, and accessible (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Support Services: Policy should ensure alignment of financial aid with programs that offer child care, transportation, nutrition, and other benefits for which opportunity youth are eligible. Opportunity youth also need guidance and counseling on choices both big—like selecting a college or choosing a career pathway —and small — like deciding what courses to take or how to get the textbooks they need. Policy should ensure that opportunity youth have the guidance they need before they enter higher education and once they enroll (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Flexible Financial Aid: Many opportunity youth support families, work while going to college, or have never completed high school. These students need flexible financial aid policies that make applying for financial aid simple, allow students to attend school all year, help them access Ability to Benefit, and recognize costs for students that go beyond tuition and books (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Guided Pathways: Policy should incentivize and enable the creation of guided pathways, a framework for redesigning institutions of higher education to improve students’ experiences from entry through completion. Pathways provide students with clear “maps” to guide students through a program of study through a credential, combined with robust advising (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Accelerated Pathways: Rather than allowing opportunity youth to get stuck in unengaging remedial coursework, policy should help these students accelerate faster towards their higher education goals. This includes giving students credit for prior learning and experiences, advancing competency-based education models, and promoting co-enrollment and dual enrollment models that allow students to move more quickly towards credentials (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Work-Based Learning: Work-based learning traditionally has been available to the most socially connected students, rather than those who have the most to gain from work experiences. Policy should expand access to high-quality, relevant work-based learning experiences for opportunity youth, including through pre-apprenticeships, apprenticeships, and work-study opportunities (JFF, Making Higher Education Policy Work for Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing access to afford­able, acces­si­ble high-qual­i­ty ear­ly child­hood edu­ca­tion, espe­cial­ly in low-income com­mu­ni­ties, sets the stage for aca­d­e­m­ic suc­cess and decreas­es dis­par­i­ties by income and race (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing equi­table access to high-qual­i­ty K–12 edu­ca­tion, includ­ing ensur­ing that schools in low-income areas have ade­quate resources, coun­selors and sup­port ser­vices as well as pos­i­tive envi­ron­ments and non-puni­tive dis­ci­pline policies (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Strength­en­ing ear­ly-warn­ing sys­tems in schools and com­mu­ni­ties to iden­ti­fy youth who are strug­gling and to con­nect them with need­ed sup­port, whether relat­ed to aca­d­e­mics, dis­abil­i­ties, fam­i­ly issues, health care, men­tal health or oth­er needs (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Ensur­ing that flex­i­ble learn­ing expe­ri­ences are avail­able and tai­lored to youth needs and offer­ing strong sup­port for the tran­si­tion from high school to post­sec­ondary path­ways, espe­cial­ly in areas with high­er rates of youth disconnection (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Increas­ing access to youth devel­op­ment pro­grams — such as men­tor­ing, after-school and civic engage­ment — helps youth form rela­tion­ships with sup­port­ive adults and mean­ing­ful­ly con­tribute to their community (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Pro­vid­ing equi­table access to high-qual­i­ty employ­ment oppor­tu­ni­ties, such as intern­ships, appren­tice­ships and career and tech­ni­cal train­ing programs (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Cre­at­ing tar­get­ed plans to address the unique needs of com­mu­ni­ties with high rates of oppor­tu­ni­ty youth (Annie E. Casey, Who are Opportunity Youth).

Invest in what works and spur innovation around successful models. Two opportunities to do so are the reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Workforce Investment Act (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Simplify eligibility, reporting, and blending of funds. To identify and serve disconnected youth in ways that support their postsecondary attainment, it is critical to align requirements around data, reporting, eligibility, and uses of funds across federal, state, and private funding streams and programs that touch this group of young people (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Promote and codify improvements to education accountability systems. Accountability for graduation rates can spur and support districts and schools to focus on dropout prevention and recovery, and ensure that such efforts prepare young people for postsecondary success (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Place a high priority on encouraging state and local partnerships. Efforts to collectively develop, sustain, and scale up what works for disconnected youth should include incentives for employers and educational institutions to collaborate on college and career pathways, including apprenticeships for off-track and out-of-school youth (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Use the bully pulpit. Highlight programs, activities, and partnerships that show promising results in helping disconnected youth succeed in postsecondary education (JFF, Pathway to Recovery).

Minimum economic return: Individuals earn enough after completing their education to recover the costs of their investment. Measured as the percentage of individuals that earn at least as much as the median high school graduate in their state plus enough to recoup their total net price plus interest within 10 years of completing their highest degree or leaving education (high school, postsecondary education, or workforce training) (EW Framework).

Cost of Attendance: When considering students’ cost of attendance in the context of the Postsecondary Value Framework, it is important to include their costs beyond tuition. To be successful in school, students need to be able to cover the costs of books, supplies, and transportation to and from class. Additionally, having sufficient resources for housing and food is crucial for allowing students to focus on their coursework without needing to work long hours to cover those expenses. Food and housing insecurity were barriers to student completion prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the pandemic has amplified these insecurities and put a spotlight on additional challenges, including lack of access to a household computer/laptop or reliable home internet connection. Institutions rely on the federal definition of COA to calculate student expenses, and COA data are reported publicly through The Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to measure tuition and non-tuition costs for first-time, full-time (FTFT) degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates. However, federal guidelines do not currently require institutions to include some expenses that students must incur to be successful in college in their COA calculations, including living expenses for students living off-campus with family, health insurance and healthcare costs, internet costs, and cell phone plan costs. Additional non-tuition expenses that students regularly incur also should be added to federal COA estimates. For instance, health insurance, healthcare costs, intent costs, and cell phone plan expenses are  critical elements of student budgets (Postsecondary Value Commission).

Cost of Borrowing: The Postsecondary Value Framework incorporates the cost of borrowing because the postsecondary education system saddles too many students—especially Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and underrepresented AAPI students and students from low-income backgrounds—with debt. Student loan fees already are counted through the statutory COA definition, and consistent with prior models in the field, the framework applies interest over the course of 10 years to account for the additional cost of financing college through borrowing. Additional research is needed to determine a more precise methodology to estimate students’ actual interest accumulation (Postsecondary Value Commission).

Economic value: To measure how different institutions and programs return economic value to their students over time, the Postsecondary Value Framework uses a series of thresholds. The first four thresholds (0 through 3) measure individuals’ earnings outcomes and the final two (4 and 5) measure wealth outcomes. The ultimate goal is for students to reach economic security and wealth parity, whereby a person has sufficient earnings and wealth to withstand life’s economic shocks, and their race/ethnicity, income, or gender does not predict their ability to accumulate earnings or wealth. These thresholds are: (0) Minimum Economic Return: A student meets this threshold if they earn at least as much as a high school graduate plus enough to recoup their total net price plus interest within ten years; (1) Earnings Premium: A student meets this threshold if they reach at least median earnings in their field of study (or, if field of study data is unavailable, the median earnings for the institution’s predominant degree type); (2) Earnings Parity: This threshold measures whether students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, and women reach the median earnings of their systemically more advantaged peers (White students, high-income students, or men); (3) Economic Mobility: This threshold measures whether students reach the level of earnings needed to enter the fourth (60th to 80th percentile) income quintile, regardless of field of study; (4) Economic Security: While sufficient earnings can create a stable life, wealth is key to building the type of security needed to withstand life’s financial shocks. This threshold therefore measures whether students reach median levels of wealth; (5) Wealth Parity: Mirroring the earnings parity threshold, this threshold measures whether students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, and women reach the level of wealth attained by their more privileged White, high-income, or male peers (Postsecondary Value Commission).

Earnings gains for degrees earned: A study by the Center for Analysis of Postsecondary Education and Employment (CAPSEE) found that completing an associate degree yields strongly positive, persistent, and consistent earnings gains: studies show that completing an associate degree yields on average approximately $4,640–$7,160 per annum in extra earnings compared to entering college but not completing an award. For certificates, the evidence shows positive but modest returns and that these returns may fade out within a few years post-college. For non-completers, there is evidence that earning more credits is associated with higher earnings (CAPSEE, Labor Market Returns)

Average debt held by students disaggregated by race and degree type (Education Data Initiative).

Average monthly student loan payments disaggregated by race and degree type (Education Data Initiative).

Student loan payment status (e.g., paid, current, behind) among borrowers, disaggregated by race (Education Data Initiative).

Average cumulative amount borrowed by degree type, disaggregated by race (Education Data Initiative).

Workforce Outcomes – Employment rate: The percentage of former students with any reported annual earnings at one, five and 10 years after exit from the institution. Disaggregated by credential level, completion status, program of study (at exit), economic status (Pell ever), race/ethnicity, gender, age, enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time while enrolled), academic preparation (at any time while enrolled), first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Workforce Outcomes – Median earnings: The median annual earnings of former students one, five, and 10 years after exit from the institution (excludes zeros). Disaggregated by credential level, completion status, program of study (at exit), economic status (Pell ever), race/ethnicity, gender, age, enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time while enrolled), academic preparation (at any time while enrolled), first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Workforce Outcomes – Earnings threshold: The percentage of former students earning more than the median high school graduate salary ($25,000 in 2014; includes zeros) at one, five, and 10 years after exit from the institution. The threshold should be updated annually using Current Population Survey data. Disaggregated by credential level, completion status, program of study (at exit), economic status (Pell ever), race/ethnicity, gender, age, enrollment status, attendance intensity (at any time while enrolled), academic preparation (at any time while enrolled), first-generation status (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Additional metrics related to workforce outcomes include: Percentiles for earnings (10th, 25th, 75th, and 90th); Pre- and post-college earnings; Relative wages (e.g., compared with local or regional wages)  (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Distribution of Median Student Earnings Ten Years After Entry, by Institutional Type  (Postsecondary Value Commission).

Post-college workforce outcome measures like earnings, employment, and earnings thresholds can be used by a variety of audiences. Students and families can use these data to learn about the potential earning power of their intended degree post-graduation, considering the expected value in relation to the major investment required to attend an institution of higher education (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

In recent years, policymakers at both the state and federal levels have used workforce outcomes data for accountability and funding. For example, gainful employment incorporates student earnings — as it relates to debt — into its accountability framework  (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Institutions can use post-college workforce outcomes data to be aware of their students’ outcomes to revise program offerings, tailor prices and financial aid, and implement student supports like career services and increased work opportunities that make their students more prepared for the workforce. The primary reason many students pursue college is to improve their employment prospects. While students also gain other life skills in college that allow them to contribute to society in other non-financial ways, a baseline assumption for many students is that they will be prepared to earn a middle-class living. These metrics can be used individually or in tandem to explore post-college workforce outcomes for students (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

High school graduates select the best “match” college among the institutions to which they were admitted, based on the institutional graduation rate of similar students. Nationwide, 50% of students from low-income families attend a less selective college than those to which they have access, even though attending a more selective college can lead to higher graduation rates and future income (Education-to-Workforce).

Percentage of high school seniors who select a college within 10 percentage points of the best matched postsecondary institution to which they were admitted, based on the institution’s graduation rate for similar students by race, ethnicity, or income status (as measured by Pell Grant receipt) (Education-to-Workforce).

The percentage of high school seniors who are admitted to at least one “match” postsecondary institution. Where a student attends college matters. Research shows that students from low-income families are more likely to attend less selective universities than their academic credentials would otherwise allow, known as “undermatching.” Students who are undermatched are significantly less likely to complete their postsecondary degree given that these institutions often offer less financial aid and support services. As such, many districts and charter networks have started to set goals around the percentage of students admitted to at least one “match” school and have aligned their advising supports to guide students toward the schools where they are likely to be the most successful as early as 9th grade. With students indicating that, in light of the pandemic, they are considering attending a community college, an institution that is more affordable or closer to home or deferring their college plans altogether, it is essential that students are guided to the institutions where they are most likely to be successful (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

Percentage of students affected by student-college “academic undermatch,” which occurs when a student’s academic credentials permit them access to a college or university that is more selective than the postsecondary alternative they actually choose. Using a nationally representative dataset, we find that 41% of students undermatch in their postsecondary choice. We also find that academic undermatch affects students with a range of academic credentials, but is more common among those students from low socioeconomic status families, who live in rural areas, and whose parents have no college degree. Finally, we show that between the 1992 and 2004 high school senior cohorts, academic undermatch has decreased by nearly 20%. The decrease is partially due to students being more likely to apply to a matched college (Smith, J. et al., The full extent of student-college academic undermatch).

Percentage of low-income, high-achieving students applying to a well-matched college. A Brookings study shows that the vast majority of low-income high achievers do not apply to any selective college. This is despite the fact that selective institutions typically cost them less, owing to generous financial aid, than the two-year and nonselective four-year institutions to which they actually apply. Moreover, low-income high achievers have no reason to believe they will fail at selective institutions since those who do apply are admitted and graduate at high rates. The study demonstrates that low-income high achievers’ application behavior differs greatly from that of their high-income counterparts with similar achievement. The latter generally follow experts’ advice to apply to several “peer,” a few “reach,” and a couple of “safety” colleges.  By contrast, low-income high-achieving students who do not apply to selective colleges often come from districts too small to support selective public high schools, are not in a critical mass of fellow high achievers, and are unlikely to encounter a teacher who attended a selective college (Hoxby, C. and Avery, C., The Missing “One-Offs”: The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low-Income Students).

College match of high school graduates. (Urban Institute, Robust and Equitable Measures to Identify Quality Schools).

Participated in Activity at School: Student reports on the 2005 CCSR Senior Survey at least weekly participation in school clubs or after-school activities (like student council, ethnic/cultural clubs, newspaper, drama, or After School Matters). (Roderick, M. From high school to the Future). 

Applied to Three to Five Schools/Applied to Six or More Schools: Student reports on the 2005 CPS Senior Exit Questionnaire of the number of applications completed. (Roderick, M. From high school to the Future). 

Attended a College Fair: Student reported on the 2005 CCSR Senior Survey attending a college fair while in high school. (Roderick, M. From high school to the Future). 

Used a College Guidebook: Student reported on the 2005 CCSR Senior Survey using college guidebooks (online or print) while in high school. (Roderick, M. From high school to the Future). 

Took the PSAT: Student reported on the 2005 CCSR Senior Survey taking the PSAT/NMSQT (the preSAT) while in high school. (Roderick, M. From high school to the Future). 

Followed the Steps Up to Being Accepted into a Four-Year School: Student reported on the 2005 CCSR Senior Survey and the 2005 CPS Senior Exit Questionnaire following the steps to college enrollment up to being accepted into a four-year college (aspired to a four-year degree, planned to attend a four-year college, applied to a four-year college, and was accepted into a four-year college) (Roderick, M. From high school to the Future). 

Integrate regular, structured college exposure experiences — such as campus field trips — into student programming to build knowledge, confidence and persistence in pursuing postsecondary education (Swanson, E., Kopotic, K., Zamarro, G., Mills, J. N., Greene, J. P., & Ritter, G. W. (2021). An evaluation of the educational impact of college campus visits: A randomized experiment).

College-level mathematics: There is a quantitative theme to the curriculum story that illustrates how students cross the bridge onto and through the postsecondary landscape successfully. The highest level of mathematics reached in high school continues to be a key marker in pre-collegiate momentum, with the tipping point of momentum toward a bachelor’s degree now firmly above Algebra 2. By the end of the second calendar year of enrollment, the gap in credit generation in college-level mathematics between those who eventually earned bachelor’s degrees and those who didn’t is 71 to 38% (The Toolbox Revisited).

By combining internal data on their students’ academic performance with postsecondary outcomes data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC), districts and charter networks can set their own benchmarks for identifying match institutions for their students (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

As part of the To & Through Advising Challenge, the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools (PLAS) harnessed data from the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) to create counselor resources for improving postsecondary fit and match. PLAS was formed as a collaboration between Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the city of Los Angeles, and other public and private partners, and they manage 18 of the “most historically underserved schools” in the city. They used the NSC data to develop criteria for the “best fit” schools that had a track record of successfully supporting LAUSD students. Schools with an average admitted student GPA above 3.5 with a 75 % or higher minority graduation rate, or schools with an average admitted student GPA below 3.5 and a 55 % or better minority graduation rate. PLAS created individual data sheets for each of the “best fit” schools to share with counselors, teachers, parents, and students (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

The KIPP charter network has developed a College Match Framework that breaks down the key practices  —  and aligned performance indicators that schools can use to measure progress  —  that students and counselors should take throughout the college application and selection process. Students explore their “passion, purpose, and plan” to identify their priorities. They then build a “SMART Wish List,” with students encouraged to apply to at least six institutions, including a balance of schools they are “likely” to be accepted to, schools that are “targets,” and schools that are “reaches” based on their academic performance. Counselors have access to a dashboard that tracks student progress in meeting each of these goals. Schools continue to monitor students as they apply for financial aid, select an institution to attend, and complete the critical steps to enroll and transition in the fall. By following this approach, KIPP has found that students at all levels of performance are more likely to matriculate to colleges with historically strong graduation rates for Black and Latine students than their peers who apply to fewer schools. (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

Achieve Atlanta has partnered with Atlanta Public Schools (APS) to develop a Match and Fit List Builder, which supports students with creating a balanced college list, including at least two each of “target,” “reach,” and “likely” schools. The tool uses data provided by the district, including GPA and the highest score on the ACT or SAT. To provide students with information about the potential cost of the colleges on their list, the tool also asks students to provide their household income. (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

Chicago Public Schools (CPS) has partnered with the University of Chicago Consortium to develop a College Match Grid that categorizes institutions to apply to based on a student’s GPA and SAT or ACT score: two-year colleges, “less selective” four-year colleges, “somewhat selective” four-year colleges, “selective” four-year colleges, and “very selective” four-year colleges. For example, while a student scoring below 940 on the SAT or 18 on the ACT and with less than a 2.0 GPA might want to consider a two-year college, a student with a 3.0 GPA and the same test scores might look at “selective” colleges. The grid is paired with a “College Selectivity List” of institutions for each of those categories (EdStrategy, From Tails to Heads).

Student Leadership Network’s CollegeBound Initiative (CBI) places full-time directors of college counseling in high-need public schools. One of the program’s objectives is to increase student awareness of college and career options by coordinating college trips and fairs, facilitating college awareness lessons and workshops, and connecting students to alumni enrolled in college (Student Leadership Network).

Since 2013, the Colorado Department of Higher Education has been working to develop earnings outcomes tools accessible to Colorado students and families. This interactive tool depicts annual median earnings for Colorado graduates one, five and 10 years following the completion of a credential. Students and families can use this tool to search for median earnings based on institution of higher education, degree level, and program of study (Colorado Department of Higher Education, Postsecondary Degree Earnings Outcome Tools).

Counselors conduct 1–on–1 meetings throughout students’ junior & senior years on topics relevant to their place in the college process (Knowledge is Power Program, College match strategies framework).

Counselors build Family Investment by engaging families early and throughout the college process. Hold family nights about college matching in junior and senior year Plan family meetings on critical match topics including wish lists, matriculation decisions, and financial aid decisions. (Knowledge is Power Program, College match strategies framework).

Counselors use data tools to build SMART wish lists, track progress to Match goals, and analyze wish lists and financial aid awards. Data tools include: KIPP Student Match Tool, KIPP Counselor Match Tool, KIPP Alumni Database, KIPP Strong Transition Dashboard, Under-matching and ECC tracker, uAspire Award Analyzer, and Department of Ed College Scorecard. (Knowledge is Power Program, College match strategies framework).

Rigorous progress monitoring: Rigorous and realistic bottoms up goals; Weekly tracking of metrics using Counselor Match Tool; Regular email communication to communicate progress to goals; Monthly Match Meetings (Knowledge is Power Program, College match strategies framework).

Leadership alignment: All students take ACT 2–3x, with first test in April of junior year; Curriculum and academic policies oriented towards college and career readiness; Shared goals and accountability; All KIPP HS’s have 11th/12th Seminar (ideal   —   9th–12th); Dir. of College Counseling and/or KTC Director on HS Leadership team; Resources for fee waivers, college trips, and PD. (Knowledge is Power Program, College match strategies framework).

Whole school engagement: School and dept PD aligned to college match process; School-wide Match campaigns; Regular teacher-counselor communication and updates. (Knowledge is Power Program, College match strategies framework).

Counselor competency and development: Align JD, performance review, and PD to Match Strategies Framework; Regional PD days; Attendance at national KIPP Through College webinars and in person retreats; Visits to regional colleges and counselor fly-ins; Professional memberships and conferences (NACAC, NCAN, etc.). (Knowledge is Power Program, College match strategies framework).

Students prepare for college match: (1) Get an early start; (2) Explore your Passion, Purpose, and Plan, and priorities for college fit; (3) Prepare for the cost of college: submit parent taxes, request tax verification documents, and get preliminary EFC; (4) Know your Numbers (academic and financial). (Knowledge is Power Program, College match strategies framework).

Students build a SMART college wish list. At KIPP, most students make a list of 9 schools with at least 6 being likely-plus, target and reach. These goals may differ based on academic profile. Students check their list according to the following aspects of fit: (a) Career alignment: Does my options have my anticipated major(s) or a path to my desired career?; (b) Financial Fit: Do I have options that I am confident will provide me sufficient financial aid?; (c) Academic fit: Do I have options that are strong fits for my academic profile? Do I have a balanced list of likely-plus, target, and reach schools? (d) Success fit: Do my options have strong graduation rates and supports to ensure I complete? (e) Personal fit: Do my options reflect my desired postsecondary experience and community: (f) Family fit: Are my parents supportive of my options? KIPP recommends all juniors complete a draft wish list by the end of their junior year, about May 31st. Seniors should refine their wish list by September 30th so on October 1 they can move into financial aid and postsecondary applications.  (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

Counselors support students to draft, refine and finalize a Smart Wish List. This includes: (a) Outline recommended college and career options for students by academic profile. Use graduation and admissions data – as well as feedback from students – to determine which colleges support students well, and recommend these options to students to explore at the start of the process; (b) Introduce students to their wish list search tool and make sure the counselor has access; (c) Support students in using financial aid, career, college priority and fit factors to draft wish lists; (d) Review first draft of wish lists for quality fit factors; meet with students/or families to provide feedback; (e) Support students in refining Smart Wish List using: ACT/SAT scores, GPA, college priorities, career interests and Expected Financial Contribution. Vet for balance across college options; (f) Ensure students share wish lists with parents for feedback and complete a Wish List Defense Project to share with peers and teachers; (g) Ensure every junior finalizes an initial Smart Wish List that meets key criteria. (Recommended by May 31).  (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

Counselors support ACT and SAT registration and completion. This includes: (a) Connect students to ACT and SAT prep resources. (For example, the free online ACT Academy.); (b) Support ACT/SAT registration and hold ACT/SAT support events (Pre-breakfast, pep rally); (c) Support students in taking the ACT and/or SAT at least two times. (Research shows students do best taking the tests three times) (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

Counselors ensure every student completes the FAFSAForecaster and collects critical financial aid documents. This includes: (a) Hold family meeting to complete FAFSA4caster and review draft wish list; (b) Use FAFSA4caster results (anticipated Expected Family Contribution) to refine wish lists for financial fit; (c) Collect student documents needed to complete FAFSA in a safe storage area to use for financial aid submission in fall of senior year  (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

Counselors help students draft and prepare for personal statements. This includes: (a) Determine when students will complete personal statements (e.g., in English class, at a writing retreat, independently w/ support of faculty/advisors); (b) Establish an online storage space for personal statement drafts; (c) Ensure students have plans to solicit and incorporate feedback from teachers and peers; (d) Verify that student drafts are completed by recommended date. (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

Counselors help students identify and prep potential recommenders. This includes: (a) Ensure students complete an online “Brag Sheet” and send to recommenders; (b) Hold training for teachers to learn about best practices for letters of recommendation; (c) Determine where letters will be stored (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

Counselors ensure students make plans to explore the colleges on their wish lists. This includes: (a) Run student college trips. We recommend organizing trips by academic segment. (Note: these can occur in spring or summer.); (b) For Early Decision applicants, ensure students apply to school’s summer programs and/or diversity fly-ins (if available and no or low cost) (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

According to KIPP’s College Search Checklist, before the end of junior year students should: (a) Take a career assessment; (b) Start exploring and having conversations with others about what careers you might be interested in. Research what might be required; (c) Craft and revise a “Smart Wish List” of colleges and postsecondary options you want to pursue and share that list with your family; (d) Take the ACT, SAT or other standardized tests at least once; (e) Complete FAFSAForecaster and collect financial aid documents. Share tax documents with your college counselors; (f) Draft a personal statement and collect feedback from friends, teachers or other adults you trust; (g) Create a “Brag Sheet” and give to potential recommenders; (h) Make plans to visit or virtually explore the colleges and programs on your wish list. This might include attending summer programs; (i) Talk to your counselor about whether or not “Early Decision” or “Early Action” is the right choice for you (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

According to KIPP’s College Search Checklist, by September 30 of Senior year students should: (a) Refine and finalize your “Smart Wish List and share it with your family; (b) Take the ACT, SAT or other standardized tests. (It’s recommended that you take them two or three times.); (c) If applying Early Action or Early Decisions, visit the college and complete your application on time. (Likely by 11/1); (d) Once your wish list is finalized, make a list of all the materials you’ll need to complete your applications. If students had not finished the following steps in their junior year, they should finish them immediately: (a) Complete FAFSAForecaster and collect financial aid documents. Share tax documents with your college counselors; (b) Draft a personal statement and get feedback and advice from friends, teachers and other adults you trust; (c) Create a “Brag Sheet” and give to potential recommenders; (d) Make plans to visit or virtually explore the colleges and programs on your wish list, potentially applying for and attending summer programs (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

According to KIPP’s College Search Checklist, in August and September of Senior year students should: (a) Revisit your wish list and research when applications will be due and what’s required; (b) Create a  work plan for your application process. For each application, note the due date, application link, what’s required and create a place to track completion of each application element; (c) Identify who can be on your application “team” to draft recommendations. Send them a “brag sheet,” along with a deadline to complete. (Set this deadline a few weeks before you plan to submit.); (d) Revisit your personal statements, seeking feedback from teachers, family and peers. Update and adjust where necessary; (e) Talk to your counselor about requesting “fee waivers” to avoid paying the cost of application fees. Capture requirements in your application work plan (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

According to KIPP’s College Search Checklist, in October and November of Senior year students should: (a) Submit necessary fee waivers; (b) Send reminders to recommendation writers, emphasizing when you plan to submit your applications; (c) Schedule time with your college counselor to review applications before final submission; (d) Submit all applications; (e) Confirm that colleges received all your application materials (KIPP, Supporting Students to Find Their Match).

Student persistence and retention: Students are considered persisted if they remain enrolled at any institution and retained if they remain at their starting institution — either in the spring term following initial enrollment (first spring) or in the fall of their second academic year (second year). In both timeframes, students who complete a credential before the applicable term are also included in the corresponding rates (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center).

Persistence Rate: The percentage of students in a cohort remaining enrolled or earning a credential at their initial or subsequent institution, measured annually up to 200 percent of program length. Measures twelve-month incoming student cohorts by credential level and student enrollment status and attendance intensity (e.g., FTFT, FTPT, TFT, TPT). Disaggregated by academic preparation, economic status (at entry), race/ ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status, and program of study (at entry) (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Other metrics related to persistence rate: Stopout or consecutive enrollment rates; Academic standing (e.g., GPA, credits) on transfer or dropout; Number of credits and degree conferral at transfer out; Near completion (e.g., fewer than 15 credits) on transfer or dropout; Major/degree at subsequent institution compared with initial institution; Withdrawal rate (percentage of all enrolled students who leave in one year) (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Persistence quality: We falsely believe that beginning students drop out of higher education in appalling numbers by the end of their scheduled first academic year of attendance. In fact, about 90 percent of traditional-age beginning students turn up somewhere (maybe not at the first school attended) and at some time (maybe not in the fall term) during the subsequent calendar academic year (measured as July 1 through June 30). However impressive this percentage, the quality of persistence counts more, and, for a third of these students, the quality of persistence (e.g., number of credits earned, GPA achieved) leaves much to be desired. Institutions should monitor and report the quality (as much as the fact) of persistence (The Toolbox Revisited).

Retention rate: The percentage of students in a cohort who are either enrolled at their initial institution or transfer to a longer program at the initial or subsequent institution, calculated annually up to 200 percent of program length. Measures twelve-month incoming student cohorts by credential level and student enrollment status and attendance intensity (e.g., FTFT, FTPT, TFT, TPT). Disaggregated by academic preparation, economic status (at entry), race/ ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status, and program of study (at entry)  (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Other metrics related to retention rate: Timely registration for classes; Term-to-term retention rates; Retention with advanced class standing (e.g., credits); Stopout or consecutive enrollment rates; Academic standing (e.g., GPA, credits) on transfer or dropout; Number of credits and degree conferral at transfer out; Near completion (e.g., fewer than 15 credits) on transfer or dropout; Major/degree at subsequent institution compared with initial institution; Withdrawal rate (percentage of all enrolled students who leave in one year) (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

While largely used as an institutional improvement measure, retention rates can also serve as important signals for both prospective students, who can use retention to select institutions where they have the best chance of persisting, and policymakers, who can design policies and programs that promote higher retention rates (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

Change in Revenue from Change in Retention: The impact of changes in first-year retention rates from one cohort to another on tuition revenue available to the institution. Measures twelve-month cohorts of students (e.g., FTFT, FTPT, TFT, TPT). Disaggregated by credential level, enrollment status, attendance intensity, academic preparation, economic status, race/ethnicity, gender, age, first-generation status, and program of study. The change in revenue from change in retention metric compares first-year retention rates for two cohorts and evaluates how that change impacts net tuition revenue for an institution (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Additional metrics related to Change in Revenue from Change in Retention include: Change in first-year retention rates over time; Change in net tuition per student over time; Change in net tuition revenue per student due to change in retention; Change in subsidy revenue due to change in retention (total and per student); Change in net tuition plus subsidy revenue due to change in retention (total and per student) (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Measuring retention across years enables an institution to decipher when and which students stop out and dropout and, through subsequent investigation of submetrics, determine why. For example, a student dropping out after one year is very different from a student dropping out just short of a credential. Parsing the different times for stopout and dropout, especially for different student populations such as underrepresented minorities, allows institutions to target interventions to address students’ specific barriers or needs (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Along with retention and outcome rates, institutions, prospective students, and policymakers can use persistence rates to better understand the full range of outcomes for college students. For institutions, for instance, the persistence rate signals a credible target for improving their success rates, because students who are persisting elsewhere might have graduated from their initial institution instead. The persistence rate is also useful for institutions that aim to prepare many of their students for transfer, so they can demonstrate their progress and success (IHEP, Toward Convergence). 

By highlighting the possibility for increased revenue generation resulting from retention rate increases, the results of the metric can support institutions advocating for additional funding for student support services that improve retention. The metric also can quantify the return on investment of those support services, which can ultimately offset some of their costs. Considering the investment of the state and federal governments in higher education, these data can help policymakers to understand and support efforts to increase student retention because of the impact these efforts have on institutional, state, and federal budgets (IHEP, Toward Convergence).

Students begin remedial coursework in the first term, if needed (Advancing by Degrees).

Percent of students entering a 2-year college enrolled in remediation, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, and low-income status (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Percent of freshmen at 2-year colleges who enrolled in remediation and who completed remediation, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, and low-income status (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Percent of freshmen at 2-year colleges who enrolled in remediation and who completed remediation and associated college-level courses in two years, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, and low-income status (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Percent of freshmen at 2-year colleges who enrolled in remediation and who graduate within three years (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Percent of students entering a 4-year college enrolled in remediation, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, and low-income status (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Percent of freshmen at 4-year colleges who enrolled in remediation and who completed remediation, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, and low-income status (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Percent of freshmen at 4-year colleges who enrolled in remediation and who completed remediation and associated college-level courses in two years, disaggregated by race, ethnicity, age, and low-income status (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Percent of freshmen at 4-year colleges who enrolled in remediation and who graduate within six years (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Ensure that policies support innovative practices such as intensive summer-orientation programs for new remedial students (Advancing by Degrees).

Contextualize basic-skills instruction into content courses (Advancing by Degrees).

Implement learning communities for developmental students (Advancing by Degrees).

Adopt systemwide definitions of college readiness (Advancing by Degrees).

Incorporate incentives for institutions to increase success in remedial coursework (Advancing by Degrees).

Redesign developmental courses into modules so students only repeat needed sections (Advancing by Degrees).

Require early completion of remedial coursework (Advancing by Degrees).

Provide brief brush-up courses for students who test near proficiency levels (Advancing by Degrees).

Enroll students in college-level courses; provide supplementary instruction and/or summer sessions for nearly proficient students (Advancing by Degrees).

Instead of traditional remediation, use co-requisite models instead. For students with few academic deficiencies, place them into redesigned first-year, full credit courses with co-requisite built-in support, just-in-time tutoring, self-paced computer labs with required attendance, and the like. The length of these courses should mirror the ordinary gateway courses so students stay on track for on-time graduation. For students needing more help, lengthen redesigned full-credit courses and consider providing built-in, co-requisite support for two semesters instead of one. Students get the same content but more time on task. For students with the most significant academic needs, provide alternate pathways to high-quality career certificates by embedding remediation and adult basic skills development into their instruction (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Get students to commit to programs of study ASAP . Using placement scores, high school transcripts, and predictive tools to determine student aptitude, guide all students to choose among a limited number of first-year pathways — for example, health, business, liberal arts, or STEM — as soon as possible. Students should make the big choices of programs of study informed with an understanding of program requirements and available supports to achieve their career goals. Once they do, place them into structured program pathways constructed of relevant, sequenced courses chosen for them (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Establish “default” programs for students not ready to commit. No longer allow students to be considered “unclassified.” Upon enrollment, nudge them into first-year pathways — for example, health, business, liberal arts, or STEM. This ensures a coherent pathway from the beginning, with core college-level credits that will count toward certificates and degrees. By doing so, students avoid excessive course-taking while wandering the curriculum, shortening the time it takes to graduate (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Place students in the right math. Most students are placed in algebra pathways when statistics or quantitative math would be most appropriate to prepare them for their chosen programs of study and careers (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Expand co-requisite supports for additional college-level courses. Additional introductory courses serve as gateway classes for programs of study, not just English and math. Given high failure rates, they have become gatekeeper courses instead, too often blocking students’ entry into their chosen fields. To help unprepared students get a strong, early start, build extra supports around introductory courses necessary for success like entry-level anatomy, biology, physiology, physics, accounting, and drafting (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Align requirements for entry-level college courses with requirements for high school diplomas. Academic requirements for a high school diploma should be the floor for entry into postsecondary education. K–12 and higher education course-taking requirements should be aligned. Provide 12th grade courses designed to prepare students for college-level math and English (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Administer college-ready anchor assessments in high school. These tests give students, teachers, and parents a clear understanding about whether a student is on track for college. Giving these assessments as early as 10th grade enables juniors and seniors to address academic deficiencies before college (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Use these on-track assessments to develop targeted interventions. K–12 systems and local community colleges or universities can develop programs that guarantee that successful students are truly college ready and exempt from remedial education as freshmen (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Use multiple measures of student readiness for college. Recognize that current college placement assessments are not predictive and should be supplemented with high school transcripts to make recommendations for appropriate first year courses. Have all students taking placement exams receive a testing guide and practice test and time to brush up on their skills before testing (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Corequisite support, which allows students who need additional support in college-level math and English to enroll in these credit bearing courses and receive extra help (Complete College America).

Strengthen high school preparation. Reduce the need for college remediation altogether by adopting and implementing the new voluntary Common Core State Standards in reading, writing, and math. Align requirements for entry-level college courses with requirements for high school graduation. Administer college-ready anchor assessments in high school, and use them to develop targeted interventions before students fall too far behind. That way, high school graduates are ready for credit-bearing college courses from Day One (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Have students start in college-level courses with built-in, co-requisite support. Immediately place freshmen with basic needs into entry-level, credit-bearing college courses with co-requisite support. That is, make this co-requisite model the default. For students needing more support, offer two-semester courses of the same content with built-in tutoring. Meanwhile, offer students with significant academic challenges skill certificate programs with embedded remediation (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Embed needed academic help in multiple gateway courses. To help unprepared students get a strong, early start, build extra supports around all of the early gateway courses that are necessary for success in students’ fields of study. For students to succeed in these courses, they should have built-in tutoring and/or additional instruction time (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Encourage students to enter programs of study when they first enroll. Students are twice as likely to graduate if they complete at least three courses in their chosen programs of study in their first year on campus. Create clear, limited, and structured program pathways containing core college-level courses. Then require students to choose a pathway. Unprepared students can achieve this significant milestone for success if the early college-level courses required in their programs of study have embedded help  (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Community College of Baltimore County’s Accelerated Learning Project (ALP) enrolls remedial English students in a regular, credit-bearing English 101 course and a companion course that meets immediately afterward. The companion course provides in a small group targeted reinforcement of topics from the mainstream course that enables intensive faculty and peer support. Early results show that ALP students pass English 101 with a grade of C or better at more than twice the rate of the control group — and do so in just one semester, as opposed to the two semesters required to complete a remedial course before moving on to the credit-bearing course (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

The California State University (CSU) system added a series of college readiness questions to the state’s 11th grade exam. After students take the test, they are told whether they are on track for college-level classes in the CSU system. Plus, CSU is helping high school teachers work with unprepared students and is developing a 12th grade transitional curriculum (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Since 2005, Indiana’s Core 40 graduation requirements have been the required high school curriculum and the minimum admissions requirement for the state’s four-year public universities. Developed jointly by the K–12 and higher education systems, they ensure that high school graduates are prepared for college and careers (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Virginia is one of several states (including Texas, Florida, and Kentucky) creating 12th grade transitional courses and end-of-course tests based on college readiness standards and first-year courses. Students who earn high enough scores can bypass additional placement tests and proceed directly into full-credit college courses (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

The University of Maryland at College Park identifies about 20 percent of incoming students as unprepared for college-level math and enrolls the top 60 percent of them, based on placement test scores, in a co-requisite math course. Scheduled five days a week, students receive accelerated remedial instruction for the first five weeks. After being retested with the same placement exam, passing students complete the remaining college-level class by attending five days a week for the remaining 10 weeks of the semester. More than 80 percent pass the retest and continue with the college-level course, ultimately matching the overall success rate for the course as nonremedial students (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Tennessee: Austin Peay State University in Tennessee eliminated remedial math courses and places students in redesigned credit-bearing courses that include extra workshops and specialized help. Initial assessments are given to determine specific knowledge gaps, then the workshops are used to provide additional instruction on key math concepts with special emphasis on individual areas of weakness. As a result, twice as many remedial students are passing their initial college-level math courses (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

Texas: Texas State UniversitySan Marcos enrolls students who need extra math help in concurrent remedial and college-level algebra and statistics courses, and it requires additional weekly tutoring, for which students earn credit. Seventy-four percent of participants in the program earn a grade of C or better in algebra during their first semester. This is more than twice the percentage rate of all remedial students at Texas State-San Marcos who earn similar grades in their first two years (Remediation: Higher Education’s Bridge to Nowhere).

50-state comparison on Developmental Education policies provides a national overview of how states structure, implement and report on developmental education. Drawing from state statutes and higher education system policies across all 50 states and the District of Columbia, it outlines key policy areas, including assessment and placement, instructional methods, corequisite support and reporting requirements (Strong Start to Finish).

Rate of enrollment of English learners in college, disaggregated by 2-year colleges and 4-year colleges (ESL programs at U.S. community colleges).

English language learner redesignation/reclassification (Urban Institute, Robust and Equitable Measures to Identify Quality Schools).

Levels of prior educational attainment or academic preparation. Lower levels of educational attainment may result from a lack of access to education in ELs’ home countries or from their experience in the U.S. K-12 system. For example, English only policies in K-12 schools can interrupt EL students’ learning and cause them to be tracked into lower levels of coursework or barred from college preparatory coursework altogether (Flores & Drake, 2014; Ortiz & Hernandez, 2011). (English Learner’s College Persistence and Completion).

Percentage of English learners placed in remedial coursework. Improper placement into remedial coursework is a factor that affects ELs’ persistence (Hodara, 2015; Raufman et al., 2019). A single placement test is not an effective means of identifying how many extra terms of coursework students may need before enrolling in credit coursework, and many students arrive at community colleges unsure of whether they should take the ESL placement test or the general placement test (Raufman et al., 2019) (English Learner’s College Persistence and Completion).

Students’ identities, sense of belonging, and support networks can impact their persistence as well (Kanno & Harklau, 2012; Núñez et al., 2016; Raufman et al., 2019). Those who see themselves as deficient or less capable than expert speakers or those who believe they cannot go to college because they are ELs may persist less readily than those with more agency and self-efficacy (cf. Kanno & Harklau, 2012). Students’ linguistic and academic identities as well as cultural and racial identities can affect their sense of belonging in the classroom (Núñez et al., 2016) as racism and stereotype threat are significant issues that ELs regularly face on campus (Ortiz & Hernandez, 2011; Steele, 2011). Nevertheless, ELs who have a strong network of supportive family members, friends, and on-campus advocates persist longer than those without these networks (Janis, 2013; Kanno & Harklau, 2012) (English Learner’s College Persistence and Completion).

Colleges report offering support to English learners and/or ESL-specific coursework (ESL programs at U.S. community colleges).

Length (e.g., in semesters) of ESL course sequences (ESL programs at U.S. community colleges).

Colleges who have valid placement procedures for English learners (ESL programs at U.S. community colleges).

Colleges who award college credit for ESL coursework (ESL programs at U.S. community colleges).

Assessment: Single assessments may not fully measure the depth and breadth of ELLs’ knowledge, skills, and abilities. Using multiple measures, adaptive tools, and ongoing assessments will lead to both a better understanding of ELLs’ language abilities and academic growth (American Institutes for Research, Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education).

Improving Remedial Course Taking: The burden of time and money for remedial ESL or reading/writing coursework prevents many ELLs from finishing their degrees (Bailey et al., 2010). Offering ELLs flexibility in when and how they improve their English may facilitate a more efficient path toward degree completion (Edgecombe, 2011; Hern & Snell, 2010). When students do not demonstrate adequate English language proficiency according to college and university placement tests, they must enroll in additional coursework for language and literacy development. Enrollment in remedial coursework poses two major challenges. First, it is difficult for colleges and universities to meet the wide array of linguistic and educational needs of ELL students, and thus students are often placed into courses that are not an appropriate match for their individual needs. Second, requiring students to complete additional classes extends the amount of time in which they must be enrolled, which takes a toll on the resources (both time and money) for students (Bunch et al., 2011). Flexibility in when and how students are able to complete core requirements addresses several challenges often faced by ELLs in IHEs. First, in making classwork available outside of typical class hours, colleges and universities acknowledge and allow ELLs to work around competing priorities and move at their own pace. In addition, remedial coursework should be streamlined and aligned to the skills needed for future academic success. Finally, providing flexibility  —  as with adaptive learning technology  —  also allows students to move forward to new content or repeat material as needed, creating a more personalized learning environment that has been shown to lead to greater retention within courses (Boersma, 2013; Fishman, Ludgate, & Tutak, 2017) (American Institutes for Research, Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education). 

Highly Qualified Instructors: Because high-quality, highly qualified teachers design their instruction to draw on students’ strengths and target the areas in which students need support, their effective teaching helps students meet their needs and goals (Mishkind, 2016). These teachers understand the importance of supporting their students’ oral language development, explicitly teaching academic English, valuing cultural diversity, and integrating these areas into their practice (Samson & Collins, 2012). They also are able to help ELLs make stronger connections between what is learned in the classroom and the students’ everyday lives, helping to develop a deeper understanding of the skills and concepts (Mishkind, 2016) (American Institutes for Research, Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education).

Differentiating to meet ELL’s diverse needs: Allowing educators to more easily differentiate instruction based on assessment of students’ skills, needs, and goals will result in more personalized learning for ELLs. Teachers working with ELLs must address a wide range of backgrounds and needs within their class context. Technology offers a way to address the diversity of student needs within one class by allowing teachers to customize instruction in online platforms, often with little to no burden on the teacher (ASCD, 2011). For example, technology can simultaneously assess student learning and provide additional scaffolding in ways that are much faster than human responses. Adaptive materials that reinforce areas of challenge or build on areas of strength can be seamlessly woven into high-quality online instructional materials and platforms. By personalizing instruction, ELLs can receive instruction that is tailored to their individual skills and interests (American Institutes for Research, Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education).

Integrating Language and Content for Personalized Instruction: ELLs need language beyond everyday communication if they are to meet their career and academic goals. However, because teachers have a limited amount of time with their students, they may not always teach all of the language skills and knowledge their students need to learn. For example, Peyton and Schaetzel (2016) found that many ESL teachers do not tend to teach academic writing despite the necessity of learning how to write for academic or professional audiences. Moreover, teaching writing skills in isolation does not sufficiently prepare students for academic or professional writing (Grubb et al., 2011). Integrating language with disciplinary content prepares students for the various types of texts and academic skills they will encounter both as part of their postsecondary education and throughout their careers (Parrish, 2015). Using authentic and relevant materials in the ESL classroom facilitates effective language learning by providing ELLs with the opportunity to develop language skills in contexts similar to what they will encounter outside the classroom, but with structured opportunities for practice and support from the teacher. The use of authentic materials also helps students recognize the connection between what they are learning in the classroom and their everyday lives (Mishkind, 2016). Teachers can support students in learning how to understand academic text rather than leaving students to figure out how to transfer the skills that they learned in the classroom so that they apply to the new context (Huang, Tidwell, & Nisbet, 2011) (American Institutes for Research, Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education).

Technology can help support the integration of language and content. In higher education, adult ELLs have varied educational and career aspirations (Slaouti et al., 2013), and technology can make English language instruction more meaningful and pertinent by providing teachers with a way to integrate authentic materials on content that is relevant to students based on their interests and needs (Jobs for the Future, 2013). Teachers can use online or software-based training modules to help students gain very specific academic or technical skills (Wrigley, 2015). Technology allows students to conduct research using culturally rich materials that are authentic and current (Shrum & Glisan, 2005), gather information through reading or discussion, and present their findings (Vinogradov, 2016). Students in a single class can learn more about nursing or hotel management, for example, without the instructor needing to be an expert in both topics. Students can practice reading and writing (Motteram, 2013) through online communication such as blogs, forums, peer reviews, and digital storytelling activities (Mansbach, 2015). By sharing their ideas with others around the world, their language learning becomes even more meaningful than what the traditional classroom allows (Motteram, 2013) (American Institutes for Research, Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education). 

Address the diverse needs of the three different ELL profiles. An important starting point for IHE administrators is to consider the differing needs of international, immigrant, and Generation 1.5 students. Technology can be used to identify, assess, place, monitor, and instruct students from each of these groups. Finally, rather than aggregating international students, recent immigrants, and Generation 1.5 students into a single ELL group, acknowledging and addressing the differences between them will allow colleges and universities to better plan how to draw on each group’s strengths to meet its needs (American Institutes for Research, Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education). 

Ensure that learning is individualized, relevant, and meaningful for students. Despite general similarities among students within a single profile, recognizing and addressing individual differences among learners can increase students’ engagement in their learning, which will increase retention and improves outcomes. Although many teachers at colleges and universities already provide some tailored, authentic content to their learners, technology provides access to even more tailored and authentic content that meets individual student interests and goals. Technology can help teachers personalize instruction to ELLs’ proficiency levels and learning goals. In that same vein, it allows for self-paced, flexible learning that can adapt to students’ demanding schedules and help move them forward toward course and degree completion (American Institutes for Research, Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education). 

Link qualified educators with learners. IHEs increasingly use online vehicles for instructing, tutoring, and advising for students who are not able to attend face-to-face classes. Technology provides a means of connecting students to the high-quality academic supports they need for success without excessive burden (e.g., traveling long distances to class, sacrificing work or family responsibilities to attend class). In regions or colleges with limited resources, technology can provide students with access to high-quality instructional support that may not be available in their communities (American Institutes for Research, Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education).

Assess students and collect data about outcomes. Many colleges and universities already collect data for the purpose of evaluation and reporting, but technology can both simplify the process and provide a more rigorous means for accomplishing this. When instruction is delivered through a technological platform, colleges and universities can quickly obtain data about student participation and usage and assess progress and learning outcomes that can inform instruction. Moreover, technology-based data collection can standardize which data are collected and how, allowing programs to analyze their success and challenges and make adjustments as needed to better meet students’ needs. Technology also allows programs to easily share the results of their efforts with other institutions, facilitating a dialogue about best practices for instructing ELLs (American Institutes for Research, Serving English Language Learners in Higher Education).