1

Understanding College
and Career Readiness

T o improve college and career readiness, the concept itself must

be clearly understood. This book uses the terms “college” and
“postsecondary education” interchangeably, but there is a critically
important difference. “College” connotes a four-year liberal arts edu-
cation to many people, even though community colleges provide a
great deal of career and technical training. Most of the resistance
against providing a larger proportion of students with readiness for
postsecondary education comes from people who are concerned that
these efforts will shoehorn all students into a traditional four-year
degree path. “Some form of postsecondary education” is the focus of
this book; it connotes some kind of additional education or training
after high school, including degrees, certificates, the military, and
additional training that is neither a degree nor a certificate. To have a
family-sustaining wage with the ability to move up a career ladder,
most people need some kind of additional postsecondary education
and/or applied training. The focus of this book is that every high
school graduate should be prepared to succeed in the postsecondary
environment to which they aspire. The phrase “postsecondary readi-
ness” is somewhat clumsy and thus this book interchanges terms, but
we wish to make the meaning and intent clear from the onset.

1
2 Supporting the Dream

With the emergence of the concept of college and career readiness

in states, regions, localities, and at the national level, many states and
organizations are developing definitions of college readiness, career
readiness, or both. This book utilizes the definition developed at the
Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC), based on research on
this topic over the past two decades. EPIC’s definition of college and
career readiness follows:

Students who are ready for college and career can qualify for
and succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing college courses
leading to a baccalaureate degree, a certificate, or career path-
way-oriented training programs, without the need for reme-
dial or developmental course work. They can complete such
entry-level, credit-bearing courses at a level that enables them
to continue in the major or program of study they have chosen.
(Conley, 2013, p. 51)

A student is college and career ready if he or she has the knowl-

edge and skills necessary to successfully transition to the next step in
his or her desired career or educational pathway. Such readiness
includes both academic and nonacademic knowledge and skills (dis-
cussed in Chapter 2).
Another important distinction is the difference between college
versus career readiness. Every distinct career pathway and college
degree require knowledge, skills, and abilities that are unique to that
area. According to research, however,
college readiness and career readiness
A student is college and career
share many important elements, includ-
ready if he or she has the
ing study skills, time-management skills,
knowledge and skills necessary to
persistence, ownership of learning, prob-
successfully transition to the next
lem solving, collecting and analyzing
step in his or her desired career or
information, and communicating in a
educational pathway.
variety of ways (Conley & McGaughy,
2012). Think of a Venn diagram. The first
circle represents the college readiness knowledge and skills and stu-
dent needs. The second circle represents the career readiness knowl-
edge and skills. The intersection and overlap between the two circles
represent the knowledge and skills all students need when they
graduate high school. The outlying areas represent the knowledge
and skills that are unique to their specific postsecondary and career
fields. College and career readiness, then, represent the intersection:
the knowledge, skills, and abilities that all students need to make the
next step, without remediation, along their desired career pathway.
 Understanding College and Career Readiness 3

History What is the research base behind this definition?

The significance of this definition is that it is
The focus on systemic reforms
both measurable and actionable. Research, pol-
to connect K–12 and postsec-
icy, and practice can all be informed by answer-
ondary education started in
ing a critical question: What are the knowledge
the last decade of the 20th
and skills students need to be successful in entry-
century. Prior to that, most of
level training programs, the military, or credit-
the efforts in the field were
bearing college courses? Staff at EPIC has spent
focused on programmatic
the past decade researching these critical ques-
responses, such as the devel-
tions and has established a considerable
opment of precollege outreach
research base documenting these knowledge
programs, to support tradi-
and skills. EPIC has collected and analyzed
tionally underserved students.
thousands of course documents and instructor
Those efforts had their origins
ratings about the importance and applicability
in the Great Society reforms of
of knowledge and skills necessary for success in
the 1960s and were critically
entry-level college courses in general education
important, but awareness
and in career and technical education (CTE)
grew that (a) getting students
areas in both two- and four-year institutions of
into, but not through, postsec-
higher education (please refer to www.epicon
ondary education was insuffi-
line.org/publications for a complete listing of
cient, and (b) disconnected
the research).
education systems cause prob-
lems for many students.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, research
in this field focused on informing edu- College readiness and career
cators, policymakers, and the public readiness share many important
about how the students who need the elements, including study
most supports in K–12 and postsec- skills, time-management
ondary education often get the least skills, persistence, ownership
(Venezia, Kirst, & Antonio, 2003) and of learning, problem solving,
that the sense of belonging and belief collecting and analyzing
in oneself as “college material” is often information, and communicating
lacking in first-generation college goers in a variety of ways.
(McDonough, 1997). Research at that
time also pointed to the tiers or tracks of educational offerings in
middle schools, high schools, and broad access postsecondary insti-
tutions that reinforce inequalities and make it impossible for a large
proportion of students to reach the American Dream through edu-
cational means (Oakes, 2005). The United States has set up systems
that act as though they support educational and economic mobil-
ity, but to fulfill those aspirations across our disconnected educa-
tional systems, students need that special person who helps them
navigate. The systems themselves are not set up to catch and hold
4 Supporting the Dream

the students who need help the most and provide them with the
educational, motivational, psychological, and behavioral supports to
lay the groundwork for successful adulthood. Each system has its own
ways of helping students, but there is little that spans systems, and
for students who attend more than one postsecondary institution—
the vast majority of students in college—they are usually on their
own to navigate, often by reaching out to extremely understaffed
student services offices.
Fast forward to today and “college and career readiness” are
mantras in states across the country and in the nation’s capital. The
Common Core State Standards (Common Core) were adopted in most
states. The rhetoric of today often risks masking the core reasons for
the efforts and the difficulties in making success after high school a
reality for traditionally underserved students. Backlashes against the
Common Core are growing, and the original hope of the “K–16 reform
movement” could be lost if educational
reform efforts shift focus to another issue.
The rhetoric of today often risks
In response to research about dis-
masking the core reasons for
connected systems and to political pres-
the efforts and the difficulties
sure and many grant opportunities that
in making success after high
require the development of cross-system
school a reality for traditionally
governance entities, regional and local
underserved students.
P–16 councils have sprouted up across
the country. P–16 councils are collabora-
tive teams that are formed to create a unified educational system from
preschool through postsecondary education or to focus on a key issue
or issues related to high school-to-college transitions. These councils
usually focus on issues related to college and career readiness, such
as counseling and supports, curricular alignment, and workforce
preparation” (Moore, Venezia, & Lewis, 2015).
Ensuring that the local partnerships spur reforms that affect
students’ lives and are not just forums for people to update each other
about their respective systems’ efforts is the focus of this book. A key
issue here is that the experiences and expectations in K–12 must educa-
tion be directly connected—or scaffolded,
to use the language of educators—to
Ensuring that the local
expectations in postsecondary education
partnerships spur reforms that
and in the workforce.
affect students’ lives and are not
Connecting to workforce needs is not
just forums for people to update
meant to imply that students should get
each other about their respective
educated just to become workers or that
systems’ efforts is the focus of
students should be in different curricu-
this book.
lar tracks that relegate some students to
 Understanding College and Career Readiness 5

lucrative and flexible careers and others to minimum wage for life.
We are strong supporters of (and have each benefitted from) excel-
lent liberal arts education in high school and college. If liberal arts
training—the abilities to think critically, analyze information, ques-
tion assumptions, synthesize ideas, and so forth—is lost in a race to
provide technical training too early, we believe that we will be left
intellectually poorer, and the risks regarding tracking traditionally
underserved students into old forms of vocational education are
large. At the same time, it is clear that many students are not engaged
by traditional approaches and that promising hybrids that infuse
technical knowledge and experiences with strong abilities to think,
analyze, synthesize, and so forth are being developed to create high-
level, applied, learning opportunities for all students. Those experi-
ences must be personalized; they are dependent on students’ interests
and educational strengths and weaknesses. Such efforts can be seen in
California’s Linked Learning and Career Pathways Trust initiatives,
in Chicago’s and New York’s P-TECH schools, in Jobs for the Future’s
Pathways to Prosperity initiative, and many others across the country.
So what does this all mean in the context of this book? This book
sits squarely in the center of these tough conversations that focus on
some of the hardest educational issues in our country—issues around
the meaning of public education, about access and equity, and about
relationships between K–12 and postsecondary education.

If readers take nothing else from this book, we hope that educators at all
levels understand that working together across systems is not merely a
technical issue that can be completed successfully by using specific tools
and strategies or by meeting around a table together once or twice a month.
This is also not simply about aligning policies at the state level or all getting
on the same page about expectations at the national level.

While those efforts can help send clear signals and create coherent
policy environments, this is about doing good work collaboratively
and collectively across systems locally and regionally. This book is for
the individuals that work directly with students on a daily basis—the
people who have the power to transform individual students’ lives.
The work to connect systems is often more challenging than it seems
like it should be, with different terminology, incentive structures, fund-
ing streams, politics, and so forth. Few people are paid to wake up in
the morning and think about how to connect educational systems, and
most of us are not explicitly rewarded, professionally, for doing so.
6 Supporting the Dream

College “versus” Career Readiness

As a predictable part of a healthy policy cycle, issues related to col-
lege and career readiness are currently receiving increased scrutiny
and, in some quarters, strong pushback. One of the largest critiques
of the issue is the concern that not everyone should or needs to go to
college (such as Owen & Sawhill, 2013; Rosenbaum, Stephan, &
Rosenbaum, 2010; Samuelson, 2012). As mentioned earlier, the con-
cern is that focusing on “college readiness” equates to a singular
focus on obtaining four-year bachelor’s degrees and not the plethora
of pathways available for success beyond high school. Some careers
require a college degree; others do not, but they do require training
(and some of that is highly technical). What all of the commentators
seem to agree on, and is consistent with the messaging of this book,
is that everyone needs some kind of education and/or training after
high school to have a successful and productive life. This is why
throughout this book, the terms “college and career readiness” and
“postsecondary readiness” are used interchangeably. The goal of this
book is not to prepare all students to incur massive debt attending a
selective university to obtain a four-year
degree, but to enable communities to
The goal of this book is not to
work together to prepare students to be
prepare all students to incur
successful in whichever post-high school
massive debt attending a selective
setting to which the students aspire.
university to obtain a four-year
This book supports the conclusion of
degree but to enable communities
Harvard’s Pathways to Prosperity report,
to work together to prepare
“The message is clear: in 21st Century
students to be successful in
America, education beyond high school
whichever post-high school setting
is the passport to the American Dream”
to which the students aspire.
(Symonds, Schwartz, & Ferguson, 2011,
p. 2). Students need to be able to learn
well and succeed in whatever setting they choose beyond high school.
What is emerging from research is that college and career readiness
share many important elements, but they are not exactly the same.
There is a foundational set of knowledge and skills that all high school
graduates need for success beyond high school, but the precise set
of knowledge and skills students need is influenced significantly by
the next step they intend to take, with various career areas, institu-
tions, and certificate or degree programs requiring proficiency in dif-
ferent content knowledge (Conley & McGaughy, 2012). College and
career readiness represent the shared knowledge, skills, and abilities
everyone needs, and the additional knowledge and skills individual
 Understanding College and Career Readiness 7

students need are dependent on the specific career area, admissions,

degree, certificate, and/or training requirements. Communities should
work together to provide the following:

A program of instruction at the secondary school level should

therefore be designed to equip all students with the full range
of necessary foundational knowledge and skills and help them
set high aspirations and identify future interests . . . . Readiness
is a function of the ability to continue to learn beyond high
school, and particularly in postsecondary courses relevant to
students’ goals and interests, as represented by their choice of
major or certificate program. (Conley, 2013, p. 51)

The very process of obtaining a high school diploma should keep

the doors open for students, not close the ability for students’ to
access some career pathways.

Rationale
During a college readiness workshop sponsored by the California
Community College Chancellor’s Office in 2011, a group of commu-
nity college admissions counselors gathered to discuss college and
career readiness issues. One counselor from a Northern California
community college shared a story that resonated with the partici-
pants. She described a recent meeting she had with a new student and
the student’s parents. The parents started the meeting by describing
how proud they were of their daughter. She was the first person in
their family to attend college. They had requested the meeting with
the college admissions counselor because they were confused by the
placement test score information the daughter had received. They
had many questions, such as the following: What are placement tests?
What is developmental education? Why do they have to pay for the
developmental education courses since their daughter would not
receive credit toward her two-year degree? The parents left the meet-
ing upset. Their daughter had worked very hard in high school,
passed all of her classes, and met all of her graduation requirements.
The family kept asking, “What did we do wrong?”
Lack of academic preparedness for college is a stark reality nation-
wide. About 60 percent of students entering two-year colleges and
nearly 20 percent of those entering four-year universities are placed
in remedial courses (Bailey & Cho 2010), but it is hard to get accurate
8 Supporting the Dream

estimates because remediation is measured differently everywhere

and, in some places such as California and Florida, community college
students can choose not to take remedial courses, even if they receive
a recommendation from their colleges to do so. Some community col-
leges have remediation rates of over 90 percent of their entering stu-
dents, and 70 percent is not uncommon. Even four-year universities
with relatively stringent entrance requirements have large numbers
of students who need additional academic support; approximately
half of the incoming students in The California State University (CSU)
system require remediation. This is particularly troubling in the CSU
system, since all entering students must have completed a college pre-
paratory curriculum in high school and earned a B or better for their
overall GPA (www.calstate.edu/eap/). Remediation serves as a seri-
ous hurdle for degree and certificate completion in college; students
requiring remediation graduate at substantially lower rates. Bailey
and Cho (2010) explained the remediation “pipeline” as follows:

To take math developmental education as an example, 28 per-

cent of those referred did not enroll. Another 30 percent failed
or withdrew from one of the developmental courses in which
they enrolled. Ten percent dropped out of their developmen-
tal sequences without ever failing a course. Thus, only 31
percent successfully completed their sequences of math reme-
diation. Of those completers, about half (16 percent of all of
those referred) actually completed a college-level course in
math within three years. (p. 2)

This inability to place into credit-bearing entry-level college

courses represents a significant barrier for attaining educational and
career aspirations.
The same preparedness issues plague other arenas. In a national
survey, employers reported a “skills shortage” for the U.S. workforce
(Casner-Lotto & Benner, 2006). Table 1.1 lists the top skill deficien-
cies for high school graduates as reported by the results of a national
sample of employers.
In addition to skills deficiencies for entering the workforce,
many high school graduates who aspire to join the military also lack
the requisite preparedness. To qualify for military service, poten-
tial recruits must meet the minimum score for their desired branch
(each branch sets its own score) on the Armed Forces Qualification
Test (AFQT). Between 2004 and 2009, 23 percent of the test-takers in
the sample did not achieve a qualifying score (at least 31 out of 99).
 Understanding College and Career Readiness 9

Table 1.1 S
 kill Deficiencies of New Workforce Entrants for High
School Graduates
Percentage of Employer
Skill Deficiencies Respondents
Written Communications 81
Professionalism/Work Ethic 70
Critical Thinking/Problem Solving 70
Oral Communications 53
Ethics/Social Responsibility 44
Reading Comprehension 38
Teamwork/Collaboration 35
Diversity 28
Information Technology Application 22
English Language 21

For African American candidates, 39 percent did not qualify, and for
Latino candidates, the rate of ineligibility was 29 percent (Offenstein,
Moore, & Shulock, 2010).

New Economic Reality

Improving college and career readiness enables students to achieve
their aspirations. Whereas approximately 88 percent of eighth-grade
students report that they aspired to attend college (Venezia et al., 2003),
only 44 percent directly enter college after high school (National Cen-
ter for Education Statistics [NCES], 2008). Without some additional
education, including short-term training, simply earning a high school
diploma solidifies someone’s place as a low-wage earner or as part of
the unemployed. While there are many stories circulating in the media
about high tech geniuses who shirked college and made millions in
Silicon Valley, those people had several unique factors in their favor.
They were expert in a particular area—technological innovation—that
also required levels of math proficiency, motivation, and persistence
that many do not have. To imply that what happened to them is rep-
licable for thousands of other people is disingenuous. Moreover,
the knowledge and skills discussed in this book as prerequisites for
10 Supporting the Dream

success after high school are consistent with the experiences of many
tech whizzes—to support individualized and high levels of inquiry,
innovation, creativity, motivation, and resiliency.
For most students graduating from high school now, a diploma
simply does not afford the same opportunities it did up until the end
of the 20th century. Most professions, particularly those offering clear
advancement opportunities, require some formal training beyond
high school. Workers can no longer learn a single skill set and expect to
secure lifetime employment relying solely on that same skill set at a life-
sustaining wage. Research predicts that by 2018, 63 percent of all jobs
in the United States will require some postsecondary education, and 90
percent of new jobs in growing industries with high wages will require
some postsecondary education (Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010). This
reality does not mean that every high school graduate should complete
four years of college. What it does indi-
cate is that stopping at high school is not
Workers can no longer learn
sufficient to ensure access to a career with
a single skill set and expect to
a family-sustaining wage.
secure lifetime employment
Not only are future job prospects tied
relying solely on that same skill
to a higher skilled workforce, current job
set at a life-sustaining wage.
opportunities are also linked to levels of
training. For example, one study found
that from 2006 to 2011, only 3 in 10 recent high school graduates were
employed full time, compared to college graduates who are employed
at nearly twice that rate (Van Horn, Zukin, Szeltner, & Stone, 2012).
From the start of the Great Recession in 2007 through 2012, people
with bachelor’s degrees gained over two million jobs. Those with an
associate degree or some college emerged from the recession with
almost the same number of jobs available as at the beginning. The
group experiencing the most devastating job losses were those for
workers with a high school diploma or less, losing almost six mil-
lion jobs during that time period with no sign of recovery (Carnevale,
Jayasundera, & Cheah, 2012). Over the past three decades, all of
the net job growth in America has been generated by positions that
require at least some postsecondary education (Symonds et al., 2011).
In addition to increased opportunities, increased education, on
average, translates to higher earnings. The Georgetown University
Center on Education and the Workforce, in the report entitled “The
College Payoff” (Carnevale, Rose, & Cheah, 2011), examined lifetime
earnings for all education levels and earnings by occupation, age,
race/ethnicity, and gender. The results were clear: a college degree is
key to economic opportunity, conferring substantially higher earnings
 Understanding College and Career Readiness 11

on those with credentials than those without (Carnevale et al., 2011).

See Figure 1.1 for the median lifetime earnings by the highest level of
educational attainment.
The report further clarifies, however, that individual earnings vary
greatly depending on the degree type, age, gender, race/ethnicity,
and occupation. For example, about 28 percent of workers with asso-
ciate degrees earn more than the median earnings of workers with
bachelor’s degrees (Carnevale et al., 2011, p. 3). What this does indi-
cate, however, is that overall, the more education a person obtains,
the potential for obtaining higher lifetime earnings increases.
A hallmark of our 21st century economy is rapid change, requiring
a flexible and adaptable workforce able to create and sustain inno-
vations and adapt to ever-changing needs. For example, former Intel
Corporation Chairperson Craig Barrett has stated that 90 percent of
the products his company delivers on the final day of each year did not

Figure 1.1 M
 edian Lifetime Earnings by Highest Educational Attainment,
2009 Dollars

$3,648,000.00
3,252,000.00
$2,671,000.00
$2,268,000.00
$1,727,000.00
$1,547,000.00
$1,304,000.00
$973,000.00
ho n

lo ol

re /

e
eg e
Sc ha

re

re

re

re

re
ip o

D lleg
ol

e
D Sch

eg
eg

eg
eg

eg
h sT

N Co

lD
D

D
D

D
H Les

e’s

’s

r’s

al
ra
ig

or

on
m

te

to
H

at
o

el
ig

So

as

si
oc
ci

ch

es
so

D
Ba

of
As

Pr

Source: Carnevale, A., Rose, S., & Cheah, B. (2011).

12 Supporting the Dream

exist on the first day of the same year. To succeed in that kind of mar-
ketplace, U.S. firms need employees who are flexible, knowledgeable,
and scientifically and mathematically literate (National Leadership
Council for Liberal Education and America’s Promise, 2007). The chal-
lenge for U.S. education, at all levels, is to prepare students to be able
to keep up with this frenetic and unpredictable world and economy,
in addition to sustaining the education of students who receive solid
training in liberal arts fields. In the words of Andreas Schleicher, the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Education Directorate, “Schools have to prepare students for jobs that
have not yet been created, technologies that have not yet been invented
and problems that we don’t know will arise” (2010). This is often a
critical challenge for localities and regions—to utilize notoriously
unreliable labor market forecasting data to inform the development of
curricular pathways and school/postsecondary-based applied learn-
ing opportunities (see Chapter 4 for additional discussion).

The Need for Collaboration at All Levels

To provide the vast majority of high school students with the aca-
demic and nonacademic knowledge and skills they will need to
succeed after high school, there will have to be unprecedented lev-
els of collaboration between high schools and colleges and between
the bodies that govern them. Historically, public education and
higher education systems have operated independently. Until
recently, high school teachers and college faculty rarely discussed
jointly their expectations for students in their classes. High school
counselors rarely met with college counselors to talk about whether
they were helping their students prepare well for college. State
boards of education, working in tandem with state educational
agencies, adopted their own standards and accountability systems
with little involvement from higher education. High schools focused
on meeting state accountability requirements and on preparing
an elite group of students to be eligible for admission to selective
colleges—not for students to be ready to succeed in a wide variety
of postsecondary educational settings,
Until recently, high school such as community colleges, appren-
teachers and college faculty rarely ticeships, or training programs. Institu-
discussed jointly their expectations tions of higher education (either as part
for students in their classes. of a state system or independently)
determine admissions policies, courses,
 Understanding College and Career Readiness 13

and curriculum, with wide variance in requirements, expectations,

and alignment with workforce needs.
These disconnects have had serious ramifications for students—
especially for students with the fewest educational and economic
resources available through their families and communities (Venezia
et al., 2003). High school curricula have traditionally been developed
without consulting with postsecondary education, leading toward
current disjunctures, such as different conceptions of writing and of
algebra across the systems. Similarly, assessments have historically
been disconnected, with entering college students often taking course
placement tests that assess different knowledge and skills than were
taught in their senior year—often with no warning and no ability to
prepare. Students with familial, peer, and financial resources tend to
weather these disconnects more successfully than do students with-
out those benefits, due to such factors as supplemental supports
and information from family or community members who have had
experience with college and/or desired career paths.
The United States has historically focused solely on access to
postsecondary education and training, rather than having a connected
goal of postsecondary success, driven by a host of policy changes
starting with the GI Bill in the 1940s, gaining steam in the 1960s with
Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society reforms, and a plethora of precol-
lege outreach programs. In the past 10 years or so, faced with data
showing that a large proportion of traditionally underserved students
drop out of high school and college, educators, community leaders,
and policymakers have concluded that the country has moved the nee-
dle on access, but that is not sufficient to provide excellent educational
opportunities for a large number of students. Students need access
to post-high school readiness—to ways to succeed in whatever they
choose to pursue. That is a complex and highly personalized endeavor
that will require new resources, relationships, and perspectives about
the purpose and aims of education at all levels.
Many state and national efforts over the past decade have begun
to address these disconnects between what high schools demand of
students and what postsecondary institutions expect a mere three
months later (for students who go directly from high school to college).
In the field, these are called systems alignment issues. One state-level
example is work being done in Texas. Beginning in 2007, the Texas
Legislature passed legislation requiring the Texas Education Agency
and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to collaborate to
support the Texas College and Career Readiness Initiative. This mul-
tiyear initiative has resulted in the creation of the Texas College and
14 Supporting the Dream

Career Readiness Standards (TCCRS), jointly developed by vertical

teams of secondary and postsecondary faculty members. Additional
state-level work to support the initiative included incorporation of
the TCCRS into the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills and K–12
assessment system and the development of implementation materials
to assist educators statewide in translating the TCCRS into practice.
At the national level, the largest effort to improve college and
career readiness is represented by the Common Core. In June 2010,
the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) released
the Common Core. The aim of the Common Core is to define the knowl-
edge and skills students should achieve in order to graduate from high
school ready to succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing college courses and
in workforce training programs (CCSSO & NGA, 2011). The Common
Core provides information about what students are expected to learn,
no matter where they live. It is intended to be more rigorous than many
states’ current standards and to be more applied (Van Roekel, 2013).
To date, 43 states, the District of Columbia, four territories, and the
Department of Defense Education Activity have voluntarily adopted
these national standards. Objectives of the Common Core are for states
to have shared targets for both secondary and postsecondary systems
to aim toward, and to collaborate across, state lines in the develop-
ment and identification of best practices in curriculum, instruction, and
assessments, while retaining flexibility on how to teach locally.
While a goal of the Common Core is to help close the gap between
high schools and colleges, the standards have significant limitations.
First, the Common Core only identifies the math and literacy skills
students need to be successful beyond high school. This does not rep-
resent the complete set of knowledge and skills necessary for postsec-
ondary readiness. Increasingly, educators and researchers are coming
to an understanding that student success throughout K–12 and post-
secondary education relies a great deal on key cognitive strategies, or
habits of mind, such as persistence, resiliency, self-efficacy, organiza-
tional skills, communication skills, and so forth (see, e.g., Casner-Lotto
& Benner, 2006; Conley, 2013). Some of these strategies can be devel-
oped and enhanced through experiences such as music, the arts, and
contextual or applied learning opportunities. Second, the Common
Core standards are not geared toward English Language Learners or
students with special needs.
The Common Core is currently facing intense political scrutiny
in states across the country. As summarized in The Washington Post,
those on the right tend to view the Common Core as a federal intrusion
toward a national curriculum interfering with state and local control.
 Understanding College and Career Readiness 15

Those on the left have voiced a number of issues surrounding the

standards, including not enough input from educators into the draft-
ing, that the standards are not based on any research, and that they
ignore what is known about early childhood education (Strauss, 2013).
In addition, there is concern across the political spectrum about the
connection between adopting the Common Core and state applications
for federal funding and the use of data from Common Core-aligned
assessments for high stakes teacher evaluations.
The authors of this book are neither staunch supporters nor critics
of the Common Core, although they use a critical lens to analyze new
reform efforts. They are researchers and educators interested in fur-
thering the identification and examination of the quality, implications,
and impact of college and career readiness standards efforts. It is clear
from our country’s experimentation with standards since the 1990s
that standards alone are not sufficient to change educational opportu-
nities for our nation’s underserved youth. A significant aspect of the
Common Core, along with other states’ college and career readiness
standards (such as Alaska, Minnesota, Texas, and Virginia), in relation
to this book, is that they provide a shared point of reference for high
schools and colleges to work together. Faculty members and admin-
istrators can partner to examine the standards in relation to their cur-
rent practice, and through this partnership, they can clearly articulate
at the local level what knowledge and skills students need to be suc-
cessful in that community. However, if these reference points are not
appropriate, or if they are interpreted or implemented poorly, they
can do more harm than good. This raises the most important issue:
implementation—translating the vision of the Common Core into
classroom-based practice—is the biggest challenge for the Common
Core initiative. Providing enough support and resources for teachers
and administrators to change current practice is critically important.

Blame the System

The question, “What did we do wrong?”
What needs to be emphasized
from the family at the Northern California
throughout the process is that
community college reveals a major chal-
this is a systems alignment issue;
lenge in engaging in communitywide
no group or institution is solely
efforts to improve college and career
responsible for creating the
readiness. These conversations, if not
problems, and no one group or
carefully framed, can quickly devolve
educational entity can solve the
into finger-pointing and focusing on
problems individually.
blame, not solutions.
16 Supporting the Dream

What needs to be emphasized throughout the process is that this

is a systems alignment issue; no group or institution is solely respon-
sible for creating the problems, and no one group or educational
entity can solve the problems individually. In one poignant editorial
being circulated on the Internet, a recently retired high school teacher,
Kenneth Bernstein, issued a warning to college professors:

No Child Left Behind went into effect for the 2002–03 academic
year, which means that America’s public schools have been
operating under the pressures and constrictions imposed by that
law for a decade. . . . Please do not blame those of us in public
schools for how unprepared for higher education the students
arriving at your institutions are. We have very little say in what
is happening to public education. Even the most distinguished
and honored among us have trouble getting our voices heard in
the discussion about educational policy. (Bernstein, 2013)

Teachers and schools work very hard to educate their students

well. Students and families work hard to meet the high school gradu-
ation and college admissions requirements. Education and workforce
systems have worked largely in isolation in setting standards, expec-
tations, and requirements. There have been no mutually agreed upon
targets for student readiness post-high school; in fact, each postsec-
ondary institution creates its own entry-level expectations (and many
individual faculty members do as well within their own classrooms).
While this is an important hallmark of academic freedom, it also
makes it incredibly challenging to signal to students—particularly
traditionally underrepresented students who would be the first in
their families to go to college—the key knowledge and skills they
need to be successful after they graduate from high school. In short,
everyone has been working very hard to do exactly what the different
systems have been holding them accountable to do, driven by their
own passions to do right by students.
The critical messaging to avoid the “blame game” is to keep the
focus on the need for shared responsibility to move forward. All com-
munity members share this challenge—students, educators, fami-
lies, community leaders, employers, and more—to build successful
educational pathways that span from early childhood to adulthood.
Whereas state and national efforts are beginning to address these
system misalignment issues, true change occurs at the local level.
The existence of a state or national framework to support high school
and college partnerships can help prod the work toward common
goals and objectives, but ultimately, collaborations of local educators,
 Understanding College and Career Readiness 17

workforce representatives, and community representatives drive the

reform efforts enabling students to be prepared for success beyond
high school in that locality. Communities need not wait for state or
federal direction; they can and do engage in this critical work indepen-
dently. By moving beyond fault finding and instead toward emphasiz-
ing the need for shared responsibility, the conversations can be shaped
constructively to pave the way for student and community success.
The remainder of this book outlines how a community can come
together to overcome the historically disconnected educational systems.
Whereas federal and state support can provide valuable resources and
assistance in expediting such efforts, this is not a necessary element.
Local stakeholders can do this work with or without external support.
What is necessary is a shared vision that every student in the commu-
nity should graduate high school ready to succeed. This book details
how to accomplish this critical endeavor.

SUMMARY

College and career readiness share many important elements, includ-

ing core knowledge and skills from across the curriculum, study
skills, time-management skills, persistence, ownership of learning,
problem solving, collecting and analyzing information, and commu-
nicating in a variety of ways. The intersection and overlap between
what students need to know and be able to do to be ready for college
and for entering a career represent what all students need when they
graduate high school. The outlying areas represent the knowledge
and skills that are unique to their specific postsecondary and career
fields. College and career readiness, then, represent the intersection:
the knowledge, skills, and abilities that all students need to make the
next step, without remediation, along their desired career pathway.
This conception has evolved from a focus on access to postsecondary
education to a focus on success in college and career preparation, and
it requires the need to collaborate at all levels and not assert blame on
a particular part of our educational system.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

•• Do you agree with the authors’ definition of college and career

readiness? Why or why not? What could be an alternative definition?
•• Should all students have the opportunity to become prepared for
some form of postsecondary education?
18 Supporting the Dream

•• When should college and career readiness activities start, ideally?

How can those activities be scaffolded for students and faculty
over time?
•• Given the wide range of postsecondary options, how can all high
schools provide students with high quality readiness opportunities—
both academic and applied?
•• Should applied postsecondary readiness activities also have an
integrated academic core? What are the pros and cons of such an
approach?