 Pathways to College Access and Success By: Katherine L. Hughes, Melinda Mechur Karp, Baranda Fermin & Thomas Bailey — October 2005. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of EducationIn the past, Credit-based transition programs (CBTPs), such as Tech-Prep, dual or concurrent enrollment, International Baccalaureate (IB) and Middle College High School (MCHS), enrolled primarily academically proficient and high-achieving students. Today, however, a growing number of policymakers, education reform groups, and researchers argue that middle- and even low-achieving high school students may benefit from participation in these programs.
Yet, despite their popularity nationwide, there is limited research-based information on CBTPs, particularly those programs that include a broad range of students.
This report is the final report from the Accelerating Student Success Through Credit-Based Transition Programs study, which was initiated by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) in the fall of 2003. The research for this report was conducted in the spring and fall of 2004. Case studies were undertaken in five states—California, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, and Texas. Two dual enrollment programs, an MCHS, an International Baccalaureate program, and a Tech-Prep program were studied. The first section of the report describes the sites and examines some of the ways in which contextual features influence program implementation. The report then highlights findings regarding four key program features—student recruitment and selection processes; curriculum; support services; and data collection and use. For each feature, the researchers investigated the current practices of the case study sites, identified those practices that seemed most promising in meeting the needs of middle- and low-achieving students, and identified barriers to implementing them. Readers should note that the data reflect program practices at the time the research was conducted in the spring and fall of 2004. In addition, in order to give the study participants anonymity, the specific research sites were given pseudonyms. When given permission, the name of the general program is used.
 View PDF versionLink to Article
|
