ERIC ED531254: College Readiness and the Postsecondary Outcomes of Illinois High School Students. Policy Research: IERC 2012-1

2012·1.9 MB·English

by  ERIC

III Illinois Education Research Council
EE
RR Bringing Research to Policy and Practice
CC
P R : IERC 2012-1
OLICY ESEARCH
College Readiness and the Postsecondary
Outcomes of Illinois High School Students
Eric J. Lichtenberger, Ph.D. and Cecile Dietrich, Ph.D.
Executive Summary
This study presents a longitudinal description These categories ranged from meeting the college
of the association between college readiness—as readiness benchmarks in all four subjects, to missing
measured by the college readiness benchmarks set all of the benchmarks. Slightly less than one out of
by ACT—and a series of postsecondary outcomes every fi ve (18.4%) members of the Class of 2003
of the Illinois High School Class of 2003. In met all four of the college readiness benchmarks
addition to describing how college readiness is established by ACT. Nearly twice that proportion
distributed among the cohort, this study establishes (35.7%) missed all of the benchmarks. On the
the college readiness of various groups based on positive side, an additional 12.7% met three of the
select demographic characteristics such as gender, benchmarks (usually meeting all except Science),
race, and family income. Finally, the relationships and an additional 16.5% met two of the benchmarks
between college readiness, student characteristics, (usually meeting English and Reading or English
and postsecondary enrollment, persistence, and Math); therefore slightly less than one-half of
and bachelor’s degree completion measures are the class was adequately prepared to have a high
analyzed. probability of postsecondary success in at least two
of the subject areas covered by the ACT (Figure I).
Defining college readiness and developing
appropriate metrics have direct policy implications,
Figure I.
particularly for states such as Illinois that are
Illinois High School Class of 2003 and ACT’s
attempting to qualify for a No Child Left Behind
College Readiness Benchmarks: Overall Patterns
(NCLB) waiver. The current study could inform
the work of policymakers as they adapt measures
of college readiness. According to the U.S.
Department of Education, states must develop their
own defi nition of and metrics for college and career College Ready in
All Subjects
readiness in order to apply for a NCLB waiver (U.S. 18.4%
Department of Education, 2011). Not College Ready
in Any Subject
35.7% College Ready in
How is college readiness distributed 3 of 4 Subjects
12.7%
among the Illinois High School Class of
2003? College Ready in
2 of 4 Subjects
College Ready
16.5%
in 1 of 4 Subjects
Sixteen separate college readiness categories were 16.7%
developed using scores from the four subjects
that comprise the ACT—Math, English, Reading,
(N=115,677)
and Science—and determining whether students
met ACT’s college readiness benchmark in each.
IERC 2012-1
http://ierc.siue.edu
College Readiness and Postsecondary Outcomes
As previously stated, there were 16 categories based Major fi ndings
on the ACT college readiness benchmarks. As shown
College Enrollment
in Figure II, nearly all of the students (94%) fell
into one of the following seven college readiness
(cid:129) Missing a single college readiness benchmark
categories: missed all; met all; met all except Science;
in either English or Math had a much more
met Math and English; met English and Reading;
detrimental effect on the initial rate of enrollment
met English only; met Reading only. The other nine
at four-year institutions than missing a benchmark
categories only accounted for a combined 6% of the
in Science or Reading.
Illinois High School Class of 2003.
(cid:129) High income students had a relative advantage
in terms of enrollment at four-year institutions
Figure II.
when compared with similarly ready students in
Illinois High School Class of 2003 and ACT’s
all other income categories.
College Readiness Benchmarks: Specifi c Patterns
(cid:129) As income decreased, the rate of delayed
ACT College Readiness
enrollment typically increased.
% of Total
Math English Reading Science n Enrolled
≥22 ≥18 ≥21 ≥24 115,677 100.0% (cid:129) In terms of initial enrollment at four-year
All Subjects (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) 21,246 18.4% institutions, female students maintained a
(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:3) 10,743 9.3% relative advantage over their male counterparts
3 of 4 Subjects (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:3) (cid:2) 1,618 1.4%
(cid:2) (cid:3) (cid:2) (cid:2) 146 0.1% throughout all of the college readiness categories.
(cid:3) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:2) 2,235 1.9%
(cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:3) (cid:3) 4,798 4.1% (cid:129) Students from Chicago and the Northeast region
(cid:2) (cid:3) (cid:2) (cid:3) 539 0.5% had the highest rates of enrollment at four-year
2 of 4 Subjects (cid:2) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:2) 143 0.1% institutions, regardless of college readiness level.
(cid:3) (cid:2) (cid:2) (cid:3) 13,123 11.3%
(cid:3) (cid:2) (cid:3) (cid:2) 479 0.4% Selectivity
(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:2) (cid:2) 121 0.1%
(cid:2) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) 1,706 1.5% (cid:129) The greater the number of college readiness
1 of 4 Subjects (cid:3)(cid:3) (cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:2)(cid:3) (cid:3)(cid:3) 133,,760393 131..19%% benchmarks met, the higher the rate of enrollment
(cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:2) 182 0.2% at more competitive institutions and the lower the
None (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) (cid:3) 41,256 35.7% rate of enrollment at less competitive institutions.
(cid:2)= met the benchmark (cid:3)= missed the benchmark
(cid:129) Minority students meeting all four of the
benchmarks had significantly higher rates of
Interestingly, only one of the seven categories
enrollment at the most competitive institutions
highlighted above included students meeting the
relative to their white peers.
Science benchmark. These were students who met all
of the benchmarks. Among the four subjects covered (cid:129) Students from wealthier families who meet
by the ACT, Science has the highest benchmark at 24 all of the benchmarks had the highest rate of
and perhaps this is why college readiness in Science enrollment at the most competitive four-year
was a stumbling block for many students in the Class institutions.
of 2003. Relatedly, the corresponding ACT score
(cid:129) Across parallel readiness groups, students from
used to set the benchmark was negatively related to
the wealthiest families had the lowest rate of
the proportion of students who were college ready in
enrollment at non competitive institutions,
the specifi c subject area. For example, nearly 60% of
while students in the mid-low and low income
the Class of 2003 was college ready in English, the
categories had the highest rates.
subject with the lowest benchmark, while less than
23% was college ready in Science, the subject with (cid:129) Students from Chicago meeting all or most of the
the highest benchmark. benchmarks had the highest rates of enrollment
at highly competitive institutions.
IERC 2012-1 2 http://ierc.siue.edu
College Readiness and Postsecondary Outcomes
Sector Discussion
(cid:129) Students meeting all of the college readiness The unequal distribution of college readiness
benchmarks had the highest out-of-state across demographic factors
enrollment rates.
In terms of college readiness and race, the gap
(cid:129) The fewer the number of benchmarks met,
between non-Asian minority (Hispanic and
the higher the rate of enrollment at for-profi t
African-American) students and their Asian and
institutions.
white counterparts is quite alarming. Non-Asian
Persistence minorities had the lowest proportions meeting all
or most of the college readiness benchmarks and
(cid:129) The greater the number of benchmarks met,
the highest proportions failing to meet any of the
the higher the rate of persisting into one’s third
benchmarks. Around 60% of non-Asian minority
year in college.
students failed to meet any of the college readiness
(cid:129) Among the groups meeting three out of four benchmarks, while only one-quarter of Asian and
benchmarks, missing the benchmark in Math white students met that distinction. On the other
appeared to have the most detrimental effect end of the college readiness spectrum, only 3%
on persistence. of African-American students and 5% of Hispanic
students were college ready in all subject areas;
(cid:129) In terms of the groups that only met one
this was substantially lower than the proportions
benchmark, meeting the benchmark in English
of Asian (29%) and white students (24%) college
or Math appeared to be related to higher rates
ready in all subjects.
of persistence.
Bachelor’s Completion There were also regional differences regarding
college readiness, with the greatest disparity existing
(cid:129) Among the students meeting three or fewer
between Chicago and its suburbs (Northeast
benchmarks, those ready in both Math and
region). The proportion of students from the
English had the highest rates of bachelor’s
Northeast region meeting all of the college readiness
completion.
benchmarks was nearly fi ve times greater than that
(cid:129) White and Asian students had higher rates of the students from Chicago (24% to 5%). At the
of bachelor’s completion relative to African- same time, the proportion of students from Chicago
American and Hispanic students from parallel failing to meet any of the benchmarks was more
college readiness categories. than double that of the students from the Northeast
region (62% to 29%). Of the remaining regions
(cid:129) Female students who met three benchmarks
(Northwest, East Central, West Central, Southeast,
had a higher rate of bachelor’s completion than
Southwest), students from the East Central region
male students who met all of the benchmarks.
tended to have slightly higher proportions meeting
(cid:129) Among the students meeting all of the all or most of the college readiness benchmarks
college readiness benchmarks, students from and a lower proportion failing to meet any of
the Northeast region had the highest rate of the benchmarks, while the opposite was true for
bachelor’s degree completion, followed by students from the Southeast region.
students from the East Central region.
The driving factor behind the racial and regional
(cid:129) In general, students meeting fewer benchmarks
college readiness gaps may be associated with the
who enrolled at institutions that were more
unequal distribution of wealth (as proxied by family
competitive had higher rates of bachelor’s
income) both geographically and across racial
completion than students meeting a greater
groups. For instance, roughly half of the Hispanic
number of benchmarks who enrolled at less
and African-American students fell into the low
competitive institutions.
family income category (less than $30K), while
only 30% of Asian students and roughly 18% of
white students were within that same income group.
http://ierc.siue.edu 3 IERC 2012-1
College Readiness and Postsecondary Outcomes
Also, while nearly a third of the students from the ready. However, the completion of bachelor’s
Northeast region were in the high income category, degrees in a timely manner remains problematic.
only 4.9% of students from Chicago and 10.7% of It should be noted that for the African-American
students from the Southeast region met that same students meeting all or most of the benchmarks,
distinction. enrolling at a more competitive institution appeared
to narrow the racial gap in terms of bachelor’s
College readiness benchmarks and postsecondary
degree completion, particularly for those enrolling
success.
in a highly competitive institution.
Meeting three or more—and in some cases two
Assessing the relative impact of ACT subject tests
(Math and English)—of the benchmarks was related
to increased rates of postsecondary success. This was This study provided evidence that a student’s
particularly true for higher income students and likelihood of meeting all of the ACT college
those enrolling at more competitive institutions. readiness benchmarks appeared to be driven by their
However, differences in the importance of meeting performance on the Science test. Given the relatively
the ACT benchmarks varied across demographic high score required to meet the benchmark in
groups and the postsecondary outcome being Science, those who met this benchmark had a high
measured. For example, in most cases, higher probability of meeting all of the other benchmarks.
proportions of African-American and Hispanic In fact, for the students meeting the Science
students enrolled overall and at the most selective benchmark, the median ACT scores on the other
four-year colleges, relative to white students from three tests were well above the benchmarks set for
parallel college readiness categories. each of those tests.
However, disparities were evident with respect to This study also revealed differences associated with
bachelor’s degree completion. These differences the relative impact of each test with respect to
are, in part, due to differences in college readiness postsecondary outcomes, thus substantiating earlier
that favor Asian-Americans, white students, and fi ndings from Bettinger, Evans, and Pope (2011)
those from wealthier families. Still, readiness is as well as Lichtenberger (2011). For example,
only part of the story. For example, although a the study demonstrated the relative importance
higher proportion of male students met all of the of meeting the English and Math benchmarks on
benchmarks, they lagged behind female students the rates of initial enrollment, persistence, and
in terms of bachelor’s degree completion. Perhaps bachelor’s completion. Specifi cally, missing one of
females were more likely to meet the benchmarks these benchmarks had a much more detrimental
that are most important to degree completion; effect on postsecondary outcomes relative to
this requires further study. Also, in some cases missing either the Science or Reading benchmark.
white students who were less ready for college
Scientifi c/scholarly signifi cance
completed bachelor’s degrees at higher rates
than better prepared African-American students. Despite this study’s limitations, it provides evidence
This also requires further investigation, namely to show that for college enrollment and bachelor’s
examining how non-academic factors—such as fi rst- degree attainment, college readiness matters. The
generation status—could help explain the difference fi ndings justify both the support of and creation
in bachelor’s completion rates. of interventions implemented at the high school
level that increase college readiness, particularly
These findings suggest that access to four-
interventions targeted towards groups that are less
year colleges is no longer the major issue for
ready for college.
underrepresented minority students who are college
IERC 2012-1 4 http://ierc.siue.edu
College Readiness and Postsecondary Outcomes
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................7
Defi ning college readiness ................................................................................................................7
College readiness among high school graduates ................................................................................8
Methods .............................................................................................................................9
Data ................................................................................................................................................9
Analyses ...........................................................................................................................................9
Research questions ...........................................................................................................................9
Findings ...........................................................................................................................10
How is college readiness distributed among the Illinois High School Class of 2003? .......................10
How are the college readiness benchmarks associated with student and school characteristics? ........12
How are the college readiness benchmark patterns associated with college enrollment? ...................14
How are race and college readiness associated with postsecondary enrollment? ...............................16
How are gender and college readiness associated with postsecondary enrollment? ...........................16
How are parental income and college readiness associated with postsecondary enrollment? .............18
How are high school region and college readiness associated with enrollment? ...............................20
How are the college readiness benchmark patterns associated with the probability of enrolling in
selective four-year institutions? .......................................................................................................22
How does the interaction of race and college readiness relate to the selectivity of a student’s
fi rst four-year institution? ...............................................................................................................24
How does the interaction of parental income and college readiness relate to the selectivity
of a student’s fi rst four-year institution? ..........................................................................................25
How does the interaction of gender and college readiness relate to the selectivity of a student’s
fi rst four-year institution? ...............................................................................................................26
How does the interaction of region and college readiness relate to the selectivity of a student’s
fi rst four-year institution? ...............................................................................................................27
How are the college readiness patterns associated with college sector? ............................................28
How are the college readiness benchmarks associated with third-year persistence? ...........................30
How are the college readiness benchmarks associated with bachelor’s completion? .........................32
How are race and college readiness associated with bachelor’s degree completion? ..........................34
How are parental income and college readiness associated with bachelor’s degree completion? .......36
How are gender and college readiness associated with bachelor’s degree completion? .....................37
How are region and college readiness associated with bachelor’s completion? .................................38
How are institutional selectivity and college readiness associated with bachelor’s degree
completion? ...................................................................................................................................39
How are race and selectivity associated with bachelor’s completion for students meeting all of the
benchmarks? ..................................................................................................................................40
http://ierc.siue.edu 5 IERC 2012-1
College Readiness and Postsecondary Outcomes
Key Findings ....................................................................................................................41
Discussion ........................................................................................................................43
College readiness as an index ..........................................................................................................43
Assessing the relative impact of ACT subject tests ...........................................................................43
Scientifi c/scholarly signifi cance ......................................................................................................44
Future Work .....................................................................................................................45
References ........................................................................................................................46
About the authors
Eric J. Lichtenberger, Ph.D., is the Associate Director for Research of the Illinois Education Research
Council and an Assistant Research Professor at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.
Cecile Dietrich, Ph.D., has expertise in both quantitative and qualitative research methods and data
analysis, and experience in applying these methods to educational research. Her background and interests
include human development, gerontology, health/life sciences, mathematics, and science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. She has conducted applied research for a variety of
organizations, including Virginia Tech, Radford University, the World Bank, private engineering education
consultants, faith-based and other non-profi t organizations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
As always, we would like to thank Jennifer Barnhart for her patience in bringing this document to life. We would also
like to thank April Hansen and Doug Franklin for their feedback on an earlier version of this report. Furthermore, we
would like to thank Brenda Klostermann, Jacqueline Twitty, and Brad White for their editorial assistance and support
during the development of this report.
Suggested citation:
Lichtenberger, Eric J. & Dietrich, Cecile. (2012). College readiness and the postsecondary outcomes of Illinois high school
students (IERC 2012-1). Edwardsville, IL: Illinois Education Research Council at Southern Illinois University,
Edwardsville.
IERC 2012-1 6 http://ierc.siue.edu
College Readiness and Postsecondary Outcomes
Introduction
Despite recent gains in college enrollment, a the work of policymakers as they adapt measures
relatively small proportion of students who initially of college readiness. According to the U.S.
enroll in college thrive in a college environment. Department of Education, states must develop their
Knapp, Kelly-Reid, and Whittmore (2006) and own defi nition of and metrics for college and career
Conley (2007) noted that only 35 percent of readiness in order to apply for a NCLB waiver (U.S.
students who entered four-year institutions in Department of Education, 2011).
1998 earned a bachelor’s degree four years later.
Although alarming, the aforementioned aggregate Defi ning college readiness
rate of bachelor’s completion does not account
College readiness has been defi ned and measured
for differences based on college readiness. A more
in various ways in the literature. Conley’s (2008)
recent study focusing on the Illinois High School
defi nition is very similar to a broader defi nition
Class of 2003 showed a wide variation in the rate
established a few years earlier by ACT (2005).
of bachelor’s degree completion based on college
According to ACT (2005), college readiness is the
readiness (Smalley, Lichtenberger, & Brown, 2010).
“level of preparation students need in order to be
For example, according to Smalley et al. (2010),
ready to enroll and succeed without remediation
over 80% of the students deemed most ready for
in credit-bearing entry-level coursework at a two
college had earned a bachelor’s degree within six
or four-year institution, trade school, or technical
years of initially enrolling, while only 38% of the
school” (p. 1). Conley (2008) refers to college
least ready students had earned such a degree.
readiness as the amount of high school preparation
For this reason, studies exploring the link between needed to succeed in a postsecondary bachelor’s
college readiness and postsecondary outcomes are degree granting institution without further
crucial, particularly longitudinal studies focusing on remediation in college. One standardized test used
the rates of postsecondary outcome attainment for as an indicator of readiness is the ACT. The ACT is
students with varying degrees of college readiness. strongly and positively correlated to college GPA
and graduation (Koenig, Frey, & Detterman, 2008;
This study presents a longitudinal description Stumpf & Stanley, 2002) and is also a significant
of the association between college readiness—as predictor of passing the following credit-bearing
measured by the college readiness benchmarks set college courses: English, Biology, Social Science,
by ACT—and a series of postsecondary outcomes and College Algebra (ACT, 2010a). The Illinois
of the Illinois High School Class of 2003. In Education Research Council (IERC) has previously
addition to describing how college readiness is used the ACT composite score combined with high
distributed among the cohort, this study establishes school GPA to create a two-dimensional college
the college readiness of various groups based on readiness index. IERC college readiness levels range
select demographic characteristics such as gender, from not/least ready on the low end (less than a
race, and family income. Finally, the relationships 20 on the ACT and less than a 2.5 GPA) to most
between college readiness, student characteristics ready on the high end (generally 23 or higher on
and postsecondary enrollment, persistence, the ACT combined with a GPA of greater than 3.0).
and bachelor’s degree completion measures are
analyzed. One limitation of using composite ACT scores as
indicators of college readiness is that the composite
Defining college readiness and developing score often masks the effects of individual subject
appropriate metrics have direct policy implications, areas on postsecondary outcomes. For example,
particularly for states such as Illinois that are Bettinger, Evans and Pope (2011) discovered that
attempting to qualify for a No Child Left Behind the Math and English subtests of the ACT are
(NCLB) waiver. The current study could inform salient predictors of postsecondary performance
http://ierc.siue.edu 7 IERC 2012-1
College Readiness and Postsecondary Outcomes
whereas the Reading and Science subtests are not and Science (ACT, 2011). Using the IERC college
strong predictors. A recent study by Lichtenberger readiness index (Table 1), Gong and Presley (2006)
(2011) on reverse transfer students echoed these established that only one-fi fth of Illinois high school
fi ndings. These results suggest that using composite graduates were most ready for college, an additional
ACT scores potentially obfuscates the effects of third (34%) were either more or somewhat ready,
high or low scores in English or Math. One way 11% were minimally ready, and slightly more than
to circumvent this problem, and obtain more a third were not/least ready (34%).
and better information with respect to predicting
Table 1.
college readiness, is to take a multidimensional
IERC College Readiness Index (Class of 2002)
approach and investigate the effects of the ACT
subject matter tests separately and in various High School GPS (self-reported)
combinations. ACT (2010a) provides a precedent
ACT ≤2.4 2.5 - 2.9 3.0 - 3.4 3.5 - 4.0 Missing
for this and defi nes college readiness in terms of
<20 19.7% 8.0% 6.5% 1.9% 14.6%
their four distinct subject matter tests. Specifi cally,
20-22 3.1% 3.5% 5.2% 2.9% 4.0%
ACT (2010a) defi nes college readiness benchmarks
23-25 1.1% 1.7% 4.2% 4.8% 2.7%
as the minimum ACT test score on each subject
26+ 0.4% 0.8% 2.7% 9.5% 2.8%
test required for a high probability of success in
college courses: “Students who meet a Benchmark
on the ACT…have approximately a 50 percent
Most More Somewhat Minimally Not/Least
chance of earning a B or better and approximately Ready Ready Ready Ready Ready
a 75 percent chance of earning a C or better in
These fi ndings are crucial since students who are
the corresponding college course or courses” (p.
more college ready are also more likely to enroll
1). The ACT benchmarks are currently set at 22
in college (ACT, 2008a; Smalley et al., 2010;
in Math, 18 in English, 21 in Reading, and 24 in
Wyatt Kobrin, Wiley, Camara, & Proestler, 2011).
Science.
Wyatt et al. (2011) showed that students who met
College readiness among high school college readiness benchmarks set by the College
Board enrolled in college at a higher rate than
graduates
students who did not meet these benchmarks- 78%
Recent studies have shown that a relatively small versus 46%. In a longitudinal study of Illinois high
proportion of high school graduates are college school graduates from 2002, Smalley et al. (2010)
ready. Using public high school data from the U.S. established that nearly 85% of the students identifi ed
Department of Education, Greene and Forster as being most ready for college immediately enrolled
(2003) found that 32% of all students leaving high at post-secondary institutions. This was more than
school are ready for college. Similar estimates of twice the rate of enrollment than students identifi ed
college readiness among high school graduates can as least/not ready for college (40%). According
be found in recent research reports. For example, to ACT (2010b), students who are not ready for
Moore, Slate, Edmonson, Combs, Bustamante, college, as measured by the ACT benchmarks, are
and Onwuegbuzie (2010) reported that about one less likely to enroll in college and more likely to take
third of all Texas high school students were found remedial coursework if they do.
to be college ready by graduation. ACT (2011)
reported an even smaller proportion of college
readiness using their college readiness benchmarks.
Specifi cally, only 25% of high school graduates
taking the ACT met all four of the college readiness
benchmarks in English, Reading, Mathematics,
IERC 2012-1 8 http://ierc.siue.edu
College Readiness and Postsecondary Outcomes
Methods
Data designation as private not-for-profit or private
for-profit. It should be noted that for out-of-
In 2001, Illinois began administering the ACT
state private institutions, the profi t/not-for-profi t
test to all juniors in the state’s public schools as
distinction could not be made.
part of the Prairie State Achievement Examination
(PSAE); therefore the 2003 cohort is the second College enrollment and degree completion
high school class for which scores and background information was obtained from the National Student
information were universally available for college Clearinghouse (NSC), a national collaborative, in
and workforce bound students alike. Prior to 2001, which nearly 3,300 postsecondary institutions
such information was generally only available for participate, covering 92% of all postsecondary
students who elected to take the test because they enrollments (National Student Clearinghouse,
were expecting to enroll at a four-year college. 2010).
Therefore information for students who anticipated
enrolling at a community college was missing—as Analyses
community colleges typically do not ask for ACT
Descriptive statistics were calculated using cross
scores—as was the information for students who
tabulations and custom tables in an analytics
opted to immediately enter the workforce after high
software package called SPSS. Inferential statistics
school graduation. The data were made available
were not used since they are based on samples of
to IERC researchers under shared data agreements
a population and are not appropriate in this study,
with the Illinois Board of Higher Education and
which investigates an entire population (Evans &
ACT.
Rosenthal, 2010; Wehrly, 2010).
The information specific to the students’
It should be noted that at times the information
demographic characteristics (gender, race, parental
presented in the tables and fi gures may not add up
income) was gleaned from the Student Interest
to 100% due to rounding.
Profi ler of the ACT. Information related to each
student’s respective high school, namely the region
Research questions
in which the given high school is located, was
obtained from the Illinois High School Report 1. How is college readiness distributed among
Card. It should be noted that this study does not the Illinois High School Class of 2003?
include private high school graduates from Illinois,
2. How are gender, race, parental income,
nor does it include out-of-state students who
and high school region related to college
migrated to Illinois higher education institutions.
readiness?
The selectivity of the four-year institutions was
3. How do the college readiness benchmark
developed using Barron’s Profi le of American Colleges patterns relate to the following postsecondary
(2003) since these data were available to the Class
outcomes: enrollment, enrollment at four-
of 2003. The top two competitiveness categories
year institutions by sector and selectivity,
were combined (most/highly competitive), as were
persistence, and bachelor’s completion?
the bottom two categories (less/ noncompetitive)
to create four categories for the analyses. The
middle two categories were very competitive and
competitive. College sector was based on the
National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) designation
of an institution as public or private and, for Illinois
institutions, the Illinois Board of Higher Education
http://ierc.siue.edu 9 IERC 2012-1
College Readiness and Postsecondary Outcomes
Findings
How is college readiness distributed among the Illinois High School Class of 2003?
Sixteen separate college readiness categories were students meeting the benchmarks in two out of four
developed using scores from the four subjects that subject areas either met the benchmarks in English
comprise the ACT—Math, English, Reading, and and Reading or (to a lesser extent) English and
Science—and determining whether students met Math. Students from those two categories made up
ACT’s college readiness benchmark in each. As more than 90% of the students meeting the college
illustrated in Figure 1, these categories ranged from readiness benchmarks in two out of four subjects.
meeting the college readiness benchmarks in all four
Finally, there were four categories in which students
subjects, to missing all of the benchmarks. Nearly
met the college readiness benchmark in one subject
36% of students from the Illinois High School
area only and 16.7% of the Illinois High School
Class of 2003 missed all of the college readiness
Class of 2003 met this distinction. Over 70% of the
benchmarks. This means that more than a third
students who were college ready in only one subject
of the Illinois High School Class of 2003 scored
met the benchmark in English and an additional
less than 22 on Math, less than 18 on English, less
19% met the benchmark in Reading.
than 21 on Reading, and less than 24 on Science.
The proportion of students missing all of the
As previously stated, there were 16 categories
benchmarks was nearly twice the proportion of
based on the ACT college readiness benchmarks.
students who met all of the benchmarks (35.7% to
Approximately 94% of the students fell into one of
18.4%, respectively). These happened to be the two
the following seven college readiness categories:
largest categories of students and comprised more
missed all; met all; met all except Science; met Math
than half of the Class of 2003.
and English; met English and Reading; met English
only; met Reading only. The other nine categories
There were four categories in which students met
only accounted for a combined 6% of the Illinois
the college readiness benchmarks in three out of the
High School Class of 2003.
four subject areas; slightly more than one-eighth
(12.7%) of the Illinois High School Class of 2003
When the data are presented in a non-mutually
met this distinction. The bulk of these students
exclusive manner—meeting a specifi c benchmark
(around 75%) met the benchmarks in every subject
without considering the other ones—the
with the exception of Science, perhaps due to the
corresponding ACT score used to set the benchmark
relatively high Science benchmark (24). On the
was negatively related to the proportion of students
contrary, very few of the students meeting the
who were college ready in the specifi c subject area
college readiness benchmarks in three out of the
(see the bottom part of Figure 1). For example,
four subjects missed the benchmark in English,
nearly 60% of the Class of 2003 was college ready
perhaps due to the English benchmark being set
in English, the subject with the lowest benchmark
relatively low (18).
at 18, while less than one-quarter (22.6%) of the
Class of 2003 was college ready in Science, which
There were six categories in which students met the
happened to have the highest ACT benchmark at
college readiness benchmarks in two out of four
24.
subject areas and 16.5% of the Illinois High School
Class of 2003 met this distinction. Nearly all of the
The proportion of students missing all of the benchmarks was nearly
twice the proportion of students who met all of the benchmarks
(35.7% to 18.4%, respectively).
IERC 2012-1 10 http://ierc.siue.edu