ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 1 ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY: THE COST OF EXPANDING ADVANCED COURSEWORK TO “AT-RISK” STUDENTS By Jack Bice A proposal submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah December 4, 2021 Approved _________________________________________ Dustin M. Grote, Ph. D _________________________________________ Luke D. Rasmussen, M. Ed ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 2 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM In a desire to provide equity of access to Advanced Placement (A.P.) learning experiences, schools throughout the United States have expanded A.P. course offerings (Lichten, 2000) with a focus on increasing access to A.P. courses for minority at-risk student populations. Despite CollegeBoard’s “equity and access policy” aimed at “the elimination of barriers that restrict access to A.P. for students from ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups that have been traditionally underrepresented” (CollegeBoard, 2019), there remains a disparity of access to A.P. courses for minority at-risk students (Judson & Hobson, 2015; Solorzano & Ornelas, 2002). This rapid expansion of access to A.P. programs by the CollegeBoard to historically underrepresented student populations has numerous unintended and detrimental consequences (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2010; Lichten, 2000). For example, an unintended consequence of this unprecedented growth of the A.P. program is that it lowered the quality of academic experiences for at-risk students (Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Kolluri, 2018). Furthermore, this rapid expansion of access to at-risk students has led to low academic performance outcomes, as measured by the A.P. Exam administered each May, for these at-risk students (Hallett & Venegas, 2016; Judson & Hobson, 2015; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000). While increasing A.P. course offerings within at-risk schools in order to promote equity is a worthy goal, access alone is insufficient to accomplish equity. The courses offered must also provide quality educational experiences. Current research indicates that the quality of educational experiences provided to at-risk student populations in these A.P. programs is substandard when compared to the experiences of their more affluent peers (Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Kolluri, 2008). One of the most often cited challenges that at-risk students ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 3 face in regards to success in A.P. courses is that the schools are commonly found in neighborhoods with low socioeconomic status (SES) communities, which often struggle to hire and retain high quality educators (Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2010). These schools employ more teachers who teach outside of their licensure area and, as a result, their students are not provided the quality and depth of learning experiences when compared to their more affluent peers (Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000). Another problematic factor that leads to the disproportionate failure of at-risk students in A.P. programs (Hallett & Venegas, 2016; Judson & Hobson, 2015; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000) is that school systems designated as at-risk often do not allow the flexibility necessary for students to properly prepare for the A.P. Exam (Hallett and Venegas, 2016). Given these limitations, it seems that expanded access to A.P. course offerings does not create equity in learning. Dual Enrollment programs may be a more effective means of promoting equity for at-risk students. Dual Enrollment programs, unlike A.P. programs, provide high school students the opportunity to enroll in accredited college courses that are often taught on high school campuses (Zinth, 2015). Dual Enrollment programs may be better suited to provide educational outcomes for at-risk students because they control for the quality of instructors for college courses by requiring all Dual Enrollment instructors to meet a strict series of requirements set by a local cooperating college (Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Speroni, 2011). Dual Enrollment programs further promote equity by exposing at-risk students to college course experiences that help them to develop knowledge and skills necessary for post-secondary success (Karp, 2012; Xinchun & Ying, 2018). Another feature that makes Dual Enrollment programs better suited for at-risk student populations is that Dual Enrollment programs, unlike A.P. programs, require students to meet certain levels of prior academic ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 4 achievement, thus controlling for the risk of expanding access to students who have not been adequately prepared for the rigor of advanced coursework (Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2010; Speroni, 2011). The quality control mechanisms in place in Dual Enrollment programs may reduce the potential for these programs to suffer from the problem of paradoxical expansion of access to advanced coursework that has been seen in recent years by the expansion of the Advanced Placement Program (Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000). Literature Review I. A misguided use of the A.P. program to address student achievement gap In a well-intentioned but perhaps misguided fashion, the A.P. program is being leveraged as a means to close the achievement gap between affluent and at-risk students (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2010; Sadler, 2010), even though that goal may not align well with the original intentions of A.P. programs to provide college-level content for advanced students who often are also affluent students. Differentiation, the practice of tailoring instruction to meet the needs of the individual learner, has been the hallmark of good teaching for decades and it only makes sense to apply the principle to the programs that are promoted in our school systems. If the goal is to help at-risk students achieve at rates similar to their affluent peers, then Dual Enrollment programs are the most logical choice (Klopfenstein, 2010; Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2010; Kolluri, 2018). Klopfenstein succinctly made this point when describing her findings by saying “if the impact of accelerated learning is specific to the type of students who tend to participate in the program rather than the program itself, similar benefits will not be observed when the program is expanded to other types of students” (Klopfenstein, 2010, p. 208). The rapid expansion of the A.P. program in public schools is a divergent action given ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 5 that, for the majority of the program’s tenure, it was a program that was both designed for and experienced by a small population of elite students (Lichten, 2000; Rothschild, 1999). This sentiment was captured succinctly by the second director of the A.P. program, David A. Dudley, when he said “the basic philosophy of the Advanced Placement Program is simply that all students are not created equal” (Dudley, 1958, p.1). The focus of the A.P. program was, at its onset, to provide an appropriate level of challenge to America’s best and brightest students (Dudley, 1958). With an aligned purpose and stakeholders, the first four decades of the A.P. program saw a steady increase in access for America’s best and brightest students (Schneider, 2009). In the mid 1970’s the perception of the A.P. program began to shift among some influential education leaders and those leaders began to view A.P. as an effective instrument for serving gifted but socially disadvantaged students (Marland, 1976). This transition from a program designed for elite students, at elite schools, to a program for elite students, regardless of their SES, was a logical and altruistic change. It is hard to argue against the tangible and intangible positive outcomes associated with a student’s participation in the A.P. program, if that student is aptly prepared and supported by them (Santoli, 2002). However, what has occurred between the late 1980’s and today is as an unprecedented expansion of the A.P. program that both misinterprets the program’s purpose as well as attempts to resolve problems that it was never meant to solve (Klopfenstein, 2004; Lichten, 2010). Targeted Expansion of the A.P. program. The CollegeBoard is the company that is both the creator as well as the facilitator of the A.P. program since its inception in 1953 (Lichten, 2000). In a desire to provide equity of access to A.P. learning experiences, schools ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 6 throughout the United States have expanded A.P. course offerings (Lichten, 2000) with a focus on expanding access for underrepresented student populations. This increase in access and opportunity to enroll in A.P. courses has naturally led to an increase in the number of students who sit for the A.P. exam in May. However, the increase in examinees has dramatically outpaced the number of students earning college credit by earning a score of 3 or higher (Hallett & Venegas, 2016; Judson & Hobson, 2015; Lichten, 2000). The disparity between students in these two metrics has been most extreme for students of color and students from low SES backgrounds (Judson & Hobson, 2015; Kolluri, 2018). An analysis of the current research regarding expanding access to A.P. programs shows two trends that have prevailed as a result of CollegeBoard’s “access and equity” push to increase access to previously marginalized populations. The first trend is that the highest levels of growth, both in number of students who enroll in A.P. courses and number of students who sit for the A.P. exam in May, are students from at-risk schools (Judson & Hobson, 2015; Lichten, 2000). However, the unparalleled growth of enrollment in A.P. courses at at-risk schools has not correlated with a growth in exam success for these same students from the at-risk schools (Hallett & Venegas, 2016; Judson & Hobson, 2015; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000). The number of students who sit for A.P. exams in May has increased dramatically; in 1990-91 school year a total of 535,186 exams were taken compared to 5,098,815 exams taken in the 2018-19 school year (CollegeBoard, 2021). Despite this tremendous growth in the number of exams taken, the number of students earning credit from those exams has remained relatively constant over the past thirty years (CollegeBoard, 2020; Lichten, 2000). As a stated ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 7 priority, CollegeBoard has encouraged “the elimination of barriers that restrict access to A.P. for students from ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups that have been traditionally underrepresented” (CollegeBoard, 2019). This statement—enacted through the “Equity and Access Policy”—can be found on the first page of every Course Exam Description book produced by CollegeBoard, and is an objectively altruistic goal at face value. There are few, if any, individuals working in the education field who would advocate to limit access to academically rigorous coursework, like the courses offered by CollegeBoard, to historically marginalized student populations. Educators who believe in education equity will support efforts that enable all students (regardless of race, gender, or socioeconomic status) equal opportunity and equal access to “college level” coursework; the desire to provide educational equity to underserved populations has led to the explosive growth of the CollegeBoard’s A.P. program over the past three decades (Lichten, 2010; Kolluri, 2018). Financial Incentives for Expanding Access. The expansion of access to the A.P. program, specifically for historically marginalized student populations, that has occurred over the past three decades can be attributed to a number of factors including: federal funding requirements, state level appropriations that allocate funds to schools to increase availability to A.P. programs, and state level programs that subsidize part or all of the fees associated with the A.P. examination (Holstead et al., 2010). One result of the confluence of these financial incentives: from federal, state and private coffers, was the rapid expansion of the A.P. program to a new population of students (Schneider, J., 2009). This rapid expansion in expenses paid for by these incentive programs changed the demographics of the student population served by the ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 8 A.P. program by expanding access to previously marginalized groups (Howell, 2019; Lichten, 2000). In 1986, 7,201 schools participated in the A.P. program and after federal and state incentive programs were instituted, a number which would grow to 11,500 by 1997. The financial incentive to expand access to A.P. programs continued to grow into 2005 when the National Governors Association created the “Advanced Placement Expansion Project” with a primary goal to expand the offering of A.P. courses to minority and low-income students (Wakelyn, 2009). At the inception of that initiative 16,000 schools participated with a total of 2,312,611 exams being administered. As of 2019-20 school year, that number had grown to include 22,152 schools participating and 4,751,957 exams being administered. Despite targeted expansion, minority students disadvantaged of opportunity. Despite the CollegeBoard’s efforts to expand access for the A.P. program to at-risk student populations, there remains a disparate level of opportunity between at-risk students and at-risk students of color (Judson & Hobson, 2015; Solorzano & Ornelas, 2002). At-risk students, who are low-SES and are racially or ethnically minoritized, are more likely to fail the A.P. exam than other at-risk, low-SES white students (Judson & Hobson, 2015; Solorzano & Ornelas, 2002). This disparity of outcomes for minoritized students is further compounded when it is coupled with the fact that minority students who attend largely minoritized schools have less options for A.P. courses offerings when compared to schools enrolling a diverse mix of white and racially and ethnically minoritized students (Solorzano & Ornelas, 2002). Even when minority students attended more racially mixed schools, Soloranzo found that Chicana/Latina students were not enrolled in A.P. courses at the same rate as their white peers. Soloranzo and Ornelas (2002) described this phenomenon as “schools within schools” where there is a ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 9 disparity between enrollment rates, within a school, between the white student population and the minoritized student population. This disparity persisted despite the fact that these more diverse schools had higher rates of enrollment in A.P. courses. These findings from Solarnzo and Ornelas (2002) and others mentioned in this literature review provide the most logical area for expansion in this field of research. Has the expansion of A.P. programs to at-risk student populations been more detrimental to minoritized at-risk students than it has been to white at-risk student populations? If minoritized at-risk students are negatively impacted by A.P. programs at a higher rate than their white peers, then future research should focus on the detrimental impacts of expanding A.P. programs to ethnic/racial minority students. II. Access ≠ Equity: At-Risk Paradox of Expanding Access. The rapid expansion of CollegeBoard’s A.P. programs to at-risk student populations over the past forty years was an intentional attempt to provide access to college level learning experiences to traditionally underrepresented student populations (CollegeBoard, 2019). This intentional expansion of A.P. programs to at-risk student populations was titled the ‘Equity and Access’ policy and was enacted by the CollegeBoard to ensure that all students, regardless of race, ethnicity, geographic location, or SES level was provided with equal access to the A.P. courses that the CollegeBoard deemed to be the equivalent to college level curricula (CollegeBoard, 2019). Despite its altruistic intent to increase access for at-risk students, a majority of literature reviewing the impacts of the ‘Equity and Access’ policy indicate that this policy may have not been beneficial for at-risk student populations (Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000; Lichten, 2010). The factors that have made these newly expanded A.P. courses a detriment to at-risk student populations are two fold; a failure to ensure students are adequately academically prepared to thrive in a college level coursework (Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 10 2008; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2010), as well as the inability for at-risk schools to hire and retain high quality teachers with the content expertise required to successfully teach a college level course (Hallet & Venegas, 2006; Judson & Hobson, 2015; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000;). Underprepared and over promised. Unlike other advanced coursework programs, such as Dual Enrollment, A.P. programs are truly “open admission” programs requiring no prerequisites required for students to enroll (CollegeBoard, 2010). As a result of this open access approach, many at-risk students who enroll in A.P. classes are often not academically prepared to be successful in A.P. programs because of their lack of academically rigorous educational experiences (Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Klopfenstein, 2003). Furthermore, once these underprepared students have enrolled in an A.P. class, they often find that they are not provided the opportunity or support to build those skills necessary for success (Hertberg-Davis and Callahan, 2008). In one study a student, who self-identified as being underprepared for her A.P. class, explained that it felt akin to “walking into traffic blindfolded. You just don’t know what you’re doing, and there’s no reason that you should have to do something that you’ve never had experience with or were exposed to” (Herburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008, p. 206). A teacher in that same study went on to explain how “time management is a big [problem] for the kids who struggle. They’re not good. You know they don’t have a plan of study…they are always struggling to keep pace” (p. 206). Unsurprisingly, students who are not prepared to succeed in A.P. courses on day one are less likely to find success in that course (Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Klopfenstein, 2003; Lichten, 2010). Whether these students had the drive or desire to succeed in A.P. programs may be inconsequential when they also encounter the dual challenge of being both academically underprepared and without sufficient academic support while completing the A.P. course. ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 11 At-risk schools’ inability to hire and retain high quality educators. The problem of underprepared students enrolling in A.P. programs is exacerbated by another trend associated with the rapid expansion of A.P. programs to at-risk student populations. For several reasons, schools themselves are systemically unable to provide the supports necessary for at-risk students to be successful in A.P. courses (Klopfenstein, 2003; Lichten, 2000). Kolluri (2008) asserts that at-risk schools face systemic challenges in offering high quality A.P. programs for several reasons, including the inability to attract and retain high quality educators (Eckert, 2013), the cyclical problem of underachieving achieving students being underprepared for rigorous coursework (Zhou, 2003), and the lack of financial resources requisite to providing an effective A.P. program (Klopfenstein, 2003; Kolluri, 2018). Although there are instances where at-risk students assert that the teachers they have in their A.P. courses are some of the best they have had (Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008); those same students also went on to say that they have had to deal with teachers who were not nearly as prepared to teach college level coursework. Hertburg-Davis and Callahan (2008) also found, during interviews with those same students, who had earlier asserted that some of their A.P. courses were taught by their best teachers, went on to describe their selection of possible A.P. teachers as “there are regular classes, real A.P. classes, and like, pretend A.P. classes” (p.204). Hertberg-Davis and Callahan’s (2008) findings concluded that “the competence of the AP teacher affected the quality and challenge level of the course” (p.203). At-Risk Schools lack appropriate expertise. A common and reasonable assumption made by many students that enroll in an A.P. course at an accredited high school, with an accredited educator, is that those courses would include high-quality learning experiences, yet there is no system in place to guarantee this. Current research supports that schools in low ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 12 socioeconomic neighborhoods struggle to hire and retain high quality educators; this problem is compounded when those same schools are seeking to hire a teacher for an A.P. course (Klopfenstein, 2003; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2010). The inability to hire and retain high quality educators for A.P. courses leads districts and schools to place teachers in A.P. classes outside of their licensure area (Klopfenstein, 2003). For example, a study of A.P. U.S. History teachers in Georgia, conducted by Glenn (2012), found that 8.3% of A.P. U.S. History teachers had no relevant teaching certificate at all, meaning that those individuals had not obtained the necessary licensure credentials to teach a regular pace U.S. History course in the state of Georgia. Furthermore, it found that an additional 5.9% of those sampled were teaching on a provisional/emergency certification. (Glenn, 2003). The CollegeBoard suggests that “A.P. teachers have considerable experience, and usually an advanced degree in the discipline, before undertaking an A.P. course” yet there are no control mechanisms in place to ensure that this situation realizes (College Board, 2003). In addition to the qualitative research detailing students’ perceptions of their teacher’s ability to teach A.P. courses, and the credentialing issues of teachers who are not qualified to teach A.P. courses, there are several quantitative studies that examine the academic outcomes for at-risk students. The results for at-risk students, when compared to the national averages for the exams, show that at-risk students show proficiency on the exams at a much lower rate (Hallett & Venegas, 2016; Judson & Hobson, 2015; Lichten, 2000). Students who failed to reach proficiency on the A.P. exam were able to articulate trends that they believed to be the cause for their failures. The first and most often mentioned cause for failure was that their teachers were unprepared or unmotivated to effectively prepare them for the A.P. exam. The second trend was that the school system they were a part of did not provide the necessary flexibility that would ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 13 allow their teacher to effectively prepare them for the exam (Hallett and Venegas, 2016). These issues, in conjunction, are barriers to succeeding in A.P. courses for at-risk students. When this information is juxtaposed against the poor level of the educational experiences provided to these students (Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Kolluri, 2008) it becomes glaringly obvious that the vast majority of at-risk students enrolling in A.P. courses are ultimately being set up for unforeseen academic failure (Hallett & Venegas, 2016; Judson & Hobson, 2015; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000). One way this was investigated was a simple analysis that compared the grades earned in those A.P. courses to the “grade” the students earned on final A.P. exams. This comparison is meant to show how the grades students earned in their A.P. courses were not representative of the level of mastery that they demonstrated on the A.P. exam. The overall disparity between these two measures ranged, at its lowest, 1.34 letter grades difference in Math courses and at the highest a 2.17 grades difference in History courses (Hallett and Venegas, 2016, p.478). For example, a 2-point grade difference a student could have earned a perfect 100% (A) grade in an A.P. course versus being assessed with a 3 on the A.P. exam, the minimum score for proficiency. According to Lichten’s (2000) research, the student who never missed one question (or even one point) in her A.P. World History course, would earn a 3 on the A.P. exam. With this score she would be denied credit at over half of the “selective” colleges and would be denied any college credit by all of the “highly selective” colleges. The disparity between providing access to A.P. courses for at-risk students and providing equity of experiences for those students is creatively analogized by Dougherty, Mellor, & Jian in their 2006 study, Orange Juice or Orange Drink: Ensuring that “Advanced Courses” Live Up to Their Labels using a comparison to truth in sentencing laws, or laws that state businesses cannot knowingly lie to their customers. The analogy asserts that the rapid expansion of A.P. programs ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 14 to at-risk students who are both academically underprepared (Dougherty, C., Mellor, L., & Jian, S.; Klopfenstein, 2003; Lichten, 2010) as well as who attend schools that face systemic barriers to providing high quality college level instruction in teaching these new A.P. courses (Hallett & Venegas, 2016; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2010), is similar to a business selling ‘orange drink,’ under the title of Orange Juice. III. Creating Equity via Dual Enrollment Creating Equity for At-Risk Students through Dual Enrollment Programs. The design and structure of Dual Enrollment programs are more aligned to meet the needs of at-risk student populations by controlling important variables that impact student success (Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2010; Speroni, 2011). Dual Enrollment programs often yield higher rates of success for at-risk students, as measured by the obtainment of college credit. Furthermore, the credit earned in Dual Enrollment programs is often a more accepted form of college credit when compared to A.P. credit (Hoffman, 2005; Speroni, 2011). Dual Enrollment programs also provide intangible positive outcomes such as acting as a bridge between secondary and post-secondary education (Hoffman, 2005; Karp, 2012). A substantial portion of prior literature suggest that Dual Enrollment programs provide more positive outcomes for at-risk student populations than any other advanced coursework programs (Farrell & Seifert, 2007; Klopfenstein, 2010; Kolluri, 2018; Museus, Lutovsky, & Colbeck, 2007; Speroni, 2011). Structure of Dual Enrollment programs. Dual Enrollment programs, unlike A.P. programs, employ control mechanisms to ensure that the educational experiences will be ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 15 college-level quality, which is critical to combat educational inequities that at-risk students face (Niu & Ying, 2018; Speroni, 2011). First, in order to teach a Dual Enrollment course, a teacher must be licensed in the specific field that they intend to teach, have attained a level of education that would allow them to teach at the coordinating college, and their quality of instruction must adhere to the requirements set by the regional postsecondary accrediting bodies (Speroni, 2011; Zenith, 2015). The causes for at-risk students’ failures in advanced coursework programs often involve controllable factors; one of the most frequently cited factors is a student’s level of academic preparation (Hallett & Venegas, 2011; Hoffman, 2005; Kolluri, 2018; Niu & Ying, 2018). Success in advanced coursework is almost universally tied to a student’s prior level of academic achievement (Lichten, 2000; Judson & Hobson, 2015) and Dual Enrollment programs account for this by requiring students to meet specific admission requirements (Niu & Ying, 2018; Speroni, 2011). In a study by Hallett and Venegas (2011), students in low SES high schools in Los Angeles described what they believed to be the causes of their disproportionate failure rates in A.P. courses. In rank order, the participants responses were: their teacher was not prepared to teach the course, the material covered in the class did not match the content on the exam, and the integrity of the advanced nature of the course was not prioritized and as such the class was populated by students who were not motivated and/or prepared to be successful with the material (Hallett & Venegas, 2011). These contributing factors are echoed throughout numerous other studies (Hallett & Venegas, 2011; Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2010; Speroni, 2011). Examining the factors that lead to student failures in A.P programs illuminates the inherent benefits of the Dual Enrollment program. In contrast to A.P. courses, the teacher in a ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 16 Dual Enrollment course would have been required to be prepared, both professionally and academically, to teach the advanced coursework (Speroni, 2011; Zenith, 2015). The content taught would have to match the syllabus provided by the coordinating college, thus eliminating any misalignment between course curricula and curricula taught, and finally, all of the students enrolled in the course would have met the minimum requirements for acceptance (Kolluri, 2018; Speroni, 2011; Zenith, 2015). It is these important safeguards, which are staples of Dual Enrollment programs, that help to ensure that at-risk students are provided with the supports necessary to be successful in advanced coursework programs (Hoffman, 2005; Speroni, 2011). Positive Outcomes of Dual Enrollment programs for at-risk students. Dual Enrollment programs, in addition to providing a higher success rate for at-risk students when compared to A.P. programs, also provide numerous ancillary positive outcomes including economic, educational, and institutional benefits. Dual Enrollment programs attract more at-risk and minority students than A.P. programs as Dual Enrollment programs are seen as more accessible to those student populations (Hoffman, 2005; Museus et al., 2007; Warne, 2017). At-risk students not only enroll in Dual Enrollment programs at higher levels, but they are also more likely to earn the college credit in Dual Enrollment programs when compared to A.P. programs (Hoffman, 2005, 2012; Lichten, 2010; Warne, 2017). Furthermore, Dual Enrollment programs provide both educational and economic benefits to at-risk students. Educational Benefits: Dual Enrollment programs, in addition to being cost-effective for both secondary and post-secondary institutions (Klopfenstein, 2010; Niu & Yang, 2018), also play a crucial role in the lives of many at-risk and first-generation college students acting as a bridge between high school and post-secondary institutions ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 17 (Hofmann, 2012; Karp, 2012). One of the ways Dual Enrollment programs act as a bridge is that they help to teach the crucial, non-explicitly taught lessons, sometimes referred to as the “null curriculum” (Lucas, 2001; Niu & Yang, 2018). For instance, one aspect of the “null curriculum” that is taught to at-risk students through their experiences in Dual Enrollment programs is how to successfully navigate through the institutional processes and procedures of post-secondary systems (Karp, 2012; Niu & Ying, 2018). It is this type of “hidden” knowledge that has historically advantaged more affluent students because, unlike their at-risk peers, affluent students’ families can recognize the pivotal decisions in curriculum tracking and advocate on their students’ behalf (Karp, 2012; Lucas, 2001). In addition to yielding more positive outcomes for at-risk students, enrollment in Dual Enrollment programs, then, also provides at-risk students the skills necessary to self-advocate during their post-secondary education (Hoffman, 2005). Another way that Dual Enrollment programs act as a bridge between high school and college is that they expose students to authentic college experiences, while still in the supportive and familiar environment of high school (Karp, 2012; Niu & Ying, 2018). Hoffman (2005), using policy analysis, found that one of the most beneficial facets of Dual Enrollment programs was that they, unlike A.P. programs, assess students throughout an entire semester of work instead of relying solely on a high-stakes, one-time assessment. Hoffman explained how this process of earning “regular” college grades acted as a support for at-risk students by building their confidence to be successful in post-secondary education (2005). Economic Benefits: In addition to the educational benefits of Dual Enrollment programs for at-risk students, there are also numerous economic benefits to publicly supporting Dual Enrollment programs (Hoffman, 2005; Klopfenstein, 2010). Klopfenstein ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 18 (2010) examined the connection between student participation in advanced coursework and the corresponding impact on time-to-graduation rates for those students. According to Klopfenstein’s (2010) research, students who enrolled in Dual Enrollment programs were more likely to earn their undergraduate degree quicker, thus incurring less student loan debt than students who enrolled in only A.P. programs. Furthermore, Klopfenstein asserted that “the findings suggest the possibility that public funding currently spent on the A.P. Program would be better utilized in support of dual credit programs” (Klopfenstein, 2010, p.191). Although Klopfenstein’s research clearly supports reallocating funds away from A.P. programs to instead support Dual Enrollment programs, that conclusion only illuminates why funding Dual Enrollment programs is a better public policy decision. It fails to address why at-risk students are more likely to both enroll and succeed in Dual Enrollment programs (Niu & Ying, 2018). All educational programs have to be measured by their results, and for at-risk students, a measure that is of great importance is whether or not successful completion of the course provides a financial benefit to its students (Karp, 2012; Taylor & Yan, 2018). Dual Enrollment programs, unlike A.P. programs, can guarantee students two things. First, unlike the A.P. program, there is no high stakes exam that determines whether or not a student earns credit for the semester of hard work (Klopenfenstein, 2010; Kolluri, 2018; Taylor & Yan, 2018). Secondly, the credit will be seen as more portable, meaning that students do not have to worry about whether or not a college would accept the credits earned while in high school (Lichten, 2000; Klopfenstein, 2010; Kolluri, 2018). Whether advanced coursework programs are viewed from a public policy standpoint, or from the perspective of an at-risk student enrolling in their first advanced course, the research clearly demonstrates that Dual Enrollment programs are ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 19 better suited to meet the individual needs of at-risk student populations (Klopfenstein, 2010; Kolluri, 2018; Niu & Ying, 2018; Taylor & Yan, 2018). This literature review has illuminated a few important trends in the efficacy of expanding access to advanced coursework programs for at-risk student populations. First, access of opportunity and equity of opportunity are not the same thing and with this disparity, at-risk students often yield less positive results from participating in A.P. courses (Hallett & Venegas, 2016; Judson & Hobson, 2015; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000). At-risk students, and the schools that they attend, often face systemic disadvantages that preclude the possibility of these students finding success in advanced coursework programs (Hallett & Venegas, 2016; Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Judson & Hobson, 2015; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000; Speroni, 2011). At-risk student populations experience disparate rates of success often dependent upon the type of advanced coursework program to which they have enrolled (Klopfenstein, 2003; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2000; Taylor & Yan, 2018; Speroni, 2011). Although the vast majority of the literature under review has helped explicate some problematic trends in expanding access to advanced coursework programs to at-risk student populations, it has yet to provide is a clear set of substantive solutions. This is not a failing of the research that has been conducted; in fact the research that has been done has provided stakeholders with important findings that can and should be used when making decisions about how to allocate public funds to help our most vulnerable student populations. Among the most important conclusions that can be derived from the current body of research is that expanding access to advanced coursework programs to at-risk students does not necessarily guarantee positive results for those students. It is imperative that districts who serve a majority ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 20 at-risk student population, and who have also engaged in this rapid expansion of advanced coursework programs, analyze the results that have been yielded by these programs. The reality of the situation is that more research is required before drawing any substantive conclusions about the efficacy of expanding advanced coursework programs to at-risk student populations. We need more research before any nationwide policies can be implemented regarding A.P. or Dual Enrollment. Meanwhile it would make sense for local school districts to engage in assessment and evaluation of their own advanced coursework programs to determine two things; 1) which advanced coursework programs are yielding the most beneficial results for their students? and 2) what is the return on investment for each type of program? An analysis that found answers to those two questions would provide invaluable insights for all stakeholders involved and it would allow the district to make the best use of their limited public funds. ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 21 DATA AND METHODS The purpose of this study is to descriptive research of student outcomes in advanced coursework programs in Ogden School District with the intention of presenting the findings to the Ogden School District Administration team to inform and advocate for the advanced coursework programs that yield the best results for its student population. The study employed a causal comparative analysis of the educational outcomes for a cohort of students spanning from the 2015-16 to the 2018-2019 academic school years. The dataset represents the entirety of the high school coursework for this academic group, from grade ten to grade twelve. More specifically, this dataset contained the enrollment for every advanced coursework class as well as the results for each enrollee. For the purpose of this study, efficacy of the advanced coursework programs was defined as whether or not students earn the associated college credit for their participation in the advanced coursework program. Because this study seeks to provide information and guidance in regards to which programs yield the best results for an at-risk population of students, it focused on the most tangible measure of efficacy for advanced coursework programs – the attainment of college credit. Positive results, in the context of this study, were defined as any student who enrolls in an advanced coursework program and subsequently earned the associated college credit for the course. Negative results were defined as students who enroll in an A.P. course and either chose to not take the exam or failed to earn a “passing” score on the associated exam (3-5). In regards to Dual Enrollment courses, negative results were defined as either 1) students who enrolled in a Dual Enrollment eligible course for high school credit, yet chose to not “dual” enroll for the ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 22 college credit; or 2) for students who dual enrolled in a Dual Enrollment course but ultimately failed to earn a passing grade for the college course. Students who enrolled, and subsequently withdrew, in either an A.P. course or a Dual Enrollment course were included as a negative outcome. For the purpose of this study, a “not at-risk student” was defined as a student who did not qualify for free and reduced lunch (low-SES), and/or who is not a part of an ethnic or linguistic minority group. In contrast, an “at-risk” student was defined as any student belonging to a historically marginalized population. For the purpose of this study, “at-risk” students are low-income students (i.e., students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch) and/or students belonging to an ethnic or linguistic minority group. This study seeks to determine which advanced coursework program (i.e., A.P. or Dual Enrollment) has supported more successful outcomes for the student population that is served in the Ogden School District. With this study I hope to provide information that can inform Ogden School District’s allocation of funding for advanced coursework programs in the future. This study seeks to determine which advanced coursework program yielded the most positive results for students in the Ogden School District and, as such, which should be further supported through the allocation of funds and resources by the Ogden School District. The intent of this project is to, using the study outlined above, create an executive summary that will be provided to the Ogden School District administration team that will accompany a presentation that outlines the results of the study as well as the recommendations in regards to advanced coursework programs. ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 23 METHODS The design of this project is a non-experimental, causal comparative study that employs quantitative research analyses that compares the results controlling for covariates (ANCOVA). The use of a non-experimental design was an intentional decision as a truly experimental design would create an ethical concern regarding manipulating student outcomes which would be inappropriate in a public educational setting and unnecessary as we can learn enough from existing data and student outcomes. The data was compiled, removing personally identifiable markers, with the intent of creating a policy advocacy project that will provide advice and input for the stakeholders in the Ogden District Cabinet team. Data Analysis The data that I obtained from the Ogden School District was the enrollment and student outcomes data for the cohort of students who graduated in the 2018-19 school year. The data was either school-level data (data from either Ogden High or Ben Lomond) or district-level data that contained the data for the whole cohort of students across the entire school district. In total, the data used for this analysis was compiled from 29 different files. Both the file names as well as file types are listed in Table 1. The district demographics report contained the whole dataset for the cohort of students and was used as a “Master File” to which data needed from other files was added manually. Prior to copying the student outcome data into the Master File, it first had to be reformatted from the “left to right” format that it was recorded into a “long form” data because that allowed me to compare results by student, for multiple years and multiple courses in the pivot tables that would drive my analysis. Reformatting the educational outcomes data in this way allowed me to employ numerous validation checks including comparisons of any reported ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 24 educational outcomes to the district demographic and school course roster reports. Once I had ensured the accuracy of the source data, I was then able to utilize the XLookup/VLookup functions in Excel to pull the pertinent data into the pivot tables. The XLookup/VLookup function were executed using student’s 1000# as the unique identifier which allowed the information from various source files to be pulled into pivot tables. Table 1 Source Data File Name/Type Student Enrollment Data A.P. Data C.E. Data School Level Data BLHS Class Roster 16-17 (CSV) BLHS Class Roster 17-18 (CSV) BLHS Class Roster 18-19 (CSV) OHS Class Roster 16-17 (CSV) OHS Class Roster 17-18 (CSV) OHS Class Roster 18-19 (CSV) BLHS Report Card 16-17 (PDF) BLHS Report Card 17-18 (PDF) BLHS Report Card 18-19 (PDF) OHS Report Card 16-17 (PDF) OHS Report Card 17-18 (PDF) OHS Report Card 18-19 (PDF) BLHS Cumulative GPA (CSV) OHS Transcripts 2019 (PDF) BLHS A.P. Student Datafile 2017 (CSV) BLHS A.P. Student Datafile 2018 (CSV) BLHS A.P. Student Datafile 2019 (CSV) OHS A.P. Student Datafile 2017 (CSV) OHS A.P. Student Datafile 2018 (CSV) OHS A.P. Student Datafile 2019 (CSV) BLHS 16-17 Concurrent Enrollment (XLSX) BLHS 17-18 Concurrent Enrollment (XLSX) BLHS 18-19 Concurrent Enrollment (XLSX) OHS 16-17 Concurrent Enrollment (XLSX) OHS 17-18 Concurrent Enrollment (XLSX) OHS 18-19 Concurrent Enrollment (XLSX) District Level Data Demographics 16-17 (CSV) Demographics 17-18 (CSV) Demographics 18-19 (CSV) The data was analyzed using pivot tables that pulled data from the three requisite reports (District Demographics, A.P. or C.E. outcomes, and the Course Roster files). Figure 1 below ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 25 shows the “base” A.P. pivot table. I refer to this table as the “base” table because it was copied and pasted into new sheets and as such it acted as the structure for all analysis completed. Each “base” table showed the three points of participation involved in advanced coursework programs (Enrollment, Attempt, and Pass). Within each of these points of participation the information was dissected to show the ethnic composition of the students, the racial composition of the students, and finally it showed the attrition rate between each point of participation. This “base” table was used to analyze the program outcomes (by race, ethnicity, and attrition rates between the three points of participation). These tables can be found in the Master File under the tabs A.P. Metrics and C.E. metrics. Figure 1 Base Pivot Table The next levels of analysis, Covariate Analysis 1, was built upon the base pivot tables by adding in a covariate factor to the analysis. By adding in the first covariate, “GPA”, the pivot table limited the students included in this analysis to only include students with a GPA of 2.01 or ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 26 above. These tables can be found in the Master File under the tabs A.P. Metrics (2) and C.E. Metrics (2). A similar process was used to construct the Covariate Analysis 2, which limited students included in the second analysis to those students who had scored a 15 or higher on the ACT Exam. These tables can be found in the Master File under the tabs A.P. Metrics (3) and C.E. Metrics (3). As a note, the Master File also contains a tab titled “Process” that explains in detail where all data was derived from and if/when the data was altered or converted in any way, as well as it explains any time that data had to be hardcoded. This is important for data validity and reliability. Data Limitations The results and findings from this study have two sources of limitations; source data limitations and process limitations. The largest source of data limitations stem from the C.E. data. C.E. data was hardcoded at each school which is vulnerable to inaccuracies in the source data that was provided to me. Additionally, the lack of redundancy in the school’s recording systems made it infeasible to validate or check for that type of inaccuracy for this project. Another issue that was present in the C.E. data was that the course code/course names changed multiple times over the course of the three-year period. As a result, correlating the correct Weber State University course name to the matching high school course name required researching the course rosters and correlating those to the C.E. outcomes data. Ultimately this issue was largely mitigated because of the use of data validation checks. Another limitation in the source data was the absence of a common unique identifier for students across all reports. Accordingly, some reports had to have the unique identifier pulled in manually, or pulled in based on a combination of multiple fields (=concatenate formula) to create a custom unique identifier to isolate the ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 27 correct 1000# which was then used to pull in the appropriate student information. The final source data limitation stemmed from the use of the two covariates (GPA and ACT). Student’s GPA (for Ogden High) and ACT scores (for both schools) were not contained in any of the excel files and thus had to be hardcoded using the transcripts PDF’s. All data that was hardcoded was checked numerous times for validation and additional “spot checks” were used to verify accuracy upon conclusion of all analysis. A second limitation stemmed from the process of converting and compiling the data into a clean Master File. The source data was in a left to right format and in order for it to be analyzed using XLookup/VLookup and pivot tables, it had to be converted into “long form” data (linear). This process involved copying a row of data, inserting a row below, pasting the data and then removing the excess information. Because this process could lead to inaccuracies, I conducted thorough data validation processes throughout the study, including random data validation checks and matching processes for educational outcomes reported in the source data to the outcomes used in the analysis. There is a possibility that the scope of the data set may be missing some information, either because it was absent in the source files or it was unable to be correlated in a way that was verifiably accurate using the numerous validation checks. However, the data that was copied into the Master File and used to drive this analysis and the findings for this study was validated at multiple checkpoints throughout the study. My extensive data validation work gives me confidence that it is accurate and true to the information provided in the source data, but nonetheless I did want to acknowledge these areas as potential limitation for this study. In addition, process notes have been provided that explicitly accounts for the actions taken during each facet of the data process. ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 28 ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 29 Research Questions and Variables Research Question 1: Which advanced coursework program (A.P. vs. Dual Enrollment) yields the highest rate of earned college credit for the student population in Ogden School District? Research Question 2: What is the relationship between the type of student (i.e., at-risk versus not-at-risk student) and student achievement in advanced coursework programs when controlling for individual differences among students including GPA, prior advanced coursework experience, and prior advanced coursework achievement. Independent Variables: For the current study, the independent variable of focus is student type, which is defined using demographic data, focusing on at-risk student (low SES and/or ethnic/linguistic minority) and not-at-risk students. I have also considered co-variate variables that might contribute to the study’s findings including prior year GPA, previous experience in advanced coursework programs, and previous achievement in advanced coursework programs. Dependent Variables: The dependent variables for this study is student achievement in advanced coursework programs which is defined as earning the associated college credit for a given advanced course. Earning the associated college credit (i.e., “achievement”) is determined for A.P. courses by a student earning a 3, 4, or 5 on the A.P. exam and earning the associated college credit for a Dual Enrollment course is determined by a student earning a passing grade for the course. ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 30 FINDINGS The results of this study are organized into sub-sections that align with the research questions. First, I provide a high-level overview of the two advanced coursework programs in terms of enrollment, attempt rate and efficacy rate. Second, I examined the relationship between type of program and subsequent attrition rates. The second finding also examines the relationship between type of student (ethnic minority vs. non-marginalized) and attrition rates. Finally, I analyzed the efficacy of each program while employing the use of two covariates (minimum GPA and ACT score) to ensure that any continuous variables that were not controlled for during data collection did not skew the results. Finding 1: The cohort of students included in the data that was analyzed demonstrated that students in the Ogden School District enrolled considerably more often in a C.E. course than they enrolled in an A.P. course (3121 vs. 668). Subsequently, students in this data set also attempted to earn college credit in a C.E. course more than in an A.P. course (1214 vs. 432). Finally, students more often earned college credit in a C.E. course than they did in an A.P. course (1097 vs. 241). Considering these findings, C.E. programs yield more positive results for the students in Ogden School District; 82% of all college credit earned by students in the Ogden School District are earned in C.E. classes. It is important to note that although A.P. makes up a smaller proportion of the enrollment and successful outcomes, it does have a higher attempting rate when compared to C.E. courses; 64.7% of the students who enrolled in A.P. courses would go on to attempt to earn the college credit, whereas only 38.9% of the students who enrolled in C.E. would go on to attempt to earn the college credit.Figure 2 below provides context to the comparative participation for each program. ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 31 Figure 2 Advanced Coursework Program Overview The efficacy rate for each program, as measured by those students who enrolled in the course in August earning the subsequent college credit in July, holds relatively consistent between the two programs (A.P. = 36.0778% vs. C.E. = 35.1489%). As a result of both programs, at least at the high school level, being truly “open enrollment” programs, meaning any student can sign up for any class, a more accurate way to calculate efficacy rates for the programs was needed. As such, efficacy was instead measured from students who attempt to earn the credit and the students who successfully earn the credit. When calculated in that way, the efficacy rates for students who attempt to earn college credit via a C.E. course is dramatically higher when compared to A.P. courses; slightly over half of the students (55.8%) who attempt to earn credit in an A.P. course will ultimately be successful, whereas (90.4%) of students who attempt to earn college credit via a C.E. course will be successful. ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 32 Finding 2: Both A.P. and C.E. programs suffer from two similar problems; first, enrollment in A.P. and C.E. programs is not representative of the student population in Ogden School District. Both programs underrepresent ethnic minority students (65.7% of the students who enrolled in A.P. classes were White and 54% of the students who enrolled in C.E. courses were White) both figures were not representative of the students in Ogden School District which is a minority majority district with roughly 60% Hispanic and 40% White students. In addition to the problem of underrepresentation, both programs also suffer from high rates of attrition. Attrition, for advanced coursework programs, occurs at two points; first, attrition occurs when the students who enroll in the high school class but then choose not to attempt to earn the college credit. Attrition occurs a second time when those students who attempted to earn the college credit are not successful. In the Ogden School District roughly 2/3’s of every student that enrolls in either an A.P. or a C.E. class in August, would not go on to earn the associated college credit, with attrition occurring at both stages mentioned above. Despite both programs suffering from high attrition, it is important to note that the type of attrition that occurred in each program is very different and analyzing the differences tells an important story about the inherent differences between A.P. and C.E. programs (Table 1). The average A.P. class begins the year with higher rates of underrepresentation and then the subsequent attrition that occurs over the course of the year disproportionally impacts ethnic minority students. Again, for context, the ethnic composition of the Ogden School District during this three-year period was roughly 60% Hispanic and 40% White. Despite the fact that Hispanic students constituted well over half of the students in Ogden District, only 19.50% of students who would go on to earn ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 33 college credit via the A.P. program were Hispanic (Table 1). On the contrary, C.E. courses began the school year more ethnically representative (46%) of the student population and although the attrition rates for ethnic minority students is higher than for their white peers, the average C.E. course ends considerably more representative of our student population (36%). For context, C.E. courses end the school year more ethnically representative (36%) than A.P. programs begin the school year with (34.2%). Table 2 below shows the demographic make-up of A.P. and C.E. programs over the course of the school year. Table 2 Demographic Enrollment at Different Points in Advanced Coursework Programs Program Enroll Attempt Success AP 65.7% White 34.2% Hispanic 74.76% White 25.23% Hispanic 80.49% White 19.50% Hispanic CE 54% White 46% Hispanic 62.85% White 37.14% Hispanic 63.99% White 36.00% Hispanic Despite both programs suffering from high rates of attrition it is important to acknowledge that when the attrition rate is measured between students who attempted to earn college credit and students who successfully earned that credit, the attrition rate for each program becomes glaringly different from one another. All students who enrolled and attempted to earn college credit in a C.E. course were dramatically more likely to earn that credit, than their peers in A.P. courses (Table 2). This trend held regardless of the ethnicity of the student, and although both programs had a higher incidence of attrition for Hispanic students, the likelihood of students who attempted to earn the college credit being successful was vastly different; Hispanic students who attempted to earn college credit in A.P. classes were more likely to fail than they were to ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 34 succeed (Table 3). Whereas Hispanic students who attempted to earn credit in C.E. courses had an 88% efficacy rate. This disparity suggests that C.E. programs are more equitable in terms of opportunity and vastly more equitable in terms of outcomes. Table 3 Student Attrition and Efficacy Rate if Attempted Program Enroll Attempt Success Efficacy Rate If Attempted AP (total) 668 432 241 56% AP White 439 323 194 60% AP Hispanic 229 109 47 43% CE (total) 3121 1214 1097 90% CE Non-Hispanic 1681 763 702 92% CE Hispanic 1440 451 395 88% Another note on the difference between attrition in A.P. programs and C.E. programs; the highest rate of attrition for A.P. programs was found at the second point, between the students who attempted to earn the credit and those who found success (44.2%). Presumably, the students who chose to attempt to earn college credit by taking the A.P. exam would have felt prepared to earn the associated college credit for their A.P. class, but ultimately would go on to fail to earn that credit. Comparatively, the highest rate of attrition for D.E. programs occurred at the first point of attrition, meaning that many students enrolled for the high school course but then chose not to attempt to earn the college credit (61.1% of the students opted to not attempt to earn the college credit – which for C.E. means they chose to not enroll in the college level course). This attrition rate, although very high, is considerably more equitable when compared to the pattern of attrition rates seen in A.P. (Attrition Rate #1 for Hispanic students is 52.4% compared to 26.4% ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 35 for White students) compared to the pattern of attrition seen in C.E. (Attrition Rate #1 for Hispanic students is 68.6% compared to 54.6% for White students). Despite C.E. programs having a higher attrition rate at the first point attrition, it appears that the ethnicity of the students is less consequential for C.E. programs than it is for A.P. programs. Table 4 below shows the attrition rates, broken down by ethnicity, for each program at the two points of attrition. Table 4 Attrition Rates by Program/Interval Program Attrition 1 Attrition 2 AP (Total) 35.3% 44.2% AP White 26.4% 39.9% AP Hispanic 52.4% 56.8% CE (Total) 61.1% 9.6% CE White 54.6% 7.9% CE Hispanic 68.6% 12.4% At face value it would appear that the two programs, albeit in different ways, fail to prepare the majority of their students to successfully earn the associated college credit. However, I believe that conclusion fails to acknowledge that one of most important benefits that C.E. programs offer students, which is that C.E. programs employ many quality control mechanisms that ensure that students and instructors are adequately prepared to be successful once admitted (Klopfenstein, 2010; Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2010). When viewed through that lens, the large amount of attrition that is seen in C.E. classes at the first point of attrition, is not in fact a failure, but instead this attrition, is the system working as designed. C.E. programs, by ensuring that there is alignment between student ability and course expectations, is just ensuring that students who attempt to earn college credit, are adequately prepared to do just that. This point is ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 36 supported by the fact that once students were admitted into a C.E. course, those students were successful 90.4% of the time. Finding 3: The trends and findings derived from the data set were bolstered by rerunning the analyses that had been previously done, but this time including two covariates to ensure that different input variables were both controlled and accounted for. The two covariates used for this study were student’s cumulative GPA and student’s ACT score. The thresholds for the covariates were set at a cumulative GPA of 2.01 or greater and an ACT score of 15 or higher. The covariates groups were used to replicate the efficacy analysis that was described in finding 2, thus supporting the analysis by accounting for uncontrolled variables in the data set. All students used in the first covariate analysis had a cumulative GPA of above a 2.01, this covariate was used to account for any students who may have been mistakenly placed in an advanced coursework course. By limiting the analysis to students who had demonstrated that they had a high-level academic performance, it provided a more accurate picture of the findings derived from the A.P. and C.E. data. The second covariate used was an ACT score of 15 or higher. By limiting the analysis to students who had scored a 15 or higher on the ACT it ensured that the students being compared against one another had a similar history of academic success. These two covariate analyses were then used to show that the trends derived from the full analysis, that included all students in the data set, was consistent with the findings from the two covariate analyses. As seen below in Figure 3 - the trends derived from the whole data set were consistent when compared to the covariate analysis. ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 37 Figure 3 Efficacy Rates (With and Without Covariates) When controlling for students who have shown themselves to be academically successful (covariate 1) there was no meaningful change in efficacy rates. Similarly, when controlling for students who have shown the capability to perform well on advanced coursework assessments (covariate 2) there was no meaningful change in efficacy rates. One important trend that was gleaned from the covariate analyses was that C.E. efficacy increased, across the board, when controlled for both covariates. DISCUSSION This study adds to the research literature concerning the relationship between type of students and the efficacy of various advanced coursework programs. The results found from this study echoed many of the findings from previous studies that were referenced in the literature review; the findings can be grouped into to two categories - findings about the programs ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 38 themselves (A.P. vs. C.E.) and then findings regarding the relationship between type of student and the likelihood of obtaining successful educational outcomes in advanced coursework programs. Program Findings: Similar to the findings in Solorzano & Ornelas (2002) ethnic minority students are underrepresented in A.P. courses at every level of that program - enrollment, attempting, and success (Judson & Hobson, 2015; Solorzano & Ornelas, 2002). Despite the intentional efforts of the CollegeBoard to expand access to A.P. programs to underrepresented students, it appears that in the Ogden School District, like other places, a barrier to entry continues to remain as an impediment to at-risk student populations. Additionally, as was true in previous studies, the disparity between students who attempt to earn college credit and those who go on to earn that credit was worse in A.P. courses (Judson & Hobson, 2015; Lichten, 2000) than it was in C.E. courses (Karp, 2012; Kolluri, 2018; Lichten, 2010; Speroni, 2011; Xinchun & Yang, 2018). Furthermore, the results of this study appear to support the assertion that the rapid expansion of access to A.P. programs to at-risk students has not been accompanied by a rapid expansion of successful student outcomes for that population (Hertburg-Davis & Callahan, 2008; Kolluri, 2018). Relationship Findings: As was true in Klopfenstein (2010), it appears that C.E. programs are better suited to promoting equity of access to advanced coursework programs for at-risk students when compared to A.P. programs (Klopfenstein, 2010; Lichten, 2000). C.E. programs in the Ogden District ended the year, after two rounds of attrition, more ethnically representative of the student population than A.P. programs began the year with. ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 39 Beyond providing more equitable access to advance coursework programs for students in the Ogden District, C.E. programs also provide more equitable educational outcomes for the at-risk student population in Ogden School District. The results of this study further support the contention of Klopfenstein & Thomas (2010) in that the achievement gap between non-marginalized students and minority students was larger in A.P. programs (Lichten, 2000; Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2010; Sadler, 2010) than it was in D.E. programs (Klopfenstein, 2010; Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2010; Kolluri, 2018). This study found that the likelihood of a Hispanic student earning college credit in an A.P. class was 17% lower than that of their White peers (Hispanic Efficacy 43% to White efficacy 60%) whereas the likelihood of that same student earning college credit in a C.E. class was only 4% lower than that of their White peers (Hispanic Efficacy 88% to White Efficacy 92%). One thing that this study was not able to determine was whether or not the high levels of attrition seen in both programs were casually related to a student’s inability to perform in that program or if there was another explanation for the high rates of attrition. Perhaps in the future the Ogden School District will be able to track student efficacy in advanced coursework programs in multiple ways – beyond just attainment of the associated college credit; that would allow a more in-depth analysis to determine why students fail to succeed in advanced coursework programs. IMPLICATIONS So, what does this data ultimately tell us about the advance coursework programs in the Ogden School District? In short, it appears that C.E. programs are a better and more effective ACCESS IS NOT EQUITY 40 program for our student population. C.E. programs are vastly more popular with our students, C.E. programs are immensely more successful for our students and most importantly, students who “take the risk” of attempting to earn college credit are overwhelmingly more successful in C.E. courses than they are in A.P. courses. In light of these findings, a logical next step for the Ogden School District would be to evaluate the current levels of resource allocation to C.E. and A.P. programs to assess the cost-benefit for each program. In addition to performing the cost-benefit analysis for each program, I would encourage the district to conduct a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) to determine if pursuing a process to transition our highly effective A.P. teachers to become certified to teach the same content as a C.E. teacher would be fiscally feasible. By financially supporting highly effective A.P. teachers to earn the credentials requisite to teach the same content but in a C.E. program it would almost certainly increase the number of students who enroll, the number of students who attempt, and the number of students who successfully earned the associated college credit for that course. REFERENCES CollegeBoard, (2003). A brief history of the Advanced Placement program. Retrieved from https://www.oakparkusd.org/cms/lib/CA01000794/Centricity/Domain/295/APUSH/AP_ History_history.pdf CollegeBoard, (2019). AP World History Modern. New York, New York: Collegeboard. Dougherty, C., Mellor, L., & Jian, S. (2006). Orange juice or orange drink? Ensuring that “advanced courses” live up to their labels (Policy brief no. 1). Retrieved from https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519415.pdf. Dudley, D. A. (1958). The advanced placement program. The bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 42(242), 1-5. Eckert, S. A. (2013). What do teaching qualifications mean in urban schools? A mixed-methods study of teacher preparation and qualification. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 75-89. Farrell, P. L., & Seifert, K. A. (2007). Lessons learned from a dual‐enrollment partnership. New Directions for Community Colleges, 139, 69-77. Glenn, J. E., (2012). Teacher characteristics and practices and student performance on Advanced Placement examinations (Publication No. 3522793) [Doctoral dissertation, Piedmont College]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Hallett, R. E., & Venegas, K. M. (2011). Is increased access enough? Advanced Placement courses, quality, and success in low-income urban schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 468–487. Hertberg-Davis, H., & Callahan, C. M. (2008). A narrow escape: Gifted students’ perceptions of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(3), 199–216. doi:10.1177/0016986208319705 Hoffman, N. (2005). Add and Subtract: Dual Enrollment as a state strategy to increase postsecondary success for underrepresented students. Jobs for the Future. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497806.pdf Hofmann, E. (2012). Why dual enrollment? New Directions for Higher Education, 158, 1-8. Holstead, M. S., Spradlin, T. E., McGillivray, M. E., & Burroughs, N. (2010). The impact of Advanced Placement incentive programs. Educational Policy Brief, 8(1). Howell, S. (2019). The influence of open access on Advanced Placement achievement (Publication No. 2621) [Doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University]. Seton Hall Dissertations and Theses. https://scholarship.shu.edu/dissertations/2621 Judson, E., & Hobson, A. (2015). Growth and achievement trends of Advanced Placement (AP) exams in American high schools. American Secondary Education, 43(2), 59–76. Karp, M., (2012). I don’t know, I’ve never been to college! Dual enrollment as a college readiness strategy. New Directions for Higher Education, 158, 21-28. Klopfenstein, K., (2003). Recommendations for maintaining the quality of Advanced Placement programs. American Secondary Education, 32(1), 39-49. Klopfenstein, K., (2004). Advanced Placement: Do minorities have equal opportunity. Economics of Education Review, 23, 115-131. doi:10.1016/S0272775703000761 Klopfenstein, K., (2010). Examining AP: Access, rigor, and revenue in the history of the Advanced Placement Program. AP A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program, 189-218. Klopfenstein, K., & Thomas, K., (2010). Examining AP: Access, rigor, and revenue in the history of the Advanced Placement Program. AP A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program, 167-188. Kolluri, S. (2018). Advanced Placement: The dual challenge of equal access and effectiveness. Review of Educational Research, 88(5), 671-711. Lacy, T. (2010). Examining AP: Access, rigor, and revenue in the history of the Advanced Placement Program. AP A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program, 17-48. Lichten, W. (2000). Whither Advanced Placement?. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (29). Lichten, W. (2010). Examining AP: Access, rigor, and revenue in the history of the Advanced Placement Program. AP A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program, 233-244. Lucas, S. (2001). Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1642-1690. Marland, S. P. (1976). Advanced Placement. Today’s Education, 44. Museus, S. D., Lutovsky, B. R., & Colbeck, C. L., (2007). Access and equity in dual enrollment programs: Implications for policy formation. Higher Education in Review, 4, 1-19. Rothschild, E. (1999). Four decades of the advanced placement program. The History Teacher, 32(2), 175-206. Sadler, P. M. (2010). Examining AP: Access, rigor, and revenue in the history of the Advanced Placement Program. AP A critical examination of the Advanced Placement Program, 263-270. Santoli, S. P., (2002). Is there an Advanced Placement advantage?. American Secondary Education, 23-25. Schneider, J. (2009). Privilege, equity, and the Advanced Placement program: Tug of war. J. Curriculum Studies, 41(6), 813-831. Solorzano, D. G., & Ornelas, A. (2002). A critical race analysis of advanced placement classes: A case of educational inequality. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1(4), 215-229. Speroni, C. (2011). Determinants of Students’ Success: The Role of Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment Programs (NCPR Working Paper). Retrieved from Community College Research Center website: https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/role-advanced-placement- dual- enrollment.html Taylor, J. L., & Yan, R., (2018). Exploring the outcomes of standards-based concurrent enrollment and Advanced Placement in Arkansas. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(123). Wakelyn, D. (2009). Raising rigor, getting results: Lessons learned from AP expansion. NGA Center for Best Practices. Warne, R. T., (2017). Research on the academic benefits of the Advanced Placement program: Taking stock and looking forward. Sage Open, 7(1), 1-16. Xinchun, N., Ying, Y., (2018). Falling further behind: Underlying dynamics of racial disparities in advanced course taking. US-China Education Review, 8(7), 267-289. doi:10.17265/2161623 Zinth, J. D. (2015). Dual enrollment course content and instructor quality. Denver, CO: Educational Commission of States. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltextED555525.pdf Zhou, M. (2003). Urban education: Challenges in educating culturally diverse children. Teachers College Record, 105, 208-225.