AP and college credit opportunities in Ohio’s urban high schools: Are advanced students being shortchanged?

Editor’s note: This is the second post in a series about the performance of Ohio’s urban high schoolers. The first post examined graduation rates and ACT scores.

Recognizing that traditional four-year graduation rates send overly encouraging signals about whether students are ready for post-secondary education, Ohio rolled out six “Prepared for Success” measures in 2014 to create a more complete picture of high school success. In this post, I look at two of these metrics, Advanced Placement (participation rates and scores) and dual enrollment (percentage of students earning three or more college credits while in high school).[1] Three findings emerge.

First, while every Ohio Big 8 district fell well below the state averages for graduation rates and ACT scores, the same cannot be said for AP and dual enrollment. A few hold their own on AP participation and scores, and several outperform the state on dual enrollment. This likely reflects urban districts’ earnest attempts to close opportunity gaps for students, as well as their economies of scale and proximity to institutions of higher education, but it may also be caused by low state averages generally. Second, the data itself is worrisome: Much of Cleveland’s AP data appear to be incomplete, as does Toledo’s (according to a quick perusal of both districts’ high schools, it’s very unlikely that they have low or no participation in the program). These data will be rolled up into report card grades for the 2015–16 school year, so it’s imperative that state department of education staff and district leaders ensure data accuracy sooner rather than later. Third, far fewer students enroll in AP or graduate with college credit than appear to be ready for it (with “ready” defined as the percentage of students scoring advanced on Ohio’s Graduation Test). This suggests that Ohio is failing to challenge all of its high-achieving urban students.  

Advanced Placement

Across Ohio, one in five (20.6 percent) students enrolled in at least one AP course. AP enrollment varies widely across the Big 8, with Cincinnati (20 percent) and Columbus (19 percent) coming close to meeting the statewide average (Graph 1). Cincinnati is even piloting an online AP course access program, which should lift its participation rate further. Cleveland reports that just 0.2 percent of students enrolled in one AP course, yet a larger percentage (1.2) scored three or higher on AP exams. In other words, assuming that a student would need to take an AP course in order to pass it, Cleveland’s participation data appear to be underreported. It’s very likely that Toledo’s participation rate of zero is misreported as well. (A Google search of the districts’ high schools shows that AP is offered, and one assumes that at least a small number of students would take advantage of such offerings.) The lesson from Cleveland’s and Toledo’s suspect data—and an urgent one at that, given that report card grades will be affected by these data in just four months[2]—is that AP course enrollment must be reported and compiled accurately. Misreported data can lead to widespread data appeals and reporting delays and ultimately erode confidence in Ohio’s report cards. It also obscures vital information about schools’ offerings and student opportunities.

It’s interesting to compare participation in AP with the percentage of students scoring 3 or higher on an AP exam. Ideally, there would not be a cavernous gap between the two statistics. For instance, an encouraging three out of four Cincinnati students enrolled in AP scored a 3 or higher. While the participation rates were relatively high in Columbus and Dayton, however, few students passed their AP exams. This could be because more students are enrolled in AP courses than are academically ready for them. The discrepancy could also be due to the fact that students have to pay to take the AP exam. Low-income students may be eligible for exam fee reimbursement made possible through a federal grant, but the up-front financial costs might still act as a deterrent. 

Graph 1: Percent of class of 2014 enrolled in at least one AP course, and percent receiving an AP score of 3 or higher (on at least one exam) – Ohio’s Big 8 districts

[[{"fid":"115944","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"height":"591","width":"1066","style":"font-size: 13.008px; line-height: 1.538em; width: 500px; height: 277px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

Dual enrollment

When it comes to students earning college credit while still in college through Ohio’s dual enrollment program, three Big 8 districts beat the state average of 10.7, with Youngstown leading the way (driven by the results of its early college high school). In comparing the two programs—AP versus dual enrollment—Youngstown strongly favors dual enrollment, Akron has nearly identical participation rates, and AP participation is more common in the other five cities. Districts may see the merits of one program over another and may not push students toward both, but encouraging participation in at least one program is important.[3]

Graph 2: Percent of class of 2014 earning three or more post-secondary credits

[[{"fid":"115945","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"height":"549","width":"916","style":"width: 500px; height: 300px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

*As with AP participation, Toledo’s zero dual enrollment rate appears to be a reporting issue.

As graphs 1 and 2 indicate, most Big 8 districts have significant room to improve in their provision of both programs. Are schools failing to provide rigorous content to students who are likely ready for it? Or is low engagement driven by the fact that so many students in Ohio’s urban communities are ill-prepared academically?

To explore this question, I contrasted AP and dual enrollment data with Ohio Graduation Test data—specifically, the percentage of students in the class of 2014 scoring advanced (the state’s highest achievement level) in either reading or math on the OGT during their sophomore year. Theoretically, such students should be on track for rigorous coursework in high school. Some students, of course, may have switched schools between 2012 and 2014, so we’re not comparing the exact same group of students. It’s also unclear that testing at the advanced level on the OGT would predict success in AP or dual enrollment. But given the data, this is a fair starting point to begin examining opportunity gaps in urban high schools.

Table 1 suggests that at least half of Ohio’s Big 8 districts are under-providing (and/or possibly under-reporting, in the case of Cleveland and Toledo) AP and dual enrollment. In Akron, for instance, as many as 24 percent of students tested advanced in math as sophomores, but only half that many participated in AP or earned post-secondary credit by the time they graduated. On the other hand, Columbus and Dayton have a higher percentage of students enrolled in AP than what OGT advanced scores might have predicted. Are these districts somewhat “over-providing” AP and dual enrollment opportunities to students who may not be adequately prepared? In looking at building-level data, several high schools in both districts might be considered “over-providers”—the percentage of students scoring advanced on the state exam is far lower than those in the same class who go on to take AP or earn college credit via dual enrollment (Table 2).

Table 1: Percent of students (class of 2014) participating and earning college credit versus percent scoring advanced on Ohio Graduation Test, Ohio’s Big 8 districts

[[{"fid":"115946","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"height":"458","width":"1217","style":"width: 500px; height: 188px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

*Cleveland’s and Toledo’s AP participation rates are likely underreported, as is Toledo’s dual enrollment numbers.

An even starker opportunity gap appears at the building level. Many urban high schools appear to offer neither program (one-third of those I looked at), whether due to an actual absence of provision or simply lack of reporting. Many others (one in five) had lower percentages of students taking AP or using the dual enrollment program than what their OGT scores would predict.

Table 2 lists those schools that were among the top quartile in AP participation and/or dual enrollment. These schools deserve credit for connecting significant percentages of students to college coursework or AP. Still, some high schools ranking in the top quartile of Big 8 high schools have room to provide even more, given what their OGT scores predict about students’ readiness for more advanced coursework. (Schools with higher percentages of students scoring advanced than those participating in AP or dual enrollment are highlighted in green.)

Table 2: Top-providing high schools for AP and/or dual enrollment in Ohio’s Big 8 districts

[[{"fid":"115948","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"height":"850","width":"588","style":"width: 500px; height: 723px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

*Any of these schools could suffer from the same underreporting we observed in Cleveland and Toledo.
*Charter schools are italicized. In bold are percentages that earned a school placement in the top quartile for AP participation and/or enrollment among Ohio’s Big 8.

Ohio’s high school “Prepared for Success” report card measures add valuable information about whether students are truly college- and career-ready. However, readers should apply caution when interpreting this data. It appears that some districts—Cleveland and Toledo especially—may need to iron out reporting issues as soon as possible. Under-reporting appears at the building level as well, both for district and charter schools. Cincinnati leads the way on AP, and Youngstown has done a decent job connecting students to dual enrollment. But at least half of Ohio’s Big 8 districts appear to under-provide one or both programs, and even among the top-providing urban high schools, there appear to be more students ready for advanced content than are being provided access to it.