In 2000, North Carolina’s university system (UNC) announced that it would increase from three to four the minimum number of high school math courses students must complete in order to be considered for admission. The intent was to increase the likelihood that applicants be truly college-ready, thereby increasing the likelihood of degree completion. Researchers from CALDER/AIR recently looked at the UNC data and connected it to K–12 student information to gain an interesting insight into how post-secondary efforts to raise the bar affect student course-taking behavior in high school.
The study posed three questions: Did the tougher college admission requirement increase the number of math courses taken by high school students (North Carolina’s high school graduation requirements remained at three math courses, despite UNC’s higher bar for admissions)?[1] Did it alter enrollment patterns at UNC schools? And did the hoped-for increase in college readiness and completion result?
Overall, high school students did take more math courses after the UNC policy change. As researchers expected, the biggest increases were at the middle- and lower-achievement deciles—high-achievers were already taking more than three courses—but the increases were not uniform across districts. This led researchers to look deeper into math sequences in specific districts across the state (urban, suburban, and rural) both before and after the new policy was announced. They found that some districts made no changes to existing sequences and that a number of them made it difficult to complete four courses by either being too lax (integrated math pathways rather than delineated Algebra/Geometry/etc.) or too stringent (strict prerequisites). Researchers posit that larger and better-resourced districts were able to make needed changes in their course sequences more readily than their counterparts (more and specialized teaching staff, textbooks, technology, etc.), but they do not discount the possibility that some districts and schools were simply unwilling to make the changes. They offer no answers as to why this might be, although researchers speculate that districts with low numbers of college-bound students might not have wanted to expend the resources for meager benefits. Either way, after the two-year policy rollout, any student in a district unable or unwilling to make the needed changes was effectively locked out of UNC—a disheartening thought, even for those who believe that college is not necessary for all kids. It’s also an ill omen for other bar-raising efforts that will come down the pike in the future.
Researchers did detect an increase in college enrollment, but one that fell within rather than beyond the “usual” achievement deciles. In other words, the new policy did not open the doors of college to more lower-performing students by building up skills in K–12, but it did seem to have the intended effect of giving incoming students more and better math training than in previous years. Ultimately, only minor increases in college completion could be associated with the new math requirement (keep in mind that we’re talking only about North Carolinian K–12 students going on to UNC campuses), but those who did likely reaped the benefits of college completion and faced less student debt to go with it. Additionally, there seemed to be an unanticipated bump in the number of STEM-related majors among those graduates.
In the end, the UNC policy change seems to have done little to advance the laudable goal of increasing college completion. But the CALDER researchers have done an excellent job going the extra mile to show what effects post-secondary changes can have at the high school level. To wit: a continuing disconnect between high school graduation and college readiness.
SOURCE: Charles Clotfelter, Steven Hemelt, Helen Ladd, “Raising the Bar for College Admission: North Carolina’s Increase in Minimum Math Course Requirements,” CALDER/AIR Working Paper (July 2016)
[1] A two-year delay in consequences (refused admission for those who hadn’t completed four math courses) for the new policy at UNC created excellent conditions for the researchers to determine whether observed changes in high school math sequences and student course-taking patterns were likely related to the UNC policy change.
