FAQ's

The primary goal was to establish what universities expect of entering students as defined by what students must do in entry-level university courses. To do so, S4S identified Knowledge and Skills for University Success standards. These standards help communicate university expectations to states and high schools in language that parallels the standards-based systems that are increasingly being implemented nationwide. This information is available to states as they develop their K-12 academic standards and assessments, as well as to textbook producers, high school teachers, students and parents. The project will be successful if it results in more alignment between K-12 and higher education systems.

The goal was not to have all high schools organize their instructional programs to prepare all students for college. It was, however, to ensure that state standards do reflect college preparation needs as one of their primary emphases. Given that approximately half of all high school graduates enroll directly in four-year institutions or in programs at two-year institutions designed for college transfer (Conditions of Education, 1997), it seems reasonable and appropriate that state standards reflect college preparation as at least one of their purposes.

According to research conducted by the Center for Educational Policy Research in 2001, involvement by higher education faculty and administration in state standards setting has been restricted to several narrowly-defined areas. Some faculty members have contributed their expertise in K-12 content knowledge. Some admissions officers have been asked to "sign off" on K-12 standards. Some higher education administrators have participated in policy discussions. But few standards-setting processes have engaged university faculty broadly or asked them what they specifically expect for university success. Standards-setting has tended to focus on "world-class standards:" preparation for the work world and for how to be well-prepared citizens. These laudable goals are not necessarily in conflict with university preparation, but do not automatically guarantee it, either.

This was a project of The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Association of American Universities (AAU) and 17 member universities. These organizations and universities contracted with researchers at the University of Oregon to design, implement and complete the project. The Pew Charitable Trusts joined with the AAU in funding the project, housed at the University of Oregon's Center for Educational Policy Research.

S4S used three main data sources. A series of meetings were held throughout the nation to gather information directly from faculty and staff who teach or work with freshmen at AAU universities. These meetings, known as the National Conversation on Knowledge and Skills for University Success, involved more than 400 participants and helped identify many of the major areas higher education faculty members think are most important for success in their courses and at their universities. Notes were taken in the sessions, which were broken down into six content areas and led by trained facilitators provided by S4S or by volunteer faculty from the hosting institution. Each session was also audiotaped, and many were videotaped. The results were compiled and analyzed using techniques that identified the recurrent themes and particular details of the faculty recommendations along with broader issues that were raised.

The second source of data was student work samples. These were examples of work freshmen produced in their entry-level courses. AAU faculty members reviewed the work samples to determine which were most representative of the expectations they have of incoming freshmen. Each work sample was then annotated to highlight the reasons it was representative of desired knowledge and skills.

The third source of data was course syllabi. Faculty members submitted actual outlines from freshman-level classes. These were analyzed to ascertain the knowledge and skills required to succeed in the course. S4S researchers conducted content analysis on assignments, tests, reading lists and projects along with grading criteria.

The project relied on triangulation of the data sources described above combined with formal and regular review by university faculty and participants in project activities to maximize reliability and validity. This faculty involvement was formalized via the Content Review Panel, which was comprised of faculty and content experts from all the disciplinary areas included in the National Conversation.

Once trained researchers on the S4S staff performed the initial analysis of data from these three sources, results were shared with the Content Review Panel. These discipline-based scholars critiqued and commented upon the staff's initial analysis. They reviewed source data documents as well as the analytic processes employed on the data. Subsequent to this review, results were shared with all participants in the National Conversation and additional interested AAU faculty for further feedback and reaction.

It would have been much easier- and much less precise. These national standards were developed with reference to performance at various levels in the K-12 system and with an eye toward what all students should be expected to know and be able to do. They are comprehensive documents, containing all the content knowledge and cognitive skills it is hoped students develop throughout twelve years of schooling. While these documents are very useful as outlines of the overall parameters of a K-12 instructional program, they do not necessarily communicate as well what universities expect specifically. Standards for Success, at the very least, examined the degree to which the content standards developed by national subject-discipline groups are equivalent to, or highly congruent with, what faculty members say they want from incoming students.

Nevertheless, these documents are important reference points and were incorporated into the analysis of data from the National Conversation. Project researchers performed discrepancy analyses between these documents and the three sources of data collected from university faculty. They determined the degree to which freshman-level course expectations were an extension of skills and knowledge espoused in these national content standards documents. The results of these analyses were also critiqued by the faculty of the Content Review Panel.

The reality is that essentially every state has some form of academic standards and forty-seven have some form of testing program to determine how well students are learning them. Thirty-five of these testing programs are "high stakes," having implications for children, educators or both. Twenty-four are related to high school graduation, or will be. Standards for Success neither condones nor condemns these systems; it simply acknowledges their existence and influence. If higher education does not provide guidance, it does not mean these systems will cease to exist any more than providing guidance will ensure they succeed. Continuing to ignore this major change in public education will not likely have much of an effect one way or another. Acknowledging it will not necessarily cause higher education to obligate itself in any specific fashion. Standards for Success has simply created the potential for higher education to be influential, if AAU universities individually or collectivly choose to be.

It may become increasingly difficult for higher education to maintain its distance from this topic, particularly as some states look to tie performance on state tests to university admissions in some fashion. It may be just as dangerous to avoid involvement, particularly if higher education is eventually cast as the major obstacle to implementation of state standards and assessments. A more fundamental question is whether higher education has any responsibility to provide any guidance to the K-12 system as that system rethinks its expectations for students.

Standards for Success relies on admissions officers' opinions and judgments in a number of areas. Their input is provided via the Admissions Advisory Group, fifteen admissions officers from AAU universities who help guide the project and review its work and objectives as they relate to admissions issues. This group was organized and is facilitated by Robert Laird, who most recently was director of undergraduate admissions at the University of California, Berkeley.

Since the goal was to determine what college freshmen are actually expected to do in college, university faculty members were the most appropriate source of data. If the project's goals had been to discuss mutual or common expectations or to consider where educational practices were not congruent across systems, a joint conversation would have been more appropriate.

Standards for Success has extensive plans for engaging high school teachers in future discussion and consideration of project findings. The goal is not to dictate to high school teachers, but to stimulate a more thoughtful consideration of the ways in which students should best be prepared for university success and how preparation should occur. State standards and assessments are already influencing high school curriculum and instruction.