Inequity by Design? Aligning High School Math Offerings and Public Flagship College Entrance Requirements.
Saved in:
| Title: | Inequity by Design? Aligning High School Math Offerings and Public Flagship College Entrance Requirements. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Rodriguez, Awilda (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Journal of Higher Education. 2018, Vol. 89 Issue 2, p153-183. 31p. 7 Charts. |
| Subjects: | High school graduation rates, College entrance examinations, Civil rights, Logistic regression analysis, Science education |
| Abstract: | Many have called for improved alignment between high school graduation and college admission requirements. However, few have empirically examined the extent to which courses needed for college admission are not offered by high schools, which I call underalignment. Using high school-level data from the Office for Civil Rights, I examined high school math underalignment relative to public flagships’ published minimum math requirements. Overall, 2.2% of public high schools did not offer the math course required for admission by their respective state flagship. Because minimum requirements may not reflect competitive admission processes such as those found at selective flagships or for intended science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors, I estimated 2 additional benchmarks: the probable math requirement based on the flagship’s selectivity and the highest math course most commonly taken by entering STEM majors. When considering probable and STEM math benchmarks, underalignment was higher—6.9% and 29.0% of high schools, respectively. Findings from logistic regression analysis show low-income student-of-color high schools have a higher probability of underalignment compared with most other high school types, net of school characteristics and state-level fixed effects across all three benchmarks. Policy implications for improving alignment and equity are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of Higher Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Many have called for improved alignment between high school graduation and college admission requirements. However, few have empirically examined the extent to which courses needed for college admission are not offered by high schools, which I call underalignment. Using high school-level data from the Office for Civil Rights, I examined high school math underalignment relative to public flagships’ published minimum math requirements. Overall, 2.2% of public high schools did not offer the math course required for admission by their respective state flagship. Because minimum requirements may not reflect competitive admission processes such as those found at selective flagships or for intended science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors, I estimated 2 additional benchmarks: the probable math requirement based on the flagship’s selectivity and the highest math course most commonly taken by entering STEM majors. When considering probable and STEM math benchmarks, underalignment was higher—6.9% and 29.0% of high schools, respectively. Findings from logistic regression analysis show low-income student-of-color high schools have a higher probability of underalignment compared with most other high school types, net of school characteristics and state-level fixed effects across all three benchmarks. Policy implications for improving alignment and equity are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00221546 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/00221546.2017.1341757 |
