Research shows that students who take a certain core curriculum are better prepared for college than those students who do not; however, data indicate that taking core courses is not enough: Teachers must assign greater rigor in all courses they teach, especially courses needed for college (Schmeiser, 2007). As early as 1983 the National Commission on Excellence in Education in A Nation at Risk called for high schools to require a minimum common core course curriculum that all high school students must pass to include 4 years of English, 3 years of mathematics, 3 years of science, 3 years of social studies, one-half year of computer science, and for the college bound, 2 years of foreign language. Many states have complied and exceeded that mandate, yet as late as 2006, data suggest that only one fourth of students entering college are sufficiently prepared such that they can pass college courses (ACT, 2006; Dougherty, Mellor, & Jian, 2006). Against a backdrop of a society in which a college education is essential to maintaining a livelihood, researchers report that high schools are failing to prepare students for college and jobs of the future (Eisen, Jasinowski & Kleinert, 2005; Friedman, 2007; Gates, 2005; Wirt, Choy, Rooney, Provasnik, et al., 2004).
The ACT Profile Report (2010) recommends that there are key indicators that schools can use to improve scores and increase college readiness: (1) Providing access for more students to take the ACT (or another college placement test), (2) Making core curriculum a priority, (3) Assuring that students are taking the right kind of courses, (4) Increasing rigor of courses, especially the core courses necessary for college, and (5) Planning guidance activities based on students’ career and college aspirations. This case study explores the academic preparation and achievement levels of students at one suburban high school in the South to determine student preparation for college as a result of Suburban High School’s college preparation program. This study used the above benchmarks and other sources of information as a means of evaluating the adequacy of this school’s college preparation program. Secondary school educators and personnel can use the methods used and findings from this study as guidance in evaluating the quality of their college preparation program.
|Advisor:||DeFord, Diane E.|
|Commitee:||Johnson, Robert, Mousseau, Tim, Oglan, Victoria, Styslinger, Mary|
|School:||University of South Carolina|
|Department:||Language & Literacy|
|School Location:||United States -- South Carolina|
|Source:||DAI-A 73/02, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Instructional Design, Secondary education, Literacy, Reading instruction|
|Keywords:||Academic rigor, College preparedness, Core curriculum, Instruction intensity, Level of instruction|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be