In 2012, the Alabama State Board of Education adopted Plan 2020, which embraced a vision for the state education system led by the motto: “Every child a graduate. Every graduate prepared.” The plan called for raising Alabama’s high school graduation rate to 90 percent, while at the same time producing graduates who are better prepared for college and the workplace. Since that time, significant progress occurred in raising the graduation rate from 72 percent in 2011 to 90 percent in 2018.

While the high graduation rate is laudable, state education leaders have raised concerns about the gap between the percent graduating and the percent prepared for college or work. The other half of the motto — “Every graduate prepared” — came under question.

The following chart shows Alabama high schools are closing the gap between the percentage of students graduating and the percentage of seniors demonstrating they are ready for college and the workforce.

According to yet-to-be finalized data from the Alabama State Department of Education, significant progress has been made over the past three years. Final and complete data are expected to be published later this year:

• In 2016, Alabama graduated 87 percent of its students, though only 66 percent were college and career ready. 

• In 2017, the gap closed, with 89 percent graduating and 71 percent college and career ready. 

• In 2018, improvement continued with 90 percent graduating and 75 percent college and career ready. 

Though the gap is still large, it is improving.

Continuing to close that gap is vital. The state has a goal of adding 500,000 highly-skilled workers to the workforce by 2025. To meet that goal, virtually all high school graduates will need to be prepared for education beyond high school or prepared to enter the workforce directly after high school.

The 2018 CCR data shows:

• Career Technical Education (CTE) certificates are the fastest-growing means for classifying students as college and career ready.

• Qualifying scores on the ACT and WorkKeys assessments are the two most common measures used to classify students as college and career ready.

• Systems and schools leverage different strategies for preparing students – reflecting varying strengths, resources, and goals for education.

• Some systems are very strong in particular areas and weak in others, which may not meet the needs of all students.

• Disparities in performance exist across schools and student subgroups that may go beyond poverty.

Alabama’s College and Career Readiness Measure

The Alabama College and Career Strategic Plan (a component of Plan 2020) articulated a vision in which all Alabama students graduate high school college and career ready. The plan defines college and career readiness as:  

“…a high school graduate [that] has the English and mathematics knowledge and skills necessary to either (1) qualify for and succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing college courses without the need for remedial coursework, or (2) qualify for and succeed in the postsecondary job training and/or education necessary for their chosen career (i.e. technical/vocational program, community college, apprenticeship or significant on-the-job training).”

High school graduates are classified as college and career ready (CCR) if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. Score college ready in at least one subject on the ACT
2. Score at the silver level or above on the WorkKeys Assessment
3. Earn a passing score on an Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate Exam (college-level courses delivered in high schools)
4. Successfully earn a Career Technical Education credential
5. Earn dual enrollment credit at a college or university
6. Successfully enlist in the military

Some of these measures are more aligned with college preparation and others with career preparation.

The state now provides data on the overall CCR rate and data on the individual metrics that create the measure. Detailed analysis is found in the interactive charts below, which allow users to explore college and career readiness percentages for high school seniors in 2018 at the state, school system, and high school level.

Graduation and CCR Rates

The first chart shows the percentage of students graduating, followed by the percentage of seniors who are college and career ready, followed by the percentage achieving readiness on the various performance measures that compose the CCR rate.  While preset for the state in 2018, the filters can be used to produce the same chart for individual school systems in 2017.

Statewide, the percentage of seniors testing “ready” is highest for the WorkKeys assessment, followed closely by ACT. Those are the two main channels through which a CCR rating is achieved, though a growing number of students are deemed CCR by earning a credential in a Career Technical Education (CTE) field.  Earning college credit or a qualifying score on an AP exam are also used by a smaller percentage of students. A very low percentage of seniors achieve a CCR rating by getting a passing score on an International Baccalaureate exam or successfully enlisting in the military.  Exploring these measures at the system and school level suggests the use of different strategies across school systems reflects different goals for education, local needs and strengths, and characteristics of the community.  

Graduation – CCR Gap by Local System

Chart 2 shows the graduation rate, CCR rate, and gap between these two rates in each system. They are listed in the order of CCR rate from highest to lowest. The Piedmont City School System is No. 1 in the state for CCR — the only system where 100 percent of seniors are classified as college and career ready. The system also graduates close to 100 percent of its students.

Some systems actually have negative gaps where the percent of seniors who are college and career ready exceeds the percent who graduate after four years in high school. This includes the Coffee County System, and city systems in Opp, Arab, Satsuma, and Piedmont. 

On the other end of the spectrum, systems with the lowest CCR rates tend to have the highest gaps between graduation and CCR rates, though not always. 

Graduation – CCR Gap by School

Individual schools are showing similar trends, with wide disparity between high and low performing schools.

• Keith Middle-High School in Dallas County graduates 90 percent of its students, matching the state average, but only 19 percent of its seniors are measured to be college and career ready.
• Barbour County High School graduates 77 percent of its students, but only 12.5 percent of seniors are measured as college and career ready.

Having both high graduation rates and CCR rates indicates that the diplomas issued by those schools have credibility and value. Where graduation rates are high but CCR rates are low, there is cause for concern.

Individual Components of CCR by System and School

The remaining charts in this section display individual components of college and career readiness by system and school. The final chart shows the percent change in CCR rates from 2017 to 2018.

Overall for the state, the largest change occurred in the percent of students earning career technical education credentials, increasing from 22 to 29 percent. The state and individual systems have put an increased focus on providing career-related coursework in high school, and the increases here may reflect that emphasis. At the same time, it is important for policy-makers to monitor what career credentials students are earning. For this to be a meaningful measure of career readiness, those credentials need to be recognized and valued by employers and should be in a field in which a student is likely to obtain work or more advanced training.

Other increases occurred in students earning college credit (10% to 13%), and in WorkKeys readiness (55% to 57%).

As cited earlier, when looking at individual systems and schools, it becomes apparent that different places achieve college and career readiness through different strategies.

• Mountain Brook is No. 1 in ACT, WorkKeys, and AP, but lower on college credit and career technical credentials.
• Vestavia is second on ACT readiness, among the top schools on the AP exam, and in the top 25 percent in career technical credentials, but much lower on WorkKeys and dual enrollment.
• Opp City exceeds the state average on all measures of CCR but is especially high-achieving in students earning college credit, where they are No. 1 in the state, and in career technical credentials, where they are No. 5. 
• The system with the highest CCR rating, Piedmont City Schools, is at the state average on ACT and WorkKeys, but far and above other systems in credentials.

Are schools meeting the needs of all students? One concern this analysis raises is that some systems may not be meeting the varying needs of all students. Those systems scoring high or at least moderately high on a balance of college and career measures are providing a breadth of services that can help students shine where they show interest and potential. The lack of balance in some systems or schools may reflect an intentional emphasis on what they value most: college preparation or career readiness. It is important for schools to assess whether they are providing options that fit the needs and interests of the diverse array of students they serve.

Conclusion

As a composite of various academic and career indicators, Alabama’s College and Career Ready metric reflects three important concepts.

• Every student needs either a post-secondary education or credible career-focused training in high school.

• Post-secondary education need not be a traditional four-year college degree.

• There are many different pathways for students.

The gap between Alabama’s graduation rate and the number of graduates deemed college and career ready has been a concern, but one with optimism given progress in closing that gap.

Career Technical Education certificates are the fastest-growing measure through which students are earning the CCR marker. These credentialing programs are meant to prepare students for workforce opportunities in high-demand fields right out of high school.  They combine academics with work-based learning as a strategy to address the widening gap between job applicants’ skills and the skills employers need. The state will need to continuously ensure that all courses and concentrations are of high quality and relevant to the workforce needs in the state and in local communities.  

Beyond preparing students with skills for specific jobs, an array of academic, extracurricular, and work-based learning opportunities can develop the student as a whole person capable of thoughtful decision-making and meet the unique needs and preferences of each student. Academics, career training, life skills, and the cultivation of passions and interests can all come together to support college, career, and life readiness.

Alabama is assessing progress on part of this, but not all. The state has made a good faith effort to evaluate college and career readiness through a variety of measures such as the ACT, college dual enrollment, WorkKeys, and Career and Technical Education (CTE) certification. Still, this is a changing and growing field. Skills and attributes needed in various careers are continually changing. Alabama should remain alert to more rigorous and authentic measures of college and career readiness that may emerge.

The Alabama Legislature is currently considering a bill that would potentially overhaul state education governance and policymaking as it relates to K—12 public schools in the state. The bill, which has already passed the Senate, would abolish the elected State Board of Education and the Board-appointed position of State Superintendent of Education. The bill would create a Governor-appointed Commission, the Alabama Commission on Elementary and Secondary Education. The Commission would appoint a Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education to be approved by the Senate. If approved by the Legislature, the proposal will be placed on the statewide ballot as an amendment to the Alabama Constitution.  

State commissions or boards of education and chief executive officers, whether they be superintendents or secretaries are central to state education governance. The process used for their selection has implications for accountability, decision-making, and setting priorities for a state’s K—12 education system.

All but two states (Minnesota and Missouri) have a school board or commission. Eleven states have elected school boards (12 if including the district of Columbia). The rest have appointed boards, most of which are appointed by the governor. States with elected school boards or commissions are listed below.

States with Elected Boards

• Alabama
• Colorado
• Kansas
• Louisiana
• Michigan
• Nebraska
• New Mexico – only an advisory group
• Nevada – Mixture of elected and appointed members
• Ohio
• Texas
• Utah

The proposal before the Legislature resembles the governance structure currently in place in 12 states in which the governor appoints the school board and the board appoints the superintendent.

Education Governance

Why does this matter? States have the responsibility for implementing federal education law and developing, implementing, and managing state-level policies. For this to work well, several institutions must work well together.   

State legislatures must pass effective legislation.

Governors can propose education legislation and have the statutory authority to approve or veto legislation. As the state’s chief executive, the governor carries out the laws passed by the legislature. They can also play an important role in shaping the priorities of a state board when they have the power to appoint. In some states, as in Alabama, the governor serves as president of the school board.

State boards of education are responsible for statewide curriculum standards; high school graduation requirements; qualifications for professional education personnel; state accountability and assessment programs; standards for accreditation of local school districts; preparation programs for teachers and administrators; administration of federal assistance programs; and the development of rules and regulations for the administration of state programs. State boards are often seen as the lay representative of the state’s population and as the liaison between professional educators and policymakers. Boards should play a role as advocates for education and, in some states, have been influential in building consensus on state education policy.[1]  

Finally, state superintendents are responsible for administrative oversight of state education agencies and implementation of state law and board policies. Policy making can occur as superintendents interpret laws and policies they are responsible for implementing.

A report issued by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) outlines how state boards and state superintendents are chosen in varying states, and how the majority of states fall into one of four models. These models, described below, have implications for how state leaders work together in setting priorities and implementing policies.[2]

Model 1: Governor Appoints Board and Superintendent

In 10 states (Delaware, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia), the governor has the most power in setting priorities and ensuring they are implemented.

Consequently, the superintendent and board should both be aligned with the governor, though the superintendent may feel more independent of the board than in other models where the board appoints them. The governor is accountable to the voters and can be held more directly accountable for the status and effectiveness of education in the state

Model 2: Governor Appoints Board and Board Appoints Superintendent

In 12 states (Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Rhode Island, and West Virginia), the governor still has power in shaping the education agenda but has less direct control over the implementation of policies through the superintendent’s office, as compared to Model 1. The Board and Superintendent would potentially have a closer relationship than found in Model 1. The proposed Commission in Alabama fits this model.

Model 3:  Governor Appoints Board while Superintendent is Elected

In 10 states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wyoming), voters may see different platforms for education supported by the governor and the superintendent. The governor appoints the board, and this becomes a channel through which policy is formed. The superintendent may exercise more autonomy in interpreting those policies and how they will be implemented in the state.

Model 4:  Board is Elected and Appoints the Superintendent

In Alabama and five other states (Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, and Utah), the governor and the board are both directly accountable to voters. Since the board appoints the superintendent, this increases their power. In this model, the governor is likely in the weakest position to craft or control the education agenda, compared to the other models. According to ECS, states using this model potentially face stronger challenges aligning and collaborating across state leadership, unless the voting public is clear in its desires. When alignment is not present, states will likely face limitations in pushing for ambitious policy changes. At the same time, an elected board will be highly responsive to voters and will seek out their opinion, preferences, and needs.

According to ECS, twelve additional states (Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin function under modified versions of the above models. Five of these elect their board, though New Mexico’s is only an advisory commission. Two of these states elect their state superintendent. No state elects both their state board and superintendent.

Elected and Appointed State Boards: Strengths and Weakness

The process for selecting the board and superintendent can influence the goals for these officials. Some groups, including the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE), emphasize the role of state boards in representing the interests of the lay public in accordance with democratic principles. Whether elected or not, NASBE contends that:

“State boards of education are integral to the governance of public education in the United States. State Boards, operating as a lay body over state education, are intended to serve as an unbiased broker for education decision-making, focusing on the big picture, articulating the long-term vision and needs of public education, and making policy based on the best interests of the public and the young people of America.”

Elected board members are charged with asking important and challenging questions that lead to good policy. The question is whether boards effectively play this role.

Proponents say elected boards are more responsive to the public will. As elected officials, board members have their rightful place and, ideally, are only responsible to the people who elected them. They should be more empowered to oppose what they believe is not in the interests of the state’s schools and children.

At the same time, as elected officials, re-election is an important goal, if not the central goal. Thus elected board members may find themselves where the interests and desires of voters conflict with policies, programs, and practices that best serve children.

Conversely, proponents of appointed boards cite the strength of the vetting process in creating boards with knowledgeable, skilled, effective board members. An appointment process allows the governor to consider the needs of the board and the qualities different candidates would bring. Others cite that governor-appointed boards and appointed superintendents create a more efficient, aligned, and harmonious system for setting and implementing education priorities. Ambitious and substantive changes to a state’s school system are more feasible in a more efficient system that encourages collaboration and strengthens the governor’s capacity to effect change. However, while somewhat insulated, appointed boards are not immune from political pressure. 

Conclusion

The selection process for state school boards and state superintendents is important, and there are reasonable arguments for both elections and appointments. Regardless, the selection process will not remove politics. The nature of the task — setting and implementing the state’s K—12 education policy — means state school boards will likely always be politicized to some degree.

Thus, it is essential to establish both an effective governing structure and qualified leaders committed to strengthening teaching and learning in Alabama.

A quality education is how dreams are realized and the people’s voice is strengthened.

---

References

[1] National Association of State Boards of Education (2019). “State Board of Education Responsibilities”

[2] Education Commission of the States (2017). “50-State Comparison: K-12 Governance Structures.”