Report Number: 2016-114

College Readiness of California's High School Students
The State Can Better Prepare Students for College by Adopting New Strategies and Increasing Oversight

Introduction

Background

There were 420 high school districts and unified school districts—that include students from kindergarten to grade 12—in California with nearly 1.8 million enrolled high school students in the 2015–16 school year. To ensure that all of these students have the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed, districts have been increasing the emphasis they place on college readiness. According to Higher Education in California, a report published by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), the State’s higher education system is not keeping up with the changing economy. The PPIC projects that if current trends persist, 38 percent of jobs in 2030 will require at least a bachelor’s degree. However, population and education trends suggest that only 33 percent of working‑age adults in California will have bachelor’s degrees by 2030—a shortfall of 1.1 million college graduates. The PPIC suggests that the State needs to act now to close this skills gap and meet future demand.

College Preparatory Coursework Requirements

Since 1965 the University of California (UC) has required high schools to submit for approval a list of college preparatory courses that fulfill the requirements for admission to UC. In 1976 the Legislature required of the California State University (CSU), and requested of UC, to establish a model set of uniform academic standards for high school courses for admission to CSU and UC. As Figure 1 shows, these academic standards encompass the high school coursework UC and CSU require for admission. These courses are called the a‑g courses because of the letters assigned to each subject area: a is for history, b is for English, and so on. Only courses certified through the UC’s course approval process are valid for admission purposes to both the UC and CSU systems. The intent of college preparatory coursework is to ensure that students attain a body of general knowledge that will provide breadth and perspective to new, more advanced study.

To qualify as an a‑g course, a high school course must be certified through the UC’s course approval process, as we further describe in the text box. According to UC’s associate director of undergraduate admissions, UC approves these courses based on the courses meeting specific criteria. UC maintains lists of each school’s college preparatory courses and instructs schools to update lists annually. Although other states’ university systems have general coursework requirements, only California, Georgia, Nevada, and Kansas have statewide processes in place to centrally approve those courses required for college admission.

Figure 1
Minimum College Preparatory Coursework Necessary for Admission to California’s Public Universities

Source: The University of California (UC).

Notes: Students must complete each course with a grade of C‑ or better to be admitted to California’s public universities.

UC refers to Foreign Language as languages other than English.

State law requires districts to provide all qualified students with timely opportunities to enroll in each college preparatory course necessary to fulfill the requirements for admission to the State’s public universities. Although state law sets certain minimum graduation requirements for high school students throughout the State, districts can adopt other coursework requirements. For example, districts may require varying levels of math or foreign language requirements for students to be eligible to graduate. Similarly, school districts have the option of requiring all students to complete college preparatory coursework to graduate. San Francisco, San Diego, and Los Angeles Unified School Districts, among others, require students to complete a full sequence of college preparatory courses before they can graduate.

Educational Funding and Oversight

California’s education system involves both statewide and local entities. The State Board of Education (State Board) is the State’s kindergarten through grade 12 policy‑making body; it also adopts academic standards, assessments, and templates for local control and accountability plans. The California Department of Education (Education), on the other hand, is responsible for implementing the policies created by the State Board and overseeing school districts. Education also receives data from schools about graduation rates, enrollments, and other statistics through a program known as the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System. In addition, the 58 county offices of education (county offices) are responsible for examining and approving school district budgets. County offices may also provide or help formulate new curricula and instructional materials and training and data processing services.

The adoption of the Local Control Funding Formula (funding formula) in 2013 revised the funding allocation for districts. In addition, under this funding formula, districts receive specific funds to help unduplicated students. State law describes an unduplicated student as a pupil who is either classified as an English learner, eligible for free or reduced price meals, or is a foster youth.

Further, the Legislature approved additional funding for districts in 2016 when it created the College Readiness Block Grant (Block Grant). The Block Grant allocated $200 million to provide additional support to high school students, particularly unduplicated students, to increase the number who enroll in institutions of higher education and complete bachelor’s degrees within four years. Education distributed the funds to districts based on the number of unduplicated high school students they enrolled in 2015–16. Districts can use the funds for support activities such as professional development for teachers, administrators, and counselors; counseling programs; and programs to expand access to coursework to satisfy the college preparatory course requirements.

Scope and Methodology

The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) directed the California State Auditor to conduct an audit of college preparatory coursework at a selection of high schools from three school districts. We list the objectives that the Audit Committee approved and the methods we used to address those objectives in Table 1.

Table 1
Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them

Audit Objective			Method
1	Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and regulations significant to the audit objectives.		Reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and other relevant background materials applicable to access to and completion of a‑g courses.
2	Determine the percentage of a‑g courses offered by each district and selected high school. To the extent possible, determine how many students at the high schools are eligible to enroll in these classes and whether the number of available courses is sufficient to offer courses to all eligible students.		Selected Coachella Valley, San Francisco, and Stockton Unified School Districts and six high schools within those districts from among the 13 potential districts noted in the audit request based on a variety of factors, including a‑g completion rate, unduplicated pupil percentage, and geographic location. Obtained and analyzed student‑level data from our selected districts and high schools for graduation years 2013 through 2015 for all enrolled students to determine whether sufficient access to college preparatory coursework existed. Reviewed master schedules at each of the six high schools. Obtained and analyzed certain enrollment and completion data from the California Department of Education (Education), including the percentage of a‑g courses offered and statewide completion rates. All of the districts we interviewed confirmed that there are no eligibility requirements for college preparatory coursework.
3	At each district and the selected high schools, determine the following information, to the extent possible, and whether barriers exist that prevent specific populations of students from enrolling in or completing a‑g coursework at rates comparable to those of their peers:		Obtained and analyzed student‑level enrollment and completion data from our selected districts and high schools for graduation years 2013 through 2015. Interviewed district and high school personnel related to college preparatory coursework barriers that students may face.
	a.	The total number of students enrolled, categorized by race, ethnicity, gender, unduplicated pupil status (as defined by California Education Code section 42238.02), and English learner status.	Obtained and analyzed student‑level enrollment and completion data from our selected districts and high schools for graduation years 2013 through 2015.
	b.	The percentage of students, by grade, enrolled in a‑g courses.	Obtained and analyzed student‑level enrollment and completion data from our selected districts and high schools for graduation years 2013 through 2015.
	c.	Enrollment rates for a‑g courses by course, grade, race, ethnicity, gender, unduplicated pupil status, and English learner status.	Obtained and analyzed student‑level enrollment and completion data from our selected districts and high schools for graduation years 2013 through 2015.
	d.	The percentage of students on track to complete a‑g coursework by grade.	Obtained and analyzed student‑level enrollment and completion data from our selected districts and high schools for graduation years 2013 through 2015. Defined an on track model based on University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) credit and course requirements and interviews with district personnel. This model does not account for all of the means by which students can bypass the general a‑g coursework requirements. For example, the UC and CSU allow students to take and pass an Advanced Placement exam instead of completing a related a‑g course. Moreover, there are certain validation rules for circumstances in which students are presumed to have completed the lower‑level coursework if they have successfully completed advanced work in an area of sequential knowledge. Our model includes the foreign language validation rule. Finally, our model considers students to have met the requirements if they received a C‑ or better in each course.
	e.	The a‑g course completion rate by course, grade, race, ethnicity, gender, unduplicated pupil status, and English learner status.	Obtained and analyzed student‑level enrollment and completion data from our selected districts and high schools for graduation year 2013 through 2015. Interviewed district and high school personnel related to college preparatory coursework completion. Obtained and analyzed student transcripts. Identified and verified district, high school, and charter school best practices related to college preparatory coursework completion.
	f.	The average grade point average (GPA) for students completing a‑g coursework by grade, race, ethnicity, gender, unduplicated pupil status, and English learner status.	Obtained and analyzed student level enrollment and completion data, including GPAs, from our selected districts and high schools for graduation years 2013 through 2015.>
4	Review and assess the process that the districts and high schools use to offer a‑g coursework to students.		Interviewed district and high school personnel to determine the process used to create the master schedule each year and to submit a‑g courses for approval to the UC. Reviewed and assessed the UC’s a‑g requirements and its process for reviewing and approving a‑g courses. Compared UC approved a‑g courses to courses offered at our selected high schools. Determined the level of outreach and interaction the UC has with districts and schools.
5	Review and assess any other issues that are related to the audit.		Interviewed and gathered documents from Education, County Offices of Education, the California Collaborative for Education Excellence, the State Board of Education, and the UC to determine their role, if any, related to college preparatory coursework. Obtained and analyzed the college preparedness portions of the local control and accountability plans for each of the three districts. Interviewed personnel in the remaining 10 districts noted in the audit request related to college preparatory coursework access and completion. Reviewed other states to determine whether similar a‑g requirements exist. Obtained a list from the UC of all school districts in the State that did not offer at least one course in each a‑g category. We verified that those districts all offer at least one course in each a‑g category, either by correcting past master schedule errors, or by offering online courses that would satisfy the requirement.

Sources: California State Auditor’s analysis of Joint Legislative Audit Committee audit request number 2016‑114, planning documents, and analysis of information and documentation identified in the column titled Method.

Assessment of Data Reliability

In performing this audit, we obtained electronic data files extracted from the information systems listed in Table 2. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, whose standards we are statutorily required to follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of computer‑processed information that we use to support findings, conclusions, or recommendations. Table 2 describes the analyses we conducted using data from these information systems, our methods for testing, and the results of our assessments. Although these determinations may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Table 2
Methods Used to Assess Data Reliability

INFORMATION SYSTEM	PURPOSE	METHOD AND RESULT	CONCLUSION
San Francisco Unified School District (San Francisco) Synergy Student Information System (Synergy) for 2013–14 through 2014–15 Student Information System for 2009–10 through 2012–13 Horizon System National School Lunch Program data for 2009–10 through 2014–15 Foster Focus System foster youth data for 2009–10 through 2014–15	To determine a‑g completion rates by students’ race, ethnicity, gender, unduplicated pupil status, and English learner status.	We performed data-set verification and electronic testing of key data elements and did not identify any significant issues. We did not perform full accuracy and completeness testing of these data because they come from partially paperless systems, and thus, hard‑copy source documentation was not consistently available for review. However, to gain some assurance that San Francisco’s data contained information for students applicable to our analysis, we reconciled the total number of students included in San Francisco’s data for each academic year to the enrollment data the California Department of Education (Education) publishes on its website. To gain some assurance that San Francisco correctly identified college preparatory coursework, we compared a selection of course data to the University of California’s (UC) listing of certified courses and found that San Francisco had misidentified 10 courses. However, these courses did not ultimately affect any students’ overall completion of a‑g requirements.	Undetermined reliability for this purpose. Although this determination may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Stockton Unified School District (Stockton) Synergy for 2009–10 through 2014–15 eOfficeSuite National School Lunch Program data for 2009–10 through 2012–13 Coachella Valley Unified School District (Coachella) Aeries Student Information System for 2009–10 through 2014–15	To determine a‑g completion rates by students’ race, ethnicity, gender, unduplicated pupil status, and English learner status.	We performed data‑set verification and electronic testing of key data elements and did not identify any significant issues. We did not perform full accuracy and completeness testing of these data because they come from partially paperless systems, and thus, hard‑copy source documentation was not consistently available for review. However, to gain some assurance that the districts’ data contained information for students applicable to our analysis, we reconciled the total number of students included in each district’s data for each academic year to the enrollment data Education publishes on its website. To gain some assurance that the districts correctly identified college preparatory coursework, we compared a selection of course data to UC's listing of certified courses and found Stockton and Coachella had misidentified a total of 60 courses and 13 courses, respectively. These errors resulted in 171 students appearing to meet a‑g requirements when they may not have actually met the requirements. We also identified limitations related to the data. Specifically, we were unable to identify students who attended Stockton as freshmen in 2009–10, but did not enroll with the district in subsequent years. This is because Stockton was still exclusively using its legacy system for 2009–10. When Stockton transitioned from the legacy system to Synergy, it only copied data for 2009–10 over to Synergy if the student was still enrolled with the district at the time of the transition to Synergy. Further, Coachella acknowledged that its data for students’ free or reduced price meal status is incomplete. Free or reduced price meal status is one component used to identify a student’s unduplicated pupil status. However, using Coachella’s available free or reduced price meal data combined with other data, we were still able to identify 92 percent or more of students in each of the three Coachella cohorts as having unduplicated pupil status.	Not sufficiently reliable for this purpose. Although this determination may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
San Francisco Synergy for 2013–14 through 2014–15 Stockton Synergy for 2011–12 through 2014–15	To determine if there was sufficient college preparatory‑level coursework offered for students.	We performed data‑set verification and electronic testing of key data elements and did not identify any significant issues. We did not perform accuracy and completeness testing of these data because they come from partially paperless systems, and thus, hard‑copy source documentation was not consistently available for review. However, to gain some assurance that the course data included all courses actually offered by the districts, we compared 60 courses from student transcripts to the data and did not identify any issues. As discussed previously, Stockton misidentified courses as college preparatory coursework certified, even though UC had not certified them. However, we were able to correct for these errors in this analysis using supplemental information from UC.	Undetermined reliability for this purpose. Although this determination may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
California Department of Education California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System for 2014–15	To determine the percent of high school classes at each district that satisfies an a‑g requirement.	We performed data‑set verification and electronic testing of key data elements and did not identify any significant issues. We did not perform accuracy and completeness testing of these data because they are submitted by local educational agencies and any supporting documentation is maintained throughout the State. We reconciled the total numbers of classes and students included in the data to the numbers Education reported through its website to gain some assurance that Education provided all of its relevant data.	Undetermined reliability for this purpose. Although this determination may affect the precision of the numbers we present, there is sufficient evidence in total to support our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Sources: California State Auditor’s analysis of various documents, interviews, and data from Education, Coachella, San Francisco, and Stockton.

---

Back to top