The proposed policy requires that all students seeking admission by 2001 demonstrate their readiness for baccalaureate-level work, as a condition for admission. Setting high standards for college admission has been an important tool for school improvement. The number of high school students enrolling in and completing the "A-F" college preparatory course sequence increased when the University of California and Cal State required these courses for admission. The number of high school students earning college credit through Advanced Placement examinations has also increased. And, SAT and ACT scores have risen. Colleges and universities have sent the right signals, and students and schools are responding.
But will the trustees' proposal encourage better performance from the public schools, the teachers and the students? Or is this policy simply a politically acceptable way to continue the "downsizing" trend at Cal State? The same trustees, after all, presided over the downsizing of about 50,000 qualified students in recent years.
Are the trustees following the example of the UC Regents, who allowed politics to supersede solid educational policy-making when they ended race-based affirmative action? Is Alexander Astin right in his description of the trustees' policy as part of a "general push to elitism in public universities, that's been going on for decades?"
Several unanswered questions should increase skepticism about the wisdom of the trustees' proposed policy. How many courses do students take who are deemed "not ready" for college level work? Certainly any new policy ought to differentiate students who can catch up after one course from those who need several courses or a year of remedial coursework to succeed in college.
How well do students perform in their college-level classes after taking a remedial course or two? So far, only one Cal State campus can answer this question. How do so many students who need some type of remedial coursework get by until their senior year in college without making up their deficiencies, and what does this say about the skills and competencies required to succeed at Cal State?
Skepticism about the trustees' policy should be further increased by the scant attention it pays to teacher education. Cal State prepares two-thirds of California's teachers. Shouldering this kind of responsibility for the schools, the trustees might, at least, examine how well-prepared teacher education candidates are for teaching the state's rigorous K-12 curriculum frameworks. The trustees' policy makes vague references about making sure teachers can teach "basic skills," but proposes no action on needed assessments and improvement in teacher education.
Several actions by the trustees could bolster confidence in their proposal. This first is a clear statement, accompanied by appropriate assessments, of the skills and competencies necessary for successful college-level work. Secondly, the trustees should develop an action agenda that places teacher education at the center of Cal State efforts to improve the skills and competencies of entering students.
If it makes sense that prospective students demonstrate readiness to do college-level work, shouldn't prospective teachers be required to demonstrate their readiness to tech the state curriculum frameworks before receiving a teaching credential? Finally, Cal State could collect better data to answer the set of questions raised about their effort in remedial education.
So far, the trustees haven't shown much interest in addressing these issues before adopting their new policy. Their proposal would be more convincing if their policy recommendations pushed Cal State to act on its responsibilities for K-12 as forcefully as the public schools will be pressured to ratchet up their standards for programs and students.