PDK International | Phi Delta Kappan

Find more Kappan articles in the
searchable PDK Publications Archive

Subscribe today to access complete current issues online!

P-16 Education: Where Are We Going? Where Have We Been?

The education reform known as P-16 is intended to provide greater continuity to students" entire school career and entry into the work force. To introduce this special section, Ms. Chamberlin and Mr. Plucker provide a detailed overview of the reform's objectives, the mechanisms used to create P-16 systems, and the progress that specific states have made toward achieving the ideal of "seamlessness.”

By Molly Chamberlin and Jonathan Plucker

OVER THE past decade, a wave of education reform has swept the nation. Yet the general public remains largely unaware of it, even though the reforms are arguably among the most successful public policy initiatives of the past quarter century and have the potential to yield benefits for years to come. Charter schools, school choice, standards-based instruction, expansion of systematic assessment, heightened roles for states and the federal government in education -- one can debate the merits of any of these reforms, but it is difficult to argue that the landscape of U.S. education has not undergone major change.

One education reform that has the potential to leave its mark on education for many years is the P-16 initiative. The name refers to the range of "grades" included, beginning with preschool and running through the postsecondary undergraduate years. Though such efforts are most commonly called P-16, they are in some cases referred to as P-20 (or K-20) to demonstrate the importance of preparing a highly skilled work force in the years beyond undergraduate education. P-16 activities usually involve collaborations linking preschool education, K-12 education, and higher education, with major roles often played by state agencies, state legislatures, and businesses.

P-16 systems are intended primarily to smooth transitions between the different levels of education and into the work force. To do so usually involves enhancing preparation for college through a rigorous high school curriculum, aligning high school graduation requirements with postsecondary admissions requirements, and strengthening teacher preparation programs and professional development for veteran instructors so that every classroom has a highly qualified teacher.1 Other activities often associated with P-16 systems include the provision of high-quality preschool programs for all children, an expanded range of course offerings at the high school level, enhanced collaboration among teachers at all educational levels, high levels of parent and community involvement in schools, and smoother transitions between educational levels. In addition, new P-16 efforts include the creation and implementation of P-16 (or P- or K-20) data systems that have been designed to track student achievement from early childhood all the way into the work force.

Nationwide P-16 Efforts

In a June 2006 report, the Education Commission of the States (ECS) identified 30 states with formal P-16 initiatives.2 A handful of additional states, though not mentioned in the ECS report, have taken the initial steps toward creating P-16 alliances, organizations, or councils. For example, one of the most recent state-level efforts was begun in Massachusetts in the summer of 2006. The Massachusetts Advisory Committee on Education Policy was formed at the request of the state board of education and is a collaboration involving agencies of early childhood education, K-12 education, and higher education.

Some states have had P-16 initiatives under way for a number of years and have already produced significant results. Florida's K-20 initiative began in 1994 and was written into legislation in 2003. It has resulted in the consolidation of K-12 and postsecondary education under the Florida Board of Education and led to the creation of one of the nation's first K-20 data systems. Oregon, which began its P-16 efforts in 1995 through the collaboration of K-12 and higher education, has worked to expand early learning opportunities and better ensure college readiness by aligning its high school completion standards with college-entry requirements through the Proficiency-Based Admission Standards System (PASS). In 2005, members of the Joint Boards of Education began collaboration with the governor's office to extend the focus even beyond higher education by developing a pre-K-20 work plan.

A 2006 report by Achieve, Inc., an organization created by the nation's governors and business leaders in 1996, demonstrates the commitment of the states to implementing P-16-friendly policies, in some cases even without having a formal P-16 commission or committee in place. Five states already have policies in place that require the alignment of high school standards with real-world expectations, and an additional 30 states either are in the process of developing such policies or plan to do so. Eight states have implemented policies that align high school graduation requirements with college and workplace expectations, while another 12 states are in the planning process. Finally, 34 states have implemented or plan to develop P-16 longitudinal data systems.3

P-16 Initiation and Membership

P-16 systems have been created in multiple ways. The majority were agency-initiated, often by the state department of education or by institutions of higher education. In some states, the initiatives were created by the governor's executive order or, in a few cases, by legislative mandate. In a small number of states, the initiatives were eventually written into legislation. In most cases, a council or committee oversees the initiative.

State P-16 councils or committees nearly always include representatives of K-12 and higher education, and the constitution of the membership is often determined by the method by which the council was created. Councils created by legislation usually have membership spelled out directly in the law. For councils created by executive order, membership appointments are primarily at the discretion of the governor. Agency-initiated councils often have voluntary membership that is somewhat less formalized or is described in memoranda of understanding, though membership is sometimes by appointment of the state superintendent.

In addition to representatives of K-12 and higher education, many councils include business and community leaders as well as representatives from other state agencies (especially those responsible for career and technical education or for work force development), from early childhood education, and from state legislatures. Some states have specifically included parent or student representation on the councils.

A number of states have councils that are permitted to create subcommittees or task forces. Thus, even if membership on the core or leadership council does not include members outside of K-12 and higher education, membership for the entire task force is broader. For example, Hawaii's agency-initiated P-20 council is headed by a leadership team representing the University of Hawaii System, the Hawaii Department of Education, and the Good Beginnings Alliance, a group created through legislation as Hawaii's early childhood liaison. Beyond this leadership team, the council membership is a voluntary collaboration of leaders in education, business, and labor and representatives of government agencies and the community.

Not surprisingly, in states where the P-16 initiative was created by executive order or formalized through legislation, the governor or the legislature tends to have more direct representation on or responsibility for the committee and its efforts. The Delaware P-20 Council, for example, established by executive order in 2003 and formalized by legislation in 2005, is co-chaired by the secretary of education and the president of the state board of education, but it is required to include the education committee chairs of both houses of the legislature and a representative of the governor's office. Rhode Island's Pre-K-16 Council, created by executive order in 2005, is chaired by the governor and includes representatives of the governor's work force development board and other state agencies, in addition to representatives of K-12 and higher education. However, executive orders and legislation are certainly not required in order to have representation from the governor and the legislature. For example, the Missouri K-16 Coalition, agency-initiated in 1997, is co-sponsored by the Missouri Board of Education, the University of Missouri Board of Curators, and the Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education, but it numbers among its members representatives of both the executive and legislative branches.

P-16 Duties and Responsibilities

The councils in charge of overseeing P-16 initiatives usually do not have legislative or executive powers. Instead, they are generally advisory bodies required to make recommendations to state agencies, governors, or state legislatures. Regardless of how the councils were created, their responsibilities usually include reviewing high school graduation standards and expectations for college readiness, determining pathways for better educational alignment, and investigating ways to improve teacher education and professional development. For example, Arizona's P-20 Council, created by executive order in 2005, is charged with "exploring ways Arizona can achieve a more effective, efficient, and equitable education pipeline" through strategies such as helping students meet high standards, increasing teacher quality, and improving accountability.

In states that have legislated their P-16 councils, committees, or initiatives, the laws formalized activities that were originally agency-initiated or established by executive order. In Texas, what began in 1995 as the Public Education/Higher Education Coordinating Group, an informal collaboration between the Texas Education Agency, the higher education community, and the Texas teacher licensing board, was legislated in 2003 and further strengthened in 2005 as the Texas P-16 Council. The legislated responsibilities of this group consist of creating recommendations for a strategic action plan for ensuring college readiness, including, among other things, definitions of college readiness standards and expectations and recommendations regarding changes to teacher certification and professional development.

North Carolina's Education Cabinet was created by legislative mandate in 1995 to ensure cooperation between various state and education agencies across governance boundaries. The cabinet is located administratively within the governor's office but exercises its powers independently. It is a nonvoting body that is charged with ensuring collaboration across agencies and developing a strategic design for a continuum of education programs.

In a few states, even though the P-16 initiative is supported by state agencies, the bulk of the work is happening at the local level. For example, Pennsylvania's P-16 work was agency-initiated and is supported by the Pennsylvania Academy for the Profession of Teaching and Learning (part of the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education), with the Pennsylvania Department of Education listed as a partner. However, primary responsibility for P-16 efforts lies within the state's regional P-16 (also called K-16) councils. There are seven regional councils throughout the state, with four additional councils having been awarded planning funds. Partnerships for the regional councils include local public and private higher education institutions, local K-12 education, and local businesses or chambers of commerce. The mission and goals of each council differ according to local needs, but all are dedicated to increasing educational outcomes at all levels.

P-16 Alignment Initiatives

Typically, the goals of P-16 systems include reducing achievement gaps and better preparing students for all levels of education.4 More recent alignment and accountability efforts include the creation of P- or K-20 data systems that allow for better tracking of student achievement and analysis of the effectiveness of various education reforms and activities.

Somewhat obviously, one of the most important components of a P-16 system is a focus on aligning curriculum and standards at all levels of education. Alignment begins with school readiness and continues through the elementary, middle, and high school levels, into college, and beyond. For successful transitions, standards must be rigorous at all levels and must prepare students to move through transitions smoothly. Collaboration among early childhood, K-12, and postsecondary educators is a linchpin of P-16 systems. In addition, collaborations with those outside of the traditional education settings, including members of the work force and representatives of the community, are important. However, mere alignment and superficial collaboration are not enough. It is necessary to consider innovation, real-world skills, and depth beyond subject-specific skills in determining what students need to succeed in college and the work force. Good P-16 alignment systems must reflect this range.5

The value of smooth educational transitions and cross-level collaboration has been well established in the literature, and there is considerable evidence that cross-level programs produce greater achievement gains than do traditional educational programs. Though preschool interventions may lead to greater student success after entering school,6 the effectiveness of these programs is significantly enhanced if the interventions extend beyond the preschool years into the elementary grades.7 The most successful college-preparation programs for first-generation and underprivileged students begin interventions as early as seventh grade.8 Thus, as has been recognized in most P-16 initiatives, waiting until late high school to address college preparation is not supported by research.

At the high school level, alignment and preparation for college are better supported through high standards and a rigorous curriculum. A common characteristic of P-16 systems is the presence of a challenging curriculum at all levels, with an emphasis on requiring a college-preparatory curriculum at the high school -- and sometimes at the middle school -- level. In P-16 plans, this point is often implemented by requiring all students to take algebra by eighth grade, a strategy that is associated with patterns of more rigorous course-taking in high school and increased enrollment in higher education.9 In addition, P-16 systems must go beyond simply encouraging students to take a college-preparatory and work-ready curriculum; they must begin to require it.10

Though the majority of states have implemented P-16 systems, some more than a decade ago, challenges continue. P-16 initiatives sometimes suffer from a lack of product: though a council or commission has been in place for a number of years, progress has been slow or nonexistent. In some states, the established P-16 councils or committees meet sporadically, if at all, and in other states, P-16 initiatives are symbolic at best, and fragmentations continue to exist at multiple educational levels.11

Despite the challenges, a number of states have managed to produce effective products, most notably in the areas of curriculum alignment, credit articulation, and higher standards at all levels. Moreover, a handful of states have begun to pursue the creation of longitudinal data systems, designed to track students throughout their educational careers and beyond. Such systems can help demonstrate the effects of better educational alignment, as well as the impact of higher standards, enhanced teacher preparation, and improved professional development.

California: increasing alignment and preparedness through partnerships. Though its P-16 initiative did not officially get under way until 2004, California, like many other states, had long before recognized that changes needed to be made in order to better prepare high school students for postsecondary education, especially students from traditionally underrepresented groups.

In 1984, the California legislature established the California Academic Partnership Program (CAPP), administered by California State University, to develop cooperative efforts for improving the quality of California's secondary schools and strengthening college preparation. CAPP supports partnerships between secondary schools and community colleges, public or private universities, and businesses.

After a 1996 California Postsecondary Education Commission report showed significantly different college-going rates for students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds and socioeconomic status, the governor and legislature provided additional funding targeted toward precollegiate academic preparation.12 In addition, the Academic Improvement and Achievement Act created a grant program for regional partnerships between targeted public schools and institutions of higher education. The goal of the program was primarily to increase the percentage of students at qualifying high schools who meet the requirements for admission to the state universities of California. Qualifying high schools were generally those whose graduates have histories of poor participation and performance at the postsecondary level.

In 2004, California's superintendent of public instruction established the Superintendent's California P-16 Council, composed of representatives from all levels of education, business, and the community. The council's goals include improving student academic achievement and eliminating achievement gaps, linking all education levels, ensuring that students have access to caring and qualified teachers, and increasing public awareness about the link between an educated citizenry and a healthy economy. The council also plans to support the creation of local P-16 councils.

Despite the newness of its P-16 council, California has already seen positive results from some of its early collaboration initiatives. Independent evaluations of CAPP have shown positive effects on student participation in postsecondary education, student preparation for college, and student retention. CAPP has also had a positive impact on college preparation for students from traditionally underrepresented groups.13

Florida: institutionalizing K-20 education and accountability through K-20 data. P-16 efforts began in Florida as early as 1994 and were eventually institutionalized as K-20 education through legislation introduced in 2000. The Education Governance Reorganization Implementation Act abolished Florida's Board of Regents and the State Board of Community Colleges, transferring their duties to the state board of education. Thus the state board became the sole entity responsible for overseeing Florida's K-20 education system, with the new organization envisioned as a mechanism for smoother transitions and greater coordination at all levels of education and beyond.

Florida's K-20 education code defines its K-20 initiatives comprehensively in legislation. The legislative intention in creating the K-20 education system, as stated in the law, is, among other things, to achieve a seamless system that provides a smooth continuum from kindergarten through graduate school, to promote academic success and funding efficiency in educational delivery systems, to establish consistent education policy across all educational delivery systems, and to facilitate substantially improved articulation across all educational systems.

Further, Florida's K-20 initiative provides for empaneling an Articulation Coordinating Committee (ACC), made up of representatives from all levels of public and private education, the state university and community college systems, independent postsecondary institutions, and career and technical education, as well as a student member. The ACC is responsible for facilitating and coordinating efforts to smooth transitions between levels of education and is housed at the state department of education.

As part of its K-20 efforts, Florida has been one of the first states in the nation to create and begin implementation of a K-20 longitudinal data system. The K-20 Education Data Warehouse acts as a single repository for data on students served in the K-20 public education system; it also collects data on educational facilities, curriculum, and instructional personnel. Moreover, it allows for data integration at all levels, from kindergarten to graduate school, and offers the ability to track students over time and across multiple levels of education. The system includes data on student demographics, enrollment, courses taken, test scores, financial aid, and academic awards; employment; educational curriculum; staff demographics, certification, and instructional activities; and various information about educational institutions.14

With longitudinal data systems such as Florida's, education's stakeholders will be able to analyze student achievement at multiple levels and be able to better identify the fruits of the state's K-20 efforts, as well as locate areas where gaps still exist and improvements must be made. As the literature indicates, putting K-20 data systems into place is often the first step toward holding K-20 education initiatives accountable for college readiness, while at the same time making the adjustments necessary for ensuring a truly seamless educational system.15

Indiana: higher standards and enhanced college preparation. Indiana recognized early the importance of collaboration among K-12 education, higher education, and business and community leaders, and its efforts to make its high school curriculum more rigorous began long before official P-16 efforts were put into place. In 1994, representatives from the K-12, higher education, industry, labor, and business communities worked together to identify courses most likely to provide an appropriate foundation for postsecondary and work force success. The groups collectively supported the adoption of the Core 40 curriculum for high schools. Core 40 was identified as the best preparation for postsecondary education and the work force.16 Courses required to obtain a Core 40 diploma include English/language arts, math (including algebra I and II and geometry), science (including biology and chemistry or physics), social studies, and directed electives (including world languages, fine arts, and career/technical courses). In addition to the regular Core 40, students can obtain a Core 40 with an Academic Honors or Technical Honors diploma.

Indiana's P-16 plan was officially adopted in October of 2003. The plan was crafted by the Indiana Education Roundtable. The Education Roundtable, established as a permanent body through legislation in 1999, is required to submit recommendations to the governor, the state superintendent, the state board, and the General Assembly. The group includes representation from all educational levels, businesses, the community, and the General Assembly. It is co-chaired by the superintendent of public instruction and the governor. The Roundtable's P-16 plan includes elements related to early childhood learning, high standards for increased student achievement, reducing dropout rates, narrowing achievement gaps, and enhancing the use of technology.

Core 40 became a key player early in the P-16 initiative in Indiana. In 2004, the Indiana Education Roundtable adopted resolutions calling for making Core 40 the default curriculum for all students, though an opt-out provision was recommended. In addition, the Roundtable resolved that the state should require Core 40 completion for admission to Indiana's four-year universities and for financial aid to attend those institutions. In 2005, the Indiana General Assembly acted on the resolutions, adopting legislation to make Core 40 both the default curriculum (with an opt-out provision) and a minimum requirement for admission to a four-year state university. The provision will apply beginning with students in the graduating class of 2011.

Indiana's policy efforts have already begun to produce results. Core 40 has been recognized as a key step in increasing the achievement of Indiana's high school students.17 In Indiana, the percentage of students who obtained a Core 40 or Academic Honors diploma increased from 43% in 1998 to 67% in 2006. In particular, the percentage of minority students who obtained a Core 40 or Academic Honors diploma increased: 23% of African American students in 1998, compared to 49% in 2006; 29% of Hispanic students in 1998, compared to 52% in 2006. Higher education officials estimate that Indiana's college-going rate increased from 59% in 1996 to 75% in 2006, ranking among the best in the nation.

Despite early successes, state officials recognize that ongoing efforts are needed to address gaps that still exist in the P-16 pipeline. To illustrate, the state department of education plans to create a longitudinal data system and a division of best practices, which will conduct research on best educational practices at multiple levels and will store and share related data. In addition, the Indiana Commission for Higher Education is working with the department of education to further the implementation and utility of Core 40 end-of-course assessments, with the goal of aligning them with college placement.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of P-16 Systems

One component that, despite its importance, has been seemingly overlooked by a number of P-16 initiatives is evaluation. Yet P-16 initiatives involve time commitments from a number of stakeholders, and these stakeholders need to be satisfied that their efforts are productive. Thus it is important for states to build in mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of their P-16 activities, including the contributions of participants, the potential for expanding participation, and the quality of student outcomes.

Some states have seen positive effects as a result of their P-16 initiatives. The states described above (Indiana, Florida, and California) have achieved some measurable results. Georgia, a state that has had a P-16 initiative under way since 1995, has seen an increase in the number of its high school students taking rigorous courses in the core curriculum and a rise in SAT scores, while Louisiana, whose initiative has existed since 1999, has seen a drop in the number of college freshmen required to take remedial courses.18 However, these statistics alone may not be sufficient to answer continuing questions related to the overall effectiveness of P-16 initiatives at all levels and the true outcomes for students as they move into the work force.

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of a P-16 system, states need to develop evaluation mechanisms that examine the system's goals, the activities undertaken to achieve those goals, the performance indicators to determine whether or not the goals have been achieved, and how the goals and activities should be revised. In theory, if a P-16 system is working, young students will be more prepared at early levels of education, thus reducing achievement gaps in school readiness between groups of students. Moreover, the numbers of students coming immediately from high school to postsecondary education who are required to take remedial courses should decline, while presumably, SAT and ACT scores should rise.

However, assessing the effectiveness of a P-16 system goes beyond test scores, achievement gaps, and percentages of students taking remedial courses. Because most P-16 systems include goals of seamless transitions, high teacher quality, and a more capable work force, evaluation systems must be broad enough to examine effectiveness beyond the student level. For example, how does a state define a "prepared work force"? What types of economic outcomes must occur if a P-16 effort is to be labeled successful? Must all high school students continue on to postsecondary education for the P-16 system to be judged effective? Or can the system be deemed successful if high school students who choose not to enter postsecondary education are nevertheless productive members of society and skilled laborers? How is teacher quality to be defined and measured? If enhanced teacher preparedness and professional development are goals, how will the state determine that teachers are better prepared and that professional development is more effective?

To answer these questions, all P-16 stakeholders must be involved in discussions intended to define specifically the outcomes for each set of goals and to break goals down into action steps that are achievable. Performance indicators for each goal must be defined and agreed upon by all members of the P-16 council, as well as by the entities to which the P-16 council is responsible. The specific meanings of the goals of P-16 initiatives must be clearly communicated to the public, so that citizens are able to understand the purpose of the initiative and determine whether or not it is achieving what it set out to.

States must also continue to develop enhanced longitudinal data systems that allow for connections with the needs of postsecondary education and the work force, in order to determine how well alignment efforts are paying off for students of all backgrounds. Such longitudinal data systems should also include educator- and institutional-level data to help states determine how well teacher quality initiatives are working and how well institutional-level efforts (such as fiscal reform, attempts at creating financial efficiency, and articulation efforts) are working. Without such systems of accountability, establishing the specific impact of P-16 efforts throughout the nation will continue to be difficult.

1. Patte Barth, "A New Core Curriculum for All," Thinking K-16, Winter 2003; Gordon Van de Water and Terese Rainwater, What Is P-16 Education? (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 2001); and Andrea Venezia, Michael W. Kirst, and Anthony L. Antonio, Betraying the College Dream: How Disconnected K-12 and Postsecondary Education Systems Undermine Student Aspirations (Palo Alto, Calif.: Bridge Project, Stanford University, 2003).

2. For a complete tabular listing of state-level P-16 activity, readers may visit www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k_v89/k0803ch1.htm.

3. Closing the Expectations Gap 2006: An Annual 50-State Progress Report on the Alignment of High School Policies with the Demands of College and Work (Washington, D.C.: Achieve, Inc., 2006).

4. Gordon Van de Water and Carl Krueger, "P-16 Education," ERIC Digests, ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, June 2002.

5. Carol G. Schneider, "Preparing Students for What? School-College Alignment in an Era of Greater Expectations," Peer Review, Winter 2003, pp. 13-16.

6. Mary Fulton, The ABCs of Investing in Student Performance (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 1996); and Barbara Wasik and Nancy Karweit, "Off to a Good Start: Effects of Birth to Three Interventions on Early School Success,” in Robert Slavin, Nancy Karweit, and Barbara Wasik, eds., Preventing Early School Failure: Research, Policy, and Practice (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1994), pp. 13-57.

7. Nancy Karweit, "Can Preschool Alone Prevent Early Learning Failure?," in Slavin, Karweit, and Wasik, pp. 58-77.

8. Olatokunbo S. Fashola and Robert E. Slavin, "Schoolwide Reform Models," Phi Delta Kappan, January 1998, pp. 370-79.

9. Susan P. Choy et al., "Transition to College: What Helps At-Risk Students and Students Whose Parents Did Not Attend College?,” in Alberto F. Cabrera and Steven M. La Nasa, eds., Understanding the College Choice of Disadvantaged Students (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000), pp. 45-63.

10. Kristin D. Conklin, "Improving the High School-to-College Transition Through Leadership and Governance," Issue Brief, NGA Center for Best Practices, 19 April 2005; and From Goals to Results: Improving Education System Accountability (Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board, 2006).

11. Conklin, op. cit.; and Carl Krueger, The Progress of P-16 Collaboration in the States (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 2006).

12. California Postsecondary Education Commission, "1997-1998 Legislative Session Results in New and Expanded Efforts to Improve College Preparation and Eligibility,” CPEC Fact Sheet, February 1999.

13. Ibid.; and California Academic Partnership Program: External Evaluator's Cumulative Report — 1987-1990, Volume I (Los Angeles: Evaluation and Training Institute, ERIC ED 346 126, 1991).

14. "Florida K-20 Education Data Warehouse Facts,” Florida Department of Education, 2003, available at http://edwapp.doe.state.fl.us/doe/EDW_Facts.htm.

15. Closing the Expectations Gap; and Hans L"Orange and Peter Ewell, "P-16 Data Systems: An Alignment Status Report,” Data Quality Campaign, January 2007, available at www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Meetings-DQC_Quarterly_Issue_Brief_061306.pdf.

16. Indiana State Board of Education, "Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Indiana's New High School Course and Credit Requirements,” 2006, available from the Indiana Department of Education at www.doe.state.in.us/core40/pdf/faq.pdf.

17. Closing the Expectations Gap.

18. Van de Water and Krueger, op. cit.

MOLLY CHAMBERLIN is director of the Division of Student Learning Choices at the Indiana Department of Education, Indianapolis. JONATHAN PLUCKER, guest editor of this special section, is a professor in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology at the School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, and director of the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.