A SEAT AT THE TABLE COLORADO STUDENTS’ ACCESS TO TOP COLLEGES DECEMBER 2017 AN ORANGE PAPER BY A+ COLORADO A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 Table of Contents I. The Importance of College ..................................................................................................................3 II. Data & Methodology................................................................................................................................7 III. Findings....................................................................................................................................................8 IV. Recommendations.................................................................................................................................9 V. Results......................................................................................................................................................10 VI. Endnotes................................................................................................................................................18 1 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 Acknowledgements A+ Colorado would like to thank the Colorado Department of Higher Education, and in particular Beth Bean, Chief Strategy and Research Officer, and Luke Banaszak, Director of Information Technology, for collecting, validating, and providing the data that were foundational to this report. 2 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 The Importance of College Whether students are set up to access and succeed in postsecondary programs is a critical measure of the value of a student’s high school education. Given this, A+ Colorado put out a report in 2014, “Missing the Bus” which took a look at which Colorado high schools sent students to our nation’s most selective colleges. We thought it was time to fine tune this inquiry, and dig deeper into the data for a broader group of students, focusing on students from different family economic backgrounds, and students of different races and ethnicities. The centerpiece of the American Dream is upward mobility, but over the past 50 years in the United States we have seen economic inequality increase, and economic mobility decline to one of the lowest mobility rates amongst major industrialized economies.1 Improving access to college and other postsecondary pathways is key to making the American Dream a reality.2 While college may not be the best path for every student, a college degree is one of the most important factors in determining a person’s lifetime economic opportunities. All students should be given the opportunity to attend college, not just our country’s upper class, for whom access to higher education has been concentrated. It should be a choice for every student, not one made for them by a school system that sorts students by race, income and geography.3 Regardless of their family’s economic position, students who attend college are significantly more likely to earn more money than their parents than students without a college degree.4 Of course, there are other postsecondary paths that provide excellent economic opportunities for students such as enlisting in the military or earning a postsecondary trade certificate. This report, however, focuses on a college degree as a powerful engine for upward mobility. College graduates’ median income is twice the median income of high school graduates. The median lifetime earnings of people with a bachelor’s degree is 74%, or nearly $1 million, more than those who hold just a high school diploma.5 The most recent unemployment rates for people with bachelor’s degrees is less than 2% while the rate for high school graduates is 8.4%.6 This gap grows dramatically during economic downturns. However, particular colleges and degree programs vary enormously in their quality and return on investment. Not all colleges support all students to graduate and not all degrees are created equal.7 Some colleges provide students with a $1 million return on investment over 20 years. On the other hand, some for-profit and online colleges end up delivering a net loss to students.8 Research shows that earnings for students at any given college do not vary widely for students from low- and high-income family backgrounds.9 This means it is critical for students to be prepared for college, and it is equally critical that students are prepared to choose a college that will serve them well. About 57% of all Colorado graduates from the class of 2015 (the most recent data available) enrolled in a post-secondary institution the year after they graduated. While an uptick from the class of 2014, it is still below the peak when 59% of 2009 Colorado graduates matriculated to a postsecondary institution.10 Figure 1 shows 3 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 that statewide matriculation rates have not changed significantly over time and that there remain massive gaps in college matriculation and remediation in Colorado along lines of income and ethnicity. Further, when looking at matriculation to top postsecondary programs (see Methodology on page 7 for how top programs are defined in this report), access is similarly unequal by race and socioeconomic background. Figure 2 shows that while access to top schools improved from 2009 to 2015 for some students, Asian or Pacific Islander students, white students, multiracial students, and more affluent students, access remained much lower and relatively unchanged for others including American Indian and Alaska Native students, black students, Latinx students, and low-income students. A recent analysis in the New York Times showed that, despite affirmative action policies and increases in the number of black and Latinx students enrolled in college, those students have become increasingly underrepresented at elite colleges compared to their share of the college-age population.11 While there is a critical role for elite higher education institutions to play to broaden access, much of the underrepresentation of students of color and low-income students in elite postsecondary institutions stems from inequities these groups face earlier in the education system that leave them unprepared to access these institutions.12 high school. High schools, like colleges, vary enormously in quality. There are approximately 580 high schools in Colorado. Some prepare most students for college and career, while others fail to equip students with the essential knowledge and skills to navigate life after graduation. Most high schools are reflective of the demographics of their communities and often do little to prepare students to access programs that would improve their economic opportunities. A high quality high school education is one that can dramatically change a person’s lifetime earnings and trajectory. In this follow up to “Missing the Bus”, A+ Colorado takes a look at where Colorado high school students attend college over seven years, since the state started collecting the data from the National Student Clearinghouse in 2009. Few states collect disaggregated college matriculation data that includes public and private institutions across the country. We are fortunate to have this data in Colorado, but even here this information is not widely distributed. Indeed we have little information about the the types of programs that students are attending beyond two- versus four-year programs. The data in the this report is one look at access to quality programming. There are other ways to examine the data to investigate student access and success in postsecondary programs, and there is an opportunity for Colorado to be a leader in providing transparent information about student access to quality options. The linchpin for college success is the 4 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 Figure 1 Percent of Graduates Matriculating to Any College or University (2 or 4 year) by Race/Ethnicity 100% 50% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 White Students Black Students Latinx Students American Indian/Alaska Native Students Asian or Pacific Islander Students Students Identifying as 2+ Races Percent of Graduates Matriculating to Any College or University (2 or 4 year) by Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRL) Eligibility 100% 50% 0% 2009 2010 Ineligible for FRL 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Eligible for FRL Data validity issues in 2014 5 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 Figure 2 Percent of Graduates Matriculating to a Top Tier College or University by Race/ Ethnicity 10% 5% 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 White Students Black Students Latinx Students American Indian/Alaska Native Students Asian or Pacific Islander Students Students Identifying as 2+ Races Percent of Graduates Matriculating to a Top Tier College or University by Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRL) Eligibility 10% 5% 0% 2009 2010 Ineligible for FRL 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Eligible for FRL Data validity issues in 2014 6 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 Data & Methodology The Colorado Department of Higher Education (CDHE) tracks Colorado high school graduates’ matriculation to any postsecondary institution (two- and fouryear degree programs), using its own data system to track in-state matriculation, and partnering with the National Student Clearinghouse to track matriculation to private and out-of-state programs.   CDHE provided A+ school-level disaggregated matriculation data by family income, and by race/ethnicity for the classes of 2009-2015. CDHE first started partnering with the National Student Clearinghouse to track this data in 2009. Due to data validity issues, data from the class of 2014, disaggregated by family income, is not included in the analysis.   Per A+ Colorado’s request, CDHE provided the matriculation data by “top schools” and any program. The list of “top schools” includes the 150 highest ranked national universities and 150 highest ranked colleges by U.S. News and World Report in 2016, which we used as a proxy for high quality postsecondary options. While no list of the “top colleges” is perfect, this collection of 300 schools represents a diverse group of institutions, with an average acceptance rate of 54%, weighted by school size. In Colorado, it includes University of Colorado-Boulder, Colorado School of Mines, Colorado State University, United States Air Force Academy, and Colorado College. The list also includes schools that are part of the Western Undergraduate Exchange (WUE), where Colorado students are eligible for a reduced tuition rate, including University of Arizona, Arizona State University, University of Utah, and Washington State University. A list of included schools can be found on the A+ Colorado website at apluscolorado.org. To be included in A+’s list of high schools that were best supporting students to access top colleges, high schools must have had at least 16 graduates in the cohort of interest across the seven years of included data, and have sent at least 4 graduates to a top-tier school. This is in accordance with current reporting practices used by the Colorado Department of Education to protect personally identifiable information. To the best of our knowledge the data included in this report is accurate and reliable. It is worth underscoring that the included data is linked across multiple data systems and agencies. 7 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 Findings We wanted to know which high schools are sending which students to top colleges. Here is what we found: Colorado high school diplomas are not equal. Between 2009 and 2015, 35% of high schools had no graduates who matriculated to a top school. Yet it is not just access to top colleges that is low in many schools across the state. Just half of all high schools in Colorado send a majority of their graduates to any postsecondary program. That means there is incredible variability amongst Colorado high schools. More schools are helping students access top colleges. There is a growing number of Colorado high schools where students can access pipelines for selective colleges. In 2009-2011, 52 schools (13% of all high schools) sent at least 5% of their graduates to top schools. In 2013-2015, 69 schools (15% of all high schools) did so. There are significant disparities in access to top schools for different student groups. There are 22 high schools that sent at least 10% of their graduates who were not eligible for free or reduced price lunch to a top college or university; however, only two high schools sent 10% of their graduates who were eligible for free or reduced price lunch to a top college or university. Gaps by race and ethnicity are vast. Seventeen high schools sent 10% of their white graduates to a top school after graduation, only six sent the same proportion of black graduates, and two sent the same proportion of Latinx graduates to a top school. Income matters but is not destiny. Many of the schools that are most successful at helping students access top colleges are located within wealthy communities. Yet there are school communities that serve primarily low-income students that are successful in supporting those students to access top colleges. For example, DSST: Green Valley Ranch, Denver Center for International Studies, Venture Prep, KIPP Denver Collegiate High School, Palmer High School, George Washington High School, MLK Early College, and Montezuma-Cortez serve student bodies that are majority low-income and are amongst the top schools in the state at sending those same students to top colleges. These schools can compete with schools in wealthier communities in terms of getting low-income students to top postsecondary options. Rural high schools are as varied as suburban or urban in supporting students to access postsecondary options, though few rural schools get students into selective colleges. There are small rural high schools that support most students to go to college yet there are also large parts of Colorado where few or no students matriculate to any of the nation’s best colleges. High test scores (ACT or SAT) matter, but so do other aspects of high school. In general, schools whose students had higher ACT scores on average than students with similar backgrounds tended to have higher matriculation rates at top colleges for those students. However, there are also schools where students have some of the highest ACT scores for different student groups and are not amongst the high schools sending higher proportions of those students to top colleges. This raises questions about why more students from those schools— who are arguably more prepared for college— are not accessing opportunities at top schools. 8 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 Recommendations The following recommendations rely on strong partnerships between state agencies like the Colorado Department of Higher Education, the Colorado Department of Education, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, and the Colorado Office of Economic Development; between school districts and state agencies; between districts, schools, and students and their families. Collaboration between these groups is critical to better support Colorado’s current students and future graduates. 1. Expand measurement and information sharing about matriculation. Colorado should differentiate the current annual reporting on high school to college matriculation to include postsecondary quality, certificate programs, apprenticeship programs, and the military so that students, families, educators, and policymakers have a full picture of Colorado’s education pipelines. While matriculation is the first step for students to access the opportunities that tend to follow a college degree, it is critical to track continued persistence and graduation information for these students who matriculated to better understand the success of Colorado high schools at preparing students for college, and which colleges are better serving students. 2. Improve reporting systems that focus on quality of postsecondary options. The Colorado Department of Higher Education should better collaborate with the Colorado Department of Education to measure and communicate the quality of postsecondary options to high school students and their families. Colorado should work across agencies to understand how postsecondary programs support students during their time at the institution and into their career. Any effort locally should prioritize connecting to national efforts to understand and communicate college quality. 3. Improve Students’ Access to Information. Schools, school districts and the state of Colorado should provide high school to college matriculation information that includes different types of higher education institutions, certificate and military programs so that students and families can access postsecondary opportunities that best meet the aspirations of students. Additionally, college matriculation information, particularly that differentiates the quality of postsecondary options that graduates access, should be included with other student achievement and graduation data to best understand the quality of any Colorado high school. 4. Expand High Quality Secondary Schools. Colorado and school districts need to support the development of more high schools that provide all students access to college and selective college pipelines, and these need to distributed throughout the state. The following tables look at the 20 high schools in Colorado that best support students from different backgrounds to access top postsecondary programs. The results explore access by the largest racial and ethnic groups in the state (black, Latinx, and white students), and by family income as measured by free or reduced price lunch eligibility. Other tables show access in more remote communities, and where there have been changes over time. The full results for all high schools are available on the A+ Colorado website at apluscolorado.org. 9 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 Results These results are intended to be one source to look at which high schools are preparing students to be college ready. For families looking to use this data to help select a high school for their children, we strongly encourage that they also investigate details about a school’s culture, programs, course offerings, and teacher quality, as well as make a visit before deciding upon whether a school is an ideal match for a particular student. We believe these data about which schools send which students to which colleges are critical but not sufficient information for making a decision about the right high school for a particular family. A+ Colorado would urge readers to use these lists and other sources to gain a more comprehensive understanding of a high school’s quality. Matriculation Results By Student Group: Table 1: Students Eligibile for Free or Reduced Priced Lunch (FRL): Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 Table 2: Students Ineligibile for Free or Reduced Priced Lunch (FRL): Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 Table 3: Black Students: Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 Table 4: Latinx Students: Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 Table 5: White Students: Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 Table 6: Rural or Small Town Students: Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 Table 7: Schools With the Biggest Improvement in Top College Matriculation Rates 2009 - 2011 to 2013 - 2015 10 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 % Enrolled - Any Postsecondary School % Enrolled - Top Schools Total Graduates Table 1: Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRL): Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009-2015 School District High School BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 PEAK TO PEAK CHARTER SCHOOL 54 22% 74% DENVER COUNTY 1 DSST: GREEN VALLEY RANCH HIGH SCHOOL 59 12% 85% DENVER COUNTY 1 DSST: STAPLETON HIGH SCHOOL 202 9% 86% DENVER COUNTY 1 DENVER CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 153 8% 74% 4 DENVER COUNTY 1 VENTURE PREP 71 8% 52% 6 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 12 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL 121 6% 68% 7 DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 PONDEROSA HIGH SCHOOL 77 5% 53% 7 LEWIS-PALMER 38 LEWIS-PALMER HIGH SCHOOL 79 5% 54% 7 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 FAIRVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 180 5% 57% 7 DENVER COUNTY 1 DENVER SCHOOL OF THE ARTS 83 5% 75% 11 ST VRAIN VALLEY RE 1J NIWOT HIGH SCHOOL 183 4% 46% 11 DENVER COUNTY 1 KIPP DENVER COLLEGIATE HIGH SCHOOL 119 4% 82% 11 JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 EVERGREEN HIGH SCHOOL 121 4% 70% 11 CHERRY CREEK 5 CHERRY CREEK HIGH SCHOOL 310 4% 51% 15 CHERRY CREEK 5 CHEROKEE TRAIL HIGH SCHOOL 379 3% 63% 15 DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL 122 3% 52% 15 CHERRY CREEK 5 GRANDVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 447 3% 54% 15 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL 344 3% 48% 15 ACADEMY 20 RAMPART HIGH SCHOOL 236 3% 57% 20 COLORADO SPRINGS 11 PALMER HIGH SCHOOL 683 2% 44% 20 DENVER COUNTY 1 EAST HIGH SCHOOL 714 2% 52% 20 DENVER COUNTY 1 GEORGE WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 739 2% 56% 20 CHERRY CREEK 5 SMOKY HILL HIGH SCHOOL 667 2% 50% 20 JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 DAKOTA RIDGE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 201 2% 62% 20 DURANGO 9-R DURANGO HIGH SCHOOL 274 2% 43% 20 POUDRE R-1 POUDRE HIGH SCHOOL 557 2% 38% 20 ADAMS 12 FIVE STAR SCHOOLS LEGACY HIGH SCHOOL 303 2% 48% 20 MESA COUNTY VALLEY 51 PALISADE HIGH SCHOOL 243 2% 46% 20 DENVER COUNTY 1 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. EARLY COLLEGE 310 2% 60% 20 MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ RE-1 MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ HIGH SCHOOL 259 2% 42% 1 2 3 4 11 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 % Enrolled - Any Postsecondary School % Enrolled - Top Schools Total Graduates Table 2: Students Ineligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRL): Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 School District High School 1 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 PEAK TO PEAK CHARTER SCHOOL 717 25% 85% 2 ASPEN 1 ASPEN HIGH SCHOOL 761 24% 75% 3 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 FAIRVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 2641 22% 82% 4 CHERRY CREEK 5 CHERRY CREEK HIGH SCHOOL 4695 18% 81% 4 DENVER COUNTY 1 GEORGE WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 1030 18% 70% 4 DENVER COUNTY 1 EAST HIGH SCHOOL 2218 18% 77% 4 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL 2192 18% 75% 8 TELLURIDE R-1 TELLURIDE HIGH SCHOOL 245 17% 71% JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 D'EVELYN JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 135 17% 86% CHARTER SCHOOL INSTITUTE ANIMAS HIGH SCHOOL 96 16% 70% POUDRE R-1 LIBERTY COMMON CHARTER SCHOOL 65 15% 82% DENVER COUNTY 1 DSST: STAPLETON HIGH SCHOOL 313 15% 82% DENVER COUNTY 1 DENVER CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 163 15% 74% ST VRAIN VALLEY RE 1J NIWOT HIGH SCHOOL 1583 13% 81% GUNNISON WATERSHED RE1J CRESTED BUTTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL 119 12% 69% 15 DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 ROCK CANYON HIGH SCHOOL 2129 12% 84% 17 LITTLETON 6 ARAPAHOE HIGH SCHOOL 3038 11% 78% 18 DENVER COUNTY 1 DENVER SCHOOL OF THE ARTS 673 11% 67% POUDRE R-1 RIDGEVIEW CLASSICAL CHARTER SCHOOLS 235 10% 75% 19 ACADEMY 20 AIR ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL 1833 10% 77% 19 POUDRE R-1 POUDRE HIGH SCHOOL 1898 10% 67% 19 JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 LAKEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL 1981 10% 77% 8 10 11 11 11 14 15 19 12 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 % Enrolled - Any Postsecondary School % Enrolled - Top School Total Grduates Table 3: Black Students: Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 School District High School 1 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 FAIRVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 24 17% 71% 2 DENVER COUNTY 1 DENVER CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 35 14% 74% 2 DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 MOUNTAIN VISTA HIGH SCHOOL 51 14% 75% 4 DENVER COUNTY 1 DSST: STAPLETON HIGH SCHOOL 166 13% 89% 5 JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 LAKEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL 58 10% 78% 5 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL 51 10% 67% 7 LITTLETON 6 LITTLETON HIGH SCHOOL 66 9% 67% 7 CHERRY CREEK 5 CHERRY CREEK HIGH SCHOOL 187 9% 67% 9 ACADEMY 20 LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL 90 7% 66% 10 ADAMS 12 FIVE STAR SCHOOLS LEGACY HIGH SCHOOL 65 6% 65% 10 ACADEMY 20 AIR ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL 71 6% 69% 12 ACADEMY 20 PINE CREEK HIGH SCHOOL 75 5% 71% 12 DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 HIGHLANDS RANCH HIGH SCHOOL 82 5% 73% 12 CHERRY CREEK 5 GRANDVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 391 5% 61% 12 COLORADO SPRINGS 11 PALMER HIGH SCHOOL 221 5% 52% 16 DENVER COUNTY 1 DENVER SCHOOL OF THE ARTS 92 4% 72% 16 CHERRY CREEK 5 CHEROKEE TRAIL HIGH SCHOOL 496 4% 65% 18 CHERRY CREEK 5 SMOKY HILL HIGH SCHOOL 633 3% 53% 18 FALCON 49 VISTA RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL 130 3% 62% 18 CHERRY CREEK 5 EAGLECREST HIGH SCHOOL 617 3% 60% 18 FOUNTAIN 8 FOUNTAIN-FORT CARSON HIGH SCHOOL 492 3% 61% 18 FALCON 49 SAND CREEK HIGH SCHOOL 260 3% 61% 18 DENVER COUNTY 1 EAST HIGH SCHOOL 949 3% 63% 13 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 % Enrolled - Any Postsecondary School % Enrolled - Top School Total Grduates Table 4: Latinx Students: Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 School District High School 1 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 PEAK TO PEAK CHARTER SCHOOL 74 16% 85% 2 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 FAIRVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 213 12% 60% 3 TELLURIDE R-1 TELLURIDE HIGH SCHOOL 43 9% 40% 3 CHERRY CREEK 5 CHERRY CREEK HIGH SCHOOL 441 9% 56% 3 ASPEN 1 ASPEN HIGH SCHOOL 88 9% 57% 6 JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 D'EVELYN JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 89 8% 91% 7 DENVER COUNTY 1 DSST: STAPLETON HIGH SCHOOL 191 7% 80% 7 DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 ROCK CANYON HIGH SCHOOL 166 7% 80% 7 JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 EVERGREEN HIGH SCHOOL 71 7% 76% 7 DENVER COUNTY 1 VENTURE PREP 61 7% 48% 11 MANITOU SPRINGS 14 MANITUO SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL 64 6% 63% 11 ACADEMY 20 AIR ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL 196 6% 69% 11 JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 RALSTON VALLEY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 244 6% 74% 11 ACADEMY 20 DISCOVERY CANYON CAMPUS SCHOOL 105 6% 69% 11 POUDRE R-1 FOSSIL RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL 211 6% 70% 11 LEWIS-PALMER 38 LEWIS-PALMER HIGH SCHOOL 124 6% 65% 17 DENVER COUNTY 1 DENVER CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 201 5% 74% 17 CHARTER SCHOOL INSTITUTE THE PINNACLE CHARTER SCHOOL (HIGH) 211 5% 57% 17 LITTLETON 6 ARAPAHOE HIGH SCHOOL 253 5% 57% 17 DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 MOUNTAIN VISTA HIGH SCHOOL 253 5% 66% 17 DENVER COUNTY 1 KIPP DENVER COLLEGIATE HIGH SCHOOL 178 5% 79% 17 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN 12 CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL 258 5% 74% 17 LITTLETON 6 HERITAGE HIGH SCHOOL 267 5% 64% 17 DENVER COUNTY 1 GEORGE WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 493 5% 47% 14 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 % Enrolled - Top Schools % Enrolled - Any Postsecondary School Total Graduates Table 5: White Students: Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 28% 78% School District High School 1 DENVER COUNTY 1 GEORGE WASHINGTON HIGH SCHOOL 621 2 ASPEN 1 ASPEN HIGH SCHOOL 829 25% 75% 2 DENVER COUNTY 1 EAST HIGH SCHOOL 1612 25% 82% 4 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 PEAK TO PEAK CHARTER SCHOOL 717 23% 84% 5 DENVER COUNTY 1 DENVER CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 108 22% 73% 6 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 FAIRVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 2687 21% 81% 7 DENVER COUNTY 1 DSST: STAPLETON HIGH SCHOOL 201 19% 85% 7 CHERRY CREEK 5 CHERRY CREEK HIGH SCHOOL 4655 19% 81% 9 BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 BOULDER HIGH SCHOOL 2309 18% 76% 10 CHARTER SCHOOL INSTITUTE ANIMAS HIGH SCHOOL 129 16% 67% 11 TELLURIDE R-1 TELLURIDE HIGH SCHOOL 287 15% 72% 12 ST VRAIN VALLEY RE 1J NIWOT HIGH SCHOOL 1596 14% 83% 13 EAGLE COUNTY RE 50 VAIL SKI AND SNOWBOARD ACADEMY (USSA) 75 13% 47% 13 DENVER COUNTY 1 DENVER SCHOOL OF THE ARTS 566 13% 69% 15 POUDRE R-1 LIBERTY COMMON CHARTER SCHOOL 83 12% 77% 15 DOUGLAS COUNTY RE 1 ROCK CANYON HIGH SCHOOL 2212 12% 84% 17 LITTLETON 6 ARAPAHOE HIGH SCHOOL 3240 11% 78% 17 GUNNISON WATERSHED RE1J CRESTED BUTTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL 157 11% 73% 19 JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 LAKEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL 2033 10% 75% 19 EAGLE COUNTY RE 50 BATTLE MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL 615 10% 78% 19 POUDRE R-1 RIDGEVIEW CLASSICAL CHARTER SCHOOLS 235 10% 76% 15 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 High School % Enrolled - Any Postsecondary School 1 ASPEN 1 ASPEN HIGH SCHOOL 941 23% 73% 2 TELLURIDE R-1 TELLURIDE HIGH SCHOOL 339 14% 67% 3 EAGLE COUNTY RE 50 VAIL SKI AND SNOWBOARD ACADEMY (USSA) 85 11% 50% 4 GUNNISON WATERSHED RE1J CRESTED BUTTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL 177 10% 71% 5 PLATEAU RE-5 PEETZ JUNIOR-SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 92 7% 83% 6 EAGLE COUNTY RE 50 BATTLE MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL 1106 5% 60% 7 FRENCHMAN RE-3 FLEMING HIGH SCHOOL 110 4% 76% 7 MEEKER RE1 MEEKER HIGH SCHOOL 310 4% 62% 9 LIMON RE-4J LIMON JUNIOR-SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 242 3% 65% 9 EAST GRAND 2 MIDDLE PARK HIGH SCHOOL 625 3% 54% 9 HOLYOKE RE-1J HOLYOKE JUNIOR-SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 282 3% 57% 9 SUMMIT RE-1 SUMMIT HIGH SCHOOL 1279 3% 70% 9 DELTA COUNTY 50(J) PAONIA HIGH SCHOOL 269 3% 61% 14 ESTES PARK R-3 ESTES PARK HIGH SCHOOL 239 2% 62% 14 JULESBURG RE-1 JULESBURG HIGH SCHOOL 137 2% 59% 14 RIDGWAY R-2 RIDGWAY HIGH SCHOOL 175 2% 64% 14 SANFORD 6J SANFORD JUNIOR/SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 145 2% 57% 14 GUNNISON WATERSHED RE1J GUNNISON HIGH SCHOOL 543 2% 64% 14 WRAY RD-2 WRAY HIGH SCHOOL 320 2% 60% 14 EAGLE COUNTY RE 50 EAGLE VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL 1054 2% 60% 14 PARK COUNTY RE-2 SOUTH PARK HIGH SCHOOL 210 2% 50% 14 CLEAR CREEK RE-1 CLEAR CREEK HIGH SCHOOL 379 2% 57% 14 BAYFIELD 10 JT-R BAYFIELD HIGH SCHOOL 662 2% 53% 14 WINDSOR RE-4 WINDSOR HIGH SCHOOL 1737 2% 61% Total Graduates School District % Enrolled - Top School Table 6: Rural or Small Town*: Matriculation to Top Tier Schools, Classes of 2009 - 2015 *Remote or outlying town setting defined by CDE 16 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 Table 7: Schools With the Biggest Improvements in Top College Matriculation Rates 2009 - 2011 to 2013 - 2015* Change in % of Graduates Matriculating to a Top School School District High School JEFFERSON COUNTY R-1 JEFFERSON COUNTY OPEN HIGH SCHOOL 7% ASPEN 1 ASPEN HIGH SCHOOL 7% FRENCHMAN RE-3 FLEMING HIGH SCHOOL 6% BOULDER VALLEY RE 2 FAIRVIEW HIGH SCHOOL 6% ST VRAIN VALLEY RE 1J NIWOT HIGH SCHOOL 5% POUDRE R-1 RIDGEVIEW CLASSICAL CHARTER SCHOOLS 5% MAPLETON 1 YORK INTERNATIONAL 4% PARK COUNTY RE-2 SOUTH PARK HIGH SCHOOL 4% CHERRY CREEK 5 CHERRY CREEK HIGH SCHOOL 3% *Only includes schools with graduating classes in all years. 17 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 Endnotes 1 Gould, E. (2012, October 10). U.S. lags behind peer countries in mobility. Economic Snapshot. Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.epi.org/publication/usalags-peer-countries-mobility/ 2 Greenstone, M., Looney, A., Patashnik, J., & Yu, M. (2013). Thirteen economic facts about social mobility and the role of education. The Hamilton Project, Brookings Institution, Washington DC. Retrieved from http://www. hamiltonproject. org/papers/thirteen_ economic_ facts_social_mobility_education 3 Woodworth, J. (2017, August 15). Woodworth: Behind the data – Communities must hold school boards, authorizers accountable to ensure quality education. The Alumni. The 74. Retrieved from http://thealumni.the74million.org/woodworth-behind-the-datacommunities-must-hold-school-boards-authorizers-accountable-to-ensure-qualityeducation/ 4 Haskins, R. (2008). Education and economic mobility. In J. B. Isaacs, I. V. Sawhill, & R. Haskins (Eds.), Getting ahead or losing ground: Economic mobility in America (pp. 91– 104). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings. edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch8.pdf 5 Carnevale, A. P., Rose, S. J., & Cheah, B. (2013). The college payoff: Education, occupations, lifetime earnings. Retrieved from https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/ bitstream/handle/10822/559300/collegepayoff-complete.pdf?sequence=1 6 Leonhardt, D. (2015). College for the Masses. The New York Times, 24. 7 The Georgetown University, Center on Education and the Workforce .2016). Average student has better chance (77%) of graduating at selective universities compared to open access schools (51%), Georgetown University Analysis Finds [Press release]. Retrieved from https://cew.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/MismatchFisherUT_ pressrelease_6-21-16.pdf 8 College ROI report: Best value colleges. PayScale Human Capital. Retrieved from https:// www.payscale.com/college-roi 9 Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility (No. w23618). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from https://www.capseecenter.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/04/Friedman-CAPSEE-plenary-040717.pdf 10 Reed, K. (2017). 2017 Legislative Report on the Postsecondary Progress and Success of High School Graduates. Colorado Department of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://highered.colorado.gov/Publications/Reports/Legislative/PostSecondary/2017_ Postsecondary_Progress_rel20170303.pdf 18 A SEAT AT THE TABLE, DECEMBER 2017 11 Ashkenas, J. Park H., and Pearce A. (2017) Even with affirmative action, blacks and hispanics are more underrepresented at top colleges than 35 years ago, New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/affirmativeaction.html 12 Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility (No. w23618). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from https://www.capseecenter.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/04/Friedman-CAPSEE-plenary-040717.pdf 19 ABOUT A+ COLORADO The mission of A+ Colorado is to sharpen public education by building public will and advocating for the changes necessary to dramatically increase student achievement in schools and districts in Colorado. We are an independent, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization working to bring the power of data and research to challenge ourselves, educators and policymakers to rethink public education. ©2017 A+ Colorado All Rights Reserved. A+ Colorado 1390 Lawrence St, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80204 Email: admin@apluscolorado.org Tel: 303.736.2549 apluscolorado.org