The effect of the advanced placement examination for credit policy by the Florida State universities on the acceleration of a student's postsecondary education

The purpose of this research study was to determine if the Advanced Placement program as it is recognized by the universities in the Florida State University System (SUS) truly serves as an acceleration mechanism for those students who enter an SUS institution with passing AP scores. Despite mandates which attempt to control uniformity of policy, each public university in Florida determines which courses will be exempted and the number of credits they will grant for passing Advanced Placement courses.^ This is a descriptive study in which the AP policies of each of the SUS institutions were compared. Additionally, the college attendance and graduation data on members of a cohort of 593 Broward County high school graduates of the class of June, 1992 were compared. Approximately 28% of the cohort members entered university with passing Advanced Placement scores.^ The rate of early and on time graduation was significantly dependent on the Advanced Placement standing of the students in the cohort. Given the financial and human cost involved, it is recommended that all state universities bring their Advanced Placement policies into line with each other and implement a uniform Advanced Placement policy. It is also recommended that a follow-up study be conducted with a new cohort bound under the current 120 credit limitation for graduation. ^

Factors influencing university performance of associate in arts graduates transferring to the state university system

The purpose of this study was to examine the factorsbehind the failure rates of Associate in Arts (AA)graduates from Miami-Dade Community College (M-DCC) transferring to the Florida State University System (SUS). In M-DCC's largest disciplines, the university failure rate was 13% for Business & Management, 13% for Computer Science, and 14% for Engineering. Hypotheses tested were: Hypothesis 1 (H1): The lower division (LD) overall cumulative GPA and/or the LD major field GPA for AA graduates are predictive of the SUS GPA for the Business Management, Computer Science, and Engineering disciplines. Hypothesis 2 (H2): Demographic variables (age, race, gender) are predictive of performance at the university among M-DCC AA graduates in Engineering, Business & Management, and Computer Science. Hypothesis 3 (H3): Administrative variables (CLAST -College Level Academic Skills Test subtests) are predictive of university performance (GPA) for the Business/Management, Engineering, and Computer Science disciplines. Hypothesis 4 (H4): LD curriculum variables (course credits, course quality points) are predictive of SUS performance for the Engineering, Business/Management and Computer Science disciplines. Multiple Regression was the inferential procedureselected for predictions. Descriptive statistics weregenerated on the predictors. Results for H1 identified the LD GPA as the most significant variable in accounting for the variability of the university GPA for the Business & Management, Computer Science, and Engineering disciplines. For H2, no significant results were obtained for theage and gender variables, but the ethnic subgroups indicated significance at the .0001 level. However, differentials in GPA may not have been due directly to the race factor but, rather, to curriculum choices and performance outcomes while in the LD. The CLAST computation variable (H3) was a significant predictor of the SUS GPA. This is most likely due to the mathematics structure pervasive in these disciplines. For H4, there were two curriculum variables significant in explaining the variability of the university GPA (number of required critical major credits completed and quality of the student's performance for these credits). Descriptive statistics on the predictors indicated that 78% of those failing in the State University System had a LD major GPA (calculated with the critical required university credits earned and quality points of these credits) of less than 3.0; and 83% of those failing at the university had an overall community college GPA of less than 3.0.

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida: 1989--1994

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, a unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991).^ The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey.^ The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education. ^

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida : 1989-94

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, an unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991). The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey. The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education.

The relationship of student and teacher variables on academic achievement in Florida schools

Since 1995, Florida has been one of the leading states in the country initiating a high-stakes school accountability system. Public schools in Florida receive letter grades based on their performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). These school grades have significant effects on schools' reputations and funding. Consequently, the plan has been criticized for grading all schools in the same manner, without taking into account such variables as student poverty and mobility rates which are beyond the control of the school. ^ The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of student variables (poverty and mobility rates) and teacher variables (average years of teacher experience and attained degree level) on FCAT math and reading performance. This research utilized an education production function model to examine which set of inputs (student or teacher) has a stronger influence on student academic output as measured by the FCAT. ^ The data collected for this study was from over 1500 public elementary schools in Florida that listed all pertinent information for 2 school years (1998/1999 & 1999/2000) on the Florida Department of Education's website. ^ It was concluded that student poverty, teacher average years of experience and student mobility taken together, provide a strong predictive measure of FCAT reading and math performance. However, the set of student inputs was significantly stronger than the teacher inputs. High student poverty was highly correlated with low FCAT scores. Teacher experience and student mobility rates were not nearly as strongly related to FCAT scores as was student poverty. The results of this study provide evidence for educators and other school stakeholders of the relative degree to which student and teacher variables are related to student academic achievement. The underlying reasons for these relationships will require further examination in future studies. These results raise questions for Florida's school policymakers about the educational equity of the state's accountability system and its implementation. ^