Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Graduation Requirements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alabama board discusses making college‑and‑career readiness a minimum high‑school graduation requirement
Summary
State education officials opened detailed discussion on requiring a college‑and‑career‑readiness (CCR) indicator for a high‑school diploma, with staff proposing a phased timeline, multiple CCR pathways, and requests for funding and implementation support from districts.
State Board of Education members spent the bulk of a work session debating a proposal to make a college‑and‑career‑readiness (CCR) indicator a required minimum for a regular high‑school diploma, State Superintendent Dr. Reynolds said. Staff framed the change as prospective: if adopted, it would be written so the requirement could be included in four‑year plans for current eighth graders, targeting the graduating class of 2028.
Board members and staff described why the change matters and how it would be measured. Under the draft framework, a student would meet CCR by achieving any one of several options: a benchmark score on an ACT subject, a qualifying Advanced Placement (AP) score, college credit while in high school (dual enrollment), WorkKeys (an ACT product), a career‑technical (CTE) industry credential listed on the state’s credential registry (referred to in the meeting as the ACCP registry), completion of a CTE “completer” sequence, or military enlistment before graduation. Staff noted some pathways are stronger in certain regions and that many students meet CCR by a combination of measures.
The proposal intends to use the CCR indicator as an additional graduation requirement, not as a waiver or a single‑year one‑off change. Dr. Reynolds told the board that some high schools already show very high CCR rates—two schools were cited as having 100 percent—because they run approved local CCR pathways. Switching to the statewide registry would require some local programs to retool. Staff stressed the need for lead time so counselors can incorporate CCR into rising 8th graders’ four‑year plans.
Board members pressed on capacity, equity and funding. Several board members and superintendents told staff that districts with high poverty or limited staff capacity are only now beginning to raise CCR rates and would need time and resources to implement a requirement. At least one superintendent asked the department to use the foundation program to fully fund CTE teacher units so each high school could support a CTE course sequence without cannibalizing local units currently devoted to career‑tech centers.
Scheduling and geography also featured in the discussion. Members noted block scheduling can increase the number of Carnegie units students can earn and help with transportation to regional CTE centers, but long travel times and equipment costs at regional centers can still limit access. Staff and several board members urged consultation with superintendents, principals and CTE directors to identify barriers and unintended schedule impacts (for example, on athletics and fine arts).
Board members also asked how the CCR indicator would interact with the state report card. Dr. Reynolds said federal rules limit the state’s discretion: the U.S. Department of Education treats graduation rate as the primary academic indicator for high‑school accountability, so CCR cannot replace the graduation‑rate weighting on the report card.
Staff outlined next steps: a deeper work session on CCR in the next board meeting, including a presentation on a new career‑development model and more district‑level data. Dr. Reynolds recommended against rushing adoption; board members discussed seeking additional budget support and aiming for a formal vote after further analysis and outreach, with implementation scheduled far enough ahead to allow counselors and districts to prepare.
The board did not take a formal vote on the proposal during the session. Instead, members asked staff for: (1) a district‑by‑district report showing current CCR pathways and how many schools offer AP, dual‑enrollment or CTE sequences that would meet completer status; (2) an assessment of which CCR pathways could be offered through ACCESS (the state distance‑learning platform) or two‑year colleges; and (3) an estimate of funding needed (for example, to request additional CTE teacher units via the foundation program) to avoid forcing districts to reallocate existing units.
The board scheduled a deeper discussion at the next work session so members can review program‑level data, access options, and implementation timelines before considering rule changes.
