Blog Post [ELM#1138] Access Opens the Door. Preparation Keeps Students Inside It.

What does college readiness actually require of students today? A single test score used to answer that question. Now readiness means transferable credit, workplace credentials, and the stamina to finish demanding coursework. Families expect all three, and they judge our schools accordingly.

That shift changes what leaders owe every student walking through the building. Readiness includes dual credit that transfers cleanly to a four-year degree. It includes International Baccalaureate coursework that builds analytical thinking across subjects. It includes career pathways that end in a credential employers actually recognize.

Central office leaders keep circling one difficult question underneath that broader definition. How do we open Advanced Placement, dual enrollment, and International Baccalaureate seats to many more students? At the same time, how do we keep those students enrolled once the coursework gets hard? I hear a version of that question from almost every district leader I chat with.

Here is where good intentions quietly go wrong. Leaders expand seats first and assume support will appear once students arrive. Enrollment numbers climb, a press release goes out, and everyone moves to the next priority. Withdrawal and failure rates rise soon after, but few people connect the two events.

That pattern comes from a belief nobody says out loud. Leaders assume opportunity alone finishes the job, when opportunity only starts it. Students placed in rigorous courses without preparation often struggle visibly in front of peers. Zaretta Hammond, author of Culturally Responsive Teaching and the Brain, named this exact trap in an interview with ASCD’s Educational Leadership. “One of the biggest mistakes we make, particularly for struggling students, who are disproportionately children of color, is that we employ a pedagogy of compliance,” she said (Hammond, 2015). That compliance model hands students a seat without ever building the skills the seat requires.

A stronger approach pairs wider access with preparation built years in advance. Early in my career as a Principal Supervisor, I sat with a group of principals reviewing our Advanced Placement rosters. The rosters looked familiar year after year, filled mostly with students whose teachers or parents had already pushed for placement. That day, we asked a harder question. Who belonged in that room but had never been asked?

We stopped waiting for referrals and instead worked together to build a universal screening process. An outside vendor helped us review multiple data points for every student, not just the ones already flagged. That single change surfaced students who had never been told they were capable of advanced work. Enrollment grew, but so did something harder to measure: belief.

We paired that expanded access with tutoring and early exposure to rigor well before students reached the actual course. Advisors checked in on struggling students within the first few weeks, not after a failing progress report arrived. The combination worked because access and preparation moved together, not because one raced ahead of the other. That order matters more than most program designs admit.

Recent research confirms what we saw firsthand. NWEA found that only 58% of schools offer Algebra by eighth grade, with access far lower in high-poverty schools (NWEA, 2025). Enrollment gaps persist even where courses exist: over half of Asian students take advanced coursework, compared with 22% of Latino students and 17% of African American students (NWEA, 2025). The College Board (2023) also found that Advanced Placement completers persist through college at notably higher rates than peers who never enrolled.

Three practices consistently separate districts that scale access well from those that only scale enrollment numbers.

1. Screen every student with multiple data points instead of waiting for a referral.
2. Front-load rigor and tutoring in earlier grades so students arrive prepared.
3. Track completion and grades after enrollment, not just roster size.

None of these practices require new buildings or larger budgets. They require leaders willing to change who gets asked and when. Fordham Institute (2024) found that well-designed advanced programs expand access without diluting rigor, but only through intentional redesign. That redesign is the real difference between a headline and a changed life.

This semester, pull your advanced course rosters and ask honestly who is missing and why.

#EducationalLeader,
Kim

When schools are well led, students learn well.

References

• College Board. (2023). AP program participation and performance data. College Board.
• Fordham Institute. (2024). Think again: Are education programs for high achievers inherently inequitable? Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
• Hammond, Z. (2015). Zaretta Hammond on equity and student engagement. ASCD, Educational Leadership.
• NWEA. (2025). NWEA study finds unequal access to algebra limits advanced math pathways. NWEA.
• Vaden, R. (2012). Take the stairs: 7 steps to achieving true success. TarcherPerigee.

The views shared herein are solely those of Dr. Kim D. Moore and do not necessarily reflect the positions of her employer, the school district, or any local, state, or federal government entity.