Study finds high‑school GPA improves prediction of first‑year college success; AIR, MSDE propose GPA pathway for CCR

The Maryland State Board of Education on Tuesday received the final College and Career Readiness (CCR) study from the American Institutes for Research (AIR), which concluded that adding a high‑school grade‑point‑average option to the current test‑based CCR standard would let more students be classified as ready for first‑year college work and improve the accuracy of predictions about first‑year college credit attainment.

AIR researchers said the interim, assessment‑only standard correctly classified roughly two‑thirds of students but misclassified a large share of students as not ready who later earned college credits. “High school GPA is the most important predictor or the strongest predictor of postsecondary progress,” an AIR researcher said during the briefing, summarizing multiple analytic approaches that consistently identified unweighted GPA as the leading predictor across cohorts.

The final report—drawn from a quantitative predictive‑validity analysis using Maryland Longitudinal Data System records and a qualitative content and alignment review—tested several alternative CCR specifications. AIR emphasized three examples: a more inclusive test threshold, an “OR” standard that allows meeting either the test criteria or a high‑school GPA threshold (recommended near a 3.0 cut), and tiered approaches that combine modest test performance with GPA cutoffs and targeted supports. AIR showed the OR option increased the percentage of students who meet CCR and raised overall accuracy rates for predicting whether students earn first‑year English, math or sufficient credits at Maryland colleges.

AIR cautioned that the study assessed alignment between Maryland’s intended high‑school standards and college course content rather than the quality of instruction actually delivered in classrooms—an important distinction raised repeatedly by board members. "We're looking at the intended content," an AIR presenter said, noting that enacted instruction and supports in local classrooms affect outcomes and warrant additional research.

Board members and higher‑education presenters pressed on equity and practical implications. Several directors asked for breakdowns by student subgroup and geographic region to understand how alternative standards would affect historically underserved populations. One board member asked whether GPA pathways could disproportionately advantage or disadvantage particular groups; AIR argued that the available analyses showed overall gains for subgroups and that GPA often captures nonacademic "skills for success" such as time management that can predict college progress.

Howard Community College President Dr. Daria Willis, invited to offer a practitioner perspective, described HCC’s local shift toward GPA‑based placement and co‑requisite models. Willis told the board HCC moved to GPA placement and planned to eliminate standalone developmental courses by fall 2024, adopting co‑requisite support models and accelerated seven‑week formats to improve completion. Willis cited internal results showing higher student success when GPA guides placement compared with single‑test approaches.

AIR’s recommendations to the board included: revising the CCR standard to offer at least two pathways (state assessments and a GPA pathway), providing MSDE guidance and support to standardize grading practices, building individualized demonstration routes (portfolios, AP/IB or CTE credits), strengthening early CCR counseling and supports, and continuing monitoring—particularly as MCAP assessment data become available.

Board members tentatively agreed to continue deliberations in October, hold a public hearing in early November, and aim for a final vote in December. MSDE said it would make AIR’s detailed appendices and a searchable database of accuracy metrics available so board members, districts and the public could examine subgroup and regional results before any decision.

Next steps noted by the board: staff will prepare detailed subgroup and LEA‑level analyses for members, schedule an October focused discussion of recommendations, and convene public input before the board considers adopting any change to the CCR standard.