By Bill DeBaun, Senior Director, Data and Strategic Initiatives
Reading time: Seven minutes
I’m not on a limb here when I say that principals have a big impact on the direction of their school buildings. What they believe in and act on matters a lot for the experience of the staff and students they serve. That’s especially true around college
and career readiness (CCR). The National College Attainment Network (NCAN) has highlighted data from the RAND Corporation’s American School Leaders Panel (ASLP) before,
published as part of the American Mathematic Educator Study.
The TLDR here from the report is illuminating, and distressing (emphasis mine): “Our findings indicate that most high school principals set goals for CCR, but those goals lack specificity. Most principals try to offer a sequence of CCR activities
in 9th through 12th grade, but they most consistently offer access to advising. Additionally, principals seem to struggle with executing all aspects of a comprehensive CCR strategy.”
School leaders (and all school staff) have a lot on their plates, I get it, but this data reveals some actionable gaps that can help connect students with their next, best step.
1. Most principals say they have goals around CCR, but fewer than half say their school actually has a shared CCR vision
Only 43% of principals reported that their school has a shared college and career readiness culture organized around a common vision. (More specifically, 43% said their school was “similar” to school that does so). Contrast that with goals around specific
components of CCR being much more common (e.g., FAFSA, or Free Application for Federal Student Aid, completion, advising, dual enrollment). This suggests many schools are operating with activity but not alignment, and may be falling into
what Andy Schmitz and I recently called fragmentation.
2. FAFSA completion is a goal almost everywhere, but it rarely has a target
77% of principals said FAFSA completion is a goal at their school, but only 46% set a numeric target. More states than ever are sharing student-level FAFSA completion data with districts and schools,
being able to measure completion more effectively lends itself toward goal-setting. Let’s not have goals without accountability.
3. High schools focus far more on getting students in than getting them through
Less than half of principals reported a goal related to college completion six years after graduation compared to nearly 70% who have college enrollment as a goal. This reinforces a long-standing challenge for the transition out of K-12: the high school
graduation stage as the water’s edge. After all, there’s always a “next class up.” Just 22% and 14% had numerical enrollment and completion targets, respectively. It’s hard to set targets against data you don’t have, and states need to lean into
sharing postsecondary outcomes data back to districts if districts and schools aren’t going to get
this data themselves (likely through the National Student Clearinghouse).
Source: Leigh, Elaine W., Christine Mulhern, Min Jung Kim, Jessica Randazzo, and Elizabeth D. Steiner, How High School Principals Support College and Career Readiness: Findings from the 2025 American Mathematics Educator Study. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2026. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4411-2.html.
4. Only 27% of principals say they are doing all three “core” CCR things well
Just over one quarter of principals reported having a shared vision, a sequenced CCR plan from grades 9–12, and regular access to advising. For the rest, something is slipping. This validates an emphasis on systems over programs and explains why isolated
initiatives often fail to move outcomes. (For reference, 21% of principals said they did none of these things, 23% reported doing one, 29% reported doing two.)
5. More than half of principals report sequencing their CCR offerings; NCAN is working to grow that number
6. “One-on-one advising” is common, but often disconnected from a broader strategy
Three-quarters of principals named scheduled one-on-one meetings as a top advising method. The next two strategies were “e-mails, flyers, or texts sent to students and their families” and “periodic or one-time events.” This trio doesn’t exactly scream
“coherence.” In future administrations, we’ll hope to see activities like “regularly scheduled advisory period” and “monthly programming on related topics” move up the ranks.
Source: Ibid.
7. Teachers are contributing to lifting the CCR load
Nearly half of principals said classroom teachers strongly influence CCR advising. Interviews conducted with ASLP respondents revealed heavy reliance on advisory periods, homeroom, and push-in lessons. This underscores the importance of professional development
and role clarity as enabling conditions (as noted in this district enabling conditions framework). It’s also encouraging news given the
frequent finding that school counselors are shouldering a tremendous amount of this CCR work.
8. District support is the difference between coherence and chaos
Principals with stronger CCR coherence consistently cited district funding, staffing, and policy alignment. NCAN and many of our national partners released a framework for how districts can enable postsecondary success.
Surprise! It includes emphases on district-level vision setting, capacity building, resource provision, and collaboration. This finding directly supports the framework’s argument that high-quality advising cannot be built school by school in isolation.
Source: Ibid.
9. Principals want postsecondary outcomes data and cannot easily get it; that’s bad for providing quality advising
Principals have a good handle on the milestone data that occurs while students are with them but limited line of sight beyond that. “Most principals tracked postsecondary goals and outcomes, such as intended academic major, FAFSA completion, college acceptances,
and senior exit surveys, but they faced challenges with follow-up after more than one year. They used credit accumulation and “on-track to graduate” statuses to guide counselor interventions and to make changes to course pathways.” How are school
leaders supposed to guide current and prospective classes successfully without knowing what happened to future classes? Schools are flying blind about whether their advising actually works.
10. High-poverty schools are more likely to set CCR goals, not less
Contrary to common narratives, principals in high-poverty schools were more likely to report CCR goal-setting and shared culture, according to data from the ASLP. This suggests the challenge is not will, awareness, or understanding of why postsecondary
advising is important but instead the capacity and structural support to make them the fullest reality.
And here’s the home stretch (at least for this iteration of findings from the ASLP).
11. Ultimately, principals think their CCR systems are more coherent than the evidence suggests
In interviews, principals rated their CCR coherence a 7 out of 10 on average. But in surveys only 27% of principals met all three core criteria (a shared vision, a sequenced CCR plan from grades 9–12, and regular access to advising). We can debate whether
these components are the right ones by which to define “coherence,” but it’s inarguable each is critical. This perception gap is one of the most important takeaways for policymakers and funders: good intentions do not equal strong
systems.
RAND’s most recent report is a rich vein to mine on how school leaders can further advance college and career readiness in their school building. These insights are a good start, but there’s surely more to learn. NCAN looks forward to
continuing to highlight the most actionable takeaways from this important data source.
Disclosure: The author is a paid advisor on the Pathways section of the American Mathematics Educator Study and had input on the surveys items in the ASLP. The content here does not reflect the views and opinions of the RAND Corporation.
Email to a Friend
