CVHEC Co-Requisite Workshop...CVHEC Co-Requisite Workshop Day One Files 08/2017 Central Valley Math...

CVHEC Co-Requisite Workshop Day One Files

08/2017

CentralValleyMathPathwaysRecommendations pp.001-012

Memorandums

TheCaliforniaStateUniversity-EO1100

CaliforniaCommunityColleges–AB705

pp.013-020

pp.021-030

Co-RequisiteSupportsandSourcesCharlesADanaCenter

pp.031-035

ActionPlanningFiles

ActionTable pp.036-039

AB705ImplementationChecklist

AB705PlanningOrganizer

Example:CourseRedesignPlanningTemplate(SoutheastMissouriState)

pp.040

pp.041-042

pp.043-048

RedesignPlanningandImplementation(SoutheastMissouriStateUniversity)

pp.049-050

09/2016

2

Bakersfield College • Cero Coso College • Clovis Community College • College of the Sequoias • Columbia College • CSU, Bakersfield • CSU, Fresno • CSU, Stanislaus • Fresno City College • Fresno Pacific University • Merced College •

Modesto Junior College • Porterville College • Oxnard College • Reedley College • San Joaquin Delta College • Taft College • West Hills College Coalinga • West Hills College Lemoore • UC Merced

1

Central Valley Math Pathways

Recommendations

CVHEC August 2018 001



2

Students do better when they are engaged in work that counts toward a degree or credential in their academic or career area of interest. Completing a set of gateway courses in the first year is a critical step toward college completion.1 Overview The Central Valley Higher Education Consortium (CVHEC), in collaboration with the Charles A. Dana Center of the University of Texas, Austin (Dana Center), has launched an initiative to improve students’ success and completion rates in mathematics at colleges and universities in California’s Central Valley. Faculty from the participating institutions formed the Central Valley Math Pathways Task Force (Task Force) in Fall 2017. The Task Force developed their mission, goal and objectives statements to inform recommended solutions to increase Central Valley Math Completion rates. The Task Force met over a period of six months to develop this document. The Task Force had representation from the following CVHEC member institutions: Bakersfield College; Cero Coso College; Clovis Community College; College of the Sequoias; Columbia College; CSU, Bakersfield; CSU, Fresno; CSU, Stanislaus; Fresno City College; Fresno Pacific University; Merced College; Modesto Junior College; Porterville College; Oxnard College (not a CVHEC member); Reedley College; San Joaquin Delta College; Taft College; West Hills College Coalinga; West Hills College Lemoore; and UC Merced.

I. Central Valley Math Pathways Task Force Combined Mission Statement and Problem Statement

A. Mission and Goal Statement

The mission and goal of the Task Force is to raise student completion rates at Central Valley colleges and universities by redesigning and creating pathways in transfer level mathematics, aligned with students’ programs of study, that provide clear direction for completing mathematics courses in a timely manner. The mission and goal will be achieved in accordance with legislation from the California Legislature (Student Success Act, Assem. Bill 705 codified as EDC § 78213) and executive orders from California State University Chancellor (EO 1100 revised August 2017), including direction that mathematics courses with prerequisites reflect only skills and knowledge required in the course.

A. Objectives The objectives of the Task Force are to:

• Communicate the importance of better alignment of mathematics pathways and courses with programs of study.




3

• Identify and recommend well-‐defined math pathways from developmental to transfer-‐level courses, aligned with programs of study for certificates, AA/AS degrees and transfer degrees.

• Develop guidelines for corequisite courses and prerequisite courses one level below transfer, for various math pathways and in compliance with Assembly Bill 705 (EDC § 78213).

• Recommend evidence-‐based practices for placement, such as Multiple Measures Assessment Project (MMAP), and advising in math pathways and courses that increase equitable access to programs of study.

• Research opportunities for professional learning for faculty teaching mathematics on innovative teaching strategies, using instructional delivery options, technologies, and tools to support student learning.

• Provide a venue for communication between area colleges and universities on articulation issues.

The Task Force mission, goal, and objectives respond to a large and growing body of evidence that demonstrates better ways to serve students in mathematics through accelerated math sequences, math courses using evidence-‐based pedagogy and curriculum, and holistic placement strategies.

Today, it has become clear that sequences of fragmented, reductive coursework that students must complete before entering college-level courses are not a reliable on-ramp to college for most students who have traditionally been judged to be underprepared. 2

B. Problem Statement

The Task Force has identified a set of significant research findings, which, taken together, form a Problem Statement that informs the Task Force mission, goal, and objectives. The Problem Statement begins with a broad conclusion about mathematics as a barrier to student success and completion, followed by a set of specific, research-‐based factors that result in poor success and completion rates among community college students.

• Completion of the first transfer-‐level mathematics course, or, in the case of associate degrees, at the level of intermediate algebra, is a predictor of student success. Unfortunately, mathematics has been shown to be a barrier for many students, as demonstrated by these data points:

First math enrollment at a California community college is 2 to 4 levels below transfer level, and the completion rate for a course within six years at the level of intermediate algebra is 34%. (CCCCO Scorecard 2010-‐2011 cohort tracked through 2015-‐2016.)




4

Student enrollment in math at any level below transfer-‐level during the first year at a California community college and completion of a transfer-‐level math course within one year is 17%. (CCCCO Scorecard 2015-‐2016 cohort.)

• Current placement practices place the majority of students into developmental

education courses. “California community colleges identify more than 75% of its students as underprepared and refer this overwhelming majority of students to remedial courses.” (Student Success Act, Assemb. Bill 705 § 1 subd. (a)(2).) “There is evidence that when used as the primary criterion for placement, these tests tend to under place students—leading colleges to assign students to remedial courses when those students could have succeeded in college-‐level courses. The reliance of test scores as the determinant factor for high-‐stakes placement decisions runs contrary to testing industry norms.” (Student Success Act, Assemb. Bill 705 § 1 subd. (a)(12).)

• Students in traditional developmental education sequences are less likely to complete transfer-‐level math credit compared to students in accelerated models.

“Students placed into remediation are much less likely to reach their education goals. According to the Student Success Scorecard, just 40 percent go on to complete a degree, certificate, or transfer outcome in six years, compared to 70 percent for students allowed to enroll directly in college-‐level courses.” (Student Success Act, Assem. Bill 705 §1 subd. (a)(5).)

• A single mathematics pathway does not allow sufficient options for students to make

mathematics meaningful to their academic and career goals.

“There is also growing consensus among the professional associations of mathematicians that intermediate algebra and college algebra should not be the default requirement for programs that do not depend on their content.” (“Acceleration Strategies That Produce Powerful Results: A Planning Resource for Community Colleges,” August 2015.) (California Acceleration Project, http://cap.3csn.org/ les/2015/09/Powerful-‐ Acceleration-‐Strategies-‐CAP.pdf.)

• Community colleges report that they are constrained from addressing the points

above by articulation issues. Challenges related to articulation between community college and public universities have a long and complex history in California. Challenges found through research include the following:




5

o System and Institutional Silos o Faculty Autonomy o Un-‐Common Academic Calendars o Underprepared Community College Students o University Capacity o The Master Plan and Lack of Statewide Coordination o Lack of Funding (Center for the Study of Community Colleges, 2010, “Reforming

Transfer and Articulation in California Four Statewide Solutions for Creating a More Successful and Seamless Transfer Path to the Baccalaureate.”)

• Data show equity gaps exist across disciplines and are significant in mathematics.

Disaggregated data from the Central Valley institutions of higher education show achievement gaps across various demographic groups, including race, socio-‐economic status, and non-‐traditional students. “The choice of assessment instruments and placement policies has serious implications for equity, since students of color are more likely to be placed into remedial courses.” (Student Success Act, Assem. Bill 705 §1 subd. (a)(3).)

II. Central Valley Math Pathways Implementation: Challenges and Possible Solutions

Responding to the CVHEC Math Pathways Task Force’s Mission, Goals and Problem Statement, the Task Force has identified several challenges to implementation and scaling of multiple mathematics pathways across the CVHEC higher education institutions. Challenges identified by the Task Force, outside of the actual mathematics curriculum, include:

• Scheduling and classroom space issues • Impacts on students’ financial aid (in particular, if students do not pass an 8-‐unit course) • Students’ total units for transfer • Students who may change majors • Student athlete and categorical program impacts, including basic skills funding

Challenges identified by the Task Force affecting mathematics curriculum – courses and learning objectives -‐ focus on articulation and transferability to specific CSU and UC majors for statistics and other quantitative reasoning courses when offered within different tracks or with different pre-‐requisites. Individual institutions will have to make decisions on compliance with the Student Success Act, Assembly Bill 705 codified as Education Code section 78213, Student Matriculation, and CSU Executive Orders (depending on system). Corequisites and/or pre-‐statistics courses, cohorts or comingling, different statistics tracks for different majors, team teaching, and learning




6

communities. These decisions are and will be difficult and time consuming, but the difficulty is compounded without clear articulation guidelines. The challenges identified by the Task Force related to faculty and pedagogy would include significant training needs for faculty. There will be an increased number of quantitative reasoning and statistics courses offered at each institution, along with co-‐requisite courses. Current math faculty, along with academic advisors and counselors, will need to be engaged and trained. The following are possible solutions identified by the Task Force. Develop Articulation and Transferability Guidelines Responding to the challenges, the Task Force has identified several possible, prioritized solutions. Because many of the challenges require collaboration with institutional units outside of academics, such as Financial Aid, Admissions & Records, Articulation, and high school stakeholders, among others, the Task Force recommends creating a series of recommendations for action that target the aforementioned groups to both inform and to solicit their assistance in overcoming the challenges of articulation and transferability. Thus, the first priority for possible solutions is to develop articulation and transferability guidelines for the community colleges, CSU, UC and private systems and institutions serving the Central Valley, which should include appropriate math pathways for programs/majors and meta-‐majors, as well as implications for articulation with high school mathematics curricula. CVHEC Higher Education Institutions Support Attendant to the first priority and responding to recent legislation (EDC § 78213 Student Matriculation) affecting community colleges and an Executive Order (EO 1100 revised August 2017) affecting CSU, the Task Force recognizes that prioritized ultimate solutions will include the assumption that CVHEC higher education institutions support and guide students to begin and complete transfer and general education mathematics courses early in their college careers. This assumption carries implications for all of the possible, prioritized solutions and includes assessment of achievement gaps and action to achieve equity for all student populations. Explore Research-‐based Curricula and Professional Development In addition, many of the challenges identified require curriculum modifications, or pedagogical shifts. Therefore, the task force has identified as a possible, prioritized solution that CVHEC institutions explore both research-‐based curricula and professional development opportunities to identify, and subsequently initiate, an optimal marriage of materials and instruction, informed by disaggregated data that identify learning and achievement gaps among diverse student populations. Specifically, the Task Force will recommend professional development for faculty regarding statistics instruction, including alternative co-‐requisite models. Define and Clarify Multiple Mathematics Pathways




7

The Task Force has identified as a possible, prioritized solution that would have the CVHEC institutions define and clarify the multiple mathematics pathways and how they are aligned intersegmentally with programs of study. Train Counselors and Faculty on Math Pathways The Task Force also has identified as a possible, prioritized solution for training counselors and faculty on mathematics pathways, leading to the development of placement guidelines for use by department faculty, counselors, and advisors. Fund Professional Development The Task Force has identified as a possible, prioritized solution that CVHEC institutions commit to shifting existing funding and securing new funding to conduct professional development and training in the identified areas. Comprehensive Communication and Broad Engagement Finally, the Task Force has identified as a possible, prioritized solution that should inform implementation of all forthcoming recommendations. Comprehensive, ongoing communication and broad engagement among all CVHEC institutions are essential to the success of implementation and, ultimately, to the success of students.

III. CVHEC Math Pathways Recommendations Following development of challenges and possible solutions to mitigate the problems and barriers to improving student success and outcomes in mathematics, the Task Force has identified four recommendations. The Task Force intends that CVHEC institutions implement the recommendations with as much inter-‐institutional continuity and consistency of policies and practices as possible. 1. Placement/Equity The Task Force recommends that CVHEC institutions use multiple measures to ensure the highest, most appropriate placement for students. A student should be encouraged, and if possible required, to see an academic advisor/counselor to ensure proper placement. Communication between student, faculty and counselor should be on-‐going and consistent. Training may be necessary for faculty and staff to work toward highest possible, most accurate placement for all students. The training should address under-‐placement and equity issues. All staff should maintain a positive attitude regarding placement and student success, and this attitude should be reflected when communicating with students. (See Appendix A for a draft statement of “Guiding Principles,” which should inform implementation of this recommendation.) The following is a summary of the recommendation and its implementation:




8

What: Place each student in the highest-‐level math course using multiple measures and maintain good communication between the student, faculty, and counselor. Provide training and establish placement protocols for highest possible placement. How: Implementation of multiple measures and required professional development. Why: To resolve the under-‐placement issue and close any equity gaps.

Who: Faculty, counselors and administration. Timeline: This recommendation should be the first implemented and completed as soon as possible.

2. Co-‐requisite Course The Task Force recommends that all CVHEC institutions develop and implement course co-‐requisite options. Training and communication on co-‐requisite course models should be provided for math faculty, and possibly curriculum committees. The co-‐requisite strategy should not just be another math course in a sequence, but one that provides students with the opportunity to receive the necessary assistance for successful completion of a transfer level math course. The purpose of the co-‐requisite strategy is to increase success in transfer level courses. The following is a summary of the recommendation and its implementation: What: Create corequisite models that solely support transfer level courses, providing necessary training and communication. How: Creation of new corequisite courses by math faculty. Why: To increase success rates in the transfer level courses. Who: Faculty and the curriculum committees. Timeline: In accordance with the California Community College Chancellor’s Office AB 705 Implementation Timeline, corequisite courses should be developed and approved by the curriculum committees in time for Fall 2019 enrollment.

3. Meta-‐Majors The Task Force recommends that CVHEC institutions ensure consistency and appropriate alignment of transfer level math courses within meta-‐majors. Mathematics courses should align with each meta-‐major yielding one math pathway within each meta-‐major. Clearly




9

identifying the path for each meta-‐major will aid students in moving toward program completion. Faculty and counselors will need to maintain communication with CSU, UC and private universities to ensure the math courses within the meta-‐majors continue to meet their requirements for transfer. The following is a summary of the recommendation and its implementation: What: Identify math courses for each meta-‐major. How: Coordination among articulation officers, departments and divisions to align meta-‐major courses. Why: Help students toward program completion and clearly identify the path for each meta-‐major. Who: Articulation officers and math faculty with regard to courses within a met-‐major and counselors for communication with UC, CSU and private universities. Timeline: Alignment should start as soon as possible, and discussion should be maintained yearly to sustain consistency.

4. Articulation The Task Force recommends the creation of guiding principles for math pathways development and articulation for CVHEC institutions. (See Draft – Appendix A.) These guiding principles should support AB 705 implementation and clarify articulation requirements and processes in order to support math pathways options for both general education and lower division major preparation. In particular, the guiding principles should support the articulation of math options for general education as described in the CSU Executive Order 1100 revised August 2017, build on the use of Transfer Model Curricula (and associated Associate Degrees for Transfer) as mandated by the Student Transfer Achievement Act (Senate Bill 1440 codified as EDC §§ 66745, 66746), and encourage the use of course-‐to-‐course articulation when necessary, as part of Lower Division Major Preparation Agreements when Transfer Model Curricula does not exist for the major. To develop this resource, Task Force members, articulation officers, math faculty, and other interested parties met April 20, 2018 to surface articulation issues that are currently impeding development and articulation of math pathways among CVHEC institutions and to develop guiding principles to resolve these issues on a regional basis. The Task Force will approve the guiding principles as part of this report. The following is a summary of the recommendation and its implementation:




10

What: Develop guiding principles for math pathways development and articulation in the Central Valley. How: Regional meetings of math faculty and articulation officers and other interested parties, with a subgroup authoring the Guiding Principles; endorsement by CVHEC Board. Why: Clarify and build on existing articulation processes to support increased transfer rates. Who: CVHEC and a subgroup of the Central Valley Math Task Force. Timeline: Endorsement of guiding principles by CVHEC Board by June 2018.

IV. Action Taken as of April 2018

Leading up to the development of solutions and, ultimately, recommendations, the Task Force has taken the following actions in support of the mission and objectives of the Initiative:

• Professional Development Opportunity: At the December 1, 2017 CVHEC Math Pathways Task Force meeting, an invitation was made for the Task Force members to attend a Cuyamaca College Presentation to be held at College of the Sequoias on January 12, 2018. The event was co-‐hosted by CCCSN and CAP. The purpose of the meeting was to share the study on Cuyamaca’s math project. It was recommended that teachers, articulation counselors, and articulation officers attend.

• Leadership Opportunities:

The Task Force and CVHEC presented a workshop in April on intersegmental articulation. This workshop was designed to bring teams together from throughout the valley to discuss math articulation between regional colleges and universities, the implementation of AB 705 (EDC § 78213) , in addition to learning more about what fellow faculty members have been working on throughout the year, regarding Math Pathways and math co-‐requisite remediation. As a result of this workshop, articulation officers have asked to be members of the CVHEC Math Pathways Taskforce.

The Task Force, CVHEC, CAP, and the Dana Center are organizing a Regional Math Summit/Conference in Fall 2018, focusing on corequisite curriculum strategies. The audience for this event would be curriculum chairs, math instructors and articulation chairs. The event would be a two-‐day event on a Thursday and Friday. CVHEC will provide logistical support. Task Force members will co-‐chair the event and set the agenda. The Task Force agreed to the proposal and to move forward with planning.




11

1 Jenkins, D., & Cho, S. (2012). “Get With the Program: Accelerating Community College Students’ Entry Into and Completion of Programs of Study.” (CCRC Working Paper No. 32). New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/get-‐with-‐the-‐program.html 2 Bailey, T., Jeong, D.W., & Cho, S.W. (2010). “Referral, Enrollment, and Completion in Developmental Education Sequences in Community Colleges.” Economics of Education Review, 29, 255–270. http:// ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/referral-‐enrollment-‐completion-‐ developmental-‐education.html Appendix A

Guiding Principles for Math Pathways Development and Articulation in the Central Valley To meet AB 705 or Education Code section 78213 requirements, improve student outcomes, and prepare students for success in math courses for their programs of study at Central Valley universities, our region endorses the following guiding principles for math pathways development and articulation within the Central Valley: 1. The use of corequisites in lieu of prerequisites for all first-‐tier transfer-‐level math courses as

a mechanism to support student success in math under AB 705 (EDC § 78213).

2. The use of multiple measures placement compliant with AB 705 (EDC § 78213) in lieu of placement testing or course-‐completion to determine student eligibility for access to transfer-‐level course work.

3. The development and articulation of statistics and other math options for students who are

completing the quantitative reasoning requirement to meet CSU and UC general education requirements, as described in CSU Executive Order 1100 (revised August 2017) and the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC) Standards.

4. The development of Associate Degrees for Transfer (ADTs) as mandated by Student Transfer

Achievement Act (Senate Bill 1440 codified as EDC §§ 66745, 667456), and the acceptance of those ADTs at CSUs as a mechanism for streamlining transfer into the major when the ADT is deemed similar to lower division requirements for a major at a CSU campus.

5. Recognition that the Associate Degree for Transfer, when deemed as similar to the lower

division requirements for a major at a CSU campus, permits students to be accepted to a major in lieu of all published lower-‐division major preparation transfer requirements and insures completion of the baccalaureate degree with no more than 60 units at the CSU




12

campus following transfer (per Student Transfer Achievement Act, Senate Bill 1440 codified as EDC §§ 66745, 66746).

6. Course-‐to-‐course articulation and the development of Lower Division Major Preparation

Agreements for majors at Central Valley CSUs that do not accept associate degrees for transfer as ‘similar” or for majors for which an associate degree for transfer has not been developed.

a. In Lower Division Major Preparation Agreements course-‐to-‐course articulation based

on the merits of the transfer-‐level course outline with prerequisites/corequisites that contain only the skills and knowledge needed for success in the target course; with the recognition that the community college may use multiple measures to determine if the student is eligible for the transfer-‐level course.

b. In instances where a Lower Division Major Preparation Agreement requires a math course that has an intermediate algebra prerequisite in addition to a statistics course, statistics courses with an alternative pre-‐requisite to intermediate algebra that have CSU-‐GE B4 and IGETC 2A certification will receive course-‐to-‐course articulation and be included in the Lower Division Major Preparation Agreement.


November 20, 2017

C O D E D M E M O R A N D U M ASA-2017-27

TO: CSU Presidents

FROM: Eric G. Forbes

Assistant Vice Chancellor

SUBJECT: Implementation Guidance for Executive Order 1110 - Assessment of Academic

Preparation and Placement in First-Year General Education Written

Communication and Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning Courses

In accordance with Executive Order 1110, this coded memorandum provides guidance on the

continued use of traditional assessment measures, the introduction of placement indicators based

on the academic performance of students in high school and the Early Start Program. To provide

consistent guidance to prospective CSU students and secondary schools, the following standards

shall be applicable at each CSU campus. This memo establishes uniform placement practices at

all CSU campuses.

Placement in courses that satisfy CSU General Education (GE) Mathematics/Quantitative

Reasoning and Written Communication requirements will be based on four categories described

below. For students demonstrating indicators near the placement thresholds, campuses may make

exceptions to this placement guidance, based on information regarding the academic progression

of students. These exceptions may include outcomes of directed self-placement exercises.

Category I: Has fulfilled the GE Subarea A2 or B4 requirement

o Student has met the CSU GE Breadth Subarea A2 and/or B4 requirement via

Advanced Placement (AP) examination, International Baccalaureate (IB)

examination or transferable course

Category II: Placement in a GE Subarea A2 or B4 course

o Student has met examination standards and/or multiple measures-informed

standards

Category III: Recommend placement in a supported GE Subarea A2 or B4 course

o Based on new multiple measures, student needs additional academic support

o Participation in the Early Start Program is recommended and may be highly

advisable for some students, particularly STEM majors


Category IV: Require placement in a supported GE Subarea A2 or B4 course or the

first term of an applicable stretch course

o Based on new multiple measures, student needs additional academic support

o Participation in the Early Start Program is required

Executive Order 1110 provides for enrollment in appropriate college-level, baccalaureate credit-

bearing courses that strengthen skills development to facilitate achieving the appropriate general

education student learning outcomes. Such GE courses may include, but are not limited to,

various forms of co-requisite or supplemental instruction. Campuses may also offer

baccalaureate, elective credit co-requisite support courses. Instructional support may be in the

form of mandatory recitation course components with no unit value, online services, courses that

stretch across terms, as well as concurrent pre-baccalaureate units, with specified unit

limitations. In no circumstance shall a sequence of courses (including those completed in the

Early Start Program) leading to and satisfying the GE Subarea A2 or B4 requirement result in

earning more than eight semester units of baccalaureate credit. Campus faculty shall be

responsible for designing, developing and refining appropriate courses.

Consistent with Title 5 sections regarding total units required for baccalaureate degrees,

notwithstanding approved exceptions, no baccalaureate degree programs shall extend the unit

requirement beyond 120 semester units. A campus must maintain an academic degree plan that

allows for the completion of each of these degrees in 120 semester units. However, an individual

student may complete more than 120 semester units.

Campuses are expected to offer sufficient sections of courses satisfying the GE Written

Communication (Subarea A2) and GE Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning (Subarea B4)

requirements to accommodate the full demand for these courses across the first academic year.

Course Placement Indicators

In close collaboration with appropriate committees, the CSU has prepared specific placement

guidelines that match the categories with both traditional test measures and high school

measures. These guidelines are represented as an attachment to this memo. These placement

standards will be periodically reviewed by the Admission Advisory Council and will be subject

to revision based on the assessment of CSU course outcomes. Specific course placement should

be based on the evidence of highest achievement supplied by each student either in the form of

traditional examination measures (ACT, SAT Reasoning, EAP/Smarter Balanced Assessment or

successor examinations) or in the form of grades earned in high school courses. While there are

four categories, there may also be also variations in placement given differences in student

degree objectives.

Because final grades from the senior year of high school enrollment may not be fully reported by

the time course selection occurs, all official and self-reported academic records may be

considered for placement. Consistent with CSU admissions and records procedures, self-reported

academic records will be subject to validation using official transcript records or official sources

such as the California College Guidance Initiative, upon receipt.

Students, such as veterans, international students or re-entry students, for whom comparable

academic records or examinations are not available, should be assessed utilizing all available


academic information. Campuses may employ campus-based assessment tools to provide

additional measures for placement in written communication and mathematics/ quantitative

reasoning courses for these student populations as well placement in higher-level or major

preparation courses (i.e. Business Calculus, Calculus for Life Sciences, Linear Algebra) for all

students.

Advisement

Campuses are expected to offer sufficient sections of courses satisfying the GE Written

Communication (Subarea A2) and GE Quantitative Reasoning/Mathematics (Subarea B4)

requirements to accommodate the full demand for these courses across the first academic year.

Students who are not successful in completing these courses but satisfy all other campus

academic eligibility requirements will be required to enroll in these courses in their second

academic year.

As campuses develop new courses that fulfill CSU GE Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning

requirements and align more closely with student degree objectives, campuses will need to

develop strategies to assist students identified as undecided or undeclared in the selection of

appropriate mathematics/quantitative reasoning courses.

The Office of the Chancellor will deliver CMS/Peoplesoft processes to classify new students

based on the four new placement categories, organize campus majors by required mathematics

pathways and respond to systemwide reporting requirements. Campuses should utilize the four

new placement categories in the development of capacity projections for future enrollment.

Capacity models using the new categories and fall 2016 new student enrollment have been

provided to each campus.

The CSU Early Start Program

In summer 2018, the Early Start Program will largely proceed as established under Executive

Order 1048. However, determination of student participation in the Early Start Program will be

subject to new assessment and placement guidance, including the use of academic performance

indicators from high school. Campuses may elect to pilot a limited number of courses that fully

comply with Executive Order 1110 for destination students only. All campuses must offer

traditional Early Start Program courses in order to support both destination and service students.

The 2019 Early Start Program will be responsive to the written communication and

mathematics/quantitative reasoning curriculum developed by faculty for the 2018-19 academic

year. Participation in the Early Start Program shall be required for students identified above as

Category IV and encouraged for students identified as Category III. Campuses will be expected

to offer sufficient class sections of courses satisfying the written communication and

mathematics/quantitative reasoning general education requirements in the Early Start Program to

match demand for both destination and service students. Consistent with past practice, the Early

Start Program should work in collaboration with existing Summer Bridge Programs.


International (F-visa) students and nonresident students remain exempt from participation in the

Early Start Program. Students so exempted should be provided additional academic support, as

needed, in order to be successful in both written communication and mathematics/quantitative

reasoning courses in their first academic year.

Determination of good academic standing or satisfactory academic progress shall not be based

solely upon Early Start Program enrollment. No student shall be academically disqualified based

upon enrollment in the Early Start Program.

While students requiring skills development in both written communication and

mathematics/quantitative reasoning shall be required to enroll in only one subject area during the

Early Start Program, they may elect to enroll in both. All Early Start Program course

enrollments, including these elective decisions, will follow the Early Start Program fee schedule

and applicable financial aid support.

Early Start Program courses offered at any CSU campus will have a common fee. The fee shall

be $182 per unit plus $2 in other mandatory fees. This fee may be adjusted commensurate with

changes in state university tuition. Campus parking and course instruction materials may also be

charged. Qualifying students who apply for financial aid via the Free Application for Federal

Student Aid or the California Dream Application will be eligible for a waiver of the per unit fee.

Criteria for such fee waivers shall be distributed annually to campuses by the Office of the

Chancellor.

To assist campus faculty, staff and administrators in the implementation of new approaches to

the Early Start Program, regular progress updates and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

resources will be maintained online at www.calstate.edu/acadaff/earlystart. Questions regarding

the Early Start Program or other elements of this memorandum may be directed to Eric Forbes,

Assistant Vice Chancellor, Student Academic Services, at (562) 951-4744 or

[email protected].

EGF/jc

Attachment

c: Dr. Loren J. Blanchard, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs

CSU Provosts/Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs

CSU Vice Presidents for Student Affairs

Dr. Christine Miller, Chair, Academic Senate of CSU

Associate Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs

Mr. Nathan Evans, Chief of Staff, Academic and Student Affairs


http://www.calstate.edu/acadaff/earlystart

mailto:[email protected]

CSU

Pla

cem

en

t o

f Fi

rst

Ye

ar S

tud

en

ts B

ase

d o

n A

cad

em

ic P

rep

arat

ion

Pla

cem

ent

Cat

ego

ry

Pla

cem

ent

Gro

up

Maj

or

Pat

h

Op

tio

ns

Aca

dem

ic P

rep

arat

ion

-

Hig

h S

cho

ol C

ou

rsew

ork

Pre

-Exi

stin

g C

SU S

tan

dar

ds

Earl

y St

art

Firs

t Y

ear

Pla

cem

en

t

Cat

ego

ry I

Has

Fu

lfill

ed

GE

A2

Re

qu

ire

me

nt

All

Maj

ors

N/A

• A

sco

re o

f 3

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

Co

llege

Bo

ard

Ad

van

ced

Pla

cem

ent

(AP

) La

ngu

age

and

Co

mp

osi

tio

n t

est,

OR

• A

sco

re o

f 3

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

Co

llege

Bo

ard

AP

Co

mp

osi

tio

n

and

Lit

erat

ure

tes

t, O

R

• C

om

ple

tio

n a

nd

tra

nsf

er t

o C

SU o

f a

colle

ge c

ou

rse

that

sati

sfie

s th

e G

E A

rea

A2

req

uir

emen

t in

wri

tten

co

mm

un

icat

ion

in t

he

Engl

ish

lan

guag

e,

pro

vid

ed s

uch

a c

ou

rse

was

com

ple

ted

wit

h a

gra

de

of

C-

or

bet

ter

No

t R

equ

ired

Nex

t le

vel E

ngl

ish

co

urs

e p

er

maj

or

req

uir

emen

ts

Cat

ego

ry II

Pla

cem

en

t in

a

GE

A2

Co

urs

eA

ll M

ajo

rs

• W

eigh

ted

HS

GP

A g

reat

er t

han

3.3

, OR

• W

eigh

ted

HS

GP

A g

reat

er t

han

3.0

AN

D

com

ple

ted

an

ap

pro

ved

sen

ior

year

-lo

ng

Engl

ish

co

urs

e/an

AP

, IB

, ER

WC

, or

Ho

no

rs

Engl

ish

co

urs

e o

r 5

+ ye

ars

of

Engl

ish

• N

EW S

AT:

A s

core

of

55

0 o

r ab

ove

on

th

e ev

iden

ce-b

ased

read

ing

and

wri

tin

g se

ctio

n o

f th

e

Co

llege

Bo

ard

SA

T R

easo

nin

g Te

st, O

R

• O

LD S

AT:

A s

core

of

50

0 o

r ab

ove

on

th

e cr

itic

al r

ead

ing

sect

ion

, OR

• A

sco

re o

f 2

2 o

r ab

ove

on

th

e A

CT

Engl

ish

Tes

t, O

R

• A

res

ult

of

“Sta

nd

ard

Exc

eed

ed: R

ead

y fo

r C

SU o

r

par

tici

pat

ing

CC

C c

olle

ge-l

evel

co

urs

ewo

rk in

En

glis

h”

on

th

e

EAP

Sm

arte

r B

alan

ced

Ass

essm

ent

exam

, OR

• C

om

ple

tio

n o

f a

12

th g

rad

e ap

pro

ved

En

glis

h c

ou

rse

wit

h a

grad

e o

f C

- o

r b

ette

r A

ND

an

y o

ne

of

the

follo

win

g:

a. N

EW S

AT:

A s

core

bet

wee

n 5

10

-54

0 o

n t

he

evi

den

ce-

bas

ed r

ead

ing

and

wri

tin

g se

ctio

n

b. O

LD S

AT:

A s

core

bet

wee

n 4

60

-49

0 o

n t

he

crit

ical

rea

din

g

sect

ion

c

. A s

core

of

19

-21

on

th

e En

glis

h p

ort

ion

of

the

AC

T te

st

d

. A r

esu

lt o

f “S

tan

dar

d M

et: C

on

dit

ion

ally

Rea

dy

for

CSU

or

par

tici

pat

ing

CC

C c

olle

ge-

leve

l co

urs

ewo

rk in

En

glis

h”

on

th

e

EAP

Sm

arte

r B

alan

ced

Ass

essm

ent

No

t R

equ

ired

GE

A2

co

urs

e

Cat

ego

ry II

I

Pla

cem

en

t in

a

Sup

po

rte

d G

E

A2

Co

urs

e(D

oes

no

t m

eet

an

y

crit

eria

in r

ow

s a

bo

ve)

All

Maj

ors

• W

eigh

ted

HS

GP

A g

reat

er t

han

3.0

AN

D 4

+ ye

ars

of

HS

Engl

ish

, OR

• C

on

dit

ion

al S

AT/

AC

T sc

ore

(se

e a-

c b

elo

w)

AN

D 4

+ ye

ars

of

HS

Engl

ish

a. N

EW S

AT:

A s

core

bet

wee

n 5

10

-54

0 o

n t

he

evi

den

ce-

bas

ed r

ead

ing

and

wri

tin

g se

ctio

n

b. O

LD S

AT:

A s

core

bet

wee

n 4

60

-49

0 o

n t

he

crit

ical

read

ing

sect

ion

c

. A s

core

of

19

-21

on

th

e En

glis

h p

ort

ion

of

the

AC

T te

st

Do

es n

ot

mee

t an

y cr

iter

ia in

ro

ws

abo

veR

eco

mm

end

ed b

ut

no

t re

qu

ired

GE

A2

co

urs

e w

ith

sup

po

rted

inst

ruct

ion

Wri

tte

n C

om

mu

nic

atio

n

OR

Effe

ctiv

e Su

mm

er 2

01

8N

ove

mb

er 2

0, 2

01

7


CSU

Pla

cem

en

t o

f Fi

rst

Ye

ar S

tud

en

ts B

ase

d o

n A

cad

em

ic P

rep

arat

ion

Wri

tte

n C

om

mu

nic

atio

n

Cat

ego

ry IV

Pla

cem

en

t in

a

Sup

po

rte

d G

E

A2

Co

urs

e a

nd

Earl

y St

art

(Do

es n

ot

mee

t a

ny

crit

eria

in r

ow

s a

bo

ve)

All

Maj

ors

Do

es n

ot

mee

t an

y cr

iter

ia in

ro

ws

abo

veD

oes

no

t m

eet

any

crit

eria

in r

ow

s ab

ove

Req

uir

ed

GE

A2

co

urs

e w

ith

sup

po

rted

inst

ruct

ion

Effe

ctiv

e Su

mm

er 2

01

8N

ove

mb

er 2

0, 2

01

7


CSU

Pla

cem

ent

of

Firs

t Y

ear

Stu

de

nts

Bas

ed o

n A

cad

emic

Pre

par

atio

n

Pla

cem

en

t

Cat

ego

rie

sP

lace

men

t G

rou

pM

ajo

r P

ath

Op

tio

ns

Aca

dem

ic P

rep

arat

ion

-

Hig

h S

cho

ol C

ou

rse

wo

rkP

re-E

xist

ing

CSU

Sta

nd

ard

s Ea

rly

Star

t Fi

rst

Yea

r P

lace

men

t

Cat

ego

ry I

Ha

s Fu

lfill

ed G

E B

4

Req

uir

eme

nt

All

Maj

ors

N/A

• A

sco

re o

f 3

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

Co

llege

Bo

ard

AP

Cal

culu

s A

B o

r

Cal

culu

s B

C t

est,

OR

• A

sco

re o

f 3

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

Co

llege

Bo

ard

AP

Sta

tist

ics

test

,

OR

• A

sco

re o

f 4

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

Inte

rnat

ion

al B

acca

lau

reat

e (I

B)

mat

hem

atic

s H

L te

st, O

R

• C

om

ple

tio

n a

nd

tra

nsf

er t

o C

SU o

f a

colle

ge c

ou

rse

that

sati

sfie

s th

e G

E A

rea

B4

req

uir

emen

t in

Mat

hem

atic

s/q

uan

tita

tive

rea

son

ing,

pro

vid

ed s

uch

a c

ou

rse

was

co

mp

lete

d w

ith

a g

rad

e o

f C

- o

r b

ette

r

No

t R

equ

ired

Nex

t le

vel m

ath

co

urs

e p

er

maj

or

req

uir

emen

ts

Cat

ego

ry II

Pla

cem

ent

in a

GE

B4

Co

urs

e

No

n-S

TEM

an

d

Un

dec

ided

/Un

dec

lare

d

• W

eigh

ted

HS

Mat

h G

PA

gre

ater

th

an o

r eq

ual

3.0

plu

s

com

ple

ted

an

ap

pro

ved

sen

ior

year

co

urs

e o

r 5+

yea

rs o

f M

ath

or

Qu

anti

tati

ve R

easo

nin

g, O

R

• E

AP

Sm

arte

r B

alan

ced

Ass

essm

ent

Tier

3 a

nd

4+

year

s o

f

Mat

h o

r Q

uan

tita

tive

Rea

son

ing,

OR

• W

eigh

ted

HS

GP

A g

reat

er t

han

or

equ

al 3

.7,

OR

• W

eigh

ted

HS

GP

A g

reat

er t

han

or

equ

al 3

.5 p

lus

4+ y

ears

of

Mat

h o

r Q

uan

tita

tive

Rea

son

ing

• N

EW S

AT:

A s

core

of

570

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

mat

hem

atic

s

sect

ion

of

the

new

SA

T te

st,

OR

• O

LD S

AT:

A s

core

of

550

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

mat

hem

atic

s se

ctio

n

of

the

old

SA

T R

easo

nin

g Te

st,

OR

• SA

T SU

BJE

CT

TEST

: A s

core

of

550

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

SAT

Sub

ject

Tes

t in

Mat

hem

atic

s (l

evel

1 o

r le

vel 2

), O

R

• A

sco

re o

f 23

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

AC

T M

ath

emat

ics

Test

, O

R

• A

res

ult

of

“Sta

nd

ard

Exc

eed

ed: R

ead

y fo

r C

SU o

r

par

tici

pat

ing

CC

C c

olle

ge-l

evel

co

urs

ewo

rk in

mat

hem

atic

s” o

n

the

EAP

Sm

arte

r B

alan

ced

Ass

essm

ent

exam

, O

R

• C

om

ple

tio

n o

f a

12th

gra

de

cou

rse

bey

on

d A

lgeb

ra 2

wit

h

grad

e o

f C

- o

r b

ette

r A

ND

an

y o

ne

of

the

follo

win

g:

a. N

EW S

AT:

A s

core

be

twe

en

52

0-5

60

on

th

e m

ath

em

atic

s

sect

ion

of

the

SAT

b. O

LD S

AT:

A s

core

be

twe

en

49

0-5

40

on

th

e m

ath

em

atic

s

po

rtio

n o

f th

e SA

T R

easo

nin

g Te

st

c. A

sco

re b

etw

ee

n 2

0-2

2 o

n t

he

mat

he

mat

ics

po

rtio

n o

f

the

AC

T te

st

d. A

re

sult

of

“Sta

nd

ard

Me

t: C

on

dit

ion

ally

Rea

dy

for

CSU

or

par

tici

pat

ing

CC

C c

olle

ge-l

evel

co

urs

ewo

rk in

mat

hem

atic

s”

on

th

e EA

P S

mar

ter

Bal

ance

d A

sses

smen

t ex

am

No

t R

equ

ired

GE

B4

cou

rse

Mat

he

mat

ics/

Qu

anti

tati

ve R

eas

on

ing

OR


CSU

Pla

cem

ent

of

Firs

t Y

ear

Stu

de

nts

Bas

ed o

n A

cad

emic

Pre

par

atio

n

Mat

he

mat

ics/

Qu

anti

tati

ve R

eas

on

ing

Cat

ego

ry II

Pla

cem

ent

in a

STE

M

Mat

h C

ou

rse

STEM

an

d P

re-

STEM

• W

eigh

ted

HS

Mat

h G

PA

gre

ater

th

an o

r eq

ual

3.5

plu

s

com

ple

ted

an

ap

pro

ved

sen

ior

year

co

urs

e o

r 5+

yea

rs o

f M

ath

or

Qu

anti

tati

ve R

easo

nin

g, O

R

• W

eigh

ted

HS

GP

A g

reat

er t

han

or

equ

al 3

.7

• N

EW S

AT:

A s

core

of

570

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

mat

hem

atic

s

sect

ion

of

the

new

SA

T te

st,

OR

• O

LD S

AT:

A s

core

of

550

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

mat

hem

atic

s se

ctio

n

of

the

old

SA

T R

easo

nin

g Te

st,

OR

• SA

T SU

BJE

CT

TEST

: A s

core

of

550

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

SAT

Sub

ject

Tes

t in

Mat

hem

atic

s (l

evel

1 o

r le

vel 2

), O

R

• A

sco

re o

f 23

or

abo

ve o

n t

he

AC

T M

ath

emat

ics

Test

, O

R

• A

res

ult

of

“Sta

nd

ard

Exc

eed

ed: R

ead

y fo

r C

SU o

r

par

tici

pat

ing

CC

C c

olle

ge-l

evel

co

urs

ewo

rk in

mat

hem

atic

s” o

n

the

EAP

Sm

arte

r B

alan

ced

Ass

essm

ent

exam

, O

R

• C

om

ple

tio

n o

f a

12th

gra

de

cou

rse

bey

on

d A

lgeb

ra 2

wit

h

grad

e o

f C

- o

r b

ette

r A

ND

an

y o

ne

of

the

follo

win

g:

a. N

EW S

AT:

A s

core

be

twe

en

52

0-5

60

on

th

e m

ath

em

atic

s

sect

ion

of

the

SAT

b. O

LD S

AT:

A s

core

be

twe

en

49

0-5

40

on

th

e m

ath

em

atic

s

po

rtio

n o

f th

e SA

T R

easo

nin

g Te

st

c. A

sco

re b

etw

ee

n 2

0-2

2 o

n t

he

mat

he

mat

ics

po

rtio

n o

f

the

AC

T te

st

d. A

re

sult

of

“Sta

nd

ard

Me

t: C

on

dit

ion

ally

Rea

dy

for

CSU

or

par

tici

pat

ing

CC

C c

olle

ge-l

evel

co

urs

ewo

rk in

mat

hem

atic

s”

on

th

e EA

P S

mar

ter

Bal

ance

d A

sses

smen

t ex

am

No

t R

equ

ired

STEM

-lev

el m

ath

co

urs

e

Pla

cem

ent

in a

Sup

po

rte

d G

E B

4

Co

urs

e(D

oes

no

t m

eet

an

y cr

iter

ia in

row

s a

bo

ve)

No

n-S

TEM

an

d

Un

dec

ided

/Un

dec

lare

d

• W

eigh

ted

HS

Mat

h G

PA

gre

ater

th

an o

r eq

ual

3.3

, O

R

• W

eigh

ted

HS

GP

A g

reat

er t

han

or

equ

al 3

.0D

oes

no

t m

eet

any

crit

eria

in r

ow

s ab

ove

Rec

om

me

nd

ed b

ut

no

t re

qu

ired

GE

B4

cou

rse

wit

h s

up

po

rted

inst

ruct

ion

Pla

cem

ent

in a

Sup

po

rte

d S

TEM

Mat

h C

ou

rse

(Do

es n

ot

mee

t a

ny

crit

eria

in

row

s a

bo

ve)

STEM

an

d P

re-

STEM

• W

eigh

ted

HS

Mat

h G

PA

gre

ater

th

an o

r eq

ual

3.3

Do

es n

ot

mee

t an

y cr

iter

ia in

ro

ws

abo

veR

eco

mm

en

ded

bu

t

no

t re

qu

ired

STEM

-lev

el m

ath

co

urs

e w

ith

sup

po

rted

inst

ruct

ion

Cat

ego

ry IV

.

Pla

cem

ent

in a

GE

B4

Co

urs

e o

r ST

EM

cou

rse

wit

h s

up

po

rt

and

Ear

ly S

tart

(Do

es n

ot

mee

t a

ny

crit

eria

in

row

s a

bo

ve)

All

Maj

ors

Do

es n

ot

mee

t an

y cr

iter

ia in

ro

ws

abo

veD

oes

no

t m

eet

any

crit

eria

in r

ow

s ab

ove

Req

uir

ed

GE

B4

or

STEM

-lev

el m

ath

cou

rse

wit

h s

up

po

rted

inst

ruct

ion

Cat

ego

ry II

I.


MEMORANDUM

July 11, 2018 AA 18-40 | Via Email

TO: California Community Colleges and Districts

FROM: Laura L. Hope, Executive Vice Chancellor, Educational Services and Support

John Stanskas, President, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges

RE: Assembly Bill (AB) 705 Implementation

A BRIEF HISTORY

Since the adoption of the Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960, the California Community Colleges, in addition to their primary missions of academic and vocational instruction, were also tasked to provide “remedial instruction for those in need of it.” As of 1986, title 5 regulations required that colleges employ multiple measures, which were often not well-defined, in order to provide placement recommendations for students. For well over a decade, faculty, staff, and administrators have been working to design tools and techniques to better support students enrolled in “basic skills” courses and improve their success. This work can be traced back to the late 1990s and early 2000s when there was a significant growth in the development of English, English as a Second Language (ESL), and mathematics course sequences designed to address students’ perceived skill gaps in order to help them be more prepared for college-level course work. Even then, faculty questioned the efficacy of system placement processes in a 2004 Academic Senate paper urging the evaluation of placement processes and the impact on student success. In 2007, the Chancellor’s Office published Basic Skills as a Foundation for Success in the California Community Colleges, a repository of strategies and approaches intended to improve the delivery of instruction and student services for students deemed “unprepared.” This publication was created by the RP Group and the California Community Colleges and subsequent efforts were endorsed by the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges and resulted in a variety of innovative efforts across the state.

These efforts were well-intentioned and thoughtful, using the best information and research available at the time. Scaffolded course sequences were designed by faculty as a way to build student success by developing a foundation that would logically lead to transfer-level course success and ultimately college graduation and completion.


http://www.californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/

https://www.asccc.org/papers/issues-basic-skills-assessment-and-placement-california-community-colleges

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496117.pdf

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496117.pdf

Unfortunately, this approach also did not yield successful results as expected. Despite the best of intentions and care for students, the research landscape has shifted as an increasing number of studies indicate that traditional placement practices and course sequences have had unintended consequences including requiring students to retake course material they successfully completed in high school, placing students lower than in courses where they would be likely to succeed (sometimes referred to as “under-placement”), and reducing students’ likelihood of completing the gateway course in the discipline (referred to as “throughput”). Due to a variety of complex factors, too few students successfully move through basic skills course sequences and finish transfer-level English and mathematics. A further concern is the likelihood that students of color and low-income students are more likely to be placed into the lowest levels and among the students least likely to persist and succeed.

Efforts like accelerated developmental courses have helped, and the research on such practices shows that more students are likely to thrive when these innovations are scaled; however, those practices are only available to a fraction of California’s community college students enrolling in English and mathematics/quantitative reasoning according to the Public Policy Institute of California. Some studies also suggest that accelerated developmental courses produce lower completion gains than models in which students enroll directly in transferable courses with concurrent support.

INTRODUCTION OF ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) 705

Assembly Member Irwin introduced AB 705, which was unanimously passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Brown in October of 2017. This bill is designed to accomplish several important outcomes that are paramount to the Chancellor’s Vision for Success:

1. Increase the numbers of students who enter and complete transfer-level English and mathematics/quantitative reasoning in one year

2. Minimize the disproportionate impact on students created through inaccurate placement processes

3. Increase the number of students completing transfer-level English within three years

Because strategies to achieve these outcomes must be implemented by the fall of 2019 (fall of 2020 for ESL), faculty, staff, and administrators will need to actively engage various aspects of developmental education reform: assessment and placement, curricular design, co-curricular design, and non-curricular support. Colleges should see this as an urgent call to innovate in order to serve their communities with the expectation that after two years, collected data will show improved rates of completion of transfer-level English and mathematics attainment. AB 705 adds a layer of accountability new to colleges and important for students. In order to demonstrate compliance, colleges are expected to justify their choices and collect data demonstrating efficacy. Colleges that choose not to innovate in these areas are expected to implement


http://www.ppic.org/publication/reforming-english-pathways-at-californias-community-colleges/

http://www.ppic.org/publication/reforming-math-pathways-at-californias-community-colleges/

http://www.ppic.org/publication/reforming-math-pathways-at-californias-community-colleges/

the minimum default parameters set by the system. In this case, local or additional validation research will not be required. Alternatively, colleges can choose to conduct their own local placement research to ensure their practices comply with the requirements of the law. For colleges that do choose to locally innovate in these areas, the Chancellor’s Office and the Academic Senate will support and encourage those implementation efforts.

As the Chancellor’s Office works toward more specificity regarding the implications of AB 705, many faculty and staff have asked about the role of local innovation and validation in light of the default statewide placement rules. If a college adopts the default placement rules, the college is AB 705 compliant but that is the minimum level of compliance. There are significant opportunities for local customization and innovation in the form, delivery, and/or amount of concurrent support for students enrolled in transfer-level course work.

Colleges may opt to develop their own placement rules. If these rules place students into pre-transfer-level coursework who would otherwise be allowed access to transfer-level coursework under the default rules, the college must collect data to demonstrate students benefit from those local decisions. They will need to demonstrate that those students are highly unlikely to succeed in transfer-level if placed there directly and that the lower placement gives students the best chance of completing transfer requirements in math and English.

Similarly, special programs in which students start in non-transferable coursework (e.g. an accelerated two-semester sequence) are AB 705 compliant if the college is able to demonstrate that the program serves students who are highly unlikely to succeed in transfer-level coursework and that the program maximizes those students’ likelihood of completion of the transfer-level English or math (or educational goal appropriate course) within two primary semesters (or three primary quarters). Colleges will still need to honor students’ right to enroll in transfer-level courses unless it can be demonstrated that students are highly unlikely to succeed. The burden of proof is not on the student but on the college to demonstrate that transfer-directed students with the lowest likelihood of success in the transfer-level course have a better chance of completing transfer-level coursework if required to enroll in the special program.

Numerous tools already exist for collecting the necessary evidence (such as students high school performance if not already locally collected/available) and conducting the appropriate analyses for doing so under the resources section of the web page for the Multiple Measures Assessment Project. Additional tools and resources to support local research are already being developed to further assist colleges in their efforts and will be rolled out over the summer. Nonetheless, while the specifics may vary from college to college, the direction of what AB 705 requires is clear. Colleges should be acting now to evaluate and redesign all aspects of developmental education and transfer attainment focused on these areas: assessment and placement, curricular design, co-curricular design, and non-curricular support.


THE GOAL OF IMPLEMENTATION

The Chancellor’s Office views AB 705 as a fundamental approach for the California Community College System to restructure developmental education in ways that will provide more inclusive and expansive access to transfer-level English and mathematics/quantitative reasoning courses and increase the numbers of students who successfully move through these high-stakes gateways. The evidence demonstrates that increased transfer-level access provides increased success, and so the Chancellor’s Office is expecting that college policies and practices will shift to align with the intent of the law. Policies, practices, and pedagogy should reflect that shift in providing more opportunity and fewer barriers. As the efforts for colleges to locally apply the law continue to be evaluated, this intent will be the primary focus of any System-wide and local validation, monitoring, or review by the Chancellor’s Office. More information on validation processes and disaggregation requirements will be made available as the Implementation Advisory Committee continues the work of planning for implementation. Because the Vision for Success outlines ambitious goals to erase barriers to equitable outcomes, the Chancellor’s Office will be monitoring the implementation of AB 705 very closely.

ASSESSMENT AND PLACEMENT

Assessment and placement are foundational building blocks for AB 705. The traditional paradigm in which students are evaluated by a cognitive skills test has changed to one that utilizes high school performance data as the primary means for predicting student success. This shift may sound nuanced, but, in fact, colleges must move from a system that utilizes assessment for placement schema that demand demonstration of skill to one where the assessment for placement schema is a predictor of success in a course. Research has demonstrated that indicators like overall high school GPA, individual course-taking performance, and course-taking patterns have equal or superior predictive value than the traditional assessment tests because they are a better reflection of students’ capacity. High school performance metrics have been shown to be most predictive, especially when the student is within ten years of high school graduation. The shift toward these metrics in placement schema should also allow students to demonstrate other factors that may impact educational performance like motivation, commitment, and maturity. Colleges will need to develop placement models that align within the framework of the law to address the needs of all students with varying needs, not just recent high school graduates. In addition, clarifying students’ educational goals and ensuring appropriate course selection is especially critical when establishing mechanisms for placement in mathematics/quantitative reasoning courses.

Under AB 705, colleges are prohibited from placing students into a pre-transfer course in mathematics or English unless the following conditions exist:

1. Students must be highly unlikely to succeed in the transfer-level course AND 2. Enrollment in the pre-transfer course will improve the students’ likelihood of

completing the transfer-level course in a one-year time frame.


https://californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/Reports/vision-for-success.pdf

The purpose of these standards is to assure that the risk of student underplacement is minimized and the probability of student completion is maximized. These two tenets are most readily understood through the use of the research conducted by the Multiple Measures Assessment Project, MMAP, team in support of the AB 705 Implementation Advisory Committee. This research indicates that direct placement into transfer-level English and/or mathematics/quantitative reasoning may best serve many students, particularly those who recently completed high school. The MMAP analysis represents an (2007-2014) analysis of students who were given a placement recommendation using Accuplacer and then correlated to their high school grade point averages and success in the class in which they first enrolled. The comparison, and AB 705, identify “throughput” as a baseline metric, meaning that students must have a better completion rate within one year if placed below transfer than the baseline rate from the data analysis. The following data tables demonstrate that a higher percentage of students are more likely to successfully complete a transfer level course in one year than the data from the cohort placed one level below. Hence, more students get through transfer level (throughput) when unfettered from even a single basic skills course using the current curricular and support mechanisms in place.

The following tables provide baseline success rates for students that are within ten years of high school graduation. Analysis performed by the MMAP team demonstrates that even students with the lowest levels of high school performance are more likely to successfully complete a transfer level course in one year if they are placed directly into transfer level, rather than being placed even one level below given the current structure of developmental education from a system level.

These are what will be known as the “default placement rules,” which can be used immediately in order to comply with the requirements of AB 705. Note that each threshold includes recommendations for concurrent support depending on students’ backgrounds and needs. As noted in previous guidance, the Chancellor’s Office recommends that students who have graduated from high school within the past ten years and have a goal of transfer or degree attainment should be recommended to enroll directly into transfer-level courses in English, statistics/liberal arts mathematics, and BSTEM-based mathematics using on the correlations as follows:

High School Performance Metric for English

Recommended AB 705 Placement for English

HSGPA ≥ 2.6 Success rate = 78.6%

Transfer-Level English Composition No additional academic or concurrent support required

HSGPA 1.9 - 2.6 Success rate = 57.7%

Transfer-Level English Composition Additional academic and concurrent support recommended

HSGPA < 1.9 Success rate = 42.6%

Transfer-Level English Composition Additional academic and concurrent support strongly recommended


High School Performance Metric for Statistics/Liberal Arts Mathematics

Recommended AB 705 Placement for Statistics/Liberal Arts Mathematics

HSGPA ≥ 3.0 Success rate = 75%

Transfer-Level Statistics/Liberal Arts Mathematics No additional academic or concurrent support required for students

HSGPA from 2.3 to 2.9 Success rate = 50%

Transfer-Level Statistics/Liberal Arts Mathematics Additional academic and concurrent support recommended for students

HSGPA < 2.3 Success rate of 29%

Transfer-Level Statistics/Liberal Arts Mathematics Additional academic and concurrent support strongly recommended for students

High School Performance Metric BSTEM Mathematics1

Recommended AB 705 Placement for BSTEM Mathematics

HSGPA ≥ 3.4 OR HSGPA ≥ 2.6 AND enrolled in a HS Calculus course Success rate = 75%

Transfer-Level BSTEM Mathematics No additional academic or concurrent support required for students

HSGPA ≥2.6 or Enrolled in HS Precalculus Success rate = 53%

Transfer-Level BSTEM Mathematics Additional academic and concurrent support recommended for students

HSGPA ≤ 2.6 and no Precalculus Success rate = 28%

Transfer-Level BSTEM Mathematics Additional academic and concurrent support strongly recommended for students

MEASURING INNOVATION

The thresholds in these tables provide a minimum threshold for comparison for colleges who seek to conduct their own research and develop their own innovations, taking care to use the benchmark rates for students at the same level of high school

1 Note: The BSTEM table presumes student completion of Intermediate Algebra/Algebra 2, an equivalent such as Integrated Math III, or higher course in high school. Students who have not completed Algebra 2 or higher in high school but who enter college with intentions to major in STEM fields are rare. However, good practice suggests they should be informed that Algebra 2 is highly recommended as preparation for a STEM-oriented gateway mathematics course and that their likelihood of success will be higher in a statistics course.


achievement. For instance, if a college has an acceleration model that includes the use of a prerequisite course in preparation of a transfer-level English and/or mathematics/quantitative reasoning course, the throughput for those innovations should meet or exceed the percentages in these tables for all students at similar levels of high school achievement. As title 5 currently allows in 55003(g), colleges have not more than two years to innovate and validate their own innovations and compare the effectiveness of those designs to the tables above. The primary philosophy in this recommendation is that students should not be placed or directed in any way such that their completion of the transfer-level gateway course would be less likely than it would have been with direct placement into the course.

The complexity of the placement process cannot be overstated. The diversity of student goals, skills, and educational history are all considerations when developing effective placement models. Not all students are matriculants from high school; for some institutions more than half the students are over the age of 25. Colleges will need to innovate to determine how best to serve returning students. Similarly, colleges must also serve other populations who may have foundational learning needs, and these students must also be served within the context of AB 705, but their needs may require colleges to consider other curricular supports or reforms.

Many practitioners have inquired about the future of cognitive assessment tests going forward. AB 705 prohibits colleges from using testing instruments that have not been approved by the Board of Governors. Currently, the Board of Governors has not approved any testing instruments for placement, despite the claims of some testing companies. As this work evolves, that situation may change, but colleges should proceed with implementation with the assumption that cognitive skills tests will not be a viable part of the placement process in the foreseeable future for English and mathematics/quantitative reasoning.

Some have expressed concern for DSPS students or EOPS students and the movement toward placing more students directly into transfer, and additional research by the MMAP research team demonstrates that these students, like many others, benefit from direct placement. Like other students, they are also much more likely to successfully complete their gateway English and mathematics courses when placed directly. Placement practices, in general, have been more recently informed by the evidence of greater student capacity than we have previously afforded students. AB 705 invites the California community colleges to shift the thinking in favor of what students can do, rather than making assumptions about what students cannot do.

Questions have also been raised about the impact of students who have been given a placement recommendation previous to implementation of new local and state-wide policy. The Chancellor’s Office recommends that students retroactively benefit from improvements to their placement recommendations once colleges implement AB 705 compliant infrastructure.


http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/AA/Prerequisites/Prerequisites_Guidelines_55003%20Final.pdf

CURRICULAR DESIGN

These placement reforms imply significant curricular reforms, and faculty are encouraged to engage new ways of delivering course material and planning support inside and outside of the classroom. Previous efforts like the BSSOT grants and acceleration have resulted in many effective practices that might be amplified even further with additional resources or design efforts. The Chancellor’s Office and the Academic Senate encourage the continuation of innovative practice that also includes rigorous evaluation of effectiveness to assure that students are successfully reaching and completing transfer-level coursework. Compression of a 2.5-year traditional sequence into an academic year is not the goal, however. Rather, the goal is to provide students with the essential skills necessary to be successful in the gateway English or mathematics/quantitative reasoning course and beyond, depending of the students’ goals. Faculty should also design pathways that align with the students’ overall goals, and administrators should assure that students have access to these pathways based on the distribution of various majors among the local student population. For instance, if the college educates a large population of students who are non-STEM majors, those students should have access to pathways like liberal arts mathematics or statistics, not just a traditional algebra pathway. Colleges are also encouraged to innovate and design curriculum that best serves their students. For example, a practical mathematics course specifically designed for career technical programs that includes elements of algebra, geometry, and perhaps some trigonometry applied to construction trades may best serve some students. The ASCCC is currently working in partnership with mathematics faculty across the state to create proposals for local consideration.

It is also important to note that the completion of intermediate algebra is not explicitly required for UC transfer. Colleges have the capacity to verify the “equivalent” skills at the local level, which can be legitimately based on high school performance or course-taking. As colleges adopt a guided pathways framework, revisiting mathematics and quantitative reasoning options and how students select them should be an integral element of the implementation of AB 705. A recent study by West Ed called Multiple Paths Forward: Diversifying Mathematics as a Strategy for College Success indicates that these options are critical for student success.

Based on the placement recommendations discussed above, a majority of students will be placed directly into transfer-level courses. For a smaller number of students, direct placement may not be the best path. Colleges may retain developmental course options, but they may not compel students to enroll in those courses without the conditions permitted in the law. Faculty should determine which of those courses remain relevant and determine whether or not those courses should continue as credit or noncredit depending on their intent. In order to serve all potential students, colleges may develop more than one transfer mathematics/quantitative reasoning course, and colleges that establish any prerequisite courses must be validated according to the framework in this guidance. That framework ensures that those students’ throughput is at least as high as direct placement would have been and that students are not blocked from transfer-level


https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a565796692ebefb3ec5526e/t/5adfa926575d1f3b35ea6e8c/1524607270763/Statistics+and+Math+UC+requirements.pdf

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a565796692ebefb3ec5526e/t/5adfa926575d1f3b35ea6e8c/1524607270763/Statistics+and+Math+UC+requirements.pdf

https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Multiple-Paths-Forward-Booth.pdf

https://www.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Multiple-Paths-Forward-Booth.pdf

courses unless there is evidence that they are highly unlikely to succeed there. Pre-transfer offerings should strongly be considered as noncredit. AB 705 stresses a maximum one-year time frame, and the “clock” for that curricular design should be no more than 2 semesters (or 3 quarters as applicable). The one-year limit begins once individual students begin taking mathematics and English courses that are part of a sequence leading to transfer-level (either credit or noncredit). However, the funding formula favors the completion of transfer-level mathematics and English in the students’ first year of enrollment. This emphasis is supported by a variety of research studies that point to this benchmark as a key completion indicator. Optional preparatory activities offered for credit or noncredit, such as “math jams” or “gear up” programs that include refresher information in English or mathematics as well as college success skills do not count as part of the one-year time frame for AB705 if they are not part of a required course.

CO-CURRICULAR SUPPORT

Co-curricular support will also be an essential component to curricular redesign efforts. Many colleges have observed significant increases in students’ success through co-curricular support models that promote skill and affective development while students are simultaneously enrolled in transfer courses. Typically, faculty have developed additional classroom or learning center options for students that not only focus on practice but on the accelerated acquisition of college-level skills. All of these options, however, should be developed with an eye on maintaining reasonable unit thresholds and out of class time, as AB 705 outlines.

For English, reading skills development will likely play a prominent role in any redesign plans. Although AB 705 does not expressly discuss reading, if reading courses are part of the pathway to transfer level English courses, then they are clearly part of the one-year curricular design sequence. Overall, the community college system has been moving increasingly toward integrated instruction of reading and writing, with fewer than 20 colleges maintaining separate reading departments. The intent of the law is to ensure students’ educational progress is not protracted by inappropriate placement into remediation. For colleges with separate reading and English courses, one option may be to consider an emphasis on integrated reading and writing pedagogy within transfer-level English composition and revising course outlines to include reading faculty as discipline-qualified to teach co-curricular support courses or activities. It is important that reading and English faculty collaborate in the creation of a curricular design and support structure that serves the needs of students and complies with the law. Another approach may be to integrate reading instruction into co-requisite and/or support infrastructures for students who may have more of these needs. Additionally, while the demonstration of reading skills is a requirement for students earning a local Associate’s Degree, that requirement can be met a number of ways. Colleges are encouraged to explore a variety of best practices to verify that students possess these skills before they graduate.


English as a Second Language (ESL) is not included in this guidance and will be addressed separately as the ESL Implementation Subcommittee continues its efforts. The release of the initial guidance for local implementation of AB 705 for ESL students is expected prior to the beginning of the fall of 2018. Full implementation of AB 705 for ESL is required by the fall of 2020.

NON-CURRICULAR SUPPORT

Non-curricular support is a fundamental component of redesign discussions and efforts (e.g., counseling, mentoring, and guidance related to students’ goals). Work with mindset and affective student support may also be part of the implementation strategy to amplify the effectiveness of reforms related to AB 705. With the implementation of guided pathways, the integration between academic affairs and student services has never been more important. While colleges often direct support to unique populations, colleges should strive to provide similar support at scale to all students.

CONCLUSION

Because of the importance of this transition, colleges should anticipate a Chancellor’s Office request for local goals, data collection, and monitoring. Future efforts related to implementation of the law include regulatory language in title 5 that reflects the basic tenets as well as a revision of the CB-21 coding within the MIS system. It is also relevant to note that eligibility for both AB 19 and guided pathways funding are contingent upon compliance with AB 705. Even more than compliance, however, the colleges have an unprecedented opportunity to improve the opportunity and access for students while simultaneously addressing stubborn inequities within our system that disadvantage those students who need educational opportunity the most. The California Community Colleges are at the very beginning stages of this work together, and moving forward, the Chancellor’s Office and the Academic Senate are urging innovative practices, courageous conversation, and rigorous evaluation.


Co-requisite Courses Narrowing the gap between instruction and supports

04/2017

The Success of Co-Requisite Support Courses

Whiletherearemanyversionsofco-requisiteremediation,thebroaddefinitionreferstotheplacingofstudentswhohavebeendesignatedasunderprepareddirectlyintocollege-levelcoursesandprovidingnecessaryadditionalsupportstohelpthemeffectivelyengagewiththecollege-levelcoursework.Astheresultofco-requisitesupportstrategiesthatwereimplementedacrossthecountry,institutionsandstatesareseeingdoubleandtriplethenumberofstudentspassingtheirfirstcollege-levelmathematicscourse,andinhalfthetimeorless.

Howaretheygainingtheseresults?Institutionshavemadestructuralandculturalchangestotheirmathematicsofferingsthataddressthefollowingissuesthathavelongnegativelyimpacteddevelopmentalmathematicsstudents.

Theguidingprincipleoftheco-requisitemodelistomeetstudentswheretheyareacademicallyandprovidethemwiththecontentandstrategiestheyneedtosucceedintheircollege-levelcourses.

• Longdevelopmentalsequencesweredesignedtogiveunderpreparedstudentsmoretimetomastermathematicalconceptsandtoimprovesuccessinthecollege-levelcourse.However,thatwell-intentionedgoalhasnotbeenattained.

• Thelongsequencesincreasethetimebetweenthelearningofcontentinthedevelopmentalcourseandtheapplicationofthatcontentinthecollege-levelcourse,aswellasprovidingadditionalexitpointswherestudentsmaydropoutofthesequenceduetolifeobstacles.

• Thecontentinthedevelopmentalcoursemaynotsupportthestudent’scollege-levelcourse.Forexample,atraditionalIntermediateAlgebracoursecontainscontentthatisnotnecessaryforacollege-levelstatisticscourse,andlacksothercontentthatwouldsupportsuccessinstatistics.

• Referraltoremedialordevelopmentalcoursesholdsastigmaandcontributestofurtherdisenfranchisementofstudentsdesignatedasunderprepared.Itcanleadtoabeliefthatastudentdoesnotbelongincollegeandmaypreventsomestudentsfromenrollingincollegeinthefirstplace.

Thereisnosingle“bestmodel”forco-requisitesLocalcontextplaysalargeroleindeterminingtheco-requisitemodel(s)thatwillbestserveeachinstitution.Manydecisionsmustbemadeincollaborationamongfaculty,advisors,administrators,andfinancialaidstafftodesignandconstructtheinitialmodel,withplannedcyclesofdatareviewingandmodelrevision.Somepointsfordiscussionareprovidedontheremainingpages.


Co-requisite Supports

07/2018

2

Consideration 1: Existing campus supports

• Arethereotherinitiativesoncampusthatcomplementthiswork,suchasguidedpathways,contentandpedagogyredesign,pathwaysalignment,enrollmentinitiatives(suchasmultiplemeasuresplacement),persistenceinitiatives(suchasprogramsdesignedtohelpallstudentsdevelopagrowthmindsetorproductivepersistence),etc.?Whatotheron-campusresourcescanbeaccessedorincludedtoprovideadditionalsupportforstudentsenrolledinaco-requisitecourse?

Consideration 2: Co-requisite model (placement, credit hours, financing)

• Placement:Whatinformationisusedtodeterminethedefaultenrollmentforstudentsintotheirmathematicscourses?

o Researchshowsthatthemajorityofstudentsdesignatedasunderpreparedarewell-servedbyastrongone-semesterco-requisitestructure.Howwillyoudeterminewhichstudentsarebestservedbyaone-semesterco-requisitestructureorbyanalternateoption?https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/improving-accuracy-remedial-placement.html

o Considergivingstudentsinformationaboutsupportoptionsandallowingthemtochooseoropt-intothesupportcourse,regardlessofplacement.

o Ensurethatstudentsareplacedintoacoursethatisalignedtotheirprogramofstudy.Co-requisitesupportsneedtobeavailableforallpossibleentrypoints,notjustthenon-algebraically-intensivecourses.



07/2018

3

• Studentstructureso Co-mingling:Mixingcollege-readyandunderpreparedstudentsinthesame

college-levelclass.Underpreparedstudentsareprovidedadditionalsupportsduringseparatesessions.

o Cohorting:Designatingcertainsectionsofcollege-levelcoursesexclusivelyforunderpreparedstudents.Additionalsupportsmaybeembeddedinorseparatefromthesectionsforunderpreparedstudents.

• Calendarstructures

Just-in-timesupports;onesemestero Supportcourses:Separate,structuredsupportcoursesthatrunbefore,after,oron

oppositedaystothecollege-levelcourses;completedwithinonesemester.o Embeddedsupports:College-levelclasseswiththedevelopmentalcontent

embedded.o Mandatorytutoring:Requiredattendanceinatutoringlabforaspecifiednumber

ofhoursperweek.

Prerequisitesupports+college-level;onesemestero Compressedcourses:Developmentalprerequisiteclassiscompressedinto8

weeks,andthenthecollege-levelclassiscompressedinto8weeks,sothatbothclassesarecompletedinonesemester(classesmeetforextrahourseachweekthroughoutthesemesterinordertoequalthetwoclasses).

§ Caution:Researchclearlyshowsthattransitionpointsleadtoattrition.Ifthismodelisutilized,studentsshouldbeenrolledintheentiresequencefromthebeginningofthesemestertominimizeattrition.

o Bootcamps:First3-5weeksofthesemesterareremediation,followedbythecollege-levelcontent(classesmeetforextrahourseachweekthroughoutthesemesterinordertoequalthetwoclassesorclass+lab).

§ Caution:Researchindicatesthatbootcampeffectsareshort-termandgenerallyhave“trivialnegativetomoderatepositiveeffects.https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/improving-students-college-math-readiness-capsee.pdf

Just-in-timesupports;twosemesterso Stretchcourses:College-levelclasseswiththedevelopmentalcontentembedded,

andstretchedovertwosemesters.§ Caution:Researchclearlyshowsthattransitionpointsleadtoattrition.If

thismodelisutilized,considerstrategiestoensurestudentsenrollinthesecondsemesterpriortocompletingthefirstsemester.

• Staffing:Determinewhetherthecollege-levelinstructorwillalsoteachthesupport/developmentalportion.

o Ifseparateinstructors,whatmechanismswillbeinplacetofostercoordinationbetweeninstructors?

o Whatprofessionaldevelopmenttimeneedstobespenttraininginstructorsforthisnewmodel?Whatcredentialswillberequiredtoteacheachpartofthecourse?



07/2018

4

Co-mingle prepared and underprepared

students

Cohort of only students

designated as underprepared

Embedded supports in extended hours

(e.g. 5 or 6 contact hours)

Notpossible Needoneinstructorforthefulltime

Separate courses (e.g. 3 credits + 3 credits)

Canbesameinstructorordifferentinstructors

Canbesameinstructorordifferentinstructors

• Credithoursandfinancingo Howmanyhoursdostudentsattendthecollege-levelportion?o Howmanyhoursdostudentsattendthesupport/developmentalportion?o Howmanyhoursdostudentspayfor?o Howdothehourscountintheinstructor’steachingload?

• Grades:Whethertogiveonegradeorseparategradesforthetwoportions.ExamplebelowfromRoaneStateCommunityCollegeinTennessee.

Parent Course

Support Course

Pass Fail

Pass

GenEdrequirementissatisfied.Unlessothermathcoursesareneeded,remediationissatisfied.

Studentrepeatsparentcourse.

Repetitionofsupportisoptional.

Fail

GenEdrequirementissatisfied.Unlessothermathcoursesareneeded,remediationiswaived.

Studentrepeatsbothcourses.Studentislikely

toloseTennesseePromisescholarship.

Consideration 3: Co-requisite content • Whatarethecommonlearningoutcomesforeachcollege-levelcoursethathavebeen

designatedbythedepartmentand/ortransferagreements?• Whataretheessentialfoundationalconceptsthatstudentsneedtoknowinordertobe

successfulinthecollege-levelcourse?Theseshouldbebackmappedfromthecommoncollege-levelcoursecontentandoutcomes.



07/2018

5

Consideration 4: Cultural shifts

Culturalshiftsinboththecollege-levelandthesupportclassrooms,aswellasintheoveralldepartmentculture,cancontributetothenarrowingofthegapbetweeninstructionandsupports.

• Collaborativeworkcancontributetotheformationofpeersupportgroups.• Earlyalertsystemsandinterventionscanincreasesuccessanddecreasewithdrawals.• Explicitinstructioningoal-setting,self-regulation,andthevalueofstrugglecanincrease

persistence.• Ongoingformativeassessmentcanresultinearlyinterventionandincreasedsuccess.

Implementingsuchshiftscanpayoffinstudents’increasedsenseofbelongingbothintheclassandoncampus,aswellasincreasedfeelingsofcapabilityandpurposeforbothstudentsandinstructors.

Consideration 5: Continuous improvement

Developingadepartmentcultureofcontinuousevaluationandongoingimprovementofanyco-requisitesupportmodeliscrucialtoensurethatthechangingneedsofstudentsaremetinthefuture.Setsomeinitialdatacollectionattheoutsetandrevisittheplaneachsemesteroryear.

• Collectfeedbackonbothcollege-levelandsupportcoursesfromstudentsandfaculty.• Comparelongitudinalretentionandsuccessdataofco-requisiteandpre-requisite

structures.

https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/ccbc-alp-student-outcomes-follow-up.html

Selected research and reports

• CompilationofresultsfromCompleteCollegeAmerica:http://completecollege.org/spanningthedivide/#homeandtheExecutiveSummaryhttp://completecollege.org/spanningthedivide/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CCA-SpanningTheDivide-ExecutiveSummary.pdf

• Floridaresults(seeespeciallytheLearningtoAdaptreport):http://centerforpostsecondarysuccess.org/publications/

• RepositoryofTennesseeresults:https://www.tbr.edu/news/transforming-remedial-programs-dramatic-gains-student-success-2016-04-05

• CompleteCollegeGeorgia:http://www.completegeorgia.org/content/about-complete-college-georgia

• WestVirginia’splacementpolicy(specificallysections4.1and4.2):http://webhost-wp.wvnet.edu/wvctcs/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/05/Series_21_Final_File.pdf

• Asadditionalreportsbecomeavailable,theywillbepostedto:https://dcmathpathways.org/take-action/classroom-level/classroom-level-planning-implementingScrolltothebottomofthepageandchoose“Co-requisiteSupportCourses.”


Ac

tion

Item

s

Imp

lem

ent

ing

Co

-Re

qui

site

Ma

the

ma

tics

01/2

017

Actio

nIte

m

Who

isre

spon

sible?

Who

else

needsto

kno

w?

TargetDate


Imp

lem

en

ting

Co

-Re

qu

isite

Ma

the

ma

tics:

Ac

tion

Ite

ms

2

Actio

nIte

m

Who

isre

spon

sible?

Who

else

needsto

kno

w?

TargetDate


Imp

lem

en

ting

Co

-Re

qu

isite

Ma

the

ma

tics:

Ac

tion

Ite

ms

3

Actio

nIte

m

Who

isre

spon

sible?

Who

else

needsto

kno

w?

TargetDate


Imp

lem

en

ting

Co

-Re

qu

isite

Ma

the

ma

tics:

Ac

tion

Ite

ms

4

Actio

nIte

m

Who

isre

spon

sible?

Who

else

needsto

kno

w?

TargetDate


AB705ImplementationChecklist_____ CommunicatetostudentstheirrightsunderAB705totaketransfer-levelcourse

workinmath.Considermatriculationmaterials,collegewebsite,emails,signage,brochures,handouts,etc.

_____ Developaprocessforgrantingcontinuingstudentsaccesstotransfer-levelcourse

workandnotifycontinuingstudentsofthechangesmandatedbyAB705.______ Providetrainingforfacultyteachingsupportsections,bothup-frontandon-going._____ Developaplanforshiftingthescheduleofclassestoaccommodatetheenrollmentof

thevastmajorityofstudentsinintroductorytransfer-levelcoursesandplanforadequatesectionsofsupport.

_____ Coordinatewithstaffwhooverseetutoringcenters,labs,andotherout-of-class

supportservicestoplanforincreasedusageandforthetrainingoftutorsandotherserviceprovidersinthenewsupportparadigm.

_____ Workwithcounselorstodevelopmathpathwayadvising.Ifstudentswillhave

optionstoenrollintopre-transfer-levelcoursework,determinehowcounselorswillworktoensurethatstudentsunderstandtheconsequencesofchoosingoptionsthatlowertheirlikelihoodofcompletingtransferrequirements.

_____ WorkwithAssessmentCenterstaffonmessagingthatrelatestomathpathwaysand

encouragesstudentstofollowtheirtransfer-levelplacement._____ Coordinatewithotherdisciplinesthathavecourseswithdevelopmentalmath

prerequisitestoensurethatstudentaccessandsuccessarenotimpacted,e.g.usemultiplemeasurestosatisfyprerequisites,updateprerequisitestoallowhigher-levelmathcoursework,and/ordevelopconcurrentsupport.

_____ Ifusinglinkedco-requisitesupportcourses,meetwithrelevantstaff(Information

Technology,AdmissionsandRecords,etc.)toensurethatregistrationworkssmoothly.Doadryrun!

CollaborateandcommunicatewiththefollowingaboutchangesyouaremakinginresponsetoAB705:_____ Matriculation/Assessment _____ Registration _____ Admissions _____ InformationTechnology_____ Counseling _____ DSPS


DevelopingCoreqs(designofmodel,CORs)

Placement(Usedefaultstaterules?Coreqs—recommendedorrequired?Guidedself-placementforanystudents?)

IT(ex:automatingplacementbasedonGPAorguidedself-placement,registeringforthecoreq)

SchedulingandStaffing

AB705PlanningOrganizer

Below, you’ll find some areas that you’ll need to consider as you work toward creating or scaling placement reform and corequisite courses in response to AB 705. Use this to note questions, things to do on campus, people to talk to, which people are handling different tasks, etc.


Facultydevelopment

Classroommaterials

Collaboratingwithdepartmentsacrosscampusaboutimplementationissues(ex:counseling,assessmentcenter,othercoursesthathavedevelopmentalcoursesasprereqs)

Other


CreatedbyTamelaD.Randolph,SoutheastMissouriStateUniversity

(InsertUniversity’sName)(InsertDate)

CourseRedesignPlanningSession

WhereAreYouNow?Thoughts

Questions Notes• Whydoyouwanttogotoaco-requisitemodel

inmathematics?

• Whatdoyouhopetoaccomplishwithco-requisitecourses?

• Whatarethestrengthsandweaknessesofyourcurrentmathematicsprogram?

• Whatadditionalpathwaysmightyouneed?

• Whatisthetimelineforaccomplishingthisredesignwithco-requisitecourses?

•



CurrentCoursesQuestions Notes• Whichcoursesmightbeinvolvedinthe

redesign?Includetheirpre-requisites.

• Whatisthestructureofcurrentschedule(credithoursofeachcourse,meetingtimesperweek,daysoftheweek,etc.)?

• Howmanysectionsdoyoucurrentlyhaveofeachcourse?

• Whatistheannualstudentenrollmentineachcourse?

• Whatsupportmaterialsareusedforeachcourse(textbooks,websites,LMS,technology,etc.)?

• Whatisthedeliveryformatforeachcourse(ITV,webinar,F2F,etc.)?

•



Co-RequisiteCoursesQuestions Notes• Whatco-requisitemodelwouldworkbestfor

whichcourse?

• Whatwillbethenewstructureoftheschedule(credithoursofeachcourse,meetingtimesperweek,daysoftheweek,etc.)?

• Howmanysectionsofeachcoursewillyouneed?

• Howwillannualenrollmentsineachcoursebeimpacted(population,budget,etc.)?

• Whatsupportmaterialsdoyouwanttouseforeachcourse(textbooks,websites,LMS,technology,etc.)?

• Whatwillbethedeliveryformatofeachcourse?

•

•



RedesignTeam&SupportQuestions Notes• Whowillserveontheredesignteam?Whatis

eachperson’sjobdescription?

• Howoftenwilltheredesignteammeet?Whataretheexpectationsofthemembersateachofthemeetings?

• Istherefinancialsupportfortheredesign(teammemberstipends,attendanceatprofessionalmeetings,localPDmeetings,etc.)?

• Willcommoninformationforeachcoursebecreatedforeveryonetouse(commoncourseshellintheLearningManagementSystem,commonhomeworkandassessments,commondetailedteachingsyllabus,etc.)?

• Whatwillprofessionaldevelopmentlooklikeforeveryoneinvolvedthroughouttheredesign,includingthoseindividualswhomightbeteachingthecourseeventuallybutarenotontheredesignteam?

•

•



CampusOutreachQuestions Notes• Howdoinstitutionalleadersplantosupport

theredesign?

• Haveyoureceivedsupportandinputfromotherdepartmentsoncampusforthisredesign?

• HowwillITbeimpactedbytheredesign?

• HastheRegistrar’sOfficebeennotifiedoftheredesignandhavetheygiveninputintohowstudentrecordswillbeimpacted?

• Howwillstudentsbeinformedofthenewco-requisitecourses?

• Howwillallfacultybeinformedofthenewco-requisitecourses?

• Howwillyouinformadvisorsoftheredesign?

•



AssessmentofCo-RequisiteRedesignQuestions Notes• Willyourunapilotofanyoftheredesigned

co-requisitecourses?Ifso,whenandhow(whichsemester,whichcourses,whichfaculty,howmanysections,etc.)?

• Howwillstudentlearningachievementbeassessed(studentlearningoutcomes,courseleveloutcomes,programleveloutcomes,etc.)?Arethosemeasurescurrentlyinplace,soyouhavecomparativedata?

• Howwillyourgoalsfortheredesignberealized(reduceinstructionalcosts,reduceinstitutionalcosts,higherstudentsuccess,reducedtimeindevelopmentalcourses,etc.)?

• Whowillberesponsibleforkeepingtrackofallofthedatapoints?Howwilldisseminationofthatinformationtakeplace?

•

•


R Redesign Planning and Implementation

09/2016

Department Chair Responsibilities

• Selectredesignteammembersandletthemworko Mathfacultyappliedtobeoneachredesignteamo Twofacultyforeachteam(RegularNon-TenureTrack,TenureTrack)

• Solicitbuyinfromcampusconstituentsandcontinuetokeeptheminformedo MathematicsFacultyo SupportUnits(Registrar’sOffice,InformationTechnology,

Telecommunications,FacilitiesManagement)o CampusCommunity

§ Administrators(president,provost,deans,andchairpersons)§ Faculty(outsideMathematicsDepartment)§ Advisors(ProfessionalAdvisingTeam)§ Students

Redesign Team Responsibilities

• Createcohesivecourses(gatewayandlab)• Workwithotherredesignteamstoensureconsistencyacrosslabs• Findconsensusonsoftware,useofcalculators,facultyguidednotes,assignments,

duedates,etc.• Listentoconstituents(students,otherfaculty,otherdepartments,etc.)• Constantlykeeptheaudienceinmindforeachofthecourses

Redesign Team Work

• Metatleastonceaweekstartingtheyearbeforeimplementation• Addedrigortogatewaycourses• Establishedacommonplatform,originallyPearson’sMLP• Matchedappropriatedevelopmentalmathcontenttoeachgatewayusingacommon

textbook;includedstudyskills• Createdweekbyweekdesignofcourses:guidedinstructornotes,studentsyllabus,

Moodle,andhomeworkplatform


Southeast Missouri State Redesign

09/2016

Co-Requisite Model• Gatewayanddevelopmentalmathare:

o Co-mingledo Bothco-taughtbyinstructorandGAo 60students(e.g.35college-readyand25developmental)o Taughtinacomputerclassroomo Separatecourseregistrationso Separategradeso Usingoneplatformforallcoursesintheredesign

• Gatewaycomponent:o 3creditso Mini-lectureswithtimeforhomeworko Dailyquizzesfromhomework

• Developmentalcomponent:o 1credithour,2contacthourso Countedas1hourinfacultyload;changingto2hoursnextfallo Mini-lectureswithtimeforhomeworko “Just-in-time”supporto Timefor1-1helpo Studyskillsintegrated

Results • 78%ofallstudentsenrolledinbothcoursesweresuccessfulinonesemester• Freshmen–Sophomoreretentionincreasedto74%(1.3%increaseinoneyear)• Developmentalstudentsare:

o Havean88%successrateindevelopmentalcomponento Arespendinglesstimeandlessmoneyindevelopmentalclasseso Aremoreengagedwithinstructors


CVHEC Co-Requisite Workshop...CVHEC Co-Requisite Workshop Day One Files 08/2017 Central Valley Math...

Documents

Transcript of CVHEC Co-Requisite Workshop...CVHEC Co-Requisite Workshop Day One Files 08/2017 Central Valley Math...