PRELIMINARY FINDINGSFALL 2013 PILOT DATA REPORT

PA12-40 REMEDIATION CONFERENCEMIDDLESEX COMMUNITY COLLEGEAPRIL 11, 2014

AYNSLEY DIAMOND, ED.D.TRANSFER AND ARTICULATION POLICY PROGRAM

MANAGER

BENJAMIN KLIMCZAK, M.S.SENIOR RESEARCH ANALYST

CONTEXT/ GOALSPublic Act 12-40

Multiple Measures of Student Assessment

Assessment outcomes determine student placement in either:

• Embedded

• Intensive

• College readiness program (transitional) instruction

Persistence and Retention

Student Success

WHAT WE DID

136 Pilots in Fall 2013 semester

Variation of Method and Design and Instruction

Trends, Forecasting and Planning are not to be inferred from this data

WARNING - These data are only for PILOTS!

FALL 2013 UNDERGRADUATE ENROLLMENT – OVERALL & REMEDIAL

InstitutionUndergraduate

Enrollment

Enrollment in Remedial Course

(English and/or Math)

Fall 2013 # #Percentage of

Remedial Enrollment

CSU & COSC 28,699 1,238 9%

CCC 56,976 12,981 91%

ConnSCU 85,675 14,219

CCC STUDENTS REGISTRATION FOR REMEDIAL COURSES

FALL TERMS: 2011 THROUGH 2013

Fall Term

New Students Other Student Types All Students

CCCEnrollment

Registered for Remedial Course CCC

Enrollment

Registered for Remedial Course CCC

Enrollment

Registered for Remedial Course

# % # % # %

2013 11,491 6,836 59% 45,485 6,145 14% 56,976 12,981 23%

2012 11,765 7,607 65% 46,463 6,935 15% 58,228 14,542 25%

2011 11,678 7,791 67% 45,474 7,109 16% 57,152 14,900 26%

WITHDRAWAL RATES (INCLUDING FALL 2012 CONVENTIONAL DATA)

Conventional (Fall 2012)

Conventional (Fall 2013)

Embedded (Fall 2013)

Intensive (Fall 2013)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

7%8%

13%

9%

11%12%

15%

12%

EnglishMath

NEW STUDENTS COMPLETION STATUS

(ENGLISH AND/OR MATH)

Course TypeEnrolled Successful

# #Success

Rate

Remedial - Embedded 758 536 71%

Remedial - Intensive 699 462 66%

Remedial - Conventional 6,340 4,718 74%

College Level 4,484 3,825 85%

AVERAGE GRADE POINT – REMEDIAL COURSES(INCLUDING FALL 2012 CONVENTIONAL DATA)

Conventional (Fall 2012)

Conventional (Fall 2013)

Embedded (Fall 2013)

Intensive (Fall 2013)

English 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0

Math 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.6

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.01.6 1.6

1.8 1.6

What happened in spring?

What happened to remedial mathemat-

ics students in Spring 2014?

Embedded Intensive Conventional0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

13% 12% 13%

What happened in spring?

Did not register

Embedded Intensive Conventional0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%10%

26%

What happened in spring?

RepeatedDid not register

Embedded Intensive Conventional0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

87%78%

61%

What happened in spring?

Did not repeatRepeatedDid not register

What happened in spring?

What happened to remedial English stu-dents in Spring 2014?

Embedded Intensive Conventional0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

8% 9%16%

What happened in spring?

Did not register

Embedded Intensive Conventional0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0%2%

24%

What happened in spring?

RepeatedDid not register

Embedded Intensive Conventional0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

92% 89%

60%

What happened in spring?

Did not repeatRepeatedDid not register

WHAT’S NEXT

• Disaggregate data to determine outliers

• Institutional model analysis

• RFQ – independent analysis of models; qualitative component

• Summer 2013 Evaluate transitional levels

SOURCE INFORMATION:

Prepared by: ConnSCU, Board of Regents for Higher Education - Office of Policy and Research

Data Source: Institutional Research Database

IRDB Query: IRDB_RemedialEnrollment_V20140407