Developmental Education Taskforce Recommendations

Overview

History of developmental education in COOur recommendations

Math College Reading and Composition (English & Reading) Administrative

Proposed timeline

The problem

“The more levels of developmental courses a student needs to go through,

the less likely that student is to ever complete college English or math.”

- Thomas Bailey (2009) CCRC Brief.

Colorado percent of enrollment in developmental education

27%

73%

Enrollment

Students enrolled in at least one DE courseAll other students

CCCS students

MAT ENG REA0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

61.6

25.3

13.1

Percent of total remedial enrollment

Percent of total remedial place-ment

Traditional Colorado course pipeline

MAT 030

MAT 060

MAT 090

MAT 099

ENG 030

ENG 060

ENG 090

REA 030

REA 060

REA 090

Current course completion

Course 2010-2012: 3 year average

ENG 030 61.6%

ENG 060 63.2%

ENG 090 63.5%

REA 030 64.0%

REA 060 68.1%

REA 090 63.8%

MAT 030 60.8%

MAT 060 66.3%

MAT 090 60.1%

MAT 099 57.9%

Total Average 62.9%

Why high attrition rates are a structural problem

For students who place two levels below a college course there are 5 “exit points” Do they pass the first course Do they enroll in the next course? Do they pass the second course? Do they enroll in the college-level course? Do they pass the college-level course?

Students placing three levels down have 7 exit points.

Why high attrition rates are a structural problem

CCCS pipeline example for students beginning in MAT090

Enroll in remedial math (6933) 100%Do they complete MAT 090 (3053) 44%Do they enroll in college math (1746) 25%Do they complete college math (1239) 18%Do they graduate (558) 8%

Nawrocki, Baker, & Corash (2009). Success of remedial math students in the Colorado community college system: A longitudinal study.

Why high attrition rates are a structural problem

CCCS pipeline example for students who completed ENG 030 - fall 2010

Completed 030(538)100%

Do they enroll and complete 060 (189)35%

Do they enroll in and complete 090 (32)6%

Student Voice

Duane Hansen, FRCC student

The goal of our recommendations

Move students quickly and effectively through their first college level course.

National models considered

Washington State - iBestTennessee – modules and math emporium Los Medinos - shortening the developmental

pipeline and acceleration in math*CCBC - Accelerated Learning (ALP)*Chabot College – Acceleration and engaging

faculty to dive into pedagogy and practice*University of Texas - new mathways project*APSU– mainstreaming

* Indicates projects that heavily influenced CO recommendations

Our recommendations

Reduce the amount of time, number of credits, and number of classes

Curriculum redesign Reverse design What students need to know for success in college

class Active learning experiences

Ongoing process

Math

Multiple pathways

Each course in each developmental sequence should be redesigned to only cover content necessary for the college level course.

Multiple developmental sequences/paths/branches available to students based on their career/major interest. Leading to college math clusters in: Non-transfer Non-STEM STEM

Student advising as part of placement

Work with advisors to help students make informed choices that realistically reflect their academic preparation, abilities, and interests

Assessment preparation

Non-credit leading to re-testOptions for colleges:

Referral to ABE programs AAA Accuplacer preparation Boot camp NROC MFL, Aleks, Enhanced web assign MOOC’s Tutoring

College Reading and Composition(English & Reading)

College Reading and Composition

Offer an accelerated model that provides students with the opportunity to enter a 100 level class no later than their second term in enrollment

Integrate Reading and EnglishCurrent sequence should be compressed and

acceleratedThere are a variety of possible delivery

strategies to achieve this goal

Multiple placementsREA030 REA060 REA090 None

ENG030

3% 2% 1% 0%

ENG060

2% 6% 6% 3%

ENG090

0% 5% 14% 20%

ENG121

0% 0% 4% 34%

CRC recommendations

Placement Score(s) First Term Leads to

1A) RC 0-39 and/or SS 0-49

Soft Landing Accuplacer test

1B)RC 0-39 and/or SS 0-49

CRC 092 + CRC 091 Completion of all REA and ENG developmental requirements

RC40-61 and/or SS 50-69

CRC 092 Completion of all REA and ENG developmental requirements

2A)RC62-79 and/or SS 70-94

CRC 093Studio D

Completion of all REA and ENG developmental requirements

2B)RC62-79 and/or SS 70-94

CRC 094Studio 121

Completion of all REA and ENG developmental requirements

Administrative

Testing and placement

Colorado specific Accuplacer with “strands”Uniform multiple measures built into

Accuplacer systemConsistent test administration statewideValidate Accuplacer scores every 3-5 years –

are we using the right cut scoresTo accomplish these goals use a system level

institutional administrator (IA) in addition to college site administrators for local control

Student support

Use CCCSE practices Orientation Goal setting and planning No late registrations First year experience Student success course Tutoring Supplemental instruction Case management/academic advising/career coaches

College develop a plan to use for planning, initiating, and sustaining success for developmental students

Faculty support and development

Colleges create a professional development plan Offer limited full time positions to current adjunct

instructors during implementation Provide release time for implementation Course release and reassigned time to develop and

implement student success strategies Functional work groups on campus—i.e. BANNER,

Advising, Testing—address the issues of the implementation process

Provide, with CCCS, continuing professional development focusing on research-based strategies

Train transfer level and developmental faculty 

Measures of success

Successful developmental students and programs should be measured in the following ways: In Math – Successful completion of any college level

(100+) math course In English and Reading – Successful completion of any

college level (100+) English course or any college level discipline strands course.

Financial comparison of old and new

CRC Enrollment comparisons

Old (3 yr average)

Proposed Year 1

Proposed Year 2

Headcount

21,91521,950 24,500

Sections

1,4361,219 1,760

Credits

78,11988,914 98,317

Math enrollment comparisons

Old Math

Proposed Year 1

Proposed Year 2

Headcount

28,050 28,050 35,973Sections

1,535 1,558 1,998

Credits 97,238

74,098 97,866

Revenue and expenses

Expenses tied to sections = $1950 per section

Revenue tied to credit hours for FY13 = $174.75 per credit

Only instructional expenses in both models

Math

Old model

New model

Expenses(sections)

1,535$2,993,250

1,998$3,896,100

Revenue(credits)

97,238$16,992,340

97,866$17,101,908

Net $13,999,090 $13,205,808

CRC

Old model New model

Expenses(sections)

1,436$2,800,200

1,760$3,432,000

Revenue(credits)

78,119$13,651,295

98,317$17,180,895

Net $10,581,095 $13,748,895

What happens next?

Implementation teams

Core implementation team Faculty Focused on curriculum, content, training, and

professional developmentRedesign advisory group

Administrative (Banner, Business officer, Advising, financial aid…)

Timeline

 Spring/summer 13 discipline team work to develop curriculum and to create professional development training for faculty and staff

Fall of 13 schools that are already working on redesign will ramp up projects

Spring 14 all colleges should transition to the new models

Fall of 14 all colleges should be operating with the new models in place

Questions?

Creative Commons Attribution

Unless otherwise specified, this work by the Colorado Community College System http://www.cccs.edu is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License. The material was created with funds from the Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) grant awarded to the Colorado Online Energy Training Consortium (COETC).