developmental education taskforce recommendations january 2013
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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.
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
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
This work by Colorado Community College System COETC Grant is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported 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).Based on a work at www.cccs.edu.Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.cccs.edu.