Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Developmental Education CCCS Redesign Cost Projections Sept 2012

116

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
116
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. “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.
  • 2. MAT 030 MAT 060 MAT 090 MAT 099 ENG 030 ENG 060 ENG 090 REA 030 REA 060 REA 090
  • 3. 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% TotalAverage 62.9%
  • 4.  Even when students are successful in a DE course they do not come back for the next course in the sequence:  Math 45% do not return  English 31% do not return  Reading 28% do not return
  • 5.  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.
  • 6.  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.
  • 7.  Example for students who completed ENG030 - fall 2010  Completed 030(538) 100%  Enroll and complete 060 (189) 35%  Enroll in and complete 090 (32) 6%
  • 8.  Example for students who completed MAT 030 - fall 2010  Completed 030(3931) 100%  Complete 060 (1221) 31%  Complete 090 (377) 10%  Complete 099 (66) 2%
  • 9. Move students quickly and effectively through their first college level course.
  • 10.  Chabot College  UTAustin, Dana Center  Los Medinos CC  CC of Baltimore County  Austin Peay State  Tennessee, Minnesota, Connecticut, Florida, Texas, California – systems and policies
  • 11. MAT 030 MAT 060 MAT 090 MAT 099
  • 12.  Sections were estimated at 18 students (three year average on current DE math sections)  Estimate that every course is 3 credit hours – (this could increase but likely will not decrease)  1/3 split enrollment between non-transfer, non-STEM, and STEM  50% retention from prior course (slightly lower than our current average)
  • 13. Current Math Average ProposedYear 1 Headcount 28,050 28,050 Sections 1,535 1,558 Credits 97,238 74,098
  • 14.  20% “assessment prep” students are retained to a pathway course. All enrollees were placed into a non-transfer path in this model. This may not reflect their actual choices
  • 15. Old Math Proposed Year 1 Proposed Year 2 Headcount 28,050 28,050 35,973 Sections 1,535 1,558 1,998 Credits 97,238 74,098 97,866
  • 16.  Same assumptions about retention from prior courses (50% on all but Assessment prep which is 20%)  All eligible students are put in co-requisite courses  All co-requisite courses are 1 credit  All co-requisite courses estimated at 9 students (1/2 the size of DE courses now)
  • 17. Old Math Proposed 1 Proposed 2 Co-req options Headcount 28,050 28,050 35,973 39,785 Sections 1,535 1,558 1,998 2,513 Credits 97,238 74,098 97,866 93,560
  • 18. ENG 030 ENG 060 ENG 090 REA 030 REA 060 REA 090
  • 19.  Average fall headcount 26,347  Average sections offered 1,436  Average credit hours 78,119  Average unduplicated headcount 21,915
  • 20. REA030 REA060 REA090 None ENG030 3% 2% 1% 0% ENG060 2% 6% 6% 3% ENG090 0% 5% 14% 20% ENG121 0% 0% 4% 34%
  • 21. Placement Score(s) FirstTerm 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 developmental requirements RC40-61 and/or SS 50-69 CRC 092 Completion of developmental requirements RC62-79 and/or SS 70-94 Studio courses (college level course with a co- requisite CRC Studio) Completion of developmental requirements
  • 22.  Removed duplicated headcount from REA/ENG courses  Placements based on percent in 30/30, 30/60, 60/60, 60/90… placements  Sections at 18 students (three year average)  Sections of Studio courses at 10 students  Soft landing = non-credit  Three credit courses for each experience (studio 3 credit + paired with a 3 credit 121 or discipline course)  CRC has all 060 and split score placements
  • 23. Old REA and ENG Proposed Year 1 Headcount 26,347 21,950 Sections 1,436 1,619 Credits 78,119 90,666
  • 24.  50% of the students in CRC are enrolled in 121 the next semester  20% “soft landing” students are retained to CRC
  • 25. Historical Proposed Year 1 Proposed Year 2 21,915 21,950 24,500 1,436 1,219 1,760 78,119 88,914 98,317
  • 26.  One credit soft landing  10 students in all soft landing co-requisite sections
  • 27. Historical Proposed Year 1 Proposed Year 2 Co-req soft landing 26,347 21,950 24,500 24,500 1,436 1,619 1,760 1,792 78,119 90,666 98,317 101,145
  • 28.  Expenses tied to sections = $1950 per section  Revenue tied to credit hours for FY13 = $174.75 per credit
  • 29. Old model New model New w/ co-req option Expenses (sections) 1,535 $2,993,250 1,998 $3,896,100 2,513 $4,900,350 Revenue (credits) 97,238 $16,992,340 97,866 $17,101,908 93,560 $16,349,610 Net $13,999,090 $13,205,808 $11,449,260
  • 30. Old model New model New w/ co- req soft landing Expenses (sections) 1,436 $2,800,200 1,760 $3,432,000 1,792 $3,494,400 Revenue (credits) 78,119 $13,651,295 98,317 $17,180,895 101,145 $17,675,088 Net $10,581,095 $13,748,895 $14,180,688
  • 31. 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.

×