Developmental Education Taskforce Recommendations january 2013
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Developmental Education Taskforce Recommendations january 2013

on

  • 203 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
203
Views on SlideShare
203
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Review handout

Developmental Education Taskforce Recommendations january 2013 Developmental Education Taskforce Recommendations january 2013 Presentation Transcript

  • Developmental Education Taskforce Recommendations
  • Overview  History of developmental education in CO  Our 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 course All other students
  • CCCS students 61.6 25.3 13.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 MAT ENG REA Percent of total remedial enrollment Percent of total remedial placement
  • 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 - iBest  Tennessee – 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-test  Options 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 English  Current sequence should be compressed and accelerated  There are a variety of possible delivery strategies to achieve this goal
  • Multiple placements REA030 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 093 Studio D Completion of all REA and ENG developmental requirements 2B) RC62-79 and/or SS 70-94 CRC 094 Studio 121 Completion of all REA and ENG developmental requirements
  • Administrative
  • Testing and placement  Colorado specific Accuplacer with ―strands‖  Uniform multiple measures built into Accuplacer system  Consistent test administration statewide  Validate Accuplacer scores every 3-5 years – are we using the right cut scores  To 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 21,915 21,950 24,500 Sections 1,436 1,219 1,760 Credits 78,119 88,914 98,317
  • Math enrollment comparisons 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
  • 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 development  Redesign 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.