1. The Right Math for the Right Student at the Right Time
February 2017

2. Workshop Facilitators
Heather Ortiz, Ed.D.
State Implementation Specialist,
Charles A. Dana Center
Susan Bickerstaff, Ph.D.
Senior Research Associate,
Community College Research Center

3. Workshop Outcomes
Learn about Michigan’s state and institutional evaluation activity with CCRC for Mathematics Pathways to Completion project.
Learn about the new Dana Center Mathematics Pathway resource site ( as a technical assistance service for state and institutional activity towards math pathways.

4. Definition of Math Pathway
…a mathematics course or sequence of courses that students take to meet the requirements of their program of study. The concept of math pathways applies to pathways for college-ready and underprepared students.

5. Michigan’s Math Pathways
Michigan Transfer Agreement (MTA) final recommendations include 3 distinct math pathways:
A pathway to prepare students for majors requiring calculus, particularly STEM programs;
A pathway emphasizing statistics for business and some social science majors; and
A pathway emphasizing quantitative reasoning for all other majors.

6. Mathematics Pathways to Completion (MPC) Evaluation

7. Community College Research Center
Areas of research include:
The role of the community college
High school to college transitions
Developmental education & adult basic skills
Student services and financial aid
Online learning and instructional technology
Student persistence, completion, and transfer
College to career and workforce education
Improving institutional performance

8. CCRC Research on Status Quo in Developmental Mathematics
Bailey, Jeong & Cho, 2010

9. Studying Reform: Process and Outcomes- ,

10. Outcomes for Students in Math Pathways
MDRC evaluation of the New Mathways Project* in TX (Rutschow & Diamond, 2015) found that within one year:
8% of students enrolled in a traditional developmental math sequence passed a college-level math course
30% of students enrolled in a statistical reasoning pathway completed a college-level math course
Other analyses show similar results:
Carnegie’s Quantway: Yamada, Bohannon & Grunow (2016)
Carnegie’s Statway: Yamada & Bryk (2016)
California Acceleration Project: Hayward & Willett (2014)

11. CCRC’s Role in MPC
Formative process evaluation focused on these research questions in six states:
What state-level work was achieved as part of participating in the MPC initiative (i.e., state-level policy changes, new infrastructure)?
What state-level conditions were necessary to scale this initiative across colleges?
What institutional-level conditions were necessary to implement and scale DCMP?
What types of technical assistance and resources provided by the Dana Center do states and institutions find most beneficial?
Support and technical assistance to states in designing and executing internal evaluation plans

12. Establishing Structures for Internal Evaluation
Set the stage for continuous improvement
Designate resources (human and financial) for evaluation early
Establish baseline trends in student performance
Solicit formal feedback from instructors, advisors, and other staff
Consider various outcomes, and align expectations to stage of implementation
Learning outcomes
Course performance
Persistence
Credit-accrual
Success in mathematics and across the curriculum
Credential completion

13. Sample Research Questions
How are math pathways implemented?
What are the perceptions and experiences of advisors, faculty, students, and support staff?
What are the challenges to implementation?
How many students are enrolled in math pathways? How do enrollments change over time?
How do students enrolled in math pathways perform academically?
How does this compare to students not enrolled in pathways?

14. Considerations in Designing Internal Evaluation
Qualitative:
Who are the key stakeholders?
How can you gather the degree of stakeholder knowledge about the reform’s theory of change?
What is the best method for soliciting areas of challenge and resistance?
Quantitative:
How will you establish baseline performance?
What are the most important outcomes worth tracking?
What other factors (concurrent reforms, policy changes) may influence outcomes?
Which student subgroups should be analyzed separately?
Can a comparison group of students not enrolled in math pathways be created?

15. Template for Measuring Academic Success
Category
Full cohort
Enrolled in college-level math within one year
Passed college-level math within one year
Number of Students
% of Cohort
% of Category
Pass Rate
Full Cohort
30,000
100%
16,000
53%
11,000
37%
69%
White
20,000
67%
12,000
60%
8,500
43%
71%
Black
5,000
17%
1,900
38%
1,150
23%
61%
Hispanic
2,500 8%
900
36%
525
21%
58%
Asian
1200
48%
825
33%
Financial aid recipients
18,000
9,000
50%
6,500
72%
Financial aid non-recipients
40%
7,000
4,500
64%
Placed into Arithmetic
8,000
27%
500 6%
350 4%
70%
Placed into Pre-algebra
4,900
41%
Placed into College-Level
10,000
85%
5,750
68%
Did Not Enroll in Mathematics
N/A
Enrolled in Status Quo Math
17,000
57%
59%
65%
Enrolled in Pathways
6,000
75%
56%
Note: each subgroup of interest would receive its own row in the table.
Note: The denominator in all of the percentage columns should be the “N” in the first column. For example, the “% Passed college-level math within one year” refers to the percentage of the entire cohort, not only the percentage who pass out of those who attempted it.

16. Dana Center Mathematics Pathways Resource Site

17. We used to be . . .

18. But it’s not new anymore . . .

19. Introducing . . .

20. DCMP Resource Site

21. Contact Information
General information about the Dana Center
Dana Center Mathematics Pathways Resource Site
To receive monthly updates about the DCMP, contact us at

22. About the Dana Center
The Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin works with our nation’s education systems to ensure that every student leaves school prepared for success in postsecondary education and the contemporary workplace. Our work, based on research and two decades of experience, focuses on K–16 mathematics and science education with an emphasis on strategies for improving student engagement, motivation, persistence, and achievement. We develop innovative curricula, tools, protocols, and instructional supports and deliver powerful instructional and leadership development.
2016