1. Placement in a Post-AB 705 World: Review and Considerations
Craig Hayward, PhD
John Hetts, PhD
Mallory Newell, EdD
Terrence Willett, MS
AB 705 Work Group
May 9, 2018
California Community College Chancellor’s Office
Sacramento
(previous deck:

2. Review: What Have We Covered
Broad evidence for HSGPA in placement
Demonstrated effective use in pilot colleges – similar success rates, vastly higher throughput
Evidence from within CA and nationally on successful implementation of corequisite supports
Addressed various questions about other combinations of preparation
Examined application to special populations (DSPS, EOPS) – GPA’s slightly lower, basic principles hold

3. Review: What Have We Covered
Examination of previous students least likely to succeed
<1.9 English, <2.3 Stat, <2.6 PreCalculus
More likely to succeed in English, Stat, & entry STEM if placed directly than 1 level below
Even when adjusting math denominators to exclude students w/o goals requiring transfer-level math &, for STEM, reducing denominator by ¾ to account for non-STEM directed
Even when adjusting for distributions of test performance and HS GPA of students not historically placed directly into transfer (i.e., statistically accounting for possible selection bias).
Probably still not highly unlikely to succeed*
Examined variability among colleges with sufficient ACCUPLACER data
Variability among colleges exists, but one-level below throughput never better
Even when adjusting math numerators to count any transfer-level math completion in Statistics numerator, count any STEM transfer-level math completion for STEM

4. Additional considerations
Highly unlikely is a very low, generally agreed upon probability
Specifically designed one-level below courses don’t outperform direct placement of lowest performing HS students, even fully adjusted
Colleges can still offer developmental education:
corequisite requirements are still developmental education
can require prerequisite if demonstrate maximization of completion of gateway transfer-level course
can offer just not require dev ed, - however some evidence* indicates students will underplace themselves
* College of the Canyons:

5. Regression Adjusted Success Rates (error bars represent ±1 se)
Some N values for the inclusion in the notes of the slide deck:
English students with < 1.90 high school GPA
Starting at transfer-level:     7,294
Starting one-level below:  13,241  
Statistics students with < 2.30 high school GPA
Starting at transfer-level:         1,485
Starting at one-level below:   11,309
Pre-calculus students with < 2.60 high school GPA
Starting at transfer-level:         1,753
Starting at one-level below:   18,917
Note that the one-level below Ns are not pared back by the Ed Goal or STEM path adjustments; these are the starting values.
N’s added by request: Remember – these are the rates for those least likely to succeed. Any observed throughput at colleges needs to similarly take that into account

6. What comparison should we use?
John
Myth: Data is Old

7. What’s the real comparison?
Colleges researching one-level below remediation strategies should compare throughput rates to direct placement and corequisite modes of support.
Do students meet highly unlikely to succeed standard to exclude from access to transfer-level courses?
What predictive measures were used to exclude from transfer-level?
Is course open access or is there a restriction of entry?
Could the strategies used in a highly successful one-level below course be used to develop a better corequisite support?

8. Cuyamaca: Dramatic Improvements in Transfer-level Math Completion
From Snell, M. & Serpas, S. (May 4, 2018). The Promise of Concurrent Support Models in English and Math: Will AB 705 help students? Presentation to AB705 Workshop, Bakersfield College.

9. Solano College Course Success and Throughput Rates
Traditional students—3 years to complete
Accelerated students—2 years to complete
Coreq and stand-alone transfer-level students—1 semester to complete
From Joshua Scott’s presentation “Co-Requisite Support at Solano College” at CAP’s 1-day English Co-Requisite Workshop on September 29, 2017 at West Valley College
Fall 2014 numbers for traditional sequence (3-below, 2-below, and 1-below) (Tracked to Summer 2017, 3 years)
1 level below (attempted: 416; passed: 286; passed E1: 197)
2 level below (attempted: 127; passed: 80; passed E1: 44)
3 level below (attempted: 43; passed: 27; passed E1: 9)
Fall 2015 cohort for accelerated English (Tracked to Summer 2017, 2 years)
attempted: 222; passed: 148; passed E1: 84
Fall 2016 cohort for coreq (1 semester)
Fall 2016: attempted: 170; passed 119 (70%)
Stand alone
Fall 2016 (after placement reform) 765 attempted; 551 passed (72% pass rate). 
Talking points
Course success rates are similar across
Throughput increases dramatically
The lower the student places, the higher the chance they will not complete
Accelerated English—5 years ago this was a radical move, now we know that’s not a powerful move
Now, they no longer offer 3, 2, or 1 levels below. Based on this data, the dept has gotten rid of these courses.
Pass rate in coreq is higher than any of the dev. courses.
From Serpas, S (May 4, 2018): Responding to AB 705 and Supporting Students in English/Reading: Concurrent Support Courses for College Composition. Presentation to AB705 Workshop, Bakersfield College.

10. One-Year Completion of College English
How can we give students the best chance of completing transfer-level English within a year?
Sample Analysis: San Diego Mesa College
Starting Placement
One-Year Completion of College English
Fall 16-Spr 17
Transfer-Level English with Corequisite (N=300)
3-unit course linked to 2-unit corequisite for students with who traditionally have begun 1-2 levels below
HS GPA below 2.6 (one semester success rate)
74%
One level below transfer (N= 1180)
39%
Two levels below transfer (N=67)
13%
We must give them the “best chance of completing,” not just that they can complete in one year
95% of students eligible to take the coreq
How did 13% pass transfer-level from 2 levels below?
10 enrolled in trans. level course: 9 completed transferable, 7 passed coreq, 2 who did not do the coreq somehow made it through, actually an optimistic number due to the coreq
Remember, in a statewide sample—
Students with a HS GPA below 1.9 have a 43% average success rate
Students with a HS GPA from 1.9 to 2.6 have a 59% average success rate
If allowed to enroll directly in stand-alone transfer-level classes.
From Serpas, S (May 4, 2018): Responding to AB 705 and Supporting Students in English/Reading: Concurrent Support Courses for College Composition. Presentation to AB705 Workshop, Bakersfield College.

11. Innovations at colleges in developmental education haven’t gone to scale and have not yet been shown to outperform direct placement
John
Myth: Data is Old

12. Colleges have changed a lot, but not as much as hoped even in innovative era
PPIC has documented that most of these innovations are not being applied at scale and are reaching only a small fraction of community college students statewide:
Placement:
Math:
English:
John

13. Throughput from Fall 2016 to Fall 2017
Colleges have changed a lot, but not as much as hoped even in innovative era
Even colleges that have implemented substantial changes, struggle to match potential of direct placement (much less direct placement with corequisite support), e.g.:
Throughput from Fall 2016 to Fall 2017
Urban community college, redesigned one-level below pre-statistics: 13.5%
Central valley college, redesigned intermediate algebra for statistics: 8.1%
Urban community college, both models: 20.6%
City Collge of San Francisco: Preparation for Statistics: 11 out of again in Fall 2017.
Bakersfield 8 out of 99 in fall 2016 Intermediate Algebra for Statistics (174 in Fall 2017)
Santa Monica - 22 out of 106 in Fall 2016 Pre Stas or Intermediate Algebra for Statistics or Finite Math (309 Fall 2017)
Barely

14. Colleges have changed a lot, but not as much as hoped even in innovative era
Doesn’t mean we haven’t been trying!
Doesn’t mean the work hasn’t been critically important
We all want students to succeed
We are passionate because we care
We are cautious because we want to get it right the first time
Nevertheless, implementation remains urgent because this time is the only first time for this year’s students
City Collge of San Francisco: Preparation for Statistics: 11 out of again in Fall 2017.
Bakersfield 8 out of 99 in fall 2016 Intermediate Algebra for Statistics (174 in Fall 2017)
Santa Monica - 22 out of 106 in Fall 2016 Pre Stas or Intermediate Algebra for Statistics or Finite Math (309 Fall 2017)
Barely

15. Low GPA students aren’t all that common
Terrence
There are lots of low GPA students who will flood our courses like a zombie apocalypse

16. mean = 2.57
sd = 0.67
1st quartile = 2.10
median = 2.59
3rd quartile = 3.06
N = 143,253

17. Distribution of 11th grade HS cumulative GPA
0.9% of students below a 1.0 GPA; 5.2% between a 1.0 and 1.5; and11.2% of students have between a 1.5 to a 1.9 high school GPA.

18. Highly unlikely is actually a fairly low probability on which most people agree

19. John – Reddit (n=47) replication of Sherman Kent (1968) study using NATO military officers accustomed to reading intelligence reports with probabilistic language.

20. RP Post-conference workshop attendees of California Community College stakeholders

21. Placement recommendations

22. Placement/Support Recommendations for English
High School Performance
AB 705-Compliant Placement
HSGPA ≥ 2.6
Transfer-Level English Composition
No additional academic or corequisite support required
HSGPA
Additional academic and corequisite support recommended
HSGPA < 1.9
Additional academic and corequisite support strongly recommended
Mallory
For students with high school transcripts within 10 years of enrollment at CC, excluding students who are locally advised to take the ESL test.

23. Placement/Support Recommendations for Statistics
High School Performance
AB 705-Compliant Placement
HSGPA ≥ 3.0 Or
HSGPA ≥ 2.3 & C or Better in Precalculus
Transfer-Level Statistics
No additional academic or corequisite support required
HSGPA 2.3–3.0
Additional academic and corequisite support recommended
HSGPA < 2.3
Additional academic and corequisite support strongly recommended
Draft Recommendation
Mallory
For students with high school transcripts within 10 years of enrollment at CC.

24. Placement/Support Recommendations for Gateway STEM Math
High School Performance 
AB 705-Compliant Placement
HSGPA ≥ 3.4 OR
HSGPA ≥ 2.6 AND enrolled in a HS Calculus course
Transfer-Level Gateway STEM Math
No additional academic or corequisite support required
HSGPA ≥2.6 or Enrolled in HS Precalculus
Additional academic and corequisite support recommended
HSGPA ≤ 2.6 and no Precalculus
Additional academic and corequisite support strongly recommended
Draft Recommendation
Mallory
For students with high school transcripts within 10 years of enrollment at CC and who had taken Algebra 2/Intermediate Algebra/Integrative Math 3 or higher in high school.

25. MMAP Research Team John Hetts Terrence Willett Rachel Baker
Educational Results Partnership
Ken Sorey
Daniel Lamoree ‎
Terrence Willett
The RP Group
Mallory Newell
Craig Hayward
Kristen Fong
Rachel Baker
UC Irvine
Nathan Pellegrin
The RP Group
Peter Bahr University of Michigan
Loris Fagioli (Phase II researcher)
IVC
Mallory