1. Campus Team Leads Meeting
Friday, January 19, 2018
9:00 AM – 3:30pm

2. Welcome and Introductions

3. Introductions by Campus: Who’s in the Room
And title…

4. Objectives
To re-establish the rationale for why moving from single-measure, test- driven placement practices to the use of multiple measures is essential for student success
To take stock of where individual campuses are with the implementation of new multiple measure placement systems and give them an opportunity to reflect on the challenges they face, how they can be overcome and if campuses need to push even further and make new changes to ensure even greater student success
To learn what four Oregon campuses are doing to implement multiple measure placement systems and the results—if available—these new systems are producing
To provide participants with new ideas and potential solutions to challenges they face to take back to their campuses for discussion/implementation

5. Agenda Sessions Time Welcome and Introductions 9:00-9:15
The Case for Multiple Measures
9:15-9:30
Recent California Legislation
9:30-10:00
Team Time
10:00-10:45
Break
10:45-11:00
Concurrent Sessions 1 & 2
11:00-12:05
Lunch
12:05-12:35
Concurrent Session 3
12:40-1:10
1:15-1:45
1:45-2:00
Large Group Discussion/Problem-Solving
2:00-3:15
REL Northwest Presentation
3:15-3:30
Closing
3:30-3:35

6. Concurrent Session Presenter Introductions
Karen Sanders, Division Dean, Business, Applied Technology, World Languages and College Prep, Portland Community College
Doug Nelson, Professor of Mathematics, Central Oregon Community College
Denise Galey-Oldham, Associate Dean, Advising and First Year Programs, Chemeketa Community College
Ben Kauffman, Navigate Program Manager, Oregon Coast Community College

7. Why We do the Work

8. Why We do the Work: The Case for Multiple Measure Placement
Stacey Donohue, Professor of English, Central Oregon Community College
April Hamlin, Dean of Student Services, Umpqua Community College

9. California Community College Placement Legislation

10. The Rationale for AB-705
California’s community colleges identify more than 75 percent of its students as underprepared, and refer this overwhelming majority of students to remedial courses
The choice of assessment instruments and placement policies has serious implications for equity, since students of color are more likely to be placed into remedial courses.
There are serious adverse consequences to a college incorrectly assigning a prepared student to remediation. These adverse consequences include discouraging some students from pursuing a postsecondary education, as well as burdening other students with higher educational costs and delaying their degree plans.
Students placed into remediation are much less likely to reach their educational goals. According to the Student Success Scorecard, just 40 percent go on to complete a degree, certificate, or transfer outcome in six years, compared to 70 percent for students allowed to enroll directly in college-level courses.
There is evidence that when used as the primary criterion for placement, these tests tend to underplace students—leading colleges to assign students to remedial courses when those students could have succeeded in college-level courses.

11. California Multiple Measure Legislation: What it Requires
A community college district or college to maximize the probability that the student will enter and complete transfer-level coursework in English and mathematics within a one-year timeframe and that a student enrolled in English-as-a second-language (ESL) instruction will enter and complete degree and transfer requirements in English within a timeframe of 3 years
A community college must use, in the placement of students into English and mathematics courses in order to achieve this goal, one or more of the following: high school coursework, high school grades, and high school grade point average
A community college district or college shall minimize the impact on student financial aid and unit requirements for the degree by exploring embedded support and low or noncredit support option
major initiative or initiatives they have undertaken
The challenges that they have faced to implement it/them
How they engaged campus leadership
The steps they have taken to engage faculty to ensure they are support of change(s)
The data they are collecting to measure success and any challenges they are facing in their collection of data
Where they hope to be with the initiative by the end of the year, in three years and five years
Any initial results

12. California Multiple Measure Legislation
A community college cannot require students to enroll in remedial English or mathematics coursework that lengthens their time to complete a degree unless placement research that includes consideration of high school grade point average and coursework shows that those students are highly unlikely to succeed in transfer-level coursework in English and mathematics
The bill would authorize a community college district or college to require students to enroll in additional concurrent support, including additional language support for ESL students, during the same semester that they take the transfer-level English or mathematics course, but only if it is determined that the support will increase their likelihood of passing the transfer-level English or mathematics course
Note how the legislation puts the onus on the campus to provide evidence that a student is unlikely to succeed without developmental education coursework but it allows campuses to require concurrent supports.

13. More on AB 705’s multiple measures requirements
Multiple measures shall apply in the placement of all students in such a manner so that either of the following may occur:
Low performance on one measure may be offset by high performance on another measure
The student can demonstrate preparedness and thus bypass remediation based on any one measure
When high school transcript data is difficult to obtain, logistically problematic to use, or not available, a community college district or community college may use self-reported high school information or guided placement, including self-placement for students

14. Discussion: AB 705
What are your immediate reactions to the components/requirements of AB 705?
Is there any aspect of AB 705 that you think would be worth exploring on your campus?

15. Team Time

16. Team Time Directions
Review as a team the changes your campus has made to a single- measure placement system
Discuss whether the changes you have made have taken placement reforms to the point where you think they should be. Consider, for instance, whether your changes are more advanced in one discipline than another (writing versus mathematics), whether the window for using high school grades/grade point averages is long enough or whether you’re allowing for self-reported GPA, etc.
Identify the obstacles that you’re facing as you are considering moving to multiple measures, implementing them and or trying to push changes further
Identify a question you would like to ask the group or a challenge you would like its help addressing
Identify the concurrent sessions each team member will attend

17. Concurrent Sessions

18. Concurrent Session Schedule
Room #
Presenter
 106
Chemeketa: Denise Galey-Oldham
 107
Portland: Karen Sanders
 210
Central Oregon: Doug Nelson
Room #
Presenter
 106
Oregon Coast: Ben Kauffman
 107
Portland: Karen Sanders
 210
Central Oregon: Doug Nelson
Room #
Presenter
 106
Oregon Coast: Ben Kauffman
 107
Chemeketa: Denise Galey-Oldham
 210
Central Oregon: Doug Nelson

19. Concurrent Session 1

20. Concurrent Session 2

21. Lunch and Informal Discussions with Presenters

22. Concurrent Session 3

23. Team Time

24. Team Time Discussion Directions
Discuss what team members learned from:
Chemeketa
Central Oregon
Oregon Coast
Portland
Discuss whether the team would like to consider anything it learned for application on it own campus
Finalize the question/challenge the team would like to present to the group and submit to facilitator

25. Break

26. Large Group Discussion/Problem-Solving
The facilitator will present as many questions/challenges to the group as time allows. In responding to questions/challenges, participants should:
Ask questions to clarify their understanding of the questions/challenges
Share any like problems they have encountered and how they addressed them
Share how their own campuses have answered the question(s) other campuses have
Share that their own campuses are asking the same question/wrestling with the same challenge
Share any solutions that their campuses may not have tried but that still might help answer a question/address a challenge

27. Presentation by REL Northwest

28. Closing