1. Basic Skills Definitions  Cheryl Aschenbach, Lassen College  Melody Nightingale, Santa Monica College  Michelle Pilati, Rio Hondo College

2. Our Description  In response to Resolution 07.05 (Fall 2014): Resolved, That the ASCCC urge the CCCCO to work with the ASCCC to develop and use one standard definition for basic skills courses that can be applied to math, reading, and English and a separate definition for ESL courses that acknowledges that ESL can be non-degree applicable, degree applicable, or transferable.

3. Overview  “Defining” Basic Skills Curriculum  CB 21 Coding  C-ID  Types of Courses  Challenges

4. CB 21 Coding  CB = Course Basic  Data elements  Part of MIS reporting  Codes relevant to Basic Skills:  CB21 Course-Prior-to-College-Level  CB22 Course-Noncredit-Category

6. Codes and Data Elements  Why are the codes important? Courses and programs are tracked across the state as well as locally for data and evidence of student success and other important outcomes. Being sure that courses are correctly coded will provide reliable data on student progress and achievement. Some funding mechanisms in the state are also tied to how courses are coded. All curriculum committee members should be knowledgeable about the different codes and how coding a course in a particular way may influence the perceived success of students and the college.

7. Codes and Data Elements  While it is not essential that every common course (say English 1A) across the state be coded exactly the same, there should be great deal of similarity within the coding of similar courses. The basic skills project (CB 21 and 22) that defined the levels below transfer in English and mathematics helped to align common courses across the state in order to show student progress through pre-transfer, basic skills courses. Discipline faculty across the state can work to identify common course names and coding when doing so benefits students.

8. Guidelines or Philosophy for the Use of the CB21 Rubrics  These rubrics were the result of collegial input from in Math, English, ESL and Reading from across the state. The rubrics were created with the understanding that they would be vetted throughout the disciplines and discussed with the professional organizations associated with each discipline through April 2009. After fully vetting the rubrics, they will be considered for adoption at the ASCCC Spring Plenary Session.  The rubrics describe coding for basic skills levels. They DO NOT prescribe or standardize curriculum. They are not a comprehensive description of curricular activity in those courses, but rather describe a universal core of skills and abilities that the faculty could agree should be present at the end of each of those levels.

9. Guidelines or Philosophy for the Use of the CB21 Rubrics  The level descriptions ARE NOT comprehensive. There are many other outcomes or skills developed in the courses at individual college locations, but which are not necessarily represented statewide and therefore not included as a part of the rubric.  The rubrics DO NOT dictate anything regarding the classification of the course as to transferability, degree applicability or even coding as a basic skills course or not.  The rubrics ARE NOT the final authority. They are a referential guide representing what we have determined is common practice statewide; they do NOT dictate any course’s assignment to any particular level. Coding of the course levels IS a local decision.

10. Guidelines or Philosophy for the Use of the CB21 Rubrics  There is no obligation to use the CB 21 coding as indicated in the rubric; it is merely a guide or reference indicating agreement among colleges in the state regarding a core commonality. Each local college may code the basic skills courses at their college appropriately to fit their student population, curriculum and program descriptions. If their basic skills course looks like a level 2 on the rubric, but the college decides to code the course at level 1 or level 3 or any other level, it may do so. This is a local decision.  Faculty will continue to develop and determine what they teach as discipline experts about their student audiences, retaining curricular and program primacy.

11. Guidelines or Philosophy for the Use of the CB21 Rubrics  This process is not designed as an obstacle to curriculum, curricular or programmatic development. It WAS developed as a data coding activity to improve the data reported to the Legislature concerning student success and improvement in basic skills.  When the process is completed a protocol will be developed for recoding the basic skills levels. This process will include local discipline faculty working collaboratively with the person coding MIS curriculum elements at their college.

12. CB 21 Coding - Summary  “Behind the scenes”  Facilitates identification of levels so that progress can be tracked  Important that data be accurate so that student progress is accurately tracked  Describes “levels”, not courses

13. C-ID  The Course Identification Numbering System  www.c-id.net www.c-id.net  Describes the minimum necessary for a course to be a course – a “skeleton” to be used to identify comparable courses at CCCs  Initial focus was solely transfer  Expanded to Basic Skills and CTE

14. Would it be useful/beneficial to have C-ID descriptors for Basic Skills Courses?

15. No.  Encourages/promotes standardization of curriculum.  Not useful/necessary/worth the effort.  Not possible – too much diversity in local Basic Skills curriculum.

16. Maybe.  Only if it is not/can’t used to force credit to accept noncredit – or English to accept ESL courses.

17. Yes.  Identifying comparable courses is helpful to students.  Having clearly defined courses will assist in placement using the CCC’s “Common Assessment”.  Having clearly defined courses will help in aligning data for Scorecard versus Basic Skills Cohort Tracker.

18. Status Update – C-ID Basic Skills FDRGs  www.c-id.net www.c-id.net  English – Vetting 3 descriptors  Reading – Vetting 2 descriptors  ESL - stalemate  Math – descriptors in progress

19. Challenges/Questi ons for C-ID

20. Challenges/Questions?  What is the relationship between CB 21 Coding and C-ID?  Can a noncredit course receive a C-ID designation?  Can an ESL course receive a C-ID English designation?

21. Challenges/Questions?  Is it possible to have one definition of basic skills courses for Basic Skills Cohort Tracker and BOG Scorecard?  Is it possible to have one set of data for BS Cohort Tracker and BOG Scorecard?

22. ESL  Is a separate definition for ESL courses needed that acknowledges that ESL can be non-degree applicable, degree applicable, or transferable?

23. Questions/Comments?