1. Placement Work Group Meeting FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2015 9:00AM – 3:00PM 1

2. Welcome 2

3. Agenda 3 SessionTime Welcome and Introductions9:00am – 9:15am Background and Recent Developments  Developmental Education Redesign Work:Group History and Recommendations  House Bill 2681  The Community College Placement Processes Group (2681 Committee)  The Placement Work Group  How Both Groups Will Work Together  Smarter Balanced and Placement  COMPASS Update  Questions and Answers 9:15am – 10:15am Framing the Work Objectives Process 10:15am – 10:30am Break 10:30am – 10:45am Multiple Measures, Assessment and the Re-imagination of Student Capacity, Part One10:45am – 11:45am Lunch11:45am – 12:30pm Multiple Measures, Assessment and the Re-imagination of Student Capacity, Part Two12:30pm – 1:30pm Campus Team Discussions1:30pm – 2:00pm Group Discussion2:00pm – 2:45pm Wrap-Up and Next Steps2:45pm – 3:00pm

4. Meeting Objectives Create a shared understanding of the context in which the placement group is working (i.e., the recommendations of the developmental education work group, House Bill 2681, new K-12 assessments, the future of the COMPASS examination) Enhance the work group’s understanding of placement practices that increase student success Develop an emerging consensus of how the work group would like to respond to what it learned through the webinars and today’s presentation and discussion 4

5. Background and Recent Developments ELIZABETH COX BRAND, OCCA LISA REYNOLDS, CCWD 5

6. Developmental Education Redesign Work Group In November of 2013, the Oregon Department of Community College and Workforce Development convened a Developmental Education Redesign Work Group of faculty, student support services personnel and administrators from all 17 Oregon community colleges. The purpose: to examine developmental education practices throughout Oregon and the United States and make recommendations on the implementation of best practices that result in greater student success for our students. 6

7. Recommendations: Assessment and Placement Statewide Common Placement Practices Using multiple measures to place students, including non-cognitive measures (for example, work schedule, child care situation, motivation, self-confidence and grit); the GED, Smarter Balanced, Advanced Placement and IB exams, Engage, high school transcripts and/or grade point average) Using common "decision zones" for placement, with decision zones defined as a range of scores and non- cognitive measures that would indicate placement at a specific level and result in increased placement in college-level courses Identifying common course outcomes for similar courses in developmental education and gateway English and math courses Exploring how supplemental learning activities (e.g. tutoring, math labs, study groups, self-paced faculty developed activities, use of computer labs, library, student services activities) factor into placement decisions Assessing the effectiveness of the common placement processes and/or instruments or measures on a regular basis 7

8. Recommendations: Assessment and Placement, continued Test Preparation Practices Colleges that administer high stakes placement examinations should strongly consider having a test/placement preparation program that meets the following standards: The program improves students' knowledge of the content, format, policies and purpose of the placement The program promotes messaging that exam preparation is appropriate The program provides study materials that include guidance on how to review for the exam Institutions that require placement tests should also consider mandating that students review test preparation materials before taking the test; the placement test should take place only after review of the materials is completed. 8

9. 2681 Committee (Community Colleges Placement Processes Group) As part of the regular meetings described in ORS 341.446 (2), the Higher Education Coordinating Commission and the State Board of Education shall oversee a workgroup jointly convened by the commission and board. The work group shall consist of representatives from community colleges, public universities listed in ORS 352.002, educators for grades 9 through 12 and students. The work group shall examine and recommend effective processes and strategies for placing students in courses at community colleges, including consideration of whether to use a statewide summative assessment for students who are entering a community college directly after high school. The commission and board shall jointly submit to the interim legislative committees on education: a)A preliminary report based on the work group’s efforts no later than February 1, 2016 b)A final report with recommendations for legislation based on the work group’s efforts no later than September 15, 2016. 9

10. How the Developmental Education Redesign Placement Work Group and the Placement Processes Work Group (2681 Committee) will Work Together 10

11. Smarter Balanced and Placement 11

12. COMPASS Update 12

13. GED Update 13

14. Questions & Answers 14

15. Framing the Work PHIL GONRING, EDUCATION FIRST 15

16. Placement Work Group Objective Examine and act on the placement recommendations of the Developmental Education Redesign Work Group and the requirements of House Bill 2681 to improve student success 16

17. What this Means? We need to explore:  What does common mean? Do we want to promote the use of a set of common practices or principles as they do in New Jersey, another state without a community college system? Should we consider developing an MOU which New Jersey campuses sign voluntarily?  Common standardized placement instrument(s)?  Common decision zones?  Common use of multiple measures?  Common course outcomes?  Common commitments to test preparation and test timing?  How can we use multiple measures in our campus placement processes?  What assessments/measures most accurately predict success? What does this mean for individual campuses and our collective efforts? What measures would we recommend to our individual campuses? What would we recommend to the “2681 Committee?”  What does the demise of COMPASS mean for individual campuses and for our collective efforts? 17

18. Process  Conduct Two Webinars to Set Context for the Work  Hold Two In-person Meetings: October 23 and December 4  Conduct additional web-based meeting, only if necessary  Make Recommendations to “2681 Committee.” 18

19. Q&A 19

20. BREAK Please return to your seats by 10:45am 20

21. Multiple Measures, Assessment and the Re-imagination of Student Capacity, Part 1 JOHN HETTS, EDUCATIONAL RESULTS PARTNERSHIP 21

22. LUNCH Please return to your seats by 12:30pm 22

23. Multiple Measures, Assessment and the Re-imagination of Student Capacity, Part 2 JOHN HETTS, EDUCATIONAL RESULTS PARTNERSHIP 23

24. Campus Team Discussions PHIL GONRING, EDUCATION FIRST 24

25. Campus Team Discussions For Discussion:  What were our big ahas from John’s presentation?  What can we imagine doing on our campus as a result of what we learned today and from the two webinars? Consider obstacles that you might need to overcome to use multiple measures/different assessment practices. 25

26. Group Discussion PHIL GONRING, EDUCATION FIRST 26

27. Wrap-up and Next Steps ELIZABETH COX BRAND, OCCA 27

28. Thank you ELIZABETH COX BRAND STUDENT SUCCESS AND ASSESSMENT DIRECTOR OREGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE ASSOCIATION ELIZABETH@OCCA17.COM 28 PHIL GONRING PRINCIPAL EDUCATION FIRST PGONRING@EDUCATION- FIRST.COM