Students’ chances of completing any kind of credential or transfer decrease as their “starting level” in a remedial sequence moves lower. Considered longitudinally, remedial sequences provide students with “many opportunities to exit” (Bailey, Jeong, and Cho, 2008, pg. 10). This has prompted some educators to think differently about the structure and goals of their remedial sequences.
Acceleration
Acceleration is one approach to thinking differently about remedial sequencing. The approach can take a number of different forms.
The English sequence at Chabot College in Hayward is one California example. Developed more than a decade ago, the sequence resulted from a reorganization of English instruction at the college, including the integration of writing and reading within the sequence. In its current form, students who assess as not ready for English 1A (called “Critical Thinking and Composition”) may choose from two paths, both of which integrate writing and reading:
• A two-semester “Reading, Reasoning and Writing” sequence (English 101A and 101B), with each course offering 3 hours of lecture and 2 hours of individualized instruction. • A one-semester, accelerated version of “Reading, Reasoning and Writing” (English 102). Both paths are shorter than many English sequences encountered by community college students in California, but the English 102 path potentially enables students to enter English 1A as early as their second term. Both paths also share the common premise that students should practice, with support, the literacy tasks expected in transfer-level courses (an assumption shared by the Cabrillo College ACE program). Students read book-length works that serve as spurs to discussion and writing, for example.
Analyses of student progress conducted with the college’s institutional research office (Hern, Arnold, and Samra, 2009) show that:
• Students with a range of incoming ACCUPLACER scores take each pathway, with most students appearing to be more likely to pass English 102 than English 101A.
• Students who subsequently enroll in transfer-level English 1A are equally as likely to pass the course regardless of whether they entered via the one-semester or two-semester path. In other words, the paths appear to provide equally effective preparation, on average.
• However, students taking the one-semester path are nearly twice as likely to actually
enroll in English 1A. This lower attrition rate means that, in practice, developmental
English students at Chabot are nearly twice as likely to make it through English 1A if they take the one-semester path rather than the two-semester path.
Another approach to acceleration is to allow students who assess just below the college level to enroll directly in college-level courses with additional instructional support. For example, Bailey argues that “the distinction between developmental and nondevelopmental students is arbitrary— the dichotomous categorization does not match the underlying continuity” (Bailey, 2009, pg. 23). Although some students clearly enter community college unprepared to succeed “even in
augmented college-level courses” (pg. 26), the fact that a student scores slightly above or slightly below the college-level cut score on an assessment need not justify an entirely different entry point into the curriculum, especially if a different entry point makes attrition more likely.
The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) in Maryland has undertaken this approach though its Accelerated Learning Project (ALP). Prior to the project, students assessed at one level below the college level were directed to Basic Writing II (ENGL 052). But faculty discovered that two-thirds of students who began at this level never passed College Composition (ENGL 101), just one level higher, with most never even enrolling in the course (see CCBC, faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~padams/ALP/Site Folder/theproblem.html).
Students assessing at this level can now enroll directly in ENGL 101, in conjunction with a new version of ENGL 052 in support. The main course is configured such that eight students assessed at the ENGL 052 level join 12 students assessed at the ENGL 101 level in a common section of College Composition. These eight students and the instructor then stay together for the support course, immediately following, to address questions, work on essays, and draft “short papers that reinforce what has been discussed in the 101 class or prepare for what will be discussed in the 101 class” (see CCBC, faculty.ccbcmd.edu/~padams/ALP/Site Folder/alpdescription.html). Results to date suggest that participating students are roughly twice as likely to pass College Composition as they would have been under the former approach, while doing so more rapidly. CCRC will evaluate the program’s academic effects as part of the national Achieving the Dream Initiative.
Modularization
Modularization is a different approach to the remedial sequence that challenges the assumption that full, semester-length courses should be the default unit of remediation. Students do not necessarily arrive at community college with skill needs that fit neatly into pre-defined “levels.” A student may need additional preparation with respect to some skills and concepts but not others. Modularization means breaking courses or entire sequences into “modules” that students pursue at their own pace, in order to focus their time on skills and concepts for which they need more preparation and exit the remedial sequence more quickly.
The Tennessee Developmental Studies Redesign Initiative, undertaken by the Tennessee Board
of Regents and the Education Commission of the States, provides examples of modularization. Jackson State Community College (JSCC), for instance, has reorganized its formerly three-
level mathematics sequence—Basic Math, Elementary Algebra, and Intermediate Algebra—into a single suite of nine modules. Which modules JSCC students must master depends both on their preparation and the program of study they intend to pursue. Students fulfill an “individualized learning contract” by mastering “only the concept deficiencies determined by a pre-test and those that are relevant to their career goals.” One implication is that students might exit developmental mathematics through different routes, not necessarily by completing an Intermediate Algebra course (see JSCC, www.thencat.org/States/TN/Abstracts/JSCC Algebra_Abstract.htm). Changes to sequence structure raise policy considerations
The examples above make clear that traditional remedial sequences are not the only way to structure developmental education. But changes to these structures, or in how students access them, require careful consideration of how new approaches fit into existing local and state policies.
For example, students enrolled in the first several cohorts of the Cabrillo College Academy for College Excellence (formerly the Digital Bridge Academy), took English 100 (Elements of Writing). This is the degree-applicable course located one level below transfer-level English 1A (College Composition). These students entered the program with a range of assessment
recommendations, however, including recommendations below English 100. This meant some students would “‘skip’ a course in the developmental sequence,” bypassing an established prerequisite (Badway, 2005, pg. 27).
Administrative concern arose at the college that placing a student into “a course that is more advanced than that indicated by the assessment/placement process” ran afoul of state regulations (Jenkins, Zeidenberg, et al., pg. 2). As noted early in this report, colleges may not use the assessment process to exclude a student “from any particular course or educational program, except that districts may establish appropriate prerequisites” (§55521a5). A 1997 document developed through consultation to help colleges understand how to act in accordance with these regulations—Prerequisites, Corequisites, Advisories, and Limitation on Enrollment (CCCCO, 1997)—makes clear the practical implications:
“CAN A STAFF OR FACULTY MEMBER ‘WAIVE’ AN ENROLLMENT
REQUIREMENT FOR A STUDENT WHO WISHES TO ENROLL IN A COURSE THAT HAS AN ESTABLISHED PREREQUISITE?
“No. Once a prerequisite has been legally established and adopted for a course, all students wishing to enroll in that course must be required to meet the prerequisite, and this
requirement must be applied consistently” (CCCCO, 1997, pg. 4).
Beginning in Spring 2005, the English 100 component of the ACE program was replaced with a reading lab (later a literacy skills course) that was not articulated with the established sequence. One result was that students “lost one semester of English progression” (see Academy for College Excellence, cbacademy.squarespace.com/why-ace/).
However, CCRC’s subsequent evaluation of the Academy showed that, other things being equal, students who pursued the initial “accelerated” model did better. They had been significantly more likely than students in the nonaccelerated model and students in a comparison group to pass English 100, pass English 1A within two years, and earn degree-applicable and transferable course credits (Jenkins, Zeidenberg, et al., 2009). These results raise questions about how the structure of students’ developmental experiences relate with educational outcomes. The results have also spurred further revision to the English component of the ACE program: in Spring 2010, English 100 is a component of some learning communities, while others include English 255, located two levels below transfer (Cabrillo College, 2010, pp. 41, 54, 56).
Educators must also consider the transfer role of the community colleges when evaluating the structure of remedial sequences. Intermediate Algebra is anchored as the final step in the remedial mathematics sequence, in part, because subsequent transfer-level math courses must have “an explicit intermediate algebra prerequisite” to meet CSU’s quantitative reasoning distribution requirement (CSU Office of the Chancellor, Executive Order Number 1033, pg. 7).
Some in the state, including the ACE program and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, are considering approaches to developmental mathematics that place stronger focus on statistical reasoning, however. The underlying question is whether the academic goals of all students are best served by Intermediate Algebra—a question also posed by the approach to developmental mathematics undertaken by Jackson State Community College in Tennessee, described above. Similar questions arise in K–12 about whether the “a–g” requirements for four- year university eligibility (which include Algebra II) should be required for all students, with vigorous argument on either side.
Going forward: National momentum, state policies, and new
initiatives
Community colleges in general, and developmental education specifically, are occupying an increasingly prominent role in the national conversation about postsecondary success. This attention has in part been generated through the efforts of private grant makers—most notably the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Lumina Foundation, but including others such as Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation, and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. In July 2009, President Barack Obama signaled that community colleges had also officially arrived on the federal government’s higher education reform agenda by introducing the American Graduation Initiative (AGI). The House of Representatives subsequently included the AGI in HR 3221. The $10 billion proposal articulated several goals for “transforming America’s community colleges for the 21st century” (Goldrick-Rab, 2009). Among the goals were stimulating
innovative policies and practices to improve the quality of the community college experience and tracking and measuring student and institutional progress through the development of new data systems. The measure was subsumed into health care reform legislation, however, with many aspects eliminated from consideration.
National momentum for change has not stopped, however, thanks in large part to the private foundation efforts. For example, in April 2010, the Gates Foundation announced its commitment to provide up to $110 million to help research and bring to scale innovative developmental education programs that accelerate students’ progress (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010). In addition, six national organizations have signed on to a “Call to Action” intended to promote changes that will produce 50% more students with high-quality degrees and certificates by 2020. (See the box on the next page.)