BECOMING AB 705 COMPLIANT Tammi Marshall Cuyamaca College

BECOMING AB 705 COMPLIANT Tammi Marshall, Cuyamaca College Kathy Kubo, College of the Canyons California Acceleration Project Accelerationproject. org

Becoming AB 705 Compliant ■ What AB 705 says about placement ■ CCCCO Guidelines ■ MMAP research supporting AB 705 -compliant placement rules ■ Transfer-level corequisite models to support student success

What AB 705 says ■ AB 705 is about how we place students into math and English courses ■ Colleges must use one or more of the following measures in placement: – HS coursework – HS grades OR – HS GPA ■ Low performance on one measure may be offset by high performance on another ■ The student can bypass remediation based on any one measure

What AB 705 says To deny a student access to transfer-level math (i. e. to place a student into remediation), colleges must meet two bars: #1: Demonstrate that the student is “highly unlikely” to succeed in transfer-level, as determined by placement research that includes their HS grades AND #2: Demonstrate that placing a student into a remedial course will give them the best chance of completing transfer-level math within one year Bottom line: your placement policy can’t leave students worse off than if they enrolled directly in transfer-level

AB 705 caveats ■ Allows for self-report, guided placement or self-placement ■ Allows support at transfer-level ■ Algebra remediation allowed IF it will increase a student’s probability of passing the transferlevel course ■ Exceptions: – Students who don’t intend to transfer – Students whose programs have specific math requirements

AB 705 -compliant placement rules MMAP researchers are part of the CCCCO’s AB 705 Implementation Team They are working to develop a new set of AB 705 -compliant placement rules to replace MMAP They presented the following analysis; this research is on-going

Placement into Transfer-level Statistics Will placement research be able to identify a group of students who are better off placed into a pre-transfer course than directly placed into statistics?

Bar #1: Who is “highly unlikely” to succeed in Statistics? Statewide Research from Multiple Measures Assessment Project Average Success Rate in Statistics High School Criteria 80% 2. 3 ≤ GPA < 3. 0 & C or higher in Pre. Calculus (4% of students in statewide sample) 70% 2. 3 ≤ GPA < 3. 0 & C or higher in Algebra II (12% of students in statewide sample) 58% 2. 3 ≤ GPA < 3. 0 & with 49% did NOT pass Algebra II C or higher (10% of students in statewide sample) GPA < 2. 3 40% (12% of students in statewide sample) Adapted from Educational Results Partnership & The RP Group presentation

Bar #2: For the lowest GPA group, what placement maximizes the probability of completing Statistics within a year? One-year Math throughput rate by placement level for students with < 2. 3 HS GPA 40% 10% 2% w be lo -le ve Fo ur ve ls ee -le Th r ls be lo be l ls le ve Tw o- 1% w ow ow el ve lb O ne -le Tr an sf er -l ev el 2% Adapted from Educational Results Partnership & The RP Group presentation

What about Business and STEM? To produce more accurate estimates of throughput for students in B-STEM, they attempted to identify and remove students: ■ with terminal AA as an educational goal ■ taking Statistics and/or Liberal Arts Math

Bar #1: Who is “highly unlikely” to succeed in Precalculus? Statewide Research from Multiple Measures Assessment Project High School Criteria Average Success Rate in Precalculus GPA ≥ 3. 4 (23% of students in statewide sample) 78% 3. 1 ≤ GPA < 3. 4 (21% of students in statewide sample) 67% 2. 6 ≤ GPA < 3. 1 (36% of students in statewide sample) 56% GPA < 2. 6 & Precalculus (5% of students in statewide sample) 49% GPA < 2. 6 & NO Precalculus (16% of students in statewide sample) 38% Adapted from Educational Results Partnership & The RP Group presentation

Bar #2: For the lowest group, what placement maximizes the probability of completing Precalculus within a year? One-year B-STEM throughput rate by placement level for students with < 2. 6 HS GPA & no HS Precalculus 38% 14% lo w be -le ve ls ele Th re Fo ur ve ls be lo s ve l le Tw o- 0% o. . . 0% w el ow ve lb ne -le O Tr an sf er -l ev el 1% Adapted from Educational Results Partnership & The RP Group presentation

What about Business and STEM? Research is ongoing, but the current analysis suggests that all students who have completed Algebra 2 in high school should have direct placement into Precalculus.

Are you kidding? But the predicted pass rates are so low! ■ This still represents a students best shot ■ Student support innovation ■ Corequisite remediation works

Gateway Momentum in Math at Cuyamaca Completion of transfer-level math before and after change by assessment level 70% 66% 67% 56% Fall 2013 Cohort (Transfer math in 2 years) 36% 23% 19% 4% 3+ Levels Below 2 Levels Below 1 Level Below Fall 2016 Cohort (Transfer math in 1 year) All Adapted from Educational Results Partnership & The RP Group presentation

Gateway Momentum in Math at Cuyamaca Completion of transfer-level math before and after change by ethnicity 76% 75% 69% 65% 55% Fall 2013 Cohort (Transfer math in 2 years) 33% 15% 16% 15% Fall 2016 Cohort (Transfer math in 1 year) 6% Asian Black Latinx White All Adapted from Educational Results Partnership & The RP Group presentation

Percent of Students who Complete an Associated Gateway Course 63% 64% 61% 62% In two years for prerequisite models 29% In one year for corequisite models 20% 12% Georgia Indiana Tennessee 14% West Virginia Adapted from Educational Results Partnership & The RP Group presentation

Successful Completion in One Year vs Corequisite Results by Testing Level - Tennessee Results of TBR Full Implementation Corequisite Math in Community Colleges 79. 5% 70. 1% 63. 4% 55. 3% 48. 7% 45. 5% 54. 8% 32. 9% 19. 7% 2. 7% 3. 8% <=13 14 6. 8% 15 25. 6% 13. 1% 12. 3% 11. 5% 16 17 18 Fall 2012 Prerequisite Model Fall 2015 Corequisite Full Implementation No Overall ACT Adapted from Educational Results Partnership & The RP Group presentation

AB 705 Implementation Timeline ■ Colleges must be AB 705 compliant by Fall 2019 Therefore ■ New courses may need to be developed & approved ■ Updated placement policies need to be in effect by early spring 2019 More implementation guidelines coming this spring

Assessment & Placement – CCCCO https: //assessment. cccco. edu/

Thank you! Kathy Kubo Tammi Marshall College of the Canyons Cuyamaca College Kathy. Kubo@canyons. edu Tammi. Marshall@gcccd. ed u