Nevadas Gateway Course Success Initiative Crystal Abba Vice

Nevada’s Gateway Course Success Initiative Crystal Abba, Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs Theo Meek, Research Scholar 1

Today’s Presentation Part 1: Gateway Course Success § Policy Development § Implementation/Action Plans § Setting Enrollment Benchmarks § Evaluating Year 1 Outcomes Part 2: Corequisite Mandate § Traditional Remediation Policy Paper § Policy Development 2

Part 1: The Gateway Policy 3

Policy Development: How it All Started Driven by Data § Completion of gateway mathematics courses and student success § Are students on track to meet gateway requirements § Impact of remediation on completing the gateway mathematics within one year of enrollment 2014 NSHE Gateway Mathematics Summit § Faculty Task Force developed policy recommendation § Clear objective based on data – increase the number of students that complete the gateway mathematics course within the first year of enrollment Charles A. Dana Center/Complete College America § Support and guidance § Action plan review § Sounding board 4

The Driving Factor: Data 4 -year Institutions 2 -year Institutions % Completed Gateway Math in first 2 years 150% Graduation Rate % not Completed Gateway Math in first 2 years 150% Graduation rate UNLV 59. 5% 48. 8% 40. 5% 22. 6% UNR 79. 2% 52. 0% 20. 8% 12. 7% NSC 37. 0% 25. 0% 63. 0% 3. 9% CSN 16. 9% 23. 2% 83. 1% 3. 9% GBC 17. 5% 26. 8% 82. 5% 1. 8% TMCC 18. 8% 31. 8% 81. 2% 1. 5% WNC 35. 1% 30. 9% 64. 9% 0. 3% Timely completion of gateway mathematics courses correlates with students persistence and degree completion 5

Magnitude of the Problem Percent of first-time, degree-seeking students that did not enroll in math in the first year of enrollment 4 -year Institutions 2 -year Institutions UNLV UNR 18. 9% 4. 6% NSC CSN GBC TMCC WNC 32. 6% 67. 7% 38. 7% 31. 2% 30. 1% Too many students do not enroll in any math course in their first year 6

The Policy (Adopted June 2015) Degree-seeking students that place below college level, but are at least high school ready, must be placed on a pathway for gateway course completion (English and mathematics) within the first year of enrollment § Exception for students in a STEM program– three-semester sequence permissible All degree-seeking students must be continuously enrolled in the appropriate mathematics and English courses until the institutional core curriculum mathematics and English requirements are completed 7

Setting Enrollment Benchmarks Estimate Cohort Size (denominator) Estimate the Number of Students Enrolled (numerator) Percent and Number of First-Time, Degree-Seeking Students Enrolled in Math in First Year (Fall, Spring and Summer) Historical 2013 -14 2014 -15 2012 -13 UNLV UNR NSC CSN GBC TMCC WNC Benchmarks 2016 -17 Cohort* # Students % Students Estimated Cohort* 2, 688 2, 425 132 4, 354 230 1, 231 598 2, 180 2, 314 89 1, 407 141 847 418 81. 1% 95. 4% 67. 4% 32. 3% 61. 3% 68. 8% 69. 9% 3, 121 2, 596 215 4, 964 199 1, 202 615 2, 659 2, 478 164 1, 539 135 769 423 85. 2% 95. 5% 76. 3% 31. 0% 67. 8% 64. 0% 68. 8% 3, 484 3, 029 262 4, 954 191 1, 125 665 3, 073 2, 708 190 1, 713 124 715 484 88. 2% 89. 4% 72. 5% 34. 6% 64. 9% 63. 6% 72. 8%** # Students # Course Sections % Students Historical Data Considerations Understanding the Cohort (first-time, degree-seeking students) 8

Setting Enrollment Benchmarks – 4 Year Institutions Historical Benchmark 9

Setting Enrollment Benchmarks – 2 Year Institutions Historical Benchmark 10

Institutional Approaches Believed in the data and changed culture Claimed to believe in the data but did not change culture Complacent participants 11

Game Playing – Increasing the Numerator Non-traditional gateway courses Embedded curriculum Certificates with no math requirement (ex. , CNA) Dual enrolled students excluded (with the exception of Jump Start) Losing Control: Student Success versus Data Outcomes 12

Setting Enrollment Benchmarks Benchmark vs. Actual for Year One UNLV Cohort: 3, 200 103 students OVER benchmark CSN Cohort: 4, 225 92 students OVER benchmark TMCC Cohort: 1, 259 63 students SHORT of benchmark 13

College Level Completions By First Term Enrollment Levels Credit Load Matters! 14

Part 2: Corequisite Mandate 15

The Policy Paper National look at trends of remediation System-wide review of traditional remediation challenges § § Too many students start in remediation Too few successfully complete their remediation sequences Too few complete gateway courses Too few graduate Successful corequisite scaling in Tennessee Corequisite models within NSHE 16

A Nationwide Concern Brought Home Nationally… Within NSHE… § Placement rates are high § 68% of community college students § 40% of public, four-year students § Placement rates are comparable § 67% of community college students § 27% of state & university students § Too many ethnic minorities are enrolled § 56% of Black students enroll in remediation § 45% of Hispanic students enroll into remediation § Degree completion rates are low § Less than 10% of students who place into remediation will graduate Source: National Center for Education Statistics (2016) § Degree completion rates are lower § 8% of students who place into remediation will graduate Source: NSHE Student Data Warehouse, Fall 2015 and 2016 Gateway Cohort 17

Mass Placement into Remediation Math Placement (Fall 2016 Gateway Cohort) 100% 80% 34% 19% 32% 27% 33% 22% 76% 60% 40% 66% 81% 68% 73% 67% 76% 73% Remediation 78% 20% College-Level 24% 27% UNLV UNR 4 -Year Total 0% CSN GBC TMCC WNC 2 -Year Institutions 2 -Year Total NSC 4 -Year Institutions Source: NSHE Student Data Warehouse, Fall 2016 Gateway Cohort 18

First Math Enrollment 100% 8% 40% 20% 0% 28% 40% 60% First Math Enrollment (Fall 2016 Gateway Cohort) [VALUE] 7% [VALUE] 64% 22% 11% 32% [VALUE] 46% 31% 28% 71% 75% 66% No Math First Year 89% College-level 30% 41% 30% 29% 16% 3% 12% 20% 2% 7% CSN GBC TMCC WNC 2 -Year Total Two-Year MATH 95 -98 NSC 22% 24% 30% UNLV UNR 4 -Year Total < MATH 95 Four-Year Source: NSHE Student Data Warehouse, Fall 2016 Gateway Cohort 19

Remediation Hinders Degree Completion 2014 Cohort Enrolled 2015 Cohort Degree Completion # 356 646 775 2, 415 # 45 92 156 32 % 12. 6% 14. 2% 20. 1% 1. 3% GBC Less than MATH 95 -98 College-Level No Math First Year 80 48 41 55 14 14 25 0 TMCC Less than MATH 95 -98 College-Level No Math First Year 245 381 193 398 WNC Less than MATH 95 -98 College-Level No Math First Year 14 303 236 140 CSN Less than MATH 95 -98 College-Level No Math First Year Enrolled Degree Completion # 340 528 944 1, 928 # 43 95 170 51 % 12. 6% 18. 0% 2. 6% 17. 5% 29. 2% 61. 0% 0. 0% 90 50 42 56 13 15 25 2 14. 4% 30. 0% 59. 5% 3. 6% 25 93 73 5 10. 2% 24. 4% 37. 8% 1. 3% 262 380 262 477 37 66 99 7 14. 1% 17. 4% 37. 8% 1. 5% 3 50 82 1 21. 4% 16. 5% 34. 7% 0. 7% 21 308 330 106 8 57 131 3 38. 1% 18. 5% 39. 7% 2. 8% Source: NSHE Student Data Warehouse, Fall 2014 -15 Gateway Cohorts 20

Overrepresentation of Minority Populations National Data NSHE Data Percent of Subgroups Enrolled in Remediation (2014 CCA Cohort) Percent of Minority Subgroups Enrolled in Remediation (2016 Gateway Cohort) 70% 60% 56% 50% 40% 55% 50% 45% 42% 40% 36% 30% 35% 30% 20% 10% 0% All Students Black 61% Received a Hispanic Recent High Pell Grant School Grads White Source: Complete College America, “Corequisite Remediation: Spanning the Completion Divide” 0% 56% 45% 38% 41% 34% All Students American Indian or Alaskan Native Black Hispanic Pacific Islander White 29% Multi-Ethnic Source: NSHE Student Data Warehouse, Fall 2016 Gateway Cohort 24% Asian 21

Underprepared or Under Placed? Traditional versus Corequisite Remediation and Gateway Course Completion 100% 80% 70% 63% 55% 60% 49% 46% 40% 33% 20% 3% 4% 7% 55% Co-Requisite Model (2015 -16) 26% 13% 12% Pre-Requisuite Model (2012 -13) 12% 0% ≤ 13 14 15 16 17 18 No ACT Overall ACT Score Source: Tennessee Board of Regents, Denley 2016 22

NSHE Math Pathways are Long and Complex Institutions requiring high stakes placement exams have no guarantee of progression. 23

The Case for Corequisite Remediation Accelerated Learning Program Gateway Course Paired Remedial Course Structured Assistance Gateway Course Required 0 Credit Lab 101+ Model Gateway Course One Additional Credit Corequisite Remediation at UNR MATH 126 E: Pre-Calculus Expanded (5 credits) § MATH 96 D (2 credits) + § MATH 126 E (3 credits) MATH 120 E: College Mathematics Expanded (4 credits) § MATH 96 A (1 credits) + § MATH 120 E (3 credits) 24

Conclusion Traditional remediation is not working § Too many start in remediation and are unsuccessful in completing their gateway course § Psychological challenges and long pathways to gateway course completion § Closing the achievement gap starts with reinventing remediation Corequisite remediation results in much higher student success outcomes § Placing students in a college-level course where academic support is provided just-in-time as students need it better facilitates long term student success § Success at UNR and NSC as well as nationwide support corequisite remediation Regardless of academic preparation, success levels are higher for students in corequisite remediation § Even students at the lowest level of academic preparedness perform better in corequisite models 25

The Proposed Policy: Gateway 2. 0 Mandate corequisite remediation § Effectively eliminating traditional remedial pathways Eliminate mandatory placement tests when used during course progression Upper limit of corequisite remediation: 6 credits TOTAL Maintain continuous enrollment Reporting requirement to Board of Regents 26

Questions? Crystal Abba Vice Chancellor Nevada System of Higher Education cabba@nshe. nevada. edu Theo Meek Research Scholar Nevada System of Higher Education tmeek@nshe. nevada. edu 27