Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges: Early Evidence on Placement and Curricular Reforms, Technical Appendix
Database
This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.
object(Timber\Post)#3875 (44) {
["ImageClass"]=>
string(12) "Timber\Image"
["PostClass"]=>
string(11) "Timber\Post"
["TermClass"]=>
string(11) "Timber\Term"
["object_type"]=>
string(4) "post"
["custom"]=>
array(5) {
["_wp_attached_file"]=>
string(20) "0818orr-appendix.pdf"
["wpmf_size"]=>
string(6) "510420"
["wpmf_filetype"]=>
string(3) "pdf"
["wpmf_order"]=>
string(1) "0"
["searchwp_content"]=>
string(31432) "Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges Early Evidence on Placement and Curricular Reforms Technical Appendices CONTENTS Appendix A. Data and Methods Appendix B. Figures and Tables Olga Rodriguez, Marisol Cuellar Mejia, Hans Johnson with research support from Sergio Sanchez Supported with funding from the California Acceleration Project and the Sutton Family Fund Appendix A. Data and Methods Data Our quantitative approach utilizes student-level longitudinal data from the California Community College Chancellor’s Office Management Information System (COMIS). The dataset includes students enrolled across the 114 community colleges that comprise the California Community College system, and includes information on student characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, low income status), course-taking behavior, course elements (title of course, levels below transfer level, credit status, transfer status and minimum/maximum number of credits), and student outcomes (grades, and credits earned). Data was also collected from an exhaustive scan of the latest college catalogs, websites, and other institutional documents. This process allowed us to identify which colleges are already using multiple measures for placement and/or offering co-requisite models as an alternative to traditional developmental sequences. Important Definitions First-time English (math) students: We create cohorts of students based on the term in which they took their first English/math course anywhere in the system. They need not be first-time students in that term. Please note that our numbers differ from the ones in the Basic Skills Cohort Tracker because in there cohorts are defined based on the first term students ever took a course in the given subject area at the selected college. In other words, only courses at the focus college are considered when evaluating “first time in a basic skills subject area”. Meanwhile, our calculations take into consideration courses taken in any college in the system when determining first-time status. We restrict our sample to students with unique and valid student identifiers, who were not enrolled as dual enrollment students. Slightly over half of students in our first-time math and English cohorts took their first math/English course during their first term ever in college—for 58 percent of first-time English students and 54 percent of first-time math students. Transfer-level courses: when we talk about transfer-level courses we are referring to the lowest-level English and math courses that are transferable to the University of California (UC) and/or to the California State University (CSU) systems on the basis of articulation agreements. These courses are also known as gateway or gatekeeper courses. For English only the first transfer-level composition course (C-ID ENGL 100) qualifies as the gateway course. Considering that colleges’ math requirements vary according to the student’s program of study, any transferable math course—including introductory statistics, trigonometry, college algebra, and precalculus—qualifies as a gateway course. Throughout the report we use the terms transfer-level and collegelevel interchangeably. One-year throughput rates: The proportion of a cohort of students who complete the transferable gateway math or English course within two primary semesters or three primary quarters of entering their first course in the subject. For students attending multiple colleges (i.e. who take developmental course work in one college and transfer level in a different college), we assigned a positive outcome (i.e. completing the transferable course) to the college where the student took the developmental education course. We restrict our sample to transfer-seeking students (using the variable student goal from the success file in the COMIS data). Transfer-level success rates: Share of students who started in transfer-level that completed successfully the course in their first attempt (passed the course with a grade of C or better). Please note that this rate is not calculated using all students enrolled in the transfer-level course, it is calculated only among the ones for which that was their first course. PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 2 Early implementers: To identify the colleges that have engaged more actively in placement reform, we used the following criteria: Reported an annual increase of 10 percentage points or more in the share of first-time math/English students enrolling directly in transfer-level in 2016‒17; Saw increases in throughput rates relative to the prior year; Had a throughput rate higher than 50 percent; and Used robust multiple measures placement and/or offered co-requisite models. To inform our quantitative results, we collected information from interviews with faculty and staff from California’s community colleges. In spring 2018, we interviewed 31 individuals—21 faculty (10 math and 11 English) and 10 staff (assessment, counseling, and institutional research) at 16 colleges across the state. The colleges that we interviewed were among the colleges with increases of 10 percentage points or more in the share of first-time math/English students starting directly in transfer-level. All the colleges that we interviewed were either offering co-requisite models or using multiple measures placement (we talked with 9 of the 10 colleges that offered co-requisite models in 2016-17). We spoke with each interviewee for about one hour over the phone. Interviewees were asked a variety of questions pertaining to their background; how students assess and place into co-requisite and transfer-level math and English courses; how students enroll in and learn about co-requisite math and English courses, student experiences in co-requisite courses, aspects of the co-requisite course (e.g., motivation for offering it, course structure, and curriculum), professional development, as well as funding and scaling up co-requisite and multiple measures reforms. Open-ended questions were used to facilitate the collection of information based on questions that do not restrict the participants’ opinions (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011). The data collection and data analysis were carried out simultaneously to avoid the collection of repetitive and unfocused data (Merriam 1998). Particularly, after each interview was conducted, researchers debriefed, reviewed detailed data notes and audio recordings, and kept notes to capture reflections, emerging themes, and points that needed to be pursued further. This process of review and reflection informed all subsequent interviews. In this manner, data collected from each interview was continuously assessed and informed future interviews until data collection was complete. The data was also organized and coded on a secure spreadsheet. This approach was used to come up with a number of patterns and themes. PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 3 Appendix B. Figures and Tables TABLE 1 Math Alameda Allan Hancock American River Antelope Valley Bakersfield Barstow Berkeley City Butte Cabrillo Canada Canyons Cerritos Cerro Coso Chabot Chaffey Citrus Clovis Coalinga Coastline Columbia PPIC.ORG" First-time Math cohort 821 Share of firsttime math students starting directly into transfer-level math (%), 2016-17 39 Increase from prior year 5 One-year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) 36 Increase from prior year (4) Co-requisite remediation as of 2016- 2017 – 1,989 24 3 32 0– 3,737 23 2 23 (0) – 3,112 16 5 27 6– 4,070 21 4 19 (0) – 673 19 8 39 20 – 1,197 49 6 37 2– 2,353 29 (0) 29 (2) – 1,975 28 (1) 26 (10) – 806 45 6 45 3– 3,341 41 18 44 9– 3,322 15 1 17 1– 548 30 8 21 1– 2,281 27 (1) 24 (7) – 4,380 14 (3) 20 (3) – 2,837 22 3 24 (1) – 1,698 49 4 44 2– 601 25 6 19 3– 1,534 34 (1) 37 2– 536 21 1 26 (2) – Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 4 Compton Contra Costa Copper Mountain Cosumnes River Crafton Hills Cuesta Cuyamaca Cypress De Anza Desert Diablo Valley East L.A. El Camino Evergreen Valley Feather River Folsom Lake Foothill Fresno City Fullerton Gavilan Glendale Golden West Grossmont Hartnell First-time Math cohort Share of firsttime math students starting directly into transfer-level math (%), 2016-17 Increase from prior year One-year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co-requisite remediation as of 2016- 2017 1,300 9 (1) 9 (3) – 1,064 37 3 29 (4) – 419 18 5 29 6– 2,471 19 (2) 22 (3) – 1,246 24 6 26 (3) – 1,815 32 (0) 31 (7) – 1,226 57 31 57 19 YES 2,620 29 3 29 (2) – 4,071 34 0 39 (8) – 1,993 16 (1) 16 (2) – 3,880 57 3 48 (3) – 4,766 13 2 12 (3) – 4,981 20 1 26 (3) – 2,102 29 5 26 (2) – 353 31 (9) 50 (5) – 1,681 25 0 28 1– 1,819 58 (3) 52 (8) – 4,307 34 5 25 1– 5,131 42 2 34 (4) – 1,007 25 6 22 0– 2,692 32 (1) 34 1– 2,171 39 (0) 32 (8) – 3,661 33 6 30 (1) YES 2,041 17 3 27 (1) – PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 5 Imperial Valley Irvine Valley L.A. City L.A. Harbor L.A. Mission L.A. Pierce L.A. Trade–Tech L.A. Valley Lake Tahoe Laney Las Positas Lassen Lemoore Long Beach City Los Medanos Marin Mendocino Merced Merritt Mira Costa Mission Modesto Monterey Moorpark First-time Math cohort Share of firsttime math students starting directly into transfer-level math (%), 2016-17 Increase from prior year One-year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co-requisite remediation as of 2016- 2017 1,747 12 4 21 (2) – 3,135 46 0 42 (10) – 2,039 16 3 12 (1) – 1,616 15 (2) 17 (3) – 1,479 19 5 15 (0) – 3,514 22 0 27 (7) – 1,592 4 0 6 (1) – 2,767 23 12 16 368 18 4 19 1,091 36 (1) 32 1,831 36 3 33 (2) – (2) – (3) – (4) – 367 15 8 29 11 – 1,013 16 (7) 19 (5) – 5,523 23 2 19 (1) – 1,673 56 20 51 9 YES 794 27 1 28 (5) – 554 24 2 23 2,670 26 4 24 (7) – 0– 751 23 5 21 (1) – 2,915 42 4 46 5– 1,004 35 0 25 (3) – 2,612 9 2 16 (6) – 1,234 21 (0) 27 (4) – 3,297 44 2 40 (6) – PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 6 Moreno Valley First-time Math cohort Share of firsttime math students starting directly into transfer-level math (%), 2016-17 Increase from prior year One-year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co-requisite remediation as of 2016- 2017 1,609 12 6 12 0– Mt. San Antonio 5,184 31 1 30 (4) – Mt. San Jacinto 3,855 18 1 28 0– Napa Valley 1,271 34 7 40 2– Norco 2,175 17 6 21 (2) – Ohlone 1,811 25 0 38 2– Orange Coast 4,178 37 (3) 37 (5) – Oxnard 1,146 22 1 24 (0) – Palo Verde 391 6 2 7 (3) – Palomar 4,755 29 2 24 (4) – Pasadena City 5,548 25 0 36 (1) – Porterville 877 29 4 25 (4) – Redwoods 838 32 0 27 (11) – Reedley 2,010 19 (2) 21 (2) – Rio Hondo 3,095 16 8 14 2– Riverside 4,083 12 2 15 (3) – Sacramento City 3,299 13 (0) 15 (3) – Saddleback 3,244 25 (7) 28 (7) – San Bernardino 2,999 9 1 16 (1) – San Diego City 2,751 28 1 22 (5) YES San Diego Mesa 3,590 47 2 43 San Diego Miramar 1,879 47 5 45 (1) – (4) – San Francisco City 3,108 41 1 38 (4) – San Joaquin Delta 3,959 15 1 18 (2) – PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 7 San Jose City First-time Math cohort Share of firsttime math students starting directly into transfer-level math (%), 2016-17 Increase from prior year One-year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co-requisite remediation as of 2016- 2017 1,185 30 3 21 (4) – San Mateo 1,548 45 4 35 (3) – Santa Ana 2,921 33 4 29 (6) – Santa Barbara City 2,310 52 11 56 8– Santa Monica 5,619 39 6 25 (0) – Santa Rosa 3,117 31 (2) 30 (7) – Santiago Canyon 2,057 40 3 34 (8) – Sequoias 3,118 15 (0) 23 (1) – Shasta 1,564 36 (2) 33 (5) – Sierra 3,851 51 12 42 2– Siskiyous 350 67 51 58 36 – Skyline 1,342 36 7 35 5– Solano 1,906 39 1 31 (2) – Southwest L.A. 1,015 8 0 5 (7) – Southwestern 4,065 15 4 15 1– Taft 788 22 2 27 (2) – Ventura 2,555 36 2 38 (1) – Victor Valley 2,845 6 (0) 14 2– West L.A. 1,255 19 2 10 (1) – West Valley 1,396 32 2 36 (4) – Woodland 778 12 (6) 12 (5) – Yuba 1,340 7 1 18 3– Statewide 260,794 28 2 28 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. (2) – PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 8 TABLE 2 English Alameda Allan Hancock American River Antelope Valley Bakersfield Barstow Berkeley City Butte Cabrillo Canada Canyons Cerritos Cerro Coso Chabot Chaffey Citrus Clovis Coalinga Coastline Columbia Compton Contra Costa Copper Mountain Cosumnes River First–time English cohort Share of first– time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Increase from prior year One–year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co–requisite remediation as of 2016– 2017 556 2,061 3,233 3,006 4,478 627 930 2,245 1,774 603 2,815 3,958 490 2,270 5,522 2,806 1,582 582 989 443 1,233 907 469 2,382 59 10 48 (8) 50 3 54 (2) 35 1 43 (2) 51 3 58 5 52 12 45 1 27 5 48 2 73 (4) 64 (12) 57 2 56 (0) 41 1 56 (2) 69 15 60 4 63 21 61 (3) 29 7 45 3 34 11 43 14 39 3 51 (8) 43 3 48 (2) 42 (1) 55 0 47 6 49 3 64 32 58 15 67 (2) 63 (3) 51 7 60 4 24 1 27 3 32 6 45 (0) 39 3 50 6 58 5 54 5 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 9 Crafton Hills Cuesta Cuyamaca Cypress De Anza Desert Diablo Valley East L.A. El Camino Evergreen Valley Feather River Folsom Lake Foothill Fresno City Fullerton Gavilan Glendale Golden West Grossmont Hartnell Imperial Valley Irvine Valley L.A. City L.A. Harbor L.A. Mission L.A. Pierce PPIC.ORG" First–time English cohort Share of first– time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Increase from prior year One–year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co–requisite remediation as of 2016– 2017 1,263 45 6 52 3 – 1,642 67 0 58 (4) – 1,087 52 19 57 4 YES 2,688 32 0 50 (1) – 3,429 36 3 63 (4) – 2,434 33 2 53 5 – 3,253 36 5 61 3 – 3,760 24 4 35 2 – 4,741 40 (1) 49 1 – 1,590 38 5 37 1 – 334 54 (1) 64 (1) – 1,461 35 3 52 3 – 1,408 51 (6) 65 (9) – 4,550 34 7 33 (3) – 4,503 45 6 53 (2) YES 985 49 3 39 (9) – 2,650 55 (1) 61 (3) – 1,972 55 6 60 2 – 3,366 39 3 49 (1) – 2,021 34 4 44 1 – 1,613 29 7 42 4 – 2,096 51 14 67 13 – 1,881 26 5 39 2 – 1,470 32 4 48 (2) – 1,356 27 0 30 3 – 3,402 18 2 40 (2) – Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 10 L.A. Trade–Tech L.A. Valley Lake Tahoe Laney Las Positas Lassen Lemoore Long Beach City Los Medanos Marin Mendocino Merced Merritt Mira Costa Mission Modesto Monterey Moorpark Moreno Valley Mt. San Antonio Mt. San Jacinto Napa Valley Norco Ohlone Orange Coast Oxnard PPIC.ORG" First–time English cohort Share of first– time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Increase from prior year One–year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co–requisite remediation as of 2016– 2017 1,452 41 28 40 14 – 2,752 42 8 46 4 – 319 51 5 63 5 – 912 53 7 47 (0) – 1,682 73 32 74 1 – 357 39 (3) 65 (4) – 1,064 46 4 57 2 – 3,901 49 26 36 (1) – 1,602 32 7 56 7 – 647 37 1 51 4 – 559 39 1 49 2 – 2,376 41 9 48 2 – 615 44 2 42 (3) – 2,556 75 7 70 (2) YES 787 50 4 56 7 – 3,407 36 1 44 1 – 1,193 29 (2) 48 (2) – 3,095 80 0 78 (1) – 1,672 37 15 51 5 – 5,612 16 (1) 34 (6) – 3,938 50 26 57 9 – 1,181 25 3 54 (2) – 1,880 38 9 45 1 – 1,669 41 1 50 0 – 3,792 57 (1) 60 (6) – 1,117 54 2 58 (4) – Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 11 First–time English cohort Share of first– time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Increase from prior year One–year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co–requisite remediation as of 2016– 2017 Palo Verde Palomar Pasadena City Porterville Redwoods Reedley Rio Hondo Riverside Sacramento City Saddleback San Bernardino San Diego City San Diego Mesa San Diego Miramar San Francisco City San Joaquin Delta San Jose City San Mateo Santa Ana Santa Barbara City Santa Monica Santa Rosa Santiago Canyon Sequoias Shasta Sierra PPIC.ORG" 355 32 1 27 (4) – 3,962 49 3 48 (3) – 5,136 41 (0) 59 (6) – 965 36 23 52 16 – 754 46 1 48 (3) – 2,100 25 (0) 30 (1) – 2,685 60 8 58 1 – 3,302 33 8 39 (2) – 2,685 37 2 46 4 YES 3,286 35 (3) 55 2 – 2,308 21 (2) 26 (4) – 2,580 25 4 49 8 – 3,256 47 13 58 9 YES 1,639 46 11 54 11 – 2,341 30 8 43 9 – 3,596 40 0 47 (2) – 980 49 8 50 7 – 1,254 77 38 68 6 – 2,347 75 27 51 1 – 2,346 73 4 63 1 – 5,611 54 7 51 (0) – 3,021 54 (0) 59 (3) – 1,711 75 3 66 (4) – 2,817 39 (1) 43 (9) – 1,418 68 4 58 (5) – 3,732 69 9 64 1 – Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 12 First–time English cohort Share of first– time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Increase from prior year One–year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co–requisite remediation as of 2016– 2017 Siskiyous 372 51 2 47 (12) – Skyline 1,209 82 28 68 0 YES Solano 1,785 70 34 64 10 YES Southwest L.A. 896 19 4 21 (1) – Southwestern 3,839 36 7 52 1 – Taft 704 40 1 52 5 – Ventura 2,249 55 9 62 4 – Victor Valley 2,313 22 0 49 9 – West L.A. 1,073 62 27 48 4 – West Valley 1,156 53 5 59 (1) – Woodland 719 31 1 33 (6) – Yuba 1,333 32 (7) 46 (3) – Statewide 240,888 44 6 51 1 – SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 13 TABLE 3 Math one–year throughput rates by starting course (percent) Alameda Allan Hancock American River Antelope Valley Bakersfield Barstow Berkeley City Butte Cabrillo Canada Canyons Cerritos Cerro Coso Chabot Chaffey Citrus Clovis Coalinga Coastline Columbia Compton Contra Costa Copper Mountain Cosumnes River Crafton Hills Cuesta Cuyamaca Cypress De Anza Desert Diablo Valley East L.A. El Camino Evergreen Valley Feather River Folsom Lake Foothill Fresno City Fullerton Gavilan Glendale Golden West Grossmont Hartnell Imperial Valley Traditional developmental math 7 13 6 12 5 27 12 11 10 15 10 7 5 8 9 12 12 5 20 9 7 5 11 8 9 12 32 9 20 3 13 6 16 13 18 11 23 5 5 6 10 12 9 14 7 Pre–Stats 21 – 89 – 9 – 16 – – 36 38 – – 13 – 26 – – – – – 23 * – – 19 33 38 33 – 82 – – – – – * – – – – – – – – Math Co–requisite remediation – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 72 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – All first–time math students 30 27 21 20 17 31 36 26 23 42 38 16 20 23 18 24 42 17 28 22 9 28 23 21 23 27 55 27 38 14 46 12 24 24 46 27 50 23 33 19 30 31 29 24 15 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 14 Irvine Valley L.A. City L.A. Harbor L.A. Mission L.A. Pierce L.A. Trade–Tech L.A. Valley Lake Tahoe Laney Las Positas Lassen Lemoore Long Beach City Los Medanos Marin Mendocino Merced Merritt Mira Costa Mission Modesto Monterey Moorpark Moreno Valley Mt. San Antonio Mt. San Jacinto Napa Valley Norco Ohlone Orange Coast Oxnard Palo Verde Palomar Pasadena City Porterville Redwoods Reedley Rio Hondo Riverside Sacramento City Saddleback San Bernardino San Diego City San Diego Mesa San Diego Miramar San Francisco City San Joaquin Delta PPIC.ORG" Traditional developmental math 13 7 8 6 9 3 5 11 12 13 6 10 6 12 10 4 8 5 17 5 8 15 15 8 8 16 16 12 24 16 6 4 9 20 8 8 9 5 8 10 13 12 5 15 12 13 8 Pre–Stats – – 18 42 41 – – – – – – – – 20 * 29 – – 4 * – – – 10 52 – – – – – – – 33 – – 26 – – 35 – – – 57 – – 22 – Math Co–requisite remediation – – – – – – – – – – – – – 69 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – All first–time math students 42 13 17 14 25 5 15 15 27 31 17 17 18 48 27 20 20 19 41 25 15 25 39 11 29 27 36 20 37 34 21 7 22 34 21 25 19 12 13 15 27 15 20 40 42 36 16 Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 15 Traditional developmental math San Jose City 9 San Mateo 8 Santa Ana Santa Barbara City Santa Monica Santa Rosa Santiago Canyon Sequoias Shasta 12 21 4 8 10 8 8 Sierra 11 Siskiyous 28 Skyline 12 Solano Southwest L.A. Southwestern Taft Ventura Victor Valley West L.A. 7 3 5 10 11 8 4 West Valley 19 Woodland 6 Yuba Statewide 15 10 * N <= 10 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. Pre–Stats – 29 – – 24 – – – 23 – – 19 – – * – – 16 – 37 – – 27 Math Co–requisite remediation – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 71 All first–time math students 19 33 26 54 25 26 33 15 29 39 56 32 29 6 13 21 35 11 12 35 11 16 26 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 16 TABLE 4 English one–year throughput rates by starting course (percent) English Alameda Allan Hancock American River Antelope Valley Bakersfield Barstow Berkeley City Butte Cabrillo Canada Canyons Cerritos Cerro Coso Chabot Chaffey Citrus Clovis Coalinga Coastline Columbia Compton Contra Costa Copper Mountain Cosumnes River Crafton Hills Cuesta Cuyamaca Cypress De Anza Desert Diablo Valley East L.A. El Camino Evergreen Valley Feather River Folsom Lake Foothill Fresno City Fullerton Gavilan Glendale Golden West Grossmont Hartnell Imperial Valley Traditional Developmental English 9 29 25 30 18 21 40 30 39 18 6 29 27 5 32 35 23 24 40 38 15 25 23 28 26 28 35 33 48 36 39 22 27 16 49 33 46 15 31 22 31 34 33 24 20 One–semester acceleration – 32 – – – * – – – – 39 41 – 41 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 38 52 – – – – – – – 49 – – – – – 44 Co–requisite remediation – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 96 – – – – – – – – – – – 79 – – – – – – All first–time English students 42 50 40 49 43 38 60 53 50 58 59 42 34 48 47 51 47 56 69 56 25 43 42 51 47 56 55 46 60 49 59 33 46 34 60 49 64 31 51 37 59 55 48 41 35 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 17 Irvine Valley L.A. City L.A. Harbor L.A. Mission L.A. Pierce L.A. Trade–Tech L.A. Valley Lake Tahoe Laney Las Positas Lassen Lemoore Long Beach City Los Medanos Marin Mendocino Merced Merritt Mira Costa Mission Modesto Monterey Moorpark Moreno Valley Mt. San Antonio Mt. San Jacinto Napa Valley Norco Ohlone Orange Coast Oxnard Palo Verde Palomar Pasadena City Porterville Redwoods Reedley Rio Hondo Riverside Sacramento City Saddleback San Bernardino San Diego City San Diego Mesa San Diego Miramar San Francisco City San Joaquin Delta PPIC.ORG" Traditional Developmental English 47 27 37 17 33 18 26 – 11 45 – 35 5 * 36 20 34 19 33 29 26 36 – 39 26 39 44 26 25 39 36 11 24 42 26 28 18 31 21 30 34 14 34 34 29 28 28 English One–semester acceleration Co–requisite remediation –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 37 – –– –– 41 – –– 19 – 48 – –– 52 – –– –– – 78 –– –– –– 49 – 38 – –– –– –– 28 – –– –– –– –– –– –– 36 – 29 – 18 – –– 31 – – 67 75 – –– 47 – 46 85 –– –– –– All first–time English students 68 35 46 28 39 34 43 54 44 70 51 53 33 54 46 43 44 40 67 51 41 45 76 49 33 56 50 43 48 57 56 22 44 57 46 44 28 55 37 43 52 25 44 56 50 40 44 Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 18 Traditional Developmental English San Jose City San Mateo Santa Ana 24 37 * Santa Barbara City 15 Santa Monica 21 Santa Rosa 36 Santiago Canyon Sequoias 34 25 Shasta Sierra Siskiyous Skyline Solano 20 28 29 18 34 Southwest L.A. 14 Southwestern 31 Taft Ventura 31 35 Victor Valley 36 West L.A. West Valley Woodland Yuba Statewide 16 38 16 23 29 * N <= 10 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. English One–semester acceleration Co–requisite remediation –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 28 – 23 – –– –– 37 77 41 72 –– 37 – –– –– –– –– –– –– 56 – 42 78 All first–time English students 45 66 50 60 51 55 65 38 54 62 46 66 61 18 47 42 58 44 46 57 31 42 48 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 19 TABLE 5 Math Access Rates by Race/Ethnicity Share of first–time math students starting directly into transfer–level math (%), 2016–17 Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Annual change in the share of first–time math students going directly to transfer–level math (pp) Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Cohort Size Fall 2016 Siskiyous 67 58 * 93 65 45 51 12 * 13 18 9 116 Cuyamaca 57 53 67 52 59 33 31 27 43 27 24 15 532 Los Medanos 56 57 67 44 56 30 20 35 53 23 37 20 737 College of the Canyons 41 35 62 34 46 19 18 17 47 16 28 11 1,967 Statewide 27 19 49 18 35 21 2 18 47 15 32 14 188,124 Average early implementers 55 51 65 56 57 32 Statewide without early implementers 27 19 49 18 35 21 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 20 TABLE 6 Math Throughput Rates by Race/Ethnicity One–year throughput rates (%), Fall 2016 cohort Annual change in the one–year throughput rates (pp) Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Cohort Size Fall 2016 Siskiyous 58 50 88 73 58 54 36 35 * 63 34 36 160 Cuyamaca 57 55 71 44 61 56 19 16 16 15 23 21 472 Los Medanos College of the Canyons 51 50 66 44 36 62 37 31 52 47 53 39 9 9 8 5 14 7 8 4 8 14 8 505 9 850 Statewide 27 19 50 13 36 23 (2) (2) (4) (2) (1) (3) 75,199 Average early implementers 53 48 72 46 Statewide without early implementers 27 19 50 13 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. 56 49 36 23 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 21 TABLE 7 English Access Rates by Race/Ethnicity Share of first–time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Annual change in the share of first–time English students going directly to college composition (pp) Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Cohort Size 2016– 2017 San Mateo 77 65 84 62 90 69 38 36 40 40 40 37 1,254 Solano 70 68 72 52 78 68 34 37 33 30 31 34 1,785 Coalinga 64 62 71 74 66 62 32 37 * 53 2 38 582 Las Positas 73 66 75 66 79 72 32 35 33 32 29 37 1,682 Skyline 82 77 85 79 89 79 28 28 28 56 27 28 1,209 Santa Ana 75 73 82 81 91 76 27 30 12 34 15 30 2,347 Mt. San Jacinto 50 45 52 37 60 46 26 26 26 19 28 24 3,938 Porterville 36 36 36 14 38 18 23 24 25 * 15 7 965 Cuyamaca 52 44 55 46 58 49 19 18 24 26 17 17 1,087 Canada Moreno Valley 69 62 90 48 82 65 15 17 14 11 7 21 603 37 34 57 32 58 34 15 14 34 16 16 12 1,672 Irvine Valley 51 38 58 31 59 46 14 14 14 9 15 16 2,096 San Diego Mesa 47 41 49 42 55 45 13 13 15 22 8 11 3,256 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 22 San Diego Miramar Statewide Share of first–time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Annual change in the share of first–time English students going directly to college composition (pp) Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Cohort Size 2016– 2017 46 41 45 44 49 41 11 14 43 35 47 31 59 38 6 6 5 18 78 10 5 8 1,639 6 240,888 Average early implementers 59 54 65 51 68 55 Statewide without early implementers 43 35 47 31 59 38 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 23 TABLE 8 English Throughput Rates by Race/Ethnicity One–year throughput rates (%), Fall 2016 cohort Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Annual change in the one–year throughput rates (pp) Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Cohort Size Fall 2016 San Mateo 68 61 80 54 67 64 6 2 13 24 (4) 7 720 Solano 64 61 78 54 65 57 10 11 14 20 2 5 979 Coalinga 58 57 50 59 64 55 15 19 * 27 (10) 14 290 Las Positas 74 70 83 67 77 68 1 (1) 4 17 3 (4) 734 Skyline Santa Ana 68 57 77 67 51 48 77 60 72 70 67 0 (4) 4 12 (2) 54 1 2 (3) * (9) 2 670 4 1,095 Mt. San Jacinto 57 54 71 41 64 55 9 9 14 (1) 10 9 2,014 Porterville 52 52 54 50 48 47 16 17 * * 11 14 503 Cuyamaca 57 51 69 32 65 56 4 2 17 (7) 5 5 586 Canada 60 52 81 45 Moreno Valley 51 50 65 36 72 65 59 4 50 5 (1) 5 3* 3 10 313 4 (1) 14 4 870 Irvine Valley 67 58 74 46 72 65 13 19 6 11 13 14 1,151 San Diego Mesa 58 51 68 54 66 56 9 4 27 15 5 3 1,268 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 24 San Diego Miramar Statewide 54 48 61 36 50 44 62 34 55 63 51 11 46 1 16 1 Average early implementers 60 55 71 48 66 57 Statewide without early implementers 50 44 62 34 63 46 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. 5 * 11 6 665 1 2 (0) (0) 116,713 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 25 FIGURE 1 Change in transfer–level math course success rates vs. changes in first–time math students starting in transfer–level 30 Change in transfer-level math course success rates (pp) 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Change in the share of first-time math students enrolling directly in transfer level (pp) SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. 60 Change in transfer-level English course success rates (pp) FIGURE 2 Transfer–level English course success rates vs. changes in first–time English students starting in transfer–level 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Change in the share of first-time English students enrolling directly in transfer-level (pp) SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. 60 PPIC.ORG" Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 26 The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94111 T: 415.291.4400 F: 415.291.4401 PPIC.ORG PPIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 T: 916.440.1120 F: 916.440.1121"
}
["___content":protected]=>
string(237) "
"
["_permalink":protected]=>
string(162) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/remedial-education-reforms-at-californias-community-colleges-early-evidence-on-placement-and-curricular-reforms/0818orr-appendix/"
["_next":protected]=>
array(0) {
}
["_prev":protected]=>
array(0) {
}
["_css_class":protected]=>
NULL
["id"]=>
int(15888)
["ID"]=>
int(15888)
["post_author"]=>
string(1) "4"
["post_content"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_date"]=>
string(19) "2018-08-15 11:28:10"
["post_excerpt"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_parent"]=>
int(15775)
["post_status"]=>
string(7) "inherit"
["post_title"]=>
string(135) "Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges: Early Evidence on Placement and Curricular Reforms, Technical Appendix"
["post_type"]=>
string(10) "attachment"
["slug"]=>
string(16) "0818orr-appendix"
["__type":protected]=>
NULL
["_wp_attached_file"]=>
string(20) "0818orr-appendix.pdf"
["wpmf_size"]=>
string(6) "510420"
["wpmf_filetype"]=>
string(3) "pdf"
["wpmf_order"]=>
string(1) "0"
["searchwp_content"]=>
string(31432) "Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges Early Evidence on Placement and Curricular Reforms Technical Appendices CONTENTS Appendix A. Data and Methods Appendix B. Figures and Tables Olga Rodriguez, Marisol Cuellar Mejia, Hans Johnson with research support from Sergio Sanchez Supported with funding from the California Acceleration Project and the Sutton Family Fund Appendix A. Data and Methods Data Our quantitative approach utilizes student-level longitudinal data from the California Community College Chancellor’s Office Management Information System (COMIS). The dataset includes students enrolled across the 114 community colleges that comprise the California Community College system, and includes information on student characteristics (race/ethnicity, gender, low income status), course-taking behavior, course elements (title of course, levels below transfer level, credit status, transfer status and minimum/maximum number of credits), and student outcomes (grades, and credits earned). Data was also collected from an exhaustive scan of the latest college catalogs, websites, and other institutional documents. This process allowed us to identify which colleges are already using multiple measures for placement and/or offering co-requisite models as an alternative to traditional developmental sequences. Important Definitions First-time English (math) students: We create cohorts of students based on the term in which they took their first English/math course anywhere in the system. They need not be first-time students in that term. Please note that our numbers differ from the ones in the Basic Skills Cohort Tracker because in there cohorts are defined based on the first term students ever took a course in the given subject area at the selected college. In other words, only courses at the focus college are considered when evaluating “first time in a basic skills subject area”. Meanwhile, our calculations take into consideration courses taken in any college in the system when determining first-time status. We restrict our sample to students with unique and valid student identifiers, who were not enrolled as dual enrollment students. Slightly over half of students in our first-time math and English cohorts took their first math/English course during their first term ever in college—for 58 percent of first-time English students and 54 percent of first-time math students. Transfer-level courses: when we talk about transfer-level courses we are referring to the lowest-level English and math courses that are transferable to the University of California (UC) and/or to the California State University (CSU) systems on the basis of articulation agreements. These courses are also known as gateway or gatekeeper courses. For English only the first transfer-level composition course (C-ID ENGL 100) qualifies as the gateway course. Considering that colleges’ math requirements vary according to the student’s program of study, any transferable math course—including introductory statistics, trigonometry, college algebra, and precalculus—qualifies as a gateway course. Throughout the report we use the terms transfer-level and collegelevel interchangeably. One-year throughput rates: The proportion of a cohort of students who complete the transferable gateway math or English course within two primary semesters or three primary quarters of entering their first course in the subject. For students attending multiple colleges (i.e. who take developmental course work in one college and transfer level in a different college), we assigned a positive outcome (i.e. completing the transferable course) to the college where the student took the developmental education course. We restrict our sample to transfer-seeking students (using the variable student goal from the success file in the COMIS data). Transfer-level success rates: Share of students who started in transfer-level that completed successfully the course in their first attempt (passed the course with a grade of C or better). Please note that this rate is not calculated using all students enrolled in the transfer-level course, it is calculated only among the ones for which that was their first course. PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 2 Early implementers: To identify the colleges that have engaged more actively in placement reform, we used the following criteria: Reported an annual increase of 10 percentage points or more in the share of first-time math/English students enrolling directly in transfer-level in 2016‒17; Saw increases in throughput rates relative to the prior year; Had a throughput rate higher than 50 percent; and Used robust multiple measures placement and/or offered co-requisite models. To inform our quantitative results, we collected information from interviews with faculty and staff from California’s community colleges. In spring 2018, we interviewed 31 individuals—21 faculty (10 math and 11 English) and 10 staff (assessment, counseling, and institutional research) at 16 colleges across the state. The colleges that we interviewed were among the colleges with increases of 10 percentage points or more in the share of first-time math/English students starting directly in transfer-level. All the colleges that we interviewed were either offering co-requisite models or using multiple measures placement (we talked with 9 of the 10 colleges that offered co-requisite models in 2016-17). We spoke with each interviewee for about one hour over the phone. Interviewees were asked a variety of questions pertaining to their background; how students assess and place into co-requisite and transfer-level math and English courses; how students enroll in and learn about co-requisite math and English courses, student experiences in co-requisite courses, aspects of the co-requisite course (e.g., motivation for offering it, course structure, and curriculum), professional development, as well as funding and scaling up co-requisite and multiple measures reforms. Open-ended questions were used to facilitate the collection of information based on questions that do not restrict the participants’ opinions (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011). The data collection and data analysis were carried out simultaneously to avoid the collection of repetitive and unfocused data (Merriam 1998). Particularly, after each interview was conducted, researchers debriefed, reviewed detailed data notes and audio recordings, and kept notes to capture reflections, emerging themes, and points that needed to be pursued further. This process of review and reflection informed all subsequent interviews. In this manner, data collected from each interview was continuously assessed and informed future interviews until data collection was complete. The data was also organized and coded on a secure spreadsheet. This approach was used to come up with a number of patterns and themes. PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 3 Appendix B. Figures and Tables TABLE 1 Math Alameda Allan Hancock American River Antelope Valley Bakersfield Barstow Berkeley City Butte Cabrillo Canada Canyons Cerritos Cerro Coso Chabot Chaffey Citrus Clovis Coalinga Coastline Columbia PPIC.ORG" First-time Math cohort 821 Share of firsttime math students starting directly into transfer-level math (%), 2016-17 39 Increase from prior year 5 One-year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) 36 Increase from prior year (4) Co-requisite remediation as of 2016- 2017 – 1,989 24 3 32 0– 3,737 23 2 23 (0) – 3,112 16 5 27 6– 4,070 21 4 19 (0) – 673 19 8 39 20 – 1,197 49 6 37 2– 2,353 29 (0) 29 (2) – 1,975 28 (1) 26 (10) – 806 45 6 45 3– 3,341 41 18 44 9– 3,322 15 1 17 1– 548 30 8 21 1– 2,281 27 (1) 24 (7) – 4,380 14 (3) 20 (3) – 2,837 22 3 24 (1) – 1,698 49 4 44 2– 601 25 6 19 3– 1,534 34 (1) 37 2– 536 21 1 26 (2) – Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 4 Compton Contra Costa Copper Mountain Cosumnes River Crafton Hills Cuesta Cuyamaca Cypress De Anza Desert Diablo Valley East L.A. El Camino Evergreen Valley Feather River Folsom Lake Foothill Fresno City Fullerton Gavilan Glendale Golden West Grossmont Hartnell First-time Math cohort Share of firsttime math students starting directly into transfer-level math (%), 2016-17 Increase from prior year One-year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co-requisite remediation as of 2016- 2017 1,300 9 (1) 9 (3) – 1,064 37 3 29 (4) – 419 18 5 29 6– 2,471 19 (2) 22 (3) – 1,246 24 6 26 (3) – 1,815 32 (0) 31 (7) – 1,226 57 31 57 19 YES 2,620 29 3 29 (2) – 4,071 34 0 39 (8) – 1,993 16 (1) 16 (2) – 3,880 57 3 48 (3) – 4,766 13 2 12 (3) – 4,981 20 1 26 (3) – 2,102 29 5 26 (2) – 353 31 (9) 50 (5) – 1,681 25 0 28 1– 1,819 58 (3) 52 (8) – 4,307 34 5 25 1– 5,131 42 2 34 (4) – 1,007 25 6 22 0– 2,692 32 (1) 34 1– 2,171 39 (0) 32 (8) – 3,661 33 6 30 (1) YES 2,041 17 3 27 (1) – PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 5 Imperial Valley Irvine Valley L.A. City L.A. Harbor L.A. Mission L.A. Pierce L.A. Trade–Tech L.A. Valley Lake Tahoe Laney Las Positas Lassen Lemoore Long Beach City Los Medanos Marin Mendocino Merced Merritt Mira Costa Mission Modesto Monterey Moorpark First-time Math cohort Share of firsttime math students starting directly into transfer-level math (%), 2016-17 Increase from prior year One-year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co-requisite remediation as of 2016- 2017 1,747 12 4 21 (2) – 3,135 46 0 42 (10) – 2,039 16 3 12 (1) – 1,616 15 (2) 17 (3) – 1,479 19 5 15 (0) – 3,514 22 0 27 (7) – 1,592 4 0 6 (1) – 2,767 23 12 16 368 18 4 19 1,091 36 (1) 32 1,831 36 3 33 (2) – (2) – (3) – (4) – 367 15 8 29 11 – 1,013 16 (7) 19 (5) – 5,523 23 2 19 (1) – 1,673 56 20 51 9 YES 794 27 1 28 (5) – 554 24 2 23 2,670 26 4 24 (7) – 0– 751 23 5 21 (1) – 2,915 42 4 46 5– 1,004 35 0 25 (3) – 2,612 9 2 16 (6) – 1,234 21 (0) 27 (4) – 3,297 44 2 40 (6) – PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 6 Moreno Valley First-time Math cohort Share of firsttime math students starting directly into transfer-level math (%), 2016-17 Increase from prior year One-year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co-requisite remediation as of 2016- 2017 1,609 12 6 12 0– Mt. San Antonio 5,184 31 1 30 (4) – Mt. San Jacinto 3,855 18 1 28 0– Napa Valley 1,271 34 7 40 2– Norco 2,175 17 6 21 (2) – Ohlone 1,811 25 0 38 2– Orange Coast 4,178 37 (3) 37 (5) – Oxnard 1,146 22 1 24 (0) – Palo Verde 391 6 2 7 (3) – Palomar 4,755 29 2 24 (4) – Pasadena City 5,548 25 0 36 (1) – Porterville 877 29 4 25 (4) – Redwoods 838 32 0 27 (11) – Reedley 2,010 19 (2) 21 (2) – Rio Hondo 3,095 16 8 14 2– Riverside 4,083 12 2 15 (3) – Sacramento City 3,299 13 (0) 15 (3) – Saddleback 3,244 25 (7) 28 (7) – San Bernardino 2,999 9 1 16 (1) – San Diego City 2,751 28 1 22 (5) YES San Diego Mesa 3,590 47 2 43 San Diego Miramar 1,879 47 5 45 (1) – (4) – San Francisco City 3,108 41 1 38 (4) – San Joaquin Delta 3,959 15 1 18 (2) – PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 7 San Jose City First-time Math cohort Share of firsttime math students starting directly into transfer-level math (%), 2016-17 Increase from prior year One-year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co-requisite remediation as of 2016- 2017 1,185 30 3 21 (4) – San Mateo 1,548 45 4 35 (3) – Santa Ana 2,921 33 4 29 (6) – Santa Barbara City 2,310 52 11 56 8– Santa Monica 5,619 39 6 25 (0) – Santa Rosa 3,117 31 (2) 30 (7) – Santiago Canyon 2,057 40 3 34 (8) – Sequoias 3,118 15 (0) 23 (1) – Shasta 1,564 36 (2) 33 (5) – Sierra 3,851 51 12 42 2– Siskiyous 350 67 51 58 36 – Skyline 1,342 36 7 35 5– Solano 1,906 39 1 31 (2) – Southwest L.A. 1,015 8 0 5 (7) – Southwestern 4,065 15 4 15 1– Taft 788 22 2 27 (2) – Ventura 2,555 36 2 38 (1) – Victor Valley 2,845 6 (0) 14 2– West L.A. 1,255 19 2 10 (1) – West Valley 1,396 32 2 36 (4) – Woodland 778 12 (6) 12 (5) – Yuba 1,340 7 1 18 3– Statewide 260,794 28 2 28 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. (2) – PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 8 TABLE 2 English Alameda Allan Hancock American River Antelope Valley Bakersfield Barstow Berkeley City Butte Cabrillo Canada Canyons Cerritos Cerro Coso Chabot Chaffey Citrus Clovis Coalinga Coastline Columbia Compton Contra Costa Copper Mountain Cosumnes River First–time English cohort Share of first– time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Increase from prior year One–year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co–requisite remediation as of 2016– 2017 556 2,061 3,233 3,006 4,478 627 930 2,245 1,774 603 2,815 3,958 490 2,270 5,522 2,806 1,582 582 989 443 1,233 907 469 2,382 59 10 48 (8) 50 3 54 (2) 35 1 43 (2) 51 3 58 5 52 12 45 1 27 5 48 2 73 (4) 64 (12) 57 2 56 (0) 41 1 56 (2) 69 15 60 4 63 21 61 (3) 29 7 45 3 34 11 43 14 39 3 51 (8) 43 3 48 (2) 42 (1) 55 0 47 6 49 3 64 32 58 15 67 (2) 63 (3) 51 7 60 4 24 1 27 3 32 6 45 (0) 39 3 50 6 58 5 54 5 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 9 Crafton Hills Cuesta Cuyamaca Cypress De Anza Desert Diablo Valley East L.A. El Camino Evergreen Valley Feather River Folsom Lake Foothill Fresno City Fullerton Gavilan Glendale Golden West Grossmont Hartnell Imperial Valley Irvine Valley L.A. City L.A. Harbor L.A. Mission L.A. Pierce PPIC.ORG" First–time English cohort Share of first– time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Increase from prior year One–year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co–requisite remediation as of 2016– 2017 1,263 45 6 52 3 – 1,642 67 0 58 (4) – 1,087 52 19 57 4 YES 2,688 32 0 50 (1) – 3,429 36 3 63 (4) – 2,434 33 2 53 5 – 3,253 36 5 61 3 – 3,760 24 4 35 2 – 4,741 40 (1) 49 1 – 1,590 38 5 37 1 – 334 54 (1) 64 (1) – 1,461 35 3 52 3 – 1,408 51 (6) 65 (9) – 4,550 34 7 33 (3) – 4,503 45 6 53 (2) YES 985 49 3 39 (9) – 2,650 55 (1) 61 (3) – 1,972 55 6 60 2 – 3,366 39 3 49 (1) – 2,021 34 4 44 1 – 1,613 29 7 42 4 – 2,096 51 14 67 13 – 1,881 26 5 39 2 – 1,470 32 4 48 (2) – 1,356 27 0 30 3 – 3,402 18 2 40 (2) – Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 10 L.A. Trade–Tech L.A. Valley Lake Tahoe Laney Las Positas Lassen Lemoore Long Beach City Los Medanos Marin Mendocino Merced Merritt Mira Costa Mission Modesto Monterey Moorpark Moreno Valley Mt. San Antonio Mt. San Jacinto Napa Valley Norco Ohlone Orange Coast Oxnard PPIC.ORG" First–time English cohort Share of first– time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Increase from prior year One–year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co–requisite remediation as of 2016– 2017 1,452 41 28 40 14 – 2,752 42 8 46 4 – 319 51 5 63 5 – 912 53 7 47 (0) – 1,682 73 32 74 1 – 357 39 (3) 65 (4) – 1,064 46 4 57 2 – 3,901 49 26 36 (1) – 1,602 32 7 56 7 – 647 37 1 51 4 – 559 39 1 49 2 – 2,376 41 9 48 2 – 615 44 2 42 (3) – 2,556 75 7 70 (2) YES 787 50 4 56 7 – 3,407 36 1 44 1 – 1,193 29 (2) 48 (2) – 3,095 80 0 78 (1) – 1,672 37 15 51 5 – 5,612 16 (1) 34 (6) – 3,938 50 26 57 9 – 1,181 25 3 54 (2) – 1,880 38 9 45 1 – 1,669 41 1 50 0 – 3,792 57 (1) 60 (6) – 1,117 54 2 58 (4) – Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 11 First–time English cohort Share of first– time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Increase from prior year One–year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co–requisite remediation as of 2016– 2017 Palo Verde Palomar Pasadena City Porterville Redwoods Reedley Rio Hondo Riverside Sacramento City Saddleback San Bernardino San Diego City San Diego Mesa San Diego Miramar San Francisco City San Joaquin Delta San Jose City San Mateo Santa Ana Santa Barbara City Santa Monica Santa Rosa Santiago Canyon Sequoias Shasta Sierra PPIC.ORG" 355 32 1 27 (4) – 3,962 49 3 48 (3) – 5,136 41 (0) 59 (6) – 965 36 23 52 16 – 754 46 1 48 (3) – 2,100 25 (0) 30 (1) – 2,685 60 8 58 1 – 3,302 33 8 39 (2) – 2,685 37 2 46 4 YES 3,286 35 (3) 55 2 – 2,308 21 (2) 26 (4) – 2,580 25 4 49 8 – 3,256 47 13 58 9 YES 1,639 46 11 54 11 – 2,341 30 8 43 9 – 3,596 40 0 47 (2) – 980 49 8 50 7 – 1,254 77 38 68 6 – 2,347 75 27 51 1 – 2,346 73 4 63 1 – 5,611 54 7 51 (0) – 3,021 54 (0) 59 (3) – 1,711 75 3 66 (4) – 2,817 39 (1) 43 (9) – 1,418 68 4 58 (5) – 3,732 69 9 64 1 – Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 12 First–time English cohort Share of first– time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Increase from prior year One–year throughput rate, Fall 2016 (%) Increase from prior year Co–requisite remediation as of 2016– 2017 Siskiyous 372 51 2 47 (12) – Skyline 1,209 82 28 68 0 YES Solano 1,785 70 34 64 10 YES Southwest L.A. 896 19 4 21 (1) – Southwestern 3,839 36 7 52 1 – Taft 704 40 1 52 5 – Ventura 2,249 55 9 62 4 – Victor Valley 2,313 22 0 49 9 – West L.A. 1,073 62 27 48 4 – West Valley 1,156 53 5 59 (1) – Woodland 719 31 1 33 (6) – Yuba 1,333 32 (7) 46 (3) – Statewide 240,888 44 6 51 1 – SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 13 TABLE 3 Math one–year throughput rates by starting course (percent) Alameda Allan Hancock American River Antelope Valley Bakersfield Barstow Berkeley City Butte Cabrillo Canada Canyons Cerritos Cerro Coso Chabot Chaffey Citrus Clovis Coalinga Coastline Columbia Compton Contra Costa Copper Mountain Cosumnes River Crafton Hills Cuesta Cuyamaca Cypress De Anza Desert Diablo Valley East L.A. El Camino Evergreen Valley Feather River Folsom Lake Foothill Fresno City Fullerton Gavilan Glendale Golden West Grossmont Hartnell Imperial Valley Traditional developmental math 7 13 6 12 5 27 12 11 10 15 10 7 5 8 9 12 12 5 20 9 7 5 11 8 9 12 32 9 20 3 13 6 16 13 18 11 23 5 5 6 10 12 9 14 7 Pre–Stats 21 – 89 – 9 – 16 – – 36 38 – – 13 – 26 – – – – – 23 * – – 19 33 38 33 – 82 – – – – – * – – – – – – – – Math Co–requisite remediation – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 72 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – All first–time math students 30 27 21 20 17 31 36 26 23 42 38 16 20 23 18 24 42 17 28 22 9 28 23 21 23 27 55 27 38 14 46 12 24 24 46 27 50 23 33 19 30 31 29 24 15 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 14 Irvine Valley L.A. City L.A. Harbor L.A. Mission L.A. Pierce L.A. Trade–Tech L.A. Valley Lake Tahoe Laney Las Positas Lassen Lemoore Long Beach City Los Medanos Marin Mendocino Merced Merritt Mira Costa Mission Modesto Monterey Moorpark Moreno Valley Mt. San Antonio Mt. San Jacinto Napa Valley Norco Ohlone Orange Coast Oxnard Palo Verde Palomar Pasadena City Porterville Redwoods Reedley Rio Hondo Riverside Sacramento City Saddleback San Bernardino San Diego City San Diego Mesa San Diego Miramar San Francisco City San Joaquin Delta PPIC.ORG" Traditional developmental math 13 7 8 6 9 3 5 11 12 13 6 10 6 12 10 4 8 5 17 5 8 15 15 8 8 16 16 12 24 16 6 4 9 20 8 8 9 5 8 10 13 12 5 15 12 13 8 Pre–Stats – – 18 42 41 – – – – – – – – 20 * 29 – – 4 * – – – 10 52 – – – – – – – 33 – – 26 – – 35 – – – 57 – – 22 – Math Co–requisite remediation – – – – – – – – – – – – – 69 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – All first–time math students 42 13 17 14 25 5 15 15 27 31 17 17 18 48 27 20 20 19 41 25 15 25 39 11 29 27 36 20 37 34 21 7 22 34 21 25 19 12 13 15 27 15 20 40 42 36 16 Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 15 Traditional developmental math San Jose City 9 San Mateo 8 Santa Ana Santa Barbara City Santa Monica Santa Rosa Santiago Canyon Sequoias Shasta 12 21 4 8 10 8 8 Sierra 11 Siskiyous 28 Skyline 12 Solano Southwest L.A. Southwestern Taft Ventura Victor Valley West L.A. 7 3 5 10 11 8 4 West Valley 19 Woodland 6 Yuba Statewide 15 10 * N <= 10 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. Pre–Stats – 29 – – 24 – – – 23 – – 19 – – * – – 16 – 37 – – 27 Math Co–requisite remediation – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 71 All first–time math students 19 33 26 54 25 26 33 15 29 39 56 32 29 6 13 21 35 11 12 35 11 16 26 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 16 TABLE 4 English one–year throughput rates by starting course (percent) English Alameda Allan Hancock American River Antelope Valley Bakersfield Barstow Berkeley City Butte Cabrillo Canada Canyons Cerritos Cerro Coso Chabot Chaffey Citrus Clovis Coalinga Coastline Columbia Compton Contra Costa Copper Mountain Cosumnes River Crafton Hills Cuesta Cuyamaca Cypress De Anza Desert Diablo Valley East L.A. El Camino Evergreen Valley Feather River Folsom Lake Foothill Fresno City Fullerton Gavilan Glendale Golden West Grossmont Hartnell Imperial Valley Traditional Developmental English 9 29 25 30 18 21 40 30 39 18 6 29 27 5 32 35 23 24 40 38 15 25 23 28 26 28 35 33 48 36 39 22 27 16 49 33 46 15 31 22 31 34 33 24 20 One–semester acceleration – 32 – – – * – – – – 39 41 – 41 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 38 52 – – – – – – – 49 – – – – – 44 Co–requisite remediation – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 96 – – – – – – – – – – – 79 – – – – – – All first–time English students 42 50 40 49 43 38 60 53 50 58 59 42 34 48 47 51 47 56 69 56 25 43 42 51 47 56 55 46 60 49 59 33 46 34 60 49 64 31 51 37 59 55 48 41 35 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 17 Irvine Valley L.A. City L.A. Harbor L.A. Mission L.A. Pierce L.A. Trade–Tech L.A. Valley Lake Tahoe Laney Las Positas Lassen Lemoore Long Beach City Los Medanos Marin Mendocino Merced Merritt Mira Costa Mission Modesto Monterey Moorpark Moreno Valley Mt. San Antonio Mt. San Jacinto Napa Valley Norco Ohlone Orange Coast Oxnard Palo Verde Palomar Pasadena City Porterville Redwoods Reedley Rio Hondo Riverside Sacramento City Saddleback San Bernardino San Diego City San Diego Mesa San Diego Miramar San Francisco City San Joaquin Delta PPIC.ORG" Traditional Developmental English 47 27 37 17 33 18 26 – 11 45 – 35 5 * 36 20 34 19 33 29 26 36 – 39 26 39 44 26 25 39 36 11 24 42 26 28 18 31 21 30 34 14 34 34 29 28 28 English One–semester acceleration Co–requisite remediation –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 37 – –– –– 41 – –– 19 – 48 – –– 52 – –– –– – 78 –– –– –– 49 – 38 – –– –– –– 28 – –– –– –– –– –– –– 36 – 29 – 18 – –– 31 – – 67 75 – –– 47 – 46 85 –– –– –– All first–time English students 68 35 46 28 39 34 43 54 44 70 51 53 33 54 46 43 44 40 67 51 41 45 76 49 33 56 50 43 48 57 56 22 44 57 46 44 28 55 37 43 52 25 44 56 50 40 44 Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 18 Traditional Developmental English San Jose City San Mateo Santa Ana 24 37 * Santa Barbara City 15 Santa Monica 21 Santa Rosa 36 Santiago Canyon Sequoias 34 25 Shasta Sierra Siskiyous Skyline Solano 20 28 29 18 34 Southwest L.A. 14 Southwestern 31 Taft Ventura 31 35 Victor Valley 36 West L.A. West Valley Woodland Yuba Statewide 16 38 16 23 29 * N <= 10 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. English One–semester acceleration Co–requisite remediation –– –– –– –– –– –– –– 28 – 23 – –– –– 37 77 41 72 –– 37 – –– –– –– –– –– –– 56 – 42 78 All first–time English students 45 66 50 60 51 55 65 38 54 62 46 66 61 18 47 42 58 44 46 57 31 42 48 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 19 TABLE 5 Math Access Rates by Race/Ethnicity Share of first–time math students starting directly into transfer–level math (%), 2016–17 Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Annual change in the share of first–time math students going directly to transfer–level math (pp) Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Cohort Size Fall 2016 Siskiyous 67 58 * 93 65 45 51 12 * 13 18 9 116 Cuyamaca 57 53 67 52 59 33 31 27 43 27 24 15 532 Los Medanos 56 57 67 44 56 30 20 35 53 23 37 20 737 College of the Canyons 41 35 62 34 46 19 18 17 47 16 28 11 1,967 Statewide 27 19 49 18 35 21 2 18 47 15 32 14 188,124 Average early implementers 55 51 65 56 57 32 Statewide without early implementers 27 19 49 18 35 21 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 20 TABLE 6 Math Throughput Rates by Race/Ethnicity One–year throughput rates (%), Fall 2016 cohort Annual change in the one–year throughput rates (pp) Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Cohort Size Fall 2016 Siskiyous 58 50 88 73 58 54 36 35 * 63 34 36 160 Cuyamaca 57 55 71 44 61 56 19 16 16 15 23 21 472 Los Medanos College of the Canyons 51 50 66 44 36 62 37 31 52 47 53 39 9 9 8 5 14 7 8 4 8 14 8 505 9 850 Statewide 27 19 50 13 36 23 (2) (2) (4) (2) (1) (3) 75,199 Average early implementers 53 48 72 46 Statewide without early implementers 27 19 50 13 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. 56 49 36 23 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 21 TABLE 7 English Access Rates by Race/Ethnicity Share of first–time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Annual change in the share of first–time English students going directly to college composition (pp) Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Cohort Size 2016– 2017 San Mateo 77 65 84 62 90 69 38 36 40 40 40 37 1,254 Solano 70 68 72 52 78 68 34 37 33 30 31 34 1,785 Coalinga 64 62 71 74 66 62 32 37 * 53 2 38 582 Las Positas 73 66 75 66 79 72 32 35 33 32 29 37 1,682 Skyline 82 77 85 79 89 79 28 28 28 56 27 28 1,209 Santa Ana 75 73 82 81 91 76 27 30 12 34 15 30 2,347 Mt. San Jacinto 50 45 52 37 60 46 26 26 26 19 28 24 3,938 Porterville 36 36 36 14 38 18 23 24 25 * 15 7 965 Cuyamaca 52 44 55 46 58 49 19 18 24 26 17 17 1,087 Canada Moreno Valley 69 62 90 48 82 65 15 17 14 11 7 21 603 37 34 57 32 58 34 15 14 34 16 16 12 1,672 Irvine Valley 51 38 58 31 59 46 14 14 14 9 15 16 2,096 San Diego Mesa 47 41 49 42 55 45 13 13 15 22 8 11 3,256 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 22 San Diego Miramar Statewide Share of first–time English students starting directly into college composition (%), 2016–17 Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Annual change in the share of first–time English students going directly to college composition (pp) Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Cohort Size 2016– 2017 46 41 45 44 49 41 11 14 43 35 47 31 59 38 6 6 5 18 78 10 5 8 1,639 6 240,888 Average early implementers 59 54 65 51 68 55 Statewide without early implementers 43 35 47 31 59 38 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 23 TABLE 8 English Throughput Rates by Race/Ethnicity One–year throughput rates (%), Fall 2016 cohort Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Annual change in the one–year throughput rates (pp) Overall Latino Asian African American White Low Income Cohort Size Fall 2016 San Mateo 68 61 80 54 67 64 6 2 13 24 (4) 7 720 Solano 64 61 78 54 65 57 10 11 14 20 2 5 979 Coalinga 58 57 50 59 64 55 15 19 * 27 (10) 14 290 Las Positas 74 70 83 67 77 68 1 (1) 4 17 3 (4) 734 Skyline Santa Ana 68 57 77 67 51 48 77 60 72 70 67 0 (4) 4 12 (2) 54 1 2 (3) * (9) 2 670 4 1,095 Mt. San Jacinto 57 54 71 41 64 55 9 9 14 (1) 10 9 2,014 Porterville 52 52 54 50 48 47 16 17 * * 11 14 503 Cuyamaca 57 51 69 32 65 56 4 2 17 (7) 5 5 586 Canada 60 52 81 45 Moreno Valley 51 50 65 36 72 65 59 4 50 5 (1) 5 3* 3 10 313 4 (1) 14 4 870 Irvine Valley 67 58 74 46 72 65 13 19 6 11 13 14 1,151 San Diego Mesa 58 51 68 54 66 56 9 4 27 15 5 3 1,268 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 24 San Diego Miramar Statewide 54 48 61 36 50 44 62 34 55 63 51 11 46 1 16 1 Average early implementers 60 55 71 48 66 57 Statewide without early implementers 50 44 62 34 63 46 SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. 5 * 11 6 665 1 2 (0) (0) 116,713 PPIC.ORG" Technical Appendices Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 25 FIGURE 1 Change in transfer–level math course success rates vs. changes in first–time math students starting in transfer–level 30 Change in transfer-level math course success rates (pp) 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Change in the share of first-time math students enrolling directly in transfer level (pp) SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. 60 Change in transfer-level English course success rates (pp) FIGURE 2 Transfer–level English course success rates vs. changes in first–time English students starting in transfer–level 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Change in the share of first-time English students enrolling directly in transfer-level (pp) SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of COMIS data. 60 PPIC.ORG" Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges 26 The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94111 T: 415.291.4400 F: 415.291.4401 PPIC.ORG PPIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 T: 916.440.1120 F: 916.440.1121"
["post_date_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2018-08-15 18:28:10"
["comment_status"]=>
string(4) "open"
["ping_status"]=>
string(6) "closed"
["post_password"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_name"]=>
string(16) "0818orr-appendix"
["to_ping"]=>
string(0) ""
["pinged"]=>
string(0) ""
["post_modified"]=>
string(19) "2018-08-15 11:28:22"
["post_modified_gmt"]=>
string(19) "2018-08-15 18:28:22"
["post_content_filtered"]=>
string(0) ""
["guid"]=>
string(59) "http://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/0818orr-appendix.pdf"
["menu_order"]=>
int(0)
["post_mime_type"]=>
string(15) "application/pdf"
["comment_count"]=>
string(1) "0"
["filter"]=>
string(3) "raw"
["status"]=>
string(7) "inherit"
["attachment_authors"]=>
bool(false)
}