Proposed Legislation on Placement and Remediation

1. Proposed Legislation on Placement and Remediation IMACC Conference 2019 Prepared by Chris Appuhn, Black Hawk College

2. Contents of Today’s Session • Background • Details of the Bill • Concerns • IMACC Response • Next Steps

3. Background

4. Data Suggest… • Students placed three or more levels below college-level math have an abysmal probability of ever completing a college-level math course. • Traditional placement practices disproportionately place low-income and minority students into developmental courses.

5. Proposed “Solution” • The Partnership for College Completion and Women Employed proposed a “remediation reform bill.” • The driving forces in the background are Complete College America and the Dana Center. • The claimed intent is to increase college completion rates by decreasing the number of students enrolled in developmental courses and increasing the number of students placed directly into college-level courses.

6. Development of the Proposal • A webinar for ICCCAO and ICCCSSO took place on February 1, 2019, to go over “version 1” of the proposal. • A conference call with CAOs and the Partnership for College Completion took place on February 14. • ICCB distributed “version 2” of the proposal to ICCCAO and ICCCSSO on February 22. • A webinar for “supporters” of the bill took place on March 1.

7. Development of the Bill • January 31, 2019: Illinois State Senator John Cullerton introduced the “shell bill” SB0446. • March 7: The chief sponsor of the bill was changed to Illinois State Senator Pat McGuire, Chairperson of the Illinois State Senate’s Higher Education Committee. • March 20: Senator McGuire filed “Amendment No. 1” to SB0446. The “amendment” is the true bill.

8. Current Status of the Bill • A hearing on the bill/amendment was scheduled for the Illinois Senate’s Higher Education Committee on March 26. • The bill/amendment was pulled from the March 26 committee meeting due to all the backlash. • The bill/amendment is still pending.

9. Details of the Bill

10. What’s in a Name? “This Act may be cited as the Alternative Remedial Coursework Act.”

11. Placement Framework “Each postsecondary institution must maximize the probability that a student will enter and successfully pass college-level coursework in both the English language and mathematics within the student’s first 2 semesters at the institution…”

12. Placement Framework Placement measures must include the following: • Cumulative high school GPA • Successful completion of transitional math/English (PWR) • Previously earned college credit in math/English • Successful completion of appropriate developmental math/English course at another institution • Cumulative or subject-area ACT or SAT score • Other measures as determined by ICCB and IBHE

13. Placement Framework • A student who meets the standards of any one measure must be placed into college-level coursework, regardlessof whether other measures indicate a lack of readiness. • Self-reported high school GPA must be used if a student’s high school transcript is difficult or impossible to obtain.

14. Placement Framework “A student who is eligible to enroll in college-level coursework under a postsecondary institution’s policy established before the effective date of this Act, with the exception of placement exam scores for institutions that no longer require them, may not be placed in developmental coursework after the establishment of measures under this Section.”

15. Co-requisite Support Framework Every postsecondary institution must scale co-requisite remediation models according to the following schedule: • For academic year 2021-2022, at least 25% of remedial students must be enrolled in co-requisite models. • For academic year 2022-2023, at least 50% of remedial students must be enrolled in co-requisite models. • For academic year 2023-2024 and thereafter, at least 75% must be enrolled in co-requisite models.

16. Co-requisite Support Framework Improvements over the original proposal: • A “planning” year has been added at the beginning of the timeline. • The original proposal scaled co-requisite models to 100%!

17. Co-requisite Support Framework The following are exempt from the co-requisite requirements: • Non-degree-seeking students • Non-certificate-seeking students • Students enrolled in a one-semester “accelerated model of developmental education” in which a developmental course and a college-level course are completed consecutively (rather than concurrently)

18. Implementation, Rules, and Reporting • Standards for high school GPA, ACT scores, and SAT scores are determined by ICCB and IBHE “in consultation with colleges and universities.” • ICCB and IBHE may review and revise these standards once every 3 years.

19. Implementation, Rules, and Reporting ICCB and IBHE shall prepare annual reports on the following, disaggregated by students’ race, ethnicity, age, and Pell status: • Description of each institution’s co-requisite models • Number and percentage of students who received co-requisite support and who completed those courses • Number and percentage of students who were placed in traditional developmental courses and who completed those courses

20. Implementation, Rules, and Reporting Improvements over the original proposal: • The original proposal required each college or university to prepare annual reports for ICCB or IBHE, respectively. • Reporting requirements for co-requisite support weremuch more extensive. • The original proposal additionally included reporting requirements for multiple-measures placement.

21. Implementation, Rules, and Reporting “IBHE and ICCB may, in consultation with postsecondary institutions, ensure the development and delivery of professional development to assist with the implementation of this Act.”

22. Implementation, Rules, and Reporting “IBHE and ICCB shall, subject to a separate appropriation made for such purposes, provide funding to postsecondary institutions to assist with implementation of this Act. Beginning with Fiscal Year 2021, IBHE and ICCB shall create a budget line item for such purposes.”

23. Concerns

24. Placement Concerns • The bill forces colleges to ignore measures that indicate a lack of readiness for college-level coursework. • Most studies on multiple-measures placement emphasize that measures should be used in conjunction, not disjunctively only. • Self-reported GPAs are unreliable.

25. Co-requisite Concerns • While there is some evidence to support the use of co-requisite models for English and for general education math courses (such as Liberal Arts Math or General Education Statistics), there is very little evidence that co-requisite remediation is an effective approach for College Algebra. • While co-requisite approaches may work for some students, such approaches are not right for everyone.

26. Co-requisite Concerns • Some AAS degrees and certificate programs require developmental math courses (or placement above them) for admission and/or course prerequisites. What would this bill mean for those students/programs?

27. General Concerns • Community colleges will undoubtedly face significant financial hardship in implementing this bill. • Legislation sets one “solution” in stone and stifles the ability of institutions/faculty to find creative ways to support students and address problems faced by students.

28. Efforts Already Underway • Preparatory Mathematics for General Education (PMGE) • Co-requisite models • Eliminating the “geometry requirement” for some courses • Transitional math courses (even before the Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness Act) • Innovations in placement such as ALEKS PPL, which has built-in remediation

29. Alternatives • Increased cooperation (rather than competition) between high schools and postsecondary institutions • More robust college preparation • Clearer pathways from high school to college

30. IMACC Response

31. Initial Steps • Several IMACC members “hijacked” the February 1 webinar that was intended for CAOs and CSSOs. • A committee was formed to work on documents/letters expressing concerns about the proposed bill.

32. Committee Members • Sunil Koswatta, Harper College • Keven Hansen, Southwestern Illinois College • Chris Appuhn, Black Hawk College • Linda Blanco, Joliet Junior College • Michael Caparula, Kankakee Community College

33. Communication Committee members, IMACC officers, and board members have communicated with the following (among others): • CAOs • College presidents • ICCB • University faculty • Legislators

34. Committee Actions • Sunil Koswatta contacted Dr. Sean Noonan, Legislative Chair for the Cook County College Teachers Union. • Keven Hansen wrote an analysis of “version 1” of the proposal. • The committee drafted a document/letter containing a synopsis of the proposed bill and a detailed description of our concerns.

35. Committee Actions • February 15: After seeking approval from IMACC officers and board members, the letter was given to Sean Noonan to share with legislators. • February 25: Keven Hansen discussed the proposed bill by phone with Emily Goldman from the Partnership for College Completion. The phone call “was a disaster.”

36. Committee Actions • March 4: An updated version of the letter was sent to ICCCP. • March 8: A letter was sent to Senator McGuire. The ICCCP letter was attached.

37. We Are Not Alone! • ICCCAO sent a letter to ICCCP recommending that ICCCP oppose the bill. • ICCCP lobbyists have talked with legislators, expressing concerns about the bill. • The University of Illinois System sent a letter to IBHE urging IBHE to oppose the bill. • ICCB released an official response that opposes the bill.

38. Next Steps

39. Next Steps • The IMACC committee prepared letters to other members of the Illinois State Senate’s Higher Education Committee. These letters will be sent when “the time is right.”

40. “What Can I Do?” IMACC members can… • Talk to your local legislators about the bill, preferably face to face. • Submit “witness slips” opposing the bill on the Illinois General Assembly’s website (not currently available). • Attend hearings on the bill, and testify if possible.

41. Lobbying Opportunity • ICCTA’s Legislative Lobby Day is Wednesday, May 1. • Talk to your college’s trustees about the bill, especiallythe financial implications. • Ask your trustees to speak with legislators about the bill during their Legislative Lobby Day. • Go with them if you can!

42. A Penny for Your Thoughts? Do YOU have any… • Questions? • Concerns? • Ideas? • Suggestions? • …song and dance? 

43. Thank You!