Getting Students to Graduate: Developmental Education

1. Getting Students to Graduate:Developmental Education Thomas Bailey National Center for Postsecondary Research Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University Presented at Higher Education in Michigan: Looking Back and Looking Ahead Ann Arbor, Michigan December 10, 2009

2. CCRC and NCPR Research on Developmental Education • Community College Research Center • Assessment, completion, pathways and sequences, outcomes, evaluation of models and initiatives • http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/ • National Center for Postsecondary Research • US Dept. of Education Funded Center • Partnership of CCRC, MDRC, UVA • Analysis of effectiveness using state data • Experimental evaluations of learning communities and intensive summer bridge programs • http://www.tc.columbia.edu/centers/ncpr/

3. Developmental Education • Huge barrier to increased completion • Assessment and placement systems need fundamental reform • Evidence suggests that current developmental practices do not work well • Most students do not complete their developmental sequences

4. Incidence of Remediation • 58 percent—at least one course (NELS) • 44 percent—1 to 3 courses (NELS) • 14 percent—more than 3 courses (NELS) • 59 percent—at least one course (ATD)

5. Referrals to Levels of Dev. Ed.

6. 0.5 Outcome 1 E[Y|Z=z] Student Outcome 0.4 .8 Outcomes for remedial students Outcomes for college ready students 0.3 .6 Outcomes for Local treatment Local treatment remedial students effect effect 0.2 .4 Outcomes for non - remedial students 0.1 .2 0 0 -50 -50 -25 -25 0 0 25 25 50 50 CPT Score Relative to Math Cutoff Assessment Score Relative to Cutoff

7. Outcome: Completion of First College-Level Course Outcome: Fall-to-Fall Retention Estimated Discontinuity (Math ITT Table 4) = -0.061(0.013) Estimated Discontinuity (Math ITT Table 4) = -0.021(0.011) 1 1 .8 .8 .6 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 0 0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 CPT Score Relative to Math Cutoff CPT Score Relative to Math Cutoff Estimated Discontinuity (Reading ITT Table 4) = -0.068(0.008) Estimated Discontinuity (Reading ITT Table 4) = -0.009(0.008) 1 1 .8 .8 .6 .6 .4 .4 .2 .2 0 0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 CPT Score Relative to Reading Cutoff CPT Score Relative to Reading Cutoff Completion of First College-Level Course and Retention by CPT Score and Subject

8. Transfer to State University System and Degree Completion by CPT Score and Subject

9. What Does This Say About Assessment? • No obvious cutoff point—in practice many different assessments and standards • Confusion about what it means to be “college ready” • Assessments do not provide much diagnostic information

10. Implications for Effectiveness • Current system neglects the academic needs of weaker “college level” students • Distinction between college level and developmental students is arbitrary and doesn’t serve either group • We know little about the effectiveness of services for students far from the cutoff scores • We do know that few referred to multiple levels of remediation finish

11. Achieving the Dream Database • 250,000 students • All first time (in the college) degree seeking students (full or part time) • 57 colleges in CT, FL, NC, NM, OH, PA, TX, VA, WA • Not representative of all CCs—similar to large, urban institutions with lower funding per student

12. Completed 16% 1 level below Enroll Not completed 6% Pass Not enrolled 7% 2 levels below Enroll Not completed 12% Pass Not enrolled 16% 3 levels below Enroll Not Completed 25% Referred to Lev. 3 46824 Not enrolled 18% In-Order Course Completion and Enrollment for Math Remediation 22% 29% 41% 57% 82%

13. Completed 22% 1 level below Enroll Not completed 4% Pass Not enrolled 10% 2 levels below Enroll Not completed 4% Pass Not enrolled 17% 3 levels below Enroll Not completed 13% Referred to Lev. 3 7987 Not enrolled 31% In-Order Course Completion and Enrollment for Reading Remediation 25% 35% 39% 56% 69%

14. Enrollment and Progression Patterns Among Achieving the Dream Students

15. Student Progression by Enrollment and Gatekeeper in Math

16. 1 C GK GK E2, no C2, skip to GK No E3, skip to GK 2 C3, C2, C1 E GK, exit E1, no C1, skip to GK 2 1 2 C3, C2, C1, exit 1 1 E2, no C2, skip to 1 No E3, skip to 1 C3, C2, E1, no C1, exit 6 6 1 C3, C2, exit C2, skip to GK 1 2 2 E3, no C3, E2 No E3, skip to 2 18 C3, E2, no C2, exit C3, skip to GK 18 2 1 C3, exit C3, skip to 1 E3, no C3, E1 6 1 6 3 E3, no C3, exit E3, no C3, E GK 2 1 exit without ever enrolling R=3 1

17. Research Partnerships • Connecticut • Washington (ABE) • Florida • CUNY • Virginia

18. Enrollment in Developmental Courses However, many students did not take a recommended developmental course Among students recommended to a developmental course . . .

19. Performance in Gatekeeper Courses Once enrolled, gatekeeper course passing rates also did not vary strongly by developmental recommendation compliance

20. http://www.vccs.edu/Portals/0/ContentAreas/AcademicServices/DevelopmentalEducationTaskForce_200909.pdfhttp://www.vccs.edu/Portals/0/ContentAreas/AcademicServices/DevelopmentalEducationTaskForce_200909.pdf

21. Policy Implications • Assessment and placement is a mess • No consensus on college readiness • Profound pipeline problems—many opportunities to leave • Data have been effective in influencing legislatures and state agencies

22. For more information: Please visit us on the web at http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu, where you can download presentations, reports, CCRC Briefs, and sign up for news announcements. Community College Research Center Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University 525 West 120th Street, Box 174, New York, NY 10027 E-mail: ccrc@columbia.edu Telephone: 212.678.3091 CCRC funders include: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Lumina Foundation for Education, The Ford Foundation, National Science Foundation (NSF), Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education