ERIC ED566386: One-Shot Deal? Students' Perceptions of Assessment and Course Placement in California's Community Colleges

2010·0.8 MB·English

by  ERIC

ONE-SHOT
DEAL?
by Andrea Venezia,
Students’ Perceptions of Kathy Reeves Bracco,
Assessment and Course and Thad Nodine
Placement in California’s
Community Colleges
WestEd — a national nonpartisan, nonprofit research, development, and service agency — works with
education and other communities to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for chil-
dren, youth, and adults. WestEd has 17 offices nationwide, from Washington and Boston to Arizona and
California, with its headquarters in San Francisco.
For more information about WestEd, visit WestEd.org; call 415.565.3000 or, toll-free, (877) 4-WestEd; or
write: WestEd / 730 Harrison Street / San Francisco, CA 94107-1242.
Copyright © 2010 WestEd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by
any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission from WestEd. A full-text PDF of this
document is available as a free download from www.WestEd.org. To request permission to reproduce excerpts from this report,
contact the WestEd Publications Center, 730 Harrison Street, San Francisco, CA 94107-1242, or [email protected].
Suggested Citation: Venezia, A., Bracco, K. R., & Nodine, T. (2010). One-shot deal? Students’ perceptions of assessment and
course placement in California’s community colleges. San Francisco: WestEd.
Acknowledgments
This study analyzes a system that has undergone much public scrutiny in recent
years and that is currently facing substantial fiscal challenges. Aware that people
within the community colleges are working extremely hard with diminishing
resources to provide student services, we were careful to include their insider perspec-
tives as well as those of people outside the system. Similarly, we strove to frame our
findings and recommendations in an appropriate and balanced way.
We owe a debt of gratitude to Michael Kirst for being involved in this project every step of the way, notably pro-
viding his wise perspective on the context of California education within which the community college issues play
out. We are also grateful for the experience and expertise of each of the project’s advisory board members (see
box). In addition, our report reviewers—Jan Connal,
Tracy Huebner, Kathy Hughes, Jorge Ruiz de Velasco,
Advisory Board Members
and Paul Steenhausen—gave generously of their
time and provided us with thorough and thoughtful
Tom Bailey, Teachers College, Mark Wade Lieu, Ohlone comments.
Columbia University College
We also thank the William and Flora Hewlett Founda-
Bob Barr, Foothill De Anza Morgan Lynn, California tion for its generous support, and we are grateful to its
Community College District Community Colleges
program officers, Pamela Burdman and Denis Udall, for their
Chancellor’s Office
Steve Bruckman, California consistent engagement in this work. And we thank the Walter
Community Colleges Linda Murray, Education S. Johnson Foundation for a generous infusion of funds for
Chancellor’s Office Trust–West dissemination activities.
George Bunch, UC Santa Cruz Jorge Ruiz de Velasco, Earl
We wish to thank our colleagues, Michael Kirst, Su Jin
Warren Center, UC Berkeley
Kate Clark, Irvine Valley Jez, Seewan Eng, Sarah Feldman, Miriam Maya, and
Barry Russell, California
College Soung Bae, for conducting field research. Su Jin Jez
Community Colleges
oversaw the quantitative analyses and Seewan Eng orga-
Jan Connal, Cerritos College Chancellor’s Office
nized the qualitative analyses. Sitome Mebrahtu, Katie
Bob Gabriner, San Francisco Jessie Ryan, Campaign for
Ranftle, and Melissa Josue provided invaluable logistical
State University College Opportunity
support. WestEd’s Health and Human Development
Kathy Hughes, Teachers Michele Siqueiros, Campaign team lent their expertise in conducting the telephone
College, Columbia University for College Opportunity
surveys with matriculation officers. Sara Miller led this
Esther Hugo, Santa Monica Paul Steenhausen, Legislative team of researchers and provided overall leadership on
College Analyst’s Office this aspect of the project. Sara was assisted by Cissy
Lam, Sara Hahn, Gregory Loar, LeAnn Adam, and
Acknowledgments
Yanessa Bowser. Greg Austin and Barbara Dietsch were very helpful in the development of the survey instrument.
Thank you, too, to our talented editor, Joan McRobbie; to Rosemary De La Torre for her eagle-eyed line editing and
proofing; and to Michael Medina for his creative layout and design work.
Perhaps most importantly, however, we thank the college students and counselors who participated in interviews
and focus groups. Community college students have little free time, but they actively engaged in talking about how
campus policies and practices affect their lives. Throughout this report, we discuss how busy counselors are, yet
at all five campuses, counselors were eager to discuss ways to improve student learning and academic success.
We also thank the matriculation officers who responded to our phone survey and those who helped us gain
access to students and counselors at their colleges. Although we cannot name you because we promised you
anonymity, you know who you are, and we could not have done this study without your trust and heavy lifting.
Acknowledgments
Contents
01
Introduction
06
Findings
18
Recommendations
24
Conclusion
25
Appendix: Methodology
27
Reference List
Introduction
The California Community Colleges system, with an enrollment of about 2.9 million
students annually at 112 colleges, is the largest system of postsecondary education
in the world. Open enrollment policies at the colleges ensure that anyone age 18 or
older can attend, and younger students can take courses as well. By providing this
opportunity, California has, year after year, opened the doors of higher education
to a substantial portion of its young population. The state has been less successful,
however, in preparing high school students to succeed in college-level courses and
ensuring that those in college complete their postsecondary educational programs.1
Several studies, including our own previous research, This study had two main purposes. One was to examine
have examined student perceptions of the transitions and describe the set of policies and practices that shape
and barriers between K–12 and postsecondary educa- assessment and placement in California’s community
tion systems. These studies have recommended better colleges. The other was to hear directly from students—
alignment of coursework and assessments between the
whose voices are crucial yet generally missing in the policy
two systems to ensure that high school students are
process—about their assessment and placement experi-
better informed about and prepared for college-level
ences. We then compared the policies’ supportive intent
academic work.2 There is substantial work being done—
with the reality of the students’ experiences—as well as
in California and nationwide—to develop college readi-
with observations from counselors and matriculation
ness standards; expand concurrent enrollment programs;
officers—to draw conclusions about how the policies and
communicate clearly about the key cognitive strategies
practices may need to be adjusted.
necessary for postsecondary success (e.g., analytical
thinking); improve student supports; and implement Unquestionably, the assessment and placement process
other approaches to improve students’ postsecondary involves very high stakes for students. Whether students
readiness and success.
are placed immediately in college-credit or transfer-level
This report focuses on assessment and placement courses in English and mathematics3 or are instead
processes, pivotal pieces of this picture because they required to start with basic skills courses has a major
determine which level of courses students will be placed impact on students’ trajectories. Course placement
in when they begin community college.
1
A survey of assessment results in California’s Community Colleges found that 83 percent of community college students placed in remedial-
level mathematics, and 72 percent placed in remedial-level English. See California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (2009).
2
See, for example, Venezia, Kirst, and Antonio (2003).
3
Not all courses require prerequisites or placement testing.
Introduction page 1
affects not only how quickly they can earn a certificate We have directed our recommendations toward devel-
or degree—a factor affecting the cost of their program oping a more seamless, longer-lasting set of processes
of study—but also their likelihood of completing a wherein high schools and community colleges align
credential at all. their efforts toward informing and preparing students.
In addition, during this time of scarcity, we focused on
Studies show that fewer students who place into basic
finding and recommending better efficiencies. That is
skills courses complete their intended educational paths
admittedly difficult, since what students most want is
than do students placed in transfer-level courses. Those
more one-on-one time with counselors, an expensive
starting with basic skills courses who do complete a
intervention.
certificate or degree tend to take longer than their peers
who are college ready. Notably, some studies have called
The Study’s Approach
into question whether remedial education is worthwhile
at all, since even students who seem to need more basics Despite many studies about the placement assessments,4
may have better outcomes without remedial courses little is known about students’ related perspectives and
(Jenkins, 2010). experiences. Unanswered questions include:
With so much riding on assessment and placement, it is » Do incoming students—particularly high school gradu-
important that students know the requirements early ates—typically know that they will be assessed before
in their high school years so they can master the they can enroll in rigorous college courses?
needed knowledge, skills, and cognitive strategies.
» Do students prepare for the assessments, and, if so, how?
They need ways to gauge their level of preparation
» How do students describe the course placement process
and get the support they need—in high school and in
and its impact on their educational goals and achievement?
college—to succeed. But such seamless processes do
not appear to be the norm. On the contrary, commu- » What are the areas of variation and consistency—in college
nity college students describe assessment and placement practices and in student perceptions—across the state?
as something they encounter for the first time upon
Addressing these questions is critical to understanding—
arrival at the college. They describe an isolated event
and improving—how high school students prepare for
that happens one day with minimal to no advance
college and how colleges serve underprepared students.
information. They walk into a testing center and take
To find answers, our research included two components.
a test that seems disconnected to any recent academic
First, we conducted focus groups with students at five com-
work they had in high school. They receive a printout
munity colleges throughout the state, with a primary focus
of their results and then register for courses. Many
on students not more than two years out of high school.
do not meet with a counselor to discuss their test
(See the appendix on page 25 for a full description of the
results, and believe they are on their own to deter-
methodology.) Students were asked about their experiences
mine course-taking options. Thus, while counselors
with assessment and placement practices at the colleges
and matriculation officers have set up a continuum of
and about their high school experiences related to college
services, most students believe that matriculation services
preparation. Secondly, we interviewed counselors at the
are a one-shot deal—something that happens over the
five colleges and also surveyed matriculation officers
course of one day and is never revisited.
across the state (total of 73 colleges), basing the ques-
Their stories make it clear that although the assessment tions we asked on preliminary findings from our student
and placement processes are crucial to students’ engage- interviews. Throughout the paper we incorporate
ment, perseverance, and ultimate success, students hear student quotes and identify their colleges with A, B, C,
little about them in high school. They arrive at community D, or E and the classes they were in for the focus group
college knowing next to nothing about what to expect, with designations such as “transfer,” “non-transfer/basic
and, thus, are unprepared to affect their own outcomes. skills,” and “ESL.” Since we used focus groups to gather
4
This research did not study the effectiveness of the assessment and placement instruments. We did not address whether the assessment
instruments or the cutoff scores used at the colleges are valid or reliable. These are important questions requiring further research, but they are
not the focus of this study.
Introduction page 2
information from students, we often cannot provide system to inform prospective students about common
exact numbers regarding how many students experi- readiness levels needed for success in all California
enced particular concerns or frustrations. In order for an community colleges.6
issue to merit becoming a finding, it had to be discussed
As a step toward addressing these problems, the Chan-
in multiple focus groups with general agreement.
cellor’s Office is exploring the feasibility of incentivizing
the use of a small number of assessments systemwide by
The California Context
offering those assessments to the colleges free of charge.
California’s community colleges face the challenge of In exchange, colleges would need to agree to include
accurately assessing a large number of students who their test data in the soon-to-be-developed Assessment
enter college at a wide range of readiness levels and Warehouse. The system hopes to achieve cost efficiency
with diverse academic and career interests. Under by negotiating a price break based on testing instrument
the local, decentralized governance structure of the volume. Under this approach, colleges choosing not to
community college system, each of the 112 colleges participate could continue to offer locally selected and
bears the financial and administrative responsibilities purchased instruments, but they would then continue to
of assessing students in three areas: English, math- bear their own costs (Perry, n.d.).
ematics, and English as a Second Language (ESL).
Besides minimizing the number of different assessments
Each is responsible for selecting or developing its own
across the system, the Chancellor’s Office envisions this
assessments and determining the “cutoff” scores that
centralized approach as a means to:
correspond with various levels of course placement
» develop a secure, central data repository for community
for students.
college and K–12 test data;
Given this structure, a large number of instruments is
» provide an assessment portal through which community
used across the system, though a small core of assess-
college counselors could access K–12 test results, transcript
ments is used most consistently statewide (Brown and
data, and college test data; and
Niemi, 2007).5 Some view these variations as impor-
tant, given different student populations served and » allow for the development of algorithms of placement success,
based on test scores and the highest level of courses students
the need for local autonomy. But the system’s use of
have taken in that subject.
multiple placement assessments causes problems. The
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
Prior to the Assessment Warehouse, the Chancellor’s
(2010) reports that the variations generate:
Office launched the Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) in 2006,
» a lack of uniformity, comparability, and mobility from as part of its strategic planning process. Developed as
one community college to another; additional student support when the required course
levels for an associate’s degree in mathematics and English
»»»expenses related to the retesting of the same stu-
were raised,7 the BSI also responded to concerns that too
dents who attend multiple institutions; and
few students would qualify for credit-level courses. With
» difficulty generating success algorithms across the state
an overall goal of improving student access and success, the
for research purposes.
BSI has two main activities: 1) providing supplemental
In addition, having different assessments at its various funding to every college to address basic skills needs; and
campuses across the state makes it difficult for the 2) providing training for faculty and staff in the effective
5
See also Legislative Analyst’s Office (2008) and Consultation Council Task Force on Assessment (2008).
6
The variations in placement assessments across the state make it difficult to develop testing instruments outside of the community college
system that might be relevant for placement, such as K–12 tests, the Early Assessment Program (EAP), or transcript data. See Perry, P. (n.d.).
7
In 2006, the Board of Governors adopted changes to Title 5 of the California Education Code that increased the minimum requirements for
an associate’s degree. The new requirements, effective as of fall 2009, state that students had to successfully complete a transfer-level English
course (English 1A or equivalent), whereas previously the requirement had been a course one level below transfer-level English. In mathematics,
the new requirements state that students must complete intermediate algebra (which is one level below transfer-level mathematics) or an
equivalent course, whereas previously students needed to complete elementary algebra.
Introduction page 3
delivery of basic skills and ESL (California Community Col- Student fees shot up, with increases of 30 percent
leges Chancellor’s Office, 2009a). at the community colleges and 32 percent in the
CSU and UC systems, while services and course
Another effort to improve college readiness and suc-
availability decreased. In addition to raising fees, the
cess, the California State University’s Early Assessment
postsecondary systems are furloughing employees,
Program (EAP), is now also being adopted in the
reducing course offerings, accepting fewer students,
California Community Colleges system. The EAP
and reducing overhead costs by eliminating or
combines 11th-grade testing of college readiness
consolidating positions (Wilson, Fuller, & Newell,
with 12th-grade opportunities to polish skills: new
2010). Students across the state are facing more
high school courses in English and mathematics
crowded classrooms, getting less access to faculty
aligned with postsecondary (CSU and community
and counselors, receiving fewer campus services, and
college) entry level expectations; and professional
having difficulty getting into the classes they need to
development for high school teachers that is aligned
graduate.
with postsecondary expectations.
Yet student demand for college has reached unprec-
In another approach to improving student transitions,
edented levels. During 2008–09, enrollment at the com-
the Foundation for the California Community Colleges
munity colleges increased by nearly 5 percent, to 2.9
(FCCC) has funded the design or conversion of 23 Early
million students—the highest in the history of the system
College Schools in California. These schools provide
and more than twice as high as the 2 percent funding
structure and support for broad populations of students to
increase the colleges received that year (California
enroll in college courses while they attend high school
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2009c). Fall
and the opportunity to earn an associate’s degree upon
2009 enrollments were down by about 1 percent from
high school graduation (Foundation for California Com-
fall 2008, and course offerings were down by approxi-
munity Colleges, 2010).
mately 5 percent (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2010).
Discussions are also occurring about whether placement For summer 2009, the Los Angeles Community College
test results should indicate a mandatory level of course District canceled summer sessions at its nine campuses
placement for students. Technically, current placement (Chea, 2009). That fall, the San Diego Community
results are not binding; students can theoretically enroll College District turned away about 18,000 students
in courses at the level they choose. Yet, as this study and dropped 600 classes. The Los Rios Community
found, many colleges have mechanisms in place to College District in Sacramento saw an increase of 5,000
ensure that students select courses at the levels indicated students, yet reduced courses by 4 percent (California
by placement test results. Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2009c). In
December 2009 at Cabrillo College in Santa Cruz,
Challenges in a negative fiscal climate. The need
the number of students seeking to register for spring
for action to improve student success in California col-
2010 was so high that the online system crashed, leaving
lides with the reality that colleges are already trying to
students to stand in line for two hours to register the old-
accomplish more with fewer resources. Since this study
fashioned way, by hand.
began in 2008, Californians have suffered the conse-
quences of a severe recession, including job losses, drops These fiscal challenges are not new. Higher education
in income, decreases in property values and wealth, institutions faced similar circumstances during the reces-
increases in debt, and cutbacks in public services. The sion of the early 1990s and 2000s (Wilson, Fuller, &
state’s key revenue sources—taxes on income, sales, and Newell, 2010). Many community colleges have routinely
capital gains—have fallen off, and the resulting declines enrolled more students than the state has funded. But
have thrown state budgets into disarray. In 2009, the budget cuts for 2009–10 may have an unprec-
postsecondary education took a $2 billion hit, including edented impact. This year the California Legislature,
cuts of about $680 million at the community colleges, aware that it was passing a budget that underfunded the
$584 million at California State University, and $813 community colleges, allowed the colleges greater flex-
million at the University of California (Marcus, 2009, ibility in the use of state funds. This flexibility language
and Steinhauer, 2009). relieved colleges from adhering to state regulations
Introduction page 4
concerning assessment of incoming students, counseling underscores the urgency of ensuring that more students
in relation to their educational plans, and placement into become ready for college while in high school, that
appropriate courses. As a result, colleges could choose community college practices are easy to navigate for
not to do a formal assessment of student readiness for incoming students, that processes for placing students
college-level courses or to provide students with an edu- into classes are efficient and effective, and that students
cational plan. The full effects of these changes remain are placed in classes that will help them reach their
to be seen, but they are already creating challenges in educational goals.
effectively meeting the needs of incoming students.
Moreover, as interviewees in the colleges suggested
Improvements such as those we recommend in this consistently, taking innovative action now to implement
study will be extremely challenging for the system to more streamlined, effective, and cost-effective processes
implement in this environment of budgetary crisis and would not only help improve student success but also
program instability. Yet the adversity of the environment make more efficient use of scarce resources.
Introduction page 5