Guest Post: Ohio’s Developmental Education Policy Review

This Statewise post comes from Ronald Abrams, president of the Ohio Association of Community Colleges. In this guest post, Ron describes how a task force conducted a comprehensive developmental education policy review at Ohio’s 23 community colleges and how their recommendations will help the colleges respond to a new performance-based funding system.

Per the request of Ohio’s 23 community college presidents, the Ohio Association of Community Colleges (OACC) organized a task force to review institutional policies related to developmental education. The presidents’ request was necessitated by Ohio’s Success Points performance funding model, implemented in fiscal year 2010.

The main focus of the Success Points model is student progression and success (i.e., completion of coursework and moving through appropriate pathways). Community colleges often work with populations that are unprepared or underprepared for college work, which has lead to increased enrollment in developmental education coursework. The Success Points mirror this increase by assigning a higher point value to developmental education completion and transition to college-level coursework.

The OACC Developmental Education Policy Review Task Force, composed of community college administrators, faculty, and staff began working on recommendations about institutional developmental education policies in January 2011 and completed their work in June 2011. Their recommendations were submitted to the Ohio community college presidents for initial review and comment. The final document, Developmental Education Policy Recommendations, focuses on institutional policies that may increase success for students progressing through developmental education coursework and also offers recommendations for state-level consideration (i.e., developing state-wide assessment standards, cut scores, etc.). 

The Developmental Education Policy Recommendations addresses the following institutional policies:

• Introductory information for placement testing/assessment
• Mandatory entry assessment
• Mandatory Orientation
• Mandatory developmental education course placement & continuous enrollment
• Require that developmental education coursework take place first
• No late registration for developmental education (also provide “flexible start” developmental education)—this policy may vary from campus to campus, but it ensures students are present for the first class meeting
• Required math & English sequences
• Implement interventions for repeated failure

The Developmental Education Policy Recommendations also addresses the following state-level policies:

• Ohio should become an ACT state
• The Ohio Board of Regents (OBR) should regularly review cut scores for college-level placement (“College-level” includes: transfer, certificates, and degrees)
• Define ABLE (Adult Basic and Literacy Education) referral & cut scores and determine connection to the college
• Define minimum standard of developmental education competency
• Allow for alternative math curriculum & instruction

You can download the complete Developmental Education Policy Recommendations document from the OACC website here.

Prior Learning Assessment Event Next Week

Does your institution offer credit for prior learning? Would you like to explore the option? The Center for American Progress is hosting “Prior Learning Assessments: College Strategies for the Success of 21st Century Students” next Wednesday, September 28, 2011, 10:00am – 12:00pm EDT. From the event description on their website:

There are upstart leaders in higher education who are blazing a trail in the effective use of PLAs that helps students succeed in college by rewarding learning wherever it occurs. Today’s session takes an in-depth look at these solutions at both the systemic and individual institution level. How did they get started? How are they demonstrating effectiveness? What models do they suggest for best practice replication?

If you’re planning on being in DC, they’d love to have you drop by. If not, you can link to the live stream from this site.

Guest Post: Alternative Forms of Data

Today, Nick Bekas, professor of English at Valencia College, questions how far quantitative data can take us when we’re trying to understand what developmental education students need. He also suggests some qualitative methods that can make the picture more complete and thus improve decisions that affect individual students and entire institutions.

Every time I see a chart with a statistic, I immediately try to put it in context. I try to wrap it in details and identify its origin. And I don’t mean from a statistical perspective. What I think about are the people behind the stat:

•    Who are they? 
•    What do they think? 
•    What do they feel? 

A number cannot capture these things.

Yet, for the most part, statistics are the primary source for decision making. This stems from tradition and an ingrained suspicion of qualitative data prevalent amongst researchers. Also, numerical data are easy. They are readily digestible and “clean.”  How do you argue with 35 percent, beyond its method of collection? And when more sophisticated statistical analyses are shared, most people’s eyes glaze over because such studies are either beyond comprehension or simply not readable (meaning: not interesting).

The larger issue with such statistical studies is that they are rarely questioned to any great degree and are readily accepted as “truth” by policymakers. Alternative forms of data have developed as a reaction to the dominance of statistics, and because of a belief that statistics limit the complexity of things. Statistics should not be the only data point. In order for there to be an equilibrium of rigor and assurance, we have to present more than just statistical data. No one form should be the only lens through which we view the world. For this reason, at Valencia College, we use alternative forms of data to change the angle of repose on what we seek to understand. We incorporate methods such as:

•    focus groups
•    interviews
•    archival analysis
•    transcript analysis
•    journaling
•    video
•    film
•    photography
•    audio recordings 

We have to move away from viewing the apparent—a statistic—as sufficient evidence of the problematic. When alternative methods are applied with rigor and consistency, they can provide a valid and reliable picture of the things we evaluate. For example, having students keep a video journal for a term and then analyzing the content of those videos can provide a deeper understanding of why so many developmental education students are not successful. 

Thirty two percent can tell us there is a problem, but it cannot tell us why.

Nick Bekas is DEI project director and professor of English at Valencia College.


For another example of employing multiple data sources, check out this recent MDRC study on performance-based scholarships at the University of New Mexico. Behind the Study rounds out early quantitative findings on credit completion and financial aid uptake with student perspectives gathered in focus groups.

It’s Not Easy Being Greendale

A recent brief from the Community College Research Center reviewed the current community college student success literature and found four primary non-academic mechanisms of increasing student success at community colleges: creating social relationships, clarifying aspirations and enhancing commitment, developing college know-how, and making college life feasible.

We’ve been observing the student experience at Greendale Community College for two years now, and we think the administration should examine these non-academic mechanisms as they seek to improve student outcomes. Note: Greendale Community College is the fictional college campus setting for the NBC sitcom Community. Season Three premieres tonight on NBC. While it’s true that the author of this post is a big fan of the show, it also turns out that Greendale could learn a lot from some of the community colleges featured on Accelerating Achievement.

Creating social relationships. From the CCRC brief: “Meaningful social relationships promote persistence by helping students feel comfortable in college and by providing them access to important information. Promoting social relationships is particularly important for nontraditional students, who often have fewer opportunities to create them on their own due to competing demands on their time.”

Despite having hosted five school dances in one year, Greendale’s administration has done little to formally encourage social relationships. One study group formed spontaneously and has continued studying together for two years. While these students motivate each other and overcome hurdles together, they are also an exclusive clique, refusing to let others join on multiple occasions, even when offered delicious kettle corn. Greendale should examine ways to create social connections for all students that last for more than a semester. Many colleges offer learning communities to create bonds within cohorts of students and to integrate learning across courses. One notable model comes from Kingsborough Community College, where the learning community model incorporates Student Development Case Managers who “serve as advisors, counselors, instructors, and student advocates.” These managers provide an ongoing connection to the college for students.

Clarifying aspirations and enhancing commitment. From CCRC: “Helping students crystallize their goals and understand how college can help them achieve these goals may increase the likelihood that they will persist and earn a credential.”

Many Greendale students are lacking in a clear educational plan, and even those who are enrolled in a credential program are sometimes unclear about career opportunities. Greendale should enhance its advising system and provide opportunities for students to connect their academic studies with career-focused education. The I-BEST model in Washington provides structured pathways for students by combining basic skills instruction with workforce training.

Developing college know-how. From CCRC: “To navigate college, students must understand the unwritten rules of the postsecondary environment…In postsecondary education, this includes knowing how to ask for help, how to participate in class appropriately, and how to navigate bureaucratic systems to access resources, such as financial aid.”

Some students at Greendale are lacking in proper classroom decorum. We’ve seen students make impromptu speeches about personal relationships during class and get in verbal and physical confrontations with professors. Greendale should explore ways to familiarize students with expected behavior and campus resources when they first enroll. The Choice Scholars Summer Institute at Harper College “attempts to demystify college expectations, forge relationships among faculty and students, acclimate students to the campus, and help them transition seamlessly from high school to college during the critical first semester.”

Making college life feasible. From CCRC: “Community college students often experience unanticipated challenges involving conflicts between the demands of work, family, and school. Services that aid students in overcoming these challenges help ensure that students’ educational pursuits are not compromised.”

During her first year at Greendale, single mother-of-two and aspiring small-business-owner Shirley struggled to create a class schedule that would allow her to spend time with her children. While she was finally granted priority registration (at the conclusion of an epic campus-wide paintball game), Greendale could address similar needs by offering courses at a variety of times (no night classes are currently offered) and providing on-site daycare. Many community colleges integrate delivery of student services, including education and training, income supports, and financial services. A learning visit to Central New Mexico Community College, where “students who receive integrated supports are 3 to 4 times more likely to reach a major economic goal such as finishing a degree or credential and landing a job”, would be a good starting point.

Alyson Zandt is a Program Associate at MDC.

Guest Post: Investing In Innovation

Today’s post comes from Michael Collins, associate vice president of postsecondary state policy at Jobs for the Future. JFF leads DEI’s state policy initiative by supporting policy teams in CT, FL, NC, OH, TX, and VA, who are implementing the three-pronged Developmental Education Initiative State Policy strategy. The first of Michael’s three-part series showed how collecting the right data can inform state policy to accelerate dev ed innovation across a system. Part two, below, details how states are investing resources—both financial and otherwise—in that innovation.

According to Webster’s, investment is defined as “the action or process of investing money for profit or a material result.” Most of us would agree, however, that investment isn’t always about financial capital. We can be physically, psychologically, and emotionally invested in a particular result or outcome. For the second component of the DEI state policy strategy--Investment in Innovation--our experience has most certainly been both.

When Jobs for the Future and the DEI states developed the policy strategy, we were bullish. The $10 billion American Graduation Initiative (AGI) was barreling down the tracks, and we were intent on being on that train when it left the station. Our thinking was that states could for the first time in a long time have serious resources to support new approaches. It was a no brainer. So apropos of Webster’s definition of investment, we were banking on states having money to invest in new and smarter ways to serve students who were not ready for college-level work. But alas, the train never made it into the station.  AGI was derailed by a political compromise for health care.

So we were left with a strategy, but no money. Still, the DEI states were undeterred. They knew they needed to find resources over and above what colleges were receiving through their regular funding allocations. The states boldly embraced investing in innovation despite the lack of new money. Even without AGI, states found resources to help their institutions design and implement new ways to serve developmental education students.

Texas invested $5 million to encourage its colleges to deliver developmental education in new and different ways--one of the largest state-level investments. Connecticut seeded innovation through a $50,000 commitment to each of its colleges. Florida braided state funding, DEI resources, and College Access Challenge Grants to help its colleges pilot changes. And both Virginia and North Carolina are deep into redesigning developmental math and English for all of the colleges in their respective states. Ohio, taking a different approach, invited community colleges to pilot partnerships with Adult Basic Education (ABE) to align ABE and developmental education entrance and exit requirements. Surprisingly, all 23 Ohio colleges took on the challenge, even though there were no financial incentives attached.

There are multiple lessons here. First, even in the toughest economy it is possible to invest in developmental education innovation. Second, and probably most important, as we’ve learned from losing AGI, it’s not only about the money. Investing in innovation is, of course, in large part financial. But investment is also about being invested in change and finding creative ways to make change happen, just as the DEI states have done.


Michael Collins is associate vice president of postsecondary state policy at Jobs for the Future.

Linkity Link

• In the September/October 2011 edition of The Washington Monthly Susan Headden just comes right out and says that “the remedial placement process is ground zero for college non-completion in America.” (Jay Matthews of the Washington Post offers his take on the article on his Class Struggle blog here.) Headden criticizes colleges that don’t communicate the high-stakes nature of the tests and those that don’t encourage and make test preparation available. She argues for assessment systems that measure both cognitive and affective readiness and points to acceleration programs that allow students to complete credit-bearing courses with additional tutoring or support. (We’ve covered these sorts of programs on the blog before, in South Africa and Baltimore.) Many DEI colleges  and states are making strides in developing new placement testing instruments and in accelerating student progress through the developmental sequence, but there’s certainly more work to be done.
  
  How does your college set students up for placement test success? Do you conduct affective assessments? Tell us about it in the comments section. Or, if you’ve got a longer story, send an email to dei@mdcinc.org and let’s talk about an Accelerating Achievement guest post.

• There’s more great developmental education commentary in the September 2011 Achieving Success, the Jobs for the Future ATD/DEI State Policy Newsletter. Read up on college completion continuous improvement networks in Arkansas and Michigan, new JFF publications on developmental education policy in Florida’s community colleges, performance funding in Hawai’i and much much more!

Guest Post: There's No "I" in Team

We’ve featured the nuts and bolts of the DEI state policy work on Accelerating Achievement before. In the six DEI states, these nuts and bolts are assembled by state policy teams, with expert support from Jobs for the Future. Today’s post from Susan Wood, vice chancellor, academic services and research in the Virginia Community College System, describes how Virginia has leveraged the state policy team structure to advance their DEI work. You can read more about Virginia’s DEI efforts in this post.

Hello from Virginia’s DEI State Policy Team! Virginia’s team includes core members who have participated since the beginning of DEI and other members who have moved on and off of the team to support grant efforts. In light of Virginia’s centralized governance structure for their 23 community colleges, all but one of the initial core team members were from the Virginia Community College System (VCCS) office. The non-VCCS member is the statewide K-12 instructional leader for the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE). Core members are Susan Wood, Donna Jovanovich, Jennifer Allman, Dan Lewis, Linda Wallinger (VDOE), and Gretchen Schmidt (formerly with VCCS, now with JFF). Core membership reflects expertise in the areas of policy, academics, student services, data/research, assessment, and connections with K-12.

Semiannual state policy meetings convened by JFF provide a strategic opportunity to add critical partners to the team. These partners, selected to align with the current focus of Virginia’s work, have included the executive vice president at our largest college (chair of the Developmental Education Task Force) and two faculty members (chairs of the faculty Curriculum Teams developing student learning outcomes for new courses). Bringing critical partners continues a practice begun in our Achieving the Dream efforts where Virginia’s secretary of education and the vice-chair of the State Board for Community Colleges (member of the VCCS Strategic Planning Task Force) participated in state policy meetings.

The team meets regularly to coordinate the launch of a system-wide developmental education redesign. This includes staffing the Developmental Education Task Force (whose recommendations determined the direction for overall redesign) and the Developmental Mathematics and English Redesign Teams. Recommendations are found in The Turning Point, The Critical Point, and The Focal Point (forthcoming). The VDOE representative’s role was critical as VDOE, collaborating with VCCS and Virginia’s State Council for Higher Education, led the College and Career Readiness Initiative supported by the Southern Regional Education Board through a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. VDOE mathematics and English coordinators participated fully on redesign teams as a result of VDOE’s core team participation.

The state policy team structure solidifies and reaffirms Virginia’s developmental education redesign direction and purpose. State policy meetings provide a venue where objective analysis and essential team self-reflection occur, where the work of other state teams infuses our thinking, and where needed mid-course corrections can surface. Bringing the temporary members “into the fold” serves well to broaden the conversation about our DEI progress by adding a direct link to our colleges. In Virginia, the state policy team is an essential and effective component of work that has facilitated our progress thus far. Questions?  Contact Susan Wood, vice chancellor, academic services and research, at swood@vccs.edu.

Guest Post: It's All in How You Say a Thing

Today, Pamela Henney, an adjunct faculty member in the English department at DEI college North Central State College in Mansfield, Ohio, shares her perspective on how perception, language, and expectations can influence faculty-student interactions—and results in the classroom.

Higher education is increasingly focused on developmental education initiatives, and definitely should be with 40 to 69 percent of high school graduates requiring at least one developmental course in college. We fund new developmental programs, devise new pedagogies, share our secrets of success, and warn of failures with others, encourage more studies of our students, and target varied groups of students for extra attention—all highly worthy endeavors. However, we might be missing one crucial point: perception.

Several speakers noted this perception issue almost in passing at this year’s Community College of Baltimore County Accelerated Learning Project’s 3rd Annual Conference on Acceleration in Developmental Education. Perception is vital to student success. If our students see themselves as capable of passing they tend to succeed. We may believe ourselves to be helpful, empathetic, and encouraging with our students, but then we fall into our academic jargon forgetting we are conversing with students. 

We often find ourselves so entrenched in the new teaching approaches and prospects for students that we find ourselves believing students will understand the underlying philosophy and pedagogy exactly as we do. They do not often recognize this educational opportunity with the same vigor we offer it. Think about it: How often do we hear cries of glee from a student being told “You’ve placed in Basic Writing, a program to help you progress,” when the student confidently believed himself to be starting out in First Year Composition. How persuasive is it to tell our students this non-transferrable credit course will help “address deficiencies,” “relearn skills,” or even “catch up?”

In addition to creating effective developmental programs and devising new pedagogies all aimed at supporting student success, we need to consider how each element of a student success plan is perceived.  If we want our students to have a successful, confident mindset, then we have to seamlessly illustrate our support. The phrase “we are placing you in Basic Writing” is often heard as “You aren’t ready for college English,” “You aren’t ready for college,” or simply “You can’t do this.” For some of our students, it is the same negative rhetoric they have been hearing all of their lives.

The rebuttal for this downward psychological spiral is inherent in accelerated developmental programs. Hearing “Your test score gives you the opportunity to take advantage of our accelerated program” right away translates in a student’s mind into “You can do this” – and not only do it, but do it faster and more efficiently than other students. It also connotes our expectation of student success.

True, this issue seems very simple and much like a sales technique, but students who recognize that other people—especially advisers and professors—believe they can succeed often tend to try to live up to those expectations, even internalizing a “can do” mindset. This apparently minor change should impact student perception of developmental programs and create a positive foundation which meets the criteria for continued success.