Today’s post is our fourth installment of “SCALERS: Round 2.” Originally created by Paul Bloom at the Duke University Fuqua School of Business’s Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship,
the SCALERS model identifies seven organizational capacities that
support the successful scaling of a social enterprise: staffing,
communicating, alliance-building, lobbying, earnings generation,
replicating impact, and stimulating market forces. (You can read an
introduction to each driver in our first SCALERS series.)
Now,
we’re asking DEI colleges about how particular SCALERS drivers have
contributed to their scaling efforts. So far, we’ve covered staffing, communicating, and alliance-building. Below, Ginger Miller of Guilford Technical Community College shares what GTCC has learned about lobbying--or demonstrating impact, as we like to call it.
With a headcount enrollment of about 15,100 students, Guilford Technical Community College (GTCC) is the third largest community college in North Carolina. Its developmental education program serves 4,780 students on three campuses. As with any developmental education program, the primary goal at GTCC is for students to take the fewest number of developmental education courses necessary and complete them as quickly as possible. Our focus here is to describe how COMPASS testing supports this goal. Reviewing and re-testing the COMPASS test can save you time and money. That is the message we emphasize to incoming students. As an example, if a student places out of two developmental classes in English, that translates into tuition savings for the credit hours as well as two semesters—a full academic year—of their time.
As part of the application process, students complete the COMPASS placement test. Among the biggest obstacles to accomplishing proper placement in development education classes is student misconception about the test itself. Students may confuse COMPASS as an entrance test, rather than a placement test. Since they know they are accepted by a community college, they may not do their best to score well. To address this, we emphasize during registration the importance of taking the review workshop and re-testing, depending on their score. They must complete a review workshop before they are permitted to re-test. This workshop, available online or face-to-face, reviews the question format and the content for the math, English, and reading sections of the test.
As a result of completing a review workshop, followed by a re-test, 1,288 students have tested out of one or more developmental classes from fall 2010 through fall 2011. This represents a total estimated tuition savings of about $370,600 during the past three semesters. The largest percentage of students to test out of developmental education coursework appears in English and reading. For three semesters between fall 2010 and fall 2011, an average of about 61 percent placed out of at least one developmental course in English. About 59 percent placed out of reading courses. In math, the results are lower, at about 33, 39, and 29 percent, for fall 2010, Spring 2011, and fall 2011.
At GTCC, the numbers of students to use these workshop reviews have increased from 981 students in fall 2010 to 1,241 students in fall 2011. The greatest increase has appeared in the online reviews, as compared to face-to-face workshops. For example, in fall 2011, 73 students attended the face-to-face reviews, compared to 1,168, who worked online. We also continue to reach out to local high schools, explaining the importance of the placement test; we have arranged for graduating seniors to take the test, the review workshop, and re-test again.
During my tenure as Provost at WSSU, we encountered similar statistics where a large number of freshmen students were placed in remedial courses due to their scores in the ACCUPLACER. The test is not a diagnostic test and its purpose is to place students either in remedial or regular courses through a given score. I have always suspected, and anecdotal evidence indicates that many of our test takers were not aware of the purpose of the test. I also suspect that many intentionally did not "try" to do their best in the test so that they could have a "lighter" load in their academic semester since taking remedial courses do not necessarily translate to an immediate significant loss of financial aid and/or academic status.
ReplyDeleteI recommend that the process be bifurcated so that students through the use of technology (e.g. Plato) may test out of the remedial course(s) earlier than the 16 weeks that are used to offer the course. This may require creative planning so that some gened courses are available in an eight week format (end of October). For those students that are able to "test out" of the remedial course in the middle of the term, they can still register for credit bearing courses offered in an eight week module format. To be more creative, some of the tasks and assignments that are required in the credit bearing courses should be infused in the remedial course and later refined and expanded to fulfill the requirements of the regular gened courses with the proper alignment. Exit standards aligned to credit course entry standards will ensure a better completion rate in credit courses.