View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Getting Students to Graduate:Developmental Education
Thomas BaileyNational Center for Postsecondary Research
Community College Research CenterTeachers College, Columbia University
Presented at
Higher Education in Michigan: Looking Back and Looking Ahead
Ann Arbor, MichiganDecember 10, 2009
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/
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
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)
Referrals to Levels of Dev. Ed.
Math - Full Sample
3 levels below19%
2 levels below16%
1 level below24%
Not referred41%
Reading - Full Sample
Not referred67%
3 levels below3%
2 levels below7%
1 level below23%
0.2
.4.6
.81
-50 -25 0 25 50CPT Score Relative to Math Cutoff
OutcomeE[Y|Z=z]
Outcomes for remedial students
Outcomes for non -remedial students
Local treatment effect
00.
10.
20.
30.
40.
5
-50 -25 0 25 50Assessment Score Relative to Cutoff
StudentOutcome Outcomes for
college ready students
Local treatment effect
Outcomes for remedial students
Completion of First College-Level Course and Retention by CPT Score and Subject
0.2
.4.6
.81
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30CPT Score Relative to Math Cutoff
Estimated Discontinuity (Math ITT Table 4) = -0.061(0.013)Outcome: Completion of First College-Level Course
0.2
.4.6
.81
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30CPT Score Relative to Math Cutoff
Estimated Discontinuity (Math ITT Table 4) = -0.021(0.011)Outcome: Fall-to-Fall Retention
0.2
.4.6
.81
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30CPT Score Relative to Reading Cutoff
Estimated Discontinuity (Reading ITT Table 4) = -0.068(0.008)
0.2
.4.6
.81
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30CPT Score Relative to Reading Cutoff
Estimated Discontinuity (Reading ITT Table 4) = -0.009(0.008)
0.2
.4.6
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30CPT Score Relative to Math Cutoff
Estimated Discontinuity (Math ITT Table 5) = -0.019(0.008)
Outcome: Transfer to SUS
0.2
.4.6
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30CPT Score Relative to Math Cutoff
Estimated Discontinuity (Math ITT Table 5) = -0.030(0.008)
Outcome: Degree Completion
0.2
.4.6
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30CPT Score Relative to Reading Cutoff
Estimated Discontinuity (Reading ITT Table 5) = -0.019(0.004)
0.2
.4.6
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30CPT Score Relative to Reading Cutoff
Estimated Discontinuity (Reading ITT Table 5) = -0.029(0.004)
Transfer to State University System and Degree Completion by CPT Score and Subject
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
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
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
Not enrolled
18%
3 levels below
Not Completed
25%
Not enrolled 16%
2 levels below
Not completed
12%
Completed
16%
Enroll
Pass
Referred to Lev. 3 46824
Not enrolled
7%
1 level below
Enroll
Pass
Not completed
6%
Enroll
In-Order Course Completion and Enrollment for Math Remediation
82%
57%
41%
29%
22%
Not enrolled 31%
3 levels below
Not completed
13%
Not enrolled 17%
2 levels below
Not completed
4%
Completed 22%
Enroll
Pass
Referred to Lev. 3 7987
Not enrolled 10%
1 level below
Enroll
Pass
Not completed
4%
Enroll
In-Order Course Completion and Enrollment for Reading Remediation
39%
56%
69%
35%
25%
Enrollment and Progression Patterns Among Achieving the Dream Students
Math
42%
40%
38%
40%
42%
31%
18%
29%
16%
29%
44%
33%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
3 levels below
2 levels below
1 level below
Total
Ref
erre
d to
Not Enrolled Not Passed Completed
Student Progression by Enrollment and Gatekeeper in Math
Math - Full Sample
18%
26%
38%
28%
24%
13%
11%
42%
32%
18%
31%
5%
10%
17%
11%
2%
4%
6%
4%
8%
15%
21%
16%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3 levels below
2 levels below
1 level below
Total
Ref
erre
d to
Never enrolled Not re-enrolled Not completed dev GK Not enrolled GK Not passed GK Passed
E3, no C3,exit
R=3
3
2
1
GK
exit withoutever enrolling
C3, exit
C3, E2, no C2, exit
C3, C2,exit
C3, C2, E1,no C1, exit
C3, C2, C1, exit
C3, C2, C1E GK, exit
No E3, skip to 2
No E3, skip to 1
No E3, skip to GK
E2, no C2,skip to 1
E1, no C1,skip to GK
C2, skip to GK
E2, no C2, skip to GK
E3, no C3, E2
E3, no C3, E GK
E3, no C3, E1C3, skip to 1
C3, skip to GK
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C GK1
18
6
2
6
2
2
18
6 6
2
2
2
Research Partnerships
• Connecticut
• Washington (ABE)
• Florida
• CUNY
• Virginia
Enrollment in Developmental Courses• However, many students did not take a
recommended developmental course
55% 60%51%
4%5%
10%
41% 35% 39%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Reading Writing Math
Dev
elo
pm
enta
l E
nro
llm
ent
Took Same Took Another Took None
Among students recommended to a developmental course . . .
Performance in Gatekeeper Courses• Once enrolled, gatekeeper course passing rates also
did not vary strongly by developmental recommendation compliance
76% 75% 78%75%74% 72%74%68%
74%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Reading Writing Math
Gat
ekee
per
Pas
s (%
)
College-Level Dev - Took Dev - Skipped
http://www.vccs.edu/Portals/0/ContentAreas/AcademicServices/DevelopmentalEducationTaskForce_200909.pdf
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
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.
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
Community College Research CenterInstitute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University
525 West 120th Street, Box 174, New York, NY 10027 E-mail: [email protected]: 212.678.3091