Instruction
Commission
Efficiency
Report
July 15
2011
This document outlines summarizes Washington State’s community and
technical colleges’ instructional practices, summarizes national research of
best practices, and recommendations instructional change to decrease
student time to degree completion.
INTRODUCTION
On February 9, 2011 Michele Johnson, WACTC President, sent a letter to commissions and
respective councils with an assignment to analyze promising efficiencies for system
implementation. The task of each work group was to provide a thorough analysis and
recommendations for implementing statewide strategies to increase efficiency and effectiveness
in community and technical colleges. The Instruction Commission was tasked with analyzing
and planning for:
1. A statewide agreed-upon college placement exam and associated cut-off scores for
math, reading and writing.
2. Strategies to significantly reduce time to certificate and degree attainment.
3. Performance funding structure/allocation to create incentives for new efficiencies
identified in one (1) above.
Work groups associated with Instruction Commission councils and faculty members were
created to accomplish the tasks set forth by WACTC.
Note: The adoption of these recommendations is dependent on local and state budgets and will
be outlined in more detail through the cost consideration models being developed by the
Business Administration Commission. The Instruction Commission is concerned that
implementing these strategies without sufficient resources will stretch the community and
technical college human capital beyond capacity.
This report is separated into three sections that reflect the tasks named above.
COLLEGE ASSESSMENT, DIAGNOSTICS AND PLACEMENT
Current placement assessment practice in Washington CTCs.
In spring 2011, the Diagnostics, Assessment and Placement Work Group gathered and
compiled information related to campus policies related to placement. While there are variations
in specific policies related to placement, all Washington community and technical colleges use
some kind of standardized test to assess students in math, writing and reading and then place
them in math and English courses based on those scores. The specific tests used are
determined by individual colleges; roughly two-thirds of the colleges use COMPASS (produced
by ACT), while the other one-third uses ACCUPLACER (from College Board). In the area of
math, two colleges have developed their own local placement tests and a few colleges offer
multiple test options.
While there are numerous differences in their specific details (e.g., ACCUPLACER is webbased), both COMPASS and ACCUPLACER are suites of computer adaptive tests – the items
presented to students branch and vary based on the number and difficulty of previous correct
response – that can be customized in a variety of ways based on local decisions. This approach
provides for considerable flexibility as well as efficiency (length of testing sessions, immediacy
of scores) but also can make accurate student placement in courses more challenging. Both
test suites offer diagnostic tests as well as their placement tests, but because diagnostic tests
June 29, 2011
2
are more expensive and more time-consuming, colleges rarely include them in their standard
implementation.
Local colleges determine cut scores for student placement into classes based on math and
English curriculum. These cut scores vary across the system, especially in math. Based on the
results of a 2008 system survey regarding math placement practices, most colleges provide
some sort of individual advising and score interpretation immediately after the placement test;
allow at least one retest; and offer some kind of challenge process, varying from talking to the
testing manager to formal requests submitted to a dean or academic department.
Summary of findings related to literature, research, and best practices regarding higher
education placement assessment
Historically entry placement testing served to sort students into classes by skill level- a process
seen as essential for open-admissions institutions like community and technical colleges.
Particularly for community and technical colleges, placement tests reflect and enforce “hidden”
college readiness standards that have a significant impact on students’ lives in terms of costs
and opportunities for achieving their career and life goals. With few exceptions, this process has
been relatively obscure and little-known outside of college testing centers. In the past decade or
so, several factors have converged to spotlight entry assessment and placement including:
 Explicit emphasis on educational standards, especially with regard to college and
career-readiness;
 Policy attention regarding the lack of articulation and connections across the educational
system;
 Increased understanding of the community and technical college role in providing
educational opportunity to a growing population of students historically under-served by
higher education;
 Recognition of amount and cost of remediation at the postsecondary level, and in
particular the significant “gatekeeper” role played by mathematics.
The most commonly used placement tests (COMPASS and ACCUPLACER) serve as relatively
weak predictors of college-level success and ineffective at identifying who is likely to benefit
from a specific kind of academic intervention. A single defined cutoff point on a test exaggerates
the distinction between “developmental” and “college-ready.”
Students generally take placement tests without full understanding of purpose and significance.
 Placement tests offer little or no information relevant to faculty or classroom instruction.
 Colleges rely solely on single standardized test and have little systematic or ongoing
deliberation about placement choices and issues. (Safran & Visher, 2010)
The thorough review of developmental education placement assessment policies and practices
around the country by Hughes and Scott-Clayton (2010) concluded that centralized placement
policies tend to minimize institution-specific factors and have a number of negative unintended
consequences, including many incorrect placements and increased costs due to excessive
remediation. Evidence continues to mount that relying on a single standardized test and
determining system or state cut scores are not good solutions to accurate assessment and
placement of students in community and technical colleges. Two-year colleges and systems
around the country are beginning to explore and experiment with a wide variety of approaches
to assessment and placement. Based on this work, a consensus is building around emerging
“good practice” principles:
June 29, 2011
3






Offering multiple measures, including options like transcripts and “directed selfplacement,” to provide non-test alternatives for entering students.
Incorporating a consistent diagnostic focus on strengths and weaknesses rather than
solely on course placement decisions.
Providing students with a “college readiness” profile based on multiple indices, including
both academic and affective dimensions.
Accelerating student progress into college-level work by enabling students to place into
the highest possible level of pre-college studies and still be successful.
Collaborating with K-12 partners to offer early assessment, align curricula, and reduce
amount of remediation required by recent high school graduates.
Maintaining faculty involvement in college-level placement processes and decisions.
Recommendations for placement and diagnostic assessment.
A number of states have implemented or are considering a common process or a single test for
their college system, sometimes with common or recommended cut scores, especially for
determining “college readiness.” However, the evidence is mixed at best as to whether system
standardization reduces costs and improves the effectiveness of placement. Prince (2005)
argues, to have the best chance of producing a positive impact for students, assessment and
placement approaches need to be thoughtfully and carefully integrated into a holistic overhaul of
the entire pre-college structure and operation. Based on this existing research and the evidence
for good practice principles noted above, the work group recommends against selecting a single
placement test and determining statewide common cut scores. Such an approach would
produce a surface solution to a deeper and more complex problem.
Because the current literature cited earlier argues strongly in favor of the use of multiple
measures for placement, our recommendation is that students should have the opportunity to
participate in a dynamic and informed assessment process incorporating multiple, valid
predictors of performance. This process will provide both the institution and the student with the
information needed to make informed decisions about course placement. Based on a holistic
placement assessment process, the following specific recommendations will improve system
efficiency by reducing the amount of time students spend in pre-college courses and
accelerating their progress to and through college-level coursework while maintaining academic
standards and institutional flexibility.
Recommendation 1: Colleges will use multiple measures of readiness in determining student
placement.
We recommend community and technical college system move away from a single
standardized test as the determiner of student placement. The goal is to rely on multiple
sources of evidence that would place the student as high as possible and still promote
student success. Students would not be required to complete multiple assessments, nor
would colleges be obligated to assess every incoming student in multiple ways; the
recommendation is that placement test scores should not be the only measure available.
Colleges should use multiple assessment methods, as needed, to optimize placement
accuracy, and in particular, to minimize inappropriate placement at developmental levels.
Students and college staff should be encouraged to review placement evidence available for
individual students and provide an opportunity for student input into the placement decision.
To meet this goal, colleges would make available a menu of assessment tools. The
available options may include:
June 29, 2011
4







COMPASS, AccuPlacer, or other commercial placement tests, including the diagnostic
components of these tests.
Other standardized tests, such as SAT, ACT, or Math Placement Test (MPT), as well as
the CASAS tests required of all adult basic education students.
Affective measures.
Locally developed, authentic assessments (e.g., writing samples).
High school transcripts or self-report of prior school performance.
Directed self-placement or delayed placement options.
Credit for prior learning.
Colleges can incorporate diagnostic assessments into the placement process. Diagnosis of
specific skills is necessary in order to support and promote innovations like delayed
placement and curricular modules that target specific academic deficiencies rather than
requiring all students to take full courses regardless of their specific skills and needs.
Rationale:
This recommendation offers several advantages to the system; providing access to multiple
measures or sources of evidence for placement:
 Provides for immediate implementation without requiring colleges to abandon current
commercial instruments.
 Encourages students to participate actively in their own assessment process,
increasing their engagement in that process and commitment to the courses they
select.
 Promotes college experimentation with innovative placement assessment
alternatives such as directed self-placement, delayed placement, and modularized
remediation.
 Emphasizes a “highest-best” model that explicitly focuses on helping the student
identify the highest-possible course placement as a starting point.
Recommendation 2: Colleges will use high school transcripts for placement in English and
Math placement.
High school students entering Washington community and technical colleges within a
certain defined time frame after graduation can be allowed to use their high school
transcripts as a course placement alternative into English and math, based on which
courses were completed successfully and when they were taken.
Rationale:
The underlying reason for transforming pre-college education in Washington community
and technical colleges is to accelerate students’ progress through pre-college
coursework and into college-level courses. For the significant numbers of students who
enter the two-year college system directly from high school (or within 1-2 years), the best
way to accelerate this progress is to help them avoid pre-college courses entirely by
being better-prepared for college while in high school. Currently a handful of Washington
community and technical colleges successfully use high school transcripts for placement
into math classes. This practice can be extended state-wide (and broadened to include
English as well as math) as we implement multiple measures of placement. Colleges
can recognize coursework that students have done in high school in order to improve
college preparation by encouraging rigorous course-taking prior to college and to build
better partnerships with school districts and high school teachers in the process. The
June 29, 2011
5
goal is to use the transcript-based process to inform students about what they can do to
achieve readiness in English and mathematics before leaving high school and help
motivate them to take needed steps in high school to achieve college readiness.
Recommendation 3: Adopt a statewide assessment tool that identifies affective skills and
abilities of entering students and provides a portable "college readiness" profile.
The system can develop a statewide web-based assessment which addresses both core
academic skills and affective domains (sometimes referred to as “soft skills,” e.g.,
personal responsibility, self-motivation and -awareness, time management, teamwork,
and emotional intelligence) that will provide a reliable and valid “college readiness”
profile for students entering the Washington community and technical college system.
Rationale:
 Provide entering students with a clearer and more consistent understanding of
their readiness to do college-level work.
 Provide colleges with a more comprehensive profile for entering students that
can be incorporated into the course placement process and/or be used to target
the level and nature of intervention needed to help students succeed in collegelevel work.
Recommendation 4: Create a placement reciprocity agreement across the system.
At the same time that other recommendations are in process, the system can establish a
statewide reciprocity agreement for student placement results. Further, the system can
promote and encourage the creation of regional consortia placement agreements.
Rationale:
Given the well-documented limitations of commercial placement instruments it is not
surprising that states with universal testing and cut-off scores have not seen appreciable
improvements in student attainment. At the same time, it is also clear that students, high
schools, college staff, and community partners can benefit from greater predictability in
how student placement results are treated from one campus to another. A reciprocity
agreement would provide students with predictability while avoiding some of the pitfalls
inherent in commercial placement testing. The reciprocity approach:






June 29, 2011
Allows for the incorporation of multiple indices — including high school transcript
evaluations and developmental course completion (e.g., “completion of English
09X”) — as reciprocal indicators of next-course placement.
Supports a variety of approaches to placement itself, thus encouraging
experimentation with innovative assessment models.
Leverages the efficiencies of the state’s well-established processes for
negotiating and implementing reciprocity agreements (e.g., transfer distribution
requirements and diversity requirements).
Reinforces the principle of professional trust that underlies the mutual
acceptance of course work, credentials, and competencies in lateral transfer.
Supports and leverages system-wide efforts to define “college-readiness” in
competency-based and curriculum-based, rather than score-based terms.
Avoids the inefficiencies of cost, distraction, and delays that almost certainly
would result from any statewide effort to identify a common placement instrument
and set of cut scores.
6
Recommendation 5: Provide a comprehensive pre-test orientation process for students.
Colleges can provide a comprehensive orientation preceding the placement testing
process that provides an orientation to the purpose and nature of the test, raises
awareness about the importance of the placement process, communicates to students
the high stakes nature of assessment, and provides them with options and resources for
test preparation. This orientation may need to be mandatory, at least for some students,
based on the results of their “college readiness profile.”
Colleges may choose a combination of methods for implementation that work best for
their student population. To facilitate implementation colleges will be provided with two
key tools: 1) a state of the art video that can be customized at each campus, explaining
to students the purposes of placement testing in the Washington community and
technical college system as well as 2) a checklist of key points to be covered in an
assessment orientation.
Rationale:
Research indicates that many students are not adequately prepared for their placement
tests and/or are often not aware of the ramifications of their assessment results. This
lack of preparation often leads to students not exerting adequate effort when completing
assessments, resulting in inaccurately low placement in the developmental sequence.
Some students, particularly those who have been out of school for some time, may only
need a refresher of key concepts. It is this group who is often placed into classes that do
not match their abilities, causing additional time and expense to realize their educational
goals and increasing the probability that they will not attain a degree or certificate. Many
of these students report that with a brief review, they would be able to perform better on
placement tests, allowing them to move more quickly through required courses to
complete their education.
Assessment, Diagnostic and Placement Implementation Plan:
Task
Who is responsible?
Recommended
Time Frame
Create a joint IC/SSC steering committee (include
representatives from WARP, CBS, ARC, FACTC,
testing centers) to provide coordination and ongoing
oversight for the implementation process
Joint IC/WSSSC
steering committee
(include
representatives from
WARP, CBS, ARC,
ATC, testing,
FACTC)
AugustSeptember
2011
Develop separate working subgroups (recruiting
additional expertise from key stakeholder groups as
needed) to address specific issues related to each of
the main recommendations:
Joint Steering
Committee and
associated work
groups.
Fall 2011

Development and distribution process for
information about promising practices around
existing innovations with respect to multiple
June 29, 2011
7
Task
Who is responsible?
Recommended
Time Frame
Joint Committee
By December
2011
Transcript-based placement (include OSPI and other Joint Committee
K-12 partners)
By December
2011




options for placement
Transcript-based placement (include OSPI and
other K-12 partners)
College readiness profile assessment
Placement reciprocity process
College processes around placement test
orientation and preparation
[See below for some specifics regarding each of the
workgroups.]
Development and distribution process for
information about promising practices around
existing innovations with respect to multiple
options for placement
Organize and synthesize resources. Compile during
spring 2011 data-gathering process.
Develop or utilize existing web-based repository for
making resources available.
Design structured process for colleges to use locally in
sharing resources with appropriate faculty and staff.
Convene a group of English and math faculty to meet
with faculty at other community and technical colleges
who worked with their local school districts to implement
using high school transcripts as part of the placement
process.
Work with the Office of the Superintendent of Public
Instruction to identify courses, along with acceptable
course grades and how recent the courses were taken,
to determine placement of high school graduates into a
college-level English and/or math course, or into a precollege English and/or pre-college math course
Consider whether this approach makes most sense on
a local, regional, or statewide basis.
Before full implementation, data should be gathered to
assess the effectiveness of using the new process.
College readiness profile assessment
Review existing Washington college readiness
standards and related work (e.g., Student Attributes for
Math Success project) and develop specific areas to be
addressed by the assessment, including: academic
strengths and weaknesses, affective strengths and
June 29, 2011
Joint Committee
Fall 2011Spring 2013
8
Task
Who is responsible?
Recommended
Time Frame
Joint Committee
By Fall 2012
College processes around placement test
orientation and preparation
Review literature and promising practices identified
during data-gathering process in spring 2011.
Develop the following resources:
 A script and ideas of content for the assessment
orientation video.
 A checklist of components to address in a preassessment orientation process
 Web-based repository for specific resources
and/or methods of assessment test orientation
and preparation.
Joint Committee
Fall 2011Spring 2012
Evaluation process:
 Create a cross-functional evaluation task force,
Joint Committee
weaknesses, motivation, etc.
Evaluate major existing alternatives (e.g., College
Student Inventory, COMPASS and ACCUPLACER
diagnostics, etc.) and explore possible platforms for
administering the assessment, including WAMAP.org;
review customization options, validity and reliability for
all measures; conduct fiscal analysis of top alternatives
Resolve feasibility issues and potential implementation
issues that may arise (staffing, cost, time, enrollment
timelines, advising)
Implement college readiness assessment on optional
basis and collect data on impact (fall 2013)
Placement reciprocity process [NOTE: this work
depends on and follows the work on multiple placement
approaches and transcript-based placement]
Include in the 2011-12 work plans of the Instruction and
Student Services commissions the goal of establishing
a statewide system of reciprocity for college-to-college
acceptance of student placement results by fall 2012.
Task the Articulation and Transfer Council (ATC) with
general responsibility for crafting a draft reciprocity
agreement, following ATC’s model for negotiating
similar agreements in distribution and diversity
requirements, by spring 2012.
Convene a multi-constituent work group to review and
comment on the implementation of the draft agreement
in spring-summer 2012, with representation from ATC,
ARC, CBS, and the Advising and Counseling Council.
June 29, 2011
9
Task






Who is responsible?
with WARP as the lead organization, charged
with evaluating the new processes and
practices.
Consult with steering committee and relevant
workgroups to identify the new
assessment/placement processes and practices
for evaluation.
Gather and review existing published literature
regarding the effectiveness of these processes
and practices.
Develop a plan to gather pre/post change data
from a representative sample of colleges.
Identify the sources of data and specific
analyses proposed as part of the evaluation. It is
anticipated that qualitative as well as quantitative
information will be obtained. Solicit input and
feedback from affected stakeholders across the
state regarding the evaluation plan.
Finalize the evaluation plan, responding to
concerns addressed by stakeholders, including a
timeline and resource needs.
After sufficient time for adoption of the new
assessment/placement processes and practices,
gather data from the selected colleges and
conduct effectiveness analyses.
Prepare a report summarizing the findings
regarding the effectiveness of the new
processes. Identify apparent improvements in
the assessment/placement process as well as
any areas of concern regarding the new
system. Develop recommendations for further
improving the system, based on the evaluation
results. Share the results widely across the state
with stakeholder groups.
Recommended
Time Frame
Fall 2011Summer 2013
Ongoing;
varies based
on timetables
for separate
workgroups
STRATEGIES TO REDUCE TIME TO CERTIFICATE AND DEGREE ATTAINMENT
Pre-college Developmental Education Transformation
Vision
Pre-college developmental education needs to be a holistic, outcomes-based learning
experience that allows students to progress through pre-college swiftly and efficiently with the
full support of the campus community and the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities to be
successful at reaching the Tipping Point and beyond.
Pre-college work groups recognize that community and technical colleges are designed to serve
individual communities and that those communities differ among geography, economic base,
June 29, 2011
10
population size and student and community demographics. As such, we endeavored to
develop recommendations that are based upon research, demonstrate student success,
express a commitment to equity and excellence, accommodate individual college cultures and
communities, and reveal the need for a culture of evidence and accountability to the citizens we
serve.
Current Practices
Current practice is to place students into discrete pre-college reading, writing, and math classes
based on cutoff scores on a standardized placement test like Compass or Accuplacer. The
classes students take are generally stand-alone sequenced classes focused on advancing
student skills to be successful in the next level. Colleges differ on curriculum, learning
outcomes, and number of classes in a pre-college sequence. The classes are usually not
directly connected to a certificate or degree pathway or to the adult basic education sequence
that precedes these classes for many students. Neither developmental education nor adult
basic education courses are as successful as we would like in moving students towards gaining
credits that count toward degrees and credentials.
Student supports also differ among colleges and within a college- depending on which “door”
students enter to access their education (Workforce Education, Student Services or Basic
Skills).
Summary of Research
Most pre-college students fail to achieve a certificate or degree. Recent research cites that
many of these students do not have a clear goal for college or career and that colleges provide
little guidance to help them successfully navigate programs and service opportunities. As a
result, student course taking behavior is random.
Literature suggests the following pre-college promising practices. Models described in this
document only represent a sample of innovation inside and outside Washington State.

Pathways – Tightly structured and transparent career pathways at the pre-college level
where the instruction is contextualized around an occupational program or occupational
clusters and serves as the instructional vehicle for basic skills and developmental
education. Examples of successful pathway models include I-BEST, pre-college
programs focused on occupational clusters like human services, trades, or business and
structured programs that have well defined program options or prescribed paths to
completion.
Models: All community and technical colleges offer I-BEST programs.

Integrated Developmental Education (contextualized learning) – Developmental courses
are presented in a format that focuses on acquiring specific competencies and can be
applied in related college courses with college credit. Competencies may be life skills,
employability skills or specific academic or professional and technical course discipline
skills. This requires that faculty connect disciplines and coordinate assignments so that
students are working on related topics, concepts, or tasks, thus integrating remedial
course work with credit bearing classes. Integrated and contextualized models combine
a student’s degree goal area with pre-college content.
Models: Models for Math and English taught in the context of life skills, study skills,
financial literacy, financial aid, and admissions processes may be found at Highline
June 29, 2011
11
Community College, Bellevue College, Olympic College, Tacoma Community College,
Yakima Valley Community College, and Whatcom Community College.
Developmental I-BEST pilot programs that integrate and contextualize pre-college math,
writing, and reading in academic and professional and technical disciplines include:
 Bellingham Technical College – License Practical Nursing
 Clover Park Technical College – Computer Aided Drawing (CAD)
 Grays Harbor College – Welding
 Highline Community College – Early Childhood Education
 Lake Washington Technical College – Automotive Repair
 Lower Columbia Community College – Early Childhood Education
 Shoreline Community College – Automotive General Services Technician
 Tacoma Community College – Medical Office Clerk
 Walla Walla Community College – Watershed Ecology
 Whatcom Community College – Medical Assisting

Inversion” models – These models use technology to move information delivery out of
the classroom, freeing up time for higher-level learning (application) and engagement
during class time. Students in an inverted classroom review materials normally
presented in class as an assignment prior to each class session. The actual classroom
time is focus on application, discussion, collaborative work, and allows for more one-onone instructional assistance in the classroom.
Models: University of British Columbia used 850 undergraduate physics students taking
a compulsory physics course. Students were split into two groups at the start and all
went to traditional lecture classes. In the twelfth week (they are on semesters), they
shifted one group to a “deliberate practice model, which inverts the traditional university
model.” Class time is spent on problem solving, discussion and group work while
absorption of facts and formulae is left for homework. They spent time in class in small
groups discussing specific problems, with the teacher roaming between groups to offer
advice and respond to questions. At the end of the course all students completed a test.
The results showed the traditionally instructed group’s average score was 41percent
compared to 74 percent for the experimental group – even though the experimental
group did not manage to cover all the material directed by the course while the
traditional group covered it all
http://www.economist.com/node/18678925?story_id=18678925.
Models: Edmonds Community College Math 051 – Real World Math 2 using the Khan
Academy.

Acceleration models – These programs increase the rate that students move into
college-level by restructuring courses using instructional technology, modules, or
“inclusion” models that provide necessary supports for students in college-level classes.
Students are awarded credit for the level of learning outcomes they have achieved at the
end of a quarter, regardless of their starting point in the curriculum sequence.
Models: The Community College of Baltimore County’s Accelerated Learning Program
(ALP); Lower Columbia College Academic I-BEST program and Developmental I-BEST
program; Clover Park Technical College Developmental Education I-BEST program;
Highline Community College Developmental I-BEST program.
June 29, 2011
12

Cohort Integrated Skill Building Models – There are many different versions of this
concept, all of which focus on engagement (connecting students with faculty, peers,
student organizations, etc.) and integration. Most cohort programs incorporate an
element of peer and faculty mentoring, tutoring, study skill development and integrated
developmental education. Schools that have implemented cohorts have noted that
students participating in the program passed more courses, earned more credits, and
reported feeling more integrated and engaged in their education than their peers who did
not participate. When designed with a holistic approach in mind, cohort programs
address each major barrier to student success: lack of motivation and direction, an
ignorance of higher education navigation, lack of social support, perceived lack of
resources, academic under preparedness, and lack of engagement. Students work
within a learning community type of atmosphere to develop academic qualifications,
professional skills and personal attributes necessary to succeed.
Models: Academy for College Excellence (ACE) at Cabrillo College in California uses
cohort building and acceleration. College readiness cohorts, transitional pilots, and
learning communities are being offered at many Washington community and technical
colleges including Centralia College, Highline Community College, Yakima Valley
Community College, Olympic College, Clark College and Skagit Valley College. I-BEST
is offered at all colleges in Washington State and generally follows a cohort model.

Mentoring Programs and Supplemental Instruction – Different versions of mentoring
have been studied, with peer mentoring being found to have the greatest impact on
student success when done with a holistic approach. Faculty mentoring was also seen
as valuable and statistically significant when faculty was fully vested in student’s wellbeing. Supplemental Instruction can be provided in a variety of forms and formats
including peer tutoring linked to specific courses, discipline-specific tutoring centers, inclass teaching assistants, and computer-enhanced homework programs.
Models: Supplemental instruction and peer mentoring can be found at many Washington
State community and technical colleges including Green River Community College,
Pierce College, Clover Park Technical College, North Seattle Community College,
Shoreline Community College and Tacoma Community College.

Student Readiness/Success Courses – These courses are becoming more prevalent as
studies show that underprepared and pre-college students are deficient in more than just
academic skills, but also the basic study and college readiness skills. Research shows
the greatest success when college readiness and study skill development are imbedded
into pre-college courses (i.e., developmental English/math). A model to consider
includes student success modules tailored to students’ individual needs. Another
variation is a “just-in-time” approach that addresses students’ needs as they arise (i.e.,
FAFSA and funding guidance as students apply to the college and transition from basic
skills to developmental education, study skills integrated into developmental education
etc). Research shows students enrolled in remedial course work as well as success
courses were eight percent more likely to persist and earn a credential than those who
did not. In addition, the need to offer student readiness courses to address nonacademic deficiencies (time management, financial literacy, efficacy and resiliency) has
increased.
June 29, 2011
13
Models: Student readiness/success and first year experience courses can be found at
many Washington State colleges including Shoreline Community College, Edmonds
Community College, South Puget Sound Community College, Columbia Basin College,
Bellevue College, Cascadia Community College, Olympic College, Yakima Valley
Community College, and Whatcom Community College.

Transparent and Supported Financial Aid Process – The financial aid application
process can be a significant hurdle for pre-college students. Terms and concepts
included in the application can be confusing. The required steps in the process, including
the deadlines, can vary from college to college. Strategies should include offering
multiple strategies for clearly communicating information about financial aid application
processes and deadlines to students, families, and high school guidance counselors.
Additionally, providing guidance and assistance for students who do not understand the
process, have gotten “stuck” on a step in the process, or have special circumstances
that complicate the financial aid process would be helpful for students – especially first
generation college students.
Models: Many Washington State colleges offer financial literacy workshops, including
sessions on completing the FAFSA. Suggestions include conducting these in high
schools and in summer sessions to help students and parents prepare for upcoming
college matriculation.
Recommendations for pre-college transformation
The primary goal in transforming pre-college education is to increase the number and
percentage of pre-college students who reach college-level math and English in one year.
The ideal pre-college program is based upon statewide agreed-upon college readiness
standards (knowledge, skills and abilities) for math, reading and writing. These standards define
and establish minimum performance standards and expectations for pre-college math, reading
and writing. The goal of the pre-college program is to create academic and student support
structures that:
 Allow the student to move to college-level math, reading and writing in one academic
year or less.
 Allow students the ability to demonstrate pre-college knowledge, skills, and abilities
(KSAs) in math, reading and writing at ascending levels of mastery and at the time
they acquire those KSAs – giving students the ability to move immediately to the next
level.
 Provide multiple pathways and delivery modes for students to acquire KSAs for
college-level math, reading and writing.
 Contextualize math, reading and writing in the student’s field of study.
 Integrate math, reading, and writing with principles and skills that build academic and
life success.
 Reduce pre-college math, reading and writing sequences.
Within the above outlined context, we recommend the following:
Recommendation 1: Identify and use college readiness standards as the foundation for all precollege (including ABE/ESL) placement, content, sequencing, and pedagogy decisions.
June 29, 2011
14
College readiness standards will define the minimum knowledge, skills and abilities
needed in preparation for college-level math, writing and reading. Pre-college course
content, sequence, and pedagogy will be based upon the college readiness standards.
In addition, pre-college courses will be part of an established educational pathway that
matches each student’s educational goal.
Rationale:
Using statewide agreed-upon college readiness standards as a foundation for all precollege teaching, learning and support services will help conform to a desired outcomebased model of pre-college education while creating consistency across the state and
providing individual flexibility for local colleges.
Recommendation 2: Colleges will adopt one or more instructional models which research shows
support student retention and completion in pre-college courses:
 Contextualized and integrated
 Outcomes-based and accelerated
 Cohort building
 Modularized
 Inverted classroom design
Rationale:
These strategies have proven to be most effective in moving students further and faster
toward earning college-level credit, persisting to completion of coursework and achieving
their goals of earning certificates and degrees. In order to facilitate movement of
students between courses and promote success in subsequent courses, all courses
should include these strategies.
Recommendation 3: Colleges will shorten pre-college pathways by reducing Adult Basic
Education and pre-college curriculum overlap.
Rationale:
These efforts reflect national research and early results of the Development Education IBEST pilots. They will result in reduced math and reading/writing sequences and
decreased time spent in remediation. Both colleges and students will begin to see
greater progress to and through credit-bearing classes, more credentials and/or degrees
earned in less time, and a better return on the investment of time and money. Shortening
the pathway reduces the high cost and the negative impact of exponential attrition rate
described in research across the country.
Recommendation 4: Colleges will close the gap between Adult Basic Education which prepares
students for the GED and college-level math.
Not only is remedial math the biggest barrier to success for students who function below
the college-level, it is also the area with the greatest number and complexity of issues,
including:
 Both substantial repetition of lower-level content and skills in Adult Basic Education
(ABE) and developmental math classes and a large gap between the math required
by federal ABE levels and the math skills knowledge and skills required at the
June 29, 2011
15


college-level. The goal of ABE math, as defined by federal levels, is to pass the GED
test.
ABE math is taught contextually, increasingly in the context of work. Developmental
and college math is largely taught conceptually.
Professional preparation for ABE instructors, including those who may have a Ph.D.,
focuses largely on language and pedagogy. Most instructors lack specific
preparation at and beyond the level of intermediate algebra required to prepare
students for pre-college and college-level math.
Rationale:
Closing the skill gap between ABE and college math will allow student transitions to be
more successful.
Recommendation 5: Student services, workforce education staff and pre-college faculty,
including ABE faculty, will collaborate to integrate, embed and contextualize college and life
readiness competencies into pre-college course work.
As pre-college coursework is redesigned to implement the pre-college curriculum
content and pedagogy workgroup recommendations, student services/workforce and
instructional staff can work together to develop strategies to embed, integrate and
contextualize critical, evidence-based student supports in redesigned curriculum.
Evidence–based student success and life competencies may include but not be limited
to:
 Motivation
 Efficacy and resiliency
 Study skills
 College Knowledge – How to navigate the college system, i.e., credits, wait lists,
intent codes, advising, prerequisites, college timelines, hardship withdrawals,
eLearning, college support resources, etc.
 College culture;
 Multi-tasking and staying focused
 Priority setting-seeking advising as needed
 Financial literacy
 Educational goal setting
Rationale:
Integrating student supports into pre-college coursework will address many of the
barriers and reasons students drop out and do not transition to college-level work.
Integrating FAFSA and student readiness/success strategies into course work will give
students the skills needed to navigate our complex educational system and provide them
with “just in time” resources needed to access academic and life resources available on
college campuses and in their communities.
Recommendation 6: Implement a statewide technology system (early alert) that integrates
instruction and student services student success interventions, increases communication across
divisions, and provides a tracking system that follows the student through their chosen career
pathway and multiple colleges.
The current SMS system does not support the integration of instructional and student
service supports. It does not track supports as students’ progress along educational
June 29, 2011
16
pathways and cross organizational divisions, nor does it support effective
communication across instruction and student services/workforce organizations.
Implementation of an early alert system will allow instructional and student supports to
be documented in one system which will:
 Eliminate duplication
 Identify gaps in student supports
 Provide the information needed for colleges to analyze the data over time to support
continuous quality improvement.
 Provide an integrated electronic tool which will support the holistic approach needed
to support successful student transitions and student success.
 Provide consistency among the colleges for student transitions.
Recommendation 7: Provide system-wide professional development for faculty and
administration in pre-college education, focused on the models and strategies for success.
Rationale:
To implement the strategies identified as necessary to achieve student success in
moving to the Tipping Point and beyond, and to move us forward, as a system, in
improving student success in pre-college education, system-wide professional
development for all pre-college faculty (including ABE) can be developed, focused on
the strategies for success identified and described in this document.
Recommendation 8: All 34 Colleges can join and promote the use of NW eTutoring Consortium
tutoring services.
Rationale:
This is part of implementing the Strategic Technology Plan because it is student focused
and is based on shared resources that help students learn. Services should expand to
include ABE students. Shared resources save time, money, effort and relieve stressed
workers and learners.
Recommendation 9: Ensure the OCL courses are well designed, easy to find, adopt and use to
gain widespread adoption and use at all 34 colleges.
The Open Course Library (OCL) is a project to design and share 81 high enrollment,
gatekeeper courses for face-to-face, hybrid and online delivery.
Rationale:
Continuing with the development and implementation of Open Course Library will assist
with:
 Improving course completion rates;
 Lowering textbook costs for students;
 Providing new resources for faculty to use in their courses; and
 Fully engaging the global open educational resources community.
Recommendation 10: Provide incentive grants for 20+ college faculty to adopt Open Learning
Initiative courses for three quarters.
Carnegie Mellon University’s Open Learning Initiative (OLI) builds learning environments
that support continuous improvement in teaching and learning. All OLI courses are
openly licensed and are FREE to Community and Technical College students and
June 29, 2011
17
faculty. OLI is designed with intelligent tutoring systems, virtual laboratories, simulations,
and frequent opportunities for assessment and feedback. One of the most powerful
features of digital learning environments is that we can embed assessment into virtually
all instructional activities.
Rationale:
While acknowledging the technical difficulties in simulating laboratory learning
experiences in a virtual environment, a small incentive may motivate more faculty to try
teaching a hybrid OLI course.
Pre-College Transformation Implementation Plan
Task
Who is responsible?
Recommended Time
Frame
Adopt statewide math, writing and
reading college readiness standards to
serve as a foundation for all pre-college
placement, course content, and
pedagogy decisions. This will involve
identifying members to serve on
statewide committees to create
standards and/or review and modify
standards work already completed.
Instruction Commission
and SBCTC
Standards adopted for
Math, writing, and
reading by fall 2012.
Colleges select pre-college instructional
model(s) described in this document
that provide contextualized and
integrated learning and help move
students through pre-college to collegelevel in less than one year as
recommended.
Oversight by Instruction
Commission
Begin fall 2012 with
major implementation of
pre-college course and
program changes fall
2013.
Each college will map the overlap of
content across ABE and pre-college
reading, writing and math in order to
identify specific areas of opportunity to
reduce duplication and sequence of
courses.
Instruction Commission will
provide oversight for the
project.
Results of mapping will
be shared with
appropriate councils
and reported to the
Instruction Commission
at the end of winter
quarter, 2012
Acting on the information from their
college map, each campus will engage
administrators and reading/writing and
math instructors to design a plan that
will provide students with multiple
opportunities in a reduced sequence of
ABE and developmental education
courses. Students will be supported to
scaffold up skills as far as possible to
the level required for college credit.
College faculty are
responsible for mapping.
Colleges will report their
implementation plans to
the Instruction
Commission by fall
quarter, 2012.
June 29, 2011
Campuses will pilot their
initial efforts in spring
quarter and early
challenges and results
at the 2012 Transition
Conference organized
18
Task
Who is responsible?
Recommended Time
Frame
by SBCTC staff.
Make recommendations for strategies to
move ABE students successfully to
college-level math. The Council for
Basic Skills will convene a task force to
outline options for ABE pathways in
reading/writing and math for students at
or above Level 5 that will substantially
shorten the time required to transition
from ABE to developmental or collegelevel classes.
The Articulation and
Transfer Council and the
Council for Basic Skills will
create a shared task force.
Recommendations from
both task forces will be
vetted with appropriate
councils/commissions
and faculty members
and brought to the
Instruction Commission
by fall 2012.
Each college will develop and adopt
pre-college curriculum that integrates
and imbeds critical student supports and
life readiness competencies. Each
college will determine the most effective
strategies to implement these supports
within their own college culture and
framework.
Student Services,
Workforce, Basic Skills
and Developmental
Education faculty and staff
at colleges.
Each college will adopt
student success
competencies by winter
2012.
Communicate system pre-college needs
to ERP project manager to ensure
recommendations for an Early Alert
system are included in the design of the
new ERP system. Ensure pre-college
student support staff and faculty have a
voice/representation in the design and
development of the ERP for this
purpose.
Instruction Commission
Beginning fall 2011 and
ongoing until
implementation of ERP.
Develop a cadre of faculty trainers to
teach other faculty on instructional
models that positively impact student
success:
 Contextualized and integrated
 Outcomes-based and
accelerated
 Cohort building
 Modularized
 Inverted classroom design
Design team: pre-college
faculty, instructional
designers, faculty
development leads;
prepare faculty to teach
peers, SBCTC staff.
Completed by spring
2012
June 29, 2011
Oversight by Instruction
Commission.
Oversight by Instruction
Commission
19
Use existing faculty professional
development offerings to increase
faculty skills needed to transform precollege education according to this plan.
Offerings include:
 College Readiness Retreat
 Pre-college Faculty Institute
 Assessment, Teaching and
Learning Conference
 Faculty learning communities
Design team: pre-college
faculty, instructional
designers, faculty
development leads;
prepare faculty to teach
peers, SBCTC staff.
1. Promote the use of NW eTutoring
Consortium tutoring services.
e-Learning, SBCTC,
Library Media Director’s
Council
Implement Open Course Library
Initiative
SBCTC and Design Teams
Provide faculty grants to use OLI
courses for three (3) quarters and
participate in data collection. The
program will pay faculty a total stipend
of $3000 ($1000 per quarter for 3
quarters) to teach using a hybrid OLI
course. Adoption of OLI courses
beyond the 3 quarters will be purely
voluntary, but we expect that many
faculty will continue to use these high
quality open educational resources
beyond the 3 quarters.
SBCTC and e-Learning
Begin offering
professional
development summer
2012 and continue
Oversight by Instruction
Commission
Currently 27 colleges
are using this service.
Efforts will be ongoing
to encourage the rest of
the colleges to join.
The Open Course
Library is being
developed in two
phases. Phase 1 (42
courses) is nearing
completion and will be
released in fall 2011.
Phase 2 (the remaining
39 courses) will be
released in fall 2012.
Grants available fall
2011.
Credit for Prior Learning
Current practice being reviewed
Assessing and awarding credit for prior learning allows students entering college with prior
knowledge and skills to move further and faster toward their educational goals. Current
practices of assessing learning outcomes achieved through prior learning, and awarding college
credit for prior learning which meets outcomes for college-level courses, vary widely across the
community and technical college system. Information about prior learning assessment (PLA) is
not readily available on all college websites, the fee structure is not always clear, and the
process varies from department to department on some campuses.
June 29, 2011
20
It is clear that the assessment of student learning outcomes is the work of faculty. NWCCU
accreditation Standard 4.A.3 reads:
The institution documents, through an effective, regular, and comprehensive system of
assessment of student achievement, that students who complete its educational
courses, programs, and degrees, wherever offered and however delivered, achieve
identified course, program, and degree learning outcomes. Faculty with teaching
responsibilities are responsible for evaluating student achievement of clearly identified
learning outcomes.
Any system-wide standard for assessment of prior learning must include the flexibility to allow
for a variety of assessment methods, as appropriate for assessing student achievement of the
course outcomes. Generally, these methods include:
 Portfolios “… describes and documents a student’s prior learning; shows where and how
that learning took place; and analyzes how the student applied that learning in new
situations. The PLA portfolio provides an effective way for a course content expert to
assess the student’s prior learning to determine whether credit can be awarded” (Regis
University Prior Learning Process). Students may compile evidence of achieving the
course outcomes on their own. However, in many cases, students first complete a
portfolio development course which would teach them to:
o Generate theoretical and conceptual understanding from relevant experiences.
o Assess the quality of their own learning.
o Organize, synthesize and document learning experiences in a portfolio that
demonstrates achievement of the outcomes of the course(s) for which credit is
sought.
 Written exams (essay, multiple choice, and so forth).
 Practical assessments or demonstrations of skills (usually used in technical programs).
 Oral interviews.
 Combination of methods.
Institutions may also choose to review standardized and non-standardized non-academic
credits or curriculum to determine whether or not attainment of these credits or completion of
the curriculum is evidence of attaining specific course outcomes. For example, Highline
Community College has reviewed the learning outcomes for the Washington State Basic Law
Enforcement Academy and compared them to the learning outcomes of the Criminal Justice
courses offered by Highline. This side-by-side comparison provides an efficient means to clearly
identify the learning outcomes achieved by every student who presents a certificate of
graduation from the Basic Law Enforcement Academy.
What the literature is telling us about assessing and awarding credit for prior learning.
The most extensive studies of assessing and awarding credit for prior learning come from the
Council on Adult and Experiential Learning (CAEL). CAEL gained insight from a 2010 study
involving 62,000 students at 48 institutions across the United States. Highlights from a recent
CAEL report include the following findings:
 Students who are awarded credit for prior learning are more likely to persist and
complete.
 Hispanic students who received credit for prior learning earned Bachelor’s degrees at a
rate nearly eight times that of Hispanic non-PLA students.
June 29, 2011
21

Awarding PLA credit decreases time to degree, with the most dramatic decrease in
Black, non-Hispanic students.
In CAEL’s benchmarking study, they found that awarding credit for prior learning:
 Validates the worth of learning students have achieved on their own.
 Identifies what students need to learn in order to achieve their personal, career, or
academic goals.
 Shortens the time necessary to earn a college credential.
 Saves tuition by reducing the number of required courses.
CAEL recommends adoption of the following ten standards for assessing learning:
 Credit or its equivalent should be awarded only for learning, and not for experience.
 Assessment should be based on standards and criteria for the level of acceptable
learning that are both agreed upon and made public.
 Assessment should be treated as an integral part of learning, not separate from it, and
should be based on an understanding of learning processes.
 The determination of credit awards and competence levels must be made by appropriate
subject matter and academic or credentialing experts.
 Credit or other credentialing should be appropriate to the context in which it is awarded
and accepted.
 If awards are for credit, transcript entries should clearly describe what learning is being
recognized and should be monitored to avoid giving credit twice for the same learning.
 Policies, procedures, and criteria applied to assessment, including provision for appeal,
should be fully disclosed and prominently available to all parties involved in the
assessment process.
 Fees charged for assessment should be based on the services performed in the process
and not determined by the amount of credit awarded.
 All personnel involved in the assessment of learning should pursue and receive
adequate training and continuing professional development for the functions they
perform.
 Assessment programs should be regularly monitored, reviewed, evaluated, and revised
as needed to reflect changes in the needs being served, the purposes being met, and
the state of the assessment arts.
Additional review of literature is represented in the report produced by the SSB 6357 work group
on Prior Learning, “Academic Credit for Prior Learning in Washington Postsecondary Education:
Proposed Policies and Recommendations.” The report was submitted to the Legislature in
December of 2010.
Recommendations for awarding credit for prior learning
The Washington State Prior Learning Assessment and Credit (PLAC) work group was formed in
response to Legislation passed in 2010 (SSB 6357) and continues with the direction from
Legislation passed in 2011 (HB 1795). In 2010, the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges was charged with leading the group; in 2011, the Higher Education Coordinating Board
that is charged with leading the group. The PLAC work group consults with key resource groups
– each having their own areas of knowledge and expertise – throughout the Washington State
higher education system.
June 29, 2011
22
Recommendation 1: Identify a single point of contact regarding PLAC information, for each
institution.
Rationale:
Fewer than half of the institutions queried were able to identify a single point of contact.
Staff are unsure about their own institution’s policies on PLAC.
Recommendation 2: Develop a consistent method of tracking PLAC.
Institutions to track the number of students attempting and completing PLA, and the
number of PLA credits being awarded
Rationale:
Adopting a method for tracking PLAC will allow for identification of high-impact practices
which could be brought to scale across the state.
Recommendation 3: Review work-based and other common training in career clusters and
develop a matrix of possible credits.
Rationale:
Reduce duplication of effort involved in one-on-one assessments, and increase
consistent award of credits for common prior learning.
Recommendation 4: Improve clarity and increase consistency of fee structures for students.
The cost model and self support model requested by WACTC is currently under
development.
Rationale:
The WACTC-adopted guidelines for community and technical colleges are unclear.
Recommendation 5: Increase the number of PLA credits accepted in transfer of academic
credit to baccalaureate institutions.
Rationale:
The Northwest Commission of Colleges and Universities allows up to 25 percent of a
degree from PLA.
Recommendation 6: Collect and share examples of good practices.
Rationale:
Collecting and sharing best practices allows for quicker and more consistent adoption of
effective methods for awarding credit for prior learning.
Recommendation 7: Develop online handbook for training to include accreditation issues,
CHEA list of approved accrediting bodies, and single point of contact for each institution.
Rationale:
Remove ambiguity and increase consistency by providing clear guidelines and examples
of practices that support assessment and award of credit for prior learning
Support accurate and complete academic counseling regarding PLA.
June 29, 2011
23
Recommendation 8: Increase transparency and consistency of information available to
students and stakeholders.
Information should be readily available to prospective and current students. A clear
description of Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) policies and processes should be
published in the college catalogue and on college websites, and students should be
informed of the location of PLA information through quarterly schedules and in other
marketing materials.
Rationale:
Search of institution websites and online catalogs resulted in no, incomplete, or
inconsistent PLA information found in more than half of the websites.
Credit for Prior Learning Implementation Plan
Task
Who is Responsible
Recommended
Time Frame
Identify a single point of contact
regarding PLA credit information, for
each institution.
Diane Martin,
Robin Jeffers,
registrars, academic units
Complete
Develop a consistent method of tracking
PLA credit.
Josh Baker, Pam LeMay, Nancy
Mullane.
Fall 2011
Institutions to track the number of
students attempting and completing PLA,
and the number of PLA credits being
awarded.
Institutional researchers,
registrars, Education, Research
and Data Center(ERDC), Public
Centralized Higher Education
Enrollment System (PCHEES)
Work Group
Winter 2011
Review work-based and other common
training in career clusters and develop a
matrix of possible credits (see
appendices for list of career clusters).
Erik Tingelstad, Bernal Baca, Pat
Ward
Fall 2011
Note: This crosswalk between common
prior learning and CTC courses will not
bypass the assessment step in the
process.
Improve clarity and increase consistency
of fee structures for students.
June 29, 2011
Centers of Excellence Directors
with respective industry advisory
council members
Instruction Commission (IC);
possibly Workforce Education
Council (WEC), or Articulation
and Transfer Council (ATC)
Bernal Baca
Washington Association of
Community and Technical
Colleges (WACTC) and
Registrars.
Holly Moore, Walter Hudsick,
Robin Jeffers
Winter 2012
24
Task
Who is Responsible
Recommended
Time Frame
Increase the number of PLA credits
accepted in transfer of academic credit to
baccalaureate institutions.
Jane Sherman, Jim West
Intercollege Relations
Commission (ICRC). COP,
WaACRAO, ICORA
Spring 2012
Collect and share examples of good
practices.
Noreen Light,
PLAC Work Group members
Ongoing
Develop online handbook for training to
include accreditation issues, CHEA list of
approved accrediting bodies, and single
point of contact for each institution
Provide online and recorded training for
those who will be advising students or
assessing individual student’s prior
learning.
Noreen Light.
SBCTC professional
development staff with CTC
Assessment Liaisons, Student
Services
Spring 2012
Increase transparency and consistency
of information available to students and
stakeholders.
Instruction Commission,
Public Information Officers
Fall 2012
Follow up with colleges identified as
having transparent, consistent practices
resulting in higher numbers of students
receiving PLA credit.
Information should be readily available to
prospective and current students. A clear
description of PLA policies and
processes should be published in the
college catalogue and on college
websites, and students should be
informed of the location of PLA
information through quarterly schedules
and in other marketing materials.
PERFORMANCE FUNDING TO CREATE INCENTIVES FOR NEW EFFICIENCIES
The Instruction Commission was unable to complete this assignment given the length of time it
took to arrive at the recommendations in this document. If this task is still requested by
WACTC, the Instruction Commission will use information resulting from the Business Affairs
Commission efficiency costs considerations to inform recommendations related to performance
funding incentives.
June 29, 2011
25
REFERENCES
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. "Apply to Succeed: Ensuring Community
College Students Benefit from Need-Based Financial Aid." Department of Education, Sept.
2008. Web. 7 June 2011. http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acsfa/applytosucceed.pdf
Alexandria Walton Radford, Lutz Berkner, Sara C. Wheeless & Bryan Shepherd. “Persistence
and Attainment of 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students: After 6 Years.” National Center
for Education Statistics, NCES 2011-151. Dec. 2010. Web. 8 June 2011.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Bailey, T. “Rethinking developmental education in community college.” CCRC Brief. New York:
Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2009.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=672.
Bailey, T. Jeong, D. W. & Cho, S.W. “Referral, Enrollment, and Completion in Developmental
Education Sequences in Community Colleges.” CCRC Working Paper No. 15, Community
College Research Center, Nov. 2009. Web. 8 June 2011.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=659
Bailey T., Jeong, D. W. and Cho, S.W. "Student Progression Through Developmental
Sequences in Community Colleges." CCRC Brief No. 45. Community College Research Center,
Sept. 2010. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/DefaultFiles/SendFileToPublic.asp?ft=pdf&FilePath=c:%5CWebsites
%5Cccrc_tc_columbia_edu_documents%5C332_812.pdf&fid=332_812&aid=47&RID=812&pf=
Publication.asp?UID=812
Bailey T., Smith-Jaggars S. & Jenkins, D. “Introduction to the CCRC Assessment of Evidence
Series.” Working Paper. Community College Research Center, Jan. 2011. Web. 8 June 2011
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=845
"Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges: A Review
of Literature and Effective Practices." The Center for Student Success. Basic Skills Initiative,
USA Funds, July 2007. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://www.cccbsi.org/Websites/basicskills/Images/Lit_Review_Student_Success.pdf
“Beyond the Rhetoric: Improving College Readiness Through Coherent, State Policy.” National
Center for Public Policy and Higher Education and the Southern Regional Education Board
(SREB). June 2010. http://publications.sreb.org/2010/Beyond%20the%20Rhetoric.pdf
Boylan, H. R. (2009). Targeted Intervention for Developmental Education Students (T.I.D.E.S).
Journal of Developmental Education, 32(3), 14–23.
Bragg, D.D., Baker, E.D., Puryear, M. (2010) 2010 Follow-up of Community College of Denver
FastStart Program. University of Illinois, Office of Community College research and Leadership.
Bragg, D., Loeb, J. and Pletcher, L. “Webcast on Improving Secondary and Postsecondary
Career and Technical Education Transition.” Career and Technical Education, National
Research Center, National Dissemination Center, October 20,
June 29, 2011
26
Brigham, C. and Klein-Collins, R. Availability, Use and Value of Prior Learning Assessment
within Community Colleges. July 2010.
Brigham, C. and Klein-Collins, R. Availability, Use and Value of Prior Learning Assessment
within Community Colleges. July 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.cael.org/pdf/PLA_CommunityColleges.pdf
Brock, T. “Testing Programs to Help Community College Students Succeed:
Carnegie Foundation. (2008) Basic Skills for Complex Lives: Designs for Learning in the
Community College. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/publications/basic-skills-complex-livesdesigns-learning-community-college Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
“College Completion Tool Kit.” US Department of Education, March 2011. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/cc-toolkit.pdf
“Completion Fundamentals Webinar.” Complete College America, 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 7 June
2011. http://www.completecollege.org/docs/Completion%20Fundamentals%20Webinar.pdf
Collins, M. L. (2008). It's not about the cut score: Redesigning placement assessment policy to
improve student success. Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
Council on Adult and Experiential Learning. 1999. Serving Adult Learners in Higher Education:
Findings from CAEL’s Benchmarking Study
Council on Adult and Experiential Learning. Serving Adult Learners in Higher Education:
Findings from CAEL’s Benchmarking Study. 1999. Retrieved from
http://www.cael.org/pdf/publication_pdf/CAEL%20Benchmarking%20Findings%20Executive%2
0Summary.pdf
Crawford, A. "Remedial College Courses Eyed." Pittsburg Tribune-Review. 6 May 2011.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/state/s_735747.html
Prince, D. and Jenkins,D. April 2005
http://www.sbctc.edu/docs/education/ford_bridges/bldg_pathways_to_success_for_lowskilled_adult_stdts.pdf
Dean D. “Remedial Levels.” Blog U: Confessions of a Community College Dean. Inside Higher
Ed, 7 April 2011. Web. 3 June 2011.
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions_of_a_community_college_dean/remedial_lev
els
"Developmental Ed." Community College Research Center, n.d. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Collection.asp?cid=20
Fiddler, M. Marienau, C. and Whitaker U. Assessing Learning: Standards, Principles, and
Procedures (Second Edition). 2006. Chicago: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company
Foster, M., Strawn, J. & Duke-Benfield, A.. “Beyond basic skills: State strategies to connect lowskilled students to an employer-valued postsecondary education.” CLASP: Policy Solutions that
Work for Low-Income People. Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success, 4 Mar. 2011.
June 29, 2011
27
Web. 7 June 2011 http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/Beyond-Basic-Skills-March2011.pdf
Foster, M. Strawn, J. & Duke-Benfield, A. “Beyond basic skills: State strategies to connect lowskilled students to an employer-valued postsecondary education.” CLASP: Policy Solutions that
Work for Low-Income People. 4 Mar. 2011. Web. 7 June 2011.
Foster, M. "Financial Aid Guidance Key to Helping Basic Skills Students Access Postsecondary
Education." CLASP: Policy Solutions That Work for Low-Income People, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 7
June 2011.
http://www.clasp.org/issues/in_focus?type=basic_skills_and_workforce_training&id=0018
Four Mechanisms Encouraging Positive Student Outcomes in the Community College.” CCRC
Working Paper No. 28, Community College Research Center, Feb. 2011. Web. 8 June 2011.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/DefaultFiles/SendFileToPublic.asp?ft=pdf&FilePath=c:%5CWebsites
%5Cccrc_tc_columbia_edu_documents%5C332_860.pdf&fid=332_860&aid=47&RID=860&pf=
Publication.asp?UID=860
“Getting Ready, Getting In, and Getting Through College: Expanding Options for Low-Income
Students.” The CollegeKeys Compact. College Board, Oct. 2007. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/final-report.pdf
”Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008.” The Committee on Measures of Student Success.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/acmss.html#reports
Helmer, M. and Blair, A., “Courses to Employment: Sectoral Approaches to Community CollegeNonprofit Partnerships - Initial Education and Employment Outcomes Findings for Students
Enrolled In Business and Medical Office Administration Training 2007-2010, Training Futures:
Northern Virginia Family Service and Northern Virginia Community College Partnership, Fairfax
County, Virginia.” The Aspen Institute, Workforce Strategies Initiative. October, 2010.
Helmer, M. and Blair, A., “Courses to Employment: Sectoral Approaches to Community CollegeNonprofit Partnerships - Initial Education and Employment Outcomes Findings for Students
Enrolled In Healthcare Career Training 2003-2009, Capital IDEA and Austin Community College
Partnership, Austin, Texas.” The Aspen Institute, Workforce Strategies Initiative. October 25,
2010.
Helmer, M. and Blair, A., “Courses to Employment: Sectoral Approaches to Community CollegeNonprofit Partnerships - Initial Education and Employment Outcomes Findings for Students
Enrolled In the General Services Technician Program 2006-2009, Workforce Development
Council of Seattle-King County and Shoreline Community College Partnership, Seattle,
Washington.” The Aspen Institute, Workforce Strategies Initiative. October, 2010.
http://www.accesstosuccess-africa.eu/web/images/literature/2.2.%20literature%20review%20%20by%20liz%20thomas%20with%20rob%20jones%20%20helen%20may.pdf
http://www.cte.mnscu.edu/perkinsIV/fasttrac2008.htm
Hughes, K. L. & Scott-Clayton, J., (2011). Assessing developmental assessment in community
colleges: A review of the literature. (CCRC Working paper No. 19). New York, NY: Community
College Research Center, Teachers College.
June 29, 2011
28
Jenkins, D., (2011) Get with the Program: Accelerating Community College Students’ Entry into
and Completion of Programs of Study. New York, NY: Community College Research center,
Teachers College, Columbia University. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=885
Jenkins, D., & Zeidenberg, M.(2007). Developmental education placement policies and student
success in the Connecticut community colleges. New York, NY: Community College Research
Jenkins, D., Speroni, C., Belfield,C., Smith Jaggars, C. & Edgecombe, N. (2010). New York:
Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=811
Jenkins, D., "A Short Guide to ‘Tipping Point’ Analyses of Community College Student Labor
Market Outcomes ." CCRC Research Tools No. 3. Community College Research Center, April
2008. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/DefaultFiles/SendFileToPublic.asp?ft=pdf&FilePath=c:%5CWebsites
%5Cccrc_tc_columbia_edu_documents%5C332_600.pdf&fid=332_600&aid=47&RID=600&pf=
Publication.asp?UID=600
Jenkins, D., “Get with the program: Accelerating community college students’ entry into and
completion of programs of study.” CCRC Working Paper No. 32, April 2011. Web. 8 June 2011.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/DefaultFiles/SendFileToPublic.asp?ft=pdf&FilePath=c:\Websites\ccrc
_tc_columbia_edu_documents\332_885.pdf&fid=332_885&aid=47&RID=885&pf=ContentByTyp
e.asp?t=1
Karp, M., “Toward a New Understanding of Non-Academic Student Support: Four Mechanisms
Encouraging Positive Student Outcomes in the Community College.” CCRC Working Paper No.
28. Community College Research Center, Feb. 2011. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/DefaultFiles/SendFileToPublic.asp?ft=pdf&FilePath=c:%5CWebsites
%5Cccrc_tc_columbia_edu_documents%5C332_860.pdf&fid=332_860&aid=47&RID=860&pf=
Publication.asp?UID=860
Kelch, K. and Yang, J., “Integrating the Task-Based Approach Into Content Curriculum.” The
CATESOL Journal, VOLUME 20, NUMBER 1, 2008.
Klein, R., (April 2011) Underserved Students Who Earn Credit Through Prior Learning
Assessment (PLA) Have Higher Degree Completion Rates and Shorter Time-to-Degree.
Retrieved from http://www.cael.org/publications/get_article.php
Leinbach, D. and Jenkins, D., “Using Longitudinal Data to Increase Community College Student
Success: A Guide to Measuring Milestone and Momentum Point Attainment.” CCRC Research
Tools No. 2. Community College Research Center, Jan. 2008. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/DefaultFiles/SendFileToPublic.asp?ft=pdf&FilePath=c:%5CWebsites
%5Cccrc_tc_columbia_edu_documents%5C332_570.pdf&fid=332_570&aid=47&RID=570&pf=
Publication.asp?UID=570
Light, N. and Moore, W. Academic Credit for Prior Learning in Washington Postsecondary
Education: Proposed Policies and Recommendations. December 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.sbctc.edu/college/trustees/2010_academic_credit_for_prior_learning.pdf
Marwick, J., (2002) “Alternative Methods of Mathematics Placement.” The Community College
Enterprise, Issue 8.2, Fall 2002.
June 29, 2011
29
Melko, J., "Developmental Education Myths and Facts." National Association for Developmental
Education. Web. 11 Nov. 2001
Meyers, Marcia. “Working But Poor.” West Coast Poverty Center, University of Washington,
October 26, 2007.
"Minnesota FastTRAC: Training, Resources and Credentialing Initiative.” Minnesota Career &
Technical Education. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, n.d. Web. 7 June 2011.
MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) is a web-based publication of virtually all MIT course content.
OCW is open and available to the world and is a permanent MIT activity.
http://ocw.mit.edu/about/
Molsen, D. and Boyum, P., “It Takes a Village: A Strategic Partnership for Student Success.”
Link To Opportunities Program, Bellevue College, March 14, 2011.
Navarro, D. (2010). Academy for college excellence: How ace works. Retrieved from ACE:
Academy for College Excellence: http://academyforcollegeexcellence.org/how-ace-works/
Nodine, T., Bracco, K. R., & Venezia, A. (2010). One shot deal: Students’ perceptions of
assessment and course placement at the California community colleges. San Francisco, CA:
WestEd.
“On the Road to Success: Stories from the Courses to Employment Project.” Courses to
Employment project--Training Futures/Northern Virginia Community College and Capital
IDEA/Austin Community College, Aspen Institute, Workforce Strategies Initiative. October
27,2010.
Perin, D. (2011). Facilitating Student Learning Through Contextualization. New York, NY:
Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Publication.asp?UID=866
Prince, H. (2005). Standardization vs. flexibility: State policy options on placement testing for
developmental education in community colleges (Policy Brief). Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
Safran, S., & Visher, M. G. (2010). Case studies of three community colleges: The policy and
practice of assessing and placing students in developmental education courses (Working
Paper). New York, NY: National Center for Postsecondary Research and MDRC.
Saxon, D. P., Levine-Brown, P., & Boylan, H. R. (2008). Affective assessment for
developmental students, part I. Research in Developmental Education, 22(1), 1–4.
SBCTC 2010-11 Academic year Report, p13
http://www.sbctc.edu/college/documents/2enroll_0910.1.pdf
SBCTC Research Report Building Pathways to Success for Low-Skill Adult Students Lessons
for Community College Policy and Practice from a Statewide Longitudinal Tracking Study, by
SBCTC Research Report no. 08-1 Increasing Student Achievement for Basic Skills Students
http://www.sbctc.edu/college/education/resh_rpt_08_1_student_achieve_basic_skills.pdf
June 29, 2011
30
SBCTC Research Report no. 09-5 http://www.sbctc.edu/docs/data/research_reports/resh095_role_of_pre-college_education.pdf
Scott-Clayton, J., "The Shapeless River: Does a Lack of Structure Inhibit Students' Progress at
Community Colleges?" CCRC Working Paper No. 25. Community College Research Center,
Jan. 2011. Web. 8 June 2011.
Sperling, C. B., “Massachusetts Community Colleges Developmental Education Best Policy and
Practice Audit.” 30 June 2009. Web. 7 June 2011.
Strawn, J., “Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Lives.” Seattle Port Jobs Forum, CLASP,
December 4, 2009.
"Student Success in Higher Education." AFT Higher Education, Mar. 2011. Web. 8 June 2011.
“Student Transition Summit Closing Comments and Best Practices.” WA State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges, June 2010. Web. 8 June 2011.
http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/education/student_achieve_student_transition_summit_jun201
0.pdf
“Time Use of Full-Time College Students Ages 18 to 24 Years, 2003 to 2009.” Opportunity
Research Newsletter, No. 223. Postsecondary Education. Jan. 2011. Web 8 June 2011.
http://www.postsecondary.org/articlesyearlist.asp?cat5='2011'#
“Transitioning Adult ESL Students to College.” Language Magazine: The Journal of
Communication and Education, pgs. 32-37, October Issue 2010.
http://languagemagazine.com/?page_id=1523
The Opening Doors Demonstration.” MDRC, October 18, 2005.
Thomas, L., Jones, R. & May, H., 2.2 Literature Review: A Research-Informed Approach to
Improving Institutional Retention. “Project Compendium: Access to Success - Africa." European
University Association, 2010. Web. 6 June 2011. http://www.accesstosuccessafrica.eu/web/images/finalconference/eua_whitepaper_eng_web.pdf
"United States Education Dashboard." United States Education Dashboard. US Department of
Education, n.d. Web. 7 June 2011. http://dashboard.ed.gov/dashboard.aspx
"Using Data for Policy Change." Joyce Foundation Shifting Gears. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://www.shifting-gears.org/using-data-for-policy-change/54-using-data-for-policy-change.html
US Department of Education. “College Completion Tool Kit.” Mar. 2011. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/cc-toolkit.pdf
Venezia, A. and Kirst, M.W., "Inequitable Opportunities: How Current Education Systems and
Policies Undermine the Chances for Student Persistence and Success in College." Educational
Policy, May 2005; vol. 19, 2: pp. 283-307. Sage Journals Online. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://epx.sagepub.com/content/19/2/283
Workforce Development Strategies Group. “Guide to Adult Education for Work: Transforming
Adult Education to Grow a Skilled Workforce.” Jobs for the Future. National Center on
June 29, 2011
31
Education and the Economy (NCEE), Oct. 2009. Web. 7 June 2011.
http://jff.org/sites/default/files/adult_ed_work_guide.pdf
Zachary, E, and Schneider, E. (2008) Promising Instructional Reforms in Developmental
Education. MDRC http://www.deionline.org/resources/.
Zachry, E. and Schneider, E., “Building Foundations for Student Readiness: A Review of
Rigorous Research and Promising Trends in Developmental Education.” NCPR Developmental
Education Conference: What Policies and Practices Work for Students, National Center for
Postsecondary Research, 23 Sept. 2010. Web. 8 June 2011.
http://www.postsecondaryresearch.org/conference/PDF/NCPR_Panel%203_ZachrySchneiderP
aper.pdf
June 29, 2011
32
STATE STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Name
*Norma Goldstein, Chair
Darlene Molsen, Lead student
support services work group
Jenni Martin, Lead curriculum
content work group
Karen Johnson, Lead
pedagogy work group
Peggy Moe, Lead
assessment, diagnostic, and
placement work group
Bridgitte Kidd
David Chalif
Dutch Henry
Janet Danley
Position
Dean, Humanities
Assoc. Dean Workforce
College
Shoreline Community College
Bellevue College
Dean, Business and
Community Trng.
Dean, Instruction
IEL of Spokane
Dean, General and Dev. Ed.
Renton Technical College
Dean, Inst. and Basic Skills
Dean, Math and Science
Faculty
Director, Clark Campus
Kerrie Abb
Dean, Basic Skills
Kim Ward
Kyle Hammon
Patrisha Onion
Assoc. Dean ABE/ESL
Dean, Instruction
Vice President, Student
Services
Vice President, Student
Services
Vice President, Instruction
and Student Services
Vice President, Instruction
and Student Services
Director, Student Services
and Transfer
Policy Associate
Coord. Faculty Development
Policy Associate
Policy Associate
Centralia College
Edmonds Community College
Shoreline Community College
Walla Walla Community
College
Yakima Valley Community
College
Tacoma Community College
Lower Columbia College
Whatcom Community College
Rhonda Coats
Sandra Fowler-Hill
Tomas Ybarra
Michelle Andreas
Bill Moore
Noreen Light
Kathy Cooper
Kayeri Akweks
Edmonds Community College
South Puget Sound
Community College
Everett Community College
Yakima Valley Community
College
SBCTC Staff
WORK GROUP MEMBERS
Name
Matt Groshong
Sherri Ballantyne
Paula Giroud
Susan Parker
Roz Spitzer
Bob Mohrbacher
June 29, 2011
Position
Dean of Student Success
Assist Dean
Faculty – Basic Skills
Dean, Instruction
Faculty- Basic Skills
VP, Instruction & Student
Services
College/Organization
Bellevue
Bellevue
Bellingham Tech.
Bellingham Tech.
Bellingham Tech.
Big Bend
33
Name
Eleni Palmisano
Kathleen Hathaway
Joe Montgomery
David Chalif
James Mulik
Sharon Wellman
Pam Reising
Rolita Ezenonu
Monica Lemoine
Jeff Wagnitz
Mouy-Ly Wong
Yoshiko Harden
Doug Emory
Jon Kerr
Kyle Hammond
Wendy Hall
Elaine Williams
Kim McNamara
Lori Griffin
Sabrina Stevenson
Carol Green
Tom McCollow
Marty Cooksey
Boyoung Chae
Alison Stevens
Pam Dusenberry
Kim Thompson
Dorna Bullpitt
Rebecca Goss
Jim Brady
Jean LeBauve
Heather Keast
Lisa Avery
Geri Swope
Lora Senf
Sam Salvatori
Delores Haugen
Kim Ward
Steve Ashpole
Paula Boyd
Jamie Fouty
Janet Danley
June 29, 2011
Position
Faculty-Math
Faculty
Dean for Institutional
Effectiveness
Dean, Math
Dir. Eval. and Assessment
Director
Math
Dean, Transfer and PreCollege
Faculty – English
VP Instruction
Director, Transition, Referral &
Resource Center
Director
Dean, General Ed.
Dean, Instruction
Dean, Instruction
Institutional Research
Assoc. Dean, Basic Skills
Dean of Student Development
Transitional Ed Division Chair
Manager
Vice President Instruction and
Student Services
Math faculty
Math Coordinator
Faculty Training Coord.
Dean, Instruction
Faculty- English
Director
VP Instruction
Assessment Center Manager
Dean, Computing Math and
Science
Faculty- English
Developmental Writing
Dean of Instruction
Dean of Instruction, ABE
Division
Acting Assistant Dean for ABE
Counselor
Director
Associate Dean, ABE/ESL
Registrar
Faculty- Math
Institutional Research
Director, Clarkston Campus
College/Organization
Centralia
Clover Park
Columbia Basin
Edmonds
Edmonds
Everett
Green River
Highline
Highline
Highline
Highline
Highline
Lake Washington Tech.
Lower Columbia
Lower Columbia
Lower Columbia
Olympic
Olympic
Pierce College
Pierce College
Pierce Ft. Steilacoom
Pierce Puyallup
Renton
SBCTC
Seattle Central
Shoreline
Shoreline
South Puget Sound
Spokane
Spokane Falls
Spokane Falls
Spokane Falls
Spokane Falls
Spokane IEL
Spokane IEL
Spokane IEL
Tacoma
Tacoma
Tacoma
Walla Walla
Walla Walla
Walla Walla
34
Name
Regina Reed
Meg Delzell
Pam Foust
Kerry Abb
Leslie Eglin
Susie Meredith
Position
Testing Director
Division Chair
Graduate Student
Basic Skills
Basic Skills
Staff –computer labs
Prior Learning Credit State Work Group
Jim West
Associate Director
Jan Ignash
Deputy Director
Noreen Light
Faculty Dev. Coord.
Scott Copeland
Policy Associate
Bill Moore
Policy Associate
Carolyn McKinnon
Policy Analyst
Bryan Wilson
Director
Mike Reilly
Executive Director
Jane Sherman
Vice Provost
Laurel le Noble
Policy Associate
Violet Boyer
President & CEO
Greg Scheiderer
Vice President
Linda Maier
Dean, Workforce
Development
Norma Goldstein
Dean, Humanities
Erik Tingelstad
Director
Robin Jeffers
Walter Hudsick
Pamela LeMay
Diana Knauf
Phil Venditti
Diane Martin
Josh Baker
Nancy Mullane
Baccalaureate Institutions
Corrine Holden
Director, Special Academic
Programs
Faculty
Faculty, FACTC Pres.
Instructional Admin/ Adjunct
Faculty
Faculty & PLA Coord.
Assoc Dir Transfer/PLearn.
Chair sub-committee
College/Organization
Walla Walla
Whatcom
WSU
Yakima Valley
Yakima Valley
Yakima Valley
HECB
HECB
SBCTC
SBCTC
SBCTC
WTECB
WTECB
COP
COP/WSU
COP
ICW
ICW
CTC
CTC
Center of Excellence for
Careers in Education
Bellevue
Cascadia
Edmonds
Shoreline
Clover Park
Green River
Highline
Whatcom
CityU of Seattle
J.W. Harrington
Mary Conley Law
Leona Walker
Program Manager, PLA
Director
Faculty
Registrar
Admissions
Career Colleges
Paul De Giusti
Gail McGaffick
Gena Wikstrom
VP, Legislative Affairs
Legislative Consultant
Exec. Director
CCi/Everest College
CCi/Everest College
NWCCF
June 29, 2011
UW Faculty Senate
St. Martin’s U
TESC
35
Name
Steve Lindstrom
Position
Lobbyist
College/Organization
NWCCF
HE&WFD Committee
Coordinator/Counsel
Senate Higher Education
WA State Senate Staff
Aldo Melchiori
Public Safety
Anthony Anderman
Eastern Regional Training
Manager
Jim Broman
Chair, WA Fire Chiefs
Criminal Justice Training
Commission
Criminal Justice Training
Commission
Lacey FD/WA Fire Chiefs
Students
Mike Bogatay
Megan Brownlee
Mike Bogatay
Megan Brownlee
Mike Bogatay
Megan Brownlee
Steve Lettic
Military/Department of Defense
Garfield (Gar) Anderson
Garfield (Gar) Anderson
Mark B. San Souci
Mark B. San Souci
Garfield (Gar) Anderson
Mark B. San Souci
Workforce and Apprenticeship
Charissa Raynor
Charissa Raynor
Ed Phippen
Ed Phippen
Jim Azumano
Jim Azumano
Nicole Grant
Nicole Grant
Peter Lahmann
Peter Lahmann
Tony Lewis
Tony Lewis
Bernal Baca
Bernal Baca
Randy Scott
Randy Scott
Terry Tilton
Terry Tilton
Melanie Stewart
Melanie Stewart
Jaime Garcia
Jaime Garcia
Beth Thew
Beth Thew
Charissa Raynor
Ed Phippen
Jim Azumano
Nicole Grant
Peter Lahmann
Tony Lewis
Bernal Baca
Randy Scott
Terry Tilton
Melanie Stewart
Jaime Garcia
Beth Thew
June 29, 2011
36