Assessment of Developmental Education
Programs in Community Colleges:
Establishing a System
Dr. Nathaniel Pugh, Jr.
Vice President, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness
Dr. Christopher Shults
Director, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness
Table of Contents
 The Status of Developmental Education
 Developmental Education in SUNY and at SCCC
 Developmental Education and the SCCC Institutional Effectiveness Model
 Progress in Establishing Developmental Assessment
 Q&A
Developmental Education Nationally
 Developmental Education is not new (UW in 1879)
 Massive expansion by the turn of the century
 Massification of higher education as a result of the GI Bill
 Granted access to higher education to groups historically left out
 Levin 2001 – Legal and social mandate
 Stigma increased based on two issues
 Economic conditions
 Student success concerns (nearly 50% nationally – higher in community colleges)
 State studies (TX, OH, FL) show lower success rates
 Differential policies on remedial course-taking
 Percentage taking developmental courses has nearly doubled since 2000
Developmental Education in SUNY
 Developmental education in SUNY limited to community colleges
 2006 system-wide study
 37.5% of first-time freshmen were enrolled in developmental coursework in
2004
 More than ½ of the colleges saw increases
 Percentages have increased dramatically and reflect national averages
Developmental Education at Suffolk
 Nearly 27,000 students
 From 2,246 to 3,448 entering first-time freshman taking at least one
developmental course from fall 2005-2010
 An increase from 58 to 64 percent between fall 2005 and fall 2010

In fall 2008, 4,000 seats to developmental studies
 In academic year 2010-2011, 500 sections and more than 7,000 seats
“We still do not know very much about the actual success of remedial
programs because colleges do not evaluate them very well. They
frequently collect inappropriate or poor-quality data and use inappropriate
criteria for measuring effectiveness…[the fact is] they do not know how to
assess it” (Roueche & Roueche, 1999, p. 27 as cited in Romano, 2006).
Inside the Numbers at SCCC
Institutional effectiveness has been operationalized at Suffolk County
Community College as “the ability of an institution to achieve its stated
mission and goals. Given that SCCC, like nearly all colleges mentions student
success, to one degree or another, it was decided that we must examine what
impact developmental studies is having on our institutional effectiveness
efforts.
Inside the Numbers Continued
New Students Testing into Developmental Courses by Subject Fall 2006-2010
Full-Time
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Part-Time Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
Total
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Fall 2010
N
4152
4340
5058
5074
5487
1128
1054
806
1675
2799
5280
5394
5864
6749
8286
Writing
Percent
21.1%
26.1%
28.0%
31.2%
31.0%
15.8%
18.5%
30.6%
19.3%
10.6%
19.9%
24.6%
28.3%
28.3%
24.1%
Math
Percent
44.0%
46.0%
46.8%
56.5%
53.1%
34.2%
36.8%
54.0%
35.0%
21.4%
41.9%
44.2%
47.8%
51.2%
42.4%
Reading
Percent
29.2%
32.6%
36.9%
39.7%
37.9%
18.4%
21.6%
34.2%
20.4%
12.3%
26.9%
30.5%
36.5%
34.9%
29.3%
Inside the Numbers Continued
Fall 2005 Cohort of Entering Freshmen, Fall 2008
Developmental
Courses Required
0
1
2
3
N (3,862)
1,616
581
700
395
Graduation
26.4%
20.3%
13.9%
11.7%
Transfer*
38.4%
31.0%
30.3%
22.6%
Persistence
18.6%
20.3%
18.4%
23.3%
Attrition
35.8%
42.5%
47.3%
51.4%
% of DWFs in
Gateway Courses
35.2%
40.4%
45.7%
47.3%
Fall 2006 Cohort of Entering Freshmen, Fall 2009
Developmental
Courses Required
0
1
2
3
N (4,074)
1,668
634
714
432
Graduation
23.0%
19.6%
12.3%
9.7%
Transfer*
39.4%
30.0%
27.7%
17.8%
* Transfer rates include graduates
** DWFI Findings are significant at .05
Persistence
17.6%
20.2%
21.0%
24.1%
Attrition
37.0%
42.0%
48.0%
55.3%
% of DWFs in
Gateway Courses
35.2%
40.4%
43.0%
48.7%
Inside the Numbers Continued
Fall 2007 Cohort of Entering Freshmen, Fall 2010
Developmental
Courses Required
0
1
2
3
N (4,274)
1,640
636
771
500
Graduation
22.2%
18.7%
12.9%
12.2%
Transfer*
38.4%
28.9%
24.8%
20.2%
Persistence
18.7%
19.0%
20.6%
22.8%
Attrition
36.5%
44.3%
49.4%
52.2%
% of DWFs in
Gateway Courses
33.6%
39.9%
41.9%
43.7%
Inside the Numbers Continued
Persistence of New Associate Degree Students – 2nd through 4th Semester
Fall 2006 No Developmental
Developmental
Total
Fall 2007 No Developmental
Developmental
Total
Fall 2008 No Developmental
Developmental
Total
Fall 2009 No Developmental
Developmental
Total
Semester of Enrollment
First
Second
Third
Fourth
N
Percent Percent Percent
2095
79.3%
64.7%
57.6%
2524
78.2%
61.7%
55.1%
4619
78.7%
63.1%
56.2%
2024
81.5%
65.2%
58.7%
2798
80.2%
63.7%
55.7%
4822
80.7%
64.3%
57.0%
2315
82.5%
69.7%
63.6%
3477
79.0%
65.3%
56.7%
5792
80.4%
67.1%
59.5%
1901
82.9%
69.3%
64.0%
3907
77.3%
60.0%
53.8%
5808
79.1%
63.1%
57.2%
Pearson ChiSquare Tests
Fall 2006
Fall 2007
Fall 2008
Fall 2009
Chi-square
df
Sig.
Chi-square
df
Sig.
Chi-square
df
Sig.
Chi-square
df
Sig.
Second
0.922
1
0.337
1.391
1
0.238
10.979
1
0.001*
24.079
1
.000*
Semester
Third
4.535
1
0.033*
1.253
1
0.263
12.207
1
.000*
47.855
1
.000*
Fourth
3.006
1
0.083
4.389
1
0.036*
27.33
1
.000*
54.253
1
.000*
Inside the Numbers Continued
Transfer Rates for Students Taking at Least one Developmental Course
Year
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Total
Total # of
Transfers who took at least
transfers
one developmental course
4019
1301
4204
1359
4327
1559
4466
1672
3275
1172
20291
7063
Percent of transfers who took
at least one developmental
course
32.4%
32.3%
36.0%
37.4%
35.8%
34.8%
Given that around 60% of students take at least one developmental course, those
taking developmental courses are less likely to transfer
Inside the Numbers Continued
Persistence Rates in STEM Programs by Developmental Course Taking: Fall 2006-2009
Fall 2006 No Developmental
Developmental
Fall 2007 No Developmental
Developmental
Fall 2008 No Developmental
Developmental
Fall 2009 No Developmental
Developmental
Semester of Enrollment
First
Second
Third
Fourth
N
Percent Percent Percent
199
83.9%
64.3%
55.8%
76
84.2%
71.1%
65.8%
168
85.7%
68.5%
64.3%
103
79.6%
62.1%
60.2%
186
88.2%
73.7%
63.4%
114
75.4%
69.3%
58.8%
161
85.1%
73.3%
68.3%
116
79.3%
60.3%
60.3%
The persistence rates are higher for both categories with the only significant
differences emerging in Fall 2009
Interpreting the Numbers
 Students taking any developmental courses are less successful
 Students taking between 1 and 3 developmental courses are equally successful
 The proportion of students taking developmental courses are increasing even
as the population grows
 Students taking developmental courses are having a greater impact on overall
measures of student success (higher proportion and greater numbers)
We have the data, now what?
Deploying a Comprehensive IE
System at SCCC
Ahead of the 2007 reaffirmation, Suffolk Community College began fully
implementing a Comprehensive Assessment Plan for Institutional
Effectiveness. This plan has resulted in information that has formalized and
expanded assessment efforts and laid the foundation for an extensive and
integrated planning system that will further enhance assessment activities and
allow for expansion of the initial assessments in developmental education.
Regardless of whether developmental education is a program or sequence of
courses, assessment of learning outcomes will be conducted and the
information will be used as part of the decision-making process.
Planning Efforts and MSCHE Standards
 Strategic Planning

The preeminent planning process

Responsible for aligning college operations with external conditions

Drives mission development/revision and creation of institutional
goals (IGs) (Standard 1)
 Operational Planning

Connected to strategic planning through the IGs

Includes assessment of student learning and the environment for student
learning (Standard 7,12, and 14 directly and 8,9,11, and 13 indirectly)

The planning effort rooted in daily activities
 Budget Planning
 Connected to operational planning through resource allocation
(Standards 2 and 3)

Connects back to strategic planning through the IGs (Standards 2 and 3)
SCCC Institutional Effectiveness Model – Gears and Cogs
Academic
Planning
Use Results
Plan
OPERATIONS
PLANNING
Implement
SWOT
AES
Planning
State
Budget
Plan
Plan
Evaluate
Use Results
ASSESSMENT
BBUDGETING
UDGET
Evaluate
Budget
Requests
Stakeholder
input
Institutional Activities
Major Planning Systems
Assessment Efforts
Institutional Effectiveness System
Continuous Improvement
Gear Movement
Implement
STRATEGIC
PLANNING
STRATEGY
Implement
Env.
Scan
Use Results
Evaluate
INSTITUTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS
County
Budget
Assessment is at the Core
 Assessment and strategic planning
 Assessment and operational planning
 Assessment and budgeting
 Assessment of the IE system
Assessment within an integrated system allows the college to move from data
collection and information processing to informed and integrated planning that
guides the evaluation of institutional effectiveness. The key is that information
is evaluated for relevance and is filtered through systematic processes that link
the institutional goals with resource allocation.
Developmental Education Assessment
and Operational Planning
 The SCCC Developmental Studies Advisory Committee
 Current course-based assessment in developmental math
 Connecting assessment in courses to the planning process (SLOs)
 Integration of developmental studies as part of academic planning
 Building up SLO assessment and program review in developmental studies
Framework for Operational Planning
in Developmental Education
What’s Next at SCCC?
 Consensus that developmental studies needs more intensive assessment
 Consensus that current planning efforts need to continue evolving based
on assessment of the IE system
 Intense discussions about the status of developmental studies – program or
a sequence of courses?
 Assessment will be comprehensive whether as a program or sequence of
courses
 Expansion of assessment activities in developmental English and reading
 Assessment of the impact of interventions (i.e. Title III, program changes)
 Increased focus on student success (CPT scores, placement, outcomes)
 Connecting developmental studies assessment into operational planning
Questions?