INTE RO FFIC E M EMO R ANDU M
TO:
FROM:
PAM MERY
STEVEN SPURLING
SUBJECT: THE EFFECT OF MANDATORY ENGLISH PREREQUISITES IN HISTORY (IGETC 4F)
DATE: 6/21/09
The State of California is considering placing mandatory prerequisites on some General
Education classes. One proposal is to require English 1A eligibility on as yet unnamed classes. The effect of these proposals on student enrollment and success has not been investigated. In order to remedy that deficiency, the effect on History classes (IGETC 4F) at City College of San Francisco is investigated. Data presented rests on 14,849 native-speaker enrollments at City College of San
Francisco from 1998 to 2008 in IGETC 4F area (referred to throughout as History). History was selected because of the strong relationship between English ability and performance in History classes. ESL students were excluded because their academic performance is very different than native-speaking students and remedial level is hard to reconcile between the two groups 1 . The data presented contrasts the current enrollment and success rates of students in History classes by English levels below transfer to the anticipated enrollment and success rates if a mandatory prerequisite of
English 1A eligibility were imposed.
Figure 1 presents the current success rate in History classes by English level 2 . Note the linear increase in success in History classes by English level. At 5 levels below transfer the success rate is
25%. At an English 1A eligible level the success rate is 69% 3 . The overall success rate is 60%.
1 While ESL students are excluded here, the institution of mandatory English prerequisites would probably apply equally to both groups.
2 A student’s English level is their last passed English class before the target History class. If a student has no last passed English class, then it is their English placement. If they have a last passed English class, then their level is that class plus 1. For example, if a student passed an English class one level below transfer, then their level would be transfer which would be equivalent to a placement into a transfer level course.
3 Transfer level and English 1A eligible will be used synonymously.

Figure 1
Success Rate in History (4F) by English Level
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
5 4 3 2 1 1A Eligible 1B Eligible Higher
English Level Below Transfer
Figure 2 below presents the percent of the population entering at each level. 3% of the entering
History population was at 5 levels below transfer. 20% were one level below English 1A eligibility
(transfer). Altogether, 56% of the population taking History classes was below a transfer
level. This is the summation of the data points from 5 levels below to 1 level below.
Figure 2
Entering English Level of History (4F) Students
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
5 4 3 2 1
Levels Below Transfer
1A Eligible 1B Eligible Higher
2

One important question is how many of these History students would become English 1A eligible if required to do so. If they didn’t become 1A eligible, they would never be able to take
History classes. A very likely possibility is that they would become 1A eligible at the same rate that all new first time students who start the English sequence. That rate can be modeled by the equation: t = p2l
Where t is the percent of students that become English 1A eligible in an eight year time span, p is the average success and enrollment rate and l is the number of Levels below 1A eligible. P has been found to be .8 for students in the English sequence at CCSF. So, for example, students who start at l=5 levels below transfer have 2L=10 steps to complete (5 passing and 5 enrollment steps). .8 raised to the 10 th power is 10.7% reaching a 1A level. For students who start 4 levels below transfer the anticipated percent becoming 1A eligible would be .8 raised to the 8 th power or 17%.
Figure 3 presents the anticipated percent of students in Figure 2 above who would reach an
English 1A eligible level if English 1A eligibility were to be made a mandatory requirement for enrollment in History classes.
Figure 3
Anticipated Percent of Current History Students Becoming 1A eligible
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
5 4 3 2 1
Levels Below Transfer
1A Eligible 1B Eligible Higher
3

Figure 4 presents a comparison of Figure 2 enrollment and Figure 3 enrollment. The ‘currently enrolled’ line is from figure 2. The ‘enrolled after mandatory 1A prerequisite’ is calculated by multiplying the anticipated percent reaching a 1A level by the percent currently in History classes.
So, for example, 3% of the current History population is at 5 levels below transfer. If 10.7% of this
3% reached an English 1A level and took History, that percent would drop to .3%. For all levels below transfer, because of the attrition in the English sequence, the percent of each group that would then take History would be much smaller than their current enrollment. In fact, of the current
History population only 67% would take history if an English 1A requirement were in place
given the assumptions about English sequence attrition in figure 3. This is calculated by summing all of the data points on the ‘Enrolled after Mandatory 1A prerequisite’ line.
Figure 4
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
5
4 3 2 1
1A
E lig ib le
1B
E lig ib le
Levels Below English 1A
H ig he r
Currently Enrolled
Enrolled After Mandatory 1A
Prerequisite
4

Figure 5 below contrasts the percent of the total group that succeed both currently (from figure
1) versus the percent of each group that would pass if a mandatory English 1A requirement were in place. For example, at 5 levels below transfer, currently 25% of students succeed. If all of these students were required to be 1A eligible, the 10.7% that would do so would have the anticipated success rate of current 1A eligible students or 69%. So 10.7% times 69% would be 7.4%. The percent of this group what would be successful in History would fall from 25% to 7.4% - a 17.6% decline.
The drop in success would also occur at all other levels. At one level below transfer currently
58% of students pass their History class. If an English 1A prerequisite were in place, it is anticipated that 64% of these students would become 1A eligible. They would then pass History at the English
1A eligible rate of 69%. So, 64% of the original group would pass at a 69% rate for a total passing rate of 44% of the original group. This would represent a drop of 14% (58% - 44%) in the success of this group. At all levels below transfer, the percent of the remedial group that would pass with prerequisites in place would be smaller than currently without prerequisites in place.
Figure 5
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Original Success
New Success
5 4 3 2 1
1A
E lig ib le
1B
E lig ib le
Levels Below Transfer
H ig he r
A math model
The above discussion can be modeled mathematically as follows at l levels below transfer. The new success rate, n, for students at level l after the imposition of mandatory English 1A requirement would be: n l
= s
0 t l
5

S
0 is the percent of English 1A eligible students who are successful in History and it is the anticipated success rate of all students once they become 1A eligible.
For students 5 levels below transfer, the percent successful after the imposition of prerequisites would be n l
= s
0 p 2l n
5
= .69(.8) 2(5)
n
5
= .69(.107) n
5
= .074
7.4% of students 5 levels below transfer would eventually pass History. The question arises what the average success and enrollment rate, p, would have to be in order for these students to be as successful as currently. That would be for students 5 levels below transfer:
.25 = .69p
10
.25/.69 = p 10 p = (.25/.69) (1/10) p = .956
In order for students who take history at 5 levels below English 1A eligibility to be as successful as they are currently (a 25% success rate), they would have to have an average success and enrollment rate of 95.6% in the English sequence - a highly unlikely rate for students to achieve at community colleges. For all other remedial level groups, the same kind of success and enrollment rate would have to be achieved in order for them to be as successful in History as currently.
Conclusion
It should be obvious that student performance in History and their English level are correlated.
In spite of this correlation, because of the attrition rate in the English sequence if students were required to reach an English 1A level before attempting History, the percent of remedial English students that would then pass History would be smaller than the current pass rate. It might be argued that the assumptions underlying this observation would be invalid if prerequisites were in place because the whole system would change thus invalidating whatever constants I have used to reach this conclusion. That is why I have calculated the ‘p’ value that would be required to have the same success rate with prerequisites as there exists currently without prerequisites. That ‘p’ value is
95% across remedial levels. That means that in a new system with prerequisites in place, students would have to succeed and enroll at each level of English at a 95% rate in order to achieve the same success rate that they currently have. This 95% rate is highly unlikely to occur even in a new system that required an English 1A level in order to take other classes. Consequently, there seems little doubt that fewer lower level English students would succeed in History than currently because they would not get through the English sequence to a level that they would be allowed to take History.
6

Of course, changes could be made in the English sequence. The sequence could be shortened.
With fewer levels and fewer transition points, more students would become English 1A eligible.
This might occur. Students could be creamed at the bottom of the sequences, perhaps directed to noncredit classes. Standards could be lowered at the top of the sequence. Instead of an English 1A eligible requirement, the requirement might be one level below English 1A. Students might also begin to place higher upon completion of high school once they realize that they wouldn’t be allowed to take a number of classes unless they were at a higher level. Another possibility is that p could be increased. Tighter tracking of successful students might improve their enrollment rates in higher classes. Success rates might be improved through mandatory tutoring. These scenarios are possible.
My argument is only that given the current sequence length and success and enrollment rates in
English, fewer students will succeed in History with prerequisites in place than without them in place.
If the whole system were changed and that change fundamentally affected students entering level, the number of levels they had to transition through or their success and enrollment rates within the sequence, then a move to prerequisites might be in order.
A more tangible concern is history enrollment. I estimate that one third of current history students would be lost to the history department. This is because many current History students who place below an English 1A eligible level would not get through the English sequence. Others observers have said the loss would only be temporary because of the systemic changes that would result for the institution of prerequisites. I believe this is wishful thinking. We have to understand the old way of looking at remedial students versus the way that lurks in the background of this memo. The old way of thinking is that remedial students fail to graduate and transfer because they fail their classes because they avoid remediation. If they were remediated in a timely manner they would succeed in their classes and would graduate and transfer. I think that this is simply not true.
Students can succeed in classes at remedial levels of ability but at lower success rates than higher placing students. The reason students fail is they can’t get through the remediation sequences.
Forcing earlier remediation only means they will exit the system sooner without the benefit of having knowledge of History or whatever other classes might require a prerequisite. Given this understanding, it is wise to proceed with caution. If we require students to remediate early, we need to be sure that they will be successful in the remediation. Otherwise, gateway sequences become gatekeeper sequences. Given what is at stake, I would recommend taking things a step at a time.
Two other issues that I have not discussed but which should be investigated if mandatory prerequisites were to be put in place are 1) the disproportionate impact of mandatory prerequisites and 2) differential validity of the prerequisites between native-speaking and ESL populations. Both of these issues address the one-size-fits-all problem. In terms of disproportionate impact, the implementation of mandatory prerequisites may have a greater effect on African-American and
Latino/a students because they place lower than Whites and Asians. As for differential validity, the validity of these prerequisites to predict success in History may well be different from nativespeaking to ESL students. It is often the case that ESL students (who make up 20% of CCSF’s credit population) outperform native speakers in non-English classes at equivalent remedial levels of
English. This is because of what levels below transfer means for the two groups. Native speakers at
3 levels below transfer, for example, are not academically prepared. ESL students 3 levels below transfer means they have a substantial command of a language that is not their own. Given the attrition rates of students as they move through remediation sequences, requiring ESL students to reach transfer levels of ability before taking GE classes where their increase in success in these classes is minimal, may be simply putting unnecessary road blocks in their way. We need to use the data available to us to investigate these issues to see the many ramifications of our policy changes on our diverse student populations in California.
7

Last, I don’t have a problem with advising students as to the advantages of remediation.
Students need to know that their success depends on their general English and mathematics capability. However, that advising needs to serve the purpose of getting students to commit to the remediation process. If there is no commitment then the attrition rate within the sequences is so high that they ensure student failure to advance. It all boils down to the same thing. If students can’t get through the sequences then greater emphasis on them only means greater failure rates. Is that what we want?
8