Developmental Education in A Comparison of Policies and Practices Fall 2000 and Fall 2004

Part 1

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Participation and Success

April 2005

This document and supplementary back-up data are available on the internet at

www.thecb.state.tx.us/ tsi/reports/desurvey Executive Summary

This report is the first of a two-part study of developmental education policies and practices at Texas public higher education institutions. The primary purpose of this report is to describe a February 2005 survey of developmental education policies and practices at 101 Texas public two-year and four-year higher education institutions.

In 2003, the adopted the Texas Success Initiative (TSI) , Texas Education Code, Section 51.3062. This program gave institutions more flexibility in determining college readiness and attempted to change the focus of developmental education to make it less of a barrier to under-prepared students. It also made the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board responsible for collecting and summarizing developmental education plans, and this survey and report are intended to address that mandate.

In addition, the Board has an ongoing project in which it has tracked the performance of nearly 160,000 students who first enrolled in summer and fall 1999. Institutions have significantly different developmental education success rates and somewhat different policies and practices. A second goal of this effort is to attempt to identify policies and practices strongly linked to success.

A third goal of this effort is to provide a single source of information to institutions providing developmental education, so they can easily find information regarding the policies and practices of other Texas public institutions of higher education.

The survey borrows heavily from a video presentation made for the Coordinating Board by Dr. Hunter Boylan, Director of the National Center for Developmental Education, in 2004, and based on his research included in What Works: Research Based Best Practices in Developmental Education. Dr. Boylan identified seven factors associated with successful developmental education programs: institutional priority, managing expectations, assessment, advising and placement, linkage with college-level courses, interventions, and progress monitoring. The survey addresses each of these factors.

The following are some of the conclusions of the report:

§ Developmental education is clearly a priority, although not yet a high priority, in most Texas public institutions of higher education. § The Texas Success Initiative has produced changes in developmental education, but the changes have not been dramatic. Institutions, especially community colleges, have reduced mandatory advising and have given students more freedom in choosing when they will address academic deficiencies. § Many institutions have been slow to adopt instructional policies such as frequent assessment, timely feedback, and individualized programs that have been demonstrated by research to be useful in improving developmental education. § In most institutions, assessment programs are stronger than advising and placement programs. Much of the diagnostic information provided by the multiple assessment tests used in Texas is not used to design individualized developmental education programs. § Institutions have been slow to adopt innovative teaching techniques such as learning communities, paired courses, Supplemental Instruction (SI), and others.

A second report in this series will explore relationships between institutional policies and practices and the performance of their developmental education programs. It will also provide the updated information on the nearly 160,000 students who first enrolled in summer and fall 1999.

i Developmental Education in Texas Higher Education A Comparison of Fall 2000 and Fall 2004 Policies and Practices

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... i

1. Introduction ...... 1

2. A Survey of Developmental Education Policies and Practices ...... 3

3. Developmental Education Policies and Practices ...... 5

3.1 Institutional Priority.

3.2 Managing Expectations . 3.3 Assessment. 3.4 Advising and Placement.

3.5 Linkage with College-Level Courses .

3.6 Interventions . 3.7 Progress Monitoring.

4. Differences in Policies and Practices in Different Higher Education Sectors . . . 8

4.1 Institutional Priority.

4.2 Managing Expectations . 4.3 Assessment. 4.4 Advising and Placement.

4.5 Linkage with College-Level Courses .

4.6 Interventions . 4.7 Progress Monitoring.

5. Conclusions ...... 10

6. Next Steps ...... 12

Appendices

A – Texas Success Initiative Enabling Legislation

B – Survey Advisory Committee

C – Statewide Survey Results

D –Selected Developmental Education Innovations

ii 1. Introduction

Most Texas public institutions of higher education, like their counterparts in other states, offer courses and programs designed to remedy academic deficiencies of entering students. In Texas, these courses and programs are called developmental education, although they may be referred to as remedial education or another term in other states.

In some cases, developmental education may take the form of college classes very similar to other classes, except college credit is not given. Developmental education may also be provided by tutors, mathematics or writing laboratories, computer-aided instruction, and many other services. In many cases, these services supplement traditional courses. Board rules limit the number of developmental courses that may be offered and standardize developmental education course offerings.

Almost every Texas Legislature in the past 20 years has addressed some aspect of developmental education. This attention is motivated by several related factors:

§ Concerns that developmental education requirements may be contributing to low success rates among some students. While developmental education is intended as a mechanism to increase college success rates, there is some concern that it may be having the opposite effect, at least for some students.

§ A long-term concern with the effectiveness of developmental education. While there is some evidence that indicates that students who successfully complete developmental education subsequently demonstrate success rates similar to their peers who did not require developmental education, the percentage of developmental education students who successfully complete developmental education remains disappointingly low.

§ Concerns regarding the academic preparation of future students. Closing the Gaps by 2015, the state's higher education plan, envisions a significant increase in the rate of participation in higher education. This increase includes large numbers of students from groups that have traditionally been less well-prepared for college-level work. Therefore, developmental education must be effective and efficient.

§ A long-term concern on the part of the Board and the Texas Legislature with the cost of

developmental education. As the higher education financ e system is subjected to additional stress, it is incumbent on the Board and institutions to demonstrate that the state’s investment in developmental education is as important, or more important, than competing educational priorities.

Two major legislative initiatives created the framework within which developmental education operated in recent years. In 1987, the Texas Academic Skills Program (TASP) was created. That initiative created a statewide examination required of most new college students, mandated continuous developmental education prior to beginning college-level course work, and included passing the exam as a condition of continued enrollment.

In 2003, TASP was replaced by the Texas Success Initiative (TSI). The Texas Success Initiative moves much of the responsibility for ensuring that students are qualified to do college- level work to the institutions. While an initial assessment examination is still required, institutions are given much greater flexibility in assessing the preparedness of their students, and students are given greater flexibility in addressing their academic deficiencies.

1

The enabling legislation for the Texas Success Initiative (Education Code, Section 51.3062) is provided in Appendix A. Among other things, it requires that institutions prepare developmental education plans and that the Coordinating Board collect and summarize these plans. This was done for the first time in 2003-2004, and a report summarizing these plans

(http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/cfbin/archfetch.cfm ?Doc ID=0755Format=PDF) was provided to the Board in January 2004. Because the plans had different structures and addressed different aspects of their programs, comparisons proved difficult. To facilitate making these comparisons, it was decided to supplement collection of the plans with a survey of their key elements.

In a parallel effort, the Coordinating Board's former Community and Technical Colleges Division has studied several times the characteristics of developmental education students and their success rates. In one of these studies, Board staff tracked a cohort of 158,903 students who entered in the summer/fall of 1999. The characteristics of these students and performance during their first two years in college were previously reported to the Board (http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/ctc/perfdata/deved/index.htm). Performance during two subsequent years will be documented in a subsequent report.

These studies documented significant performance differences among institutions, even after attempts to compensate for differences in student backgrounds. Consequently, the Board has, over the past two years, promulgated several initiatives to encourage institutions to adopt

developmental education “best practices ,” including providing copies of What Works: Research Based Best Practices in Developmental Education to every institution in the state. A study of the extent to which these “best practices” have found their way into institutional policies and practices is needed. In addition, additional verification that implementing these “best practices” will in fact improve performance would be highly desirable. These open questions created a second motivation for a survey of key elements of developmental education plans.

Finally, it is hoped that the results of this survey will provide useful information to institutions providing developmental education regarding the policies and practices of other public institutions of higher education. For example, the summary data in this report and the detailed institutional data contained on the Board’s web site (http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/tsi/reports/desurvey) will provide useful reference data for institutions who wish to make changes in their programs.

A second report is planned that will (1) update previous reports on the performance of the cohort of students who enrolled in summer and fall 1999 by providing two years of additional data; and (2) attempt to link individual institutional policies and practices with performance of their developmental education programs with the goal of further identifying programs that increase the likelihood of success.

2 2. A Survey of Developmental Education Policies and Practices

The survey that provides the basis of this report borrows liberally from a presentation by Dr. Hunter Boylan, Director of the National Center for Developmental Education. A video of this presentation is available on the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board’s web site at www.thecb.s tate.tx.us/FACTS/Page55.htm. This short, 10-minute presentation provides useful background information.

Dr. Boylan identifies seven factors that are essential to the implementation of a successful developmental education program:

§ Institutional Priority. Developmental education programs cannot be successful unless they are viewed as an important part of the mission of the institution and appropriate resources are dedicated to them. Some indicators of developmental education’s institutional priority include its inclusion in the institution’s strategic plan, the commitment of regular full-time faculty to the activity, its place within the institution’s organizational structure, and emphasis on accreditation.

§ Managing Expectations. In many respects, developmental education is more difficult than teaching students without academic deficiencies, and must be approached differently. Managing the expectations of both students and the instructional staff is an important part of that difference. When new faculty members are hired, they should be advised that teaching developmental education is an important part of the institution’s mission and of their work so that they buy into the program. While well-prepared students learn in a variety of environments, developmental education is most effective when mechanisms are in place to ensure regular class attendance and participation, frequent assessment, and prompt feedback. External assessments are an important part of a strong developmental education program.

§ Assessment. Initial assessment should provide useful information to both students and instructional staff so that a relevant developmental education plan can be developed. Because the Texas Success Initiative allows the use of multiple instruments, this is an especially important issue in Texas. Institutions are allowed to adopt higher passing scores than those adopted by the Coordinating Board, and information is needed to determine how extensively this is done. Finally, most assessment instruments provide considerable information on specific areas in which students have deficiencies, and it is important that this specific information, not simply the fact that the student failed to pass, be provided so those specific deficiencies can be addressed efficiently.

§ Advising and Placement. Successful developmental education programs require active advising programs to ensure that students are addressing their academic deficiencies. Students should be placed in courses or other programs specific to their specific deficiencies, not routed through a common sequence of courses independent of their deficiencies. Because the Texas Success Initiative changed rules related to both advising and mandatory continuous enrollment in developmental education, it is important to monitor the impact of these rules on institutional policies and practices.

§ Linkage with College-Level Courses. Developmental education programs must have a strong linkage with the college-level courses for which they are preparing students. Preferably, there should be a formal program in which both developmental education faculty

3 and faculty teaching college-level courses cooperate in structuring developmental education courses and programs.

§ Interventions. The best developmental education programs offer multiple different interventions to address student academic deficiencies and use them in combinations. Computer-aided instruction, peer tutoring, learning communities, paired or linked courses, and SI (Supplemental Instruction) are a few of the innovative alternatives or supplements available to traditional developmental courses.

§ Progress Monitoring. Finally, good programs of all kinds build in some sort of internal continuous improvement activity in which they monitor what works and what does not work then follow with corresponding changes.

An on-line survey was developed in response to each of these issues. As is the case with any survey, there must be some balance between the desires of the research staff and those completing the survey. The survey consists of 29 questions and an optional paragraph. All but one of the questions are multiple choice questions. The survey with the statewide responses is provided in Appendix C.

Because the survey has two purposes, respondents were asked to answer questions for two time periods. To link performance with policies for the 1999 cohort, respondents were asked to answer questions as of fall 2000. To obtain current information, respondents were also asked to answer questions as of fall 2004. This also enabled the Board staff to assess changes implemented since the enactment of the Texas Success Initiative.

Prior to distribution, the survey was reviewed by an advisory committee consisting of representatives of public two-year colleges and . Membership included faculty members, administrators directly responsible for developmental education programs, institutional researchers, and institutional executive officers. A roster of members is included as Appendix B. In addition, the survey was reviewed by the Board’s Data Collection Committee. Both committees made helpful changes to the survey instrument.

The survey was distributed to Texas public community colleges, technical colleges, Lamar State Colleges, and universities in February 2005. As of the closing date for preparing this report, 101 of 105 eligible institutions submitted responses .

4 3. Developmental Education Policies and Practices

In this section, statewide responses provided in Appendix C are summarized. The analysis and presentation of information in Subsections 3.1 through 3.7 follow Dr. Boylan's best practices concepts. In Section 4, significant differences that exist among different sectors of higher education are noted. In presenting these data, staff have chosen to present simple counts or averages rather than attempting to weight the results by student enrollments or some related factor. Staff recorded responses from each individual campus rather than college systems, even where all responses for institutions within a system were identical. Although enrollment size differences are less than they might otherwise be, Board staff felt that using un-weighted averages was not inappropriate for purposes of this study. Note that some of the very large campuses (e.g., The of Texas at Austin) have relatively small enrollments in developmental education.

3.1 Institutional Priority. Institutions appear to have made developmental education an institutional priority, but not a high priority; movement is in the right direction. Sixty-six percent of institutions reported that developmental education was a major part of their strategic plan in 2004, compared to 52 percent in 2000. The percentage of institutions that created a separate organizational structure for developmental education, which is one indicator of institutional priority, increased from 27 percent to 33 percent. Grades in developmental education courses were slightly more likely to be used to determine academic standing (e.g., good academic standing, academic probation, academic suspension) in 2004 than in 2000. The percentage of institutions that either hold accreditation from the National Association for Developmental Education or are seeking it, increased from 8 percent in 2000 to 27 percent in 2004. The percentages of developmental and college-level courses taught by regular, full-time faculty appears to have changed little between 2000 and 2004. Overall, the commitment of regular full- time faculty to developmental education is not greatly different than the commitment to other lower-division classes, although the difference is greater for mathematics than for other disciplines. Table 1 illustrates the percentages of classes taught by regular, full-time faculty in fall 2004. These data mask some major differences among institutions. For example, the percentage of mathematics developmental education classes taught by regular, full-time faculty range from as high as 100 percent to as low as 0 percent.

Table 1 Percentage of Classes Taught by Full-time Faculty Fall 2004

Mathematics Writing College- College- College- D.E. D.E. D.E. level level level Community Colleges 48% 69% 55% 58% 52% 58% TSTC/Lamar State Colleges 80% 92% 79% 50% 93% 84% Universities 40% 71% 38% 70% 41% 48% Statewide 48% 71% 52% 61% 51% 57% D.E. - Developmental Education

3.2 Managing Expectations. Institutions appear to do a mixed job of managing the expectations of developmental education faculty and students. In about 60 percent of departments that offer developmental education courses, at least 75 percent of new faculty are advised that they will be expected to teach developmental education along with their other courses. Mandatory roll- taking was used as an indicator of the presence of policies that encourage attendance and

5 participation, an especially important consideration for developmental education programs. The percentage of institutions mandating roll-taking in developmental education appears to be decreasing, from about 86 percent in 2000 to about 77 percent in 2004. About one-third of institutions have policies requiring weekly assessments and prompt feedback in developmental education courses, but most institutions report that these practices are recommended and are common. In about two-thirds percent of cases, an external assessment is provided at the end of developmental education courses.

3.3 Assessment. Texas institutions have a history of strong initial assessment. Currently, three assessment instruments are used in addition to the Texas Higher Education Assessment. ACCUPLACER is used in about half of the institutions, COMPASS in about one-third, and ASSET in about one-quarter. A significant number of institutions report that they require higher passing scores than those required by the Coordinating Board: 30 percent of institutions for mathematics; 8 percent of institutions for reading; and 15 percent of institutions for writing. All of these percentages increased between 2000 and 2004. In about 40 percent of institutions, students are provided only a pass/fail or a score on their assessment test, and the diagnostic information provided by these assessment instruments is essentially lost. This is a significant weakness, because it gives students no information on how they can most efficiently address their deficiencies. As a result, students are not able to make good decisions, and they enroll in full-length courses when less time-consuming and expensive options might suffice or otherwise waste time and money.

3.4 Advising and Placement. Institutions appear to have a mixed record regarding advising and placement. About 75 percent of institutions report that advising is currently mandatory each semester until developmental education is completed. However, between 11 and 16 percent of institutions, depending on the discipline involved, report that they currently have no mandatory advising for students who have failed an assessment exam. In 2000, only 3 percent reported no mandatory advising. Over 50 percent of institutions report that the intervention prescribed for most students is identical which is consistent with the observation in Section 3.3 that the diagnostic information provided by assessment instruments is largely unused. Institutions report a heavy reliance on standardized exams and transcripts for placement purposes. More than 90 percent of institutions require that students complete related developmental education courses prior to enrolling in college-level courses. An unexpected result is that the percentages of institutions allowing students to enroll in college-level courses prior to completing related developmental education dropped since enactment of the Texas Success Initiative: from 6 percent to 0 percent for mathematics; from 13 percent to 9 percent for reading; and from 6 percent to 1 percent for writing.

3.5 Linkage with College-Level Courses. About 20 percent of institutions report that a formal process exists for faculty teaching college-level courses to articulate to developmental education faculty the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful in college-level courses. The number of institutions reporting formal processes increased between 2000 and 2004, and most also report that informal processes achieve that result. The percentages of institutions reporting that they had no explicit process for aligning exit requirements in developmental education with entry requirements in college-level courses decreased between 2000 and 2004. from 22 percent to 19 percent in mathematics from 32 percent to 30 percent in reading, and from 27 percent to 19 percent in writing. One creative approach to developmental education is to formally “pair” the first college-level courses with a specific developmental education course and require students to simultaneously enroll in both. This is rare in Texas.

6 3.6 Interventions. Multiple developmental education courses were reported in 94 institutions in mathematics; 73 in reading, and 68 in writing. Over 76 institutions provide tutoring by faculty or staff as an intervention. Computer-aided instruction is available at from 71 to 80 of institutions, depending on the discipline. Peer tutoring is available at between 58 and 72 of institutions, again depending on the discipline. The number of institutions reporting these interventions all increased between 2000 and 2004. More innovative interventions such as learning communities, paired courses, and supplemental instruction are relatively rare. The Texas Success Initiative eliminated a requirement that institutions provide mandatory continuous developmental education, and developmental education is no longer mandatory at about 25 percent of institutions, a marked increase since 2000 when fewer than 5 percent of institutions did not mandate it.

3.7 Progress Monitoring. Nearly 90 percent of institutions report that they have a formal or informal data analysis process to evaluate the effectiveness of their developmental education program. The level of student progress monitoring is less encouraging. In about 65 percent of institutions, no information is routinely provided to faculty on student performance in other developmental education classes, although it is often available to faculty who seek it.

7 4. Differences in Policies and Practices in Different Higher Education Sectors

For purposes of this study, Board staff differentiated among three higher education sectors that offer developmental education: (1) community colleges, (2) Texas State Technical College and Lamar State Colleges, and (3) universities. About 88 percent of developmental education is offered by community colleges, about 4 percent by Texas State Technical College and Lamar State Colleges, and about 8 percent by universities. While some health-related institutions offer some undergraduate degrees, none provides developmental education.

Policies and practices among institutions are more similar than they are different, partially because developmental education is and has been one of the more highly regulated aspects of higher education. This section highlights some of the differences. Comparisons are made only between universities and community colleges. Background data is provided on the

Coordinating Board ’s web site for Texas higher education sectors, and are included in the statewide averages presented in Appendix C. However, statistics for Texas State Technical College and Lamar State Colleges are not included in this section because their enrollments are so small compared to the other two sectors.

4.1 Institutional Priority. Developmental education is reported as a major part of institutional strategic plans far more often in community colleges (82 percent) than universities (29 percent). Twenty-five percent of universities indicated that developmental education was not included in their strategic plan at all. Both community colleges and universities teach a higher percentage of college-level courses than developmental courses with regular, full-time faculty. The use of part-time faculty to teach developmental education is similar in both sectors, although universities teach a larger percentage of developmental education courses with part-time faculty. Inter-institutional differences are far more significant. The percentages of institutions in each sector that have chosen to create centralized vs. decentralized developmental education programs are remarkably similar. Community colleges are more likely than universities to seek accreditation of their developmental education programs.

4.2 Managing Expectations. Community colleges are much more likely than universities to expect newly-hired full and part-time faculty to teach developmental education courses. Classroom policies addressing practices such as roll-taking, frequent assessment, and timely feedback appear to be similar in both sectors.

4.3 Assessment. Both sectors may use the same assessment instruments, although there is a

significant difference in their use. ASSET is not used on univ ersity campuses and COMPASS is used on only about 10 percent of university campuses. Both are used on about one-third of community college campuses. The percentages of universities and community colleges that use passing standards higher than those of the Board are similar. Universities are somewhat more likely than community colleges to routinely provide diagnostic information from assessment tests to students.

4.4 Advising and Placement. The Texas Success Initiative was designed to give institutions more flexibility in addressing the needs of students, with anticipation that institutions would use this flexibility to implement more individualized developmental education programs. This may not be happening. Community colleges have moved more rapidly than universities to eliminate mandatory advising for students who fail an initial assessment. For example, 4 percent of universities have no mandatory advising, while the percentage of community colleges with no mandatory advising ranges from 15 percent to 23 percent, depending on the discipline. Universities apparently place students who fail an initial assessment in a wider range of

8 interventions; about 35 percent of universities report that “the intervention is identical for most students” while about 58 percent of community colleges make a similar report.

4.5 Linkage with College-Level Courses. Community colleges are somewhat more likely to formalize the process of linking developmental and college-level courses. About 86 percent of community colleges and 68 percent of universities report that they have explicit processes in place for aligning the exit requirements of mathematics developmental education programs with the knowledge and skills required and the entry requirements for college-level courses. Similar differences exist for other disciplines.

4.6 Interventions. Both community colleges and universities offer a broad range of interventions. Community colleges are more likely to offer multiple courses in each discipline. The utilization of non-course based strategies is remarkably similar. Universities are more likely to require mandatory, continuous developmental education than community colleges. For example, universities report that mandatory, continuous developmental education is no longer required at 7 percent or fewer of institutions, depending on the discipline, while the corresponding range for community colleges is 36 to 39 percent.

4.7 Progress Monitoring. Both community colleges and universities are making progress in improving monitoring of their developmental education programs as a whole and monitoring of individual student progress. However, community colleges appear to be further along on this effort. For example, community colleges report that in 2004 formal processes involving data analysis to evaluate developmental education programs exist for about 75 percent of programs; universities report that similar monitoring programs exist for between 43 and 54 percent of their programs, depending on the discipline.

9 5. Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:

§ In most Texas public colleges and universities, developmental education has not yet reached the level of priority needed to positively impact student success. It is part of institutional strategic plans, especially at community colleges. However, in most institutions these programs are staffed with a higher proportion of temporary or part-time faculty; institutions that have been slow to implement innovative teaching techniques; and the critical advising function appears to be receiving less emphasis than previously.

§ The Texas Success Initiative (TSI) produced changes in developmental education, but the changes have not been dramatic. The survey indicates that there have been relatively few significant changes in policies and practices between 2000 (pre-TSI) and 2004 (post-TSI). One significant change is that institutions, especially community colleges, have reduced mandatory advising and have given students more freedom in choosing when they will address academic deficiencies. The Texas Success Initiative is too new to determine if it has increased the number of students with academic deficiencies who are successful in college.

§ Many institutions have been slow to adopt instructional policies demonstrated by research to be useful in improving developmental education. Examples include frequent assessment, timely feedback, and individualized programs. A large body of research exists that indicates that, to be successful, developmental education students need a more structured environment than college-level students. They need more advising, mechanisms to enforce or at least encourage attendance, frequent testing, and prompt and frequent feedback. Yet the survey indicates that developmental education students are taught similarly to college- level students, although with generally less-qualified faculty.

§ In most institutions, assessment programs are stronger than advising and placement programs. The assessment examinations used in Texas provide specific information regarding students’ academic deficiencies. In far too many cases, students are not provided any feedback other than a score or a pass/fail indication, even though this information is readily available. Consequently, much of the diagnostic information provided by the multiple assessment tests used in Texas is essentially lost, and is not used to design effective and efficient individualized developmental education programs. This is especially worrisome because institutions also appear to be reducing the amount of mandatory advising provided. Students are not able to make informed academic decisions if they are not given relevant information.

§ Institutions have been slow to adopt innovative teaching techniques such as learning communities, paired courses, Supplemental Instruction (SI), and others. Most developmental education is delivered in traditional courses, which are efficient for the institution, but which have been proven to be ineffective for large numbers of developmental education students. Developmental education success rates with traditional programs have been disappointing. Wide scale experimentation with innovative teaching methodologies for developmental education is appropriate.

§ A reduced emphasis on student advising is absolutely contrary to the intent of the Texas Success Initiative, and is not consistent with the design and implementation of quality developmental education programs. Reduced advising will jeopardize institution’s ability to

10 meet the goals of Closing the Gaps by 2015. Institutions should review their polic ies and practices to strengthen -- not weaken -- advising programs, especially for developmental education students.

11 6. Next Steps

Part 2 of this developmental education report will be presented at the July 2005 Coordinating Board meeting. At the conclusion of Part 2, the staff will provide recommendations for consideration by the Board to support and assist institutions in improving developmental education policies and practices.

12 Appendices

A – Texas Success Initiative Enabling Legislation

B – Survey Advisory Committee

C – Statewide Survey Results

D - Selected Developmental Education Innovations

1 Appendix A Texas Success Initiative Enabling Legislation

§ 51.3062. SUCCESS INITIATIVE. (a) The definitions provided by Section 61.003 apply to this section. (b) An institution of higher education shall assess the academic skills of each entering undergraduate student to determine the student's readiness to enroll in freshman-level academic coursework. An institution may not use the assessment or the results of the assessment as a condition of admission to the institution. (c) The board shall designate one or more instruments for use by institutions of higher education in assessing students under this section. (d) If practical and feasible, not later than September 1, 2005, the board shall designate the exit-level assessment instrument required under Section 39.023 as the primary assessment instrument under this section. This subsection expires September 1, 2006. (e) The board shall designate additional assessment instruments for use by institutions of higher education under this section, including assessment instruments currently approved by the board to measure college readiness. (f) Each assessment instrument designated by the board for use under this section must be diagnostic in nature and designed to assess a student's readiness to perform freshman-level academic coursework. The board shall prescribe standards for the assessment instrument or instruments that reflect that student readiness. An institution of higher education may adopt more stringent assessment standards with respect to student readiness. (g) Each institution of higher education shall establish a program to advise students regarding coursework and other means by which students can develop the academic skills required to successfully complete college-level work. (h) If a student fails to meet the assessment standards described by Subsection (f), the institution of higher education shall work with the student to develop a plan to assist the student in becoming ready to perform freshman-level academic coursework. The plan must be designed on an individual basis to provide the best opportunity for each student to attain that readiness. (i) The institution of higher education may refer a student to developmental coursework as considered necessary by the institution to address a student's deficiencies in the student's readiness to perform freshman-level academic coursework, except that the institution may not require enrollment in developmental coursework with respect to a student previously determined by any institution of higher education to have met college-readiness standards. (j) A student may retake an assessment instrument at any time to determine readiness to perform freshman-level academic coursework. (k) An institution of higher education shall determine when a student is ready to perform freshman-level academic coursework. The institution must make its determination on an individual basis according to the needs of the student. The determination shall

1 include: (1) requiring a student to retake a board-approved assessment instrument, if the student did not initially perform within a deviation established by the board; or (2) other board-approved means of evaluating student readiness, if the student did not initially pass the assessment instrument but performed within a deviation established by the board. (l) The legislature shall appropriate money for approved non-degree-credit developmental courses, except that legislative appropriations may not be used for developmental coursework taken by a student in excess of: (1) 18 semester credit hours, for a general academic teaching institution; and (2) 27 semester credit hours, for a public junior college, public technical institute, or public state college. (m) The board may develop formulas to supplement the funding of developmental academic programs by institutions of higher education, including formulas for supplementing the funding of non-course-based programs. The board may develop a performance funding formula by which institutions may receive additional funding for each student who completes the Success Initiative established under this section and then successfully completes college coursework. The legislature may appropriate the money required to provide the additional funding under those formulas. (n) Each institution of higher education shall report annually to the board on the success of its students and the effectiveness of its Success Initiative. (o) The board shall evaluate the effectiveness of the Success Initiative on a statewide basis and with respect to each institution of higher education. (p) A student who has achieved a score set by the board on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) or the American College Test (ACT) is exempt from the requirements of this section. An exemption under this subsection is effective for the five-year period following the date a student takes the test and achieves the standard set by the board. (q) A student who has achieved a score set by the board on an exit-level assessment instrument required under Section 39.023 is exempt from the requirements of this section. The exemption is effective for the three-year period following the date a student takes the assessment instrument and achieves the standard set by the board. This subsection does not apply during any period for which the board designates the exit-level assessment instrument required under Section 39.023 as the primary assessment instrument under this section, except that the three-year period described by this subsection remains in effect for students who qualify for an exemption under this section before that period. (r) This section does not apply to: (1) a student who has graduated with an associate or baccalaureate degree from an institution of higher education; (2) a student who transfers to an institution of higher education from a private or independent institution of higher education or an accredited out-of-state institution of higher education and who has satisfactorily completed college-level coursework; (3) a student who is enrolled in a certificate program

2 of one year or less at a public junior college, a public technical institute, or a public state college; (4) a student who is serving on active duty as a member of: (A) the armed forces of the ; or (B) the Texas National Guard; (5) a student who is currently serving as and, for at least the three-year period preceding enrollment, has served as a member of a reserve component of the armed forces of the United States; or (6) a student who on or after August 1, 1990, was honorably discharged, retired, or released from: (A) active duty as a member of the armed forces of the United States or the Texas National Guard; or (B) service as a member of a reserve component of the armed forces of the United States. (s) An institution of higher education may exempt a non-degree-seeking or non-certificate-seeking student from the requirements of this section.

Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 820, § 37(b), eff. Sept. 1, 2003.

3 Appendix B Survey Advisory Committee

Renea Fike, Ph.D. Dean of Students and Academic Development Amarillo College

Christopher P. Benton, Ph.D. Director-Institutional Effectiveness and Research Alvin Community College

Gerald Corkran Division Chair for Fine Arts and Communication Division Western Texas College

Mary Darin (Chair) Dean, Human and Academic Development Richland College County Community College District

Rebecca Garlick Division Chair, Parallel Studies Department Blinn College

Stephen Head Executive Vice Chancellor North Harris Montgomery Community College District

Mary Leonard Professor, Developmental Reading Austin Community College

Gail Platt, Ph.D. Director of the Teacher and Learning Center College

David Preston, Ph.D. Director, Institutional Research, and Coordinator, Title V Brazosport College

Paul Raffeld, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology/Director of University Testing Center -San Marcos

William Serrata Dean Enrollment Services College

Gayla Thomas Senior VP-Institutional Effectiveness Texas Southern University

1

Appendix C Statewide Survey Results

The survey is reproduced below with the selection buttons replaced with data boxes. Each survey question is followed by the allowable responses, and the percentages in the data boxes correspond to the percentages of institutions that chose that response. For example, 52 percent of institutions chose the response “Yes, a major part” to the first question for Fall 2000 and 66 percent chose that response for Fall 2004.

Similar summaries for universities, for community colleges, for TSTC and Lamar State Colleges and for individual institutions are available on the web site.

Institutional Priority Section

1. Is D.E. a part of your institution’s strategic plan? Fall 2000 Fall 2004 Yes, a major part 52% 66% Yes, but a minor part 33% 24% No 13% 9% Our institution does not have a strategic plan 2% 1%

2. How do the percentages of developmental class sections taught by regular, full-time faculty compare with the percentages of college-level class sections taught by regular, full-time faculty? Fall 2000 Fall 2004 Percentage of mathematics D.E. class sections taught by regular, full-time 48% 48% faculty Percentage of mathematics college-level class sections taught by regular, full- 70% 71% time faculty Percentage of reading D.E. class sections taught by regular, full-time faculty 52% 52% Percentage of history college-level class sections taught by regular, full-time 64% 61% faculty

Percentage of writing D.E. class s ections taught by regular, full- 50% 51% time faculty

Percentage of English Composition college- level class sections taught by 57% 57% regular, full-time faculty

3. Is D.E. instruction provided in a separate department or division, or is it distributed among multiple administrative entities? Fall 2000 Fall 2004 Centralized 27% 33% Decentralized but coordinated 47% 50% Decentralized 27% 18%

4. How are grades in D.E. courses or progress in remedying academic deficiencies used to determine academic standing (e.g., probation, suspension, etc.)? Fall 2000 Fall 2004 Calculated in GPA along with college-level courses to determine academic 43% 44% standing Not used in GPA calculation but is used in determining academic standing 27% 30% NOT used at all to determine academic standing 31% 27%

1 5. Does your D.E. program hold an external certification from the National Association for Developmental Education (NADE)? Fall 2000 Fall 2004 Yes 2% 5% Not now, but we are working on it 6% 22% No 92% 73%

Managing Expectations Section

1. Where D.E. is not provided in a separate department, what percentage of newly-hired full and part-time, regular faculty are hired with the understanding that they are expected to periodically teach D.E. courses as a part of their load? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Over 75 percent 64% 63% 59% 59% 56% 57% Between 50 and 74 percent 7% 10% 4% 4% 7% 9% Between 25 and 49 percent 3% 3% 0% 1% 1% 1% Less than 25 percent 27% 25% 37% 35% 36% 33%

2. How is student attendance/participation monitored in D.E. courses and activities? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Faculty must take roll 86% 79% 86% 76% 85% 75% Taking roll is recommended, not required, and 13% 21% 13% 24% 14% 25% most faculty do take roll Taking roll is recommended, not required, and 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% most faculty do NOT take roll Faculty are not required to take roll 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

3. Regarding how student attendance/participation is monitored in D.E. courses and activities, is the policy for taking roll (attendance) the same for D.E. as it is for college-level courses? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Yes 58% 66% 58% 65% 60% 68% No 42% 34% 42% 35% 40% 32%

4. Is at least weekly assessment required in D.E. courses and other D.E. activities as a matter of policy? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Yes 18% 19% 21% 23% 19% 20% Not required, but recommended; and this is a 48% 49% 49% 48% 51% 51% common practice Not required, but recommended; but this is not a 13% 13% 9% 9% 10% 10% common practice No 22% 20% 22% 21% 21% 20%

2 5. Is prompt feedback of assessment required in D.E. courses and other activities as a matter of policy? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Yes 32% 34% 34% 36% 35% 36% Not required, but recommended; and this is a common 57% 54% 56% 54% 54% 53% practice Not required, but recommended; but this is not a 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% common practice No 6% 7% 5% 5% 6% 6%

6. What external assessments at the end of each D.E. course or other D.E. intervention are required by a written policy and enforced? Check all that apply. Data shown are responses, not percentages. Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 TASP/THEA 36 24 46 32 42 29 Other standardized test (e.g., ACCUPLACER) 12 23 23 35 17 27 Departmental assessment not created by the instructor 37 39 35 39 38 42 No external assessments are required 32 39 25 29 28 34

Assessment Section

1. What assessment instruments are offered by your institution for TASP/TSI purposes? Check all that apply. Data shown are responses, not percentages. Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 TASP/THEA 97 96 97 96 97 95 ASSET 26 27 25 26 24 26 COMPASS 25 33 24 31 24 32 ACCUPLACER 32 51 32 51 32 51 MAPS 13 0 13 0 13 0

2. What assessment instruments are accepted by your institution without a transcript for TASP/TSI purposes? Check all that apply. Data shown are responses, not percentages. Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 TASP/THEA 100 99 100 99 100 99 ASSET 71 81 69 81 70 81 COMPASS 70 80 69 80 69 80 ACCUPLACER 75 86 75 86 75 85 MAPS 55 42 54 41 52 40 Institutionally-developed test 4 5 2 5 3 6

3 3. Does your institution require higher passing standards than those specified by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Yes 22% 30% 6% 8% 10% 15% No 78% 70% 94% 92% 90% 85%

4. After assessment testing, do students receive a pass/fail score only, or are they provided with information about specific weaknesses in their academic preparation as identified by the test? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Students receive pass/fail designation/score and additional information about specific weaknesses in their 42% 41% 46% 45% 42% 43% academic preparation (diagnostic information) Diagnostic information is available to students who 18% 19% 18% 19% 21% 21% request it but not routinely provided Only a pass/fail score is provided 41% 41% 37% 37% 38% 37%

Advising and Placement Section

1. What is the academic advising policy for students who fail the TASP/TSI assessment? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Mandatory each semester of enrollment until student 11% 10% 11% 10% 11% 10% leaves the institution Mandatory each semester until all areas have been 76% 63% 76% 64% 76% 63% successfully completed Mandatory first year only 0% 2% 1% 3% 5% 2% Mandatory first semester only 10% 13% 9% 12% 5% 9% Not mandatory 3% 12% 3% 11% 3% 16%

2. Are interventions for students who fail an assessment identical for all students, or does your institution allow and provide for a variety of interventions? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 A variety of interventions is possible, and the course of action is decided jointly by the student and the academic 21% 31% 23% 36% 21% 34% advisor A variety of interventions is possible, and the course of 13% 15% 14% 15% 14% 15% action is decided by the advisor The intervention is identical for most students 66% 54% 63% 50% 65% 51%

4 3. What factors other than scores on TASP/TSI assessment instruments are routinely used in making placement decisions? Check all that apply. Data shown are responses, not percentages. Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 High school or college transcript 71 75 68 65 68 68 Recommendations of others 6 10 7 11 6 10 Assessment based on personal interview 15 18 11 13 12 14 Institutional placement exam scores 49 52 34 34 41 37 Length of time student has been out of school 29 32 22 23 22 23 ACT/SAT 71 75 67 71 68 72 Other factors 30 32 36 38 34 36

4. What is your institution’s policy regarding registering in college-level courses prior to completing developmental education requirements? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Students are required to complete all D.E. before 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 1% enrolling in any college-level courses Students are required to complete related D.E. before enrolling in college-level courses in the area of the 92% 98% 84% 89% 92% 98% deficiency Students may enroll in college-level courses without 6% 0% 13% 9% 6% 1% regard to completion of D.E.

Linkage with College-Level Courses Section

1. Do faculty who teach college-level courses regularly articulate to D.E. faculty the knowledge and skills necessary for entry into college-level courses? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 A formal process for doing so exists and is used 16% 21% 8% 14% 15% 20% They do so, both formally and informally 50% 53% 43% 46% 48% 51% They do so only informally 31% 24% 39% 33% 31% 26% The two groups of faculty have different goals and objectives and do not interact extensively formally or 4% 2% 11% 8% 7% 3% informally

2. Is there an explicit process for aligning exit requirements in D.E. courses with entry requirements in college-level courses? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Yes, faculty teaching D.E. and faculty teaching college- 62% 70% 42% 50% 53% 65% level courses both participate Yes, faculty teaching D.E. do it 15% 10% 26% 20% 18% 14% Yes, faculty teaching college-level courses do it 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% No 22% 19% 32% 30% 27% 19%

5 3. One approach to D.E. is to formally “pair” the first college-level course with a specific D.E. course and require students in need of D.E. to simultaneously enroll in both. E.g., an institution might pair the D.E. Reading Skills II course with American History. Does your institution “pair” D.E. and college-level courses? Math/ Reading Writing DE Math Intensive/ Intensive/ DE Reading DE Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Yes 0% 2% 2% 5% 2% 4% Occasionally 7% 6% 21% 24% 17% 19% No 93% 92% 77% 71% 81% 77%

Interventions Section

1. What interventions does your institution offer to students requiring D.E.? Check all that apply, but do not check interventions that are offered only on an ad hoc basis without predetermined procedures, staffing and evaluation. Data shown are responses, not percentages. Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Multiple courses in each discipline 91 94 73 73 70 68 A single course in each discipline 6 5 24 26 24 28 Computer-aided instruction 63 80 62 71 65 71 Tutoring by faculty or staff 78 84 72 77 77 76 Peer tutoring 68 72 52 58 55 59 Learning communities (small group study) 8 20 13 27 12 26 Paired/linked courses 8 8 18 16 14 12 Supplementary Instruction (SI) 20 30 15 19 15 19

2. What fraction of D.E. students are actively involved in “learning communities” that are supported by predetermined procedures, staffing, and evaluation? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Nearly all 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% Not all, but over two-thirds 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% Between one-third and two-thirds 1% 5% 2% 5% 2% 5% A few, but under one-third 24% 36% 27% 34% 28% 35% None 73% 57% 69% 59% 68% 57%

3. Is Supplemental Instruction (SI) provided in college-level courses so that students with academic deficiencies could choose to enroll in college-level courses and use that SI to remedy their deficiencies? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Always 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 5% Yes, in most courses 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% Yes, in a few courses 6% 9% 8% 11% 7% 9% Students are required to complete D.E. before enrolling 32% 38% 27% 32% 28% 34% in college-level courses No SI is available 55% 46% 59% 51% 59% 51%

6 4. How often are case studies, problem-based learning and/or similar instructional methodologies used in D.E. courses? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 In virtually all courses 20% 23% 15% 18% 14% 18% Usually, but not always 6% 6% 8% 8% 10% 10% Sometimes 40% 43% 46% 50% 44% 45% Almost never 35% 29% 32% 25% 33% 28%

5. Does your institution require mandatory, continuous developmental education for students requiring developmental education? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Mandatory each semester of enrollment until student 7% 3% 7% 3% 7% 3% leaves the institution Mandatory each semester until all areas have been 86% 68% 88% 69% 87% 69% successfully completed Mandatory first year only 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Mandatory first semester only 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% Not mandatory 6% 27% 4% 26% 5% 26%

Progress Monitoring Section

1. At your institution, is there a formal process involving data analysis of program outcomes that is used to evaluate the effectiveness of your D.E. program and for making changes as a result of that evaluation at least yearly? Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Yes, and it has resulted in significant changes to the 15% 23% 13% 19% 11% 23% program Yes, and it has resulted in some changes to the program 36% 40% 38% 42% 38% 41% Yes, but no changes were necessary 5% 4% 4% 4% 6% 5% No, but an effective informal program is in place 29% 25% 25% 21% 25% 20% No 16% 9% 21% 15% 21% 12%

2. When are D.E. classroom teachers provided with information that indicates their students’ progress or lack of progress in remedying academic deficiencies? Check all that apply. Data are responses, not %. Math Reading Writing 2000 2004 2000 2004 2000 2004 Information on student performance in other D.E. classes and activities is routinely provided at the start of 22 23 23 25 22 25 each semester

… at som e point each semester 10 12 11 13 9 11 … at some point after each semester 12 12 15 15 13 13 Information is not provided but is available to faculty who 52 54 53 53 53 52 choose to access it No information on student performance in other D.E. 17 12 15 11 16 12 classes or activities is available to faculty

7 Appendix D

Selected Developmental Education Innovations

As a part of the survey, institutions were offered an opportunity to submit brief descriptions of developmental education innovations implemented on their campuses. The following is a partial list of those submitted. ______

Texas A&M International University We have raised our grading scale by five points so that a low "c" is equivalent to a 75 and not a 70. We are hoping that this will improve developmental education students' performance in their college level classes. This is our first year, and we hope to see a difference in the data next year. Up to this point, developmental students do not perform as well as their non-developmental education peers in the sequence courses.

Texas A&M University We offer a screening for a perceptual disorder, Scotopic Sensitivity/Irlen Syndrome (SSS). SSS interferes with reading and writing-based activities. A number of our remedial reading and writing students have been found to have this disorder, and subsequent THEA or ACCUPLACER results have shown dramatic improvement in their abilities to comprehend print.

Texas A&M University – Corpus Christi TAMU-CC provides the students in developmental education with counseling/advising about their specific strengths and weaknesses. Success strategies are provided as part of the student's Individual Success Plan (ISP). The LASSI, which is offered by Academic Advising, is another tool to assess students. Advising and Placement Section-The Intervention Specialist's Office provides developmental/intrusive advising for all students enrolled in developmental education. This office is also responsible for the ISP's.

Texas State University – San Marcos The creation of the individualized developmental education plans with each student who has failing scores has been very successful. Scores are not always predictive of ability and can be affected by conditions and circumstances, so allowing the students to have input in the process is very helpful. For example, what I'm finding is that perhaps some students who have been placed in the Intermediate Algebra class, based solely on scores, should probably have been placed in a lower- level developmental math class if they had not taken a math class in more than four or five years and had not tested in several years. I've also advised some students to re-test before signing up for a developmental education class if they were ill on the day of the test. Both the students and the institution or being better served.

University of - Downtown University College works in tandem with the faculty in the degree-granting colleges who teach the developmental education courses. One forum for this collaboration is the First Year Advisory Council. Our Learners' Community, in its last year of a five-year Title V grant, has incorporated supplemental instruction, linked courses, a laptop project, financial aid counseling, and academic counseling as support strategies. This program is considered particularly successful. We have an award-winning pre-collegiate program now entitled the Ketelsen Academic Institute (previously known as the Jesse H. Jones Academic Institute). Students from selected local high schools facing academic challenges participate in our summer institute. Those who attend for two summers receive scholarships to attend UH-Downtown and become members of the Learners' Community.

8 University of Fall 2002 UNT partnered with North Community College (NCTC) to provide pre- algebra and beginning algebra developmental education courses to students on the Denton campus. This arrangement reduces instructional costs for UNT, and students benefit financially as they pay the reduced community college rates for the remedial courses offered by NCTC. NCTC pays their instructors as a part of their cost of developmental education, and receives formula funding for the courses taught for UNT students. UNT collects enrollment information and tuition and fees from UNT students for the NCTC developmental education courses they are enrolled in, and passes the data and revenues to NCTC. Spring 2001 SkillsTutor, a web based reading and math tutorial, was purchased. Students are now able to work at their own pace and at times convenient for them to complete non-course based math and reading remediation. SkillsTutor is also used to complement the Developmental Reading class

ACCD – Northwest Vista College The college supports a developmental advocacy center which advises students who have failed their first test or who are having trouble in a class. They receive this attention at the request of the instructor or through their own request. These students receive individual tutoring, individual assessment and placement, and emotional support in order to relieve anxiety related to their discipline. The college supports its adjuncts through orientation and training in such areas as cooperative learning, math anxiety, and instruction to promote critical thinking. Adjuncts are paired with full-time faculty members in order to maintain ties in the culture and methods of instruction in the classroom.

ACCD – College San Antonio College requires students whose asses sment profile shows D.E. placement in all three academic areas to enrollment in SDEV 0370 (Student Development – Personal and Academic Success). Also, though not restricted to D.E. students, Learning Communities and non-credit, self- paced review in English, mathematics, and reading offer support to this population.

ACCD – St. Phillips College Student retention at the college was buttressed significantly with the establishment of the Advisors in Residence Program (AIR Program) in February 2003. Initially, seven full-time academic advisors were hired, followed in September 2004 by four additional advisors. The AIR Program placed full- time, trained academic advisors across the college, based upon long-standing research that quality advising can enhance student success, retention, and ultimately chances for graduation. Statistical analyses strongly suggest that initial success for students in these programs has been significant. For students contacted and served by AIRs during spring 2003, 64% reenrolled in fall 2003 compared to only 48% not contacted by the AIRs. Similarly, for students contacted and served by AIRs in fall 2003, 74% re-enrolled in spring 2004; in contrast, only 68% of those not contacted returned for spring 2004.

Angelina College All freshmen students who do not meet T.S.I. standards (exceptions are made for those not passing math only) are required to enroll in a semester-long orientation/study skills class which involves small learning communities, mentoring, and extensive work in study skills.

Clarendon College We notify students' mothers if they are not doing well, and that has proved to be remarkably effective.

9 DCCD – North Lake College Freshman Orientation is a required one-hour orientation program designed for students who have graduated from high school within the last two years. Students learn about campus resources, interpreting assessment scores, utilizing the catalog and schedule to select appropriate coursework to meet education goals, campus safety, selecting a major, and managing stress and time. The Freshman Seminar course is designed to introduce students to academic and personal goal setting and learning skills that enhance their chances for educational success. Students receive an overview of the process of learning memory perception language and thought. Special emphasis is placed upon the practicality of these psychological principles for students to learn, practice and adopt in support of their success in college.

Del Mar College 1. A Title V Grant (Learning Communities) allowed us to develop learning communities via paired courses and experiment with intervention strategies. 2. Coastal Bend Mathematics Conversations brings together K-16 mathematics faculty to discuss expectations at each level and work on vertical curriculum alignment. 3. The Developmental Education Council (DEC) convenes representatives from instruction, student services, IT, and IR. The DEC has by-laws, working committees, and a plan of action.

Frank Phillips College During the fall, 2005, we have scheduled a learning community of paired classes that involve developmental and college-level courses that include peer and faculty tutoring. We are currently undergoing curricula alignment between all developmental education and college-level courses based upon recommendations of Dr. Penny Coggins who is Kellogg Institute certified. We have purchased and will implement AccuTrack software that will help us track students' progress and usage of our learning center. We are implementing an organized peer tutoring program that is currently being piloted for the first time during this 2004-2005 academic year.

North Harris Community College District NHMCCD has implemented several new initiatives aimed at student success. Evaluation of the summer bridge and the math outcomes lab programs both indicate that they have been effective in increasing student success and retention. The summer bridge program targets graduating high school students who test into developmental education classes. The students are invited to participate in an intensive summer experience that includes the developmental education classes, mentoring and study skills. The math outcome lab provides computerized assessment of each of the course outcomes throughout the semester.

Paris Junior College The Learning Skills Division and Student Development work together to maintain contact with students through a system of early warnings, phone calls, and letters mailed to students as absences occur. We provide progress reports to instructors that request them, especially to our coaches, who are very concerned about the athletes' progress. We have plans to institute supplemental instruction beginning in the fall to further assist at-risk students at our college. We have a "study hall" for our athletes at least two nights per week, monitored by one of our coaches, in the Learning Skills tutoring area, where students can get extra help with their assignments as needed, or just study for tests or complete assignments.

10 South Texas College For fall 2005, South Texas College will be linking a study skills course with a developmental course. We will also be requiring students to retest on THEA as part of the course requirements for the highest-level DE course. Students may then be designated as college-ready either by passing an approved assessment or by passing the highest-level DE course. Subsequently, we are revising the DE curriculum to better align with the skills required in the corresponding college-level courses and spending less time preparing the student to pass THEA.

Vernon College With the advent of the new TSI laws, Vernon College has started using a Developmental Plan Form for every student who is required to participate in Developmental Education. A copy of the form is kept in the students file and the student is given a copy. The Developmental Plan Form outlines the students' options and responsibilities required to become considered TSI clear in all three areas at Vernon College. A Vernon College Counselor meets with the student individually to fill out the form. At the same time, Vernon College also implemented a New Student Group Advising Program that is mandatory for all new Vernon College students. The program is about one hour long and is offered at a variety of times on all Vernon College campuses. This insures that all students receive a baseline of up-to-date information important to starting Vernon College. Roughly one-third of the program covers TSI and Vernon College policies regarding TSI.

Lamar State College – Port Arthur In the math area of D.E., students are required to take their tests in the Learning Center. They are given a three day window to do so. One re-test is allowed following the instructors going over the original test in class. This frees up class time for instruction and reduces test anxiety.

11