1. Pathways And a Comprehensive Student Success Strategy Shanna Smith Jaggars @sjaggars #RedesigningCCs Director of Student Success Research, ODEE, The Ohio State University Research Affiliate, CCRC, Teachers College, Columbia University

2. CC TRANSFER OUTCOMES Jenkins & Fink, 2015 Based on NCES & National Student Clearinghouse data

3. OUR PROGRAMS OF STUDY, A-Z!

4. GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS SELECT 13 COURSES FROM THIS LIST OF OVER 300

5. LOST TRANSFER CREDITS % CC transfers 4-year accepted… 14%< 10% credits 28% 10% - 89% credits 58% 90% or more credits Students with “almost all” accepted: odds of graduation > 2.5 greater than students with less than half accepted Students with 50-89% accepted: odds of graduation 74% higher than students with less than half accepted Controlling for # CC credits earned, pre-transfer GPA, and 4-year selectivity Monaghan & Attewell, 2015 Based on national BPS data

6. Schudde & Scott-Clayton (2014) SAP Failure Rates in One CC System

7. FOUR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS Program Structure Intake & Support Services Instruction Developmental Education

8. MORE-STRUCTURED PROGRAMS Exploratory Majors Florida State U Transfer Admissions Guarantees Arizona State U Common Curriculum Guttman CC Lifemap + Pre-majors Valencia CC Freshmen Academies Queensborough CC Reinvention / College 2 Careers City Colleges of Chicago

9. See http://www.ccc.edu/departments/Documents/AcademicCatalog_Interactive.pdf CITY COLLEGES OF CHICAGO Pathway introduction On-ramp options Semester-by-semester courses and accomplishments

10. FOUR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS Program Structure Intake & Support Services Instruction Developmental Education

11. TRADITIONAL INTAKE PROCESS Basic application Math & English placement scores Orientation Registration advising

12. INTAKE INFORMATION

13. REDESIGNING INTAKE AROUND CHOOSING A DIRECTION 12 th grade / summer Choose meta- major 1 st year meta- major curriculum Choose specific program 12 th grade / summer General college readiness 1 st year common curriculum Choose specific program Meta-major Model (e.g., Chicago) Common curriculum Model (e.g., Guttman)

14. CITY COLLEGES OF CHICAGO ACADEMIC/CAREER FOCUS AREAS

16. ASU EXPLORATORY MAJOR IN MATH, PHYSICAL SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY https://cls.asu.edu/exploratory-math-physical-sciences-engineering-and-technology

17. REDESIGNING INTAKE AROUND CHOOSING A DIRECTION 12 th grade / summer Choose meta- major 1 st year meta- major curriculum Choose specific program 12 th grade / summer General college readiness 1 st year common curriculum Choose specific program Meta-major Model (e.g., Chicago) Common curriculum Model (e.g., Guttman)

19. Two 12-week courses required for all programs of study Part of Guttman’s common First-Year Experience, which also includes City Seminar I and II, Statistics, and Composition Satisfies CUNY transfer requirements for social science credit Guides students through career exploration and program choice Includes required 90-minute weekly advisement seminar on college success, major selection, and work/internship preparation. ETHNOGRAPHIES OF WORK I AND II AT GUTTMAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE (CUNY) “… course approaches work as a cultural system invested with meanings, norms, values, customs, behavioral expectations, and social hierarchies. Students pose key questions through the lens of ethnography in order to investigate workplaces, occupations, and career pathways in an urban context.”

20. Every undecided student has in-depth, structured, guided process of exploration (whether curricular or co-curricular) leading to informed program choice Credits taken during this 1-semester or 1-year process:  Will apply to whatever choice they make  Are interesting and relevant to them KEY ELEMENTS OF CURRICULUM FOR GUIDED EXPLORATION seemingly at odds  After choosing program, student follows clear program map to timely transfer or graduation

22. FOUR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS Program Structure Intake & Support Services Instruction Developmental Education

23. DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION Approx 2/3 & 1/3 referred Not effective for students near the cutoff Lengthy sequences; majority do not complete Neglects needs of weaker “college ready” students

24. LENGTHY SEQUENCES: SHORTENING WITH SUPPORT Jaggars, Hodara, Cho, & Xu (2015), PSM results

25. GK COMPLETION WITHIN 1 YEAR, FOR LOW- SCORING STUDENTS Jaggars, Hodara, Cho, & Xu (2015), OLS results. “Low” < sample median in reading & writing.

26. COMMON MISALIGNMENT ISSUES ENGLISH tasks dissimilar to typical college- level assignments MATH tasks unrelated to quantitative skills in student’s programs

27. GUTTMAN CC’S FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE Fall 1 (12 week) Fall 2 (6 week) Spring 1 (12 week) Spring 2 (6 week) City Seminar10.5 hoursTime to catch up as needed (or accelerate if desired) 7.5 hoursTime to catch up as needed (or accelerate if desired) Ethnography of Work 4.5 hours Statistics 5 hours Composition 3 hours Transferrable 9 credits Student choice of 2 FT schedules: 8a-1p or 1:15p-6:15p Remediation embedded throughout first year Assumes all students need some academic support Statistics may be stretched across 2 semesters Additional remediation built into Fall 2 & Spring 2 if needed

28. City Seminar I 3 college credits: critical issue in NYC 3 dev ed credits: read/write workshop 3 dev ed credits: quantitative reasoning 1.5 hours: “Studio” structured group study Connects to & supports Ethnographies of Work and Statistics

29. “Core Principles for Transforming Remediation within a Comprehensive Student Success Strategy: A Joint Statement” http://www.core- principles.org/upload s/2/6/4/5/26458024/c ore_principles_nov9. pdf

30. OPEN QUESTIONS How can colleges best help students choose an academic and career direction? How can colleges effectively integrate developmental education with college- level programs of study? How can we best support students with very weak academic skills? How can we best support the increasingly heterogeneous mix of students enrolled in introductory college-level courses? What are the most effective approaches to strengthening students’ non- cognitive and meta-cognitive skills? How can we better understand students’ actual experiences of alternative approaches to developmental education? What are the costs and return on investment for current/evolving reforms? How should institutions, systems, and state agencies change organizational structures, processes, and roles of personnel in order to effectively implement current reforms? Bailey & Jaggars (2016)

31. HOW TO BEST INTEGRATE DEV ED WITH PROGRAM OF STUDY? I-BEST meta-majors

32. ASU EXPLORATORY MAJOR IN MATH, PHYSICAL SCIENCES, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY https://cls.asu.edu/exploratory-math-physical-sciences-engineering-and-technology

33. HOW TO BEST INTEGRATE DEV ED WITH PROGRAM OF STUDY? I-BEST meta-majors

34. HOW TO BEST SUPPORT STUDENTS WITH VERY WEAK SKILLS? I-BEST

35. HOW TO BEST SUPPORT HETEROGENEOUS COLLEGE-LEVEL STUDENTS?

36. TWO APPROACHES TO COLLEGE TEACHING Knowledge TransmissionLearning Facilitation Focus on factsFocus on concepts Breadth of contentDepth of understanding Foundational knowledge a pre-requisite for deeper thinking Deeper thinking a pre-requisite for retention and application of knowledge Lecture-based pedagogyDiscussion and/or activity-based pedagogy Students are primarily responsible for motivation Shared responsibility for motivation Teaching metacognition and academic behaviors deemphasized Emphasis on teaching metacognitive skills and academic behaviors

37. COST & RETURN ON INVESTMENT? Belfield, Jenkins, & Lahr (2016)

38. FOUR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS Program Structure Intake & Support Services Instruction Developmental Education

39. Bailey, T., & Jaggars, S. S. (2016). When college students start behind. Forthcoming report in the College Completion Series. Washington, D.C.: Century Foundation. Bailey, T., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s Community Colleges: A Clearer Path to Student Success. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Belfield, C., Jenkins, D., & Lahr, H. (2016). Is co-requisite remediation cost-effective? Early findings from Tennessee. New York, NY: CCRC. Core Principles for Transforming Remediation within a Comprehensive Student Success Strategy (2015). Achieving the Dream, the American Association of Community Colleges, the Charles A. Dana Center, Complete College America, the Education Commission of the States, & Jobs for the Future. Jaggars, S. S., Hodara, M., Cho, S., Xu, D. (2015). Three accelerated developmental education programs: Features, student outcomes, and implications. Community College Review, 43(1), 3-26. Jenkins, D., & Fink, J. (2015). What we know about transfer. New York, NY: CCRC. Monaghan, D. B., & Attewell, P. (2015). The community college route to the bachelor’s degree. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 70-91. Schudde, L., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2014). Pell grants as performance-based aid? An examination of Satisfactory Academic Progress requirements in the nation’s largest need- based aid program. New York, NY: CAPSEE. Weinbaum, Rodriguez, & Bauer-Maglin (2013). Instructional teams at Guttman Community College: Building a learning community of students, faculty, and staff. New York, NY: Guttman Community College. REFERENCES

40. Community College Research Center Institute on Education and the Economy, Teachers College, Columbia University 525 West 120th Street, Box 174, New York, NY 10027 E-mail: ccrc@columbia.edu Telephone: 212.678.3091 Visit CCRC on the web at http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu where you can download presentations, reports, and briefs, and sign-up for news announcements. CCRC is also on Facebook and Twitter. QUESTIONS?