University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Developmental math in California community colleges and the delay to academic success

(USC Thesis Other)

Developmental math in California community colleges and the delay to academic success

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 1
DEVELOPMENTAL MATH IN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND
THE DELAY TO ACADEMIC SUCCESS

by

Malissa Scott

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Malissa Scott

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 2
Acknowledgements
“Never doubt that a small group of committed citizens can change the world; indeed it’s the only
thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead
It has been a privilege to take this journey. None of this would have been possible
without the constant support of my husband and mom. To my children: I thank you for all of
your encouragement along the way and may your witness encourage the life-long learner in you.
To the high school counselor who told me I wasn’t college material, I forgive your ignorance and
misguided assumptions and finally, thank you to my grandparents, college and grammar school
educated whose strength I tap into daily.
It is my hope that this research contributes to the body of work and collective efforts to
improve community college student success nationwide. A special thanks to my dissertation
committee Dr. Hocevar, Dr. Pacheco and Dr. Keim. Dr. Hocevar, I joined join your research
cohort late and your patience, strength and will to help me finish is priceless. Dr. Pacheco thank
you for your expertise in the CCCC world and Dr. Keim thank you for your guidance through in
chapter give. A special thank you to Mr. Hiroto Miyake – your knowledge of Excel and Access
saved this research project! Without you, the scope of the research would have surely been
diminished.
To my research partner Thomas Weinmann, our meeting changed the focus of my
research, which continues to be invaluable in my career. It’s been a pleasure working with you
on such an important topic. Your love of teaching inspires me and I look forward to future
collaborations!

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Problem Identification 10
Purpose of Study 16
Research Questions 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 18
Accountability in Higher Education 19
Defining Accountability 20
The Origins and Expansion of the Accountability Movement 21
Why Math is a Roadblock to Academic Success 22
Teaching Academically Underprepared Students 25
Intrinsic Motivation and Academic Success 26
Benefits of Fostering Intrinsic Motivation in Math 27
Supporting Faculty to Teach in New Way 29
Successful Developmental Math Programs 31
California Acceleration Project 31
Pathways – Statway 33
Summary 37
Chapter Three: Methodology 38
Research Questions 38
Research Design 39
Independent Variables 40
Independent Variables 41
Population and Sample 41
Data Sources 45
Instrumentation 45
Limitations 47
Delimitations 47
Chapter Four: Results 48
Findings 50
Developmental Math Rates by Ethnicity 50
Traditional vs. Accelerated Developmental Math 58
Tenure (d) Track Faculty vs. Temporary/Adjunct Faculty 63
Summary 67
Chapter Five: Discussion 68
Changes in Developmental Math Success Rates 70
Enrollment Trends in the California Community College System 70
Success Rates in Accelerated Developmental Math Programs 72
California Acceleration Project 72
Carnegie Foundation Statway 74
Community College Faculty-Student Interaction 77
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 4
Top Ten California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates 79
Recommendations 81
References 85
Appendix A: Accelerated Developmental Math Success Rates by Ethnicity 97
Appendix B: California Community College Tenure(d) Track and Temporary/Adjunct Faculty
2000-2013. 99
Appendix C: Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates by
Ethnicity 100
Appendix D: Map of California Community Colleges Student Senate Regions 121

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 5
List of Tables
Table 1: California Community College 51
Table 2: California Community College 57
Table 3: Statway Enrollment, 2011-2014 75
Table 4: Student Success in Statway at Community Colleges 75
Table 5: African American Accelerated Developmental Math Success Rates 97
Table 6: Asian Accelerated Developmental Math Success Rates 97
Table 7: Hispanic Accelerated Developmental Math Success Rates 98
Table 8: White Accelerated Developmental Math Success Rates 98

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 6
List of Figures
Figure 1: California Community College Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2012-2013 42
Figure 2: California Community College Enrollment by Ethnicity, 1992-1993 43
Figure 3: Income 44
Figure 4: Educational Attainment 44
Figure 5: California Community College Student Population by Ethnicity. 1993-2013 48
Figure 6: Enrollment in Developmental Math Disaggregated by Ethnicity 49
Figure 7: Success Rates of Developmental Math Disaggregated by Ethnicity 50
Figure 8: African American Success Rates - Accelerated Math Programs vs. Traditional
Developmental Curriculum 59
Figure 9: Asian Success Rates - Accelerated Math Programs vs. Traditional Developmental
Curriculum 60
Figure 10: Hispanic Success Rates - Accelerated Math Programs vs. Traditional Developmental
Curriculum 61
Figure 11: White Success Rates - Accelerated Math Programs vs. Traditional Developmental
Curriculum 62
Figure 12: California Community College Tenure (d) Track and Temporary/Adjunct Math
Faculty (2000-2013) 63
Figure 13: California Community Colleges, Top 10 School Regions, African American
Developmental Math Success Rates 64
Figure 14: Marginal means for the percentage of students completing transfer-level math for
accelerated and comparison sequences for all students. 73
Figure 15: Marginal means for the percentage of students completing transfer-level math by
spring 2013 for accelerated and comparison sequences by current level. (Research and
Planning Group for California Community Colleges, Final CAP Report, 2014) 74
Figure 16: Statway Completion Fall 2011-Fall 2013 Cohorts (2015) 76

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 7
Abstract
The global market is competitive and America’s growing need for a more educated
workforce is critical for economic expansion. Many Americans nationwide take their first steps
in higher education on community college campuses. As a result of open enrollment policies,
approximately 40-60% of students take at least one developmental course in English or Math.
The purpose of this quantitative study is to evaluate the effectiveness of developmental or
remedial mathematics courses throughout California community colleges over the past two
decades. Additionally, a correlation analyses was performed to illuminate the relationship of
student success rates and ethnicity in developmental math.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Community colleges are a uniquely American institution. At its core, this system is
dedicated to the belief that all individuals should have the opportunity to rise to their greatest
potential; part of America’s defined unalienable Rights, that include Life, Liberty and the pursuit
of Happiness (Jefferson, T., 1776). Citizens who fail to achieve higher education in their youth
can enhance their lives, discover and cultivate their talent at any age and in every social
stratosphere through academic pursuits at the community college. Historically, discussions
about the mission of community colleges are often ambiguous, confusing and lack focus. The
community college mission has changed over time, with new missions appearing and older
missions changing importance.
Questions and concerns about the community college’s mission have recurred throughout
the institutions history. Is the mission to provide transfer education so that students can
eventually attain a baccalaureate, or is it to offer workforce development to meet the needs of
business and industry? Should they focus on ensuring open access to higher education for all
who want it, or should they concentrate more on providing high-quality academic and
occupational training? Though the debate continues, U.S. community college enrollment
continues to swell, enrolling nearly 45% of the country’s undergraduates and 6.5 million degree-
credit students (American Association of Community Colleges, 2011).
As a building block of the American economy, community colleges are in need of
transformation because it has the most potential to positively impact our economy and change a
student’s life trajectory. We know that vast numbers of underprepared students need increased
administrative support to produce sustained increases in student success. It seems counter-
intuitive that the academic environment with the most underperforming or undereducated
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 9
students have fewer student support services than schools filled with college-prepared and legacy
students. While the open enrollment policies implemented during the 1960s and 1970s reduced
barriers to higher education, far too many students enroll, but never reach the academic goal they
set out to achieve.
The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education notes that the “most striking structural
development in higher education has been the phenomenal growth of the community college.”
Disproportionate numbers are low-income, non-Caucasian students and over 40% are the first in
their family to attend college. The California Community Colleges, the state’s primary access
point to higher education, is the largest and most diverse system of community college education
in the nation with 2.6 million students, approximately 25 percent of the nation’s community
college student population, are currently enrolled (CA Community College Final Report, 2013).
There is enormous diversity in age, ethnicity and cultural heritage, socio-economic status,
academic preparation, purpose and educational goals and objectives. Additionally, over half of
incoming students are referred to at least one developmental course. The National Center for
Educational Statistics (NCES) has defined remedial/developmental education as “courses in
reading, writing or mathematics for college students lacking those skills necessary to perform
college-level work at the level required by the institution” (USDE, 1996, p. 2).
The median age of community college students is 23 years; 58% of students are female,
42% are the first in their families to enter higher education; 59% are full-time students employed
part-time; 40% are part-time students employed full-time; 13% are single parents; and 12% have
identified themselves as individuals with disabilities (American Association of Community
College, 2011). Community colleges serve disproportionate numbers of Spanish-speaking
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 10
students: 58% of all Hispanic undergraduates attend these institutions, compared with 42% of
White undergraduates (Snyder, Tan, & Hoffman, 2006).
Problem Identification
In an ever increasingly competitive global market, the U.S. must focus on raising
graduation rates of community college students if we are to see higher levels of educational
attainment and improvement in the quality and competitiveness of our workforce. The Obama
administration has a goal of increasing the number of community college graduates by 5 million
by 2020. However, addressing the needs of developmental students is perhaps the most difficult
and most important problem, facing community colleges (Bailey, T. and Cho, S.W., 2010).
Skills in reading, writing and mathematics are the foundation of academic learning. Learning is
a complex process influenced by a host of cognitive, emotional, cultural and socio-economic
factors. Students need habits of mind conducive to academic learning (Giaquinto, 2009-2010).
Only 53.6 percent of degree-seeking students reach their academic goal to achieve a certificate,
degree or transfer to four-year institution. 42% of African Americans and 43% of Latino
students reach their academic goals respectively; of students who seek to transfer to a four-year
institution, 34% of African Americans and 31% of Latinos are successful.
Students’ abilities and academic preparedness are the single most powerful influence on
the level, quality, type, and standard of curriculum and instruction a school offers. The challenge
of educating academically underprepared community college students is less about prescribing
standards than knowing how to teach transferable skills. Between 42% and 57% of community
college students take at least one developmental education course (Attewell, Lavin, Domina &
Levey, 2006; Boswell & Wilson, 2004). Conley (2008) proposed that college readiness requires
competency in four overlapping areas: cognitive strategies, content, academic behaviors and
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 11
contextual awareness. Perrin (2009) defines cognitive strategies as the ability to formulate
questions, analyze information and conduct research; content refers to disciplinary knowledge
and foundational reading, writing and math skills; academic behaviors involve the regulation of
one’s own learning and the ability to transfer learning from familiar to new settings; and
contextual awareness refers to students’ understanding of how the college works as an
institution, including financial aid procedures.
As the numbers of underprepared students rose in the 1980s, community colleges focused
on a new mission and integrated developmental programs were developed. These programs
combined faculty members, counselors and support staff to improve student achievement.
Questions about program effectiveness have shown that the majority of developmental education
has not been very effective and has not improved the vast number of student outcomes. Methods
used to assess students’ college readiness vary considerably (Hughes & Scott-Clayton, 2011) and
there is no universal measure of college readiness that is agreed upon. Teacher education
programs that provide preparation for developmental education instruction are extremely rare.
For many faculty, the knowledge gained in their graduate programs is significantly different
from the knowledge needed to teach developmental classes (Kozeracki, 2005). Surprisingly, few
rigorous evaluations have been conducted and most outcomes have not been encouraging.
Another issue is that students bear most of the costs because they must pay for the developmental
classes that delay their progress through college. Many students are discouraged when referred
to remedial courses, and there is a high “no-show” rate among those referred to remediation.
In math, college entrants should possess proficiency in number properties and operations;
measurement and geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra.
Developmental mathematics is one of the most serious barriers to educational and economic
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 12
achievement. Over 60% of students require remedial/developmental courses as a first step
towards earning associate or bachelor degrees. In California, 61% of Black students and 53% of
Latino students are more likely to be placed 3-4 levels below college math (Perry, M.; Bahr,
P.R.; Rosin, M.; & Woodward, K.M., 2010). Students who enter college at one level below
transfer level Math are less than 50 percent likely to achieve their academic goal. Though
success rates for remedial math have shown modest gains, 71% of students who arrive prepared
for college complete a certificate, degree or transfer. The rate drops to 41% for students in need
of remediation. Unfortunately, over 70% of the incoming students fall into this category.
It is also important to understand the emotional experience of academically
underprepared students. Academic motivation is influenced by learners’ goals, predispositions,
beliefs, attitudes, sense of control, level of interest, preference for challenge, involvement, self-
efficacy, competition, recognition, grades received, quality of social interaction, and tendency to
approach or avoid work (Taboado, Tonks, Wigfield & Guthrie, 2009) and personal “cost/benefit
estimates” (Hayes, 1996 p. 4). Also necessary for successful learning are self-regulation, or
thoughts, feelings, self-efficacy, and behaviors initiated by the learner toward the achievement of
academic goals (Kitsantas & Zimmerman, 2009). Research on underprepared students have
revealed students’ high levels of anxiety, memories of academic failure and perceptions that
instructors hold low expectations based on race- or gender-based stereotypical preconceptions
(Cox, 2009; Garden-Crooks, Collado, Martin & Castro, 2010; Goode, 2000; Woodard, 2004).
Through recent data collection and analysis, a better understanding of the problem gives way for
some optimism. Issues that need to be discussed include the transfer of skills from
developmental to college-level disciplinary courses and the need to increase the underprepared
students’ academic motivation.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 13
Though developmental courses have an important role in higher education, Hern, (2012,
p. 60) Director of the California Acceleration Project, stated “remedial course sequences have
become the place where college dreams go to die.” Nationwide studies have continued to show a
bleak correlation: the higher number of remedial courses a student has to take, the less likely a
student will complete college level math and reach their academic goal. The more levels of
developmental courses a student must go through, the less likely that student will ever complete
college English or math (Bailey, T., 2009).
We need to fundamentally restructure our approach to serving under-prepared students
and reduce the exit points where we lose them (Snell, M., 2013). Cognitive dissonance is a
mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information.
After years of developmental courses not producing the academic success hoped for, many
professors teaching these courses have realized a fundamental change is required to produce
higher course completion and academic success. The large number of students enrolled in
remedial courses without success has caused an uneasiness and tension that prompted groups of
educators to think outside the box with the mission to truly better educate and help under-
prepared students attain their academic pursuits. This study will review the success rates of
developmental math education and compare the outcomes of two accelerated math curriculums
implemented in California.
To address this national problem, a number of community colleges adopted alternative
curriculum designs that provided an accelerated pathway for students aimed at making
developmental math more relevant to real-world experiences and more engaging to students.
Accelerated developmental education, at a minimum reduces the length of English and Math
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 14
sequences, eliminating the exit points where students are lost by not passing, or not enrolling in
the next course in the pipeline (Hern, 2012).
In California, the California Acceleration Project (CAP), part of the California
Community College Success Network (3CSN), a professional development network funded by
the California Community College Chancellor’s Office currently supports statistics pathways at
21 California community colleges. CAP supports development of localized curricular redesigns
that shorten remediation and align it with statistics using five key principles: Backward design
from college-level courses; relevant, thinking-oriented curriculum; just-in-time remediation;
low-stakes, collaborative practice and intentional support for students’ affective needs (Snell,
2013). There are many models for achieving this:
 Mainstreaming Students into College-Level Courses
 Open-Access Integrated Reading and Writing Courses
 Pre-Statistics Courses that Bypass the Traditional Algebra Sequence
 Contextualized Instruction Embedded in Career-Technical Programs
 Mechanisms for Bypassing Levels
 Compression Models that Combine Levels of Existing Sequence
In 2009, collaboration between the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation,
Kresge Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Lumina Foundation created an
innovative strategy in undergraduate mathematics education called the Community College
Pathways (CCP) program. The program is comprised of a network of community colleges,
professional associations and educational researchers to develop and implement CCP. It is
organized into two structured pathways, known as Statway and Quantway for non-science
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 15
majors. To date, the program has tripled the success rate for developmental-mathematics students
in half the time.
The programs are called pathways because they are complex instructional systems that
include a common curriculum, pedagogy, and student supports, aim to simplify students’ path
through their developmental mathematics sequence. They differ from traditional math courses in
that their approach, topics, and contexts enable students to think and reason quantitatively,
unencumbered by memories of past failures. The program emphasizes conceptual understanding
and the ability to apply math skills in a variety of contexts. Statway integrates developmental
math skills and introductory statistics by focusing on data analysis and statistical reasoning.
Quantway integrates developmental math with quantitative reasoning and literacy to promote
success in community college math and develop quantitatively literate citizens.
Carnegie also began developing and promoting improvement research, a Research and
Development (R&D) infrastructure designed to glean and synthesize the best scholarship and
practice to offer a prototype promote system reforms. The idea being to learn about what real-
world practice succeeds in schools and classrooms, share the knowledge and add to a growing
body of work dedicated to improvements in community college instruction, developmental
mathematics and the pursuit of educational improvement. An outgrowth of the mission has
produced Carnegie’s Six Core Principles of Improvement (Carnegie Foundation, 2013):
1. Make the work problem-specific and user-centered.
It starts with a single question: “What specifically is the problem we are trying to solve?”
It enlivens a co-development orientation: engage key participants early and often.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 16
2. Variation in performance is the core problem to address.
The critical issue is not what works, but rather what works, for whom and under what set
of conditions. Aim to advance efficacy reliably at scale.
3. See the system that produces the current outcomes.
It is hard to improve what you do not fully understand. Go and see how local conditions
shape work processes. Make your hypotheses for change public and clear.
4. We cannot improve at scale what we cannot measure.
Embed measures of key outcomes and processes to track if change is an improvement.
We intervene in complex organizations. Anticipate unintended consequences and
measure these too.
5. Anchor practice improvement in disciplined inquiry.
Engage rapid cycles of Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) to learn fast, fail fast, and improve
quickly. That failures may occur is not the problem; that we fail to learn from them is.
6. Accelerate improvements through networked communities.
Embrace the wisdom of crowds. We can accomplish more together than even the best of
us can accomplish alone.
Statway has been implemented in two southern California community colleges, Los
Angeles Pierce College and Mount San Antonio College.
Purpose of Study
This study will examine the effectiveness of developmental mathematics courses
throughout California community colleges over the past two decades. Additionally, a
correlation analyses was performed to illuminate the relationship of remedial math success rates
and ethnicity. Variables such as student demographics, whether the course is taught by an
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 17
adjunct or faculty member, faculty network, leadership and curriculum will be reviewed. The
identification of replicable best practices may lead to greater student achievement and an
improved work force.
Research Questions
Based on the problem identification and purpose of the study, the following research
questions define the scope of the study:
1. Research Question One: Over the past two decades, what changes in developmental
math success rates have occurred within the California Community Colleges, and to what
extent have these changes varied due to ethnicity?
2. Research Question Two: A. Using 1993-2013 data, what enrollment trends have been
discovered in the California Community College system? B. Are certain ethnic groups
disproportionately tracked into developmental math and have their rates changed from
1993-2013.
3. Research Question Three: Using 2012 and 2013 data, are developmental math adjusted
success rates in the 21 participating community colleges in accelerated math programs
(California Accelerated Project and Carnegie Foundation’s Statway) different from
nonparticipating California Community Colleges? Are there differences between CAP
and Statway participants and CAP and Statway nonparticipants moderated by ethnicity?
4. Question Four: What percentage of professors who teach remediation courses are
adjunct faculty?
5. Question Five: Using 1993-2013 data, what are the top ten schools with the highest
success rates of developmental math by ethnicity?

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 18
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The importance of the community colleges within the U.S. higher education system
cannot be understated. Approximately 44% of the country’s undergraduates enroll in a
community college (American Association of Community Colleges, 2011). In an increasingly
competitive global economy, jobs requiring at least an associate degree are projected to grow
twice as fast as those requiring no college education (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
America cannot lead in the 21
st
century unless we have the best educated, most competitive
workforce in the world (President Barack Obama, 2009). During his announcement of The
American Graduation Initiative, President Obama asked every American to commit to at least
one year or more of higher education or career training in an effort to reach a national goal of
once again having the highest proportion of college graduates in the world. This initiative is
designed to support the existing strengths of community college as well as create new
innovations and reforms.
The initiative 1) calls for 5 million additional community college graduates by 2020, 2)
creates the Community College Challenge Fund, which are new competitive grants that will
enable innovation and expansion of proven educational reforms, 3) funds innovative strategies to
promote college completion because nearly half of students who enter community college with
the intention to earn a degree or transfer to a four-year college fail to reach their academic goals
within six years. The fund will finance innovation, evaluation, and expansion efforts to close
achievement gaps4) modernize community college facilities and 5) create a new online skills
laboratory that will provide opportunities for students to gain knowledge, skills and credentials.
The accelerated math programs being implemented nation-wide directly respond to the
achievement gap and the need for a better educated work force.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 19
As community colleges fulfill their democratic principle of open enrollment, it is not
uncommon for student needs to dictate the institutional identity. Unlike four-year colleges and
universities, community colleges are non-traditional: they make and remake themselves (Levin,
1998, p. 2).
Accountability in Higher Education
Over the last 25 years, accountability in public higher education has evolved from
traditional autonomy and limited governing authorities review of expenditures and appropriate
policy implementation (Behn, 2001; Burke, 2001; Zumeta, 1998) to states holding public
institutions accountable for their performance in the 1970s and 1980s. These initial programs
granted campuses considerable flexibility in identifying performance measures and collecting
data (e.g., Banta & Fisher, 1984; Harbour, 2002). However, during the late 1980s and 1990s,
accountability programs were revised to include uniform performance assessment on system-
wide measures and standards (Burke, 2001; Gracie, 1998; Harbour, 2002; Pfeiffer, 1998;
Walleri, 1997). Legislatures and governing authorities also modified their institutional
accountability programs to include a linkage between funding and performance (e.g., Burke,
2001; Harbour, 2002).
Today, institutional accountability programs are a high-stakes reality for community
colleges. A mismatch or tension of accountability indicators and institutional goals have
developed between open access and the overarching mission of community college that includes
developmental education, student educational goals and economic attainment, and the traditional
objectives of four-year college and universities (Bragg, 2001). Now, student performance has
real consequences for a college’s budget. Campus leaders and state officials are currently
engaged in a debate about how institutional performance and accountability should be assessed
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 20
at the community college (Bragg, 2001). In a letter to the U.S. Department of Education, the
California Community College Chancellor’s Office stated that two-year institutions serve
students with a variety of goals that are “inherently the most difficult system of higher education
to effectively measure” (2014). Additionally, students, employers, accrediting associations, the
federal government and other stakeholders (Alfred, 1997; Gellman-Danley, 1997; Laanan, 2001)
are interested in institutional accountability measures and outcomes.
Defining Accountability
Traditionally, institutional accountability in the public sector was understood as a specific
legal responsibility that organizations had to their governing authorities (Behn, 2001; Cooper,
1998.) This relationship was hierarchical in nature and was usually limited to a review of
expenditures and policy implementation (Behn, 2001; Burke, 2001). Now however, this
traditional view is being eclipsed by a pluralist perspective that regards institutions as
accountable for their performance to their governing authority and to a variety of other
stakeholders (Behn, 2001).
In the case of community colleges, other stakeholders include students, faculty and staff,
employers, four-year colleges and universities, the federal government, neighborhood residents,
public schools, social service agencies, and other individuals and organizations – not a short list.
Burke and his colleagues have identified two kinds of accountability programs that link funding
to performance – performance funding and performance budgeting (Burke et al., 2000).
Performance funding programs establish a direct and fixed link between performance and
funding. Under these programs, allocation of certain funds is specifically contingent on
satisfactory performance on selected indicators (Burke et al., 2000). Under performance
budgeting, the link between funding and performance is indirect and flexible with satisfactory
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 21
performance defined as one of several factors that determine monetary allocations (Burke et. al.,
2000).
The Origins and Expansion of the Accountability Movement
A number of theories have been offered to explain the origin and expansion of the
institutional accountability movement. Ewell (1994) argued that the growing concern with
accountability was the consequence of two key factors. First, during the 1980s and early 1990s,
publicized accounts of campus administrative mismanagement gave rise to the perception that
institutions were unable to effectively regulate their affairs (Ewell, 1994). Second, this
perception became fixed in the public’s consciousness just as many states reduced higher
education appropriations to cover soaring expenditures for corrections and health care (Ewell,
1994; Roherty, 1997). Legislatures responded by mandating accountability programs for state
colleges and universities.
The debate about the origin of accountability programs was separate from the debate
concerning their justification. Accountability programs may have been implemented because of
political and budgetary pressures. Zumeta (1998) argued that economic conditions were most
important in making accountability a priority for state legislators and policymakers. He contends
that economic globalization and rapid technological change contributed to corporate downsizing
in the late 1980s and 1990s which led to private and public organizations effort to redouble their
efficiency in operations (Zumeta, 1998).
Legislatures and governing boards reflected the growing concern with efficiency by
demanding accountability programs that measured institutional performance on selected
indicators (Wellman, 2001; Zumeta, 1998). Ohmann (2000) contended that political
considerations were the catalyst for the genesis and growth of the accountability movement.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 22
Ohmann (2000) held that conservatives used accountability as a management principle to
challenge progressive movements on campus like multiculturalism in the curriculum.
Accountability was also used as an ideological weapon to justify the subordination of public
higher education to the same capitalistic forces challenging the health care sector and public
education (Ohmann, 2000).
Several researchers highlighted demographic factors in explaining the growing interest in
institutional accountability. Zemsky and Massy (1995) noted that the proliferation of new
instructional programs in the 1980s brought institutions into contact with new employers who
had their own expectations for institutional performance. Enrollment of nontraditional students,
many who were less prepared than their predecessors, prompted the development of new
instructional programs. This presented educators with new challenges and led to campus-based
initiatives to improve teaching and learning (Evenbeck & Kahn, 2001). Legislators and policy
makers became impatient with these efforts in the early 1990s and began to require system-wide
accountability programs (Lazerson, Wagener, & Schumanis, 2000). Accountability remains an
evolving concept that lacks agreement on the conditions that prompted its growth. Given the
complexity of higher education, the politics of the accountability debate and the fragmentation
inherent in 50 independent state higher education systems, there is little reason to expect
consensus on these matters in the near future. Regardless, campus leaders are faced with the
immediate challenge to identify, analyze, and prioritize multiple and overlapping demands for
accountability.
Why Math is a Roadblock to Academic Success
College completion is a priority for a number of stakeholders. Federal and state
governments, policy makers, funders and students are invested in college completion. Yet a
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 23
major barrier exists – being underprepared for college. To date, many of the developmental
education offerings do not effectively or quickly provide students with the skills needed to
succeed in college. “For far too many students, developmental education puts them on the path
to dropping out – rather than actually developing the skills needed to help them complete their
education. We’ve got to find a way to meet the needs of today’s students so they can reach their
full potential”, (Walsh, S., 2012). The delivery of skills and tools for academic success and
effective developmental education will help millions of students reach their academic goals of
college completion. It is projected that by 2018, nearly 63 percent of all jobs in the U.S. will
require at least some college education, according to the 2010 report Help Wanted: Projecting
Jobs and Education Requirements Through 2018. Employers will need 22 million new workers
with postsecondary degrees. Short of a dramatic shift, 3 million workers will fall short of
reaching Obama’s ambitious goal of an additional five million community college graduates by
2020.
Community colleges are typically assumed to be nonselective, open-access institutions.
Yet access to college-level courses is far from guaranteed: the vast majority of two-year
institutions administer high-stakes exams to entering students that determine their placement into
either college-level or remedial education. Despite the stakes involved, there has been relatively
little research investigating whether such exams are valid for their intended purpose, or whether
other measures of preparedness might be equally or even more effective. Researchers at
Columbia University’s Community College Research Center (2012) found that placement tests
do not yield strong predictions of how students will perform in college and that high school
GPAs are useful for predicting various aspects of students’ college performance. The research,
which analyzed data from a large, urban community college system and a statewide two-year
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 24
system, found that up to a third of students who placed into remedial classes on the basis of the
placement tests could have passed college-level classes with a grade of B or better (Fain, P.,
2012) Large numbers of community college students are being placed into long sequences of
remedial courses they don’t need, according to studies that question the value of the two primary
standardized tests two-year colleges use to place students: the COMPASS and the
ACCUPLACER.
Ideally, course placement is decided from a holistic view, not one test score. Stakeholder
interest and demands for accountability have influenced the role of placement exams in
community colleges. For the majority of students at community colleges, the consequence of
assessment is placement into remediation in at least one subject. In a recent study, 250,000
students at 57 community colleges across the country found that 59 percent were referred to
developmental math and 33 percent were referred to developmental English (Bailey, Jeong, &
Cho, 2010). Students must pay tuition for remedial courses, but the credits earned do not count
toward graduation requirements. The cost to schools of providing this remedial instruction has
been estimated at $1 billion or more (Noble, Schiel, & Sawyer, 2004). A study by the Institute
for Higher Education Leadership & Policy concluded that the open access policies of
California’s community colleges have succeeded in enhancing enrollments, but have had the
unintended consequence of inhibiting college completion (Shulock & Moore, 2007).
Determining which students at a given campus need high school remediation is a difficult and
challenging task that is not undertaken consistently across the state. While some campuses
exempt students from placement testing based on previous collegiate coursework or Advanced
Placement test scores from high school, there is no uniform placement testing process throughout
the community college system (Brown, R.S. & Niemi, D.N., 2007). The most commonly used
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 25
assessments are the ACCUPLACER CPTs by the College Board and the COMPASS tests
developed by ACT. These two test batteries account for more than half of all placements testing
in California community colleges (Brown, R.S. & Niemi, D.N., 2007)
Teaching Academically Underprepared Students
U.S. community colleges are the primary destination for students who aspire to earn a
college credential, who are underprepared for college learning (Jenkins & Boswell, 2002).
Three-quarters of twelfth graders graduate from high school with low reading skills (Grigg,
Donahue & Dion, 2007), and 42% of community college students take at least one
developmental education course. Since the academic foundation for learning requires skills in
reading, writing and mathematics, remediation reform is a necessary topic for all community
colleges to address. Learning is a complex process influenced by a host of cognitive, emotional,
cultural and socio-economic factors. Students need habits of mind conducive to academic
learning (Giaquinto, 2009-2010). Attitudes towards academic struggle can have big
implications. A number of recent high school graduates who arrive to community college are
by-products of having attended a high school that did not require students to complete
homework.
In 2011, the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) showed
that although American students have improved in both disciplines, just 19 percent of eighth-
graders in Massachusetts, the highest performing state in the Union, scored at an advanced level.
Five percent of eighth-graders in California performed at or above the “Advanced” benchmark
compared to the international median of 3 percent at grade 8. White, Asian and multiracial
students’ average scores were higher than the TIMSS average and Black and Latino students
scored lower, on average. The TIMMS report also noted that public schools with 10 to 50
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 26
percent of students eligible for free or reduced lunch scored higher than the TIMSS scale
average, while public schools with 75 percent or more of students eligible for free or reduced
lunch scored lower, on average, than the TIMSS scale average. Academically underprepared
community college students typically demonstrate a lower course completion rate, greater
attrition, more test anxiety, and a more external locus of control than college-ready students.
Additional factors associated with lower academic achievement include lower ability, poor study
strategies (Levin & Levin, 1991) and lower self-esteem.
Intrinsic Motivation and Academic Success
Motivating students is often a struggle (Brophy, 2008; Froiland, 2010) and unfortunately,
most students incrementally lose intrinsic motivation to learn each year as they move from first
grade to high school (Lepper, Corpus & Iyengar, 2005). Intrinsic motivation to learn means that
the learner is engaged in learning opportunities because they are regarded as enjoyable,
interesting or relevant to meeting one’s core psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000.) Self-
determination theory states that all people seek to satisfy three inherent psychological needs: the
need for developing competence, the need to create meaningful connections with others, and the
need for autonomy, perceiving that one is able to initiate and regulates one’s actions. Attainment
of these psychological needs promotes intrinsic motivation (Deci, Vallerand, Pelletier & Ryan,
1991). Intrinsic motivation is associated with high levels of effort and task performance as well
has preference for challenge (Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008), which are attributes all students
can benefit from. Students with high levels of intrinsic motivation are more likely than others to
demonstrate strong conceptual learning, improved memory, and high overall achievement in
school (Gottfried, 1990). These students are also more likely to experience flow, a state of deep
task immersion and peak performance, accompanied with a feeling that time is flying by
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 27
(Shernoff & Csikszentmihalyi, 2009). The benefits of intrinsic motivation also contribute to
broader measures of school success like improved psychological well-being (Deci & Ryan,
2008); positive affect while doing homework (Froiland, 2011a), more persistence and students
are less likely to drop out of school (Harde & Reeve, 2003). Intrinsic motivation is also a strong
factor for performance, persistence and productivity for adults in the working world (Grant,
2008). Intrinsic motivation is a pathway to happiness for children and adults alike, making it
vital for success and life satisfaction as a student and beyond.
Benefits of Fostering Intrinsic Motivation in Math
The greatest decline in academic intrinsic motivation for students’ K-12 career is
towards mathematics (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 2001). The United States scored
significantly lower than 17 of 33 other member countries of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) on a measure of motivation for mathematics
(Fleischman Hopstock, Pelczar, & Shelly, 2010). As cutting edge economies are increasingly
based on science, technology, engineering and applied mathematics skills, improving
mathematics achievement is essential if we want to prepare students who can compete globally
and solve the complex problems of the future (Lee, 2011).
Math requires strategies and persistence to become successful. Intrinsically motivated
students are more likely than their peers to use effective math strategies such as estimating,
visualizing, and checking (Montague, 1992). They are also more prone to select deeper
performance and learning strategies. Intrinsic motivation can energize students to invest the
effort and use the strategies required to succeed. Additionally, students who had teachers that
emphasized learning mathematics rather than just getting the correct answer perceived
themselves as being more competent in mathematics and experienced more positive emotions
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 28
about the subject (Stipek, Salmon, Givvin, et al, 1998). Math reform and motivational experts
alike are calling for math instructors to adopt an autonomy supportive style of instruction in the
mathematics classroom.
Autonomy supportive schools, classrooms, and home environments promote intrinsic
motivation for students (Froiland, 2011a; Froiland et al, 2012). Instructors can influence their
students’ motivation by revealing their own interest in a learning activity. Parents and teachers
can be taught how to promote autonomous or self-determined motivation using the following
supportive communication: empathic statements; allowing students to make their own choices
when appropriate; letting students know that creative self-expression is valued; giving students
time to solve problems on their own and providing hints only when needed; highlighting the
interesting or meaningful features of a task or assignment; asking students what they learned
after receiving a good grade, rather than solely celebrating the grade; and using motivational
analogies such as “Spending time on homework is like sowing seeds, eventually you will reap a
big harvest of precious knowledge and skills” (Froiland, 2011a; Reeve & Jang, 2006).
It is also important that, while delivering praise teachers explain to students that they
are being praised for their mastery of the material, progress, use of creativity to solve a problem,
or their willingness to take a risk (all autonomous qualities) and not just for their compliance,
completion of work, or achievement of a good grade. In this way, the praise conveys
information to the student about their level of competence, which satisfies their psychological
need for competency (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Additional enthusiastic praise with direct eye
contact may meet a students’ need for relatedness.
Implementation of autonomous supportive communication in the classroom does not
require a complete overhaul of previously used classroom management techniques. Rather, a
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 29
strategic adjustment in the way teachers deliver praise can help students transform from feeling
controlled, to being given positive, useful information which satisfies their psychological needs
(Deci & Ryan, 2008), which provides the opportunity for a motivational synergy in which both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation levels are high (Hayenga & Corpus, 2010) via effectively
delivered praise. Intrinsically motivated students are more engaged in classroom because they
understand the inherent benefit of education (Ryan & Deci, 2000) that call allow students to
make the most of their learning opportunities, as they prepare to become productive members of
society.
Supporting Faculty to Teach in New Way
As various strategies are implemented to increase student success, course curriculum and
pedagogy are among the most challenging to implement. Traditional norms in higher education
encourage faculty autonomy and independence that stymie collaborative efforts to improve
curriculum and pedagogy (Bikerstaff, S., Lontz, B., et al, 2014). Reforms with the most promise,
particularly in developmental education, require faculty to adopt new strategies and take on new
roles in the classroom. Students enrolled in developmental courses often benefit from learning
environments that are tailored to their academic and nonacademic needs (Karp, 2011; Perin,
2013).
A case study of a redesigned developmental arithmetic and prealgebra course titled
Concepts of Numbers for Arithmetic and Prealgebra at Montgomery County Community
College (MCCC) in Blue Bell, Pennsylvania revealed that students did not understand how
particular math topics fit together. Many of the students defined mathematics as a collection of
rules with various formulas and algorithms to memorize and apply. In response, Barbara Lontz,
a MCCC faculty member, created Concepts in Numbers, a radical change to both the curriculum
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 30
and instructional presentation she used. The new course content is presented thematically
instead of topically. This focus addresses the primary concern that most math students
understand procedures not concepts and thus cannot build on them (Givvin, Stigler, &
Thompson, 2011). The reordering was designed to clearly help students make connections
across ideas that may have seemed dissimilar before. For example, fractions, decimals, and
percents are presented together throughout a chapter to reinforce their relationship to each other.
The new content also employs a discovery-based pedagogy that explicitly builds on students’
prior knowledge, allowing them to organize their thinking and clarify concepts previously
misunderstood (Benson & Findell, 2002). The objective of these two factors is to increase
students’ confidence and interest in numbers and how they work. Faculty reported an increase in
completed assignments and improved attendance.
Adopting the Concepts model, instructors encourage students to look for patterns and
discover algorithms and shortcuts. Instructors listen to class discussions to determine student
understanding. The text’s minimal narrative facilitates the teacher’s use of the discovery
approach (Bickerstaff, Lontz, Cormier, Xu, 2014). Once the Concepts pilot expanded at MCCC,
orientation for new faculty was critical to ensure proper the curriculum was implemented
correctly. To address the needs and ongoing concerns of faculty using the discovery approach,
which many reported as difficult, faculty leadership developed an in-depth learning opportunity
to support the various classroom changes; CON-NECT (Concepts of Numbers-Networking
Educators’ Collaborative Thoughts) was launched during the 2011-2012 academic year. CON-
NECT provides a venue for faculty and instructors to view and discuss classroom video from
Concepts classes, see teaching demonstrations on challenging lessons and reflect on the
experience and support each other through the process.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 31
Concepts at MCCC is an example of what a motivated group of faculty willing to try
something new can accomplish. They successfully launched a substantial change to curriculum
and pedagogy. Faculty interviews revealed enjoyment in teaching the course and significant
challenges adapting to the new teaching styles for the course (Bickerstaff, Lontz, Cormier, Xu,
2014). Faculty reported that the primary challenge was their uncertainty about how to
implement the discovery approach. One instructor wondered if more conversation in class was
facilitating discovery learning. Some experienced faculty reported difficulty in allowing students
to take the lead in class. The ongoing support of CON-NECT helped faculty address their issues,
which imply this type of live support is critical to faculty curriculum knowledge, by-in and
teaching success.
Successful Developmental Math Programs
Debates over mathematics education in the United States often falls within two points of
view. One group believes that U.S. classrooms do not focus enough on concepts and
understanding. The other group believes U.S. classrooms overemphasize concepts at the
expense of basic skills, thus holding back student achievement (Loveless, 2003). Research
indicates that the lower achievement of U.S. students cannot be explained by an overemphasis on
concepts and understanding. In fact, U.S. 8th graders spend most of their time in mathematics
classrooms practicing procedures and rarely spend time engaged in the serious study of
mathematical concepts.
California Acceleration Project
In 2011, the Board of Governors’ Student Success Task force identified strategies and
recommendations to increase student success in the California Community College system. The
recommendations included: mandating orientation, assessment and student education plans at all
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 32
institutions; development of a centralized diagnostic assessment and enrollment priority system;
and re-naming the previously titled Matriculation program as the “Student Success and Support
Program” (SSSP). These recommendations were the foundation of the Seymour-Campbell
Student Success Act of 2012, which mandated and established funding for the SSSP. SSSP
services are available to all students enrolled in credit or noncredit programs. Governor Jerry
Brown allocated $98.6 million for the 2013-14 academic year. Governor Brown provided over
$199 million for SSSP in the 2014-15 state budget for SSSP (CCCCO, 2014).
The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) has
focused on addressing the needs of underprepared students and increasing the capacity to help
these students succeed in certificate completion, degrees and/or transfer requirements. Its
Professional Development Grant, also known as 3CSN , the California Community College
Success Network was awarded a grant in recognition that too few of the nearly 100,000 CCC
faculty, administrators and staff have received the preparation and training needed to address the
needs of basic skills students at the classroom, program or institutional levels (Kozeracki, 2005).
The California Acceleration Project (CAP), an initiative of the California Community
Colleges’ Success Network (3CSN) implemented a redesigned English and Math pathways in
2011-12 in 16 California community colleges for 2,489 students. While there was variation in
the specific models implemented, all participating colleges reduced students’ time in remediation
by at least a semester; and aligned remediation with the college-level requirements of students’
intended pathways. Most also employed a set of CAP instructional design principles for creating
“high-challenge, high-support classrooms.” Students’ odds of completing a transferable math
course were 4.5 times greater in accelerated pathways than for students in traditional remediation
(Hayward, C. & Willett, T., 2014, p. 30). Students’ progress was followed through spring 2013.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 33
At that time, the estimated math sequence completion rate from students in accelerated pathways
was 38% while the completion rate for the comparison group in the traditional remedial math
sequence was 12%.
A number of strategies can be described as “acceleration.” Modularization breaks the
sequence into many low-- ‐unit modules with the goal of focusing instruction on those areas
where it is most needed and avoiding unnecessary coursework. Fast-track courses provide
intensive instruction in shorter time periods, potentially allowing students to pass multiple
sequence levels in a single term. This approach is sometimes also referred to as a compression
model. Mainstreaming is a form of acceleration that allows community college students to enroll
in a transfer-- ‐level course, typically with additional supports such as additional classes, tutoring,
or supplemental instruction.
Pathways – Statway
In the 2012-2013 academic year, the Carnegie Foundation’s Community College Pathways
(CCP) program sustained the positive outcomes realized in 2011-2012. Fifty-two percent of
Statway community college students successfully completed the course, earning college credit
within one year. Year two proved to be another outstanding year. In 2012-2013, CCP program
reproduced the positive outcomes realized in the first year of implementation, including
successful course completion rates of over 50 percent for both Pathways (Van Campen, J.,
Sowers, N. and Strother, S., 2013). Simultaneously, the administration of the Pathways has
continued to develop and improve in varied instructional settings across the United States
through open dialogue between professors that provides a network of professors whose work
provides growing evidence of the Community College Pathways program’s ability to reliably
generate positive results at scale.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 34
Statway is a two-semester pathway that replaces the traditional algebra sequence and
allows developmental math students to earn college-level credit for statistics in a single academic
year. Statway integrates developmental mathematics skills and college-level statistics into a
collaborative, problem-focused class. This program has been implemented in two California
community colleges; Los Angeles Pierce College and Mt. San Antonio College. The Pathways’
instructional system includes (Strother, S., VanCampen, J. and Grunow, A., 2013):
1. “Ambitious learning goals leading to deep and long lasting understanding;
2. Lessons and out-of-class materials to advance these goals;
3. Formative and summative assessments, including end-of-module and common end-of-
course assessments;
4. Productive persistence—an evidence-based package of practical student activities and
faculty actions integrated throughout the instructional system to increase student
motivation, tenacity, and skills for success;
5. Language and literacy component which interweaves necessary supports in instructional
materials and classroom activities so that learning is accessible to all;
6. Dynamic online environment for network engagement and collaboration;
7. Advancing quality teaching component to provide instructors with the knowledge, skills,
and habits necessary to experience efficacy in initial use and develop increasing expertise
over time; and
8. Rapid analytics to support the continuous improvement of teaching and of the materials.”
9. Changes to Statway and Quantway are tested and applied using improvement science
methodology. Improvement science consists of rapid iterations of system changes to
quickly identify and scale what works. For the CCP program, improvement science is
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 35
applied by synthesizing best practices, rapidly developing and testing prospective
improvements, and deploying successful changes in the classroom. Each step adds to the
body of knowledge used to continuously improve Pathways’ effectiveness.
To facilitate the application of improvement science in mathematics teaching and
learning, Statway and Quantway are organized as a Networked Improvement Community (NIC)
(Bryk, Gomez, and Grunow, 2011; Dolle, Gomez, Russell, and Bryk, 2012). The NIC is a
scientific learning community distinguished by four essential characteristics: (1) focused on a
well specified common aim, (2) guided by a deep understanding of the problem and the system
that produces it, (3) disciplined by the rigor of improvement science, and (4) networked to
accelerate the development, testing, and refinement of interventions and their effective
integration into varied educational contexts.
The NICs join community college faculty and administrators with Carnegie’s
improvement specialists and national educational researchers. Together they engage in
disciplined inquiry using common conceptual frameworks, measures, and protocols to advance
measureable improvements in teaching and learning (Berwick, 2008; Langley et al., 2009).
Network members test hypotheses, analyze local adaptations to ensure their effectiveness, and
contribute to the continued modification of Pathways.
Statway was first launched during the 2011-2012 academic year. The first cohort of 1,133
students spanned 19 community colleges and two state universities across five states. In total,
there were 50 faculty teaching 55 sections of Statway. Fifty-one percent of the initial cohort
successfully completed Statway and earned college-level math credit in a single year (Van
Campen, J., Sowers, N. and Strother, S., 2013). In 2012-2013, a total of 19 community colleges
and four state universities offered Statway across five states. All 18 community colleges that
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 36
offered Statway in Year 1 continued to offer it in year 2, and one college joined the program. A
total of 1,553 students enrolled in 77 sections of Statway taught by 67 faculty members. In Year
1, 1,133 students were enrolled in Statway.
Incoming Pathways students complete a background survey that measures their
knowledge of and attitudes toward math. After finishing activities and discussions designed to
challenge negative beliefs such as “I am not a math person,” students complete a shorter version
of this survey designed to assess changes in their attitudes toward math. In 2012-2013, the
Carnegie Foundation improved these surveys through Rasch analysis and provided instructors
with individualized reports summarizing student responses after each survey closed. This helped
faculty to better understand their students and tailor their instructional practices to meet students’
needs. 71 percent of Statway students placed at least two levels below a college-level
mathematics course and almost half would be required to take at least one developmental reading
course as well. About 60 percent of the students are female and 69 percent were raised in
families where the mother did not hold a college degree. Two-thirds of the Statway students are
minorities and 40 percent grew up in an environment where a language other than English was
spoken.
Fifty-two percent of Statway community college students successfully completed the full
Pathway (had a grade of C or higher in the final term) and earned college credit in 2012-2013.
This is a promising reproduction of Year 1 outcomes, in which 51 percent of all Statway students
and 49 percent of Statway community college students successfully completed the final term.
Statway’s streamlined design reduces the number of critical junctures, but some still remain.
These include: completion of each term, successful completion of each term (having a grade of C
or higher), and enrollment into the subsequent term. The median completion rate for the first
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 37
term of Statway was 92 percent and the median rate of successful completion was 72 percent
(Van Campen, J., Sowers, N. and Strother, S., 2013).
While the Community College Pathways: 2012-12013 Descriptive Report provides a
foundational descriptive picture of student performance, analysts at Carnegie are working to
provide more sophisticated analyses of the Pathways data, improve Pathways student
assessments and evaluate student academic success after they complete Statway or Quantway.
These projects will increase understanding of the longer-term impact of Pathways and strengthen
the Statway and Quantway courses.
Summary
The seismic shift needed to produce Obama’s additional 5 million community college
graduates will only happen through non-traditional and accelerated teaching methods. Math
education continues to be a major roadblock for students seeking to transfer to a college or
university. Research shows the average community college student is underprepared in at least
one subject, works at least part-time, may be a parent, has a low social economic status and is
often the first to attend higher education. The remedial math course sequence provides students
too many opportunities for life’s distractions to impact academic goal attainment.
Leaders of higher educational institutions, especially community colleges, should
consider updating or implementing data driven remediation programs. As accountability
concerns grow in the conscience of institutional, state and federal stakeholders, as well as
students and parents, certificate and graduation rates are increasingly important. Community
college leaders will need to address the psychological barriers for students placed in remedial
education as well as faculty who may be resistant to teaching a new way.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 38
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this quantitative study is to evaluate the effectiveness of developmental
mathematics courses throughout California community colleges by analyzing student success
data over the past two decades from the California Community College Chancellor’s Office.
Additionally, correlation analyses to illuminate the relationship of remedial math success rates to
ethnicity.
Research Questions
Based on the problem identification and purpose of the study, the following research
questions define the scope of the study:
1. Research Question One: Over the past two decades, what changes in developmental
math success rates have occurred within the California Community Colleges, and to
what extent have these changes varied due to ethnicity?
2. Research Question Two: A. Using 1993-2013 data, what enrollment trends have been
discovered in the California Community College system? B. Are certain ethnic
groups disproportionately tracked into developmental math and have their rates
changed from 1993-2013.
3. Research Question Three: Using 2012 and 2013 data, are developmental math
success rates in the 21 participating community colleges in accelerated math
programs (California Accelerated Project and Carnegie Foundation’s Statway)
different from nonparticipating California Community Colleges? Are there
differences between CAP and Statway participants and CAP and Statway
nonparticipants moderated by ethnicity?
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 39
4. Research Question Four: What percentage of professors who teach remediation
courses are adjunct faculty?
5. Research Question Five: Using 1993-2013 data, what are the top ten schools with the
highest success rates of developmental math by ethnicity?
Research Design
This correlational study will analyze the student success rates and ethnicity of California
Community College students enrolled in developmental math. In this study, data will be
analyzed at the institutional level and independent variables will be identified to determine the
opportunity to learn (OTL) and success rates in developmental math of minority students over
the last twenty years. This information will then be used to examine the stability of retention and
success rates as a measure of effective developmental math instruction in California Community
Colleges.
A correlational, quantitative research design will be used to determine the relationships in
performance among colleges in the outcome measures based on publicly available data
(CCCCO, 2014). Indicators varied, and any variation and correlation were examined. According
to Pacheco (2012), socioeconomic factors such as educational attainment, income and zip code,
are highly predictive in the aggregate of California’s Accountability Reporting for Community
College performance. It is unfair to evaluate an institution without accounting for the
characteristics of the students who enroll and the resources available to them (Bailey and Xu,
2012). This non-experimental study does not involve random assignment and is based solely on
publicly available data through the CCCCO’s website www.cccco.org, as no college was invited
to nor elected to be a part of the sample.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 40
Independent Variables
The primary independent variables in this study are: calendar year, student ethnicity,
CAP and Statway enrollment and faculty status. The institutions in this study are the California
Community Colleges during 1993-2013. The California Community College Chancellor’s Office
(CCCCO) tracks race and ethnicity which is self-declared by students in their admissions
application. CCCCO tracks eight different ethnicities. For the purpose of this study six
ethnicities will be the focus: Hispanic, African American, Asian, Filipino, White and “other”.
Socioeconomic information on California residents was gathered from the 2010 U.S.
Census Bureau (USCB) by Pacheco (2012) and was determined by an equally weighted average
of zip code income and zip code education. The Spearman Brown test for reliability indicated
reliability of .861, which indicates a strong correlation between education and socioeconomic
status. For this study the income variable was established by1) identifying the zip code identified
with the principal address for the college as reported to the CCCCO; 2) matching the zip code
with the median income for that area as reported by the USCB; and 3) recording and assigning
the population density figure to each college in the sample. The range of income within this
sample was $25,000 to $150,000, with an average income of $66,531.26. The figure for income
is positively skewed with more people earning below the mean income of $66, 531.66 (see
Figure 1).
Educational attainment as defined by the UCSB (2010) is defined as the highest level of
scholastic achievement that an individual has received. For this study, educational attainment
was determined by: 1) identifying the zip code associated with the principal address for the
college as reported to the CCCCO; 2) matching the zip code with the identified levels of
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 41
education achievement as noted by the USCB; and 3) recording and assigning the population
density figure to each college in the sample. In this study zip-code education was scaled by:
1= less than 9
th
grade
2= 9-12
th
grade (non-grad)
3= high school graduate
4= some college
5= associate degree
6= bachelor’s degree
7= graduate degree
The average level of education for neighborhoods in this study was 4.21 indicating some college
(See Figure 2). The figure for education was positively skewed with more neighborhoods having
educational levels below “some college”. Finally, California Community colleges are also
considered an independent variable in this study as transfer rates vary greatly across each
institution and impacts institutional success. The dependent variables for this study are the
retention/success rates in developmental math Retention/Success Rate Tracking Tool and OTL
rates.
Independent Variables
Enrollment in the California Accelerated Project (CAP) and the Carnegie Foundation Statway
mathematics curriculum is an independent variable. Additional details on the measurement of
each of these variables are provided below.
Population and Sample
The analysis of this study was done at the institutional level. The population of this study
was the California Community Colleges; the largest system of higher education in the nation,
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 42
boasting 2.1 million students attending 112 credit-awarding colleges. The colleges offer a range
of educational offerings that include remedial education in English and math, certificate and
degree programs geared toward workforce training and preparation for transfer to four-year
institutions (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office [CCCCO], 2014). Half of all
students enrolled in California’s community college system are racial/ethnic minorities
(California Postsecondary Education Commission [CPEC], 2010); quickly approaching or has
already reached “majority-minority” status (Levin, J. S., & Kater, S. T. (2013). The dataset
provides prospective students, parents and policy makers an opportunity to review student
success rates with the hope to discover a correlation between school and within the California
Community College system. This study focused on the report of Student Retention and Success
Rates in developmental math courses that report equips policy makers with the opportunity to
analyze system-wide efforts and strategies to improve institutional effectiveness student
outcomes in basic mathematics that allow academic goal achievement.

Figure 1. California Community College Enrollment by Ethnicity, 2012-2013
Source: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office / MIS Data Mart (2015)

African‐American,
7%
Asian, 11%
Filipino, 4%
Hispanic , 38%
White, 30%
Other, 5%
Unknown, 4%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 43
Figure 1 shows the diversity of the California Community College (CCC) system for the 2013-
2014 academic year. The CCC system was 38% Hispanic, 30% White, 11% Asian, 7% African
American, 4% Filipino, and 5% of other status and 4% not reporting. In comparison, Figure 2
shows the demographics of the 1992-1993 academic year. The most significant change was the
17% rise in Hispanic enrollment and the 19% decrease in White enrollment.

Figure 2. California Community College Enrollment by Ethnicity, 1992-1993
Source: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office / MIS Data Mart (2015)

African‐American,
7%
Asian, 12%
Filipino, 3%
Hispanic , 21%
White, 49%
Other, 2%
Unknown, 6%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 44

Figure 3. Income

Figure 4

Figure 4. Educational Attainment

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 45
Data Sources
The primary data source used to complete the quantitative analysis for this study was the
CCCCO Data Mart. The CCCCO Data Mart Retention/Success Rate Tracking Tool provides
immediate access to California community colleges’ student completion rates in various
academic disciplines ranging from agriculture to social science. In this study, the
Retention/Success Rate Tracking Tool was used to retrieve the success rates of basic math
completion by academic year statewide (which includes all math courses prior to college level
mathematics) for each California Community College campus.
The Retention/Success Rate tracking tool report can be used to disaggregate the report by
the demographic and programmatic categories such as age group, gender, ethnicity, etc.
The Retention/Success Rate Tracking Tool can raise the awareness of policymakers regarding
system-wide efforts and outcomes in basic skills.
Instrumentation
The CCCCO Data Mart Retention/Success Rate Tracking Tool was used to measure four
categories of metrics: Course enrollment rates, success rates, ethnicity, faculty status (tenure
track versus non tenure track) and school name.
For this study, data was retrieved from the Retention/Success Rate Tracking Tool at
http://datamart.cccco.edu/Outcomes/Course_Ret_Success.aspx and examined the student success
rates for remedial math at each of the 112 California Community Colleges. For each academic
year beginning with 1992-1993 through 2012-2013, the aggregate data included:
1. Enrollment Count: Number of students enrolled in remedial mathematics skills. For the
cohort of each specific college, the report includes the headcount, the count of enrollment
by the students, and the count of successful enrollments (grade of ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘P’, ‘IA’,
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 46
‘IB’, ‘IC’, ‘IPP’). The Retention/Success Rate Tracking data from1992-1993 academic
year through 2012-2013 was reviewed and analyzed in this study. Retention/Success
Rate Tracking Tool can be used to disaggregate the report by the demographic and
programmatic categories such as age group, gender, ethnicity, etc.
2. Success: Success is the count of successful course completion with a grade of ‘A’, ‘B’,
‘C’, ‘P for remedial mathematics skills. Based on these data, the success rate of each
cohort was calculated for each of the four Classifications and Measurements:
Developmental math course retention and course completion rate, adjusted success and
socio-economic status (SES) determined by educational attainment, income and zip code.
See appendix (A) and (B) for data collection methodology.
3. Ethnicity: Ethnicity is categorized into eight ethnic groups. Students are classified as
African-American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Hispanic, Multi-Ethnicity
(Since 2009), Pacific Islander, Unknown, and White Non-Hispanic.
4. Faculty status: The California Community Colleges Management Information System
Data Element Dictionary Employee-Employment-Classification at
http://extranet.cccco.edu/Portals/1/TRIS/MIS/Left_Nav/DED/Data_Elements/EB/EB08.pdf
defines academic employees as people employed by a community college district in an
academic position. Academic positions include every type of service, excluding
paraprofessional service, for which minimum qualifications have been established by the
Board of Governors pursuant to E. C. 87356. Coding Meaning C Academic, Contract,
Non-Tenured on Tenure Track T Academic, Temporary, Non-Tenured, Not on Tenure
Track R Academic, Regular, Tenured.
5. School Name: The California Community College system has 109 – 112 different
schools during 1993-2013.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 47
Limitations
This study does not explain why there is limited or missing data any specific CCC
campus. Additionally, causal relationships cannot be established based on data and
methodology. Due to the wide scope of the study and time span, all variables cannot be
accounted for and any assumptions that are made are tenuous. Further detailed research at the
individual campus location is required to bring about correlations between particular factors.
Delimitations
There are delimitations within this study. The generalizability is limited to the California
Community College system and does not account for other community college systems
throughout the United States and abroad. Further delimitations include the difference in how
ethnicity is defined for student enrollment and for student success tracking. Enrollment data
ethnicity categories are African-American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Filipino,
Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Unknown and White Non-Hispanic. Student success data ethnicity
categories do not include Filipino. Measured research outcomes cannot be applied across other
community college analyses without taking unknown factors into account.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 48
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of developmental
mathematics instruction and policy in California Community Colleges. This longitudinal study
spans twenty years, 1993 – 2013, and examines the effectiveness of recently implemented
accelerated math programs throughout twenty-three California community colleges over the last
two academic years, 2011-2013.

Figure 5. California Community College Student Population by Ethnicity. 1993-2013
Figure 5 is a quick snap shot of the California Community College student population
between 1993-2013. In general, most ethnic groups have maintained a similar percentage of the
student body except for Hispanic students, whose population continues to grow throughout
California and White students whose population continues to decline.
0
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
3000000
3500000
199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013
Representation of Ethnicity by Year as a Part of
Total Student Population
California Community College System 1993-
2013
AA AI AS HS PI WH UN FI
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 49

Figure 6. Enrollment in Developmental Math Disaggregated by Ethnicity
Hispanic students have had the largest enrollment increase during this period. In 1999,
Hispanics passed White students has the largest ethnic group enrolled in developmental math, by
more than 5300 students throughout CCCs. In 2013, over 72,000 more Hispanic students
enrolled in developmental math than the second largest ethnicity, 48,000 White students. White
enrollment also had a steady decrease between 2004 and 2009. American Indians and Pacific
Islander enrollment has remained nearly stagnant over the same period of time. African
American enrollment has increased by less than 5,000 over twenty years.

0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
19931995199719992001200320052007200920112013
AFRICAN‐AMERCIANS
AMERICAN INDIANS
ASIANS
HISPANICS
PACIFIC ISLANDERS
WHITES
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 50
Findings
Developmental Math Rates by Ethnicity
Research Question One: Over the past two decades, what changes in developmental math
success rates have occurred within the California Community Colleges, and to what extent have
these changes varied due to ethnicity?

Figure 7. Success Rates of Developmental Math Disaggregated by Ethnicity
Figure 7 and Table 1 show the success rate changes from 1993-2013 of California
Community Colleges (CCC) developmental math students. More than 70% of Asians, are
successful in developmental math overall the highest success rate compared to other racial/ethnic
groups (Chart 20). A higher percentage of Filipinos (ranging from 60% to almost 70%), with the
exception of Whites, are successful in California Community Colleges overall and across student
enrollment statuses compared to all other racial/ethnic groups. Pacific Islanders show much
lower success rates at California Community Colleges when compared to other racial/ethnic
groups.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 51
African American students are the only group whose success rate decreased by -6.66%.
Native Americans had the largest gain of 10.42%, though this group has the second lowest
enrollment numbers in the state. Hispanic students, California’s largest student population, made
significant gains of 10.20% during the same period. Asian and White students improved at
similar rates of +6.45% and +6.89% respectively.
Table 1
California Community College
Developmental Math Aggregated Success Rate Means
Race 1993 2013 Change Percentage Improvement
African Americans 45% 42% 3% - 6.66%
American Indians 48% 53% 5% + 10.42%
Asians 62% 66% 4% + 6.45%
Hispanics 49% 54% 5% + 10.20%
Pacific Islander 52% 53% 1% + 1.92%
White 58% 62% 4% + 6.89%

Research Question Two: A. Using 1993-2013 data, what enrollment trends have been
discovered in the California Community College system?
California has the fifth largest population of African Americans in the nation estimated to
be more than 2.1 million and 5.7 percent of the state’s population, per the 2011-13 American
Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, DP05: Demographic and Housing Estimates (2013).
Thirty-seven percent (nearly 800,000) of the state’s Black population live in Los Angeles
County. Another 36 percent (more than 780,000) are concentrated in Alameda, Riverside,
Sacramento, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties.
The Campaign for College Opportunity has found that gaps between Blacks and other
ethnic groups in college-going and attainment have remained virtually unchanged for more than
a decade, and in some cases, has worsened. Black students are likely to be underprepared for
higher education with the lowest high school graduation rates, and the second-lowest rates of
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 52
completing the required college preparatory curriculum for the state’s four-year universities. The
Public Policy Institute of California found that more than half of Black respondents believe that a
college education is “necessary for a person to be successful in today’s work world (Baldassare,
Bonner, et al., 2011).” The majority of Black first-time freshmen enroll in California’s
Community Colleges. Across all three public sectors of higher education— the California
Community Colleges, California State University, and University of California—Blacks have the
lowest completion rates for both first-time freshmen and transfer students and are more likely
than any other group to go to college but not earn a degree.
Over the course of twenty years, the African American (AA) student population remained
flat between1993 and 2000. AA enrollment peaked in 2003 with nearly 212,000 and in 2009
with over 220,000 students, however in 2010, 20,000 less AA students enrolled. Since 2009, AA
enrollment has decreased by 54,500 students in the CCC system.
From 1993-2001, the number of students successfully completing developmental math
were within 8,100 and 9,200 AA students. Between 2000 and 2002, success rates increased from
approximately 8,300 to 11,000 AA students. Success rates continued to increase at
approximately 500 more AA students annually through 2011. In 2012, 1,500 fewer AA students
successfully completed and the student decrease continued in 2013 with 700 fewer students
successfully completing developmental math.
In 2010, California had the largest American Indian/Alaskan Native’s (AI/AN ʼs)
population of any other state at 723,225, which is a 15.2 percent increase from the 2000 census.
AI/AN comprise 1.9% of the total population in California, 362,801 of which identify as
American Indian and Alaska Native alone while 360,424 identify as part American Indian and
Alaska Native.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 53
Two of the nation's largest populations of Indians reside in California — 54,236 AI/AN ʼs
in Los Angeles and 17,855 AI/AN ʼs in San Diego. AI/AN students deal with challenges that are
unique compared to any other marginalized communities. AI/AN student enrollment is often the
smallest at the various public school institutions throughout the state. This leads to further
marginalization when comparing the data to other racialized groups; AI/AN ʼs educational needs
become invisible and less important.
The 2010-2011 enrollment for AI/AN students was 15,307 or about .6% of the total
California Community College population. The San Diego Community College District had the
most enrolled AI/AN students of any district at 909, followed by the Los Rios Community
College District in Sacramento with 868.
Over the course of twenty years, the American Indian/Alaskan Native student population
in the CCC system has not reached 30,000. In 2002, the AI/AN population peaked at nearly
27,000 students. Enrollment was on a steady decline in 2003 and 2004 with 22,500 AI/AN
students with a spike in 2009 when 25,000 AI/AN enrolled. From 2009-2013, AI/AN enrollment
has decreased substantially by approximately 14,000 students, a decrease of 56%.
Success rates in Developmental Math for American Indian/Alaskan Native students
remains consistently about 50% lower than enrollment numbers. AI/AN success from 1993-
2007 has ranged between 1077 and 1121 students. Over 12,000 AI/AN students enrolled in 2008
and 2009. 2010-2013, AI/AN enrollment dropped 31.45%, from 1046 students in 2010 to 717
students in 2013.
California has the largest and most diverse Asian American (AA) and Native Hawaiian
and Pacific Islander (NHPI) population in the nation (Chang, Fung, et al., 2010). At the
California Community Colleges, Pacific Islander students receive the largest scholarships in
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 54
dollar amount, but Pacific Islander students have lower retention and success rates than most
other racial/ethnic groups. Asians as a whole have the highest proportions of Bachelor’s and
Graduate Degrees among all racial/ethnic groups, with 48% of Asians having college degrees.
Asians are also the second largest group of high school graduates who are eligible for
admission to California public postsecondary institutions. Asian high school graduates have the
highest eligibility rates for admission to the University of California (about 30% of public high
school graduates meet the minimum entrance requirements for admission) and California State
Universities (about 50% of public high school graduates meet the minimum entrance
requirements for admission) of all racial/ethnic groups (Chang, Fung, et al, 2010). Over two
thirds of Filipinos and 62% of Asian/Pacific Islanders are enrolled in California Community
Colleges (Chang, Fung, et al, 2010).
The Asian population from 1993-2013 ranged from 250,000 to 350,000 students, with
2003 being a peak year with 348,760 students. The Pacific Islander (PI) student population has
ranged between 10,000 and 23,000, with 2009 being a peak year with 23,199 students. . In
1993, 62% of Asian students passed developmental math with a C or better. In 2013, 66%, an
increase of 4%, of Asians enrolled in developmental math passed with a C or better. Pacific
Islander (PI) students have maintained at least a 50% success rate in developmental math
between 1993-2013, with 52% and 53% success rates respectively.
California is home to more than 14.5 million Latinos—the largest number in the country.
Latinos make up 38 percent of the state’s population and are projected to become the majority by
2060 (Lopez, M.H. and Krogstad, J.M., 2015). The Hispanic/Latino population in California is
large, growing rapidly, and on its way to reaching majority status in less than 40 years. However,
Latino college-degree attainment is low, despite a significant increase in college going rates. In
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 55
2012, the Pew Research Center reported seven out of ten Latino high school graduates in the
U.S. enrolled in college, a rate higher than that of their White counterparts. The 2013 State of
Higher Education for Latinos in California, notes that the state is on track to produce a
generation of young people less educated than our older population. The principal reason is that
one of the largest and fastest growing segments of California’s population—native-born and
immigrant Latinos have low rates of college completion. The math is clear. If the California
economy is to have the college-educated workforce it needs, solutions to significantly improve
college completion rates among Latinos is imperative.
Latino first-time freshmen enrollment is concentrated at the California Community
Colleges. In the fall of 2012, 69 percent of first-time Latino freshmen enrolled at a community
college—118,730 students. Despite their current underrepresentation, Latinos are going to
college at higher rates than ever before. This trend is likely to continue given the number of
Latinos younger than 18 years of age—more than 4.7 million (13 percent) of the state’s
population. In 2000, there were 100,600 Latino high school graduates; in 2012 there were
193,500—almost double. This increase is reflected in growing higher education enrollments.
Over the course of twenty years, the Latino student population in the CCC system has
steadily increased. The Latino population increased nearly 50% from 300,600 to 450,000 in a
decade, from 1993 – 2003. In 2004 enrollment dropped 7.5%; a decrease of nearly 56,000
students statewide. From 2005 – 2013, the Latino population has continued to grow 25% to
nearly 880,000 students. Between 1993 and 2013, Latino developmental math success has
ranged from between 45% and 50%. Success peaked in 2001 at 51%, with nearly 32,000
students passing developmental math with a C or better. 2002 was the first year the success rate
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 56
hit 45% with 42,000 students earning a C or better. Since 2008, Latino success has been below
50% and is currently 45% in 2013 with over 66,000 students passing with at least a C.
According to the 2015 California Community College Scorecard, Whites make up 29%
of the student population. White students who enrolled in developmental math and English had
the second highest success rate at 35.2% and 48.3% respectively. Figure 8 shows that during
1993-2003, the White student population in the CCC system was constant at or near 1 million
students, with exception of 1995 at 975, 791 and 1996 at 970,838 students. Between 2004 and
2009, the White student population ranged from 965,000 students to 982,000 students. 2010
began and downward trend in enrollment, with 9% less than 2009. White enrollment has
decreased by 22.5% between 2009 and 2013; a decrease of 290,000 students. White enrollment
and success in developmental math has remained nearly flat over twenty years with more than
50% of students successfully completing developmental math with a C or better. In 1993, 58%
of White students passed developmental math with 35,678 students. In 2013, 30,423 students,
nearly 63% of White students completed developmental math, a difference of 5% over twenty
years.
Research Question Two: B. Are certain ethnic groups disproportionately tracked into
developmental math and have their rates changed from 1993-2013.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 57
Table 2
California Community College
Developmental Math Tracking Means
Race 1993 2013 Change Percentage
Improvement
African Americans 13.70% 14.80% 1.1% + 8.02%
American Indians 15.04% 17.58% 2.5% + 16.88%
Asians 8.99% 9.02% .03% + 0.33%
Hispanics 11.19% 13.92% 2.73% + 24.39%
Pacific Islander 9.22% 11.35% 2.13% + 23.10%
White 6.45% 7.80% 1.35% + 20.93%

Table 2 shows the tracking rates by ethnicity from 1993-2013. Tracking refers to the
grouping of students into separate classes according to ability, usually executed by one of two
methods. In the first method, all students follow a similar curricular program, but each student is
grouped into a class at his or her particular achievement level. The second method streams
students into completely different curricular programs. Most tracking from entry assessment in
community colleges falls into the second category where the institution separates students into
homogeneous instructional groups based on assumed similarities of ability or aptitude (Kingan,
M. E., & Alfred, R. L. 1993). For years, educators considered tracking to be beneficial.
However, since the mid 1980s considerable evidence suggests the contrary. According to Oakes,
mountains of evidence indicate that homogeneous grouping doesn't consistently help anyone
learn better. Though, hundreds of studies have been conducted . . . [that] vary in their size and in
their methodology. . . The results differ in certain specifics, but one conclusion emerges clearly:
No one group of students has been found to benefit consistently from being in a homogeneous
group (Oakes, 1985, p. 7).
Ideally, tracking rates are decreasing each year. However, the data shows that tracking in
California Community Colleges has increased for every ethnicity. Asians had the lowest
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 58
tracking rates at .03%. African American students had the second lowest tracking rate at 8%.
Hispanics have the highest tracking rates at 24%. White and Pacific Islander student tracking
rates were at least 20% with Native Americans at nearly 17%.
Traditional vs. Accelerated Developmental Math
Research Question Three: Using 2012 and 2013 data, are developmental math success
rates in the 21 participating community colleges in accelerated math programs (California
Accelerated Project and Carnegie Foundation’s Statway) different from nonparticipating
California Community Colleges? Are there differences between CAP and Statway participants
and CAP and Statway nonparticipants moderated by ethnicity?
Figure 8 shows the adjusted success rates of African American students enrolled in
accelerated math programs CAP and Statway and African American students enrolled in
traditional developmental math courses. 2010 success rates were used as a covariate. In 2011,
the first year of Program implementation, African American students enrolled in an accelerated
math program had a success rate of .4185. There was a decrease in success from year one to two
of -.017. The success rate for African American students enrolled in traditional developmental
curriculum remained the same from year one to two at .4394.
The Figure 4 means were analyzed in a 2 (No Program vs. CAP) x 2 (years) repeated
measures analysis of variance. 2010 success rates were used as a covariate to control for pre-
existing differences between groups. Both the year by program interaction, Wilks’
Lambda=.987, F (1,87) = 1.11, p=.295 observed probability, and the program main effect,
F(1,87)=.004, p=.949 were not significant.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 59

Figure 8. African American Success Rates - Accelerated Math Programs vs. Traditional
Developmental Curriculum

Figure 9 shows the success rates of Asian students enrolled in accelerated math programs
CAP and Statway and Asian students enrolled in traditional developmental math courses. Asian
students enrolled in an accelerated program had a success rate of .6566. The increase from year
one to two was .23. Asian students enrolled in traditional developmental curriculum had a rate
change of .009.
The Figure 9 means were analyzed in a 2 (No Program vs. CAP) x 2 (years) repeated
measures analysis of variance. 2010 success rates were used as a covariate to control for pre-
existing differences between groups. Both the year by program interaction, Wilks’
Lambda=.983, F (1,80) = 1.34, p=.249 observed probability, and the program main effect,
F(1,80)=.632, p=.428 were not significant.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 60

Figure 9. Asian Success Rates - Accelerated Math Programs vs. Traditional Developmental
Curriculum

Figure 10 shows the success rates of Hispanic students enrolled in accelerated math
programs CAP and Statway and Hispanic students enrolled in traditional developmental math
courses. Hispanic students enrolled in an accelerated program had a success rate of .5412. The
increase from year one to two was nearly .007. Hispanic students enrolled in traditional
developmental curriculum had a rate change of .0031.
The Figure 6 means were analyzed in a 2 (No Program vs. CAP) x 2 (years) repeated
measures analysis of variance. 2010 success rates were used as a covariate to control for pre-
existing differences between groups. Both the year by program interaction, Wilks’
Lambda=.998, F (1,106) = .222, p=.639 observed probability, and the program main effect,
F(1,106)=.003, p=.844 were not significant.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 61

Figure 10. Hispanic Success Rates - Accelerated Math Programs vs. Traditional
Developmental Curriculum

Figure 11 shows the success rates of White students enrolled in accelerated math
programs CAP and Statway and White students enrolled in traditional developmental math
courses. White students enrolled in an accelerated program had a success rate of .6229. The
increase from year one to two was .0131. White students enrolled in traditional developmental
curriculum had a rate change of .0066.
The Figure 11 means were analyzed in a 2 (No Program vs. CAP) x 2 (years) repeated
measures analysis of variance. 2010 success rates were used as a covariate to control for pre-
existing differences between groups. Both the year by program interaction, Wilks’
Lambda=.984, F (1,106) = .1.709, p=.194 observed probability, and the program main effect,
F(1,106)=.006, p=.541 were not significant.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 62

Figure 11. White Success Rates - Accelerated Math Programs vs. Traditional Developmental
Curriculum

In summary, the number of students that have successfully passed developmental math
who enrolled in either the California Accelerated Project or the Carnegie Foundation’s Statway,
is marginal gains at best in the California Community College system. First, the sample size is
not large enough, more than one in five community college students in the United States attends
a California community college (CCCCO, 2014). Secondly, the many hurdles required to gain
by-in from school administrators and faculty make the current ad-hoc system of improvement
destined to remain a limited opportunity for a small group of students that will assist some
students in reaching their academic goals, rather than a state-wide accepted, data-driven method
of developmental math curriculum that includes faculty academic support and professional
development and increased student tutoring, counseling and support. Without the resources and
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 63
collective understanding and will to provide this necessary support, the student gains will simply
be limited.
Tenure (d) Track Faculty vs. Temporary/Adjunct Faculty
Question Four: What percentage of professors who teach remediation courses are adjunct
faculty?

Figure 12. California Community College Tenure (d) Track and Temporary/Adjunct Math
Faculty (2000-2013)

Though specific data about adjunct faculty teaching developmental courses was not
available, the California Chancellor’s Office began collecting general information about the
number of tenure (d) track and temporary/adjunct faculty within California. Since 2000, adjunct
faculty in the math department has increased by 645 professors statewide. It is likely that some
of the adjunct faculty teach developmental math. Figures 14 and 15 illustrate the ratio of tenure
(d) track faculty to temporary/adjunct faculty between 2000 and 2013. In 2010, temporary
academics in the Math department rose 38% from 1006 to 1389 instructors. The increase was
stable through 2012, however in 2013, temporary faculty numbers rose another 14%. This
increase created the smallest gap between tenure (d) track faculty and temporary academic staff.
The gap has narrowed between 2000, when faculty outnumbered temporary academics by 35%
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013
Math Tenure(d)/Track
Math Academic Temporary
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 64
in 2013, with nearly an 11% difference. This shows that temporary math academics in the
California Community College System have grown over twenty percent since the beginning of
the 21
st
Century. The results of this longitudinal study further support the need to increase
student success in the California Community College system to create a better educated job force
within the state and nation.
Research Question Five: Using 1993-2013 data, what are the top ten schools with the highest
success rates of developmental math by ethnicity?
Top Ten California Community Colleges by Student Senate Regions

Figure 13. California Community Colleges, Top 10 School Regions, African American
Developmental Math Success Rates
0 2468 10
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
Region 1 | Butte‐Glenn; Siskiyou
Region 2 | Mendocino Lake; Yuba
Region 3 | Contra Costa; Marin
Region 4 | Berkeley; San Jose
Region 5 | Fresno; San Joaquin
Region 6 | Santa Barbara;
Ventura
Region 7 | LA County; Glendale
Region 8 | Orange County
California Community Colleges
Top10 School Regions
African American
Developmental Math Success
Rates
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 65
Researching success rates of developmental math provided the data to identify the top ten
schools and sort by ethnicity. Specific information about individual schools is available in
Appendix C.
Figure 13 shows which California Student Senate Regions where the schools with the
highest success rates for African Americans (AA) are located. The data suggests that in general,
AA students performed better in developmental math courses in the Riverside, San Bernardino,
Central Valley, and Bay Area campuses. From 1994 to 2006, Compton Community College,
which had between 44% and 58% AA students, ranked number one for AA developmental math
success rates. In 2006 the school was rumored to close due to state audits revealing financial
fraud, fake enrollments and missing computer equipment. The school was eventually and
continues to be taken over by El Camino College (Los Angeles Times (2014). The research
shows Compton College’s success rates have not returned to the Top Ten list since.
The data also revealed that among the top ten schools, between 1993 and 2006, the AA
student population was below 10% for at least 7 out of 10 most campuses. In 2007, 40% of the
top ten campuses had an AA student population that ranged from 10% to 20%. In 2013, AA
students had the highest success rates at Riverside, Berkeley City and West Los Angeles college
campuses.
Riverside City College, per the school’s website, is the most dynamic and diverse college
in the Inland Empire serving more than 19,000 students each semester. Riverside City is home
to strong programs in liberal arts, science, performing arts and the School of Nursing. Berkeley
City College is two blocks from the University of California, Berkeley and serves 7,600+ each
semester. West Los Angeles College has an active student population of nearly 12,000 regular
and extension students, West LA’s Dental Hygiene program is a national model and they have
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 66
the only American Bar Association Approved Paralegal program in the Los Angeles Community
College District. While this information is anecdotal, is can be helpful for students determining
the best California community college to attend.
In general, Asian student performed better in developmental math courses in Orange
County, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Bay Area campuses. Since 2008, schools in San Diego
are consistently within the top 10. The Asian student population range within the Top 10
California Community College campuses is between 2% and 30% with San Jose City, Skyline
and Orange Coast having at least 20%.
Interestingly in 2013, the top success rates for Asian, Hispanic and White students
enrolled in developmental math occurred on 80-90% of the same campuses, with Butte, North
Orange Adult, Orange Coast and San Jose City being the top 5 schools. Butte College serves the
residents of Butte and Glenn Counties. During 2007-2008, Butte College enrolled 21,833
students and conferred 936 associate of arts and associate of science degrees. The college also
awarded 1,128 certificates in a variety of career and technical fields including fire, law
enforcement, nursing, auto, building inspection, and heavy equipment. Butte College also
transfers more students to California State University, Chico than any other community college.
Orange Coast College’s 164-acre campus located in Costa Mesa has grown into one of the
nation’s largest community colleges, enrolling more than 25,000 students each semester.
The Hispanic student population range within the Top 10 California Community College
campuses is between 15% and 50%. Hispanic students are also succeeding at Southwestern
College, which is the only institute of higher education located in the southern portion of San
Diego County, serving approximately 20,000 students every semester. The Los Angeles Times
(July, 2015) reported that New America, a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit, highlighted
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 67
Cerritos College for increasing the number of Hispanics who are eligible to transfer and do well
academically; the number of Hispanic who earned passing grades grew by 10% between 2007
and 2013. Statewide, the percentage of Latino students in California who earned passing grades
statewide grew by 5% during that same time, according to the study.
Asian, Hispanic and White students have the best developmental math rates in Riverside,
San Bernardino, Orange County and Bay area campuses. Additionally, Butte College, the most
successful campus for Asians, Hispanic and White student enrolled in developmental math has a
66% White student body. The White student population at other top 10 schools ranged from
16% to 50% with Butte having 65%+, Siskiyous having over 50%, and Orange Coast having
40%.
Summary
In summary, this type of data may be useful for school administrators and prospective
students alike. Though student demographics and campus locations are factors that must be
considered in an analysis, the top ten list may be used as a guide to begin identifying best
practices for student success in developmental math.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 68
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
More than thirty years after A Nation at Risk, the critical report that warned Americans of
a “rising tide of mediocrity in the nation’s schools” the U.S. education system continues to churn
out scores of high school graduates who are underprepared for the current job market. As a
result, 5.4 million job openings as of April 2015, in the U.S., the most in 15 years remain unfilled
(U.S. Department of Labor, 2015).
Many Americans do not have the educational background and skills needed to fill those
jobs. McKinsey & Co. reported that the academic achievement gap between children in the
United States and other countries deprived the U.S. economy of as much as $2.3 trillion in
economic output in 2008 (Auguste, B., Hancock, B. and Laboissiere, M., 2009). Additionally,
the knowledge economy, defined by Powell and Snellman (2004) as production and services
based on knowledge-intensive activities that contribute to an accelerated pace of technical and
scientific advancement, is increasingly dependent on a college educated workforce. By 2018, the
economy will have created 46.8 million new jobs with nearly two thirds requiring a Bachelor’s
degree or better (Carnevale, A.P., Smith, N. and Strohl, J., 2010).
Current college completion rates cannot meet this need. In 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau
reported that only 39% of non-Hispanic whites ages 25-29, 19% of African-Americans and 14%
of Hispanics had Bachelors’ degrees. United States community colleges are an important first
step on the path to higher education that is available to all Americans.
In this time of global competition, the American economy needs a more skilled
workforce. Community colleges provide a unique opportunity for people who seek to transfer to
a four-year college or university, earn an associate degree or certificate. They are the primary
vehicle for diverse students entering higher education. Its dual mission of helping college ready
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 69
students transfer to four-year institutions and providing the academic support needed for scores
of underprepared students. Mathematics is a major roadblock to academic success for
community college students nationwide. In California, all college graduates must successfully
complete college level Algebra, though the reality remains that many underprepared students
enroll in community colleges often one or two levels below college level math. The sequence
and length of time developmental math classes require, the funds needed to enroll in courses that
don’t go towards a college degree, in addition to all the happenings of life outside of school like
work and family puts academic success for most/many students out of reach. Given the
challenge of creating a larger educated work force, this study sought to answer the following
questions:
1. Research Question One: Over the past two decades, what changes in developmental
math success rates have occurred within the California Community Colleges, and to what
extent have these changes varied due to ethnicity?
2. Research Question Two: A. Using 1993-2013 data, what enrollment trends have been
discovered in the California Community College system?
3. Research Question Three: Using 2012 and 2013 data, are developmental math success
rates in the 21 participating community colleges in accelerated math programs (California
Accelerated Project and Carnegie Foundation’s Statway) different from nonparticipating
California Community Colleges? Are there differences between CAP and Statway
participants and CAP and Statway nonparticipants moderated by ethnicity?
4. Research Question Four: What percentage of professors who teach remediation courses
are adjunct faculty?
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 70
5. Research Question Five: Using 1993-2013 data, what are the top ten schools with the
highest success rates of developmental math by ethnicity?
Changes in Developmental Math Success Rates
This research study confirms that California Community College (CCC) success rates in
developmental math still need improvement. Many student remediation interventions have not
produced the large-scale impact campuses must achieve to meet workforce demands and
properly serve their student populations. Though success rates have slightly improved (1%-5%)
throughout California over two decades, when disaggregated by ethnicity, stark differences in
percentage improvement are apparent. Asian students had the highest success rate of 66% in
2013, a nearly 7% increase from 1993. Hispanic students had the largest percentage
improvement of 10.2% with a 54% success rate. African Americans (AA) are the only ethnic
group over the last twenty years whose success rate in developmental math did not improve; a
6.6% decrease was discovered.
Enrollment Trends in the California Community College System
In 2013 24% of all the community college students nationwide, approximately 2.4
million students were enrolled in a California community college (CCLC, 2013). The nation’s
largest community college system continued to see Hispanic student enrollment soar with
approximately 120,000 students, remaining the largest ethnic group in the CCC system since
1999. This is good news because the Community College League of California reports that
California’s personal income will decline by 11% by the year 2020 unless the state increases the
number of Latinos who attend college (CCLC, 2013). White student enrollment steadily
declined between 2004 and 2009. Asian enrollment has remained near 18,000 since 2004,
American Indians and Pacific Islander enrollment has been stagnant during the same period and
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 71
African American enrollment has increased by less than 5,000 over twenty years. Enrollment
declines may be a result of increased enrollment at 4-year institutions, proprietary schools or a
less interested student population.
In 2011 the Public Policy Institute of California found that more than half of AA
respondents believed higher education was necessary for success in the work force, yet AA
enrollment in CCC has continued to decline for over a decade. It seems the behavior of many
AA students is counter to their value of education. The decrease in CCC AA student enrollment
is an indication of more than a few disinterested students. Research shows that too many African
American youth have negative experiences in school and impoverished neighborhoods that make
learning, goal setting and attainment challenging because education is not episodic; it is an
accumulation of work, skills and knowledge over time. As negative experiences occur, students’
behavior and thoughts turn away from education. According to Howard Spivak M.D., director of
the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Violence Prevention, “Youth
living in inner cities show a higher prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder than soldiers,”
The 2014 report estimates that 30% of young people in urban “combat zones” suffer from some
form of PTSD. Additionally, the research of pediatrician Dr. Nicole Brown and other
researchers has drawn attention to a compelling possibility: Inattentive, hyperactive, and
impulsive behavior may in fact mirror the effects of adversity, and many pediatricians,
psychiatrists, and psychologists don’t know how, or don’t have the time to tell the difference
(Ruiz, R., 2014). When the school experience is shaped by violence, criminalization, and
possible misdiagnosis, it is no surprise that www.kidsdata.org reports third grade African
American students reading proficiency has ranged from 23% in 2003 to 30% in 2013 and
proficiency in Algebra remains below 25%.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 72
Success Rates in Accelerated Developmental Math Programs
The research concluded that both the California Acceleration Project and Carnegie’s
Statway programs main effect was found not to be statistically significant. Generally speaking,
the scale of the programs were too small to have a great impact on the California Community
College System, are more expensive and less likely for state wide adoption than defining and
setting statewide accountability bench marks. As various community college constituents seek
the best educational opportunity, student success rates will increasingly become the bottom line.
California Acceleration Project
The California Acceleration Project (CAP) supports community colleges to redesign
English and math remediation to increase student college-level English and math requirement
completion rates. Since 2010, 47, approximately 40% of California community colleges are
offering redesigned English and math pathways. In 2013-14, approximately 10,000 California
community college students enrolled in accelerated English and math pathways at CAP pilot
colleges. The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group)
released a study of student outcomes for the first cohort of 16 CAP colleges. This quasi-
experimental study controlled for preexisting student characteristics and found “large and
robust” (RP Group, page 2) gains in student completion of transferable courses: In accelerated
math pathways, their odds of completing college-level math (Statistics) were 4.5 times greater.
The researchers found that all students benefitted from effective accelerated pathways –
including all racial/ethnic groups, all placement levels, low-income students, ESL students,
students with disabilities, students with low GPAs, and students who hadn’t graduated from high
school. According to the RP Group, “This evaluation found strong evidence that accelerated
curriculum can be developed at multiple college sites in a short period of time with good results,
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 73
particularly for those accelerated pathways that articulate directly with transfer-level gatekeeper
courses” (page 2).
Though the enrollment numbers are small, the total math sample for the California
Accelerated Project was 653 students, 144 in Cohort I (Fall 2011) and 509 students in Cohort 2
(Spring 2012) the Research & Planning Group for California Community Colleges found that
students enrolled in CAP were 4.5 times more likely to complete an accelerated math course.

Figure 14. Marginal means for the percentage of students completing transfer-level math for
accelerated and comparison sequences for all students.
(Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges, Final CAP Report, 2014)

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Traditional Math Accelerated Math
Traditional Math
Accelerated Math
12%
38%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 74

Figure 15. Marginal means for the percentage of students completing transfer-level math by
spring 2013 for accelerated and comparison sequences by current level. (Research and Planning
Group for California Community Colleges, Final CAP Report, 2014)

CAP was awarded a $400,000 grant from California Education Policy Fund to support
gains made in student completion rates and professional development for school faculty and
administrators. The two-year grant will create a blueprint for transforming placement and
remediation in California with the goal being to streamline the transition to community college
and increase the proportion of students who complete college-level math and English in their
first year, which is critical for early academic momentum and longer term completion.
Carnegie Foundation Statway
The Community College Pathways initiative consists of two pathways, Statway® and
Quantway® that accelerate post-secondary students’ progress through their developmental
mathematics sequence and a college-level course for credit. Since its 2011 launch, the Pathways
have helped thousands of students achieve academic success in college-level mathematics. In
2013-2014, the Pathways maintained the positive outcomes attained in the first two years of
implementation, with successful course completion rates of approximately 50 percent for both
Pathways. Statway, which has been implemented in four California Community Colleges,
6%
10%
15%
23%
21%
30%
41%
53%
Starting 4 or More
Levels Below
Starting 3 Levels
Below
Starting 2 Levels
Below
Starting 1 Level
Below
Math Starting Place
Comparison Accelerated
Percent of Students
Successfully Completing
Transfer‐Level Course
in Sequence
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 75
integrates developmental mathematics skills and college level statistics into a collaborative,
problem-focused class. It is a year-long pathway that replaces the traditional algebra sequence
and a statistics course, allowing developmental math students to earn college-level credit for
statistics in a single academic year. Table 3 shows enrollment increased 37% between the 2011-
2012 and 2012-2013 and 47% between 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 academic years. The number
of institutions increased by one during 2012-2013 and has remained stable.
Table 3
Statway Enrollment, 2011-2014
2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
Statway Students 1,133 1,553 2,283
Institutions 21 22 22

Table 4
Student Success in Statway at Community Colleges
Institutions
Students
Enrolled
Students Successfully
Completing
the Full Pathway
Fall ’11 Cohort 18 974 475 (49%)
Fall ’12 Cohort 18 853 445 (52%)
Fall ’13 Cohort 19 1,296 614 (47%)
All Fall Cohorts 26 3,123 1,534 (49%)

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 76

Figure 16. Statway Completion Fall 2011-Fall 2013 Cohorts (2015)
The Carnegie Foundation determines success by the number of students who enrolled in
the first term of Statway in the fall term and the number of students who completed the full
Pathway with a grade of C or higher. Carnegie reports that of the 1,296 community college
students in the fall 2013 cohort, 614 (47 percent) completed the full Pathway with a grade of C
or higher and earned college credit. This outcome is consistent with Year 1 and 2 outcomes,
when approximately 50 percent of community college students successfully completed Statway.
These results are a dramatic improvement from typical outcomes: only 6 percent of a baseline
group of developmental math students successfully earned college-level math credit in one year.
Compared to these outcomes, students in Statway are achieving triple the success in half the
time.
Student success rates determined by a grade of C of higher are susceptible to
misinterpretation due to the incomplete picture they provide (Hayward, 2011). Shifting focus to
the individual student provides a different perspective that can yield results that can be applied
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Fall ’11
Cohort
Fall ’12
Cohort
Fall ’13
Cohort
All Fall
Cohorts
Students Enrolled
Students Successfully
Completing the Full
Pathway
49%
49%
52%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 77
by practitioners (Adelman, 2006). The 1999-2000 the CCC Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO)
Management Information Systems (MIS) data base was one of three major data sources for the
Transfer Velocity Project (TVP). The term “velocity”, a borrowed term from physics refers to
an object’s speed and orientation as it travels along a pathway. Though analyses of student
success and transfer rates require the cohort tracking, the analogy provides additional insight
beyond the traditional focus on a specific window of time. Hayward (2011) notes that the key
advantage of transfer velocity over transfer rate is that more information and more actionable
information is used and represented in the analysis of students’ transfer velocity.
In summary, students enrolled in either CAP or Statway math programs are more likely
to persist and complete required developmental course sequence. The issue at hand is the scale
and cost. In fall 2011 the programs had a few more than 1100 students; positive impact for
those individual students, yes; but for the economic needs of California, no. The strategies put
forth by Dr. Bailey in addition to the grant CAP received to grow to scale is key to sustaining the
academic goals and achievements of students enrolled in California Community Colleges.
Community College Faculty-Student Interaction
Research has continually found faculty–student interaction to be integral to college
student development and achievement (Astin, 1993; Lamport, 1993; Terenzini, Pascarella, &
Blimling, 1999).Generally, what is understood about student involvement and faculty-student
interaction specifically, comes from research on students attending 4-year institutions. Little
attention has been paid to students at 2-year colleges. For those that have examined student
development at these campuses, low levels of involvement, especially social forms of
involvement, have been observed (Hagedorn, Maxwell, Rodriguez, Hocevar, & Fillpot, 2000;
Maxwell, 2000). Approximately 20% of students enrolled in 2-year colleges participate in
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 78
school clubs as compared to more than 50% of students at public and private 4-year institutions
(Coley, 2000). This discrepancy can be attributed, in large part, to the very different student
bodies and institutional environments (Cohen & Brawer, 2002; Maxwell, 2000). The majority of
community college students commute to campus and balance academics, family commitments
and off-campus employment. Additionally, many community college students and faculty are
part-time and generally leave campus after class. Though community college students seldom
participate in social forms of involvement, they do engage in academic forms of involvement
(Maxwell, 2000). Research indicates that ‘‘the classroom is the main point of student contact
with the [community] college,’’ and community college students are primarily concerned with
and motivated by curricular and academic issues (Hagedorn et al., 2000, p. 596). Among all
racial student subgroups positive interaction with other members of the institution, from students
to academic counselors assist with a positive association with faculty. Such interactions have
been shown to positively influence students’ degree aspirations, self-efficacy and esteem,
academic success, satisfaction, goal development, and adjustment to college (Arredondo, 1995;
Astin, 1993; Eimers, 2000; Lamport, 1993; McGlynn, 1992; Santos & Reigadas, 2000). The
reasons for such potent influence are better understood when considering the multiple roles
faculty members assume in relation to their students. They serve as instructors, role models,
employers, advisors and sources of support and guidance. Through engagement with faculty
members in these capacities, students can develop a deeper appreciation for the subject material,
be exposed to new opportunities for learning, and receive encouragement socially and toward a
future career (Arredondo, 1995).

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 79
Top Ten California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates
The age of data-driven accountability has yet to really impact higher education. As the
California state budget continues to invest in community colleges to fund various initiatives to
provide increased student support and success, a number of outcomes remain uncertain. It is
imperative that prospective students, policy makers and taxpayers demand the same level of
accountability in higher education that is required in the K-12 system. Too many commonsense
questions about which colleges and programs offer an affordable quality education are unknown.
In the past decade thousands of colleges serving tens of millions of students in all 50 states have
participated in voluntary data-driven reform initiatives-from Achieving the Dream (ATD) to
Completion by Design (CBD) to Complete College America (CCA) (Engle, 2016).
Achieving the Dream (ATD), begun in 2004, is one of the nation’s most comprehensive
non-governmental student success reform movements. ATD, with support from the Lumina and
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations, sought to achieve significant institutional-level
improvements in community colleges across the country using five organizational improvement
practices referred to as a “culture of evidence”: leadership commitment; use of data to prioritize
actions; stakeholder engagement; implementation, evaluation and improvement of strategies; and
establishment of an infrastructure for continuous improvement (Achieving the Dream, 2009).
Unfortunately, an ATD report found that about half of the interventions enrolled fewer than ten
percent of the target student population. Though a large program like orientation may engage
more students, the interaction and intervention value typically has low impact on student success.
Why aren’t these interventions working? Some would suggest abstract principles such as
“stakeholder engagement,” “leadership commitment” and “continuous improvement”, are too
vague and allow for multiple interpretations and do not promote deep change. Concrete reform
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 80
plans and clear strategy to engage faculty, staff and administrators are required to support and
promote profound organizational change.
In general, improved communication is needed to help community colleges and students
reach their academic goals. Faculty are not able to effectively teach students the information
needed to progress, school administrators and staff do not clearly explain the various resources
available to students and faculty do not effectively coordinate with all departments to ensure the
most streamlined academic experience possible. Additionally, a clearly articulated goal is a
minimum requirement to gain by-in and support for any change. Often leaders at the federal,
state and local level set idealistic goals without having an understanding on how to reach it.
Bailey (2015) notes that consistently various parts of community college are characterized by a
lack of interaction and alignment toward students’ end goals. As is the case with many higher
education cultures, students rely on themselves; professors and advisors generally work in
isolation; and there is little coordination between instructors and student services personnel. In
the midst of various course and degree options which often confuse and frustrate students and
faculty pick and choose to be involved in. There is good news - since the early 2000s, colleges
have been willing to experiment with innovative strategies usually starting with a small number
students and scale up as resources and administrative oversight allow (Bailey, 2015).
Often, reforms have limited effect on student outcomes either because the reform
involved a limited number of students that has not been scaled up or large number of students
experienced low-intensity support. Belfield, Crosta and Jenkins (2014) found that increased
student support would not increase graduation rates alone. Their research suggests that to
substantially improved student progress and completion rates, changes in practice throughout the
students’ experience are required.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 81
For the most part, instructional reform has targeted developmental education and as a
result, most faculty in the college, particularly those teaching college-level programs, have been
largely uninvolved in, and unaffected by, reform efforts (Rutschow et al.,2011). Most
community colleges devote a number of resources to helping academically underprepared
students, who represent a majority of incoming students reach academic readiness. However, the
current system, hampered by inadequate placement information, lengthy prerequisite sequences
and flat instruction result in most students never successfully matriculate to college-level study.
Once the initial data analysis was completed for this study, there was interest in seeing if
there were any patterns to the schools with the highest success rates. Were particular campuses
more successful and for which students? This analysis led to the creation of a Top Ten List that
was further analyzed by ethnicity. It is important to note that this information is based solely on
outcomes unlike the popular U.S. News & World Report college lists. The Top Ten list also
shed light on the fact that for most ethnicities, the campuses were the same, which supports the
notion that good teaching usually transcends ethnic differences. The identified schools
highlighted in this paper will be contacted to learn more about their teaching methods and
student support to share the information with California Community College faculty and
administrations state wide.
The CCCCO already is a leader in school data collection. More analysis can be done to
provide all stakeholders basic information about each of the 112 campuses that include
demographics, success rates by ethnicity and major, transfer rates and student/faculty ratio.
Recommendations
The challenges of community colleges are vast, from the admissions process does not
allow schools to adequate time to prepare, the number of students and various student goals.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 82
They are charged with appealing to all students all of the time, which has created a cafeteria
model of courses, majors, degrees and certificate programs (Bailey, 2015). The abundance of
program choices makes determining a path difficult for prepared students new to the process, let
alone students who may choose a community college to develop academic goals, skills and
confidence to work towards transferring or a certificate program.
The abundance of program choices makes determining a path difficult for prepared
students new to the process, let alone students who may choose a community college to develop
academic goals, skills and confidence to work towards transferring or a certificate program.
The cafeteria model’s focus on courses rather than programs overwhelms the typical student,
which results in poor program and course selection, which costs time and money and likely leads
to many students choosing to drop out in frustration. A fifth of all entering community college
students exit school before earning ten credits (Baily, 2015). Specifically, incoherent transfer-
oriented programs and the poor alignment of such programs with transfer requirements create
additional barriers to student advancement. The solution to this chaotic and confusing
environment is multi-layered and must include staff, faculty and student input.
Increasingly, community college stakeholders are asked to share more institutional
knowledge to be held accountable. The Top Ten list of California Community College campuses
is an outgrowth of the research. The analysis discovered that many campuses had the top
developmental math success rates for a number of ethnicities. Specifically, incoherent transfer-
oriented programs and the poor alignment of such programs with transfer requirements create
additional barriers to student advancement. The solution to this chaotic and confusing
environment is multi-layered and must include staff, faculty and student input.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 83
The shift away from a cafeteria model requires a systemic way to overcome an
entrenched organizational structure. Mutual respect among faculty and staff is necessary to learn
and value staff insights and ideas about student needs, resources and implementation strategy.
Historically, professors have a great deal of autonomy regarding their courses and research.
While this is understandable, it is helpful for faculty to review degree maps that includes their
course(s) to consider collaboration or at least a discussion to learn about the many resources to
suggest to their students.
Rutschow, et al. (2011) stated reform-oriented “interventions” can be put into three broad
categories: student support services, instructional support, and changes in classroom instruction.
Student support interventions include academic advising, which offers an opportunity to
exchange information designed to help students reach their educational and career goals; student
success courses designed to prepare students for the rigors of college, the working world and
how to maximize college resources. This course emphasizes goal setting, time management,
techniques on effective listening and note-taking, concentration, comprehension and analysis,
test-taking skills and early alert programs designed for faculty to identify students who are in
need of assistance because of academic performance, class participation and/or behavior issues.
Instructional support refers to tutoring and summer “bridge” programs that provide incoming
students the opportunity to strengthen or acquire the academic skills needed to be successful in
college, become familiar with the campus and its resources and begin to create supportive
relationships with classmates, school staff and faculty support needed to build an effective
learning community.
High school and career counselors should promote community college placement exam
preparation. This is especially important for students who are passing grade level high school
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 84
math to prepare for the English and Math placement exams. SAT and ACT test preparation is
such a common occurrence, an entire industry was created for traditional college admissions. It
will also be beneficial for high school and community college administrators to work together to
determine communication best practices for students. Due to lengthy and at times discouraging
developmental course sequences, a combination of high school GPA, placement exam results
and letters of recommendation should be considered when selecting the appropriate math course.
Furthermore, discretion should be an option when a student is on the cusp of a higher level math
course.
Further exploration is needed to explore the relationship between racial pride, self-
efficacy, self-acceptance and academic achievement for African Americans and all persons of
color. The prevalence of race in the American consciousness impacts our decision making,
assumptions and known and unknown biases. It is up to those fortunate enough to thrive in the
Ivory Tower to seek ways to improve student achievement through research, observation and
intervention. The societal and experiential problem of race in America must be addressed from a
P-20 perspective, an integrated education system that extends from pre-school through higher
education with a goal of creating a more seamless and integrated education experience for all
students through academic and career pathways.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 85
References
American Association of Community Colleges. (2011). Community college fast facts. Retrieved
from http://www2.aacc.nche.edu/research/index.htm.
Anderson, N. & Rucker, P. (2013, Aug 22). Obama proposes college-rating system in bid to
increase Affordability. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-propose-college-ranking-system-
that-could-increase-affordability/2013/08/22/73e674c0-0b17-11e3-b87c-
476db8ac34cd_story.html
Andrews, R. L., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal leadership and student achievement, Educational
Leadership, 44, 9-11.
Arredondo, M. (1995). Faculty-student Interaction: Uncovering the types of interactions that
raise undergraduate degree aspirations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Orlando, FA, November 2-5, 1995.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation.
Journal of Higher Education, 77(5) 886-924.
Auguste, B., Hancock, B. & Laboissiere, M. (2009). The economic impact of the achievement
gap in America’s schools. Washington, DC: McKinsey &Co.
Bailey, T. (2009). Challenge and opportunity: Rethinking the role and function of developmental
education in community college. New Directions for Community Colleges, 145,11–30.
Bailey, T. (2011). Developing input adjusted metrics for community college performance. Paper
presented at the Context for Success Conference, HCM Strategists LLC, Washington,
DC, December 9.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 86
Bailey, T., & Cho, S.W. (2010). Developmental Education in Community Colleges. New York,
NY: Community College Research Center.
Bailey, T., & Xu, D. (2012). Input-adjusted graduation rates and college accountability: What is
known from twenty years of research? Context for Success Working Paper. Retrieved
from www.hcmstrategists.com/contextforsuccess/papers/LIT_REVIEW.pdf
Bailey, T.R., Jaggers, S.S. and Jenkins, D. (2015). Redesigning America’s Community Colleges.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baker, E. L., Barton, P. E., Darling-Hammond, L., Haertel, E., Ladd, H. F., Linn, R. L., Ravitch,
D., Rothstein, R., Shavelson, R. J., & Shepard, L. A. (2010). Problems with the use of
student test scores to evaluate teachers (Briefing Paper No. 278). Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.
Baldassare, Mark, Dean Bonner, Sonja Petek, and Jui Shrestha. (2011). PPIC Statewide Survey:
Californians and Higher Education. Public Policy Institute of California. San Francisco,
CA. Retrieved from http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=999.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In H. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health (Vol. 4,
pp. 71-81). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Worth Publishers.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Banta, T.W. (Ed.). (1986). Performance funding in higher education: A critical analysis of
Tennessee's experience. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 87
Belfield, C., Crosta, P.M., Jenkins, D. (2014). Can Community Colleges Afford to Improve
Completion? Measuring the Costs and Efficiency Effects of College Reforms.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(3), 327-345.
Bragg, D. D. (2001). Opportunities and challenges for the new vocationalism in American
community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2001(115), 5-15.
Berkowitz, L. (1966). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 2. New York:
Academic Press.
Berwick, D. M. (2008). The science of improvement. Jama, 299(10), 1182-1184.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (2009). MET Project: Working with Teachers to Develop Fair
and Reliable Measures of Effective Teaching, Seattle, WA: Author.
Boswell, K., & Wilson, C.D. (2004). Keeping America’s promise: A report on the future of the
community college. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States, League of
Innovation in the Community College.
Bragg, D. D. (2001). Opportunities and challenges for the new vocationalism in American
community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2001(115), 5-15.
Brown, R.S. & Niemi, D. N. (2007). Investigating the Alignment of High School and Community
College Assessments in California. National Center Report #07-3. San Jose, CA: The
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.
Burke, J. (2005). The many faces of accountability. In Burke J.C., ( Ed.). Achieving
accountability in higher education. Balancing public, academic and market demands (pp.
1-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 88
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked
improvement communities in education. In Frontiers in sociology of education (pp. 127-
162). Springer Netherlands.
Butler-Barnes, S. T., Chavous, T. M., Hurd, N., & Varner, F. (2013). African American
adolescents’ academic persistence: A strengths-based approach. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 42(9), 1443-1458. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9962-0
Caldwell, C. H., Kohn-Wood, L. P., Schmeelk-Cone, K. H., Chavous, T. M., & Zimmerman, M.
A. (2004). Racial discrimination and racial identity as risk or protective factors for
violent behaviors in African American young adults. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 33(1), 91-105. doi:10.1023/B:AJCP.0000014321.02367.dd
California Community College Final Report. (2013).
Encyclopedia Britannica. (2016). Cognitive Dissonance. Retrieved from
http://www.britannica.com/topic/cognitive-dissonance
Carnevale, A.P., Smith, N. and Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: projections of job and education
requirements through 2018. Indianapolis, IN Lumina Foundation.
Chang, M., Fung, G., Nakanishi, D., Ogawa, R., Um, K., Takahashi, L., Cruz-Viesca, M., Shek,
Y., Kuo, A. and Russ, L. (2011). The State of Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and
Pacific Islander education in California. Los Angeles, CA: University of California
Asian American and Pacific Islander Policy Multicampus Research Program Education
Working Group.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 89
Chavous, T. M., Rivas-Drake, D., Smalls, C., Griffin, T., & Cogburn, C. (2008). Gender matters,
too: The influences of school racial discrimination and racial identity on academic
engagement outcomes among African American adolescents. Developmental Psychology,
44(3), 637-654.
Children’s Defense Fund. (2007). America’s cradle to prison pipeline. Retrieved from
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServe?Pagename=c2pp_report2007.
Cohen, A. & Brawer, F. (2002). The American community college. (4th ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Coley, R. J. (2000). The American Community College Turns 100: A Look at its Students,
Programs, and Prospects, Educational Testing Services, Princeton, NJ:Educational
Testing Service.
Conley, D.T. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education, 144,
3-13.
David-Ferdon C, Simon TR. (2014). Preventing youth violence: Opportunities for action.
Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.
Du Bois, W. (1903). Souls of Black folk: Essays and sketches. Chicago, IL: A.C. McClurg & Co.
Edelman, W. (2007). Losing our children in America’s cradle to prison pipeline. In National
Urban League (Ed.), The state of Black American 2007: Portrait of the Black male (pp.
219-228). Silver Spring, MD: Beckham.
Ellis, A. (2005). The myth of self-esteem: How rational emotive behavior therapy can change
your life forever. Prometheus Books, New York, NY.
Evenback, S. & Khan, S. (2001) Assessment and accountability: Enhancing learning through
communities of practice. Washington, D.C: Heldref Publications.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 90
Engle, J. (2016). Answering the Call: Institutions and States Lead the Way Toward Better
Measures of Postsecondary Performance. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Fisher, C. B., Wallace, S. A., & Fenton, R. E. (2000). Discrimination distress during
adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 29, 679–695.
Fitzpatrick, K. M. & Boldizar, J. P. (1993). The prevalence and consequences of exposure to
violence among African American youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child
Psychiatry, 32, 424-430.
Florida NAACP, Advancement Project, NAACP Legal Defense, & Educational Fund, Inc.
(2006). Arresting development: Addressing the school discipline problem in Florida.
Retrieved from
http://www.naacpldf.org/content/pdf/pipeline/Aressting_Developmment_Fll_Report.pdf
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the “burden of
‘acting white.’” The Urban Review, 18(3), 176-206. doi:10.1007/BF01112192
Garcia Coll, C., Crnic, K., Lamberty, G., Wasik, B. H., Jenkins, R., Vazquez Garcia, H., et al.
(1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority
children. Child Development, 5, 1891 – 1914.
Giaguinto, R.A. (2009-2010). Instructional issues and retention of first-year students. Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 11(2), 267-286.
Gregory, A. and Thompson, A.R. (2010) African American High School Students And
Variability In Behavior Across Classrooms. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(3),
386–402.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 91
Hagedorn, L.S., Maxwell, W., Rodriguez, P., Hocevar, D. and Fillpot, J. (2000) Peer and
student-faculty relations in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 24(7), 587-598.
Harbour, C. P. (2003). An institutional accountability model for community colleges. Community
College Journal of Research &Practice, 27(4), 299-316.
Hayward, C. & Willett, T. (2014). Curricular Redesign and Gatekeeper Completion: A Multi-
College Evaluation of the California Acceleration Project. Berkeley, CA: The Research
and Planning Group for California Community Colleges.
Hern, K. (2012). Acceleration Across California: Shorter Pathways in Developmental English
and Math, Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(3), 60-68, Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.672917
Hughes, K. L. & Scott-Clayton, J. (2011). Assessing developmental assessment in community
colleges. New York, NY: Community College Research Center.
James, M & Lewis, C.W. (2014). Kindling the Spark of Black Male Genius through Education.
Journal of African American Males in Education, 5(2), 267-282.
Jung. S., & Poole, D. (2006). Explanations for racial-ethnic disparities in school suspension.
Paper presented at the annual Society for Social Work and Research, San Antonio, TX.
Kennedy, R. (2002). Nigger: The strange career of a troublesome word. New York, NY:
Random House, Inc.
Kingan, M. E., & Alfred, R. L. (1993). Entry assessment in community colleges: Tracking or
facilitating? Community College Review, 21(3), 3–16.
Kozeracki, C. A. (2005), Preparing faculty to meet the needs of developmental students. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2005. 39–49. DOI: 10.1002/CC.184
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 92
Laanan, F. S. (2001). Transfer student adjustment. New Directions for Community Colleges,
2001(114), 5-13.
Lamport, M. A. (1993). Student-faculty informal interaction and the effect on college student
outcomes: A review of the literature. Adolescence, 28, 971-990.
Langley, G. J., Moen, R., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009).
The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Levin, J. S., & Kater, S. T. (2013). Understanding community colleges. New York, NY: Taylor
and Francis.
Lewis, L. and Farris, E. (1996). Remedial Education at higher education institutions in Fall 1995,
NCES 97-584. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Lopez, M.H. & Krogstad, J.M. (2015). Will California ever become a majority-Latino state?
Maybe not. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2015/06/04/will-california-ever-become-a-majority-latino-state-maybe-not/
McGlynn, A. P. (1992). Teaching tips: Improving college instruction. Tenton NJ: Mercer County
Community College Foundation.
McClendon, C. & Wigfield, A. (1998). Group differences in African American adolescents
achievement-related beliefs about math and science: An initial study. Journal of African
American Psychology, 24(1), 28-43.
Nguyen, O. (2014). Accountability models in remedial community college mathematics
education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, CA.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 93
Noble, J. P., Schiel, J. L., & Sawyer, R. L. (2004). Assessment and college course placement:
Matching students with appropriate instruction. In J.E. Wall & G.R. Walz (Eds.),
Measuring up: Assessment issues for teachers, counselors and administrators (pp. 297-
311). Greensboro, NC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Student Services.
Nolan, K., & ebrary, I. (2011). Police in the hallways: Discipline in an urban high school.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. doi:10.5749/j.ctttsfnt
Office of Civil Rights. (2012). Revealing new truths about our nations school. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2012-data-summary.pdf.
Pacheco, R. (2012). Assessing and addressing random and systematic measurement error in
performance indicators of institutional effectiveness in the community college
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
Payne, A.A. & Welch, K. (2010). Modeling the Effects of Racial Threat on Punitive and
Restorative School Discipline Practices. Criminology, 48(4) pp 1019-1062.
Perry, M.; Bahr, P.R.; Rosin, M.; & Woodward, K.M. (2010). Course-taking patterns, policies,
and practices in developmental education in the California Community Colleges.
Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
Powell, W. W. & Snellman, K. (2004). "The Knowledge Economy". Annual Review of
Sociology, 30(1), 199–220.
Ruiz, R. (2014). How Childhood Trauma Could Be Mistaken for ADHD. The Atlantic. Retrieved
from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/how-childhood-trauma-could-
be-mistaken-for-adhd/373328/
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 94
Rutschow, E.Z., Richburg-Hayues, L., Brock, T., Orr, G., Cerna, O., Cullinan, D., Kerrigan, M.,
Jenkins, D., Gooden, S., Martin, K. (2011). Turning the Tide. Five Years of Achieving the
Dream in Community College. New York, NY: Community College Research Center
Santos, S.J. & Reigadas, E.T. (2000). Evaluation of a university faculty mentoring program: its
effect on Latino college adjustment. Proceedings from the National Association of
African American Studies Conference. Scarborough, ME: National Association of
African American Studies
Shulock, N., Moore, C., Ceja, M., & Lang, D. M. (2007). Beyond the open door: Increasing
student success in the California community colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for
Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
Smalls, C., White, R., Chavous, T., & Sellers, R. (2007). Racial ideological beliefs and racial
discrimination experiences and predictors of academic engagement among African
American adolescents. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 299-330.
Snyder, T.D., Tan, A.G., and Hoffman, C.M. (2006). Digest of Education Statistics 2005 (NCES
2006-030). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Sowers, N, and Yamada, H. (2015). Pathways Impact Report. Stanford, CA: Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.
Strother, S., Grunow, A., & Van Campen, J. (2013). Community College Pathways: 2011-2012
Descriptive Report. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of
Teaching.
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 95
Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects of motivational
andcognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(1), 85-106.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1999). Students’ out-of-class experiences
and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal
of College Student Development, 40, 610-623.
Thomas, P. L. (2014). Invisible young men: African American males, academics, and
athletics. English Journal,104(1), 75.
United States Department of Labor. (2015). Bureau of Labor Statistics, Job Openings and Labor
Turnover Summary. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/jolts.pdf.
Wang, M.T., & Huguley, J.P. (2012). Parental racial socialization as a moderator of the effects of
racial discrimination on educational success among African American adolescents. Child
Development, 83(5), 1716-1731.
Wellman, J. V. (2001). Accountability Systems. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,
33(2), 46-52.
Wolfers, J., Leonhardt, D. and Quealy, K. (2015, April 20). 1.5 Million Missing Black Men. The
New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/20/upshot/missing-black-men.html?_r=0
Wong, C.A., Eccles, J.S., & Sameroff, A. (2003). The influence of ethnic discrimination and
ethnic identification on African American adolescents’ school and socio-emotional
adjustment. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1197-1232.
Zumeta, W. (2001). Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons from the past
and present for the new millennium. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 96
education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability (pp. 155-197). Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 97
Appendix A
Accelerated Developmental Math Success Rates by Ethnicity
Table 5
African American Accelerated Developmental Math Success Rates
Descriptive Statistics

PROGRAM Mean
Std.
Deviation N
AASUCCESSRATE12 No Program
.4394 .08783 64
CAP .4414 .08399 26
Total .4400 .08627 90
AASUCCESSRATE13 No Program
.4384 .07868 64
CAP .4237 .07281 26
Total .4342 .07692 90

Table 6
Asian Accelerated Developmental Math Success Rates
Descriptive Statistics

PROGRAM Mean
Std.
Deviation N
AsianSUCCESSRATE12 No Program
.6604 .08972 59
CAP .6500 .07689 24
Total .6574 .08587 83
AsianSUCCESSRATE13 No Program
.6613 .09897 59
CAP .6730 .05784 24
Total .6647 .08886 83

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 98
Table 7
Hispanic Accelerated Developmental Math Success Rates
Descriptive Statistics

PROGRAM Mean
Std.
Deviation N
HSUCCESSRATE12 No Program .5567 .08447 84
CAP .5526 .06032 25
Total .5557 .07934 109
HSUCCESSRATE13 No Program .5536 .08905 84
CAP .5452 .06557 25
Total .5517 .08404 109

Table 8
White Accelerated Developmental Math Success Rates
Descriptive Statistics

PROGRAM Mean
Std.
Deviation N
WTSUCCESSRATE12 No Program .6280 .08473 83
CAP .6191 .08558 26
Total .6259 .08462 109
WTSUCCESSRATE13 No Program .6214 .07672 83
CAP .6322 .08768 26
Total .6240 .07918 109

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 99
Appendix B
California Community College Tenure(d) Track and Temporary/Adjunct Faculty 2000-2013.

Year
Tenure(d)/
Track
Academic
Temporary
Math
Tenure(d)/Track
Math Academic
Temporary
2000 16,832.00 36,883 1,439.20 931

2001 17,879.00 38,035 1,491.90 889.4

2002 17,611.00 39,219 1,521.80 971.6

2003 17,345 35,740 1,511.30 900.9

2004 17,638 38,867 1,565.30 989.9

2005 17,589 40,122 1,583.20 1,037.80

2006 18,196 41,624 1,713.10 1,082.00

2007 17,840 42,949 1,604.10 1,079.90

2008 18,200 45,257 1,646.10 1,082.30

2009 18,467 42,733 1,613.60 1,005.50

2010 18,068 41,045 1,852.10 1,389.10

2011 17,655 38,700 1,808.20 1,391.30

2012 17,248 38,185 1,752.90 1,378.30

2013 16,943 39,972 1,767.90 1,576.10

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 100
Appendix C
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates by Ethnicity

2013
2013| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Riverside 2,434 9.63%
2 Berkeley City 2,081 18.64%
3 West LA 4,324 31.05%
4 Cerritos 2,271 7.57%
5 Long Beach City 4,812 15.44%
6 Marin 675 6.13%
7 San Francisco City 3,665 8.81%
8 Fullerton 953 3.50%
9 Laney 4,872 24.68%
10 Glendale 601 2.19%

2013 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 975 5.76%
2 North Orange Adult 2,630 10.55%
3 Orange Coast 5,289 19.86%
4 Palo Verde 178 3.65%
5 Rancho Santiago CED 1,974 6.17%
6 San Jose City 3,009 21.86%
7 Siskiyous 78 1.66%
8 Skyline 3768 23.78%
9 Southwestern 681 2.64%
10 Mira Costa 1,380 5.68%
2013 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,672 15.79%
2 North Orange Adult 8,117 32.57%
3 Orange Coast 8,153 30.62%
4 Rancho Santiago CED 15,895 50.98%
5 San Jose City 5,400 39.23%
6 Skyline 4,019 25.37%
7 Southwestern 13,206 51.17%
8 Golden West 4,363 27.62%
9 Palo Verde 1,415 29.00%
10 Riverside 13,019 51.52%
2013 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 11,174 66.02%
2 North Orange Adult 4,328 17.37%
3 Orange Coast 9,671 36.32%
4 Rancho Santiago CED 9,383 30.10%
5 San Jose City 2,337 16.98%
6 Skyline 3,399 21.45%
7 Southwestern 6,440 24.95%
8 Golden West 5,132 32.49%
9 Moreno Valley 3,588 25.22%
10 Riverside 6,121 24.22%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 101
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2012

2012| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Southwest LA 5,294 44.59%
2 West LA 4,324 31.05%
3 Santa Barbara City 754 2.87%
4 Glendale 601 2.19%
5 Reedley 490 2.77%
6 Canada 389 3.79%
7 Desert 463 3.61%
8 Evergreen Valley 439 2.94%
9 San Francisco City 3,665 8.81%
10 San Joaquin Delta 2,394 10.56%

2012 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 975 5.76%
2 Moreno Valley 572 4.02%
3 Mt. San Antonio 9,234 17.15%
4 North Orange Adult 2,630 10.55%
5 Orange Coast 5,289 19.86%
6 Rancho Santiago CED 1,924 6.17%
7 San Jose City 3,009 21.86%
8 Skyline 3,768 23.78%
9 Southwestern 681 2.64%
10 Siskiyous 78 1.66%
2012 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,672 15.79%
2 Moreno Valley 7,019 49.34%
3 North Orange Adult 8,117 32.57%
4 Orange Coast 8,153 30.62%
5 Rancho Santiago CED 15,895 50.98%
6 San Jose City 5,400 39.23%
7 Skyline 3,768 23.78%
8 Southwestern 13,206 51.17%
9 Coastline 2,506 18.71%
10 Golden West 4,363 27.62%
2012 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 11,174 66.02%
2 Moreno Valley 3,588 25.22%
3 Mt. San Antonio 6,393 11.88%
4 North Orange Adult 4,328 17.37%
5 Orange Coast 9,671 36.32%
6 Rancho Santiago CED 9,383 30.10%
7 San Jose City 2,337 16.98%
8 Skyline 3,399 21.45%
9 Southwestern 6,440 24.95%
10 Siskiyous 2,508 53.36%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 102
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2011

2011| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Canada 411 3.88%
2 Yuba 379 3.80%
3 San Joaquin Delta 3,005 11.84%
4 Sequoias 456 3.06%
5 Fullerton 837 3.20%
6 LA City 3,632 10.77%
7 Palomar 1,268 3.31%
8 San Francisco City 4,374 9.14%
9 Cuyamaca 785 6.23%
10 Orange Coast 513 1.74%

2011 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,008 5.50%
2 North Orange Adult 2,505 10.27%
3 Orange Coast 6,323 21.49%
4 Rancho Santiago CED 2,027 5.82%
5 San Jose City 3,335 22.44%
6 Skyline 3,845 23.60%
7 Southwestern 950 3.09%
8 Palo Verde 128 2.97%
9 Siskiyous 51 1.31%
10 Golden West 4,920 27.68%
2011 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,816 15.36%
2 North Orange Adult 6,702 27.47%
3 Orange Coast 8,288 28.16%
4 Rancho Santiago CED 16,001 45.95%
5 San Jose City 5,684 38.25%
6 Skyline 3,970 24.37%
7 Southwestern 15,898 51.72%
8 Golden West 4,612 25.95%
9 Santa Rosa 1,491 3.88%
10 Barstow 1,630 32.47%
2011– White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 12,084 65.91%
2 North Orange Adult 3,888 15.94%
3 Orange Coast 11,537 39.20%
4 Rancho Santiago CED 10,283 29.53%
5 San Jose City 2,483 16.71%
6 Skyline 3,561 21.86%
7 Southwestern 7,253 23.60%
8 Palo Verde 1,910 44.32%
9 Siskiyous 2,596 66.80%
10 Golden West 6,258 35.21%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 103
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2010
2010| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Santa Barbara City 762 2.82%
2 San Joaquin Delta 2,839 11.45%
3 Evergreen Valley 524 3.43%
4 LA City 3,639 11.65%
5 Redwoods 208 2.23%
6 Canada 451 4.26%
7 Cuyamaca 1,135 7.03%
8 Yuba
9 LA Valley 1,784 5.84%
10 Mission 751 4.35%

2010 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,137 5.73%
2 North Orange Adult 2,265 8.98%
3 Orange Coast 7,081 22.65%
4 Rancho Santiago CED 1,886 5.62%
5 San Jose City 3,746 22.13%
6 Skyline 4,012 24.74%
7 Southwestern 766 2.74%
8 American River 4,043 7.68%
9 East LA 8,284 14.26%
10 Santa Rosa 1,586 3.63%
2010 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,986 15.05%
2 North Orange Adult 6,409 25.40%
3 Orange Coast 7,980 25.53%
4 Rancho Santiago CED 14,498 43.19%
5 San Jose City 5,890 34.80%
6 Skyline 3,772 23.26%
7 Southwestern 16,133 57.64%
8 Golden West 4,642 24.16%
9 Chaffey 12,665 48.84%
10 Canyons 12,472 37.15%
2010 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 12,922 65.14%
2 North Orange Adult 3,621 14.35%
3 Orange Coast 12,843 41.08%
4 Rancho Santiago CED 10,145 30.22%
5 San Jose City 2,638 15.59%
6 Skyline 3,518 21.70%
7 Southwestern 4,584 16.38%
8 American River 22,787 43.28%
9 East LA 3,504 6.03%
10 Santa Rosa 24,266 55.47%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 104
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2009

2009| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Moreno Valley - -
2 Norco College - -
3 Santa Barbara City 772 2.70%
4 Marin 542 4.38%
5 Saddleback 634 1.56%
6 Siskiyous 167 2.84%
7 Sequoias 610 3.06%
8 LA City 3,102 10.47%
9 LA Valley 1,728 5.62%
10 Mission 763 3.76%

2009 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,132 5.39%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 North Orange Adult 1,991 6.44%
5 Orange Coast 7,555 22.60%
6 Rancho Santiago CED 1,953 5.84%
7 San Jose City 4,066 21.64%
8 Skyline 4,129 23.76%
9 Southwestern 863 2.83%
10 Siskiyous 99 1.68%
2009 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 3,069 14.60%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 North Orange Adult 6,021 19.46%
5 Orange Coast 7,421 22.20%
6 Rancho Santiago CED 14,408 43.11%
7 San Jose City 6,361 33.86%
8 Skyline 3,568 20.53%
9 Southwestern 18,097 59.38%
10 Golden West 4,234 20.80%
2009 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 13,584 64.63%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 North Orange Adult 2,856 9.23%
5 Orange Coast 14,172 42.40%
6 Rancho Santiago CED 10,674 31.94%
7 San Jose City 3,202 17.04%
8 Skyline 3,914 22.53%
9 Southwestern 4,140 13.58%
10 Siskiyous 3,958 67.32%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 105
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2008

2008| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Moreno Valley - -
2 Norco College - -
3 Santa Ana 1,355 2.64%
4 Marin 513 4.37%
5 Ventura 651 2.82%
6 Alameda 2,518 21.85%
7 Berkeley City 2,259 19.52%
8 Sequoias 637 3.29%
9 Los Angeles City 3,580 10.61%
10 Evergreen Valley 857 4.72%

2008 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,148 5.38%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 North Orange Adult 6,189 13.64%
5 Orange Coast 7,700 22.13%
6 Palo Verde 243 3.86%
7 Rancho Santiago CED 2,373 5.16%
8 San Jose City 1,576 8.52%
9 Skyline 3,835 23.62%
10 Southwestern 790 2.67%
2008 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,938 13.76%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 North Orange Adult 17,032 37.53%
5 Orange Coast 6,571 18.89%
6 Rancho Santiago CED 27,529 59.84%
7 San Jose City 6,063 32.79%
8 Skyline 3,017 18.58%
9 Southwestern 17,857 60.29%
10 Siskiyous 507 7.49%
2008 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 13,935 65.28%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 North Orange Adult 11,017 24.27%
5 Orange Coast 14,676 42.19%
6 Palo Verde 2,976 47.33%
7 Rancho Santiago CED 4,096 8.90%
8 San Jose City 3,343 18.08%
9 Skyline 3,571 21.99%
10 Southwestern 3,571 21.99%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 106
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2007

2007| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Moreno Valley - -
2 Norco College - -
3 Santa Ana 1,517 2.98%
4 Siskiyous 194 3.35%
5 Santa Barbara City 707 2.63%
6 Los Angeles City 3,403 10.43%
7 Marin 473 4.66%
8 Berkeley City 2,046 20.86%
9 Victor Valley 2,164 11.61%
10 Los Medanos 2,352 16.05%

2007 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,103 5.16%
2 Merritt 1,916 16.05%
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 North Orange Adult 5,790 13.58%
6 Orange Coast 8,066 23.02%
7 Rancho Santiago CED 2,259 5.07%
8 San Jose City 4,047 23.31%
9 Siskiyous 102 1.76%
10 Skyline 3,689 24.53%
2007 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 3,091 14.47%
2 Merritt 1,893 15.86%
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 North Orange Adult 15,061 35.33%
6 Orange Coast 6,514 18.59%
7 Rancho Santiago CED 28,550 64.06%
8 San Jose City 5,535 31.88%
9 Siskiyous 483 8.33%
10 Skyline 2,760 18.35%
2007 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 13,780 64.50%
2 Merritt 2,549 21.35%
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 North Orange Adult 10,388 24.37%
6 Orange Coast 15,104 43.11%
7 Rancho Santiago CED 4,052 9.09%
8 San Jose City 3,328 19.17%
9 Siskiyous 4,253 73.39%
10 Skyline 3,445 22.91%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 107
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2006

2006| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 3,251 48.33%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 Santa Ana 1,538 3.11%
5 Sequoias 655 4.06%
6 Irvine Valley 388 1.79%
7 Santa Barbara City 708 2.65%
8 Siskiyous 172 3.13%
9 Sierra 583 2.05%
10 Modesto 847 3.22%

2006 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,057 5.03%
2 Merritt 1,937 15.93%
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 North Orange Adult 5,642 13.15%
6 Orange Coast 7,251 22.61%
7 Rancho Santiago CED
8 Saddleback 2,995 8.82%
9 San Jose City 3,975 24.35%
10 Siskiyous 101 1.84%
2006 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,899 13.80%
2 Merritt 1,833 15.07%
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 North Orange Adult 14,937 34.80%
6 Orange Coast 5,810 18.12%
7 Rancho Santiago CED
8 Saddleback 4,289 12.63%
9 San Jose City 5,138 31.47%
10 Siskiyous 413 7.51%
2006 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 13,768 65.52%
2 Merritt 2,464 20.26%
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 North Orange Adult 10,338 24.09%
6 Orange Coast 14,361 44.78%
7 Rancho Santiago CED 8,708 40.78%
8 Saddleback 21,488 63.28%
9 San Jose City 3,071 18.81%
10 Siskiyous -4,052 73.65%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 108
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2005

2005| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 4,896 47.78%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 Santa Ana 1,649 3.41%
5 Cuyamaca 927 5.28%
6 Santa Barbara City
7 Desert 443 3.22%
8 Sierra 562 2.02%
9 Marin 470 4.62%
10 Saddleback 546 1.64%

2005 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,028 4.69%
2 LA Valley 1,853 6.77%
3 Merritt 1,927 16.47%
4 Moreno Valley - -
5 Norco College - -
6 North Orange Adult 5,544 13.07%
7 Orange Coast 6,944 22.84%
8 Rancho Santiago CED 2,154 4.92%
9 Saddleback 2,804 8.43%
10 San Jose City 4,135 25.27%
2005 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,795 12.75%
2 LA Valley 10,366 37.87%
3 Merritt 1,716 14.67%
4 Moreno Valley - -
5 Norco College - -
6 North Orange Adult 14,320 33.76%
7 Orange Coast 5,574 18.33%
8 Rancho Santiago CED 28,098 64.23%
9 Saddleback 4,177 12.55%
10 San Jose City 4,981 30.44%
2005 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 14,642 66.82%
2 LA Valley 8,746 31.95%
3 Merritt 2,332 19.93%
4 Moreno Valley - -
5 Norco College - -
6 North Orange Adult 10,609 25.01%
7 Orange Coast 13,995 46.03%
8 Rancho Santiago CED 3,258 7.45%
9 Saddleback 21,684 65.16%
10 San Jose City 3,179 19.43%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 109
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2004

2004| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 5,453 50.50%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 Santa Ana 1,455 3.36%
5 Marin 536 4.92%
6 Sequoias 528 3.55%
7 Crafton Hills 350 4.36%
8 Mission 736 4.42%
9 Hartnell 471 3.02%
10 Yuba 562 3.93%

2004 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,009 4.62%
2 LA Valley 1,958 7.27%
3 Merritt 2,008 16.64%
4 Moreno Valley - -
5 Norco College - -
6 North Orange Adult 5,060 12.59%
7 Orange Coast 7,199 22.65%
8 Rancho Santiago CED 1,949 4.91%
9 Saddleback 2,861 8.56%
10 San Jose City 4,357 26.70%
2004 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,809 12.86%
2 LA Valley 10,175 37.77%
3 Merritt 1,726 14.30%
4 Moreno Valley - -
5 Norco College - -
6 North Orange Adult 13,229 32.91%
7 Orange Coast 5,742 18.07%
8 Rancho Santiago CED 25,887 65.27%
9 Saddleback 4,089 12.23%
10 San Jose City 4,800 29.41%
2004 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 14,688 67.23%
2 LA Valley 8,555 31.76%
3 Merritt 2,357 19.53%
4 Moreno Valley - -
5 Norco College - -
6 North Orange Adult 9,630 23.96%
7 Orange Coast 15,234 47.93%
8 Rancho Santiago CED 3,262 8.22%
9 Saddleback 21,834 65.33%
10 San Jose City 3,031 18.57%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 110
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2003

2003| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 6,394 50.36%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 Santa Ana 1,242 3.19%
5 Siskiyous 137 2.34%
6 Mendocino 90 1.16%
7 Santa Barbara City
8 Los Medanos 1,902 13.57%
9 Marin 582 4.79%
10 Mission 761 4.25%

2003 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 964 4.40%
2 Diablo Valley 4,704 13.44%
3 LA Valley 2,166 7.74%
4 Merritt 2,172 16.83%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 4,841 12.45%
8 Orange Coast 7,047 22.46%
9 Palo Verde 161 2.20%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 1,966 4.97%
2003 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,548 11.64%
2 Diablo Valley 4,096 11.70%
3 LA Valley 10,584 37.84%
4 Merritt 1,783 13.82%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 12,038 30.95%
8 Orange Coast 5,389 17.18%
9 Palo Verde 1,776 24.31%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 27,844 70.39%
2003 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 14,786 67.56%
2 Diablo Valley 17,594 50.26%
3 LA Valley 8,903 31.83%
4 Merritt 2,628 20.37%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 9,584 24.64%
8 Orange Coast 15,486 49.36%
9 Palo Verde 3,733 51.09%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 3,023 7.64%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 111
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2002

2002| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 6,773 50.92%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College -- -
4 Santa Ana 1,420 3.20%
5 Mendocino 97 1.12%
6 Marin 574 4.19%
7 Santa Barbara City 489 2.03%
8 Modesto 915 3.25%
9 West Hills Coalinga 551 7.02%
10 Sierra 531 1.75%

2002 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,325 5.07%
2 Diablo Valley 4,875 12.88%
3 LA Valley 2,578 8.14%
4 Merritt 2,206 16.54%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College -- -
7 North Orange Adult 5,371 11.84%
8 Orange Coast 8,757 23.11%
9 Palo Verde 173 2.18%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 2,109 5.08%
2002 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 3,452 13.20%
2 Diablo Valley 4,007 10.59%
3 LA Valley 11,925 37.68%
4 Merritt 1,788 13.40%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College -- -
7 North Orange Adult 13,066 28.79%
8 Orange Coast 6,141 16.21%
9 Rancho Santiago CED 29,431 70.95%
10 Saddleback 4,047 11.75%
2002 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 17,656 67.54%
2 Diablo Valley 20,048 52.97%
3 LA Valley 10,152 32.07%
4 Merritt 2,809 21.06%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College -- -
7 North Orange Adult 11,204 24.69%
8 Orange Coast 18,913 49.91%
9 Rancho Santiago CED 3,055 7.36%
10 Saddleback 22,805 66.20%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 112
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2001

2001| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 6,581 42.29%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 Santa Ana 1,743 3.56%
5 Marin 540 3.86%
6 Modesto 830 2.97%
7 Santa Barbara City 446 1.94%
8 Sierra 459 1.54%
9 West Hills Coalinga 654 7.27%
10 Desert 416 3.10%

2001 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,276 4.89%
2 Diablo Valley 4,762 12.74%
3 LA Valley 2,598 8.17%
4 Merritt 2,270 16.90%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 5,392 12.39%
8 Orange Coast 8,496 22.56%
9 Rancho Santiago CED 2,361 5.45%
10 Saddleback 2,632 7.76%
2001 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 3,535 13.56%
2 Diablo Valley 3,886 10.40%
3 LA Valley 11,995 37.70%
4 Merritt 1,909 14.21%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 12,099 27.79%
8 Orange Coast 5,968 15.85%
9 Rancho Santiago CED 31,318 72.33%
10 Saddleback 3,932 11.59%
2001 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 17,645 67.69%
2 Diablo Valley 20,302 54.31%
3 LA Valley 10,268 32.27%
4 Merritt 2,868 21.35%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 10,970 25.20%
8 Orange Coast 19,309 51.27%
9 Rancho Santiago CED 3,145 7.26%
10 Saddleback 22,794 67.17%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 113
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

2000

2000| African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 6,666 40.18%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 Santa Ana 1,732 3.63%
5 Marin 495 3.51%
6 Ventura 523 2.54%
7 West Hills Coalinga 593 7.06%
8 American River 3,749 8.36%
9 Desert 357 2.83%
10 Sequoias 493 3.33%

2000 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,136 4.86%
2 Diablo Valley 4,459 12.75%
3 LA Valley 2,549 8.44%
4 Merritt 2,386 19.22%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 4,562 11.04%
8 Orange Coast 8,110 22.97%
9 Rancho Santiago CED 2,339 5.52%
10 Saddleback 2,472 7.58%
2000 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,978 12.75%
2 Diablo Valley 3,606 10.31%
3 LA Valley 11,093 36.75%
4 Merritt 1,587 12.79%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 9,928 24.03%
8 Orange Coast 5,451 15.44%
9 Rancho Santiago CED 29,808 70.39%
10 Saddleback 3,798 11.64%
2000 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 16,103 68.92%
2 Diablo Valley 19,601 56.04%
3 LA Valley 10,050 33.29%
4 Merritt 2,623 21.13%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 10,221 24.73%
8 Orange Coast 18,233 51.65%
9 Rancho Santiago CED 3,423 8.08%
10 Saddleback 22,229 68.12%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 114
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

1999

1999 | African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 6,105 51.32%
2 Moreno Valley - -
3 Norco College - -
4 Santa Ana 1,474 3.35%
5 Siskiyous 185 2.56%
6 Alameda 2,874 27.43%
7 Sierra 377 1.37%
8 Modesto 701 2.76%
9 Marin 579 3.97%
10 LA City 2,931 12.16%

1999 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,126 4.52%
2 Diablo Valley 4,493 12.82%
3 East LA 4,932 11.85%
4 LA Valley 2,515 9.08%
5 Merritt 2,476 19.37%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 4,484 10.89%
9 Orange Coast 7,920 22.63%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 2,325 5.50%
1999 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 3,145 12.61%
2 Diablo Valley 3,551 10.14%
3 LA Valley 10,057 36.33%
4 Merritt 1,356 10.61%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 8,847 21.49%
8 Orange Coast 5,209 14.88%
9 Rancho Santiago CED 30,281 71.61%
10 Saddleback 3,746 11.10%
1999 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 17,311 69.42%
2 Diablo Valley 20,057 57.25%
3 LA Valley 9,048 32.68%
4 Merritt 2,617 20.47%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 North Orange Adult 10,788 26.21%
8 Orange Coast 18,433 52.67%
9 Rancho Santiago CED 3,575 8.45%
10 Saddleback 23,204 68.76%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 115
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

1998

1998 | African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 5,631 52.86%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 Santa Ana 1,522 3.81%
6 American River 3,460 8.05%
7 Sierra
8 Marin 124 2.07%
9 Siskiyous 165 2.36%
10 Sequoias 503 3.44%

1998 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,159 4.78%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 4,494 12.46%
4 East LA 4,470 12.91%
5 LA Valley 2,519 9.56%
6 Merritt 2,173 18.04%
7 Moreno Valley - -
8 Norco College - -
9 North Orange Adult 4,031 11.52%
10 Orange Coast 8,207 23.24%
1998 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 3,140 12.94%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 3,541 9.82%
4 LA Valley 9,291 35.25%
5 Merritt 1,476 12.25%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 7,947 22.71%
9 Orange Coast 4,949 14.02%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 29,446 71.31%
1998 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 16,738 68.98%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 22,118 61.33%
4 LA Valley 8,704 33.02%
5 Merritt 2,406 19.97%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 10,142 28.98%
9 Orange Coast 18,725 53.03%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 3,256 7.89%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 116
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

1997

1997 | African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 5,137 52.83%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 Siskiyous 150 2.14%
6 Sierra 346 1.40%
7 LA City 2,982 13.25%
8 Marin 110 1.76%
9 Ventura 510 2.68%
10 Los Medanos 1,729 10.34%

1997 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,118 4.82%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo 4,242 12.19%
4 LA Valley 2,644 10.15%
5 Merritt 1,939 16.97%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 5,039 11.51%
9 Orange Coast 8,527 23.90%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 2,693 7.10%
1997 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,805 12.09%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 3,262 9.37%
4 LA Valley 8,750 33.58%
5 Merritt 1,338 11.71%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 11,257 25.71%
9 Orange Coast 4,887 13.70%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 25,467 67.12%
1997 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 16,279 70.17%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 21,746 62-.48%
4 LA Valley 9,004 34.55%
5 Merritt 2,319 20.30%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 14,254 32.55%
9 Orange Coast 18,934 53.07%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 4,054 10.69%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 117
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

1996

1996 | African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 4,709 51.34%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 Modesto 617 2.75%
6 Mt San Jacinto 450 3.88%
7 Diablo Valley 1,557 4.56%
8 Alameda 2,728 30.23%
9 Marin 566 3.64%
10 Saddleback 462 1.45%
1996 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,111 5.05%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo 3,856 11.30%
4 LA Valley 2,737 10.92%
5 Merritt 2,057 18.60%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 5,300 11.92%
9 Orange Coast 8,026 23.96%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 3,923 10.48%
1996 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 15,438 70.14%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 22,081 64.69%
4 LA Valley 8,989 35.85%
5 Merritt 2,371 21.44%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 16,863 37.94%
9 Orange Coast 18,007 53.76%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 4,303 11.50%
1996 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,603 11.83%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 3,119 9.14%
4 LA Valley 8,034 32.04%
5 Merritt 1,237 11.19%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 12,258 27.58%
9 Orange Coast 4,391 13.11%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 24,194 64.66%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 118
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

1995

1995 | African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 4,162 52.96%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 Mendocino 71 1.19%
6 Siskiyous 137 2.10%
7 Marin 524 3.48%
8 Diablo Valley 1,507 4.53%
9 Consumnes River 1,985 10.36%
10 Modesto 564 2.55%

1995 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 939 5.45%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo 3,549 10.66%
4 LA Valley 2,699 11.50%
5 Merritt 1,648 16.63%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 5,047 11.74%
9 Orange Coast 7,962 24.01%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 3,878 11.57%
1995 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 2,062 11.97%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 2,920 8.77%
4 LA Valley 6,844 29.17%
5 Merritt 1,131 11.42%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 11,302 26.29%
9 Orange Coast 4,149 12.51%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 20,226 60.35%
1995 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 12,182 70.69%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 21,955 65.96%
4 LA Valley 9,053 38.59%
5 Merritt 2,151 21.71%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 16,631 38.69%
9 Orange Coast 18,172 54.79%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 4,164 12.42%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 119
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

1994

1994 | African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Compton 5,005 56.24%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Moreno Valley - -
4 Norco College - -
5 American River 2,351 7.37%
6 Redwoods 134 1.33%
7 Canyons 228 2.61%
8 Siskiyous 124 1.81%
9 Mt San Jacinto 278 3.44%
10 Marin 462 3.30%

1994 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 American River 2,233 7.00%
2 Butte 960 5.94%
3 Cooper Mountain - -
4 Diablo Valley 3,520 10.65%
5 LA Valley 2,828 11.91%
6 Merritt 1,479 14.67%
7 Moreno Valley - -
8 Norco College - -
9 North Orange Adult 4,622 11.32%
10 Orange Coast 7,694 23.47%
1994 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 1,836 11.36%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 2,987 9.03%
4 LA Valley 6,421 27.04%
5 Merritt 1,260 12.50%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 9,918 24.28%
9 Orange Coast 3,891 11.87%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 18,554 57.13%
1994 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Butte 11,611 71.81%
2 Cooper Mountain - -
3 Diablo Valley 21,870 66.15%
4 LA Valley 9,615 40.49%
5 Merritt 2,357 23.37%
6 Moreno Valley - -
7 Norco College - -
8 North Orange Adult 15,663 38.34%
9 Orange Coast 18,451 56.29%
10 Rancho Santiago CED 4,502 13.86%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 120
Top 10 California Community Colleges by Developmental Math Success Rates

1993

1993 | African Americans Student Count Student Count (%)
1 American River 2,402 7.27%
2 Compton 4,723 58.14%
3 Cooper Mountain - -
4 Las Positas 245 2.78%
5 Moreno Valley - -
6 Norco College - -
7 Siskiyous 789 6.02%
8 Yuba 583 3.94%
9 Marin 446 3.20%
10 Modesto 534 2.45%

1993 | Asians Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Antelope Valley 1,692 11.02%
2 Butte 992 5.61%
3 Cooper Mountain - -
4 Diablo Valley 3,308 10.01%
5 LA Valley 2,818 11.68%
6 Merritt 1,399 14.30%
7 Moreno Valley - -
8 Norco College - -
9 North Orange Adult 4,367 11.22%
10 Orange Coast 7,147 21.46%
1993 - Hispanic Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Antelope Valley 2,416 15.74%
2 Butte 1,868 10.57%
3 Cooper Mountain - -
4 Diablo Valley 2,764 8.36%
5 LA Valley 6,050 25.08%
6 Merritt 1,166 11.91%
7 Moreno Valley - -
8 Norco College - -
9 North Orange Adult 8,283 21.28%
10 Orange Coast 3,747 11.25%
1993 – White Student Count Student Count (%)
1 Antelope Valley 9,427 61.40%
2 Butte 12,986 73.46%
3 Cooper Mountain - -
4 Diablo Valley 22,757 68.83%
5 LA Valley 10,405 43.14%
6 Merritt 2,375 24.27%
7 Moreno Valley - -
8 Norco College - -
9 North Orange Adult 16,145 41.48%
10 Orange Coast 19,560 58.73%
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DEVELOPMENTAL MATH 121
Appendix D
Map of California Community Colleges Student Senate Regions

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The global market is competitive and America’s growing need for a more educated workforce is critical for economic expansion. Many Americans nationwide take their first steps in higher education on community college campuses. As a result of open enrollment policies, approximately 40-60% of students take at least one developmental course in English or Math. The purpose of this quantitative study is to evaluate the effectiveness of developmental or remedial mathematics courses throughout California community colleges over the past two decades. Additionally, a correlation analysis was performed to illuminate the relationship of student success rates and ethnicity in developmental math.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The effects of a math summer bridge program on college self-efficacy and other student success measures in community college students

PDF

How extending time in developmental math impacts persistence and success: evidence from a regression discontinuity in community colleges

PDF

A longitudinal study on the opportunities to learn science and success in science in the California community college system

PDF

Mathematics identity and sense of belonging in mathematics of successful African-American students in community college developmental mathematics courses

PDF

Ready or not? Unprepared for community college mathematics: an exploration into the impact remedial mathematics has on preparation, persistence and educational goal attainment for first-time Cali...

PDF

The impact of remedial mathematics on the success of African American and Latino male community college students

PDF

The perceptions and attitudes of “low-router” students in developmental math

PDF

A multi-perspective examination of developmental education: student progression, institutional assessment and placement policies, and statewide regulations

PDF

Assessing and addressing random and systematic measurement error in performance indicators of institutional effectiveness in the community college

PDF

Reforming developmental education in math: exploring the promise of self-placement and alternative delivery models

PDF

Pursuing the educational dream—the second-year Latino community college experience: students’ perceptions of the social, cultural, academic and internal experiences that influence persistence

PDF

Math and the making of college opportunity: persistent problems and possibilities for reform

PDF

Relationships between academic and psychosocial skills of community college students

PDF

Promising practices of California community college mathematics instructors teaching AB 705 accessible courses

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Three essays on the high school to community college STEM pathway

PDF

Motivational, parental, and cultural influences on achievement and persistence in basic skills mathematics at the community college

PDF

Student academic self‐efficacy, help seeking and goal orientation beliefs and behaviors in distance education and on-campus community college sociology courses

PDF

The writing studio as co-requisite remediation: a relational ethnography of academic discourse and social capital

PDF

An exploration of student experiences in a preparation program for online classes in the California community college system

Asset Metadata

Creator Scott, Malissa B. (author)

Core Title Developmental math in California community colleges and the delay to academic success

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/15/2016

Defense Date 06/15/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic success,Community Colleges,developmental math,OAI-PMH Harvest,student success

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Keim, Robert (committee chair), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member), Pacheco, Robert (committee member)

Creator Email ammabscott@gmail.com,mbarnwell@law.usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-251386

Unique identifier UC11281194

Identifier etd-ScottMalis-4434.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-251386 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ScottMalis-4434.pdf

Dmrecord 251386

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Scott, Malissa B.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA