change management: developmental education reform case … · change management: developmental...
TRANSCRIPT
CHANGE MANAGEMENT:
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION
REFORM
CASE STUDY
Change Agent Leadership
MOST COLLEGES HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO SOLVE YESTERDAY’S PROBLEMS, RATHER THAN CAPITALIZING ON TODAY’S OPPORTUNITIES TO EFFECTIVELY CONFRONT THE ISSUES OF TOMORROW
Agenda Quick View of
Colorado
The Change Management
Plan
Working Groups
Sharing
Q/A
Why Change?
The Colorado Problem
Political Landscape
Students stop out or drop out of the developmental
sequence before they complete the gateway
Students who begin at the developmental level in one or
more subjects complete college at significantly lower rates
Time, not student learning, is the greatest barrier to
student success
THE REMEDIAL EDUCATION SEQUENCE
Assessment Placement Enrollment Completion
TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENTAL
SEQUENCE
Assessment
• Take Accuplacer
Placement
• Cut score determines placement in one or more levels of remedial education
Enrollment
• Students take 1 or more courses consecutively before enrolling in gateway courses
Completion
• Success is defined as completion of remedial course
ACCELERATED REMEDIAL SEQUENCE
Assessment
• Use of multiple tools to include HS curriculum, Colorado specific assessment and diagnostic academic assessment
Placement
• Placement is based on student motivation and precise diagnosis of deficiencies
• Range of cut scores, rather than a precise cut score enables flexibility
Enrollment
• Co-Enrollment in Remedial and College-Level Course
• Offer single semester remedial option for students in need of more intense academic preparation
Completion
• Success is defined as completion of gateway course
Colorado course pipeline
MAT 030
MAT 060
MAT 090
MAT 099
ENG 030
ENG 060
ENG 090
REA 030
REA 060
REA 090
THAT WHICH GOT US WHERE WE ARE IS NOT VERY LIKELY TO GET US WHERE WE WANT TO GO!
THE COLORADO PLAN
The Task Force
The Charge
The Developmental Education Task Force (DETF) is charged to review developmental education practices throughout the CCCS and make recommendations on what steps the system will take to become the premier purveyor of developmental education in more streamlined and efficient ways, resulting in greater student success.
Through data and research in structure and policy, the DETF will holistically examine the role that developmental education plays in overall student success. The DETF will:
Review and clarify the purpose of developmental education and analyze implications for policy and practice resulting from a clarified purpose.
Review current system policies and practices related to developmental education and propose revisions that will promote greater student success in alignment with sound academic principles and practice.
Investigate and analyze measures of success, data reports and studies on success of developmental education students.
Examine structures for developmental education, highlighting innovative and successful strategies, improving the student experience and identifying barriers to success.
On the basis of a comprehensive review, recommend broad strategies and specific initiatives related to developmental education that should be pursued by Colorado's Community College System Colleges, leading to enhanced outcomes for student learning and success.
Themes
Key metric – success in college courses
Time, not student learning, is the greatest barrier to
success
Use evidence based practice
Continuous improvement is essential to long-term
success
Remedial redesign
Reduce time to completion – accelerate students
from developmental to college work
Acceleration
Compressed
Mainstreaming
Modular
Contextualization
Options for CEC
MATH
Historic State Redesign Time to First ENG100+ 5,093 5,598
Zero Term 5.3% 81.4%
One Term 44.7% 12.8%
Two Terms 15.9% 5.3%
Three Terms 13.7% 0.6%
Four Terms or More 20.3% 0%
Time to First GT 6,859 5,024
Zero Term 55.2% 74.7%
One Term 19.6% 18.2%
Two Terms 8% 6.5%
Three Terms 7% 0.6%
Four Terms or More 10.2% 0%
Time to ENG 121 4,809 5,539
Zero Term 4.7% 82%
One Term 46.1% 12.4%
Two Terms 16.3% 5%
Three Terms 13.8% 0.5%
Four Terms or More 19.2% 0%
The Good News
More Good News
Historic State Redesign
Time to MAT 100+ course 1462 1900
Zero Term 1.0% 8.7%
One Term 28.2% 51.0%
Two Terms 13.7% 28.8%
Three Terms 18.5% 11.5%
Four Terms or More 38.5% 0%
HOW WE GOT THERE
The Campus Leadership Role
5 Principles: Curricular work
Use reverse curriculum design to redesign courses
Design courses for what students need to know for success in college
Encourage active learning by including active and/or experiential learning experiences with each lesson
Make curriculum design and assessment of student learning and success a continuous process (see National Center for Academic Transformation work)
Provide students with individualized assistance through embedded affective skills, professionalism, and support services as much as possible in the process
Models Examined
Integrated Basic Education and Skills training (IBEST) program in Washington
Emporium model of Tennessee Developmental Studies redesign
Accelerated Learning Program (ALP) of Community College of Baltimore
County
California Acceleration Project (CAP) at Los Medanos Community College and
Chabot College
SMART (Survive, Master, Achieve, Review, Transfer) Math at Jackson State
Community College, Jackson, TN
Acceleration in Context from Chabot College
Pathways project at the Dana Center at the University of Texas at Austin
Mainstreaming at Austin Peay State University
Implementation
A redesign advisory group formed to address the administrative issues and
ensure smooth implementation, i.e. BANNER, Business Officers, Advising,
Financial Aid.
To ensure effective implementation of the DETF recommendations, CCCS
will provide a line item budget developed in consultation with individual
colleges, the Redesign Implementation Team, and functional groups to
accomplish tasks outlined in model.
The State Faculty Curriculum Committee and Educational Services ensured
an expedited curriculum approval process for the new courses being
developed. Additionally, campus curriculum review processes must be
expedited to allow colleges to adopt new courses as they become
available.
Financial Modeling
Data for assumptions
Current percent who place in multiple areas
REA030 REA060 REA090 none
ENG030 3% 2% 1% 0%
ENG060 2% 6% 6% 3%
ENG090 0% 5% 14% 20%
ENG121 0% 0% 4% 34%
average 10-12 unduplicated
REA030 REA060 REA090 TestOut
ENG030 657 438 219 0
ENG060 438 1314 1314 657
ENG090 0 1095 3066 4380
ENG121 0 0 876 7446
Three year average of students who pass one level of dev/ed and enroll in the next level (within 3 years) MAT030 to 30 75%
MAT060 to 69 66%
MAT090 to 99 30%
MAT090 to MAT100s 50%
MAT099 to 121 55%
average 55%
Math Accuplacer scores eligible for co-reqs
EA 80-85= 954 could co-req in non-STEM or STEM
EA 45-59= 4350 could co-req in STEM
EA30-60 or AR>40 = 2320 Could co-req in non-transfer
Three year average of students who pass one level of dev/ed and enroll in the next level (within 3 years)
ENG030 to 60 67%
ENG060 to 90 73%
ENG090 to 121 66%
Average 69%
Financial Modeling
Current MAT System wide Total Headcount Total Sections
offered Total Credit
Hours Total
Headcount Total Sections
offered Total Credit
Hours Total
Headcount
Total
Section
s
offere
d
Total
Credit
Hours
AVG
Headcou
nt AVG
Sections AVG
Credits
F2010 F2010 F2010 F2011 F2011 F2011 F2012 F2012 F2012
MAT030 3938 221 7876 4105 234 8210 2011 158 4022 3351 204 6703
MAT060 4868 265 14604 4766 276 14298 4035 237 12105 4556 259 13669
MAT090 5357 288 21428 5651 313 22604 5557 283 22228 5522 295 22087
MAT099 4008 197 16032 4106 197 16424 5170 249 20680 4428 214 17712
Non-transfer (103, 107, 108, 109, 112, 155, 156) 2766 180 8449 2648 176 8077 2787 177 8497 2734 178 8341
Non-STEM (120, 135) 1810 117 6228 2052 120 7047 2039 125 6998 1967 121 6758
STEM (121, 123) 5112 255 20448 5260 254 21040 6105 283 24420 5492 264 21969
Totals 27859 1523 95065 28588 1570 97700 27704 1512 98950 28050 1535 97238
Redesigned MAT Proposed headcount Proposed
sections Proposed
Credits Proposed
headcount Proposed
sections Proposed
Credits
Term 1 Term 1 Term 1 Term 2 on Term 2 on Term 2 on
Assessment prep (non-credit) 3351 186 0 3351 186 0
MAT 050 QL prep 9670 537 38680 10340 574 41361
MAT 055 STEM prep 4835 269 19341 4835 269 19340
Non-transfer 3398 189 10194 5816 323 17447
Non-STEM 3398 189 10194 5816 323 17447
STEM 3398 189 13592 5816 323 23263
Totals 28050 1558 92001 35973 1998 118856
Financial Modeling
Current REA/ENG System Wide Total
Headcount Total Sections
offered Total Credit
Hours Total Headcount Total Sections
offered Total Credit
Hours Total
Headcount Total Sections
offered Total Credit
Hours AVG
Headcount AVG Sections AVG Credits
F2010 F2010 F2010 F2011 F2011 F2011 F2012 F2012 F2012
ENG030 537 45 1074 582 40 1164 286 33 572 468 39 937
ENG060 2431 150 7293 2565 153 7695 2575 157 7725 2524 153 7571
ENG090 6609 333 19827 6463 357 19389 6812 365 20436 6628 352 19884
REA030 538 39 1076 586 41 1172 233 28 466 452 36 905
REA060 1689 111 5067 1681 111 5043 1840 118 5520 1737 113 5210
REA090 2978 162 8934 3107 177 9321 2946 167 8838 3010 169 9031
ENG121 10878 540 32634 11422 573 34266 12282 607 36846 11527 573 34582
Total duplicated 25660 1380 75905 26406 1452 78050 26974 1475 80403 26347 1436 78119
Total unduplicated 21542 22195 22007 21915
New College Composition and Reading
(CCR) Proposed
headcount Proposed
sections Proposed
Credits Proposed
headcount Proposed
sections Proposed
Credits
Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2
Soft landing (non-credit) 707 39 0 707 39 0
CCR 4818 268 24090 4959 276 24797
Studio + 121 or D 8979 998 53874 8979 998 53874
ENG121 7446 414 22338 9855 548 29565
Total 21950 1718 100302 24500 1860 108236
Proposed CCR w/ integrated soft landing Proposed
headcount Proposed
sections Proposed
Credits Proposed
headcount Proposed
sections Proposed
Credits
Year 1 Year 1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 2 Year 2
CCR with soft-landing co-req lab 707 79 4242 707 79 4242
CCR 4818 268 24090 4959 276 24797
Studio + 121 or D 8979 998 53874 8979 998 53874
ENG121 7446 414 22338 9855 548 29565
Total 21950 1758 104544 24500 1899 112478
Tools to Facilitate Change
Models Used • Managing Complex Change
• Force Field Analysis
• Consensus Building
Barriers to Change
Why do people resist change?
The status quo provides a certain comfort zone
Need for stability
Need for predictability
Fear of the unknown
Others???
Management of COMPLEX CHANGE
=CHANGE
=CONFUSION
=ANXIETY
=GRADUAL CHANGE
=FRUSTRA- TION
=FALSE STARTS
+ + + +
+ + + +
+ + + +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VISION SKILLS RESOURCES INCENTIVES ACTION
PLAN
SKILLS INCENTIVES ACTION
PLAN RESOURCES
INCENTIVES RESOURCES VISION
VISION
VISION
VISION
SKILLS
SKILLS
SKILLS INCENTIVES
INCENTIVES
RESOURCES
RESOURCES
ACTION
PLAN
ACTION
PLAN
ACTION
PLAN
FORCE FIELD ANALYSIS
DRIVING FORCES RESTRAINING FORCES
State Desired Change Here
(EQUILIBRIUM OR CURRENT STATUS) Forces resisting the change Forces favoring the change
HOW CAN LEADERS BEST
SUPPORT THE
IMPLEMENTATION EFFORT?
A Plan for Your Institution
Lessons Learned
The Bungy
Jumping Story
Recognize the Differences Between Leadership & Management
Give Up the Notion of the “Hero-Leader”
Develop Broad-Based Leadership
Encourage Individual Initiative
Take a Balcony View
Integration of DE and Transfer Level Faculty
Elimination of Reading as a Separate Discipline
Re-conceptualizing DE Math Pedegogy
Faculty Jobs
Student Advising and Student Services
Open Access vs. Student Success
The Success Strategy
Increase their own knowledge base Take risks, break new ground, and cultivate
a climate of experimentation Share leadership with competent staff --put
less competent staff “on a short leash” Help others to acquire reform-related
knowledge and skills Be persistent Appreciate incremental change (baby steps) Drop Dead Deadline
WORK GROUP ACTIVITIES
Getting A Running Start
PEOPLE USUALLY SUPPORT IMPROVEMENT --IT’S CHANGE THEY DON’T LIKE!
Work Group Activity 1
1. First define the problem(s) for developmental education in Oklahoma.
Remember that the clearer the problem is the easier it is to brainstorm options
and be creative).
2. Then, using the index cards on your own write down the first activity that comes
to mind for working toward a plan to address the issue.
3. When the times is up, exchange ideas, develop a list of activities to include in a
charge for developmental reform.
4. Share ideas with entire group.
5. Draft will be shared after conference for further development
Work Group Activity 2
1. Calculate the current retention rate for developmental education (33%)
2. Using 100 students, calculate revenue (including $15 fee per credit)
3. Design back of the napkin financial model using co-req model
1. What does the institution need?
2. What is cost of losing 67 of students? Cost of retaining 67 students to graduation?
3. How can you apply $15 fee in new ways?
4. What are other considerations?
4. What are the institutional barriers to consider?
Work Group Activity 3
=CHANGE
=CONFUSION
=ANXIETY
=GRADUAL CHANGE
=FRUSTRA- TION
=FALSE STARTS
+ + + +
+ +
+ + + +
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VISION SKILLS RESOURCES INCENTIVES ACTION
PLAN
ACTION
PLAN RESOURCES
INCENTIVES RESOURCES VISION
VISION
VISION
VISION
SKILLS
SKILLS
SKILLS INCENTIVES
INCENTIVES
RESOURCES
RESOURCES
ACTION
PLAN
ACTION
PLAN
ACTION
PLAN
DRIVING FORCES RESTRAINING FORCES
(EQUILIBRIUM OR CURRENT STATUS) Forces resisting the change Forces favoring the change
Work Group Activity 4
State Desired Change Here:
