WHAT THE CV-HEC IS HAPPENING BLOG (April 2024): AB1705 – Dana Center analysis of CCCCO memo

This month’s “What The CV-HEC Is Happening” guest blog is presented by Joan Zoellner, M.A., Launch Years Initiative lead for the Charles A. Dana Center (University of Texas at Austin), co-facilitators of the CVHEC Math Task Force AB1705 Compliance Convenings held the past six months. She provides the task force with an analysis of the validation memo issued Feb. 27 by the  California Community College Chancellor’s Office outlining options for community colleges to consider by a July 1 deadline. The memo and this analysis will be discussed at the upcoming MTF Convening April 19 in Fresno. The CVHEC blog features perspectives about the higher education community and issues. Submissions are welcome for consideration: Tom Uribes, cvheccommunications@mail.fresnostate.edu.

AB1705 Memorandum and CVHEC plan

The Feb 27, 2024, memorandum from the CCCCO (California Community College Chancellors Office) about validating STEM calculus prerequisites will have an impact on the plan to develop the “Central Valley Way” of complying with AB1705. To that end, key takeaways from the memo are listed below, followed by a suggestion for both the content of the April 19 workshop and the prep work assigned to campuses in advance.

According to the memo, no more than one transfer-level prerequisite shall be offered prior to calculus. The options for that prerequisite course are limited by the memo and validation options as well.

As of Jul 1, 2024, the only students that institutions can require to enroll in a validated STEM calculus prerequisite are those who (a) intend to pursue a STEM degree, and (b) have a high school GPA below 2.6, or (c) did not pass high school trigonometry, precalculus, or calculus with a grade of C or better. All discussion below is only about these students.

Institutions will have four options to comply with AB1705 and must select one by July 1, 2024. The least likely option for schools that are part of CVHEC, based on prior meetings and discussions, is Option B. In order to choose Option B, schools must show that their current prerequisite course meets the three requirements laid out in the law: (1) Students are highly unlikely (less than 15% throughput) to succeed if placed directly into STEM calculus, (2) taking the prerequisite course increases the student’s likelihood of passing STEM calculus, and (3) taking the class improves the student’s persistence to and completion of calculus 2 (if required for their program). The RP group did not find any institutions that met all three criteria. However, the Dana Center suggests that institutions review the reports provided by the RP group and work with their IR departments to check the calculations and results with the institution’s data.

Option C is also not a likely path for most institutions, as it requires that institutions first show that the throughput rate for a single existing prerequisite and calculus 1 is at least 50% over a 2-year period. These schools are then allowed to offer the prerequisite through July 1, 2027, to show that the prerequisite (now as a stand-alone prerequisite as opposed to one component of a multi-course prerequisite sequence) meets the three requirements of the law. While this work aligns with the work of the “Validating prerequisites” strand, the options for validation are now precisely described and do not permit several of the strategies under consideration by this strand.

Options A and D both align more closely with the bulk of the work in the central valley.

Option A removes all prerequisites for Calculus 1 and allows institutions to require a corequisite support course of up to two credits. This effort could include parts of the work happening in the “Math support outside the classroom” and “Building an AB 1705 campus team” strands.

Option D allows institutions to devise a new single-semester, 4-credit prerequisite course (with a possible 2 units of corequisite support) for STEM calculus. This course can be offered through July 1, 2027, at which point institutions must show that it meets the three requirements of the law. This work aligns with that of the “Designing Precalculus for 2025” strand.

Unfortunately, none of the options allow for validation using a survey or other measures.

In preparing for the April 19 event, the Dana Center proposes the following pre-work for institutions:

1. Institutions review the individualized report provided by the RP group. They then work with IR to repeat and confirm the calculations using local data.
2. Institutions will work with IR to calculate the 2-year throughput of the highest STEM calculus prerequisite and calculus 1 over the course of 2 years. If this is at least 50%, Option C may be available.

The agenda for April 19 will include a discussion of the validation memo, having institutions to pick the Option they wish to pursue, confirm the data they will need to submit (options B and C), begin collaboratively designing a corequisite (option A), or continue designing a new prerequisite (Option D) course. The goal is to have several institutions using a similar prerequisite course to enable continuous improvement, trouble shooting, and (potentially) larger sample sizes for evaluating the three requirements before July 1, 2027. Similarly, while not needing to meet the three requirements for the corequisite, schools can work together to design, implement, and improve the corequisite to support student success.

See:

CCCCO Validation Memo (Feb. 27, 2024)

Math Task Force resumes AB1705 curriculum planning April 19

Something extraordinary is happening in math in California’s Central Valley