So, at today’s meeting of PaSSHE College Ready and Placement Work Group we’re hearing from Kathleen Howley, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs.  At the moment, we’re talking about course numbering. Yes, course numbering.  We were just given a handout showing course equivalencies and course numbers across the State System.  As it turns out, Kutztown is the only campus that has Gen Ed courses–like composition–that begin with a zero (0) (ENG 022, 023, 025, etc.).  According to Howley and Ira Blake (also Assistant Vice Chancellor of Academic and Student Affairs), it  is Board of Governor policy that all introductory courses should be listed as 100 level courses.  Apparently, 0-level courses are supposed to be “remedial” classes.  So, despite the fact that equivalencies/transferability has already been established by a State organization TAOC (Transfer Articulation Oversight Committee), the assumption is being made by legislators and PaSSHE administration that we (KU) are giving college credit for remedial courses.  

This just gets more and more amazing each day.

It’s been an interesting day here in Harrisburg as day one of PaSSHE’s College Ready and Placement Work Group comes to a close.  Interesting because there has been a bit of a shift over the course of the day when it seemed like the sole purpose of this work group was going to be to choose one of the major standardized placement exams–COMPASS, ACCUPLACER, or ASSET (notice all of them are in all-caps)–as the standard for the whole State System.  By the day’s end that imperative was less clear.

The day alternated between whole group sessions led by Vice Chancellor Jim Moran and break out sessions: math, writing, and reading.  The general sessions were not super formal.  Rather, they consisted of Moran making some preliminary comments and report-backs/questions from the break out groups.  Initally Moran say that by the end of our two-days here in Harrisburg, he wanted us to come up with “baseline cut-scores” for each of the areas.  In other words, we were supposed to come up with the scores that would determine when a student would be forced into “remedial” courses.  The primary target was to “identify a standard across the system for college comp and intro to math.  Moran said that this is part of a larger effort–a “two-pronged effort”–to standardize the State’s definition of “college ready” and to create a common set of criteria for college placement.  The other prong is to standardize the entire State’s high school curriculum.  Moran said that PA was one of only five states that does not have a standard curriculum across the state.  

Our discussions were supposed to be guided by “all the research,” or at least the research that we were provided less than a week before today’s meeting.  Most of this research was conducted by ACT and some organizations assosicated with college testing agencies.  In fact, one of the key documents, “Rigor at Risk,” published by the ACT explicitly saw its study as a follow up to the federal government’s 1983 publication, A Nation at Risk.  The report suggests that since the publication of A Nation at Risk, 

almost every state has made significant efforts t o improve its educational system.  Nearly a quarter-century later, in a climate in which U.S. workers are dealing with new forms of technology and facing challenges of a global economy, it is not only reasonable but increasingly urgent to ask: Have we succeeded in fulfilling the goals of A Nation at Risk? (ACT, “Rigor at Risk).  

Of course we might draw attention to the fact that the 1983 study may have contributed to our current problems by narrowly defining curriculum to suit specific educational agendas.  I think it would be useful to revisit John Trimbur’s “Literacy and the Discourse of Crisis” in the midst of this discussion.  

Anyway, at several points in the discussion, Moran suggested that he would prefer one standard placement process across the State System.  However, he stopped short of saying this was necessary.  But, at several points he suggested that any “locally designed assessment” (directed self-placment being one of them) would need to demonstrate how the results could be compared to one of the standardized tests or standard State placement processes.  He said that it would be up to the people responsible at that university to “assess whether or not it would be worth the effort” to demonstrate compatabilty.  This approach seems very much like the State System’s buy-in to the  ”Voluntary System of Accountability,” which I don’t have time to go into here. 

There seems to be some pressure coming from the State Legislature on this score.  Moran told us that “it would not surprise me if there is some move for legislative action on remediation.”  In fact, he is giving testimony before the Republican Caucus tomorrow morning on precisely this topic.  

The good thing about today’s process was the breakout sessions with other faculty across the State System.  One of the most productive aspects of the day was that we talked about our different approaches to placement, different student bodies, and different configurations of composition (some universities have two semesters of comp, others just one).  If anything, I think most members of this group are committed to keeping local control over the placement process.  While no one was opposed to discussing the kind of skills and practices that are necessary for a student to succeed in our first-year composition classes, I remain concerned that the outcome of our work is beyond our control.  For example, we could generate some very good principles and the State System could then turn around and look at the standardized tests that seem to reflect those principles.  I am not suggesting that is what will happen, only one of my concerns.

I’ll have to leave it at that for now.  I’m meeting some of my fellow compers for dinner.  Hopefully, I’ll be back later with an update.

Hey all.  So, guess where I am.  Harrisburg.  I just checked into a Days Inn at around 11:30pm on Monday.  Tomorrow will begin what is being billed as a “Work Group” to determine a common definition of “college ready” and to “standardize” placement  in “remedial” courses. Presumably the outcomes of this group will contribute to a standard for Math and Writing across the State System.  

Now, anyone who knows me and/or knows our program at KU might question what it is that I am doing here.  Well, as the Coordinator of Composition I was asked to represent KU for the “writing” work group.  To be honest, I don’t know exactly what to expect.  The initial request was fairly vague.  However, a couple of days ago, we got another  email laying out the agenda a little more.  That email came with several attachments (which I will post tomorrow).  

Since I believe in working in public where we can all see what’s going on and contribute to the conversation, I am posting the email I received in it’s entirety.  I wil also be posting updates to this blog to let you know what seems to be the general thrust of the meeting.  The one article we were  asked to read before our meeting tomorrow is a policy brief called “It’s Not About the Cut Score: Redefining Placement Assessment Policyto Improve Student Success” authored by Michael Lawrence Collins for a Boston policy institute called Jobs for the Future. 

So, in the meantime, here’s the email I received on May 6th:

Colleagues: 

Thank you for your willingness to come to Harrisburg to develop a more consistent model for determining the standards for “college ready” and placement across PASSHE.  We have attached a number of documents to help shape the discussion and would request that you review the paper titled, “It’s Not About the Cut Score” prior to the meeting.

Let me first provide you with some context for our discussions, then provide some background for the attachments and finally talk about the details regarding arrangements and compensation. 

Context:

The primary goal is to achieve consistency in the definition of “college-ready” across the System.  Right now the standards vary considerably from university to university. The “Achieve the Dream” initiative at community colleges has focused on this effort and Pennsylvania is participating in that effort. We believe that a common standard, not necessarily a common test, will, taken in context, be one of the factors that will serve to improve the quality of the preK-16 educational system across the Commonwealth.

One may ask: “Why now?”  We believe that we have the support of the current administration and PDE to move in this direction; community colleges are receptive to us taking the lead and are willing to join in on the effort at the appropriate time. 

Concurrent with this effort is an attempt to identify for the System a high school curriculum required for regular admission (e.g., four (4) years English; three (3) years Math including Algebra II; three (3) years Science, etc).  A set of common placement standards for reading and mathematics helps set the expectation for such a curriculum.

During the System-level deliberations related to the standards for concurrent enrollment programs, the CAOs identified a set of standards that students should meet to be identified as “college-ready.” Also, Middle States’ teams have connected placement standards with measures of student learning outcomes in assessing general education programs and inquired about the consistency across System universities. 

Moreover, as part of the transfer and articulation legislation, standards for transfer of foundation courses were established. However, in some cases courses listed in the System are identified as remedial courses, which should not transfer. Currently, legislative hearings on remediation are taking place and the concept of consistency has been raised. Several states have moved forward with creating standards, either at the state or System level (e.g., New Jersey Community Colleges just recently agreed on common standards).

The interest in the Keystone Examination (formerly known as graduation competency assessments – exit exams from high school) has raised the ante in all of the aforementioned discussions. Local assessments within this context are acceptable only if the local district demonstrates comparability to the basic standard.

As the Office of the Chancellor has prepared the data for these hearings, it is increasingly difficult to explain the variation among our universities in the number of students required to take remedial or developmental courses.

The advent of the PIMS project (Pennsylvania Information Management System) and the connection of the higher education databases to the preK-12 databases (made possible through the use of the PA Secure ID effort) enable significant opportunities to provide detailed feedback to high schools on the success of students and nature of the curriculum. Consistency in standards allows for greater power of analysis to provide better feedback for improvements and curriculum revisions.

We also recognize that setting a “cut score” will not be sufficient and revisions will be required over the next several years as we are able to research the success of students. The ability to track students through the high school, community college and PASSHE will enable us to have an excellent database to make subsequent revisions as necessary.

A few years ago there was considerable discussion about whether four-year institutions should be in the business of remediation. We believe there is clear recognition that in Pennsylvania, with limited access to community colleges and given our mission as Pennsylvania’s public universities, the PASSHE recognizes that we will be involved in some form of developmental education to provide students with higher education opportunities, and that we should have in place better assessments and support for students that have potential.

We believe that now is the time for PASSHE to take a leadership role in the Commonwealth to set standards to improve the education of all students. Placement testing is but one aspect to this larger effort but is important in helping set the context of expectation.

Note that this does NOT mean that the admission standards across the universities are to be common or that we intend for universities to become more or less selective. Those decisions are governed by the universities themselves and by other factors. We are also looking at how to revise the accountability and performance funding measures to better reflect the access and quality mission of PASSHE and may need to consider how any change in the placement process affects those key measures.

Resources:

An excellent paper to read is, “It’s Not About the Cut Score” put out by the Achieve the Dream initiative.

We have attached material that details the System level reports from universities about the number of students taking “remedial” courses. We also attached a preliminary paper that provides a summary analysis of some of this data.  In addition, included are some summary data of college and university standards we collected a few years ago (and may require updating).

ACT has published several major studies focusing on the readiness of students based on performance on the ACT. “Readiness” is defined as the likelihood of receiving a C or better in the first college course.  Note that although several states are using the ACT as a placement exam (e.g., Arkansas), most researchers agree that the SAT should not be similarly used and should be used only as a possible screening tool to determine who should take a placement test.  We have included material from ACT.

Note that the link to the foundation courses that are approved for transfer is www.patrac.org

Details:

We are asking that you make your own hotel and travel arrangements. Attached is a list of hotels in the area with links to their website so that you can view their facilities when making reservations. Reimbursement and compensation will be through your own university. Travel and meals must fit within the standard PASSHE travel guidelines. To assure that your “take home” compensation is approximately $500/day, we have set aside $1,700 gross compensation for each of you. 

NOTE:  You will receive two additional e-mails with the reference material.

A little over a week before we were to begin Directed Self-Placement and the summer Connections orientation programs, I got this email from a member of the College of Education’s Connections staff:

As we understand the Connections “Writing skills” presentation, the students are allowed to self-select either ENG 022 or ENG 023 given their self-assessment of writing skills. Unfortunately, the College of Education course structure does not allow for flexibility in scheduling. If the student self-selects ENG 022, the course is counted as an elective. The difficulty arises because the COE does not have built-in electives- essentially, the course “doesn’t count.”

Would it be possible to not offer the ENG 022 self-select option to the College of Education Connections students? During our part of the Connections presentation, we do outline the advantages of using the Writing Lab, library services, etc. We sincerely appreciate the need for the ENG 022 course but hope that you understand the limitations of our program.

I thought about this for a long while. My initial, rather short response ended up accidentally in my “drafts” folder and never got to the intended recipient. As it turns out, that was a good thing. It gave me a little time to think more about how to respond more in-depth and to explicitly articulate the principles of Directed Self-Placement. Here’s what I wrote back:

I apologize for the delay in my response. I thought that I had replied to you last week when I returned from vacation, but I just found my previous message in my “drafts” folder. Sorry for that. I want to take a little time to respond to your inquiry and let you know how I have incorporated your concerns into my Directed Self-Placement presentation at this point.

Pragmatics: Given the way that Directed Self-Placement works, it is impractical to tailor the presentation to each major. The time I am allotted is packed as it is. In the past I have regularly mentioned that some majors do not have any General Education electives and in that case if students elect to take ENG 022, they may be taking an additional class.

Academic/Pedagogical Philosophy: Directed Self-Placement is grounded in a several key principles.

1. It is critical that students take responsibility for, or “own,” their education and their educational choices. Given that higher education is “elective,” students have to re-orient themselves toward education. In particular, they have to begin to become agents in their own educational process. (I have attached an article by Daniel Royer and Roger Gilles of Grand Valley State University. Their article, “Directed Self-Placement: An Attitude of Orientation,” is an excellent discussion of Directed Self-Placement and is quite close to our own perspective. When Janice Chernekoff researched DSP programs as part of building this process at KU, she talked with these folks and looked closely at their program in addition to many others).
2. Standardized tests and high-stakes essay testing have proven to be less than ideal when it comes to placing students into their first-year writing courses. Not only are these tests generally incomplete in terms of their ability to capture a student’s capacity to succeed, they tend to reinforce “deficiency” narratives among poor, inner-city, and minority students who are traditionally the ones who perform the worst on standardized tests. Students who are given the opportunity to make informed choices about their individual needs as opposed to being told what their needs are by some rubric or institutional means become agents as opposed to objects in their educational process.
3. When asked to seriously consider their own reading and writing histories, students will generally make the right choice for themselves. Put another way, guided self-assessment is a key skill that all students need to develop in becoming agents in their own education.
4. Writing ability is one of the key indicators for success finding a job and advancing in one’s career. That is, “the ability to write opens doors to professional employment,” according to the National Commission on Writing’s 2004 report, “Writing: A Ticket to Work…Or a Ticket Out” <http://www.writingcommission.org/pr/writing_for_employ.html>. Likewise, ACTs 2003 “National Curriculum Survey” found that “Even jobs that call for little or no postsecondary education often require strong reading, writing, and computer skills.” Perhaps most significant is the assessment of former Labor Secretary Robert Reich who was arguing as early as the 1990s that “symbolic analytic” work is key to our changing economy. As part of my presentation, I touch upon these issues as a way to stress the realities of our world. I would imagine that the job market for teachers would reflect these trends as well–you would know that better than I.
5. The mission of our university includes an access mission. With that access mission, I believe, we need to do more than “open the door,” we also need to provide resources, courses, and assistance so that all students–especially those students traditionally labeled “at-risk”–can succeed. ENG 022 is one of those resources that responds–materially–to that mission.

My judgment is that it would be a mistake to deny students who may become teachers (we know many students do change their majors) a key resource that may help them make the transition to college and succeed in their academic career. From my standpoint, I have the luxury of not having to advocate for one student’s major over another–I have to look at what I believe is good for all students (in terms of their composition course choices and orientation toward their college career). And I think that the pedagogical and philosophical goals of Directed Self-Placement are sound.

Having said that, I readily admit that my position comes from the perspective of someone who coordinates the composition program, studies writing, and guides students through their composition course choices. You and your colleagues need not agree with me or may make other choices. But, those need to be your choices. In other words, I think the College of Education needs to take ownership of the decision to deny students ENG 022 as a choice. I think it is even more important now as the College of Education has to make significant changes in its curriculum in response to the new PA Department of Ed requirements. For what it’s worth, I think you should make it explicit in your own materials and with your discussions with students and with the administration.

In some ways, this process is already in place. We know, for example, that many education students who elect to take ENG 022 are told later by their advisors to drop it and take ENG 023 because there is “no room in their schedule.” I would just urge you to see if there is another way–for the sake of the students. From my perspective, I think it’s worthwhile privileging the pedagogical and philosphical integrity of our students’ educational process over the more narrow goals of a professional major. But, again, I concede that this is only my perspective and certainly the College of Education is trying to negotiate many competing interests.

In terms of my presentation to students, I now share with potential students your request and my response (not at such length of course). Again, the purpose is to provide students with as much information as possible with which to make their decision. And, of course, students will hear your orientation and meet with their advisors as well.

I apologize for the length of this email, but since you were writing “on behalf of the College of Education Connections staff” I wanted to provide you with a sustained response that you can share with others involved in Connections and the College of Education.

Hope your Cycle I went well!

Best,
Kevin Mahoney

I thought this would be a useful follow up to my previous post! Still early. Still hot.

Summer is certainly here. Today and tomorrow will continue the 95+ degree temps, heat advisories, and all-around uncomfortableness. Barely into June and we have our first heat wave. I’m not a fan of the heat and humidity for sure, but usually I’ll tolerate it OK. This year, however, it’s a bit early and given how cold and rainy May was, this heat feels that much hotter…that “Bermuda high” doesn’t want to leave us alone here in Eastern PA.

I’m particularly preoccupied with the heat today because it’s the second week of Directed Self-Placement. Today, Wednesday, and Friday I will be taking 200+ incoming students through the process of choosing their first-year composition courses. The week happens to be the largest sessions of the summer. Based on past experience, the room we hold DSP in will get hot and stuffy. And yes, I sweat. Yuk.

We’ve altered the session this year a bit. First, instead of one big session every twice or three times a week for the month of June, this year we’re doing TWO sessions a day twice or three times a week. So far the double-session has worked out pretty good. It’s nice having fewer students in each placement session–I mean, I can actually see all of the students I am talking to. The comparison to class-size is unavoidable here. In the bigger sessions, there are gaps in the room so to speak. That is, it’s much more difficult to connect to students and hold their attention when you are speaking to a room of 200-250 students. Today, Wednesday, and Friday I will probably have 110+ students per session, which will be a little improvement. I am just hoping the smaller numbers (compared to last year) will cut down on the heat in that room. It’s bad enough I’ve got to walk across campus in-between sessions in the sweltering heat…if that room is hot, I’m gonna be a big ball of sweat.

The other thing we’re doing differently is that we are cutting the usual 5 minute video presentation (which includes the university president and two faculty members talking about the importance of writing) and replacing it with some time to hear “student perspectives” on taking college composition. DSP is part of Kutztown’s Connections orientation program for incoming students and there are usually about 15 or so students–the Connections staff–that staff the sessions, help get students where they need to go, put on presentations about the student experience at Kutztown, and generally serve as peer ambassadors for incoming students. During DSP, the Connections staff helps me by passing out the surveys, answering new students questions when they can, and collecting and counting the course selections at the end of each session. During the “training” session this year, one of the more veteran Connections staff suggested that it might be good for new students to get the “students’ perspective” on their composition courses–since, after all, they’ve been through it.

I thought it was an interesting suggestion, but one that comes with a caveat. During that training session, it became clear that there is a sub-group of this year’s Connections staff that is clearly anti-ENG 022. That is, anti-Introduction to College Composition. For example, a few of the Connections staff suggested that they were “scared into” or “knew students who were scared into” taking ENG 022 because of my Directed Self-Placement presentation. One student relayed that their advisor even told them that ENG 022 was a “waste of time” because it “did not count” for anything–a statement not even accurate (and for this I blame the advisor, not the student–ENG 022 counts as a general education elective). So, as I read it, part of the reason for wanting to present the “students’ perspective” is to dissuade incoming students from taking ENG 022. And, based upon last week’s sessions, that reading seems to hold true. In each session, at least one of the Connections students has spoken out against ENG 022 to “represent those students who were scared into taking it.”

This poses several interesting issues. Last week I described this situation as “subtle guerrilla warfare” against ENG 022 (and, obviously, my presentation of the importance of writing). However, I also know that part of my presentation (and of the presentation when Janice and Walt were doing DSP) has strongly emphasized the difference between high school and college-level writing. And to stress the seriousness of our college composition courses. So, I don’t doubt that I may have made some students nervous–”scared”–about college writing. And, some of those students may have chosen ENG 022 because they were scared. After our first session this year, I was tempted to “defend” ENG 022. I have since decided to take a different approach–especially after re-reading an article by Dan Royer and Roger Gilles about their approach to Directed Self-Placement. I decided to simply emphasized the importance of each students thinking carefully about their own reading and writing histories after hearing the presentation. After all, DSP is based on the principle that students need to take responsibility for their educational choices and that given enough information and opportunity to ask questions and self-assess, they will generally make the right choice (at least in terms of their college composition courses).

So that’s where we stand. My one concern is for the “at-risk” students coming to KU. What kind of impact will the new anti-ENG 022 discourse have on those student’s choices? Will fewer students choose ENG 022? If so, will we see more failures in ENG 023? We won’t know that until we run the numbers. But, the choice is still left to the incoming student. As long as I keep on bringing us back to that basic principle–that each student needs to think honestly and carefully about their past experiences and practice with academic writing–then we are in good shape. We will see.

One of the by-products of having the Connections staff included in the presentation is that they are taking on part of the responsibility for incoming students’ choices. That is, if there is a strong anti-ENG 022 discourse that persuades incoming students not to take ENG 022 and then some of those students go on to struggle in ENG 023, then part of that responsibility falls on the Connections staff. That is, a new student could come back to one of the Connections staff next semester and say “I thought you said I wouldn’t have a problem in ENG 023?” That’s what I need to be a little cautious about…I think I need to make those lines of accountability clear in my presentation as well.

Anyway, those are my morning, it’s-already-72 degrees-at-7am ramblings. When I get a chance, I’ll have to post more about some of the stuff I am reading now–English Studies and a book I just got through inter-library loan (and will order for our library now) Cogs in the University Classroom…the latter fits well with my robot themes of late.

Yesterday began yet another cycle in the KU Composition year: Connections and Directed Self-Placement. Connections is a two-day orientation for students who will be first-year students at Kutztown in the fall. In addition to a general orientation to all the ins and outs of the university, students also receive their first-semester schedules. As part of that two-day whirlwind, students also go through “Directed Self-Placement” to choose their composition course.

Unlike colleges and universities who place students in their first-year composition classes by using SAT/ACT scores or a timed essay, Kutztown takes students through a process called “Directed Self-Placement.” Basically, I get to see all the new students for a 45 minute session to discuss our different courses and the central place of writing at the college level. I also take them through a couple of surveys that ask students to self-assess their past writing and reading experiences. At the end of the process, students will have chosen their class.

At first the whole idea of students making their own decision as to which college composition course they will takes makes some people nervous. It’s not uncommon to hear concerns that students will then choose poorly, or that they will ignore the advice I give them or that they receive from their advisors. However, if you think that part of what happens at higher education is a shift in students’ relationship to their educational processes–i.e. they are no longer simply “following directions;” they must now also take over the responsibility for their choices–then Directed Self-Placement makes a whole lot of sense.

This year, we’re experimenting with a slightly different format and we will begin a process of assessing Directed Self-Placement at Kutztown. It should be an interesting and worthwhile endeavor. If you are interested in learning more about Directed Self-Placement, there is a great website from the folks at Grand Valley State University (one of the pioneers of Directed Self-Placement for college composition courses). The website has several useful links, including an article by Dan Royer and Roger Gilles about the model at GVSU–a model, I must say, that our Directed Self-Placement program borrowed heavily.

So, I’ll try and keep everyone up-to-date on how DSP is going this time around. In the meantime, enjoy the summer!