Diagnostic Assessment

CHALLENGES &OPPORTUNITIES

for the California Community Collegesabout this report

This LearningWorks report was prepared in association with
EdSource, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization engaging Californians on key education challenges. One key goal was to examine theexperiences of three other states that have been deeply engaged indeveloping statewide diagnostic assessments for their community
colleges.
This report was developed based on:
1. A review of relevant community college research and reform
literature.
2. A review of policy documents from the states and initiatives
discussed.
3. Interviews and correspondence with select policymakers,
practitioners, and researchers.
A list of people who contributed to the development of this report ispresented in the Acknowledgments section at the end. The principal
author of the report was Matthew Rosin, Ph.D., senior research associate at EdSource. Matt worked with a team from LearningWorks
to develop the report, including Linda Collins, Robert Gabriner andDarrick Smith, as well as Louis Freedberg from EdSource.
LearningWorks was founded by the Career Ladders Project for California Community Colleges, the Research and Planning (RP) Group
for California Community Colleges, and the California Community
Colleges Success Network (3CSN) to facilitate, disseminate and fundpractitioner-informed recommendations for changes at the systemand classroom levels, infusing these strategies with statewide andnational insights.
LearningWorks is supported by the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation and the Walter S. Johnson Foundation.

1

June 2012Introduction
In January 2012, the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges adopted recommendations from the legislatively mandated Student Success Task Force. They included a recommendation that California’s community colleges develop “diagnostic” assessments for use across the system.
These would provide detailed information about each student’s specific academic strengths andweaknesses. If implemented, they would be a component of new assessments that all community colleges in the state would use to place under-prepared students into “developmental” English and mathcourses below the college level.
One goal of this recommendation is for the diagnostic information to enable faculty at individualcolleges to make adjustments to their developmental curricula to better serve under-prepared students.
As California takes on this challenge, it can learn from the experiences of several states that havealready developed, or are developing, statewide diagnostic tests for their community colleges. Thesestates’ reforms are still in their infancy, and how they will play out over the long term is not yet clear.
But their efforts help clarify the crucial issues for California to consider and how the ambitious reforms envisioned by the Task Force might differ from those being undertaken in other states.
This report:
1. Introduces “diagnostic assessment” and why it has attracted attention as a tool for community college reform.
2. Describes how several community college systems—Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina—are developing their own diagnostic assessments.
3. Shows that California’s proposed reforms differ because statewide diagnostic assessments
would be developed without prior agreement about how the developmental curriculum
should be structured.
4. Discusses practical implications related to the time needed for testing and the resources
needed to use diagnostic information effectively.
5. Describes the opportunity that California colleges and K–12 schools have to better coordinate their expectations and assessments for students. Fundamental to this discussion
will be the K–12 system’s recent adoption of Common Core State Standards.

2

Can diagnostic assessment help improve
developmental education in California?
A key challenge for community colleges is that many students are underprepared for college-level courses
in English and mathematics when
they enroll. Early assessment of highschool students to help them improvetheir college readiness before getting
to college is one important area forreform both in California and nationally. Colleges are also experimenting
with a variety of methods for bringing
under-prepared students up to speed
more effectively.
But attention is also turning to thetests that colleges use to determine
how prepared students are in mathematics, writing, and reading. Thereis growing interest in tests that collect“diagnostic” information about what
students do and don’t know when
they enroll, so that colleges can provide each student with more focusedand tailored support.

Community Colleges Wrestle
With How Best To Serve
Under-Prepared Students
California’s community colleges usually require under-prepared students
to take one or more “developmental”
courses—sometimes called “remedial” courses—in math, writing, and/or reading. The colleges tend to offer
these courses in sequences, and theymust decide which courses a student
should take first to be most success1

3

2

See Tables C1 and C2.
See Table D1.

ful—whether a developmental course
or an undergraduate-level course suchas Freshman Composition, College
Algebra, or Calculus.
As in other states, California colleges
typically give assessments to incoming students, including placement
tests, to sort out who is prepared tosucceed in college-level courses inEnglish and math. California requires
colleges to use “multiple measures,”such as information from high schooltranscripts, when assessing a student so that no single test score is
the sole basis for placing him or her
into a course. In addition, the state
has historically required colleges tovalidate the tests they use locally, suchas to ensure that the tests fit the local
curriculum.
California colleges use mostly a handful of placement tests to inform thesedecisions. Popular ones include theCollege Board’s Accuplacer, ACT’s
Compass, the College Test for English
Placement (CTEP), and readinesstests developed by the UC/CSU Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project(MDTP).
Research conducted in the state by theInstitute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy points to variation
among colleges in how often students
are assessed for placement, and how
strongly placement recommenda-

tions are enforced. And researchers
from WestEd and the University ofCalifornia, Santa Cruz point out thatcolleges vary in how they communicate with students about placement
testing, their policies for re-testing,and how they take into account otherfactors such as students’ high schooltranscripts. (See box on page 25 forcitations.)
But clearly, based on these assessments, California’s community colleges conclude that many students are
not prepared for undergraduate-levelcourses. According to a survey of colleges for the state’s annual Basic Skills
Accountability report (see box onpage 25 for citation), only 15% of thestudents that colleges assessed for fall2009 placement in math courses qualified for freshman-level mathematics.
In addition, 27% of the students thatcolleges assessed in writing qualified
for Freshman Composition.1
Of great concern is that large numbersof students drop out of developmental education without reaching theirgoals. For example, California’s Basic
Skills Accountability report shows that,among first-time students in 2002–03
who began their study of math in PreAlgebra—the course generally considered three levels below freshman-level
mathematics in California—only 14%
ever completed a freshman-level mathcourse by the end of 2009–10.2

Given the stakes, many college leaders are concerned that at least somestudents arrive with strengths andweaknesses in math, writing, andreading that do not correspond neatly
to the semester-length developmental
courses that colleges offer. A student
directed to Pre-Algebra may only
struggle with a portion of the content
covered in the class, but must spend
valuable time reviewing topics he or
she already knows. How commonly
this occurs is not clear.

“Diagnostic” Assessment—
One Tool For Community
College Reform?
The tests that community colleges
across the nation use to place students
into courses have a big job to do.
They must, as efficiently as possible,
summarize each student’s level of
preparation in mathematics, writing,and reading, across diverse student
populations and widely varying academic preparation. Given the stakes
for students, there is increasing debate
about how test results are used toplace students, the accuracy of theseplacements, and whether colleges
should take into account measures
such as high school grades when
making these decisions.3“Diagnostic” assessments are increasingly seen as one possible tool for
improving colleges’ abilities to help
students succeed because they areintended to provide more specific information about what under-preparedstudents do and don’t know about asubject. Some such tests are available
commercially, and some states havebeen working with vendors to develop
their own.
The idea is to provide deeper insight
into students’ specific strengths andweaknesses relative to key competencies that faculty, based on their understanding of their disciplines, believe
are essential to make progress toward
enrolling in college-level courses.
Depending on how college leadersand faculty think about the goals of
the developmental curriculum andits relation to students’ later paths
through community college, thesecompetencies could be the same forall programs of study that a student
might undertake, or they could varydepending on a student’s goals.
Assessing students’ strengths andweaknesses in this way requires time,and can force trade-offs between atest’s efficiency and the informationthat colleges hope to have at theirdisposal. This is because the more
specific and actionable the information desired, the more diagnostic test
items will be required.
There are two main ways that community colleges approach diagnostic
assessment. Both assume that colleges
have a diagnostic test that fits the
local curriculum and provides good
information about students’ specificstrengths and weaknesses with respect
to that content.
Diagnostic Testing For Placement
One potential purpose of a diagnostic
test is to place a student into academic
support that focuses on the specificareas of weakness highlighted by thetest. For this to work, the narrower
topics on which the test focuses mustalign with the available supports.
For example, if a diagnostic assessment reveals that a student is weakin a particular area of mathematics, he or she can be placed into asmall course module that is designed

explicitly to focus on that content.
The module might be a supplement
to a larger developmental course, orthe entire developmental curriculum
might be broken up into such modules.
Diagnostic Testing To Tailor
Instruction
Colleges can also provide diagnostic
information to faculty to help themtailor classroom instruction, in lightof what their students do and don’t
understand about the course content.
One helpful example from California’s
middle and high schools is the Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project, or
MDTP. MDTP tests have been offered
to secondary schools in California
since 1982 and are intended to support teachers in helping students
move into and through a college-prep
math curriculum. The Universityof California and California State
University systems contribute funds
to make MDTP tests and support
available for free to math teachers.
The various tests assess student preparation for math content ranging frompre-algebra to calculus.4
MDTP test items are designed so thateach wrong answer reveals a particular misunderstanding. For example,
a test item might ask students to add
two fractions. The possible incorrect answers might distinguish, forexample, students who do not realize
they need to find a common denominator from students who do this but
still answer incorrectly. Based on data
about how students perform on various topics, math teachers can focus
on common misunderstandings during full-class instruction or break theclass up into smaller groups to focus
on different needs.

For example, see the box on page 25 for links to research from the Community College Research Center at Teachers College that explores these issues in detail.
MDTP is also used as a placement test by various California community colleges, though the capability of the tests to provide information about how students
perform in smaller topic areas and inform classroom instruction directly does not appear to have been used much. For example, in conversation and correspondence with EdSource, MaryAnne Anthony—the community college coordinator for MDTP—described a college that formerly administered the MDTP and used
topic area scores to ensure that students entering Calculus had sufficient skill in trigonometry. Learn more about MDTP here.
3
4

4

California’sStudent
Success
Task
Force
Recommends Statewide Diagnostic Assessments That Help Faculty Adjust
Their Developmental Curricula Locally
Following months of deliberation,
feedback, and revision, the California
Community Colleges Student Success
Task Force presented recommendations to the system’s Board of Governors in January of 2012. (See the box
on page 25 for citation.) The board
adopted the recommendations after
several hours of testimony.
The recommendations call for a“common centralized assessment” inmathematics, writing, reading, andEnglish as a second language (ESL)that provides diagnostic information.
Per the Task Force recommendation,a new statewide assessment “must be
diagnostic to ensure placement into
appropriate coursework and to inform
local [faculty] as they design appropriate curriculum.”
In other words, one key goal is for
information about students’ strengths
and weaknesses to inform subsequent efforts by faculty to adjust theirlocal developmental curricula, withstudents’ actual needs more clearlyin mind. For example, if a college’s
test data show that students typicallydo not need remediation in every
area covered by a particular course,
department faculty may decide torevise the course content or develop
more targeted course modules thatstudents take only as needed. Thus,
the Task Force’s goal that diagnostic

5

assessments would help ensure thatstudents are placed into appropriate courses assumes that, once local
students’ needs are better understood,
courses or other supports intended tobetter meet those needs will be developed if they are not already offered.
This approach is in keeping with California’s tradition of local control overthe developmental curriculum. Developmental course sequences vary inlength among California’s community
colleges. For example, one college’s
writing sequence might have only twocourse levels, while another’s might
have twice as many. An EdSource
study found that California collegescommonly offer developmental writing courses three or four levels below
Freshman Composition. (See the box
on page 25 for citation.)
Colleges also differ with respect towhether they teach developmental
writing and developmental reading inseparate course sequences or formallycombine them to some degree. The
same EdSource study found thatabout half of California colleges haveoffered developmental writing andreading instruction through separate
course sequences in recent years. The
rest have offered at least some developmental instruction that explicitly
combines writing and reading, thoughrelatively few have done this througha single integrated course sequence.

This diversity provides fertile groundfor innovation, but also means local
departments will undertake curriculum reform from different starting
points. This diversity is also a key reason why colleges have been required
to validate that their placement tests
fit the local curriculum.
This raises a crucial question for California: can statewide diagnostic tests
be an effective lever for improving
student outcomes without knowing in
advance the developmental curriculum with which they fit or the goals
that will drive curricular reform?
The Task Force’s proposal is part ofa larger suite of recommendations.
They call for colleges to require mostincoming students to take the assessments, and for the system’s Board ofGovernors to more clearly “define
categories of students who should be
exempt.” Students would also participate in orientation services anddevelop individual education plans.
Those needing additional academic
help would participate in additional
support to help them succeed, such asa learning community or a “student
success course.” And because knowing academic content is not all thatmatters for success in college, the Task
Force also recommends considerationof students’ “academic behaviors andhabits of mind necessary for successin college.”

The Task ForceRecommendation Builds On
Momentum Toward A
Statewide Assessment System
For California Colleges
Momentum toward a statewide assessment system for California’s community colleges has been building fora number of years.
Recently, the state Chancellor’s Officehas been advocating and laying the
groundwork for a centrally managed
system for delivering such assessments via the Internet called CCCAssess. The Chancellor’s Office produced
a report on the system’s feasibility in
March 2011. (See box on page 25 forcitation.) The report drew, in part,on feedback from 500 faculty members and student services staff on thefeatures they would like to see in a
new testing system that colleges could
share, if one comes to fruition.
The Student Success Task Force
identifies CCCAssess as the vehicle
for developing and implementing
new diagnostic assessments. CCCAssess is currently on hold with no statefunding to support development ormaintenance. This year, the Board ofGovernors is sponsoring legislation torequire assessment, orientation, andeducational plans for incoming students and provide funding for these
services.
Rationales for such a system include
that:
1. Statewide assessments would
send a unified signal to K–12
schools about the skills andcapabilities that community
colleges expect when students
enter.

2. It would provide economies ofscale to reduce the per-test costof assessing students, with thestate paying all or most of thecost rather than colleges.
3. Test scores would be more
portable: a student who attends
more than one college could
use his or her scores anywhere.
4. Students could access practice tests via the Internet. As
research from WestEd makes
clear (see box on page 25 forcitation), students often do notknow about the tests, practice for them, or receive any
support to do so, and do notrealize that a low score can add
a year or more of additional
math, writing, or reading
courses to their schedules.
5. Community college counselors
could access other measures ofstudent readiness such as K–12
test scores.
6. The state could collect students’placement test results centrally.
The idea of statewide assessments
has often been at odds with California’s strong tradition of local control.
As recently as January 2008, a task
force of the system’s Consultation
Council—the forum through which
local districts advise the state’s Boardof Governors on policy—described“considerable resistance” to the ideaof statewide assessments and did notrecommend them at that time. The
group cited curricular issues, such as
variability in how colleges organize
their lower-level developmental curricula, as “the number one impediment

to instituting a common assessment
test across the state.” (See the box onpage 25 for citation.)
The Student Success Task Force’s callfor such tests to include diagnostic
tools is, in part, intended to provide local faculty a new resource for
improving their practice, thus giving
them a reason to embrace a statewide
assessment.
That said, whether the presence ofdiagnostic tools makes a statewide
assessment more attractive will likely
depend on how a department has
approached the reform of developmental education to date. Requiringa statewide test could sideline alternative approaches such as selfplacement. And some faculty whose
departments offer or are experimenting with “accelerated” paths tocollege-level study fear that diagnostic
tests could reinforce the idea that students should remediate discrete skill
gaps before they can take on authentic, college-level tasks such as reading
full-length works.
These efforts and others to reform
how faculty think about the developmental curriculum—acceleration, contextualized learning, andso forth—have both supporters anddetractors, and are far from the normin California. But they raise a broader
question about whether diagnostic
tests will miss what a student could do
if provided a meaningful context andsupport with which to do it. They also
underscore the question of whether
statewide assessment reform should
precede reform of the developmental
curriculum and its goals, and whether
proceeding in this way could reinforce
approaches to developmental education that some feel are ineffective.
6

7

lessons and implications from early adopters

Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina
California is not alone in wrestling with
the idea of diagnostic assessment. So too are
Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina.

These three states were early participants in the
Achieving the Dream initiative, which has supported them in establishing and implementing
state reform agendas, and more recently joined therelated Developmental Education Initiative. These
initiatives also gave leaders in the three states anopportunity to hear about system reforms being
undertaken outside their borders.
Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina are each inthe very early days of a major effort to redesign
how they deliver developmental instruction andassess whether students need it. The ultimate results are not yet known.
These states’ respective assessment reforms cannot
be transplanted whole cloth to California’s decentralized system of colleges. Each was founded on
extensive faculty deliberation about the competencies that students need and the goals and design ofthe developmental curriculum. Indeed, a consistent message from these states’ reforms is thatmuch of their value comes from faculty working

together to clarify their goals for developmental
education.
But Florida’s, Virginia’s, and North Carolina’s efforts
each provide a vision of how diagnostic assessments
might function and be used. In addition, theirreforms highlight key issues:
1. In each state, the development of diagnostic
assessments was based in part on statewide
reorganization of the developmental curriculum. In contrast, California’s Student Success
Task Force proposes that new tests will help
faculty retool their curricula later on a local
basis.
2. Each state faces trade-offs between efficiency
and the time required to get richer information about students’ specific strengths andweaknesses. This is an issue that California,
with its vast number of students, must decide
how to address.
This section provides an introduction to each state’sreform, highlights some lessons learned, and discusses implications for California.

8florida
Florida’s 28 colleges serve more than 887,000 students during the year across many kinds of programs.

Florida’s experience sheds light on how the structure of the developmental curriculum can inform which diagnostic test
items are targeted to students, and the practical tradeoffs involved in doing so. The state’s reforms are described in detailin a recent report published by Jobs for the Future and in documents published by leaders at the Florida Department of
Education. (See box on page 25 for citations.)
In 2008, Florida’s “Go Higher, Florida!” Task Force called for a statewide definition of college and career readiness. The task
force brought college leaders together with K–12 principals and superintendents to consider how to improve the college
readiness of students leaving Florida high schools.
The resulting Postsecondary Readiness Competencies, which postsecondary faculty developed together with K–12 teachers, formed a foundation for further reforms during the past several years, as the chart shows. These include a new placement test, statewide reform of the developmental course sequence, and new diagnostic tests.

Key Florida Reform Directions Since 2008
Developed a definition of college and career readiness with K–12
K–12, community college, and university faculty developed Florida’s Postsecondary Readiness Competencies (PRCs) in mathand English to guide the state’s schools. Initially completed in 2008, they were updated in 2010 to reflect Florida’s adoption of
the Common Core State Standards.

Developed a new placement test
Florida developed the Postsecondary Education
Readiness Test (PERT) Placement, which was introduced in fall 2010.

Developed Common Developmental
Course Sequences in Math,
Writing, and Reading

The test determines whether incoming students arecollege-ready in math, writing, and reading or should
be referred to one of two developmental course levelsin these subjects.

College faculty worked together to develop statewide developmental sequences in math, writing, andreading, each with two levels, during the latter half of2010. The courses, which all colleges will offer as ofspring 2012, focus on developmental education competencies that build toward college readiness.

The test is computer-adaptive, which means that students see more or less difficult test items depending
on how they perform.

Six colleges have been awarded grants to break thesecourses into shorter modules, using Developmental
Education Initiative funds.

Developed new diagnostic tests for students who place into developmental
math, writing, or reading—two per subject, with one for each course level
In each subject, Florida developed two PERT Diagnostic tests to determine the specific strengths and weaknesses of students
who are placed into developmental courses by the PERT Placement test. One diagnostic test is for students placed into theupper-level developmental course; the other is for students placed into the lower-level course.
The diagnostic tests—which were only recently introduced during the latter half of 2011—are voluntary for Florida colleges.
The tests are not computer-adaptive, so that all students taking a given test are assessed on the same content.

9

Florida develops a customized assessment systemwith optional diagnostic components
Florida leaders initially hoped a single
assessment could both determine
student placement and diagnose students’ particular strengths and weaknesses. But this would have required avery long test.
Even without diagnostic components,
the PERT Placement tests in math,writing, and reading can take morethan three hours to finish altogether—longer than the system’s previous
assessments—according to the recent
report published by Jobs for the
Future. The new tests include many
more items than does the former one.
Including diagnostic items in themain test would have doubled thetime that students who are notcollege-ready would need to finish,
explained Julie Alexander, the interim
vice chancellor for Academic andStudent Affairs for Florida’s colleges,in conversation with EdSource. Thisis because of the number of test
items required to diagnose particularstrengths and weaknesses.
As a result, the PERT Diagnostic tests
are separate and optional for colleges.
Colleges can administer them in any
proctored setting, such as a computerlab. A primary goal is for faculty toreceive the diagnostic information
so they can tailor instruction within
the new developmental math, writing, and reading courses. Individualcolleges will need to develop systems
for providing these results to faculty
as part of the normal flow of information.
System leaders currently do not know
how many Florida colleges will use
the new PERT Diagnostic tests. One

consideration is that each PERT
Diagnostic test has the same per-unit
cost as each PERT Placement test. As
a result, if a college administers both
placement and diagnostic tests to a
student in all three subjects—math,writing, and reading—the college pays
twice as much to assess the student.
One college that intends to use the
PERT Diagnostic tests is St. Petersburg College. The college is breaking
its developmental courses in math,writing, and reading into smaller
modules, and intends to use the PERT
Diagnostic tests to place students withparticular weaknesses into the appropriate modules as needed.
Martha Campbell, dean of communications at St. Petersburg College,
told EdSource that the college iscurrently using older tools that werealready available as part of its instructional software to target the 8-weekmodules to students. The college has
focused first on providing this option
to students who score just below thecollege-ready level on the placement
test.
Campbell says she can imagine some
key ways in which the PERT Diagnostic could be helpful. For example,
Florida high schools are implementing state-approved courses for highschool seniors who take the PERT
Placement test in 11th grade and are
deemed to still need developmental
support in math or English. These“transitional” courses are intended
to reduce these students’ need for
remediation when they get to college.
Campbell says the PERT Diagnostic
could help St. Petersburg College determine which specific competencies

these students still need to work on sothat faculty can provide targeted support to help them move on quickly.
St. Petersburg College is one of six
colleges to receive a Developmental
Education Initiative project grantfrom the state’s Division of Florida
Colleges to pilot smaller developmental course modules.

Some Lessons Learned From
Florida1. Collaboration between postsecondary faculty and K–12
teachers to establish a common
definition of college and career
readiness can be a first step toward designing broadly usefulassessments.
2. Diagnostic assessment adds tothe time that incoming students need to take tests. One
way to target fewer diagnostic
items to a student is to firstplace him or her into a particular developmental course.
A diagnostic test can then dig
deeper into the student’s specific strengths and weaknesses
with respect to the course
content.
3. How colleges use diagnostic
information about students—
even in a system with standardized developmental course
levels—may vary dependingon whether they offer options
for students, such as smallercourse modules, that are explicitly designed to act on theinformation.
10

virginia
Virginia’s 23 colleges provide courses to nearly 287,000 students during the year. Its recent developmental

education reforms in mathematics, though in the very early stages of implementation, provide an example of how redesignof the developmental curriculum can inform the design of a new assessment system. The reforms are described in detail ina recent report published by Jobs for the Future and in documents published by the Virginia Community College System.
(See the box on page 25 for citations.)
Data was a key inspiration for the changes. The report released by Jobs for the Future describes how data made visible not
only the widespread need for developmental education among Virginia students, but also the need for a close look at how
Virginia colleges provide it. For example, in most Virginia counties in the fall of 2006, at least 76% of students who took thestate’s former placement test in math were deemed unready for college-level work.
The Virginia Community College System convened a Developmental Education Task Force to put forth a new policy
framework. One goal was that most students who need developmental courses should spend no more than a single year
taking them. In a 2009 report, the Task Force concluded that developmental math and English should be overhauled with afresh look at the skills and knowledge students need to be successful in higher-level courses.
Virginia tackled mathematics before English, but the logic of reform has been the same for both, as the chart shows.
Virginia’s approach is to “know the endgame first,” said Catherine Finnegan, the state’s assistant vice chancellor for Institutional Effectiveness, in an interview with EdSource: first take stock of the developmental curriculum, then design newassessments that align with and can help drive implementation of the curriculum.

Key Virginia Reform Directions Since 2009
Developed A Vision For Restructuring The Developmental Curriculum
Faculty, college leaders and administrators, and others developed general design specifications for a new developmental curriculum, consistent with the reform goals outlined by the state’s Developmental Education Task Force.
In math, The Critical Point was released in 2010.

In English, The Focal Point was released in 2011.

Developed New Guides That Get Specific About The New Curriculum
Faculty in each discipline developed a curriculum guide that describes the learning
outcomes of the new curriculum and how content is organized.
In math, the curriculum guide wasreleased in early 2011.

In English, the curriculum guide wasreleased in early 2012.

Developing New Assessments Aligned With The Redesigned Curriculum
Faculty specify what’s required of a new assessment aligned with the curriculum guide,
and work with the vendor to develop it.
In math, the new assessment was fully rolled out in fall2011, for student placement into the new curriculumin spring 2012. The test includes both placement anddiagnostic components.

11

In English, a new assessment that integrates writing
and reading is under development. The placement
test will include a writing sample. However, it will notinclude diagnostic components.

Virginia implements a new diagnostic assessment for placement inmathematics after redesigning the developmental curriculum
In math, Virginia colleges recently
began offering developmental instruction through a series of nine one-unit
modules that each focus on a narrow
range of math skills and concepts.5
The modules focus on content ranging
from fractions to quadratic equations.
Some colleges provide them in a computer lab setting, and others do so inclassrooms. There is also a basic skills
module that focuses on whole numbers for students who are very unprepared and need Adult Basic Education
services.
Which modules students take depends
on their assessment results and academic goals. Students take only thosemodules that focus on math content
they still need to learn, as determinedby the new assessment.
In addition, students take only themodules required for their particular
courses of study. Math faculty came tothe conclusion that not all academic
goals require the same mathematics
background.
1. Liberal arts students are required only to prove masteryof the first five modules, ideallywithin a single semester.
2. Science, engineering, math, andbusiness administration students are required to fulfill allnine, ideally within two semesters.

3. The requirements for careertechnical students vary by
program.
The new math assessment that Virginia
colleges now use to direct students tothe new curriculum is comprised of
two interwoven components: a placement component and a diagnostic
component.
1. The placement component,
which is computer-adaptive,
provides a broad estimate ofwhether a student has mastered
the content that is the focus of aparticular set of modules.
2. If not, the diagnostic component drills deeper to find out
whether the student should
be directed to any of thosemodules for extra work. These
diagnostic components are
not computer-adaptive, so thatstudents are tested on the samecontent.
The assessment system focuses firston modules 1–5 and then on modules
6–9, and students’ routes throughthe different test components varydepending on how they perform andtheir intended program of study. For
example, students who have alreadydeclared a liberal arts major can stop
after being assessed on the first fivemodules.

In some cases, students who are very
unprepared on the initial placement
items are given a diagnostic test to
determine whether they should bereferred to the basic skills module
on whole numbers. At the other endof the spectrum, students who prove
themselves very well prepared canplace out of the first college-level mathcourse and enter trigonometry or calculus directly.
Virginia will assess the results of its
math reforms to date, such as theirimpact on students and staff, during
the first half of 2012. Already clear is
the importance of training for testing centers on implementing new
tests. Also clear is that the new test islonger, though the time required varies
depending on how a student performs
and his or her program of study. The
former off-the-shelf math placement
test, which assessed students’ mathunderstanding at a more general level,
required 20–25 minutes for students tocomplete. On average, the new mathassessment takes 1½ hours.
Virginia’s assessment in English isunder development. It will not include
a diagnostic component, but the placement test will include a writing sample.
Unlike in mathematics, the developmental English curriculum will not
be broken into modules. Faculty willteach writing and reading together,and have defined eight learning out-

Modularized instruction has also been a focus of reform at colleges in Tennessee. For example, see the efforts of Jackson State Community College andtheir implications for assessment, as part of Tennessee’s Developmental Studies Redesign Initiative.
5

12

comes for students’ time in developmental English. There
will be three paths to college-level College Composition,
and Virginia intends that its new English placement test
will refer students to these different paths based on theentry-level competencies required for each.
1. Students who score just below the college-ready cutscore on the new English assessment will be accelerated directly into College Composition and simultaneously enrolled in a two-credit “bridge course” forextra support.
2. Students who need a moderate amount of extra
work in writing and reading will take a four-unit developmental course. At the end of the term, faculty
will recommend whether the student should moveon directly to College Composition or enroll in bothCollege Composition and a bridge course.
3. Students who need the most extensive extra work
will take an eight-unit developmental course. Again,
how students access College Composition at the endof the term—with or without a bridge course—depends on faculty recommendations.

Some Lessons Learned From Virginia
1. Virginia set out goals for student progress—such asthat students should typically spend no more than
one year in developmental education—that guided
its curriculum and assessment reforms.
2. Virginia first designed new developmental mathcourse modules—to “know the endgame first”—andthen designed diagnostic tests to place students into
the modules as needed.
3. One way of targeting fewer diagnostic items to a
student—and potentially save testing time—is to
first use a placement test to figure out whether diagnostic testing on a given range of competencies iswarranted. Within such a framework, well-preparedstudents can place into college-level courses without
spending any time on diagnostic testing for lowerlevel competences.
4. Virginia decided that the math competencies astudent needs for later success differ depending on
his or her program of study. One implication is thatsome incoming students are able to spend less timeon diagnostic testing, if needed.
13

14

north carolina
North Carolina’s 58 colleges serve about 850,000 students during the year. The state has not yet implemented a new assessment system, but its proposal for one provides another perspective on how diagnostic testing mighttake place. (See box on page 25 for more information.)

Like Virginia, North Carolina is tackling math first. Input gathered in 2010 for the system’s larger SuccessNC initiative revealed concern about students’ poor prospects if they ended up in developmental math courses. Stakeholders believed thatstudents might be better positioned to finish developmental math—and do so more quickly—if they could focus only on
the particular skills and knowledge on which they still need to work.
North Carolina’s reforms are in their very early days in developmental math, and only just beginning in developmental
English. But the process of reform is similar to Virginia’s, as the chart shows.

Key North Carolina Reform Directions Since 2010
Developed A Vision For Redesigning The Developmental
Curriculum And Moving To New Assessments
North Carolina’s Developmental Education Initiative state policy team—composed of appointed faculty, deans, academic andstudent development officers, college presidents, the superintendent of the state’s Department of Public Instruction, and others—approved principles for redesigning developmental courses into modules and moving to diagnostic assessments.

In math, redesign principles wereadopted in October 2010.

In English, redesign principles wereadopted in May 2011.

Getting Specific About The New Curriculum
Faculty nominated from across the state design the new curriculum.

In math, draft curriculum modules werecompleted in the summer of 2011.

English to follow.

Developing New Assessments Aligned With The Curriculum
At this writing, North Carolina is seeking a vendor for a new diagnostic assessment system.

In math, the goal is for a common diagnostic
assessment to be available by summer 2013, by whichtime the new curriculum modules will be
implemented across the system.

15

English to follow.

North Carolina calls for an exclusively diagnostic assessment
As in Virginia, developmental mathwill be offered through small course
modules. They address content ranging from operations with integers toradical expressions and equations,and are intended to emphasize conceptual understanding and how mathis used in context. Students will exit
developmental math at different points
depending on which college-level mathcourses they plan to take. For example,
Precalculus will require students tocomplete more modules than will
Statistical Analysis or Applied Mathematics I.
The new math modules will not be implemented statewide until as late as thesummer of 2013, though some colleges
are piloting them now. Cynthia Liston,North Carolina’s associate vice president for Policy Research and Special
Projects, told EdSource that her state’s
modular redesign reduced the size ofthe developmental math curriculum
by about 30%, mostly because faculty
identified and eliminated redundant
topics among multiple courses.
North Carolina has issued a request
for proposals (RFP) to build a newassessment system, first in math andlater in English. The primary goal of
the new assessment is to collect the
information that colleges will need toplace students into appropriate course
modules.
North Carolina’s vision differs from
Florida’s and Virginia’s. In those states,
the first step in the assessment process
is to broadly estimate a student’s levelof preparation using a placement test.
If a student appears to need extra help,

diagnostic testing of specific strengths
and weaknesses related to particularparts of the curriculum can follow.
North Carolina’s goal is to go directly to diagnosing students’ specificstrengths and weaknesses with respect
to the various curriculum modules andplace students into them as needed,without giving them a more generalplacement test first. This decision isintended, in part, to reduce the timethat many students might need fortesting. The decision is also informedby research that shows many students
who are placed into developmental
classes by a more general placement
test would have done well in collegelevel classes, while others who might
be deemed “college-ready” actually dohave specific things they still need towork on.
Brad Bostian of Central Piedmont
Community College, in correspondence with EdSource, explained that
North Carolina’s approach could resultin more students being identified as
needing at least some developmental
education. But because the curriculum
will be divided into small modules thatstudents take only as needed, many
students may need less time to finish it.
The envisioned assessment will takelonger for North Carolina students tocomplete than is currently the case.
The RFP specifies that testing should
normally take no longer than three-tofour hours for both math and English,
including a computer-scored writing
sample. This compares with an average of about one hour and 45 minutes
overall using the current assessments

for these subjects, though some students need more time.
North Carolina is also exploring how
colleges might consider other measures of college readiness, such as highschool transcript information, whenplacing students.

Some Lessons Learned From
North Carolina
North Carolina is in an earlier stageof reform than Florida or Virginia,
and thus many lessons from the state
about diagnostic assessment are notyet known. But North Carolina’s ideas
already raise important considerations:
1. A state need not take on assessment reform in every subject
area on the same schedule. As
in Virginia, North Carolina
focused on mathematics first.
2. North Carolina hopes to go
directly to diagnosing students’specific strengths and weaknesses with respect to key
competencies, rather than firstadministering a more generalplacement test. This approachmakes sense because multiple
curriculum modules will beavailable to act on the information.
3. Similar to Virginia, North
Carolina decided that the mathcompetencies a student needs
for later success differ depending on which college-level mathcourse a student plans to take.
16

california

California’s reforms would develop statewide diagnostic
assessments without prior agreement about how thedevelopmental curriculum should be structured
Florida’s, Virginia’s, and North
Carolina’s reforms share an important feature: agreement about
the structure of the developmental
curriculum was key for designing
diagnostic assessments that colleges
could share. Whether a two-level
sequence or a series of small modules,
this agreement about the structure of
the curriculum provided a common
basis for deciding which topics needdiagnostic attention, how these topics
relate to one another, and even which
students should be tested in each ofthese areas.
The vision of California’s Student
Success Task Force differs. California
would not first revamp its approachto the developmental curriculum andthen align new diagnostic tests with a
new approach. Rather, faculty would
use the information produced by a
new diagnostic test, along with other“multiple measures,” to retool theirdevelopmental courses at a later stage
in their own colleges.
This vision respects California’s
tradition of local control over thedevelopmental curriculum, with
developmental course sequences
around the state varying in length andwith respect to whether they formally
integrate writing and reading to somedegree. Thus, local departments will
undertake curriculum reform, if they17

choose, from different starting points.
As discussed earlier, for at least somefaculty, these starting points will raisequestions about the value of a statewide diagnostic assessment, particularly to the extent they worry thatstatewide assessment reform without
clear curricular goals could reinforce
approaches to developmental education they feel are ineffective.
California’s challenge will be to devise
a process whereby representative
groups of faculty collaborate andagree on the essential competencies
on which diagnostic assessments intheir respective fields should focus,
granting that their local curricula may
address these in different ways. In
some cases it may not be obvious at
the outset how a college can or should
act on the information the diagnostic
tests provide.
The Intersegmental Committee of the
Academic Senates of California’s threepublic postsecondary systems has developed statements on the literacy andmathematics competencies expectedof incoming college students that
can inform this conversation. (Seebox on page 25 for citation.) So too
can California’s new K–12 Common
Core State Standards, discussed later,
inform the effort.
Colleges with different approaches todevelopmental education may needflexibility to target diagnostic itemsin the way that best fits their local
circumstances. For example, Florida
and Virginia target specific diagnostic items to students based on how
they perform on placement tests. For
California colleges to do the same in
the absence of statewide agreement
about the developmental curriculum,
they would need to be able to target
diagnostic items differently.
Ultimately, the worth of the enterprisewill hinge on whether local faculty in
California do use diagnostic information, if available, to make curricularchanges that lead to wider student
success in their colleges. This will
require evaluation of results.
Finally, in light of Virginia’s example,
another potential topic for discussionis whether the competencies needed
to make progress toward enrollingin college-level courses are the sameor different depending on a student’s
preferred program of study. California’s Student Success Task Forceemphasizes the importance of students declaring a program of study,
in order to set out clearer educational
pathways and build early momentum
in college. California leaders andfaculty may wish to consider whether
a student’s declared program of study
should have any bearing on the diagnostic test items that he or she sees.

California’s community colleges will need to consider the time needed fortesting and resources to use diagnostic information effectively
California’s Student Success Task Force acknowledges
that it will take substantial resources and coordinationof local actors to administer diagnostic assessments
broadly, help students develop individual educationplans, and provide support services when needed.
The assessment reforms of Florida, Virginia, and North
Carolina show that, though diagnostic tests provide
more specific information about what students do anddon’t know about a subject, they come at a price: theextra time it takes for students to take the tests. California’s community colleges will need to consider how
much time students should spend taking tests and how
their campus testing centers will accommodate it.
If departments wish to use diagnostic information to
tailor in-class instruction to students’ actual needs, col-leges will also need to establish processes for providing thisdata to faculty and support them in using it. The CCCAssess feasibility report described earlier notes that math faculty largely support this use of diagnostic information, butthat some student services professionals worry this could“lend itself to bias against some students.” Faculty could
also potentially provide diagnostic information to students
to help them set and meet clearer learning goals.
If the goal is to help faculty make adjustments or even large
revisions to their local curricula as needed, colleges willneed to provide institutional research support and timefor faculty to review diagnostic data, make sense of it, andevaluate the outcomes of curricular reforms that result. In
this work, faculty could benefit from opportunities to findout what other colleges are learning and trying.

How do different disciplines view
diagnostic assessment in California?
According to the statewide Chancellor’s Office report on the feasibility of a statewide assessment system, many community college math faculty in California are interested in a test with diagnostic capabilities. The report noted
that, compared with writing and reading, math skills can be more easily addressed as discrete topics for diagnostic
assessment. (This does not mean that everything that matters for success in math, such as the disposition to see
mathematics as sensible and oneself as capable in the subject, fits this description.)
The report noted more uncertainty about whether writing, reading, and English as a second language “lendthemselves to diagnostic testing to the same degree.” Faculty see these skills as tightly interrelated and not always
amenable to test items with a single correct answer. Faculty highly value writing samples as a diagnostic tool that
could bring these skills together, but these can be expensive to offer, especially if they require time for faculty tograde them. According to the report, faculty expressed interest in a test that bridges writing, reading, and ESL andincludes a computer-scored essay feature.

18

california

California’s community colleges and K–12
schools have an opportunity to coordinate
their expectations and assessments
The decisions that California’s community colleges make about a statewide assessment system will send asignal to K–12 schools about what
faculty think matters for college
readiness. Ideally, one result would begreater clarity among K–12 leaders
and teachers—and among students
themselves—about the preparationneeded for community college.
Meanwhile, California’s K–12 system
is also undertaking its own reforms
related to college readiness. Thatmakes this a key moment for the
K–12 and community college systems
to consider how best to bridge their
expectations for students and theassessments they use to evaluate performance, and minimize any mixed
signals that students who make thetransition between the two systems
receive. But this will take substantial
coordination.
The California Community CollegesStudent Success Task Force points tothis challenge directly. Its first recommendation is that the state’s community college and K–12 systems develop “common standards for college

19

and career readiness that are alignedwith high school exit standards.”
This section provides basic background on the ongoing K–12 reforms,
and highlights opportunities forengagement between colleges andschools.

California Has Adopted
New K–12 Content Standards in English And Mathematics, And Will Soon Have
New State Assessments
In 2010, the California State Boardof Education adopted new academic
content standards in English language
arts and mathematics. These lay out
what students are expected to know
and be able to do at each grade level.
The new expectations grew out of theCommon Core State Standards initiative, which was intended to develop a
set of specific, clear, rigorous standards that states can share. Most states
have adopted the Common Core
standards in both subjects, often (asin California) with modifications.
A key part of California’s transition

to the Common Core is the design
and implementation of a new generation of state assessments. To this end,
California is a voting, or “governing,”
member of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.
Smarter Balanced is one of two
consortia of states to which the U.S.
Department of Education awarded
competitive grants to develop newassessment systems aligned with theCommon Core State Standards. The
consortium’s goal is to develop tests
that provide a basis for school accountability and also help inform andimprove instruction. Development of
the new tests is in the early days, but
Smarter Balanced is moving quickly:
the new assessments are expected forthe 2014–15 school year.
Smarter Balanced will develop
computer-adaptive, summative assessments in English language artsand mathematics in grades 3–8 and
11 that students will take during thespring. The tests are intended to determine the extent to which students
are developing capacities they needto succeed in college or career (seechart).

The summative assessments currently being developed by
the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium are intended todetermine the extent to which students are developing capacities to…
In Mathematics
1
Explain and apply mathematical concepts and interpret and carry out mathematical procedures with
precision and fluency.
2
Solve a range of complex, well-posed problems inpure and applied mathematics, making productive
use of knowledge and problem-solving strategies.
3
Clearly and concisely construct viable arguments
to support their own reasoning and to critique thereasoning of others.
4
Analyze complex, real-world scenarios and construct
and use mathematical models to interpret and solve
problems.

In English Language Arts
1
Read closely and analytically to comprehend a range
of increasingly complex literary and informational
texts.
2
Produce effective and well-grounded writing for arange of purposes and audiences.
3
Employ effective speaking and listening skills for arange of purposes and audiences.
4
Engage in research and inquiry to investigate topics,
and to analyze, integrate, and present information.

Claims* from:

Claims* from:Content Specifications for the Summative Assessment of theCommon Core State Standards for Mathematics, December
2011 version.

Content Specifications for the Summative Assessment of theCommon Core State Standards for English Language Artsand Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical
Subjects, January 2012 version.

* The Smarter Balanced content specifications describe these instructional goals as “claims” about student
competency that the new assessments will seek to confirm. At this writing, the claims for mathematics had
not yet been approved formally by the consortium’s governing states.

20

california
If implemented as envisioned, the Smarter Balanced summative assessments
will be a big change from the tests California currently administers. California’s current tests, called the California Standards Tests, are composedalmost entirely of multiple-choice items.
In contrast, the Smarter Balanced assessments will gauge student mastery of the Common Core standards
through a mixture of:
1. Selected-response items, suchas multiple-choice questions
that ask students to choose
from among a given set of options.
2. Constructed-response items
that require students to develop their own answers. This
would include longer items
that require students to explain
their reasoning.
3. Technology-enhanced items
that require students to interact with information presented
through audio, video, or simulations.
4. Performance tasks that require
students to respond to a realworld scenario. For example,
one sample task describes afamily’s efforts to figure out
how much they saved on
their energy bills as a result of
new insulation and window
sealing. Using the information provided, students must
estimate the family’s savingsand decide whether the new
insulation and window sealing

21

were ultimately cost-effective,
and provide evidence for theirreasoning.
In addition, although the design has
not yet been finalized, Smarter Balanced may offer local educators theoption to administer mid-course or“interim” assessments using a collection of test items. Schools could dothis voluntarily to provide teacherswith more information during theschool year about how their students
are progressing. The consortium will
also provide access to formative assessment tools that schools can use
during the year.
Some community college leaders in
California initially hoped that these
new K–12 assessments—such as the
proposed Smarter Balanced interim
tests—would provide colleges with
helpful diagnostic information about
incoming students. But the interim
assessments will be voluntary. Andeven if they were required, Deputy
State Superintendent of Public
Instruction Deborah V.H. Sigman
told EdSource, the tests are not being
designed for the purpose of providing
such information to colleges. Sigman leads the California Departmentof Education’s District, School, andInnovation Branch, which includes
assessment and accountability.

The Smarter Balanced
Summative Test For 11th Grade
Could Provide A New College
Readiness Benchmark
Even so, the new summative assessments are being designed withhigher education very much in mind.
Smarter Balanced hopes colleges anduniversities will accept “college-ready”
scores on the 11th grade tests as proof
that students do not need developmental education. Agreement fromhigher education institutions to help
design the assessments with this inmind was a condition for the federal
grant that supports the consortium’swork.
California’s Early Assessment Program, or EAP, is a model for this.
Offered for the first time in spring
2004, the EAP began as a partnership
between California State University(CSU), the California Departmentof Education, and the State Board of
Education.
Using expanded versions of several
California Standards Tests offered to11th graders, the EAP provides early
feedback to students who choose toparticipate, in advance of their senioryear, about their readiness for college
in math and English.
Using the EAP, CSU exempts fromplacement testing any student who
achieves a college-ready score. As ofthe end of February 2012, more than
70 community colleges in the state
do the same or are considering it in
at least one subject.6 The EAP is notintended to provide diagnostic information: it simply provides an indicator of whether a student is collegeready. But students who are deemed
not ready for college can prepare forplacement testing by, for example,
taking a specially designed course in
expository reading and writing during
their senior year, if their schools offer
it.7 (One concern is that students who
are far behind their peers likely needmuch earlier interventions to substantially improve their prospects forachieving college readiness.)
In 2010–11, 86% of California 11th
graders participated in the EAP for
English, and 80% of eligible 11th
graders participated in the EAP inmathematics, according to CSU.8 Because of how the California Standards
Tests for mathematics are administered, only 11th graders who havereached at least Algebra II—about halfof California 11th graders in 2010–11,
according to state testing data—are
eligible to participate in the EAP in
math. Thus, many students—arguably
including many who will need moredevelopmental support in math when
they get to community college—cannot receive EAP feedback.
The EAP and the California Standards Tests are based on California’s

old content standards, not the Common Core. The Smarter Balanced
11th grade assessments are intended
to provide a new measure of college
readiness. Although states and colleges will need to decide how thesetest scores will be used, one possibility
is that students achieving a “collegeready” score would not need to takea placement test when they enroll incollege, similar to the EAP. And ideally, interventions offered to underprepared students during high school
would reduce their later need fordevelopmental instruction when they
arrive on campus and take a diagnostic test.

connections could create opportunities for community college leadersand faculty, as they look ahead toward
their own new assessments, to draw
from the expertise of those working
on the Smarter Balanced tests.

For this to work, faculty must be
confident that the Smarter Balanced
tests focus on what they think is mostimportant. To facilitate higher education involvement, “Higher Education
Leads” have been designated for each
Smarter Balanced state. This groupmeets regularly and coordinateshigher education involvement fromtheir respective states.

Fundamentally at issue is whether
California’s community colleges and
K–12 schools will share a common vision of college and career readiness.

California has three higher education
leads: one representing the California
Community Colleges, one representing the California State University,and another representing the University of California. A key role of these
individuals is to ensure that faculty
participate by, for example, giving
feedback on test goals and items. In
California, leaders from the state’s
K–12 and postsecondary systems also
meet to coordinate. Potentially, these

Whether California will mandate that
all community colleges accept the
new 11th grade test scores as evidenceof college readiness is not clear.
A key issue is whether California’s community colleges
and schools will coordinate
around the same vision of college and career readiness

Some researchers have tried to address whether the Common Core
State Standards measure up to the demands of entry-level college courses
and workforce preparation programs.
For example, David T. Conley and hiscolleagues asked instructors at fouryear and two-year institutions aroundthe nation to rate the applicability andimportance of the high school Common Core standards for such courses.
The researchers concluded that“students who are generally proficientin the Common Core standards will
likely be ready for a wide range ofpostsecondary courses.” (See box onpage 25 for citation.)

See the statewide Chancellor’s Office’s list of California community colleges accepting EAP scores.
In 2010–11, about 375 high schools had adopted this course and many others had integrated parts of it within existing courses, according to CSU. See EdSource’s
2011 Resource Cards on California Education, Card 13.
8
See http://eap2011.ets.org/.
6
7

22

But California’s college faculty and K–12 leaders and teachers must ultimately answer thisquestion for themselves. The Student Success
Task Force recommends that the two systems
develop “common standards for college andcareer readiness that are aligned with highschool exit standards.” The recommendationis reminiscent of Florida’s effort to develop its
Postsecondary Readiness Competencies forcollege and career readiness.
At stake would be not only the Common Core
standards, but also the competencies befitting
incoming college students that California’s
postsecondary academic senates have alreadyarticulated, noted earlier. Bridging these expectations such that neither the K–12 nor thecommunity college systems feel imposed uponby the other will be a key challenge.
If undertaken, the work could raise questions
about California’s formal exit standards forhigh school, and about students’ course-taking
patterns in high school. For example, the state’s
minimum requirement that students pass Algebra I to graduate from high school falls shortof the preparation needed for undergraduatelevel mathematics. And even students who
pass Algebra II in high school but take time
off from studying math can be surprised when
they are placed into developmental math. The
work could also raise questions about whether
college readiness and career readiness are, infact, the same. Although both are intended
outcomes of the Common Core State Stan-dards, how career readiness should be definedis less clear.9
Other aspects of Common Core implementation provide further opportunities for coordinating the expectations of community colleges
and high schools. For example, the Student
Success Task Force calls on college faculty towork with K–12 to ensure that any new diagnostic assessments adopted for community
colleges do not work at cross-purposes with
the new standards and assessments that will
guide California schools.
In addition, new content standards require
new curriculum frameworks, which guide
instruction in California schools and set goals
for instructional materials. Recent legislation
requires the State Board of Education to adopt
a new curriculum framework for mathematics by the end of May of 2013, and for English language arts by the end of May of 2014.
Community college leaders hope to play a rolein developing these curriculum frameworks,
according to Sonia Ortiz-Mercado of the statewide Chancellor’s Office.
The State Board of Education will also vote on
new English Language Development standards
consistent with the Common Core by the endof September 2012. And the California Department of Education is revising the state’smodel curriculum standards for career technical education to align these with the Common
Core.

See further discussion in EdSource’s California and the “Common Core:” Will There Be A New Debate About K–12 Standards?, which explored key issues in
the lead-up to California’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards.
923

Conclusion
The California Community Colleges Student Success Task Force identifies diagnostic
assessment as a potential tool for improving student success. A fundamental question
now facing California is whether statewide diagnostic assessments can be an effective
lever for improving student success, especially because the state’s community colleges
differ in how they structure the developmental curriculum and think about its goals.
A closely related question is whether assessment reform, including the design of new
diagnostic assessments, should precede reform of the developmental curriculum and its
goals.
Also at stake is whether the respective assessment reforms undertaken by California’scommunity college and K–12 systems will be guided by consistent academic goals forstudents as they move from one system to the next.
California’s Student Success Task Force lays out a broad vision for reform of the state’s
community colleges, including new strategies for assessing incoming students. The
reforms being instituted in other states should help inform what California does next.
Now the task for community college leaders, administrators, and faculty is to get
specific about what new assessments with diagnostic components can and should look
like—and about how colleges will use diagnostic information to improve their developmental curricula with the ultimate goal of increasing student success across the system.

24

Learn More
Research, Data, and Context on Developmental Education and Assessment

on Assessment to the Board of Governors of the
California Community Colleges, January 2008.

Belfield C. and Crosta P., Predicting Success inCollege: The Importance of Placement Tests andHigh School Transcripts, Community College
Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia
University, February 2012.

Background And Insight Into How
Florida Has Undertaken Its Reforms

Bunch G., et al, Mapping the Terrain: Language
Testing and Placement for U.S.-Educated Language Minority Students in California’s Community Colleges, University of California, Santa
Cruz, January 2011.

Bilsky J. Crossing Boundaries: Postsecondary
Readiness Assessment in Florida. Change. July–
August 2011.
Burdman P. Testing Ground: How Florida Schools
and Colleges Are Using a New Assessment toIncrease College Readiness. Washington, DC: Jobs
for the Future, September 2011.

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, California Community Colleges Matriculation
Program Handbook, September 2011.

Florida Department of Education.

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, Basic Skills Accountability, Supplement to the
ARCC Report, October 2011.

2. College and Career Readiness resources,
including Florida’s Postsecondary Readiness Competencies.

EdSource, Something’s Got to Give, October 2010.
See also EdSource’s full 2010 study of developmental course-taking in California (Perry, Bahr,
Rosin, & Woodward, June 2010).

3. PERT resources.

Grubb W.N., et al, Assessment and Alignment: The
Dynamic Aspects of Developmental Education,
Working Paper 7, University of California, Berkeley and the RP Group, November 2011.
Hughes K. and Scott-Clayton J., Assessing Developmental Assessment in Community Colleges,
Community College Research Center at Teachers
College, Columbia University, February 2011.
Moore C., et al, Beyond the Open Door: Increasing
Student Success in the California Community Colleges, Institute for Higher Education Leadership& Policy, California State University, Sacramento,
August 2007.
Scott-Clayton J., Do High-Stakes Placement Exams Predict College Success? Community College
Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia
University, February 2012.
Venezia A., Bracco K., and Nodine T., One-Shot
Deal? Students’ Perceptions of Assessment andCourse Placement in California’s Community Colleges, WestEd, 2010.
California’s Recent Assessment
Reform Ideas
Advancing Student Success in California Community Colleges: The Recommendations of the
California Community Colleges Student Success
Task Force, Final Report, January 2011.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office, CCCAssess Proof of Concept Report 2011:
Centralizing Assessment in the California Community Colleges, March 2011.
Report of the Consultation Council Task Force25

1. Facts at a Glance.

4. Common Placement Testing andRemediation for High School Students
resources.
5. Florida’s Postsecondary Education
Readiness Test. Zoom, Edition 2010-03.
November 2010.

and assessment reforms to the 2011conference of the American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges.
Background And Insight Into How
North Carolina Has Undertaken Its
Reforms
Developmental Education Initiative Update: Rethinking Developmental Math in North Carolina,
February 2011.
Get the Facts about the North Carolina system.
SuccessNC website, a system planning initiative
to double the number of students completing acredential by 2020.
North Carolina Mathematics Association of
Two-Year Colleges, Developmental Education
Initiative Math Redesign resources.
The Common Core State Standards
Common Core State Standards Initiative website.
California Department of Education, Common
Core State Standards Systems Implementation
Plan for California, January 2012.
Resources gathered by the California Department of Education.

Background And Insight Into How Virginia Has Undertaken Its Reforms

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

Asera R. Innovation At Scale: How Virginia Community Colleges Are Collaborating To Improve
Developmental Education and Increase Student
Success. Washington, DC: Jobs for the Future,
October 2011.

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium
website.

Virginia Community College System.

Perspectives On Test Design Issues

1. Fast Facts from the VCCS website.

Policy Analysis for California Education and theRennie Center for Education Research & Policy,
The Road Ahead for State Assessments, May 2011.

2. The Turning Point: Developmental Education in Virginia’s Community Colleges.
September 2009.

Resources gathered by the California Department of Education.

The Higher Education Connection

3. The Critical Point: Redesigning Developmental Mathematics Education in
Virginia’s Community Colleges. August
2010.

Conley D., et al., Reaching the Goal: The Applicability and Importance of the Common Core
State Standards to College and Career Readiness,
Educational Policy Improvement Center, 2011.

4. Curriculum Guide for Developmental
Mathematics: Units 1–9, With Basic Skills
Unit on Whole Numbers. February 2011.

Intersegmental Committee of the Academic Senates, Competencies Statements.

5. The Focal Point: Redesigning Developmental English Education in Virginia’s
Community Colleges. June 2011.
6. Curriculum Guide for Developmental
English. February 2012.
7. Jovanovich D. and Serbousek J., Presentation on Virginia’s developmental mathKing J., Implementing the Common Core State
Standards: An Action Agenda for Higher Education, Achieve, American Council on Education,and State Higher Education Executive Officers,
2011.

Acknowledgments
LearningWorks and EdSource thank the following people for their assistance and time during the development of
this report. Individuals listed with an asterisk (*) participated in a 30–60 minute interview by phone, either individually or with colleagues.

Julie Alexander,* Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs, Division of Florida
Colleges, Florida Department of Education
MaryAnne Anthony,* Community College Coordinator for the Mathematics Diagnostic Testing
Project (MDTP); Mathematics Department,
Santa Ana College (California)
Bruce Arnold, Director for the Mathematics
Diagnostic Testing Project (MDTP)
Rose Asera, independent researcher and evaluator
Shanna Autry,* Coordinator of Academic
Program Support, Division of Florida Colleges,
Florida Department of Education
Brad Bostian, Director for First-Year Experience,Central Piedmont Community College (North
Carolina)
Cassandra Brown,* Coordinator of Postsecondary Readiness, Division of Florida Colleges,
Florida Department of Education
Pamela Burdman,* independent consultant
Martha Campbell,* Dean of Communications, St.
Petersburg College (Florida)

Jimmy de la Torre,* Associate Professor, Rutgers,
The State University of New Jersey

Daniel C. Lewis, Director of Educational Programs, Virginia Community College System

Bonnie Edwards,* Telecommunications andTechnology, California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office

Mark Wade Lieu,* Academic Affairs Division,
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
OfficeCynthia D. Liston,* Associate Vice President for
Policy Research & Special Projects, North Carolina Community College System

Catherine Finnegan,* Assistant Vice Chancellor
for Institutional Effectiveness, Virginia Community College System

Sonia Ortiz-Mercado,* Student Services and Special Programs Division, California Community
Colleges Chancellor’s Office

Edward Haertel,* Jacks Family Professor of Education, Stanford University

David Morse,* English Department, Long Beach
City College (California)

Brice W. Harris, Chancellor, Los Rios Community College District (California)David Rattray,* Senior Vice President for Education and Workforce Development, Los Angeles
Area Chamber of Commerce

Katie Hern,* English Department, Chabot College (California)
Diane Hernandez,* Assessment Development &Administration Division, California Departmentof Education

Matthew Schultz,* Director of Psychometric
Services, McCann Associates
Deborah V.H. Sigman,* Deputy State Superintendent for Curriculum, Learning, and Accountability, California Department of Education

Katherine L. Hughes,* Assistant Director forWork and Education Reform Research, Community College Research Center at Teachers College,
Columbia University

Andrea Venezia, Project Director, WestEd
Eric Zilbert, Assessment Development & Administration Division, California Department of
Education

Jacqueline E. King,* Director of Higher Education Collaboration, Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

Creditsw w w. e d s o u r c e . o r g|

Photography

Dan Figueroa

DesignDonna Choiw w w. l e a r n i n g w o r k s c a . o r g

26