HOW ARE ASSESSMENT AND PLACEMENT POLICIESFOR DEVELOPMENTAL MATH DESIGNED AND
IMPLEMENTED IN CALIFORNIA COMMUNITYCOLLEGES?
Holly Kosiewicz, Tatiana Melguizo, George Prather, and Johannes M. Bos
This brief is a product of a larger study, the main objective of which is to evaluate theeffectiveness of math placement policies in the Los Angeles Community College District(LACCD) for entering community college students. The research was funded by a grant fromthe U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
SUMMARY
This policy brief describes how LACCD college administrators and math faculty design andimplement assessment and placement policies for developmental math in a decentralized
governance structure. In this description, we call attention to the complexities of designingeffective assessment and placement policies.

The majority of students who start their higher education at a community college enroll in one ormore developmental education courses to prepare for college-level work. Across the nation, six
out of ten community college students are assigned to either developmental math or English
courses or both (NCPPHE & SREB, 2010). Although a large percentage of students are placed
into developmental coursework, a significant proportion of them do not actually enroll in thesecourses and many others do not ultimately succeed in college-level work in spite of their efforts
in development education (Fong, Melguizo, & Prather, 2013). Researchers and policymakers arethus seeking to ensure that developmental education works to promote college success rather
than impede students’ progress through college.
To improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of developmental education, some studies
suggest that the way students are assessed and placed into developmental education is an area
where reform can take place. In this brief, we argue that understanding how these policies aredesigned and implemented, especially in states where decision-making occurs at the local level,is important to properly account for the multiple pressures and challenges community colleges
face when determining whether a student should take a developmental education course.
This policy brief answers two questions: How are assessment and placement policies for mathdesigned when decision-making power is given to local college administrators and faculty? Whatw w w. ro ssi e r. usc . e du|U SC R O SS IER

1

consequences result from leaving decision-making power over assessment and placement
policies to local colleges? We use the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) toanswer these questions for three reasons. First, local college administrators and faculty makedecisions over how students should be assessed and placed into developmental education.
Second, LACCD places roughly 60 percent of its students in at least one developmental
education course. Finally, the district collects student placement records for all nine colleges,
making it possible to link each college’s assessment and placement policies with information on
where a student was placed in the developmental math sequence.
METHODOLOGY
We drew on three types of data for our analysis. First, we conducted twenty-five interviews
with math faculty, directors of institutional research, and matriculation coordinators tounderstand the thinking behind the selection of placement instruments, the setting of cut
scores, and the choice of multiple measures. Second, we reviewed college documents toidentify cut points used to assign students to different developmental math courses. Third,
we analyzed student academic records to determine where students were placed in thedevelopmental math sequence in each of the nine colleges. All data stem from the 2005-06
to 2007-08 academic years.

SELECTING THE PLACEMENT INSTRUMENT
In California, administrators and faculty have considerable autonomy in determining which
instrument is used to assign students to developmental math education. In the 2011 Matriculation
Handbook, the California Community College Chancellor’s Office states that colleges can use awide range of tools, among them student interviews, standardized tests, attitude surveys, as wellas high school and college transcripts to determine developmental education placement. Collegesusing standardized tests must prove their test’s validity or select one of the following
commercially-available instruments: College Board’s ACCUPLACER/Companion test, ACT’sCOMPASS, UC/CSU’s MDTP (Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project), or CASAS(Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment Systems). During the period of our study, five of theLACCD colleges used ACCUPLACER, two used COMPASS, and two used MDTP.
SETTING CUT POINTS
Colleges also have the flexibility to set cut points that sort students into different courses in thedevelopmental education sequence. Faculty and administrators must set cut points for eachcourse in more than one subtest since different subtests can be used to assign students to thesame course. While cut points are used to place students into a particular course, they can also beused to refer students to a subtest that is more appropriate for their skill set. For example,students who score high on the least academically rigorous subtests may be referred to a more
rigorous, more discriminating one provided their score exceeds the cut point. All but one of theLACCD colleges used such a test level referral process for placement in math coursework during
the period of our investigation.
ww w . ros s i e r.u s c . e du|U SC R OS SI ER

2

STANDARDIZED PLACEMENT TESTSACCUPLACER and COMPASS are placement tests developed by the College Board and theACT, respectively. The MDTP is a diagnostic test developed jointly by the University ofCalifornia and California State University systems. All three tests are made up of multiple
subtests that differ in their academic content and rigor. They are also equipped to movestudents across subtests to determine which course best matches a student’s academic
abilities and skill set. Because ACCUPLACER and COMPASS are computer-adaptive,
students are navigated seamlessly between multiple subtests and feel like they are taking asingle test. Students who take the MDTP may have to schedule a second test appointment if
their initial test cannot adequately measure their math knowledge. Even though students may
answer questions from multiple subtests, placement is based on how well a student performs
on the last test.

SELECTING MULTIPLE MEASURESAs a result of a lawsuit against the California Community College Chancellor’s Officecommunity colleges are required to consider information other than a student’s assessment score
to determine course placement 1. “Multiple measures” were adopted to ensure that minority
students are not disproportionately placed into the lowest levels of the math sequence because ofpossible cultural bias in placement test instruments. Essentially, multiple measures give weightto other cognitive and non-cognitive factors that may contribute to student success. Among othermeasures, colleges can consider these types of factors for assignment to developmental
education: scores from additional standardized placement tests, writing samples, performancebased assessments, surveys and questionnaires, and past educational experience (CCCCO, 2011).
Multiple measures are created from selected questions on a student background questionnaire.
The inventory of questions and the specific wording of similar questions varied across thecolleges in the district. The most commonly used in math placement were those asking about thehighest-level math course students completed in high school and how recently they completedthat course. A few colleges used questions about students’ academic and life goals or noncognitive abilities in making placement decisions (see Ngo, Kwon, Melguizo, Prather, & Bos,
2013 for more details).
THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROCESS MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO DESIGNPOLICIES THAT MAXIMIZE SUCCESS
Reliance on Standardized Placement Tests
All nine colleges selected a standardized placement test from the state approved list to assess
students for developmental math, a practice that has existed for nearly three decades. Since high1In 1991, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) challenged the inequity of the Matriculation Act of 1986,
which mandated placement testing as a part of enrollment and matriculation services in community colleges. The lawsuit claimed that theCalifornia Community College Chancellor’s Office failed to monitor appropriate use of placement tests, resulting in large proportions of Latino
students being placed in remediation. The lawsuit was settled outside of court, but Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations was soon revised
to mandate the use of multiple measures in placement decisions. The goal was to reduce the “disproportionate impact” of placement tests on
different racial and ethnic groups.

ww w . ros s i e r.u s c . e du|U SC R OS SI ER

3

school transcripts are not required for admission, their use for placement purposes was notpractically feasible. 2 Unlike other placement approaches (e.g. reviews of high school coursetaking patterns and grades or self-placement), the design of standardized placement tests
facilitates quick enrollment, so much so that in most cases a student is able to enroll in theassigned course on the same day as he or she takes a placement test. Faculty and administrators
consider this feature attractive during periods of both declining and even stable enrollment, since
enrollment growth leads to increased funding. From our interviews, LACCD colleges have notseriously considered alternative placement approaches that might dramatically disrupt thisseamless flow from placement to enrollment or the current distribution of course offerings. On
the whole, faculty perceived standardized placement tests to be an inadequate mechanism toaccurately place students because they fail to capture other factors (e.g. effort, motivation) that
may also impact student progress and success. Many expressed openness about including
additional factors besides a placement score into placement decisions but voiced concern thatsuch an undertaking would have to be done efficiently. A small contingent of faculty preferredusing the MDTP instrument over the ACCUPLACER and COMPASS because it can provide
diagnostic information on a student’s abilities at no cost to the institution.
Identifying the Appropriate Cut Points
The standard for evaluating the effectiveness of placement rules is whether they create a class ofstudents sufficiently prepared to succeed in the assigned course. This is a requirement of the statematriculation regulations, which decree that placement tests have a specific correlation withstudent success. The regulations also outline several procedures that may be used to assist faculty
and administrators in establishing the appropriate cut points.
Colleges reported using several of these procedures. The most common approach employed bymath faculty members was to take the placement tests themselves and then come to an agreement
about which scores would indicate a student’s readiness for each course in the sequence. Even
though the state requires community colleges to periodically evaluate cut points, this requirement
is rarely enforced because of budget shortfalls.
Still, the colleges we visited tweaked the cut points they used to place students from time to time
to better adjust the placement of students to changes in the curriculum and in the overallcomposition of the student body. One frequently cited motivation was faculty dissatisfaction
with the preparation level of students enrolled in their particular courses. Other institutions
examined outcome data; they compared the success of students placed into a given level withthose who progressed to that level from the level below. Some also reported looking at the cut
points used by other colleges in the district to develop their own.
Choosing and Validating Multiple Measures
No regulation exists on the amount of weight community colleges should attribute to multiple
measures when determining a student’s placement. These decisions are left to college faculty andadministrators. It is perhaps unsurprising that most faculty and administrators perceived multiple
measures to be insignificant in determining placement, and as a result, giving students five points
2

Most colleges use a self-report of high school GPA and math success as a possible “multiple measure”.
ww w . ros s i e r.u s c . e du|

U SC R OS SI ER

4

at most based on their answers to multiple measures questions. 3 Although the questions used tocapture student background information for the multiple measures have occasionally beenrevised and do vary across the colleges, systematic evaluation of their effects is rare. Evidence
from Ngo, Kwon, Melguizo, Bos and Prather (2013) suggest that even though community
colleges attributed little weight to multiple measures, they nevertheless boosted a modest
proportion of students to a higher math level, contradicting the perception shared by faculty thatmultiple measures do not impact placement.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF DECENTRALIZED AUTHORITY OVER ASSESSMENT
AND PLACEMENT POLICIESStudents with similar math abilities are being placed differently

Test score

An inevitable consequence of granting
Figure 1. Cutoff points for arithmetic or pre-algebra
autonomy to colleges in determining
placement (Arithmetic subtest)
placement rules is that students with120
110
similar academic abilities may be
100placed differently into courses of the90
developmental math sequence. Figure 180
shows that students who scored a 40 on
7060
the Arithmetic subtest were placed into50
pre-algebra in College A; however
40
those same students would have been
3020
placed in arithmetic had they been
10
tested in College C. This variation in0
College A
College C
placement rules between two colleges inthe same district raises questions ofArithmeticPre-a lgebra
equity for the students they serve, butalso about whether such placement decisions reflect differences in curriculum and student needs
across the colleges.
Systematic comparison is difficult in a highly decentralized context
The multiple subtests in the assessment batteries, along with the use of three different testing
instruments across the district and much of the state, make it difficult to systematically compare
the distribution of student preparation within and across colleges. The jury is out but the crosscollege differences in student composition and preparation may not be large enough to justify theconsiderable differences in placement rules that we observed. Employing a single standard and asingle placement instrument that determine who is college-ready may help the State and districts
alike identify the extent to which students across California are prepared for college.
Unfortunately, this is a determination that should be made based on evidence that does not nowexist.

3

Score ranges for each ACCUPLACER subtest is 120; COMPASS is 100; MDTP is 50.
ww w . ros s i e r.u s c . e du|U SC R OS SI ER5

CONCLUSIONSLACCD faculty and administrators have a complex task in designing, implementing, andevaluating assessment and placement policies for developmental math. The complexities areamplified in California’s decentralized governance context. Not only do faculty andadministrators need to select proper placement instruments, they must also set and adjust cut
scores, and choose valid multiple measures. Some consequences of decentralized authority areevident: students of similar ability levels may be placed in different level courses at different
colleges, and system-wide comparison of student preparation and success is difficult.
Work toward a common placement instrument for California community colleges has begun.
Use of the placement instrument would be voluntary, but the costs would be borne by the stateand financial incentives for adoption would be substantial. It is anticipated that a statewide
database of assessment results would accompany the common testing instrument. In the selectionof the common instrument we would recommend that one criterion be the ability to calibrate
scores on individual subtests to a continuous scale across all subtests so that comparison of thedistribution of student preparation levels can be made.
References
California Community College Chancellor’s Office. (2011). Matriculation Handbook. Retrieved
from:http://www.cccco.edu/Portals/4/SS/Matric/Matriculation%20Handbook%20(REV.
%2009-2011).pdf
Fong, K., Melguizo, T., Prather, G., & Bos, J. M. (2013). A different view on how we understandprogress in developmental math. Los Angeles, CA: The University of Southern
California.
National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education & Southern Regional Education Board.
(2010). Beyond the Rhetoric: Improving College Readiness through Coherent StatePolicy. Washington, D.C.
Ngo, F., Kwon, W., Melguizo, T., Bos, J. M., & Prather, G. (2013). Course placement indevelopmental mathematics: Do multiple measures work? Los Angeles, CA: The
University of Southern California.

ww w . ros s i e r.u s c . e du|U SC R OS SI ER6