Achieving the Dream
Community Colleges Count

WHERE TO BEGIN?

THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMSFOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGEBY PAMELA BURDMAN

AUGUST 2012

Achieving the Dream
Community Colleges Count

Achieving the Dream, Inc. is a national nonprofit that is dedicated to helping
more community college students, particularly low-income students andstudents of color, stay in school and earn a college certificate or degree.
Evidence-based, student-centered, and built on the values of equity andexcellence, Achieving the Dream is closing achievement gaps and accelerating
student success nationwide by: 1) guiding evidence-based institutional change;
2) influencing public policy; 3) generating knowledge; and 4) engaging the
public. Conceived as an initiative in 2004 by Lumina Foundation and sevenfounding partner organizations, today Achieving the Dream leads the nation’s
most comprehensive non-governmental reform network for student success inhigher education history. With nearly 200 colleges, 100 coaches and advisors,and 15 state policy teams—working throughout 32 states and the District ofColumbia—Achieving the Dream helps 3.75 million community college students
have a better chance of realizing greater economic opportunity and achieving
their dreams.
WWW.ACHIEVINGTHEDREAM.ORG

Jobs for the Future aligns education with today’s high-demand careers.
With its partners, JFF develops policy solutions and new pathways leadingfrom college readiness to career advancement for struggling and low-income
populations in America.
WWW.JFF.ORG

MDC’s mission is to help organizations and communities close the gapsthat separate people from opportunity. It has been publishing researchand developing programs in education, government policy, workforce
development, and asset building for more than 40 years. MDC was the
managing partner of Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count for six
years and was responsible for its incubation as a national nonprofit. It is also
the managing partner of the Developmental Education Initiative.
WWW.MDCINC.ORG

PHOTOGRAPHY : ©2010 Mary Beth Meehan, ©2008 Community College of Baltimore County,©2004 Community College of Denver

The Developmental Education Initiative consists of 15 Achieving the Dream
community colleges that are building on demonstrated results to scale up
developmental education innovations at their institutions. Six states arecommitted to further advancement of their Achieving the Dream statepolicy work in the developmental education realm. Managed by MDC withfunding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Lumina Foundation, theinitiative aims to expand groundbreaking remedial education programs thatexperts say are key to dramatically boosting the college completion rates of
low-income students and students of color. The innovations developed by thecolleges and states participating in the Developmental Education Initiative
will help community colleges understand what programs are effective in
helping students needing developmental education succeed and how todeliver these results to even more students.
WWW.DEIONLINE.ORG

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Pamela Burdman is a Chicago-based consultant working with foundations
and nonprofits on efforts to improve college readiness and success. She
has worked as a journalist, foundation officer, and policy analyst, with
an emphasis on higher education policy in California and nationally. As aprogram officer for four years with The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation,
she developed and implemented the foundation’s grantmaking strategy to
improve student success in California’s community colleges. She began her
career as a staff writer at the San Francisco Chronicle. Her articles haveappeared in The New York Times, San Jose Mercury News, San Francisco
Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Salon, Lingua Franca, Change, National Crosstalk,and the Far Eastern Economic Review, as well as publications by the Institutefor College Access and Success and the Spencer Foundation. She is the authorof the JFF report Testing Ground: How Florida Schools and Colleges Are Usinga New Assessment to Increase College Readiness.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
In addition to participating in JFF’s May 2012 convening on assessment,
numerous community college leaders and state officials made themselves
available for follow-up inquiries to help ensure this policy brief would be
accurate and up to date. In particular, the author would like to thank Brad
Bostian of Central Piedmont Community College for his admirable patience
in responding to inquiries about North Carolina’s practices and Shanna Smith
Jaggars of the Community College Research Center for addressing questions
about research findings. I also thank Lara Couturier, Richard Kazis, Gretchen
Schmidt, and Katrina Reichert of Jobs for the Future for their dedication andcollaboration.

W H E R E T O BEG IN ?
T HE E VOLV I N G R O L E O F P L AC EM E N T EX A M S FORS T U D E NT S S TA R TIN G C O L L E G E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY						

viiSHIFTING GROUND:RESEARCH REVELATIONS SHAKE UP REMEDIAL REFORM		

1

SOUL SEARCHING: TESTS BECOME A FOCUS OF INNOVATION		

3

RESEARCH CHALLENGES ASSUMPTIONS				

5

Placement Exams Are High-stakes Tests				6

The Effectiveness of Traditional Developmental
Education Is Unclear						

6Acceleration Strategies Look Promising				

7

Placement Exams Are Weak Predictors				8

Assessments Provide a Myopic Picture of College Readiness8

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR PLACEMENT EXAMS				

10

Downplaying the Tests:
Systems Reduce Reliance on Placement Scores			11		

Multiple Measures						11

		Test Waivers

					

12

		

Mainstreaming with Support				13

		Program-specific Placement				13

		Informed Self-placement					

14Changing the Tests: Systems Seek Better Assessments		

15

		

Customized or Aligned Assessments				

15

		Diagnostic Assessments					

15

		Assessments of Key Cognitive Strategies

		

16

		

Non-cognitive Assessments				16

Supporting Students Around Tests:
Systems Change Practices and Conditions			

17		College-readiness Tests in High School			17		

Senior-year Transitional Courses				18

		

Test Preparation Assistance				18

		Counseling and Advising					

19THINKING ABOUT INNOVATIONS IN PLACEMENT AND ASSESSMENT

20

Cost								

20Time							

20Validity							

21Tensions and Tradeoffs					

22THE NEXT ROUND OF RESEARCH					

24A CHANGE OF HEART						

25ENDNOTES							

26REFERENCES							

27JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

v

vi

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

EX EC U T I V E S U M M ARY
For years, colleges have used placement exams to determine whether to deem incoming students “college ready”
or assign them to developmental education. But emerging information reveals the tests have little correlation
to students’ future success, casting doubt on their use even as the high stakes for students of taking remedialcourses become clear. Educators are rethinking whether the tests are fair and wondering if their traditional use
constitutes a barrier to college completion.

For many states, efforts to strengthen the college readiness of high school graduates and improve college completion
rates have created pressure to develop a coherent statewide policy framework for placement assessment. Systems are
exploring reforms that range from adopting new tests and deemphasizing test scores to creating new policies for test
preparation and administration. As they do, they seek guidance and models.
In spring 2012, Jobs for the Future convened state officials and community college leaders—including representatives
from the Achieving the Dream, Developmental Education Initiative, and Completion by Design state policy networks—todiscuss research and innovations in placement and assessment and how they might help improve outcomes for students
traditionally served by developmental education. Supplementing those discussions with interviews and analysis, Where
to Begin? explores the various ways states and systems are grappling with new, sometimes confusing, information aboutplacement exams as part of broader student success initiatives.

RESEARCH CHALLE N GES ASS UMPTIO N S
While changes in placement testing policies have come about through a variety of motives and mechanisms, many havebeen informed by new research. A plethora of studies on a range of topics related to student success has chipped away
at many assumptions long shaping thinking about college readiness, creating a new narrative about how best to serve
students.
While the traditional narrative casts placement exams as low-stakes tests that help students by ensuring they takethe appropriate classes, the new narrative emphasizes the role of colleges in facilitating student progress toward
graduation. The reform narrative, which underscores the high-stakes nature of consigning students to noncredit
remedial sequences with unclear effectiveness, is comprised of five key elements:
Placement exams are high-stakes tests. Research challenges the traditional notion that placement exams are lowstakes tests, affecting at most a few courses a student takes. In fact, placement into a developmental course can affect a
student’s entire educational trajectory, putting additional barriers in the way of a college education.
The effectiveness of traditional developmental education is unclear. Students placed into developmental classes areunlikely to complete college. That has been considered the result of poor preparation, but there is increasing scrutiny
about whether the developmental experience improves student outcomes.
Accelerating some students through or out of developmental courses seems promising. According to early
evaluations, some experiments with condensing students’ time in developmental courses have led to better outcomes forsome students.
Placement exams are weak predictors of success in gateway courses. In fact, high school grades do a better job. Of
particular concern are findings that many students required to take remedial classes could have succeeded in collegelevel coursework.
Math and English assessments provide at best a narrow picture of students’ readiness for college. Placement tests
do not measure many of the skills needed for college success—including persistence, motivation, and critical thinking.
And only some students need most of the assessed math skills.
The system of placing and remediating students appears to have veered away from its intended goals. Still, it is one
thing to realize this and another to determine how changes in placement policies and exams figure into broader
JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

vii

developmental reforms. Three broad categories of innovations are being explored: downplaying the tests; changing thetests; and supporting students around the tests.

DOW NPLAYING TH E T E STS
While no state has stopped using placement tests altogether, many are making them less prescriptive or becoming lessstringent about requiring students to be assessed. This downgrading takes several forms:
Multiple measures: In most states, test scores constitute the only basis for assigning students to remedial classes.
Systems are now implementing or considering adding high school grades and other measures.
Test waivers: While waiving placement tests based on high SAT or ACT scores has been common, systems are
considering high school performance and other additional grounds for placing students directly into college-levelcourses.
Also being explored are practices such as mainstreaming students into college-level courses with extra support, basing
placement on students’ academic goals, and allowing them to make their own placement decisions.

CHANG ING THE T E STS
Several states are considering new assessment instruments to bolster efforts to improve students’ preparation in highschool as well as their outcomes in college. Systems are seeking several key features in these assessments and looking
past off-the-shelf assessments to those that are customized for each state.
Customized assessments: Several states are adopting assessments aligned with their curricula.
Diagnostic assessments: These could offer more information on students’ strengths and weaknesses than traditional
cutoff scores. However, states vary in how they define “diagnostic.”
Colleges and systems are also exploring whether they can better help students by assessing cognitive strategies (e.g.,
critical thinking, problem solving) as well as non-cognitive factors (e.g., persistence, motivation).

S UPPORTING STUD E N T S ARO UN D T E ST S
Concerns about high developmental education enrollments also drive changes in policies related to test preparation andtesting conditions. Systems and colleges are exploring strategies to ensure that rusty skills or a bad day do not relegate
students to remedial courses they may not need.
College-readiness tests and courses in high school: Some systems have adopted programs or policies for eleventh
graders to take college placement tests, based on the theory that the tests send a signal to high schools about the
preparation students need.
Other test preparation assistance: Many students do not realize the high stakes of placement tests; also, severeplacement errors are common. These facts suggest that some students could bypass developmental education if theybrushed up on their skills in math or English. Colleges experimenting with this approach report early success.

T H E NEX T ROUN D O F RE SEARCH
As colleges and systems make choices—on their own or as a result of legislative mandates—the field will need greater
understanding about how the new policies are implemented as well as about their results. Key questions for researchers
include:> Are the new customized assessments more predictive of student performance than the off-the-shelf tests of thepast?

> Do efforts to better prepare students and increase awareness of the high-stakes nature of placement tests lead tohigher scores and better predictive value?

> What strategies best serve underprepared students?

viii

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

S H I F T I N G G ROU N D :R E S E A R C H R EV ELATIO N S SHAK E U P
R E M E DI A L R EF O RM
REPEATEDLY, POLICYMAKERS HAVE QUESTIONED THE VALUE OF COLLEGE-LEVEL
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION. RE-TEACHING HIGH SCHOOL MATERIAL TO COLLEGESTUDENTS SOUNDS LIKE A POOR USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND STUDENT TIME,
WHATEVER THE REALITY. THE NEGATIVE CONNOTATION OF ITS MORE COMMON
NAME—REMEDIAL EDUCATION—DOESN’T HELP. YET, DESPITE ITS LOW ESTEEM
AND ATTEMPTS TO ABOLISH IT, REMEDIAL EDUCATION CONTINUES TO BE A FIXTURE
OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION, ITS UNDERLYING STRUCTURE REMARKABLYUNCHANGED. IN MOST STATES, STUDENTS ENROLLING IN PUBLIC HIGHEREDUCATION TAKE PLACEMENT EXAMS, AFTER WHICH LARGE NUMBERS OF THEM
ARE ASSIGNED TO REMEDIAL COURSES.
Consider the City University of New York’s high-profile attempt to phase out
remedial instruction, beginning in the mid-1990s. Since then, the overall
proportion of entering students requiring developmental education has only
risen. 1 The difference is that today’s students must take developmental
courses at two-year, not four-year, campuses. At CUNY and elsewhere, remedial
education policies may have changed, but the underlying reality has stayed
the same: Large and growing proportions of incoming college students
require developmental courses, and increasingly, community colleges bear
responsibility for serving them. At two-year colleges nationally, some 60
percent of recent high school graduates and 42 percent of all students takeremedial or developmental courses (Bailey 2009; Parsad & Lewis 2003).
More recently, these grim statistics have driven new initiatives aimed atstrengthening student success: On the one hand, adoption of college-readinessstandards in K-12 by many states is intended to improve the preparation of
students before they reach college, reducing the need for remediation. On
the other hand, higher education institutions, policymakers, and foundations
intent on improving college graduation rates are investing in redesigning thevery developmental education sequences that present a barrier for so many
students.
However, just as these efforts to tackle developmental education from bothends appear to be taking root, the ground is shifting in altogether new
ways, creating fissures in some of the bedrock assumptions underlying
developmental education. With education reformers keenly focused on remedial
education, new research using longitudinal data systems questions the efficacy
and fairness of the very tests on which the system of remedial education relies.

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

1Rather than a support to ensure that students take the courses they need,testing policies could pose an unnecessary obstacle to student progression.
How colleges and systems react to this new knowledge could redefine the roleof developmental education for years to come—or speed up the demise somehave long advocated.
Those responses are playing out as higher education officials strain to keep
pace with the winds of reform. In most states, the conversations center oncommunity colleges, though some also involve four-year institutions. With moststates adopting the new Common Core State Standards as well as new goals
for college attainment, addressing developmental education is becoming astatewide imperative with little time to waste. 2
Traditionally, placement policies in most states were determined at theinstitution level, and often practices varied widely. More recently, pressure
to develop a coherent placement assessment policy framework has madeplacement policy a state-level issue in a growing number of states, with college
systems involved in Achieving the Dream among the leaders of this trend(Collins 2008). The reforms that systems are exploring range from adopting
new tests and deemphasizing test scores to creating new policies for test
preparation and administration. And system leaders are eagerly looking for
guidance and models from other states.
This interest was on display in spring 2012 when Jobs for the Future convened
state officials and community college officials in Boston. Representatives fromthe Achieving the Dream, Developmental Education Initiative, and Completion
by Design state policy networks discussed the latest research and innovations
in placement and assessment and their role in improving outcomes for students
traditionally served by developmental education. (See the inside front cover for
information on these initiatives.)
Where to Begin? supplements JFF’s meeting with additional interviews andanalysis to explore the various ways states—and especially community college
systems—are grappling with new and sometimes confusing information aboutplacement exams. They are experimenting, innovating, and changing direction,even as economic challenges loom large. The report also highlights some of the
choices and tradeoffs that education policy leaders seeking a rational college
placement system ultimately will need to face.

2

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

T H E R E F O R MS T H AT
SYST E MS A R E E XP L O R I N G
RANGE FROM ADOPTINGN E W T E ST S A N D
D E E MP H A SI Z I N G T E S TSC O R E S TO C R E AT IN G
NEW POLICIES FORT E ST P R E PA R AT I O N A N D
A D MI N I ST R AT I O N . A N DSYST E M L E A D E R S A R E
E AG E R LY L O O K I N G F O R
G U I DA N C E A N D MOD E L S
F R O M OT H E R STAT E S .

SO U L SE A R C H I N G :TESTS B E C O M E A FO C U S OF IN N O VATIO N
For years, public colleges and universities have used placement exams to determine whether to deem incoming
students “college ready” or assign them to remedial courses. But emerging information reveals that the tests havelittle correlation to students’ future success, casting doubt on their use even as the high stakes for students of taking
remedial courses are becoming clear. The idea that tests with modest predictive validity could be inhibiting students’progress is giving pause to many educators who have long put their faith in them. They are rethinking whether the tests
are fair to students and wondering if their traditional use actually constitutes a barrier to improving college completion.
Among the North Carolina Community Colleges, soul-searching about the supremacy of test scores is well under way.
Like individual colleges and college systems in many states, North Carolina has developed goals for improving college
completion. As part of the SuccessNC initiative, the state’s community colleges set a target of increasing the percentage
of students who transfer, complete credentials, or remain continuously enrolled after six years.
As an early Achieving the Dream state that went on to join the Developmental Education Initiative, North Carolina
already had a policy team working toward the ultimate goal of improving completion rates of students requiring
developmental education. As part of that effort, the system commissioned a study of the efficacy of test scores and highschool grades for placing students into developmental education. “We had known for a while that the placement testscores probably weren’t the best measure,” said Van Wilson, the system’s associate vice president for student learningand success. Like most college systems in the country, though, North Carolina was basing most placement decisions on
those very scores.
Despite the cognizance that, like admissions, placement should not be based on test scores and high school grades
alone, college leaders were unprepared for what the study, conducted by the Community College Research Center(CCRC), found: It showed that high school grades were a much better predictor of student success in college thanplacement test scores. In addition, up to one-third of students were found to be “severely mis-assigned” using placement
test results, and that error rate could be cut in half by using high school grades instead of test scores (Belfield & Crosta2012). 3“When the results of that study were delivered to the presidents, chief academic officers, system office administrators,
and faculty on the [Developmental Education Initiative] state policy team, their jaws just dropped,” said Wilson. They
weren’t sure whether to keep the test, change it, or replace it with high school grades.
That news came toward the end of 2011, amid a flurry of activity at North Carolina colleges related to college readinessand success. Faculty teams around the state were redesigning developmental math courses as part of the system’s
involvement in the Developmental Education Initiative. Leaders at five colleges were developing plans for new pathways
to maximize students’ chances of completing credentials as part of the new Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-funded
Completion by Design initiative. And conversations were ongoing with both K-12 and the University of North Carolina
system about creating seamless pathways that spanned the entire education system. Changing the college system’splacement exam could unsettle all of these projects. But keeping it meant that those efforts would be based on afoundation that seemed to college leaders less and less sound.
Around the same time, officials in other states were also in various stages of weighing or implementing changes to theirplacement exams:> In Connecticut , a Democratic state senator was contemplating introducing legislation for the 2012 session thatwould strike an even stronger blow to placement exams. As part of an effort to increase the number of Connecticut
residents with a college degree, Senator Beth Bye was working on “open access” legislation that would bar colleges
and universities from offering any remedial courses and potentially eliminate placement testing altogether.

> Both Florida and Virginia’s community college systems were implementing new, customized placement assessments
developed with faculty input and aligned with each state’s curriculum. In each case, the new test had become acentral element in the system’s developmental education reform efforts (Burdman 2011; Asera 2011).
JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

3

> The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board was responding to a legislative mandate to adopt a single readinessstandard for college-level work in the state’s community colleges by soliciting proposals from vendors to develop a
new placement test.

> In California , following passage of a law to create a common statewide community college placement tool, alegislatively mandated student success task force was recommending that the common instrument provide theability to diagnose the academic needs of students. (However, neither the legislature nor the task force had
identified funding for a new test.)

MOTIVES AND MECHANISMS
Changes to community college system placement exams or placement policies have been motivated by a variety ofpriorities and initiated via a range of mechanisms. Here are some examples:
Motives for changing placement policies generally relate to improving success for underprepared students (orbetter preparing students for college). They include an interest in:> Better alignment with a system’s curriculum (e.g., after curriculum redesign);> Better alignment with K-12 (and the ability to send clear signals);> A common standard across colleges;> Diagnostic information to assign students to developmental education modules;> Diagnostic information to improve instruction in developmental education generally; and> Interest in more accurate placement (i.e., better predictive validity).
Mechanisms or strategies for bringing about change often begin with system or legislative interest in student
success. Change may come via a policy mandate or through the establishment of a commission or task force thatinvolves college leaders and instructors in recommending new policies. Examples include:> A state-level commission (Florida);> A system-level initiative or committee (Virginia, North Carolina);> State legislation (Texas, Connecticut); and> A legislatively mandated, system-level task force (California).

4

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGERESEA R C H C H A LLE N G ES
ASSU MP T I O N S
While changes in colleges’ placement exam policies have come about througha variety of motives and mechanisms, new understanding about the exams
themselves and the placement process has informed these decisions. Since
2004, when foundations began investing in Achieving the Dream along withother community college reform initiatives, two-year colleges have been thefocus of a plethora of research studies on a range of topics related to student
success. In that time, evidence has chipped away at many of the assumptions
that have long shaped colleges’ thinking about college readiness. As thesefindings seep into the consciousness of faculty and administrators, a new
narrative about how to serve students with weak preparation is emerging.
The new narrative sees the role of colleges as facilitating student progress
toward graduation. This presents a direct challenge to the traditional notion ofcolleges enforcing standards to prevent unworthy students from enrolling or
earning degrees. The traditional narrative casts placement exams as low-stakes
tests that are by and large helpful to students by ensuring that they take theappropriate level classes. The reform narrative underscores the high-stakes
nature of consigning students to noncredit remedial sequences with unknown
effectiveness, especially in light of new evidence that many of those students
might do just as well or better without remediation.
Currently, the traditional and reform narratives both have adherents within
higher education. 4 However, with attention to graduation and attainment rates
rising, the reform line clearly is attracting attention. It is comprised of five key
elements that derive from the research literature:

T H E N E W N A R R AT IV E S E E S
T H E R O L E O F C O L LE G E S
A S FA C I L I TAT I N G S T U D E N T
P R O G R E SS TO WA R D
G R A D UAT I O N , P R E S E N T I N G
A D I R E C T C H A L L E NG E TO
T H E T R A D I T I O N A L N OT I O N
OF COLLEGES ENFORCINGSTA N DA R D S TO P R E V E N T
U N W O RT H Y ST U D E N T S F R O M
E N R O L L I N G O R E AR N I N G
D E G R E E S.

> Placement exams are high-stakes tests.
> The effectiveness of traditional developmental education is unclear.
> Accelerating some students through or out of developmental courses seems
promising.

> Placement exams are weak predictors of gateway course success; highschool grades do a better job.

> Math and English assessments provide at best a narrow picture of students’college readiness—and some assessed skills may not be needed by manycollege students.

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

5RESEARCH WRITES A NEW NARRATIVE ABOUT PLACEMENT TESTSTRADITIONAL NARRATIVEREFORM NARRATIVE

Placement exams are low-stakes tests.

Placement exams are high-stakes tests.

Developmental education helps underprepared students

The effectiveness of traditional developmental education

succeed in college.

is unclear.

Students cannot successfully skip recommended

Accelerating some students through or out ofdevelopmental courses.

developmental courses seems promising.

Placement exams predict whether students can succeed inPlacement exams are weak predictors of gateway course

college-level classes.

success; high school grades do a better job.

The math and English skills assessed by placement exams

Math and English assessments provide at best a narrow(and taught in remedial courses) are critical to college

picture of students’ college readiness—and some assessed

success.

skills may not be needed by all college students.

PLACEMENT EXAMS ARE HIGH-STAKES TESTSThe notion that a single test score should not be used to make high-stakes decisions has been a standard of thetesting industry for years. 5 In making admissions decisions, for example, selective colleges at a minimum tend to lookat students’ test scores and high school grades. Research has long shown that high school grades do a better job ofpredicting how students will fare in college than do admissions tests (Geiser & Studley 2003; Geiser & Santelices 2007).
When it comes to course placement at less selective schools (many of which do not use admissions tests at all), tests
have dominated. Until recently, most colleges have used cutoff scores in English and math to determine whether
students are college ready or to place them into multiple levels of developmental education. For some systems, thosecutoff scores are set by state policy, reinforcing their importance for colleges. With little research on the topic, it has
been easy to view college placement as a low-stakes issue. Whether a student has to take an extra course or even a few
never seemed as important an issue as, say, which colleges he or she could attend.
Recent research challenges that assumption. A study by CCRC found that nearly one-third of students assigned
to developmental education did not complete their developmental sequence because they never enrolled in adevelopmental course—not because they could not handle the coursework. Roughly another 10 percent—students who
were required to take more than one developmental course—passed at least one course but did not take the next coursein the sequence (Bailey, Jeong, & Cho 2010).
This suggests that placement into a remedial course (and in particular a sequence of courses) may have a significant
impact on students’ trajectories by placing additional hurdles in their way. Additional research by WestEd reveals thatmany students have no idea that the exams could lengthen their pathways toward a degree. “Students in California’scommunity colleges generally experience assessment and placement not as a process for which they begin preparing
in high school, but as a single event—a one-shot deal, with pivotal consequences, for which many feel uninformed andunderprepared,” wrote the authors (Venezia, Bracco, & Nodine 2010). Like colleges, students have assumed the stakes
are low, the test merely a formality. In effect, whether for students or for colleges, placement exams until recently havebeen high-stakes tests masquerading as low-stakes tests.

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TR ADITION AL DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATIONIS UNCLEAR
Longitudinal studies are showing that students who are placed into developmental classes have a very low likelihoodof ever completing college. While that has been considered the result of poor preparation (and possibly a discouraging
or “cooling out” effect of low placement), there is increasing scrutiny about whether the developmental experience
improves student outcomes. Several studies have found that students taking developmental courses fare no better interms of transfer or degree outcomes than similar students who do not take the courses. And in one case, reading in
6

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

Florida, assignment to remediation actually had a negative effect on thoseoutcomes (Bailey 2009).
These studies do not provide evidence that remedial education does not work.
Another explanation could be that colleges are not placing the right students
into the courses. However, the research does raise serious questions. As areview of the research noted, “Developmental education costs students, thecolleges, and the public sector real resources, and in any case it exists tostrengthen the outcomes for students—concluding that developmental students
do as well as similar students who go directly into college courses is not goodenough and suggests that remediation wastes money and time” (Bailey 2009).
Though there have been few studies on teaching in remedial courses, one
recent study suggests a need to improve instruction. According to researchin California by W. Norton Grubb and colleagues, the courses typically involve“drill and practice . . . on small sub-skills . . . that most students have beentaught many times before, in decontextualized ways that fail to clarify tostudents the reasons for or the importance of these sub-skills” (Grubb, et al.
2011b). Grubb notes that there is some evidence supporting more studentcentered pedagogical approaches such as learning communities, contextualized
instruction, and Reading Apprenticeship, and that many other innovations
being pursued have not been fully evaluated (Grubb, et al. 2011c).

ACCELER ATION STR ATEGIES LOOK PROMISING
Concerned about increasing completion rates, colleges around the country
are experimenting with various ways of accelerating students’ progress bycondensing their time in remedial courses. And research is beginning to showthat these programs have promise. Students who are placed into shorter
remedial sequences (versus longer sequences covering the same material) are
more likely to take and pass math and English gatekeeper courses, according
to research at the City University of New York, Chabot College, and Community
College of Denver. Among the explanations for the better results are:accelerated sequences have fewer exit points and, therefore, fewer chances
for diversion or discouragement; exposure to more rigorous coursework may

COLLEGES AROUNDT H E C O U N T RY A R E
E XP E R I ME N T I N G WI T H
VA R I O U S WAYS O FA C C E L E R AT I N G ST U D E N T S ’
P R O G R E SS B Y C O N D E N S I N G
T H E I R T I ME I N R E M E D I A L
C O U R SE S.

help motivate students; and the students may have been under-placed by testscores, meaning they are required by either college- or state-level policy totake remedial classes even though they could have succeeded in college-levelcoursework (Hodara & Jaggars 2012; Jaggars 2012).
In addition, some programs that place students into college-level courses—andprovide them with structured supports—such as the Accelerated Learning
Program at the Community College of Baltimore County, appear successful andcost-effective for students who test into the highest level of developmental
education (Jenkins, et al. 2010). Yet the research is preliminary. “While theempirical basis for acceleration is not as strong as is desirable, existing
evidence suggests that there are a variety of models of course redesign andmainstreaming that community colleges can employ to enhance student
outcomes,” according to a recent review of the research literature (Edgecombe2010). In addition, the research does not point to strategies for serving
severely underprepared students. Still, early experiments appear promisingenough that reformers are embarking on a plethora of initiatives that will, in
turn, ideally provide new data for researchers.
JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

7

PLACEMENT EXAMS ARE WEAK PREDICTORSWith all that evidence accumulating, there was already significant questioning about common practices for remedial
placement. The new narrative was further strengthened with the release of a literature review showing the weakness ofthe evidence for placement exams, followed by the publication of two quantitative analyses showing that they are weakpredictors of college success (Hughes & Scott-Clayton 2010; Belfield & Crosta 2012; Scott-Clayton 2012).
Of particular concern were findings that many students are “under-placed.” As with the North Carolina study, the newly
published analyses found that, compared to placement test scores, high school grades used alone would increase thesuccess rates of those going directly into college-level courses, reduce the severe error rates in terms of students who
appear under-placed, and increase rates of immediate college-level success. The findings apply to both math and English
but are more pronounced in English, where test scores explained less than 2 percent of the variation in freshman English
grades. The most recent study found that combining high school grades with test scores offered the best predictive
value, a finding that mirrors what researchers have been saying for years about admissions tests (Geiser & Santelices2007).
Likewise, studies have found that faculty’s biggest complaint about assessments is that they provide no diagnostic
information to help instructors understand students’ strengths and weaknesses. “We’re taking someone who may have
had a bad day and making them take three semesters of remediation,” one faculty member told researchers (Grubb,
et al. 2011a).

ASSESSMENTS PROVIDE A MYOPIC PICTURE OF COLLEGE READINESSHistorically, placement test scores have been a proxy for students’ college readiness. But increasingly the fieldis realizing that college readiness is not a cutoff score (or two). 6 Besides the limitations of tests for measuring
students’ competency in math and English, colleges are beginning to embrace a more robust understanding of college
readiness. Typically cited is David Conley’s definition, which grew out of a study involving 400 university faculty andstaff identifying the skills that students need for college success. Through subsequent research, the definition has
been refined into what Conley now calls the Four Keys to College and Career Readiness (Conley 2007, 2012). At best,
standardized tests measure two of the four, as shown in the table below. Educators and policymakers are increasinglyinterested in psychosocial or non-cognitive factors—that is, behaviors such as academic persistence and motivationthat shape students’ ability to learn. 7 Under a more expansive definition of college readiness, the portion assessed byplacement tests appears narrow indeed.

FOUR KEYS TO COLLEGE AND CAREER READINESSKEY
Key Content
Knowledge

DESCRIPTIONMEASURABLE BY STANDARDIZEDTESTS?

Terms, facts, concepts, ideas, etc.

Yes.

Key Cognitive

Strategies such as hypothesizing, analyzing,

Strategies

evaluating, organizing, communicating
Skills and behaviors including persistence,Yes—but not all placement exams assess these.
Not really. Assessments exist to measure some

Key Learning Skills motivation, goal setting, note taking (similar

aspects (but tests used to assess math andand Techniques

to non-cognitive skills or social-emotional

English skills do not measure). High school GPA

learning)

is considered a good proxy.

Key Transition
Knowledge andSkillsPostsecondary awareness (e.g., application andfinancial aid processes; course selection and

No. Tests used to assess math and English skills

academic planning) and skills (previously called

generally do not measure.

College Knowledge)

SOURCE : Conley 2012.

8

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

And even within the content areas assessed by the tests, there are growing questions about whether the tests’content aligns with the math skills that students need. The greatest concern is in math because of the great obstacle
developmental math courses pose to students who are required to take them. The relatively high proportion of students
requiring math remediation and the relatively low rates of success in these courses combine to make placement indevelopmental math one of the biggest barriers to successful college completion. 8
Until recently, colleges viewed this as a problem requiring more math instruction. More recently, educators are starting
to challenge the standard approach to math remediation, starting with the very math that students are expected tolearn. There is growing thinking—though far from a consensus—among researchers who study math education that not
all students need the science-oriented math curriculum that is still required in many states. As one overview of new
developments in the field said:

Although little systematic work has been published in this area, some studies suggest that less than a quarterof all majors require rigorous preparation in calculus. Moreover, a recent study of the use of mathematics in theworkplace found that only about one fifth of jobs—including high-paying white-collar jobs—require more than adeep knowledge of middle school mathematics (Cullinane & Treisman 2010).
Not only is better instruction required, the argument goes, but also a different curriculum—one that emphasizes
statistics and quantitative reasoning rather than algebra and calculus. If indeed the science-oriented courses are notnecessary for most students to succeed in college and careers, maintaining them as a requirement needlessly holds
back large numbers of students. Based on such insights, dozens of colleges around the country are participating inresearch and development projects with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Dana Centerat the University of Texas. They are redesigning their math curricula into new pathways oriented toward statistics andquantitative literacy, with names such as Statway, Quantway, and Mathways. 9

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

9N EW D I R E C T I O N S FORP L AC EME N T E X A M S
The preponderance of evidence suggests that the system of placing andremediating students has veered away from its intended goals. Still, it is one
thing to realize this and another to determine how changes in placement exams
figure into a broader remedial reform. Developmental education reforms are
increasingly being pursued as statewide policy initiatives, not just individualcollege projects, underscoring the challenges of addressing academic issues
such as testing at the state level. Besides the obvious hurdle of developing
innovations that administrators and faculty embrace, there is no template forwhat those innovations should be or how to implement them.
Furthermore, placement exams have a very complicated job. Ideally, they shouldalign with both the higher education curriculum as well as the state’s highschool curriculum. They need to assess students coming from high school aswell as those coming from adult education or the workforce. And, in at least a
few states, they identify those students whose skills are not strong enough fordevelopmental education and therefore require Adult Basic Education instead.
Not surprisingly, the response to the emerging research is far from uniform.
For some, the accumulation of evidence calls into question the whole enterpriseof developmental education and the assessments upon which it hinges. In

Connecticut , while legislators did not eliminate placement exams, a newlaw passed in May 2012 will drastically reduce remedial offerings starting in
2014. Only severely underprepared students will be eligible to take remedialcoursework, and it will be limited to one semester.
For others, it suggests reforming the existing system rather than eliminating
it altogether. North Carolina college leaders decided that the success of their
ongoing innovations would be in doubt if colleges continued to rely on their
existing placement tests. “Our presidents were very clear that with the datathat they had received from CCRC they did not want to continue the practiceof misplacing students,” recalled Wilson. “That was our starting point to know
we had to start doing things differently. We were jeopardizing the success of somany students because the tools we were using were not effective.”
The Developmental Education Initiative team that reviewed the placement study
recently decided to commission a new test that will be better aligned with thestate’s curriculum as well as ongoing reforms. The system has signed a contract
with the College Board to develop a customized diagnostic assessment that
goes beyond multiple-choice items to include interactive questions designed toassess performance and proficiency.
But at least as important as replacing the test itself, the system is consideringchanges to how colleges use the test for placement. 10 A multiple measurescommittee of the Developmental Education Initiative team is looking at highschool grades and other measures that the system might ask colleges to use inaddition to test scores. The team is also wondering how non-cognitive factors
can be weighed.

10

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

P L A C E ME N T E XA M S H AV E
A VE RY C O MP L I C AT E D J O B .
I D E A L LY, T H E Y SH O U L D
A L I G N W I T H B OT H T H E
H I G H E R E D U C AT I ON
C U R R I C U L U M A S WE L L A S
T H E STAT E ’ S H I G H S C H O O LC U R R I C U L U M.

Around the country, states and colleges are asking similar questions. While the new assessments may have attracted themost attention, systems are also adopting practices to reduce the weight of test scores or change the conditions underwhich students prepare for or take the tests. Many of these decisions have been influenced by the emerging research.
Three broad categories of innovations are being explored, and states may be considering changes in one, two, or all ofthese categories:> Downplaying the tests;> Changing the tests; and> Supporting students around the tests.

DOWNPLAYING THE TESTS:SY STEMS REDUCE RELIANCE ON PLACEMENT SCORES
While no state system has eliminated the use of placement tests, many are making them less prescriptive or becoming
less stringent about requiring students to be assessed. This downgrading of test scores takes several forms.

M ULTIPLE M EAS URE S
In most states, test scores have been the only basis for assigning students to remedial classes (Collins 2008; Hughes &Scott-Clayton 2010). Test companies’ long-time caution to use other measures in addition to test scores along with therecent research evidence have combined to make the idea of multiple measures one of the most common reforms thatsystems are adopting or considering. How to do so is most obvious for recent high school graduates, while measures for
nontraditional adult learners are less well-developed.
The California community college system has long used multiple measures. Under a 1991 settlement of a civil-rights
lawsuit, colleges are not supposed to use a test score as the sole factor in requiring a student to take remedial courses.
According to a survey, at least 45 of the state’s 112 colleges embed questions within their computerized assessment
asking about students’ experience in the subject, self-reported high school grades, and other relevant experience(Venezia, Bracco, & Nodine 2010). While some colleges automatically factor the responses into the test score algorithm,
others use them primarily if a student challenges his or her placement into remedial education (Bunch, et al. 2011). “It’s
non-uniform,” noted system Vice Chancellor Patrick Perry. “The vast majority of students are not run through a multiple
measures system. They have to go back to a counselor if they don’t like their test score.”High school grades are by far the most commonly mentioned supplemental measure. However, one of the greatest
barriers to using these and other multiple measures is a technical one. Few states have fully operational K-16 or P-20
data systems, and even those that do often experience time lags that prevent colleges from accessing students’ highschool records in time to influence a placement decision. They also lack automated systems that allow advisors or
faculty to view test scores and high school grades side by side. 11 Another barrier is procedural: the time it takes to vet
any changes in policies. Lastly, research has not yet clarified what the shelf life of high school grades should be, and sopolicymakers looking at adopting such policies are reluctant to consider high school grades for students more than ayear or two out of high school. 12
Systems are in various stages of implementing or considering a range of multiple measures:Though North Carolina has the technical capacity to access students’ high school transcripts, there are practicalobstacles. A decision about using those and other measures is being weighed by a multiple measures committee madeup of faculty and administrators that is reviewing the research and developing recommendations. “At the highest level, it
would require state board action,” noted Wilson. “Before it could get to the state board, it would have to go through thepresidents and the chief academic officers.”
One practice is to use additional measures for students who score just above or below a cutoff score. Earlier this year,

New Jersey colleges decided to begin using high school grades to refine placement decisions for students whose
ACCUPLACER scores are within the “decision zone.” In Texas , Austin Community College has trained instructors toevaluate student essays to refine placement decisions for scores in the gray zone.
JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

11

Connecticut’s new legislation limiting developmental education requires
colleges and universities to use multiple measures to determine whether
students require college-readiness support. 13 “There are some pilots we will
be conducting to begin getting those data in. We’ll probably start with thehigh school grades piece because it’s something that we know works reallywell as a predictor,” said Braden Hosch, director of policy and research for
the Connecticut State Colleges and Universities. “I have not talked to a single
person who objects to using high school information.”

T EST WAIV ERS
While waiving placement tests on the basis of, say, high SAT or ACT scores has
been a fairly common practice, state systems are now looking at additional
grounds for placing students into college-level courses without testing. As withmultiple measures, these include high school performance.
Two studies in California using data from the California Partnership forAchieving Student Success (Cal-PASS) are making different arguments for
waiving testing. 14 The first was based on curricular alignment: Instructors
from a San Diego-area high school worked with nearby college instructors todevelop a senior-year course to ensure that students were learning the skills
the college courses required. Students who completed the high school course
were allowed to take freshman English at the community college regardless of
their placement score. More than 80 percent passed the course, compared withan average of 68 percent among other students.
The second study involved Long Beach City College, where 90 percent ofstudents from a local unified school district (LUSD) were placing into remedial
education, and students were required to complete on average 5.6 semestersof remedial courses. As instructors were considering raising cutoff scores, thestudy found:Students’ discipline grades and their overall high school GPA werevirtually unrelated to how students were placed into courses at LBCC,
but were by far the strongest predictors of performance in our courses.
. . . Initial estimates suggest that such a realignment to employ
broadly-based, multiple measures to holistically capture the potentialof our students to perform college level work could, in the short-term,
meaningfully improve success rates, reduce the number of semesters
or required development coursework for LUSD students by more thanhalf, and, for example, increase the number of LUSD students eligible
for transf er-level English by almost 500% (RP Perspectives 2012).
A statewide research group is now seeking to replicate the study at anadditional 22 colleges. A similar finding could influence system-wide policies,
said vice chancellor Patrick Perry. “The sands are starting to shift away fromthe idea that we need one single statewide test,” he noted.
The development of Common Core assessments by two multistate consortia is—PATRICK PERRY, VICE

presenting another opportunity for waiving placement tests. Member states

CHANCELLOR, CALIFORNIA

of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Partnershipfor Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) are expected to12“ T H E SA N D S A R E S TA RT I N G
TO SH I F T AWAY F R O M T H E
I D E A T H AT W E N E E D O N E
SI N G L E STAT E W I D E T E S T.”

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

COMMUNITY COLLEGESA NEW GENERATION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR K-12
In 2009, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers formed a partnershipto develop clear, rigorous, and focused standards for the math and English skills that students need in order tosucceed in college and careers. The resulting Common Core State Standards that were released in 2010 havebeen adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia. Under the U.S. Department of Education’s Race to the
Top Assessment Program, two consortia received more than $175 million each in 2010 to develop state-of-the-art
assessments to more accurately measure students’ learning and enhance instruction. The PARCC consortium ismanaged by Achieve, Inc. of Washington, DC. It includes 23 member states and the District of Columbia. The SBAC ismanaged by WestEd and includes 27 member states. (Five states belong to both consortia.)
The assessments being developed by the consortia may present new opportunities for waiving placement exams,
though there are many obstacles to doing so. For the K-12 assessments to be credible as measuring “college
readiness,” they should clearly align with colleges’ decisions about whether students require remedial education,and in many states they do not. An additional challenge is that the Common Core is moving high school mathtoward a single standard of math readiness, while community colleges are migrating toward differentiating
standards based on students’ program of study.
SOURCE : Center for K-12 Assessment and Performance Management, Educational Testing Service. 2011. “Coming Together to Raise Achievement: New Assessments for the

Common Core State Standards.”

begin implementing the new assessments in 2014-15. In New Jersey , a task force supported by Governor Chris Christie
has recommended that, once the state’s end-of-course assessments in English and math are in place, students who passthem will be able to waive placement tests upon entering college.
A new version of the GED, expected to be released in 2014, will include a college-readiness component that its
developers say can be used in lieu of a placement test. Other means that colleges may use to waive or supplement
testing include assessments of prior learning, military testing, high school exit tests, and other prior experience.

M A INSTREAMIN G WIT H S UPPO RT
Evidence showing that some students with test scores below the cutoff can still succeed in college-level courses,
particularly if provided with appropriate supports, is shaking up the delivery of remedial education around the nation.
In one version of this approach, students who are placed into a course just below college level are “mainstreamed” intocollege-level classes and provided with additional academic support. According to CCRC researchers, the support needs
to be intensive and integrated with the course.
As mentioned above, the Community College of Baltimore County has devised a successful and cost-effective way to“mainstream” students who test just below the college-level cutoff into college-level English courses. The students areprovided extra support services in the form of a separate course taught by the English instructor to help students inareas where they are struggling in the college-level course.

Connecticut is making such innovation statewide policy. All but the most underprepared students (as determined via
multiple measures) will be placed into college-level courses and provided with additional support. Innovative strategies
researched to date have focused on students at or near the cutoff score; since Connecticut’s approach may include
students with much lower test scores, it is unclear whether mainstreaming will help them.

PROGRAM -SP ECIF IC PLACE MEN T
Another way in which placement exam cutoff scores are losing their authority is the move toward program-specificplacement in mathematics. Swayed by expert arguments that not all students require science-oriented math preparation,some states are moving away from the full remedial math sequence they traditionally required. Students will be required
to master only those deficiencies that are relevant to their career goals.

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

13

In some cases, this approach overlaps with efforts to break developmental curriculum into small “modules” that coverdiscrete content areas. The goal of modularization is to streamline students’ progress by increasing the efficiency andrelevance of remediation. Students are required to take only those areas in which they are insufficiently prepared. In
some states, this work aligns with a new, diagnostic form of assessment (described in the next section) that provides
a more fine-grained assessment of students’ skills. Program-specific placement takes this a step further by comparing
students’ skills with the requirements for their major. For example, Virginia has a total of nine one-unit instructional
modules in math. Humanities majors are required to take—or pass out of—five of the modules, while students pursuing
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) majors are required to master all nine (Asera 2011). North Carolina’s
approach is similar.
In June 2012, Colorado’s legislature authorized the state’s higher education commission to differentiate requirements
for mathematics based on a student’s area of study.

I NFORM ED SELF -PLACEME N T
Lastly, some colleges have experimented with “informed self-placement” or “directed self-placement”: They provide
students with information about the content of developmental and college-level courses and how that relates to varying
preparation levels. Students can then decide which course seems most appropriate given their skills and academic goals(Felder, Finney, & Kirst 2007).
At least two community colleges in California and one in Oregon have experimented with this approach. Several
four-year universities have also tried self-placement, primarily for writing classes. Fresno State University has this
explanation on its website: “We do not believe that a single, timed test offers the best indication of your preparedness
for a specific English course. Many students do not ‘test well.’ More importantly, we do not believe that the exam itself
represents the experiences of college writing in a way that can be boiled down to a single score.” 15
While there is little independent research on this approach outside of colleges’ own research offices, it is of growinginterest to college administrators, especially in light of austerity measures. “Directed self-placement could be lessexpensive than using commercially developed placement tests,” wrote Bunch and his colleagues (2011) in a study of ESL
assessment. “According to matriculation officials at the one college in our sample that used self-placement for ESL, thepractice has proven to be as valid as the test formerly used by the college.”

14

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

C HANGING THE TESTS:SY STEMS SEEK BETTER ASSESSMENTS
To bolster efforts to improve student outcomes, several states are
implementing or considering new assessment instruments. Driving thesechanges are two primary concerns: an interest in the potential of placement
exams to send signals to high schools about how to better prepare students(Kirst & Venezia 2005); and an imperative to improve outcomes for students incollege.
Systems are seeking one or more key features in their new assessments:

CUSTOM IZED O R ALIGN ED AS SES SM E N T S
Increasingly, systems are looking past off-the-shelf assessments for those thatare customized to each state’s curriculum. These moves stem from faculty
concerns that the test content may not represent the college-level skills thatare most important to them. In Florida and Virginia , the first two states tocommission a customized test, faculty were heavily involved in working withthe vendor, McCann Associates, to articulate their desired learning outcomes
and review test items. This may increase the likelihood of faculty embracing the
new assessments.
Recently, both North Carolina and Texas have contracted with the College
Board to help them develop assessments aligned to their curricula.

DI AG NOSTIC A S SES SME N T S

TO B O L ST E R E F F ORT S
TO I MP R O VE ST U DE N T
O U T C O ME S, SE VE R A L
STAT E S A R E I MP L E M E N T I N GO R C O N SI D E R I N G N E W
A SSE SSME N T I N STR U M E N T S .
D R I VI N G T H E SE C H A N G E S
A R E T W O P R I MA RY
C O N C E R N S:
1 ) A N I N T E R E ST I N T H E
P OT E N T I A L O F P L A C E M E N T
E XA MS TO SE N D S I G N A L S
TO H I G H SC H O O LS A B O U T
H O W TO B E T T E R P R E PA R E
ST U D E N T S; A N D
2 ) A N I MP E R AT I V E TO
I MP R O VE O U T C OM E S F O R
ST U D E N T S I N C OL L E G E .

The community college systems working on customized assessments are also
implementing diagnostic assessments, but the definition of “diagnostic” varies.
Traditionally, diagnostic assessments were used to provide information to
instructors about students’ skills in order to help them hone their instruction.
Instructors have used diagnostic assessments such as Pearson’s MyMathLabwithin the classroom. However, in some instances, the new diagnostic
instruments are functioning to provide finer-grained placements of students
based on their skills, but they do not provide information to instructors.
The multiple approaches to diagnosing in turn reflect the variety of ways tostructure remedial curricula. For example, as mentioned above, one use ofdiagnostic assessment is to place students in short modules targeting specificstudent needs.
In Florida , where the initial plan was for a diagnostic placement assessment,
the system ended up with a diagnostic that can be administered after theplacement exam. College leaders were anxious to avoid a lengthy test thatwould result from combining placement and diagnostic functions. A diagnostic
tool is aligned to each of the two levels of developmental instruction and will
be administered after the placement exam (two is the maximum offered). It also
has a separate cost. While the state’s customized placement assessment is usedstatewide, the diagnostic is mandated only for colleges receiving state grants
to implement modularized curricula.

Virginia and North Carolina use another approach: building a diagnostic
component into the placement assessment. In both states, students’performance on each question in a computer-adaptive assessment determines
JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

15

subsequent question types. In this model, an adaptive instrument first assesses
each student’s approximate level, then pinpoints her or his specific needs.
Rather than face a cut score, students can learn which areas they need tomaster or which remedial modules, if any, they must take. “The cut scoreargument has gone away,” notes Aris Bearse, Virginia’s director of institutional
research. “There is no overall score for the test. It just tells you which units
you’ve placed out of.”For Texas , the customized assessment being developed by the College Board
will yield a “diagnostic profile” describing each student’s strengths andweaknesses for use by advisors and instructors. “The advisor will have anumber of options available in order to determine the best way to address thestudents’ deficiencies, as opposed to automatically putting them into a 16-week
traditional course,” noted Suzanne Morales-Vale, director of developmental
education and Adult Basic Education for the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board.

ASSESSM ENT S O F KEY CO GN IT IVE S T R AT E G I E S
Some assessments look mainly at students’ content knowledge, while others go
beyond basic content knowledge to gauge students’ cognitive strategies. Often,
students’ math success is limited because they have learned mathematicalprocedures without mastering the underlying mathematical concepts. The
question is not just whether to place students into algebra or pre-algebra but
whether students understand mathematical reasoning (Stigler, et al. 2010).
Some English instructors are similarly concerned about the limitations of
traditional tests, especially when it comes to measuring writing ability.
The Common Core assessments being developed by two consortia are expected
to go further toward assessing these strategies than prior tests did. In North

Carolina , the test being designed by the College Board is intended to help thesystem do a better job assessing skills such as critical thinking. “We don’t want
to be locked into multiple-choice questions,” noted Brad Bostian, who directs
the first-year experience program at Central Piedmont Community College andchairs a state policy team on assessment. “We want performative interactivetype questions. For example, items will have to involve reading something andcrafting a written response.”

NON-COGNITIVE AS SES SME N T S
Colleges and systems are also wondering about the social and emotional
factors that figure into college readiness, even though traditional tests do
not measure them at all. While the field is not unified about how to define ormeasure non-cognitive skills or behaviors, tests to assess them do exist. To
date, their most common use is by classroom instructors.
Some systems are interested in how such tests might assist with the placement
process. For example, the California task force mentioned an interest inassessing “key academic behaviors.” Still, educators are just beginning toconsider how these assessments might complement their placement strategies,
especially given the risk that the use of such assessments could open colleges
up to concerns about bias.

16

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

SO ME A SSE SSME N T S L O O K
MA I N LY AT ST U D E N T S ’
C O N T E N T K N O W L ED G E ,W H I L E OT H E R S G O
B E YO N D B A SI C C O N T E N T
K N O W L E D G E TO G AU G E
ST U D E N T S’ C O G N I T I V E
ST R AT E G I E S.

In Chicago , Wilbur Wright College has experimented with using ENGAGE, an ACT product designed to measure
motivation, social engagement, and self-regulation. Based on research showing a correlation between such scores andstudents’ course outcomes, the Chicago City Colleges are planning to pilot a similar assessment districtwide. While
the test is not used directly to determine students’ placement in math and English, it may have two primary uses: For
students testing slightly below a cutoff score, a high motivation measure can be used to allow them to enroll in the next
course level. Also, students with low motivation scores can be offered additional services through the district’s early
alert program to enhance their chances of success in college.

SUPPORTING STUDENTS AROU ND TESTS:SY STEMS C HANGE PR ACTICES AND CONDITIONS
Whether or not new tests are adopted or additional measures are considered, concerns about high remedial enrollments
are also driving changes in policies related to test preparation as well as testing conditions. Traditionally, areas such as
test preparation programs and retesting policies received little attention at the state level, and practices varied widely
even within a state (Venezia, Bracco, & Nodine 2010). Greater awareness of how such practices may influence student
progress is changing that. Colleges are interested in ensuring that students receive appropriate preparation in highschool, but they also want to make sure that rusty skills or a bad day do not relegate students to remedial coursework
they may not need. However, research is needed to determine whether such refinements can reduce testing errors, assome instructors worry that too much support around test taking could impair the accuracy of the assessment.

COLLEGE-READ IN ES S T E STS IN H IG H SC H O O L
For years, individual colleges have partnered with high schools to give their placement exams to juniors or seniors.
More recently, this practice has been pursued in a more strategic and systemic way as part of a strategy to help prepare
students for college rigor. This approach, based on the theory that college placement tests send a signal to highschools about the preparation students need (Kirst & Venezia 2005), is gaining new salience as states prepare to adopt
assessments based on the Common Core State Standards.
The 23-campus California State University was the first higher education system to adopt an early testing strategy,
known as the Early Assessment Program or EAP. CSU collaborated with the state’s department of education to add aseries of questions to the eleventh-grade standards test required of all students. First offered in 2006, the goal was toprovide students with an assessment of their college readiness while they still had time to catch up, without burdening
them with an extra test. The community college system subsequently joined the program. While the supplemental
questions are optional, large numbers of students take the test: In 2010, about 380,000 young people volunteered totake the English test and about 180,000 took the math test. (Only those who take college-preparatory math can take thecollege-readiness version of the test.) Preliminary evidence suggests that the program may reduce students’ likelihoodof needing remedial courses by a few percentage points (Howell, Kurlaender, & Grodsky 2010).
More recently, Florida began requiring all high school juniors with certain scores on the state’s eleventh-grade standards
test to take the community colleges’ placement exam. Originally, students took the ACCUPLACER exam, but now theytake the college system’s new Postsecondary Education Readiness Test (PERT) (Burdman 2011).
As states adopt the Common Core standards and prepare for new federally funded assessments, there is an interest in
ensuring that these tests are fully aligned with placement tests being used by higher education institutions. If they are,students found to be college ready on a high school assessment may not need to take another test. Some states havetaken steps to address this issue, and many others are contemplating how to do so.
Florida, for example, in developing the PERT exam, made sure to align it with the Common Core standards. New

Jersey and North Carolina have said that students passing end-of-course exams will not need to take a placement
test. Connecticut is looking at making the high school assessment one of the multiple measures it will use to consider
placement. “We want to make sure that higher education buys into and trusts the assessment,” noted Connecticut’s
Braden Hosch.

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

17

North Carolina, Florida, and eight other states are participating in Core to
College, a foundation-funded initiative to improve alignment between the
Common Core and postsecondary standards. North Carolina, for example,
intends to convene working groups comprised of K-12 administrators andcollege faculty and deans to align the new diagnostic placement exams with the
ACT tests being used in high school (and, eventually, the new Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium tests). 16

S ENIOR-Y EAR TRAN S ITIO N AL CO URSE S
One of the most important uses of the eleventh-grade assessment is to identify
students who need additional support to pass an English or math assessment—in particular, those students whose skills are not extremely deficient and who
could catch up within their senior year. As part of EAP, some California highschools have offered a CSU-designed English course for seniors. Florida also
now requires high schools to offer students with low eleventh-grade readinessscores one of several transitional courses aimed at preparing them for college.
In addition, the Southern Regional Education Board is developing a set of modeltransitional courses for use by states.
The senior-year transition course is another form of curricular alignment,
similar to the San Diego Cal-PASS project in which students who earn an A or
B in the senior-year course vetted by college faculty can take the college-level
English course regardless of their placement test score. The main difference isthat in the San Diego program, all students in the high school (not just those
who did not test as college ready) participate in the course.

T EST PREPAR ATIO N ASS IS TAN CE
Test preparation is not confined to high school students. Students enteringcollege often do not understand how their performance on a placement test
could influence their course taking in college. That could lead them to prepare
less or to race through the questions (Venezia, Bracco, & Nodine 2010). The
prevalence of under-placement also suggests the possibility that some students
could score better if they had a chance to brush up. While states have yet to
adopt systematic policies, numerous colleges are adopting programs to help
students during the enrollment process.
One strategy is to help students prepare in advance of taking the assessment.
Santa Monica College in California offers an online orientation to its placement
test. Known as Prep2Test, it explains the content and format of the tests,
how to prepare for them, the reasons for them, and the benefits of preparing.
According to the online orientation video, the college’s assessment center has
determined that students who prepared for the exams were 18 percent more
likely to place into college-level English and 36 percent more likely to place intocollege-level math than students who did not prepare. 17
Another approach is to offer refresher courses for students who took theplacement test and scored below college level on the first try. Examples of thisinclude an online tutorial at El Paso Community College in Texas , Housatonic
Community College’s iMath refresher for Connecticut students who have taken
upper-level math, as well as a six-hour refresher in reading, writing, or math at
Cumberland County College in New Jersey . Cumberland has found that morethan 85 percent of students taking a brush-up course instead of the highest18

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

ST U D E N T S E N T E R IN GC O L L E G E O F T E N DO N OTU N D E R STA N D H O W T H E I R
P E R F O R MA N C E O N A
P L A C E ME N T T E ST C O U L D
INFLUENCE THEIR COURSETA K I N G I N C O L L E GE . T H AT
C O U L D L E A D T H E M TO
P R E PA R E L E SS O R TO R A C E
THROUGH THE QUESTIONS( VE N E Z I A , B R A C C O, &NODINE 2010).

level developmental English course ultimately passed college-level English, compared with 71 percent of students whocompleted the developmental course. The brush-up course costs students $35. 18 In 2011-12, New Jersey students paid
roughly $330 for a three-unit developmental class, so the brush-up appears to be getting better results at a lower cost
to students.
Related to test preparation, some colleges are rethinking their approach to retesting. College retest waiting periods vary
widely: In California alone, they range from 24 hours to three years (Bunch, et al. 2011). Realizing that some students
can be served by a quick brush-up rather than a semester-long remedial course, some colleges and systems are relaxing
their retest policies. Hawaii community colleges had a four-month waiting period. “Nobody had any historical knowledgeof why we had that policy,” noted Kamuela Chun of the college system. “We examined it to see if it was really importantand decided it wasn’t.” The policy was eliminated. A California college conducted a study and found that students who
retested “had higher success and persistence rates than students who took the placement test only once, leading thecollege to provide more opportunities for students to retest” (Bunch, et al. 2011).

COU NSELING AN D ADVIS IN G
A key component of any placement system is the guidance that students receive. Because of this, colleges are taking a
hard look at their advisory systems. Particularly given the pressure on student services from budget cuts in most states,
some systems are also feeling more pressure to find ways to support colleges’ advising functions and help students plan
better.
Encouraging advanced planning is one way colleges are seeking to maximize the use of limited advising and counselingresources, notes Tamara Clunis, dean of academic success at Amarillo College in Texas :The big problem is not the fact that we don’t have enough advisors. It’s the bottleneck that happens because
we let them all come at the same time. Open entry doesn’t have to mean unplanned. If we continue to operate
under that system, we’re going to have to have 100 advisors. But if we change our culture and have deadlines anddistribute intake across a period of time, we could do a better job with the 25 advisors we have.

California’s Student Success Task Force recommended requiring all students to develop an education plan and declarea program of study soon after admission. Students who do not follow their plans or fail to declare a program would losepriority status for enrolling in classes, under the recommendations.

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

19

TH IN KIN G A B O UTIN N O VAT I O N S I N PLAC EMENTAN D A S S E S S M E N T
States and systems are in various stages of considering or adopting different
approaches to downplaying, revising, or supporting students around placement
tests. Their choices relate, in part, to each system’s degree of standardization,
the role of faculty in the decision-making process, and the priorities of statepolicymakers. Governance also plays a role—for example, standardization ismore likely to be the case in more centralized systems. Whether the decisions
are made at a system level or by colleges acting autonomously, key issues arecost, time, and validity.

CO ST
While test development can be costly, the greatest expense is test
administration. That’s why McCann Associates charged Florida and Virginia
nothing for test development, expecting to recoup its investment by selling test
units to colleges. However, tests that are more sophisticated or take longer are
also likely to cost more to administer. To the extent that these costs are passed
on to students (either directly in terms of testing fees or indirectly in terms ofhigher tuition), they are a considerable factor for states to consider in changing
or adding tests.
In Florida, where low cost was one of the college presidents’ three priorities,
officials negotiated a very favorable price per test. However, because thatstate’s diagnostic instrument is separate from the placement test, the full
package is more expensive. Texas’ expected cost for three tests ($11 for math,reading, and writing) exceeds North Carolina’s cost for its four tests ($7 forarithmetic, algebra, reading, and writing—and that figure may be lower nextyear). Though both systems are working with the College Board, the pricedisparity may relate to the different form of diagnostic each is receiving. North
Carolina’s diagnostic will simply place students into or out of English and mathmodules; Texas’ will produce a diagnostic profile describing each student’s
strengths and weaknesses.

TIME
Asking more of placement exams likely means students will also need to sit for
longer periods to take the tests.
Traditional placement exams typically take students one to two hours for both
English and math. The new assessments seem to take longer. Florida officials
say PERT takes students about twice as long as their prior test, ACCUPLACER,
which has created wait times at testing centers (Burdman 2011). In Virginia ,students take close to two hours just for the new math assessment, according
to Aris Bearse. Students with better skills require more time because theadaptive test continues adding questions to cover all nine modules. Once the
new English assessment is ready, testing will take even longer.

20

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

WHETHER THE DECISIONSA R E MA D E AT A SY S T E M
L E VE L O R B Y C O L L E G E S
A C T I N G AU TO N O MO U S LY,
K E Y I SSU E S A R E C O S T, T I M E ,A N D VA L I D I T Y.

“When you want to try to diagnose students and help them be able to save time [i.e., in their coursework], isn’t it worth
a little bit more time on the front end to get a good diagnosis?” asked Jennifer Allman, director of student services for
the Virginia Community College System. “But it’s been so hard to try to convince people that it has value. It’s a wholelearning process of trying to reeducate people that it’s to their good to take a little longer to take the test.”

VALIDITY
As emerging research brings attention to the limitations of placement tests, colleges and systems are starting to think
more about how to assess the validity of their tests. Colleges vary in terms of how they validate their placement tests,
and it appears that only a handful of states or systems have requirements regarding validation (Fulton 2012).
The predictive validity highlighted by the CCRC studies is only one approach to test validation. Some in the field argue
that placement exams are intended to measure readiness, not predict students’ success, noting that factors other thanreadiness can affect success. Other approaches to validity include:> Content validity: Is the content consistent with the related courses?
> Consequential validity: Do faculty and students think students were placed appropriately? Interestingly, surveys at
California colleges routinely find satisfaction levels of 75 percent and higher. 19> Reliability: Does the test produce consistent results for students who appear to have similar skills?
Even if predictive validity is not the sole measure of a test, the idea that current instruments demonstrate little
predictive power is troubling to many. Regardless of what current exams may do, the imperative of increasing graduation
rates requires indicators and tools that can be used to enhance success, not just measure readiness in an abstract sense.
“As somebody who’s worked in academic affairs at the college, I need to have some gauge of how the student will do inthese courses,” said Braden Hosch. “Can I get them to the right treatment based on what I know about them?”

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

21

TENSIONS AND TR ADEOFFS
As systems consider these and other factors, clear tradeoffs are inherent in their choices (Jaggars & Hodara 2011). The
field is very new, and more research is needed to understand the implementation and effectiveness of the new policies.
However, the experience to date points to some issues that colleges will need to weigh (see box, Placement Policy
Decision Checklist below).

PLACEMENT POLICY DECISION CHECKLIST:BALANCING TRADEOFFSAs outlined by the Community College Research Center, the tradeoffs that colleges often wrestle with indetermining their remedial placement policies are those between system-wide consistency and institutional
autonomy, between student progression and enforcement of standards, and between efficiency and effectiveness(Jaggars & Hodara 2011). Using that “opposing forces” framework, this checklist highlights some of the issues thatcollege systems need to weigh in determining their placement policies.
The reform narrative discussed in this paper seems to point toward renewed interest in greater consistency andpromoting student progression. 20 However, the tension between efficiency and effectiveness is not likely to beresolved easily, given the budgetary constraints facing many states.

CONSISTENCY VS. AUTONOMYISSUE

SYSTEM-WIDE CONSISTENCYINSTITUTIONAL AUTONOMY

Alignment with K-12

Placement standards are aligned with K-12

Placement standards are determined by colleges

curriculum and assessments

curriculum standards for maximum transparency

to align with the curriculum in use at the college

and consistency designed to decrease need foror system to maximize institutional flexibility andremediation.

autonomy.

Alignment with general

Placement standards are aligned with a common

Placement standards are determined by each college

education curriculum

statewide curriculum for maximum transparency,

to align with its specific curriculum to maximize

portability, and perceived fairness.

institutional autonomy.

Alignment between English
and ESL

22

Systems adopt statewide policies on assessing
students for ESL vs. remedial English.

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

Individual institutions determine the relationshipbetween remedial English and ESL and selectappropriate assessments.

PLACEMENT POLICY DECISION CHECKLIST:BALANCING TRADEOFFS (CONTINUED)
PROGRESSION VS. ENFORCEMENTISSUESTUDENT PROGRESSIONENFORCEMENT OF STANDARDS

Use of accelerated pathways

Accelerated options allow some students to

A lengthy developmental sequence ensures that onlytransition more quickly into college-level math andthe most motivated and successful students reachEnglish.

college-level math and English.

Alignment with Adult Basic

Policies make developmental education available forDevelopmental education floors route a significant

Education

the maximum number of students who do not qualify

proportion of students to adult education (where infor college-level courses.

some states they may not be better served).

Alignment with student’s

Math and English requirements vary by major toMath and English standards are enforced acrossprogram or major

minimize barriers to the completion of degrees andthe board, regardless of students’ program orcredentials.

major, even if this means more students requiredevelopmental education.

Retest policies, refreshers,

Liberal policies include refresher courses andTo prevent underprepared students from taking

etc.

low barriers to retesting in order to maximize

college-level courses without prior remediation,

student progression. (These may have an efficiency

strict policies limit students’ ability to brush up orcomponent as well.)

retest.

EFFICIENCY VS. EFFECTIVENESSISSUEEFFICIENCYEFFECTIVENESS

Multiple measures vs. single

A single test score most efficiently integrates with

Use of multiple measures enhances the chances

cutoff scorecollege information systems, minimizes use of scarcethat a student will be appropriately placed, and incounselor time, and limits the possibility of humanparticular, reduces the chances of under-placement.

error.
Length of test

A short test accommodates a surge of new students

Longer tests more accurately assess skills, but

at registration and minimizes the deterrent effect—

length may deter students from taking them.

but accuracy suffers.
Cost of test (and whether

A lower-cost test is more affordable for colleges (orHigher-cost tests more accurately assess skills but

costs are passed on to

students if costs are passed on to them).

present a financial burden to colleges (or a deterrent

students)

for students if costs are passed on).

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

23

TH E N E X T R O U N D O F RESEARC H
As colleges and systems make these choices on their own or as a result of legislative mandates, researchers—whether
academic, institutional, or faculty researchers—will also need to continue bringing new information to bear. The field
will need greater understanding both about how the new policies are implemented and about their results. Some key
questions for researchers include:> Are the new customized assessments more predictive of student performance than the off-the-shelf tests of thepast?

> Do efforts to better prepare students and increase awareness of the high-stakes nature of placement tests lead tohigher scores and better predictive validity (i.e., fewer severe errors) as some early experiments suggest?

> What strategies can best serve severely underprepared students? Most of the rigorous studies done to date use
a quasi-experimental design involving students just above and just below cutoff scores, which means they do notsuggest ways of helping students with very low scores.
With such questions unanswered, community colleges are going on their own hypotheses. Currently, systems such as

Texas’ and North Carolina’s are adopting developmental education “floors”—essentially scores below which students will
be referred to Adult Basic Education. In most states, adult education was poorly funded even before recent state budget
cuts. Assigning additional students there does not bode well as a student success strategy. But accelerating them intocollege-level courses may not work either.
In the case of Connecticut , remediation will be limited to one semester. While acknowledging that Connecticut’s
approach may be sufficient for large numbers of students, experts and community college leaders worry about its
impact on the most underprepared students. “It is far from clear . . . that one semester of instruction is adequate toprepare students with very weak skills for a college-level course, even with additional supports,” CCRC researchers wrote
in the Hartford Courant recently. “Little is known about how to help the most underprepared students.” 21

24

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGEA C H AN G E O F H E A RT
If any state’s approach to rethinking its policies in light of new revelations about placement testing is the boldest, it
would be Connecticut’s. While not completely eliminating developmental coursework or placement testing as originallyenvisioned, legislation approved in May 2012 will do away with much of it. Most students assessed as less than college
ready will be placed into college-level courses and offered additional support. Those whose deficiencies are the greatest
will be offered a maximum of one semester of remedial intervention, which must be approved by the state Board ofRegents. Rather than changing how colleges diagnose problems, Connecticut is looking to transform their solutions, inlight of strong evidence that existing strategies are not coming close to achieving their intended goals.
“You’re going to see a sea change in terms of what the expectations are,” said Braden Hosch. “It is not the expectationthat community colleges should be the place where students are parked for four semesters while they are not successful
in their coursework.”
A similar sentiment drives many of the reforms nationally. While no single approach has emerged as a clear new
direction for placement policies, a few themes are evident. As systems redesign—and even reduce—their remedial course
sequences, there is considerable interest in aligned assessments with some diagnostic component. It also seems likely
that, with multiple measures and Common Core assessments coming into play, there will be a move toward less relianceon placement test results.
This change of heart is similar to one taking place in health care around medical testing. A case in point is a federaltask force that recently recommended against routine screens for breast cancer and prostate cancer for certain age
groups. Flouting conventional wisdom that preventive screening saves lives, the group reasoned that over-screening
comes at significant costs to patients and the health care system. As with the debates over college placement tests,
those recommendations have proved controversial, with many organizations and doctors continuing to endorse annual
screening.
As the efficacy and cost of the nation’s health care system remain pressing issues, there is no doubt that the idea ofrethinking the centrality of screening tests in preventive care will play a central role in the conversation. The same
seems to be true of college placement tests. “In education as in medicine, the logic behind early detection seems
unassailable: Colleges want to catch the underprepared early, so students can get help before they begin to struggle,”
wrote CCRC’s Judith Scott-Clayton in her New York Times blog. “But in both fields, evidence is beginning to accumulatethat early detection and treatment, in some cases, may harm the healthy more than it helps those truly ailing.” 22

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

25

EN D N O T E S
1According to newspaper reports at the time, 36 percent

10

For a discussion of how the North Carolina Communityof all CUNY students and 60 percent of those at two-year

College System began considering testing policies andcolleges required remediation in 1996-97. According toprocedures through its work in Achieving the Dream, see2011 testimony by CUNY’s provost to the New York City

Collins (2008).

Council, 54 percent of new freshmen and 79 percent of
those at community colleges required remediation.
2

For further information on the Common Core State

Standards, see http://www.corestandards.org/
3

Though the study was published in 2012, findings were11

For example, in the college system studied in Scott-Clayton (2012), high school transcript information wasavailable for only about 70 percent of the students tested.
States with high numbers of entering students over age 21
would have transcripts for far fewer students.

shared with North Carolina educators beginning in late

12

2011.

Group say that they have found high school grades to be

4

For an interesting discussion of the tensions that

underlie the divergent narratives, see Jaggars & Hodara(2010).
5

The use of multiple sources, avoidance of narrow score

differences, and the caution to use tests only for purposes
for which they were validated are all elements of The
Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing,developed jointly by the American Educational Research
Association, the American Psychological Association, andthe National Council on Measurement in Education, and of

Researchers with California’s Research and Planningvalid predictors for at least five years after high school. A
CCRC researcher notes that such grades are very durable
predictors of things like income at age 40. However, noresearch to date has addressed the question in a waythat clearly answers questions for education officials
implementing changes.
13

See: An Act Concerning College Readiness andCompletion, Public Act No. 12-40, Senate Bill No. 40(2012). Available at: http://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/
cgabillstatus.asp?selBillType=Bill&bill_num=SB-40

the Code of Fair Testing Practices, developed by testing

14

officials.

K-12 and higher education institutions in California.

6

15

7

For more on this theme, see Collins (2008).
A recent report by the Consortium on Chicago School

Research investigates the role of these factors in schooltransitions, including the transition from high school tocollege (Farrington, et al. 2012).
8

For example, a CCRC study using the Achieving theDream database found that 59 percent of students
were assigned to developmental math courses. Of thosestudents, only 33 percent completed the sequence. By

Cal-PASS is a voluntary data-sharing partnership among

See: http://www.fresnostate.edu/english/undergraduate/

firstyear/directed.shtml
16

See: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/

17

The online video can be viewed here: http://www.smc.

edu/EnrollmentDevelopment/AssessmentCenter/Pages/
Prepare-Before-Testing.aspx
18

These data were provided by CCRC researchers based oninterviews they conducted with the college.

contrast, only one-third of the students were referred to19

remediation in reading, and of those students, 46 percent

Planning Group of the California Community Colleges, thecompleted the sequence (Bailey, Jeong, & Cho 2010).

“threshold for an acceptable satisfaction response rate is9

For further information see:Per email communication with the Research and

75 percent.”

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/statway20

http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/quantway

discussion of alignment and assessments.

http://www.utdanacenter.org/mathways/

Also see Grubb, et al. (2011a) for an interesting21

See: Bailey, Hughes, & Smith (2012).

22

See: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/20/

are-college-entrants-overdiagnosed-as-underprepared/

26

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

REF ER E N C E S
Asera, Rose. 2011. Innovation at Scale: How Virginia

Conley, David. 2012. A Complete Definition of College

Community Colleges Are Collaborating to Improve

and Career Readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy

Developmental Education and Increase Student Success.

Improvement Center.

Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.
Bailey, Thomas. 2009. “Challenge and Opportunity:
Rethinking the Role and Function of Developmental
Education in Community College.” New Directions forCommunity Colleges. No. 145.

Conley, David. 2007. Redefining College Readiness. Eugene,
OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.
Conley, David, Kathryn V. Drummond, Alicia DeGonzalez,
Jennifer Rooseboom, & Odile Stout. 2011. Reaching theGoal: The Applicability and Importance of the Common

Bailey, Thomas, Dong Wook Jeong, & Sung-Woo Cho. 2010.

Core State Standards to College and Career Readiness.

“Referral, Enrollment, and Completion in Developmental

Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.

Education Sequences in Community Colleges.” Economicsof Education Review. Vol. 29.

Cullinane, Jenna & Philip Uri Treisman. 2010. Improving
Developmental Mathematics Education in Community

Barr, James E. & Cathie Grill. 2003. Informed Self-

Colleges: A Prospectus and Early Progress Report on thePlacement: An Attractive Alternative to Conventional

Statway Initiative. NCPR Working Paper presented at NCPR

Assessment Practices. Unpublished.

Developmental Education Conference.

Belfield, Clive & Peter Crosta. 2012. Predicting Success

Edgecombe, Nikki. 2011. Accelerating the Academicin College: The Importance Of Placement Tests and HighAchievement of Students Referred to Developmental

School Transcripts. Working Paper No. 42. New York, NY:

Education. Working Paper No. 30. New York, NY:

Community College Research Center, Teachers College,

Community College Research Center, Teachers College,

Columbia University.

Columbia University.

Bunch, George, Ann Endris, Dora Panayotova, Michelle

Farrington, Camille, et al. 2012. Teaching Adolescents to

Romero, & Lorena Llosa. 2011. Mapping the Terrain:

Become Learners: The Role of Noncognitive Factors in

Language Testing and Placement for US-EducatedShaping School Performance: A Critical Literature Review.

Language Minority Students in California’s Community

Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research,

Colleges. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa

University of Chicago.

Cruz.

Felder, Jonathan, Joni Finney, & Michael W. Kirst. 2007.

Burdman, Pamela. 2012. A Higher Threshold: Promoting“Informed Self-Placement” at American River College: A

Successful Transitions from High School to College. Paper

Case Study. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy

for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Unpublished.

and Higher Education.

Burdman, Pamela. 2011. Testing Ground: How Florida

Fulton, Mary. 2012. Using State Policies to Ensure Effective

Schools and Colleges Are Using a New Assessment toAssessment and Placement in Remedial Education. Denver,

Increase College Readiness. Boston, MA: Jobs for the

CO: Education Commission of the States.

Future.

Geiser, Saul & Maria Veronica Santelices. 2007. Validity ofCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

High-school Grades in Predicting Student Success beyond

2010. “Reconsider and Redesign Developmental

the Freshman Year: High-school Record vs. Standardized

Mathematics.” Retrieved from http://www.

Tests as Indicators of Four-year College Outcomes.

carnegiefoundation.org/statway/reconsider-and-redesign-

Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education,

developmentalmathematics

University of California, Berkeley.

College Academic Support Programs. n.d. Placement Tests

Grubb, W. Norton, et al. 2011a. Assessment and Alignment:

and Testing. A position paper. Author.
Collins, Michael. 2008. It’s Not About the Cut Score.
Boston, MA: Jobs for the Future.

The Dynamic Aspects of Developmental Education.
Working Paper. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California
Education.

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

27

Grubb, W. Norton, et al. 2011b. Basic Skills Instruction

Jenkins, Davis, Shanna S. Jaggars, & Josipa Roksa. 2009.

in Community Colleges: the Dominance of Remedial

Promoting Gatekeeper Course Success Among Community

Pedagogy. Working Paper. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis forCollege Students Needing Remediation: Findings andCalifornia Education.

Recommendations from a Virginia Study. New York, NY:

Grubb, W. Norton, et al. 2011c. Innovation in Developmental
Education: The Landscape and Locus of Change. Working

Community College Research Center, Teachers College,
Columbia University.

Paper. Stanford, CA: Policy Analysis for California

Jenkins, Davis, Cecilia Speroni, Clive Belfield, Shanna

Education.

S. Jaggars, & Nikki Edgecombe. 2010. A Model for

Hodara, Michelle 2011. Reforming Mathematics Classroom
Pedagogy: Evidence-Based Findings and Recommendations
for the Developmental Math Classroom. Working Paper No.
27. New York, NY: Community College Research Center,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Hodara, Michelle, Katherine L. Hughes, Melinda M. Karp,
John Wachen, & Madeline J. Weiss. 2012. Assessment andPlacement for Incoming College Students: Approaches andAccelerating Success of Community College Remedial
English Students: Is the Accelerated Learning Program(ALP) Effective and Affordable? Working Paper No. 21. New
York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers
College, Columbia University.
Kirst, Michael W. 2010. California Community Colleges andthe Early Assessment Program: Progress and Challenges.
Report to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

Developments in Eight States. Presentation at the annual

Kirst, Michael W. & Andrea Venezia, eds. 2005. From Highmeeting of American Educational Research Association.

School to College: Improving Opportunities for Success in

Hodara, Michelle & Shanna S. Jaggars. 2012. Accelerating
Community College Students’ Progression throughPostsecondary Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass
Publishers.

Developmental Education: Does It Work? Paper presented

Moore, Colleen & Nancy Shulock. 2007. Beyond the Openat the annual meeting of the American Educational

Door: Increasing Student Success in California Community

Research Association.

Colleges. Sacramento, CA: Institute for Higher Education

Howell, Jessica, Michal Kurlaender, & Eric Grodsky.

Leadership & Policy.

2010. “Postsecondary Preparation and Remediation:

Parsad, Basmat & Laurie Lewis. 2003. Remedial Education

Examining the Effect of the Early Assessment Program at

at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions in Fall

California State University.” Journal of Policy Analysis and2000, NCES 2004-010. Washington, DC: National Center

Management. Vol. 29, No. 4.

for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences,

Hughes, Katherine. 2011. Memo to the Bill & Melinda Gates
Foundation. Unpublished.
Hughes, Katherine L. & Judith Scott-Clayton. 2010.
Assessing Developmental Assessment in Community

U.S. Department of Education.
Perin, Dolores. 2006. “Can Community Colleges Protect
Both Access and Standards? The Problem of Remediation.”
Teachers College Record. Vol. 108.

Colleges: A Review of the Literature. Working Paper No.

Rosin, Matthew. 2012. Diagnostic Assessment: Challenges

19. New York, NY: Community College Research Center,and Opportunities for the California Community Colleges.

Teachers College, Columbia University.

Oakland, CA: EdSource and Learning Works.

Jaggars, Shanna. 2012. Acceleration Research: CCBC,

RP Group. 2012. “Excellence in Research—College/District

CCD, and Chabot. Presentation at National Center for

Project: Promising Pathways—Placement, Performance,

Postsecondary Research Conference.

and Progress in Basic Skills and Transfer Level Courses in

Jaggars, Shanna S. & Michelle Hodara. 2011. The Opposing
Forces that Shape Developmental Education: Assessment,

English and Mathematics.” Perspectives. The Research andPlanning Group for California Community Colleges. March.

Placement, and Progression at CUNY Community Colleges.

Scott-Clayton, Judith. 2012. Do High-Stakes Placement

Working Paper No. 36. New York, NY: Community College

Exams Predict College Success? CCRC Working Paper No.

Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

41. New York, NY: Community College Research Center,
Teachers College, Columbia University.

28

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

Stigler, James W., Karen B. Givvin, & Belinda J. Thompson.
2010. “What Community College Developmental MathStudents Understand about Mathematics.” MathAMATYC
Educator. Vol. 1, No. 3.
Venezia, Andrea, Kathy R. Bracco, & Thad Nodine. 2010. A
One Shot Deal? Students’ Perceptions of Assessment andCourse Placement at the California Community Colleges.
San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

JOBS FOR THE FUTURE

29

30

WHERE TO BEGIN? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF PLACEMENT EXAMS FOR STUDENTS STARTING COLLEGE

TEL

617.728.4446 FAX 617.728.4857 info@jff.org

88 Broad Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02110
122 C Street, NW, Suite 650, Washington, DC 20001
W W W. J F F.O R G