2. “The more levels of developmental courses
a student needs to go through, the less
likely that student is to ever complete
college English or math.”
-Thomas Bailey (2009) CCRC Brief.

3. MAT 030
MAT 060
MAT 090
MAT 099
ENG 030
ENG 060
ENG 090
REA 030
REA 060
REA 090

4. Course 2010-2012: 3 year average
ENG 030 61.6%
ENG 060 63.2%
ENG 090 63.5%
REA 030 64.0%
REA 060 68.1%
REA 090 63.8%
MAT 030 60.8%
MAT 060 66.3%
MAT 090 60.1%
MAT 099 57.9%
TotalAverage 62.9%

5.  Even when students are successful in a DE
course they do not come back for the next
course in the sequence:
 Math 45% do not return
 English 31% do not return
 Reading 28% do not return

6.  For students who place two levels below a
college course there are 5 “exit points”
 Do they pass the first course
 Do they enroll in the next course?
 Do they pass the second course?
 Do they enroll in the college-level course?
 Do they pass the college-level course?
 Students placing three levels down have 7
exit points.

7.  CCCS pipeline example for students beginning in
MAT090
 Enroll in remedial math (6933) 100%
 Do they complete MAT 090 (3053) 44%
 Do they enroll in college math (1746) 25%
 Do they complete college math (1239) 18%
 Do they graduate (558) 8%
Nawrocki, Baker, & Corash (2009). Success of remedial math students in the
Colorado community college system:A longitudinal study.

8.  Example for students who completed
ENG030 - fall 2010
 Completed 030(538) 100%
 Enroll and complete 060 (189) 35%
 Enroll in and complete 090 (32) 6%

9.  Example for students who completed MAT
030 - fall 2010
 Completed 030(3931) 100%
 Complete 060 (1221) 31%
 Complete 090 (377) 10%
 Complete 099 (66) 2%

10. Move students quickly and effectively through
their first college level course.

11.  Chabot College
 UTAustin, Dana Center
 Los Medinos CC
 CC of Baltimore County
 Austin Peay State
 Tennessee, Minnesota, Connecticut, Florida,
Texas, California – systems and policies

12. MAT 030
MAT 060
MAT 090
MAT 099

14.  Sections were estimated at 18 students
(three year average on current DE math
sections)
 Estimate that every course is 3 credit hours –
(this could increase but likely will not
decrease)
 1/3 split enrollment between non-transfer,
non-STEM, and STEM
 50% retention from prior course (slightly
lower than our current average)

15. Current Math
Average
ProposedYear 1
Headcount
28,050 28,050
Sections
1,535 1,558
Credits
97,238
74,098

16.  20% “assessment prep” students are retained
to a pathway course. All enrollees were
placed into a non-transfer path in this model.
This may not reflect their actual choices

17. Old Math Proposed
Year 1
Proposed
Year 2
Headcount
28,050 28,050 35,973
Sections
1,535 1,558 1,998
Credits
97,238
74,098 97,866

18.  Same assumptions about retention from
prior courses (50% on all but Assessment prep
which is 20%)
 All eligible students are put in co-requisite
courses
 All co-requisite courses are 1 credit
 All co-requisite courses estimated at 9
students (1/2 the size of DE courses now)

19. Old Math Proposed
1
Proposed
2
Co-req
options
Headcount
28,050
28,050 35,973 39,785
Sections
1,535
1,558 1,998 2,513
Credits
97,238
74,098 97,866 93,560

20. ENG 030
ENG 060
ENG 090
REA 030
REA 060
REA 090

21.  Average fall headcount 26,347
 Average sections offered 1,436
 Average credit hours 78,119
 Average unduplicated headcount 21,915

22. REA030 REA060 REA090 None
ENG030 3% 2% 1% 0%
ENG060 2% 6% 6% 3%
ENG090 0% 5% 14% 20%
ENG121 0% 0% 4% 34%

23. Placement Score(s) FirstTerm Leads to
1A)
RC 0-39 and/or SS 0-49
Soft Landing Accuplacer test
1B)
RC 0-39 and/or SS 0-49
CRC 092 + CRC 091 Completion of
developmental
requirements
RC40-61 and/or SS 50-69 CRC 092 Completion of
developmental
requirements
RC62-79 and/or SS 70-94 Studio courses (college
level course with a co-
requisite CRC Studio)
Completion of
developmental
requirements

24.  Removed duplicated headcount from REA/ENG
courses
 Placements based on percent in 30/30, 30/60,
60/60, 60/90… placements
 Sections at 18 students (three year average)
 Sections of Studio courses at 10 students
 Soft landing = non-credit
 Three credit courses for each experience (studio
3 credit + paired with a 3 credit 121 or discipline
course)
 CRC has all 060 and split score placements

25. Old REA and
ENG
Proposed
Year 1
Headcount
26,347
21,950
Sections
1,436
1,619
Credits
78,119
90,666

26.  50% of the students in CRC are enrolled in 121
the next semester
 20% “soft landing” students are retained to
CRC

27. Historical Proposed
Year 1
Proposed
Year 2
21,915 21,950 24,500
1,436 1,219 1,760
78,119 88,914 98,317

28.  One credit soft landing
 10 students in all soft landing co-requisite
sections

29. Historical Proposed
Year 1
Proposed
Year 2
Co-req
soft
landing
26,347 21,950 24,500 24,500
1,436 1,619 1,760 1,792
78,119 90,666 98,317 101,145

30.  Expenses tied to sections = $1950 per section
 Revenue tied to credit hours for FY13 =
$174.75 per credit

31. Old
model
New
model
New w/
co-req
option
Expenses
(sections)
1,535
$2,993,250
1,998
$3,896,100
2,513
$4,900,350
Revenue
(credits)
97,238
$16,992,340
97,866
$17,101,908
93,560
$16,349,610
Net $13,999,090 $13,205,808 $11,449,260

32. Old model New model New w/ co-
req soft
landing
Expenses
(sections)
1,436
$2,800,200
1,760
$3,432,000
1,792
$3,494,400
Revenue
(credits)
78,119
$13,651,295
98,317
$17,180,895
101,145
$17,675,088
Net $10,581,095 $13,748,895 $14,180,688

34. Unless otherwise specified, this work by the Colorado Community College System http://www.cccs.edu is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License. The material was created with funds from the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Community College and Career Training (TAACCCT) grant awarded to the Colorado Online Energy Training Consortium (COETC).