By Jennifer Ortiz, English Faculty at West LA College & Strong Start to Finish Advisory Board Member
When the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office made the call to “remove unnecessary remediation courses” in 114 campuses, many stakeholders balked at the challenge. At the time, I was one of many English faculty challenging our traditional placement tests. These faculty members and I knew something needed to change. In 2018, the introduction of A.B. 705, provided data to validate what we already knew, mandating an urgency for change. When the bill became law, soon our new task was to figure out how to scale remediation practices and transform developmental education.
Reform in English and math requires statewide and local funding, faculty’s ability to transform the classroom using data-driven practices, and faculty input in policy. As new data becomes available, discussions on the need for faculty participation in all statewide policies are ever more evident. Anne Kim’s report, Incomplete: the Unfinished Revolution in College Remedial Education, highlights a point of contention between Gov. Newsom’s 2022 signed legislation “that essentially banned remedial education in California.” Kim’s report clarifies how this legislation has been misrepresented as mandating corequisites. My English department didn’t see the law as mandating corequisites; instead, we saw it as an opportunity to listen to faculty and students for guidance and collect data. We’d worked with the Center for Urban Education (CUE) at the University of Southern California for several years and were familiar with data-driven teaching practices before the statewide mandate.
With the passing of the bill, my department had an opportunity to request resources and campus-wide support. The English Department created several options giving students a choice. They could select from various models, including a standalone class, a credit class paired with a support course with non-punitive attendance, drop-in workshops, sections with embedded tutors, or corequisites. In the first year of implementation, our completion and success rates confirmed that we were on the right track.
We also established relationships with campuses who used data to drive their reform efforts. Quickly, we picked up their best practices and tried, through our campus “roadshows” to share the importance of data. A coalition of supporting faculty and staff grew. The department accomplished removing the traditional placement model and English courses that did not count toward students’ educational goals.
While I agree with the urgency of removing remedial courses, I feel some faculty resent not playing a role or having a say in policy development. Many feel excluded from statewide discussions. As classroom and subject experts, we also have a narrative to share. On the other hand, one of the biggest issues in discussing equity gaps is the devaluing of data-driven reform. Equity gaps exist because of institutional roadblocks and are not a measure of student potential. This is why we should always measure our success with data. Whenever I’ve engaged in conversations with folks who think students should be “college ready” on the first day of class, they divorce themselves, as faculty of their responsibility to the success of students. As a new instructor, I was guilty of this. But working with CUE taught me the importance of evaluating my gradebook. Based on my classroom data, I rewrote all my punitive grading policies. I saw a surge of student retention and success in all courses. What transformed my perspective was my understanding of the connection between policy, data, and classroom innovation.
Unfortunately, some administrators followed traditional funding priorities without considering the task of transforming course sequencing and how innovation should redirect their leadership as well. Faculty need access and opportunity to advocate at the district and state level. The lack of partnership with administration and input will likely widen the chasm between all stakeholders.
I’m not surprised how the local issues at many campuses mirror discussions happening at the state level. Many faculty organizations argue the state is legislating policies that enforce the removal of remedial courses and are negatively impacting student success. I’ve also heard arguments around the lack of funding and faculty input as we address the ambition driving A.B. 705. I’ve yet to hear a two-way discussion on next steps or how local and statewide concerns will be addressed in the next iteration of developmental education reform. I’m unsure how we can facilitate a level of engagement where all stakeholders feel heard. As a classroom faculty member who’s committed to closing racial equity gaps in my classes, I lean on the leadership of organizations and statewide advocates to voice my concerns. If stakeholders can figure out how to consistently address these issues in our next steps to reforming developmental education, we create the possibility for partnership and trust. It’s important to remember that without faculty buy-in for data-driven results, the chasm between classroom transformation and state-wide policy will only widen, further affecting the success of our most vulnerable students.
