Presented at a Workshop for Kentucky’s Redesign for 2009: Improving the Success of Underprepared Students June 17, 20

1. Redesigning Developmental Studies to be Efficient and Effective in Tennessee Funded by FIPSE/Principal InvestigatorDr. Paula Myrick Short, Vice Chancellor for Academic AffairsTennessee Board of Regents Presented at a Workshop for Kentucky’s Redesign for 2009: Improving the Success of Underprepared Students June 17, 2008 Dr. Treva Berryman, TN Board of Regents Assoc. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

2. Developmental Studies Some see as a Symptom, Not a Solution • High percentage of students in developmental education • 28% of all students, 40% of community college students (NCES, 2003) • Low college attainment rates • 16% enrolled in remedial reading and 27% enrolled in remedial math earn bachelor’s degree (Adelman, 2004) • High cost to students and states • 1 billion dollars a year dedicated to developmental education. (Breneman/Harlow, 1999) • Focus on higher education/high school alignment as panacea • 31 states involved with Achieve, Inc.’s American Diploma Project (Achieve, Inc.)

3. Developmental Studies as Solution • States setting ambitious goals to increase college attainment • 90% of new jobs require postsecondary education (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2006) • Enrollment increases from students traditionally underserved and under-prepared for postsecondary education (WICHE, 2003) • Research finds that developmental studies works for those who complete. (Bettinger and Long, 2006)

4. Who Regulates Developmental Studies? • States • Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Massachusetts • Postsecondary Systems • Tennessee, Georgia • Individual Institutions • For most states placement and assessment decisions are made by individual institutions - Education Commission of the States, 2008

5. Barriers to Success include: • Low completion rates • Little data about what works • Non-traditional student attendance patterns • Student goals not aligned with traditional measures of success • Financial aid, funding formulas and other policies which limit innovation in program delivery • Misperceptions from policymakers • The pressure to run successful programs inexpensively.

6. The Challenge: Aligning State and System Policy with Institutional Practice to Deliver Developmental Studies Effectively and Efficiently Critical Components for Success: 1) Provide Steadfast System Level Leadership --to “push” the agenda with the campuses—not letting up in communicating the message that it WILL be done. 2) Empower Broad-Based Action -- provide a mechanism, a model, (i.e., NCAT process, task force, etc.) 3) Make Needed Resources Available -- provide support and recognize progress (even small “wins”).

7. Thanks to NCAT and TBROur students have benefitedfrom this project. The above statement is from the final PowerPoint slide of a recent presentation given by the director of a math redesign pilot. The first statement of his presentation was, “This project was a TBR mandate. We had to do this even though we didn’t want to. . .”

8. TBR Developmental Studies Redesign Project

9. Fall 2006 First-time Freshmen Cohort in the Tennessee Board of Regents System Total Universities: 11,155 with 4,511 (40.4%) in DSP Total Two-Year: 14,828 with 10,715 (72.3%) in DSP Grand Total: 25,983 with 15,226 (58.6%) in DSP

10. TBR 2005-2010 Strategic Plan Dr. Paula Myrick Short, vice chancellor for academic affairs, led the initiative to ensure a focus on student success was included in the system-wide strategic plan. One strategy was to redesign developmental studies for the state. Objective A8 Increase speed and success of remedial/developmental work for students requiring them to become college-ready. Strategy A8 • Establish a best practice, systemwide, community-college-based remedial/developmental program that is substantially technology driven, composed of language arts and mathematics, and allows students to identify and focus on the academic areas where they are deficient.

11. Timeline 2006 - Initial Planning - Appoint Task Force Members (~20-mostly faculty) - Applied for and awarded $739,000 FIPSE 3-yr grant 2007 - Institutional Involvement (The NCAT Process) - Two workshops (230+ and 100 participants) - Applications/Awards/Plan Pilot Interventions 2008 - (Spring/Fall) and 2009 (Spring) – Pilots 6+ 2009 - October (Sub-councils); November (Presidents) December (Board) 2010 - Implement system wide (perhaps in phases)

12. From Dr. Kildare to Medical Teams Source: Dr. Tom Carroll, President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

13. From Perry Mason….to Legal Teams Source: Dr. Tom Carroll, President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

14. From Superheroes to Super Teams Source: Dr. Tom Carroll, President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

15. From Flash Gordon to NASA Source: Dr. Tom Carroll, President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

16. From the Stand Alone Teacher of the 1950s… Source: Dr. Tom Carroll, President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

17. to the Stand Alone Teacher of the 21st Century Source: Dr. Tom Carroll, President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

18. VETERANS (63 plus)(Silent Generation) • 38 Million Americans • Respect experience • Duty before pleasure • Eager to conform to group roles • Equate age with status and power • See change as disruptive and undesirable • Fear new technologies Source: Dr. Tom Carroll, President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

19. BABY BOOMERS (43-62) • 76 million Americans • Enjoy and value teamwork • Want to get with the program • Are willing to go the extra mile • Have good people skills • Embrace equity and fairness • Like to receive credit and public recognition • Less flexible when it comes to change • Retiring but want to stay engaged • Own new technologies Source: Dr. Tom Carroll, President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

20. GEN-XERS (26-45) • 39 million Americans • Work best with members of their own choosing • Self-reliant, skeptical of authority • Embrace alternative workplace structures • Prefer informal roles and freedom to complete tasks their own way • Willing to challenge higher ups • Core of the work force • Technical savvy and creative • Use of new technologies Source: Dr. Tom Carroll, President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

21. NEXTERS (25 and under)GEN Y or MILLENNIALS • Diversity as a norm • Idealistic • Collaborative • Communication is constant • Open to new challenges • Prefer a flattened hierarchy • Wired – grew up digital • Embrace new technologies Source: Dr. Tom Carroll, President National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future

22. Since 1984 – There have been no significant changes in developmental studies education in the TBR system. Yet – Academic Program Inventory changed. Students are very different (Generation X, Y, and millennials). Careers require different skills. Technology changes every 90 days! (software that grades written essays, Tegrity, DSP Suite from Addison-Wesley, Carnegie Learning Systems, PLATO (Academic Systems), MyMathLab, MyReadingLab, etc.)

23. From Innovation to Transformation ►We came to the project with no pre-conceived answers. The challenge and opportunity is to 1) remain open-minded, 2) think out-of-the-box, and 3) base recommendations on data-driven decisions. ►Everything is on the table! This includes the concept of courses, assessments, diagnostics, placement, delivery methods, funding models, and more.

24. Partners and their Role National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT) www.thencat.org Dr. Carol Twigg –redesign funded pilots Education Commission of the States (ECS) www.ecs.org Dr. Bruce Vandal – expanding research to guide public policy National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) http://www.nchems.org Dr. Karen Paulson – external evaluation of the project

25. SUB-COMMITTEES OF DSPREDSIGN TASK FORCE • Math Curriculum Revision • English (reading/writing) Curriculum Revision • Assessment • New Funding (and Financial Aid) Model(s)

26. RELATED INITIATIVES ►P-16 Statewide Regional Councils ►Statewide Teaching Quality Initiative ►ACT Statewide Organization /ACT State Council ►High School Curriculum Alignment ►TN Lottery Rules & Regulations ►Dual Enrollment and AP Classes ►Institutional Community Outreach Programs ►American Diploma Project ►ACCESS to SUCCESS

27. Task Force has thus far reached consensus on a new philosophy for DSP: What are we remediating for? Change of focus from the past—to the future. (In the future, we will remediate for whatever is needed to prepare the student to succeed in the curriculum of their chosen field of study. If the student changes the career goal, additional remediation may be needed.) Can we benefit from an emphasis on the positive (strengths) rather than the negative (weaknesses)? Can remediation be provided “just in time” so that students can take college level courses prior to completing all developmental studies requirements?

28. Primary Objectives and Outcomes • Scalable for delivery in multiple settings • Increase the quality of learning and assessment • Significant cost savings • Institutional, Departmental, Individual Student, Cost per Student Served, etc.) • Streamline amount of time to completion • Maintain commitment to access • Replicable model (process and product) • Sustainable program with solid fiscal outlook and enhanced public support

29. Where are We Today? • Six funded pilots began January, 2008 (non-funded pilots are also on-going) (all in modular format). • 1 of 3 semesters of pilots completed with mixed results. • APSU -(“just in time” remediation for college level course(s) (significant improvement demonstrated) • CSTCC – math emporium (some aspects of initial plan not followed; mixed results; will be revising plan over the summer) • ClSCC – math emporium (first pilot extremely successful) • JSCC – math emporium (positive results) • NSTCC – Reading (mixed results; revising plan) • CoSCC – Reading/Writing combined (limited data; revising plan)

30. Where are We Today? • Support from Chief Academic Officer at all 19 TBR institutions • Updates provided at all quarterly sub-council meetings • Task forces and subcommittees made up of primarily faculty are working • A point person on each campus is identified for facilitating communication • Data mining in progress (institutional, statewide, and national with assistance from ECS in Institutional Research staff) • Task Force meetings every other month and conference calls on-going for committees • Regular communication with DSP Coordinators at each campus

31. Additional Resources ►The National Center for Academic Transformation http://www.thencat.org ►The Education Commission of the States http://www.ecs.org/ ►Dr. Paula Myrick Short, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Principal Investigator for FIPSE grant (paula.short@tbr.edu) ►Dr. Treva Berryman, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Tennessee Board of Regents (treva.berryman@tbr.edu) QUESTIONS?

32. Given new innovation in technology what would the ideal developmental studies program look like? • What are the challenges? • What are the opportunities? • What policies should be adopted? • What resources are required?

33. Discussion Questions • Are there advantages to common assessments, placements, and exits to encourage greater collaboration across institutions and systems? • Should developmental studies programs define standards for delivery or for outcomes? • How do we measure student success? • How do we move from innovation to transformation of developmental studies?