Expanding Access to College-Level Courses

Colleges throughout the United States are evaluating the strategies used to decide whether students should be placed into college-level or developmental education courses. Usually, colleges use standardized placement tests to determine if students need developmental, or remedial, courses, which are designed to develop the reading, writing, or math skills of students deemed underprepared for college-level courses. However, increasing numbers of colleges are using multiple measures—including additional types of placement tests, high school transcripts, and evaluations of student motivation—to place students. There is no single, correct way to design and implement multiple measures assessments (MMA) to improve course placements. Colleges must decide what measures to include and how to combine them. This study was developed to add to the field's understanding about the implementation, cost, and efficacy of an MMA system using locally determined rules. As part of a randomized controlled trial, the study team evaluated MMA programs and interviewed and observed staff at five colleges in Minnesota and Wisconsin; it also wrote a short case study about one Wisconsin college. Findings The five colleges in the random assignment study targeted all students taking placement tests in the months before the fall 2018 semester. In the four colleges included in the current analysis, 5,282 students participated in the study; of these, 3,677 were tested for English, and 4,487 were tested for math. The findings suggest that while implementation (especially automation) was not easy, it was possible; and using the new MMA systems became much easier once they were established. Regarding the quantitative findings, in the first semester: As intended, colleges used MMA to place program group students in their courses, with few exceptions. As a result, more program group students than control group students were referred to college-level gatekeeper courses, by 15 to 17 percentage points. Program group students in the full sample also enrolled in more college-level gatekeeper courses than control group students (4.7 percentage points more in English; 3.9 percentage points more in math). Students in the “bump up” zone⁠—those eligible for college-level placement based only on MMA results, not a single standardized placement test—who placed into college-level English because they were in the program group were 28 percentage points more likely to have completed the gatekeeper English course by the end of their first college semester than their control group counterparts. Students in the “bump up” zone who placed into college-level math were 12 percentage points more likely to have completed the gatekeeper math course by the end of their first college semester than their control group counterparts. The next and final report will present an analysis of transcript outcomes from three semesters of follow-up and will add two more cohorts to the research sample

Toward Better College Course Placement: A Guide to Launching a Multiple Measures Assessment System

Drawing on lessons from 10 Minnesota and Wisconsin colleges that piloted multiple measures systems for placing students into developmental and college-level courses, this guide from CCRC and MDRC provides recommendations for other colleges interested in implementing or testing their own multiple measures systems. Beginning with the rationale behind changing assessment practices, the guide outlines what a multiple measures assessment system is, what it takes to get started, the personnel involved, and the costs that may be incurred in the design and planning processes. Recent evidence suggests that relying on traditional placement tests misplaces substantial numbers of students, with many going into developmental education who could have been successful in college-level courses. Multiple measures placement systems that use alternative measures alongside the traditional tests will potentially provide more accurate results and better student outcomes. Still, practitioners may be hesitant to change their current practices, skeptical about the measures used, or unsure where to start. The information in this guide addresses these concerns and provides recommendations for how to approach each step of the implementation process

Who Should Take College-Level Courses? Impact Findings From an Evaluation of a Multiple Measures Assessment Strategy

Virtually all community colleges and more than 90 percent of public four-year colleges use the results of placement tests—either alone or in concert with other information—to determine whether students are ready for college-level coursework or need remedial help in math or English. Evidence suggests that placement tests do a poor job of indicating which students need remediation. The Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness (CAPR) is studying an alternative placement system that uses multiple measures—including both placement test scores and high school GPAs—in predictive algorithms to place incoming students into remedial or college-level courses. Seven community colleges in the State University of New York system participated in the random assignment study to determine whether multiple measures placement leads to better student outcomes than a system based on test scores alone. Using multiple measures placement, many more students were assigned to college-level courses. In math, gains in college-level enrollment and completion were small and short-lived. But in English, the effects were much larger and lasted through at least three semesters. Regardless of whether they were predicted to succeed, students did better when they were allowed to start in college-level courses. A report on longer-term outcomes from the study will be released in summer 2022

Informed Self-Placement Today: An Exploratory Study of Student Outcomes and Placement Practices

In response to research raising concerns about developmental placement, new placement systems and curricular models designed to increase the number of students placed into entry-level college courses have emerged in recent years. These systems aim to more accurately identify students who may benefit from some type of developmental instruction and those who are ready for entry-level college courses. This CAPR brief presents findings of an exploratory study of informed self-placement (ISP), a placement system in which colleges provide information about placement policies, available courses, and other relevant topics to engage students as active participants in their own placement. ISP, which is also called guided self-placement or directed self-placement, is of interest because it does not rely solely, if at all, on standardized test scores, which research shows are not reliable predictors of performance in college. Moreover, many colleges adopted ISP during the COVID-19 pandemic, when this study began, because they experienced difficulty administering standardized tests and were seeking reliable placement methods that could be easily used in a virtual setting. The study examined course enrollment and completion trends among students placed using ISP practices and sought to document varied approaches to ISP. The researchers collected demographic and outcome data on students’ math and English course enrollments and completions over the last five academic years at three Nevada colleges offering associate and bachelor’s degrees. They also interviewed assessment and placement scholars and representatives of higher education systems and institutions currently implementing some form of ISP. The brief provides a taxonomy of various ISP systems, shares descriptive data on course enrollment and completion, and identifies important equity and access considerations for states and institutions interested in implementing ISP. Although more research is needed to understand the causal impacts of ISP on student outcomes, the data suggest that ISP has the potential to improve students' access to college-level coursework. This exploratory study accompanies the CAPR brief Reviewing the Research on Informed Self-Placement: Practices, Justifications, Outcomes, and Limitations by Tiffany Morton

Turning the Tide: Five Years of Achieving the Dream in Community Colleges

In 2004, Lumina Foundation for Education launched “Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count,” a national initiative aimed at improving success among community college students, particularly low-income students and students of color. Now encompassing more than 130 institutions in 24 states and the District of Columbia, Achieving the Dream helps community colleges build a “culture of evidence” by using student records and other data to examine students’ performance over time and to identify barriers to academic progress. From there, community colleges are expected to develop intervention strategies designed to improve student outcomes; conduct further research on student progress; and bring effective programs to scale. As a result, it is anticipated that colleges will see measurable improvements over time in student outcomes, including increased progress through developmental education and college-level “gatekeeper” (introductory) courses, grades, persistence, and completion of credentials

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

Lessons From Two Experimental Studies of Multiple Measures Assessment

Prior research suggests that using only standardized placement test scores to determine which new college students should take developmental coursework is inadequate, as many students may be unnecessarily assigned to developmental courses. MDRC and CCRC recently completed two experimental studies of multiple measures assessment, in which colleges use high school GPA, placement test scores, and other measures to assign incoming students to developmental or college-level courses in math and English. One study took place at seven City of New York (CUNY) community colleges; the other study was conducted at four Minnesota community colleges and one Wisconsin community college. Results from both studies indicate the student outcomes improve under multiple measures assessment as compared to status quo placement based on test scores alone. This brief describes findings from the studies and offers recommendations for institutions seeking to reform their assessment and placement practices

Increasing Community College Graduation Rates with a Proven Model: Three-Year Results from the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) Ohio Demonstration

The nation's community colleges play a central role in producing a more educated workforce and promoting social mobility. They serve about 40 percent of all college students and, not surprisingly, they serve a disproportionate number of low-income and underrepresented students. But most students who enter these colleges do not graduate — only about a third of entering students earn a degree or certificate within six years. Among the many programs that have attempted to increase graduation rates, one program stands out. Developed by the City University of New York (CUNY), the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP) is a comprehensive program that provides students with up to three years of financial and academic support and other support services. Along with those services and other forms of support comes an obligation to attend full time and participate in essential program services. An experimental evaluation of CUNY ASAP found that the program nearly doubled graduation rates after three years. This report presents findings through three years from a replication of the ASAP model at three community colleges in Ohio. Low-income students were randomly assigned either to a program group, who could participate in their colleges' new programs based closely on ASAP (called the Ohio Programs), or to a control group, who could receive the usual college services. Comparing the two groups' outcomes provides an estimate of the Ohio Programs' effects.