Why is this important?
On Tuesday, Sept. 11, the AB 705 group is going to make a presentation at the English Dept. meeting. The presentation will include a recommendation and a request for some guidance. And there’s some urgency here: Program Review is due Oct. 15, and some of what we decide should probably make an appearance there.
We meet in that lunch room outside the Language Arts Office. All English faculty (full- and part-time) are welcome to attend. But we know that not everyone is available at that time. So we wanted to get as much information out as possible so that there’s time (a) to prepare for the meeting (for those who can attend), and (b) to email me any thoughts, which I will share at the meeting.
Note that I am doing my best to accurately represent the group’s position on these issues. The members of the group can correct anything I get wrong. (As to why I might misrepresent some of this, see #2 under “Some notes,” below.)
Our request:
We welcome any available English faculty to attend our department meetings. We’d love to have you directly in the conversation.
If you’re not available, though (and we understand!), please send any thoughts to me (gkemble@yccd.edu). I’ll make sure your views are heard.
The recommendation:
Discontinue English 105, effective Spring 2019 (next semester).
Reasoning: AB 705 requires that we maximize the chance for students to complete English 1A in one year. Since English 105 is two levels below ENGL 1A, it is impossible for a 105 student to complete 1A in a year.
There is broad consensus that two-levels-below classes will simply not be allowed beginning Fall 2019. This means that a student who took 105 in Spring would go on to the next level no matter what. In other words, students who fail 105 in Spring 2019 would end up in the same place as students who pass. We see no benefit in that, and so recommend that we just discontinue it immediately.
Up for discussion:
We need to decide if we want to discontinue English 51 and/or English 56 in Fall 2016.
Initially, we thought that this was a fait accompli–that we would not be allowed to offer one-level-below-transfer courses (both ENLG 51 and 56 fit that bill). However, we now believe that we probably have two years to offer the class(es) and, if the data supports it, to continue to offer them.
More specifically: AB 705 requires that we prove two things: (a) that students are highly unlikely to complete ENGL 1A in their first year without such a course, and (b) that they are more likely to complete 1A in their first year if they take the course.
That second half is the killer. If we want to continue offering ENGL 51 and/or 56, we’ll need to collect data that shows that our “throughput” (getting students through ENGL 1A within one year) is better than the state average.
So there are two things to keep in mind as we make this decision:
- We have two years to test this, if we decide this is the way we want to go. We’ll need to arrange with Jeremy to be sure we’re collecting the data we need to assess whether this is successful (by the state’s definition) or not.
- I know we think that these courses are in our students’ best interests, and I hear a lot of fear (and share it, to a large extent) that eliminating them is really bad for students. But the research (at least as I understand it) seems to suggest that below-transfer work is not effective. (Of course, that’s the point of testing and assessing it….)
In progress:
This is mostly an FYI, but we welcome any input.
We were originally planning to make two additional, general recommendations:
- Some type of support for all ENGL 1A courses–most likely embedded tutors, but also training and support for faculty–though we need time to research what those solutions would be (and how we’d manage to pay for it). AND
- Some sort of 5-unit solution for students whose GPA placed them at the “highly recommended” level (see the Memo, linked to in the first item in “Some notes,” below). Two possible solutions: a 5-unit course, or a 1-unit co-requisite. Each has its benefits and drawbacks. The details need to be addressed (and there are devils in those details), but this is the general direction we’ve discussed.
Much of that second recommendation depends on what is legal and logistically possible. But since that discussion, we’ve learned a number of things that require that we meet again for further discussion.
So, for this item, we basically want to inform y’all that we’re having these discussions, and to ask that you offer any thoughts that you might have.
Some notes:
- There are two really important documents that we recommend that you read: the Implementation Memo (a joint memo from the state Chancellor’s Office and the state Academic Senate), and an AB 705 FAQ from the Chancellor’s Office that, among other things, seeks to clarify some issues and/or misunderstandings that the Implementation Memo has raised. Please read these. They’re required for an informed discussion.
- If it seems like things are a little disorganized, that’s because they are. But that’s because there’s a lot of uncertainty at the state level. The legislature passed AB 705 with little warning, and no time for preparation. The state Chancellor’s Office is putting out implementation guidelines very quickly, which often leads to some confusion. And this affects our ability to make clear recommendations. For example, we had a pretty clear recommendation on #3 (above), but shortly afterwards learned new information that requires additional discussion. Apologies… but it’s pretty much unavoidable.
- As I mentioned, Program Review is due in October. This means that we may need to make some decisions before the next department meeting. Some of that may electronic, but I suspect we’ll need to arrange another face-to-face meeting. Keep your eye out for emails.
BTW: Who is this AB 705 group?
Shawn, Kiara, and Carrie agreed to split the AB 705 English lead position. As Comp Coordinator, I’ve joined in the meetings to offer support. And Jeremy Brown, the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness (our main researcher), has been helping out, too.