Tag: AB 705

This semester, a number of faculty will be teaching the ENGL 1A + ENGL 10 for the first (and last) time, and I’ve gotten a few questions about it. So here are a few thoughts.

ENGL 10 was a stop-gap measure, responding to requirements from AB 705 while we worked to get a five-unit course (ENGL 1E) through curriculum and articulation. That course will replace 1A/10 next fall.

That’s not to say ENGL 10 is a bad thing; the “co-req model” is one of the most recommended strategies for offering support for students. But there are a few quirks that you’ll want to be aware of, if you’re teaching it:

• Since we aren’t allowed to split up a one-unit course, it’s created a somewhat awkward schedule: MW classes have two hours on M and three hours on W; TTh classes have three hours on T and two hours on Th.
• Since ENGL 10 is a separate course, it needs its own syllabus, even if (as many do) you choose to treat the 1A/10 pair as a single course. (Here’s a sample syllabus (PDF) from Kiara’s ENGL 10 from this semester.)
• Since it’s a separate course, it also means you’ll need to grade it separately. ENGL 10 is Pass/No Pass, though, so this is largely a formality ; P/NP doesn’t affect a grade point average, and has no effect on their ability to move on to 1B or 1C. (I don’t recommend you tell your students this, though; the grade-grubbers might decide it’s not worth their time.)

The course was designed to offer the greatest flexibility for instructors to meet the needs of their students. The Course Outline of Record (PDF) says:

Based on ongoing instructor assessment of student needs, students will work on some of the following:

The key really is to adjust to the students–the specific students you have, in your specific class, on that particular week.

I’ll quote some advice from a couple instructors, but first I want to say something quick about who the students are.

AB 705 required that we change our placement policies. We settled on the following (this is simplified, since not all students come to the college with a high school GPA, but it’s good enough for this discussion):

• High school GPA of 2.6+ — directly into ENGL 1A. That’s about 75% of the students.
• HSGPA 1.9-2.6 — we recommend they take ENGL 1A with ENGL 10. This is about 22% of the students.
• HSGPA <1.9 — we requires they take ENGL 1A + 10. This is about 3% of the students.

This means that we should expect a wide range of students (in terms of preparation, skill, and maturity) in all the ENGL 1A classes. And–in theory, at least–that distribution should skew a bit toward the unprepared side of the bell curve for the ENGL 1A/10. However, in practice, it seems–at least anecdotally–that there isn’t necessarily a huge difference between them. Thus the need for flexibility.

So here are some thoughts that Shawn and Carrie sent me. Much of what is here is valuable advice for both 1A and the 1A/10 combo, though Carrie’s suggestion relates more to the latter. And many of them have been touched on, or even more deeply explored, in the Community of Practice meetings (which everyone is welcome to attend!). And even if you can’t make the meetings, we encourage you to sign up for the community’s Canvas presence (you should have received an invitation from Shawn earlier in the semester); you could still follow along with the readings, and even participate in the discussion forum.

So here’s what Shawn wrote:

Here are a few things that come to mind, but it is not exhaustive. 

• Create a comfortable, safe learning community
• Help students develop a positive reader/writer identity
• Explicitly model the cognitive moves an academic reader/writer makes and give time for guided practice in class
• Model and practice pre, during, and post academic reading strategies
• Make metacognitive conversations about HOW we read and write a routine classroom practice
• Build in plenty of time for reflection
• Help students with time management
• Use “Just in time” instruction, instead of front-loading via lecture
• Growth Mindset grading
• Allow plenty of time for low-stakes collaborative practice and formative, timely assessment before high-stakes, summative assessment
• Work to differentiate instruction and activities when possible
• Don’t assume technological expertise–try to take them to the computer lab to help them learn how to navigate Canvas and create documents that meet academic conventions.

And Carrie added this helpful suggestion:

I think the one thing I would add to Shawn’s list is to not plan 10 too strictly. 

At the beginning of the semester, I used the “10 hour” for student success instruction (like drawing up a homework planner, or digital literacy exercises). As the semester has progressed, I’ve used the 10 hour to “balloon out” time for specific tasks that I know are going to take my 1A/10 students longer, like reading and discussion routines. Tomorrow, for example, I’m going to devote part of the 10 hour to a research exercise that my 1A students pulled off in an hour today– I know my 1A/10 students are going to need more time to process, discuss, and make decisions.

So, the point being: figure out a way to make 10 adaptable, even week-to-week. 

I’ll just conclude by repeating an important point: Though ENGL 10 gives the time and space to incorporate many of these strategies, all of our ENGL 1A courses now are likely to included students who might not have been in our classes before, and we need to adjust to that reality. And many of the things that we can do in our ENGL 10 can also be applied in our ENGL 1A classes more generally–indeed, many of them should be.

If this post raises any additional questions, or if I was unclear about any of the issues, and so on, feel free to contact me at gkemble@yccd.edu.

Below is the text from an email (actually two, since I messed up on one) that I sent to English faculty on May 8. This is the corrected version:

Subject: AB 705 Professional Development (first meeting next week!)

Hello English Instructors,

As promised, we have set dates for English faculty AB 705 professional development! The aim of these interactive meetings is to support you as you support your students. Participants will have opportunities to trouble-shoot and share knowledge and experience, and we will also try out strategies and routines we can use to support students in the classroom. You may participate as much—or as little—as you like. Compensation for your time is outlined below.

Stipends will be offered to part-time faculty who meet the stipend requirements (this involves minimum hours and developing an artifact to share). Stipends will be based on the average part-time instructor hourly wage: $65 an hour (as you know, this amount includes prep time). We will send out a stipend application form with all the details soon.

Full-time faculty can use the hours for FLEX. Or, you can apply for advancement on the salary schedule, as outlined in this HR document about “professional growth“. If you do the latter, keep in mind that you need to file this paperwork ahead of time, and you will need to follow up with more documentation after the PD series is complete.

Here are the dates—mark your calendars!

Meeting 1 Fri, 5/17–1-3 pm	Face to face meeting  1
Thurs and Fri, 8/8-8/9 from 8:30-4:30 each day.	Reading Apprenticeship 2-day Workshop.Note: A limited number of $900 stipends (10) will be paid to part-time faculty for attending this workshop and completing a “making it real” assignment. This is separate from the English PD stipend because they will be offered to part-time faculty across disciplines. Make sure to register early (watch your e-mail) and apply for a stipend, if you are interested. English, Math, and ESL instructors who will teach classes in Fall 19 will be given priority.
Evening of Fri 8/8	Reading prep for 2nd day of workshop (post online before day 2)
Meeting 2 Fri, 8/23 from 9-11	Face-to-face meeting   2
	Reading prep for meeting 2 (post online before meeting)
Meeting 3 Fri, 9/6 from 9-11	Face-to-face meeting 3
	Reading prep for meeting 3 (post online before meeting)
Meeting 4 Fri, 9/27 from 9-11	Face-to-face meeting  4
	Reading prep for meeting 4 (post online before meeting)
Meeting 5 Fri, 10/18 from 9-11	Face-to-face meeting  5
	Reading prep for meeting 5 (post online before meeting)
Meeting 6 Fri, 11/15 from 9-11	Face-to-face meeting 6
	Reading prep for meeting 6 (post online before meeting)
Meeting 7 Fri, 12/6 from 9-11	Face-to-face meeting  7

I sent out an email announcing the results of the survey (re: scheduling the 1-hour co-requisite course) and pointed here for further information about the survey results, as well as responses to a handful of the comments.

The decision

As I said in the email, we’ll be scheduling the co-req (ENGL 10) on the first day of each pair (Monday for MW classes, and Tu for TTh classes).

Survey results

Of the 21 who answered:

• 11 (52.4%) saw no difference or had no preference
• 7 (33.3%) preferred the first-day option
  
• 3 (14.3%) preferred the second-day option

The comments offered solid reasons for both first- and second-day options, so I followed the 7-3 vote for those who had a preference.

In response a few of the comments

I wonder if students might have a preference…

Ideally, we’d have had time to try to find this out, but we learned about the need to schedule the co-req on a single day just last week, and we’re already late with the schedule. (I’m also not sure how to get that kind of question out to students.) We might want to coordinate asking our students during the fall semester — but see the next point.

I think this is a scheduling nightmare for both faculty and students, so either way, it’s not ideal.

and

I’ll be happy when/if we can get the 5-unit 1A in place, and the time can be split across both meetings.

Yes, it is a scheduling nightmare, and yes, I really hope we can get a 5-unit 1A to articulate this year, so that this mess ends up being temporary (two semesters, at most). This is in progress, but it takes time.

I’m mainly curious how this will affect part-time scheduling, and if part-timers will have to stay on campus longer with breaks, which might affect their availability. If we are required to have office hours on the “longer” day and are teaching 2 sections for 6 hours that day, that puts us on campus for longer than some of us are used to (and with travel time, it might be an issue).

I don’t see any way that this can not affect part-time schedules. In fact, in addition to this new ENGL 1A+10 set up, we’re also increasing the number of ENGL 56 sections, which are also 5-unit courses (just without the staggered scheduling). That will also create challenges. As always, I will do my best to minimize the number of preps and the length of time between courses. But the complexity of the schedule and the requirements of the contract also play into that jigsaw puzzle.

That said, there are two potential benefits here: first, it will be possible to get the 20-unit maximum units per year with only 4 courses, rather than 5. Second, at least in the case of the staggered 1A+10, a part-timer could schedule her office hour on the second day (i.e., Mon 9-12, Wed 9-11 + office hour 11-12).

None of that is to deny (as stated in the previous comment) that this will be a scheduling nightmare. But we’ll do the best we can.

What’s next?

I just received the final class schedule for Fall 2019. Once I’ve worked with faculty who are in cohort programs (EOPS First-Year Experience and Puente), full-time faculty will sign up for their schedules. After that, I’ll put together the part-time faculty schedules.

Of course, in preparation for that last step, I’ll need to gather information from the part-time faculty about availability and preferences, etc. I will send that survey out in a separate email, so that (a) it doesn’t get lost in this disaster of an email, and (b) I have time to consider possible changes to the survey so that I can have the best information possible.

Let me know if you have any questions.

We met to work on our SLOs, along with a few other things, on the three days after the scheduled final. I think the meeting was really positive; meeting as a department, both full- and part-time, is important–and will be more so given some of the changes in the works, primarily (thought not exclusively) regarding AB 705, as explained below.

So here are some highlights, including what we discussed, as well as some announcements and some decisions we made.

SLO Discussion

Issues

• We didn’t all agree on some definitions of terms in the SLOs. The most obvious was the term “synthesize” (for 1A), but there were other examples as well.
• We had a wide range of assessment methods, from specific assignments to more holistic assessments. Some of these might not fit the expectations for SLO assessment.
• We haven’t had the opportunity to discuss ENGL 1B or 1C SLOs.
• Discussion at the end of the semester is easily forgotten before the beginning of the semester, so we wondered about the timing of these meetings.

Decisions

We agreed to break these end-of-semester meetings into two separate meetings–one at the beginning of the semester, to discuss how we’ll define and assess that semester’s SLO; and one at the end of the semester, to discuss the results of that semester’s SLO assessments. 

Though the days will be distributed differently, this is the same work, so we plan to have part-time faculty sign in and be paid, as before.

The meeting before the semester begins:

• One hour dedicated to each level: 1A, 56 (and 51) and 1B/1C.
• Discussion with specific samples about the SLO, seeking agreement on definitions, assessment methods, and standards.
• I will send an email requesting, for each course, assignments and/or writing samples (stripped of identifying information) that could be used to measure the SLO for that semester. This meeting won’t work if I don’t get those. So watch for that email.
• We will try to record these meetings so that those who couldn’t attend will be able to listen (or watch?) the discussion. 
• Next semester, we’ll be measuring the same SLOs that we measured this semester, but this will likely change each year (we’re required to measure each SLO at least once each four-year program review cycle.

The meeting after the semester begins will take place over two days, to accommodate MW and TTh teaching schedules.

AB 705

Over the past few months, we’ve been working to get ourselves set up to comply with AB 705 while still serving our students well–and without lowering standards, as many of us fear may be inevitable. Some highlights of that discussion:

• For those who want background information, there are a few resources that you should check out:
  • Joint memo from the State Chancellor’s Office and the State Academic Senate
  • State Chancellor’s FAQ (v. 2.0) – This was released so recently that I haven’t had a chance to look at it closely. I just noticed at least one thing in it that our AB 705 workgroup will need to discuss. (As I mentioned, the implementation timeline was so aggressive that what we’re told is constantly evolving.)
  • A couple of my previous posts: AB 705 and Spring 2019, and AB 705 group recommendations (so far)
• Some decisions have already been put into place:
  • English 105 has been discontinued, effective Spring 2019 (next semester)
  • English 51 will be discontinued effective Fall 2019
  • Effective Fall 2019, we will offer, in effect, three levels of basic composition:
    • English 1A – for the highest placing students (high school GPA of 2.6 and up) 
    • English 1A plus a co-requisite, English 10 (see below) – for middle placing students (high school GPA of 1.9 up to 2.59)
    • English 56 – for students with high school GPA > 1.9.
  • English 10 has been approved by the curriculum committee.  The Course Outline of Record (which you can see on CurricuNet Meta) includes topics from ENGL 56 and 1A, with the instructor deciding what to select from among those topics based on the need of her specific students.
• Some decisions are still being finalized:
  • We have a new, 5-unit course that, we hope, will replace ENGL 1A+10, but we will need to be sure that it will articulate with CSU and UC before we can offer it. Assuming that isn’t a problem, that would likely go into effect Fall 2020.
  • Beginning Fall 2019, we plan to offer on-going professional development that would include:
    • Readers Apprenticeship workshop during professional development week
    • Inquiry groups throughout the semester. We don’t have details yet, but it would be something like a couple hours twice a month, with both predetermined topics and opportunity for troubleshooting-type discussions
    • Stipends for part-time faculty to participate
  • Looking further ahead:
    • There are some requirements (which, as Carrie pointed out, are likely to change, so we probably have a moving target…) that we’ll need to prove we’ve met in order to keep placing students into the co-req course and/or 56. So there is a chance that Fall 2021 will again look different. (Ugh.)

We had a few issues come up, mostly around concerns–all of which are perfectly justified–about what the state is demanding from us. A few things I think are worth keeping in mind (and, yes, this is my perspective–not everyone will agree with me on this):

• The percentage of students that the state expects to fail to pass ENGL 1A within a year is very high. There’s concern–and it’s probably right–that many students will just quit. But the number of students they expect to pass in a year is actually higher than the number who spend multiple years and don’t pass.
• National research shows that high school GPA is a significantly better predictor of success in English and math courses. By using placement exams (we’ve used Accuplacer, which I regularly heard called “Inaccuplacer” at state academic senate meetings), we’ve been underplacing students. This means that students who could have succeeded in 1A have been forced to take 56, or even 105, which adds to the time they need to stay at Yuba–if it doesn’t make them quit altogether.

My personal take: we would have gotten to something similar to AB 705 sooner or later, given our previous efforts around acceleration (moving from 5 levels of comp (110A, 110B, 105, 51, 1A) to two or three (56, 1A or 105, 51, 1A) and the work around Guided Pathways. So I’m not opposed to the theory. But the implementation timeline has been insane, and doesn’t give us the opportunity to figure out the best way to do things.

That said: the AB 705 workgroup (Shawn, Kiara, and Carrie) have been doing great work working through options and recommending the best routes for the time we have.

Final Exam Schedule

Next semester, we will no longer be giving our final exams at a common time. Instead, we’ll be scheduled like pretty much all the rest (the exceptions being math and ESL). A couple things to note:

• The final exam schedule is on one of the last pages of the semester’s printed Schedule of Classes. (Here’s the Spring 2019 Schedule of Classes; you’ll find the final exam schedule on page 129.)
• The final is only two hours (1:50, technically), not the three that you may be used to when we had a common time.
• If we have the misfortune of having our class’s final scheduled on the last day (Monday, May 20 in the upcoming semester), we are still required to meet with the class at the time. This is true even if we don’t plan to offer an actual final exam–even if, for example, we have a writing project due the last day of regular classes. District policy, based on state law, requires us to meet. We are allowed to do whatever we think is appropriate for our class. But we do have to meet.

Closing thoughts

I think that’s it. If you think of anything I left out that I shouldn’t have, please let me know. (My email is gkemble@yccd.edu )

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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. 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
2. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.