Please check back soon for future events, and sign up to receive invitations to our events and briefings.

2022 Speaker Series on California’s Future — Virtual Event

Virtual Event

2022 Annual Water Conference — In-Person and Online

We believe in the power of good information to build a brighter future for California. Help support our mission.

Marisol Cuellar Mejia, Olga Rodriguez, Hans Johnson, and Cesar Alesi Perez

Supported with funding from the William T. Grant Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Sutton Family Fund

California’s community colleges first began implementing Assembly Bill 705 (AB 705) in fall 2019, making major reforms to assess and place students away from pre-requisite remediation courses for English and math and into transfer-level courses. In this report, we examine the progress colleges and students have made around transfer-level math courses through fall 2020.

Starting in fall 2019, Assembly Bill 705 completely reshaped how California community colleges placed and remediated students. This law sought to dramatically reduce the number of students placed in remedial English and math courses, which had been a major barrier to students achieving their academic goals and had driven profound racial inequities in access to transfer-level courses.

AB 705 required community colleges to implement changes that would maximize students’ likelihood of starting and completing transfer-level (or degree-appropriate) coursework in English and math/quantitative reasoning within one year. Under the law, colleges must use high school information (e.g., GPA, coursework, and/or grades in specific math/English courses) as the primary criteria for placement recommendations.

As a result, students gained access to transfer-level English and math courses on a scale difficult to imagine just a few years ago. In fall 2019, almost all students enrolled in college composition, and more than three in four students enrolled directly in transfer-level math. This is a staggering change: compared to fall 2015, access rates have more than doubled in English and more than tripled in math.

Increased access has substantially affected successful completion of gateway, transfer-level courses—a key educational milestone. About 57,000 more first-time English students successfully completed college composition with a C or better in fall 2019 than in fall 2015, and roughly 31,000 more students passed gateway math. Altogether, 61 percent of first-time English students and 40 percent of first-time math students met this milestone in fall 2019—in both cases, more than double the number in fall 2015.

Importantly, the system made great strides in eliminating longstanding racial inequities. Racial equity gaps in access to college composition were virtually eliminated and they narrowed significantly in transfer-level math (Cuellar Mejia, Rodriguez, and Johnson 2020; RP Group 2021, Melguizo et al. 2021). Even with this extraordinary progress, the work is not over. Latino students and especially Black students continue to see lower completion rates than their Asian and white peers, especially for math. Moreover, thousands of students are still required or allowed to enroll in below transfer-level math courses, which reduces their chances of successfully completing a transfer-level course (Hayward 2021) and raises questions about whether colleges are maximizing the chance for students to complete a transfer-math course within a year.

Two years since California implemented AB 705 statewide, advocacy groups, policy researchers, academia, student groups, the philanthropic sector, and racial equity experts have continued to engage in this arena to ensure that colleges implement the law with fidelity and racial equity, and that the legislature’s objectives are met.

For this report, we rely on longitudinal student-level data provided by the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (this data covers the universe of students enrolled across all the colleges in the system) to examine how AB 705 has continued to play out as of fall 2020. We focus on math because implementing AB 705 in math has been more challenging than in English. At many colleges, a high share of first-time math students are still required or allowed to start in below transfer-level math courses, and large racial equity gaps in successful completion remain. A report to be released in the spring will focus on parallel results for English. We restrict our analyses to first-time math students because with these students we can do a more direct comparison of student outcomes before and after AB 705 implementation. In addition, when we evaluate outcomes beyond one term, we focus primarily on transfer-intending students (about 72% of first-time math students).

This report builds on our previous research and sheds light on how students were faring under the new placement structures and concurrent academic supports as of fall 2020. First, we examine how the pandemic affected implementation of AB 705. Next, we examine enrollments and outcomes in below transfer-level courses and assess how BSTEM students from the fall 2019 cohort have fared beyond their initial outcomes. We then report on strategies colleges have used to reduce racial inequality over the first two years of AB 705 implementation. We conclude with recommendations derived from our research.

We also consider the role of corequisite remediation in improving student outcomes. Corequisite remediation—a curricular model where students enroll directly into the gateway transfer-level course and receive academic support concurrently—has been a key component of how colleges implement AB 705. Students who take transfer-level math and a corequisite course are far more likely to complete transfer-level math than students who start in pre-requisite remediation, or below transfer-level.

However, questions remain about how to design and target corequisites. For example, more research is still needed to determine how much of the gain in successful completion is because students are receiving effective corequisite support, how much is because students are able to enroll in the transfer course that best fits their program of study, and how much is simply the result of direct access to the transfer-level course. The complexities in a system as big and heterogeneous as the California Community Colleges make answering these questions challenging. For example, corequisite courses come in many forms, and placement policies for corequisite courses vary across the system (Cuellar Mejia, Rodriguez, and Johnson 2020). Even though data constraints limit our ability to attribute causality to corequisite courses, in Technical Appendix E, we discuss preliminary findings that could shed light and guide future research.

As part of this research, we conducted semi-structured interviews with community college faculty, staff, and administrators at 22 colleges. Colleges were selected to include those with different scales of implementation and rates of access and success after AB 705.

The main goal of these interviews was to learn more about the ways colleges are addressing racial equity gaps in student outcomes after AB 705, as well as the challenges they are facing. Because colleges have been in a post-COVID environment for over a year, we also asked about lessons learned from the pandemic. Text boxes with interview highlights appear throughout the report to provide context for and explain our quantitative findings. A detailed analysis of the interviews by major themes appears in Technical Appendix C.

For a deeper quantitative examination of how AB 705 affected math course outcomes, college persistence, and racial equity, we used a comparative interrupted time series design that produces impact estimates by comparing student outcomes after AB 705 implementation to the outcomes that might have been expected based on pre-implementation trends. We present and discuss the results from this analysis in Technical Appendix D.

AB 705 opened the door to transfer-level courses to thousands of additional students. However, about half of students who started in a transfer-level course in fall 2019 did not successfully complete it on their first attempt. By understanding who these students were, their academic records, and how many eventually completed their transfer-level math, colleges may identify ways to support first-time math takers. We discuss these findings in Technical Appendix F.

The COVID-19 pandemic hit as colleges were in the midst of the second academic term of AB 705 implementation, affecting one-year outcomes for the fall 2019 cohort and outcomes for a new cohort of first-time math students. Our previous research offered early insights into how colleges responded to pandemic challenges. Here, we compare outcomes for students who took their first math course in fall 2020, during the pandemic, to those who did so in pre-pandemic fall 2019. While this section centers on comparing fall 2019 and 2020 cohorts, most figures here cover earlier cohorts as well. We do so to contextualize changes brought on by the pandemic.

From fall 2019 to fall 2020, the share of first-time math students who started in a transfer-level course remained practically unchanged (80% vs. 78%; Figure 1). Importantly, enrollment rates across all racial groups held steady: 85 percent for Asian students, 82 percent for white students, 78 percent for Latino students, and 73 percent for Black students (see Technical Appendix Figure B2).

Direct enrollment into transfer-level courses varied widely at the college level: 62 colleges saw increases, 40 saw declines, and 10 saw no change. In most colleges, changes were relatively modest, but a few saw notable changes. For example, 5 colleges saw a two-digit increase in the number of students going into transfer-level math despite there being fewer first-time math takers (see Technical Appendix Figure B3).

At the other end of the spectrum, 7 colleges experienced a double-digit drop in the share of students going into transfer-level math between fall 2019 and fall 2020. At these colleges, more students started in below transfer-level (BTL) math courses, even more than doubling in the case of 2 colleges. In all, 34 colleges saw increases in the number of first-time math students going into BTL courses, and in 21 of those colleges the increase was equivalent to 20 or more additional students (see Technical Appendix Table B1).

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTE: Fall of each year. Transfer-level with corequisite support or “corequisite model” means that the students started directly in a transfer-level course with concurrent academic support. In most colleges, the corequisite model means that students enroll in designated sections of the transfer-level course as well as in a one- to three-unit support course. Oftentimes the two courses are linked, meaning that all students in the designated sections take the corequisite support course. In a few colleges, students receive the additional support by enrolling in a higher-unit version of the transfer-level course. Refer to Technical Appendix Figure B1 for the size of each cohort.

There were fewer first-time math students in fall 2020 than in fall 2019, a decline that mostly reflected a lower number of first-time credit, transfer-intending students. Indeed, the decrease in first-time math students was less pronounced (9%) than in the overall transfer-intending cohort (17%), mostly because first-time math enrollment did not fall as much among continuing students. While 16 percent fewer first-time math students were in their first term, 3 percent fewer first-time math students were continuing students (Figure 2). Thus, the pandemic seems to have had a larger effect on overall enrollment than on enrollment in math.

The decline in first-time math enrollment was not a new trend: indeed, 11 percent fewer students took a math course for the first time in fall 2019 than in fall 2018. Students delaying math enrollment likely drove this decline. The number of first-time credit students who declared a transfer goal—or about 60 percent of all new students taking credit courses—is a proxy for the pool of students most likely to take a math course at some point in their college journey. Among these students, 53 percent took a math course in their first term in fall 2018 (pre-AB 705) compared to 46 percent of students in fall 2019 and fall 2020 (see Technical Appendix Figures B4 and B5).

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTE: Fall-to-fall annual changes. *First-time math students-new* are students who took their first math course on their first term in the CCC system. *First-time math students-continuing* are students who were enrolled at least one term at the CCC system prior to taking their first math course.

In terms of math pathways, first-time enrollment into statistics and liberal arts math courses (SLAM) declined less than into algebra-based courses (BSTEM), at 4 percent versus 12 percent (Figure 3). Consequently, the share of students starting in SLAM courses increased by 3 percentage points between 2019 and 2020 (Figure 4). The drop in BSTEM course enrollment could be related to students’ perception of how difficult these courses may be in the online setting. Enrollment in BTL courses fell even more, a signal that colleges continued to implement AB 705 during the pandemic.

The increase was larger among Asian students who, pre-pandemic, were more likely to start in a BSTEM course than in a SLAM course (44% vs. 40%), however, post-pandemic, this situation reversed (41% vs. 44%). This is consistent with the fact that the share of first-time Asian students pursuing BSTEM majors declined 4 percentage points between fall 2019 and fall 2020. In addition, some students in BSTEM majors may be taking statistics first, which is a required course in many of these majors. Among the other racial and ethnic groups, no significant changes occurred in the distribution of students into BSTEM and non-BSTEM majors.

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTES: Fall-to-fall annual changes. SLAM includes statistics offered in any department, liberal arts math, math for teachers, and quantitative reasoning. BSTEM includes Calculus I, finite math, college algebra, pre-calculus, trigonometry, and applied calculus (i.e., calculus for business, social sciences, behavioral sciences, management, life sciences, and economics). BTL stands for below transfer-level courses and includes intermediate algebra and remedial math courses.

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTES: Fall of each year. SLAM includes statistics offered in any department, liberal arts math, math for teachers, and quantitative reasoning. BSTEM includes Calculus I, finite math, college algebra, pre-calculus, trigonometry, and applied calculus (i.e., calculus for business, social sciences, behavioral sciences, management, life sciences, and economics). BTL stands for below transfer-level courses and includes intermediate algebra and remedial math courses. For reference, in fall 2020, there were 64,368 students starting in a SLAM course; 38,642 students starting in a BSTEM course; and 25,461 students starting in a BTL course.

These and other themes emerged from our interviews with college math faculty, staff, and administrators explaining the decline in first-time math enrollment since the implementation of AB 705, and in BSTEM enrollment during the pandemic:

For a more detailed discussion, see Technical Appendix C2.

In fall 2020, enrollment in corequisite courses among first-time math students was 12 percent lower than in fall 2019, at 20,373 students. This decline is somewhat higher than the overall decline for first-time math takers (9%). Still, corequisite students were 16 percent of all first-time math students and 20 percent of those who started in a transfer-level math course (same proportions as in fall 2019). In fall 2020, Black and Latino students were overrepresented among students starting in corequisite models relative to their representation in the total number of first-time math students (see Technical Appendix Table B2).

The prevalence of corequisite models varied widely across colleges. Seventeen colleges did not offer a corequisite math course in any subject, while at 10 colleges more than 40 percent of first-time math students started in a transfer-level course with corequisite support (see Technical Appendix Table B3). Due to availability across colleges and to student demand, the proportion of first-time math students starting in corequisite models varies across subjects. In terms of availability, while 92 colleges offered corequisite support for statistics, 48 colleges did so for college algebra, 35 colleges for trigonometry, 26 college for applied calculus, 25 colleges for pre-calculus and 17 colleges for liberal arts math (see Figure 5).

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTE: Fall of 2020. Out of 114 colleges. One college was excluded because their data for fall 2020 was not available in the MIS.

In terms of student demand, if we look *only* at colleges that offered corequisite support in a given subject, the prevalence of first-time math enrollment in corequisite courses is higher in pre-calculus (40% of students), liberal arts math (38%), and trigonometry (37%). Relative to fall 2019, a higher proportion of first-time pre-calculus and liberal arts math students took the course with corequisite support in fall 2020 (about 3 percentage points more). In contrast, 30 percent of first-time math students whose first course was college algebra took the course with corequisite support in fall 2020, four percentage points less than the fall 2019 cohort (see Technical Appendix Figure B6).

During the pandemic, the share of students successfully completing transfer-level math was actually higher than the previous year: in 2019, 40 percent of first-time math takers successfully completed a transfer-level course in one term, while 46 percent did so in 2020. This increase might be due to students who were less likely to complete a math course opting not to take one.

To test this hypothesis we look for major changes in the characteristics of first-time math students in fall 2020 versus fall 2019. We find that a slightly higher share of first-time math students in the 2020 cohort were female, white, and continuing students. On average, these students have higher completion rates than their peers. However, the average non-math GPA (our proxy of academic performance) was practically the same for both cohorts.

By racial/ethnic groups, we find that 10 percent more white, first-time math students in the fall 2020 cohort successfully completed a transfer-level math course in one term relative to the fall 2019 cohort. Black and Latino students had 1 percent and 3 percent higher successful completions, respectively. But because the number of first-time math takers dropped 12 percent for Latino students and rose 2 percent for white students, the one-term throughput rate for Latinos was 6 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 (38.6% vs. 33.1%), and for white students it was 4 percentage points higher (53.3% vs. 49.6%). See Technical Appendix Table B6 for more details.

COVID-19 has also affected outcomes for the fall 2019 cohort (Figure 6). The share who successfully completed a transfer-level course within one year but not in their first attempt (blue bin) and those who successfully completed the next fall (gray bin) fell slightly compared to earlier cohorts. This was mainly because persistence into the spring and fall terms among students who were not successful on their first attempt or who started in a BTL course fell 4 and 8 percentage points, respectively.

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTE: Only the first term is available for the fall 2020 cohort.

Among first-time math students who started directly into transfer-level, the success rate increased from 51 percent in 2019 to 57 percent in 2020. This was a generalized trend across the system. Seven colleges had increases more than two times the systemwide increase. However, there were also colleges where results were less encouraging: at 22 colleges the rate of successful completions fell. In 8 of these colleges, the drop was 7 percentage points or higher (see Technical Appendix Table B5).

To assist students during the March 2020 transition to online learning due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chancellor’s Office enacted policy changes to ensure that students were not penalized academically or financially for withdrawing from classes due to COVID-19. Students were allowed to use an “excused withdrawal” at any time if they could not continue in the course because of the pandemic, and using it would not affect a student’s academic progress, academic probation, or ability to repeat a course. The use of excused withdrawal in fall 2020 varied across colleges. In a quarter of colleges, students did not use excused withdrawal, and in 40 colleges students using excused withdrawals represented 10 percent or less of first-time students who did not successfully complete the course. However, in a group of 11 colleges students with excused withdrawals made up 50 percent or more of unsuccessful completions.

When we compare the letter grade distribution of first-time math students in fall 2019 versus fall 2020 (Figure 7) we see a higher share of students earning As and Bs and a slightly lower share earning Cs in fall 2020. It seems likely that students who used excused withdrawal were those who would have been more likely to withdraw or fail if not for the policy change. Indeed, we find that a significantly lower share of these students had a non-math GPA above 3.0 in their first term relative to the students who received any other letter grade (36% vs. 58%). As a comparison, a similar share of students who did not successfully complete the course in fall 2019 (i.e., who earned Ds, Fs, and Ws) had a non-math GPA above 3.0 (33%). Moreover, if we look at first-time math takers who were not in their first term in the community college, we find that a lower share of those who used excused withdrawal had an accumulated GPA above 3.0 in the terms prior to the term of their first math course (63% vs. 77%).

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTE: Fall of each year. TL stands for transfer-level.

Our interviews with math faculty provide some additional insight into why one-term completion rates were higher during the pandemic than the previous year.

For a more detailed discussion, see Technical Appendix C2.

In this section, we analyze enrollments and outcomes for BTL courses. We highlight which students are most likely to start in these courses, and compare their early outcomes with outcomes of students who (a) started in a transfer-level course and did not successfully complete it on their first attempt, *and* (b) started in a transfer-level course with corequisite support.

According to AB 705 regulations, placement methods shall not authorize placement of students into a remedial sequence or pre-transfer coursework in English or mathematics (or quantitative reasoning) unless:

Colleges that did not adopt the CCC default placement rules were given a two-year window to innovate and experiment with their local implementation and gather data to demonstrate that below transfer-level placements give students the best chance of completing a transfer-level math course within a year. In December 2020, colleges were required to submit Equitable Placement Validation of Practices data templates to report on whether they met the standards of AB 705 and its associated regulation. Analysis of these validation templates showed that over 90 percent of colleges across the system did not meet these standards (Hern and Snell 2021; EdSource July 2021) and consequently are not maximizing the likelihood of completing transfer-level courses in one year as required by the law.

One in five first-time math students in fall 2020 started in a BTL course (about 25,000 students). However, this rate masks important variation across colleges (see Figure 8). For example, at 23 colleges 32 percent or more of their first-time math students started in a BTL course. Meanwhile, in 25 colleges only 9 percent or fewer first-time students did so. At 5 colleges—Pasadena City, Porterville, Reedley, Sequoias, and Victor Valley—no students started in a BTL course. It is important to highlight that even though some students who place into transfer-level courses may elect to enroll in BTL courses instead, in the aggregate, student enrollment reflects local placement practices and is therefore a good proxy of the level of access into transfer-level courses by the institution.

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTES: Fall of each year for 114 colleges. TL is transfer-level. “Higher-access” are colleges where the share of first-time math students starting directly in a transfer-level course is one standard deviation above the systemwide share (i.e., 91% or higher) while “lower-access” are colleges where the share of first-time math students starting directly in a transfer-level course is one standard deviation below (i.e., 68% or lower). “Medium access” are colleges where the share of first-time math students starting directly in a transfer-level course is between 68 percent and 91 percent. The standard deviation was calculated on the combined access rate for the fall 2019 and fall 2020 cohorts.

The chances of completing a transfer-level course are low for those who first start in a BTL course. Only a third of these students subsequently enrolled in a transfer-level course and only a fifth successfully completed it as of the next fall (Figure 9).

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTES: Fall of each year. Restricted to students with a transfer goal. For reference, there were 62,500 students in the 2018 cohort who started in a BTL course and 18,800 students in the 2019 cohort. See Technical Appendix Figure B9 for a version of this figure for students who started in a transfer-level course but did not successfully complete in their first attempt.

These rates are significantly below successful completion for students who started in a transfer-level course with corequisite support. Indeed, the share of first-time math students who started in a corequisite model and successfully completed a transfer-level course by the next fall is 31 percentage points higher than the share of students who started in a BTL course and successfully completed a transfer-level course by the next fall (Figure 10).

Moreover, fall-to-fall throughput rates for students who started in a transfer-level course but did not successfully complete it on the first try are 7 percentage points higher than for students who started in a BTL course. While BTL students have higher success rates if they enroll in a transfer-level course than “unsuccessful transfer-level students” (59% vs. 54%), their likelihood of enrolling is significantly lower (34% vs. 48%), which drives the difference in the fall-to-fall throughput rate. If we further disaggregate students who did not succeed on their first attempt between those who started with corequisite support and those who did not, the gap between those with corequisite support and BTL students is narrower (3 percentage points) but it is still statistically significant.

On average, when students start directly in a transfer-level course, they have better chances of successfully completing—even if they do not pass on their first try—than if they start in a BTL course. Of course, starting in a transfer-level course and failing is not a desirable outcome either: a failing grade on the student’s transcript could hurt financial aid, scholarship opportunities, and transfer ability.

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTES: Fall 2019 cohort. pp is percentage points. Restricted to students with a transfer goal. Regression adjusted probability of successfully completing a transfer-level course within two time frames. All coefficients but the ”0.3” are statistically significant. See Technical Appendix Table B9 for full regression estimates.

These results are consistent with estimates that control for high school GPA and the highest level of math the student completed in high school. In a recent report, the RP Group finds that students who entered directly into a transfer-level math course were 6.7 times more likely to complete a gateway math class in their first year than were students who started in Intermediate Algebra. This finding was true for all students, regardless of their highest level of high school math completed or program of study.

AB 705 requires colleges to show that placing students in BTL math results in better one-year completion rates than placing them in transfer-level math. We focused on colleges where at least 200 first-time math students started in BTL courses in fall 2019 (a large enough sample to have robust results), and examined fall-to-fall throughput rates, which is arguably a lower bar (we give students three main terms to complete as opposed to one year).

In 24 of the 28 colleges that met this criteria, a higher share of unsuccessful transfer-level students successfully completed a transfer-level course as of the next fall compared to students who started in a BTL course at the same college. In 9 of these colleges, the gap in successful completion was 10 percentage points or higher. In only in 4 of the 28 colleges, the share of BTL students completing a transfer-level course was slightly higher (see Technical Appendix Table B10).

Some college staff and faculty believe it is important to continue offering BTL courses (Rodriguez, Cuellar Mejia and Johnson 2018; Cuellar Mejia, Rodriguez, Johnson 2019; Cuellar Mejia, Rodriguez, and Johnson 2020). Their reasons include serving students whose goal is not transferring to a four-year institution; non-traditional-age students who have been out of school for a while; students wanting to pursue a BSTEM major but who did not successfully complete Algebra 2 in high school; and special populations (i.e., students with disabilities, foster youth, EOPS students, veterans). However, our analyses find that many students in BTL courses do not appear to fall into these categories:

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTES: Fall cohorts of first-time math students. Other goal includes undecided students, four-year college students taking courses to meet university requirements, complete credits for high school diploma or GED, enrichment, skills building.

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTES: Fall 2019 cohort followed through fall 2020. Only students who declared a transfer goal are included (18,751 students). All colleges included. 12,740 students were pursuing non-BSTEM majors and 6,011 were pursuing BSTEM majors. BSTEM majors include business administration, biology, computer science, engineering, mathematics, chemistry, economics, physics, and architecture, among others.

Three prominent themes emerged from our interviews with math faculty and student services staff as to why enrollments in BTL courses persist or are increasing at some colleges despite the research suggesting that all students, regardless of demographic group, special population status, and prior academic achievement, are more likely to succeed if given direct access to transfer-level math (Brohawn, Newell, and Fagioli 2021; Hayward 2021).

For a more detailed discussion, see Technical Appendix C3.

See more in Technical Appendix Table B13.

Latino and Black students constitute a higher share of first-time math students at colleges with lower access to transfer-level courses. In the 23 lower-access colleges, 54 percent of first-time math students were Latino and 6 percent were Black; these shares are 7 and 2 percentage points higher than the share of these groups at the higher-access colleges (Figure 13).

According to a recent report by the California Acceleration Project, Latino and Black students also disproportionately attend colleges that have maintained high shares of standalone, remedial course offerings. Moreover, the vast majority of colleges serving large populations of Black students (or over 2,000 students) have continued to offer more remedial sections than corequisite-supported transfer-level sections (Hern, Snell, and Henson 2020).

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTES: Fall of 2019. Higher-access colleges are colleges with access rates one standard deviation above the systemwide average (i.e., 91% or higher) while lower-access colleges have access rates one standard deviation below (i.e., 68% or lower). Medium-access colleges are colleges where the share of first-time math students starting directly in a transfer-level course is between 68 percent and 91 percent.

Overall, Latino and Black students are more likely than their Asian peers to start in a BTL course, and so are students with disabilities, non-traditional-age students, California Promise Program/Pell Grant recipients, and limited-English-proficiency students. However, their likelihood of starting in a BTL course is much higher at lower-access colleges than in higher-access colleges (Figure 14). In other words, when access to transfer-level courses is restricted or discouraged, marginalized groups are more heavily impacted by this deficit approach to placement and enrollment.

For example, in lower-access colleges, both non-traditional-age students and students with disabilities are more likely than their peers to end up in BTL courses, by 14 and 18 percentage points, respectively. Meanwhile, in higher-access colleges, they are only 4 percentage points more likely. Notably, for the 2018 cohort at the same group of colleges, non-traditional-age students and students with disabilities in lower-access colleges were *less likely* to start in BTL courses than in higher-access colleges. This result provides evidence that what we are seeing is not driven by pre-AB 705 trends.

Even though students with disabilities are less likely to succeed compared to non-participants in disabled student programs and services, the gap is relatively small (6 percentage points), which raises questions around why these students are so much more likely to be placed into BTL courses (see Technical Appendix Table B12). To put things into perspective, white students are about 5 percentage points less likely to succeed in transfer math than are Asian students, but they are far less likely to start in BTL courses than students with disabilities.

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTES: Results for the fall 2019 cohort. pp is percentage point. The white-Latino gap represents the difference in the likelihood of starting in a BTL course between white students and Latino students; while in lower-access colleges the gap is 7 percentage points, in higher-access colleges there is no gap. The white-Latino gap and the white-Black gap are not statistically significant in higher-access colleges. For the other variables, the comparison group is all students who are not in the category. Higher-access colleges are colleges with access rates one standard deviation above the system wide average (i.e., 91% or higher) while lower-access colleges have access rates one standard deviation below (i.e., 68% or lower). Medium-access colleges are colleges where the share of first-time math students starting directly in a transfer-level course is between 68 percent and 91 percent. Average marginal effects from probit models, the dependent variable is 1 if the students started in a BTL course and we control for various student characteristics including grade point average, excluding math courses as a proxy of academic strength. See Technical Appendix Table B11 for the full regression estimates.

Our findings on why enrollments in BTL courses persist or are increasing at some colleges also help explain the overrepresentation of marginalized students in BTL courses. Here we provide further insight, informed by our faculty and counselor interviews, into why this happens.

For a more detailed discussion, see Technical Appendix C3.

After California passed AB 705, some faculty expressed concern that the reform might negatively affect the volume and diversity of students who successfully complete or make progress in BSTEM pathways. Success in Calculus I or Applied Calculus—gateway courses to many BSTEM disciplines—is critical for students who want to pursue careers in these fields. To examine what actually happened with AB 705 implementation, we look at the progress made by students in the fall 2019 cohort towards calculus completion. But before moving on with these results, it is worth noting that:

Close to 6,500 first-time math, transfer-intending students who were pursuing a major in a BSTEM field started directly in Calculus I or Applied Calculus in fall 2019, 19 percent more than in fall 2018. Of these students, 4,050 (or 62%) successfully completed the course in that first term.

However, in most colleges, students must complete a sequence of two transfer-level courses (commonly pre-calculus and trigonometry) before enrolling in Calculus I. Few colleges have only one transfer-level pre-requisite to Calculus I, usually a course that combines both pre-calculus and trigonometry into a single course. Likewise, some colleges allow students who have completed Algebra 2 in high school to access Applied Calculus while others have one transfer-level pre-requisite, usually college algebra.

To determine how many students made tangible progress towards calculus completion, we followed students in the fall 2019 cohort who were pursuing major in BSTEM fields for three main terms—so it was technically possible that a student taking two prerequisite courses could have completed Calculus I/Applied Calculus in fall 2020.

The likelihood that a student successfully completed Calculus I/Applied Calculus varied depending on the student’s starting course (Figure 15). For example, only 15 percent of students who started in college algebra and 20 percent of students who started in trigonometry in fall 2019 successfully completed Calculus I or Applied Calculus as of fall 2020. In comparison, students who started in a pre-calculus course were almost twice as likely to complete. Students who started in the combined pre-calculus and trigonometry course had slightly higher completion rates than students who started in the regular pre-calculus course (38% vs. 35%). Not surprisingly, the chances of a student successfully completing went up significantly for those who started directly in Calculus I or Applied Calculus, 78 percent and 64 percent, respectively.

In all, 9,500 first-time math students in the fall 2019 cohort successfully completed a Calculus I (7,835 students) or Applied Calculus (1,709 students) course as of fall 2020. This rate is 22 percent higher than for the fall 2018 cohort. These results mean that about one in four first-time students pursuing a BSTEM major reached this important milestone towards their academic goal in our period of analysis.

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTE: Share of first-time math students in the fall 2019 cohort who successfully completed Calculus I or Applied Calculus as of fall 2020 by BSTEM majors (9,544 students) and non-BSTEM majors (3,378 students). Analysis restricted to students with a transfer goal. See Technical Appendix A for details about which majors were coded as BSTEM.

But what happened to the rest of students? Some students started in a transfer-level course but did not successfully complete it in their first term, which makes the three-term time frame for Calculus completion less realistic. If we focus on those first-time students in the fall 2019 cohort who were pursuing majors in BSTEM fields and successfully completed an algebra-based transfer-level course in their first term but did not complete Calculus I or Applied Calculus as of fall 2020, 68 percent enrolled in another algebra BSTEM course and 39 percent successfully completed one as of fall 2020. These are slightly lower rates than in fall 2018 (3 and 4 percentage points lower), but not a big difference considering the pandemic’s effect on community college enrollments in fall 2020, especially in BSTEM courses. Despite the lower rates, 32 percent more students progressed along the BSTEM pipeline in the fall 2019 cohort than in the fall 2018 cohort. Importantly, these may be lower-bound estimates; as instruction resumes in person, gains will be likely larger.

In all, we are seeing that the number of students taking and competing transfer-level BSTEM math courses has increased. However there is still a lot of work to do to effectively support students so more direct access into transfer-level courses in the BSTEM path translates into successful completions.

Given that student and college characteristics may affect the above findings, we next explore how results change when we control for these factors. After AB 705, all students are more likely to enroll in a subsequent math course, by 1.6 percentage points, and they are more likely to successfully complete one, by 1.2 percentage points, compared to pre-reform trends (Figure 16).

Looking only at students who declared a BSTEM major, these estimates nearly double. BSTEM majors are 2.4 percentage points more likely to enroll in, and 1.9 percentage points more likely to successfully complete a subsequent math course by the next spring. Tracking these two outcomes through the next fall term, estimates remain statistically significant and increase slightly (see Technical Appendix Table D2).

Across racial/ethnic groups, students of color saw the most notable gains in both enrollment and success in subsequent math courses, compared to pre-reform trends. Specifically, both Latino and Black BSTEM students see statistically significant gains in subsequent course enrollment (2.9 percentage points) and successful completion (2.4 percentage points) in the next spring, compared to pre-reform (Figure 16). For Asian students, the gains are also statistically significant but slightly lower in magnitude (see Technical Appendix Table D5). At the same time, we also find that white students do not see any significant gains post-AB 705.

SOURCE: Authors’ calculations using MIS data.

NOTES: pp stands for percentage points. Restricted to students with a transfer goal and no previous college degree. Estimates presented are for the impact of AB 705 in the fully specified interrupted time series model that includes controls for the reform, time trend, student demographic and academic characteristics, college characteristics, and college fixed effects. Estimates in this figure are statistically significant for all students, all BSTEM majors, and Black and Latino students. Estimates are not statistically significant for Asian and white students. See Technical Appendix D for details on empirical strategy and model specifications. Regression estimates for enrolling and completing in the next spring and fall are presented in Technical Appendix Table D2. See Technical Appendix Table D3 for Wald chi-squared tests (SUEST) of significance across racial/ethnic groups.

In summary, AB 705 has helped boost BSTEM math pathway success for students of color, a promising finding given the historical underrepresentation of Latino and Black students in BSTEM majors. National evidence also suggests that community college students who complete gateway and higher-level math in the first year are more likely to persist in STEM programs (Chen 2013). However, for this early promise to materialize into truly diversifying the BSTEM pipeline, students must have the necessary supports and services to ensure they succeed in BSTEM-major courses beyond math.

Our interviews with math faculty provide additional insights on how changes related to AB 705 have affected access, enrollment, and success in BSTEM pathways. Several themes emerged from these interviews:

For a more detailed discussion, see Technical Appendix C3.

Despite the profound transformation that has transpired under AB 705, there is still a long road ahead to eliminate racial equity gaps in successful completion of transfer-lever math courses.

Our interviews with math faculty shed light on what they perceive as key elements and strategies that can help address racial and ethnic gaps in student learning and success. We also provide insights specific to corequisite remediation, one strategy math departments have increasingly adopted in an effort to enhance learning environments and help students transition to transfer-level coursework.

A consensus among our interviewees was that equity-minded reform within math classrooms and departments requires coordination, communication, and collaboration. Instructors and support staff can build on such elements to provide students with the support and resources they need to succeed.**Institutional support and strong leadership.** Campus-wide discussions on equity have increased significantly since the implementation of AB 705 and have amplified since the start of the pandemic, as staff and faculty have had to collaborate on how to best support students gaining unprecedented access to transfer-level courses. However, equity conversations among math departments appear to occur at a smaller scale. Half of the math faculty members we interviewed highlighted the need for leadership to organize and promote such discussions more broadly within their departments.

Proactive leaders have embedded equity conversations into mandatory trainings, provided monetary incentives for faculty to attend workshops, and emphasized equity-mindedness in the hiring process. About one in four math faculty members suggested that where departments embrace such training and professional development, student success seems to follow. At one college, specialized training for SLAM faculty coincided with higher success in transfer-level statistics courses, even with a significant increase in enrollment.**Staff training centered on equity.** Math faculty shared that stringent course content and learning objectives, especially in BSTEM, make it difficult to mold courses and infuse equity-based content into their syllabus, in effect limiting their options for making math more accessible and relatable. At the same time, math faculty manage non-content and non-cognitive related difficulties—such as stereotype threat, math anxiety, and educational trauma—that impose unique challenges for students.

Instructors and support staff need accessible and effective training that equips them with appropriate information and strategies to address racial equity gaps inside and outside of the classroom. The Racial Equity in Mathematics Leadership Institute, organized by Bensimon & Associates and the USC Race and Equity Center, is one example. Noting that the potential of AB 705 as an equity-focused reform depends greatly on instructors who are committed to racial justice, some of the topics covered in this institute included:

Efforts like these should be expanded by integrating staff, faculty, and administrators at all levels to ensure that new placement policies and classroom level reforms are actually effective.

Math faculty varied in their proposed and practiced strategies to implement reform within classrooms. At the core of their strategies, however, is a shared goal to effectively address the needs of all students.**Designing student-centered classroom structures.** According to 61 percent of math faculty members, enhancing student learning requires a student-centered classroom design that emphasizes engagement, collaboration, and community-building. Though it is more complex in math, many faculty members emphasized the need for engaging group work and active learning as an alternative to strictly lecture-based courses. Additionally, some shared that they have adopted a constructivist approach to their classroom, where students participate as contributors to the creation of knowledge. In such classrooms, the role of the instructor becomes less that of a lecturer and more that of a facilitator, taking into account their students’ diverse backgrounds and prior knowledge to help them connect new course content with their existing ideas and experiences.

As co-constructors of knowledge, students can take ownership of their learning and contribute to the learning of the class by expanding on material with their own perspectives and insights. Such approaches can build trust within the classroom, increase student participation and agency, and reduce math anxiety that may limit progress. In some cases, these approaches seem to work better in corequisite or enhanced course models where instructors benefit from additional class time to incorporate more group and relationship-building activities. In fact, two faculty members cited that student feedback from corequisite models frequently identifies group work as an important feature affecting their success in the course.**Implementing equity-minded classroom practices.** Math faculty are also incorporating equity-based approaches to combat persistent success gaps and discouragement among underrepresented and disadvantaged students, with some embedding culturally relevant topics into class assignments, readings, and assessments. Altering course syllabi is seemingly more common in SLAM courses due to more flexible course content.

For example, two instructors shared ways in which they incorporated mental health and loan repayment modules into their statistics courses; students could then study and present on topics relevant to them and build confidence in their mastery by using tools applicable to their situations. In BSTEM courses, faculty have found it more challenging to contextualize course content. Still, some faculty are rethinking the calculus sequence to incorporate more data analysis, and reimagining the curriculum to reflect how students can apply math, technology, and modeling in the real world.

Student success can also be cultivated through a compassionate classroom design that emphasizes positive reinforcement, the affective domain, and open communication. Some math faculty members that we interviewed (39%) stressed the importance of developing welcoming and accessible syllabi that outline clear expectations and ensure students that their roles as co-constructors of knowledge are crucial to the success of the class. The importance of inclusivity and trust cannot be understated, as students’ perceptions of how their professor thinks about them and their ability to succeed can dramatically affect their performance and growth (Staats et al. 2017).**Reevaluating grading and assessment.** Over three in four (78%) math faculty have embraced, or hope to implement, some form of equity-based grading, citing work from Joe Feldman and other researchers as influencing their approach to assessing student outcomes. Such an approach focuses on grading methods that are accurate and value knowledge, embrace a growth mindset and transparency, and support intrinsic motivation.

To reinforce a growth mindset, some faculty members have embraced flexibility in their grading policies, incorporating more flexible due dates, accepting late work, and allowing test retakes. Others have begun to rethink assessments and student learning objectives, and reexamine what it means for a student to be successful in their course. Such faculty have embraced non-test-based competency, including a reliance on more group projects and presentations, and on new assessments that emphasize critical thinking, problem solving, and active participation.

Some instructors have also sought to expand opportunities for student feedback and input into their assessment process in order to support intrinsic motivation, going as far as to incorporate a sort of contract-grading approach to their class. In this approach, instructors collaborate with students to develop a grading contract that outlines expectations and assignments of specific quality that correspond to subsequent letter grades or assessment outcomes. Though diverse in nature, these approaches were identified by faculty as having the potential to improve student success by addressing the inequities of traditional grading methods, many of which may disadvantage students with different backgrounds, skills, and academic preparation.**Enhancing academic supports.** Enhanced classroom supports ensure that students’ academic needs are fully met, especially those that cannot be effectively addressed by a single instructor. Colleges are providing such supports in a variety of ways.

At Porterville College, which has completely eliminated BTL courses, Peer Assisted Study Session leaders act as supplemental TAs for courses in which they previously succeeded, while math mentors provide more general mentorship and guidance for all math students.

At other colleges, embedded tutors provide instructors, especially in corequisite courses, much needed instructional support within their classrooms. Supplemental Instruction (SI) and zero-unit or non-credit courses provide students with additional avenues to access academic support outside of the classroom. Such academic supports, including tutoring, counseling, and mentoring, should be expanded, prioritized, and in some cases individualized, to enhance student learning and support instructors who often are asked to wear many hats.

As corequisite offerings continue to increase across the community college system, further insights, from students, faculty, and researchers alike, will be crucial to better understanding how additional class time can be optimized to effectively enhance student learning and reduce racial equity gaps. Recent research, including our own quantitative analyses, highlighted in Technical Appendix E, finds mixed evidence on the effectiveness of math corequisites (Ran and Lin 2019; Logue et al. 2016, 2019).

Below we use findings from our interviews with math faculty to help explain why this variation in success might occur, what strategies seem to work for certain instructors, and what can be done to further improve learning environments and increase success outside of the corequisite model.**Effective use of additional class time.** Currently, math instructors are utilizing corequisite course time in a variety of ways. According to more than half (56%) of our interviewees, effective corequisite courses rethink the classroom experience by providing just-in-time remediation and emphasizing the affective domain and equitable pedagogy. Considering that students taking corequisite courses tend to have lower math preparation and may experience math anxiety, using the extra time to infuse community-building activities and creating a sense of belonging among students becomes especially important in these courses. Four math faculty members shared that extended class time has also facilitated a slower course pace, allowing students additional time to catch up and master difficult concepts.

Though not uniform across all colleges and courses, corequisites in SLAM tend to incorporate more affective domain activities and culturally relevant content, while in BSTEM, they are more likely to be used as extra review time that may sometimes look and feel like a traditional remedial math course. The stringent nature of BSTEM syllabi and course sequences make it difficult to shift time away from the skills-based course content. However, BSTEM courses can still be transformed.

In fact, at Citrus College, the math department completely redesigned their corequisite classrooms by transforming a once lecture-based class into a course focused on active learning and collaboration by adding whiteboards on every wall and collaborative furniture. According to a Citrus math instructor, these physical changes to the pre-calculus classroom, along with using the extra time to set a positive foundation with an early emphasis on the affective domain, have played a crucial role in increasing success rates in subsequent calculus courses.**Instructor training and support.** Staff training and support centered on equity seems to be key to early success with corequisite remediation. Such training ensures that instructors have the necessary resources to optimize their additional class time to meet the diverse needs of students. Additionally, they provide opportunities to raise awareness of prevalent obstacles such as math anxiety and implicit biases, which may hinder student success in math and may be especially present in corequisite courses, which tend to be reserved for students with relatively low math preparation.

Disparities in corequisite success rates across colleges may be attributed in some form to such wide variation between how colleges and math departments require and provide training to support the implementation of more equitable classroom policies and practices. Among the colleges in our interview sample, where math departments and faculty have been proactive in restructuring classrooms, embedding equitable-minded pedagogy and policies and institutionalizing course structures and expectations, corequisite courses seem to be most effective in improving student outcomes.**Alternative support models and strategies.** While corequisite success stories are not uncommon, they are not a catchall solution. Several faculty members and counselors expressed concerns that students who may need additional support but are not placed in corequisite courses or choose not to enroll in them when recommended are not always provided the necessary academic supports to succeed in transfer-level courses.

An alternative is to provide all students with free additional academic supports without increasing mandatory workloads. Some colleges have implemented zero-unit or non-credit support courses, which provide structured spaces for optional course review and tutoring. Other colleges have relied more on enhanced course models, increasing units for all standalone courses as opposed to creating separately linked corequisites—a model used successfully by College of the Siskiyous. Faculty also noted that embedded tutors in corequisite and standalone courses offer crucial instructional and tutoring support, relieving instructors from having to address student needs alone.

Though our interviewees were mixed in their confidence in corequisite models, they all agreed that student supports need to be improved to effectively close racial equity gaps. Given the mixed evidence on corequisite remediation, future research must examine corequisite models and alternative approaches with the goal of learning how they can be best utilized to improve equitable student outcomes.

Our research affirms that AB 705 has been transformative for students at California’s community colleges. Thanks in large part to AB 705, the barrier long posed by lengthy remedial sequences is nearly gone at most colleges across the state. Even so, challenges and opportunities remain for helping support and sustain students toward equitable math course outcomes. To inform efforts to improve student success and promote more equitable outcomes, we offer the following set of recommendations.**Access: **Because we do not have placement information at the student level, we use the share of first-time English or math students enrolling directly in transfer-level English or math courses as a proxy for access to these courses. It is important to note that students who qualify for transfer-level courses may elect to start in below transfer-level courses due to personal preference or on the basis of institutional or counselor recommendations.**Affective Domain: **Refers to the use of strategies to help students acquire the skills needed to be a successful college student, help reduce students’ fear/anxiety, and increase their willingness to engage with their coursework (see Hern and Snell 2013).**BSTEM courses: **includes Calculus I, finite math, college algebra, pre-calculus, trigonometry, and applied calculus (i.e., calculus for business, social sciences, behavioral sciences, management, life sciences, and economics).**Below transfer-level courses (BTL)**: Include both developmental math courses and intermediate algebra.**Corequisite remediation**: This curricular model involves students enrolling directly into gateway transfer-level courses and receiving academic support alongside their regular course. Corequisite remediation is an umbrella term with many variations. Most colleges in California have implemented *linked *corequisite courses. In this approach, students enroll in designated sections of the transfer-level course as well as in a one- to three-unit linked support course designed to help them with the transfer-level assignments. Other colleges are instead offering *enhanced *courses. In this model, students receive additional support by enrolling in a higher-unit version of the transfer-level course. Throughout the report we use corequisite courses and corequisite models interchangeably.**Developmental math courses**: We traced all courses that lead up to intermediate algebra, which until recently was a pre-requisite for every introductory transfer-level math course. Corequisite courses attached to transfer-level sections or support courses offered in tutoring and learning centers are not included in this count.**First-time math students (or first-time math takers)**: We define cohorts of students based on the term in which they took their first credit-bearing math course—a transferable course, or any developmental education or intermediate algebra course identified in our scan—anywhere in the system. First-time math takers are not necessarily students who are in their first enrollment at a California community college. Dual enrollment students are not included.**Intermediate algebra**: This is a college-level course that meets the competency requirement for an associate degree. However, it is not a transferable course to the University of California or California State University. This means that a student whose first math course was intermediate algebra is counted as starting below transfer-level. This is why we use the term transfer-level math as opposed to college-level math. For the purposes of this study, we focus only on outcomes related to transfer-level math completion.**One-term throughput rate**: The proportion of first-time math students who successfully complete a transfer-level math course with a grade of C or better on their first attempt. The denominator includes students who took developmental or transfer-level courses for the first time. Accordingly, throughput reflects both whether students are getting into the gateway course and whether they are passing it. In some parts of the report, we also calculate one-year throughput rates, which give students fall, spring, and summer terms to successfully complete the transfer-level course, as well as fall-to-fall throughput rates, which give students fall, spring, summer, and the following fall terms to successfully complete the transfer-level course.**Racial equity gaps: **In our research, we measure racial equity gaps by the percentage point difference between a given racial/ethnic group and white students. We also use the proportionality index as a measure of equity, which compares a group’s representation with respect to an educational outcome relative to its representation in the entire cohort of analysis.**SLAM courses: **SLAM includes statistics offered in any department, liberal arts math, math for teachers, and quantitative reasoning.**Transfer-level math**: We identified introductory transferable math courses (specifically college algebra, trigonometry, pre-calculus, finite math, applied calculus, statistics, liberal arts math, and math for teachers) offered by each college’s math department. In addition, we identified other statistics and quantitative reasoning courses offered by other departments that meet transfer requirements to the UC or CSU systems (e.g., statistics for the behavioral sciences, probability and statistics for the social sciences, and biostats). We decided to include Calculus I in this report because after the implementation of AB 705 we have seen an important increase in the number of first-time math students starting in this course.**TL course successful completion rate:** The proportion of first-time math students who started in a transfer-level course and successfully completed it with a C or better on their first attempt. This calculation does not include students who took the course but had previous math enrollments. This is different from the one-term throughput rate because it is conditional on taking the transfer-level course, and it is different from how course success rate is typically defined because it is restricted to students who took the course for the first time.

Assembly Bill 705. Seymour-Campbell Student Success Act of 2012: matriculation: assessment. 2017–2018. California State Legislature.

Assembly Bill 1805. Community Colleges: Student Equity and Achievement Program. 2017–2018. California State Legislature.

Brohawn, K., M. Newell, and L. Fagioli. 2021. *Enrollment and Success in Transfer-Level English and Math in the California Community Colleges System: Fall 2015 to Fall 2019 Statewide Analysis*. The Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group).

Burke, M. 2021. “California community colleges must do more to help students avoid remedial courses.” EdSource.

Chen, X. 2013. *STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths into and out of STEM Fields* (NCES 2014-001). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.

Creswell, J.W. and C. Poth. 2017. *Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches**.* Fourth Edition. Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. and V.L. Plano Clark. 2011. *Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Second Edition*. Sage Publications.

Cuellar Mejia, M., O. Rodriguez, and H. Johnson. 2016. *Preparing Students for Success in California’s Community Colleges*. Public Policy Institute of California.

Cuellar Mejia, M., O. Rodriguez, and H. Johnson. 2019. *What Happens When Colleges Broaden Access to Transfer-Level Courses?* Public Policy Institute of California.

Cuellar Mejia, M., O. Rodriguez, and H. Johnson. 2020. *A New Era of Student Success at California’s Community Colleges*. Public Policy Institute of California.

Dweck, C. 2016. “What Having a “Growth Mindset” Actually Means.” Harvard Business Review.

English and Mathematics Placement and Assessment. California Code of Regulations title 5 § 55522.

Hayward, C. 2021. *Maximizing Math Throughput of Students Who Did Not Complete Algebra 2 in High School*. The RP Group.

Hern, K., M. Snell, and L. Henson. 2020. *Still Getting There: How California’s AB 705 Is (and Is Not) Transforming Remediation and What Needs to Come Next*. Public Advocates.

Hern, K. and M. Snell. 2013. *High Challenge, High Support Classrooms for Underprepared Students: Toward a Vision of Accelerated Curriculum and Pedagogy*. Learning Works.

Hern, K. and M. Snell. 2021. “Invalid Placement Practices Widespread in CA Community Colleges.” California Acceleration Project.

Ivankova, N., Creswell, J. and S. Stick. 2006. “Using Mixed-Methods Sequential Explanatory Research Design: From Theory to Practice.” *Field Methods*. 18 (1): 3–20.

Jackson, Jacob. 2021. *Building California’s Cradle-to-Career Data System**.* Public Policy Institute of California.

Johnson, H., M. Cuellar Mejia. 2020*. **Higher Education and Economic Opportunity in California*. Public Policy Institute of California.

Logue, A. W., D. Douglas, and M. Watanabe-Rose. 2019. “Corequisite Mathematics Remediation: Results over Time and in Different Contexts.” *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis* 41 (3): 294–315.

Logue, A. W., M. Watanabe-Rose., and D. Douglas. 2016. “Should Students Assessed as Needing Remedial Mathematics Take College Level Quantitative Courses Instead? A Randomized Controlled Trial.” *Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis* 38 (3): 578–98.

Meiselman, A. Y., and L. Schudde. 2021. “The Impact of Corequisite Math on Community College Student Outcomes: Evidence from Texas.” *Education Finance and Policy*.

Melguizo, T., C. D. Ching, F. Ngo, and D. Harrington. 2021. “AB 705 in the Los Angeles Community College District: Results from Fall 2019.*” *Pullias Center for Higher Education.

Navarette, L. 2020. “Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Guidance—Attendance Accounting Implications and Guidance” (revised) [Memorandum]. College Finance and Facilities Planning, CCCCO.

Park, T.J., C.G. Mokher, X. Hu, H. Spencer, and S. Hu. 2020. “What happened following comprehensive developmental education reform in the Sunshine State? The impact of Florida’s developmental education reform on introductory college-level course completion.” *Educational Researcher*. 49 (9): 656–66.

Ran, F. X. and Y. Lin. 2019. “The Effects of Corequisite Remediation: Evidence from a Statewide Reform in Tennessee.” Working Paper No. 115. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Rodriguez, O., M. Cuellar Mejia, and H. Johnson. 2018. *Remedial Education Reforms at California’s Community Colleges: Early Evidence on Placement and Curricular Reforms*. Public Policy Institute of California

Somers, M.A., P. Zhu, R. Jacob, and H. Bloom. 2013. “The validity and precision of the comparative interrupted time series design and the difference-in-difference design in educational evaluation.” MDRC.

Staats, C., K. Capatosto, L. Tenney, and S. Mamo. 2017. *State of the Science: Implicit Bias Review*. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.

Stevens, J. 2021. “Petition to Amend the Regulations to Make them Consistent with the Broad Scope of AB 705, Pursuant to Cal. Educ. Code § 70901.5(a)(7) and The Procedures and Standing Orders of the Board of Governors § 212” [Memorandum]. Public Advocates.

Turetsky, K. M., V. Purdie-Greenaway, J. E. Cook, J. P. Curley and G. L. Cohen. 2020. “A Psychological Intervention Strengthens Students’ Peer Social Networks and Promotes Persistence in STEM.” *Science Advances*. 6 (45).**Marisol Cuellar Mejia** is a research fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center. Her recent projects have focused on developmental education, the workforce skills gap, online learning in community colleges, and the economic returns to college education. Her research interests include labor markets, business climate, housing, and demographic trends. Before joining PPIC, she worked at Colombia’s National Association of Financial Institutions as an economic analyst, concentrating on issues related to the manufacturing sector and small business. She has also conducted agricultural and commodity market research for the Colombian National Federation of Coffee Growers and the National Federation of Palm Oil Growers of Colombia. She holds an MS in agricultural and resource economics from the University of California, Davis.**Olga Rodriguez** is a senior fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center. She conducts research on the impact of programs and policies on student outcomes, with a particular focus on equity, college access, and success among underserved students. Her recent research focuses on statewide reforms to developmental education, English as a second language, and assessment and placement systems in California’s community colleges. Before joining PPIC, she was a postdoctoral research associate at the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University. She holds a BA in economics/mathematics and Spanish from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and an MA and PhD in economics and education from Columbia University.**Hans Johnson** is director of the PPIC Higher Education Center and a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, where he holds the Thomas and Marilyn Sutton Chair in Higher Education Policy. As center director, he works with a team of researchers to identify policies that can make higher education policy more successful and sustainable. His own research focuses on improving college access and completion. He frequently presents his work to policymakers and higher education officials, and he serves as a technical advisor to many organizations seeking to improve college graduation rates, address workforce needs, and engage in long-term capacity planning. His other areas of expertise include international and domestic migration, housing in California, and population projections. Previously, he served as research director at PPIC. Before joining PPIC, he worked as a demographer at the California Research Bureau and at the California Department of Finance. He holds a PhD in demography and a master’s degree in biostatistics from the University of California, Berkeley.**Cesar Perez** is a research associate at the PPIC Higher Education Center. His work focuses on economic mobility and online learning in community colleges. Before joining PPIC, he was a research assistant at the San Diego Housing Commission, concentrating on evaluating economic security and mobility among rental assistance recipients. He also worked at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth and as a hands-on educator at multiple levels of education. He holds an MPP from the School of Global Policy and Strategy at University of California, San Diego and a BA in economics from University of California, Los Angeles.

The authors would like to thank Mina Dadgar and Sean Pepin for sharing their expertise and valued contributions on the interviews conducted. We also appreciate the many valuable comments and suggestions on early drafts from Myra Snell, Virginia May, Tatiana Melguizo, John Hetts, Valerie Lundy-Wagner, Yang Hu, Paulette Cha and especially Jacob Jackson, our lead reviewer. Stephanie Barton provided excellent editorial assistance. The authors would also like to thank the community college faculty, staff, and administrators who generously shared their time and thoughtful insights with us. This research would not have been possible without the student-level data provided by the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. However, views represented in this report do not necessarily represent the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. We are also grateful to the William T. Grant Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Sutton Family Fund for supporting this research. All errors are our own.**Steven A. Merksamer, Chair**

*Of Counsel*

Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello

Gross & Leoni LLP**Mark Baldassare**

*President and CEO*

Public Policy Institute of California**Louise Henry Bryson**

*Chair Emerita, Board of Trustees*

J. Paul Getty Trust**A. Marisa Chun****Chet Hewitt**

*President and CEO*

Sierra Health Foundation**Phil Isenberg**

*Former Chair*

Delta Stewardship Council**Mas Masumoto**

*Author and Farmer***Leon E. Panetta**

*Chairman*

The Panetta Institute for Public Policy**Gerald L. Parsky**

*Chairman *Aurora Capital Group

**Kim Polese**

*Chairman and Co-founder*

CrowdSmart

**Cassandra Walker Pye**

*Executive Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer*

Lucas Public Affairs

**Helen Iris Torres**

*CEO*

Hispanas Organized for Political Equality

**Gaddi H. Vasquez**

*Retired Senior Vice President, Government Affairs*

Edison International

Southern California Edison

© 2021 Public Policy Institute of California

PPIC is a public charity. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.

Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source.

Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or of the staff, officers, advisory councils, or board of directors of the Public Policy Institute of California.

This website uses cookies to analyze site traffic and to allow users to complete forms on the site. PPIC does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise disclose personal information.

source