Search

Corequisite remediation involves placing students who have been designated as underprepared directly into college-level courses with concurrent supports--such as in-class tutoring, online learning labs, or a supplemental class--rather than making them take non-credit-bearing developmental courses first. Despite the growing number of studies on corequisite remediation, there are still questions about which practices can address the needs of and advance equity for diverse groups of students, particularly students who struggle with basic math or English skills. CAPR researchers partnered with the Charles A. Dana Center to study and offer formative feedback about the implementation of corequisite course models at four colleges participating in the Corequisite Research Design Collaborative, the Dana Center's initiative for implementing equity-minded, holistic corequisite course models. CAPR researchers partnered with the Charles A. Dana Center to study and offer formative feedback about the implementation of corequisite course models at four colleges participating in the Corequisite Research Design Collaborative, the Dana Center's initiative for implementing equity-minded, holistic corequisite course models. This research brief and the supplement highlight the findings on the design and implementation of corequisite courses at the four colleges, as well as findings from a survey administered to students who were enrolled in these courses in fall 2021 and spring 2022. The researchers found that the implementation of corequisite support courses helped students understand course content and increased their engagement with their coursework. In general, students appeared more comfortable engaging in support courses than in the paired college-level courses. This suggests that support courses can play an important role in improving student engagement by providing an additional space for students to interact with the course content, their peers, and faculty. [This report was written with Ellen Wasserman. For the supplement, see ED631329.]

Corequisite remediation involves placing students who have been designated as underprepared directly into college-level courses with concurrent supports--such as in-class tutoring, online learning labs, or a supplemental class--rather than making them take non-credit-bearing developmental courses first. There are multiple corequisite course models; the Corequisite Research Design Collaborative (CRDC) colleges used a support corequisite model and an embedded corequisite model. The support corequisite model involved enrolling corequisite students in a college-level math or English course that also included students who placed out of developmental education; the corequisite students were also enrolled in a separate, supplementary support course that was offered before, after, or on different days than the college-level course. Students conceptualized these as two courses paired together. The support courses had smaller class sizes and they provided students additional time to become familiar with the content taught in their paired college-level courses. The embedded corequisite model involved enrolling the same group of students (or a cohort) in a college-level course and a developmental course that were taught back to back; this combination of courses is referred to as an "embedded course" in this supplement. Students conceptualized these back-to-back courses as a single course. During the fall 2021 and spring 2022 semesters, a student survey was distributed to every CRDC college except Houston Community College, which is located in Texas.2 The other three CRDC colleges--Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College (FDLTCC), St. Cloud Technical and Community College (SCTCC), and St. Cloud State University (SCSU)--are located in Minnesota. The survey was intended to evaluate students' experiences in their corequisite courses. [This report was written with Ellen Wasserman. For the full report, see ED631328.]

Implementing institution-wide, systemic change is typically a long and often challenging task for college leaders to undertake. Because each institution is different, the combination of internal and external factors that drive institutional change can vary greatly from college to college, and from moment to moment. Achieving the Dream (ATD), which began as a national initiative launched by the Lumina Foundation in 2004, provides expert guidance and tools for community colleges to enact positive institutional change aimed at closing achievement gaps and accelerating student success. To further its support of institutions within its network, ATD partnered with MDRC in 2019 to investigate recent institutional change efforts at nine ATD colleges in Florida. This set of colleges in Florida represents a diverse set of institutions with varying enrollment sizes, geographic environments, and levels of engagement in the ATD network. Some have been in ATD since its inception in 2004, while others joined as recently as 2018, which provides an opportunity to better understand the different stages of institutional change and the factors that facilitate change at these colleges. This brief summarizes what stakeholders from these nine Florida colleges consider to be the common driving factors that prompted or sustained key institution-wide reforms that were reported by college leaders, faculty, and staff--as well as by ATD administrative leadership coaches, equity coaches, and student success data coaches assigned to the nine colleges. The brief also takes a closer look at these key factors and reforms at three case study colleges from this group of Florida institutions that capture different narratives of institutional change, particularly: (1) A college addressing the challenges of building wider-scale institutional commitment for reforms--Florida State College at Jacksonville (Florida State); (2) A college making strides to narrow down and prioritize various student success goals, strategies, and areas of reform--Palm Beach State College (Palm Beach); and (3) A college demonstrating strong organizational structure and progress on reforms--Broward College (Broward).

National college completion rates for men of color at open- and broad-access postsecondary institutions (including community colleges) lag behind completion rates for White students and for female students of any race or ethnicity. Research points to several broad factors to explain these unequal outcomes, including precollege environments that do not sufficiently prepare men of color for college, nonacademic barriers that compete for students' time and attention, and inadequate college campus support. Other scholarship challenges postsecondary education professionals to think critically about how discriminatory policies and practices and structural racism perpetuate this inequality nationwide. Since the early 2000s, many colleges have tailored campus programs to provide academic and social support specific to the interests and needs of male students of color to overcome gaps in success rates. The Male Student Success Initiative (MSSI) at the Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) in Maryland is one such program, and MDRC is evaluating it through the Men of Color College Achievement (MoCCA) Project. MSSI's program model includes an ambitious set of services to support male students of color, including a culturally contextualized first-year student success course, assigned mentors (who are also men of color), connections with student support services on campus, leadership and professional development opportunities, and a focus on community building through activities that reflect racial and ethnic identities. While the student success course is one semester, the MSSI program is intended to keep students engaged beyond their first semester at CCBC. This report presents findings on how the MSSI program was implemented in 2019 -- the first year of the MoCCA study. Important insights from this early period of program implementation are: (1) The resources supporting the program in 2019 were limited and its leadership had little available time and capacity for effective oversight; (2) The MSSI program was not yet implemented fully, a common characteristic of newly formed or redesigned programs. Program components were implemented inconsistently and student attendance in program activities was lower than expected; and (3) There were promising indications of program improvements in 2019. For example, the college increased support for MSSI over time, and program staff members made notable efforts to strengthen the delivery of its components. The time frame covered by this report predates the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the latest high-profile examples of racial injustice in this country, so their specific effects on the college and the MSSI program are not described here. However, CCBC was deeply affected by the pandemic, like most other colleges nationwide. The pandemic will likely exacerbate equity gaps for male students of color given its disproportionate effect on communities of color nationwide. At the same time, CCBC has reoriented its framework for equity and inclusion considering the struggle to address the ongoing marginalization of communities of color on a national scale. Those events and their impact on MSSI and the students participating in the study will be addressed in future reports.

A recent study found that one in three Americans between the ages of 16 and 65 lack the skills needed to succeed in middle school math, let alone math at the high school or college level. In some instances, states or colleges have raised standards for developmental courses and routed students who score below the minimum skill level for developmental classes to lower-level college-transition courses or programs such as adult literacy programs. One state that pursued the strategy of raising the minimum skill level required for developmental math was Texas. In 2014, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) implemented major changes in how the lowest-scoring students should be placed and served in community colleges. After adopting a new placement test, the state raised the cut score for placing students in developmental education and eliminated the lowest-level developmental math course. Colleges were then permitted to choose among several options for serving the lowest-scoring students, who would otherwise have enrolled in that course. This study places the Texas policy in the context of other state reform strategies and examines the response of one Texas college: Houston Community College (HCC). In 2015, HCC replaced the lowest level in the sequence of developmental math courses with a new four-week "Bridge" course for students who score between the fourth- and eighth-grade levels. This Bridge course was intended to boost their basic skills in math to prepare them to tackle the ninth-grade level--the level at which they could enroll in developmental math. This report focuses on interesting findings describing the implementation of this new policy.

Community colleges continue to increase their efforts to better serve students who enter their institutions with limited basic math, reading, or writing skills. In 2015, MDRC partnered with the Texas Coordinating Higher Education Board on a study to examine how colleges implemented state guidelines for students scoring below ninth-grade proficiency in math, reading, or writing on their course placement exams. This brief presents findings from a study of a "Boot Camp" program at Tarrant County College, which was designed to reinforce basic mathematics functions that prepare students for developmental-level courses. Findings from MDRC's field visits revealed three special features that made the Boot Camp unique: computer-assisted, self-paced learning; a focus on individual learner progress; and in-class help from college-readiness advisors. The brief also provides reflections of the college's staff and students who experienced the implementation of the Boot Camp program.

Financial aid plays an essential role not only in allowing many students to enroll in college but also in supporting them in attaining completion and success. Often, however, the total amount of aid does not come close to covering the cost of attendance for full-time students. As a result, the majority of students enrolled at two-year public institutions report feeling financial stress related to paying for school. Students often work while attending college to cover the full cost of attendance, but time spent working can have a negative impact on their academic success. MDRC launched Aid Like A Paycheck to test whether changes to the timing of student aid disbursement could help students stretch their financial aid to cover their expenses throughout the term, and whether such a policy could improve students' academic and financial outcomes. Most colleges distribute financial aid refunds to students in one or two lump sums during the term. Aid Like A Paycheck tested an alternate approach, in which financial aid refunds were disbursed biweekly, with the goal of helping students better budget their existing financial aid. MDRC conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of incremental financial aid disbursements at two community college systems in and around Houston, Texas, and at a third system in California's rural Central Valley. At the two institutions in Texas, the study included a randomized controlled trial that gathered data from nearly 9,000 students and tracked them for up to two years. The final findings from the study indicate that biweekly disbursements do not result in substantial impacts on student outcomes: (1) Students assigned to receive biweekly disbursements and those assigned to receive their aid in the standard way received the same total amount of financial aid; (2) Biweekly disbursements reduced students' debt to the college in the first semester, but this reduction in debt was no longer evident at the end of the fourth semester; (3) On average, there is no evidence of biweekly disbursements improving students' key academic outcomes; and (4) There is little evidence that the participating colleges or the government saved money by implementing biweekly disbursements; and (5) Implementation of the policy was costlier than -- and not as simple as -- expected, even when implemented without the constraints of the randomized controlled trial design. Overall, the study suggests that incremental disbursements neither hurt students nor substantially improve their academic or financial outcomes. [To read the provisional findings of this study, "Aligning Aid with Enrollment: Interim Findings on Aid Like a Paycheck," see ED574751.]

Latinos are the fastest growing college population in California, but less than one-quarter of all Latino adults in the state earn a college degree. To reverse this trend, both the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office and the California State University (CSU) Office of the Chancellor launched new initiatives in 2017 to raise Latino graduation rates by 2022 and 2025, respectively. Key players in these efforts are the state's Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), which are public, degree-granting institutions that enroll the equivalent of at least 25 percent fulltime Latino undergraduates in their overall student population. California has the country's highest concentration of HSIs, with 96 of its 144 community colleges and 21 of its 23 CSU campuses. The state provides a unique perspective on the challenges and opportunities of advancing the higher education prospects of this thriving population. In 2017, MDRC launched the Latino Academic Transfer and Institutional Degree Opportunities (LATIDO) study in collaboration with the community college chancellor's office to investigate how California HSI's are supporting undergraduate Latino students. The work began with a roundtable discussion that included scholars, policymakers, and practitioners. This led to the evaluation of Latino education programs at five HSIs: CSU Dominguez Hills, CSU Fresno, Hartnell College, Mount San Antonio College, and San Bernardino Valley College. This report begins with an overview of the LATIDO study and the five colleges that were selected as case study sites followed by a brief discussion of the methodology for the study. The report then lays out crosscutting findings that apply to each of the colleges under study. It ends with recommendations for university administrators, lawmakers, and advocates regarding best practices and policies for advancing the college outcomes of Latino students in California, and beyond. [The report was written with Jessica Taketa and Chase Johnson. Additional funding by the Crimsonbridge Foundation.]

MDRC is working with the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office to study the state's efforts to improve college outcomes for Latinos--in particular, the approaches being taken at two-year and four-year colleges that qualify as Hispanic-Serving Institutions. This brief covers the first step in that project: a daylong conversation among researchers, policymakers, and college faculty members and administrators about what needs to be done.

Faced with many applicants with very low math skills, community colleges are responding with a variety of reforms, including restricting developmental courses to students with high-school-level skills. This brief provides context for the policy changes and describes the alternatives two colleges offer to those who don't make the cut. [This brief was written with Kayla Reiman and Dominique Dukes.]

Evidence shows that financial aid increases college enrollment. For many students at low-cost community colleges, this aid is intended to cover more than tuition and fees; after those are paid, the remainder is paid out, or "refunded," to students to help with their living expenses while they are enrolled in school. Often, however, the total amount of aid does not come close to covering the cost of attendance for full-time students. Many still struggle to find the means to support their studies and pay their bills, and the majority of students enrolled at two-year public institutions report feeling financial stress related to paying for school. Most colleges distribute financial aid refund amounts to students in one or two lump sums during the term. "Aid Like A Paycheck" is a study of an alternative approach, in which financial aid refunds are disbursed biweekly, with the goal of helping students stretch their financial aid (including federal Pell Grants, state aid, and loans) to cover expenses throughout the term. "MDRC" is conducting a mixed-methods study of biweekly disbursements at two community colleges in the metropolitan area of Houston, Texas. The study includes qualitative research on the program's implementation and a randomized controlled trial to rigorously estimate the impacts of the policy on students' academic and financial outcomes. Results at the midpoint of the evaluation present a mixed picture: (1) The colleges were able to disburse aid biweekly as intended, but communications about the policy and about financial aid in general were often unclear to students; (2) It appears that students assigned to receive biweekly disbursements were more likely than those receiving a standard lump sum to feel that their finances caused significant stress at the start of the term. By the end of the semester, students in the two groups reported comparable levels of financial stress; (3) Biweekly disbursements reduced students' use of federal loans and debt to the college after one semester, without reducing the overall aid they received; (4) On average, there is little consistent evidence of biweekly disbursements improving students' key academic outcomes. However, at one college, students in the biweekly group experienced a 6 percentage point increase in enrollment in the second semester of school; and (5) Although the policy raised the possibility of cost savings for the colleges and the federal government, there is little evidence of such savings so far. These interim findings should be viewed with caution, but colleges interested in moving to biweekly disbursements may find useful lessons from the early implementers, as discussed in this report. In 2018 MDRC will present final results based on further research, including additional students and longer follow-up, to better understand the impacts of biweekly disbursements at the two Houston-area colleges. The final report will also include a deeper look at the program's implementation at a third community college district, where biweekly disbursements of financial aid refunds recently became the standard policy for all students. [For the full report, see ED574751.]

Evidence shows that financial aid increases college enrollment. For many students at low-cost community colleges, this aid is intended to cover more than tuition and fees; after those are paid, the remainder is paid out, or "refunded," to students to help with their living expenses while they are enrolled in school. Often, however, the total amount of aid does not come close to covering the cost of attendance for full-time students. Many still struggle to find the means to support their studies and pay their bills, and the majority of students enrolled at two-year public institutions report feeling financial stress related to paying for school. Most colleges distribute financial aid refund amounts to students in one or two lump sums during the term. "Aid Like A Paycheck" is a study of an alternative approach, in which financial aid refunds are disbursed biweekly, with the goal of helping students stretch their financial aid (including federal Pell Grants, state aid, and loans) to cover expenses throughout the term. "MDRC" is conducting a mixed-methods study of biweekly disbursements at two community colleges in the metropolitan area of Houston, Texas. The study includes qualitative research on the program's implementation and a randomized controlled trial to rigorously estimate the impacts of the policy on students' academic and financial outcomes. Results at the midpoint of the evaluation present a mixed picture: (1) The colleges were able to disburse aid biweekly as intended, but communications about the policy and about financial aid in general were often unclear to students; (2) It appears that students assigned to receive biweekly disbursements were more likely than those receiving a standard lump sum to feel that their finances caused significant stress at the start of the term. By the end of the semester, students in the two groups reported comparable levels of financial stress; (3) Biweekly disbursements reduced students' use of federal loans and debt to the college after one semester, without reducing the overall aid they received; (4) On average, there is little consistent evidence of biweekly disbursements improving students' key academic outcomes. However, at one college, students in the biweekly group experienced a 6 percentage point increase in enrollment in the second semester of school; and (5) Although the policy raised the possibility of cost savings for the colleges and the federal government, there is little evidence of such savings so far. These interim findings should be viewed with caution, but colleges interested in moving to biweekly disbursements may find useful lessons from the early implementers, as discussed in this report. In 2018 MDRC will present final results based on further research, including additional students and longer follow-up, to better understand the impacts of biweekly disbursements at the two Houston-area colleges. The final report will also include a deeper look at the program's implementation at a third community college district, where biweekly disbursements of financial aid refunds recently became the standard policy for all students. [For the executive summary, see ED574752.]

While high school graduation rates are on the rise nationwide, too many students still never reach that milestone, with 7,000 on average dropping out every day. Recognizing that many students need additional support to succeed in school, Communities In Schools (CIS) works to provide and connect students with integrated support services to keep them on a path to graduation. CIS makes some services broadly available to all students at a school, and provides individual case management to those deemed most at risk of dropping out. This report presents the final implementation and impact findings from a two-year randomized controlled trial of CIS case management. This trial is half of a two-pronged national evaluation, the other half being a quasi-experimental study of the whole-school model. The report describes the implementation and effects of CIS case management in 24 mostly urban, low-income secondary schools in two states during the 2013-2014 school year. The study found that CIS case management services succeeded in getting targeted students into more support activities and improving several of their nonacademic outcomes. However, findings also showed that these services did not have a positive effect on students' attendance, academic performance, or behavior after two years. The study also estimated the effect of case management on students' nonacademic and more traditional school outcomes. The final chapter of this report includes implications for practice based on the evaluation findings. The report concludes by considering the results of this random assignment study of case management together with the results of the quasi-experimental analysis of the whole-school model. Taken together, the results suggest that whole-school models of integrated student support offer the promise of positive effects. The results also indicate, however, some areas to which support providers may need to pay close attention, to ensure that students receive services that address their specific needs and that benefit them above and beyond the services already available.

This brief catalogues strategies commonly used in interventions at postsecondary educational institutions aimed at improving outcomes for male students of color and charts the way forward for future evaluative work. While young men of color have college and career aspirations similar to those of their white counterparts, a significant gap persists between the two groups' postsecondary educational attainment. In response, colleges around the country have implemented targeted programs offering male students of color a variety of support services, yet few of these initiatives have been evaluated. MDRC has conducted a scan of 82 such programs and will apply lessons from it and other research to a large-scale evaluation of program efficacy that it is currently developing in collaboration with the University System of Georgia. The need for evidence-based approaches that support men of color throughout the educational pipeline is evident, especially at the postsecondary level, where so many of male students of color are close to reaching their goals and fulfilling their potential as college graduates. [This brief was written with the assistance of Anna Marie Ivery.]

This paper presents effects after five years of a performance-based scholarship offered to low-income entering freshmen at The University of New Mexico, a medium-sized public university. The program, which was evaluated using a randomized controlled trial, provided eligible students with up to $1,000 in additional aid per semester for four semesters, conditional on enrolling for a minimum number of credit hours and maintaining a minimum GPA. The program also offered enhanced academic advising. The findings show that the program led to small increases in credit hour accumulation during the first two years, which translated into -notable increases in graduation rates after five years -- an increase of 4.5 percentage points, an effect that just misses the conventional statistical significance level of 10 percent. The enhanced academic advising may have contributed to the higher graduation rate by increasing awareness among students of the courses needed to graduate. The effects of VISTA are in the context of the state's generous lottery-funded scholarship, which paid tuition for students who maintained fulltime enrollment and a minimum GPA.

Too many students drop out and never earn their high school diploma. For students at risk of dropping out, academic, social, and other supports may help. "Communities In Schools" seeks to organize and provide these supports to at-risk students in the nation's poorest-performing schools, including through "case-managed" services. This report, the first of two from a random assignment evaluation of "Communities In Schools" case management, focuses primarily on the implementation of case management in 28 secondary schools during the 2012-2013 school year. The report also includes interim one-year findings about case management's impact on student outcomes. The report concludes with suggestions for improvement for "Communities In Schools" based mainly on the implementation findings. The next report will present two-year impact findings and more about the implementation of case management in the 2013-2014 school year. Appended to the report are: (1) Statistical Model and Statistical Power; and (2) Sample and Response Analysis.

Each year, millions of Americans enroll in community colleges, seeking to develop the skills necessary to pursue a career or to transfer to a four-year institution. Community colleges serve large proportions of nontraditional, low-income, and minority students, and they are designed to provide access to a postsecondary education at a low or relatively affordable cost. Yet for most students who enter these institutions, academic success remains elusive. In 2004, Lumina Foundation and a group of partner organizations--the American Association of Community Colleges; the Community College Leadership Program at the University of Texas; the Community College Research Center (CCRC) at Columbia University; Jobs for the Future; MDC, Inc.; MDRC; and Public Agenda--launched Achieving the Dream, a bold, multiyear national initiative aimed at improving student outcomes in community colleges, particularly among low-income students and students of color. The partner organizations were selected to help Lumina design and operate Achieving the Dream, which set out to foster fundamental changes in the culture and operations of community colleges. Lumina and the founding partners sought to spur a process of institutional change through monetary and professional supports from the initiative, combined with colleges' own investments. This process centered on building a "culture of evidence"--one in which colleges routinely use evidence to help their students succeed academically. The partners theorized that undertaking broad-based institutional efforts would ultimately lead to improvements in student outcomes. Twenty-six colleges (called the "Round 1" colleges) were the first to join the initiative in 2004. In 2011, MDRC, in partnership with CCRC, published "Turning the Tide: Five Years of Achieving the Dream in Community Colleges". That report described the implementation of the initiative and trends in student outcomes among these 26 colleges from 2004 through 2009. This report, the final publication from MDRC and CCRC on the Round 1 colleges, builds on "Turning the Tide" in two ways. First, it extends the analyses of institution-wide outcomes to students who were entering the Round 1 institutions during the latter period of the colleges' five-year implementation grants, when institutions were expected to have more fully implemented many of their Achieving the Dream initiatives. Second, the report explores variation in student outcome trends at Round 1 colleges and reanalyzes the implementation data in order to inform other institutions that are undertaking reforms. This report is a retrospective study of Achieving the Dream as it was implemented between 2004 and 2009 at the first 26 colleges to participate, rather than an assessment of the initiative's direct impact on its student outcomes or current activities and programs. Indeed, the initiative now includes nearly 200 participating colleges. Overall, this report finds that average institution-wide trends in student outcomes remained relatively stable during the period of study, including during the prolonged recession that began in the United States in late 2007. Three colleges, however, stood out for gains on multiple indicators of student success. The practices of these institutions suggest possible lessons for community college practitioners, in addition to new directions for research. In particular: (1) Each college focused on specific student subgroups, and each coordinated multiple reform efforts around their chosen subgroup; (2) In later years, after gaining experience with the initial subgroups, each college expanded its new practices in order to reach larger groups of students and faculty. Targeted professional development for faculty and staff involved in the work supported this focus; and (3) One college used its reaccreditation process to help coordinate its reform efforts and to work toward establishing a common set of goals. This report concludes by discussing the lessons gleaned from the experiences of Round 1 colleges with Achieving the Dream. A section on additional analysis is appended. [This report was written with Donna Chan and Phoebe Richman. See ED516014, for "Turning the Tide: Five Years of Achieving the Dream in Community Colleges".]

The Learning Communities Demonstration is a national research project that is testing the effectiveness of learning communities in six community colleges across the United States: Merced College in California; The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) in Baltimore, Maryland; Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, Florida; Houston Community College in Houston, Texas; Queensborough Community College in Queens, New York; and Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, New York. This report describes the findings from the programs at Merced and CCBC, which each offered learning communities for students in developmental English (including both developmental reading and developmental writing) with the goals articulated above in mind. Findings from the studies at the other four colleges can be found in previously published reports from the Learning Communities Demonstration (Visher, Schneider, Wathington, & Collado, 2010 details the early implementation experiences of the six colleges in the demonstration. The other impact studies from the demonstration can be found in Weiss, Visher, & Wathington, 2010; Weissman et al., 2011; Visher & Teres, 2011). Key findings from Merced and CCBC include: (1) Merced and CCBC had relatively ambitious goals for the implementation of advanced, semester-long, developmental English learning communities. In practice, a strong cohort experience was provided to students, and other aspects of the learning communities model were implemented with variation among the different links at each college. Overall, the colleges succeeded in providing the majority of program group students with an experience that was substantially different from that of their control group counterparts; (2) At Merced, learning communities students attempted and earned significantly more developmental English credits than students in the control group during the program semester. At the end of the subsequent semester, they had passed significantly more English courses than their control group counterparts; (3) At CCBC, there were no meaningful impacts on students' credit attempts or progress in developmental English; and (4) On average, neither college's learning communities program had an impact on college registration in the postprogram semester, or on cumulative credits earned. [This paper was written with Amanda Grossman. For "Learning Communities for Students in Developmental English: Impact Studies at Merced College and the Community College of Baltimore County," see ED529251.]

The Learning Communities Demonstration is a national research project that is testing the effectiveness of learning communities in six community colleges across the United States: Merced College in California; The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) in Baltimore, Maryland; Hillsborough Community College in Tampa, Florida; Houston Community College in Houston, Texas; Queensborough Community College in Queens, New York; and Kingsborough Community College in Brooklyn, New York. This report describes the findings from the programs at Merced and CCBC, which each offered learning communities for students in developmental English (including both developmental reading and developmental writing) with the goals articulated above in mind. Findings from the studies at the other four colleges can be found in previously published reports from the Learning Communities Demonstration (Visher, Schneider, Wathington, & Collado, 2010 details the early implementation experiences of the six colleges in the demonstration. The other impact studies from the demonstration can be found in Weiss, Visher, & Wathington, 2010; Weissman et al., 2011; Visher & Teres, 2011). Key findings from Merced and CCBC include: (1) Merced and CCBC had relatively ambitious goals for the implementation of advanced, semester-long, developmental English learning communities. In practice, a strong cohort experience was provided to students, and other aspects of the learning communities model were implemented with variation among the different links at each college. Overall, the colleges succeeded in providing the majority of program group students with an experience that was substantially different from that of their control group counterparts; (2) At Merced, learning communities students attempted and earned significantly more developmental English credits than students in the control group during the program semester. At the end of the subsequent semester, they had passed significantly more English courses than their control group counterparts; (3) At CCBC, there were no meaningful impacts on students' credit attempts or progress in developmental English; and (4) On average, neither college's learning communities program had an impact on college registration in the postprogram semester, or on cumulative credits earned. [This paper was written with Amanda Grossman. For "Learning Communities for Students in Developmental English: Impact Studies at Merced College and the Community College of Baltimore County," see ED529251.]

Across the United States, community colleges offer millions of students an open-access, low-cost postsecondary education. However, of the students who enroll in community college hoping to earn a credential or transfer to a four-year institution, only about half achieve their goal within six years. For students who enter college needing developmental (remedial) education in reading, writing, or math, this rate is even lower. Learning communities, in which cohorts of students enroll in two or more linked courses together, are often employed to improve these students' success. In addition to linking courses, learning communities often incorporate other components, such as faculty collaboration, shared assignments and curricula, and connections to student support services. Merced College in California and The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) each developed learning communities designed to boost the academic success of their developmental English students. These colleges are two of the six in the National Center for Postsecondary Research's (NCPR) Learning Communities Demonstration, in which random assignment evaluations are being used to determine the impacts of learning communities on student success. At Merced, learning communities linked developmental English courses with a variety of other courses at the developmental and college levels. At CCBC, learning communities linked developmental English with a range of college-level courses and a weekly one-hour Master Learner session designed to support curricular integration and student learning. The key findings presented in this report are: (1) Both Merced and CCBC implemented relatively advanced learning communities. A strong cohort experience was provided to students, and other aspects of the learning communities model were implemented with variation at each college. On average, the colleges succeeded in providing program group students with an experience that was substantially different from the experience of their control group counterparts; (2) At Merced, learning communities students attempted and earned significantly more developmental English credits than students in the control group during the program semester. At the end of the subsequent semester, they had passed significantly more English courses than their control group counterparts; (3) At CCBC, there were no meaningful impacts on students' credit attempts or progress in developmental English; and (4) On average, neither college's learning communities program had an impact on college registration in the postprogram semester, or on cumulative credits earned. NCPR has now presented findings from all six colleges in the demonstration. They show that when one-semester leaning communities have impacts, they tend to be concentrated in the semester in which students are enrolled in the program. The evidence to date suggests that one-semester learning communities programs by themselves are typically not sufficient to boost reenrollment or increase credit accumulation. However, this is not the final report on the demonstration; in 2012, NCPR will release a report that synthesizes the findings across all of the colleges studied and includes an additional semester of student follow-up at each college. (Contains 1 figure and 9 footnotes.) [This paper was written with Amanda Grossman. For the full report, "Learning Communities for Students in Developmental English: Impact Studies at Merced College and the Community College of Baltimore County," see ED529251.]

In 2004, Lumina Foundation for Education launched "Achieving the Dream: Community Colleges Count," a national initiative aimed at improving success among community college students, particularly low-income students and students of color. Now encompassing more than 130 institutions in 24 states and the District of Columbia, Achieving the Dream helps community colleges build a "culture of evidence" by using student records and other data to examine students' performance over time and to identify barriers to academic progress. From there, community colleges are expected to develop intervention strategies designed to improve student outcomes; conduct further research on student progress; and bring effective programs to scale. As a result, it is anticipated that colleges will see measurable improvements over time in student outcomes, including increased progress through developmental education and college-level "gatekeeper" (introductory) courses, grades, persistence, and completion of credentials. This report examines the first 26 colleges to join Achieving the Dream in 2004 (known as the "Round 1" colleges), and tracks their progress through spring 2009. The key findings are: (1) Four out of five Round 1 colleges adopted practices associated with a moderate to strong culture of evidence; (2) Colleges that made the greatest strides shared several key characteristics; (3) Colleges instituted a wide range of strategies to improve student achievement, but a majority of them remained small in scale; (4) Achieving the Dream had an important influence on most colleges; and (5) Trends in student outcomes remained relatively unchanged, with a few exceptions. (Contains 1 figure, 2 tables, 1 box, and 3 footnotes.) [For the full report, see ED516014.]

This research rigorously evaluates whether a low-cost intervention can improve students' performance in developmental math. The "Beacon Mentoring Program" was developed at South Texas College by professors, administrators, and staff at the college. Surveys of students revealed that many did not have someone on campus whom they felt they could turn to for answers to questions. Further, although the college provided many services, like a tutoring center, many students said they had never visited. The "Beacon Mentoring" program was constructed to bring critical information to students about how to manage college, and, thus, to improve college outcomes. Overall, the Beacon Mentoring program significantly increased the fraction of students who accessed the on-campus tutoring center. There was also a statistically significant decrease in withdrawal rates from math classes. However, the program had no statistically significant impact on math class pass rates, credits earned, nor on persistence in college. However, turning to two important subgroups, part-time students and those enrolled in developmental math, the study finds statistically significant impacts on math class performance. For part-time students, the percent of students passing their math class increases by 6.6 percentage points for program students over controls. Final exam scores for part-time students in developmental math also increase. Credits earned are also significantly higher for part-time students in the Beacon program. For students enrolled in developmental math, the probability of withdrawing from math class declines, and total credits earned rises for program students over controls. References, Tables and Figures are appended. (Contains 5 tables.)