Skip to content
Quick Start for:

This chapter contains a review of EPCC's educational service delivery and student performance in six sections.

A. Student Performance
B. Program Offerings and New Program Development
C. Developmental Education
D. Articulation
E. Literacy and English as a Second Language
F. Distance Education

DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION

Section 51.306 of the Texas Education Code requires public institutions of higher education in Texas to provide developmental education to students unable to pass one or more sections of the Texas Academic Skills Program (TASP) test. The purpose of TASP-a statewide assessment of skills in mathematics, reading, and writing-is to determine if students entering higher education can perform college-level work. Students who fail any section of the test are required to continue taking developmental education courses until they pass a subsequent test or make a grade of at least a "B" in courses in disciplines in which developmental education was required.

Of the 132,172 incoming freshman in Texas colleges and universities during the summer and fall of 1995, 104,716 (79.2 percent) were required to take the TASP. Of that number, 53.8 percent failed one or more sections of the test and were required to take developmental education. Almost 80 percent (44,799) of those failing the TASP were enrolled in community or technical colleges

Seventy community or technical college campuses enrolled 88,588 freshmen during summer and fall 1995. Of that number, 24,560 (27.7 percent) were either exempted from the test or dropped out of higher education before taking the test. Of those taking the test, 50.6 percent were required to take developmental education courses. At EPCC, 70 percent (2,581 of 3,685) of the incoming freshman did not take the TASP because they were exempted or dropped out compared to 27.7 percent for all community or technical colleges. Of the 1,104 EPCC students who were tested, 95.3 percent (1,052) were required to take one or more developmental education courses, and 41.5 percent (433 of 1,044) of the students who started the courses completed them. Statewide, 50.6 percent of all incoming freshmen enrolled in community or technical colleges were required to take developmental education. The average completion rate statewide for students who started developmental education courses was 44.7 percent. The data for EPCC, its peer districts and all community or technical colleges in the state are presented in Exhibit 2-18.

Exhibit 2-18
Developmental Education
for First-Time Entering Freshmen of Summer/Fall 1995
EPCC and Peer Districts
Institution Percent First-Time Freshman Not TASP Tested Number of First-Time Freshman TASP Tested Percent of TASP Takers Requiring Remediation Percent Completing Remediation Who Started
Alamo 3.3 6,755 80.7 24.0
Austin 14.9 3,509 53.0 30.6
El Paso 70.0 1,104 95.3 41.5
North Harris 15.1 3,714 73.1 49.9
San Jacinto 10.7 3,249 66.7 51.0
Tarrant 41.1 3,023 45.6 43.7
All CTCs 27.7 64,028 50.6 44.7
Source: THECB. The Effectiveness of Development Education at Texas Public Institutions of Higher Education, January, 1999.

The TASP was designed to measure a student's readiness for college-level work. Scores below 230 on the math and reading tests and 230 on the writing portion are considered an indication that the student is not college-ready. Scores at those levels are considered minimal with increasing levels of readiness indicated as the scores approach 300. The purpose of developmental education is to help a student improve his/her college readiness. Therefore, for students failing one or more portions of the TASP, an expected outcome of developmental education courses is to improve the students' chances of passing the TASP on any subsequent retake of the test.

Several research projects commissioned by the THECB examined various aspects of assessment, placement, and services related to developmental education in the state. One study found that colleges and universities use a variety of instruments in addition to the TASP to assess and place incoming students and that all appear to be appropriate in identifying students who need developmental education.

About 50 percent of the students tested score at levels requiring placement in one or more developmental education courses with mathematics the most likely course for student placement. Students at community colleges were less likely to pass the TASP test after completing developmental education courses than were university students. While passing developmental education courses did not ensure passage of TASP, it does appear to contribute to its passage. In addition, student retention in the college or university seems to be enhanced by passing the developmental education course or courses.

Three performance measures were developed by the Higher Education Coordinating Board to determine the impact of developmental education on college readiness as indicated by students' retake scores on those portions of the TASP previously failed. The measures and definitions for each are included in Exhibit 2-19.

Exhibit 2-19
Performance Measures for Determining the Effectiveness of
Developmental Education
Performance Measure Definition
Developmental Capacity The pass rate on the second attempt at the math, reading, or writing portion of the TASP by a given group of students in developmental education.
Developmental Quality The average passing score on the second attempt at the math, reading, or writing portion of the TASP from a given group of students in developmental education.
Developmental Power The average gain or loss from the first to the second attempt on the math, reading, or writing portions of the TASP for a group of students in developmental education.
Source: The Effectiveness of Developmental Education at Texas Public
Institutions of Higher Education, THECB, January, 1999

Exhibit 2-20 provides data on the pass rates, passing score, and average gain or loss in mathematics of students taking the TASP for a second time after completing a developmental education course. The pass rate for EPCC students was the lowest of the six districts and only slightly higher than that for all community or technical college (CTC) students. The average passing score for EPCC students was approximately the same as that for students in the peer districts and students statewide. The average gain for EPCC students was the lowest among the six peer districts and lower than that for all CTC students.

Exhibit 2-20
Average Pass Rates Of TASP Math Test
For First Time Enrollees in Summer/Fall 1995
EPCC and Peer Districts
Institution Developmental
Capacity		 Developmental
Quality		 Developmental
Power
Alamo 50.32 246 36.07+
Austin 56.35 249 36.05+
El Paso 41.59 247 33.60+
North Harris 48.68 249 34.32+
San Jacinto 44.22 249 42.75+
Tarrant 48.62 248 40.77+
All CTC Students 41.00 247 37.00+
Source: The Effectiveness of Developmental Education at Texas Public
Institutions of Higher Education, THECB, January, 1999.

Research on developmental education in Texas has identified a number of best practices related to effective developmental education programs. The best practices that have been identified are those shared by the institutions experiencing the most program success. Program characteristics can be divided into the following three levels:

Level I: Characteristics of Successful Programs in Texas Strongly Supported by Research

  1. An institutional commitment to developmental education.
  2. A strong commitment to professional development for all those who work with developmental students.
  3. A high level of coordination of developmental education courses and services.
  4. A regular and systematic evaluation of program outcomes.
  5. An ongoing effort to ensure consistency in developmental course content and the content of the TASP Test as well as the entry standards for collegiate-level courses.
  6. Frequent testing in development courses.
  7. An integration of classroom and laboratory activities in developmental courses.
  8. A clearly stated set of goals and objectives.
  9. A full-time faculty to teach developmental courses.
  10. Supplemental instruction.

Level II: Characteristics of Successful Programs in Texas Which Had Some Support From Research

  1. A comprehensive learning assistance center providing academic support services to developmental courses.
  2. A comprehensive set of academic and other support services.
  3. A reporting structure placing developmental courses and services under an academic administrator.
  4. A tutoring program providing both group and individual tutoring services.
  5. An effort to articulate college level academic requirements to local and feeder high schools.
  6. The same faculty to teach both collegiate-level and developmental courses.

Level III: Characteristics of Successful Programs in Texas Which Had Little or No Support from Research

  1. A data collection and monitoring system to track student performance in the TASP and other local assessment instruments.
  2. A variety of efforts to inform incoming students of the TASP and other assessment requirements.
  3. A variety of options for students who passed developmental courses but continued to fail the TASP.
  4. Letter grades (A, B, C, D, and F) in developmental classes.

In Exhibit 2-21, EPCC's developmental education program is rated in light of the characteristics of a successful program. This analysis is based on the input received from EPCC's faculty and administrators during the interviews and comments from faculty and student focus groups.

Exhibit 2-21
An Assessment of the EPCC's Developmental Education Program
Based on the Characteristics of a Successful program
Level I Characteristics Meets Criteria Partially Meets Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria
1. Institutional commitment to developmental education.   X  
2. Strong commitment to professional development for all those who work with developmental students.   X  
3. High level of coordination of developmental education courses and services.     X
4. Ongoing effort to ensure consistency in developmental course content and the content of the TASP test as well as the entry standards for collegiate-level courses.   X  
5. Regular and systematic evaluation of program outcomes.     X
6. Frequent testing in development courses.   X  
7. Integration of classroom and laboratory activities in developmental courses.   X  
8. Clearly stated set of goals and objectives for the development program.     X
9. Full-time faculty to teach developmental courses.   X  
10. Supplemental instruction.   X  
Level II Characteristics      
1. Comprehensive learning assistance center providing academic support services to developmental courses.     X
2. Comprehensive set of academic and support services.   X  
3. Reporting structure placing developmental courses and services under an academic administrator.     X
4. Tutoring program providing both group and individual tutoring services.   X  
5. Effort to articulate college-level academic requirements to local and feeder high schools. X    
6. The same faculty to teach both collegiate-level and developmental courses.   X  
Level III Characteristics      
1. Data collection and monitoring system to track student performance in the TASP and other local assessment instruments.     X
2. Variety of efforts to inform incoming students of the TASP and other assessment requirements. X    
3. Variety of options for students who pass developmental courses but continue to fail TASP.     X
4. Letter grades in developmental classes.     X
Source: THECB. Executive Summary: An Evaluation of Developmental Education in Texas Public Colleges and Universities, Part 2 and Gibson Consulting Group.

As can be seen from the exhibit, the developmental education program at EPCC partially meets seven of the 10 Level I Characteristics of a Successful Program. It did not meet three of the criteria. In addition, EPCC only fully met two of 10 Level II and Level III characteristics.

FINDING

Several components of EPCC's developmental education courses are inconsistent with the best practices research. First, although information provided by EPCC administration indicates that the district offers 19 developmental courses, only 12 were identified in the 1999 summer class schedule for continuing education or the 1999 summer or fall class schedules for credit courses.

The courses identified included five mathematics-related courses (BASK 3006, BASK 3009, MATH 3100, MATH 3103 and MATH 3105), three courses related to reading (BASK 3023, READ 3108 and READ 3109), two writing courses (BASK 3003 and ENGL 3111), and two courses related to study skills (BASK 3016 and BASK 3017). All have a singular purpose, that of preparing students for the TASP which, while important, is inconsistent with developmental education's broader goal of helping to improve students' college readiness.

Second, system-wide coordination of developmental education services is lacking. Under the previous administrative organization, 10 division deans had responsibility for the developmental education courses. Eight different deans have oversight responsibilities for the mathematics courses, six for the reading courses, and seven for the writing courses. Only two individuals have responsibility for all courses at their respective campuses. With the recent reorganization, all math courses are under the supervision of the dean of Math, Science, Physical Education and Architecture; the English courses are under the dean for Communications and Fine Arts; the reading courses are under the dean of Humanities & Social Sciences, ESL and Reading; and the basic academic skills courses are under the dean of the Americana Language Program and Basic Skills.

One of the recommendations resulting from a January 1997 site visit by the Community and Technical Colleges Division of THECB was that the district "should establish a process that tracks the success of students through the sequences of developmental programs." In response, EPCC stated that a committee has just been formed to look into the data elements that need to be collected and analyzed. So far, nothing has been done on how they would use the data to make program improvements.

Third, there is no systematic, district-wide evaluation of developmental education courses offered by EPCC. Student evaluations are the most frequently used form of evaluation but seldom is the information collected and shared with all developmental education faculty. Neither is there any formal or consistent effort to use evaluation data to improve programs.

Recommendation 11:

Conduct a comprehensive review of its developmental education programs and use the results to improve the program.

At a minimum, the review should include the items listed below.

  • A review of recent literature and research on developmental education, particularly related to programs in Texas.
  • A review of the reasons for the high percentage of students who are not TASP-tested with particular attention to those who may drop out before taking the test.
  • A review of the assessment/placement instruments used in addition to TASP with attention to those reviewed and recommended by THECB.
  • A review of the quality of developmental education courses offered with particular attention to the scope of courses available and the faculty.
  • A review of the sequence of courses and the amount of time students are in remediation.
  • A review of how developmental education courses are evaluated and how to improve the procedures to ensure a comprehensive, system-wide process.
  • A review of the professional development courses provided by faculty who are responsible for developmental education.

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1.The president assigns administrative responsibility for all developmental education to the dean of Americana Language Programs and Basic Skills. January 2000
2.The dean of Americana Language Programs and Basic Skills establishes a committee with three instructional deans who have responsibilities for reading, writing, and Math, appropriate faculty, and students to review the district's program using the review guidelines developed by the THECB. February-March 2000
3.The committee reviews the guidelines as well as other literature on developmental education and develops recommendations for conducting a comprehensive review of the program. April-June 2000
4.The dean of Americana Language Programs and Basic Skills conducts the review and shares results with the vice president of Instruction, vice president for Workforce Development, Technical Education & Lifelong Learning, instructional deans and faculty. July-September 2000
5.The dean of Americana Language Programs and Basic Skills, instructional deans, and representative faculty make recommendations to the president for improvements to the program based on the results of the review. October-December 2000
6.The president approves the recommendations for program changes to begin summer 2001. January 2001

FISCAL IMPACT

This recommendation could be accomplished with existing resources.