برچسب: STEM

  • Building sustainable STEM pathways requires trust, collaboration 

    Building sustainable STEM pathways requires trust, collaboration 


    Bianca Alvarado debriefs the San Diego STEM Advisory Community Committee during a meeting at the Elementary Institute of Science.

    Credit: Courtesy Digital Promise

    In sunny San Diego, opportunities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields are steering the city’s economic growth more than ever before — presenting a future bright with possibilities.

    Yet too many students are missing out on opportunities to access the STEM careers that advance the region’s prosperity. 

    According to San Diego’s 2030 Inclusive Growth Framework, 65% of low-income jobs in San Diego are “predominantly held by people of color.” In the technology, biotech and clean tech sectors, Hispanic and Latino communities are underrepresented, despite the projection that they will constitute nearly half of San Diego County’s future workforce. At the same time, talent scarcity has become a new normal in San Diego.

    But we can reverse those trends by investing in cross-sector partnerships and community-driven collaborations to help students access more opportunities in STEM fields.

    That’s why we launched the San Diego STEM Pathways initiative, which involves a wide range of community partners working to guide more than 100,000 students toward well-paying STEM careers in San Diegos high-impact industries. This bold ambition reflects a statewide opportunity to align local innovation with California’s broader economic and impact goals.

    To bring everyone together, we engaged different industries through a collaborative design process that ultimately laid the groundwork for our efforts in the region. A 14-member committee of regional leaders representing early childhood education, K-12, postsecondary, workforce development, community-based organizations, and philanthropy reflected on why prior collaborations failed and identified some key factors missing. 

    To achieve our shared vision of building STEM pathways rooted in community co-design and shaped by the innovation and talent already present in the region, connection, trust and co-creation are essential. Our goal is to build upon existing efforts by fostering alignment across systems, thereby expanding access to opportunities for all students. Achieving meaningful collaboration also requires creating an environment where participants can openly address challenges.

    The cross-sector team devoted months to listening, learning and documenting insights. Key emerging themes included the need for: 

    • Clear communication and a deep understanding of partners’ motivations and aspirations.
    • Aligning efforts through early and ongoing conversations with community members, students, industry leaders and local partners to co-design well-rounded STEM pathways. 

    With support from Digital Promise through dedicated staff to help facilitate the advisory committee and track progress, we have created space to foster relationships and trust. (Digital Promise is a global nonprofit that works with educators, researchers, technology leaders, and communities to design, investigate, and scale up innovations that empower learners.)

    Building trust involves planning, consistency and taking actions that contribute to a larger goal. Demonstrating a long-term vision through smaller, incremental actions helps maintain momentum. Given that our advisers are high-level executives, flexibility and a collaborative space where their contributions are valued and not burdensome are crucial for their input to flourish. This requires ongoing nurturing, especially as we move toward a collective regional collaboration. 

    When communities feel seen, heard and valued, they become co-architects of change. They readily contribute when we engage with them on their terms and at their capacity, rather than expecting them to adapt to our requirements. By accommodating their needs and meeting them where they are — whether they are ready to collaborate, learn, stay informed, or actively participate — we uplift collaborators to become co-creators of change and engage at their desired level. 

    That’s how we’re building durable systems that truly reflect and serve the needs of all learners across the state of California. 

    Advisory members began developing their solution concept ideas earlier this year and are now moving toward launching a mini-pilot. Their innovative, community-driven concepts include: 

    • An effort to support preschool and elementary educators with real-world training that inspires young students in math and science and sets them on a path toward future success through partnerships with local colleges, experts and community partners.
    • A program that will work closely with students and families — especially those experiencing housing insecurity — to expand access to STEM through after-school activities, college visits and campus stays that build excitement and readiness for higher education.
    • A South Bay initiative that helps students grow their interest and confidence in STEM from middle school through college by combining hands-on learning, career exploration and local partnerships to prepare them for real-world success.
    • An easy-to-use online hub where families, educators and partners can find local STEM programs, support services, and ways to work together to create opportunities for all students.

    Building Bridges: Cultivating Interconnectedness for STEM Pathways in San Diego,” a new report produced by the initiative, provides additional information about each of the concept ideas. 

    As this work continues to gain momentum, the path forward demands deeper engagement with those most impacted — parents, community members and local leaders. But authentic collaboration doesn’t begin with action plans; it begins with trust. As we continue to deepen our partnership, we are constantly reminded that investing in trust-building isn’t a detour from progress; it is progress.

    •••

    Bianca Alvarado is the director of the San Diego STEM Pathways Initiative at Digital Promise, where she spearheads a collaborative effort to ensure access to STEM education and career pathways in San Diego County.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Let’s make STEM opportunity achievable, not illusory, for California community college students 

    Let’s make STEM opportunity achievable, not illusory, for California community college students 


    Two students with drill press

    A student uses a drill press to work on an engineering project.

    Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

    The design of California’s higher education system has been influential for its twin goals of high-quality undergraduate education and broad access to college. Though our public universities are renowned for their research prowess, the focal point for access has been our extensive network of community colleges — now comprising 116 — offering students first- and second-year courses with the opportunity to transfer and earn a four-year degree at a university.  

    But for students seeking to transfer in STEM fields, that opportunity borders on illusory: While 16% of community college students nationally complete a bachelor’s degree, only 2% earn a degree in a STEM field. Misaligned math policies play a role in unnecessarily narrowing that path. Absent a coordinated statewide approach, that is unlikely to change.

    It’s not just that a student seeking to transfer in, say, computer science has to take three to six semesters of math, depending on the transfer destination. Before even taking those courses, many community college students must first complete two or three math prerequisites. And, because the actual requirements may vary from campus to campus, some have to take extra courses to ensure they are eligible for junior status at more than one university. 

    To make matters worse, there are inconsistencies in whether four-year campuses articulate — or recognize — a given community college course. Plus, the tools available to students to navigate their options tend to be clunky and outdated. Some students have been forced to enroll at a different college to repeat an already completed math course when one of their prospective transfer campuses doesn’t accept the first college’s course. 

    This maze of inconsistent and opaque math requirements is among the barriers to STEM transfer identified in our recent report, “A Complex Equation: Confronting Math Barriers on the Path to STEM Transfer.” Because these barriers are often out of students’ control, it is up to institutions to fix them. But, under current state policies, the state’s higher ed systems have little apparent incentive to alleviate them and increase transfer access to some of the state’s most popular STEM majors. 

    In fact, it appears that at some campuses, it is not a priority to admit even those students who do clear the math hurdles and other STEM requirements, according to the California State Auditor. The education code requires universities to provide “adequate” space for transfer students — generally interpreted as meaning at least one-third of upper-division enrollments — in all “colleges or schools.” But some high-demand majors at some campuses are balanced heavily against transfer students. 

    In biology, for example, for academic years 2018-19 through 2022-23, only 14% of Cal State LA’s juniors and seniors were transfer students, with Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo enrolling just 12% and UC Santa Barbara 14%, the auditor found. UC Berkeley’s transfer enrollment in two highly ranked departments was even lower: 11% of enrollments in computer science and 9% in environmental science are transfer students. Many of these campuses appear to be turning away eligible students, the auditor found: For example, in 2022, Berkeley denied 95 transfer computer science applicants whose preparation was considered “best prepared” or “strongly prepared.” 

    Added oversight is currently the only mechanism for shifting such patterns. A legislated pilot program requires UC campuses, beginning with UCLA, to create paths to STEM transfer. But UCLA chose to focus the program on relatively low-enrollment majors — atmospheric sciences, geology, math, and environmental science — not popular ones such as biology, computer science or engineering that are already at capacity. 

    Barriers in articulation also prevent community college students from benefiting from pioneering instructional approaches. Take, for example, a redesigned math sequence at UCLA. The new course, which has been offered to UCLA undergraduates since 2013, covers some traditional calculus topics in the context of modeling dynamical biological systems. Students taking the innovative course earned “significantly” higher grades in subsequent STEM courses than students who took the traditional course, and their interest in the topic doubled. 

    The two-course sequence is the primary math requirement for UCLA’s biology undergrads. But community colleges have not been able to offer the course. Since it is not available within the CSU system or at other UC campuses, if a community college were to offer it, only students who successfully transfer to UCLA could apply it toward a life sciences degree. UCLA allows students to transfer with a traditional calculus course, but this means that transfer students are deprived of the benefits of the modernized curriculum. 

    Both UC and CSU can take steps to better prioritize transfer students in high-demand STEM majors, as the auditor recommends. But to set and achieve statewide goals for transfer participation and completion — including STEM-specific goals — and improve success for historically underrepresented groups requires a greater degree of coordination across all three higher education systems. 

    One step toward achieving that is establishing a coordinating body in line with a proposal currently circulating in Sacramento. Another is ensuring that students have up-to-date, accurate and actionable information about transfer and course articulation through modernized transfer planning tools. A third is supporting innovation in STEM education through the California Education Learning Lab

    These would be minor investments toward ensuring more efficient, transparent, and evidence-based use not only of the billions of dollars our state invests in education, but also of another precious resource: our students’ time.  

    •••

    Pamela Burdman, Alexis Robin Hale, and Jenn BeVard work for Just Equations, a policy institute dedicated to enhancing the role of math in education equity. 

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Advanced math in high school prepares students for STEM and data science careers

    Advanced math in high school prepares students for STEM and data science careers


    A high school student contemplates an assignment in math class.

    Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education

    California, along with many other states and nations, has experienced a dramatic increase of student interest in data and computer science careers. Along with the broader tech industry, these fields have been undergoing exponential growth in recent years that’s expected to continue as artificial intelligence (AI), computing platforms and their applications continue to reach every aspect of society.

    The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 36% employment growth for data scientists by 2031. California businesses and other sectors are the top home for many of these high-paying careers.

    It’s the responsibility of our state’s academic systems to educate future data-driven leaders in many areas — tech, finance, business, entertainment, biomedicine and health, climate and sustainability, engineering, law, social welfare, public policy, government and education itself, as well as in innovative approaches to the arts and humanities.

    A report recently issued by a work group for the University of California’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS) concluded that the three most popular high school data science courses being offered in the state do not “even come close to meeting the required standard to be a ‘more advanced’ course” and “are not appropriate as recommended 4th year mathematics courses.”

    We applaud the faculty and staff, across the UC system, who helped develop this report and its recommendations. And we’re delighted by the quick response from the UC Office of the President this month, which shared the message with high school counselors and advisers, summarizing the report and explaining additional steps that UC is taking to implement the BOARS recommendations for the 2025-26 academic year.

    This is a noteworthy example of the California educational system working well and listening to expert feedback in order to best serve its students. Hundreds of university professors in the state and beyond came out against the rapid adoption of high school data science classes that were being offered as a supposed substitute for advanced algebraic math, or Algebra II. While these introductory data science courses may whet high school students’ appetites, if they are taken at the exclusion of Algebra II, students will not be adequately prepared for science and technology majors in college. We must make sure that the prerequisites for admission to our colleges and universities adequately prepare students to pursue careers in these fields.

    Other Perspectives on this topic

    This could leave the impression that we don’t support data science — which is far from the truth! We believe that data science is an important discipline to study and a career path for making important contributions in our communities and world. Data science can be a route to increased data literacy, enabling students to distinguish between real information and misinformation and the skills to pursue data-driven approaches to whatever their passions and wherever their careers may lead.

    Our data science program at UC Berkeley’s College for Computing, Data Science, and Society is the top-ranked program for undergraduate students in the country. We’ve been active in providing curriculum materials to other institutions in California and around the world, including community colleges and universities. We’ve hosted educators across a broad range of academic institutions, including high schools, at an annual conference on data science education for the last six years.

    We know from years of study and practice that learning math is cumulative. In order for California students to be adequately prepared for the science and technology majors they may choose to pursue in college — including data and computer science — the advanced math curriculum in high school is essential. While data science and statistics courses have been rapidly added to high school options and are welcome additions, these courses cannot replace the foundational math content found in Algebra II. We also acknowledge, and encourage, innovative curricula aiming to teach Algebra II via the context of data science, as such courses could be appropriate.

    We applaud UC and California decision-makers for their recognition that Algebra II is necessary student preparation for the successful completion of college degrees that require a strong grounding in math, including data and computer science. We welcome opportunities to continue this conversation and promote successful outcomes by ensuring students obtain the math knowledge and skills to pursue careers in science and technology.

    •••

    Jennifer Chayes is dean of the UC Berkeley College of Computing, Data Science, and Society, and professor of electrical engineering and computer sciences, information, mathematics and statistics.

    Jelani Nelson is a professor of electrical engineering and computer sciences at UC Berkeley.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • New math placement rules undermine preparation of community college STEM majors

    New math placement rules undermine preparation of community college STEM majors


    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    For an update on this topic, please see: Community colleges loosen STEM math placement rules, calming some critics

    It should come as no surprise to anyone that to succeed in a science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) field, one needs a solid foundation in mathematics.

    When my sons entered college, even though they had strong math skills, I encouraged all three to retake a transfer-level course they had completed in high school. This both solidified their mathematics foundation and started them off in college with at least one high grade toward their college GPA.

    Unfortunately, a new law, Assembly Bill 1705,  going into full effect in fall 2025, will prevent prospective STEM majors from acquiring or strengthening their foundational math skills at our community colleges.

    An earlier law restricted colleges’ ability to place students into remedial courses that carry no college credit. The noble intent of AB 1705 is to increase equity and student success, in part by extending those placement restrictions on remedial courses to credit-bearing prerequisites to calculus for STEM majors. Well-intentioned special interest groups convinced our politicians that calculus prerequisites such as trigonometry, college algebra or precalculus somehow represent inequitable roadblocks, rather than what they actually are: the building blocks to STEM success.

    This is despite emerging research showing that these kinds of policies only provide short-term benefits and are not actually helping the students in the long run.

    Community colleges have long used multiple measures, including student grades and other assessments, to evaluate mathematics proficiency. STEM majors who need stronger mathematics skills are then placed into college-level foundational courses such as trigonometry, college algebra or precalculus. These STEM building blocks carry college credit. And all students have the option to enroll in these courses to strengthen their math skills if they so choose. The credits and grades earned count toward graduation and toward their college GPA. But under the new law, a community college will only be allowed to enroll a STEM major into a prerequisite to calculus if the college meets strict validation requirements demonstrating that:

    1. The student is highly unlikely to succeed in the first STEM calculus course without the additional transfer-level preparation.
    2. The enrollment will improve the student’s probability of completing the first STEM calculus course.
    3. The enrollment will improve the student’s persistence to and completion of the second calculus course in the STEM program, if a second calculus course is required. (section 3 (f) AB 1705)

    The new law is completely tone-deaf to the critical role broad mathematics skill plays regarding college and career success in STEM fields. Furthermore, these validation requirements have predictably (and perhaps intentionally) proven to be extremely difficult to meet. A statewide study by the RP Group, a nonprofit community college research organization, failed to validate any group of students as needing the prerequisite classes, including even those who had never completed Algebra 2 in high school.

    The study concludes, “Based on high school GPA or high school math preparation, no group was highly unlikely to succeed in STEM Calculus 1 when directly enrolled and given two years.”  Without the validation, the law prohibits colleges from requiring or even placing STEM majors into any calculus prerequisite. Instead, colleges must enroll them directly into calculus.

    While the legislation forbids requiring prerequisites for calculus and STEM without the specified validation, it still allows students to drop the calculus class imposed on them and enroll instead in a calculus prerequisite. But based on the RP Group’s failure to confirm that any group of students meets the law’s absurdly strict validation requirements, the Community College Chancellor’s Office has inexplicably concluded no group would be helped by such prerequisites (see the February 2024 memo, page 5).

    As a consequence of this horrific misinterpretation, their implementation plan will forbid local community colleges from offering STEM majors any calculus prerequisites and instead require them to offer extra support to students while they are in Calculus. (See the Chancellor’s Office FAQs, “STEM Calculus Placement Rules” top of page 15). This means no STEM major would be able to enroll in any building block course like trigonometry even if they want to. The plan clearly goes beyond the law and will accelerate the dismantling of foundational math offerings at the community colleges.

    Having taught math in both the California Community College and State University systems for decades, I and all the math professors I know are convinced the end results of AB 1705 and this extreme implementation policy will be disastrous.

    The elimination of prerequisite courses represents a new artificial barrier that will prevent any underprepared STEM major from achieving the strong mathematics foundation they need to succeed and flourish. This will disproportionately affect underrepresented minorities and eliminate the “second chance” for students who didn’t develop sufficient math skills in high school. And that’s a lot of students. Data from the RP Group report show that between fall 2012 and spring 2020, over 68% of STEM majors were enrolled into foundational prerequisites (25,584 students). These students will now be denied any foundational coursework opportunities and instead be forced directly into calculus.

    We will flood our community college calculus classrooms with a large majority of students inadequately prepared. Grade inflation, increased student failure rates, discouraged faculty and the inadequate mathematics preparation of STEM majors transferring to the California State University and University of California campuses will be the sad but certain outcomes. You can say goodbye to the common sense of building strong mathematics foundations in our community college STEM majors. And cutting off this “second chance” will definitely discourage students from opting to major in a STEM field in the first place.

    The chancellor’s implementation, scheduled to take full effect by fall 2025, must make mid-course corrections to avoid a STEM preparation meltdown.

    The law itself needs major revisions to accomplish its noble equity ambitions. And all of us concerned with equity should be paying close attention to emerging research documenting the longer term outcomes of these experiments with restrictions on mathematics prerequisites.

    •••

    Richard Ford is professor emeritus and former mathematics and statistics department chair at California State University ChicoHe served as chair of the Academic Preparation and Education Programs Committee (APEP) of the Academic Senate of the CSU in 2021-2022. A deeper analysis by the author of the AB 1705 implementation policy can be found here.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • What to know about changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges

    What to know about changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges


    FERMIN LEAL/EDSOURCE TODAY

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    The guidance for math placement at community colleges has changed since this article was written. For more current information, visit this article.

    If you’re a student at one of California’s community colleges and you plan to study a STEM field, you’ll typically have to pass calculus first before diving into many of the other required classes in physics, engineering, computer science, biology or chemistry. 

    A decade ago, you might have started college by taking algebra, trigonometry or precalculus class — or even a remedial class like prealgebra — before getting to calculus. But a body of research has suggested that having to complete a string of prerequisites before enrolling in calculus wasn’t working for many students and that too many never made it to calculus. That finding was bolstered by evidence showing that Black, Latino and Pell Grant students were overrepresented in community colleges’ remedial courses. 

    Two recent California laws try to address this problem. Assembly Bill 705 allows most students to skip all sorts of remedial classes in favor of full credit courses that can transfer to a four-year college; AB 1705 additionally requires colleges to place more STEM students directly into calculus rather than lower-level courses like precalculus or trigonometry.

    AB 1705 has sparked fervent opposition from some math educators, who worry that less-prepared students who skip traditional prerequisites will fail in calculus and abandon plans to study STEM. They’ve also voiced concern that students who want to take courses like trigonometry and precalculus will no longer be able to do so because the classes will be dropped by colleges. 

    But defenders say AB 1705, which math departments have until fall 2025 to implement, will prevent students from getting detoured or derailed by long course sequences.

    They note that colleges are swapping out the old prerequisite-heavy model of calculus for new calculus courses with extra support for students who need to learn concepts from algebra and trigonometry as they go. Colleges are also investing in tutoring. In addition, colleges have two years to develop revamped precalculus courses. 

    This guide seeks to answer some of the most common questions about what the law means for STEM students and how colleges plan to implement it. 

    What’s the problem AB 1705 is trying to solve?

    Community colleges regularly used to place students deemed to be underprepared in remedial classes that can’t be transferred to a four-year university. That started to change after AB 705 took effect in 2018. The Public Policy Institute of California found that between fall 2018 and 2022, the share of students starting in transfer-level math rose, as did the percentage of first-time math students completing such a course in one term.   

    Still, racial equity gaps persisted, with white students completing courses at higher rates than Black and Latino students. Advocates also worried that some community colleges were not implementing AB 705 correctly.  

    AB 1705 builds on AB 705. As a result of its passage, the state education code now requires U.S. high school graduates to begin community college in courses that meet a requirement of their intended major, though there is an exception if a college can prove a prerequisite course would benefit students. Colleges also have to provide extra help to students who want or need it, such as tutoring or concurrent support courses. 

    “Students should be aware that they have the right to access calculus and, if they want support while they’re in that course, that they’re entitled to get support,” said Jetaun Stevens, a senior staff attorney at the nonprofit law firm Public Advocates.

    What guidance has the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office provided colleges on implementing the law?

    All STEM students must be given the option to take STEM calculus starting on July 1, 2025, according to California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office guidance

    Only students who either had a high school GPA of 2.6 or less, or who did not pass high school trigonometry, precalculus or calculus with at least a C have the option to take preparatory courses for calculus. Traditionally, that would include courses like precalculus. 

    To comply with the law, the chancellor’s office says colleges can drop or redesign existing preparatory courses like precalculus. If they want to continue offering an existing preparatory course, they’ll need to get the chancellor’s office approval. Colleges must show a student is deemed “highly unlikely to succeed” in STEM calculus without the prep course and meet additional criteria.

    What’s the evidence in favor of overhauling the traditional STEM math prerequisites?

    Supporters of AB 1705 often point to studies that tracked how much better STEM students performed when they enrolled directly in calculus.

    RP Group, a nonprofit that conducts research on behalf of the California community college system, reported that students who started in STEM calculus completed the course in two years at higher rates than students who entered a preparatory course for calculus instead and then later tackled calculus, regardless of students’ high school math preparation. 

    Controlling for multiple factors, RP Group also reported that the probability of completing a first STEM calculus course was lower for students who started in a prerequisite as opposed to students who went straight into calculus.  

    AB 1705’s proponents also highlight Cuyamaca College as an early adopter. A brief by the California Acceleration Project, one of AB 1705’s backers, reports that 69% of Cuyamaca students who had not studied precalculus and also enrolled in a two-unit support course completed STEM calculus in one term, compared with 30% of students who completed precalculus and then calculus in two terms. Cuyamaca observed improved calculus rates across races; gaps between students of different races were also smaller.

    What are math professors’ concerns about AB 1705?

    Many math educators said they’re worried about STEM majors with the least math experience — such as students whose highest high school math course was algebra — enrolling directly into calculus. They fear that students will fail those courses at high rates, then drop out of their major or college altogether.

    “I feel like the state might just be giving up on those students, to be honest,” Rena Weiss, a math professor at Moorpark College said. “They’re wanting to be a STEM major, and they’re going to get put right into Calculus 1. I just can’t imagine a situation where that student would be successful.”

    Professors are also concerned about students who have been out of school for a long time. Students older than the age of traditional college-goers make up a large portion of the students at California’s community colleges.

    “To be dropped right into calculus, that’s a pretty significant heavy lift for many of those students,” said Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, president of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges.

    Some faculty members also question the RP Group’s research. Both the statewide Academic Senate for the community college system and the academic senates of at least two colleges — Modesto Junior College and San Joaquin Delta College — have passed resolutions calling for a “comprehensive audit” of the data. The CSU Math Council, a forum for the chairs of the university system’s math and statistics departments, also passed a resolution calling for a peer review of research used to back AB 1705. 

    Can STEM students still take calculus prerequisite courses before taking calculus?

    Yes, in some cases, at least until 2027. 

    Students at several colleges will have the option to take reshaped, so-called “innovative preparatory courses,” which may include content from college algebra, trigonometry and precalculus.

    Since the chancellor’s office has not specified what those preparatory courses should include, there is likely to be a lot of variation across the system. At Modesto Junior College, faculty are developing a class that will include curriculum from all three traditional prerequisite courses, said Tina Akers-Porter, a math professor at the college.

    Weiss said Moorpark College’s redesigned precalculus course will follow a flipped model, in which students watch lecture videos and complete exercises at home, apply the material to activities in class and then practice the same concepts again after class. Streamlining is another approach; Ohlone College math professor Andy Bloom said colleagues are removing content from an existing precalculus course that students won’t need for their first calculus class.

    Colleges have until July 2027 to test out the newly revamped preparatory courses. Then, the chancellor’s office will assess the courses again to see if they meet student performance benchmarks.

    Weiss said she and her colleagues “decided that it was really important to have a precalculus option for students who need it.” 

    Beyond the new innovative preparatory courses, it’s unclear how many colleges will continue to offer prerequisite calculus classes for STEM majors. 

    Tim Melvin, a math professor at Santa Rosa Junior College, is hoping that students can still enroll in calculus prerequisites to get more prepared, even if they have to sign a form acknowledging that the courses aren’t required. “We want to give students more options,” he said. “No requirements, but options.”

    Brill-Wynkoop said the faculty association is in talks with some legislators and may push for additional legislation that would clarify that colleges can still give STEM majors the option of taking prerequisite classes, without requiring them. The association opposed AB 1705 when it was originally proposed.

    Chancellor’s office officials, however, would likely oppose such an effort. John Hetts, an executive vice chancellor for the office, said in an email that arguments in favor of giving students a choice are often used “to persuade students to take a slower path or to allow students to self-select into a slower path,” despite the potential for negative consequences.

    What are corequisite courses and how are colleges planning to implement them?

    Chancellor’s office guidance now says colleges should offer a corequisite course alongside and linked to the calculus class. The corequisite is an additional course of at most two units designed to integrate topics from areas like algebra and trigonometry into calculus. 

    The idea is that with extra course time, instructors can see where students are struggling and offer extra help. 

    Colleges including Chaffey College and Sierra College, for example, now plan to link together corequisite and calculus courses explicitly. Students would sign up for a corequisite scheduled immediately before or after their calculus course. The two courses would feel to students like a longer, continuous course — one that gives their professors time to review or introduce skills students might have missed. 

    Melvin, at Santa Rosa, said his department is developing a seven-unit calculus class with corequisite support for next fall, which will take up more than half of a given student’s course load. 

    “But for students that maybe need precalculus and a little algebra help, we definitely think it’s going to be effective,” Melvin said.

    How are some early calculus corequisite courses going so far?

    There are mixed opinions at colleges that already allow STEM students who have not taken precalculus to enroll in calculus courses with a corequisite.

    Southwestern College math professors Kimberly Eclar and Karen Cliffe said that in fall 2023, the campus opened a calculus course with a two-unit support course for students who had not taken precalculus, offering students additional tutoring and non-credit refresher material, too. They were troubled by the results: Of the students who had not taken precalculus, less than 5% passed the class in its first semester.

    Some students who do pass calculus without having taken precalculus at college turn out to have learned precalculus while attending high school outside the U.S., Eclar and Cliffe added.

    Ohlone College is also allowing students who haven’t taken precalculus to enroll directly in calculus with corequisite courses. 

    “I’m not seeing this huge underperformance of my students this semester compared to last semester,” said Bloom, who has presented about STEM calculus support at an RP Group conference.

    Bloom said that though some students have dropped the course, there are also positive indicators, including that the average score on the first test of the semester exceeded last year’s average. 

    What other changes are math departments planning alongside AB 1705?  

    Professors said their campuses are experimenting with technology (like guiding students on how to use AI or using homework software that gauges students’ math skills as they answer questions) and different approaches to testing (like allowing students to retake tests or to choose which questions to answer). Others said they’re aiming to create smaller class sizes, use embedded tutors and tailor calculus courses to meet the needs of life sciences students. 





    Source link

  • Educators divided on impact of changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges

    Educators divided on impact of changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xemfay2L1N4

    The California community colleges will soon implement changes to STEM math placement in which more students will be enrolled directly in calculus without first taking a longer sequence of lower-level courses such as precalculus and trigonometry.

    On Tuesday, during an EdSource roundtable, “A new law aims to expand access to STEM. What troubles some educators?” panelists discussed both the potential upsides and their concerns as Assembly Bill 1705 — the 2022 law requiring the changes — is implemented.

    Defenders of the law have argued that its intent is to ensure students can progress more quickly toward transferring to four-year colleges by avoiding long sequences of pre-requisite courses, but some math educators have said they fear more students might fail calculus if they do not first enroll in the preparatory courses.

    Tina Akers-Porter is one such math professor at Modesto Junior College. During Tuesday’s roundtable, she shared concerns she has heard from other math professors statewide. The concerns have centered less on the law as intended and more on the implementation guidance from the Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, which she said “don’t exactly match up well with the law” and are “very strict.”

    Akers-Porter pointed out that in order for a precalculus course to continue being offered at a community college, at least 50% of students enrolled in such preparatory classes must be successful in the class. By contrast, just 15% of students directly enrolled in calculus without first taking preparatory courses must successfully pass the class.

    Such guidance leads to “one size fits all,” an approach she said “is definitely not in the name of equity.”

    John Hetts, executive vice chancellor for the Office of Innovation, Data, Evidence and Analytics Office at the Chancellor’s Office, discussed some of the research he said the implementation guidance is based on.

    “At heart, what [the guidelines] are is based on a really substantial set of research across not just California, but across the country, that suggests that the way that we place students into our courses in community colleges vastly underestimated their capacity,” Hetts said.

    The implementation guidance includes the offering of support courses, called corequisites, which students will be able to take concurrently with calculus. The additional courses of at most two units are designed to integrate topics from areas like algebra and trigonometry into calculus.

    Hetts referred to research that showed corequisites being more effective than prerequisites and that having students repeat courses previously taken does not help them “and, in many cases, makes them less likely to complete the subsequent course.”

    Some students, such as panelist Alicia Szutowicz-Fitzpatrick, expressed concerns about the amount of additional time that corequisites might require. As student senate president and a disabled student programs and services peer mentor, Szutowicz-Fitzpatrick said she is worried about how the changes made to STEM math placement will impact financial aid, students’ time and unit loads.

    “We’re also worried about the education itself; a lot of support classes are not as supportive as they could be, and it’s just more work,” she said, highlighting a particular concern about how the changes would impact students with disabilities and nontraditional students.

    Prior to 2018, community colleges regularly placed students in remedial classes if they were deemed underprepared. Evidence showed an overrepresentation of Black, Latino and Pell Grant students in such courses, most of which could not be transferred to a four-year university.

    Assembly Bill 705 was signed into law in 2017 — with a confusingly similar number as the 2022 AB 1705 legislation — with the intention of reducing inequities by placing more students in transfer-level courses.

    But racial inequities persisted, leading to the passage of Assembly Bill 1705. This bill, intended to build on AB 705, in part requires colleges to place more STEM students directly into calculus rather than lower-level courses like precalculus or trigonometry.

    Tammi Marshall, dean of math, science and engineering at Cuyamaca College, highlighted that since the fall of 2023, her campus has offered calculus plus support for students who have not taken preparatory classes such as precalculus.

    “We have seen extreme success,” Marshall said, noting that the previous model of enrolling students in preparatory courses resulted in less than 30% of their students passing calculus in one year.

    “The intention was always thinking about students and their success, but we were not supporting students,” said Marshall. “The number of students that would have started in pre-algebra class and ever completed calculus was single digits.”

    Since enrolling them directly in calculus, she said, 70% of their students pass calculus in one year.

    Panelist Doug Yegge has similarly worked to implement the guidance on AB 1705 at Chaffey College, where he is a math professor.

    “I’m not saying that there aren’t drawbacks to the way that the law is being implemented. But my view, and the view of Chaffey, is, until the law is modified, here we are,” said Yegge. “How are we going to implement this at our own schools to try to give our students the best chance at success?”

    Yegge’s approach to the changes on STEM math placement has been to build a cohort model among students so that educators are “not only encouraging, but requiring collaboration and active learning.”

    At Chaffey, all math professors assigned to teach calculus-support courses are also required to meet every other Friday for two to three hours to collectively develop content and activities.

    Panelist Rena Weiss has also worked to implement support courses at Moorpark College but found that the classes didn’t quickly fill when they were not mandated for students. In response, her department removed the support courses and opted instead to focus on tutoring​, a decision that seems to be proving successful for their students.

    They also opted to develop an “innovative pre-calculus course replacement​” which is allowed by AB 1705 and will be implemented by the Fall of 2025. They intend for the replacement ​classes to be smaller in size, allow sufficient time for active learning, provide videos that students can watch at home, and to continue working in small groups alongside their peers. ​The course will be evaluated after an experimental two years.

    “We are​ really worried that​ if the same methodology for validating a prerequisite to calculus 1 is applied to this experimental course, that all of this great work that we’re doing​ might be for nothing because we are only given two years to produce results and then that will be evaluated​,” Weiss said.

    Although she noted that many of the resources used in the experimental course will be applied toward a calculus corequisite course, she echoed the concern expressed by most of the panelists about the strict AB 1705 implementation guidance set by the Chancellor’s Office.

    This story was updated to note that Moorpark’s future replacement course, not their current structure, will be up for evaluation two years after it is implemented in Fall of 2025.





    Source link

  • Community colleges loosen STEM math placement rules, calming some critics

    Community colleges loosen STEM math placement rules, calming some critics


    STEM students at California community colleges will be able to enroll in calculus prerequisites like trigonometry if they didn’t take those classes in high school.

    Credit: James McQuillan/istock

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    California math educators this fall have been locked in a vigorous debate: Will the implementation of a new law help more community college STEM students by skipping prerequisites and placing them directly into calculus, or will it set up the state’s least-prepared students for failure?

    This week, critics scored something of a victory. In a move that already faces legal scrutiny, the chancellor’s office for the state’s community colleges issued a memo making clear that, when the law takes effect next fall, students in science, technology, engineering and math majors who haven’t passed courses like trigonometry in high school will still have the option to start college math with up to two semesters of courses that are considered preparation for calculus.

    Previous guidance instructed colleges to enroll those students directly into calculus — sometimes with a simultaneous 1- or 2-unit support class — or place them in new semester-long preparatory classes offered on a trial basis.

    The changes were made after some math faculty across the state criticized the original guidance, including during an EdSource roundtable on the topic hosted last month. They worried that students without a solid math foundation would struggle if forced to start right away in calculus and said the original guidance went beyond what is required by the law, Assembly Bill 1705. 

    Other math faculty joined advocacy groups in defending the initial rollout plan, citing research that students perform better when they can go straight into calculus regardless of their high school math preparation. Critics, though, say some of that research is flawed.

    The chancellor’s office issued the memo after gathering feedback from faculty, administrators and students about whether the state’s least experienced math students, such as those who didn’t take a class higher than geometry in high school, would be ready for calculus without taking prerequisites, said Melissa Villarin, a spokesperson for the office. 

    “We’ve been listening to folks, examining the evidence that colleges are bringing to us, and we got to the point that we needed to make a decision,” added John Hetts, the college system’s executive vice chancellor for the Office of Innovation, Data, Evidence and Analytics. “If we didn’t make a decision now, it would not leave colleges enough time to prepare for fall 2025.”

    Calculus is often a required course for many science, technology and engineering majors. In the past, research has shown that some students never get to calculus because they fail to complete necessary prerequisite courses like trigonometry or precalculus, effectively blocking those students from pursuing their degrees.

    AB 1705, signed into law in 2022, requires the college system to evaluate the impact of enrolling students in prerequisites to calculus and, if they can’t prove students benefit from those classes, to stop requiring or even recommending them.

    Some backers of the law interpret it as mandating a shift as much as possible to enrolling all STEM students directly into calculus. They cite a section that states students “shall be directly placed into” the transfer-level class that satisfies the requirement for their degree.

    Chancellor’s office officials, however, maintain that the latest guidance is consistent with the law. “The guidance is fully within the parameters of AB 1705,” Paul Feist, a spokesperson for the system, said in an email.

    Under the new guidance, students who didn’t pass Algebra II or its equivalent in high school will be allowed to take two semesters worth of calculus prerequisites, which could include some combination of college algebra, trigonometry or precalculus. Students who did pass that course but not trigonometry or precalculus will be allowed to enroll in a one-semester prerequisite course, typically precalculus.

    The new guidance is a compromise, said Pamela Burdman, executive director of Just Equations, a nonprofit organization focused on the role of math in education equity. 

    “I think the chancellor’s office is trying to strike a balance here,” she added. “I do think there has been a tendency to place students in more prerequisites than they may need, but we don’t know enough from the research exactly what the optimal placement system is and how to identify which students need which levels of support.”

    The guidance won’t be the final word on the issue. It could face a future legal challenge. Jetaun Stevens, an attorney with the civil rights law firm Public Advocates, said the chancellor’s new directive urges colleges “to violate the law.” Stevens said the firm is still “assessing what we can do” and did not rule out a lawsuit. 

    “This guidance gives colleges permission to completely ignore students’ rights to be placed in calculus. It creates exceptions in the law that don’t exist,” Stevens said. “This is illegal and beyond the chancellor’s office’s authority. They don’t get to pick what part of the law they want to enforce.”

    Faculty, meanwhile, still plan to pursue legislation next year that would permanently clarify that colleges can offer “standalone foundational pre-transfer courses,” according to a memo being circulated by the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges, a faculty advocacy organization. Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, president of the association, said the draft is being “shared widely with system partners and legislators.”

    In the meantime, starting next year, the chancellor’s office plans to collect data from each college and examine how students are accessing calculus. Colleges will have to prove that students are at least as likely to get to and complete calculus when they start in prerequisites as when they start right away in calculus. If the prerequisite path shows worse results, guidance says those prerequisites will need to be eliminated for STEM majors by 2027. 

    The updated guidance is “simple and based in common sense,” said Tina Akers-Porter, a math professor at Modesto Junior College and one of the leading critics of the original guidance. “If you’ve taken the preparatory courses, then go into calculus. But if you haven’t, then still offer the preparatory courses. That’s what we wanted.”

    Tammi Marshall, dean of math, science and engineering at Cuyamaca College, was disappointed in the chancellor’s office’s new direction. She said the chancellor’s office has previously “done a great job of holding the colleges accountable” to evidence suggesting students perform better when placed directly into calculus with a companion support course than in longer sequences of preparatory courses. Her college has been highlighted as an early adopter of AB 1705 and has reported improved calculus completion rates across racial groups.

    “I felt like they were pressured into making a decision that isn’t completely based on the data,” she said of the new guidance. 

    Some math faculty said the new guidance leaves departments little time to adapt and may sap energy from attempts to reimagine math courses ahead of next fall. Many departments have designed new classes to prepare students for calculus in anticipation of AB 1705, but it’s unclear whether colleges will choose to offer those courses next fall, as they initially planned, or fall back on older courses. 

    “We just don’t know where to focus our energy right now,” said Rena Weiss, a math professor at Moorpark College, adding that she’s glad the chancellor’s office listened to faculty members’ concerns and is grateful for the option to place STEM students into courses like trigonometry. 

    Other faculty are hoping for more information about exactly which students they can now place into precalculus courses. 

    Forecasts of what the guidance means for access to STEM education varied. Marshall predicted greater inequity at colleges that opt to continue calculus prerequisite sequences with high attrition rates, which she said have a “disproportionate impact on our Black and brown STEM students.” 

    On the other side, Southwestern College math professor Kimberly Eclar said this week’s guidance gives more options to students whose high schools do not offer higher math classes. James Sullivan, a math professor at Sierra College, said the updated rules will benefit students who transition into a STEM career later in life but haven’t yet learned the concepts they’ll need for calculus.

    Hetts, the executive vice chancellor, said the current evidence is simply “not strong enough” to prohibit colleges from offering prerequisites next year. The chancellor’s office, in consultation with the RP Group, a nonprofit that conducts research on behalf of the college system, plans to conduct additional research starting in 2025 “to more thoroughly understand” how students access calculus. 

    The RP Group is also deciding whether to conduct a follow-up study that would compare the longer-term outcomes of students who enroll directly in calculus to those who do not, according to Alyssa T. Nguyen, the organization’s senior director of research and evaluation. Such a study could examine how often each group of students completes associate degrees or transfers. Nguyen wrote in an email that RP Group will continue to draw from student records in its analysis and may also survey, interview or conduct focus groups with students.





    Source link