Assembly Standing Committee on Higher Education

Good afternoon. I would like to call this meeting to order and welcome everyone to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education. And today we'll be having our implementation hearing, our first implementation hearing of the Assembly Higher Education Committee meeting. Whether you're here in person or watching virtually, thank you for your participation.

Please note that all materials for this hearing can be accessed online at. I will now go over some key elements of the structure of today's oversight hearing. We have a few different options for public testimony today in the hearing room and the opportunity to submit written comments.

When we reach the public comment portion of the agenda, I will ask that any Members of the public hearing the room approach the MIC and formal line. Each Member of the public will have one minute for public comment. You can exit the hearing room once you have finished testifying or you can return to your seat.

Witnesses who are unable to attend physically the hearing today can submit written comments via the Legislative Portal. Please please note that any written testimony transmitted is considered public comment and may be read into the record.

Once again, thank you so much again for joining us here today and welcome to the Members of the Committee and to our Vice Chair Mr. DeMaio as well, and to the new Members of the Committee as well. Welcome and once again, thank you so much again for all joining us here today.

At this time I'm going to make some opening comments and then I'll pass it to my colleagues for any opening comments as well. Thank you for joining us here today.

We know that the California Community colleges is the nation's largest system of higher education and a critical entry point for many who seek post secondary education opportunities accepting 100% of applicants regardless of their educational background. The community college system is seen as the epitome of equal access and opportunity for those who seek upward mobility.

However, prior to AB705, community colleges were preventing 80% of all students from accessing college level coursework. Evidence showed the average student enrolled in four courses below college level math and took five and a half years to transfer to a four year University. To ensure true access to college level coursework.

AB705 intended for all students to be placed into the course. That would maximize their probability of successfully completing a college level course, thereby preventing the relegation of students to remedial work. In the words of Public Policy Institute of California, AB 705 was landmark law that transformed placement and remediation at the community colleges.

Students will no longer be asked to prove through testing they were prepared for transfer level coursework. Instead, colleges would have to justify that the student was not prepared and required additional preparation work.

In the years following the implementation of Assembly Bill 705, Access to Transfer level math and English rose exponentially as did the successful completion of the courses. However, implementation was still uneven which resulted in AB 1705 a similar Irwin being enacted.

The purpose of AB 1705 was to build upon the success of AB 705 by expanding access to co requisite supports, ensuring placement and enrollment and transfer level coursework for all high school graduates and to expand justification for student placement and courses that are degree applicable.

Transfer Level courses In the years since AUB 1705 was assigned into law, despite the rise in access and completion rates, questions and concerns have been raised about the efficacies of law.

Reports of students failing transfer level courses without any alternative paths have reached this Committee along with concerns regarding the Chancellor's Office's recent guidance memos on how colleges are to place STEM students into the first math course. The intention of this hearing is to answer the following questions. Should remedial courses be introduced for a specific population of students?

Why did the Chancellor's Office issue two separate guidance memos without providing clarification to the field? And how are faculty and students faring under the new placement and enrollment requirements of transfer level math and English?

As Chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, I look forward to hearing from the experts in the field and see how the state Legislature can partner with the system to further the mission of assisting all students to obtain their educational goals in their journey at this time.

Now, I'd like to invite the author of Assembly Bill 705 and AB 1705 Assembly Irwin to make some opening comments at this time.

Thank you very much Chair Fong and Members of the Higher Education Committee for holding this hearing and inviting me to participate. Equitable placement is a topic I've focused on over the course of my tenure in the Legislature.

In 2017, the Legislature unanimously voted to pass AB 705, a landmark Bill that required community colleges to use multiple measures to place students in courses rather than relying solely on placement tests.

This broke the cycle of funneling community college students, particularly students of color, into lengthy remedial course sequences that burned up their financial aid, added time to the degree, did not count for credit, and drove many students to give up their pursuit of higher education.

Implementation of AB 705 was uneven across the community college system, and reports from independent researchers like PPIC led me to another Bill, AB 1705. AB 1705 required community colleges to place and enroll students directly into transfer level English and math courses.

Research demonstrates that passing both transfer level math and English courses in the first year is a strong predictor of transferring to a four year institution.

Research also shows if students are placed or self selected into a string of remedial classes due to guidance from counselors or a lack of confidence in their abilities, their chances to make it to these important targets are diminished. AB 1705 allows students to reach this key key milestone of transfer into a four year institution.

Since its passage, AB 1705 has increased access to transfer level courses and reduced equity gaps in placement and course completion. Black and Latino men are now passing transfer level math at triple the rate. Prior to these reforms, these placement reforms did not happen in a vacuum.

Integral to 1705 is that students are provided supports such as embedded tutoring and a concurrent Low unit credit course that gave extra touch and improved completion. In 2022, through the efforts of the Legislature, the state provided $64 million for colleges to implement these equitable placement reforms.

In addition to the funding, the Community College Chancellor's Office has been helpful in providing guidance as colleges navigate rollout. Most recently, the Chancellor has outlined four pathways for colleges to implement 1705.

These include a co requisite course model, number one number two application for validation of an existing preparatory course number three application for validation of an interim preparatory course or number four creation of an innovative preparatory course which over half the colleges have opted to do.

Additionally, as of December, the Chancellor has allowed colleges to offer a credit earning two courses sequence to get students who have not completed intermediate algebra, integrated math 3 or an equivalent up to speed. AB1705 has an implementation date of 2026 with an additional two years afterwards to experiment, collect data and validate courses that best support students.

Research has shown and continues to overwhelmingly support the idea that remedial education holds students back from achieving their potential and their educational goals. While we still have work to do to get all students to their educational goals, AB 1705 must be given the chance to work.

I look forward to our discussion today and hearing from the researchers, students and faculty.

Thank you so much, Assembly Irwin. Vice Chair Demaio, would you like to make some opening comments?

Yes, thank you Mr. Chairman and I want to commend the use of this Committee's time to do oversight hearings. When we pass laws, we need to study the implementation to ensure that we're getting the results that we expected.

The next year is going to be difficult for our colleges and universities in the State of California and we're coming off several difficult years. The Governor has proposed pretty steep cuts in the budget. We've also had alarming instances of threatening behavior on college campuses, making some students feel. Feel unsafe.

We do know that affordability continues to get farther and farther out of our grasp.

And that's quite shocking for many Californians who remember a time when people would come from all over the country to want to move to California because the high quality of education in colleges and universities in our state, as well as the coveted in state tuition discount, those are memories.

We need to get back to where our colleges and universities produced exceptionally qualified workers for our economy with valuable degrees.

And I think that if we can spend more time identifying some of the deficiencies in our current system, what we've lost over the past several decades, how we got to this point, we can do a great service to California taxpayers as well as the students of this generation and future generations.

In the coming months, my office will be outlining a number of queries to get to the bottom of the use of taxpayer funds in colleges and universities.

While the UC system, the CSU systems do have a measure of Independence in their budget as afforded in our state constitution, it is the obligation of elected officials to shine a light on how any public institution uses taxpayer funds or funds collected by students and families of students who perhaps are not in the position to afford those fees and those charges.

I have introduced a piece of legislation that would provide greater transparency on the costs and benefits of obtaining various degrees in the State of California.

We need to ensure that if someone goes into debt for a degree that there is a reasonable chance that they will be able to get a job and be able to afford to repay the debt to obtain the degree. If this was happening in any other sector of our economy, we would be screaming consumer fraud.

But because it's happening in colleges and universities, it is seen as just simply the way things are done. I believe that we have an obligation to do better. We'll also be looking at the use of taxpayer funds in colleges and universities for political advocacy.

And the question becomes, should taxpayer money be utilized for that purpose or should it be put to the mission of our colleges and universities, which is to provide a world class education? And finally, looking at some of the alarming instances covered in the media in the past few years.

We need to commit that every student at all times feels that they are treated with dignity and respect and they are always afforded a level of safety. No matter what your political point of view or your background or your religion or your orientation. It is unacceptable that any student feels threatened on any California college or University campus.

I make these remarks because I know that we have a number of stakeholders in the audience today that are obviously interested in the topics of this important oversight hearing.

But I want to make sure that we start a conversation today on some very important issues that I hope to find resolution to in the coming months and years, at least in my service on this Committee. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Vice Chair. Any other Members of the Committee would like to make any other opening comments. All right, seeing none. Thank you so much. We will now move into our first panel item number two, impacts of landmark legislation AB705 and AB 1705.

And now I'd like to invite up our first panelist from the Public Policy Institute of California, Marisol Queliar Mejia, a research fellow with the PPIC Higher Education Center. Thank you for being here today and you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon and thank you so much for the opportunity to share my research with you today. My name is Marisol Collar Mejia. I'm a research fellow at PPIC Higher Education Center. PPIC is a nonpartisan, independent research organization that does not take positions on legislation.

My comments are based on research that my team and I have conducted over the last nine years on the impact of developmental education reforms on California community college students. To reach our conclusions, we rely on student level data from all 115 community colleges in the system.

It has been six years since the deadline for a statewide implementation of AB705, landmark legislation that fundamentally transformed placement and remediation in California community colleges.

This legislation was aimed at ensuring that students were not placed into remedial courses, which often delay and deter their academic progress unless evidence suggested that they were highly unlikely to successfully complete the transfer level course.

At the time AB705 was signed into law, a growing body of research, including our own, showed that even though the vast majority of students entering community college were placed in remedial courses, only a small portion of those students eventually completing transfer level math and English courses.

Moreover, the data also showed that Latino and Black students were disproportionately placed in remedial courses. Let me start by summarizing what implementation of AB705 has meant for students access and success to this important gateway transfer level courses. In the interest of time, I will focus on math for these remarks, but we have found similar results for English.

As of fall 2023, which is the latest data available, practically all students were able to enroll directly in a transfer level course.

This is a staggering change compared to the situation in fall 2017, the year AB705 was signed into law when only 30% of students taking math for the first time were able to enroll directly in a transfer level course.

As a result of this dramatic increase, the share of first time math students successfully completing transfer level math in one term, known as the one term throughput rate, increased 17 percentage points, rising to 40% during the first term of system wide implementation in fall 2019.

This share continued to grow even through the pandemic, reaching 53% in fall 2023. Let me put this in terms of number of students prior to the implementation of AB 705. Each fall, about 30,000 students completed transfer level in their first term of math enrollment.

After implementation, this number doubled reaching 62,000 students in fall 2023 and this is only data for the fall and in the case of Latino and Black students, the numbers almost tripled. In addition, we have seen improvements among successful completers in the representation of Latino and Black students.

Although these students remain underrepresented compared to their Asian and White peers, getting to this point has certainly not been easy. Initial implementation of AB705 was uneven across colleges and groups of students in fall 2019.

At one in five colleges, a third of more of first time math students were still either required or allowed to enroll in below transfer level courses, even though many of these students had already taken such courses in high school and had often passed.

Moreover, not all students who could benefit from effective well designed corrective courses which are additional concurrent support for transfer level courses were accessing these courses. These conditions prompted additional legislative action AB 1705 aimed at ensuring that the AB 705 reforms could reach all students. The importance of the improvements brought about by AB705 should not be overlooked.

Early completion of transfer level courses significantly boosts students chances of reaching their academic goals. Our research shows that transfer rates are significantly higher than among students who successfully complete transfer level math early in their community college career. AB75 implementation has enabled many more students to just do that.

Among students who started in community College in fall 202234% successfully completed transfer level math in their first year in college, which is 10 percentage points higher than the completion rate among entering students in fall 2017.

In a recent report that we did on the transfer path, we found another positive trend that consigns with the implementation of AB705 increasing shares of successful transfer students taking two years or less to transfer in 201718 only 22% of students who transfer did so within two years of initial enrollment. By 202122 this number jumped to 31%.

I should note that the number of students in this case is not large since only 10% of all transfer intending students in the system transfer within two years. Nevertheless, the trend is promising.

Overall, we see marked contrast in terms of four year community college outcomes including persistence, unit accumulation, degree attainment and transfer among those students who complete transfer level math in their first year and those who do not now. Celebrating this remarkable progress does not mean that the work is over.

Increases in direct enrollment have thus far been the main driver of improvement in successful completions. To further advance student success and to see meaningful reductions in persistent racial equity gaps, colleges will need to determine how to better address student diverse academic and non academic needs.

Our research also finds that students who are not successful within the new system are often struggling with more than subject specific content in comparison to successful students. They tend to have lower GPAs excluding math and they earn a lower proportion of the units that they enroll in.

These findings suggest that additional supports far reaching, high touch and holistic are needed to increase student retention and success. Co requisites have been a key component of AB75 implementation. However, completion rates among co requisite students vary widely across colleges. Some colleges are seeing great success, but there is still much room for improvement.

Indeed, we see a 20 percentage point gap between the college with the lowest and the highest completion rates in corrected courses. These disparities also shed light on the variation in approaches taken in co regit offerings and enrollment.

The 641,000,001 time funding that the system received to better support a comprehensive and more equal implementation of AB 705 holds the promise to support colleges in expanding offerings of well designed, effective and equity mind corequisites.

So now let me finish my remarks by saying that based on the evidence that we and many others have produced over the last decade, we believe that the solution to the challenges that remain is not a return to relying on prerequisite remedial or below transfer level courses, but to continue building on the progress made.

As noted, the chances of completing a transfer level course are Low for those who first start in courses below transfer level. Our research find that only a third of students in these courses subsequently enroll in the transfer level course and only a fifth actually are able to successfully complete the course.

Transfer level completion for students started in correct seat courses is significantly higher by 31 percentage points than it is for students who start in a course below transfer level.

Moreover, fold to fault throughput rates for students who are starting a transfer level course but did not successfully complete the course in their first try are seven percentage points higher than for students who start in a below 12 transfer level course. In closing, let me emphasize this.

On average, when students start directly in a transfer level course, they have better chances of successfully completing even if they do not pass in their first try than if they start in a course below transfer level. Thank you so much for the opportunity to share PPIC research with you today.

Thank you so much Ms. Mejia and PPIC for the robust presentation and laying the foundation. Appreciate you really providing an overview of this area of access and success at our community colleges. And thank you so much again. Thank you. Next up, we'll move on to item number three, Implementation for STEM majors.

Thank you so much again to Ms. Mejia for the presentation. Joining us today for the second panel is Dr.

John Hetz, Executive Vice Chancellor of the Office of Innovation, Data and Evidence and analytics for the Chancellor's Office at California Community Colleges, and Alyssa Nguyen, Senior Director for Research and Evaluation at the Research and Planning Group for the California Community Colleges. Each of you will have eight minutes. Please begin when you're ready. Dr. Hetz.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Fong, Esteemed Members of the Committee, My name is John Hetz. I'm the Executive Vice Chancellor of the Office of Innovation, Data, Evidence and Analytics for the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office.

I am very excited to be here today to share with you our system's progress in one of the single most profoundly successful examples of evidence based educational reform in higher education. Prior to AB705, many students very first experience in college was an assessment test that served to discourage them and undermine their confidence.

Despite being a absolutely terrible predictor of student performance, the over reliance on assessment tests delayed and derailed the educational dreams of millions of students here in California and across the country. In 201285% of California community college students were placed into one or more remedial courses. On average somewhere around four courses per student.

Many of them were forced to repeat multiple courses that they had successfully completed in high school. In addition, when you look closer, 95% of our underrepresented students of color were placed in into one or more remedial sequences.

As a result of this unfair placement into remedial courses, only 6% of first time students completed transfer level English and math in their first year. As you already heard discussed, that's a key predictor of whether or not students complete a meaningful educational outcome or transfer and only 3% of students complete a degree or certificate within two years.

In our system, only 8% of students of first time students completed within three years. Two initiatives across the state, the California Acceleration Project and the Multiple Measures Assessment Project demonstrated that shortening developmental sequences and using high school data for placement dramatically improved student outcomes. Despite professional development and funding from the state, adoption was slow.

So AB705 mandated an evidence based approach to maximizing students completion of transfer level English and mathematics. Using data from CalPass plus, the evidence revealed that direct enrollment in transfer level courses with support if needed, led to higher successful completion of those courses for all students than placing students even a single level below transfer.

The results for our system and for our students have been absolutely transformative. 68% of students now complete transfer level English in their first year in the discipline, 62% in mathematics. 22% of students complete both transfer level English and mathematics in their first year in college.

Tripling the previous rate, almost quadrupling the previous rate completion of meaningful educational outcomes, a certificate or a degree in the first two years that's tripled to 9%. Still Low. Long way to go, but that's much higher than it used to be. And in three years it doubled to 16%.

Gains have been seen across every single student group, all subgroups that you can imagine, including our most vulnerable students, representing perhaps the single most effective educational intervention ever. And it came from simply recognizing students actual capacity to succeed in transferable courses if just given the opportunity to do so.

As you heard, despite AB705 success, a few colleges implemented policies that were counter to its intent. For example prolonging the use of remedial pathways, reinventing that pathway in noncredit courses, avoiding adopting concurrent support strategies and lengthening the math sequence at transfer level prior to calculus.

And these implementation gaps disproportionately occurred amongst colleges that were serving more underrepresented students. And this led to the critical follow up legislation AB 1705.

AB 1705 very specifically was designed to implement those gaps in implementation requiring colleges to enroll students in the program appropriate transfer level English and math course required for their degree unless evidence showed that they were highly unlikely to succeed in that course and that preparatory courses prior to that course would improve their outcomes.

A key part of AB 1705 was addressing calculus for STEM majors. Research employing students high school and community college data from CALPAS plus again revealed that students who enrolled directly in calculus were more likely to succeed than those who began in preparatory courses across all levels of high school preparation.

However, in this case we have a somewhat smaller data set to work with than we did with the AB705 research due to the focus on calculus, where there's fewer students enrolling, the focus on STEM majors, which is a smaller subset of our student population, and particularly on the relatively small number of STEM majors who lack sufficient high school preparation.

One of the things that leads to people becoming STEM majors often is getting further in mathematics in high school. And so as well as one of the challenges that we face is the unavailability of detailed information about how precisely such students may have gotten into calculus at each institution.

As a result, although the evidence was very strong and suggestive, it was not as conclusive as the evidence we had for the AB 705 implementation. To support colleges, colleges were provided the most recent local data for STEM majors.

So we looked at the most recently available data completing calculus when starting directly in calculus versus in courses prior to calculus, while also allowing colleges the option to generate their own data, look at different subsets, approach the data the way that they might like, and we focused on the small portion of STEM majors with the least level of preparation in mathematics.

The standard of highly unlikely succeed used was based on taking the upper end of the range of most common interpretations of highly highly unlikely amongst analyses of words of estimated probability. I know that sounds like it's not a real thing, but it is a real thing.

That's something that weather forecasters use, hurricane forecasters use, intelligence analysts use to understand what we mean by things like highly unlikely. And amongst those 15% is generally the highest range of that estimated, the highest range of what you might consider highly unlikely.

However, and this is really important in every case, the primary focus of the Chancellor's office remained on whether students that started in courses prior to calculus were at least as likely as students who started directly in calculus to complete the course. Right?

So setting aside that for a moment, one of the things we always focused on is how likely students were to complete calculus as a function of where they began. Given that starting directly in calculus maximized STEM majors likelihood of completing calculus, colleges were directed to provide all STEM majors access to calculus or calculus with support as needed.

That was an option that was chosen by 42 colleges. However, given the evidence lower level of conclusiveness, colleges were also provided two additional options that you heard about earlier that might reasonably demonstrate similar effectiveness to direct placement into calculus colleges with higher performing preparatory course sequences, I.e.

more students completed or a higher percentage of students who started below calculus completed, they were allowed to get interim approval with their existing sequence. 17 colleges were provided that opportunity Nine colleges selected that option and all colleges could develop an innovative approach to calculus preparation one level prior to calculus and that was chosen by 64 colleges.

Throughout the implementation, the Chancellor's Office continued ongoing engagement across the state with stakeholders. As implementation proceeded, we had we additionally consulted the system CEOs, the CIOs, I'm sorry, the Chief Information Officers. I'm sorry, not the Chief Information Officers, the chief Instructional Officers.

I apologize to any CIOs in the room, the statewide Academic Senate, the statewide Student Senate, legislators and staff, equity advocacy organizations, and others about the challenges that our colleges were facing in developing the appropriate supports.

Although no additional outcome data was yet available, as colleges were implementing those challenges became more and more apparent and this led us to some additional very highly constrained flexibility to continue to offer existing curriculum, but only to the least prepared students who hadn't previously completed at least intermediate algebra in high school.

Importantly, all of this together provides the state with a robust opportunity and a much larger evident basis about which to study the pathways that actually maximize students completion of calculus.

Given the urgency of this work and the importance of that it holds for our students in our system, the Chancellor's Office is continuing its research partnership with the RP Group.

The organization that knows our system best, is highly familiar with the system's data as well as the details of this area of ongoing research and we are going to be working diligently to dive more deeply into the unresolved questions and help the system truly finish the work on behalf of our system students.

So to close 15 years ago when I first started working in the California Community Colleges, I was utterly shocked by the stark reality of what was happening on the ground at our institutions. The vast majority of community college students were placed in remedial courses with very few of them completing a meaningful educational outcome.

It has been an incredibly powerful thing and in many ways the privilege of a lifetime to have been part of this work with hundreds thousands of people throughout our system and to watch in real time as our system embraced evidence based change and transformed student outcomes on a unprecedented scale.

Having the single largest higher education system in the nation representing 10% of all undergraduates, now naturally respond to data and implement meaningful change to help California lead the way on. This is a testament to the dedication of tens of thousands of faculty, staff and leaders, including Members of this body and notably Member Irwin.

It has transformed our work and our student experiences for the better and for good. This type of change is precisely the beating heart of Vision 2030 and the cornerstone of improving the lives of millions of Californians.

So for your leadership and for your interest in this work, both on behalf of myself and our current 2.1 million students we serve in the tens of millions to come, thank you.

Thank you so much, Dr. Hetz. Ms. Nguyen.

Good afternoon Chair Fong and Members of the Assembly. My name is Alyssa Nguyen and I am the Senior Director of Research and Evaluation for the RP Group. So I'm here today to provide a brief overview and comments of the RP group's research related to AB 1705.

So as shared through my colleagues here, there has been mounting evidence across the nation as well as in California as early as 2008 that has suggested that the reliance on standardized placement scores and remedial pathways has been hindering student success and college specific single college studies showing the effectiveness of high school transcript information to to help place students into appropriate math and gateway courses.

Prior to AB 705 and 1705, the percentage of students whose first math course was at a college level math class, a course required to complete a degree and or transfer hovered around 30%, with the vast majority of students not attempting math or starting in a remedial math course pathway.

After AB 705 and 1705 was implemented in fall of 2018, the percentage increased to a little over 40% showing some gains in access to college level math courses, albeit small gains we're talking about from 32% to 43% from fall 2017 to fall 2018. AB 1705 is much more than a calculus pathway reform Bill.

It addresses issues underlying the uneven and inequitable uptake of effective placement and remediation reforms that were driven by earlier landmark legislation. AB705 the research continues to show that students outcomes are better when they do not repeat coursework they have already taken in high school.

They start in a course that is required for their program of study and we provide support if they want it or need it in a way that ensures that they enroll in the gateway course required for their degree and or transfer.

The research we have conducted specifically related to AB 1705 is to summarize and describe the patterns that have been observed in STEM completion rates across the community colleges using the best available data we have access to. The patterns we have observed holds whether we look at it in aggregate, statewide form or college by College.

Using the AB 1705 calculus standards as a guidepost for how to assess AB 1705, we analyzed the enrollment records submitted by colleges statewide to explore math pathways based on the three standards of the VIL to explore whether we saw pathways where students were highly unlikely to succeed in their first STEM math course without additional transfer level preparation, whether enrollment in preparatory math courses improved students probability of completing their first STEM calculus course, and whether enrollment in preparatory math courses improved the persistence and completion of the second calculus course required for students majors.

It matters which math course students enroll in because for many if not all STEM programs, calculus 1 is a prerequisite for other required math courses as well as major required courses in order for a student to obtain a degree and or transfer to a University.

To understand calculus 1 completion patterns, we examined statewide data for a cohort of over 37,000 students who declared that they were a STEM major enrolled in a math course between 2012 and 2020 and then we also honed into a more recent sample of students who were enrolled between fall of 2019 and 2021 so that we can analyze and disaggregate the information college by college to understand what these patterns look like for students who are attempting STEM degree completion and or transfer using a two year Calculus one completion timeframe or throughput, we looked at preparatory math course completion relative to direct enrollment into calculus 1 to understand what the differences and or patterns were like for students trying to complete their Calculus 1 courses.

This information was further split to look at patterns for students we identified with higher Low placement profiles based on their prior high school coursework and gpa. So students with high placement profiles are students who earned a 2.6 or higher and completed pre calculus or trigonometry in high school.

And then we also looked at students we identified or categorized as Low placement profile and these are students who earned a lower than 2.6 GPA and or did not complete a high school trigonometry or pre calculus course to see what their patterns of calculus completion look like depending on the level of high school preparation they received.

So what did we see? Statewide? There's nearly a 40 percentage point difference in the average Calculus 1 completion rates between students who start in preparatory math courses relative to those who directly enroll in calculus 1.

If we look at what the two year Calculus completion rates are for students based on their highest high school math completed, students who directly Enroll in Calculus 1 have higher Calculus 1 completion rates than students who start in preparatory math courses in college, no matter what level of high school course or preparation they received based on the data that we have available in terms of what their high school level preparation were.

So for example, the average Calculus 1 completion rate and we're talking about two year completion rates here, who completed a high school geometry or lower class if they directly Enroll in calculus one, that average rate is 62%.

Contrast that to the same groups of students who completed high school geometry or lower and start in a preparatory Math course, their two year Calculus one completion rate is 18%. For students who complete high school Calculus if they enroll in a preparatory math course, their completion is 46% compared to 86% if those students enrolled in Calculus 1.

So you can see here that the huge difference in completion rate no matter what the high school course preparation we see among students, if we just have students directly enroll in the course, the math course that is required for their degree and or transfer goals.

These patterns suggest that no matter the high school level preparation, students who enroll directly in Calculus 1 are more likely to complete Calculus than students who start in a preparatory math course.

These statewide findings hold for college by college comparisons when we look at the 2 year Calculus 1 completion rates college by college using the operational definition of highly unlikely being 15% at no college did we see students who start in Calculus 1 were highly unlikely to succeed when given two years to complete the Calculus 1 throughput rates regardless of students placement profiles showed higher throughput rates for students who got to enroll directly in Calculus 1.

So what this data reviews is that students who directly enroll in the required math course of their major are more likely to complete that requirement than students who begin in preparatory math courses.

These findings have important implications because more students could be making better progress toward their educational goals if they can begin in the required math course for their degree and or transfer goals. This finding is especially important for STEM.

As in STEM, Calculus 1 is not only a required course for the degree or transfer, but also a prerequisite to subsequent courses such as Calculus 1 and Physics that students must complete in order to earn their degree and or transfer to continue supporting the system.

With these implementation efforts, we plan to supplement the existing research with additional data and research to further our understanding of AB 1705's impact. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Ms. Nguyen and Dr. Hetz. I have A few questions to ask before turning it over to Members of the Committee. So thank you so much again for the robust presentations. First question is to Dr. Hetz. The successful completion rate of direct placement into calculus after one year of 73%.

And in your analysis and wanted to find out, has the Chancellor's office collected any data on the first attempt pass rate?

Absolutely we have. Thank you for the question. We do a number of things to track both completion over time. So do they actually ever complete the course? But we also are tracking very closely students success in the first mathematics course attempted.

So a couple of things on that that I just want to kind of explicate a little bit. One of the things that's happened over the past four or five years is we have dramatically increased the number of students who are starting higher in mathematics right across our entire system.

And so the General consensus of people that opposed AB705 was that was going to dramatically increase the likelihood of students failing or having to withdraw from courses. In fact, our success rate in the first course attempted in mathematics has been remarkably stable during that period.

And so even as we have moved many more students up into transfer level coursework, they are just as likely to be successful in their first mathematics attempt. Another thing that people have expressed a lot of concern about is the success rates in both calculus and business calculus. And those have been remarkably the same over this time period.

There was a little bit of change during the pandemic. Part of the consequence of that, we had a lot of students that had excused withdrawals. We remove those out of success rates once you control for that. Our success rates in both business calculus and STEM based calculus have been remarkably strong.

Thank you so much, Dr. Hetz. And also in terms of the validation requirements, you were mentioning the term highly unlikely to succeed.

So for concerns that have been raised as to validation requirements as to what is highly unlikely to succeed, I've heard that a failure rate of 85% in calculus is sufficient evidence for students to continue enrolling in the course. But you're requiring a throughput rate of 50% from a preparatory transfer level course of calculus.

Can you please explain how the Chancellor's office arrived at these validation requirements?

Absolutely. I'm so excited that you asked me that question because it allows me to help resolve some uncertainty that I think a lot of people have. There are two different criteria for students being able to be placed into a preparatory sequence. One is they have to be highly unlikely to succeed.

And the other is the students have to be as or more likely to successfully complete Calculus in that same time frame as students who start directly in the Calculus. So the highly likely to succeed threshold, we use pretty standard terms for what highly unlikely is to get to 15%.

But a second bar is created by comparing those students who start in preparatory sequences to students who start directly in Calculus.

And so one of the things that we did is we looked across the distribution of success rates for students who start directly in calculus across our colleges and the distribution of the success rates or the successful completion of calculus of students who start below.

And what you see is there is this small area of overlap in which at some of our colleges, the success rates in preparatory sequences, the successful completion of calculus after starting in a preparatory sequence is higher than you see at some colleges where students are placed directly. So there's an overlap in the distribution.

And so what we did, because we're in this period where we're still evaluating, we're allowing colleges that have those higher performing sequences to be allowed to continue to offer them. But so the reason that there are two different standards is one speaks to this should only be given to students who are highly unlikely.

And the second is preparatory sequences need to show that they are at least as effective as starting directly. And so that standard was reached by looking at the distribution of colleges successful completion of calculus when students started there directly.

Thank you so much, Dr. Hetz, for that. And then thank you for both of you for the robust presentation. The last final question I had for this panel is is there a plan to examine which types of academic supports are most effective in helping students complete transfer level math or English in their first attempt?

So absolutely. This continues to be something that we work to understand across the system. We are really excited about the robust opportunities that we are being given by the different approaches that colleges are undertaking.

Some colleges are approaching this with embedded tutoring, some are approaching it with co requisite courses, Some are approaching it with a variety of other ways to support students concurrently.

And so these types of things are the bread and butter of stuff that makes people like me excited because we get to actually dig in and figure out what types of things are more effective and importantly, maybe more or less effective for different types of students. Right.

You know, we have many students who may be taking part time courses that may be, you know, may find different approaches more palatable to them. And this is an opportunity for us to do that type of work.

So absolutely, one of the things we are really excited to do over the next couple of years is use this opportunity and the, you know, the, you know, the experimentation of all of our colleges to explore how best to support students. Thank you.

Ms. Nguyen, did you want to add to that? Okay. All right. Any Members?Assembly Member Irwin, please.

Thank you very much for the presentation. First, I wanted to hear a little bit about how outreach and education is going and then how are faculty and staff informed about changes in guidance and implementation.

So outreach and support has been something that has been ongoing as part of this program. So we've had a couple of different things. We did focus groups in fall of 2023 and we have been running an ongoing statewide webinar series exploring, you know, helping colleges understand the data.

First of all, like what does the data show, how to interpret it locally, but. But then walking through different ways that you can develop co requisite supports. We've also established multiple different support organizations that have, you know, curated professional development that's available to colleges in this space.

And then we've been highlighting the colleges who have been, you know, advance, you know, started implementing some of this powerful work in calculus in advance, making sure to elevate some of those conversations. I think you're going to be hearing from some of them today in the work that they've started to do.

So we try very hard to make sure that we are regularly providing this information out to the colleges. One of the things that we are going to be doing is rolling out additional support over the next year or so, trying to get in more regional spaces where we can have people work together in person.

That was a very effective strategy around AB705. It's been harder to implement under the conditions of the pandemic, but that's something that we're moving back towards. There may have been an additional part of your question I didn't quite answer. I apologize.

I think you've covered most of it. So if a student fails a course and can they re enroll and then what changes the second time around?

So typically speaking, when students fail a course, they can re enroll. They have, they can re enroll up to three times. But the challenge is colleges need to think about how they better support those students.

And so one of the things that you may have heard from the PPIC presentation is that students who do not do well in with co requisite supports or concurrent supports, they actually turn out typically not to be students who are struggling because of the mathematics. They're struggling in college. So it's not a math specific struggle.

And so colleges need to think carefully about how they support the entire student more holistically. And so one of the things that you've seen across the country is that when you build in those holistic supports to these types of reforms, one of the most effective ones was the ASAP program in the City University of New York.

You get much higher success rates. So you get when you combine both these types of structural changes with curated student support, that's when these types of reforms really seem all right.

And I don't know if I missed it. Are you collecting or planning on collecting the data on drop, fail or withdrawal rates? Did I miss it?

We do have data on DF and W, but not drops. So historically the Chancellor's office hasn't collected drop rates. And the reason for that is drop rates are a highly noisy variable. So for those of you who aren't familiar with how enrollment works in the community colleges, students change their class schedule quite often.

And so you may have students that drop three or four times as they move sections. Because unlike students who are attending four year institutions institutions, their ability to attend a particular course at a particular time is much more variable because they are working.

And so if their schedule shifts, they've got to change the course that they're enrolled in. And so the drop information tends to be something that's incredibly noisy because students are dropping courses all of the time. And so we don't typically collect that information.

And they couldn't give a reason, you couldn't collect it and find out what the reason it for.

So if we were going to do that, we would have to change like every college would have to change what they do when students drop. Typically dropping is something that students can do freely because they're able to change at that point in the term.

And so if you, if you created opportunities to collect data, it would create barriers for students who are trying to adjust their schedule. We could do it, but there is a cost to students to do those types of things. And so that's always. We have to weigh that balance.

Like what is the cost to students to that inconvenience and making it harder for them potentially to drop courses and get into the course they're trying to get into.

Right. And my understanding is that there have been issues around the STEM math courses. I know that the Chancellor's office has made some adjustments and accommodations. So I would just like to. What is the clarification on what the faculty feels is still unaddressed? I should say maybe you can clarify what. Sure.

I mean I'm always, you know, do not want to put words in the mouths of our faculty, but the most common concerns that we have is that for the students who have the least level of math preparation, that we did not have a large enough sample to be able to draw conclusive evidence about their performance.

And so that's one of the reasons we built these additional opportunities for colleges to both to do innovative work or now to continue their. Their existing curriculum, but just for students who haven't previously gotten to the prerequisites to calculus.

And the reason for that, and I, I think you've heard this both from PPIC and from the RP group today, there's absolutely no evidence that students who repeat courses that they've previously taken do better. In fact, there's a. A variety of evidence that suggests they're less likely to do well when forced to take a course.

Again, there's a couple of really nice studies of that at the precalculus specific level. And it hurts all students. Right. Being forced to retake a course that you've previously taken is fundamentally demoralizing and demotivating. Right.

And one of the things that I think a lot of students find is that, and this happens a fair amount is that you don't pay as close of attention in a class. And attention is the currency of education. Right.

And putting students in sets of circumstances where they don't want to pay as close of attention draws them out of the work of learning. And so that's one of the things I think we really have to draw the hard line at. And this is where we've held the line very clearly.

Students who got to a particular point in high school, they should progress naturally from there.

All right, thank you very much. Thank you. Chair Fong.

Thank you Assembly Member Irwin. Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Thank you. Thank you. The question is, should California law clearly define unlikely to succeed?

Oh, that's the full question. Okay. So one of the things this is, that is a fascinating question.

What I would say, as someone on the other side of that, if you want us to hold to a particular standard, then, yes, what we try to do is use a flexible definition of what that means, using both existing research, but also just kind of a General.

Like if you said equally likely to succeed, that would clearly be 50% unlikely to succeed would somewhere be lower. And highly unlikely to succeed has to be lower than that. One of the things that I used to do, because just to be clear to everyone, that standard for prerequisites predates AB705.

That was a standard that always was part of our prerequisites. The difference is we've been held to that standard now. And so when I would Talk about this early in the work, back when we were doing multiple, multiple measures work, before people knew what I was doing, right.

I would just do surveys of the audience, like, let's, let's do some questions about statistics, because I would be talking about mathematics and get a sense of like, what do you think highly unlikely is right.

And in every room, and I have rooms with, you Know200250 people, there was only one room ever when anyone gave a response above 25%. And most of the time the median response was between between 5 and 10%. And so we try to use a relatively generous interpretation of that standard.

But yes, if the State of California thinks that we have used an overly conservative version of that standard, then a different definition would be worthwhile.

And what mechanisms are in place for ongoing feedback from faculty and students and colleges to inform future adjustments to these types of policies.

So one of the things that I think people will hear me say in every forum, and I'll say it again today, is that I am 100% open to any evidence that anyone brings forward of alternative pathways that would work better. And the reason I say that is because I live the other side of this.

So when I started off in the system, for those of you who don't know the history, we were, I almost cursed. Excuse me. We are on a path to developing a common assessment. Right. We were really going very strong towards that path.

And one of the things that we were finding at Long Beach City College at the time was that, and we talked a little bit about today, that assessment tests were actually really bad predictors of student performance, exceptionally bad in some cases, like not better than doing nothing at all.

And what we found was really, in retrospect, was not at all surprising. What predicted students performance in classrooms was how they did in previous classrooms. Right.

And so I took the opportunity, when the state was doing statewide webinars, just like we're doing now, to object to that pathway and to make a case that there was evidence that we should do something different. And, but much to my surprise, the state listened and, you know, took the time like took me aside.

Show us the evidence, walk us through this. And that was a transformative event for me. And so my perspective is deeply shaped by that.

And so if folks have evidence of an alternative pathway that is going to be more effective for students, both me personally in the chancellor's office, as, as an office, wants to hear and see that work.

And then I will add that there have been ongoing efforts to hear from the fields of community college practitioners including faculty, staff as well as students, through a dedicated email address that the Chancellor's Office has to collect the input and perspective and questions related to AB705 and 1705.

In addition, there are there's future research that is being planned in order to hear from and gather perspective and voices from the community around their implementation efforts as well as their experiences. So we are in the works.

We have plans in place to create a statewide survey to collect input as well as feedback on implementation from faculty as well as staff who are supporting local implementation of AB 1705.

And then we also plan to pair that with with surveys to students to gather and collect input as well as perspective and experiences students are having around AB 1705 and 705.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Gonzalez, Assembly Member Patel.

Yes, thank you. For being here and having this robust discussion with us today. This is actually a topic that came out a lot when I was talking with Members of the community, especially the calculus portion. So this data was very informative for me. It's nice to see the data rather than just relying on anecdotal representations.

I have a few questions for you specifically. Just I'm trying to gather my understanding of the situation. You said that outcomes are better when not repeating high school courses, which is remedial, but better when students repeat those courses, that calculus, for example, in the community college setting.

So what is driving the success difference of what's done in high school versus what's done in the community colleges? I mean, I have my own ideas, but again, they're anecdotal and hypotheses. I'd love to hear from you what those success differences might be triggered by.

So just to clarify, can I just the question you're asking is why does repetition work better at community colleges than and so repetition doesn't work better at community colleges, but repetition is a better is a better outcome for courses you haven't It's a better approach for courses you haven't completed than going backwards.

Okay.

Right. So it's not that students are retaking a course that they previously successfully completed at community college. There's no evidence that that would be useful at all.

But what does appear to be the case is that students repeating the course with an alternative form of support or additional support is more likely leading to successful completion of that course than going backwards and taking the prerequisite and then coming back again. So it's not quite an apples to apples. Right.

It's what we're saying is repeating the course you've previously successfully Completed, there's no evidence that that's going to be effective. But going backwards, there's even less evidence that's going to be effective.

Okay, I'm understanding the difference. Thank you.

No, I can see why that could be unclear, and I thank you for the opportunity to clarify that.

Thank you. And when students do attempt to retake calculus in community college, are additional supports given at that time, even if they're not in those unlikely to succeed categories to begin with?

So there is always an opportunity for colleges to address that. I think the challenge always is, do they capture the students in that interim period between the courses? And so my hope would be always. But my suspicion is that many times students would just enroll and might not necessarily do so.

They may not be aware of the courses that have more support. Different colleges approach that differently. Some will embed support with all the courses. Some have courses that have the embedded or concurrent support, and some do not. And students may opt for one or the other as a function of how they're doing.

Those types of decisions really rely on good communication to students, especially when they're struggling in courses about the alternatives and careful advising of them in that period in between.

Thank you for that. You said that the first attempt pass rate is remarkably stable. Yes. When students do look at retaking those calculus classes and they have access to tutoring or not, you're saying that that shows a better certificate completion rate, the AA degree or continuing on with a stem? Is that my understanding?

Just focusing on completion of the STEM course? Right. So that one we're not tracking all the way out. But for those students, it's much more likely that they are going to complete that course than if they go backwards.

And typically, as was shared, students who complete that course, that's what makes them eligible to take all the other things in their major. So unless they complete that, they can't move forward.

Right. And this discussion focused a lot on Calculus. Are we seeing any of these challenges with English?

So for English, not as much, partly because the standards for completion of English in high school are a little bit more similar across the state. And we're also not looking at advanced English courses. So generally speaking, what we've seen is that adoption in English has been very robust and incredibly successful.

Like I said before, it's one of the most successful interventions in educational reform history. And it's a remarkable thing for students. I think one of the things that people underestimate is what this means for students, because they think about, well, if a student has to retake one or Two courses, right?

Maybe it's a couple of hundred extra bucks, but that's not the real cost. The real cost is the opportunity cost. And so even for a student who has only completed some college right now, the median annual income is about $45,000 a year. But you're not taking away that first year, you're taking away the last year.

You're shortening their productive time and employment.

And so you're actually robbing them of an enormous amount of future economic value or the choice to do with it what they want, like if they don't want that and they want to retire early and golf or spend time with the grandkids or whatever it is that takes that away from them.

And so the economic, the real economic cost to students and to the State of this, of the previous method was very, very significant. But it was hidden because it was things that students, they were hidden in the far future. And this really returns these opportunities to students in meaningful ways.

Thank you for that perspective. I hadn't thought of it that way. My final question, if that's okay, what have been the largest challenges with adoption of 1705 and what would you recommend we do going forward if there is any more additional support that you need?

So I think we're here about the largest challenge that we've had about 1705, and that is to wrestle with how best to support STEM majors on the pathway to Calculus. Many of the rest of things, there were lots of challenges here and there, but it's a real, it takes a real leap of imagination to reconsider that.

And one of the things that you're seeing not just in our system but across the the country is trying to better understand STEM pathways and getting more students to complete stem.

And so you actually see not just within our system, but emerging and four year institutions really moving towards open access Calculus as a meaningful solution to this and rethinking the curriculum to better support students who may have a gap or two both in that course and thereafter. Right.

So you may not need every single piece prior to Calculus to succeed in Calculus, but you may need that Trigonometry when you take a Physics course. But what it turns out to be the case is stacking all that up in advance actually leads far fewer students to ever get to that Physics course.

And so you have an opportunity to rethink where to provide that support and instruction. And perhaps the more effective way is going to provide it in Association with that Physics course.

So that actually leads me to one follow up question. I sit on the TK through the regular policy Committee, the TK through 12 or 14. Would you recommend any changes for our primary and secondary grades to help students be ready when they enter into these college level courses?

So I try very hard not to dabble in the purview of our K12 colleagues. But I'll tell you what I always told told the folks that we worked with when I was at Long Beach.

The first step that we had to take at Long beach was actually to recognize the quality of the education that was being provided by our K12 partners. It took us a long time to do that.

And that was one of the most remarkable things was us actually looking at the evidence and finding out that the education that was being provided in K12 was far, far better than we were giving them credit for. Totally reset our relationship and allowed us then. And they asked us that same question.

So they were like, this is great. We're super excited that our students who got to pre calculus don't have to take arithmetic. Thank you. And it was very validating. We had great conversations between our math faculty and their math faculty. But then their next question is, what can we do more?

And our answer was, we need you to get more students to intermediate Algebra and beyond. And they went from only requiring algebra and two mathematics courses to a soft requirement that they were going to work to get every student in their district through intermediate Algebra.

And so there's this reciprocal opportunity to value the actual education and the strength of it at K12 and then get more students further in mathematics, especially anyone who might have any interest at all in stem.

And I think one of the things that we need to think about is, is many students don't recognize that as soon as they might. And so making sure they have those opportunities when they come to college is important. So my recommendation based on that experience would be getting more students through intermediate Algebra or integrative math 3.

Thank you. Thank you for this robust discussion. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Assembly Member Patel. Assembly Member Rodriguez, welcome.

Thank you for your presentation and thank you for that question. Dr. Patel. I had a similar one about K12 because I think looking at this legislation, it's incredible to see the impact it's made. But I also had questions about the gaps that remain.

I wanted to clarify something you mentioned earlier because a lot of what we've been provided is quantitative data and I was curious about qualitative data and whether or not you had talked about a survey. Is that something in development?

That's something in development.

And when will you be collecting data again, or be reviewing this to be able to provide more insight, for example, into the almost 40% that still isn't making it.

So a couple of things on that. So one of the things that PPIC has been doing regularly as part of their reports is doing. I don't know if they're. Yeah. So they've regularly done interviews with faculty and staff who have been interviewing and working through and having conversations about this.

One of the things I do think, you know, to drive down into some of the conversation that we had across implementation. So we had both kind of early surveys, but also lots and lots of focus groups where we went out to, you know, institutions regionally to talk about these things.

And I think one of the things that we have to wrestle with is that the consequences of this are very dramatically better for students, but the consequences for faculty are meaningful in that it's more challenging to teach students in a math course where you have a broader distribution of preparation. That's absolutely true.

And it's more challenging to teach those courses when. So let's take calculus for an example. The vast majority of students who would be taking calculus in a community college would have been at that college for 23 years or more. So they've gotten college down. They've figured out how to study.

They figured out where all the resources are, where all the help is. Now we have students who are taking calculus their first semester. How you provide support to those students and how you do that as a faculty that may have not been asked to do that previously is very challenging.

That's one of the things that we have to, as individual institutions, as a system is, continue to provide them the support to do that. It's part of the reason that the 64 million was there to help those faculty understand that change.

It's part of the reason that we set up all the curated support for faculty to kind of work through what this would mean to teach differently in these types of environments. It is going to be an ongoing thing, but it's probably one of the most worthwhile things that we can do.

And since you are collecting the data in the future, when will you be able to provide the results of that?

It'll likely be either summer or fall of 2025. But in addition to collecting qualitative information, qualitative experiences and implementation have been disseminated through webinars and workshops, as Dr. Hatz has mentioned, whereby we're putting examples out there for colleges who are trying to implement and innovate in their calculus course courses.

Concrete examples of what it could look like when you embed support or when you engage in peer facilitated learning as a strategy for improving classroom learning experiences. Thank you.

Thank you so much Rodriguez. And thank you so much to Dr. Hetz and to Ms. Nguyen for everybody's panel. Really appreciate your comments and insights here today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, we'll move on to our final panel, impact of Assembly Bill 1705 on Practitioners and students. And I know my colleagues had questions regarding the in the field and so today we have a robust panel. Everyone can join us up here we have this concludes our second panel.

Now I'd like to introduce our final presenters who speaking as to their lived experience, as to how the Bill has impacted the day to day lives of those on our college campuses. The final panel includes Lucia Landeros, student at Cuesta College and student trustee Vincent Williams, student veteran at San Diego Mesa College.

Everyone, please welcome, come on up.

Jen Galinato, graduate of Sacramento City College and current Sacramento State University student Katie Hearn, English Professor at Skyline College and co founder of the California Acceleration Project Rachel Polakowski, math Professor and co chair of the math Department at Cuyamaca College Juan Bernal, Professor and Department chair of San Diego Mesa College and Tina Akers Porter, mathematics Professor and curriculum coach at Modesto Junior College.

We're going to have our students sit first. I apologize, this is a little bit smaller room here. So our students are up here. Thank you so much to all of you for being here today and thank you Vincent, for your service to our country.

Each panelist will now have eight minutes and I ask that you present an order listed on the agenda. Lucia, you may begin when you're ready. Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the real world impacts of AB 1705 and its subsequent implementation memos on our community college students. My name is Lucia Landeros. I'm a math and physics student at Cuesta College, the student government President, student trustee and a chemistry tutorial.

ABUS 1705 has effectively led to the ban of pre transfer level math and English courses.

This legislation led to the Chancellor's office issuing a memo on February 27, 2024 which at my community college Administration interpreted as a complete ban of not only remedial math and English courses, but also a Precalculus and Trigonometry, both of which are transfer level courses and are required classes for transfer to certain majors at UC and CSU campuses.

This is very frustrating for students because a student at a UC or CSU can enroll in these courses but but we can't. With the enormous focus on transfer, why are we banning the most vulnerable student populations in California from accessing the courses that are available to our more privileged UC and CSU counterparts?

My greatest concern with mandatory enrollment in transfer level math and English courses is that the current implementation of the bill assumes all students can and should have the same starting point and advance academically at the same pace. This ignores the very real circumstances of our students lives and the systemic issues in our K12 system.

At my college the student population is 54% minorities with 40% being Latinx students. In my community college district encompassing nearly all of San Luis Obispo County, there are several different high schools and a handful of different school districts. Each school district has different requirements to graduate.

The high school I attended required students to take Algebra one, Geometry and Algebra two while a student attending a high school 30 minutes away but still within the same community college district would only be required to take up to Algebra 1.

Both of us would end up at the same community college, but one of us would be much more prepared for transfer level math coursework because of the two extra years of mathematical instruction received in high school.

We are very grateful for the memo issued by the chancellor's office on December 10, 2024 as this has allowed my college to offer a one semester pre-calc, trig combo class to the students who had not previously taken a Precalculus or Trig course.

This memo however, does not take into account our re entry students as over half of reentry students are over 25 years old and haven't taken a math class in several years. This new guidance doesn't take into account learning loss over time.

Just because a student took Precalculus in High School 10 years ago doesn't mean they'll be able to or want to attempt to take Calculus without brushing up on their skills by taking pre-calc again. The reality at community colleges is that we serve an incredibly diverse student population.

Many of our students are working adults, parents, first generation college students, and individuals returning to education after years away. More often than not from underprivileged backgrounds. Access to pre transfer level math and English courses can be a gateway to higher education and the difference between earning a college degree or not.

I have a close family friend, her name is Elizabeth. She graduated high school, worked as a massage therapist and after 15 years of doing that she decided that she wanted to go back to school. She attended Cuesta and started in pretension level math courses and worked her way up.

She transferred to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo for a Bachelor's in Soil Science and is currently writing her Master's in thesis. She asked me to share with you that without access to these remedial and pre transfer level courses, she wouldn't be a student earning her master's degree today.

We have been told that the co requisite model is a substitute for pre transfer level courses. Many of these students are balancing full time work, family responsibilities and their education. Mandatory enrollment in a transfer level coursework without an opportunity to brush up on foundational skills is an unreasonable ask.

Not only that, but in my community college districts, when we tell students that their only support option is to take a two unit co requisite course that compresses two to three years of math into one semester on top of a five unit course, the students who need the support simply don't have the time to dedicate to a course like that.

It's like asking a contractor building a house to pour the foundation, Prop up the walls and tile the roof all at the same time for the sake of efficiency.

When we mandate that a student who didn't take Algebra one, Algebra two and Geometry or Precalculus, who needs to brush up on their skills because it's been so long since they've done that in a classroom to forego these courses and enroll directly into Calculus one, we're not setting them up for success.

Not to mention that the fundamental assumption that students don't know what is in their best interest and that students shouldn't be given the agency to decide which courses to enroll in based on their own life circumstances and academic paths is wrong. Students have been stripped of their academic right to freedom.

Sorry, of their academic freedom and to choose for themselves. This body does not know what I need more than I do. Trust us, I know what I need. The students know what they need. We must remember that remedial math and English courses don't exist in a vacuum.

These courses teach foundational concepts and skills necessary to succeed in the rest of the courses taught at community colleges and beyond. Pre transfer English coursework sets students up for college English 101, History, Sociology and Philosophy. Remedial math courses are integral for Chemistry, Physics and Engineering. Basic Algebra concepts come up even the most foundational Chemistry courses.

I can't stress this enough. The material they teach is incredibly important and students need to know it to succeed in college. When I tutor students in Chemistry, 90% of what I do is teach them how to solve Algebraic equations for their Chemistry problems.

There is an expectation in science courses that students come in knowing basic Algebra, which is realistic for high school graduates. But for the re entry students or students who didn't have access to Algebra 2 in high school, it's a barrier when the college doesn't offer any courses to allow them to catch up.

Because there are no more remedial classes, even if you need them, you have to start at transfer level coursework. Therefore, students are starting their transfer level coursework sooner, but not by choice.

Just because a student starts at a higher level course sooner, especially if they don't feel prepared, that doesn't mean they will be successful in completing or passing the course. And if they fail, it'll take them longer to complete their degree. For those who have succeeded, this is great. But what if you fail?

If you fail, your only option is to retake it. And there's a lot at stake here. If you fail courses, you're put on academic probation, you lose your scholarships and financial aid. And this can eventually lead to dismissal from the college.

If you're a student from if you're a student with minimal resources, which is the case for many of our community college students. And community college is your one shot to get the higher education degree to improve your life. You're not going to gamble it on a STEM degree because there's no room to gamble your education away.

The current policies prevent students from pursuing their dreams and advancing socioeconomically by keeping them out of STEM careers. This goes against everything we've done to diversify stem. For those who this model isn't working for, they may not even get a degree at all. I know there's a focus on minimizing time to degree.

Students have different needs and move at different paces. I have a disability and health challenges that make it hard for me to take a full course load. I'm taking 10 units, participating in student government and and doing research with my Professor on microbial fuel cells.

Without pre transfer level coursework, I wouldn't have the skills I need to succeed in Physics, Chemistry and advanced math. Maybe education should be about learning, not just about speed and acceleration. We should learn from other states experiences.

In Tennessee, after eliminating pre transfer courses, studies showed that students with lower initial preparation were more likely to drop out and less likely to to complete their degrees. The proportion of students earning associate or bachelor's degrees did not increase. Tennessee looked at a decade of data and saw that the most vulnerable students were negatively impacted.

That's a decade of lost dreams, lost degrees, lost students. The cost is too high. We need flexibility, scaffolded approaches and support options beyond the core requisite model. There is a middle ground. We don't want to go back to the long mandatory remedial pathways.

But forcing a one size fits all approach on such a diverse student body has severe consequences. The 2.1 million community college students are counting on you to fix this. I'm just a student. I'm not paid to be here. I'm missing my discrete mathematics class and driving an eight hour round trip.

But it's worth it because I want all students to be able to pick their own trajectory. It's time for a new bill to clarify the implementation of AB 1705. All we want is for students to be able to choose which math classes they enroll in. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you so much and thank you for making the trip. We're gonna. Next up, we have a lot of speakers. Appreciate, everyone. Next up we have Mr. Vincent Williams, student veteran at San Diego Mesa College. Welcome, Mr. Williams.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Vincent Williams, and I am a disabled combat veteran student within the San Diego Community College District. First, I just want to send an apology for my formal attire this evening.

Due to the arduous nature of my military service, I could not find the time to purchase more civilian clothing because, you know, I was too busy defending our nation's values, supporting the spread of democracy and freedom across the world, and protecting America's sovereignty.

Thus, it is my hope, while defending this Democratic Republic, that laws passed in this great nation are for the betterment of the society and not at the expense of the minority: veterans.

However, it seems that I stand before you today to address a critical issue that seems to threaten the educational success of our veteran community, an issue that seems to be the antithesis of equity, which is what I thought community colleges were for.

Since 1776, veterans, like myself, have fought for this country in the name of freedom, peace, democracy, and choice. In return, most of us don't ask for much, and lawmakers have recognized this by passing various laws to support veterans. For example, the complete overhaul of the Department of Veteran Affairs.

We all know that there was a huge change that made benefits more accessible to veterans and families. And then, of course, in the 90s, in my lifetime, we decided that maybe finally Congress should mandate providing transition assistance to civilians, in my lifetime. We've been fighting for this country for 200 years. Nonetheless, it's progress.

Step in the right direction. Sorry. So, while some, like myself, argue that the leaders dragged their feet and providing true veteran support, we're still headed in the right direction. Or are we really?

Sorry. So, when I decided to pursue my dream of becoming a physician, I knew I needed to refresh my math and general academic skills. Right. I had to be pragmatic about it because it's been nearly two decades between college and high school.

I want the people who support this bill to ask the question, "What are you going to tell me? What should I do? Starting in a calculus level class?" Answer that question for me. I'm willing to listen. I could use whatever skills. I've only been in school for a very short period of time.

So, teach me how to school then. Okay. Anyways, I took a math professor course at San Diego City College while I was active duty. And although it was challenging, I passed. And I felt prepared for the next chapter of my life. And I submitted my intent to separate that immediately. This was maybe five math courses.

Five math courses before calculus, the class that I took. Okay. Of course, to not only refresh my math, but my general academic skills. Right? Because I don't really have any habits to break or anything, right? So. And then, of course, consequently, I took all the sequential math classes leading up to calculus.

And almost three years later, I flourished in calculus. Made the dean's list with a 4.0 GPA. All because I had a choice to take those crucial foundational courses. But I think I heard some sentiment saying that if you need to take remedial courses, maybe you don't belong in college. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm proof.

Shame on you guys, whoever said that. And if that's the sentiment, I've heard it multiple times. Shame on you. So, imagine if I had to take calculus right away at being active duty, dealing with the arduous nature of the military. I think I already said that. Expected to recall math concepts from decades ago.

Do you know the last math that I took in high school was senior year, consumer math, which I would argue is crucial to being an adult. Teaching me how to balance my checkbook. Teach me how to be an adult. Right, crucial. But tell me how that was going to bridge any gaps of knowledge for calculus.

Well, I think I heard someone mention something about geometry who take calculus directly after geometry in high school. They're successful. Whatever. It's been 20 years since I took anything like that. What are you gonna say? You're gonna use - you gonna say that same argument to me, Mr. Hess? Or whoever said that?

So, okay, so I heard something about embedded tutors. Okay, so, yes, my school offers free tutors. But now, speaking on experience, I've received incorrect advice from tutors who only need B to qualify for the position while I maintain an A. The quality resources available to veterans under this law is concerning.

So, if you're going to do that, streamline the tutoring process, you only need a B. So now I'm expected to go to somebody who's doing worse than me and get potential wrong information. Tutor. Come on, come on, come on, come on. You don't need to be academic to know that this is ridiculous. Sorry. Again, you know veterans, we represent less than 1% of the civilian population, and our successes - and due to that, our success stories often go unnoticed. Even if the data shows that every single if - okay, this is hypothetical.

Even if the data shows that every single veteran benefited from foundation taking foundational math courses before calculus, our small numbers still wouldn't influence any law. If the data showed against what you guys are saying. It wouldn't. It really wouldn't. Matter. Right. Our veteran specific metrics even being considered.

I didn't think so because I didn't hear anything about anything other than that. I didn't hear anything about a study about anything like that. Right. Unless maybe I just didn't read enough or do enough research. Probably didn't. Probably the latter. Right. But nonetheless, that's how I feel. So, in terms of general legislation: yeah, veterans have never been at the forefront of the conversation. I guess we're not profitable. Right. You have the VA. Thank you for your service. Bye. This dismissive attitude towards veterans is just utterly unacceptable. Another thing I think we talked about co - we call it support classes at City College, and I took one. Trigonometry support.

At this point, I think I already took math 46, math 96, blah, blah, blah. But I still wanted to take the support class just to make sure that I had that information again. It's been almost two decades since I've been in high school. I took that support class. We had an extra hour.

I think it was a total of nine hours in class per week, which is a lot of time. Should be enough time to go over some algebra concepts, right? Should be. That's what she did. She, in decades of being a lecturer, was able to portion out some time, confident that she'll be able to go through it.

Guess what we didn't get? We didn't have enough time to go through a single algebra concept or refresher simply because trigonometry is just so vast in and of itself. Now whether you boil that or equate that down to the aptitude of the professor, that's not under my control as a student. So, nonetheless, ridiculous.

That's the co-function also, or co-function. Sorry, I'm thinking about calculus. Yeah, I lost my thought, but I'm going to move on. So anyways, you know, the complexity of the subject just left no time to bridge any knowledge gaps.

Embedded tutor support is mentioned, but are there plans on strengthening the tutoring systems and requirements across the California community colleges? I hear about. Use this. Use this. Use this now. Okay. So are we going to start funding these programs to make them stronger?

If we're going to take away something, you're going to give us something back to help supplement. I didn't hear anything about that. Or maybe I guess I didn't do enough research. I don't know. Shame on me. Okay. My experience in introductory classes was the most significant contributor to my success in transfer level coursework, period. I mean, that's - I don't know how you could argue, yeah. I developed critical study habits that would have been impossible if I was thrown directly into calculus. I mean, I mean, I mean, come on, let's just be real here. Take 20 years of no school, serving, serving, going on combat tour. Come back, take calculus. Come on, come on.

Go get a tutor. Go hire a tutor. At full, full time working on staff for a three-star admiral, deploying ships during COVID? I mean, I mean, you know, crime, your river. But that's what community colleges are for, to help accommodate those type of situations. Right, but I'm not the only one, okay?

I was able to take these math courses in succession.

Technically, I don't have a foot in this fight, but it brings me so much anger and anxiety that some other veteran or person or disenfranchised or sorry, marginalized folk may be faced with the same situation where they may have been told they would not amount to anything in their younger years.

And then they decide, "Oh, maybe I want to do something. Maybe I want to go back to school, take calculus." Don't do too well now they're kind of. They're revisiting that emotional trauma. Right? Again, we make laws for the for the benefit or the betterment of the majority of society, right? We do.

That's democracy at its finest. But since when have veterans ever been at the forefront of that? We've never been the majority ever. So, we need to make laws for the majority, but not at the expense of the minority, Period.

If not enough students who take pre-calculus go on to take calculus who are successful, then so be it. I understand making decisions. I just said that. But again, we only make up a small fraction of the community, and we sometimes fall on deaf ears.

Laws like this seem to marginalize us even further, that veterans with no strong foundational STEM background has a high chance of failure, essentially robbing us of our education. And then what? Perpetuating homelessness. I mean, I think San Diego has the highest concentration of homeless veterans.

I mean, I'm not going to equate that entirely to the education system, but I'm sure it has a lot to do with it because of just the. The inaccessibility to certain things. You're just adding another thing to it. If we're.

If we're in this perpetual taking remedial courses and eating up all our financial aid, I think that's a placement issue. Then don't put them in those classes. Then put them in the class that you want them to take. I don't know. I mean, just. But give me the choice. We fought for your choice and freedom.

Give us ours. In conclusion, I urge you to reconsider the impact of this law on the veteran community. We have served our country with honor and dedication and I believe we deserve the opportunity to succeed in our educational pursuits just like everybody in this room.

By providing us with a choice to take these foundational courses, you are investing in our future and the future of our nation. Let us not forget the sacrifices that veterans and those who have gone before me have made and continue to make.

Give us the tools that we need to thrive and we will continue to serve our country with pride. I'm not done serving. I'm not done. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much, Mr. Williams, and thank you for your service to our country. Appreciate you. Next up is Jen Galinato, student at Sacramento City College. Welcome.

Good afternoon Honorable Chair Fong and esteemed Members of the Committee. And first of all, I'd like to apologize for the musical chairs game that we've been playing in the recent few minutes. My name is Jen Galinato. I'm a current student at Sacramento State, but even more so, I'm a proud transfer student from Sacramento City College.

I'm here today to strongly advocate for Assembly Bill 1705. Because this legislation builds on the success of AB705, I believe that it does far more good than harm in fostering equitable access and success for students throughout the state. I am not just someone who supports this bill. I am living, breathing proof of its transformative impact.

My academic journey demonstrates why the reforms within Assembly Bill705 were introduced and the additional measures that AB 1705 proposes and why they are so incredibly crucial for students like me across the state. Before the implementation of AB 705, many students, including myself, were placed into developmental courses that often delayed progress and created unnecessary barriers to degree completion.

These courses were often labeled as remedial, but for many of us, they felt like dead ends. When I started at Sacramento City College, part of the Los Rios Community College District. I was placed in the courses that were not aligned with my abilities nor my academic goals.

I realized that following the path that my counselor had advised me at the time, I would not be able to transfer within the two to three year timeframe that I had originally planned for and specifically told my counselor of when I started at Sacramento City College.

The extra math and English courses I was told to take felt like insurmountable obstacles, ones that caused me to lose motivation entirely. I can honestly say that my dreams of achieving a degree almost died during that period. The thought of wasting time, money and resources on courses that didn't directly help me achieve my goals was incredibly disheartening.

And as a daughter of immigrants, it felt like I was failing my parents and not achieving the American Dream that they strive to come here for. However, I fought to be placed in the right classes. Yes, that meant I had to fight my counselors.

I had to fight to be in the classes that I needed to be in and these were ones that would count towards my degree and transfer requirements.

That fight and the support systems put into place by Assembly Bill 705 enabled me to transfer within the timeframe that I had asked to be on track for without taking the unnecessary classes that my counselor had originally suggested.

After changing counselors, the impact of these reforms didn't just affect my timeline, they reignited my motivation and belief that higher education was a pathway that I could navigate successfully.

With equitable placement policies, I was able to succeed academically and eventually transfer to my dream college, Sacramento State, where also it is a legacy for my family as well, which is also now the place where I am continuing my education and hope to finish there with not just one but two degrees.

This personal success is not just unique to me, it represents the potential that AB705 unlocked for thousands of students and AB 1705 takes this further by ensuring that students are placed directly into courses that where they are most likely to succeed and by aligning academic pathways with students individual goals.

AB 1705 continues the work of dismantling the cycles of remedial education that would have disproportionately impacted students of color like myself and other marginalized communities. As a former student leader within my community college and my district and on the statewide level, I have seen firsthand how these policies transform lives.

I was part of the for California Community Colleges when we heard the struggles of students trapped in endless remedial courses, I was part of the conversations that helped develop AB 1705 and I served on the board that ultimately took a stance of support for this bill because we believed in the principles and ultimately because we also believe, and we still believe, that no student should be stuck in a cycle that limits their potential.

AB705 and 1705 represent more than just policies. They are opportunities for equity and empowerment. If we're going to talk about student success and bridging the equity gaps within higher education, then I urge you to look at me. I am living, breathing proof, living, breathing proof of this bill's success.

These reforms allow students like me, students who might have been written off by outdated placement policies, to achieve their dreams of earning degrees from four year universities. They ensure that higher education is not just a privilege for a select few, but a pathway that is equitable and accessible for all.

I urge you to consider my story and the thousands of other stories of other students throughout California as evidence of the success of these reforms. AB 1705 will provide countless students with the opportunity to achieve their educational aspirations without being held back by unnecessary hurdles.

I truly do believe that this legislation will have a lasting and positive impact on California's educational landscape and I respectfully urge for your support. Thank you for your time, your leadership, and I am. And if there's anything else, please do let me know. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Ms. Galinato. And thank you to all our student panelists. They've been tremendous and really providing the information, insights on the ground. Next up, we'll hear from our professors. First up is Dr. Katie Hern, Professor of English at Skyline College and co founder of the California Acceleration Project. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and all the Members. It's an honor to be here today and I have remarks prepared and I'll talk to them, but I just want to speak to.

I think that some of the remarks we're hearing from the students indicates just something I see all the time in the classroom, which is that students often arrive in community college very insecure about their own abilities, deeply insecure about their own abilities.

And that part of my job as a teacher who teaches them often in their first semester is to help them gain confidence and to know that they're capable and much more capable than they come in believing.

There's a whole book I teach a chapter of in my class called the College Fear Factor, where a researcher studies community colleges all across the nation and says that no matter where it is, urban, rural, small, large, every ethnic group, there's so much fear among community college students that they are not cut out for college, that they won't be successful.

And I think we heard that in two of our student presenters today. And I think that out of that we see that among students and that practitioners at the college level we often have a response where we want to take care of them in a way. And we're like, well, let me slow it down for you.

Let me break it down. Let me, let me make it this easier. Let me, you know. And that, that very thinking, which was, I think, compassionate but misinformed, led us to create these remedial structures in the first place. It started with one class and then if students were struggling, we added another.

And students were struggling, we added another. And then what we weren't watching was the impact of adding all those classes made the pool of continuing students become infinitesimal. Every remedial course in the student's path reduced their likelihood of making any headway in credit bearing courses.

And that is something we started learning about 15 years ago and the research has only reinforced since then. So I simultaneously really want to acknowledge what the students were saying. And I think the, and the two subjects people most fearful of is Math and English.

And I would say Math even more, you know, so, so it's not surprising to me that students feel afraid. And it's not surprising to me that students feel like they need remedial courses.

Because at my college, when we used to offer four layers of remedial math in my old college, students even if they had passed all of those courses in high school, their lack of confidence would lead them to choose the lowest possible course. They were like, I don't know, I just need the lowest.

I am the lowest is what they were saying to us. But what we learned from the data is they're much more capable than that. That that fear is real and needs to be attended to and treated with support. But actually it's misinformation that they're much more capable than they thought.

And that is, I think, what the data proves coming out of AB705 and 1705, which have been remarkable, the gains from those laws. And that when students do have gaps, co requisite support is a very effective to help fill those in without holding them back in their education.

At Skyline, we stopped offering remedial English classes in fall 2019, which is the first semester of AB705, and we replaced those with co requisite support, which means students who are coming in with less confidence, more anxiety or a GPA below 2.6.

They take the five unit version of Freshman composition and the students coming in with a 2.6 or higher GPA, they take the. If they're confident enough, they take the regular three unit version. We have used state funding through the most recent grants and previous grants to do a lot of professional development for faculty.

On creating a sense of belonging in the classroom, which is critical when students are coming in with so much fear and insecurity about their own abilities, on collaborative classroom environments, on sort of breaking down in my discipline, breaking down challenging readings if students are having difficulty with it. And the results have been amazing that.

We now have typically over 70% of students completing transfer level English within a year. And it was much lower in the past. And for the last two years, we've eliminated a persistent achievement gap for Hispanic students, which we had seen for years and felt very intractable. These changes have cleared that.

And though many worried that students with disabilities would be harmed if we didn't offer remedial courses, I think we were hearing that today for the last four years, we have eliminated at Skyline College the achievement gap for these students as well.

For the last four years, it turns out that what harmed disabled students was being underestimated and relegated to remedial classes. I've taught the co requisite class just about every semester since 2019, and I'm proud to say that my students have overwhelmingly proven that they can be successful.

When students don't pass, it's rarely because they lack basic English skills. So remedial class would not be the solution.

It's because they didn't stay on top of their homework, or they were putting in long hours at their jobs, or they are having mental health struggles which are really pervasive post Covid, or they're 18 and they didn't know if they even wanted to be in college.

It's true that 100% are not passing, but it's not true that a remedial course would solve that. It is a very small minority who fail because they can't meet the academic demands of the class.

But in a class of 26 that I typically teach, it might be between 1 and 3 who don't pass because their performance is subpar. They are just not meeting the learning outcomes. Some of these students had been in special education with very limited expectations for reading and writing. Some would have been better served by an ESL class.

But I want to be clear, it's a really small, really small group. I don't know if it would even be enough for one section of a class. And in case you think I'm leaning toward we need to bring back remedial classes. Let me be clear.

I taught remedial English for 17 years and the students I'm talking about now didn't pass those classes either. So this is not the solution. That's why it puzzles me that some faculty leaders continue to argue that students are harmed by colleges not offering remedial classes.

The only way this makes sense is if we ignore 15 years of research by reputable third party organizations like PPIC, the RP Group, and the Community College Research Center at Columbia University.

When FAC takes this position, they are not representing me or the large body of community college faculty who are thrilled to to have cleared these obstacles from students paths.

While I'm here as an English faculty Member, I want to give a shout out to my colleagues in Math for the enormous gains they've made over the last few years. 10 years ago, just 25% of Skyline students would complete transfer level math in a year.

But in the last several years, as we replaced remedial courses with co requisite support, our completion rates have exceeded 70%. And as in English, for the last several years there have been no disproportionate impact in completion among students with disabilities in math. Skyline's experience in math sheds light on why AB 1705 was needed.

In the first three years of AB705, my college allowed all students to enroll directly in transfer level math as required by the law, but we continued offering multiple sections of remedial course intermediate algebra as an option for students.

Like many colleges, we interpreted AB705 to mean that we could not deny students access to transfer level courses, but we didn't have to make sure they enrolled there.

In fall 2019, nearly one in three first time math students started in this optional remedial course at Skyline, and at the end of the year just 22% of them had completed transfer level math. In contrast, among students who started in transfer level math, 74% successfully completed it.

Within a year, one optional remedial course in students path and completion rates dropped over 50 points. What happened at Skyline was repeated across the state as colleges continued to offer and sometimes steer students into remedial courses.

In the early years of AB705, colleges with large black and Hispanic populations were especially likely to continue to fill their course schedules with remedial math, which depressed completion rates and fueled ongoing racial equity gaps. This is why we needed AB 1705.

I want to close by thanking you again for the commitment to student success and equity that you showed with AB705 and 1705. These laws have produced the most powerful results I've seen in my 34 year career as an educator. I hope that you will continue to follow the evidence and insist on strong, equitable implementation of the law.

Our students deserve nothing less.

Thank you so much, Dr. Hern. Next up we have Dr. Rachel Polakoski, math Department Co Chair of Cuyamaca College. Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon honorable Members of the Committee. My name is Dr. Rachel Polakoski and I'm the Co Chair of the Math Department at Cuyamaca College in San Diego, California. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding AB 1705 and its impact on our students and college.

I'd like to start with a student story that highlights the impact of our AB 1705 redesign efforts because the students are why we are all here. Megan struggled with math in high school and never took pre calculus. She did not like math, but she wanted to be an engineer.

Luckily, she arrived at Cuyamaca during the first semester of our calculus pathway redesign. Instead of taking pre calculus, she enrolled directly into Calculus I with integrated precalculus support. She earned an A in Calculus I, followed by an A in calculus 2 and an A in calculus based physics within her first year at our college.

Megan is not an outlier. For the last year and a half of our new support model students with no pre calculus experience. Students like Megan who start in calculus with integrated support pass at a rate of 75% on their first try.

This is three times the calculus completion rate we achieved in our previous Precalculus to Calculus pathway, and it saves students time and money. The redesign of the calculus pathway, motivated by AB 1705 has led to significant enrollment growth in calculus 2, calculus III, and in key STEM courses in physics and engineering.

While equity gaps remain, all groups have achieved substantially higher completion rates in these key STEM courses. We can already see that these changes promise a larger, more diverse STEM program at Cuyamaca College. But AB 1705 is about more than STEM. It builds on developmental education reforms mandated by earlier sister legislation, AB705.

Cuyamaca College was a leader in developmental education redesign since 2016. Before AB705 was passed, we replaced traditional remedial math courses with two unit support courses that are paired with transferable college math classes. Integrated concurrent support is required for some students, but everyone begins a math course that counts towards a bachelor's degree. The results have been phenomenal.

In the 2023-2024 academic year, 73% of our students successfully completed transfer level math within a year, up from just 30% before the reforms were introduced. The data has been disaggregated across all marginalized groups and show that not one group of student is better served with the traditional remedial pathway.

These early reforms opened the door to a college education for students like like Michael and Caleb. Michael served for 20 years in the US Navy before coming to Cuyamaca. He is pursuing a real estate degree and has not studied math since high school.

In the 1980s, Caleb spent several years in gangs and was in and out of the criminal justice system before coming to college. Caleb's goal is to get a bachelor's degree in sociology.

Both of these men started math in a college level statistics course with integrated support and completed math requirements for their program in one semester instead of the one and a half to two years it would have taken in the traditional remedial sequence. These results were achieved through continuous reflection and improvement.

We not only changed our placement system, designed support courses and wrote a lot of curricula, we also worked together in communities of practice to shift away from the traditional lecture model to more engaging student centered pedagogy. And we recognized that supporting our students emotional and social needs is just as important as their academic needs.

Initially, my colleagues were worried that students would be overwhelmed with the math, but the math was rarely the issue. Many students were not failing because they couldn't handle transfer level math. It was everything else in life like food insecurity, housing instability, or a lack of belonging that were preventing them from succeeding.

So we work to intentionally address these effective needs in the classroom, creating a supportive environment that fosters both learning and belonging. Our math pathway redesign has also had a transformative impact on our faculty. Where we once viewed students through a deficit lens, we're now seeing the assets they they bring to the classroom.

For example, my colleague Monica used to view students who struggled in class as underprepared and would often write them off saying quote some of them probably won't pass because they don't know enough to be successful. However, after teaching in our redesigned co requisite classes, Monica's perspective shifted significantly.

She now states Confidently, quote, I 1000% wholeheartedly believe that every student in my class can be successful. Jonathan, who formerly taught developmental education courses for 15 years, shared how his mindset towards students shifted as well. After teaching concurrent support courses.

He believes that, quote if you give students the opportunity to develop things on their own, they will always exceed your expectations. The students are so much more capable than we have ever given them credit for. You just have to give them the opportunity to let that show.

In closing, the implementation of AB 705 and 1705 at Cuyamaca College has had a transformative impact on both our students and faculty. Through redesigned math pathways, intentional support and a focus on continuous improvement, we have seen remarkable gains in transfer level math completion and student success.

Our students like Megan, Caleb and Michael have demonstrated their incredible potential when given the right support and access to courses that count for their degrees. Thank you again for the opportunity to share Cuyamaca's experiences and insights.

Thank you so much, Dr. Polakoski. Next up we have Juan Bernal, Professor and Department Chair at San Diego Mesa College. Welcome.

Okay. Hello. My name is Juan Vallo Bernal, Professor and Department Chair of Mathematics at San Diego Mesa College and also the Puente Math Coordinator for our Puente program. I received my Bachelor's degree in Applied Mathematics and Economics from UC Merced, my Master's in Statistics from UC San Diego.

I come before you all not just as a faculty in stem, but also as a person of color with many experiences throughout my educational journey that have given me motivation to pursue education and use my voice to advocate for students that look like me and make sure that they have a sense of belonging and best quality education.

These Assembly bills affect them directly, so today I will use my voice. The San Diego Community College District is formed by Continuing education and three sister colleges with aligned curriculum. Mesa College, Miramar College and City College. These three colleges serve about 40,000 students every year with Mesa accounting for over half of that over 20,000.

San Diego Mesa College is a Hispanic serving institution serving roughly 40% Latinx students. AB705 removed basic skills and students have direct access to transfer level math. We acknowledged the inequitable barriers through our placement procedures in the past as it elongated the path to transferable math. However, we felt this build was rushed with a very little faculty input.

But we complied and rushed curriculum to add support to college and Matrix Algebra, Trigonometry, Elementary Statistics and Precalculus support courses had an extra lab unit attached for an additional three contact hour per week. On top of the original units.

We also offered our intermediate algebra with support test options for students that have been out of school for a long time as well as some put embedded tutors to maximize support.

Currently, AB 1705 examines the impact of placing and enrolling students into transfer level course sequences composed of no more than two transfer level courses that prepare students for the first semester STEM Calculus.

San Diego Mesa College already does that with our Trigonometry and Precalculus courses which are not remedial and we have created a STEM Calculus with support that all students have access to if they wish to take it. The first memo released from the state chancellor's office interpreted AB 1705 as a complete removal of those transfer level courses.

Let's say you are a student who has not taken math in over 20 years and returned to community college to become a STEM major. What are your options? None. You will you must be placed into STEM Calculus or supported STEM Calculus with no options to refresh your skills or go back.

I must stress that the support and supported STEM Calculus is in no way for a student to learn math they have never seen before. This is like learning how to swim and swimming in a marathon at the same time.

The data used ignored community college placement processes and assumed that all students with similar high school records had similar math preparation. It included students whose high school math courses were known either by transcript or self reporting with an average student age of 21 which already skews the data and ignores our returning and veterans.

Their conclusion was that students without trigonometry or pre calculus are highly unlikely to see succeed if they enroll directly into Calculus throughput. However, the data is biased. They counted students who petitioned into or tested into Calculus as if they had no previous knowledge. The data does not show that taking a prerequisite course causes students to drop out.

The data does not show that prerequisites are barrier to success. The overall methodology does not validate the actual community college placement practices. What it does say is that the college petitions work and that students properly placed and who meet community college criteria for Calculus can increase success.

In December, the state Chancellor's office admitted that the data was not there and thus the updated memo was disseminated protecting our Trigonometry and Precalculus courses, which I should mention are transfer level math courses that satisfy General education requirements. They are not remedial.

In addition, 101 is protected stating that curriculum, including establishing prerequisites and placing courses within disciplines is faculty purview. Now if a student has taken Precalculus before and wants to take calculus, we are supportive of that decision whether it is Calculus or Calculus with support.

But what about our veterans, single moms and returning students who had never had Precalculus or Trigonometry? We must not forget about those students and they need a place to go. Our data shows that those students are the most affected and drop well before census. So what can be done?

I have heard support and opposition to this bill. One thing I can say is that we all care for students about we all care about students and we want them to succeed. However, these students, these are students lives at stake and we have to be smart and responsible with this type of acceleration.

The biggest issue is the validation piece. There is no need for this and we need to do away with it. UC, CSUs and high schools are allowed to offer these preparatory courses, but how is it that community colleges cannot? As a math Professor, I know it does not come down to percentages being in the front lines.

I know it comes down to individual students. Throughput is not an accurate measure for validation. Our Precalculus course had a had to be above 50% throughput. Even if we had 70% success rate in Precalculus and then of those students 70% succeeded in calculus, that would bring us to 49%. That's not validating our pre calculus course.

Also listen to science faculty voice. Trigonometry and Precalculus are crucial for Physics, Chemistry and Engineering. Preliminary data collected by MESA researchers suggest that with the removal of intermediate Algebra, Success has decreased by 8 percentage points in introductory chemistry. A community college system works in a way that once a student enters a class, they cannot go back.

If they fail or feel that they have gone over their head, they have to repeat the course over and over again. As Department chair, I have had several students come into my office wanting to go back because the materials either too challenging or the amount of time they must learn, relearn and catch up is exhausting.

Their tears and sense of defeat are what might drive me to be their voice today. As a set of Mexican immigrants, I think of my parents with no more than a third grade education, with potential dreams of pursuing stem. Having limited options for people like them would be a huge disservice.

As a matter of fact, the question was raised in our last AB 1705 webinar that asked what happens to the students that do not have the prerequisite Calculus knowledge, enroll in Calculus and do not pass and continue with unsuccessful attempts.

John has stated that it is a challenging question and that law does not telegraph how to treat that category of students and did not have an answer. This is alarming and needs to be addressed immediately to help support students.

And I do understand that Corey Imaca College has been a driving force for this and has come up with innovative curriculum which I am all for and I have seen your syllabus for the calculus with support. The only reservation is that there's a very small portion in in person assessments.

So if we were to compare a course like this to courses where a large percentage of their grades are based on in person assessments. It will not be statistically valid. JV college data includes pandemic data and we need to be very careful with this. We need to be cautious when looking at completion.

The pandemic brought in lots of confounding variables. I'm not asking to go back to the previous practices, but we should not be radical and put everyone into calculus. It is not a one size fits all. I am asking for options for those students that are not ready for STEM Calculus to build a strong foundation.

This is working for many students, which is great. We just need some flexibility and options for those who are withdrawing and failing transfer level classes. That is just my ask. My belief is that everyone in this room contains an important piece in this puzzle.

The San Diego Community College District is open for discussion with all stakeholders to achieve a sane medium. I am a firm believer of equity and inclusion and I'm committed to working together to give students the quality education they deserve. Thank you.

Thank you so much Mr. Bernal. Next up is Professor Tina Akers-Porter, Mathematics Professor and Craig McCochar, Modesto Junior College College Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Chairman Fong and Members of the Committee thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the stem calculus one implementation section of AB 1705.

My name is Tina Akers-Porter and I am a mathematics Professor, Curriculum Committee co chair and AB 1705 mathematics coordinator at Modesto Junior College where we serve over 25,000 students each year. When AB 705 was passed, I was an enthusiastic supporter implementer.

Some of us called ourselves Honey Badgers even in the early implementation days of AB 705 as we were persistent, dedicated and relentless. I communicated with and learned from colleagues at other colleges working closely with some of the very people sitting at this table today.

We understood the implications of this revolutionary shift in placement and enrollment and ultimately it paid off. At Modesto Junior College we saw our throughput rate for transfer level mathematics completion increase from 14% pre AB 705 to 65% post AB 705, well above state averages, while simultaneously closing or significantly reducing equity gaps.

We are continuing to address equity gaps and challenges left from AB705 and 1705 in various ways. One example includes creating a learning community for football athletes, many of whom are young men of color. In that learning community, I teach a Contextualized Football Statistics, my favorite course with the CO requisite support course.

This program has been highly successful, helping close equity gaps and transferring more athletes to University level football programs. We continue to innovate and strive for equity. However, I am before you today to express a serious concern regarding AB 1705 STEM implementation guidance as outlined in the February 2024 memo.

I have traveled throughout the State of California and engaged with faculty, administrators, staff, and students, most of whom have voiced significant concerns with that initial STEM pathway guidance.

In response to these concerns, I have co authored resolutions with supportive faculty statewide calling for realignment of the guidance with the law, a comprehensive reevaluation of the data analysis, a review of the implementation guidelines, and the negative impacts on equity and inclusion for STEM students, as well as the encroachment into the 10/1 areas.

Specifically, the original guidance's one size fits all approach will have detrimental effects, particularly for students pursuing STEM fields. I will first discuss the role of calculus 1 as a gateway course to STEM education and the misunderstanding of its place in student progression to degree goals.

Most associate degree for transfer programs begin with an introductory course as part of the sequence. For example, the Spanish associate degree for transfer begins with Spanish 1. Students with no prior experience in Spanish can still succeed in that course because it is the first in a sequence of language courses.

Similarly, it might seem logical to assume that Calculus 1 would function in the same way for STEM degrees. It's the first math course listed in these programs, so it should be an appropriate starting point for students. However, this assumption is erroneous. Calculus 1 is an advanced mathematics course, not the introductory course to higher level mathematics.

To draw comparisons, students typically begin Learning Spanish in Spanish 1 during their freshman year in high school or even earlier in junior high. Spanish, like Mathematics, is a foundational language that progresses in stages. However, Calculus is more similar to Spanish 3 in this analogy, requiring knowledge and skills developed over prior levels.

Students do not have access to calculus in their freshman year of high school and certainly not in junior high school. In Mathematics, the essential foundation for success in Calculus includes intermediate Algebra and Precalculus, just as Spanish 1 and Spanish 2 are essential for succeeding in Spanish 3.

There may be confusion for some because Calculus 1 is listed as that first math class for STEM degrees, but that is more about high unit requirements than sorry, high unit requirements for STEM degree programs rather than the appropriate level of the course.

Preparatory math courses such as college Algebra and Precalculus are actually advanced transfer level Mathematics courses also taught at many CSUs and UCs. At Modesto Junior College, for example, our college Algebra and Precalculus courses are articulated for transfer to both systems.

With California's high school graduation requirement of Algebra 1, a gap of knowledge is present between Algebra 1 and Calculus. California is one of only three states that requires only two years of high school mathematics and an Algebra 1 competency. While many school districts in California do choose to require three years of mathematics, not all do.

At Modesto Junior College, one of the largest school districts we serve still only requires two years of mathematics. In fact, 25% of the school districts in California require only two years of high school mathematics as AB 1705 requires.

High school completion in mathematics should be honored for placement and enrollment at the community college level, but we should look in both directions and provide transfer level mathematic options scaffolded for students who have not yet taken the preparatory courses necessary for calculus while also enabling direct enrollment in Calculus one for students who have completed the necessary preparatory coursework.

Secondly, I'd like to discuss the AB 1705 February Implementation Memorandum, which sparked confusion and concern at all levels in the California's community colleges. I'd like to highlight a few critical issues. The February memo gave guidance that contradicted the spirit of the law. The law allowed for a two course preparatory calculus course sequence. The guidance did not.

Many colleges were left in a quandary of what would happen if we comply with the law, but not with the guidance. The memo set out strict and arbitrary validation criteria for STEM preparatory courses. The criteria for highly unlikely to succeed are not defined by the law. None of the 115 colleges met these validation criteria.

As defined in the February memo, students enrolled in stem calculus 1 without prior preparatory coursework have a Low throughput requirement rate of 15%. In contrast, students who complete preparatory courses before enrolling in STEM Calculus must meet a much higher throughput rate of 50%. It's still unclear why these values are not aligned.

Using throughput rates from preparatory courses to calculus 1 are a problematic measure. Students change majors at a rate of up to 30%, switch colleges, and choose other life options in lieu of college.

RP group data showed students are more successful in Calculus I after taking a preparatory course for nearly all levels of mathematic preparation when taking throughput out of the validation criteria.

The data provided by the RP group resulted in research conclusions based on a sample size of 230 students relative to the millions of STEM majors over the research years. Colleges were not enrolling all STEM students directly into Calculus I regardless of preparation, and none of them are today.

Even colleges that seem to be having early success with earlier calculus 1 enrollments. Additionally, every UC and CSU offers Precalculus courses even with their more rigorous admission standards. Lastly, the implementation Guidance assumes that students can simply shake off a failure and re enroll in the same class without the ability to access content they missed.

This is not the reality for many STEM students, especially when we consider imposter syndrome. Co requisite support courses work best when students have smaller gaps in knowledge that can be addressed in real time with just in time instruction and support.

There is no precedent for this strict guidance to enroll all STEM students into Calculus one as their first mathematics course. None. This is a grand experiment using students as subjects with no input from colleges.

I fear that the intent of AB705 to make transfer level coursework more accessible will unintentionally create barriers for students pursuing STEM degrees if we disallow enrollment into preparatory calculus courses.

While co requisite models are effective for certain subjects, they are not a one size fits all solution, especially for courses like Calculus, that requires deep understanding of foundational concepts. This approach will actually widen existing gaps rather than address them.

The AB 1705 December memo from the Chancellor's office was the pause we needed in order to have these important discussions. On behalf of our students. Thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Thank you so much again to our panelists and to the students as well for your very insightful comments and remarks. At this time. I have a couple questions and then I'll pass it to my colleagues for their questions. First off, to our faculty Members mentioned academic supports.

What types of academic supports are most effective in helping students complete transfer level Math and English to any of our faculty.

From the math perspective, we've been operating with a two unit co requisite support class and we've seen a lot of success with it. The model that we use at Cuyamaca College is the support course is linked to the transfer level course. It's taught by the same teacher. It's taught in a back to back time frame.

And the students, although it looks like two courses on paper, they don't feel like it's two courses when they're sitting in the classroom. So they don't necessarily know when they're covering something that's maybe supposed to be in a Precalculus course versus when they're learning a Calculus I topic.

It's supposed to be just in time instruction provided just when they need it to help benefit their acquisition of the Calculus 1 skills. And that's what we've seen a lot of success with in all of our co requisite courses.

Thank you.

No, I was just going to piggyback off Rachel, at San Diego Mesa College. We have the exact same same model. We also have embedded tutors that are inside of the of the X courses. We call them the exit support courses. And that has used. That has been a lot like it helped a lot of students out.

So the tutoring component is really important. Great.

I would add we use, we have embedded tutors in almost all of our sections of the correct class and they can sort of help the teacher during, you know, when students are working on things. Help the teacher with individualized support for students who need it. That's very helpful.

And the other thing I would say is active classroom environments where you can see the students work at the time it's happening. So we have whiteboards all around the room in our classroom so the students are actively doing the tasks in real time. And I and the tutor can circulate and provide little guidance or a little.

That's very helpful. Rather than a lecture model where you know what you're delivering but you don't know what they're making of it. You know, you need to see what they're making of it in order to know how to intervene and support their learning.

Thank you.

The only thing that I would add is we offer very similar co requisite classes, but within that co requisite class we also have an additional learning outcome that looks at the student as a whole person. And we talk about growth, Mindset, persistent struggle.

So we understand now, just like we had talked about before, that students are scared of math. They are. And sometimes a math teacher's only job is not to just teach math, but to guide that student, be there for them and be a support for them and let them know that they can do this.

It is a lot of extra work on the student's part, but we do save them a lot of semesters.

Great. Thank you so much colleagues, any questions or comments? Yes. Assembly Member Patel, welcome.

Thank you for your testimonies today. Extremely insightful. Frankly for me to hear both sides of this issue. I've heard a lot of the same kind of thing out in the public with faculty at Palomar College, which is embedded in my Assembly District.

From the students perspective, have you heard any concerns around students finding doing the five unit course burdensome or disruptive in their ability to complete their course requirements? But because knowing that many community college students are working also are raising families, balancing a very busy personal life, a couple of answers I think would be helpful.

I'd love to speak to this. So our Calculus one with concurrent support is actually a seven unit class. Calculus one is five Units and then the two unit support course. It is a large unit load, but I'd like to compare that to the previous pathway, which is a precalculus to calculus 1 pathway.

Our pre calculus class, our precalculus class is trig and college algebra combined into one course. So it's actually six units as a standalone course. So students were previously taking a six unit pre calculus course, followed by the second semester, then a five unit calculus one course for a total of 11 units over two semesters.

With the calculus one with support, they are taking seven units and they're done. And so a lot of times what we'll do is we'll go into the precalculus classrooms and say, hey students, did you know that you can be sitting in Cal with support right now?

It's only one extra unit to this current class you're sitting in and here's the data to show that you have better outcomes in that class. And the students take us up on it. So the students, I don't think the students are hesitant to take the seven unit Calculus 1 with support course. Our sections are also filling.

So I would say we have a five unit versus a three unit course. And I rarely if ever hear students complain about that. But occasionally students will, if they're placed into the five unit course, they can just submit a petition if they want to challenge it and submit rationale for why.

And maybe they took AP in high school or whatever it might be, or they are international students and have certain scores they can show us and we're very, we tend to just approve those, you know, so if a student really doesn't want to take it and they want to just fly free in the three unit version, we let them and then they, they can see.

But it's rare, they don't object.

Hi, I just wanted to provide the student perspective, but would you mind just restating the question just so I can get a little bit refreshed?

I'm trying to tease apart the, you know, having the front loading in real time, so whatever the course units are versus having them sequential as far as being loading course requirement loading burden on your time schedule.

Yes. Okay. So for the students, for example, myself, I'm part of dsps Latinx student, I'm a second generation student. Well, first I'd also like to say that students, they have confidence, they know what they're doing, they know what courses they would like to take.

And so if you do end up requiring students to take practically three years, three years of math in one semester, which is typically between 16 and 18 weeks.

If you're a working student, if you have family obligations, if you have a disability like myself, you can't exactly dedicate all that time that is required for that one like 7 unit co requisite course that other students might be able to. So it really is different on a case by case basis. Right.

Some students are going to do really well with this co requisite model and that's awesome for them. We want to keep those options open. It's very important that we do. We want to meet everyone where they're at.

But also for students like myself who don't have the ability to dedicate hours and hours to a course that's seven units, that is inequitable. Students need that option to be able to take a scaffolded approach.

We want that opportunity to be able to, you know, spread our education out over maybe it takes us an extra year, but you know what, if that gets us to our degree, if that allows us to transfer and graduate, that's worth it. Sometimes students just take longer due to different reasons. Right.

Maybe you have a disability, maybe you're taking care of your family members, things like that. It's just we need flexibility. That's all it is. Thank you.

Thank you. At Mesa we have about over 50% part time students. So it is, it does become a burden. Especially when there's STEM majors which are high unit classes. Right. And then putting in their chemistry class, their physics class.

That tends to be a little bit of the issues that we have at least in our, in our calculus with because we have one unit lab for every support class and that's three hours. So for us, our calculus with support is eight hours, eight contact hours.

So it's a little bit more on top of all the high unit science classes.

Yeah.

And I would just add one thing is we, you know, one silver lining of COVID is we got a lot of different modality options now that we weren't quite as astute at before COVID. So while it is a high load, a lot of times we'll split it up and maybe do some online or do a hybrid do.

For us, the co requisite are always face to face because they're active learning. You need to be in groups. That's not something we can do asynchronously. So we will try and do that.

But it can be, especially when you have, you know, so many part time students, about 2/3 part time students, and you're starting to get up there in time.

The other thing that I would mention and we talked about lab units is when we start to hide units so that they don't look like high unit classes, but they're really high demand on student time and units. They're carnegie units. It's supposed to be how much time a student spends in a class.

And so I would say that's probably my number one complaint is even we were at six units, they still felt like they spent much more time than what two typical three unit classes would be. And so that gets to be really burdensome as students try to fill in their 12 units or 15 units for the Promise Grant.

So that can be a real challenge for students.

Thank you so much, Mr. Williams. Please, come on. Yes.

Yes. So from the student perspective, you know, maybe it's because of my negative biases.

Towards the Federal Government, but nonetheless, I am grateful to be able to.

Number one, we would focus on education. And I think for that reason, I don't care how many... I'm studying to be a physician. I can't pump enough this information. I need to conceptualize every bit of it in order to be the best doctor that I can be. And so if I have to take seven math classes to be prepared for calculus, then so be it. But give me that option to do so. That, from a student perspective, I don't give a damn.

Thank you so much, Mr. Williams. And thank you so much colleagues. Did you want to make a comment? Okay. Thank you so much to all our panelists, to our professors, to our students. Thank you so much for sharing your insights and really appreciate it. At this time... Thank you. At this time, also want to put out there.

The Higher Education Committee has received over 200 letters from the public who wish to provide print commentary on the subject of the hearing today. I really appreciate all the comments here today. I encourage all Members of this Committee and members of the public to review the submissions via the Assembly Higher Education website.

At this time now, we will go to public comment, item number five. I would like to invite members of the public to speak. Each speaker will have one minute to provide public comment. And I know a lot of students are here too, so we can allow our students to speak first. Each student will have one minute. Thank you so much. All right, please start.

Good afternoon, Chair Fong and Members of the Assembly Higher Education Committee. My name is Carlos Rodriguez, a fourth year at UCLA and a first generation student who seamlessly transferred from Porterville College after being placed into transfer level courses due to the work of AB 705.

As the transfer student affairs officer representing tens of thousands of transfer students across across the UC system, I'm speaking on behalf of the University of California Student Association to express our continued strong support for the implementation of Assembly Bill 1705.

As a result of both AB 705 and 1705, the California Community College system has produced significant progress in the completion of transfer level math and English for every demographic group, especially for black and Latina students, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, adult learners, foster youth, and veterans.

For example, one year transfer level math completion jumped from 30% in 2017-18 to 60% in 2022-23 and tripled for black and Hispanic students. UCSA believes in our capacity of our students and we firmly oppose any attempt to reverse course on the transformative progress of AB 1705. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Dr. Paula Gustin, and I'm chemistry professor at San Diego Mesa College. I flew here from San Diego to tell you that trigonometry and precalculus are not a one and done class. Those are transfer level classes that are required for physics, engineering, and chemistry.

Those being lumped in with remedial, which I kept hearing today, is not accurate. We need that information for our students to be successful in science. AB 1705 removes vital knowledge that students need time to develop their foundational skills. Let's pivot, amend 1705. Keep a two course sequence in trig and precalculus.

Without validation, I do not believe that you have the right to run experiments on our students and their success and their lives. And students need choices. We must work together to help science students. Especially right now because the fabric of education is being attacked at a national level. So please be sensible and reasonable. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Dustin Acres, math faculty at Porterville College. I'm here to represent the voice of my students. I will say that AB 705 was a shock for us initially, but we were one of two campuses that implemented it fully and got rid of all of our remedial classes. AB 1705 was just as shocking for us.

But this last fall, when we offered the calculus with support, we had a handful of students who would not normally have had that opportunity who chose to take the class. They were not all successful. Several of them deemed it too much too quick and they had an option to go back.

But I was very excited to see how many students wouldn't have had the option to take calculus and were given that because of AB 1705. And so I just want to ask you to continue to give the students options. I think I've heard that a lot from faculty and students today. So options to be in those classes, but also options to take the other courses as they need.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Dr. Donna Budzynski, chair of chemistry at San Diego Mesa College. I'd like to emphasize that, when you look at the data from the RP group studies, to take it with a huge grain of salt because not only are the numbers that they're looking at very small. When they look at students who are placed directly into calculus from those lowest placement groups, as one of the panel members said, it's in the hundreds out of thousands and thousands.

Also, there's a huge bias in that because they only have access to high school data. And so if a student says that, oh, my last high school class was such and such, and then they consider them that's their last math. But what we know on the ground is that many students have knowledge from other places.

I've had students come to me as a chair in chemistry and saying, hey, I was able to, I was in the military and I ran nuclear submarines. I think I have had enough knowledge from the military in order to skip some of your lower level courses. And they do. Or we have students coming from out of state who are taking courses there in colleges. And so please be careful of that data. It's not valid.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Tony Ordoukhanian, and I am a senior transfer studying political science with a minor in public policy at UC Berkeley. And I'm also an elected senator at the Associated Students of the University of California. At Pasadena City College, I was able to break barriers for higher education because of the protections of AB 705 and 1705. By taking courses aligned with my academic and professional interests, I avoided remedial delays that would have delayed my ability to transfer to my dream university and create realities that shape my future today. This experience extends beyond just myself.

It resonates with thousands of transfer and non-traditional students striving for educational success without the existence of institutional barriers. So I urge you to support the continued implementation of these Assembly bills for community colleges. When we dismantle obstacles for our most vulnerable students and enforce equitable standards, we can truly empower transfer and non-traditional students with the educational success that they truly deserve. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you Committee Members. My name is Colin Kemp. I am a current senior at Sacramento State University and a graduate from Sacramento City College. The efforts of 705, AB 705 and AB 1705 allowed me and thousands of other students like me to transfer within a two year window to a university of our choice, making college affordable and making sure that every unit that we used was useful and not wasted. Thank you for your time.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm a political science student at Sierra College and director of campus affairs for the Associated Students of Sierra College. Thank you for this hearing. Policy failures in California community colleges should not be blamed on BIPOC students.

I urge you to examine the affiliations of non-administrative panelists who spoke in support of AB 1705 today. Some data from the Research Department at Santa Rosa Junior College for transfer level math pass rates. For Latinx students, Latin A students in 2018 it was 53%, in 2020, 48%, in 2022, 41.7%. For Black students in 2018 it was 60%.

2020, 33%. 2022, 21%. There seems to be some difference in opinions with data. Students and faculty overwhelmingly oppose AB 1705, yet administrative voices dominate. The SSCCC has now voted to co-sponsor a bill reinstating remedial coursework. Retain and empower student agency by reinstating remedial coursework with student choice intact. Success is impossible without the education to achieve.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Ava Alvarado. I'm a former dual enrollment student at Chaffey College and a current San Diego State student. AB 1705 is a critical tool to help advance students through higher education. Providing support courses and resources does not discount student success, but rather enhance by giving students an avenue to seek support upon their own accord. With that being said, we also must look at the support services actually being implemented to ensure that they are living up to a high standard to encourage students for success and achievement.

If the community colleges forces students into unnecessary remedial coursework, disregarding their previous grades and their personal understanding of their capabilities in the classroom, the barrier towards achieving a degree only becomes greater. Why present more barriers to a diploma or transfer require completion when historically these students have already been left out of the conversation? Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Jacob Traugott. I am an academic senator at Sacramento City College as well as a representative our union for Los Rios. We have 2,500 faculty, 70,000 students. And I find the chancellor's data a little bit incredible. The data of math success rates at Los Rios has gone down almost every year until last year, when we hit even.

And student drop rates, particularly our BIPOC students, have gone up. We don't have good data on student drops. We could have better data on student drops with a drop down menu. But I am seeing this as a way that could increase equity if given proper supports and given students the options that they desire while still eliminating prerequisites. But that is currently making our system deeply inequitable. Thank you.