Early Assessment Program: A Valid Solution for

Early Assessment Program:
A Valid Solution for CCC Math
and English Placement?
KC Greaney, Director
Jeanne Fadelli, Research Analyst
Santa Rosa Junior College
EAP Background
• Developed by the California State University as
an early alert system, with the goal of
minimizing remediation
• Administered in conjunction with statewide
STAR testing in April of the junior year of high
• Math and English only
• Optional for students
EAP: CSU’s Stated Goal
“The goal of the EAP program is to have California
high school graduates enter the CSU fully
prepared to begin college-level study.”
EAP English
• Includes multiple choice questions and a writing
• Results: students are deemed either
1. “ready for college level work,” or
2. “not yet ready”
• A designation of “ready” places students into
Freshman composition at any CSU
• No need for students to take CSU placement test
EAP Math
• Includes multiple choice questions including some
in addition to the STAR test
• Results: students are deemed either
1. “ready for college level work,” or
2. “not yet ready,” or
3. “ready for college level work – conditional”
• Students deemed conditionally ready are advised to
take math coursework during senior year in order to
become “ready”
• A designation of “ready” places students into college
level, non-remedial math courses at any CSU
Statewide EAP Results
• 378,870 students took English EAP in 2010
▫ 21% demonstrated readiness
• 178,667 students took math EAP in 2010
▫ 15% “ready for college level work”
▫ 42% “conditionally ready”
▫ 43% “did not demonstrate readiness”
Source: CSU
Communication of EAP Results
• Students receive results in conjunction with
STAR test results in August prior to senior year
of high school
• Students can access their individual scores, and
advice, online at CSU EAP website
• EAP results (statewide, by county, by district, by
school) are available from CSU EAP website:
• Plans for individual student EAP results to be
directly accessible by CCC’s
So, what does this have to do with
California Community Colleges?
• Senate bill 946 (Scott) passed in 2008
▫ “This bill enables community colleges to work with their
local high schools and CSU, through the EAP, to address
the high number of students who are unprepared for
college-level course work.”
• Pressure also from research institutes, other
governmental agencies, and to some degree the public
• There is now an EAP division at the CCCCO:
Benefits to Using EAP Scores for
Placement at CCC’s
• Results are portable
• Students receive early warning of potential need
for remediation
• Minimizes number of tests students must take
• Minimizes number of assessment tests CCC’s
must administer
▫ Potential cost savings
• Attempt to align K-12 standards with college
Challenges to Using EAP Scores for
Placement at CCC’s
• Results are limited
▫ English: College ready or not
▫ Math: College ready, conditionally ready, or not
• Community College Math and English pathways
are long
▫ EAP cannot place into more than one level
• If students are not deemed “college ready” they
will still need to take local CCC assessment
test(s) to enroll at local community colleges
Challenges to Using EAP Scores for
Placement at CCC’s (continued)
• Implementation issues
▫ Are EAP results equivalent to an assessment
score? Or do students petition to have prerequisite waived, using EAP scores as
▫ How to deal with students who were deemed
“conditionally ready” in math? Do they need to
show proof they took math senior year? Who
Case Study: SRJC
• Began accepting EAP results for placement in 2009
• Current practice: students petition for pre-requisite
equivalency citing EAP results as justification
▫ Students deemed “conditionally ready” in math must
bring proof of senior year math achievement
▫ Conditional math petitions are approved by math
• Pending practice: EAP results are entered into
student files as placement test scores
▫ Conditionally ready math students still must petition
• SRJC’s Research Office Received modest CCCCO
EAP grant to build infrastructure and to conduct
Questions at SRJC
• What is the profile of EAP students at SRJC?
• How well does the EAP function as a placement
tool at SRJC?
• How do students and faculty rate the efficacy of
• How do the grades compare for students who
place via EAP versus other students?
EAP Placements at SRJC, Fall 2010
# petitions submitted
# petitions approved
63/63 (100%)
20/28 (71%)
# enrolled in subject course in Fall 2010
53/63 (84%)
13/20 (65%)
•Total number of petitions filed =91
•Headcount of petitioners = 78 (13 students filed petitions for both English and
•Math petitions denied for the following reasons
•Conditional students did not complete recommended math coursework in
senior year
•Lack of documentation
•Petition requested placement into a course not justified by the EAP
Profile of EAP Students at SRJC
• Gender
▫ 49% female
▫ 51% male
• Educational Status
▫ 92% new student
▫ 5% concurrently enrolled student
 (95% have high school diploma or equivalent)
▫ 1% continuing student
▫ 1% new transfer student
Note: n=91
Profile of EAP Students at SRJC
• Ethnicity
78% White
22% Latino
2% Asian
1% Black
1% American Indian
• Students could mark more than one ethnicity
• Gender and ethnicity generally mirror SRJC student
Preliminary Outcomes of EAP Students
Successful EAP
SRJC Average
Average # units
completed as of 9/1/10
SRJC GPA as of 9/1/10
Units enrolled Fall 2010
•EAP students generally have successfully completed prior coursework at SRJC,
either as a concurrently enrolled high school student or the summer after
graduating high school
•EAP students post higher GPAs and enroll in more units than the average
SRJC student
Enrollment of EAP Students in Fall 2010
ENGL1A (freshman composition)
Other English courses (2 total)
English sub-total
% of successful English petitioners who enrolled
84% (53 out of 63)
MATH27 (college algebra & trigonometry)
Other math classes (6 total)
Math sub-total
% of successful math petitioners who enrolled
65% (13 out of 20)
EAP Student Satisfaction with
Placement: English 1A
• Self-rating of academic preparedness
▫ 5.1% (n=3) unprepared
▫ 78.0% (n=46) somewhat to fully prepared
▫ 16.9% (n=10) overprepared
• Self-rating of accuracy of placement
▫ 1.7% (n=1) should be in lower level course
▫ 79.7% (n=47) belong in course
▫ 18.6% (n=11) should be in higher level course
EAP Student Final Grades, Fall 2010
English 1A
Math 27
EAP student GPA
3.31 (n=48)
2.17 (n=6)
Overall student GPA
2.58 (n=2025)
2.23 (n=266)
% of EAP students who
dropped/withdrew from
the class
6% (n=3)
0% (n=0)
Overall % of students
who dropped/withdrew
from the class
19% (n=384)
19% (n=50)
• The typical EAP student enrolling at SRJC in
Fall 2010 is a high achieving high school
graduate enrolling as a new student at SRJC the
fall after high school graduation
• This typical student has already completed some
coursework at SRJC and posts a higher SRJC
GPA than the average SRJC student, and is
enrolled full time.
• Preliminary results show that, at least for
placement into Freshman Composition at SRJC,
the EAP appears to function effectively as a
placement test as evidenced by preliminary
consequential and criterion-based analyses

similar documents