Doing the Math on Developmental Math
Reform
The Direct and Redirected Cost of Math Reform in North Carolina
White Paper
Submitted to:
Kendall Guthrie
Completion by Design
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
500 Fifth Avenue North
Seattle, Washington 98109
From:
The Center for Applied Research
Central Piedmont Community College
P.O. Box 35009
Charlotte, NC 28235
Terri M. Manning, Ed.D, Bobbie Frye, Ed.D, Kathy Drumm, DBA, Susan Burleson, MA, Jennifer Allen, JD
and Mike Sullivan, Ph.D.
September 29, 2014
This white paper was completed as part of Completion by Design which was funded by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation
1
Executive Summary
Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) and Davidson County Community College (DCCC) in North
Carolina participated in a statewide developmental math reform that involved the conversion of
multiple four-credit hour math courses into eight one-credit-hour modules. During that same period, the
colleges converted from using standardized placement tests such as Accuplacer, Compass or Asset to
the use of a diagnostic test and multiple measures for placement including high school GPA1. Prior to the
reform, the colleges were concerned about cuts in funding due to a reduction in developmental math
FTE. This paper is an attempt to identify costs related to the developmental math reform and the
positive outcomes for students and the colleges. The following are the key findings of the study.






Prior to reform;
o Of students referred to developmental math, 16-19% at CPCC and 29-43% at DCCC
never enrolled in a developmental math course within six years.
o Of those who did enroll, only 34-53% at CPCC and 35-56% at Davidson passed a
developmental math course with A-C grades within six years.
o Of all students referred to developmental math, 47-66% at CPCC and 43-76% at DCCC
either never enrolled or did not pass a developmental math course in six years.
o Of students who were referred to any developmental math course, only 42% at CPCC
and 31% at DCCC ever enrolled in a college-level math course in six years.
o Math avoidance was high for both developmental math and college level math
students.
o Developmental math students had low six-year completion rates (4-19%), low six-year
transfer rates (8-27%) and high drop-out rates (69-80%).
The reform did result in fewer students enrolled in the developmental math modules for
several terms.
Both colleges saw decreased developmental math FTE (45% at DCCC and 49% at CPCC) but
increased FTE in college level math (8% at DCCC and 37% at CPCC).
Both colleges saw increases in FTE college-wide over the same period.
The math department budgets for both colleges did not increase and the instructional cost per
credit hour delivered in developmental math remained virtually the same ($4.35 per credit hour
increase at CPCC and no increase at DCCC).
Direct costs (e.g. salary, benefits, space, equipment) and estimated costs for re-directed efforts
(increased hours across student services) did increase from the last term before
implementation to the first term of implementation.
1.)
Students who were given waivers based on multiple measures had to have a minimum un-weighted high school GPA of 2.6, have
graduated from high school within the last five years, completed four years of math and English in high school and completed one high school
math course for which Algebra II was a pre-requisite.
2










The greatest increases in direct costs were for the up-fitting of space and IT costs.
The greatest increase in cost for re-directed effort occurred for counselors and advisors,
recruitment, financial aid, disability services and the admissions staff. These areas had to
devote large amounts of additional time to advise and assist student in adjusting to the
structural and delivery method changes in developmental math.
Because costs across the colleges increased (for redirected effort) and enrollments decreased,
the overall cost per credit hour in developmental math increased from $92.79 to $140.70 for
CPCC and from $105.72 to $122.87 for DCCC.
The “profit” from developmental math reimbursements (FTE reimbursement minus costs)
declined from $725,223 to $219,779 (-74%) for CPCC and from $252,278 to $107,176 (-58%) for
DCCC. These funds are used across the colleges to subsidize higher-cost programs. However,
the FTE reimbursement from increases in college-level math offset some of that loss. So did
increased FTE across the colleges due to students who completed college-level math taking
more credits before they exited the colleges.
Post reform, students who completed the developmental math modules had greater success
than students in the now-retired traditional courses (61-81% at CPCC and 76-94% at DCCC).
A larger percentage of students completing the highest level math module (DMA08) went on to
college level math than former students completing the highest level developmental math
course (MAT080).
Students who bypassed developmental math and were given waivers for college level math
based on high school GPA had mixed results. Students with GPAs between 2.6 and 3.0 had
slightly lower A-C pass rates than non -waiver students. Students with GPAs above 3.0 had
higher A-C passing rates in college level math than non-waiver students. The state may want to
reconsider the cut scores once the colleges have several terms of completion data. The colleges
are offering increased support services to the multiple measures students in college level math.
Completing college-level math appears to be a milestone for students that impacts their
retention, course credit completion and grades.
Students completing developmental math quickly, moving into and completing college level
math increase revenue for the colleges.
The overall return on investment for this initiative was an increase in enrollment in college-level
math (18% for CPCC and 3% for DCCC), an increase in the passing rates in college-level math
(9% for CPCC and 13% for DCCC0 and an increase in the A-C grade rates in college-level math
(21% for CPCC and 14% for DCCC) over the period of the reform.
The cost research was helpful for both colleges because it identified the cost for redirected efforts and
explained systemic changes occurring within the colleges. Through the process, the colleges realized
that students completing college-level math was the key to student persistence, college course
completions and increased revenue for the colleges.
3
Table of Contents
Introduction
Explanation of Developmental Math Policies and Practices in North Carolina
Table 1: Developmental Courses in the Combined Course Library for NC Prior to Reform
The Need for Developmental Math Reform Established
Math Success and Math Avoidance
Table 2: Fall 2007 CPCC New Student Six Year Persistence and Success in Traditional
Developmental Math Courses
Table 3a: Fall 2007 CPCC New Student Cohort Tracked for Six Years, Success
of Developmental Students in College-Level Math
Table 3b: Fall 2007 Davidson County New Student Cohort Tracked for Six Years, Success
of Developmental Students in College-Level Math
Table 4: Retention for All New First Time in College Students and Students Enrolled
in College-Level Math in Their First Term
Table 5: Fall 2007 New Students Six Year Completion and Transfer Rates for
Developmental Math Students
The Developmental Math Reform Effort
The Cost of Developmental Math Reform
Table 6: Registrations in Developmental Math at Fall 2008 to Fall 2013
Table 7: FTE Loss in Developmental Math
Various Aspects of Cost
Direct One-Time Costs (May be Pro-rated over Several Years)
Table 8: Facilities Cost Per Work Station
Table 9: One-Time Costs for Emporium Labs
Table 10: CPCC Technology Infrastructure Costs
Recurring Direct Costs
Table 11: CPCC Budget Changes for Developmental Math
Table 12: CPCC Cost of Mathematics Instruction for 2012-13 and 2013-14
Estimated Costs for Redirected Efforts
Table 13: Number of Counseling Visits in Spring and Fall 2013
Table 14: Average Time Spent with Developmental Students
Table 15: Admissions, Registration and Student Records staff
Table 16: Registrar of Developmental Math
Table 17: Students with Standards of Progress Applied
Table 18: Time Spent on Developmental Students Placed on Warning, Probation or Suspension
Table 19: Hours Devoted to Developmental Students with Standards of Progress
The Template
A Few Things Unique to North Carolina
The Template Section 1 for DCCC – Developmental Math Costs Accrued and Expended
The Template Section 2 for DCCC – Other College Departments – Direct Costs
The Template Section 3 for DCCC – Other College Departments – Redirected Costs
The Template Section 4 for DCCC – Total Costs per Credit Hour Generated
The Template Section 1 for CPCC – Developmental Math Costs Accrued and Expended
The Template Section 2 for CPCC – Other College Departments – Direct Costs
The Template Section 3 for CPCC – Other College Departments – Re-directed Costs
4
6
6
7
7
7
8
9
10
11
12
12
13
14
15
16
16
16
17
17
17
18
19
20
20
22
22
23
24
24
24
28
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
Table of Contents
The Template Section 4 for CPCC – Total Costs per Credit Hour Generated
Success of the Developmental Math Reform
Grades in the New Modules
Table 20: Success of Developmental Math - A Comparison between Traditional
Courses and the Math Modules
Table 21: Progress from Highest Level Developmental Math Course to College-level
Math for Students Enrolled in the Modules Compared to Traditional Courses
Table 22a: Four Year Enrollment and Passing Rates in College Level Math
Central Piedmont Community College
Table 22b: Four Year Enrollment and Passing Rates in College Level Math
Davidson County Community College
Outcome of Multiple Measures
Table 23: Success of Multiple Measures Students
FTE, Not Much Loss After All
Table 24: Curriculum FTE by College
Student Enrollment Patterns, Impacting Growth in Other Areas
Gains in College-Level Math
Table 25: FTE Gains in College-Level Math
Increasing FTE in all Developmental Courses
Table 26: Developmental FTE Generated by Developmental Math Students
Increasing FTE in College-Level Courses
Table 27: College-Level FTE Generated by Developmental Math Students
Improving Student Persistence and Credit Accumulation
Table 28: New Developmental Math Students from Fall 2010 Tracked Through
Fall 2013 – Attempted College-Level, Technical Math
Table 29: New Developmental Math Students from Fall 2010 Tracked Through Fall 2013 –
Attempted College Transfer Math
Successful Students Accumulate College-Level Credits
How Long Does It Take Colleges to See a Return on Investment from Developmental Math Reform?
Plan for Success
Recouping Revenue
Table 30: Financial Impact of Developmental Math Reform
Challenges Faced by the Colleges
Lessons Learned Through the Process
Suggestions for Other Colleges
Findings and Conclusions
References
Appendices
College Information
5
38
39
39
39
40
40
41
41
42
42
43
43
43
44
45
45
45
46
46
48
48
48
49
49
50
50
51
51
52
52
54
55
61
Doing the Math on Developmental Math Reform
Introduction
Colleges across the country are becoming aware of the need to make changes in the way developmental
education, especially developmental math, is taught. One question often asked is, “What will it cost us
to make changes in developmental math?” The costs associated with developmental math in this study
are based on the experiences of the North Carolina community colleges where a comprehensive
statewide reform in both the courses and method of delivering developmental math instruction
occurred between fall term 2011 and spring term 2014. The reform efforts were two-fold: 1) newly
developed one-hour modules totaling eight credit hours (some delivered in an Emporium-style lab2)
replaced four-credit hour, 16-week courses, and 2) the use of multiple measures for placement,
including a diagnostic test rather than a placement test and the use of high school GPA for admittance
into college- level math. The purpose of this paper is to attempt to explain all costs related to the math
reform that took place at Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) and Davidson County Community
College (DCCC) in North Carolina. To establish these costs, the authors also explain: 1) the need for
developmental math reform, 2) the processes and strategies used in reforming developmental math,
and 3) the surprising and positive results of developmental math reform including the return on
investment.
This paper will also include sections explaining the various aspects of cost accrued from developmental
math reform, followed by a template that breaks down costs by credit hour generated in developmental
math. The final section estimates the amount of time it takes for a college to recoup its investment in
developmental math reform.
Explanation of Developmental Math Policies and Practices in North Carolina
Prior to the math reform, the North Carolina Community College System’s combined course library for
the 58 community colleges contained 12 developmental math courses for a possible 32 credits. It was up
to the colleges to determine how many courses they wanted to offer at their individual campuses based
on the needs of their students. See Table 1.
2.)
Emporium-style labs are hybrid computer labs designed so students spend sufficient time on task using math software programs
with on-demand assistance from faculty and lab assistants. Instruction is individualized and self-paced. Lab hours are required during a fixed
schedule for specific courses.
6
Table 1: Developmental Courses in the Combined Course Library for NC Prior to Reform
Number
MAT 050
MAT 060
MAT 070
MAT 075
MAT 080
MAT 090
MAT 095
MAT
Math Course
Title
Basic Math Skills
Essential Mathematics
Introductory Algebra
Geometry
Intermediate Algebra
Accelerated Algebra
Algebraic Concepts
Total Credits
Credits
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
27
Number
MAT 001
MAT 051
MAT 061
MAT 071
Supplemental Course
Title
Math Skills Support
Fast Track Basic Math
Fast Track Essential Math
Fast Track Intro Algebra
Credits
1
1
1
1
MAT 081
Fast Track Intermediate Algebra
1
MAT
Total Credits
5
Students came to the colleges, took placement tests (Accuplacer, Asset or Compass) and were referred
to the appropriate developmental or college-level course. For the purpose of this study, students were
divided into five categories:
1. Students who placed into Math 060 (the lowest level) and were required to complete three
courses before being eligible to enroll in college transfer level math.
2. Students who placed into Math 070 and were required to complete two courses before
enrolling in college transfer level math.
3. Students who placed into Math 080 and were required to complete one course before enrolling
in college transfer level math.
4. Students from certain applied science programs who tested directly into technical math rather
than college transfer level math.
5. Students who placed directly into college transfer level math.
The course descriptions for developmental math (both courses and modules) and technical math
courses can be found in Appendix A. Prior to the reform, both DCCC and CPCC required three
developmental math courses before enrolling in college transfer-level math, Math 060, Math 070 and
Math 080. Both colleges originally offered MAT 050 but moved the course to the basic skills/basic
literacy area before the reform began. Enrollments in Math 050 are not included in this study.
The Need for Developmental Math Reform Established
Several studies have found that approximately 60% of community college students across the United
States are referred to at least one developmental math course (Bailey, Jeong & Cho, 2010) but with
mixed results or little improvement in skills (Jaggars & Stacey, 2014). Because of these high numbers,
most community colleges consider developmental coursework to correct skill deficiencies to be part of
their mission. Developmental courses account for a significant portion of community college enrollment.
At CPCC, developmental courses (English, reading and math) have accounted for as much as 15% of the
total FTE generated by the College with over half of that (8%) coming from developmental math. But the
7
students who registered in traditional developmental math courses were not very successful in
completing the sequence or enrolling in and completing college-level math.
Math Success and Math Avoidance
Table 2 shows the persistence and course success of new students from both colleges in traditional
developmental math courses (pre-reform) from the fall 2007 who were tracked for six years. Of
students who tested into developmental math, 16-19% at CPCC and 29-43% at DCCC never enrolled in
the developmental math course to which they were referred. Of those who did enroll, only 34-53% at
CPCC and 35-56% at DCCC passed the course (A-C grades). Of students referred to developmental math,
47-66% at CPCC and 44-76% at DCCC either did not enroll in or did not pass the course in six years.
Table 2: Fall 2007 CPCC New Student Six Year Persistence and Success in
Traditional Developmental Math Courses
Central Piedmont CC
Avoided developmental math (never took a
developmental math course)
Enrolled in the developmental math they
tested into
Passed the developmental math they tested
into (A-C)
Did not pass the developmental math they
tested into
Davidson County CC
Math
060
N=434
Math
070
N=236
Math
080
N=242
Math
060
N=97
Math
070
N=70
Math
080
N=33
16%
18%
19%
29%
43%
32%
84%
82%
81%
71%
57%
68%
53%
46%
34%
56%
37%
35%
31%
37%
47%
15%
20%
33%
Some students successfully completed developmental math but many never completed the sequence or
entered college-level math courses. Tables 3a and 3b show that 58% of developmental math students at
CPCC and 69% at DCCC never attempted a college-level math course within six years. It should also be
noted that 25-34% of college-ready students (did not need developmental math) at both colleges still
avoided college-level math.
Of students who were referred to any developmental math course, only 42% at CPCC and 31% at DCCC
ever enrolled in a college-level math course in six years. Of those referred to technical math, 100%
enrolled in the course, 78% completed the course and 57% passed with A-C grades. Of those who were
referred to college transfer math, 62% at CPCC and 16% at DCCC enrolled in the course, 48% at CPCC
and 15% at DCCC passed the course and 38% at CPCC and 13% at DCCC passed with A-C grades. See
Tables 3a and 3b.
8
Table 3a: Fall 2007 Central Piedmont CC - New Student Cohort Tracked for Six Years
Success of Developmental Students in College-Level Math
Attempted Any Technical (non-transfer) Math
Total
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attempted College Transfer Level Math
Successfully
Attempted
Completed
Completed
College
College
(A-C Grades)
Transfer
Transfer
Transfer
Math
Math (A-D)
Math
#
%
#
%
#
%
Math 060
434
283
65%
56
13%
50
12%
36
8%
95
22%
76
18%
71
16%
Math 070
236
149
63%
23
10%
17
7%
16
7%
64
27%
53
22%
49
21%
Math 080
242
98
40%
28
12%
26
11%
24
10%
116
48%
89
37%
81
33%
Any Developmental Math
912
530
58%
107
12%
93
10%
76
8%
275
30%
218
24%
201
22%
College-Level Technical Math
136
0
0%
136
100%
106
78%
77
57%
College-Level Transfer Math
868
251
38%
90
11%
85
10%
76
9%
534
62%
419
48%
333
38%
Any College-Level Math
1004
251
25%
226
23%
191
19%
153
15%
534
53%
419
42%
333
33%
Total
1916
781
41%
333
18%
284
15%
229
12%
809
42%
637
33%
534
28%
Students Who Tested into…
Avoided Any College
Math
Attempted
Any College
Math
Completed
Any College
Math (A-D)
9
Successfully
Completed (AC Grades)
Transfer Math
Table 3b: Fall 2007 Davidson County CC - New Student Cohort Tracked for Six Years
Success of Developmental Students in College-Level Math
Math 060
Total
91
#
68
%
75%
Attempted Any Technical (non-transfer) Math
Successfully
Attempted
Completed
Completed
Any College
Any College
(A-C) Transfer
Math
Math (A-F)
Math
#
%
#
%
#
%
18
20%
16
18%
9
10%
Math 070
75
54
72%
14
19%
11
15%
10
13%
7
9%
6
8%
3
4%
Math 080
45
23
51%
14
31%
13
29%
8
18%
8
18%
7
16%
2
4%
Any Developmental Math
211
145
69%
46
22%
40
19%
27
13%
20
9%
17
8%
8
4%
College-Level Technical Math
31
0
0%
31
100%
30
97%
21
68%
College-Level Transfer Math
126
54
43%
52
41%
46
37%
44
35%
20
16%
19
15%
16
13%
Any College-Level Math
157
54
34%
83
53%
76
48%
65
41%
20
13%
19
12%
16
10%
Total
368
199
54%
129
35%
116
32%
90%
0%
40
11%
36
10%
24
7%
Students Who Tested into…
Avoided Any College
Math
Attempted College Transfer Level Math
Attempted
Completed
Successfully
College
College
Completed
Transfer
Transfer
(A-C) Transfer
Math
Math (A-F)
Math
#
%
#
%
#
%
5
5%
4
4%
3
3%
Over the years, students have struggled with developmental math. Math avoidance (both developmental and college-level) among students is
an issue that needs to be addressed but is beyond the scope of this paper. Until the math reform efforts, students who completed their
admissions process and took placement tests in math were faced with four-credit-hour courses over a 16 week term. Students who tested at the
lowest level of developmental math faced three semesters of four-credit-hour courses. For many students, this was overwhelming and they
avoided math altogether.
10
Completing college-level math early may also be a key to retention. New first-time-in-college students from four fall terms were tracked to
determine their fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall retention. Students who attempted college-level math were separated out to determine if their
retention rates were better or worse than the average student. It was found that all FTIC students had fall-to-spring retention rates of 67-72%
and fall-to-fall retention rates of 44-50% depending on the year at both colleges. Students who enrolled in and completed college-level math in
their first term had fall-to-spring retention rates of 80-96% and fall-to-fall retention rates of 58-70% for both colleges. Students who enrolled in
but did not pass college-level math in their first term had lower retention rates than all other groups.
Table 4: Retention for All New First-Time-in-College Students and Students Enrolled in College-Level Math in Their First Term
Central Piedmont Community College
First-Time New Students
Fall-to-Spring Retention
Fall-to-Fall Retention
1st Term
Enrolled
at
College
Enrolled in
College-Level Math
1st Term
For All New
Students
For Students
Who Passed
College-Level
Math
N
%
Students Who
Failed
College-Level
Math
N
%
#
#
%
#
%
Fall 2010
4,570
773
17%
3,967
67%
437
80%
136
Fall 2011
4,736
743
16%
3,298
70%
469
84%
Fall 2012
5,124
933
18%
3,686
72%
593
Fall 2013
5,792
989
17%
4,153
72%
615
For All New
Students
For Students
Who Passed
College-Level
Math
N
%
For Students
Who Failed
CollegeLevel Math
N
%
#
%
60%
2,004
44%
327
60%
77
34%
113
60%
2,090
44%
328
59%
82
44%
86%
151
61%
2,327
45%
398
58%
87
35%
85%
166
62%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Davidson County Community College
First-Time New Students
1st Term
Enrolled
at
College
Enrolled in
College-Level Math
1st Term
Fall-to-Fall Retention
Fall-to-Spring Retention
For Students
Students Who
For All New
Who Passed
Failed
Students
College-Level
College-Level
Math
Math
#
%
N
%
N
%
For All New
Students
#
%
For Students
Who Passed
College-Level
Math
N
%
For Students
Who Failed
CollegeLevel Math
N
%
#
#
%
Fall 2010
1,255
156
12%
881
70%
83
81%
32
60%
555
44%
60
58%
16
30%
Fall 2011
1,340
153
11%
954
71%
96
91%
22
46%
612
46%
69
66%
10
21%
Fall 2012
1,193
127
11%
864
72%
74
88%
17
40%
591
50%
57
68%
10
23%
Fall 2013
1,275
184
14%
916
72%
116
96%
30
48%
638
50%
85
70%
14
22%
Passing = A-D Grades
11
This is critical because the ability to complete college-level math appears to be a key turning point to
completing credentials at the community college and transferring to four-year institutions. At both
colleges, developmental math students completed credentials or transferred at low rates. In six years, 46% of developmental math students at CPCC and 5-19% at DCCC earned a degree, certificate or diploma
(depending on the level into which they tested). Another 24-27% at CPCC and 8-20% at DCCC
transferred and 69-72% at CPCC and 73-80% at DCCC dropped out. Students who tested into any
college-level math course had better completion and transfer rates at both colleges. See Table 5.
Table 5: Fall 2007 New Students Six Year Completion and Transfer Rates for
Developmental Math Students
Central Piedmont Community College
Tested Into:
Results
Earned a Degree, Certificate or Diploma
Transferred to Four-Year Institutions
Dropped Out/Presence Unknown
MAT
060
MAT
070
MAT
080
College-Level
Tech Math
College-Level
Transfer Math
%
%
%
%
%
6%
24%
71%
4%
24%
72%
4%
27%
69%
8%
37%
55%
10%
37%
51%
Davidson County Community College
Tested Into:
Results
MAT
060
MAT
070
MAT
080
College-Level
Tech Math
College-Level
Transfer Math
%
%
%
%
%
Earned a Degree, Certificate or Diploma
Transferred to Four-Year Institutions
Dropped Out/Presence Unknown
13%
8%
80%
19%
8%
73%
5%
20%
75%
27%
25%
48%
28%
20%
52%
The Developmental Math Reform Effort
Prior to the developmental math reform, the North Carolina community colleges participated in the
Developmental Education Initiative (DEI). The DEI State Policy Team adopted a set of design principles in
October 2010 to guide the redesign of developmental math so that it would be more streamlined and
flexible. Key design principles included:




Modularizing curriculum (discrete topics or units of study);
Streamlining content and reducing curricular redundancies so that developmental math could
be completed in no more than one year;
Implementing new diagnostic and assessment tools and policies that link to the modules; and
Aligning modules with college-level courses and competencies and with the North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction’s (DPI) efforts to improve the college readiness of high school
graduates.
12
The overall focus was to make the content more granular, to decrease the cost and time to complete
the developmental sequence, and to provide more focus on targeted areas of need. The faculty-heavy
committee split into statewide work groups to develop the structure for the modules, create the
learning objectives for each, and begin the work on the creation of the diagnostic test to be used
statewide instead of a traditional placement test.
The use of multiple measures was developed at a later date. A team of math faculty worked on a newly
developed mathematics diagnostic test (NC DAP). In February 2013, a Multiple Measures for Placement
Policy was approved. This policy allowed colleges to use high school GPA and/or placement/diagnostic
tests for placement. Details on the work of these committees can be found at the following website:
http://www.successnc.org/initiatives/developmental-education-initiative
The goals for the math reform efforts were to:
1. Either allow students to bypass or accelerate student completion of developmental math;
2. Increase the number of students who successfully complete developmental math;
3. Increase the number of students who enroll in and successfully complete college level math; and
4. Increase graduation and/or transfer rates among developmental math students.
The math modules and the new placement criteria were rolled out between fall term 2011 and spring
term 2014. Colleges had the option to scale up slowly or make all the changes in one term.
The Cost of Developmental Math Reform
It is often difficult to anticipate the cost of developmental course reform if the colleges do not have a
good understanding of the cost to deliver developmental courses prior to reform. Several types of costs
experienced by the North Carolina colleges were:

Loss of Funds from the FTE Decline – As previously established, the 32 hours of developmental
math courses in the North Carolina combined course library were reduced to eight one-credit-hour
modules offered in four-week, stacked sessions in a 16-week term (four mini-terms). If a student
completed the math diagnostic test and placed into DMA 030 (developmental math module 3), they
could complete that course and three more in one semester. Prior to the reform, CPCC and DCCC
offered three four-credit hour developmental math courses in a 16-week term. In both colleges, the
FTE decline occurred when twelve credits were reduced to eight credits. Table 6 below shows the
fall developmental math enrollment history for CPCC and DCCC.
13
Table 6: Registrations in Developmental Math Fall 2008 to Fall 2013
Central Piedmont Community College
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Developmental Math
2008
2009
2010
2011
4-Credit Hour Courses
2,612
2,792
2,851
2,812
1-Credit Hour Modules
Total Registrations
2,612
2,792
2,851
2,812
Credit Hours
10,448
11,168
11,404
11,248
Davidson County Community College
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Developmental Math
2008
2009
2010
2011
4-Credit Hour Courses
475
480
770
834
1-Credit Hour Modules
Total Registrations
475
480
770
834
Credit Hours
1,900
1,920
3,080
3,336
Fall
2012
2,026
1,110
3,136
9,214
Fall
2013
8,247
8,247
8,247
Fall
2012
Fall
2013
1,976
1,976
1,976
1,032
1,032
1,032
Community colleges nationwide experienced enrollment growth during the recession of 2008, with
enrollment peaking in 2010 or 2011. Many of the students who came to the colleges during the
recession were underprepared or displaced workers with high developmental needs. Total credit hours
in four-credit developmental math classes rose quickly and reached a peak in fall 2010 for CPCC
(n=11,404 credit hours) and fall 2011 for DCCC (3,336 credit hours) and had declined by 29% for CPCC
(to 9,214 credit hours) and 41% for DCCC (1,976 credit hours) by fall 2012. Multiple changes in
developmental math caused enrollment and FTE declines.
o
o
The math modules started as a pilot for CPCC in spring term 2012 and were fully scaled up in
fall 2013. DCCC did not conduct a pilot but instead fully scaled the new modularized math in
spring 2012.
DCCC implemented multiple measures in spring 2013 (for fall 2013 enrollment) and CPCC in
October 2013 (for spring 2014 enrollment). Multiple measures allowed many students to
bypass developmental education and enroll directly in college-level math courses based on
their high school GPA. This impacted students registering for fall 2013 courses at DCCC and
spring 2014 courses at CPCC.
Under the old four-credit course model, a student could have started in MAT 060, continued through
the next two courses and then entered a four-credit hour college-level math course. From these 16
credit hours (20 contact hours per week), the college would earn .63 FTE3 per student (63 FTE per 100
3.) North Carolina Community Colleges are funded based on full-time equivalent (FTE). One curriculum (for-credit) FTE in North Carolina equals
one student attending 16 hours times 16 weeks per term times two terms (fall & spring). The credit hours represented by one FTE is 32. Courses
that include supervised lab sessions often result in FTE higher than the credit hours associated with the course. The contact hours represented
by one FTE is 512 (16 x 16 x2 = 512). All NC colleges are reimbursed in one academic year based on the FTE generated in the previous year
(funding is one year in arrears.) All tuition dollars are sent to the North Carolina Community College System and redistributed through formula
funding. North Carolina colleges do not keep any of their tuition.
14
students). If the same student enrolled in all eight one-credit hour modules (20 contact hours over four
weeks) and progressed to a four-credit college level math course, the college would earn .47 FTE per
student. For every 100 students who take this pathway, the college would earn 47 FTE (a loss of 16 FTE
[63 minus 47=16]). But students did not take this pathway. Students who enrolled in the MAT 000
sequenced courses took an average of 1.2 courses (4.8 credit hours and .19 FTE per student) while
students in the math modules took an average of 3.1 courses (3.1 credit hours and .15 FTE per student).
For every 100 students going through the developmental math sequence, the college loses 4 FTE (19
minus 15 = 4).
Central Piedmont Community College was a beta test site for the new math modules in spring term
2012. For five terms, the Math Division continued to offer the traditional math courses as they slowly
scaled up the modules. The College also built Emporium-style math labs at several of the campuses.
DCCC fully scaled the math modules conducted in new math labs (not Emporium-style labs) in spring
2012. The FTE numbers for fall and spring terms4 generated in developmental math for both colleges
can be seen in Table 7 below.
Table 7: FTE Loss in Developmental Math
Year
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Total Loss
Year
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Total Loss
Central Piedmont Community College
Fall
Spring
Total
# Change
408.0
388.1
796.1
429.7
431.7
861.4
65.3
434.7
435.9
870.6
9.2
430.8
342.0*
772.7
-97.9
337.0**
334.5
671.5
-101.2
285.0 299.7*** 584.6
-86.9
-211.5
Davidson County Community College
Fall
Spring
Total
# Change
74.2
67.5
141.7
75.0
96.9
171.9
30.2
120.0
112.8
232.8
60.9
130.2
77.4**
207.6
-25.3
77.4***
57.4
134.7
-72.8
40.3***
42.9
83.2
-51.5
-58.5
% Change
8%
1%
-11%
-13%
-13%
% Change
21%
35%
-11%
-35%
-38%
* pilot math modules began in spring 2012 for CPCC
** full modular implementation began spring 2012 for DCCC and fall 2013 for CPCC
*** multiple measures began in spring 2013 (for fall 2013 students) for DCCC and fall 2013 (for spring
2014 students) for CPCC
4.) Summer FTE was not utilized in this study because the colleges didn’t earn FTE in summer terms prior to summer 2014. Enrollment
fluctuates greatly in summer terms and often consists of university students taking courses while home in the summer.
15
The dollar amount per FTE paid to the colleges varies by college and by year but at approximately $5,000
per FTE, the loss of 212 FTEs for CPCC resulted in a loss in revenue of $1.06M over four years. For DCCC,
the 59 FTE loss resulted in $295,000 of lost revenue. As noted in Table 6, the absolute number of
students enrolling in developmental math was already declining as part of a national trend.
Various Aspects of Cost
Besides the loss of funding through declines in developmental math FTE, the colleges that implemented
developmental math reform incurred many types of cost. They incurred one-time costs such as the upfitting/building of space to accommodate new math labs and the purchase of equipment and furniture.
They also incurred ongoing direct costs such as salary/benefits for faculty, staff and lab assistants,
software, marketing/communication materials and equipment replacement (PCs and monitors). When
course-related or activity-based reform occurs, colleges don’t always take into account the impact the
changes have on staff across the college in student services and some administrative areas. These
offices do not typically receive additional funds or positions to directly address the reform but instead
must redirect the efforts of staff to provide adequate services to students. These types of costs are
calculated for re-directed efforts and are referred to as redirected costs in this paper.
The processes described below to identify costs were followed by both colleges but the majority of the
example data come from CPCC. Staff members in units across the college were asked to keep records of
time and funds spent in support of the math reform effort. At CPCC, the terms used for comparative
purposes were spring term 2013 (the last term before implementation) and fall term 2013 (the term the
modules were fully implemented). At DCCC, the terms utilized were fall 2011 and spring 2012.
Direct One Time Costs (May be Pro-rated over Several Years)

Facilities and Information Technology Costs
When implementing math reform such as modularized math delivered in Emporium-style or other
math labs, there are large one-time costs related to up-fitting space, purchasing furniture,
purchasing the technology needed to operate the labs, and buying the needed PCs. Assuming the
college takes a current space and creates a lab, the estimated facilities costs can be seen in Table 8.
The cost per square foot for building or remodeling varies greatly by city and state.
Table 8: Facilities Cost Per Work Station
Central Piedmont Community College
Square Feet
29.5
Cost per Square
$173
Total per Station
$5,107
The costs per work station for furniture and technology can be seen in Table 9 and one-time
technology costs can be seen in Table 10. One-time costs such as up-fitting space and supplying the
16
technology infrastructure may be prorated over five to ten years. The size of labs also plays a role in
cost. The lab at CPCC’s Central Campus contains 43 tables with 258 work stations.
Table 9: CPCC One-time Costs for Emporium Labs
258 work Stations =
43 Six-seat Tables
Computers
Total Cost
Cost per Seat
Item
Tables
Keyboard Trays
Chairs
Thin Clients
Cost Per item
$3,076
$1,044
$1,242
$650
# Purchased
43
43
43
258
Total Cost
$132,268
$44,892
$53,406
$167,700
$398,266
$1,543.67
Some technology costs for hardware, software, servers and staff time can be seen in Table 10. Some of
these costs recur annually.
Table 10: CPCC Technology Infrastructure Costs
Items
Qty.
Unit
Extended
Annual Recurring
Citirix License
Server (blades)
Server (chassis)
Storage (disks)
Digital Signage
Network (edge)
Network Cabling
Contracted Services
Client Services (CS)
Emerging Technology
Technology Infrastructure Services
Total
Cost Per Seat
258
7
1
2
1
7
258
10%
258
1
1
$210.00
$10,000.00
$7,500.00
$25,000.00
$6,721.34
$4,000.00
$250.00
$349,380.00
$54,180.00
$70,000.00
$7,500.00
$50,000.00
$6,721.34
$28,000.00
$64,500.00
$34,938.00
$8,127.00
$7,000.00
$750.00
$5,000.00
$1,011.00
$2,800.00
$440.00
$1,200.00
258
$440.00
$1,200.00
$317,479.34
$1,489.60
$567.60
$200.00
$900.00
$20,877.00
$80.92
If these technology infrastructure costs are pro-rated over five years, the costs are $63,496 per year plus
$20,877 of recurring annual costs for CPCC.
Recurring Direct Costs

Marketing Costs
The marketing department became involved in educating students about the new math modules.
They were brought in to create advertising and awareness materials to include posters, table tents,
banners, a web spot, diagnostic test fliers, screensavers, and materials to hang on the walls in the
Emporium labs. The intent of these materials was to reduce the fear students had to try something
new. The marketing department created materials and products to be distributed over several
17
terms in preparation for the roll-out of the new math modules and the Math Emporium. In total,
they spent $2,072.14 on products and $2,518.75 (77.5 hours x their average hourly wage of $32.50)
in man-hours producing the materials. DCCC did not dedicate funds for marketing but informed
students through existing relationships with advisors, faculty, and other staff members.

Salary and Benefits of Faculty, Staff and Teachers
The cost of instruction (salary, benefits, teaching supplies, and other expenses) decreased from
before the math reform to full-scale implementation. The full- and part-time faculty salary budget
decreased slightly. One full-time position (a retirement) was not rehired and the need for part-time
faculty decreased. However, the use of teaching assistants increased due to heavy use in the
Emporium labs. See Table 11.
Table 11: CPCC Budget Changes for Developmental Math
Spring 2013
$439,662
$113,439
$370
$18,971
$572,443
FT Salary by Term and Type
PT Salary by Term and Type
Teaching Assistants
Other Expenses
Total Annual Budget
Fall 2013
$362,721
$98,477
$56,722
$7,665
$492,381
The full details for both developmental and college-level math for both academic years can be seen in
Table 12.
18
Table 12: CPCC Cost of Mathematics Instruction for 2012-13 and 2013-14
Developmental FTE
College Level FTE
Summer 2012 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Summer 2012
Fall 2012
Spring 2013
# FTE
# FTE
# FTE
# FTE
# FTE
# FTE
2012-13 FTE
FTE as Percent of Annual FTE
Credit Hours Generated by Term
FT Salary by Term and Type
PT Salary by Term and Type
Teaching Assistants
Other Expenses
Total Annual Budget
Cost per Credit Hour Generated
126.1
7%
4,035
$153,881.80
$39,703.81
$129.37
$6,639.99
$200,354.97
$49.65
343.3
20%
10,985
$439,662.27
$113,439.46
$369.63
$18,971.40
$572,442.76
$52.11
334.5
21%
10,705
$439,662.27
$113,439.46
$369.63
$18,971.40
$572,442.76
$53.47
Developmental FTE
Fall 2013 Spring 2014
Summer 2013
# FTE
# FTE
# FTE
126.7
7%
4,055
$153,881.80
$39,703.81
$129.37
$6,639.99
$200,354.97
$49.41
381.7
22%
12,213
$483,628.50
$124,783.41
$406.59
$20,868.54
$629,687.04
$51.56
402.1
23%
12,866
$505,611.62
$130,455.38
$425.07
$21,817.11
$658,309.18
$51.17
College Level FTE
Summer 2013
Fall 2013
Spring 2014
# FTE
# FTE
# FTE
All Math
Annual
# FTE
100%
1,714
54,859
$2,198,311.37
$567,197.30
$1,848.14
$94,857.00
$2,862,213.81
$52.17
All Math
Annual
# FTE
120
287
302
128
408
434
1679
2013-14 FTE
7%
17%
18%
8%
24%
26%
100%
FTE as Percent of Annual FTE
3,855
9,175
9,656
4,111
13,050
13,889
53,736
Credit Hours Generated by Term
$149,356
$362,721
$384,057
$170,692
$512,076
$554,750
$2,133,652
FT Salary by Term and Type
$40,549
$98,477
$104,269
$46,342
$139,026
$150,611
$579,274
PT Salary by Term and Type
$20,752
$56,722
$60,872
$138,346
Teaching Assistants
$3,156
$7,665
$8,116
$3,607
$10,821
$11,723
$45,087
Other Expenses
$202,745
$492,381
$521,345
$231,709
$695,126
$753,053
$2,896,359
Total Annual Budget
$52.59
$53.66
$53.99
$56.36
$53.27
$54.22
$53.90
Cost per Credit Hour Generated
*The two terms utilized for analysis purposes in this paper are spring 2013 (just before scale up of the math modules) and fall 2013 the term in
which the modules were scaled up.
19
Estimated Costs of Redirected Efforts
Students that require remediation often need support services at a higher rate than college-ready
students. Colleges with a large number of developmental students may find their student services staff
over-burdened with underprepared students who need to develop the life and student skills necessary
to be successful in college. Add a disruptive reform that changes the structure and delivery of
developmental mathematics coursework and the hours devoted to developmental students on the part
of student services staff goes up dramatically. Some of the areas most affected are counseling/advising,
admissions, registration, the testing center, the first-year experience program/office, TRiO programs,
financial aid, veterans’ affairs, early alert program/process, academic probation/suspension, among
others. Throughout this reform, student services staff redirected staff time and effort away from other
activities to address the increased needs of developmental students. The activities below attempt to
assign a dollar amount to the redirected efforts of various programs and services. While these
redirected costs were not paid to the departments, redirected time and effort to developmental
students still need to be accounted for in the overall cost of the reform.
Student services staff analyzed the time they spent addressing developmental issues both before the
reform and after. Some units spent more than twice as many hours focusing attention on the issues of
developmental students after the math modules and multiple measures were implemented. The
following units spent a significant amount of time serving developmental students. It should be noted
that the two colleges offered slightly different support services for students
1. Counselors and Advisors
When colleges attempt a reform, they typically do not hire new student services staff across the college
but instead expect current staff to absorb the additional required hours. Data from the Online Student
Profile (OSP), an online tool used at CPCC to assess student characteristics and track counseling
sessions, was analyzed for the spring 2013 and fall 2013. All counselors and advisors tracked their
counseling sessions for several weeks to estimate the amount of time they spent in each counseling
session with developmental students (math and English). Counselors at CPCC facilitated 21,801
counseling sessions with students during the spring term 2013 and 23,487 sessions in fall 2013.
Table 13: Number of Counseling Visits in Spring and Fall 2013
Term
Head
Count
#
Visits
Average
Visits
per Person
Number of
Developmental
Math Students
Average Visits per
Developmental
Math Student
Mean Time Spent
on Developmental
Issues (in minutes)
Spring 2013
Fall 2013
13,442
13,999
21,801
23,487
1.7
1.7
2,006
4,002
1.9
2
5
10
The total number of visits increased by 8% from spring 2013 to fall 2013 but the number of
developmental students seeking counseling and advising services increased from 2,006 to 4,002 (99.5%
increase). Prior to the math reform, counselors and advisors spent a total of 318 hours counseling
developmental math students about developmental issues at the average hourly wage of $24.50 for a
20
total of $7,791. After the reform effort, counselors spent 1,334 hours (360% increase) at the average
hourly wage of $25.31 for a total of $33,764 (375% increase).
The increase occurred because developmental students require more assistance in understanding the
structure and methodology of the new math modules. Advisement for developmental students
included the following activities:











Retrieving test scores/academic history;
Interpreting test scores/placement;
Determining math requirement for program;
Explaining modularized concept;
Explaining the difference between Emporium model and other instructional format(s);
Explaining course sequence;
Explaining developmental pre-requisites/co-requisites for MAT, ENG, and various courses;
Explaining sequence of registering for modules;
Showing processes in Schedule Builder;
Identifying success strategies; and
Completing documentation.
Depending on the situation, these additional processes may also be involved:
 Consulting with academic area to facilitate clearance of registration block;
 Working through retest policy;
 Making resource referrals;
 Academic/personal counseling for math anxiety or avoidance; and
 Entering overrides.
Counselors and advisors estimated the amount of extra time they spent with developmental students
once the college converted to the math modules. They made the estimations for both developmental
English and developmental math, for first-time-in-college students (FTIC), continuing and returning
students (see Table 14). All of the counselors/advisors reported they spent more time with
developmental math students than they did developmental English students. They also indicated that
they spent twice as much time with developmental math students once the college converted to the
modules.
It is anticipated that students will adjust to the new developmental math lab structure and the time
spent with these students will decrease accordingly.
21
Table 14: Average Time Spent with Developmental Students
FTIC
Continuing Returning
Average
Estimator
Counselor/Advisor 1
Counselor/Advisor 2
Counselor/Advisor 3
Counselor/Advisor 4
Counselor/Advisor 5
Counselor/Advisor 6
Counselor/Advisor 7
Counselor/Advisor 8
Counselor/Advisor 9
Average All
DMA* DRE* DMA
10
10
5
20
10
10
20
10
8
4
3
3
10
7
5
8
7
5
10
10
3
15
10
8
15
10
7
12.4
8.6
6.0
DRE
10
10
7
2
5
5
4
5
5
DMA
10
20
20
4
10
8
10
10
15
DRE
10
10
5
3
7
7
10
7
10
5.9
11.9
7.7
DMA
8.3
16.7
16.0
3.7
8.3
7.0
7.7
11.0
12.3
10.1
DRE
10.0
10.0
7.3
2.7
6.3
6.3
8.0
7.3
8.3
7.4
*DMA = developmental math modules, DME = Developmental English modules
2. Admissions Staff
Admissions staff kept track of the hours per week they spent reviewing high school transcripts once the
college started using multiple measures to determine placement in college-level English and math. Prior
to fall 2013, the admissions staff did not review transcripts at all. Table 15 below illustrates the average
time each admissions staff member spent on multiple measures for placement. Davidson had one staff
member who reviewed all the high school transcripts. She spent 520 hours reviewing transcripts. With
an hourly rate of $20.25, the cost was $10,530.
Table 15: Admissions, Registration, and Student Records staff
Employee Name
Admissions Staff 1
Admissions Staff 2
Admissions Staff 3
Admissions Staff 4
Admissions Staff 5
Admissions Staff 6
Admissions Staff 7
Admissions Staff 8
Admissions Staff 9
Admissions Staff 10
Admissions Staff 11
Admissions Staff 12
Total All Staff
Mean Number of
Hours
Monday
1.5
1.5
0
0.5
0.25
0.5
0.25
0.25
0
0.25
0
0.75
5.75
Tuesday
1.25
2.25
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.5
0
0
0
0.5
6.25
Wednesday
3
1.75
0.25
0.5
0.25
0
0.5
0.75
0.25
0
0
0.25
7.5
Thursday
2.25
1.5
0.25
0.25
0
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.25
0.5
0.5
6.5
Friday
2
1.5
0
0.25
0.25
0
0.25
0.25
0.25
0
0
0.25
5
Week Total
10
8.5
1
2
1
0.75
1.75
2.25
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.25
31
0.48
0.52
0.63
0.54
0.42
2.58
22
The 12 admissions/registration staff members at CPCC spent an average of 2.6 hours per week assessing
multiple measures for developmental placement. The total number of hours spent for the 12 employees
per term in the fall 2013 was 780 hours at an average hourly wage of $22.75 for a total redirected cost
of $17,745. Considering that spring 2014 was the first term impacted, it is anticipated that time devoted
to multiple measures will increase.
3. Campus Registrars
The six campus registrars are responsible for prerequisite overrides. The six campus registrars spent 13
hours a week on course prerequisite overrides for developmental math students for a total of 325 hours
per term at an average hourly wage of $26.50 for a total of $8,613. They estimated that they spent the
same amount of time pre and post math reform (no increase/decrease).
Table 16: Registrar of Developmental Math
Campus
Hours Per Week
Campus 1 Registrar
1.5
Campus 2 Registrar
2.5
Campus 3 Registrar
2.5
Campus 4 Registrar
3.5
Campus 5 Registrar
1.5
Campus 6 Registrar
1.5
Total
13
4. Students Placed on Warning, Probation and Suspensions
Students at CPCC who are placed on warning, probation or suspension have “standards of progress”
applied to them. During the fall 2013, 4,443 students were placed on warning, probation or suspension
based on grades they had made in spring 2013. In spring 2014, 4,322 students were placed on warning,
probation or suspension based on grades from fall 2013. In fall 2013, 32% of these students were taking
developmental courses but by spring, that number had dropped to 26%. Developmental students are
typically taking other courses besides developmental courses and can have standards of progress
applied for poor performance in either developmental or college-level courses. See Table 17.
23
Table 17: Students with Standards of Progress Applied
No Developmental Courses
Taking Developmental Courses
Total Students With Standards of Progress
Academic Probation - Developmental Students
Academic Suspension - Developmental Students
Academic Warning - Developmental Students
Final Suspension - Developmental Students
Good Standing - Developmental Students
Total
Fall 2013 Standards of
Progress from Spring
2013 Grades
#
%
3,029
68.2%
1,414
31.83%
4,443
372
26%
45
3%
993
70%
4
.3%
1,414
Spring 2014 Standards
of Progress from Fall
2013 Grades
#
%
3,186
73.7%
1,136
26.3%
4,322
117
10%
41
4%
971
85%
6
1%
1
.1%
1,136
Counselors who work with these students estimated the number of hours they spent on each standard
of progress. Counselors spent an average of 30 minutes with students on warning, 90 minutes with
students on probation and 3 hours with students on suspension.
Table 18: Time Spent on Developmental Students placed on Warning, Probation or Suspension
Prep for
Second
First
Follow-up
Standard of Progress
Follow-up
Follow-up
Total
Session
Session
Session
Session
Warning
30 minutes
30 minutes
Probation
60 minutes
30 minutes
90 minutes
Suspension
60 minutes 30 minutes 60 minutes 30 minutes
3 hours
Table 19: Hours Devoted to Developmental Students with Standards of Progress
Fall
Spring
Standard of Progress
Minutes
Total
Minutes
Total
2013
2014
Academic Warning
993
30
29,790
971
30
29,130
Academic Probation
372
90
33,480
117
90
10,530
Academic Suspension
45
180
8,100
41
180
7,380
Total Minutes
71,370
47,040
Total Hours
1,190
784
Redirected Cost
$29,155
$19,843
In the fall term 2013, counselors spent 1,190 hours working with students taking developmental courses
who had been placed on warning, probation or suspension. At an average hourly wage of $24.50, a total
of $29,155 was redirected to developmental students. By spring 2014, the number of hours spent
24
working with students on warning, probation or suspension who were taking developmental courses
dropped to 784. At an hourly wage of $25.31, the cost was $19,843 (a 47% decrease). As changes made
in developmental math moved students from the four-credit courses to the one-hour modules, passing
rates increased and the percentage of students with standards of progress applied decreased.
What caused the decrease was a change in type of grades given in developmental courses. When the
college converted to modularized math, student grades resulted in “pass, repeat or withdrawal”. Grades
of “repeat or withdrawal” carry no point value and are not utilized in the GPA calculations and therefore
do not count against students for warning, probation or suspension. The number of developmental
math students with standards of progress applied declined from 1,410 to 1,136 (24%).

The Tutoring Center
The tutoring center has seen a change in the need for tutoring sessions in mathematics. Prior to the
math reform, approximately 66% of the tutoring center’s time and budget was dedicated to
developmental math students. Developmental math students booked the majority of the time slots for
tutoring in the center, thus leaving less time for college-level math students. After the math reform,
fewer developmental students came to the tutoring center for assistance with math. The tutoring staff
believes this difference was due to the presence of teaching assistants in the math labs who performed
some of the functions of tutors, reducing the number of tutoring visits made. After the reform, the
tutoring center saw a huge increase in the need for college-level math tutoring. This is partly due to the
availability of tutors and partly due to more students progressing to college-level math. The total cost
devoted to developmental math tutoring (both full- and part-time tutors) pre-reform was $136,669
annually, after reform, $68,335 annually.

First-Year Experience Office
The first-year experience office uses their entire budget ($299,605) to address the needs of first-year
students. Currently, 83% of first-year students test into one or more developmental courses, of which
60% is spent on developmental math. The cost for developmental math assistance was $80,570 for
spring 2013 and $68,633 in fall 2013.

Financial Aid
Financial Aid staff members spent approximately 10% of their time discussing financial aid issues as they
relate to developmental coursework prior to the course reform. After the developmental math modules
were implemented, they spent 20% of their time tracking students in developmental coursework.
Students who perform poorly or withdraw from developmental math have always encountered financial
aid implications. After the reform, students enroll in stacked courses within one term. If they register for
two to four modules and withdraw from the first one, financial aid has to contact them to determine
what their intentions are for the additional modules. The student information system cannot calculate
grade point averages for the modules which complicates student records of progress. The total number
of hours spent by financial aid staff was 790 in the spring term 2013 and 1,580 in the fall term 2013. At
25
an average hourly wage of $24.64, they had redirected costs of $19,466 in the spring 2013 and $38,931
in fall 2013.

Disabilities Services
Disabilities Services serves approximately 320 students annually of which 33% (96) of students are
enrolled in developmental math. Counselors estimate that they spend two hours in direct counseling
with each developmental math student. The major time issue with the modules is that students change
classes every four weeks which requires new accommodation forms for each module. Students with
disabilities also require assistance with testing. There are at least two exams in each module that take
50 minutes each and a final exam that takes 75 minutes. If they do not do well, they can retake the test.
Testing alone amounts to four hours per student and, if the student gets extra time for tests, it would be
six hours. Staff members estimate that the students enrolled in the developmental math modules
require between 1,728 and 3,456 (average = 2,592) hours per year depending on their accommodation.
This is 209-350% more time than was needed under the traditional developmental courses. The cost to
disabilities services was $11,025 spring 2013 (pre-reform) and $30,170 in fall 2013 (post-reform).

Testing Center
The entire budget of the testing center is $389,337 of which 50% ($194,669) is dedicated to
developmental testing. Approximately 75% of developmental testing occurs in the fall term and 25% in
the spring term. The center also allocates $83,430 a year for the purchase of the Accuplacer with 60% of
those being math placement tests.

Interpreter Education
Staff spend 32 hours per term interpreting for students in classes and in tutoring sessions at an average
hourly wage of $35.

TRiOs
TRiOs serves low-income, at-risk students with 36% of time and total budget ($271,100) going to
developmental math tutoring and advising. At Davidson, 30% of the TRiO budget, minus scholarships,
goes to developmental math students.

Summer Bridge Program
The Summer Bridge program at CPCC brings in local high school graduates with the intent of getting
them through developmental courses prior to the beginning of the fall term. The program provides
tuition, fees and books for students at a cost of $909 per students. There were 107 attendees in the
2012-13 year ($97,263) and 120 in the 2013-14 year ($109,080). The project also has a director.

Early Alert Program
Counselors staff the early alert system at CPCC. Counselors spent 19.5 hours communicating with
developmental math students about academic progress in spring and fall 2013. Because of the short
26
timeframe and low numbers of withdrawals and repeats in the new modules, a reduction in the number
of early alerts is anticipated.

High School Recruiting
Prior to the math reform, three high school recruiters worked in the 17 Charlotte-Mecklenburg high
schools and spent approximately 2% of their time discussing developmental math placement and
enrollment. After the reform, those same recruiters visited high school English and math classes and
made presentations on multiple measures, placement and the new developmental math modules. They
also worked with high school students through the College Connection program (recruiting CMS
students to CPCC) to facilitate their placement testing and enrollment in the math modules. They also
assisted admissions with transcript review for multiple measures and spread the word about the
Summer Bridge program (listed above). Over the last year, recruiters have devoted 20% of their time to
developmental math.

The FTE Report Auditors
The FTE auditors process student rosters for state reporting. Prior to the math reform, course rosters
consisted of one per course with all students in the section listed on the roster. In fall 2011, the FTE
auditors processed 115 developmental math rosters to verify student payment and attendance. In fall
2013, they processed 1,120 developmental math rosters for the stacked, four-week courses. For those
terms, the hours spent by staff increased from 14 hours to 44 hours.
27
The Template
In order to calculate the cost of developmental math reform, all costs including direct and redirected
costs need to be considered. The actual, usable template is an excel spreadsheet that any college can
adapt and utilize to establish cost. The spreadsheet contains formulas and calculates costs for each area
of the college. The template (with some revision) could be used for any intervention across an
institution. For the purpose of insertion into this paper, the template has been broken into four sections:
1. Direct developmental math costs accrued and expended by the math department. This includes
the FTE generation and tuition dollars, breakdowns for instruction and the administrative and
support services areas, and the direct costs (salary, benefits and other expenses) expended for
direct instruction by the math department.
2. Direct costs for other areas of the college. This includes facilities, information technology and
marketing costs expended in the development of the math labs.
3. The cost of redirected efforts by all college departments. This includes the increased staff hours
required to implement a major developmental math reform effort by all college departments
(admissions, registration, support programs, tutoring, testing, and counseling services, etc.)
These costs are estimated to demonstrate the magnitude of effort devoted to the reform.
4. Total cost per credit hour generated for the last term prior to full-scale implementation of the
math reform and the first term after implementation.
The template has been completed by Central Piedmont Community College and Davidson County
Community College.
A Few Things Unique to North Carolina
In North Carolina, the colleges receive funding based on an administrative allotment, a dollar amount
for the first 500 FTE and a dollar amount for each FTE after 500. Over the last few years, tiered funding
has been implemented, allowing a slightly higher dollar amount per FTE for technical and high-demand
areas. Developmental math received Tier 2 funding (lower $$) until the 2013-14 year when it moved up
to Tier 1 (higher $$). Colleges can calculate an average FTE allotment and from that allotment,
approximately 66% goes to support direct instruction and 34% goes to support administrative, student
services, and academic support.
It should be noted that developmental coursework and general education courses account for 40-50% of
the total enrollment in community colleges. These courses are less expensive to teach for many reasons
such as larger class sizes and high numbers of part-time faculty. At the rate of reimbursement from FTE
allotments, tuition dollars or a combination of the two, these courses bring in most of the funding to
underwrite high-cost, lower-enrolled programs such as nursing, engineering and many technical
programs. When colleges lose funding for declines in developmental or general education enrollments,
it leaves many areas across the college underfunded.
28
The Template: Section 1 for DCCC
Template to Determine the Cost of Developmental Math Reform - Davidson County Community College
Section 1: Developmental Math Costs Accrued and Expended
Math Department Revenue
Credit Hrs.
per FTE
Tuition & Fees
per Credit Hr.
$$ Reimbursed
2012-13
Fall 2011 (last term
before implementation)
FTE generated in developmental math by term
Credit hours generated in developmental math
32
Spring 2012 (1st term
of implementation)
130.00
77.00
4,160.00
2,464.00
$
-
$
-
$
-
Dollar amount generated by term from FTE reimbursement
$
5,323.71
$
692,082.30
$
409,925.67
FTE amount to instruction
$
3,319.54
$
431,540.20
$
255,604.58
FTE amount to administration and support services
$
2,004.17
$
260,542.10
$
154,321.09
Tuition and fees collected for credit hours (kept by institution)
Total Reimbursement per credit hour
$
166.37
$
166.37
Instructional FTE Reimbursement per credit hour (69% of total
reimbursement)
$
103.74
$
103.74
Administrative and Student Support Reimbursement per credit
hour
$
62.63
$
62.63
Expenses Fall 2011 (prereform)
Math Department Costs - Direct Expenses
Expenses Spr 2012
(post-reform)
Salary and benefits
$
165,891.00
$
127,244.62
Other costs related to developmental math
$
1,000.00
$
1,000.00
Total Expense
$
166,891.00
$
128,244.62
Instructional Costs per Credit Hour
$
40.12
$
52.05
DCCC saw a 41% decline in developmental math-related FTE from fall 2011 (last term before implementation) to spring 2012 (first term of
implementation). The math budget also declined keeping the cost per credit hour the same. The average reimbursement per FTE for Davidson in
the 2011-2012 year was $5,323.71 with $3,319.54 (62%) going to direct support of instruction and $2,004.17 (38%) going to administrative,
student services and academic support. The dollar amount per credit hour generated for developmental math increased from $40.12 to $52.05
(30%) over the course of the reform implementation.
29
The Template: Section 2 for DCCC
Template to Determine the Cost of Developmental Math Reform - Davidson County Community College
Section 2: Other College Departments - Direct Costs
Area of College
Information
Technology
(Computer Labs)
Facilities Up-fit of
Space
(Computer Labs)
Professional
Development
Term
Detail
Preterm
Licenses, hardware, staff
time ($49,483 - prorated
over 5 years)
Preterm
Preterm
Up-fitting space ($10,000
pro-rated over 5 years)
Preterm
Furniture per station ($0
pro-rated over 5 years)
Preterm
Training faculty in DMA
labs
Hours
Hourly
Rate
Annual
Recurring
Costs
One Time
Costs
Fall 2011 Math
(63% of
Annual) (prereform)
$ 9,896.60
$ 3,661.74
Annual Recurring costs
$-
$
$ 2,000.00
$
-
$ 740.00
-
$
$ 1,972
Total Direct Costs
Total Direct Cost
per Credit Hour
Spring 2012
Math (37% of
Annual) (postreform)
-
$1,972.00
$
-
$ 6,373.74
$
-
$ 2.59
Davidson spent $49,483 up-fitting a computer lab including hardware, software and IT staff time. They also spent $10,000 in facilities costs for
redesigning space and purchasing furniture for the work stations. In addition, they spent $1,972 training faculty to teach the developmental
math modules and to use the new math lab. Their direct cost to have the faculty and space ready to teach was $61,455. The facilities and IT costs
are being prorated over five years.
30
The Template: Section 3 for DCCC
Template to Determine the Cost of Developmental Math Reform - Davidson County Community College
Section 3: Other College Departments - Redirected Costs
Area of College
Term
Admissions (multiple
measures)
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Registrars
TRIOs Program Staff
Learning Commons
(Tutoring) Staff
Academic
probation/suspension
Academics
Interpreter Staff
Disabilities Services
(45% of students)
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Detail
analyzing transcripts
Processing Waivers
Hours per
Term
Hourly
Rate
0
520
328
192
$20.25
$32.55
$32.55
30% of annual budget
minus scholarships
($177,255) to dev. math
33% ofstudents
annual budget
($410,463) dedicated to
developmental math
One Time
Costs
(Pro-rated
over
three/five
years)
Annual Recurring
Costs
Fall 2011 Math
(63% of
Annual) (prereform)
$10,676.40
$ 10,676.40
$ 53,177.00
$33,501.51
Spring 2012
Math (37% of
Annual) (postreform)
$ 10,530.00
$ 6,249.60
$ 19,675.49
$ 135,453.00
$ 85,335.39
$ 50,117.61
$
$
$ 51,083.00
Developmental Education
management - Dean,
Associate Dean, Director
$ 18,900.71
$
Interpreter services for
classes and tutoring
45% of time spent on dev.
math
-
$ 32,182.29
$
590
$25.00
346
$25.00
31
-
$ 14,750.00
$ 8,650.00
The Template: Section 3 Continued for DCCC
Template to Determine the Cost of Developmental Math Reform - Davidson County Community College
Section 3: Other College Departments - Redirected Costs
Area of College
Term
Detail
Hours per
Term
Early Alert System
(staff time)
First Year Experience
program staff
High School
Recruiters
Summer Bridge and
Continuous Bridge
Summer Bridge
Tuition and Fees
(scholarship)
Financial
Aid staff and
veterans office
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
6% of staff time
6% of staff time
19
11
Testing Center
(included in learning
commons above)
Counseling and
Advising
Total Redirected
Costs
Redirected Cost per
Credit Hour
Hourly
Rate
$33.25
$33.25
One Time
Costs
(Pro-rated
over
three/five
years)
Annual Recurring
Costs
Fall 2011 Math
(63% of
Annual) (prereform)
$ 631.75
$365.75
$
6% of staff time
6% of staff time
counseling dev. math
students
counseling
dev. math
students
624
280
2,948
1,732
32
-
$
-
$
-
$30.75
$30.75
$26.00
$26.00
Spring 2012
Math (37% of
Annual) (postreform)
$
-
$
-
$
-
$ 19,188.00
$ 8,610.00
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$ 76,648.00
$ 45,032.00
$ 272,913.34
$ 168,131.16
$ 65.60
$68.24
Redirected costs at DCCC did not increase by much. Their fall term accounts for 63% of developmental math enrollment and spring for 37%. Even
though they had a dramatic decline in developmental math FTE, their redirected cost per FTE only increased by $2.64.
The Template: Section 4 for DCCC
Template to Determine the Cost of Developmental Math Reform - Davidson County Community College
Section 4: Total Costs per Credit Hour Generated
Costs per Credit Hour
Instructional Costs per Credit Hour
Fall 2011
Spring 2012
$ 40.12
$ 52.05
Direct Cost (non-instructional) per Credit Hour
$ 2.59
Total Redirected Cost per Credit Hour
$ 65.60
$ 68.24
Total Cost per Credit Hour
$ 105.72
$ 122.87
Instructional FTE Reimbursement per Credit Hour
$ 103.74
$ 103.74
Administrative and Student Support Reimbursement per Credit Hour
$ 62.63
$ 62.63
Total Reimbursement per Credit Hour
$ 166.37
$ 166.37
$ 252,277.96
$ 107,176.15
Reimbursement per Credit Hour
Net Revenue per Credit Hour for Developmental Math
Net College Revenue from Developmental Math
Decline
-58%
Overall, DCCC’s cost per credit hour increased by 14% ($17.15). The dollar amount per credit hour of reimbursement remained the same (both
terms in the same academic year). In the fall 2011, the College netted $60.65 per credit hour generated (reimbursement minus cost) for a total
profit of $252,279. In spring 2012, after the math reform, the College netted $43.50 per credit hour for a total of $107,176. The revenue lost in
developmental math was $145,102 (57.5%).
33
The Template: Section 1 for CPCC
Template to Determine the Cost of Developmental Math Reform – Central Piedmont Community College
Section 1: Developmental Math Costs Accrued and Expended
Math Department Revenue
Credit
Hrs. per
FTE
Tuition &
Fees per
Credit
Hour
$$
Reimbursed
2012-13
$$
Reimbursed
2013-14
Spring 2013 (last
term before
implementation)
Fall 2013 (1st
term of
implementation)
335.00
285.00
10,720.00
9,120.00
FTE Generated in Developmental Math by Term
Credit Hours Generated in Developmental Math
Tuition and Fees Collected for Credit Hours (kept by
institution)
Dollar Amount Generated by Term From FTE Reimbursement
32
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$ 5,134.43
$ 5,273.53
$ 1,720,034.05
$ 1,502,956.05
FTE Amount to Instruction
$ 3,496.18
$ 3,457.83
$ 1,171,220.30
$ 985,481.55
FTE Amount to Administration and Support Services
$ 1,638.25
$ 1,815.70
$ 548,813.75
$ 517,474.50
$ 160.45
$ 164.80
$ 109.26
$ 108.06
Administrative and Student Support Reimbursement per
Credit Hour
$ 51.20
$ 56.74
Math Department Costs - Direct Expenses
Expenses Spring
2013 (pre-reform)
Salary and Benefits
Other Costs Related to Developmental Math
$ 553,472.00
$ 18,971.00
Expenses Fall
2013 (postreform)
$ 484,716.00
$ 7,665.00
Total Expense
$ 572,443.00
$ 492,381.00
Instructional Costs per Credit Hour
$ 53.40
$53.99
Total Reimbursement per Credit Hour
Instructional FTE Reimbursement per Credit Hour (69% of
total reimbursement)
CPCC saw a 15% decline in developmental math FTE from spring 2013 (the last term before the math reform implementation) to fall 2013 (first
term of implementation). The average reimbursement per FTE for CPCC in the 2012-2013 year was $5,134.43 and $5,273.53 in the 2013-2014
year. Of that, $3,496.18 and $3,457.83 (68% and 66%) went to direct support of instruction and $1,638.25 and $1,815.70 (32% and 34%) went to
34
administrative, student services, and academic support. The dollar amount per credit hour generated for developmental math increased from
$53.40 to $53.99 (1% or $.59) over the course of the reform implementation.
The Template: Section 2 for CPCC
Template to Determine the Cost of Developmental Math Reform - Central Piedmont Community College
Section 2: Other College Departments - Direct Costs
Area of College
Information Technology
(Emporium Labs)
Term
Detail
Preterm
Licenses, hardware,
network tools, contracted
services, staff time
($317,479)
Preterm
Annual Recurring costs
Preterm
Facilities Up-fit of Space
(Emporium Labs)
Preterm
Preterm
Marketing Materials
(Emporium labs)
Hours
Hourly
Rate
One Time Costs
(Pro-rated over
three/five years)
Annual
Recurring
Costs
Spr. 2013
Math (54% of
Annual) (prereform)
$ 63,496.00
$ 29,208.16
$20,877.00
Up-fitting space $1,317,606 pro-rated over
5 years
Furniture/computer per
station pro-rated over 5
years ($398,266)
Fall 2013 Math
(46% of Annual)
(post-reform)
$ 9,603.42
$ 263,521.20
$ 121,219.75
$ 79,653.20
$ 36,640.47
Staff Time
Preterm
Developing materials
27.5
$32.50
$ 893.75
Postterm
Developing materials
50.0
$32.50
$ 1,625.00
Postterm
Production Costs of
Materials
$2,072
$ 1,118.88
Total Direct Costs
$
-
Total Direct Cost per
Credit Hour
$
-
35
$953
$ 200,143.67
$ 21.95
CPCC spent $2,033,351 up-fitting the Emporium-style computer labs including hardware, software, IT staff time, redesigning space, and
purchasing furniture for the work stations. These costs are being prorated over five years. CPCC also spent $3,472 on marketing products
(including staff time) to communicate with potential students about the new math modules. CPCC will also have $20,877 in recurring expenses
for the lab (license renewal and staff time).
The Template: Section 3 for CPCC
Template to Determine the Cost of Developmental Math Reform - Central Piedmont Community College
Section 3: Other College Departments - Re-directed Costs
Area of College
Admissions (multiple
measures)
Registrars
TRIOs Program Staff
Tutoring Center Staff
Academic
probation/suspension
FTE Auditors
Interpreter Staff
Disabilities Services
Term
Detail
Hours
per
term
analyzing transcripts
780
Processing Waivers
325
325
Hourly
Rate
One Time
Costs (Prorated over
three/five
years)
Annual
Recurring
Costs
Spr. 2013
Math (54%
of Annual)
(pre-reform)
Fall 2013
Math (46%
of Annual)
(postreform)
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
36% of annual budget ($271,100)
to developmental math students
2/3s of total budget dedicated to
dev math pre and 1/3 post
sessions with students on
academic warning, probation and
suspension
Processing class rosters
Interpreter services for classes and
tutoring
30% of students are in
developmental math
$22.75
$26.50
$26.50
$ 17,745.00
$ 8,612.50
$ 8,612.50
$ 97,596.00
$ 52,701.84
$ 8,612.50
$ 44,894.16
$ 136,669.00
$ 68,335.00
1190
$24.50
784
$25.31
14
44
32
32
$20.00
$24.21
$35
$35
450
$24.50
1192
$25.31
36
$ 61,501.05
$ 37,584.25
$ 29,155.00
$ 19,843.04
$ 280.00
$ 1,065.24
$ 1,120.00
$ 1,120.00
$
11,025.00
$ 30,169.52
The Template: Section 3 Continued for CPCC
Template to Determine the Cost of Developmental Math Reform - Central Piedmont Community College
Section 3: Other College Departments - Redirected Costs
Area of College
Term
Early Alert System
(staff time)
First Year
Experience
program staff
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
High School
Recruiters
Pre-term
Summer Bridge
and Continuous
Bridge
Summer Bridge
Tuition and Fees
(scholarship)
Financial Aide staff
and veterans office
Testing Center
Post-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Hourly
Rate
9.5
10
$24.50
$25.31
One Time
Costs (Prorated over five
years)
Annual
Recurring
Costs
$ 253.10
$ 80,569.62
$149,203
2% of three full-time salaries
($120K)
20% of three full-time salaries
fulltime salary
Fall 2013 Math
(46% of Annual)
(post-reform)
$ 232.75
$149,203
48% of total budget to dev.
Math ($299,605)
Spr. 2013 Math
(54% of Annual)
(pre-reform)
$ 68,633.38
$120,000
$ 2,400.00
$120,000
$62,500.00
$ 33,750.00
$ 24,000.00
Post-term
$ 28,750.00
Pre-term
$909 time 107 enrollees
Post-term
$909 times 120 enrollees
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
Post-term
Pre-term
10% of staff time pre reform
20% of time post reform
50% of total budget
$ 52,522.02
$ 50,176.80
790
1,580
$24.64
$24.64
$ 19,465.60
$ 38,931.20
$194,669
$ 48,667.25
$50,058
$ 12,514.50
$ 146,001.75
Pre-term
Accuplacer costs = $83,430
(60% of tests for math and 75%
of tests in fall)
counseling dev. math students
318
$24.50
Post-term
counseling dev. math students
1,334
$25.31
Post-term
Counseling and
Advising
Detail
Hours
per
term
$ 37,543.50
Total Redirected
Costs
Redirected Cost
per Credit Hour
37
$ 7,791.00
$ 33,763.54
$ 422,308.13
$ 589,086.98
$ 39.39
$ 64.59
CPCC student services staff and program support redirected costs increased by 40% from spring 2013 to fall 2013. Large increases were seen by
many units such as counseling and advising, disabilities services, financial aid and recruiting. Other areas saw declines such as the tutoring center
and academic warning, probation and suspension activities.
Template to Determine the Cost of Developmental Math Reform
Central Piedmont Community College
Section 4: Total Costs per Credit Hour Generated
Instructional Costs per Credit Hour
$ 53.40
Direct Cost (non-instructional) per Credit Hour
$ 53.99
$ 22.12
Total redirected Cost per Credit Hour
$ 39.39
$ 64.59
Total Cost per Credit Hour
$ 92.79
$ 140.70
Instructional FTE Reimbursement per Credit Hour
$ 109.25
$ 108.06
Administrative and Student Support Reimbursement per Credit Hour
$ 51.20
$ 56.74
Total Reimbursement per Credit Hour
$ 160.45
$ 164.80
Net College Revenue From Developmental Math
$ 725,222.62
$ 219,779.32
Decline
-74%
Overall, CPCC’s cost per credit hour increased by 52% ($47.91). The dollar amount per credit hour of reimbursement increased slightly ($4.35). In
the spring 2013, the college netted $67.66 per credit hour generated (reimbursement minus cost) for a total profit of $725,223. In fall 2013,
after the math reform, the college netted $24.10 per credit hour for a total of $219,779. The revenue lost in developmental math was $505,443
(230%).
38
Success of the Developmental Math Reform
Grades in the New Modules
Students who participated in the new developmental math modules did far better than students who
enrolled in the traditional 4-credit hour, 16-week courses. Data for both CPCC and DCCC are presented
in Table 20 below.
Table 20: Success of Developmental Math
A Comparison between Traditional Courses and the Math Modules
Fall 2010
CPCC
DCCC
All 4-Credit Courses
Spring 2011
Total
Students
Success of
Attempters*
Success of
Completers**
Total
Students
Success of
Attempters
Success of
Completers
2,812
55%
64%
2,749
55%
65%
755
53%
67%
711
51%
85%
All DMA Modules
All 4-Credit Courses
All DMA Modules
Fall 2011
CPCC
DCCC
All 4-Credit Courses
Spring 2012
Total
Students
Success of
Attempters
Success of
Completers
Total
Students
Success of
Attempters
Success of
Completers
2,798
58%
67%
1,970
54%
62%
1,215
78%
81%
570
78%
94%
All DMA Modules
All 4-Credit Courses
842
61%
73%
All DMA Modules
Fall 2012
CPCC
DCCC
Spring 2013
Total
Students
Success of
Attempters
Success of
Completers
Total
Students
Success of
Attempters
Success of
Completers
All 4-Credit Courses
1,927
61%
70%
1,943
60%
68%
All DMA Modules
1,094
77%
79%
912
74%
76%
611
86%
87%
500
84%
86%
All 4-Credit Courses
All DMA Modules
Fall 2013
CPCC
DCCC
Spring 2014
Total
Students
Success of
Attempters
Success of
Completers
Total
Students
Success of
Attempters
Success of
Completers
7,396
72%
73%
7,836
61%
63%
489
77%
83%
434
76%
83%
All 4-Credit Courses
All DMA Modules
All 4-Credit Courses
All DMA Modules
* Attempters are all students who enrolled in the course including withdrawals.
** Completers are students who completed the term and did not withdraw from the course.
In the traditional courses, 51-61% of attempters and 62-85% of completers made A-C grades. In the
modules, 61-78% of attempters and 63-94% of completers made A-C grades. More students who
enrolled in the modules made it to college-level courses than students from the traditional
39
developmental math courses. Table 21 below shows mixed results in the number of students who
completed the highest developmental module and enrolled in college-level math (54% for CPCC and
65% for DCCC) compared to students completing the highest level of the traditional developmental
math courses (46% for CPCC and 67% for DCCC). The percentage of students progressing to college level
math was higher for both groups at DCCC compared to CPCC.
Table 21: Progress from Highest Level Developmental Math Course
to College-level Math for Students Enrolled in the Modules
Compared to Traditional Courses
Total
#
1,065
2,315
Total
#
197
208
College
CPCC
DMA080
MAT080
College
DCCC
DMA080
MAT080
Went to College-level Math
#
%
577
54%
1068
46%
Went to College-level Math
#
%
128
65%
140
67%
The enrollment in college-level math increased over the four year period (by 18% at CPCC and by 3% at
DCCC.) The number of students passing the course increased (by 9% at CPCC and by 13% at DCCC) and
the percentage making A-C grades increased (by 21% at CPCC and by 14% at DCCC.) See Tables 22a & b.
Table 22a: Four Year Enrollment and Passing Rates in College Level Math
Central Piedmont Community College
Total
Enrollment
A-C
Grades
A-D
Grades
A-F
Grades
Passing
Rate of
Attempters
Successful
Completions
Passing Rate
of
Completers
Fall 2010
3,360
2,033
2,350
2,942
70%
69%
80%
Spring 2011
3,670
2,196
2,527
3,181
69%
69%
79%
2010-11
7,030
4,229
4,877
6,123
69%
69%
80%
Fall 2011
3,167
1,952
2,234
2,813
71%
69%
79%
Spring 2012
3,889
2,461
2,419
3,467
62%
71%
70%
2011-2012
7,056
4,413
4,653
6,280
66%
70%
74%
Fall 2012
3,492
2,181
2,443
3,045
70%
72%
80%
Spring 2013
4,241
2,693
2,572
3,714
61%
73%
69%
2012-2013
7,733
4,874
5,015
6,759
65%
72%
74%
Fall 2013
3,733
2,298
2,623
3,273
70%
70%
80%
Spring 2014
4,559
2,810
2,682
3,928
59%
72%
68%
2013-2014
8,292
5,108
5,305
7,201
64%
71%
74%
Change
18%
21%
9%
18%
40
Table 22b: Four Year Enrollment and Passing Rates in College Level Math
Davidson County Community College
Total
Enrollment
A-C
Grades
A-D
Grades
A-F
Grades
Passing
Rate of
Attempters
Successful
Completions
Passing Rate
of
Completers
Fall 2010
655
383
454
508
69%
75%
89%
Spring 2011
597
340
386
433
65%
79%
89%
2010-11
1,252
723
840
941
67%
77%
89%
Fall 2011
679
452
509
556
75%
81%
92%
Spring 2012
591
377
420
449
71%
84%
94%
2011-2012
1,270
829
929
1,005
73%
82%
92%
Fall 2012
615
411
459
512
75%
80%
90%
Spring 2013
535
356
401
437
75%
81%
92%
2012-2013
1,150
767
860
949
75%
81%
91%
Fall 2013
679
454
509
556
75%
82%
92%
Spring 2014
611
371
440
504
72%
74%
87%
2013-2014
1,290
825
949
1,060
74%
78%
90%
Change
3%
14%
13%
13%
Outcome of Multiple Measures
When multiple measures went into effect, students’ grades were analyzed to determine if those who
received waivers based on GPA did equally as well or better than students placed directly into collegelevel math. Students with high school GPAs between 2.6 and 3.0 did not do as well as the non-waiver
students (37-40% pass rates compared to 50-62%) but those with high school GPAs greater than 3.0 did
better than the non-waiver students (66-95% pass rates compared to 50-62%). See Table 23.
By the writing of this report, CPCC had only given 162 waivers for college-level math for spring term
2014. However, for fall term 2014, 3,630 students received waiver to enroll directly in college-level
math based on high school GPA. Their grades will not be available until December 2014.
41
Table 23: Success of Multiple Measures Students
GPA 2.6 to 3.0
Course
MAT115
MAT121
MAT122
MAT140
MAT155
MAT161
MAT171
MAT172
MAT175
MAT223
MAT263
MAT271
MAT272
MAT 273
MAT285
Math Models
Alg/Trig I
Alg/Trib II
Survey of Math
Stats
Coll. Alg.
Pre-Calc
Pre-Calc/Trig
Pre-Calc (4 cr.)
Applied Calc.
Brief Calc.
Calculus I
Calculus II
Calculus III
Diff Equations
Total
CPCC
#
%
A-C A-C
4
44%
1
50%
6
0
41
11
1
1
1
66
60%
0%
43%
30%
25%
GPA >3.0
DCCC
#
%
A-C
A-C
2
2
5
1
22%
33%
50%
33%
1
100%
50%
50%
40%
CPCC
#
%
A-C
A-C
10
91%
1
50%
1
100%
7
64%
5
83%
45
63%
22
59%
1
50%
2
100%
2
1
1
13
37%
96
100%
50%
50%
65%
DCCC
#
%
A-C
A-C
14
19
27
9
5
1
5
78%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
80
95%
Other Non-Waiver
Students
CPCC
DCCC
#
% A#
%
A-C
C
A-C A-C
191 73%
41
51%
8 62%
46
72%
279 66% 82 50%
311 68% 52 46%
606 58% 31 52%
330 53%
5 24%
163 53% 12 80%
2 33%
6
55%
116 85%
62
49% 12 57%
35
55%
4
21
75%
6
38%
2,213 60% 208 50%
The state system may need to reconsider the cut scores used to place students into college-level math
or create stronger support systems to assist students with college-level course expectations.
FTE, Not Much Loss After All
As seen in Table 6 on page 11, CPCC lost 211.5 FTE and DCCC lost 58.5 FTE in developmental math (fall
and spring terms only) over the 6-year period from just before the recession through the full
implementation of the math reform. FTE peaked for both institutions in 2010-11 and began a slow
decline which is consistent with a national enrollment trend based on the economy. It is impossible to
determine if the college-wide FTE decline was related to the developmental math reform, to a
decreasing number of students attending the colleges, or a combination of both. It should be noted that
neither college dropped below the pre-recession numbers and over the six-year period actually
increased their college-wide curriculum (for-credit) FTE significantly. See Table 24.
42
Table 24: Curriculum FTE by College
Central Piedmont Community College
Year
Fall
Spring
Total
Change #
2008-2009
6,520
6,473
12,993
2009-2010
6,972
7,015
13,987
994
2010-2011
7,199
7,307
14,506
519
2011-2012
7,120
7,013
14,133
-373
2012-2013
7,004
7,011
14,015
-118
2013-2014
7,087
7,199
14,286
271
Change
1,293
Davidson County Community College
Year
Fall
Spring
Total
Change #
2008-2009
1,428
1,493
2,921
2009-2010
1,696
1,693
3,389
468
2010-2011
1,772
1,690
3,462
73
2011-2012
1,697
1,656
3,353
-109
2012-2013
1,658
1,620
3,278
-75
2013-2014
1,610
1,546
3,156
-122
Change
235
Student Enrollment Patterns, Impacting Growth in Other Areas
Gains in College-Level Math
One other change that occurred at both colleges was an increase in college-level math FTE. CPCC has
seen an FTE growth of 127.7 and DCCC a 7.2 FTE growth since the developmental math reform began in
academic year 2011-2012. Since one of the goals of the reform effort was to increase the number of
students who persist to college-level math, the FTE growth in college-level math was expected. See
Table 25.
43
Table 25: FTE Gains in College-Level Math
Central Piedmont Community College
Year
Fall
Spring
Total
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
Change
346.3
381.7
407.8
367.8
402.1
434
714.1
783.8
841.8
Year
Fall
Spring
Total
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
94.16
86.2
96.69
78.58
73.59
83.25
172.74
159.79
179.94
# Change
69.7
58
127.7
Davidson County Community College
Change
% Change
8.9%
6.9%
15.8%
# Change
% Change
-13
20.2
7.2
-8.1%
11.2%
4.0%
Increasing FTE in all Developmental Courses
As can be seen in Table 26, the number of students enrolling in any developmental math course has
fluctuated over the years. Developmental math enrollment peaked in the 2010-11 year for CPCC and in
the 2011-12 year for DCCC. The number of developmental credits students attempted also fluctuated
over the years but began to improve for CPCC in 2013-14. At CPCC, the number of students enrolled in
developmental math courses increased by 31% between 2012-13 and 2013-14 which caused FTE from
developmental math students enrolled in all developmental courses (math, English and reading) to
increase by 10%. Since the reform, the number of students enrolled in developmental math courses at
DCCC has decreased by 33% which caused FTE from developmental math students enrolled in all
developmental courses to decrease by 53%.
44
Table 26: Developmental FTE Generated by Developmental Math Students
Central Piedmont Community College
Fall Terms
Spring Terms
Annual
2010-11
Dev
Math
Students
3,613
Mean Dev.
Credits
Attempted
6.12
Total Dev.
Credits
Attempted
22,110
Dev.
Math
Students
3,667
Mean Dev.
Credits
Attempted
5.86
Total Dev.
Credits
Attempted
21,474
Total
credits
attempted
43,584
Total
Dev.
FTE
1,698
2011-12
3,017
5.78
17,432
2,430
5.25
12,753
30,185
1,176
2012-13
2,339
5.47
12,805
2,304
5.28
12,165
24,970
973
2013-14
3,069
4.39
13,488
3,331
4.24
14,138
27,626
1,072
Year
Davidson County Community College
Fall Terms
Spring Terms
Annual
2010-11
Dev
Math
Students
752
Mean Dev.
Credits
Attempted
4.03
Total Dev.
Credits
Attempted
3,029
Dev.
Math
Students
721
Mean Dev.
Credits
Attempted
3.29
Total Dev.
Credits
Attempted
2,371
Total
credits
attempted
5,400
Total
Dev.
FTE
346
2011-12
819
3.31
2,707
573
3.95
2,262
4,969
342
2012-13
614
5.33
3,273
506
4.2
2,124
5,397
244
2013-14
493
3.19
1,571
439
4.33
1,900
3,471
163
Year
Increasing FTE in College-Level Courses
The number of college-level credits in which developmental math students enrolled peaked in the 201011 year for both colleges and then declined. At CPCC, the number of students enrolled in developmental
math courses increased by 31% between 2012-13 and 2013-14 which caused FTE from developmental
math students taking college-level courses to increase by 22%. At DCCC, following reform the number
of students enrolled in developmental math courses decreased by 33% which caused FTE from
developmental math students taking college-level courses to decrease by 16%. See Table 27.
45
Table 27: College-Level FTE Generated by Developmental Math Students
Central Piedmont Community College
Fall Terms
Spring Terms
Dev Math
Students
Mean
College
Level
Credits
Attempted
Total
College
Level
Credits
Attempted
2010-11
3,613
5.2
2011-12
3,017
2012-13
2013-14
Year
Annual
Dev
Math
Students
Mean
College
Level
Credits
Attempted
Total
College
Level
Credits
Attempted
Total
College
Level
Credits
Attempted
Total
FTE
18,770
3,667
5.2
19,129
37,899
1,353
5.4
16,160
2,430
5.6
13,589
29,749
1,065
2,339
5.4
12,612
2,304
5.3
12,221
24,833
893
3,069
4.7
14,401
3,331
4.8
15,911
30,312
1,091
Davidson County Community College
Dev Math
Students
Mean
College
Level
Credits
Attempted
Total
College
Level
Credits
Attempted
Dev
Math
Students
Mean
College
Level
Credits
Attempted
Total
College
Level
Credits
Attempted
Total
College
Level
Credits
Attempted
Total
FTE
2010-11
752
4.0
3,010
721
4.5
3,235
6,245
268
2011-12
819
3.7
3,049
573
3.9
2,213
5,262
234
2012-13
614
4.4
2,683
506
4.6
2,341
5,024
213
2013-14
493
5.1
2,493
439
5.9
2,603
5,096
196
Year
Improving Student Persistence and Credit Accumulation
The real benefit to improving the passing rates in developmental math courses is increasing the number
of students who make it into and complete college-level math. From a historical perspective (enrollment
from traditional developmental courses), students who successfully completed college-level math
followed a different pathway through the institution than those who did not. Table 28 contains two
scenarios:
1) New developmental students who entered the colleges in the fall 2010 and were tracked through
fall 2013. These students were referred to and completed Math 070 and enrolled in college-level
technical math. The first group passed the college-level course and the second group did not.
2) New developmental students who entered the colleges in the fall 2010 and were tracked through
fall 2013. These students were referred to and completed Math 080 and enrolled in college-level
transfer math. The first group passed the college-level course and the second group did not.
The average developmental student who completed MAT 070 and college-level technical math
attempted a mean of 54 credits at CPCC (A-C credits in 46 [85%]) and 60 credits at DCCC (A-C in 54
[90%]) before they exited the college. Students who attempted but did not pass college-level technical
math attempted a mean of 25 credits at CPCC (A-C grades in 15 [60%]) and 41 credits at DCCC (A-C
grades in 30 [74%]. See Table 28.
46
Table 28: New Developmental Math Students from Fall 2010
(completed 070) Tracked Through Fall 2013 – Attempted College-Level
Math & Did Not Pass
CPCC
DCCC
Number
Mean
Number
Mean
Credits Attempted
136
25
40
41
Credits Earned A-D
136
17
40
34
College Math Credits Passed with AC
College Credits Earned with A-C
136
0
40
0
136
15 (60%)
40
30 (74%)
New Developmental Math Students from Fall 2010 (completed 070)
Tracked Through Fall 2013 – Attempted College Level Math & Did Pass
CPCC
DCCC
Number
Mean
Number
Mean
Credits Attempted
110
54
58
60
Credits Earned A-D
110
49
58
58
College Math Credits Passed with AC
College Credits Earned with A-C
110
3.4
58
4.0
110
46 (85%)
58
54 (90%)
The students who completed MAT 080 and college-level transfer math attempted a mean of 52 credits
at CPCC (A-C grades in 43 [83%]) and 65 credits at DCCC (A-C grades in 41 [73%]) before they exited the
college. Students who did not complete college-level transfer math attempted an average of 32 credits
(A-C grades in 19 [59%]) at CPCC and 50 credits at DCCC (A-C grades in 32 [64%]) before they exited the
college. See Table 29.
Student grades were also impacted by completing college-level math. Students who attempted and
completed college-level technical or transfer math earned more credits with A-C grades (83-85% at CPCC
and 73-90% at DCCC) than students who did not complete college-level math (59-60% at CPCC and 6474% at DCCC).
47
Table 29: New Developmental Math Students from Fall 2010 (completed 080)
Tracked Through Fall 2013 – Attempted College-Level & Did Not Pass
CPCC
DCCC
Number
Mean
Number
Mean
Credits Attempted
118
32
24
50.4
Credits Earned A-D
118
21
24
41.6
College Math Credits Passed with A-C
118
0
24
0
College Credits Earned with A-C
118
19 (59%)
24
32 (64%)
New Developmental Math Students from Fall 2010 (completed 080) Tracked
Through Fall 2013 – Attempted College-Level & Did Pass
CPCC
DCCC
Number
Mean
Number
Mean
Credits Attempted
191
52
32
56.2
Credits Earned A-D
191
46
32
47.3
College Math Credits Passed with A-C
191
4.3
32
5.0
College Credits Earned with A-C
191
43 (83%)
32
41 (73%)
Successful Students Accumulate College-Level Credits
Each fall term, CPCC enrolls approximately 4,000 new students of which 2,300 need developmental
math. Prior to math reform, 48% of developmental math students avoided developmental math all
together by never enrolling in a course over a six year period. Of those who attempted, only 34-53%
passed any developmental math course and 70-88% never attempted college-level math. Of
developmental math students, 69-72% exit before ever earning a credential or transferring. The college
did not retain these students.
In fall 2013, CPCC enrolled 3,718 new students of which 2,494 (67%) were referred to the
developmental math modules. Of those referred, 1,088 (44%) enrolled in an average 3.1 math modules
during their first semester and 74% passed the course. This is a great improvement over the traditional
developmental math courses. In fall 2013, DCCC enrolled 1,025 new students, including 666 (65%) who
were referred to developmental math instruction. Of those referred 167 (25%) enrolled in at least one
developmental math module during the fall semester. These students enrolled in a total of 544 modules
(average 3.1 modules per student) and passed 79% of these courses.
The new math modules have resulted in higher success rates among students and more students
proceeding to college-level math. If the colleges can continue to improve the completion rate in
developmental math, more students will make it to and complete college-level math. Completing
college-level math seems to be a milestone to persistence, progression and completion among
48
community college students. The math reform is still new for the North Carolina colleges, but the early
success is promising.
How Long Does It Take Colleges to See a Return on Investment from Developmental Math Reform?
Return on investment comes to the colleges in two forms: increases in student persistence, progression
and completion, and more efficient use of funds devoted to developmental education. The math reform
in North Carolina was designed to improve student success by: 1) requiring students to take fewer
courses or bypass developmental math altogether, 2) increasing the number of students attempting and
completing college-level math, and 3) increasing graduation/completion rates among developmental
math students. It should have been no surprise to anyone that developmental math FTE declined
dramatically. These FTEs will never come back to developmental math but they can come back to the
college by careful planning and anticipation of student behavior. How quickly a college recovers the
funds invested depends on several things:
 Their ability to understand and plan for the potential success of the reform effort;
 Their ability to transfer resources to growing areas of the college (e.g. college-level math and
general education courses);
 Their ability to temporarily redirect the effort required on the part of student services staff to
the reform effort. Once students adjust to the change, reallocated time from student services
areas will equalize and return to normal; and
 How well they educate students about the coming change.
The two colleges in this study saw a decline in developmental math FTE but an increase in college-level
math FTE and an increase in overall FTE at the colleges. Therefore, they saw no real loss of funding from
the reform effort. The students completed the math modules at higher rates than the traditional
developmental math courses and more continued to college-level math. Passing rates in college-level
math increased but the A-C grade rates increased at a higher rate. While the reform is still somewhat
new, it is expected (based on history) that students who complete college-level math will accumulated
more course credits and graduate at higher rates.
Plan for Success
If the new math modules were designed to reduce the number of developmental math credits and
increase the number who complete the sequence, colleges should offer fewer sections of
developmental math and increase sections of college-level math. They should also give attention to
support structures in college-level math to help students continue their success in college-level math.
If we know that completing college-level math is a turning point for students, we should anticipate their
course needs and schedule accordingly. If students who floundered for four semesters in developmental
math are able to complete it in one semester, they will need to fill their course load with the highdemand general education courses required by most degree programs. How well colleges anticipate this
change, the faster they will see a return on their investment.
49
Student services staff and other key support services may see a 200% increase in the time needed to
work with students participating in reform. Adjustments should be made temporarily to the duties of
key student services and support staff to address the period of chaos that ensues after a disruptive
change. Students will eventually adjust and demands on staff time will lessen.
Educating students, faculty and staff about an upcoming change allows a college to get a jump on any
reform. Visiting high schools to meet with English and math faculty, making presentations to students
and parents, and exposing new students to the process will reduce fears and increase enrollment. Using
marketing funds to encourage students to try out the one-hour modules helped them decide to go
ahead and begin the developmental math sequence. Once students enrolled, retention from course-tocourse in the sequence remained high.
Recouping Revenue
The FTE lost from developmental math reform will never come back as developmental math FTE. If
colleges simplify the process and reduce students’ fears of the complexity of math, they will enroll and
take additional courses along the way. The colleges discovered through the process that:
1. Taking math in small increments (one credit hour over four weeks) encouraged larger numbers
of students to enroll in developmental math;
2. A successful experience in the math modules encouraged students to continue through the
sequence and proceed to college-level math;
3. Students who complete college-level math accumulate almost twice the number of credits
before they exit the college as students who never complete college-level math; and
4. Taking and passing college-level math in the first semester (or as soon as possible) is a strong
retention tool for first-time-in-college community college students.
The following occurred for Central Piedmont Community College and Davidson County Community
College.
Table 30: Financial Impact of Developmental Math Reform
CPCC
DCCC
Loss of Developmental Math FTE Between 2008 & 2013 -211.50
-58.50
Increase in College-Level Math FTE Between 2010-2013
+127.7
+ 7.2
Increase in Other College FTE 2008-2013
+1,165.3 +227.8
Total Increase in FTE as of Spring 2014
+1,081.5 +176.5
The two colleges under study did not see their college-wide FTE decline at the same rate with which
developmental math declined. While they lost FTE in developmental math, both institutions were ahead
of the game within two years of the math reform.
50
Challenges Faced by the Colleges
Both the colleges under study had strong implementation team. People from academic, student services
and information technology areas worked well together. However, some challenges existed that were
communicated by staff actively involved in the reform. Some of those were:
1. While the colleges were attempting to pilot and then implement the new developmental math
modules, the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS) was working their way through
the reform, making changes and adding new rules. The IT support from the state was not
adequate as many colleges had difficulties transitioning from the old system to the new. The
process of scheduling four stackable mini-terms within a larger term produced logistical
problems for the IT programmers at the colleges which in turn, caused issues for many parts of
the college.
2. While it is difficult to anticipate all aspects of any reform, the NCCCS staff could have facilitated
deeper planning (especially IT planning) on the state level. This would have helped ease the
transition at the individual colleges. It would have also been much easier if all the NCCCS
colleges had made the transition at the same time. Making systemic change in an incremental
way created many challenges for the individual colleges attempting to make the early steps in
the change process. Many of these challenges arose because all areas of the college rely so
heavily on IT systems to support their work (e.g. enrollment, advising, record-keeping).
Implementing a new set of math modules while the IT specifications for the old developmental
math courses were still in place created most of the challenges identified by college staff in the
“lessons learned” section below. To a large extent, implementation had to be reactive because
the mechanics of the old system didn’t match the requirements of the new system, from an IT
perspective.
Lessons Learned Through the Process
Faculty and staff were asked, “Now that time has passed, if you could do things differently, what would
you do?” Some of their suggestions were as follows:


Take more time implementing the process. This transition involves more than curriculum
development, assessment design, and scheduling.
Bring all stakeholders to the table prior to implementation. Some critical issues were details we
never addressed up front such as course equivalencies, prerequisite sequences for non-math
courses, and registration hurdles that take time to address. Facilitate more coordination among
academic areas, advisement, registration, and those who write the prerequisite rules for the student
information system. Counselors and Advisors need to be kept up-to-date with changes in placement
test cut scores, evolving course prerequisites, and timelines. Have one, centralized source for
information relating to all aspects of the reform. The math division should have taken more
leadership with this. There were issues scheduling the modules in the student information system,
the coordination with the current Financial Aid model in regard to disbursement of a student's
refunds and adjustments to the Early Alert System due to the 4-week format.
51


Develop policies and processes prior to implementation, not during or after implementation.
Effectively developing processes for implementing wholesale changes forces everyone to create a
system of checks and balances.
In regard to multiple measures, allow more time for motivational interviewing and proactive
advising with students. In the classroom, students placed from high school GPA do not have strong
math skills. Create support programs to assist these students if they are not successful in collegelevel math.
Suggestions for Other Colleges
Faculty and staff were asked, “If you were to give advice to other colleges attempting developmental
math reform, what would those suggestions be?”








Don’t rush the process. Set a realistic deadline. Make sure as many pieces of the process have been
addressed as possible BEFORE launching. Consider the impact on students, staff, and instructors by
being more deliberate and slow in rolling out major changes in stages.
Work with non-math academic areas to determine appropriate prerequisites for college courses
other than math (e.g. accounting, engineering).
Coordinate with programmers on how prerequisite rules are written in the student information
system so they encompass the broadest range of courses possible that will satisfy the prerequisites
for individual courses.
Coordinate with other colleges in your system about different grading schemes and determine what
constitutes satisfactory completion. Students transferring need to be able to take these courses with
them and not re-take courses.
Anticipate the Unexpected. It would be helpful to take a moment and talk about possible challenges
to implementation. It could be as simple as asking, “What could go wrong?” or “What are possible
processes, technical systems, or communication issues that we could encounter as we implement.”
Internal communications plan. There needed to be in-depth internal communications planned that
explained implementation to campus stakeholders as well as articulating their role in the plan and a
timeline for various action steps.
Ownership of change process. Designate an “owner” or coordinator of the change process for the
implementation. Implementation is a team effort; however, a point person to whom questions
could have been posed and been a guide to resources would have saved time in locating
information.
Consider how reforms will affect the demographic you serve. More Emporium classes will require
more non-traditional learners to apply learning styles they have not been exposed to nor have a
desire to use.
Findings and Conclusions
The findings of this study confirmed some common perceptions about developmental math in higher
education.
52
1. Completing college-level math is one of the greatest barriers to completion of associate degrees
in community colleges.
2. The best retention tool is early success (first term and first year).
3. Developmental math is a revolving door with the majority of students either never attempting
or never completing a developmental math course in six years.
4. Developmental math students labor many semesters in developmental math, have very low
graduation/transfer rates, and high drop-out rates.
5. If colleges wanted to install a program that sorted and expelled under-skilled students, they
could find nothing more efficient than traditional developmental education.
6. Developmental education, especially developmental math, needs major reform to help college
students succeed.
The colleges in this study implemented a math reform with the goals of reducing the time it takes to
complete the developmental math sequence, increasing the number of students enrolling in and
completing college-level math, and increasing the number of developmental math students completing
credentials and transferring. The colleges found that the math reform was successful in increasing the
number of registrations in developmental math (increase of 24% for DCCC and 293% for CPCC from fall
2011 to fall 2013) and improving pass rates in developmental math courses (by 20-30%). They also saw
an increase in the number of students enrolling in college-level math courses (3% increase for DCCC and
18% increase for CPCC) and an increase in the pass rates in college-level math (13% at DCCC and 9% at
CPCC). The implementation is too recent to determine if more developmental math students complete
credentials or transfer.
The colleges found that there were many unexpected costs for redirected efforts in areas of the college
besides the math department that were impacted by the reform. Major costs were incurred to up-fit
space and computer labs. Many areas of the college such as counseling and advising, financial aid,
disabilities services, and recruiting were dramatically impacted by changes in course structure, grading
schemes, and course stacking within terms.
The revenue (tuition and/or FTE reimbursements) from developmental math decreased quickly during
the reform but enrollment was already declining (45% loss at DCCC and 49% loss at CPCC). During this
same period, both colleges experienced growth in revenue from college-level math (8% at DCCC and
37% at CPCC) and their college-wide FTE did not decline (+235 FTE for DCCC and +1,293 FTE at CPCC).
Both colleges recognize that getting students through college-level math may be the greatest retention
tool and the key to persistence, course completion, and graduation.
53
Works Cited
Jaggars,SS & Stacey, GW. (2014, January). Teacher's College, Columbia Univesity. Retrieved September
2014, from Community College Research Center:
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/what-we-know-about-developmentaleducation-outcomes.pdf
Bailey, T, Jeong, DW & Cho, SW. (2010). Teachers College, Columbia University. Retrieved September 23,
2014, from Community College Research Center:
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/referral-enrollment-completion-developmentaleducation.html
54
Appendix A
Developmental and Technical Math Course Descriptions (non-college transfer)
Traditional Developmental Math Courses (phased out Fall 2013)
MAT 050 Basic Math Skills. 4 Credits. Prerequisites: Appropriate placement test score(s). This course is
designed to prepare students with the necessary skills to take other mathematic courses at CPCC. Topics
include whole numbers, fractions and decimals. The focus of this course is to build students’ confidence
in these topics, teach them how to perform basic computation skills and solve relevant mathematical
problems. (This course moved to basic skills in the 11/12 year).
MAT 060 Essential Mathematics. 4 Credits. Prerequisites: Appropriate placement test score(s) or
MAT050 with grade of C or better. This course is a comprehensive study of mathematical skills which
should provide a strong mathematical foundation to pursue further study. Topics include principles and
applications of decimals, fractions, percents, ratio and proportion, order of operations, geometry,
measurement and elements of algebra and statistics. Upon completion, students should be able to
perform basic computations and solve relevant, multi-step mathematical problems using technology
where appropriate. This course has been replaced by the math modules DMA 010, DMA 020 and DMA
030).
MAT 070 Introductory Algebra. 4 Credits. Prerequisites: MAT 060 with grade of C or better, or
Appropriate Placement Test Score(s), Co-requisites: RED080 or ENG085. This course establishes a
foundation in algebraic concepts and problem solving. Topics include signed numbers, exponents, order
of operations, simplifying expressions, solving linear equations and inequalities, graphing, formulas,
polynomials, factoring and elements of geometry. Upon completion, students should be able to apply
the above concepts in problem solving using appropriate technology. This course has been replaced by
DMA 050.
MAT 080 Intermediate Algebra. 4 Credits
Prerequisites: MAT 070 with grade of C or better, or Appropriate Placement Test Score(s).
Co-requisites: RED080 or ENG085. This course continues the study of algebraic concepts with
emphasis on applications. Topics include factoring; rational expressions; rational exponents; rational,
radical and quadratic equations; systems of equations; inequalities; graphing; functions; variations;
complex numbers; and elements of geometry. Upon completion, students should be able to apply
the above concepts in problem solving using appropriate technology. This course has been replaced by
DMA 060, DMA 070 and DMA 080.
55
New Developmental Math Modules (beginning spring term 2012)
DMA 010. Operations with Integers. 1.0 Credit. This course provides a conceptual study of integers and
integer operations. Topics include integers, absolute value, exponents, square roots, perimeter and area
of basic geometric figures, Pythagorean Theorem, and use of the correct order of operations. Upon
completion, students should be able to demonstrate an understanding of pertinent concepts and
principles and apply this knowledge in the evaluation of expressions. Prerequisites: Complete one of the
following options: ABL 6014 or MAT 050.
DMA 020. Fractions and Decimals. 1.0 Credit. This course provides a conceptual study of the
relationship between fractions and decimals and covers related problems. Topics include application of
operations and solving contextual application problems, including determining the circumference and
area of circles with the concept of pi. Upon completion, students should be able to demonstrate an
understanding of the connections between fractions and decimals. Prerequisites: DMA 010.
DMA 030. Proportion/Ratios/Rates/Percent. 1.0 Credit. This course provides a conceptual study of the
problems that are represented by rates, ratios, percent, and proportions. Topics include rates, ratios,
percent, proportion, conversion of English and metric units, and applications of the geometry of similar
triangles. Upon completion, students should be able to use their understanding to solve conceptual
application problems. Prerequisites: DMA 010 and DMA 020.
DMA 040. Expressions, Linear Equations, Linear Inequalities. 1.0 Credit. This course provides a
conceptual study of problems involving linear expressions, equations, and inequalities. Emphasis is
placed on solving contextual application problems. Upon completion, students should be able to
distinguish between simplifying expressions and solving equations and apply this knowledge to
problems involving linear expressions, equations, and inequalities. Prerequisites: Complete one of the
following options:
 DMA 010, DMA 020 and DMA 030
 MAT 060
DMA 050. Graphs and Equations of Lines. 1.0 Credit. This course provides a conceptual study of
problems involving graphic and algebraic representations of lines. Topics include slope, equations of
lines, interpretation of basic graphs, and linear modeling. Upon completion, students should be able to
solve contextual application problems and represent real-world situations as linear equations in two
variables. Prerequisites: Complete one of the following options:
 DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030 and DMA 040
 DMA 040 and MAT 060
56
DMA 060. Polynomials and Quadratic Applications. 1.0 Credit. This course provides a conceptual study
of problems involving graphic and algebraic representations of quadratics. Topics include basic
polynomial operations, factoring polynomials, and solving polynomial equations by means of factoring.
Upon completion, students should be able to find algebraic solutions to contextual problems with
quadratic applications. Prerequisites: Complete one of the following options:
 DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 040 and DMA 050
 DMA 040, DMA 050 and MAT 060
 MAT 060 and MAT 070
DMA 070. Rational Expressions and Equations. 1.0 Credit. This course provides a conceptual study of
problems involving graphic and algebraic representations of rational equations. Topics include
simplifying and performing operations with rational expressions and equations, understanding the
domain, and determining the reasonableness of an answer. Upon completion, students should be able
to find algebraic solutions to contextual problems with rational applications.
Prerequisites: Complete one of the following options:
 DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 040, DMA 050 and DMA 060
 DMA 040, DMA 050, DMA 060 and MAT 060
 DMA 060 and MAT 060 and MAT 070
 DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 060, AND MAT 070
DMA 080. Radical Expressions and Equations. 1.0 Credit. Class-0.8. Clinical-0.0. Lab-0.5. Work-0.0
This course provides a conceptual study of the manipulation of radicals and the application of radical
equations to real-world problems. Topics include simplifying and performing operations with radical
expressions and rational exponents, solving equations, and determining the reasonableness of an
answer. Upon completion, students should be able to find algebraic solutions to contextual problems
with radical applications.
Prerequisites: Complete one of the following options:
 DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 040, DMA 050, DMA 060 and DMA 070
 DMA 060, DMA 070, MAT 060, and MAT 070
 DMA 040, DMA 050, DMA 060, DMA 070, and MAT 060
 DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 060, DMA 070, and MAT 070
College-Level Math Courses (considered non-college transfer)
MAT 115. Mathematical Models. 3.0 Credits. This course develops the ability to utilize mathematical
skills and technology to solve problems at a level found in non-mathematics intensive programs. Topics
include applications to percent, ratio and proportion, formulas, statistics, function notation, linear
functions, probability, sampling techniques, scatter plots, and modeling. Upon completion, students
should be able to solve practical problems, reason and communicate with mathematics, and work
confidently, collaboratively, and independently. Prerequisites: Complete one of the following options:
 Take MAT 060 MAT 070 with a minimum grade of C
57









Take MAT 060 MAT 080 with a minimum grade of C
Take MAT 060 MAT 090 with a minimum grade of C
Take MAT 095 with a minimum grade of C
Take MAT 120 with a minimum grade of C
Take MAT 121 with a minimum grade of C
Take MAT 161 with a minimum grade of C
Take MAT 171 with a minimum grade of C
Take MAT 175 with a minimum grade of C
Take DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 040 and DMA 050
MAT 120. Geometry and Trigonometry. 3.0 Credits. This course introduces the concepts of plane
trigonometry and geometry with emphasis on applications to problem solving. Topics include the basic
definitions and properties of plane and solid geometry, area and volume, right triangle trigonometry,
and oblique triangles. Upon completion, students should be able to solve applied problems both
independently and collaboratively using technology. Prerequisites: Complete one of the following
options:
 Take DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, and DMA 040
 Take MAT 060* and MAT 070
 Take MAT 060* and MAT 080
 Take MAT 121
 Take MAT 161
 Take MAT 171
 Take MAT 175
MAT 121. Algebra/Trigonometry I. 3.0 Credits. This course provides an integrated approach to
technology and the skills required to manipulate, display, and interpret mathematical functions and
formulas used in problem solving. Topics include simplification, evaluation, and solving of algebraic and
radical functions; complex numbers; right triangle trigonometry; systems of equations; and the use of
technology. Upon completion, students should be able to demonstrate an understanding of the use of
mathematics and technology to solve problems and analyze and communicate results.
Prerequisites: Complete one of the following options:
 Take DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 040, and DMA 050
• Take MAT 070 MAT 060 with a minimum grade of C
• Take MAT 080 MAT 060 with a minimum grade of C
• Take MAT 095 (fast-track MAT 080) with a minimum grade of C
• Take MAT 070 with a minimum grade of C
MAT 140. Survey of Mathematics. 3.0 Credits. (this course can be a college-transfer for business and
social science majors).This course provides an introduction in a non-technical setting to selected topics
in mathematics. Topics may include, but are not limited to, sets, logic, probability, statistics, matrices,
mathematical systems, geometry, topology, mathematics of finance, and modeling. Upon completion,
58
students should be able to understand a variety of mathematical applications, think logically, and be
able to work collaboratively and independently. Prerequisites: Complete one of the following options:
 Take DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030 and DMA 040
 Take MAT 070 MAT 060
 Take MAT 080 MAT 060
• Take MAT 120
• Take MAT 121
• Take MAT 161
• Take MAT 171
• Take MAT 175
• Take MAT 070 with a minimum grade of C
MAT 141. Mathematical Concepts I. 3.0 Credits. This course is the first of a two-course sequence that
develops a deeper understanding and appreciation of the basic concepts of mathematics. Emphasis is
placed on sets, logic, number bases, elementary number theory, introductory algebra, measurement
including metrics, and problem solving. Upon completion, students should be able to communicate
orally and in writing these basic mathematical concepts. Prerequisites: Complete one of the following
options:
 DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, and DMA 040
 MAT 060* and MAT 080
 MAT 060* and MAT 090
 MAT 095
 MAT 120
 MAT 121
 MAT 161
 MAT 171
 MAT 175
MAT 143. Quantitative Literacy. 3.0 Credits. This course is designed to engage students in complex and
realistic situations involving the mathematical phenomena of quantity, change and relationship, and
uncertainty through project- and activity-based assessment. Emphasis is placed on authentic contexts
which will introduce the concepts of numeracy, proportional reasoning, dimensional analysis, rates of
growth, personal finance, consumer statistics, practical probabilities, and mathematics for citizenship.
Upon completion, students should be able to utilize quantitative information as consumers and to make
personal, professional, and civic decisions by decoding, interpreting, using, and communicating
quantitative information found in modern media and encountered in everyday life. Prerequisites: DMA
010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 040, DMA 050, DRE 098.
MAT 151. Statistics I. 3.0 Credits. This course provides a project-based approach to the study of basic
probability, descriptive and inferential statistics, and decision making. Emphasis is placed on measures
of central tendency and dispersion, correlation, regression, discrete and continuous probability
59
distributions, quality control, population parameter estimation, and hypothesis testing. Upon
completion, students should be able to describe important characteristics of a set of data and draw
inferences about a population from sample data. Prerequisites: Complete one of the following options:
 DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 040, and DMA 050
 MAT 060* and MAT 080
 MAT 060* and MAT 090
 MAT 095
 MAT 120
 MAT 121
 MAT 140
 MAT 161
 MAT 171
 MAT 175
MAT 152. Statistical Methods I. 4.0 Credits. This course provides a project-based approach to
introductory statistics with an emphasis on using real-world data and statistical literacy. Topics include
descriptive statistics, correlation and regression, basic probability, discrete and continuous probability
distributions, confidence intervals and hypothesis testing. Upon completion, students should be able to
use appropriate technology to describe important characteristics of a data set, draw inferences about a
population from sample data, and interpret and communicate results.
Prerequisites: Take DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 040, DMA 050 and DRE 098
MAT 155. Statistical Analysis. 3.0 Credits This course is an introduction to descriptive and inferential
statistics. Topics include sampling, distributions, plotting data, central tendency, dispersion, Central
Limits Theorem, confidence intervals, hypothesis testing, correlations, regressions, and multinomial
experiments. Upon completion, students should be able to describe data and test inferences about
populations using sample data. Prerequisites: Complete one of the following options:
 Take DMA 010, DMA 020, DMA 030, DMA 040 and DMA 050
 Take MAT 080 MAT 060 with a minimum grade of C
• Take MAT 120 with a minimum grade of C
• Take MAT 121 with a minimum grade of C
• Take MAT 161 with a minimum grade of C
• Take MAT 171 with a minimum grade of C
• Take MAT 175 with a minimum grade of C
60
Central Piedmont Community College
P.O Box 35009
Charlotte, NC 28235
(704) 330-2722
http://www.cpcc.edu
Central Piedmont Community College serves approximately 60,000 enrolled students on six campuses
and a virtual campus in Mecklenburg County of North Carolina. Of the 59,254 students enrolled in the
2012-2013 year, 29,104 (49%) were taking curriculum courses, 10,191 (17%) were enrolled in basic skills
programs (e.g. literacy, adult high school and GED) and 32,635 (55%) were enrolled in continuing
education courses. CPCC employs 375 full-time faculty, 781 full-time staff, 1459 part-time faculty and
649 part-time staff.
In 2013, Charlotte was the largest city in both the Carolinas and the 16th largest city in the United States
with a city population of 792,862. The Charlotte metropolitan area consists of a 16 county region with a
combined population of 2,493,040. The major industries of Mecklenburg County are banking,
manufacturing, and professional services, especially those supporting banking and medicine.
Mecklenburg County is home to six Fortune 500 companies, including 21st-ranked Bank of America.
The college offers 62 different college transfer and applied science degree program as well as diploma
and certificate programs.
Davidson County Community College
P.O. Box 1287
Lexington, NC 27293-1287
(336) 249-8186
http://www.davidsonccc.edu
Davidson County Community College serves over 16,000 students on two campuses and three satellite
centers in Davidson and Davie Counties of North Carolina. Of the 15,010 students enrolled in the 201213 academic year, 5,493 (37%) were taking curriculum courses, 2,599 were enrolled in basic skills
programs, and 10,102 (67%) were continuing education students. The college employees 300 full-time
faculty and staff and over 400 adjunct faculty and part-time staff.
The combined population of the two counties is approximately 200,000. Since 2002, one in ten workers
has lost his or her job as textile and furniture factories have closed. We offer over 50 curriculum
programs of study to develop the minds and inspire the imaginations of our students.
The College’s Strategic Plan 2013-2016 has three primary goals: student success through completion,
excellence in teaching and learning, and local to global connections.
61