Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 69

Recommendation 69
Department English and Foreign Languages
Consensus Opinion 16 out of 24 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation The English and Foreign Languages Department thanks the P&R Academic Programs Committee for its accurate assessment of the impact of the remediation program on other programs in the department. As noted in the recommendation, the increasing number of students needing remediation is a university-wide issue that needs to be addressed by greater emphasis on enrollment management. As the need for remediation has grown without additional funding to support it, the EFL department has had to offer fewer sections of college level composition courses that fulfill the General Education requirement for all students. This has resulted in students taking English 104 in their junior or senior year and being unable to make timely progress toward a degree.

In response to the situation, in fall 2007, the EFL Department created a Remediation Task Force to explore alternative ways to handle remediation while meeting the needs of general education. After investigating strategies used at other CSU campuses, the Task Force is considering the simplest and most immediate solution: lowering the EPT cut score from the current 151 to 147. This would place approximately 700 students (currently placed into English 096) into English 104. Additional support for these students with weaker skills would be provided by the University Writing Center. This would require enhanced funding for the Writing Center to hire the needed tutors. Other models are also being discussed by the Task Force. Recommendations for changes in the remediation program will be submitted for approval to the tenured and tenure-track faculty members of the English and Foreign Languages prior to being implemented as early as fall 2008.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation None

Recommendation 69
Department Undergraduate Studies
Consensus Opinion 10 out of 10 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation Recommendation 69 and 98 – Remedial English and Mathematics

Since these two recommendations are almost word-for-word the same, we feel that we can address both of them with one feedback form.

The recommendations correctly put the blame for the rise in the number of remedial students on a failed or nonexistent enrollment management plan. It is important, but difficult, to create a plan that can give priority to both quality and accessibility. The latter is an essential feature of Cal Poly Pomona and it inevitably means that there will be a need for remediation on campus. In fact, we disagree with the conclusion of the Academic Programs Committee that these programs offer nothing to “demand/essentiality”. These programs are required to satisfy EO 665 and allow the University to accept a diversity of students who bring particular backgrounds, views, and talents to the campus.

The recommendations seem to put the cart before the horse. An enrollment management plan that ensures that students who come to Cal Poly Pomona are better prepared for college level work will cause a reduced need for remediation leading to reduced funding for remediation. Reduced funding under the current plan will only cause the English and Mathematics programs to offer bare-bones services that do not promote student success. Rather, it is important that there be funding available for the current alternative approaches to remediation, such as Summer Bridge, Early Start and the Early Assessment Program and for other best practice models to be developed in the future. We should also look to FYE programs to emphasize to students the importance of completing remedial requirements efficiently. The recommendations do not mention specifically taking remediation off campus, although that has been brought up often in the last five years. It must be noted that the recommendations emphasize reducing “the need for [these] programs”. Simply hiding remediation out of sight does not meet this goal.

Finally, there is an implication in the recommendations of a connection between the number of remedial students and the rise in the numbers of students below a 2.2 GPA. At the same time, this connection is described with the phrase “apparent parallel”. To imply a connection that the committee does not know to exist misleads the audience concerning the remediation problem.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendations not submitted through the forms are available in this folder. They mainly consist of Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat documents. If none were submitted for this recommendation, the folder will be empty.