assignment to any particular level. Coding of the course levels IS a local decision.
There is no obligation to use the CB 21 coding as indicated in the rubric; it is merely a guide or reference indicating agreement among colleges in the state regarding a core commonality. Each local college may code the basic skills courses at their college appropriately to fit their student population, curriculum and program descriptions. If their basic skills course looks like a level 2 on the rubric, but the college decides to code the course at level 1 or level 3 or any other level, it may do so. This is a local decision.
Faculty will continue to develop and determine what they teach as discipline experts about their student audiences, retaining curricular and program primacy.
This process is not designed as an obstacle to curriculum, curricular or programmatic development. It WAS developed as a data coding activity to improve the data reported to the Legislature concerning student success and improvement in basic skills.
When the process is completed a protocol will be developed for recoding the basic skills levels. This process will include local discipline faculty working collaboratively with the person coding MIS curriculum elements at their college.
Rubric Development: We Have a DRAFT!
The faculty were then divided into groups based upon their teaching expertise and experience by discipline, either English, mathematics, reading or ESL. Each group first determined the common number of course levels in their discipline. Currently CB 21 coding allows for 3 levels below transfer with the fourth level being non-descript as something lower or equal to transfer. Each of the disciplines independently determined their own common course level below transfer.
Here is what happened:
English described three levels below English 1A or Freshman composition with great care and worked diligently to describe a fourth level but were unsure of its usefulness and content. The English faculty created a rubric based upon the major skills or exit competencies common to these levels of courses. They decided to write the rubric contents in outcomes language to indicate that these skills are what a student leaves each level able to do.
Reading described four levels as well. Reading is an interesting discipline with distinct skills and philosophies built into each level of their rubric. Because most of the research about reading nationwide is described by grade levels, reading faculty initially created descriptions with grade equivalencies, but were not committed to leaving these in the final rubric.
Mathematics faculty described a four level rubric beginning with basic mathematics and going up to Intermediate Algebra. Although these courses were previously fairly well-defined in CB21, the discussion about the skills and how they related to each course were very helpful. The mathematics rubric still needs input as to the location of non-algebra courses such as geometry.
Chapter 12 11