CHAPARRAL

The Senate, seeking to establish the effect that the compressed calendar had on student success, created a task force last year to collect and evaluate data on the impact that compression of the calendar had on our students, as established in Section 53200 of Title 5 California Code of Regulations. The task force has submitted its report and I would like to share some of its findings.

     Before proceeding, I would like to thank Sid Kolpas, chair of the task force, Susan DeSantis, Allyn Glanzer, Dave Jones, Elis Lee, and Ed Karpp for the time and energy they gave to the research and analysis of the data they collected. On their behalf, I will also state that they acknowledge that there were many uncontrolled variables and a limit to the data available. If only we had established our research design and collected data in preparation of the compression! But we didn't, and that means that we will now need to develop longitudinal studies before we can make definitive statements. With this in mind, the Senate plans to continue its study.

     The first set of questions the task force addressed concerned performance.

     "Is the percentage of students who pass classes significantly higher on the compressed calendar as compared to traditional semesters?" Comparing the fall 2001 with the average of the four previous fall semesters, the change in success was 0 percent, and the change in retention was -1 percent.

     Neither of these changes was deemed meaningful. It is tempting to sigh with relief that we did no major harm. But more interesting findings emerge when we look beyond the averages. In 61 courses success rates increased by more than 10 percent, while in 49 courses success rates declined by more than 10 percent. Among the divisions which experienced success were the Social Sciences and ESL, while courses in foreign language, student development, photography, and dance showed notable losses in student success. Rather than applaud or panic, the task force decided that it should not draw conclusions in the absence of longitudinal studies.

     The task force also looked at courses that have labs to see what, if any, impact compression might have had on students in these classes. The gains or losses here fell in the 5 percent range. The most dramatic losses appear in the language arts and the most dramatic gains appeared in physical sciences. Again, we will need to collect data this year to see if there are any meaningful patterns.

     Grades were also a point of concern included in this set of questions. Was a student's GPA significantly higher on the compressed calendar as compared to the seventeen-week term? The data here vary from discipline to discipline, but they convey a similar message that the compressed calendar did not lead to a dramatic increase or decrease in GPAs. The change was -.01 percent. There were differences among disciplines, but none represented a whole grade (from A to B, or B to A) change.

     It is so tempting to say that the compression made no difference—but we won't go there yet.

     The next set of questions addressed the use students made of the winter session. Were students taking classes that appeared to be accelerating their goal of transfer, or were they taking classes to repeat courses in which they had received Ds, Fs, or Ws? Here the task force compared data to summer sessions for the four previous years.   

     Tentatively it appears that students were taking classes with hopes of transferring sooner. There appears to be little difference in the pattern of classes repeated. The fill rate of classes in the winter session was not as great as during the summer sessions, but given the newness of the session, this finding is only tentative.

     The task force also looked for patterns in the courses students chose to take. Those without prerequisites had the highest enrollment with the longest wait lists. Science and math classes did not show the same demand.

     The task force hypothesized that students were trying to complete non-prerequisite IGETC courses rather than taking courses that build on previous classes or lay the foundation for future classes.

     Thus far I have highlighted only some of the findings of the task force. If you would like to see the report in its entirety or to look at the findings for your specific discipline, I suggest you check with your senator. Or you can find the report on the Senate web page.

     If you have questions that you would like to see addressed, please contact me in the Senate office, or contact Dr. Sid Kolpas, who chaired the committee.

[back to the top]