Data is a definitive force when it comes to legislation, but when your legislation affects real people, what happens to the outliers?
Under AB 1705, non-transfer-level math and English courses have been eliminated in the hope that more, though not all, students will transfer or graduate faster. There may be data behind this claim, but students are now expected to fit the data instead of being supported by it. AB 1705 is a bill that undermines the purpose of community colleges — to provide for all types of learners — by removing student and teacher autonomy, prioritizing transfer rate speed instead of learning, and limiting access to foundational courses. In prioritizing efficiency, AB 1705 disregards the complexity of the student body it affects.
California community colleges serve a diverse population from working parents and first-generation students to recent high school graduates and people thinking of changing careers. According to the textbook Governing California in the Twenty-First Century, “About 80 percent of California’s 3 million college students attend a University of California (UC), California State University (CSU), or community college campus, with 44 percent of the total attending community colleges” (Michelson et al. 7). California community colleges are cheaper, easier to enroll in, and, in general, just more accessible. All these qualities make community colleges the best option for people to start their journey in higher education.
So, what’s the motivation behind trying to speed up the process to completion? Well, the biggest factor is that community colleges receive their funding based on how many students graduate or transfer. The reason for this is because:
In recent years, community colleges in California have come under fire for their poor graduation rates. A 2010 report … [done] at California State University, Sacramento, found that 70 percent of students seeking degrees at California community colleges did not attain them or transfer to four-year universities within six years (Michelson et al. 270).
As a result, colleges have increased pressure to improve graduation and transfer rates. And this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s created a shift in mindset where completion is equivalent to learning, explaining how something like AB 1705 came into existence.
Consequently, AB 1705 forces students into transfer-level English and math courses, removing teacher and student choice. Regardless of a student’s lack of preparation or their learning style, they have no choice in what course they take. Subsequently, teachers are forced to teach students who are not prepared for the courses they teach. Community colleges are meant to meet students where they are, and teachers should be able to help address those needs. A professor from the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges stated that “AB 1705 … would impede the faculty’s ability to address the distinct needs of at-risk math and English learners” (Myers 13). Faculty are struggling to make a course appropriate for less-prepared students and there is increasing worry that skipping prerequisites will discourage students from pursuing higher education. Some educators also argue that this forces them to make their classes less comprehensive in an attempt to accommodate some students. The lack of choices professors are facing because of legislation like AB 1705 only incentivizes them to go to another career path where their degree and opinions are valued. In the same fashion, AB 1705 is directly impacting student choice. More options in education mean more ways to help students stay on their pathway to higher education. Removing the ability for students to make their own choices based on their intuition, past experiences, and advice from faculty and counselors, only adds more barriers. If a student wants to jump straight into a transfer-level course because they want to transfer in two years, that’s great! If a student wants to start off with intermediate algebra because they barely passed it in high school, that’s also great! Student autonomy is an integral part of our education system, so when the assembly bill uses the one-size fits all approach, it’s infringing on the freedom and rights of students. To summarize, students no longer have a say in what works best for them, and faculty don’t have a choice in how to help students.
AB 1705 prioritizes transfer rates over learning, demonstrating that community colleges are contradicting their goal of improving students’ lives. The assembly bill pushes students quickly into transfer-level courses to speed academic progress, but it doesn’t ensure students are ready or that they actually learn the material. As mentioned earlier, linking funding to student transfer and/or graduation rates has led to community colleges being rewarded to speed up the transfer and graduation rates, but they have no incentive to improve the student learning experience. Las Positas College’s mission statement reads:
Las Positas College provides an inclusive, learning-centered, equity-focused environment that offers educational opportunities and support for completion of students’ transfer, degree, and career-technical goals while promoting lifelong learning.
The irony is that while LPC promotes “lifelong learning,” they are slowly turning into a factory for creating corporate humanoids. The bill also makes the assumption that everyone in community college wants to transfer or graduate, when that is far from the case. There are students who attend for certificates, skill building, or just returning to learning after some time away. As the Daily Californian states, “every student should be set up to do as well as they can, not treated as acceptable sacrifices in the context of higher completion rates” (Shonk). This critique shows that policies like AB 1705 prioritize statistics over students, treating them as tools for higher completion rates rather than individuals with unique goals.
When learning is secondary to data, students who need more support are left behind. Supporters of AB 1705 use data as the driving force for their reasoning. The supporting data shows that if a student fails Calculus and retakes it, they’re more likely to graduate or transfer than someone who starts in Intermediate Algebra. A Las Positas College report titled, “AB 1705 STEM Calculus Pathway Placement and First Math Course Enrollment Analysis” states that “[l]owest STEM Placement students who started in any preparatory course in the STEM Calculus Pathway at your college had lower STEM Calculus 1 completion (throughput) in two years than those who started in STEM Calculus 1” (“AB 1705 Analysis”). But this data fails to mention that there are so many students who fall through the cracks. There are students who fail the first time because they feel anxious, foolish, and depressed due to the fact that they were forced into a class that they did not have the fundamentals for. For example, “at Los Angeles Mission College, 176 additional students attempted transfer-level math and only 11 students completed it. An additional 165 Hispanic students did not succeed in transfer-level math and were left with substandard grades on their permanent academic records” (Myers 14). With the legislation pushing students into courses they are unprepared for, AI can become an even more tempting shortcut. In effect, the policy corners students into choices, such as cheating, that compromise their education rather than support it. While AB 1705 may push some students to Pradeep 5 rely on AI shortcuts, it was also designed to correct equity issues exposed by AB 705, which swung to the opposite extreme.
Another argument in support of AB 1705 is that it’s better than AB 705, the previous legislation, which placed students into courses based solely on placement tests, often delaying their progress toward transfer-level courses. AB 705 placed students into a math and English class based on a test, but the problem was many students' pathway to transfer or graduate lengthened because they started off in a non-transfer level course. AB 705 caused lots of gaps in equity, especially considering that “more than 70% of California community colleges students are people of diverse ethnic backgrounds” (“Key Facts”). Supporters of AB 1705 say that it fixes the equity gap in comparison to AB 705, but in reality, it overcorrects the problem by just eliminating the classes. In fact, it’s so unlikely that a student would pass due to AB 1705 “that a student [would be] more likely to survive the Titanic disaster than to pass transfer math the first year after the elimination of pre-transfer courses” (Myers 14). Overall, just because some students succeed without prep doesn’t mean all should be forced into harder classes.
In spite of that, some students enter community college fully prepared for transfer-level math and English, and at first glance, AB 1705 might seem beneficial for them. In actuality, it restricts them from fully exploring their options. AB 1705 encourages students to follow their “pathway” to completion, so it narrows their choices and discourages exploration of courses outside the prescribed sequence. One benefit of higher education is that it challenges students’ preconceived notions about their future careers. Some students benefit from starting college exploring possibilities rather than following a predetermined career path. By enforcing rigid pathways, AB 1705 limits opportunities for self-discovery, pressuring students to prioritize efficiency over meaningful learning. However, AB 1705 doesn’t just limit students’ freedom to explore, but it also cuts access to the foundational courses they need to succeed.
Students now face restricted access to foundational courses because of AB 1705. Before AB 1705, community colleges offered remedial and pre-transfer courses to build skills. These foundational classes helped prepare students for harder transfer-level courses, but AB 1705 eliminates or severely restricts these options. By cutting access to foundational courses, the bill makes it harder for students to succeed. For many, community college is a place to catch up academically. Foundational skills, especially in math, are necessary to do well in higher education. But it takes more time to build these foundations, and unfortunately, community colleges are shifting away from real quality instruction. A member of the Faculty Association of Community Colleges states that “I feel as though quality is being diminished, in the name of speed of pushing students to the next level” (Miller). There are consequences with the obsession over transfer rates, and one of the consequences is the diminishing of foundational courses.
There is a solution to the effects of AB 1705, and that is to raise your voice and share your story! A handful of students and faculty members, including myself, recently went to the State Capitol to lobby against AB 1705. We spoke to State Legislators or their staffers about how the bill is negatively affecting students and faculty at Las Positas College. Also, letting students know about AB 1705 is so important because it gives reasoning behind their experience with math and English at Las Positas College and inspires them to take action. Advocacy is a powerful tool that has been used time and time again in higher education when the system isn’t truly serving the students. The changes that AB 1705 makes work against the core mission of community colleges — to serve all learners at their level and help them succeed.
FACCC blog posts are written independently by FACCC members (or their students) and reflect their experiences and recommendations. FACCC neither condemns nor endorses the recommendations herein and has not taken a position on the proposed revision discussed in this post.