Placement Tests

It occurs to me that there is an inherent problem in the way community colleges evaluate students for placement in English courses. The tests are, at least in my experience, monolithic beasts that generate aggregate figures. Based on these figures, students are placed in developmental or college-level courses, but the problem is that while many students placed in developmental courses belong there, they should not necessarily have to take every class along the way to college-level composition courses. Similarly, far too many unqualified students make it into college-level courses because they reach some threshold in scoring.

Students are often lacking in fundamentals these days, rarely able to define, much less write, complete sentences. Even these students, however, are frequently able to structure essays with some competence, and between that ability and some knowledge of punctuation they may pass into college-level courses for which they are ill-prepared. Similarly, many students who miss the threshold are competent in certain areas but will be required to repeat those levels because their placement starts them below material they know (and into courses that address areas of weakness).

To be fair, testing takes time and money, and schools are understandably hesitant to make changes without a great deal of evidence suggesting that the change will provide a real benefit. Still, I propose we evaluate students in four areas, testing each upon entry: technical skill (grammar, punctuation, spelling, and mechanics), sentence structure, paragraph building, and essay development. All of these are essential for eventual student success, but are we saving money—and I mean here both in terms of the institution and the students—when we make a student with one problem area take two or three remedial courses instead of the one that would bring the student up to par?

If we create a system in which entry to college-level composition courses (English 100, 101, 1A, or whatever a given school may call such a course) is based upon qualification in a number of areas, we would reduce the number of students not passing these courses, initially reducing the need for as many sections as are usually offered now. Simultaneously, we can offer more targeted assistance to students while offering, for many, a faster track to degree or program completion.

Under such a system, the developmental courses will retain a hierarchy for those students who require more than one, but they would allow students who do not have strengths and weaknesses well suited to the traditional track to get that help they need and move on in a timely fashion, without filling seats in classes that other students need.