How Research Informed Policy in Arkansas’s Adoption of Multiple Measures

Arkansas was relatively quick off the mark in recognizing the potential of multiple measures assessment (MMA). The Arkansas Division of Higher Education put a policy in place in 2017 that allowed colleges to place new students into developmental or college-level math and English using MMA, a research-backed assessment and placement method that improves upon the old method of using a single test. But, with the final decisions on placement up to colleges in Arkansas’s decentralized governance system, take-up by the colleges was slow amid concerns about the accuracy of the new way of placing students.

In response, the state worked with CAPR and Arkansas Community Colleges, a nonprofit college association, to issue a second round of placement recommendations in October 2023. The guidance recommends the use of high school GPA as the primary placement method and of alternatives for students who cannot provide a GPA.

CAPR asked Tracy Harrell, the chief program development officer for the Arkansas Division of Higher Education (ADHE), and Mason Campbell, the assistant commissioner of academic affairs for ADHE, about how the recommendations came together, how they were influenced by research, and what impact they have had so far. 

What challenges were Arkansas higher education institutions facing that led to ADHE’s new placement guidance?

 ADHE: Arkansas was facing a number of challenges, both at the state and institutional levels. Too many students were assigned to remediation statewide, including some students with a high school GPA of 3.0 or higher. Colleges were seeing lower retention rates in remedial courses and low success rates, forcing students to repeat courses. 

At the same time, there was skepticism that high school GPA was an accurate indicator of student achievement and a feeling that statewide standards were not appropriate for everyone, since colleges have different populations and different missions. 

Why were MMA reforms crucial for improving student success?

ADHE: Arkansas had low graduation rates compared to other states, and those could be traced back to low gateway course success rates and low first-year retention rates. Our students came to college less prepared as measured by ACT scores, with an average of 18.6 compared to the national average of 19.5, meaning more were placed into remedial courses. And because we required those courses, students were using up their financial aid, creating problems downstream, even for successful students.

How did the 2023 placement guidance come together?

ADHE: State policy already allowed for multiple measures, but institutions were not compelled to use MMA, especially standalone GPA. The authority of the ADHE Coordinating Board primarily operates on consensus building, so we needed a mechanism to encourage change quickly. Issuing recommendations was the most effective way to get appropriate attention to the research, buy-in from the institutions, and traction on statewide change. CAPR assisted with the initial draft of the recommendations, which was then passed to and endorsed by the commissioner of ADHE, then distributed to all institutions. To bring attention to the research, the placement recommendations are embedded in the remediation report, which breaks down the statistics on remedial courses and enrollment and is delivered to the ADHE Coordinating Board each year.

What tools, supports, or research was key in developing this MMA policy?

ADHE: Arkansas had already been working with Complete College America (CCA), which reinforced the immediate need for and importance of the use of multiple measures. The Arkansas Community Colleges Center for Student Success was very supportive of ADHE’s participation in CCA and was looking for opportunities for two-year institutions to engage in the reduction of remediation statewide. 

CAPR presented the opportunity to pursue research specific to Arkansas colleges and students. This research and analysis were the catalyst for the development of the MMA recommendations and the expansion of multiple measures at Arkansas institutions. Previous and current Department of Education and Division of Higher Education leaders have all been supportive of this research and the expansion of multiple measures, as evident by numerous policy updates since 2012. 

Were there any contextual factors unique to Arkansas that influenced how the research was applied to the placement guidance?

ADHE: There was no need to issue new policy; existing policy already allowed for MMA. But most colleges were using standalone ACT scores to place students into developmental or college-level courses, while the research showed that all the alternatives in the recommendations were better than standalone ACT scores.

Compared to their two-year counterparts, how, if at all, does placement reform differ in the four-year context?

ADHE: Because four-year colleges have higher requirements for admission, their students tend to be better prepared, and they are able to have less complex placement procedures, with fewer placement-measure options and the predominant use of a single placement measure. About half of our four-year institutions have incorporated high school GPA into their placement plans. 

At two-year institutions, placement is more complex because they have a wider range of preparation levels and often serve students who have been out of high school for longer. But, from what we’re seeing at ADHE, two-year institutions seem to be more open to creative and unconventional placement measures, while some four-year institutions almost seem proud to be more exclusive.

What was the rationale behind the way the recommendations were structured in the new placement guidance?

ADHE: The recommendations reinforced all existing elements of the current placement policy. The biggest new component is the renewed confidence in high school GPA, specifically the new, lower threshold of 2.5 cumulative GPA as a standalone indicator. Our confidence in the 2.5 GPA is a direct result of the research and analysis conducted by CAPR.

How did the colleges react to the guidance, and how has the implementation gone? What’s your general assessment of the impact of the guidance?

ADHE: Colleges were very hesitant. Implementation has been slow, although we have some institutions utilizing the ADHE recommendations. We also see an obvious increase in utilization of high school GPA, even if they are assigning a higher GPA threshold when they use GPA as a standalone indicator. Unfortunately, it has been difficult for the staff at ADHE to determine the student perspective on these changes. ADHE does not yet collect data on which specific placement measures are used for each student, but we hope to expand reporting in the future to include these data points. 

Our hope is that each institution will consider the CAPR research as an example of what they can accomplish at their own institution. The goal is to continue to pursue the best measure—or multiple measures—to ensure student success.

What advice would you give to other states and systems looking to implement similar developmental education reforms?

ADHE: We would tell other systems to:

• Go for it! Do the research and trust the findings. 
• Use the findings in whatever capacity you can affect the most change within your system or state. 
• Do not be overly concerned with resistance to change. 
• Make sure your higher education institutions feel heard and encourage them to do their own research. 
• Hold institutions accountable for their student success outcomes.