Assembly hearing exposes sharp divisions over AB1705 calculus guidance; students and faculty press for flexible preparatory options

The Assembly Higher Education Committee heard competing perspectives on AB1705 implementation and related Chancellor's Office guidance memos, with system officials defending evidence that direct placement plus supports increases Calculus I completion for many students while students, veterans, and several faculty said community colleges must retain preparatory transfer‑level options and flexible supports for reentry and underprepared learners.

John Hetz of the Chancellor's Office described the calculus pathway options the office provided to colleges: direct enrollment in Calculus I (including calculus with co‑requisite support), validation of a college's existing preparatory sequence if the sequence shows outcomes comparable to direct placement, or development of an innovative preparatory course. Hetz explained the office used two related criteria for permitting preparatory sequences: a probabilistic threshold for students "highly unlikely to succeed" (the office referenced a conventional probabilistic interpretation and used a roughly 15 percent threshold in its analysis) and a requirement that a preparatory sequence demonstrate throughput at least comparable to direct placement at other colleges. Hetz said colleges were given local data and permitted to generate their own analyses while the Chancellor's Office and RP Group continue to study outcomes.

Students and faculty described consequences when local administrators initially treated an early Chancellor's Office memo as a ban on pre‑transfer offerings. Lucia Landeros, a Cuesta College student, said the February 27, 2024 memo was locally interpreted "as a complete ban of not only remedial math and English courses, but also a pre Calculus and trigonometry," and said that reentry students and older students who have not taken math in years need options to refresh skills. Similarly, Vincent Williams, a student veteran from San Diego Mesa College, said he rebuilt his math skills by taking sequential courses and argued veterans must retain the ability to choose preparatory pathways.

Faculty presenters described diverse local experiences. Rachel Polakowski, math co‑chair at Cuyamaca College, gave a classroom example: a student with no precalculus who enrolled directly in calculus with integrated support earned an A in Calculus I and subsequently succeeded in Calculus II and physics; Polakowski reported a first‑try pass rate around 75 percent for students without precalculus who began calculus with integrated support at her college. By contrast, other faculty and department chairs warned that Calculus I is an advanced course and that preparatory transfer‑level courses such as trigonometry and precalculus are articulated to CSU/UC general education and are necessary for physics, chemistry, and engineering sequencing. Tina Acres Porter, Modesto Junior College, argued that treating Calculus I as an introductory course is a false analogy and that preparatory transfer‑level options should remain available for students who lacked adequate high school preparation.

Multiple witnesses asked for clearer, consistent guidance and better data collection on outcomes for specific student groups. Faculty and student speakers called for: (1) explicit recognition that trigonometry and precalculus are transfer‑level courses, not remedial, and that colleges may continue to offer them; (2) transparent validation criteria that align the performance thresholds applied to preparatory sequences and direct‑placement comparators; and (3) expanded, funded wraparound supports (embedded tutors, advisors, and flexible scheduling) for students who take high‑unit co‑requisite courses.

The Chancellor's Office and RP Group said additional research and regional supports are planned and that colleges were provided a range of pathway options rather than a single mandate. Legislators signaled continued oversight and invited more qualitative and college‑level evidence, including veteran‑specific outcomes and data on D/F/W (drop/fail/withdraw) rates, while acknowledging the trade‑offs between collecting some enrollment metrics and adding administrative burden for students.