The AB 1705 bill, passed by the California Legislature and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2022, is impacting how students learn at Cuesta College. Although all programs are affected, the significant changes to the math division are drawing the most faculty criticism.
The bill was drafted and submitted to the California Assembly by Jacqui Irwin, a member representing parts of Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. The bill aims to address the educational success gap between the general student body and minority students, which widened during the pandemic and has affected Cuesta College as well.
“To understand where they came from, we must first examine AB705 and what that was aiming to do,” said William Demarest, division chair for mathematics at Cuesta College. “AB 705 allowed students to go straight into transfer-level math if they so wished, but still allowed us to allow for lower-level math courses. In general, the math department supported this increase in options for prospective students, which allowed more seats to open.”
The problem that AB1705 precursor, the AB705 bill, sought to address is known as the “leaky pipeline” issue. The term refers to the correlation between starting in a lower-level math course and a lower chance of completing Calculus 1 within a two-year period. The CCC Analysis shows that this trend is also present at Cuesta. AB705 opened up Calculus 1 to new students, allowing them to step into college already at a transfer-level if they so choose, thereby opening up seats in lower math classes to those who need to start in Algebra or Trigonometry. Demarest acknowledged that this increased student success in math and enabled more equitable placement. “Because of the increased availability of courses as well as the added value to students, the AB705 bill was widely favored by faculty at that time,” Demarest said.
The landmark change in AB 1705 requires community colleges like Cuesta to show that prerequisite math courses will increase students’ chances of success in transfer-level math before placing students into them.
As stated in the AB1705 Implementation guide: “United States high school graduates, and those who have received a high school equivalency certificate…who plan to pursue a certificate, degree, or transfer program, shall be directly placed into, and, when beginning coursework in English or mathematics/quantitative reasoning, enrolled in, transfer-level English and mathematics/quantitative reasoning courses.”
AB1705 does not require students to enroll in math in their first semester; they should be placed in transfer-level work whenever they start enrolling in math classes. For lower-division math classes, such as pre-calculus and trigonometry, colleges may only place students if data show a student is “highly unlikely to succeed without remedial coursework.” AB1705 defines “highly unlikely to succeed” as a success rate probability of less than 15%.
The bill further declares that college advisors must maximize the likelihood that students complete transfer-level math within their first academic year. The data used to determine placement include high school coursework, grades, and grade point average. According to AB1705, these metrics should be used to evaluate a student’s likelihood of success when placing them in transfer-level coursework. According to AB1705, Section 3, subsection C, Points 1-3 state that lower measured metrics must be offset by higher metrics, thereby raising the prospective student’s theoretical success rate. This is echoed in the CCC’s Multiple Measures Clarification statement. These goals are also applicable to those without a high school degree and to returning students.
“Based on the criteria and the data used, it is almost impossible for a student not to get placed in Calculus 1,” Demarest said. “I would go as far as to say that, as far as how the bill is currently being implemented, I would suggest this outcome is what was desired.”
Cuesta Assistant Superintendent/Vice President of Student Success and Support Programs, Elizabeth Coria, pointed out that the new onboarding process for prospective students reflected this change in student assessment with an updated onboarding process: “Cuesta College has implemented automatic Student Education Plans as part of the onboarding process. Through our Student Success and Support Program, we have developed comprehensive templates for all associate degrees, Associate Degrees for Transfer, and credit and noncredit certificates, aligned to each student’s selected major,” Coria said in an email. “As a result, students receive a structured academic roadmap through their myCuesta portal.”
Jacqui Irwin’s Legislative Aide, Cassandra Mar, said that the shift from AB705 to AB1705 was to improve equity in academic success. “Prior to AB705, only 24% of remedial education students transferred to a four-year institution after six years compared to the 65% of students who were not placed in remedial education,” Mar wrote. “As a result, Ms. Irwin introduced both bills to ensure that students are able to make an informed decision when it came to selecting a course, rather than being subjected to remedial courses where a student’s chance of success were minimal.”
A key argument presented by the Chancellor’s office was data showing that students are most likely to earn credit and succeed in their first year at a California community college. To that end, creating a pathway that allows students to take transfer-level mathematics directly in their first semester is a major focus of this bill.
Demarest was clear in distinguishing the difference between the choice of classes and the success rate: “We in the Mathematics department support the choice for students to be able to enroll in higher math classes. While the success rate in higher classes has supposedly increased, this doesn’t make lower-division classes unnecessary,” Demarest said. “The issue with AB1705 is that the interpretation by the chancellor’s office is that pre-transfer-level courses were effectively eliminated from community colleges. I would argue that this clearly negatively impacts disadvantaged students.”
Mar refutes that the bill’s reading prohibits lower-level courses. “AB705 and AB1705 did not prohibit community colleges from offering pre-transfer level courses,” Mar wrote. “Furthermore, if a student elects to take a pre-transfer-level course, then the college must provide all supports necessary to ensure the student successfully completes a transfer-level course in one year.”
According to the AB1705 Implementation Guide, a clear answer was provided regarding which data could be collected to qualify a student for pre-transfer-level courses. Demarest argues that this vagueness makes it impossible to argue for the existence of lower-level classes. “Not one community college I know of has been able to fulfill the criteria needed to keep lower-level courses open,” Demarest said.
For all degrees and certificates available at a community college, the mathematics department has laid out, when applicable, a pathway to reach the desired final math goal. The most common pathway is the Calculus 1 pathway, which defines what prerequisites and courses are necessary to enroll in and pass Calculus 1. “STEM students generally need Calculus 1, most go beyond,” Demarest said, “Calculus 1 is a fundamental part of mathematics for most students who go on to a 4-year university.”
On July 1, 2027, all community colleges will undergo a Calculus pathway validation to see if the Calculus 1 Prerequisites are necessary based on the Criteria defined in AB1705. These pathways must achieve full validation status at that time in order to be implemented. ”To achieve full validation status, we need to show that all classes leading to it, like prerequisite courses, are necessary and need to be proven with data,” Demarest said. “However, no one college has been able to achieve full validation status for these courses, so, unless things change, and they might, these prerequisites will drop by July 2027.”
Coria agreed that the data collection required by the bill is still being conducted: “The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office continues to provide guidance on data collection requirements associated with AB 1705,” Coria said in an email. “At a high level, colleges are evaluating student outcomes such as course success, persistence, and progression through transfer-level coursework, along with factors such as prior academic performance and coursework where applicable.”
Other Cuesta math professors, such as Joe Vasta, are likewise struggling to understand the bill’s purported outcome. “Students need to be able to come to a community college from any level of education; that is why we have community in the name,” he said. ”Any student who comes from an unstable household, or wasn’t able to enjoy a good education in math at their high school, how are they possibly able to pass calculus without trigonometry and fundamental algebra skills? It baffles me.” When asked if he believed the bill had good intentions despite the criticism surrounding its implementation, Vasta noted that he had a hard time looking past the apparent conundrum of the bill. “It is supposed to be about helping minorities and returning students, and that is a great start, but how does providing fewer courses help anybody?“ he said.
Demarest also mentioned the unfair challenges that await underprepared students. “Math builds on itself more than other subjects; every theorem learned is used again to learn the next, and our curriculum is strictly defined, and already we cover a wide range of material in any given class,” he said.
Currently, supplemental courses help students throughout Calculus 1, and AB1705 encourages their implementation to help students succeed. Still, Demarest doubts the efficacy of learning Calcuus this way: “Having to step into a Calculus class and learn how to solve problems with Trigonometric Identities, to then go to a support class to understand what a trig identity is, seems to be a big challenge,” he said,” Essentially, a student must catch up on at least 2 semesters worth of mathematical ideas while also learning Calculus.” This sentiment is echoed by the Student Senate for California Community Colleges: “The prescribed corequisite model, while helpful to many students, is too accelerated and high-unit to be an adequate substitute for stand-alone foundational coursework.” The Student Senate for California Community Colleges has also passed a resolution for amending the AB1705 bill based on this perception.
On a state level, the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges has acknowledged concerns from instructors about the AB1705 bill, arguing that the corequisite model may have unintended inequitable consequences: “While AB 1705 was framed as an equity measure, faculty raised concerns that some of its implementation may deepen inequities. Supports such as tutoring and corequisites are most accessible to students who can afford the extra time. Older students and working students may be further marginalized by structures that assume flexibility they simply do not have.”
On the Cuesta Campus, the math department believes this issue hasn’t received much attention or comment. Some faculty, such as Vasta, suspect that apathy among the student population is the cause. “I talk about it in my classrooms, sure, because this is an important issue, but on campus? Who knows about this, and why haven’t students been informed about these changes? Even if they graduate before this really gets put into action,” Vasta said.
Coria also confirmed that Cuesta is in dialogue with other colleges to get a clearer picture of how the rollout of AB1705 is evolving. “We continue to participate in ongoing conversations with system partners, including other community colleges and the Chancellor’s Office, as implementation evolves,” she said. “Across the system, colleges are working to balance access with student success by sharing strategies, refining practices and identifying areas where additional guidance or flexibility may be needed.”
Of the 40 students at Cuesta who were asked on campus whether they had heard of AB1705, only three recalled hearing it, all of whom cited mathematics instructors, such as Vasta, as their source of information. Demarest acknowledged the gap between the student body’s engagement with this issue and the Math department’s critical view. “We have definitely felt the effects of the bill, “Demarest said. “We all have strong thoughts and questions on this issue, but I realize that this issue is under the radar for most people on the street.”
On a state level, the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges and the California Mathematics Council for Community Colleges have been urged to work for change on this issue. “If you went up to anybody on the street and said, ‘Hey, community colleges don’t teach algebra anymore,’ they would hardly believe it,” Demarest said. “I have yet to find anyone who says that they support this bill.”
Many interest groups have formed to promote the discussion of reforming AB1705. The FACCC has a dedicated site and contact to help collect data to test the bill’s efficacy, while others form petitions and letters to the assembly to help reverse the bill’s effects.
Many instructors across campus hope to see the pendulum of community college openness swing the other way.
“Since 2007 until now, our policy has been to meet the student where they are at. The lower division got the most attention, and the success rates of those classes helped people get into higher mathematics with strong fundamentals. But with this bill, this is no longer the case,” Demarest said. “Students should be met where they are at, no matter where that entry point is, and if a veteran, who hasn’t seen a math textbook in a few years, needs to brush up on their algebra so they can get a successful start to their degree, how can we possibly deny them that by not offering that course?”
