Withstanding the Backlash - Conceptualizing and Preparing for Coercive Reactions to Placement Reform and Corequisite Support Models in California

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by kopisore

This article examines the predictable backlash that may arise when California’s community colleges implement placement reform and corequisite support models under AB 705. It reviews how placement tests can misclassify students and how evidence-driven corequisite remediation can improve completion, especially for students of color. Using local data, the article characterizes backlash dynamics, identifies corequisite support courses as likely targets, and proposes framing strategies to encourage good-faith dialogue while limiting attempts to revert inequitable practices.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages19

Reading Time48 min

AccessFree to download

AB 705 and placement reform context

Corequisite support as a likely backlash target

Policy design and assessment changes under AB 705

Evidence from other states and collaborative reform approaches

Withstanding the Backlash: Conceptualizing and Preparing for Coercive Reactions to Placement Reform and Corequisite Support Models in California Erik Armstrong, Megan Baptista Geist, and Joshua Geist In the last few years, college and university systems nationwide have implemented sweeping reforms to placement and course sequences to rectify systemic inequities affecting incoming students. Many of these reforms acknowledge that standardized placement tests create false distinctions between “prepared” and “underprepared” students, and that most students deemed “underprepared” by placement tests are in fact successful in collegelevel courses. A growing and predictable backlash is arising as these reforms change the demographic makeup of college classrooms. Using local data to examine, characterize, and theorize the backlash against California’s recent legislative reform, AB 705, this article identifies corequisite support courses as a likely target for future backlash and offers suggestions for framing conversations around corequisite models and placement reform so as to generate meaningful, good-faith discussion while minimizing reactionary attempts to return to inequitable placement and curricular practices. “The reason why I’m so strongly in favor of AB 705 [is] because it truly symbolizes and hallmarks not just equality but equity in higher education.” —Alexander Walker-Griffin, former student representative on the California Board of Governors Over the last several years, higher education institutions nationwide have engaged in campaigns to reform remedial education. In most cases, such efforts center on reworking placement and implementing corequisite support. These reforms are driven by an ever-expanding body of research demonstrating that corequisite remediation benefits completion in both math and English for students of color by several fold, greatly helping to reduce the equity gaps we know exist in traditional, multiple-course remedial sequences (Public Policy Institute of California) . Alexander Walker-Griffin and other young students of color like him stand to benefit the most from reforms legislated by California Assembly Bill 705 (AB 705), and student advocacy organizations like Students Making a Change have embraced AB Composition Studies 48.2 (2020): 74–92 705 as a transformative opportunity for Black and Brown students (Students Making a Change). However, this growing body of evidence has not stopped reform critics from decrying institutional and curricular change. Rather, the tectonic pressure of legislative changes like AB 705 has increased the shrill of those critics. Signed into law in October of 2017, AB 705 legislated changes to English, mathematics, and ESL placement and course sequences for California’s community colleges. The reforms included the required use of multiple measures (high school GPA, high school coursework, etc.) in placement, the elimination of standardized skills tests as assessment mechanisms, the prohibition of placing students in remedial coursework without clear evidence that such coursework would increase success, and the more limited time frames to complete transferlevel courses—one year for English and mathematics and three years for ESL (California State) . These changes were later narrowed in guidance from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) to primarily rely upon high school GPA and to prioritize access to transfer-level coursework (Hope and Stanskas) . These recent legislative efforts in California mirror changes happening nationwide. Tennessee, for example, piloted corequisite remediation in the 2014-2015 academic year, and the pilot results were so compelling that they instituted full implementation the following year (Tennessee Board of Regents 1). Specifically, Tennessee demonstrated a 31% increase in writing completion with the corequisite model versus their old prerequisite model, and they closed their achievement gap (Te

FAQs

What is the main focus of the article?

The article focuses on conceptualizing and preparing for coercive reactions to placement reform and corequisite support models, using California’s AB 705 as the focal case.

Why does the article connect AB 705 to potential backlash?

It argues that sweeping reforms can change classroom demographics and trigger predictable criticism, with corequisite support courses likely becoming a target of future backlash.

What key changes did AB 705 introduce for placement and course sequences?

AB 705 required multiple measures for placement, eliminated standardized skills tests for assessment, restricted remedial placement without clear evidence of increased success, and set more limited time frames for completing transfer-level courses.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by kopisore