Data updated through Academic Year 2025.

This Updates a Report Originally Prepared by Rick Penn and Mike Berman in October 2022.

With special thanks to the following colleagues, whose input and prompt responses to our questions contributed to the data gathering process and to the information included in the early verisons of this report: Carolyn Terry (Associate Senior VP for Academic Affairs), Joshua Messite (Research Analyst, Office of the ASVPAA), Teri Hurst (Chair, English/RV), Julie Levenson (Counseling/TPSS), Angela Nissing (ELAP/TPSS), Milton Nash (Dean, Mathematics, Statistics, and Data Science), John Hamman (Chief Analytics and Insights Officer), Guillermo Laya (Collegewide Director, Assessment Centers), Rachel Saidi (Mathematics, Statistics, and Data Science/RV)

Contents

  1. Statement of Purpose
  2. Placement at MC: A Basic Timeline
  3. Brief Descriptions of APPE, APPM, APPG, and Emergency Remote Placement
  4. Important Caveats and Assumptions
  5. The Data:
        Graph 1: Distribution of English Assessment Tests Taken, 2018-2025
        Graph 2: Distribution of Math Assessment Tests Taken, 2018-2025
        Graph 3: ABC Rates in First Semester by Sex, 2018-2025
        Graph 4: ABC Rates in First Semester by Ethnicity, 2018-2025
        Graph 5: ABC Rates in First English Course, by Course Level, 2018-2025
        Graph 6: ABC Rates in First English Course, by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025
        Graph 7: ABC Rates in ENGL 101 as First English Course Taken, by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025
        Graph 8: ABC Rates in ENGL Paired Support (ENGL 101+ 011) as First English Course Taken, by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025
        Graph 9: ABC Rates in First Math Course Taken, by Course Level, 2018-2025
        Graph 10: ABC Rates in Gen Ed Math Courses without Support as First Math Course Taken, by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025
        Graph 11: ABC Rates in First ELAP Course Taken, by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025

Statement of Purpose

The data in this study were compiled with the primary goal of assessing how the new placement mechanisms launched at MC in recent years – namely, APPE, APPM, APPG, and Emergency Remote Placement (now “Course Placement”) – have affected student placement trends and student success in the first semester of study.


Brief Descriptions of APPE, APPM, APPG, and Emergency Remote Placement

APPE (Alternative Placement Program – English): This program grants Montgomery County high school students an English 101/011 assessment level at MC upon earning a grade of a B or higher in one of the following courses in high school: AP Language/Composition, Honors English 12, Modern World History, Honors Modern World History, AP World History. Note: A student who qualifies for and takes “freshman composition” through APPE must take ENGL 101 plus the support course ENGL 011.

APPM (Alternative Placement Program – Math): This program grants Montgomery County high school students an assessment level of MATH120/MATH117/MATH050 OR MATH130+030 upon earning a grade of a B or higher in one of the following courses in high school: Algebra 2, Honors Algebra 2, 2YR Algebra 2, MYP (Middle Year Program) Algebra 2/Anal 2. Note: As opposed to APPE, which requires students to take a support course with ENGL 101, students who take MATH 120 or MATH 117 under APPM are not required to take a support course.

APPG (Alternate Placement Program – GPA): This program grants Maryland high school graduates who earned a GPA of 3.0 or higher the combined ENGL and MATH assessment levels of APPE and APPM, noted above. Note 1: During the pandemic, the GPA threshold of 3.0 was temporarily lowered to 2.75 from summer 2020 until March 2022 (for summer/fall 2022 registration). Note 2: APPG eligibility extends to high school students in the state of Maryland, whereas APPE and APPM only extend solely to MCPS graduates.

Emergency Remote Placement (ERP): Prior to the pandemic, Math, English, and ESL placement testing at MC had been relatively unchanged for decades. That is, these placement protocols had always been based on students’ performance on a proctored, timed, in-person completion of a nationally available third-party testing instrument, though the testing instrument of choice changed from time to time over the years. Before the pandemic began in early 2020, MC’s Math placement test was based on the ALEKS test, the English placement test was based on the Accuplacer English test, and the ESL placement test was based on the Accuplacer ESL test. The ESL placement test process also included an in-house writing sample, which supplemented the Accuplacer ESL scores.

When it was clear that the pandemic would be a lasting event, each of those disciplines quickly pivoted to remote (online) placement processes that were untimed and unproctored. While the Math discipline continued to use the ALEKS test as the basis of this ERP process, English and ESL discontinued use of the Accuplacer English and Accuplacer ESL tests and, instead, created their own sets of guided questions and tasks that students completed online. The ESL discipline also added to the process a Zoom-based interview in which each student’s speaking and listening skills were assessed.

The ERP era of placement at MC is currently transitioning to more permanent “Course Placement” protocols that continue to follow the main approaches of ERP: untimed and unproctored remote processes; ALEKS for the Math Placement; the continuance of MC-developed web-based questionnaires and academic tasks for English and ESL. In sum, MC is on track to continue with the basic approaches to placement that were developed during the pandemic.

Important Caveats and Assumptions

  1. When we make conclusions based on any dataset, the ideal scenario is that all or most other factors relevant to the situation under study have remained constant. For example, if we are looking at how the launch of APPG has affected student placement and student success, it would be ideal if little else of importance during that period had changed. In this case, as we are largely dealing with the years since 2020, everything changed. Confounding variables permeate virtually all aspects of instructional delivery and of the ultimate success of students. The data in this report should be considered with this in mind.

  2. Notable Assumptions and Explanations:

  1. To measure placement outcomes, we looked at data from students whose first semester at MC was during the fall or spring term.
  2. In cases which looked specifically at students’ performance in their first MATH, ENGL, or ELAP courses, data from semesters beyond a student’s first semester were included when a student’s first MATH, ENGL, or ELAP course was taken after that student’s first semester and was in a fall or spring term.
  3. Assessments were considered in the data based on when a given student took their first fall/spring course in ELAP/ENGL/MATH, not when they took the assessment. This is why, for example, we still see small amounts of NextGen Accuplacer show up in the 2022 data even though that placement test was not being given at that time at MC.
  4. If a student takes multiple classes in a given discipline in their first semester, they are counted multiply (two different enrollments/outcomes) in the pass rate charts but singly in the assessment rate charts.
  5. The assessment tools represented by colored bubbles in the charts only appear when the N is greater than 30.





The Data

Data presented below includes academic years 2018-25 only. Comparable data for academic years 2013-2017 can be found in prior versions of this report.



Graph 1: Distribution of English Assessment Tests Taken, 2018-2025



Graph 2: Distribution of Math Assessment Tests Taken, 2018-2025



Graph 3: ABC Rates in First Semester by Sex, 2018-2025


Graph 4: ABC Rates in First Semester by Ethnicity, 2018-2025

Graph 3-4 Notes:

ABC rates for all students declined with the onset of the pandemic, but the trend has generally reversed since. While the uptick has been consistent for male and female students, the achievement gap between ethnicities has decreased due to a combination of increased success rates for students of color and decreased success rates for White students.



Graph 5: ABC Rates in First English Course, by Course Level, 2018-2025

Graph 5 Notes:

Starting with the onset of the pandemic and amplified by the requirements of APPG and APPE, the number of students taking support-paired classes (ENGL 101+011) increased significantly. Students’ performance in those supported courses declined sharply in AYs 21 and 22 before leveling off in 23 and continuing to trend upward in AY24 and AY25. Students’ performance in developmental courses (IERW) reversed a recent trend in AY25 and had a pass rate in line with pre-pandemic levels, though the number of students is small.



Graph 6: ABC Rates in First English Course by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025


Graph 6b: ABC Rates in First English Course by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025
Only alternative placement assessments shown



Graph 7: ABC Rates in ENGL101 as First English Course Taken, by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025



Graph 8: ABC Rates in ENGL Paired Support (ENGL 101+ 011) as First English Course Taken, by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025

Graph 6-8 Notes:

Students who were assessed by APPE with no other assessment tool have had consistently lower success rates than their peers. This was true again in AY25 where this group passed at a rate of 14 percentage points lower than the overall average. Students who were placed with APPG, whether with APPE or without, on the other hand outperformed their peers. Other than APPG, the likelihood of student success increases significantly when multiple assessment tools are used.

Other Details:
• In these graphs, the placement code “ENGL” was the code entered by ELAP faculty for students who took the ESL placement and who were deemed ready for ENGL 101; those students had a consistently high success rate in ENGL 101.
• As these graphs only include combinations of assessments taken by greater than 30 students, some categories which appear in some graphs will not appear in others. In particular, in Graph 7, “APPE” as a sole placement category does not appear because the number of students who took ENGL 101 without 011 was below this threshold every year. This makes sense because APPE students are required to take the support course (ENGL 011).



Graph 9: ABC Rates in First Math Course Taken, by Course Level, 2018-2025

Graph 9 Notes:

Success rates in GenEd courses have increased the past two years, with a 4 percentage point increase between AY24 and AY25. Developmental courses also increased this year, reversing a several year trend. Pass rates in support courses and courses above the GenEd level both experienced modest decreases this year.



Graph 10: ABC Rates in Gen Ed Math Course without Support as First Math Course Taken, by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025

Graph 10 Notes:

Students assessed into GenEd math courses on the basis of APPM alone have underperformed their peers every year. While the gap was reduced this year, the difference is still greater than 9 percentage points. Students assessed by APPG, on the other hand, for the first performed in line with overall averages. Still, APPG and APPM by themselves do not appear to be good predictors of readiness for Gen Ed math courses, though once they are combined with other assessments the ABC rates improve significantly.




Graph 11: ABC Rates in First ELAP Course Taken, by Assessment Tool, 2018-2025.

Graph 11 Notes:

The number of students starting at the low levels of ELAP has now increased 3 years in a row, and there was a significant increase in success rates this year. Students started at mid-level in 2025 in similar numbers to in AY23, and with similar success rates after a dip in 2024. The number of students starting at the top (ELAI990) has remained small but relatively steady the past couple of years. Their pass rates are up in AY25.