In recent years, researchers and math faculty have questioned the use of standardized tests as a sole predictor of college readiness. Often, test scores underestimate student potential to succeed in college-level courses and disproportionately place students of color, low-income students, and returning adults into prerequisite developmental courses. A growing body of rigorous studies finds that

The Dana Center recommends that implementation of mathematics pathways is most effective when efforts are coordinated across institutions while still allowing for local decision making on how the pathways are operationalized. Monitoring depth of implementation of reforms under these conditions is a daunting task, especially when there is not a statewide policy mandate or significant funding for

When the focus for entry-level mathematics shifted, over a decade ago, from access to success, it catalyzed demand for accelerated multiple mathematics pathways alongside the algebraic-intensive pathway. Subsequent successes have been exciting, showing more than three times the success rates for students in one third of the time for some programs. With these startling increases came a widespread

Most state– and system–level policies and practices support the transferability of credits, but do not account for the applicability of those credits to a student’s program of study. Even when students are able to transfer credits, those credits might not count toward their desired majors, which can lead to wasted time, increased costs for both students and the state, and students dropping out of

Many institutions implementing and scaling mathematics pathways are faced with the challenge of enrolling students in relevant gateway math courses that are aligned to their programs of study. When faculty and policy agencies in Arkansas understood the impact of transfer and applicability of mathematics courses on students, they committed to state-level action and coordination to address the