Ab 705Edit
AB 705 represents a major shift in how California’s public higher education system determines readiness for college-level coursework in key subjects. Enacted in 2017 and implemented across the state’s two-year colleges, the measure moves away from a heavy reliance on traditional placement tests and toward a system that uses multiple measures of a student’s preparation. The aim is to get more students into transfer-level English and math faster, while preserving or enhancing overall outcomes and keeping taxpayers’ dollars focused on real progress rather than procedural hurdles. The policy affects the California Community Colleges system and interacts with transfer pathways that lead to California State University and, by extension, the University of California system.
AB 705 is frequently described as a practical reform rather than a doctrinal shift. By design, it prioritizes student throughput and cost-effectiveness: shorter time-to-degree, fewer semesters spent in remedial coursework, and more direct routes to workforce-relevant skills. In doing so, it aligns with a broader commitment to accountability in higher education—measuring what matters for completion, labor market outcomes, and long-term earnings, rather than measuring progress by seats filled in remedial classrooms.
Overview and key provisions
Multiple measures for placement: Rather than relying solely on a single test score, colleges must incorporate a variety of indicators to determine readiness for transfer-level English and math within the first year of enrollment. These indicators can include high school coursework, GPA, and other relevant data GPA and high school record, as well as college readiness indicators. The approach explicitly recognizes that a student’s prior coursework and performance can be more informative than a one-off test result.
Transfer-level placement within one year: When students demonstrate readiness according to the college’s multiple measures, they should be placed directly into transfer-level English and math courses, accelerating degree progress. This is a core goal of AB 705, designed to reduce the time students spend in non-credit or remedial sequences.
Corequisite supports and alternatives: For students who are not ready for immediate transfer-level coursework, colleges are expected to provide robust options such as corequisite courses (simultaneous enrollment in a college-level course with additional support), tutoring, tutoring labs, and other targeted interventions. The policy presumes that students can advance with appropriate scaffolding and dedicated support corequisite and remedial education reforms.
Accountability and reporting: Colleges must monitor outcomes and share data on placement, progress, and completion. This transparency helps policymakers and the public judge whether the approach improves time-to-degree, persistence, and post-college success. The data infrastructure involves the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office and related state reporting systems.
Alignment with transfer pathways: The reform is designed to fit into existing transfer frameworks to the California State University and the University of California systems, supporting smoother articulation and less friction for students moving from two-year colleges to four-year institutions.
Background and rationale
California educators and policymakers identified a persistent bottleneck: large shares of entrants to the community college system were required to take remedial or pre-college-level coursework in English and mathematics, delaying progress and increasing costs for both students and the state. Critics of remediation argued that it kept capable students out of degree programs longer and wasted resources on courses that did not always translate into success in subsequent college work or the workforce.
Proponents of AB 705 contend that the reform helps realign education with real-world outcomes. By using multiple measures, colleges acknowledge diverse indicators of readiness and reduce the artificial barriers posed by a single test. In turn, students can move more quickly into coursework that counts toward a degree or certificate, improving persistence and completion rates while reducing the financial burden on families and taxpayers. Supporters also emphasize that the policy preserves the option of remediation when it is genuinely needed, but packages it with stronger supports to help students catch up.
From a policy-management perspective, AB 705 fits a broader right-sized-government approach: it concentrates resources on proven pathways to completion, emphasizes accountability, and leverages existing data to refine practice. It is designed to be fiscally prudent—shifting funds away from large-scale remediation and toward targeted supports, better advising, and faster credentialing that supports workforce readiness.
Implementation and real-world effects
Rollout across campuses: Following the 2017 enactment, campuses across the California Community Colleges system began transitioning to multi-measure placement. The pace and specifics varied by district, but the overarching timeline stressed moving toward transfer-level placement within the first year of enrollment whenever readiness was demonstrated.
Early outcomes and trends: Initial data and institutional reports suggested a reduction in the share of students placed into traditional remediation tracks and an increase in the number of students entering transfer-level English and math more quickly. Institutions reported that corequisite structures and enhanced supports helped many students stay on a path toward degree completion while still receiving needed assistance.
Challenges and caveats: Critics highlight that successful implementation depends on sufficient support staff, tutoring capacity, and advising. Where those supports lag, there is concern that students could struggle in college-level courses without adequate scaffolding. Proponents argue that the policy’s design—paired with proper investment in support infrastructure—mitigates these risks and improves efficiency without sacrificing outcomes.
Equity considerations: A frequent point of debate is whether multi-measure placement truly addresses disparities or inadvertently shifts risk onto students from under-resourced high schools. Supporters contend that the policy’s emphasis on multiple indicators, combined with corequisite supports and proactive advising, helps level the playing field by acknowledging non-test-based measures of preparedness. Critics stress that sustained investment and careful monitoring are essential to ensure that the reform does not leave vulnerable students behind.
Cost and savings narrative: By reducing unnecessary remediation, AB 705 is presented as a cost-containment measure that redirects resources toward interventions that support completion—such as tutoring, counseling, and accelerated courses. In a fiscally conscious framework, this aligns with a broader view that public education should deliver tangible returns in the form of faster degree completion and stronger workforce readiness.
Controversies and debates
Equity and access: Critics worry that even with corequisite supports, some students may face higher dropout risk if the scaffolding is insufficient or inconsistently applied. The counterargument is that targeted, well-funded supports are precisely what make the reform work, and that data from campuses show improvements in throughput when supports are robust. The debate often centers on whether the state is providing enough resources to implement the policy effectively.
Accountability vs. flexibility: The placement reforms require colleges to balance flexibility in using multiple measures with accountability for outcomes. The right-sized approach argues that this balance is achievable through transparent reporting and performance-based adjustments. Opponents fear that a heavy emphasis on measures can lead to unintended consequences if not properly calibrated to local contexts.
Pushback against “resegregation” claims: Some critics argue that expanding access to college-level coursework without adequate supports could disproportionately affect certain student groups. Proponents contend that the policy is designed to be inclusive, not exclusive, and that real improvement depends on the scale and quality of supports. In this framing, criticisms that claim the policy itself is inherently discriminatory miss the point that the remedial bottleneck was itself a barrier to equity, and that properly implemented multi-measure placement helps address that bottleneck.
Woke criticisms vs. data: Critics on the left have sometimes framed AB 705 as a zero-sum move that devalues remedial work or that places too much faith in quick placement into college-level work. The defense from the reform perspective is that well-supported, data-driven placement decisions preserve access while reducing time-to-degree. Where critics point to risks, supporters cite outcomes data and the built-in option of corequisite supports as the pragmatic remedy—arguing that dismissing the approach as inherently flawed ignores the empirical gains seen on many campuses.