The data collected during this stage give the leadership team a snapshot of enrollment, retention, and completion patterns in mathematics courses. Key data points are identified in the sample Institution-Level Student Data spreadsheet, including number and percentage of students enrolled in developmental mathematics and who completed an entry-level course by term and course.

To better understand inequities in student access, experiences, and outcomes, disaggregation of student data is critical. Breaking down information by smaller student subpopulation groups exposes trends that may be hidden in the aggregate data. The team member representing the institutional research office is instrumental in leading this effort. Other team members should be assigned to collect specific data and give guidance to avoid wasted time gathering unhelpful information.

The Dana Center Mathematics Pathways commitment to equity focuses on improving access, learning, and outcomes for Black, Latinx, and Indigenous students as well as students from low-income communities.

We have chosen to focus on these populations because we believe this is where the Dana Center Mathematics Pathways strategies can have the greatest impact.

We recognize that other groups, including women, English-language learners, and students with disabilities, are also marginalized in mathematics education and that problems of inequity are not limited to higher education opportunities.

Data can help the leadership team answer relevant questions about enrollment, retention, and completion in mathematics courses. Common questions include:

• What progress is there through the calculus preparation sequence? How many students who begin in developmental mathematics courses progress to calculus? How many students who begin in college algebra enroll or succeed in calculus?
• What are the transfer patterns of the institution? What institutions are students coming from (e.g., local school districts, other colleges) or going to (e.g., four-year institutions)? What programs have the highest rates of transfer in or out of the institution?
• To what extent do mathematics courses contribute to the excessive number of transfer credits that students accumulate?

The leadership team members should engage in sense-making discussions to interpret and interrogate the data. Open-ended prompts to guide the discussion include:

1. What stands out to us? Does anything surprise us?
2. What patterns do you notice in the data?
3. What contributes to the identified trends? Are these trends indicators of a problem in access, experiences, and/or completion? If so, what is the problem?
4. Do we have enough evidence to define a problem? If not, what other data do we need?

The leadership team should summarize and share its findings with the campus community. The brief report should have an asset-based approach. Remember: Keeping the college community informed is critical to any successful systemic improvement effort.

DCMP principles 1 and 2 address the need for institutions to implement structural and policy changes quickly and broadly.

With valuable information in hand, the leadership team can gain a common understanding about the current context, define the problem, identify drivers that contribute to the problem, and consider challenges to implementing mathematics pathways. This common understanding helps the team to focus its efforts and better align the actions needed to solve the problem.

When defining the problem, the leadership team needs to return to DCMP principles 1 and 2. The problem should address the degree to which students, regardless of college readiness, are directly enrolling in mathematics courses that align with their programs of study, and the degree to which students complete their first college-level mathematics course in their first year of college.

The leadership team should surface questions and assumptions about state policies and verify that it has complete and correct information. These policies may include information about K–16 alignments. For example, community colleges may want to verify mathematics requirements at transfer institutions, and universities may want to gather information on pathways offered at feeder institutions.

Ideally, mathematics pathways are enabled by coordinated action across the state, institution, and classroom. In states working with the Dana Center Mathematics Pathways (see Where We Work), the effort to implement mathematics pathways began with a state-level task force that laid a foundation for institutions by developing a state-level vision and identifying changes needed in policy and practice. Other states used different strategies. The leadership team should understand any state or regional work being done on mathematics pathways or related initiatives, such as guided pathways or placement reforms.

Understanding the current context also includes understanding the structures, practices, and policies that could be affected when implementing mathematics pathways at individual institutions. For example, an institution may rely heavily on adjunct professors, requiring the team to think more creatively about how information will be shared or what structures may need to be put in place for professional learning.

A transition to mathematics pathways requires changes that affect curriculum, instruction, faculty credentialing, and course scheduling. Leadership team members can access a variety of resources on the DCMP resource site to increase their understanding about these and other issues.