In the past, many low-level students would be put into the group testing situations using the CAT tests. They would find this experience very tests. They would find this experience very humiliating because they did not have the necessary skills to cope with the testing material. Now, any student who does not have the prereqs to get into a course or program must sign up for a PrEP session (Preparation for Educational Placement). Through this 15- minute interview, we are able to determine which is the best way for the student to be assessed (i.e., one-on-one using CARA; group using CAT; ASD (access for students with disabilities); or ESL for those whose English skills are fairly low). We have had great success with the PrEP sessions, and we now have over 80 percent of students going through assessment registering in courses. I cannot think of anything else that I would wish for.

This college has implemented a procedure that reduces students ' risk of humiliation during the assessment situation. While this procedure does not postpone the assessment process, it does create a more positive experience for the student and helps to alleviate test anxiety.

The data clearly indicated that intake assessments were administered more frequently than were on-going and exit assessments. Among the 400 respondents, 91 percent conducted intake assessments, 71 percent on-going, and 47 percent exit. The instructors wanted the opportunity to measure progress, particularly through on-going4 assessments, "on an as need- basis, instead of an as-time-allows basis." In order to measure progress in a reliable manner, the respondents noted that assessment tools need to have parallel forms for pre- and post- testing. A few respondents noted that a tracking or record-keeping system would assist in documenting and monitoring progress.

The percentage of respondents that conduct exit assessments is quite low, given that funders ' accountability frameworks usually require programs to demonstrate learner progress. Yet, when we consider that many students in community-based programs "just drift away" and those in post-secondary programs leave with little or no notice, the statistics make sense. Studies have shown that students often drop out of programs because of socioeconomic-circumstantial factors (Long & Middleton, 2001; Roussy & Hart, 2002).

4 The terms "formative" and "continuous" were also used to describe on-going assessments.