The SEP Work Group examined student equity success data by using the tools recommended in the Student Equity as well as local college tools. Data was discussed “Updated Plan” document and analyzed in the framework of the five student equity success indicators as identified by the Board of Governors in 2001: Access Course Completion ESL and Basic Skills Completion Degree and Certificate Completion Transfer Each of these success indicators was analyzed by using the disaggregated subgroups of gender, ethnicity, and age as well as DE, foster youth, and veterans. In addition, two methodologies (proportionality and the 80-Percent Rule) were used to measure disproportionate impact. Resources used to compile data include the following: CCCCO Management Information Systems Data Mart to examine data, specifically the Basic Skills Cohort Progress Tracker, Enrollment Retention and Success Rate, Student Success Scorecard Metrics, Special Population/Term Count and Matriculation measures. Data was also gathered from Data on Demand and Office and Student Hartnell’s Financial Aid Services’ various Program Planning and Assessment (PPA) for Services, Offices & Non-Instructional Programs Comprehensive Review, Annual Review & Action Plan[s] Spring 2014. In addition, data was extracted from the V tools. College’s Title The College noted the following from the data that were analyzed A disproportionate impact exists in the successful completion of distance education (DE) courses vs. non-DE; the College needs to disaggregate data to determine which groups would benefit from more support services for courses offered in the DE modality. Even in areas with no disproportionate impact, successful completion and persistence of English and math classes should be examined (especially from courses one level below transfer to transfer-level courses). Foster youth show lower rates of success/persistence in all three areas examined. The “Under 17” age group is more successful in completion of courses than other age groups. (This may be because of high school concurrent enrollment of students in that age group.) The College should review developing success strategies for other age groups. NOTE: Goals, Activities, and Outcomes are in the Goals, Activities, and Outcomes section of the plan. Once they have been finalized, they will be copied below into the Executive Summary
The SEP Work Group examined student equity success data by using the tools recommended in the “Updated Student Equity Plan” document as well as local college tools. Data was discussed and analyzed in the framework of the five student equity success indicators as identified by the Board of Governors in 2001: Access Course Completion ESL and Basic Skills Completion Degree and Certificate Completion Transfer Each of these success indicators was analyzed by using the disaggregated subgroups of gender, ethnicity, and age as well as DE, foster youth, and veterans. In addition, two methodologies (proportionality and the 80-Percent Rule) were used to measure disproportionate impact. Resources used to compile data include the following: CCCCO Management Information Systems Data Mart to examine data, specifically the Basic Skills Cohort Progress Tracker, Enrollment Retention and Success Rate, Student Success Scorecard Metrics, Special Population/Term Count and Matriculation measures. Data was also gathered from Data on Demand and Hartnell’s Financial Aid Office and Student Services’ various Program Planning and Assessment (PPA) for Services, Offices & Non-Instructional Programs Comprehensive Review, Annual Review & Action Plan[s] Spring 2014. In addition, data was extracted from the College’s Title V tools. The College noted the following from the data that were analyzed A disproportionate impact exists in the successful completion of distance education (DE) courses vs. non-DE; the College needs to disaggregate data to determine which groups would benefit from more support services for courses offered in the DE modality. Even in areas with no disproportionate impact, successful completion and persistence of English and math classes should be examined (especially from courses one level below transfer to transfer-level courses). Foster youth show lower rates of success/persistence in all three areas examined. The “Under 17” age group is more successful in completion of courses than other age groups. (This may be because of high school concurrent enrollment of students in that age group.) The College should review developing success strategies for other age groups. NOTE: Goals, Activities, and Outcomes are in the Goals, Activities, and Outcomes section of the plan. Once they have been finalized, they will be copied below into the Executive Summary
student_equity_plan_9.30.14.docx