2015 Joint 2015 Joint PIE PIE / BUDGE BUDGET Meeting Meeting - - PDF document

▶
2015 joint 2015 joint pie pie budge budget meeting meeting
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

2015 Joint 2015 Joint PIE PIE / BUDGE BUDGET Meeting Meeting - - PDF document

Jan 17, 2023 333 likes •599 views

5/29/2015 2015 Joint 2015 Joint PIE PIE / BUDGE BUDGET Meeting Meeting May 28, 2015 Ma y 28, 2015 Reflection & Recommendations / May 8, 2014 Recommendations R e c omme ndations R e sponsible Par tie s and Committe e s 1. Use

slide-1
SLIDE 1

5/29/2015 1

2015 Joint 2015 Joint PIE PIE / BUDGE BUDGET Meeting Meeting

Ma May 28, 2015 y 28, 2015

Reflection & Recommendations / May 8, 2014 Recommendations

R e c omme ndations R e sponsible Par tie s and Committe e s 1. Use the ne w Stude nt E q uity, Ac c e ss, a nd Co mple tio n Co mmitte e to ide ntify wa ys to impro ve Sc o re c a rd me a sure s.  Inve stig a te the po ssib ility o f a wa rding c e rtific a te s witho ut re q uiring a n a pplic atio n. Stude nt E q uity Ac c e ss & Co mple tio n Co mmitte e De a n o f Admissio ns & Re c o rds 1. Re se a rc h c a use s fo r lo w c o mple tio n a nd tra nsfe r.  Re se a rc h c o urse c o ding to se e if c o urse s ha ve the c o rre c t CT E c o de s.  Re se a rc h the b a rrie rs to a wa rding c e rtific a te s Offic e o f Re se a rc h & Pla nning 1. Re se a rc h c o urse c o ding to se e if c o urse s ha ve the c o rre c t CT E c o de s. Ac a de mic Affa irs 1. Institutio nalize the c o nne c tio n o f c o ho rt pro g ra ms with c a mpus a s a who le . Se na te 1. Ide ntify c o lle g e s tha t ha ve impro ve d the b a sic skills pro g re ssio n ra te s a nd find o ut the stra te g ie s the y use d to ma ke the impro ve me nt. Offic e o f Re se a rc h & Pla nning Se na te 1. Cre a te a pro c e ss to ide ntify a nd e va lua te no n-c o ntrac tua l re a ssig ne d time , suc h a s F PIP c ha ir a nd IL O Po ste r Sho wc ase . Se na te Pla nning & Institutio nal E ffe c tive ne ss Co mmitte e 1. E xte nd the disc ussio n a b o ut Sc o re c a rd me tric s c o lle g e -wide , fo r e xa mple a t Ac a de mic Se na te , Divisio nal Co unc il, Divisio n me e ting s, SE AC, F a ll fle x da y, Spring summit. Offic e o f Re se a rc h & Pla nning Stude nt E q uity Ac c e ss & Co mple tio n Co mmitte e Se na te 5/29/2015 2
slide-2
SLIDE 2

5/29/2015 2

Accountability Requirements

Ac c o untability I nstrume nt S
  • urc e

I nstitutio n Se t Sta nda rds ACCJC (2013) Sc o re c a rd Sta te (2014) E q uity Pla n Sta te (2014) I E PI Sta te (2015) Distric t Stra te g ic Pla n & Me tric s Distric t E duc a tio na l Ma ste r Pla n & Me tric s Co lle g e (2014) I SL Os ACCJC Pro g ra m Re vie w ACCJC

5/29/2015 3

Evaluating Effectiveness / 2015

  • F

inanc ial Re so urc e s / F T E S

  • S

trate g ic Plans

  • Distric t Stra te g ic Pla n
  • E

duc a tio na l Ma ste r Pla n

  • S

tandards and T arg e ts

  • I

E PI (I

nstitutio na l E ffe c tive ne ss Pa rtne rship I nitia tive )
  • I

nstitutio n Se t Sta nda rds

  • I

nstitutio nal L e arning Outc o me s

5/29/2015 4
slide-3
SLIDE 3

5/29/2015 3

Financial Re$ources & FTES

5/ 29/ 2015 5

Expenditure, Ending Balance, FTES

E xpe nditure E nding Balanc e F T E S Ge ne rate d F T E S F unde d F Y 2008 (6/ 30/ 08)

$32,458,367 $582,074 7,265 7,226

F Y 2009 (6/ 30/ 09)

$33,259,717

  • $596,119

8,209 7,334

F Y 2010 (6/ 30/ 10)

$29,970,701 $163,257 7,541 7,061

F Y 2011 (6/ 30/ 11)

$29,117,025 $1,864,130 7,674 7,212

F Y 2012 (6/ 30/ 12)

$28,965,067 $1,691,474 6,781 6,685

F Y 2013 (6/ 30/ 13)

$29,746,486 $2,422,660 6,774 6,747

F Y 2014 (6/ 30/ 14)

$33,198,144 $1,359,536 6,999 6,899

F Y 2015 (e stima te d a s o f April 2015)

$34,371,787 $232,266 7,227 7,225

5/29/2015 6
slide-4
SLIDE 4

5/29/2015 4

Expenditure, Ending Balance, FTES

7,265 8,209 7,541 7,674 6,781 6,774 6,999 7,227 7,226 7,334 7,061 7,212 6,685 6,747 6,899 7,225 $32,458,367 $33,259,717 $29,970,701 $29,117,025 $28,965,067 $29,746,486 $33,198,144 $34,371,787 $582,074 ($596,119) $163,257 $1,864,130 $1,691,474 $2,422,660 $1,359,536 $232,266 ($5,000,000) $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 ACT UAL F Y 2008 (6/ 30/ 08) ACT UAL F Y 2009 (6/ 30/ 09) ACT UAL F Y 2010 (6/ 30/ 10) ACT UAL F Y 2011 (6/ 30/ 11) ACT UAL F Y 2012 (6/ 30/ 12) ACT UAL F Y 2013 (6/ 30/ 13) ACT UAL F Y 2014 (6/ 30/ 14) E ST IMAT E D F Y 2015 (a s of April 2015) Ending Balance / Expenditure F ull-T ime E q uiva le nt Stude nts (F T E S) F T E S Ge ne ra te d F T E S F unde d E xpe nditure E nding Ba la nc e 5/29/2015 7

Bond Fund Highlights

5/ 29/ 2015 8 So urc e : F a c ilitie s Co mmitte e Budg e t Re po rt, 5/ 20/ 2015, E xc e rpts
slide-5
SLIDE 5

5/29/2015 5

Bond F Bond Funds Ov nds Over erview view

9 5/29/2015

Completed P Completed Project

  • jects
10 5/29/2015
slide-6
SLIDE 6

5/29/2015 6

Funds Realloc nds Reallocated to T ted to These P ese Project

  • jects
11 5/29/2015

Strategic

Pla Plans

5/ 29/ 2015 12
slide-7
SLIDE 7

5/29/2015 7

Strategic Plans

We st E duc atio nal Maste r Plan Distric t S trate g ic Plan

5/29/2015 13

Strategic Plans / Alignment

Distric t Stra te g ic Pla n Go a l

Go a l 1 Ac c e ss a nd Pre pa ra tio n fo r Suc c e ss Go a l 2 T e a c hing a nd L e a rning fo r Suc c e ss Go a l 3 Org a niza tio na l E ffe c tive ne ss Go a l 4 Re so urc e s a nd Co lla b o ra tio n

WE ST E duc a tio na l Ma ste r Pla n Go a l

Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 3 Pr
  • gr
ams and Se r vic e s Re sponsive to Stude nt Ne e ds Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 1 De dic ation to L e ar ning Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 2 Cultur e of Continuous Impr
  • ve me nt
Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 4 Collabor ation, E ngage me nt, and R e spe c t Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 2 Cultur e of Continuous Impr
  • ve me nt
Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 5 Conne c tions with Communitie s 5/29/2015 14
slide-8
SLIDE 8

5/29/2015 8

Strategic Plans / Alignment

Distric t Stra te g ic Pla n Go a l

Go a l 1 Ac c e ss a nd Pre pa ra tio n fo r Suc c e ss Go a l 2 T e a c hing a nd L e a rning fo r Suc c e ss Go a l 3 Org a niza tio na l E ffe c tive ne ss Go a l 4 Re so urc e s a nd Co lla b o ra tio n

WE ST E duc a tio na l Ma ste r Pla n Go a l

Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 3 Pr
  • gr
ams and Se r vic e s Re sponsive to Stude nt Ne e ds Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 1 De dic ation to L e ar ning Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 2 Cultur e of Continuous Impr
  • ve me nt
Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 4 Collabor ation, E ngage me nt, and R e spe c t Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 2 Cultur e of Continuous Impr
  • ve me nt
Stra te g ic Dire c tio n 5 Conne c tions with Communitie s 5/29/2015 15

District Strategic Plan Metrics Goal 1 / Access & Preparation for Success

Ob je c tive / Me a sure Distric t WE ST WE ST T hre e Ye a r Cha ng e 1.1.2 / E ligible stude nts r e c e iving Pe ll Gr ant 71%

63%

  • 1%
1.2.1 / Ne w stude nts c omple ting E nglish Asse ssme nt in 1st te r m or be for e 73%

70% +8%

1.2.1 / Ne w stude nts c omple ting Math Asse ssme nt in 1st te r m or be for e 75%

72% +8%

1.3.1 / Ne w stude nts c omple ting one E nglish and Math c lass in 1st ye ar 19%

18%

  • 1%
1.3.2 / Pe r siste nc e , F all to Spr ing 87%

84% +3%

1.3.2 / Pe r siste nc e , F all to F all 75%

70% +6%

5/29/2015 16
slide-9
SLIDE 9

5/29/2015 9

District Strategic Plan Metrics Goal 2 / Teaching & Learning for Success

Ob je c tive / Me a sure Distric t WE ST WE ST T hre e Ye a r Cha ng e 2.2.1 / Ne w stude nts c omple ting 30 units in 3 ye ar s 62%

52% +1%

2.2.1 / Ne w stude nts c omple ting 60 units in 3 ye ar s 29%

19% 0%

2.2.2 / Ne w stude nts suc c e ssfully c omple ting E nglish 101 & Math 125 in 3 ye ar s 26%

16% +3%

2.2.2 / Ne w stude nts suc c e ssfully c omple ting E nglish 101 & Math 125 in 6 ye ar s 33%

19% +2%

2.2.3 / Comple tion r ate in 3 ye ar s 13%

11%

  • 4%
2.2.3 / Comple tion r ate in 6 ye ar s 33%

30% +2%

5/29/2015 18

Targets

&

Standar Standards

5/ 29/ 2015 20
slide-10
SLIDE 10

5/29/2015 10

Targets & Standards

Instit Institution Set Standar ution Set Standards

…the ide ntifie d le ve l of

pe r for manc e de te rmine d by the

institutio n to be ac c e ptable … …a me asure the institutio n c an and doe s use in asse ssing bo th institutional and

pr

  • gr

ammatic pe rfo rmanc e in the se

are as…

5/29/2015 21

Targets & Standards

I E P I

Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative

…a frame wo rk o f indic ato rs de sig ne d to me asure the o ng o ing c o nditio n o f a c o mmunity c o lle g e ’ s

  • pe ratio nal e nviro nme nt in the

fo llo wing are as:

(1) Ac c re ditatio n status. (2) F isc al viability. (3) S tude nt pe rfo rmanc e and o utc o me s. (4) Pro g rammatic c o mplianc e with state and fe de ral g uide line s. 5/29/2015 22
slide-11
SLIDE 11

5/29/2015 11

Targets & Standards

  • I

nstitutio n S e t S tandards

S tandard we ho ld o urse lve s to no t fall be lo w

– I f we fall be lo w, we must e xamine & take ac tio n

PIE Committe e r e c omme nde d standar ds to Colle ge Counc il afte r e xamining tr e nd data

  • I

E PI

Aspiratio nal targ e ts we strive to ward

F

  • ur

pe r c e ntage -point inc r e ase in six ye ar s, r e c omme nde d by PIE , appr

  • ve d by

Colle ge Counc il

We (T he Colle ge ) se t the standar ds & tar ge ts

5/29/2015 23

Targets & Standards

2013-2014 3-ye a r Ave ra g e T a rg e t/ Sta nda rd Institution Se t Standar ds . Suc c e ssful Cour se Comple tion R ate 62.4% 62.8% 60% Standar ds . # Stude nts E ar ning De gr e e s (Unduplic ate d) 329 370 330 . # Stude nts E ar ning Ce r tific ate s (Unduplic ate d) 203 184 116 . All Awar ds (De g re e s & Ce rtific ate s, Undup.) 561 524 445 . T r ansfe r s to 4-ye ar institutions (UC / CSU) 202 196 175 Institutional E ffe c tive ne ss Par tne r ship Initiative (IE PI) Sc o re c a rd . Comple tion R ate / Co lle g e -Pre pare d 68% 64.9% 69% T ar ge ts (fo r 2015-2016) . Comple tion R ate / Unpre pare d fo r Co lle g e 32.5% 33% 34% . Comple tion R ate / Ove rall 37.8% 38% 39% . R e me dial R ate / Math 18.7% 19.1% 20% . R e me dial R ate / E ng lish 31.9% 32.6% 33% . R e me dial R ate / E S L 22.1% 24.9% 23% . Car e e r T e c hnic al E duc ation R ate 40% 38.6% 41% Da ta ma rt . Suc c e ssful Cour se Comple tion 61.2% 61.2% 63% . # Stude nts E ar ning De gr e e s 426 400 430 . # Stude nts E ar ning Ce r tific ate s 266 245 277 . # Stude nts who T r ansfe r to 4-ye ar institutions 267 302 270 5/29/2015 24
slide-12
SLIDE 12

5/29/2015 12

Instit Institution Set ution Set Stand Standards

Succe Successful Cou l Course Complet Completion Ra Rate tes

63.0% 62.3% 59.8% 61.5% 61.5% 62.1% 61.9% 62.7% 63.1% 63.2% 62.0% 63.1% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% Suc c e ssful Cour se Comple tion R ate s Standar d: 60% 5/29/2015 25 2003- 2004 2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 2009- 2010 2010- 2011 2011- 2012 2012- 2013 2013- 2014 Assoc . De g re e 360 349 313 325 341 397 342 325 392 331 389 Ce r tific ate 110 75 67 90 86 105 110 172 133 217 203 Undup Awards ** 459 412 368 402 413 487 434 484 496 515 561 360 349 313 325 341 397 342 325 392 331 389 110 75 67 90 86 105 110 172 133 217 203 459 412 368 402 413 487 434 484 496 515 561 100 200 300 400 500 600 Unduplic ate d Stude nt Count

Instit Institution Set ution Set Stand Standards

Degree Degrees & Certific s & Certificates A Awarded arded

Sta nda rd: 330 De g re e s Sta nda rd: 116 Ce rts. Sta nda rd: 445 Awa rds 5/29/2015 26
slide-13
SLIDE 13

5/29/2015 13

89- 90 90- 91 91- 92 92- 93 93- 94 94- 95 95- 96 96- 97 97- 98 98- 99 99- 00 00- 01 01- 02 02- 03 03- 04 04- 05 05- 06 06- 07 07- 08 08- 09 09- 10 10- 11 11- 12 12- 13 13- 14 UC/ CSU 257 289 230 246 258 273 264 261 283 245 243 232 222 212 216 236 255 232 240 248 177 192 212 174 202 ISP & OOS 45 57 74 84 105 107 127 147 158 162 151 145 178 171 150 103 65 257 289 230 246 258 273 264 261 283 245 243 232 222 212 216 236 255 232 240 248 177 192 212 174 202 45 57 74 84 105 107 127 147 158 162 151 145 178 171 150 103 65 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 T r ansfe r Count

Instit Institution Set ution Set Stand Standards

Transfer ansfers

to Campuses of UC and CSU, In-State Private (ISP), and Out of State (OOS) Colleges and Universities

Sta nda rd 175 T ra nsfe rs to UC a nd CSU, Annua lly 5/29/2015 27 2009- 2010 2010- 2011 2011- 2012 2012- 2013 2013- 2014 City 61.7% 61.3% 62.4% 65.7% 65.2% E ast 68.0% 68.1% 68.8% 72.6% 71.8% Ha r bor 64.9% 64.1% 64.8% 67.4% 66.1% Mission 63.4% 64.5% 65.5% 69.2% 66.0% Pie rc e 67.7% 67.7% 67.7% 69.8% 69.4% Southwe st 56.1% 58.8% 59.7% 63.4% 61.4% T rade 63.5% 65.4% 66.6% 69.2% 68.7% Valle y 66.1% 66.4% 67.3% 69.8% 69.3% We st 58.3% 57.5% 59.4% 63.2% 63.2% 58.3% 57.5% 59.4% 63.2% 63.2% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% Comple tion Rate - Ove r all

IEPI IEPI / W / West st

Course Success Rate

5/29/2015 28 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 66% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 64%
slide-14
SLIDE 14

5/29/2015 14

IEPI IEPI / Distr / District ct Compar Comparis ison

  • n

Course Success Rate

2009- 2010 2010- 2011 2011- 2012 2012- 2013 2013- 2014 City 61.7% 61.3% 62.4% 65.7% 65.2% E ast 68.0% 68.1% 68.8% 72.6% 71.8% Ha r bor 64.9% 64.1% 64.8% 67.4% 66.1% Mission 63.4% 64.5% 65.5% 69.2% 66.0% Pie rc e 67.7% 67.7% 67.7% 69.8% 69.4% Southwe st 56.1% 58.8% 59.7% 63.4% 61.4% T rade 63.5% 65.4% 66.6% 69.2% 68.7% Valle y 66.1% 66.4% 67.3% 69.8% 69.3% We st 58.3% 57.5% 59.4% 63.2% 63.2% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% Comple tion Rate - Ove r all 5/29/2015 29 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 66% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 64%

IEPI IEPI / W / West st

Scorecard Completion Rate Overall (All Students in Cohort)

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 38.2% 37.1% 37.2% 39.5% 33.9% E ast 42.1% 40.9% 42.4% 41.9% 38.1% Ha r bor 43.6% 41.3% 45.1% 40.1% 38.5% Mission 38.3% 37.3% 35.0% 33.3% 34.7% Pie rc e 49.9% 53.3% 53.1% 50.9% 47.8% Southwe st 31.6% 32.3% 35.5% 31.4% 31.1% T rade 29.0% 32.5% 33.1% 32.7% 30.0% Valle y 44.0% 43.9% 42.3% 42.5% 42.1% We st 39.7% 36.0% 39.2% 37.1% 37.8% 39.7% 36.0% 39.2% 37.1% 37.8% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% Comple tion Rate - Ove r all 5/29/2015 30 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 42% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 39%
slide-15
SLIDE 15

5/29/2015 15

IEPI IEPI / Distr / District ct Compar Comparis ison

  • n

Scorecard Completion Rate Overall (All Students in Cohort)

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 38.2% 37.1% 37.2% 39.5% 33.9% E ast 42.1% 40.9% 42.4% 41.9% 38.1% Ha r bor 43.6% 41.3% 45.1% 40.1% 38.5% Mission 38.3% 37.3% 35.0% 33.3% 34.7% Pie rc e 49.9% 53.3% 53.1% 50.9% 47.8% Southwe st 31.6% 32.3% 35.5% 31.4% 31.1% T rade 29.0% 32.5% 33.1% 32.7% 30.0% Valle y 44.0% 43.9% 42.3% 42.5% 42.1% We st 39.7% 36.0% 39.2% 37.1% 37.8% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% Comple tion Rate - Ove r all 5/29/2015 31 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 42% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 39%

IEPI IEPI / W / West st

Scorecard Completion Rate College Prepared Students

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 66.3% 58.7% 63.5% 68.1% 59.3% E ast 72.0% 70.1% 72.7% 69.9% 65.4% Ha r bor 73.7% 65.3% 71.0% 70.4% 53.5% Mission 69.4% 64.4% 74.5% 63.2% 60.2% Pie rc e 77.7% 79.5% 80.0% 75.9% 73.7% Southwe st 68.6% 63.0% 81.9% 66.7% 63.3% T rade 80.0% 66.7% 73.8% 70.2% 67.9% Valle y 68.9% 71.4% 70.1% 69.7% 64.9% We st 67.5% 68.1% 63.4% 63.4% 68.0% 67.5% 68.1% 63.4% 63.4% 68.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% 80.0% 85.0% 90.0% Comple tion R ate – Colle ge Pre pare d 5/29/2015 32 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 72% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 69%
slide-16
SLIDE 16

5/29/2015 16

IEPI IEPI / Distr / District ct Compar Comparis ison

  • n

Scorecard Completion Rate College Prepared Students

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 66.3% 58.7% 63.5% 68.1% 59.3% E ast 72.0% 70.1% 72.7% 69.9% 65.4% Ha r bor 73.7% 65.3% 71.0% 70.4% 53.5% Mission 69.4% 64.4% 74.5% 63.2% 60.2% Pie rc e 77.7% 79.5% 80.0% 75.9% 73.7% Southwe st 68.6% 63.0% 81.9% 66.7% 63.3% T rade 80.0% 66.7% 73.8% 70.2% 67.9% Valle y 68.9% 71.4% 70.1% 69.7% 64.9% We st 67.5% 68.1% 63.4% 63.4% 68.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0% 75.0% 80.0% 85.0% 90.0% Comple tion R ate – Colle ge Pre pare d 5/29/2015 33 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 72% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 69%

IEPI IEPI / W / West st

Scorecard Completion Rate Unprepared Students

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 34.4% 33.7% 33.2% 35.9% 31.3% E ast 38.4% 37.2% 38.1% 38.1% 35.2% Ha r bor 35.6% 35.0% 37.6% 33.2% 35.1% Mission 33.6% 34.1% 30.4% 30.6% 32.2% Pie rc e 43.0% 46.5% 45.6% 45.2% 41.5% Southwe st 29.6% 30.4% 30.5% 28.9% 29.0% T rade 27.5% 31.2% 30.7% 29.0% 27.4% Valle y 37.5% 37.0% 35.4% 35.8% 35.9% We st 35.6% 29.6% 34.4% 32.0% 32.5% 35.6% 29.6% 34.4% 32.0% 32.5% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% Re me dial Progr e ss Rate - Math 5/29/2015 34 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 37% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 34%
slide-17
SLIDE 17

5/29/2015 17

IEPI IEPI / Distr / District ct Compar Comparis ison

  • n

Scorecard Completion Rate Unprepared Students

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 34.4% 33.7% 33.2% 35.9% 31.3% E ast 38.4% 37.2% 38.1% 38.1% 35.2% Ha r bor 35.6% 35.0% 37.6% 33.2% 35.1% Mission 33.6% 34.1% 30.4% 30.6% 32.2% Pie rc e 43.0% 46.5% 45.6% 45.2% 41.5% Southwe st 29.6% 30.4% 30.5% 28.9% 29.0% T rade 27.5% 31.2% 30.7% 29.0% 27.4% Valle y 37.5% 37.0% 35.4% 35.8% 35.9% We st 35.6% 29.6% 34.4% 32.0% 32.5% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% Re me dial Progr e ss Rate - Math 5/29/2015 35 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 37% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 34%

IEPI IEPI / W / West st

Remedial Progress Rate Math

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 21.1% 21.9% 23.4% 24.3% 24.2% E ast 28.8% 28.1% 29.8% 32.7% 37.9% Ha r bor 37.4% 42.4% 36.8% 38.6% 37.7% Mission 21.5% 24.3% 26.4% 28.7% 29.0% Pie rc e 29.9% 32.5% 34.5% 37.1% 35.8% Southwe st 18.5% 14.3% 15.6% 14.2% 14.9% T rade 8.1% 8.9% 9.7% 7.5% 7.9% Valle y 23.5% 24.6% 23.9% 26.5% 26.4% We st 17.2% 14.7% 19.1% 19.4% 18.7% 17.2% 14.7% 19.1% 19.4% 18.7% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Re me dial Progr e ss Rate - Math 5/29/2015 36 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 23% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 20%
slide-18
SLIDE 18

5/29/2015 18

IEPI IEPI / Distr / District ct Compar Comparis ison

  • n

Remedial Progress Rate Math

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 21.1% 21.9% 23.4% 24.3% 24.2% E ast 28.8% 28.1% 29.8% 32.7% 37.9% Ha r bor 37.4% 42.4% 36.8% 38.6% 37.7% Mission 21.5% 24.3% 26.4% 28.7% 29.0% Pie rc e 29.9% 32.5% 34.5% 37.1% 35.8% Southwe st 18.5% 14.3% 15.6% 14.2% 14.9% T rade 8.1% 8.9% 9.7% 7.5% 7.9% Valle y 23.5% 24.6% 23.9% 26.5% 26.4% We st 17.2% 14.7% 19.1% 19.4% 18.7% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Re me dial Progr e ss Rate - Math 5/29/2015 37 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 23% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 20%

IEPI IEPI / W / West st

Remedial Progress Rate English

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 36.0% 34.2% 36.6% 39.2% 36.9% E ast 40.2% 44.9% 44.8% 44.3% 42.0% Ha r bor 39.7% 40.6% 39.3% 36.2% 39.6% Mission 32.7% 30.3% 31.7% 38.0% 31.4% Pie rc e 45.5% 50.4% 50.0% 51.1% 50.5% Southwe st 23.9% 22.1% 24.0% 25.5% 22.1% T rade 21.4% 19.8% 20.3% 21.4% 19.3% Valle y 38.7% 38.8% 39.5% 41.5% 40.0% We st 31.2% 28.9% 31.3% 34.5% 31.9% 31.2% 28.9% 31.3% 34.5% 31.9% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% Re me dial Progr e ss Rate - E nglish 5/29/2015 38 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 36% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 33%
slide-19
SLIDE 19

5/29/2015 19

IEPI IEPI / Distr / District ct Compar Comparis ison

  • n

Remedial Progress Rate English

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 36.0% 34.2% 36.6% 39.2% 36.9% E ast 40.2% 44.9% 44.8% 44.3% 42.0% Ha r bor 39.7% 40.6% 39.3% 36.2% 39.6% Mission 32.7% 30.3% 31.7% 38.0% 31.4% Pie rc e 45.5% 50.4% 50.0% 51.1% 50.5% Southwe st 23.9% 22.1% 24.0% 25.5% 22.1% T rade 21.4% 19.8% 20.3% 21.4% 19.3% Valle y 38.7% 38.8% 39.5% 41.5% 40.0% We st 31.2% 28.9% 31.3% 34.5% 31.9% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% Re me dial Progr e ss Rate - E nglish 5/29/2015 39 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 36% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 33%

IEPI IEPI / W / West st

CTE Completion Rate

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 45.6% 44.9% 45.0% 46.0% 44.0% E ast 43.0% 45.1% 46.5% 48.1% 48.7% Ha r bor 61.4% 60.6% 60.1% 57.8% 57.4% Mission 43.8% 44.7% 46.2% 44.8% 51.5% Pie rc e 57.0% 53.2% 55.7% 51.3% 48.9% Southwe st 55.7% 53.9% 55.6% 57.1% 55.0% T rade 44.9% 43.2% 41.7% 39.3% 38.9% Valle y 56.0% 53.7% 54.8% 57.1% 53.0% We st 48.9% 39.1% 38.7% 37.1% 40.0% 48.9% 39.1% 38.7% 37.1% 40.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0% CT E Comple tion R ate 5/29/2015 42 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 44% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 41%
slide-20
SLIDE 20

5/29/2015 20

IEPI IEPI / Distr / District ct Compar Comparis ison

  • n

CTE Completion Rate

2004- 2005 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 2008- 2009 City 45.6% 44.9% 45.0% 46.0% 44.0% E ast 43.0% 45.1% 46.5% 48.1% 48.7% Ha r bor 61.4% 60.6% 60.1% 57.8% 57.4% Mission 43.8% 44.7% 46.2% 44.8% 51.5% Pie rc e 57.0% 53.2% 55.7% 51.3% 48.9% Southwe st 55.7% 53.9% 55.6% 57.1% 55.0% T rade 44.9% 43.2% 41.7% 39.3% 38.9% Valle y 56.0% 53.7% 54.8% 57.1% 53.0% We st 48.9% 39.1% 38.7% 37.1% 40.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 55.0% 60.0% 65.0% 70.0% CT E Comple tion Rate 5/29/2015 43 6-ye ar T ar ge t: 44% 1-ye ar T ar ge t: 41%

Institution Institution St Student udent Learning Learning Outcome Outcomes

5/ 29/ 2015 44
slide-21
SLIDE 21

5/29/2015 21

Instit Institution Student Learning ution Student Learning Outcome Outcomes

45
  • A. Cr

itic al T hinking : Ana lyze pro b le ms b y diffe re ntia ting fa c t fro m

  • pinio ns, using e vide nc e , a nd using so und re a so ning to spe c ify

multiple so lutio ns a nd the ir c o nse q ue nc e s.

  • B. Communic ation: E

ffe c tive ly c o mmunic a te tho ug ht in a c le a r, we ll-o rg a nize d ma nne r to pe rsua de , info rm, a nd c o nve y ide a s in a c a de mic , wo rk, fa mily a nd c o mmunity se tting s.

C.Quantitative Re asoning : I

de ntify, a na lyze , a nd so lve pro b le ms tha t a re q ua ntitative in na ture .

  • D. Se lf-awar

e ne ss/ Inte r pe r sonal Skills: Apply se lf-a sse ssme nt

a nd re fle c tio n stra te g ie s to inte rpe rso na l, wo rk, c o mmunity, c a re e r, a nd e duc a tio na l pa thways.

E . Civic Re sponsibility: Apply the princ iple s o f c ivility to situatio ns in

the c o nte xts o f wo rk, fa mily, c o mmunity a nd the g lo b a l wo rld.

5/29/2015

Instit Institution Student Learning ution Student Learning Outcome Outcomes

46

F . T e c hnic al Compe te nc e : Utilize the a ppro pria te

te c hno lo g y e ffe c tive ly fo r info rma tio na l, a c a de mic , pe rso na l, a nd pro fe ssio na l ne e ds. Use c o mpe te nt te c hniq ue in a music a l pe rfo rma nc e .

G.Cultur al Dive r sity: Re spe c tfully e ng a g e with o the r

c ulture s in a n e ffo rt to unde rsta nd the m.

  • H. E

thic s: Pra c tic e a nd de mo nstra te sta nda rds o f pe rso na l

a nd pro fe ssio na l inte g rity, ho ne sty a nd fa irne ss; a pply e thic a l princ iple s in sub missio n o f a ll c o lle g e wo rk.

  • I. Ae sthe tic s: Use multiple mo de s o f inq uiry a nd

a ppro a c he s to e xpe rie nc e a nd to e ng a g e with the a rts a nd na ture ; de ve lo p a nd e xpre ss pe rso na l c re a tive visio ns thro ug ho ut a ll a spe c ts o f o ne 's life .

5/29/2015
slide-22
SLIDE 22

5/29/2015 22

IL ILOs Os / / District Districtwide St wide Student Sur udent Survey ey

47
  • B. Communic ation
  • G. Cultur
al Dive r sity
  • B. Communic ation
  • A. Cr
itic al T hinking
  • C. Quantitative Re asoning
F . T e c hnic al Compe te nc e
  • D. Se lf-Awar
e ne ss
  • G. Cultur
al Dive r sity E . Civic Re sponsibility

IL ILOs Os / / District Districtwide St wide Student Sur udent Survey ey

48
slide-23
SLIDE 23

5/29/2015 23

IL ILOs Os / / District Districtwide St wide Student Sur udent Survey ey

49

IL ILOs Os / / District Districtwide St wide Student Sur udent Survey ey

Posi siti tive I ILO O Response b

  • nse by Number

er of Units C Completed ( leted (Fall 2 ll 2014) 14)

50
slide-24
SLIDE 24

5/29/2015 24

Reflections & Recommendations

5/ 29/ 2015 51

May 28, 2015 Recommendations

R e c omme ndations R e sponsible Par tie s and Committe e s 5/29/2015 52
slide-25
SLIDE 25

5/29/2015 25

fin

5/29/2015 53