student success scorecard
play

Student Success Scorecard Linda Hensley Director of Institutional - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Student Success Scorecard Linda Hensley Director of Institutional Research, Planning and Grants Overview Student Success Scorecard A ccountability R eporting for the C ommunity C olleges (ARCC) 2.0 Mandated by California State Assembly Bill


  1. Student Success Scorecard Linda Hensley Director of Institutional Research, Planning and Grants

  2. Overview Student Success Scorecard A ccountability R eporting for the C ommunity C olleges (ARCC) 2.0  Mandated by California State Assembly Bill 1417 (2004)—initial ARCC reports began in 2007.  Intent is to facilitate and stimulate discussions related to the performance of California Community Colleges.  The Scorecard/ARCC 2.0 is the culmination of an effort by the Student Success Task Force (SSTF) to implement a new accountability framework—one based on the existing reporting system.

  3. System-wide Indicators Six Core Indicators  Completion/Student Progress and Achievement Rate (SPAR)  College Prepared, Unprepared for College, and Overall  Persistence Rate  College Prepared, Unprepared for College, and Overall  At Least 30 Units Rate  College Prepared, Unprepared for College, and Overall  Remedial Progress Rate  Math, English, and ESL  Career Technical Education (CTE) Progress and Attainment Rate  Career Development and College Preparation (CDCP) Rate

  4. System-wide Indicators Core Indicator Framework  The “Completion” (formerly, SPAR), “Persistence Rate,” “At Least 30 Units Rate” and “CDCP Rate” are carry-over metrics.  The “Remedial Progress Rate” and “CTE Progress and Attainment Rate” metrics are new .  The “Basic Skills Course Completion” and “Vocational Course Completion” metrics have been discontinued .  For the Scorecard/ARCC 2.0, college peer groupings are an updated, secondary item. The composition of college peer groups is meant for use with the Completion/SPAR metric and utilizes three external factor to generate six major comparison groups.

  5. Peer Groups for Comparing Performance on the Completion/SPAR in the Scorecard Group 1: Group 2: Group 3: Group 4: Group 5: Group 6: ALLAN HANCOCK CABRILLO BUTTE BARSTOW ALAMEDA BERKELEY CITY ANTELOPE VALLEY CHABOT CITRUS COMPTON AMERICAN RIVER CANADA BAKERSFIELD CHAFFEY COLUMBIA COPPER MOUNTAIN CANYONS FOOTHILL CERRITOS CONTRA COSTA CRAFTON HILLS EAST L.A. CERRO COSO IRVINE VALLEY COALINGA COSUMNES RIVER CUESTA HARTNELL COASTLINE MARIN DESERT CUYAMACA DE ANZA L.A. TRADE-TECH GAVILAN MISSION FRESNO CITY CYPRESS DIABLO VALLEY PALO VERDE L.A. CITY OHLONE IMPERIAL VALLEY EL CAMINO FULLERTON SAN DIEGO MIRAMAR RIO HONDO LANEY EVERGREEN VALLEY GROSSMONT SAN BERNARDINO SAN FRANCISCO CITY L.A. HARBOR LASSEN FEATHER RIVER L.A. PIERCE SOUTHWEST L.A. SAN MATEO L.A. MISSION LONG BEACH CITY FOLSOM LAKE LAS POSITAS TAFT SKYLINE MENDOCINO MERRITT GLENDALE WEST VALLEY MERCED MIRA COSTA SAN DIEGO CITY GOLDEN WEST MODESTO MOORPARK SAN JOSE CITY L.A. VALLEY OXNARD MT. SAN ANTONIO SANTA ANA LAKE TAHOE PORTERVILLE ORANGE COAST WEST L.A. LOS MEDANOS REEDLEY PASADENA CITY MONTEREY RIVERSIDE SADDLEBACK MT. SAN JACINTO SAN DIEGO MESA SAN JOAQUIN DELTA NAPA VALLEY SANTA BARBARA CITY SEQUOIAS PALOMAR SANTA MONICA SOUTHWESTERN REDWOODS VENTURA VICTOR VALLEY SACRAMENTO CITY YUBA SANTA ROSA SANTIAGO CANYON SHASTA SIERRA SISKIYOUS SOLANO The creation of six peer college groups is based on a linear regression analysis utilizing three “environmental” variables and correlated to the Student Success Scorecard’s total SPAR.  High School Academic Performance by College Index (API) : Index created by the CCCCO, it assigns a weighted API to each college in proportion to the number of enrolled students from a given high school.  Bachelors Plus Index (BA+) : Within the college’s service area population, the proportion of persons with a bachelors degree or higher. Based on fall 2005 CCCCO MIS enrollment and Census Bureau American Community Survey data.  Percent of students age 25 and over: Based on fall 2005 CCCCO MIS data.

  6. Completion/SPAR: College Prepared Cohort Qualification (within 3 years): Outcome (within 6 years): • First-time student in academic year • Transfer to a four-year institution • At least 6 units • Certificate • Attempted any level Math or English • Associate degree • Transfer prepared 90% 81.25% 77.61% 77.42% 80% 75.56% 73.83% 70% 67.28% 66.11% 69.11% 63.28% 67.76% 60% 62.18% 60.49% 59.06% 58.14% 57.01% 50% 40% 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Cohort-Outcome Timeframe

  7. Completion/SPAR: Unprepared for College Cohort Qualification (within 3 years): Outcome (within 6 years): • First-time student in academic year • Transfer to a four-year institution • At least 6 units • Certificate • Attempted any level Math or English • Associate degree • Transfer prepared 60% 50% 46.88% 45.37% 44.83% 43.74% 43.57% 45.03% 42.67% 40% 43.86% 36.52% 38.96% 35.17% 33.77% 33.33% 30% 32.06% 29.63% 20% 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Cohort-Outcome Timeframe

  8. Completion/SPAR: Overall Cohort Qualification (within 3 years): Outcome (within 6 years): • First-time student in academic year • Transfer to a four-year institution • At least 6 units • Certificate • Attempted any level Math or English • Associate degree • Transfer prepared 70% 60% 53.99% 52.95% 51.64% 50.81% 50.12% 50% 50.41% 43.11% 48.14% 49.94% 46.07% 40% 39.96% 39.50% 39.02% 38.52% 34.82% 30% 20% 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Cohort-Outcome Timeframe

  9. Persistence: Overall Cohort Qualification (within 3 years): Outcome: • First-time student in academic year • Persisted in first three consecutive terms • At least 6 units • Attempted any level Math or English 90% 78.81% 77.70% 77.41% 77.16% 80% 74.95% 70% 72.22% 69.65% 69.12% 69.30% 66.26% 60% 55.81% 55.64% 50% 48.59% 48.52% 47.66% 40% 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Cohort-Outcome Timeframe

  10. At Least 30 Units: Overall Cohort Qualification (within 3 years): Outcome (within 6 years): • First-time student in academic year • Earned at least 30 units • At least 6 units • Attempted any level Math or English 90% 80% 72.78% 72.80% 71.95% 69.44% 68.52% 70% 64.38% 65.74% 65.33% 66.18% 63.91% 60% 57.95% 56.14% 54.85% 54.67% 50% 52.82% 40% 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Cohort-Outcome Timeframe

  11. Remedial: Math Cohort Qualification: Outcome (within 6 years): • Completion of college-level Math course, or • Student with a first attempt in a Math 1 level below a college-level Math course course below transfer (2-4 levels below) • Cohort based on first year of academic attempt 50% 42.99% 42.69% 39.72% 37.33% 40% 36.76% 30% 19.21% 20% 15.50% 14.35% 13.78% 12.14% 10% 11.64% 10.78% 10.20% 7.58% 7.67% 0% 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Cohort-Outcome Timeframe Note: Merced not included due to missing and/or invalid data for the five-year comparison period.

  12. Remedial: English Cohort Qualification: Outcome (within 6 years): • Completion of college-level English course • Student with a first attempt in a English course below transfer • Cohort based on first year of academic attempt 70% 60% 51.80% 50.71% 50.00% 49.94% 49.63% 50% 49.63% 50.71% 49.64% 48.39% 47.51% 40% 30% 20% 10% 14.49% 12.99% 10.92% 10.61% 8.51% 0% 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Cohort-Outcome Timeframe Note: Allan Hancock not included due to missing data for the five -year comparison period.

  13. Remedial: ESL Cohort Qualification: Outcome (within 6 years): • Completion of ESL sequence, or college- • Student with a first attempt in a ESL level ESL course course below transfer • Cohort based on first year of academic attempt 70% 60% 48.17% 46.40% 45.99% 50% 43.59% 43.75% 48.17% 45.99% 46.40% 40% 41.94% 40.46% 30% 20% 10% 3.57% 2.91% 2.80% 2.25% 0.86% 0% 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Cohort-Outcome Timeframe Note: Imperial Valley not included due to missing data for the five -year comparison period.

  14. Career Technical Education Cohort Qualification (within 3 years): Outcomes (within 6 years): • Students who completed a CTE course for the first time and • Transfer to a four-year institution completed more than 8 units in the subsequent three years in • Certificate a single discipline • Associate degree • Transfer Prepared 80% 76.45% 70.72% 70% 66.67% 65.71% 62.23% 60% 55.69% 54.82% 53.61% 52.97% 54.28% 50% 48.50% 47.96% 45.91% 44.88% 44.58% 40% 30% 2002-2003 to 2003-2004 to 2004-2005 to 2005-2006 to 2006-2007 to 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Cohort-Outcome Timeframe

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend