1 foothill college opening day 2004 selected findings on basic skills rob johnstone, 9/17/04
TRANSCRIPT
1
Foothill CollegeFoothill College
Opening Day 2004Opening Day 2004
Selected Findings on Basic SkillsSelected Findings on Basic Skills
Rob Johnstone, 9/17/04
2
Section 1 Benchmark Statistics,
Placement Testing
3
1.1 – Placement Results for Students Taking Placement Tests in 2003-04
Placement GroupResult N Percent
Pre-Collegiate English Only 464 13%
Pre-Collegiate ESL Only 633 17%
Pre-Collegiate Math Only 836 23%
Pre-Collegiate, Multiple Subjects 853 23%
College-Level in All Placed 863 24%
Total 3,649 100%
4
1.2 – English Placement Results, 2003-04
English Placement GroupResult N Percent
English 100 817 46%
English 110 354 20%
English 1A 619 35%
Total 1,790 100%
Note: Does not include students who were directed to take ESL test or to see Counselor/Division Dean.
5
1.3 – ESL Placement Results, 2003-04
ESL Placement GroupResult N Percent
130-level ESL 79 8%
140-level ESL 71 8%
150-level ESL 134 14%
160-level ESL 311 33%
ESL 025 215 23%
ESL 026 (College Level) 123 13%
Total 933 100%
Note: Does not include students who were directed to take English test or to see Counselor/Division Dean.
6
1.4 – Math Placement Results, 2003-04
Math Placement GroupResult N Percent
Math 250 152 6%
Math 200 312 12%
Math 101 769 29%
Math 105 434 16%
College-Level 973 37%
Total 2,640 100%
Note: Does not include students who were directed to take another test and never followed through.
7
1.5 – What are the course-taking outcomes of students
who have Pre-Collegiate placements?
8
1.5A – Course-Taking Outcomes for Pre-Collegiate English
Outcome Engl 100 Engl 110
Took Recommended Course 45% 50%
Took Higher Course in English 11% 11%
Took Other English/ESL Course 4% 3%
Took Other non-English Courses 24% 25%
Never Enrolled at Foothill 16% 12%
Total 100% 100%
Initial English Plcmt
Note: Based on students taking placement tests in 2002-03; enrollments followed through 2004 Spring.
9
1.5B – Course-Taking Outcomes for Pre-Collegiate ESL
Outcome 130-140 150-160 25
Took Recommended Course 55% 68% 71%
Took Higher Course in ESL 6% 5% 3%
Took Other ESL Course 1% 2% 1%
Took Other non-ESL Courses 7% 11% 12%
Never Enrolled at Foothill 31% 14% 13%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Initial ESL Placement
Note: Based on students taking placement tests in 2002-03; enrollments followed through 2004 Spring.
10
1.5C – Course-Taking Outcomes for Pre-Collegiate Math
Outcome Math 250 Math 200 Math 101 Math 105
Took Recommended Course 41% 50% 59% 55%
Took Higher Course in Math 9% 4% 5% 4%
Took Other Math Course 2% 2% 2% 8%
Took Other non-Math Courses 28% 29% 20% 23%
Never Enrolled at Foothill 20% 15% 14% 10%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Initial Math Placement
Note: Based on students taking placement tests in 2002-03; enrollments followed through 2004 Spring.
11
Section 2Basic Skills Task Force
Key Questions
12
2.1 – What are the success rates of Basic Skills students?
• Math – 250: 65%– 200: 58% – 101: 57%– 105: 69%
• English– 100: 75%– 110: 73%
• ESL – 130s: 71%– 140s: 67%– 150s: 67%– 160s: 80%– 170s: 78%– 025: 81%
Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
13
2.2 – What are the success rates in B.Skills courses by ethnicity?
Math • Asian: 71% • Black: 46%• Filipino: 68%• Hispanic: 54%• White: 68%• Other/Unk:
68%
English
• Asian: 76% • Black: 68%• Filipino: 65%• Hispanic: 68%• White: 80%• Other/Unk:
77%
ESL
• Asian: 82% • Hispanic: 64%• White: 84%• Other/Unk:
71%
Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
14
2.3 – What are the retention rates of Basic Skills students?
• Math – 250: 88%– 200: 85% – 101: 86%– 105: 79%
• English– 100: 88%– 110: 88%
• ESL – 130s: 90%– 140s: 86%– 150s: 88%– 160s: 92%– 170s: 93%– 025: 93%
Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
15
2.4A – What are the persistence rates of Basic Skills students?
• Basic Skills English Students in 2003F– Persistence to 2004W in any course = 80%– Persistence within English in 04W or 04S = 67%
• Basic Skills ESL Students in 2003F– Persistence to 2004W in any course = 76%– Persistence within English or ESL in 04W or 04S =
74%
Note: For reference, campus-wide persistence from 2003F – 2004W
in all segments was 65%, and in Segments 4 & 5 was 76%.
16
2.4B – What are the persistence rates of Basic Skills students?
• Basic Skills Math Students in 2003F– Persistence to 2004W in any course = 77%– Persistence within Math in 04W or 04S = 59%
Note: For reference, campus-wide persistence from 2003F – 2004W
in all segments was 65%, and in Segments 4 & 5 was 76%.
17
2.5A – What are the persistence rates of 2003F Basic Skills English students by ethnicity ?
Any course in 04W • Asian: 82% • Black: 77%• Hispanic: 80%• White: 83%• Other/Unk: 77%
English in 04W or 04S• Asian: 69% • Black: 69%• Hispanic: 67%• White: 67%• Other/Unk: 63%
Note: For reference, campus-wide persistence from 2003F – 2004W
in all segments was 65%, and in Segments 4 & 5 was 76%.
18
Any course in 04W • Asian: 87% • Hispanic: 64%• White: 73%• Other/Unk: 84%
English/ESL in 04W or 04S• Asian: 84% • Hispanic: 66%• White: 64%• Other/Unk: 72%
2.5B – What are the persistence rates of 2003F Basic Skills ESL students by ethnicity ?
Note: For reference, campus-wide persistence from 2003F – 2004W
in all segments was 65%, and in Segments 4 & 5 was 76%.
19
2.5C – What are the persistence rates of 2003F Basic Skills Math students by ethnicity ?
Any course in 04W • Asian: 77% • Black: 81%• Hispanic: 71%• White: 79%• Other/Unk: 78%
Math in 04W or 04S• Asian: 57% • Black: 64%• Hispanic: 56%• White: 60%• Other/Unk: 57%
Note: For reference, campus-wide persistence from 2003F – 2004W
in all segments was 65%, and in Segments 4 & 5 was 76%.
20
2.6 – Does our existing curriculum adequately prepare students for the sequence of classes they need to take?
21
2.6A – Math Sequence Progression, 2000-2001 Entering Cohort
• Starting in Math 200– Pass 200: 72%– Pass 101: 37% – Pass 105: 20% – Pass CL: 11%
• Starting in Math 101– Pass 101: 79%– Pass 105: 41%– Pass CL: 24%
• Starting in Math 105– Pass 105: 72%– Pass CL: 32%
Enrollments tracked through Spring 2004
22
2.6B – English Sequence Progression, 2000-2001 Entering Cohort
• Starting in Eng 100– Pass 100: 79%– Pass 110*: 47%– Pass 1A: 36% – Pass 1B: 21%
• Starting in Eng 110– Pass 110: 86%– Pass 1A: 62%– Pass 1B: 39%
• Starting in Eng 1A– Pass 1A: 90%– Pass 1B: 58%
Enrollments tracked through Spring 2004
23
2.6C – ESL Sequence Progression, 2000-2001 Entering Cohort
• Starting in ESL 150s– Pass 150s: 87%– Pass 160s: 55% – Pass 25: 32% – Pass 26: 26%
• Starting in ESL 160s– Pass 160s: 94%– Pass 25: 66%– Pass 26: 55%
• Starting in ESL 26– Pass 25: 94%– Pass 26: 61%
Enrollments tracked through Spring 2004
24
2.7 – Is a student who took a Basic Skills sequence course
last quarter more likely to pass the next course in the
sequence than a student who waits 3+ quarters?
25
2.7 -Time Lag/Non-Success in BS Sequence Courses
20%
28%
18%
45%
34%
51%
30%32%
16%
65%
42%
52%
33%
46%
18%
60%
40%
46%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Eng 100 - Eng 110 Eng 110 - Eng 1A Eng 1A - Eng 1B Math 200 - Math 101 Math 101 - Math 105 Math 105 - CL Math
Courses
No
n-S
uc
ces
s R
ate
s
Consecutive
1 qtr break
2+ qtrs breakData Covers 2003-2004 School Year
26
2.8 – How does course load affect the success of Basic
Skills students?
27
2.8A – Non-Success in Basic Skills Courses and Overall Course Load : English
35%33%
31%
27%
32%
35%
24%
19%
23%
27%
19%
32%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
English 100 English 110 English 1A English 1B
Course
No
n-S
ucc
ess
Ra
te
0 - 5.9 Units
6.0 - 11.9 Units
12.0+ Units
Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
28
2.8B – Non-Success in Basic Skills Courses and Overall Course Load : ESL
33% 34%
22% 23%
34%
28%
24%
32%
24%
21%
16% 16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
ESL 130-140 level ESL 150-160 level ESL 025 ESL 026
Course
No
n-S
ucc
ess
Ra
te
0 - 5.9 Units
6.0 - 11.9 Units
12.0+ UnitsData Covers 2003-2004 School Year
29
2.8C – Non-Success in Basic Skills Courses and Overall Course Load: Math
40%
46%
50%
34%
42%41%
42%
46%
37%
47%
30%
42%
39%
27%
36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Math 250 Math 200 Math 101 Math 105 CL Math
Course
No
n-S
ucc
ess
Ra
te
0 - 5.9 Units
6.0 - 11.9 Units
12.0+ Units
Data Covers 2003-2004 School Year
30
2.9 – Does prior course grade relate to future course success in Basic Skills
sequence courses?
31
2.9A - Prior Course Grade and Non-Success: Math
19%
15%17%
57%
43%
36%
82%
71%
58%
35% 35%33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Math 101 Math 105 CL Math
A Grade in Prior Crse B Grade in Prior Crse C Grade in Prior Crse No Prior Course, 1st attempt
Enrollments tracked from 1998M to 2003S
32
2.9B - Prior Course Grade and Non-Success: Eng 110
15%
24%
41%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
A in Eng 100 B in Eng 100 C in Eng 100 No Prior Course, 1st attempt
Enrollments tracked from 1998M to 2003S
33
2.9C - Prior Course Grade and Non-Success: Eng 1A
11%
26%
40%
9%
28%
45%
11%
26%
35%
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
A in Eng 110 B in Eng 110 C in Eng 110 A in Eng 100 B in Eng 100 C in Eng 100 A in ESL 26 B in ESL 26 C in ESL 26 No Prior Course,1st attempt
Enrollments tracked from 1998M to 2003S
34
2.10 – Do students who complete their Basic Skills
courses have a higher rate of success than those who
don’t?
35
2.10A – English Course Completion and BSS Non-Success
50%
24%
35%
29%
39%38%
23%
28%
31%
26%
23%
11%
23%
18%16%16%
11%
14%13%
14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
ECON 1 HIST 4 POLI 1 PSYC 1 SOC 1
Business/Social Science Course
Non
-Suc
cess
Rat
e
Success in English 100 Success in English 110 Success in English 1A Success in English 1B
Enrollments tracked from 1996M to 2002S
36
2.10B – English/ESL Placement and BSS Non-Success
45%
32%
36%37%
41%
28%
16%
38%
22%
27%25%
33%
26%
19%
25%
11%10%
29%
12%13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
ECON 1 HIST 4 POLI 1 PSYC 1 SOC 1
Business/Social Science Course
No
n-S
uc
ces
s R
ate
Placed in Pre-collegiate English Placed in Collegiate English Placed in Pre-collegiate ESL Placed in Collegiate ESL
Enrollments tracked from 1996M to 2002S
37
2.10C – Math Level and Econ 1/Actg 1/Astr 10 Non-Success
14%15% 15%
32%
41%
23%
43%42%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Economics 1 Accounting 1 Astronomy 10
Content Course
No
n-S
ucc
ess
Rat
e
CL Math Success Math 105 Success Math 200/101 Success
Enrollments tracked from 1996M to 2002S
38
Section 3 Research Highlights from
Basic Skills Special Programs At Foothill and Other California Schools
39
3.1 – Foothill Pass the Torch
• Widely successful model pairing at-risk current students with academically successful former students from same class.
• Success rate improvements of 8 to 15 points in English, 7 to 22 points in Math
• Improvements noted are independent of prior levels of knowledge; PTT members had lower levels of academic success upon entry to program.
• After one year, 63% of non-PTT members of similar risk status had left campus by the following Fall quarter – only 11% of PTT members had left campus.
40
3.2 – Foothill Puente & Mfumo• Both programs combine counseling, English, and
mentoring for the English 100 through English 1A sequence.
• Puente focuses on Hispanic/Latino students, and Mfumo on African-American students (although not exclusively)
• 2002 Cohort Results: – Puente: 44% of students succeeded through Eng 1A– Mfumo: 38%– Control Group: 22%
• 2003 Cohort Results:– Puente: 45% of students succeeded through Eng 1A– Mfumo: 34%– Control Group: 22%
41
3.3 – De Anza Math Performance Success (MPS) Program
• Program for pre-collegiate Math courses
• Takes traditional 5 days a week, 1 hr/day and transforms it into 5 days a week, 2 hrs/day
• More collaborative group work
• Counselor in every session
• Group peer tutoring and study sessions
• Amazing increase in success rates – 40 points higher in Math 101, 30 points in Math 105, 20 points in Math 10
• Actively recruits students who have previously been unsuccessful in coursework
42
3.4A – Mt. San Antonio College Math Academy
• Beginning and Intermediate Algebra have 41-54% success rates at Mt. Sac; only 19-24% get through both in two semesters.
• Math Academy combines the two semesters into one semester
• Adds in a student peer advisor, a supplemental instructor giving individualized instruction, and regular visits with counselor
• Also two-hour study skills course every week
43
3.4B – Mt. San Antonio College Math Academy
• Another key component – the two-hour study skills course also focuses on math in real-world environments, and on math throughout the rest of the college curriculum
• Increased success rates of completing both courses in a single semester to 62-77%, 2.5 times higher than the two-semester rate of 19-24%.
• Student quote: “My hope at the beginning of the class was to get my math over with so I could go on to the stuff I am good at and enjoy, but now I am beginning to see math as empowering. I am now beginning to wonder if perhaps I want to take more than the minimum math requirements. I am beginning to wonder if I want to teach math also.”
44
3.5A – City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Special Program Services
• Tracked service usage for pre-collegiate basic skills programs at individual level
• Nine programs studied were African-American Scholastic Programs, DSPS, EOPS, Homeless/At Risk Students Program, Latino Service Network, Learning Assistance Center (LAC), Math Bridge, Puente, & Writing Service Program.
• Number of students served ranged from 50 (Math Bridge) to over 13,000 (LAC)
45
3.5B – City College of San Francisco (CCSF) Special Program Services
• Found that 84% of students utilized only one service.
• Success rates of students utilizing services were 3 to 24 points higher in Math, and 6 to 33 points in English
• For specific minority groups, success rate improvements were even higher.
• Noted that demand far outweighed supply – 13,000 students take pre-collegiate courses every semester, only 3,000 served by non-LAC services in entire academic year.
46
3.6 – Common Threads for Success
• Shift traditional delivery model to more learner-centered model (Barr Learning College vs. Teaching College)
• Utilize cohorts/peer group investment
• Focus on developing study skills early in pre-collegiate course sequences
• Additional student time on task is required; this is an issue for recruiting
• Student confidence in their own abilities is increased
47
3.7 – Cost Considerations
• Foothill’s system for tracking students at point-of-service is coming in the near future.
• CCSF has calculated cost per student of special programs – found an average of $1,350 per student.
• Yes, expensive, but aside from the fact we should be doing this because it works, we need to consider downstream benefits of WSCH gained from persisting students.
• IRP will attempt to calculate return-on-investment (ROI) model similar to those calculated in industry for investments.