cypress college 2016 institutional effectiveness...

November, 2016Cypress College

Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning

Es

t. 1

96

6

Cypress College

Institutional Effectiveness Report

2015-2016

1

President’s Message

Cypress College’s achievements during the 2015-2016 academic year are reflections of our commitment to our mission, our core values, and the success of our students. We have positioned ourselves to move forthrightly on our commitment to local voters who approved Measure J in November, 2014. We developed and implemented plans in accord with the Basic Skills Initiative, Student Equity, and Student Success and Support Plan funding. We brought on board twenty seven new full time faculty members. The College Diversity Committee initiated significant activities related to our commitment to our Core Value of Inclusiveness, in particular staging a Yom HaShoah Day of Remembrance celebration with over 1,000 attendees and granting the inaugural Diversity and Inclusiveness Award. Our Mortuary Science program continued its preparation to offer courses in conjunction with our new Bachelor of Science in Funeral Services degree. This exciting initiative, approved by the California Community Colleges Board of Governors in January of 2015 as part of the initial California Community College Baccalaureate Pilot Program, represents a unique opportunity for the College to demonstrate our capacity to offer upper division curriculum in support of our career and technical education programs. We, along with the other fourteen community colleges granted this opportunity by the California Community Colleges Board of Governors, are positioning ourselves to take full advantage of this extraordinary opportunity for our students. At Cypress College, we are all about students, and in support of that commitment, we continue to utilize Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) resources for out-of-the-classroom activities that contribute directly to student success. We have utilized Student Equity funds to address differential student performance and to eliminate barriers to student success. And we once again expended over $1 million local dollars on one-time needs of the College.

As it is every year, the signature event of the College is our graduation ceremony. Once again, in May of 2016, we recognized the achievements of over 1,000 students who earned over 1,200 associates degrees. Approximately 400 graduates walked across our graduation stage representing our 2016 graduating class. The work of the College is the product of many hands. To all who contribute to our work, I want to express my sincere gratitude. The success we have experienced at the College is a direct outgrowth of an extraordinary team effort. I also want to acknowledge the significant contributions to the development of this Institutional Effectiveness Report by our Executive Vice President, Dr. Santanu Bandyopadhyay, our Director of Campus Communications, Mr. Marc Posner, our Director of Institutional Research and Planning, Mr. Phil Dykstra, and our Senior Research and Planning Analyst, Ms. Kristina Oganesian. Robert Simpson, Ed. D.

2

Contents President’s Message ................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6

Chapter One: Student Success Scorecard ............................................................................ 7

The Framework for the Scorecard .......................................................................................... 7

Degree & Transfer Completion ............................................................................................... 7

Persistence ............................................................................................................................ 9

30 Unit Completion ................................................................................................................10

Remedial (Basic Skills) Progress Rate ..................................................................................10

Career Technical Education (CTE) ........................................................................................11

Skills Builders ........................................................................................................................12

Chapter Two: Cypress College’s Student Achievement Data ..............................................15

Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates ............................................................................15

Career & Technical Education Course Success Rates ..........................................................18

Transfer Level Course Success Rates...................................................................................22

Chapter Three: Demographics ...............................................................................................25

Student Demographics ..........................................................................................................25

Faculty and Staff Demographics ............................................................................................32

Chapter Four: Measures of Institutional Effectiveness ........................................................35

Success and Retention ..........................................................................................................35

Awards: Degrees and Certificates .........................................................................................36

Degrees Awarded ..............................................................................................................37

Certificates Awarded ..........................................................................................................38

Transfer .................................................................................................................................39

Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES)...................................................................................40

Weekly Student Contact Hours (WSCH) per Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) ................42

Chapter Five: Departmental Planning and Program Review ................................................43

Art .........................................................................................................................................44

Automotive Collision Repair ...................................................................................................45

Automotive Technology .........................................................................................................46

Chemistry ..............................................................................................................................47

Communications ....................................................................................................................48

Court Reporting .....................................................................................................................49

Dental Assisting .....................................................................................................................50

Economics .............................................................................................................................51

Geography ............................................................................................................................52

Hotel, Restaurant, and Culinary Arts .....................................................................................53

3

Management & Marketing......................................................................................................54

Mathematics ..........................................................................................................................55

Political Science ....................................................................................................................56

Psychiatric Technology ..........................................................................................................57

Radiologic Technology & Diagnostic Medical Sonography ....................................................58

Chapter Six: Student Support Services Quality Review (SSQR) .........................................59

Career Center ........................................................................................................................60

English Success Center (ESC) ..............................................................................................61

Health Center ........................................................................................................................62

Learning Resource Center (LRC) ..........................................................................................63

The Library ............................................................................................................................64

Math Learning Center (MLC) .................................................................................................65

Student Activities Center .......................................................................................................66

Transfer Center .....................................................................................................................67

Chapter Seven: Campus Support Services Quality Review (CSQR) ...................................68

Chapter Eight: Strategic Planning .........................................................................................69

Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................70

Appendix A: Cypress College Completion and Persistence Data .......................................71




Fall to Spring Persistence ......................................................................................................77

Fall to Fall Persistence ..........................................................................................................79

Appendix B: District Completion and Persistence Data.......................................................81




Fall to Spring Persistence ......................................................................................................87

Fall to Fall Persistence ..........................................................................................................89

Appendix C: 2014-17 Cypress College Strategic Plan ..........................................................91

Cypress College Strategic Plan: Year 2 Executive Summary ................................................95

Strategic Plan Development ...............................................................................................95

Strategic Plan Structure .....................................................................................................95

Strategic Plan Fund ...........................................................................................................95

Overall Progress ................................................................................................................95

Measures of Overall Institutional Effectiveness ..................................................................95

4

Thematic Summary ............................................................................................................96

Recommendations Moving Forward ...................................................................................96

Year 2 Timeline .....................................................................................................................97

Funded Strategic Plan Fund Requests, 2015-16 ...................................................................98

Committee Assessment of Overall Progress on Strategic Directions .....................................99

5

Tables Table 1. Degree & Transfer Completion Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity .. 8 Table 2. Persistence Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity ............................... 9 Table 3. 30 Unit Completion Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity ...................10 Table 4. Basic Skills Progress Rate: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity ..................11 Table 5. CTE Progress Rate: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity ............................12 Table 6. CTE Skills Builders: Median Percentage Wage Change by Program ..........................13 Table 7. CTE Skills Builders: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity .............................14 Table 8. Educational Background of Parents ............................................................................28 Table 9. Top 10 Feeder High Schools for Directly Matriculating First-Time Students ................30 Table 10. Top 10 Feeder Zip Codes ..........................................................................................31 Table 11. English Placement of Directly Matriculating First-Time Students ...............................31 Table 12. Math Placement of Directly Matriculating First-Time Students ...................................32 Table 13. Cypress College Employees by Gender ....................................................................33 Table 14. Cypress College Employees by Position and Ethnicity ..............................................34 Table 15. Cypress College Employees by Position and Age .....................................................34 Table 16. Degrees Awarded, 2011-12 Through 2015-16 ...........................................................37 Table 17. Certificates Awarded, 2011-12 Through 2015-16 ......................................................39 Table 18. Division Trends in Resident FTES, 2013-14 through 2015-16 ...................................41 Figures Figure 1. Fall Enrollment Trend from 2006 to 2016 ...................................................................25 Figure 2. Proportion of Students by Gender ..............................................................................26 Figure 3. Proportion of Students by Ethnicity ............................................................................27 Figure 4. Proportion of Students by Age ...................................................................................27 Figure 5. Proportion of Students by Unit Load ...........................................................................29 Figure 6. Proportion of Students by Educational Goal ...............................................................29 Figure 7. Employees by Classification: California, NOCCCD, and Cypress College ..................33 Figure 8. Fall Semester Success & Retention ...........................................................................35 Figure 9. Spring Semester Success & Retention .......................................................................35 Figure 10. Spring 16 Success Rates by Division .......................................................................36 Figure 11. Spring 16 Retention Rates by Division .....................................................................36 Figure 12. Degrees and Certificates Awarded by Academic Year .............................................37 Figure 13. Transfer Volume .......................................................................................................40 Figure 14. Trends in Resident FTES .........................................................................................41 Figure 15. Trends in WSCH per FTEF ......................................................................................42

6

Introduction Cypress College’s 2015-16 fiscal year was marked with substantial and deliberate planning all with the aim of increasing student success. With the ACCJC accreditation visit occurring in Fall 2017, the College began the process of drafting its self-evaluation report to determine what areas are running smoothly and what areas are in need of additional resources. Cypress College set and affirmed institutional set standards for successful course completion, certificate completion, degree completion, and transfer volume. While the College met three of these standards related to certificates, degrees, and transfers, the overall course completion rate remains one area which is slow to increase for the campus as a whole. To help accomplish these objectives and meet these standards, the College continued to provide one-time funding, a strategic plan fund, and other opportunities for programs and areas to obtain additional fiscal support to help accomplish the goals and objectives set in the 2014-17 Cypress College Strategic Plan and the institutional set standards. Similar to 2014-15, over $1 million was set aside and spent for one-time requests to support the identified needs of College programs following the campus planning process. The fiscal outlook remained slightly positive for 2015-16; however it is also important to note that Proposition 30, which provided increased financial support for colleges and universities sunsets at the end of 2016. Thus, the College looked to obtain additional categorical and grant funding. In early 2016, Cypress College was awarded the Basic Skills Transformation Grant with the goal of ultimately providing guided pathways for student success through predictive analytics along with holistic counseling services. This grant, along with additional career and technical education grants that the College received, will help to support basic skills student success, persistence, and award completion. The fiscal climate at the state level reflected the course offerings at the College. Because the fiscal outlook did not drastically improve compared to 2014-15, Cypress College’s Spring 2016 course offerings only increased by 2% with 1,434 sections offered, an increase from the 1,410 sections offered in Spring 2016. Also in Spring 2016, construction projects that resulted from the passage of Measure J in 2014 began on campus during 2015-16. Significant planning was accomplished in relation to the top two priority construction projects: the creation of a new Science, Engineering, and Math (SEM) building with more modernized facilities and the creation of an improved Veterans Resource Center for Cypress College veterans. In addition to these two areas, the College also spent the year planning to expand the Library and Learning Resource Center as well as student activities. Alongside the start of construction, the school year also introduced increased numbers of new faculty, staff, and managers. Faculty and staff professional development efforts were expanded and a needs assessment was done to establish employee needs in relation to professional development. New full-time and adjunct faculty also received additional orientations and workshops to welcome them to the campus. The newly filled positions and professional development efforts created a College environment that is more efficient and effective at supporting the needs of Cypress College students. This annual Institutional Effectiveness Report (IER) is now in its eleventh year of publication. For the 2015-16 report, slight changes were made to the formatting and organization of the report. The first chapter presents the annual Student Success Scorecard. Chapter two presents a longitudinal analyses of Cypress College students’ success and persistence rates, disaggregated by course type and demographics. Chapter three focuses on demographics while chapter four presents measures of institutional effectiveness. Chapters five, six, and seven present departmental, student services, and campus services program review data respectively.

7

Chapter One: Student Success Scorecard The Framework for the Scorecard Prior to 2012-13, the campus prepared a Dashboard of Institutional Effectiveness which provided an executive summary of performance in the strategic directions identified in the Cypress College Strategic Plan. However, beginning in 2012-13, the California Community College’s Chancellor’s Office introduced the Scorecard for Institutional Effectiveness. In order to benchmark the performance of Cypress College with its peers, the Scorecard data continues to be presented this year in lieu of the previous locally developed dashboard. A statewide advisory group developed the Scorecard parameters. The group came up with a four-tiered accountability framework, where each level targets a different audience or user:

The first level provides a report on the State of the System, a high level overview for legislators and policy makers that summarizes a number of system level aggregations of data and annual performance.

The Scorecard itself is the second level and measures progress and completion at each college for various groups of student demographics, including those with different levels of college preparation and demographics. This will be the core of the framework and part of the report that focuses on the performance of each college and incorporates many of the recommendations from the Student Success Task Force, such as providing metrics pertaining to momentum points and disaggregation of data.

The third level is the ability to drill down further into the scorecard metrics through the existing online query tool, Datamart.

The fourth, and most detailed level, provides for the ability of researchers to download the datasets (Data-on-Demand) pertaining to each metric for their particular college.

The first two levels of data are presented in this Institutional Effectiveness Report. Those looking for more detailed information may contact the Office of Institutional Research and Planning with specific questions. The Scorecard presents data in two formats: a one-year synopsis and a five-year trend. The metrics focus on five areas: degree/transfer completion, persistence, (completion of) 30 units, (performance of) remedial students, and (performance of) Career Technical Education (CTE) students. Students in the cohorts presented below were tracked for six years, from 2009-10 through 2014-15. Within each parameter of the Scorecard, except for basic skills and CTE outcomes, the data are disaggregated into three clusters: performance of those who were prepared for college, performance of those underprepared for college, and overall performance. Prepared students are defined as those first-time students that did not enroll in basic skills English or math courses, while unprepared students began one of their course sequences in basic skills. In the case of remedial education, the data are divided into Math, English, and English as a Second Language (ESL). Although some faculty members argue that ESL is not a part of basic skills education, the statewide Scorecard recognizes the ESL data as a part of basic skills. Degree & Transfer Completion The Scorecard defines completion as the percentage of first-time students who earned a minimum of 6 units, attempted any mathematics or English course within three years, and achieved one of three outcomes within six years of entry to a California community college:

Earned an associate degree or Chancellor’s Office approved certificate

8

Transferred to a four-year institution

Achieved “transfer prepared” status by successfully completing 60 UC/CSU transferable units with a GPA >= 2.0

Table 1 represents the completion rate, as defined above, of Cypress College students when compared to statewide data. Data are disaggregated by gender, ethnicity, and age group. Overall, the College exceeded the statewide rates for most measures. More specifically, nearly all unprepared student sub-groups exceeded the statewide average for completion. In contrast, the College struggled most with prepared student completion when compared to the statewide data. Table 1. Degree & Transfer Completion Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity

Cohort Tracked for Six Years From 2009-10 Through 2014-15

Degree and Transfer Completion

Prepared Unprepared Overall

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

509

Sta

tew

ide

N =

50,1

51

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

1 ,9

63

Sta

tew

ide

N =

153,4

79

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

2,4

72

Sta

tew

ide

N

= 2

03,6

30

Cohort 72.1% 70.0% 45.1% 39.6% 50.7% 47.1%

Gender

Female 76.8% 73.3% 47.4% 41.4% 52.7% 48.8%

Male 67.8% 66.9% 42.1% 37.7% 48.2% 45.3%

Age

Under 20 years old 73.8% 72.1% 46.5% 42.3% 52.3% 50.4%

20 to 24 years old 62.5% 57.5% 32.7% 29.9% 38.9% 34.9%

25 to 39 years old 50.0% 52.6% 40.6% 30.8% 41.9% 33.5%

40 or more years old 70.0% 50.1% 43.3% 30.9% 47.1% 33.2%

Ethnicity

African-American 68.8% 62.4% 36.6% 31.9% 41.0% 35.2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.0%* 66.1% 50.0%* 35.1% 40.0%* 41.4%

Asian 79.8% 80.9% 53.5% 55.3% 64.5% 64.3%

Filipino 84.2% 74.1% 52.4% 46.6% 59.0% 53.7%

Hispanic 68.7% 63.3% 41.9% 35.1% 44.7% 39.7%

Pacific Islander 50.0%* 53.2% 47.4%* 34.2% 47.6% 38.3%

White 61.6% 69.9% 45.7% 41.8% 49.4% 51.4%

*cohort fewer than 10 students; Green = Cypress above statewide average; Red = Cypress below statewide average

Source: California Community College Chancellor’s Office Student Success Scorecard

9

Persistence The Scorecard defines persistence as the percentage of first-time students who earned a minimum of 6 units and attempted any mathematics or English course within their first three years of enrollment and went on to achieve the persistence momentum point:

Enroll in the first three consecutive primary semester (or quarter) terms at any college in the California community college system

This persistence rate is defined for the overall cohort of first-time students along with examining prepared and unprepared students and is also disaggregated by gender, age, and ethnicity. Table 2 presents the persistence rate at Cypress College compared to the overall statewide rate, as well as the persistence rates for prepared and unprepared students. Overall, Cypress College students persisted at higher rates when compared to the statewide persistence rates for both prepared and unprepared students. Table 2. Persistence Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity


Persistence


Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

509

Sta

tew

ide

N =

50,1

51

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

1,9

63

Sta

tew

ide

N =

153,4

79

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

2,4

72

Sta

tew

ide

N

= 2

03,6

30

Cohort 86.4% 75.1% 80.0% 75.1% 81.3% 73.4%

Gender

Female 86.2% 75.8% 79.9% 75.8% 81.0% 73.9%

Male 88.6% 74.6% 79.9% 74.6% 81.5% 73.0%

Age

Under 20 years old 86.9% 75.7% 80.7% 75.7% 82.0% 74.4%

20 to 24 years old 80.0% 70.9% 72.7% 70.9% 74.2% 66.3%

25 to 39 years old 81.3% 71.1% 75.2% 71.1% 76.1% 70.7%

40 or more years old 100.0% 72.3% 86.7% 72.3% 88.6% 76.7%

Ethnicity


American Indian/Alaskan Native 100.0%* 74.1% 75.0%* 74.1% 80.0% 71.9%

Asian 81.6% 75.8% 82.5% 75.8% 82.1% 79.1%

Filipino 92.1% 77.5% 78.6% 77.5% 81.4% 76.9%

Hispanic 88.9% 75.3% 80.5% 75.3% 81.4% 72.3%


White 86.3% 75.8% 78.9% 75.8% 80.6% 73.7%



10

30 Unit Completion The 30 Unit Completion metric refers to the percentage of first-time students who earned at least six units at a California Community College, attempted any math and English course within their first three years of enrollment, and went on to earn at least 30 units in the California Community College system. As seen in Table 3, nearly all sub-groups of Cypress College students had higher 30 unit completion rates when compared to the statewide data. Prepared Pacific Islander students represented the only sub-group that had a lower rate; however, this sub-group had fewer than 10 students. Table 3. 30 Unit Completion Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity


30 Unit Completion


Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

509

Sta

tew

ide

N =

50,1

51

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

1,9

63

Sta

tew

ide

N =

153,4

79

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

2,4

72

Sta

tew

ide

N

= 2

03,6

30

Cohort 80.7% 73.2% 72.1% 65.8% 73.9% 67.6%

Gender

Female 85.8% 74.2% 73.6% 67.5% 75.8% 69.0%

Male 75.9% 72.3% 70.0% 63.9% 71.4% 66.1%

Age

Under 20 years old 81.9% 74.8% 73.8% 68.0% 75.5% 69.8%

20 to 24 years old 70.0% 63.3% 58.7% 55.3% 61.1% 56.7%

25 to 39 years old 75.0% 63.6% 62.4% 59.3% 64.1% 59.8%

40 or more years old 80.0% 55.4% 75.0% 64.0% 75.7% 63.0%

Ethnicity


American Indian/Alaskan Native 100.0%* 73.2% 75.0%* 58.6% 80.0%* 61.6%

Asian 84.0% 75.1% 81.1% 78.4% 82.4% 77.2%

Filipino 92.1% 74.8% 75.2% 69.9% 78.7% 71.2%

Hispanic 78.8% 72.6% 70.2% 63.5% 71.1% 65.0%


White 77.4% 73.6% 71.7% 67.0% 73.0% 69.2%



Remedial (Basic Skills) Progress Rate The remedial or basic skills progress rate refers to the percentage of first-time students whose first English, ESL, or math course was below transfer level during the 2009-10 school year and

11

who went on to successfully complete a college level course in English, ESL, or math, respectively, within six years. Overall, all sub-groups of Cypress College students completed their basic skills sequences at higher rates when compared to the statewide data, regardless of basic skills subject examined (see Table 4).

Table 4. Basic Skills Progress Rate: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity


Basic Skills Completion

English ESL Math

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

1,3

03

Sta

tew

ide

N =

169,7

00

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

155

Sta

tew

ide

N =

31,5

52

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

2,1

96

Sta

tew

ide

N

= 1

77,4

22

Cohort 67.5% 45.4% 63.2% 28.6% 38.6% 32.7%

Gender

Female 70.3% 48.0% 68.2% 30.0% 40.1% 34.5%

Male 63.9% 42.5% 57.6% 26.6% 36.5% 30.3%

Age

Under 20 years old 75.4% 51.5% 75.0% 47.2% 43.0% 36.3%

20 to 24 years old 55.6% 37.5% 76.5% 38.5% 33.4% 29.0%

25 to 39 years old 53.1% 37.6% 53.2% 23.1% 32.8% 30.8%

40 or more years old 54.3% 32.2% 52.6% 14.4% 30.4% 26.4%

Ethnicity

African-American 61.1% 29.6% 60.0%* 22.0% 23.2% 18.6%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 50.0%* 38.2% N/A 31.6% 50.0%* 29.9%

Asian 75.2% 61.7% 64.2% 37.2% 49.1% 45.1%

Filipino 78.1% 55.1% 71.4% 33.8% 51.4% 40.0%

Hispanic 64.9% 42.6% 47.8% 19.3% 37.8% 31.2%

Pacific Islander 50.0% 39.3% N/A 19.5% 16.0% 27.9%

White 64.7% 49.5% 66.7% 32.4% 38.1% 36.8%



Career Technical Education (CTE) CTE data within the Scorecard is divided into two areas: completers and skills builders. CTE completion is defined as the percentage of students who completed more than eight units in a single CTE discipline for the first time in 2009-10 and went on to complete a degree, certificate, apprenticeship, or transfer-related outcome:

Earned any AA/AS or credit Certificate (Chancellor’s Office approved)

Transferred to a four-year institution (students shown to have enrolled at any four-year higher education institution after enrolling at a California community college)

12

Achieved “Transfer Prepared” (student successfully completed 60 UC/CSU transferable units with a GPA > = 2.0). Table 5 showcases Cypress College students in comparison to all students statewide.

Table 5 presents data from Cypress College CTE students in comparison to CTE students statewide. Table 5. CTE Progress Rate: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity

Cohort Tracked for Six Years Through 2014-15

Career Technical Education

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

1,5

99

Sta

tew

ide

N =

140,3

29

Cohort 56.8% 51.4%

Gender

Female 63.6% 54.6%

Male 49.5% 48.5%

Age

Under 20 years old 66.3% 63.6%

20 to 24 years old 63.0% 54.3%

25 to 39 years old 50.2% 44.3%

40 or more years old 40.0% 38.2%

Ethnicity

African-American 46.4% 45.1%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 37.5%* 49.1%

Asian 64.1% 57.3%

Filipino 70.5% 60.3%

Hispanic 54.0% 50.1%

Pacific Islander 41.2% 51.3%

White 53.0% 51.4%



Skills Builders The term “Skills Builders” refers to students who completed higher level CTE coursework in 2012-13 and left the system without receiving a traditional outcome including transfer, degree completion, or certificate completion. Statewide, Skills Builder students had a median percent wage increase of 13.4% (n = 83,002). Table 6 presents data from Cypress College CTE students and their median percentage change in wages. Overall, students in the automotive technology program had the highest change in wages by approximately 80%. Students enrolled in all other programs reported within the Scorecard had median increase in wages by over 10%.

13

Data on only one program, accounting, was reported on for both Cypress College and statewide. Skills builder students who studied accounting at Cypress College had a median wage change 5.4% higher than the statewide median wage change of 20.8%. Table 6. CTE Skills Builders: Median Percentage Wage Change by Program

Cohort tracked from 2012-13

Career Technical Education Students

Median % Change in

Wages

Total Students

Overall 18.8% 632

Program

Automotive Technology 111.0% 41

Human Services 32.7% 54

Accounting 26.2% 57

Culinary Arts 23.1% 30

Software Applications 22.6% 25

Alcohol and Controlled Substances 21.1% 22

Overall 18.8% 632

Health Occupations, General 17.2% 40

Computer Information Systems 16.4% 104

Applied Photography 13.9% 32



Overall, skills builder students had a median wage increase 5.4 percentage points higher than the rate for the state. While both male and female students both increased their wages, male students at Cypress College increased their wages nearly 10 percentage points more than females. Students of nearly all ethnicities, aside from African American students, had a higher median wage gain compared to the state (see Table 7 on following page).

14

Table 7. CTE Skills Builders: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity

Cohort Tracked From 2012-13

Career Technical Education Skills Builders

Cypre

ss

Colle

ge

n =

632

Sta

tew

ide

N =

83,0

02

Cohort 18.8% 13.4%

Gender

Female 16.9% 13.4%

Male 27.4% 13.5%

Age

Under 20 years old 157.5% 151.1%

20 to 24 years old 40.4% 53.6%

25 to 39 years old 13.1% 12.0%

40 or more years old -0.5% 2.6%

Ethnicity

African-American 3.7% 10.2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 52.1%* 10.9%

Asian 23.0% 19.5%

Filipino 22.8% 14.1%

Hispanic 24.3% 16.2%

Pacific Islander N/A 9.2%

White 12.6% 11.5%

Source: California Community College Chancellor’s Office Student Success Scorecard *cohort fewer than 10 students; Green = Cypress above statewide average; Red = Cypress below statewide average

15

Chapter Two: Cypress College’s Student Achievement Data The following charts display disaggregated data related to Cypress College’s course success rates. Success rates in transfer level, ESL and basic skills, and CTE courses were examined with relation to six different areas: age, gender, ethnicity, educational goal, socioeconomic status, and method of instruction. A brief analysis is included for each group of graphs. Please refer to Appendix A for more detailed information. Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s basic skills and ESL completion data, trends related to six different areas were revealed: age, gender, ethnicity, educational goal, socioeconomic status, and method of instruction.

Historically, older students have had slightly higher success rates in basic skills and ESL courses, especially when compared to students aged 20 – 24.

Female students have historically had slightly higher success rates in basic skills and ESL courses; however, success rates for both males and females have slightly declined.

Asian students have historically had the highest success rates in basic skills and ESL courses followed by Filipino and White students. In contrast, African American students have historically had the lowest success rates in basic skills and ESL courses.

In nearly all semesters, excluding Spring 2014, students enrolled in distance education basic skills and ESL courses have had higher success rates compared to on campus.

For all semesters examined, students who did not receive financial aid had slightly higher success rates in their basic skills and ESL courses compared to aid recipients.

Beginning in Spring 2015, degree seeking students began having the lowest success rates in basic skills and ESL courses while students with other educational goals had similar success rates. Success rates for certificate seeking students have increased by over 10% for the time period examined.

18

Career & Technical Education Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s CTE completion data, trends related to six different areas were revealed: age, gender, ethnicity, educational goal, socioeconomic status, and method of instruction.

Historically, students aged 20 – 39 have had the highest success rates in CTE courses by age, with 25-29 year old having the highest success rates of all age groups. Success rates for students 19 and under have increased by over 10% for the time period examined.

Trends for success rates by gender have remained stable and similarly high for male and female students.

American Indian and Pacific Islander students have had the most fluctuation in success rates; this is due to the small numbers of American Indian and Pacific Islander students enrolled in CTE courses. Historically, African American students have had slightly lower success rates in CTE courses; however, this gap narrowed in Spring 2016.

Degree seeking CTE students have historically had the highest success rates. However, success rates for both certificate and transfer seeking students have recently increased.

Financial aid status did not seem to have a large effect on students’ CTE success rates.

CTE courses offered on campus have historically had slightly higher success rates when compared to distance education offerings.

22

Transfer Level Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s transfer level course completion data, trends related to six different areas were revealed: age, gender, ethnicity, educational goal, socioeconomic status, and method of instruction.

For transfer level courses, older students, especially those over 30 years old, have historically had slightly higher success rates. In contrast, students aged 24 and below had slightly lower success rates in transfer level courses.

Male and female students had similar completion rates in transfer level courses.

Asian, Filipino, and White students continue to have the highest success rates in transfer level courses while African American, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander students displayed lower success rates for the time period examined.

No large variation was observed when examining differences in success rates by educational goal or socioeconomic status.

Success rates were similar for students enrolling in transfer level courses either online or through distance education.

25

Chapter Three: Demographics Student Demographics As showcased by Figure 1, Cypress College enrollments for the previous 10 fall semesters indicate a positive trend. More specifically, fall enrollments increased from 2007 to 2009, where 16,670 students enrolled in Fall 2009. This marked the College’s highest enrollment by semester. Subsequently, enrollments decreased from 2009 to 2012; however, enrollments increased by nearly 1,000 students from 2012 to 2015. Fall 2016 enrollments marked a decrease of 318 students compared to Fall 2015, indicating a slight decrease.

Figure 1. Fall Enrollment Trend from 2006 to 2016

Source. Cypress College Data Systems

In Fall 2015 and Spring 2016, the Institutional Research and Planning Office conducted studies comparing students’ placement results in mathematics and English and found a correlation between students’ placements and their likelihood of enrollment. More specifically, results indicated that the higher that students placed within the English and math course sequences, the more likely they were to enroll at Cypress College, complete their course sequences, and complete a transfer level course in English or math. However, most Cypress College students placed within the basic skills sequences for math and English. Thus, the College planned a pilot for the utilization of multiple measures to help aid in the placement process and joined the Multiple Measures Assessment Project (MMAP) which began in Fall 2016. The MMAP team consists of 28 pilot California Community Colleges as of September 2016 and aims to use high school data including students’ GPA, grades in their last English and math courses, and course taking patterns in math and English taken to more accurately place students in higher level courses in comparison to an assessment test alone. Unmet demand was also continuously examined throughout Fall 2015 and Spring 2016 and was presented through the form of Tableau dashboard visualizations to administration. The results indicated that students continued to have the most difficulty attempting to enroll in various SEM and language arts courses, negatively impacting students’ ability to enroll in necessary core English and math courses. The Institutional Research and Planning office continued to collaborate with the Basic Skills Committee and the Campus Communications office to send out targeted enrollment emails encouraging students’ to enroll in the next course of their English

13,773

14,990

16,670 16,44415,889 15,541

16,129 16,07116,532 16,214

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

26

and math course sequences for Spring 2016. Students were presented with data regarding success rates in their next level English or math course, dependent on the amount of semesters students skipped between courses. Thus, by presenting students with information on how stopping-out in their course sequences for even one semester can negatively impact their ability to complete their sequences, it was expected that additional students would continue on in their English and math course sequences, without taking breaks. This initiative, combined with the implementation of multiple measures, aims to help students enroll in the core courses necessary for transfer and award attainment. Figure 2, below, showcases the distribution of the student population by gender and semester at Cypress College. Historically, female students at the college have outnumbered male students, and this has continued to remain a steady trend through the previous five fall semesters. Approximately 2% of students did not report their gender in Fall 2015 and 2016. The College continues to provide activities and interventions to help increase male student enrollment as outlined within the 2015-16 Student Equity Plan.

Figure 2. Proportion of Students by Gender

Note. Students that did not report their gender are excluded from the figure. Source. Cypress College Data Systems

Figure 3 on the following page showcases enrollment trends for the previous five fall terms, disaggregated by ethnicity. Slight changes have been observed when examining trends in ethnicity. More specifically, the percentage of Hispanic students at the College has increased nearly 10% over five years. This mirrors a decline in the percentage of White students enrolled at the College by 7%. The percentages of all other ethnicities have remained consistent over the five year period. The College continues to address the disproportionate impact in access within the enrollment trend that was revealed in the 2015 Student Equity Plan.

55% 54% 55% 54% 54%

45% 46% 45% 44% 44%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fall 12 Fall 13 Fall 14 Fall 15 Fall 16

Female Male

27

Figure 3. Proportion of Students by Ethnicity


Figure 4 below outlines the proportion of Cypress College students by age for the five most recent fall terms. Overall, students’ ages did not display much variation for the five terms examined. Most of Cypress College students continue to be below 25 years of age, while a smaller proportion of students are aged between 25 through 49 years old. Students 50 years or older continued to represent less than 5% of the College’s population. In future years, the relationship between 25-29 year old and 30-49 year old students should continue to be examined to determine if the percentage of students aged 25-29 is increasing proportionately to the decrease of the percentage of students aged 30-49.

Figure 4. Proportion of Students by Age


The percentage of first generation students at Cypress College has historically been around 45% (see Table 8 on following page). In Fall 2016, the percentage of first-generation students was consistent at 47% compared to 46% in Fall 2015. Thus, the percentage of first-generation

39%

44%46%

48% 48%

25%23%

21% 20%

18%

19%18%

19% 19%

20%

7% 7% 7% 7% 7%

5% 5% 5% 5%

5% 2% 2% 1% 2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%


Hispanic White Asian / Pacific Islander Filipino African American Other

29% 29% 28% 28% 28%

41% 41%43% 42% 42%

13% 13%

13% 14% 15%14% 14% 13%

13% 13%

3% 3% 3% 3% 3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%


19 or less 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 49 50+

28

students at Cypress College has remained consistently high. Because most Cypress College students are first-generation students, the College has put interventions and additional support services in place to help first-generation succeed at Cypress College including a summer boost program, the establishment of a pilot program for first-time directly matriculated students using high school data to aid placement, and expanded counseling services to explain placements and resources. Table 8. Educational Background of Parents

1st generation

to College

Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

# % # % # %

No High School Diploma1 Yes 2,745 17.0% 2,836 17.1% 2,946 18.2%

High School Diploma1 Yes 4,535 28.1% 4,733 28.6% 4,637 28.6%

Some College/No Degree No 3,725 23.1% 3,736 22.6% 3,574 22.1%

Associate Degree No 1,392 8.6% 1,366 8.3% 1,349 8.3%

Bachelors Degree No 2,383 14.8% 2,504 15.1% 2,497 15.4%

Graduate Degree No 913 5.7% 1,004 6.1% 1,015 6.3%

Not Reported Unknown 431 2.7% 377 2.3% 189 1.2%

Total 16,124 100.0% 16,556 100.0% 16,207 100.0%


One program, Achieving Cypress College Student Success (ACCESS), was created to help familiarize first-time and first-generation students with the various support services on campus. All students enrolled in College Writing Preparation, ENGL 60, learn about and visit the various centers on campus including the transfer center, the career planning center, and the various tutoring centers on campus. Students also learn about special programs that they may want to be a part of, including the Puente and Legacy programs, which serve as cohort-based learning communities for Hispanic and African-American students, respectively. Survey results revealed that students displayed increased familiarity with all support services on campus. Thus, because most students at Cypress College place into the basic skills English sequence, this allows first-time and other basic skills students with early exposure to student support services. In relation to the amount of units that students typically enroll in, figure 5 below indicates that no large changes in students’ unit enrollment occurred between Fall 2015 and Fall 2016. Unit-based enrollment was nearly evenly split between students who attended half-time or less, over half-time but less than full-time, and full-time students. The College continued to survey students in 2015-16 as well as Fall 2016 regarding their attendance patterns in their English/reading, ESL, and/or math course sequences. Enrollment management is crucial for adequately providing classes that students need to help them complete their core course sequences faster; therefore, the College has explored and is continuing to explore various platforms for predictive analytics to determine specific risk factors for non-success.

29

Figure 5. Proportion of Students by Unit Load


Figure 6 represents students’ self-reported educational goals at their time of admission. In Fall 2016, over half of all students reported that they aimed to complete an associate degree and transfer to a 4-year college. Students who did not aim to obtain a degree and transfer mostly wanted to either transfer only or only obtain an associate degree only. The percentage of students who aimed for a new career or job advancement decreased the most from 2015 to 2016.

Figure 6. Proportion of Students by Educational Goal


Because most students aim to obtain associate degrees, the College has been exploring the creation of guided pathways to help students obtain their degrees in the most efficient way possible. More specifically, Cypress College was one of the colleges which applied for and received the Basic Skills Transformation Grant in early 2016. One of the large objectives of that

42%40%

38%36% 36%

27% 28%30% 31% 31%

31% 32% 32% 33% 33%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%


Less than 7 7 to 11.5 12 or more

48% 49% 50% 51% 52%

17%16% 16% 17%

16%11% 11% 11% 10%

10%

4% 4% 5% 4%

8% 8% 8% 7%4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Associate Degree and Transfer Transfer Only

Associate Degree Only Vocational Degree or Certificate

New Career or Job Advancement

30

grant relates to the creation of guided pathways for students. Initial research from the Institutional Research and Planning Office revealed that Cypress College students who enter at the basic skills level and go on to complete an Associate degree, do so by earning 91 units on average, representing 31 additional units than what is typically required for transfer. Additionally, research also found that the lower students placed within a basic skills sequence, the less likely they were to enroll at Cypress College, start their sequence, and complete a transfer level course. Thus, it is most important for providing these guided pathways for basic skills students to help decrease any amount of excess units that they take when earning a degree. Otherwise, pathways would help provide students with more structure in their course choices, which could result in increased award completion. Cypress College’s service area includes the cities of Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, Garden Grove, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Seal Beach, and Stanton. A large amount of students also come from additional cities throughout Los Angeles County and Orange County which are served primarily be other community colleges including Long Beach, Fullerton, Norwalk, Cerritos, and Whittier. The table below illustrates the top 10 feeder high schools and the number of directly matriculating students at Cypress College in Fall 2015 and 2016. As noted below, Western High became the top feeder high school in Fall 2016. Previously, Cerritos High School, while not in the service area, served as the top feeder high school. Of the top 10 feeder high schools, 70% are within Cypress College’s service area (see Table 9). Table 9. Top 10 Feeder High Schools for Directly Matriculating First-Time Students

Fall 2015 Fall 2016 % Change

Western High1 104 121 16.3%

Cypress High1 93 89 -4.3%

Cerritos High 107 87 -18.7%

Kennedy (John F.) High1 106 84 -20.8%

Magnolia High1 57 63 10.5%

Savanna High1 47 61 29.8%

Loara High1 57 55 -3.5%

La Mirada High 46 53 15.2%

Pacifica High1 48 50 4.2%

Gahr High 43 49 14.0%

Note. A 1 symbol next to a high school denotes that the high school is within the service area. Sources. Cypress College Data Systems

When further examining the data, students’ zip codes were compiled to determine the top zip codes of Cypress College students. Of the top 10 zip codes in which students resided, 70% were from feeder cities, while an additional 30% of the top 10 zip codes were from cities outside of the College’s service area (see Table 10 on following page). Zip codes outside of the service area were within Norwalk, Cerritos, and La Mirada.

31

Table 10. Top 10 Feeder Zip Codes

Fall 2011 Fall 2016 Fall 2011 to Fall 2016

# % # % # Change % Change

928041 Anaheim 1,500 9.4% 1,606 9.9% 106 7.1%

906301 Cypress 1,334 8.3% 1,129 7.0% -205 -15.4%

906201 Buena Park 1,222 7.6% 1,181 7.3% -41 -3.4%

928011 Anaheim 705 4.4% 750 4.6% 45 6.4%

90650 Norwalk 366 2.3% 547 3.4% 181 49.5%

906801 Stanton 427 2.7% 512 3.2% 85 19.9%

90703 Cerritos 507 3.2% 523 3.2% 16 3.2%

906211 Buena Park 457 2.9% 369 2.3% -88 -19.3%

90638 La Mirada 496 3.1% 397 2.4% -99 -20.0%

928051 Anaheim 350 2.2% 411 2.5% 61 17.4%

Note. A 1 symbol next to a zip code denotes that the zip code is within the service area Source. Cypress College Data Systems

Upon entering Cypress College as first-time students, the assessment center serves as one of students’ first points of contact and interaction with the campus. Cypress College utilizes the College Test for English Placement (CTEP) for English placement and the Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project tests (MDTP) for mathematics placement. When examining the placements of directly matriculated first-time Cypress College students, trends in placement were revealed both math and English assessments from Fall 2012 to Fall 2016 (see Tables 11 - 12). While English placements remained relatively stable throughout the five year period, math placements displayed variation throughout the timeframe examined. Additionally, slightly more students participated in English assessment when compared to math assessment. When examining English placements, no large variations were observed throughout the five-year period (see Table 11). Most students continue to place into ENGL 58 and ENGL 60, as previously observed within the trends. Approximately 17% of students placed into college level English in Fall 2016; however, this is expected to change within the coming years with the adoption and expansion of the use of high school data as multiple measures in aiding placement. Table 11. English Placement of Directly Matriculating First-Time Students


# % # % # % # % # %

ENGL 100 257 18.6% 295 19.7% 244 17.7% 269 19.0% 222 16.7%

ENGL 060 384 27.8% 415 27.7% 395 28.6% 372 26.2% 376 28.2%

ENGL 058 556 40.3% 576 38.4% 528 38.2% 535 37.7% 507 38.0%

ENGL 057 156 11.3% 177 11.8% 175 12.7% 202 14.2% 200 15.0%

Refer to ESL or DSS 28 2.0% 36 2.4% 40 2.9% 40 2.8% 28 2.1%

Total 1,381 100.0% 1,499 100.0% 1,382 100.0% 1,418 100.0% 1,333 100.0%

Note. Students with no placement test on record are not included in the table Source. Cypress College Data Systems

Unlike English Placements, math placements displayed additional variation across the five-year period (see Table 12). In Fall 2011, most students placed into MATH 20, a course that is two

32

levels below transfer level mathematics. However, the percentages of students placing into MATH 20 declined in Fall 2014 by 20%, further declining 2% by Fall 2016. Thus, MATH 20 transformed into the basic skills level course in which the least amount of students enrolled in Fall 2016. This declining percentage of students placing into MATH 20 displayed a reciprocal relationship with the amount of students placing into MATH 15 over time. More specifically, approximately 22% of students placed into MATH 15 in Fall 2012; however, this percentage increased to 40.7%, representing nearly half of all placements in Fall 2016. A more minor observed trend included the increase in the percentage of MATH 10 placements from Fall 2012 through Fall 2016 by approximately 9%. Table 12. Math Placement of Directly Matriculating First-Time Students


# % # % # % # % # %

MATH 150A 42 3.5% 54 4.1% 53 4.4% 42 3.2% 39 3.3%

MATH 100-142 233 19.4% 281 21.3% 282 23.3% 256 19.4% 255 21.3%

MATH 040 209 17.4% 239 18.1% 211 17.5% 236 17.9% 198 16.6%

MATH 020 443 36.9% 383 29.0% 114 9.4% 101 7.6% 90 7.5%

MATH 015 259 21.6% 331 25.1% 461 38.2% 565 42.8% 486 40.7%

MATH 010 15 1.2% 32 2.4% 87 7.2% 121 9.2% 127 10.6%

Total 1,201 100.0% 1,320 100.0% 1,208 100.0% 1,321 100.0% 1,195 100.0%

Note. Students with no placement test on record are not included in the table Source. Cypress College Data Systems

Implementation of SSSP in Spring 2014 brought about the alternative assessment form where the Cypress College Assessment Center began accepting “Assessment Alternative Forms” for students who tested at other Colleges. This may have helped account for the decrease in students placing in Math 20. Assessment Center protocols also changed throughout this time. Thus, if students do not remember their last math course taken, have a large gap in their math coursework, or if they only enrolled in lower levels of math in high school, then they are often directed to the algebra readiness portion of the MDTP for MATH 10 placement. Faculty and Staff Demographics Statistics are presented which compare Cypress College staffing with all California Community Colleges in Fall 2015 (see Figure 7 on following page). Cypress College aligned with both the District and the State when comparing the percentages of employees for each classification. The largest difference between the State and Cypress College centers on the percentage of classified employees, where the Cypress College employed 7% less classified employees when compared to the state. In contrast, the College employed 4.9% additional academic, temporary employees in comparison to the state; however, the District as a whole employed a higher percentage of academic, temporary employees.

33

Figure 7. Employees by Classification: California, NOCCCD, and Cypress College

Source. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Data Mart

In Fall 2015, the percentages of male and female employees were similar to each other for each type of employee. The largest observable difference centers on administrators, the least populous of the employee groups, where the percentage of male administrators exceeded the percentage of female administrators by approximately 18%. The opposite trend was observed when examining full time faculty by gender where the percentage of female full time faculty exceeded the percentage of males by approximately 14% (see Table 13). Table 13. Cypress College Employees by Gender

Administrator Classified FT Faculty PT Faculty Overall

# % # % # % # % # %

Female 7 41.2% 106 49.8% 117 57.1% 254 53.1% 484 53.0%

Male 10 58.8% 107 50.2% 88 42.9% 224 46.9% 429 47.0%

Total 17 100.0% 213 100.0% 205 100.0% 478 100.0% 913 100.0%


Cypress College did show diversity within the employees’ ethnicities in Fall 2015 (see Table 14 on the following page). White employees did represent the largest employee group by ethnicity; however, they did not represent a majority for classified employees, part-time faculty, or overall. Administrators were mostly commonly White or Asian, while the two largest ethnic groups represented for classified, full time, and part time faculty included White and Hispanic employees.

2.3%

19.9%

47.5%

30.3%

1.7%

19.6%

53.9%

24.7%

1.9%

22.5%

52.4%

23.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Administrators Academic, Tenured Academic, Temporary Classified

California NOCCCD Cypress College

34

Table 14. Cypress College Employees by Position and Ethnicity


# % # % # % # % # %

African-American 0 0.0% 13 6.1% 6 2.9% 14 2.9% 33 3.6%

Am. Indian/Alaskan Native 0 0.0% 1 0.5% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.1%

Asian 4 23.5% 31 14.6% 22 10.7% 91 19.0% 148 16.2%

Hispanic 1 5.9% 55 25.8% 36 17.6% 74 15.5% 166 18.2%

Pacific Islander 0 0.0% 1 0.5% 1 0.5% 1 0.2% 3 0.3%

White 10 58.8% 77 36.2% 112 54.6% 235 49.2% 434 47.5%

Multi-Ethnicity 0 0.0% 5 2.3% 7 3.4% 14 2.9% 26 2.8%

Not Reported 2 11.8% 30 14.1% 21 10.2% 49 10.3% 102 11.2%

Total 17 100.0% 213 100.0% 205 100.0% 478 100.0% 913 100.0%


Over half of the College’s employees were aged between 40 through 59 in Fall 2015 (see Table 15). At least one administrator was a part of all age categories; however, most administrators were 60 or older, indicating that most administrators are older than classified, full-time, and part-time faculty. Administrators displayed the least variation in age, as expected. In contrast, part time faculty displayed the most variance in age where large amounts of part-time faculty were either 18 to 34, 40 to 49, or older than 60. Full time faculty were primarily 40 or older. Table 15. Cypress College Employees by Position and Age


# % # % # % # % # %

18 to 34 1 5.9% 28 13.1% 14 6.8% 125 26.2% 168 18.4%

35 to 39 1 5.9% 27 12.7% 9 4.4% 61 12.8% 98 10.7%

40 to 49 4 23.5% 61 28.6% 61 29.8% 115 24.1% 241 26.4%

50 to 59 5 29.4% 70 32.9% 62 30.2% 87 18.2% 224 24.5%

60 and older 6 35.3% 27 12.7% 59 28.8% 90 18.8% 182 19.9%

Total 17 100.0% 213 100.0% 205 100.0% 478 100.0% 913 100.0%


Cypress College conducted a climate survey of all employees in Fall 2015. The survey aimed to reveal employees’ perceptions and ratings of the campus climate, diversity, decision-marking processes, planning processes, and the Mission. Employees rated the campus climate favorably, describing it as more friendly, comfortable, tolerant, supportive, and respectful. This represents a large strength of the college. In contrast, student learning outcomes (SLO) and the planning process served as the areas in which employees had the least satisfaction and least awareness of the processes involved. Some between-group differences emerged when analyzing the climate survey results. With regard to gender, a higher percentage of females reported feeling as though they had some responsibility to be a spokesperson for their gender than males. However, a higher percentage of males noted that women have equal opportunities for recognition, respect, and advancement at the College. When comparing overall job satisfaction, significantly more managers reported feeling like their present positions satisfied their professional goals and aspirations compared to classified employees. Lastly, managers also noted the most awareness and involvement with the planning process and receiving communications related to diversity-related activities.

35

Chapter Four: Measures of Institutional Effectiveness Success and Retention Success and retention rates serve as two long-standing and significant indicators of student performance (see Figure on right). Cypress College’s ACCJC institutional set standard for successful course completion is 71.2%. The Figures below showcase students’ success and retention rates for the last five primary terms of instruction for the College. Historically, Cypress College’s success and retention rates have been slightly higher in fall semesters when compared to spring, and this trend has continued through the 2015-16 school year. Success rates for fall have slightly decreased since 2011. This trend was also observed for spring semesters; however, success rates increased 1% from Spring 2015 to Spring 2016. Additionally, Spring 2016 marked the highest overall spring semester retention rate for the College. Thus, while Cypress College did not meet the standard for successful course completion, overall success rates rose in Fall 2015 and Spring 2016.

Figure 8. Fall Semester Success & Retention

Figure 9. Spring Semester Success & Retention


Success and retention rates vary by division and between fall and spring semesters due to differences in course offerings. Divisions that are smaller, have selective programs, and have career or technical education programs have historically had higher success and retention rates compared to other divisions. In contrast, divisions which have general level coursework, higher enrollments, more rigorous coursework, and have STEM-related programs have historically had lower success and retention rates. The figures on the following page present Spring 2016 success and retention rates, disaggregated by division (see Figures 10 - 11). Overall, six divisions had success rates higher than the college average, while three had success rates lower than the averages. More specifically, the health science, physical

72.7% 71.8% 71.1% 70.2% 70.4%

84.9% 84.1% 84.1% 84.2% 84.4%

Fall2011

Fall2012

Fall2013

Fall2014

Fall2015

Success Rates Retention Rates

71.9% 71.0% 69.9% 69.5% 70.5%

82.9% 83.4% 83.4% 83.2% 83.7%

Spring2012

Spring2013

Spring2014

Spring2015

Spring2016

Success Rates Retention Rates

Calculation of Success and Retention Success Rate= A, B, C, P, CR x 100 All grades Retention Rate= All grades other than W x 100 All grades

36

education, and CTE divisions had the highest success rates while the business/CIS, social science, and SEM divisions had the lowest success rates. In Comparison to Spring 2015, the counseling and physical education divisions had the largest amount of growth in success rates (6.7% and 4.9% increases respectively). Only two divisions had declines in their success rates, and these divisions included Business/CIS and SEM (1.3% and 0.2% decreases respectively). When examining retention rates by division, seven divisions had rates above the college average, while two did not. More specifically, the health science, counseling, and CTE divisions had the highest retention rates while Business/CIS and SEM represented the only divisions which had retention rates lower than the college average. The rigorous nature of the courses in these divisions may have contributed to these trends. In contrast, the largest increases in retention rates from Spring 2015 to Spring 2016 were observed in the physical education, counseling, and social science divisions which had 6.0%, 2.2%, and 1.7% respective increases in retention rates between the two semesters. The Physical Education division’s retention rates had dropped in Spring 2014 and Spring 2015 due to the College identifying students who enrolled in physical education courses without participating in them; however, retention rates increased the most within the previous academic year for the physical education division. Only three divisions had declines in their retention rates, including SEM, CTE, and Fine Arts which had 0.9%, 0.4%, and 0.1% decreases in retention rates respectively.

Figure 10. Spring 16 Success Rates by Division

Figure 11. Spring 16 Retention Rates by Division

Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Awards: Degrees and Certificates Cypress College has two ACCJC institutional set standards for award completion. These standards include having students complete 845 degrees and 520 certificates per academic year. In 2015-16, the College successfully met both institutional set standards for associate degree and certificate completion, with students earning 1,878 awards, an increase of 6.1% from the 2014-15 school year (see Figure 12). The College’s highest award count per year occurred in 2013-14. However, the 2015-16 school year marked the second largest amount of degrees and certificates awarded to students within an academic year.

85.3%

80.0%

78.4%

76.2%

74.6%

71.7%

70.5%

70.5%

67.9%

60.4%

HealthScience

PhysicalEducation

CTE

Fine Arts

Counseling

LanguageArts

CollegeAverage

Business/CIS

SocialScience

SEM

91.2%

88.9%

88.4%

86.6%

85.5%

84.3%

84.2%

83.7%

81.3%

77.4%

HealthScience

Counseling

CTE

Fine Arts

PhysicalEducation

SocialScience

LanguageArts

CollegeAverage

Business/CIS

SEM

37

Figure 12. Degrees and Certificates Awarded by Academic Year

Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Degrees Awarded Cypress College awarded 1,201 degrees during the 2015-16 school year, exceeding the ACCJC institutional set standard for degree completion. The most commonly awarded degrees in 2015-16 included liberal arts for social and behavioral science, business, liberal arts for math and science, nursing, and psychology. These awards comprised 56.4% of all degrees awarded in 2015-16. In contrast, no students were awarded with degrees in automotive collision repair, liberal arts, and liberal arts for general business in 2015-16. Areas that showed the most amount of growth in 2015-16 included both of the liberal arts degrees (in math and science and social and behavioral science respectively), business, and sociology, as well as liberal arts for arts and humanities. Areas that showed declines in the amount of degrees awarded included general studies, music, management, human services, and radiological technology; however, these areas only had a decline of four awards each while the general studies degree had a decline of 11 awards. Throughout the five previous academic years, the College awarded the most degrees in liberal arts for social and behavioral science, liberal arts for math and science, business, nursing, and liberal arts for arts and humanities (see Table 16). Table 16. Degrees Awarded, 2011-12 Through 2015-16

Degree Area 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Accounting 4 9 8 4 9

Air Conditioning/Refrigeration 3 3 5 1 6

Anthropology 1 2 1 4 8

Art 3 3 13 15 21

Auto Collision Repair 2 2 1 1 0

Automotive Technology 7 7 4 4 6

Aviation and Travel Careers 12 12 18 15 19

Business 19 68 111 131 157

Communication Studies 0 12 20 26 27

Computer Information Systems 12 10 10 13 17

753 834974 951

1,201

827 754

928819

677

1,580 1,588

1,9021,770

1,878

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Associate Degrees Certificates Total

38

Degree Area 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Court Reporting 0 0 0 0 2

Dance 0 2 1 4 1

Dental Assistant 9 2 6 10 11

Dental Hygiene 10 11 14 12 13

Diagnostic Medical Sonography 6 9 6 8 9

Education 0 0 0 1 6

English 0 0 0 1 11

Ethnic Studies 1 2 1 1 1

General Studies 63 25 12 12 1

Geography 0 0 3 1 2

Geology 0 0 0 0 1

Health Information Technology 16 11 24 12 9

History 0 7 3 9 17

Hotel, Restaurant, Culinary Arts 19 33 39 33 46

Human Services 10 13 14 10 6

Liberal Arts 18 8 1 3 0

Liberal Arts: Arts and Humanities 48 56 49 41 59

Liberal Arts: General Business 30 10 1 0 0

Liberal Arts: Human Communication 1 4 2 0 1

Liberal Arts: Math and Science 107 102 129 107 148

Liberal Arts: Social and Behavioral Science 179 174 203 178 208

Management 1 5 3 9 5

Marketing 7 11 0 2 1

Mathematics 0 0 2 7 24

Mortuary Science 35 44 37 34 35

Music 4 2 0 7 3

Nursing 71 82 72 72 86

Office Administration 2 2 1 0 1

Philosophy and Religious Studies 1 3 2 2 2

Photography 1 2 2 3 1

Physical Education 4 7 16 16 27

Physics 0 0 5 6 16

Political Science 0 0 1 7 16

Psychiatric Technology 19 6 31 7 12

Psychology 5 29 53 63 81

Radiological Technology 20 23 27 31 27

Sociology 3 18 20 22 43

Theater Arts 0 2 3 6 5

Total 753 834 974 951 1,201

Source: Cypress College Data Systems Note. For 2015-16, areas that awarded the most degrees are outlined in green while areas that awarded the least degrees are outlined in red

Certificates Awarded Cypress College awarded 677 certificates during the 2015-16 school year, exceeding the ACCJC institutional set standard for certificate completion (see Table 17). Areas that awarded the most certificates in 2015-16 included automotive technology; hotel, restaurant, and culinary arts; aviation and travel careers; computer information systems, air conditioning/refrigeration, and human services. These areas comprised 69.7% of all certificates awarded in 2015-16. In

39

contrast, areas that awarded less than five certificates in 2015-16 included economics, multimedia, office administration, theater arts, dance, and physical education. Areas that had the most growth in certificates awarded in 2015-16 included hotel, restaurant, and culinary arts; psychiatric technology; geography; and marketing; all of these programs awarded five or more additional certificates compared to 2014-15. In contrast, some areas had decreases in the amount of certificates awarded. These areas included automotive technology, air conditioning/refrigeration, human services, court reporting, and photography, which all had decreased certificate counts in 2015-16 by 10 or more certificates. Table 17. Certificates Awarded, 2011-12 Through 2015-16

Certificate Area 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Accounting 7 4 3 3 5

Air Conditioning/Refrigeration 6 28 98 110 38

Auto Collision Repair 36 13 34 19 20

Automotive Technology 222 176 194 195 120

Aviation and Travel Careers 106 101 121 86 90

Computer Information Systems 25 53 70 64 67

Court Reporting 0 5 11 17 5

Dance 1 0 1 1 4

Dental Assistant 32 18 20 22 19

Dental Hygiene 14 12 15 11 7

Diagnostic Medical Sonography 15 15 15 15 17

Economics 0 1 0 0 0

Geography 0 0 0 1 7

Health Information Technology 31 34 11 6 9

Hotel, Restaurant, Culinary Arts 110 103 109 90 115

Human Services 69 75 62 56 38

Management 8 12 5 8 8

Marketing 22 18 18 8 13

Media Arts Design 12 6 33 13 6

Multimedia 0 0 1 0 0

Music 1 7 9 9 13

Office Administration 3 3 0 0 0

Photography 22 11 21 21 9

Physical Education 1 1 1 1 4

Psychiatric Technology 50 32 32 15 28

Radiological Technology 32 26 37 35 26

Theater Arts 2 1 7 13 3

Total 827 755 928 819 671

Source: Cypress College Data Systems Note. For 2015-16, areas that awarded the most certificates are outlined in green while areas that awarded the least certificates are outlined in red

Transfer Transfer patterns have remained consistent for the previous five academic years (see Figure 13). Despite data not being finalized for transfers during the 2015-16 academic year, the data

40

still revealed an increase in the amount of transfers to the CSU system by 52 students from 2014-15 to 2015-16. The number of transfers to the UC system is expected to increase upon the release of finalized data for the 2015-16 academic year. The amount of in-state-private and out-of-state transfers have consistently remained around 300 to 350 transfers per year. The amount of overall transfers increased dramatically from 2012-13 to 2013-14, and these increase stabilized in 2014-15. Thus, it is expected that the College had approximately 1,250 transfers for the 2015-16 school year. The College established an institution set standard to have at least 863 students transfer each year to UC and CSU campuses. Thus, for the 2015-16 academic year, the College successfully met the standard for transfer volume. The College’s 2015 student equity plan identified that students with disabilities and students aged between 20 through 49 transferred at disproportionately lower rates. Thus, in 2015-16, the College hired a new, full-time learning disability specialist for the learning disability program to help facilitate workshops to engage students and assist with academic progress. Additionally, the College continued to offer the STEM2 program to help students interested in STEM fields develop career, educational, scholarship, and transfer opportunities. The College also continued providing support for the EOPS program to help support low-income students awareness of transfer opportunities through field trips, workshops, and other activities tailored toward transfer preparation.

Figure 13. Transfer Volume

*Note. Data on in-state private and out-of-state transfers has not yet been made available for 2015-16 **Note. UC data on transfers for 2015-16 has not yet been finalized

Sources: California Community College’s Chancellor’s Office Data Mart, California State University Analytic Studies, and University of California Infocenter

Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES) FTES serves as a significant measure of productivity for Cypress College. One FTES refers to the equivalent of 525 hours of instruction per each FTES. As the basis for state funding, FTES represents the income associated with instruction. By comparing FTES for different academic years, efficiency can be tracked and examined for trends (see Figure 14). The 2015-16 academic year marked the most productive academic year for the College when compared to the previous four years. FTES increased from 11,193 in

682586

772 730 782

147

147

163 180129

152

176 171146136

154 167

112

1,1041,021

1,265 1,248

894

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

CSU In-State-Private* Out-of-State* UC** Total

41

2014-15 to 11,562 in 2015-16, an increase of 369 FTES. When examining specific terms, summer FTES had the largest amount of growth, followed by fall FTES which grew at a more moderate amount. In contrast, spring FTES declined from Spring 2015 to Spring 2016; however, spring FTES for 2015-16 remained the second highest FTES for a spring term within the five academic years examined.

Figure 14. Trends in Resident FTES

Source: NOCCCD 5-year Comparison Report

FTES can also be disaggregated and presented by division, to compare productivity between academic divisions at Cypress College (see Table 18 on the following page). For the three most recent academic years, the SEM, social science, and language arts divisions had the highest FTES per division. These divisions have core English, math, and science courses, alongside various liberal arts courses which students need to complete for graduation and/or transfer. When examining only the 2015-16 school year, similar trends emerged as the SEM, social science, and language arts divisions continued to have the highest FTES per academic year. In contrast, the Business/CIS, physical education, and counseling divisions produced the lowest FTES per division for the total time period examined and for the 2015-16 academic year. Courses from these divisions are generally more specialized and related to specific programs and majors, with the exception of the counseling division. Thus, students may not enroll in courses within these divisions due to differing degree, certificate, or transfer requirements. Table 18. Division Trends in Resident FTES, 2013-14 through 2015-16

Division 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Summer Fall Spring Summer Fall Spring Summer Fall Spring

Business/CIS 29.0 343.8 330.4 28.1 310.5 311.4 28.0 307.0 281.7

Counseling 3.3 87.3 47.0 2.5 85.7 56.0 2.0 84.7 59.4

CTE 17.0 363.6 360.0 13.2 346.1 346.8 30.3 373.8 369.1

Fine Arts 33.7 584.8 503.8 33.0 551.1 483.1 52.9 522.9 465.5

Health Science 72.5 411.6 438.1 73.6 442.8 451.4 84.0 442.8 452.3

Language Arts 94.4 892.6 871.6 99.4 928.8 952.4 142.1 1,003.0 941.9

PE 30.5 71.4 234.1 25.5 70.1 207.9 36.8 63.5 172.7

SEM 164.5 1,318.4 1,267.1 172.1 1,408.3 1,338.6 219.3 1,468.1 1,401.8

Social Sciences 172.8 1,032.8 1,101.9 181.8 1,022.2 1,087.4 256.5 1,069.9 1,060.0

Total 617.7 5,106.3 5,154.0 629.2 5,165.6 5,235.0 851.9 5,335.7 5,204.4


492 426 618 629 852

5,342 5,053 5,294 5,328 5,505

5,057 5,0625,155 5,236

5,205

10,891 10,54111,066 11,193

11,562

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Summer Fall Spring Total FTES

42

Weekly Student Contact Hours (WSCH) per Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) FTEF refers to full time equivalent faculty. FTEF represents the most significant cost to the College; thus, to determine a general measure of cost effectiveness. The productivity measures for determining cost effectiveness consist of the ratio of weekly student contact hours (WSCH) per FTEF. Most California community colleges have historically aimed to have a WSCH per FTEF ratio of 525 to 1, implying an average class size of 35. Of course, the target of having 35 students per course is not always pedagogically sound dependent on learning strategies and course types; thus, large fluctuations in course size are observed. The health science division represents one division which has external accrediting bodies that place some mandated limitations on enrollment for some of the programs within the division. Because the College does have limitations on enrollment for some programs, the target ratio is not attainable. Instead, the College has been tracking enrollment ratios over time to help with enrollment management and reduce enrollment related spending. Historically, the College has been most productive during summer terms (see Figure 15 on following page). However, WSCH per FTEF has steadily been declining since 2011-12. Since 2011, as the economy started improving, the demand for seats declined. Over the last five years, there has been a general slowing down in FTES growth in most of the campuses. At the same time, the State budget was allocating funding for growth to make up for the reduced access during the economic downturn. Cypress College has been chasing the potential growth and has increased its FTES production. In order to meet the growth target when the overall demand declined, the College added more sections. This resulted in an increase in FTEF at a rate higher than the growth of FTES; as WSCH is directly related to FTES and the rate of growth of FTEF was higher than the rate of FTES (and therefore WSCH), the productivity measure declined. In 2015-16, the College had its lowest WSCH per FTEF, decreasing 5.3% from 2014-15. Summer had a disproportionately higher level of decline in WSCH per FTEF when compared to the fall and spring semesters.

Figure 15. Trends in WSCH per FTEF


521.9 481.0 478.1 477.2 436.2

464.5452.8 439.9 430.4

419.9

441.1425.1 432.1 412.8

394.4

1,427.51,358.9 1,350.1 1,320.4

1,250.5

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

Summer Fall Spring Total WSCH per FTEF

43

Chapter Five: Departmental Planning and Program Review

The Departmental Planning and Program Review (often shortened to program review) process represents a key component to planning and resource allocation at Cypress College. In 2015-16, instructional departments continued to conduct their own program reviews based on a three-year cycle. The review process consists of reviewing data analysis, a review of outcomes, discussing SLO results, determining recency of curriculum, and identifying resources to help improve teaching and learning. Once a department completes a program review form, they present their programs to the committee to engage in a dialogue on programs and student learning. These program review forms, along with an SLO status report, were shared with the instructional deans. The deans provided comments on the forms for the departments’ final review. As a result of previous evaluations, department chairs and faculty continued presenting their forms to the Program Review Committee. The Committee, appointed by the Academic Senate, includes representatives from each division. The review of commendations and recommendations that the Committee puts together on an annual basis is then submitted to the Executive Vice President for his comments. The Program Review Committee has historically aimed to help program representatives accentuate the most positive aspects of their work to share best practices and aid programs who may be trying to substantiate additional needs or resource support to ultimately help improve student success. More specifically, the Program Review process helps departments identify their resource needs for budget allocation purposes. The Program Review process is also aligned with the College’s annual One Time Funding Request process. Programs that explain a rationale or note a specific need within their program review documents are given priority within the one time funding process. Previous evaluations of the Program Review process have led to a systemic change within the process. As a result of previous evaluations, the institutional research office began providing and pre-populating data for programs to help programs review their data on five-year trends, awards, and success rates. Additionally, departments presenting their forms to the Committee also resulted from the evaluation process. The committee and departments both noted that this helped to make the process more meaningful and actionable for all involved. In 2015-16, the program review process was further evaluated to ensure helpfulness and usefulness for faculty. Faculty who participated in the Program Review process had the opportunity to participate in a survey regarding their experiences with the process. Faculty noted strengths of the program review process as well as areas for improvement. As a consequence, the committee heavily modified the form for subsequent school years, beginning in 2016-17. In 2016-17, data on student’s success rates by method of instruction, gender, age, ethnicity, disability status, financial aid status, veteran status, and foster youth status will serve as additional equity related data elements that programs can use to help complete their program review forms along with full-time-faculty ratios. A summary of the reviews that took place in Fall 2015 are presented within this chapter. Each summary includes findings, commendations, and recommendations for each program.

44

Art

Program Review Committee Evaluation

Program: ART Presenter: Molly Schulps Date: November 2, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X_ No ____ Other ____ Comments: Comprehensive report: included SLO data in the final report though Dean, through her comments, did not appear to receive the SLO data. Dean stated that she is not supposed to the SLO Data. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– AAT Degrees in Studio Art and Art History implemented and promoted

– Strong improvement in degree completion, which were up from 3 in 2012 to 15 in 2015, 13 of which were transfer degrees.

– Worked with IR to identify students in the major, 13 out 16 in the cohort transferred (81%)

– Tracks success stories, listed 8 students with esteemed positions – Overall success rates well above the department and college averages – Proposing two new certificates for ceramics and illustration – Many regional and national art schools seek out Cypress Art students – Contemplating a portfolio class for students to showcase work – Faculty works to stay active and current in their field – Provides an Annual Student Art Exhibition to encourage students to learn and

complete for scholarships and awards Recommendations: What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?

– Need for a fulltime Art Historian has recently been filled, but department seeks a lab tech to assist with the ceramics lab

– Continue working on courses with lower success rates – Seeking kiln upgrades and a 3-D printer

45

Automotive Collision Repair


Program: Automotive Collision Repair Presenter: Larry Ramos Date: November 2, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X*_ No____ Other____ *Please note that all programs, regardless of additional accrediting bodies or industry relationships, are to provide a Program SLO Assessment Report (from Tracdat or comparable data noting the courses assessed, the dates, and the number of students participating/successful). Campus resources are available to assist you with entering this information into TracDat. Please contact Sarah Jones, the SLO Coordinator for assistance at [email protected]. Update: Equivalent report submitted 3/16. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Labor Market data supports strong job demand, which is expected to grow in Orange County by over with 20.5 % by 2022

– ACR currently provides entry-level techs to many companies, including Caliber Collision, Fix Auto Collision, Fletcher Jones, Service King Collision, Seidners Collision, Toyota, BMW, and many sole proprietors

– Overall success rates above college average – Certificate/degree awards down from 34 to 20 over last year, but the last two

years are up significantly from previous years Recommendations: What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?

– Fill rates look low at about 50% – explain the impact of cross-listed courses – Continue to improve success rates—with particular emphasis on courses with

less than a 60% success rate – Seeking increase in lab clerk from 50% to 100% – Document SLOs (# of courses evaluated, # of students, and % successful) – Correct item #11 in the dean’s comments. (Corrected 3/16)

mailto:[email protected]

46

Automotive Technology


Program: Automotive Technology Presenter: Luciano Orozco Date: November 9, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X*_ No____ Other____ *Please note that all programs, regardless of additional accrediting bodies or industry relationships, are to provide a Program SLO Assessment Report (from Tracdat or comparable data noting the courses assessed, the dates, and the number of students participating/successful). Campus resources are available to assist you with entering this information into TracDat. Please contact Sarah Jones, the SLO Coordinator for assistance at [email protected]. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Number one T-Ten Program in United States – New partnership with Tesla (2016) – Strong fill rates above 95% – Strong certificate/degree rates (195 certificates and 4 degrees in 2014-15) – New “all electric” certificates being created for partnership with Tesla – Overall, strong success rates, above division and campus rates – Strong industry partnerships – AT is recognized as National Automotive Technician Education Foundation

“master” training institution – 15 out of 15 students placed in dealership in 2013-14 employed 1 year later – 19 out of 20 students placed in dealership in 2014-15 employed 1 year later

Recommendations: What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?

– Document SLOs (# of courses evaluated, # of students, and % successful) – Seeking clerical support and additional grant opportunities – The acquisition of additional instructional space remains a high priority for the

program as the facility is over 35 years old and was designed for two instructors.


47

Chemistry


Program: Chemistry Presenter: Robin De Roo Date: November 9, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X_ No____ Other____ Comments: Attached PLO Report. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Fill rates are above 100% – Increased CHEM 107 C sections from 6 in Fall 2012 to 11 in Fall 2015 – New transfer AS-T in Chemistry launched, waiting for State approval – Overall, strong success rates, above division and campus rates – Department worked with the Math Learning Center to develop Dimensional

Analysis Workshops – Hired 2 full-time instructors and a 10-month lab tech. – Experimenting with active learning techniques including clickers – Strong service activities (Magic Show for Girl Scouts, Kindercaminata, Club

Rush, Senior Day, ACS National Chemistry Week, Family Science Night) – Strong SLO results: 1363 out of 1719 students successful (79% success rate)


– Supply budget, shipping and handling costs are high for chemistry supplies – Full-time staffing needed for the stock room to manage supplies – AS-T in Chemistry promotion required once the State approves it – No need to provide SLO analysis for each course (just the program summary is

required)

48

Communications


Program: Communication Studies Presenter: Liana Koeppel Date: November 16, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes _X*__ No____ Other____ * Missing the student count for two SLOs on the Program Assessment SLO Report, which is skewing overall success rate—correction received and posted on the “J” Drive. Revised Program SLO Assessment Report shows an 83% success rate. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Strong improvement in the AA-T in Communication Studies 12 to 26 in 3 years – Fill rates over 100% – Overall success rates above the department and college averages. – Developing an upper division course for the Mortuary Science BS degree. – One new faculty hired to address FTEF shortfall – Best practices include focusing on core concepts and rotating SLOs – Reinstating non-transfer Comm 50 for basic skills development – Revision submitted


– Program faculty recommends hiring an additional fulltime faculty – Continue working on courses with less than a 70% success rate.

49

Court Reporting

Program Review Committee Evaluation Program: Court Reporting Presenter: Carolee Freer Date: November 23, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X*_ No____ Other____ *Please note that all programs, regardless of additional accrediting bodies or industry relationships, are to provide a Program SLO Assessment Report (from Tracdat or comparable data noting the courses assessed, the dates, and the number of students participating/successful). Campus resources are available to assist you with entering this information into TracDat. Please contact Sarah Jones, the SLO Coordinator for assistance at [email protected]. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Strong upward trend in certificates from 5 to 17 in the past three years – Pass rates established by the Court Reporter’s Board and the National Court

Reporters Association require difficult 98% and 95% pass rates, so the department has been working to provide alternative career options for students

– Increasing promotion through the National Court Reporter’s Assn., open house, career days, etc.

– Three new certificates and a degree have been added, including Legal Transcription, Court Reporting Technology, Hearing Reporter, and AS Law Office Administration (show career path progression)


– Fill rates were reported at 23.41% for fall 2014 and 20.69% for spring 2015, but the impact of cross-listed courses (that significantly inflate the “seat count”) does not appear to be addressed. Strongly recommend calculating the actual fill rates to better understand enrollment.

– Success and retention are 61.5% in fall 2014 (improved from 52.7% over fall 2013 and 57.6% in spring 2015 (down from 65.8% in the spring of 2014).

– Document SLOs (# of courses evaluated, # of students, and % successful)


50

Dental Assisting


Program: Dental Assisting Presenter: Prepared by Elizabeth Pacheco; presented by Joel Silva Date: November 23, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes _X__ No____ Other____ Comments: Fall 2012, accreditation standards reduced the teacher student ratio to 24 with 1:12 for lab and 1:6 for radiology, clinical/patient treatment. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Strong growth in AS degrees from 2 in 2012-2013 to 10 in 2014-2015 – Fill rates consistently at 89% or above – Success and retention are well above the division and college rates at an

average of almost 100%. – Strong SLO completion rates 504 out 506 students or 99.6% were successful. – Employment rate of 50% prior to graduation. – Approximately 60-70 applications received each year – Provides mentoring, peer study groups, supplemental instruction, and referrals to

students services for assistance Recommendations: What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?

– Keep doing what you are doing!

51

Economics


Program: Economics Presenter: Dr. Parwinder Sidhu Date: November 2, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes _X__ No____ Other____ Comments: Revised Program Review dated 11-23-15. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Strong fill rates (over 96%) and WSCH per FTEF – The Economics Department has proposed an AA-T degree in Economics – Overall, success rates (68.2% and 68.9%) are above the division average – Positive trend in success rates – Using “My Econ Lab” to provide online supplemental instruction – SLO documentation reflects 309 out of 456 SLOs were met (68% success rate) – New International Economics class being considered (should be transferable)


– Continue to update SLOs (last assessed in 2010) – Add the corresponding number for the strategic directions in the goal section. – Tie resource needs and budget items (page 10) to goals

52

Geography


Program: Geography Presenter: Armando Mendoza Date: November 2, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes__X_ No____ Other____ Comments: PLO Report included. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Three AA-T Degrees have been awarded and 1 certificate but that number is expected to grow as the first cohort finished their GIS certificate requirements

– Overall, success rates are above the division and college averages – SLOs: 61 out 75 students were successful (81.33% success rate) – The US Department of Labor has geography and geospatially related jobs

“increasing at much faster rates than most fields, between 29-35% annually” – Greater demand for geography and GIS courses expected. – Known transfers over the last four years: four geographers to UCLA, one to Utah

State University, one to the University of Hawaii, one to the University of Northern Colorado and more than a dozen to the local CSUs. *Note* only one of which was awarded an AA or AAT degree in geography.

– New full-time geography and GIS professor began this fall, charged with building, expanding, and directing the GIS program.


– Continue to work on courses with success rates below 70% – Update SLO reporting (last assessed in 2012)

53

Hotel, Restaurant, and Culinary Arts


Program: Hotel Restaurant, and Culinary Arts Presenter: Jeremy Peters Date: November 23, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes_X__ No____ Other____ Comments: Revision and SLO report received. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised? Interesting transfer information

– Although slightly lower in 2014-2015, degree (33) and certificate (90) completion is very strong

– Transfer analysis conducted with IR showed 52 students transferred in a cohort from (F09 to S11) at a rate of 18% with the majority (20) transferring to CSU Pomona

– Success and retention rates are well above the division and college rates – Strong SLO completion rates – HRC planning outlook for the next four to ten years:

o Creation of Certificate/Transfer Pathway in Culinology o Relocation of HRC back to the Cypress main campus o Explore BS in Culinary Arts

– New faculty position approved for fall 2016 Recommendations: What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided? Keep doing what you are doing!

54

Management & Marketing


Program: Management / Marketing Presenter: Patricia Kishel Date: November 9, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes _X__ No____ Other____ Comments: SLO report received. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Fill rates are stronger in Management than Marketing – Increase in Management AS Degree awards – Program shares certificates and degrees with other program including CIS, HRC,

Music, Geography and the Business Administration Transfer Degree – SLO Summary: 361 students successful out of 406 (88.9% success rate) – Strong course success rates (over 80%), above division and campus rates – Working for State approval of marketing awards that are declining due in part to

“departmental certificates” that were removed pending new requirements for state approval (“factoring these additional certificates would add approximately 50 certificates”).


– Continue to work on courses with success rates below 70% – Replace long-time faculty scheduled to retire (congratulations!) – Include specific goals related to increasing marketing certificate completions – Consider looking at CID descriptors for Marketing – Add the strategic directions to the goals

55

Mathematics


Program Mathematics Presenter Cindy Shrout / David Nusbaum Date November 9, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X No____ Other____ PLO report received. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Fill rates close to 100%, strong increase in the number of sections – Increasing awards: new transfer AS-T in Math (7 in 2014-2015) – DLAs (Directed Learning Activities) and VLAs (video) being developed – SLOs: 38 out of 57 courses reported successful (66.7% successful) – PLO report reflects an Impressive number of SLOs completed: 8156 students,

5482 successful (67%) – Encouraging greater use of Supplemental Instruction and tutoring – Created a “summer boost” program to improve incoming skill levels – Math 24, instead of the traditional Algebra sequence, is being offered to create

an alternate pathway to Math 120, a transfer level Statistics course – New tablet PCs creating more dynamic instruction – Providing adjunct with course material, lecture notes, and sample exams

Recommendations: What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided? Overall, low success rates, below division and campus rates

– Success rates at about 52 to 54% are below division and college averages attributed to part-time 56 to full-time 14 instructors

– Address the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty

56

Political Science


Program: Political Science Presenter: Gloria Badal / Peter Mathews Date: November 16, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes _X*_ No____ Other____ *The department indicated they were unclear how to track courses because they are part of the GE program. Program SLOs are tracked by each course in a program or department (POSC). Campus resources are available to assist you with entering this information into TracDat. Please contact Sarah Jones, the SLO Coordinator for assistance at [email protected]. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Strong fill rates though the fall 2014 fill percent is much higher (at over 100 percent) than the spring of 2015 (at 87%)

– Exceptionally high WSCH per FTEF over 700 and large class sizes of 68-90 – Strong improvement in the AA-T in Political Science which the program began

offering in 2014—up from 1 to 7 in 2014-15 – Developing an upper division course for the Mortuary Science BS degree.


– Overall success rates below the department and college averages; smaller class sizes may be warranted

– Add goals for SLOs and success rates – Seeking to hire a new faculty position which may help with success rates


57

Psychiatric Technology


Program: Psychiatric Technician Presenter: Jaime Ramos / John Sciacca Date: November 16, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X*_ No____ Other____ *Please note that all programs, regardless of additional accrediting bodies or industry relationships, are to provide a Program SLO Assessment Report (from Tracdat or comparable data noting the courses assessed, the dates, and the number of students participating/successful). Campus resources are available to assist you with entering this information into TracDat. Please contact Sarah Jones, the SLO Coordinator for assistance at [email protected]. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Overall success rates above the division and college averages (89 and 95%) – One full-time instructor hired – Researched sharp drop in certificate and degree awards from (63 in 2013-14 to

22 in 2014-15) which was attributed, in large part, to delays in presenting official transcripts to Admissions & Records in time.


– Work with IR to correct the error in the Trend Data table on page 2 and the seat count page 3.

– College total was cut off the chart on page 5. – Document SLOs (# of courses evaluated, # of students, and % successful) – Add need for full-time instructor (from page 8) to budget list on page 9 – For goals, be concrete as “explore” is difficult to measure.


58

Radiologic Technology & Diagnostic Medical Sonography


Program: Radiologic Technology / Diagnostic Medical Sonography Presenter: Lynn Mitts Date: November 23, 2015 Historically, the goal of the Program Review Committee has been to help programs accentuate the most positive aspects of their work and aid them in substantiating a need for resources to continue supporting student success. The CONTENT and PURPOSE of the WRITTEN RESPONSE is as follows: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes _X__ No____ Other____ Comments: SLO / PLO attached. Commendations: What is the department/program doing successfully that should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, praised?

– Success rates are above 80% and above the division and college rates – RADT fill rates above 100 percent for the past two years – DMS at 83.64% for fall and 87.69 for spring – Strong upward trend in certificates and degrees to 89 in 2014-2015:

o RADT = 31 degrees and 35 certificates o DMS = 15 degrees and 38 certificates

– SLO summary: 1614 students out of 1716 successful (94% success rate) – Tutoring and mentoring integrated with lab skills – Intern students mentor the new extern students

Recommendations: What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided? Keep doing what you are doing!

59

Chapter Six: Student Support Services Quality Review (SSQR) While Cypress College’s enrollment declined from Fall 2015 to Fall 2016, new student enrollments comprised 14.7% of all students at Cypress College. Over half of the student population were continuing students. Returning students also comprised 15.0% of Cypress College students. Smaller amounts of first-time transfer, returning transfer, and special admit students also attended; thus, the College provides courses for a wide variety of students, new and returning. Over half of all Cypress College students (52.1%) aim to receive an associate degree and transfer to a university. However, other common student goals include transferring to university only (16.3%) and receiving an associate degree only (9.8%). Additionally, 6.3% of Cypress College students remain undecided on their educational goal. Thus, it is important to provide students with the necessary support services from them to set and achieve their educational goals. Often times, new students’ first point of contact with the campus is within the Student Support Services Department. Thus, areas within the student support services department provide a variety of services to help and support students, to ultimately foster student success. These services include the veteran’s resource center, the disabled student services office, and the assessment center. Thus, some areas cater to all students while some are specialized and aim to help sub-groups of students including veterans and former foster youth. All student support services areas have defined their student learning outcomes (SLOs), regularly assess their SLOs, and go through the student support services quality review cycle every three years. The review process has not drastically changed at Cypress College within recent years. Surveys are first developed with a collaboration between the different student support services areas and the institutional research office. All areas use a core set of questions as indicators for progress. These include questions on hours of operation, staff knowledge, and overall satisfaction; however, areas can also add additional indicators to assess their quality. The surveys are then sent to students and employees (where applicable) who are eligible to receive services. Survey results are collected and analyzed by the Institutional Research and Planning office. The deans and managers in charge of the different student support services areas prepare their review documents based on survey results, resource identification, and goal setting. Each area is asked to review their goals from their most recent review cycle to then develop goals for the next three-year cycle. After the reviews have been completed, they are submitted to the Executive Vice President for his comments. Follow up actions are developed and taken as a result of findings from the reviews. In 2015-16, eight different student support services areas completed their quality review cycle: the career center, the English Success Center (ESC), the Health Center, the Library, the Learning Resource Center (LRC), the Math Learning Center (MLC), student activities, and the transfer center. In this report, a summary of survey results related to student satisfaction with services provided for each area is reported (part one of the nine part review process). More detailed information on each program or area, including full versions of the Student Services Quality Reviews, will be posted on the Institutional Research and Planning webpage. Additional information includes changes since the last quality review, information on mission statements and student learning outcomes, faculty and staff involvement, a review of previous goals and objectives, identification of long range goals and objectives, as well as physical and fiscal resource identification.

60

Career Center

Student Support Services Quality Review Report

Career Center

Manager/Coordinator: Deann Burch, Career Center Coordinator II

Dean: Dr. Paul de Dios, Dean of Counseling/Student Development/A&R

Names of people who contributed to this report: Deann Burch, Sarah Coburn, Zola Aponte,

Belinda Allan

Date: Spring 2016

Date of previous quality review: Fall 2012

Part 1. Satisfaction with Support Services Provided

Summarize the results below from the Student Services Quality Review Survey. You may also

incorporate any other information from the survey results in your response.

The following ratings are from 194 students who have used the Career Center services.

%

Responded

“Excellent”

%

Responded

“Good”

% Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined

% Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined in

2012-13

Difference

between

2012-13 and

2015-16

Hours of operation 44.8% 44.3% 89.1% 93.0% -3.9%

Timeliness of response 37.9% 42.1% 80.0% 94.8% -14.8%

Clarity of procedures 41.6% 34.7% 76.3% 93.5% -17.2%

Quality of materials 45.7% 37.8% 83.5% 94.8% -11.3%

Staff helpfulness 49.0% 33.3% 82.3% 96.8% -14.5%

Staff knowledge 45.8% 36.3% 82.1% 94.9% -12.8%

Overall quality of service 44.5% 41.4% 85.9% 97.5% -11.6%

Additional Items: Access

to computer stations 51.4% 34.4% 85.8% 91.3% -5.5%

Note. The survey methodology has changed from a point-of-service survey in previous years to

an online survey to all students which was used this year.

61

English Success Center (ESC)


English Success Center

Manager: Treisa Cassens

Names of people who contributed to this report: Treisa Cassens, Emily Keery, and Kazue

Suzuki

Date: May 2016





The following ratings are from 1,483 students who have used the English Success Center

services.

%

Responded

“Excellent”

%

Responded

“Good”

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined in

2012-13

Difference

between

2012-13 and

2015-16

Hours of operation 61.3% 35.0% 96.3% 90.6% 5.7%

Timeliness of

response 72.1% 25.4% 97.5% 94.9% 2.6%

Clarity of procedures 65.6% 31.0% 96.6% 96.6% 0.0%


Staff helpfulness 78.7% 19.8% 98.5% 96.6% 1.9%

Staff knowledge 79.6% 18.8% 98.4% 96.6% 1.8%

Overall quality of

service 75.6% 22.8% 98.4% 100.0% -1.6%

62

Health Center


Health Center

Manager: Marla McBride

Names of people who contributed to this report: Marla McBride, John Sciacca

Date: Spring 2016





The following ratings are from 80 students who have used the Health Center services.

%

Responded

“Excellent”

%

Responded

“Good”

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined in

2012-13

Difference

between

2012-13 and

2015-16


Timeliness of

response 60.3% 32.1% 92.3% 94.9% -2.6%




Staff knowledge 73.4% 22.8% 96.2% 100.0% -3.8%

Overall quality of

service 65.0% 27.5% 92.5% 98.3% -5.8%

Note. The survey methodology has changed from a point-of-service survey in previous years to an

online survey to all students which was used this year.

63

Learning Resource Center (LRC)


Learning Resource Center


Names of people who contributed to this report: Allyssa Rocha, Janelle Salinas, Kevin Peery,

Zoe Megginson, Gonzalo Arenas, and Veronica Martin del Campo

Date: June 2, 2016





The following ratings are from 47 students who have used the Learning Resource Center

services.

%

Responded

“Excellent”

%

Responded

“Good”

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined in

2012-13

Difference

between

2012-13 and

2015-16


Timeliness of

response 44.4% 48.9% 93.3% 88.3% 5.0%



Staff courtesy 53.2% 31.9% 85.1% 94.4% -9.3%


Staff knowledge 51.1% 44.7% 95.7% 96.1% -0.4%

Overall quality of

service 53.5% 37.2% 90.7% 97.1% -6.4%

64

The Library


Library

Manager: Treisa Cassens Names of people who contributed to this report: Peggy Austin, James Carrocino, Treisa Cassens, Moahammad Chaudhry, Monica Doman, Bonnie Fast, Billy Pashaie, Joyce Peacock, Alycia Wildman Date: 5/24/2016 Date of previous quality review: Fall 2012




The following ratings are from 182 students who have used the Library services.

%

Responded

“Excellent”

%

Responded

“Good”

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined in

2012-13

Difference

between

2012-13 and

2015-16


Timeliness of

response 59.0% 31.9% 90.9% 93.2% -2.3%




Staff knowledge 81.3% 16.8% 98.1% 95.7% 2.4%

Overall quality of

service 82.8% 15.3% 98.1% 91.3% 6.8%

65

Math Learning Center (MLC)


Math Learning Center


Names of people who contributed to this report: Treisa Cassens and Allyssa Rocha

Date: June 7, 2016





The following ratings are from 2,303 students who have used the Math Learning Center

services.

%

Responded

“Excellent”

%

Responded

“Good”

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined in

2012-13

Difference

between

2012-13 and

2015-16


Timeliness of

response 63.6% 29.5% 93.1% 64.2% 28.9%

Clarity of procedures 71.1% 25.7% 96.8% 81.5% 15.3%

Quality of materials 68.0% 28.1% 96.1% 90.7% 5.4%


Staff knowledge 81.3% 17.0% 98.3% 96.2% 2.1%

Overall quality of

service 77.5% 20.3% 97.8% 94.1% 3.7%

66

Student Activities Center


Student Activities

Manager: David Okawa

Names of people who contributed to this report: Becky Rojas, Work Study Students (Melissa

Estrada, Sophearun Linn, & Megan Nguyen) Institutional Research (Student Support Services

Quality Review Results)

Date: June 1, 2016





The following ratings are from 257 students who have used the Student Activities

services.

%

Responded

“Excellent”

%

Responded

“Good”

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined in

2012-13

Difference

between

2012-13 and

2015-16


Timeliness of

response 41.5% 44.5% 86.0% 89.0% -3.0%


Quality of materials 42.7% 41.5% 84.2% 81.1% 3.1%


Staff knowledge 46.9% 37.4% 84.4% 94.5% -10.1%

Overall quality of

service 44.0% 40.9% 84.9% 92.1% -7.2%



67

Transfer Center


Transfer Center

Manager: Paul de Dios

Names of people who contributed to this report: Penny Gabourie, Rebeca Lavega, Yolanda

Duenas

Date: May 25, 2016





The following ratings are from 82 students who have used the Transfer Center services.

%

Responded

“Excellent”

%

Responded

“Good”

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined

%

Responded

“Excellent” or

“Good”

Combined in

2012-13

Difference

between

2012-13 and

2015-16


Timeliness of

response 50.0% 42.1% 92.1% 93.9% -1.8%




Staff knowledge 49.4% 34.2% 83.5% 91.4% -7.9%

Overall quality of

service 50.0% 35.0% 85.0% 94.4% -9.4%



68

Chapter Seven: Campus Support Services Quality Review (CSQR) Campus Support Services consist of offices and areas indirectly related to instruction or student services. These support services include offices such as the bursar’s office and academic computing. Despite not having a direct tie to instruction, the College considers these services critical and necessary for students to have a premier academic experience. While campus support services are evaluated every three years, the cycle is currently in the process of being revised to include additional areas and offices not previously evaluated. Thus, as the College is currently completing the 2016 cycle for campus support services quality review, results for this cycle will be reported in the 2016-17 Institutional Effectiveness Report. For the current review cycle, the instrument was evaluated and slightly revised to include additional questions for offices interested in collecting data beyond the core measures, ensuring conformity to the College mission and students’ experiences. Campus support services were divided into three areas related to administrative services, educational programs and student services, and executive services. Offices newly added to the review cycle are underlined. Administrative Services 1. Academic Computing 2. Bursar’s Office 3. Campus Safety 4. Maintenance and Operations 5. Office of Administrative Services 6. Staff Services Center 7. Facilities Scheduling

Educational Programs 1. Instruction Office President’s Office 1. Foundation Office 2. Institutional Research and Planning 3. Professional Development 4. Public Information Office 5. Office of the President

Readers interested in the previous cycle of campus support services quality review can refer to the Institutional Effectiveness Report for 2012-13. This report includes the review documents for the following areas: 1. Academic Computing 2. Bursar 3. Campus Safety 4. Institutional Research & Planning 5. Maintenance and Operations 6. Production Center 7. Public Information 8. Staff Development

69

Chapter Eight: Strategic Planning Cypress College’s 2014-17 Strategic Plan serves as the main guide and planning document for the College in relation to decision-making and resource allocation. The strategic plan was first developed in April 2014 during a two-day convening of College representatives into a colloquium for strategic planning. During this colloquium, over 60 college employees developed the first draft of the current strategic plan. The strategic plan draft was shared with the campus community for input, review, and revision. The resulting document, the 2014-17 Cypress College Strategic Plan, services as the primary basis for decision-making and resource allocation over the three-year period. The entirety of the 2014-17 Cypress College Strategic Plan is located in the appendix alongside an executive summary of the progress and an evaluation report prepared by the Strategic Planning Task Force. The 2014-17 Strategic Plan marked some large changes and diversions between the District’s planning process and the College’s. Historically, the College has followed the five NOCCCD directions for strategic planning:

1. increasing completion 2. diminishing the achievement 3. improving basic skills outcomes 4. improving planning and resource allocation 5. establishing and maintaining community partnerships

However, based on feedback at the colloquium from members of each of the five direction committees, participants noted that the first three directions all related to student success; thus, the College decided to form one committee focused on student success. The remaining two committees would function as standalone committees, as they have historically. Currently, Cypress College’s Strategic Plan continues to be organized under three different directions and committees:

1. student success 2. organizational effectiveness and excellence 3. strong community partnerships

After implementing this change to the strategic planning process, a draft of the strategic plan was shared across the campus community for input, review, and revision. Thus, the 2014-17 Cypress College Strategic Plan resulted from this change to the planning process. The entire plan is located within the appendix along with an executive summary of the progress and evaluation report for year two of the strategic plan prepared by the Strategic Planning Task Force. The entire report can be found on the Cypress College Institutional Research and Planning website. The College is also engaged in the planning process for the development of the 2017-2020 Cypress College Strategic Plan. Another strategic planning colloquium is being planned for April 2017 where faculty, staff, and administrators will come together to collaborate and develop the next iteration of the plan. Thereafter, the plan will continue to be evaluated on an annual basis and will continue to be included in the yearly Institutional Effectiveness Report.

70

Conclusion

Student success serves as an integral part of the Cypress College mission, vision, and values. The College set standards for successful course completion, degree completion, certificate completion, and transfer volume, and met nearly all of these standards, aside from course completion. When examining the Scorecard data, Cypress College students outperformed the statewide averages for all measures: persistence, 30 unit completion, awards, transfer, and basic skills progress, and CTE areas. Student achievement and institutional effectiveness data revealed positive trends, affirming the College mission. The College plans to continue putting forth the effort and initiatives to achieve the goals and objectives outlined within the Strategic Plan and the Institutional Set Standards. Students also had positive evaluations for the various student services areas that participated in the most recent program review cycle, indicating satisfaction with the assessed support services. The 2016-17 IER will provide data on the most recent Campus Support Services Quality Review cycle. With regard to organizational effectiveness, the College has been steadily increasing resident FTES from the 2012-13 school year to the 2015-16 school year. However, WSCH per FTEF has been steadily declining throughout this same time period. Thus, the College will continue with enrollment management strategies to ensure productivity. Overall, the College continues to serve the surrounding community and beyond through high quality instruction and support services for students to excel in the classroom and beyond.

71

Appendix A: Cypress College Completion and Persistence Data Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates Within the basic skills courses at Cypress College, success rates have displayed slight variation when disaggregating the data:

Historically, older students have had slightly higher success rates in basic skills and ESL courses, especially when compared to students aged 20 – 24.

Female students have historically had slightly higher success rates in basic skills and ESL courses; however, success rates for both males and females have slightly declined.

Asian students have historically had the highest success rates in basic skills and ESL courses followed by Filipino and White students. In contrast, African American students have historically had the lowest success rates in basic skills and ESL courses.

In nearly all semesters, excluding Spring 2014, students enrolled in distance education basic skills and ESL courses have had higher success rates compared to on campus.

For all semesters examined, students who did not receive financial aid had slightly higher success rates in their basic skills and ESL courses compared to aid recipients.

Beginning in Spring 2015, degree seeking students began having the lowest success rates in basic skills and ESL courses while students with other educational goals had similar success rates. Success rates for certificate seeking students have increased by over 10% for the time period examined.

Cypress College Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Age

Age Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

19 & Under

1384 70% 989 67% 1371 69% 1069 69% 1402 67% 1014 63%

20 - 24

684 62% 678 62% 651 60% 692 62% 655 59% 676 60%

25 - 29

173 67% 182 63% 209 68% 249 67% 210 65% 224 62%

30 - 39

164 70% 161 70% 150 75% 181 73% 168 70% 146 70%

40 & Over

145 69% 160 71% 134 69% 122 73% 121 73% 112 65%

Cypress College Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Gender

Gender Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016


F 1554 70% 1285 68% 1470 68% 1413 70% 1570 68% 1320 65%

M 971 64% 855 62% 1010 64% 870 62% 947 61% 809 59%

N 25 58% 30 75% 35 66% 29 64% 39 60% 43 67%

72

Cypress College Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Ethnicity

Ethnicity Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016


African American

127 62% 99 56% 94 50% 100 59% 92 55% 91 52%

American Indian

9 60% 9 50% 7 70% 11 65% 7 54% 10 77%

Asian 520 77% 441 75% 558 79% 495 79% 556 80% 456 78%

Filipino 151 68% 134 70% 148 72% 138 71% 183 74% 137 64%

Hispanic 1241 65% 1062 63% 1274 63% 1159 63% 1283 60% 1126 58%

Pacific Islander

20 69% 11 52% 12 60% 10 59% 11 69% 13 72%

Unknown 27 82% 18 58% 20 74% 23 66% 14 47% 10 56%

White Non-Hispanic

448 65% 396 67% 395 67% 373 69% 410 65% 329 65%

Cypress College Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Educational Goal

Goal Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016


Certificate seeking

23 51% 32 71% 38 63% 45 68% 62 62% 51 66%

Degree seeking

284 64% 276 63% 262 65% 259 65% 224 61% 237 59%

Other 459 68% 385 62% 444 64% 368 67% 413 67% 399 66%

Transfer seeking

1784 68% 1477 67% 1771 67% 1641 67% 1857 65% 1485 62%

Cypress College Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Socioeconomic Status

SES Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016


FA 1876 67% 1636 65% 1907 65% 1758 66% 1950 64% 1602 61%

No FA 674 68% 534 66% 608 71% 555 71% 606 68% 570 66%

Cypress College Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Method of Instruction

Method Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016


DE 335 71% 369 63% 369 74% 369 73% 507 73% 398 72%

On Campus

2215 67% 1801 66% 2146 65% 1944 66% 2049 63% 1774 61%

73

Career & Technical Education Course Success Rates Within the CTE courses at Cypress College, success rates show slight fluctuations when disaggregating the data:

Historically, students aged 20 – 39 have had the highest success rates in CTE courses by age, with 25-29 year old having the highest success rates of all age groups. Success rates for students 19 and under have increased by over 10% for the time period examined.

Trends for success rates by gender have remained stable and similarly high for male and female students.

American Indian and Pacific Islander students have had the most fluctuation in success rates; this is due to the small numbers of American Indian and Pacific Islander students enrolled in CTE courses. Historically, African American students have had slightly lower success rates in CTE courses; however, this gap narrowed in Spring 2016.

Degree seeking CTE students have historically had the highest success rates. However, success rates for both certificate and transfer seeking students have recently increased.

Financial aid status did not seem to have a large effect on students’ CTE success rates.

CTE courses offered on campus have historically had slightly higher success rates when compared to distance education offerings.

Cypress College CTE Success Rates by Age



19 & Under

38 69% 35 58% 46 61% 33 72% 34 65% 39 83%

20 - 24

313 79% 417 86% 323 83% 369 83% 260 80% 373 87%

25 - 29

377 83% 347 85% 295 88% 349 85% 391 85% 419 89%

30 - 39

307 83% 347 83% 288 82% 317 82% 345 84% 315 86%

40 & Over

314 78% 335 83% 279 84% 276 83% 232 77% 218 80%

Cypress College CTE Success Rates by Gender



F 868 82% 1007 86% 815 85% 1009 85% 851 83% 922 87%

M 456 78% 443 78% 389 78% 302 76% 386 79% 418 84%

N 25 81% 31 89% 27 82% 24 83% 24 73% 23 82%

74

Cypress College CTE Success Rates by Ethnicity

Gender Fall 2013

Spring 2014

Fall 2014 Spring 2015



African American

60 79% 49 69% 61 68% 74 75% 67 79% 63 84%

American Indian

11 65% 11 85% 22 92% 13 77% 4 100% 8 100%

Asian 255 83% 299 88% 206 84% 248 88% 219 79% 235 88%

Filipino 110 82% 132 89% 118 85% 102 85% 99 83% 80 94%

Hispanic 365 76% 432 80% 379 79% 419 78% 418 80% 524 84%

Pacific Islander

5 83% 11 73% 7 100% 4 44% 2 67% 8 73%

Unknown 41 87% 31 86% 25 96% 14 88% 23 82% 34 87%

White Non-Hispanic

492 82% 510 85% 411 87% 467 88% 430 84% 412 87%

Cypress College CTE Success Rates by Educational Goal



Certificate seeking

82 73% 123 84% 84 83% 110 76% 110 76% 148 87%

Degree seeking

467 86% 495 88% 383 88% 438 87% 388 86% 400 90%

Other 320 78% 346 79% 343 82% 357 83% 297 81% 260 79%

Transfer seeking

480 78% 517 82% 421 80% 439 81% 467 79% 556 87%

Cypress College CTE Success Rates by Socioeconomic Status



FA 893 81% 948 82% 769 81% 886 84% 825 80% 962 87%

No FA 456 79% 533 85% 462 87% 458 81% 437 83% 402 84%

Cypress College CTE Success Rates by Method of Instruction



DE 485 76% 481 83% 429 80% 332 80% 491 79% 447 81%

On Campus

898 83% 1022 85% 802 85% 1004 84% 771 83% 917 89%

75

Transfer Level Course Success Rates Within the transfer level courses at Cypress College, success rates remain relatively stable when disaggregating the data:

For transfer level courses, older students, especially those over 30 years old, have historically had slightly higher success rates. In contrast, students aged 24 and below had slightly lower success rates in transfer level courses.

Male and female students had similar completion rates in transfer level courses.

Asian, Filipino, and White students continue to have the highest success rates in transfer level courses while African American, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander students displayed lower success rates for the time period examined.

No large variation was observed when examining differences in success rates by educational goal or socioeconomic status.

Success rates were similar for students enrolling in transfer level courses either online or through distance education.

Cypress College Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Age



19 & Under

8892 72% 7282 69% 8587 70% 7329 69% 9060 72% 7639 71%

20 - 24

11288 71% 11558 69% 10970 69% 11611 68% 11272 70% 11225 71%

25 - 29

2961 71% 3123 74% 3189 74% 3295 73% 3512 72% 3665 74%

30 - 39

2315 77% 2217 76% 2135 77% 2118 77% 2153 75% 2074 76%

40 & Over

1953 79% 1783 76% 1654 77% 1529 76% 1395 74% 1437 79%

Cypress College Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Gender



F 15118 74% 14511 72% 14876 72% 14456 72% 15177 73% 14340 73%

M 11971 70% 11159 69% 11329 69% 11126 69% 11835 70% 11316 71%

N 320 73% 293 73% 330 72% 296 67% 377 69% 381 70%

76

Cypress College Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Ethnicity



African American

1262 66% 1162 62% 1253 62% 1208 61% 1180 63% 1169 65%

American Indian

179 71% 169 75% 153 69% 138 67% 126 70% 119 65%

Asian 5627 78% 5494 76% 5562 77% 5672 77% 5994 78% 5956 79%

Filipino 2186 78% 2003 73% 2062 74% 1906 72% 2133 77% 2009 76%

Hispanic 10921 68% 10420 66% 11131 67% 10813 66% 11926 67% 11053 67%

Pacific Islander

155 65% 147 58% 128 65% 143 69% 150 68% 114 63%

Unknown 481 76% 335 74% 275 73% 264 73% 253 70% 259 72%

White Non-Hispanic

6598 75% 6139 75% 5894 75% 5675 75% 5633 74% 5362 75%

Cypress College Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Educational Goal



Certificate seeking

688 74% 665 74% 783 77% 697 74% 838 74% 839 77%

Degree seeking

3300 76% 3109 73% 3057 73% 2971 72% 2824 73% 2589 73%

Other 4435 72% 3875 69% 4024 71% 3603 70% 3972 72% 3609 71%

Transfer seeking

18986 72% 18314 70% 18671 71% 18611 70% 19761 71% 19004 72%

Cypress College Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Socioeconomic Status



FA 18291 71% 17366 69% 18111 69% 17644 68% 18605 70% 17709 70%

No FA 9118 74% 8597 74% 8424 75% 8238 76% 8790 74% 8332 76%

Cypress College Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Method of Instruction



Distance Ed

6977 69% 7256 68% 7386 69% 7525 68% 8377 69% 7736 69%

On Campus

24417 72% 22303 71% 23036 71% 21878 70% 22936 71% 21577 71%

77

Fall to Spring Persistence When examining fall to spring persistence, by semester and sub-group, some differences emerged:

By age, students aged 30 and older had the lowest persistence rates, while those aged 19 and younger had persistence rates either at or above 80%.

No large differences in fall to spring persistence rates emerged when examining gender. Asian and Filipino students consistently had the highest fall to spring persistence rates

while African American students had the lowest fall to spring persistence rates. o American Indian and Pacific Islander students had the most variation in their

persistence rates due to their small sample sizes at the College. Transfer seeking students had slightly higher fall to spring persistence rates when

compared to students with other educational goals. No difference in fall to spring persistence rates emerged when examining SES. On-campus students had consistently higher persistence rates in their courses;

however, this could be due to increased variation, as only a small number of students exclusively attended courses through distance education.

Fall to Spring Persistence by Age

Age

Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 First time

Cohort Count Percent

First time


First time


19 & Under 1999 1619 80% 1881 1551 82% 1870 1561 83%

20 - 24 249 159 63% 300 208 69% 256 161 62%

25 - 29 57 37 64% 76 54 71% 79 56 70%

30 - 39 53 28 52% 49 32 65% 52 30 57%

40 & Over 47 30 63% 43 26 60% 35 20 57%

Fall to Spring Persistence by Gender

Gender



First time


First time


F 1232 984 79% 1183 962 81% 1183 985 83%

M 1151 874 75% 1136 885 77% 1062 806 75%

N 22 15 68% 30 24 80% 48 38 79%

78

Fall to Spring Persistence by Race/Ethnicity

Ethnicity



First time


First time


African American

120 83 69% 141 86 60% 118 79 66%

American Indian

9 6 66% 10 7 70% 15 9 60%

Asian 367 306 83% 374 329 87% 375 333 88%

Filipino 166 142 85% 152 132 86% 142 122 85%

Hispanic 1274 979 76% 1277 995 77% 1246 986 79%

Pacific Islander

17 9 52% 14 9 64% 14 7 50%

Unknown 10 9 90% 20 17 85% 11 8 72%

White 442 339 76% 361 296 81% 372 285 76%

Fall to Spring Persistence by Educational Goal

Educational Goal



First time


First time


Certificate seeking

47 33 70% 51 39 76% 72 52 72%

Degree seeking

219 156 71% 200 141 70% 140 90 64%

Other 487 345 70% 482 350 72% 415 304 73%

Transfer seeking

1652 1339 81% 1616 1341 82% 1666 1383 83%

Fall to Spring Persistence by Socioeconomic Status

SES



First time


First time


FA 1648 1330 80% 1739 1390 79% 1628 1326 81%

No FA 757 543 71% 610 481 78% 665 503 75%

Fall to Spring Persistence by Method of Instruction

Method



First time


First time


Distance Ed 83 45 54% 68 27 39% 88 52 59%

On Campus 2322 1828 78% 2281 1844 80% 2205 1777 80%

79

Fall to Fall Persistence When examining fall to fall persistence, by semester and sub-group, some differences emerged:

Fall to fall persistence rates were highest for students aged 19 and younger; otherwise, students had fall to fall persistence rates at approximately 50% or lower.

No differences in fall to fall persistence rates emerged when examining gender or financial aid status.

Asian and Filipino students consistently had the highest fall to fall persistence rates, while African American students had the lowest, relative to sample size.

o American Indian and Pacific Islander first-time students had small sample sizes and thus persistence rates are not as stable.

Transfer seeking students had slightly higher fall to fall persistence rates compared to students with other educational goals.

Students who attended their classes on campus had higher fall to fall persistence rates compared to first-time students who attended classes through DE.

Fall to Fall Persistence by Age

Age



First time


First time


19 & Under 1999 1324 66% 1881 1257 66% 1870 TBD TBD

20 - 24 249 114 45% 300 128 42% 256 TBD TBD

25 - 29 57 27 47% 76 39 51% 79 TBD TBD

30 - 39 53 17 32% 49 23 46% 52 TBD TBD

40 & Over 47 25 53% 43 14 32% 35 TBD TBD

Fall to Fall Persistence by Gender

Gender



First time


First time


F 1232 790 64% 1183 774 65% 1183 TBD TBD

M 1151 705 61% 1136 673 59% 1062 TBD TBD

N 22 12 54% 30 14 46% 48 TBD TBD

Fall to Fall Persistence by Race/Ethnicity

Ethnicity



First time


First time


African American

120 64 53% 141 57 40% 118 TBD TBD

American Indian

9 4 44% 10 4 40% 15 TBD TBD

Asian 367 271 73% 374 281 75% 375 TBD TBD

Filipino 166 118 71% 152 107 70% 142 TBD TBD

Hispanic 1274 785 61% 1277 760 59% 1246 TBD TBD

Pacific Islander

17 5 29% 14 7 50% 14 TBD TBD

Unknown 10 7 70% 20 16 80% 11 TBD TBD

80

White Non-Hispanic

442 253 57% 361 229 63% 372 TBD TBD

Fall to Fall Persistence by Educational Goal

Educational Goal



First time


First time


Certificate seeking

47 25 53% 51 30 58% 72 TBD TBD

Degree seeking

219 111 50% 200 100 50% 140 TBD TBD

Other 487 269 55% 482 261 54% 415 TBD TBD

Transfer seeking

1652 1102 66% 1616 1070 66% 1666 TBD TBD

Fall to Fall Persistence by Socioeconomic Status

SES



First time


First time


FA 1648 1060 64% 1739 1064 61% 1628 TBD TBD

No FA 757 447 59% 610 397 65% 665 TBD TBD

Fall to Fall Persistence by Method of Instruction

Method



First time


First time


Distance Ed 83 32 38% 68 16 23% 88 TBD TBD

On Campus 2322 1475 63% 2281 1445 63% 2205 TBD TBD

81

Appendix B: District Completion and Persistence Data Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates When examining data at the District level for basic skills & ESL courses, some slight trends emerged:

When comparing students’ success rates by age group, students aged 30 and older had slightly higher success rates when compared to students aged 24 and younger.

No large variation was found in success rates with regard to gender, educational goal, or financial aid status.

Historically, Asian students have been the only students districtwide that have had success rates in basic skills and ESL courses consistently greater than 70%.

When examining methods of instruction, students taking basic skills and ESL courses on campus had higher success rates compared to those students taking these courses through distance education.

District Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Age



19 & Under

3887 64% 2748 59% 3935 63% 2630 58% 3914 62% 2337 55%

20 - 24

1762 57% 1706 55% 1624 57% 1708 56% 1576 57% 1623 56%

25 - 29

507 65% 523 60% 492 64% 528 61% 500 64% 564 62%

30 - 39

385 66% 397 66% 361 68% 401 68% 388 70% 417 68%

40 & Over

341 66% 351 67% 321 68% 325 68% 275 67% 280 66%

District Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Gender



F 4030 66% 3220 62% 3842 65% 3226 62% 3869 65% 3043 60%

M 2760 58% 2423 55% 2790 59% 2294 55% 2667 58% 2077 53%

N 92 61% 82 63% 101 61% 71 54% 117 57% 100 57%

82

District Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Ethnicity

Ethnicity Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016


African American

265 53% 235 49% 229 48% 234 51% 195 49% 186 48%

American Indian

35 71% 33 55% 26 50% 27 43% 22 44% 20 64%

Asian 1022 73% 897 71% 1062 74% 944 74% 1114 77% 940 75%

Filipino 261 67% 237 66% 269 69% 229 62% 292 71% 209 62%

Hispanic 3916 60% 3170 55% 3901 59% 3143 55% 3910 58% 2957 53%

Pacific Islander

38 57% 39 48% 30 55% 21 42% 21 56% 38 59%

Unknown 67 65% 54 56% 58 73% 60 64% 43 58% 38 65%

White Non-Hispanic

1271 65% 1060 64% 1151 66% 930 62% 1056 62% 833 60%

District Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Educational Goal



Certificate seeking

33 44% 48 63% 60 57% 73 65% 96 63% 84 63%

Degree seeking

541 60% 530 58% 536 60% 508 59% 465 58% 443 55%

Other 1280 63% 1058 59% 1153 63% 959 59% 1015 60% 903 60%

Transfer seeking

5028 63% 4089 59% 4984 62% 4052 58% 5077 62% 3791 57%

District Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Socioeconomic Status



FA 4913 61% 4123 58% 4918 61% 4151 57% 4865 61% 3748 55%

No FA 1969 66% 1602 62% 1815 67% 1441 62% 1788 64% 1473 62%

District Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Method of Instruction



DE 1782 52% 1571 48% 1612 50% 1380 47% 1733 51% 1388 46%

On Campus

5100 67% 4154 64% 5121 67% 4212 64% 4920 66% 3833 63%

83

Career & Technical Education Course Success Rates When examining data at the District level for CTE courses, some variation was revealed:

Aside from students aged 19 or younger having slightly lower success rates in Spring 2014 and Fall 2014, no large variation in success rates was revealed when examining age. This gap subsequently closed during the following semesters.

No differences in success rates by gender or financial aid status were revealed districtwide.

Asian, White, and Filipino students consistently had higher success rates when compared to other ethnic groups across the District in CTE courses.

Degree seeking students had the highest success rates in CTE courses while transfer seeking students had slightly lower success rates through Fall 2015; however, this gap was mitigated in Spring 2016.

Also in Spring 2016, the on campus success rate for CTE courses was 10% higher than the success rates for online CTE courses across the District.

District CTE Success Rates by Age



19 & Under

169 73% 174 67% 170 70% 179 79% 147 71% 193 78%

20 - 24

649 75% 776 79% 630 78% 720 79% 546 76% 707 80%

25 - 29

532 81% 517 82% 447 81% 530 83% 586 81% 612 84%

30 - 39

427 81% 470 81% 421 80% 471 81% 496 81% 462 84%

40 & Over

423 79% 459 80% 389 81% 393 81% 338 78% 334 79%

District CTE Success Rates by Gender



F 1310 80% 1467 81% 1245 81% 1493 83% 1310 81% 1423 84%

M 850 76% 876 75% 768 75% 750 76% 768 74% 850 78%

N 40 85% 53 88% 44 84% 41 77% 34 72% 34 70%

84

District CTE Success Rates by Ethnicity

Gender Fall 2013

Spring 2014




African American

97 70% 90 70% 101 70% 107 74% 96 76% 93 80%

American Indian

15 71% 22 88% 40 93% 21 67% 7 50% 12 92%

Asian 361 81% 407 84% 306 78% 364 85% 316 77% 349 83%

Filipino 144 82% 162 87% 139 82% 132 84% 114 82% 94 92%

Hispanic 749 74% 846 75% 776 77% 862 77% 827 76% 982 78%

Pacific Islander

5 71% 12 70% 10 90% 7 58% 5 62% 17 80%

Unknown 56 87% 49 67% 44 83% 41 87% 36 83% 48 82%

White Non-Hispanic

763 81% 802 82% 639 82% 756 84% 712 82% 713 85%

District CTE Success Rates by Educational Goal



Certificate seeking

194 78% 250 81% 184 84% 231 80% 229 79% 267 84%

Degree seeking

593 84% 641 86% 515 84% 570 85% 522 84% 554 86%

Other 613 78% 654 77% 640 80% 714 84% 573 77% 569 80%

Transfer seeking

800 74% 851 75% 718 74% 778 76% 789 75% 918 80%

District CTE Success Rates by Socioeconomic Status



FA 1404 78% 1519 77% 1309 77% 1527 81% 1323 77% 1528 81%

No FA 796 79% 877 83% 748 82% 766 80% 790 81% 780 83%

District CTE Success Rates by Method of Instruction



DE 806 73% 830 75% 638 72% 583 75% 910 73% 907 76%

On Campus

1428 82% 1588 82% 1419 83% 1702 83% 1203 83% 1401 86%

85

Transfer Level Course Success Rates When examining transfer level course success at the District level, slight variation emerged:

Asian, Filipino, and White students consistently had higher success rates in transfer level CTE courses Districtwide while African American, American Indian, and Pacific Islander students had slightly lower success rates.

Students enrolled in on campus transfer level courses across the District had slightly higher success rates when compared to students enrolled in DE.

No large differences in success rates for transfer level courses emerged when comparing age groups, gender, SES, and educational goals across the District.

District Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Age



19 & Under

23749 69% 20590 67% 23244 67% 20423 67% 24245 70% 21270 69%

20 - 24

28599 67% 29426 66% 28289 66% 29500 67% 28288 67% 28923 68%

25 - 29

6782 67% 7069 68% 7288 68% 7598 69% 7638 68% 8104 69%

30 - 39

4430 71% 4443 71% 4256 71% 4279 72% 4299 72% 4353 72%

40 & Over

3478 73% 3320 70% 3154 72% 2954 73% 2841 73% 2845 75%

District Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Gender



F 35450 70% 34424 68% 35357 69% 34482 69% 35916 70% 34987 71%

M 30691 66% 29618 65% 29928 65% 29291 66% 30314 67% 29419 68%

N 890 70% 799 69% 941 70% 977 70% 1077 69% 1083 69%

District Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Ethnicity



African American

2730 58% 2471 54% 2636 57% 2564 59% 2528 59% 2486 59%

American Indian

479 68% 456 69% 455 66% 404 66% 354 62% 351 63%

Asian 11403 75% 11233 73% 11119 74% 11334 74% 11987 76% 12101 76%

Filipino 3812 74% 3557 71% 3725 72% 3487 71% 3797 74% 3664 73%

Hispanic 29958 65% 29335 64% 30787 64% 30256 64% 32488 65% 31451 66%

Pacific Islander

296 60% 282 57% 307 60% 334 64% 333 63% 318 63%

Unknown 1112 61% 956 57% 855 54% 755 68% 690 70% 689 70%

White Non-Hispanic

17249 72% 16464 72% 16270 72% 15557 73% 15137 72% 14436 73%

86

District Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Educational Goal



Certificate seeking

1131 71% 1147 73% 1308 69% 1255 72% 1378 72% 1345 73%

Degree seeking

5230 70% 5104 68% 5062 68% 4943 68% 4714 70% 4558 69%

Other 10157 66% 9028 64% 9360 66% 8588 67% 9210 69% 8666 69%

Transfer seeking

50521 68% 49569 67% 50501 67% 49968 68% 52012 68% 50927 69%

District Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Socioeconomic Status



FA 42794 66% 41283 65% 43201 65% 42223 65% 43789 67% 42427 67%

No FA 24245 71% 23565 71% 23030 72% 22531 72% 23525 71% 23069 73%

District Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Method of Instruction



Distance Ed

25657 64% 26307 63% 27783 64% 28418 65% 31625 65% 32081 67%

On Campus

41382 71% 38541 70% 38448 70% 36336 70% 35689 72% 33415 72%

87

Fall to Spring Persistence When examining fall to spring persistence trends districtwide, some large scale trends emerged:

Students aged 19 or younger had the highest persistence rates that were consistently over 80%. In contrast, students older than 19 had persistence rates which ranged from approximately 40% to 60%.

There were no differences in fall to spring persistence rates by gender or financial aid status.

When examining students by ethnicity, Filipino students had the highest fall to spring persistence rates at over 80% for all semesters examined, followed by Asian, Hispanic, and White students, while African American students had the lowest fall to spring persistence rates, relative to group size.

Transfer seeking students had the highest persistence rates by educational goal at over 80%. All other groups of students, either degree, certificate, or other goal seeking, had persistence rates over 10% lower.

Students who attended courses on campus had higher fall to spring persistence rates compared to students who attended courses through distance education.

Districtwide Fall to Spring Persistence by Age

Age


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

19 & Under 5097 4158 81% 4744 3898 82% 4784 3952 82%

20 - 24 671 425 63% 750 473 63% 641 396 61%

25 - 29 185 104 56% 197 120 60% 174 113 64%

30 - 39 156 80 51% 171 82 47% 115 66 57%

40 & Over 153 72 47% 158 58 36% 87 51 58%

Districtwide Fall to Spring Persistence by Gender

Gender


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

F 3070 2445 79% 2906 2319 79% 2832 2312 81%

M 3129 2350 75% 3014 2237 74% 2851 2176 76%

N 63 44 69% 100 75 75% 119 91 76%

88

Districtwide Fall to Spring Persistence by Race/Ethnicity

Ethnicity


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

African American

344 208 60% 337 203 60% 291 188 64%

American Indian

30 23 76% 37 28 75% 36 25 69%

Asian 771 613 79% 741 622 83% 805 685 85%

Filipino 298 256 85% 272 239 87% 251 218 86%

Hispanic 3474 2733 78% 3366 2628 78% 3291 2615 79%

Pacific Islander

43 28 65% 30 19 63% 36 23 63%

Unknown 96 30 31% 168 44 26% 35 26 74%

White 1206 948 78% 1069 848 79% 1057 799 75%

Districtwide Fall to Spring Persistence by Educational Goal

Educational Goal


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

Certificate seeking

86 58 67% 146 89 60% 124 88 70%

Degree seeking

404 278 68% 385 260 67% 279 177 63%

Other 1298 851 65% 1181 775 65% 972 682 70%

Transfer seeking

4474 3652 81% 4308 3507 81% 4427 3632 82%

Districtwide Fall to Spring Persistence by Socioeconomic Status

SES


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

FA 4288 3363 78% 4292 3291 76% 4029 3236 80%

No FA 1974 1476 74% 1728 1340 77% 1773 1343 75%

Districtwide Fall to Spring Persistence by Method of Instruction

Method


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

Distance Ed 556 340 61% 548 321 58% 678 440 64%

On Campus 5706 4499 78% 5472 4310 78% 5124 4139 80%

89

Fall to Fall Persistence When examining fall to fall persistence trends across the District, some additional trends emerged:

Students aged 19 or younger had the highest fall to spring persistence rates that were over 65%. In contrast, students older than 19 had fall to fall persistence rates around 44% or lower with students aged 40 or older having the lowest rates.

No differences in fall to fall persistence rates emerged when comparing by gender or financial aid status.

When examining ethnicity, Asian and Filipino students consistently had fall to fall persistence rates at 70%. All other groups of students had lower fall to fall persistence rates.

Transfer seeking students had the highest fall to fall persistence rates by educational goal. All other groups of students had persistence rates that were over 15% lower.

Students who attended courses on campus had fall to fall persistence rates that were consistently 20% higher compared to students who attended their courses through distance education.

Districtwide Fall to Fall Persistence by Age

Age


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

19 & Under 5097 3407 66% 4744 3207 67% 4784 TBD TBD

20 - 24 671 297 44% 750 302 40% 641 TBD TBD

25 - 29 185 71 38% 197 83 42% 174 TBD TBD

30 - 39 156 46 29% 171 53 30% 115 TBD TBD

40 & Over 153 49 32% 158 33 20% 87 TBD TBD

Districtwide Fall to Fall Persistence by Gender

Gender


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

F 3070 1960 63% 2906 1871 64% 2832 TBD TBD

M 3129 1872 59% 3014 1749 58% 2851 TBD TBD

N 63 38 60% 100 58 58% 119 TBD TBD

90

Districtwide Fall to Fall Persistence by Race/Ethnicity

Ethnicity


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

African American

344 142 41% 337 129 38% 291 TBD TBD

American Indian

30 15 50% 37 21 56% 36 TBD TBD

Asian 771 554 71% 741 541 73% 805 TBD TBD

Filipino 298 211 70% 272 191 70% 251 TBD TBD

Hispanic 3474 2181 62% 3366 2076 61% 3291 TBD TBD

Pacific Islander

43 17 39% 30 13 43% 36 TBD TBD

Unknown 96 20 20% 168 36 21% 35 TBD TBD

White Non-Hispanic

1206 730 60% 1069 671 62% 1057 TBD TBD

Districtwide Fall to Fall Persistence by Educational Goal

Educational Goal


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

Certificate seeking

86 38 44% 146 61 41% 124 TBD TBD

Degree seeking

404 205 50% 385 183 47% 279 TBD TBD

Other 1298 650 50% 1181 586 49% 972 TBD TBD

Transfer seeking

4474 2977 66% 4308 2848 66% 4427 TBD TBD

Districtwide Fall to Fall Persistence by Socioeconomic Status

SES


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

FA 4288 2637 61% 4292 2555 59% 4029 TBD TBD

No FA 1974 1233 62% 1728 1123 64% 1773 TBD TBD

Districtwide Fall to Fall Persistence by Method of Instruction

Method


Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

First time

Cohort Count %

Distance Ed 556 244 43% 548 231 42% 678 TBD TBD

On Campus 5706 3626 63% 5472 3447 62% 5124 TBD TBD

91

Appendix C: 2014-17 Cypress College Strategic Plan 2014-17 Cypress Strategic Direction A: Student Success Corresponding District Strategic Directions: 1, 2, and 3

Goals Objectives Persons Responsible

A.1 Facilitate all students’ achievement of critical milestones by providing excellent instructional and support services, consistent with the Student Success and Support Program and other requirements.

A.1.1 Assess on a regular basis the essential current and projected instructional and service needs of our students. A.1.2 Maximize the proportion of students completing a Student Educational Plan (SEP). A.1.3 Strengthen the college readiness of incoming students. A.1.4 Improve the success rate of students progressing through specified crucial course sequences. A.1.5 Develop and implement a reliable system for tracking students’ achievement, including career attainment, after completion of their Cypress experience.

A.1.6 Conduct a systematic feasibility study of establishing prerequisites for content-area courses, focusing on potential student success benefits and challenges.

Executive Vice President Dean of Counseling Deans, SEM & Language Arts Deans, SEM & Language Arts Director, Research & Planning Executive Vice President

A.2 Provide increased access to mathematics and English for all incoming freshmen.

A.2.1 Develop and implement enrollment management strategies to ensure that targeted incoming freshmen have the opportunity to enroll in mathematics and English basic skills courses in the first semester.

Executive Vice President

A.3 Develop and implement programs and services aimed at helping at-risk students succeed in basic skills and college-level courses.

A.3.1 Reduce the achievement gap among students by removing barriers to success, especially for at-risk students. A.3.2 Develop and implement a process to connect at-risk students to academic and campus resources focused on helping them succeed.

Student Equity Plan Chair Dean, Counseling & Student Services

A.4 Dedicate the campus community to student success.

A.4.1. Make student success a pervasive theme of discourse throughout the College.

President

92

2014-17 Cypress Strategic Direction B: Organizational Effectiveness & Excellence Corresponding District Strategic Direction: 4


B.1 Create an organizational structure and practice that maximizes shared-governance and a sense of ownership of the decision-making process within Cypress College community.

B.1.1 Disseminate, in an effective and timely fashion, information about shared governance, decision-making processes, and participation in both.

Chair, President’s Advisory Council

B.2 Enhance professional development.

B.2.1 Increase faculty and student services staff participation in professional development activities. B.2.2 Research training models and approaches that show promise in helping faculty and staff improve student learning and student achievement, and implement on a pilot basis the models and approaches that best fit the College’s needs. B.2.3 Increase the number and proportion of personnel proposing new ideas and applying for Innovation Fund resources.

Staff Development Committee Staff Development Committee Staff Development Committee

B.3 Foster an environment of collaboration, collegiality, teamwork, communication, courtesy, and respect.

B.3.1 Empower new faculty, staff, and administrators to become active members of the campus community. B.3.2 Provide regular opportunities for faculty, staff, and administrators to collaborate, engage, dialogue, share, and socialize with each other. B.3.3 Establish forums and other systematic opportunities to solicit input from students on student success and other important issues facing the College.

Staff Development Committee Staff Development Committee Director, Student Activities

93


B.4 Ensure that financial, physical, technological, and related necessary resources are available to meet the essential instructional and service needs of our students.

B.4.1 Mount an effective campaign to develop additional grant funding as required to meet identified student needs. B.4.2 Develop other alternative revenue streams to meet identified student needs. B.4.3 Obtain and maintain technology, equipment, and supplies needed to employ best practices in both instructional and support programs. B.4.4 Ensure that strategic planning for capital improvements (including facilities modernization and infrastructure) address current and future learning, teaching, and student support needs effectively.

Grants Administrator Executive Director, Foundation Director, Academic Computing Vice President, Administrative Services

B.5 Collaborate with the District Office of Human Resources to ensure that hiring and other human resources practices address current and future learning, teaching, and student support needs effectively.

B.5.1. Collaborate with the District Office of Human Resources to establish and institutionalize development, recruitment, and hiring practices that facilitate greater diversity among College personnel, and that focus in part on providing models of success and achievement for our diverse student population.

Diversity Committee, Chair

94

2014-17 Cypress Strategic Direction C: Strong Community Connections Corresponding District Strategic Direction: 5


C.1 Establish more effective collaboration with K-12 schools

C.1.1 Develop and implement specific plans with high schools to collaborate effectively on identified problem areas.

Dean, Student Services

C.2 Strengthen community relationships by fostering mutually beneficial partnerships.

C.2.1 Work with campus CTE program advisory committees to develop and enhance partnerships with Cypress College. C.2.2 Integrate and coordinate all campus outreach efforts to business and civic groups. C.2.3 Establish and sustain connections with community ethnic organizations. C.2.4 Strengthen relationships with business and civic groups.

Dean, CTE Executive Director, Foundation Executive Director, Foundation Executive Director, Foundation

C.3 Strengthen collaboration with SCE.

C.3.1 Develop a seamless transition between SCE and Cypress College.

Executive Vice President

C.4 Strengthen collaboration with 4-year universities.

C.4.1 Improve transfer articulation and pathways with 4-year universities.

Dean, Counseling

95

Cypress College Strategic Plan: Year 2 Executive Summary Strategic Plan Development The 2014-2017 Strategic Plan was developed based on input received from nearly 60 campus community members who attended the College’s Strategic Planning Colloquium in April 2014. These participants identified important goals and objectives in relation to student success, organizational effectiveness, and community connections for the College to attempt to accomplish from Fall 2014 to Spring 2017. These goals and objectives were adapted and incorporated into the 2014-2017 Cypress College Strategic Plan. Previous unmet goals and objectives from the 2010-2013 Strategic Plan were also examined and considered for inclusion. Strategic Plan Structure The Strategic Plan emphasizes the five NOCCCD strategic directions set forth in the District’s Strategic Plan: completion, achievement gap, basic skills, planning, and community relations. Cypress College combined District Directions 1 (completion), 2 (achievement gap), and 3 (basic skills) into one Direction, A, regarding student success. District Direction 4 (planning and decision-making) is linked to the College’s Direction B, Organizational Effectiveness and Excellence. Finally, District Direction 5 (community relations) corresponds with the College’s Direction C, Strong Community Connections. Strategic Plan Fund In 2015-16, Cypress College set aside $100,000 in the Strategic Plan Fund. These monies were made available to the campus community to meet the various strategic plan goals and objectives. After receiving eight different requests for strategic plan funds, the College funded six of these requests across all three college strategic directions after consideration by the strategic direction committees and President’s Staff. Evaluations are currently under way for each of the funded projects. Overall Progress The Strategic Direction Workgroup along with Institutional Research and Planning met throughout 2015-16. In April 2016, the group deliberated and assigned ratings on progress made for each goal in the strategic plan. Direction A: Student Success ratings ranged from moderate to substantial progress. Direction B: Organizational Effectiveness and Excellence ratings ranged from minimal to substantial. Direction C: Strong Community Connections ratings had a smaller range from minimal to moderate. The Strategic Plan Workgroup assigned an overall rating of minimal progress. Because great progress was made with regard to establishing baselines and outcomes for the strategic plan data, an overall progress ranking of moderate was given to the strategic plan. Now at the close of Year 2, a moderate to substantial amount of progress has been made to achieve strategic plan objectives. These efforts will continue to be in place for Year 3 to allow for additional substantial and major changes in progress. Measures of Overall Institutional Effectiveness At the close of Year 1 of the 2014-2017 Cypress College Strategic Plan, the Institutional Research and Planning Office collaborated with responsible parties for all strategic plan objectives to set baseline data and determine goals for outcome data as needed. This allowed for a clear assessment of progress to be made for all objectives between Year 1 and Year 2. The College also continues to

96

uses multiple outcome measures when assessing strategic plan progress. These measures include Student Success Scorecard data, Institutional –Set Standards for Student Achievement, Institutional Learning Outcomes, and other measures including success and retention rates, degrees and certificates awarded, transfers, FTES generated and efficiency measures such as WSCH (Weekly Student Contact Hours) per FTEF (Full Time Equivalent Faculty). Each individual measure provides a key piece of the entire evaluation model. Thematic Summary Overall progress through Year 2 was unanimously ranked moderate by the Strategic Plan Workgroup. Committee members saw progress in nearly all strategic directions throughout Year 2, leading the overall ranking to be heightened from minimal in Year 1 to moderate in Year 2. The least growth was observed for Strategic Direction C on strong community connections, where the committee continually ranked progress as moderate for Year 1 and for Year 2. In contrast, the most growth was observed for Strategic Direction A where no goal had a ranking that was lower than moderate. The biggest theme that emerged throughout ranking discussions included the importance of continuing efforts to make substantial to major progress in the final year of the strategic plan. Recommendations Moving Forward The evaluation plan developed by the Strategic Plan Workgroup includes a variety of recommendations through corrective or supportive actions or enhancements in College structures, processes and operations to improve progress. These recommendations include providing more meaningful and timely updates, better presentation and dissemination of outcomes, continuing to baselines and targets, focusing on CTE and general education along with basic skills and engaging and planning with community entities to develop a seamless transition to college. All recommendations are aimed at improving progress on outcomes towards the strategic plan’s goals and objectives.

97

Year 2 Timeline

June - July 2015

• Institutional Research met with responsible parties to establish baselines and goals

December 2015 - January 2016

• Responsibile parties provided input on the mid-year progress report

February -March 2016

• Institutional Research combines inputs into mid-year progress report

April 2016

• The Strategic Plan Committee and Workgroup met to evaluate progress on objectives

May - June 2016

• Institutional Research obtains updates for specified objectives

July 2016

•Strategic Plan Annual Report Finalized

98

Funded Strategic Plan Fund Requests, 2015-16 The Strategic Plan Fund has been fully funded for the 2015-16 year. There were six funded requests and two denied: three aligned with Direction A – Student Success, two aligned with Direction B – Organizational Effectiveness & Excellence, and one aligned with Direction C – Strong Community Connections.

Total A Amount: $39,560.00 Total B Amount: $35,653.42 Total C Amount: $23,500.00 GRAND TOTAL: $98,713.42

Direction A A A B B B C C

Title DSS

Notetaker DSS Testing

Accomodations Nursing

Simulation

Dental Hygiene Dental Stools

A&R Reconfiguration

Automotive Technology Tool Sets

Career Planning Center Career

Connections

Automotive Technology Recruitment

Contact Celeste Phelps

Celeste Phelps Susan Smith

Kendra Contreras

David Booze Russ

Bacarella Deann Burch Michael Klyde

Objective

Implement a note-taking

incentive program

DSS students will complete exams with

minimal distractions

Simulation activities

for students to gain basic

nursing skills

Purchase 32 ErgoPro-321

dental stools for

dental hygiene

students’ use

Hire evaluators for transfer credit and workspace

restructuring

Purchase 6 kits with master

hand tool sets

Collaborate with junior

high schools for career

exploration activities

Create and provide HS

students with Auto Tech

video

Amount $10,000 $15,000 $14,560 $20,213.42 $20,000 $23,160 $23,500 $17,600

Initial Vote

Yes – 8 No – 1

Yes – 9 No – 0

Yes – 7 No – 2

Yes – 9 No – 0

Yes – 9 No – 0

Yes – 9 No – 0

Yes – 7 No – 2

Yes – 9 No – 0

PS Status

Approved in full

Approved in full

Approved in full

Approved in full

Denied Approved $15,440

Approved in full

Denied

Total TOTAL A: $39,560.00 TOTAL B: $35,653.42 TOTAL C: $ 23,500.00

99

Committee Assessment of Overall Progress on Strategic Directions

Strategic Direction Goal Zero Minimal Moderate Substantial Major

A: Student Success

OVERALL X

A.1: Achievement of Critical Milestones

X

A.2: Freshman Access to Math & English

X

A.3: At-Risk Student Success X

A.4: Dedication to Student Success X

B: Organizational Effectiveness and

Excellence

OVERALL X

B.1: Maximize Shared Governance X

B.2: Enhance Professional Development

X

B.3: Environment of Collaboration X

B.4: Resources Available to Meet Needs

X

B.5: Hiring Practices Address Needs X

C: Strong Community

Connections

OVERALL X

C.1: Collaboration with K-12 Schools X

C.2: Mutually Beneficial Partnerships X

C.3: Collaboration with SCE X

C.4: Collaboration with 4-Year Universities

X

OVERALL RANKING OF STRATEGIC PLAN: MODERATE

BOARD OF TRUSTEES NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Dr. Barbara Dunsheath, President, Trustee Area 1 Molly McClanahan, Vice President, Trustee Area 4

Jacqueline Rodarte, Secretary, Trustee Area 5

Jeffery P. Brown, Member, Trustee Area 6 Leonard Lahtinen, Member, Trustee Area 2 Stephen T. Blount, Member, Trustee Area 3 M. Tony Ontiveros, Member, Trustee Area 7

Tanya Washington, Student Trustee, Cypress College

Scott Begneski, Student Trustee, Fullerton College

Dr. Cheryl Marshall, Chancellor & Executive Secretary to the Board

cypress college 2016 institutional effectiveness...

Documents