faculty take on student learning by doug lederman , inside higher ed, 4/4/2011

Click to edit Master title style

1

Faculty Take on Student Learning by Doug Lederman, Inside Higher Ed, 4/4/2011

• "[T]oo many policy discussions of student success avoid serious consideration of financial factors, as though investment in learning is not connected to student success," the AFT report says.

"Paying for college is just about the biggest obstacle [students] face in completing their studies. Concerns about finances also lead students to work too many hours, which hampers their chances for success.

Finally, students report that large class sizes, limited course offerings and difficulty in getting enough personal attention from overworked faculty and staff are key obstacles to their achievement."


2

Checking the Progress of CTE Student Growth

using Perkins Core Indicators, Reports, and Targets

Research & Planning Group2011 RP Conference

Dr. Chuck WiseleyCTE Specialist, CCCCO

Local Planning & Predicting Outcomes


4

Department XYZ - 1

• 4,500 enrollments in department– 55% successful course completions– 3 courses in Subject Area A eligible as

electives in AA• 30% successful completion

– Problems with sequences (prereqs?) but with• Greater number of successful units increased likelihood of successfully earning greater numbers of units


5

Department XYZ - 2

1. At what point are students in a program in the XYZ department?

2. At what point does the department believe student outcomes and program outputs are impacted by the instruction in XYZ?

3. What are some of the measures that we can use to see whether students are progressing through the XYZ program?


6

Department XYZ - 3

We might ask:1. Are the students getting through our courses?

Are there or what are the gateway courses?2. Are students able to persist from term-to-term

or year-to-year?3. Do they complete our programs by earning an

award (are awards conferred)?4. Is there gender equity and diversity in the program

through to completion?5. Do students find employment or advance in

their careers?


7

Progress Checks in Perkins

• Program Participants:– Successful course completions – GPA– Persistence in Higher Ed– Completions– Employment– Gender Equity

• Participation• Completions

– Special Populations • No ethnic distribution reports yet


8

Agenda

• Perkins IV–Data,–Cohort Selection,–Core Indicators, –Reports, –Performance Targets, –Perkins funds:

• improving student success

Types of data

Data collection

Data Flow: College

C la s s roo m F inanc ia l A id S tudent S ervice s

C ours eC ha ra cte ris tic s

S tude nt A ch ievem ent

S tuden tC ha rac te ris tic s

D em o graph ic s S pec ia lP o pu la tio n

S ta tus

C C CC hance llo r's O ffic e

M IS

D is tric t M IS

A dm is s io ns& R eco rd s

Data Flow: Chancellor’s Office

MIS database DSS: CalWORKs EDD: UI wages NSC: transfers

SSN based data matches

Research & Accountability Advisory Committee

Perkins IV - USDE/OVAEState PlanNon regulatory guidance

OMB “Official Documents”Consolidated Annual Report

Accountability Framework &Report Specifications

CO MIS Programming

Funding Reports Accountability Reports

District MIS Chancellor’s Office MIS


11

The magic happens here!

Perkins countsDistrict data

Chancellor’s Office

Management Information

Systems (MIS) Group


12

Core Indicator Data

• MIS Data–Data Elements–Funding–Accountability


13

Defining the Data

• SAM Codes• TOP Codes• Data Elements• Core Indicators

– “The Law”– Definitions– Negotiated Performance Targets– Measurement Approaches/Formulas

Funding


14

Student Accountability Model (SAM) & Taxonomy of Programs (TOP)

• Priority “A“ - Apprenticeship – Must have the of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards

approval • Priority “B“ – Advanced Vocational

– Used sparingly, no more than two courses in any one program

– “B” level courses must have a “C” prerequisite in the same program area

• Priority "C" – Clearly Occupational– Generally taken in the middle stage of a program, detracts

"drop-ins." Job specific skills.


15

Student Accountability Model (SAM) & Taxonomy of Programs (TOP), Continued

• Priority "D" – Possibly Occupational– Taken by students in the beginning stages of their

occupational programs– Can be survey or intro course

• Priority “E” = Non-Occupational

Vocational Flag on TOP code– Designed to identify vocational “Programs” for federal

reporting (*) - see Taxonomy of Programs, Sixth Edition, Sept. 2009


16

Data ElementsMIS System

• Students, Courses, Degrees, Services• Student VTEA Data Elements

– Economically Disadvantaged– Single Parent– Displaced Homemaker– Cooperative Work Experience Education– Tech Prep– Migrant Worker - Implementation in MIS SU 09

Section IE-D2011-2012

Sample College


18

Accountability Requirements Section 113(b)

5 core indicators of performance:1. Student attainment of technical skill proficiencies;

2. Student attainment of credential, certificate, or degree;

3. Student retention in postsecondary education or transfer;

4. Student placement in military, apprenticeship, or employment

5. Student participation/completion of non-traditional training

State and Local adjusted levels of performance– Levels of performance negotiated with USDE / State

Results reported annually


19

Perkins IV (2006) Core Indicators

1. Technical Skill AttainmentSuccessful CTE course completion (GPA)

2. Completions Program completion–Certificate, Degree & Transfer Ready

3. Persistence & TransferStudent persistence in Higher Ed

4. Placement Placement in apprenticeship, employment, military, fed gov

5. Gender Equity -- Nontraditional Fields Participation (5a)/Completion (5b) - nontraditional “fields”


20

Cohort Definitions Used for Measurement

Participant:– Counts: - Any enrollment in a CTE course (SAM A-D) – funding & Feds– NT Participation: Concentrator using assigned major (changed from III)

Concentrator: All Core Indicators• Cohort of participants enrolled during the cohort year* and

– Successfully completed at least one course in the middle or end of a program (SAM A-C) and

– 12 vocational units (SAM A-D) within a single discipline (two digit TOP) in the last three years

• or– Program completion as indicated by receipt of ANY vocational credit

certificate or degree in the cohort year (or subsequent year /wo *)

Leavers: Not enrolled in the year following the cohort yearLife-Long-Learners (LLL): Previously Earned Certificate or Degree


21

Assigning a Program Area (TOP)to a Student

1. Award – TOP code of CTE Certificate or Degree

2. Concentrators (no CTE award)

• Hierarchy based on SAM Priority code

• SAM A, then B, then C

• Assigned to the TOP where most CTE units occurred


22

My Numbers Don’t Look Right- Recap

• Reasons for 80 in the Total, rather than the 500 students I see in my classes(or 170 of the 4,500):– 12 CTE units (SAM A-D) within a 2-digit TOP

in the last 3 years

– Plus, At least one course at a SAM A-C

– Assigning a TOP by highest SAM

– Excluding Life-Long-Learners (unless appropriate)


23

Timeline for Outcomes & Outputs

• Negotiated Performance 2010-11– Negotiated Spring 2010– Reports published in Spring 2011

• Cohort Year (2008-09)• +1 yr for outcomes (2009-10)

– Transfer– Persistence– Employment

1. Not OLD DATA – as recent as possible2. Outcomes have already occurred

– Target low performance now!


24

Timeline for Outcomes, Outputs, & Investments

Program Year 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Negotiated in Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012

Measured in Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012

Outcome Years 2009-10 cohort w/ 2010-11 outcomes

2008-09 cohort w/ 2009-10 outcomes

2007-08 cohort w/ 2008-09 outcomes

$$$

Outcomes for $$$

Three years of enrollment for 09-10

You are here


25

Core Indicator 1Technical Skill Attainment

• All Concentrators • Technical Skill Proficiencies

– Successful Course Completions • Vocational (CTE) Courses

– SAM A-C– Vocational TOP

– G.P.A. – Grade reports (Use - Data Mart - 4 digit TOP)


26

Core Indicator 1: Measurement

SAM A - C Courses:

# Student concentrators with GPA > 2.00

÷# Students concentrators with Grades A – F

Excludes students with only CR/NC or P/NP grades in SAM A-C courses


27

Core Indicator 2Program Completions

• Completers (numerator)– Transfer Ready (or Transfer Program Completers)– Award in Current Year

– AA/AS degrees– Certificates

– Award in subsequent year with no Voc coursework– or Equivalent

• Leavers & Completers (denominator)– Left system (college) for one year and/or– Award in Current Year

– AA/AS degrees– Certificates– Transfer Ready

– Award in subsequent year with no Voc coursework• Removed Persisters & Life-Long-Learners


28

CI 2-Completions: Measurement

Certificate/Degree/Transfer Ready

÷Concentrators (Leavers & Completers),

Not Persisters or LLL (without new awards)


29

Core Indicator 3 Persistence & Transfer

(or Continuing in Higher Education)

Concentrators who were not leavers in the year following the cohort year

orTransfers to CCC/CSU/UC/Privates

(National Student Clearinghouse)

÷All Concentrators who were not completers with degrees or certificates (unless transferring)


30

Core Indicator 4 Placement

• Placement– Leavers and Completers

• Minus leavers continuing in Two or Four Year Institutions

– CCC or National Student Clearinghouse

– Employment 1st year out• UI wage file match

– Employment any quarter in Academic Yr after cohort year

Apprenticeship, Military, Fed GovNote: The denominator for 4P1 includes completers who stayed but does not include Transfer Ready who stayed.


31

CI 4 Placement: Measurement

Leavers & Completers in UI covered employment or

Apprenticeship, Military, Fed Gov

÷

All Leavers & Completers (Leavers)Note: The denominator for 4P1 includes completers who stayed but does not include Transfer Ready who stayed.


32

Core Indicator 5Gender Equity

Programs leading to Nontraditional Fields

(e.g., Men in Nursing – Women in Auto)75% / 25% from 2000 census employment data

– NAPE developed Nontraditional CIP table• Job codes (SOC) mapped to 2000 Census data• SOC codes mapped to CIP (USDE)• CIP codes mapped to TOP (CCC)


33

Core Indicator 5Gender Equity

Programs leading to Nontraditional Fields

Nontraditional Gender Students

÷All Students in NT Program


34

CI 5a: NonTrad Participation Measurement

Nontraditional Concentrators in a Nontraditional TOP Code

÷All Concentrators in a

Nontraditional TOP Code


35

Nontraditional “Completers” of Nontraditional Programs

÷All “Completers” of Nontraditional Programs

CI 5b NonTrad Completion: Measurement


36

Report Structures • Negotiation Workbooks – Take a look

– FAUPL negotiation worksheet• Perkins IC - Local Application

• Forms – Take a look• Perkins IC - Local Application

– Targets and Performance • Trend Reports – Take a look

– Percents and counts for 3 years– Detailed breakouts for each Indicator component

• Summary Reports – Take a look– All five Indicators on one page

• Answer sheet style by TOP only (2, 4,& 6)• Detail Reports with counts, Special Pops, District, & State by TOP

• Special Population Reports– Similar to Summary Reports by Each Population Subgroup


37

Access• http://www.cccco.edu

Chancellor’s Office Divisions > CTE >> Core Indicators

• Important Documentation• Accessing Negotiation Reports• Accountability Framework• Assigning majors• State Negotiated Targets• System Documentation

• Email notification when available


38

Negotiating Targets

• State negotiates targets USDE– Next 2 years– In Process

• Worksheets without state targets are available now• State Targets will be provided when available

• Locals either:– Accept state targets– Negotiate local targets

• Targets Included in Local Plans– Targets for next year – Negotiations complete by May 15


39

Effects of not achieving 90% of targets

• Above 90% of targets:– Freedom to fund any CTE program improvements– Encouraged to address low performance

• Below 90% - year 1– Focused Improvement section

• Requires some analysis – target interventions – write the narrative

– Must address low performance in funded Programs– Encouraged to start a diagnostic study


40


continued...

• Below 90% in year 2 or no improvement– Focused Improvement section– Diagnostic study– Propose Effective Practice solutions

• Probably a more district level approach to expenditures


41


continued...• Below 90% of target - 3 years

– Focused Improvement section– Submit Diagnostic study w/ Action Plan to CO– Action Plan

• Proposed Effective Practice solutions & Implementation dates

• Probably an even more district level approach to expenditures

– Risk Monitoring


42

Resources & Questions?– Nontraditional Resources:

• Joint Special Populations Committee (JSPAC.org),• Institute for Women in Trades, Technology & Science (IWITTS.com), • National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE.org)

– Journals & Papers• RP Group• Research, Analysis, and Accountability Unit

– Abstracts(?), Papers, & Notices• CTE – Core Indicators Web page

– Documentation, Papers, Training/Tutorials (PPT, WMF, & CCC Confer)

– Questions:• Your CCCCO Monitor• Chuck Wiseley - [email protected],• 916.327.5895

Neg WB Percentages

Neg WB Indicator 1P1 2 Rate

Trend 1P1

faculty take on student learning by doug lederman , inside higher ed, 4/4/2011

Documents

master title style

student outcomes

xyz program

progress of cte student

student learning

xyz department

perkins core indicators

program areas