growing graduates in times of scarcity : aligning curriculum to maximize success
DESCRIPTION
Growing Graduates in Times of Scarcity : Aligning Curriculum to Maximize Success Craig Hayward and Rick Fillman , Cabrillo College RP Group 2011 Kellogg West Conference Center. “Curriculum Alignment Tool” or CAT Six years of section data Just over 19000 records. Section level data. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Growing Graduates in Times of Scarcity:
Aligning Curriculum to Maximize Success
Craig Hayward and Rick Fillman, Cabrillo College
RP Group 2011Kellogg West Conference Center
“Curriculum Alignment Tool” or CAT
Six years of section dataJust over 19000 records.
Section level data Section Name (Math-254-56789) Term Academic Year Section Accounting Method [XB01] Dept Division Location
Main Campus Watsonville Center Online
… more section level data Enrollment count WSCH [new XB11] FTES FTEF [XE-03] Fall/Spring Summer winter
… recently added section level data
Success count Retention count CA resident count OOS count Int’l count Cohort/Learning community section Grades! Counts of A,B,C,D,F,W
Course level data Level (by local course numbering)
Note to self – maybe add [CB21] Units Transfer (yes/no) [CB05] CTE (yes/no) [CB09] CTE-ness [CB09] fulfills transfer GE requirement (TransGE) IGETC CSU_GE Core Program requirement
Derived fields, course attributes. CoreReq CTE course? CoreReq Trans course? CTE Transfer MREE100&200 other
Data sources XFTE report (Cabrillo IT) –section data –
enrollments, FTES, WSCH, location, etc. Data Warehouse –grade tallies
course MIS classification Student resident status
Faculty Assignment sheets –TU utilization
Cabrillo Articulation –IGETC/CSU courses Curricunet – core requirement Local LC history
Next?
The power of math
Completed any transfer units
Halfway milestone (30 units)
Math Milestone
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%24%
30%34%37%
59%67%
Transfer rate by cohort entry criteria
for the 2000-2001 cohort of FTF
From Horn & Lew (2007)
Curricular alignment for success – the math sequence How does attaining transfer level math
vary according to initial math level attempted?
What is the mix of placement levels of your incoming students?
What is the placement/promotion/ repetition mix in your math classes?
How will changing the actual mix of math sections/levels offered impact success?
Relationship between starting level and transfer attainment
3 levels below
2 levels below
1 level below
transfer math
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
Pass transfer mathTransferred
Assessment/Placement
27.4%
24.0%33.3%
15.3%
Placement rates
3 levels2 levels1 leveltransfer math
Complexity #1: It’s not all new students
3 levels 2 levels 1 level transfer math
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
RepeatedPromotedPlaced
Actual course mix
16%
19% 23%
42%
Actual mix
3 levels2 levels1 leveltransfer math
Forecast of transfers and BAs based on math assessment
Enroll
Passed transfer
math
Transfer
Bachelorsattainmen
t
Course
Mix Year 1 By year 3By year
6 By year 103 levels below 16% 479 34 20 142 levels below 19% 562 121 72 501 level below 23% 699 340 201 140Transfer math 42% 1260 739 436 305
Forecast of transfers and BAs based on math assessment
Enroll
Passed transfer
math
Transfer
Bachelorsattainmen
t
Course
Mix Year 1 By year 3By year
6 By year 103 levels below 10% 300 21 13 92 levels below 20% 600 130 76 541 level below 25% 750 365 215 151Transfer math 45% 1350 791 467 327
It’s a simplified modelUnrealistic assumption #1: All students will enroll in math in their first year. Instead there is a mix of placed, promoted & repeaters.
Unrealistic assumption #2: Students transfer at the same rate once they reach transfer level math regardless of their starting level
Unrealistic assumption #3: Transfer students everywhere graduate at the rate seen at the CSU
Increasing BA/BS Attainment Moore & Shulock (2010) point to “diminishing
capacity at UC and CSU to receive transfer students” Geiser (2010) says that the “single most critical
factor for California to improve B.A. attainment is to expand 4-year enrollment capacity.”
The nominal capacity of the CCC is about 1.3 million FTES. The nominal capacity of the CSU system is about 400,000 FTES.
The key to increasing the number of Baccalaureates in the state is a more efficient allocation of existing higher education resources.
The transfer gap A study by Long Beach Community College staff
and the Center for Urban Education found that one in five students where were eligible to transfer to the CSU or UC did not do so. The Missing 87 (2007).
MPR found that a single cohort of first-time freshmen in the CCC produced 10,000 transfer-ready students who had no records of actually transferring within six years (Horn & Lew, 2007).
The TVP found that after nine years, there were over 11,000 TVP cohort students who became transfer ready but never transferred.
How to increase efficiency Transfers to the CSU graduate in higher
proportions than do CSU native freshmen 70.1% vs. 48.9%, six-year rates for the 2002 cohort This difference is even greater for the swiftest
growing demographic group – Latinos While 40.6% of native CSU freshmen who are Latino
graduate within six years, the comparable rate for Latino transfer students is 68.3%
What if we “stocked” the CSU with primarily students who had already completed their first two years of undergraduate work?
Estimated Annual CSU GRADs by Transfer/Freshman mix
60/40 70/30 80/20 90/1056,00057,00058,00059,00060,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,000
59,05861,071
63,08565,098
Three steps to producing 125,000 additional Ba/Bs by 2025 FOCUS on increasing the number of
Bachelor degree recipients in the state as the paramount goal of the post-secondary educational system
INTEGRATE the capacity of the CCC and CSU to increase efficiency
GROW the capacity of the CSU by adding incrementally to existing campus capacity
Q&A
?