Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "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."— Presentation transcript:

1 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 Click to edit Master title style 2 Checking the Progress of CTE Student Growth using Perkins Core Indicators, Reports, and Targets Research & Planning Group 2011 RP Conference Dr. Chuck Wiseley CTE Specialist, CCCCO

3 Local Planning & Predicting Outcomes

4 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 5 Department XYZ 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 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 8 Agenda Perkins IV –Data, –Cohort Selection, –Core Indicators, –Reports, –Performance Targets, –Perkins funds: improving student success

9 Types of data Data collection Data Flow: College

10 Data Flow: Chancellor’s Office MIS databaseDSS: CalWORKsEDD: UI wagesNSC: transfers SSN based data matches Research & Accountability Advisory Committee Perkins IV - USDE/OVAE State Plan Non regulatory guidance OMB “Official Documents” Consolidated Annual Report Accountability Framework & Report Specifications CO MIS Programming Funding ReportsAccountability Reports District MISChancellor’s Office MIS

11 Click to edit Master title style 11 The magic happens here! Perkins countsDistrict data Chancellor’s Office Management Information Systems (MIS) Group

12 Click to edit Master title style 12 Core Indicator Data MIS Data –Data Elements –Funding –Accountability

13 Click to edit Master title style 13 Defining the Data SAM Codes TOP Codes Data Elements Core Indicators –“The Law” –Definitions –Negotiated Performance Targets –Measurement Approaches/Formulas Funding

14 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 16 Data Elements MIS 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

17 Section IE-D Sample College

18 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 19 Perkins IV (2006) Core Indicators 1.Technical Skill Attainment Successful CTE course completion (GPA) 2.Completions Program completion–Certificate, Degree & Transfer Ready 3.Persistence & Transfer Student 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 Click to edit Master title style 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 year Life-Long-Learners (LLL): Previously Earned Certificate or Degree

21 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 23 Timeline for Outcomes & Outputs Negotiated Performance –Negotiated Spring 2010 –Reports published in Spring 2011 Cohort Year ( ) +1 yr for outcomes ( ) –Transfer –Persistence –Employment 1.Not OLD DATA – as recent as possible 2.Outcomes have already occurred –Target low performance now!

24 Click to edit Master title style 24 Timeline for Outcomes, Outputs, & Investments Program Year Negotiated inFall 2008Spring 2009Fall 2009Spring 2010Fall 2010Spring 2011Fall 2011Spring 2012 Measured inFall 2008Spring 2009Fall 2009Spring 2010Fall 2010Spring 2011Fall 2011Spring 2012 Outcome Years cohort w/ outcomes cohort w/ outcomes cohort w/ outcomes $$$ Outcomes for $$$ Three years of enrollment for You are here

25 Click to edit Master title style 25 Core Indicator 1 Technical 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 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 27 Core Indicator 2 Program 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 Click to edit Master title style 28 CI 2-Completions: Measurement Certificate/Degree/Transfer Ready ÷ Concentrators (Leavers & Completers), Not Persisters or LLL (without new awards)

29 Click to edit Master title style 29 Core Indicator 3 Persistence & Transfer (or Continuing in Higher Education) Concentrators who were not leavers in the year following the cohort year or Transfers to CCC/CSU/UC/Privates (National Student Clearinghouse) ÷ All Concentrators who were not completers with degrees or certificates (unless transferring)

30 Click to edit Master title style 30 Core Indicator 4 Placement Placement –Leavers and Completers Minus leavers continuing in Two or Four Year Institutions – CCC or National Student Clearinghouse –Employment 1 st year out UI wage file match –Employment any quarter in Academic Yr after cohort year Apprenticeship, Military, Fed Gov Note: The denominator for 4P1 includes completers who stayed but does not include Transfer Ready who stayed.

31 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 32 Core Indicator 5 Gender 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 Click to edit Master title style 33 Core Indicator 5 Gender Equity Programs leading to Nontraditional Fields Nontraditional Gender Students ÷ All Students in NT Program

34 Click to edit Master title style 34 CI 5a: NonTrad Participation Measurement Nontraditional Concentrators in a Nontraditional TOP Code ÷ All Concentrators in a Nontraditional TOP Code

35 Click to edit Master title style 35 Nontraditional “Completers” of Nontraditional Programs ÷ All “Completers” of Nontraditional Programs CI 5b NonTrad Completion: Measurement

36 Click to edit Master title style 36 Report Structures Negotiation Workbooks – Take a look Take a look –FAUPL negotiation worksheet Perkins IC - Local Application Forms – Take a look Take a look Perkins IC - Local Application –Targets and Performance Trend Reports – Take a look Take a look –Percents and counts for 3 years –Detailed breakouts for each Indicator component Summary Reports – Take a look 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 Click to edit Master title style 37 Access  Chancellor’s Office  Divisions  > CTE  >> Core Indicators Important Documentation Accessing Negotiation Reports Accountability Framework Assigning majors State Negotiated Targets System Documentation notification when available

38 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 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 Click to edit Master title style 40 Effects of not achieving 90% of targets 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 Click to edit Master title style 41 Effects of not achieving 90% of targets 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 Click to edit Master title style 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

43 Neg WB Percentages

44 Neg WB Indicator 1P1 2 Rate

45 Trend 1P1

46


Download ppt "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."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google