1. SBVC Student Equity Plan A Update and Historical Overview James E. Smith, Ph.D. Dean, Research, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness

2. History Vice-President of Student Services provides Administrative Oversight o Started in 1994; updated 2001, 2005; 2008 o Co-chair (or designee) the Research Office of Research and Planning provides data and analysis. o Demographic data from Environmental scans (Husing, Madrid) o Performance data from CCCCO and the RP group PFE (Partnership for Excellence), Datamart, Scorecard Datatel System o Campus Feedback from campus-wide dialogue to document recommendations for proposed actions—forums and focus groups that include: Faculty, Staff, Students, community

3. Logistics for 2014 Submission Funding available o Governor’s $100,000,000 for the California Community College District Committee make-up o VPI & VPSS (or designees) two deans from SS, Two deans from Instructions, Director of FA, Marketing, Research, and other interested faculty, administrators, staff, and students. Timeline o Campus and community dialogue (February through July 2014) o Academic Senate (preview April 2014; review document draft August) o President’s review and signature required o The Plan must be submitted on or before November 14, 2014

4. CCCCO Template The CCCCO template divides the plan into seven sections: o A. Cover/Table of Contents/Signature page o B. Executive Summary o C. Campus-Based Research o D. Goals and Activities for each success indicator o E. Budget (source of funding for activities) o F. Evaluation Schedule and Process o G. Attachments (Optional)

5. Campus-Based Research: Achievement gaps are identified using data to compare student performance on the basis of ethnicity, gender, age, and disability. Campus based research is divided into 6 section 1)Access and Demographics with campus to community comparisons; 2) Basic skills assessment and placement; 3) Retention, 4) Course completion; 5) Transfer to 4-year colleges; 6) Graduation with certificates and/or degrees;

6. Student Success Indicators and Sample Data

7. Student Success Indicators A.Access The percentage of each population group that is enrolled compared to that group’s representation in the adult population within the community served. This percentage is frequently calculated as a participation rate. B. Course Completion (Retention) The ratio of the number of credit courses that students, by population group, complete compared to the number of courses in which students in that group are enrolled on the census day of the term. C.ESL and Basic Skills Completion The ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a degree-applicable course after having completed the final ESL or basic skills course compared to the number of those students who complete such a final course. D.Degree and Certificate Completion The ratio of the number of students by population group who receive a degree or certificate to the number of students in that group with the same informed matriculation goal as documented in the student educational plan developed with a counselor/advisor. E.Transfer The ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a minimum of 12 units and have attempted a transfer level course in mathematics or English, to the number of students in that group who actually transfer after one or more (up to six) years. F. Student Success and Support Program Services (from SSSP Plan) The effect of the requirements related to mandatory participation of new students in SSSP services and enrollment priority on indicators A-E above, as well as the loss of Board of Governors (BOG) fee waiver of new students.

8. Access to Enrollment uses Service Area as Baseline 2012 Population by Race & Ethnicity Area Count Area Percent Campus percent 2012-13 Difference Asian83,7196% 0 Black137,70610%10% 16%+6 Hispanic780,35755% 59%+4 Other40,5973% 0 White377,76727% 17%-10 Total 1,420,146100% 0 2012 Population by Race & Ethnicity – SBVC Core Area Source: CCCCO Data Mart. See Appendix # for regional comparison.

9. Access Challenges: Our Area has Population Growth in the Face of Shrinking High School Graduation Numbers

10. Projected Population Growth

11. K-12 Pipeline

12. Ethnic Trends Among Enrolled Students Figure 1 Ethnic Trends

13. Transfer 2011-12 CSU Transfers – 2011-2012 by Ethnicity Ethnicity Total SBVC Students Percentage of Total SBVC Transfer Students African American4413.02% American Indian00.00% Asian154.44% Filipino51.48% Mexican American13941.12% Other Latino4112.13% Pacific Islander00.00% White5315.68% Two or more races51.48% Unknown257.40% Non-Resident Alien113.25% Total338100.00%

14. Basic Skills --Math Assessment to Basic Skills Math 20062007200820092010201120122013 Asian41.48%48.04%41.45%54.54%48.15%33.17%31.61%41.51% Black83.94%84.61%85.40%82.73%82.13%69.26%66.16%62.98% Hispanic72.71%74.62%69.12%71.12%55.10%53.31%51.34%48.94% White68.00%62.09%60.58%65.43%55.52%52.36%42.95%40.50%

15. Whose Ready for Transfer Level Reading? Assessment to Transfer Level Reading 20062007200820092010201120122013 Asian50%53%36%41%12%35%27%24% Black60%63%55%53%25%41%23%27% Hispanic65%63%58% 33%43%27%28% White81%82%64%52%55%51%47%49%

16. Whose Ready for Transfer Level English? Assessment to Transfer Level English 20062007200820092010201120122013 Asian 15.29%11.87%8.12%2.11%16.13%30.00%29.15%31.03% Black 8.23%4.46%4.76%6.11%22.77%21.92%20.25%23.59% Hispanic 8.31%4.45%4.67%5.96%25.19%19.97%26.74%26.58% White 21.10%12.54%9.86%23.36%38.52%25.32%41.11%39.84%

17. Success in Basic Skills All Basic Skills Courses – Fall 2012 EthnicityScorecard Success Rates Peer Group African American37.0% Asian77.2% Hispanic52.4% American Indian/Alaskan Native58.3% Multi-Ethnicity55.4% Pacific Islander50.0% White69.0% Unknown38.5%

18. Success in Transfer level Courses Success Rate Transfer courses – Fall 2012 EthnicityCourse level Success Rates Peer Group African American 61.1% Asian 75.6% Hispanic 78.2% American Indian/Alaskan Native 77.4% Multi-Ethnicity 80.0% Pacific Islander 70.0% White 74.2% Unknown 62.1%

19. Whose ready for transfer level work from the start?

20. Scorecard Cohort 2006-07 Entry Level Preparation Race/Ethnicity Not prepared PreparedGrand Totalpercent Asian49146322.22% Black256192756.91% Filipino211224.55% Hispanic718657838.30% Nat. Amer.1321513.33% Pac. Isl.731030.00% White2183725514.51% Unreported971411112.61% Average1379155153410.10%

21. Student Progress and Achievement Rate (SPAR)

22. Five Cohorts on Overall Completion (SPAR)

23. Five Cohorts on Overall Completion ( Prepared Students as defined by the CCCCO Scorecard ) Race/Ethnicity 06-07 cohort count 02-0303-0404-0505-0606-07 African American (n=19)79.2%70.6%86.7%80.0%64.7% American Indian/Alaskan Native (n=2) 0.0% 100.0%NA100.0% Asian (n=14)90.0%54.5%71.4%91.7%100.0% Filipino (N=1)57.1%NA100.0% Hispanic (n=65)62.3%50.0%54.8%47.2%45.9% Pacific Islander (n=3)100.0% 33.3% White (n=37)61.8%68.8%67.7%55.6%47.2%

24. Persistence (Three Semesters) Race/Ethnicity02-0303-0404-0505-0606-07 African American59.2%60.0%63.0%61.0%50.00% American Indian/Alaskan Native 50.00%73.3%62.5%60.0%86.7% Asian64.6%68.2%70.8%66.7%63.5% Filipino66.7%89.3%63.6%66.7%68.2% Hispanic66.3%72.0%66.8%64.9%67.7% Pacific Islander46.2%52.6%75.0%58.3%55.6% White62.1%70.7%60.3%65.3%65.2%

25. Remedial English Race/Ethnicity02-0303-0404-0505-0606-07 African American14.2%12.9%19.9%16.4%22.1% American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.0%20.0%14.3%25.0%30.0% Asian28.6%31.3%26.2%42.9%34.0% Filipino14.3%37.5%23.1%44.4%36.8% Hispanic19.0%17.2%23.3%23.5%24.1% Pacific Islander25.0%16.7%0.0%22.2%28.6% White14.9%17.7%17.6%32.8%31.8%

26. Remedial Math Race/Ethnicity02-0303-0404-0505-0606-07 African American17.3%19.8%18.0%20.6%19.5% American Indian/Alaskan Native 41.2%11.8%41.2%33.3%46.7% Asian32.1%38.5%39.7%41.5%47.3% Filipino35.5%33.3%21.9%26.1%50.0% Hispanic32.6%32.4%27.2%29.3%34.3% Pacific Islander22.2%57.1%10.0%41.2%50.0% White25.3%28.9%30.6%32.8%32.7%

27. Scorecard Cohort Data 2013: Basic Skills Progress Rates

28. Critical Measures from Scorecard

29. Valley Outcome Improvement Rates by Ethnicity EthnicityCTECompletion Overall52.3%35.6% African American52.1%39.2% Native American35.7%33.3% Asian59.7%57.1% Filipino72.2%22.7% Hispanic51.5%32.0% Pacific Islander71.1%33.3% Caucasian50.1%35.6%

30. Appendices

31. MAPS 1,2,3

32. ARCC 2.0 Momentum Point Outcomes Persistence - Percentage of degree and/or transfer-seeking students tracked for six years from 2006-07 to 2011-12 who enrolled in the first three consecutive terms. This metric is considered a milestone or momentum point, research shows that students with sustained enrollment are more likely to succeed. Remedial (English and Math) - Percentage of credit students tracked for six years from 2006-07 to 2011-12 who started below transfer level in English, mathematics, and/or ESL and completed a college-level course in the same discipline. 30 Units - Percentage of degree and/or transfer seeking students tracked for six years from 2006-07 to 2011-12 who achieved at least 30 units. Credit accumulation, 30 units specifically, tend to be positively correlated with completion and wage gain.

33. ARCC 2.0 Outcomes Completion (SPAR) - percentage of degree and/or transfer-seeking students tracked for six years from 2006-07 to 2011-12 who completed a degree, certificate or transfer related outcomes. Cohorts separated by prepared and remedial students. Career Technical Education (CTE) - Percentage of students tracked for six years from 2006-07 to 2011- 12 who completed several courses classified as career technical education (or vocational) in a single discipline and completed a degree, certificate or transferred.

34. ARCC 2.0 Comparison Groups ARCC 2.0 has added a remedial and college prepared cohort for the following outcomes o Persistence o 30 Units o Completion (SPAR) Remedial Progress Rate (Unprepared for College) - The percentage of credit students who start out at any levels below transfer in English, Mathematics, and/or ESL College Prepared Rate – First attempted math or English was transfer level.

35. SBVC Core Area (90% of SBVC students reside in this area)

36. Briefs A Coming Crisis Scorecard Cohort vs Overall Measures