What I learned at the Research and Planning Group’s Strengthening Student Success Conference (Assessalot) October 2 & 3, 2012

General Tone of the Conference Statistical, quantitative data is best used when you can “see the faces of your students” in the data. This is a phrase from the keynote speaker, and was repeated often throughout the conference. It set the tone.

Had trouble with the various definitions of “Student Success” -Coordinated effort between chancellor, trustees, research, and students -Worked to create their own definition -Recognizes the ultimate authority on student success – the students -As much about process and the journey as it is about the ultimate outcome San Jose Evergreen Community College District “Defining Student Success”

Tamela Hawley, Exec. Dir. Research and institutional Effectiveness Her responsibility to “measure” these self-described “success is a process”. -Perhaps we should invite her for a visit?? How did they measure “Student Success”? -Multiple measures -Basically it boils down to ARCC data and student surveys. Main point – Other colleges are struggling with this same issue.

Revised standards Recently asked for input from the field (Fred testified in June) First draft January 2014 Second draft June2014 Recognizes unnecessary repetition May require colleges to set standards against which individual colleges will assess student learning.

Beno chose this slide to illustrate current voices for changes in what accreditation agencies will look for. Describes our SLO tension

Beno chose this slide to illustrate current voices for changes in what accreditation agencies will look for. Information infrastructure— likened this to Amazon knowing what to advertise when you log on. For DE, follow keystrokes to learn what students are doing on- line.

New term for adjuncts; recognizes that accreditation stds have not adequately addressed adjuncts. What will accreditors do with mission issues, especially missions that are too wide (What’s the “main” part of your mission?

Mentioned here that Ivy League schools have thought about founding their own accrediting agency because they haven’t wanted to analyze outcomes.

Focus on ability to compare institutions of higher learning based on common metrics.

“Productivity” is a big issue – worries Barbara The “completion agenda”

Mentioned the keynote’s point that we need to match delivery method with the kind of students Veterans are good at learning on-line Recent high-school grads do better in f2f

Everybody recognizes the for- profits as a problem. Problem is how to write regulations that only apply to them. Expects more regulations in the future to deal with this.

National Student Clearinghouse longitudinal data-tracking students by SS# already. Barbara called this “shocking”. This data shows that many of our students *do* go on to other institutions and complete. Barbara talked about this quite a bit. Students attend quite a few colleges.

Comparisons between colleges is coming

Our mission is *mostly* xyz Will see stds specific to DE Mentions that we could stds specific to f2f as well

Why feds are so interested in accreditation Questions at the endQ: What about comparisons across regions and institutions? Answer went to this idea of institutions setting their own standards for student attainment of outcomes

General Themes Changing student behavior Greater use of technology Greater degree of centralization for system More impact on students on the front end (this is not anything new. We’ve known this for a long time.) Strategically “rationing education” Get students through more quickly and get out those who are not making progress toward a specific goal. Implementing the Student Success Task Force Recommendations ASCCC President Michele Pilati and VP Beth Smith Michele and Beth caught themselves in this phrasing and indicated that they wished they phrased it differently. This *is* happening because it saves money. This hasn’t yet happened because it costs money

Get students through more quickly and get out those who are not making progress toward a specific goal. -enrollment priorities -BOG waiver changes -Transfer degrees Changes in Federal financial aid Federal financial aid will cover no more than two “takes”. Fed aid will cover additional “takes” if a substandard grade is earned, but only if the grade is an F (state and federal definitions differ) Need to alert students to all of these changes – as well as those that have not yet been implemented At some schools, students cannot enroll into a class for a third time without going to a counselor. Messaging to our students is of upmost importance.

Michele: Suggests that separate colleges should talk to each other because students are going to many colleges. Michele wants an Orbitz for college courses – compares classes at different classes. Scott Lay: computer system that keeps track of students’ ed plan. “Do you want to complete your degree? There are ten seats left in the class you need.” Technology: Nothing happening centrally yet. Reason: this would cost money.

Michele thinks that the differences between colleges is what is driving the need for the common assessment. What if we made it easier for students to move between colleges; then maybe we wouldn’t need the common assessment. Common Assessment

Students responsibilities Identify ed goal upon enrollment Declare specific course of study within a reasonable time -- Attend class and complete assignments Maintain progress Now called the Student Success Initiative This is NOT a major or specific suite of classes This is a very vague definition. I hammered Michele on this one. Mentioned the scorecard does not get down to specific major level. Looks at students by what they do, not what they say.

Institution’s responsibility Provide student services –orientation, assessment, counseling and ed planning, referral to needed and available services Colleges may use local supplemental metrics Requires all nonexempt students to complete orientation and assessment and to develop ed plans These policies shall be phased in over a reasonable time as determined by the BoG BoG shall develop a formula for allocating funding **Requires use of common assessment and scorecard.** Now called the Student Success Initiative Patrick Perry on test development companies, “They have moistened my floor with their drool” Michele Pilati: What if we made it easier for students to move between colleges? Then maybe we wouldn’t need the common assessment. Perhaps the differences between colleges is what is driving the need for the common assessment.

The Scorecard : rec 7.3 Work generally done Details with respect to counselor:student ratio TBD Faculty wanted contextualized metrics Pyramid: statewide data SPAR rate (student progress and achievement rate) Student progress and achievement Persistence over 3 terms How many students there for 30 units Where did they start? Behavioral metrics: student is CTE if they enroll in a CTE top Code for x units Measure of students who begin in remediation and make it out. Demographics too, to put it into context Capability to drill down further. Designed to be very public. Board will have to approve it. Beth says that newspapers will probably get a hold of them and publish them side by side.

Susan Clifford (ACCJC) on the SLO Proficiency Report Lots of data and explanations in 250 words or less. Big point: we don’t know how the commission will use this information. Susan reply: The ACCJC wanted to assess where colleges are with SLO implementation. Seems sort of like Program Review for the ACCJC (my words) – they just wanted to see where we are They do not plan on using it to assess college’s proficiency. That is what the self studies, visits, and focused reports are for.