faculty take on student learning by doug lederman inside higher ed 4 4 2011 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Faculty Take on Student Learning by Doug Lederman , Inside Higher Ed, 4/4/2011 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Faculty Take on Student Learning by Doug Lederman , Inside Higher Ed, 4/4/2011

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 46

Faculty Take on Student Learning by Doug Lederman , Inside Higher Ed, 4/4/2011 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 44 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Faculty Take on Student Learning by Doug Lederman , Inside Higher Ed, 4/4/2011' - karli


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
faculty take on student learning by doug lederman inside higher ed 4 4 2011
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."

checking the progress of cte student growth using perkins core indicators reports and targets

Research & Planning Group

2011 RP Conference

Checking the Progress of CTE Student Growth using Perkins Core Indicators, Reports, and Targets

Dr. Chuck Wiseley

CTE Specialist, CCCCO

department xyz 1
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

department xyz 2
Department XYZ - 2

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

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

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

department xyz 3
Department XYZ - 3

We might ask:

Are the students getting through our courses? Are there or what are the gateway courses?

Are students able to persist from term-to-term or year-to-year?

Do they complete our programs by earning an award (are awards conferred)?

Is there gender equity and diversity in the program through to completion?

Do students find employment or advance in their careers?

progress checks in perkins
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
agenda
Agenda
  • Perkins IV
    • Data,
    • Cohort Selection,
    • Core Indicators,
    • Reports,
    • Performance Targets,
    • Perkins funds:
      • improving student success
data flow college
Data Flow: College

Data collection

Types of data

data flow chancellor s office
Data Flow: Chancellor’s Office

MIS database

DSS: CalWORKs

EDD: UI wages

NSC: transfers

Research & Accountability Advisory Committee

Perkins IV - USDE/OVAE

State Plan

Non regulatory guidance

OMB “Official Documents”

Consolidated Annual Report

District MIS

Chancellor’s Office MIS

SSN based data matches

Accountability Framework &

Report Specifications

CO MIS

Programming

Funding Reports

Accountability Reports

the magic happens here
The magic happens here!

Chancellor’s Office

Management Information Systems (MIS) Group

District data

Perkins counts

core indicator data
MIS Data

Data Elements

Funding

Accountability

Core Indicator Data
defining the data
Defining the Data
  • SAM Codes
  • TOP Codes
  • Data Elements
  • Core Indicators
    • “The Law”
    • Definitions
    • Negotiated Performance Targets
    • Measurement Approaches/Formulas

Funding

student accountability model sam taxonomy of programs top
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.
student accountability model sam taxonomy of programs top continued
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
data elements mis system
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 d
Section IE-D

2011-2012

Sample College

accountability requirements section 113 b
Accountability Requirements Section 113(b)

5 core indicators of performance:

  • Student attainment of technical skill proficiencies;
  • Student attainment of credential, certificate, or degree;
  • Student retention in postsecondary education or transfer;
  • Student placement in military, apprenticeship, or employment
  • Student participation/completion of non-traditional training

State and Local adjusted levels of performance

  • Levels of performance negotiated with USDE / State

Results reported annually

perkins iv 2006 core indicators
Perkins IV (2006) Core Indicators
  • Technical Skill AttainmentSuccessful CTE course completion (GPA)
  • CompletionsProgram completion–Certificate, Degree & Transfer Ready
  • Persistence & TransferStudent persistence in Higher Ed
  • PlacementPlacement in apprenticeship, employment, military, fed gov
  • Gender Equity -- Nontraditional FieldsParticipation (5a)/Completion (5b) - nontraditional “fields”
cohort definitions used for measurement
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

assigning a program area top to a student
Assigning a Program Area (TOP)to a Student
  • Award – TOP code of CTE Certificate or Degree
  • 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
my numbers don t look right recap
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)
timeline for outcomes outputs
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

Not OLD DATA – as recent as possible

Outcomes have already occurred

Target low performance now!

timeline for outcomes outputs investments
Timeline for Outcomes, Outputs, & Investments

You are here

Three years of enrollment for 09-10

core indicator 1 technical skill attainment
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)
core indicator 1 measurement
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

core indicator 2 program completions
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
ci 2 completions measurement
CI 2-Completions: Measurement

Certificate/Degree/Transfer Ready

÷

Concentrators (Leavers & Completers), Not Persisters or LLL (without new awards)

core indicator 3 persistence transfer
Core Indicator 3Persistence & 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)

core indicator 4 placement
Core Indicator 4Placement
  • 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.

ci 4 placement measurement
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.

core indicator 5 gender equity
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)
core indicator 5 gender equity1
Core Indicator 5Gender Equity

Programs leading to Nontraditional Fields

Nontraditional Gender Students

÷

All Students in NT Program

ci 5a nontrad participation measurement
CI 5a: NonTradParticipation Measurement

Nontraditional Concentrators in a

Nontraditional TOP Code

÷All Concentrators in a

Nontraditional TOP Code

ci 5b nontrad completion measurement
CI 5b NonTrad Completion: Measurement

Nontraditional “Completers” of Nontraditional Programs

÷

All “Completers” of Nontraditional Programs

report structures
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
access
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
negotiating targets
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

effects of not achieving 90 of targets
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
effects of not achieving 90 of targets1
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
effects of not achieving 90 of targets2
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
resources questions
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 - cwiseley@cccco.edu,
    • 916.327.5895