Lmc presentation for cccd11052010

444 views

Published on

only for use in documenting EDUC 417b professional porfolio

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
444
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Equity in Higher EducationThe phrase “equity in higher education” refers to creating opportunities for equal access and success in higher education among historically underrepresented student populations, such as ethnic minority and low-income students. Within the postsecondary education community, “equity” is further defined by: (1) representational equity, or the proportional participation of historically underrepresented student populations at all levels of an institution; (2) resource equity, which accounts for how educational resources are distributed to close equity gaps; and (3) equity mindedness, which involves institutional leaders and staff demonstrating an awareness and willingness to address equity issues. Accountability for Equity Inequality in higher education is felt most acutely by African American, Latino, Latina, Southeast Asian, and American Indian students and is detrimental to everyone. It negatively affects the entire nation in such matters as unemployment, welfare costs, voter turnout, income levels, and healthcare. Additionally, inequities jeopardize our nation’s ability to produce the degrees that secure our position in a global economy. For these reasons, accountability in higher education must be about equity in outcomes among racial-ethnic groups as well as about institutional effectiveness. The indicators of the CUE Equity Model help prioritize and call attention to equity issues to generate support from policymakers, college leaders, faculty, counselors and other higher education stakeholders.
  • Institutional Accountability (Foundation Slide)As practitioners make sense of the data and uncover points of success or gaps in outcomes, it is common to refer to students’ strengths and weaknesses to explain their performance. By placing the responsibility for these outcomes on students and specific student groups, the institution is perceived as powerless and unable to effect change. As such, there is little the institution can do to influence the performance gaps uncovered by the data. It is critical that hunches assigning blame to students, or deficit-minded hunches, are reframed to focus on factors under the institution’s control. Practitioner’s using the CUE Equity Model are asked to reframe and refocus deficit-minded dialogue using a equity-mindedness. Equity-minded practitioners call attention to patterns of inequity in student outcomes by race and ethnicity, and are willing to assume personal and institutional responsibility for the elimination of inequity. As a result, equity-minded practitioners discuss how they can improve their policies and practices to better student outcomes.This isn’t to say that students have no responsibility in their educational outcomes, but by placing the responsibility solely on students, the conversation misplaces all potential action within the institutions control to improve outcomes. CUE’s collaborative approach enables systems and institutions to create the solutions most appropriate for their context, not pick a trendy practice or program off the shelf.
  • Institutional Accountability (Foundation Slide)As practitioners make sense of the data and uncover points of success or gaps in outcomes, it is common to refer to students’ strengths and weaknesses to explain their performance. By placing the responsibility for these outcomes on students and specific student groups, the institution is perceived as powerless and unable to effect change. As such, there is little the institution can do to influence the performance gaps uncovered by the data. It is critical that hunches assigning blame to students, or deficit-minded hunches, are reframed to focus on factors under the institution’s control. Practitioner’s using the CUE Equity Model are asked to reframe and refocus deficit-minded dialogue using a equity-mindedness. Equity-minded practitioners call attention to patterns of inequity in student outcomes by race and ethnicity, and are willing to assume personal and institutional responsibility for the elimination of inequity. As a result, equity-minded practitioners discuss how they can improve their policies and practices to better student outcomes.This isn’t to say that students have no responsibility in their educational outcomes, but by placing the responsibility solely on students, the conversation misplaces all potential action within the institutions control to improve outcomes. CUE’s collaborative approach enables systems and institutions to create the solutions most appropriate for their context, not pick a trendy practice or program off the shelf.
  • In the Access perspective, we analyze demographic representation in your campuses service area, total institutional enrollment by race, ethnicity, gender, and full-time or part-time status, new student enrollment trends, and first-time student placement into basic skills courses.  
  • Key Findings from New Student Enrollment Trends (Data Findings Slide)Cohort, first-time student at LMC:Enrolled on our district for the first timeBetween the ages of 17 to 19NOT special admit (concurrent)Attempting 21 units or less but has completed zero units
  • In the Access perspective, we analyze demographic representation in your campuses service area, total institutional enrollment by race, ethnicity, gender, and full-time or part-time status, new student enrollment trends, and first-time student placement into basic skills courses. ADD Numbers 
  • The Access Perspective (Foundation Slide) When looking at the Excellence and Completion perspective we analyze certificate and transfer attainment, GPAS of graduating and transferring students, and degree attainment in high occupational-demand fields. Through the completion and excellence perspective indicators, we are able to see not only the students who complete an outcome, but those who excel in the process.  
  • Key Findings from Certificate and Transfer Attainment (Data Findings Slide)In this space provide a thorough description of the data findings shared on this side, as well as an overview of the evidence team’s discussions regarding the data.Equity Gaps: Who was completing these milestones
  • The Access Perspective (Foundation Slide) Retention is the third perspective in the Vital Signs. In this perspective practitioners examine term-to-term or year-to-year retention and cohort migration in Basic Skills. Migration for English 100 Migration for English 90 
  • Key Findings from the Retention Perspectives (Data Findings Slide)The team focused on this as the intervention because these would be the students that should be most likely to succeed.
  •  ”Your Campus’s Name’s” Point of Intervention (Foundation Slide)In this space provide a thorough description of the data and discussion that led to your evidence team’s , as well as an overview of the evidence team’s discussions to decide upon this point of intervention. 
  •  ”Your Campus’s Name’s” Point of Intervention (Foundation Slide)In this space provide a thorough description of the data and discussion that led to your evidence team’s , as well as an overview of the evidence team’s discussions to decide upon this point of intervention. 
  • Lmc presentation for cccd11052010

    1. 1. USC Center for Urban Education’s<br />Equity Scorecard Model applied at LMC<br />October 2009 – 2010<br />
    2. 2. Presentation Outline<br />Goal: To provide an overview of IDEA Inquiry Team work<br /><ul><li> CUE & the Equity Scorecard Project
    3. 3. The LMC Vital Signs
    4. 4. Questions from Findings
    5. 5. The English and Matriculation Intervention Zones
    6. 6. Campus Inquiry Process </li></li></ul><li>Why did LMC hire CUE?<br /><ul><li>SGC charged IDEA Committee to advocate for an institutional culture that defines, values and promotes equity, inclusion and social justice
    7. 7. National recognition of the need to improve outcomes among students of color
    8. 8. CUE is one of a few experts that works at the campus level building its capacity to conduct its own research
    9. 9. LMC is committed to improve equity on our campus</li></li></ul><li>
    10. 10. IDEA Inquiry Team Members <br /><ul><li> Rosa Armendáriz - Faculty, Activity Director, Hispanic-Serving Institutions Grant
    11. 11. Tawny Beal - Senior Academic Manager
    12. 12. Kendra Carr – EOPS (joined Fall 2010)
    13. 13. Karl Debro - Faculty & AVID Coordinator
    14. 14. Peter Garcia - President
    15. 15. Christina Goff - Instructional Librarian/Dept. Chair (TLP)
    16. 16. Blas Guerrero - Dean of Student Development
    17. 17. JoellenHiltbrand – Faculty, English/ESL
    18. 18. Erlinda Jones - Faculty, Child Development
    19. 19. Richard Livingston - Interim President
    20. 20. A’kilah Moore – Faculty, Math Department & UMOJA Scholars Program Coordinator
    21. 21. Gil Rodriguez - Dean of Liberal Arts &Sciences (joined Fall 2010)
    22. 22. Humberto Sale - Institutional Researcher
    23. 23. Annica Soto - Brentwood Center staff
    24. 24. Laura Subia - Faculty, EOPS Counselor & Co-chair for Counseling
    25. 25. Michael Valdez - Math Lab Coordinator (Fall 2009 – Spring 2010)
    26. 26. De’shawnWoolridge- Student Representative & Student Body President (2009-10) </li></ul>A cross section of the LMC community can best represent our needs and desires. <br />
    27. 27. Seeking Equity in Higher Education<br />=<br />Equity<br />32% White Students<br />32% White Students<br />56% Students of Color<br />56% Students <br />of Color<br />GOAL: LMC Graduating Student Population<br />(benchmark year)<br />LMC Entering Student Population(Fall 2009)<br />
    28. 28. Lens for Data Analysis<br />Focus: Institutional Accountability <br />What can we control?<br />Focus: Student Deficits<br />
    29. 29. The Vital Signs Perspectives <br />Retention<br />(Persistence)<br />Completion<br />Access<br />Campus <br />Effort<br />
    30. 30. Aggregated Data<br />information presented as a mass<br />Aggregate:<br /><ul><li>Hides racial patterns of inequity
    31. 31. Inhibits dialogues about race and equity
    32. 32. Allows inequalities to persist</li></li></ul><li>Disaggregating Data<br />Disaggregate: A mass separated into parts by race and ethnicity.<br /><ul><li>Reveals patterns of inequity
    33. 33. Supports dialogue about race and equity
    34. 34. Promotes awareness & solutions</li></ul>Ex. Students Who Earned an Associate's Degree<br />
    35. 35. LMC Project Parameters<br /><ul><li>Focus on Basic Skills Math and English(CUE choices are STEM, Transfer, or Basic Skills)
    36. 36. Analyze First Time Students* cohort
    37. 37. Beginning in Fall 2006
    38. 38. Gather data through Spring 2009
    39. 39. Data taken from existing CCCCD & LMC systems </li></ul>*First Time Student Cohort: Enrolled in the district for the first time, between the age of 17 and 19, not a special admit (concurrent with high school enrollment), attempting 21 units or less but has completed zero units.<br />
    40. 40. Access<br />Student Representation<br /><ul><li>Service-area representation
    41. 41. Total institutional enrollment
    42. 42. New student enrollment trends
    43. 43. Placement in Basic Skills courses</li></li></ul><li>ACCESS EXAMPLE<br />58% of the first-time students in Fall 2006 are students of color.<br />LOCAL HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES 2007 = EQUITY <br />(N = 3,114)<br />
    44. 44. LESSONS LEARNED<br />Access<br />New student enrollment trends<br />Student Representation<br /><ul><li>37% of cohort enrolled in Basic Skills English fall 2006
    45. 45. 19% of cohort enrolled in Basic Skills Math in fall 2006</li></ul>QUESTION: Did students enroll where they assessed? Were there equity gaps? <br />
    46. 46. Assessment vs. EnrollmentEnrollment into English 60, 70 & 90<br />LESSONS LEARNED: <br /><ul><li> Around half of all students enrolled their first semester where they were</li></ul> assessed.<br /><ul><li> African Americans were less likely than Latinos to enroll</li></ul>63%<br />64%<br />71%<br />58%<br />60%<br />59%<br />Fall 2006<br />
    47. 47. Completion<br />Student Success<br /><ul><li>Certificate
    48. 48. Degree
    49. 49. Transfer Attainment</li></li></ul><li>Educational OutcomesIncludes Certificate, Degree, and Transfer Attainment<br />6%<br />16%<br />Completing Students Spring 2008 = 82<br />12%<br />36%<br />7%<br />3%<br />15%<br />34%<br />29%<br />1%<br />Entering Students Fall 2006 = 1,399<br />African Americans<br />- 9% GAP<br />1%<br />40%<br />QUESTION: With only 82 of 1,399 students finishing in 2 years, where are the rest? Do they just take longer to finish? Could we look at enrollment persistence? <br />LESSON LEARNED: African Americans have the largest completion equity gap (-9%)<br />
    50. 50. Enrollment Persistence Students who remained enrolled Fall ‘06 - Spring ‘08 (% remaining)<br />LESSON LEARNED: Approx. 70% of students left campus within 2 years. White and Native American Students left at higher than average rates. <br />QUESTION: What can we learn about our Matriculation Process that would help us understand what’s happening? <br />28%<br />30%<br />19%<br />24%<br />21%<br />8%<br />29%<br />
    51. 51. The Vital Signs Indicators<br />Retention<br />Student Success & Persistence<br /><ul><li>Term-to-term persistence
    52. 52. Year-to-year persistence
    53. 53. Cohort Migration in Basic Skills </li></li></ul><li>Basic Skills English PersistenceFor the 267 students who started in English 90 FALL 2006<br />The team reviewed success and enrollment in English 90, English 100, and English 220 or 221 over four semesters. Our lessons focus on the difference between the most and least successful groups in each course.<br />Course Success Learnings: <br /><ul><li> In English 90, African Americans’ pass rate is 55% (17) vs. Asian / PI 73% (29). (-18%)
    54. 54. In English 100, African Americans’ pass rate is 40% (6) vs. Whites 90% (46). (-50%)
    55. 55. In English 220/221, African Americans’ pass rate is 67% (2) vs. 100% (17) Latinos. (-33%) </li></ul>Course Enrollment Learnings: <br /><ul><li> 88% of African Americans who passed English 90 enrolled into English 100 the next semester, vs. 72% of Latinos. (-16%)
    56. 56. 63% of Latinos who passed English 100 enrolled into English 220 or 221 the next semester, vs. 33% of Asian students. (-30%)</li></li></ul><li>Selection of English 90 Intervention Zone<br /><ul><li> Largest group of students (267) begin in English 90 – our hunch was that this zone could lead to greatest institutional impact
    57. 57. We wanted to learn more about the English 90 success gap between African Americans and other groups
    58. 58. The project was being funded by BSI (argument for not choosing English 100 as intervention zone) </li></li></ul><li>NEXT STEP: Inquiry into English<br /><ul><li>Eng 90 Syllabus Review
    59. 59. Survey of faculty and students @ Center for Academic Support & RWC
    60. 60. Observation of the Center for Academic Support
    61. 61. Interview with English 90 students and consultants of RWC</li></ul>Welcome Day 2008<br />
    62. 62. Selection of Matriculation Process <br />Intervention Zone<br /><ul><li> Many students leave the campus before completing two years of enrollment
    63. 63. Some students are having more trouble than others transitioning from the Assessment into Enrollment in the recommended courses
    64. 64. Some students aren’t enrolling in the next course even when they are successful in the preparation course</li></li></ul><li>NEXT STEP: Inquiry into Matriculation<br /><ul><li>Admissions application
    65. 65. Placement exam
    66. 66. Interview orientation staff and counselors
    67. 67. Survey students on orientation experience</li></ul>Welcome Day 2008<br />

    ×