2012-2017 District Strategic Plan Data Documentation

Goal/Objective/
Measure / Sub-measure or Clarification / Data Notes
Goal 1. 1.2: Percentage of eligible students receiving financial aid / We disaggregated this measure by ethnicity as well for your information. /
  • Estimated % Eligible was determined from the Fall 2009 and Spring 2012 Student Surveys – students were considered to be “eligible” for financial aid if they met our definition of a low income student (i.e., were at 150% of the poverty level at the time, which was determined using the 2009 and 2012 federal poverty level guidelines and each student’s responses to student survey questions about total family income and number of people in the household).
  • Est. % Eligible from the Fall 2009 survey was applied to the 2009-10 and 2010-11 financial aid data.
  • Est. % Eligible from the Spring 2012 survey was applied to the 2011-12 financial aid data.
  • The outcome measure for this objective – Percentage of eligible students receiving financial aid (highlighted on the worksheet) – was determined by dividing the number of students receiving a Pell Grant (Pell Grants come with a BOGG award) by the estimated number of students who were eligible for financial aid (based on the total enrollment multiplied by the estimated % eligible based on the student survey). This is a conservative/traditional measure of “percentage of eligible students receiving financial aid” because in order to receive a Pell Grant, students must fill out the FAFSA and have their income verified.
  • We also calculated this measure by additionally includingin the numerator students in the BOGG Only category (shaded in grey in the spreadsheet). Note that in some cases in the ethnic breakdowns this caused the percentage of eligible students receiving financial aid to be greater than 100% [i.e., if more students received financial aid awards (Pell or BOGG) than was expected based on the estimated % eligible determined from the student survey].

Goal 1. 2.1: Number and percentage of new students completing matriculation disaggregated by age, gender, ethnicity, and low income status* / Only measure available: Percentage of new students completing assessment (in English and in Math) in the first term or before (disaggregated by age, gender, ethnicity, and low income status*). /
  • Data for English assessment and for Math assessment are provided on separate tabs.
  • Data are provided for new students starting in Fall 2009, Fall 2010, and Fall 2011 (scroll to the right in the worksheet to see all of the cohorts).
  • First-time students were included in the cohorts. New transfer students were excluded.
  • Public service academy students at East and concurrent high school students (all colleges) were excluded from the cohorts.
  • Fall assessments and assessments from three years preceding the fall term were analyzed.

Goal 1. 3.1: Percentage of new students successfully completing at least one English and Math class in their first year / We also disaggregated this measure by age, gender, ethnicity, and low income status*. /
  • Data are provided for new students starting in Fall 2009, Fall 2010, and Fall 2011 (scroll to the right in the worksheet to see all of the cohorts).
  • First-time students were included in the cohorts. New transfer students were excluded.
  • Public service academy students at East and concurrent high school students (all colleges) were excluded from the cohorts.
  • In the data set, the englmath variable stands for successful completion of at least one English and Math class in the student's first year.
  • English and Math courses were identified by course SUB_NAME (ENGLISH, MATH).
  • Successful completion was defined as the student receiving a grade of A, B, C, or P.
  • Students had until the spring semester to complete the courses (e.g., for students in the Fall 2009 cohort, they had Summer 2009, Fall 2009, Winter 2010, and Spring 2010 to complete the English and Math courses).

Goal 1. 3.2: Persistence (Fall to Spring and Fall to Fall) / We also disaggregated this measure by age, gender, ethnicity, and low income status*. /
  • Fall to Spring Persistence: First-time credit students completing 6 or more units at the college in the Fall semester who attempt any (> 0) units in the following Spring semester at the same college.
  • Fall to Fall Persistence (scroll to the right in the worksheet to see these data): First-time credit students completing 6 or more units at the college in the Fall semester who attempt any (> 0) units in the following Fall semester at the same college.
  • Data are provided for new students starting in Fall 2009, Fall 2010, and Fall 2011.
  • Only first-time students were included in the cohorts. New transfer students were excluded.
  • Public service academy students at East and concurrent high school students (all colleges) were excluded from the cohorts.
  • Units completed were defined as those with grades A, B, C, D or P.
  • Units attempted were defined as any graded (any notation) units.

Goal 2. 1.1:
Measure of active learning/project learning
Measure of student engagement in and out of class
Measure of self-efficacy/self-directed learning / All data are compiled from theSpring 2012 Student Survey.
For your information, the responses to the individual items are included in a separate tab in the workbook. /
  • Measure of active learning/project learning used the average of student survey items 70b,c,d (the goal would be to increase the percentage of students responding in the “Often” or “Sometimes” categories).
  • Measure of student engagement in and out of class used student survey items 73a,b,c,d (these were averaged together - the goal would be to increase the percentage of students responding “Yes” to these items), 74b (the goal would be to decrease the percentage of students responding in the “None” category and increase the percentages of students responding in the higher hour categories), and 76 (the goal would be to decrease the percentage of students responding in the “None” category and increase the percentages of students responding in the higher hour categories).
  • Measure of self-efficacy/self-directed learning used the average of student survey items 75i,j,l,n,p(the goal would be to increase the percentage of students responding in the “Very much” or “Quite a bit” categories).

Goal 2. 1.3:
Measure of whether/how technology is being used to improve student learning and engagement / For now, all data are compiled from the Spring 2012 Student Survey (in the future, data pertaining to this objective will additionally come from the yet-to-be-developed District Employee Survey).
For your information, the responses to the individual items are included in a separate tab in the workbook. /
  • This measure used student survey items 71a,c-j (these were averaged together - the goal would be to increase the percentage of students responding in the “Often” or “Sometimes” categories) and item 75g (the goal would be to increase the percentage of students responding in the “Very much” or “Quite a bit” categories).

Goal 2. 2.1: Percentage of new student cohort successfully completing 30 and 60 units within three and six years / We used the ARCC 2.0 definition of cohort:
First-time students with a minimum of 6 units earned (anywhere in the District) and who attempted any Math or English in the first three years.
We also disaggregated this measure by age, gender, ethnicity, and low income status*. /
  • 3 year outcomes (Fall 2007, Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 cohorts) and 6 year outcomes (Fall 2004, Fall 2005 and Fall 2006 cohorts) were calculated.
  • Each cohort is its own tab in the workbook.
  • Scroll to the right in the tab for each cohort to see all of the data for Objectives 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3
  • Only first-time students were included in the cohorts. New transfer students were excluded.
  • Students with prior Bachelor’s degrees were excluded from the cohorts.
  • Public service academy students at East and concurrent high school students (all colleges) were excluded from the cohorts.
  • Units earned (for cohort inclusion) were defined as those with grades A, B, C, D or P (anywhere in the District).
  • English courses were defined using course topcodes 1501* and 1520*. Math courses were defined using course topcodes 1701*.
  • Both English and Math courses were limited to those having CB21 course-prior-to-college-level A, B, C, D, or Y.
  • Completion of 30 units and 60 units were defined using units completed with grades A, B, C, D or P (as in ARCC 2.0) anywhere in the District.
  • For the Fall 2004, Fall 2005 and Fall 2006 cohorts:
  • Theunits30in6 variable stands for completion of 30 units within six years.
  • The units60in6 variable stands for completion of 60 units within six years.
  • For the Fall 2007, Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 cohorts:
  • Theunits30in3 variable stands for completion of 30 units within three years.
  • The units60in3 variable stands for completion of 60 units within three years.

Goal 2. 2.2: Percentage of new student cohort successfully completing English 101 and Math 125(or above) within three and six years / We used the ARCC 2.0 definition of cohort:
First-time students with a minimum of 6 units earned (anywhere in the District) and who attempted any Math or English in the first three years.
We also disaggregated this measure by age, gender, ethnicity, and low income status*. /
  • The cohorts are the same as those for Goal 2. 2.1.
  • Successful completion of English 101 and Math 125 (or above) was defined as the student receiving a grade of A, B, C, or P.
  • For the Fall 2004, Fall 2005 and Fall 2006 cohorts:
  • The englmath6 variable stands for successful completion of English 101 and Math 125 (or above) within six years.
  • For the Fall 2007, Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 cohorts:
  • The englmath3 variable stands for successful completion of English 101 and Math 125 (or above) within threeyears.

Goal 2. 2.3: Completion Rate (i.e., certificate, degree, or transfer to a 4-year college or university) within three and six years / We used the ARCC 2.0 definition of cohort:
First-time students with a minimum of 6 units earned (anywhere in the District) and who attempted any Math or English in the first three years.
We also disaggregated this measure by age, gender, ethnicity, and low income status*. /
  • The cohorts are the same as those for Goal 2. 2.1.
  • All degrees and both state-approved certificates and non state-approved certificates were counted towards outcomes.
  • Transfer data were obtained from the Chancellor’s Office Data on Demand report.
  • For the Fall 2004, Fall 2005 and Fall 2006 cohorts:
  • The complete6 variable stands for completion of a certificate, degree, or transfer within six years.
  • For the Fall 2007, Fall 2008 and Fall 2009 cohorts:
  • The complete3 variable stands for completion of a certificate, degree, or transfer within three years.

*The categories to disaggregate students by low income status are based on their financial aid status (finaid in the dataset). The three categories are mutually exclusive and separate students into those not receiving financial aid (“No Fin Aid”), students receiving only the BOGG and/or another small award (“BOGG Only”), or students receiving a Pell Grant (Pell Grants come with a BOGG award), “Pell Grant (comes with BOGG)”.

Page 1 of 5