District: Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College DECEM

Transcription

1 CUYAMACA COLLEGE STUDENT EQUITY PLAN DECEM MBER 9, 2014 i P age ATTACHMENT B1

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STUDENT EQUITY GOALS AND OUTCOMESS... 4 ACTIVITIES AND ACTIONS... 5 RESOURCES BUDGETED... 6 CONTACT PERSON FOR COORDINATIONN... 8 CAMPUS BASED RESEARCH MEASURING DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT A. B. C. E. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACCESS ETHNICITY GENDER AGE COURSE COMPLETION COURSE SUCCESS ESL AND BASIC SKILLS COMPLETION PREPARATION RATES REMEDIAL ENGLISH PROGRESS RATES REMEDIAL MATH PROGRESS RATES ESL PROGRESS RATES D. DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE COMPLETION PERSISTENCE RATES UNIT COMPLETION RATES COMPLETION (SPAR) RATES CTE COMPLETION RATES TRANSFERR TRANSFER RATES GOALS AND ACTIVITIES A. STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR FOR ACCESS... Error! Bookmark not defined. GOAL A.... Error! Bookmark not defined. ii P age ATTACHMENT B2

3 B. STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR FOR COURSE COMPLETION GOAL B.... Error! Bookmark not defined. C. STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR FOR ESL AND BASIC SKILLS COMPLETION... Error! Bookmark not defined. GOAL C D. STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR FOR DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE COMPLETION GOAL D E. STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR FOR TRANSFER GOAL E BUDGET SOURCES OF FUNDING EVALUATION SCHEDULE AND PROCESS ATTACHMENTS iii P age ATTACHMENT B3

4 Cuyama aca College Studentt Equity Plan SIGNATURE PAGE District: Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District Date Approved by Board of Trustees: College President: Mark J. Zacovic, Ph.D. Vice President of Student Services: Scott W. Thayer, Ed..D. Vice President of Instruction: Wei Zhou, Ph.D.. Academic Senate President: Alicia Munoz Studentt Equity Coordinator/Contact Person: Scott W. Thayer, Ed. D. 1 P age ATTACHMENT B4

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 P age ATTACHMENT B5

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Cuyamaca College (CC) is a comprehensive, two-year, public community college located in southeastern San Diego County. The Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (GCCCD) established Cuyamaca College in 1978 to serve San Diego s large East County region. The East County shares 40 miles of international border with Mexico, includes suburban communities as well as rural, isolated areas, and is as large as the state of Rhode Island. The three largest Native American Reservations in San Diego County are found in CC s extensive service area, the Barona, Sycuan, and Viejas Bands of Kumeyaay Indians. There are over 480,000 residents of the extensive district. In fall 2013, CC enrolled 9,008 students. Of these, 1,008 enrolled in pre-collegiate mathematics, English, and English as a Second Language (ESL) courses. Approximately 47% of CC students are Caucasian, 29% are Hispanic, 6% are African American, 7% are Asian or Pacific Islander, 1% are Native American, and 10% report their ethnicity as "other. Over 59% of the students are age 24 or younger and 55% are female. About 7% of CC students are refugees, mostly from Iraq. The Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District established a Student Success Taskforce/Committee in August 2012 in order to coordinate the district s implementation of Student Success Initiatives including the Student Success and Support Program and Plans for each college. This committee reports to a districtwide participatory governance committee which is composed of members from Cuyamaca College, Grossmont College, and District Services. The committee has established timelines, priorities, activities, and goals. The membership includes representatives from the Academic Senate, administration, and students. The Plan outlines the college s programs, services, and activities that are intended to increase access and success of underperforming populations of students on campus. The Plan is divided into four areas: Goals/Outcomes 2. Activities and Actions 3. Resources Budgeted 4. Contact Person for Coordination The GCCCD Office of Research, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness analyzed data for this Student Equity Plan from a variety of sources. These sources include: the GCCCD Colleague/Datatel Database System, the State Chancellor s Management Information System (MIS), the college s Student Success Scorecard data, and the U.S. Census database. Baseline indicators for student access and success are defined for each student subgroup in the Cuyamaca College population on each measure by using cohorts and outcomes from the California Community Colleges Chancellor s Office (CCCCO) Student Success Scorecard and DataMart. This document presents two methodologies to measure disproportionate impact for disaggregated subgroups within the California Community College (CCC) student population: the 80% test and the proportionality test. The purpose of the Plan is to create a responsive, flexible, educationally sound, research based approach to supporting student groups that have met the test for disproportionate impact on the Cuyamaca College campus. These groups are: 1. African Americans 2. Hispanics/Latinos (which includes ESL students) 3. Native Americans 3 P age ATTACHMENT B6

7 4. Former Foster Youth 5. Veteran students 6. AB540/Dream Act students 7. Economically disadvantaged/low-income, first-generation college students 8. Students with disabilities 9. ESL students, in particular Iraqi refugee students 10. Males The Plan is intended to distribute college resources to fund projects that work to increase matriculation, student success, retention, persistence and completion on campus. The specific areas addressed in the Plan are intended to increase access and success among target groups of students that are identified in our 2013 and 2014 Student Success Scorecard. Our goal is to increase access among targeted groups to basic skill courses and student support services on campus, improve basic skills and ESL course completion rates, and improve completion and retention rates for the targeted groups who enroll in transfer courses, degree and certificate courses, and/or who plan to transfer to a four-year college/university. The Plan identifies and examines disparities among targeted groups using data on age, ethnicity, gender, economically disadvantaged, and students with disabilities. Once identified, the plan proposes approaches to improve achievement disparities through planned activities for each group. The data outlined in the Plan indicates that the target groups mentioned above appear to experience lower success and retention rates in most areas in comparison to their Asian, White, and/or female counterparts. Toward this end, the Cuyamaca College Plan contains an ambitious set of activities, programs, staffing, and follow-up services to improve access, student success, and retention among the targeted groups. The targeted indicators are listed below: A. ACCESS No significant disproportionate impact was found in the areas of access. B. COURSE COMPLETION Disproportionate impact was found in ethnicity (African American and Hispanic/Latino) and former foster youth. C. ESL AND BASIC SKILLS COMPLETION Disproportionate impact was found in ethnicity, age, economically disadvantaged, former foster youth and gender. D. DEGREE AND/OR CERTIFICATE COMPLETION Disproportionate impact was found in age and ethnicity. E. TRANSFER Disproportionate impact was found in age, ethnicity, economically disadvantaged and disability status. The goals and outcomes have been identified based upon the targeted groups who are disproportionally impacted in the areas listed above (A=Access, B=Course completion, C=ESL and Basic Skills completion, D=Degree and/or certificate completion and E=Transfer) STUDENT EQUITY GOALS AND OUTCOMES (Based upon the Cuyamaca College Council annual retreat goals on 5/8/2014) 1. Increase by 7% the success rates of students from targeted groups enrolling in remedial English courses each semester/term compared to the previous academic year. (Goal C: ESL and Basic Skills) 4 P age ATTACHMENT B7

8 2. Increase by 5% the success rates of students from targeted groups enrolling in remedial Mathematics courses each semester/term compared to the previous academic year. (Goal C: ESL and Basic Skills) 3. Increase by 6% the success rates of students from targeted groups enrolling in ESL courses each semester/term compared to the previous academic year. (Goal C: ESL and Basic Skills) 4. Increase by 3% the number of students from targeted groups who earn a degree and/or certificate compared to the previous academic year. (Goal D: Degree and Certificate Completion) 5. Increase by 3% the success rates of students from targeted groups each semester/term compared to the previous academic year. (Goal B: Course Completion) 6. Increase student retention in courses by 3% among students from targeted groups each semester/term compared to the previous academic year. (Goal B: Course Completion) 7. Increase by 5% the number of continuing students from targeted groups who enroll at Cuyamaca College in the sequential semester/term compared to the previous academic year. (Goal B: Course Completion) 8. Increase by 10% the number of continuing students from targeted groups that register prior to new students registration compared to the previous academic year. (Goal A: Access) 9. Increase by 10% the number of students from targeted groups that apply for financial aid by the March 2 nd deadline compared to the previous academic year. (Goal A: Access) During the academic year, the Committee/Workgroup intends to use the above stated goals and outcomes to facilitate programing and activities that will serve as a baseline for establishing ongoing goals among our stated targeted populations. ACTIVITIES AND ACTIONS The Cuyamaca College Plan will implement several key activities and actions that are intended to increase access and improve student success among student groups that met the tests for disproportionate impact. The Committee/Workgroup will partner with departments, programs, or community-based organizations to offer a best practices approach grounded in research to improve student equity and access on campus. The following is a list of the activities and actions that Cuyamaca College will implement: 1. Provide staff development opportunities for faculty and staff who work with disproportionately impacted student groups and identified at-risk populations (B: Course Completion, C: ESL and Basic Skills) a. Institutional dialogue about students groups that fall under disproportionate impact, including training addressing cultural competency b. Trainings for faculty and staff working with Basic Skills/Developmental students c. Trainings for classified staff, students, faculty and administrators who work with targeted populations d. Targeted training for addressing needs of Veteran students 2. A Student Success Academy Pathway Program using thematic Learning Communities for target cohorts of African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Native American students, former Foster Youth, 5 P age ATTACHMENT B8

9 AB540 students, and first generation/low income college students. (B: Course Completion, C: ESL and Basic Skills, D: Degree and Certificate Completion, E: Transfer) 3. A Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion/Cross Cultural Center with a program for peer-to-peer advising and mentoring, diversity programming (Diversity Dialogues) and focused services for Iraqi refugee students, African American students, Hispanic/Latino students, Native American students, LGBT students, AB540 students, and former foster youth. (B: Course Completion, C: ESL and Basic Skills) 4. Programs to increase graduation rates and follow-up services for African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Native Americans, former foster youth, veteran students, AB540 students, first generation/low income college students, and males. This would include specialized counseling, supplemental instruction, and follow-up services for target populations. (B: Course Completion, C: ESL and Basic Skills, D: Degree and Certificate Completion, E: Transfer) 5. A summer Gear Up: Math and English Acceleration Academy to increase Math and English assessment scores and completion rates among African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Native American, former foster youth, AB540 students, first generation/low income college students, and males. (B: Course Completion, C: ESL and Basic Skills) 6. A Summer Bridge program leading into the Student Success Pathways (thematic Learning Communities) for African American, Native American and Hispanic/Latino students. (B: Course Completion, C: ESL and Basic Skills) 7. Services provided by the UP! Program that focuses on former foster youth. (A: Access, B: Course Completion, C: ESL and Basic Skills, D: Degree and Certificate Completion, E: Transfer) 8. Targeted educational and career workshops for African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, former foster youth, AB540 students, first generation college students, Veterans, and males. (B: Course Completion, D: Degree and Certificate Completion, E: Transfer) 9. Concurrent enrollment in student development courses for students from the feeder high schools with high populations of African Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Native Americans, former foster youth, AB540 students, first generation/low income college students, and males. (A: Access) 10. Campus conferences and workshops focused on closing the achievement gap. This would include conferences that focus on the following: leadership, The Dream Act (to include ESL students) and males in STEM majors, career and technical education programs, Transfer/Career Fairs, UP! Students (former foster youth), students with disabilities, and/or veterans. (B: Course Completion, C: ESL and Basic Skills) 11. Staffing to accomplish items This would include hiring the following positions: Student Success Coordinator/Associate Dean, Cross Cultural Center Coordinator/Counselor, as well as additional adjunct counselors and classified support staff. (A: Access, B: Course Completion, C: ESL and Basic Skills, D: Degree and Certificate Completion, E: Transfer) RESOURCES BUDGETED The Cuyamaca College Plan includes programs and activities that have costs associated with implementation as well as enhancement of programs which currently exist. This plan outlines programs and activities funded through general fund and categorical programs. This would include funding from Student Success and Support Programs (SSSP), Counseling, High School Outreach, Student Affairs and activities that are funded through individual department/program budgets. 6 P age ATTACHMENT B9

10 The budgets outlined in this section are based upon the GCCCD revenue allocation model that the college utilizes in order to allocate resources to increase access and student success among the identified targeted populations. The following budget was developed to provide an outline of the funding for the activities highlighted in the Actions and Activities section of this document: 1. $50,000 (funded through Student Success and Plan) for staff Development for Faculty and Staff who work with disproportionately impacted populations: 2. $60,000 (funded through Plan) for a Student Success Academy Pathway Program (4-6 Cohorts) $50,000 (funded through Plan) for Pathway Program $5,000 (funded through Plan) for Male STEM Conference $5,000 (funded through Plan)for ESL Conference 3. $5,000 (funded through Plan) for enhanced support for the UP! Program for Foster Youth 4. $5,000 (funded through Plan) for enhanced support for Veterans 5. $5,000 (funded through Plan) for Student with Disabilities Conference 6. $5,000 (funded through Plan and General Fund) for a Transfer/Career Fair 7. $3,500 (funded through Plan) for concurrent Enrollment and COUN 110/120 Courses targeted for feeder high schools 8. $5,000 (funded through Plan) for Student Success workshops for EOPS, CalWORKs, DSPS 9. $55,000 (funded through Student Success Plan and Plan) for Supplemental Instruction and Embedded Tutoring for disproportionately impacted students in developmental Math, English and ESL 10. $130,176 for staffing (funded through Student Success and ) Hire a Dean Hire adjunct counselors Hire support staff for counseling and follow-up services Hire peer mentors and tutors/supplemental Instructors Hire support staff for Veterans Total Allocation for Resources: $323,676 7 P age ATTACHMENT B10

11 CONTACT PERSON FOR COORDINATION: Dr. Scott W. Thayer Cuyamaca College Vice President, Student Services 900 Rancho San Diego Parkway El Cajon, CA (619) CAMPUS RESOURCES TO SUPPORT STUDENT EQUITY: The Cuyamaca College Plan is coordinated by the Vice President of Student Services at Cuyamaca College and is integrated with the following college plans, initiatives, and committees within the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District (GCCCD): the GCCCD Educational Master Plan, the District Strategic Plan/Integrated Planning, and the GCCCD Student Success Committee. The plan is also coordinated at the college level with the Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) Plan and Committee, Student Success and Basic Skills Committee, Accreditation Committee, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee, and program review committees for Student Services. The and the Student Success and Support Program planning processes are coordinated with the colleges at the district level through the Student Success Committee. The Student Success Committee reports to the District Coordinating Educational Council (DCEC) a districtwide participatory governance committee. The Student Success Committee is co-chaired by the Vice Presidents of Student Services at the colleges (Cuyamaca College and Grossmont College). The composition of the committee includes a representative from each college who serves in the following capacity: Vice President of Instruction/Academic Affairs, Dean of Counseling, Academic Senate President, Department Chair of General Counseling, and faculty co-chair of Basic Skills Committee, Senior Dean of Research, Senior Dean of Information Systems, an academic dean, and student representatives. The primary purpose of the Student Success Committee is to serve as a means for districtwide collaboration regarding student success initiatives. The committee provides leadership with the planning, implementation, and evaluation of a comprehensive student success plan that includes, but is not limited to, components of the Student Success Task Force recommendations, American Association of Community Colleges reports, Student Success Scorecard, and College and District Strategic Areas of Focus. In addition, the committee monitors and makes policy and procedural recommendations to DCEC regarding legislative changes, such as the Student Success Act of 2012, Title 5, and Education Code. 8 P age ATTACHMENT B11

12 The framework for the Plan was developed through the workgroup participation in the following activities: Date: February 2014 March 2014 April 15, 2014 April 16, 2014 May 19, 2014 August 18, 2014 September 29, 2014 October 29, 2014 May 9, 2014 August 11, 2014 August 13, 2014 November 13, 2014 December 9, 2014 November 25, 2014 December 9, 2014 December 9, 2015 Activity: Cuyamaca College designated as a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) Alliance of Hispanic Serving Institution Educators (AHSIE) Conference Meetings/Webinars : College Council Retreat Presentation: and SSSP Instructional Council Retreat Presentation: and SSSP College Convocation Presentation: and SSSP Academic Senate Presentation: Cuyamaca College Council Presentation: Board of Trustees: Plan The Student Success Committee works with the districtwide Research, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness office that evaluates and measures student access, persistence, retention, matriculation, student learning, and ultimately student success on our campus and within the district. Data from the recent environmental scan reveals the enrollment at the college is on par with the demographics of Cuyamaca College s service area. 9 P age ATTACHMENT B12

13 Table 1 below summarizes the indicators of possible disproportionate impact by the different population groups of students across all measures investigated in this report. Table 1: Summary Table by Race/Ethnicity Course Completion Preparation Remedial English Remedial Math ESL 30+ Units CTE Persistence Completion Completion Completion Transfer African American American Indian Asian Filipino Hispanic Pacific Islander White Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No No Yes 2 No No No No Yes Yes N/A No No No No Yes 2 No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes N/A No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes N/A No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes 1 No No Yes 1 No No No No No Table 2 defines the summary categories: Table 2: Summary Categories Classification Description Yes Disproportionate impact indicated by BOTH the 80% test and the proportionality test (< 0.90) Yes 1 Disproportionate impact indicated by the 80% test but NOT the proportionality test (>= 0.90) Yes 2 No N/A Disproportionate impact indicated by the proportionality test (< 0.90) but NOT the 80% test Disproportionate impact NOT indicated Sample size less than 30 students 10 P age ATTACHMENT B13

14 CAMPUS-BASED RESEARCH 11 P age ATTACHMENT B14

15 CAMPUS BASED RESEARCH MEASURING DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT Using cohorts and outcomes from the California Community Colleges Chancellor s Office (CCCCO) Student Success Scorecard and DataMart, this document presents two methodologies to measure disproportionate impact for disaggregated subgroups within the California Community Colleges (CCC) student population: the 80% test and the proportionality test. Disproportionate impact occurs when the percentage of persons from a particular racial, ethnic, gender, age or disability group who are directed to a particular service or placement based on an assessment instrument, method, or procedure is significantly different from the representation of that group in the population of persons being assessed, and that discrepancy is not justified by empirical evidence demonstrating that the assessment instrument, method or procedure is a valid and reliable predictor of performance in the relevant educational setting. [Title 5 Section 55502(d)] The second-to-last column of all tables disaggregated by cohort student characteristics contains an evaluation of possible disproportionate impact for each subgroup of students using the 80% Rule outlined in the 1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and was used in Title VII enforcement by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice. The 80% Rule states that: A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact. [Section 60-3, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure (1978); 43 FR 38295(August 25, 1978)] Subgroups that do not comprise at least two percent of the cohort are denoted by with an asterisk (*). The bold percentage located at the bottom of the disproportionate impact column provides the outcome percentage of the reference group multiplied by 80 percent (the reference group is provided in parentheses). The last column of all tables contains the results obtained from the proportionality methodology. The proportionality methodology compares the percentage of a disaggregated subgroup in an initial cohort to its own percentage in the resultant outcome group. The formula for proportionality is the percentage in the outcome group divided by the percentage in the original cohort (outcome percentage/cohort percentage). For example, 6.2 percent of the first-time, degree/transfer-seeking cohort is comprised of African American or Black students; whereas 5.5 percent of the students who achieved a successful outcome (i.e., degree, certificate, transfer, or transfer-prepared) were African American or Black students. Dividing 5.5% by 6.2% we find a proportionality index of The higher the proportionality, the higher the rate at which a subgroup has attained a desired educational outcome; the lower the proportionality index, the lower the attainment rate. 12 P age ATTACHMENT B15

16 Table 3: Proportionality Index Proportionality Index Interpretation 1.0 Proportions of subgroups are equal. Less Than 1.0 More Than 1.0 Subgroup is less prevalent in the outcome group. Subgroup is more prevalent in the outcome group. The proportionality methodology does not specify at which point a proportionality index should be considered as a disproportionate impact. The designation of which disaggregated subgroups should be considered as disproportionately impacted will rely on the judgment of the analysis team at the college. A. ACCESS: COMPARE THE PERCENTAGE OF EACH POPULATION GROUP THAT IS ENROLLED TO Overview: THE PERCENTAGE OF EACH GROUP IN THE ADULT POPULATION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY SERVED. The percentage of each population group that is enrolled in the college is comparable to the community served based upon the past five year trends; with the exception of Hispanic/Latino students (24.9% at Cuyamaca College compared to 36.2% living in the service area). The percentage of Hispanic/Latino students and the service area population has increased from the cohort (21.8% to 28.7%). Cuyamaca College was designated a Hispanic Servicing Institution (HSI) in and has reapplied each year since. 1. ETHNICITY Table 4: Cuyamaca College Service Area Population and Student Comparison by Race/Ethnicity Course Completion Preparation Remedial English Remedial Math ESL 30+ Units CTE Persistence Completion Completion Completion Transfer African American American Indian Asian Filipino Hispanic Pacific Islander Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A No No Yes 2 No No No No Yes Yes N/A No No No No Yes 2 No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes N/A No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes No No No Yes N/A No No No No Yes White Unknown No No No No No No No No No No No Yes 1 No No Yes 1 No No No No No SOURCE: GCCCD Research Database and SANDAG Population Estimates (retrieved on 1/29/14). NOTE: Service area is defined by the zip codes in which 90% of the enrolled students reside in each academic year. 13 P age ATTACHMENT B16

17 2. GENDER The percentage of the population group (female and male) that are enrolled in the college is comparable to the community served based upon the past five year trends. Table 5: Cuyamaca College Service Area Population and Student Comparison by Gender Service Area CC Students Population Service Area CC Students Population Service Area CC Students Population Service Area CC Students Population Service Area CC Students Population Average Service Area CC Students Population Female 56.8% 49.9% 54.8% 50.2% 54.9% 50.4% 53.4% 50.3% 53.0% 50.4% 54.7% 50.2% Male 42.2% 50.1% 43.9% 49.8% 44.0% 49.6% 45.6% 49.7% 46.2% 49.6% 44.3% 49.8% Unknown 1.0% 0.0% 1.3% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% SOURCE: GCCCD Research Database and SANDAG Population Estimates (retrieved on 6/18/14). NOTE: Service area is defined by the zip codes in which 90% of the enrolled students reside in each academic year. 14 P age ATTACHMENT B17

18 3. AGE The percentage of the population group between the ages of that are enrolled in the college are considerably higher (52.9% compared to 13.2%) compared to the community served based upon the past five year trends. The percentage of students between the ages of are underrepresented at the college (15% compared to 35.8%). Table 6: Cuyamaca College Service Area Population and Student Comparison by Age Service Area CC Students Population Service Area CC Students Population Service Area CC Students Population Service Area CC Students Population Service Area CC Students Population Average Service Area CC Students Population Years 10.7% 12.5% 8.7% 12.1% 6.5% 12.9% 2.9% 12.7% 3.1% 12.5% 6.6% 12.5% Years 49.4% 13.4% 53.3% 13.2% 52.4% 13.1% 55.1% 13.1% 54.9% 13.0% 52.9% 13.2% Years 11.4% 9.0% 11.6% 9.6% 12.8% 9.4% 13.4% 9.4% 14.0% 9.5% 12.6% 9.4% Years 11.0% 17.1% 11.2% 17.2% 12.7% 16.3% 13.0% 16.1% 13.1% 16.4% 12.1% 16.7% Years 16.2% 35.8% 14.5% 35.7% 15.0% 35.9% 14.8% 35.9% 14.3% 35.7% 15.0% 35.8% 65+ Years 1.3% 12.2% 0.8% 12.2% 0.7% 12.4% 0.7% 12.6% 0.6% 12.9% 0.8% 12.4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% SOURCE: GCCCD Research Database and SANDAG Population Estimates (retrieved on 1/29/14). NOTE: Service area is defined by the zip codes in which 90% of the enrolled students reside in each academic year. 15 P age ATTACHMENT B18

19 B. COURSE COMPLETION: RATIO OF THE NUMBER OF CREDIT COURSES THAT STUDENTS BY Overview POPULATION GROUP ACTUALLY COMPLETE BY THE END OF THE TERM COMPARED TO THE NUMBER OF COURSES IN WHICH STUDENTS IN THAT GROUP ARE ENROLLED ON THE CENSUS DAY OF THE TERM. 1. COURSE SUCCESS Between fall 2009 and fall 2013 Cuyamaca College displayed an average annual course success rate of 69.0% and has increased from three percent in the past five years. Asian students had the highest course success rate at 73.6%, followed by White students (73.2%) and Filipino students (71.9%). Hispanic students (64.6%), Native American students (62.8%) and African American students (54.5%) had the lowest annual course success rate. Table 7: Course Success Rates by Race/Ethnicity, Fall Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Five-Year Average African American 52.2% 53.5% 54.4% 57.0% 56.3% 54.5% YES 0.79 (n = 1546) (n = 1661) (n = 1192) (n = 1203) (n = 1347) (n = 6949) American Indian 55.3% 64.2% 67.9% 67.2% 66.0% 62.8% NO* 0.91 (n = 150) (n = 123) (n = 78) (n = 61) (n = 94) (n = 506) Asian 74.8% 71.3% 71.5% 78.4% 72.8% 73.6% NO 1.07 (n = 811) (n = 929) (n = 710) (n = 633) (n = 643) (n = 3726) Filipino 66.0% 74.6% 72.6% 74.8% 72.3% 71.9% NO 1.04 (n = 556) (n = 531) (n = 423) (n = 457) (n = 469) (n = 2436) Hispanic 60.4% 62.9% 66.4% 67.0% 66.1% 64.6% NO 0.94 (n = 5803) (n = 6536) (n = 5721) (n = 6060) (n = 6918) (n = 31038) Pacific Islander 58.5% 64.4% 79.7% 70.2% 60.2% 65.5% NO* 0.95 (n = 212) (n = 194) (n = 128) (n = 104) (n = 118) (n = 756) Two or More 61.8% 65.6% 65.9% 71.5% 68.1% 66.6% NO 0.97 (n = 1459) (n = 1662) (n = 1473) (n = 1488) (n = 1529) (n = 7611) White 69.8% 71.4% 73.7% 75.7% 76.7% 73.2% NO 1.06 (n = 11083) (n = 11409) (n = 9287) (n = 8848) (n = 9147) (n = 49774) Unknown 74.1% 71.6% 71.5% 76.9% 75.9% 73.4% NO 1.06 (n = 1998) (n = 1574) (n = 917) (n = 653) (n = 461) (n = 5603) Total 66.1% 67.5% 69.7% 71.6% 70.8% 69.0% 58.6% (n = 23618) (n = 24619) (n = 19929) (n = 19507) (n = 20726) (n = ) (White) SOURCE: GCCCD Colleague Reports (retrieved on 6/16/2014). Samples based on duplicated enrollments. Success Rate = (Grades A, B, C, P) / (Grades A, B, C, D, F, P, NP, I, W). 16 P age ATTACHMENT B19

20 Table 8: Course Success Rates by Gender, Fall Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Five-Year Average Female 68.7% 69.5% 71.1% 73.3% 72.1% 70.8% NO 1.03 (n = 12876) (n = 13348) (n = 10596) (n = 10295) (n = 10715) (n = 57830) Male 62.8% 65.2% 67.9% 69.5% 69.5% 66.8% NO 0.97 (n = 10571) (n = 11053) (n = 9148) (n = 9031) (n = 9870) (n = 49673) Unknown 71.9% 65.8% 70.3% 76.8% 70.9% 70.9% NO* 1.03 (n = 171) (n = 219) (n = 185) (n = 181) (n = 141) (n = 897) Total 66.1% 67.5% 69.7% 71.6% 70.8% 69.0% 56.6% (n = 23618) (n = 24620) (n = 19929) (n = 19507) (n = 20726) (n = ) (Female) SOURCE: GCCCD Colleague Reports (retrieved on 6/16/2014). Samples based on duplicated enrollments. Success Rate = (Grades A, B, C, P) / (Grades A, B, C, D, F, P, NP, I, W). Table 9: Course Success Rates by Age, Fall Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Five-Year Average < 20 years 64.9% 66.6% 70.9% 71.8% 71.2% 68.6% NO 1.00 (n = 8592) (n = 8550) (n = 6384) (n = 5857) (n = 6515) (n = 35898) years 62.7% 65.4% 65.6% 68.5% 67.2% 65.8% NO 0.95 (n = 7307) (n = 7216) (n = 6096) (n = 6482) (n = 6900) (n = 34001) years 65.1% 66.4% 68.6% 69.9% 70.4% 68.0% NO 0.99 (n = 2398) (n = 2644) (n = 2180) (n = 2230) (n = 2185) (n = 11637) years 72.3% 70.9% 72.6% 75.6% 74.3% 73.0% NO 1.06 (n = 4012) (n = 4732) (n = 3970) (n = 3741) (n = 3856) (n = 20311) 50+ years 75.6% 74.4% 75.1% 77.8% 78.4% 76.2% NO 1.10 (n = 1309) (n = 1478) (n = 1299) (n = 1197) (n = 1270) (n = 6553) Total 66.1% 67.5% 69.7% 71.6% 70.8% 69.0% 60.9% (n = 23618) (n = 24620) (n = 19929) (n = 19507) (n = 20726) (n = ) (50+ years) SOURCE: GCCCD Colleague Reports (retrieved on 6/16/2014). Samples based on duplicated enrollments. Success Rate = (Grades A, B, C, P) / (Grades A, B, C, D, F, P, NP, I, W). 17 P age ATTACHMENT B20

21 Table 10: Course Success Rates by Disability Status, Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall Five-Year Average Yes 62.6% 63.3% 67.5% 66.7% 68.6% 65.9% (n = 1422) (n = 1437) (n = 1315) (n = 1629) (n = 1676) (n = 7479) NO 0.96 No Total 66.3% 67.6% 69.5% 71.8% 70.9% 69.0% (n = 22208) (n = 23202) (n = 18617) (n = 17883) (n = 19057) (n = ) 66.1% 67.3% 69.3% 71.4% 70.7% 68.8% (n = 23630) (n = 24639) (n = 19932) (n = 19512) (n = 20733) (n = ) NO % (Non DSPS) SOURCE: GCCCD Research Database. Samples based on duplicated enrollments. Success Rate = Grades (A, B, C, P)/ Grades (A, B, C, P, D, F, NP, I, W). Table 11: Course Success Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, Fall Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Five-Year Average Yes 64.7% 65.5% 67.4% 70.1% 69.4% 67.4% NO 0.98 (n = 11834) (n = 14430) (n = 13034) (n = 13056) (n = 14235) (n = 66589) No 67.4% 69.9% 73.1% 73.9% 73.7% 70.9% NO 1.03 (n = 11796) (n = 10209) (n = 6898) (n = 6456) (n = 6498) (n = 41857) Total 66.1% 67.3% 69.3% 71.4% 70.7% 68.8% 56.7% (n = 23630) (n = 24639) (n = 19932) (n = 19512) (n = 20733) (n = ) (No Econ) SOURCE: GCCCD Research Database. Samples based on duplicated enrollments. Success Rate = Grades (A, B, C, P)/ Grades (A, B, C, P, D, F, NP, I, W). 18 P age ATTACHMENT B21

22 Table 12: Course Success Rates by Veteran Status, Fall Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Five-Year Average Yes 71.4% 70.9% 75.3% 76.0% 72.6% 73.2% NO 1.06 (n = 1121) (n = 1145) (n = 1048) (n = 1179) (n = 1159) (n = 5652) No 65.8% 67.1% 69.0% 71.1% 70.6% 68.6% NO 1.00 (n = 22509) (n = 23494) (n = 18884) (n = 18333) (n = 19574) (n = ) Total 66.1% 67.3% 69.3% 71.4% 70.7% 68.8% 54.9% (n = 23630) (n = 24639) (n = 19932) (n = 19512) (n = 20733) (n = ) (Non Vet) SOURCE: GCCCD Research Database. Samples based on duplicated enrollments. Success Rate = Grades (A, B, C, P)/ Grades (A, B, C, P, D, F, NP, I, W). C. ESL AND BASIC SKILLS COMPLETION: RATIO OF THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS BY Overview 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. 1. PREPARATION RATES The ratio of students who completed a degree applicable course after having completed their final ESL or Basic Skills course identifies a disproportionate impact for the following groups of students; Asian (15.1%), Filipino (14.0%), African American (12.4%), and Hispanic (11.6%). The five year average for the baseline group (White students) was 20.6%. Economically disadvantaged students (11.7%) are also disproportionately impacted in preparation rates. 19 P age ATTACHMENT B22

23 Table 13: Preparation Rate Five-Year Trends by Race/Ethnicity African American 10.6% 10.4% 12.8% 10.6% 16.5% 12.4% YES 0.72 (n = 66) (n = 67) (n = 47) (n = 66) (n = 85) (n = 331) American Indian 22.2% 8.3% 0.0% 50.0% 30.8% 22.6% NO* 1.32 (n = 9) (n = 12) (n = 9) (n = 10) (n = 13) (n = 53) Asian 17.6% 9.7% 22.6% 14.7% 12.1% 15.1% YES 0.88 (n = 17) (n = 31) (n = 31) (n = 34) (n = 33) (n = 146) Filipino 8.0% 23.1% 23.3% 12.1% 0.0% 14.0% YES 0.81 (n = 25) (n = 26) (n = 30) (n = 33) (n = 22) (n = 136) Hispanic 10.6% 15.6% 11.5% 10.1% 10.7% 11.6% YES 0.67 (n = 226) (n = 205) (n = 209) (n = 248) (n = 289) (n = 1177) Pacific Islander 26.7% 12.5% 30.8% 12.5% 26.3% 22.5% NO* 1.31 (n = 15) (n = 8) (n = 13) (n = 16) (n = 19) (n = 71) White 21.3% 18.8% 22.2% 21.5% 19.2% 20.6% NO 1.20 (n = 530) (n = 484) (n = 504) (n = 553) (n = 637) (n = 2708) Unknown 16.8% 17.1% 12.9% 17.4% 15.6% 15.8% YES 0.92 (n = 125) (n = 111) (n = 155) (n = 144) (n = 167) (n = 702) Total 17.4% 16.9% 18.0% 17.4% 16.3% 17.2% 16.5% (n = 1013) (n = 944) (n = 998) (n = 1104) (n = 1265) (n = 5324) (White) 20 P age ATTACHMENT B23

24 Table 14: Preparation Rate Five-Year Trends by Gender Female 16.2% 18.2% 15.2% 18.6% 14.6% 16.5% NO 0.96 (n = 551) (n = 494) (n = 506) (n = 607) (n = 691) (n = 2849) Male 18.4% 15.6% 21.8% 15.9% 18.4% 18.0% NO 1.05 (n = 450) (n = 442) (n = 454) (n = 492) (n = 570) (n = 2408) Total 17.4% 16.9% 18.0% 17.4% 16.3% 17.2% 14.4% (n = 1013) (n = 944) (n = 998) (n = 1104) (n = 1265) (n = 5324) (Males) Table 15: Preparation Rate Five-Year Trends by Age Yes 3.4% 7.3% 3.7% 8.3% 4.2% 5.3% YES 0.31 (n = 58) (n = 41) (n = 54) (n = 60) (n = 72) (n = 285) No 18.2% 17.4% 18.9% 17.9% 17.0% 17.8% NO 1.04 (n = 955) (n = 903) (n = 944) (n = 1044) (n = 1193) (n = 5039) Total 17.4% 16.9% 18.0% 17.4% 16.3% 17.2% 14.3% (n = 1013) (n = 944) (n = 998) (n = 1104) (n = 1265) (n = 5324) (Not DSPS) Table 16: Preparation Rate Five-Year Trends by Disability Status (n = 58) (n = 41) (n = 54) (n = 60) (n = 72) (n = 285) No 18.2% 17.4% 18.9% 17.9% 17.0% 17.8% NO 1.04 (n = 955) (n = 903) (n = 944) (n = 1044) (n = 1193) (n = 5039) Total 17.4% 16.9% 18.0% 17.4% 16.3% 17.2% 14.3% (n = 1013) (n = 944) (n = 998) (n = 1104) (n = 1265) (n = 5324) (Not DSPS) 21 P age ATTACHMENT B24

25 Table 17: Preparation Rate Five-Year Trends by Economically Disadvantaged Yes 12.9% 11.1% 12.2% 11.8% 10.9% 11.7% YES 0.68 (n = 505) (n = 523) (n = 557) (n = 634) (n = 752) (n = 2971) No 21.9% 24.2% 25.4% 24.9% 24.2% 24.1% NO 1.40 (n = 508) (n = 421) (n = 441) (n = 470) (n = 513) (n = 2353) Total 17.4% 16.9% 18.0% 17.4% 16.3% 17.2% 19.3% (n = 1013) (n = 944) (n = 998) (n = 1104) (n = 1265) (n = 5324) (No Econ) Table 18: Preparation Rate Five-Year Trends by Veteran Status Yes 22.4% 25.0% 13.3% 11.1% 13.2% 17.9% NO 1.04 (n = 49) (n = 40) (n = 30) (n = 27) (n = 38) (n = 184) No 17.1% 16.6% 18.2% 17.5% 16.4% 17.1% NO 1.00 (n = 964) (n = 904) (n = 968) (n = 1077) (n = 1227) (n = 5140) Total 17.4% 16.9% 18.0% 17.4% 16.3% 17.2% 13.7% (n = 1013) (n = 944) (n = 998) (n = 1104) (n = 1265) (n = 5324) (Non Vet) 22 P age ATTACHMENT B25

26 Overview 2. REMEDIAL ENGLISH PROGRESS RATES The five year trend for remedial English progress rate identifies disproportionate impact in the following groups of students: African American (26.9%) and Native American (29.9%). Table 21 highlights that all age groups are disproportionately impacted by remedial English progress rates compared to the five year average for the baseline group of 44.5%. Table 19: Remedial English Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Race/Ethnicity African American 34.1% 24.5% 24.6% 23.5% 28.3% 26.9% YES 0.66 (n = 82) (n = 110) (n = 69) (n = 98) (n = 99) (n = 458) American Indian 14.3% 31.6% 40.0% 33.3% 30.0% 29.9% YES* 0.73 (n = 14) (n = 19) (n = 15) (n = 9) (n = 10) (n = 67) Asian 33.3% 46.7% 50.0% 35.7% 40.6% 41.7% NO 1.02 (n = 18) (n = 30) (n = 24) (n = 28) (n = 32) (n = 132) Filipino 38.5% 47.8% 36.0% 46.2% 40.7% 41.7% NO 1.02 (n = 26) (n = 23) (n = 25) (n = 26) (n = 27) (n = 127) Hispanic 35.8% 31.9% 36.1% 44.5% 34.8% 36.7% NO 0.90 (n = 212) (n = 232) (n = 244) (n = 254) (n = 270) (n = 1212) Pacific Islander 37.5% 28.6% 28.6% 53.8% 37.5% 36.9% NO* 0.90 (n = 8) (n = 14) (n = 14) (n = 13) (n = 16) (n = 65) White 43.7% 43.2% 43.9% 45.1% 46.6% 44.5% NO 1.09 (n = 462) (n = 481) (n = 474) (n = 443) (n = 498) (n = 2358) Unknown 46.5% 40.0% 46.8% 49.1% 50.4% 46.8% NO 1.15 (n = 99) (n = 100) (n = 139) (n = 110) (n = 131) (n = 579) Total 40.5% 38.1% 40.7% 43.0% 41.8% 40.8% 35.6% (n = 921) (n = 1009) (n = 1004) (n = 981) (n = 1083) (n = 4998) (White) 23 P age ATTACHMENT B26

27 Table 20: Remedial English Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Gender Female 44.1% 40.6% 44.0% 47.2% 46.2% 44.5% NO 1.09 (n = 512) (n = 517) (n = 489) (n = 538) (n = 569) (n = 2625) Male 36.1% 35.2% 36.9% 38.0% 36.9% 36.6% NO 0.90 (n = 402) (n = 486) (n = 488) (n = 439) (n = 512) (n = 2327) Total 40.5% 38.1% 40.7% 43.0% 41.8% 40.8% 35.6% (n = 921) (n = 1009) (n = 1004) (n = 981) (n = 1083) (n = 4998) (Females) NOTE: Unknown category not included in the table. 24 P age ATTACHMENT B27

28 Table 21: Remedial English Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Age (n = 590) (n = 663) (n = 666) (n = 655) (n = 685) (n = 3259) years 28.2% 25.5% 34.0% 36.5% 33.9% 31.7% YES 0.78 (n = 163) (n = 157) (n = 156) (n = 148) (n = 221) (n = 845) years 32.0% 25.8% 23.3% 30.5% 32.7% 28.7% YES 0.70 (n = 100) (n = 120) (n = 116) (n = 105) (n = 110) (n = 551) 40+ years 21.0% 23.9% 20.5% 26.0% 23.9% 23.3% YES 0.57 (n = 62) (n = 67) (n = 44) (n = 73) (n = 67) (n = 313) Total 40.5% 38.1% 40.7% 43.0% 41.8% 40.8% 37.5% (n = 921) (n = 1009) (n = 1004) (n = 981) (n = 1083) (n = 4998) (<20 years) NOTE: Unknown category not included in the table. Table 22: Remedial English Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Disability Status (n = 74) (n = 75) (n = 78) (n = 71) (n = 75) (n = 373) No 41.6% 38.9% 41.1% 43.3% 42.9% 41.6% NO 1.02 (n = 847) (n = 934) (n = 926) (n = 910) (n = 1008) (n = 4625) Total 40.5% 38.1% 40.7% 43.0% 41.8% 40.8% 33.2% (n = 921) (n = 1009) (n = 1004) (n = 981) (n = 1083) (n = 4998) (Not DSPS) Table 23: Remedial English Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Economically Disadvantaged Yes 36.7% 36.7% 40.0% 38.9% 39.7% 38.5% NO 0.94 (n = 392) (n = 460) (n = 482) (n = 507) (n = 534) (n = 2375) No 43.3% 39.2% 41.4% 47.5% 43.9% 42.9% NO 1.05 (n = 529) (n = 549) (n = 522) (n = 474) (n = 549) (n = 2623) Total 40.5% 38.1% 40.7% 43.0% 41.8% 40.8% 34.3% (n = 921) (n = 1009) (n = 1004) (n = 981) (n = 1083) (n = 4998) (No Econ) Table 24: Remedial English Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Veteran Status 25 P age ATTACHMENT B28

29 Yes 40.0% 30.2% 28.9% 40.0% 51.2% 37.9% NO 0.93 (n = 45) (n = 43) (n = 45) (n = 45) (n = 41) (n = 219) No 40.5% 38.4% 41.3% 43.2% 41.5% 41.0% NO 1.00 (n = 876) (n = 966) (n = 959) (n = 936) (n = 1042) (n = 4779) Total 40.5% 38.1% 40.7% 43.0% 41.8% 40.8% 32.8% (n = 921) (n = 1009) (n = 1004) (n = 981) (n = 1083) (n = 4998) (Non Vet) 3. REMEDIAL MATH PROGRESS RATES Overview The five year trend for remedial Math progress rate identifies disproportionate impact in the following groups of students: Hispanic (29.4%), Native American (27.3%), Pacific Islander (27.3%), Filipino (25.5%) and African American (24.8%) compared to the five year average of 40.3%. Students less than 20 years of old (34.1%) and students between the age of (31.9%) are also disproportionately impacted in remedial math progress rates. 26 P age ATTACHMENT B29

30 Table 25: Remedial Math Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Race/Ethnicity African American 29.1% 25.0% 12.5% 29.5% 22.6% 24.8% YES 0.71 (n = 79) (n = 68) (n = 40) (n = 61) (n = 62) (n = 310) American Indian 16.7% 40.0% 20.0% 42.9% 20.0% 27.3% YES* 0.78 (n = 12) (n = 10) (n = 5) (n = 7) (n = 10) (n = 44) Asian 33.3% 18.8% 50.0% 60.0% 38.9% 39.7% NO 1.13 (n = 12) (n = 16) (n = 12) (n = 15) (n = 18) (n = 73) Filipino 38.5% 23.1% 8.3% 33.3% 25.0% 25.5% YES* 0.73 (n = 13) (n = 13) (n = 12) (n = 9) (n = 4) (n = 51) Hispanic 31.7% 26.1% 31.8% 29.8% 26.8% 29.4% YES 0.84 (n = 183) (n = 153) (n = 151) (n = 151) (n = 142) (n = 780) Pacific Islander 12.5% 20.0% 37.5% 28.6% 40.0% 27.3% YES* 0.78 (n = 8) (n = 5) (n = 8) (n = 7) (n = 5) (n = 33) White 39.2% 38.3% 41.7% 39.1% 43.4% 40.3% NO 1.15 (n = 314) (n = 261) (n = 266) (n = 266) (n = 249) (n = 1356) Unknown 36.6% 30.3% 42.7% 39.7% 42.4% 38.8% NO 1.10 (n = 71) (n = 66) (n = 89) (n = 58) (n = 85) (n = 369) Total 35.0% 31.8% 36.5% 36.1% 36.2% 35.1% 32.2% (n = 692) (n = 592) (n = 583) (n = 574) (n = 575) (n = 3016) (White) 27 P age ATTACHMENT B30

31 Table 26: Remedial Math Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Gender Female 36.5% 33.2% 37.0% 40.4% 37.6% 36.9% NO 1.05 (n = 419) (n = 355) (n = 341) (n = 334) (n = 338) (n = 1787) Male 32.3% 29.3% 36.0% 29.5% 34.3% 32.3% NO 0.92 (n = 266) (n = 232) (n = 222) (n = 234) (n = 236) (n = 1190) Total 35.0% 31.8% 36.5% 36.1% 36.2% 35.1% 29.5% (n = 692) (n = 592) (n = 583) (n = 574) (n = 575) (n = 3016) (Females) NOTE: Unknown category not included in the table. Table 27 Remedial Math Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Age <20 years 35.6% 32.1% 35.7% 34.4% 32.4% 34.1% YES 0.97 (n = 264) (n = 221) (n = 263) (n = 253) (n = 247) (n = 1248) years 32.0% 30.6% 32.8% 27.7% 35.6% 31.9% YES 0.91 (n = 169) (n = 124) (n = 122) (n = 112) (n = 135) (n = 662) years 34.7% 30.3% 33.0% 41.9% 39.5% 35.5% NO 1.01 (n = 147) (n = 155) (n = 109) (n = 117) (n = 114) (n = 642) 40+ years 39.8% 36.4% 52.1% 43.5% 44.3% 42.7% NO 1.22 (n = 108) (n = 88) (n = 73) (n = 92) (n = 79) (n = 440) Total 35.0% 31.8% 36.5% 36.1% 36.2% 35.1% 34.2% (n = 692) (n = 592) (n = 583) (n = 574) (n = 575) (n = 3016) (50+ years) NOTE: Unknown category not included in the table. 28 P age ATTACHMENT B31

32 Table 28: Remedial Math Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Disability Status Yes 37.5% 41.0% 47.8% 50.0% 35.3% 42.2% NO 1.20 (n = 56) (n = 61) (n = 67) (n = 56) (n = 68) (n = 308) No 34.7% 30.7% 35.1% 34.6% 36.3% 34.3% NO 0.98 (n = 636) (n = 531) (n = 516) (n = 518) (n = 507) (n = 2708) Total 35.0% 31.8% 36.5% 36.1% 36.2% 35.1% 27.4% (n = 692) (n = 592) (n = 583) (n = 574) (n = 575) (n = 3016) (Not DSPS) Table 29: Remedial Math Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Economically Disadvantaged Yes 33.7% 34.5% 36.6% 37.3% 38.2% 36.0% NO 1.03 (n = 362) (n = 307) (n = 320) (n = 335) (n = 322) (n = 1646) No 36.4% 28.8% 36.5% 34.3% 33.6% 33.9% NO 0.97 (n = 330) (n = 285) (n = 263) (n = 239) (n = 253) (n = 1370) Total 35.0% 31.8% 36.5% 36.1% 36.2% 35.1% 27.2% (n = 692) (n = 592) (n = 583) (n = 574) (n = 575) (n = 3016) (No Econ) Table 30: Remedial Math Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Veteran Status Yes 41.3% 41.5% 38.2% 42.5% 48.6% 42.4% NO 1.21 (n = 46) (n = 41) (n = 34) (n = 40) (n = 37) (n = 198) No 34.5% 31.0% 36.4% 35.6% 35.3% 34.6% NO 0.99 (n = 646) (n = 551) (n = 549) (n = 534) (n = 538) (n = 2818) Total 35.0% 31.8% 36.5% 36.1% 36.2% 35.1% 27.7% (n = 692) (n = 592) (n = 583) (n = 574) (n = 575) (n = 3016) (Non Vet) 29 P age ATTACHMENT B32

33 4. ESL PROGRESS RATES Overview The five year trend for remedial ESL progress rate identifies disproportionate impact in the following groups of students: Hispanic (16.6%) and *Filipino (20.0%) compared to the five year average for the baseline group of 28.0%. Males (19.9%) and students aged (21.7%), (20.5%) and over 40 years old (19.6%) are also disproportionately impacted in remedial ESL progress rates. Table 31: Remedial ESL Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Race/Ethnicity (n = 3) (n = 3) (n = 1) (n = 2) (n = 3) (n = 12) American Indian NA NA NA NA NA NA N/A N/A (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) Asian 10.5% 35.3% 42.9% 31.6% 36.8% 30.7% NO 1.34 (n = 19) (n = 17) (n = 14) (n = 19) (n = 19) (n = 88) Filipino 25.0% NA 16.7% 0.0% 33.3% 20.0% YES* 0.88 (n = 4) (n = 0) (n = 6) (n = 2) (n = 3) (n = 15) Hispanic 18.0% 9.6% 20.3% 18.2% 16.0% 16.6% YES 0.72 (n = 61) (n = 52) (n = 59) (n = 55) (n = 75) (n = 302) Pacific Islander 0.0% NA NA 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% N/A N/A (n = 1) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 1) (n = 1) (n = 3) White 23.5% 22.0% 38.9% 34.6% 26.9% 28.0% NO 1.22 (n = 68) (n = 59) (n = 36) (n = 52) (n = 78) (n = 293) Unknown 6.1% 18.4% 24.0% 19.6% 40.0% 21.5% YES 0.94 (n = 49) (n = 38) (n = 50) (n = 46) (n = 45) (n = 228) Total 16.1% 18.3% 27.7% 24.9% 27.2% 22.8% 24.5% (n = 205) (n = 169) (n = 166) (n = 177) (n = 224) (n = 941) (Asian) 30 P age ATTACHMENT B33

34 Table 32: Remedial ESL Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Gender (n = 117) (n = 107) (n = 111) (n = 124) (n = 143) (n = 602) Male 18.6% 10.7% 33.3% 20.8% 19.8% 19.9% YES 0.87 (n = 70) (n = 56) (n = 42) (n = 53) (n = 81) (n = 302) Total 16.1% 18.3% 27.7% 24.9% 27.2% 22.8% 20.1% (n = 205) (n = 169) (n = 166) (n = 177) (n = 224) (n = 941) (Females) NOTE: Unknown category not included in the table. Table 33: Remedial ESL Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Age <20 years 32.0% 14.3% 42.4% 46.2% 50.0% 37.3% NO 1.63 (n = 25) (n = 28) (n = 33) (n = 26) (n = 30) (n = 142) years 19.4% 28.1% 10.0% 23.1% 23.5% 21.7% YES 0.95 (n = 36) (n = 32) (n = 20) (n = 39) (n = 34) (n = 161) years 10.7% 13.5% 30.8% 21.9% 26.1% 20.5% YES 0.90 (n = 75) (n = 52) (n = 52) (n = 64) (n = 88) (n = 331) 40+ years 15.6% 18.9% 24.5% 18.8% 20.8% 19.6% YES 0.86 (n = 64) (n = 53) (n = 49) (n = 48) (n = 72) (n = 286) Total 16.1% 18.3% 27.7% 24.9% 27.2% 22.8% 29.9% (n = 205) (n = 169) (n = 166) (n = 177) (n = 224) (n = 941) (<20 years) 31 P age ATTACHMENT B34

35 Table 34: Remedial ESL Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Disability Status Yes 40.0% 20.0% 42.9% 16.7% 31.3% 31.8% NO 1.39 (n = 10) (n = 5) (n = 7) (n = 6) (n = 16) (n = 44) No 14.9% 18.3% 27.0% 25.1% 26.9% 22.4% NO 0.98 (n = 195) (n = 164) (n = 159) (n = 171) (n = 208) (n = 897) Total 16.1% 18.3% 27.7% 24.9% 27.2% 22.8% 17.9% (n = 205) (n = 169) (n = 166) (n = 177) (n = 224) (n = 941) (Not DSPS) Table 35: Remedial ESL Progress Rate Five-Year Trends by Economically Disadvantaged Yes 15.2% 20.8% 32.6% 27.1% 32.5% 25.8% NO 1.13 (n = 151) (n = 125) (n = 132) (n = 133) (n = 169) (n = 710) No 18.5% 11.4% 8.8% 18.2% 10.9% 13.9% NO 0.61 (n = 54) (n = 44) (n = 34) (n = 44) (n = 55) (n = 231) Total 16.1% 18.3% 27.7% 24.9% 27.2% 22.8% 11.1% (n = 205) (n = 169) (n = 166) (n = 177) (n = 224) (n = 941) (No Econ) 32 P age ATTACHMENT B35