Grossmont College 2016 Student Success Key Performance Indicators

Transcription

1 Grossmont College 2016 Student Success Key Performance Indicators

2 1 P age TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: 2016 Key Performance Indicators... 3 Student Success Scorecard... 3 Evaluation of Disproportionate Impact... 4 College Profile All Students First-Time Students Student Access & College Readiness Student Demographics and Service Area Assessment Rates and College Readiness English Assessments Math Assessments Preparation Rates (Student Success Scorecard) Student Success Milestones First Year Enrollment Patterns Developmental Sequence Completion Patterns Developmental English Sequence, College Level Completion Developmental English Sequence, Transfer Level Completion Developmental Math Sequence, College Level Completion Developmental Math Sequence, Transfer Level Completion Remedial Progress Rates (Student Success Scorecard) Remedial English Progress Rates Remedial Math Progress Rates ESL Progress Rates Course Completion Course Success Rates: All Courses Course Success Rates: Transfer Level Courses Course Success Rates: Developmental Courses Course Success Rates: Career Technical Education (CTE) Courses Course Success Rates: Distance Education (DE) Courses Retention Rates Course Retention Rates: All Courses Course Retention Rates: Transfer Level Courses P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

3 2 P age Course Retention Rates: Developmental Courses Course Retention Rates: Career Technical Education (CTE) Courses Course Retention Rates: Distance Education (DE) Courses Persistence Rates ( to Spring) Persistence Rates ( to Spring): All Students Persistence Rates ( to Spring): First-Time Students Persistence Rates ( to ) Persistence Rates ( to ): All Students Persistence Rates ( to ): First-Time Students Persistence Rates (Student Success Scorecard) Units Attempted Units Attempted: All Students Units Attempted: First-Time Students Units Completed Units Completed: All Students Units Completed: First-Time Students Units Completion Rate in First Year Units Completion Rate (Student Success Scorecard) GPA GPA: All Students GPA: First-Time Students Student Success Outcomes Completion Rates (Student Success Scorecard) CTE Completion Rates (Student Success Scorecard) Degrees and Certificates Transfers Transfer Rate (Student Success Scorecard) Number of Transfers: CCCCO Methodology Number of Transfers: GCCCD Methodology Appendix Data Definitions Student Characteristics: GCCCD Research Database Student Characteristics: Student Success Scorecard P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

4 3 P age INTRODUCTION: 2016 KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Developed by the GCCCD Student Success Committee in, the Student Success Framework provided guidance and structure to the student achievement metrics detailed in the Key Performance Indicators Report. As shown in Figure 1, the Framework is based on a student pathways model for student achievement. Measurement and data definitions were developed collaboratively in the Institutional Research and Planning Committee throughout -. This report is to provide the college community with useful information as it relates to students achievement and success as well as to incorporate accountability measures from the Student Success Scorecard. The data collected here is generated both by the California Community College Chancellor s Office (via MIS reporting) and the GCCCD Research Database. Lastly, this is an ongoing process and the future structure of this report will respond to the college s need for data that is aligned with major initiatives associated with Strategic Planning, Enrollment Management, Program Reviews, and other major projects on the campus. Figure 1: GCCCD Student Success Framework GCCCD Student Success Framework ACCESS DEVELOPMENTAL COLLEGE-LEVEL COMPLETION Financial Assistance Pre-assessment Prep Assessment/Orientation/Advisement Long Term Education Plan Registration Before Term Begins Degree Completion Certificate Completion Transfer Outcome Job Placement (Focus on CTE) Licensure/Certification Pass Rates Start English/Math Sequence in First Year Persist in Developmental Sequence Complete Developmental Sequence within 2 Years Update Long Term Education Plan at End of First Year Enroll in Gatekeeper Courses Start English/Math within First Year Pass College Level English/Math Within One Year Continuously Enroll in First Three Primary Terms Complete 30 units of Degree Applicable Work Completion of GE Package within 6 Years Achieve Transfer Preparedness within 6 Years Student Success Scorecard This report makes extensive use of the Student Success Scorecard. The Student Success Task Force (SSTF) recommended the implementation of a new accountability framework, whose purpose is to provide stakeholders with clear and concise information on key student progress and success metrics in order to improve performance. P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

5 4 P age The recommendation specified that a scorecard be built on the existing reporting system, the Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges (ARCC). In 2004, Assembly Bill 1417 triggered the creation of a performance measurement system for the California Community Colleges (CCC). That legislation and ensuing budget action authorized the California Community Colleges Chancellor s Office (CCCCO) to design and implement a performance measurement system containing performance indicators for the system and its colleges. This comprehensive system is known as the Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges, or ARCC. To satisfy the request of the SSTF, the ARCC Advisory Workgroup, which guided the development of the initial accountability system in 2005, was reconvened. The workgroup was represented by individuals from various community college organizations and stakeholder groups, as well as researchers with technical expertise in performance measures. This technical workgroup reviewed the existing framework and designed the new Student Success Scorecard. The data has now been disaggregated by gender, age, ethnicity, disability status, economically disadvantaged status, and veteran status in order for the colleges to monitor achievement gaps. In addition, outcome metrics are further broken down by whether or not first-time students enrolled at the colleges prepared for college level academics. The Student Success Scorecard can be found at the following link: The following report includes synopsis of the overall trends in the scorecard data. EVALUATION OF 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 disproportional impact for disaggregated subgroups within the California Community Colleges (CCC) student population: the 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 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 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, 7.9 percent of the first-time, degree/transfer-seeking cohort is comprised of African American or black students; whereas 6.0 percent of the students who achieved a successful outcome (i.e., degree, certificate, transfer, or transfer-prepared) were African American or black students. Dividing 6.0% by 7.9% 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. P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

6 5 P age 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. ality Index Interpretation 1.0 s 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 tables below summarize the indicators of possible disproportionate impact by the different population groups of students across all measures investigated in this report. The summary categories are defined as: Classification Description Yes Disproportionate impact indicated by BOTH the test and the proportionality test (< 0.90) Yes 1 Disproportionate impact indicated by the 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 test Disproportionate impact NOT indicated Sample size less than 30 students P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

7 6 P age Table 1: Summary of Disproportionate Impact by Race/Ethnicity African American American Indian Asian Filipino Hispanic Pacific Islander White Multi- Racial Student Access ENGL-109/110 Placement Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No ENGL-120 Placement Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 No No MATH-103/110 Placement Yes Yes Yes No No No No No MATH-120 or above Placement Yes Yes 1 No Yes 1 Yes Yes Yes 1 Yes 1 Preparation Rate (SSS) Yes Yes 1 No Yes Yes Yes No No Student Success Milestones: Developmental 1st Year Enrollment Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Developmental English Seq. (College) Yes N/A No No Yes 1 Yes No Yes Developmental English Seq. (Transfer) Yes N/A No No Yes 1 Yes Yes 1 Yes Remedial English Progress (SSS) Yes Yes 1 No No Yes 1 Yes No No Developmental Math Seq. (College) Yes N/A No No Yes 1 N/A No No Developmental Math Seq. (Transfer) Yes N/A Yes1 No Yes N/A Yes 1 Yes 1 Remedial Math Progress (SSS) Yes Yes 1 No No Yes 1 Yes No Yes ESL Progress (SSS) No N/A No Yes Yes 2 N/A No No Course Completion: Developmental Yes Yes No No No Yes 2 No No Student Success Milestones: College Level Course Completion: Overall Yes Yes 2 No No No No No No Course Completion: Transfer Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Course Completion: CTE Yes No No No No No No No Course Completion: DE Yes Yes 2 No No No Yes 2 No No Persistence ( to Spring) Yes 2 Yes 2 No No No No No No 1st Time Persistence ( to Spring) No Yes No No No No No No Persistence ( to ) Yes 2 Yes 2 No No No No No No 1st Time Persistence ( to ) Yes Yes No No No Yes No No Persistence (SSS) No No No No No No No No 24+ Units Completion Yes Yes No Yes 1 Yes Yes Yes 1 Yes1 30+ Units Completion (SSS) Yes No No No No No No No Student Success Outcomes Completion Rate (SSS) Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes 1 CTE Completion Rate (SSS) Yes No No No Yes No No Yes 1 Transfer Rate (SSS) Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes 1 P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

8 7 P age Table 2: Summary of Disproportionate Impact by Gender Female Male Student Access ENGL-109/110 Placement No No ENGL-120 Placement No No MATH-103/110 Placement No No MATH-120 or above Placement Yes No Preparation Rate (SSS) No No Student Success Milestones: Developmental 1st Year Enrollment No No Developmental English Seq. (College) No No Developmental English Seq. (Transfer) No No Remedial English Progress (SSS) No No Developmental Math Seq. (College) No No Developmental Math Seq. (Transfer) No No Remedial Math Progress (SSS) No Yes 2 ESL Progress (SSS) No No Course Completion: Developmental No No Student Success Milestones: College Level Course Completion: Overall No No Course Completion: Transfer No No Course Completion: CTE No No Course Completion: DE No No Persistence ( to Spring) No No 1st Time Persistence ( to Spring) No No Persistence ( to ) No No 1st Time Persistence ( to ) No No Persistence (SSS) No No 24+ Units Completion No No 30+ Units Completion (SSS) No No Student Success Outcomes Completion Rate (SSS) No No CTE Completion Rate (SSS) No No Transfer Rate (SSS) No No P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

9 8 P age Table 3: Summary of Disproportionate Impact by Age <20 years years years 40+ years Student Access ENGL-109/110 Placement No Yes 2 Yes 2 No ENGL-120 Placement Yes 1 Yes 1 No No MATH-103/110 Placement No Yes Yes Yes MATH-120 or above Placement No Yes Yes Yes Preparation Rate (SSS) No No Yes Yes Student Success Milestones: Developmental 1st Year Enrollment No Yes Yes Yes Developmental English Seq. (College) No Yes No Yes 2 Developmental English Seq. (Transfer) No Yes No Yes Remedial English Progress (SSS) No Yes Yes Yes Developmental Math Seq. (College) No Yes No Yes Developmental Math Seq. (Transfer) No Yes No Yes Remedial Math Progress (SSS) No No No No ESL Progress (SSS) No No No Yes Course Completion: Developmental No No No No Student Success Milestones: College Level Course Completion: Overall No No No No Course Completion: Transfer No No No No Course Completion: CTE Yes 2 No No No Course Completion: DE No No No No Persistence ( to Spring) No No No No 1st Time Persistence ( to Spring) No Yes Yes Yes Persistence ( to ) No Yes 1 Yes Yes 1 1st Time Persistence ( to ) No Yes Yes Yes Persistence (SSS) No No No No 24+ Units Completion No Yes Yes Yes 30+ Units Completion (SSS) No Yes 2 No No Student Success Outcomes Completion Rate (SSS) No Yes Yes Yes CTE Completion Rate (SSS) No No No Yes Transfer Rate (SSS) No Yes Yes Yes P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

10 9 P age Table 4: Summary of Disproportionate Impact by Disability Status, Economically Disadvantaged, Veteran Status, Foster Youth, and 1 st Generation Disability Economically Veteran Foster 1st Status Disadvantaged Status Youth Generation Student Access ENGL-109/110 Placement Yes No No Yes No ENGL-120 Placement Yes Yes No Yes Yes MATH-103/110 Placement Yes No Yes Yes No MATH-120 or above Placement Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Preparation Rate (SSS) Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A Student Success Milestones: Developmental 1st Year Enrollment No No No No No Developmental English Seq. (College) Yes 2 No No Yes No Developmental English Seq. (Transfer) Yes 2 No No Yes No Remedial English Progress (SSS) Yes 2 No No N/A N/A Developmental Math Seq. (College) Yes 2 No No Yes No Developmental Math Seq. (Transfer) Yes Yes No N/A Yes Remedial Math Progress (SSS) No No No N/A N/A ESL Progress (SSS) No No N/A N/A N/A Course Completion: Developmental No No No Yes No Student Success Milestones: College Level Course Completion: Overall No No No Yes No Course Completion: Transfer No No No Yes No Course Completion: CTE No No No Yes No Course Completion: DE No No No Yes 2 No Persistence ( to Spring) No No No No No 1st Time Persistence ( to Spring) No No No No No Persistence ( to ) No No No No No 1st Time Persistence ( to ) No No No No No Persistence (SSS) No No No N/A N/A 24+ Units Completion Yes 2 No No No Yes 30+ Units Completion (SSS) No No No N/A N/A Student Success Outcomes Completion Rate (SSS) Yes 2 No No N/A N/A CTE Completion Rate (SSS) No No No N/A N/A Transfer Rate (SSS) Yes Yes 1 No N/A N/A P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

11 10 P age COLLEGE PROFILE All Students Based on the GCCCD Research Database, the following tables display the unduplicated student headcount of those who received a grade notation. Annual headcounts include leading summers (e.g., summer 2010 enrollments are included in the annual headcount). Table 5: Unduplicated Student Headcount Trend % Change Summer 5,769 3, ,140 5,004 3, % 19,997 20,022 18,048 18,906 18,310 19, % Spring 20,225 18,833 18,359 18,692 18,639 18, % Total (Unduplicated) 28,553 26,322 23,928 25,672 25,491 25, % Table 6: Unduplicated Student Headcount by Gender, - Female 55.1% 55.0% 55.2% 55.4% 55.9% 55.3% (n = 11,041) (n = 9,928) (n = 10,444) (n = 10,150) (n = 10,291) (n = 51,854) Male 44.0% 44.3% 44.0% 43.9% 43.1% 43.9% (n = 8,804) (n = 7,988) (n = 8,324) (n = 8,032) (n = 7,933) (n = 41,081) Unknown 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 1.0% 0.8% (n = 177) (n = 132) (n = 138) (n = 128) (n = 175) (n = 750) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

12 11 P age Table 7: Unduplicated Student Headcount by Race/Ethnicity, - African-American/Black 7.3% 6.6% 6.8% 6.8% 6.0% 6.7% (n = 1,460) (n = 1,192) (n = 1,284) (n = 1,238) (n = 1,109) (n = 6,283) American Indian 0.5% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% (n = 99) (n = 66) (n = 57) (n = 53) (n = 42) (n = 317) Asian 6.1% 6.0% 5.6% 5.5% 5.6% 5.8% (n = 1,224) (n = 1,074) (n = 1,064) (n = 1,008) (n = 1,033) (n = 5,403) Filipino 3.9% 4.0% 3.8% 4.1% 3.7% 3.9% (n = 771) (n = 727) (n = 727) (n = 746) (n = 682) (n = 3,653) Hispanic/Latino 27.1% 29.5% 31.4% 32.6% 33.5% 30.8% (n = 5,420) (n = 5,327) (n = 5,944) (n = 5,970) (n = 6,165) (n = 28,826) Pacific Islander 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% (n = 163) (n = 120) (n = 93) (n = 87) (n = 86) (n = 549) White 44.1% 43.2% 42.1% 41.2% 41.5% 42.4% (n = 8,821) (n = 7,794) (n = 7,955) (n = 7,551) (n = 7,644) (n = 39,765) Two or more 7.3% 7.3% 7.8% 7.9% 7.9% 7.6% (n = 1,463) (n = 1,323) (n = 1,470) (n = 1,449) (n = 1,460) (n = 7,165) Unknown 3.0% 2.4% 1.7% 1.1% 1.0% 1.8% (n = 601) (n = 425) (n = 312) (n = 208) (n = 178) (n = 1,724) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

13 12 P age Table 8: Unduplicated Student Headcount by Age, - < 20 years 29.7% 28.9% 28.8% 29.0% 29.0% 29.1% (n = 5,946) (n = 5,207) (n = 5,453) (n = 5,318) (n = 5,339) (n = 27,263) years 36.5% 39.0% 39.2% 39.5% 39.1% 38.6% (n = 7,304) (n = 7,045) (n = 7,408) (n = 7,231) (n = 7,202) (n = 36,190) years 24.3% 22.9% 23.1% 23.4% 23.5% 23.5% (n = 4,858) (n = 4,142) (n = 4,372) (n = 4,293) (n = 4,323) (n = 21,988) 40+ years 9.6% 9.2% 8.8% 8.0% 8.3% 8.8% (n = 1,914) (n = 1,654) (n = 1,673) (n = 1,468) (n = 1,535) (n = 8,244) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) Table 9: Unduplicated Student Headcount by Disability Status, - Yes 8.0% 9.0% 8.8% 8.2% 7.9% 8.4% (n = 1,600) (n = 1,627) (n = 1,669) (n = 1,497) (n = 1,456) (n = 7,849) No 92.0% 91.0% 91.2% 91.8% 92.1% 91.6% (n = 18,422) (n = 16,421) (n = 17,237) (n = 16,813) (n = 16,943) (n = 85,836) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

14 13 P age Table 10: Unduplicated Student Headcount by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 54.9% 58.1% 60.8% 61.8% 61.0% 59.3% (n = 11,002) (n = 10,479) (n = 11,499) (n = 11,318) (n = 11,227) (n = 55,525) No 45.1% 41.9% 39.2% 38.2% 39.0% 40.7% (n = 9,020) (n = 7,569) (n = 7,407) (n = 6,992) (n = 7,172) (n = 38,160) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) Table 11: Unduplicated Student Headcount by Veteran Status, - Yes 6.7% 6.5% 6.0% 5.4% 5.1% 5.9% (n = 1,338) (n = 1,172) (n = 1,138) (n = 983) (n = 935) (n = 5,566) No 93.3% 93.5% 94.0% 94.6% 94.9% 94.1% (n = 18,684) (n = 16,876) (n = 17,768) (n = 17,327) (n = 17,464) (n = 88,119) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) Table 12: Unduplicated Student Headcount by Foster Youth, - Yes 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% (n = 105) (n = 99) (n = 97) (n = 91) (n = 76) (n = 468) No 99.5% 99.5% 99.5% 99.5% 99.6% 99.5% (n = 19,917) (n = 17,949) (n = 18,809) (n = 18,219) (n = 18,323) (n = 93,217) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

15 14 P age Table 13: Unduplicated Headcount by Recent High School Graduate, - Yes 12.5% 11.5% 12.3% 11.9% 12.5% 12.1% (n = 2,507) (n = 2,068) (n = 2,319) (n = 2,179) (n = 2,296) (n = 11,369) No 87.5% 88.5% 87.7% 88.1% 87.5% 87.9% (n = 17,515) (n = 15,980) (n = 16,587) (n = 16,131) (n = 16,103) (n = 82,316) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) Table 14: Unduplicated Headcount by First Generation, - Yes 12.7% 17.3% 22.8% 26.4% 29.1% 21.5% (n = 2,546) (n = 3,116) (n = 4,304) (n = 4,826) (n = 5,359) (n = 20,151) No 25.1% 33.6% 44.3% 50.0% 53.7% 41.1% (n = 5,016) (n = 6,066) (n = 8,368) (n = 9,159) (n = 9,873) (n = 38,482) Unknown/Not reported 62.2% 49.1% 33.0% 23.6% 17.2% 37.4% (n = 12,460) (n = 8,866) (n = 6,234) (n = 4,325) (n = 3,167) (n = 35,052) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

16 15 P age First-Time Students Figure 2 displays the five-year unduplicated headcount trend of first-time students who received a grade notation. Figure 2: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount, - P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

17 16 P age The following tables display the unduplicated headcounts of first-time students who received a grade notation. Table 15: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount by Gender, - Female 51.6% 52.5% 52.3% 54.0% 53.6% 52.8% (n = 2,488) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,497) (n = 2,464) (n = 2,537) (n = 12,050) Male 47.6% 46.8% 46.8% 45.0% 44.8% 46.2% (n = 2,292) (n = 1,842) (n = 2,234) (n = 2,053) (n = 2,120) (n = 10,541) Unknown 0.8% 0.7% 0.9% 0.9% 1.5% 1.0% (n = 40) (n = 28) (n = 45) (n = 42) (n = 72) (n = 227) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

18 17 P age Table 16: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount by Race/Ethnicity, - African-American/Black 8.2% 8.0% 7.9% 8.0% 6.3% 7.7% (n = 397) (n = 314) (n = 377) (n = 366) (n = 300) (n = 1,754) American Indian 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% (n = 18) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 17) (n = 13) (n = 11) (n = 65) Asian 5.4% 6.0% 5.6% 5.5% 5.3% 5.5% (n = 325) (n = 235) (n = 269) (n = 250) (n = 252) (n = 1,265) Filipino 4.4% 4.7% 3.9% 4.9% 3.7% 4.3% (n = 212) (n = 186) (n = 184) (n = 223) (n = 174) (n = 979) Hispanic/Latino 33.8% 34.8% 36.5% 35.3% 35.9% 35.3% (n = 1,628) (n = 1,368) (n = 1,744) (n = 1,609) (n = 1,696) (n = 8,045) Pacific Islander 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6% 0.5% (n = 36) (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 19) (n = 27) (n = 123) White 39.5% 38.0% 37.2% 37.9% 39.4% 38.4% (n = 1,906) (n = 1,494) (n = 1,778) (n = 1,729) (n = 1,864) (n = 8,771) Two or more 6.7% 6.8% 7.4% 7.0% 7.9% 7.2% (n = 325) (n = 267) (n = 354) (n = 317) (n = 373) (n = 1,636) Unknown 0.8% 1.1% 0.6% 0.7% 0.7% 0.8% (n = 39) (n = 45) (n = 31) (n = 33) (n = 32) (n = 180) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

19 18 P age Table 17: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount by Age, - < 20 years 57.6% 61.0% 59.2% 58.9% 59.0% 59.1% (n = 2,777) (n = 2,401) (n = 2,826) (n = 2,687) (n = 2,791) (n = 13,482) years 22.4% 21.3% 21.2% 21.2% 20.9% 21.4% (n = 1,080) (n = 839) (n = 1,013) (n = 965) (n = 990) (n = 4,887) years 15.2% 13.9% 14.9% 15.4% 14.6% 14.8% (n = 735) (n = 548) (n = 714) (n = 702) (n = 689) (n = 3,388) 40+ years 4.7% 3.7% 4.7% 4.5% 5.5% 4.6% (n = 228) (n = 146) (n = 223) (n = 205) (n = 259) (n = 1,061) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) Table 18: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount by Disability Status, - Yes 5.6% 7.0% 6.8% 5.3% 4.6% 5.8% (n = 270) (n = 274) (n = 323) (n = 242) (n = 216) (n = 1,325) No 94.4% 93.0% 93.2% 94.7% 95.4% 94.2% (n = 4,550) (n = 3,660) (n = 4,453) (n = 4,317) (n = 4,513) (n = 21,493) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

20 19 P age Table 19: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 56.1% 56.3% 61.6% 61.7% 59.6% 59.2% (n = 2,704) (n = 2,216) (n = 2,942) (n = 2,815) (n = 2,820) (n = 13,497) No 43.9% 43.7% 38.4% 38.3% 40.4% 40.8% (n = 2,116) (n = 1,718) (n = 1,834) (n = 1,744) (n = 1,909) (n = 9,321) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) Table 20: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount by Veteran Status, - Yes 6.0% 5.8% 5.7% 4.8% 4.2% 5.3% (n = 287) (n = 227) (n = 271) (n = 219) (n = 199) (n = 1,203) No 94.0% 94.2% 94.3% 95.2% 95.8% 94.7% (n = 4,533) (n = 3,707) (n = 4,505) (n = 4,340) (n = 4,530) (n = 21,615) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) Table 21: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount by Foster Youth, - Yes 0.7% 0.4% 0.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% (n = 34) (n = 17) (n = 39) (n = 28) (n = 24) (n = 142) No 99.3% 99.6% 99.2% 99.4% 99.5% 99.4% (n = 4,786) (n = 3,917) (n = 4,737) (n = 4,531) (n = 4,705) (n = 22,676) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

21 20 P age Table 22: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount by Recent High School Graduate, - Yes 45.5% 48.6% 46.0% 45.5% 45.1% 46.1% (n = 2,195) (n = 1,912) (n = 2,195) (n = 2,074) (n = 2,134) (n = 10,510) No 54.5% 51.4% 54.0% 54.5% 54.9% 53.9% (n = 2,625) (n = 2,022) (n = 2,581) (n = 2,485) (n = 2,595) (n = 12,308) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) Table 23: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount by First Generation, - Yes 14.0% 29.0% 31.4% 31.9% 32.4% 27.6% (n = 677) (n = 1,141) (n = 1,501) (n = 1,456) (n = 1,533) (n = 6,308) No 23.4% 58.1% 59.4% 59.3% 58.6% 51.4% (n = 1,126) (n = 2,287) (n = 2,837) (n = 2,705) (n = 2,769) (n = 11,724) Unknown/Not reported 62.6% 12.9% 9.2% 8.7% 9.0% 21.0% (n = 3,017) (n = 506) (n = 438) (n = 398) (n = 427) (n = 4,786) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

22 21 P age Table 24: Unduplicated First-Time Student Headcount by High School Attendance, - Grossmont 3.1% 4.3% 4.6% 4.3% 4.9% 4.2% (n = 151) (n = 170) (n = 219) (n = 194) (n = 230) (n = 964) Granite Hills 3.9% 3.7% 3.6% 3.7% 4.2% 3.8% (n = 186) (n = 146) (n = 172) (n = 167) (n = 197) (n = 868) West Hills 3.6% 3.2% 4.5% 3.5% 4.0% 3.8% (n = 172) (n = 126) (n = 215) (n = 160) (n = 188) (n = 861) Henry 3.3% 4.0% 3.3% 4.0% 3.4% 3.6% (n = 159) (n = 157) (n = 156) (n = 183) (n = 159) (n = 814) Helix 2.3% 3.0% 3.0% 4.0% 3.3% 3.1% (n = 110) (n = 119) (n = 144) (n = 183) (n = 155) (n = 711) El Cajon Valley 3.4% 3.0% 3.1% 3.3% 2.8% 3.1% (n = 162) (n = 119) (n = 146) (n = 150) (n = 131) (n = 708) El Capitan 2.2% 2.8% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 2.5% (n = 107) (n = 111) (n = 123) (n = 118) (n = 118) (n = 577) Valhalla 1.7% 2.5% 2.1% 3.0% 2.9% 2.4% (n = 84) (n = 99) (n = 101) (n = 135) (n = 138) (n = 557) Santana 2.7% 1.9% 2.1% 2.0% 2.3% 2.2% (n = 132) (n = 75) (n = 101) (n = 92) (n = 108) (n = 508) Steele Canyon 1.8% 1.9% 1.8% 1.7% 2.1% 1.9% (n = 89) (n = 75) (n = 87) (n = 79) (n = 101) (n = 431) Morse 2.1% 1.7% 1.4% 1.9% 1.5% 1.7% (n = 103) (n = 67) (n = 65) (n = 85) (n = 69) (n = 389) Eastlake 1.3% 1.2% 1.4% 1.8% 1.6% 1.5% (n = 61) (n = 49) (n = 67) (n = 84) (n = 76) (n = 337) Mount Miguel 1.2% 1.2% 1.1% 1.1% 1.5% 1.2% (n = 59) (n = 49) (n = 54) (n = 51) (n = 72) (n = 285) Bonita Vista Senior 1.2% 1.4% 1.2% 1.1% 0.9% 1.2% (n = 60) (n = 56) (n = 57) (n = 51) (n = 42) (n = 266) Sweetwater 1.3% 1.6% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 1.1% (n = 62) (n = 63) (n = 46) (n = 46) (n = 44) (n = 261) Charter School of San Diego 1.2% 1.1% 1.0% 1.2% 0.9% 1.1% (n = 60) (n = 42) (n = 49) (n = 53) (n = 43) (n = 247) Serra 0.9% 1.0% 1.3% 1.2% 1.0% 1.1% (n = 41) (n = 40) (n = 63) (n = 53) (n = 48) (n = 245) Monte Vista 1.3% 1.2% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 1.0% (n = 63) (n = 47) (n = 42) (n = 38) (n = 49) (n = 239) Ramona 0.9% 0.9% 1.1% 0.8% 1.3% 1.0% (n = 44) (n = 37) (n = 54) (n = 37) (n = 61) (n = 233) Other high school/not reported 60.5% 58.1% 58.9% 57.0% 57.1% 58.4% (n = 2,915) (n = 2,287) (n = 2,815) (n = 2,600) (n = 2,700) (n = 13,317) Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

23 22 P age STUDENT ACCESS & COLLEGE READINESS Student Demographics and Service Area The college service area is defined by the zip codes in which 90% of the enrolled students reside in each given academic year (summer, fall, spring). The service area population estimates were extracted from SANDAG on 6/17/2016, and college demographics are from the GCCCD research database. Table 25: Grossmont College Service Area Population and Student Comparison by Race/Ethnicity Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area GC Students GC Students GC Students GC Students GC Students GC Students Population Population Population Population Population Population African-American 7.8% 6.3% 7.6% 6.2% 7.0% 6.0% 7.3% 5.7% 7.1% 5.9% 7.4% 6.0% Asian 6.0% 12.1% 5.7% 12.4% 5.5% 11.9% 5.5% 12.6% 5.5% 11.7% 5.6% 12.2% Hispanic 25.4% 34.5% 27.5% 35.5% 29.7% 37.0% 31.6% 36.7% 32.5% 38.6% 29.3% 36.4% White 44.2% 42.8% 43.6% 41.6% 42.8% 40.7% 41.4% 40.5% 41.0% 39.5% 42.6% 41.0% Two or more 7.2% 3.2% 7.6% 3.2% 7.8% 3.3% 8.2% 3.3% 8.1% 3.2% 7.8% 3.2% Unknown/Other 9.4% 1.1% 7.9% 1.1% 7.1% 1.1% 6.1% 1.1% 5.7% 1.1% 7.3% 1.1% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

24 23 P age Table 26: Grossmont College Service Area Population and Student Comparison by Gender Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area GC Students GC Students GC Students GC Students GC Students GC Students Population Population Population Population Population Population Female 56.1% 50.2% 55.1% 50.0% 55.1% 50.1% 55.6% 50.2% 55.9% 50.4% 55.6% 50.2% Male 43.1% 49.8% 44.1% 50.0% 44.2% 49.9% 43.7% 49.8% 43.4% 49.6% 43.7% 49.8% Unknown 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0% 0.8% 0.0% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 27: Grossmont College Service Area Population and Student Comparison by Age Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area Service Area GC Students GC Students GC Students GC Students GC Students GC Students Population Population Population Population Population Population years 3.8% 12.0% 3.6% 12.1% 3.2% 12.0% 3.4% 12.0% 4.0% 12.0% 3.6% 12.0% years 60.6% 13.3% 61.1% 13.2% 63.2% 13.1% 62.9% 13.0% 62.7% 12.9% 62.1% 13.1% years 14.3% 10.1% 14.5% 10.0% 13.3% 9.9% 13.6% 9.6% 14.1% 9.3% 14.0% 9.8% years 11.0% 16.8% 10.8% 16.6% 10.4% 16.7% 10.8% 16.7% 10.6% 16.7% 10.8% 16.7% years 9.9% 35.4% 9.6% 35.6% 9.4% 35.3% 9.0% 35.5% 8.1% 35.5% 9.2% 35.4% 65+ years 0.4% 12.3% 0.4% 12.5% 0.4% 13.0% 0.4% 13.3% 0.4% 13.6% 0.4% 12.9% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

25 24 P age Assessment Rates and College Readiness English, ESL, and math assessment rates of first-time fall cohort students were examined. It should be noted that in spring, the district changed assessment instruments to ACCUPLACER, thus the fall cohort primarily assessed using ACCUPLACER whereas earlier cohorts assessed using the prior assessment instruments. Also, many first-time students are exempt from the assessment process via various methods (e.g., AP scores, SAT/ACT scores, EAP, prior coursework, assessments taken at other California community colleges), but the tables include only students who took an assessment at GCCCD. Table 28: Assessment Rates of First-Time GCCCD Students by Discipline, - English Placement 56.9% 52.1% 55.0% 57.1% 53.1% 54.9% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) ESL Placement 7.8% 8.7% 7.2% 8.6% 10.0% 8.4% (n = 375) (n = 341) (n = 346) (n = 391) (n = 474) (n = 1,927) English or ESL Placement 64.0% 60.1% 61.6% 64.8% 61.7% 62.5% (n = 3,086) (n = 2,365) (n = 2,940) (n = 2,955) (n = 2,918) (n = 14,264) Math Placement 61.2% 57.5% 58.0% 62.8% 57.5% 59.4% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) 1st Time Cohort (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

26 25 P age English Assessments Table 29: English Placement Levels, - ENGL % 10.8% 11.1% 9.4% 11.2% 10.7% (n = 295) (n = 221) (n = 293) (n = 246) (n = 280) (n = 1,335) ENGL % 57.4% 53.4% 28.0% 26.8% 44.4% (n = 1,588) (n = 1,176) (n = 1,403) (n = 729) (n = 672) (n = 5,568) ENGL-109/ % 22.7% 23.5% 36.9% 38.9% 29.2% (n = 642) (n = 465) (n = 617) (n = 962) (n = 977) (n = 3,663) ENGL % 9.1% 12.0% 25.6% 23.1% 15.7% (n = 218) (n = 186) (n = 316) (n = 668) (n = 580) (n = 1,968) 1st Time Cohort (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

27 26 P age ENGL-090 Placements Table 30: ENGL-090 Placements by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 23.7% 25.7% 21.9% 14.8% 17.8% 20.6% (n = 228) (n = 148) (n = 178) (n = 210) (n = 157) (n = 921) American Indian 12.5% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.9% (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 12) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 34) Asian 17.9% 15.4% 27.7% 17.7% 24.7% 21.2% (n = 67) (n = 52) (n = 83) (n = 96) (n = 89) (n = 387) Filipino 6.1% 11.9% 7.2% 6.9% 13.8% 8.8% (n = 115) (n = 84) (n = 97) (n = 131) (n = 87) (n = 514) Hispanic/Latino 10.5% 11.9% 11.6% 9.3% 9.0% 10.4% (n = 1,036) (n = 812) (n = 1,060) (n = 1,043) (n = 1,040) (n = 4,991) Pacific Islander 33.3% 22.2% 0.0% 7.7% 14.3% 18.2% (n = 21) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 13) (n = 14) (n = 66) White 8.0% 7.0% 7.7% 8.9% 10.5% 8.4% (n = 1,052) (n = 787) (n = 972) (n = 913) (n = 908) (n = 4,632) Two or more 8.3% 5.6% 11.7% 4.4% 12.1% 8.7% (n = 192) (n = 142) (n = 205) (n = 183) (n = 190) (n = 912) Total 10.8% 10.8% 11.1% 9.4% 11.2% 10.7% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

28 27 P age Table 31: ENGL-090 Placements by Gender, - Female 10.1% 10.5% 10.9% 9.5% 10.5% 10.3% (n = 1,413) (n = 1,042) (n = 1,397) (n = 1,384) (n = 1,363) (n = 6,599) Male 11.5% 11.1% 11.3% 9.4% 12.0% 11.1% (n = 1,309) (n = 992) (n = 1,209) (n = 1,200) (n = 1,107) (n = 5,817) Total 10.8% 10.8% 11.1% 9.4% 11.2% 10.7% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) Table 32: ENGL-090 Placements by Age, - < 20 years 10.1% 9.7% 10.1% 8.3% 10.3% 9.7% (n = 2,145) (n = 1,638) (n = 2,082) (n = 2,027) (n = 1,944) (n = 9,836) years 13.3% 15.5% 15.8% 13.2% 11.3% 13.7% (n = 353) (n = 233) (n = 303) (n = 317) (n = 326) (n = 1,532) years 12.8% 15.2% 13.6% 12.4% 15.7% 13.8% (n = 196) (n = 145) (n = 198) (n = 218) (n = 198) (n = 955) 40+ years 14.3% 12.5% 17.4% 18.6% 26.8% 18.0% (n = 49) (n = 32) (n = 46) (n = 43) (n = 41) (n = 211) Total 10.8% 10.8% 11.1% 9.4% 11.2% 10.7% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

29 28 P age Table 33: ENGL-090 Placements by Disability Status, - Yes 29.9% 20.2% 28.7% 25.9% 28.8% 26.6% (n = 174) (n = 193) (n = 216) (n = 170) (n = 139) (n = 892) No 9.5% 9.8% 9.6% 8.3% 10.1% 9.4% (n = 2,569) (n = 1,855) (n = 2,413) (n = 2,435) (n = 2,370) (n = 11,642) Total 10.8% 10.8% 11.1% 9.4% 11.2% 10.7% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) Table 34: ENGL-090 Placements by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 13.1% 14.2% 13.2% 11.5% 13.6% 13.1% (n = 1,663) (n = 1,254) (n = 1,763) (n = 1,736) (n = 1,683) (n = 8,099) No 7.1% 5.4% 7.0% 5.3% 6.2% 6.3% (n = 1,080) (n = 794) (n = 866) (n = 869) (n = 826) (n = 4,435) Total 10.8% 10.8% 11.1% 9.4% 11.2% 10.7% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) Table 35: ENGL-090 Placements by Veteran Status, - Yes 7.1% 3.6% 5.4% 6.1% 2.2% 5.1% (n = 140) (n = 111) (n = 129) (n = 98) (n = 92) (n = 570) No 10.9% 11.2% 11.4% 9.6% 11.5% 10.9% (n = 2,603) (n = 1,937) (n = 2,500) (n = 2,507) (n = 2,417) (n = 11,964) Total 10.8% 10.8% 11.1% 9.4% 11.2% 10.7% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

30 29 P age Table 36: ENGL-090 Placements by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 37.9% 14.3% 38.7% 18.2% 16.7% 28.1% (n = 29) (n = 14) (n = 31) (n = 22) (n = 18) (n = 114) No 10.5% 10.8% 10.8% 9.4% 11.1% 10.5% (n = 2,714) (n = 2,034) (n = 2,598) (n = 2,583) (n = 2,491) (n = 12,420) Total 10.8% 10.8% 11.1% 9.4% 11.2% 10.7% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) Table 37: ENGL-090 Placements by 1st Generation, - Yes 16.7% 13.9% 16.4% 13.1% 14.8% 14.8% (n = 412) (n = 628) (n = 879) (n = 871) (n = 908) (n = 3,698) No 6.9% 8.2% 7.1% 6.4% 7.2% 7.1% (n = 683) (n = 1,238) (n = 1,571) (n = 1,565) (n = 1,452) (n = 6,509) Total 10.8% 10.8% 11.1% 9.4% 11.2% 10.7% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

31 30 P age ENGL-098 Placements Table 38: ENGL-098 Placements by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 64.0% 58.8% 61.8% 36.2% 37.6% 51.9% (n = 228) (n = 148) (n = 178) (n = 210) (n = 157) (n = 921) American Indian 75.0% 66.7% 58.3% 33.3% 37.5% 55.9% (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 12) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 34) Asian 65.7% 75.0% 45.8% 25.0% 22.5% 42.6% (n = 67) (n = 52) (n = 83) (n = 96) (n = 89) (n = 387) Filipino 77.4% 61.9% 69.1% 34.4% 27.6% 53.9% (n = 115) (n = 84) (n = 97) (n = 131) (n = 87) (n = 514) Hispanic/Latino 62.8% 64.0% 60.7% 31.9% 31.6% 49.6% (n = 1,036) (n = 812) (n = 1,060) (n = 1,043) (n = 1,040) (n = 4,991) Pacific Islander 57.1% 55.6% 77.8% 23.1% 21.4% 45.5% (n = 21) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 13) (n = 14) (n = 66) White 48.7% 49.3% 43.5% 21.6% 20.7% 36.9% (n = 1,052) (n = 787) (n = 972) (n = 913) (n = 908) (n = 4,632) Two or more 59.9% 54.9% 50.2% 25.1% 23.2% 42.3% (n = 192) (n = 142) (n = 205) (n = 183) (n = 190) (n = 912) Total 57.9% 57.4% 53.4% 28.0% 26.8% 44.4% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

32 31 P age Table 39: ENGL-098 Placements by Gender, - Female 61.2% 61.6% 55.9% 28.6% 27.6% 46.4% (n = 1,413) (n = 1,042) (n = 1,397) (n = 1,384) (n = 1,363) (n = 6,599) Male 54.5% 53.0% 50.5% 27.2% 25.9% 42.3% (n = 1,309) (n = 992) (n = 1,209) (n = 1,200) (n = 1,107) (n = 5,817) Total 57.9% 57.4% 53.4% 28.0% 26.8% 44.4% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) Table 40: ENGL-098 Placements by Age, - < 20 years 59.0% 58.4% 55.1% 27.3% 27.2% 45.2% (n = 2,145) (n = 1,638) (n = 2,082) (n = 2,027) (n = 1,944) (n = 9,836) years 57.8% 53.2% 47.5% 33.4% 29.8% 44.1% (n = 353) (n = 233) (n = 303) (n = 317) (n = 326) (n = 1,532) years 50.5% 54.5% 47.5% 26.1% 21.2% 38.8% (n = 196) (n = 145) (n = 198) (n = 218) (n = 198) (n = 955) 40+ years 38.8% 53.1% 39.1% 30.2% 12.2% 34.1% (n = 49) (n = 32) (n = 46) (n = 43) (n = 41) (n = 211) Total 57.9% 57.4% 53.4% 28.0% 26.8% 44.4% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

33 32 P age Table 41: ENGL-098 Placements by Disability Status, - Yes 48.9% 63.2% 47.7% 27.1% 32.4% 45.0% (n = 174) (n = 193) (n = 216) (n = 170) (n = 139) (n = 892) No 58.5% 56.8% 53.9% 28.0% 26.5% 44.4% (n = 2,569) (n = 1,855) (n = 2,413) (n = 2,435) (n = 2,370) (n = 11,642) Total 57.9% 57.4% 53.4% 28.0% 26.8% 44.4% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) Table 42: ENGL-098 Placements by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 61.5% 59.6% 56.5% 29.8% 28.3% 46.4% (n = 1,663) (n = 1,254) (n = 1,763) (n = 1,736) (n = 1,683) (n = 8,099) No 52.3% 54.0% 47.0% 24.3% 23.6% 40.7% (n = 1,080) (n = 794) (n = 866) (n = 869) (n = 826) (n = 4,435) Total 57.9% 57.4% 53.4% 28.0% 26.8% 44.4% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) Table 43: ENGL-098 Placements by Veteran Status, - Yes 53.6% 55.9% 44.2% 25.5% 19.6% 41.6% (n = 140) (n = 111) (n = 129) (n = 98) (n = 92) (n = 570) No 58.1% 57.5% 53.8% 28.1% 27.1% 44.6% (n = 2,603) (n = 1,937) (n = 2,500) (n = 2,507) (n = 2,417) (n = 11,964) Total 57.9% 57.4% 53.4% 28.0% 26.8% 44.4% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

34 33 P age Table 44: ENGL-098 Placements by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 41.4% 78.6% 41.9% 40.9% 44.4% 46.5% (n = 29) (n = 14) (n = 31) (n = 22) (n = 18) (n = 114) No 58.1% 57.3% 53.5% 27.9% 26.7% 44.4% (n = 2,714) (n = 2,034) (n = 2,598) (n = 2,583) (n = 2,491) (n = 12,420) Total 57.9% 57.4% 53.4% 28.0% 26.8% 44.4% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) Table 45: ENGL-098 Placements by 1st Generation, - Yes 61.9% 65.3% 57.5% 32.3% 31.3% 46.9% (n = 412) (n = 628) (n = 879) (n = 871) (n = 908) (n = 3,698) No 58.3% 53.2% 50.9% 24.7% 23.9% 39.8% (n = 683) (n = 1,238) (n = 1,571) (n = 1,565) (n = 1,452) (n = 6,509) Total 57.9% 57.4% 53.4% 28.0% 26.8% 44.4% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

35 34 P age ENGL-109/110 Placements Table 46: ENGL-109/110 Placements by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 11.4% 14.2% 10.7% 35.7% 33.8% 21.1% YES 0.72 (n = 228) (n = 148) (n = 178) (n = 210) (n = 157) (n = 921) American Indian 12.5% 0.0% 25.0% 33.3% 25.0% 20.6% YES* 0.70 (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 12) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 34) Asian 11.9% 9.6% 21.7% 36.5% 30.3% 24.0% YES 0.82 (n = 67) (n = 52) (n = 83) (n = 96) (n = 89) (n = 387) Filipino 12.2% 23.8% 17.5% 38.2% 43.7% 27.0% NO 0.93 (n = 115) (n = 84) (n = 97) (n = 131) (n = 87) (n = 514) Hispanic/Latino 20.8% 18.0% 19.2% 37.4% 40.2% 27.5% NO 0.94 (n = 1,036) (n = 812) (n = 1,060) (n = 1,043) (n = 1,040) (n = 4,991) Pacific Islander 9.5% 11.1% 11.1% 38.5% 35.7% 21.2% YES* 0.73 (n = 21) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 13) (n = 14) (n = 66) White 30.8% 29.4% 30.7% 36.5% 38.9% 33.2% NO 1.14 (n = 1,052) (n = 787) (n = 972) (n = 913) (n = 908) (n = 4,632) Two or more 25.0% 26.1% 26.3% 39.3% 38.4% 31.1% NO 1.07 (n = 192) (n = 142) (n = 205) (n = 183) (n = 190) (n = 912) Total 23.4% 22.7% 23.5% 36.9% 38.9% 29.2% 26.6% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (White) Table 47: ENGL-109/110 Placements by Gender, - Female 22.2% 20.1% 22.4% 37.8% 40.6% 29.0% NO 0.99 (n = 1,413) (n = 1,042) (n = 1,397) (n = 1,384) (n = 1,363) (n = 6,599) Male 24.6% 25.4% 24.9% 35.9% 37.1% 29.5% NO 1.01 (n = 1,309) (n = 992) (n = 1,209) (n = 1,200) (n = 1,107) (n = 5,817) Total 23.4% 22.7% 23.5% 36.9% 38.9% 29.2% 23.6% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Male) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

36 35 P age Table 48: ENGL-109/110 Placements by Age, - < 20 years 23.6% 23.7% 23.6% 39.4% 40.3% 30.2% NO 1.03 (n = 2,145) (n = 1,638) (n = 2,082) (n = 2,027) (n = 1,944) (n = 9,836) years 20.1% 18.5% 21.5% 30.0% 36.8% 25.7% NO 0.88 (n = 353) (n = 233) (n = 303) (n = 317) (n = 326) (n = 1,532) years 25.5% 18.6% 24.2% 27.1% 30.8% 25.7% NO 0.88 (n = 196) (n = 145) (n = 198) (n = 218) (n = 198) (n = 955) 40+ years 28.6% 21.9% 26.1% 23.3% 31.7% 26.5% NO* 0.91 (n = 49) (n = 32) (n = 46) (n = 43) (n = 41) (n = 211) Total 23.4% 22.7% 23.5% 36.9% 38.9% 29.2% 24.1% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (< 20 years) Table 49: ENGL-109/110 Placements by Disability Status, - Yes 14.4% 13.0% 13.0% 24.1% 24.5% 17.2% YES 0.59 (n = 174) (n = 193) (n = 216) (n = 170) (n = 139) (n = 892) No 24.0% 23.7% 24.4% 37.8% 39.8% 30.1% NO 1.03 (n = 2,569) (n = 1,855) (n = 2,413) (n = 2,435) (n = 2,370) (n = 11,642) Total 23.4% 22.7% 23.5% 36.9% 38.9% 29.2% 24.1% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Not DSPS) Table 50: ENGL-109/110 Placements by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 20.0% 19.1% 20.6% 36.8% 39.1% 27.5% NO 0.94 (n = 1,663) (n = 1,254) (n = 1,763) (n = 1,736) (n = 1,683) (n = 8,099) No 28.7% 28.5% 29.3% 37.3% 38.6% 32.3% NO 1.11 (n = 1,080) (n = 794) (n = 866) (n = 869) (n = 826) (n = 4,435) Total 23.4% 22.7% 23.5% 36.9% 38.9% 29.2% 25.8% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

37 36 P age Table 51: ENGL-109/110 Placements by Veteran Status, - Yes 25.7% 26.1% 34.1% 30.6% 44.6% 31.6% NO 1.08 (n = 140) (n = 111) (n = 129) (n = 98) (n = 92) (n = 570) No 23.3% 22.5% 22.9% 37.2% 38.7% 29.1% NO 1.00 (n = 2,603) (n = 1,937) (n = 2,500) (n = 2,507) (n = 2,417) (n = 11,964) Total 23.4% 22.7% 23.5% 36.9% 38.9% 29.2% 23.3% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Not Vet) Table 52: ENGL-109/110 Placements by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 13.8% 7.1% 16.1% 31.8% 38.9% 21.1% YES* 0.72 (n = 29) (n = 14) (n = 31) (n = 22) (n = 18) (n = 114) No 23.5% 22.8% 23.6% 37.0% 38.9% 29.3% NO 1.00 (n = 2,714) (n = 2,034) (n = 2,598) (n = 2,583) (n = 2,491) (n = 12,420) Total 23.4% 22.7% 23.5% 36.9% 38.9% 29.2% 23.4% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Not FY) Table 53: ENGL-109/110 Placements by 1st Generation, - Yes 18.4% 15.4% 18.9% 36.4% 37.1% 26.9% NO 0.92 (n = 412) (n = 628) (n = 879) (n = 871) (n = 908) (n = 3,698) No 25.3% 27.4% 26.7% 38.4% 40.8% 32.6% NO 1.12 (n = 683) (n = 1,238) (n = 1,571) (n = 1,565) (n = 1,452) (n = 6,509) Total 23.4% 22.7% 23.5% 36.9% 38.9% 29.2% 26.1% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

38 37 P age ENGL-120 Placements Table 54: ENGL-120 Placements by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 0.9% 1.4% 5.6% 13.3% 10.8% 6.4% YES 0.41 (n = 228) (n = 148) (n = 178) (n = 210) (n = 157) (n = 921) American Indian 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 33.3% 37.5% 17.6% NO* 1.12 (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 12) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 34) Asian 4.5% 0.0% 4.8% 20.8% 22.5% 12.1% YES 0.77 (n = 67) (n = 52) (n = 83) (n = 96) (n = 89) (n = 387) Filipino 4.3% 2.4% 6.2% 20.6% 14.9% 10.3% YES 0.66 (n = 115) (n = 84) (n = 97) (n = 131) (n = 87) (n = 514) Hispanic/Latino 5.9% 6.0% 8.6% 21.4% 19.1% 12.5% YES 0.79 (n = 1,036) (n = 812) (n = 1,060) (n = 1,043) (n = 1,040) (n = 4,991) Pacific Islander 0.0% 11.1% 11.1% 30.8% 28.6% 15.2% YES* 0.96 (n = 21) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 13) (n = 14) (n = 66) White 12.5% 14.4% 18.1% 33.1% 30.0% 21.5% NO 1.37 (n = 1,052) (n = 787) (n = 972) (n = 913) (n = 908) (n = 4,632) Two or more 6.8% 13.4% 11.7% 31.1% 26.3% 17.9% NO 1.14 (n = 192) (n = 142) (n = 205) (n = 183) (n = 190) (n = 912) Total 7.9% 9.1% 12.0% 25.6% 23.1% 15.7% 17.2% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (White) Table 55: ENGL-120 Placements by Gender, - Female 6.4% 7.9% 10.8% 24.1% 21.3% 14.4% NO 0.92 (n = 1,413) (n = 1,042) (n = 1,397) (n = 1,384) (n = 1,363) (n = 6,599) Male 9.5% 10.5% 13.2% 27.5% 24.9% 17.1% NO 1.09 (n = 1,309) (n = 992) (n = 1,209) (n = 1,200) (n = 1,107) (n = 5,817) Total 7.9% 9.1% 12.0% 25.6% 23.1% 15.7% 13.7% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Male) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

39 38 P age Table 56: ENGL-120 Placements by Age, - < 20 years 7.3% 8.2% 11.2% 25.0% 22.2% 14.9% YES 0.95 (n = 2,145) (n = 1,638) (n = 2,082) (n = 2,027) (n = 1,944) (n = 9,836) years 8.8% 12.9% 15.2% 23.3% 22.1% 16.5% YES 1.05 (n = 353) (n = 233) (n = 303) (n = 317) (n = 326) (n = 1,532) years 11.2% 11.7% 14.6% 34.4% 32.3% 21.7% NO 1.38 (n = 196) (n = 145) (n = 198) (n = 218) (n = 198) (n = 955) 40+ years 18.4% 12.5% 17.4% 27.9% 29.3% 21.3% NO* 1.36 (n = 49) (n = 32) (n = 46) (n = 43) (n = 41) (n = 211) Total 7.9% 9.1% 12.0% 25.6% 23.1% 15.7% 17.3% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (25-39 years) Table 57: ENGL-120 Placements by Disability Status, - Yes 6.9% 3.6% 10.6% 22.9% 14.4% 11.3% YES 0.72 (n = 174) (n = 193) (n = 216) (n = 170) (n = 139) (n = 892) No 8.0% 9.6% 12.1% 25.8% 23.6% 16.0% NO 1.02 (n = 2,569) (n = 1,855) (n = 2,413) (n = 2,435) (n = 2,370) (n = 11,642) Total 7.9% 9.1% 12.0% 25.6% 23.1% 15.7% 12.8% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Not DSPS) Table 58: ENGL-120 Placements by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 5.4% 7.2% 9.8% 21.9% 19.0% 13.0% YES 0.83 (n = 1,663) (n = 1,254) (n = 1,763) (n = 1,736) (n = 1,683) (n = 8,099) No 11.9% 12.1% 16.6% 33.1% 31.6% 20.7% NO 1.32 (n = 1,080) (n = 794) (n = 866) (n = 869) (n = 826) (n = 4,435) Total 7.9% 9.1% 12.0% 25.6% 23.1% 15.7% 16.5% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

40 39 P age Table 59: ENGL-120 Placements by Veteran Status, - Yes 13.6% 14.4% 16.3% 37.8% 33.7% 21.8% NO 1.39 (n = 140) (n = 111) (n = 129) (n = 98) (n = 92) (n = 570) No 7.6% 8.8% 11.8% 25.2% 22.7% 15.4% NO 0.98 (n = 2,603) (n = 1,937) (n = 2,500) (n = 2,507) (n = 2,417) (n = 11,964) Total 7.9% 9.1% 12.0% 25.6% 23.1% 15.7% 12.3% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Not Vet) Table 60: ENGL-120 Placements by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 6.9% 0.0% 3.2% 9.1% 0.0% 4.4% YES* 0.28 (n = 29) (n = 14) (n = 31) (n = 22) (n = 18) (n = 114) No 8.0% 9.1% 12.1% 25.8% 23.3% 15.8% NO 1.01 (n = 2,714) (n = 2,034) (n = 2,598) (n = 2,583) (n = 2,491) (n = 12,420) Total 7.9% 9.1% 12.0% 25.6% 23.1% 15.7% 12.6% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Not FY) Table 61: ENGL-120 Placements by 1st Generation, - Yes 2.9% 5.4% 7.3% 18.3% 16.9% 11.4% YES 0.73 (n = 412) (n = 628) (n = 879) (n = 871) (n = 908) (n = 3,698) No 9.5% 11.3% 15.3% 30.5% 28.1% 20.4% NO 1.30 (n = 683) (n = 1,238) (n = 1,571) (n = 1,565) (n = 1,452) (n = 6,509) Total 7.9% 9.1% 12.0% 25.6% 23.1% 15.7% 16.4% (n = 2,743) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,629) (n = 2,605) (n = 2,509) (n = 12,534) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

41 40 P age Math Assessments Table 62: Math Placement Levels of First-Time GCCCD Students, - MATH % 16.4% 16.2% 27.7% 18.6% 19.1% (n = 469) (n = 372) (n = 448) (n = 792) (n = 506) (n = 2,587) MATH % 35.7% 30.9% 21.1% 27.9% 30.1% (n = 1,055) (n = 809) (n = 857) (n = 604) (n = 758) (n = 4,083) MATH-103/ % 28.6% 31.6% 38.9% 27.2% 31.1% (n = 839) (n = 647) (n = 877) (n = 1,114) (n = 740) (n = 4,217) MATH-120 or above 19.8% 19.3% 21.3% 12.4% 26.2% 19.7% (n = 585) (n = 436) (n = 589) (n = 354) (n = 713) (n = 2,677) 1st Time Cohort (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

42 41 P age Math-088 Assessments Table 63: MATH-088 Placements by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 25.4% 33.3% 30.5% 44.1% 32.8% 33.3% (n = 232) (n = 162) (n = 177) (n = 222) (n = 174) (n = 967) American Indian 25.0% 66.7% 36.4% 33.3% 12.5% 30.3% (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 11) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 33) Asian 4.9% 11.4% 10.4% 11.3% 9.0% 9.5% (n = 123) (n = 123) (n = 134) (n = 141) (n = 133) (n = 654) Filipino 5.1% 9.2% 9.6% 15.4% 13.0% 10.6% (n = 118) (n = 87) (n = 94) (n = 136) (n = 92) (n = 527) Hispanic/Latino 16.5% 15.6% 13.9% 28.9% 18.1% 18.8% (n = 1,062) (n = 831) (n = 1,066) (n = 1,075) (n = 1,042) (n = 5,076) Pacific Islander 21.7% 22.2% 0.0% 15.4% 33.3% 20.3% (n = 23) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 13) (n = 12) (n = 64) White 15.8% 16.0% 17.9% 27.5% 17.8% 19.0% (n = 1,155) (n = 881) (n = 1,063) (n = 1,056) (n = 1,029) (n = 5,184) Two or more 15.1% 11.6% 14.1% 23.6% 18.8% 16.9% (n = 199) (n = 147) (n = 205) (n = 199) (n = 208) (n = 958) Total 15.9% 16.4% 16.2% 27.7% 18.6% 19.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

43 42 P age Table 64: MATH-088 Placements by Gender, - Female 19.1% 18.6% 17.1% 32.0% 19.9% 21.6% (n = 1,521) (n = 1,172) (n = 1,467) (n = 1,545) (n = 1,467) (n = 7,172) Male 12.6% 13.8% 15.1% 22.7% 17.3% 16.3% (n = 1,404) (n = 1,078) (n = 1,282) (n = 1,296) (n = 1,208) (n = 6,268) Total 15.9% 16.4% 16.2% 27.7% 18.6% 19.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) Table 65: MATH-088 Placements by Age, - < 20 years 10.3% 9.6% 8.3% 19.9% 13.5% 12.4% (n = 2,219) (n = 1,704) (n = 2,108) (n = 2,140) (n = 2,003) (n = 10,174) years 23.3% 24.8% 25.8% 42.7% 30.4% 29.5% (n = 412) (n = 310) (n = 353) (n = 375) (n = 381) (n = 1,831) years 44.0% 46.4% 54.5% 55.6% 31.5% 46.5% (n = 248) (n = 207) (n = 242) (n = 275) (n = 251) (n = 1,223) 40+ years 50.7% 81.4% 73.5% 73.0% 48.8% 63.7% (n = 69) (n = 43) (n = 68) (n = 74) (n = 82) (n = 336) Total 15.9% 16.4% 16.2% 27.7% 18.6% 19.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

44 43 P age Table 66: MATH-088 Placements by Disability Status, - Yes 37.6% 40.0% 35.9% 53.4% 48.3% 42.4% (n = 186) (n = 200) (n = 217) (n = 178) (n = 145) (n = 926) No 14.4% 14.1% 14.5% 25.9% 17.0% 17.4% (n = 2,762) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,554) (n = 2,686) (n = 2,572) (n = 12,638) Total 15.9% 16.4% 16.2% 27.7% 18.6% 19.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) Table 67: MATH-088 Placements by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 19.4% 19.4% 18.9% 31.4% 22.3% 22.6% (n = 1,770) (n = 1,350) (n = 1,837) (n = 1,917) (n = 1,802) (n = 8,676) No 10.6% 12.0% 10.7% 20.2% 11.4% 12.9% (n = 1,178) (n = 914) (n = 934) (n = 947) (n = 915) (n = 4,888) Total 15.9% 16.4% 16.2% 27.7% 18.6% 19.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) Table 68: MATH-088 Placements by Veteran Status, - Yes 20.5% 26.8% 35.6% 32.7% 19.8% 27.0% (n = 151) (n = 127) (n = 132) (n = 104) (n = 101) (n = 615) No 15.7% 15.8% 15.2% 27.5% 18.6% 18.7% (n = 2,797) (n = 2,137) (n = 2,639) (n = 2,760) (n = 2,616) (n = 12,949) Total 15.9% 16.4% 16.2% 27.7% 18.6% 19.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

45 44 P age Table 69: MATH-088 Placements by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 23.3% 30.8% 35.5% 52.2% 27.8% 33.9% (n = 30) (n = 13) (n = 31) (n = 23) (n = 18) (n = 115) No 15.8% 16.3% 15.9% 27.5% 18.6% 18.9% (n = 2,918) (n = 2,251) (n = 2,740) (n = 2,841) (n = 2,699) (n = 13,449) Total 15.9% 16.4% 16.2% 27.7% 18.6% 19.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) Table 70: MATH-088 Placement by 1st Generation, - Yes 24.0% 21.2% 20.5% 34.9% 23.8% 25.3% (n = 455) (n = 698) (n = 925) (n = 968) (n = 966) (n = 4,012) No 13.6% 12.3% 12.7% 22.3% 13.1% 15.1% (n = 705) (n = 1,283) (n = 1,586) (n = 1,649) (n = 1,523) (n = 6,746) Total 15.9% 16.4% 16.2% 27.7% 18.6% 19.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

46 45 P age MATH-090 Placements Table 71: MATH-090 Placements by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 44.0% 42.6% 31.1% 25.2% 32.8% 35.1% (n = 232) (n = 162) (n = 177) (n = 222) (n = 174) (n = 967) American Indian 37.5% 33.3% 27.3% 33.3% 25.0% 30.3% (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 11) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 33) Asian 22.8% 14.6% 15.7% 14.9% 10.5% 15.6% (n = 123) (n = 123) (n = 134) (n = 141) (n = 133) (n = 654) Filipino 29.7% 36.8% 28.7% 21.3% 29.3% 28.5% (n = 118) (n = 87) (n = 94) (n = 136) (n = 92) (n = 527) Hispanic/Latino 36.5% 40.4% 35.1% 20.7% 31.0% 32.4% (n = 1,062) (n = 831) (n = 1,066) (n = 1,075) (n = 1,042) (n = 5,076) Pacific Islander 43.5% 22.2% 57.1% 38.5% 8.3% 34.4% (n = 23) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 13) (n = 12) (n = 64) White 34.3% 33.4% 27.8% 21.1% 27.7% 28.8% (n = 1,155) (n = 881) (n = 1,063) (n = 1,056) (n = 1,029) (n = 5,184) Two or more 41.2% 35.4% 34.6% 22.6% 22.6% 31.0% (n = 199) (n = 147) (n = 205) (n = 199) (n = 208) (n = 958) Total 35.8% 35.7% 30.9% 21.1% 27.9% 30.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

47 46 P age Table 72: MATH-090 Placements by Gender, - Female 35.8% 36.1% 32.2% 20.5% 29.7% 30.6% (n = 1,521) (n = 1,172) (n = 1,467) (n = 1,545) (n = 1,467) (n = 7,172) Male 35.5% 35.3% 29.4% 21.6% 25.9% 29.5% (n = 1,404) (n = 1,078) (n = 1,282) (n = 1,296) (n = 1,208) (n = 6,268) Total 35.8% 35.7% 30.9% 21.1% 27.9% 30.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) Table 73: MATH-090 Placements by Age, - < 20 years 34.1% 36.7% 30.1% 21.7% 25.9% 29.5% (n = 2,219) (n = 1,704) (n = 2,108) (n = 2,140) (n = 2,003) (n = 10,174) years 43.9% 35.8% 39.1% 22.4% 28.1% 33.9% (n = 412) (n = 310) (n = 353) (n = 375) (n = 381) (n = 1,831) years 37.9% 32.4% 28.5% 16.4% 41.8% 31.1% (n = 248) (n = 207) (n = 242) (n = 275) (n = 251) (n = 1,223) 40+ years 33.3% 11.6% 23.5% 13.5% 34.1% 24.4% (n = 69) (n = 43) (n = 68) (n = 74) (n = 82) (n = 336) Total 35.8% 35.7% 30.9% 21.1% 27.9% 30.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

48 47 P age Table 74: MATH-090 Placements by Disability Status, - Yes 40.3% 34.5% 37.8% 17.4% 22.8% 31.3% (n = 186) (n = 200) (n = 217) (n = 178) (n = 145) (n = 926) No 35.5% 35.9% 30.3% 21.3% 28.2% 30.0% (n = 2,762) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,554) (n = 2,686) (n = 2,572) (n = 12,638) Total 35.8% 35.7% 30.9% 21.1% 27.9% 30.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) Table 75: MATH-090 Placements by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 37.2% 38.6% 33.2% 21.1% 29.5% 31.4% (n = 1,770) (n = 1,350) (n = 1,837) (n = 1,917) (n = 1,802) (n = 8,676) No 33.6% 31.5% 26.6% 21.1% 24.8% 27.8% (n = 1,178) (n = 914) (n = 934) (n = 947) (n = 915) (n = 4,888) Total 35.8% 35.7% 30.9% 21.1% 27.9% 30.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) Table 76: MATH-090 Placements by Veteran Status, - Yes 51.0% 44.1% 35.6% 26.9% 49.5% 42.0% (n = 151) (n = 127) (n = 132) (n = 104) (n = 101) (n = 615) No 35.0% 35.2% 30.7% 20.9% 27.1% 29.5% (n = 2,797) (n = 2,137) (n = 2,639) (n = 2,760) (n = 2,616) (n = 12,949) Total 35.8% 35.7% 30.9% 21.1% 27.9% 30.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

49 48 P age Table 77: MATH-090 Placements by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 50.0% 46.2% 35.5% 13.0% 22.2% 33.9% (n = 30) (n = 13) (n = 31) (n = 23) (n = 18) (n = 115) No 35.6% 35.7% 30.9% 21.2% 27.9% 30.1% (n = 2,918) (n = 2,251) (n = 2,740) (n = 2,841) (n = 2,699) (n = 13,449) Total 35.8% 35.7% 30.9% 21.1% 27.9% 30.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) Table 78: MATH-090 Placements by 1st Generation, - Yes 33.6% 37.2% 32.0% 21.6% 29.1% 29.9% (n = 455) (n = 698) (n = 925) (n = 968) (n = 966) (n = 4,012) No 33.3% 35.7% 30.8% 20.8% 27.8% 28.9% (n = 705) (n = 1,283) (n = 1,586) (n = 1,649) (n = 1,523) (n = 6,746) Total 35.8% 35.7% 30.9% 21.1% 27.9% 30.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

50 49 P age MATH-103/110 Placements Table 79: MATH-103/110 Placements by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 23.3% 17.3% 26.6% 23.9% 22.4% 22.9% YES 0.74 (n = 232) (n = 162) (n = 177) (n = 222) (n = 174) (n = 967) American Indian 25.0% 0.0% 9.1% 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% YES* 0.29 (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 11) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 33) Asian 20.3% 24.4% 32.8% 39.0% 19.5% 27.5% YES 0.89 (n = 123) (n = 123) (n = 134) (n = 141) (n = 133) (n = 654) Filipino 40.7% 31.0% 34.0% 48.5% 26.1% 37.4% NO 1.20 (n = 118) (n = 87) (n = 94) (n = 136) (n = 92) (n = 527) Hispanic/Latino 29.9% 29.0% 32.7% 41.2% 29.4% 32.6% NO 1.05 (n = 1,062) (n = 831) (n = 1,066) (n = 1,075) (n = 1,042) (n = 5,076) Pacific Islander 21.7% 33.3% 42.9% 23.1% 50.0% 31.3% NO* 1.01 (n = 23) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 13) (n = 12) (n = 64) White 28.1% 30.1% 31.2% 38.1% 26.6% 30.8% NO 0.99 (n = 1,155) (n = 881) (n = 1,063) (n = 1,056) (n = 1,029) (n = 5,184) Two or more 28.6% 32.7% 31.7% 42.2% 29.8% 33.0% NO 1.06 (n = 199) (n = 147) (n = 205) (n = 199) (n = 208) (n = 958) Total 28.5% 28.6% 31.6% 38.9% 27.2% 31.1% 29.9% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Filipino) Table 80: MATH-103/110 Placements by Gender, - Female 27.4% 29.8% 32.0% 36.9% 26.6% 30.6% NO 0.98 (n = 1,521) (n = 1,172) (n = 1,467) (n = 1,545) (n = 1,467) (n = 7,172) Male 29.6% 27.6% 31.2% 41.2% 27.7% 31.6% NO 1.02 (n = 1,404) (n = 1,078) (n = 1,282) (n = 1,296) (n = 1,208) (n = 6,268) Total 28.5% 28.6% 31.6% 38.9% 27.2% 31.1% 25.3% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Male) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

51 50 P age Table 81: MATH-103/110 Placements by Age, - < 20 years 32.8% 31.9% 36.7% 44.6% 31.4% 35.6% NO 1.15 (n = 2,219) (n = 1,704) (n = 2,108) (n = 2,140) (n = 2,003) (n = 10,174) years 18.2% 24.8% 21.5% 25.3% 20.7% 22.0% YES 0.71 (n = 412) (n = 310) (n = 353) (n = 375) (n = 381) (n = 1,831) years 12.1% 12.1% 11.2% 20.4% 10.8% 13.5% YES 0.43 (n = 248) (n = 207) (n = 242) (n = 275) (n = 251) (n = 1,223) 40+ years 8.7% 4.7% 0.0% 12.2% 7.3% 6.8% YES 0.22 (n = 69) (n = 43) (n = 68) (n = 74) (n = 82) (n = 336) Total 28.5% 28.6% 31.6% 38.9% 27.2% 31.1% 28.5% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (< 20 years) Table 82: MATH-103/110 Placements by Disability Status, - Yes 13.4% 18.5% 15.2% 21.3% 13.1% 16.4% YES 0.53 (n = 186) (n = 200) (n = 217) (n = 178) (n = 145) (n = 926) No 29.5% 29.6% 33.0% 40.1% 28.0% 32.2% NO 1.03 (n = 2,762) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,554) (n = 2,686) (n = 2,572) (n = 12,638) Total 28.5% 28.6% 31.6% 38.9% 27.2% 31.1% 25.7% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Not DSPS) Table 83: MATH-103/110 Placements by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 27.8% 27.3% 29.2% 38.1% 26.6% 30.0% NO 0.97 (n = 1,770) (n = 1,350) (n = 1,837) (n = 1,917) (n = 1,802) (n = 8,676) No 29.5% 30.5% 36.5% 40.5% 28.5% 33.0% NO 1.06 (n = 1,178) (n = 914) (n = 934) (n = 947) (n = 915) (n = 4,888) Total 28.5% 28.6% 31.6% 38.9% 27.2% 31.1% 26.4% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

52 51 P age Table 84: MATH-103/110 Placements by Veteran Status, - Yes 21.2% 22.0% 18.9% 35.6% 16.8% 22.6% YES 0.73 (n = 151) (n = 127) (n = 132) (n = 104) (n = 101) (n = 615) No 28.9% 29.0% 32.3% 39.0% 27.6% 31.5% NO 1.01 (n = 2,797) (n = 2,137) (n = 2,639) (n = 2,760) (n = 2,616) (n = 12,949) Total 28.5% 28.6% 31.6% 38.9% 27.2% 31.1% 25.2% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Not Vet) Table 85: MATH-103/110 Placements by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 16.7% 23.1% 25.8% 30.4% 27.8% 24.3% YES* 0.78 (n = 30) (n = 13) (n = 31) (n = 23) (n = 18) (n = 115) No 28.6% 28.6% 31.7% 39.0% 27.2% 31.1% NO 1.00 (n = 2,918) (n = 2,251) (n = 2,740) (n = 2,841) (n = 2,699) (n = 13,449) Total 28.5% 28.6% 31.6% 38.9% 27.2% 31.1% 24.9% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Not FY) Table 86: MATH-103/110 Placements by 1st Generation, - Yes 27.7% 28.4% 29.7% 36.0% 25.3% 29.7% NO 0.95 (n = 455) (n = 698) (n = 925) (n = 968) (n = 966) (n = 4,012) No 29.4% 30.2% 33.1% 42.3% 30.5% 33.8% NO 1.09 (n = 705) (n = 1,283) (n = 1,586) (n = 1,649) (n = 1,523) (n = 6,746) Total 28.5% 28.6% 31.6% 38.9% 27.2% 31.1% 27.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

53 52 P age MATH-120 or Above Placements Table 87: MATH-120 or Above Placements by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 7.3% 6.8% 11.9% 6.8% 12.1% 8.8% YES 0.45 (n = 232) (n = 162) (n = 177) (n = 222) (n = 174) (n = 967) American Indian 12.5% 0.0% 27.3% 33.3% 62.5% 30.3% YES* 1.54 (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 11) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 33) Asian 52.0% 49.6% 41.0% 34.8% 60.9% 47.4% NO 2.40 (n = 123) (n = 123) (n = 134) (n = 141) (n = 133) (n = 654) Filipino 24.6% 23.0% 27.7% 14.7% 31.5% 23.5% YES 1.19 (n = 118) (n = 87) (n = 94) (n = 136) (n = 92) (n = 527) Hispanic/Latino 17.0% 14.9% 18.3% 9.2% 21.5% 16.2% YES 0.82 (n = 1,062) (n = 831) (n = 1,066) (n = 1,075) (n = 1,042) (n = 5,076) Pacific Islander 13.0% 22.2% 0.0% 23.1% 8.3% 14.1% YES* 0.71 (n = 23) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 13) (n = 12) (n = 64) White 21.8% 20.5% 23.0% 13.4% 27.9% 21.3% YES 1.08 (n = 1,155) (n = 881) (n = 1,063) (n = 1,056) (n = 1,029) (n = 5,184) Two or more 15.1% 20.4% 19.5% 11.6% 28.8% 19.1% YES 0.97 (n = 199) (n = 147) (n = 205) (n = 199) (n = 208) (n = 958) Total 19.8% 19.3% 21.3% 12.4% 26.2% 19.7% 37.9% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Asian) Table 88: MATH-120 or Above Placements by Gender, - Female 17.7% 15.5% 18.7% 10.6% 23.9% 17.3% YES 0.88 (n = 1,521) (n = 1,172) (n = 1,467) (n = 1,545) (n = 1,467) (n = 7,172) Male 22.3% 23.4% 24.3% 14.5% 29.1% 22.6% NO 1.14 (n = 1,404) (n = 1,078) (n = 1,282) (n = 1,296) (n = 1,208) (n = 6,268) Total 19.8% 19.3% 21.3% 12.4% 26.2% 19.7% 18.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Male) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

54 53 P age Table 89: MATH-120 or Above Placements by Age, - < 20 years 22.8% 21.8% 24.9% 13.8% 29.3% 22.4% NO 1.14 (n = 2,219) (n = 1,704) (n = 2,108) (n = 2,140) (n = 2,003) (n = 10,174) years 14.6% 14.5% 13.6% 9.6% 20.7% 14.6% YES 0.74 (n = 412) (n = 310) (n = 353) (n = 375) (n = 381) (n = 1,831) years 6.0% 9.2% 5.8% 7.6% 15.9% 8.9% YES* 0.45 (n = 248) (n = 207) (n = 242) (n = 275) (n = 251) (n = 1,223) 40+ years 7.2% 2.3% 2.9% 1.4% 9.8% 5.1% YES 0.26 (n = 69) (n = 43) (n = 68) (n = 74) (n = 82) (n = 336) Total 19.8% 19.3% 21.3% 12.4% 26.2% 19.7% 18.0% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (< 20 years) Table 90: MATH-120 or Above Placements by Disability Status, - Yes 8.6% 7.0% 11.1% 7.9% 15.9% 9.8% YES 0.50 (n = 186) (n = 200) (n = 217) (n = 178) (n = 145) (n = 926) No 20.6% 20.4% 22.1% 12.7% 26.8% 20.5% NO 1.04 (n = 2,762) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,554) (n = 2,686) (n = 2,572) (n = 12,638) Total 19.8% 19.3% 21.3% 12.4% 26.2% 19.7% 16.4% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Not DSPS) Table 91: MATH-120 or Above Placements by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 15.5% 14.7% 18.7% 9.5% 21.6% 16.0% YES 0.81 (n = 1,770) (n = 1,350) (n = 1,837) (n = 1,917) (n = 1,802) (n = 8,676) No 26.3% 25.9% 26.2% 18.2% 35.3% 26.3% NO 1.33 (n = 1,178) (n = 914) (n = 934) (n = 947) (n = 915) (n = 4,888) Total 19.8% 19.3% 21.3% 12.4% 26.2% 19.7% 21.1% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

55 54 P age Table 92: MATH-120 or Above Placements by Veteran Status, - Yes 7.3% 7.1% 9.8% 4.8% 13.9% 8.5% YES 0.43 (n = 151) (n = 127) (n = 132) (n = 104) (n = 101) (n = 615) No 20.5% 20.0% 21.8% 12.6% 26.7% 20.3% NO 1.03 (n = 2,797) (n = 2,137) (n = 2,639) (n = 2,760) (n = 2,616) (n = 12,949) Total 19.8% 19.3% 21.3% 12.4% 26.2% 19.7% 16.2% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Not Vet) Table 93: MATH-120 or Above Placements by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 10.0% 0.0% 3.2% 4.3% 22.2% 7.8% YES* 0.40 (n = 30) (n = 13) (n = 31) (n = 23) (n = 18) (n = 115) No 19.9% 19.4% 21.5% 12.4% 26.3% 19.8% NO 1.01 (n = 2,918) (n = 2,251) (n = 2,740) (n = 2,841) (n = 2,699) (n = 13,449) Total 19.8% 19.3% 21.3% 12.4% 26.2% 19.7% 15.9% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Not FY) Table 94: MATH-120 or Above Placements by 1st Generation, - Yes 14.7% 13.2% 17.7% 7.5% 21.8% 15.1% YES 0.77 (n = 455) (n = 698) (n = 925) (n = 968) (n = 966) (n = 4,012) No 23.7% 21.7% 23.4% 14.6% 28.7% 22.1% NO 1.12 (n = 705) (n = 1,283) (n = 1,586) (n = 1,649) (n = 1,523) (n = 6,746) Total 19.8% 19.3% 21.3% 12.4% 26.2% 19.7% 17.7% (n = 2,948) (n = 2,264) (n = 2,771) (n = 2,864) (n = 2,717) (n = 13,564) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

56 55 P age Preparation Rates (Student Success Scorecard) The preparation rate data are derived from the completion cohorts in the Student Success Scorecard. The completion cohorts comprise of first time students in the system that earned at least six units (within six years of their first enrollments) and attempted any level of math or English within three years.. If a student s first attempted English class was below transfer level English (ENGL-120) or first attempted math course was below college level math (MATH-103/110), then the student was considered unprepared. Students must have attempted transfer level English and college level math or higher to be considered prepared (See Table 379). Figure 3: Preparation Rate Trends P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

57 56 P age Table 95: Preparation Rate Trends by Race/Ethnicity to to to to to African American 11.8% 12.9% 12.9% 9.6% 11.0% 11.6% YES 0.61 (n = 204) (n = 210) (n = 241) (n = 209) (n = 219) (n = 1,083) American Indian 21.4% 13.3% 24.1% 5.0% 20.0% 17.1% YES* 0.90 (n = 28) (n = 30) (n = 29) (n = 20) (n = 10) (n = 117) Asian 16.2% 16.7% 14.4% 21.0% 26.0% 19.7% NO 1.04 (n = 105) (n = 114) (n = 104) (n = 138) (n = 173) (n = 634) Filipino 11.9% 11.3% 9.3% 18.5% 15.5% 13.5% YES 0.71 (n = 118) (n = 106) (n = 107) (n = 135) (n = 97) (n = 563) Hispanic 13.8% 11.7% 13.2% 15.2% 11.9% 13.1% YES 0.69 (n = 429) (n = 504) (n = 485) (n = 567) (n = 707) (n = 2,692) Pacific Islander 9.4% 14.3% 13.6% 12.5% 22.2% 13.9% YES* 0.73 (n = 32) (n = 49) (n = 66) (n = 64) (n = 27) (n = 238) White 22.3% 23.3% 22.7% 24.9% 22.9% 23.2% NO 1.22 (n = 1,197) (n = 1,264) (n = 1,240) (n = 1,199) (n = 1,386) (n = 6,286) Two or more N/A N/A N/A N/A 18.6% 18.6% NO* 0.98 (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 177) (n = 177) Unknown 23.4% 16.5% 17.6% 22.8% 18.9% 20.0% NO 1.06 (n = 214) (n = 237) (n = 250) (n = 311) (n = 127) (n = 1,139) Total 18.9% 18.3% 18.3% 20.4% 18.8% 18.9% 18.5% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (White) Table 96: Preparation Rate Trends by Gender to to to to to Female 18.7% 18.5% 16.4% 18.9% 18.1% 18.1% NO 0.96 (n = 1,216) (n = 1,360) (n = 1,342) (n = 1,404) (n = 1,534) (n = 6,856) Male 19.3% 18.3% 20.1% 21.7% 19.3% 19.7% NO 1.04 (n = 1,095) (n = 1,136) (n = 1,155) (n = 1,201) (n = 1,358) (n = 5,945) Total 18.9% 18.3% 18.3% 20.4% 18.8% 18.9% 14.5% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Male) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

58 57 P age Table 97: Preparation Rate Trends by Age to to to to to <20 years 20.1% 19.5% 19.6% 21.0% 19.6% 20.0% NO 1.05 (n = 1,907) (n = 2,053) (n = 2,074) (n = 2,099) (n = 2,032) (n = 10,165) years 16.7% 14.5% 15.7% 20.1% 23.2% 18.7% NO 0.99 (n = 204) (n = 249) (n = 229) (n = 273) (n = 383) (n = 1,338) years 10.8% 8.3% 8.5% 14.8% 12.7% 11.6% YES 0.61 (n = 158) (n = 144) (n = 141) (n = 189) (n = 346) (n = 978) 40+ years 8.6% 17.6% 9.0% 17.1% 11.1% 12.5% YES 0.66 (n = 58) (n = 68) (n = 78) (n = 82) (n = 162) (n = 448) Total 18.9% 18.3% 18.3% 20.4% 18.8% 18.9% 16.0% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (<20 years) Table 98: Preparation Rate Trends by Disability Status to to to to to Yes 7.9% 10.9% 5.7% 5.4% 8.9% 7.8% YES 0.41 (n = 140) (n = 137) (n = 141) (n = 168) (n = 213) (n = 799) No 19.6% 18.8% 19.0% 21.4% 19.6% 19.7% NO 1.04 (n = 2,187) (n = 2,377) (n = 2,381) (n = 2,475) (n = 2,710) (n = 12,130) Total 18.9% 18.3% 18.3% 20.4% 18.8% 18.9% 15.7% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Not DSPS) Table 99: Preparation Rate Trends by Economically Disadvantaged to to to to to Yes 14.1% 13.6% 13.6% 16.6% 15.2% 14.8% YES 0.78 (n = 1,251) (n = 1,438) (n = 1,422) (n = 1,791) (n = 2,185) (n = 8,087) No 24.4% 24.7% 24.4% 28.2% 29.4% 25.9% NO 1.37 (n = 1,076) (n = 1,076) (n = 1,100) (n = 852) (n = 738) (n = 4,842) Total 18.9% 18.3% 18.3% 20.4% 18.8% 18.9% 20.7% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (No Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

59 58 P age Table 100: Preparation Rate Trends by Veteran Status to to to to to Yes 12.3% 15.0% 12.9% 10.5% 12.8% 12.8% YES 0.68 (n = 122) (n = 127) (n = 101) (n = 95) (n = 179) (n = 624) No 19.3% 18.5% 18.5% 20.7% 19.2% 19.3% NO 1.02 (n = 2,205) (n = 2,387) (n = 2,421) (n = 2,548) (n = 2,744) (n = 12,305) Total 18.9% 18.3% 18.3% 20.4% 18.8% 18.9% 15.4% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Non Vet) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

60 59 P age STUDENT SUCCESS MILESTONES First Year Enrollment Patterns First year enrollments in English, ESL, and math among first-time students consist of the cohort fall term, and the subsequent spring and summer terms, and can completed anywhere in the district. Table 101: First Year Enrollment of First Time Students, Enrolled in English/ESL Only 11.2% 11.9% 13.6% 12.9% 14.6% 12.8% (n = 580) (n = 575) (n = 535) (n = 617) (n = 667) (n = 2,974) Enrolled in Math Only 17.5% 16.7% 13.5% 11.6% 10.3% 14.0% (n = 908) (n = 804) (n = 531) (n = 553) (n = 469) (n = 3,265) Enrolled in Both English/ESL and Math 35.9% 34.0% 34.0% 36.9% 41.0% 36.4% (n = 1,859) (n = 1,640) (n = 1,339) (n = 1,764) (n = 1,868) (n = 8,470) Not enrolled in English/ESL or Math 35.3% 37.4% 38.9% 38.6% 34.1% 36.8% (n = 1,830) (n = 1,801) (n = 1,529) (n = 1,842) (n = 1,555) (n = 8,557) 1st Time Cohort (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

61 60 P age Table 102: First Year Enrollment in Both English/ESL and Math by Race/Ethnicity, African American/Black 24.7% 25.4% 26.1% 22.8% 30.9% 25.9% YES 0.71 (n = 433) (n = 397) (n = 314) (n = 377) (n = 366) (n = 1,887) American Indian 18.8% 22.2% 0.0% 41.2% 7.7% 21.4% YES* 0.59 (n = 16) (n = 18) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 17) (n = 13) (n = 70) Asian 36.7% 29.7% 32.3% 36.8% 39.2% 35.1% NO 0.96 (n = 316) (n = 259) (n = 235) (n = 269) (n = 250) (n = 1,329) Filipino 50.2% 41.5% 27.4% 40.2% 47.1% 42.4% NO 1.16 (n = 299) (n = 212) (n = 186) (n = 184) (n = 223) (n = 1,104) Hispanic/Latino 39.3% 37.3% 37.6% 40.8% 44.9% 40.1% NO 1.10 (n = 1,522) (n = 1,628) (n = 1,368) (n = 1,744) (n = 1,609) (n = 7,871) Pacific Islander 31.6% 16.7% 21.1% 13.6% 52.6% 26.1% YES* 0.72 (n = 38) (n = 36) (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 19) (n = 134) White 33.7% 33.5% 33.9% 36.8% 40.0% 35.5% NO 0.98 (n = 2,111) (n = 1,906) (n = 1,494) (n = 1,778) (n = 1,729) (n = 9,018) Two or more 37.1% 30.5% 33.0% 33.9% 36.6% 34.3% NO 0.94 (n = 369) (n = 325) (n = 267) (n = 354) (n = 317) (n = 1,632) Total 35.9% 34.0% 34.0% 36.9% 41.0% 36.4% 33.9% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Filipino) Table 103: First Year Enrollment in Both English/ESL and Math by Gender, Female 36.3% 34.8% 34.1% 37.4% 41.6% 36.9% NO 1.01 (n = 2,675) (n = 2,488) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,497) (n = 2,464) (n = 12,188) Male 35.7% 33.2% 34.0% 36.6% 40.2% 35.9% NO 0.99 (n = 2,456) (n = 2,292) (n = 1,842) (n = 2,234) (n = 2,053) (n = 10,877) Total 35.9% 34.0% 34.0% 36.9% 41.0% 36.4% 29.5% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

62 61 P age Table 104: First Year Enrollment in Both English/ESL and Math by Age, < 20 years 50.2% 47.3% 45.3% 50.8% 56.6% 50.1% NO 1.38 (n = 2,807) (n = 2,777) (n = 2,401) (n = 2,826) (n = 2,687) (n = 13,498) years 18.7% 18.1% 17.6% 17.8% 21.0% 18.6% YES 0.51 (n = 1,215) (n = 1,080) (n = 839) (n = 1,013) (n = 965) (n = 5,112) years 21.0% 14.3% 16.8% 17.9% 17.7% 17.7% YES 0.49 (n = 822) (n = 735) (n = 548) (n = 714) (n = 702) (n = 3,521) 40+ years 15.3% 11.4% 7.5% 8.5% 10.2% 11.3% YES 0.31 (n = 333) (n = 228) (n = 146) (n = 223) (n = 205) (n = 1,135) Total 35.9% 34.0% 34.0% 36.9% 41.0% 36.4% 40.1% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (< 20 years) Table 105: First Year Enrollment in Both English/ESL and Math by Disability Status, Yes 38.0% 33.0% 42.3% 37.5% 40.1% 38.1% NO 1.05 (n = 292) (n = 270) (n = 274) (n = 323) (n = 242) (n = 1,401) No 35.8% 34.1% 33.4% 36.9% 41.0% 36.3% NO 1.00 (n = 4,885) (n = 4,550) (n = 3,660) (n = 4,453) (n = 4,317) (n = 21,865) Total 35.9% 34.0% 34.0% 36.9% 41.0% 36.4% 29.0% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not DSPS) Table 106: First Year Enrollment in Both English/ESL and Math by Economically Disadvantaged, Yes 38.7% 37.4% 38.0% 40.1% 44.7% 39.9% NO 1.10 (n = 2,570) (n = 2,704) (n = 2,216) (n = 2,942) (n = 2,815) (n = 13,247) No 33.1% 29.7% 29.0% 31.8% 35.0% 31.8% NO 0.87 (n = 2,607) (n = 2,116) (n = 1,718) (n = 1,834) (n = 1,744) (n = 10,019) Total 35.9% 34.0% 34.0% 36.9% 41.0% 36.4% 25.4% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

63 62 P age Table 107: First Year Enrollment in Both English/ESL and Math by Veteran Status, Yes 42.9% 40.1% 38.8% 40.2% 32.9% 39.3% NO 1.08 (n = 315) (n = 287) (n = 227) (n = 271) (n = 219) (n = 1,319) No 35.5% 33.6% 33.7% 36.7% 41.4% 36.2% NO 1.00 (n = 4,862) (n = 4,533) (n = 3,707) (n = 4,505) (n = 4,340) (n = 21,947) Total 35.9% 34.0% 34.0% 36.9% 41.0% 36.4% 29.0% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not Vet) Table 108: First Year Enrollment in Both English/ESL and Math by Foster Youth Status, Yes 29.9% 34.6% 35.9% 39.6% 42.4% 37.6% NO 1.03 (n = 836) (n = 677) (n = 1,141) (n = 1,501) (n = 1,456) (n = 5,611) No 30.8% 34.7% 34.3% 36.2% 41.4% 36.1% NO 0.99 (n = 1,774) (n = 1,126) (n = 2,287) (n = 2,837) (n = 2,705) (n = 10,729) Total 35.9% 34.0% 34.0% 36.9% 41.0% 36.4% 28.8% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not FG) Table 109: First Year Enrollment in Both English/ESL and Math by 1st Generation, Yes 29.9% 34.6% 35.9% 39.6% 42.4% 37.6% NO 1.03 (n = 836) (n = 677) (n = 1,141) (n = 1,501) (n = 1,456) (n = 5,611) No 30.8% 34.7% 34.3% 36.2% 41.4% 36.1% NO 0.99 (n = 1,774) (n = 1,126) (n = 2,287) (n = 2,837) (n = 2,705) (n = 10,729) Total 35.9% 34.0% 34.0% 36.9% 41.0% 36.4% 28.8% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

64 63 P age Developmental Sequence Completion Patterns The following tables summarize the enrollment patterns among first-time students that were enrolled in developmental English (ENGL-090 or ENGL-098) or developmental math (MATH-080, MATH-088, or MATH-090) in their first-year at the college, and successfully completed a college level course (ENGL-109/110 or MATH- 103/110) or a transfer level course (ENGL-120/124 or MATH-120 or higher) at either college in the same discipline within two years. Developmental English Sequence, College Level Completion The following table displays the percentage of first-time students who enrolled in English during their first year (Summer,, Spring, Summer) and successfully completed ENGL-109 or ENGL-110 within two years. These college level English completion rates are broken out by the course level of the students first English enrollment. For example, among first-time students who began their English sequence at ENGL-090, about 31 percent successfully completed college level English within two years. Overall, nearly 66 percent of firsttime students successfully completed college level English within two years. Table 110: Developmental English Sequence Completion, ENGL % 32.7% 33.1% 33.0% 31.2% 30.4% (n = 220) (n = 196) (n = 148) (n = 109) (n = 173) (n = 846) ENGL % 49.6% 49.5% 53.0% 56.2% 50.9% (n = 886) (n = 970) (n = 955) (n = 842) (n = 949) (n = 4,602) ENGL-109/110/120/ % 79.7% 82.8% 83.3% 82.5% 80.5% (n = 1,109) (n = 874) (n = 761) (n = 582) (n = 892) (n = 4,218) Annual ENGL-109/110 or Higher Success Rate 59.1% 60.9% 61.8% 63.1% 65.7% 62.0% (n = 2,215) (n = 2,040) (n = 1,864) (n = 1,533) (n = 2,014) (n = 9,666) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

65 64 P age The following tables display the percentages of first-time students who enrolled in a developmental English course (ENGL-090, ENGL-098, ENGL-099) during their first year (Summer,, Spring, Summer) and successfully completed ENGL-109 or ENGL-110 within two years. Table 111: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Race/Ethnicity, African American/Black 24.0% 30.1% 41.8% 30.3% 53.6% 34.8% YES 0.73 (n = 125) (n = 113) (n = 98) (n = 89) (n = 84) (n = 509) American Indian 50.0% 16.7% 20.0% 0.0% 40.0% 28.6% YES* 0.60 (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 21) Asian 56.0% 54.5% 50.0% 70.0% 63.4% 59.1% NO 1.24 (n = 50) (n = 44) (n = 28) (n = 40) (n = 41) (n = 203) Filipino 47.4% 49.1% 61.9% 68.3% 53.4% 54.5% NO 1.14 (n = 57) (n = 106) (n = 63) (n = 41) (n = 58) (n = 325) Hispanic/Latino 38.2% 45.8% 44.9% 49.3% 49.2% 45.9% YES 0.96 (n = 364) (n = 437) (n = 483) (n = 438) (n = 547) (n = 2,269) Pacific Islander 18.2% 36.4% 14.3% 0.0% 33.3% 23.5% YES* 0.49 (n = 11) (n = 11) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 34) White 48.0% 54.3% 52.4% 53.8% 57.7% 53.0% NO 1.11 (n = 379) (n = 361) (n = 340) (n = 275) (n = 310) (n = 1,665) Two or more 39.2% 36.8% 35.3% 55.9% 45.7% 42.0% YES 0.88 (n = 79) (n = 76) (n = 68) (n = 59) (n = 70) (n = 352) Total 41.8% 46.7% 47.3% 50.7% 52.3% 47.7% 47.3% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Asian) Table 112: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Gender, Female 46.2% 49.4% 51.5% 53.3% 55.9% 51.3% NO 1.08 (n = 552) (n = 618) (n = 631) (n = 535) (n = 621) (n = 2,957) Male 37.4% 43.5% 41.9% 47.6% 47.7% 43.3% NO 0.91 (n = 551) (n = 540) (n = 461) (n = 410) (n = 493) (n = 2,455) Total 41.8% 46.7% 47.3% 50.7% 52.3% 47.7% 41.0% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

66 65 P age Table 113: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Age, < 20 years 43.6% 47.3% 49.4% 52.6% 54.9% 49.6% NO 1.04 (n = 838) (n = 898) (n = 886) (n = 774) (n = 926) (n = 4,322) years 33.3% 40.7% 38.0% 43.9% 34.2% 37.8% YES 0.79 (n = 144) (n = 140) (n = 142) (n = 107) (n = 120) (n = 653) years 40.2% 52.8% 40.0% 38.1% 48.5% 44.5% NO 0.93 (n = 107) (n = 106) (n = 65) (n = 63) (n = 68) (n = 409) 40+ years 35.3% 31.8% 40.0% 57.1% 62.5% 40.6% NO* 0.85 (n = 17) (n = 22) (n = 10) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 64) Total 41.8% 46.7% 47.3% 50.7% 52.3% 47.7% 39.7% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (< 20 years) Table 114: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Disability Status, Yes 32.1% 40.0% 41.5% 47.7% 44.8% 41.2% NO 0.86 (n = 112) (n = 95) (n = 94) (n = 111) (n = 105) (n = 517) No 42.9% 47.3% 47.9% 51.1% 53.1% 48.4% NO 1.01 (n = 994) (n = 1,071) (n = 1,009) (n = 840) (n = 1,017) (n = 4,931) Total 41.8% 46.7% 47.3% 50.7% 52.3% 47.7% 38.7% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Not DSPS) Table 115: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Economically Disadvantaged, Yes 38.6% 45.1% 45.5% 48.2% 51.1% 46.0% NO 0.97 (n = 601) (n = 670) (n = 736) (n = 647) (n = 804) (n = 3,458) No 45.5% 49.0% 51.0% 55.9% 55.3% 50.6% NO 1.06 (n = 505) (n = 496) (n = 367) (n = 304) (n = 318) (n = 1,990) Total 41.8% 46.7% 47.3% 50.7% 52.3% 47.7% 40.4% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

67 66 P age Table 116: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Veteran Status, Yes 44.7% 61.9% 62.3% 51.1% 54.0% 54.9% NO 1.15 (n = 76) (n = 84) (n = 53) (n = 45) (n = 50) (n = 308) No 41.6% 45.6% 46.6% 50.7% 52.2% 47.3% NO 0.99 (n = 1,030) (n = 1,082) (n = 1,050) (n = 906) (n = 1,072) (n = 5,140) Total 41.8% 46.7% 47.3% 50.7% 52.3% 47.7% 37.8% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Not Vet) Table 117: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Foster Youth Status, Yes 33.3% 43.8% 31.3% 0.0% 18.2% 28.0% YES* 0.59 (n = 15) (n = 16) (n = 16) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 22) (n = 75) No 41.9% 46.8% 47.6% 51.0% 53.0% 48.0% NO 1.01 (n = 1,091) (n = 1,150) (n = 1,087) (n = 945) (n = 1,100) (n = 5,373) Total 41.8% 46.7% 47.3% 50.7% 52.3% 47.7% 38.4% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Not FY) Table 118: Developmental English Sequence Completion by 1st Generation, Yes 38.4% 38.8% 38.9% 46.9% 50.6% 44.9% NO 0.94 (n = 112) (n = 209) (n = 185) (n = 354) (n = 435) (n = 1,295) No 34.6% 42.7% 48.9% 53.7% 54.1% 49.6% NO 1.04 (n = 156) (n = 314) (n = 223) (n = 501) (n = 601) (n = 1,795) Total 41.8% 46.7% 47.3% 50.7% 52.3% 47.7% 39.7% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

68 67 P age Developmental English Sequence, Transfer Level Completion The following table displays the percentage of first-time students who enrolled in English during their first year (Summer,, Spring, Summer) and successfully completed ENGL-120 or ENGL-124 within two years. These transfer level English completion rates are broken out by the course level of the students first English enrollment. For example, among first-time students who began their English sequence at ENGL-090, about 17 percent (16.8%) successfully completed transfer level English within two years. Overall, 48 percent of first-time students successfully completed transfer level English within two years. Table 119: Developmental English Sequence Completion, ENGL % 16.3% 12.8% 15.6% 16.8% 14.3% (n = 220) (n = 196) (n = 148) (n = 109) (n = 173) (n = 846) ENGL % 28.9% 26.5% 29.3% 36.1% 29.5% (n = 886) (n = 970) (n = 955) (n = 842) (n = 949) (n = 4,602) ENGL-109/ % 53.7% 57.7% 61.4% 54.2% 54.1% (n = 693) (n = 514) (n = 395) (n = 277) (n = 476) (n = 2,355) ENGL-120/ % 76.7% 79.8% 83.0% 81.5% 79.0% (n = 416) (n = 360) (n = 366) (n = 305) (n = 416) (n = 1,863) Annual ENGL- 41.0% 42.4% 42.5% 44.8% 48.1% 43.7% 120/124 Success (n = 2,215) (n = 2,040) (n = 1,864) (n = 1,533) (n = 2,014) (n = 9,666) Rate P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

69 68 P age The following tables display the percentages of first-time students who enrolled in a developmental English course (ENGL-090, ENGL-098, ENGL-099) during their first year (Summer,, Spring, Summer) and successfully completed ENGL-120 or ENGL-124 within two years. Table 120: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Race/Ethnicity, African American/Black 10.4% 13.3% 18.4% 13.5% 35.7% 17.3% YES 0.64 (n = 125) (n = 113) (n = 98) (n = 89) (n = 84) (n = 509) American Indian 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20.0% 9.5% YES* 0.35 (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 21) Asian 38.0% 36.4% 35.7% 47.5% 41.5% 39.9% NO 1.47 (n = 50) (n = 44) (n = 28) (n = 40) (n = 41) (n = 203) Filipino 33.3% 29.2% 33.3% 43.9% 31.0% 32.9% NO 1.21 (n = 57) (n = 106) (n = 63) (n = 41) (n = 58) (n = 325) Hispanic/Latino 21.7% 25.9% 21.1% 22.1% 30.5% 24.6% YES 0.91 (n = 364) (n = 437) (n = 483) (n = 438) (n = 547) (n = 2,269) Pacific Islander 9.1% 27.3% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 14.7% YES* 0.54 (n = 11) (n = 11) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 34) White 25.1% 32.7% 30.6% 35.3% 37.4% 31.8% YES 1.17 (n = 379) (n = 361) (n = 340) (n = 275) (n = 310) (n = 1,665) Two or more 20.3% 17.1% 19.1% 33.9% 28.6% 23.3% YES 0.86 (n = 79) (n = 76) (n = 68) (n = 59) (n = 70) (n = 352) Total 23.2% 26.8% 24.7% 27.8% 33.2% 27.1% 31.9% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Asian) Table 121: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Gender, Female 26.3% 30.1% 26.6% 28.2% 35.3% 29.4% NO 1.08 (n = 552) (n = 618) (n = 631) (n = 535) (n = 621) (n = 2,957) Male 20.1% 23.0% 21.9% 27.6% 30.4% 24.4% NO 0.90 (n = 551) (n = 540) (n = 461) (n = 410) (n = 493) (n = 2,455) Total 23.2% 26.8% 24.7% 27.8% 33.2% 27.1% 23.5% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

70 69 P age Table 122: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Age, < 20 years 24.7% 27.6% 26.5% 28.7% 35.0% 28.6% NO 1.05 (n = 838) (n = 898) (n = 886) (n = 774) (n = 926) (n = 4,322) years 18.1% 20.0% 16.2% 22.4% 22.5% 19.6% YES 0.72 (n = 144) (n = 140) (n = 142) (n = 107) (n = 120) (n = 653) years 20.6% 31.1% 20.0% 23.8% 27.9% 24.9% NO 0.92 (n = 107) (n = 106) (n = 65) (n = 63) (n = 68) (n = 409) 40+ years 11.8% 13.6% 10.0% 42.9% 25.0% 17.2% YES* 0.63 (n = 17) (n = 22) (n = 10) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 64) Total 23.2% 26.8% 24.7% 27.8% 33.2% 27.1% 22.9% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (< 20 years) Table 123: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Disability Status, Yes 17.9% 23.2% 20.2% 22.5% 30.5% 22.8% NO 0.84 (n = 112) (n = 95) (n = 94) (n = 111) (n = 105) (n = 517) No 23.8% 27.1% 25.1% 28.5% 33.4% 27.6% NO 1.02 (n = 994) (n = 1,071) (n = 1,009) (n = 840) (n = 1,017) (n = 4,931) Total 23.2% 26.8% 24.7% 27.8% 33.2% 27.1% 22.0% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Not DSPS) Table 124: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Economically Disadvantaged, Yes 20.1% 25.7% 24.0% 25.3% 30.3% 25.4% NO 0.94 (n = 601) (n = 670) (n = 736) (n = 647) (n = 804) (n = 3,458) No 26.9% 28.2% 25.9% 32.9% 40.3% 30.1% NO 1.11 (n = 505) (n = 496) (n = 367) (n = 304) (n = 318) (n = 1,990) Total 23.2% 26.8% 24.7% 27.8% 33.2% 27.1% 24.1% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

71 70 P age Table 125: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Veteran Status, Yes 26.3% 33.3% 41.5% 31.1% 44.0% 34.4% NO 1.27 (n = 76) (n = 84) (n = 53) (n = 45) (n = 50) (n = 308) No 23.0% 26.2% 23.8% 27.6% 32.6% 26.7% NO 0.98 (n = 1,030) (n = 1,082) (n = 1,050) (n = 906) (n = 1,072) (n = 5,140) Total 23.2% 26.8% 24.7% 27.8% 33.2% 27.1% 21.3% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Not Vet) Table 126: Developmental English Sequence Completion by Foster Youth Status, Yes 13.3% 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 4.5% 14.7% YES* 0.54 (n = 15) (n = 16) (n = 16) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 22) (n = 75) No 23.4% 26.8% 24.7% 27.9% 33.7% 27.3% NO 1.01 (n = 1,091) (n = 1,150) (n = 1,087) (n = 945) (n = 1,100) (n = 5,373) Total 23.2% 26.8% 24.7% 27.8% 33.2% 27.1% 21.8% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Not FY) Table 127: Developmental English Sequence Completion by 1st Generation, Yes 17.9% 21.1% 17.8% 23.7% 31.0% 24.4% NO 0.90 (n = 112) (n = 209) (n = 185) (n = 354) (n = 435) (n = 1,295) No 17.3% 21.0% 27.8% 29.9% 35.4% 28.9% NO 1.06 (n = 156) (n = 314) (n = 223) (n = 501) (n = 601) (n = 1,795) Total 23.2% 26.8% 24.7% 27.8% 33.2% 27.1% 23.1% (n = 1,106) (n = 1,166) (n = 1,103) (n = 951) (n = 1,122) (n = 5,448) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

72 71 P age Developmental Math Sequence, College Level Completion Table 128: Developmental Math Sequence Completion, MATH-080/ % 13.8% 18.9% 25.6% 19.3% 19.3% (n = 209) (n = 224) (n = 217) (n = 211) (n = 243) (n = 1,104) MATH-090/96/ % 29.2% 39.5% 44.8% 39.7% 36.7% (n = 525) (n = 483) (n = 739) (n = 496) (n = 582) (n = 2,825) MATH-103/110 or higher 68.5% 71.2% 78.6% 75.9% 71.9% 72.6% (n = 1,877) (n = 1,950) (n = 1,319) (n = 1,055) (n = 1,390) (n = 7,591) Annual MATH-103/110 or Higher Success Rate 56.5% 58.8% 60.2% 61.1% 57.7% 58.7% (n = 2,611) (n = 2,657) (n = 2,275) (n = 1,762) (n = 2,215) (n = 11,520) Table 129: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Race/Ethnicity, African American/Black 18.3% 10.4% 26.7% 29.0% 22.1% 21.3% YES 0.67 (n = 109) (n = 67) (n = 90) (n = 69) (n = 68) (n = 403) American Indian 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 8.3% YES* 0.26 (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 12) Asian 33.3% 31.8% 40.9% 47.8% 30.4% 36.9% NO 1.16 (n = 21) (n = 22) (n = 22) (n = 23) (n = 23) (n = 111) Filipino 22.7% 32.1% 42.9% 48.4% 41.4% 38.2% NO 1.20 (n = 22) (n = 28) (n = 21) (n = 31) (n = 29) (n = 131) Hispanic/Latino 21.2% 20.3% 30.6% 36.4% 34.0% 29.6% YES 0.93 (n = 222) (n = 236) (n = 369) (n = 291) (n = 371) (n = 1,489) Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.0% 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% YES* 0.33 (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 19) White 34.6% 30.5% 40.3% 40.6% 37.5% 36.7% NO 1.16 (n = 269) (n = 298) (n = 380) (n = 234) (n = 264) (n = 1,445) Two or more 23.5% 22.0% 33.3% 51.0% 28.6% 31.8% NO 1.00 (n = 51) (n = 41) (n = 57) (n = 49) (n = 63) (n = 261) Total 26.0% 24.3% 34.8% 39.0% 33.7% 31.8% 30.5% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Filipino) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

73 72 P age Table 130: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Gender, Female 28.7% 25.1% 37.2% 42.5% 35.6% 34.2% NO 1.07 (n = 394) (n = 378) (n = 559) (n = 391) (n = 449) (n = 2,171) Male 23.1% 23.5% 31.5% 35.2% 31.5% 29.0% NO 0.91 (n = 334) (n = 324) (n = 390) (n = 307) (n = 368) (n = 1,723) Total 26.0% 24.3% 34.8% 39.0% 33.7% 31.8% 27.3% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Female) Table 131: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Age, < 20 years 23.8% 19.7% 38.2% 40.9% 33.3% 33.0% NO 1.04 (n = 357) (n = 304) (n = 610) (n = 486) (n = 519) (n = 2,276) years 22.3% 27.0% 27.7% 27.3% 31.6% 27.1% YES 0.85 (n = 175) (n = 163) (n = 195) (n = 121) (n = 158) (n = 812) years 33.3% 32.0% 28.9% 45.9% 39.7% 35.1% NO 1.10 (n = 156) (n = 172) (n = 114) (n = 85) (n = 126) (n = 653) 40+ years 32.6% 19.1% 35.1% 33.3% 22.7% 27.1% YES 0.85 (n = 46) (n = 68) (n = 37) (n = 15) (n = 22) (n = 188) Total 26.0% 24.3% 34.8% 39.0% 33.7% 31.8% 28.1% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (25-39 years) Table 132: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Disability Status, Yes 22.4% 23.2% 29.6% 38.9% 23.5% 27.5% NO 0.87 (n = 85) (n = 82) (n = 81) (n = 90) (n = 98) (n = 436) No 26.5% 24.5% 35.3% 39.1% 35.1% 32.4% NO 1.02 (n = 649) (n = 625) (n = 875) (n = 617) (n = 727) (n = 3,493) Total 26.0% 24.3% 34.8% 39.0% 33.7% 31.8% 25.9% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Not DSPS) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

74 73 P age Table 133: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Economically Disadvantaged, Yes 24.3% 22.0% 32.6% 38.2% 32.8% 30.4% NO 0.96 (n = 437) (n = 449) (n = 635) (n = 469) (n = 607) (n = 2,597) No 28.6% 28.3% 39.3% 40.8% 36.2% 34.5% NO 1.09 (n = 297) (n = 258) (n = 321) (n = 238) (n = 218) (n = 1,332) Total 26.0% 24.3% 34.8% 39.0% 33.7% 31.8% 27.6% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Not Econ) Table 134: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Veteran Status, Yes 33.7% 38.8% 41.4% 46.9% 35.2% 38.8% NO 1.22 (n = 83) (n = 80) (n = 87) (n = 64) (n = 88) (n = 402) No 25.0% 22.5% 34.2% 38.3% 33.5% 31.0% NO 0.97 (n = 651) (n = 627) (n = 869) (n = 643) (n = 737) (n = 3,527) Total 26.0% 24.3% 34.8% 39.0% 33.7% 31.8% 24.8% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Not Vet) Table 135: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Foster Youth Status, Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% YES* 0.00 (n = 10) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 33) No 26.4% 24.5% 35.1% 39.2% 34.0% 32.1% NO 1.01 (n = 724) (n = 701) (n = 949) (n = 704) (n = 818) (n = 3,896) Total 26.0% 24.3% 34.8% 39.0% 33.7% 31.8% 25.7% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Not FY) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

75 74 P age Table 136: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by 1 st Generation, Yes 18.3% 24.2% 28.4% 36.3% 35.1% 31.4% NO 0.99 (n = 71) (n = 128) (n = 162) (n = 245) (n = 313) (n = 919) No 24.0% 19.8% 37.4% 42.3% 34.0% 34.2% NO 1.07 (n = 100) (n = 182) (n = 190) (n = 378) (n = 444) (n = 1,294) Total 26.0% 24.3% 34.8% 39.0% 33.7% 31.8% 27.3% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

76 75 P age Developmental Math Sequence, Transfer Level Completion Table 137: Developmental Math Sequence Completion, MATH-080/88 3.3% 0.4% 2.3% 4.7% 4.1% 3.0% (n = 209) (n = 224) (n = 217) (n = 211) (n = 243) (n = 1,104) MATH-090/96/97 4.8% 1.4% 13.4% 16.1% 10.3% 9.6% (n = 525) (n = 483) (n = 739) (n = 496) (n = 582) (n = 2,825) MATH-103/ % 5.6% 38.0% 32.4% 29.2% 22.2% (n = 989) (n = 974) (n = 686) (n = 543) (n = 720) (n = 3,912) MATH-120 or higher 71.3% 17.9% 81.0% 74.6% 74.2% 59.8% (n = 888) (n = 976) (n = 633) (n = 512) (n = 670) (n = 3,679) Annual MATH-120+ Success Rate 31.8% 9.0% 38.6% 36.8% 35.1% 29.3% (n = 2,611) (n = 2,657) (n = 2,275) (n = 1,762) (n = 2,215) (n = 11,520) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

77 76 P age Table 138: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Race/Ethnicity, African American/Black 5.5% 0.0% 4.4% 7.2% 2.9% 4.2% YES 0.55 (n = 109) (n = 67) (n = 90) (n = 69) (n = 68) (n = 403) American Indian 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% YES* 0.00 (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 12) Asian 4.8% 4.5% 13.6% 13.0% 4.3% 8.1% YES 1.05 (n = 21) (n = 22) (n = 22) (n = 23) (n = 23) (n = 111) Filipino 13.6% 0.0% 19.0% 16.1% 13.8% 12.2% NO 1.58 (n = 22) (n = 28) (n = 21) (n = 31) (n = 29) (n = 131) Hispanic/Latino 2.3% 0.4% 9.8% 10.0% 7.5% 6.6% YES 0.86 (n = 222) (n = 236) (n = 369) (n = 291) (n = 371) (n = 1,489) Pacific Islander 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% YES* 0.00 (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 19) White 5.2% 1.3% 13.7% 16.2% 11.4% 9.6% YES 1.23 (n = 269) (n = 298) (n = 380) (n = 234) (n = 264) (n = 1,445) Two or more 5.9% 4.9% 8.8% 20.4% 7.9% 9.6% YES 1.24 (n = 51) (n = 41) (n = 57) (n = 49) (n = 63) (n = 261) Total 4.4% 1.1% 10.9% 12.7% 8.5% 7.7% 9.8% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Filipino) Table 139: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Gender, Female 4.1% 0.8% 10.6% 12.8% 7.8% 7.5% NO 0.97 (n = 394) (n = 378) (n = 559) (n = 391) (n = 449) (n = 2,171) Male 4.5% 1.5% 11.3% 12.7% 9.0% 7.9% NO 1.02 (n = 334) (n = 324) (n = 390) (n = 307) (n = 368) (n = 1,723) Total 4.4% 1.1% 10.9% 12.7% 8.5% 7.7% 6.3% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Male) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

78 77 P age Table 140: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Age, < 20 years 2.5% 0.3% 12.5% 13.8% 8.3% 8.6% NO 1.11 (n = 357) (n = 304) (n = 610) (n = 486) (n = 519) (n = 2,276) years 5.7% 2.5% 7.2% 8.3% 7.6% 6.2% YES 0.80 (n = 175) (n = 163) (n = 195) (n = 121) (n = 158) (n = 812) years 6.4% 1.2% 8.8% 14.1% 11.9% 7.5% NO 0.97 (n = 156) (n = 172) (n = 114) (n = 85) (n = 126) (n = 653) 40+ years 6.5% 1.5% 10.8% 6.7% 0.0% 4.8% YES 0.62 (n = 46) (n = 68) (n = 37) (n = 15) (n = 22) (n = 188) Total 4.4% 1.1% 10.9% 12.7% 8.5% 7.7% 6.9% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (< 20 years) Table 141: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Disability Status, Yes 3.5% 0.0% 7.4% 10.0% 5.1% 5.3% YES 0.68 (n = 85) (n = 82) (n = 81) (n = 90) (n = 98) (n = 436) No 4.5% 1.3% 11.2% 13.1% 8.9% 8.0% NO 1.04 (n = 649) (n = 625) (n = 875) (n = 617) (n = 727) (n = 3,493) Total 4.4% 1.1% 10.9% 12.7% 8.5% 7.7% 6.4% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Not DSPS) Table 142: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Economically Disadvantaged, Yes 3.9% 0.9% 8.5% 10.9% 8.1% 6.7% YES 0.87 (n = 437) (n = 449) (n = 635) (n = 469) (n = 607) (n = 2,597) No 5.1% 1.6% 15.6% 16.4% 9.6% 9.7% NO 1.25 (n = 297) (n = 258) (n = 321) (n = 238) (n = 218) (n = 1,332) Total 4.4% 1.1% 10.9% 12.7% 8.5% 7.7% 7.7% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

79 78 P age Table 143: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Veteran Status, Yes 8.4% 1.3% 18.4% 14.1% 17.0% 11.9% NO 1.54 (n = 83) (n = 80) (n = 87) (n = 64) (n = 88) (n = 402) No 3.8% 1.1% 10.1% 12.6% 7.5% 7.3% NO 0.94 (n = 651) (n = 627) (n = 869) (n = 643) (n = 737) (n = 3,527) Total 4.4% 1.1% 10.9% 12.7% 8.5% 7.7% 5.8% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Not Vet) Table 144: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by Foster Youth Status, Yes 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% YES* 0.00 (n = 10) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 33) No 4.4% 1.1% 11.0% 12.8% 8.6% 7.8% NO 1.01 (n = 724) (n = 701) (n = 949) (n = 704) (n = 818) (n = 3,896) Total 4.4% 1.1% 10.9% 12.7% 8.5% 7.7% 6.2% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Not FY) Table 145: Developmental Math Sequence Completion by 1 st Generation, Yes 1.4% 0.8% 4.3% 10.6% 7.3% 6.3% YES 0.82 (n = 71) (n = 128) (n = 162) (n = 245) (n = 313) (n = 919) No 6.0% 0.5% 15.3% 14.8% 9.7% 10.4% NO 1.35 (n = 100) (n = 182) (n = 190) (n = 378) (n = 444) (n = 1,294) Total 4.4% 1.1% 10.9% 12.7% 8.5% 7.7% 8.3% (n = 734) (n = 707) (n = 956) (n = 707) (n = 825) (n = 3,929) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

80 79 P age Remedial Progress Rates (Student Success Scorecard) Remedial English Progress Rates The initial cohort of students is comprised of those first-time students whose first attempt in an English course was below transfer level (ENGL-120). The cohort year is based on the academic year of the first attempt. Students with successful outcomes are those students who successfully completed transfer level English (ENGL-120) within six years of their first attempt. Figure 4: Remedial English Progress Rate Trends P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

81 80 P age Table 146: Remedial English Progress Rate Trends by Race/Ethnicity to to to to to African American 26.9% 35.7% 32.9% 32.9% 36.1% 33.0% YES 0.72 (n = 271) (n = 280) (n = 334) (n = 307) (n = 305) (n = 1,497) American Indian 34.5% 42.1% 59.4% 29.6% 35.7% 41.4% YES* 0.91 (n = 29) (n = 38) (n = 32) (n = 27) (n = 14) (n = 140) Asian 51.8% 55.6% 59.4% 56.0% 60.9% 56.7% NO 1.24 (n = 139) (n = 144) (n = 133) (n = 134) (n = 133) (n = 683) Filipino 52.4% 54.2% 47.3% 49.0% 57.7% 51.9% NO 1.14 (n = 147) (n = 142) (n = 146) (n = 145) (n = 123) (n = 703) Hispanic 43.0% 41.6% 40.7% 39.1% 42.8% 41.5% YES 0.91 (n = 553) (n = 632) (n = 605) (n = 673) (n = 863) (n = 3,326) Pacific Islander 46.7% 31.9% 45.3% 31.7% 34.3% 37.7% YES* 0.83 (n = 30) (n = 47) (n = 64) (n = 63) (n = 35) (n = 239) White 48.2% 46.2% 48.5% 48.4% 49.3% 48.1% NO 1.06 (n = 1,241) (n = 1,246) (n = 1,348) (n = 1,259) (n = 1,217) (n = 6,311) Two or more N/A N/A N/A N/A 46.5% 46.5% NO* 1.02 (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 142) (n = 142) Unknown 56.6% 54.9% 52.9% 41.4% 50.9% 50.9% NO 1.12 (n = 212) (n = 255) (n = 274) (n = 292) (n = 165) (n = 1,198) Total 45.8% 45.5% 46.0% 43.7% 46.6% 45.6% 45.3% (n = 2,622) (n = 2,784) (n = 2,936) (n = 2,900) (n = 2,997) (n = 14,239) (Asian) Table 147: Remedial English Progress Rate Trends by Gender to to to to to Female 47.9% 47.1% 48.4% 46.7% 49.9% 48.0% NO 1.05 (n = 1,404) (n = 1,468) (n = 1,555) (n = 1,560) (n = 1,559) (n = 7,546) Male 43.3% 43.4% 43.0% 40.2% 43.4% 42.6% NO 0.94 (n = 1,202) (n = 1,289) (n = 1,364) (n = 1,315) (n = 1,418) (n = 6,588) Total 45.8% 45.5% 46.0% 43.7% 46.6% 45.6% 38.4% (n = 2,622) (n = 2,784) (n = 2,936) (n = 2,900) (n = 2,997) (n = 14,239) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

82 81 P age Table 148: Remedial English Progress Rate Trends by Age to to to to to <20 years 51.2% 50.1% 51.0% 47.8% 51.0% 50.2% NO 1.10 (n = 1,658) (n = 1,774) (n = 1,873) (n = 1,810) (n = 1,719) (n = 8,834) years 41.6% 39.8% 40.7% 37.6% 41.3% 40.2% YES 0.88 (n = 541) (n = 563) (n = 600) (n = 612) (n = 659) (n = 2,975) years 33.3% 37.0% 33.4% 39.7% 41.9% 37.5% YES 0.82 (n = 321) (n = 338) (n = 329) (n = 363) (n = 482) (n = 1,833) 40+ years 20.6% 27.5% 30.6% 24.3% 34.3% 28.0% YES 0.61 (n = 102) (n = 109) (n = 134) (n = 115) (n = 137) (n = 597) Total 45.8% 45.5% 46.0% 43.7% 46.6% 45.6% 40.2% (n = 2,622) (n = 2,784) (n = 2,936) (n = 2,900) (n = 2,997) (n = 14,239) (<20 years) Table 149: Remedial English Progress Rate Trends by Disability Status to to to to to Yes 35.3% 46.8% 37.8% 40.7% 40.6% 40.2% NO 0.88 (n = 173) (n = 173) (n = 217) (n = 214) (n = 266) (n = 1,043) No 46.6% 45.4% 46.7% 44.0% 47.2% 46.0% NO 1.01 (n = 2,449) (n = 2,611) (n = 2,719) (n = 2,686) (n = 2,731) (n = 13,196) Total 45.8% 45.5% 46.0% 43.7% 46.6% 45.6% 36.8% (n = 2,622) (n = 2,784) (n = 2,936) (n = 2,900) (n = 2,997) (n = 14,239) (Not DSPS) Table 150: Remedial English Progress Rate Trends by Economically Disadvantaged to to to to to Yes 44.2% 44.8% 45.4% 42.3% 45.6% 44.4% NO 0.98 (n = 1,236) (n = 1,371) (n = 1,400) (n = 1,707) (n = 1,984) (n = 7,698) No 47.3% 46.2% 46.6% 45.8% 48.8% 46.9% NO 1.03 (n = 1,386) (n = 1,413) (n = 1,536) (n = 1,193) (n = 1,013) (n = 6,541) Total 45.8% 45.5% 46.0% 43.7% 46.6% 45.6% 37.5% (n = 2,622) (n = 2,784) (n = 2,936) (n = 2,900) (n = 2,997) (n = 14,239) (No Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

83 82 P age Table 151: Remedial English Progress Rate Trends by Veteran Status to to to to to Yes 42.1% 46.0% 49.0% 50.4% 53.1% 48.1% NO 1.06 (n = 183) (n = 163) (n = 143) (n = 139) (n = 209) (n = 837) No 46.1% 45.5% 45.9% 43.4% 46.2% 45.4% NO 1.00 (n = 2,439) (n = 2,621) (n = 2,793) (n = 2,761) (n = 2,788) (n = 13,402) Total 45.8% 45.5% 46.0% 43.7% 46.6% 45.6% 36.3% (n = 2,622) (n = 2,784) (n = 2,936) (n = 2,900) (n = 2,997) (n = 14,239) (Non Vet) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

84 83 P age Remedial Math Progress Rates The initial cohort of students is comprised of those first-time students whose first attempt in a math course was below college level (MATH-103/110). The cohort year is based on the academic year of the first attempt. Students with successful outcomes are those students who successfully completed college level math (MATH-103/110) within six years of their first attempt. Figure 5: Remedial Math Progress Rate Trends P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

85 84 P age Table 152: Remedial Math Progress Rate Trends by Race/Ethnicity to to to to to African American 22.4% 22.4% 22.9% 27.9% 26.0% 24.3% YES 0.69 (n = 183) (n = 183) (n = 236) (n = 183) (n = 215) (n = 1,000) American Indian 31.6% 31.6% 37.5% 32.1% 50.0% 35.4% YES* 1.01 (n = 19) (n = 19) (n = 16) (n = 28) (n = 14) (n = 96) Asian 47.4% 49.0% 59.1% 45.5% 42.4% 48.1% NO 1.37 (n = 38) (n = 51) (n = 44) (n = 44) (n = 66) (n = 243) Filipino 48.5% 37.8% 35.2% 35.4% 41.9% 40.3% NO 1.15 (n = 66) (n = 37) (n = 54) (n = 48) (n = 43) (n = 248) Hispanic 30.0% 34.4% 35.2% 27.6% 33.5% 32.1% YES 0.92 (n = 300) (n = 302) (n = 304) (n = 340) (n = 415) (n = 1,661) Pacific Islander 25.0% 32.1% 38.7% 30.4% 11.1% 29.5% YES* 0.84 (n = 12) (n = 28) (n = 31) (n = 23) (n = 18) (n = 112) White 39.1% 37.3% 37.8% 36.6% 43.1% 39.0% NO 1.11 (n = 565) (n = 579) (n = 545) (n = 533) (n = 666) (n = 2,888) Two or more N/A N/A N/A N/A 29.5% 29.5% YES* 0.84 (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 61) (n = 61) Unknown 40.9% 38.2% 38.1% 36.8% 29.9% 37.0% YES 1.05 (n = 115) (n = 131) (n = 126) (n = 152) (n = 97) (n = 621) Total 35.3% 35.0% 35.3% 33.2% 36.6% 35.1% 38.5% (n = 1,298) (n = 1,330) (n = 1,356) (n = 1,351) (n = 1,595) (n = 6,930) (Asian) Table 153: Remedial Math Progress Rate Trends by Gender to to to to to Female 37.5% 39.6% 38.4% 35.1% 39.0% 37.9% NO 1.08 (n = 761) (n = 770) (n = 802) (n = 796) (n = 876) (n = 4,005) Male 32.0% 28.2% 30.7% 30.9% 33.5% 31.2% NO 0.89 (n = 528) (n = 549) (n = 547) (n = 538) (n = 708) (n = 2,870) Total 35.3% 35.0% 35.3% 33.2% 36.6% 35.1% 30.3% (n = 1,298) (n = 1,330) (n = 1,356) (n = 1,351) (n = 1,595) (n = 6,930) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

86 85 P age Table 154: Remedial Math Progress Rate Trends by Age to to to to to <20 years 35.3% 36.9% 34.9% 31.4% 34.7% 34.7% NO 0.95 (n = 546) (n = 537) (n = 565) (n = 523) (n = 536) (n = 2,707) years 34.8% 32.1% 33.3% 28.3% 33.3% 32.3% NO 0.91 (n = 374) (n = 399) (n = 408) (n = 414) (n = 469) (n = 2,064) years 37.1% 31.7% 38.1% 41.6% 42.2% 38.5% NO 1.15 (n = 267) (n = 287) (n = 268) (n = 286) (n = 412) (n = 1,520) 40+ years 32.4% 44.9% 37.4% 38.3% 38.2% 38.2% NO 1.04 (n = 111) (n = 107) (n = 115) (n = 128) (n = 178) (n = 639) Total 35.3% 35.0% 35.3% 33.2% 36.6% 35.1% 30.8% (n = 1,298) (n = 1,330) (n = 1,356) (n = 1,351) (n = 1,595) (n = 6,930) (25-39 years) Table 155: Remedial Math Progress Rate Trends by Disability Status to to to to to Yes 30.7% 38.8% 37.6% 40.3% 39.2% 37.6% NO 1.07 (n = 137) (n = 139) (n = 141) (n = 159) (n = 217) (n = 793) No 35.8% 34.5% 35.0% 32.3% 36.2% 34.8% NO 0.99 (n = 1,161) (n = 1,191) (n = 1,215) (n = 1,192) (n = 1,378) (n = 6,137) Total 35.3% 35.0% 35.3% 33.2% 36.6% 35.1% 27.8% (n = 1,298) (n = 1,330) (n = 1,356) (n = 1,351) (n = 1,595) (n = 6,930) (Not DSPS) Table 156: Remedial Math Progress Rate Trends by Economically Disadvantaged to to to to to Yes 37.2% 34.7% 33.9% 34.6% 34.9% 35.0% NO 1.00 (n = 704) (n = 778) (n = 746) (n = 914) (n = 1,183) (n = 4,325) No 33.0% 35.3% 36.9% 30.4% 41.5% 35.3% NO 1.01 (n = 594) (n = 552) (n = 610) (n = 437) (n = 412) (n = 2,605) Total 35.3% 35.0% 35.3% 33.2% 36.6% 35.1% 28.3% (n = 1,298) (n = 1,330) (n = 1,356) (n = 1,351) (n = 1,595) (n = 6,930) (No Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

87 86 P age Table 157: Remedial Math Progress Rate Trends by Veteran Status to to to to to Yes 41.3% 39.6% 43.7% 58.3% 37.7% 43.3% NO 1.23 (n = 104) (n = 106) (n = 103) (n = 96) (n = 162) (n = 571) No 34.8% 34.6% 34.6% 31.3% 36.5% 34.4% NO 0.98 (n = 1,194) (n = 1,224) (n = 1,253) (n = 1,255) (n = 1,433) (n = 6,359) Total 35.3% 35.0% 35.3% 33.2% 36.6% 35.1% 27.5% (n = 1,298) (n = 1,330) (n = 1,356) (n = 1,351) (n = 1,595) (n = 6,930) (Non Vet) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

88 87 P age ESL Progress Rates The initial cohort of students is comprised of those first-time students whose first attempt in an ESL course was below transfer level. The cohort year is based on the academic year of the first attempt. Students with successful outcomes are those students who successfully completed transfer level English (ENGL-120) within six years of their first attempt of an ESL course. Figure 6: ESL Progress Rate Trends P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

89 88 P age Table 158: ESL Progress Rate Trends by Race/Ethnicity to to to to to African American 61.5% 55.6% 52.2% 76.0% 50.0% 58.6% NO 1.00 (n = 13) (n = 18) (n = 23) (n = 25) (n = 32) (n = 111) 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 68.1% 61.1% 65.5% 69.8% 59.8% 64.3% NO 1.10 (n = 47) (n = 36) (n = 58) (n = 53) (n = 92) (n = 286) Filipino 0.0% 20.0% 9.1% 25.0% 57.1% 23.5% YES 0.40 (n = 3) (n = 5) (n = 11) (n = 8) (n = 7) (n = 34) Hispanic 51.7% 59.7% 44.1% 45.6% 49.4% 49.7% NO 0.85 (n = 58) (n = 72) (n = 93) (n = 68) (n = 79) (n = 370) Pacific Islander 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% NA 50.0% 60.0% NO* N/A (n = 1) (n = 1) (n = 1) (n = 0) (n = 2) (n = 5) White 69.5% 54.4% 57.5% 69.5% 65.1% 63.7% NO 1.09 (n = 59) (n = 79) (n = 73) (n = 82) (n = 249) (n = 542) Two or more N/A N/A N/A N/A 80.0% 80.0% NO* 1.37 (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 15) (n = 15) Unknown 52.6% 54.5% 51.4% 65.4% 51.4% 55.8% NO 0.96 (n = 38) (n = 33) (n = 37) (n = 52) (n = 37) (n = 197) Total 59.8% 56.6% 52.0% 62.5% 60.0% 58.4% 47.8% (n = 219) (n = 244) (n = 296) (n = 288) (n = 513) (n = 1,560) (Asian) Table 159: ESL Progress Rate Trends by Gender to to to to to Female 62.6% 53.1% 55.6% 59.2% 65.5% 59.8% NO 1.02 (n = 107) (n = 145) (n = 180) (n = 174) (n = 275) (n = 881) Male 57.1% 61.2% 46.6% 66.7% 54.1% 56.4% NO 0.97 (n = 112) (n = 98) (n = 116) (n = 108) (n = 229) (n = 663) Total 59.8% 56.6% 52.0% 62.5% 60.0% 58.4% 52.4% (n = 219) (n = 244) (n = 296) (n = 288) (n = 513) (n = 1,560) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

90 89 P age Table 160: ESL Progress Rate Trends by Age to to to to to <20 years 68.2% 70.6% 66.7% 67.6% 62.5% 66.5% NO 1.14 (n = 22) (n = 34) (n = 42) (n = 37) (n = 56) (n = 191) years 62.5% 57.7% 67.5% 82.6% 71.6% 68.7% NO 1.18 (n = 48) (n = 52) (n = 77) (n = 46) (n = 116) (n = 339) years 56.4% 53.4% 45.0% 64.3% 58.0% 56.0% NO 0.96 (n = 101) (n = 103) (n = 109) (n = 126) (n = 200) (n = 639) 40+ years 60.4% 52.7% 36.8% 45.6% 52.5% 49.4% YES 0.85 (n = 48) (n = 55) (n = 68) (n = 79) (n = 141) (n = 391) Total 59.8% 56.6% 52.0% 62.5% 60.0% 58.4% 53.2% (n = 219) (n = 244) (n = 296) (n = 288) (n = 513) (n = 1,560) (<20 years) Table 161: ESL Progress Rate Trends by Disability Status to to to to to Yes 70.0% 68.8% 76.9% 58.3% 67.7% 68.3% NO 1.17 (n = 10) (n = 16) (n = 13) (n = 12) (n = 31) (n = 82) No 59.3% 55.7% 50.9% 62.7% 59.5% 57.8% NO 0.99 (n = 209) (n = 228) (n = 283) (n = 276) (n = 482) (n = 1,478) Total 59.8% 56.6% 52.0% 62.5% 60.0% 58.4% 47.6% (n = 219) (n = 244) (n = 296) (n = 288) (n = 513) (n = 1,560) (Not DSPS) Table 162: ESL Progress Rate Trends by Economically Disadvantaged to to to to to Yes 65.2% 59.4% 57.7% 65.7% 60.1% 61.3% NO 1.05 (n = 155) (n = 175) (n = 196) (n = 233) (n = 464) (n = 1,223) No 46.9% 49.3% 41.0% 49.1% 59.2% 47.8% NO 0.82 (n = 64) (n = 69) (n = 100) (n = 55) (n = 49) (n = 337) Total 59.8% 56.6% 52.0% 62.5% 60.0% 58.4% 47.3% (n = 219) (n = 244) (n = 296) (n = 288) (n = 513) (n = 1,560) (No Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

91 90 P age Table 163: ESL Progress Rate Trends by Veteran Status to to to to to Yes 100.0% 0.0% 25.0% 50.0% 75.0% 56.3% NO* 0.96 (n = 4) (n = 2) (n = 4) (n = 2) (n = 4) (n = 16) No 59.1% 57.0% 52.4% 62.6% 59.9% 58.4% NO 1.00 (n = 215) (n = 242) (n = 292) (n = 286) (n = 509) (n = 1,544) Total 59.8% 56.6% 52.0% 62.5% 60.0% 58.4% 46.7% (n = 219) (n = 244) (n = 296) (n = 288) (n = 513) (n = 1,560) (Non Vet) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

92 91 P age Course Completion Course completion rates are based on duplicated enrollments. Successful Course Completion Rate = (Grades A, B, C, and P) / (Grades A, B, C, D, F, P, NP, I, W). Course Success Rates: All Courses The following charts and tables report the success rates of all credit courses offered in the fall terms at the college. Figure 7: All Course Success Rates, - P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

93 92 P age Table 164: All Course Success Rates by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 55.7% 58.1% 52.9% 55.5% 56.3% 55.6% YES 0.80 (n = 4,262) (n = 3,601) (n = 3,873) (n = 3,772) (n = 3,277) (n = 18,785) American Indian 65.2% 62.5% 58.9% 51.6% 62.5% 61.0% NO* 0.88 (n = 270) (n = 184) (n = 158) (n = 128) (n = 104) (n = 844) Asian 75.2% 77.2% 76.1% 75.4% 73.6% 75.5% NO 1.09 (n = 3,736) (n = 3,401) (n = 3,367) (n = 3,201) (n = 3,285) (n = 16,990) Filipino 71.9% 73.9% 71.1% 70.0% 69.8% 71.4% NO 1.03 (n = 2,276) (n = 2,162) (n = 2,249) (n = 2,290) (n = 1,998) (n = 10,975) Hispanic/Latino 64.5% 65.5% 63.5% 63.9% 63.6% 64.2% NO 0.93 (n = 15,540) (n = 15,402) (n = 17,484) (n = 17,398) (n = 17,889) (n = 83,713) Pacific Islander 58.2% 62.7% 66.1% 62.0% 58.9% 61.2% NO* 0.89 (n = 493) (n = 357) (n = 277) (n = 279) (n = 280) (n = 1,686) White 74.2% 76.0% 73.3% 73.7% 75.1% 74.4% NO 1.08 (n = 24,306) (n = 21,785) (n = 22,381) (n = 21,222) (n = 21,017) (n = 110,711) Two or more 65.6% 68.2% 67.7% 67.2% 68.1% 67.3% NO 0.97 (n = 4,190) (n = 3,779) (n = 4,204) (n = 4,185) (n = 4,088) (n = 20,446) Total 69.2% 70.8% 68.3% 68.4% 68.9% 69.1% 60.4% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Asian) Table 165: All Course Success Rates by Gender, - Female 70.4% 72.6% 69.5% 70.4% 71.0% 70.7% NO 1.02 (n = 30,554) (n = 27,914) (n = 29,800) (n = 28,807) (n = 28,916) (n = 145,991) Male 67.9% 68.8% 66.7% 66.1% 66.4% 67.2% NO 0.97 (n = 25,691) (n = 23,457) (n = 24,610) (n = 23,849) (n = 22,979) (n = 120,586) Total 69.2% 70.8% 68.3% 68.4% 68.9% 69.1% 56.6% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

94 93 P age Table 166: All Course Success Rates by Age, - < 20 years 69.0% 70.1% 68.2% 69.3% 69.6% 69.2% NO 1.00 (n = 19,488) (n = 17,177) (n = 18,487) (n = 18,070) (n = 17,806) (n = 91,028) years 66.9% 69.0% 66.1% 66.2% 66.2% 66.8% NO 0.97 (n = 20,952) (n = 20,198) (n = 21,572) (n = 21,020) (n = 20,725) (n = 104,467) years 71.7% 73.4% 70.3% 69.7% 70.7% 71.2% NO 1.03 (n = 12,082) (n = 10,461) (n = 10,994) (n = 10,596) (n = 10,443) (n = 54,576) 40+ years 75.2% 76.8% 75.0% 74.0% 76.3% 75.5% NO 1.09 (n = 4,170) (n = 3,886) (n = 3,744) (n = 3,335) (n = 3,418) (n = 18,553) Total 69.2% 70.8% 68.3% 68.4% 68.9% 69.1% 60.4% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (40+ years) Table 167: All Course Success Rates by Disability Status, - Yes 68.0% 69.7% 66.6% 69.0% 68.4% 68.3% NO 0.99 (n = 4,649) (n = 4,778) (n = 4,888) (n = 4,337) (n = 4,101) (n = 22,753) No 69.3% 70.9% 68.4% 68.4% 69.0% 69.2% NO 1.00 (n = 52,043) (n = 46,944) (n = 49,909) (n = 48,684) (n = 48,291) (n = 245,871) Total 69.2% 70.8% 68.3% 68.4% 68.9% 69.1% 55.4% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Not DSPS) Table 168: All Course Success Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 66.6% 69.0% 66.3% 66.7% 67.3% 67.2% NO 0.97 (n = 32,623) (n = 31,423) (n = 34,686) (n = 33,950) (n = 33,079) (n = 165,761) No 72.9% 73.7% 71.6% 71.5% 71.7% 72.3% NO 1.05 (n = 24,069) (n = 20,299) (n = 20,111) (n = 19,071) (n = 19,313) (n = 102,863) Total 69.2% 70.8% 68.3% 68.4% 68.9% 69.1% 57.8% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

95 94 P age Table 169: All Course Success Rates by Veteran Status, - Yes 71.7% 68.6% 68.6% 67.1% 65.7% 68.6% NO 0.99 (n = 4,143) (n = 3,542) (n = 3,579) (n = 3,116) (n = 2,772) (n = 17,152) No 69.0% 71.0% 68.2% 68.5% 69.1% 69.2% NO 1.00 (n = 52,549) (n = 48,180) (n = 51,218) (n = 49,905) (n = 49,620) (n = 251,472) Total 69.2% 70.8% 68.3% 68.4% 68.9% 69.1% 55.3% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Not Vet) Table 170: All Course Success Rates by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 52.7% 48.7% 51.9% 45.0% 43.2% 48.7% YES* 0.71 (n = 376) (n = 337) (n = 310) (n = 291) (n = 241) (n = 1,555) No 69.3% 71.0% 68.4% 68.6% 69.1% 69.2% NO 1.00 (n = 56,316) (n = 51,385) (n = 54,487) (n = 52,730) (n = 52,151) (n = 267,069) Total 69.2% 70.8% 68.3% 68.4% 68.9% 69.1% 55.4% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Not FY) Table 171: All Course Success Rates by 1 st Generation, - Yes 64.9% 64.8% 64.0% 64.7% 66.8% 65.2% NO 0.94 (n = 6,929) (n = 8,687) (n = 12,375) (n = 14,102) (n = 15,203) (n = 57,296) No 66.5% 70.3% 68.4% 69.3% 69.7% 69.0% NO 1.00 (n = 13,932) (n = 17,333) (n = 24,696) (n = 27,205) (n = 28,742) (n = 111,908) Total 69.2% 70.8% 68.3% 68.4% 68.9% 69.1% 55.2% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

96 95 P age Course Success Rates: Transfer Level Courses The following charts and tables report the success rates of all credit courses that transfer to either CSU or UC offered in the fall terms at the college (NOTE: for math courses, we only included courses at or above MATH-120; for English courses, we included courses at or above ENGL-120). Figure 8: Transfer Level Course Success Rates, - 100% 68.7% 69.7% 67.2% 67.4% 68.0% 68.2% 60% 40% 20% 0% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

97 96 P age Table 172: Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 56.1% 55.6% 50.9% 54.4% 54.7% 54.3% YES 0.80 (n = 2,667) (n = 2,118) (n = 2,527) (n = 2,488) (n = 2,189) (n = 11,989) American Indian 63.2% 59.0% 58.7% 49.4% 59.7% 58.9% YES* 0.86 (n = 174) (n = 117) (n = 109) (n = 85) (n = 72) (n = 557) Asian 75.4% 76.1% 75.5% 74.2% 72.5% 74.8% NO 1.10 (n = 2,694) (n = 2,459) (n = 2,385) (n = 2,263) (n = 2,385) (n = 12,186) Filipino 70.0% 71.3% 69.4% 68.7% 68.6% 69.6% NO 1.02 (n = 1,590) (n = 1,484) (n = 1,522) (n = 1,663) (n = 1,432) (n = 7,691) Hispanic/Latino 63.4% 63.7% 62.0% 62.7% 62.6% 62.8% NO 0.92 (n = 10,377) (n = 10,263) (n = 11,763) (n = 11,825) (n = 12,185) (n = 56,413) Pacific Islander 56.7% 61.4% 65.2% 59.1% 57.1% 59.6% YES* 0.87 (n = 349) (n = 236) (n = 207) (n = 198) (n = 198) (n = 1,188) White 73.7% 75.3% 72.5% 72.9% 74.3% 73.7% NO 1.08 (n = 16,539) (n = 14,640) (n = 15,156) (n = 14,161) (n = 14,018) (n = 74,514) Two or more 65.1% 67.4% 67.5% 66.1% 67.5% 66.7% NO 0.98 (n = 2,809) (n = 2,503) (n = 2,837) (n = 2,835) (n = 2,856) (n = 13,840) Total 68.7% 69.7% 67.2% 67.4% 68.0% 68.2% 59.8% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Asian) Table 173: Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Gender, - Female 69.2% 71.2% 68.2% 68.9% 69.6% 69.4% NO 1.02 (n = 19,694) (n = 17,812) (n = 19,065) (n = 18,398) (n = 18,711) (n = 93,680) Male 68.3% 68.1% 66.1% 65.9% 66.2% 66.9% NO 0.98 (n = 18,362) (n = 16,494) (n = 17,741) (n = 17,250) (n = 16,602) (n = 86,449) Total 68.7% 69.7% 67.2% 67.4% 68.0% 68.2% 55.5% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

98 97 P age Table 174: Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Age, - < 20 years 69.4% 69.5% 67.4% 69.4% 70.1% 69.2% NO 1.01 (n = 14,057) (n = 12,012) (n = 13,108) (n = 12,826) (n = 12,674) (n = 64,677) years 66.9% 68.7% 65.8% 65.5% 65.6% 66.5% NO 0.97 (n = 15,352) (n = 14,879) (n = 15,844) (n = 15,409) (n = 15,261) (n = 76,745) years 69.6% 70.6% 68.0% 66.9% 67.7% 68.6% NO 1.01 (n = 7,034) (n = 5,964) (n = 6,451) (n = 6,191) (n = 6,190) (n = 31,830) 40+ years 75.7% 76.5% 75.8% 72.7% 75.7% 75.4% NO 1.11 (n = 1,895) (n = 1,671) (n = 1,669) (n = 1,466) (n = 1,520) (n = 8,221) Total 68.7% 69.7% 67.2% 67.4% 68.0% 68.2% 60.3% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (40+ years) Table 175: Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Disability Status, - Yes 68.7% 68.0% 67.3% 67.6% 67.6% 67.8% NO 0.99 (n = 2,639) (n = 2,530) (n = 2,760) (n = 2,476) (n = 2,411) (n = 12,816) No 68.8% 69.8% 67.2% 67.4% 68.0% 68.2% NO 1.00 (n = 35,699) (n = 31,996) (n = 34,312) (n = 33,416) (n = 33,234) (n = 168,657) Total 68.7% 69.7% 67.2% 67.4% 68.0% 68.2% 54.6% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Not DSPS) Table 176: Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 65.7% 67.3% 64.9% 65.3% 65.8% 65.7% NO 0.96 (n = 20,751) (n = 19,929) (n = 22,511) (n = 22,145) (n = 21,557) (n = 106,893) No 72.4% 73.0% 70.8% 70.9% 71.4% 71.7% NO 1.05 (n = 17,587) (n = 14,597) (n = 14,561) (n = 13,747) (n = 14,088) (n = 74,580) Total 68.7% 69.7% 67.2% 67.4% 68.0% 68.2% 57.4% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

99 98 P age Table 177: Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Veteran Status, - Yes 71.2% 67.6% 66.7% 65.6% 64.9% 67.5% NO 0.99 (n = 2,805) (n = 2,386) (n = 2,442) (n = 2,180) (n = 1,982) (n = 11,795) No 68.6% 69.9% 67.2% 67.5% 68.2% 68.3% NO 1.00 (n = 35,533) (n = 32,140) (n = 34,630) (n = 33,712) (n = 33,663) (n = 169,678) Total 68.7% 69.7% 67.2% 67.4% 68.0% 68.2% 54.6% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Not Vet) Table 178: Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 51.9% 49.5% 50.3% 41.6% 44.7% 47.9% YES* 0.70 (n = 212) (n = 200) (n = 181) (n = 173) (n = 150) (n = 916) No 68.8% 69.8% 67.3% 67.5% 68.1% 68.3% NO 1.00 (n = 38,126) (n = 34,326) (n = 36,891) (n = 35,719) (n = 35,495) (n = 180,557) Total 68.7% 69.7% 67.2% 67.4% 68.0% 68.2% 54.6% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Not FY) Table 179: Transfer Level Course Success Rates by 1 st Generation, - Yes 63.9% 62.4% 62.0% 62.7% 64.8% 63.2% NO 0.93 (n = 4,100) (n = 5,270) (n = 7,659) (n = 8,911) (n = 9,579) (n = 35,519) No 66.2% 69.4% 67.4% 68.9% 69.3% 68.4% NO 1.00 (n = 9,827) (n = 11,677) (n = 17,273) (n = 19,027) (n = 20,374) (n = 78,178) Total 68.7% 69.7% 67.2% 67.4% 68.0% 68.2% 54.7% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

100 99 P age Course Success Rates: Developmental Courses The following charts and tables report the course success rates of basic skills courses in math, English, and ESL courses (i.e., courses coded at least two levels below transfer). They do not include the outcomes for skills courses (e.g., ENGL-064 or ENGL-090R). Figure 9: Developmental Course Success Rates, - 100% 67.5% 70.6% 70.5% 68.8% 69.1% 69.2% 60% 40% 20% 0% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

101 100 P age Table 180: Developmental Course Success Rates by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 53.5% 58.7% 56.7% 56.7% 54.5% 56.0% YES 0.81 (n = 333) (n = 322) (n = 293) (n = 319) (n = 288) (n = 1,555) American Indian 72.7% 50.0% 47.1% 25.0% 55.6% 50.9% YES* 0.74 (n = 11) (n = 10) (n = 17) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 55) Asian 69.4% 79.1% 75.8% 81.2% 78.9% 76.9% NO 1.11 (n = 147) (n = 129) (n = 132) (n = 165) (n = 133) (n = 706) Filipino 70.6% 75.5% 74.3% 76.3% 72.5% 73.7% NO 1.06 (n = 126) (n = 110) (n = 113) (n = 93) (n = 109) (n = 551) Hispanic/Latino 65.1% 68.3% 69.0% 65.5% 65.1% 66.6% NO 0.96 (n = 1,324) (n = 1,247) (n = 1,385) (n = 1,222) (n = 1,311) (n = 6,489) Pacific Islander 61.8% 61.1% 100.0% 66.7% 38.5% 61.6% NO* 0.89 (n = 34) (n = 18) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 15) (n = 13) (n = 86) White 72.1% 75.3% 73.8% 72.4% 74.7% 73.6% NO 1.06 (n = 1,691) (n = 1,383) (n = 1,391) (n = 1,403) (n = 1,519) (n = 7,387) Two or more 66.9% 67.6% 72.2% 69.9% 68.0% 69.0% NO 1.00 (n = 302) (n = 262) (n = 309) (n = 239) (n = 244) (n = 1,356) Total 67.5% 70.6% 70.5% 68.8% 69.1% 69.2% 61.5% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Asian) Table 181: Developmental Course Success Rates by Gender, - Female 71.0% 73.2% 73.5% 72.5% 71.8% 72.4% NO 1.04 (n = 2,331) (n = 1,968) (n = 2,085) (n = 1,975) (n = 2,173) (n = 10,532) Male 62.4% 67.3% 66.7% 63.6% 65.1% 65.0% NO 0.94 (n = 1,667) (n = 1,516) (n = 1,553) (n = 1,494) (n = 1,438) (n = 7,668) Total 67.5% 70.6% 70.5% 68.8% 69.1% 69.2% 57.9% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

102 101 P age Table 182: Developmental Course Success Rates by Age, - < 20 years 70.0% 74.1% 73.6% 69.7% 70.4% 71.6% NO 1.03 (n = 1,911) (n = 1,727) (n = 1,833) (n = 1,546) (n = 1,607) (n = 8,624) years 57.8% 62.8% 64.2% 61.0% 65.2% 62.1% NO 0.90 (n = 929) (n = 793) (n = 862) (n = 875) (n = 896) (n = 4,355) years 71.6% 69.1% 70.9% 74.3% 70.9% 71.4% NO 1.03 (n = 758) (n = 647) (n = 688) (n = 719) (n = 771) (n = 3,583) 40+ years 70.1% 73.7% 68.2% 72.7% 69.3% 70.9% NO 1.02 (n = 441) (n = 354) (n = 280) (n = 352) (n = 378) (n = 1,805) Total 67.5% 70.6% 70.5% 68.8% 69.1% 69.2% 57.3% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (< 20 years) Table 183: Developmental Course Success Rates by Disability Status, - Yes 62.4% 63.0% 57.4% 69.1% 60.0% 62.3% NO 0.90 (n = 537) (n = 614) (n = 521) (n = 444) (n = 412) (n = 2,528) No 68.3% 72.2% 72.7% 68.7% 70.3% 70.4% NO 1.02 (n = 3,502) (n = 2,907) (n = 3,142) (n = 3,048) (n = 3,240) (n = 15,839) Total 67.5% 70.6% 70.5% 68.8% 69.1% 69.2% 56.3% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Not DSPS) Table 184: Developmental Course Success Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 66.3% 70.4% 69.8% 68.9% 69.3% 68.9% NO 0.99 (n = 2,988) (n = 2,558) (n = 2,787) (n = 2,702) (n = 2,888) (n = 13,923) No 70.9% 71.2% 72.6% 68.2% 68.6% 70.4% NO 1.02 (n = 1,051) (n = 963) (n = 876) (n = 790) (n = 764) (n = 4,444) Total 67.5% 70.6% 70.5% 68.8% 69.1% 69.2% 56.3% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

103 102 P age Table 185: Developmental Course Success Rates by Veteran Status, - Yes 73.1% 70.9% 67.5% 75.1% 68.4% 71.2% NO 1.03 (n = 290) (n = 285) (n = 255) (n = 249) (n = 171) (n = 1,250) No 67.2% 67.1% 70.8% 70.1% 68.7% 68.7% NO 1.00 (n = 3,285) (n = 3,759) (n = 3,269) (n = 3,415) (n = 3,323) (n = 17,051) Total 67.6% 67.3% 70.5% 70.5% 68.7% 68.9% 55.0% (n = 3,575) (n = 4,044) (n = 3,524) (n = 3,664) (n = 3,494) (n = 18,301) (Not Vet) Table 186: Developmental Course Success Rates by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 50.0% 30.8% 45.9% 45.7% 41.2% 42.8% YES* 0.62 (n = 42) (n = 39) (n = 37) (n = 35) (n = 34) (n = 187) No 67.7% 71.1% 70.7% 69.0% 69.4% 69.5% NO 1.00 (n = 3,997) (n = 3,482) (n = 3,626) (n = 3,457) (n = 3,618) (n = 18,180) Total 67.5% 70.6% 70.5% 68.8% 69.1% 69.2% 55.6% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Not FY) Table 187: Developmental Course Success Rates by 1 st Generation, - Yes 66.5% 72.9% 70.6% 69.3% 69.4% 69.8% NO 1.01 (n = 823) (n = 972) (n = 1,328) (n = 1,414) (n = 1,600) (n = 6,137) No 65.6% 73.4% 73.6% 67.8% 67.9% 70.0% NO 1.01 (n = 826) (n = 1,207) (n = 1,593) (n = 1,539) (n = 1,485) (n = 6,650) Total 67.5% 70.6% 70.5% 68.8% 69.1% 69.2% 56.0% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

104 103 P age Course Success Rates: Career Technical Education (CTE) Courses The following charts and tables report the course success rates for CTE courses (SAM Codes = Apprenticeship, Advanced Occupational, Clearly Occupational, or Possibly Occupational). Figure 10: CTE Course Success Rates, - P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

105 104 P age Table 188: CTE Course Success Rates by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 57.7% 58.1% 53.4% 50.2% 60.0% 55.8% YES 0.79 (n = 839) (n = 713) (n = 689) (n = 621) (n = 460) (n = 3,322) American Indian 81.4% 71.4% 73.7% 41.9% 78.6% 68.9% NO* 0.97 (n = 43) (n = 28) (n = 19) (n = 31) (n = 14) (n = 135) Asian 79.7% 77.2% 72.5% 73.6% 74.3% 75.7% NO 1.07 (n = 671) (n = 566) (n = 571) (n = 481) (n = 475) (n = 2,764) Filipino 78.6% 81.0% 77.0% 69.7% 75.0% 76.4% NO 1.08 (n = 364) (n = 389) (n = 431) (n = 356) (n = 276) (n = 1,816) Hispanic/Latino 68.0% 67.2% 63.9% 67.4% 68.1% 66.9% NO 0.94 (n = 2,465) (n = 2,457) (n = 2,704) (n = 2,633) (n = 2,527) (n = 12,786) Pacific Islander 53.7% 66.7% 61.0% 73.9% 66.7% 63.3% NO* 0.89 (n = 82) (n = 63) (n = 41) (n = 46) (n = 54) (n = 286) White 74.3% 76.4% 75.4% 76.2% 77.9% 76.0% NO 1.07 (n = 3,745) (n = 3,520) (n = 3,574) (n = 3,431) (n = 3,243) (n = 17,513) Two or more 67.1% 68.9% 65.3% 69.1% 70.0% 68.0% NO 0.96 (n = 635) (n = 566) (n = 648) (n = 676) (n = 560) (n = 3,085) Total 71.1% 71.9% 69.3% 70.2% 72.5% 71.0% 61.1% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Filipino) Table 189: CTE Course Success Rates by Gender, - Female 72.9% 73.8% 71.0% 72.8% 75.5% 73.2% NO 1.03 (n = 5,177) (n = 4,862) (n = 5,212) (n = 4,967) (n = 4,569) (n = 24,787) Male 68.6% 69.5% 66.6% 66.7% 67.9% 67.9% NO 0.96 (n = 3,857) (n = 3,592) (n = 3,557) (n = 3,362) (n = 3,056) (n = 17,424) Total 71.1% 71.9% 69.3% 70.2% 72.5% 71.0% 58.5% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

106 105 P age Table 190: CTE Course Success Rates by Age, - < 20 years 62.4% 61.8% 62.6% 63.3% 66.7% 63.2% NO 0.89 (n = 1,791) (n = 1,622) (n = 1,715) (n = 1,647) (n = 1,379) (n = 8,154) years 69.1% 69.9% 66.9% 69.3% 69.7% 68.9% NO 0.97 (n = 3,248) (n = 3,104) (n = 3,346) (n = 3,178) (n = 2,981) (n = 15,857) years 75.5% 78.7% 74.5% 74.0% 77.0% 75.9% NO 1.07 (n = 3,018) (n = 2,705) (n = 2,695) (n = 2,604) (n = 2,391) (n = 13,413) 40+ years 79.5% 75.7% 74.2% 75.4% 78.7% 76.6% NO 1.08 (n = 1,042) (n = 1,069) (n = 1,070) (n = 954) (n = 927) (n = 5,062) Total 71.1% 71.9% 69.3% 70.2% 72.5% 71.0% 61.3% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (40+ years) Table 191: CTE Course Success Rates by Disability Status, - Yes 70.6% 69.1% 67.3% 70.4% 74.8% 70.3% NO 0.99 (n = 710) (n = 750) (n = 822) (n = 753) (n = 694) (n = 3,729) No 71.1% 72.2% 69.5% 70.2% 72.3% 71.0% NO 1.00 (n = 8,389) (n = 7,750) (n = 8,004) (n = 7,630) (n = 6,984) (n = 38,757) Total 71.1% 71.9% 69.3% 70.2% 72.5% 71.0% 56.8% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Not DSPS) Table 192: CTE Course Success Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 68.4% 69.8% 66.5% 68.5% 70.9% 68.8% NO 0.97 (n = 5,257) (n = 5,166) (n = 5,591) (n = 5,403) (n = 4,819) (n = 26,236) No 74.7% 75.1% 74.1% 73.4% 75.2% 74.5% NO 1.05 (n = 3,842) (n = 3,334) (n = 3,235) (n = 2,980) (n = 2,859) (n = 16,250) Total 71.1% 71.9% 69.3% 70.2% 72.5% 71.0% 59.6% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

107 106 P age Table 193: CTE Course Success Rates by Veteran Status, - Yes 72.5% 69.6% 71.4% 72.2% 69.1% 71.1% NO 1.00 (n = 793) (n = 657) (n = 676) (n = 634) (n = 499) (n = 3,259) No 71.0% 72.1% 69.1% 70.1% 72.8% 71.0% NO 1.00 (n = 8,306) (n = 7,843) (n = 8,150) (n = 7,749) (n = 7,179) (n = 39,227) Total 71.1% 71.9% 69.3% 70.2% 72.5% 71.0% 56.8% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Not Vet) Table 194: CTE Course Success Rates by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 57.9% 47.6% 58.7% 38.6% 37.5% 49.8% YES* 0.70 (n = 57) (n = 42) (n = 46) (n = 44) (n = 24) (n = 213) No 71.2% 72.0% 69.3% 70.4% 72.6% 71.1% NO 1.00 (n = 9,042) (n = 8,458) (n = 8,780) (n = 8,339) (n = 7,654) (n = 42,273) Total 71.1% 71.9% 69.3% 70.2% 72.5% 71.0% 56.9% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Not FY) Table 195: CTE Course Success Rates by 1 st Generation, - Yes 64.9% 60.3% 61.4% 65.7% 71.7% 65.2% NO 0.92 (n = 1,144) (n = 1,421) (n = 1,933) (n = 2,258) (n = 2,103) (n = 8,859) No 66.4% 71.7% 69.7% 71.0% 72.5% 70.6% NO 0.99 (n = 2,168) (n = 2,798) (n = 3,828) (n = 4,113) (n = 4,080) (n = 16,987) Total 71.1% 71.9% 69.3% 70.2% 72.5% 71.0% 56.5% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

108 107 P age Course Success Rates: Distance Education (DE) Courses The following charts and tables include the course success rates of all courses that were taught 51% or more online. Figure 11: DE Course Success Rates, - P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

109 108 P age Table 196: DE Course Success Rates by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 42.3% 41.9% 40.3% 36.4% 39.6% 40.1% YES 0.69 (n = 560) (n = 394) (n = 424) (n = 473) (n = 505) (n = 2,356) American Indian 59.5% 52.0% 41.2% 21.1% 70.0% 50.8% YES* 0.88 (n = 37) (n = 25) (n = 17) (n = 19) (n = 20) (n = 118) Asian 68.4% 68.9% 66.0% 65.6% 69.6% 67.7% NO 1.17 (n = 399) (n = 273) (n = 344) (n = 331) (n = 378) (n = 1,725) Filipino 61.2% 68.6% 53.7% 56.5% 56.0% 58.8% NO 1.02 (n = 227) (n = 191) (n = 203) (n = 269) (n = 298) (n = 1,188) Hispanic/Latino 52.0% 51.8% 50.3% 48.5% 49.9% 50.3% YES 0.87 (n = 1,405) (n = 1,297) (n = 1,524) (n = 1,911) (n = 2,262) (n = 8,399) Pacific Islander 42.3% 61.0% 36.7% 46.2% 47.4% 46.9% YES* 0.81 (n = 52) (n = 41) (n = 30) (n = 52) (n = 38) (n = 213) White 65.4% 67.2% 63.8% 63.9% 66.2% 65.3% NO 1.13 (n = 2,677) (n = 2,355) (n = 2,389) (n = 2,705) (n = 3,081) (n = 13,207) Two or more 54.1% 56.9% 52.9% 53.9% 54.1% 54.3% NO 0.94 (n = 492) (n = 394) (n = 454) (n = 538) (n = 615) (n = 2,493) Total 58.9% 60.5% 56.8% 55.7% 57.8% 57.8% 54.2% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Asian) Table 197: DE Course Success Rates by Gender, - Female 59.7% 61.7% 56.9% 56.9% 58.6% 58.7% NO 1.01 (n = 3,765) (n = 3,086) (n = 3,470) (n = 3,951) (n = 4,369) (n = 18,641) Male 57.4% 58.2% 56.4% 53.5% 56.6% 56.3% NO 0.97 (n = 2,251) (n = 1,964) (n = 1,989) (n = 2,404) (n = 2,844) (n = 11,452) Total 58.9% 60.5% 56.8% 55.7% 57.8% 57.8% 47.0% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

110 109 P age Table 198: DE Course Success Rates by Age, - < 20 years 60.5% 59.5% 52.8% 54.0% 57.4% 56.8% NO 0.98 (n = 1,012) (n = 825) (n = 882) (n = 1,175) (n = 1,415) (n = 5,309) years 57.7% 57.6% 55.2% 52.5% 54.1% 55.2% NO 0.95 (n = 2,415) (n = 2,054) (n = 2,313) (n = 2,612) (n = 3,094) (n = 12,488) years 58.2% 63.8% 58.4% 58.8% 61.7% 60.1% NO 1.04 (n = 2,071) (n = 1,663) (n = 1,739) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,164) (n = 9,685) 40+ years 64.1% 62.6% 64.3% 62.7% 63.7% 63.5% NO 1.10 (n = 565) (n = 554) (n = 560) (n = 553) (n = 600) (n = 2,832) Total 58.9% 60.5% 56.8% 55.7% 57.8% 57.8% 50.8% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (40+ years) Table 199: DE Course Success Rates by Disability Status, - Yes 56.2% 59.9% 54.8% 56.3% 56.5% 56.7% NO 0.98 (n = 427) (n = 414) (n = 425) (n = 421) (n = 460) (n = 2,147) No 59.1% 60.5% 56.9% 55.7% 57.9% 57.9% NO 1.00 (n = 5,636) (n = 4,682) (n = 5,069) (n = 5,967) (n = 6,813) (n = 28,167) Total 58.9% 60.5% 56.8% 55.7% 57.8% 57.8% 46.3% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Not DSPS) Table 200: DE Course Success Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 54.8% 57.2% 54.3% 52.4% 55.7% 54.8% NO 0.95 (n = 3,640) (n = 3,319) (n = 3,640) (n = 4,211) (n = 4,784) (n = 19,594) No 65.1% 66.5% 61.5% 62.1% 61.8% 63.4% NO 1.10 (n = 2,423) (n = 1,777) (n = 1,854) (n = 2,177) (n = 2,489) (n = 10,720) Total 58.9% 60.5% 56.8% 55.7% 57.8% 57.8% 50.7% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

111 110 P age Table 201: DE Course Success Rates by Veteran Status, - Yes 61.2% 56.3% 58.4% 56.2% 54.9% 57.5% NO 0.99 (n = 523) (n = 451) (n = 428) (n = 409) (n = 448) (n = 2,259) No 58.7% 60.9% 56.6% 55.7% 58.0% 57.9% NO 1.00 (n = 5,540) (n = 4,645) (n = 5,066) (n = 5,979) (n = 6,825) (n = 28,055) Total 58.9% 60.5% 56.8% 55.7% 57.8% 57.8% 46.3% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Not Vet) Table 202: DE Course Success Rates by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 58.6% 32.1% 35.1% 35.9% 36.4% 39.2% YES* 0.68 (n = 29) (n = 28) (n = 37) (n = 39) (n = 33) (n = 166) No 58.9% 60.6% 56.9% 55.8% 57.9% 57.9% NO 1.00 (n = 6,034) (n = 5,068) (n = 5,457) (n = 6,349) (n = 7,240) (n = 30,148) Total 58.9% 60.5% 56.8% 55.7% 57.8% 57.8% 46.4% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Not FY) Table 203: DE Course Success Rates by 1 st Generation, - Yes 53.2% 50.6% 53.0% 49.6% 56.5% 52.9% NO 0.92 (n = 693) (n = 801) (n = 1,209) (n = 1,581) (n = 1,938) (n = 6,222) No 56.0% 61.3% 56.0% 57.4% 58.4% 57.8% NO 1.00 (n = 1,641) (n = 1,644) (n = 2,300) (n = 3,259) (n = 4,050) (n = 12,894) Total 58.9% 60.5% 56.8% 55.7% 57.8% 57.8% 46.2% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

112 111 P age Retention Rates Course retention rates are based on duplicated enrollments. Retention Rate = (Grades A, B, C, D, F, P, NP, I) / (Grades A, B, C, D, F, P, NP, I, W). Basically, the retention rate is the percentage of course enrollments resulting in a grade notation EXCEPT for Withdrawal. Course Retention Rates: All Courses The following charts and tables report the retention rates of all credit courses offered in the fall terms at the college. Figure 12: All Course Retention Rates, - P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

113 112 P age Table 204: All Course Retention Rates by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 78.0% 79.5% 76.5% 77.2% 77.7% 77.7% NO 0.93 (n = 4,262) (n = 3,601) (n = 3,873) (n = 3,772) (n = 3,277) (n = 18,785) American Indian 79.6% 81.0% 77.8% 71.1% 85.6% 79.0% NO* 0.94 (n = 270) (n = 184) (n = 158) (n = 128) (n = 104) (n = 844) Asian 87.5% 89.7% 87.8% 87.2% 87.3% 87.9% NO 1.05 (n = 3,736) (n = 3,401) (n = 3,367) (n = 3,201) (n = 3,285) (n = 16,990) Filipino 83.8% 85.6% 84.5% 83.7% 84.0% 84.3% NO 1.00 (n = 2,276) (n = 2,162) (n = 2,249) (n = 2,290) (n = 1,998) (n = 10,975) Hispanic/Latino 81.6% 84.2% 82.1% 81.8% 82.0% 82.3% NO 0.98 (n = 15,540) (n = 15,402) (n = 17,484) (n = 17,398) (n = 17,889) (n = 83,713) Pacific Islander 76.3% 81.2% 79.8% 79.9% 83.2% 79.7% NO* 0.95 (n = 493) (n = 357) (n = 277) (n = 279) (n = 280) (n = 1,686) White 85.3% 87.4% 85.6% 84.7% 86.9% 86.0% NO 1.02 (n = 24,306) (n = 21,785) (n = 22,381) (n = 21,222) (n = 21,017) (n = 110,711) Two or more 82.4% 84.8% 82.7% 83.4% 83.7% 83.4% NO 0.99 (n = 4,190) (n = 3,779) (n = 4,204) (n = 4,185) (n = 4,088) (n = 20,446) Total 83.4% 85.7% 83.6% 83.1% 84.2% 84.0% 70.3% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Asian) Table 205: All Course Retention Rates by Gender, - Female 83.5% 86.0% 83.7% 83.7% 84.8% 84.3% NO 1.00 (n = 30,554) (n = 27,914) (n = 29,800) (n = 28,807) (n = 28,916) (n = 145,991) Male 83.4% 85.4% 83.5% 82.6% 83.5% 83.7% NO 1.00 (n = 25,691) (n = 23,457) (n = 24,610) (n = 23,849) (n = 22,979) (n = 120,586) Total 83.4% 85.7% 83.6% 83.1% 84.2% 84.0% 67.5% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

114 113 P age Table 206: All Course Retention Rates by Age, - < 20 years 85.5% 87.7% 86.0% 85.5% 86.7% 86.3% NO 1.03 (n = 19,488) (n = 17,177) (n = 18,487) (n = 18,070) (n = 17,806) (n = 91,028) years 81.6% 84.2% 81.6% 81.3% 82.0% 82.1% NO 0.98 (n = 20,952) (n = 20,198) (n = 21,572) (n = 21,020) (n = 20,725) (n = 104,467) years 83.2% 85.1% 83.3% 82.7% 83.7% 83.6% NO 0.99 (n = 12,082) (n = 10,461) (n = 10,994) (n = 10,596) (n = 10,443) (n = 54,576) 40+ years 83.6% 86.6% 84.9% 82.9% 86.3% 84.9% NO 1.01 (n = 4,170) (n = 3,886) (n = 3,744) (n = 3,335) (n = 3,418) (n = 18,553) Total 83.4% 85.7% 83.6% 83.1% 84.2% 84.0% 69.0% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (< 20 years) Table 207: All Course Retention Rates by Disability Status, - Yes 82.4% 84.9% 82.8% 83.3% 84.3% 83.5% NO 0.99 (n = 4,649) (n = 4,778) (n = 4,888) (n = 4,337) (n = 4,101) (n = 22,753) No 83.5% 85.8% 83.7% 83.1% 84.2% 84.1% NO 1.00 (n = 52,043) (n = 46,944) (n = 49,909) (n = 48,684) (n = 48,291) (n = 245,871) Total 83.4% 85.7% 83.6% 83.1% 84.2% 84.0% 67.2% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Not DSPS) Table 208: All Course Retention Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 81.6% 84.2% 82.4% 82.2% 83.2% 82.7% NO 0.98 (n = 32,623) (n = 31,423) (n = 34,686) (n = 33,950) (n = 33,079) (n = 165,761) No 86.0% 88.0% 85.8% 84.8% 86.0% 86.1% NO 1.03 (n = 24,069) (n = 20,299) (n = 20,111) (n = 19,071) (n = 19,313) (n = 102,863) Total 83.4% 85.7% 83.6% 83.1% 84.2% 84.0% 68.9% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

115 114 P age Table 209: All Course Retention Rates by Veteran Status, - Yes 87.2% 86.6% 87.1% 85.2% 84.8% 86.3% NO 1.03 (n = 4,143) (n = 3,542) (n = 3,579) (n = 3,116) (n = 2,772) (n = 17,152) No 83.1% 85.6% 83.4% 83.0% 84.2% 83.8% NO 1.00 (n = 52,549) (n = 48,180) (n = 51,218) (n = 49,905) (n = 49,620) (n = 251,472) Total 83.4% 85.7% 83.6% 83.1% 84.2% 84.0% 67.1% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Not Vet) Table 210: All Course Retention Rates by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 75.8% 70.0% 76.5% 69.4% 76.3% 73.6% NO* 0.88 (n = 376) (n = 337) (n = 310) (n = 291) (n = 241) (n = 1,555) No 83.5% 85.8% 83.7% 83.2% 84.3% 84.1% NO 1.00 (n = 56,316) (n = 51,385) (n = 54,487) (n = 52,730) (n = 52,151) (n = 267,069) Total 83.4% 85.7% 83.6% 83.1% 84.2% 84.0% 67.3% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Not FY) Table 211: All Course Retention Rates by 1 st Generation, - Yes 81.8% 83.3% 82.1% 81.8% 83.4% 82.5% NO 0.98 (n = 6,929) (n = 8,687) (n = 12,375) (n = 14,102) (n = 15,203) (n = 57,296) No 81.9% 86.0% 84.1% 83.7% 84.6% 84.1% NO 1.00 (n = 13,932) (n = 17,333) (n = 24,696) (n = 27,205) (n = 28,742) (n = 111,908) Total 83.4% 85.7% 83.6% 83.1% 84.2% 84.0% 67.3% (n = 56,692) (n = 51,722) (n = 54,797) (n = 53,021) (n = 52,392) (n = 268,624) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

116 115 P age Course Retention Rates: Transfer Level Courses The following charts and tables report the retention rates of all credit courses that transfer to either CSU or UC offered in the fall terms at the college (NOTE: for math courses, we only included courses at or above MATH-120; for English courses, we included courses at or above ENGL-120). Figure 13: Transfer Level Course Retention Rates, - P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

117 116 P age Table 212: Transfer Level Course Retention Rates by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 78.5% 78.0% 75.3% 77.3% 76.2% 77.1% NO 0.92 (n = 2,667) (n = 2,118) (n = 2,527) (n = 2,488) (n = 2,189) (n = 11,989) American Indian 78.7% 77.8% 81.7% 70.6% 83.3% 78.5% NO* 0.94 (n = 174) (n = 117) (n = 109) (n = 85) (n = 72) (n = 557) Asian 87.2% 89.4% 87.4% 86.3% 86.3% 87.3% NO 1.05 (n = 2,694) (n = 2,459) (n = 2,385) (n = 2,263) (n = 2,385) (n = 12,186) Filipino 82.6% 84.1% 84.0% 83.5% 83.0% 83.4% NO 1.00 (n = 1,590) (n = 1,484) (n = 1,522) (n = 1,663) (n = 1,432) (n = 7,691) Hispanic/Latino 80.6% 82.8% 81.2% 81.2% 81.0% 81.3% NO 0.98 (n = 10,377) (n = 10,263) (n = 11,763) (n = 11,825) (n = 12,185) (n = 56,413) Pacific Islander 74.8% 78.8% 79.7% 75.3% 81.3% 77.6% NO* 0.93 (n = 349) (n = 236) (n = 207) (n = 198) (n = 198) (n = 1,188) White 85.0% 86.8% 85.0% 84.2% 86.0% 85.4% NO 1.03 (n = 16,539) (n = 14,640) (n = 15,156) (n = 14,161) (n = 14,018) (n = 74,514) Two or more 82.4% 83.7% 82.4% 82.6% 83.1% 82.8% NO 0.99 (n = 2,809) (n = 2,503) (n = 2,837) (n = 2,835) (n = 2,856) (n = 13,840) Total 83.1% 84.8% 83.0% 82.6% 83.2% 83.3% 69.9% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Asian) Table 213: Transfer Level Course Retention Rates by Gender, - Female 82.8% 85.0% 83.1% 82.9% 83.6% 83.5% NO 1.00 (n = 19,694) (n = 17,812) (n = 19,065) (n = 18,398) (n = 18,711) (n = 93,680) Male 83.3% 84.6% 82.9% 82.3% 82.8% 83.2% NO 1.00 (n = 18,362) (n = 16,494) (n = 17,741) (n = 17,250) (n = 16,602) (n = 86,449) Total 83.1% 84.8% 83.0% 82.6% 83.2% 83.3% 66.8% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

118 117 P age Table 214: Transfer Level Course Retention Rates by Age, - < 20 years 85.5% 87.0% 85.3% 85.5% 86.2% 85.8% NO 1.03 (n = 14,057) (n = 12,012) (n = 13,108) (n = 12,826) (n = 12,674) (n = 64,677) years 81.3% 83.6% 81.3% 80.7% 81.4% 81.6% NO 0.98 (n = 15,352) (n = 14,879) (n = 15,844) (n = 15,409) (n = 15,261) (n = 76,745) years 81.8% 83.0% 81.9% 81.3% 81.4% 81.9% NO 0.98 (n = 7,034) (n = 5,964) (n = 6,451) (n = 6,191) (n = 6,190) (n = 31,830) 40+ years 84.0% 85.7% 85.6% 81.9% 85.2% 84.5% NO 1.01 (n = 1,895) (n = 1,671) (n = 1,669) (n = 1,466) (n = 1,520) (n = 8,221) Total 83.1% 84.8% 83.0% 82.6% 83.2% 83.3% 68.7% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (< 20 years) Table 215: Transfer Level Course Retention Rates by Disability Status, - Yes 83.1% 82.8% 83.0% 82.2% 83.5% 82.9% NO 1.00 (n = 2,639) (n = 2,530) (n = 2,760) (n = 2,476) (n = 2,411) (n = 12,816) No 83.1% 84.9% 83.0% 82.6% 83.2% 83.3% NO 1.00 (n = 35,699) (n = 31,996) (n = 34,312) (n = 33,416) (n = 33,234) (n = 168,657) Total 83.1% 84.8% 83.0% 82.6% 83.2% 83.3% 66.7% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Not DSPS) Table 216: Transfer Level Course Retention Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 80.9% 83.0% 81.6% 81.3% 81.7% 81.7% NO 0.98 (n = 20,751) (n = 19,929) (n = 22,511) (n = 22,145) (n = 21,557) (n = 106,893) No 85.6% 87.2% 85.2% 84.6% 85.6% 85.6% NO 1.03 (n = 17,587) (n = 14,597) (n = 14,561) (n = 13,747) (n = 14,088) (n = 74,580) Total 83.1% 84.8% 83.0% 82.6% 83.2% 83.3% 68.5% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

119 118 P age Table 217: Transfer Level Course Retention Rates by Veteran Status, - Yes 86.8% 85.4% 85.8% 85.0% 84.1% 85.5% NO 1.03 (n = 2,805) (n = 2,386) (n = 2,442) (n = 2,180) (n = 1,982) (n = 11,795) No 82.8% 84.7% 82.8% 82.4% 83.2% 83.2% NO 1.00 (n = 35,533) (n = 32,140) (n = 34,630) (n = 33,712) (n = 33,663) (n = 169,678) Total 83.1% 84.8% 83.0% 82.6% 83.2% 83.3% 66.5% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Not Vet) Table 218: Transfer Level Course Retention Rates by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 73.6% 69.0% 74.6% 69.9% 76.0% 72.5% NO* 0.87 (n = 212) (n = 200) (n = 181) (n = 173) (n = 150) (n = 916) No 83.1% 84.9% 83.0% 82.6% 83.3% 83.4% NO 1.00 (n = 38,126) (n = 34,326) (n = 36,891) (n = 35,719) (n = 35,495) (n = 180,557) Total 83.1% 84.8% 83.0% 82.6% 83.2% 83.3% 66.7% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Not FY) Table 219: Transfer Level Course Retention Rates by 1 st Generation, - Yes 81.5% 81.4% 81.0% 80.9% 81.7% 81.3% NO 0.98 (n = 4,100) (n = 5,270) (n = 7,659) (n = 8,911) (n = 9,579) (n = 35,519) No 81.8% 85.1% 83.5% 83.3% 83.9% 83.6% NO 1.00 (n = 9,827) (n = 11,677) (n = 17,273) (n = 19,027) (n = 20,374) (n = 78,178) Total 83.1% 84.8% 83.0% 82.6% 83.2% 83.3% 66.9% (n = 38,338) (n = 34,526) (n = 37,072) (n = 35,892) (n = 35,645) (n = 181,473) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

120 119 P age Course Retention Rates: Developmental Courses The following charts and tables report the course retention rates of basic skills courses in math, English, and ESL courses (i.e., courses coded at least two levels below transfer). They do not include the outcomes for skills courses (e.g., ENGL-049 or ENGL-090R). Figure 14: Developmental Course Retention Rates, - P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

121 120 P age Table 220: Developmental Course Retention Rates by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 82.0% 84.5% 86.3% 83.4% 79.5% 83.2% NO 0.95 (n = 333) (n = 322) (n = 293) (n = 319) (n = 288) (n = 1,555) American Indian 81.8% 70.0% 70.6% 25.0% 88.9% 69.1% YES* 0.79 (n = 11) (n = 10) (n = 17) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 55) Asian 85.0% 93.0% 88.6% 91.5% 91.7% 89.9% NO 1.03 (n = 147) (n = 129) (n = 132) (n = 165) (n = 133) (n = 706) Filipino 85.7% 88.2% 90.3% 86.0% 86.2% 87.3% NO 1.00 (n = 126) (n = 110) (n = 113) (n = 93) (n = 109) (n = 551) Hispanic/Latino 85.1% 89.1% 86.2% 87.0% 85.4% 86.5% NO 0.99 (n = 1,324) (n = 1,247) (n = 1,385) (n = 1,222) (n = 1,311) (n = 6,489) Pacific Islander 85.3% 83.3% 100.0% 93.3% 92.3% 88.4% NO* 1.01 (n = 34) (n = 18) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 15) (n = 13) (n = 86) White 86.6% 91.0% 89.6% 87.0% 90.5% 88.8% NO 1.02 (n = 1,691) (n = 1,383) (n = 1,391) (n = 1,403) (n = 1,519) (n = 7,387) Two or more 84.4% 87.4% 87.4% 90.0% 85.7% 86.9% NO 0.99 (n = 302) (n = 262) (n = 309) (n = 239) (n = 244) (n = 1,356) Total 85.3% 89.3% 87.8% 87.0% 87.5% 87.3% 72.0% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Asian) Table 221: Developmental Course Retention Rates by Gender, - Female 86.7% 89.4% 88.6% 88.7% 89.0% 88.4% NO 1.01 (n = 2,331) (n = 1,968) (n = 2,085) (n = 1,975) (n = 2,173) (n = 10,532) Male 83.3% 89.4% 86.7% 84.7% 85.0% 85.8% NO 0.98 (n = 1,667) (n = 1,516) (n = 1,553) (n = 1,494) (n = 1,438) (n = 7,668) Total 85.3% 89.3% 87.8% 87.0% 87.5% 87.3% 70.7% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

122 121 P age Table 222: Developmental Course Retention Rates by Age, - < 20 years 87.9% 91.6% 90.5% 88.6% 90.1% 89.7% NO 1.03 (n = 1,911) (n = 1,727) (n = 1,833) (n = 1,546) (n = 1,607) (n = 8,624) years 80.1% 85.8% 84.0% 81.9% 83.8% 83.0% NO 0.95 (n = 929) (n = 793) (n = 862) (n = 875) (n = 896) (n = 4,355) years 86.3% 87.8% 85.2% 88.9% 86.1% 86.8% NO 0.99 (n = 758) (n = 647) (n = 688) (n = 719) (n = 771) (n = 3,583) 40+ years 83.2% 89.0% 88.6% 88.4% 87.6% 87.1% NO 1.00 (n = 441) (n = 354) (n = 280) (n = 352) (n = 378) (n = 1,805) Total 85.3% 89.3% 87.8% 87.0% 87.5% 87.3% 71.8% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (< 20 years) Table 223: Developmental Course Retention Rates by Disability Status, - Yes 82.3% 86.6% 83.3% 87.2% 84.7% 84.8% NO 0.97 (n = 537) (n = 614) (n = 521) (n = 444) (n = 412) (n = 2,528) No 85.8% 89.9% 88.5% 86.9% 87.8% 87.7% NO 1.00 (n = 3,502) (n = 2,907) (n = 3,142) (n = 3,048) (n = 3,240) (n = 15,839) Total 85.3% 89.3% 87.8% 87.0% 87.5% 87.3% 70.2% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Not DSPS) Table 224: Developmental Course Retention Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 84.5% 88.7% 86.8% 87.4% 87.6% 86.9% NO 1.00 (n = 2,988) (n = 2,558) (n = 2,787) (n = 2,702) (n = 2,888) (n = 13,923) No 87.6% 91.0% 90.9% 85.6% 86.9% 88.5% NO 1.01 (n = 1,051) (n = 963) (n = 876) (n = 790) (n = 764) (n = 4,444) Total 85.3% 89.3% 87.8% 87.0% 87.5% 87.3% 70.8% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

123 122 P age Table 225: Developmental Course Retention Rates by Veteran Status, - Yes 90.3% 93.1% 94.0% 88.4% 89.8% 91.5% NO 1.05 (n = 279) (n = 260) (n = 250) (n = 172) (n = 128) (n = 1,089) No 84.9% 89.0% 87.3% 86.9% 87.4% 87.1% NO 1.00 (n = 3,760) (n = 3,261) (n = 3,413) (n = 3,320) (n = 3,524) (n = 17,278) Total 85.3% 89.3% 87.8% 87.0% 87.5% 87.3% 69.6% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Not Vet) Table 226: Developmental Course Retention Rates by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 76.2% 53.8% 73.0% 68.6% 85.3% 71.1% NO* 0.81 (n = 42) (n = 39) (n = 37) (n = 35) (n = 34) (n = 187) No 85.4% 89.7% 87.9% 87.2% 87.5% 87.5% NO 1.00 (n = 3,997) (n = 3,482) (n = 3,626) (n = 3,457) (n = 3,618) (n = 18,180) Total 85.3% 89.3% 87.8% 87.0% 87.5% 87.3% 70.0% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Not FY) Table 227: Developmental Course Retention Rates by 1 st Generation, - Yes 84.9% 90.7% 87.3% 88.3% 87.8% 87.9% NO 1.01 (n = 823) (n = 972) (n = 1,328) (n = 1,414) (n = 1,600) (n = 6,137) No 84.5% 91.3% 89.8% 86.3% 86.9% 88.0% NO 1.01 (n = 826) (n = 1,207) (n = 1,593) (n = 1,539) (n = 1,485) (n = 6,650) Total 85.3% 89.3% 87.8% 87.0% 87.5% 87.3% 70.4% (n = 4,039) (n = 3,521) (n = 3,663) (n = 3,492) (n = 3,652) (n = 18,367) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

124 123 P age Course Retention Rates: Career Technical Education (CTE) Courses The following charts and tables report the course retention rates for CTE courses (SAM Codes = Apprenticeship, Advanced Occupational, Clearly Occupational, or Possibly Occupational). Figure 15: CTE Course Retention Rates, - P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

125 124 P age Table 228: CTE Course Retention Rates by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 79.1% 78.3% 76.1% 71.8% 78.9% 76.9% NO 0.91 (n = 839) (n = 713) (n = 689) (n = 621) (n = 460) (n = 3,322) American Indian 93.0% 89.3% 89.5% 71.0% 85.7% 85.9% NO* 1.01 (n = 43) (n = 28) (n = 19) (n = 31) (n = 14) (n = 135) Asian 89.1% 90.6% 83.4% 87.3% 86.1% 87.4% NO 1.03 (n = 671) (n = 566) (n = 571) (n = 481) (n = 475) (n = 2,764) Filipino 86.3% 88.7% 87.5% 82.0% 88.0% 86.5% NO 1.02 (n = 364) (n = 389) (n = 431) (n = 356) (n = 276) (n = 1,816) Hispanic/Latino 84.5% 84.9% 82.2% 82.1% 83.7% 83.4% NO 0.99 (n = 2,465) (n = 2,457) (n = 2,704) (n = 2,633) (n = 2,527) (n = 12,786) Pacific Islander 72.0% 84.1% 75.6% 91.3% 79.6% 79.7% NO* 0.94 (n = 82) (n = 63) (n = 41) (n = 46) (n = 54) (n = 286) White 85.2% 87.3% 86.1% 86.1% 88.0% 86.5% NO 1.02 (n = 3,745) (n = 3,520) (n = 3,574) (n = 3,431) (n = 3,243) (n = 17,513) Two or more 84.6% 86.9% 78.9% 85.5% 83.9% 83.9% NO 0.99 (n = 635) (n = 566) (n = 648) (n = 676) (n = 560) (n = 3,085) Total 84.8% 86.1% 83.5% 83.5% 85.5% 84.7% 69.9% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Asian) Table 229: CTE Course Retention Rates by Gender, - Female 85.1% 86.5% 84.1% 84.6% 86.7% 85.4% NO 1.01 (n = 5,177) (n = 4,862) (n = 5,212) (n = 4,967) (n = 4,569) (n = 24,787) Male 84.2% 85.7% 82.6% 82.2% 83.8% 83.7% NO 0.99 (n = 3,857) (n = 3,592) (n = 3,557) (n = 3,362) (n = 3,056) (n = 17,424) Total 84.8% 86.1% 83.5% 83.5% 85.5% 84.7% 68.3% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

126 125 P age Table 230: CTE Course Retention Rates by Age, - < 20 years 83.3% 84.6% 84.1% 81.1% 85.6% 83.7% NO 0.99 (n = 1,791) (n = 1,622) (n = 1,715) (n = 1,647) (n = 1,379) (n = 8,154) years 83.2% 85.1% 81.6% 83.5% 83.5% 83.4% NO 0.98 (n = 3,248) (n = 3,104) (n = 3,346) (n = 3,178) (n = 2,981) (n = 15,857) years 86.6% 88.4% 85.7% 85.2% 87.5% 86.7% NO 1.02 (n = 3,018) (n = 2,705) (n = 2,695) (n = 2,604) (n = 2,391) (n = 13,413) 40+ years 86.9% 85.5% 82.9% 83.0% 87.1% 85.0% NO 1.00 (n = 1,042) (n = 1,069) (n = 1,070) (n = 954) (n = 927) (n = 5,062) Total 84.8% 86.1% 83.5% 83.5% 85.5% 84.7% 69.3% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (25-39 years) Table 231: CTE Course Retention Rates by Disability Status, - Yes 84.8% 84.8% 83.1% 85.5% 86.6% 84.9% NO 1.00 (n = 710) (n = 750) (n = 822) (n = 753) (n = 694) (n = 3,729) No 84.8% 86.2% 83.5% 83.3% 85.4% 84.6% NO 1.00 (n = 8,389) (n = 7,750) (n = 8,004) (n = 7,630) (n = 6,984) (n = 38,757) Total 84.8% 86.1% 83.5% 83.5% 85.5% 84.7% 67.7% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Not DSPS) Table 232: CTE Course Retention Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 83.0% 84.1% 81.5% 82.1% 84.6% 83.0% NO 0.98 (n = 5,257) (n = 5,166) (n = 5,591) (n = 5,403) (n = 4,819) (n = 26,236) No 87.2% 89.2% 87.0% 86.1% 87.2% 87.4% NO 1.03 (n = 3,842) (n = 3,334) (n = 3,235) (n = 2,980) (n = 2,859) (n = 16,250) Total 84.8% 86.1% 83.5% 83.5% 85.5% 84.7% 69.9% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

127 126 P age Table 233: CTE Course Retention Rates by Veteran Status, - Yes 89.2% 89.0% 88.2% 86.8% 85.4% 87.9% NO 1.04 (n = 793) (n = 657) (n = 676) (n = 634) (n = 499) (n = 3,259) No 84.3% 85.9% 83.1% 83.2% 85.5% 84.4% NO 1.00 (n = 8,306) (n = 7,843) (n = 8,150) (n = 7,749) (n = 7,179) (n = 39,227) Total 84.8% 86.1% 83.5% 83.5% 85.5% 84.7% 67.5% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Not Vet) Table 234: CTE Course Retention Rates by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 77.2% 69.0% 76.1% 59.1% 70.8% 70.9% NO* 0.84 (n = 57) (n = 42) (n = 46) (n = 44) (n = 24) (n = 213) No 84.8% 86.2% 83.5% 83.6% 85.6% 84.7% NO 1.00 (n = 9,042) (n = 8,458) (n = 8,780) (n = 8,339) (n = 7,654) (n = 42,273) Total 84.8% 86.1% 83.5% 83.5% 85.5% 84.7% 67.8% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Not FY) Table 235: CTE Course Retention Rates by 1 st Generation, - Yes 82.7% 80.8% 79.7% 81.0% 84.7% 81.8% NO 0.97 (n = 1,144) (n = 1,421) (n = 1,933) (n = 2,258) (n = 2,103) (n = 8,859) No 81.8% 86.4% 84.0% 84.0% 85.8% 84.5% NO 1.00 (n = 2,168) (n = 2,798) (n = 3,828) (n = 4,113) (n = 4,080) (n = 16,987) Total 84.8% 86.1% 83.5% 83.5% 85.5% 84.7% 67.6% (n = 9,099) (n = 8,500) (n = 8,826) (n = 8,383) (n = 7,678) (n = 42,486) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

128 127 P age Course Retention Rates: Distance Education (DE) Courses The following charts and tables include the course retention rates of all courses that were taught 51% or more online. Figure 16: DE Course Retention Rates, - P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

129 128 P age Table 236: DE Course Retention Rates by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 67.5% 66.0% 66.5% 60.5% 63.6% 64.8% YES 0.85 (n = 560) (n = 394) (n = 424) (n = 473) (n = 505) (n = 2,356) American Indian 64.9% 60.0% 58.8% 68.4% 85.0% 66.9% NO* 0.88 (n = 37) (n = 25) (n = 17) (n = 19) (n = 20) (n = 118) Asian 83.0% 83.5% 79.4% 81.9% 82.5% 82.0% NO 1.08 (n = 399) (n = 273) (n = 344) (n = 331) (n = 378) (n = 1,725) Filipino 73.1% 81.2% 73.9% 75.1% 76.5% 75.8% NO 1.00 (n = 227) (n = 191) (n = 203) (n = 269) (n = 298) (n = 1,188) Hispanic/Latino 72.5% 73.9% 73.2% 70.5% 72.9% 72.5% NO 0.96 (n = 1,405) (n = 1,297) (n = 1,524) (n = 1,911) (n = 2,262) (n = 8,399) Pacific Islander 59.6% 78.0% 46.7% 75.0% 65.8% 66.2% NO* 0.87 (n = 52) (n = 41) (n = 30) (n = 52) (n = 38) (n = 213) White 78.7% 80.9% 78.9% 77.9% 80.7% 79.4% NO 1.05 (n = 2,677) (n = 2,355) (n = 2,389) (n = 2,705) (n = 3,081) (n = 13,207) Two or more 77.0% 78.4% 71.6% 75.7% 75.6% 75.6% NO 1.00 (n = 492) (n = 394) (n = 454) (n = 538) (n = 615) (n = 2,493) Total 75.9% 77.8% 75.3% 74.0% 76.4% 75.8% 65.6% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Asian) Table 237: DE Course Retention Rates by Gender, - Female 76.0% 78.2% 74.9% 74.7% 76.5% 76.0% NO 1.00 (n = 3,765) (n = 3,086) (n = 3,470) (n = 3,951) (n = 4,369) (n = 18,641) Male 75.6% 76.9% 76.0% 73.0% 76.3% 75.5% NO 1.00 (n = 2,251) (n = 1,964) (n = 1,989) (n = 2,404) (n = 2,844) (n = 11,452) Total 75.9% 77.8% 75.3% 74.0% 76.4% 75.8% 60.8% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

130 129 P age Table 238: DE Course Retention Rates by Age, - < 20 years 80.3% 79.2% 75.3% 75.7% 78.3% 77.7% NO 1.03 (n = 1,012) (n = 825) (n = 882) (n = 1,175) (n = 1,415) (n = 5,309) years 75.7% 76.1% 73.8% 72.3% 73.1% 74.1% NO 0.98 (n = 2,415) (n = 2,054) (n = 2,313) (n = 2,612) (n = 3,094) (n = 12,488) years 73.8% 78.9% 76.1% 75.1% 79.3% 76.6% NO 1.01 (n = 2,071) (n = 1,663) (n = 1,739) (n = 2,048) (n = 2,164) (n = 9,685) 40+ years 76.3% 78.7% 78.6% 74.7% 79.0% 77.5% NO 1.02 (n = 565) (n = 554) (n = 560) (n = 553) (n = 600) (n = 2,832) Total 75.9% 77.8% 75.3% 74.0% 76.4% 75.8% 62.2% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (< 20 years) Table 239: DE Course Retention Rates by Disability Status, - Yes 72.4% 77.5% 73.4% 75.8% 74.6% 74.7% NO 0.99 (n = 427) (n = 414) (n = 425) (n = 421) (n = 460) (n = 2,147) No 76.1% 77.8% 75.4% 73.9% 76.6% 75.9% NO 1.00 (n = 5,636) (n = 4,682) (n = 5,069) (n = 5,967) (n = 6,813) (n = 28,167) Total 75.9% 77.8% 75.3% 74.0% 76.4% 75.8% 60.7% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Not DSPS) Table 240: DE Course Retention Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 73.2% 75.4% 73.7% 71.6% 75.0% 73.8% NO 0.97 (n = 3,640) (n = 3,319) (n = 3,640) (n = 4,211) (n = 4,784) (n = 19,594) No 79.8% 82.3% 78.4% 78.7% 79.1% 79.6% NO 1.05 (n = 2,423) (n = 1,777) (n = 1,854) (n = 2,177) (n = 2,489) (n = 10,720) Total 75.9% 77.8% 75.3% 74.0% 76.4% 75.8% 63.7% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

131 130 P age Table 241: DE Course Retention Rates by Veteran Status, - Yes 80.1% 82.3% 80.1% 80.0% 81.5% 80.8% NO 1.07 (n = 523) (n = 451) (n = 428) (n = 409) (n = 448) (n = 2,259) No 75.5% 77.4% 74.9% 73.6% 76.1% 75.4% NO 0.99 (n = 5,540) (n = 4,645) (n = 5,066) (n = 5,979) (n = 6,825) (n = 28,055) Total 75.9% 77.8% 75.3% 74.0% 76.4% 75.8% 60.3% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Not Vet) Table 242: DE Course Retention Rates by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 69.0% 46.4% 70.3% 64.1% 57.6% 62.0% NO* 0.82 (n = 29) (n = 28) (n = 37) (n = 39) (n = 33) (n = 166) No 75.9% 78.0% 75.3% 74.1% 76.5% 75.9% NO 1.00 (n = 6,034) (n = 5,068) (n = 5,457) (n = 6,349) (n = 7,240) (n = 30,148) Total 75.9% 77.8% 75.3% 74.0% 76.4% 75.8% 60.7% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Not FY) Table 243: DE Course Retention Rates by 1 st Generation, - Yes 72.4% 73.3% 73.6% 71.2% 75.4% 73.4% NO 0.97 (n = 693) (n = 801) (n = 1,209) (n = 1,581) (n = 1,938) (n = 6,222) No 73.5% 79.2% 75.5% 74.7% 77.0% 76.0% NO 1.00 (n = 1,641) (n = 1,644) (n = 2,300) (n = 3,259) (n = 4,050) (n = 12,894) Total 75.9% 77.8% 75.3% 74.0% 76.4% 75.8% 60.8% (n = 6,063) (n = 5,096) (n = 5,494) (n = 6,388) (n = 7,273) (n = 30,314) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

132 131 P age Persistence Rates ( to Spring) to spring persistence is tracked from fall at each college to spring enrollments districtwide. Persistence Rates ( to Spring): All Students The following charts and tables include all students who were enrolled in the fall term. Figure 17: to Spring Persistence Rates, P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

133 132 P age Table 244: All Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Race/Ethnicity, African American/Black 64.0% 62.5% 66.7% 63.1% 65.0% 64.2% NO 0.89 (n = 1,512) (n = 1,460) (n = 1,192) (n = 1,284) (n = 1,238) (n = 6,686) American Indian 60.2% 59.6% 72.7% 73.7% 60.4% 64.1% NO* 0.89 (n = 118) (n = 99) (n = 66) (n = 57) (n = 53) (n = 393) Asian 74.0% 72.4% 80.2% 77.2% 78.0% 76.1% NO 1.05 (n = 1,292) (n = 1,224) (n = 1,074) (n = 1,064) (n = 1,008) (n = 5,662) Filipino 70.8% 74.8% 73.6% 77.0% 75.7% 74.3% NO 1.03 (n = 860) (n = 771) (n = 727) (n = 727) (n = 746) (n = 3,831) Hispanic/Latino 68.9% 70.6% 72.6% 72.0% 72.6% 71.4% NO 0.99 (n = 4,916) (n = 5,420) (n = 5,327) (n = 5,944) (n = 5,970) (n = 27,577) Pacific Islander 65.5% 62.6% 66.7% 69.9% 69.0% 66.1% NO* 0.92 (n = 174) (n = 163) (n = 120) (n = 93) (n = 87) (n = 637) White 71.1% 73.2% 75.5% 74.8% 74.0% 73.6% NO 1.02 (n = 8,963) (n = 8,821) (n = 7,794) (n = 7,955) (n = 7,551) (n = 41,084) Two or more 67.7% 68.8% 72.9% 70.8% 72.5% 70.5% NO 0.98 (n = 1,320) (n = 1,463) (n = 1,323) (n = 1,470) (n = 1,449) (n = 7,025) Total 69.9% 71.3% 74.0% 72.9% 73.0% 72.2% 60.9% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Asian) Table 245: All Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Gender, Female 69.8% 71.8% 74.3% 73.3% 73.7% 72.5% NO 1.00 (n = 11,122) (n = 11,041) (n = 9,928) (n = 10,444) (n = 10,150) (n = 52,685) Male 70.0% 70.6% 73.5% 72.4% 72.2% 71.7% NO 0.99 (n = 8,717) (n = 8,804) (n = 7,988) (n = 8,324) (n = 8,032) (n = 41,865) Total 69.9% 71.3% 74.0% 72.9% 73.0% 72.2% 58.0% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

134 133 P age Table 246: All Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Age, < 20 years 78.8% 79.7% 82.5% 81.7% 81.2% 80.7% NO 1.12 (n = 5,752) (n = 5,946) (n = 5,207) (n = 5,453) (n = 5,318) (n = 27,676) years 65.9% 68.4% 72.0% 71.5% 71.9% 69.9% NO 0.97 (n = 7,514) (n = 7,304) (n = 7,045) (n = 7,408) (n = 7,231) (n = 36,502) years 66.1% 66.1% 67.9% 66.1% 66.2% 66.5% NO 0.92 (n = 4,791) (n = 4,858) (n = 4,142) (n = 4,372) (n = 4,293) (n = 22,456) 40+ years 68.5% 69.2% 70.6% 67.9% 69.0% 69.0% NO 0.96 (n = 1,940) (n = 1,914) (n = 1,654) (n = 1,673) (n = 1,468) (n = 8,649) Total 69.9% 71.3% 74.0% 72.9% 73.0% 72.2% 64.6% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (< 20 years) Table 247: All Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Disability Status, Yes 76.5% 77.7% 77.9% 76.9% 76.0% 77.0% NO 1.07 (n = 1,507) (n = 1,600) (n = 1,627) (n = 1,669) (n = 1,497) (n = 7,900) No 69.4% 70.7% 73.6% 72.5% 72.8% 71.7% NO 0.99 (n = 18,490) (n = 18,422) (n = 16,421) (n = 17,237) (n = 16,813) (n = 87,383) Total 69.9% 71.3% 74.0% 72.9% 73.0% 72.2% 57.4% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Not DSPS) Table 248: All Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, Yes 74.0% 74.3% 76.7% 75.8% 75.5% 75.3% NO 1.04 (n = 9,667) (n = 11,002) (n = 10,479) (n = 11,499) (n = 11,318) (n = 53,965) No 66.2% 67.6% 70.2% 68.4% 69.1% 68.1% NO 0.94 (n = 10,330) (n = 9,020) (n = 7,569) (n = 7,407) (n = 6,992) (n = 41,318) Total 69.9% 71.3% 74.0% 72.9% 73.0% 72.2% 54.5% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

135 134 P age Table 249: All Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Veteran Status, Yes 73.3% 71.6% 68.3% 72.0% 68.9% 71.0% NO 0.98 (n = 1,358) (n = 1,338) (n = 1,172) (n = 1,138) (n = 983) (n = 5,989) No 69.7% 71.3% 74.3% 73.0% 73.3% 72.2% NO 1.00 (n = 18,639) (n = 18,684) (n = 16,876) (n = 17,768) (n = 17,327) (n = 89,294) Total 69.9% 71.3% 74.0% 72.9% 73.0% 72.2% 57.8% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Not Vet) Table 250: All Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Foster Youth Status, Yes 79.4% 75.2% 57.6% 66.0% 58.2% 66.7% NO* 0.92 (n = 68) (n = 105) (n = 99) (n = 97) (n = 91) (n = 460) No 69.9% 71.3% 74.0% 72.9% 73.1% 72.2% NO 1.00 (n = 19,929) (n = 19,917) (n = 17,949) (n = 18,809) (n = 18,219) (n = 94,823) Total 69.9% 71.3% 74.0% 72.9% 73.0% 72.2% 57.8% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Not FY) Table 251: All Students to Spring Persistence Rates by 1 st Generation, Yes 63.7% 69.0% 71.0% 70.8% 72.5% 70.2% NO 0.97 (n = 2,100) (n = 2,546) (n = 3,116) (n = 4,304) (n = 4,826) (n = 16,892) No 65.6% 67.5% 71.9% 72.6% 73.0% 70.8% NO 0.98 (n = 4,707) (n = 5,016) (n = 6,066) (n = 8,368) (n = 9,159) (n = 33,316) Total 69.9% 71.3% 74.0% 72.9% 73.0% 72.2% 56.7% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

136 135 P age Persistence Rates ( to Spring): First-Time Students The following charts and tables include only first-time students to GCCCD who were enrolled in the fall term. Figure 18: First-Time Students to Spring Persistence Rates, P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

137 136 P age Table 252: First-Time Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Race/Ethnicity, African American/Black 66.7% 66.8% 66.9% 63.4% 68.0% 66.3% NO 0.90 (n = 433) (n = 397) (n = 314) (n = 377) (n = 366) (n = 1,887) American Indian 56.3% 44.4% 83.3% 70.6% 61.5% 60.0% YES* 0.81 (n = 16) (n = 18) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 17) (n = 13) (n = 70) Asian 71.8% 71.4% 80.0% 78.1% 78.8% 75.8% NO 1.03 (n = 316) (n = 259) (n = 235) (n = 269) (n = 250) (n = 1,329) Filipino 73.6% 76.9% 75.3% 82.6% 81.2% 77.5% NO 1.05 (n = 299) (n = 212) (n = 186) (n = 184) (n = 223) (n = 1,104) Hispanic/Latino 71.4% 71.4% 75.1% 75.1% 74.1% 73.4% NO 0.99 (n = 1,522) (n = 1,628) (n = 1,368) (n = 1,744) (n = 1,609) (n = 7,871) Pacific Islander 60.5% 55.6% 52.6% 72.7% 89.5% 64.2% NO* 0.87 (n = 38) (n = 36) (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 19) (n = 134) White 75.0% 73.7% 77.4% 75.9% 74.8% 75.3% NO 1.02 (n = 2,111) (n = 1,906) (n = 1,494) (n = 1,778) (n = 1,729) (n = 9,018) Two or more 69.9% 72.9% 79.4% 73.2% 71.9% 73.2% NO 0.99 (n = 369) (n = 325) (n = 267) (n = 354) (n = 317) (n = 1,632) Total 72.4% 72.2% 75.8% 74.7% 74.5% 73.8% 62.0% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Filipino) Table 253: First-Time Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Gender, Female 71.5% 73.5% 74.9% 75.5% 75.3% 74.1% NO 1.00 (n = 2,675) (n = 2,488) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,497) (n = 2,464) (n = 12,188) Male 73.5% 70.7% 77.0% 73.9% 73.5% 73.6% NO 1.00 (n = 2,456) (n = 2,292) (n = 1,842) (n = 2,234) (n = 2,053) (n = 10,877) Total 72.4% 72.2% 75.8% 74.7% 74.5% 73.8% 59.3% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

138 137 P age Table 254: First-Time Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Age, < 20 years 79.1% 79.9% 84.0% 82.1% 81.8% 81.3% NO 1.10 (n = 2,807) (n = 2,777) (n = 2,401) (n = 2,826) (n = 2,687) (n = 13,498) years 61.5% 62.2% 64.0% 65.0% 64.0% 63.2% YES 0.86 (n = 1,215) (n = 1,080) (n = 839) (n = 1,013) (n = 965) (n = 5,112) years 66.9% 61.0% 64.2% 63.4% 63.8% 63.9% YES 0.87 (n = 822) (n = 735) (n = 548) (n = 714) (n = 702) (n = 3,521) 40+ years 68.8% 61.4% 52.7% 61.4% 63.9% 62.9% YES 0.85 (n = 333) (n = 228) (n = 146) (n = 223) (n = 205) (n = 1,135) Total 72.4% 72.2% 75.8% 74.7% 74.5% 73.8% 65.0% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (< 20 years) Table 255: First-Time Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Disability Status, Yes 83.2% 77.4% 85.0% 77.7% 82.6% 81.1% NO 1.10 (n = 292) (n = 270) (n = 274) (n = 323) (n = 242) (n = 1,401) No 71.7% 71.9% 75.1% 74.5% 74.0% 73.3% NO 0.99 (n = 4,885) (n = 4,550) (n = 3,660) (n = 4,453) (n = 4,317) (n = 21,865) Total 72.4% 72.2% 75.8% 74.7% 74.5% 73.8% 58.7% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not DSPS) Table 256: First-Time Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, Yes 76.9% 75.3% 78.8% 78.2% 77.1% 77.2% NO 1.05 (n = 2,570) (n = 2,704) (n = 2,216) (n = 2,942) (n = 2,815) (n = 13,247) No 67.9% 68.2% 72.0% 69.1% 70.2% 69.3% NO 0.94 (n = 2,607) (n = 2,116) (n = 1,718) (n = 1,834) (n = 1,744) (n = 10,019) Total 72.4% 72.2% 75.8% 74.7% 74.5% 73.8% 55.4% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

139 138 P age Table 257: First-Time Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Veteran Status, Yes 82.5% 74.2% 71.8% 77.1% 73.5% 76.3% NO 1.03 (n = 315) (n = 287) (n = 227) (n = 271) (n = 219) (n = 1,319) No 71.7% 72.0% 76.1% 74.6% 74.5% 73.7% NO 1.00 (n = 4,862) (n = 4,533) (n = 3,707) (n = 4,505) (n = 4,340) (n = 21,947) Total 72.4% 72.2% 75.8% 74.7% 74.5% 73.8% 58.9% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not Vet) Table 258: First-Time Students to Spring Persistence Rates by Foster Youth Status, Yes 90.9% 82.4% 47.1% 69.2% 53.6% 70.0% NO* 0.95 (n = 22) (n = 34) (n = 17) (n = 39) (n = 28) (n = 140) No 72.3% 72.1% 76.0% 74.8% 74.6% 73.8% NO 1.00 (n = 5,155) (n = 4,786) (n = 3,917) (n = 4,737) (n = 4,531) (n = 23,126) Total 72.4% 72.2% 75.8% 74.7% 74.5% 73.8% 59.1% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not FY) Table 259: First-Time Students to Spring Persistence Rates by 1 st Generation, Yes 66.6% 70.2% 74.4% 73.7% 73.1% 72.2% NO 0.98 (n = 836) (n = 677) (n = 1,141) (n = 1,501) (n = 1,456) (n = 5,611) No 68.2% 72.7% 76.6% 75.4% 74.8% 74.0% NO 1.00 (n = 1,774) (n = 1,126) (n = 2,287) (n = 2,837) (n = 2,705) (n = 10,729) Total 72.4% 72.2% 75.8% 74.7% 74.5% 73.8% 59.2% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

140 139 P age Persistence Rates ( to ) to fall persistence is tracked from fall at each college to fall enrollments the following year districtwide. Persistence Rates ( to ): All Students The following charts and tables include all students who were enrolled in the fall term. Figure 19: All Students to Persistence Rates, P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

141 140 P age Table 260: All Students to Persistence Rates by Race/Ethnicity, African American/Black 43.5% 41.8% 46.1% 43.0% 45.0% 43.8% NO 0.84 (n = 1,512) (n = 1,460) (n = 1,192) (n = 1,284) (n = 1,238) (n = 6,686) American Indian 45.8% 47.5% 47.0% 42.1% 45.3% 45.8% NO* 0.88 (n = 118) (n = 99) (n = 66) (n = 57) (n = 53) (n = 393) Asian 51.5% 52.0% 54.8% 53.1% 53.7% 52.9% NO 1.02 (n = 1,292) (n = 1,224) (n = 1,074) (n = 1,064) (n = 1,008) (n = 5,662) Filipino 49.2% 54.1% 56.8% 55.4% 53.9% 53.7% NO 1.03 (n = 860) (n = 771) (n = 727) (n = 727) (n = 746) (n = 3,831) Hispanic/Latino 49.3% 52.0% 54.7% 52.7% 53.2% 52.5% NO 1.01 (n = 4,916) (n = 5,420) (n = 5,327) (n = 5,944) (n = 5,970) (n = 27,577) Pacific Islander 50.6% 45.4% 43.3% 52.7% 50.6% 48.2% NO* 0.93 (n = 174) (n = 163) (n = 120) (n = 93) (n = 87) (n = 637) White 51.3% 53.0% 55.3% 52.3% 53.4% 53.0% NO 1.02 (n = 8,963) (n = 8,821) (n = 7,794) (n = 7,955) (n = 7,551) (n = 41,084) Two or more 48.0% 48.9% 54.0% 51.3% 51.5% 50.7% NO 0.98 (n = 1,320) (n = 1,463) (n = 1,323) (n = 1,470) (n = 1,449) (n = 7,025) Total 50.0% 51.5% 54.3% 51.7% 52.7% 52.0% 43.0% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Filipino) Table 261: All Students to Persistence Rates by Gender, Female 50.1% 52.0% 54.6% 51.9% 53.2% 52.3% NO 1.01 (n = 11,122) (n = 11,041) (n = 9,928) (n = 10,444) (n = 10,150) (n = 52,685) Male 49.7% 50.8% 54.0% 51.6% 52.0% 51.6% NO 0.99 (n = 8,717) (n = 8,804) (n = 7,988) (n = 8,324) (n = 8,032) (n = 41,865) Total 50.0% 51.5% 54.3% 51.7% 52.7% 52.0% 41.8% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

142 141 P age Table 262: All Students to Persistence Rates by Age, < 20 years 59.9% 62.6% 66.9% 64.0% 64.9% 63.6% NO 1.22 (n = 5,752) (n = 5,946) (n = 5,207) (n = 5,453) (n = 5,318) (n = 27,676) years 45.2% 47.1% 49.6% 48.7% 49.6% 48.0% YES 0.92 (n = 7,514) (n = 7,304) (n = 7,045) (n = 7,408) (n = 7,231) (n = 36,502) years 45.7% 44.6% 47.1% 44.0% 43.7% 45.0% YES 0.87 (n = 4,791) (n = 4,858) (n = 4,142) (n = 4,372) (n = 4,293) (n = 22,456) 40+ years 50.0% 50.8% 53.0% 45.5% 49.9% 49.9% YES 0.96 (n = 1,940) (n = 1,914) (n = 1,654) (n = 1,673) (n = 1,468) (n = 8,649) Total 50.0% 51.5% 54.3% 51.7% 52.7% 52.0% 50.8% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (< 20 years) Table 263: All Students to Persistence Rates by Disability Status, Yes 61.1% 64.1% 60.5% 57.1% 58.3% 60.2% NO 1.16 (n = 1,507) (n = 1,600) (n = 1,627) (n = 1,669) (n = 1,497) (n = 7,900) No 49.1% 50.4% 53.7% 51.2% 52.2% 51.2% NO 0.99 (n = 18,490) (n = 18,422) (n = 16,421) (n = 17,237) (n = 16,813) (n = 87,383) Total 50.0% 51.5% 54.3% 51.7% 52.7% 52.0% 41.0% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Not DSPS) Table 264: All Students to Persistence Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, Yes 53.0% 54.4% 56.3% 53.4% 54.8% 54.4% NO 1.05 (n = 9,667) (n = 11,002) (n = 10,479) (n = 11,499) (n = 11,318) (n = 53,965) No 47.2% 47.8% 51.6% 49.2% 49.1% 48.8% NO 0.94 (n = 10,330) (n = 9,020) (n = 7,569) (n = 7,407) (n = 6,992) (n = 41,318) Total 50.0% 51.5% 54.3% 51.7% 52.7% 52.0% 39.1% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

143 142 P age Table 265: All Students to Persistence Rates by Veteran Status, Yes 51.0% 48.6% 47.4% 44.4% 46.7% 47.8% NO 0.92 (n = 1,358) (n = 1,338) (n = 1,172) (n = 1,138) (n = 983) (n = 5,989) No 49.9% 51.7% 54.8% 52.2% 53.0% 52.3% NO 1.01 (n = 18,639) (n = 18,684) (n = 16,876) (n = 17,768) (n = 17,327) (n = 89,294) Total 50.0% 51.5% 54.3% 51.7% 52.7% 52.0% 41.8% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Not Vet) Table 266: All Students to Persistence Rates by Foster Youth Status, Yes 70.6% 51.4% 41.4% 43.3% 44.0% 48.9% NO* 0.94 (n = 68) (n = 105) (n = 99) (n = 97) (n = 91) (n = 460) No 49.9% 51.5% 54.4% 51.8% 52.7% 52.0% NO 1.00 (n = 19,929) (n = 19,917) (n = 17,949) (n = 18,809) (n = 18,219) (n = 94,823) Total 50.0% 51.5% 54.3% 51.7% 52.7% 52.0% 41.6% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Not FY) Table 267: All Students to Persistence Rates by 1 st Generation, Yes 42.8% 49.0% 52.2% 51.1% 53.8% 50.7% NO 0.98 (n = 2,100) (n = 2,546) (n = 3,116) (n = 4,304) (n = 4,826) (n = 16,892) No 44.2% 47.7% 53.0% 51.4% 52.9% 50.5% NO 0.97 (n = 4,707) (n = 5,016) (n = 6,066) (n = 8,368) (n = 9,159) (n = 33,316) Total 50.0% 51.5% 54.3% 51.7% 52.7% 52.0% 40.4% (n = 19,997) (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 95,283) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

144 143 P age Persistence Rates ( to ): First-Time Students The following charts and tables include only first-time students to GCCCD who were enrolled in the fall term. Figure 20: First-Time Students to Persistence Rates, P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

145 144 P age Table 268: First-Time Students to Persistence Rates by Race/Ethnicity, African American/Black 41.8% 42.6% 44.9% 41.9% 43.2% 42.8% YES 0.78 (n = 433) (n = 397) (n = 314) (n = 377) (n = 366) (n = 1,887) American Indian 31.3% 33.3% 33.3% 41.2% 38.5% 35.7% YES* 0.65 (n = 16) (n = 18) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 17) (n = 13) (n = 70) Asian 55.4% 51.0% 62.1% 58.7% 63.6% 57.9% NO 1.06 (n = 316) (n = 259) (n = 235) (n = 269) (n = 250) (n = 1,329) Filipino 53.8% 61.3% 54.8% 62.0% 61.0% 58.2% NO 1.07 (n = 299) (n = 212) (n = 186) (n = 184) (n = 223) (n = 1,104) Hispanic/Latino 50.1% 53.5% 57.1% 55.0% 56.1% 54.3% NO 1.00 (n = 1,522) (n = 1,628) (n = 1,368) (n = 1,744) (n = 1,609) (n = 7,871) Pacific Islander 47.4% 33.3% 15.8% 45.5% 57.9% 40.3% YES* 0.74 (n = 38) (n = 36) (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 19) (n = 134) White 54.2% 55.0% 60.9% 57.1% 58.1% 56.8% NO 1.04 (n = 2,111) (n = 1,906) (n = 1,494) (n = 1,778) (n = 1,729) (n = 9,018) Two or more 51.8% 48.0% 60.7% 54.0% 52.4% 53.1% NO 0.97 (n = 369) (n = 325) (n = 267) (n = 354) (n = 317) (n = 1,632) Total 51.7% 52.8% 57.8% 55.0% 56.2% 54.5% 46.6% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Filipino) Table 269: First-Time Students to Persistence Rates by Gender, Female 52.7% 54.7% 57.6% 56.2% 56.4% 55.4% NO 1.02 (n = 2,675) (n = 2,488) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,497) (n = 2,464) (n = 12,188) Male 50.6% 50.7% 58.3% 53.9% 56.2% 53.7% NO 0.98 (n = 2,456) (n = 2,292) (n = 1,842) (n = 2,234) (n = 2,053) (n = 10,877) Total 51.7% 52.8% 57.8% 55.0% 56.2% 54.5% 44.3% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

146 145 P age Table 270: First-Time Students to Persistence Rates by Age, < 20 years 59.6% 63.1% 66.7% 64.0% 65.9% 63.8% NO 1.17 (n = 2,807) (n = 2,777) (n = 2,401) (n = 2,826) (n = 2,687) (n = 13,498) years 39.0% 38.5% 42.8% 42.2% 41.2% 40.6% YES 0.74 (n = 1,215) (n = 1,080) (n = 839) (n = 1,013) (n = 965) (n = 5,112) years 45.6% 39.0% 46.4% 41.6% 42.3% 42.9% YES 0.79 (n = 822) (n = 735) (n = 548) (n = 714) (n = 702) (n = 3,521) 40+ years 46.2% 40.8% 41.1% 41.7% 48.3% 44.0% YES 0.81 (n = 333) (n = 228) (n = 146) (n = 223) (n = 205) (n = 1,135) Total 51.7% 52.8% 57.8% 55.0% 56.2% 54.5% 51.0% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (< 20 years) Table 271: First-Time Students to Persistence Rates by Disability Status Yes 67.1% 62.2% 65.7% 58.2% 61.6% 62.9% NO 1.15 (n = 292) (n = 270) (n = 274) (n = 323) (n = 242) (n = 1,401) No 50.8% 52.3% 57.2% 54.8% 55.9% 54.0% NO 0.99 (n = 4,885) (n = 4,550) (n = 3,660) (n = 4,453) (n = 4,317) (n = 21,865) Total 51.7% 52.8% 57.8% 55.0% 56.2% 54.5% 43.2% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not DSPS) Table 272: First-Time Students to Persistence Rates by Economically Disadvantaged, Yes 54.7% 54.7% 58.9% 56.0% 57.9% 56.4% NO 1.03 (n = 2,570) (n = 2,704) (n = 2,216) (n = 2,942) (n = 2,815) (n = 13,247) No 48.8% 50.4% 56.3% 53.4% 53.6% 52.1% NO 0.96 (n = 2,607) (n = 2,116) (n = 1,718) (n = 1,834) (n = 1,744) (n = 10,019) Total 51.7% 52.8% 57.8% 55.0% 56.2% 54.5% 41.7% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

147 146 P age Table 273: First-Time Students to Persistence Rates by Veteran Status, Yes 54.7% 54.7% 58.9% 56.0% 57.9% 56.4% NO 1.03 (n = 2,570) (n = 2,704) (n = 2,216) (n = 2,942) (n = 2,815) (n = 13,247) No 48.8% 50.4% 56.3% 53.4% 53.6% 52.1% NO 0.96 (n = 2,607) (n = 2,116) (n = 1,718) (n = 1,834) (n = 1,744) (n = 10,019) Total 51.7% 52.8% 57.8% 55.0% 56.2% 54.5% 41.7% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not Econ) Table 274: First-Time Students to Persistence Rates by Foster Youth Status, Yes 77.3% 58.8% 41.2% 43.6% 39.3% 51.4% NO* 0.94 (n = 22) (n = 34) (n = 17) (n = 39) (n = 28) (n = 140) No 51.6% 52.8% 57.9% 55.1% 56.3% 54.6% NO 1.00 (n = 5,155) (n = 4,786) (n = 3,917) (n = 4,737) (n = 4,531) (n = 23,126) Total 51.7% 52.8% 57.8% 55.0% 56.2% 54.5% 43.6% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not FY) Table 275: First-Time Students to Persistence Rates by 1 st Generation, Yes 44.0% 53.9% 55.5% 53.6% 53.6% 52.6% NO 0.96 (n = 836) (n = 677) (n = 1,141) (n = 1,501) (n = 1,456) (n = 5,611) No 46.6% 52.0% 58.7% 56.2% 56.7% 54.8% NO 1.00 (n = 1,774) (n = 1,126) (n = 2,287) (n = 2,837) (n = 2,705) (n = 10,729) Total 51.7% 52.8% 57.8% 55.0% 56.2% 54.5% 42.1% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

148 147 P age Persistence Rates (Student Success Scorecard) The persistence rate data are derived from the completion cohorts in the Student Success Scorecard. The completion cohorts comprise of first time students in the system that earned at least six units (within six years of their first enrollments) and attempted any level of math or English within three years. Successful persistence includes students who attempted a credit course OR completed a degree or certificate or transferred to a fouryear institution within the first three consecutive major terms. Figure 21: Persistence Rate Trends P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

149 148 P age Table 276: Persistence Rate Trends by Race/Ethnicity to to to to to African American 67.2% 68.1% 71.8% 70.8% 71.2% 69.9% NO 0.96 (n = 204) (n = 210) (n = 241) (n = 209) (n = 219) (n = 1,083) American Indian 71.4% 70.0% 75.9% 70.0% 80.0% 72.6% NO* 1.00 (n = 28) (n = 30) (n = 29) (n = 20) (n = 10) (n = 117) Asian 70.5% 83.3% 89.4% 76.1% 83.8% 80.8% NO 1.11 (n = 105) (n = 114) (n = 104) (n = 138) (n = 173) (n = 634) Filipino 75.4% 74.5% 63.6% 80.0% 76.3% 74.2% NO 1.02 (n = 118) (n = 106) (n = 107) (n = 135) (n = 97) (n = 563) Hispanic 71.3% 69.6% 71.1% 69.1% 66.9% 69.4% NO 0.96 (n = 429) (n = 504) (n = 485) (n = 567) (n = 707) (n = 2,692) Pacific Islander 71.9% 71.4% 66.7% 67.2% 55.6% 67.2% NO* 0.93 (n = 32) (n = 49) (n = 66) (n = 64) (n = 27) (n = 238) White 71.2% 74.2% 75.7% 72.7% 74.3% 73.7% NO 1.02 (n = 1,197) (n = 1,264) (n = 1,240) (n = 1,199) (n = 1,386) (n = 6,286) Two or more N/A N/A N/A N/A 74.6% 74.6% NO* 1.03 (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 177) (n = 177) Unknown 73.8% 72.6% 74.8% 70.7% 66.9% 72.2% NO 0.99 (n = 214) (n = 237) (n = 250) (n = 311) (n = 127) (n = 1,139) Total 71.3% 73.0% 74.2% 72.0% 72.5% 72.6% 64.6% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Asian) Table 277: Persistence Rate Trends by Gender to to to to to Female 71.5% 73.4% 75.9% 72.6% 73.7% 73.5% NO 1.01 (n = 1,216) (n = 1,360) (n = 1,342) (n = 1,404) (n = 1,534) (n = 6,856) Male 70.8% 72.8% 72.1% 71.2% 71.1% 71.6% NO 0.99 (n = 1,095) (n = 1,136) (n = 1,155) (n = 1,201) (n = 1,358) (n = 5,945) Total 71.3% 73.0% 74.2% 72.0% 72.5% 72.6% 58.8% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

150 149 P age Table 278: Persistence Rate Trends by Age to to to to to <20 years 72.6% 75.1% 75.0% 73.0% 70.1% 73.2% NO 1.01 (n = 1,907) (n = 2,053) (n = 2,074) (n = 2,099) (n = 2,032) (n = 10,165) years 62.3% 65.5% 72.9% 61.9% 71.5% 67.3% NO 0.93 (n = 204) (n = 249) (n = 229) (n = 273) (n = 383) (n = 1,338) years 68.4% 58.3% 64.5% 71.4% 81.2% 71.5% NO 0.98 (n = 158) (n = 144) (n = 141) (n = 189) (n = 346) (n = 978) 40+ years 69.0% 67.6% 74.4% 80.5% 85.2% 77.7% NO 1.07 (n = 58) (n = 68) (n = 78) (n = 82) (n = 162) (n = 448) Total 71.3% 73.0% 74.2% 72.0% 72.5% 72.6% 58.5% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (<20 years) Table 279: Persistence Rate Trends by Disability Status to to to to to Yes 78.6% 75.2% 75.9% 79.8% 74.2% 76.6% NO 1.06 (n = 140) (n = 137) (n = 141) (n = 168) (n = 213) (n = 799) No 70.8% 72.8% 74.1% 71.4% 72.3% 72.3% NO 1.00 (n = 2,187) (n = 2,377) (n = 2,381) (n = 2,475) (n = 2,710) (n = 12,130) Total 71.3% 73.0% 74.2% 72.0% 72.5% 72.6% 57.9% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Not DSPS) Table 280: Persistence Rate Trends by Economically Disadvantaged to to to to to Yes 72.4% 72.8% 75.6% 73.5% 74.2% 73.8% NO 1.02 (n = 1,251) (n = 1,438) (n = 1,422) (n = 1,791) (n = 2,185) (n = 8,087) No 70.0% 73.1% 72.4% 68.7% 67.3% 70.6% NO 0.97 (n = 1,076) (n = 1,076) (n = 1,100) (n = 852) (n = 738) (n = 4,842) Total 71.3% 73.0% 74.2% 72.0% 72.5% 72.6% 56.5% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (No Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

151 150 P age Table 281: Persistence Rate Trends by Veteran Status to to to to to Yes 68.9% 69.3% 74.3% 73.7% 79.9% 73.7% NO 1.02 (n = 122) (n = 127) (n = 101) (n = 95) (n = 179) (n = 624) No 71.4% 73.1% 74.2% 71.9% 72.0% 72.5% NO 1.00 (n = 2,205) (n = 2,387) (n = 2,421) (n = 2,548) (n = 2,744) (n = 12,305) Total 71.3% 73.0% 74.2% 72.0% 72.5% 72.6% 58.0% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Non Vet) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

152 151 P age Units Attempted Categories of units attempted represent units attempted districtwide, and the average units attempted provide a breakdown of units attempted districtwide and at each college. Units attempted are counted for any course in which a grade notation was received (grades A, B, C, D, F, P, NP, I, W). Units Attempted: All Students The following tables include all students enrolled in the fall term. Table 282: All Students Units Attempted, Units 3.3% 3.0% 2.9% 2.4% 2.2% 2.8% (n = 652) (n = 543) (n = 549) (n = 444) (n = 411) (n = 2,599) Units 17.6% 16.2% 15.7% 15.7% 15.4% 16.2% (n = 3,520) (n = 2,931) (n = 2,969) (n = 2,874) (n = 2,841) (n = 15,135) Units 17.5% 17.9% 17.8% 18.0% 18.2% 17.9% (n = 3,501) (n = 3,224) (n = 3,361) (n = 3,299) (n = 3,345) (n = 16,730) Units 17.7% 18.5% 18.2% 19.2% 19.1% 18.5% (n = 3,540) (n = 3,347) (n = 3,435) (n = 3,523) (n = 3,517) (n = 17,362) Units 44.0% 44.3% 45.4% 44.6% 45.0% 44.7% (n = 8,809) (n = 8,003) (n = 8,592) (n = 8,170) (n = 8,285) (n = 41,859) All Students Cohort (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) Avg. Units GCCCD Avg. Units GC Avg. Units CC P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

153 152 P age Table 283: All Students Units Attempted by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 39.2% 41.5% 43.8% 43.9% 43.6% 42.3% YES 0.95 (n = 1,460) (n = 1,192) (n = 1,284) (n = 1,238) (n = 1,109) (n = 6,283) American Indian 39.4% 33.3% 45.6% 37.7% 26.2% 37.2% YES* 0.83 (n = 99) (n = 66) (n = 57) (n = 53) (n = 42) (n = 317) Asian 55.4% 58.4% 60.0% 59.1% 60.6% 58.6% NO 1.31 (n = 1,224) (n = 1,074) (n = 1,064) (n = 1,008) (n = 1,033) (n = 5,403) Filipino 44.9% 45.4% 50.9% 48.4% 43.8% 46.7% YES 1.05 (n = 771) (n = 727) (n = 727) (n = 746) (n = 682) (n = 3,653) Hispanic/Latino 43.9% 43.6% 44.4% 44.1% 43.5% 43.9% YES 0.98 (n = 5,420) (n = 5,327) (n = 5,944) (n = 5,970) (n = 6,165) (n = 28,826) Pacific Islander 47.2% 45.8% 46.2% 46.0% 47.7% 46.6% YES* 1.04 (n = 163) (n = 120) (n = 93) (n = 87) (n = 86) (n = 549) White 43.1% 43.5% 44.6% 43.3% 44.8% 43.9% YES 0.98 (n = 8,821) (n = 7,794) (n = 7,955) (n = 7,551) (n = 7,644) (n = 39,765) Two or more 45.7% 45.4% 43.9% 43.5% 44.2% 44.5% YES 1.00 (n = 1,463) (n = 1,323) (n = 1,470) (n = 1,449) (n = 1,460) (n = 7,165) Total 44.0% 44.3% 45.4% 44.6% 45.0% 44.7% 46.9% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Asian) Table 284: All Students Units Attempted by Gender, - Female 41.5% 41.9% 42.7% 41.9% 43.0% 42.2% NO 0.94 (n = 11,041) (n = 9,928) (n = 10,444) (n = 10,150) (n = 10,291) (n = 51,854) Male 47.2% 47.5% 49.1% 48.2% 47.8% 47.9% NO 1.07 (n = 8,804) (n = 7,988) (n = 8,324) (n = 8,032) (n = 7,933) (n = 41,081) Total 44.0% 44.3% 45.4% 44.6% 45.0% 44.7% 38.4% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Male) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

154 153 P age Table 285: All Students Units Attempted by Age, - < 20 years 58.1% 58.2% 60.9% 60.7% 62.3% 60.0% NO 1.34 (n = 5,946) (n = 5,207) (n = 5,453) (n = 5,318) (n = 5,339) (n = 27,263) years 43.9% 44.0% 45.6% 44.3% 44.5% 44.5% YES 1.00 (n = 7,304) (n = 7,045) (n = 7,408) (n = 7,231) (n = 7,202) (n = 36,190) years 33.1% 33.2% 32.5% 31.2% 31.3% 32.2% YES 0.72 (n = 4,858) (n = 4,142) (n = 4,372) (n = 4,293) (n = 4,323) (n = 21,988) 40+ years 28.4% 30.2% 28.5% 27.1% 26.3% 28.2% YES 0.63 (n = 1,914) (n = 1,654) (n = 1,673) (n = 1,468) (n = 1,535) (n = 8,244) Total 44.0% 44.3% 45.4% 44.6% 45.0% 44.7% 48.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (< 20 years) Table 286: All Students Units Attempted by Disability Status, - Yes 42.6% 41.4% 41.3% 38.7% 38.0% 40.5% NO 0.91 (n = 1,600) (n = 1,627) (n = 1,669) (n = 1,497) (n = 1,456) (n = 7,849) No 44.1% 44.6% 45.8% 45.1% 45.6% 45.1% NO 1.01 (n = 18,422) (n = 16,421) (n = 17,237) (n = 16,813) (n = 16,943) (n = 85,836) Total 44.0% 44.3% 45.4% 44.6% 45.0% 44.7% 36.1% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Not DSPS) Table 287: All Students Units Attempted by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 49.2% 48.5% 50.0% 48.8% 49.3% 49.2% NO 1.10 (n = 11,002) (n = 10,479) (n = 11,499) (n = 11,318) (n = 11,227) (n = 55,525) No 37.6% 38.5% 38.4% 37.9% 38.4% 38.2% NO 0.85 (n = 9,020) (n = 7,569) (n = 7,407) (n = 6,992) (n = 7,172) (n = 38,160) Total 44.0% 44.3% 45.4% 44.6% 45.0% 44.7% 30.5% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

155 154 P age Table 288: All Students Units Attempted by Veteran Status, - Yes 58.0% 55.1% 60.3% 61.1% 56.6% 58.2% NO 1.30 (n = 1,338) (n = 1,172) (n = 1,138) (n = 983) (n = 935) (n = 5,566) No 43.0% 43.6% 44.5% 43.7% 44.4% 43.8% NO 0.98 (n = 18,684) (n = 16,876) (n = 17,768) (n = 17,327) (n = 17,464) (n = 88,119) Total 44.0% 44.3% 45.4% 44.6% 45.0% 44.7% 35.1% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Not Vet) Table 289: All Students Units Attempted by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 58.1% 57.6% 39.2% 41.8% 52.6% 50.0% NO* 1.12 (n = 105) (n = 99) (n = 97) (n = 91) (n = 76) (n = 468) No 43.9% 44.3% 45.5% 44.6% 45.0% 44.7% NO 1.00 (n = 19,917) (n = 17,949) (n = 18,809) (n = 18,219) (n = 18,323) (n = 93,217) Total 44.0% 44.3% 45.4% 44.6% 45.0% 44.7% 35.7% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Not FY) Table 290: All Students Units Attempted by 1 st Generation, - Yes 41.2% 42.7% 45.4% 47.1% 46.4% 45.1% NO 1.01 (n = 2,546) (n = 3,116) (n = 4,304) (n = 4,826) (n = 5,359) (n = 20,151) No 42.2% 43.7% 46.5% 45.8% 45.4% 45.0% NO 1.01 (n = 5,016) (n = 6,066) (n = 8,368) (n = 9,159) (n = 9,873) (n = 38,482) Total 44.0% 44.3% 45.4% 44.6% 45.0% 44.7% 36.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

156 155 P age Units Attempted: First-Time Students The following tables include only first-time students to GCCCD who were enrolled in the fall term. Table 291: First-Time Students Units Attempted, Units 3.3% 3.3% 2.6% 1.7% 1.7% 2.5% (n = 157) (n = 129) (n = 126) (n = 79) (n = 80) (n = 571) Units 17.3% 15.3% 14.3% 14.9% 13.2% 15.0% (n = 836) (n = 601) (n = 683) (n = 680) (n = 626) (n = 3,426) Units 15.7% 16.5% 15.0% 13.9% 14.7% 15.1% (n = 759) (n = 649) (n = 716) (n = 633) (n = 697) (n = 3,454) Units 16.3% 17.4% 16.7% 18.4% 17.1% 17.2% (n = 786) (n = 683) (n = 797) (n = 841) (n = 810) (n = 3,917) Units 47.3% 47.6% 51.4% 51.0% 53.2% 50.2% (n = 2,282) (n = 1,872) (n = 2,454) (n = 2,326) (n = 2,516) (n = 11,450) 1st Time Cohort (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) Avg. Units GCCCD Avg. Units GC Avg. Units CC P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

157 156 P age Table 292: First-Time Students Units Attempted by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 44.3% 42.4% 44.6% 53.6% 46.3% 46.3% YES 0.92 (n = 397) (n = 314) (n = 377) (n = 366) (n = 300) (n = 1,754) American Indian 38.9% 50.0% 58.8% 46.2% 36.4% 46.2% YES* 0.92 (n = 18) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 17) (n = 13) (n = 11) (n = 65) Asian 53.7% 63.4% 62.5% 65.6% 65.1% 62.0% NO 1.24 (n = 259) (n = 235) (n = 269) (n = 250) (n = 252) (n = 1,265) Filipino 43.9% 46.8% 57.6% 56.5% 49.4% 50.9% NO 1.01 (n = 212) (n = 186) (n = 184) (n = 223) (n = 174) (n = 979) Hispanic/Latino 46.6% 45.7% 50.0% 50.8% 51.7% 49.1% YES 0.98 (n = 1,628) (n = 1,368) (n = 1,744) (n = 1,609) (n = 1,696) (n = 8,045) Pacific Islander 50.0% 57.9% 45.5% 52.6% 59.3% 52.8% NO* 1.05 (n = 36) (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 19) (n = 27) (n = 123) White 48.6% 48.2% 52.1% 48.4% 54.3% 50.4% NO 1.00 (n = 1,906) (n = 1,494) (n = 1,778) (n = 1,729) (n = 1,864) (n = 8,771) Two or more 45.5% 43.8% 49.7% 47.9% 55.0% 48.8% YES 0.97 (n = 325) (n = 267) (n = 354) (n = 317) (n = 373) (n = 1,636) Total 47.3% 47.6% 51.4% 51.0% 53.2% 50.2% 49.6% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Asian) Table 293: First-Time Students Units Attempted by Gender, - Female 46.5% 45.3% 50.5% 48.7% 52.5% 48.8% NO 0.97 (n = 2,488) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,497) (n = 2,464) (n = 2,537) (n = 12,050) Male 48.3% 50.2% 52.7% 54.0% 54.4% 51.9% NO 1.03 (n = 2,292) (n = 1,842) (n = 2,234) (n = 2,053) (n = 2,120) (n = 10,541) Total 47.3% 47.6% 51.4% 51.0% 53.2% 50.2% 41.5% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Male) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

158 157 P age Table 294: First-Time Students Units Attempted by Age, - < 20 years 56.9% 54.5% 61.3% 61.3% 62.1% 59.4% NO 1.18 (n = 2,777) (n = 2,401) (n = 2,826) (n = 2,687) (n = 2,791) (n = 13,482) years 37.2% 39.1% 40.5% 40.1% 42.3% 39.8% YES 0.79 (n = 1,080) (n = 839) (n = 1,013) (n = 965) (n = 990) (n = 4,887) years 33.2% 36.1% 35.3% 33.2% 39.2% 35.3% YES 0.70 (n = 735) (n = 548) (n = 714) (n = 702) (n = 689) (n = 3,388) 40+ years 24.1% 25.3% 27.4% 28.3% 36.3% 28.7% YES 0.57 (n = 228) (n = 146) (n = 223) (n = 205) (n = 259) (n = 1,061) Total 47.3% 47.6% 51.4% 51.0% 53.2% 50.2% 47.5% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (< 20 years) Table 295: First-Time Students Units Attempted by Disability Status, - Yes 47.4% 46.4% 49.5% 45.9% 41.2% 46.4% NO 0.92 (n = 270) (n = 274) (n = 323) (n = 242) (n = 216) (n = 1,325) No 47.3% 47.7% 51.5% 51.3% 53.8% 50.4% NO 1.00 (n = 4,550) (n = 3,660) (n = 4,453) (n = 4,317) (n = 4,513) (n = 21,493) Total 47.3% 47.6% 51.4% 51.0% 53.2% 50.2% 40.3% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Not DSPS) Table 296: First-Time Students Units Attempted by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 50.1% 49.8% 54.1% 54.2% 59.0% 53.6% NO 1.07 (n = 2,704) (n = 2,216) (n = 2,942) (n = 2,815) (n = 2,820) (n = 13,497) No 43.8% 44.8% 47.1% 45.9% 44.6% 45.2% NO 0.90 (n = 2,116) (n = 1,718) (n = 1,834) (n = 1,744) (n = 1,909) (n = 9,321) Total 47.3% 47.6% 51.4% 51.0% 53.2% 50.2% 36.1% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

159 158 P age Table 297: First-Time Students Units Attempted by Veteran Status, - Yes 66.6% 64.3% 74.5% 70.3% 69.3% 69.1% NO 1.38 (n = 287) (n = 227) (n = 271) (n = 219) (n = 199) (n = 1,203) No 46.1% 46.6% 50.0% 50.0% 52.5% 49.1% NO 0.98 (n = 4,533) (n = 3,707) (n = 4,505) (n = 4,340) (n = 4,530) (n = 21,615) Total 47.3% 47.6% 51.4% 51.0% 53.2% 50.2% 39.3% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Not Vet) Table 298: First-Time Students Units Attempted by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 67.6% 58.8% 43.6% 39.3% 70.8% 54.9% NO* 1.09 (n = 34) (n = 17) (n = 39) (n = 28) (n = 24) (n = 142) No 47.2% 47.5% 51.4% 51.1% 53.1% 50.1% NO 1.00 (n = 4,786) (n = 3,917) (n = 4,737) (n = 4,531) (n = 4,705) (n = 22,676) Total 47.3% 47.6% 51.4% 51.0% 53.2% 50.2% 40.1% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Not FY) Table 299: First-Time Students Units Attempted by 1 st Generation, - Yes 43.3% 44.3% 48.7% 49.9% 53.1% 48.7% NO 0.97 (n = 677) (n = 1,141) (n = 1,501) (n = 1,456) (n = 1,533) (n = 6,308) No 49.6% 48.5% 51.7% 50.8% 52.0% 50.7% NO 1.01 (n = 1,126) (n = 2,287) (n = 2,837) (n = 2,705) (n = 2,769) (n = 11,724) Total 47.3% 47.6% 51.4% 51.0% 53.2% 50.2% 40.6% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

160 159 P age Units Completed Categories of units completed represent units completed districtwide, and the average units completed provide a breakdown of units completed districtwide and at each college. Units completed are counted for any course in which a grade notation was received (grades A, B, C, D, and P). Units Completed: All Students The following tables include all students enrolled in the fall term. Table 300: All Students Units Completed, - 0 Units 15.7% 14.5% 15.7% 16.1% 16.0% 15.6% (n = 3,141) (n = 2,617) (n = 2,967) (n = 2,943) (n = 2,940) (n = 14,608) Units 3.7% 3.8% 3.7% 3.2% 3.0% 3.5% (n = 740) (n = 684) (n = 703) (n = 583) (n = 561) (n = 3,271) Units 20.6% 19.2% 19.3% 19.7% 19.6% 19.7% (n = 4,122) (n = 3,469) (n = 3,653) (n = 3,614) (n = 3,598) (n = 18,456) Units 18.1% 18.0% 18.1% 17.7% 18.4% 18.1% (n = 3,627) (n = 3,247) (n = 3,421) (n = 3,246) (n = 3,387) (n = 16,928) Units 15.9% 16.8% 16.9% 17.0% 16.4% 16.6% (n = 3,178) (n = 3,034) (n = 3,195) (n = 3,115) (n = 3,023) (n = 15,545) Units 26.0% 27.7% 26.3% 26.3% 26.6% 26.6% (n = 5,214) (n = 4,997) (n = 4,967) (n = 4,809) (n = 4,890) (n = 24,877) All Students Cohort (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) Avg. Units GCCCD Avg. Units GC Avg. Units CC P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

161 160 P age Table 301: All Students Units Completed by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 17.7% 20.7% 17.7% 19.5% 19.0% 18.9% YES 0.71 (n = 1,460) (n = 1,192) (n = 1,284) (n = 1,238) (n = 1,109) (n = 6,283) American Indian 17.2% 9.1% 21.1% 11.3% 9.5% 14.2% YES* 0.53 (n = 99) (n = 66) (n = 57) (n = 53) (n = 42) (n = 317) Asian 37.1% 40.1% 39.5% 40.6% 37.8% 38.9% NO 1.47 (n = 1,224) (n = 1,074) (n = 1,064) (n = 1,008) (n = 1,033) (n = 5,403) Filipino 26.7% 30.1% 30.7% 28.7% 27.3% 28.7% YES 1.08 (n = 771) (n = 727) (n = 727) (n = 746) (n = 682) (n = 3,653) Hispanic/Latino 22.7% 24.3% 22.7% 22.9% 22.9% 23.1% YES 0.87 (n = 5,420) (n = 5,327) (n = 5,944) (n = 5,970) (n = 6,165) (n = 28,826) Pacific Islander 20.2% 23.3% 22.6% 27.6% 20.9% 22.6% YES* 0.85 (n = 163) (n = 120) (n = 93) (n = 87) (n = 86) (n = 549) White 28.3% 29.7% 28.5% 28.1% 29.3% 28.8% YES 1.08 (n = 8,821) (n = 7,794) (n = 7,955) (n = 7,551) (n = 7,644) (n = 39,765) Two or more 24.7% 27.5% 25.5% 26.4% 26.6% 26.1% YES 0.98 (n = 1,463) (n = 1,323) (n = 1,470) (n = 1,449) (n = 1,460) (n = 7,165) Total 26.0% 27.7% 26.3% 26.3% 26.6% 26.6% 31.2% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Asian) Table 302: All Students Units Completed by Gender, - Female 25.1% 27.1% 25.5% 25.4% 26.4% 25.9% NO 0.97 (n = 11,041) (n = 9,928) (n = 10,444) (n = 10,150) (n = 10,291) (n = 51,854) Male 27.4% 28.5% 27.3% 27.4% 26.9% 27.5% NO 1.04 (n = 8,804) (n = 7,988) (n = 8,324) (n = 8,032) (n = 7,933) (n = 41,081) Total 26.0% 27.7% 26.3% 26.3% 26.6% 26.6% 22.0% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Male) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

162 161 P age Table 303: All Students Units Completed by Age, - < 20 years 35.3% 36.2% 35.5% 36.5% 37.5% 36.2% NO 1.36 (n = 5,946) (n = 5,207) (n = 5,453) (n = 5,318) (n = 5,339) (n = 27,263) years 24.2% 26.7% 25.2% 25.0% 24.8% 25.2% YES 0.95 (n = 7,304) (n = 7,045) (n = 7,408) (n = 7,231) (n = 7,202) (n = 36,190) years 20.5% 21.4% 19.8% 18.8% 19.2% 19.9% YES 0.75 (n = 4,858) (n = 4,142) (n = 4,372) (n = 4,293) (n = 4,323) (n = 21,988) 40+ years 18.2% 21.1% 17.9% 17.0% 17.7% 18.4% YES 0.69 (n = 1,914) (n = 1,654) (n = 1,673) (n = 1,468) (n = 1,535) (n = 8,244) Total 26.0% 27.7% 26.3% 26.3% 26.6% 26.6% 28.9% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (< 20 years) Table 304: All Students Units Completed by Disability Status, - Yes 22.8% 23.9% 21.6% 22.6% 19.0% 22.0% NO 0.83 (n = 1,600) (n = 1,627) (n = 1,669) (n = 1,497) (n = 1,456) (n = 7,849) No 26.3% 28.1% 26.7% 26.6% 27.2% 27.0% NO 1.02 (n = 18,422) (n = 16,421) (n = 17,237) (n = 16,813) (n = 16,943) (n = 85,836) Total 26.0% 27.7% 26.3% 26.3% 26.6% 26.6% 21.6% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Not DSPS) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

163 162 P age Table 305: All Students Units Completed by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 27.8% 29.5% 27.9% 27.8% 28.4% 28.3% NO 1.06 (n = 11,002) (n = 10,479) (n = 11,499) (n = 11,318) (n = 11,227) (n = 55,525) No 23.8% 25.2% 23.7% 23.9% 23.8% 24.1% NO 0.91 (n = 9,020) (n = 7,569) (n = 7,407) (n = 6,992) (n = 7,172) (n = 38,160) Total 26.0% 27.7% 26.3% 26.3% 26.6% 26.6% 19.3% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Not Econ) Table 306: All Students Units Completed by Veteran Status, - Yes 35.7% 34.0% 34.7% 35.1% 30.5% 34.2% NO 1.29 (n = 1,338) (n = 1,172) (n = 1,138) (n = 983) (n = 935) (n = 5,566) No 25.3% 27.2% 25.7% 25.8% 26.4% 26.1% NO 0.98 (n = 18,684) (n = 16,876) (n = 17,768) (n = 17,327) (n = 17,464) (n = 88,119) Total 26.0% 27.7% 26.3% 26.3% 26.6% 26.6% 20.9% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Not Vet) Table 307: All Students Units Completed by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 21.0% 18.2% 13.4% 14.3% 14.5% 16.5% YES* 0.62 (n = 105) (n = 99) (n = 97) (n = 91) (n = 76) (n = 468) No 26.1% 27.7% 26.3% 26.3% 26.6% 26.6% NO 1.00 (n = 19,917) (n = 17,949) (n = 18,809) (n = 18,219) (n = 18,323) (n = 93,217) Total 26.0% 27.7% 26.3% 26.3% 26.6% 26.6% 21.3% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Not FY) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

164 163 P age Table 308: All Students Units Completed by 1 st Generation, - Yes 22.6% 24.6% 24.7% 25.3% 26.5% 25.1% NO 0.94 (n = 2,546) (n = 3,116) (n = 4,304) (n = 4,826) (n = 5,359) (n = 20,151) No 23.8% 27.4% 27.4% 28.0% 27.2% 27.0% NO 1.02 (n = 5,016) (n = 6,066) (n = 8,368) (n = 9,159) (n = 9,873) (n = 38,482) Total 26.0% 27.7% 26.3% 26.3% 26.6% 26.6% 21.6% (n = 20,022) (n = 18,048) (n = 18,906) (n = 18,310) (n = 18,399) (n = 93,685) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

165 164 P age Units Completed: First-Time Students The following tables include only first-time students to GCCCD who were enrolled in the fall term. Table 309: First-Time Students Units Completed, - 0 Units 17.1% 15.5% 17.5% 17.2% 17.0% 16.9% (n = 822) (n = 609) (n = 837) (n = 782) (n = 805) (n = 3,855) Units 3.5% 4.4% 3.4% 2.8% 2.6% 3.3% (n = 168) (n = 173) (n = 162) (n = 128) (n = 125) (n = 756) Units 20.0% 18.1% 18.0% 17.6% 17.6% 18.3% (n = 965) (n = 714) (n = 861) (n = 804) (n = 832) (n = 4,176) Units 16.5% 16.4% 16.7% 15.8% 16.1% 16.3% (n = 795) (n = 646) (n = 799) (n = 722) (n = 761) (n = 3,723) Units 15.4% 16.4% 15.8% 16.4% 16.0% 16.0% (n = 742) (n = 644) (n = 753) (n = 749) (n = 757) (n = 3,645) Units 27.6% 29.2% 28.6% 30.1% 30.6% 29.2% (n = 1,328) (n = 1,148) (n = 1,364) (n = 1,374) (n = 1,449) (n = 6,663) 1st Time Cohort (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) Avg. Units GCCCD Avg. Units GC Avg. Units CC P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

166 165 P age Table 310: First-Time Students Units Completed by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black 18.9% 22.0% 17.5% 21.0% 19.7% 19.7% YES 0.68 (n = 397) (n = 314) (n = 377) (n = 366) (n = 300) (n = 1,754) American Indian 27.8% 16.7% 17.6% 15.4% 9.1% 18.5% YES* 0.63 (n = 18) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 17) (n = 13) (n = 11) (n = 65) Asian 37.1% 43.8% 40.5% 48.0% 37.7% 41.3% NO 1.42 (n = 259) (n = 235) (n = 269) (n = 250) (n = 252) (n = 1,265) Filipino 27.8% 31.2% 34.2% 38.1% 29.9% 32.4% YES 1.11 (n = 212) (n = 186) (n = 184) (n = 223) (n = 174) (n = 979) Hispanic/Latino 25.2% 24.6% 25.6% 27.2% 26.9% 26.0% YES 0.89 (n = 1,628) (n = 1,368) (n = 1,744) (n = 1,609) (n = 1,696) (n = 8,045) Pacific Islander 16.7% 31.6% 18.2% 42.1% 18.5% 23.6% YES* 0.81 (n = 36) (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 19) (n = 27) (n = 123) White 30.7% 32.4% 31.8% 31.2% 35.5% 32.3% YES 1.11 (n = 1,906) (n = 1,494) (n = 1,778) (n = 1,729) (n = 1,864) (n = 8,771) Two or more 24.9% 28.1% 27.4% 28.7% 31.4% 28.2% YES 0.96 (n = 325) (n = 267) (n = 354) (n = 317) (n = 373) (n = 1,636) Total 27.6% 29.2% 28.6% 30.1% 30.6% 29.2% 33.1% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Asian) Table 311: First-Time Students Units Completed by Gender, - Female 28.7% 29.1% 29.6% 30.0% 32.5% 30.0% NO 1.03 (n = 2,488) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,497) (n = 2,464) (n = 2,537) (n = 12,050) Male 26.5% 29.4% 27.5% 30.4% 28.7% 28.4% NO 0.97 (n = 2,292) (n = 1,842) (n = 2,234) (n = 2,053) (n = 2,120) (n = 10,541) Total 27.6% 29.2% 28.6% 30.1% 30.6% 29.2% 24.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

167 166 P age Table 312: First-Time Students Units Completed by Age, - < 20 years 33.4% 33.7% 34.6% 36.9% 36.2% 35.0% NO 1.20 (n = 2,777) (n = 2,401) (n = 2,826) (n = 2,687) (n = 2,791) (n = 13,482) years 19.7% 20.7% 20.5% 21.6% 20.0% 20.5% YES 0.70 (n = 1,080) (n = 839) (n = 1,013) (n = 965) (n = 990) (n = 4,887) years 20.8% 25.7% 20.0% 20.2% 25.5% 22.3% YES 0.76 (n = 735) (n = 548) (n = 714) (n = 702) (n = 689) (n = 3,388) 40+ years 14.9% 17.1% 15.7% 15.6% 25.5% 18.1% YES 0.62 (n = 228) (n = 146) (n = 223) (n = 205) (n = 259) (n = 1,061) Total 27.6% 29.2% 28.6% 30.1% 30.6% 29.2% 28.0% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (< 20 years) Table 313: First-Time Students Units Completed by Disability Status, - Yes 23.0% 27.7% 23.8% 24.8% 18.1% 23.7% NO 0.81 (n = 270) (n = 274) (n = 323) (n = 242) (n = 216) (n = 1,325) No 27.8% 29.3% 28.9% 30.4% 31.2% 29.5% NO 1.01 (n = 4,550) (n = 3,660) (n = 4,453) (n = 4,317) (n = 4,513) (n = 21,493) Total 27.6% 29.2% 28.6% 30.1% 30.6% 29.2% 23.6% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Not DSPS) Table 314: First-Time Students Units Completed by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes 26.7% 29.2% 28.6% 30.3% 32.5% 29.5% NO 1.01 (n = 2,704) (n = 2,216) (n = 2,942) (n = 2,815) (n = 2,820) (n = 13,497) No 28.6% 29.2% 28.6% 29.9% 27.9% 28.8% NO 0.99 (n = 2,116) (n = 1,718) (n = 1,834) (n = 1,744) (n = 1,909) (n = 9,321) Total 27.6% 29.2% 28.6% 30.1% 30.6% 29.2% 23.1% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

168 167 P age Table 315: First-Time Students Units Completed by Veteran Status, - Yes 42.9% 44.1% 44.6% 44.7% 39.7% 43.3% NO 1.48 (n = 287) (n = 227) (n = 271) (n = 219) (n = 199) (n = 1,203) No 26.6% 28.3% 27.6% 29.4% 30.2% 28.4% NO 0.97 (n = 4,533) (n = 3,707) (n = 4,505) (n = 4,340) (n = 4,530) (n = 21,615) Total 27.6% 29.2% 28.6% 30.1% 30.6% 29.2% 22.7% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Not Vet) Table 316: First-Time Students Units Completed by Foster Youth Status, - Yes 32.4% 17.6% 17.9% 7.1% 12.5% 18.3% YES* 0.63 (n = 34) (n = 17) (n = 39) (n = 28) (n = 24) (n = 142) No 27.5% 29.2% 28.6% 30.3% 30.7% 29.3% NO 1.00 (n = 4,786) (n = 3,917) (n = 4,737) (n = 4,531) (n = 4,705) (n = 22,676) Total 27.6% 29.2% 28.6% 30.1% 30.6% 29.2% 23.4% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Not FY) Table 317: First-Time Students Units Completed by 1 st Generation, - Yes 22.2% 25.2% 26.1% 25.3% 29.5% 26.2% NO 0.90 (n = 677) (n = 1,141) (n = 1,501) (n = 1,456) (n = 1,533) (n = 6,308) No 30.8% 30.7% 29.2% 31.8% 30.8% 30.6% NO 1.05 (n = 1,126) (n = 2,287) (n = 2,837) (n = 2,705) (n = 2,769) (n = 11,724) Total 27.6% 29.2% 28.6% 30.1% 30.6% 29.2% 24.5% (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 4,729) (n = 22,818) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

169 168 P age 24+ Units Completion Rate in First Year These series of tables summarize the percentage of students that completed at least 24 units districtwide in their first year. Completed units are grade notations A, B, C, D, and P. Figure 22: 24+ Units Completion Rate in First Year, P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

170 169 P age Table 318: 24+ Units Completion Rate in First Year by Race/Ethnicity, African American/Black 9.0% 12.1% 14.0% 11.4% 11.7% 11.5% YES 0.58 (n = 433) (n = 397) (n = 314) (n = 377) (n = 366) (n = 1,887) American Indian 6.3% 5.6% 16.7% 5.9% 0.0% 5.7% YES* 0.29 (n = 16) (n = 18) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 17) (n = 13) (n = 70) Asian 29.4% 26.6% 30.2% 29.4% 39.6% 30.9% NO 1.55 (n = 316) (n = 259) (n = 235) (n = 269) (n = 250) (n = 1,329) Filipino 19.1% 21.7% 24.7% 25.5% 27.8% 23.4% YES 1.17 (n = 299) (n = 212) (n = 186) (n = 184) (n = 223) (n = 1,104) Hispanic/Latino 14.7% 16.8% 17.0% 17.5% 21.0% 17.4% YES 0.87 (n = 1,522) (n = 1,628) (n = 1,368) (n = 1,744) (n = 1,609) (n = 7,871) Pacific Islander 13.2% 13.9% 10.5% 13.6% 42.1% 17.2% YES* 0.86 (n = 38) (n = 36) (n = 19) (n = 22) (n = 19) (n = 134) White 20.4% 21.6% 23.0% 23.8% 23.9% 22.4% YES 1.12 (n = 2,111) (n = 1,906) (n = 1,494) (n = 1,778) (n = 1,729) (n = 9,018) Two or more 15.2% 17.2% 22.8% 16.1% 21.8% 18.3% YES 0.92 (n = 369) (n = 325) (n = 267) (n = 354) (n = 317) (n = 1,632) Total 17.8% 19.1% 20.6% 20.1% 22.8% 20.0% 24.7% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Asian) Table 319: 24+ Units Completion Rate in First Year by Gender, Female 18.2% 20.3% 21.5% 22.1% 23.4% 21.0% NO 1.05 (n = 2,675) (n = 2,488) (n = 2,064) (n = 2,497) (n = 2,464) (n = 12,188) Male 17.5% 17.9% 19.7% 18.0% 22.3% 18.9% NO 0.95 (n = 2,456) (n = 2,292) (n = 1,842) (n = 2,234) (n = 2,053) (n = 10,877) Total 17.8% 19.1% 20.6% 20.1% 22.8% 20.0% 16.8% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

171 170 P age Table 320: 24+ Units Completion Rate in First Year by Age, < 20 years 22.8% 24.1% 24.4% 24.4% 28.8% 24.9% NO 1.25 (n = 2,807) (n = 2,777) (n = 2,401) (n = 2,826) (n = 2,687) (n = 13,498) years 12.5% 12.3% 13.6% 12.9% 14.3% 13.1% YES 0.65 (n = 1,215) (n = 1,080) (n = 839) (n = 1,013) (n = 965) (n = 5,112) years 11.7% 13.1% 17.2% 16.1% 15.1% 14.4% YES 0.72 (n = 822) (n = 735) (n = 548) (n = 714) (n = 702) (n = 3,521) 40+ years 9.6% 8.8% 9.6% 12.1% 10.2% 10.0% YES 0.50 (n = 333) (n = 228) (n = 146) (n = 223) (n = 205) (n = 1,135) Total 17.8% 19.1% 20.6% 20.1% 22.8% 20.0% 19.9% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (40+ years) Table 321: 24+ Units Completion Rate in First Year by Disability Status, Yes 15.8% 13.3% 19.7% 17.0% 15.7% 16.3% NO 0.82 (n = 292) (n = 270) (n = 274) (n = 323) (n = 242) (n = 1,401) No 17.9% 19.4% 20.6% 20.4% 23.2% 20.2% NO 1.01 (n = 4,885) (n = 4,550) (n = 3,660) (n = 4,453) (n = 4,317) (n = 21,865) Total 17.8% 19.1% 20.6% 20.1% 22.8% 20.0% 16.2% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not DSPS) Table 322: 24+ Units Completion Rate in First Year by Economically Disadvantaged, Yes 16.4% 18.2% 20.0% 20.0% 23.1% 19.6% NO 0.98 (n = 2,570) (n = 2,704) (n = 2,216) (n = 2,942) (n = 2,815) (n = 13,247) No 19.1% 20.2% 21.3% 20.4% 22.4% 20.5% NO 1.03 (n = 2,607) (n = 2,116) (n = 1,718) (n = 1,834) (n = 1,744) (n = 10,019) Total 17.8% 19.1% 20.6% 20.1% 22.8% 20.0% 16.4% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

172 171 P age Table 323: 24+ Units Completion Rate in First Year by Veteran Status, Yes 23.5% 32.8% 30.4% 35.4% 31.5% 30.5% NO 1.52 (n = 315) (n = 287) (n = 227) (n = 271) (n = 219) (n = 1,319) No 17.4% 18.2% 20.0% 19.2% 22.4% 19.4% NO 0.97 (n = 4,862) (n = 4,533) (n = 3,707) (n = 4,505) (n = 4,340) (n = 21,947) Total 17.8% 19.1% 20.6% 20.1% 22.8% 20.0% 15.5% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not Vet) Table 324: 24+ Units Completion Rate in First Year by Foster Youth Status, Yes 40.9% 29.4% 5.9% 15.4% 7.1% 20.0% NO* 1.00 (n = 22) (n = 34) (n = 17) (n = 39) (n = 28) (n = 140) No 17.7% 19.0% 20.6% 20.2% 22.9% 20.0% NO 1.00 (n = 5,155) (n = 4,786) (n = 3,917) (n = 4,737) (n = 4,531) (n = 23,126) Total 17.8% 19.1% 20.6% 20.1% 22.8% 20.0% 16.0% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not FY) Table 325: 24+ Units Completion Rate in First Year by 1 st Generation, Yes 11.2% 16.5% 16.6% 18.5% 18.3% 16.7% YES 0.84 (n = 836) (n = 677) (n = 1,141) (n = 1,501) (n = 1,456) (n = 5,611) No 13.8% 20.7% 22.3% 21.1% 24.8% 21.0% NO 1.05 (n = 1,774) (n = 1,126) (n = 2,287) (n = 2,837) (n = 2,705) (n = 10,729) Total 17.8% 19.1% 20.6% 20.1% 22.8% 20.0% 16.8% (n = 5,177) (n = 4,820) (n = 3,934) (n = 4,776) (n = 4,559) (n = 23,266) (Not FG) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

173 172 P age 30+ Units Completion Rate (Student Success Scorecard) Derived from the completion cohorts in the Student Success Scorecard, the 30+ Units Completion Rate tracks first time students in the system that earned at least six units (within six years of their first enrollments) and attempted any level of math or English within three years and identifies the percentage of students who completed 30 or more degree-applicable units anywhere in the system with six years of their first enrollment. Figure 23: 30+ Unit Completion Rate Trends P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

174 173 P age Table 326: 30+ Unit Completion Rate Trends by Race/Ethnicity to to to to to African American 54.9% 58.1% 61.4% 61.7% 53.9% 58.1% YES 0.86 (n = 204) (n = 210) (n = 241) (n = 209) (n = 219) (n = 1,083) American Indian 60.7% 73.3% 72.4% 50.0% 50.0% 64.1% NO* 0.95 (n = 28) (n = 30) (n = 29) (n = 20) (n = 10) (n = 117) Asian 72.4% 77.2% 76.9% 68.8% 78.6% 74.9% NO 1.11 (n = 105) (n = 114) (n = 104) (n = 138) (n = 173) (n = 634) Filipino 72.9% 67.9% 64.5% 72.6% 63.9% 68.7% NO 1.02 (n = 118) (n = 106) (n = 107) (n = 135) (n = 97) (n = 563) Hispanic 66.0% 62.5% 64.7% 64.7% 62.4% 63.9% NO 0.95 (n = 429) (n = 504) (n = 485) (n = 567) (n = 707) (n = 2,692) Pacific Islander 65.6% 63.3% 63.6% 62.5% 51.9% 62.2% NO* 0.92 (n = 32) (n = 49) (n = 66) (n = 64) (n = 27) (n = 238) White 69.2% 68.3% 71.1% 66.1% 69.8% 68.9% NO 1.03 (n = 1,197) (n = 1,264) (n = 1,240) (n = 1,199) (n = 1,386) (n = 6,286) Two or more N/A N/A N/A N/A 66.7% 66.7% NO* 0.99 (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 0) (n = 177) (n = 177) Unknown 74.3% 73.0% 70.8% 67.8% 70.1% 71.0% NO 1.06 (n = 214) (n = 237) (n = 250) (n = 311) (n = 127) (n = 1,139) Total 68.0% 67.1% 68.7% 65.9% 66.7% 67.2% 59.9% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Asian) Table 327: 30+ Unit Completion Rate Trends by Gender to to to to to Female 69.5% 67.7% 70.9% 67.8% 68.5% 68.9% NO 1.02 (n = 1,216) (n = 1,360) (n = 1,342) (n = 1,404) (n = 1,534) (n = 6,856) Male 66.3% 66.4% 66.1% 63.4% 64.9% 65.4% NO 0.97 (n = 1,095) (n = 1,136) (n = 1,155) (n = 1,201) (n = 1,358) (n = 5,945) Total 68.0% 67.1% 68.7% 65.9% 66.7% 67.2% 55.1% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Female) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

175 174 P age Table 328: 30+ Unit Completion Rate Trends by Age to to to to to <20 years 69.8% 69.5% 70.8% 67.7% 65.6% 68.7% NO 1.02 (n = 1,907) (n = 2,053) (n = 2,074) (n = 2,099) (n = 2,032) (n = 10,165) years 60.8% 58.2% 59.8% 54.6% 61.6% 59.1% NO 0.88 (n = 204) (n = 249) (n = 229) (n = 273) (n = 383) (n = 1,338) years 60.8% 54.9% 58.9% 63.0% 74.3% 64.8% NO 0.96 (n = 158) (n = 144) (n = 141) (n = 189) (n = 346) (n = 978) 40+ years 51.7% 52.9% 57.7% 64.6% 75.9% 64.1% NO 0.95 (n = 58) (n = 68) (n = 78) (n = 82) (n = 162) (n = 448) Total 68.0% 67.1% 68.7% 65.9% 66.7% 67.2% 54.9% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (<20 years) Table 329: 30+ Unit Completion Rate Trends by Disability Status to to to to to Yes 71.4% 72.3% 66.7% 68.5% 65.3% 68.5% NO 1.02 (n = 140) (n = 137) (n = 141) (n = 168) (n = 213) (n = 799) No 67.8% 66.8% 68.8% 65.8% 66.8% 67.2% NO 1.00 (n = 2,187) (n = 2,377) (n = 2,381) (n = 2,475) (n = 2,710) (n = 12,130) Total 68.0% 67.1% 68.7% 65.9% 66.7% 67.2% 53.7% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Not DSPS) Table 330: 30+ Unit Completion Rate Trends by Economically Disadvantaged to to to to to Yes 72.0% 70.1% 71.9% 69.4% 69.2% 70.3% NO 1.05 (n = 1,251) (n = 1,438) (n = 1,422) (n = 1,791) (n = 2,185) (n = 8,087) No 63.3% 63.0% 64.5% 58.7% 59.5% 62.1% NO 0.92 (n = 1,076) (n = 1,076) (n = 1,100) (n = 852) (n = 738) (n = 4,842) Total 68.0% 67.1% 68.7% 65.9% 66.7% 67.2% 49.7% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (No Econ) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

176 175 P age Table 331: 30+ Unit Completion Rate Trends by Veteran Status to to to to to Yes 73.8% 64.6% 74.3% 73.7% 74.3% 72.1% NO 1.07 (n = 122) (n = 127) (n = 101) (n = 95) (n = 179) (n = 624) No 67.7% 67.2% 68.5% 65.7% 66.2% 67.0% NO 1.00 (n = 2,205) (n = 2,387) (n = 2,421) (n = 2,548) (n = 2,744) (n = 12,305) Total 68.0% 67.1% 68.7% 65.9% 66.7% 67.2% 53.6% (n = 2,327) (n = 2,514) (n = 2,522) (n = 2,643) (n = 2,923) (n = 12,929) (Non Vet) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

177 176 P age GPA GPA: All Students Table 332: GPA of All Students, - < % 19.4% 20.9% 22.6% 24.1% 21.1% (n = 3,297) (n = 3,103) (n = 3,489) (n = 3,648) (n = 3,934) (n = 17,471) % 18.9% 17.6% 18.3% 16.4% 17.9% (n = 3,212) (n = 3,029) (n = 2,943) (n = 2,964) (n = 2,679) (n = 14,827) % 10.8% 10.5% 10.3% 9.9% 10.4% (n = 1,812) (n = 1,733) (n = 1,750) (n = 1,660) (n = 1,621) (n = 8,576) % 50.8% 51.0% 48.8% 49.6% 50.5% (n = 9,112) (n = 8,137) (n = 8,513) (n = 7,899) (n = 8,104) (n = 41,765) Total (n = 17,433) (n = 16,002) (n = 16,695) (n = 16,171) (n = 16,338) (n = 82,639) GPA GCCCD P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

178 177 P age Table 333: GPA of All Students by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black (n = 1,220) (n = 1,007) (n = 1,077) (n = 1,061) (n = 933) (n = 5,298) American Indian (n = 83) (n = 60) (n = 52) (n = 45) (n = 40) (n = 280) Asian (n = 1,091) (n = 981) (n = 974) (n = 906) (n = 945) (n = 4,897) Filipino (n = 683) (n = 653) (n = 664) (n = 682) (n = 615) (n = 3,297) Hispanic/Latino (n = 4,729) (n = 4,729) (n = 5,245) (n = 5,311) (n = 5,469) (n = 25,483) Pacific Islander (n = 138) (n = 95) (n = 78) (n = 76) (n = 81) (n = 468) White (n = 7,700) (n = 6,927) (n = 7,049) (n = 6,616) (n = 6,811) (n = 35,103) Two or more (n = 1,259) (n = 1,175) (n = 1,281) (n = 1,296) (n = 1,291) (n = 6,302) Total (n = 17,433) (n = 16,002) (n = 16,695) (n = 16,171) (n = 16,338) (n = 82,639) Table 334: GPA of All Students by Gender, - Female (n = 9,547) (n = 8,781) (n = 9,193) (n = 8,923) (n = 9,125) (n = 45,569) Male (n = 7,740) (n = 7,107) (n = 7,381) (n = 7,135) (n = 7,059) (n = 36,422) Total (n = 17,433) (n = 16,002) (n = 16,695) (n = 16,171) (n = 16,338) (n = 82,639) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

179 178 P age Table 335: GPA of All Students by Age, - < 20 years (n = 5,451) (n = 4,817) (n = 5,064) (n = 4,971) (n = 5,001) (n = 25,304) years (n = 6,384) (n = 6,267) (n = 6,560) (n = 6,450) (n = 6,457) (n = 32,118) years (n = 4,090) (n = 3,572) (n = 3,716) (n = 3,608) (n = 3,668) (n = 18,654) 40+ years (n = 1,508) (n = 1,346) (n = 1,355) (n = 1,142) (n = 1,212) (n = 6,563) Total (n = 17,433) (n = 16,002) (n = 16,695) (n = 16,171) (n = 16,338) (n = 82,639) Table 336: GPA of All Students by Disability Status, - Yes (n = 1,320) (n = 1,385) (n = 1,445) (n = 1,296) (n = 1,279) (n = 6,725) No (n = 16,113) (n = 14,617) (n = 15,250) (n = 14,875) (n = 15,059) (n = 75,914) Total (n = 17,433) (n = 16,002) (n = 16,695) (n = 16,171) (n = 16,338) (n = 82,639) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

180 179 P age Table 337: GPA of All Students by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes (n = 9,391) (n = 9,175) (n = 10,049) (n = 9,884) (n = 9,829) (n = 48,328) No (n = 8,042) (n = 6,827) (n = 6,646) (n = 6,287) (n = 6,509) (n = 34,311) Total (n = 17,433) (n = 16,002) (n = 16,695) (n = 16,171) (n = 16,338) (n = 82,639) Table 338: GPA of All Students by Veteran Status, - Yes (n = 1,217) (n = 1,054) (n = 1,030) (n = 898) (n = 854) (n = 5,053) No (n = 16,216) (n = 14,948) (n = 15,665) (n = 15,273) (n = 15,484) (n = 77,586) Total (n = 17,433) (n = 16,002) (n = 16,695) (n = 16,171) (n = 16,338) (n = 82,639) Table 339: GPA of All Students by Foster Youth Status, - Yes (n = 88) (n = 79) (n = 86) (n = 75) (n = 66) (n = 394) No (n = 17,345) (n = 15,923) (n = 16,609) (n = 16,096) (n = 16,272) (n = 82,245) Total (n = 17,433) (n = 16,002) (n = 16,695) (n = 16,171) (n = 16,338) (n = 82,639) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

181 180 P age Table 340: GPA of All Students by 1 st Generation, - Yes (n = 2,108) (n = 2,650) (n = 3,673) (n = 4,161) (n = 4,626) (n = 17,218) No (n = 4,395) (n = 5,434) (n = 7,493) (n = 8,223) (n = 8,983) (n = 34,528) Total (n = 17,433) (n = 16,002) (n = 16,695) (n = 16,171) (n = 16,338) (n = 82,639) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

182 181 P age GPA: First-Time Students Table 341: GPA of First-Time Students, - < % 25.7% 28.4% 26.7% 29.4% 27.0% (n = 1,038) (n = 900) (n = 1,202) (n = 1,084) (n = 1,228) (n = 5,452) % 19.8% 17.7% 19.6% 16.3% 18.6% (n = 837) (n = 695) (n = 748) (n = 795) (n = 683) (n = 3,758) % 10.7% 10.6% 10.6% 9.8% 10.5% (n = 456) (n = 375) (n = 449) (n = 430) (n = 410) (n = 2,120) % 43.8% 43.3% 43.1% 44.5% 43.8% (n = 1,855) (n = 1,536) (n = 1,830) (n = 1,752) (n = 1,860) (n = 8,833) Total (n = 4,186) (n = 3,506) (n = 4,229) (n = 4,061) (n = 4,181) (n = 20,163) GPA GCCCD P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

183 182 P age Table 342: GPA of First-Time Students by Race/Ethnicity, - African American/Black (n = 332) (n = 266) (n = 311) (n = 322) (n = 234) (n = 1,465) American Indian (n = 14) (n = 1 to 9) (n = 16) (n = 10) (n = 11) (n = 57) Asian (n = 229) (n = 212) (n = 244) (n = 223) (n = 232) (n = 1,140) Filipino (n = 184) (n = 162) (n = 174) (n = 206) (n = 155) (n = 881) Hispanic/Latino (n = 1,410) (n = 1,220) (n = 1,563) (n = 1,438) (n = 1,517) (n = 7,148) Pacific Islander (n = 31) (n = 16) (n = 19) (n = 19) (n = 26) (n = 111) White (n = 1,667) (n = 1,340) (n = 1,561) (n = 1,517) (n = 1,647) (n = 7,732) Two or more (n = 286) (n = 244) (n = 316) (n = 296) (n = 334) (n = 1,476) Total (n = 4,186) (n = 3,506) (n = 4,229) (n = 4,061) (n = 4,181) (n = 20,163) Table 343: GPA of First-Time Students by Gender, - Female (n = 2,162) (n = 1,845) (n = 2,218) (n = 2,177) (n = 2,231) (n = 10,633) Male (n = 1,989) (n = 1,637) (n = 1,972) (n = 1,848) (n = 1,884) (n = 9,330) Total (n = 4,186) (n = 3,506) (n = 4,229) (n = 4,061) (n = 4,181) (n = 20,163) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

184 183 P age Table 344: GPA of First-Time Students by Age, - < 20 years (n = 5,451) (n = 4,817) (n = 5,064) (n = 4,971) (n = 5,001) (n = 25,304) years (n = 6,384) (n = 6,267) (n = 6,560) (n = 6,450) (n = 6,457) (n = 32,118) years (n = 4,090) (n = 3,572) (n = 3,716) (n = 3,608) (n = 3,668) (n = 18,654) 40+ years (n = 1,508) (n = 1,346) (n = 1,355) (n = 1,142) (n = 1,212) (n = 6,563) Total (n = 4,186) (n = 3,506) (n = 4,229) (n = 4,061) (n = 4,181) (n = 20,163) Table 345: GPA of First-Time Students by Disability Status, - Yes (n = 213) (n = 233) (n = 266) (n = 214) (n = 186) (n = 1,112) No (n = 3,973) (n = 3,273) (n = 3,963) (n = 3,847) (n = 3,995) (n = 19,051) Total (n = 4,186) (n = 3,506) (n = 4,229) (n = 4,061) (n = 4,181) (n = 20,163) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

185 184 P age Table 346: GPA of First-Time Students by Economically Disadvantaged, - Yes (n = 2,281) (n = 1,958) (n = 2,573) (n = 2,470) (n = 2,446) (n = 11,728) No (n = 1,905) (n = 1,548) (n = 1,656) (n = 1,591) (n = 1,735) (n = 8,435) Total (n = 4,186) (n = 3,506) (n = 4,229) (n = 4,061) (n = 4,181) (n = 20,163) Table 347: GPA of First-Time Students by Veteran Status, - Yes (n = 265) (n = 198) (n = 255) (n = 205) (n = 184) (n = 1,107) No (n = 3,921) (n = 3,308) (n = 3,974) (n = 3,856) (n = 3,997) (n = 19,056) Total (n = 4,186) (n = 3,506) (n = 4,229) (n = 4,061) (n = 4,181) (n = 20,163) Table 348: GPA of First-Time Students by Foster Youth Status, - Yes (n = 29) (n = 12) (n = 37) (n = 23) (n = 19) (n = 120) No (n = 4,157) (n = 3,494) (n = 4,192) (n = 4,038) (n = 4,162) (n = 20,043) Total (n = 4,186) (n = 3,506) (n = 4,229) (n = 4,061) (n = 4,181) (n = 20,163) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

186 185 P age Table 349: GPA of First-Time Students by 1 st Generation, - Yes (n = 562) (n = 993) (n = 1,275) (n = 1,262) (n = 1,313) (n = 5,405) No (n = 1,003) (n = 2,073) (n = 2,581) (n = 2,463) (n = 2,537) (n = 10,657) Total (n = 4,186) (n = 3,506) (n = 4,229) (n = 4,061) (n = 4,181) (n = 20,163) P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

187 186 P age STUDENT SUCCESS OUTCOMES Completion Rates (Student Success Scorecard) The Completion Rate data are derived from the completion cohorts in the Student Success Scorecard. The completion cohorts comprise of first time students in the system that earned at least six units (within six years of their first enrollments) and attempted any level of math or English within three years. Successful completion includes students who earned a degree or certificate OR transferred to a 4-year institution OR were transferprepared within six years of their first enrollment. Students are transfer-prepared if they successfully completed 60+ UC/CSU transferrable units with a GPA greater than or equal to 2.0. Figure 24: Completion Rate Trends P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT

188 187 P age Figure 25: Completion Rate Trends by Outcome Categories 60% Completion Rates Degree, Certificates, and Transfer Outcomes 40% 51.1% 7.2% 50.5% 50.7% 8.1% 7.9% 48.9% 7.3% 46.7% 7.7% 27.5% 25.8% 25.7% 24.4% 20.5% 20% 16.4% 16.6% 17.1% 17.3% 18.5% 0% to to to -13 First-Time Student Cohorts to -14 Degree or Certificate Transfer (No Degree) Transfer Prepared Only to -15 P:\Key Performance Indicators\KPI 2016\Reports\G\ DRAFT