AGENDA

COLLEGE COUNCIL Monday, March 28, 2005 2:00p.m.

Community Room-Multi-Agency Library Building a-<''-. . ..11 .;~s \ C'v~ 'r'-'

/ \ -'V ff'-- I () cl/ "", ",/ I /1" CONSULTANT FOR BOARD POLICIES (Information)-Maria Sheehan

Dr.. Shee.h~ will report on input from the Board ofTrust,~~~3"n tfe revision of theIr poilcles. AzvJ s.-k<L~-:; elf> ~~-k. 0 + ~u'~ Is· [)"vf0~-1 ,2...

'1:);,,<-,- ,,,,,.ill \ -e1~ 'ilia""':;/ (/ i'''"'t i4n <'-

2. UPDATE ON AB 1417-STATE REOUIRED ACCOUNTABILITY U/>r7TA

STANDARDS (Discussion)-Matthew Breindel Matthew Breindel will discuss the proposed accountability measures being reviewed under AB 1417-a bill presently in committee. A sample draft ofthe report will be distributed.

1!,~,'s~1;:~~)1Y";;9\

&J\~ .

AB 1417 District Performance Framework Project

Patrick Perry

Vice Chancellor, Technology, Research, & Information

Systems

1

What is AB1417?

+ 03-04 bill (Pacheco) that charges the BOG to recommend the structure of a district-level performance evaluation system and report back to Legislature and Governor by March, 2005

+$31,409,000 set-aside placed in budget pending outcome of project

2

AB1417 Report

• Study conducted by CCC System Office • Specifies Finance, Leg. Analyst be consulted

with during development • Specifies CC organizations and interested

parties will have opportunity to review and comment

• Specifies consultation with individuals who have higher education accountability expertise

3

AB 1417: Contractor

• System Office is contracting with the Research & Planning Group's (RP Group) Center for Student Success (CSS) to assist in producing the report

e Judy Beachler, Director, IR, Los Rios CCD e Robert Gabriner, Dir. Res./Plan./Grants, CCSF e Craig Hayward, Dir. Of IR, Mendocino ColI. e Ken Meehan, Director of IR, Fullerton ColI. e Brad Phillips, Director-CalP ASS e Andreea Serban, Dir., Inst. Assessment/Res./Plan, SBCC

e Patrick Perry /Willard Hom, CCCCO

4

AB 1417: Oversight Committee

• Three CEO /League Representatives • Nicki Harrington, Yuba CCD

• Brice Harris, Los Rios CCD

• Diane Woodruff, League

• Two Academic Senate Representatives • Kate Clark, ASCCC

• Jane Patton, ASCCC

5

AB 1417: External Panel

+ Dr. Barbara A. Beno is Executive Director of the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC), Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)

+ Dr. Trudy Bers is Senior Director of Research, Curriculum and Planning and Executive Assistant to the President (both roles at Oakton CC). She is a Past President of the National Association for Institutional Research (AIR)

+ Dr. Joseph Burke is Director of the Rockefeller Institute's Higher Education Program (State University of New York).

+ Dr. Peter Ewell is Vice President of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS).

+ Dr. Andrew M. Gill is professor of economics at California State University Fullerton, and is also associated with the Public Policy Institute of CA (PPIC).

+ Dr. James Jacobs is the Associate Director for Community College Operations at the Community College Research Center (Columbia University)

6

AB 1417: Process and Progress

• Draft metrics developed by RP-CSS; reviewed 3x by Oversight Comm., 2x by External Panel

• Metrics now" on the street" for review and comment

• Consultation (2/17), BOG (3/7), Report (3/25)

• Approved framework not enacted until legislative action/budget language occurs

• Final operational definitions would be specified after this

• System Office staff will require augmentation to implement

7

Where We Last Left Off ...

• Partnership for Excellence: 1998-2004 • $$$ distributed out by FTE

• Systemwide reporting, college breakdowns

• 5 Metrics • Annual Volume of Transfers

• Annual Volume of Awards

• Course Success Rate • Annual Volume of voc. Ed. Course completions

• Annual Volume of basic skills improvements

8

PFE Issues

• "Contingent Funding" never triggered

• Annual volume metrics difficult to assess on a district / college basis

• Metrics not equitable and do not account for insti tu tional differences

• However ... metrics are easy to understand and commonly used

9

AB1417

• Calls for lithe design of a workable structure for the annual evaluation of district-level performance"

• We need to pay closer attention to creating district-equitable metrics

• We still need to measure areas of importance and relevance

• Do not measure things we have little control of or are correlated highly with funding levels

10

Performance Categories

• Student Progress & Achievement

• Economic & Workforce Development

• Pre-collegiate Improvement/Basic Skills/ESL

• Access

• Within each of these, you have a ...

11

3-Tier Reporting Framework

• Tier 1 (District Core Indicators) All districts report a core set of performance indicators; Chancellor's Office provides the data and the report for all districts .

• Tier 2 (District Optional Indicators) Districts may select additional indicators from a list for each category. District may also develop additional performance indicators, other than those on the state list, for one or more of the statewide performance categories.

12

3-Tier Reporting Framework

• Tier 3 (System indicators) System (not District) performance within the categories will be calculated and reported by the State Chancellor's Office . • There are some metrics best measured only at a

system level due to data availability or "State interest"

13

Other Reporting

• Each district will submit a profile for each performance review. The profile will include but not be limited to, • Description of the population served by the

district; • Summary of the district's priorities for

educational services; • Description of any special limitations

confronting the district that may inhibit institutional capacity to deliver educational

•

14

Student Progress & Achievement

• All metrics based on first-time freshman longitudinal cohort analysis.

• Take all first-time students in Fall/Year and track forward 6 years.

• # of students with outcome / cohort = rate ., Mitigates institutional size

., Mitigates time to outcome

15

Student Progress & Achievement

• Determining a students "intent": • Behavioral intent (what they do); not Self-declared intent

(what they say)

• Mitigating academic levels • Attempt to measure similar level students at each district • For "outcome-directed" students, identify "threshold

courses" necessary for most outcomes • Tell me what is the math/English course necessary for

AA/ AS/Certificate, or any transfer-level math/Eng • All students who cross this "threshold" are in the "outcome­

directed" cohort; other students measured elsewhere • Unit level minimum differentiates" our" students (12 units

min)

• This is II Cohort A"

16

Metrics

• Refer to handouts.

17

The Report

• Refer to example.

18

Assessing Performance

• As of yet undecided.

• No methods particularly desirable; most fail to account for all the complexities and differences between districts

• Is it desirable to compare: • Feather River CCD (1,500 students) vs .

• Los Angeles CCD (130,000 students)?

19

Assessing Performance-Options

• No assessment-just report outcomes It Others choose their analysis methods

• Rank Ordering It Winners vs. losers, regardless of actual performance

• Benchmarking It Evaluate outcomes against pre-defined standards

• Value-added It Year-to-year measurement against self

• Combination It Absolute performance, year-year increase, adjusted

performance

20

Your Thoughts

• Please provide feedback through your constituent group hierarchy to RP-CSS by February 6, 2005

21

College Council 3/28/2005

Status of Assemby Bill 141 7

as of 3/28/2005

Matthew Breindle Office ofInstitutional Research

Ext 257

AB 1417 Assembly Bill - Status

CURRENT BILL STATUS

MEASURE: A.B. No. 1417 AUTROR(S) Daucher. TOPIC Special education: due process hearing. HOUSE LOCATION ASM

TYPE OF BILL : Active Non-Urgency Non-Appropriations Majority Vote Required Non-State-Mandated Local Program Non-Fiscal Non-Tax Levy

LAST RIST. ACT. DATE: 02/25/2005 LAST HIST. ACTION From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.

TITLE An act to amend Section 56502 of the Education Code, relating to special education.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/billlasmJab _1401-14S0/ab _1417_ bill_ 20050228_ status.html

Page 1 of 1

3/28/2005

Assembly Bill No. 1417

CHAPTER 581

An act relating to community colleges, making an appropriation therefor, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.

[Approved by Governor September IS, 2004. Filed with Secretary of State September 18, 2004.J

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEI;S DIGEST

AB 1417, Pacheco. Community colleges: funding. (1) Existing law establishes the Califomia Community Colleges

under the administration of the Board of Governors of the Califomia Conmmnity Colleges. Existing law authorizes the establishment of community college districts under the administration of cOlmnunity college goveming boards, and authorizes these districts to provide instruction at community college campuses throughout the state. An item of the Budget Act of 2004 appropriated, among other amounts, $193,591,000 from the General Fund to the board of governors for allocation to community college districts for general apportiorunent funding.

This bill would require the board of governors to provide recommendations, based on infonnation to be developed in a study to be condncted by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, to the Legislature and the Governor regarding the design of a workable structure for the annual evaluation of district-level perforn1ance in meeting statewide educational outcome priorities, including the priorities consistent with the appropriation referenced above.

(2) An item of the Budget Act of 2004 appropriated, among other amounts, $27,345,000 from the General Fund to the board of governors for allocation to conununity college districts for physical plant and instructional support.

This bill would set forth criteda in accordance with which a community college district could utilize a pOltion of these funds for the purpose of maintaining prior investments made for program enhancements for student success, provided that the district reports its planned expenditures to the chancellor on or before November 30, 2004, as prescribed.

(3) An item of the Budget Act of 2004 appropriated, among other amounts, $50,828,000 from the General Fund to the board of governors for allocation to community college districts for part-time faculty compensation.

93

1 e}(L (' :F -;§ ..

Ch. 581 -2-

This bill would require that the amount appropriated in the Budget Act of 2004 for allocation to community college districts for part-time faculty compensation be allocated, as prescribed, solely to increase the compensation of part-time faculty from the amounts previously authorized. The bill would prohibit the use of these funds by a district to exceed the achievement of parity of compensation for pmt-time and full-time faculty in that district. The bill would authorize a district that has. achieved parity to use these funds for any educational purpose.

(4) Because this bill would authorize the expenditure of funds previously appropriated to the board of govemors for new purposes, it would make an appropriation.

(5) The bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Appropriation: yes.

The people a/the State a/California do enGct as/allows:

SECTION I. (a) The Board of Govemors of the Califomia Community Colleges shall provide recommendations to the Legislature and the Govemor regarding the design of a workable structure for the ammal evaluation of district-level pelfonllance in meeting statewide educational outcome priorities, including priorities consistent with Provision (4) ofItem 6870-101-0001 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of2004. These recon1111endations shall be based on infonnation and data provided by a study to be completed by the Chancellor of the California C0ll1111unity Colleges, with the input of institutional representatives of community college districts.

(b) In preparing the study referenced in subdivision (a), the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges may, as he or she judges necessary, consult with individuals with demonstrated expertise in higher education accountability and evaluation. The chancellor also shall consult with the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst's Office on an ongoing basis during the conduct of the study. The study process shall also afford community college organizations, and interested pmties and individuals, the opportnnity to review and comment on the proposed recommendations before their consideration and adoption by the Board of Govemors of the Califomia COll1111Unity Colleges. The board of governors shall provide copies of the study and recommendations on or before March 25, 2005, to the Governor, the fiscal committees of the Legislature, and the higher education policy committees of the Legislature.

93

-3- Ch. 581

SEC. 2. (a) Notwithstanding any other prOVlSlOn of law, this section sball apply only to a commnnity college dislJict that meets either of the following criteria:

(I) The sum of funds allocated to that district from Schedule (I) of, pursuant to Provision (6) of, and from Schedule (3) of, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Provision (10) of, Item 6870-101-0001 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2004, equals zero.

(2) The amount of the reduction in the district's Partnership for Excellence funds during the 2004-05 fiscal year, divided by the sum of funds allocated to tbat district from Schedule (1) of, pursuant to Provision (6) of, and from Schedule (3) of, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Provision (10) of, Item 6870-101-0001 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2004, exceeds 50 percent.

(b) A district meeting the criteria in subdivision (a) may use all or a portion of the funds allocated to that dishict from Schedule (19) ofItem 6870-10 1-000 I of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2004 for the purpose of maintaining prior investments made for program enhancements for student success that otherwise would be jeopardized by the rednction in Partnership for Excellence funding, notwithstanding any other restriction upon the use of these funds. In no event may the amount of funds used by an applicable district for maintaining program enhancements exceed the amount of the reduction in Partnership for Excellence allocations realized by the district in the 2004-05 fiscal year.

(c) As a condition of utilizing the flexibility authorized by this section, each participating connnunity college dislJict shall report to the chancellor on its planned expenditures fi-om Schedule (19) of Item 6870-101-0001 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2004 on or before November 30, 2004, in a fonnat prescribed by the chancellor. The chancellor shall provide a summary report ofthese planned expenditures to the Govemor, the Director of Finance, and the fiscal committees of the Legislature on or before December 31, 2004.

SEC. 3. (a) The funds allocated in Schedule (14) of Item 6870-101-0001 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2004 shall be allocated solely to increase the compensation of part-time faculty from the amounts previously authorized. These funds shall be distributed to community college districts based on the total of actual full-time equivalent students served in the previous fiscal year, and shall include a small district factor as detelmined by the chancellor. These funds shall be used to assist districts in making part-time facnlty salaries more comparable to full-time salaries for similar work, as determined through each district's local collective bargaining process.

(b) The funds shall not supplant the amount of resources each disu;ct uses to compensate part-time faculty, and shall not be used to exceed the

93

Ch. 581 -4-

achievement of parity in compensation for each part-time facnlty employed by each district with regular full-time faculty of that district, as certified by the chancellor. If a district has achieved parity, its allocation under Schedule (14) ofltem 6870-101-0001 of Section 2.00 of the Budget Act of 2004 may be used for any other educational purpose.

SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation ofthe public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into inunediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

In order to implement, in a timely fashion, a necessary revision to the community college funding priorities adopted pursuant to the Budget Act of 2004, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.

o

93

BOG- .

PO("O l 0'$4,.-1 ill! r _d - - T !i&'I'f· _' _"....a ilF !4

SQurc.e : pA,..+ .... "'~ f.e.r'J) ((cco

Draft: 2117/04

AB1417 Performance Framework for California Community College Districts

Background AB1417 (Pacheco) charged the Board of Governors "to provide recommendations, based on information to be developed in a study to be conducted by the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, to the Legislature and the Governor regarding the design of a workable structure for the annual evaluation of district-level performance in meeting statewide educational outcome priorities", The legislation further states that the recommendations "shall be based on information and data provided by a study to be completed the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, with the input of institutional representatives of community college districts,"

Process The State Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges contracted with the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges (RP Group) Center for Student Success (CSS), the RP Group's research and evaluation organization, to carry out a study to develop a set of performance frameworks and performance indicators for discussion and review, Appendix A lists the members of the Research and Planning Group/Center for Student Success,

The RP-CSS was also charged with the task of assembling an "External Panel of Experts", as specified in AB1417, The External Panel consisted of six members who have a great deal of community college accountability experience on a national level. The External Panel reviewed the draft framework twice and provided comment and guidance in the project, and has given the proposal high marks, Appendix B lists the members of the External Panel.

An Oversight Committee was also formed to steer the project. This consisted of five members from the CEO BoardlLeague and Academic Senate, The Oversight Committee met on four occasions between December 2004 and February 2005, and was instrumental in refining the proposal into the form it is today, and has given its approval to the framework as meeting the requirements of AB1417, Appendix C lists the members of the Oversight Committee,

The Consultation Council has reviewed the proposal twice (January-February, 2005) and has also agreed that the proposal meets the requirements of AB1417,

Community College groups and interested parties were given an opportunity (albeit brien to review and comment on the proposal; this occurred in late January-early February 2005, Vice Chancellor Perry made a total of seven field presentations during this time explaining the proposal and fielding input and questions, Much of the input was used to refine the final product that was taken to Consultation in February,

AB1417 also specified that the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analysts Office be consulted with during the process; this has occurred along the way, including two meetings in January and February with representatives of these entities,

1

Operating Assumptions In developing the draft framework model and proposed reporting metrics, the RP-CSS and System Office staff developed a number of operating assumptions that provided decision support for either inclusion or exclusion of model types or particular measurements,

Proposed Criteria for California Perlormance Framework, AB 1417 calls for the design of a "workable structure" to evaluate district level performance, A "workable structure" for annual evaluations of district performance requires that such a framework:

1, Supports measures for accountability based upon both the state's educational priorities as well as local district priorities';

2, Reflects the breadth and scope of the missions and functions of the California community colleges; 3, Uses measures that will provide a fair and equitable view of a district's performance including such

factors as the educational needs of the service area population and size and capacity of the institution(s);

4, Provides clear, straightforward performance information that can be understood by the general public;

5, Relies upon available data that are accessible to district-level research offices and/or the State Chancellor's Office,

6, Enables Districts to pursue improvements,

The proposed model attempts to encompass these fundamentals in structure and substance,

Sources of Data, There are three major sources of data for performance rnodels for the California community colleges, They are:

1, Community college data contained in the Management Information System (MIS) at the State Chancellor's Office;

2, Community college performance data located at the districts; 3, New data generated from research studies and surveys mandated and funded by the state, or new

data generated and paid for by districts as a result of a district level decision,

The proposal attempts to maximize the usage of existing data sources where applicable so as to minimize institutional burden on collecting new data,

1 Title 5 delineates the mission and functions of the CCC, Community colleges are to offer academic and vocational education at the lower division level for both recent high school graduates and those retuming to school; to advance Califomia's economic growth and global competitiveness through education, training, and services that contribute to continuous workforce improvement. Essential and important functions of the colleges include: basic skills instruction, providing English as a second language, adult noncredit instruction, and providing support services that help students to succeed,

2

The Proposal: A Performance Framework for the California Community Colleges

Performance Categories: What Areas to Measure Four performance categories are identified:

1. Student Progress and Achievement: DegreelCertificatefTransfer. Performance metrics in Ihis category attempt to isolate and measure student achievement for students who show behavioral intent to earn an ANAS/certificate or transfer to a four-year institution.

2. Student Progress and Achievement: Vocationa/IOccupationa//Workforce Development. Performance metrics in this category show success and outcomes for students in vocational/occupational/workforce development courses and programs.

3. Pre-collegiate Improvement (Basic Skills and ESL). Performance metrics in this category show success and progress in basic skills and ESL curricular activities.

4. Access. Performance metrics in this category portray student access as defined by participation rates in the system as compared to the State's adult population.

Other areas of community college missions were discussed, including fiscal health and noncredit curriculum and programs, but were not included as they were either not applicable to the AB1417 mandate or were already reported in some other venue.

Performance Framework: How To Report The panel is recommending two levels of aggregation for the performance framework:

1. District Core Indicators. Each District Core indicator will be aggregated and reported on at the District level. The System Office will provide the data and calculate the report for core performance indicators across each of the state-established performance categories.

2. System Indicators. System performance n metrics within the four performance categories will be aggregated at the statewide level (with possibly demographic breakdowns for the State as a whole). The System Office will calculate and perform the system indicators.

Note that system indicator metrics are different that simple statewide aggregations of district core indicators; the set of district core indicator metrics are different than the set of system indicator metrics. Some system indicator metrics are unable to be broken down at a district level, are nonsensical to be evaluated on a district level, or violate the "fair and equitable" caveat of the framework. System indicators, however, do represent in many cases well-established performance metrics that show system progress or help policymakers evaluate changing environments and the effects of policy decisions that affect performance.

Performance Metrics: What to Report Please refer to the "Draft Proposed Metrics" document attached to see the exact draft set of proposed metrics.

District Profile It is proposed that before reporting the draft metrics, each district report will feature a "district profile", which would include background and explanatory information about the district and who it serves. This would include, but not be limited to:

• Description of the population served by the district (breakdowns of students by race, gender, age, citizenship, and other student descriptors)

• Description of any special limitations confronting the district that may inhibit institutional capacity to deliver educational services

• Description of key ratios (student to counselor, full-time faculty to part-time faculty) • Historical funding and FTES

3

District Analysis and Response It is proposed that Districts will have a review period of annual draft reporting that will enable them to provide an analysis statement of the performance metrics.

Other Implementation Issues

The following are related to implementation of the reporting framework, should it occur.

• Do not codify exact metrics into law or budget language. This locks both the system and the State into an infiexible situation in the future should priorities change.

• Allow for continual examination of model efficacy. The reporting framework and associated metrics should have the fiexibility to be modified as it exists in future iterations to capture new data sources, new measurements, or to eliminate metrics that show no validity in measuring what the system and State desire. Changes to the model and its metrics should be an option discussed annually by all involved parties.

• Allow for 60-day review period by districts. As mentioned above, districts should be allowed a review period of at least 60 days to examine annual data to ensure its accuracy and respond. Should data seem inaccurate, this time frame should be sufficient to resubmit MIS data and have it recalculated for final submission.

• System Office resources will need to be addressed. While the proposed reporting framework has done its best to minimize the creation of a large reporting beaurocracy, the existing staffing levels in the Technology, Research, and Information Systems Division will not sufficiently be able to implement the framework without some type of workforce augmentation.

Performance Evaluation

It is the recommendation of the RPICSS Review Panel (with the endorsement of members of the External Panel of Experts and the Oversight Committee) that the State of California utilize the existing district and state level infrastructure for performance evaluation within the AS 1417 System. This is a system of "value­added"self assessment that looks at the array of performance metrics and evaluates a districts most current performance against that districts past performance. Such evaluation could include comparisons of current performance to prior year performance, a three-year running performance, or performance against a baseline year for that district. District performance should not be made directly against the performance of other districts nor should it be made against artificially generated pre-defined standards due to inherent incomparabilities and exogenous factors that affect district performance.

Triggers to in-depth evaluation should be continual declines in outcomes over a period of time that are outside the band of normal annual fluctuations. The most important outcome of the evaluation should be local engagement in assessing why performance is in decline over a longer period of time, and in the creation of local mitigating interventions. Regardless of a districts relative performance against other districts, declination of performance metrics over time should be a warning flag that causes local analysis and intervention.

After a few years of implementation, the districts and the System Office will have a better understanding of the performance measures and how well performance evaluation is functioning to help students succeed. This review should include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the actual measures themselves in terms of whether they provide districts with good information for institutional student improvement.

4

Appendix A

Member Profiles Research and Planning Group/Center for Student Success

Panel for California Community College Performance Framework Study

Dr. Judith A. Beach/eris Director of Institutional Research at Los Rios Community College District. Her background includes a Ph.D. in Public and International Affairs (University of Pittsburgh, PAl, with a minor in Higher Education Policy and research experience on the relationship between higher education and economic development, in addition to 16-years of experience in community college management, institutional research and planning. Judy was also a former member of the RP Group Board.

Dr. Robert Gabriner is the Director of the Center for Student Success of the Research and Planning Group. He is also a former President of the RP Group and editor of the RP ijournal. He is Dean of Research, Planning and Grants of City College of San Francisco. He has a doctorate in educational policy and a masters degree in history. Formerly a history instructor for twenty years in the Peralta Colleges in Oakland, California. Dr. Gabriner is one of the architects of the Community College Reform Act of California (AB 1725).

Dr. Craig Hayward is the Director of Institutional Research for the Mendocino-Lake Community College District. His educational background includes a Bachelor's degree in Journalism from Boston University and a doctorate in Human Development from the University of California, Irvine. He has taught psychology, research methods and statistics for all three public systems of higher education in California. He is currently Vice President of the California Association of Institutional Research and a member of the RP group.

Dr. Kenneth Meehan is Director of Institutional Research at Fullerton College and President-Elect of the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges. He is the former editor of the RP eJournal of Research, Planning and Practice. He has served as the Southwest Regional Director of the National Council for Research and Planning. He has consulted with the National Center for Educational Statistics and served as the statewide IPEDS trainer for California. He also served on the National Joint Commission on Accountability Reporting, statewide Transfer Data Technical Workgroup and currently sits on the Advisory Committee for the National Study of Community College Instructional Costs and Productivity and provides research conSUltation to statewide Algebra Pathways Project. Dr. Meehan has authored several hundred professional publications and presentations.

Dr. Brad C. Phillips is the founder and Executive Director of the California Partnership for Achieving Student Success (Cal-PASS) project; a statewide initiative to gather and track student outcomes from K-16 institutions. His background includes a Doctorate in Applied Social Psychology from Claremont Graduate University. He recently transitioned from Senior Director of Institutional Research, Planning, and Academic Services at the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, located in EI Cajon, California, part of San Diego County. He has co-authored articles on data sharing that have been published in Community College Journal, Journal of Applied Research in the Community Colleges and Community College Times.

Dr. Andreea M. Serban is Associate VP for Information Resources and Director of Inst. Assessment, Research and Planning at Santa Barbara City College. She is the RP President, Chair of the AIR Publications Committee and Associate Editor of SCUP's journal * Planning for Higher Education. Dr. Serban is author of three books and many articles. She has written extensively and made presentations on accountability, and performance reporting, funding and indicators.

5

Member Profiles State Chancellor's Office Team

Patrick Perry is Vice Chancellor in charge of Research, Planning, Technology and Telecommunications and MIS Services at the State Chancellor's Office of the California Community College system. He has served in the State Chancellor's Office for six years.

Willard Hom is Director, Research & Planning Unit, at the State Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges. His background includes more than twenty years of research in the areas of health services, employment/labor, and community colleges.

6

Appendix B

Member Profiles External Panel for California Community College Performance Framework Study

Dr. Trudy Bers is Senior Director of Research, Curriculum and Planning and Executive Assistant to the President (both roles at Oakton CC). Her background includes a doctorate in political science (University of Illinois-Urbana) and service as 1995-6 president of the Association for Institutional Research and president of the National Council for Research and Planning.

Dr. Joseph Burke is Director of the Rockefeller Institute's Higher Education Program (State University of New York). His background as a teacher, administrator, and researcher includes service as President (12 years at SUNY College at Plattsburgh), Provost (9 years with the SUNY system), and various publications covering topics that include performance indicators/funding in community college systems, system governance, and academic outcomes assessment. Burke edited the recent publication Achieving Accountability in Higher Education: Balancing Public, Academic, and Market Demands (Jossey-Bass: October 2005).

Dr. Peter Ewell is Vice President of the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). His background includes a doctorate in political science (Yale) and work as Coordinator for Long-Range Planning (Governors State University), a faculty member (University of Chicago), and author (six books on improving undergraduate instruction).

Dr. Andrew M. Gill is professor of economics at California State University Fullerton (with emphasis in labor economics and econometrics). His background includes a doctorate in economics (Washington State University) and extensive research in human resource topics, including the role of community colleges in the economy. He recently co-authored (with Dr. Duane E. Leigh) Evaluating Academic Programs in California's Community Colleges, a monograph published in 2004 by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Dr. James Jacobs is the Associate Director for Community College Operations at the Community College Research Center (Columbia University) and the Director of the Center for Workforce Development at Macomb Community College Warren, Michigan, His background includes extensive analysis in the area of community college·based workforce development and service, He is currently the President of the National Council of Workforce Education (MCC),

7

Appendix C

Member Profiles AB1417 Oversight Committee

Kate Clark is the President of the statewide Academic Senate. Before her tenure as president, she served as vice-president of the state Academic Senate. She teaches English at Irvine Valley College.

Nicki Harrington is the Superintendent/President of Yuba College and a member of the CEO Board.

Brice Harris is the Chancellor of the Los Rios Community College District and President of the CEO Board for 2004/5.

Jane Patton is the division chair in the Communication Studies Department at Mission College. She has taught at Mission College since 1986.

Diane Woodruff is the Director, Strategic Initiatives, for the Community College League of California. Before joining the CCLC in 2002, she served as Superintendent/President of Napa Valley College.

8

AB1417 PERFORMANCE REPORTING PROJECT: DRAFT PROPOSED METRICS D.aft 4.0 (2114105)

• District Core Indicators - required and reported for all districts, calculated by the Chancellor's Office • System Indicators - reported on a system wide aggregate basis only; calculated by the Chancellor's Office

CATEGORY NUMBER OF NUMBER OF TOTAL NUMBER DISTRICT CORE SYSTEM OF SYSTEM AND

INDICATORS INDICATORS CORE INDICATORS

Student Progress and 2 3 5 Achievement: Degree I Certificate I Transfer Student Progress and 1 2 3 Achievement: Vocational I Occupational I Workforce Development Pre-collegiate 3 1 4 Improvement/Basic Skilis/ESL Access 0 1 1 TOTAL 6 7 13

Student Progress Rate (for "Cohort A" students)

Persistence Rate of "Cohort A" students, first year to second

Annual Volume of Transfers to Four-year institutions

year institutions for Community

Annual of Baccalaureate students graduating UC and CSU who attended a

i i who attempt degree/certificate/transfer threshold course within 6 years of entry ("Cohort A") who are shown to have achieved ANY of the following outcomes or value-added measures of progress within 6 years of entry:

• Earned any AAlAS or Certificate • actual transfer to a four-year institution (student shown to have

enrolled at any four-year institution of higher education after enrolling at a CCG)

• achieved "Transfer Directed" (student successfully completed both transfer-level Math AND English courses)

• achieved "Transfer Prepared" (student successfully completed 60 UC/CSU transferable units with a GPA >=2.0 in those transferable courses)

• earned at least 30 units while in the CCC system (value-added threshold of units earned as defined in wage studies as having a

i affect on i Percentage of cohort of first-time students minimum of 12 units who attempt degree/certificate/transfer threshold course within 6 years of entry who return and enroll in the

behavioral intent to transfer.

Percentage of all graduating students from any CSU or UC campus that has enrolled in one or more of the community colleges prior to graduation.

2

MIS

System Office MIS

System Office

"Cohort A" attempts to measure students who have crossed the same threshold equally at each District, regardless of institutional mission or size.

The indicator measures what percentage of the cohort achieves any type of the aforementioned measures of success or progress.

Uses "Cohort A" as denominator. Standard year-to-year persistence rate calculation for ~~~~~students.

transfer destination and current transfer rate This system metric will provide the state of the extent to which baccalaureates students utilize the California community to achieve their

Indicator Name

Completion Rate (VOCATIONAL COURSES)

Definition

recent annual rate course i

Data Source

VOCATIONAL courses. Successful is defined as having been Office MIS retained to end of term with a final course grade of A. B. C. or CR. SAM A. Band CONLY.

Comments

System Indicators (repofting will be' at a Statewide aggregate level; calculated by System Office) . ,~ '", ," , \.

• . p • •

Annual Volume of Volume of most current full year of AAlAS/Certificates System Commonly used degree/certificate volume metric; shows annual system production Degrees/Certificates conferred conferred. broken down by degree type and program (major Office MIS of award recipients by program subject area (nursing. accounting. auto mechanics. by Program TOP code). etc.) Not useful to measure at a district level because of volume incomparability

between districts; not all districts offer all types of programs. Increase in total personal Statewide increase of median personal income of System System level degree and certificate attainment rate. Methodology of devising income as a result of receiving AAlAS/Certificate students taken at some point after award Office MIS "behavioral intent to eam degree/certificate" would need to be developed. degree/certificate conferral. Students shown to be still enrolled will be taken out

of the calculation.

3

Indicator Name

Annual Successful Course Completion Rate (Basic Skills Courses)

ESL Improvement Rate

Most recent annual rate of successful course completion in Basic Skills courses. Successful is defined as having been retained to end of term with a final course grade of A, B, C, or CR.

Percent of students who attempted/completed at least one credit ESL course in a term who attempted/completed a higher level ESL course or a college level course within two years of taking the ESL course (a two-year cohort examination). The various combination of attempted-attempted, completed­attempted, or completed-completed will be determined at a alter date. Only students starting at 2 or more levels below level will be counted.

4

Specifically for Basic Skills Courses, as these are a priority area for the State. Evaluation issues are similar to other Successful Course

I rates shown above. Shows progress through basic curriculum. Districts without ESL programs would be waived from this indicator.

Statewide Participation Rate (by selected demographics)

5

Measures what percentage of students (by demographic) attends eee's statewide. This metric is best measured at a statewide level due to inability to centrally define districVservice area boundaries and because

i