Growing Graduates in Times of Scarcity:

Aligning Curriculum to Maximize Success

Craig Hayward and Rick Fillman, Cabrillo College

RP Group 2011Kellogg West Conference Center

“Curriculum Alignment Tool” or CAT

Six years of section dataJust over 19000 records.

Section level data Section Name (Math-254-56789) Term Academic Year Section Accounting Method [XB01] Dept Division Location

Main Campus Watsonville Center Online

… more section level data Enrollment count WSCH [new XB11] FTES FTEF [XE-03] Fall/Spring Summer winter

… recently added section level data

Success count Retention count CA resident count OOS count Int’l count Cohort/Learning community section Grades! Counts of A,B,C,D,F,W

Course level data Level (by local course numbering)

Note to self – maybe add [CB21] Units Transfer (yes/no) [CB05] CTE (yes/no) [CB09] CTE-ness [CB09] fulfills transfer GE requirement (TransGE) IGETC CSU_GE Core Program requirement

Derived fields, course attributes. CoreReq CTE course? CoreReq Trans course? CTE Transfer MREE100&200 other

Data sources XFTE report (Cabrillo IT) –section data –

enrollments, FTES, WSCH, location, etc. Data Warehouse –grade tallies

course MIS classification Student resident status

Faculty Assignment sheets –TU utilization

Cabrillo Articulation –IGETC/CSU courses Curricunet – core requirement Local LC history

Next?

The power of math

Completed any transfer units

Halfway milestone (30 units)

Math Milestone

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%24%

30%34%37%

59%67%

Transfer rate by cohort entry criteria

for the 2000-2001 cohort of FTF

From Horn & Lew (2007)

Curricular alignment for success – the math sequence How does attaining transfer level math

vary according to initial math level attempted?

What is the mix of placement levels of your incoming students?

What is the placement/promotion/ repetition mix in your math classes?

How will changing the actual mix of math sections/levels offered impact success?

Relationship between starting level and transfer attainment

3 levels below

2 levels below

1 level below

transfer math

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Pass transfer mathTransferred

Assessment/Placement

27.4%

24.0%33.3%

15.3%

Placement rates

3 levels2 levels1 leveltransfer math

Complexity #1: It’s not all new students

3 levels 2 levels 1 level transfer math

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

RepeatedPromotedPlaced

Actual course mix

16%

19% 23%

42%

Actual mix

3 levels2 levels1 leveltransfer math

Forecast of transfers and BAs based on math assessment

   Enroll

Passed transfer

math

 Transfer

Bachelorsattainmen

t

 Course

Mix Year 1 By year 3By year

6 By year 103 levels below 16% 479 34 20 142 levels below 19% 562 121 72 501 level below 23% 699 340 201 140Transfer math 42% 1260 739 436 305

Forecast of transfers and BAs based on math assessment

   Enroll

Passed transfer

math

 Transfer

Bachelorsattainmen

t

 Course

Mix Year 1 By year 3By year

6 By year 103 levels below 10% 300 21 13 92 levels below 20% 600 130 76 541 level below 25% 750 365 215 151Transfer math 45% 1350 791 467 327

It’s a simplified modelUnrealistic assumption #1: All students will enroll in math in their first year. Instead there is a mix of placed, promoted & repeaters.

Unrealistic assumption #2: Students transfer at the same rate once they reach transfer level math regardless of their starting level

Unrealistic assumption #3: Transfer students everywhere graduate at the rate seen at the CSU

Increasing BA/BS Attainment Moore & Shulock (2010) point to “diminishing

capacity at UC and CSU to receive transfer students” Geiser (2010) says that the “single most critical

factor for California to improve B.A. attainment is to expand 4-year enrollment capacity.”

The nominal capacity of the CCC is about 1.3 million FTES. The nominal capacity of the CSU system is about 400,000 FTES.

The key to increasing the number of Baccalaureates in the state is a more efficient allocation of existing higher education resources.

The transfer gap A study by Long Beach Community College staff

and the Center for Urban Education found that one in five students where were eligible to transfer to the CSU or UC did not do so. The Missing 87 (2007).

MPR found that a single cohort of first-time freshmen in the CCC produced 10,000 transfer-ready students who had no records of actually transferring within six years (Horn & Lew, 2007).

The TVP found that after nine years, there were over 11,000 TVP cohort students who became transfer ready but never transferred.

How to increase efficiency Transfers to the CSU graduate in higher

proportions than do CSU native freshmen 70.1% vs. 48.9%, six-year rates for the 2002 cohort This difference is even greater for the swiftest

growing demographic group – Latinos While 40.6% of native CSU freshmen who are Latino

graduate within six years, the comparable rate for Latino transfer students is 68.3%

What if we “stocked” the CSU with primarily students who had already completed their first two years of undergraduate work?

Estimated Annual CSU GRADs by Transfer/Freshman mix

60/40 70/30 80/20 90/1056,00057,00058,00059,00060,00061,00062,00063,00064,00065,00066,000

59,05861,071

63,08565,098

Three steps to producing 125,000 additional Ba/Bs by 2025 FOCUS on increasing the number of

Bachelor degree recipients in the state as the paramount goal of the post-secondary educational system

INTEGRATE the capacity of the CCC and CSU to increase efficiency

GROW the capacity of the CSU by adding incrementally to existing campus capacity

Q&A

?