st. philip’s college...39% receive financial aid for . fall 2015 (including dual credit) 4,385...
TRANSCRIPT
St. Philip’s College
10,828 10,71010,313 10,238
10,514
11,19811,604
8,0008,5009,0009,500
10,00010,50011,00011,50012,000
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016
*By Owner
12% (1,403) Full-Time, 88% (10,201) Part-Time
57% (6,603) Female, 43% (5,001) Male
Ethnicity 56% (6,466) Hispanic 11% (1,252) African-American 28% (3,194) White 2% (273) Asian 4% (419) Other
28% (3,196) Dual Credit – [21.24% increase in dual credit from (Fall 2015) 2,636]
64% (624) FTIC Require Remediation (post-refresher)
51% Receive Financial Aid for Fall 2015 4,385/(11,198-2,636 dual credit)
39% Receive Financial Aid for Fall 2015 (Including dual credit) 4,385 /11,198
43% Economically Disadvantaged for Fall 2015* 3,676/(11,198-2,636 dual credit)
33% Economically Disadvantaged for Fall 2015* (Including dual credit) 3,676 /11,198*Pell recipients
85.8%90.4% 91.7% 93.0% 92.8%
93.8% 93.7%92.9% 93.9% 95.0%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Fall 10 Fall 11 Fall 12 Fall 13 Fall 14 Fall 15 Fall 16
SPC Fall Targets
Fall 10 Fall 11 Fall 12 Fall 13 Fall 14 Fall 15 Fall 16Enroll. Comp. Enroll. Comp. Enroll. Comp. Enroll. Comp. Enroll. Comp. Enroll. Comp. Enroll. Comp.
27,158 23,299 24,651 22,278 22,170 20,322 22,268 20,701 21,575 20,018 22,537 21,142 22,928 21,474
Best in the District
88.1%
92.8%
89.7%
91.9% 92.2%
89.9%
93.8%
90.7%
92.4% 92.2%
90.7%
93.7%
91.3%92.4%
91.7%
84.0%
86.0%
88.0%
90.0%
92.0%
94.0%
96.0%
SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC
Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016
Best in the District
71.4%75.2%
77.4%80.5%
80.7%83.1% 85.0%
79.1%80.5% 82.0%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Fall 10 Fall 11 Fall 12 Fall 13 Fall 14 Fall 15 Fall 16
Targets
Fall 10 Fall 11 Fall 12 Fall 13 Fall 14 Fall 15 Fall 16Enroll. Prod. Enroll. Prod. Enroll. Prod. Enroll. Prod. Enroll. Prod. Enroll. Prod. Enroll. Prod.
26,991 19,570 27,158 19,398 24,651 18,533 22,170 17,159 22,268 17,929 21,575 17,415 22,928 19,478
Best in the District
74.6%
80.7%
75.5%
79.0%76.7%76.6%
83.1%
79.0%80.2%
77.5%78.6%
85.0%
79.4% 80.2%78.0%
63.0%
68.0%
73.0%
78.0%
83.0%
88.0%
SAC SPC PAC NVC NLC
2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016
Best in the District
2118
1512
9 85
0
5
10
15
20
25
Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016
Best in the District
Course Strategies Comments Math 0305 • Added workbook
• Supplemental Instruction beganSpring 17
Math 0305 and 0310 have been archived by THECBSupplemental instruction will be continued for Math 0410 and 0320Math 0310 • Added workbook
Math 0320 • Added workbookMath 1314 • Redesigned - Aligned topics to SLO’s
from THECB and eliminated extra topics
Currently working on a workbook to be ready for Fall 2017
Math 1442 • Redesigned course to use TI-84 technology throughout the content
Currently working on a workbook to be ready for Fall 2017
Courses Fall 2015 Completion
Rate
Fall 2016 Completion
Rate
Percentage Point
DifferenceMATH 0305: Pre-Algebra 62.8%
(266 students)65.2%
(284 students)2.4
MATH 0310: Elementary Algebra
59.2%(250 students)
61.1%(360 students)
1.9
MATH 0320: Intermediate Algebra
58.7%(489 students)
62.4%(242 students)
3.7
MATH 1314: College Algebra
58.7%(489 students)
63.5%(408 students)
4.8
MATH 1442: Elementary Statistical Methods
70.34%(145 students)
63.0%(135 students)
7.3
Student Engagement Domain 2009 2011 2013 2015
Active & Collaborative Learning 51.3 48.3 48.6 51.3
Student Effort 52.5 54.4 50.4 49.5
Academic Challenge 50.3 51.3 49.5 49.0
Student/Faculty Interaction 50.5 48.8 48.4 50.8
Support for Learners 54.8 54.8 54.5 53.7
Highest in DistrictSecond Highest in District
41.6%49.8% 49.9%
49.5%
58.6% 57.2%51.2%
52.6% 53.9%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
Full-TimeFull-Time Targets
10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16FTIC Persisted FTIC Persisted FTIC Persisted FTIC Persisted FTIC Persisted FTIC Persisted
FT 1172 488 641 319 467 233 481 238 423 248 346 198PT 770 238 1024 372 618 203 649 239 793 314 708 286
State avg: 58.5%VLCC avg: 62.8%
30.9%36.3%
32.8%36.8% 39.6% 40.4%
40.4%44.4% 48.5%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
Part-TimePart-Time
Targets
10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16FTIC Persisted FTIC Persisted FTIC Persisted FTIC Persisted FTIC Persisted FTIC Persisted
FT 1172 488 641 319 467 233 481 238 423 248 346 198PT 770 238 1024 372 618 203 649 239 793 314 708 286
Alamo Colleges avg.: 51.3
8.2% 8.2%6.5%
10.5%
12.3%
16.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Full-TimeFull-Time
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads
FT 889 76 851 69 919 75 1176 77 646 68 470 58 481 78
PT 483 52 669 73 731 75 775 84 1035 99 622 71 649 83
FT State avg: 17.6%FT VLCC avg: 15.8%
10.9% 10.3% 10.8%9.6%
11.4%12.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Part-TimePart-Time
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads
FT 889 76 851 69 919 75 1176 77 646 68 470 58 481 78
PT 483 52 669 73 731 75 775 84 1035 99 622 71 649 83
PT State avg: 9.7%Alamo colleges: 9.3%
12.7%11.6% 11.3%
10.4%
17.8% 16.6%
12.8%14.4%
15.9%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Full-TimeFull-Time
Targets
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads
FT 889 113 851 99 919 104 1176 123 646 115 470 78
PT 483 68 669 93 731 104 775 73 1035 142 622 96
State avg: 19.5%VLCC avg: 19.1%
14.1%13.9% 14.2%
9.4%
13.7%15.4%
16.1%18.0%
20.0%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
22%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Part-TimePart-Time
Targets
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads FTIC Grads
FT 889 113 851 99 919 104 1176 123 646 115 470 78
PT 483 68 669 93 731 104 775 73 1035 142 622 96
Statewide avg: 13%Alamo Colleges: 15.1%
1,433 1,434 1,416 1,357
1,7301,811
1,992
500
700
900
1,100
1,300
1,500
1,700
1,900
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 WIGTarget
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016White 483 480 436 367 399 406African American 168 181 166 168 192 209Hispanic 742 694 751 754 1051 1102Asian 27 49 36 39 38 49Other 13 30 27 29 50 45
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2011 to 2016% increase
-15%
24.4%
48.5%
81.5%
245%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Male 764 693 795 703 861 962Female 669 741 621 654 869 849
400
600
800
1000
271
372
403
410
494
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
Fall 2014
Fall 2015
Fall 2016
Number of Students Completing Core Per Year
10.0% 12.3% 11.7% 12.2% 11.3%8.4%
16.3%20.8%
25.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
SPC
Targets
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Cohort Trans. Cohort Trans. Cohort Trans. Cohort Trans. Cohort Trans. Cohort Trans.
1625 162 1593 196 1418 166 1558 190 1716 194 1645 138
State avg: 21.5%VLCC avg: 21.8%
5.1% of the cohort (83 students) reported their intent to transfer when they enrolled; 8.4% actually transferred.
87.1% 88.1% 88.2%85.5%
87.9%90.9%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
SPC
State avg: 89.4%VLCC & State best: 98.5%
Second in the District
3.54 3.67 3.68 3.763.86
3.70
1
2
3
4
5
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 PACE Norm
9% increase since 2012
4.3% above the Norm
3.84
3.99
4.22
3.72
3.86
3.72
3.86
3.70
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
NLC NVC PAC SAC SPC DSO AlamoColleges
Norm Base
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
4.13
3.58 3.58 3.47
4.32
3.59 3.80 3.653.84
3.483.84
3.63
4.33
3.613.86
3.78
4.183.94
3.77
1
2
3
4
5
Administrators Professional Classified Faculty Staff2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Better
Con
sulta
tive
Col
labo
rativ
e
19.9% 16.2%
18.1%8.3%
20.4%
14.1%
24.0%
35.6%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Alamo SPC
Left in Good --Academic Standing--
------- Still
Enrolled -----
------ Transferred ------
------ Graduated ------
357
790
671
596
655
171
6840
78
82.4%74.2%
2,712
29FTIC = 3,289 FTIC = 481
THECB Accountability System data
10.2% 12.0% 12%10.2% 10.0% 10%
14.4% 15.1% 15.1%
36.0% 36% 36.4%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
FY11 FY12 FY13
Graduated from Alamo In-State Transfer Still Enrolled at Alamo Left in Good Standing
70% 74.2%73.5%
1. Fresh X2. Grades First/Early Alert3. Implement the emerging model as
identified in HB2223 (Developmental Education Co-requirement)
4. Reduce the number of high risk courses5. Pilot the implementation of the wait list to
increase class average in math
6. Math Bridge Program for workforce students
7. Online college communities to increase student engagement
8. Student recruitment outreach/ connection through various media
9. Low balance student scholarships
Item #26: Would you recommend this college to a friend or family member? 94% - Yes, 6% - No
Item#27: How would you evaluate your entire education experience at this college? 39% - Excellent, 47% - Good, 12% Fair, 2% Poor basic
1,032 students participated in survey