tom leigh alice van ommeren
DESCRIPTION
Academic Attainment in California Community Colleges: Racial And Ethnic Disparities in the ARCC 2.0/Scorecard Metrics. Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren. Project Background . Increasing attention to reducing the achievement or equity gap - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Academic Attainment in California Community Colleges: Racial And Ethnic Disparities in the
ARCC 2.0/Scorecard Metrics
Tom LeighAlice van Ommeren
![Page 2: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Project Background • Increasing attention to reducing the
achievement or equity gap • Policymakers/administrators are inquiring
about racial/ethnic disparities• Researchers are being tasked to measure
inequities and disparities • ARCC 2.0/Scorecard for the first time is
reporting metrics by demographics
![Page 3: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Achievement Gap in Education The observed and persistent disparity on
educational measures between the performance of groups of students, especially
groups defined by socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity and gender
![Page 4: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Session Objectives • Review ARCC 2.0/Scorecard metrics and
describe disaggregation by demographics• Describe various methods for measuring
achievement/equity gaps• Explore specific methods of capturing the
achievement gap in the Scorecard –Using race/ethnicity as an example –Using two of the ARCC/Scorecard metrics
![Page 5: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
ARCC 2.0/Scorecard Framework • State of the System (print)– Scorecard data, system metrics
• Scorecard (web, print)–College profile & metrics, single demographic
• Datamart 2.0 (web query tool)–College/district metrics by multiple crosstabs
• Data on Demand (web data download)–College metrics as unitary files
![Page 6: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Scorecard Metrics • Completion/Student Progress & Attainment
(SPAR) Rate– Persistence Rate (first 3-terms) – At least 30 Units Rate
• Career Technical Education (CTE) Rate• Remedial (Basic Skills) Rate– English, Math & ESL
• Career Development and College Preparation Rate (CDCP) Rate
![Page 7: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Completion (SPAR) Rate• Cohort (denominator)– First-time student in postsecondary, and– within 3 years, completed 6 units and attempted
any Math or English• Outcomes (numerator) in 6 years– Associates of Arts/Sciences, or– Certificates (CO/12+ units), or– Transfer (any 4-year), or – Transfer Prepared (60 units, GPA 2.0)
![Page 9: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Persistence & 30 Units Rate• Cohort (denominator, same as SPAR)– First-time student in postsecondary, and–within 3 years, completed 6 units and
attempted any Math or English• Outcomes (numerator) in 6 years–Persisted for 3 consecutive primary terms–At least 30 units, successfully completed
![Page 10: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Completion (SPAR) Cohort
Persistence
At Least 30 Units
Completion (SPAR) Outcomes
![Page 11: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Draft Data (Overall Rates) Persistence 30 Units SPAR
African American 62.5% 55.8% 36.2%
American Indian 66.1 59.8 37.1
Asian 72.0 72.8 65.5
Filipino 70.7 68.8 49.5
Hispanic 67.8 62.8 38.6
Pacific Islander 65.6 61.5 39.2
White, Non-Hispanic 68.1 69.1 52.3
![Page 12: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Categories for Completion (SPAR) Rate Three categories (cohorts) of students based on first attempt in Math and/or English• Prepared (College Level) – Lowest course
attempted in Math and/or English was college level • Unprepared (Remedial) – Lowest course attempted
in Math and/or English was remedial level• Overall - All students in the cohort, attempted any
Math or English in the first three years
![Page 13: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
SPARPrepared
SPARUnprepared
SPAROverall
African American 61.7% 32.2% 36.2%
American Indian 56.9 30.3 37.1
Asian 80.9 56.6 65.5
Filipino 69.8 42.0 49.5
Hispanic 63.1 33.8 38.6
Pacific Islander 56.1 34.1 39.2
White, Non-Hispanic 68.9 42.9 52.3
![Page 14: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Remedial (Basic Skills) Rate • Cohort (denominator)– In cohort year, attempted a remedial Math,
English or ESL course for the first time • Exclude dual enrollments in 4-years
• Outcome (numerator)–Within 6-years – Successfully completed degree or transfer
course in same discipline
![Page 15: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
RemedialMath
RemedialEnglish
RemedialESL
African American 27.1% 24.1% 24.1%
American Indian 32.5 25.8 37.5
Asian 41.6 56.4 38.2
Filipino 42.0 46.0 34.3
Hispanic 35.6 34.4 25.3
Pacific Islander 30.0 35.0 29.1
White, Non-Hispanic 42.1 41.6 37.2
![Page 17: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Measuring the Gap• Subtraction of two groups is most common– African American-White gap for SPAR is 52.3%
minus 36.2% = 16.1% • Compare a subgroup rate to a standard, highest
performing group or an average (mean) • Distribution of subgroup at input (cohort) versus
output (outcome) – Diversity Index• Are there other ways of measuring the
achievement/equity gap?
![Page 18: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Study Considerations• Racial categories are constructs, do not
capture social, cultural, economic and political characteristics
• ARCC 2.0/Scorecard metrics are “indicators” of success and do not capture all students
• Metrics do not capture program level success• Metrics and analysis does not capture other
factors, need multivariate analysis
![Page 19: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Are the racial/ethnic groups in the California Community College
system attaining academic success at similar rates?
![Page 20: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Compare relative percentages of ethnic/racial groups in cohorts and in the attainment of academic milestones:
• Prepared and Unprepared SPAR Cohorts• Attainment of Academic Milestones• Remedial Rates for English and Math
Methodologies To Answer the Question:
Proportionality ratio allows one to compare the status of a racial/ethnic group across conditions (milestones or group inclusion).
![Page 21: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Attainment of Academic Milestones
• SPAR Cohort• Persistence• 30-Units• SPAR Outcome
![Page 22: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
SPAR Cohort Persistence 30-unit SPAR Outcome0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
129,223
86,93367,594
38,854
48,722
30,267
26,188
21,109
Educational Attainment MilestonesSPAR Cohort Overall
Sequential Subgroups
PreparedRemedial
177,945
117,200
93,782
59,963
27%
74%
28%
35%
65%
73%
26%
72%
![Page 23: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Comparison of Prepared and Remedial
SPAR Cohorts
![Page 24: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Overall Prepared Remedial0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
34.145.4
29.9
8.6
10.2
8.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
31.9
19.1
36.7
16.2 20.2 14.8
0.90.8
0.97.3 3.6
8.7
Race/Ethnicity Proportionality in SPAR Prepared and Remedial Cohorts
African AmericanAmerican IndianAsianHispanicPacific IslanderUnknownWhite
![Page 25: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Prepared Remedial0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
45.4
29.9
10.2
8.0
0.8
1.0
19.1
36.7
20.214.8
0.80.9
3.68.7
Race/Ethnicity Proportionality in SPAR Prepared and Remedial Cohorts
African AmericanAmerican IndianAsianHispanicPacific IslanderUnknownWhite
Proportionality Ratio
Prepared Percent/Remedial Percent
African American3.6/8.7 = 0.4
![Page 26: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
The proportionality ratio reflects differences in percentages for race/ethnicity subgroups between two conditions (milestones or group inclusion).
A ratio of 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is present in both conditions at the same percentage rate. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is less prevalent in the numerator condition than the denominator condition. Conversely, a ratio of more than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is more prevalent in the numerator condition than the denominator condition.
Proportionality Ratio
![Page 27: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Prepared Remedial0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
45.4
29.9
10.2
8.0
0.8
1.0
19.1
36.7
20.214.8
0.80.9
3.68.7
Race/Ethnicity Proportionality in SPAR Prepared and Remedial Cohorts
African American
American Indian
AsianHispanic
Pacific Islander
UnknownWhite
ProportionalityPrepared/Remedial
African American3.6/8.7 = 0.4
American Indian0.8/0.9 = 0.9
Asian20.2/14.8 = 1.4
Hispanic 19.1/36.7 = 0.5
Pacific Islander0.8/1.0 = 0.8
Unknown10.2/8.0 = 1.3
White: 45.4/29.9 = 1.5
![Page 28: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Comparison of Academic Milestone Attainment
(Each Milestone Cohort a Subset of Previous Cohort)
• Persistence• 30-Units• SPAR Outcome
![Page 29: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
SPAR Cohort0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
34.1
8.610.95
31.9
16.24
0.887.32
Academic Attainment Milestones By Race/Ethnicity - Overall
African AmericanAmerican IndianAsianHispanicPacific IslanderUnknownWhite
![Page 30: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
SPAR Cohort Persistence0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
34.1 34.7
8.6 8.51.0 0.9
31.9 32.0
16.2 16.4
0.9 0.97.3 6.7
Academic Attainment Milestones by Race/Ethnicity - Overall
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
Unknown
White
![Page 31: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
SPAR Cohort Persistence 30-units0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
34.1 34.7 35.7
8.6 8.5 8.71.0 0.9 0.9
31.9 32.0 30.3
16.2 16.4 17.7
0.9 0.9 0.87.3 6.7 5.9
Academic Attainment Milestones by Race/Ethnicity - Overall
African AmericanAmerican IndianAsianHispanicPacific IslanderUnknownWhite
![Page 32: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
SPAR Cohort Persistence 30-units SPAR Outcome0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
34.1 34.7 35.7 38.1
8.6 8.5 8.79.21.0 0.9 0.90.8
31.9 32.0 30.3 26.6
16.2 16.4 17.7 19.7
0.9 0.9 0.8 0.77.3 6.7 5.9 5.0
Academic Attainment Milestones by Race/Ethnicity - Overall
African AmericanAmerican IndianAsianHispanicPacific IslanderUnknownWhite
![Page 33: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Table 1. Race/Ethnicity Percentages by Academic Attainment Milestones – OverallRace/Ethnicity SPAR Cohort Persistence 30-units SPAR Outcome
African American 7.3 6.7 5.9 5.0 American Indian 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 Asian 16.2 16.4 17.7 19.7 Hispanic 31.9 32.0 30.3 26.6 Pacific Islander 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 Unknown 8.6 8.5 8.7 9.2 White 34.1 34.7 35.7 38.1
Table 2. Race/Ethnicity Proportionality Among Academic Attainment Milestones - Overall
Race/Ethnicity Persistence/ SPAR Cohort
30-Units/ Persistence
SPAR/ 30-units
SPAR Outcome/ SPAR Cohort
African American 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 American Indian 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 Asian 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 Hispanic 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 Pacific Islander 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 Unknown 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 White 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1
![Page 34: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Progress Rates Remedial English and Math
Three Sequential Cohorts:• CCC Statewide Census Fall 2006-07• Enrollment in Remedial English or Math Course• Successful Completion of the Remedial Sequence
![Page 35: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Remedial English Cohort
English Success Remedial Math Cohort
Math Success0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
92,954
35,336
98,074
36,497
Remedial English and Math Cohort Sizes
![Page 36: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
CCC Census Fall 20060%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
36
10.50.7
29.2
15.6
0.97.2
Remedial English 2006-07 Cohort
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
Unknown
White
![Page 37: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
CCC Census Fall 2006 Remedial Cohort0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
36.0
22.6
10.5
6.8
0.7
1.1
29.2
40.4
15.615.2
0.91.0
7.212.9
Remedial English Cohort 2006-07
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
Unknown
White
![Page 38: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
CCC Census Fall 2006 Remedial Cohort Success 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
36.0
22.6 24.7
10.5
6.87.5
0.7
1.11.0
29.2
40.4 36.6
15.615.2 21.4
0.91.0
0.77.2
12.9 8.2
Remedial English Cohort 2006-07
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
Unknown
White
![Page 39: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Table 3. Remedial English Cohort and Success by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity CCC Census Remedial Cohort Success
African American 7.2 12.9 8.2 American Indian 0.9 1.0 0.7
Asian 15.6 15.2 21.4
Hispanic 29.2 40.4 36.6 Pacific Islander 0.7 1.1 1.0
Unknown 10.5 6.8 7.5 White 36.0 22.6 24.7
Table 4. Remedial English Disparity Index
Race/Ethnicity Cohort/Census Success/Cohort Disparity Index*
African American 1.8 0.6 0.4 American Indian 1.1 0.7 0.6 Asian 1.0 1.4 1.4 Hispanic 1.4 0.9 0.7 Pacific Islander 1.6 0.9 0.6 Unknown 0.7 1.1 1.7 White 0.6 1.1 1.7*Success-Cohort Proportionality/Cohort-Census Proportionality
![Page 40: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
CCC Census Fall 20060%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
36
10.5
0.7
29.2
15.6
0.97.2
Remedial Math Cohort 2006-07
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
Unknown
White
![Page 41: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
CCC Census Fall 2006 Remedial0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
36.028.3
10.5
7.6
0.7
1.0
29.240.2
15.68.9
0.9
1.2
7.212.9
Remedial Math Cohort 2006-07
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
Unknown
White
![Page 42: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
CCC Census Fall 2006 Remedial Success0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
36.028.3 32.1
10.5
7.68.3
0.7
1.00.8
29.240.2
38.5
15.68.9
10.0
0.9
1.21.0
7.212.9 9.4
Remedial Math Cohort 2006-07
African American
American Indian
Asian
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
Unknown
White
![Page 43: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Table 5. Remedial Math Cohort and Success by Race/EthnicityRace/Ethnicity CCC Census Remedial Cohort Success African American 7.2 12.9 9.4 American Indian 0.9 1.2 1.0 Asian 15.6 8.9 10.0 Hispanic 29.2 40.2 38.5 Pacific Islander 0.7 1.0 0.8 Unknown 10.5 7.6 8.3 White 36.0 28.3 32.1
Table 6. Remedial Math Disparity Index
Race/Ethnicity Cohort/Census Success/Cohort Disparity Index*
African American 1.8 0.7 0.4 American Indian 1.3 0.9 0.7 Asian 0.6 1.1 2.0 Hispanic 1.4 1.0 0.7 Pacific Islander 1.4 0.8 0.6 Unknown 0.7 1.1 1.5 White 0.8 1.1 1.4* Success-Cohort Proportionality/Cohort-Census Proportionality
![Page 44: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Major Findings:
• Asian, White, and students of unknown race/ethnicity were less likely to enroll in a remedial English or Math course, more likely to successfully complete a remedial sequence if enrolled, and more likely to attain the SPAR outcome.
• African American, American Indian, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander students were more likely to enroll in a remedial English or Math course, less likely to successfully complete a remedial sequence if enrolled, and less likely to attain the SPAR outcome.
![Page 45: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Suggestions for College Researchers:
• Use five-year report to look at Scorecard rates over time for demographic subgroups
• Explore the rates of the subgroups using: – Subtraction of rates from two subgroups–Compare to the mean rate of all subgroups
• Create proportional ratios for various subgroups
![Page 46: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Suggestions for College Researchers:
• Download from Data-on-Demand your college’s Scorecard dataset for each metric
• Replicate and validate the rates, check the size of the n’s (students) in the subgroups
• Replicate race/ethnicity proportionality analysis for each metric, do gender and age ratios
• Also, cross tabulate race/ethnicity with gender or age• Analyze covariates of race/ethnicity with economic
disadvantaged status• And, educational history, family educational level, and self-
efficacy expectations
![Page 47: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
• Utility of Scorecard metrics for student equity plans?• Analyze achievement gap or disparities among
subgroups over time• Describe and explain the variations across colleges,
among peer groups in regions• Explore the different outcomes in a multivariate
relationship, for college replication)• Explore other dimensions of diversity, such as age,
gender, socioeconomics
Suggestions for System Researchers
![Page 48: Tom Leigh Alice van Ommeren](https://reader036.vdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062410/568161eb550346895dd21cf3/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Contact• Tom Leigh – [email protected] • Alice van Ommeren – [email protected]