DETF Nov. 2014

the pipeline

Student Course Progression over 3 and 4-Yr Time Periods

Cohort Tracking RD 80 RD 90 RD 115

Course Period attempt pass attempt pass attempt pass

RD 80 Fall '11 - Sum '14 336 228/336 (68%) 190 165/198 (87%) 138 110/138 (80%)

  68% of cohort 49% of cohort 33% of cohort

RD 80 Fall '10- Sum '14 259 185/259 (71%) 153 131/153 (86%) 111 93/111 (84%)

  71% of cohort 51% of cohort 36% of cohort

RD 90 Fall '11 - Sum '14 1066 695/1066 (65%) 600 504/600 (84%)

  65% of cohort 47% of cohort

RD 90 Fall '10 - Sum '14 870 608/870 (70%) 502 424/502 (84%)

  70% of cohort 49% of cohort

Cohort Tracking ESOL 262 WR 115 WR 121 WR 122

Course Period attempt pass attempt pass attempt pass attempt pass

ESOL 262 Fall '11 - Sum '14 160 135/160 (84%) 105 102/105 (97%) 90 85/90 (94%) 28 26/28 (93%)

  84% of cohort 64% of cohort 53% cohort 16% cohort

ESOL 262 Fall '10- Sum '14 129 105/129 (81%) 83 73/82 (89%) 66 65/66 (98%) 29 25/29 (85%)

  81% of cohort 57% of cohort 50% of cohort 19% of cohort

Cohort Tracking WR 80 WR 90 WR 115 WR 121 WR 122

Course Period attempt pass attempt pass attempt pass attempt pass attempt pass

WR 80 Fall '11- Sum '14 410 254/410 (62%) 209 179/209 (86%) 155 129/155 (83%) 116 98/116 (84%) 50 43/50 (86%)

  62% of cohort 44% of cohort 31% of cohort 24% of cohort 10% of cohort

WR 80 Fall '10 - Sum '14 358 251/358 (70%) 206 184/206 (89%) 165 136/165 (82%) 111 90/111 (81%) 52 39/52 (75%)

  70% of cohort 51% of cohort 38% of cohort 25% of cohort 11% of cohort

WR 90 Fall '11 -Sum '14 1116 766/1116 (69%) 640 541/640 (85%) 450 359/450 (80%) 166 121/166 (73%)

  69% of cohort 48% of cohort 32% of cohort 11% of cohort

WR 90 Fall '10 -Sum '14 966 665/966 (69%) 522 464/522 (89%) 384 326/384 (85%) 175 148/175

  69% of cohort 48% of cohort 34% of cohort 15% of cohort

WR 90 Fall '09 - Sum '14 959 628/959 (65%) 504 450/504 (89%) 380 327/389 (86%) 161 136/161 (84%)

  65% of cohort 47% of cohort 34% of cohort 14% of cohort

WR 115 Fall '11 - Sum '14 1087 753/1087 (69%) 632 520/632 (82%) 279 229/279 (82%)

  69% of cohort 48% of cohort 21% of cohort

WR 115 Fall '10 - Sum '14 1050 812/1050 (77%) 674 586/674 (87%) 293 246/293 (84%)

  77% of cohort 56% of cohort 23% of cohort

Interpretation Example * Approx 33% of Fall 2011 RD 80 students had successfully completed RD 115 by the end of Summer 2014.

acknowledgethe things beyond our control…and our data(not that they don’t matter)

Social structures and systemic issues that exist in our students’ lives that prevent them from re-enrolling or succeeding in individual courses or sequences.

Enrollment for the sole purpose of securing financial aid.

Individuals’ varying goals for their educational experience, be they existential or utilitarian, for learning’s sake or for the degree.

Other?

My students’ stories…

alignment: a different creature of the same mother

How are students doing in our classes already?

Reenrollment and PNP Data

How do DE students do in relation to other students?

Pathways into WR 121

What have the AssComms found?

Where does alignment work fit in with program structure?

Placement

Movement between levels

potential solutions to the “leaky pipeline”

Based on readings and research examined by the DE faculty and DE Task Force:

Current: 6 exit points

Collapsing levels (vertical): Rather than three (80, 90, 115) with overlap, develop two

well-aligned levels; OR, Embed “DE” students into one single level course with

supplemental course and/or lab.

Integrating Reading and Writing courses (horizontal).

OTHERS? What do other models offer to reduce exit points?

Proposed: 2 exit points

integration of reading and writing

Pilots or Programs already underway across the district

8o-level linked RD and WR (single instructor)

Cascade

90-level linked RD and WR (single instructor)

Rock Creek, Sylvania, Cascade

115-level linked RD and WR (two instructors)

Sylvania (Winter 2015)

Project DEgree

Southeast

FACULTY AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES

supplementary co-requisites and ALC curriculum

Current Co-requisites

WR 80 + DE 31 (learning habits)

Rock Creek, Cascade

RD 80 + DE 21 (information literacy)

Rock Creek

RD 80 + DE 50 (vocabulary)

Cascade

ALC Curriculum at Sylvania

1 cr, 2 cr, 3 cr options

planning: recommendations to the SACs

What pilots and when?

Considerations

Courses must be run at all campuses

Faculty must have opportunity to work collaboratively on creating curriculum

Courses must be able to be systematically assessed

Logistical Issues

Solutions

proposedDETF working groups

Placement

In conjunction with AssComms, Student Services, and Registrar,

and in accord with recommendations from State

DE Workgroup

Develop Reading-based Writing placement method to pilot.

Explore cut-score matrices

Examine alternative pathways besides placement: Smarter Balanced (I can’t believe it’s not a standardized test), transcript evaluation, others.

Examine placement information sharing practices

Explore DE orientation models

Research, Funding, and Logistics

In conjunction with Institutional Effectiveness, Staff

Development, Grants, and Administration

Develop research questions for pilot programs and placement.

Interface with IE to carry out data gathering and interpretation.

Seek funding to support professional development and other program foci.

Organize professional development in support of placement and curriculum groups

DETF-supported, SAC-ownedworking group

Develop assessable CCOGS for experimental courses.

Develop curriculum for pilot courses.

Lead and participate in professional develop of pedagogical

practices.

Communicate with SACs about program pilots and models.

Curricular Models + Pilots

Facilitated by DE and CompLit SACs

with input by faculty from ABE, ESOL, and LIB

and AssComms