Mapping Noncredit Pathways to Student Success and Linking to Credit Coursework (CB21)

1. Mapping Noncredit Pathways to Student Success and Linking to Credit Coursework (CB21) Carole Bogue-Feinour, Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs, CCCCO Patrick Perry , Vice Chancellor of Technology, Research, & Info Systems, CCCCO Janet Fulks, ASCCC, BSI Marcy Alancraig, Cabrillo College, BSI, English Joan Cordova, Orange Coast College. Math Marsha Elliot, OCC Continuing Ed Alicia Munoz, Grossmont College, ESL Bob Pacheco, Barstow College, Reading and Math

2. Who are you? • How many faculty from each discipline? • How many part timers? • Table work: Collect three main misconceptions about non-credit

3. Noncredit: The Bird’s Eye View From the REPORT ON THE SYSTEM’S CURRENT PROGRAMS IN ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) AND BASIC SKILLS Jan 2008

4. Unduplicated Student Enrollments in Credit and Noncredit Basic Skills and ESLJan 2008

5. What do we know? • Many who should be enrolled in Basic Skills and ESL are not • Currently, noncredit serves the same number or more of students as credit • You can not talk about basic skills without talking noncredit

6. Enrollment in Credit and Noncredit by Ethnicity

7. What do we know? • Many currently enrolled are students of color • Hispanics use noncredit more frequently than other groups • ESL programs contribute a great deal to this effort

8. Your Work is Essential • Making noncredit work visible • Documenting student success • Communicating the resources necessary to maintain this important work

9. Why is this Important and Why Are We Here? • Coding for your courses – some coding is incorrect – we are here to fix it • Coding is our tool for reporting • Enhanced Funding Accountability • If you think this is a Mission Impossible – it has been done before by credit faculty. • You can do this!

10. SB 361 Enhanced Noncredit Funding and Accountability Report • Accountability requirements for non-credit under due to SB 361 • $19,556,985 to 30 districts • Funding for aligned courses that end in a certificate of completion or certificate of competency • What can we do? • Describe how courses align • Define the certificate curriculum and skills

11. Additional Funding for Non-credit and Basic Skills • ESL/basic skills allocations, $31.5 million annually     *college allocation based on ESL/basic skills FTES, includingnoncredit FTES      *Framework for ESL/basic skills accountability, the second                Supplemental ARCC report

12. How Must We be Accountable • Accountability reporting using MIS data • Currently it is not well understood or well-defined for non-credit • There is probably more variation in non-credit than credit • Even more difficult when we describe student success rate

13. Accountability Reporting • Our current ARCC • *Two Supplemental ARCC Reports                  --SB 361                  --ESL/basic skills Accountability • Noncredit report on noncredit repetition • IPEDS and other such required reporting

14. What is this about? • Accountability and money- compare to sustainability • Background information to get them up to speed • CB 21 wrong • Accountability for noncredit • Needing to show progress

15. What Does Accountability mean for Credit Courses? • First we will describe credit accountability • Then we will explain how we are trying to create a clear and reasonable picture of non-credit work • MIS = Management Information Systems

16. What Coding Tell Us • Besides the status of the course credit/noncredit, transfer/basic skills • This tells us student needs – success and retention • Student Progress – to certificates and degrees, through course pathways • Today we want to focus on Student Progress through Courses

17. A Credit Example: MIS Data Element CB21 • CB21=Course Prior to College Level • Chancellor’s Office MIS system collects all course info each term • Courses are coded for identification purposes • TOP code, credit/noncredit status, transfer status, units, basic skills status, SAM/voc code, etc. • Funding allocations are based on the coding • FTES determinations and other reports are determined by coding

18. MIS Data Element CB21 • Last changed in 1994 • Defined number of “codeable” levels at 5 (xfer + 4 below) • Is used across math/English/reading/writing/ESL • Has little curricular definition of levels

19. MIS Data Element CB21 • Is used for a lot of accountability reporting • Which in turn is used to justify investments and expenditures in basic skills • ARCC Technical Advisory Group: defines metrics for mandated reports • Is necessary to show student progress through basic skills curriculum • 4…3…2…1…transferrable

20. The Process to Document Progress • To understand this in non-credit, you need to understand how it is used in credit

21. Basic Skills Progress • For the aforementioned cohort: • Percent who completed any degree-applicable or transfer level math/Eng/ESL (in same curricular lineage) • Percent that eventually earn a degree/certificate, and/or transfer/transfer prepared

22. CB21 credit basic skills improvement • Basic Skills Improvement Rate (ARCC) • Credit courses only: math, English, reading • Completed (A,B,C,CR) any basic skills course at 2 or more levels below • Within 3 years, successfully completed a higher level basic skills course of same discipline • Anywhere in the system • Current data range: 24%-62%, avg 49%.

23. CB21 Credit ESL Improvement • ESL Improvement Rate (ARCC) • Credit ESL courses only • Within 3 years, successfully completed a higher level ESL course • Anywhere in the system • Current data range: 0% to 81%, avg. 42%

24. What CB21 is used for • Proposed Basic Skills Supplemental Report:

25. Percent of Assessed Students Recommended for Placement • into levels of credit basic skills math/English/ESL courses (as defined by CB 21) in a given year • done by annual survey of colleges

26. Coding CB21 • Normally done at campus • Saved in local ERP system (Datatel, Banner, Peoplesoft, etc) • Sent to System Office end of term by local MIS • Reports run thereafter (ARCC) • Resubmission always allowed and welcome

27. Problems arise when… • Miscoding (wrong TOP, ??credit??levels, basic skills status)—humans and transference • Recoding term to term without change in actual curriculum (solved with unique_id#) • Ambiguity of data element codes • The outcomes are not documented as grades or credit – Hello noncredit

28. What do we need to do to correct the problems? • We need a rubric to show levels and progress • We need a means of including noncredit such as ABE and ASE in progress accountability • We need to identify linkages between credit and noncredit

29. Establishing a Rubric • Is not standardization • Does not drive curricular changes • Is not common course numbering or articulation • IS a mapping exercise designed to maximize our ability to show student progress AND your good work

30. Things to Consider • If you code every basic skills class at 4+ levels below, you will have few improvements • It pays to have a full “progression sequence” using as many levels as are available to show differentiation

31. Things to Consider

32. Making Changes • All MIS data must be submitted through your normal MIS data submission process • Contact your CISO; change usually made in your ERP system • Setup a formalized coding process for courses • We’d love to do it centrally, but…there are 150,000 courses a year

33. Why is this Important and Why Are We Here? • Coding for your courses – some coding is incorrect – we are here to fix it • Coding is our tool for reporting • Enhanced Funding=Enhanced Accountability • If you think this is a Mission Impossible – it has been done before by credit faculty. • You can do this!

34. What is “Course Prior to College Level”? • It is the course “level”, in terms of number of levels below the transferrable level • It is used primarily for basic skills/remedial courses, not transferrable courses • It is used only for English, writing, ESL, reading, or mathematics • Can be used for credit, noncredit

35. MIS Data Element CB21 • CB21=Course Prior to College Level • Chancellor’s Office MIS system collects all course info each term • Courses are coded for identification purposes • Top code, credit status, transfer status, units, basic skills status, SAM code, etc.

36. MIS Data Element CB21 • Is one of the most disparately coded data elements we have • Is controversial in many ways • Limits number of “codeable” levels at 5; colleges locally have more or less • Is used across math/English/ESL • Does not necessarily mean the same thing across colleges

37. MIS Data Element CB21 • Is necessary to show student progress through basic skills curriculum • 4…3…2…1…transferrable • Is used for a lot of accountability reporting • Which in turn is used to justify investments and expenditures in basic skills

38. Accountability Reporting • ARCC (Accountability Report for Community Colleges) • ARCC CDCP Noncredit Supplemental report • ARCC Basic Skills Supplemental Report • All of these have metrics in them that use CB21 to show student progression through basic skills

39. CDCP Noncredit Funding • State has agreed to pay extra $$ for CDCP Noncredit category • State has requested accountability reporting for these monies • CDCP represents programs that lead to certificates and movement into credit • These are the metrics desired by State in evaluating CDCP effectiveness

40. CDCP Noncredit Accountability • Take first-time CDCP students, track forward • Look at term to term persistence • Look at completion of CDCP or other award • Look at movement into credit • “course success” cannot be measured • Progress through CDCP noncredit basic skills ladders is missing due to lack of consistent coding in CB21

41. ARCC Metrics • Basic Skills Improvement Rate (ARCC) • Credit courses only • Completed (A,B,C,CR) any math/Eng basic skills course at 2 or more levels below • Within 3 years, successfully completed a higher level basic skills course of same discipline • Anywhere in the system

42. What CB21 is used for • ESL Improvement Rate (ARCC) • Credit ESL courses only • Completed (A,B,C,CR) any ESL course at 2 or more levels below • Within 3 years, successfully completed a higher level ESL course • Anywhere in the system

43. What CB21 is used for • Basic Skills Supplemental Report: Basic Skills Progress Rate (Proposed) • Track freshmen forward 8 years that attempted any basic skills course any time • Report by the lowest level of math/English/ESL ever attempted (>=4 levels below transferable level; 3, 2, 1 levels below; CR, NC).

44. Basic Skills Progress • For the aforementioned cohort: • Percent who completed any degree-applicable or transfer level math/Eng/ESL (in same curricular lineage) • Percent that eventually earn a degree/certificate, and/or transfer/transfer prepared

45. Percentage of assessed students recommended for placement (Supplemental) • into levels of credit basic skills math/English/ESL courses (as defined by CB 21) in a given year • (done by annual survey of colleges)

46. Coding CB21 • Normally done at campus (CIO??) • Saved in local ERP system (Datatel, Banner, etc) • Sent to System Office end of term by local MIS • Reports run thereafter • Resubmission always allowed and welcome

47. Problems arise when… • Miscoding • Recoding term to term without change in actual curriculum • College X’s 3 levels below in math is different than College Y’s 3 levels below in math • We need a rubric as to what these mean across campuses for each discipline.

48. Establishing a Rubric • Is not standardization • Does not drive curricular changes • Is not common course numbering or articulation • Is not MIS wagging the dog • IS an alignment/mapping exercise designed to maximize our ability to show student progress

49. Rubric: Math • Currently, CB21: • A=prereq. for transfer math (Intermediate Algebra) • B=prereq./prep. for “A” (Algebra I/Elem. Algebra) • C=prereq./prep. For “A/B” (Arithmetic) • Y=>3 levels below transfer level (N/A)

50. Rubric: English • Currently, CB21: • A=prereq. for transfer Eng. Comp. (Subject A) • B=prereq./prep. for “A” (N/A) • C=prereq./prep. For “A/B” (N/A) • Y=>3 levels below transfer level (N/A)