Welcome!

1. Welcome! Carole Goldsmith, Vice Chancellor West Hills Community College District Central California Community Colleges Committed to Change (C6) Regional Meeting Focus: DOL TAACCT Project Details

2. “Opportunity is missed by most people because it looks like work.” ~ Edison CEO Commitment Request monthly status reports Approve all expenditures Participate in regional and local meetings Focus is on Change within region Adopting best practices Using good cohort data…this is key

3. “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ~ Seneca Regional Approach – State Model Aligning Curriculum Open source or low-cost text development Common Assessment Sharing best practices Achieving common goals

4. “Opportunity may only knock once” ~ Proverbs Organizations that have shown an interest in our work: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors 20 Million Minds – Academic Pub, Connections Jobs For the Future Met Life Foundation Industries and regional WIBs

5. Here is what we said we would do… Cerro Coso = Health COS = Health, Ag and Manufacturing FCC = Health Care Taft = Manufacturing Madera/Willow = LVN/RN, Welding Reedley = Manufacturing Bakersfield = Health Care Porterville = Psych Tech Merced = Health, Ag and Manufacturing SJ Delta = Psych Tech WHCC = Health, Ag and Manufacturing— New LVN, Ag Processing Manufacturing Mechanic WHCL = Health Care TOTAL = 3,069

6. Here is what we said we would do… FCC = 253 Taft = 210 Madera/Willow = 147 Reedley = 310 Bakersfield = 341 Porterville = 220 Cerro Coso = 255 Merced = 244 SJ Delta = 225 COS = 269 WHCC = 285 WHCL = 310 TOTAL = 3,069

7. Research-based student focused Guiding Principles: • Design an Integrated Program • Enact Cohort Enrollment • Implement Block Schedules • Compress Classroom Instruction • Embed Remediation • Increase Transparency, Accountability and Labor Market Relevance • Transformative Technology • Innovative Student Support Services

8. This is how we said we would do the work… West Hills- Overall Coordination of RED Teams RED Teams = Faculty, Admin and employers Reedley- Lead for Agriculture Manufacturing Fresno City- Lead for Health Care WHC Coalinga- Lead for Alternative Energy Bakersfield- Academic and Basic Skills Embedding Year 1 - Planning, curriculum redesign, open source, change process as stated in SOW, cohort/individual data collection system development NO DOL funded students will be enrolled

9. Devil in the details –Key Metrics & Cohort data Student & Cohort demographics All metrics based on DOL/DOE Statement of Work (SOW) measures Must use DOL reporting tool (TBA) Success in remediation efforts Time and Credit to Degree/Certificate Credit & Course Completion Rates Entered Employment Rate Employment Retention Rate Wage gain

10. Building Data Collection into our Existing Processes Decide early (during the start-up phase) which staff members will be responsible for collecting each piece of information based upon their existing roles and relationships with students, how the information will be stored, and how it will be gathered for reporting purposes each year. Determine where Information is gathered and by whom to think through this process Understanding ETA’s TAACCCT performance measures is not merely a matter of knowing how they are calculated, but of understanding the factors in our program design that might affect calculations!

11. Participant Cohorts: The Basics • Each program of study that is funded by the grant should have its own participant cohort on which data are reported. • The purpose of the participant cohorts are to track what happens to one group of students the remaining grant period of performance, as compared with a comparison cohort in the same field that is not affected by grant funds. • All participants in the cohort will be tracked for reporting purposes through the end of the grant period. • Data to be used possible changes in policy and practice 11

12. Purpose of Comparison Cohorts • Allows for an analysis between the group that received something extra and the group that did not • Did the “something extra” make a difference? • Improves “internal validity” • How valid an inference is about what caused something to happen • Without a comparison group, it is easy to make reasoning errors about what “caused” something to happen. 12

13. Participant and Comparison Cohorts -- OVERVIEW NON-TAACCCT-FUNDED UNIVERSE PARTICIPANT UNIVERSE: Tracked in Table 1 of APR Participant Cohort : Tracked in Table 2 of APR Comparison Cohort : Tracked in Table 2 of APR Matched

14. Reporting for Two Programs of Study NON-TAACCCT-FUNDED UNIVERSE PARTICIPANT UNIVERSE: Tracked in Table 1 of APR Program of Study 1: Comparison Cohort (Tracked in Table 2 in its own section) Program of Study 1: Participant Cohort (Tracked in Table 2 in its own section) MATCHED Program of Study 2: Comparison Cohort (Tracked in Table 2 in its own section) Program of Study 2: Participant Cohort (Tracked in Table 2 in its own section) MATCHED 14

15. Program of Study • A program of study is broadly defined as an educational program in which a degree or certificate is granted. • Grouping of some programs with similar educational material or occupational outlookmay be allowed. • Example: College B is planning to build or expand a program in Solar Photovoltaic Installation and a program in Wind Turbine Service Technician Training. Under some conditions, participants from each could be combined into one “renewable energy” program of study participant cohort. 15

16. Cohort Summary • ETA is requiring a comparison cohort pilot study during Year • Each program of study should have its own participant cohort. • Programs of study may be combined (resulting in only one participant cohort) if occupational outlook and/or educational requirements are similar. • Combining programs may be a way to meet the matching requirements for a comparison cohort or avoid some of the problems with having an invalid comparison cohort. • Comparison cohorts for the pilot study should be selected and reported on for each program of study based on expectations of who will enroll in each. • In Year 2, the grantee will discontinue reporting on the test comparison cohort and report actual cohort data. 16

17. Final word on Metrics and Evaluation Key Metrics: Success in Gateway Courses, Certificate attainment, Time to Completion, Change & Employment outcomes Time, Not Student Learning is the Greatest Barrier to Success Third-party subject matter experts review Independent review of deliverables Continuous Improvement is essential to our long term success

18. Year One Open Source & RED Team activities Phase I: Planning w/ RED Teams Identify key faculty & industry partners Coordinate meeting schedules Plan for release time for faculty Determine key performance milestones   Establish a workflow model and schedule to reach milestones Map out Comparison Cohort requirements Identify data collection system & process Simultaneously redesign curriculum & OS/text Develop & plan integrated remediation delivery

19. Year One Open Source & RED Team activities Phase I: Open Source Planning w/ RED Teams Plan content requirements for the new curriculum and integrated remediation content Determine key learning outcomes    Establish a workflow model and schedule to reach milestones Determine the learning platform partner

20. Year One Open Source & RED Team activities Phase II: Development Open Source Planning w/ RED Teams Create project management schedules Develop content templates Coordinate internal/external peer review process Manage draft process, including creating of art manuscript, securing photo permissions, copyediting etc Develop key assessments around learning outcomes that will be imported into the learning platforms Class test learning platforms Implement list of analytical requirements Establish student portfolio requirements Handle the final production process to feed content into content repositories and learning platforms

21. Reasonable expenses for Year 1 Faculty release time, travel, mileage, Meeting expenses Clerical support for planning meetings Staff time for Comparison Cohort data collection Consultant expense & staff time for planning of analytical requirements

23. California Education Policy Fund Overview Carole Goldsmith Vice Chancellor

24. Three Fundamental Issues Misalignment of curriculum and placement testing Misalignment of standards and placement testing Conflicting board governance policies

25. Proposed solutions Alignment of 9-14 curriculums Common acceptance of regional placement tests Standardize board policy

26. California Education Policy Fund The focus of the work: Objectives: Use common placement and advisement tests across all colleges Agreement on common cut scores for placement tests Alignment of curriculum between 12th grade and college freshman year Priority registration for targeted groups Change high school policy to create a common “Senior Year Experience”. • Gap Analysis • Curriculum Alignment • Assessment

27. Alignment and partnership – for students

29. Considerations • Legislation calling for Common Assessment • New assessments coming to K-12 (SBC) • CSU requirements around EAP • Alignment with Common Core Standards • Need for Multiple Measures • Adult entry students Not to mention current partnerships already existing within District.