Click to edit Master title style 1 Faculty Take on Student Learning by Doug Lederman, Inside Higher Ed, 4/4/2011 • "[T]oo many policy discussions of student success avoid serious consideration of financial factors, as though investment in learning is not connected to student success," the AFT report says. "Paying for college is just about the biggest obstacle [students] face in completing their studies. Concerns about finances also lead students to work too many hours, which hampers their chances for success. Finally, students report that large class sizes, limited course offerings and difficulty in getting enough personal attention from overworked faculty and staff are key obstacles
46
Embed
Faculty Take on Student Learning by Doug Lederman , Inside Higher Ed, 4/4/2011
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Click to edit Master title style
1
Faculty Take on Student Learning by Doug Lederman, Inside Higher Ed, 4/4/2011
• "[T]oo many policy discussions of student success avoid serious consideration of financial factors, as though investment in learning is not connected to student success," the AFT report says.
"Paying for college is just about the biggest obstacle [students] face in completing their studies. Concerns about finances also lead students to work too many hours, which hampers their chances for success.
Finally, students report that large class sizes, limited course offerings and difficulty in getting enough personal attention from overworked faculty and staff are key obstacles to their achievement."
Click to edit Master title style
2
Checking the Progress of CTE Student Growth
using Perkins Core Indicators, Reports, and Targets
Research & Planning Group2011 RP Conference
Dr. Chuck WiseleyCTE Specialist, CCCCO
Local Planning & Predicting Outcomes
Click to edit Master title style
4
Department XYZ - 1
• 4,500 enrollments in department– 55% successful course completions– 3 courses in Subject Area A eligible as
electives in AA• 30% successful completion
– Problems with sequences (prereqs?) but with• Greater number of successful units increased likelihood of successfully earning greater numbers of units
Click to edit Master title style
5
Department XYZ - 2
1. At what point are students in a program in the XYZ department?
2. At what point does the department believe student outcomes and program outputs are impacted by the instruction in XYZ?
3. What are some of the measures that we can use to see whether students are progressing through the XYZ program?
Click to edit Master title style
6
Department XYZ - 3
We might ask:1. Are the students getting through our courses?
Are there or what are the gateway courses?2. Are students able to persist from term-to-term
or year-to-year?3. Do they complete our programs by earning an
award (are awards conferred)?4. Is there gender equity and diversity in the program
through to completion?5. Do students find employment or advance in
their careers?
Click to edit Master title style
7
Progress Checks in Perkins
• Program Participants:– Successful course completions – GPA– Persistence in Higher Ed– Completions– Employment– Gender Equity
• Participation• Completions
– Special Populations • No ethnic distribution reports yet
• SAM Codes• TOP Codes• Data Elements• Core Indicators
– “The Law”– Definitions– Negotiated Performance Targets– Measurement Approaches/Formulas
Funding
Click to edit Master title style
14
Student Accountability Model (SAM) & Taxonomy of Programs (TOP)
• Priority “A“ - Apprenticeship – Must have the of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards
approval • Priority “B“ – Advanced Vocational
– Used sparingly, no more than two courses in any one program
– “B” level courses must have a “C” prerequisite in the same program area
• Priority "C" – Clearly Occupational– Generally taken in the middle stage of a program, detracts
"drop-ins." Job specific skills.
Click to edit Master title style
15
Student Accountability Model (SAM) & Taxonomy of Programs (TOP), Continued
• Priority "D" – Possibly Occupational– Taken by students in the beginning stages of their
occupational programs– Can be survey or intro course
• Priority “E” = Non-Occupational
Vocational Flag on TOP code– Designed to identify vocational “Programs” for federal
reporting (*) - see Taxonomy of Programs, Sixth Edition, Sept. 2009
Click to edit Master title style
16
Data ElementsMIS System
• Students, Courses, Degrees, Services• Student VTEA Data Elements
– Economically Disadvantaged– Single Parent– Displaced Homemaker– Cooperative Work Experience Education– Tech Prep– Migrant Worker - Implementation in MIS SU 09
Section IE-D2011-2012
Sample College
Click to edit Master title style
18
Accountability Requirements Section 113(b)
5 core indicators of performance:1. Student attainment of technical skill proficiencies;
2. Student attainment of credential, certificate, or degree;
3. Student retention in postsecondary education or transfer;
4. Student placement in military, apprenticeship, or employment
5. Student participation/completion of non-traditional training
State and Local adjusted levels of performance– Levels of performance negotiated with USDE / State
Participant:– Counts: - Any enrollment in a CTE course (SAM A-D) – funding & Feds– NT Participation: Concentrator using assigned major (changed from III)
Concentrator: All Core Indicators• Cohort of participants enrolled during the cohort year* and
– Successfully completed at least one course in the middle or end of a program (SAM A-C) and
– 12 vocational units (SAM A-D) within a single discipline (two digit TOP) in the last three years
• or– Program completion as indicated by receipt of ANY vocational credit
certificate or degree in the cohort year (or subsequent year /wo *)
Leavers: Not enrolled in the year following the cohort yearLife-Long-Learners (LLL): Previously Earned Certificate or Degree
Click to edit Master title style
21
Assigning a Program Area (TOP)to a Student
1. Award – TOP code of CTE Certificate or Degree
2. Concentrators (no CTE award)
• Hierarchy based on SAM Priority code
• SAM A, then B, then C
• Assigned to the TOP where most CTE units occurred
Click to edit Master title style
22
My Numbers Don’t Look Right- Recap
• Reasons for 80 in the Total, rather than the 500 students I see in my classes(or 170 of the 4,500):– 12 CTE units (SAM A-D) within a 2-digit TOP
• Important Documentation• Accessing Negotiation Reports• Accountability Framework• Assigning majors• State Negotiated Targets• System Documentation
• Email notification when available
Click to edit Master title style
38
Negotiating Targets
• State negotiates targets USDE– Next 2 years– In Process
• Worksheets without state targets are available now• State Targets will be provided when available
• Locals either:– Accept state targets– Negotiate local targets
• Targets Included in Local Plans– Targets for next year – Negotiations complete by May 15
Click to edit Master title style
39
Effects of not achieving 90% of targets
• Above 90% of targets:– Freedom to fund any CTE program improvements– Encouraged to address low performance
• Below 90% - year 1– Focused Improvement section
• Requires some analysis – target interventions – write the narrative
– Must address low performance in funded Programs– Encouraged to start a diagnostic study
Click to edit Master title style
40
Effects of not achieving 90% of targets
continued...
• Below 90% in year 2 or no improvement– Focused Improvement section– Diagnostic study– Propose Effective Practice solutions
• Probably a more district level approach to expenditures
Click to edit Master title style
41
Effects of not achieving 90% of targets
continued...• Below 90% of target - 3 years
– Focused Improvement section– Submit Diagnostic study w/ Action Plan to CO– Action Plan
• Proposed Effective Practice solutions & Implementation dates
• Probably an even more district level approach to expenditures
– Risk Monitoring
Click to edit Master title style
42
Resources & Questions?– Nontraditional Resources:
• Joint Special Populations Committee (JSPAC.org),• Institute for Women in Trades, Technology & Science (IWITTS.com), • National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity (NAPE.org)
– Journals & Papers• RP Group• Research, Analysis, and Accountability Unit