This document provides an overview of the work done by the IDEA Inquiry Team at Las Positas College (LPC) from 2009-2010 using the Equity Scorecard Model developed by the USC Center for Urban Education (CUE). The team analyzed data on access, completion, and persistence among LPC's first-time student cohort from 2006-2009, focusing on basic skills English and math. Key findings included equity gaps in course pass rates and persistence between racial/ethnic groups. The team selected English 90 and the matriculation process as intervention zones to explore factors influencing these outcomes.
27. Seeking Equity in Higher Education = Equity 32% White Students 32% White Students 56% Students of Color 56% Students of Color GOAL: LMC Graduating Student Population (benchmark year) LMC Entering Student Population(Fall 2009)
28. Lens for Data Analysis Focus: Institutional Accountability What can we control? Focus: Student Deficits
39. Data taken from existing CCCCD & LMC systems *First Time Student Cohort: Enrolled in the district for the first time, between the age of 17 and 19, not a special admit (concurrent with high school enrollment), attempting 21 units or less but has completed zero units.
50. Enrollment Persistence Students who remained enrolled Fall ‘06 - Spring ‘08 (% remaining) LESSON LEARNED: Approx. 70% of students left campus within 2 years. White and Native American Students left at higher than average rates. QUESTION: What can we learn about our Matriculation Process that would help us understand what’s happening? 28% 30% 19% 24% 21% 8% 29%
Equity in Higher EducationThe phrase “equity in higher education” refers to creating opportunities for equal access and success in higher education among historically underrepresented student populations, such as ethnic minority and low-income students. Within the postsecondary education community, “equity” is further defined by: (1) representational equity, or the proportional participation of historically underrepresented student populations at all levels of an institution; (2) resource equity, which accounts for how educational resources are distributed to close equity gaps; and (3) equity mindedness, which involves institutional leaders and staff demonstrating an awareness and willingness to address equity issues. Accountability for Equity Inequality in higher education is felt most acutely by African American, Latino, Latina, Southeast Asian, and American Indian students and is detrimental to everyone. It negatively affects the entire nation in such matters as unemployment, welfare costs, voter turnout, income levels, and healthcare. Additionally, inequities jeopardize our nation’s ability to produce the degrees that secure our position in a global economy. For these reasons, accountability in higher education must be about equity in outcomes among racial-ethnic groups as well as about institutional effectiveness. The indicators of the CUE Equity Model help prioritize and call attention to equity issues to generate support from policymakers, college leaders, faculty, counselors and other higher education stakeholders.
Institutional Accountability (Foundation Slide)As practitioners make sense of the data and uncover points of success or gaps in outcomes, it is common to refer to students’ strengths and weaknesses to explain their performance. By placing the responsibility for these outcomes on students and specific student groups, the institution is perceived as powerless and unable to effect change. As such, there is little the institution can do to influence the performance gaps uncovered by the data. It is critical that hunches assigning blame to students, or deficit-minded hunches, are reframed to focus on factors under the institution’s control. Practitioner’s using the CUE Equity Model are asked to reframe and refocus deficit-minded dialogue using a equity-mindedness. Equity-minded practitioners call attention to patterns of inequity in student outcomes by race and ethnicity, and are willing to assume personal and institutional responsibility for the elimination of inequity. As a result, equity-minded practitioners discuss how they can improve their policies and practices to better student outcomes.This isn’t to say that students have no responsibility in their educational outcomes, but by placing the responsibility solely on students, the conversation misplaces all potential action within the institutions control to improve outcomes. CUE’s collaborative approach enables systems and institutions to create the solutions most appropriate for their context, not pick a trendy practice or program off the shelf.
Institutional Accountability (Foundation Slide)As practitioners make sense of the data and uncover points of success or gaps in outcomes, it is common to refer to students’ strengths and weaknesses to explain their performance. By placing the responsibility for these outcomes on students and specific student groups, the institution is perceived as powerless and unable to effect change. As such, there is little the institution can do to influence the performance gaps uncovered by the data. It is critical that hunches assigning blame to students, or deficit-minded hunches, are reframed to focus on factors under the institution’s control. Practitioner’s using the CUE Equity Model are asked to reframe and refocus deficit-minded dialogue using a equity-mindedness. Equity-minded practitioners call attention to patterns of inequity in student outcomes by race and ethnicity, and are willing to assume personal and institutional responsibility for the elimination of inequity. As a result, equity-minded practitioners discuss how they can improve their policies and practices to better student outcomes.This isn’t to say that students have no responsibility in their educational outcomes, but by placing the responsibility solely on students, the conversation misplaces all potential action within the institutions control to improve outcomes. CUE’s collaborative approach enables systems and institutions to create the solutions most appropriate for their context, not pick a trendy practice or program off the shelf.
In the Access perspective, we analyze demographic representation in your campuses service area, total institutional enrollment by race, ethnicity, gender, and full-time or part-time status, new student enrollment trends, and first-time student placement into basic skills courses.
Key Findings from New Student Enrollment Trends (Data Findings Slide)Cohort, first-time student at LMC:Enrolled on our district for the first timeBetween the ages of 17 to 19NOT special admit (concurrent)Attempting 21 units or less but has completed zero units
In the Access perspective, we analyze demographic representation in your campuses service area, total institutional enrollment by race, ethnicity, gender, and full-time or part-time status, new student enrollment trends, and first-time student placement into basic skills courses. ADD Numbers
The Access Perspective (Foundation Slide) When looking at the Excellence and Completion perspective we analyze certificate and transfer attainment, GPAS of graduating and transferring students, and degree attainment in high occupational-demand fields. Through the completion and excellence perspective indicators, we are able to see not only the students who complete an outcome, but those who excel in the process.
Key Findings from Certificate and Transfer Attainment (Data Findings Slide)In this space provide a thorough description of the data findings shared on this side, as well as an overview of the evidence team’s discussions regarding the data.Equity Gaps: Who was completing these milestones
The Access Perspective (Foundation Slide) Retention is the third perspective in the Vital Signs. In this perspective practitioners examine term-to-term or year-to-year retention and cohort migration in Basic Skills. Migration for English 100 Migration for English 90
Key Findings from the Retention Perspectives (Data Findings Slide)The team focused on this as the intervention because these would be the students that should be most likely to succeed.
”Your Campus’s Name’s” Point of Intervention (Foundation Slide)In this space provide a thorough description of the data and discussion that led to your evidence team’s , as well as an overview of the evidence team’s discussions to decide upon this point of intervention.
”Your Campus’s Name’s” Point of Intervention (Foundation Slide)In this space provide a thorough description of the data and discussion that led to your evidence team’s , as well as an overview of the evidence team’s discussions to decide upon this point of intervention.
![Presentation Outline Goal: To provide an overview of IDEA Inquiry Team work ,[object Object]]()