STATE OF CALIFORNIA	BRICE W. HARRIS, CHANCELLOR
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office 1102 Q street Sacramento, Ca 95814-6511 (916) 445-8752 http://www.cccco.edu

DATE	March 11, 2014

To:	Student Equity Coordinators

Chief Student Services Officers

Chief Instructional Officers

Presidents/Superintendents and Chancellors

Institutional Researchers

Student Success and Support Program Coordinators

Basic Skills Coordinators

Academic Senate Presidents

From:	Linda Michalowski, Vice Chancellor

Student Services and Special Programs Division

Subject:	Updated Student Equity Plan

Introduction

The intent of the student equity planning process is for colleges to conduct a self-evaluation on their own improvement or lack thereof in improving successful outcomes for all students. This memorandum provides background on student equity planning in the California Community Colleges, instructions for completing the required college student equity plan, and a plan template to assist colleges in this task. It provides information on associated legislative and regulatory requirements, as well as guidelines and resources to assist colleges as they work to develop and/or update their plans.

Background

Legislation, Regulation and Board of Governors (BOG) Policy

The California Legislature in 1991 charged all segments of public education to provide educational equity “through environments in which each person ... has a reasonable chance to fully develop his or her potential” (Education Code §66010.2c). In keeping with these requirements, in 1992 the California Community Colleges (CCC) Board of Governors adopted a student equity policy to ensure that groups historically underrepresented in higher education have an equal opportunity for access, success, and transfer; enjoining all districts to develop, implement, and evaluate a student equity plan. In 1996, the BOG amended its policy to establish the adoption of a student equity plan as a minimum standard for receipt of state funding.

In November 2002 the BOG adopted the recommendations of the Task Force on Equity and Diversity to implement title 5 regulations requiring colleges to develop a Student Equity Plan. Regulations require that the plan must address increasing access, course completion, English as a Second Language (ESL) and basic skills completion, degrees, certificates and transfer for, at a minimum, the following student groups who may be disproportionately impacted by college practices, programs or services: American Indians or Alaskan natives, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, men, women, and persons with disabilities. The Chancellor’s Office first provided guidelines to the colleges for developing plans in June 2003. Colleges were subsequently asked to update and complete plans again in 2005. In response to State budget cuts that began in 2008-09 and continued through 2012-13, the legislature instituted categorical program flexibility that suspended many regulatory requirements related to student equity and other initiatives. In January 2011, in response to SB 1163 (Liu), the BOG embarked on a 12-month planning process to improve student success, creating the Student Success Task Force. The 20-member Task Force published recommendations in early 2012, many of which became part of the Student Success Act of 2012 (SB1456). Among many important changes in the Act, it reaffirmed the value of focusing on student equity in the effort to improve student success.

Although the BOG has made student equity planning a minimum standard for receipt of state funding since 1996 and has long recognized the importance of student equity, until the passage of the Student Success Act of 2012, student equity was not tied to any categorical program and did not receive formal funding through the legislative budget process. In January of 2014, in recognition and support of the importance of the need to identify and support equity and success for all students, the governor’s 2014-15 budget proposed to target $100 million of additional Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) funding to close achievement gaps in access and success in underrepresented student groups, as identified in local student equity plans. If the legislature approves the governor’s proposed budget in June of 2014, the Chancellor's Office will be charged with developing a process for allocating targeted funding to districts and colleges. As of February, 2014, the 2014 budget bill, SB 851 (Leon), specifies that the Chancellor’s Office shall allocate funds to districts “in a manner that ensures districts with a greater proportion or number of students who are high-need, as determined by the Chancellor’s Office, receive greater resources to provide services to these students.” If the proposed funding is approved in the final budget, colleges will be notified through a separate memo, notifying them of potential funding and asking for more detailed plans regarding how funding would be used to support improving equitable outcomes for all students.

Updates to Student Equity Planning

Since 2012, the Student Success Act has served as the impetus to review and update the student equity planning process. In December of 2012, the Chancellor’s Office convened a Student Equity Workgroup, made up of representatives of community college stakeholders across the state with members from the Academic Senate for the CCCs, Career Technical Education, Chief Executive Officers, Chief Instructional Officers, Chief Student Services Officers, Equity Coordinators, Researchers, and the Student Senate for the CCCs. The Workgroup was responsible for reviewing and updating the student equity planning process in light of the new student success legislation and title 5 regulations. SB 1456 requires colleges to coordinate the development of the Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) Plan with the Student Equity Plan to ensure that each college has identified strategies to address and monitor equity issues as well as attempt to mitigate any disproportionate impact on student access and achievement. Colleges were further required to coordinate interventions or services to students at risk of academic progress or probation (Title 5, §55100).

The Student Equity Workgroup discussed options for revising the planning process, including maintaining a separate student equity plan or integrating it into other campus-wide planning efforts. While the committee supported integrating it into other processes, it was determined that some changes to State title 5 regulations would be needed before that could be accomplished. For the short-term, the decision was made to update the current process, while the workgroup continues meet to develop long-term recommendations to further integrate the plan into other efforts. In the meantime, the Chancellor’s Office strongly recommends that where possible colleges integrate student equity planning into college and/or district accreditation, educational master planning, program review, and basic skills planning processes. Doing so, will help colleges adopt an institution-wide, holistic approach to planning, budgeting, and delivery of instruction and services to support equity in student access and success.

College Student Equity Plan: Instructions for Completion

This document provides general guidelines, section-by-section instructions for developing a Student Equity plan that is focused on increasing access, retention, course completion, and transfer rates for all students (Attachment). Each college will need to include specific goals/outcomes and action activities to address disparities that are discovered, ideally separating the indicators by student demographics in program review.

Timeline

The Student Equity Plan must be reviewed and adopted by local governing boards and submitted to the Chancellor’s Office by November 21, 2014. This deadline was chosen to allow colleges time to complete their Student Success and Support Program Plan.

Questions regarding the development of the Student Equity Plan should be directed to Debra Sheldon at dsheldon@cccco.edu or 916-322-2818.

Attachments:	A. Instructions for Completion

B. Planning Committee Crosswalk Guide

C. Guidelines for Measuring Disproportionate Impact in Equity Plans

D. Data Procedures

E. Sample Plan Template

ATTACHMENT A: INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF THE STUDENT EQUITY PLAN

Introduction

In order to promote student success for all students, the governing board of each community college district is required to adopt a student equity plan for each college in the district. At a minimum, the plan is required for American Indians or Alaskan natives, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, men, women, and persons with disabilities. (Title 5, §54220). The student equity plan contains student success indicators (metrics) as they relate to the Board of Governors policy on student equity implementation for each college. In addition, recent revisions to the California Education Code (Sec. 78216) resulting from passage of the Student Success Act (SB 1456) requires that college Student Success and Support Program plans be coordinated with college Student Equity plans. Plans for the 2014-15 academic year are due on November 21, 2014.

Composition of Student Equity Planning Committee

Each college should form a Student Equity Planning Committee responsible for planning, developing, implementing, and monitoring the plan. Each college must decide the size and composition of the committee based on its organization, culture and needs. However, committees should include an appropriate mix of administrators, faculty, classified staff and students representing academic affairs, student services, institutional research, the budget office, the academic senate, the associated student body and others involved with other institution-wide planning and evaluation. Since student equity is affected by the awareness, actions and assumptions of individuals in every part of the institution, it is important to include participants involved in institution-wide planning efforts such as accreditation, the educational master plan, the Student Success and Support Program plan, and the Basic Skills plan. If the college deems it appropriate, the Student Equity Committee could be a subcommittee of or otherwise highly coordinated with the committees developing those plans. Student equity planning should also be included in and linked to program review particularly as it relates to indicators that are disaggregated by student demographics.

General Guidelines

The plan should thoroughly describe the implementation of each student success indicator (metric) being addressed. Additionally, the plan should describe policies, activities and procedures as they relate to student equity at the college. The plans should describe the college’s student equity strategies to address the way students are affected by the various activities/programs implemented to provide equal opportunity for each student population group. Student Equity plans should be prepared with a minimum of a three-year timeframe in terms of planned activities and improvements. After submitting the updated plan, colleges will be asked to submit an annual year-end status report, which will be developed and distributed at a later date. Annual year-end status reports will be due in the Chancellor’s Office during the third week of May. The initial Student Equity plan is due in the Chancellor’s Office November 21, 2014.

Coordination with the Student Success and Support Program

Recent revisions to the California Education Code (Sec. 78216) resulting from passage of the Student Success Act (SB 1456) require that Student Success and Support Program plans be coordinated with college Student Equity plans to ensure that the college has identified strategies to monitor and address equity issues and attempt to mitigate any disproportionate impacts on student access and achievement. Therefore, Student Equity plans should clearly identify strategies and criteria associated with monitoring access and achievement. To the extent that data is available, in their research identifying disproportionate impact, colleges should research and report on the effect of the new SSSP requirements related to mandatory participation of new students in SSSP services and enrollment priority on student equity, disaggregating information by ethnicity and gender.

Student Equity Success Indicators

“Success indicators” or metrics are used to identify and measure areas for which various population groups may be impacted by issues of equal opportunity and disproportionate impact. In 2001, the Board of Governors identified the five student equity success indicators described in further detail below. Recently, the Chancellor's Office has implemented the Student Success Scorecard (formerly known as the Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges (ARCC) Scorecard), which provides disaggregated data by student demographics, as well as the DataMart, Data on Demand, and the Basic Skills Tracker. These tools provide colleges with a wealth of easily accessible data and resources to help them determine any disproportionate impact for ethnic subgroups in order to identify actions or strategies to address disparities in student equity. Local research may supplement the data available from the Chancellor's Office. See Section VI, Planning Resources and Research Guides for more information.

The success indicators are defined as follows:

A.	Access

The percentage of each population group that is enrolled compared to that group’s representation in the adult population within the community served. This percentage is frequently calculated as a participation rate.

The Chancellor’s Office Research Unit is attempting to develop a standardized, statewide methodology to define each district’s service area and its corresponding demographic makeup in order to calculate a district level participation rate. If a valid methodology is devised, the approach or results will be made available to colleges and districts in a separate memo. Each college, however, will continue to have the flexibility to define and interpret access based on its individual characteristics including service area, district boundaries, zip codes, US Census, demographics of feeder high schools, socioeconomic factors, and educational access and attainment. Service areas are generally a part of local education master planning processes and using the same definition of service area for the college education master plan and the student equity plan would lend consistency in defining access. Other options for defining access might include comparing the (a) ethnicity of students in feeder high schools in the service area to the ethnicity of incoming college students, (b) ethnicity of currently enrolled students broken down by community service areas to the ethnicity of those community service areas to reveal under-served populations, (c) ethnic breakdown of students who apply for and/or receive financial aid.

The percentage of each group compared to its representation within a community can also be expressed through a proportionality analysis. Proportionality compares the percentage of a subgroup in a cohort to its own percentage in a resultant outcome group. In terms of access, proportionality compares the percentage of a subgroup in a district’s service area to its percentage in the student population. The proportionality methodology is presented with examples in Attachment A.

B.	Course Completion (Retention)

The ratio of the number of credit courses that students, by population group, complete compared to the number of courses in which students in that group are enrolled on the census day of the term.

“Course Completion” means the successful completion of a credit course for which a student receives a recorded grade of A, B, C, or Credit.

Course completion data is available through the DataMart on the Chancellor’s Office website. (Please see Attachment A for more detail.) At the college level, course completion is part of program review which should be linked to student equity addressing program review recommendations.

Colleges should also report on the academic/progress probation and disqualification data of their students. The report should include the college’s organized effort in dealing with this matter to assist students in improving their academic/progress probation and disqualification rate/s.

C.	ESL and Basic Skills Completion

The ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a degree-applicable course after having completed the final ESL or basic skills course compared to the number of those students who complete such a final ESL or basic skills course.

Completion of a degree applicable course means the “successful” completion of English 1A, elementary algebra or any collegiate course which is transferable to a four-year institution, has a value of three or more units, and meets established academic requirements for rigor in literacy and numeracy.

The analysis of ESL data can be challenging because (a) many non-ESL students can be included in a cohort since a number of native English speakers often enroll in ESL courses, (b) ESL students do not necessarily intend to persist through ESL programs and may take college courses prior to completing the final ESL basic skills course, or may never complete the final ESL or basic skills course, (c) Non-Credit ESL courses are excluded from both the Scorecard and the Basic Skills Cohort Tracker Tool data.

Options for measuring course completion for ESL and Basic Skills include indicators taken from or related to the (a) ARCC Scorecard “Basic Skills Improvement for ESL” measure, (b) Basic Skills Cohort Tracker Tool, (c) Progress through sequence, (d) Completion of recognized milestones for ESL students, (e) appropriate progress on the student educational plan (SEP) through ESL into collegiate work, and (f) local college options. Although the Scorecard and the Basic Skills tracker offer a slightly different definition of cohorts, colleges could begin to tie efforts to these instruments available on the Chancellor’s Office website.

Colleges should report on the academic/progress probation and disqualification data of their students. The report should include the college’s organized effort in dealing with this matter to assist students in improving their academic/progress probation and disqualification rate/s.

D.	Degree and Certificate Completion

The ratio of the number of students by population group who receive a degree or certificate to the number of students in that group with the same informed matriculation goal as documented in the student educational plan developed with a counselor/advisor.

Colleges are encouraged to utilize data available through the Student Success Scorecard, DataMart and Data on Demand.

E.	Transfer

The ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a minimum of 12 units and have attempted a transfer level course in mathematics or English, to the number of students in that group who actually transfer after one or more (up to six) years.

Colleges are encouraged to use Student Success Scorecard data which includes the Student Progress and Achievement Rate (SPAR), and the Transfer Velocity project available on DataMart.

In addition to the above success indicators (metrics), local colleges have the flexibility to consider additional indicators such as capturing how many students are prepared by meeting the CSU GE Breadth or IGETC requirements, capturing AB540 students, completion of low unit certificates and other indicators which might be captured solely locally.

Planning Resources and Research Guides

Planning Committee Resources: Attachment B: Planning Committee Crosswalk Guide, is matrix organized by indicator designed to help planning committees with related Student Equity and SSSP title 5 regulations, recommended reports, data sources, and suggested questions or prompts to guide committees as they look at practices, programs and services in instructional area, student services, and the institution as a whole. These materials are intended to assist in the planning process, but colleges are free to use other materials if they choose. Attachment E is the Sample Plan Template to assist the committee in the actual writing and format of the plan.

Researcher Guides: The Chancellor's Office also recently published two resources to assist researchers in defining and identifying disproportionate impact related to student equity. The first is Ensuring Equitable Access and Success: A Guide to Assessing & Mitigating Disproportionate Impact in Student Success and Support Programs (Aug, 2013), was written by the Research and Planning Group and looks at measuring disproportionate impact in the delivery of SSSP Services. The second, Attachment C: The Guidelines for Measuring Disproportionate Impact in Equity Plans provides detailed suggestions and methodologies for college researchers for to assist them in defining and measuring disproportionate impact. Attachment D: Data Procedures provides researchers with detailed instructions for accessing related data from the Chancellor's Office Data on Demand site.

Section-by-Section Instructions

The plan is divided into seven sections:

Section A.	Cover/Table of Contents/Signature page

Section B.	Executive Summary

Section C.	Campus-Based Research

Section D.	Goals and Activities for each success indicator

Section E.	Budget (source of funding for activities)

Section F.	Evaluation Schedule and Process

Section G.	Attachments (Optional)

A.	Cover/Table of Contents/Signature Page

Signatures required include the student equity coordinator, who should also be designated as the contact person for student equity, the academic senate president, the vice president of student services, the vice president of instruction, and the college president.

Regulations require that each district’s governing board formally adopt each college’s Student Equity Plan. Districts must be sure that the plan can be presented and approved in time for it to be signed and sent to the Chancellor’s Office by the annual deadline.

B.	Executive Summary

Include an executive summary, which identifies the groups for whom goals have been set (title 5 §54220(a)(6)). The summary should also include the:

1.	Goals/Outcomes

2.	Activities/Actions the college will implement to achieve the goals

3.	Resources budgeted

4.	Contact person who is also the student equity coordinator

C.	Campus-Based Research

Conduct basic research to determine the extent of disparities in student equity in the five student success areas described in Section IV (title 5 §54220(a)(1)). This may include, but is not limited to, an assessment of success indicators, or other means of identifying areas in which all groups may or may not be best served through the college. Emphasis on campus-based research should be placed on effective strategies to address achievement gaps and/or mitigate disproportionate impact among the subpopulations of the California Community Colleges student groups.

Research should be used to (a) develop shared understandings of the meaning of the data, (b) develop action plans to mitigate the impact of disparities in student equity wherever possible, (c) integrate student equity into other institutional planning processes and program review, and (d) improve data collection and analysis relevant to the groups of students.

D.	Goals/Outcomes and Activities

Provide sufficient details to illustrate your college’s student equity goals and objectives. List action activities to ensure student equity outcomes whenever disparity is noted within any success indicator area for any student population group. Goals should include performance measures for determining progress toward achieving the desired outcomes. The measures should identify the baseline data finding/s from the basic research which forms the basis for noting an equity issue, as well as the amount of progress to be achieved. Establish target dates for achieving expected outcomes and list the staff person (position) involved in its completion (title 5 §54220(a)(2)). Describe implementation actions to activities identified to address student equity goals to include, but not limited to, existing student equity related programs on your campus (title 5 §54220(a)(3)).

Institutional goals/outcomes and activities/actions that will address disproportionate impact could be included as part of the Student Equity Plan. For example, the goal of a college and actions taken to become a Hispanic serving institution is congruent with the goals and desired outcomes of student equity. The goals/outcomes listed in this section should link to the budget and evaluation sections of these guidelines.

E.	Budget

List sources of funding for activities in the plan. Because an institution-wide response to student equity is appropriate, all institutional funds can be viewed as resources for student equity (title 5 §54220(a)(4)). The budget should link to the goals and the evaluation sections of these guidelines. If separate Student Equity funding becomes available, colleges will be notified at a later date.

F.	Evaluation Schedule and Process

Indicate the schedule and process for evaluating progress in implementing the goals identified in the plan (title 5 §54220(a)(5)). The evaluation should link to the goals and budget sections of these guidelines. The evaluation process should also link to the college program review process. The process needs to ensure how to address compliance issues, and mitigate disproportionate impact where found.

G.	Attachments (Optional)

You may submit any documents, handbooks, manuals or similar materials that your district/college has developed as appendices to your plan. These materials will be made available to other colleges.

Additional Information

Questions regarding the development of the college Student Equity Plan should be directed to:

Debra Sheldon, Ed.D.

Specialist, Student Success and Support Program

California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

(916)-322-2818; dsheldon@cccco.edu

General Information and Institutional Requirements: The following crosswalk of Student Equity indicators, potential data sources, title 5 citations, and institution-wide, instructional and/or student services-related prompts is intended as an aid to student equity planning committees. The prompts are intended to stimulate conversation and investigation into areas where disproportionate impact may be affecting student success. The Chancellor’s Office does not intend that every college address each prompt or that the list is in any way comprehensive. Committees should feel free to add to or change research prompts or questions as appropriate.

Potential Data Sources	Student Equity and SSSP Related Title 5 Sections	Institution-Wide Prompts	Instructional Prompts	Student Services Prompts
Student Success Scorecard DataMart Data on Demand Basic Skills Tracker Transfer Velocity Project CCCGIS Collaborative: California Community College District Boundaries Map Student Success Task Force Recommendations Student Equity: From Dialog and Access to Action Student Support (Re)defined Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges Ensuring Equitable Access And Success: A Guide To Assessment And Mitigating Disproportionate Impact In SSSP Guidelines for Measuring Disproportionate Impact in Equity Plans	G-1: Each district governing board shall adopt and maintain a student equity plan for each college to include research, goals, activities, fund sources, evaluation schedule, and executive summary addressing access, course completion, ESL and basic skills completion, degree and certificate completion and transfer for: American Indians or Alaskan natives, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, men, women, and persons with disabilities. (54220 and 51026) G-2: “Disproportionate impact” is a condition where access to key resources and support or academic success may be hampered by inequitable practices, policies and approaches to student support or instructional practices affecting a specific group. (55502) G-3: Each district or college shall establish a program of institutional research for the ongoing evaluation of the services funded through SSSP and use the results as basis for continuous improvement. (55512) G-4: Student success is supported by well-coordinated and evidence-based student and instructional services to foster academic success. (55500) G-5: Describe the process to identify students at risk for academic and progress probation and the college’s plan for referral to appropriate intervention services and coordination with the college’s Student Equity Plan. (55510)	Is there recognition among campus leadership that student equity is important? What organization(s), or committee(s) is responsible for ongoing planning and monitoring of student equity? What are the institution’s strengths in addressing student equity? What are related questions posed in the Student Support (Re)defined study that support student equity and success at the college? Does the college have structures and processes in place to engage faculty, administrators, and staff in an ongoing and intentional examination of student equity? Does it provide a cycle for improvement? Should the college examine equity issues institution-wide or take a targeted approach, such as in a particular major, or department? What are the priority areas and or indicators to address? What are campus policies and practices in this/these chosen focus area(s)? If the college is designated as a Hispanic-Serving Institution does it promote that fact on its web site and in other student centered communications? Does the college publicly promote programs and support for African American, Hispanic, Disabled or other targeted groups?	How can curricular and instructional design, assessment, & evaluation pro-cesses be modified to improve student equity? How can tenets from the Basic Skills as a Foundation for Student Success in California Community Colleges report be used to support equity? What resources can be allocated to develop systemic & institutional capacity for the analysis and inquiry of teaching and curriculum? What professional development is available to college faculty, staff and administrators to help increase awareness of and effect changes in practices that support equity?	Which questions posed in the report, Ensuring Equitable Access And Success: A Guide To Assessment And Mitigating Disproportionate Impact In SSSP could guide us in improving student equity? What resources can be allocated to develop systemic and institutional capacity for the analysis and inquiry of student support services?

Student Equity Plan Indicators	Potential Data Sources	Title 5 Sections	Instructional Prompts	Student Services Prompts
Access The percentage of each population group that is enrolled compared to that group’s representation in the adult population within the community served. This is frequently calculated as a participation rate.	Scorecard – COLLEGE PROFILE: Description of the student population and course sections offered in 2011-12. US Census data CCCGIS Collaborative: California Community College District Boundaries Map	A-1: Increase California community college student access and success through the provision of core matriculation services. (55000) A-2: Ensure that Assessment/ Placement services do not have disproportionate impact. (55522) A-3: Ensure assessment test processes do not exclude any otherwise eligible person from admission. (55522) A-4: SSSP services for students who are disadvantaged by economic, social and educational status shall be appropriate to their needs, and colleges shall make modifications as necessary. (55526)	Assessment Have instructional faculty facilitated discussions with non-instructional faculty about multiple measures; expanding the use and informing students about such measures? Outreach Is there sufficient outreach to faith based and community leaders of student groups that are not accessing or persisting in college coursework? Is there sufficient outreach to connect students to CTE programs? Scheduling Are key courses offered at times and in formats that fit the needs of target student groups? Are there sufficient numbers of sections offered each term? Alignment Is there an appropriate bridge linking regional Adult Education offerings such as GED completion and primary/secondary basic skills to credit course offerings? Are certain student groups represented at disproportionately high rates in basic skills English, math, reading or ESL?	Admissions: Are certain student groups more likely to register for classes after the start of the term? Are specific student groups more likely to apply for admission after the application deadline? Priority Enrollment Are all student ethnic/gender groups equally likely to receive priority enrollment? What actions can be taken to improve equity in priority enrollment? Which groups need targeted outreach and/or attention? Orientation Among students who receive orientation, is any student group less likely to enroll in the subsequent or concurrent term than the reference group? Assessment Among students who receive assessment services, is there any group of student more likely to experience disproportionate impact in placement into basic skills? Do assessment test processes exclude any otherwise eligible person from admission? Ed Planning & Counseling: Are all student groups equally like to receive an abbreviated education plan in a timely manner? Comprehensive education plan for their intended major? How early during their enrollment? What advising resources are available to students, and are students taking advantage of them? Do all student groups access counseling at similar rates? If not, what can be done to improve access to counseling? Are certain counseling services or hours more essential to the success of certain groups more than others? Accommodations: Are accommodations for disadvantaged students being adequately provided so that students can receive SSSP services when they need them?

Student Equity Plan Indicators	Potential Data Sources	Title 5 Sections	Instructional Prompts	Student Services Prompts
Course Completion The ratio of the number of credit courses that students, by population group, complete compared to the number of courses in which students in that group are enrolled on the census day of the term.	“Course completion” data as defined and available on CCCCO DataMart Scorecard - PERSISTENCE: Percentage of degree and/or transfer-seeking students tracked for six years through 2011-12 who enrolled in the first three consecutive terms. Scorecard - 30 UNITS: Percentage of degree and/or transfer seeking students tracked for six years through 2011-12 who achieved at least 30 units. Institutional probation data	B-1: Conduct research into any dispropor-tionate impact of prerequisites or co-requisites and if discovered, develop and implement a plan to correct it. (55003) B-2: Ensure all nonexempt students participate in counseling, advising or other education planning services to assist them in establishing goals and a course of study. (55523) B-3: Help students develop compre-hensive education plans to meet student needs and interests that also satisfy program requirements for EOPS, DSPS, CalWORKs, Veterans, Athletes, etc. and avoid duplicate plans. (55524) B-4: Evaluate academic progress of, and provide support services to, at risk students. (55525) B-5: Monitor academic progress to detect early signs of academic difficulty and provide specialized services and curricular offerings. (55525) B-6: Notify students who are at risk of losing Board of Governors Fee Waiver (BOGFW) eligibility due to probation for two consecutive terms. (55523) Provide appropriate counseling, advising or other education planning services to BOGFW students who are at risk of losing eligibility due to probation. (58621) B-7: Notify students who are at risk of losing enrollment priority due to being placed on academic or progress probation or due to exceeding a unit limit. (58108)	Prerequisites Does the student population enrolling in the target course differ significantly pre- and post-prerequisite? Which student groups are successfully completing the proposed prerequisite and target course? Coordination Does the college have a student success committee or other governance structure to allow for instructional and counseling faculty engagement regarding instructional activities that contribute to student success? How are instruction and student success tied to institutional effectiveness measures? How are they established and through what venue? How do they connect to instruction and student services? Course and Program Alignment Are courses offered in the appropriate sequence? Does the scorecard or other CCCCO data indicate any change in the number of students moving from under prepared to prepared? Scheduling and Credit Accumulation Are there sufficient course offerings to ensure students have a bridge from basic skills to degree-applicable and/or transfer level courses? Are courses scheduled during hours and days that meet student need and promote student success? Are all student groups accumulating credits at an appropriate rate? If not, at which milestones are students being lost? Which groups are being lost at a disproportionate rate? What can be done to improve rates for those groups? Instructional Methods Does faculty employ a variety of instructional methods to accommodate student diversity? Follow-up Are instructional support services provided (supplemental instruction, learning communities, embedded counseling & tutoring). Are these services increasing completion rates? Are faculty making use of early alert and other alert processes to make appropriate referrals to tutoring and other support services?	Prerequisites Which student groups are enrolling in the proposed prerequisite and target course? Among students who meet the prerequisite skill level, are certain student groups less likely to succeed in the course? Ed Planning & Counseling See prompts under A. Access Follow-up and Probation Are certain student groups more likely to end up on academic and/or progress probation at a disproportion-ate rate? Why? What actions can be taken to improve the likelihood that they do not?

Student Equity Plan Indicators	Potential Data Sources	Title 5 Sections	Instructional Prompts	Student Services Prompts
ESL and Basic Skills Completion The ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a degree-applicable course after having completed the final ESL or basic skills course compared to the number of those students who complete such a final course.	CCCCO Basic Skills Cohort Tracker Tool: Progress through sequence and completion of recognized milestones for ESL students Scorecard - REMEDIAL: Percentage of credit students tracked for six years through 2011-12 who started below transfer level in English, mathematics, and/or ESL and completed a college-level course in the same discipline. Institutional probation data	C-1: Provide follow-up services to evaluate the academic progress of, and provide support services to at risk students. (55520; 55525) C-2: Provide targeted follow-up services for at risk students and students enrolled in basic skills courses. (55525) C-3: Monitor academic progress to detect early signs of academic difficulty and provide specialized services or curricular offerings. (55525) C-4: Provide accommodations for students disadvantaged by economic, social, and educational status. (55526) C-5: Ensure SSSP services are accessible for English language learners and appropriate to their needs, including modified or alternative services for students enrolled in ESL programs. (55526) C-6: Provide appropriate counseling, advising or other education planning services to BOGFW students who are at risk of losing eligibility due to probation. (58621)	Coordination Is developmental education a clearly stated institutional priority? Scheduling and Credit Accumulation Are sufficient sections of basic skills English, Math and ESL offered to accommodate student need? Which courses are in greater demand than supply, that are negatively and disproportionately affecting target student groups? Are courses scheduled during hours and days that meet student need and promote student success? Are student groups progressing through and succeeding in remedial math and English, at the same rates? If not, which groups are progressing at lower rates? Which group is the most essential to focus attention on? What can be done to improve their success rates? Are ESL students less likely to realize their educational goals? Instructional Methods Does developmental faculty employ a variety of instructional methods to accommodate student diversity? Follow-up Are specialized instructional support services provided (e.g.: supplemental instruction, learning communities, embedded counseling and tutoring). Are these services increasing completion and success rates? Does the faculty recognize their importance in providing timely feedback to students’ progress so that students may mitigate barriers to their success in the course? Is faculty making use of early alert and other academic alert processes to make appropriate referrals to tutoring and other support services? ● Are faculty informed that students can be at risk of losing BOGW eligibility?	Prerequisites Same as in B. Assessment Are certain groups of students who place into basic skills courses less likely to be retained in the subsequent term at the college? Among students who place into basic skills English, reading, math and ESL courses, is any group disproportionately less likely to enroll in and complete the next course in the sequence? Among students who place into basic skills English, math or reading, are certain student groups disproportionately less likely to progress to transfer-level English or math? What strategies and approaches have colleges successfully implemented to mitigate disproportionate impact in the assessment and placement process? Follow-up and Probation Same as in B.

Student Equity Plan Indicators	Potential Data Sources	Title 5 Sections	Instructional Prompts	Student Services Prompts
Degree and Certificate Completion The ratio of the number of students by population group who receive a degree or certificate to the number of students in that group with the same informed matriculation goal as documented in the student educational plan developed with a counselor/ advisor.	COMPLETION: Percentage of degree and/or transfer-seeking students tracked for six years through 2011-12 who completed a degree, certificate or transfer-related outcomes. CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION: Percentage of students tracked for six years through 2011-12 who completed several courses classified as career technical education (or vocational) in a single discipline and completed a degree, certificate or transferred. Institutional probation data	D-1: Ensure all nonexempt students participate in counseling, advising or other education planning services to assist them in the process of selecting an educational goal and course of study. (55523) D-2: Follow-up with students who have not identified an education goal and course of study and students who are on probation or facing dismissal. (55525) D-3: Once the student has identified a course of student and completed 15 semester or 22 quarter units of degree applicable coursework, provide the student the opportunity to develop a comprehensive education plan within a reasonable amount of time. (55531)	Success and Achievement Gaps Are all student groups achieving degrees and certificates in similar ratios? If not, which groups are not? Which groups are the most important for the college to focus on? Scheduling and Credit Accumulation Does the college’s enrollment management ensure sufficient offerings for a student to complete a degree or certificate in a reasonable amount of time? At which point in the credit accumulation process is the college most likely to have an impact in improving the number of students who achieve degrees or certificates from targeted groups. Instructional Methods and Curriculum What instructional strategies or curricular redesign can be undertaken to improve success for the targeted group?	Ed Planning & Counseling Is any student group disproportionately less likely to access counseling/advising services in a timely manner? Are students who receive counseling/advising services more likely to be retained than students who do not receive services? Are students who receive educational planning services more likely to succeed in their classes? Follow Up and Probation Are certain groups of students less likely to be identified by early alert programs? Are certain groups of students more likely to be placed on academic probation? Are students who receive follow-up services more likely to be retained in the subsequent semester than students who do not receive follow-up services? Are certain groups of students more likely to respond to an early alert by accessing services?

Student Equity Plan Indicators	Potential Data Sources	Title 5 Sections	Instructional Prompts	Student Services Prompts
Transfer The ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a minimum of 12 units and have attempted a transfer level course in mathematics or English, to the number of students in that group who actually transfer after one or more (up to six) years.	CCCCO Transfer Velocity project data available on DataMart Scorecard - COMPLETION: Percentage of degree and/or transfer-seeking students tracked for six years through 2012-13 who completed a degree, certificate or transfer related outcomes. Institutional probation data	E-1: Ensure all nonexempt students participate in counseling, advising or other education planning services to assist them in establishing goals and a course of study. (55523) E-2: Once the student has identified a course of study and completed 15 semester or 22 quarter units of degree applicable coursework, provide the student the opportunity to develop a comprehensive education plan within a reasonable amount of time. (55531)	Scheduling and Credit Accumulation Does the college’s enrollment management ensure sufficient offerings for a student to transfer in a reasonable amount of time? At which point in the credit accumulation process is the college most likely to have an impact in improving the number of students who transfer from targeted groups? Instructional Methods and Curriculum What instructional strategies or curricular redesign can be undertaken to improve transfer for the targeted group? Course and Program Alignment Has the college initiated the required number of AA/AS – Transfer (AAT/AST) degree pathways? Have instructional faculty discussed the role of local degrees that are the same as the AAT/ASTs? Have instructional faculty engaged with faculty at receiving 4-year universities to assess whether their students are transfer-prepared? Has any plan or pipeline been established or explored? Success and Achievement Gaps Are all student groups transferring in similar ratios? Are all student groups completing transfer degree pathways in similar ratios? If not, which groups are not? Which groups are the most important for the college to focus on?	Ed Planning & Counseling Same as in D. Have counselors been included in the development and dissemination of AA/AS Transfer degree pathways? Follow Up and Probation Same as in D.

ATTACHMENT C: GUIDELINES FOR MEASURING DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT IN EQUITY PLANS

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This document presents two methodologies to measure disproportional impact for disaggregated subgroups within the California Community Colleges (CCC) student population. The two methodologies will be demonstrated using cohorts and outcomes from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) Scorecard and DataMart.

Disproportionate impact occurs when “the percentage of persons from a particular racial, ethnic, gender, age or disability group who are directed to a particular service or placement based on an assessment instrument, method, or procedure is significantly different from the representation of that group in the population of persons being assessed, and that discrepancy is not justified by empirical evidence demonstrating that the assessment instrument, method or procedure is a valid and reliable predictor of performance in the relevant educational setting.” [Title 5 Section 55502(d)]

Colleges are directed to establish a program of institutional research for ongoing evaluation of its matriculation process to ensure compliance. Title 5 states that: “ As part of this evaluation, all assessment instruments, methods or procedures shall be evaluated to ensure that they minimize or eliminate cultural or linguistic bias and are being used in a valid manner. Based on this evaluation, districts shall determine whether any assessment instrument, method or procedure has a disproportionate impact on particular groups of students described in terms of ethnicity, gender, age or disability, as defined by the Chancellor. When there is a disproportionate impact on any such group of students, the district shall, in consultation with the Chancellor, develop and implement a plan setting forth the steps the district will take to correct the disproportionate impact.” [Title 5 Section 55512(a)]

The California Community Colleges Student Success Task Force “recommends that system-wide accountability efforts be updated to include the collecting and reporting of both the outcomes and the progression measures for the system, and for each college. These measures will be disaggregated by race/ethnicity to aid the system in understanding how well it is performing in educating those historically disadvantaged populations whose educational success is vital to the future of the state.” (California Community Colleges Student Success Task Force, 2012, p. 7)

The Board of Governors established Title 5 regulations [Section 54220] directing districts to develop a student equity plan and submit it to the Chancellor’s Office. The legislation states that:

In order to promote student success for all students, regardless of race, gender, age, disability, or economic circumstances, the governing board of each community college district shall maintain a student equity plan which includes for each college in the district.

(d) For the purposes of this section, "each population group of students" means American Indians or Alaskan natives, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, men, women, and persons with disabilities.

METHODOLOGY

There are five success indicators outlined in the CCCCO Equity Plan with which to assess disproportionate impact:

Access;

Course completion;

ESL and Basic Skills Completion;

Degree and Certificate Completion; and

Transfer.

To assess equity, analyses should use one or more of the following five disaggregated subgroups:

Gender ;

Ethnicity;

Age;

Disability status; and

Economically disadvantaged.

Two methodologies to measure disproportionate impact – proportionality and the “80-Percent Rule” – will be demonstrated with one of the success indicators: transfer rate. Both methodologies compare a disaggregated subgroup’s presence in a cohort to its corresponding presence in its related outcome group.

Data for analyses are available from two sources: The CCCCO Data Mart and Data On Demand. The Data Mart is fully available to the public and provides information about students, courses, student services, outcomes and faculty and staff. The purpose of the Data Mart is to answer the questions of administrators, educators, parents, students, state leaders, and professional organizations. Data On Demand provides data sets for researchers at the colleges and is password-protected. Specific steps to access data from the Data Mart and Data On Demand are contained in the Attachment C.

Table One lists the success metrics available in the two data sources as well as the disaggregated subgroups associated with each metric. Six of the nine success indicators detailed below are contained in the CCCCO Scorecard. The Scorecard is the latest version of the Accountability Reporting for the Community Colleges (ARCC), the annual report produced by the California Community Colleges Chancellor's office to meet the requirements of Assembly Bill 1417. This performance measurement system contains a set of success indicators for the system and its colleges. Scorecard success indicators (Table One) include ESL, Remedial English, Remedial Math, 30-Units, Persistence, and Completion (SPAR). The remaining three success indicators – Access, Course Completion, and Transfer – are system-wide indicators available from the Data Mart.

Table 1. Data Sources for the Success Indicators That Measure Disproportionate Impact by Disaggregated Subgroups
Success Indicators	Gender	Ethnicity	Age Group	Disability	Economically
Status	Disadvantaged
DM	DOD	DM	DOD	DM	DOD	DM	DOD	DM	DOD
Access (Under Development)
Course Completion
ESL and Basic Skills Completion
ESL
Remedial English
Remedial Math
Degree and Certificate Completion
30-Units
Persistence
Completion (SPAR)
Transfer
DM = Data Mart DOD = Data On Demand

For both methodologies two data sets with counts are required:

A disaggregated count of students in an initial cohort; and

A disaggregated count of students from the initial cohort attaining an educational outcome.

A cohort is a group of people who share a common characteristic or experience within a defined period. For example, the initial cohort for the Completion indicator is defined as: first-time students with a minimum of 6 units of credit who attempted any Math or English in their first three years of attendance. Some of the students in this initial cohort attained the Completion outcome by achieving one or more of the following: 1) earning an associate’s degree, 2) transferring to a four-year institution, or 3) becoming transfer-prepared (successfully completed 60 UC/CSU transferable units with a GPA >= 2.0). These students are included in the group who attained the educational outcome.

Methodology #1: Proportionality Index.

The proportionality methodology compares the percentage of a disaggregated subgroup in an initial cohort to its own percentage in the resultant outcome group. The formula for proportionality is the percentage in the outcome group divided by the percentage in the original cohort (outcome percentage/cohort percentage). A ratio of 1.0 indicates that a subgroup is present in both conditions at the same rate. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is less prevalent in the outcome than the cohort. Conversely, a ratio greater than 1.0 indicates that the subgroup is more prevalent in the outcome than the cohort. The higher the proportionality, the higher the rate at which a subgroup has attained a desired educational outcome; the lower the proportionality index the lower the attainment rate.

Proportionality Index	Interpretation
1.0	Proportions of subgroups are equal.
Less Than 1.0	Subgroup is less prevalent in the outcome group.
More Than 1.0	Subgroup is more prevalent in the outcome group.

The proportionality methodology does not specify at which point a proportionality index should be considered as a “disproportionate impact.” The designation of which disaggregated subgroups should be considered as disproportionately impacted will rely on the judgment of the analysis team based on local conditions.

Methodology #2: 80 Percent Index.

The “80% Rule” methodology compares the percentage of each disaggregated subgroup attaining an outcome to the percentage attained by a reference subgroup. The methodology is based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 80% Rule, outlined in the 1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, and was use in Title VII enforcement by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission, Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice.

The 80% Rule states that: “A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact.” [Section 60-3, Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedure (1978); 43 FR 38295(August 25, 1978)] Any disaggregated group that is included in a desired outcome at less than 80% when compared to a reference group is considered to have suffered an adverse – or disproportionate - impact.

Using this methodology, the percentage of each disaggregated subgroup attaining the desired outcome is calculated by dividing the outcome frequency into the cohort frequency. The second step of this methodology compares the completion rate of each non-reference disaggregated subgroup to the completion rate of a reference subgroup. The subgroup with the highest completion rate is typically chosen as the reference group. The 80 Percent Index is calculated by dividing the completion rate of a non-reference subgroup into the completion rate of the reference subgroup. A result of less than 80 percent is considered evidence of a disproportionate impact.

The advantage of the 80% Rule methodology is that it provides an historical cutoff point – 80 percent – with which to define disproportionate impact. The disadvantage is that it is not always clear that the highest performing group should be chosen as the reference group. There may be other factors – such as subgroup size – that need to be considered.

Examining Disproportionate Impact for Disaggregated Subgroups Using the Transfer Rate.

Gender. This section compares the statewide transfer rate between female and male students. Table Two presents the counts and percentages of the initial student cohort and those obtaining transfer, disaggregated by gender.

Table 2. Cohort and Completion Counts and Percentages of the Transfer Rate by Gender
Gender	Cohort	Cohort	Completion	Completion
Count	Percentage	Count	Percentage
Female	74,032	0.538	29,889	0.536
Male	62,247	0.453	25,306	0.454
Unknown	1,231	0.009	540	0.010
Total	137,510	1.000	55,735	1.000

Table Three presents the results of a proportionality analysis. The results indicate there is no disparity between female and male students in terms of obtaining transfer. The figures in the “Proportionality Index” column are calculated by dividing the completion percentage into the cohort percentage. For example, for the female subgroup, the formula is 0.536/0.538 = 0.996; indicating no disproportionate impact.

Table 3. Proportionality Index of the Transfer Rates by Gender
Gender	Cohort	Completion	Proportionality
Percentage	Percentage	Index
Female	0.538	0.536	0.996
Male	0.453	0.454	1.003
Unknown	0.009	0.010	1.082

The results from the 80-Percent methodology are presented in Table Four. The percentages in the “Completion Rate” column are calculated by dividing the “Completion Count” figure into the “Cohort Count” figure. For the Female subgroup, the formula is 29,889/74,032 = 0.40. The completion rate percentages are calculated in this manner for all subgroups.

In the second portion of the 80-Percent calculation, the completion rate percentages of the subgroups are compared. The subgroup with the highest completion rate is designated as the reference group and all other subgroup completion rates are compared against it. In this instance, the “Unknown” gender subgroup is the reference group. The completion percentages of the other subgroups are divided into the reference group completion rate. For example, the “Female” subgroup completion rate percentage is divided in the “Unknown” subgroup completion rate to obtain the 80-Percent Index: 0.40/0.44 =0.920.

The index of 0.920 is above the 0.80 cutoff, therefore there is no disproportionate impact in evidence.

The reference group for the 80 Percent Index was the “Unknown” subgroup since they had the highest completion rate (Table Four). The other two subgroups – “Female” and “Male” – had indices of 0.920 and .927, respectively. Since neither figure is below 0.80 there is no disparity reflected in this subgroup.

Table 4. Transfer Rates and 80 Percent Index by Gender
Gender	Cohort	Completion	Completion	80-Percent
Count	Count	Rate	Index
Female	74,032	29,889	0.40	0.909
Male	62,247	25,306	0.41	0.932
Unknown	1,231	540	0.44	1.000

All of the following subgroup indices are calculated using the same procedures.

Ethnicity. This section compares the transfer rates among student ethnic subgroups. Table Five presents the counts and percentages of the initial student cohort and those obtaining transfer, disaggregated by ethnicity.

Table 5. Transfer Cohort and Completion by Ethnicity
Ethnicity	Cohort	Cohort	Completion	Completion
Count	Percentage	Count	Percentage
African-American	8,060	0.059	2,817	0.051
American Indian/Alaskan Native	1,125	0.008	312	0.006
Asian	24,069	0.175	12,451	0.223
Hispanic	39,821	0.290	12,503	0.224
Pacific Islander	1,234	0.009	426	0.008
Unknown	12,658	0.092	5,434	0.097
White Non-Hispanic	50,543	0.368	21,792	0.391
Total	137,510	1.001	55,735	1.000

There is significant disproportionality in transfer rate among ethnic subgroups (Table Six). Three subgroups transferred at higher rates: Asian, Unknown, and White. Conversely, the African-American, Pacific Islander, and especially the American Indian/Alaskan Native subgroups transferred at lower rates.

Table 6. Transfer Ethnic Percentages and Proportionality By Ethnicitya
Ethnicity	Enrolled Percentage	Transfer Percentage	Proportionality Index
African-American	0.059	0.051	0.862
American Indian/Alaskan Native	0.008	0.006	0.684
Asian	0.175	0.223	1.276
Hispanic	0.290	0.224	0.775
Pacific Islander	0.009	0.008	0.852
Unknown	0.092	0.097	1.059
White	0.368	0.391	1.064

The 80-percent calculation produces similar results. With the Asian subgroup used as the reference group, there were four subgroups with disproportionate impact – African-American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander.

Table 7. Transfer Rates By Ethnicity and 80 Percent Calculationa
Ethnicity	Enrollment Count	Transfer Count	Transfer Rate	80 Percent Index
African-American	8,060	2,817	0.350	0.676
American Indian/Alaskan Native	1,125	312	0.277	0.536
Asian	24,069	12,451	0.517	1.000
Hispanic	39,821	12,503	0.314	0.607
Pacific Islander	1,234	426	0.345	0.667
Unknown	12,658	5,434	0.429	0.830
White Non-Hispanic	50,543	21,792	0.431	0.833

Age. This section compares the transfer rates among student age subgroups. Table Eight presents the counts and percentages of the initial student cohort and those obtaining transfer, disaggregated by age group.

Table 8. Transfer Cohort and Completion by Age Group
Age Group	Cohort	Cohort	Transfer	Transfer
Count	Percentage	Count	Percentage
17 or Less	42,188	0.3068	20,352	0.3652
18 & 19	75,184	0.5468	29,941	0.5372
20 to 24	10,264	0.0746	3,344	0.0600
25 to 29	3,356	0.0244	844	0.0151
30 to 34	1,768	0.0129	364	0.0065
35 to 39	1,655	0.0120	337	0.0060
40 to 49	2,235	0.0163	407	0.0073
50 +	802	0.0058	126	0.0023
Unknown	58	0.0004	20	0.0004
Total	137,510	1.000	55,735	1.000

There is a clear relation between age and transfer rate; the lower the age the higher the transfer rate. Table Nine shows that the students aged 17 or less transferred at the highest rate. The rate of transfer decreases consistently with increasing age.

Table 9. Transfer Percentages and Proportionality Index By Age Group
Age Group	Cohort	Completion	Proportionality
Percentage	Percentage	Index
17 or Less	0.3068	0.3652	1.190
18 & 19	0.5468	0.5372	0.983
20 to 24	0.0746	0.0600	0.804
25 to 29	0.0244	0.0151	0.620
30 to 34	0.0129	0.0065	0.508
35 to 39	0.0120	0.0060	0.502
40 to 49	0.0163	0.0073	0.449
50 +	0.0058	0.0023	0.388
Unknown	0.0004	0.0004	0.851

The 80-percent calculation (Table 10) shows all age groups from “20 to 24” and up as having a disproportionate impact. The “18 and 19” age group transfer rate was lower but remained above the 80 percent cutoff.

Table 10. Transfer Rates and 80 Percent Index by Age Group
Age Group	Cohort	Completion	Completion	80 Percent
Count	Count	Rate	Index
17 or Less	42,188	20,352	0.48	1.000
18 and 19	75,184	29,941	0.40	0.826
20 to 24	10,264	3,344	0.33	0.675
25 to 29	3,356	844	0.25	0.521
30 to 34	1,768	364	0.21	0.427
35 to 39	1,655	337	0.20	0.422
40 to 49	2,235	407	0.18	0.377
50 +	802	126	0.16	0.326
Unknown	58	20	0.34	0.715

Disability Status. This section compares the transfer rates among student disability status subgroups. Table 11 presents the counts and percentages of the initial student cohort and those obtaining transfer, disaggregated by disability status.

Table 11. Transfer Cohort and Completion by Disability Status
Disability	Cohort	Cohort	Completion	Completion
Status	Count	Percentage	Count	Percentage
No	131,551	0.957	54,056	0.970
Yes	5,959	0.043	1,679	0.030
Total	137,510	1.000	55,735	1.000

Students with a disability were at a clear disadvantage regarding their transfer rates (Table 12) with a proportionality index of 0.695.

Table 12. Transfer Percentages and Proportionality Index By Disability Status
Disability	Cohort	Completion	Proportionality
Status	Percentage	Percentage	Index
No	0.957	0.970	1.014
Yes	0.043	0.030	0.695

Similarly, the disabled student subgroup was below the cutoff point in the 80-percent calculation (Table 13).

Table 13. Transfer Rates and 80 Percent Index by Disability Status
Disability	Cohort	Completion	Completion	80 Percent
Status	Count	Count	Rate	Index
No	131,551	54,056	0.41	1.000
Yes	5,959	1,679	0.28	0.686

Economically Disadvantaged. This section compares the transfer rates among student economic status subgroups. Table Two presents the counts and percentages of the initial student cohort and those obtaining transfer, disaggregated by economic status. The economically disadvantaged subgroup was defined on Data Mart as those students receiving CalWORKs services.

In Data on Demand, students are identified as “economically disadvantaged” if they meet any of the following criteria:

A recipient of a Board Of Governors Waiver;

A client of the California Department of Social Services;

A recipient of CalWorks, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental Security Income, or General Assistance;

A recipient of a Pell grant, or;

A participant in the Workforce Investment Act.

Table 14. Transfer Cohort and Completion by CalWORKs Recipient
CalWORKS	Cohort	Cohort	Completion	Completion
Recipient	Count	Percentage	Count	Percentage
No	135,411	0.985	55,330	0.993
Yes	2,099	0.015	405	0.007
Total	137,510	1.000	55,735	1.000

Table 15 shows that students enrolled in CalWORKS attained transfer at a much lower rate than students not enrolled in CalWORKS.

Table 15. Transfer Completion Percentages and Proportionality Index By CalWORKS Recipient
CalWORKS	Cohort	Completion	Proportionality
Recipient	Percentage	Percentage	Index
No	0.985	0.993	1.008
Yes	0.015	0.007	0.476

The students enrolled in CalWORKs had an 80-percent index that was well below the cutoff, indicating marked disproportionality.

Table 16. Transfer Completion Rates and 80 Percent Index by CalWORKS Recipient
CalWORKS	Cohort	Completion	Completion	80 Percent
Recipient	Count	Count	Rate	Index
No	135,411	55,330	0.41	1.000
Yes	2,099	405	0.19	0.472

REFERENCES

California Community Colleges Student Support Task Force (2012). Advancing student success in the California Community Colleges: Recommendations of the California Community Colleges Student Success Task Force.

Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978); 43 FR 38295, (August 25,1978); 29 CFR Part 1607.

ATTACHMENT D: DATA PROCEDURES

Access (Enrollment)

Course Completion

Access the CCCCO Data Mart.

Under the “Outcomes” heading, click on “Enrollment Retention and Success Rate.”

From the “Select State-District-College” drop down list, select “Districtwide Search.”

From the “Select District-College” drop down list, select your district.

From the “Select Term” drop down list, select a term. Often, the most recent fall term is selected as a representative term.

From the “Select Program Type drop down list, select “All TOP Codes.”

From the “Select Instruction Method” drop down list, select “All.”

Click the “View Report” button.

Under the “Report Format Selection Area” heading toward the bottom of the web page, select the “Course Status” most applicable to your analysis. It is recommended that you select only one type of course status to simplify the subsequent processing. You may select one or more of the course statuses and report them separately or combine them into one cohort.

Also under the “Report Format Selection Area” heading, check the “Gender” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Click the “Update Report” button to the lower right of the web page.

Once the report is completed, select the “Excel” radio button and click the “Export To” button.

Open the Excel file when completed to examine, and save as an Excel file.

Deselect the “Gender” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Check the “Age Group” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Click the “Update Report” button.

Once the report is completed, select the “Excel” radio button and click the “Export To” button.

Open the Excel file when completed to examine, and save as an Excel file.

Deselect the “Age Group” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Check the “Ethnicity” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Click the “Update Report” button.

Once the report is completed, select the “Excel” radio button and click the “Export To” button.

Open the Excel file when completed to examine, and save as an Excel file.

For each of the saved files, calculate the percentages of each subgroup in the original cohort and the percentages of each subgroup in the outcome group.

Use these percentages to calculate proportionality and the 80-percent rule as outlined in this document.

ESL

Access the Research, Analysis & Accountability web page.

Click the “Data on Demand” button on the lower left of the web page.

Enter your “User Name” and “Password” and click “LOGIN.” (Personnel in the research unit at each college have these. The Chief Information Systems Officer designates staff with access to Data on Demand.)

Click the “Accountability” tab.

Click the “ARCC” option on the selection bar.

From the “Select College” drop down list, select the college of your choice. If your district has more than one college, you can combine the counts in the initial cohorts and outcome groups to calculate districtwide percentages.

From the “Select File Type” drop down list select “Basic Skills Improvement for ESL.”

In the “Select Report Year” drop down list the system defaults to “2013.”

Click the “Create Text File” button.

Open the file to examine and save as a text file.

Import the text file into Excel, SPSS, SAS or other application for analysis.

Select records with a Cohort_Year of ‘2006-2007’;

Define the disaggregated subgroups:

To define the gender subgroup, use the “GENDER” data element:

“F’ = ’Female’;

‘M’ = ‘Male; and

‘X’ = ‘Unknown.

For age groups, use the “AGE_AT_TERM” data element and divide the ages into these subgroups:

'20 Or less';

'20 To 24';

'25 To 49';

'50 Or More'; and

'Unknown'.

To create the ethnicity subgroup, use the “RACE” data element with the following labels:

'A' = 'Asian';

'F' = 'Filipino';

'B' = 'African American';

'H' = 'Hispanic';

'N' = 'American Indian/Alaskan Native';

'P' = 'Pacific Islander';

'T' = 'Two Or More Races';

'W' = 'White'; and

'X' = 'Unknown';

For the disabled subgroup, use the “DSPS” data element:

‘Y’ = ‘Yes’; and

‘N’ = ‘No.’

To create the economically disadvantaged subgroup, use the “ECON_DIS” data element:

‘Y’ = ‘Yes’; and

‘N’ = ‘No.’

Cross tabulate each of the disaggregated subgroups with the data element “DEGREE_APP.”

If the cross tabulated cell sizes are too small for reliable conclusions, you can combine cohort_years into one sample. All cohort_years track outcomes to the same year so they can be combined.

Calculate the percentages:

Calculate the percentages of each subgroup (i.e., gender, age group, and ethnicity) in the initial cohort.

Select the students in the initial cohort who achieved the outcome; these students constitute the “Outcome” group.

Calculate the percentages of each subgroup in the “Outcome” group.

Use these percentages to calculate proportionality and the 80-percent rule as outlined in this document.

Remedial English

Access the Research, Analysis & Accountability web page.

Click the “Data on Demand” button on the lower left of the web page.

Enter your “User Name” and “Password” and click “LOGIN.” (Personnel in the research unit at each college have these. The Chief Information Systems Officer designates staff with access to Data on Demand.)

Click the “Accountability” tab.

Click the “ARCC” option on the selection bar.

From the “Select College” drop down list, select the college of your choice. If your district has more than one college, you can combine the counts in the initial cohorts and outcome groups to calculate districtwide percentages.

From the “Select File Type” drop down list select “Basic Skills Improvement for English.”

In the “Select Report Year” drop down list the system defaults to “2013.”

Click the “Create Text File” button.

Open the file to examine and save as a text file.

Import the text file into Excel, SPSS, SAS or other application for analysis.

Select records with a Cohort_Year of ‘2006-2007’;

Define the disaggregated subgroups:

To define the gender subgroup, use the “GENDER” data element:

“F’ = ’Female’;

‘M’ = ‘Male; and

‘X’ = ‘Unknown.

For age groups, use the “AGE_AT_TERM” data element and divide the ages into these subgroups:

'20 Or less';

'20 To 24';

'25 To 49';

'50 Or More'; and

'Unknown'.

To create the ethnicity subgroup, use the “RACE” data element with the following labels:

'A' = 'Asian';

'F' = 'Filipino';

'B' = 'African American';

'H' = 'Hispanic';

'N' = 'American Indian/Alaskan Native';

'P' = 'Pacific Islander';

'T' = 'Two Or More Races';

'W' = 'White'; and

'X' = 'Unknown';

For the disabled subgroup, use the “DSPS” data element:

‘Y’ = ‘Yes’; and

‘N’ = ‘No.’

To create the economically disadvantaged subgroup, use the “ECON_DIS” data element:

‘Y’ = ‘Yes’; and

‘N’ = ‘No.’

Cross tabulate each of the disaggregated subgroups with the data element “DEGREE_APP.”

If the cross tabulated cell sizes are too small for reliable conclusions, you can combine cohort_years into one sample. All cohort_years track outcomes to the same year so they can be combined.

Calculate the percentages:

Calculate the percentages of each subgroup (i.e., gender, age group, and ethnicity) in the initial cohort.

Select the students in the initial cohort who achieved the outcome; these students constitute the “Outcome” group.

Calculate the percentages of each subgroup in the “Outcome” group.

Use these percentages to calculate proportionality and the 80-percent rule as outlined in this document.

Remedial Math

Access the Research, Analysis & Accountability web page.

Click the “Data on Demand” button on the lower left of the web page.

Enter your “User Name” and “Password” and click “LOGIN.” (Personnel in the research unit at each college have these. The Chief Information Systems Officer designates staff with access to Data on Demand.)

Click the “Accountability” tab.

Click the “ARCC” option on the selection bar.

From the “Select College” drop down list, select the college of your choice. If your district has more than one college, you can combine the counts in the initial cohorts and outcome groups to calculate districtwide percentages.

From the “Select File Type” drop down list select “Basic Skills Improvement for Math.”

In the “Select Report Year” drop down list the system defaults to “2013.”

Click the “Create Text File” button.

Open the file to examine and save as a text file.

Import the text file into Excel, SPSS, SAS or other application for analysis.

Select records with a Cohort_Year of ‘2006-2007’;

Define the disaggregated subgroups:

To define the gender subgroup, use the “GENDER” data element:

“F’ = ’Female’;

‘M’ = ‘Male; and

‘X’ = ‘Unknown.’

For age groups, use the “AGE_AT_TERM” data element and divide the ages into these subgroups:

'20 Or less';

'20 To 24';

'25 To 49';

'50 Or More'; and

'Unknown'.

To create the ethnicity subgroup, use the “RACE” data element with the following labels:

'A' = 'Asian';

'F' = 'Filipino';

'B' = 'African American';

'H' = 'Hispanic';

'N' = 'American Indian/Alaskan Native';

'P' = 'Pacific Islander';

'T' = 'Two Or More Races';

'W' = 'White'; and

'X' = 'Unknown';

For the disabled subgroup, use the “DSPS” data element:

‘Y’ = ‘Yes’; and

‘N’ = ‘No.’

To create the economically disadvantaged subgroup, use the “ECON_DIS” data element:

‘Y’ = ‘Yes’; and

‘N’ = ‘No.’

Cross tabulate each of the disaggregated subgroups with the data element “DEGREE_APP.”

If the cross tabulated cell sizes are too small for reliable conclusions, you can combine cohort_years into one sample. All cohort_years track outcomes to the same year so they can be combined.

Calculate the percentages:

Calculate the percentages of each subgroup (i.e., gender, age group, and ethnicity) in the initial cohort.

Select the students in the initial cohort who achieved the outcome; these students constitute the “Outcome” group.

Calculate the percentages of each subgroup in the “Outcome” group.

Use these percentages to calculate proportionality and the 80-percent rule as outlined in this document.

30-Units, Persistence, and SPAR

Access the Research, Analysis & Accountability web page.

Click the “Data on Demand” button on the lower left of the page.

Enter your “User Name” and “Password” and click “LOGIN.” (Personnel in the research unit at each college have these. The Chief Information Systems Officer designates staff with access to Data on Demand.)

Click the “Accountability” tab.

Click the “ARCC” option on the selection bar.

From the “Select File Type” drop down list select “Student Progress and Achievement Report (SPAR).”

In the “Select Report Year” drop down list the system defaults to “2013.”

Click the “Create Text File” button.

Open the file to examine and save as a text file.

Import the text file into Excel, SPSS, SAS or other application for analysis.

Select records with a Cohort_Year of “2006-2007.”

Define the disaggregated subgroups:

To define the gender subgroup, use the “GENDER” data element:

“F’ = ’Female’;

‘M’ = ‘Male; and

‘X’ = ‘Unknown.

For age groups, use the “AGE_AT_TERM” data element and divide the ages into these subgroups:

'20 Or less';

'20 To 24';

'25 To 49';

'50 Or More'; and

'Unknown'.

To create the ethnicity subgroup, use the “RACE” data element with the following labels:

'A' = 'Asian';

'F' = 'Filipino';

'B' = 'African American';

'H' = 'Hispanic';

'N' = 'American Indian/Alaskan Native';

'P' = 'Pacific Islander';

'T' = 'Two Or More Races';

'W' = 'White'; and

'X' = 'Unknown';

For the disabled subgroup, use the “DSPS” data element:

‘Y’ = ‘Yes’; and

‘N’ = ‘No.’

To create the economically disadvantaged subgroup, use the “ECON_DIS” data element:

‘Y’ = ‘Yes’; and

‘N’ = ‘No.’

Using the Scorecard methodology specifications, create Yes/No data elements designate which students in the initial cohort who attained the outcomes in:

Persistence;

30-Units; and

Completion.

Cross tabulate each of the disaggregated subgroups with the three scorecard metrics.

If the cross tabulated cell sizes are too small for reliable conclusions, you can combine cohort_years into one sample. All cohort_years track outcomes to the same year so they can be combined.

Calculate the percentages:

Calculate the percentages of each subgroup (i.e., gender, age group, and ethnicity) in the initial cohort.

Select the students in the initial cohort who achieved the outcome; these students constitute the “Outcome” group.

Calculate the percentages of each subgroup in the “Outcome” group.

Use these percentages to calculate proportionality and the 80-percent rule as outlined in this document.

Transfer

Access the CCCCO Data Mart.

Under the “Outcomes” heading, click on “Transfer Velocity.”

From the “Select State-District-College” drop down list, select “Districtwide Search.”

From the “Select District-College” drop down list, select your district.

From the “Select Term” drop down list, select “2006-2007.”

From the “Select Years to Transfer” drop down list, select “6 Years.”

Click the “View Report” button.

Under the “Report Format Selection Area” toward the bottom of the web page, check the “Gender” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Click the “Update Report” button to the lower right of the web page.

Once the report is completed, select the “Excel” radio button and click the “Export To” button.

Open the Excel file when completed to examine, and save as an Excel file.

Deselect the “Gender” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Check the “Age Group” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Click the “Update Report” button.

Once the report is completed, select the “Excel” radio button and click the “Export To” button.

Open the Excel file when completed to examine, and save as an Excel file.

Deselect the “Age Group” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Check the “Ethnicity” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Click the “Update Report” button.

Once the report is completed, select the “Excel” radio button and click the “Export To” button.

Open the Excel file when completed to examine, and save as an Excel file.

Deselect the “Ethnicity” option under the “Demographic Options” heading.

Under the “Special Category” heading select the “California Work Opportunity & Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs)” option.

Click the “Update Report” button.

Once the report is completed, select the “Excel” radio button and click the “Export To” button.

Open the Excel file when completed to examine, and save as an Excel file.

Deselect the “CalWORKs” option under the “Special Category” heading.

Under the “Special Category” heading select the “Disabled Students Programs & Services (DSPS)” option.

Click the “Update Report” button .

Once the report is completed, select the “Excel” radio button and click the “Export To” button.

Open the Excel file when completed to examine, and save as an Excel file.

For each of the saved files, calculate the percentages of each subgroup in the original cohort and the percentages of each subgroup in the outcome group:

For the CalWORKs output, collapse the counts into two groups:

“Not a CalWORKs Participant” as a “No” subgroup; and

All other rows combined into the “Yes” subgroup.

For the DSPS output, collapse the counts into two groups:

“None” as a “No” subgroup; and

All other rows combined into the “Yes” subgroup.

Use these percentages to calculate proportionality and the 80-percent rule as outlined in this document.

[College Name]

Student Equity Plan

[Date]

[COLLEGE NAME] STUDENT EQUITY PLAN

Table of Contents

Signature Page

Executive Summary

Target Groups

Goals

Activities

Resources

Contact Person/Student Equity Coordinator

Campus-Based Research

Overview

Indicator Definitions and Data

Access

Course Completion (Retention)

ESL and Basic Skills Completion

Degree and Certificate Completion

Goals and Activities

Access

Course Completion (Retention)

ESL and Basic Skills Completion

Degree and Certificate Completion

Transfer

Budget

Sources of Funding

Evaluation Schedule and Process

Attachments (Optional)

[College Name]

Student Equity Plan

Signature Page

District:	Date Approved by Board of Trustees:

College President:

Vice President of Student Services:

Vice President of Instruction:

Academic Senate President:

Student Equity Coordinator/Contact Person:

Executive Summary

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Campus-Based Research

CAMPUS-BASED RESEARCH

ACCESS. Compare the percentage of each population group that is enrolled to the percentage of each group in the adult population within the community served.

CAMPUS-BASED RESEARCH

COURSE COMPLETION. Ratio of the number of credit courses that students by population group actually complete by the end of the term compared to the number of courses in which students in that group are enrolled on the census day of the term.

CAMPUS-BASED RESEARCH

ESL and BASIC SKILLS COMPLETION. Ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a degree-applicable course after having completed the final ESL or basic skills course compared to the number of those students who complete such a final course.

CAMPUS-BASED RESEARCH

DEGREE and CERTIFICATE COMPLETION. Ratio of the number of students by population group who receive a degree or certificate to the number of students in that group with the same informed matriculation goal.

CAMPUS-BASED RESEARCH

TRANSFER. Ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a minimum of 12 units and have attempted a transfer level course in mathematics or English to the number of students in that group who actually transfer after one or more (up to six) years.

CAMPUS-BASED RESEARCH

Goals and Activities

GOALS AND ACTIVITIES

A.	STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR FOR ACCESS

“Compare the percentage of each population group that is enrolled to the percentage of each group in the adult population within the community serve”

GOAL A.

ACTIVITY A.1 (Please include the target date in chronological order and identify the responsible person/group for each activity)

EXPECTED OUTCOME A.1.1

GOAL A. (Continued)

GOALS AND ACTIVITIES

B.	STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR FOR COURSE COMPLETION

“Ratio of the number of credit courses that students by population group actually complete by the end of the term compared to the number of courses in which students in that group are enrolled on the census day of the term”

GOAL B.

ACTIVITY B.1 (Please include the target date in chronological order and identify the responsible person/group for each activity)

EXPECTED OUTCOME B.1.1

GOAL B. (Continued)

GOALS AND ACTIVITIES

C.	STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR FOR ESL AND BASIC SKILLS COMPLETION

“Ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a degree-applicable course after having completed the final ESL or basic skills course to the number of those students who complete such a final course”

GOAL C.

ACTIVITY C.1 (Please include the target date in chronological order and identify the responsible person/group for each activity)

EXPECTED OUTCOME C.1.1

GOAL C. (Continued)

GOALS AND ACTIVITIES

D.	STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR FOR DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE COMPLETION

“Ratio of the number of students by population group who receive a degree or certificate to the number of students in that group with the same informed matriculation goal”

GOAL D.

ACTIVITY D.1 (Please include the target date in chronological order and identify the responsible person/group for each activity)

EXPECTED OUTCOME D.1.1

GOAL D. (Continued)

GOALS AND ACTIVITIES

E.	STUDENT SUCCESS INDICATOR FOR TRANSFER

“Ratio of the number of students by population group who complete a minimum of 12 units and have attempted a transfer level course in mathematics or English to the number of students in that group who actually transfer after one or more (up to six) years”

GOAL E.

ACTIVITY E.1 (Please include the target date in chronological order and identify the responsible person/group for each activity)

EXPECTED OUTCOME E.1.1

GOAL E. (Continued)

GOALS AND ACTIVITIES

Budget

SOURCES OF FUNDING

Evaluation Schedule and Process

EVALUATION SCHEDULE AND PROCESS

Attachments

ATTACHMENTS

Although title 5 refers to “retention” the term “course completion” is deemed to embody that term in the guidelines.