Cypress College 2016-2017 Institutional Effectiveness Report by Cypress College

Cypress College Institutional Effectiveness Report

2016-2017

November 2017 Cypress College Prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning

President’s Message Cypress College’s achievements during the 2016-2017 academic year reflect our mission, core values, and commitment to the success of our students. This past year, our 50th year in existence, was all about laying the foundation for the future and ensuring that Cypress College will be the premier college of choice for the next half-century. In addition to being named the #1 community college in California by Niche, Inc., we are proud that our college has initiated multiple environmentally-friendly projects, a new strategic plan, and has an overall student completion rate which is over 7% higher than the state average. Students are taking note of our successes: our enrollment outside of our feeder cities has steadily increased, and students from nearby Cerritos and Norwalk are choosing to attend Cypress College at a higher rate. The College’s expansion of the multiple measures pilot program, which uses high school GPA to place students in English and math courses, is resulting in first-time students being placed into transfer-level English (ENGL 100) at record levels in Fall 2017. At Cypress College, we are all about students, and in support of that commitment, we continue to utilize Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) resources for out-of-the-classroom activities that contribute directly to student success. We have utilized Student Equity funds to address differential student performance and to eliminate barriers to success. The College’s commitment to equity is seen in our expanded professional development programs focused on diversity training for staff and faculty and our powerful Puente and Legacy programs. This past year male students of color and Hispanic students of both genders have started earning a higher percentage of degree and certificate awards annually. More and more students are earning certificates now that the IGETC certificate has been institutionalized. This new certificate has resulted in a nearly 50% increase in the amount of certificates awarded from 2015-16 to 2016-17. This is a major win for students and for their ability to get a job or transfer more quickly and efficiently. Our Mortuary Science program continued its preparation to offer courses in conjunction with our new Bachelor of Science in Funeral Services. This exciting initiative launched its first cohort in Fall 2017. Approved by the California Community Colleges Board of Governors in January of 2015 as part of the initial California Community College Baccalaureate Pilot Program, this groundbreaking program represents a unique opportunity for Cypress College to offer upper division curriculum in support of our career and technical programs. The signature event of the College every year is our graduation ceremony. In May of 2017, a record-breaking 550 graduates walked across our commencement stage representing our 2017 graduating class. We awarded a historic 1,455 degrees and 999 certificates to 1898 students. 635 of the degrees awarded were associate Degrees for Transfer (AD-Ts) which transfer directly to a CSU campus. The work of the College is the product of many people. To all who contribute to our work, I want to express my sincere gratitude. The success we have experienced at the College is a direct outgrowth of a team effort. Cypress College is poised to be an important contributor to the educational lives of countless students in the years to come. It is our honor to play a role in the economic and academic future of so many worthy students. JoAnna Schilling, Ph.D. - President 1

Table of Contents Presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Message................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter One: Student Success Scorecard ............................................................................ 7 Remedial (Basic Skills) Progress Rate ................................................................................... 8 Transfer Level Achievement ................................................................................................... 9 Persistence ...........................................................................................................................10 30 Unit Completion ................................................................................................................11 Degree & Transfer Completion ..............................................................................................12 Career Technical Education (CTE) ........................................................................................13 Skills Builders ........................................................................................................................14 Chapter Two: Student Achievement Data .............................................................................16 Cypress College Student Achievement Data .........................................................................16 Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates .........................................................................16 CTE Course Success Rates...............................................................................................18 Degree Applicable Course Success Rates .........................................................................20 Transfer Level Course Success Rates ...............................................................................22 First Time Student Persistence Rates ................................................................................24 NOCCCD Student Achievement Data ...................................................................................27 Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates .........................................................................27 CTE Course Success Rates...............................................................................................29 Degree Applicable Course Success Rates .........................................................................31 Transfer Level Course Success Rates ...............................................................................33 Chapter Three: Demographics ...............................................................................................35 Student Demographics ..........................................................................................................35 Faculty and Staff Demographics ............................................................................................42 Chapter Four: Measures of Institutional Effectiveness ........................................................44 Success and Retention ..........................................................................................................44 Awards: Degrees and Certificates .........................................................................................45 Degrees Awarded ..............................................................................................................47 Certificates Awarded ..........................................................................................................50 Transfer .................................................................................................................................51 Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES)...................................................................................52 Weekly Student Contact Hours (WSCH) per Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) ................53 Chapter Five: Departmental Planning and Program Review ................................................55 Accounting ............................................................................................................................56

Air Conditioning & Refrigeration.............................................................................................57 Aviation & Travel Careers ......................................................................................................58 Dental Hygiene ......................................................................................................................60 Health Information Technology ..............................................................................................61 Human Services ....................................................................................................................62 Media Arts Design .................................................................................................................63 Mortuary Science ..................................................................................................................64 Photography ..........................................................................................................................66 Theater ..................................................................................................................................67 Chapter Six: Student Support Services Quality Review (SSQR) .........................................68 Chapter Seven: Campus Support Services Quality Review (CSQR) ...................................69 Academic Computing ............................................................................................................70 Administrative Services .........................................................................................................71 Bursar’s Office .......................................................................................................................72 Campus Communications......................................................................................................73 Campus Safety ......................................................................................................................74 Foundation Office ..................................................................................................................75 Institutional Research & Planning ..........................................................................................76 Instruction Office ...................................................................................................................77 Maintenance & Operations ....................................................................................................78 President’s Office ..................................................................................................................79 Professional Development .....................................................................................................80 Staff Services Center.............................................................................................................81 Chapter Eight: Strategic Planning .........................................................................................82 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................83 Appendix A: Cypress College Success and Persistence Data ............................................84 Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates ............................................................................84 CTE Course Success Rates ..................................................................................................86 Degree Applicable Course Success Rates ............................................................................88 Transfer Level Course Success Rates...................................................................................90 First Time Student Persistence Rates....................................................................................92 Appendix B: NOCCCD Success and Persistence Data ........................................................95 Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates ............................................................................95 CTE Course Success Rates ..................................................................................................97 Degree Applicable Course Success Rates ............................................................................99 Transfer Level Course Success Rates.................................................................................101

Appendix C: 2014-17 Cypress College Strategic Plan ........................................................103 Cypress College Strategic Plan: Year 3 Executive Summary ..............................................107 Year 3 Timeline ...................................................................................................................110 Strategic Plan Fund & Institution-Set Standards Fund, 2016-17 ..........................................111 Committee Assessment of Overall Progress on 2014-17 Strategic Directions .....................114 Appendix D: 2017-20 Cypress College Strategic Plan ........................................................115

Figures Figure 1. Fall enrollment trend from 2008 to 2017 .....................................................................35 Figure 2. Proportion of students by gender ...............................................................................36 Figure 3. Proportion of students by ethnicity .............................................................................37 Figure 4. Proportion of students by age ....................................................................................37 Figure 5. Proportion of students by unit load .............................................................................39 Figure 6. Proportion of students by educational goal .................................................................39 Figure 7. Employees by Classification: California, NOCCCD, and Cypress College ..................42 Figure 8. Fall success and retention..........................................................................................44 Figure 9. Spring success and retention .....................................................................................44 Figure 10. Spring 2017 success rates by division ......................................................................45 Figure 11. Spring 2017 retention rates by division .....................................................................45 Figure 12. Degrees and certificates awarded by academic year ...............................................46 Figure 13. Transfer volume, 2012-13 through 2016-17 .............................................................52 Figure 14. Trends in resident FTES ..........................................................................................53 Figure 15. Trends in WSCH per FTEF, 2012-13 through 2016-17.............................................54

Tables Table 1. Basic Skills Progress Rate: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity ................... 8 Table 2. Transfer Level Achievement: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity ................ 9 Table 3. Persistence Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity ..............................10 Table 4. 30 Unit Completion Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity ...................11 Table 5. Degree & Transfer Completion Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity .12 Table 6. CTE Progress Rate: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity ............................13 Table 7. CTE Skills Builders: Median Percentage Wage Change by Program ..........................14 Table 8. CTE Skills Builders: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity .............................15 Table 9. Educational Background of Parents ............................................................................38 Table 10. Top 10 Feeder High Schools for Directly Matriculating First-Time Students ..............40 Table 11. Top 10 Zip Codes of Residence for all Cypress College Students .............................40 Table 12. English Placements of Directly Matriculating First-Time Students .............................41 Table 13. Math Placements of Directly Matriculating First-Time Students .................................41 Table 14. Cypress College Employees by Gender, Fall 2016....................................................42 Table 15. Cypress College Employees by Ethnicity, Fall 2016 ..................................................43 Table 16. Cypress College Employees by Age, Fall 2016 .........................................................43 Table 17. Awards Earned, 2012-13 to 2016-17: Disaggregated by Demographics ....................46 Table 18. Degrees Earned, 2012-13 Through 2016-17 .............................................................47 Table 19. Degrees Earned, 2012-13 to 2016-17: Disaggregated by Demographics ..................49 Table 20. Certificates Earned, 2012-13 through 2016-17 ..........................................................50 Table 21. Certificates Earned, 2012-13 to 2016-17: Disaggregated by Demographics ..............51 Table 22. Division trends in Resident FTES, 2014-15 through 2016-17 ....................................53

Introduction Cypress College celebrated its 50th anniversary throughout 2016-17. The academic year began with a rededication ceremony to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the college’s opening which was celebrated with leaders throughout the campus community. A large 50th anniversary celebration also took place during April 2017 which consisted of highlighting academic and student services areas, unveiling the updated athletics hall of fame display, displaying student art exhibitions, holding duck pond races, a classic car show, and theater performances. In addition to highlighting and celebrating 50 years of student success at Cypress College, the community worked hard to finalize the Institutional Self Evaluation Report (ISER) and prepare for the October 2017 Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) site visit. The college established institution set standards (ISS) for award completion, transfer volume, and course success rates alongside programmatic standards for licensure exam pass rates and employment. In 2016-17, the college met the standard for successful course completion, while exceeding standards for degree and certificate completion as well as transfer volume. The college also set both short and long-term goals for unprepared student completion as part of the Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI). The Cypress College 2016-26 Educational Master Plan (EMP) was finalized in early Spring 2017. Additionally, 2016-17 marked the final year of the 2014-17 college’s strategic plan. To help brainstorm and develop directions, goals, and objectives for the 2017-20 plan, roughly 60 members of the campus community, including administrators, faculty, staff, and students engaged in a two day strategic planning colloquium. This colloquium consisted of “dreaming big” to set a vision for the next three years through cross disciplinary activities, discussions, and collaborations. To help the campus community achieve the goals outlined within the strategic plan as well as the ACCJC ISS and IEPI indicators, the former $100,000 Strategic Plan Fund was renamed as the Strategic Plan and ISS Fund to encourage proposals that would not only help with achieving the strategic plan goals and objectives but also the ACCJC ISS. As enrollment decreased districtwide, the number of Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) produced also decreased, resulting in a budget deficit that would not be sustainable after a few years. As a result, the NOCCCD established a Districtwide Enrollment Management Committee (DEMAC) to help address the current budget deficit through establishing best practices for scheduling as well the funding model. As an attempt to help increase enrollments, the number of sections offered in Fall 2016 was expanded to 1,654, approximately a 4% increase from Fall 2015. Additionally, Spring 2017 sections increased by approximately 2% to 1,643. Despite those increases, the amount of annual students decreased by approximately 2% from 21,546 in 201516 to 21,118 in 2016-17. The annual Institutional Effectiveness Report (IER) is now in its 12th year of publication. For the 2016-17 report, slight changes were made to the content and organization of the report. The first chapter presents the Student Success Scorecard. Chapter two presents a longitudinal analysis of student achievement data for both North Orange County Community College District (NOCCCD) and Cypress College. Chapter three focuses on demographic trends and is updated through Fall 2017. Chapter four presents the ACCJC ISS and data in relation to institutional effectiveness. Chapters five, six, and seven describe the departmental, student services, and campus services program review data and results. Appendices include the previous Cypress College 2014-17 strategic plan alongside the new 2017-20 strategic plan. Additional appendices include tabular representations of the student achievement data represented in chapter two.

Chapter One: Student Success Scorecard Prior to 2012-13, the campus prepared a Dashboard of Institutional Effectiveness which provided an executive summary of performance in the strategic directions identified in the Cypress College Strategic Plan. However, beginning in 2012-13, the California Community College’s Chancellor’s Office introduced the Scorecard for Institutional Effectiveness. In order to benchmark the performance of Cypress College with its peers, the Scorecard data continues to be presented this year in lieu of the previous locally developed dashboard. A statewide advisory group developed the Scorecard parameters. The group came up with a four-tiered accountability framework, where each level targets a different audience or user:  The first level provides a report on the State of the System, a high level overview for legislators and policy makers that summarizes a number of system level aggregations of data and annual performance.  The Scorecard itself is the second level and measures progress and completion at each college for various groups of student demographics, including those with different levels of college preparation and demographics. This will be the core of the framework and part of the report that focuses on the performance of each college and incorporates many of the recommendations from the Student Success Task Force, such as providing metrics pertaining to momentum points and disaggregation of data.  The third level is the ability to drill down further into the scorecard metrics through the existing online query tool, Datamart.  The fourth, and most detailed level, provides for the ability of researchers to download the datasets (Data-on-Demand) pertaining to each metric for their particular college. The Scorecard presents data in two formats: a one-year synopsis and a five-year trend. The metrics focus on three primary areas: math and English/ESL metrics, completion metrics, and CTE metrics. Math and English/ESL metrics include the basic skills progress rate as well as the one and two-year transfer level achievement rates in English and math. Completion metrics include persistence, 30 unit completion, and degree/transfer completion. CTE metrics include CTE completion rates and the skills builder metric. Students in most the cohorts presented within the Scorecard were tracked for six years, from 2010-11 through 2015-16. Within each parameter of the Scorecard, with the exception of basic skills, transfer level, and CTE outcomes, the data are disaggregated into three clusters: performance of those who were prepared for college, performance of those unprepared for college, and overall performance. Prepared students are defined as those first-time students that did not enroll in basic skills English or math courses, while unprepared students began one of their course sequences in basic skills. In the case of remedial education, the data are divided into Math, English, and English as a Second Language (ESL). Although some faculty members argue that ESL is not a part of basic skills education, the statewide Scorecard recognizes the ESL data as a part of basic skills. For the 2017 Scorecard, of the 2,304 students in the cohort six-year cohort, 78% (n = 1,806) of firsttime students in 2010-11 were categorized as being unprepared. The college has set short-term (45.7%) and long-term (46.7%) goals in relation to unprepared student completion rates as part of IEPI.

Remedial/ESL (Basic Skills) Progress Rate The remedial or basic skills progress rate refers to the percentage of first-time students whose first English, ESL, or math course was below transfer level during the 2010-11 school year and who went on to successfully complete a college level course in English, ESL, or math, respectively, within six years. Overall, most sub-groups of Cypress College students completed their English, ESL and math sequences at higher rates when compared to the statewide data. All sub-groups exceeded the statewide rates for English sequence completion. For ESL, African American and Filipino students were below the statewide averages but also had less than 10 students in each cohort. For basic skills math rates, Pacific Islander students had a progress rate that was approximately one percentage point less than the statewide average (see Table 1). Table 1. Basic Skills Progress Rate: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity English

Statewide N = 167,970

Cypress College n = 141

Statewide N = 30,077

Cypress College n = 1,985

Statewide N = 170,903

Cohort

Math

Cypress College n = 1,416

Cohort Tracked for Six Years From 2010-11 Through 2015-16

ESL

69.4%

46.9%

59.6%

30.5%

41.5%

34.2%

Gender Female

70.7%

49.4%

55.7%

32.0%

43.1%

36.2%

Male

68.0%

44.0%

66.7%

28.4%

39.1%

31.6%

Age Under 20 years old

73.9%

53.2%

80.8%

48.7%

47.8%

38.3%

20 to 24 years old

60.7%

38.6%

66.7%

40.2%

30.8%

30.0%

25 to 39 years old

62.1%

38.8%

50.0%

26.2%

36.8%

32.1%

40 or more years old

71.9%

33.5%

48.8%

16.5%

35.2%

27.5%

Ethnicity African-American

52.1%

31.6%

16.7%*

22.0%

22.3%

19.5%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

50.0%*

34.1%

N/A

18.9%

37.5%*

26.0%

Asian

74.9%

62.7%

66.3%

39.6%

51.6%

48.0%

Filipino

83.2%

57.4%

33.3%*

34.3%

43.2%

43.5%

Hispanic

68.1%

45.1%

35.7%

21.7%

41.5%

33.1%

Pacific Islander

72.2%

42.9%

N/A

31.0%

27.8%

29.1%

69.3% 50.4% 68.2% 32.5% 42.7% 38.7% White *cohort fewer than 10 students; Green = Cypress above statewide average; Black = Cypress within one percentage point of statewide average; Red = Cypress below statewide average Source: California Community Colleges Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office Student Success Scorecard

Transfer Level Achievement The Scorecard defines transfer level achievement as the percent of first-time students in 201415 who completed six units and attempted any math or English course in their first year who went on to complete a transfer-level course in Math or English in their first or second year. Cypress College was below the statewide average for one-year transfer level English completion for most sub-groups, while the college surpassed statewide averages for almost all sub-groups for two-year English transfer level achievement. The college, and most student sub-groups, did not meet the statewide averages for one-year transfer level math completion. Focusing on two-year math transfer level achievement, Cypress College exceed the statewide averages for most sub-groups, not including Hispanic and White students. American Indian/ Alaskan Native students were also below the statewide average for 2-year transfer level math completion but had a cohort size of less than 10 students (see Table 2). Table 2. Transfer Level Achievement: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity English 1-year

1-year

2-year

Statewide N = 154,350

Cypress College n = 1,758

Statewide N = 154,350

Cypress College n = 1,758

Statewide N = 154,350

Cypress College n = 1,758

Statewide N = 154,350

Cohort

2-year

Cypress College n = 1,758

Cohort Tracked From 2014-15 Through 2016-17

Math

31.0%

37.9%

58.5%

56.3%

16.4%

17.0%

29.2%

28.6%

Gender Female

30.3%

39.0%

59.6%

58.5%

15.4%

15.3%

26.9%

26.8%

Male

31.7%

36.6%

56.7%

53.9%

17.7%

18.9%

32.3%

30.4%

Age Under 20 years old

33.0%

40.3%

61.5%

59.0%

16.5%

18.7%

30.4%

30.8%

20 to 24 years old

21.5%

25.5%

42.0%

42.9%

16.0%

10.3%

24.0%

19.6%

25 to 39 years old

17.6%

26.6%

47.3%

44.9%

16.2%

6.9%

20.3%

15.7%

40 or more years old

26.7%

22.9%

40.0%

37.0%

13.3%

3.0%

26.7%

8.3%

Ethnicity African-American

24.2%

25.1%

54.8%

42.5%

4.8%

7.9%

22.6%

16.0%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

50.0%*

33.8%

100.0%*

47.6%

0.0%*

8.4%

0.0%*

14.0%

Asian

37.8%

41.8%

66.6%

63.1%

48.0%

41.1%

63.5%

57.0%

Filipino

32.7%

45.9%

65.5%

67.6%

23.6%

25.0%

45.5%

40.8%

Hispanic

24.3%

32.0%

52.5%

51.2%

6.8%

11.0%

17.1%

21.0%

Pacific Islander

16.7%*

27.6%

50.0%*

44.8%

33.3%*

12.0%

33.3%*

22.3%

43.0% 49.0% 65.2% 65.1% 12.6% 20.8% 26.5% 34.1% Source: California Community Colleges Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office Student Success Scorecard *cohort fewer than 10 students; Green = Cypress above statewide average; Black = Cypress within one percentage point of statewide average; Red = Cypress below statewide average White

Persistence The Scorecard defines persistence as the percentage of first-time students who earned a minimum of 6 units and attempted any mathematics or English course within their first three years of enrollment and went on to achieve the persistence momentum point: ď&#x201A;ˇ Enroll in the first three consecutive primary semester (or quarter) terms at any college in the California community college system This persistence rate is defined for the overall cohort of first-time students along with examining prepared and unprepared students and is also disaggregated by gender, age, and ethnicity. Table 3 presents the persistence rate at Cypress College compared to the overall statewide rate, as well as the rates for prepared and unprepared students. Overall, Cypress College students persisted at higher rates when compared to the statewide rates for nearly all subgroups of students. Only one sub-group, 20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 24 year old students, consistently displayed persistence rates within one percentage point of the statewide averages. Prepared Pacific Islander students were below the statewide average for persistence but had a cohort size of less than 10 students. Table 3. Persistence Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity Prepared

Statewide N = 47,962

Cypress College n = 1,806

Statewide N = 149,758

Cypress College n = 2,304

Statewide N = 197,720

Cohort

Overall

Cypress College n = 498

Cohort Tracked for Six Years From 2010-11 Through 2015-16

Unprepared

89.0%

78.0%

82.9%

75.2%

84.2%

75.9%

Gender Female

88.1%

78.2%

83.0%

76.1%

84.0%

76.6%

Male

90.1%

77.7%

83.0%

74.2%

84.6%

75.1%

Age Under 20 years old

90.1%

78.8%

84.6%

76.5%

85.8%

77.1%

20 to 24 years old

70.0%

70.4%

66.2%

66.8%

67.4%

25 to 39 years old

87.5%

73.6%

83.3%

72.3%

84.1%

72.5%

40 or more years old

100%*

75.6%

84.1%

78.2%

86.0%

77.9%

Ethnicity African-American

100.0%*

74.1%

70.5%

70.9%

73.2%

71.2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

100.0%*

70.9%

100.0%*

70.4%

100.0%*

70.5%

Asian

89.4%

78.4%

86.0%

83.2%

87.4%

81.6%

Filipino

93.8%

81.8%

82.1%

79.0%

84.5%

79.7%

Hispanic

85.5%

77.6%

82.6%

74.6%

83.0%

75.1%

Pacific Islander

0.0%*

75.5%

80.0%

72.5%

75.0%

73.0%

89.7% 78.6% 84.6% 74.8% 85.9% 76.1% White *cohort fewer than 10 students; Green = Cypress above statewide average; Black = Cypress within one percentage point of statewide average; Red = Cypress below statewide average Source: California Community Colleges Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office Student Success Scorecard

30 Unit Completion The 30 Unit Completion metric refers to the percentage of first-time students who earned at least six units at a California Community College, attempted any math and English course within their first three years of enrollment, and went on to earn at least 30 units in the California Community College system. As seen in Table 4, nearly all sub-groups of Cypress College students had higher 30 unit completion rates when compared to the statewide data. Prepared Pacific Islander students were one of the sub-groups that displayed a lower rate; however, this sub-group had fewer than 10 students. Unprepared students in the age range from 25 to 39 also had lower rates of 30 unit completion, compared to the statewide average which contributed to the overall rate being less than the statewide average. Table 4. 30 Unit Completion Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity Prepared

Statewide N = 47,962

Cypress College n = 1,806

Statewide N = 149,758

Cypress College n = 2,304

Statewide N = 197,720

Cohort

Overall

Cypress College n = 498

Cohort Tracked for Six Years From 2010-11 Through 2015-16

Unprepared

84.9%

75.1%

72.8%

66.8%

75.4%

68.8%

Gender Female

82.4%

76.3%

74.8%

68.7%

76.4%

70.5%

Male

87.9%

74.0%

70.3%

64.6%

74.3%

67.0%

Age Under 20 years old

86.5%

76.6%

75.3%

68.9%

77.9%

71.0%

20 to 24 years old

66.7%

64.3%

57.1%

55.9%

58.7%

57.3%

25 to 39 years old

68.8%

64.7%

55.6%

61.3%

58.0%

61.7%

100.0%*

59.5%

68.2%

65.2%

72.0%

64.6%

40 or more years old

Ethnicity African-American

88.9%*

65.7%

56.8%

56.2%

59.8%

57.3%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

100.0%*

60.6%

100.0%*

58.4%

100.0%*

58.8%

Asian

86.9%

77.4%

81.2%

79.6%

83.5%

78.9%

Filipino

87.5%

78.6%

76.4%

72.8%

78.7%

74.3%

Hispanic

83.1%

73.9%

72.2%

65.1%

73.6%

66.5%

Pacific Islander

0.0%*

65.2%

66.7%

60.8%

62.5%

61.5%

86.8% 76.0% 72.2% 68.0% 75.9% 70.7% White *cohort fewer than 10 students; Green = Cypress above statewide average; Black = Cypress within one percentage point of statewide average; Red = Cypress below statewide average Source: California Community Colleges Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office Student Success Scorecard

Degree & Transfer Completion The Scorecard defines completion as the percentage of first-time students who earned a minimum of 6 units, attempted any mathematics or English course within three years, and achieved one of three outcomes within six years of entry to a California community college:  Earned an associate degree or Chancellor’s Office approved certificate  Transferred to a four-year institution  Achieved “transfer prepared” status by successfully completing 60 UC/CSU transferable units with a GPA >= 2.0 The college has established short-term (45.7%) and long-term (46.7%) goals in relation to unprepared student completion rates as part of IEPI. Table 5 represents the completion rate, as defined above, of Cypress College students when compared to statewide data. Overall, the College exceeded the statewide rates for most subgroups of students. Pacific Islander students represented the only sub-group which consistently fell below the statewide average for all preparedness levels. White students alongside 25 to 39 year old students also displayed lower overall completion rates. Table 5. Degree & Transfer Completion Rates: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity Prepared

Statewide N = 47,962

Cypress College n =1,806

Statewide N = 149,758

Cypress College n = 2,304

Statewide N = 197,720

Cohort

Overall

Cypress College n = 498

Cohort Tracked for Six Years From 2010-11 Through 2015-16

Unprepared

77.5%

70.6%

46.4%

40.8%

53.1%

48.0%

Gender Female

79.7%

74.0%

48.6%

42.3%

55.1%

49.5%

Male

75.0%

67.4%

44.3%

39.0%

51.3%

46.4%

Age Under 20 years old

78.9%

72.6%

48.8%

43.6%

55.5%

51.4%

20 to 24 years old

66.7%

58.2%

35.7%

30.8%

40.8%

35.5%

25 to 39 years old

56.3%

53.0%

26.4%

31.3%

31.8%

33.9%

40 or more years old

83.3%*

47.3%

34.1%

30.5%

40.0%

32.2%

Ethnicity African-American

100.0%*

62.4%

36.4%

32.9%

42.3%

36.2%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

100.0%*

56.0%

50.0%*

33.6%

75.0%*

38.4%

Asian

88.1%

81.5%

67.2%

56.8%

75.8%

65.1%

Filipino

75.0%

75.7%

52.8%

50.5%

57.4%

56.9%

Hispanic

70.0%

64.4%

42.3%

36.6%

45.9%

41.1%

Pacific Islander

0.0%*

63.0%

20.0%

38.3%

18.8%

42.6%

72.1% 71.7% 44.7% 44.0% 51.7% 53.5% White *cohort fewer than 10 students; Green = Cypress above statewide average; Black = Cypress within one percentage point of statewide average; Red = Cypress below statewide average Source: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Student Success Scorecard

Career Technical Education (CTE) CTE data within the Scorecard is divided into two areas: completers and skills builders. CTE completion is defined as the percentage of students who completed more than eight units in a single CTE discipline for the first time in 2010-11 and went on to complete a degree, certificate, apprenticeship, or transfer-related outcome:  Earned any AA/AS or credit Certificate (Chancellor’s Office approved)  Transferred to a four-year institution (students shown to have enrolled at any four-year higher education institution after enrolling at a California community college)  Achieved “Transfer Prepared” (student successfully completed 60 UC/CSU transferable units with a GPA > = 2.0). Table 6 presents data from Cypress College CTE students in comparison to CTE students statewide. All student sub-groups outperformed the statewide average in terms of CTE completion, except for Pacific Islander students, which had less than 10 students in the cohort. Table 6. CTE Progress Rate: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity

Cypress College n = 1,365

Statewide N = 134,389

60.4%

53.9%

Female

66.9%

57.2%

Male

52.9%

50.8%

Under 20 years old

66.0%

65.6%

20 to 24 years old

63.2%

57.1%

25 to 39 years old

54.3%

46.0%

40 or more years old

51.8%

41.0%

African-American

54.7%

46.5%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

66.7%*

47.2%

Asian

75.3%

60.3%

Filipino

65.9%

62.9%

Hispanic

55.1%

53.0%

Pacific Islander

50.0%*

52.3%

White

57.8%

53.5%

Cohort Tracked for Six Years From 2010-11 Through 2015-16 Cohort Gender

Age

Ethnicity

*cohort fewer than 10 students; Green = Cypress above statewide average; Black = Cypress within one percentage point of statewide average; Red = Cypress below statewide average Source: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Student Success Scorecard

Skills Builders The term â&#x20AC;&#x153;Skills Buildersâ&#x20AC;? refers to students who completed higher level CTE coursework in 2013-14 and left the system without failing any CTE coursework or receiving a traditional outcome including transfer, degree completion, or certificate completion. Statewide, Skills Builder students had a median percent wage increase of 22.6% (n = 81,262). Data on only one program, accounting, was reported on for both Cypress College (29.3%, n = 67) and statewide (32.7%, n = 7,077). Thus, Cypress College accounting skills builder students were slightly below the statewide rate for median percentage change in earnings. Table 7 presents data from Cypress College CTE students and their median percentage change in wages. Overall, students in the automotive and radiologic technology programs had the highest median percentage change in wages by over 80%. Students enrolled in all other programs reported within the Scorecard had median increase in wages by over 10%. Table 7. CTE Skills Builders: Median Percentage Wage Change by Program Median % Cohort tracked from 2013-14 Total Change in N = 719 Students Wages Overall

30.5%

719

Accounting

29.3%

Applied Photography

35.9%

Automotive Technology

81.2%

Computer Information Systems

20.2%

123

Computer Programming

29.2%

Health Occupations, General

43.9%

Human Services

49.9%

Management Development and Supervision

24.6%

Radiological Technology

80.8%

Software Applications

10.8%

Program

*cohort fewer than 10 students; Green = Cypress above statewide average; Red = Cypress below statewide average Source: California Community Colleges Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office Student Success Scorecard

Overall, skills builder students had a median wage increase 7.9 percentage points higher than the statewide average. Both men and women at Cypress College had median wage increases by at least 7 percentage points more than the statewide average. Students up to 24 years old displayed median wage increases lower than the statewide average. Students of nearly all ethnicities, aside from Pacific Islander students, had a higher median wage gain compared to the state average. Pacific Islander students were the only sub-group that displayed a decrease in median earnings. However, this sub-group had less than 10 students in the cohort (see Table 8). Table 8. CTE Skills Builders: Disaggregated by Gender, Age, and Ethnicity

Cypress College n = 719

Statewide N = 81,262

30.5%

22.6%

Female

30.1%

23.4%

Male

30.8%

22.3%

Under 20 years old

119.5%

180.1%

20 to 24 years old

56.7%

70.5%

25 to 39 years old

23.3%

19.8%

40 or more years old

8.7%

8.8%

African-American

26.8%

18.8%

American Indian/Alaskan Native

82.5%*

17.2%

Asian

32.1%

26.8%

Filipino

31.4%

21.3%

Hispanic

32.6%

27.4%

-31.7%*

15.9%

35.4%

19.9%

Cohort tracked from 2013-14

Cohort Gender

Age

Ethnicity

Pacific Islander White

Source: California Community Colleges Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office Student Success Scorecard *cohort fewer than 10 students; Green = Cypress above statewide average; Black = Cypress within one percentage point of statewide average; Red = Cypress below statewide average

Chapter Two: Student Achievement Data This chapter focuses on Cypress College and NOCCCD student achievement. The following charts display disaggregated data related to course success rates in basic skills and ESL, CTE, degree applicable, and transfer level courses. Success rates were examined with regard to four primary areas: gender, age, ethnicity, and method of instruction. Charts for Cypress College are presented first followed by district level achievement data. A brief analysis is included for each group of graphs. Please refer to Appendices A and B for more detailed tables and information. Cypress College Student Achievement Data The following charts display disaggregated data related to Cypress College’s course success rates. Success rates in basic skills and ESL, CTE, degree applicable, and transfer level courses were examined with relation to four different areas: age, gender, ethnicity, and method of instruction. Data on student persistence was also examined by financial aid recipient status, disability status, foster youth status, and veteran status in addition to the four areas. A brief analysis is included for each group of graphs. Please refer to Appendix A for more detailed information. Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s basic skills and ESL course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Students have performed similarly in basic skills and ESL courses regardless of gender  Students aged 20-24 have historically displayed the lowest success rates in basic skills and ESL courses; this effect was most prevalent during fall terms  Asian students have historically displayed the highest success rates in basic skills and ESL courses while all other groups have had slightly lower success rates  Students enrolled in distance education basic skills and ESL courses have historically displayed slightly higher success rates when compared to students enrolled on campus

85%

Cypress, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Gender - Fall

85%

75%

65%

55%

45%

Cypress, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Gender - Spring

45% Fall 14 Female

Fall 15 Male

Fall 16 Unknown

Spring 15 Female

Spring 16 Male

Spring 17 Unknown

85%

Cypress, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Age Fall

85%

75%

65%

55%

45%

45% Fall 14 Fall 15 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

85%

Fall 16 20 - 24 30 - 39

Cypress, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Fall

Spring 15 Spring 16 Spring 17 19 & under 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 39 40+

85%

75%

65%

55%

45%

Cypress, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Spring

45% Fall 14

Fall 15

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

85%

Cypress, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Age Spring

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Fall 16

Spring 15

Black P. Islander

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

Cypress, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Fall

85%

75%

65%

55%

45%

Spring 16 Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Spring 17 Black P. Islander

Cypress, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Spring

45% Fall 14

Fall 15 DE

non-DE

Fall 16

Spring 15

Spring 16 DE

Spring 17

non-DE

CTE Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s CTE course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  CTE course success rates remained consistently high, regardless of term  No large gaps in success rates by gender were revealed  Students 25 and older displayed slightly higher success rates in CTE courses compared to younger students  Some gaps emerged with regard to fall success rates by ethnicity; however, these gaps could be primarily due to the small sample size of American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, and Pacific Islander students enrolled in CTE courses  Students enrolled in on campus instruction displayed slightly higher success rates when compared to DE students Cypress, CTE Course Success Rates by Gender - Fall Trend

Cypress, CTE Course Success Rates by Gender - Spring Trend

85%

75%

65%

55%

55% Fall 14 Female

Fall 15 Male

Fall 16

Spring 15

Unknown

Female

Cypress, CTE Course Success Rates by Age - Fall Trend

Male

Spring 17 Unknown

Cypress, CTE Course Success Rates by Age - Spring Trend

85%

75%

65%

55%

Spring 16

55% Fall 14 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Fall 15

Fall 16 20 - 24 30 - 39

Spring 15 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Spring 16

Spring 17 20 - 24 30 - 39

Cypress, CTE Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Fall Trend

Cypress, CTE Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Spring Trend

85%

75%

65%

55%

55% Fall 14

Fall 15

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Fall 16

Spring 15

Black P. Islander

Cypress, CTE Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Fall Trend

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Spring 17 Black P. Islander

Cypress, CTE Course Success Rates by Teaching Method Spring Trend

85%

75%

65%

55%

Spring 16

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

55% Fall 14

Fall 15 DE

non-DE

Fall 16

Spring 15

Spring 16 DE

Spring 17

non-DE

Degree Applicable Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s degree applicable course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Students displayed similar success rates in degree applicable courses regardless of term  No large gaps emerged when comparing degree applicable course success rates by gender  Students had similar success rates in their degree applicable courses regardless of age  Some slight gaps emerged when examining success rates by ethnicity; however, these gaps are primarily due to the small amounts of American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, and Pacific Islander students enrolling by term  In fall terms, a slight gap emerged when examining success rates by teaching method where students in on campus instruction displayed higher success rates Cypress, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Gender - Fall Trend

Cypress, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Gender - Spring Trend

75%

65%

55%

55% Fall 14 Female

Fall 15 Male

Fall 16

Spring 15

Unknown

Female

Cypress, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Age Fall Trend

Male

Spring 17 Unknown

Cypress, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Age Spring Trend

75%

65%

55%

Spring 16

55% Fall 14 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Fall 15

Fall 16 20 - 24 30 - 39

Spring 15 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Spring 16

Spring 17 20 - 24 30 - 39

Cypress, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Fall Trend

75%

65%

55%

55% Fall 14

Fall 15

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Fall 16

Spring 15

Black P. Islander

Cypress, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Fall Trend

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Spring 17 Black P. Islander

Cypress, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - SpringTrend

75%

65%

55%

Spring 16

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

55% Fall 14

Fall 15 DE

non-DE

Fall 16

Spring 15

Spring 16 DE

Spring 17

non-DE

Transfer Level Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s transfer level course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Transfer level course success rates remained consistently similar throughout the fall and spring terms examined  No large gaps emerged when comparing transfer level course success rates by gender  Older students have historically displayed slightly higher success rates in transfer level courses when compared to younger students  Some gaps emerged in relation to ethnicity with regard to American Indian/Alaskan Native and Black students; however these groups were the least prevalent at Cypress College  Success rates for transfer level DE courses have exceeded those for on campus courses; this effect is mostly prevalent within fall terms Cypress, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Gender - Fall Trend

Cypress, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Gender - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

50% Fall 14 Female

Fall 15 Male

Fall 16

Spring 15

Unknown

Female

Cypress, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Age - Fall Trend

Male

Spring 17 Unknown

Cypress, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Age - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

Spring 16

50% Fall 14 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Fall 15

Fall 16 20 - 24 30 - 39

Spring 15 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Spring 16

Spring 17 20 - 24 30 - 39

Cypress, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Fall Trend

Cypress, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Ethnicity Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

50% Fall 14

Fall 15

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Fall 16 Black P. Islander

Cypress, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Fall Trend

Spring 16 Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Spring 17 Black P. Islander

Cypress, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

Spring 15 Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

50% Fall 14

Fall 15 DE

non-DE

Fall 16

Spring 15

Spring 16 DE

Spring 17

non-DE

First Time Student Persistence Rates First time student persistence was examined through two rates: the fall-to-spring persistence rate and the fall-to-spring-to-fall persistence rate. Persistence rates were calculated for first-time students who enrolled and earned a grade in a particular fall term and went on to enroll and earn a grade in the subsequent 1) spring and 2) spring and fall terms. For the Fall 2016 cohort, fall to fall persistence rates are estimated using enrollment at census as noted by the asterisk. When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s first time student persistence rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, financial aid status, disability status, veteran status, and foster youth status were revealed:  No large gaps in persistence emerged by gender  Younger students aged 19 and younger displayed the highest persistence rates compared to all other groups  Asian and Filipino students have historically had the highest persistence rates while American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, and Pacific Islander students have displayed lower rates  No large gaps in persistence rates emerged when examining financial aid status  A slightly higher percentage of DSS students enrolled and spring and fall compared to non-DSS students for the Fall 2016 cohort  Persistence rates for veteran and foster youth students have displayed more variance over time; however, no first-time former foster youth registered in Fall 2016 Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Gender - Fall to Spring

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Gender - Fall to Fall

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

20% Fall 14 Female

Fall 15 Male

Fall 16 Unknown

Fall 14 Female

Fall 15 Male

Fall 16* Unknown

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Age - Fall to Spring

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Age - Fall to Fall

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

20% Fall 14

Fall 15

19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Fall 16

Fall 14

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Ethnicity Fall to Spring

Fall 16* 20 - 24 30 - 39

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Ethnicity Fall to Fall

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Fall 15

19 & under 25 - 29 40+

20 - 24 30 - 39

20% Fall 14 Am. Indian Filipino Unknown

Fall 15 Asian Hispanic White

Fall 16

Fall 14 Am. Indian Filipino Unknown

Black P. Islander

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Financial Aid Recipient Status - Fall to Spring

Fall 15 Asian Hispanic White

Fall 16* Black P. Islander

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Financial Aid Recipient Status - Fall to Fall

100%

80%

60%

40%

40% 20%

20% Fall 14

Fall 15 No

Yes

Fall 16

Fall 14

Fall 15 No

Fall 16*

Yes

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by DSS Status Fall to Spring

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by DSS Status Fall to Fall

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

20% Fall 14

Fall 15 No

Fall 16

Fall 14

Yes

Fall 15 No

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Veteran Status - Fall to Spring

Yes

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Veteran Status - Fall to Fall

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Fall 16*

20% Fall 14

Fall 15 No

Fall 16

Fall 14

Yes

Fall 15 No

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Foster Youth Status - Fall to Spring

Yes

Cypress, First-Time Student Persistence Rates by Foster Youth Status - Fall to Fall

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Fall 16*

20% Fall 14

Fall 15 No

Yes

Fall 16*

Fall 14

Fall 15 No

Fall 16*

Yes

NOCCCD Student Achievement Data The following charts display disaggregated data related to districtwide course success rates. Success rates in basic skills and ESL, CTE, degree applicable, and transfer level courses were examined with relation to four different areas: age, gender, ethnicity, and method of instruction. A brief analysis is included for each group of graphs. Please refer to Appendix B for more detailed information. Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of districtwide basic skills and ESL course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Success rates in basic skills and ESL courses have been slightly higher by approximately five percentage points in fall terms when compared to spring  No large differences emerged when examining success rates by gender within basic skills and ESL courses  Older students have historically displayed higher success rates when compared to younger students in basic skills and ESL courses regardless of term  Asian students have displayed the highest success rates by ethnicity with all other ethnicities displaying much lower success rates  Success rates in on campus courses have been approximately 10-15 percentage points higher than those in DE courses NOCCCD, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Gender - Fall Trend

NOCCCD, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Gender - Spring Trend

75%

65%

55%

45%

35%

35% Fall 14 Female

Fall 15 Male

Fall 16 Unknown

Spring 15 Female

Spring 16 Male

Spring 17 Unknown

NOCCCD, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Age Fall Trend

NOCCCD, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Age Spring Trend

75%

65%

55%

45%

35%

35% Fall 14

Fall 15

19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Fall 16

Spring 15

20 - 24 30 - 39

NOCCCD, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Fall Trend

Spring 17 20 - 24 30 - 39

NOCCCD, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Spring Trend

75%

65%

55%

45%

35%

Spring 16

19 & under 25 - 29 40+

35% Fall 14

Fall 15

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Fall 16

Spring 15

Black P. Islander

NOCCCD, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Fall Trend

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Spring 17 Black P. Islander

NOCCCD, Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Spring Trend

75%

65%

55%

45%

35%

Spring 16

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

35% Fall 14

Fall 15 DE

non-DE

Fall 16

Spring 15

Spring 16 DE

Spring 17

non-DE

CTE Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of districtwide CTE course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Course success rates did not display much variation by term  No large gaps emerged when examining CTE course success rates by gender  Older students have historically had higher success rates in CTE courses when compared to younger students  Some gaps emerged by ethnicity with Asian students consistently having the highest success rates and American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, and Pacific Islander students displaying lower success rates  Students displayed higher success rates in CTE courses taught through traditional instruction as opposed to DE NOCCCD, CTE Course Success Rates by Gender - Fall Trend

NOCCCD, CTE Course Success Rates by Gender - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

50% Fall 14 Female

Fall 15 Male

Fall 16

Spring 15

Unknown

Female

NOCCCD, CTE Course Success Rates by Age - Fall Trend

Male

Spring 17 Unknown

NOCCCD, CTE Course Success Rates by Age - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

Spring 16

50% Fall 14 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Fall 15

Fall 16 20 - 24 30 - 39

Spring 15 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Spring 16

Spring 17 20 - 24 30 - 39

NOCCCD, CTE Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Fall Trend

NOCCCD, CTE Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

50% Fall 14

Fall 15

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Fall 16

Spring 15

Black P. Islander

NOCCCD, CTE Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Fall Trend

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Spring 17 Black P. Islander

NOCCCD, CTE Course Success Rates by Teaching Method Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

Spring 16

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

50% Fall 14

Fall 15 DE

non-DE

Fall 16

Spring 15

Spring 16 DE

Spring 17

non-DE

Degree Applicable Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of districtwide degree applicable course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Success rates did not display much variation by term  No large gaps emerged when examining success rates by gender  Older students had success rates approximately two to five percentage points higher than those of younger students  Asian students consistently displayed the highest success rates by ethnicity while American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, Hispanic, and Pacific Islander students have historically had lower success rates  Students enrolled in sections on campus displayed higher success rates when compared to students enrolled in DE courses NOCCCD, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Gender - Fall Trend

NOCCCD, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Gender - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

50% Fall 14 Female

Fall 15 Male

Fall 16

Spring 15

Unknown

Female

NOCCCD, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Age Fall Trend

Male

Spring 17 Unknown

NOCCCD, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Age SpringTrend

80%

70%

60%

50%

Spring 16

50% Fall 14 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Fall 15

Fall 16 20 - 24 30 - 39

Spring 15 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Spring 16

Spring 17 20 - 24 30 - 39

NOCCCD, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Fall Trend

NOCCCD, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

50% Fall 14

Fall 15

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Fall 16

Spring 15

Black P. Islander

NOCCCD, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Fall Trend

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Spring 17 Black P. Islander

NOCCCD, Degree Applicable Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

Spring 16

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

50% Fall 14

Fall 15 DE

non-DE

Fall 16

Spring 15

Spring 16 DE

Spring 17

non-DE

Transfer Level Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of districtwide transfer level course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Success rates did not display much variation by term  Students had similar success rates regardless of gender  No large gaps emerged when examining transfer level course success by age  Some gaps did emerge by ethnicity as Asian and White students consistently displayed the highest success rates while American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, and Pacific Islander students displayed the lowest success rates in transfer level courses  Success rates for on campus transfer level courses exceeded those for DE for all terms examined NOCCCD, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Gender - Fall Trend

NOCCCD, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Gender - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

50% Fall 14 Female

Fall 15 Male

Fall 16

Spring 15

Unknown

Female

NOCCCD, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Age - Fall Trend

Male

Spring 17 Unknown

NOCCCD, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Age - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

Spring 16

50% Fall 14 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Fall 15

Fall 16 20 - 24 30 - 39

Spring 15 19 & under 25 - 29 40+

Spring 16

Spring 17 20 - 24 30 - 39

NOCCCD, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - Fall Trend

NOCCCD, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Ethnicity Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

50% Fall 14

Fall 15

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Fall 16

Spring 15

Black P. Islander

NOCCCD, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Fall Trend

Asian Multi-Ethn. White

Spring 17 Black P. Islander

NOCCCD, Transfer Level Course Success Rates by Teaching Method - Spring Trend

80%

70%

60%

50%

Spring 16

Am. Indian Hispanic Unknown

50% Fall 14

Fall 15 DE

non-DE

Fall 16

Fall 14

Fall 15 DE

Fall 16

non-DE

Chapter Three: Demographics Student Demographics As showcased by Figure 1, Cypress College enrollments for the previous 10 fall semesters indicate a fairly stable and positive trend. More specifically, fall enrollments increased from 2008 to 2009, where 16,670 students enrolled in Fall 2009. This marked the Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s highest enrollment by semester. Subsequently, enrollments decreased from 2009 to 2012; however, enrollments increased by nearly 1,000 students from 2012 to 2015. Fall 2016 and 2017 enrollments marked an additional turning point in trends as enrollment once again began to decrease. This recent declining enrollment trend was not local to Cypress College, or the NOCCCD, and occurred statewide among most California Community Colleges. 18,000 16,000

16,670 16,444 14,990

16,532 16,214 15,924 15,889 15,541 16,129 16,071

14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Figure 1. Fall enrollment trend at census from 2008 to 2017 Source: Cypress College Data Systems

In Fall 2016 and Spring 2017, enrollment trends were analyzed with regard to the directly matriculating Cypress College students. The college had previously established a Summer Boost program in 2014, expanded the program in 2015, and refined the program in 2016. In year three, 70 students participated in the program. Graduating high school seniors from the Anaheim Union High School District had the opportunity to advance in English (years two and three) and math (all three years) through attending workshops for learning English and math basic skills. Students that participated in this program received priority registration, were guaranteed 12 units of classes in the fall semester, and worked with counselors to develop educational plans. This initiative aimed to increase enrollment from the local feeder high schools as well as boost students into higher level math and English courses to lessen their time to completion of the course sequences, and ultimately, their time to award. In 2016, the Charger Experience Program (CEP) was expanded from the Summer Boost Program. This bridge program aimed to provide nearly 200 students with an express roadmap to completion upon completion of the Summer Boost Program; however, some students did participate in this program without having participated in Summer Boost. CEP consisted of the core components of the Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) to help students identify and complete their educational goals through streamlined assessment, orientation, and counseling follow ups. These CEP students were found to have both attempted and completed, on average, additional courses and units, when compared to other directly matriculating 35

students. These students also displayed higher fall to spring persistence rates in comparison with the overall college population. With the implementation and expansion of the Multiple Measures Assessment Project (MMAP) Pilot, as mentioned in the 2015-16 IER, it was expected that additional students would be qualifying for higher levels in the English course sequence including ENGL 60 and 100. Thus, a large scale study of unmet demand related to the language arts division was conducted in Spring 2017. The number of weeks, days of the week, and times for all classes were examined to determine trends for unmet demand in primary English courses. The transfer level course, ENGL 100 displayed the most unmet demand in Spring 2017. Students displayed preferences for early morning courses throughout the week for the lowest two levels of the English sequence, ENGL 057 and ENGL 058. Students displayed preferences for enrolling in ENGL 060 and 100 through distance education and through shortened classes less than 16 weeks in length. Thus, the college is navigating through times of changing enrollments and is creating initiatives to help students gain access to the necessary support services to help aid in access to college and completion of student educational goals. Figure 2, below, showcases the distribution of the student population by gender and semester at Cypress College. Historically, female students at the college have outnumbered male students, and this has continued to remain a steady trend through the previous five fall semesters. Approximately 1% of students did not report their gender in Fall 2017. The College continues to provide activities and interventions to help increase male student enrollment as outlined within the 2015-16 Student Equity Plan. 100% 80%

46%

45%

44%

54%

55%

54%

55%

Fall 13

Fall 14

Fall 15

Fall 16

Fall 17

60% 40% 20% 0% Female

Male

Figure 2. Proportion of students by gender Note. Students that did not report their gender are excluded from the figure Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Figure 3 on the following page showcases enrollment trends for the previous fall terms, disaggregated by ethnicity. Slight changes have been observed when examining trends in ethnicity. More specifically, the amount of Hispanic students at Cypress College has increased by six percentage points over the five-year period. This mirrors the decline in the percentage of white students enrolled by six percentage points. The percentages of all other ethnicities have

remained consistent. The college continues to address the disproportionate impact in access within the enrollment trend that was previously revealed in the 2015 Student Equity Plan.

50%

46%

44%

48%

50%

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

23% 18%

21% 19%

20% 19%

20% 18%

19% 17%

7% 5% 2%

7% 5% 1%

7% 5%

7% 5% 2%

Fall 13

Fall 14

Fall 15

2% Fall 16

Fall 17

Hispanic

White

Asian / Pacific Islander

Filipino

African American

Other

Figure 3. Proportion of students by ethnicity Source: Cypress College Data Systems

The figure below outlines the proportion of Cypress College students by age for the five most recent fall terms. Overall, students did not display much variation for the five terms examined. Most of Cypress College students continue to be below 25 years of age while a smaller proportion of students are older than 25. There seems to be an increasing gap between the percentages of 25 through 29 and 30 through 49 year old students at the college. In Fall 2014, both of these groups represented 13% each of the college population. As of Fall 2017, that has remained consistent for 30 through 49 year old students; however, the percentage of 25 to 29 year olds enrolled has increased by three percentage points. 50% 43%

42%

41%

29%

28%

14%

16%

13%

15%

14% 13% 3%

13% 3%

13%

Fall 13

Fall 14

Fall 15

Fall 16

Fall 17

41%

40% 30% 20% 10%

0% 19 or less

20 - 24

25 - 29

30 - 49

50+

Figure 4. Proportion of students by age Source: Cypress College Data Systems

The percentage of first generation students at Cypress College has historically been near 45% (see Table 9). In Fall 2017, the percentage of first-generation students enrolled was consistent with the historical trend at 45.6%. Thus, the percentage of first-generation students at Cypress College has remained consistently near half. Table 9. Educational Background of Parents Fall 2015 Parentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Educational Background % n No High School High School

Diploma1

Fall 2016

Fall 2017

2,836

17.1%

2,946

18.2%

2,811

17.7%

4,733

28.6%

4,637

28.6%

4,434

27.9%

Some College/No Degree

3,736

22.6%

3,574

22.1%

3,470

21.8%

Associate Degree

1,366

8.3%

1,349

8.3%

1,278

8.0%

Bachelor Degree

2,504

15.1%

2,497

15.4%

2,571

16.2%

Graduate Degree

1,004

6.1%

1,015

6.3%

955

6.0%

377

2.3%

189

1.2%

377

2.4%

15,896

100.0%

Not Reported

Total 16,556 100.0% 16,207 100.0% 1 *Note. refers to first-time students Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Because nearly half of all Cypress College students are first-generation students, the college has established and expanded interventions and additional support services to help these firstgeneration college students succeed. Interventions have included a continuation of the Summer Boost program to allow students time to familiarize themselves, and possibly have the opportunity to skip a course within their math and English course material and curriculum to be able to enroll in a higher level course during their first semester. The college placement systems have also been reimagined through the multiple measures pilot for directly matriculating, including first generation students. Through the use of validated high school grade and GPA data, students gain access to transfer level English and math courses at higher rates. The establishment of a Charger Experience Program as a first-year-experience program has aimed to help with success efforts for this population of students. The Achieving Cypress College Educational Student Success (ACCESS) program was created to help familiarize both first-time and first-generation students with student support services on campus. The program, first offered for all students enrolled in ENGL 060, College Writing Preparation, was also offered for incoming ENGL 100, College Writing, students for the first time in Fall 2016. The program was expanded to include ENGL 100 students as additional students were expected to place into ENGL 100 through the Multiple Measures Assessment Pilot (MMAP). Students in ENGL 060 and 100 were surveyed related to their familiarity with and visitation of support services on campus. ACCESS post-survey results revealed that students reported gaining the most familiarity with the health center, transfer center, career center, and student activities center. Students most commonly reported visiting the counseling center, the financial aid office, and the various tutoring centers within the Library and Learning Resource Center (LLRC). Demographic disaggregation revealed that African-American students frequently reported having the most familiarity and highest percentages of visitation with the various support services overall. Thus, as African-American students represent a disproportionately impacted population group at Cypress College, the ACCESS program is meeting its goal with regard to familiarizing and connecting at risk students to the various support services. Additionally, a disproportionate 38

number of Hispanic students visited the financial aid office in comparison to students from all other ethnicities; this may be due to the November 2016 election and changing political climate. In contrast, white students often reported the least familiarity and visitation with resources. Figure 5 below represents studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; unit load for the most recent five fall terms. The percentage of students enrolling full-time has increased by two percentage points while the percentage of students enrolled at half time or less has decreased by three percentage points. The percentage of students enrolling more than half-time but less than full-time has remained relatively stable. 50% 40% 40% 32% 30% 28%

38%

36%

37%

33%

34%

31%

30%

36%

32% 30%

20% 10% 0% Fall 13

Fall 14 Less than 7

Fall 15

Fall 16

7 to 11.5

12 or more

Fall 17

Figure 5. Proportion of students by unit load Source: Cypress College Data Systems

The figure below represents studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; self-reported educational goals at their time of admission. In Fall 2017, over half of all students reported that they aimed to complete an associate degree and transfer to a 4-year college. Students less frequently aimed to either transfer only or obtain an associate degree only (see Figure 6). 60% 49%

50%

51%

52%

16%

17%

16%

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

11% 8% 4%

11% 8% 5%

Fall 13

10% 7% 4%

Fall 14

Fall 15

10% 4% Fall 16

10% 6% 4% Fall 17

Associate Degree and Transfer

Transfer Only

Associate Degree Only

Vocational Degree or Certificate

New Career or Job Advancement

Figure 6. Proportion of students by educational goal Source: Cypress College Data Systems

The Cypress College service area includes eight primary cities: Anaheim, Buena Park, Cypress, Garden Grove, La Palma, Los Alamitos, Rossmoor/Seal Beach, and Stanton. A large amount of students come from outside of the primary service area from additional cities within Los Angeles County, Orange County, and beyond. The table below illustrates the top 10 feeder high schools and the number of directly matriculating students at Cypress College in Fall 2016 and 2017. Previously, Western High School held the spot of the top feeder high school; however, Kennedy High School became the top feeder high school for Fall 2017. Of the top 10 feeder high schools, 80% are within the collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s service area (see Table 10). North Orange Continuing Education (NOCE) data was included for the first time in Fall 2017. Table 10. Top 10 Feeder High Schools for Directly Matriculating First-Time Students High School Name Fall 2016 Fall 2017 % Change Kennedy (John F.) High1

138

High1

121

125

3.3%

Cypress High1

117

31.5%

NOCCCD NOCE1

39.6%

Cerritos High

-24.1%

Savanna High1

1.6%

-11.1%

36.6%

Western

Los Alamitos

Magnolia

High1

Rancho Alamitos

High1

64.3%

La Mirada High 53 50 -5.7% Note. A 1 symbol next to a high school denotes that the high school is within the service area Source: Cypress College Data Systems

When further examining data for all Cypress College students in Fall 2017, studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; zip codes were compiled to determine the top zip codes of Cypress College students. Of the top 10 zip codes in which students most commonly resided in, 70% were from feeder cities, while an additional 30% of the top 10 zip codes were from cities outside of the service area. Zip codes outside of the service area were within Cerritos, Norwalk, and La Mirada (see Table 11). Table 11. Top 10 Zip Codes of Residence for all Cypress College Students Fall 2012 Fall 2017 Fall 2012 to Fall 2017 Zip Code and City % % # Change % Change n n 92804 1

Anaheim

1,547

10.0%

1,608

9.9%

3.9%

90630

Cypress

1,218

7.8%

1,182

7.3%

-36

-3.0%

90620

Buena Park

1,228

7.9%

1,171

7.2%

-57

-4.6%

92801 1

Anaheim

701

4.5%

769

4.7%

9.7%

90703

Cerritos

467

3.0%

515

3.2%

10.3%

Stanton

443

2.9%

510

3.1%

15.1%

90650

Norwalk

388

2.5%

507

3.1%

119

30.7%

92805 1

Anaheim

364

2.3%

399

2.5%

9.6%

Buena Park

456

2.9%

398

2.5%

-58

-12.7%

469 3.0% 398 2.5% Source: Cypress College Data Systems

-71

-15.1%

90680

90621 90638

La Mirada

In Fall 2016, the college became part of the Multiple Measures Assessment Project (MMAP) pilot. As part of MMAP, Cypress College began utilizing the statewide model to help more accurately and successfully place students in mathematics and English. The statewide model recommends using disjunctive placement, where a student receives the higher of the two placements suggested by high school data and a placement test. For the pilot, 169 students from three high schools participated: Cypress, Kennedy, and Western. Data on these students were submitted to Cal-PASS Plus to obtain a match with studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; high school data and recommended placements using the statewide MMAP model for English and math. In Fall 2017, these efforts were expanded to all directly matriculating students. Due to the adoption of multiple measures, placement trends have changed over time. The largest change emerged when comparing Fall 2016 and 2017 due to the expansion of the multiple measures pilot. In Fall 2017, nearly half of the incoming directly matriculating students were placed into transfer-level English. Thus, a reduction in the percentages of students placing at all other levels was observed. These trends are expected to continue as the multiple measures pilot continues to expand in future years. In Fall 2017, 56.9% of incoming students placed into basic skills English including ENGL 057, 058, and 060, displaying a large reduction from previous fall terms (see Table 12). Table 12. English Placements of Directly Matriculating First-Time Students Fall 2013

Placement

Fall 2014

Fall 2015

Fall 2016

Fall 2017

ENGL 100

295

19.7%

244

17.7%

269

19.0%

222

16.7%

597

41.9%

ENGL 060

415

27.7%

395

28.6%

372

26.2%

376

28.2%

357

25.1%

ENGL 058

576

38.4%

528

38.2%

535

37.7%

507

38.0%

349

24.5%

ENGL 057

177

11.8%

175

12.7%

202

14.2%

200

15.0%

104

7.3%

Refer to Counselor

2.4%

2.9%

2.8%

2.1%

1.2%

1,499

100.0%

1,382

100.0%

1,418

100.0%

1,333

100.0%

1,424

100.0%

Total

Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Trends for math placement displayed more subtle changes due to the adoption of multiple measures. The primary difference emerged when comparing MATH 15 placements from Fall 2016 to 2017. Thus, as less students placed into MATH 10 and 15, more placed into MATH 20 college-level math, and MATH 150A overall. In Fall 2017, 54.9% of incoming students placed into basic skills math (including MATH 10, 15, and 20). This did not change significantly compared to Fall 2016. The number of placements into college-level math and calculus increased by 38.1%, or by 112 students, from Fall 2016 to 2017. Thus, while the trend has not yet significantly changed, more students are placing into transfer-level math (see Table 13). Table 13. Math Placements of Directly Matriculating First-Time Students Placement

Fall 2013

Fall 2014

Fall 2015

Fall 2016

Fall 2017

MATH 150A

4.1%

4.4%

3.2%

3.3%

4.2%

MATH 100-142

281

21.3%

282

23.3%

256

19.4%

255

21.3%

349

25.8%

MATH 040

239

18.1%

211

17.5%

236

17.9%

198

16.6%

205

15.1%

MATH 020

383

29.0%

114

9.4%

101

7.6%

7.5%

246

18.2%

MATH 015

331

25.1%

461

38.2%

565

42.8%

486

40.7%

392

28.9%

MATH 010

2.4%

7.2%

121

9.2%

127

10.6%

106

7.8%

Total

1,320

100.0%

1,208

100.0%

1,321

100.0%

1,195

100.0%

1,355

100.0%

Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Faculty and Staff Demographics The following section presents data which compares Cypress College staffing with all California Community Colleges in Fall 2016 (see Figure 7). Cypress College was consistent with the District and statewide trends when comparing the percentage of employees in each classification. The largest difference between the state and Cypress College was regarding the number of classified employees, where Cypress College employed 7.3% less classified state compared to the state. In contrast, Cypress College had highest percentages of employment for academic tenured and temporary faculty, compared to the State and NOCCCD averages. 60% 50.2% 50.9% 46.4%

50% 40% 30% 20.5%

20%

30.8% 25.7%

22.3% 24.0%

23.4%

10% 2.3%1.9%1.6% 0% Administrators

Academic, Tenured California

NOCCCD

Academic, Temporary

Classified

Cypress College

Figure 7. Employees by Classification: California, NOCCCD, and Cypress College Source: California Community Colleges Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office Data Mart

In Fall 2016, the equal distribution of male and female employees at the College was similar across the different types of employee classifications. The largest difference was amongst male Administrators whom outnumbered the female administrators by 20 percentage points, which was also impacted by the small number of total administrators. The converse trend was observed for full-time faculty members, where the number of women exceeded the men by 13.6 percentage points (see Table 14). Table 14. Cypress College Employees by Gender, Fall 2016 Administrator Classified FT Faculty Gender % % % n n n

PT Faculty

Overall

Female

40.0%

108

50.2%

125

56.8%

235

50.4%

474

51.8%

Male

60.0%

107

49.8%

43.2%

231

49.6%

442

48.2%

Total

1.6% 215 23.5% 220 24.0% 466 50.9% 916 Source: California Community Colleges Chancellorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Office Data Mart

100.0%

Focusing the ethnic disaggregation of employees at the college, White employees represented one of the largest groups on campus. White, Hispanic, and Asian employees were the largest sub-groups among classified staff, full time faculty, and part time faculty. Classified staff 42

represented one of the most diverse employee groups, with African American, Asian, and Hispanic employees making up over 45% of classified staff (see Table 15). Table 15. Cypress College Employees by Ethnicity, Fall 2016 Administrator Classified FT Faculty Ethnicity % % % n n n

PT Faculty

Overall

African-American

0.0%

5.6%

3.2%

3.7%

3.9%

Am. Indian/Alaskan

0.0%

0.5%

0.0%

0.1%

Asian

20.0%

15.8%

14.1%

120.0%

161

17.6%

Hispanic

6.7%

25.1%

15.9%

15.5%

162

17.7%

Pacific Islander

0.0%

0.5%

0.2%

0.3%

White

60.0%

36.7%

116

52.7%

227

48.7%

431

47.1%

Multi-Ethnic

0.0%

2.3%

4.1%

2.2%

2.6%

Not Reported

13.3%

13.5%

9.6%

9.9%

10.7%

916

100.0%

Total

15 1.6% 215 23.5% 220 24.0% 466 50.9% Source: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Data Mart

Almost half of the College’s total employees were between the ages of 40 to 59 in Fall 2016 (see Table 16). Almost two thirds of all administrators at the college were 50 or older. Additionally, 45.5% of classified staff and 54.6% of full time faculty were over the age of 50, while over a quarter of part time faculty were ages 18 – 34. Table 16. Cypress College Employees by Age, Fall 2016 Administrator Classified FT Faculty Age % % % n n n

PT Faculty

Overall

18 to 34

6.7%

15.8%

9.6%

124

26.6%

180

19.7%

35 to 39

6.7%

11.2%

6.8%

13.7%

104

11.4%

40 to 49

20.0%

27.4%

29.1%

110

23.6%

236

25.8%

50 to 59

33.3%

33.0%

29.6%

17.0%

220

24.0%

33.3%

12.6%

25.0%

19.1%

176

19.2%

15 1.6% 215 23.5% 220 24.0% 466 50.9% 916 Source: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Data Mart

100.0%

60 and older Total

The college plans on conducting a climate survey of all employees in Fall 2017. The survey will help reveal employee perceptions and ratings of the campus climate, diversity, decision-making processes, planning processes, and the mission. Results from the previous campus climate survey conducted in Fall 2015 revealed gaps between managers, classified staff, and faculty with regard to perceptions of the overall climate as well as communications, planning, and decision-making involvement. Many of the same questions from the 2015 survey will continue to be asked in order to analyze and track the longitudinal trends with regard to employee perceptions.

Chapter Four: Measures of Institutional Effectiveness

Success and Retention Success and retention rates serve as two long-standing and significant indicators of student performance. The ACCJC institution set standard for successful course completion is 71.1%. The figures below showcase the success and retention rates over the last 5 years for the College.

Calculation of Success and Retention Success Rate= A, B, C, P, CR x 100 All grades Retention Rate= All grades other than W x 100 All grades

Historically, success rates in fall have exceeded those in spring. This trend was generally persistent through 2014-15; however, in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 academic years, students overall spring success rates were higher than those during the previous fall semesters. Student retention has remained consistent over the last several years, with a small bump observed during spring 2017. While Cypress College did not meet the ACCJC ISS for successful course completion during the Fall 2016, the institution did meet the standard for the Spring 2017 semester (see Figures 8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 9). 84.1% 71.8%

84.1%

71.1%

84.2%

70.2%

84.4%

70.4%

84.9%

70.7%

Fall Fall Fall Fall Fall 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Success Rates Retention Rates

Figure 8. Fall success and retention

83.4% 71.0%

83.4%

69.9%

83.2%

69.5%

83.7%

70.5%

84.5%

71.5%

Spring Spring Spring Spring Spring 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Success Rates Retention Rates

Figure 9. Spring success and retention

Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Success and retention rates vary by division and between fall and spring semesters due to differences in course offerings. Divisions that are smaller, have selective programs, and have career or technical education programs have historically had higher success and retention rates compared to other divisions. In contrast, divisions which have general level coursework, higher enrollments, more rigorous coursework, and have STEM-related programs have historically had lower success and retention rates. The figures on the following page present Spring 2017 success and retention rates, disaggregated by division (see Figures 10 - 11).

Overall, seven division had success rates higher than the college average, while only two had success rates below the average. Specifically, the health science, physical education, and CTE divisions had the highest success rates, whereas the social science and SEM divisions had the lowest success rates. Compared to the success rates for Spring 2016, Physical Education and Business/CIS had the largest percentage point increases (5.5 and 2.1 percentage points respectively). Other divisions with annual increases in success rates included fine arts (1.3 percentage point increase) and SEM (1 percentage point increase). Focusing on retention rates, the trends were similar to success rates where seven divisions were above the college average, while two did not meet the average. Specifically, the health science, physical education, and Counselling division had the highest retention rates for Spring 2017, while the Business/CIS and SEM division had the lowest retention rates. This did not change drastically from Spring 2016 as the health science and counseling divisions continued to have the highest retention rates while the Business/CIS and SEM divisions continued to display the lowest retention rates. Health Science

86.1%

Health Science

91.3%

Physical Education

85.5%

Physical Education

90.4%

CTE

78.2%

Counseling

88.0%

Fine Arts

77.5%

CTE

87.7%

Counseling

74.8%

Fine Arts

87.2%

Business/CIS

72.6%

Social Science

84.8%

Language Arts

72.3%

Language Arts

84.5%

College Average

71.5%

College Average

84.5%

Business/CIS

81.4%

SEM

79.4%

Social Science SEM

68.2% 61.4%

Figure 10. Spring 2017 success rates by division

Figure 11. Spring 2017 retention rates by division

Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Awards: Degrees and Certificates Cypress College has two ACCJC institution set standards for award completion. These ISS include having students complete 1,078 degrees and 759 certificates per academic year. In 2016 – 2017, the College successfully met both institution set standards for associate degree and certificate completion, with students earning a total of 2,150 awards, an overall increase of 15% from 2015 – 2016. While there was a slight decrease in the number of associate degrees awarded from 2015 – 2016, the amount of certificates awarded increased by nearly 50% (see Figure 12 on the following page). This increase in the amount of certificate awards was expected. In Spring 2016, the student deadline for filing for certificates was prior to the first day of class. In Spring 2017, the deadline was extended back to two weeks into the Spring 2017 semester. This deadline primarily affected CTE students as some programs within the CTE division provide assistance to students with regard to filing for their certificates during the semester. However, with the 45

deadline being prior to the start of the semester, a large decrease in the amount of CTE related certificate applications and awards were observed when comparing 2014-15 and 2015-16. In 2016-17, with the expanded deadline, Cypress College students earned over 1,000 certificates, which has not previously occurred within a given academic year. The college is also exploring ways to automate the award of certificates through the use of DegreeWorks software which may lead to additional increases in the amount of certificate awards in the upcoming academic years.

2,150 1,902

1,878

1,771 1,588

1,006

677

928

819

833

974

952

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

755

Associate Degrees

1,201

1,144

2015-16

2016-17

Certificates

Total

Figure 12. Degrees and certificates awarded by academic year Source: Cypress College Data Systems

All awards earned were disaggregated by student demographic information to determine trends in award attainment. In 2016-17, a similar proportion of male and female students earned awards, which improved from 2012-13 where there was a 14 percentage point gap between females and males. The percentage of degrees earned by each age group annually has not displayed much variation over time with students aged 20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 24 earning approximately half of the degrees annually awarded. The percentage of Hispanic students earning awards has increased with each passing academic year in direct proportion to a decrease in the percentage of white students earning awards annually. The percentages of DSS students, veterans, and former foster youth earning awards have remained consistent at approximately 10% for the time period examined (see Table 17). Table 17. Awards Earned, 2012-13 to 2016-17: Disaggregated by Demographic Information Awards 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Gender Female

56.5%

51.3%

50.9%

54.4%

48.2%

Male

42.2%

47.5%

48.0%

44.8%

49.9%

Unknown

1.3%

1.2%

1.1%

0.8%

1.9%

Age 19 or less

2.9%

3.0%

2.4%

4.2%

20-24

44.3%

45.6%

46.5%

49.3%

50.3%

25-39

37.6%

36.5%

35.8%

39.3%

36.0%

40+

15.2%

15.0%

14.7%

9.0%

9.5%

Awards

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Ethnicity Am. Indian

0.3%

0.9%

0.8%

0.3%

0.8%

Asian or PI

23.5%

24.6%

24.1%

25.9%

28.2%

Black

4.7%

3.5%

4.1%

4.6%

3.5%

Hispanic

33.8%

35.5%

38.3%

43.0%

44.9%

White

33.6%

32.9%

30.8%

24.5%

21.4%

Unreported

4.1%

2.6%

1.9%

1.7%

1.2%

Disability Status No

93.0%

92.4%

91.7%

92.4%

92.9%

Yes

7.0%

7.6%

8.3%

7.6%

7.1%

Veteran Status No

95.6%

96.8%

96.4%

97.0%

97.1%

Yes

4.4%

3.2%

3.6%

3.0%

2.9%

Foster Youth Status No

99.9%

99.8%

100.0%

99.9%

Yes

0.1%

0.2%

0.1%

1,878

2,150

TOTAL

1,588 1,902 1,771 Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Degrees Awarded Cypress College awarded 1,144 degrees during the 2016 – 2017 school year, surpassing the ACCJC ISS for degree completion. The most commonly awarded degree areas for 2016 – 2017 included business, liberal arts for math and science, liberal arts for social and behavioral sciences, nursing, and psychology, which contributed 56% of the total number of degrees awarded for the year. In contrast, no students were awarded with degrees in automotive collision repair, court reporting, general studies, marketing, office administration, and philosophy and religious studies. Areas that displayed the most growth in 2016 – 2017 included business, English, health information technology, physical education and automotive technology. Areas that had declines in degrees awarded included hotel, restaurant, culinary arts, liberal arts for social and behavioral sciences, liberal arts for math and science, and mortuary sciences. Over the last five years the College has awarded the most degrees in Business, Liberal Arts for Social and Behavioral Sciences, Liberal Arts for Math and Sciences, nursing, and psychology (see Table 18). Table 18. Degrees Earned, 2012-13 Through 2016-17 Degree Area 2012-13 2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Overall

Accounting

Air Conditioning/Refrigeration

Anthropology

Art

Auto Collision Repair

Automotive Technology

Aviation And Travel Careers

Degree Area

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Overall

Business

111

131

156

202

668

Chemistry

Communication Studies

115

Computer Info Systems

Court Reporting

Dance

Dental Assistant

Dental Hygiene

Diagnostic Medical Sonography

Education

English

Ethnic Studies

General Studies

Geography

Geology

Health Info Technology

History

Hotel, Restaurant, Culinary Arts

173

Human Services

Liberal Arts

Liberal Arts: Arts And Humanities

254

Liberal Arts: Human Communication

Liberal Arts: Math And Science

102

129

107

148

137

623

Liberal Arts: Soc/Behavioral Sci.

174

203

178

209

154

918

Management

Marketing

Mathematics

Mortuary Science

175

Music

Nursing

393

Office Administration

Philosophy And Religious Studies

Photography

Physical Education

101

Physics

Political Science

Psychiatric Technology

Psychology

299

Radiological Technology

133

Degree Area

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Overall

Sociology

143

Theater Arts

1,201

1,144

5,104

Total Degrees Awarded

833 974 952 Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Over time, the percentage of degrees earned by male students has increased by nearly 10 percentage points; however, female students continue to earn more than half of the degrees awarded annually. The proportion of students from each age group earning degrees has not displayed much annual variation over time. However, Hispanic students have started earning a higher percentage of degrees awarded annually, and this is proportional to a decline in the percentage of degrees earned by White students. The percentage of degrees earned by DSS, veteran, and former foster youth students has remained consistently near 10% (see Table 19). Table 19. Degrees Earned, 2012-13 to 2016-17: Disaggregated by Demographic Information Degrees Awarded 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Gender Female

67.0%

63.4%

64.8%

61.9%

57.1%

Male

32.3%

35.8%

34.3%

37.5%

41.3%

Unknown

0.7%

0.8%

0.9%

0.6%

1.6%

Age 19 or less

1.7%

1.2%

1.6%

1.5%

3.1%

20-24

51.1%

55.5%

57.6%

58.3%

55.4%

25-39

38.3%

34.7%

33.1%

35.1%

35.4%

40+

8.9%

8.6%

7.7%

5.1%

6.1%

Ethnicity Am. Indian

0.5%

0.4%

0.8%

0.2%

0.3%

Asian or PI

24.7%

28.6%

27.6%

30.5%

Black

4.9%

3.2%

4.7%

4.9%

3.5%

Hispanic

33.9%

34.4%

36.1%

41.6%

42.3%

White

32.2%

29.4%

28.2%

24.4%

22.1%

Unreported

3.8%

4.0%

2.6%

1.3%

Disability Status No

94.8%

93.8%

93.3%

92.9%

Yes

5.2%

6.2%

6.7%

7.1%

Veteran Status No

97.2%

96.5%

97.8%

97.1%

Yes

2.8%

3.5%

2.2%

2.9%

Foster Youth Status No

100.0%

99.9%

99.7%

100.0%

99.9%

Yes

0.1%

0.3%

0.1%

1,201

1,144

TOTAL

833 974 952 Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Certificates Awarded Cypress College awarded 759 certificates during 2016-2017 school year, surpassing the ACCJC institution set standard for certificate completion. The areas that awarded the most certificates in 2016 – 2017 included air conditioning/refrigeration, automotive technology, aviation and travel careers, hotel, restaurant, culinary arts, and the IGETC certificate. These areas comprise 65.7% of all certificates awarded in 2016 – 2017. In contrast, the areas that awarded zero certificates in 2016 – 2017 included accounting, dental hygiene, economics, multimedia, and office administration. Areas that displayed the largest growth in certificates awarded in 2016 – 2017 fell primarily within CTE areas including air conditioning/refrigeration, automotive technology, human services, and media arts design; all of these programs awarded at least fifteen or more additional certificates compared to the previous year. In contrast, other areas saw a decrease in the number of certificates awarded. Computer information systems and hotel, restaurant, culinary arts both had at least 10 fewer certificates compared to 2015-2016. The new IGETC certificate contributed to approximately 15% of certificate awards in 2016-17 (see Table 20). Table 20. Certificates Earned, 2012-13 through 2016-17 Certificate Area 2012-13 2013-14 2014-5

2015-16

2016-17

Overall

Accounting

Air Conditioning/Refrigeration

110

100

374

Auto Collision Repair

111

Automotive Technology

176

194

195

120

214

899

Aviation And Travel Careers

101

121

494

Computer Info Systems

321

Court Reporting

Dance

Dental Assistant

Dental Hygiene

Diagnostic Medical Sonography

Economics

Geography

Health Info Technology

Hotel, Restaurant, Culinary Arts

103

109

115

100

517

Human Services

287

Management

Marketing

Media Arts Design

Multimedia

Music

Office Administration

Other: IGETC Certificate

152

Photography

Physical Education

Psychiatric Technology

138

Radiological Technology

155

Theater Arts

1,006

4,185

Total Certificates Awarded

755 928 819 677 Source: Cypress College Data Systems

In 2012-13, similar percentages of male and female students earned certificates annually. Over time, the gap between males and females has increased to approximately 21 percentage points, with male students earning a higher percentage of certificates. In 2016-17, a higher proportion of students aged 20 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 24 years old earned certificates compared to students aged 25 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 39. The percentage of certificates awarded to Hispanic students has increased over time, with students earning nearly half of all certificates awarded in 2016-17. The percentages of DSS, veteran, and former foster youth students earning certificates have remained stable (see Table 21). Table 21. Certificates Earned, 2012-13 to 2016-17: Disaggregated by Demographic Information Certificates Awarded 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Gender Female

45.0%

38.6%

34.7%

40.9%

38.1%

Male

53.1%

59.7%

64.0%

57.9%

59.6%

Unknown

1.9%

1.7%

1.3%

1.2%

2.3%

Age 19 or less

4.1%

4.6%

4.5%

4.0%

5.6%

20-24

36.8%

35.2%

33.6%

33.2%

44.5%

25-39

36.8%

38.4%

38.9%

46.8%

36.6%

40+

22.3%

21.8%

23.0%

16.0%

13.3%

Ethnicity Am. Indian

1.4%

0.9%

0.6%

0.9%

Asian or PI

22.1%

20.3%

20.0%

23.0%

25.6%

Black

4.4%

3.8%

3.4%

4.1%

3.6%

Hispanic

33.8%

36.6%

40.9%

45.5%

47.8%

White

35.2%

36.6%

33.8%

24.8%

20.7%

Unreported

4.5%

1.3%

1.0%

2.0%

1.4%

Disability Status No

91.0%

90.8%

89.9%

90.8%

92.8%

Yes

9.0%

9.2%

10.1%

9.2%

7.2%

Veteran Status No

93.8%

96.4%

96.2%

95.6%

97.0%

Yes

6.2%

3.6%

3.8%

4.4%

3.0%

Foster Youth Status No

99.9%

100.0%

99.9%

Yes

0.1%

677

1,006

TOTAL

755 928 819 Source: Cypress College Data Systems

Transfer Transfer patterns have remained largely the same over the last five academic years (see Figure 6). Data is currently not available for in-state-private schools, as well as out-of-state schools for 2016-17, but information is included for UC and CSU transfers. Despite the missing data, there was still an increase in CSU transfers by 18 students, as well as an additional 7 students transferring to UC’s, compared to the previous year. The number of students transferring to in state private and out-of-state private schools has remained consistent around 300 to 350 students transferring per year. Based on these projections, the College expects approximately 1,219 transfers for the 2017 – 2017 school year. The college established an institution set standard to have at least 903 students transfer each year. Thus, the College has successfully met the standard for transfer volume for the 2016 – 2017 school year (see Figure 13).

1,021 136 152

1,265

1,248

154

167

176

171

158

163

180

106

119

772

730

782

800

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

1,158 112

147

586

2012-13

CSU

In-State-Private*

Out-of-State*

Total*

Figure 13. Transfer volume, 2012-13 through 2016-17 Sources: California State University Analytic Studies, and University of California Infocenter *Note. Data on in-state private and out-of-state transfers has not yet been made available for 2016-17 through the California Community College’s Chancellor’s Office Data Mart

Full-Time Equivalent Students (FTES) FTES serves as a significant measure of productivity for Cypress College. One FTES refers to the equivalent of 525 hours of instruction per each FTES. As the basis for state funding, FTES represent the income associated with instruction. By comparing FTES for different academic years, efficiency can be tracked and examined longitudinally for trends (see Figure 14 on the following page). The 2016 – 2017 academic year saw a slight decrease in the total FTES produced compared to the previous year, while still remaining above the rates for 2014-15. FTES produced in summer dropped by 21.7 since 2015-2016 but remained greater than 2014 – 2015 rates. The FTES produced in in Fall 2016 decreased by 84.7 FTES from Fall 2015. Similarly, FTES produced in Spring 2017 FTES followed a similar pattern. More specifically, spring FTES produced decreased by approximately 85 FTES from Spring 2016 to Spring 2017. Thus, from 2015-16 to 2016-17, the total number of resident FTES produced decreased by 1.7%.

11,561.9

11,370.4

5,235.7

5,205.0

5,119.9

5,294.1

5,327.9

5,504.6

5,419.9

426.0

617.7

629.1

852.3

830.6

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

11,066.4

11,192.7

5,154.7

5,053.2

10,541.4

5,062.2

Summer

Fall

Spring

Total FTES

Figure 14. Trends in resident FTES Source: NOCCCD 5-year Trend Report

FTES can also be disaggregated by division to compare productivity between the different academic areas at the College. For the three most recent academic years, the SEM, social science, and language arts divisions generated the greatest number of FTES, while the library, counseling, PE, and Business/CIS divisions had produced the least FTES. These trends for each division were consistent with the most recent 2016 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2017 academic year. Many of the SEM, social science, and language arts divisions have core courses that many students are required to complete for graduation/transfer requirements, thus producing more FTES, while the areas with lower FTES contain more specialized or selective programs, thus producing less FTES (see Table 22). Table 22. Division trends in Resident FTES, 2014-15 through 2016-17 2014-15 2015-16 Division

2016-17

Summer

Fall

Spring

Summer

Fall

Spring

Summer

Fall

Spring

Business/CIS

28.1

310.5

311.4

28.0

307

281.7

44.9

300.3

261.4

Counseling

2.5

85.7

56.0

2.0

84.7

59.4

4.1

98.4

47.1

CTE

13.2

346.1

346.8

30.3

373.8

369.1

37.3

328.7

323.2

551.1

483.1

52.9

522.9

465.5

53.7

510.7

491.6

Health Sci.

73.6

442.8

451.4

442.8

452.3

75.8

432.8

449.7

Lang. Arts

99.4

928.8

952.4

142.1

1,003.0

941.9

125.8

1,006.8

935.5

Library

0.0

1.1

0.8

0.52

0.6

0.7

0.0

0.7

2.6

25.5

232.2

207.9

36.8

216.5

172.7

35.3

248.0

226.3

SEM

172.1

1,408.3

1,338.6

219.3

1,468.1

1,401.8

222.7

1,459.0

1,399.4

Social Sci.

181.8

1,022.2

1,087.4

256.5

1,069.9

1,060.0

231.0

1,034.61

983.16

Total

629.1

5,327.9

5,235.7

852.3

5,504.6

5,205.0

830.6

5,419.9

5,119.9

Fine Arts

Source: NOCCCD 5-year Trend Report

Weekly Student Contact Hours (WSCH) per Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF) FTEF refers to full time equivalent faculty. FTEF represents the most significant cost to the College. The productivity measure for determining cost effectiveness consists of the ratio of weekly student contact hours (WSCH) per FTEF. Most California community colleges have historically aimed to have a WSCH per FTEF ratio of 525 to one, implying an average class size of 35. Of course, the target of having 35 students per course is not always pedagogically sound dependent on learning strategies and course types; thus, large fluctuations in course size are observed. The health science division represents one division which has external accrediting bodies that place some mandated limitations on enrollment for some of the programs within the division. Because the College does have limitations on enrollment for some programs, the target ratio is not attainable. Instead, the College has been tracking enrollment ratios over time to help with enrollment management and reduce enrollment related spending. In 2016-17 the NOCCCD also established a district level enrollment management committee for discussions and planning related to enrollment trends and increasing enrollments and productivity. At the college, productivity has also been examined with regard to unmet demand at the section and course level. Enrollments, maximum class sizes, class times, and teaching methods were examined within the counseling and language arts divisions to help with enrollment management and attempting to predict future course needs for the divisions. The college continues to be the most productive during the summer terms; however, the college has seen a steady trend in decreasing WSCH per FTEF over the last several years, with a slight reduction of 25 WSCH per FTEF for the most recent 2016 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2017 academic year. This decline in WSCH per FTEF was observed equally across summer, fall, and spring semesters. Typically, as the economy improves, the demand for seats declines. Over the last five years, there has been a general slowing down in FTES growth in most of the California community college campuses. Cypress College has been chasing the potential growth and has attempted to increase FTES production. In order to meet the growth target when the overall demand declined, the college added more sections in 2016-17. As the college continued to add additional sections to meet growth targets, productivity continued to decline (see Figure 15). 1,358.9 425.1

1,350.1

1,320.4

432.1

412.8

1,250.5

1,225.1

394.4

387.7

452.8

439.9

430.4

419.9

406.5

481.0

478.1

477.2

436.2

431.0

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

Summer

Fall

Spring

Total WSCH per FTEF

Figure 15. Trends in WSCH per FTEF, 2012-13 through 2016-17 Source: NOCCCD 5-year Trend Report

Chapter Five: Departmental Planning and Program Review The Departmental Planning and Program Review (often shortened to program review) process represents a key component to planning and resource allocation at Cypress College. In 201617, the instructional program review cycle became extended from three years to four years with CTE programs completing a short review process every two years. The program review process consists of reviewing data analysis, a review of outcomes, discussing SLO results, determining recency of curriculum, and identifying resources to help improve teaching and learning. Disaggregation of data for program review heavily expanded in 2016-17. More specifically, as a result of previous evaluations of the program review process, the institutional research and planning office began providing additional data related to enrollment trends, full time faculty ratios, awards, transfers, employment (for CTE programs), and success rates disaggregated by semester, teaching method, and demographics. Demographics included students by gender, age, ethnicity, veteran status, DSS status, foster youth status, and financial aid recipient status. Once a department completes a program review form, they present their programs to the committee to engage in a dialogue on programs and student learning. These program review forms, along with an SLO status report, were shared with the instructional deans. The deans provided comments on the forms for the departmentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; final review. As a result of previous evaluations, department chairs and faculty continued presenting their forms to the Program Review Committee. The Committee, appointed by the Academic Senate, includes representatives from each division. The review of commendations and recommendations that the Committee puts together on an annual basis is then submitted to the Executive Vice President for his comments. The Program Review Committee has historically aimed to help program representatives accentuate the most positive aspects of their work to share best practices and aid programs who may be trying to substantiate additional needs or resource support to ultimately help improve student success. More specifically, the Program Review process helps departments identify their resource needs for budget allocation purposes. The Program Review process is also aligned with the Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s annual One Time Funding Request process. Programs that explain a rationale or note a specific need within their program review documents are given priority within the one time funding process. Additionally, the Program Review process continues to remain aligned with the Strategic Plan and Institution Set Standards funding process where programs that had previously brought up needs in their program review documents receive some priority for funding. A summary of the program reviews that took place in Fall 2016 are presented within this chapter. Each summary includes a summation of findings, comments, commendations, and recommendations. Detailed annual Program Review Committee reports alongside the program review handbook and information on the program review cycles are located within the program review section of the institutional research and planning website.

Accounting Presenter:

Jeanne Miller

Date:

November 7, 2016

No____ Other____ % successful: 63%

Comments: The TracDat summary report was added later and reflects a total of 873 students participating in SLOs with 550 successful for a modified success rate of 63% (instead of 72% noted in the report). Commendations: (What program work should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, or praised?) Effective in the fall of 2014, the Accounting Department added a math prerequisite to ACCT 101 C to improve success rates, which lowered enrollment, but ACCT was full again in the fall of 2016. The success rates improved accordingly from 59.9% in the fall of 2014 to 63% in the spring of 2016. The number of certificates and degrees dropped in 2014-15 (from 11 to 7), which may be related to the submission period being substantially reduced. The number of degrees and certificates has since improved to 14 total awards, with the number of degrees (9) being consistent with previous award. Since there is no AST in Accounting, transfer students are encouraged to complete the Business Administration Transfer Degree. ACCT 101 students were all placed on the same course content schedule to align supplemental instruction. A standardized final examination is required. ACCT offers hybrid classes, which in the case of ACCT 101 were more successful than the lecture classes. However, the ACCT 101 hybrid classes are taught by full-time instructors and the lecture courses are taught by adjunct. ATC 102 had a lower hybrid success rate, but it was pointed out that when the class met twice a week, the success rates were higher. The program added tutoring to address achievement gaps among American Indian, Black, and Hispanic students. Regional projected job openings for accounting are high, but the Advisory Committee says these jobs require a four-year degree, so the department focuses on preparing students for transfer. To better assess transfer rates, the department noted that more information is needed and the researchers will work to clarify this data. Student learning outcomes for course and program improvements include increasing the in-class problem solving activities, tutoring, tutorial videos, and the use of course management system course resources. Recommendations: (What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?) There are currently two full-time faculty, but one is retiring. The full-time faculty ratio is currently 68.3%. Notably, the lecture classes, which are taught by adjunct faculty have lower success rates than hybrid courses that are taught by full-time faculty, so it will be important to replace the retiring faculty. The Accounting Advisory Committee recommends three full-time instructors. If a third instructor is added, it was noted that the program could work on a tax certificate.

Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Presenter:

Richard Hock / Doug Sallade

Date:

November 7, 2016

The goal of the Program Review Committee is to help faculty accentuate the most positive aspects of their programs, meet instructional requirements, communicate challenges, share useful practices, and substantiate the need for resources to continue supporting student success. Program Review Committee Summary: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X__ No____ Other____ Program SLOs: Was the Tracdat SLO summary report included? Yes __X__* No____ Other____ Courses Assessed: 11 Students participated: 906 Number successful: 673 % successful: 74.28% *It is recommend that the narrative in the SLO section of the self-study be revised to match the Department SLO Assessment Report that was submitted later. Comments: The program self-study noted that the student equity data did not appear accurate, specifically the female enrollments. They also recommended that the age demographic for the 25-49 year age group should be narrowed to 25-35 as 27 is the average student age for their department and that age group has the highest success rate. Since this year marks the first time that this and other data for equity, transfers, and LMI were added, the PR Committee appreciated the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s analysis of the equity data. We are including a general comment in the annual report that Institutional Researchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ongoing efforts to work with the State to clean up and reconcile this data should improve this information going forward. Commendations: (What program work should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, or praised?) The total number of AS Degrees (6) has been improving. As with most CTE programs, the number of certificates and degrees dropped in 2015-16 (from 111 to 44), which may be attributable to the submission period from the beginning of the semester being substantially reduced from more than 30 days to -3 days before the semester began in the spring of 2016. (In response, the Program Review Committee brought this issue to Admissions, and they have committed to a minimum of a 3-week certificate application period from the first day of school). Success rates are consistently above the college rates, ranging from 70.7% to 78.4%. The department noted that as an accredited school through HVAC Excellence, students take a third-party test, where they achieve an approximate success rate of 83%. Course success rates tend to be lower but the hands-on practical skills are an essential component for student and job-related success. The majority of Air Condition & Refrigeration courses supplement instruction with hybrid/distance education and a flipped classroom approach. Instructor Richard Hock participated in the ACES (Active Collaborative Engagement Strategies) film series to demonstrate the adoption of distance education using the flipped classroom (available at www.cypresscollege.edu/aces/). Employment rates (72%) were higher than state rates (61%), especially for skills-builders after four semesters. Recommendations: (What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?) One of the biggest challenges noted by the department in our meeting was the need for 480 volts instead of the 230 currently available. It is recommended that this need be added to the goal section of the programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s report. Enrollment rates for fall and spring semesters have dropped, but a full summer session impacted fall 2015 enrollment. In the future, it may be helpful to add these enrollments to the report.

Aviation & Travel Careers Presenter:

Kathleen Reiland

Date:

November 14, 2016

The goal of the Program Review Committee is to help faculty accentuate the most positive aspects of their programs, meet instructional requirements, communicate challenges, share useful practices, and substantiate the need for resources to continue supporting student success. Program Review Committee Summary: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X__ No____ Other____ Program SLOs: Was the Tracdat SLO summary report included? Yes __X__ No____ Other____ Courses Assessed: 79 Students participated: 1476 Number successful: 1144 % successful: 78% Comments: All ATC students maintain a career portfolio throughout their studies. Each ATC course has a capstone SLO project and/or assessment that represents competency in the course objectives. These SLOs are documented in Section 3: Work Sample section of each student’s portfolio as evidence of learning competencies intended to reinforce student comprehension and to document skill attainment for potential employers. To assist faculty and students in understanding what constitutes meaningful evidence, the advisory board makes recommendations each year about skills students will need to be successful in the industry. Commendations: (What program work should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, or praised?) Enrollment, including summer classes, has been relatively steady at 1196 with fluctuations of about 50 enrollments or 4% per year over the past five years. Notably, the ATC program also supports the Administration of Justice Program because several AJ courses appear on the Homeland Transportation Security Certificate. AJ courses began being offered again in the fall of 2015, which added 162 enrollments and 17 FTES to the division totals for 2015-16. These courses have the highest seat counts (45) in the division. The number of awards (109) remains lower than expected which is consistent with an overall drop in CTE awards across the campus that is attributed to a reduction in the number of days (from 35 to -3 days) that students had between the first day of the semester and the deadline to file for their certificates. In response, the Program Review Committee raised the issue with the Director of Admissions & Records who cited manpower issues. After a subsequent meeting with the Academic Senate, A & R was provided with additional resources and committed to providing students with the following timeframes for degree, certificate, and graduation applications: three weeks (from the first day of the semester) for certificates and two weeks for degrees and graduation. Overall, success rates are above the Cypress College averages and they are at or above the institutional set standards. Through Perkins’ funding, students are provided with tutoring, study resources, tutorials, self-tests, and APPs like Quizlet and First Aid, etc. Tutoring has increased significantly over the past six years, which averages 2000 tutoring sessions per year. There are five basic skills (or standards) that all ATC students are expected to meet with 90% or higher, which include basic spelling, grammar/punctuation, aviation math, typing, and geography. Practice online tests and “Quizlets” assist students meet these standards. The program worked with the Math Tutoring Center to develop an Aviation Math Directed Learning Activity to enhance math skills. Distance Education: Although online classes are 9% less successful than lecture classes, hybrid classes are often more successful than typical lecture classes. With the change in definition of online classes, all of our classes will change to “hybrid” classes beginning with the fall 2017 schedule. Three of these previously online courses have been changed to traditional hybrid classes that meet every week.

The ATC program proposed 3 new transfer degrees with broader areas in Aviation, Tourism, and Homeland Security, which will enable students to complete an associateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree with 21 major related units and the CSU GE requirements for a total of 60 units, reducing the total by 14 units per student. Student equity: Veterans, disabled, students over age 50, and students not receiving financial aid demonstrate the highest success rates (close to 80% or higher). Notably, students under the age of 24, Asian, Black, and Hispanic students appear to need additional mentoring and or tutoring. To assist students, we are moving toward providing even more hands-on instruction, â&#x20AC;&#x153;flippingâ&#x20AC;? more instruction, mentors, and scaffolding assignments by breaking large assignments into more manageable sections. LMI: Recommendations from General Atomics and the ATC advisory board, identified drones an emerging area with high paying jobs. The Innovation Grant funds supported the development of a new UAV/UAS program, which began in the fall of 2016 and is not yet reflected in labor market data. In addition, many students who are hired as flight attendants are initially based in other states (or countries). We also have a contingent of students who take flight attendant related courses but end up working in Hawaii on cruise ships. Since the fall of 2012, the ATC program is aware of 106 students who have been employed in the aviation or travel industry (list was provided). According to O*Net, the state forecasts (for 2014-2024) are the highest they have ever been: Flight attendants job openings are expected to grow by 20% or 440 annual opening and the median wages were $45,190 in 2015. For airline pilots in California, the job openings are expected to grow by 19% or 320 and the median wage last year was $127,450. While travel agent jobs are expected to be down nationally, they are projected to grow by 9% or 240 openings annually in California, and reservations/ticketing jobs will grow by 13% or 420. Recommendations: (What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?) Continue the attention being giving to improving success rates, especially for online instruction and courses below 60%. The ATC full-time faculty ratio is the lowest in the division at 39.3%. Given the wide range of options including the new UAV/UAS (drone) program and the new AJ AST degree and technical expertise need to support those options, a request has been submitted for a third FTF. For the past three years, one fulltime faculty has been on 40% release time to chair the Program Review Committee. For 2016-2017, that role has increased to 60% to also cover the SLO Data Coordinator responsibilities

Dental Hygiene Presenter:

Kendra Velasco

Date:

November 7, 2016

No____ Other____

Courses Assessed: 22 Students participated: 487

% successful: 97.33%

Number successful: 474

Comments: Students receiving financial aid have the lowest success rates, because they typically are working parttime and struggling to pass the courses at the 75% rate required for licensing. Success rates have dropped from 86.2% to 78.6% (fall to fall) and 100% to 92.8% (spring to spring), which is still well above the campus average. The program attributes this drop to a .5 lower average GPA among incoming students. Commendations: (What program work should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, or praised?) Dental Hygiene took action to increase the applicant pool by eliminating Chemistry 201 as a required course (consistent with other programs. Hiring has resulted in the program returning to a full complement of faculty. Certificates and awards have remained consistent. Transfer rates are low because dental hygiene graduates do not need a bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree to become licensed. Dental Hygiene students continue to have 100% passage rates on the National Board Examination, WREB Examination, and the Law and Ethics Examination Employment rates are high at 68% though lower that the state rate of 77%; however, medium salary is higher at $45,575 over the stateâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rate of $42,538. The jobs for Registered Dental Hygienists are expected to increase with a new licensure procedure to expand the allowable duties. To improve program SLOs, students who have personal and financial hardships are referred to the counselors and financial aid for early intervention. Recommendations: (What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?) The budgetary resources needed are high, so it will be important to continue securing ongoing resources through grants such as Perkins and the Strong Workforce Initiative to remain competitive with proprietary schools.

Health Information Technology Presenter:

Rebecca Gomez

Date:

November 7, 2016

The goal of the Program Review Committee is to help faculty accentuate the most positive aspects of their programs, meet instructional requirements, communicate challenges, share useful practices, and substantiate the need for resources to continue supporting student success. Program Review Committee Summary: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes ____ No____ Other_*__ * The self-study is missing the narrative responses to the SLO questions on page 12. Program SLOs: Was the Tracdat SLO summary report included? Yes __X__ No____ Other____ Courses Assessed: 12 Students participated: 612 Number successful: 428 % successful: 69.93% Comments: The certificate programs for Health Information Coding, Medical Staff Services, Clerical and Billing were phased out during 2013 and 2014, and correspondingly, the number of certificates and degrees has dropped as well from 35 to 18. With the advent of ICD-10 and the increased use of the electronic records, faculty wanted to encourage students to obtain the full breadth of the HIT program rather than the more limited certificate. Veterans and students not receiving financial have higher success rates consistent with other programs. Commendations: (What program work should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, or praised?) The end of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Grant, which supported HIT classes in 2009, 2010, 2011 and ended in the spring 2012, seems to have contributed to declining enrollment. The program has been working on marketing brochures, outreach meetings, and the Majors2Careers Showcase to offset the enrollment decline. Most students are able to obtain employment with the HIT A.S. Degree provided they sit for the national examination to obtain their Registered Health Information Technologist (RHIT) credential. Success rates are typically at 75.9% to 77.9%, well above the campus average. To obtain a passing grade â&#x20AC;&#x153;Câ&#x20AC;? in an HIT program class, students must earn a 75 to ensure they are able to pass the national certification examination and to meet the job requirements. Hybrid success rates (77%) are higher than lecture rates (72.9%). According to the BLS, the job outlook for 2014-2024 is a projected 15% growth due to the aging demographics and the increased demand for healthcare. The implementation of ICD 10-CM and ICD 10PCS has increased demand for the classes. Recommendations: (What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?) It was noted that many Orange County students go to Santa Barbara City College because they want an online program, but the structure and requirements of the Cypress College Distance Education Program and lack of an instructional designer, does not allow the HIT Program to pursue distance education. It is recommended that the program consider applying for grant funds through Perkins or the Strong Workforce Initiative to secure funds for an instructional designer to develop a competitive option for the HIT Program. Although the SLO summary report was provided, please respond to the questions on page 12 and return to the PRC chair. You may want to revise your mission statement at the same time to align with the college statement.

Human Services Presenter:

Gary Zager

Date:

November 14, 2016

Comments: As with most CTE programs, the number of certificates and degrees dropped in 2015-16 (from 66 to 44). This may be due to being short staffed, but it may also be partly attributable to the shortened submission period from the beginning of the semester being substantially reduced from more than 30 days to -3 days before the semester began in the spring of 2016. (In response, the Program Review Committee brought this issue to Admissions, and they have committed to a 3-week certificate application period going forward).

Distance Ed: Online classes had a 58.3% success rate (16.9% lower than lecture classes), but only 6% of the students participated in online classes. Given the high number of “returning students” and “adult learners,” the program encourages students to take online courses only if they have the technology resources and they have had sufficient training needed to comprehend the strategies necessary for online success. Commendations: (What program work should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, or praised?) The majority of certificates issued are for the Addiction Studies Certificate, which enables students to begin working in the substance abuse field with no additional education. Overall success rates are above the division and college rates. The majority of the students in HUSR are older returning students (above age 25). American Indian rates are particularly high at 90.5%. LMI: The job outlook is bright for Human Services Assistants and Substance Abuse and Behavioral Disorder counselors. Employment rates are higher than California rates. Note: The program self-study reported that the LMI data did not appear consistent with O*Net Online data which included a brighter outlook for jobs and wages. The PR Committee appreciated the program’s analysis of the LMI data. (We are including a general comment in the annual report that Institutional Research’s ongoing efforts to work with the State to clean up and reconcile this data should improve this information going forward). Veterans, foster youth, mature students, and students who do not receive financial aid have higher success rates. Students with basic skills needs are referred to Disabled Student Services, EOPS, Puente, and Legacy. A study-skills module is provided in HUSR 200 which all students take to improve success rates. The program provides a Human Services Club that provides networking and mentoring. Recommendations: (What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?) Recommend revising page 11 of the Program Review self-study, where it states that the program has no SLO assessments (in question 6B), to reflect the SLO information provided later.

Media Arts Design Presenter:

Ian Holmes

Reviewer:

Program Review Committee

Date:

November 14, 2016

The goal of the Program Review Committee is to help faculty accentuate the most positive aspects of their programs, meet instructional requirements, communicate challenges, share useful practices, and substantiate the need for resources to continue supporting student success. Program Review Committee Summary: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X__ No____ Other____ Program SLOs: Was the Tracdat SLO summary report included? Yes __X__ No____ Other____ Courses Assessed: 46 Students participated: 1119 Number successful: 1068 % successful: 95% The program noted that having a good portfolio or demo reel is the proof of competency in the industry. Low adjunct faculty participation rates in SLO assessment are challenging for the program, as are the high number of courses that have not been offered over the past three years. Comments: Awards have been decreasing since 2013-14, which was attributed to not having enough sections to offer students. The lower number of awards, however, remains consistent with an overall drop in CTE awards across the campus that is attributed, in part, to a reduction in the number of days (from 35 to -3 days in 2016) that students had between the first day of the semester and the deadline to file for their certificates. In response, the Program Review Committee raised the issue with the Director of Admissions & Records who cited manpower issues. After a subsequent meeting with the Academic Senate, A & R was provided with additional resources and committed to providing students with the following timeframes for degree, certificate, and graduation applications: three weeks (from the first day of the semester) for certificates and two weeks for degrees and graduation. Commendations: (What program work should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, or praised?) An AST in Film, Television, and Electronic Media has been submitted for State approval. Enrollment has trended lower due, in part, to students leaving school to take jobs in the industry. To increase enrollment, the program began to actively conduct outreach in feeder high schools. Through Perkins, the program hired a mentor to present at each feeder high school. LMI: The program supplemented the job and wage data with additional TOP codes and BLS data that projected upward employment trends and higher wages. Success rates are below the division total, but trending upwards. Online courses have a 15% lower success rate, but the program is working to create a more supportive online course experience for students. Recommendations: (What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?) Continue the attention being giving to improving success rates for courses below 60%, especially for online instruction, men, and students of color. Veterans, students not receiving financial aid, disabled students, White students, and women have higher success rates than average students. FTF ratio for 2015-16 was low at 26% due to the retirement of the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s founder, Michael Johnson, which resulted in the program operating with one FTF. The department recommends 3 FTF for optimum coverage to support student success. NOTE: MAD offers many cross-listed courses, which should increase productivity, but the WSCH has traditionally run less than 155 per FTEF. The PRC recommends that this data be evaluated by IR to insure productivity rates are represented accurately.

Mortuary Science Presenter:

Jolena Grande

Date:

November 14, 2016

The goal of the Program Review Committee is to help faculty accentuate the most positive aspects of their programs, meet instructional requirements, communicate challenges, share useful practices, and substantiate the need for resources to continue supporting student success. Program Review Committee Summary: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X__ No____ Other____ Program SLOs: Was the Tracdat SLO summary report included? Yes __X__ No____ Other____ Courses Assessed: 35 Students participated: 2813 Number successful: 2375 % successful: 84.4% The ABFSE prescribes the program learning outcomes for accredited programs and as such measure the performance terms of meeting ABFSE Committee on Accreditation Standard 11 outcomes. The Mortuary Science program maintains data on the achievement of these measures in the SLO reports generated in TracDat. New CSLOS will be included for all upper division courses associated with the new community college baccalaureate degree. The program will also revise its student learning outcomes to now include professional certification (Certified Funeral Service Practitioner) and state licensure as Cemetery Managers and Crematory Managers (outcomes of baccalaureate degree completion program) Comments: The program self-study provided a good example of a common issue that arises in the evaluation of student equity data at the course level in CTE programs with student cohorts: â&#x20AC;&#x153;When evaluating the data provided, disaggregated by subpopulation, it appears that there are inequities with younger and certain minority populations. The problem with the data though is that the actual number of unduplicated students is quite low. The Mortuary Science program employs a cohort model where groups of students enroll for the same 4-7 classes in a single semester. As this occurs, the number of Asian or Pacific Islander students, for example, which appears to be 96 individuals for the covered time period, would actually be closer to 6 unduplicated students enrolled in the series of classes (17 courses make up the Mortuary Science major). Therefore, when 1 student enrolled in 6 classes does not perform to expectations in a particular semester, it appears as though 6 students were equally unsuccessful, when in reality only one student did not succeed.â&#x20AC;? Commendations: (What program work should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, or praised?) The Mortuary Science Program was selected by the Board of Governors in March 2015 to be among the 15 colleges authorized to offer a community college baccalaureate degree. LMI: Employment and wage rates are above the state rates. However, it was pointed out that assessing only Orange County data is insufficient since Cypress College is one of only two programs in California offering preparation for embalmers and funeral directors. (There are 58 accredited programs nationwide). The self-study provided additional data available through the EDD and O*Net, to show that between American River College and Cypress College graduates, there are over 100 unfilled positions each year. It was also noted that this information was useful in substantiating the initiation of the Funeral Service Assistant program through the NOCCCD School of Continuing Education. Enrollment rates have been declining, due in part to more students attending part-time, so the program is considering options such as 8-week courses.

Overall, success rates for all groups except age 19 or less (which was too small of a data source to be significant) are well above the college rates and the institutional set standards. Degrees have remained relatively constant at about 35 per year for the past three years. Distance education courses (1 online at 94.3% and 1 hybrid at 96.7%) have high success rates attributable to the fact they are only available to students at the more advanced course levels. Students who have at least one year of active military service may be granted 4-12 units of undergraduate credit. Recommendations: (What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?) The budgetary resources needed are high, so it will be important to continue securing ongoing resources through grants such as Perkins and the Strong Workforce Initiative. The FTEF ratio was 72% in 2015-16, but in addition to the need to replace retiring faculty, the ABFSE has instituted a new accreditation requirement that includes placing students in funeral establishments to meet funeral directing competencies. This mandate will necessitate a qualified full-time faculty member to certify site visits and competencies. Simultaneously, the ACCJC now requires all baccalaureate degree programs to have at least one full-time designated faculty member. To meet the ABFSE and ACCJC requirements, the program is seeking to hire two more full-time faculty members in addition to replacing faculty retirements. The program is also seeking a full-time administrative assistant to complete the required reports and initiate documents for mentoring, The department budget has not been adjusted in more than 20 years, despite a budget increase that was approved in 2014 (yet to materialize). The program cites the need to address the continuing costs to operate the embalming and restorative art labs, as well as office supplies. Additional funds for mileage will need to be secured to cover offsite clinical placement. With the construction of a new Science, Engineering, and Math Building, the self-study noted that this is an opportunity to create a facility, with appropriate equipment, for training students in crematory operations and the cremation process, leading to certification as crematory operators.

Photography Presenter:

Cliff Lester

Date:

November 28, 2016

The goal of the Program Review Committee is to help faculty accentuate the most positive aspects of their programs, meet instructional requirements, communicate challenges, share useful practices, and substantiate the need for resources to continue supporting student success. Program Review Committee Summary: Findings: Does the self-study adequately cover the topics and provide a detailed plan with dates and people responsible for achieving stated actions/goals? Yes __X__ No____ Other____ Program SLOs: Was the Tracdat SLO summary report included? Yes __X__ No____ Other____ Courses Assessed: 15 Students participated: 526 Number successful: 504 % successful: 93.33% Comments: Although overall awards had been trending up, the number of certificates dropped from 21 to 9 last year, which the department attributes to the early submission deadline for certificate applications that occurred at the beginning of the semester. The counselors and mentors did not have adequate time to counsel students about certificate eligibility and applications. (In response to a drop in CTE certificates across the campus, the Program Review Committee brought this issue to Admissions, and they have committed to a 3-week certificate application period going forward). Veterans, mature students, and students not receiving financial aid show higher success rates, which is consistent with other programs this semester. No distance education courses were offered. Commendations: (What program work should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, or praised?) LMI: Employment rates are above the statewide rates, and earnings at $28,577 are far above the statewide average of $16,038. Students have been gainfully employed at Disney, Air B & B, teaching at Long Beach City College, and the Chicago Art Institute. Students have been awarded full scholarships to top institutes such as the San Francisco Art Institute. The new UAV Drone Photography and Video Certificate have just received state approval and should improve enrollment rates. A new Advanced Wedding and Portrait Certificate is also being proposed. The PR Committee congratulates Rob Johnson on his retirement and his impressive 31-year commitment to the Cypress College Photography students. The PRC also commends Cliff Lester his work in organizing the widely-acclaimed Holocaust Day of Remembrance. Recommendations: (What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?) Overall, the success rates are below the division and college averages at 58.2% for fall 2015 and 61.4% for spring 2016, but the self-study noted that the rates are higher now than in the previous review. Although, the departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s survey results show that students expect the photography classes to be an easy â&#x20AC;&#x153;artâ&#x20AC;? requirement, the courses are not easy. Hispanic students represent the largest population (by double), and the program finds that these students are, on average, less prepared. A contributing factor could also be the low full-time faculty ratio at 37.2%. Before 2009, the program had three full-time dedicated faculty, but when a retirement position was not replaced, the program dropped to two. With another full-time faculty retiring, the remaining faculty will need additional resources to bring the success rates up.

Theater Presenter:

Barbara Meyer

Date:

November 28, 2016

No courses were offered through distance education. Commendations: (What program work should be encouraged, emphasized, continued, or praised?) New Play Festivals have provided student actors and directors with a place to develop new plays with diverse playwrights from Los Angeles, including USC and UCLA. Overall success rates, near 80%, are well-above the division and college averages. Faculty continue to address courses with lower success rates using strategies such as changing the course starting times by 20 minutes. Veterans and students not receiving financial aid show higher success rates, which is consistent with other programs this semester. LMI: The PR Committee appreciated the supplementation of the LMI data with BLS the job market and wage information, which is encouraging for theater students. (We are including a general comment in the annual report about Institutional Researchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work with the State to clean up and reconcile this data should improve this information going forward). The program cites many examples of strategies being used to improve student learning outcomes, including allowing students to initiate projects and review homework during class. Recommendations: (What areas does the action plan need to address? What details need to be provided?) Continue the attention being giving to improving success rates for courses below 60% (which could be due, in part, to a low FTEF ratio of 38.2% with one faculty chairing the Curriculum Committee since 2014). Theater could benefit from a marketing expert to support the full-time box office to support student enrollment. The budgetary resources needed are high, so it will be important to secure ongoing resources through grants and Strong Workforce funding to remain competitive with proprietary schools. Going forward, please include ILO and PLO pathway information with all budget requests (both can be found in the Cypress College Catalog).

Chapter Six: Student Support Services Quality Review (SSQR) Cypress College welcomes over 2,000 new students each fall term. Often times, new studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; first point of contact with the campus is within one of the Student Support Services areas including orientation, assessment, and counseling. Thus, various centers and services within the student support services department provide a variety of services to help and support students, to ultimately foster student success. Some of these areas include the veteranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s resource center, the disabled student services office, and CalWORKs. Thus, some areas cater to all students while some are specialized and aim to help sub-groups of students including EOPS and former foster youth. All student support services areas have defined their student learning outcomes (SLOs), regularly assess their SLOs, and go through the student support services quality review cycle every three years. The review process has not drastically changed at Cypress College over the most recent years, aside from a plan to restructure the cycle in 2017-18 to ensure a more even number of programs participate in the SSQR process annually. Surveys are first developed with a collaboration between the different student support services areas and the institutional research office. All areas use a core set of questions as indicators for progress. These include questions on hours of operation, staff knowledge, and overall satisfaction; however, areas can also add additional indicators to assess their quality. The surveys are then sent to students and employees (where applicable) who are eligible to receive services. Survey results are collected and analyzed by the Institutional Research and Planning office. Each area also provides additional information including changes since the last quality review, information on mission statements and student learning outcomes, faculty and staff involvement, a review of previous goals and objectives, identification of long range goals and objectives, as well as physical and fiscal resource identification. The deans and managers in charge of the different student support services areas prepare their review documents based on survey results, resource identification, and goal setting. Each area is asked to review their goals from their most recent review cycle to then develop goals for the next three-year cycle. After the reviews have been completed, they are submitted to the Executive Vice President for his comments. Follow up actions are developed and taken as a result of findings from the reviews. In 2016-17, none of the various student services areas participated in the quality review process. The cycle is currently in the planning process of being restructured for 2017-18. The cycle will continue as a three year cycle; however, additional programs and areas may be added due to the expansion of the various student services areas. Additionally, the form for student services quality review is currently in the process of being revised through the Student Services Council meetings in collaboration with the Institutional Research and Planning Office. Readers interested in the previously completed cycles of student services quality review documents can refer to the 2015 and 2016 Institutional Effectiveness Reports as well as the Program Review section of the Cypress College Institutional Research and Planning webpage.

Chapter Seven: Campus Support Services Quality Review (CSQR) Campus Support Services consist of offices and areas indirectly related to instruction or student services. These services include offices such as the bursar’s office and academic computing. Despite not having a direct tie to instruction, the college considers these services critical and necessary for students to have a premier academic experience. These services are evaluated every three years. Thus, after having previously participated in an evaluation cycle in 2013-14, these areas participated in the current review cycle during the 2016-17 academic year. During the previous cycle in 2013-14, the instrument was evaluated and slightly revised to include additional questions for offices interested in collecting data beyond the core measures, ensuring conformity to the College mission and students’ experiences. Campus support services were divided into three areas related to administrative services, educational programs, and the President’s office. Offices newly added to the review cycle for 2016-17 are underlined. The form will be evaluated again in the future to ensure usefulness. Surveys are first developed with a collaboration between the areas and the institutional research office. All areas use a core set of questions as indicators for progress. These include questions on hours of operation, staff knowledge, and overall satisfaction; however, areas can also add additional indicators to assess their quality. The surveys are then sent to students and employees (where applicable) who are eligible to receive services. Survey results are collected and analyzed by the Institutional Research and Planning Office. Each area also provides additional information including changes since the last quality review, information on mission statements and administrative unit outcomes, faculty and staff involvement, a review of previous goals and objectives, identification of long range three-year goals and objectives, as well as physical and fiscal resource identification. The managers in charge of the different areas prepare their review documents based on survey results, resource identification, and goal setting. After the reviews have been completed, they are submitted to the President, Executive Vice President or Vice President for their comments. Follow up actions are developed and taken as a result of findings from the reviews. Administrative Services 1. Academic Computing 2. Bursar’s Office 3. Campus Safety 4. Maintenance and Operations 5. Office of Administrative Services 6. Staff Services Center

Educational Programs 1. Instruction Office President’s Office 1. Campus Communications Office 2. Foundation Office 3. Institutional Research and Planning 4. Professional Development 5. Office of the President

Results are presented in summary form for the above areas within this chapter. Full versions of the review documents are available on the program review section of the Institutional Research & Planning website. Readers interested in the previous cycle of campus support services quality review can refer to the Institutional Effectiveness Report for 2012-13.

Academic Computing Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Michael Kavanaugh Names of people who contributed to this report: Mike Kavanaugh, Troy McKeown, Mike Land, Zie Feng, George Isaac, Paul Hamblin, Andy Majdalawi and Ismat Kahlon Date: December 19, 2016 Date of previous quality review: Spring 2013

Part 1. Satisfaction with Support Services Provided Summarize the results below from the Campus Services Quality Review Survey. You may also incorporate any other information from the survey results in your response.

The following ratings are from 186 respondents who have used the services offered by Academic Computing. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

53.3%

40.6%

93.9%

89.3%

+4.6%

Timeliness of response

74.9%

21.9%

96.7%

95.0%

+1.7%

Clarity of procedures

61.6%

28.8%

90.4%

90.0%

+0.4%

Quality of materials

61.0%

28.8%

89.8%

91.0%

-1.2%

Staff helpfulness

82.2%

13.5%

95.7%

95.8%

-0.1%

Staff knowledge

81.6%

15.7%

97.3%

95.9%

+1.4%

Overall quality of service

77.6%

19.1%

96.7%

94.9%

+1.8%

Administrative Services (Includes budgeting and finance, campus capital projects, room utilizations, personnel services, and general administration) Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Vice President of Administrative Services Names of people who contributed to this report: Betty Germanero, Barbara Woolner, Vivian Gaytan and Susan Rittel and Ae Young Kim Date: October 3, 2017 Date of previous quality review: N/A

The following ratings are from 84 respondents who have used the services offered by Administrative Services. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

43.9%

48.8%

92.7%

---

Timeliness of response

45.7%

91.4%

---

Clarity of procedures

36.7%

45.6%

82.3%

---

Quality of materials

42.6%

45.6%

88.2%

---

Staff helpfulness

52.4%

39.0%

91.5%

---

Staff knowledge

61.4%

31.3%

92.8%

---

Overall quality of service

49.4%

44.6%

94.0%

---

Bursar’s Office Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Xuan “Dao” Do Names of people who contributed to this report: Date: 12/16/16 Date of previous quality review: Spring 2013

The following ratings are from 85 respondents who have used the services offered by Bursar’s Office. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

35.7%

44.0%

79.8%

72.0%

+7.8%

Timeliness of response

47.6%

32.1%

79.8%

81.9%

-2.1%

Clarity of procedures

36.6%

35.4%

72.0%

70.1%

+1.9%

Quality of materials

38.7%

42.7%

81.3%

81.7%

-0.4%

Staff helpfulness

50.0%

36.9%

86.9%

81.5%

+5.4%

Staff knowledge

48.8%

39.3%

88.1%

84.6%

+3.5%

Overall quality of service

46.4%

38.1%

84.5%

77.5%

+7.0%

Campus Communications Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Marc Posner Names of people who contributed to this report: Marc Posner Date: Date of previous quality review: Spring 2013

The following ratings are from 94 respondents who have used the services offered by Campus Communications. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

40.7%

43.0%

83.7%

83.3%

+0.4%

Timeliness of response

28.2%

24.7%

52.9%

72.0%

-19.1%

Clarity of procedures

35.4%

30.5%

65.9%

75.7%

-9.8%

Quality of materials

53.8%

30.8%

84.6%

85.8%

-1.2%

Staff helpfulness

51.7%

29.2%

80.9%

88.3%

-7.4%

Staff knowledge

56.2%

29.2%

85.4%

89.1%

-3.7%

Overall quality of service

41.6%

37.1%

78.7%

81.7%

-3.0%

Campus Safety Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Dr. Shirley L. Smith Names of people who contributed to this report: Lizette Cruz, Douglas Smith, Alex Bernal, Armando Vega, Shirley Smith Date: December 18, 2016 Date of previous quality review: Spring 2013

The following ratings are from 142 respondents who have used the services offered by Campus Safety. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

65.2%

30.4%

95.6%

92.2%

+3.4%

Timeliness of response

57.4%

27.0%

84.4%

85.2%

-0.8%

Clarity of procedures

43.4%

34.9%

78.3%

75.2%

+3.1%

Quality of materials

46.7%

37.4%

84.1%

73.4%

+10.7%

Staff helpfulness

61.7%

22.0%

83.7%

90.5%

-6.8%

Staff knowledge

51.4%

31.9%

83.3%

87.6%

-4.3%

Overall quality of service

51.8%

34.0%

85.8%

86.8%

-1.0%

Foundation Office Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Raul Alvarez Names of people who contributed to this report: N/A Date: December 16, 2016 Date of previous quality review: N/A

The following ratings are from 84 respondents who have used the services offered by the Foundation Office. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

45.5%

40.3%

85.7%

---

Timeliness of response

51.3%

28.8%

80.0%

---

Clarity of procedures

47.4%

32.1%

79.5%

---

Quality of materials

50.0%

32.4%

82.4%

---

Staff helpfulness

64.2%

24.7%

88.9%

---

Staff knowledge

67.5%

22.5%

90.0%

---

Overall quality of service

54.9%

32.9%

87.8%

---

Institutional Research & Planning Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Phil Dykstra Names of people who contributed to this report: Phil Dykstra, Eileen Haddad, Kristina Oganesian

Date: 11/28/2016 Date of previous quality review: Spring 2013

The following ratings are from 85 respondents who have used the services offered by the Institutional Research and Planning Office. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

63.0%

33.3%

96.3%

100.0%

-3.7%

Timeliness of response

76.2%

21.4%

97.6%

93.8%

+3.8%

Clarity of procedures

65.0%

30.0%

95.0%

---

Quality of materials

81.0%

16.7%

97.7%

97.6%

+0.1%

Staff helpfulness

86.9%

11.9%

98.8%

97.4%

+1.4%

Staff knowledge

86.7%

10.8%

97.6%

97.5%

+0.1%

Overall quality of service

82.1%

15.5%

97.6%

97.5%

+0.1%

Instruction Office Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Santanu Bandyopadhyay Names of people who contributed to this report: Terry Carpenter, Donna Landis, Pat Sanchez Date: December 15, 2016 Date of previous quality review: N/A

The following ratings are from 82 respondents who have used the services offered by the Office of Instruction and Student Services % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

50.7%

43.8%

94.5%

---

Timeliness of response

60.5%

30.3%

90.8%

---

Clarity of procedures

50.0%

39.5%

89.5%

---

Quality of materials

55.4%

36.5%

91.9%

---

Staff helpfulness

72.2%

22.8%

94.9%

---

Staff knowledge

70.1%

24.7%

94.8%

---

Overall quality of service

59.3%

34.6%

93.8%

---

Maintenance & Operations Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Albert Miranda Names of people who contributed to this report: Robert Riffle, Mario Gaspar Cathy San Roman, Angie Rios, Marcia Jeffredo, Dan Fangmeyer, Brian Gomber, Dan Kawahara Date: 1/12/17 Date of previous quality review: Spring 2013

The following ratings are from 139 respondents who have used the services offered by Maintenance and Operations. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

45.3%

46.0%

91.2%

86.7%

+4.5%

Timeliness of response

44.5%

35.0%

79.6%

79.0%

+0.6%

Clarity of procedures

41.3%

39.7%

81.0%

---

Quality of materials

48.7%

38.7%

87.4%

---

Staff helpfulness

65.4%

28.7%

94.1%

86.4%

+7.7%

Staff knowledge

63.9%

30.8%

94.7%

---

Overall quality of service

48.5%

40.4%

89.0%

86.7%

+2.3%

President’s Office Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Robert Simpson Names of people who contributed to this report: Louella Nelson and Ty Volcy Date: December 13, 2016 Date of previous quality review: N/A

The following ratings are from 74 respondents who have used the services offered by the President’s Office. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

47.2%

94.4%

---

Timeliness of response

65.8%

28.8%

94.5%

---

Clarity of procedures

67.2%

26.9%

94.0%

---

Quality of materials

67.2%

23.4%

90.6%

---

Staff helpfulness

75.3%

19.2%

94.5%

---

Staff knowledge

76.4%

20.8%

97.2%

---

Overall quality of service

67.1%

28.8%

95.9%

---

Professional Development Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Michael Brydges and Ruth Gutierrez Names of people who contributed to this report: Michael Brydges and Ruth Gutierrez Date: January 30, 2017 Date of previous quality review: Spring 2013

The following ratings are from 108 respondents who have used the services offered by Professional Development. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

45.7%

38.0%

83.7%

75.7%

+8.0%

Timeliness of response

53.8%

30.1%

83.9%

75.6%

+8.3%

Clarity of procedures

49.0%

31.3%

80.2%

80.9%

-0.7%

Quality of materials

48.5%

35.6%

84.2%

77.8%

+6.4%

Staff helpfulness

62.7%

25.5%

88.2%

89.7%

-1.5%

Staff knowledge

60.8%

26.5%

87.3%

85.5%

+1.8%

Overall quality of service

52.9%

34.6%

87.5%

87.6%

-0.1%

Staff Services Center Campus Services Quality Review Report Manager: Albert Miranda Names of people who contributed to this report: Albert Miranda, Yadira Cazales, Greg Eng, Robert Riffle, Christina Mix, Miguel Miranda, Jose Siordia Date: 1/17/17 Date of previous quality review: Spring 2013

The following ratings are from 126 respondents who have used the services offered by the Staff Services Center. % % Responded Difference % % Responded “Excellent” between Responded Responded “Excellent” or “Good” 2012-13 and “Excellent” “Good” or “Good” Combined in 2015-16 Combined 2012-13 Hours of operation

56.9%

35.8%

92.7%

92.2%

+0.5%

Timeliness of response

66.9%

30.6%

97.5%

95.0%

+2.5%

Clarity of procedures

61.9%

33.1%

94.9%

91.1%

+3.8%

Quality of materials

64.4%

33.1%

97.5%

94.1%

+3.4%

Staff helpfulness

66.1%

33.1%

99.2%

89.4%

+9.8%

Staff knowledge

67.2%

31.1%

98.4%

95.0%

+3.4%

Overall quality of service

62.4%

36.0%

98.4%

92.2%

+6.2%

Chapter Eight: Strategic Planning The 2016-17 academic year marked the final year of the 2014-17 Cypress College strategic plan as well as the planning year for the 2017-20 Cypress College strategic plan. The 2017-20 strategic plan development process was similar to the process used to develop the 2014-17 plan. Faculty, staff, administrators, and students participated in a two-day convening of college representatives to provide input and help develop the 2017-20 plan in April 2017. Approximately 60 college representatives participated in this strategic planning colloquium. The ideas, notes, discussions, maps, and documents generated through the two-day strategic planning colloquium were used as the framework for the 2017-20 plan. The 2017-20 Cypress College strategic plan maintains alignment with the 2014-17 NOCCCD strategic plan. NOCCCDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first three district directions refer to improving completion rates, making progress towards eliminating the achieving gap, and improving success rates for basic skills and ESL students. Within the 2017-20 Cypress College strategic plan, these elements have all been encapsulated under Direction A related to student success. NOCCCD strategic direction four refers to implementing best practices for planning and decision-making. This maintains alignment with the collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Direction B related to organizational effectiveness and excellence. The final NOCCCD strategic direction refers to developing and sustaining collaborative partnerships which relates to Cypress Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Direction C for strong community connections. The strategic plan draft was first developed in Spring 2017 following the colloquium and shared with the campus community to allow individuals time to provide feedback The plan was finalized and approved in Fall 2017. The summer term was used for the development of short-term or one year action plans for each objective as well as developing broader action plans for years two and three. The 2017-20 Cypress College strategic plan will continue to serve as the primary basis for decision-making and resource allocation, alongside use of the institution set standards for achievement related to success rates, degree and certificate completion, and transfer volume. This is done through two primary means including the annual strategic plan and institution set standards fund, aimed at funding proposals that will help achieve strategic plan and institution set goals and objectives, as well as the annual one-time-funding process. The entirety of the 2014-17 and 2017-20 Cypress College strategic plans are included in the appendix alongside an executive summary of progress and an evaluation report for the 2014-17 plan prepared by the Strategic Direction Workgroup. These documents are also posted on the planning section of the institutional research and planning website.

Conclusion Student success has always, and will always, serve as the core of the Cypress College mission, vision, and values. The college set standards to help ensure successful course completion, degree completion, certificate completion, and transfer volume. The college met nearly all of these standards in 2016-17, aside from having a slightly lower course completion rate in Fall 2016 in comparison to the standard. Scorecard data indicated that Cypress College students outperformed the statewide averages for nearly all measures aside from transfer level achievement. Thus, most groups of Cypress College students outperformed statewide rates for persistence, 30 unit completion, awards, transfer, basic skills progress, and the CTE metrics. Looking forward to 2017-18, the college will conduct both the employee and student campus climate surveys. These will help gauge student and employee satisfaction with regard to different areas of the campus climate. Longitudinal trends for both climate surveys will be analyzed and compared to the 2015 survey results to determine trends with regard to increases and decreases in perceptions and satisfaction. Integrated planning and enrollment management will continue to represent a focal point for the college. The college aims to retain students that have started their courses while also welcoming large amounts of first-time students in each fall term. Thus, it will be important for the college to do a thorough examination of average class sizes, course maximums, teaching methods, and unmet demand, alongside determining the most appropriate days and times to hold classes. Unprepared student completion represents one new area in which the college set short-term and long-term goals to improve in 2016-17. As most first time students at Cypress College are unprepared, it is important to provide support services and guided pathways for these students as well as all other incoming students to ensure, not only their success at Cypress College, but the ultimate completion of their educational goals. Overall, the college will continue to serve the surrounding community and beyond through supporting and fostering the success of our students.

Appendix A: Cypress College Success and Persistence Data The following tables display disaggregated data related to Cypress College’s course success rates, previously showcased as figures within Chapter Two. Success rates in basic skills and ESL, CTE, degree applicable, and transfer level courses were examined with relation to four different areas: age, gender, ethnicity, and method of instruction. Data on student persistence was also examined by financial aid recipient status, disability status, foster youth status, and veteran status in addition to the four areas previously noted. A brief analysis is included for each group of tables. Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s basic skills and ESL course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Students have performed similarly in basic skills and ESL courses regardless of gender  Students aged 20-24 have historically displayed the lowest success rates in basic skills and ESL courses; this effect was most prevalent during fall terms  Asian students have historically displayed the highest success rates in basic skills and ESL courses while all other groups have had slightly lower success rates  Students enrolled in distance education basic skills and ESL courses have historically displayed slightly higher success rates when compared to students enrolled on campus Cypress College Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Gender Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Gender n

Female

1,956

67%

1,768

69%

2,044

66%

1,822

62%

1,972

68%

1,648

60%

Male

1,399

64%

1,213

60%

1,347

59%

1,246

57%

1,424

62%

1,204

60%

67%

65%

59%

64%

58%

67%

3,406

66%

3,024

65%

3,449

64%

3,126

60%

3,453

66%

2,903

60%

Unknown Overall

Cypress College Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Age Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Age n

19 & under

1,852

69%

1,382

68%

1,892

66%

1,494

62%

1,885

69%

1,355

60%

20 - 24

1,004

58%

1,021

61%

986

57%

1,031

57%

973

57%

938

58%

25 - 29

266

66%

319

65%

271

65%

318

61%

292

69%

303

63%

30 - 39

152

72%

181

68%

187

65%

166

61%

189

64%

189

63%

40+

132

67%

121

69%

113

73%

117

59%

114

71%

118

64%

3,406

66%

3,024

65%

3,449

64%

3,126

60%

3,453

66%

2,903

60%

Overall

Cypress College Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Ethnicity Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Ethnicity n

75%

50%

57%

50%

57%

Asian

540

78%

470

78%

546

80%

461

70%

581

76%

483

70%

Black

155

54%

134

60%

136

54%

144

47%

162

56%

142

56%

1,953

64%

1,763

62%

2,036

59%

1,888

58%

2,023

64%

1,747

58%

Multi-Ethn.

59%

55%

64%

70%

64%

56%

P. Islander

53%

50%

70%

57%

67%

46%

Unknown

119

65%

68%

70%

64%

125

64%

105

62%

White

530

65%

455

68%

527

64%

445

63%

438

62%

331

61%

3,406

66%

3,024

65%

3,449

64%

3,126

60%

3,453

66%

2,903

60%

Am. Indian

Hispanic

Overall

Cypress College Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Teaching Method Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Method n

166

70%

207

70%

227

70%

66%

132

75%

121

73%

non-DE

3,240

65%

2,817

65%

3,222

63%

3,053

60%

3,321

65%

2,782

60%

Overall

3,406

66%

3,024

65%

3,449

64%

3,126

60%

3,453

66%

2,903

60%

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Gender n

Female

11,475

75%

10,775

74%

10,323

75%

9,571

74%

9,325

75%

8,895

76%

Male

9,595

72%

8,874

71%

8,659

71%

8,059

72%

7,722

74%

7,495

76%

293

73%

276

71%

304

72%

299

72%

314

75%

286

73%

21,363

74%

19,925

73%

19,286

73%

17,929

73%

17,361

75%

16,676

76%

Unknown Overall

Cypress College CTE Success Rates by Age Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Age n

19 & under

6,032

72%

4,451

69%

5,009

70%

4,124

69%

4,312

73%

3,709

73%

20 - 24

8,477

71%

8,784

71%

7,757

72%

7,426

72%

6,920

73%

7,036

74%

25 - 29

3,003

78%

3,027

76%

3,019

77%

3,041

78%

2,848

78%

2,877

80%

30 - 39

2,106

81%

2,047

79%

2,071

77%

1,914

78%

1,950

79%

1,833

81%

40+

1,745

79%

1,616

78%

1,430

77%

1,424

79%

1,326

77%

1,219

77%

Overall

21,363

74%

19,925

73%

19,286

73%

17,929

73%

17,361

75%

16,676

76%

Cypress College CTE Success Rates by Ethnicity Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Ethnicity n

70%

68%

56%

66%

68%

66%

Asian

4,722

79%

4,567

78%

4,237

80%

4,215

80%

4,093

81%

4,052

81%

Black

963

67%

900

63%

799

67%

760

66%

791

61%

745

66%

9,534

70%

8,761

68%

8,938

69%

8,044

69%

7,812

71%

7,430

72%

Multi-Ethn.

713

71%

674

72%

655

73%

621

76%

597

71%

575

76%

P. Islander

104

61%

65%

73%

69%

61%

70%

Unknown

631

75%

590

70%

543

73%

521

73%

510

76%

575

75%

White

4,646

78%

4,299

79%

4,014

77%

3,652

77%

3,443

78%

3,204

80%

Overall

21,363

74%

19,925

73%

19,286

73%

17,929

73%

17,361

75%

16,676

76%

Am. Indian

Hispanic

Cypress College CTE Success Rates by Teaching Method Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Method n

2,992

67%

2,969

68%

3,102

65%

2,988

68%

3,067

66%

3,034

69%

non-DE

18,371

75%

16,956

73%

16,184

75%

14,941

74%

14,294

76%

13,642

78%

Overall

21,363

74%

19,925

73%

19,286

73%

17,929

73%

17,361

75%

16,676

76%

Degree Applicable Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s degree applicable course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Students displayed similar success rates in degree applicable courses regardless of term  No large gaps emerged when comparing degree applicable course success rates by gender  Students had similar success rates in their degree applicable courses regardless of age  Some slight gaps emerged when examining success rates by ethnicity; however, these gaps are primarily due to the small amounts of American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, and Pacific Islander students enrolling by term  In fall terms, a slight gap emerged when examining success rates by teaching method where students in on campus instruction displayed higher success rates Cypress College Degree Applicable Success Rates by Gender Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Gender n

Female

21,814

73%

21,369

72%

22,192

73%

20,685

72%

21,560

72%

20,418

73%

Male

17,293

70%

17,140

69%

17,793

71%

16,780

70%

17,346

71%

16,176

72%

488

72%

475

68%

590

72%

589

70%

699

74%

646

70%

39,595

72%

38,984

70%

40,575

72%

38,054

71%

39,605

71%

37,240

73%

Unknown Overall

Cypress College Degree Applicable Success Rates by Age Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Age n

19 & under

11,878

71%

10,211

69%

12,436

72%

10,474

70%

12,167

72%

9,959

72%

20 - 24

17,490

69%

18,526

69%

17,541

70%

17,121

70%

16,952

69%

16,969

72%

25 - 29

4,810

75%

4,973

73%

5,361

73%

5,432

74%

5,418

72%

5,409

75%

30 - 39

3,057

78%

3,040

77%

3,147

76%

2,990

76%

3,077

76%

3,079

77%

40+

2,360

77%

2,234

76%

2,087

75%

2,032

78%

1,982

74%

1,818

75%

Overall

39,595

72%

38,984

70%

40,575

72%

38,054

71%

39,605

71%

37,240

73%

Cypress College Degree Applicable Success Rates by Ethnicity Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Ethnicity n

65%

66%

58%

56%

71%

63%

Asian

9,458

77%

9,549

76%

9,808

79%

9,531

78%

9,767

78%

9,422

79%

Black

1,780

65%

1,751

62%

1,663

65%

1,585

65%

1,761

59%

1,543

64%

Hispanic

17,133

68%

17,089

66%

18,332

68%

16,901

67%

17,965

68%

16,802

69%

Multi-Ethn.

1,473

69%

1,362

70%

1,455

71%

1,380

71%

1,438

68%

1,419

72%

P. Islander

179

64%

186

66%

172

67%

143

66%

162

66%

153

68%

Unknown

1,162

73%

1,100

66%

1,155

70%

1,115

71%

1,142

71%

1,087

73%

White

8,322

75%

7,879

76%

7,924

75%

7,336

75%

7,280

75%

6,738

77%

Overall

39,595

72%

38,984

70%

40,575

72%

38,054

71%

39,605

71%

37,240

73%

Am. Indian

Cypress College Degree Applicable Success Rates by Teaching Method Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Method n

4,761

65%

4,799

66%

5,373

63%

5,262

67%

5,904

64%

5,609

67%

non-DE

34,834

73%

34,185

71%

35,202

73%

32,792

72%

33,701

73%

31,631

74%

Overall

39,595

72%

38,984

70%

40,575

72%

38,054

71%

39,605

71%

37,240

73%

Transfer Level Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s transfer level course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Transfer level course success rates remained consistently similar throughout the fall and spring terms examined  No large gaps emerged when comparing transfer level course success rates by gender  Older students have historically displayed slightly higher success rates in transfer level courses when compared to younger students  Some gaps emerged in relation to ethnicity with regard to American Indian/Alaskan Native and Black students; however these groups were the least prevalent at Cypress College  Success rates for transfer level DE courses have exceeded those for on campus courses; this effect is mostly prevalent within fall terms Cypress College Transfer Level Success Rates by Gender Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Gender n

Female

20,353

73%

20,075

72%

20,806

73%

19,552

73%

20,343

72%

19,408

74%

Male

16,110

71%

16,048

69%

16,776

71%

15,803

71%

16,390

72%

15,334

73%

455

73%

438

69%

543

71%

549

70%

655

74%

607

71%

36,918

72%

36,561

71%

38,125

72%

35,904

72%

37,388

72%

35,349

73%

Unknown Overall

Cypress College Transfer Level Success Rates by Age Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Age n

19 & under

11,173

72%

9,648

69%

11,745

73%

9,889

71%

11,487

73%

9,491

73%

20 - 24

16,387

70%

17,497

69%

16,629

71%

16,291

70%

16,094

70%

16,172

72%

25 - 29

4,429

74%

4,585

74%

4,975

73%

5,097

74%

5,086

73%

5,123

75%

30 - 39

2,780

78%

2,800

78%

2,885

76%

2,785

76%

2,881

76%

2,862

78%

40+

2,149

78%

2,031

76%

1,888

75%

1,838

79%

1,831

76%

1,695

76%

Overall

36,918

72%

36,561

71%

38,125

72%

35,904

72%

37,388

72%

35,349

73%

Cypress College Transfer Level Success Rates by Ethnicity Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Ethnicity n

63%

65%

56%

50%

75%

67%

Asian

9,027

78%

9,146

77%

9,388

79%

9,171

79%

9,383

78%

9,076

79%

Black

1,660

65%

1,640

63%

1,550

65%

1,493

66%

1,668

59%

1,481

64%

Hispanic

15,861

68%

15,926

67%

17,140

68%

15,813

67%

16,846

69%

15,846

69%

Multi-Ethn.

1,391

69%

1,299

70%

1,375

71%

1,315

72%

1,360

69%

1,362

73%

P. Islander

162

64%

171

65%

159

68%

137

66%

150

65%

139

66%

Unknown

1,086

74%

1,024

65%

1,086

70%

1,038

71%

1,070

72%

1,008

74%

White

7,653

75%

7,293

76%

7,370

75%

6,885

75%

6,834

75%

6,367

77%

Overall

36,918

72%

36,561

71%

38,125

72%

35,904

72%

37,388

72%

35,349

73%

Am. Indian

Cypress College Transfer Level Success Rates by Teaching Method Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Method n

4,592

65%

4,630

66%

5,227

63%

5,109

67%

5,751

64%

5,499

67%

non-DE

32,326

73%

31,931

72%

32,898

74%

30,795

73%

31,637

74%

29,850

74%

Overall

36,918

72%

36,561

71%

38,125

72%

35,904

72%

37,388

72%

35,349

73%

First Time Student Persistence Rates First time student persistence was examined through two rates: the fall-to-spring persistence rate and the fall-to-spring-to-fall persistence rate. Persistence rates were calculated for first-time students who enrolled and earned a grade in a particular fall term and went on to enroll and earn a grade in the subsequent 1) spring and 2) spring and fall terms. For the Fall 2016 cohort, fall to fall persistence rates are estimated using enrollment at census as denoted by an asterisk. When examining the most recent three years of Cypress College’s first time student persistence rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, financial aid status, disability status, veteran status, and foster youth status were revealed:  No large gaps in persistence emerged by gender  Younger students aged 19 and younger displayed the highest persistence rates compared to all other groups  Asian and Filipino students have historically had the highest persistence rates while American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black, and Pacific Islander students have displayed lower rates  No large gaps in persistence rates emerged when examining financial aid status  A slightly higher percentage of DSS students enrolled and spring and fall compared to non-DSS students for the Fall 2016 cohort  Persistence rates for veteran and foster youth students have displayed more variance over time; however, no first-time former foster youth registered in Fall 2016 Cypress College First Time Student Persistence Rates by Gender Fall 14

Fall 15

Fall 16*

Gender Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Female

1,185

81%

63%

1,185

83%

65%

1,050

79%

61%

Male

1,136

78%

57%

1,063

76%

59%

990

74%

58%

81%

45%

80%

61%

74%

56%

2,352

80%

60%

2,297

80%

62%

2,083

76%

60%

Unknown Overall

Cypress College First Time Student Persistence Rates by Age Fall 14

Fall 15

Fall 16*

Age Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

1,830

83%

66%

1,830

84%

67%

1,680

80%

64%

345

69%

39%

292

65%

42%

262

63%

42%

25 - 29

72%

51%

72%

42%

66%

41%

30 - 39

63%

39%

58%

35%

49%

30%

40+

61%

34%

54%

32%

70%

60%

2,352

80%

60%

2,297

80%

62%

2,083

76%

60%

19 & under 20 - 24

Overall

Cypress College First Time Student Persistence Rates by Ethnicity Fall 14

Fall 15

Fall 16*

Ethnicity Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

67%

22%

56%

44%

80%

70%

Asian

376

88%

73%

375

89%

76%

317

85%

73%

Black

143

62%

36%

118

67%

47%

123

70%

52%

Filipino

152

87%

68%

142

86%

72%

145

87%

74%

1,277

78%

57%

1,250

79%

60%

1,172

74%

56%

P. Islander

64%

43%

50%

36%

75%

58%

Unknown

84%

79%

64%

45%

83%

69%

White

362

82%

62%

371

77%

58%

275

75%

56%

2,352

80%

60%

2,297

80%

62%

2,083

76%

60%

Am. Indian

Hispanic

Overall

Cypress College First Time Student Persistence Rates by Financial Aid Recipient Status Financial Aid

Fall 14

Fall 15

Fall 16*

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

596

78%

62%

653

75%

59%

609

75%

62%

Yes

1,756

80%

59%

1,644

81%

63%

1,474

77%

59%

Overall

2,352

80%

60%

2,297

80%

62%

2,083

76%

60%

Cypress College First Time Student Persistence Rates by Disability Status Fall 14

Fall 15

Fall 16*

DSS Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

2,261

80%

60%

2,212

79%

62%

1,996

76%

59%

Yes

82%

66%

86%

66%

86%

72%

2,352

80%

60%

2,297

80%

62%

2,083

76%

60%

Overall

Cypress College First Time Student Persistence Rates by Veteran Status Fall 14

Fall 15

Fall 16*

Veteran Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

2,332

80%

60%

2,278

79%

62%

2,053

77%

60%

Yes

75%

40%

100%

79%

63%

43%

2,352

80%

60%

2,297

80%

62%

2,083

76%

60%

Overall

Cypress College First Time Student Persistence Rates by Foster Youth Status Foster Youth

Fall 14

Fall 15

Fall 16*

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

Cohort

Spring %

Fall %

2,346

80%

60%

2,288

80%

62%

2,083

76%

60%

Yes

100%

83%

78%

44%

N/A

2,352

80%

60%

2,297

80%

62%

2,083

76%

60%

Overall

Appendix B: NOCCCD Success and Persistence Data The following charts display disaggregated data related to districtwide course success rates, previously presented as figures within Chapter Two. Success rates in basic skills and ESL, CTE, degree applicable, and transfer level courses were examined with relation to four different areas: age, gender, ethnicity, and method of instruction. A brief analysis is included for each group of tables. Basic Skills & ESL Course Success Rates When examining the most recent three years of districtwide basic skills and ESL course success rates, trends related to term, gender, age, ethnicity, and teaching method were revealed:  Success rates in basic skills and ESL courses have been slightly higher by approximately five percentage points in fall terms when compared to spring  No large differences emerged when examining success rates by gender within basic skills and ESL courses  Older students have historically displayed higher success rates when compared to younger students in basic skills and ESL courses regardless of term  Asian students have displayed the highest success rates by ethnicity with all other ethnicities displaying much lower success rates  Success rates in on campus courses have been approximately 10-15 percentage points higher than those in DE courses NOCCCD Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Gender Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Gender n

Female

5,521

64%

4,762

61%

5,447

64%

4,547

58%

5,046

64%

3,851

56%

Male

4,384

59%

3,832

54%

4,211

56%

3,552

52%

4,124

56%

3,113

54%

157

62%

120

53%

195

56%

166

55%

177

60%

135

57%

10,062

62%

8,714

58%

9,853

60%

8,265

55%

9,347

60%

7,099

55%

Unknown Overall

NOCCCD Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Age Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Age n

19 & under

5,869

64%

4,170

58%

5,880

62%

3,896

55%

5,499

62%

3,327

54%

20 - 24

2,678

56%

2,910

55%

2,549

54%

2,747

53%

2,387

54%

2,318

54%

25 - 29

695

63%

770

59%

689

62%

825

60%

685

62%

703

58%

30 - 39

443

67%

473

66%

440

65%

487

62%

478

65%

465

59%

40+

377

67%

391

68%

295

65%

310

63%

298

70%

286

63%

10,062

62%

8,714

58%

9,853

60%

8,265

55%

9,347

60%

7,099

55%

Overall

NOCCCD Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Ethnicity Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Ethnicity n

61%

42%

56%

50%

Asian

1,189

74%

1,037

71%

1,112

75%

916

70%

1,163

75%

897

68%

Black

377

48%

368

53%

322

47%

310

46%

305

53%

247

49%

6,249

60%

5,410

55%

6,313

58%

5,316

52%

6,012

57%

4,591

52%

Multi-Ethn.

250

54%

223

52%

246

62%

206

59%

224

63%

181

55%

P. Islander

49%

35%

56%

53%

66%

39%

Unknown

372

58%

286

59%

324

62%

236

57%

309

58%

228

57%

White

1,557

66%

1,326

62%

1,486

60%

1,212

59%

1,283

63%

905

58%

Overall

10,062

62%

8,714

58%

9,853

60%

8,265

55%

9,347

60%

7,099

55%

Am. Indian

Hispanic

NOCCCD Basic Skills & ESL Success Rates by Teaching Method Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Method n

452

49%

450

51%

480

49%

303

47%

330

52%

316

47%

non-DE

9,610

62%

8,264

58%

9,373

61%

7,962

56%

9,017

61%

6,783

56%

Overall

10,062

62%

8,714

58%

9,853

60%

8,265

55%

9,347

60%

7,099

55%

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Gender n

Female

23,316

71%

22,303

71%

21,851

72%

21,232

72%

19,507

72%

18,972

74%

Male

21,557

68%

20,469

68%

20,139

68%

19,327

68%

18,313

69%

17,560

71%

658

71%

629

71%

719

70%

709

69%

729

71%

639

72%

45,531

70%

43,401

70%

42,709

70%

41,268

70%

38,549

71%

37,171

73%

Unknown Overall

NOCCCD CTE Success Rates by Age Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Age n

19 & under

12,949

67%

10,557

65%

11,767

67%

10,322

67%

10,235

68%

8,879

70%

20 - 24

19,227

68%

19,577

69%

17,935

69%

17,764

70%

16,068

71%

16,166

73%

25 - 29

6,221

73%

6,327

72%

6,322

72%

6,429

72%

5,849

73%

5,906

75%

30 - 39

3,969

75%

3,990

76%

3,925

75%

3,958

75%

3,916

75%

3,791

76%

40+

3,165

76%

2,950

75%

2,760

76%

2,795

76%

2,476

72%

2,427

74%

Overall

45,531

70%

43,401

70%

42,709

70%

41,268

70%

38,549

71%

37,171

73%

NOCCCD CTE Success Rates by Ethnicity Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Ethnicity n

121

70%

101

63%

108

56%

67%

111

64%

Asian

7,770

77%

7,866

76%

7,331

78%

7,466

78%

7,138

78%

7,022

80%

Black

1,809

59%

1,668

58%

1,580

59%

1,577

56%

1,496

53%

1,520

54%

Hispanic

21,784

66%

20,629

65%

21,199

67%

20,308

66%

18,865

67%

18,052

69%

Multi-Ethn.

1,566

69%

1,489

69%

1,444

69%

1,390

72%

1,348

70%

1,254

73%

P. Islander

189

55%

176

63%

153

65%

167

63%

120

65%

117

62%

Unknown

1,479

64%

1,223

66%

1,168

71%

1,128

72%

1,117

71%

1,216

73%

White

10,813

75%

10,249

76%

9,726

74%

9,139

75%

8,354

76%

7,902

77%

Overall

45,531

70%

43,401

70%

42,709

70%

41,268

70%

38,549

71%

37,171

73%

Am. Indian

NOCCCD CTE Success Rates by Teaching Method Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Method n

5,902

60%

6,107

61%

6,135

59%

6,036

60%

5,788

60%

6,055

62%

non-DE

39,629

71%

37,294

71%

36,574

72%

35,232

72%

32,761

73%

31,116

75%

Overall

45,531

70%

43,401

70%

42,709

70%

41,268

70%

38,549

71%

37,171

73%

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Gender n

Female

53,725

70%

52,181

70%

53,740

71%

51,971

71%

52,688

70%

50,622

71%

Male

48,220

66%

46,895

67%

47,988

67%

46,199

68%

47,613

68%

45,092

70%

Unknown

1,427

70%

1,479

70%

1,644

70%

1,682

69%

1,831

70%

1,750

71%

103,372

68%

100,555

68%

103,372

69%

99,852

69%

102,132

69%

97,464

71%

Overall

NOCCCD Degree Applicable Success Rates by Age Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Age n

19 & under

33,466

68%

29,351

68%

34,227

70%

29,787

69%

33,657

70%

29,637

70%

20 - 24

46,709

67%

48,030

67%

45,708

68%

46,045

68%

44,957

68%

44,443

70%

25 - 29

11,769

70%

12,077

70%

12,511

69%

12,923

70%

12,557

69%

12,527

71%

30 - 39

6,616

72%

6,576

74%

6,604

73%

6,776

73%

6,890

72%

6,930

73%

40+

4,812

73%

4,521

74%

4,319

74%

4,316

75%

4,062

71%

3,921

72%

103,372

68%

100,555

68%

103,372

69%

99,852

69%

102,132

69%

97,464

71%

Overall

NOCCCD Degree Applicable Success Rates by Ethnicity Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Ethnicity n

249

69%

216

65%

219

56%

214

63%

249

73%

201

65%

Asian

18,740

75%

18,787

74%

19,222

77%

19,232

77%

19,114

76%

18,707

77%

Black

3,934

58%

3,709

59%

3,726

58%

3,656

58%

3,862

55%

3,768

54%

Hispanic

49,779

65%

48,935

65%

51,549

66%

49,621

66%

51,788

66%

48,841

68%

Multi-Ethn.

3,640

67%

3,439

69%

3,555

68%

3,404

70%

3,605

69%

3,467

72%

P. Islander

428

59%

408

62%

415

61%

386

61%

370

70%

385

63%

Unknown

3,238

64%

2,801

66%

2,765

68%

2,739

70%

2,969

69%

3,007

71%

White

23,364

73%

22,260

74%

21,921

73%

20,600

73%

20,175

74%

19,088

75%

Overall

103,372

68%

100,555

68%

103,372

69%

99,852

69%

102,132

69%

97,464

71%

Am. Indian

NOCCCD Degree Applicable Success Rates by Teaching Method Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Method n

10,905

59%

11,298

60%

12,299

59%

12,053

60%

12,719

59%

12,557

62%

non-DE

92,467

69%

89,257

69%

91,073

70%

87,799

71%

89,413

71%

84,907

72%

Overall

103,372

68%

100,555

68%

103,372

69%

99,852

69%

102,132

69%

97,464

71%

100

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Gender n

Female

50,723

70%

49,355

70%

50,829

71%

49,181

71%

49,880

71%

48,087

72%

Male

45,038

67%

43,813

67%

44,924

68%

43,204

68%

44,728

69%

42,379

70%

Unknown

1,339

71%

1,394

71%

1,552

70%

1,576

69%

1,721

71%

1,661

72%

Overall

97,100

68%

94,562

68%

97,305

69%

93,961

70%

96,329

70%

92,127

71%

NOCCCD Transfer Level Success Rates by Age Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Age n

19 & under

31,707

69%

27,639

68%

32,413

70%

28,051

70%

31,805

71%

28,185

71%

20 - 24

44,164

67%

45,690

68%

43,473

68%

43,828

69%

42,764

68%

42,265

71%

25 - 29

10,883

69%

11,195

70%

11,542

69%

12,028

70%

11,701

69%

11,758

71%

30 - 39

6,005

72%

5,980

73%

5,990

73%

6,197

73%

6,354

72%

6,322

73%

40+

4,341

73%

4,058

74%

3,884

74%

3,853

75%

3,696

71%

3,591

72%

Overall

97,100

68%

94,562

68%

97,305

69%

93,961

70%

96,329

70%

92,127

71%

101

NOCCCD Transfer Level Success Rates by Ethnicity Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Ethnicity n

225

67%

196

64%

207

57%

190

62%

226

74%

192

66%

Asian

17,965

75%

18,061

75%

18,435

77%

18,520

77%

18,381

76%

18,021

77%

Black

3,723

58%

3,507

59%

3,516

59%

3,472

59%

3,695

56%

3,634

54%

Hispanic

46,467

65%

45,811

65%

48,294

66%

46,112

67%

48,556

67%

45,888

68%

Multi-Ethn.

3,451

67%

3,282

69%

3,375

69%

3,229

70%

3,415

70%

3,316

72%

P. Islander

400

60%

387

62%

385

62%

370

62%

347

71%

360

62%

Unknown

3,057

64%

2,612

65%

2,597

68%

2,536

70%

2,806

70%

2,832

72%

White

21,812

73%

20,706

74%

20,496

73%

19,232

74%

18,903

74%

17,884

76%

Overall

97,100

68%

94,562

68%

97,305

69%

93,961

70%

96,329

70%

92,127

71%

Am. Indian

NOCCCD Transfer Level Success Rates by Teaching Method Fall 14

Spring 15

Fall 15

Spring 16

Fall 16

Spring 17

Method n

10,552

60%

10,979

61%

11,999

60%

11,754

61%

12,375

60%

12,306

62%

non-DE

86,548

69%

83,583

69%

85,306

71%

82,207

72%

83,954

71%

79,821

73%

Overall

97,100

68%

94,562

68%

97,305

69%

93,961

70%

96,329

70%

92,127

71%

102

Appendix C: 2014-17 Cypress College Strategic Plan 2014-17 Cypress Strategic Direction A: Student Success Corresponding District Strategic Directions: 1, 2, and 3 Goals Objectives Persons Responsible A.1.1 Assess on a regular basis the essential current and projected instructional and service needs of our students. Executive Vice President

A.1 Facilitate all studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; achievement of critical milestones by providing excellent instructional and support services, consistent with the Student Success and Support Program and other requirements.

A.2 Provide increased access to mathematics and English for all incoming freshmen. A.3 Develop and implement programs and services aimed at helping at-risk students succeed in basic skills and college-level courses. A.4 Dedicate the campus community to student success.

A.1.2 Maximize the proportion of students completing a Student Educational Plan (SEP).

Dean of Counseling

A.1.3 Strengthen the college readiness of incoming students.

Deans, SEM & Language Arts

A.1.4 Improve the success rate of students progressing through specified crucial course sequences.

Deans, SEM & Language Arts

A.1.5 Develop and implement a reliable system for tracking studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; achievement, including career attainment, after completion of their Cypress experience.

Director, Research & Planning

A.1.6 Conduct a systematic feasibility study of establishing prerequisites for content-area courses, focusing on potential student success benefits and challenges. A.2.1 Develop and implement enrollment management strategies to ensure that targeted incoming freshmen have the opportunity to enroll in mathematics and English basic skills courses in the first semester. A.3.1 Reduce the achievement gap among students by removing barriers to success, especially for at-risk students.

Executive Vice President

A.3.2 Develop and implement a process to connect at-risk students to academic and campus resources focused on helping them succeed. A.4.1. Make student success a pervasive theme of discourse throughout the College.

Dean, Counseling & Student Services

Executive Vice President

Student Equity Plan Chair

President

103

2014-17 Cypress Strategic Direction B: Organizational Effectiveness & Excellence Corresponding District Strategic Direction: 4 Goals Objectives Persons Responsible B.1 Create an organizational structure and practice that maximizes sharedB.1.1 Disseminate, in an effective and timely fashion, Chair, Presidentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Advisory governance and a sense of ownership of information about shared governance, decision-making Council the decision-making process within processes, and participation in both. Cypress College community. B.2.1 Increase faculty and student services staff participation in Staff Development Committee professional development activities.

B.2 Enhance professional development.

B.3 Foster an environment of collaboration, collegiality, teamwork, communication, courtesy, and respect.

B.2.2 Research training models and approaches that show promise in helping faculty and staff improve student learning and student achievement, and implement on a pilot basis the models and approaches that best fit the Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs.

Staff Development Committee

B.2.3 Increase the number and proportion of personnel proposing new ideas and applying for Innovation Fund resources. B.3.1 Empower new faculty, staff, and administrators to become active members of the campus community.

Staff Development Committee

B.3.2 Provide regular opportunities for faculty, staff, and administrators to collaborate, engage, dialogue, share, and socialize with each other.

Staff Development Committee

Director, Student Activities B.3.3 Establish forums and other systematic opportunities to solicit input from students on student success and other important issues facing the College.

104

Goals

B.4 Ensure that financial, physical, technological, and related necessary resources are available to meet the essential instructional and service needs of our students.

B.5 Collaborate with the District Office of Human Resources to ensure that hiring and other human resources practices address current and future learning, teaching, and student support needs effectively.

Objectives B.4.1 Mount an effective campaign to develop additional grant funding as required to meet identified student needs.

Persons Responsible Grants Administrator

B.4.2 Develop other alternative revenue streams to meet identified student needs.

Executive Director, Foundation

B.4.3 Obtain and maintain technology, equipment, and supplies needed to employ best practices in both instructional and support programs. B.4.4 Ensure that strategic planning for capital improvements (including facilities modernization and infrastructure) address current and future learning, teaching, and student support needs effectively. B.5.1. Collaborate with the District Office of Human Resources to establish and institutionalize development, recruitment, and hiring practices that facilitate greater diversity among College personnel, and that focus in part on providing models of success and achievement for our diverse student population.

Director, Academic Computing

Vice President, Administrative Services

Diversity Committee, Chair

105

2014-17 Cypress Strategic Direction C: Strong Community Connections Goals Objectives

C.1 Establish more effective collaboration with K-12 schools

C.2 Strengthen community relationships by fostering mutually beneficial partnerships.

C.3 Strengthen collaboration with SCE.

C.4 Strengthen collaboration with 4-year universities.

Corresponding District Strategic Direction: 5 Persons Responsible

C.1.1 Develop and implement specific plans with high schools to collaborate effectively on identified problem areas.

Dean, Student Services

C.2.1 Work with campus CTE program advisory committees to develop and enhance partnerships with Cypress College.

Dean, CTE

C.2.2 Integrate and coordinate all campus outreach efforts to business and civic groups.

Executive Director, Foundation

C.2.3 Establish and sustain connections with community ethnic organizations.

Executive Director, Foundation

C.2.4 Strengthen relationships with business and civic groups.

Executive Director, Foundation

C.3.1 Develop a seamless transition between SCE and Cypress College.

Executive Vice President

C.4.1 Improve transfer articulation and pathways with 4-year universities.

Dean, Counseling

106

Cypress College Strategic Plan: Year 3 Executive Summary Strategic Plan Development The 2014-2017 Strategic Plan was developed based on input received from nearly 60 campus community members who attended the College’s Strategic Planning Colloquium in April 2014. These participants identified important goals and objectives in relation to student success, organizational effectiveness, and community connections for the College to attempt to accomplish from Fall 2014 to Spring 2017. These goals and objectives were adapted and incorporated into the 2014-2017 Cypress College Strategic Plan. Previous unmet goals and objectives from the 2011-2014 Strategic Plan were also examined and considered for inclusion. The colloquium to develop the 2017-2020 Cypress College Strategic Plan will be held in April 2017. Data related to basic skills, student equity, matriculation, special programs, and other areas will continue to be emphasized in the 2017-2020 strategic plan, keeping in mind the institution-set standards for successful course completion, award completion, and transfer volume. Strategic Plan Structure The Strategic Plan emphasizes the five NOCCCD strategic directions set forth in the District’s Strategic Plan: completion, achievement gap, basic skills, planning, and community relations. Cypress College combined District Directions 1 (completion), 2 (achievement gap), and 3 (basic skills) into one Direction, A, regarding student success. District Direction 4 (planning and decision-making) is linked to the College’s Direction B, Organizational Effectiveness and Excellence. Finally, District Direction 5 (community relations) corresponds with the College’s Direction C, Strong Community Connections. Strategic Plan and Institution-Set Standards Fund In 2016-17, Cypress College continued to set aside a pool of $100,000 for the campus community to meet strategic plan goals and objectives, as well as the institution-set standards related to successful course completion, degree completion, certificate completion, and transfer volume. In 2015-16, Cypress College refined the institution-set standards for student success in relation to successful course completion (71.2%), degree completion (845), certificate completion (546), and transfer volume (863). The College received 17 requests for strategic plan funds which totaled $476,923: six for Direction A related to student success ($155,740), six for Direction B related to organizational effectiveness ($121,888), and five for Direction C related to building strong community connections ($199,295). Of these 17 requests, six were fully funded while one was partially funded, with the total funded equaling $102,120. Funded projects included simulation activities for students to gain basic nursing skills, the creation of a new internship program with Tesla Motors, the creation of an open access lab manual and modernization of laboratory equipment for Biology 101, the purchasing of technological equipment to allow forensics 107

students to participate in the Lincoln Douglas Debate, engineering technology program updates to help students learn the latest engineering technology and earn industry based certificates, the creation of marketing materials for the Legacy program, and a revival for the collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mascot, Charlie the Charger. Evaluations will be conducted for each of the funded projects. Overall Progress The Strategic Direction Workgroup met alongside the Institutional Research and Planning office to discuss progress made on the strategic plan. In February 2017. The group deliberated and assigned ratings on progress made for each goal in the strategic plan for both 2016-17 and cumulatively throughout the 2014-17 plan. For the 2016-17 school year, Direction A: Student Success ratings were all moderate, Direction B: Organizational Effectiveness and Excellence ratings ranged from minimal to substantial, and Direction C: Strong Community Connections ratings ranged from minimal to substantial. The committee assigned an overall ranking of moderate progress for this final report. The cumulative ratings of progress on the 2014-17 strategic plan displayed some additional variation. Cumulative Direction A: Student Success ratings ranged from moderate to substantial, Direction B: Organizational Effectiveness and Excellence ratings ranged from minimal to substantial, and Direction C: Strong Community Connections ratings ranged from minimal to moderate. The committee also assigned an overall ranking of moderate progress throughout the entirety of the strategic plan. Because this report represents the final evaluation of progress on these goals and objectives, some improvements and progress were made with regard to Goals A.1 and C.2 specifically in comparison to the mid-year evaluation. Measures of Overall Institutional Effectiveness At the close of Year 2 of the 2014-17 Cypress College Strategic Plan, the Institutional Research and Planning Office collaborated with responsible parties for all strategic plan objectives to set baseline data and determine goals for outcome data as needed. In Year 3, this approach continued to allow for a clear assessment of progress to be made for all objectives, both overall and annual. The strategic planning workgroup continues to use multiple outcome measures when assessing progress on the strategic plan. These measures include Student Success Scorecard Data, Institution-Set Standards for Student Achievement, Institutional Learning Outcomes (ILO), and other success-related measures including success and retention rates, degrees and certificates awarded, transfers, FTES generated and efficiency measures such as Weekly Student Contact Hours (WSCH) per Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF). Each individual measure provides a key piece of the entire evaluation model. Recommendations Moving Forward Common themes, issues, and needs emerged within the content of the strategic plan as well as conversations that took place within the SDW and direction meetings. Themes included increasing student access and success alongside obtaining and maintaining adequate physical resources. Issues that emerged included campus climate improvement, sustaining the baccalaureate degree program, and expanding distance education. 108

Some recommendations emerged in the workgroup meetings and discussions to improve the process for future strategic plan cycles. One major recommendation centered on the Strategic Plan and Institution-Set Standards fund. In 2016-17, the fund was expanded to allow for additional applications related to increasing and improving outcomes in relation to success rates, degree and certificate completion, and transfer volume. Since the expansion of the fund allowed for additional applications, the number of applications increased from Year 2 to Year 3. In the Direction-specific meetings to rank strategic plan fund requests, additional questions were brought up related to these requests, but this process at present does not include a chance for those who requested funds to clarify and explain their requests. Thus, brief presentations and a period for questions and answers are recommended to improve the ranking and award of these fund requests. The Workgroup made a number of recommendations to complete the process of preparing the 2017-2020 Strategic Plan, including holding the Colloquium, collecting final updates and completing the evaluation of the 2014-2017 Strategic Plan, and refining goals and objectives for the 2017-2020 Strategic Plan. Throughout the discussions on strategic plan progress and rankings, workgroup members frequently noted the importance of consistently measuring and reporting progress to facilitate sound evaluation. Thus, the Workgroup recommended that discussions on future iterations of the strategic plan will include setting specific, measurable, agreed-upon, realistic, and time-bound (SMART) goals and objectives. The evaluation plan previously developed by the Strategic Direction Workgroup includes a variety of recommendations. These recommendations include providing more meaningful and timely updates to the campus community with regard to the achievement of goals and objectives, utilizing increased amounts of data to present and assess outcomes, continuing to provide baselines and targets, and focusing on CTE and general education along with basic skills with the goal of ultimately engaging and planning with community entities to develop a seamless transition to college. Recommendations are aimed at improving progress towards the achievement of the strategic planâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals and objectives.

109

Year 3 Timeline

December 2016 • Responsible parties provided input on the mid-year progress report

January February 2017 • Institutional Research combines inputs into mid-year progress report

February 2017 • The Strategic Plan Committee and Workgroup met to evaluate progress on objectives

April 2017 • Colloquium to develop the 20172020 Strategic Plan will be held on April 6-7; Plan draft refinements to follow

June 2017 • Institutional Research obtains final updates for specified objectives

July 2017 • Final 20142017 Strategic Plan evaluation report finalized

110

Strategic Plan Fund & Institution-Set Standards Fund, 2016-17 Institution-Set Standards I: Increasing Course Completion Rates (goal: 71.2%) II: Increasing Certificate Completion (goal: 546 annually) III: Increasing Degree Completion (goal: 845 annually) IV: Increasing Transfer Volume (goal: 863 annually)

Requested Total A Amount: $155,740 Total B Amount: $121,888 Total C Amount: $199,295 Grand Total: $476,923

Direction Project

Funded Total A Amount: $56,200 Total B Amount: $27,750 Total C Amount: $18,170 Grand Total: $102,120

A 4

Title

English Department Technology Upgrades

Nursing Simulation

New Emerging Technology Curriculum

Fundamentals of Art faculty collaboration

Alumni Exhibition

AfricanAmerican Male Academy

Contact

Diep/Young

Smith/Sciacca

Orozco/Donley

Driggs/Realista

Schulps/Realista

Ssensalo/DeDios

Purchase Chromebooks for real-time, hands-on, classroom use

Simulation activities for students to gain basic nursing skills

New courses, certificates and an internship program with Tesla

Fundamentals of Art professors will collaborate to determine best practices

Bring back alumni who transferred/ completed degrees for exhibitions & workshops

An AfricanAmerican program with culturally relevant activities

Amount

$49,100

$26,200

$50,000

$1,690

$8,750

$20,000

Initial Vote

Rank #3

Rank #2

Rank #1

Rank #5

Rank #6

Rank #4

PS Status

Do not fund

Fund $26,200

Fund $30,000

Do not fund

Objective

Total

TOTAL A: $155,740

111

Direction Project

B 1

Title

Automotive Technology Instructional Materials

Biology 101 Modernization

Forensics Technology Updates

Engineering Technology Updates

Psych Tech Student Database

Down Draft Tables

Contact

Kelley/Donley

Spooner/Fee

House/Young

Saleh/Fee

Johannsen/Sciacca

Ramos/Donley

Teach students to use special equipment for Toyota dealerships

Create an open access lab manual and modernize laboratory equipment

Allow students to participate in the Lincoln Douglas Debate during forensics tournaments

Help students learn latest engineering technology and obtain industry based certificates

Secure database for Psych Tech students to store medical and clinical requirements and license information

Standard equipment used industrywide to ensure technician health and safety

Amount

$30,690

$20,000

$2,900

$16,250

$6,048

$46,000

Initial Vote

Rank #4

Rank #2

Rank #1

Rank #3

Rank #6

Rank #5

PS Status

Do not fund

Fund $20,000

Fund $2,900

Fund $4,850

Do not fund

Objective

Total

TOTAL B: $121,888

112

Direction Project

Title

Contact

Objective

Amount Initial Vote PS Status Total

C 7

Charlie The Charger Revival

Reza/Rams

January Jumpstart

Legacy Marketing Materials

Legacy Video Marketing Materials

Digital Badge and Employer Mentoring Ecosystem LinkedIn Partnership

Jepson/Donley

Rhymes/Young

Lin/Donley Connecting K-12, Cypress College, and local businesses through an online instruction and messaging platform

Create a webenhanced college & career readiness program with an internship component

Create marketing materials to increase awareness and enrollment

Create marketing videos for prospective students and target groups

Produce a campus mascot costume for Charlie the Charger

$96,125

$6,090

$7,600

$85,000

$4,480

Rank #5

Rank #1

Rank #2

Rank #4

Rank #3

Do not fund

Fund $6,090

Fund $7,600

Do not fund

Fund $4,480

TOTAL C: $199,295

113

Committee Assessment of Overall Progress on 2014-17 Strategic Directions Strategic Direction

Goal

Zero

Minimal

OVERALL

A: Student Success

Moderate

X X

A.3: At-Risk Student Success

A.4: Dedication to Student Success

OVERALL

B: Organizational Effectiveness and Excellence

X X

B.2: Enhance Professional Development

B.3: Environment of Collaboration

B.4: Resources Available to Meet Needs B.5: Hiring Practices Address Needs

C: Strong Community Connections

X X

OVERALL

C.1: Collaboration with K-12 Schools

C.2: Mutually Beneficial Partnerships C.3: Collaboration with SCE C.4: Collaboration with 4-Year Universities

Major

A.1: Achievement of Critical Milestones A.2: Freshman Access to Math & English

B.1: Maximize Shared Governance

Substantial

X X X

OVERALL RATING OF STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS: MODERATE

114

Appendix D: 2017-20 Cypress College Strategic Plan 2017-20 Cypress Strategic Direction A: Student Success Goals

Corresponding District Strategic Directions: 1, 2, & 3 Objectives

Champion(s)

A.1.1 Maximize the proportion of students completing a Student Educational Plan (SEP).

Dean, Counseling and Student Development

A.1.2 Strengthen the college readiness of incoming students.

Deans, SEM & Language Arts

A.1.3 Improve the success rate of students progressing through specified crucial course sequences.

Deans, SEM & Language Arts

A.1.4 Track students’ achievement, including career attainment, after completion of their Cypress experience, and use the results to inform departmental and institutional planning.

Director, Institutional Research & Planning

A.1.5 Enable students to make informed academic decisions.

Dean, Counseling and Student Development & Director, Student Success and Support Programs

A.1.6 Develop, sustain, and enhance the baccalaureate program.

Dean, Health Science

A.2 Develop and implement enrollment management strategies to enhance student access and success.

A.2.1 Ensure access to mathematics and English for all incoming freshmen.

Deans, SEM & Language Arts

A.2.2 Develop and implement an updated enrollment management plan.

Executive Vice President

A.3 Develop and implement programs and services aimed at helping at-risk students succeed.

A.3.1 Reduce the achievement gaps among identified student groups.

Director, Student Equity

A.3.2 Connect at-risk students to academic and campus support services.

Deans, Counseling and Student Development & Director, Student Success and Support Programs

A.4.1 Make the success of all students and student equity a pervasive theme of discourse throughout the college.

President

A.1 Facilitate all students’ achievement of critical milestones by providing excellent instructional and support services.

A.4 Emphasize the campus community’s dedication to student success.

115

2017-20 Cypress Strategic Direction B: Organizational Effectiveness & Excellence Goals B.1 Create organizational structures and practices that enhance participatory governance, a sense of ownership of decisionmaking processes, and campus engagement.

B.2 Enhance professional development.

B.3 Improve campus climate by fostering an environment that is consistent with the Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Core Values.

Corresponding District Strategic Direction: 4

Objectives

Champion(s)

B.1.1 Effectively communicate participatory governance opportunities, processes, and outcomes.

President

B.2.1 Facilitate ongoing participation by faculty, staff, and administrators in professional development activities.

Professional Development Committee

B.2.2 Provide professional development focused specifically on improving student learning and student achievement.

Professional Development Committee

B.2.3 Increase the number and proportion of personnel applying for funding in support of professional development.

Professional Development Committee

B.3.1 Encourage new faculty, staff, and administrators to become active members of the campus community.

Professional Development Committee

B.3.2 Facilitate participation in regular events and activities so that all employees collaborate, share ideas, and socialize.

Professional Development Committee

B.3.3 Solicit and incorporate input from students on student success and other important issues facing the college.

Director, Student Activities & President, Associated Students

B.3.4 Improve the Cypress campus climate among all constituency groups.

President

B.3.5 Develop and implement strategies to promote cultural inclusivity and cultural competence.

President

116

2017-20 Cypress Strategic Direction B: Organizational Effectiveness & Excellence Goals

Corresponding District Strategic Direction: 4

Objectives B.4.1 Ensure that planning and resource allocation systematically address the current and projected instructional and service needs of our students.

Champion(s) Executive Vice President

B.4.2 Pursue additional grant funding and other alternative revenue streams as required to meet identified student needs.

Executive Vice President & Executive Director, Foundation

B.4.3 Obtain and maintain technology, equipment, and supplies needed to employ best practices in both instructional and student support programs.

Director, Academic Computing

B.4.4 Ensure that strategic planning for capital improvements meet campus needs.

Vice President, Administrative Services

B.5 Ensure that hiring and other human resources practices address current and future learning, teaching, and student support needs effectively.

B.5.1 Establish and institutionalize development, recruitment, and hiring practices for College personnel that facilitate greater diversity.

Chair, Diversity Committee

B.6 Promote a culture of safety at the College.

B.6.1 Formalize, disseminate, implement, and provide workshops and other training on emergency preparedness procedures.

Director, Campus Safety

B.4 Ensure resources are available to meet essential instructional, student support, and administrative needs.

117

2017-20 Cypress Strategic Direction C: Strong Community Connections Goals C.1 Establish more effective collaboration with K-12 schools.

C.2 Strengthen community relationships.

C.3 Strengthen Collaboration with North Orange Continuing Education (NOCE). C.4 Strengthen collaboration with 4-year colleges and universities. C.5 Strengthen the image of Cypress College.

Corresponding District Strategic Direction: 5

Objectives C.1.1 Coordinate targeted outreach with K-12 schools to identify postsecondary academic and career pathways along with transition strategies to Cypress College.

Champion(s) Dean, Counseling and Student Development & Director, Student Success and Support Programs

C.2.1 Develop and enhance partnerships between Cypress College, business, civic groups, and government entities.

Dean, Career Technical Education & Executive Director, Foundation

C.2.2 Establish and sustain connections with diverse community groups.

Executive Director, Foundation.

C.3.1 Expand seamless transitions between NOCE and Cypress College.

Executive Vice President

C.4.1 Improve pathways for transfer with 4-year colleges and universities.

Dean, Counseling and Student Development

C.5.1 Develop and implement an integrated communication plan emphasizing marketing, branding, and outreach.

Director, Campus Communications

118

BOARD OF TRUSTEES NORTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Molly McClanahan, President Jacqueline Rodarte, Vice President Jeffery P. Brown, Secretary Ryan Bent, Member Stephen T. Blount, Member Barbara Dunsheath, Member Ed Lopez, Member

Daniel Sebastian, Student Trustee, Cypress College Andrew Washington, Student Trustee, Fullerton College Dr. Cheryl Marshall, Chancellor & Executive Secretary to the Board