Carole Bogue-Feinour, Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs, CCCCO
Patrick Perry , Vice Chancellor of Technology, Research, & Info Systems, CCCCO
Janet Fulks, ASCCC, BSI
Marcy Alancraig, Cabrillo College, BSI, English
Joan Cordova, Orange Coast College. Math
Marsha Elliot, OCC Continuing Ed
Alicia Munoz, Grossmont College, ESL
Bob Pacheco, Barstow College, Reading and Math

• How many faculty from each discipline?
• How many part timers?
• Table work: Collect three main misconceptions about non-credit

From the REPORT ON THE SYSTEM’S
CURRENT PROGRAMS IN ENGLISH AS A
SECOND LANGUAGE (ESL) AND BASIC
SKILLS Jan 2008

Unduplicated Student Enrollments in Credit and
Noncredit Basic Skills and ESL
Jan 2008
ENROLLMENT
CATEGORY
BS-ESL (credit)
BS-ESL (noncredit)
No BS-ESL
Total
ENROLLMENT
326,478
393,004
1,901,963
2,621,445
% OF TOTAL
ENROLLMENT
12.45%
14.99%
72.56%
100%

• Many who should be enrolled in Basic Skills and
ESL are not
• Currently, noncredit serves the same number or more of students as credit
• You can not talk about basic skills without talking noncredit

Enrollment in Credit and Noncredit by
Ethnicity
ETHNICITY
AFRICAN-
AMERICAN
ASIAN/FILIPINO/
PAC ISLANDER
HISPANIC/
LATINO
NATIVE
AMERICAN
OTHER, NON-
WHITE
WHITE
Credit
ENROLLMENT
36,688
55,529
135,156
2,987
6,485
% OF TOTAL
ENROLLMENT
11.24%
17.00%
41.40%
0.92%
1.99%
Noncredit
ENROLLMENT
24,470
76,208
171,821
2,115
7,420
% OF
ENROLLMENT
6.23%
19.39%
43.72%
0.54%
1.89%
73,702 22.57% 73,459 18.69%
UNKNOWN 15,931 4.88% 37,511 9.54%
TOTAL 326,478 100% 393,004 100%

• Many currently enrolled are students of color
• Hispanics use noncredit more frequently than other groups
• ESL programs contribute a great deal to this effort

• Making noncredit work visible
• Documenting student success
• Communicating the resources necessary to maintain this important work

Why is this Important and Why Are We
Here?
• Coding for your courses – some coding is incorrect – we are here to fix it
• Coding is our tool for reporting
• Enhanced Funding Accountability
• If you think this is a Mission Impossible – it has been done before by credit faculty.
• You can do this!

SB 361 Enhanced Noncredit Funding and Accountability Report
• Accountability requirements for non-credit under due to SB 361
• $19,556,985 to 30 districts
• Funding for aligned courses that end in a certificate of completion or certificate of competency
• What can we do?
▫ Describe how courses align
▫ Define the certificate curriculum and skills

• ESL/basic skills allocations, $31.5 million annually
*college allocation based on ESL/basic skills
FTES, including noncredit FTES
*Framework for ESL/basic skills accountability, the second
Supplemental ARCC report

• Accountability reporting using MIS data
• Currently it is not well understood or welldefined for non-credit
• There is probably more variation in non-credit than credit
• Even more difficult when we describe student success rate

• Our current ARCC
• *Two Supplemental ARCC Reports
--SB 361
--ESL/basic skills Accountability
• Noncredit report on noncredit repetition
• IPEDS and other such required reporting

• Accountability and money- compare to sustainability
• Background information to get them up to speed
• CB 21 wrong
• Accountability for noncredit
• Needing to show progress

What Does Accountability mean for
Credit Courses?
• First we will describe credit accountability
• Then we will explain how we are trying to create a clear and reasonable picture of non-credit work
• MIS = Management Information Systems

• Besides the status of the course credit/noncredit, transfer/basic skills
• This tells us student needs – success and retention
• Student Progress – to certificates and degrees, through course pathways
• Today we want to focus on Student Progress through Courses

• CB21=Course Prior to College Level
• Chancellor’s Office MIS system collects all course info each term
• Courses are coded for identification purposes
▫ TOP code, credit/noncredit status, transfer status, units, basic skills status, SAM/voc code, etc.
• Funding allocations are based on the coding
• FTES determinations and other reports are determined by coding

• Last changed in 1994
▫ Defined number of “codeable” levels at 5 (xfer + 4 below)
▫ Is used across math/English/reading/writing/ESL
▫ Has little curricular definition of levels

u
Is used for a lot of accountability reporting l Which in turn is used to justify investments and expenditures in basic skills l ARCC Technical Advisory Group: defines metrics for mandated reports u Is necessary to show student progress through basic skills curriculum l 4…3…2…1…transferrable

• To understand this in non-credit, you need to understand how it is used in credit

• For the aforementioned cohort:
▫ Percent who completed any degree-applicable or transfer level math/Eng/ESL (in same curricular lineage)
▫ Percent that eventually earn a degree/certificate, and/or transfer/transfer prepared

CB21 credit basic skills improvement
Basic Skills Improvement Rate (ARCC)
Credit courses only: math, English, reading
Completed (A,B,C,CR) any basic skills course at 2 or more levels below
Within 3 years, successfully completed a higher level basic skills course of same discipline
Anywhere in the system
Current data range: 24%-62%, avg 49%.

ESL Improvement Rate (ARCC)
Credit ESL courses only
Within 3 years, successfully completed a higher level ESL course
Anywhere in the system
Current data range: 0% to 81%, avg. 42%

Proposed Basic Skills Supplemental Report:

Percent of Assessed Students
Recommended for Placement into levels of credit basic skills math/English/ESL courses (as defined by CB 21) in a given year done by annual survey of colleges

• Normally done at campus
• Saved in local ERP system (Datatel, Banner,
Peoplesoft, etc)
• Sent to System Office end of term by local MIS
• Reports run thereafter (ARCC)
• Resubmission always allowed and welcome

• Miscoding (wrong TOP, ??credit??levels, basic skills status)—humans and transference
• Recoding term to term without change in actual curriculum (solved with unique_id#)
• Ambiguity of data element codes
• The outcomes are not documented as grades or credit – Hello noncredit

What do we need to do to correct the problems?
• We need a rubric to show levels and progress
• We need a means of including noncredit such as
ABE and ASE in progress accountability
• We need to identify linkages between credit and noncredit

• Is not standardization
• Does not drive curricular changes
• Is not common course numbering or articulation
• IS a mapping exercise designed to maximize our ability to show student progress AND your good work

• If you code every basic skills class at 4+ levels below, you will have few improvements
• It pays to have a full “progression sequence” using as many levels as are available to show differentiation

• All MIS data must be submitted through your normal MIS data submission process
▫ Contact your CISO; change usually made in your
ERP system
• Setup a formalized coding process for courses
▫ We’d love to do it centrally, but…there are
150,000 courses a year

Why is this Important and Why Are We
Here?
• Coding for your courses – some coding is incorrect – we are here to fix it
• Coding is our tool for reporting
• Enhanced Funding=Enhanced Accountability
• If you think this is a Mission Impossible – it has been done before by credit faculty.
• You can do this!

u u u u
It is the course “level”, in terms of number of levels below the transferrable level
It is used primarily for basic skills/remedial courses, not transferrable courses
It is used only for English, writing, ESL, reading, or mathematics
Can be used for credit, noncredit

• CB21=Course Prior to College Level
• Chancellor’s Office MIS system collects all course info each term
• Courses are coded for identification purposes
▫ Top code, credit status, transfer status, units, basic skills status, SAM code, etc.

• Is one of the most disparately coded data elements we have
• Is controversial in many ways
▫ Limits number of “codeable” levels at 5; colleges locally have more or less
▫ Is used across math/English/ESL
▫ Does not necessarily mean the same thing across colleges

• Is necessary to show student progress through basic skills curriculum
▫ 4…3…2…1…transferrable
• Is used for a lot of accountability reporting
▫ Which in turn is used to justify investments and expenditures in basic skills

• ARCC (Accountability Report for Community
Colleges)
▫ ARCC CDCP Noncredit Supplemental report
▫ ARCC Basic Skills Supplemental Report
• All of these have metrics in them that use CB21 to show student progression through basic skills

• State has agreed to pay extra $$ for CDCP
Noncredit category
• State has requested accountability reporting for these monies
▫ CDCP represents programs that lead to certificates and movement into credit
▫ These are the metrics desired by State in evaluating CDCP effectiveness

• Take first-time CDCP students, track forward
▫ Look at term to term persistence
▫ Look at completion of CDCP or other award
▫ Look at movement into credit
▫ “course success” cannot be measured
▫ Progress through CDCP noncredit basic skills ladders is missing due to lack of consistent coding in CB21

• Basic Skills Improvement Rate (ARCC)
▫ Credit courses only
▫ Completed (A,B,C,CR) any math/Eng basic skills course at 2 or more levels below
▫ Within 3 years, successfully completed a higher level basic skills course of same discipline

Anywhere in the system

• ESL Improvement Rate (ARCC)
▫ Credit ESL courses only
▫ Completed (A,B,C,CR) any ESL course at 2 or more levels below
▫ Within 3 years, successfully completed a higher level ESL course
 Anywhere in the system

• Basic Skills Supplemental Report: Basic Skills
Progress Rate (Proposed)
▫ Track freshmen forward 8 years that attempted any basic skills course any time
▫ Report by the lowest level of math/English/ESL ever attempted (>=4 levels below transferable level; 3, 2, 1 levels below;
CR, NC).

• For the aforementioned cohort:
▫ Percent who completed any degree-applicable or transfer level math/Eng/ESL (in same curricular lineage)
▫ Percent that eventually earn a degree/certificate, and/or transfer/transfer prepared

Percentage of assessed students recommended for placement
(Supplemental)
• into levels of credit basic skills math/English/ESL courses (as defined by CB 21) in a given year
• (done by annual survey of colleges)

• Normally done at campus (CIO??)
• Saved in local ERP system (Datatel, Banner, etc)
• Sent to System Office end of term by local MIS
• Reports run thereafter
• Resubmission always allowed and welcome

• Miscoding
• Recoding term to term without change in actual curriculum
• College X’s 3 levels below in math is different than College Y’s 3 levels below in math
▫ We need a rubric as to what these mean across campuses for each discipline.

• Is not standardization
• Does not drive curricular changes
• Is not common course numbering or articulation
• Is not MIS wagging the dog
• IS an alignment/mapping exercise designed to maximize our ability to show student progress

• Currently, CB21:
▫ A=prereq. for transfer math (Intermediate
Algebra)
▫ B=prereq./prep. for “A” (Algebra I/Elem.
Algebra)
▫ C=prereq./prep. For “A/B” (Arithmetic)
▫ Y=>3 levels below transfer level (N/A)

• Currently, CB21:
▫ A=prereq. for transfer Eng. Comp. (Subject A)
▫ B=prereq./prep. for “A” (N/A)
▫ C=prereq./prep. For “A/B” (N/A)
▫ Y=>3 levels below transfer level (N/A)

• Not addressed at all

• Is used for BOTH credit AND noncredit courses!
• “Ownership” of CB21 lies with YOU and the local campuses
• Is a State-level data element, so it cannot have
“local” definitions
▫ Since evaluations of performance/peer grouping are occurring by college

• Is to create a mapping rubric for each of the disciplines that encompass basic skills/course prior to college level
• Has uniform and understandable curricular definitions (course or SLO) for each level in each discipline
• Retain existing data element
▫ New codes cost little; new element costs mroe

• If you code every basic skills class at 4+ levels below, you will have few improvements
• It pays to have a full “ladder” using as many levels as possible to show differentiation

• However, levels must mean the same thing across campuses
▫ Student movement does not preclude you from getting credit for success elsewhere…
▫ …provided your neighbor is coding properly and uniformly as well

• If your “ladder” has more than 4 steps:
▫ Keep as many as you can, but some may have to be compacted
▫ You may have 7 levels of ESL, your neighbor has 3
 If we allowed everyone to code their own number of levels, colleges would be advantaged/disadvantaged based solely on their curricular segmentation—not good

• Noncredit/vocational math/Eng/ESL have levels as well! Don’t assume all noncredit is 4+ levels below!
• But…be cognizant of where the noncredit ladder
“ties in” with credit
▫ Progression into credit levels also shows progress

• The results of your work will provide new clarity to this data element
• System Office will promote workshops on the new meanings and how to use the rubric
• Subsequent MIS submissions will be superior
• Success Rates should reflect accurately

• All MIS data must be submitted through your normal MIS data submission process
▫ Contact your CISO; change usually made in your
ERP system
• Setup a formalized coding process for courses each term
▫ We’d love to do it centrally, but…there are
150,000 courses a year

• This is an extremely important task.
• YOU are the people that know this best.
• Your assistance is greatly valued.

• You are now working at 30,000 feet
• How it works at your college in your department is secondary to this system wide exercise
▫ Because the SYSTEM will benefit
▫ And the STUDENTS will benefit
▫ And you will benefit with the ability to demonstrate student progress

• Describe the current Rubrics and vetting process

• 1. Create a mapping rubric for each of the disciplines – English, ESL, Math, and Reading and
ASE and ABE
▫ A. Decide on the number of levels -- try to retain existing data element (leading to transfer + 4 other
BS levels)
▫ B. Decide on the skill categories
▫ C. Write uniform and understandable curricular descriptions of these skills at each level of the rubric
▫ D. Concurrent offerings will match up to existing rubrics (no need to create something new)

• 2. Using your rubric and those created by credit faculty, create linkages between non-credit and credit courses in the same disciplines

• These will be DRAFT noncredit rubrics considered for adoption after thorough vetting
• The rubrics describe coding for basic skills levels. They DO NOT prescribe or standardize curriculum.
• The level descriptions ARE NOT comprehensive.

• The rubrics DO NOT dictate anything
• The rubrics ARE NOT the final authority. They are a referential guide
• Each local college may code the basic skills courses appropriate to their curriculum and program descriptions.
• This is a local decision and local process

• Faculty will continue to develop and determine what they teach as discipline experts
• This process is not designed as an obstacle to curriculum, curricular or programmatic development
• The final process for any recoding will be developed by the ASCCC and the Chancellor’s
Office MIS division.

• The results of your work will provide new clarity to this data element
• System Office/ASCCC will promote workshops on the new meanings and how to use the rubric
• Subsequent MIS submissions will be superior
• Success Rates should reflect accurately and uniformly

• This is an extremely important task.
• YOU are the people who know this best.
• Your assistance is greatly valued.

• You are now working at 30,000 feet
• How it works at your college in your department is secondary to this systemwide exercise
▫ Because the SYSTEM will benefit
▫ And the STUDENTS will benefit

• 1. Create a mapping rubric for each of the disciplines – English, ESL, Math, and Reading and
ASE and ABE
▫ A. Decide on the number of levels -- try to retain existing data element (leading to transfer + 4 other
BS levels)
▫ B. Decide on the skill categories
▫ C. Write uniform and understandable curricular descriptions of these skills at each level of the rubric
▫ D. Concurrent offerings will match up to existing rubrics (no need to create something new)

• 2. Using your rubric and those created by credit faculty, create linkages between non-credit and credit courses in the same disciplines

• A rubric for each discipline
• A map of linkages between credit and non-credit courses

• Levels by 10:30AM
• Rubric by 1:30
• Linkages BY 2:00
• Report Back 2-3

• Lets keep focused on the big picture.
▫ Development of the number of levels.
▫ Development of essential skills within levels.
• Lets begin with basic concepts that we can all agree upon.
▫ Perhaps two or three per level to start?
• Lets keep it as simple as possible.
▫ This will help school districts code their classes.