Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR ONE
Division
Program
Contact Person
Date
Science & Math
Astronomy
Scott Hildreth
March 2012
Section A – Data Review and Analysis
I. Basic Success and Equity (Data from 3 previous years)
1) Program-wide trends based on available data:
Overall Astronomy program success/failure/withdrawal rates from Fall 2008 – Spring 2011,
based on statewide program data collected from the California Community College Chancellor’s
Office, “Program Retention/Success Rates for Credit Enrollments, Physical Sciences (19),
Astronomy Data.” give us a glimpse at our program overall, and compared to statewide figures:
Chabot College Astro :
Astronomy Statewide:
Success 55%
Success 63%
Failure 20%
Failure 19%
Withdrawal 25%
Withdrawal 18%
While the failure rate is similar to the statewide data, our introductory astronomy program has a
higher withdrawal rate than the average across the state. Looking closer to home, at Chabot
College success/retention rates, Astronomy still seems to be experiencing worse than average
success compared with campus-wide data, averaged over the past three years of data (Fall 2008 –
Fall 2011, not including summer)
Astronomy
Campus - wide
Success
#
%
55%
973
66%
Non-Success
#
%
20%
348
16%
Withdrawal
#
%
25%
445
17%
Total
#
1,766
We see from this data that on average over the past three years, more students are withdrawing,
and more are not successful, than campus averages. Whether this reflects the inherent difficulty
of the material, or other factors, is more difficult to assess. One immediate question that came
to mind was whether using the newly renovated Chabot College planetarium, with its vastly
superior audiovisual experience for our students, has resulted in improving student retention and
success, and for the first time we can use the data to examine that question.
Total Astro 10/20
2010-2011 Astro 10/20
(all classes in new
planetarium)
Success
#
%
799
53%
Non-Success
#
%
329
22%
Withdrawal
#
%
410
25%
238
56%
86
22%
108
23%
561
51%
243
22%
302
27%
2008-2010 Astro 10/20
(most classes in regular
lecture halls)
1
Although the data pool is small, there is a suggestion here that using the new planetarium for the
past year has resulted in an overall 5% improvement in success, and a similar increase in
retention. Relative to the prior values, this is overall a 10% positive change. We’ll keep
looking at this data over the next review cycle.
We also looked at similar introductory science courses at Chabot, presumably taken by similar
students looking to satisfy GE Science Lecture Course requirements for graduation/transfer.
These included Anthropology 1, Environmental Science 10, and Geography 1 (all 3-unit lecture
only courses) and Biology 10, Chemistry 10, and Environmental Science 11 (all 4-unit
lecture/lab courses):
Success
#
Astro 10
Astro 20
Average Astro
Lecture classes
Anthro 1 (lec only)
Env Sci 10 (lec)
Geog 1 (lec)
Bio 10 w/ lab
Chem 10 wl lab
Env Sci 11 w/lab
Average for all
Other Sciences
490
309
1555
101
1801
658
110
105
%
51%
54%
Non-Success
#
%
202
21%
127
23%
Withdrawal
#
%
262
28%
148
23%
53%
22%
25%
71%
68%
67%
70%
68%
65%
307
21
633
154
21
23
14%
15%
24%
17%
14%
14%
68%
320
24
242
133
30
32
16%
14%
17%
9%
14%
18%
21%
954
584
2182
146
2676
945
161
160
16%
Here the three-year trend seems to indicate that Astronomy is indeed harder for the average GE
student taking an introductory science course. We did not see any significant difference in
success, non-success, or withdrawal by gender:
Female
Male
Success
#
%
473
56%
482
54%
Non-Success
#
%
154
18%
188
21%
Withdrawal
#
%
215
26%
218
25%
Total
#
842
888
And the pattern of lower than campus average success, and higher non-success & withdrawal
rates, was mirrored across the board in terms of ethnicity:
Success
Astro
Campus
AfricanAmerican
Asian
Fillipino
Hispanic
Caucasian
33%
67%
52%
55%
62%
55%
76%
69%
66%
76%
Non-Success
Astro
Campus
23%
11%
14%
18%
12%
31%
13%
18%
22%
19%
2
Withdrawal
Astro
Campus
37%
20%
30%
24%
19%
22%
13%
17%
16%
13%
Total of
Population
Astro
Campus
13%
18%
13%
19%
10%
9%
26%
31%
24%
20%
The above data suggests that every ethnic group found astronomy more difficult.
Looking at levels of English correlated to Astronomy Course Success, using available data from
Fall 2011, while some English definitely seems to help, the data doesn’t seem to indicate that
English 1A should be made a pre-requisite for success:
Astro 10
Astro 20
Astro 30
Eng 1A/4/7
101/102
None
Total
Eng 1A/4/7
101/102
None
Total
Eng 1A/4/7
101/102
None
Total
#
34
8
16
58
15
13
29
57
12
3
8
23
Success
%
69%
57%
53%
62%
68%
76%
53%
61%
92%
100%
73%
85%
Non-Success
#
%
8
16%
2
14%
7
23%
17
18%
4
18%
2
12%
9
16%
15
16%
1
8%
3
100%
2
18%
2
7%
7
4
7
18
3
2
17
22
13
Withdraw
%
14%
29%
23%
19%
14%
12%
31%
23%
100%
1
2
9%
7%
#
However, the difference in student success and withdrawal rates does suggest that a curriculum
advisory “At least English 101/102 is Recommended” might be appropriate. We will look at this
over the next program review cycle.
Online vs. On-campus Comparisons
Astronomy also has offered one of the longest running fully online courses at the college (first
established in 1995 as a variation of a telecourse offering, with a locally maintained course
management system supported by the planetarium’s computer. We do not have success/retention
data available for the online vs. on-campus sections of the same course, but anecdotally our
observations from the Astro 10 online classes taught by Dr. Billy Smith and the Astro 20 online
classes taught by myself include:
 Retention is worse in our online sections than the on-campus courses, due in part we
believe because of the number of students who pre-register for the online class but who
then very quickly decide not to participate once the demands of the class mount. Both
Dr. Smith and I typically would see 25-30 students active in an online section at the
midterm, measured by those taking the midterm exam, out of 55-60 admitted to the class,
and perhaps 40-45 who actually start participating. On-campus versions of the same
classes will have 40+ students taking the midterm exam, out of the same approximate
number admitted to the class.
 Success rates for students who seriously and authentically engage in the class material
(measured by those in the class *after* the census data to the number who actually finish)
is at least as high, or higher, in online classes. This reflects that students who are ready
for online learning, who are self-sufficient and can manage their time, do well.
3
Comparing Chabot with Other Astronomy Programs around the Bay Area and State
In our Final Year 3 Program review completed in March 2011, we looked at success data for one
term only (Fall 2008) for a dozen Astronomy programs in the Bay Area. We created a continuing
goal of looking at retention AND success data across a longer period of time, and across more
schools, as a focus for the next review cycle.
Using the CCCCO data from Fall 2008 through Fall 2011, we can now report on our retention
and success data compared with other California Community Colleges in a variety of ways
(Spreadsheets supporting the analysis are attached in the Appendix.)
1) Comparison within the 21 colleges in the Greater SF Bay Area (San Jose to Sonoma)
2) Comparison with ~20 colleges in California with similar sized Astronomy programs,
based on enrollment data from Spring 2011
3) Comparison with ~20 colleges in California with similar sizes based on credit FTES
4) Comparison with ~22 colleges in California with similar Basic Skills credit FTES
5) Comparison with 15 colleges in California with similar ratios of Basic Skills to FTES
6) Comparison with the statewide averages as a whole over 3 years
7) Comparing Summer programs in Astronomy from 2009, 2010, and 2011
Analysis
1) Comparison within the 21 colleges in the Greater SF Bay Area (San Jose to Sonoma)
Chabot ranks in the bottom 1/3 of nearby colleges in student success within Astronomy
programs. Retention is similar. The nearby colleges with consistently better retention
and success data from 2008 onwards include DeAnza, Foothill, Marin, Canada,
Solano, and San Mateo. Nearby colleges with lower retention and success in the last
three years include Laney, West Valley, Ohlone, and San Francisco; Las Positas College,
Contra Costa, and San Jose City has similar rates.
2) Comparison with ~20 colleges in California with similar sized Astronomy programs
Using Spring 2011 data as a basis, statewide astronomy program data was sorted to
capture programs with a comparable number of students enrolled, +/- 20% Chabot’s
Spring 2011 enrollment in Astronomy was 281 students, and ompared with schools in
California enrolling between 200 and 300 students, Chabot’s astronomy program shows
about average retention and success rates for Spring 2011, but over the past three
years, similarly in the lowest third of the group. In the last three terms, Canada and
Monterey led the way in terms of consistently high success rates.
4
3) Comparison with ~20 colleges in California with similar sizes based on credit FTES
Based on Spring 2011 Credit FTES numbers from the State Chancellor’s Office,
Chabot’s Astronomy program similarly places about average in terms of success for
comparable schools supporting between 10,000 and 12,000 FTES for Spring 2011, but
over the past 3 years in the lowest third. There were no Greater Bay Area schools in this
grouping other than Chabot.
4) Comparison with ~22 colleges in California with similar Basic Skills credit FTES
One of the questions raised in the prior phase of our program review was how Chabot’s
students’ reading skills affect their performance and success in Astronomy.
Unfortunately we don’t have accessible data to tell us whether our current astronomy
students took Basic Skills courses at Chabot, from which we might look at their success
compared with other students. We hope that such inquiries might be examined in the
future, if there is increased bandwidth in our Institutional Research department.
One thought at how to consider this problem was to look at how we are doing compared
with other schools with similar credit FTES rankings in Basic Skills courses. The
hypothesis being explored is whether we might tell if Chabot is doing better (or worse)
with its Astronomy program compared with schools that have a similar number of
students in Basic Skills courses – with the assumption being made that those schools, too,
would have a similar type of student taking astronomy as an introductory science. This is
a large, and as yet unfounded, assumption.
Chabot’s reported Basic Skills FTES from Spring 2011 was 845, and after comparing
schools from around the state with similar numbers +/- 150 (from 700 to 1000) nothing
markedly different from the earlier comparisons is apparent. Chabot’s astronomy
program still ranked about the middle of this group of schools in terms of success for the
most recent term, but in the lowest third overall for the past 6 semesters, than the average
of twenty other colleges across the state with similar Basic Skills credit FTES. Canada
and Solano again ranked higher on average for the past 3 years.
5) Comparison with 15 colleges in California with similar ratios of Basic Skills to FTES
One result of the previous comparison was that the institutions with the same
approximate amount of Basic Skills FTES as Chabot were still quite different in size.
Consequently, normalizing the question to look at colleges with a similar percentage of
Basic Skills to general FTES was done to see whether that might provide even more
insight about our Astronomy program’s success related to Chabot’s student body.
The results from this inquiry did not show a difference from prior analysis – our program
seemed to produce a lower retention and success relative to the average of 13 schools
with an 8% ratio of Basic Skills to overall FTES.
5
6) Comparison with the statewide averages as a whole over 3 years
Statewide data shows no significant difference in average retention (82%) and success
(63%) between semesters, and both statistics are about 7-8% higher than Chabot’s
averages over the past three years (retention average of 75%, success average of 55%).
7) Comparing Summer programs in Astronomy from 2009, 2010, and 2011
We were able to offer Astronomy classes in Summer 2010 and 2011 terms, but not 2009.
In the last two years, both student retention and success were higher than our semester
levels (Retention 81%, Success 63%), although both statistics are still lower than the
statewide averages for summer astro classes (86% retention, 75% success).
Summary:
Comparing Chabot’s success/retention data is just one way to look at our program’s
effectiveness, and not necessarily the best way. One idea we want to explore is to make
contact with other colleges with similar planetarium systems and investigate in more detail
what makes them successful.
Data Source: California Community College Chancellor’s Office, “Program Retention/Success Rates for Credit Enrollments, Physical Sciences
(19)” DataMart. Accessed 3/10/12 from
http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMartandReports/tabid/282/Default.aspx .
II. Course Sequence (Data from 2 previous years)
While Astronomy 10 and 20 are separate courses, we do see students who take the Astronomy 30
lab at the same time as they take either lecture class do better in that lecture course – a longstanding trend that we reinforce in our lectures at the start of the term. We will continue to
monitor and quantify this success with help from Institutional Research over the next program
cycle, with an eye to sharing the data with counseling colleagues who might then guide students
to the lab class in their SEPs.
III. Course Review (Data from 5 previous years)
Course outlines for Astro 10, 20, and 30 were last revised in 2006, and will need to be updated in
the next curriculum cycle. We do not anticipate changing the curriculum significantly for these
courses, although adding an advisory note about recommended English could be one possibility.
6
IV. Budget Summary (Data from 3 previous years)
Our Astronomy program faces two key budget issues:
1) Planetarium Equipment/Upkeep
Planetarium equipment maintenance contracts to cover our new projector and AV
systems are extremely expensive. While we knew the planetarium projector upgrade
would require more than the original system’s $3500 per year maintenance agreement,
the additional requirements for the new AV system are significantly more than expected:
a. Spitz Planetarium Projector: $ 6,300 per year
b. Crestron AV system:
$ 9,970 per year
We need to establish whether these amounts are necessary to budget each year, or
whether we might skip a year and spread these costs out. We need to establish whether
we can find less-expensive service providers for the Crestron systems, as the remaining
lecture hall rooms in Building 1900 also use similar gear, and cost an additional $8000 a
year in PMA fees.
To help offset some of these costs, we have already begun to increase the number of
evening community planetarium shows (with 4 held already this academic year that
generated revenue). However, creating these shows, programming them, arranging for
ticketing, prepping the facility, running the show, and cleaning up requires many, many
hours of faculty time which has been donated by the team. Shows seating about 45
people generate about $200-250 for the program, and to pay for the Spitz contract alone
we would have to run 30-35 shows (or almost one a week). It is not feasible to do this
level of production, nor expect faculty to donate so many hours of their time over and
above full-time teaching and collegial responsibilities. We would also have to purchase
at least 4 new shows (which cost between $4000 and $8000 each) to offer the community
sufficient variety.
With these issues in mind, our highest budgeting priority for the program is generating
revenue, both through creative fundraising and through investigating ways to hold a
reasonable number of public programs during the academic year. We also need to build
the endowment for the planetarium so that some of the annual maintenance costs can be
paid through interest. Studying these will be a continued activity in our next plan.
2) Instructional Program FTEF
We continue to lack sufficient FTEF in the subdivision to offer enough sections to meet
demands for GE physical science lecture requirements in Astronomy and at the same
time to serve the intended transfer majors in allied health/biology/engineering
populations with complete Physics sequences. We are routinely cutting sections of
Astronomy to allow us to offer physics classes, and due to the increased CAH lab loads,
we are further forced to reduce our offerings of Astronomy by 1-2 sections a year.
7
V. Enrollment Data (Data from 2 previous years)
Enrollment in Astronomy 10/20 lecture courses, held in the planetarium, is historically very high
– averaging over 120% at Census for all 10:30 AM sections, and well over 110% at Census as a
whole, including the often less-attended afternoon and evening sections. In past years we
successfully offered and filled as many as 8 lecture sections during each term, but due to FTEF
restrictions imposed upon our division and subdivision, we have had to cut back on astronomy
lecture sections to 4-5 per term.
We offer morning and afternoon sections, MW and TTh, and in the past three years have tried to
offer two fully-online sections, to meet the needs of Chabot’s various students. The online
classes fill instantly, and are obviously extremely popular vehicles for many students to complete
their GE lecture science requirements. But the online sections suffer greater attrition, and they
are also much more work to teach than the on-campus sections. Both of the faculty teaching the
online sections have shared a growing displeasure with that delivery mode, in comparison to
what we can do in person in the multi-media rich planetarium.
In the past year, we felt a great need to take advantage of that incredible pedagogical power, and
serve more of our on-campus students. In Spring 2012 we reduced our online class offerings to a
single section (20% of the Astro lecture course load) and instead added another daytime course.
While we could undoubtedly fill another online section, we don’t have sufficient FTEF
allocation in this current budget cycle.
We have in the past offered a one-night per week lecture class to meet the needs of working
students hoping to make progress on their degree and transfer plans. The last time the class was
offered was Spring 2010, and while that class historically did not fill completely (averaging 88%
at Census), we feel it is still important to offer the opportunity at least once a year.
Consequently, we have scheduled a section of it in Fall 2012, to be led by Dr. Smith.
Unfortunately, because our overall FTEF allocation has been reduced, and the subdivision’s
allocation further squeezed by the increased lab load factor, we will not be able to offer this
evening section as a net addition to the schedule. We have made the decision for 2012 to
suspend the online sections of Astronomy in favor of trying the evening course and keeping our
daytime courses as numerous as possible. We’ll monitor both of these decisions in the coming
review cycle.
Enrollment in Astronomy 30 is relatively flat – we consistently have demand for more than one
section of the lab course each term, but don’t always fill both to 100% of capacity. Because the
lab is offered only at night, a large number of daytime students cannot take the class.
We are confident that – with a larger FTEF allocation – we could serve an additional 100-150
students per term needing GE science lecture credit, cost effectively, by hiring additional adjunct
colleagues. We need to continue to recruit additional faculty who have experience with digital
planetarium systems to take advantage of this opportunity.
8
VI. Student Learning Outcomes Inventory

100% of our Astronomy courses have the required minimum number of CLOs and rubrics
developed (3 for Astro 10/20, and 1 for Astro 30).

100% of our Astronomy courses were reviewed in the past term. While we are required to
do this review once every three years, it is our intent to review all of our courses every
term. We have developed a quiz taken by all students in the lecture classes and share
results from that quiz to help us look at overall student success by topic.

100% of our Astronomy courses have had all the CLO assessments reflected upon
(discussed with colleagues) but all need to have an action plan developed as we look over
the results.

What percentages of your courses assess each of the following CWLGs?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Critical Thinking
Global & Cultural Involvement
Civic Responsibility
Communication
Development of the Whole Person
100%
100%
PROGRAM LEVEL ANALYSIS:
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that have arisen from the course level
discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
Program: Astronomy Lecture Courses for GE Physical Science Students

PLO #1: Students will be able to explain key principles of astronomy using applicable
vocabulary; including employing the scientific method to organize, prioritize, and
problem solve. Astronomy (10, 20)

PLO #2: Students will explain how and where the human species fits into the
immense, complex and ever-changing universe. Astronomy (10, 20)
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
We have investigated two key areas related to our program goals:
1) Textbooks and How Students Learn Astronomy.
2) Continued Use of Online Multimedia Tools to engender and track student success.
We continue to wrestle with what textbook choices and online tools might affect student success,
and their ability to reach our overall program objectives. Whether a customized book, or a
completely new book, or an even more revolutionary e-book accessible on a tablet, might help
students succeed, is an issue we will continue to investigate in the next review cycle.
9
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students
completing your program?
Actions planned:
1) Investigate creation of new custom publishing textbook offering.
2) Investigate creating our own e-textbook with multimedia resources.
3) Continue to evaluate online tools such as those used with Mastering Astronomy to assess
student success.
Program: Astronomy Lab Course for GE Physical Science Students

PLO #1: Students will be able to explain key principles of observational and
theoretical astronomy using applicable vocabulary and relating them to hands-on
laboratory activities; including employing the scientific method to organize,
prioritize, and problem solve. Astronomy (30)
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
We have yet to evaluate this PLO, and plan to do so in the next cycle.
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students
completing your program?
Actions planned:
1) Install the portable observatory equipment and start to use it in the lab classes. Continue
to lobby for a permanent location atop a new building to provide greater access to the
sky, and an opportunity to create a robotic telescope data acquisition system to bring live
images to the lab.
2) Develop a new solar physics sunspot lab in conjunction with the SDO-HMI team at
Stanford, and try out the lab in our classes in 2012-2013.
3) Continue to update current hands-on labs incorporating new technology and new
simulation tools.
10
VII. Academic Learning Support
What kinds of academic learning support does your discipline use or require to help students
succeed (e.g., tutoring, learning assistants, student assistants, peer advisors, lab support,
supplemental instruction, peer-led team learning, peer advisors)? How many hours per semester
do you use and/or how many hours per semester do you need?
We do not typically get many students seeking tutoring in Astronomy, but hope to encourage
more with the new Building 1800 facility with the physics/astronomy student center. We do not
have lab support for Astronomy 30. We would like to encourage more work-study students to
help us develop new shows in Astronomy for the public, and have started that effort this year.
VIII. External Data
 Cite any relevant external data that affects your program (e.g., labor market data,
community demand, employment growth, external accreditation demands, etc.).
The surrounding community, including K-12 schools, consistently ask about the opportunity to
attend Planetarium programs at Chabot College. There is obvious demand, and appreciation for,
such programming that would re-establish the college as an important element of the community.
11
Section B – Data Summary & Future Program Needs
Questions that have emerged from our Program review that will drive our action plans
include:
1. How can we support our students’ needs for GE physical science lecture credit in the face
of severe budget cuts that continue to limit the number of sections we can offer?
2. How can we improve our student retention and success numbers? Are our current results
a consequence of expectations of rigor not shared by other science teachers? What could
we do to bring them up to the levels of the other astronomy programs across the Bay Area
and State, if anything?
3. How can we take even better advantage of the Planetarium to improve current student
learning, as well as offer our campus and our surrounding community the opportunity to
learn about Astronomy and Science?
4. How can we raise additional funds to underwrite expected maintenance and supply costs
for the increasingly expensive equipment?
5. How can we improve our lab experience for on-campus students, taking advantage of
telescopes and computers?
6. How can we promote student success through new textbooks, online tools, and resources?
Needed Improvements to the Astronomy Program include:
a) A permanent roof-top location to house our small observatory, with ample safe access
for a class of 25 students, to permit viewing above the campus lights, has been a
requirement shared on previous program reviews for years. Because the redesigns of
Building 1900 and 1700/1800 did not allow for structural reinforcements required to
support rooftop access for students, we continue to be left trying to observe the
increasingly bright skies from the main campus courtyard, which has become almost
impossible. We did actively participate in the plans for the Building 1600 BCP, but that
does not seem likely to be funded in the near or far future.
With the possibility of another Bond or Parcel Tax measure, we would like to advance this
requirement even more strongly.
b) Lab Tech Support (shared with Physics) to assist with the organization, maintenance,
and preparation of lab equipment for our program.
12
Data Summary and Plan of Action Description/Rationale:
0) Prepare for and Move Astronomy Lab to New Building 1800
(This is a necessity, and must be accomplished before other items in our program review can be
addressed.)
1) Increase Planetarium Shows to the Public
This includes researching available shows to purchase, development of new content, growing skills
within the department to develop new shows, investigating ticketing options, fundraising to pay for
new content as well as underwriting equipment.
2) Astronomy Curriculum Update
Another requirement for accreditation
3) Astronomy PLO review
We need to address “closing the loop” as well as development of a lab class PLO
4) Astronomy Lab Improvements
5) Continued Student Success Research
6) Textbook/Online Resources Research & Development
7) Fundraising
Section C – Action Planning
Please propose a two-year plan of action and timeline to address any immediate and/or long-term
concern(s). Include specific activities that address improving CLO(s) and their assessment, that
is to say evaluating the CLO(s) and the assessment activities.
EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES INCLUDE:
 Research and inquiry project – Why is this happening?
 Innovation and Pilot Projects – This is something I want to try?
 Intervention activities such as support services – This is what I want to do about it.
 Program and curriculum modification – This is what I want to do about it.
 Professional Development Activities – We need more information about this; we need to work
as a group on this
13
I.
Action Plan Timeline: Detail the timeline for accomplishing your goals
PLOs and/or Program
Goal(s)
0) Prepare for and Move
Astronomy Lab to New
Building 1800.
Timeline
Fall 2012 Spring 2013
a)
Fall 2012 Spring 2015
a)
(This is a necessity, and
must be done before we can
hope to address any other
elements in our program
review)
1) Increase Planetarium
Shows to the Public
Activity
Work with project
management team to
prepare for move.
Support Needed to
Accomplish These
Activities*
Ample worktime
(flex-days alone will not
be sufficient for this
b) Movie telescopes, lenses, activity – it will take the
lab equipment,
better part of a week to do
computers.
the move alone, plus
significant time during the
c) Organize new lab
term to get things situated.
facilities
Outcome(s) Expected
Person(s)
Responsible
Use of equipment in lab classes Scott/Tim
as expected.
Continue to seek funds
Time to develop and adapt Increased revenue to help offset Scott/Tim
to underwrite acquisition programs (20-50 hours of planetarium costs.
of new planetarium
faculty time are required)
shows.
Increased presence in the
b) Develop new in-house
Funds to purchase new
community.
show programming
shows.
c) Develop student support
for delivery of shows.
Funds to help in the
d) Continue to investigate
advertisement and hosting
cost-effective ticketing
of shows.
options.
e)
Explore improved
advertising for the
shows.
Funds to compensate
faculty for time spent
developing/hosting shows.
2) Astronomy Curriculum
Update
Fall 2012
Update curriculum for all Astro
classes.
Updated Curriculum
Scott/Tim
3) Astronomy PLO review
Fall 2012 Spring 2013
Add Lab PLO; complete review
cycle for current CLOs and “close
the loop” forms. Continue to
evaluate and revise assessments
Adherence to Accreditation
standards.
Scott/Tim
14
Accomplished?
Yes/No/In
Progress
YEAR
ONE
LEAVE
BLANK
4) Astronomy Lab
Improvements
Fall 2012 –
Spring 2014
a)
b) Use Small Observatory
Telescope where
possible
c)
5) Continued Student
Success Research
Fall 2012 –
Spring 2014
6) Textbook/Online
Resources Research and
Investigation
Fall 2012 –
Spring 2014
7) Fundraising
Fall 2012 –
Spring 2014
Develop new Solar Lab
Push for new location for
Observatory.
Scott/Tim
Improve student success
Scott/Tim
Update existing labs to
incorporate new access
to robotic telescopes.
Look at nearby schools using
planetariums to see what they are
doing well, and what we can
borrow.
a)
Improved lab experiences for
students.
Work with publisher on
revised textbook options
Improved currency and
Scott/Tim
relevancy for Chabot Students
leading to retention and student
success
b) Continue to investigate
e-book and custom book
options
Actively seek underwriting and
contributions to the endowment to
enable purchase of new
planetarium shows and assist with
the maintenance of technology
Increased funds
15
Scott/Tim
II.
X
X
X
X
Strategic Plan Goals and Summaries: Which Strategic Plan goals and strategies does your action plan support?
Awareness and Access
Increase familiarity with Chabot
X
Reach out to underrepresented populations
Promote early awareness and college readiness to youth and families
Multiple ways to deliver instruction and services for all
X
Student Success
Strengthen basic skills development
Identify and provide a variety of career paths
Increase success for all students in our diverse community
X
Assess student learning outcomes to improve and expand instruction and services
Community Partnership
Increase experiential learning opportunities
X
Initiate/expand partnerships among the college, businesses and community organizations
Promote faculty and staff involvement in college and community activities
X
Engage the community in campus programs and events
X
Vision Leadership and Innovation
Improve institutional effectiveness
Streamline academic and student support services
Professional development to support teaching, learning and operational needs
Support effective communication both in the college and the community
Provide safe, secure and up-to-date facilities and technology
X
16
Statewide Data Comparisons of Astronomy Program Success from Fall 2008- Spring 2011 – sh 3/12
Spring 2011
10-Mar-12
6
15
1
7
13
8
10
College
Alameda
Allan Hancock
American River
Antelope Valley
Bakersfield
Barstow
Berkeley City
Butte
Cabrillo
Canada
Canyons
Cerritos
Cerro Coso
Chabot
Hayward
Chaffey
Citrus
Coastline
Compton
Contra Costa
Copper Mountain
Cosumnes River
Crafton Hills
Cuesta
Cuyamaca
Cypress
Deanza
Desert
Diablo Valley
East LA
El Camino
Evergreen Valley
Reten
71
209
174
160
107
44
Reten
Rate
(%)
82.56
79.17
81.31
91.43
59.78
84.62
51
226
195
334
597
49
43
180
185
309
471
45
281
250
316
281
140
162
65
297
158
312
173
376
863
114
772
371
614
393
214
205
291
190
122
148
41
241
123
287
162
326
777
100
635
274
436
329
Total
Enroll
86
264
214
175
179
52
Fall 2010
Succ
58
154
143
145
70
34
Succ
Rate
(%)
67.44
58.33
66.82
82.86
39.11
65.38
Total
Enroll
56
243
276
182
186
59
84.31
79.65
94.87
92.51
78.89
91.84
22
136
162
233
345
38
43.14
60.18
83.08
69.76
57.79
77.55
76.16
82
92.09
67.62
87.14
91.36
63.08
81.14
77.85
91.99
93.64
86.7
90.03
87.72
82.25
73.85
71.01
83.72
173
156
216
150
99
96
25
176
93
251
131
273
671
70
554
168
358
272
61.57
62.4
68.35
53.38
70.71
59.26
38.46
59.26
58.86
80.45
75.72
72.61
77.75
61.4
71.76
45.28
58.31
69.21
Spring 2010
Reten
39
216
218
144
126
45
Reten
Rate
(%)
69.64
88.89
78.99
79.12
67.74
76.27
Succ
29
166
164
120
71
33
Succ
Rate
(%)
51.79
68.31
59.42
65.93
38.17
55.93
80
254
164
304
731
47
76
192
148
285
573
45
95
75.59
90.24
93.75
78.39
95.74
49
161
127
226
439
41
215
245
314
232
120
163
88
257
123
311
184
459
895
80
662
404
658
352
166
187
277
142
103
146
68
212
64
281
164
401
816
66
522
328
471
276
77.21
76.33
88.22
61.21
85.83
89.57
77.27
82.49
52.03
90.35
89.13
87.36
91.17
82.5
78.85
81.19
71.58
78.41
115
153
191
108
86
98
39
168
43
262
136
358
715
53
445
225
371
189
17
61.25
63.39
77.44
74.34
60.05
87.23
Total
Enroll
73
234
305
185
140
190
44
62
221
170
297
604
33
53.49
62.45
60.83
46.55
71.67
60.12
44.32
65.37
34.96
84.24
73.91
78
79.89
66.25
67.22
55.69
56.38
53.69
333
158
291
138
111
179
95
269
24
367
173
468
734
65
764
351
713
344
Reten
59
198
258
167
98
145
34
59
186
148
257
434
29
Reten
Rate
(%)
80.82
84.62
84.59
90.27
70
76.32
77.27
95.16
84.16
87.06
86.53
71.85
87.88
Succ
44
147
222
149
65
130
31
42
145
114
179
320
28
Succ
Rate
(%)
60.27
62.82
72.79
80.54
46.43
68.42
70.45
67.74
65.61
67.06
60.27
52.98
84.85
256
132
260
87
88
141
78
206
10
319
160
399
663
58
610
268
552
294
76.88
83.54
89.35
63.04
79.28
78.77
82.11
76.58
41.67
86.92
92.49
85.26
90.33
89.23
79.84
76.35
77.42
85.47
188
121
184
63
68
97
59
140
9
282
119
311
577
50
520
179
456
214
56.46
76.58
63.23
45.65
61.26
54.19
62.11
52.04
37.5
76.84
68.79
66.45
78.61
76.92
68.06
51
63.96
62.21
14
Folsom Lake
Foothill
Fresno City
378
350
144
321
310
124
84.92
88.57
86.11
256
268
94
67.72
76.57
65.28
22
292
448
20
268
411
90.91
91.78
91.74
15
228
310
68.18
78.08
69.2
317
341
147
262
317
126
82.65
92.96
85.71
211
287
102
66.56
84.16
69.39
Statewide Data Comparisons of Astronomy Program Success from Fall 2008- Spring 2011 – sh 3/12
Fall 2009
10-Mar-12
6
15
1
7
13
8
10
College
Alameda
Allan Hancock
American River
Antelope Valley
Bakersfield
Barstow
Berkeley City
Butte
Cabrillo
Canada
Canyons
Cerritos
Cerro Coso
Chabot
Hayward
Chaffey
Citrus
Coastline
Compton
Contra Costa
Copper Mountain
Cosumnes River
Crafton Hills
Cuesta
Cuyamaca
Cypress
Deanza
Desert
Diablo Valley
East LA
El Camino
Evergreen Valley
Folsom Lake
Total
Enroll
108
261
293
208
136
239
79
74
251
163
255
675
32
322
172
371
38
82
169
66
236
148
332
154
410
711
69
721
452
802
319
18
Reten
85
227
241
185
95
180
63
69
223
144
215
522
31
Reten
Rate
(%)
78.7
86.97
82.25
88.94
69.85
75.31
79.75
93.24
88.84
88.34
84.31
77.33
96.88
253
143
322
29
62
120
45
185
103
305
134
370
663
58
574
342
608
265
16
78.57
83.14
86.79
76.32
75.61
71.01
68.18
78.39
69.59
91.87
87.01
90.24
93.25
84.06
79.61
75.66
75.81
83.07
88.89
Spring 2009
Succ
66
167
167
135
48
152
55
56
160
126
154
378
29
Succ
Rate
(%)
61.11
63.98
57
64.9
35.29
63.6
69.62
75.68
63.75
77.3
60.39
56
90.63
Total
Enroll
54
235
369
410
136
203
44
47
236
174
338
577
29
179
119
236
19
49
85
24
150
70
266
101
292
592
47
468
247
447
185
8
55.59
69.19
63.61
50
59.76
50.3
36.36
63.56
47.3
80.12
65.58
71.22
83.26
68.12
64.91
54.65
55.74
57.99
44.44
327
173
275
337
76
139
82
249
99
345
164
346
702
122
746
426
809
365
325
Reten
37
214
307
325
85
140
35
40
196
153
293
446
29
Reten
Rate
(%)
68.52
91.06
83.2
79.27
62.5
68.97
79.55
85.11
83.05
87.93
86.69
77.3
100
237
152
252
247
58
107
57
188
63
300
149
280
652
107
617
315
651
300
247
72.48
87.86
91.64
73.29
76.32
76.98
69.51
75.5
63.64
86.96
90.85
80.92
92.88
87.7
82.71
73.94
80.47
82.19
76
18
Fall 2008
Succ
34
192
228
240
39
113
32
34
138
136
210
295
28
Succ
Rate
(%)
62.96
81.7
61.79
58.54
28.68
55.67
72.73
72.34
58.47
78.16
62.13
51.13
96.55
Total
Enroll
109
182
312
382
111
202
40
64
246
126
360
642
29
175
123
173
158
48
88
40
153
51
269
119
203
576
82
509
230
471
228
185
53.52
71.1
62.91
46.88
63.16
63.31
48.78
61.45
51.52
77.97
72.56
58.67
82.05
67.21
68.23
53.99
58.22
62.47
56.92
288
152
271
265
60
130
68
226
109
328
145
355
859
166
714
367
830
319
301
Reten
82
171
241
305
75
139
34
58
218
110
308
501
29
Reten
Rate
(%)
75.23
93.96
77.24
79.84
67.57
68.81
85
90.63
88.62
87.3
85.56
78.04
100
Succ
65
155
187
239
48
121
28
54
183
104
231
341
28
Succ
Rate
(%)
59.63
85.16
59.94
62.57
43.24
59.9
70
84.38
74.39
82.54
64.17
53.12
96.55
195
119
244
231
49
113
52
172
80
279
127
299
773
148
591
293
646
262
268
67.71
78.29
90.04
87.17
81.67
86.92
76.47
76.11
73.39
85.06
87.59
84.23
89.99
89.16
82.77
79.84
77.83
82.13
89.04
145
109
166
142
40
81
34
108
61
250
99
248
641
105
496
204
448
198
229
50.35
71.71
61.25
53.58
66.67
62.31
50
47.79
55.96
76.22
68.28
69.86
74.62
63.25
69.47
55.59
53.98
62.07
76.08
14
Foothill
Fresno City
313
384
272
348
86.9
90.63
230
275
73.48
71.61
332
140
321
117
96.69
83.57
272
87
81.93
62.14
317
138
291
117
91.8
84.78
243
80
76.66
57.97
Statewide Data Comparisons of Astronomy Program Success from Fall 2008- Spring 2011 – sh 3/12
Spring 2011
10-Mar-12
4
2
9
19
5
20
3
College
Fullerton
Gavilan
Glendale
Golden West
Grossmont
Hartnell
Imperial
Irvine
LA City
LA Harbor
LA Mission
LA Pierce
LA Trade
LA Valley
Lake Tahoe
Laney
Las Positas
Los Medanos
Marin
Mendocino
Merced
Merritt
MiraCosta
Mission
Modesto
Monterey
Moorpark
Moreno Valley
Mt San Antonio
Mt. San Jacinto
Napa
Ohlone
Orange Coast
Oxnard
Total
Enroll
427
88
224
325
627
334
136
305
455
145
180
505
350
276
25
35
202
510
267
58
113
42
265
328
150
296
972
59
644
103
110
110
290
83
Reten
369
77
186
300
503
295
68
273
372
132
142
421
262
239
23
27
131
434
248
58
103
41
199
292
127
276
807
46
528
87
93
75
221
65
Reten
Rate
(%)
86.42
87.5
83.04
92.31
80.22
88.32
50
89.51
81.76
91.03
78.89
83.37
74.86
86.59
92
77.14
64.85
85.1
92.88
100
91.15
97.62
75.09
89.02
84.67
93.24
83.02
77.97
81.99
84.47
84.55
68.18
76.21
78.31
Fall 2010
Succ
310
74
126
258
422
237
40
242
305
123
119
288
226
174
19
13
107
326
192
54
95
34
141
244
72
237
641
42
446
63
77
48
202
40
Succ
Rate
(%)
72.6
84.09
56.25
79.38
67.3
70.96
29.41
79.34
67.03
84.83
66.11
57.03
64.57
63.04
76
37.14
52.97
63.92
71.91
93.1
84.07
80.95
53.21
74.39
48
80.07
65.95
71.19
69.25
61.17
70
43.64
69.66
48.19
Total
Enroll
137
435
82
265
322
615
344
146
261
501
135
198
610
337
381
48
179
517
174
47
193
60
254
315
223
268
998
52
732
99
105
81
313
100
Reten
131
347
71
231
264
481
317
74
221
401
112
143
486
253
323
40
129
450
155
45
156
58
188
271
188
244
861
48
637
92
86
52
258
81
19
Reten
Rate
(%)
95.62
79.77
86.59
87.17
81.99
78.21
92.15
50.68
84.67
80.04
82.96
72.22
79.67
75.07
84.78
83.33
72.07
87.04
89.08
95.74
80.83
96.67
74.02
86.03
84.3
91.04
86.27
92.31
87.02
92.93
81.9
64.2
82.43
81
Spring 2010
Succ
90
291
63
183
225
389
287
44
174
368
100
97
342
206
237
32
96
364
133
40
132
45
122
230
131
212
658
38
514
71
67
31
228
43
Succ
Rate
(%)
65.69
66.9
76.83
69.06
69.88
63.25
83.43
30.14
66.67
73.45
74.07
48.99
56.07
61.13
62.2
66.67
53.63
70.41
76.44
85.11
68.39
75
48.03
73.02
58.74
79.1
65.93
73.08
70.22
71.72
63.81
38.27
72.84
43
Total
Enroll
373
117
309
292
604
349
128
268
534
123
232
494
294
274
24
75
207
21
512
195
36
77
41
271
278
150
308
1,103
724
99
111
109
364
87
Reten
330
96
258
231
491
293
64
246
426
114
184
407
229
239
21
27
152
21
406
183
33
66
35
178
243
140
264
925
635
86
93
77
307
72
Reten
Rate
(%)
88.47
82.05
83.5
79.11
81.29
83.95
50
91.79
79.78
92.68
79.31
82.39
77.89
87.23
87.5
36
73.43
100
79.3
93.85
91.67
85.71
85.37
65.68
87.41
93.33
85.71
83.86
87.71
86.87
83.78
70.64
84.34
82.76
Succ
299
80
195
206
381
259
38
213
355
98
126
284
188
188
18
17
113
21
325
143
27
52
26
140
223
102
243
755
519
63
79
44
274
61
Succ
Rate
(%)
80.16
68.38
63.11
70.55
63.08
74.21
29.69
79.48
66.48
79.67
54.31
57.49
63.95
68.61
75
22.67
54.59
100
63.48
73.33
75
67.53
63.41
51.66
80.22
68
78.9
68.45
71.69
63.64
71.17
40.37
75.27
70.11
Palo Verde
Palomar
29
480
25
416
86.21
86.67
23
273
79.31
56.88
47
563
39
485
82.98
86.15
30
298
63.83
52.93
32
478
25
417
78.13
87.24
23
285
71.88
59.62
Statewide Data Comparisons of Astronomy Program Success from Fall 2008- Spring 2011 – sh 3/12
Fall 2009
10-Mar-12
4
2
9
19
5
20
3
College
Fullerton
Gavilan
Glendale
Golden West
Grossmont
Hartnell
Imperial
Irvine
LA City
LA Harbor
LA Mission
LA Pierce
LA Trade
LA Valley
Lake Tahoe
Laney
Las Positas
Los Medanos
Marin
Mendocino
Merced
Merritt
MiraCosta
Mission
Modesto
Monterey
Moorpark
Moreno Valley
Mt San Antonio
Mt. San Jacinto
Napa
Ohlone
Orange Coast
Oxnard
Total
Enroll
136
369
75
261
287
595
340
146
224
487
137
151
577
321
429
82
226
567
151
49
207
51
256
334
170
302
1,138
Reten
115
304
63
227
233
467
315
76
209
385
112
120
456
262
356
38
172
500
125
39
168
47
197
291
155
266
964
Reten
Rate
(%)
84.56
82.38
84
86.97
81.18
78.49
92.65
52.05
93.3
79.06
81.75
79.47
79.03
81.62
82.98
46.34
76.11
88.18
82.78
79.59
81.16
92.16
76.95
87.13
91.18
88.08
84.71
680
93
79
109
353
85
574
78
79
66
306
69
84.41
83.87
100
60.55
86.69
81.18
Spring 2009
Succ
75
282
54
174
189
367
289
42
191
324
96
85
333
218
279
26
110
397
107
31
127
38
152
252
104
230
734
Succ
Rate
(%)
55.15
76.42
72
66.67
65.85
61.68
85
28.77
85.27
66.53
70.07
56.29
57.71
67.91
65.03
31.71
48.67
70.02
70.86
63.27
61.35
74.51
59.38
75.45
61.18
76.16
64.5
473
59
70
52
249
51
69.56
63.44
88.61
47.71
70.54
60
Fall 2008
Total
Enroll
347
99
271
294
550
281
103
228
343
134
168
562
262
307
Reten
314
79
220
256
442
247
35
214
274
109
126
437
202
270
Reten
Rate
(%)
90.49
79.8
81.18
87.07
80.36
87.9
33.98
93.86
79.88
81.34
75
77.76
77.1
87.95
79
243
23
463
181
142
74
39
226
330
380
999
38
148
19
370
158
112
68
33
158
275
334
843
48.1
60.91
82.61
79.91
87.29
78.87
91.89
84.62
69.91
83.33
87.89
84.38
32
106
7
266
123
78
56
26
99
247
276
699
671
97
126
105
649
87
558
83
106
67
551
72
83.16
85.57
84.13
63.81
84.9
82.76
424
67
79
44
444
51
20
Succ
265
60
151
217
337
218
22
189
225
100
80
294
168
187
Succ
Rate
(%)
76.37
60.61
55.72
73.81
61.27
77.58
21.36
82.89
65.6
74.63
47.62
52.31
64.12
60.91
40.51
43.62
30.43
57.45
67.96
54.93
75.68
66.67
43.81
74.85
72.63
69.97
Total
Enroll
422
122
280
283
471
281
156
229
404
141
146
552
250
436
70
289
20
483
136
127
125
62
218
303
225
287
1,110
63.19
69.07
62.7
41.9
68.41
58.62
588
90
88
139
551
55
Reten
338
99
248
253
364
256
72
194
342
115
116
435
188
362
34
173
18
384
136
95
109
51
138
258
181
279
950
Reten
Rate
(%)
80.09
81.15
88.57
89.4
77.28
91.1
46.15
84.72
84.65
81.56
79.45
78.8
75.2
83.03
48.57
59.86
90
79.5
100
74.8
87.2
82.26
63.3
85.15
80.44
97.21
85.59
Succ
290
84
206
213
291
232
45
160
298
99
68
317
152
254
21
126
15
269
121
55
76
35
97
217
128
248
778
Succ
Rate
(%)
68.72
68.85
73.57
75.27
61.78
82.56
28.85
69.87
73.76
70.21
46.58
57.43
60.8
58.26
30
43.6
75
55.69
88.97
43.31
60.8
56.45
44.5
71.62
56.89
86.41
70.09
485
85
65
95
478
37
82.48
94.44
73.86
68.35
86.75
67.27
413
63
61
58
413
33
70.24
70
69.32
41.73
74.95
60
Palo Verde
Palomar
24
557
23
488
95.83
87.61
22
285
91.67
51.17
48
528
45
456
93.75
86.36
40
262
83.33
49.62
42
555
38
480
90.48
86.49
32
255
Statewide Data Comparisons of Astronomy Program Success from Fall 2008- Spring 2011 – sh 3/12
Spring 2011
10-Mar-12
18
11
16
21
17
22
12
College
Pasadena
Porterville
Redwoods
Reedley College
Rio Hondo
Riverside
Sacramento City
Saddleback
San Bernardino
San Diego City
San Diego Mesa
San Diego
Miramar
San Francisco
San Joaquin Delta
San Jose City
San Mateo
Santa Ana
Santa Barbara
Santa Monica
Santa Rosa
Santiago Canyon
Sequoias
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyous
Skyline
Solano
Southwestern
Taft
Ventura
Victor Valley
West LA
West Valley
Total
Enroll
182
32
329
31
482
327
398
553
206
393
687
Reten
147
28
297
30
335
272
307
443
152
343
565
Reten
Rate
(%)
80.77
87.5
90.27
96.77
69.5
83.18
77.14
80.11
73.79
87.28
82.24
170
1,020
185
283
514
410
922
650
1,190
584
56
157
786
29
159
348
608
34
377
255
97
127
120
780
108
223
454
313
820
584
1,041
450
42
139
673
26
136
291
537
31
298
227
81
91
70.59
76.47
58.38
78.8
88.33
76.34
88.94
89.85
87.48
77.05
75
88.54
85.62
89.66
85.53
83.62
88.32
91.18
79.05
89.02
83.51
71.65
Fall 2010
Succ
95
23
207
26
213
206
254
326
102
254
403
Succ
Rate
(%)
52.2
71.88
62.92
83.87
44.19
63
63.82
58.95
49.51
64.63
58.66
Total
Enroll
189
36
332
37
540
323
484
614
186
355
663
103
578
58
152
379
229
699
477
801
337
23
95
549
17
114
258
378
27
200
161
46
53
60.59
56.67
31.35
53.71
73.74
55.85
75.81
73.38
67.31
57.71
41.07
60.51
69.85
58.62
71.7
74.14
62.17
79.41
53.05
63.14
47.42
41.73
123
932
203
185
461
497
977
667
1,230
599
52
325
719
21
121
354
600
35
374
221
57
171
Reten
155
34
300
35
392
277
360
535
143
308
541
Reten
Rate
(%)
82.01
94.44
90.36
94.59
72.59
85.76
74.38
87.13
76.88
86.76
81.6
90
692
121
143
393
394
911
596
1,089
509
38
278
621
17
97
311
518
32
309
188
48
104
73.17
74.25
59.61
77.3
85.25
79.28
93.24
89.36
88.54
84.97
73.08
85.54
86.37
80.95
80.17
87.85
86.33
91.43
82.62
85.07
84.21
60.82
21
Spring 2010
Succ
118
29
202
30
267
193
272
390
110
241
394
Succ
Rate
(%)
62.43
80.56
60.84
81.08
49.44
59.75
56.2
63.52
59.14
67.89
59.43
Total
Enroll
194
60
381
30
494
371
529
559
46
343
497
81
476
62
108
321
284
775
462
828
370
27
205
465
9
82
270
341
21
187
155
27
62
65.85
51.07
30.54
58.38
69.63
57.14
79.32
69.27
67.32
61.77
51.92
63.08
64.67
42.86
67.77
76.27
56.83
60
50
70.14
47.37
36.26
202
862
196
177
532
445
961
632
1,174
522
58
251
708
27
135
371
436
24
384
218
98
237
Reten
125
49
342
27
401
298
424
456
12
290
422
Reten
Rate
(%)
64.43
81.67
89.76
90
81.17
80.32
80.15
81.57
26.09
84.55
84.91
Succ
102
31
216
25
244
237
297
309
10
215
310
Succ
Rate
(%)
52.58
51.67
56.69
83.33
49.39
63.88
56.14
55.28
21.74
62.68
62.37
154
570
99
157
455
360
880
577
1,025
444
50
231
600
23
108
314
394
18
310
193
75
194
76.24
66.13
50.51
88.7
85.53
80.9
91.57
91.3
87.31
85.06
86.21
92.03
84.75
85.19
80
84.64
90.37
75
80.73
88.53
76.53
81.86
142
378
56
118
376
280
759
445
770
334
32
190
467
17
86
262
240
12
197
140
37
120
70.3
43.85
28.57
66.67
70.68
62.92
78.98
70.41
65.59
63.98
55.17
75.7
65.96
62.96
63.7
70.62
55.05
50
51.3
64.22
37.76
50.63
76.19
45.95
Woodland
Yuba
18
114
15
38
83.33
33.33
12
29
66.67
25.44
75
53
70.67
34
45.33
86
47
54.65
36
41.86
Statewide Data Comparisons of Astronomy Program Success from Fall 2008- Spring 2011 – sh 3/12
Fall 2009
10-Mar-12
18
11
16
21
17
22
12
College
Pasadena
Porterville
Redwoods
Reedley College
Rio Hondo
Riverside
Sacramento City
Saddleback
San Bernardino
San Diego City
San Diego Mesa
San Diego
Miramar
San Francisco
San Joaquin Delta
San Jose City
San Mateo
Santa Ana
Santa Barbara
Santa Monica
Santa Rosa
Santiago Canyon
Sequoias
Shasta
Sierra
Siskiyous
Skyline
Solano
Southwestern
Taft
Ventura
Victor Valley
West LA
West Valley
Total
Enroll
187
37
330
32
512
460
562
515
159
330
536
Reten
167
36
309
32
377
382
426
437
123
278
449
Reten
Rate
(%)
89.3
97.3
93.64
100
73.63
83.04
75.8
84.85
77.36
84.24
83.77
122
823
224
201
620
505
1,020
669
1,263
578
57
319
664
39
125
233
607
25
377
229
41
76
104
576
84
137
537
371
927
577
1,136
482
40
285
560
33
103
196
534
21
317
205
33
40
85.25
69.99
37.5
68.16
86.61
73.47
90.88
86.25
89.94
83.39
70.18
89.34
84.34
84.62
82.4
84.12
87.97
84
84.08
89.52
80.49
52.63
Spring 2009
Succ
121
32
219
31
251
271
294
315
78
208
352
Succ
Rate
(%)
64.71
86.49
66.36
96.88
49.02
58.91
52.31
61.17
49.06
63.03
65.67
Total
Enroll
140
32
332
35
546
385
491
579
141
324
704
91
432
59
107
426
293
797
454
851
371
26
217
461
23
85
162
324
14
221
146
18
19
74.59
52.49
26.34
53.23
68.71
58.02
78.14
67.86
67.38
64.19
45.61
68.03
69.43
58.97
68
69.53
53.38
56
58.62
63.76
43.9
25
121
895
172
236
545
378
981
610
1,055
628
50
341
740
38
78
344
569
14
312
213
90
307
Fall 2008
Reten
126
29
300
33
420
300
380
489
105
258
578
Reten
Rate
(%)
90
90.63
90.36
94.29
76.92
77.92
77.39
84.46
74.47
79.63
82.1
Succ
85
20
222
29
288
204
255
385
84
181
441
Succ
Rate
(%)
60.71
62.5
66.87
82.86
52.75
52.99
51.93
66.49
59.57
55.86
62.64
103
674
115
186
462
284
887
532
930
533
36
301
583
33
65
305
569
12
232
203
75
260
85.12
75.31
66.86
78.81
84.77
75.13
90.42
87.21
88.15
84.87
72
88.27
78.78
86.84
83.33
88.66
100
85.71
74.36
95.31
83.33
84.69
93
496
59
139
400
227
784
423
707
416
27
210
448
21
54
256
377
10
125
151
41
216
76.86
55.42
34.3
58.9
73.39
60.05
79.92
69.34
67.01
66.24
54
61.58
60.54
55.26
69.23
74.42
66.26
71.43
40.06
70.89
45.56
70.36
22
Reten
107
39
Reten
Rate
(%)
76.43
92.86
Succ
74
26
Succ
Rate
(%)
52.86
61.9
42
507
397
591
527
132
329
552
39
417
326
420
456
90
267
458
92.86
82.25
82.12
71.07
86.53
68.18
81.16
82.97
36
313
208
307
351
66
196
347
85.71
61.74
52.39
51.95
66.6
50
59.57
62.86
121
980
206
149
505
369
1,033
588
1,108
580
45
314
641
42
75
348
496
13
424
214
78
268
110
746
117
109
432
262
959
516
983
467
25
267
515
35
61
323
382
11
333
194
61
228
90.91
76.12
56.8
73.15
85.54
71
92.84
87.76
88.72
80.52
55.56
85.03
80.34
83.33
81.33
92.82
77.02
84.62
78.54
90.65
78.21
85.07
97
501
68
86
349
202
848
431
765
343
20
186
375
27
49
277
294
8
219
151
41
174
80.17
51.12
33.01
57.72
69.11
54.74
82.09
73.3
69.04
59.14
44.44
59.24
58.5
64.29
65.33
79.6
59.27
61.54
51.65
70.56
52.56
64.93
Total
Enroll
140
42
Woodland
Yuba
120
78
65
50
41.67
94
43
23
45.74
30
31.91
123
17
66
14
53.66
82.35
44
6
35.77
35.29
Statewide Data Comparisons of Astronomy Program Success from Fall 2008- Spring 2011 – sh 3/12
Spring 2011
10-Mar-12
Statewide
Total
Enroll
Totals
Averages
303
Reten
Reten
Rate
(%)
Succ
Succ
Rate
(%)
31,493
251
26,052
82%
195
20,307
64%
Std. Deviation
Chabot
Hayward
10%
281
214
Totals
Averages
Total
Enroll
Reten
31,708
308
255
Std. Deviation
Chabot
Hayward
76%
Total
Enroll
311
Reten
Succ
Succ
Rate
(%)
32,001
258
26,546
82%
198
20,443
63%
13%
173
62%
Reten
Rate
(%)
26,234
82%
9%
215
166
253
79%
77%
Total
Enroll
Reten
30,873
297
245
12%
115
53%
Succ
Succ
Rate
(%)
196
20,168
63%
Total
Enroll
Reten
308
31,390
254
13%
179
56%
Reten
Rate
(%)
25,877
81%
237
24
72%
Succ
25,496
81%
190
333
256
77%
Succ
Rate
(%)
19,806
63%
13%
188
56%
Fall 2008
Succ
194
10%
327
Reten
Rate
(%)
12%
Spring 2009
10%
322
Spring 2010
Reten
Rate
(%)
Fall 2009
10-Mar-12
Statewide
Fall 2010
Succ
Rate
(%)
19,802
62%
Total
Enroll
Reten
30,945
300
247
13%
175
54%
Reten
Rate
(%)
25,406
81%
Succ
190
10%
288
195
68%
Succ
Rate
(%)
19,619
63%
13%
145
50%
25