LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
EAST CITY HARBOR MISSION PIERCE SOUTHWEST TRADE TECHNICAL VALLEY WEST
OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
TO:
Members of the Board of Trustees
FROM:
Dr. Francisco Rodriguez, Chancellor
DATE:
October 28, 2015
SUBJECT: BOARD LETTER FOR NOVEMBER 4, 2015 MEETING
Board Meeting Location
Next week’s Board meeting will be held at East Los Angeles College. The Board
will convene in the Vincent Price Art Museum, S1-201, 2nd Floor and recess to Closed
Session, following public speakers on Closed Session agenda items.
Meetings
Convene for Closed Session
Time
4:00 p.m.
Location
Vincent Price Art Museum
S1-201, 2nd Floor
Convene for Public Session
6:00 p.m.
Performing & Fine Arts
Complex S2 – Recital Hall
Convene for Second Closed
Session (if necessary)
Immediately Following
Public Session
Vincent Price Art Museum
S1-201, 2nd Floor
Parking
A campus map has been included for your convenience. Please refer to the college
campus map for the designated parking area on Administration Building Guest Lot.
Please be aware that there will be a meeting of the Committee of the Whole. One
presentation will be made:
• Board of Trustees Alignment with the City of Los Angeles Elections
Included in this letter is explanatory information related to agenda items:
•
FPD2.
•
FPD3.
•
CH2.
Central Plant Phase II and Chilled Water Storage Project at Los Angeles
City College
(Refer to Attachment A1)
Grand Avenue Enhancement Phase I and Blue Line Extension Project at
Los Angeles Trade-Technical College (Refer to Attachment A2)
Approve Los Angeles Trade-Technical College’s Strategic Educational
Master Plan, 2014-2017 (Refer to Attachment A3)
770 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES, CA 90017, (213) 891-2201 FAX (213) 891-2304
Board Letter – November 4, 2015
Page 2 of 2
Confidential Matters
The attached correspondence is confidential and should not be shared with other persons.
Office of General Counsel
o Enclosed for your review is the District-related litigation
report. (Refer to Attachment B)
o Enclosed for your review is a report regarding the case of Jane Doe.
(Refer to Attachment C)
o Enclosed for your review is the Bond-related litigation report.
(Refer to Attachment D)
o Enclosed for your review is an update pertaining to complaints of
discrimination/harassment. (Refer to Attachment E)
o Enclosed for your review is an update pertaining to the status on personnel
actions. (Refer to Attachment F)
• Human Resources
o Enclosed for your review is information pertaining to personnel matters. Due
to the volume of materials, this document will be sent via U.S. mail. (Refer
to Attachment G)
• Educational Programs and Institutional Effectiveness – Enclosed for your
review is information pertaining to student discipline matters.
(Refer to Attachment H)
•
Other Matters
Office of Educational Programs and Institutional Effectiveness
o Enclosed for your information is a response to a Board member inquiry
regarding the top feeder schools for each college. (Refer to Attachment I)
o Enclosed for your information is a response to a Board member inquiry
regarding college mission statements and their date of Board approval.
(Refer to Attachment J)
o Enclosed for your information is a response to a Board member inquiry
regarding Scorecard Measures. (Refer to Attachment K)
SPECIAL NOTE
Enclosed for your information is the agenda regarding the Special Meeting of the
Institutional Effectiveness & Student Success Committee which will meet at East Los
Angeles College, Administration Building, G1-301 A/B, on Wednesday, November 4th, at
2:15 p.m. Please click on the link below to view the agenda and Institutional Self
Evaluation Report for the college.
https://spdev.laccd.edu/Board/StandingCommittees/Documents/20152016StandingCommitteeAgendas/20151104-IESS-Agenda.pdf
Let me know should you have any questions regarding the meeting.
EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE
Visitor Map for LACCD Board Meeting
Guest Parking
W Floral Drive
E9
he
anc
l
Ava
G8
Parking
Structure 3
5
y
Wa
3
A3
Baseball
Field
4
Free
Speech
Area
D1
2
4
C1
Student Su
ccess
Construction
Campus Ce
nter
Book
F5store
Construction
H8
S4
K7
Construction
Science Ca
reers and
Mathematic
s
K5
Tra
ns
it C
ent
Bailey
Library
er
F3
G3
S2
P2
E1
G1
P1
3
N
W
10
1
ive
e
SMOKING
ue
A4
A5
F7
l Dr
Par
k
Stru ing
ctu
re 4
K9A
lle
n
Ave
SMOKING
lora
D7a
B5
WF
H9
G9
D5
Sheriffs
K9B
ld
E7
ood
akw
Ble
Avalanche Way
Lot
m
diu
St a
D7
7
Women’s
Softball Fie
E8-1
nu
6E8-2
Av
e
Stadium
WF
F9
C9
gia
n
r
al D
lor
Central
Plant
Co
B6-101
Concourse Parking
ive
Parking Structure • S4
Board Meeting
EPublic Session
S2 Recital Hall
S1
10
2
10
Ble
1
10
ood
akw
A1
e
nu
Ave
Closed Session
Guest Parking
Parking Structure • D1
S1-201, VPAM
Guest Parking
For Board Members,
District Administartion, Presidents
Administration Parking Lot
EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE
1301 Avenida Cesar Chavez
Monterey Park, CA 91754
(323) 265-8662
IESS Meeting
Administration Building
G1-301A/B, 3rd Floor
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
CITY / EAST / HARBOR / MISSION / PERCE / SOUTHWEST / TRADE-TECHNICAL / VALLEY / WEST
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMBER INQUIRY
ATTACHMENT Al
Item No. 2015-18
Subject: FPD2; Central Plant Phase 11 and Chilled Water Storage Project at Los Angeles
City College
Additional information is provided regarding agenda item FDP2 on the November 4th Board meeting
agenda. Attached Is a memo from Mr. John Dacey, Lead Construction Counsel
Submitted By: Mr- -lohn Dacey/ Lead Construction Counsel Date: November 4,2015
Los ANGELES ComoNiTY COLLEGE DISTRICT
CITY . EAST . HARBOR . M.ISSEON . PIERCE' SOUTHWEST . TRADE-TECHN:ECAL . VALLEY . WEST
To:
Board of Trustees
Francisco C. Rodriguez, Cliancellor
From:
John P. Dacey, Lead CQns.tmction Counsel fP^
ec:
James D. O'ReilIy, CNef Facilities Executive
Date:
October 14,, 2015
Re:
Central Plant Phase II BxBansion and Chilled Water Storase - Los Artfieles Chv
College; Award ofDesien-Bwtd Contract - November 4. 2oT5BoarcLD!ate and
»
Agenda Item Cona. No. FPR2.
I.
ACTION ITEM ON November 4. 2Q15 BOARD DATE REGARDINGCTNTRAI
PLANT PHASE 11 EXPANSION AND CHILLED WATER STORAGE
There is an item on the Novemtber 4,2015 Board Agenda regarding tfoe Central Plant
Phase II Expansion and CbilJed Wafer Storage project at Los Angeles City College
fPFojecr).
The item asks the Board io adopt a resolution for the Project that:
1. Ratifies implementation of the Design-BuiId system of project delivery,
2. Ratifies the Request for Qualifications and Proposals process (Procurement: Number
CS-020-15-C) conducted by Staff;
3. Authorizes the award of the Design-Build Agreement to a single DesigK-B^iitd Emity
("DBE");
4. Autborizes District Staff, specifically the Chancellor and/or the Chief Facilifies
Executive, to enter into a Desig^Md Agreement for the Project;
5. Requires that if the aggregate cost for the Project does exceed the Rot to- exceed
amount authorized by fc Board, then SlafT shall bring the item, and/or the affected
part thereof, back to flie Board for review, consideration, and/or further action; and
6. Authorizes Ae Project Budget (including Segments #1 and #2) at a projected o-veraH
budget of $7,SS5,OI], which covers the cost for: Design; Agency Approvals; OpenBook Bidding &f Sulbcontractor Trade Packages; Establishing a Guaranteed
Maximum Price for Ccms.miction; and Constmction.
t-^
;.
770 WELSHERE BLVD., LOS: ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90017-3896 * (213) &91-2000
Board of Trustees - Chancellor
LCC Memorandum - Central Plan;! Project at Ctty College
October 14, 2015
Page 2 of 5
II.
PURPOSE OF THIS MEMORANDUM
The main purpose of this, Memorandum is to set forth Staffs and the PMO's. fmciiin.es
^i-
regarding why the Design-Md delivery method, as authorized by EteAm GA
sections 81700, et seq,, shosaid be used for the Project
III. APPLICABLE LAW FOR DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTS
Education Code sections 81700 et seq. specifically authorize commmiity coMege di^sfricts
to utilize the Design-B:uiId delivery method as a safe and cost efficient altemafive to
competitive bidding becaa&e the Legislature has determined that it can produce
accelerated compledon of projects,, provide for cost containment, retee coostruction
complexity, and reduce expo.s.ure to risk for community college districts. The Legislatore
<h-!-
has also determined that the cost-effective benefits to community coHege districts are
achieved by shifting the liability and risk for cost containment and project compkdoru to
the design-build entity.
The foregoing Code sections also require that governing boards of a c&mmmity coHege
districts shall make written findings that use of the design-build process w7J accompifsh
one of the fof] owing objectives: (I) reduce comparable project costs; (2:) expedne tfce
project's completion, or (3) provide features not achievable through fJiie traditional
design-bid-buitd method.
IV. STAFFS. PMO?S AND LCC1$ FINDINGS OF FACT
District Staff, the PMO, and Lead Construction Counsel ("LCC") have reviewed tbese
statutory objectives and concluded that the design-build delivery method should be used
for the Project because: (1) it will reduce comparable project costs (2) it will expedite the
project's completion; and/or (3) it provides features not achievable Arou;gh Ae traditional
design-bid-build metfcod, including cost containment and shifting the risk of loss for
design deficiencies to the Design-BuiId Entity, the following reasons:
&
1. "Reduced Comparable roroiect costs^
The Legislature has recognized that -the cost-effective benefits- to a eommimity eollege
district under the Design-BuiN delivery method are achieved by shifting the Mitity and
risk for cost containment and project completion to the design-build entity.
ff
Using the Design-BuiM delivery method on the Project will achieve this goaVfactor, tirat
cannot be achieved using Ae design-bid-build (hard/low bid) method because: (I)
responsibility for errors^ omissions, and other deficiencies in the design aod comtmcfic^
documents obtained by the District under the design-bid-build (hard/low Nd) metM
from an architect hired by tlie Disfrict are, vis a vis the contractor, fbe responsibiJity of
the District. Under design-bid-teild, a district hires an architect to design a project. The
Board of Trustees - Chancellor
LCC Memorandum - Central Plant Project at City College
October 14,2015
Page 3 of 5
errors, omissions, and otfaer deficiencies in the design and cortstructi&B documents are
usuaUy a predominanf cause of additional project costs over and above the original
contract award amount because under design-bid-build tile contractor has no
responsibility for such errors, omissions and/or deficiencies. These errors, o.missions and
deficiencies translate to increased costs to the District, durmg constraction in the
following ways: (I) delay damages; (2) extra worVchange order daims by tfee contractQF;
and (3) in-fightmg between the public entity owner and tfoe aTcfeiteef/engineering team
hired by the public entity owner. Al! of the foregoing also translates, mto additional time,
claims, constmction manager time, attorney fees, expert fees, and oAer sigjaifEcaBt costs.
Conversely, urcder the Design-B-uiId delivery method, the contractor, blown as the
Design Build Entity, must "design and constmcf" the proje.ct As SMch, those
responsibilities and resultant costs just mentioned as being the Disfeicfs responsibility
shift to the Design-BuiId Entity acd have to be home by the Etesign-B^ild Entity. This
greatly reduces costs compared to a project procured under fhe design -Nd-bml d delivery
method and achieves the risk shifting benefits contemplated by the s.tatafes. As such, the
use of Design-BtiiId for tfae Project wiU achieve these cost savmgs aad risk shifting
benefits. For these reasons alone, the Design-BuiM delivery method should be used for
the Project.
2. "Expeditine the pFQJect^ comDletiQB"
Using the Design-Build delivery method will save time and expedite the Projects
Completion when compared to the time it will fake to design ard build tlie Project using
the design-bid-buitd delivery method (also referred to as faard/tow Nd co'Btracfing).
Based on Staffs, the PMO's, and LCC's experience, if the Project were to be developed
and constructed nsmg the design-bid-build delivery mefhod, it wcxiM be; meeessary to use
three steps that would take at least 36 months to complete, and most likely several more
months. These; three steps include: (I) hire Architect and Engineer to design tlie project
and prepare 100% Construction Documents and obtain Division of the State Architect
("DSA") approval thereon; (2) then pre-qualify confractors to ensure all p'arfidpams are
well-qualified to consfmct the project; and (3) then advertise for and award a CQnsmiction
contract under the design-bid-build delivery method and have coasmicfion start and
complete Each of the three steps would also require Board action adding more tune to
the overall procurement before construction could begML
Conversely, using the: Design-Build project delivery method provides integration of these
procedurai steps into one overall procurement step, including ensuring only well qualified
contractors will design and build the project. Based on the PMO's evaJuation, usmg the
Design-Build delivery method, the anticipated total amount of time to design and
complete construction of the Project will be reduced to 28 months. Staff and LCC coEicur,
all
Board of Trustees - Chancellor
LCC Memorandum - Central. Plant Project at City College
October 14, 2015
Page 4 of 5
Therefore, the proposed use of Design-BmId is anticipated to meet the requirement of
"expediting the project's completion" because it will take 6 months. less to achieve
completion of the Project ysing the Design-Build method versus using file design-bid-
build project delivery method. For this reason alone, the Design-Bnild delivery method
should be used for the Project
3. "Provide features not acNevable throush the traditional desiffii-Nd-bniId method"
The applicable law expressly recognizes by the language in and the purpose behind the
statutes ttiat using the Design-Buiid delivery method will simplify commicrion and
reduce its complexity when compared to using the low/hard bid delivery method. These
are features that are not achievable through the design-bid-build delivery metliod.
Generally speaking, most "constmctiotE complexity" on public works projects co'mes
from mcomplete, confticting, uBcoordinated, and/or constmction dociunents tltat contam
errors, omissions, ambiguities, conflicts and other deficiencies. THiis then creates
polarizing positions between the public entity owner and architect, on the one hand, and
the contracto'r and the public entity owner, on the other hand. As these situations are
encountered, arguments ensue as to whether the construction documents are or are not
incomplete, conflicting, uncoordmated, and/or contain errors, omissions, deficiencies,
etc. (all of which posits liability on the public entity) and/or whether or not the coi-itractor
knew or siicmld have known (which may shift liability away from fhe public entity owner
and onto the contractor). Such polarizing positions are greatly lieightened m projects
where a contractor's expertise could be of great assistance in the desigji, but which is
prohibited by law if the design-bid-build (hard/low bid) method of procurement is used.
This increases risk to the public entity on such projects where the desigB-bid-buiM
(hard/Iow bid) method of procurement is used.
Conversely, in tile experience of District Staff, the PMO and the LCC, where a
contractor's expertise can be used to design and construct sucfc projects, as part of a
design-bnild team, constmction complexity is significantly reduced as ftie entity that must
build the project also designs it pursuant to perfbrmance/projecf criteria estaNisM by
the public entity owner. This is what is being done on the Project at Los Angeles City
College. The Design-Build Entity has to design and build the Project it is in its own best
interests to ensure that there are BO mcomplete, confticting, uncoordinatecl, errors,
omissions, deficiencies, etc. in the design and construction documeiiits. If there are any
found during cons,£roction, the Design-Build Entity has to bear the risk of loss and cost to
overcome same. These are all features that are not achievable under the de&igE-laid-bniM
delivery metlii&d. For this reason alone, the Design-Build delivery mettiod should be used
forfhePlrojeef.
V.
CONCLUSIONS
As mentioned above, the Design-Build statutes require that fhe go.vemng board of a
Board of Trustees - Chancellor
LCC Memorandum - Central Plant Project at City College
October 14, 2015
Page 5 of 5
community college disfnct make written findings that use of the desigB-fouiHd process wiH
accomplish we of the foHowmg objectives: (1) reduce comparable project eos.ts; (2)
expedite fhe project's completion, or (3) provide features not acNevaNe ffcjougti the
traditional design-bid-build mefliod.
The foregoing findings by District Staff, the PMO and LCC demons.trate tfeat nst <3nfy
ffne, but all three of the requirements to use the Design-Build delivery method are present
for the Project and warrant use of the Design-Build method for tMe Project.
CITY / EAST / HARBOR / MISSION / PIERCE / SOUTHWEST /TRADE-TECHNICAL / VALLEY / WEST
Is
,-sfi
I" ^^' AN(i^rf E
^
c
/f
^
t*m;L'
.."I.
.^^
EAA
f:
CE
T
V
ATTACHMENT A2
Item No. 2015-19
Subject: FPD3/ Grand Avenue Enhancement Phase I and Blue Line Extension Protect at
Los Angeles Trade-Technica! CoHeqe
Additional information is provided regarding agenda item FDP3 on the November 4th Board meeting
agenda. Attached is a memo from Mr. John Dacey/ Lead Construction Counsel
Submitted By: Mr. John Dacey, Lead Construction Counsel Date: November 4, 2015
Los ANGELES ComuNirr COLLEGE DISTRECT
OTY * EAST . HARBOR . VESSION . PfERCE . SOUTHWEST * TRADE-TECHN:ECAi. * VAUEY . WEST
To:
Boarf of Trustees
Francisco C. Roelriguez, Chancellor
From:
Johi P. Daeey, Lead Constmction Counsel ypD'
ec:
James D. O'ReilIy, Chief Facilities Executive
Date:
Ottofcerl<2015
»
Re:
OraBd Avenue EnhaBcement Phase I aad Blue Line Extension Project at Los
Angeles Trade Tedinical College; Award of Design-Wd Cemtraa - November
4,2015 Board Date and Agenda Item (FPD3)
I. ACTION ITEM ON NOVEMBER 4. 2915 BOAKD BATC REGARDING CRAN!>
AVENUE ENHANCEMENT PHASE I AND BLUE LINEEXTCNgMm CWC
AT LOS ANGEMS TRADE TECHNICAL COLLECT
There is an item cm the Nowmber 4,2015 Board Agenda regardiag the Grand Avenue
EBliancemeM Phase I amd Blue Line Extension Protect at Los Atigeles Trade Tedmical College
('Trojecf').
tn?'
The item asfcs Ae Board to ad^pt a resolution for the Project tfaat:
1, Katifies implemerttatioB aftheDesigxi-Build system of project delivery;
2. Ratifies, the Request for Q'ualifications and Proposals process (Procurement Number CS
***,-
032-15-T)emMte^ by Staff;
3. Altthooze&
tjle awar(^ of the Design-Build Agreement to a single Design-BmN EQtity
f TOE");
1-
4. Authorizes District Staf^ specifically tbe ChancelIoT and^ the CyefFaeiJities
Executive, to enter into a Desiga-Build Agreement for the Project;
5. Requires Aat if the aggregate cost for the Pmjeet does exe^theBot to exceed ssnoant
authorized by tlie Bo^nl, tben Staff sfaail briBg tfie item, a^d/or the afieeted part tliereof;
bade to the Bwd for review, consideration, and/or further action; and
6. Determines fjiatallof the foreeomg actions are exempt from further analysis iMider the
California EKviromnenta! Oualitv Act
II.
PURPOSE C THIS MEMORANBITM
70 WELSHERE BLVD., LOS ANGELES, CALiFORNEA 900^7-3896 * {213)&91.2£XXt:
;
Board of Trustees - CHtanceEior
^?^Tr^!!TC£tnZ?r?? Avenue Enhancement Phase I and Btye Ime ExtertsEon Pro^e<^ at Los
Angeles Trarfe TechnicaE CoEieQe
October 14» 2015 - Page 2 of 6
The main purpose &f this Mem&mndum is to set forth Staffs md the PNO's fjndmgs
regarding why Ae Design-Md delivery method, as authorized by EdaeMioio Co^e S^^QHS
81700, et seq., shmM be use<i for the Project
III. APPLICABLE LAW FOR BESIGN-BTOLB CONTRACTS
Education Code se<^om 81700 et seq. specifically auAonze community college districts
tojdUizeAeEtesigB-Md delivery method as a^afe and cost efficient aftemalive to competitive
Hdd,ng became fc ^s^ has defined that ,t ca» p^ce accele^i co^S;-of
projects, provide for cost ccmtammei^ reduce coEistruction ccm^exity, ^ reduce exposure to
risk for community college districts. The Legislature has also detennined that the eost^fective
benefits to eommumty college districts are achieved by shifting the KaMity ad risicfin.'coa
containment and piqject completioB to the design-build entity.
The foregoing Code sections also rec|mretfaat governing imrds of a commmity college
d,istri^sha!l m^e written fmdmgs that use °fAe desi-gn-bwld proces.s1 w^ wcomplfsk smeof
the follomng objectives: (1) reduce comparable project costs; (2) expedite tie projee.t^
completion, or (3) provide features not achievable through the traditional desigB-Ud-Wd
method.
IV. PROJCCT DESCRIPTION AND STAFTS. PMO^S AN© LCT^ FINWNCS OF
FACT
A. Project Descrmtxon_- Summary
The following is descriptive only, not all inchsive, of the work and services. So be provided for
the project which has five parts.
Part A - Grand Avenue Enhancement: Considered the "front door" to eam^s, a plaza witfa a
large monument sign and shade strocture will welcome students, staff^ and csmpm visitors. Low
maintenance and drought toJlenmt plantings will be planted in seM-wall foeigfet planters tbat
supplement seating at a new transit shelter. A lane of parking on tfoe cam|ms side of the street
will be replaced wiA vegetated bioswales and an increased sidewalk widtb to acco-mmodate
transit users. Historic street lights will be repamteel
Part B - Blue Line Extension: Improvements along Grand Avemie include the reoio.val of a lane
of parking on eacfe side of the street for cwb extensions that provide vegetated Uoswales and an
increased sidewalk widtfe to acconimodate transit users. Low mamtenance an^ dnmght toleram
plantmgs will be prwide^ m addition to street trees that will provide canopy md sWe fbr
pedestrians. New transit sJhehers and a relocated mid-bloek pe^rias cros-s^alk will also be
provided as pan of the project. Historic street lights will be repamted and damaged artwork
pylons will be removed.
Board of Trustees - ChanceHor
^?c^lenFI?rT(Slm*~?r^r? Avemte Enhancement Phase! and Blue UR& Extension! Project at Los
Angeles Trade Technical College
October 14,2015 ~ Page 3 of 6
Part C - Other Campus Site Improvements, Grand Aveime & WaslimgS<Mi Bemlevard:
Landscape and fcardscape improvements behind the campus fence
at the Gmad
AveimeA^asJimgfcon Bcmlevard eiitry include as intimate seating area witli deeompos.ed granite
paving? shade trees' seatitlg walls. md fla§ Poles. The Campus fence is exteaded m frot of Sage
Hall (Building H). On campus landscape and hardscape improvements at tlie termiBus of the
relocated Olive Street Parking crosswalk transition pedestrian traffic to tSie campys emry.
Part 0 ~~ Other Campus Site Improvements, 23rd & Flower Entry: A secondary etitrmice to
campus and main entry far Expo mil users, a small entry plaza with a raiid-size momimait sign
will welcome students, and campus visitors.
Pylon Removal and Legal IM^xosal of the Pytons - Prior to April 1, 2016, Desiga Build Entity
shall obtain city peirmit approval md remove and legally dispose of (15) existiag public art
pylons locate^ on the west and east sides of Grand Aveime, sautli of Washmgton Blvd per
Removal Note ^6 on Sheet C1.01 of the Project Definition Donmients. WcA sball mdude
complete removal of pAfe art pytons and patch/repair existing e<»cie(e sidewalk per city
standards. Design Build Entity shall obtain all required city approvals and permits for this work.
This work shall be identified separately on the project schedule and pmject sdbA]e of values
from the rest of the scope of work identified in the Program Criteria DocimieQts (see plioto of
typical Pyion below).
CEQA Guidelines sections: 15303 (New Consmtction or Conversion of Small Strmwres);; 15311
(Accessory Structtures), and 15314 (Minor Additions to Schools), as well as, 15063 (b)(3); aH
provide the subject Pro^eet with exempt status, The improvements will not generate traffic 01 the
need for additional pAlic: services or utilities, and will be constructed by work crews xismg
standard construction pFaefices and limited amounts of equipment as fur&ef described in the
Notice of ExemptioB filed with the County Clerk County of Los Angeles on September IS,
2015. Please refer to Attachment "A" hereto which is a copy of tbe District's filed Notice of
Exemption which is incorporated by reference herein as if set forth at lengf^ hereat.
B. Staffs. PMCTs AND LCCs Findmss of Fact
District Staff, tlie PNO, and Lead Construction Counsel ("LCC") have reviewed these
statutory objectives and concluded that the design-build delivery method shemld be tised fbr the
Project because, (1) it will reduce eomparable project costs (2) it will expedite Ae pmjea's
completion; md/or (3) it provides feMyres not achievable througli the traditieMaI dtesigjo-bid-
build method, mchidmg cost contaimneBt and shifting the risk of toss for design deficiencies to
the Design-BuiId EBtity, tlie followmg reasons:
1. "Reduced Coim>araNe project costs"
The Legislature has reco'gmzed fjbat "the cost-effective benefits" to a commmity cdlege disfricl
Board of Trustees - Chancelloc
LCC Memorandum - Grand Averse Enhancement Phase E and Blue Line ExfeFislon Project a^ Los
Angeles Trade Technical Coflege
October 14, 2015 - Page 4 of 6
under the Design-Build delivery meAod are; achieved by shifting the UaNlity and risk fw cost
containment and project completiort to tlie design-bBild emity".
^JSms?heJE?esi?I~^uiI?.deliv?^ ?e??^ orl^?e p?:o?;t wi?1 achieve ^sgoal/fac^x, Aafi camio^
be achievedusmSthe ^s^-te^-b^i^ (har^low bid) m^hod because: (i) respo^siNlity foif
?R^^!SSI(?S! ?l^^t]ler ^c?et1?^ m ?Se deslgn aRd consmi^ion docmnents oNa^ed 1>y
the District under the design-W-Wld (har^/Eow bid) method from an arcfaitect Nred by Ae
District are, vis a vis the contractor, tiie responsibility of the District. Under
*.
district hires an architect to design a project. The errors, omission^ and olher deieiaicies m t^e
s-NdE-Uld, a
design snd construction dQCitmeiifs are usually a predominant cause ofadditkml polecf costs
over and above the original contract award amomit because under desiga-Nd-Wd flie cootractQr
has no responsibility for sncfe errors, omissions md/ot deficiencies. These ermrs, o^iiss^ts and
deficiencies translate to mcreased costs to tfae District durmg constructioR m the fblJlowiBg ways.:
(I) delay damages; (2) extra workAdhange orfa claims by the contractor; and (3) m-iigNniig
between the public emity Qwner and tfoe architect/eEigineering team faired by tiiepuMceatity
owner. All of the foiegomg also translate mto additional time, claims, coBsfnictM® maniagei
time, attorney fees, expert fees, and otiier significam costs.
Conversely, under the Design-MM delivery method, the contractor, knoT as Ae Besign Build
Entity, must "design and construcr the project. As such, those responsibilities mid resAnt
costs just mentioned as being tihe District's re^isibility all shift to the Design-BziiN EsMy m^
have to be borne by the Desigio^Mld Entity. This greatly reduces costs compared to a. p^m
procured under the design-W-Wd delivery method and achieves the risk shifting benefits
contemplated by the statutes. Also, giveBE tliat the Project can be built three mo.mis. s<xmer ffaaB
using the design-bid-baitd delivery method, the District should also realize a cos sa^iags by
having to pay three months less worfh of Generai Conditions Costs to the DBE tlian it woA
otherwise have to pay to a contractor under the design-bid-build delivery metfood. As; s-Hch, tfee
use ofDesign-Build for the Project will achieve tfaese cost savings and risk sNiUng benefits. For
these reasons alone, tfae Design-Buiid delivery metfaod should be used for Ac Prqjeet
2. "Expeditms the Br(niect¥s eo^^lefionE"
Using the Design-BuiM delivery meted will save time and expedite tlie PFqieet's
completion when compared to Ae time h will take to design and build tfae Project usiag
the design-bid-build delivery metliod (also refeirrcd to as hard/low bid contractiBg).
Based on Staff's, the PMOJs, and LCC's experience, if the Project were to be developed
and constructed using the design-bid-Wd delivery method, it would be Recessary to use tliree
steps that would take at least 34 moBths to complete, and most likely several more moAs,.
These three steps inchide: (I) hire Architect and Engineer to design the project and prepare
100% Construction Documeats and obtaia Division of the State Architect fTCA") approval
thereon; (2) thenpre.-qzialify cemtraefoFs to ensMe all participants are well-qualified toconsfwt
the project; and (3) thes a^ertise for and award a construction contract under the de&ign-W-
build delivery method and have ccmstrucdo^ start and complete. Eadi of the tjiree ste^ weniM
Board of Trustees - Chanceft&r
^oc l!/leni?r?ld?m^ ?^? Avemle Bih^cemenit Phase I and Blue Une Extension Projecf at Leis
Angeles Trade Technical College
October 14,2015 - Page 5 of 6
also require Board action addmg more time to tfce overall pocBremeBt before co©sfmaio^ wM
begin-
Cosversely, using the Design-Md project delivery melhod provides imegration of'fese
procedural steps mto one owalj ^roc^remenlstep mc'ludmgeKESuringo^fy well qualified
contractors will design aRd boM tlie jxoject. Based cm tlie FMO's ev^hiatioti, asmg tlie DesigBBuild delivery "setho^ the anticipated total amo^mt of time to desiga and CQnq>!ete:a)£islrBaioE
of the Project will be reduced to 28 mo^hs. Staff and LCC concur.
Therefore, the proposed use ofBesigti-BviM is anticipated to meet the reqwrement of
it
&^^^g^P^^scomp^^otf'bec^^itwiBtake^^^^^tQadtievec£ pletio^
of the Project using theDesign-Wd meAcx^ versias nsmg the design-bid -build project
delivery method. For fc re^sc® alone, the Design-Md delivery method sfcoA be BS£^ fbr Ae
Project.
3. ^Provide features n©t aeluevaNe tbroitsh ftee traditional design-Nd-bianN mefhodl^
The applicable law express]y recogmzes by tfee language in and the purpose bdiiad the stMNes
that using the Design-Build delivery method wiM simplify constmction and reduce its complexity
when compared to using tfae low/hri Nd delivery me^faod These are features tfoM are noi
achievable through the design-W-Wd delivery metod
Generally speakmg most "constroction compJexity" OB public works projects come,& fmm
incomplete, conflicting, unaxxdinMed md/w constnxction documents that ccmtam ermrs,
omissions, ambiguities, conflicts, and ofher defiaenoes. Th.s then creates potezing posrtions
between the public entity owner and architect, on the one hand, and the contractor aBdtheimblic
entity owner, cm the other fa^iid. As these situations are eaceMmtered, aFgimients eB£^ea& to
whether the construction doaTife are. or are not mcompl^ conflictmg, iMieooAated,, an4W
contain errors, omissions, deficiencies, etc. (all of which posits liability on the public entity)
and/or whether or not the cootractor knew or shemtd have knowQ (whicfa may shift iiabilit^ aw^y
from the public entity owner and onto (he eortractor). _ Such polariang positioas, are greariy
heightened m pKyeets where a contractor's £3q>ertise coFuld be of great a^istance m the Sesagn,
but whichis prohibited by law ^tlie teig^-Nd-NiiM (hard/low bid) metfeod ofFocmeme^is
used TIus mcreases risk to Ae public: emity on s^di pmjeas where tiie desigB-bid-teild
(hard/iow bid) method ofprociMeme;m is, u:sed.
Conversely, in the experience of District Staff, Ae PMO and the LCC, where: a csmtract.or'-s
expertise ^ can be used to design md ccmsfracf such projects as pan of a desigEi-teild team,
construction complexity is sigmfantly reduced as tlie entity that must bniy fc pr^jea also
Designs it pursuant to perfonna^ce^project criteria estaNis.ii.ed by tihe public entity o.wner. Tfeis is
wfaat is being dcme OJlthep |e£tatLOS ABge]e^ Trade Technical College. The Besign-BBild
Entity has to design and build rfie Projea. M is m its own best interests to eiisw that tfae^: are
mcomplete, conflicting, -tineoondmatect eno^ omissions, deficiencies, etc. m tfae design and
construction documents. If'there: are any fmmd cfariBg construction, the Design-ByiiN Entity feas
.BQ
Board of Trustees - Chancellor
^??-l?-T"S^d-?-mJL?r^r? Avenu:e Enten'c&ment Phase 1 and Blue Une Extension Project at Los
Angeles Trade Technical CoEiege
October 14, 2015 - Page 6 of 6
to bear the risk of loss and cost to overcome same from a cost and time standpoint These are all
features that are not achievable under tfae teiga-bid-bmld delivery metlioSi For tUs reason
alone, the Design-Build deimary mefeod siio^N be used for tfee Prqject.
V.
CONCLUSIONS
As mentioned above, the De^gB-BuiMstMEites reepire that thegovemmg board of a eoimBumty
college district make written fMings £hat: m& of 'the desigifi-bmld process win accomp!ish (me (ff
thefo/hwmg objectives-^ (l)redBee compaiable project costs; (2) expedite the pFoject's
completion, or (3) provide foitees not adhievaNe tiiKmgh the traditional desigQ-Nd-teiy
method.
The foregoing faidmgs by District Sta^ the PNO and LCC demoBStrate tfeat ^r ^^ fflw^ Ntt
all three of the requrrements tonse &e DesigrKBui Id delivery method are present fbrtfoe Ptoject
and warrant use of the Design-Bitild mefcd for she: Pmjeet
Lastly, the District has determined tlie sabjeef PFoject is exempt, for a variety of reasons torn
further analysis under the California EEvirQmBenta! Quality Act. fSee AttacJmient ttAM...faereto)
>
/
FPD3 ATTACHMENT A
<T
^
NCTCT QI pxsMpno^
p_
^
TO:
FROM: LOS Angstes Coutmmfty CoUw District
D
(Public
Ageixy)
Office of PlsoniagmdRfiscarch
P.O. Box 3044, Rwm 113
I
E
CA 95812-3044
CwaayOsA
Address 770 WUalA» Blvd,
County of Las Angeles
LosAttgeIes.CA 90017
LOT Angeles Tnxte Technical College Onaad Avc.
Enhanouaeut - Blue Line Station Extension Project
Los Angttefi Community CoSlege Dtrtrict
Project Titte:
1,
t.
Project Applicant;
2.
*d
Tl_^
A
cte
s
Prqect Location^ Idcotify rtreettttttiress aa!
cross streets or tftacft a map dwwtag project she
3.
t*
es
(preferably a USGS 15' w7 1/2* top^paphical
map idantfflod! by quwinmgte aaane):
400 West Wuhington Blvd., Los Angctcs.
U(WWVIWWI
te to be kiattadalong Cmqwut firxHih®8 wftb
Grand Awnuc, the iatanection ofGrmd Avmueand
Wariiungtoo Blvd.. and u the campus rotry&t23rf Street
and Ftoww Street
4
(s) Project Location-City: Los Angeles
5.
Dwcriptfon of mature, purpose, eod beaefidarfes
of Project
(b) Vmjpct Location -County: LaaAngstes
Tt» project oonrfsts ofstmteapcwyrovmwttBtownpus
ta-p »<M A^«. «d W.dlhgl.n Bo«tev«l;^
Has Wwt Une mil h»nrit statjon. Such improvemartt wilt
coffidstofDewbiKteaptaferepatnttngofhinortc
ISWM. n»»ri aH»»vi»t^km^
^I-wof^^ ,»&" ^ n^^-u.nnh,
1
v
SEP 1 8 2U15
wsfmses.cwsmsassi
^to°^ri<fcw«&wid&.to«t»nattonofcampu»«itiy
ntwnan^ rign^gc, tenuit aboltora arol camiRB totcfauE.
Additional ^sayswwwass^msy tnchnls nsecondary CTtty
P^» at 23nt Street nd FiouwStewt The imprwcmcnts
?l?jJ?-^?SS-tnlSnr,!l.?Bed fbrad<Btto*»'P*Hc
scmw or utitfticn. t»d will be conuructod by work crws
utiimng staudwd construct.oo pncttcca and lirotttd
amouuto of equipment Thepurpow oftbt pmject is to
provute an hnprovcdBcsthctic and functkmal interface
twtwwn the campus add the ftdjacwt BIw Law rail transit
line and providt a more pronouDcod campus gateway
BetMfS^riw of the pngoct would include toa Angetes
J"*> T<«h"»cal College employees, fcculty, studwts, and
the public at large.
6.
Name of Publk Agency approving project;
Los Angeles Community CoFtegc District
7,
Name of Person or Afioncy undertaking dw
project, inchid big any person undcrtakmg an
L<» Angetes Community College District
^
f
activity thst receives fioanciBl watetance fiiimi tfae
PuUKc A^wy w part of tihe activity w da penraaaa
reostvtog a torn. pwtoit, itesasc, ocittficate. or
otiua'aBttBucncntofuwftoBBdtonitUfcAaoacy
as part of Ac activity;
8.
Exempt sta&u: (citccteooe)
.^fj ;. to- ^^Ih.i^iiHuj^+tfl. n^^rf^^v
(a)
D
(b)
a
id,
Notice of Exemption
r
" 'itstim
MfciuterisJ project.
(Pub^w. Code § 2i(M%db)(I): &tetoCEQA Gai^Itatt §
15268)
Not a project,
FORM "B"
a
(c)
Emergency Project
(P"yt".Codc §21086(bX4); State CEQA Guuieiines §
CHtegffricRl Exemption.
Strtc type and section number:
or Conversion ofslnallstlructurcs)» 1551] (Accessory
15269(b),(c))
N»* u
(d)
IS
Sate CEQA GuMtelinw Swtioas 1530? (New ConwuctioD
Stroctures), and 15314 (Minor Additions to Schools)
<pub-Kfis" Code S 21 080(bX3): Stue CEQA Guidelines §
*
(e)
<0
D
a
Decinrod EmmsCTtcy.
152W(a))
Sta&aory Exemption.
Stttte Code section oumber
(e)
IS
State CEQA Guidelinw Section I5063(b)(3)
Otitw. Expleuation:
9.
Reason why progect was exempt
See attached PreUmimry Eovtnmmental Assessment
10.
Lead Agency Contact Person:
Thomas Halt
Telephone:
(213)89]-2119
Director, Facilities PIannmg and Devetopment
11. iffited by applicant: Attach Pnsliminary EwmpUon Assessment (Fonn "A") before filing.
12, Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency nppioving the project? YBS Q No
13. Was a pttblic hewrog Iicld by the lead agwcy to conaidcr tfic cxemirtiun? Yes Q No
^
Kt
if yes, Ac date of the public hearing was:
Signature:
^
,^^^
IS Signed by Lead Agency
t
Date:
%^
/3//r
7
7
"3^
Title; Dinctor. Facilities Planning
and Development, LACCD
Q Signed by Applicant
Date Received fin- Filmg:
(CteA Stamp Hare)
Authority cited: Scctions2]083nad2!t(K),PublicRfl80UTCC8CodeL
Reference: Sections 21 !06. 21152, and 211521, Public Resources Code.
Notice of ExunpSwn
FORM "B"
»
p
ASSBSSWQENT
(Certificate ofDetBnnteaian
When Attached to Notice ofExcroptbit)
1. Nasncordcscriptkmofprojwt
2. Project LocaDoc-IdflBtify street
address and cross streeu or BCach a
map showing project site (pTeftrabty a
USGS 15' or 7 l&' topograpkical map
identified by qusdrenglc name);
3.
Entity or pwwn undwtefctog project
Los Angelas Truto Tmfanical CoUcg® Gnmd Aw. Enhancwneat-Bhie
Line Station Extwrwn Projoct
400 Wert Wuhtegton Btvd, Los Ajigeles.
ImpiuvBiuwiu to be located along Campus fruntagc with Grand Avenue,
the intereactias of Grand Avenue and Wttahiogton Blvd., and at the
caropus entry at 23rd Stretrt and Ftowcr Street
Los Angctea Community Coliflgo Chstrict
A.
B. OAw (Private)
J
(D
Name
(2) Address
4
h
Staff DctCTTOinatioc;
t£ciJ.^?A^£3L's<is?51?^i2;!I?SI'!SLS!?^31!??li.E?!StS?J^?^-?*t^? *??j<? m,^l???c< W1th
theLi"!?^iBI^?'JB "LO?at,<?"(telu?ai.for,In?fc!ItCTtiI4?the CBIjfi?n)ia Enviro»locntai Quality Act (CEQA)" has
conchried that this project does not require further envtronmentai Msesaneni because:
a.
D
Tte propowd actioa does not cuutftute a project muter CTQA
b.
a
The proiwt is a MtQEStcnal Project.
c.
d.
e.
D
Ties project ia an Emergency Project
D
ia
Tte pn4wt coastftutea a feaaibiBty or phaaAa® rtudy.
The project is cetceoricaity exuaapt
Applicable Exemption Class:
Cteua 3.11. and 14. THe project consists ofatrwtocape
hoprovcmcnts to campus ftoartage oo Gnnui AVOTBS and
Washington Boutewrd, near the Blue Unc nu! traaait
station. Such maprovemcmswiit consist of rww
todaayiag. wpamdag of historic tBmpposte, mnova] of
damaged artwoik pyknu. rcptacmnsnt of mMttnwt pmking
t
with vwtetod biomnto and incnawd BktewaBt width,
tnstollBtfooofcRBngna owy monnuHnrt '^CFf^ tmisit
sbrften^ndcwBpwftncing. Additional bnpiweowts
may include Bsocondary why phaaai 23rd Street and
Flower Street. The improvmHartB win not geaerste traffic
or» nwcHinr additional public services or imiities, and wilt
be constructed by work crews utiliztng atandard
construction practices and iimtod «muurts of equipment
I
Accwiingfy, Ac project is uwmpt under Class 3 (New
CemttwtionarCoaywian ofSmriI Structum)bcc^ it
mvolve»thccowtructi<»of-^w»ary(«ppurtcD«it)
stTwturcsinchidine garages. carportB, patios, swimmtng
poote, and feaasi": Ctaia 11 (Accewewy Streta ») benu»
^ pn^ "Goaarf^ of <<matnictte»» or replacement of
miooT fltnuftures ftrowsory to... ex»ting... tetftaitfonsl
fecOttitt"; and CteaW (Miw Addftto to Schooln)
bocaase the project "conststB of minor a&littoiB to iating
schools within existing acbool grounds. when the addition
Aws not incnaac wjgind school capacity fay more than
pTclEminary Exemption Asaessnant
FORM "A"
Nt***
j25%ortenclassroomaw
f
D
e
Kl
The project is Btetutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
The project is otherwise exempt on
Thc Proiwt is cxcmpt "«*®>I State CEQA Guidelines section
t506I(b)(3). fe^it can be seen with certainty that th.
dffi foltowing Iwsis;
^cctdkttsaot have a possibility ofwuiting in a
rignificanit impact on the cnvirocanmt. Non® of the
activities listed piwwusly that will be conducted in
furtbero^ of the project would rwutt in signtfiamt
h.
D
iiapwta due to Ac arian tocBtion af the project and the
uBttllacopeofthe imprwromtB propowd.
The project nwohfes attOffter public agency which constitutes the Lead Aysacy.
Name ofLeed Agency;
Date:
^5:
Steffi
^57^^
c^
Thomas Hall
Director, Facilities Planning and Drvclopmcnt
Pnlnninary Excaptfan Asseasctast
FORM "A"
??
0
1
.o
-r^
m
r^.
"3
<£
t
*
v
^
LOS.,An9e!es cour1ty ^a^strar / Recortfer
12400 HnperUt Highway, Norwa1k"CA
trt
f".
(800)20^-8999
0
I-
0
s
c=>
w
CM
u0
tH
Business Filings
HQRKALK
*f*
?> UJ
s
fc
fr*+
»
Lt-
^
^*^
cashLer: K- 8RAILSFORD
t^
ac
* 2 o 15""o"f"F8TT^'T'oT"?UE
Friday, September 18, 2015 9:50 AM
c?
0
<-»
t-
t/>
r~-
It8)E(s
w
0
Fee
t^
p
sis
Qt.
Total
fr»f
KoE_-county Posting Fee 1
2015241410
<"
.*-'
&
Lf>
f<
^
r<.
1-t
*^
en
ca
<.^
t
^
c
UT>
*-1
1^.
r">
&>
s
1-
I
»-<
f'
<y
6?
I %
^
1,
4**
total
$75.00
Total Oocmnents;
Customer pay»ent(s):
i
0' r~>
0
t"-l
$75.00
Check
$75.00
Check List:
^362903
(75,00
ir
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRIC
CITY/ EAST/ HARBOR / MISSION / PERCE / SOUTHWEST/TRADE-TECHN1CAL /VALLEY/WEST
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMBER INQUIRY
ATTACHMENT A3
Item No. 2015-20
Subject: CH1/ APProveLOS Angeles Trade-Technical College's Strategic Educational
Master Plan/ 2014-2017
Additional
information is provided regarding agenda item CH1 on the November 4th Board meeting
agenda.
Submitted By: Bobbi Kimble, Interim Vice Chancellor/
Educational Programs and Institutional
Effectiveness
Date: November 4/ 2015
s
ACTION
Board of Trustees
*
Los Angeles Community College District
Corn. No. CH1
Division: CHANCELLOR
Date: November 4, 2015
Subject: APPROVE LOS ANGELES TRADE-TECHNICAL COLLEGE'S STRATEGIC
EDUCATIONAL MASTER PLAN. 2014-2017
^p-p-roXT-.tf?^?.t^teg^^ca.ti?nal Master. plan' Student Success Through
Innovation (SEMP) - 2014-2017 for Los Angeles Trade-Technical College.
Background: Accreditation standards require that colleges submit their strategic
plans to the Board of Trustees for review and approval on a regular basis to
assure constant institutional improvement. These plans are meant to provide
colleges with a framework for^systematic self-analysis, public accountability, and
institutional goal setting. On October 21, 2015, the Board's Institutional
Effectiveness and Student Success Committee reviewed the "Los Angeles Trade-
Technical College Strategic Educational Master Plan" and recommended'its
approval by the Board.
Approved by:
Francisco C. Rodriguez, Chancellor
Chancellor and
Secretary of the Board of Trustees
By
Page
Date
o*
I Pages Corn. No. CH1
Div. Chancellor
Eng
Moreno
Fong
Pea rim an
Hoffman
Svonkin
Kamlager
Anderson
Student Trustee Advisory Vote
Date
11/4/15
idi rttiis mif-iKN
!^^^^^^^^?^^?
tilt)*
Los Angeles Trade-TechnicaI College
Strategic Educational Master Plan
Executive Summary
October 21,2015
The Los Angeles Trade-Techmcal College Strategic Educational Master Plan, Student Success Through
Innovation (SEMP)-2014'2017, merges and builds on the 2012-2015 Strategic Master (SMP) and
Educational Master Plans (EMP) and focuses on what the College plans to accomplish by 2017.
The plan was developed in compliance with Title 5 regulations. The purpose of the plan is to outline the
College's vision, mission, values, and strategic priorities. The underlying strategy behind the plan is the
Pathways to Academic, Career, and Transfer Success (PACTS) Framework. The College's commitment and
work up to today to implement PACTS has led us to recommit ourselves to the continued implementation of
this ambitious plan with a few refinements. Thus, the 2012-2015 SMP and EMP have been combined into
one document and updated, building on progress to date and extending the timeline for completion through
2017.
The plan contains goals, actions, and evaluation measures. The plan goals are:
.
.
To.devT.loF^tr^egie?.for.pliannm^ an(? decision;makmg that engage the entire college community and
ensure that its direction is shaped by the future learning needs of the community the college serves.
To provide the direction and parameters for designing and implementing programs and activities.
LATTC has established five strategic priorities with innovative changes to enhance student success. The
College is commined to transforming the student experience through curriculum innovation and the PACTS
implementation. This transformation will incorporate the appropriate Student Support Semces, Faculty and
Staff Development activities and adequate Funding while enhancing the Campus Experience and Culture.
The plan's "big picture" strategies are catalysts for ongoing innovation, and change.
Development of the 2012-2015 plan was a yearlong process. It included review of the mission, vision
?
statements, and core values; as well as development, implementation of the College's strategic priorities and
action plans. The process also ensured that the plan was integrated with other college plans and the District
Strategic Plan.
The process for developing the plan involved the following steps:
.
.
Environmental Scan to help determine what was happening in the college environment.
SWOC analysis - to help determine the College's Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Challenges.
.
.
.
.
.
Focus groups. Days of Dialogue and Open forum sessions to give and receive feedback about the
planning process.
Identification of strategic issues
Survey to assess overall feelings about the strategic areas.
Setting Strategic priorities based on feedback.
Distribution of draft plan for feedback.
The 2012-15 SMP and EMP plans were approved by the Academic Senate (on 04/25/12) and College
Council (on 04/16/12). The updated 2015-2017 SEMPplan was approved by the Academic Senate (on
6/2/2015) and by College Council (on 6/3/2015).
.^
I
^
SE^
®.^
-i
,/
+
^
»»
/.
*t
^
<». <
i,*-
>'
r
f^.
..
*.
^*t
».<
^
f
»
?
u
f
.
\
^
^'
^<r
S-W
t
^»»-
'^F
i-*-"'
f
.1^
a'
^.
1
v
.\
',
^
I
''*
.1
I
''^
<.
^
I
.i
1/
.'.- ^
*
f^
,\
< fi
f
,t
*
*
^
.n
<*s
,<
.^
-<1
.I"
t
w
fc
Metroj^
%>?
'^.
»
^
I't
s
<r
\
^
»
7
y.
J
^
*I
r*
i:
STRATEGIC EDUCATIONAL
MASTER
PLAN
(S
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF TRUS
?
<
Larry Frank, President
h
-^
T^-
Leticia Barajas, Vice President
Anna Badalyan, Dean
^!
.*.
OCTOBER 21. 2015
'^
.k
e.-V.
»
?
v
ABOUT LATTCS SEMP
Plan Name: Strategic Educational Master Plan: Student Success
Through Innovation [SEMP)
.
. Dates covered: 2014-2017
Updates and builds on progress of: 2012-2015 SMP and EMP
.
Purpose: to outline the College's vision, mission, values,
strategic priorities and allow LATTC to recommit to the
implementation of the PACTS pathways.
.
f-^r-
:~*
II
**t
^
A
;!
2
/*.
.
*
'<* -
^
r<*
^
%
^
*
4f_
«
A
^
^-LA^
< u-
t.^lAA"':
KY
*,r
J
J.
»
f
PLAN GOALS
1. To develop strategies for planning and decision-making that
engage the entire college community. Ensure that its direction is
shaped by the future learning needs of the community the
college serves.
*
2. To provide the direction and parameters for designing and
implementing programs and activities.
s
»
t-SE
K
'«'
_r
"*-
3
1
^-= f
A
- . *- -.
^hdd*a
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND MAJOR ACTION PLANS
Strategic Priority
Action Plan(s)
SP#1:LATTC Pathways Implement the PACTS Pathways
.
to Academic, Career,
and Transfer Success
Evaluation Measures
Attain Institutional Set-Standards
.
Implement PACTS Tiers I and II
Course Completion: 70%
.
Formalize an Instructional Support Services Program tied to PACTS
Develop K-12-LATTC-Career Program
Retention Rate: 56%
.
[PACTS)
Certificate Attainment: 5.3%
Degree Attainment: 2.7%
Transfer: 1.3%
SP #2: Student Support
SP #3: Trade Tech
.
Evaluate and Improve Counseling and Advisement Services
75% of new (non-exempt) students
.
Make Student Service Processes "Student Focused"
complete Assessment, Orientation,
.
Improve the friendliness of the LATTC Experience and Campus
Counseling [currently at 71%1
Improve employee satisfaction by 5%
Experience and Campus Improve Formal Campus Communication and Governance
Build a Robust LATTC Campus Culture - theme of "lifting an entire
Culture
.
.
*
as measured in Campus Climate
Survey over 2014-15 baseline
rt
community
.
SP #4: Faculty and Staff
.
Development
.
.
SP #5: Funding
.
.
.
Ensure the Facilities Master Plan and Building Priorities Support the
SEMP Strategic Priorities
Establish a LATTC Teaching Academy to Institutionalize Innovative
Teaching-Learning approaches
Improve Information About, Access to, and Application of Faculty and
75% of faculty and staff engage in
rofessional development
pportunities that align to student
Staff Development
Opportunities
success efforts
Design, implement and refine the Strategic Cost Management Model with
Pathway funding model developed
Revenue Centers
and piloted
Identify and Implement Revenue Generating Ideas
Diversify LATTC's Funding Sources by Revitalizing the Foundation
1
<
\
<
PROCESS AND APPROVALS TIMELINE
:^KK.
h
f?'fsv
*
. Process:
I*
^
> Environmental Scan
> SWOC analysis
> Focus groups. Days of Dialogue and Open Forums
> Identification of strategic issues
> Survey to assess overall feelings about the strategic areas.
> Feedback loops
> Set up strategic priorities based on input and feedback
.
Approvals:
^ ^^~??1^ -plans: Academic Senate [04/25/12); College Council [04/16/12]
> 2015-2017 Update: Academic Senate [06/02/15); College Council (06/03/15)
1
t
f
A
»
*"^
»<
f
.s
Jt
ji
.
^
?J*
^^
^fe -i
ffc:
A
^ ^
»
-*< *
jj
SSi
t
'*^:.:'-kd.-^h
^'xs.
?*
%fe
f
.\
V
INTEGRATION OF LACCD AND LATTC PLANS
LACCD
GOAL 1: Access and Preparation for Success
LATTC
.
.
.
.
GOAL 2: Teaching and Learning for Success
.
.
.
.
.
I
GOAL 3: Organizational Effectiveness
.
.
GOAL 4: Resources and Collaboration
SEMP 1 - LATTC PACTS (Tier 1 and 2]
ATD Priority 1- Increasing math readiness
Student Equity Plan
SSSP
SEMP 1 - LATTC PACTS (Tier 3 and 4)
SEMP 2 - Student Support
ATD Priority 2 - Increasing math completion in program of study
Student Equity Plan
SSSP
SEMP 3 - Trade Tech Experience and Campus Culture
SEMP 4 - Faculty and Staff Development
.
SEMP 5 - Funding
.
SEMP 3.3 - Community Asset and Partner
*r
*
@?)
^
w
/
X:
^S^S:
;*.
T...S1 V. -**,A...-
^LA-
n,
dfa
.*-A«w
jna^rf.
-
I I
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRIC
CITY / EAST / HARBOR / MISSION / PIERCE / SOUTHWEST / TRADE -TECHNiCAL / VALLEY / WEST
CHANCELLORS OFFICE
RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMBER INQUIRY
Received From: Board Member Sydney Kamlaqer
ATTACHMENT I
Item No. 2015-21
Subject: Top 15 Feeder High Schools
Board Member Kamlager had requested information regarding the top feeder schools for each.
Attached is the information provided to Ms. Kamlager.
For each college/ the high schools are listed in order of highest enrollment of new students
2014 and shows new student enrolment for Fall 2011-FalF2014/ their graduation rates,-and
in fall
percentage of students placed in basic skills English and Math. The high school graduation rates were
obtained torn the California Department of Education, DataQuest System; assessment/placement is
from APMS data stored on the DEC.
Submitted By: M9ury Pearl/ Associate Vice Chancellor Date: November 4/ 2015
for Institutional Effectiveness
»
Top 15 Feeder High Schools; CITY
nrollment of New StuElents
School N3 me
District
Fall 2011
Fall 201
A
X
High Sfchoo
% Assessed
% Assessed
Students Who Students Who
Qraduatjon
Were Placed Were Placed
Fall 2013 Fall 2014 R^te(2013- in Basic Skills
in Basic Skills
14)
Enplish (2014
Math (2014
John Marshall Ssnior High
Los Angeles Unified
123
108
103
84
80,6%
33,5%
70.8%
Hollywood Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
128
55
46
S3
90,7%
36,9%
75.0%
Fairfax Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
54
51
53
70
84,3%
35,0%
55.0%
0
0
8
45
79.7%
57,5%
73.0%
West Adams Preparatory High Los Angeles Unified
Manual Arts Senior High
LQS Angeles Unified
41
46
39
42
78.7%
57,7%
80,2%
Los Angoles Senior High
Lo$ Angelas Unified
61
49
47
34
57.9%
57,5%
76,8%
Los Angeles Unified
0
0
4
27
71,5%
49.4%
75.0%
Belmont Senior High
Los Angelas Liptff^d
60
4g
3g
27
78,6%
55,8%
85.7%
Helen BemsteJn High
Los Angelas Unified
0
0
5
22
@§,B°/o
50,0%
75,0%
os Angeles Unified
10
8
19
I?
94.1%
25.9%
55.6%
omplex
Los Angelgs Unified
0
0
3
1^
n/si
58,S%
70.7%
:tty of Angels
Los Angeles Unfftgd
6
5
0
15
n/§i
50,0%
91,2%
Roybal LC-Cjvltas School of
Leadership
Los Angeles Unified
0
D
0
14
674%
71.4%
66,7%
Los Angeles Unified
23
22
13
14
96,7%
17.5%
34,8%
os Angeles Unified
17
23
16
13
87.0%
66,7%
64.5%
Edward R, Roybal Learning
/*
enter
Downtown Business High
^igue! Contreras Learning
w
rancisco Bravo Medical
Magnet High
University Senior High
Source; High school graduation rates from California Dep^rtm^nt Qf Education
All other ddtci frQm LACCD Student fnfQrmatjon System
Top 15 Feeder High Schools: EAST
% Assessed
Enrollment of New Students
School Name
<3radu<ition
District
Fall 2011
Fall 2012
Fall 2013
% Assessed
High School Students Who
Students Who
Fall 2014
Were Placed
Rate (2013in Basic SkUls
14)
Enelish(2014-
Were Placed
in Basic Skills
Math(2014-
SchurrHigh
Montebello Unified
244
240
219
198
93.2%
41.9%
75.8%
Montebelto High
Montebello Unified
197
163
159
178
93.0%
46.6%
77,3%
James A, Garfield Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
286
183
161
142
87.2%
44.3%
75,1%
Bell Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
192
162
127
132
82,4%
50,0%
79,8%
Mark Keppeil High
Alhambra Unified
138
145
137
121
98.4%
24.5%
32,0%
Alhambrei High
Alhambra Unified
164
135
1Q©
107
93.9%
413%
54.6%
Bglf gardens High
IVIontebello Unified
Ill
86
119
105
90.8%
47,4%
84.4%
South Gate Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
91
79
66
9-4
93.2%
44.8%
74,7%
Los Angeles Unified
135
105
39
85
78.9%
42.5%
83.2%
Woodrow Wilson Senior High Los Angeles Unified
114
96
77
84
85.0%
39.5%
84.7%
Theodore Roosevelt Senior
High
San Gabriel High
Alhambra Unified
87
87
67
81
96.2%
39.3%
53.6%
South East High
Los Angeles Unified
46
20
20
72
83.0%
43.9%
77.4%
Huntington Park Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
146
118
125
68
78.7%
52,0%
85.0%
Maywood Academy High
Los Angeles Unified
25
26
5
55
80.0%
42,2%
76,9%
Abraham Lincoln Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
89
77
41
^4
77,3%
0.07sro
78,7%
Source: High school graduation rates from California Department of Education
All other data from LACCD Student Information System
t
Top 15 Feeder High Schools: HARBOR
Enrollment of New Students
School Name
High School
Graduation
District
Fall 2011 Falf 2012
Fall 2013 Fait 2014
Rate (2013
14)
a
% Assessed
% Assessed
Students Who Students Who
W^rg Placed Were Placed
n Basic Skills
in Basic Skills
English (2014-
Math (2014
Phineas Banning Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
182
189
167
207
74.9%
25.3%
82.4%
San Pedro Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
185
203
186
186
83.5%
12,7%
77.9%
Nathaniel Narbonne Senior
High
Los Angeles Unified
153
164
163
114
71,9%
21,6%
85.3%
Carson Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
162
146
120
109
80.7%
25,0%
90,1%
Port of Los Angeles High
Los Angeles Unified
0
0
0
63
94.8%
10,1%
67,6%
Torrance High
Torranc§ Unified
52
43
53
41
98.1%
7,9%
84,2%
35
20
16
39
99.0%
13,6%
53,5%
0
2
6
19
99,8%
7,1%
59,1%
Paios Verdgs Peninsula High
Palo$Verdes High
Palos Verdes
Pgnjnsul^ Unified
P§lo§V@rdes
pigninsula Unified
Gardgna Senior High
LosAnpleg Unified
32
21
2
18
81,1%
23,5%
94.1%
South High
Torr§nc@ Unified
36
21
27
15
95.7%
17.4%
85.0%
West High
Torrance Unified
7
11
12
14
96.7%
5,9%
64.7%
^anchodel MarHigl
(Continuation
Palos Verdes
Peninsula Unified
4
5
13
10
91,3%
143%
NA
North High
Torrance Unified
12
8
8
10
98.1%
4,8%
75.0%
12
21
13
10
96.4%
8.3%
92.6%
10
4
3
9
78.1%
10,0%
90.9%
Redondo Union High
Hawthorne High
Redondo Beach
Unified
Centinela Valley
Union High
Source; High school graduation rates from CaiifQrnia Department of Education
All other data from LACCD Student Inform^tjon Syst@m
Top 15 Feeder High Schools: MISSION
Enrollment of New Students
School Name
High School
Graduation
District
Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013
Fall 2014
Rate(201314}
% Assessed
% Assessed
Students Who Students Who
Were Placed Were Placed
in Basic Skills
in Basic Skills
Enelish (2014"
Math (2014
Sylmar Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
149
139
Ill
174
82.5%
62.0%
77.4%
San Fernando Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
156
122
118
133
83,1%
62,1%
73,4%
John F. Kennedy High
Los Angeles Unified
118
136
94
122
83.0%
58.6%
68.9%
Verdugo Hills Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
60
31
39
64
88.8%
53.6%
65.4%
Arleta High
Las Angeles Unifiecf
21
3
3
59
92.1%
58.0%
66,7%
John H, Francis Polytechnie
Los Angeles Unified
78
72
38
59
85.9%
72.0%
78.2%
James Monroe High
Los Angeles Unified
79
©1
43
57
82.8%
65.9%
70,6%
Granada Hills Charter High
Los Angeles Unified
53
33
33
46
95,4%
33,3%
40,7%
Los Angeles Unified
26
11
16
22
89.0%
59.4%
60.0%
Burbank Unified
0
0
3
20
26.1%
61.8%
80.6%
Birmingham Community
Charter High
Options for Youth-Burbank
Charter
Van Nuys Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
22
20
13
19
86.3%
39.3%
50.0%
North Hollywood Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
13
20
14
16
85.0%
54.5%
55.2%
Ulysses 5. Grant Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
11
21
13
15
81.9%
69,2%
64.3%
Chatsworth Charter High
Los Angeles Unified
27
21
11
12
88.3%
50.0%
63.2%
Los Angeles Unified
5
9
16
10
n/a
34.8%
87.0%
North Valley Occupational
Center
Source: High school graduation reites frQm California Department of Educ^tiQn
All other datg from LACCD Student information System
+
Top 15 Feeder High Schools: PIERCE
% Assessed % Assessed
Students Who Students Who
Graduation
Were Placed Were Placed
Rate(2013Fall 2014
in Basic Skills
in Basic Skills
14)
Enelish (2014 Math (2014
Enrollment of New Students
Schoot Name
District
Fall 2011 Fall 2Q12 Fall 2013
High School
Tt
.BT
El Camino Real Charter High
Los Angeles Unified
263
210
214
261
94,1%
39.7%
45,5%
William Howard Taft Charter
High
Los Angeles Unified
226
231
188
212
89,5%
38.4%
45.9%
Grover Clevelancl Charter High
Los Angeles Unified
191
210
199
196
84,1%
61.9%
60.0%
Chatsworth Charter High
Los Angetes Unified
178
159
144
148
88.3%
57.4%
62,0%
Los Angeles Unified
124
167
121
145
89.0%
65.7%
67.8%
Granada Hilh Charter High
Los Angeles Unified
165
146
114
140
95.4%
38.6%
38.2%
Reseda Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
124
133
132
136
90.0%
59,9%
67,4%
Canoga Park Senior High
Los Angeles Unifigd
108
121
Ill
121
72,5%
64,2%
68,8%
J^imes MonrQe High
Los Angeles Unified
65
86
84
87
82,8%
67.2%
62.0%
Van Nuys Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
77
109
88
79
§6,3%
51,2%
56.3%
North Hollywood Senior High
LosAngefes Unified
49
65
49
78
85.0%
60.2%
46.3%
Sherman Osks Center for
nriched Studies
Los Angeles Unified
34
33
47
51
96,1%
25.4%
28,2%
Calabasas High
LasVirgenes Unified
56
41
59
49
95,7%
21,3%
23.9%
John H. Francis Polytechnic
Los Angeles Unified
28
49
33
39
85,9%
73.1%
58.2%
Arleta High
Los Angeles Unified
2
0
1
34
92,1%
73.3%
75.0%
Birmingham Community
Charter High
Source; High school graduation rates from California Department of Education
All other data from LACCD Student Information System
Top 15 Feeder High Schools: SOUTHWEST
Enrollment of New Students
School Name
Graduation
District
Fall 2011
George Washington
Preparatory High
John C Fremont Senior High
Hawthorne High
High School
Fall 2012 Fall 2013
R^te (2013
% Assessed
% Assessed
Students Who Students Who
Were Placed Were Placed
T
Fall 2014
14)
in Basic Skills
in BasicSkills
Enelish (2014"
Math (2014-
Los Angeles Unified
42
33
48
41
70.7%
84.6%
91.5%
Los Angeles Unified
23
20
31
29
63.2%
81.6%
93.5%
9
6
10
23
78,1%
67,7%
93.1%
Centinela Valley
Union High
Gardens Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
17
25
16
21
81,1%
82.1%
98.1%
Morningside High
nglewood Unified
22
10
21
20
67,8%
80.5%
90.2%
IVtanual Arts Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
13
16
19
17
78.7%
72,4%
92.3°/o
Centennial High
Compton Unified
7
10
17
16
75,6%
92,©%
96.3%
Crenshaw Science/
Los Angeles Unified
Technology/ Engineering/ Math
27
19
16
16
78,3%
70,6%
96.8%
WESM Health/Sports Medicine Lo§ Angeles Unified
15
18
17
14
83,8%
73.1%
89,3%
Los Angeles Unified
12
12
16
13
96,1%
63,6%
69.6%
Compton Unified
8
2
10
10
68.4%
86.4%
95.0%
Los Angeles Unified
7
7
9
10
76.1%
82.4%
90.3%
Centinela Valley
Union High
11
11
10
9
81.5%
95.0%
94.4%
Los Angeles Unified
2
1
4
8
92.7%
62.5%
71.4%
Paramount Unified
4
4
2
8
92,1%
53,8%
71.4%
Kjng/Drew Medical Magnet
High
Compton High
Susan Miller Dorsey Senior
High
Leuzinger High
Animo South Los Angeles
Charter
Paramount High
Source; High school graduation rgtg? from Cdljfornja Department of Educgtfon
All other data from LACCD Student Information System
*.
<
»
Top 15 Feeder High Schools: TRADE-TECH
Enrollment of New Students
School Name
Manual Arts Senior High
Fall 201:1
% Assessed % Assessed
Students Who Students Who
Graduation
Were Placed Were Placed
Rate(2013
in Basic Skills in Basic Skills
High School
Di$tri<A
F^ll 2011
*
Fall 2013 Fall 2014
»
14)
English (2014- Math {2014
Los Angeles Unified
54
40
62
66
78,7%
51.6%
91.0%
Thomas Jefferson Senior High Los Angeles Unified
70
75
80
63
61,9%
52,2%
91.0%
John C, Fremont Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
44
36
59
48
63.2%
64.2%
93.0%
Befmont Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
26
20
23
30
78.6%
64.9%
89.7%
West Adams Preparatory High Los Angefes Unified
Susan Miller Dorsey Senior
High
Los Angeles Unified
0
0
5
27
79.7%
61.5%
92.2%
30
14
25
27
76,1%
58.1%
97,6%
Los Angeles Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
32
34
25
26
57.9%
45.3%
90,7%
Huntington Park Senior High
Edward R. Roybal Learning
Los Angeles Unified
39
22
37
2S
78.7%
54.8%
93.8%
Center
Los Angeles Unified
0
0
2
21
71,5%
60,0%
100.0%
Fairfax Senior High
Los Angelas Unified
18
Zl
15
XB
84.3%
59,4%
94.3%
High
Lo^ Angetes Unified
31
14
20
17
83.9%
33.3%
92.9o/.
Lynwood High
George Washingtor
Preparatory High
Lynwood Unified
10
8
8
17
80,8%
NA
90.9%
Los Angeles Unified
36
17
20
17
70.7%
62.1%
97.5%
Abram Friedman Occupatjoncil Los Angeles Unified
5
6
12
16
n/a
61,1%
90.0%
Bell Senior High
17
16
27
15
82,4%
50.0%
94,7%
Alexander Hamilton Senior
Los Angeles Unified
Source: High school graduation rates from California Department of Education
All other data from LACCD Student Information System
Top 15 Feeder High Schools: VALLEY
EnroHment of New Stud^nU
$chpolName
High School
Graduation
District
Fal! 2011
Fall 2QU Fall 2013
Fall 2014
% Assessed
% Assessed
Students Who Students Who
Were Placed
R^te (2013in toic Skills
14}
nglish f2014"
Were Placed
in Basic SkHI$
Math(2014
Ulysses S, Grant Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
171
205
189
194
81.9%
50.2%
62,8%
Van Nuys Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
113
153
118
145
86,3%
52,1%
575%
North Hollywood Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
118
140
154
133
85.0%
46.8%
56,1%
Panorama High
Los Angeles Unified
5
5
19
103
78,7%
56.0%
56.5%
John H, Francis Polytechnic
Los Angeles Unified
92
83
101
94
85,9%
54.2%
59.7%
Birmingham Community
Charter High
Los Angeles Unified
90
75
61
89
89.0%
47.6%
60.0%
Burroughs High
Burb^nk Unified
68
7@
78
65
96.0%
35,2%
50,0%
James Monrog High
Los Angeles Unifigd
61
47
62
56
§2,8%
55,1%
67,2%
Burbank High
Byrbank Unified
58
49
49
53
95.9%
34,0%
44,8%
Sem Femgndo Senior High
Los Angelas Unifjgd
50
40
43
46
83,1%
57.8%
62.5%
Arleta High
Los Angeles Unified
2
6
35
92.1%
78,2%
70.2%
Sherman Oaks Center for
Enriched Studies
Los Angeles Unified
19
21
31
31
96.1%
31.4%
42,5%
Granada Hills Charter High
Los Angeles Unified
38
49
30
30
95.4%
24.0%
29.2%
John F. Kennedy High
Los Angeles Unified
31
34
28
30
83.0%
34.2%
55,6%
Grov^r Cleveland Charter High
Los Angeles Unified
35
53
31
28
84.1%
37.3%
58.3%
Source; High school graduation rates from Caljfornis Department of Edueatjon
All gther data from LACCD Student Information System
*
t
d,
Top 15 Feeder High Schools: WEST
Enrollment of N^w Students
School Name
District
M 2011 F*»H 20U
Algxgndgr KdmHtQn Senior
Fall 2013
% Assessed
% Assessed
Students Who Students Who
Graduation
Were Placed
Were Placed
Rate (2013in B^isic Skills
in Basic Skills
High School
F^ll 2014
Id)
inelish (20U
Math (2014
Los Angeles Unified
88
68
70
92
83.9%
26,2%
67,8%
Venice Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
44
39
44
62
79.5%
29,2%
64.1%
Culver City High
Culver City Unified
41
37
52
59
91.8%
25,3%
65,2%
Los Angeles Senior High
Los Angeles Unified
44
56
48
45
57.9%
32.8%
76.1%
Los Angeles Unified
43
38
42
44
76.1%
56.9%
87.1%
Los Angeles Unified
30
26
24
33
78.3%
48.4%
87.5%
Inglewcod High
Inglewood Unified
18
19
25
30
80.0%
7.5%
78,9%
Univer$ity Senior High
Los Ang@)@s Unified
43
34
41
29
87,0%
18.9%
80,5%
WESM Health/Sports M§dlcineLos Angeles Unified
35
33
33
25
3,8%
33.8%
73.8%
F§irfa?< Senior High
Lo$ Angeles Unified
20
25
24
23
84,3%
B@,7°/o
76,5%
Mgnugl Arts Senior High
LosAnggtes UnifEgd
15
20
13
20
78.7%
44.7%
77,5%
West Adams Preparatory High Los Angeles Unified
0
0
3
17
79,7%
50,0%
68.2%
Palisades Charter High
Los Angeles Unified
17
15
20
16
95,7%
15,4%
57,1%
Mornjngsjde High
nglewood Unified
3
5
7
15
67.8%
47.6%
92.0%
7
10
5
13
78,1%
23.5%
85,0%
High
Susan Miller Dorsey Senior
High
Crenshaw Science,
Technology/ Engineering, Math
Hawthorne High
^I?
entinela Valley
Union High
Source: High school graduation rates from California Depgrtment of Education
All other data from LACCD Student Information System
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
CITY / EAST / HARBOR / MISSION / PIERCE / SOUTHWEST /TRADE-TECHNICAL / VALLEY / WEST
CHANCELLORS OFFICE
RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMBER INQUIRY
Received From: Board Member Nancy Pearlman
ATTACH MENTJ
Item No. 2015-22
Subject: College Mission Statements and Date of Board Approval
th
At the September 16tn Institutional Effectives & Student Success Committee Meeting, Board Member
Pearlman requested information on college mission statements and their date of Board approval.
Attached is the response.
Submitted By: Bobbi Kimble, Interim Vice Chancellor, Date: November 4/ 2015
Educational Programs and Institutional
Effectiveness
College Mission
Statements and
Board Approval
Dates
1
DATE OF MISSION
CAMPUS:
East Los Angeles College
Los Angeles City College
Los Angeles Harbor College
Los Angeles Mission College
STATEMENT APPROVAL
BY BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
July 8,2015
[IESS Committee Agenda: ]une 24, 2015)
June 25,2014
(IESS Committee Agenda: June 11, 2014J
April 15,2015
(1ESS Committee Agenda: March 25, 2015)
October 17, 2012
(IESS Committee Agenda: October I/ 2012)
January 28,2015
Los Angeles Southwest College
(As part of Strategic Plan)
(IESS Committee Agenda: December 17,
2014)
Los Angeles Trade-TechnicaI
College
Los Angeles Valley College
Pierce College
West Los Angeles College
July 11, 2012
(IESS Committee Agenda: June 27, 2012)
February 6,2013
(1ESS Committee Agenda: December 19,
2012)
April 11,2012
(1ESS Committee Agenda: March 21, 2012)
May 12,2010
!.
rr-Tr
Q*°
.<
^
ttr
.-..tlaMihi )i..i.;;'if x.rrAI;! ..'
s.t'^
'»^r
P~ d'r(DUCCP.Hm»
i*lcr "imerllflm
Him* Accftifltttitin
.^ .-^Jfa*-
^i^^H
'y-
9 Minncfl Ststtfmnt
./
v
.T-?.^
..
1:
<
:,.^.^.:
I
;-vn
*-"v
- 'y
**
^
^
.nr
? eldc
.l>b
^*.
/
Accreditation
'J
j
i:l^C
4
^^(1^ ,.
''4
'I
Mo-.f. > -\t" L£L'" > ^ ..-"1^;
Home
^ r:
f's'-t b/^ ^
*
jf-a-
Cuf's" S'u^o'''? faf.u1.')'
> Mission StBtement
MISSION STATEMENT
Mission SiaCcmcnt
Reports
AccreciitatiDn Newstuttei
Vhsr coirnnunity and the worid
Announteiftcnts
ACCJC Wsii Confirmed:
StandwAi Fmal Draft Due
July 31, 2015
Increasing student success and academic exceilencc through student'centered insfruclion,
studcnt-centercd support services, and dynamic techwlc^es.
At.cruditalion Siandaids
,. ftccrcditmg Commi-isinn
Af.fjf
t.
Committee
Increasing equity in successful outcomes by aftalyzing gaps in student achievcrrfent and using
Arcrpciitalion Commiltcc
this to idetitfty and implement effective models anct profTarmnmg to remedy these gaps
ol Ihe Whole
t
*'
Goal 2:
, Arrrcriitaliai] StKnnng
I
August 17. 20J5
Goal 1:
DiKtnd HeportH anc)
Documents
1
T
I
UpcwnJng Mectfnp
ARendas /Minutes
^
'f<c^^
Goal 3.
(^ Conlcict
IflformgliDn
*
t
';tatF
March 7-10. 2015
East i-os Angeles Coltege empowers students to achieve their educationa! goats, 1c expand their
imtmduat patentiaL and to successfully pixsue their aspiratiorrs for a t>etter ftrture for themsetvcs,
FLAG Documents and
<
1*1
^
~J
Sustaining community-centered access, partfapatioa and preparation that impfovas the
colleges presence in the community. maximizes access to higher education and prowdes
outlets for artistic, cim, cultural. scientific anti sociat expression as well as envirorwentai
RciiUHICL'S
Ristnct Standards
httc^L,* wnw acCK o re'
I Va)
Wiias^ltjEUfiAte
*
awareness.
Goal 4:
&isunng instrtutiofiat effccCveness and accountabilrfy through data-driven deasion-makme as
well as evaluatfon and imprwement of all cotiege programs and governance structures
hi collaboralion with the District's Uissioo, ELAC is commtned to advancerwrt m Ftudent learning
an! student achievement that prepares students to transfer, successfully complete vmWwce
devetopmerrt pTOp-ams, earn associate degrees, anc! pursue opportuwties for Wong learrerig and
civic engagement
s/
SJElLy
.-t
w»
* *
<
1
*.
ff*
Approved by the LACCD Board of Trustees on July 8, 2015
-^
*
*'»*--
tfe»
3;SBAM
»^»
^^^K
'I*
Los Angeles City College
R
<
4.
* "-<-.'
£>'i9
*.
Mission
Los Angeles City College empowers students
from the diverse communities it serves
to achieve their educational and career goals by providing
learner-centered pathways to success through
transfer/ career and technical education, and foundational skills programs.
^
I
i
J
^
Goals
*
Core Functions
>
1. Transfer
2. CTE/Workforce
, Access
1
2. Student Success
^
r
I
-'l_ri
' ^
f
L
<y
IIR
#
MHCTESE
rf
v
»
f
t
s-I-
»
*.
.j
f
t.
4. Resources
»
Approved by the LACCD Board of Trustees June 25, 2014
4. Resource Stewardship
r,
t"J»
.*.;
iC^
~f\
*
Q* ^
9
-.*
**
.tl
t^
Iflhc.ffk) /ac<''*^:itf '-'*
t
lltr
r
^ HKiuiyfsiafftnuRr&ynww
- .^.-.....=- ^... 1^
^
v
*
Cotl*g» Phon* Olnctory
-Sfvfi;,,
p .V 6
»
©LtCCO.Hc'M
^
I.
Tt IdHCMinonStftsmcnt
;--T^^-. ^ .^s.
f
.SO. I
;*F
's?
^f.*,".
< 1.
rfm"
^f'\w I.
-»
^.si»3«g
- -. ^
jL
<
^ LOS ANGELES HARBOR COLLEGE MISSION:
A
Home > Mission
0tnatmctor Login
L(W Angeles Harbor College promotes access and shident success fhrough assodate
^QolckV,rict^l8»sksGu<d. ^,S^cer^_c_e?ificate5',ecQnomic^worUorcedcve]opment,candbasic
*
*
0
Coltefl* Adntinlttnrttoft
^^ FacitWiWort Raqwit Systtm
AiIbin^cto.O«A«tod pn^ns^^port ^^n^th«^
of diverse conmiunities as measured by campus uAional leanung outcome
Institutional Learning Outcomes
ISLO I - Communication: Reading, writing, spealdng, observing.
' I5LO 2 - Co^nft/on: ProblE-m solving, analyzing, evaluating, developing,
creative thinHng, reasoning, application/ classify, organize.
ISLO 3 - Information and Technofogfcal Competency: bifotxnab'on literacy,
technological competency, research proficiency. (Addition of Technological is
*
0
IT Work R»qu«si Systwn
*
pending approval)
*
ISLO 4 - Social Responsibility and Ethics: Teamwork, ethics, values/
accountability.
Strategic Educational Master Plan Goals (SEMP)
. Goal l -Access nnd Preparation for Success: Improve equitable access; help
shidents attain important early educational momentum points.
*
Goal 2 - Twching and Learning for Success: Strengthen effective teaching and
learning by providing a leamer-centered educational enviromnent; help
student? attain their goals of certificate and degree completion, h'ansfer, and
job training and career placement; increases equity in the adiievement of these
outcomes.
.
Goal 3 - Organizational Effectiveness- Improve organizational effecth'eness
through data-informed plamung and decision-malung, process assessmCTi)/
and professional development
*
Goal 4 - Resovrces and Collaboration: Increase and diversify source? of
reventHi in order to achieve and maintain {iscal stability and to support District
inihattves. Enh-mc. and maintain muh^aUy beneficial external pariner.hips
with business, laW, and industry and ottier community and avic
SSI^ w°
organizations in the greater Los Angeles area.
-, ±
<.
^
M
iflnr^i
^
ixit
w,
Approved by the LACCD Board of Trustees on April 15, 2015
v
-»
.v^e- --.-^r?
^<.<
t.
.*
<
f3f
#
ft Ho
:,@-
i.
.D- 0 (OtWCO.HMnt
.ccjlir- .vf^fi
D PresKterri's Corner
D Accfeditatk»n-March2013
0 Academk: Discrplines
D Arfmisskins
D Athletics
D Bookstore
D CuHnaryArts
D Community Fitness Programs
D LAMC Foundation
D Learning Center fTirtoring
lCLAHCMiBtooStoWttPt
D Transfer Center
ft LmAngdc'Mr'ronColtiTfi;
"^
*^
^T~
^i
v^
A
College Mission Statement
Los Angeles Mission College is committed to the
success of our students. The College provides
accessible, affordable, high quality learning
opportunities in a culturally and intellectually
supportive environment fay:
Ensuring that students successfully transfer
to four-year institutions, prepare for
successful careers in the workplace, and
improve their basic skills;
Encouraging students to become critical
thinksre and lifetong learners;
- Providing sen/ices and programs Ihat
improve the lives of the diverse communities
a Online Oncntaton
ft Urfhfci) Pi^
.>-'
Home About Mission Coltege
*
a Jobs a1 Mission
v^:^
.»-
t
About Mission College
0 Library
a LACGD
^
-f;
\
J;niBlTBn.tduJ<:cr"muj-
s.
;'1^-:
f
1
.h
.i»
t
11 ',
1'1
^
'/
^
^.
>-^,
1
.\
^
,.^
't.
'f
r
a Maps
-^^Gf-1
to
-^»
-\
.^-^
^
*^/
^
E--_I^L
we serve.
'rH!snfs^DflCTiuflicnlwia»DtiwctltrtnL6CCDEiaenlo'Tn;5[iegCTOTtotni!l'? :3);
Vision
Los Angeles Mission College is committed to maintaining high academic standards, promoting
student success, and creating opportunities for life-long [earning. The College wit! inspire students
to become informed, active citizens who recognize and appreciate the common humanity of all
people through diverse curricula, and through cultural. academic, and artistic events- The college
wilt practice an honest, cojtegial, and inclusive dedsion.making process that respects the diversity
and interdependence of the college, student body, and community LAMC is privileged to senfe.
Core Values
1. The pursuit of excellence in ali our endeavors.
2. Inteltectuat curiosity and the desire to learn,
? '!>-91.0.baiv.^'?n_1th?^nde^Pd? andaPPreciatcs the common goals and purposes of alt people,
4. An appreciation of diversity that nourishes mutual respect and solidarity.
5, Integrity and collegiatity in all our interaclions.
6. Senwe to the campus and the local community.
'/
kflri^e
.0^
^»<
t
d,
Tti&nu
W|
'^:
^. rf-^
Approved by the LACCD Board of Trustees on October 77, 2012
Los Angeles Southwest College
Mission Statement
^
J
-J
-J-^-t*
»
rut I "I'
»
flHfr .^
tttk
38|?»^
In honor of its founding history, Los Angeles Southwest
College empowers a diverse student population to achieve
their academic and career goals, and to become critical
thinkers and socially responsive leaders.
ir
^nCNBr"
-/*'
ll .
rj
www.lasc.edu
i.fc^-^&tP*
Approved by the LACCD Board of Trustees on January 28, 2015
It
/d
.' '.t'jt.ltttEAttU <<Cl'*-'lttt
f»
\
20J
<
^F-
s.
?<
Q< '
P' dJ3t6fn)»fSnn:rl|Atwu(lAnC ^ ^ AlsBut LnrTC
ft * ft
^
About LATTC
Founded in 1925 as the Frank Wiggins Trnde School, Trade-Tech is 1he oldest of the nine, public Iwoyear colleges in -the Los_Angcles Communjty Colteqe Disti.ict (LACCD).*
COLLEGE PLANNING LINKS
Mission Statement
Accreditation
Committee Master Plans
Educattonaf Master Plan
Strategic Master Plan
We provide our students and communrty with high-quality acodemrc, technical, and profes&ionat
educationat opportunities that'
Meet their career development and academic goals;
Foster a dimote of life-long learning;
Prepare our students \o portidpcrte effectively in our society; and
»
*
*
College Committees & Organizations
. Generale economic development wrth our educational, govemmentai, community and business
partners.
UPCOMING EVENTS
Our Vision
10/01/15 Student Success Commilte
10/02/15 GAME- Volley Ball (Womenl -Home
[ATTC will be a global leader known for effectively incorporating leading-edge theories, proven
10/OZ/15 b^H3C Director's Meeting
educcftionaf practices, hands-on experiences, and technology into our careeMechnicai and
10/02/15 GAME: Water Polo(Men) - Away
professional programs, as well as transfer pathways- LATTC graduates will be in high demand. Many
IO/OZ/15 LATTC/ASO Giris Baske^bo!! Teqm
will become community, business and innovation leaders.
Fundroiser
10/05/15 LACCD Counseling Chairpe.rsQns
To achieve our vision'
.
10/05/15 Work Environment Committee
10/06/15 Academic Senate
10/06/15 Monthly District Board of Trijstees
Me. ID
30/07/15 GAME: Volley Bol! fWomen) -Home
See Full Master Calendar
We will be known for our experimentation with new ideas and innovortions -to improve student
succe&s.
.
We know thoft a single positive esfperience - o course, a program, a sen/tce, or a person who
cores - can be Uansformcrtiono) for a student
. We are re-engineering our institutional practices, so we can take our college to a new level - a
ncrtional and jnternational leader in meeting students' needs, particularly those facing sodoeconomic challenges,
s/
CT3^i^l^SSM
.T*»A
.*
Approved by the LACCD Board of Trustees on July 11, 2012
~^
:te
w
J
t.
.?.
3. '-^A.
J.1SPM
li^I/ZMS
.
©t 16
M,
.o-
.^y
taw.tdu-t,, .-( . . ..n-Miniu'.;
^-0-'Q)LACCD--f E
nenti.iSpT.
^»
'*
STUDEFTT LEARNING
OUTCOMES-PATHWAYS
i\
A
LA 1
MISSION STATEMENT
CAMPUS MAP
.a i-Q-.r
Hi Vision b Miraon StitenKnt,.,
Los Angeles Vatley College serves as a leader in student success, with pathways for
PARKING INFORMATION
certificates, degrees, transfer, and continuing education. We enable students to
LACCD
advance their education, personal development, and quality of life, empowering them
to be productive and engaged members of the global community.
VISION STATEMENT
Los Angeles Valley College inspires, educates, and enriches our diverse community, developing critical and creative
thinkers and lifelong learners.
CORE VALUES
Student Success and Innovation in Teaching and Learning
The college creates 5 leaming-centered environment that offer? a broad range of academic programs and services
in an atmosphere of academic freedom and collaboration responsive to students, faculty, staff, and the community.
Los Angeles Valley College encourages each student to successfully complete all courses attempted, persist from
term to term, and fulfill his or her educational goals.
Mutual Respect, Diversity, and Access to Education
The college promotes access to educationa! opportunities for all in a wdcoming, supportive, and respectful
environment that provides a place for critical thinking, learning, and personal growth.
Resourcefulness and Environmental Stewardship
The college strives to be effective stewards of our physical, technological. and financial resources to maximize
institutional effectiveness. The college fosters sustainabifity and pride in ourvibranr and evoMng campus.
\/
ri
4
<
a
w!
>-
¥7-
1^
Approved by the LA CCD Board of Trustees on Februwy 6, 2013
WWR^.ssw^
-isixw-^iwsr
ftiS.AM
-(-...^ S
an?
T'
CT 8CIp
/Nf .-. pTETcftcoflige.erfu ^ier,t^"--:
p *T
T* *
J^
^^.^^
"^we-
<.."
6>t®UCCD Horn*
UjVi(innMAnrnEi>tnnmir
yuiWE.'AMlElAngtte :<)ft,
MISSION STATEMENT
Search
IT
. About Pierce Coltege
^
Pierce
. Admissions & Records
*.
. Grades & Transcripts
. Fees & Financial Aid
t
'tith^[
^?
.<?
. Departments/Programs
. Library
fcr
^
'A
I
»
^
»
i
t<
»
MISSION STATEMENT:
Pierce College is a studenRentered teaming tnstilution Ihal Dffere opporiuntlies for
Counseling Center
. Map & Phons Directory
.
Campus Safety & Sheriff
K.
>
,^
HE.«.
*
STUDENT SUCCESS
SCORECARD
History at Pierce
Mission Statament
LJ
. Career &Technfcai Ed
. Student Services
About Piercs
(XCi-Pl.
<
^
-d*!.
. Transfer Center
.
;»
Of pnrctCBiltgt.edu
i3Cpienccc&l!cg?*ffu
Coliege Goais
Presicfent's Message
Reasons Why Pierce
access end success in B diverse college community. The college ciedlceles rts resources
to assisl students in identifying and achieving their eciucalionat, career, and personal
goals. Our comprghenshre curriculum and support services enable students to earn associatg degraes
and certScates, prepare for transfer. gain career and technical profictoncy, and dsvelop basic sktlls.
We serve our commun'rty by providing opporiunilies for lifelong learning, economic and workforce
devetopment, and a variety of enrichmenl activities.
Pierce College Goals:
Goal 1: Pierce College wi!l offer excellent, responsrve inslrucliona! programs to Facilitate and fmprove sfudenl
learning.
Goal 2: Pierce College will increase opporiunities for student access, resdinsss. retsntton, and success
Goal 3: Pierce College will snhance the teaming environmenl to be cutturally and pedagogicglly diverse.
Goat 4; Pierce College will expand the effective use of tecFmology in all areas oT Ibe college.
Goat 5: Pierce College will enhance its retati&nships wrtti fhe cornmunity at large.
Goal 6: Pierce College will establish and mainfsin fiscBl slabilrty.
Goal 7- Pierce College will implemerH a campus facilities masler plan fhst fully infegtfltes programs. services
and budget in support of sludenl teamng.
Goal 8: Fierce College will continualfy reFtne both rts governance and decision processes and its interaction
with (he disfrct to increase effeclivsness and incluskin.
V
feGLttedd.m^M
.n
y^
Approved by the LA CCD Board of Trustees on April 11, 2012
:5S-
.^; .
*
T
"*
^
\-
^
J
'-.
©«
tFh"
^
wlac-cdu ^bci^L Mission- .'atuti.. uic
.D.;°: (D^CCD HWK
COLLEGE HISTORY
M
-Q
T
^l^:-f£9
-1
COLLEGE PROFILE & STATS
t
60 WEST. GO FAR,
f
t*
.*1-,^
v ».
.
*-<
.
»
"i
w-
4
COLLEGE MASTER PLANS
IV
W Mifiton a Vihjts Wut Lo; ..
A
^
»
-*
i
CONSTRUCTION UPDATES
s
»
MISSION & VALUES
w
PRESIDENTS MESSAGE
Vision; Missions Values
.ih.
SCHEDULE OF CLASSES
OUR VISION
WEST: A gateway to success for every student
OUR MISSION
West Los Angeles College provides a transformath/e educationat experience.
West fosters a diverse teaming community dedicated to student success.
Through quality instruction and supportive sen/ices, the College develops leaders who encourage excellence i
in
others.
A West education enriches students with Ihe knowledge and skills needed to earn certificates and degrees, to
transfer, to buffd careers, and to pursue Iffe-fong teaming.
Map, Directions, Paming Directory Shenft/Campus Safety
l0l<i
0-:
^
.(
I*.
*,,
EventsfNews
t^J.
Approved by the LACCD Board of Trustee on May 12, 2010
Acatfemic Calendar
Library
f 6 (^ <snan
<c "Qaft;
I
F^
.»
'^*
.-to
.(IKNrr-
v
-I
i>.
t:
^^ ^
9-.S1M
9/23W1S
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
CITY / EAST / HARBOR / MISSION / PIERCE / SOUTHWEST /TRADE-TECHNtCAL / VALLEY / WEST
CHANCELLOR'S OFFICE
RESPONSE TO BOARD MEMBER INQUIRY
Received From: Board Member Scott Svonkin
ATTACHMENT K
Item No. 2015-23
Subject: 2015 LACCD Scorecard Measures
At the October 7th Board meeting, Board Member Svonkin requested additional information about how
the Scorecard Measures are derived. Attached is a full report.
Submitted By: Bobbi Kimble, Interim Vice Chancellor/ Date: November 4/ 2015
Educational Programs and Institutional
Effectiveness
2015 LACCD Student Success Scorecard
Appendices
Contents
DEFINITION OF METRICS..............................................................................................................................^
COHORT SIZE
5
COHORT SIZE BY GROUP
5
Overall and Unprepared........................................................................................................................5
COHORT SIZE BY COLLEGE.........................................................................................................................6
Overall and Unprepared..............................................................................................................,.,..,...^
COMPLETION RATE
7
COMPLETION RATE BY GROUP
7
Completion Rate: Overall Students
7
Completion Rate: Prepared Students...............................................................................................,.,.^
Completion Rate: Unprepared Students...............................................................................................9
COMPLETION RATE BY COLLEGE............................................................................................................ jo
Completion Rate by College: Overall Students................................................................................... 10
Completion Rate by College: Prepared Students................................................................................n
Completion Rate by College: Unprepared Students ...........................................................................12
AT LEAST 30 UNITS COMPLETION RATE......................................................................................................13
AT LEAST 30 UNITS COMPLETION RATE BYGROUP ................................................................................13
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate: Overall Students.........................................................................13
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate: Prepared Students .....................................................................14
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate: Unprepared Students.................................................................15
AT LEAST 30 UNITS COMPLETION RATE BY COLLEGE..............................................................................16
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate by College: Overall Students .......................................................16
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate by College: Prepared Students....................................................17
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate by College: Unprepared Students............................................... 18
PERSISTENCE RATE......................................................................................................................................19
PERSISTENCE RATE BY GROUP................................................................................................................19
Persistence Rate: Overall Students....................................................................................................19
Persistence Rate: Prepared Students..................................................................................................20
Persistence Rate: Unprepared Students.............................................................................................21
1
PERSISTENCE RATE BY COLLEGE..............................................................................................................22
Persistence Rate by College: Overall Students....................................................................................22
Persistence Rate by College: Prepared Students................................................................................23
Persistence Rate by College: Unprepared Students............................................................................24
REMEDIAL PROGRESS RATE (IN ENGLISH, ESL, AND MATH).......................................................................25
REMEDIAL PROGRESS RATE BY GROUP...................................................................................................25
Remedial Progress Rate: English .........................................................................................................25
Remedial Progress Rate: English as a Second Language.....................................................................26
Remedial Progress Rate: Math............................................................................................................27
REMEDIAL PROGRESS RATE BY COLLEGE ................................................................................................28
Remedial Progress Rate by College: English........................................................................................28
Remedial Progress Rate by College: English as a Second Language ...................................................29
Remedial Progress Rate by College: Math.........................................................................................30
CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION COMPLETION RATE ................................................................................31
Career Technical Education Completion Rate by Group.....................................................................31
Career Technical Education Completion Rate by College ...................................................................32
CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND COLLEGE PREPARATION COMPLETION RATE...............................................33
Career Development and College Preparation Completion Rate by Group .......................................33
Career Development and College Preparation Completion Rate by College......................................34
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS............................................................................................................................35
ALL METRICS BY GROUP..........................................................................................................................35
All Metrics by Group: Current cohort..................................................................................................35
All Metrics by Group: Change from previous year..............................................................................36
ALL METRICS BY COLLEGE .......................................................................................................................37
All Metrics by College: Current cohort................................................................................................37
All Metrics by College: Change from previous year............................................................................38
METRICSDISAGGREGATED BY COLLEGE.................................................................................................39
Disaggregated Completion Overall: Current Cohort...........................................................................39
Disaggregated At Least 30 Units Completion Overall: Current Cohort...............................................40
Disaggregated Persistence Overall: Current Cohort ...........................................................................41
Disaggregated Remedial Progress English: Current Cohort................................................................42
Disaggregated Remedial Progress English as a Second Language: Current Cohort............................43
Disaggregated Remedial Progress Math: Current Cohort...................................................................44
Disaggregated Career Technical Education Completion: Current Cohort...........................................45
Disaggregated Career Development and College Preparation: Current Cohort.................................46
2
METRICSDISAGGREGATED BY LACCD AND STATE..................................................................................47
Disaggregated Completion Overall: Current Cohort...........................................................................47
Disaggregated At Least 30 Units Completion Overall: Current Cohort...............................................48
Disaggregated Persistence Overall: Current Cohort ...........................................................................49
Disaggregatecf Remedial Progress English: Current Cohort................................................................50
Disaggregated Remedial Progress English as a Second Language: Current Cohort............................51
Disaggregated Remedial Progress Math: Current Cohort...................................................................52
Disaggregated Career Technical Education Completion: Current Cohort...........................................53
Disaggregated Career Development and College Preparation: Current Cohort.................................54
3
DEFINITION OF METRICS
COMPLETION RATE (STUDENT PROGRESS AND ATTAINMENT RATE)
Percentage of first-time students with minimum of 6 units earned who attempted any Math or English in the
first 3 years and achieved any of the following outcomes within 6 years of entry:
.
Earned AA/AS or credit Certificate (Chancellor's Office approved)
Transfer to 4-year institution (students shown to have enrolled at any 4-year institution of higher
education after enrolling at a CCC)
.
Achieved "Transfer Prepared" (student successfully completed 60 UC/CSU transferable units with a
.
G PA >= 2.0)
30 UNITS RATE
Percentage of first-time students with minimum of 6 units earned who attempted any Math or English in the
first 3 years and achieved the following measure of progress (or milestone) within 6 years of entry:
.
Earned at least 30 units in the CCC system
PERSISTENCE RATE
Percentage of first-time students with minimum of 6 units earned who attempted any Math or English in the
first 3 years and achieved the following measure of progress (or momentum point):
.
Enroll in first 3 consecutive primary semester terms anywhere in the CCC system
REMEDIAL PROGRESS RATE (MATH, ENGLISH, ESL»
Percentage of credit students who attempted for the first time a course designated at "levels below transfer"
n:
.
Math and successfully completed a college-level course in Math within 6 years
.
English and successfully completed a college-level course in English within 6 years
.
ESL and successfully completed a college-level ESL course or a college-level English course within 6
years
CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION COMPLETION RATE (CTE)
Percentage of students who attempted a CTE course for the first-time and completed more than 8 units in
the subsequent 3 years in a single discipline (2-digit vocational TOP code where at least 1 of the courses is
occupational SAM A, B or C) and who achieved any of the following outcomes within 6 years of entry:
.
Earned any AA/AS or credit Certificate (Chancellor's Office approved)
.
.
Transfer to 4-year institution (students shown to have enrolled at any 4-year institution of higher
education after enrolling at a CCC)
Achieved "Transfer Prepared" (student successfully completed 60 UC/CSU transferable units with a
GPA>=2.0)
CAREER DEVELOPMENT & COLLEGE PREPARATION (CDCP) COMPLETION RATE
Percentageof students who attempt 2 or more CDCP courses, with a minimum of 4 attendance hours in each
of those courses/within 3 years. The following outcomes within 6 years of entry:
.
CDCP Certificate(s)
.
Earned AA/AS or Certificates (Chancellor's Office Approved)
.
Transfer to 4-year institution (students shown to have enrolled at any 4-year institution of higher
education after enrolling at a CCC)
.
Achieved "Transfer Prepared" (student successfully completed 60 UC/CSU transferable units with a
GPA>=2.0)
4
COHORT SIZE
COHORT SIZE BY GROUP
Overall and Unprepared
Overall Cohort
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
LACCD
11/927
13,743
13/512
13,982
14,792
Surrounding Districts
26,249
27/491
29/753
32/550
35,459
14,915
16/434
18/026
19/012
T/
Multi-College Urban
14/943
»--.;-
Statewide
Unprepared Cohort
161/650
2004-05
169/531
2005-06
179,423
2006-07
194,377
2007-08
209/719
2008-09
LACCD
10,269
11/728
11/381
11/958
12,719
Surrounding Districts
19/061
19/652
21,164
23,759
26/168
f
Multi-College Urban
Statewide
10/188
10,569
11/779
13/070
14,064
118/784
124,656
131,741
144/763
157/388
5
COHORT SIZE BY COLLEGE
Overall and Unprepared
Overall Cohort
City
East
2004-05
1/709
2005-06
2006-07
1/742
2007-08
1/602
1,604
^
2/154
u-
Harbor
893
Mission
746
2,560
2008-09
*B»
1,612
*
2/425
2,515
2/421
1/114
1/268
1/412
897
917
970
h-
1/055
958
*
2,090
2,549
2/762
2,788
3,075
Southwest
680
780
847
808
970
Trade-Tech
1/243
1,239
1,056
1/158
1/321
Valley
1/795
2/173
2,133
2/127
2/164
West
617
687
797
847
Pierce
-*
*
V.
Unprepared Cohort
2004-05
2005-06
676
2006-07
+
2007-08
2008-09
City
1/504
1/500
1/391
1/422
1/462
East
1,918
2/266
2,125
2/209
2,184
Harbor
707
836
866
1,035
1/152
Mission
648
857
803
841
882
1,677
2/027
2/162
2,273
2,467
Southwest
645
734
764
754
910
Trade-Tech
1,208
1/194
995
1/054
1/237
Valley
1,425
1/740
1/711
1/704
1,703
West
537
574
564
666
722
Pierce
6
COMPLETION RATE
COMPLETION RATE BY GROUP
Completion Rate: Overall Students
Completion Rate: Overall Students
80%
75%
70%
65%
60% 4
55%
50%
45%
40% 435%
30% J
F
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
41%
41%
42%
41%
39%
Surrounding Districts
48%
50%
50%
49%
48%
Multt-College Urban
52%
53%
53%
52%
48%
Statewide
48%
49%
49%
48%
47%
J_
i
7
Completion Rate: Prepared Students
Completion Rate: Prepared Students
80%
75% 70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
r
c:
\-
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
72%
70%
73%
71%
66%
Surrounding Districts
72%
73%
74%
73%
73%
Multi-College Urban
68%
72%
72%
71%
69%
Statewide
69%
71%
71%
70%
70%
8
Completion Rate: Unprepared Students
Completion Rate: Unprepared Students
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
36%
37%
37%
36%
34%
Surrounding Districts
MuIti-College Urban
39%
40%
40%
40%
39%
45%
46%
46%
45%
41%
Statewide
40%
41%
41%
41%
39%
9
COMPLETION RATE BY COLLEGE
Completion Rate by College: Overall Students
Completion Rate by College: Overall Students
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%t
40% ^
30%
20% 10%
0%
City
E3St
. 2006-2007 I
37%
. 2007-2008
2008-2009
.
L
Pierce
Mission
42%
45%
35%
53%
36%
33%
42%
39%
42%
40%
42%
40%
33%
51%
31%
33%
43%
37%
41%
34%
38%
_L 39%
35%
48%
31%
30%
42%
38%
39%
.^^^ III . 11
10
Southwest Trade-Tech
Valley
Harbor
West
LACCD
-}
Completion Rate by College: Prepared Students
Completion Rate by College: Prepared Students
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% -|20%
10%
0% . 2006-2007
.
2007-2008
City
East
Harbor
Mission
64%
73%
71%
75%
80%
82%
74%
70%
63%
73%
68%
70%
70%
63%
76%
67%
70%
70%
63%
71%
65%
54%
60%
65%
68%
66%
£l?.2008r.20091 59%
_1
Pierce
74%
11
Southwest Trade-Tech Valley
L_63%
68%
.^
West
LACCD
Completion Rate by College: Unprepared Students
Completion Rate by College: Unprepared Students
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
East
Harbor
Mission
. 2006-2007
33%
38%
38%
30%
46%
31%
31%
35%
34%
37%
. 2007-2008
36%
38%
33%
31%
45%
29%
29%
36%
32%
36%
2008-2009
31%
35%
35%
32%
42%
29%
27%
36%
33%
34%
.
Pierce ! Southwest
12
Trade-Tech
LACCD
City
-J
Valley
West
AT LEAST 30 UNITS COMPLETION RATE
AT LEAST 30 UNITS COMPLETION RATE BY GROUP
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate: Overall Students
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate: Overall Students
80%
70%
60%
50%
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
61%
63%
63%
64%
63%
Surrounding Districts
67%
68%
69%
69%
70%
Multi-College Urban
61%
62%
62%
62%
62%
Statewide
65%
66%
66%
67%
67%
f-
13
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate: Prepared Students
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate: Prepared Students
80%
70%
60%
L
50%
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
62%
64%
63%
65%
68%
Surrounding Districts
Multi-College Urban
71%
73%
74%
75%
76%
64%
63%
63%
61%
65%
Statewide
68%
69%
70%
70%
71%
f^
14
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate: Unprepared Students
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate: Unprepared Students
80%
70%
60%
50%
LT
t-
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
60%
63%
63%
63%
63%
Surrounding Districts
Multi-ColIege Urban
65%
66%
66%
67%
68%
60%
62%
62%
62%
61%
Statewide
64%
65%
65%
65%
65%
15
AT LEAST 30 UNITS COMPLETION RATE BY COLLEGE
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate by College: Overall Students
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate by College: Overall
Students
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
City
East
[m~
. 2006-2007
61%
. 2007-2008
64%
Harbor
Mission
66%
64%
57%
66%
62%
60%
Pierce i Southwest iTrade-Tech
Valley
West
LACCD
70%
50%
57%
63%
58%
63%
72%
52%
58%
62%
58%
64%
72%
51%
56%
63%
61%
63%
L.
. 2008-2009
62%
66%
63%
58%
16
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate by College: Prepared Students
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate by College; Prepared
Students
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
City
East
. 2006-2007
54%
. 2007-2008
. 2008-2009
Harbor
Mission
63%
65%
63%
69%
49%
54%
53%
60%
67%
68%
74%
33%
59%
68%
61%
57%
76%
62%
Pierce
17
Southwest iTrade-Techi Valley
West
LACCD
66%
53%
63%
51%
67%
64%
65%
56%
71%
62%
68%
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate by College: Unprepared Students
At Least 30 Units Completion Rate by College: Unprepared
Students
80%
70%
60%
50%
ij
40%
i
ij
30% -
City
East
Harbor
7
Mission Pierce ' Southwest Trade-Tech
Valley
West
LACCD
L . ^_
. 2006-2007
63%
67%
64%
57%
70%
50%
57%
62%
60%
63%
. 2007-2008
65%
67%
61%
60%
72%
53%
58%
61%
57%
63%
. 2008-2009
62%
66%
64%
58%
71%
50%
56%
61%
61%
63%
18
PERSISTENCE RATE
PERSISTENCE RATE BY GROUP
Persistence Rate: Overall Students
Persistence Rate: Overall Students
80%
70%
60%
50%
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
64%
62%
62%
64%
66%
Surrounding Districts
72%
72%
72%
73%
74%
Multi-CoIlege Urban
73%
73%
74%
72%
73%
Statewide
71%
70%
70%
71%
72%
19
Persistence Rate: Prepared Students
Persistence Rate: Prepared Students
80%
r
70% -
60% -
50% -\
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
65%
60%
62%
62%
62%
Surrounding Districts
Multi-CoIlege Urban
73%
73%
74%
74%
76%
74%
73%
75%
74%
72%
Statewide
72%
71%
72%
72%
73%
L.
20
~1
1
_J
Persistence Rate: Unprepared Students
Persistence Rate: Unprepared Students
80%
70%
60%
50% 4
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
64%
62%
63%
64%
67%
Surrounding Districts
MuIti-College Urban
72%
71%
71%
72%
73%
73%
74%
73%
72%
73%
Statewide
70%
70%
70%
70%
71%
21
PERSISTENCE RATE BY COLLEGE
Persistence Rate by College: Overall Students
Persistence Rate by College: Overall Students
80%
70%
60%
50%
I
40%
City
East
. 2006-2007 I
63%
. 2007-2008
2008-2009
.
Harbor
Mission
68%
58%
60%
63%
71%
61%
64%
74%
64%
Pierce
Southwest
Trade-Tech Valley
West
r
LACCD
67%
50%
61%
60%
56%
62%
62%
69%
51%
61%
60%
61%
64%
61%
69%
57%
60%
65%
67%
66%
_L
22
Persistence Rate by College; Prepared Students
Persistence Rate by College: Prepared Students
80%
70%
60% -j-
50% "i
40%
City
East
. 2006-2007
62%
. 2007-2008
. 2008-2009
Harbor
Mission
66%
56%
63%
65%
61%
57%
57%
67%
63%
66%
65%
48%
64%
66%
54%
57%
64%
62%
j-
Pierce
23
Southwest Trade-Tech
Valley
West
LACCD
61%
60%
62%
52%
62%
58%
62%
62%
64%
59%
62%
Persistence Rate by College: Unprepared Students
Persistence Rate by College: Unprepared Students
80%
70%
f-
60%
J
50%
40%
Harbor
Mission
68%
59%
60%
68%
49%
62%
64%
71%
60%
61%
70%
51%
64%
75%
66%
62%
71%
57%
City
East
. 2006-2007
64%
. 2007-2008
. 2008-2009
Pierce
24
Southwest Trade-Techi
Valley
West
LACCD
60%
56%
63%
62%
60%
61%
64%
60%
65%
69%
67%
REMEDIAL PROGRESS RATE (IN ENGLISH, ESL, AND MATH)
REMEDIAL PROGRESS RATE BY GROUP
Remedial Progress Rate: English
Remedial Progress Rate: English
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% -
^
L~
T
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
35%
36%
37%
39%
36%
Surrounding Districts
46%
45%
47%
48%
47%
Multi-College Urban
37%
39%
40%
41%
41%
Statewide
42%
42%
43%
44%
43%
25
Remedial Progress Rate: English as a Second Language
Remedial Progress Rate: ESL
50%
40% -
30%
20% -
10%
0%
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
17%
18%
20%
22%
21%
Surrounding Districts
39%
39%
42%
39%
40%
Multi-ColIege Urban
21%
23%
24%
24%
26%
Statewide
24%
25%
26%
27%
28%
^
26
Remedial Progress Rate: Math
Remedial Progress Rate: Math
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
LACCD Average
23%
23%
25%
26%
25%
Surrounding Districts
Multi-College Urban
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
27%
27%
28%
28%
26%
Statewide
28%
29%
30%
31%
31%
27
REMEDIAL PROGRESS RATE BY COLLEGE
Remedial Progress Rate by College: English
Remedial Progress Rate by College: English
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
40%
31%
37%
21%
42%
35%
39%
19%
40%
32%
36%
39%
32%
50%
24%
20%
39%
44%
36%
38%
51%
26%
37%
42%
40%
31%
51%
22%
2007-2008
. 2008-2009
.
LACCD
45%
37%
. 2006-2007 I
West
Mission
East
Pierce
Southwest |Trade-Tech| Valley
Harbor
City
28
Remedial Progress Rate by College: English as a Second Language
Remedial Progress Rate by College: ESL
60%T~
50%
40%
30%
20% -?
10%
0%
City
East
. 2006-2007
14%
. 2007-2008
. 2008-2009
Harbor
Mission
Pierce
27%
22%
10%
26%
3%
12%
25%
26%
20%
14%
31%
30%
12%
30%
3%
8%
27%
27%
22%
14%
28%
20%
8%
29%
14%
9%
25%
22%
21%
i
29
SouthwestTrade-Tech
Valley
West
UVCCD
Remedial Progress Rate by College: Math
Remedial Progress Rate by College: Math
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
h
0%
City
East
. 2006-2007
23%
. 2007-2008
. 2008-2009
Pierce {Southwest
Trade-Tech Valley
Harbor
Mission
30%
37%
26%
35%
16%
10%
24%
19%
25%
24%
33%
39%
29%
37%
14%
8%
27%
19%
26%
24%
38%
38%
29%
36%
15%
8%
26%
19%
25%
30
West
LACCD
CAREER TECHNICAL EDUCATION COMPLETION RATE
Career Technical Education Completion Rate by Group
Career Technical Education Completion Rate by Group
65%
55%
45%
35%
L
\~
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
LACCD Average
49%
47%
48%
47%
47%
Surrounding Districts
52%
52%
53%
52%
51%
Multi-College Urban
51%
51%
50%
50%
47%
Statewide
50%
51%
51%
50%
50%
31
2008-2009
Career Technical Education Completion Rate by College
Career Technical Education Completion Rate by College
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% -\
10%
0%
Harbor
Mission
47%
60%
46%
56%
56%
41%
46%
48%
58%
45%
51%
57%
44%
49%
57%
52%
49%
55%
City
East
. 2006-2007
45%
. 2007-2008
. 2008-2009
Pierce
Southwest |Trade-Tech| Valley
West
LACCD
55%
39%
48%
39%
57%
37%
47%
39%
53%
40%
47%
r~~
L
32
L
CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND COLLEGE PREPARATION COMPLETION RATE
Career Development and College Preparation Completion Rate by Group
Career Development and College Preparation Completion
Rate by Group
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
LACCD Average
^
! . Statewide
.
200G-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
6%
7%
7%
12%
9%
8%
33
Career Development and College Preparation Completion Rate by College
Career Development and College Preparation Completion
Rate by College
20%T
15%
10%
5%
0%
City
.
2006-2007
. 2007-2008
.
2008-2009
Southwest
East
t
Trade-Tech
Valley
8%
1%
7%
11%
9%
6%
3%
8%
7%
11%
5%
2%
6%
8%
6%
L
34
SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
ALL METRICS BY GROUP
All Metrics by Group: Current cohort
Rates
LACCD Surrounding Districts Multi-College Urban Statewide
Completion
39%
48%
48%
47%
At Least 30 Units Completion
63%
70%
62%
67%
Persistence
66%
74%
73%
72%
36%
47%
41%
43%
Remedial Progress: ESL
21%
40%
26%
28%
Remedial Progress: Math
25%
30%
26%
31%
Career Technical Education Completion
47%
51%
47%
50%
n/a
n/a
r
Remedial Progress: English
/~^T*^
-*'
t
Career Development and College Preparation Completion
7%
35
8%
AH Metrics by Group: Change from previous year
Change in percentage points based on previous year's data
Rates
LACCD Surrounding Districts Multi-College Urban Statewide
Completion
-2%
-1%
-4%
-1%
At Least 30 Units Completion
-1%
1%
0%
0%
Persistence
2%
1%
1%
1%
Remedial Progress: English
"3%
-1%
0%
-1%
Remedial Progress: ESL
-1%
1%
2%
1%
Remedial Progress: Math
-1%
0%
-2%
0%
Career Technical Education Completion
0%
-1%
-3%
0%
Career Development and College Preparation Completion
0%
n/a
n/a
-1%
36
ALL METRICS BY COLLEGE
All Metrics by College: Current cohort
Rates
Completion
District
39%
City
East Harbor Mission Pierce Southwest Trade
34%
38%
39%
35%
Valley
West
48%
31%
30%
42%
38%
^-a.
At Least 30 Units
Completion
Persistence
63%
62%
66%
63%
58%
72%
51%
56%
63%
61%
66%
64%
74%
64%
61%
69%
57%
60%
65%
67%
<*.
Remedial Progress:
English
36%
37%
42%
40%
31%
ESL
21%
14%
28%
20%
"^
51%
22%
19%
40%
32%
29%
14%
9%
25%
22%
*.
T-
Remedial Progress:
3k^..
8%
- --,..-...-+* .<h* .i-'k-
Remedial Progress:
Math
Career Technical Education
Completion
Career Development and
College Preparation
Completion
k^I
25%
24%
38%
38%
29%
36%
15%
8%
26%
19%
47%
44%
49%
57%
52%
49%
55%
39%
53%
40%
n/a
11%
5%
n/a
n/a
n/a
2%
6%
8%
n/a
37
All Metrics by College: Change from previous year
Change in percentage points based on previous year's data
District
City
East
-2%
-6%
-4%
-1%
2%
-3%
0%
-1%
-2%
0%
1%
-2%
0%
Persistence
2%
1%
3%
3%
-1%
Remedial Progress:
English
-3%
-2%
-2%
4%
-1%
0%
-3%
-1%
0%
0%
n/a
Rates
Completion
At Least 30 Units
Completion
Remedial Progress:
ESL
Remedial Progress:
Math
Career Technical Education
Completion
Career Development and
College Preparation
Completion
Harbor Mission Pierce Southwest Trade
Valley
West
-3%
-1%
1%
-1%
-2%
1%
3%
0%
6%
-1%
5%
6%
-7%
0%
-4%
-2%
-2%
-3%
-10%
-4%
-1%
11%
1%
-2%
-5%
5%
-1%
0%
-1%
1%
0%
-1%
0%
-2%
1%
-1%
7%
-2%
-2%
0%
-4%
3%
2%
-1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
-1%
-2%
1%
n/a
38
METRICS D1SAGGREGATED BY COLLEGE
Disaggregated Completion Overall: Current Cohort
City
District
East Harbor Mission Pierce Southwest Trade
Valley
West
All
38.9%
33.9%
38.1%
38.5%
34.7%
47.8%
31.1%
30.0%
42.1%
37.8%
Female
39.7%
35.4%
38.6%
39.2%
35.0%
50.5%
29.9%
30.0%
43.8%
37.7%
Male
37.8%
32.1%
37.6%
37.5%
34.4%
45.0%
33.4%
30.0% 39.8% 37.9%
..rf
< 20 years old
42.6%
40.4%
41.2%
41.2%
37.7%
4
1^-
:ll
A
**u
50.1%
35.7%
31.2%
45.9%
40.8%
w
20 to 24 years old
30.1%
24.3%
30.0%
26.2%
21.2%
41.9%
21.3%
27.6%
34.7%
30.8%
25 to 39 years old
29.2%
26.9%
28.5%
30.4%
29.7%
34.2%
22.8%
30.9%
31.0%
25.0%
..Hff*
40+years old
28.0%
22.3%
24.6%
27.6%
26.8%
34.7%
20.9%
24.6%
32.6%
42.4%
African American
31.6%
27.1%
34.8%
38.1%
28.6%
49.7%
28.7%
22.8%
43.6%
33.1%
0.0%
33.3%
40.0%
14.3%
0.0%
37.5%
16.7%
0.0%
27.8% 49.5%
57.5%
45.0%
52.1%
30.0%
*.
American Indian/Alaska Native
^-
*^
24.4%
fr.
.*.
50.0%
A
+
Asian
51.6%
38.2%
54.1%
61.4%
14.3%
Filipino
42.6%
30.1%
38.5% 40.2% 58.8% 46.8%
50.0%
45.9%
56.3%
4
Hispanic
33.1%
30.4%
33.7%
33.5%
32.5%
34.2%
34.5%
31.3%
33.6%
34.0%
Pacific Islander
33.7%
33.3%
50.0%
28.1%
50.0%
32.0%
60.0%
33.3%
40.0%
0.0%
.h.
White
46.9%
38.7%
36.4%
45.8%
39
43.0%
52.7%
25.0%
31.9%
44.1%
52.7%
Disaggregated At Least 30 Units Completion Overall: Current Cohort
District
City
East Harbor Mission Pierce Southwest Trade Valley West
All
63.3%
62.0%
66.1%
63.0%
57.5%
71.9%
51.1%
55.5%
62.9%
61.2%
Female
64.6%
64.1%
68.0%
64.3%
59.6%
74.6%
50.8%
55.3%
63.6%
63.2%
Male
61.7%
59.3%
63.6%
61.6%
54.7%
69.0%
51.8%
55.7%
62.0%
58.9%
< 20 years old
66.3%
64.2%
69.3%
66.3%
59.8%
73.2%
54.5%
59.6%
65.2%
63.4%
20 to 24 years old
52.7%
54.6%
57.0%
46.8%
43.3%
62.9%
35.2%
47.7%
51.7%
56.1%
25 to 39 years old
55.6%
56.8%
56.0%
53.3%
52.7%
69.5%
48.8%
49.3%
57.3%
48.0%
40+ years old
61.8%
67.0%
56.5%
55.2%
63.4%
66.9%
48.8%
53.1%
68.2%
69.7%
African American
50.2%
51.0%
56.5%
51.1%
47.6%
64.6%
47.9%
43.5%
54.3%
52.5%
<.
American Indian/Alaska Native
65.9%
50.0%
33.3%
66.7%
60.0%
85.7%
33.3%
75.0%
83.3%
0.0%
Asian
71.9%
59.5%
74.7%
67.6%
68.8%
79.5%
57.1%
61.1%
68.4%
80.0%
Filipino
67.9%
61.3%
84.6%
74.8%
70.6%
70.5%
25.0%
80.0%
59.2%
50.0%
Hispanic
60.7%
60.9%
64.2%
61.8%
55.0%
65.6%
53.4%
57.0%
55.2%
64.5%
1WN<^la^t
*.
Pacific Islander
59.0%
66.7% 100.0% 56.3% 50.0%
52.0%
80.0%
33.3%
60.0% 100.0%
White
70.3%
69.5%
62.0%
74.7%
25.0%
66.0%
68.3%
51.5%
68.4%
40
64.9%
Disaggregated Persistence Overall: Current Cohort
District
City
East
Harbor Mission Pierce Southwest Trade
Valley
West
AH
66.1%
63.8%
73.8%
64.0%
61.4%
69.4%
57.4%
60.2%
65.0%
67.3%
Female
67.1%
65.3%
75.2%
66.0%
64.8%
69.2%
55.9%
61.3%
66.5%
69.6%
Male
64.8%
61.9%
71.9%
61.6%
56.9%
69.7%
60.4%
59.1%
62.9%
64.8%
< 20 years old
66.5%
64.1%
74.9%
65.5%
59.8%
69.0%
58.3%
60.1%
64.3%
66.6%
20 to 24 years old
61.2%
55.0%
69.7%
56.0%
62.5%
66.3%
48.1%
55.3%
62.0%
63.6%
*
25 to 39 years old
65.8%
61.1%
*.
40+ years old
71.9%
69.0%
56.5%
67.0%
77.0%
52.0%
64.5% 68.6% 69.0%
78.3%
65.5%
75.6%
72.7%
69.8%
60.8%
Jw»
77.7%
-^
African American
61.1%
65.2%
73.9%
58.5%
American Indian/Alaska Native
65.9%
50.0%
66.7%
Asian
70.0%
61.3%
Filipino
68.8%
Hispanic
67.0%
71.2%
^1
77.3%
^* -t*
52.4%
73.3%
55.6%
56.8%
57.4%
70.0%
83.3%
60.0%
85.7%
33.3%
62.5%
66.7%
0.0%
77.3%
45.9%
56.3%
76.7%
42.9%
50.0%
70.5%
65.0%
71.0%
76.9%
69.2%
64.7%
74.1%
50.0%
50.0%
60.6%
70.0%
63.4%
72.8%
63.8%
64.0%
71.5%
56.8%
61.7%
66.1%
64.5%
Pacific Islander
71.1% 66.7% 100.0% 65.6% 50.0%
72.0%
100.0%
66.7%
60.0% 100.0%
White
68.1%
70.0%
75.0%
57.4%
66.8%
^
.fwmu-iiw
T-
y"^-
*^-
67.7%
72.7%
67.5%
41
68.4%
63.5%
Disaggregated Remedial Progress English: Current Cohort
District
City
East
Harbor Mission Pierce Southwest Trade
Valley
West
All
36.3%
36.9%
42.0%
39.6%
31.4%
50.5%
22.1%
19.3%
40.0%
31.9%
Female
38.1%
39.1%
44.5%
44.5%
32.5%
54.4%
22.5%
21.5%
42.2%
31.7%
Male
33.6%
33.9%
38.2%
33.0%
29.4%
46.0%
21.0%
16.0%
36.8%
32.3%
< 20 years old
43.2%
45.7%
44.0%
45.2%
38.2%
55.4%
21.3%
25.7%
47.3%
36.7%
20 to 24 years old
30.0%
33.2%
40.3%
31.0%
23.9%
38.8%
21.2%
16.6%
31.3%
26.6%
25 to 39 years old
31.8%
33.1%
41.8%
37.4%
26.1%
46.1%
24.1%
17.7%
33.8%
30.5%
40+years old
24.4%
25.3%
33.1%
26.6%
13.9%
37.0%
22.5%
10.7%
28.7%
29.6%
African American
21.3%
22.8%
27.8%
28.2%
15.2%
43.4%
19.0%
11.9%
30.7%
26.2%
American Indian/Alaska Native
33.8%
18.2%
25.0%
57.1%
28.6%
56.3%
25.0%
25.0%
11.1%
42.9%
Asian
49.0%
41.9%
61.2%
49.2%
28.0%
57.8%
0.0%
21.7%
38.1%
36.6%
Filipino
47.7%
44.1%
40.0%
53.1%
25.0%
56.8%
66.7%
40.0%
38.5%
43.8%
Hispanic
35.6%
35.2%
39.2%
39.1%
31.3%
42.6%
25.9%
24.4%
36.3%
35.2%
4
'^lw^fpfl^*Nrtft
Pacific Islander
30.8%
16.7%
33.3%
31.6%
33.3%
34.6%
50.0%
0.0%
25.0%
40.0%
White
51.2%
49.6%
38.5%
44.8%
43.9%
60.6%
25.0%
23.3%
46.3%
41.1%
42
Disaggregated Remedial Progress English as a Second Language: Current Cohort
District
All
City
East Harbor Mission Pierce Southwest Trade
Valley
West
20.7%
13.5%
27.8%
19.6%
8.4%
29.1%
13.5%
8.7%
25.1%
22.1%
21.9%
14.3%
27.4%
20.5%
9.1%
31.0%
12.2%
9.4%
28.2%
24.1%
18.7%
12.0%
28.4%
16.7%
6.8%
26.4%
18.2%
7.9%
18.2%
15.4%
33.8%
28.2%
38.9%
20.0%
27.3%
45.1%
100.0%
13.2%
30.3%
33.3%
20 to 24 years old
35.2%
22.4%
33.7%
50.0%
21.1%
48.5%
11.1%
16.7%
38.4%
50.0%
25 to 39 years old
18.8%
13.9%
19.7%
19.0%
7.4%
25.1%
8.7%
7.3%
27.1%
15.1%
13.2%
15.4%
5.2%
15.1%
11.1%
2.8%
15.8%
14.7%
Female
*
4
"^^^flff^^^^
Male
< 20 years old
-h-
.I*
40+ years old
11.3%
ihjn.M.mi
9.3%
^fjt^
African American
12.0%
23.1%
0.0%
.'UL
i*rih
0.0%
n/a
60.0%
33.3%
0.0%
0.0%
8.3%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0%
n/a
+
American Indian/Alaska Native
n/a
n/a
n/a
^
Asian
24.9%
11.0%
31.3%
25.0%
5.6%
29.4%
n/a
30.0%
38.1%
31.6%
Filipino
26.7%
10.0%
0.0%
33.3%
0.0%
57.1%
n/a
n/a
20.0%
50.0%
Hispanic
12.7%
12.7%
16.9%
13.6%
6.7%
20.5%
12.2%
6.7%
10.5%
25.0%
n/a
0.0%
n/a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
n/a
0.0%
100.0%
n/a
16.3%
0.0%
50.0%
6.5%
30.4%
n/a
0.0%
24.3%
43.8%
^
Pacific Islander
White
23.0%
43
Disaggregated Remedial Progress Math: Current Cohort
District
City
^ast_ _y51r*?9_r_ _Mlsslon Pierce Southwest Trade Valley West
All
25.5%
24.2%
37.9%
37.7%
29.0%
35.8%
14.9%
7.9%
26.4%
18.7%
Female
26.2%
24.8%
36.7%
39.2%
31.1%
38.2%
14.5%
8.7%
27.5%
18.4%
MNIF ..
f-
Male
24.4%
23.4%
39.7%
35.2%
25.5%
32.4%
15.7%
6.8%
24.7%
19.1%
< 20 years old
30.3%
29.7%
44.2%
36.8%
34.3%
37.3%
14.5%
14.0%
29.1%
21.3%
20 to 24 years old
23.5%
23.2%
37.1%
37.2%
25.5%
33.2%
13.3%
6.8%
23.8%
18.0%
25 to 39 years old
23.0%
22.6%
30.8%
42.2%
23.5%
37.2%
17.6%
5.1%
26.5%
15.1%
40+ years old
17.6%
15.0%
20.5%
32.6%
20.5%
32.2%
13.8%
3.4%
22.2%
18.0%
11.0%
11.6%
24.4%
24.0%
16.9%
23.1%
11.6%
3.7%
10.7%
12.9%
African American
*1
f
American Indian/Alaska Native
22.5%
16.7%
20.0%
63.6%
18.8%
20.0%
40.0%
0.0%
18.8%
0.0%
Asian
42.4%
37.5%
53.4%
61.0%
47.4%
39.7%
0.0%
11.4%
34.2%
39.4%
t
^^V^^v#l^ywfy^
<
t
'*-***
-ytfvfrl
*
-"ny
<**-
fwwn^Ha^
Filipino
33.8%
28.1%
21.1%
56.1%
26.9%
37.3%
16.7%
6.3%
32.3%
33.3%
Hispanic
26.6%
22.6%
36.6%
34.2%
28.6%
31.1%
18.7%
11.3%
23.4%
21.9%
<
^^
Pacific Islander
27.2%
28.6%
33.3%
38.5%
0.0%
31.8%
37.5%
0.0%
14.3%
0.0%
White
36.9%
34.6%
29.3%
52.2%
31.1%
43.9%
16.7%
7.5%
33.1%
27.6%
44
Disaggregated Career Technical Education Completion: Current Cohort
District
City
East Harbor Mission Pierce Southwest Trade Valley West
All
46.6%
44.0%
48.6%
57.4%
51.5%
48.9%
55.0%
38.8%
52.9%
40.0%
Female
50.3%
46.6%
53.4%
57.7%
53.0%
50.1%
54.7%
47.2%
54.6%
42.1%
Male
42.2%
40.5%
42.9%
57.0%
48.0%
47.5%
55.8%
33.9%
50.6%
37.4%
55.7%
55.4%
55.5%
52.9%
58.0%
64.9%
57.0%
44.2%
56.4%
57.4%
20 to 24 years old
51.2%
52.8%
51.4%
58.0%
55.4%
53.1%
58.3%
39.4%
64.3%
45.5%
25 to 39 years old
42.6%
37.9%
44.7%
64.0%
46.7%
37.2%
58.2%
39.3%
48.4%
35.7%
V ^
< 20 years old
T
f
***»
40+ years old
36.5%
36.7%
35.9%
51.0%
46.5%
28.7%
43.8%
32.1%
39.4%
35.8%
African American
44.4%
42.4%
60.2%
63.9%
62.7%
52.5%
55.6%
38.8%
50.5%
33.8%
American Indian/Alaska Native
41.0%
0.0%
100.0% 100.0% 25.0%
16.7%
0.0%
50.0%
33.3%
28.6%
Asian
50.3%
34.0%
55.4%
51.5%
59.0%
58.0%
68.8%
39.2%
67.7%
41.8%
Filipino
58.1%
56.3%
59.5%
66.7%
46.7%
63.2%
90.9%
37.5%
60.3%
51.9%
Hispanic
45.1%
42.9%
48.8%
52.0%
47.1%
47.0%
48.9%
38.6%
52.2%
35.8%
.^.^ *ri
.».
<mn
Pacific Islander
42.6%
33.3%
50.0%
57.1%
0.0%
33.3%
100.0%
44.4%
33.3%
44.4%
White
46.9%
50.6%
36.1%
56.8%
54.0%
44.4%
58.8%
36.9%
47.1%
49.7%
45
*
Disaggregated Career Development and College Preparation: Current Cohort
District
City
East Harbor Mission Pierce Southwest Trade Valley West
All
7%
11.1%
4.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.8%
5.6%
7.5%
n/a
Female
8%
11.3%
5.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.3%
7.1%
9.8%
n/a
Male
5%
10.7%
2.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.5%
4.2%
3.8%
n/a
< 20 years old
9%
16.5%
4.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.0%
6.2%
20.4%
n/a
20 to 24 years old
9%
17.2%
3.6%
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.7%
3.1%
6.3%
n/a
25 to 39 years old
6%
11.9%
3.8%
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.3%
3.0%
9.2%
n/a
40+ years old
3%
2.3%
6.2%
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.3%
3.2%
3.3%
n/a
African American
7%
10.2%
0.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
15.8%
4.0%
10.0%
n/a
V"**
American Indian/Alaska Native
n/a
0.0%
0.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0%
0.0%
n/a
Asian
11%
18.2%
4.9%
n/a
n/a
n/a
50.0°/o
10.5%
11.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
7.2%
4.1%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.0%
6.0%
2.3%
n/a
n
ff
.NW*'
TT
Filipino
n/a
Hispanic
5%
'S^M^^S^f
Pacific Islander
19%
White
n/a
0.0%
0.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
n/a
26.5%
0.0%
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.0%
10.0%
13.7%
n/a
46
METRICS DISAGGREGATED BY LACCD AND STATE
Disaggregated Completion Overall: Current Cohort
LACCD
State
All
38.9%
46.8%
Female
39.7%
48.1%
Male
37.8%
45.3%
< 20 years old
42.6%
49.9%
20 to 24 years old
30.1%
35.0%
25 to 39 years old
29.2%
33.2%
40+ years old
28.0%
31.9%
African American
31.6%
36.8%
f
American Indian/Alaska Native
24.4%
34.1%
Asian
51.6%
64.8%
Filipino
42.6%
50.9%
Hispanic
33.1%
38.4%
Pacific Islander
33.7%
41.0%
^^v
White
46.9%
51.1%
47
Disaggregatect At Least 30 Units Completion Overall: Current Cohort
LACCD
State
All
63.3%
66.5%
Female
64.6%
67.7%
Male
61.7%
65.2%
< 20 years old
66.3%
68.5%
20 to 24 years old
52.7%
56.2%
25 to 39 years old
55.6%
60.0%
40+ years old
61.8%
60.1%
African American
50.2%
55.9%
American Indian/Alaska Native
65.9%
56.6%
uwli.
h
Asian
71.9%
74.3%
Filipino
67.9%
70.4%
Hispanic
60.7%
63.4%
Pacific Islander
59.0%
62.2%
White
70.3%
68.9%
48
Disaggregated Persistence Overall: Current Cohort
LACCD
State
66.1%
71.7%
67.1%
72.3%
Male
64.8%
71.1%
< 20 years old
66.5%
72.7%
20 to 24 years old
61.2%
64.0%
25 to 39 years old
65.8%
68.8%
40+ years old
71.9%
73.7%
African American
61.1%
67.5%
American Indian/Alaska Native
65.9%
67.2%
Asian
70.0%
75.4%
Filipino
68.8%
75.0%
Hispanic
67.0%
70.4%
Pacific Islander
71.1%
68.6%
White
68.1%
72.9%
All
Female
*
*.
*s»
49
Disaggregated Remedial Progress English: Current Cohort
LACCD
State
All
36.3%
43.4%
Female
38.1%
45.7%
Male
33.6%
40.7%
< 20 years old
43.2%
49.0%
20 to 24 years old
30.0%
35.8%
25 to 39 years old
31.8%
35.8%
40+ years old
24.4%
29.1%
African American
21.3%
28.4%
American Indian/Alaska Native
33.8%
32.1%
Asian
49.0%
59.3%
-^*f
T
Filipino
47.7%
53.3%
Hispanic
35.6%
40.2%
Pacific Islander
30.8%
39.1%
White
51.2%
48.3%
50
Disaggregated Remedial Progress English as a Second Language: Current Cohort
LACCD
State
All
20.7%
28.4%
Female
21.9%
29.5%
Male
18.7%
27.0%
< 20 years old
33.8%
49.0%
20 to 24 years old
35.2%
39.8%
25 to 39 years old
18.8%
+
22.5%
.»
'T-
40+years old
11.3%
13.0%
African American
12.0%
26.3%
n/a
19.6%
American Indian/Alaska Native
Asian
24.9%
36.5%
Filipino
26.7%
31.2%
Hispanic
12.7%
19.5%
n/a
24.0%
23.0%
31.3%
.*.
Pacific Islander
White
1
51
Disaggregated Remedial Progress Math: Current Cohort
LACCD
State
All
25.5%
31.0%
Female
26.2%
32.7%
Male
24.4%
28.8%
< 20 years old
30.3%
34.3%
20 to 24 years old
23.5%
28.3%
23.0%
28.6%
40+ years old
17.6%
24.0%
African American
11.0%
25 to 39 years old
.V-
^m-^.^
17.4%
l-^-
<**-..
American Indian/Alaska Native
22.5%
25.1%
Asian
42.4%
44.0%
4
-4.
fc
Filipino
33.8%
37.9%
Hispanic
26.6%
29.4%
Pacific Islander
27.2%
26.7%
White
36.9%
35.2%
52
Disaggregated Career Technical Education Completion: Current Cohort
LACCD
State
All
46.6%
49.9%
Female
503%
52.9%
Male
42.2%
47.0%
55.7%
62.2%
20 to 24 years old
51.2%
52.7%
25 to 39 years old
42.6%
43.1%
40+ years old
36.5%
36.1%
African American
44.4%
44.9%
American Indian/Alaska Native
41.0%
43.6%
Asian
50.3%
55.2%
Filipino
58.1%
60.1%
Hispanic
45.1%
47.9%
Pacific Islander
42.6%
50.8%
White
46.9%
50.5%
< 20 years old
..dfr,l.
.>t:t 'l| ' H*
*
<h1-
-^w
53
Disaggregated Career Development and College Preparation: Current Cohort
LACCD
State
All
7%
8.4%
Female
8%
8.8%
Male
5%
8.1%
< 20 years old
9%
13.1%
20 to 24 years old
9%
13.0%
25 to 39 years old
6%
6.9%
».
<-.
40+years old
3%
3.8%
African American
7%
11.0%
American Indian/Alaska Native
n/a
14.0%
Asian
11%
11.7%
Filipino
n/a
Hispanic
5%
6.5%
Pacific Islander
19%
9.8%
White
n/a
11.4%
t-
^
A
n/a
54