Minutes - DRC Meeting: November 19, 2015; 9:30 am
Present: Rhea Estoya (H), Stanislav Levin (D), Moon Ko (D), Joan Lang (H), Maury Pearl (D), Anna Badalyan (T),
Laura Cruz-Atrian (T), Rene Marquez (T)
Over the phone: Oleg Bespalov (P), Rebecca Tillberg (W), Agyeman Boateng (W), Sarah Master (M), Patricia Chow (M),
Emil Mubarakshin (C), Edward Pai (H), Yosief Yihunie (V), Ani Zarpas (V), Michelle Fowles (V)
Anna chaired the meeting.
Agenda items:
1. Agenda, added to the items to the floor section:
 Nursing survey (Maury)
 IEPI (Maury)
 Identifying exclusively non-credit students (Ani)
2. Review 10/15/2015 minutes (all)
 Consensus on last meeting's minutes.
3. Accreditation (all)
 Anna
i. Trade very confident.
ii. Introduction section posted online: http://college.lattc.edu/accreditation/accreditation-2016-drafts/
iii. Trade used Ani's data for the student areas.
 Joan
i. Harbor has a new design: Communications, Program Review and Planning, SharePoint.
ii. Feedback: Great alignment.
 Rhea
i. Pilot done – working on some other modules.
ii. College focus, how things fit into that plan (integrated planning).
4. IPEDS Procedures: College and District (Maury)
 Maury:
i. Recently closed the survey.
ii. Out of range values warnings – very specific categories / CIP codes.
iii. Looking at prior and current years, looking at CIP codes and Male vs. Female.
iv. Colleges need to pay more attention to warning and clear them by the key-holder lock day – resolve at the
college level.
v. It is a federal survey and explanations that are not well reasoned or restatement of the issues does not lend
credibility to the institution.
vi. DO does not have enough information to resolve those warnings.
vii. DO works with State or IPEDS with system error and similar warnings.
viii. DO to improve communication with colleges (e.g., key-holder lock day reminders).
ix. DO to report on programs through IPEDS when funding comes through DE. DO trying to keep a list of those
programs.
 Anna:
i. Need to make sure that award programs that can be offered through DE match what the college really offers.
ii. DE programs not rolled over.
5. VTEA Survey (Maury)
 Maury:
i. PeopleSoft conversation adding fields that capture all data elements of the VTEA survey.
ii. Many items of that survey are not collected through CCCApply.
iii. Looks for student participation in econ dis programs (CalWORKs, GAIN, etc.).
iv. Question asked: do we still need to collect all those VTEA survey elements?
v. Need to check if there is redundant information collected through this survey.
vi. Next question: how is all that information makes it there? – Not addressed yet.
 Anna:
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
i. Ed Goal, BOGG, and similar elements are important for their calculations/report.
ii. This survey is important for Trade – need a team to make sure all necessary elements remain in the
PeopleSoft implementation.
AOC Study (Maury)
 Maury:
i. Implementation of Student Success Act – mandatory A, O, and C to promote student success.
ii. How are these 3 services helping improve student success?
iii. At this time, only short-term indicators checked: Persistence, course completion, retention, and similar – can
correlate with services.
iv. Stan ran analysis.
v. Stan also analyzed the data by Ed Goal.
vi. Transfer population – significant measures noted.
vii. Not included: Probation populations.
viii. Other possibilities may be look at. Feedback would be appreciated (directions, explanations, etc.) – send to
Maury and Stan.
 Anna:
i. Keep in mind: 1 class taken – only one or few services used. Longer in the college, more services used. Does
this give you a valid view of the situation?
ii. Interesting observation noted: Undecided not impacted.
 Ed:
i. Did you look at Math and English enrollment? – Maury: No.
District Strategic Plan Review (Maury) – Tabled.
Training for EMSI (Maury)
 Maury:
i. Certification available. Very basic training provided last time.
ii. Licensing – Cost went up: $10,000.
 Anna:
i. Are there online videos we can use? – Maury to check.
Participation in 2015-16 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:16) (Emil)
 Maury:
i. Letter came to H, M, and P, not connected to IPEDS.
ii. College survey coordinator is needed.
 Rhea:
i. Small sample needed (about 10).
 Anna
i. Need to provide them the participating student transcripts.
Feedback from colleges using Tableau (Emil)
 Ani
i. Easy to visualize.
ii. 1 million row limit.
iii. Beautiful reports.
 Rebecca
i. Too expensive.
ii. Santa Barbara has a great install / setup.
iii. More complex display of information.
iv. Connection with DEC had issues.
 Anna
i. Problems with sustainability.
ii. Problems keeping data updated.
iii. Their server version is a security issues. We would need to "clean" data (removed identifiable data) in order
to use it.
Missing SSN Report follow-up (Emil)
Minutes - DRC Meeting: November 19, 2015
Page 2 of 3

Maury
i. Many colleges above CCCApply threshold of how many students do not have an SSN on record (this year: M,
E, and C)
ii. To check if the SSN option default setting is system or college set.
iii. Stan did crosstab to see how many don't have SSNs in SB table (not SIS table). Were able to explain about
71% of missing SSNs (46,000 total student count). Foreign students, residents with SSN application in process,
Non-credit students, AB 540 students, etc. (see "SB file for Fall 2013 / Students with SB01 = C in Fall 2013 SB
file" handout).
iv. The rest sent to DO IT for help to explain (~5,000 district-wide)
v. DO IT many with invalid SSN maybe due to data entry error.
vi. BOGG seen as unverified source.
vii. No plans to resubmit.
 Anna
i. How to increase the number of applicants submitting correct SSN?
ii. Changing the SSN option in the CCCApply application to "yes"?
iii. Maybe the type of application flag in our databases (paper vs. CCCApply) can help identify if either method
can provide a better understanding of the issue.
12. Training for daily FTES tracking (Joan)
 Maury:
i. Budget office schedules meeting on that.
ii. College projections help validate DO figures.
iii. Just FTES: go to FTERDB table
iv. Projections are very dynamic. CENRDB for summer and fall projections.
 Anna:
i. Are researches involved? Maury: It is up to the college.
ii. We (Trade) calculate current / actual FTES using Brio. We believe Bryan converted it to Access (SIS and
Protocol).
iii. Positive attendance – we look at subject.
 Joan:
i. We monitor enrollment.
 Training scheduled for next meeting (12/17/2015).
13. Items from the floor (all)
 Nursing Survey (Maury)
i. Maury:
1. Department Chairs may be able to handle it.
2. Request from one of the Trustees (see "2015 Nursing programs survey 11-10-2015.docx" file attached to
Bobbi Kimble's "RE: Trustee Inquiry RE: Nursing Program Cost, Outcomes and Diversity," 11/18/2015
email).
3. Interested on understanding the cost involved.
4. Stan ran tables with student enrollment and similar.
5. Budget Office data is not clear cut in order to get a clear picture.
6. Survey is only about Nursing (CNA not included).
ii. Anna:
1. Nursing Chair at Trade did annual report. Feedback requested to work with OIE next time.
2. Make sure the numbers in the annual report match the numbers provided for the nursing survey.
3. Administrative Services at the college level maybe the ones to answer the survey.
 Identifying exclusively Non-credit students (Ani)
i. Maury:
1. Questions from SSSP: Are non-credit students going to be tracked into a particular service? How to
identify those students? Upon entry, what services those student would get? How to identify what
services to provide?
 IEPI (Maury) – Tabled.
14. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
Minutes - DRC Meeting: November 19, 2015
Page 3 of 3