Annual Program Assessment (APA) Academic Year

Transcription

1 Annual Program Assessment (APA) Academic Year Program Description The Child Development and Education (CDE) Program offers a transfer degree in Early Education Studies, a non-transfer degree and Certificate in Child Development and Education as well as Early Intervention and Inclusion. The CDE major includes required courses in child development and general education electives. Child Development Education is the study of the physical, psychosocial and cognitive growth and development of the child from conception through adolescence. The purpose of this major is to provide a sound academic program in Child Development and to prepare students to work with and advocate for children and families in a variety of school and community settings. In addition to theoretical principles, the curriculum offers practical skills and on-site training that will prepare students for employment in the field of Education. Child Development and Education students pursue careers in childcare, preschool teaching and administration, early intervention services, parent education, primary, secondary and post-secondary education, teaching and supporting children with special needs or working with a variety of counseling, social service and community agencies. The program fulfills the required child development course work for the State issued Child Development Permit. Information regarding this permit and/or the Child Development and Education and Early Intervention and Inclusion Certificates is available from the CDE Department. All course work leading to a certificate or degree must be completed with a minimum grade of C (2.0) or better. I. Program, Course and Assessment A. Awards and Completion Using the 2015 Program Review Data for your discipline please provide the number of Associate degrees and certificates awarded. Also report the average time to completion for these degrees and certificates. Please respond to each prompt below. A1. Awards Under Program Award Count, provide the total number of Associate degrees and the total number of certificates awarded by your program per year. (Please see instructions for suggested response formats for this and all subsequent prompts). During the a total of 28 degrees and 8 certificates were awarded: AST Early Childhood Transfer degrees totaled 8 awards, AS CDE Non Transfer degrees totaled 23 awards and AS Early Intervention and Inclusion degrees totaled 5 awards. 1

2 In addition, the department awarded 2 Early Intervention and Inclusion certificates and 6 Child Development and Education certificates. The total amount of awards was slightly higher with the department awarding more degrees and fewer certificates this past year. This may have been a result of counseling students to pursue degrees verse certificates. For each degree type (AA/AS for Option B, Option C and Transfer) and certificate (CT), is the number of awards increasing, decreasing or constant? During the number of degrees the department awarded is gradually increasing. Fewer students are pursuing the AS Non Transfer Child Development and Education degree in favor of the AST Early Childhood Degree. AS Child Development and Education decreased by 6 awards AST Early Childhood Increased by 7 Awards AS Early Intervention and Inclusion increase by 3 awards. According to a recent survey of CDE students during the Fall 2015 semester, 46% of the students intend to transfer to a four-year university. This could be the reason for the degree trend. If the number of any award is decreasing, please identify this award and suggest ways to reverse this trend. The AS Non-Transfer is decreasing; however, more students are selecting a transfer route. This is a positive trend. Is there any additional information or commentary? A2. Average Years to Completion Under Program Average Years to Completion, report the typical years to completion for each degree and certificate in your program. During the the average degree completion time for the district was 5.3. Specific to our program the AST Early Childhood Education (ECE) degree averaged 5.8 years, AS Child Development and Education (CDE) Non Transfer averaged 6.4 years and AS Early Intervention and Inclusion (EII) averages 6.7 years. For each degree type (AA/AS for Option B, Option C and Transfer) and certificate (CT), are the numbers increasing, decreasing or constant with time. The AST Transfer in ECE is a fairly new degree and does not have clear historical data. According to the data provided it is taking students less time to complete the AS Non Transfer CDE Degree from 7.5 years to 6.4 years and for certificates 9.1 to 7.6 years. Conversely it is taking students pursuing the AS Non Transfer EII degree longer 5.8 to 6.7 years and certificates 7.3 to 7.8 years. 2

3 How do the rates for each degree and certificate compare to the District Average Time to Completion? Compared to the district average it is taking our students longer to complete all degrees. The AST Early Childhood ( ECE) has the most comparable years to completion timeframe with only a four-month difference. The AS Non Transfer degree in Child Development and Education (CDE) and the AS degree in Early Intervention and Inclusion (EII) average approximately 1 year longer to complete than the district average. Moreover, the AS Non Transfer CDE and EII certificates take students almost two years longer to complete. If any of these rates are much larger than the District Average Time to Completion, please list these awards, their completion times and provide suggestions to decrease their completion times. The increase time for student completions of all Child Development and Education degrees and certificates is likely due to the demographic of the CDE student and changes to the degrees offered by the department. According to the department Fall 2015 survey, the Child Development (CDE) student is often a female student with children balancing family and school. 65% of the CDE student population is working at least part-time. Is there any additional information or commentary? Due to the structure of the field the CDE student has many employment options after just 12 units of CDE. Many students may enter as a full time student and drop to a part time status after completion of the four-core coursework. Increase employment opportunities and subsequent change of status may be the reason it takes CDE students longer to complete the degree sequence. B. Program and Courses Please review the data for your program and courses and respond to each prompt below. NOTE: Please utilize the Fall 2015 Convocation input for Fill, Retention and Success Rate responses. B1. Fill Rate B1a. Program Fill Rate Provide the typical Program Total Fill Rate and the typical Institutional Average Fill Rate (see instructions to locate these rates in the data). Institutional average fill rate is 87%. CDE courses have averaged approximately 84% fill rate across all degrees with the lowest rate in Temecula and next San Jacinto campuses. AS Non Transfer CDE and AS Non Transfer EII fill rate is 83.6% while the AST ECE fill rate is 84.7%. 3

4 From fall 2010 through spring 2015, how does the Program Total Fill Rate compare to the Institutional Average Fill Rate? During the span of fall 2010 to Spring 2015 the fill rates have gradually improved with some years a -10% gap between Institutional average verse the program to in the last 2 years narrowing to a -6% gap between the institutional average verses the CDE program. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific program fill rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the program s total fill rate? BAN: The data for BAN is incomplete with no data for two years. From the fill rates ranged from 88%- 58%. MVC: AS ECE: The program fill rate is 84%. The MVC program fill rate is 84%. This is on target. AS Non-Transfer CDE/EII: The program fill rate is 83%. The online 83% program fill rate is 84%. This is on target. ONLIN: As ECE : The program fill rate is 84%. The online program fill rate is 83%. This percentage is slightly better than the program fill rate. AS Non-Transfer CDE/EII: The program fill rate is 83%. The Online program fill rate is 89%. This percentage is slightly better than the program fill rate. SJC: As ECE: The program fill rate is 84%. The SJC program fill rate is 87%. This percentage is slightly lower than the program fill rate. AS Non-Transfer CDE/EII: The program fill rate is 83%. The SJC program fill rate is 81%. This percentage is slightly lower than the program fill rate. TEM: As ECE: The program fill rate is 84%. The TEM program fill rate is 87%. This percentage is slightly lower than the program fill rate. AS Non-Transfer CDE/EII: The program fill rate is 83%. The TEM program fill rate is 81%. This percentage is slightly lower than the program fill rate. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific rates compare to one another? The fill rates for the online course have the highest fill rates gradually increasing over time. The most stable fill rate is MVC. The Temecula Campus fluctuates between high and low fill rates over the past 5 years. SJC has gradual decreasing fill rates with some fluctuation. Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate. 4

5 The clearest area of growth is online. The department has offered primarily transfer level courses online. The convenience and increase accessibility of technology makes this a more viable option to students. MVC remains stable with little to no variation in fill rates. SJC campus fill rates have lower fill rates and this is experienced across disciplines and is not isolated to the CDE department. Temecula fill rates are inconsistent and may be a result of trying various types of courses at that location, for example, non-transferable and degree specific courses such as CDE 103 and 101 courses. Additionally, the department revised curriculum to add pre-requisites to many courses. It is expected fill rates will dip for a 3-4 semester after implementation. To increase program fill rates while maintaining student access and equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to o course offerings and/or scheduling (e.g. adjusting the number of sections offered, mix of modalities, frequency, location) o other? Yes, the data suggest the areas for growth is in our online offering. The department just revised curriculum to add more courses to be offered via distance education. In addition, the department is attempting to schedule primarily course that are required at the San Jacinto Campus, while offering elective courses at MVC where fill rates are more consistent. Lastly, the department will only offer transfer level courses at the Temecula site until enrollment at those sites increase. What will be required to implement these changes? The department completed a comprehensive 2 year scheduling plan to aide students in navigating the degree pathway. Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if program fill rates are low, can the number of courses offered be reduced without increasing student time-to-completion or impacting full-time instructor workloads? Increasing the number of sections the department is able to offer online may be the only barrier. B1b. Course Fill Rates How do the typical course fill rates for courses in your discipline compare to the program total fill rate? Please see instructions for suggested response formats. BAN: The data for BAN is incomplete with no data for two years. From the fill rates ranged from 88%- 58%. MVC: 5

6 AST ECE: The MVC program fill rate is 84%. This percentage is on par with the program fill rate. CDE 140 and CDE 125 is experiencing a gradual decline in enrollment. AS Non-Transfer CDE/EII: The MVC program fill rate is 84%. This percentage is on par with the program fill rate. CDE 147 is experiencing a gradual decline in enrollment. CDE 111 is increasing in enrollment. SJC: As ECE: The SJC program fill rate is 81%. This percentage is slightly lower than the program fill rate. AS Non-Transfer CDE/EII: The MVC program fill rate is 83%. This percentage is on par with the program fill rate. Fill rates is relatively stable with high fill rates in CDE 103 and CDE 111. TEM: As ECE: The TEM program fill rate is 81%. This percentage is slightly lower than the program fill rate. Fill rate is relatively stable with high fill rates in CDE 110. AS Non-Transfer CDE: The TEM program fill rate is 81%. This percentage is slightly lower than the program fill rate. Fill rates are relatively stable with a slight drop in CDE 102 but high fill rates in CDE 110. Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate. CDE 110 has high fill rates for each program. Online the fill rates are gradually increasing. There is more student demand for online course offerings. To increase course fill rates while maintaining student success, access and equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to o course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting length of course (17.5 vs. 8 weeks), days/times, modality) o curriculum (e.g. increasing or decreasing content, prerequisites) o pedagogy (e.g. lecture vs. group work, use of technology) o other? The Non Transfer EII program courses CDE 140, 143 and 144 needs to be scheduled differently. CDE 143 and CDE 140 should be offered online and CDE 144 needs to be limited to every two years. What will be required to implement these changes? Curriculum changes to DE addendums 6

7 Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if course fill rates are low, can the number of sections offered be reduced without increasing student time-to-completion or impacting full-time instructor workloads? No B2. Waitlists B2a. Program Waitlist How has the Program Total Waitlist Count trended? Overall the department waitlist is gradually increasing with a slight dip in the waitlist during the spring 2015 term. Typically waitlist is around 200 students. Describe the program waitlist trends for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN). BAN: No data available MVC: The waitlist for MVC is 40 students. The trend is slightly lower than the past three semesters. ONLIN: The waitlist for Online is 76 students. The trend is slightly higher and gradually increasing. SJC: The waitlist for SJC is 38 students. The trend is significantly lower and gradually decreasing. TEM: The waitlist for Temecula is 30 students. The trend is significantly higher and gradually increasing. B2b. Course Waitlists For each site (SJC, MVC, BAN, TEM, ONLIN), list a course (or two) in your discipline with a large waitlist. Please include the actual typical waitlist size for each course. BAN: There is limited data on waitlist for BAN 2010 had 2 students and 2012 had 9. There have been no courses offered in BAN for several years. MVC: CDE 110 has a 12-student waitlist ONLIN: 7

8 CDE 110 has a 48-student waitlist and CDE 111 has an 11 person waitlist. SJC: CDE 110 has a 16-student waitlist and CDE 101 has an 8-person waitlist. TEM: CDE 110 has a 15-person waitlist For the courses listed above, what scheduling improvements have been, or will be, devised to satisfy student demand and maximize schedule efficiency (i.e. decrease our waitlist sizes but still fill our classrooms!)? The department will offer more CDE 110 classes online and increase online course offerings. What will be required to implement these changes? The department will need to be able to add more distance education courses to the course offering, specifically CDE 110. Qualified adjuncts are needed to implement this plan. Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, does a lack of room or instructor availability limit the number or modality of additional sections that can be offered? The department will need to train and identify qualified online instructors. To decrease waitlists sizes (and increase student access) while maintaining equity, does the waitlist information suggest changes to o course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting frequency, day vs. evening, location, modality), o curriculum (e.g. prerequisites, class cap size), o initial placement (e.g. using high school GPA for initial placement of English and math students) o other? The department will need to be more strategic in offering CDE 110 courses. The Temecula campus will move to offering only CDE 110 and CDE 101 to decrease waitlist. Again, the department will offer more CDE 110 classes online and increase online course offerings. What will be required to implement these changes? The department will need to train faculty and add more online CDE 110 sections. Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, is room size an issue? Is a section typically offered in a room that has fewer seats than the curriculum cap? Again, the department will need to train faculty and add sections to course offerings. B3. Retention Rates B3a. Program Retention Rates List the typical Program Retention Rate and the Institutional Standard and typical District Average Retention Rates. NOTE: Please utilize the Fall 2015 Convocation input for Retention Rate responses. 8

9 From fall 2010 through spring 2015, how does the Program Retention Rate compare to the District Average Retention Rate? The district average retention rate is 84%. The CDE program s retention rate are generally slightly above the district average ranging between 85%-87% in all degree options. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific program retention rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the Program Retention Rate? BAN: Limited data for BAN. Spring 2014 retention is 61% while Spring 2011 is 94%. MVC: For the AS CDE and EII degree the retention rates is 90%. For the AST ECE the retention rate is 90%. ONLIN: For the AS CDE and EII degree the retention rates is 80%. For the AST ECE the retention rate is 80% SJC: For the AS CDE and EII degree the retention rates is 83%. For the AST ECE the retention rate is 83.9% TEM: For the AS CDE and EII degree the retention rates is 92%. For the AST ECE the retention rate is 92% For this same time frame, how do the site-specific rates compare to one another? The department s best retention rate is Temecula and MVC and the lowest is online. Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate. As with most programs on campus online retention is much more difficult to support due to the nature of the modality. Currently the online retention rate is 80%, which is lower than other modalities but not too far off the District average. To improve program retention while maintaining equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to o course offerings and scheduling(e.g. adjusting mix of modalities, course length, frequency, location) o other? The department plans to participate in training in the OEI rubric to better train faculty in online teaching strategies. Additionally, the department plans to develop a 9

10 course CDE 110 Template module to provide structure and support to new online faculty. What will be required to implement these changes? The department needs, resources to support faculty s time and provide training resources to prepare the online template-teaching module for associate faculty use. Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if courses required for a degree or certificate are not offered regularly, so students are leaving MSJC before completing their degrees and certificates, are there sufficient numbers of instructors and rooms to schedule these courses more often? On going support for faculty training and development B3b. Course Retention Rates How do the course retention rates for your discipline compare to the program s retention rate? Please see instructions (make instructions a link) for suggested response formats BAN: There is limited data for Ban for the last year. In general the data is significantly lower than the program rate ranging from 61%in Spring 2014 to 94% in MVC: AS Non Transfer/ EII retention rate is 90%, approximately 4 % over program rate. AST ECE retention rate is 90%, approximately 4 % over program rate. CDE 125 is slightly below at 83%. ONLIN: AS Non Transfer/ EII retention rate is for online is 79%, approximately 10 % below program rate. AST ECE retention rate is 80%, approximately 10 % below program rate. SJC: AS Non Transfer/ EII retention rate is 83.8%, approximately on par with the program rate. CDE 102 and CDE 103 are significantly below the program rate by at least 10%. AST ECE retention rate is 83.9%, on par with program rate. CDE 103 is slightly below at 66%. TEM: AS Non Transfer/ EII retention rate is 92%, approximately 6 % over program rate. No issues with any course retention. AST ECE retention rate is 92%, approximately 6 % over program rate. No issues with any course retention. Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate. The online retention is lower by 10%. To improve course retention rates while ensuring equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to 10

11 o o o o course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting length, days/times, modality) curriculum (e.g. increasing or decreasing content, prerequisites) pedagogy (e.g. lecture vs. group work, use of technology) other? As mentioned again, online training of faculty and some standardization in course design may help student with completing online course work. What will be required to implement these changes? Training offered on online pedagogy and resource support for creation for online course development is needed. Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if reducing the length of a course section from 17.5 weeks to 8 weeks would increase student motivation (and, hopefully, improve student engagement and retention), is a room and instructor available for this accelerated section? There needs to be other options to the online course schedule weeks is too long and 8 weeks is too short. Has research been conducted to look at success of rates since the college has moved to 8 week only online course offerings. B4. Success Rates B4a. Program Success Rates List the typical Program Success Rate and the Institutional Standard and typical District Average Success Rates. NOTE: Please utilize the Fall 2015 Convocation input for Success Rate responses. The institutional standard success rate is 66%. The district average success rate is typically about 67% and the program success rate is typically about 73%. From fall 2010 through spring 2015, how does the Program Success Rate compare to the District Average Success Rate? AST ECE: The program success rate is typically at or above the institutional average success rate. At best it was 6% above the district average. AS Non-Transfer CDE/EII: The program success rate is typically at or above the institutional average success rate. At best it was 6% above the district average. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific success rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the Program Success Rate? BAN: The AS Non Transfer CDE/EII: There is limited data for BAN. The BAN success rate is about 50%, well below the district success rate by 17%. 11

12 The AST ECE: There is limited data for BAN. The BAN success rate is about 50%, well below the district success rate by 17%. MVC: The AS Non Transfer CDE/EII: The MVC success rate is 78% above the district rate by 5%. The AST ECE: The MVC success rate is 78% above the district rate by 5%. ONLIN: The AS Non Transfer CDE/EII: The online success rate is 69.5% above the district rate by 3%. The AST ECE: The Online success rate is 70% above the district rate by 3%. SJC: The AS Non Transfer CDE/EII: The SJC success rate is 68.7% above the district rate by 1%. The AST ECE: The SJC success rate is 68.6% above the district rate by 1%. TEM: The AS Non Transfer CDE/EII: The TEM success rate is 78.% above the district rate by 9%. The AST ECE: The TEM success rate is % above the district rate by 9%. For the same time frame, how do the site-specific rates compare to one another? Ban, SJC and Online appear to have the lowest success rates. The highest success is at TEM and MVC. Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate. This success data is common district wide. SJC and online typically have lower success than any other modality and locations. Students appear to be less prepared to take online courses. To improve program success while ensuring equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to o course offerings and/or scheduling (e.g. length of course, location, learning communities) o other? None necessary What will be required to implement these changes? None 12

13 Are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if a learning community would increase student success, is creating the common assignments or projects a significant challenge? None B4b. Course Success Rates How do the course success rates for your discipline compare to the Program Success Rate? Please see instructions for suggested response formats. BAN: The AS Non Transfer CDE/EII: The success rate for CDE 101 is poor between 38.1 and 57%. The AST ECE: The success rate for CDE 101 is poor between 38.1 and 57%. MVC: The AS Non Transfer CDE/EII: The success rate is high 78%, 6% over the program rate. The AST ECE: The success rate is high 78%, 6% over the program rate. ONLIN: The AS Non Transfer CDE/EII: The success rate is high 70%, 4% under the program rate. The AST ECE: The success rate is high 69.5%, 4% under the program rate. SJC: The AS Non Transfer CDE/EII: The success rate is high 68%, 6% under the program rate. The AST ECE: The success rate is high 68%, 6% under the program rate. TEM: The AS Non Transfer CDE/EII: The success rate is high 78%, 6% over the program rate. The AST ECE: The success rate is high 78%, 6% over the program rate. Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Please provide brief commentary and suggest explanations for these differences. For each site or modality (face-to-face or online) mentioned, please include its rate. Again, This success data is common district wide. SJC and online typically have lower success than any other modality and locations. Students appear to be less prepared to take online courses. To improve student success, access and to ensure equity, does the data analysis above suggest changes to o course offerings or scheduling (e.g. adjusting days/times, modality) o curriculum (e.g. increasing or decreasing content, prerequisites) o pedagogy (e.g. lecture vs. group work, use of technology) 13

14 o other? CDE 101 seems to be the lowest success rate. This is the entry-level course in the program. Training 101 instructors and orienting CDE 101 may be necessary. Full time faculty need to review the COR of CDE 101 and CDE 125. What will be required to implement these changes? Faculty training on how to support pre-service student appears necessary. Specifically, are there any impediments to the implementation of these changes? For example, if supplemental instruction or tutoring would improve success, does a suitable population of qualified students exist? Time and resources for faculty support and training is needed. C. Assessment Summary Please list the CIPs completed during this program review cycle, note any suggested improvements to assessment and/or course delivery and review the three-year CLO schedule to determine which courses must be assessed at least once more by the end of Spring Please respond to each prompt below. C1. Completed Fall 2014 Course Improvement Plans Click here to view the course improvement plans (CIPs). Choose Fall 2014 for Fall 2014 data analysis completed by your discipline. Please list these below. CDE 101, 119, 126, 140, 144 Open each of these CIPs and Record any assessment improvements to be implemented the next time the course is assessed (e.g. improved or different assessment tool or rubric). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields. CDE 101: None Needed CDE 126: Review and revise CLO #2 CDE 140: None Needed CDE 144: None Needed Also record any course improvements to be implemented the next time the course is taught (e.g. curriculum revision, utilization of technology). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields. CDE 144: None Needed CDE 140: Full time faculty will meet with Associate Faculty to review grading CDE 101: None needed CDE 126: None Needed C2. Completed Spring 2015 Course Improvement Plans Click here to view the course improvement plans (CIPs). Choose Spring 2015 for Spring 2015 data analysis completed by your discipline. Please list these below. 14

15 CDE 102, 110, 113, 120, 125, 131, 144, 147 Open each of these CIPs and Record any assessment improvements to be implemented the next time the course is assessed (e.g. improved or different assessment tool or rubric). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields. CDE 113: Clarification of Rubric CDE 102: None Needed CDE 110: Clarification of Rubric and Develop Capstone assignment CDE 120: None Needed CDE 131: Clarification of Rubric CDE 144: None Needed CDE 147: None Needed Also record any course improvements to be implemented the next time the course is taught (e.g. curriculum revision, utilization of technology). See instructions to quickly locate these CIP text fields. CDE 113: None Needed CDE 102: None Needed CDE 110: Faculty needs to discuss capstone assignment earlier in semester with students. CDE 120: Full time Faculty to provide training to faculty who teach the course. Identify instructors with expertise on subject matter. CDE 131: None Needed CDE 144: None Needed CDE 147: None Needed C3. Three-Year CLO Assessment Schedule Click here to view your Three-Year CLO Assessment Schedule. NOTE: each course that is offered at least once a year needs to be assessed twice during this program review cycle (Fall 2014 Spring 2017). Please compare the courses in sections C1 and C2 above, along with those being assessed this semester (see your ), with those in the assessment schedule and respond to each prompt below. See instructions for additional explanation. Which courses still need to be assessed only once more before the end of Spring 2017? None Which courses still need to be assessed twice before the end of Spring 2017? CDE 103, 111, 113,118, 125,128,

16 II. General Education, Remediation and Dual Enrollment For familiarization with the program data for general education and remediation, please respond to each prompt below. A. General Education Under the GEN.ED section of your 2015 Program Review Data, please respond to the prompts below. A1. Program Fill Rate List the GEN.ED Program Total Fill Rate and the Institutional Average Fill Rate (see instructions to locate these rates in the data). The typical institutional average fill rate is about 92%. The GEN.ED program total fill rate is about 91%. From Fall 2010 through Spring 2015, how does the GEN. ED Program Total Fill Rate compare to the Institutional Average Fill Rate? The institutional average fill rate has trended from 94% in Fall 2010 down to 91% in Fall 2014, and then down to 87% in Spring The GEN.ED total fill rate has followed the same trend, typically lagging behind the institutional average fill rate by 2 3 percentage points each semester. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific GEN.ED fill rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula, (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the Institutional Average Fill Rate? BAN: The typical fill rate at BAN is about 82%, which is about 10% below the institutional average fill rate (92%). The BAN fill rate has dropped significantly in the past year. MVC: The typical fill rate at MVC is about 93%, which is about the same as the institutional average fill rate (92%). The MVC fill rate has dropped noticeably in the past year. ONLIN: The typical ONLIN fill rate is about 86%, which is about 6% below the institutional average fill rate (92%). SJC: The typical fill rate at SJC is about 89%, which is about 3% below the institutional average fill rate (92%). The SJC fill rate has dropped noticeably in the past year. TEM: The typical fill rate at TEM is about 93%, which is about the same as the institutional average fill rate (92%). The TEM fill rate has dropped noticeably in the past year. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific rates compare to one another? 16

17 From highest to lowest we have: MVC (93%), TEM (93%), SJC (89%), ONLIN (86%) and BAN (82%). Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. BAN is the lowest (face-to-face) site. Otherwise, the rates are pretty close. Any commentary or analysis (at the program and/or course-level)? None. A2. Program Success Rates List the GEN.ED Program Success Rate and the Institutional Standard and District Average Success Rates. The institutional standard success rate is 66%. The district average success rate is typically about 68% and the program success rate is typically the same (68%). From Fall 2010 through Spring 2015, how does the GEN.ED Program Success Rate compare to the District Average Success Rate? They are the same. How do the site-specific GEN.ED success rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the District Average Success Rate? BAN: The GEN.ED success rate at BAN is typically 63%, which is about 5% below the institutional success rate (68%). MVC: The GEN.ED success rate at MVC is typically 70%, which is about 2% above the institutional success rate (68%). ONLIN: The ONLIN GEN.ED success rate is typically 64%, which is about 4% below the institutional success rate (68%). SJC: The GEN.ED success rate at SJC is typically 65%, which is about 3% below the institutional success rate (68%). It has dropped noticeably over the past few years. TEM: The GEN.ED success rate at TEM is typically 73%, which is about 5% above the institutional success rate (68%). How do the site-specific rates compare to one another? 17

18 The site rates from highest to lowest are: TEM (73%), MVC (70%), SJC (65%), ONLIN (64%) and BAN (63%). Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. None. Any commentary or analysis (at the program and/or course-level)? None. B. Remediation B1. Program Fill Rate List the REMEDIATION Program Total Fill Rate and the Institutional Average Fill Rate (see instructions to locate these rates in the data). The typical institutional average fill rate is about 92%. The REMEDIATION program total fill rate is about 96%. From Fall 2010 through Spring 2015, how does the REMEDIATION Program Total Fill Rate compare to the Institutional Average Fill Rate? The institutional average fill rate has trended from 94% in Fall 2010 down to 91% in Fall 2014, and then down to 87% in Spring The REMEDIATION total fill rate has followed a similar same trend, typically outpacing the institutional average fill rate by 2 6 percentage points each semester. Both rates have fallen noticeably over the past three semesters or so. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific REMEDIATION fill rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula, (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the Institutional Average Fill Rate? BAN: The typical fill rate at BAN is about 98%, which is about 6% above the institutional average fill rate (92%). MVC: The typical fill rate at MVC is about 99%, which is about 7% above the institutional average fill rate (92%). The MVC fill rate has dropped significantly the past two Spring semesters. ONLIN: The typical ONLIN fill rate is about 85%, which is about 7% below the institutional average fill rate (92%). SJC: 18

19 The typical fill rate at SJC is about 97%, which is about 5% above the institutional average fill rate (92%). The SJC fill rate has dropped significantly the past two Spring semesters. TEM: The typical fill rate at TEM is about 100%, which is about 8% above the institutional average fill rate (92%). The TEM fill rate has dropped significantly last semester. Over this same time frame, how do the site-specific rates compare to one another? From highest to lowest, the rates are: TEM (100%), MVC (99%), BAN (98%), SJC (97%) and ONLIN (85%). Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. Face-to-face rates are about the same, while online is a little less. Any commentary or analysis (at the program and/or course-level)? Fill rates at the larger sites have decreased noticeably the past two Spring semesters. B2. Program Success Rates List the REMEDIATION Program Success Rate and the Institutional Standard and District Average Success Rates. The institutional standard success rate is 66%. The district average success rate is typically about 68% and the REMEDIATION program success rate is typically 57%. From Fall 2010 through Spring 2015, how does the REMEDIATION Program Success Rate compare to the District Average Success Rate? The district average success rate has been declining, from 70% in FA 10 to 67% in SP 15. The REMEDIATION success rate has followed this trend, decreasing from 60% to 56% over the same time frame. Therefore, it typically lagging behind the district average by 10 12% each semester. How do the site-specific REMEDIATION success rates for San Jacinto (SJC), Menifee Valley (MVC), San Gorgonio Pass (BAN), Temecula (TEM) and online (ONLIN) compare to the District Average Success Rate? BAN: The REMEDIATION success rate at BAN is typically 58%, which is about 10% below the institutional success rate (68%). MVC: The REMEDIATION success rate at MVC is typically 57%, which is about 11% below the institutional success rate (68%). 19

20 ONLIN: The ONLIN REMEDIATION success rate is typically 45%, which is about 23% below the institutional success rate (68%). SJC: The REMEDIATION success rate at SJC is typically 54%, which is about 14% below the institutional success rate (68%). TEM: The REMEDIATION success rate at TEM is typically 66%, which is about 2% below the institutional success rate (68%). How do the site-specific rates compare to one another? From highest to lowest, the rates are: TEM (66%), BAN (58%), MVC (57%), SJC (54%) and ONLIN (45%). Note any significant differences found in the comparisons above. ONLIN is significantly lower than face-to-face. Any commentary or analysis (at the program and/or course-level)? Revisit the number of online sections offered for remediation courses. C. Dual Enrollment Click here for the Dual Enrollment data. NOTE: If there are no dual enrollment courses in your discipline, you may skip to the next section. List the courses that have been offered between Fall 2010 and Spring 2015? At how many different schools have each of these courses been offered? The courses offered were: Math 096, 105, 110, 211 and 212. Math 096 was offered at one school (in FA 13), Math 105 was offered at eleven (11) schools, Math 110 at eight (8), Math 211 at five (5) and Math 212 at four (4). Is there any additional information or commentary? None needed III. Planning and Resource Requirements Please briefly update the goals and needs included in last year s comprehensive program review (CPR). Here is the link to your CPR. Please include any updates to your program goals and objectives, along with any additional facilities, staff, technology, equipment, professional development and library resources that would improve student learning or increase program quality and/or efficiency. Specifically, connect your goals and needs with the analysis of program, course and assessment data above. A. Program Goals 20

21 Increase Enrollments 1. Focus on new enrollment populations (TK and school district and private institutions) a. Educate Associate Faculty on TK content addition: b. DE addendums on most courses: 2. Train and Support Adjunct Faculty a. Associate Faculty Mentorship b. Professional Development such as (Preschool Learning Foundations and HIP) c. Create Online 110 Module d. Resources- Video and Training Materials: CDE Video Subscription 3. Increase Marketing to Strategic Stakeholders a. Develop Speaker Series at Partnering Agencies b. Revise Website c. Develop information materials for dissemination d. Increase Community Based activities Increase student completions and persistence 1. Hire Full Time faculty member by documenting need 2. Work with college on obtaining funds for fingerprinting to enable students to complete courses 3. Educate Counseling Department on Degree for accurate Ed Plan advising 4. Implement Student Information Series: Welcome Week 5. Identify alternative Practicum Options: Employer based options 6. Clarify Course Pathway: a. Create Course Offering 2 year plan: b. Create department prepared advising documents: Support Quality Improvement of CDEC 1. Develop Center based programs with OI for student 2. Develop a Parenting Program for student family support 3. Cameras in the center for instructional use Increase Professionalism and Employment Pathways of CDE Program 1. Complete California CAP Expansion Alignment 2. Revise Articulation Agreements with High Schools to increase rigor 3. Develop Partnerships with Higher Education CDE programs such University of La Verne 4. Identify alternative Practicum Options: Employer based options B. Facilities, Staffing, Technology, Equipment and Professional Development Update facility, staffing, technology, equipment and professional development needs here. 1. Hire full Time faculty member It is documented through student need surveys, CLO assessments, and college data the need for an additional full-time faculty member to address the goals listed above. This information will be used to submit a proposal for new full-time faculty hire during the next open period. 21

22 2. Storage Current storage capacity in rooms 2121 and 723 are inadequate for the supplies needed to fully meet students needs in learning about as well as experiencing the equipment now found in early education facilities, particularly in those programs serving children with special needs. Additional storage areas such as locking cabinets would provide a secure location for these 3. Purchase Video camera Video cameras in the lab school will enhance instructional course content by allowing Instructors to use footage of children in the lab school. 4. Training Associate Faculty in online teaching modalities Provide training to associate faculty online teaching methods and the new CMS 5. Provide training on TK topics Continue identifying appropriate Transitional Kindergarten trainings to infuse the current course outline or records with the content topics. C. Library Resources Identify library resources (databases, texts, etc.) that would improve student success, access and ensure equity. Based on the Fall 2015 student survey purchasing textbooks is a barrier to student success. Students in the CDE department would benefit from having multiple copies of each textbook on reserve in the library. Additionally, psychology, child development and educational focused digital media material and streaming materials are needed to support course content. IV. Budget Allocation RAP (Resource Allocation Proposal) Submissions For which needs identified previously in this program review will you be submitting a RAP? None V. Final Summary A. Based on the data and analysis contained in this review, please forward your three greatest needs to your dean/division. 6. Hire full Time faculty member It is documented through student need surveys, CLO assessments, and college data the need for an additional full-time faculty member to address the goals listed above. This information will be used to submit a proposal for new full-time faculty hire during the next open period. Purchase Video camera Video cameras in the lab school will enhance instructional course content by allowing Instructors to use footage of children in the lab school. 22

23 Support and Training of Associate Faculty Provide training to associate faculty on Transition Kindergarten and online teaching methods. B. Discuss any major activities/highlights/achievements and any student success innovations during the past year. The department developed materials to aide in student advising by developing a 2-year plan and degree pathway. These documents will be disseminated to all counseling staff and students to support accurate student advising. Additionally, the department was able better able market the AS EII degree by offering a workshop to highlight the degree and professors within the program. The result is an increase in enrollment in the EII course work filling CDE 140 and increasing enrollment in CDE 144 by 50% C. Please list all faculty who participated in this review. Michelle Harper Rueben Lopez Debbi Lewis Jagurit Patel Linda Middleton Samantha Blake Melissa Castruita Denise Hays Robin Suitt Sher Doswell LuJuanna Blackman Kimberley Day Rhonda Culton D. Any suggestions, concerns or constructive criticism regarding the MSJC program review process? None CTE Addendum VI. Data and Research 1. Please provide the examination pass rates in your program for which students must pass a licensure examination in order to work in their field of study: Program CIP Code 4 Digits (##.##) Child Development and Education Examination (national/state) 1305 N/A Institution Set Standard (%) Pass Rate (%) 1.a. Is there a variance between the Institution Set Standard and the actual pass rate? Please include the steps taken to identify and address the causes of the variance and the measures being taken by the program to meet the Institution Set Standard in the future. 23

24 Child Development and Education students enter into diverse fields such as teaching and social services. There is no specific licensure process for this program. In the teaching segment, many students apply to California Commission on Teacher Credentials for various certifications and permits. This agency houses this information and it is not accessible to the general public. 2. Please provide the job placement rates for students completing certification program and CTE (career technical education) degrees: Program CIP Code 4 Digits (##.##) Examination (national/state) Institution Set Standard (%) Job Placement Rate (%) Child Development and education 1305 N/A 2.a. Is there a variance between the Institution Set Standard and the actual job placement rate? Please include the steps taken to identify and address the causes of the variance and the measures being taken by the program to meet the Institution Set Standard in the future. There is not a specific systematic job placement data collection site for this program of study. 3. Please describe how job placement rates are being tracked in your program/certificate? Come up with survey The MSJC CTE department is developing a survey to track job placement. Currently there is no systematic college level tracking system. At the department level, the CDE department conducted an online survey Fall 2015 of students in Child Development and Education programs. Based on student responses, 68% of students noted the course work in the CDE program helped them earn a better wage in the field. Additionally, 70% of students responded and indicated that taking courses within the department allowed them to get a more satisfying job. Anecdotal reports suggest many CDE students are being employed at local school districts (Hemet Unified and Temecula Unified) as Instructional Assistants, and Preschool Teachers at private school such as Anne Sullivan School, Child Development Incorporated and Crayon ranch. 4. Labor Market Data What are the emerging trends in your field? 24

25 The teaching segment of the field of study is focused on equitable education. The trend in the field is to support children with all diverse abilities and cultural backgrounds. The standardization of curriculum at all levels inclusive of the Infant Toddler Foundations, Preschool Learning Foundations and K12 Common Core is impacting the teaching field in California. How is your program aligning with the emerging trends in your field? Because of an expected increase in school enrollments in California the field is primed to increase slightly over the next decade. This increase will cause a continued need for K-12 Teachers, Preschool Teachers, Early Care Educators, Teacher Assistants who work with specialized populations such as special education, and English language learners. Legislation that requires all students to receive an equal education will continue to promote jobs for Educators of all levels to accommodate these students special needs. In addition there is recent legislation that will impact the program of study. SB-837 Early childhood education Professional development act requires school districts to provide a developmentally appropriate classroom and legislation targeted to Head Start in 2011, requires all Head Start teachers to a Baccalaureate as of September 30, Assistants in Head Start programs will now be required to have an associate degree or a child development associate (CDA) credential or State of California Permit. School Districts have been contacting the department about course offerings as they are beginning to enforce the legistalation.the Child Development and Education department will be a critical partner in teacher preparation at all Levels. 5. Advisory Board Identify the membership of your advisory committee. School Districts represented: Beaumont Unified School District Hemet Unified School District Menifee Union School District Murrieta Valley Unified School District Nuview Union School District San Jacinto Unified School District Temecula Valley Unified School District Community programs represented: Anne Sullivan School Child Development Incorporated First Five, Riverside Oak Grove Center 25