1 / 28

The Updated CB21 and the New CB25, CB26, and CB27

CCCCIO California Community Colleges Chief Instructional Officers. The Updated CB21 and the New CB25, CB26, and CB27. Karen Daar , CIO, Los Angeles Valley College Ginni May , ASCCC Treasurer, Curriculum Chair CCCCIO Spring Conference 1:45 – 3:15, April 18, 2019. Overview. AB 705

mknight
Télécharger la présentation

The Updated CB21 and the New CB25, CB26, and CB27

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CCCCIO California Community Colleges Chief Instructional Officers The Updated CB21 and the New CB25, CB26, and CB27 Karen Daar, CIO, Los Angeles Valley College Ginni May, ASCCC Treasurer, Curriculum Chair CCCCIO Spring Conference 1:45 – 3:15, April 18, 2019

  2. Overview • AB 705 • Student Centered Funding Formula • AB 705 Data Revision Project • The Updated CB21 Rubrics • Q and A

  3. AB 705(Irwin, 2017)

  4. Education Code §78213 • Colleges are allowed to place students into pre-transfer courses only if students are highly unlikely to pass the transfer-level course; and • If placement in the pre-transfer course would maximize the likelihood that a student would complete transfer-level English or mathematics within a one-year timeframe or for ESL within a three-year timeframe. • In addition, colleges are required to use a student’s high school performance in their placement procedures when that data is reasonably available.

  5. Student Centered Funding Formula

  6. Student Centered Funding Formula Three Components • Base Allocation – promote broad access • Supplemental Allocation – address barriers to access and success for low-income students • Student Success (Performance) Allocation – encourage progress on outcomes linked to goals in the Vision for Success Allocation

  7. Student Success (Performance) Metrics Student Success or Performance Metric – 8 Outcomes • associate degrees for transfer (ADT) granted, • associate degrees granted (excluding ADTs), • baccalaureate degrees granted, • credit certificates (16 units or more) granted, • completion of transfer-level math and English courses within the first academic year of enrollment, • successful transfer to a four-year university, • completion of nine or more CTE units, and • attainment of a regional living wage

  8. Performance Metrics The Point System

  9. Performance Metrics Performance Funding 2018-19: • $440 per point • $111 additional per point for Pell and Promise Grant students 2019-20: • $660 per point • $167 additional per point for Pell and Promise Grant students 2020-21: • $880 per point • $222 additional per point for Pell and Promise Grant students

  10. 10 Source: Workshop Materials:Slide Decks Connecting the Dots Part 1 https://iepi.cccco.edu/2019dataworkshops

  11. ASCCC Recommendations on SCFF If the state of California must keep the performance metric… Letter to legislature on “Revisiting the Student Centered Funding Formula to Incentive Student Focused Outcomes” • Level the point system for associate degree awards so that all educational goals and achievements of comparable unit values are counted equally. • Award colleges only once per year per student for the highest award achieved as a means of prioritizing per-student success, as opposed to incentivizing maximizing awards more generally. • Keep the performance metric portion set at 10% of the total allocation to ensure funding stability and to support college exploration of how best to serve students.

  12. AB 705 Data Revision Project

  13. Why? • The Student Success Metrics for AB 705 and SCFF: all (no unit minimum) transfer-level courses with TOP Codes: • 1501.00 (English), • 1520.00 (Reading), and • 1701.00 (Mathematics) • TOP codes are taxonomy of program – but the metric is a course within various programs with other TOP codes • TOP codes not being counted such as: • Quantitative Reasoning – 0401.00 (Biostats), 0502.00 (accounting), 0506.00 (Business), 0701.00 (Computer Science), 2001.00 (Psychology), 2204.00 (Economics), 2208.00 (Sociology) • English Composition – 0514.00 (Office Technology), 4930.84 (ESL) • ESL – Writing 4930.84, 4930.87 Integrated • Success for students meeting local math competency requirements is not being counted.

  14. Example of Coding for SCFF

  15. AB 705 Data Revision Project • With AB 705, AB 1805, the Student Centered Funding Formula – accurate and meaningful data collection is imperative. • The CCCCO contracted West Ed to spearhead the AB 705 Data Revision Project to update coding. • Presentation at SLO Symposium on January 25, 2019 • Five Recoding Regional meetings by ASCCC: March 5, 7, 13, 18, and 21 of 2019 • Two Curriculum Regional meetings by ASCCC: March 15, 16 of 2019 • Webinar by ASCCC on March 27, 2019 • Upcoming presentations: CIO Conference, Career and Noncredit Institute, Curriculum Institute

  16. Project Overview Five working groups: • Faculty, CIOs, researchers, and Chancellor’s Office staff: Coordination • Credit, noncredit, and K12 adult school discipline faculty: ESL • Credit, noncredit, and K12 adult school discipline faculty: English & Reading • Credit, noncredit, and K12 adult school discipline faculty: Math • Faculty, researchers, and Chancellor’s Office staff: MIS Each group held 2 meetings between September 2018-January 2019

  17. The Plan Update/Create new data elements, in particular: • CB21 Identify content of English, math, ESL and related discipline courses using rubrics created by discipline workgroups based on EFLs, vetted by faculty statewide, approved by ASCCC delegates at 2019 spring plenary session – As of February 26, this coding be rolled into CB21 and the CB21 rubrics will be updated. • CB25 – Identify GE requirement or local competency: CSU GE Breadth/IGETC—B4/2A (math/QR) and A2, A3/1A (English Comp/Critical Thinking), local GE/competency • CB26 – transfer type: major, GE, elective, where to: CSU, UC, other college • CB27 – support course type, as of February 26, this is a binary code: support course or not a support course

  18. The Plan – Current Status (4-15-2019) • The Chancellor’s Office is creating/updating the MIS elements and will disseminate information to field when ready. • CB21 will have 6 levels for each of English/Reading and Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning • CB25 is still under construction as of 4-15-2019 • CB26 is on hold until next year – and should this code be written, it will have a new number • CB27 will now be called CB26 since the original CB26 is on hold • The Academic Senate endorsed the updated CB21 Rubrics for English/Reading and Mathematic/Quantitative Reasoning by Resolution on April 13, 2019 (ESL not included) • During the Curriculum Institute in July 2019, sessions will be offered where faculty can learn to code their courses with support from curriculum experts.

  19. The Plan – Recap (4-15-2019) Update/Create new data elements, in particular: • CB21 Identify content of English/reading and mathematics/quantitative reasoning, and related discipline courses using rubrics created by discipline workgroups based on EFLs, vetted by faculty statewide, approved by ASCCC delegates at 2019 spring plenary session… • ESL still in progress • CB25 – Identify GE requirement or local competency: CSU GE Breadth/IGETC—B4/2A (math/QR) and A2, A3/1A (English Comp/Critical Thinking), local GE/competency • CB26 – transfer type: major, GE, elective, where to: CSU, UC, other college • CB27CB26 – support course type is a binary code: support course or not a support course

  20. The Updated CB21 Rubrics

  21. The Rubrics • Vetted by discipline faculty during five Recoding Regional meetings in March 2019 • Survey for feedback March 26 – April 3 • You can find them linked in the Resolution Packet: Resolution 9.01 CB21 Rubrics for Coding Course Outcomes

  22. The Rubrics • The rubrics are outcomes that demonstrate course level and not all of the learning outcomes of every course—they indicate an educational level that student has attained. • Each level has a broad description of the outcomes a student should have attained by the end of the course at that level. The description is not intended to include all student learning outcomes of each course at that level, but rather indicate an educational level that student has attained. • Included are outcomes that define the traditional levels as well as outcomes that define the Common Core State Standards or EFLs. • A narrative with far more information on potential content will be included.

  23. The Rubrics • New coding integrates outcomes updated with current expectations from the Federal Educational Functioning Level (EFL) descriptors, based on common core standards • New coding identifies and helps track student progress for AB 705 and Student Centered Funding Formula (SCFF) time to completion metrics. • The new coding identifies the level at which the student should be upon completion of a course in a pathway. A level typically indicates one-year of high school course work at a standard pace, neither accelerated, nor stretched. This generally is interpreted to be one-term at a standard college pace.

  24. The Rubrics • There may be additional levels below transfer that did not exist prior to 2019. This is due to including noncredit, Adult Basic Education (ABE) and Adult Secondary Education (ASE) in the same rubric with credit courses. • All in same rubric to facilitate alignment between credit, noncredit, and adult schools and allow for mirrored courses and transition from adult education and noncredit to credit.

  25. The Rubrics • Rubrics for English integrate reading and critical thinking outcomes. • Rubrics for mathematics and quantitative reasoning include statistics, geometry, contextual mathematics and mathematical critical thinking outcomes. • All rubrics reference integrated skills such as communication and problem solving.

  26. The Rubrics do NOT… • Drive curricular content or pedagogy; • Directly reflect EFLs but the do adapt them to CCC curriculum with accurate, yet concise descriptions; • Dictate any particular innovation, program or course strategy; • Determine or dictate sequences or prerequisites for any particular course.

  27. Q and A

  28. Resources • ASCCC: https://asccc.org • CCCCO Student Centered Funding Formula: http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/FinanceFacilities/StudentCenteredFundingFormula.aspx • Karen Daar: daarkl@lavc.edu • Ginni May: mayv@scc.losrios.edu

More Related