ACADEMIC SENATE Web site: http://www.lavc.edu/senate SENATORS Mr. Josh Miller- President Dr. Darby Southgate- Exec VP Dr. Rebecca Frank- Curriculum VP Mr. Rick Murray- Treasurer Dr. Yih-Mei Hu- Secretary Ms. Kathy Snider- Emeritus Mr. Joseph A. Daccurso- Emeritus Dr. Zack Knorr Ms. Rebecca L. Stein Dr. Michael C. Gold Ms. Lynne Brower Ms. Lynn M. Polasek Ms. Fay S. Dea Dr. Sally A. Raskoff Ms. Patty Melody Dr. June Miyasaki Mr. Christopher Pallotti Dr. Tyler Prante Dr. Minna Ng Dr. William C. Wallis Ms. Geordie Wright Dr. Victorino M. Fusilero Mr. Jason Beaton Mr. Jim Fenwick Ms. Siu Chung Dr. LaVergne D. Rosow Ms. Roana M. Thornock Ms. Deanna Heikkinen Ms. Eugenia Sumnik-Levins Mr. Louis Jones Resources Ms. Joanne S. Waddell Ms. Deborah R. Kaye Ms. Pavla Hoyer VISION STATEMENT Los Angeles Valley College inspires, educates, and enriches our diverse community, developing critical and creative thinkers and lifelong learners. MISSION STATEMENT Los Angeles Valley College serves as a leader in student success, with pathways for certificates, degrees, transfer, and continuing education. We enable students to advance their education, personal development, and quality of life, empowering them to be productive and engaged members of the global community.

April 17, 2014

1:10 pm Bungalow 83

Agenda

1. Call to Order

a. Motion to approve Agenda b. Motion to approve minutes of March,

2014 2. President’s Report - Miller

a. Presidential search b. Budget c. College President’s response to Senate

motions d. Accreditation update, EMP update

3. Old Business/ Discussion items a. Repeatability discussion b. Department reps continued

4. New Business / Discussion Items a. PEPC Motions: 1. Persistence standards

2. Nursing and RT standards b. Motion to approve multiple funding requests c. DAS money

5. Senate/Campus Committee Reports 6. Public Agenda Speakers / Guests 7. Motion to adjourn Future Meeting Dates 5-15-14

LOS ANGELES VALLEY COLLEGE 1 Academic Senate Meeting 2

20 March 2014 3 4 5

MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Briancesco; Lynne Brower; Siu Chung; Joe Daccurso; Fay Dea; 6 Rebecca Frank; Victorino Fusilero; Michael Gold; Yih-Mei Hu; Louis Jones; Zack Knorr; Patty 7 Melody; Josh Miller; June Miyasaki; Rick Murray; Minna Ng; Lynn Polasek; Tyler Prante; Sally 8 Raskoff; LaVergne Rosow; Kathleen Snider; Darby Southgate; Rebecca Stein; Cheryl Stoneham; 9 Eugenia Sumnik-Levins; Geordie Wright 10 11 GUESTS: Deborah Kaye, Larry Nakamura 12 13 1. CALL TO ORDER – 1:14pm. 14

1a) M/S/P to approve agenda (Rosow) (Stoneham) 15 1b) M/S/P to approve minutes (Hu) (Prante) 16

17 2. PRESIDENT’S REPORT 18 19

2a) Presidential search. Developed questions for the candidates. Announcement has 20 now posted, firm contacted thousands of people from the US. Three hirings going on at 21 the same time. We will get all the applications online then go through them. Writing 22 sample. Two days of interviews in late April, send up to five(?) names to the Board. 23

24 2b) Budget. Our projected deficit is $3,481,326. Highest in the district. 25

26 Nakamura: Distributed in December. Chris shared document with me in October or 27 November, apparently no hires for five years, but they changed it sometime between now 28 and December. 29

30 Miller: We had no input and there was no discussion. District Budget Committee Exec– 31 summary of what they want us to do: 32

33 Provide monthly status report 34 Details of enrollment plan by dept – we don’t’ have this yet 35 Provide outreach plan – no plan, and no budget for it 36 Review athletic programs, cost analysis 37 Review release/reassigned time 38

39 Outside group comes in and looks at what can be done (College Braintrust). They 40 identify reassigned time as an issue. We have over 30 FTEF compared with Pierce. 41 Accreditation report has internal list. No one knows how we got those numbers for 42 reassigned time. No clear response on why the VP didn’t send documents. 43

44 Even departments who cut lower yielding classes and added higher load classes did not 45 meet the numbers. That’s why we have summer. If we don’t meet during summer, we 46

have to pay back more for Spring. No plan for increased enrollment for summer; every 47 school in the district is going to have one session in the summer. 48

49 Nakamura: We were offered 1.63% growth money and 2% for a higher target. But we 50 didn’t make the numbers in the Spring. No discussion with Josh and Larry about the 51 summer. Every school failed to hit numbers, District wide. 52

53 Miller: Won’t have cuts this year but will carry that into next year. Combine with next 54 year. Allocation based on square footage. Schools that have fewer students make more 55 money than us because they have more buildings. 56

57 2c) President’s response to senate motions. Hiring has finally been finalized. Top three 58 positions being hired. Also hiring a football coach. Not a full-time, it’s a 0.67 position 59 and $12K stipend for the football coach. Issue is the lack of communication with Senate. 60

61 DE – one LMS for the entire college. IEC rejected the motion. Sent it back for further 62 clarification. Forwarded her the recommendation. President didn’t know what to do with 63 it. Plans to meet with DE coordinator. 64

65 2d) Miscellaneous. DAS considering +/- grading. Do we want +/- grading in the LMS 66 system? We will have to vote on it – not sure when. 67

68 FW grade. Financial aid issue with getting an F for not being there as opposed to earning 69 an F. LACC was fined $400,000-$500,000. So the new idea is, if a student disappears, we 70 then give them an FW: Failure to withdraw. 71 72 New constitution – all members of each college have to vote on it. 73

74 LMS taskforce – looking at feasibility of one LMS for online classes in the District. They 75 concluded yes, it is feasible. 76

77 2e) New Brown Act rules. Secretary will record all votes. 78

79 2f) Accreditation update. Kaye: we finished the report and sent it to the three people 80 who worked on our campus last time. They are coming on April 28. Be familiar with the 81 report. Link was sent around, also on accreditation website. Alma feels that we will be 82 taken off warning because we addressed most issues, but the budget one is a hard one. 83 Budget and integrating budget with planning. Don’t know how they are going to take 84 those two. SLOs mostly done. 85

86 Miller: 99.7% completion of SLOs but 0% integration. Do you see SLO or discussion of 87 assessments on this campus? 88

89 Kaye: Are you talking about the results? 90

91

Miller: Still have concerns about the document. Taskforce varied duties – report to who? 92 IEC or Senate? 93

94 EMP update (Southgate): Taskforce meeting today. Still getting comments – all the 95 comments read through line by line. Changed a lot of the document – goals/ objective 96 changed. We prioritized – looked at who the students are, most want transfer and we’d 97 like to support that. Next thing is EPC – having an emergency planning meeting on 98 Monday and send it here and to IEC. Issues with process of how it was written, but that 99 won’t happen next time. Not much talk about budget – still a missing piece. Most of it’s 100 in good shape, feel confident. 101

102 Miller: Budget AND student services missing. 103

104 Southgate: One of the taskforce members is from student services. 105

106 Rosow: Is budget supposed to drive the EMP or vice versa? 107

108 Southgate: An integration. Not a strategic plan – this is an EMP. Different thing. 109 Institutional effectiveness goal in this master plan, so we should take budget into 110 consideration. Cannot have dollar signs attached to everything. Probably part of the next 111 steps. 112

113 Miller: Goals are educationally based, so it’s kind of strategic, but no master strategic 114 plan. 115

116 Rosow: Concerned that EMP is suggesting prioritization. The narrative states campus 117 priorities, then goals and objectives. Not prioritized at this point. Not one more important 118 than another. 30 objectives – by whom and by when. 119

120 Southgate: Next task to align the goals with budget, will be sent with survey 121

122 2g) Construction update 123

124 Miller: BWG met. MAPA of concern. Approval imminent. Group put that as number 1. 125 Later projects may not be completed. 126

127 Stein: Is the ranking based on data and planning or I feel like I like this? 128

129 Miller: Exploding head issue. Dr. Carleo made BWG an independent group doesn’t 130 report to anyone. 131

132 Polasek: AHS building still has a lot of problems. Is the trend not finishing anything we 133 started? 134

135 Miller: BWG meets 2nd Thursday of the month. Eric Swelstad is the Senate rep. Can raise 136 these issues at the meetings. 137

3. OLD BUSINESS / DISCUSSION ITEMS 138 139

3a) Repeatability discussion 140 141

Plenary. Present resolution – if approved, are presented to the State. Officially a plenary 142 resolution. Plenary rep is Deanna – we can direct her to vote for it. Asking for a look into 143 repeatability. 144

145 Rosow: In favor of resolve to include lifelong learning, but it’s opposed to our EMP. If 146 we are transfer, we are not lifelong learning. 147

148 Southgate: Basic skills, CTE, transfer. Divide energies proportionally to what our 149 students need. 150

151 Miller: We are not excluding lifelong learning. 152

153 Rosow: Does it suggest I can take classes over and over? 154

155 Wright: Resolution is challenging all of that. I have some well-written documents that 156 demonstrate what would happen if that was put in place. 157

158 Miller: Second resolve – increase repeatability options. 159

160 Stein: Work legislatively to change state law. Open that dialogue. 161

162 Miller: Anyone have issues? 163

164 Melody: We have a lot of remedial students, we don’t have pre-requisites, and it does’t 165 make sense how we approach this. We are not a university setting and there’s a big gap 166 now that we have these limits on repeatability. 167

168 3b) Motion to approve Enrollment management committee formation (Rosow) 169 (Southgate) 170

171 Stein: What about positions with no one after and who appoints them? 172

173 Southgate: Senate appointed. This is enrollment management, need 174

175 Stein: 4 faculty appointed by Senate to represent as broadly as possible. Does the budget 176 committee vote for a rep or does Chris pick a rep? 177

178 Rosow: One year appointment? 179

180 Southgate: Too much turnover not good for this committee. 181

182 Miller: Evaluation of committee members? 183

Stein: Review of whether the membership is appropriate, etc. 184 185

Rosow: What if the position were left unfilled as opposed to putting some other entity in 186 there? Just leave it vacant but not be open for more than 12 months. 187

188 Miller: I’d rather fill it with another faculty member. I’d hate to lose 4 faculty but I do 189 agree with you that if someone from CTE wants to join. 190

191 Miyasaki : If you leave it as “or designee” it could be a faculty. 192

193 Stein: Is there a plan to have an FTEF workgroup spun off after this? 194

195 Southgate: That will be disbanded and those duties will be rolled into this new group. 196

197 Stein: If they do spin off an FTEF workgroup that group should be all faculty. 198

199 M/S/P the Enrollment Management document as amended below: 200 201

Under Membership: (bottom of p.1 continues to top of p.2) 202 203

1. Add clause that says "The following are preferred but others may be appointed by 204 Senate if these cannot be found" 205

2. For Department Chair – strike "or designee" 206 3. Counselor – replace with Chair of Counseling 207 4. Budget Committee Member – by majority vote of Budget Committee 208 5. ASU student rep – and strike "or designee" 209 6. For the asterisk after all the positions, it should read: 210 * Only two members total from EPC may serve on EMC 211

212 Under Duties: (bottom of p.2) Add one more item: 213

214 10. An annual self-evaluation of the membership shall be conducted. 215

216 217 4. NEW BUSINESS 218 219

4b) Motion to reduce cap on English classes. (Rosow) (Stoneham) 220 221

Zucker: We are not asking for a reduction, we are asking to keep it where it has been. 222 223

Miller: Senate approved a 45 cap size. 224 225

Zucker: Asking to lower to 38. 226 227

Miller: Active enrollment as of census = 34.13 people. Average cap number. Could be a 228 room size issue – another issues is that they didn’t set all the caps. As of census the 229 enrollment was at 92% of cap. 230

231 Stein: However, 3 exclustion rosters not submitted. 232

233 Dea: Despite asking for 45, the average was 34. 234

235 Murray: Caps of 45 – DE classes are capped at 40. 236

237 Stein: Rumor that there were signs up saying they were not adding people. Not accurate 238 data if faculty are actively not adding student. 239

240 Rosow: That’s because the classes were already full. 241

242 Zucker: We are not the only department that did this.We tried 5 different ways of 243 resolving this problem before we came to you. The teachers were almost in tears about 244 the grading. Required by articulation to assign essays10,000 words per semester. We 245 cannot give multiple choice tests and a final. 180 students per teacher. 246

247 1) No additional enrollments not over 45 248 2) Teachers get readers out of their own pocket. Chancellor says we cannot do that 249 3) Send the students to the writing center. School cut the writing center, says they cannot 250

do it anymore 251 4) Stay until midnight to help students. Shutting down at 10pm 252 5) Drop the # of comps. Cannot do that – we would violate articulation. 253

254 45 in English 21, 28, 33. Cannot write a simple sentence. 255

256 Daccurso: Empathize with you. Can some of these classes have a higher cap than others? 257

258 Zucker: Tried that. But we’re the highest limit overall in the District in all English 259 classes. We have teachers with 4 comp classes. 260

261 Stein: there are other campuses with high limits. 40 online. They teach 12 unit load. 262

263 Miyasaki: Thank Rebecca for that comment. If you have a class cap of 45, and they 264 cannot learn their own language, how the hell can they learn French? We’re the last two 265 cars there. Unless there is a school-wide evaluation of cap-size and talk about workload. 266

267 Miller: Suggest a compromise. No guarantee with the President anyway. Propose that we 268 have a discipline-by-discipline evaluation by cap size. 269

270 Zucker: Balance it to be more reasonable for both student and teacher so that the. Teacher 271 has a reasonable load and the students really learn how to write. 272

273

Miyasaki: Is there any way you can Work scheduling so you don’t have instructors 274 teaching 4 comp classes? Even it out a little more for 2 comp classes and 1 lit classes. 275

276 Zucker: You’re right, but b/c of the 45 requirement. We have only the core minimum of 277 lit classes. One English lit, one American lit, one creative writing class, and that’s it. We 278 can’t get 45 in a lit class. 279

280 Daccurso: Even the non-comp disciplines has a lot of hands on work with labs, have tried 281 to split faculty workload between GE classes that are Art/Humanities elective and 282 workshop like classes. Multi-discipline effect, come up with plans and approach admin as 283 a unified group. No one is given 5 large classes. We have fiefdoms here, we are 284 passionate about our own department and we are not uniting in our efforts. 285 Administration does what they do because we are not united in our efforts. Approach 286 administration as a unified group. 287

288 Stein: Not a requirement to have 45. If a class gets more than 15, they can’t cut it. The 289 impression that you’ve had to cut classes because you didn’t get 45, that’s never been the 290 case. 291

292 Zucker: We were told if classes did not have an average of 45 for the last three years, we 293 were to substitute them, and we weren’t the only department. It was in writing. We had 294 an ed class of almost 30, but we were told we couldn’t offer it in the Spring because it 295 wasn’t 45. 296

297 Stein: That’s not true – I was on that group and can find it for you. 298

299 Miller: So, Al, what would you like to have happen with this motion? We can vote on it 300 as is, or we can do a broader motion in asking for a discipline-by-discipline analysis. 301

302 Zucker: No, I’m committed to every discipline. Students need to learn certain skills, and 303 if we set it up so that they can’t, we’re putting money above learning. I would rather have 304 the second one, where we do a Fair discipline by discipline analysis to find out what the 305 students really need and measure it accordingly. We’re not trying to be selfish, we want 306 was is best for the students. 307

308 Miller: Strike original motion, replace with : the academic senate requests of the 309 President to embark on a school-wide evaluation of capsize by discipline immediately. 310

311 Rosow: But it has to be done in time to affect the fall schedule. 312

313 Southgate: Well if I was administration, I would say, but that’s already the role of the 314 FTEF workgroup. Because that’s what they’ve done for years now, so don’t think we 315 haven’t done that. I’m hearing two different things – there’s teaching and there’s 316 learning. Right? The teacher is stressed or the student isn’t learning. Do we need to do a 317 survey of the number of students that actually get it? Is a pedagogical issue? Or is it the 318 stressed-out faculty issue? 319

Miyasaki: I think you can argue both, but I think but pedagogically, it has been under the 320 umbrella of national language associations (which is divided by English and Foreign 321 Languages) have issued statements. I don’t know about English, but for Foreign 322 Language, they recommend a maximum class of 21 for optimal language learning. 323

324 Zucker: And English is 25. 325

326 Miyasaki: So if you take those things into consideration, those are pedagogical issues. 327 Also, I want to say what Al meant too about the classes not meeting 45, it is true. I know 328 that happened in our department and they looked at the average class size and size, ok, 329 they didn’t tell us what to cut, but then what ended up happening is you get one FTEF 330 less next semester. 331

332 Stein: It wasn’t 45, it was like 38. 333

334 Miyasaki: What I’m saying is that the approach is if you’re not putting butts in seats, and 335 that was before the average class size was raised to 45. It’s gonna keep going that way. 336

337 Miller: We will have to factor into our motion the decrease in revenue. 338

339 Knorr: You had also mentioned the idea of giving chairs more discretion to figure out 340 caps on class size. Does that need to be in there or does it already exist? 341

342 Miller: It doesn’t exist at all. We’ve had a few conversations like that I know. That’s 343 what I was trying to get to with this, that there should be a departmental negotiation 344 because I know that there was a conversation with Bill Dauber (sp?). The newspaper 345 class got cut because it was a low enrolled class. But then they approached him and said 346 the newspaper is gone – and he said, “Duh, because you cut the class!” And so his 347 negotiation was ok, so in this class I’ll allow more people to keep this class. 348

349 Zucker: We did negotiate when Jack Sterk was president of this group, Jack felt that 35 350 was more than enough. He went all the way to the Chancellor and we had a negotiation 351 with Carly Toronto, and reached a compromise with us. She said it would be 38 and 352 remain that forever on. Then she retired. And has been 38 until this situation – even 38 353 was hard, but we had support services. We had readers, we had the writing center, we had 354 support services to help those students. Most of them come from ESL backgrounds and 355 we’re teaching them basic English! And now all of those support services have basically 356 been taken away. 357

358 Southgate: I was under the assumption that an e-mail was sent out to the chairs that 359 explained this process. If you have a high enrollment class, like an intro class, and if 360 there’s some reason you need to have a lower cap, as long as you made that up in terms 361 of your overall class size, that was ok. 362

363 Zucker: We tried to do that, and we were told the school needs money, you can’t do it. 364

Miller: I did that in my own department because I’m teaching a class right now instead of 365 getting paid for the speech team. That was my own negotiation. How do you increase you 366 numbers, so I said ok well, I’ll cut my speech team hours but I’ll add another 101. There 367 have been negotiations, I don’t know if there’s a formal process. 368

369 Stein: But I don’t think the English department can do that because most of their 370 offerings are comp classes. The lit classes were low demand to begin with and never 371 made high numbers. Some people have departments where they can do that kind of 372 balancing and some people don’t. That’s where the problem is and it’s not as simple as it 373 sounds. 374

375 Zucker: Let’s do a subject-by-subject analysis to see what we really need. I think English 376 will stand up very well under this and it may help a lot of other people too. 377

378 Melody: I think we’re struggling with the fact that we are pushed to have high enrollment 379 numbers, I think all of us in our discipline know how many students we can tolerate to 380 give them a quality education. But I think all of us are thinking, ok, this is a good quality 381 class of 35, but I need 50 to make sure I don’t get more classes cut. We had 15 classes cut 382 in the fall, and I’ve been pushing all of my instructors to load up. I have 70 students in 383 most of my classes right now, and I have 42 in my CPR class, and I don’t do multiple 384 choice. 385

386 Miller: So Rebecca, you said it’s too late to reduce cap size for fall, correct? 387

388 Stein: Well because we wouldn’t meet our FTES target. Then they’d have to add in more 389 classes to meet the FTES, and that would involve a lot of monkeying with the schedule. 390 You can’t just cut class size without making it up somewhere else. I don’t know that we 391 have that latitude with a schedule that’s already been done. 392

393 Rosow: So this has to be done for spring or winter? 394

395 Miller: One possibility is to float it out right now, to see if there’s a way to restructure 396 everything, or we can bring it back at the next meeting, and have more discussion of 397 resolves and a whereas, to make it more reflective. 398

399 Murray: We had agreed that we did it for the whole campus, the question was where to 400 send it. 401

402 Miller: I have “the academic senate requests of the President to embark on a school-wide 403 evaluation of capsize by discipline”. 404

405 Murray: But then someone else said it should do somewhere else? 406

407 Dea: So we need to make a further request in order to examine capsize by discipline to 408 see if there’s any flexibility of adjusting based on the learning and pedagogical demands. 409 We need to go beyond just the stats so the negotiation is for flexibility. 410

Miller: I think Al is asking for a flat reduction. 411 412

Stein: I think it needs the whereas and resolve stuff because at this point it’s so vague. If 413 you really want to make the point of what the issues are and you really want very specific 414 things to happen, then it can’t be an off the cuff motion. 415

416 Polasek: I agree, and I think we need to say something about student success because 417 they’re really pushing for that and we’re not seeing the success in a classroom setting that 418 basically is setting them up to fail. 419

420 Hu: I think that’s a little dangerous because we don’t have the ability to say, evaluate 421 these students before they come into a class. One semester my class could be doing 422 spectacularly, and the next it will bomb. And it’s not because I all of a sudden stopped 423 teaching in the second semester, it’s just based on the pool sometimes. So that’s why it’s 424 a little dangerous to evaluate the success based on that. 425

426 Daccurso: If not success, then at least completion rates? If the class is too large, the 427 students get further frustrated – I think we can look at completion numbers as part of our 428 support. We might have to bite the bullet for one more semester and go for a strong suit 429 to present this for the spring. 430

431 Southgate: I’ve been doing some review of the literature on class sizes. Just about 432 everything that’s published, peer-review published, says that increases in class size may 433 not radically affect college student achievement. Instead, they say that institutions should 434 base these caps on concerns other than student achievement – classroom facilities, course 435 budgets, student demand. So there’s less of a link of just saying the fewer students, the 436 better we can teach. 437

438 Prante: The concern I have about an examination of class size by discipline is that the 439 administration might want to reconfigure course offerings. In order to reduce the numbers 440 in the English classes, they might want to increase class size in whatever disciplines have 441 these larger classes. I’d be worried that they might change the distribution of these 442 classes. 443

444 Miller: Tried that with Biology courses. Tried to double lab sections. 445

446 Dea: Maybe the new Enrollment Management committee should look into this issue? 447

448 Miller: That should be one of their primary tasks, but the issue now is we don’t know 449 dates or meeting times yet. 450

451 Motion to table (Murray) (Hu). Motion passes 24:1. No abstentions. 452 In favor: Briancesco, Brower, Chung, Daccurso, Dea, Fusilero, Gold, Hu, Jones, 453 Melody, Miller, Miyasaki, Murray, Ng, Polasek, Prante, Raskoff, Rosow, Snider, 454 Southgate, Stein, Stoneham, Sumnik-Levins, Wright. Against: Knorr. 455

456

Miller: What’s the next step? Do we submit this to the EMC? Or have a Senate group 457 work on it? I don’t want Al’s concerns to be lost. 458

459 Daccurso: The Senate prepares something to give to the EMC. Since we don’t know 460 when this group is going to meet, can we start the ball rolling with some concrete 461 suggestions from this body? 462

463 Miller: Concerns are in the minutes. 464

465 Fusilero: Get together a workgroup to craft a motion? 466

467 Miller: If we get a motion here, we can send it directly to the President. That can happen 468 next month. 469

470 Miyasaki: I think it should be something crafted by the Senate not the EMC. The EMC 471 reports to EPC, and that’s not a body of the Senate. 472

473 Miller: They do send a lot to us, goes parallel to processes. 474

475 Miyasaki: Should be voice of Senate coming through. 476

477 Southgate: However, I want some evidence, not just anecdotal. 478

479 Miller: Who would like to help craft this? We can send it to both the EMC and the 480 President. 481

482 Ng: Do we have access to data? 483

484 Miller: Yes, I can ask for it. 485

486 Fusilero, Miyasaki, Ng volunteer for workgroup. 487

488 Miller: If you have specific concerns, you can e-mail them. 489

490 4a) PEPC motions 491

1. M/S/P to approve the three-year SLO Cycle (Rosow) (Knorr) 492 2. M/S/P to approve 1.0 reassigned time for SLO coordinator (Hu) (Murray) 493 3. M/S/P to approve Homeland Security Discontinuance (Rosow) (Raskoff) 494

495 496 497

498 499

Meeting adjourned 3:20pm 500 Minutes recorded by Yih-Mei Hu 501

502

Items approved by VCCC on 3/12/14 503 504 A. Outline Updates with Addenda 505

a. CH DEV 10: SLO, Advisory: Ch Dev 1 506 b. CH DEV 11: SLO, Advisory: Ch Dev 1, Eng 28 or Eng 363 507 c. CH DEV 22: SLO, PreReq: Ch Dev 1, Ch Dev 11, Ch Dev 3 or Ch Dev 4 508

or Ch Dev 7 509 d. CH DEV 34: SLO, PreReq: Ch Dev 1 510 e. CH DEV 42: SLO, Advisory: Ch Dev 1, Eng 28 or Eng 363 511

512 B. DE updates 513

a. CH DEV 38 514 b. ENGLISH 21 515 c. ENGLISH 28 516 d. ENGLISH 33 517 e. ENGLISH 101 518 f. ENGLISH 102 519 g. ENGLISH 103 520 h. ENGLISH 208 521 i. ESL 15CE 522 j. ESL 16CE 523 k. ESL 17CE 524 l. FRENCH 5 525 m. FRENCH 6 526

527 C. Outline Updates 528

a. LAW 2: SLO 529 b. RESP TH 2: SLO, PreReq: CoReq: Anatomy 1, Physiol 1, Chem 51, 530

Micro 20, Physics 5, Rest Th 1 531 c. RESP TH 3: SLO, PreReq: Resp Th 6 and 15 532 d. RESP TH 4: SLO, PreReq: Resp Th 3 and 6, CoReq: Resp Th 7 and 8 533 e. RESP TH 5: SLO, PreReq: Resp Th 4, 7, 8 534 f. RESP TH 6: SLO, PreReq: Resp Th 1 and 2, CoReq: Resp Th 15 535 g. RESP TH 7: SLO, PreReq: Resp Th 3, and 6, CoReq: Resp Th 4 and 8 536 h. RESP TH 8: SLO, PreReq: Resp Th 3 and 6, CoReq: Resp Th 4 and 7 537 i. RESP TH 11: SLO, PreReq: Resp Th 4, 7, and 8 538 j. RESP TH 15: SLO, PreReq: Resp Th 1 and 2, Psych 1, CoReq: Resp Th 6 539 k. RESP TH 23: SLO, PreReq: Resp Th 3 and 6, CoReq: Resp Th 4, 7, 8 540 l. SOC 1: SLO, DE, TAP, PreReq: Advisory ENG 28 or ENG 363 541 m. THEATER 232: SLO 542 n. THEATER 233: SLO 543 o. THEATER 291: SLO 544 p. THEATER 292: SLO 545 q. THEATER 293: SLO 546 r. THEATER 276: SLO 547 s. THEATER 405: SLO, DE, UC GE request 548

D. Archives 549 a. KIN 217, 268, 269, 303, 315, 326, 350, 364, 370, 371, 387, 391 550 b. COMM 61, 62, 111 551 c. DANCETQ 290, 460, 462, 463, 469 552

553 E. DE updates 554

a. ENG GEN 101 555 b. ENG GEN 151 556 c. HEALTH 11 557 d. HUMANITIES 8 558 e. HUMANITIES 30 559 f. LIB SCI 101 560 g. REAL ES 14 561 h. SOC 2 562 i. SOC 3 563 j. SOC 4 564 k. SOC 11 565 l. SOC 12 566 m. SOC 21 567 n. SOC 31 568

569 F. Reinstate 570

a. Humanities 385 571 572

G. Program Change 573 a. Broadcasting AA – Radio Option 574

i. 38 units 575 ii. Radio Option Core Courses Added: BRDCSTG 24 576 iii. Radio Option Core Courses Deleted: BRDCSTG 5 577

b. Broadcasting Certificate – Radio Option 578 i. 31 Units 579 ii. Radio Option Core Courses Added: BRDCSTG 24 580 iii. Radio Option Core Courses Deleted: BRDCSTG 11 581 iv. Radio Option Restricted Electives Added: BRDCSTG 11 582

c. Broadcasting AA – Television Option 583 i. 38 Units 584 ii. TV Option Core Courses Added: BRDCSTG 47 585 iii. TV Option Core Courses Deleted: BRDCSTG 45 586

d. Broadcasting Certificate – Television Option 587 i. 32 Units 588 ii. TV Option Core Courses Added: BRDCSTG 47 589 iii. TV Option Core Courses Deleted: BRDCSTG 45 590

591 H. New Program 592

a. Early Childhood Education AS-T 593 b. Physics AS-T 594

DRAFT

1

EMP2014.2020.DRAFT The planning structure at Los Angeles Valley College reflects the college’s commitment to shared governance and to obtaining campus-wide and community input on the goals and objectives that will shape the college’s future. The Educational Master Plan serves as the college’s central planning document and reflects the College Mission, Vision and Core Values. It is used to guide the development of other planning documents including the college’s Technology Plan which outlines objectives related to educational technology and technology infrastructure, the college’s Facilities Plan which outlines objectives related to facilities and college infrastructure, and the Student Equity Plan which outlines strategies to close the achievement gap between different groups in all programs offered by the college. All college plans must directly align with the priorities identified in the Educational Master Plan. The Educational Master Plan details all academic and educational planning objectives that relate to the college’s educational goals. The Educational Master Plan drives campus planning and institutional priorities. It links to the program review process and each attendant plan, and provides guidance to all fiscal decisions and the direction of the college over the next six years. The action items and objectives of each attendant plan serve as the detailed guides that allow the college to implement each of its plans. Finally, the college’s Program Review structure is used to assess department/unit efforts to fulfill the college mission and planning objectives. In addition to its six-year educational planning, the college utilizes annual operational planning to ensure that the college is making adequate yearly progress on accomplishing the general planning agenda. Operational planning includes the annual implementation and evaluation efforts that take place through the use of Student Learning Outcomes, Annual Update Plans, resource allocation, operational decision making, and formative evaluation. These yearly decisions and their respective evaluations are used to improve the connection between planning, daily decisions and resource allocation, and to gain regular data on campus efforts toward accomplishing its planning agenda and in the overall summative college evaluation. Introduction Community Colleges exist within a dynamic context wherein education, community and the economy intersect. Community Colleges serve as an educational foundation for the surrounding community. Los Angeles Valley College must persist towards planning for the optimum outcomes. Therefore, this living document is meant as a guiding map towards that end. As the needs of the college change, due to influences within the greater community and throughout the state, the Educational Master Plan will be modified to better meet the ongoing educational demands of Los Angeles Valley College students. Los Angeles Valley College’s Educational Master Plan (2014-2020) details the strategic direction the College will pursue to meet the challenges and opportunities it will face over the next six years. The planning process included a two-year, data-driven, critical analysis and self-reflection that included participation by faculty, staff, students, and administrators. Through this process the college has determined its commitment to emphasize three areas of development for the college to focus its efforts on: facilitating completion (obtaining a certificate, associate degree or certification for transfer) for students; sustaining institutional effectiveness through increased infrastructure; and ensuring equity for all students in each mode of instructional

DRAFT

2

delivery. These three themes provide the basis for planning at the college and outline the college’s priorities and commitment for improvement during the next six years. The College’s Educational Planning Committee (EPC) is charged with the development of a comprehensive 2014-2020 plan establishing a clear set of performance measures to guide the College’s planning efforts. The plan aligns with the College’s Mission, Vision and Core Values while establishing a clear set of performance measures to guide the College’s planning efforts. The College Mission serves as a guide through which all subsequent planning at LAVC takes place. Using the College Mission Statement and relevant data, the EPC develops a plan which ensures that college core values lead the college in fulfilling its institutional mission. The Educational Master Plan provides specific objectives and institutional strategies. Following this, all attendant plans including the Facilities Master Plan, the Technology Master Plan, the Enrollment Management Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, Foundational Skills Action Plan, Matriculation Plan, Student Equity Plan, and department/unit annual plans are aligned with the Educational Master Plan to ensure that all facilities, technology, and other infrastructure planning are aimed at improving the educational opportunities of LAVC students. The Educational Master Plan’s goals and objectives are shaped by College, State and District initiatives, including increased demands for student completion, assisting underprepared student populations, and ensuring institutional effectiveness. In addition, the Plan reflects the College’s own comprehensive review and analysis resulting from the College’s Institutional Self Evaluation and Achieving the Dream (PASS) efforts. Context California Higher Education California public higher education consists of three sectors, the University of California, California State University, and the California Community Colleges. The policies and structure of California higher education have been shaped by the California Master Plan for Higher Education, originally adopted in 1960. The California Master Plan drew clear lines between the research-oriented University of California (UC) and the teaching-oriented California State University (CSU); between Community Colleges with open access, and UC and CSU sectors with restricted admissions. The California Master Plan distinctions were intended to promote an ordered growth, prevent turf wars, control “Mission creep,” and provide clear messages to the public about the role and Mission of the sectors and how they relate to one another to create a coherent public higher education system. The University of California, with a total fall 2012 enrollment of over 236,000 students, is oriented toward graduate education and research. It consists of medical schools and residencies, five medical centers and ten campuses governed by a single Board of Regents and a statewide President’s Office. California State University, with a total fall 2012 enrollment of 436,560 students on 23 campuses, places primary emphasis on undergraduate academic and professional education and

DRAFT

3

limited graduate-level work, primarily at the master’s level. CSU is governed by a single Board of Trustees with a statewide Chancellor’s Office. California Community Colleges In the fall 2012 semester, California Community Colleges enrolled over 1.5 million students in credit and noncredit classes in 72 districts and over 100 colleges. Governance of the California Community Colleges more closely resembles a confederation than a system. It is comprised of a three-level structure:

A statewide Chancellor’s Office and Board of Governors, with coordinating authority Regional community College Districts governed by locally elected trustees Individual campuses

The Board of Governors consists of 17 members appointed by the Governor of the State of California. The Board of Governors appoints the Chancellor. Together, the Chancellor’s Office and Board of Governors set policy, conduct long-range planning, and are responsible for allocating state funding to the colleges and districts. The work of the Chancellor’s Office is performed through seven major divisions: College Finance and Fiscal Policy Planning; Legal Affairs and Contracts; Educational Services and Economic Development; Policy, Planning and External Affairs; Student Services; Human Resources; and Internal Affairs. The California Community Colleges operate under a shared governance system, whose tenets are outlined in 1988 legislation (AB 1725). The Chancellor’s Office has formed the 18-member Consultation Council to facilitate the shared governance system. The Council acts as a formal advisory body to the Chancellor who, in turn, makes recommendations to the Board of Governors. The Council, chaired by the Chancellor, meets monthly, and includes representatives of the trustees, executive officers, students, administrators, business officers, student services officers, and instructional officers, and representative organizations such as faculty and staff unions and associations. California Community Colleges System Strategic Plan The Chancellor’s Office began a comprehensive strategic planning process in 2005 with the purpose of improving student access and success. On January 17, 2006, the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges unanimously adopted the final draft of the Strategic Plan. This plan was the groundwork for the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) Strategic Plan 2012-2017 which was approved by the LACCD Board of Trustees on February 6, 2013. Five strategic goal areas were identified in this planning process as critical to the continued success of the California Community College System in meeting the needs of its constituents:

College Awareness and Access Student Success and Readiness Partnership for Economic and Workforce Development System Effectiveness

DRAFT

4

Resource Development Los Angeles Community College District The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) is the largest community college system in the United States and one of the largest in the world. The LACCD covers an area of more than 882 square miles and consists of nine colleges: East Los Angeles College Los Angeles City College Los Angeles Harbor College Los Angeles Mission College Los Angeles Pierce College Los Angeles Trade-Technical College Los Angeles Valley College Los Angeles Southwest College West Los Angeles College With a combined fall 2012 enrollment of more than 132,600 students, the district serves a diverse student population eager for skills, knowledge and upward mobility. Eighty percent of LACCD students are from underserved populations. In addition to typical college-aged students, the LACCD also serves adults of all ages. Over half of all LACCD students are older than 25 years of age, and more than a quarter are 35 or older. The student enrollment within LACCD has significantly increased by nearly 50 percent over the last decade, from about 95,000 student headcount in 1998 to just over 140,000 in 2010. Since 2010 the District has experienced a minor decline in enrollment to 138,000 headcount in 2013. Enrollments also decreased over the last three years across the district from 347,000 to 338,000. Although the district as a whole has experienced a slight decline in headcount and enrollment during the last three years, Los Angeles Valley College’s headcount and enrollment has remained relatively stable. The Los Angeles Community College District is governed by an eight-member Board of Trustees. Board members are elected at large for terms of four years. Elections are held every two years, with three members being chosen at one election and four members at the other. The President and Vice President of the Board of Trustees are elected by the Board for one-year terms. A student member is also elected annually, serving a term from June 1 through May 31 of each year. The Chancellor, the District’s Chief Executive Officer, is responsible for carrying out policies approved by the Board of Trustees. LACCD Strategic Plan The first formal Strategic Plan in the history of the Los Angeles Community College District was adopted by the Board of Trustees on January 24, 2007 and revised in 2012. The result of a year-long, district-wide effort, the 2012-2017 LACCD Strategic Plan sets priorities that will guide district actions and initiatives over the next five years. It also serves to align district goals and priorities with those established in the California Community College System Strategic Plan.

DRAFT

5

The LACCD Strategic Plan outlines four overarching goals for the nine LACCD colleges and the District Office:

Access and Preparation for Success Teaching and Learning for Success Organizational Effectiveness Resources and Collaboration

As part of a multi-college district, Los Angeles Valley College is guided by the strategic planning agenda approved by the LACCD Board of Trustees. Los Angeles Valley College annually provides a report to the district showing alignment between its Educational Master Plan to the goals and objectives of the LACCD Strategic Plan. Of note, in its 2013 report, LAVC exceeded the district average in percent of eligible students receiving financial aid at 92% in 2011-2012 and at completing the matriculation process in its first semester at 72% of students. Although the college did exceed expectations on new students completing at least one math and English class in their first year (20%) and was at the average to other sister colleges in fall to spring and fall to fall persistence (86% and 76% respectively) and completion of 30 and 60 units (61% and 30% respectively), overall persistence and completion have dropped over the past cohorts (Table X; page X). As a result, the college is aligned with the District in its commitment to increase persistence and completion over the next six years. The LAVC Educational Master Plan’s goals align with State and district strategic planning goals through their emphasis on learning and enabling students to achieve educational and career goals and by ensuring equitable access and maximizing institutional effectiveness. Table 1. Goal Alignments by LAVC, LACCD and State of California.

LAVC GOALS LACCD GOALS STATE GOALS

Foster student completion by supporting a learning-centered environment

Teaching and Learning for Success: Strengthen effective teaching and learning by providing a learner centered educational environment; help students attain their goals of certificate and degree completion, transfer, and job training and career placement; increase equity in the achievement of these outcomes.

Student Success and Readiness: Promote college readiness and provide programs and services to enable all students to achieve their educational and career goals. Partnerships for Economic and Workforce Development: Strengthen the Colleges’ capacity to respond to current and emerging labor market needs and to prepare students to compete in a global economy.

Increase equity by identifying gaps in achieving outcomes (transfer, associate degree, certificate, etc.) and implement effective models and programming to minimize gaps.

Access and Preparation for Success: Improve equitable access; help students attain important early educational momentum points.

College Awareness and Access: Increase awareness of college as a viable option and enhance access to higher education for growing populations.

Through the College’s shared governance structures, maximize

Organizational Effectiveness: Improve organizational

System Effectiveness: Improve system effectiveness through

DRAFT

6

institutional effectiveness through evaluation of environmental, human, physical, technological and financial resources.

effectiveness through data-informed planning and decision-making, process assessment, and professional development. Resources and Collaboration: Increase and diversify sources of revenue in order to achieve and maintain fiscal stability and to support District initiatives. Enhance, strengthen, and maintain mutually beneficial external partnerships with business, labor, and industry and other community and civic organizations in the greater Los Angeles area.

communication and coordination, regulatory reform, and performance measurement. Resource Development: Provide enhanced resources and allocation methods to ensure high quality education for all.

Los Angeles Valley College Los Angeles Valley College was established in 1949 in response to the higher education needs of the rapidly growing San Fernando Valley. The College was officially chartered by the Los Angeles Board of Education in June of 1949 and opened its doors on September 12th of that year on the campus of Van Nuys High School. The college’s first academic year began with 439 students enrolled, 23 founding faculty members, and five bungalows that constituted the campus. The library housed a collection of 150 books. By 1950, the College established an evening division, adding 12 classes. LAVC moved to its permanent 105-acre site in Van Nuys in 1951. The campus began with 33 temporary bungalows, which increased to 45 over the next five years. During the first three years of operation, enrollment expanded quickly. By fall 1952 enrollment exceeded 2,300 students. Within the next two years the college established a fully functioning counseling program and a community services program. In 1954, faculty members founded the Athenaeum, offering community programs that brought the Los Angeles Philharmonic to campus. Guest speakers on campus included Eleanor Roosevelt, Margaret Mead, and Louis Leakey. Over the decades the college continued to grow with the San Fernando Valley. A comprehensive transfer program, as well as a number of vocational programs led to the need for instructional facilities. By 1959 Phase I of the Master Building Plan was completed, adding Engineering, Chemistry, Physics, Foreign Language, Administration, and the Library buildings. By 1961, the Music, Theater Arts, Life Science, and Cafeteria buildings were added. In 1963, the buildings for Business-Journalism, Math-Science, Art, and the Planetarium were completed. In the 1970's the college added the Gymnasiums, Behavioral Science, Humanities, and Campus Center buildings. Today, Los Angeles Valley College serves approximately 20,000 students from the communities of Van Nuys, North Hollywood, Panorama City, Pacoima, Sherman Oaks, Valley Village, Studio City, Encino, Tarzana, and Burbank. Designated as a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI), its student body is comprised of a diverse mix of ethnicities that reflect the communities it serves, the majority being of Hispanic descent. LAVC is a student-focused institution known for high quality educational courses that prepare students for university or vocations. More than 140 associate degree programs and certificate programs are offered.

DRAFT

7

Popular majors include Accounting, Administration of Justice, Biology, Business Management, Child Development, Computer Science Information Technology, Engineering, English, Liberal Arts & Sciences, Media Arts, Music, Psychology, and Sociology. The school is also known for exceptional vocational programs in Registered Nursing, Fire Technology and Respiratory Therapy. In addition, LAVC offers a wide selection of online and hybrid courses. With the passage of three district wide bond measures, Proposition A in 2001, Proposition AA in 2003, and Measure J in 2008, Los Angeles Valley College has been undergoing a $626 million expansion and renovation construction program designed to renovate existing structures, upgrade infrastructure, and construct new buildings. New facilities include the Maintenance and Operations/Sheriff’s Station (the first LEED-certified building in the LACCD), an Allied Health and Sciences Center with state-of-the-art classrooms and labs, and the Belle & Harry Krupnick Media Arts Center featuring a state-of-the art television studio. Most recently, the College added a new Aquatics Center with an Olympic-sized pool, an Adapted Physical Education Center for students with disabilities, a Student Services Complex, and a Library and Academic Resource Center. Five other buildings are scheduled to begin construction in the next year. LAVC has made a number of advances to increase institutional effectiveness. The college created several new certificate programs, revitalized total college offerings, added new courses in many departments, and increased the number of evening courses to meet the needs of working students. The college continues to expand technological capabilities, increasing access to research databases from on and off-campus and information on college and District websites. Los Angeles Valley College is known for our ability to serve the needs of local business and industry. Its Job Training Program provides employee training and its Faculty/Staff Resource Center serves as a training facility for the College and area businesses. LAVC has received numerous awards, including being inducted into VICA’s (Valley Industry and Commerce Association) “San Fernando Valley Business Hall of Fame” and receiving the Valley Economic Alliance’s “Valley of the Stars” Education Award. LAVC serves as a hub for cultural and community events and offers recreational opportunities (athletics, community services classes), leadership activities (through the ASU), and cultural events (art exhibits and performances in dance, music, and theater) to enrich the lives of our students and the community. Planning Methodology and Guiding Principles The planning process was guided by the following principles:

The planning process will build upon, not duplicate, work done in earlier planning. The planning will employ data-driven findings and recommendations from recent data

analysis, reports, and studies. It will be open, collaborative, and personal, though mindful of the need to complete a

plan by Spring 2014. It will be both grounded in reality and future oriented by focusing on planning and how it

relates to budget.

DRAFT

8

It will be linked to accreditation, student success and PASS initiatives It will reflect an understanding that the planning process is dynamic and therefore an

ongoing reflective process. Process The College’s Educational Planning Committee (EPC) began work on an Educational Master Plan (EMP) in 2011. It began with an evaluation of the previous EMP. During 2011, the EMP convened a workgroup to revise the Mission, Vision and Core Values. After crafting revised statements, the workgroup sought feedback from a broad base of constituents via an online survey that received responses by over 2,000 stakeholders (Mission, Vision, Core Values survey), including students, student government leaders, club members, faculty, staff, administrators, alumni, LAVC Foundation members, advisory committees, and the community. In addition, nearly 200 people attended the President’s Sidewalk Chat. The workgroup used that feedback to further revise the statements and engage in dialogue with the Academic Senate on their suggested revisions. The revised mission statement (Mission, Vision, Core Values 2012) went through the campus approval process in fall 2012: MISSION STATEMENT Los Angeles Valley College serves as a leader in student success, with pathways for certificates, degrees, transfer, and continuing education. We enable students to 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 a learning-centered environment that offers 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 educational opportunities for all in a welcoming, supportive, and respectful environment that provides a place for critical thinking, learning, and personal growth. Resourcefulness and Environmental Stewardship

DRAFT

9

The college strives to be effective stewards of our physical, technological, and financial resources to maximize institutional effectiveness. The college fosters sustainability and pride in our vibrant and evolving campus. In conjunction with this philosophical roadmap, the EPC began the task of undertaking and reviewing multiple analyses on educational trends, outcome and assessments data. The strategic research undertaken by Los Angeles Valley College was the result of multiple campus, district, and state initiatives—overarching larger-scale initiatives are highlighted below:

1. Preparing All Students for Success (PASS). This work was driven by the LACCD partnership with Achieving the Dream, a national non-profit organization that is dedicated to helping community college students, particularly low-income students and students of color stay in school and earn a certificate or associate degree. The PASS work subscribes to the principles of data-driven decision making, and that the work be student-centered and built on equity and excellence. Facilitating the completion of developmental instruction to advance to degree-applicable courses and creating intervention strategies aimed at increasing retention, persistence and success are both emphasized goals of this initiative. LAVC is committed to instituting these initiatives in a way that will impact the maximum number of students possible to achieve institutional transformation focusing on an integrated student success effort to help students complete. College PASS initiatives to be institutionalized include a Welcome Fair for first-time students, a START program in which students take a math, English and Personal Development course in their first semester and, if all courses are completed successfully, ensuring their ability to enroll in successive math and English classes, accelerated Math, and providing continually support services such as tutoring and workshops. In addition, the Clear Pathways initiative promotes direction to students through a reorganization of offerings directed toward completion.

2. Self-Evaluation of Educational Quality and Institutional Effectiveness. This report was

undertaken as part of the peer review process associated with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC). The Commission’s standards emphasize evaluation, improvement, and reevaluation of all programs and services, and analysis of learning and achievement data on students enrolled in all delivery formats. The college is expected to fully evaluate indicators of effectiveness and make improvements based on a systematic analysis of data. This process of self-evaluation provided the College the opportunity to conduct a thorough review of its educational quality and institutional effectiveness, and resulted in college-designated Actionable Improvement Plans and Commission Recommendations including integration of Student Learning outcome assessment data in planning, reinforcing the technological infrastructure on campus, maximizing institutional effectiveness, and reviewing learning and achievement data for all delivery formats. The Accreditation response also called for the college to establish appropriate management and control mechanisms to assume fiscal decision making and to ensure the long-term fiscal stability and financial integrity of the

DRAFT

10

college. In response, the college has reviewed its overall expenditures, and has made significant adjustments in its enrollment management and budgetary allocation processes. The Educational Master Plan will act as a vehicle to prioritize items to ensure that the specific criteria are met and expenditures per each FTES are monitored.

3. Student Success Act of 2012 (SB 1456). The Student Success Act of 2012 was approved

by the State Senate in May 2012.The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office created the Student Success and Support Program to assist in the implementation of task force recommendations to move students effectively through the community college system and mitigate disproportionate impact. College funding from the program is targeted to fully implement orientation, assessment, counseling, advising, and other educational planning services needed to assist at-risk students in making an informed decision about his or her educational goal and course of study. The Act endorses the Student Success Task force recommendations and are tethered to seven key components of education:

Development and implementation of a common diagnostic assessment tool to more

accurately determine the skill levels of entering students; New technology and additional counselors to create more robust student services,

including broader and more widespread use of student educational plans; Structured pathways to help students identify a program of study and get an educational

roadmap to indicate appropriate courses and available support services; Enhanced professional development for both faculty and staff, especially related to the

instructional and support needs of basic skills students; Revised financing, accountability, and oversight systems to ensure that resources (both

financial and organizational) are better aligned with student success; Stronger statewide coordination and oversight to allow for the sharing and facilitation of

new and creative ideas to help students succeed, including the ability for California to “take to scale” the many good practices already in place; and

Better alignment of local district and college goals with the education and workforce needs of the state.

Furthermore, the Student Success Task Force adopted a set of student success outcome metrics. Taking into consideration the varied educational goals of community college students, the Task Force recommended and the State Senate accepted that student success be measured using the following metrics:

Percentage of community college students completing their educational goals Percentage of community college students earning a certificate or degree, transferring, or

achieving transfer-readiness Number of students transferring to a four-year institution Number of degrees and certificates earned

The 2014-2020 LAVC Educational Master Plan closely aligns with the state initiative and the college is committed to providing the services needed to increase each metric to ensure further student success.

DRAFT

11

Although the college priorities are influenced by state, district and campus initiatives, the LAVC Educational Master Plan is truly a reflection of the college’s shared governance and collaborative processes and represents a cultural shift in the college’s perspective in using extensive data analysis to inform all decisions. The LAVC Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC) serves as the central governing body for all planning decisions and makes recommendations directly to the college president as part of the shared governance process. In addition to the IEC, the Educational Planning Committee (EPC), Hiring Planning Committee (HPC), Program Effectiveness and Planning Committee (PEPC), Student Success Committee (SSC), Technology Planning Committee (TPC), and Work Environment Committee (WEC) also play key roles in the development of the college planning documents and assists in the implementation and evaluation of the planning agenda. Figure 1. Organizational Map of LAVC Shared Governance

The Educational Master Plan was drafted in conjunction with a rigorous dialogue among campus constituents in a series of meetings and open forums which are listed in Table 2 below. Table 2. Vetting Process of Educational Master Plan WHO WHEN EPC 5/13/2013*, 6/10/2013*, 7/8/2013*, 8/12/2013,9/9/2013,

10/14/2013, 11/18/2013, 12/9/2013; 2/10/ 2014 PEPC SSC 2/12/2014 IEC 6/13/2013* Chairs & Directors 4/23/2013* Town Halls 2/18/2014, 2/19/2014; 2/21/2014 Academic Senate 9/26/2013*

12/19/2013 Counseling Department 3/20/2014

DRAFT

12

Professional Development 3/20/2014 FSC 3/19/2014 Student Success Committee 3/19/2014 Team Transfer 3/11/2014 Athletics 3/11/2014 Technology Committee 3/6/2014 OAC 3/6/2014 Psychology Department 3/3/2014; 3/5/2014 Note: * indicates vetting of goals and objectives section Beginning in late 2011, the planning process was divided into the following phases: Phase 1: Project Preparation The planning process began as a standing agenda item of the Educational Planning Committee. The first phase included the evaluation of the prior Educational Master Plan 2008-2013. The purpose of this initial step was to: Survey owners of the plan across campus and determine how the Plan was utilized. Each was asked if they had a plan, how they implemented the objective(s), and if there was an evaluation. To do this, the Educational Planning Committee surveyed 19 Committees/Constituency Groups and seven Administrative Offices. The Committees surveyed included the following:

Academic Senate Associated Student Union (ASU) Campus Distance Education Committee (CDEC) Career Technical Education (CTE) Chairs & Directors Committee for Academic Resources and Tutoring Services (CARTS) Diversity Committee Educational Planning Committee (EPC) Foundational Skills Committee Hiring Planning Committee (HPC) Institutional Effectiveness Council (IEC) Outcomes Assessment Committee (OAC) Program Effectiveness & Planning Committee (PEPC) Professional Development Committee (PD) Student Success Committee (SSC) Technology Committee (Tech) The Strategic Team for the Advancement and Retention of Students (STARS) Workforce Development

The Administrative Offices surveyed were:

Foundation Office

DRAFT

13

Office of Institutional Effectiveness President’s Office Public Relations Office Vice President of Academic Affairs Office Vice President of Student Services Office Vice President of Administration Office

The survey took over 12 months to yield results. In addition to the assessment of the Educational Master Plan, the EPC reviewed data from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness which included success outcomes (i.e., persistence, completion, retention). These findings were reviewed and brought to the Educational Planning Committee where the Committee determined that: Goal 1: Increase Student Retention, Persistence and Success. On average, Los Angeles Valley College increased its persistence, retention and success metrics and met the three-year targets of increasing by 5 percent. It did not, however, meet the five-year targets to increase by 10 percent. Once the analysis disaggregated the data by student segments these outcomes showed great variation by home language. Although all groups met the three-year targets, some groups well outperformed the targets and increased twice the expected target (e.g., Armenian students increased success metric by 9 percent). Goal 2: Increase Student Access. The objective of increasing enrollment growth rate was stunted by budgetary constraints. The Educational Planning Committee collaborated with the PASS workgroup and created a partnership in the FTEF/PASS workgroup which has met monthly while analyzing campus data to locate and remove structural barriers to student access. The Student Success Committee collaborates with PASS, Educational Planning Committee, Institutional Effectiveness Council and Student Services and these collaborations have created many campus initiatives. Goal 3: Enhance academic offerings to meet student and regional needs. The College has made steady progress in enhancing its academic programs and course offerings. The PASS/FTEF workgroup in collaboration with the Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, SLO and Curriculum Committee designed, administered and analyzed a student course demand survey which informed the college on the self-reported needs of students attending Los Angeles Valley College. Moreover, the Career and Technical Education (CTE) Committee evaluated their program SLOs and made recommendations that were widely disseminated across campus units including the Educational Planning Committee, Chairs and Directors, Academic Senate, and the Institutional Effectiveness Council. Part of the CTE work included interviews with their advisory boards that helped shape the final recommendations. Goal 4: Increase Institutional Effectiveness. One major accomplishment during this Educational Master Plan cycle 2008-2013 includes the creation, adoption and utilization of the Technology Plan. Additionally, the Institutional Effectiveness Council approved the 2012-2013 Planning and Decision Making Handbook which details the processes that comply with the Shared Governance structure.

DRAFT

14

The survey of the Educational Master Plan 2008-2013 showed:

1. The prior Educational Master Plan captured many of the initiatives and work on student success across campus;

2. Many goals had been met, of particular note are: a. increased success and persistence (though the three-year goals were achieved but

not the five-year goals) b. increased equity across all student groups (further investigation by EPC and

PASS showed the only two groups that have significantly lower outcomes are Male students and African American students).

c. assessment of the need for alternative course scheduling to meet student needs d. established a FTEF workgroup to determine the FTEF-FTES allocation e. enhanced academic offerings to meet student and regional needs (SLOs used as a

tool for improving teaching and learning; developed SLOs for all campus programs; assessment of SLOs)

f. created and adopted a Technology Plan g. utilized and developed the College’s broad-based governance process as a means

for decision-making – and provided a Handbook that outlines these processes h. made significant strides toward achieving a balanced fiscal position that reflects

the priorities identified in the Educational Master Plan i. this work included a review of the District funding model and

ii. the hiring of an external consultant to analyze Los Angeles Valley College’s fiscal processes

The Committee also found that the document had failed to ignite the decision-making process and drive the campus to a prioritization that is so necessary to complete the difficult task of allocating resources during times of fiscal crisis. After face-to-face discussions with stake-holders of the 2008-2013 EMP preliminary evaluation survey, the Educational Planning Committee found:

1. the four EMP Goals had too many objectives and strategies; 2. many campus constituents had not used this document to drive decision-making, instead

many used the document as an expo-facto rationale; 3. the plan did not effectively integrate all various campus plans and initiatives; 4. the campus priorities could not be determined; 5. the campus did not have the required infrastructure to support much of the integration and

analysis necessary to meet the stated goals. These findings helped inform the planning process for the Educational Planning Committee’s work to revise the Educational Master Plan. Phase 2: Strategic Research Document Review Next, the Educational Planning Committee began an extensive and comprehensive review of findings from various data sources and analyses:

DRAFT

15

The Committee reviewed the following data sources (if available, a web-address link to the data source may be found in the second column of the table): Table 3. Data Sources used to inform the Educational Master Plan

DATA SOURCE WEB ADDRESS LAVC’s Mission Statement, Vision Statement http://www.lavc.edu/vision-mission/ LAVC’s Accreditation Self Evaluation http://college.lavc.edu:8888 Recommendations from California’s Student Success Taskforce

http://www.lavc.edu/ssc/docs/Student%20Success%20Act%20of%202012%20bill%20summary%20-%20Final.docx

LACCD’s Strategic Plan 2012-2017 http://www.laccd.edu/Departments/InstitutionalEffectiveness/Documents/District%20Strategic%20Plan/LACCD%20Strategic%20Plan%20Vision%202017.pdf

Plans and Goals from PASS http://www.lavc.edu/pass/goals.html LAVC’s unit annual goals SharePoint Survey results from the 2008-2013 Educational Master Plan

LAVC Community and Demographic Data

http://www.lavc.edu/research/News.html

LAVC’s Success and Retention Tables

http://www.lavc.edu/research/6yrSucRet_2-27-13.pdf

Program-level and course-level assessment results http://www.lavc.edu/outcomes/ Outreach to other campus committees, academic senate, and special programs

Alignment of EMP objectives to other campus plans (Matriculation, Institutional Assessment, Equity, etc.)

Regression analysis on equity at LAVC

Certificate and Degrees

http://www.lavc.edu/programs.html

Gainful employment data

http://www.lavc.edu/research/gainfulemploymentdata/index.html

2013 ARCC Report EMSI Zip Code Data API Scores of Surrounding High Schools 2012 and 2013 LAVC Student English, Reading and Math Placement Scores

http://www.lavc.edu/research/pdf/ARCC%202012_LAVC%20Feb.pdf

2012 LACCD Student Survey FTEF/PASS workgroup reports

http://lavc.edu/pass/index.html

Prior LA Valley College planning documents

Foundational Skills Action Plan; Foundational Skills Program Pathways

Catalog; schedules of class; public relations materials

http://www.lavc.edu/schedules.html

Planning and Decision Making Handbook http://www.lavc.edu/iec/pdf/C-Handbook%209.2012.pdf LAVC Accreditation Data Template Summary

California Department of Finance, Demographic Projections 2010-2060

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-1/documents/Projections_Press_Release_2010-2060.pdf

Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/

DRAFT

16

productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1 DATA SOURCES (continued) Web-address (continued) ACCJC on student achievement, assessment and standards

http://www.accjc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ACCJC-Regional-Workshop-Pierce-College_4-19-13.pdf

Advancing Student Success in California Community Colleges (2012)

http://www.californiacommunitycolleges.cccco.edu/Portals/0/StudentSuccessTaskForce/SSTF_FinalReport_Web_010312.pdf

Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. The Kyser Center for Economic Research (2013).

http://laedc.org/reports/2013-14EconomicForecastandIndustryOutlook.pdf

U.S. Department of Education :The Condition of Education (2013)

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tba.asp

IPEDS Scorecard http://scorecard.cccco.edu/scorecardrates.aspx?CollegeID=747

Career Ed Data analysis DATA SOURCES FROM DdiC EMSI 2014 1 Industry and Labor Market Intelligence for LA County. (April, 2013). http://cdn.laedc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Industry-and-Labor-Market-Intelligence_LAC_FINAL.pdf http://www.census.gov/how/pdf/child_care.pdf

The reviewed documents reveal major educational trends; resource allocation models; the alignment of student success metrics (success, retention, completion); integration of plans on multiple levels – federal, state, district and campus; enrollment management for growth and reduction; demographic patterns; etc.). In sum, the Educational Master Plan 2014-2020 will integrate and build in mechanisms to evaluate and assess the goals and strategies necessary to meet the ever-changing environment of Los Angeles Valley College.

ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN In order to understand and align institutional strengths and qualities with external forces and opportunities, the Educational Master Plan needs to assess the environment within which it exists. The campus draws diverse students from surrounding communities, the greater San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles area. Feeder high school API scores are often lower than state and Los Angeles Community College District average and service area income levels are lower than the greater San Fernando Valley. The majority of LAVC’s student population resides in the nearby communities of North Hollywood, Van Nuys, Burbank and Panorama City. Table 4. Feeder School APIs

DRAFT

17

School

Count of Recent

Graduates

Attending LAVC API Score

District 745

CALIFORNIA 441 788

1 GRANT SENIOR HIGH 157 705

2 NORTH HOLLYWOOD SENIOR HIGH 121 770

3 VAN NUYS SENIOR HIGH 96 761

4 FRANCIS POLYTECHNIC SR HIGH 70 745

5 JOHN BURROUGHS HIGH SCHOOL 62 n/a

6 BIRMINGHAM SENIOR HIGH 54 n/a

7 MONROE HIGH 47 692

8 BURBANK SENIOR HIGH 43 n/a

9 SAN FERNANDO SENIOR HIGH 35 677

OTHER STATE 33 n/a

10 SHERMAN OAKS CTR/ENRICHED STUDIES 33 n/a

11 GRANADA HILLS HIGH 30 n/a

12 JOHN F. KENNEDY SENIOR HIGH 28 711

13 TAFT SENIOR HIGH 24 790

14 EL CAMINO REAL SENIOR HIGH 23 n/a

15 CLEVELAND HIGH 20 783

Average 737

Top Feeder Schools Fall 2013

The vast majority of Los Angeles Valley College students come from within a 15 mile service area surrounding the campus. Table X below reports the number and percentage of the total student population comes from which communities. More than a third comes from North Hollywood and Van Nuys, the two areas adjacent to campus. Table 5. Top 25 Communities of LAVC Students Fall 2013.

Top 25 Communities of LAVC Students Fall 2013 Count Percent Count Percent NORTH HOLLYWOOD 3798 21% NORTHRIDGE 327 2% VAN NUYS 3188 17% GRANADA HILLS 292 2% PANORAMA CITY 1099 6% SYLMAR 267 1% BURBANK 983 5% CANOGA PARK 255 1% SHERMAN OAKS 915 5% STUDIO CITY 248 1% LOS ANGELES 894 5% ENCINO 230 1% SUN VALLEY 825 4% TARZANA 191 1% ARLETA 600 3% MISSION HILLS 184 1% NORTH HILLS 553 3% WOODLAND HILLS 183 1% PACOIMA 420 2% SAN FERNANDO 156 1% RESEDA 403 2% WINNETKA 143 1% GLENDALE 393 2% VALLEY GLEN 96 1% VALLEY VILLAGE 385 2% All Other Cities 1369 7%

Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE

DRAFT

18

By comparing the average and median income of households within the feeder communities, a pattern of disadvantage emerges. On average, the majority of Los Angeles Valley Students live in communities that are below the national average income median of $52, 029. Indeed, of the cities listed above, fewer than 10% come from cities with higher than average income. The household numbers, median and mean household income is reported in Table 6 below. Table 6. Income by Community

Community Total

Households

Median Household

Income in dollars Mean Household Income in dollars

Calabasas 8,266 118,182 183,537 Agoura Hills 7,182 108,820 148,718 Canoga Park Area 25,560 52,003 60,647 Tarzana 11,400 69,875 113,955 Encino Area 11,897 59,522 101,441 Reseda 22,485 53,842 66,213 Van Nuys Area 59,325 45,576 61,168 Sherman Oaks 64,609 73,947 117,771 Studio City 13,655 86,475 131,582 North Hollywood Area 64,055 49,784 62,611 Burbank 42,340 51,623 77,006 South Glendale 46,740 40,742 54,446 North Glendale-La Canada 41,330 94,633 127,324 Sunland - Sun Valley Area 34,890 56,169 70,522 Panorama City-Arleta Area 23,435 44,836 54,070 Sylmar-San Fern. Valley Area 36,145 53,178 66,318 Granada Hills - Mission Hills 44,125 63,071 82,885 Chatsworth - Northridge Area 44,375 76,479 104,142 San Fernando Valley CCD Tracts 584,645 58,511 82,954 Los Angeles City 1,280,535 48,882 78,541 Los Angeles County 3,168,362 55,499 81,169 California 12,176,760 61,021 84,275 United States 113,101,329 52,029 71,498 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2010); State of California Department of Finance Population Estimates 2012-2060 (2013); and, the LAVC Self Evaluation Study (January 2013). Summary of LAVC service area

The majority of LAVC students come from a 15 mile service area surrounding campus The service area is filled with a mix of average and low-income neighborhoods, though

the majority of students come from neighborhoods that are often lower economically than the average San Fernando Valley on whole.

The high schools from which the students generally come are, on average, low API scoring institutions.

Industry Employment Workforce education represents a large portion of Los Angeles Valley College’s educational programming. In order to maintain appropriate programs that lead to economic advancement,

DRAFT

19

career‐technical departments collect data related to the availability of jobs and career opportunities throughout the state. These objectives are achieved at a department level through the collection of labor reports, use of advisory groups and the development of employer surveys. Considering the residents of the county of Los Angeles, Table 7 below reports the occupational group membership in descending share of the total workforce in percentages. One third of the workforce is represented in office, administrative, sales and management positions. The remaining categories constitute less than 10 percent of the workforce and in the majority of the categories, 5 percent or less. These data provide information relevant to the training needs of the community and the manner in which programs can be developed to meet the needs of the business community and LAVC students. The data indicate positive trends in job fields related to healthcare and social services, education, business, computer science, construction related occupations, protective and legal fields and media. Table 7. Resident Employment County of Los Angeles SOC Occupational Group Employment Share of Total (%) 43-0000 Office and administrative support 599,860 13.6 43-0000 Sales and related 490,160 11.1 11-0000 Management 390,480 8.8 51-0000 Production 288,290 6.5 53-0000 Transportation/material moving 276,310 6.3 35-0000 Food prep and serving related 239,850 5.4 25-0000 Education, training, and library 235,360 5.3 37-0000 Building/grounds cleaning/maintenance 220,620 5.0 13-0000 Business and financial operations 219,210 5.0 39-0000 Personal care and service 213,760 4.8 27-0000 Arts/entertainment/sports/media 187,100 4.2 Source: Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. The Kyser Center for Economic Research (2013). As Los Angeles Valley serves the educational needs of students who are pursuing a career education, the following analysis surveys the industry employment trends of Los Angeles County. The economic recovery after the 2008 downturn has ushered in nominal growth in primarily service sector industries. Table 8 reflects the employment environment in Los Angeles County by the percentage share of total employment by industry in descending order. The 10 most popular industries are given below with Wholesale disaggregated into durable and nondurable goods. Table 8. Employment by Industry in Los Angeles County. NAICS Industry Employment Share of Total (%) 722 Food services and drinking places 286,090 7.4 541 Professional and technical services 255,830 6.6 561 Administrative and support services 222,520 5.7 621 Ambulatory health care services 179,260 4.6 512 Motion picture and sound recording 120,130 3.1 622 Hospitals 109,500 2.8 611 Educational services 98,070 2.5 423 Wholesale: durable goods 94,570 2.4 424 Wholesale: nondurable goods 90,420 2.3 445 Retail: food and beverage stores 87,800 2.3

DRAFT

20

522 Credit intermediation 69,760 1.8 Source: Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. The Kyser Center for Economic Research (2013). Nonfarm jobs, reported in Table 9, have experienced a 1.8 percent increase, just ahead of the national rate of 1.7 percent. The largest gains occurred in the private sector, specifically in three industries – leisure and hospitality, administrative and support services and private education. These three industries contributed more than 60 percent of the jobs created in 2012. Construction jobs which had been on a decreasing trend have begun to increase by 4 percent. Public sector jobs have continued to decrease, in 2012 by 1.8 percent. Table 9. Total Nonfarm Employment

YEAR

Number employed (in thousands)

Numerical change from prior year

Percent change from prior year

2005 4,024.2 27.7 0.7 2006 4,092.5 68.3 1.7 2007 4,122.1 29.6 0.7 2008 4,070.7 -51.4 -1.2 2009 3,824.1 -246.6 -6.1 2010 3,773.1 -51.0 -1.3 2011 3,794.1 21.0 0.6 2012 3,846.4 52.3 1.4 2013f 3,911.8 65.4 1.7 2014f 3,982.2 70.4 1.8

Source: Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation. The Kyser Center for Economic Research (2013). Summary of workforce and industry employment

The economic recession of 2008 resulted in a massive decrease in available jobs. Los Angeles County is growing jobs, but is still not make to the baseline jobs in 2008. Ten industry sectors are top-ranked in projected job creation and total employment

projections by 2020 in Los Angeles County. These sectors are: o Health Care and Social Assistance o Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services o Administrative, Support, Waste Management o Finance and Insurance o Motion Picture and Sound Recording Studios o Educational Services o Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation o Management of Companies o Manufacturing: Computer and Electric Products o Manufacturing: Fabricated Metal Products

Many of the top 10 growth industries, specifically Health Care, Administrative Support, and Manufacturing sectors align with current certificate and degree offerings at LAVC. Health Care: Health services are expected to grow seen in Table 10 below, as the aging population and the expected expansion of insurance coverage is made possible through the Affordable Care Act.

DRAFT

21

Table 10 Number of Healthcare Jobs in Los Angeles County, 2013 and Projected Jobs 2018. NAICS Code Description 2013 Jobs 2018 Jobs % Growth

621 Ambulatory Health Care Services 210,330 336,822 13% 622 Hospitals (Private) 109,816 119,354 9% 623 Nursing and Residential Care Facilities 75,732 85,672 13% Total 395, 878 541,848 12% Source: EMSI, 2013 Administrative and Support Services: Establishments in these industries provide support to the day-to-day operations for other organizations, such as management, personnel administration, clerical activities and cleaning activities. The sector is expected to continue growing and will add 52,050 new jobs in Los Angeles County from 2012 to 2017 as businesses follow the trend of contracting with outside services for administrative and support services rather than conducting them in-house. Education Services: The education (including Child Development/Child Care) and health services sectors were the only sectors to continue adding employment during the recession. Private education continues to grow in Los Angeles as private education provides training and education services at a variety of skill levels. Employment in the sector will add 7,400 new jobs between 2012 and 2017, achieving an average growth rate of 2.6 percent per year. Sixty- one percent of all children under the age of four are in childcare. This creates a need for an early care and education workforce to support families who work in all industries. Manufacturing: Although employment in manufacturing as a whole has been on a long-term decline over the past two decades, several manufacturing industries continue to be promising targets for employment growth in the county based on upon their performance. These include: transportation equipment, computer and electronic products, apparel, beverages and tobacco products, leather products, textile mills, and fabricated metal products. Many of these are highly skilled jobs that are well commensurately highly compensated, but many include positions that require workers with community college degrees or technical training. The Industry and Labor Market Intelligence Report (2013) from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation further identifies target regional industries based on the size of the industry, its job creation potential, its relative competitiveness, and the average labor compensation paid to workers. These metrics are used to identify the industries that are most promising targets for job retention and expansion activities in Los Angeles County. The report identifies the entertainment industry (including sound recording, performing arts, spectator sports, and art galleries and museums,) Biomed/Biotech and other STEM-related industry sectors as target industries. LAVC offers multiple certificates of achievement in the targeted areas listed above. Child Development related certificates continue to be the highest awarded CTE certificates by the College, then STEM-related and then business–related certificates. However, there are many certificates that are related to administrative support and the arts industry that have little to no completers which show a need to address those areas more to meet occupational demands.

DRAFT

22

Regional Educational Attainment On average, 15 percent of Americans drop out of school prior to completing high school and about 30 percent have earned a high school diploma and about one fifth earned a BA as reported in Table 11. The service area of Los Angeles Valley College has a disproportionately higher percentage of individuals with less than a high school diploma – the national average is 15 percent compared to 22 percent in the San Fernando Valley and 24 percent in Los Angeles County. Table 11. Educational Attainment Comparisons.

Educational Attainment (Age 25 + ) (Percent)

9th Grade or Less

Some High

School

High School

Graduate

Some College

Associate’s Degree

Bachelor’s Degree

Graduate/ Professional

Degree San Fernando Valley

13 9 21 19 7 21 10

Los Angeles County

14 10 21 20 7 18 10

California 10 9 21 22 8 19 11 United States 6 9 29 21 8 18 11 Note: the percentages may not tally to 100 due to rounding. This presents a unique challenge for the college as a large segment within the service area lacks education yet despite that fact more earn a Bachelor’s Degree compared to the county, state and nation. Higher Education Trends The annual The Condition of Education report by the United States Department of Education surveys educational trends in higher education. The trend of increasing enrollments continues at a slow but steady pace – higher educational institutions have increased by about 1 percent per year since 2000. Between 2010-2011 and 2010-2011, the number of associate’s degrees awarded increased by 63 percent to 0.9 million. It also shows that across the nation 97 percent of public 2-year colleges had open enrollment. In 2011, 7.5 million students attended 2-year colleges, which is 42 percent of all undergraduates in the United States. Comparing 4-year to 2-year students, more than 75 percent of 4-year student attend full time, compared with only 42 percent of 2-year students. According to the United States Department of Education (2013), employment is closely associated with educational attainment across all age groups. This fact underscores the importance of higher educational institutions to the health of the economy. Figure 2, below, highlights this fact with more than 75 percent of those with some college or a bachelor’s degree having full employment. Given that the service area of LAVC has not yet recovered from the economic downturn of 2008, and the majority of students are from low-income families, earning a college degree will have a positive effect on the student, the community, county, and state.

DRAFT

23

Figure 2. Proportion of employed individuals by age group and educational attainment.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Employment and Unemployment Statistics, unpublished annual average data from the Current Population Survey (CPS), 2012. See Digest of Education Statistics 2012, table 431. Summary of Environmental Educational Trends

About 1 in 4 residents above the age of 25 in the service area did not graduate high school.

Despite the low high school diploma rate, more residents have earned a bachelor’s degree compared to the state and national averages.

Factors of poverty are driving the low high school graduation rates in the service area and residents often must prioritize jobs over education.

Full employment status is highly correlated to college completion. There is a slow increase in college enrollment across the nation.

INTERNAL SCAN As shown in the analysis above, many LAVC students are financially challenged; the median household income for major feeder areas is lower than that of the entire San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles County. About 67% of LAVC students are designated as low income, 52.89% report a family income of under $24,000 and between 60-70% receive some form of financial aid. Over 69% report, in the student survey, that financial factors are somewhat a problem when completing their educational goal and 61.7% indicating that job obligations are somewhat a problem. About 40% of LAVC students work more than 20 hours per week and 15% work full-time. Most students (82%) who attend LAVC are part-time students. About 42% were identified as day only and 27% as evening only students.

DRAFT

24

The major feeder areas of North Hollywood and Van Nuys have lower percentages of high school graduates (69.5% and 70.8%, respectively) compared to LA County (75.2%). These areas also have a lower percentage of the population with a Bachelor’s degree or higher (21.6% and 17.2%) compared to 28.1% for the county. At LAVC, 40% of our students are first generation college students. The majority (over 70%) of LAVC student place below college level in English and Math assessments. The fact that the vast majority of students are from low socioeconomic status communities has major implications for educational planning, as many students have been poorly educated in public schools, often come from families that face economic challenges and often are the first in their family to attend college. The under preparedness of students is evidenced in the student preparation and basic skills analysis below. LAVC has multiple special programs and student support services that serve under-prepared students and address equity gaps. However, the populations served by these programs only represent a small proportion of the needs of the majority of the students at LAVC. To provide more opportunities to students and promote greater access, these programs and services that focus and target certain populations can be used as models to addressing gaps seen at a larger scale and may be expanded through making students more aware of resources available to them. In the last decade, LAVC student headcount peaked in fall 2010 at almost 20,000 (credit). In the two years since, enrollments have declined and fall 2012 enrollments include 18,000 credit students and 785 noncredit students. In fall 2012, 18% of students were identified as first-time freshman. The majority, over 60%, is continuing students, and about one third is new students, a stable trend over 6 years. Figure 3. LAVC Headcount.

Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE LAVC’s diversity is represented in many ways. The majority (57%) of Los Angeles Valley College students are under the age of 25 and about one third are between 20 and 24 years old.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Credit 18,436 19,205 19,888 18,571 18,000 18,397

Noncredit 899 877 839 762 785 985

Headcount Fall 2008-2013

DRAFT

25

About one-quarter of the students are between 25 and 34 years old and more than 20 percent are over 35 years old. This indicates that the college is continuing the tradition of serving a wide range of age groups and supporting individuals who seek an education from high school well into their later years. Table 12. Age Trends

Age

Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Under 20 4,551 25% 6,558 34% 8,014 40% 4,368 24% 5,801 32% 7393 40% 20-24 5,886 32% 5,161 27% 4,631 23% 6,395 34% 5,351 30% 4633 25% 25-34 4,214 23% 3,941 21% 3,798 19% 4,350 23% 3,685 20% 3396 18% 35-54 3,088 17% 2,883 15% 2,792 14% 2,772 15% 2,524 14% 2372 13% 55 and over 697 4% 662 3% 653 3% 686 4% 639 4% 603 3%

Total 18,436 100% 19,205 100% 19,888 100% 18,571 100% 18,000 100% 18,397 100% Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE The State of California, Department of Finance (2013) estimates that the average (median) age of Californians will continue to increase so that by 2060 the median age will be 41.9 compared to 35.2 in 2012. This suggests the College will need to continue serving students from a wide range of ages. Table 13. Incoming Student Status

Incoming Student Status

Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

Continuing 10,284 56% 11,122 58% 12386 62% 11,844 64%

11,751 65% 11688 64%

New 5,759 31% 5,885 31% 5628 28% 4,736 26%

5,109 28% 5416 29%

Returning 2,393 13% 2,198 11% 1874 9% 1,991 11%

1,140 6% 1293 7%

Total 18,436 100% 19,205 100% 19888 100% 18,571 100%

18,000 100%

18,397 100% Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE

As seen in Table 13 (above) and Table 14 (below) the percentage of full-time students is decreasing. The majority of students is enrolled part-time and takes less than 6 units. The college has experienced a six percent increase in the number of students who have earned a high school diploma or GED prior to enrollment, and a slight decrease in students who have earned a Bachelor’s prior to enrolling. The educational status analysis shows that about three-quarters of the student body in fall 2013 came to college with a high school diploma or equivalent degree. About 10% of the students have earned an Associates or Bachelor’s degree. Currently, more than half (58%) of students indicate an educational goal of degree or transfer with an additional 18% indicating a vocational or job-related goal and about 8% for personal development reasons. LAVC grants an average of 1,300 awards (credit degrees and certificates) annually. In 2011-2012, 55% of awards were certificates and 45% were Associates degrees. Top

DRAFT

26

areas of study are CSU Breadth, Child Development, IGETC, Nursing, and General Studies Social & Behavioral Science and General Studies: Natural Science. Despite recent declines in UC and CSU admissions, LAVC continues to transfer over 750 students to these institutions annually. Table 14. Prior Educational Status.

Prior Educational Status

Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Unknown 21 0% 0% Special student currently enrolled in grade 12 or below

814 4% 755 4% 548 3% 784 4% 464 3% 517 3%

Passed the GED or received a certificate of H.S. equivalency

803 4% 886 5% 962 5% 842 5% 864 5% 955 5%

Not a High School graduate, currently enrolled in adult school

159 1% 140 1% 135 1% 99 1% 102 1% 50 0%

Not a High School graduate 595 3% 582 3% 518 3% 484 3% 413 2% 411 2%

Earned California High School Proficiency Certificate

205 1% 260 1% 273 1% 294 2% 261 1% 259 1%

Earned a U.S. High school diploma 11,336 61% 12,143 63% 12810 64% 12,119 65% 12,026 67% 12248 67%

Earned a Foreign Secondary diploma or certificate of graduation

1,984 11% 1,934 10% 2116 11% 1,987 11% 2,061 11% 2114 12%

Earned a Bachelor's or higher degree 1,691 9% 1,745 9% 1735 9% 1,363 7% 1,227 7% 1216 7%

Earned an Associate degree 828 4% 744 4% 779 4% 591 3% 572 3% 572 3%

Total 18,436 100% 19,189 100% 19,876 100% 18,563 100% 17,990 100% 18,342 100% Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE Table 15 reports the ethnicity trends across 5 years. Despite the fact that the majority of residents in the campus service area are Hispanic, LAVC has seen a reduction on the percentage of Hispanic students, down nearly 5 % in the last 5 years. Other single ethnicities have also been declining (between 1 to 3 percent) while the category “other” has increased – indicating that prior to the collection and coding of “other” ethnicity, these individuals were allocated, albeit incorrectly, to a single ethnicity. Table 15. Ethnicity Trends

Ethnicity Trends

Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % African-American 1,152 7% 758 6% 1,176 7% 1,095 7% 1,066 6% 1010 5%

Asian 2,008 12% 1,368 11% 1,940 11% 1,752 10% 1,644 9% 1599 9% Hispanic 7,248 43% 5,386 44% 7,255 41% 6,715 40% 6,863 38% 7250 39%

DRAFT

27

Other Non-White 879 5% 634 5% 51 0% 37 0% 38 0% 36 0%

White 5,716 34% 4,018 33% 6,365 36% 5,875 35% 5,745 32% 5743 31% Multiple Ethnicities 896 5% 1,228 7% 1,256 7% 1527 8%

Unknown 1,388 8% 1232 7% Total 17,003 100% 12,164 100% 17,683 100% 16,702 100% 18,000 100% 18,397 100%

Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE More than 70% of students speak English as their primary language with 10% speaking Spanish and 9% Armenian, see Table 16. Table 16. Language Spoken at Home

Language

Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % English 12,182 66% 13,114 68% 13,866 70% 13,052 70% 12,943 72% 13565 74% Armenian 1,880 10% 1,874 10% 1,987 10% 1,954 11% 1,857 10% 1716 9% Chinese 50 0% 46 0% 46 0% 38 0% 43 0% 28 0% Farsi 185 1% 172 1% 242 1% 218 1% 229 1% 273 1% Japanese 38 0% 37 0% 27 0% 24 0% 22 0% 16 0% Korean 85 0% 81 0% 75 0% 67 0% 41 0% 36 0% Russian 412 2% 421 2% 455 2% 442 2% 421 2% 420 2% Spanish 2,584 14% 2,450 13% 2,222 11% 1,971 11% 1,710 10% 1635 9% Filipino 255 1% 242 1% 220 1% 207 1% 192 1% 168 1% Vietnamese 66 0% 57 0% 55 0% 37 0% 43 0% 44 0% Other 624 3% 656 3% 651 3% 529 3% 468 3% 472 3% Unknown 0% 55 0% 42 0% 24 0% Total 18,361 100% 19,205 100% 19,888 100% 18,539 100% 17,969 100% 18,397 100%

Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE The State of California, Department of Finance (2013) indicates the Hispanic population will continue to increase and will reach parity with non-Hispanics Whites by 2014. Asians will also increase significantly and despite an increase in the number of Black non-Hispanics and White non-Hispanics, the increase is in size and not proportion. Therefore the growing Hispanic and Asian populations will be the labor force that is tied to the economy of California. The internal scan from Los Angeles Valley College shows that 24 percent of the students did not indicate if they are of Hispanic ethnicity which suggests that the measure of 36 percent Hispanic enrollment might be a conservative estimate. Since the 1980s there has been an ongoing international trend of increasing female participation in higher education. Currently, 14% more females than males are enrolled at Los Angeles Valley College despite a more equitable distribution of males within the community, county, state and nation, reported in Table 17. When the data are disaggregated by ethnicity, in Table 18, the female advantage is less pronounced. Indeed, in most ethnicities, males are the majority with the exception of whites and Hispanics, which due to the high number of students within these ethnicities, increases the campus averages.

DRAFT

28

Table 17. Gender Trends Gender Trends

Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Female 11,022 60% 11,166 58% 11,488 58% 10,724 58% 10,260 57% 10420 57% Male 7,414 40% 8,039 42% 8,400 42% 7,847 42% 7,740 43% 7977 43% Total 18,436 100% 19,205 100% 19,888 100% 18,571 100% 18,000 100% 18,397 100%

Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE

Table 18. Gender and Ethnicity Fall 2013.

Gender and Ethnicity Fall 2013

Female Male

Ethnicity Count Percent Count Percent American Indian/Other Non-White 11 0% 25 0% Asian/Pacific Islander 882 8% 717 9% Black, African-American 544 5% 466 6% Caucasian, White 3334 32% 2409 30% Hispanic 4047 39% 3203 40% Multiple Ethnicities 888 9% 639 8% Unknown 714 7% 518 6% Total 10420 100% 7977 100%

Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE

Table 20 below shows that more than 94% of students reside in Los Angeles and more than 94% are citizens or permanent residents. This pattern has remained stable across the last 6 years. More than 80% of the student population indicates that they are citizens of the United States and all citizenship statuses have also remained stable across the 6 years reported in Table 21. Table 20. Residency Status of LAVC students

Residency

Fall

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

L.A. District 15803 94% 18107 94% 18820 95% 17605 95% 16970 94% 17256 94%

Other California District 545 3% 611 3% 580 3% 548 3% 594 3% 675 4%

non-Resident, Foreign 245 1% 305 2% 267 1% 232 1% 187 1% 213 1%

Non-Resident, Out of State 141 1% 181 1% 220 1% 184 1% 247 1% 249 1%

Resident, Military 0% 0% 1 0% 2 0% 2 0% 4 0%

California Non-District 0% 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

16734 100% 19205 100% 19888 100% 18571 100% 18000 100% 18397 100% Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE Table 21. Citizenship

Citizenship Fall 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count %

DRAFT

29

U.S. Citizen 12881 77% 15258 79% 15786 79% 14694 79% 14270 79% 14694 80% Permanent Resident 2635 16% 2636 14% 2804 14% 2682 14% 2558 14% 2506 14%

Other 645 4% 744 4% 670 3% 673 4% 711 4% 729 4% Refugee, Asylee 286 2% 264 1% 324 2% 271 1% 231 1% 208 1%

Temporary Resident (Amnesty) 165 1% 177 1% 188 1% 156 1% 141 1% 162 1%

Student Visa (F1 or M1 Visa) 96 1% 116 1% 108 1% 91 0% 85 0% 94 1%

Visitor Visa (B1 or B2 Visa) 0% 7 0% 4 0% 3 0% 2 0% 0%

Unknown 0% 3 0% 4 0% 1 0% 2 0% 4 0% 16708 100% 19205 100% 19888 100% 18571 100% 18000 100% 18397 100%

Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE In addition to the diversity of ethnicity, gender and citizenship status, LAVC students report, in Table 22, a variety of unit loads. Nearly half take fewer than 6 units. This indicates that many students need to work while attending college and often cannot take more than about 2 classes per semester. On the other end of the distribution of unit load, there has been a slight decrease (4%) in the percentage of students taking 12 or more units.

Table 22. Unit Load

Unit Load

Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % 12 or more units 3,966 22% 4,411 23% 4,625 23% 4,393 24% 3,199 18% 3366 18%

6 to 11.5 units 6,811 37% 6,998 36% 7,462 38% 6,755 36% 6,481 36% 7169 39%

Fewer than 6 units

7,659 42% 7,796 41% 7,801 39% 7,423 40% 8,320 46% 7862 43%

Total 18,436 100% 19,205 100% 19,888 100% 18,571 100% 18,000 100% 18,397 100% Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE The time of day students attend classes is presented in Table 23 below. A stable pattern exists across the 6 years reported for the Day Only segment. Just under half of all LAVC students attend day only classes. There has been a decrease in the percentage of students taking evening only classes. This is probably an artifact of the economy – that fewer jobs mean less need to provide classes for students who work traditional day jobs. And about one third take a mix of both day and evening classes. As classes fill quickly and students must navigate complex schedules to be successful, there is an expectation that students will need to take classes when they can, even if this is not an ideal schedule. Table 23. Time of Day

Time of Day Fall

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent

Day Only 6811 41% 8086 42% 8424 42% 7493 40% 7886 43% 7886 43%

DRAFT

30

Evening Only 5479 33% 5688 30% 5441 27% 5122 28% 4685 25% 4685 25% Day and Evening 4444 27% 5431 28% 6023 30% 5956 32% 5826 32% 5826 32%

16734 100% 19205 100% 19888 100% 18571 100% 18397 100% 18397 100% Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE

Summary of Internal Scan The largest segment of student population by ethnicity is Hispanic, though there has been

a trend downward from 44% in 2009 to 39% in 2013. There is a growing trend for students who are under 20 years old, up from 25% in 2008 to

40% in 2013. The majority speaks English, 74%, and the next largest segment speaks Armenian (10%)

and then Spanish (9%). The overwhelming majority of students reside in the Los Angeles District. The vast majority, 94%, is citizens or has a permanent residence status.

Academic Preparation

The academic preparation of the students at LAVC can be described in part by the results of assessment testing. The scores give a guide to the need for basic skills programming and also highlight the enrollment patterns in Math and English sequences that may represent barriers to student completion. Only five percent of students test into transfer level Math, indicating that 95% of students will need at least one semester of Math prior to being able to take their transfer requirements. Eighty‐five percent will need to take at least one course prior to reaching their graduation requirement, and a majority of students place into two or more levels below the college’s graduation requirement. As a result, most students will need a minimum of three semesters of Math to graduate and four to transfer. Given the unit loads of the required Math courses, this will slow students’ progress towards completion even when they complete each level in the sequence in consecutive semesters. Fall 2012 placement data, reported below, show 69% of Los Angeles Valley students place lower than English 101, 62.71% complete with C in composition raised to 69.9%. Most place in intermediate reading or higher. Table 24. Placement Result Total

Placement Result Total General Population

Number of Students Assessed 1957 English (ENL) 1309 English (ESL) 216 Mathematics (All Levels) 1426

Table 25. English Placement Results

English (ENL) ENL Placement ENL Population 1309

English 101 404 30.86% English 28 251 19.17% English 21 384 29.34% English 33 269 20.55% No ENL Placement 1 0.08%

Table 26. English as a Second Language Placement Results

DRAFT

31

English (ESL) ESL Placement ESL Population 216

English 363 83 38.43% English 362 39 18.06% English 361 26 12.04% English 83 38 17.59% English 82 28 12.96% English 80 2 0.93%

Table 27. Placement results Totals

Placement Result Total General Population

Number of Students Assessed in Reading Placement 1957 English Reading Placement (ENL) 1309 English Reading Placement (ESL) 216

Table 28. English Placement Below College Preparation

English (ENL) ENL Placement ENL Population 1309

None Needed 265 16.90% Dev Com 36 892 68.14% Dev Com 35 152 11.61% Dev Com 22 0 0.00%

Table 29. English as a Second Language Placement Below College Preparation

English (ESL) ESL Placement ESL Population 216

Dev Com 36 & 23 83 38.43% Dev Com 35 & 22 39 18.06% Dev Com 35 - ESL 26 12.04% Dev Com 22AB 68 31.48%

Table 30. Mathematics Placement Results

Mathematics Mathematics Math Population 1426

Math 265 7 0.49% Math 260 5 0.35% Math 240 21 1.47% Math 215/225/227/238/245 or Stats 1 and 2 23 1.61% Math 120/125 380 26.65% Math 115 231 16.20% Math 113 134 9.40% Math 112 107 7.50% Math 105/110 518 36.33%

Valley College serves over 700 noncredit students each semester, mainly in the English as a Second Language discipline. Many of these students are taking noncredit classes concurrently with credit basic skills courses to develop the reading and writing skills necessary for college-level courses.

DRAFT

32

As reflected in Table 16 (above), almost 30 percent of Valley College students speak languages other than English at home. Noncredit ESL classes are essential in developing these students’ language skills and preparing them for college level courses across the curriculum. The Foundational Skills pathway document reports the Continuing Education Survey findings, according to which more than 90% of noncredit students report that experiences in noncredit classes helped them to read and write more clearly and effectively. Summary of Academic Preparation

Very few students come to LAVC prepared for college. About 95% of students are not college prepared and will have to take at least one math

course prior to assessing at the college level, often up to three semesters of math courses. About three-quarters of students are not at college level in English.

Retention, Success and Persistence

The following information depicts the retention, success and persistence rates for Los Angeles Valley College. Retention is defined as the percentage of students that are retained in the course to the end of the term (i.e., earned a grade of A, B, C, D, F, P, NP, CR, NC, W, or I). Success in this analysis is defined as the percentage of students who succeeded in the enrolled course (i.e., earned a grade of A, B, C, P or CR). Both success and retention have remained fairly consistent across the last six years. For the campus as a whole, retention rates varied between 85% and 89% over the six-year period and have shown a stable trend between 2006‐2013. The results indicate that approximately 14% of students fail to complete the course and that nearly a third is not successful (based on graded enrollment, drops after census). Table 31. Retention and Success Trends

Fall 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Retention 86% 87% 86% 89% 89% 89% 86% Success 67% 68% 68% 70% 71% 72% 69%

Spring 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Retention 85% 87% 88% 89% 89% 89% 86% Success 67% 69% 68% 71% 72% 73% 69%

Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE Persistence is defined, in standards and external accountability measures, as fall to fall retention. Data analyses, shown in Table 30, found that male students had lower persistence rates than female students and that students coming directly from high school had a higher persistence rate than other age groups. Ethnicity differences were also examined and while the percentages cannot measure statistically significant gaps, the evidence implies that national patterns of ethnic differences exist. That is Asians are most persistent, then Hispanics and Whites and African Americans the least persistent.

DRAFT

33

Figure 4 Persistence by LAVC, LACCD and Fall to Fall LAVC

Table 32. Fall to Fall Persistence

Fall to Fall Persistence

Fall 2009-Fall

2010 Fall 2010-Fall

2011 Fall 2011 - Fall

2012 Asian 74.7 76.1 75.1 77.5 80.3 80.6 Black 64.8 63.1 63.5 61.6 57.6 66.2 Hispanic 75.5 73.9 74.9 74.7 76.3 75.5 White 72.7 71.2 79.9 75.9 75.8 75 Female 73.9 73.6 79 75.3 76.9 77.2 Male 73.2 70.5 72.8 71.8 74.7 73.2 Under20 76.8 76.2 77.5 77.4 78 78.7 20-24 52.6 61.3 62.5 60.6 61.8 62.8 25-34 61.6 58.1 65.7 61.8 72.6 66.6 35+ 77.3 63.7 88.6 68.3 76.5 70 No Financial Aid 68.1 69.3 68 68.3 69.7 70.2 BOGG Only 67.9 63.9 65.2 65.6 71 67.5 Pell Grant (comes with BOGG) 79.5 77.4 82.8 78.6 79.1 79.1

To measure equity in student-level success indicators, regression analysis was conducted through the PASS initiative – this analysis focused on the entire student body during fall 2011. Race/ethnicity, gender and age were regressed on the outcomes of completing 60 units, obtaining a degree, transfer or award, and successfully completing college level English and Math course. This analysis showed very few gaps. African American students were less likely to be successful as were males. And Hispanic students were less likely to successfully complete a college level

85% 85% 86%

85% 86% 87% 74%

76% 76%

72%

74% 75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011

Fall toSpringLAVCFall toSpringDistrictFall to FallLAVC

DRAFT

34

English class. All three of these findings are national patterns and not unique to Los Angeles Valley College. Subsequent analysis identified a gap between success at the course level by delivery method (face-to-face compared with both online and online/hybrid), reported in Table 33. Students who take face-to-face classes are on average, more successful than those who engage lessons via Distance Education. Table 33. Student Success by lesson delivery comparison

Percent of Student Success by Distance Education and Face-to-Face

FALL

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Distance 58 58 55 60 60 60 62 59

Face-to-face 65 66 67 68 70 71 69 68 Percentage difference -7 -8 -12 -8 -10 -11 -7 -9

SPRING 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Distance 59 58 58 61 61 62 60 Face-to-face 66 67 66 70 72 72 69 Percentage difference -7 -9 -8 -9 -11 -10 -9

Source : DEC SIS data pulled on EXTRACTION DATE (11-7-12 for Data from Fall 2006-2011 and 01-06-14 for Data from Fall 2012 -2013) and subject to changes thereafter. Success Definition: Student succeeds in the course. A, B, C, P, CR grade notations.

Success Rate Formula: Number of students with A, B, C, P, CR / Number of students with A, B, C, D, F, P, NP, CR, NC, W, I.

Degrees, Certificates and Transfer

Considering the College total awards by academic year, not estimates or cohort specific, there is generally stable pattern with minor fluctuations, and an upward trend since 2008-2009. As these data are raw counts and not percentages, the recent reduction in awards could be an artifact of the decrease in enrollments. The following data present graduation and certificate numbers. While these data are not rates of graduation, they do indicate the trends in completions throughout the college. Of note is that the completions of Associate in Art degrees (AA) have declined significantly over the past several years while the number of Associate in Science degrees (AS) have been relatively stable. Associate Degrees for Transfer (AT/ST) are increasing significantly as are the number of certificates awarded. Changes in graduation requirements may be one potential cause of recent graduation numbers as is the policy that restricts the number of attempts in a specific class from unlimited to three. The changes in Certificates of Achievement (C) may also be related to statewide changes in the definition of certificates to include state-approved low-unit certificates of 12-17 units. Skills Certificates (CS) are not state approved and generally comprise of a total of 11 or less units.

DRAFT

35

Table 34 Degrees and Certificates Degrees & Certificates

Award Academic Year

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

AA 776 736 696 576 553 523 AS 120 156 179 148 166 139 AT 3 20 ST 1 Associate Total 896 892 875 724 722 682 C 80 92 435 567 888 730 CS 346 77 3 1 2 Certificate Total 426 169 438 568 888 732 Total Awards 1322 1061 1313 1292 1610 1414

Source: DEC SIS extracted 10/16/13 by LAVC OIE

Transfer rates are calculated using multiple methods and thus vary based on how cohorts and “transfer students” are defined. The CCC Chancellor’s Office Data identifies a cohort as first‐time college students who completed 12 units and attempted transfer level Math or English within 6 years of initial enrollment. Considering multiple sources of data, the CSU transfer rate remains stable, though a disputed coding error makes this analysis equivocal. When comparing CSU to UC transfers, the trends seem quite stable as seen in Figure 5 below. Figure 5 Transfers

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013

Out-of-State (OOS) 69 68 91 83 90

In-State-Private (ISP) 144 122 155 129 125

CSU 623 566 216 480 590 428

UC 179 138 146 138 152 145

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

He

adco

un

t

LAVC Transfers

2009-2010 coding error for CSU resulted in reduced reporting for transfers to CSUN. Sources: CSU data - http://www.calstate.edu/as/CCCT/2012-13/campus12-13.shtml, http://www.calstate.edu/as/ccct/index.shtml; UC data - http://extranet.cccco.edu/Divisions/StudentServices/Transfer/TransferData.aspx ISP, OOS data - http://datamart.cccco.edu/Outcomes/Student_Transfer_Volume.aspx Compiled by LAVC OIE Triangulating data and utilizing the Scorecard report, the graphic below shows the connection between the levels of college preparedness of Los Angeles Valley College students and their ability to complete. While the above analysis (see Table 31) reports, on average, a success rate of

DRAFT

36

about 70%, the graphic below helps unpack the effect of under-preparedness on college success by showing students who are unprepared for college are half as likely to be successful (35%). This fact reduces the overall success rate of the school owing to the disproportionate number of unprepared students it serves. Figure 6 Completion by College Preparation

DRAFT

37

Peer Institutions

When comparing Los Angeles Valley College to sister colleges, Table 35 shows that Los Angeles Valley College is one of the top performing campuses in terms of completions and obtaining 30 units. It is in the top three of completions and fourth in 30 units. It is, however, in the fourth from lowest school in persistence. Taken with the retention data that shows Los Angeles Valley College students complete the course, this low retention measure indicates that students are facing some structural obstacles to continuing their education. Indeed, the research findings compiled from the student surveys report that students are most likely to drop out due to financial reasons and work obligations. When focusing on remedial progress, reported in Table 36, Los Angeles Valley College is far above the average on English progress rate, 32%, with only Pierce College performing higher. The ESL and math remedial progress rates are comparable to the peer institutions. It is also in the top three for CTE rates, at 57.4%. Table 35 Comparison of Peer Institutions

Completion (SPAR) Persistence 30 units

Collegiate Remedial Overall Collegiate Remedial Overall Collegiate Remedial Overall

East Los Angeles College 72.4% 37.7% 41.9% 47.8% 66.7% 64.4% 62.5% 66.5% 66.0% Los Angeles City College 62.9% 33.3% 37.1% 42.0% 61.6% 59.1% 55.1% 62.5% 61.6% Los Angeles Harbor College 70.3% 37.5% 44.6% 42.3% 57.7% 54.3% 65.3% 63.9% 64.2% Los Angeles Mission College 73.1% 30.4% 34.8% 46.2% 58.5% 57.3% 62.4% 56.7% 57.3% Los Angeles Pierce College 79.0% 45.4% 52.5% 51.4% 66.1% 63.0% 69.1% 70.1% 69.9% Los Angeles Southwest College 81.5% 30.4% 35.4% 30.9% 45.5% 44.0% 48.1% 50.5% 50.2% Los Angeles Trade-Tech College 73.8% 30.3% 32.8% 36.1% 59.9% 58.5% 54.1% 57.2% 57.1% Los Angeles Valley College 70.0% 35.1% 42.0% 49.0% 57.7% 56.0% 65.9% 61.7% 62.5% West Los Angeles College 62.4% 34.9% 39.3% 40.4% 52.5% 50.5% 54.1% 59.4% 58.6%

Table 36 Remedial Progress Rate By Peer Institution

Remedial Progress Rate

Math English ESL

East Los Angeles College 29.9% 29.6% 23.2% Los Angeles City College 36.6% 29.1% 28.3% Los Angeles Harbor College 34.6% 25.1% 25.0% Los Angeles Mission College 33.7% 27.6% N/A Los Angeles Pierce College 26.8% 42.5% N/A Los Angeles Southwest College 20.4% 19.6% 4.2% Los Angeles Trade-Tech College 24.4% 17.3% 3.7% Los Angeles Valley College 27.9% 32.0% 18.9% West Los Angeles College 32.3% 23.5% 14.3%

DRAFT

38

Table 37 Career Technical Education Rate by Peer Institution

CTE Rate East Los Angeles College 52.1% Los Angeles City College 49.9% Los Angeles Harbor College 65.7% Los Angeles Mission College 51.9% Los Angeles Pierce College 56.6% Los Angeles Southwest College 60.8% Los Angeles Trade-Tech College 48.1% Los Angeles Valley College 57.4% West Los Angeles College 40.1%

Institutional Efficiency

Los Angeles Valley College has increased its accountability reporting to align with requirements (e.g. federal, state, district). These requirements include its ability to generate apportionment revenue, demonstrate fiscal stability, and sustain integrated planning. In response, the College is engaged in an in-depth review of its current enrollment, budget, and planning strategies and practices. The following graph, Figure 7 below, demonstrates that the college expends too much per FTES which cannot be sustained by its current allocation. In addition, due to state-wide softening of enrollment, average class size has shown significant decrease within the last four years from 40.2 to 37.1. Conversely, annual cost per FTES has increased by 6% from $3994 in 2010-2011 to $4229 in 2012-2013. Since the majority of the College’s expenditures are in salaries and benefits, the College must use a multi-year balanced budget approach to fiscal stability that focuses on attrition, capturing growth funding and increases in efficiencies. In addition, since so much of the College’s budget is in areas that cannot be significantly reduced, the College must turn to resource development such as the acquisition of grants or other types of fund raising. The college community has come together articulating and implementing planning strategies for fiscal review and oversight of the college’s budget, practices of college-wide outcomes assessment, and sustainability of efforts to achieve student learning and success. However, cost-saving strategies have had a dramatic effect on the college. These include hiring freezes, course cancellations, and supply and equipment reductions. Of primary concern is the college commitment to ensuring maintenance of its facility and technological infrastructure. Although the college has made strides in maintaining institutional efficiency in these areas over the last educational planning cycle, further advancements need to be made in the areas of communication, Informational Technology (IT) staffing, and committed funding to cover the 2013-2017 Scheduled Maintenance Special Repair five-year Plan and other maintenance needs.

DRAFT

39

Figure 7 Budget, FTES and Efficiency Trends

The college’s accreditation Self Evaluation recognized added work was needed to maintain new buildings and the need to be proactive in replacing and purchasing required equipment. As a result, the college created an actionable improvement plan to enhance IT staff capability and availability to maintain and improve support of the college’s technological environment. In addition, a review of the college’s 68 unit annual goals from the 2012-2013 program review revealed more than a third of the units established goals which would require increased IT service including enhancements to the college’s website resulting in increased communication on campus and with the surrounding community. Success Indicators In order to comply with USDE and ACCJC requirements, the college must explicitly state its minimum standards for student achievement. The development of college targets was based on college dialog on the improvement of student outcomes and institutional effectiveness. These institutional standards were developed through a 10-year trend analysis which established the standard as the lowest percentages within the range and therefore set the lowest threshold. The targets represent a shared understanding of targeted improvements that the college believes are both attainable and challenging.

DRAFT

40

Table 38 Institutional Standards and Targets

Phase 3: Opportunity Development The Educational Planning Committee and its Mission, Vision and Core Values workgroup worked over two years to articulate the campus core commitments. The Los Angeles Valley College Mission, Vision and Core Values were adopted in Spring 2013. The adoption moved through the shared governance process across campus and was adopted by the Academic Senate on January 17, 2013 and the Board of Trustees on February 06, 2013. The Mission, Vision and Core Values together are the philosophical description of what Los Angeles Valley College is and what it strives to be. A lively discourse surrounded the adoption of the mission, vision, and core values given the context of California Community Colleges, open enrollment, equity, access and budgetary limitations. The Educational Planning Committee reviewed constituents’ feedback on the Educational Master Plan 2008-2013 through the EMP survey and the analysis of Annual Goals. In addition to this primary data analysis, between spring 2013 and summer 2013 the Committee conducted a series of meetings with stakeholders (i.e. Chairs and Directors, the Academic Senate and the Institutional Effectiveness Council) where the goals and objectives draft was read in its entirety and an open dialogue occurred. The Educational Master Plan 2014-2020 furthers the foundational work of the Educational Master Plan 2008-2013 and integrates the initiatives and plans that resulted from the multiple analyses and reflections over the 2008-2013 cycle. Group discussions were held with faculty, staff, students, and community members to hear their thoughts about the strengths of the College and their insights about the needs and opportunities for the College.

Institutional

StandardsBaseline Target

3 Year

ChangeTarget

6 Year

Change

Success 64% 68.35% 69.85% 1.50% 71.35% 3.00%

Retention* 84% 86.10% 87.10% 1.00% 88.10% 2.00%

Persistence** 41% 44.27% 45.77% 1.50% 42.27% 3.00%

Degree Completion 722 722 729 7 (1%) 736 14(2%)

Certificate Completion 260 887 895 8(1%) 903 16(2%)

Transfers 618 742 749 7(1%) 756 14(2%)* Within Course Retention; ** Fall to Fall, First Time Students -modification to standard being vetted

Updated 3/14/14

Proposed Targets

2012-2013Year 3

(2016-2017)

Year 6

(2019-2020)

DRAFT

41

Through discussions that focused on student success initiatives with campus leaders (e.g., PASS, Student Success Committee, EPC), student completion has been identified as the campus priority. Equity and Institutional Effectiveness were identified as supporting goals. Recent campus activity aligns with various campus, District, State and Federal initiatives. During the next six years, the campus will work towards integrating institutional effectiveness and infrastructure to provide equitable educational experiences that lead to completion of educational goals (certificates, transfers and degrees). Table 39 Educational Goal Trends

Educational Goal

Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013

Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Count % Associate Degree 1,213 7% 1,138 6% 1,255 7% 1,138 7% 1,130 7% 1140 7%

Personal Development 1,933 11% 1,879 10% 1,801 10% 1,553 9% 1,403 8% 1444 8%

Transfer 7,006 39% 7,334 41% 8,004 43% 8,263 48% 8,562 51% 9125 53% Undecided 2,944 16% 2,950 16% 2,942 16% 2,813 16% 2,765 16% 2921 17% Vocational/ Job-Related 4,805 27% 4,786 26% 4,449 24% 3,482 20% 2,949 18% 2590 15%

Total 17,901 100% 18,087 100% 18,451 100% 17,249 100% 16,809 100% 17,220 100% Source: CEN RDB and DEC SIS compiled by LAVC OIE In order to align the educational goals of LAVC students, the Educational Master Plan establishes transfer as a completion priority. The EMP aligns student motivations with institutional expectations. Seventeen percent of students have not identified an education goal, which further shows the needs for guidance and support to put students on a pathway to complete. Students have identified their education goals as: 53% Transfer; 15% Vocational Job Related; 8% Personal Development; and 7% Associate Degree (reported in Table 39 above). The educational goal of transfer has increased significantly from 39% in 2008 to 53% in 2013.The educational goal of vocational/job-related has significantly decreased from 27% in 2008 to 15% in 2013. Best practices include having students declare an educational goal and major and develop an educational plan before reaching 30 units. A large number of LAVC students are first-generation and students in focus groups reported difficulties navigating the college environment. A similar sentiment was reported in focus groups with faculty and student services. With the advent of the Student Success Act of 2012 funding from the state will be targeted to fully implement core services: orientation; assessment; counseling, advising, and other educational planning services needed to assist a student in making an informed decision about his or her educational goal and course of study and to develop an educational plan. It is in this spirit that the current Educational Master Plan 2014-2020 goals, objectives, and institutional strategies emerged: Goal 1: Foster student completion by supporting a learner-centered environment Objectives: 1. Increase completions (transfers/degrees/certificates)

DRAFT

42

a. Assess, scale up, sustain, integrate and institutionalize as appropriate PASS-inspired activities (e.g., Accelerated Math, Welcome Fair, START, and expanded tutoring services)

b. Increase the number of incoming students participation in orientation and identification of an educational plan before their first semester

c. Increase access of student support services such as orientation, counseling, tutoring, and educational planning services

d. Establish an effective educational technological support for classroom instruction, both face-to-face and online

e. Hold regular forums on student success, persistence and retention strategies f. Establish mandatory probation intervention services to students

2. Support students’ ability to complete a program pathway . a. Provide faculty tools/training to help guide students toward pathways, and act as

mentors/advisors b. Create opportunities for students to have more and regular interactions with instructors

outside of the classroom c. Enhance ways for each student to personally connect to the college, including

promoting campus involvement (e.g., leadership; extracurricular activities; experiential learning opportunities)

d. Investigate flexible scheduling alternatives, e.g. late-start classes and implement as appropriate

e. Establish institutional standards for core library educational materials to support students’ ability to complete a pathway

f. Implement program pathway improvement plan strategies g. Reorganize the catalog and schedule of classes around major pathways to specific

degrees

3. Enhance Professional Development to reach a broader base of faculty and include more training in pedagogical methods shown to stimulate student engagement, e.g. active/collaborative learning, use of technology in the classroom 4. Increase first-term retention, first-term success, and first-term persistence

a. Promote and provide opportunities to prepare for English/Math placement exams b. Increase student completion of assessment, orientation, educational plans, and English

and Math enrollment in their first year c. Promote and provide targeted interventions to students who have not yet selected a

major

5. Increase students’ transition from basic skills to college-level courses a. Review current basic skills curriculum, achievement and assessment data and integrate

strategies to improve reading skills, general reasoning skills, and math reasoning skills

DRAFT

43

b. Create a stronger pipeline from high schools to the college in terms of outcomes

alignment and program expectations

6. Promote learning and service outcomes to all constituencies (especially students) Goal 2: Increase equity by identifying gaps in achieving outcomes (transfer, associate degree, certificate, etc.) and implement effective models and programming to minimize gaps. Objectives: 1. Create institutional opportunities to promote transfer targeted towards low-income, first-

generation, and under-prepared students

2. Promote awareness of support programs and services to incoming students

3. Create mechanisms to advise underprepared/low-socioeconomic class students on how to access financial resources

a. Increase awareness of foundation/scholarship opportunities

b. Provide to the student body factual information on costs and benefits and obligations associated with financial aid

4. Identify unintentional structural barriers in serving the campus population, and create strategies to address those barriers

a. Identify high-demand pathway/gatekeeper courses and key momentum/pipeline points where success rates are significantly lower for specific populations b. Provide forums and workshops to faculty and staff focused on serving students with different backgrounds and experiences

5. Reduce gaps between success rates for Distance Education versus face-to-face courses a. Offer instructors pedagogical support to decrease the success gap between face-to-face and Distance Education c. Implement student Distance Education orientation and readiness assessment

6. Assess the college’s ability to provide services to students with disabilities, and create strategies to address areas that need improvement Goal 3: Through the College’s shared governance structures, maximize institutional effectiveness through evaluation of environmental, human, physical, technological and financial resources. Objectives: 1. Strengthen the link between assessment results, planning and resource allocation

DRAFT

44

a. Establish and support an operational baseline for classroom support (i.e., technological; instructional material; equipment) b. Enhance the College’s Facilities Master Plan by including a deferred, scheduled maintenance and Maintenance & Operations plan that aligns with the College’s Technology and Educational Master Plans c. Create mechanisms to clearly communicate to campus constituents how budgetary and staffing decisions are supported by evidence and planning documentation

2. Increase alternative sources of revenue and community partnerships

a. Increase contributions and participants from the College Foundation b. Coordinate efforts to obtain external granting funds

3. Increase a healthy and safe college environment

a. Promote campus pride b. Promote environmental sustainability across campus c. Provide the campus community resources associated with environmental conservation

4. Create a comprehensive enrollment management plan informed by campus priorities

a. Create and sustain a database infrastructure to review annually, per term, and projected over the next five years to support decision making b. Create strategies for outreach and recruitment of new students c. Create forums to involve chairs and program directors more directly in how data analysis can be used to make decisions, reach conclusions, and apply those conclusions

5. Ensure the College’s technological infrastructure supports student completion initiatives and campus processes

a. Create mechanisms to ensure planning items are funded and that the college reserves fiscal resources to support future plans. b. Implement a long-term, sustainable plan for replacing computers and purchased hardware/software c. Set consistent format for webpages and increased web support

Phase 4: Final Documentation The Educational Master Plan was presented to the Educational Planning Committee for review on XXXXXX, 2014 and then forwarded to the Academic Senate on XXXXX. The Educational Master Plan was approved by: Academic Senate on

DRAFT

45

Institutional Effectiveness Council on College President on The Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees on

LAVC Academic Senate Motion/Resolution Form

Motion # : (Assigned by Senate President)

Los Angeles VallDate Presented to Senate: 4/17/14 Los Angeles Valley College Revision of a previous motion? Yes

uncil Recommendation

Initiator: Misc

Statement of Motion/Resolution: (Use separate form for each issue.)

Motion to fund the following financial requests: 300- Ice Cream Social 250- Graduation 250- Welcome fair 1250- Opening day 100- Spring IEC retreat 300- DAS at Valley

Rationale for Motion/Resolution: (Address how the motion supports the Educational Master Plan.)

300- Ice Cream Social: Ice cream! 250- Graduation: Snacks and water for faculty 250- Welcome fair: For lunch for students, faculty and staff 1250- Opening day: Lunch 100- Spring IEC retreat: Lunch 300- DAS at Valley: Lunch

Goal 1: Increase student retention, persistence and success Goal 2: Increase student access Goal 3: Enhance academic programs and services to meet student needs Goal 4: Enhance institutional effectiveness

Data Considered & Source(s): [Specify specific data considered (e.g. efficiency, success, service trends) and attach a summary report where applicable.]

II. Status of Recommendation:

Accepted by Senate

Modified by Senate

Statement of Modification:

Reason for Modification of Recommendation:

Rejected by Senate

Reason for Rejection of Recommendation:

Returned for Revisions

Reason for Returning Recommendation:

Date of Action: Senate President Signature:____________________________________________

III. College President’s Response (if needed):

Accepted as Recommended Implementation Date:

Modified Recommendation Implementation Date:

Statement of Modification:

Reason for Modification of Recommendation:

LAVC Academic Senate Motion/Resolution Form

Denied Recommendation

Reason for Rejection of Recommendation:

Date of Action: President’s Signature: ___________________________________________

LAVC Academic Senate Motion/Resolution Form

Motion # : (Assigned by Senate President)

Los Angeles VallDate Presented to Senate: 4/17/14 Los Angeles Valley College Revision of a previous motion? Yes

Initiator: PEPC

Statement of Motion/Resolution: (Use separate form for each issue.)

To change the institutional standard for Fall to Fall persistence from 32% to 41% and to include only first-time incoming students rather than all students in this measure.

Rationale for Motion/Resolution: (Address how the motion supports the Educational Master Plan.)

1. As with the other institutional standards, 41% represents the 10-year low in this variable. 2. Considering first-time students that persist from one year to the next is a more appropriate way of analyzing institutional effectiveness.

Goal 1: Increase student retention, persistence and success Goal 2: Increase student access Goal 3: Enhance academic programs and services to meet student needs Goal 4: Enhance institutional effectiveness

Data Considered & Source(s): [Specify specific data considered (e.g. efficiency, success, service trends) and attach a summary report where applicable.]

II. Status of Recommendation:

Accepted by Senate

Modified by Senate

Statement of Modification:

Reason for Modification of Recommendation:

Rejected by Senate

Reason for Rejection of Recommendation:

Returned for Revisions

Reason for Returning Recommendation:

Date of Action: Senate President Signature:____________________________________________

III. College President’s Response (if needed):

Accepted as Recommended Implementation Date:

Modified Recommendation Implementation Date:

Statement of Modification:

Reason for Modification of Recommendation:

Denied Recommendation

Reason for Rejection of Recommendation:

Date of Action: President’s Signature: ___________________________________________

LAVC Academic Senate Motion/Resolution Form

Motion # : (Assigned by Senate President)

Los Angeles VallDate Presented to Senate: 4/17/14 Los Angeles Valley College Revision of a previous motion? Yes

Initiator: PEPC

Statement of Motion/Resolution: (Use separate form for each issue.) To create an institutional standard for the pass rate of students taking the licensure exams in Nursing and Respiratory Therapy of 88% and 80%, respectively.

Rationale for Motion/Resolution: (Address how the motion supports the Educational Master Plan.)

Institutional standards for pass rate on licensing exams are required by the ACCJC. The thresholds of 88% and 80% are based on the historical pass rate at LAVC and discipline norms.

Goal 1: Increase student retention, persistence and success Goal 2: Increase student access Goal 3: Enhance academic programs and services to meet student needs Goal 4: Enhance institutional effectiveness

Data Considered & Source(s): [Specify specific data considered (e.g. efficiency, success, service trends) and attach a summary report where applicable.]

II. Status of Recommendation:

Accepted by Senate

Modified by Senate

Statement of Modification:

Reason for Modification of Recommendation:

Rejected by Senate

Reason for Rejection of Recommendation:

Returned for Revisions

Reason for Returning Recommendation:

Date of Action: Senate President Signature:____________________________________________

III. College President’s Response (if needed):

Accepted as Recommended Implementation Date:

Modified Recommendation Implementation Date:

Statement of Modification:

Reason for Modification of Recommendation:

Denied Recommendation

Reason for Rejection of Recommendation:

Date of Action: President’s Signature: ___________________________________________

LAVC Academic Senate Motion/Resolution Form

Motion # : (Assigned by Senate President)

Los Angeles VallDate Presented to Senate: 10-17-13 Los Angeles Valley College Revision of a previous motion? Yes

uncil Recommendation

Initiator: Fay Dea, Rick Murray, Tyler Prante, Rebecca Stein

Statement of Motion/Resolution: (Use separate form for each issue.)

To accept the following clusters: Cluster (number of full-time faculty in cluster)

1. Counseling/Library (21) 2. Math (15) 3. English/Continuing Education (17) 4. PE (14) 5. Chemistry and Physics/Biology/Earth Science (19) 6. Anthro/HHLPS/Philosophy and Economics/Sociology and Ethnic Studies (20) 7. Art/Music/Media Arts/Theater (21) 8. CAOT/ Business Administration/Child Dev./ Technology/ Emergency Services (14) 9. Foreign Language/Communication Studies (15) 10. Psychology/Health Sciences (20) 11. Chairs and Directors (32)

Rationale for Motion/Resolution: (Address how the motion supports the Educational Master Plan.)

Each of the 10 clusters of departments (see list below) would have a liaison and their focus would be facilitating communication. We took the departments and tried to organize them into clusters with around 15-20 full time faculty. We agreed that the liaisons should communicate directly with the faculty of the cluster, not just communicate with the chairs in the cluster. However, there would also be an eleventh cluster consisting of the department chairs and directors, with a senator who would serve as its liaison. The current Senate membership includes at least one senator from a department within each cluster, with the exception of mathematics. However, some clusters have more than one Senator who could potentially be a liaison. Thus, we are recommending that at the next Senate meeting all the senators break into groups by cluster (NO longer than 5 minutes) to pick a liaison for their respective clusters. We further recommend that the Senate President appoint a faculty member to serve as Senate liaison to the mathematics and the chairs and directors clusters and appoint a liaison whenever a cluster cannot agree on who shall serve as liaison.

Goal 1: Increase student retention, persistence and success Goal 2: Increase student access Goal 3: Enhance academic programs and services to meet student needs Goal 4: Enhance institutional effectiveness

Data Considered & Source(s): [Specify specific data considered (e.g. efficiency, success, service trends) and attach a summary report where applicable.]

II. Status of Recommendation:

Accepted by Senate

Modified by Senate

LAVC Academic Senate Motion/Resolution Form

Statement of Modification:

Reason for Modification of Recommendation:

Rejected by Senate

Reason for Rejection of Recommendation:

Returned for Revisions

Reason for Returning Recommendation:

Date of Action: Senate President Signature:____________________________________________

III. College President’s Response (if needed):

Accepted as Recommended Implementation Date:

Modified Recommendation Implementation Date:

Statement of Modification:

Reason for Modification of Recommendation:

Denied Recommendation

Reason for Rejection of Recommendation:

Date of Action: President’s Signature: ___________________________________________