Outcomes Assessment Report

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3

DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................ 4 A. Fall Cohort .......................................................................................................................... 4 B. Target Populations ............................................................................................................... 4

1. Disabled .......................................................................................................................... 4 2. Single Parents.................................................................................................................. 4 3. Minority .......................................................................................................................... 4 4. Educationally Disadvantaged .......................................................................................... 4 5. Economically Disadvantaged .......................................................................................... 4

C. Developmental Studies Student .......................................................................................... 4

MISSION AREA ONE: STUDENT PROGRESS ................................................................. 5 A. Student Goal Attainment ..................................................................................................... 5

1. Educational goals of fall cohorts..................................................................................... 5 2. Percent of graduates who report having achieved their goal. ......................................... 6

B. Persistence ........................................................................................................................... 7 1. Fall cohort persistence through subsequent semesters. ................................................... 7

C. Degree Completion ............................................................................................................. 8 1. Percent of fall cohort (last 10 years) that graduated within a specified number of years.............................................................................................................................................. 8

MISSION AREA TWO: WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ................................................... 9 A. Job Supply and Demand ..................................................................................................... 9

1. Employment opportunities for SCCC students and alums. ............................................ 9 B. Employer Perspectives ....................................................................................................... 10

1. Employer perceptions of the educational preparation of SCCC students/alums. ......... 10 C. Student Perspectives .......................................................................................................... 10

1. Graduate perceptions of adequacy of preparation by SCCC for their work/career. ..... 10

MISSION AREA THREE: TRANSFER PREPARATION .................................................... 11 A. Transfer Rates ................................................................................................................... 11

1. Transfer degree program graduates who transferred to a 4-year college or university. 11 2. Career degree and certificate program graduates who transferred to a 4-year school. . 13 3. Four-year college transfer rates for fall cohort who’s initial goal was to transfer. ....... 16

B. Quality of Preparation for Transfer to a 4-year College or University ............................. 17 1. Transfer degree program graduates enrolled in a 4-year school who report the education they received at SCCC prepared them for their current degree program. ........ 17 2. Career degree program graduates enrolled in a 4-year college or university who report the education they received at SCCC prepared them for their current degree program. .. 18

MISSION AREA FOUR: ACCESS ................................................................................. 19 A. Yield Rates ........................................................................................................................ 19

Page 2 Outcomes Assessment Report – September 2010

1. Matriculation yields from accepted applicants. ............................................................ 19 B. Non-Traditional Course Scheduling Alternatives ............................................................. 20

1. Electronic/distance learning, independent study, evening and weekend offerings. ..... 20 C. Enrollment, Persistence, and Graduation Rates for Target Populations ........................... 21

1. Enrollment by target populations. ................................................................................. 21 2. Persistence by target populations. ................................................................................. 22 3. Degree completion by target populations. .................................................................... 24 4. Goal attainment by target populations. ......................................................................... 27

D. Student Opinions of College Services .............................................................................. 28 1. Responses to the Student Opinion Survey’s student access items. ............................... 28

MISSION AREA FIVE: EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT ............................................... 29 A. Student Satisfaction - Course/Program/Support Service Level ........................................ 29

1. Graduate satisfaction with a particular degree/certificate program. ............................. 29 2. Responses to the Student Opinion Survey’s support services items............................. 29

B. Student Satisfaction - Overall ........................................................................................... 30 1. Student satisfaction with the education received at SCCC. .......................................... 30

C. Student Opinions of Educational Environment ................................................................. 32 1. Responses to the Student Opinion Survey’s educational environment items. .............. 32

MISSION AREA SIX: COMMUNITY OUTREACH .......................................................... 33 A. Community Participation .................................................................................................. 33

1. Participation in SCCC sponsored educational and cultural events. .............................. 33 2. Participation in other SCCC hosted events. .................................................................. 34

B. SCCC Outreach ................................................................................................................. 34 1. Service to community by SCCC faculty and staff. ...................................................... 34

C. Quality of Events Offered ................................................................................................. 35 1. Participant satisfaction with the quality of public events offered by the College. ...... 35 2. Student satisfaction with the quality of non-credit programs offered by the College. 36

MISSION AREA SEVEN: LEARNING OUTCOMES ........................................................ 37 A. General Education – Specific Subject Areas .................................................................... 37

1. Achievement of program specific learning objectives. ................................................. 37

MISSION AREA EIGHT: DEVELOPMENTAL SKILLS .................................................... 41 A. College Study Skills Success ............................................................................................ 41

1. Successful completion of College Study Skills courses. .............................................. 41 B. Persistence by Developmental Studies Students ............................................................... 42

1. Persistence and success by Developmental Studies Students. ...................................... 42 C. Degree Completion by Developmental Studies Students ................................................. 44

1. Developmental Studies Students who earn a degree or certificate. .............................. 44

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................. 45

Outcomes Assessment Report – September 2010 Page 3

INTRODUCTION While SUNY System Administration and the New York State Education Department continue to explore outcomes assessment measurements to evaluate community colleges, Schenectady County Community College has created an Outcomes Assessment Plan to facilitate self-evaluation. Patterns and trends in the outcomes assessment data are used to identify and confirm strengths as well as highlight areas in need of improvement. The planning process for the Outcomes Assessment Plan began in 1999 with a review of an American Association of Community College’s (AACC) report entitled “Core Indicators of Effectiveness for Community Colleges”. This report outlines 6 broad mission areas and 14 core indicators. At an SCCC faculty and staff retreat during the summer of 1999, it was decided to utilize the AACC mission areas (with several modifications) and add two new mission areas. The SCCC Board of Trustees approved the Outcomes Assessment Plan in the spring of 2001. The SCCC Outcomes Assessment Plan calls for an annual report of College results to enable the College to set benchmarks to continuously improve the quality of the many services it provides. In the fall of 2002, Institutional Research developed and distributed the first annual Outcomes Assessment Report. The Outcomes Assessment Plan is a work in progress and the annual Outcomes Assessment Report will help the College to modify the Plan and associated processes. The process of continuous improvement is important to the growth of SCCC, and this ninth Outcomes Assessment Report, August 2010, is a significant part of that process. The process of reporting the College’s outcomes is dynamic. As new types and/or sources of outcome related information become available, the new information is reviewed and if deemed relevant, included in the Outcomes Assessment Report. Additionally, if we come up with a more clear way to present data, we will modify the report. This year, for example, the transfer data of the Career Degree and Certificate students (page 12, 14 and 15) was expanded greatly to show which institutions our graduates transfer to most often. In 2006 we began establishing linkages within the Outcomes Assessment Report to the College Plan. These linkages take the form of references to the College Plan throughout the Outcomes Assessment Report. They represent a first step toward better integration of the priority initiatives in each of the nine goal areas in the College’s primary planning document and the outcomes measured in each of the eight mission areas in the College’s primary assessment of outcomes. In addition to the assessment of outcomes in this report, the College is participating in the National Community College Benchmark Project (NCCBP). Each fall, reports comparing SCCC to other community colleges, both nationwide and SUNY-specific, participating in the NCCBP are shared with the campus community, so in addition to monitoring our own performance over time with the Outcomes Assessment Report, we can see cross-sectional data comparing SCCC with other community colleges. NCCBP data is used to benchmark important areas, such as retention and graduation rates, and forms the rationale for establishing the related goals.


DEFINITIONS A. Fall Cohort - The primary unit of analysis in this report. The fall cohort consists of the matriculated first-time full-time (FTFT) students enrolled in the fall semester and has averaged 550 from 2003 to 2007. Since 2008 the College has seen significant growth.

Fall 2000

Fall 2001

Fall 2002

Fall 2003

Fall 2004

Fall 2005

Fall 2006

Fall 2007

Fall 2008

Fall 2009

Cohort – All FTFT 482 486 498 540 551 590 566 562 734 781 Cohort - Matriculated 477 479 493 534 544 586 553 557 725 772

B. Target Populations

1. Disabled: Students who self-identify as having a physical or learning disability. 2. Single Parents: Students who self-identify as being a single parent on financial aid forms. 3. Minority: Students who self-identify as being a member of an ethnic group other than Caucasian. Students who do not specify an ethnicity are not classified as minorities. 4. Educationally Disadvantaged: Students who meet at least one of the admissions criteria listed below: • Lack of high school diploma or GED; • Low high school average (75/2.5 or less) or bottom 1/3 of high school class; • Low GED score (270 or less); • Failure to meet criteria for major of choice, or recommendation by the College for

developmental coursework; • Low standardized or locally administered test scores; • Receipt of remedial preparation from alternative programs, such as EOC, Upward Bound,

Adult Learning Centers or similar programs; • Prior EOP/HEOP/SEEK/College Discovery/etc. program enrollment by transfer students; • Age or number of years since last formal educational exposure (8+ years); • Other relevant factors (e.g. English as a Second Language, trend of academic performance, etc.). 5. Economically Disadvantaged: Determined from financial aid forms. The definition of economically disadvantaged changes from year to year, partly due to adjustments for inflation and partly due to political factors. (Note: these changes have not always been properly captured in the College’s data system, so care should be exercised when interpreting this information.) During the 2009-10 academic year, two factors contributed to the definition of economic disadvantage: (1) household size and (2) adjusted gross family income. The following table describes the relationships among these variables.

Household size Adjusted Gross Income Cutoffs for Households Headed by Two Parents 1 $ 15,590 2 $ 21,000 3 $ 26,410 4 $ 31,820 5 $ 37,230 6 $ 42,640 7 $ 48,050

8 or more add $5,410 for each family member in excess of seven C. Developmental Studies Student - Any student who registers for six or more credits in College Study Skills (CSS) courses during any one semester.


MISSION AREA ONE: STUDENT PROGRESS A. Student Goal Attainment 1. Educational goals of fall cohorts.

The State University of New York has identified six possible goals for our community college students. The table below specifies these six goals and shows the percentage of students in the most recent five fall cohorts who specified each goal at the beginning of the fall term.

Student Goals

2005 Fall

Cohort

2006 Fall

Cohort

2007 Fall

Cohort

2008 Fall

Cohort

2009 Fall

Cohort Transfer to another college after earning a degree/certificate at SCCC 49.8% 53.5% 53.9% 53.2% 52.9% Transfer to another college without earning a degree/certificate at SCCC 11.2% 9.0% 11.3% 9.5% 9.0% Earn a degree/certificate at SCCC with plans for employment 27.5% 26.1% 24.6% 25.2% 25.0% Enroll in coursework to learn or upgrade job skills 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% 0.6% Enroll in coursework for personal enrichment, enjoyment 0.5% 0.4% 0.2% 0.9% 0.6% Enroll in coursework to obtain a high school GED 0.5% 0.9% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% Uncertain 9.8% 9.6% 8.8% 10.9% 11.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Transfer to another college after earning a degree/certificate at SCCCTransfer to another college without earning a degree/certificate at SCCCEarning a degree/certificate at SCCC with plans for employmentOther (includes the four remaining choices listed in the table above)

Each time students register for classes, they are asked to provide information about their goals. Since the fall of 2001, a concerted effort by the Academic Services staff who register students for classes has resulted in a large majority of every cohort having valid goal data. Three-quarters of all respondents consistently indicate their desire to earn a degree or certificate from SCCC, with half of the respondents indicating that their goal is to transfer to another college after earning their degree or certificate and one-quarter indicating that they plan to seek employment after earning a degree at SCCC. Most of the remaining students who are not seeking a degree or certificate from SCCC indicate that they plan to transfer to another college after taking coursework at SCCC.


2. Percent of graduates who report having achieved their goal. SCCC uses two surveys to assess the perceptions of graduates. The first, the GSS (Graduating Student Survey – formerly known as the General Education Assessment Survey) asks whether students achieved their educational objective at SCCC. It is completed by almost every student who applies for graduation.

Percent of SCCC graduates who achieved their goal: GSS

91%

98%97%96%97%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

The second, the Graduate Survey, asks whether student goals were met by their program of study. A copy of the Graduate Survey is mailed out to graduates of each program six months after graduation. The response rate expected from a mail survey is lower than an 'in-person' survey such as the GSS. While nearly all students complete and return the GSS, on average only one-third or fewer of all program graduates complete and return their Graduate Surveys. Despite this difference in response rates, both surveys indicate that students who graduate overwhelming believe that their goals were met.

Percent of SCCC graduates who achieved their goal: Graduate Survey

88%95%

92%86%

84%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Both surveys show a seven percentage point drop this year. These surveys will be watched very closely in 2010-11 to determine if this is the beginning of a trend. After an analysis of the GSS open-ended responses of those who said they did not achieve their goal suggests an alternate explanation for at least part of the decrease. Many students with the goal of transferring to a 4-year institution said they have either not yet earned their Bachelor’s degree or have not completed their transfer process. Additionally, many with the goal of graduating and getting a job said either they cannot get a job in this economy or they now plan on continuing their education. There is another reason to consider the decline with caution. When asked if they would start their college career at SCCC again, 94% of 2010 GSS respondents said they would, an answer that ranged from 94 to 96% over the previous three years. When asked if they would recommend SCCC to family and friends, 99% of GSS respondents said they would, an answer that ranged from 97 to 99% over the previous three years.


B. Persistence

1. Fall cohort persistence through subsequent semesters. Persistence is a key indicator for institutions of higher education. To measure student progress, the College looks at how many students from the fall cohort persist through subsequent semesters. In the table and figure below showing persistence over three semesters for each fall cohort, we only include that subset of students in each fall cohort enrolled in a degree or certificate program. On average, 74.8% of the students in these fall cohorts persist to the next spring semester and 54.6% persist to the next fall semester. Note that full-time students who begin a one-year certificate program in the fall and do not later that same year change majors and enroll in a two-year program would not be expected to re-enroll the following fall, but they are included in this analysis nonetheless.

Fall Cohort Re-enrolled next Spring Re-enrolled next Fall Re-enrolled following Spring 2000 73.6% 55.8% 48.4% 2001 73.9% 56.6% 50.1% 2002 72.6% 56.8% 47.5% 2003 75.1% 53.9% 46.6% 2004 71.0% 54.4% 48.7% 2005 76.1% 54.8% 48.0% 2006 74.0% 53.8% 46.6% 2007 74.5% 48.4% 42.8% 2008 78.1% 56.7% 50.8% 2009 79.6%

Cohort Average 74.8% 54.6% 47.7%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Re-enrolled next Spring Re-enrolled next Fall Re-enrolled following Spring

SCCC College Goal: In the 2008 Outcomes Assessment Report, using data from the National Community College Benchmark Project, SCCC set the goals for the Fall 2008 and all subsequent cohorts for one, two and three semester retention rates at 76%, 57% and 50%, respectively. The Fall 2008 cohort had retention rates of 78.1%, 56.7% and 50.8%, meeting the goals. The Fall 2009 cohort has an even better one semester retention rate of 79.6%. SCCC will work to build on this success in increasing the retention rate even further.


C. Degree Completion 1. Percent of fall cohort (last 10 years) that graduated within a specified number of years.

The cumulative frequency distribution table and figure below showing graduation rates are based on the subset of students in the fall cohort who were enrolled in a degree or certificate program, whether or not their specified goal is to earn a degree. Over the last five cohorts, an average of 78% of the cohort indicated a desire to earn a degree or certificate at the time they first registered. On average, one-fifth of each cohort’s matriculated students graduate within three years and 27% graduate within five years. Graduation Rates Within:

1999 Cohort

2000 Cohort

2001 Cohort

2002 Cohort

2003 Cohort

2004 Cohort

2005 Cohort

2006 Cohort

2007 Cohort

2008 Cohort

Aver-age

2 years 11.1% 10.1% 11.1% 9.1% 7.5% 8.6% 10.6% 8.5% 7.5% 9.1% 9.3%3 years 20.6% 21.2% 21.3% 19.7% 19.7% 20.8% 20.0% 19.2% 17.2% 20.0% 4 years 24.6% 26.8% 25.5% 24.5% 22.7% 27.0% 26.3% 25.5% 25.4% 5 years 26.1% 29.8% 28.0% 26.4% 24.3% 29.0% 28.7% 27.5% 6+ years 29.9% 34.2% 31.1% 30.2% 25.8% 30.0% 30.2% Note: Percentages are cumulative

SCCC College Goal: Since the 1998 cohort, the graduation 3 year graduation rate has remained in a narrow range, between 17.2% and 21.3%. Although this compares favorably to the national community college median of 18.2% (NCCBP 2009), it falls short of the SUNY median of 24.3% (NCCBP SUNY 2009). In 2008, Schenectady County Community College set a goal of increasing its three year graduation rates in a two-step plan. First, SCCC set its 2011 goal for 3 year graduation at 22% for the Fall 2008 cohort. Then, SCCC has set its 2013 goal for 3 year graduation at 24% for the Fall 2010 cohort.

The low graduation rate for the 2007 Cohort was foreshadowed by that Cohort’s lower than average (by about 5 percentage points) retention rates after two and three semesters. The above average retention data for the 2008 and 2009 cohorts indicate that they will have better graduation rates than the 2007 Cohort.

The improvement in persistence rate is the first step towards achieving these goals. SCCC will continue to focus on increasing persistence through the Enrollment Services Council, the elimination of the degree fee as well as by a new graduation initiative that will focus on successful students who transfer to a four-year college or university before earning their associates degree from SCCC.

2 and 3 Year Graduation Rates

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

In 3rd yearIn 2 years


MISSION AREA TWO: WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

A. Job Supply and Demand 1. Employment opportunities for SCCC students and alums. Since 2005, the College’s Career and Employment Services (CES) office has utilized a web-based career management system called Electronic Applications for Students and Employers (EASE) to help employers find qualified job applicants, and to help students learn about job opportunities and how to pursue them. Since its inception, over 2500 students and alumni have used the system, which currently has over one thousand organizations registered. The CES office entered 351 job opportunities into the EASE system this year. During the 2009-10 academic year, the CES office conducted approximately 700 face-to-face appointments with students and alumni regarding their personal career planning and job search process. Additionally it followed up on 600 emails and 200 phone contacts. The CES office coordinated programs and activities with Department Chairpersons, faculty and administrative staff on issues of career exploration, experiential learning and recruitment. During 2009-10 academic year, these programs included 48 classroom presentations, three Career Expos, five Speed Interviewing Days, seven Today’s Workforce Panels, an ADA Career Service and Mentoring Program, three Company Conversation Luncheons, a Federal Workforce Recruitment Program and a Tech Talk with five companies. A major focus of the CES is to establish a recruiting relationship between the college and local businesses. This includes scheduling on-campus recruiting tables, participating in career fairs, networking programs and classroom panel discussions, establishing new internships and volunteer opportunities and listing and advertising jobs throughout the year to students and graduates.


B. Employer Perspectives 1. Employer perceptions of the educational preparation of SCCC students/alums. The Community Employer Survey, last conducted during the Summer of 2006, asked employers who have hired one or more SCCC students or graduates during the past year to indicate their level of satisfaction with the educational preparation of the students/alums they hired. The vast majority of employers indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with the educational preparation of our students. Note however that we traditionally get a very low response rate to these employer surveys and since only a fraction of the employers who responded actually hired SCCC students or alums during the previous year, great care should be used when interpreting changes over time.

83.3%

100%

94%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2006 Employer Survey



C. Student Perspectives 1. Graduate perceptions of adequacy of preparation by SCCC for their work/career. The Graduate Survey, which is conducted six and twelve months after graduation to assess the success of our graduates, asks graduates to specify whether they feel their educational program at SCCC prepared them for their current job or career very well, adequately well, somewhat well, or not very well. Results from the six month survey indicate that most students felt they were very well, adequately well, or somewhat well prepared by SCCC for their current job or career.

84%

88%

86%

94%

86%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2009 Graduate Survey






MISSION AREA THREE: TRANSFER PREPARATION A. Transfer Rates 1. Transfer degree program graduates who transferred to a 4-year college or university. The College’s transfer degree programs prepare students for transfer to a 4-year school. Among our 2010 transfer program graduates who indicated a goal at the time they enrolled at SCCC, 80% indicated that they intended to eventually transfer.

Transfer Degree Program Graduates Graduation

Year Total

Graduates Initially Planned

to Transfer* Transfers within

one year Transfers after

one year 2000 122 N/A 60 49.2% 13 10.7%2001 135 N/A 77 57.0% 19 14.1%2002 124 N/A 68 54.8% 16 12.9%2003 144 N/A 73 50.7% 25 17.4%2004 157 91.1% 83 52.9% 23 14.6%2005 163 85.7% 88 54.0% 23 14.1%2006 180 89.0% 113 62.8% 18 10.0%2007 166 85.3% 87 52.4% 17 10.2%2008 169 87.0% 90 53.3% 10 5.9%2009 166 80.9% 91 55.2% 2010 203 79.8%

*Percent of valid responses. Goal data began with 2001 Cohort, therefore 2004 graduates are first to have enough data to analyze. The National Student Clearinghouse provides us with information about our former students, but 8% of post-secondary enrollment data is not provided to the NSC. Hence, the fact that we do not have evidence that some of our former students transferred to another 4-year institution should not be construed to mean that they did not transfer. In addition, a small group of SCCC graduates go on to attend another 2-year college and this transfer information is excluded from this analysis.

Transfer Rates: Graduates of Transfer Degree Program

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Within 1 Year After 1 Year

Over the last ten years, an average of 54% of the Transfer Degree Program graduates transfer within one year to a 4-year college or university, while 66% have transferred since leaving SCCC.


Combining data from the last four years, SUNY Albany and the College of Saint Rose are the most popular transfer institutions for the graduates of transfer degree programs.

Transfer Institutions (4-year) of Graduates of Transfer Degree Programs Within 1 year: 2006 – 2009 (N = 381) After 1 Year: 2005 - 2008 (N = 68)

Top 5 Institutions Percent of Transfers Top 5 Institutions Percent of

Transfers SUNY Albany 34% SUNY Albany 26% College Of Saint Rose 16% College Of Saint Rose 13% SUNY College Of Tech @ Delhi 7% Siena College 7% Siena College 5% SUNY College Of Tech @ Delhi 7% Sage Colleges 3% Sage Colleges 6% Other SUNY Institutions 18% Other SUNY Institutions 13% Other non-SUNY Institutions 17% Other non-SUNY Institutions 26%

Examining those graduates who have transferred within one year, the following table details where the graduates have transferred to.

Transfer Institutions (4-year) of Graduates of Transfer Degree Programs: Transferred within 1 year

College Name 2006 2007 2008 2009 SUNY Albany 39 33 30 27 College Of Saint Rose 22 12 15 13 SUNY College Of Technology @ Delhi 2 4 10 9 SUNY College Oneonta 1 2 4 4 SUNY College Plattsburgh 2 5 3 Sage Colleges 4 2 3 3 SUNY New Paltz 1 2 5 2 Siena College 6 10 1 2 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 1 1 2 SUNY University At Buffalo 1 1 2 Buffalo State College (SUNY) 1 2 Rochester Institute Of Technology 2 SUNY College Potsdam 4 3 2 1 SUNY Oswego 1 1 2 1 SUNY College At Fredonia 2 1 Massachusetts College Of Liberal Arts 2 1 Union College 3 University Of North Carolina-Wilmington 2 1 Skidmore College 1 2 SUNY Institute Of Tech At Utica-Rome 3 Long Island Univ - Brooklyn 2

Other (Only 1 student in each year) 19 12 8 16 TOTAL 113 87 90 91


2. Career degree and certificate program graduates who transferred to a 4-year school. SCCC career degree programs are primarily occupationally oriented, though they may also be appropriate as preparation for certain specialized baccalaureate programs. Career degree and certificate programs prepare a student for immediate entry into the workforce so it is not surprising that the majority of the students enrolled in these programs indicated on their admission paperwork that they did not intend to transfer upon completing their course of study at SCCC. Nonetheless, a sizable minority of this group have transferred to a 4-year college, with the largest group transferring to the SUNY Delhi program.

Career Degree & Certificate Program Graduates Graduation

Year Total

Graduates Initially Planned

to Transfer Transfers within

one year Transfers

after one year 2000 265 N/A 37 14.0% 35 13.2% 2001 266 N/A 42 15.8% 34 12.8% 2002 295 N/A 48 16.3% 39 13.2% 2003 269 N/A 45 16.7% 26 9.7% 2004 250 37.0% 39 15.6% 31 12.4% 2005 297 38.0% 40 13.5% 31 10.4% 2006 307 42.6% 65 21.2% 28 9.1% 2007 311 46.5% 59 19.0% 19 6.1% 2008 310 45.0% 74 23.9% 13 4.2% 2009 293 45.8% 66 22.5% 2010 340 45.1%

*Percent of valid responses. Goal data began with 2001 Cohort, therefore 2004 graduates are first to have enough data to analyze. As noted above, 92% of colleges participate in the National Student Clearinghouse. The apparent decline in transfers after one year may be largely a consequence of the fact that more recent graduates have had a shorter window of opportunity to transfer than more distal graduates.

Transfer Rates: Graduates of Career Degree and Certificate Programs

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Within 1 Year After 1 Year

Over the last ten years, an average of 18% of the Career Degree and Certificate Program graduates transfer within one year, with a significant upward trend over the last three years, while 28% have transferred since leaving SCCC.


Combining data from the last four years, the SUNY College Of Technology @ Delhi and SUNY Albany are the most popular transfer institutions for the graduates of career degree and certificate programs.

Transfer Institutions (4-year) of Graduates of Career Degree & Certificate Programs Within 1 year: 2006 – 2009 (N = 264) After 1 Year: 2005 - 2008 (N = 91)

Top 5 Institutions Percent of Graduates Top 5 Institutions Percent of

Graduates SUNY College Of Tech @ Delhi 36% SUNY College Of Tech @ Delhi 25% SUNY Albany 18% SUNY Albany 25% College Of Saint Rose 8% Sage Colleges 7% Sage Colleges 7% College Of Saint Rose 5% SUNY College Oneonta 3% Excelsior College 3% Other SUNY Institutions 11% Other SUNY Institutions 10% Other non-SUNY Institutions 17% Other non-SUNY Institutions 24%

Examining those graduates who have transferred within one year, the following table details where the graduates have transferred to.

Transfer Institutions (4-year) of Graduates of Career Degree & Certificate Programs: Transferred within 1 year

College Name 2006 2007 2008 2009 SUNY College Of Technology @ Delhi 24 16 29 27 SUNY Albany 12 14 13 8 SUNY College Oneonta 1 2 2 4 College Of Saint Rose 8 3 6 3 Sage Colleges 5 6 4 3 SUNY Cobleskill 3 3 CUNY John Jay College Of Criminal Justice 1 1 2 SUNY College - Brockport 1 1 2 University Of Bridgeport 2 SUNY Oswego 1 3 University Of Central Florida 2 1 Rochester Institute Of Technology 2 Southern Vermont College 2 SUNY College Plattsburgh 2 5 1 Siena College 3 SUNY Institute Of Tech At Utica-Rome 2 1 1

Other (Only 1 student in each year) 7 7 7 11 TOTAL 65 59 74 66


Finally, combining the data of the Transfer graduates with the Career Degree and Certificate Program graduates, the following table shows the raw number of students that have transferred to each institution over the last four years.

Top 6 Transfer Institutions (4-year) of All Graduates: Transferred within 1 year College Name 2006 2007 2008 2009

SUNY Albany 51 47 43 35SUNY College Of Technology @ Delhi 26 20 39 36College Of Saint Rose 30 15 21 16SUNY College Oneonta 2 4 6 8Sage Colleges 9 8 7 6SUNY College Plattsburgh 4 5 6 3


3. Four-year college transfer rates for fall cohort who’s initial goal was to transfer. Since 2001, the College has collected students’ initial goal. Since then, an average of 63% of the students said they planned to transfer after attending SCCC. The table below shows that, with at least three full years of transfer data (2002 through 2006 Cohorts), over one-quarter of students transfer to a 4-year institution. Naturally, the less time that has passed since the Cohort began at SCCC, the lower the transfer rate. In addition, other SCCC students transfer to 2-year institutions. Students who transferred to 2-year institutions (or who remained enrolled or re-enrolled at SCCC) are counted in the denominator when computing the percentages below, but not in the numerator.

First-time Full-time Fall students who initially indicated their goal was to transfer Percent of those students who have transferred to a 4-year institution

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

N Initial Goal is to Transfer 329 332 350 359 352 363 460 448% of Entire First-time

Full-time Cohort 66.1% 61.5% 63.5% 60.8% 62.3% 64.5% 62.8% 57.4% N Transfers to a 4-year

institution 116 119 120 106 106 61 19 7 % Transfers to a 4-year

institution 35.3% 35.8% 34.3% 29.5% 30.1% 16.8% 4.1% 1.6%

Detail: Percent of First-time Full-time Fall students who initially indicated their goal was to

transfer who have transferred to a 4-year institution Transfer within 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2 years 12.2% 16.3% 16.6% 15.9% 17.9% 14.3% 4.1%* 1.6%* 3 years 22.2% 26.5% 26.0% 24.5% 29.0% 16.8%* 4 years 26.4% 29.5% 30.6% 28.1% 30.1%* 5 years 28.9% 32.2% 33.4% 29.5%*

6+ years 35.3% 35.8% 34.3%* * The data for enrollment does not include Fall 2010 enrollment, so the bottom cell in each column lacks one semester’s worth of data and should not be considered complete. For example, the 2007 Fall Cohort’s transfer rate of 16.8% counts those students who transferred to a 4-year institution from January 2008 through the summer term of 2010, but not Fall 2010. For the 2002 through 2006 Cohorts whose initial goal was to transfer, an average of 25.6% did transfer within three years after initially enrolling at SCCC. Overall, for the same Cohorts, 35.5% have transferred as of Summer 2010. SCCC College Goal: Comparing SCCC’s data to the SUNY NCCBP report, the College scores at the 39th percentile for three-year transfer rate, 19.1% vs. SUNY median of 19.6%. The denominator for the NCCBP data is the entire cohort, not just those students whose initial goal was to transfer. But this does demonstrate that SCCC’s transfer rate is comparable to other SUNY Community Colleges. The College’s goal is to maintain the three-year transfer rate of at least 24%, which we have exceeded for the last three years that we have complete data for (the 2003 through 2005 Cohorts).


Three Year Transfer Rates: SUNY Community Colleges (NCCBP 2009)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

10th Percentile 25th Percentile SCCC (39thPercentile)

50th Percentile 75th Percentile 90th Percentile

B. Quality of Preparation for Transfer to a 4-year College or University 1. Transfer degree program graduates enrolled in a 4-year school who report the education they received at SCCC prepared them for their current degree program. The Graduate Survey mailed to SCCC graduates six months after they graduated asks those graduates who are currently attending a college, university, or training program to identify the degree they expect to earn upon completion of their current studies. It also asks graduates to indicate whether their educational program at SCCC prepared them for their current degree/certificate program very well, adequately well, somewhat well, or not very well. Responses from those graduates of transfer degree programs who indicated they are in a bachelor’s degree program are summarized in the figure below, which shows the percentage of transfer program graduates who believe they were at least somewhat well prepared by their educational program at SCCC for their current studies.

Satisfaction with SCCC Transfer Program Preparation for Current Degree Program

90%

96%

100%

96%

97%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%







2. Career degree program graduates enrolled in a 4-year college or university who report the education they received at SCCC prepared them for their current degree program. Responses from career degree program graduates who indicated they are in a bachelor’s degree program are summarized in the figure below, which shows the percentage of career program graduates who believe they were somewhat well, adequately well, or very well prepared by their educational program at SCCC for their current studies.

Satisfaction with SCCC Career Program Preparation for Current Degree Program

93%

100%

100%

100%

96%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%







MISSION AREA FOUR: ACCESS A. Yield Rates 1. Matriculation yields from accepted applicants. The yield rate is the percentage of accepted applicants who subsequently matriculate into a degree/certificate program and register for classes. The table and figure below show the percentage of accepted full- or part-time degree/certificate program applicants who enroll as degree/certificate seeking students for the semester indicated on their application. These yield rates are outcome measures for the Access & Recruitment Priority Initiatives in the 2007-09 College Plan.

Over the past five years, the College’s yield rate has averaged 52% for full-time students and 52% for part-time students. The College has taken actions to increase the yield rate. Since 2001, the college has employed part-time professional staff member to make individual phone calls to students who were accepted to encourage them to register, as well as be a trouble-shooter for students who need help completing their applications. The College strives to continue to achieve high yields, with the goal of meeting or exceeding the previous year’s yield rates.

Full-time Yield Rate

51%

51%

51%

50%

54%

52%

53%

51%

52%

41%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Fall 2009

Fall 2008

Fall 2007

Fall 2006

Fall 2005

Fall 2004

Fall 2003

Fall 2002

Fall 2001

Fall 2000

Part-time Yield Rate

50%

48%

51%

53%

51%

58%

59%

54%

55%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Fall 2009

Fall 2008

Fall 2007

Fall 2006

Fall 2005

Fall 2004

Fall 2003

Fall 2002

Fall 2001

Fall 2000

Full-time Accepted Registered % YieldFall 2000 1645 678 41%Fall 2001 1461 754 52%Fall 2002 1614 826 51%Fall 2003 1670 892 53%Fall 2004 1734 894 52%Fall 2005 1713 927 54%Fall 2006 1804 906 50%Fall 2007 1770 910 51% Fall 2008 1975 1014 51% Fall 2009 2199 1112 51%

Part-time Accepted Registered % YieldFall 2000 296 148 50% Fall 2001 428 235 55% Fall 2002 488 262 54%Fall 2003 380 224 59%Fall 2004 379 220 58%Fall 2005 390 200 51%Fall 2006 372 198 53%Fall 2007 348 176 51%Fall 2008 351 168 48% Fall 2009 389 195 50%


B. Non-Traditional Course Scheduling Alternatives 1. Electronic/distance learning, independent study, evening and weekend offerings. SCCC offers courses through a variety of delivery modes for those students who do not wish or who are unable to take traditional day-time courses. Over one-quarter of all courses offered at SCCC are evening, weekend, or on-line courses. These courses are very important to students who have to work full-time or have schedules that do not permit them to take classes during daytime hours. The Continuing Education Division at the College is constantly striving to offer a diverse selection of courses that add to the opportunities for students who seek courses during non-traditional times. Most recently we have created a new type of course called a hybrid course, which is partly offered online and partly offered in the classroom. In the 2005-06 academic year (the first year we offered hybrid courses), we only offered three hybrid courses, but the number of hybrid course offerings has gradually increased and is expected to increase further in the future, much as the number of distance learning course offerings increased following their introduction. Note that identifying alternative class scheduling options, such as hybrid courses, is one priority initiative relating to Goal Area B in the 2007-09 College Plan.

2009-10 Annual Totals # of Courses % of Courses # of Credits % of CreditsDay 928 63.7% 2613 61.4%

Evening 259 17.8% 804 18.9%Weekend 11 0.8% 35 0.8%

Concurrent Enrollment 96 6.6% 313 7.4% Other Off Campus 8 0.5% 24 0.6%Independent Study 7 0.5% 21 0.5%Distance Learning 124 8.5% 373 8.8%

Hybrid Learning 23 1.6% 75 1.8%

Totals 1456 100.0% 4258 100.0%

% of Total Courses

DayEveningWeekendConcurrent Enrollment Other Off CampusIndependent StudyDistance LearningHybrid Learning


C. Enrollment, Persistence, and Graduation Rates for Target Populations 1. Enrollment by target populations.

Federal programs identify several populations for resource targeting. These populations include students with physical or learning disabilities, single parents, and non-white, educationally disadvantaged, or economically disadvantaged students. SCCC makes a special effort to identify and serve these target populations. The percentages of matriculated students in each fall cohort who are members of these target populations are shown below. Note that students may belong to more than one target population. Note that there was a significant drop in the percentage of the Cohort that is educationally disadvantaged.

Target Population Enrollment as a Percentage of Fall Cohort Enrollment Cohort Year Disabled

Single Parents

Minority (non-white)

Educationally Disadvantaged

Economically Disadvantaged

2000 5.0% 5.2% 16.1% 76.1% 27.3% 2001 4.6% 4.0% 15.7% 73.3% 23.6% 2002 5.1% 3.9% 16.6% 74.6% 26.2% 2003 4.5% 2.4% 18.4% 71.9% 23.0% 2004 5.3% 4.6% 17.6% 76.3% 23.0% 2005 5.1% 6.8% 17.9% 74.2% 26.1% 2006 5.8% 5.1% 19.7% 74.9% 21.5% 2007 3.4% 6.3% 20.5% 79.1% 22.1% 2008 4.0% 5.5% 19.7% 78.9% 21.4% 2009 3.5% 5.8% 22.1% 66.0% 21.9%

Target Population Enrollment as a Percentage of Fall Cohort

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Disabled Single Parents Minority (non-white)Educationally Disadvantaged Economically Disadvantaged


2. Persistence by target populations. The increases in raw numbers in most target population increased in line with the 6% increase in the overall Cohort size from 2008 to 2009. For all target populations, the Fall-to-Fall retention rate increased 10 percentage points for the 2008 Cohort; the Fall-to-Spring rate increased at least three percentage points for the 2009 Cohort.

Cohort Year # Disabled

Enrolled in Spring

Enrolled Next Fall

# Single ParentsEnrolled

in Spring Enrolled

Next Fall 2000 24 79.2% 70.8% 25 88.0% 64.0%2001 22 86.4% 63.6% 19 68.4% 42.1%2002 25 64.0% 56.0% 19 63.2% 47.4%2003 24 87.5% 70.8% 13 92.3% 76.9%2004 29 69.0% 51.7% 25 92.0% 64.0%2005 30 73.3% 60.0% 40 75.0% 50.0%2006 32 71.9% 56.3% 28 64.3% 42.9%2007 19 84.2% 52.6% 35 71.4% 37.1%2008 29 82.8% 62.1% 40 72.5% 57.5%2009 27 88.9% 45 75.6%

Average 26 78.7% 60.4% 29 76.3% 53.5%

Cohort Year

# Minority (Non-white)

Enrolled in Spring

Enrolled Next Fall

# Educationally Disadvantaged

Enrolled in Spring

Enrolled Next Fall

2000 77 72.7% 50.6% 363 72.2% 56.7%2001 75 69.3% 49.3% 351 72.9% 53.3%2002 82 69.5% 47.6% 368 70.9% 53.8%2003 98 74.5% 52.0% 384 73.7% 52.1%2004 96 76.0% 52.1% 415 68.7% 50.6%2005 105 81.0% 48.6% 435 75.2% 54.5%2006 109 72.5% 49.5% 415 73.5% 51.1%2007 114 68.4% 31.6% 440 70.7% 44.1%2008 143 72.7% 47.6% 572 75.9% 54.4%2009 171 76.0% 510 78.6%

Average 107 73.3% 47.7% 425 73.2% 52.3%

Cohort Year

# Economically Disadvantaged

Enrolled in Spring

Enrolled Next Fall

2000 130 67.7% 50.0% 2001 113 69.0% 45.1% 2002 129 71.3% 49.6% 2003 123 74.8% 47.2% 2004 125 73.6% 53.6% 2005 153 71.2% 47.1% 2006 119 77.3% 50.4% 2007 123 74.0% 42.3% 2008 155 73.5% 52.9% 2009 169 80.5%

Average 134 73.3% 48.7% *Source: YYYYMMftft.txt Cohort (all Students – most recent): 79.6% 56.7% Cohort (all Students – 10 Yr Avg.): 74.8% 54.6%


The figure below summarizes the ten year average spring and fall persistence rates (the percentage of students in a cohort who subsequently re-enroll one and two semesters later) presented in the previous tables. Compared to the average overall fall-to-spring persistence rate of 74.8%, three of the five target populations (Minority, Educationally Disadvantaged and Economically Disadvantaged) are lower by 1.5 percentage points. Disabled and Single Parents better the overall rate by 3.9 and 1.5 percentage points, respectively. Compared to the average overall fall-to-fall persistence rate of 54.6%, the Disabled cohort’s rate is 5.8 percentage points better. Single Parents are 0.9 percentage points lower and the Educationally Disadvantaged are 2.3 percentage points lower than the persistence rate of the overall cohort average, while Minorities and the Economically Disadvantaged are 7 and 6 percentage points lower, respectively. SCCC College Goal: In 2008, the College set the Fall-to-Fall persistence rate goal for the Minority and Economically Disadvantaged groups at 51% and 54% for the Fall 2009 and Fall 2011 cohorts, respectively. Initial Fall-to-Spring retention data for the Fall 2009 cohorts show positive steps, with both groups having above average retention.

Average (10 Year) Persistence by Target Populations

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Enrolled in Spring Enrolled next Fall

All

Disabled

Single Parent

Minority

EducationallyDisadvantagedEconomicallyDisadvantaged


3. Degree completion by target populations. For targeted populations in fall cohorts who are enrolled in degree or certificate programs, the graduation rate is 15.3% on average within three years of starting at the College. This is four percentage points lower than the average over the same time period for the student population as a whole. The disabled student population graduates at a rate 2 percentage points higher than the overall population, while the other four groups are lower, ranging from 16.4% for single parents and educationally disadvantaged to 10.5% for minorities. Details for each target population cohort are provided in the cumulative frequency distribution tables below.

1

Cohort Year

Number of Disabled

Earned degree

within 1 year

Earned degree

within 2 years

Earned degree

within 3 years

Earned degree

within 4 years

Earned degree

within 5 years

Earned degree in 6 or

more years 1999 24 0.0% 4.2% 20.8% 25.0% 29.2% 33.3% 2000 24 0.0% 20.8% 33.3% 41.7% 41.7% 41.7%2001 22 0.0% 9.1% 31.8% 45.5% 54.5% 59.1% 2002 25 0.0% 12.0% 20.0% 28.0% 28.0% 32.0% 2003 24 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 2004 29 0.0% 3.4% 20.7% 27.6% 31.0% 37.9% 2005 30 0.0% 3.3% 23.3% 30.0% 33.3% 2006 32 0.0% 6.3% 18.8% 25.0% 2007 19 0.0% 0.0% 10.5% 2008 29 0.0% 10.3% 2009 27 0.0%

Average 0.0% 6.9% 21.8% 31.0% 34.7% 38.2%

Cohort Year

Number of Single Parents

Earned degree

within 1 year

Earned degree

within 2 years

Earned degree

within 3 years

Earned degree

within 4 years

Earned degree

within 5 years


more years 1999 18 0.0% 0.0% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 11.1% 2000 25 0.0% 12.0% 28.0% 32.0% 36.0% 40.0%2001 19 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 5.3% 5.3% 15.8% 2002 19 0.0% 0.0% 5.3% 5.3% 10.5% 10.5% 2003 13 0.0% 7.7% 38.5% 46.2% 46.2% 46.2% 2004 25 0.0% 16.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 24.0% 2005 40 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 2006 28 3.6% 3.6% 14.3% 21.4% 2007 35 0.0% 5.7% 11.4% 2008 40 0.0% 7.5% 2009 45 2.2%

Average 0.5% 5.7% 16.4% 19.4% 20.4% 24.6%


Cohort Year

Number of Minorities

Earned degree

within 1 year

Earned degree

within 2 years

Earned degree

within 3 years

Earned degree

within 4 years

Earned degree

within 5 years


more years1999 53 0.0% 1.9% 7.5% 11.3% 13.2% 15.1% 2000 77 0.0% 5.2% 14.3% 19.5% 20.8% 28.6%2001 75 0.0% 2.7% 8.0% 9.3% 10.7% 14.7% 2002 82 0.0% 2.4% 7.3% 8.5% 9.8% 11.0% 2003 98 0.0% 7.1% 12.2% 15.3% 18.4% 19.4% 2004 96 0.0% 1.0% 7.3% 12.5% 14.6% 15.6% 2005 105 1.0% 7.6% 15.2% 18.1% 20.0% 2006 109 0.9% 2.8% 11.0% 17.4% 2007 114 0.0% 1.8% 11.4% 2008 143 0.0% 2.1% 2009 171 0.0%

Average 0.2% 3.5% 10.5% 14.0% 15.3% 17.4%

Cohort Year

Number of Educationally

Disadvantaged

Earned degree

within 1 year

Earned degree

within 2 years

Earned degree

within 3 years

Earned degree

within 4 years

Earned degree

within 5 years


more years1999 300 0.0% 6.7% 17.0% 20.3% 22.0% 25.0% 2000 363 0.0% 8.3% 18.5% 23.7% 26.4% 29.8%2001 351 0.3% 6.3% 16.8% 20.8% 22.8% 26.2% 2002 368 0.3% 6.5% 15.2% 19.8% 22.0% 25.0% 2003 384 0.0% 4.4% 15.1% 18.0% 19.0% 20.6% 2004 415 0.2% 3.9% 14.0% 19.0% 21.0% 21.7% 2005 435 0.7% 6.4% 15.2% 22.1% 24.1% 2006 415 0.5% 5.8% 14.5% 20.5% 2007 440 0.0% 5.0% 13.6% 2008 572 0.0% 6.3% 2009 510 0.2%

Average 0.2% 6.0% 15.5% 20.5% 22.5% 24.7%

Cohort Year

Number of Economically

Disadvantaged

Earned degree

within 1 year

Earned degree

within 2 years

Earned degree

within 3 years

Earned degree

within 4 years

Earned degree

within 5 years


more years1999 123 0.0% 4.9% 8.9% 12.2% 12.2% 17.1% 2000 130 0.0% 5.4% 12.3% 17.7% 20.0% 26.2%2001 113 0.0% 1.8% 12.4% 15.9% 17.7% 21.2% 2002 129 0.0% 5.4% 13.2% 16.3% 17.8% 20.2% 2003 123 0.8% 4.1% 13.8% 16.3% 17.1% 18.7% 2004 125 0.0% 4.8% 13.6% 17.6% 20.8% 20.8% 2005 153 0.0% 5.2% 11.1% 16.3% 19.0% 2006 119 0.8% 5.9% 15.1% 23.5% 2007 123 0.0% 4.1% 10.6% 2008 155 0.0% 5.2% 2009 169 0.6%

Average 0.2% 4.7% 12.3% 17.0% 17.8% 20.7%


The figure below shows the 10-year average percentage of the subset of targeted populations in the fall cohorts who were enrolled in degree or certificate programs and who subsequently graduated.

Graduation Rate of Targeted Populations Over Time

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Disabled Single Parents Minority EducationallyDisadvantaged

EconomicallyDisadvantaged

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

6+ Years

SCCC College Goal: The 3-year graduation rate goal for the Fall 2009 Cohort of Minorities is 12% and for the Fall 2009 Cohort of Economically Disadvantaged is 15%. The 3-year graduation rate goal for the Fall 2011 Cohort of Minorities is 16% and for the Fall 2009 Cohort of Economically Disadvantaged is 19%. Special focus is being given to these groups as part of the overall persistence strategies.


4. Goal attainment by target populations. The Graduating Student Survey (GSS) asks whether students achieved their educational objective at SCCC. It is completed by almost every student who applies for graduation. The Graduate Survey asks whether student goals were met by their program of study. A copy of the Graduate Survey is mailed out to graduates of each program six months after graduation. The response rate expected from a mail survey is lower than an 'in-person' survey such as the GSS. While nearly all prospective graduates complete and return the GSS, on average one-third or fewer of all program graduates complete and return their Graduate Surveys. This low response rate makes outcome measures less statistically reliable, particularly when findings are broken out for small groups of students. Therefore, the focus for target populations is on the more reliable GSS.

% of students who achieved their goal Disabled

Single Parents Minorities

Educationally Disadvantaged

Economically Disadvantaged

2006 GSS 89.3% 93.0% 97.7% 96.5% 93.8%2007 GSS 100.0% 87.9% 94.2% 94.5% 95.5%2008 GSS 91.7% 100.0% 98.4% 97.1% 96.1%2009 GSS 100.0% 96.3% 94.6% 95.9% 94.6%2010 GSS 76.5% 87.8% 89.8% 92.3% 88.4%

SCCC College Goal: The overall rate of graduates who have achieved their goal has averaged 95% over the past five years as measured by the GSS. The Goal for the targeted populations is the same as that for the overall population: to meet or exceed a 95% rate on the GSS. The one year drop in the GSS rate across all categories mirrors the general student population. In addition to rewording the survey questions to make them clearer, the Division of Academic Affairs will implement plans to improve this, especially if the trend continues in future years.


D. Student Opinions of College Services 1. Responses to the Student Opinion Survey’s student access items. Every three years, SUNY schools administer a Student Opinion Survey. The most recent survey was completed in the spring of 2010 and 625 students enrolled in a representative sample of spring course sections completed Student Opinion Survey questionnaires. Results from the three most recent administrations of the Student Opinion Survey relating to student access to the college are summarized below. The numbers in the cells are response averages, based on responses that range from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied). The gray area in the table designates an item that was not included in previous survey. Data comparing SCCC to other SUNY community colleges will be shared with the campus community during the fall of 2010.

Satisfaction with item: 2000

responses 2003

responses 2006

responses 2010

responses College catalog 3.57 3.79 4.02 3.91 New student orientation 3.51 3.55 3.77 3.49 College website n/a 3.79 4.05 3.77*

* In the 2010 SOS, the website question was expanded and clarified with “completeness of information”.

0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0

Course Catalog New Student Orientation College Website

2000 2003 2006 2010

While it appears that student perceptions regarding information and services provided by the College had been improving through 2006 and have declined, caution should be exercised when interpreting these results because in some cases students who voiced an opinion may not have used the information or service in question.


MISSION AREA FIVE: EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT A. Student Satisfaction - Course/Program/Support Service Level 1. Graduate satisfaction with a particular degree/certificate program. The Graduate Survey mailed to SCCC graduates six months after they graduated asks graduates to indicate whether they are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with their degree/certificate program at SCCC. Responses are summarized in the table and figure below.

2005 Graduate

Survey 2006 Graduate

Survey2007 Graduate

Survey2008 Graduate

Survey 2009 Graduate

SurveyVery Satisfied 61.0% 65.7% 74.6% 71.9% 64.5%Satisfied 35.1% 33.3% 25.4% 28.1% 31.2%Total of Above 96.1% 99.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.7%

On average, the majority of students each year indicate that they are very satisfied with their degree/certificate program six months after they graduated, and nearly all respondents indicate that they are either satisfied or very satisfied with the program from which they graduated.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%






Very Satisfied Satisfied

2. Responses to the Student Opinion Survey’s support services items. The table and figure below summarize information from the 2000 through 2010 SUNY Student Opinion Survey items related to students’ impressions of the College’s support services. The numbers in the cells are response averages, based on responses that range from 1 (meaning very dissatisfied) to 5 (meaning very satisfied). A report contrasting SCCC results with results from other SUNY community colleges will be shared with the campus community during the fall of 2010.


Satisfaction with item: 2000

responses2003

responses2006

responses 2010

responsesCampus tutoring services 3.45 3.74 3.90 3.67Academic advising services 3.57 3.72 3.70 3.60Library services 3.73 4.27 3.96 3.81Financial aid services 3.77 3.84 4.00 3.98Registration services 3.67 3.75 3.83 3.81Billing and payment procedures 3.68 3.76 3.82 3.87

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Campus tutoringservices

Academicadvising services

Library services Financial aidservices

Registrationservices

Billing andpayment

procedures

2000 2003 2006 2010

B. Student Satisfaction - Overall 1. Student satisfaction with the education received at SCCC. The GSS – completed by nearly every graduating student – asks students to specify whether they strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the statement: “I was satisfied with the education I received at SCCC.” The Graduate Survey, which is mailed to all graduates six-months after they graduated and is completed by one-third or fewer of them, asks graduates to specify whether they are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the quality of the education they received at SCCC. Responses are summarized below.


Student Satisfaction with the Education Received at SCCC

Percent indicating 'Satisfied' or 'Very

Satisfied'

Percent indicating 'Agree' or 'Strongly

Agree' (GSS)2005 Graduate Survey 97.3% 2006 GSS 98.4%2006 Graduate Survey 100.0% 2007 GSS 97.2%2007 Graduate Survey 100.0% 2008 GSS 100.0%2008 Graduate Survey 100.0% 2009 GSS 98.8%2009 Graduate Survey 98.6% 2010 GSS 98.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2010 GSS

2009 GSS

2008 GSS

2007 GSS

2006 GSS






(Satisfied + Very Satisfied) or (Agree + Strongly Agree)

Student Satisfaction with the Education Received at SCCC

In addition, the triennial Student Opinion Survey (SOS), administered to a sample of all enrolled students, asks students to specify their level of satisfaction with SCCC in general (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being “very satisfied”). Nearly three-quarters indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied in 2003, but almost four-fifths expressed such an opinion in 2010.

Student Opinion Survey Percent indicating 'Satisfied' or 'Very Satisfied'

Average Score

2000 n/a 3.98 2003 73.1% 3.91 2006 84.0% 4.06 2010 79.1% 3.97


C. Student Opinions of Educational Environment 1. Responses to the Student Opinion Survey’s educational environment items. The table and figure below summarize information from the 2000 through 2010 SUNY Student Opinion Survey items related to students’ impressions of their educational environment. Some of the items below are appropriate outcome measures for Priority Initiative H5 in the 2007-09 College Plan. The numbers in the cells are response averages, based on responses that range from 1 (meaning very dissatisfied) to 5 (meaning very satisfied). Shading indicates that the item in question was not on that survey.

Satisfaction with: 2000

responses 2003

responses2006

responses 2010

responsesGeneral condition of buildings and grounds 3.48 3.71 3.76 3.52Student union/campus center 3.15 3.34 3.45 3.33Campus food services 3.12 3.33 3.23 2.96Campus acceptance of individual differences n/a 3.95 3.99 3.92Personal security/safety on this campus 3.66 3.66 3.66 3.55Computer support services 3.91 4.00 3.81 3.50Classroom facilities 3.60 3.94 4.05 3.74Campus openness to opinions of others 3.49 3.44 3.78 3.66

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Generalcondition of

buildings andgrounds

Studentunion/campus

center

Campus foodservices

Campusacceptance of

individualdifferences

Personalsecurity/safetyon this campus

Computersupport services

Classroomfacilities

Campusopenness toopinions of

others

2000 2003 2006 2010


MISSION AREA SIX: COMMUNITY OUTREACH A. Community Participation 1. Participation in SCCC sponsored educational and cultural events. Schenectady County Community College provides the community with a variety of educational and cultural events. Speakers, theater shows, and musical guests are among the offerings every semester. Some community members attend more than one SCCC hosted event every year. Numbers of participants are estimated by the event sponsors.

2006-07

Participants % of total

2007-08 Participants

% of total


% of total


% of total

Music Events* 3,100 44% 3,300 63% 4,300 66% 3,800 52%Cultural Events 2,347 33% 1,240 23% 1,300 20% 1,300 18%Drama Events 1,600 23% 737 14% 939 14% 2,263 31%Total 7,047 100% 5,277 100% 6,539 100% 7,363 100%

* Music numbers for 2006-07 are based on 2005-06. The significant increase in 2008-09 was due in part to the success of the opera The Poor Soldier The figure below shows the relative participation rates by type of event for each year.

Community participation in SCCC sponsored educational and cultural events

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006-07 Participants 2007-08 Participants 2008-09 Participants 2009-10 Participants

Music Events Cultural Events Drama Events


2. Participation in other SCCC hosted events. The Culinary Arts program at SCCC hosts lunches, dinners, banquets and other special events. The College’s highly regarded Culinary Arts program has served over 42,000 meals over the last five years, including many to repeat visitors. The Casola Dining Room served 28% more meals in 2009-10 compared to a year before. The Culinary Program Banquets experienced a 2% drop this year after a 25% increase the year before.

Casola Dining

Room Culinary Program

Banquets Total 2005-06 3973 3578 7551 2006-07 4162 3596 7758 2007-08 4077 4032 8109 2008-09 3919 5034 8953 2009-10 5004 4932 9936

Participation in SCCC Culinary Arts events

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Casola Dining Room Culinary Program Banquets

B. SCCC Outreach 1. Service to community by SCCC faculty and staff. SCCC faculty and staff voluntarily serve numerous Capital Region organizations. During the 2004-05 academic year, a survey questionnaire was e-mailed to faculty and staff to update the results obtained from the community activities survey that was last conducted in 1996-97. The survey questionnaire was completed by a cross-section of our faculty and staff and was designed to elicit information about service to organizations that primarily serve our neighbors in the Capital Region. The survey captured the volunteer activities of a broad cross-section of SCCC employees working in a wide range of academic programs and academic support services (including the


library, the instructional technology center, the Department of Developmental Studies, and the TRIO program) and in a wide range of administrative and support offices (including the payroll, financial aid, student services, personnel, building and grounds, computing services, and planning and development offices). Approximately two-thirds of the survey responses came from full-time employees and one-third came from part-time employees. Among the faculty and staff who returned a survey questionnaire, 39 faculty and staff members indicated that they currently serve in leadership positions (e.g., on the Board of Directors) of approximately 80 organizations that enhance the well-being of our neighbors in the Capital Region and make the Capital Region a better place to live. In addition, our faculty and staff actively serve in many other vital roles – from tutors and coaches of youth sports teams to fundraisers for cultural, religious, health, safety, and community development organizations to direct providers of emergency and social services – for nearly 150 organizations in the Capital Region. These organizations provide services to youth, teaching, recreation, health, neighborhood improvement, public safety, historic preservation, community development, environmental protection, religious, and cultural services, to name a few. Volunteer service to Capital Region organizations is but one of many types of service provided by our faculty and staff to the world beyond our campus. Many of our faculty and staff also play active roles in statewide and national organizations that also benefit our neighbors in the Capital Region, albeit more indirectly. C. Quality of Events Offered 1. Participant satisfaction with the quality of public events offered by the College. The major public events during the 2009-10 academic year included Wildlife, Industry, Politics and Science: A Wildlife Pathologist’s View and Assessment, a presentation by New York State Wildlife Pathologist Dr. Ward Stone, An Evening with Music Critic Gary Giddins, The Wild Wild East: New York’s Drama of Westward Expansion by Dr. Robert Spiegelman, and The Venomous Eye: Politics After 9/11 by Dr. Elizabeth Anker. Major music presentations were by the Capital Region Wind Ensemble (40th Anniversary Concert), the Empire Jazz Orchestra (Sinatra: A Legacy in Song), and the Empire Jazz Orchestra Jazz Masters Performance. Qualitative data of public satisfaction indicates that the performances were very well received, but there was not enough quantitative data to provide valid results.


2. Student satisfaction with the quality of non-credit programs offered by the College. The Continuing Education Department surveys participants in the non-credit courses it offers at the end of each course and results are used to provide feedback to the course instructors as well as to the Continuing Education Department’s administration. Results from the past five academic years are provided below. Approximately 8% of the responses collected during 2009-10 were provided by children who participated in non-credit courses designed just for them.

"How do you rate this course?" 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 A-Excellent 78.8% 80.4% 79.8% 75.7% 83.6% B 18.5% 15.1% 12.3% 16.4% 8.9% C 2.1% 4.4% 6.9% 7.5% 6.9% D 0.0% 0.0% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% E-Poor 0.2% 0.0% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Grade Point Average 3.76 3.76 3.71 3.67 3.76

Student Satisfaction with the Quality of Non-credit Programs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

A B C D or E


MISSION AREA SEVEN: LEARNING OUTCOMES A. General Education – Specific Subject Areas 1. Achievement of program specific learning objectives. All SUNY institutions are required to submit an assessment report on student learning outcomes to SUNY on an annual basis. Each year, the report must detail outcomes for four of twelve “Knowledge and Skills Areas/Competencies.”

Knowledge and Skills Areas/Competencies Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle3 1. Mathematics 2. American History 3. Other World Civilizations 4. Basic Communications

2002-03 2005-06 2008-09

5. Humanities 6. Natural Science 7. Foreign Language 8. The Arts

2003-04 2006-07 2009-10

9. Western Civilization 10. Social Sciences 11. Information Literacy 12. Critical Thinking

2004-05 2007-08

Specific measures in each area are developed each year in a manner consistent with SUNY general education requirements. These measures and other aspects of the assessment process are continually revised as needed as we learn from each new iteration of the assessment cycle, as put forth in “General Education Assessment Review (GEAR) Group: Review Process Guidelines” and “SUNY’s General Education Assessment Review Group – “Tips” for Completing Closing the Loop Reports.” Assessment results for the six competencies sought in the four knowledge and skill areas assessed during 2009-10 are provided in the table and figure below.


Knowledge and Skills Areas/Competencies

Date of Assessment

Students Assessed

(number - %)

% Exceeding Standards

% Meeting

Standards

% Approach-

ing Standards

% Not Meeting

Standards Humanities - Knowledge of the conventions and methods of at least one of the humanities in addition to those encompassed by other knowledge areas required by the General Education program

Spring 2010 325 22% 11% 36% 39% 14%

Natural Science - Students will demonstrate the methods scientists use to explore natural phenomena, including observation, hypothesis development, measurement and data collection, experimentation, evaluation of evidence, and employment of mathematical analysis

Fall 2009 310 100% 31% 44% 13% 12%

Natural Science - Students will demonstrate application of scientific data, concepts, and models

Fall 2009 310 100% 31% 33% 19% 17%

Foreign Language - Basic proficiency in the understanding and use of a foreign language

Spring 2010 131 100% 47% 41% 9% 2%

Foreign Language - Knowledge of the distinctive features of culture(s) associated with the language they are studying

Spring 2010 131 100% 34% 50% 15% 0%

The Arts - Understanding of at least one principal form of artistic expression and the creative process inherent therein

Spring 2010 190 100% 42% 44% 9% 5%

Major findings of this year’s assessment Humanities: Compared to the last assessment in 2007, there was an 8 percentage point increase in the number of students who exceeded the standard, the same percentage of students meeting; a 12 percentage point decrease in those approaching and a 3 percentage point increase in students not meeting the standard. In general students made moderate gains in the assessment. Natural Sciences: Compared to the last assessment in 2007, the percent of students who did not meet the standard on the methods standard improved by 15 percentage points, from 27% to 12%. Department faculty are discussing adding similar assessments to upper division science courses. Foreign Languages: Compared to the last assessment in 2007 there was a 28 percentage point increase in students exceeding the proficiency standard, a 13 percentage point decrease in those meeting it; an 11 percentage point decrease in those approaching and a 6 percentage point decrease in those not meeting the standard. For the culture standard, there was a 7 percentage point decrease in students exceeding, a 5 percentage point increase in students meeting, a 2 percentage point increase in student approaching and a 1 percentage point decrease in students not meeting. In general the combined percentage of students meeting and exceeding outcome one increased by 14 percentage points and the combined percentage of students meeting and exceeding outcome two decreased by one percentage point.


The Arts: Compared to the last assessment in 2007 there was a 3 percentage point increase in students exceeding, an 11 percentage point increase in students meeting, an 8 percentage point decrease in those approaching and a 6 percentage point decrease in those not meeting. The results modestly improved. Program Reviews In addition to the program specific learning objectives assessed for SUNY’s General Education Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes, all SUNY institutions are required to conduct academic program reviews every five years. The College’s Division of Academic Affairs has reviewed and continues to improve its plan to ensure compliance with SUNY guidelines for campus-based assessment of majors. Key specifications from SUNY for these program assessments include requirements that programs: • include measures of student learning outcomes in their reviews and plans; • include a strategy for measuring change in students’ knowledge and skills over time, specific

to designated learning outcomes; and • seek review of their final assessment report by an external review team, including a campus

visit and report to the chief academic officer. The program review schedule is provided below.

Academic Program Reviews * 2008-09 Academic Year 2009-10 Academic Year 2010-11 Academic Year

Chemical Dependency Counseling A.A.S.

Computer Networking and Systems A.A.S. Music/Business A.A.S.

Electrical Technology A.A.S.** Computer Science A.S. Music Certificate

Hotel and Restaurant Management A.A.S. Health Studies Certificate Performing Arts: Music A.S.

Liberal Arts and Science: Mathematics/Science A.S. Human Services A.S. and A.A.S. Criminal Justice A.A.S.

Liberal Arts and Science: Science A.S. Individual Studies A.A. and A.S. Criminal Justice Certificate ****

Paralegal A.A.S. Teaching Assistant Certificate General Business Certificate

Teacher Education A.S.*** Liberal Arts and Science: Humanities/Social Sciences A.A.

Tourism and Hospitality Management A.A.S.

Tourism, Sales and Convention Management Certificate

* Summaries of these program reviews are provided in each year’s Curriculum Report. ** Electrical Technology A.A.S. was deactivated. No program review was done. *** Teacher Education A.S. was given an extension until 2009-10. **** Criminal Justice Certificate was given an extension until 2010-11.


Major recommendations for action from the program reviews conducted in 2009-10 academic year include: Computer Networking Systems and Cyber Security (formerly Computer Networking and Systems) A.A.S.

• Continue faculty development opportunities in the area of assessment of student learning outcomes, and

• Monitor enrollment trends in this program to ensure availability of adequate laboratory, classroom space and equipment.

Computer Science A.S.

• Continue faculty development opportunities in the area of assessment of student learning outcomes, and

• Monitor enrollment trends in this program to ensure availability of adequate laboratory, classroom space and equipment.

Human Services A.A.S./A.S.

• Encourage faculty participation in professional development activities in the area of assessment;

• Review and revise all core course outlines and implement assessment plan; • Monitor program enrollment to maintain adequate staffing and services, and • Review articulation agreements with local colleges and seek new opportunities in expanded

geographic areas;

Teacher Education Transfer A.S.

• Encourage faculty participation in professional development activities in the area of assessment;

• Update core course outlines; as they are revised, student learning outcomes should be formally aligned with program objective in chart format;

• Chart the course and program objectives with NCATE and INTASC standards; • Create rubrics that align with course student learning outcomes and program objectives for

all pieces of student work that will be in included in the TET 252 ((Pre-professional Seminar) portfolio, and

• With Admissions, develop an outreach and recruitment strategy to target makes, minorities and those interested in teaching math and/or science.


MISSION AREA EIGHT: DEVELOPMENTAL SKILLS A. College Study Skills Success 1. Successful completion of College Study Skills courses. First-time students at SCCC are required to take the COMPASS placement test if they (1) have not passed the NYS English 11 Regents exam with a grade of 75 or better, (2) do not present evidence of transferable credit for Freshman English from another college, or (3) have not achieved certain minimum scores on the SAT or ACT college admissions test. Students who fail to earn minimum scores in reading, writing, or mathematics on the COMPASS test are placed in either remedial or developmental College Study Skills courses, which are graded on a Pass/Fail basis. The table and figure below show the average percent of CSS courses passed by enrollees.

Academic Term Students Registered

(Unduplicated) CSS Courses

Taken Average %

Passed Fall 2005 554 954 60.9%

Spring 2006 412 643 54.7% Fall 2006 486 811 60.5%

Spring 2007 365 542 56.6% Fall 2007 518 828 60.1%

Spring 2008 347 536 47.2% Fall 2008 560 895 57.8%

Spring 2009 438 658 48.2% Fall 2009 559 877 52.7%

Spring 2010 501 721 45.4%

Percent of CSS enrollees passing courses

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fall 2005 Spring 2006 Fall 2006 Spring 2007 Fall 2007 Spring 2008 Fall 2008 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Spring 2010


B. Persistence by Developmental Studies Students 1. Persistence and success by Developmental Studies Students. Developmental Studies (DS) students are defined as students who take six or more College Study Skills course credits in one semester. The table below shows the number of DS students in each cohort, the percent of DS students in each fall cohort who return to SCCC the following spring semester and the percent of spring enrollees who complete the spring semester with a grade point average of 2.0 or higher, as well as the percentage of fall cohort DS students who return the following fall and spring.

Academic Term

# registered for six or more CSS credits

% returning the next

spring semester

Of those returning next spring, % completing the

spring semester with a 2.0 or higher GPA

% returning the next fall

semester

% returning the following

spring semester

Fall 2000 148 73.0% 49.1% 56.8% 47.3%Fall 2001 141 74.5% 40.0% 56.7% 46.8%Fall 2002 153 74.5% 46.5% 56.2% 44.4%Fall 2003 181 74.6% 41.5% 50.3% 42.0%Fall 2004 147 76.9% 51.3% 53.7% 45.6%Fall 2005 152 77.6% 47.5% 50.7% 47.4%Fall 2006 144 77.8% 38.4% 49.3% 39.6%Fall 2007 134 71.6% 31.3% 38.1% 34.3%Fall 2008 162 80.9% 35.9% 54.3% 42.6% Fall 2009 149 80.5% 30.8% DSS Average 151 76.2% 41.2% 50.2% 43.3% Cohort Average 74.8% 54.6% 47.7%

Compared to the entire first-time full-time fall cohort, the DS students persist at a higher rate one semester out, and at a lower rate the subsequent fall and spring. The figure below graphically portrays the percentage of the Developmental Studies students who returned the next spring who completed the next spring semester with a grade point average of 2.0 or higher. Through 2007, the trend had been decreasing from a high point of 51.3% for the Fall 2004 DS students, but the 2008 DS students reversed the trend, gaining 6 percentage points over the year before. The 2009 DS students returned to the level of 2007.

Percent of Spring persisters with a Spring GPA of 2.0 or higher

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009


The figure below graphically portrays the percentages presented in the table above of fall cohort Developmental Studies students who return to SCCC during each of the following three semesters. Long term persistence had been quite stable over the previous 10 years, with the exception of the 2007 cohort. The pattern of the retention rates over the last two years mirrors the overall student pattern of increasing rates.

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009

% returning the next spring semester% returning the next fall semester% returning the following spring semester

Looking at the 10 year average, average persistence rates for Developmental Studies students are 1.4 percentage points higher for the first semester after entering SCCC, but 4.4 percentage points lower for both the second and third semesters. The 2009 Developmental Studies students have a one-semester persistence rate 0.9 percentage points higher than the overall 2009 Cohort average.


C. Degree Completion by Developmental Studies Students 1. Developmental Studies Students who earn a degree or certificate. The table below shows the cumulative frequency distribution of Developmental Studies Students in each fall cohort who earned degrees or certificates, by year, for each of the past ten years. The cumulative percentages in the table are graphically summarized in the figure below for those Developmental Studies Students who graduate within three, four, five, or six or more years.

Grad Rates

Within: 1999

Cohort 2000

Cohort 2001

Cohort 2002

Cohort2003

Cohort2004

Cohort2005

Cohort2006

Cohort2007

Cohort 2008

CohortAver-

age 2 years 1.9% 3.4% 1.4% 0.7% 2.2% 2.7% 2.6% 3.5% 0.0% 1.9% 2.0%3 years 9.7% 12.2% 12.8% 7.8% 8.8% 11.6% 9.9% 9.7% 6.7% 9.9%4 years 12.6% 18.2% 15.6% 11.8% 12.2% 15.0% 17.8% 16.0% 14.9%5 years 13.6% 21.6% 17.7% 13.7% 12.7% 16.3% 19.7% 16.5%

6+ years 16.5% 25.0% 20.6% 17.0% 14.9% 17.0% 18.5% The fall cohort graduation rates of Developmental Studies Students summarized above and below are substantially lower than the graduation rates for fall cohorts overall. Overall, the three-year graduation rates for Developmental Studies Students averages 9.9%, 10.1 percentage points lower than the general student population. Given the 2007 cohort’s below average retention rate, the drop in its three-year graduation rate was expected. Similarly, the five-year graduation rates for Developmental Studies Students averages 16.5%, 11.0 percentage points lower than the general student population, although the downward trend has stopped with the 2004 cohort.

Developmental Studies Students: Graduation Rates

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20073 Year Graduation Rate 5 Year Graduation Rate


APPENDICES A. Six-month Graduate Survey Questionnaire B. Graduating Student Survey Questionnaire C. Student Opinion Survey Questionnaire D. Employer Survey Questionnaire E. Non-Credit Program Evaluation Form Note: The appendices have been excluded from the PDF version of this report.

Documents

Outcomes Assessment Report