The institution identifies expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services; assesses whether it achieves these outcomes; and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of those results.

   X   Compliance                    ___Partial Compliance                       ___Non-Compliance
 

Narrative

St. Petersburg College (SPC) is in compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1 because it identifies the expected outcomes for its educational programs and its administrative and educational support services, and uses these outcomes to facilitate performance improvement.  The following narrative will describe how the College identifies and uses assessment to verify whether it has achieved these expected outcomes.

Background

At SPC, Institutional Effectiveness is the integrated, systematic, explicit, and documented process of measuring performance against the SPC mission for the purposes of continuous improvement of academic programs, administrative services, and educational support services offered by the College. Each of SPC's units is required to participate in the institutional effectiveness and planning process.

The bottom-line from SPC’s institutional effectiveness and planning process is improvements to the College. Systematic institutional improvement requires a retrospective examination of the various statements of intent that the College leadership articulated at the inception of the planning cycle. At SPC, these intentions take on the form of the “Mission and Goal Statement”, “Institutional Direction and Objective Statement”, and unit/departmental purpose and objectives statements.  For a complete description of all the SPC Institutional Effectiveness Processes as well as the most recent aggregated results, please see the 2006-2007 Institutional Effectiveness Plan document.

Once SPC has identified clearly identified its objectives, it acts through the process of teaching, researching, and managing to accomplish its desired outcomes.  The level of success is then evaluated.  A straightforward assessment process requires a realistic consideration of the intended outcomes that the institution has set and a frank evaluation of the evidence that the institution is achieving that intent.  There is no single right or best way to measure success, improvement, or quality.  Nevertheless, objectives must be established, data related to those objectives must be collected and analyzed, and the results of those findings must be used to improve the institution in the future.

Expected Outcomes for Educational Programs, Administrative Services, and Educational Support Services

The College has clearly defined expected outcomes for both academic programs as well as administrative and educational support services.  These outcomes are the foundation of the quality improvement process at the College.  Only through established outcomes can performance be assessed and evaluated.

Academic outcomes are separated into two categories; general education outcomes and program-specific major learning outcomes (MLOs)

General Education Outcomes:  The College defines general education requirements for the Associate in Arts degree and the Associate in Science degree in Board of Trustees (BOT) rule 6Hx23-4.32.  The general education outcomes are defined in the St. Petersburg College Mission and Goal Statement as follows:

1.      Communicate effectively by demonstrating the ability to speak, listen, read and write in an organized and analytical manner.  (Communication)

2.      Demonstrate effective mathematical skills emphasizing practical problem solving and data interpretation.  (Mathematical Skills)

3.      Utilize the scientific method as it applies to understanding scientific and social phenomena.  (Scientific Method)

4.      Recognize basic scientific principles underlying human influence upon the earth and its inhabitants.  (Human Influence)

5.      Implement appropriate forms of existing and evolving technology for personal, educational, and professional purposes.  (Technology)

6.      Demonstrate the ability to work effectively with others in a variety of settings.  (Teamwork)

7.      Demonstrate an understanding and appreciation of the humanities and fine arts including participating in cultural activities featuring art, music, literature, dance and/or theater.  (Humanities/Art Appreciation)

8.      Participate as informed and responsible citizens in solving social, economic, and political problems in a multicultural and global society. (Informed Citizen)

9.      Recognize ethical issues and dilemmas in the per­sonal, business and social areas of their lives and apply ethical principles and logical problem-solving skills when making ethical decisions.  (Ethics)

10.  Think logically, critically, and creatively to solve prob­lems and make decisions.  (Critical Thinking)

11.  Recognize the importance of lifelong learning process in the pursuit of personal, intellectual and career development.  (Life-long Learning)

Program-Specific Major Learning Outcomes:  Each program is required to establish specific, measurable, student major learning outcomes to assist in providing program focus and a means for evaluating the performance of the program.  Major learning outcomes are used to develop a program’s course sequence map and ensure that each student has been exposed to an adequate amount of the curriculum in order to achieve the program’s major learning objectives (MLOs).  To provide an example of a program’s major learning objective’s, the eight major learning outcomes for the lower division paralegal program are listed below:

Administrative and Educational Support Services:  The administrative and educational support services are separated into three distinct areas; educational support services, student services, and administrative services.  The educational support services area is specific to the effectiveness of library services, information commons, and tutoring services, the student services area is primarily related to the effectiveness of student services, and the administrative services area is focused on the effectiveness of administrative services and the effectiveness of using technology at the College.

Educational Support Services Outcomes:  With a focus on the effectiveness of library services, information commons, and tutoring services, the educational support services outcomes are all related to the support of student learning.  The educational support services outcomes for 2006-2007 are listed below:

Outcome 1.  Students should have access to current print and audiovisual collections.

     Objective 1-1:  Improve collection currency

     Action Items for Objective 1-1:

1.      Continue inventory and purging of all print and audio visual resources and update collection database as measured by a withdraw 3% of collection and an increase of collections by 5%.

2.      Update campus collection development plans and add collection development guidelines for additional baccalaureate programs.

3.      Budget for library materials and equipment, and additional funding for the baccalaureate programs allowing the library to fulfill commitment to develop resources for the four-year programs and to improve general library collections and equipment.

4.      Increase the student survey rating of the currency of collections to a level of 80%.

5.      Continue to improve data collection within the libraries and from the Library Online on specific use of databases, and how the collections are used to aid in collection development.

Objective 1-2:  Increase numbers and types of electronic resources determined by changes in the College curriculum.

Action Items for Objective 1-2:

1.      Order additional NetLibrary titles, electronic journals, and Jstor periodicals

2.      Provide continuing funding support for Library Online

3.      Provide audio book collections

Outcome 2.  Students and Faculty should have the skills to successfully use electronic and traditional library resources

Objective 2-1:  To improve student Satisfaction Rating of the library as reported on the Enrolled Student Survey and the Library Survey.

Action Items for Objective 2-1:

1.      Engage students and Faculty in instructional experiences targeting Library Online, databases, and electronic reserves.

2.      Evaluate electronic reserves  (Docutek vs Angel)

3.      Offer courses online to improve student information literacy skills.

4.      Continue to create online library tutorials for Learning Management System  (Angel)

5.      Increase number of class-based instructional sessions.

6.      Improve student rating of reference service to 80% ‘very satisfied’ from 75%‘very satisfied’

7.      Increase student use of libraries from 86% to 90%. Evaluate factors that led to a decline in usage of 3% in 2005/06.

8.      Document library use of students in special populations:  Title III, Honors, Collegiate High School, Office of Services for Students with Disabilities (OSSD), and Baccalaureate programs.

Outcome 3.  Students and residents of Pinellas County should have access to library resources. 

Objective 3-1:  To improve access to library resources of the Downtown Center students and Faculty, the Midtown Center students and Faculty and the University Partnership Center students and Faculty, and joint use library users.

Action Items for Objective 3-1:

1.      Continue to improve library resources and services to Downtown and Midtown Centers

2.      Continue to improve library resources and services to University Partnership Center (UPC)

3.      Continue to provide library resources and services for users of joint use libraries

Outcome 4.  Staff should have adequate competency and be provided adequate levels of service

Objective 4-1:  To continue staff training in the use of the new library management system, and to provide opportunities for professional development.

Action Items for Objective 4-1:

1.      Continue training in Aleph systems.

2.      Provide opportunities for staff to attend workshops, conferences, and courses

3.      Provide training in use of technology

4.      Require all librarians and adjunct librarians to participate in Angel training

Outcome 5.  All students should have access to library services and programs

Objective 5-1:  To provide specialized library services and programs for targeted student groups

Action Items for Objective 5-1:

1.      Continue to develop and implement plan for student engagement for Title III

2.      Continue to develop and implement plan for student engagement for Honors   Program

3.      Continue to develop and implement plan for student engagement for Collegiate High School

4.      Continue to develop and implement plan for student engagement for students with disabilities

Student Services Outcomes:  The student services area is primarily related to the effectiveness of student services.  Previous year survey results are used to establish specific areas for improvement.  The focus for the 2006-2007 outcomes was in the area of student with disabilities.  The identified outcomes for the 2006-2007 report are shown below.

Outcome 1.  Students should have a general level of satisfaction with the services for students with disabilities

Objective 1-1: To maintain an overall satisfaction rate at a minimum score of 4.29 and to improve each area of the evaluation by .2 points.

Action items for Objective 1-1:

1.      A Learning Specialists’ meeting will be held to review lowest sub scores at each campus before March, 2006.

2.      The Office of Services for Students with Disabilities (OSSD) committee will determine areas on which to focus and will outline strategies to improve lowest scores Collegewide.

3.      Each Learning Specialist will work with campus personnel and resources to improve lowest scores on his/her campus.

4.      Student Survey will be administered August 2006, and the results will be the documentation of this objective.  This survey will be redesigned to correspond with the methodology of the Collegewide student survey, reflecting both the importance of each area of evaluation to the student and the students’ satisfaction with the particular area.

5.      With the increase of students with specific disabilities that require more assistance, such as psychological, visual and deaf and hard of hearing disabilities, recommendations for changes in staffing and the most effective use of professional Learning Specialists will continue to be explored, using the State disability services staffing formula.

Outcome 2.  Students with disabilities should have an adequate opportunity to receive a college education.

Objective 2-1:  To maintain at minimum the same graduation rate as achieved in 2005.

Action items for Objective 2-1:

1.      Academic advising - academic advisors and counselors will be offered individual or small group disability awareness training.  Outlines and dates of contacts will be recorded.

2.      Progress monitoring - Learning Specialists will see that 85% of the students currently registered this year are contacted by phone or office visit.  Calls/contacts will be documented in each student's folder or in a central log, depending on campus procedure.

3.      Professional tutors will attend at least 2 trainings about teaching learning strategies, rather than content, in an effort to make students more independent learners and more academically successful.  Outlines of workshops will be collected with attendance sheets.

4.      Hours for a current part-time Learning Specialist position will be increased to provide a higher level of service for students.

Outcome 3.  Guidelines used by the Office of Services for Students with Disabilities (OSSD) should be as current as possible with state and Federal regulations.

Objective 3-1:  Review College wide rules and procedures and update notebooks and complete updated notebook by May 2006.

Action items for Objective 3-1:

1.      Departmental guidelines review will become a standing agenda item for OSSD committee meetings.  As revisions/additions are made, rules and procedures will be added to notebooks.

2.      Updated notebooks will be compiled for reference by Learning Specialists and one copy of this will serve as the artifact for this objective.

Outcome 4.  Faculty will be exposed to workshops on how to support student with disabilities and special needs.

Objective 3-1:  Increase offerings of training for staff, including information on Assistive Technology.

Action items for Objective 3-1:

1.      Each Learning Specialist will offer at least one training based on the needs of his/her particular campus Faculty.  These needs will be assessed through meetings with the Associate Provosts, academic program directors and other relevant personnel.

2.      Include at least one workshop session during the annual Narrowing the Gulf for Disadvantaged Students conference that deals with disability issues. 

3.      Submit the outline of the training and any pertinent artifacts to go into a Collegewide documentation folder for Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).

4.      With funds received by a three year demonstration grant from the Department of Education, Faculty awareness will be increased through online workshops that will be made available in October 2006.  These workshops will be located on an online Disability Awareness Resource Center that will include Frequently Asked Questions, links to other resources, information about the Americans with Disabilities Act and how it applies to higher education, and campus contacts.  SPC will also be identifying two - three Faculty from each campus to serve as ‘champions’ on their campuses.  These champions will receive extensive training in disability issues and in effective ways to market and/or advocate for a cause with their colleagues.  They will work with the Project in encouraging their colleagues to access the Website and participate in the workshops.

Administrative Services Outcomes: The administrative services area is primarily focused on the effectiveness of administrative services and the effectiveness of using technology at the College. In general, students should have a general level of satisfaction with thirty-two listed services/offices. Previous year survey results are used to establish specific areas for improvement. The identified outcomes for the 2006-2007 report are shown below.

Outcome 1.  Students should have a general level of satisfaction with College’s parking services.

Objective 1-1:  Improve the performance gap for student parking on the Enrolled Student Survey.

Action items for Objective 1-1:

1.      Scattered Parking: St. Pete/Gibbs.  The vacation of 69^th Street is now complete.  Parking lot construction is continuing on the west side of campus.  The next phase of the SPG parking lot renovation will be the western most lot, scheduled to begin during 2006-2007.  These lots will provide additional parking for the entire west side of campus.  Scattered parking has been in place on the north side of the administration building and has been successful.

2.      Scattered Parking:  Health Education Center (HEC). SPC has acquired 2½ acres of contiguous space which is now available for parking.

3.      Scattered Parking: Clearwater.  The new “scattered parking” system is in place for late afternoon and evening hours at the Clearwater campus.  There are often many vacant faculty and staff spaces during the late afternoon and evening hours.  Previously these spaces have been off limits to students.  Now the spaces are available for students during these hours.

Outcome 2.  Students should have a general level of satisfaction with College’s bookstore services.

Objective 2-1:  Improve the performance gap on the Enrolled Student Survey for bookstore services.

Action items for Objective 2-1:

Several Faculty members have agreed, in science and math, to use the same books for multiple years, thus saving students money by making more used books available and extending the life of the existing editions.

1.      The Seminole bookstore will be enlarged and will have its own manager to better serve the eCampus as well as traditional students.  The textbook needs of both campuses will be better served, especially the eCampus whose textbooks are now available only at the home campus bookstores.

2.      The “Books Now” capability in Peoplesoft will allow students to buy books for classes online, immediately upon registration.  A link to the appropriate text at Follett will appear on the Peoplesoft screen at the time of registration.

3.      Implement e-adoptions, encouraging Faculty and bookstore managers to work together to have book lists of required texts earlier so that books will be ordered sooner and will be in stock when students need them.

4.      The book “line of credit”, enables financial aid recipients to get textbooks in person or online before their financial aid is released.

5.      Bookstore summit meetings are continuing to discover additional ways to reduce the increasingly high cost of textbooks for students.  These meetings are focusing on standardizing texts for general education classes, using textbooks longer and unbundling the textbook packages (where CDs and the textbook are both required to be purchased by the student).  Participants include senior administration, students, bookstore representatives, program directors and Faculty.

6.      Build the new bookstore on the Tarpon Springs campus in the Olympia building to be available by Spring 2006.

7.      Continue the bookstore sponsored customer service training for their front line representatives.  This will improve the assistance they give students who are looking for particular texts.  This will also aid in the technical aspects of dealing with independent agencies such as the VA and Vocational Rehab regarding vouchers and payments.

8.      Continue improving the bookstore Web site to reduce the number of screens a student must navigate to locate a text and purchase it.

9.      Continue periodic meetings of the bookstore focus group consisting of students, Faculty, administration, and bookstore representatives.  This group, at an operations level, identifies and takes corrective action on bookstore issues that come up over the academic year and adversely affect student satisfaction.

Outcome 3.  Students should have a general level of satisfaction with College’s food services.

Objective 3-1:  Improve the student’s opinion of the SPC food services as recorded by the enrolled student survey.

Action items for Objective 3-1:

1.      Collegewide – With the advent of the EpiCenter, a new distinctly attractive café opened this year with a new food service.  The food service provider services both EPI and the services building on site.  In addition to SPC students, this café will serve the corporate training clients and others jointly occupying the facility.  Hours are extended to meet student’s needs in the evening as well as breakfast.  The new food service also provides food services and catering by campus.

2.      SP/Gibbs – The new cafeteria opened this year adjacent to the instructional facilities.  This centrally located cafeteria serves both the joint use library as well as the entire SPG campus.  Outdoor seating is available.  A new foodservice vendor is in place and providing greater selection and better quality.

3.      Tarpon Springs Center – Proceeding with construction of a new cafeteria in the Olympia building similar to the Hard Drive Café in Clearwater; except larger, with expanded seating and food options to be available by spring, 2006.  In the mean time vending has been expanded to include more hot food and a wider selection of cold food and snacks.

4.      Seminole – The student services director will continue to offer new menu items based upon ongoing review at the Gigabyte Café.

5.      Clearwater – Offerings will continue to be expanded at the Hard Drive Café.

6.      HEC – Negotiations for a new contractual food service provider are underway and will be concluded this spring.

Assessment Activities for Educational, Administrative, and Educational Support Units

Assessment at the College is on-going and intended to support quality improvement efforts.  The Institutional Effectiveness Processes at the College focus assessment in four distinct areas; academic, educational support, student support, and administrative services.

Educational Assessment:  Educational programs use a variety of assessment methods to improve their effectiveness. Assessment and evaluation measures are used at various levels throughout the institution to provide Provosts, Deans, Program Managers and Faculty vital information on the success of recent efforts.  While the focus of a particular educational assessment area may change, the assessment strategies remain consistent and are integrated to the fullest extent possible.

The focus for the Associate of Arts degrees is targeted on students continuing on to four-year degree programs as opposed to the Associate of Applied Science and Associate of Science and Baccalaureate programs which target students seeking employable skills. The General Education-based assessments focus on the general learning outcomes from all degree programs, while the Program Review process looks at the viability of the specific programs.  The College has developed an Educational Assessment Website to serve as repository for all SPC’s educational outcomes reports and to systematically manage the College’s assessment efforts.

While the College uses a multi-measure approach when assessing its programs, specific direct measures have been created for each academic area. These specific direct measures include the General Education outcome assessments designed to measure each individual General Education Outcome as listed earlier in the document, the academic program assessment report (APAR) designed to assess the specific major learning outcomes, and the comprehensive academic program reviews (CAPRs) which are designed to evaluate the over picture of a program’s quality and viability. The contents of these reports and reviews are listed in the table below. The academic program viability review (APVR) indicated in the table below is a recent enhancement to the evaluation/assessment process – having replaced a previous ad hoc assessment known as the First-cut, Second-cut, Third-cut Productivity Report.

A Comparison of the Major Academic Outcomes Assessment Reports

Notes:

1) SACS Compliance Requirement

2) Florida DOE Recommendation

3) BOT Rule 6Hx23-3.04 Requirement

General education assessments (see section 3.5.1) and academic program assessments have been conducted according to a three-year cycle.  Comprehensive academic program reviews were traditional conducted according to a five-year cycle and have just recently been changed to a three-year cycle to better integrate with the program assessments.  A diagram of the integrated three-year cycle for the Academic Program Assessment Report (APAR) and the Comprehensive Academic Program Review (CAPR) is provided below.

                   Three-Year Academic Program Assessment Cycle

In addition to the internal measures, nationally normed assessments, such as the Educational Testing Service’s (ETS) test for General Education (e.g., Measure of Academic Proficiency and Progress [MAPP]), state licensure exams, and Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) are used as outside benchmarks for measuring student learning.  The College has developed an Educational Assessment Web site to serve as repository for all SPC’s educational outcomes reports and to systematically manage the College’s assessment efforts.

Educational Support Services Assessments:  Educational support services assessment is conducted on a yearly cycle.  Educational support services assessment uses student surveys, which are an essential part of the evaluation process.  Many of the survey instruments (with updated questions) have been used by the College for years.  Students are surveyed at different points in their educational career to determine changes or improvements that could be implemented to enhance the institutional and learning experience.  The specific survey related to the educational support services are listed below:

§         Annual Library Survey

§         Enrolled Student Survey

§         Commons/Learning Support Center Survey

§         Florida Community College Assessment Report

Administrative Services Assessment: Administrative Services are also conducted on a yearly cycle.  Surveys are used to judge the performance of administrative services as it relates to students, college staff, and administration.  The Administrative Services Oversight Group reviews the survey reports annually and determines whether intervention based on survey findings is required.

Student Services Assessment: Student surveys are also an essential part of the student services evaluation process. Students are surveyed at different points in their educational career to determine their perceptions in order to implement changes and improvements that will enhance the institutional and learning experience. The Students Support Services Oversight Group reviews survey reports annually and determine whether intervention based on survey findings is required. These assessments include the following surveys:

Broad-based Participation in Assessment Activities

There is broad-based participation of Faculty, Program Directors, and Deans in all educational assessment activities.  Academic assessments are Faculty driven and are conducted in conjunction with Program Directors and College assessment staff. Each Program Director or dean works closely with the Institutional Effectiveness staff and the program’s full-time Faculty to develop assessments that provide meaningful data on student learning.

Other departments, such as the Library, Counseling Services, Technology, Budget, and Institutional Effectiveness, have developed internal surveys that provide more detailed information on satisfaction with the services provided to students, Faculty, and staff than can be gained from the more general Enrolled Student Survey, which measures student satisfaction with all student services.  Other data elements include:

§         Entering Student Survey

§         Graduating Student Survey

§         Recent Alumni Survey

§         State Accountability Measures

§         Institutional Core Effectiveness Indicators Report

§         FACTBOOK

§         Research Briefs

§         Educational Outcomes Assessment Reports

§         State Reports

§         Other Departmental Specific Surveys

Data are gathered continuously (or annually) and are analyzed and presented by the Institutional Effectiveness staff in series of workshops to key College personnel.  This includes members of the College’s Four Oversight Groups during the strategic planning process.  This distribution of assessment data is intended to familiarize key decision-makers about the availability and interpretation of performance data.  The four oversight groups review the data from their area based on prior year’s goals and objectives.

Below is a short description of the four oversight groups.

·         The Educational Oversight Group members are appointed by the College President. Their focus area is to review key educational outcomes information including, but not limited to, “Educational Outcome Assessment Reports”, “State Accountability Measures Reports” and Student Survey Reports.  The group leader/chairperson is appointed by the President.

·         The Educational Support Services Oversight Group is an ad hoc working group.  Its focus area is to review key information concerning the effectiveness of library services, information commons, and tutoring services.  The group leader/chairperson is the Director of Library Services.

·         The Student Services Oversight Group is an ad hoc working group. Its focus area is to review key information concerning the effectiveness of student services.  The group leader/chairperson is the Vice President of Educational and Student Services.

·         The Administrative Services Oversight Group is an ad hoc working group.  Its focus area is to review key information concerning the effectiveness of administrative services and the effectiveness of using technology at the College.  The group leader/chairperson is the Vice President of Business Services.

The purpose of these meetings is multi-dimensional.  First, the groups evaluate whether the institution successfully achieved its desired outcomes from the previous institutional effectiveness and planning cycle.  A wide variety of information is reviewed to ensure that the mission, goals and institutional objectives of the College have been accomplished.  Secondly; the group looks at very specific information to judge the success of quality enhancement initiatives from the previous year’s cycle.

Next, the most current environmental information is used to formulate quality improvement initiatives for the next institutional effectiveness and planning cycle.  The collaboration between the various units/departments in this oversight group format allows for broad base participation and creates a strong buy-in to SPC’s assessment and continuous improvement efforts.

Use of Programmatic Outcomes for Improvement

A number of programmatic outcomes are used to drive SPC’s performance improvement process.  Many of these take the form of statewide accountability measures.  Statewide Accountability information is used for evaluating system performance (assessment of improvement, quality, and efficiency), performance funding, and in the annual evaluation of the College President.  While the State of Florida has established statewide benchmarks for evaluation of performance, the College has established its own more rigorous benchmarks to support College level performance improvement.  The statewide accountability measures (SAM) and their associated bench marks are listed below:

1. Prior High School Graduates Enrollment (Measure 1 – Part 1)

The number and percent of prior year Florida public high school graduates from the community college service area by ethnic category that were enrolled at the College in the same service area.  The information is displayed by degree-seeking and non-degree seeking students and includes a distribution by college (28) and a system-wide total.

Statewide Benchmark:  Increase the percent of first-time-in-college (FTIC) minority student enrollments until they are equal to the previous year’s high school graduates.

SPC Target:  Increase black enrollment as a percent of pervious year’s high school graduates to 35%.

2. Retention and Success Rate Report (Measure 1 – Part 2)

The status after four years of FTIC, Associate of Arts (AA), Associate of Science (AS), and Associate of Applied Science (AAS), degree-seeking students who earned at least 18 college-level credits.  For Post-Secondary Vocational Certificate (PSVC) and Applied Technology Diploma (ATD) students, status was at the end of three years.  Also, the report shows a distribution by college (28) and system-wide total, segmented by ethnicity, full-time/part-time status, and program area (AA, AS, AAS, PSVC, ATD).  Below are some definitions of what was represented in the SAM report:

• Cohort - a group of students who were FTIC, degree-seeking, and earned at least 18 college-level credits during the tracking period.
• Graduated – Of the cohort, the number and percent who graduated.
• Number Enrolled in Good Academic Standing - Of the cohort, excluding the number the graduated, the number of students still enrolled at the institution with a GPA at or above 2.0.
• Number Not Enrolled in Good Academic Standing - Of the cohort, excluding the number the graduated, the number of students still enrolled at the institution with a GPA below 2.0.
• Left in Good Standing – Of the cohort, excluding the number the graduated, the number of students not enrolled at the institution with a GPA at or above 2.0.
• Retention Rate  - (Number Graduated + Number Enrolled in Good Standing + Number Enrolled Not in Good Standing) divided by the Total Cohort Population.
• Success Rate  - (Number Graduated + Number Enrolled in Good Standing + Left in Good Standing) divided by the Total Cohort Population.

Statewide Benchmark:  Retention Rate = 70%, Success Rate = 80%

SPC Target:  Retention Rate = 65%, Success Rate = 90%

3.  AA Degree Transfer Performance in the State University System (SUS) Report (Measure 2)

Performance of AA degree completers or graduates who transferred to the state universities the following year. T he SAM report focuses solely on the performance of native students who received their complete education from one institution.  Also, the report shows a distribution by college (28), system wide total, segmented by ethnicity and former college preparatory/non-college preparatory status.

Statewide Benchmark:  70% of AA student who transfer to the SUS will perform at a grade point average (GPA) of 2.5 or higher.

SPC Target:  70% of AA student who transfer to the SUS will perform at a GPA of 2.5 or higher.

4. Licensure Passing Rate Report (Measure 3 – Part 1)

Shows the number of students tested, number of students passed, and the percentage of students passed for each appropriate vocational program licensure exam by college.  The SAM information for this measure has been sporadic and local information was used to supplement (2006-2007 SPC Fact Book Table 37).

Statewide Benchmark:  90% of all students sitting for licensure exams will pass.

SPC Target:  85% of all students sitting for licensure exams will pass.

5. Vocational Program Placement Report (Measure 3 – Part 2)

Number and percentage of completers (graduates) placed according to state-level follow up which includes college supplemental placement data.  Students are considered to be placed if they are continuing their education, in the military, and working in a field related to their education.  The SAM information for this measure has been sporadic and local information was used to supplement (2006-2007 SPC Fact Book Table 38).

Statewide Benchmark:  90% of all students who complete a program will be placed.

SPC Target:  90% of all students who complete a program will be placed.

6. College Preparatory Success Report (Measure 4 – Part 1)

Number and percent of FTIC degree-seeking students who took an entry-level test.  Of those students, the report shows the number and percent who failed some portion of their entrance exam, how many of those students enrolled in a college preparatory course (for area needed), with the number and percentage of those who passed the highest level college preparatory course within two years meeting the standards for admission into college level courses.  Also, the SAM report shows a distribution by college (28) and system wide total and by ethnicity.

Statewide Benchmark:  Students who need remediation pass the highest-level college preparatory course at the following rates:  reading – 65%, writing – 68%, math – 50%.

SPC Target:  Students who need remediation pass the highest-level college preparatory course at the following rates:  reading – 70%, writing – 70%, math – 50%.

7. College Preparatory Retention and Success Rate Report (Measure 4 – Part 2)

The status after four years of first-time-in-college (FTIC) AA, AS, and AAS degree-seeking students who earned at least 18 college-level credits.  For PSVC and ATD students, status was at the end of three years.  Also, the SAM report shows a distribution by college (28) and system-wide, segmented by ethnicity, full-time/part-time status, and program area (AA, AS, AAS, PSVC, ATD).

Statewide Benchmark:  Retention Rate = 70%, Success Rate = 75%

SPC Target:  Retention Rate = 70%, Success Rate = 80%

8. CLAST Performance Report (Measure 5)

College Level Academic Skills Test (CLAST) results for native students who completed 60 or more college-level credits. This includes students who attempted either the CLAST or had a CLAST alternative and the percent meeting the CLAST requirements. The SAM report shows a distribution by college (28) and System wide total, segmented by student who used CLAST alternatives, students who attempted the CLAST, and the combination of the two. Please note CLAST alternatives are institutionally determined.

Statewide Benchmark:  80% of all students who completed 60 credit hours pass all parts of CLAST.

SPC Target:  75% of all students who completed 60 credit hours pass all parts of CLAST

In addition to the use for statewide accountability measures, the College has enhanced its program review model to include a number of programmatic outcomes.  The comprehensive academic program review (CAPR) is conducted on a three-year cycle and includes programmatic measures such as:

1)      Program Performance Measures

a)      Enrollments

b)      Productivity

c)      Graduates

d)      Success (grade distributions)

e)      Full-time/Adjunct Faculty Ratio

2)      Program Profitability Measures

a)      Relative Profitability Index (RPI)

3)      Program Academic Outcomes

4)      Stakeholder Program Perceptions

a)      Student Survey of Instruction (SSI)

b)      Technical Education Advisory Committee Minutes Summaries

c)      Recent Graduate Survey Results

d)      Employer Survey Results

5)      Program’s Occupation Profile

a)      Occupation Description

b)      US, State, and Area Wage Information

c)      US, State, and Area Trend Information

d)      State Accountability Measures

Using Assessment Results to Improve Educational Programs, Administrative Services, and Educational Support Services

The institutional objectives are developed through the evaluation of the previous year’s assessments.  This includes educational outcomes, institutional surveys, and departmental-specific assessments. Individual assessments results are reviewed by the respective oversight group which in turn aggregates the information and presents recommendations to the President’s Cabinet.  These recommendations are evaluated and routinely summarized in the form of the Institutional Objectives (IOs).

Four examples are presented below that demonstrate the effectiveness using assessment results to improve educational programs, administrative services, and educational support services.

Educational Assessment Example:  Educational Assessment results are continually used by SPC staff to improve educational outcomes.  Educational assessment data was used to develop th