1. The collection of our students’ demographic data is problematic as a result of our students’ limited and varying understanding of English as well as their varying comfort levels with divulging personal information that many in our student population fear might be used against them. With that in mind, here is what we make of the data available to us:
Analysis: Most of our students are women: our current percentage of 67% women has remained consistent over the past three years. This is primarily due to the fact that traditional gender roles are often observed among many recent immigrants, and the men are much more likely to work (and therefore have less time for school) upon first coming to the United States.

2. Analysis: Ethnicity and language differences among our students make us the most diverse program in the college. However, 60% of our students do not report their ethnicity. This may at first seem surprising until we examine the ethnicity categories that are provided as options at intake. These categories do not adequately or accurately represent our students. They were penned with American students in mind, not immigrants.
For example, a student may be from Africa but, not being American, would not necessarily identify as “African-American.” And a student from Brazil (where Portuguese is the primary language) might not identify as “Latino/Hispanic.” Anecdotally, we have seen students from South America who have identified as “Native American.” And consider students from Armenia, India or Turkey, which are Asian countries. Should these students identify as “Asian”? When you couple the lack of clarity in these categories (from our students’ perspective) with the limited English that most of our students have at the time of intake (as well as the fear some of them have that reporting their ethnicity could prove problematic in the Trump era), it’s ultimately no surprise to us that most of our students simply don’t report.
Perhaps rethinking ethnicity intake for ESL students would provide more useful data.

3. Analysis: The Prior Education data demonstrates that, in addition to the wide ethnic, language and cultural diversity of our student population, there is also a vast range of prior educational experience. Some of our students are not only learning English but are also learning literacy skills for the first time. Meanwhile, a significant portion of our students report a secondary-education or higher. Eighteen percent have a high-school (or equivalent) education and an additional 15% have prior associates, bachelors or graduate-level degrees. And many of these well-educated students bring a wealth of professional work experience as well.

4. Analysis: The majority of our students who reported work status are working or are seeking work. This is yet another indication that we serve “non-traditional” students. And among those who report Out of Labor Force (which is defined as not working/not currently looking for work), many intend to look for work once they have acquired enough English.

5. As this table shows, NSC’s ESL program ranks number 8 among Washington’s community and technical college ESL programs, which doesn’t come as a surprise given that we are located in the largest metropolitan area in the state.

6. This is the data (per ESL level) for selected nearby institutions
This is the data (per ESL level) for selected nearby institutions. What stands out from this data is the significant drop off in our numbers between levels 1 and 2. Is this an indication that we are not effectively retaining level 1 students? Or that we are meeting with less success than our neighboring programs in moving our students from level 1 to level 2? Further investigation is necessary.

8. Having completed this program review process, we have identified the following as our primary goals:
-Update our supplemental course MCOs to integrate the College & Career Readiness Standards for Adult Education.
-Create and launch our new IT and Electronics/Robotics I-BEST programs (and related onramp bridge classes.)
-Plan and implement the change in our program from a 20-hour workload to 18 hours.
-Pursue the procedure that exists for reducing the cap size of our classes.
-Work with facilities to secure classrooms that more consistently meet the needs of our classes.