1. Brief introduction to AtD Report on the work from the AtD Data Team Presentation to AGC prepared by: Janice Balyeat, Joan Gearns, Alejandro Saldivar, Ric Underhile & Mike Vargo October 12 th, 2010

2.  AtD is a multiyear national initiative to help more community college students succeed.  It involves: ◦ Over 100 institutions in 22 states ◦ Nearly 1 million students  Particularly focused on student groups that traditionally have faced significant barriers to success, including students of color and low-income students. - AtD Field Guide

3. Stage 1: Review student outcome data to identify underachieving cohorts (Gap analysis). (Data Team: Aug/Sept 2010) Stage 2: Identify factors impeding student success Stage 3: Design interventions impeding success. (Project Teams: October 2010 – March 2011) Stage 4: Implement interventions and evaluate their effectiveness. (March 2011 and Ongoing)

4.  Amy Koning (Interim Associate Dean – Workforce Development)  Becky Brinks (Faculty – Child Development)  Brent Spitler (Faculty – Business)  Deb Nordman (Faculty – Rad Tech)  Donna Kragt (Dean of Institutional Research and Planning)  Fatima Nieves (Counselor)  Gilda Gely (Provost)  John Cowles (Associate Dean – Student Affairs)  Linda Spoelman (Faculty Director of Developmental Education)  Lisa Gloege (Faculty – Economics)  Luanne Keizer (Faculty – Computer Applications)  Mike Light (Faculty – History)  Ric Underhile (Associate Dean – Interdisciplinary Studies )  Robert Luenk (Faculty – Biology)  Shanna Goff (Faculty – Mathematics)  Yumiko Watanaba (Professional Tutor - Mathematics)  Alejandro Saldivar (Faculty – Mathematics)  Janice Balyeat (Faculty - English)  Joan Gerns (Faculty – English)  Bernie Manker (Faculty – Spanish)  Mike Vargo (Interim Associate Dean - Arts and Sciences)

5. Charge of Data Team: To review student outcomes to determine those areas where the greatest achievement gaps exist. Data Team conducted “gap analyses” of:  Developmental course completion data  Gateway course completion data  Retention data  Graduation data

6. Gap analyses were conducted using the following segment groupings:  Race/Ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Non-resident Alien, No Response)  Age (Less than 20, 20-24, 25+)  Gender (F, M)  Pell Recipient (Yes, No)

7.  There were 10 unique courses where overall success rate is more than 5% points below overall average of 70.5%. ◦ E.g, MA104 (56%), EN100 (56%), CO101 (61%)  There were 24 segment group “gaps” that were more than 20% below the overall success rate for the course. ◦ E.g.,  All Native American students taking CO101  All students 20-24 taking COM131  New African American students taking PY201

8. 1. African American student achievement gaps 2. Hispanic American student achievement gaps 3. Achievement gaps for first time students who delayed entry to college (ages 20-24) 4. Low overall course success rates for Math 104/107 5. Low overall course success rates for English 100/101/102 6. Low Overall graduation rates 7. Low success rates in all Dev Ed courses

9.  GRCC Stage 2 Project Teams have been formed and have begun their work. ◦ Charge of Stage 2: Identify factors impeding student success in identified groups  These teams will report back when they have reached their conclusions

10. Questions? Comments? Questions? Comments?