1. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 Equity for All Institutional Responsibility for Student Success Project

2. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 Equity for All Team Dr. Marion Y. Winters – Team Leader Andrew LaManque – Principal Researcher Jennifer Myhre – Faculty, Social Science Gregory Anderson – Director of Student Success Center Hassan Bourgoub – Faculty, Mathematics Lydia Hearn – President, Academic Senate Toni Forsyth – Faculty, Language Arts Kevin Glapion – Counseling Faculty, Disabled Student Services Shirley Kawazoe – Transfer Center Coordinator Duane Kubo – Dean of International/ Intercultural Studies Letty Wong – Faculty, ESL Cynthia Dowling – Administrative Assistant, Office of Diversity Alicia Dowd – Research Associate, Center for Urban Education, USC Edlyn Pena – Research Assistant, Center for Urban Education, USC

3. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 What is the Equity for All Project? It is a joint project with USC sponsored by USC’s Center for Urban Education, The Lumina Foundation for Education and The Chancellor’s Office for California Community Colleges. Equity for All seeks to close the equity gap in post secondary educational outcomes, particularly among students of color. De Anza College is one of ten (10) colleges participating in this project.

4. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 Goals and Background Equity for All focuses on defining the problem through an in–depth examination of institutional data disaggregated by ethnicity. The philosophy suggests that: “…campus members, at all levels of responsibility and influence, have the potential to become agents of equitable educational outcomes.”* * See Appendix A of the Equity for All Report. *

5. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 Indicators of Institutional Success Adapted from the “Equity Scorecard”* Student Access: access to courses, programs and paths to transfer and/or degrees/certificates. Success: students’ successful completion of important courses in Math and English, and successful obtainment of a degree or transfer to a four institution. Persistence: continued attendance from one term to the next or from one year to the next year. Excellence: higher level academic accomplishments such as enrollment in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics courses, and transfer to selective institutions. Note: The measures selected are by no means exhaustive, but together they begin to paint a picture of educational success by ethnicity and highlight where there are achievement gaps. * See Appendix C in the Equity for All Report for USC’s Equity Scorecard measures.

6. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 Selected Indicators for De Anza College This first stage focuses on the indicators of: student access and student success. In subsequent phases, the Team will ask that the campus address questions relating to: student persistence and excellence

7. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 College-wide Course Success Rates by Ethnicity - last 5 years Fig. 8 Course success: number of students receiving an A,B,C, or Pass grade divided by total number of students receiving a grade. Asian and White student success rates continue to be above all other ethnic groups.

8. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 Course Sequence Persistence Figures 10 and 11 track the progress of cohorts of students in English writing (EWRT) and mathematics (MATH) through a sequence of courses over 16 quarters. These charts examine the percent of students who attempt and complete their first course and subsequent courses in a particular basic skill sequence or pathway. These figures examine only one possible path in each area, the sequence with the largest number of students.

9. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 Math Course Success Rates by Ethnicity Fig.10 Note: Ethnic Groups of less than 25 are not graphed.

10. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 EWRT Course Success Rates by Ethnicity Fig.11 Note: Ethnic Groups of less than 25 are not graphed.

11. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 UC Transfers by Ethnicity Figure 13 shows transfers to the University of California on a cross-sectional basis. For 2004-05, more than 50% (318 students) of the transfers were Asian/Pacific Islanders/or Filipino Less than 6% (36 students) were Hispanic. Fig. 13

12. 19% of Asian and 13% of White students transferred within three years compared to only 9% of Latino and African American students. Transfer Goal vs. Transfer Outcome 34%Total 31%Decline to State 32%White 33%Other 50%Native American 39%Hispanic/Latino 42%Filipino//Pacific Isl. 32%Asian/Asian American 47%African American Transfer GoalEthnicity Fall 2001 SRTK* Cohort Initial Educational Goal by Ethnicity The first figure shows the initial educational goal of each ethnic group. A higher percentage of African American, Filipino and Latino students chose transfer than Asian or White students. 15%Total 15%Decline to State 13%White 14%Other 0%Native American 9%Hispanic/Latino 11%Filipino//Pacific Isl. 19%Asian/Asian American 9%African American Transfer in 3 yrs.Ethnicity Fall 2001 SRTK* Cohort Transferred by Spring 2004, by Ethnicity The second figure shows differences in transfer outcomes.

13. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 Improvement Targets For each Equity for All indicator, the goal is to close the achievement gap to no more than a five percentage point difference between each ethnic group. This goal matches the objectives delineated in the college’s Educational Master Plan and the Campus Equity Plan.

14. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 Questions for Discussion by the Campus Community Why does the percentage of students transferring to the University of California vary among ethnic groups? Why is the participation in transfer level English and Mathematics courses for some ethnic groups, especially Latinos, less than might be expected based on their representation in the overall De Anza student population? Why are there differences in course success rates among ethnic groups in basic skills English and Mathematics courses?

15. De Anza Equity for All, Spring 2006 For each question suggested for discussion, the campus is asked to examine the following: What are the factors that contribute to these phenomena? What can we do about this as an institution?