1. DETF Nov. 2014

2. the pipeline Student Course Progression over 3 and 4-Yr Time Periods CohortTrackingRD 80RD 90RD 115 Course Periodattemptpassattemptpassattemptpass RD 80Fall '11 - Sum '14336228/336 (68%)190165/198 (87%)138110/138 (80%) 68% of cohort 49% of cohort33% of cohort RD 80Fall '10- Sum '14259185/259 (71%)153131/153 (86%)11193/111 (84%) 71% of cohort 51% of cohort 36% of cohort RD 90Fall '11 - Sum '14 1066695/1066 (65%)600504/600 (84%) 65% of cohort47% of cohort RD 90Fall '10 - Sum '14 870608/870 (70%)502424/502 (84%) 70% of cohort 49% of cohort CohortTrackingESOL 262WR 115WR 121WR 122 Course Periodattemptpassattemptpassattemptpassattemptpass ESOL 262Fall '11 - Sum '14160135/160 (84%)105102/105 (97%)9085/90 (94%)2826/28 (93%) 84% of cohort64% of cohort53% cohort16% cohort ESOL 262Fall '10- Sum '14129105/129 (81%)8373/82 (89%)6665/66 (98%)2925/29 (85%) 81% of cohort 57% of cohort 50% of cohort 19% of cohort CohortTrackingWR 80WR 90WR 115WR 121WR 122 Course Periodattemptpassattemptpassattemptpassattemptpassattemptpass WR 80Fall '11- Sum '14410254/410 (62%)209179/209 (86%)155129/155 (83%)11698/116 (84%)5043/50 (86%) 62% of cohort 44% of cohort 31% of cohort 24% of cohort 10% of cohort WR 80Fall '10 - Sum '14358251/358 (70%)206184/206 (89%)165136/165 (82%)11190/111 (81%)5239/52 (75%) 70% of cohort 51% of cohort 38% of cohort 25% of cohort 11% of cohort WR 90Fall '11 -Sum '14 1116766/1116 (69%)640541/640 (85%)450359/450 (80%)166121/166 (73%) 69% of cohort 48% of cohort 32% of cohort 11% of cohort WR 90Fall '10 -Sum '14 966665/966 (69%)522464/522 (89%)384326/384 (85%)175148/175 69% of cohort 48% of cohort 34% of cohort 15% of cohort WR 90Fall '09 - Sum '14 959628/959 (65%)504450/504 (89%)380327/389 (86%)161136/161 (84%) 65% of cohort 47% of cohort 34% of cohort 14% of cohort WR 115Fall '11 - Sum '14 1087753/1087 (69%)632520/632 (82%)279229/279 (82%) 69% of cohort 48% of cohort 21% of cohort WR 115Fall '10 - Sum '14 1050812/1050 (77%)674586/674 (87%)293246/293 (84%) 77% of cohort 56% of cohort 23% of cohort Interpretation Example * Approx 33% of Fall 2011 RD 80 students had successfully completed RD 115 by the end of Summer 2014.

3. acknowledge the things beyond our control…and our data (not that they don’t matter)  Social structures and systemic issues that exist in our students’ lives that prevent them from re-enrolling or succeeding in individual courses or sequences.  Enrollment for the sole purpose of securing financial aid.  Individuals’ varying goals for their educational experience, be they existential or utilitarian, for learning’s sake or for the degree.  Other? My students’ stories…

4. alignment: a different creature of the same mother How are students doing in our classes already? Reenrollment and PNP Data How do DE students do in relation to other students? Pathways into WR 121 What have the AssComms found? Where does alignment work fit in with program structure? Placement Movement between levels

5. potential solutions to the “leaky pipeline” Based on readings and research examined by the DE faculty and DE Task Force: Current: 6 exit points  Collapsing levels (vertical):  Rather than three (80, 90, 115) with overlap, develop two well- aligned levels; OR,  Embed “DE” students into one single level course with supplemental course and/or lab.  Integrating Reading and Writing courses (horizontal).  OTHERS? What do other models offer to reduce exit points? Proposed: 2 exit points

6. integration of reading and writing Pilots or Programs already underway across the district 8o-level linked RD and WR (single instructor) Cascade 90-level linked RD and WR (single instructor) Rock Creek, Sylvania, Cascade 115-level linked RD and WR (two instructors) Sylvania (Winter 2015) Project DEgree Southeast FACULTY AND STUDENT EXPERIENCES

7. supplementary co-requisites and ALC curriculum Current Co-requisites WR 80 + DE 31 (learning habits) Rock Creek, Cascade RD 80 + DE 21 (information literacy) Rock Creek RD 80 + DE 50 (vocabulary) Cascade ALC Curriculum at Sylvania 1 cr, 2 cr, 3 cr options

8. planning: recommendations to the SACs What pilots and when? Considerations Courses must be run at all campuses Faculty must have opportunity to work collaboratively on creating curriculum Courses must be able to be systematically assessed Logistical Issues Solutions

9. proposed DETF working groups Placement In conjunction with AssComms, Student Services, and Registrar, and in accord with recommendations from State DE Workgroup  Develop Reading-based Writing placement method to pilot.  Explore cut-score matrices  Examine alternative pathways besides placement: Smarter Balanced (I can’t believe it’s not a standardized test), transcript evaluation, others.  Examine placement information sharing practices  Explore DE orientation models Research, Funding, and Logistics In conjunction with Institutional Effectiveness, Staff Development, Grants, and Administration  Develop research questions for pilot programs and placement.  Interface with IE to carry out data gathering and interpretation.  Seek funding to support professional development and other program foci.  Organize professional development in support of placement and curriculum groups

10. DETF- supported, SAC-owned working group  Develop assessable CCOGS for experimental courses.  Develop curriculum for pilot courses.  Lead and participate in professional develop of pedagogical practices.  Communicate with SACs about program pilots and models. Curricular Models + Pilots Facilitated by DE and CompLit SACs with input by faculty from ABE, ESOL, and LIB and AssComms