Skip repetitive navigational links
View: Next message | Previous More Hitsmessage
Next in topic | Previous More Hitsin topic
Next by same author | Previous More Hitsby same author
Previous page (October 2009, 2) | Back to main LRNASST-L page
Join or leave LRNASST-L (or change settings)
Reply | Post a new message
Search
Log in
Options:   Chronologically | Most recent first
Proportional font | Non-proportional font

Subject:

Whose Metrics?...annual meeting of the Association of Community College Trustees

From:

Dan Kern <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 07:16:03 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (261 lines)

Whose Metrics? 


October 12, 2009 

SAN FRANCISCO -- Accountability was much discussed here last week at the
annual meeting of the Association of Community College Trustees, and
everyone agreed - in theory - that institutions should have to report on
measures that demonstrate their quality or lack thereof. There were
presentations on, and general support expressed for, the effort started by
the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Lumina Foundation for Education
-- announced just before the meeting -- to develop a voluntary national
accountability system for
<http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/07/accountability>  community
colleges.

But what should the measures be? Two educators from Oregon started a
discussion of their state's accountability by asking the trustees in the
audience how they could tell if their institutions were successful. The
answers were varied and full of nuance, with trustees talking about the
different groups their institutions serve and the range of goals for
students and communities. Then the Oregonians asked the trustees if they
thought their legislators understood those complicated measures. The crowd
laughed and some suggested that maybe 10 percent did, if that.

The aim of the question wasn't to dispute the need of state policy makers to
have measures they understand and trust. Rather, Oregon's community college
leaders have decided they need measures beyond what the state is asking for
if they are to meet the state goals.

Camille Preus, commissioner of the Oregon Department of Community Colleges
and Workforce Development, discussed intense efforts over the last three
years in her state to create the right measures.

The larger context in Oregon -- as in the United States -- is a goal of
increasing college attainment. President Obama has set a goal of all
Americans obtaining at least one year of postsecondary education. In Oregon,
legislators, the governor, and state boards that oversee education have
agreed on a goal, by 2025, of having 40 percent of the adult public have a
bachelor's degree, 40 percent having an associate degree or a certificate
recognized by employers, and the remaining 20 percent at least a high school
diploma.

To get there, the Legislature in 2007 -- a year in which community colleges
were given a healthy increase in state support -- also agreed on a set of
"key performance measures" for the colleges, requiring reporting by each of
the 17 community college measures, and giving them year-by-year goals.

This "disaggregation of data," Preus said, strengthened the power of the
data but also raised problems. It became impossible for colleges to hide any
weaknesses. But she also said that there was potential for unfairness as
legislators could look at the 17 colleges and want to know "why college X
isn't doing what college Y is doing."

She gave as an example the legislatively set goal for the percentage of
students at each Oregon community college who the next year have transferred
to an institution in the Oregon university system (this year's goal is 15.2
percent). Meeting such a goal is much easier, she noted, for the community
colleges that are in the same community as four-year institutions than it is
for her most remote institution, which is 250 miles from a university.

Among the other measures adopted by the lawmakers as key indicators:

*	Percentage of students enrolled in either remedial or ESL programs
who complete them. (The goal for 2010 is 63.7 percent, up from 47 percent in
2007.) 
*	The percentage of students in nursing who complete the program.
(Next year's goals is 73.7 percent.) 
*	The number of professional / technical degrees awarded each year.
(Next year's target is 5,101.) 
*	The percentage of students in associate degree programs who earn
associate degrees. (The target for next year is 31.6 percent.) 

The measures are almost all "outcome measures," in the parlance of
accountability. Preus said that there was nothing wrong with that, and that
these measures were important. "But these were the legislators' measures,
not ours," she said.

What the measures prompted was an in-depth study (with outside consulting
help) on what was actually going on at the community colleges, and the
results were in some ways disturbing, she said. Some of what was discovered
wouldn't have shown up in the state-required reporting, but raised real
questions about the ability of the state's education system to meet the
goals it set for itself.

For example, she said that the study drew attention to the relatively high
educational attainment of those who move to Oregon, higher in fact than the
state's averages -- a good sign about the state's ability to attract talent,
but also a sign that it wasn't reaching desired levels of educational
attainment for those who are growing up there.

"We found lots of areas where we are not as good as we thought we were," she
said.

A series of meetings involving the community colleges led to a sense that to
meet the broader goals set by the state, new measures were also needed. Many
of these are "process point" measures, that report on student progress prior
to their end goal, rather than outcome measures. And yet Preus said these
measures are the ones that identify the ways individual colleges need to
change what they are doing, in a way that the state-set goals do not.

So the community colleges have now agreed to collect (and discuss
internally) the following "student success indicators":

*	High school students enrolling directly into college. 
*	The percentages of those enrolling at college and non-college levels
of work in math, reading and writing. 
*	The credits earned each year toward an associate of arts degree. 
*	The credits earned each year toward a career or technical
certificate. 
*	Semester to semester persistence rates. 
*	Fall to fall persistence rates. 
*	The percentage of GED students who advance to the next level of
their programs. 
*	GED fall to fall persistence. 
*	The percentage of English as a Second Language students who advance
to college level work. 

Laura Massey, director of institutional effectiveness at Portland Community
College, said that much of this data already existed at each college (as it
did for the state's measures), but was not necessarily being shared in
consistent ways.

Preus said that now that the colleges have agreed on these indicators, they
are going to collect and compare the data. Eventually, she said, goals will
likely be agreed upon for each of those measures, but this may be a process
led by the colleges, not the legislators. Asked if the goals might vary from
college to college, Massey (the institutional representative of the two)
nodded enthusiastically and Preus agreed that would likely be the case.

Another stage of the process, she said, was talking to legislators about the
new measures -- and not doing so in any way that suggests a lack of
commitment to the state-set measures.

In meetings with legislators, Preus said that she stresses that the colleges
are committed to the state agenda, and are in fact making progress as well
as reporting the required information every semester. "I think that gets the
colleges some credibility," she said. It's also important to remember, she
added, that the legislative priorities deserve respect.

But she is also talking about the additional measures, and why the colleges
are collecting that information. While the colleges could have tried --
without their own measures -- to have noted what was lacking in the state
measures, Preus doubts that would have worked. "You are going to max out in
your 30-second elevator talk before you explain," she said.

-  <mailto:[log in to unmask]> Scott Jaschik 

C Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed 


Related Stories


*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/09/acct> Remediation
Worries and Successes
October 9, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/09/ncat> Half-Learned
Lessons
October 9, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/08/bonds> Crowding Out
For-Profit Colleges
October 8, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/08/pell> Served, Yes,
But Well-Served?
October 8, 2009 
*	 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/07/accountability>
Community College Accountability
October 7, 2009 

Sources:
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2009/10/12/acct

 

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/12/acct

 

 

Community Colleges Praised for Technology Efforts

The e.Republic Center for Digital Education and Converge Magazine last week
named the most technology-savvy community colleges in the country, based on
a recent survey of community college officials. Montgomery
<http://www.mc3.edu/>  County Community College, in Pennsylvania, received
the highest marks among colleges with more than 7,500 students, whose top
finishers also included two <http://www.nvcc.edu/index.html>  colleges
<http://www.tcc.edu/>  from Virginia and two <http://www.howardcc.edu/>
from Maryland <http://www.aacc.edu/> . Laramie County Community
<http://www.lccc.cc.wy.us/>  College in Wyoming took the top spot among
mid-sized institutions (3,000 to 7,500 students), while Panola
<http://www.panola.edu/>  College in Texas won the small-college category.
The survey asked voters to assess the community colleges based on several
metrics, including their use of distance education, available technology
training, and the extent to which they had integrated Web 2.0 tools. The
full rankings are available on the center's Web
<http://www.centerdigitaled.com/story.php?id=109181>  site.

Source:  http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/10/12/qt#210281

 

 

 

 

Dan Kern

AD21, Reading

East Central College

1964 Prairie Dell Road

Union, MO  63084-4344

Phone:  (636) 583-5195

Extension:  2426

Fax:  (636) 584-0513

Email:  [log in to unmask]

 

http://www.studentveterans.org/

 

Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is
it politic?' Vanity asks the question, 'Is it popular?' But, conscience asks
the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a
position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it
because one's conscience tells one that it is right. (Martin Luther King,
Jr.) 

Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner. Put

yourself in his place so that you may understand what he learns and

the way he understands it. (Kierkegaard)

 

To freely bloom - that is my definition of success. -Gerry Spence, lawyer
(b. 1929)    [Benjamin would be proud, I think.]

 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To access the LRNASST-L archives or User Guide, or to change your
subscription options (including subscribe/unsubscribe), point your web browser to
http://www.lists.ufl.edu/archives/lrnasst-l.html

To contact the LRNASST-L owner, email [log in to unmask]

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
January 2011
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1
June 2010, Week 5
June 2010, Week 4
June 2010, Week 3
June 2010, Week 2
June 2010, Week 1
May 2010, Week 4
May 2010, Week 3
May 2010, Week 2
May 2010, Week 1
April 2010, Week 5
April 2010, Week 4
April 2010, Week 3
April 2010, Week 2
April 2010, Week 1
March 2010, Week 5
March 2010, Week 4
March 2010, Week 3
March 2010, Week 2
March 2010, Week 1
February 2010, Week 4
February 2010, Week 3
February 2010, Week 2
February 2010, Week 1
January 2010, Week 5
January 2010, Week 4
January 2010, Week 3
January 2010, Week 2
January 2010, Week 1
December 2009, Week 5
December 2009, Week 4
December 2009, Week 3
December 2009, Week 2
December 2009, Week 1
November 2009, Week 5
November 2009, Week 4
November 2009, Week 3
November 2009, Week 2
November 2009, Week 1
October 2009, Week 5
October 2009, Week 4
October 2009, Week 3
October 2009, Week 2
October 2009, Week 1
September 2009, Week 5
September 2009, Week 4
September 2009, Week 3
September 2009, Week 2
September 2009, Week 1
August 2009, Week 5
August 2009, Week 4
August 2009, Week 3
August 2009, Week 2
August 2009, Week 1
July 2009, Week 5
July 2009, Week 4
July 2009, Week 3
July 2009, Week 2
July 2009, Week 1
June 2009, Week 5
June 2009, Week 4
June 2009, Week 3
June 2009, Week 2
June 2009, Week 1
May 2009, Week 5
May 2009, Week 4
May 2009, Week 3
May 2009, Week 2
May 2009, Week 1
April 2009, Week 5
April 2009, Week 4
April 2009, Week 3
April 2009, Week 2
April 2009, Week 1
March 2009, Week 5
March 2009, Week 4
March 2009, Week 3
March 2009, Week 2
March 2009, Week 1
February 2009, Week 4
February 2009, Week 3
February 2009, Week 2
February 2009, Week 1
January 2009, Week 5
January 2009, Week 4
January 2009, Week 3
January 2009, Week 2
January 2009, Week 1
December 2008, Week 5
December 2008, Week 4
December 2008, Week 3
December 2008, Week 2
December 2008, Week 1
November 2008, Week 5
November 2008, Week 4
November 2008, Week 3
November 2008, Week 2
November 2008, Week 1
October 2008, Week 5
October 2008, Week 4
October 2008, Week 3
October 2008, Week 2
October 2008, Week 1
September 2008, Week 5
September 2008, Week 4
September 2008, Week 3
September 2008, Week 2
September 2008, Week 1
August 2008, Week 5
August 2008, Week 4
August 2008, Week 3
August 2008, Week 2
August 2008, Week 1
July 2008, Week 5
July 2008, Week 4
July 2008, Week 3
July 2008, Week 2
July 2008, Week 1
June 2008, Week 5
June 2008, Week 4
June 2008, Week 3
June 2008, Week 2
June 2008, Week 1
May 2008, Week 5
May 2008, Week 4
May 2008, Week 3
May 2008, Week 2
May 2008, Week 1
April 2008, Week 5
April 2008, Week 4
April 2008, Week 3
April 2008, Week 2
April 2008, Week 1
March 2008, Week 5
March 2008, Week 4
March 2008, Week 3
March 2008, Week 2
March 2008, Week 1
February 2008, Week 5
February 2008, Week 4
February 2008, Week 3
February 2008, Week 2
February 2008, Week 1
January 2008, Week 5
January 2008, Week 4
January 2008, Week 3
January 2008, Week 2
January 2008, Week 1
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager