Student Progress Reporting Update

On May 1, the DCCCD Board of Trustees passed revisions to Policy EGA (LOCAL), which among other things establishes that the District "shall provide periodic course reporting" on student performance and that such progress reporting "shall be conducted in accordance with administrative regulations promulgated by the Chancellor."

The Faculty Council believes that the general policy language adopted by the Board is not overly problematic or prescriptive, and it has been working with district administration this semester to determine the specifics of the regulations for Student Progress Reporting (SPR).

Earlier this semester, informed by the information gathered from the faculty survey on SPR, the Faculty Council recommended that there be just one reporting interval and that the reporting be done between 25% and 50% of the term for all college courses (excluding Winter and May terms). The Vice Presidents Council separately recommended two reporting intervals, with reporting to be done at the 33% and 66% marks.

In recent negotiations with Executive Vice Chancellor Justin Lonon, the Faculty Council pointed out that reporting at 66% would not be helpful to students, given that the drop deadline is set at the 75% mark. We therefore reiterated the belief that our initial recommendation for SPR is best. However, in an effort to achieve compromise, but still with a focus on doing what we believe is pedagogically sound and will be most beneficial to our students, we offered the following alternative recommendations:

• For 13-16 week courses: 2 reports. First report at 30-35%; Second report at 55-60%
• For 6-12 week courses: 1 report at 35-50%
• For 1-5 week courses: No reports

The Council also continued to insist that 2018-2019 be a prototype year, in which students and faculty will be surveyed on their use of the progress reporting system, and that results be shared monthly with stakeholders to inform subsequent systemic improvements. The Council believes strongly that progress reporting is of limited value if it is not directly tied into an intrusive, proactive early alert and intervention system that can help students get the help they need, regardless of whether it is purely academic or is tied to economic and social issues like food, transportation, or housing insecurity.

Faculty should know that Chancellor May, and/or Executive Vice Chancellor Justin Lonon, will make the final determination about SPR, and that they may well decide that two progress reports must be issued each term. The Faculty Council is continuing to work diligently with them, and with other stakeholders, to ensure that progress reporting is helpful to students and promotes their academic success. To that end, the Faculty Council has recommended names of faculty to serve on the “Student Progress Reporting Implementation Team,” to be led by El Centro College VP of Instruction Greg Morris. The Implementation Team will work this summer to build the SPR system. Shaun Gilligan, CVCFA president, will be the Council liaison to the Implementation Team.

As soon as anything more specific about the plans for SPR is known, we will provide an update.

Faculty Council discusses Student Progress Reporting Survey Results with Academic VPs and District Leaders

The Faculty Council received 526 responses on the Student Progress Reporting Survey conducted Feb. 1-15, of which 338 were from full-time faculty, representing over one-third of the DCCCD full-time faculty. An executive summary of the survey results is linked here. (Previous Advance Blog posts on this evolving discussion can be found at this link.) In addition to the quantitative results, many respondents provided comments, which broadly can be summarized as follows:

1. Many respondents noted that progress reporting is an activity they are already engaged in by keeping the grade center up-to-date; they are, therefore, resistant to further reporting in eConnect.

2. Many comments also indicated that faculty widely assumed that the grade center in eCampus was used by all faculty in the same fashion regardless of course and subject area, i.e., frequently updated, kept current and available to students.

3. A number of faculty viewed progress reporting as means of removing more responsibility on the part of students. Some comments indicated that many faculty believe students are responsible for the monitoring of their own progress.

4. Some faculty expressed concern that progress reporting would result in an increased workload for both faculty and student services staff.

5. There is a clear split in preference, among those who want the ability to project an estimated letter grade (ABCDF), and those who prefer to record that the student is making Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory progress.

6. There is a strong preference for the ability to provide comments, including the ability to write custom comments in addition to having preset comments available to select.

In addition, the following observations were noted by those who analyzed the survey data and have been involved on the Student Progress Reporting task force:

1. The problem that Student Progress Reporting is designed to solve is that not all DCCCD students are consistently and equitably receiving information about their progress in the course.

2. Assumptions about the use of eCampus grade center do not reflect the diverse practices of all full-time, adjunct, and dual credit faculty, across a diverse array of learning environments, and the assessment practices they opt to incorporate in their courses. More specifically, even faculty who use eCampus grade center use it in a variety of ways. Many faculty provide their students with assignment and assessment grades in publisher-provided or industry-specific learning environments. A discussion about the consistent use of eCampus generally and eCampus grade center specifically is outside the scope of the Student Progress Reporting project.

3. Addressing the faculty role in Student Progress Reporting is only one step in what is envisioned as a multi-stage, multi-faceted, and complex activity designed that among other things will include intrusive interventions designed to address student challenges that go beyond the scope of what is happening in the classroom (and therefore is outside of the ability of faculty to address). This therefore requires input and participation by a broad array of stakeholders (including student services, business services, and information technology support services, and even outside social service partners), which in turn requires prototyping and collection of data from faculty and students to ensure long-term success.

WHERE ARE WE NOW:

Consequently, the Faculty Council has achieved consensus regarding the following recommendations:

1. Student Progress Reporting will be implemented in the DCCCD beginning in the 2018-2019 academic year.

2. Fall 2018 and Spring 2019 will serve as testing periods for the Student Progress Reporting prototype. The review of data and outcomes will begin as soon as possible, starting in late fall and continuing throughout the spring.

3. The approval of a general LOCAL Board policy on Student Progress Reporting is supported, but REGULATION language (that requires Chancellors Staff approval, but not Board approval) that specifies in detail a Student Progress Reporting approach, should be paused until the end of the prototyping activity (with a view to such policy being developed in early 2019 for the 2019-2020 academic year).

4. Student Progress Reporting is but one step - but the crucial first step - in an intrusive intervention strategy that will involve student services reaching out to students to help them with challenges that faculty are not equipped to address, even as faculty do work with students who are struggling academically with the specific course material.

5. A senior level administrator should be assigned to serve as the accountability lead for the prototype period and implementation of Student Progress Reporting.

6. There will be a single Student Progress Reporting interval for each section - the survey findings indicate that this should occur at between the 25% and 50% point of a section.

7. Student Progress Reporting will be allow faculty to report a letter grade (ABCDF) or Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory (S/U) progress. Should faculty choose to report progress using the Unsatisfactory label or a D or F letter grate, they will also need to supply at least one comment, either selected from a pull-down menu of pre-written comments, or writing their own comment in a text-entry box.


The Council shared these recommendations with The Instructional Leadership Team (TILT), and the Student Progress Reporting Task Force, on Monday, Feb. 19.

NEXT STEPS:

The Council is still gathering stakeholder input on the preferred system(s) for generating Student Progress Reports. There are advantages and disadvantages to both eCampus/Blackboard and eConnect/Colleague. Among the considerations are the extent to which each system is used by faculty, the extent to which each system is user-friendly, the extent to which training would be required on each system, the extent to which each system can be configured to do what Student Progress Reporting is designed to do, and the extent to which each of these issues can be resolved in time for the beginning of the prototype cycle that will commence with the Fall 2018 semester.

As further information is gathered, conversations will continue with the Student Progress Reporting committee, academic vice presidents, and District officials.

Survey Available Feb. 1-15, 2018, for Faculty to Provide Input on Progress Reporting System to Take Effect Fall 2018

Dear Faculty,

Responding to a variety of concerns regarding both student success and completion, the DCCCD administration has charged our instructional leaders to create a consistent, district-wide systematic approach for all faculty to report on student progress in courses during each academic term, beginning in Fall 2018.  This effort at student progress reporting is intended to help students better understand their status in a given course early enough for students to take action to improve that status and for intrusive interventions to be provided, if needed, in order to improve retention and completion. Further background information on the evolution of this process is available at this January 18 post on the DCCFA Advance Blog.

Instructional leaders, including the academic vice presidents and the DCCFA faculty council, believe that it is crucial to gather faculty input, so as to guide the design of a student progress reporting system approach. At present, the plan is to use the eConnect interface for progress reporting.  Specific elements of the design will be determined later, taking into consideration feedback obtained from faculty in a variety of ways, beginning here.

We respect your academic freedom and the institutional responsibility to provide quality teaching and learning experiences for our students, so rest assured that:

• No aspect of this reporting system will expect, encourage or require you to change or adjust any aspect of your teaching, evaluation or assessment strategies,
• The design of this system will take into account our many and diverse types of courses, and
• A primary goal of this system is to provide effective reporting while not being a burdensome or time-consuming activity.

All faculty – full-time and adjunct faculty – are invested in student success and therefore are invited and encouraged to participate in this survey. The survey is being made available between Feb. 1 and Feb. 15, 2018. Please review this “Supplemental Information” document and then complete the survey at this link: https://goo.gl/forms/Sb6I9yDXWhndySoI2

DCCCD Considering New Student Progress Reporting System; Faculty Council Working to Ensure a Reasonable Timeline and Stakeholder Input on Policy and Procedure

Background:

At a meeting of The Instructional Leadership Team (TILT) on 9/18/17, the Faculty Council was presented with a draft of a revised Board policy on attendance as well as a proposal—developed by the Academic Vice Presidents and Associate Vice Chancellor Anna Mays, at the behest of Chancellor May—for a daily attendance tracking system, which was to be set up in eConnect and implemented for Fall 2018. The system would have required faculty to maintain and report daily attendance records for all classes. We were informed that this was created to address safety concerns, in the wake of incidents at El Centro and North Lake colleges, as well as to monitor student success.

The Faculty Council argued strenuously against this system, noting that it would not provide an accurate accounting of the number of people in a building, and thus not adequately address safety concerns, and that it would not be a useful means of gauging student progress or achievement. Given the increased attention to student persistence and completion (locally and nationally), the Faculty Council understands the desire and need for more periodic reporting on student success. The Council, therefore, suggested that a progress reporting system be considered; this would work better for tracking student success and would allow for intrusive advising if students fall behind in classes. Matt Henry and Matt Hinckley volunteered to serve on a subcommittee to explore the development of such a system.

A preliminary meeting was held at the LeCroy Center on 10/6/17 to discuss ideas. Subcommittee members at that point were: faculty members Matt Henry (RLC) and Matt Hinckley (EFC); Vice Presidents Audra Barrett (CVC) and Greg Morris (ECC); and Executive Dean Terri DiPaolo (LeCroy). This was, in effect, a brainstorming session in which the committee reviewed current policies on attendance and grading and discussed the potential uses of eConnect, the eCampus gradebook, and district software such as Starfish as potential reporting mechanisms. The highlights of this conversation were shared with member of the TILT group at its next meeting (on 10/16/17), at which the Faculty Council continued to press the point that concerns over safety must be decoupled from concerns about student success.

On 11/3/17, Associate Vice Chancellor Mays confirmed (via email) that these concerns would be separated and discussed by two distinct groups. The first group, led by Commissioner Lauretta Hill and legal counsel Tricia-Anne Horatio, would explore the possibility of an employee and student identification badge policy, involving appropriate college personnel. The second group, comprised of the preliminary subcommittee and staff from the District Office, would explore strategies for a progress and/or grade reporting policy, which would involve the recording of student performance at intervals during the term, in order to more frequently and consistently document and communicate to students about their academic participation, progress and success.

The next meeting of the Student Progress subcommittee took place on 11/21/17. In attendance were Anna Mays, Audra Barrett, Greg Morris, Matt Henry, Matt Hinckley, Becky Witherspoon, Jamie Templeton, Tricia Horatio, and Terry DiPaolo. This meeting focused primarily on discussing the merits of various reporting intervals (e.g., at midterm or more frequently) and the value of using letter grades, a pass/fail notification, or open-ended comments to report on student status. At a subsequent meeting, held on 12/13/17, the committee was presented with a draft of a new Board policy on progress reporting. At that point, members of the Faculty Council (Henry and Hinckley) noted that this was progressing a bit too fast, likely in deference to the target implementation date of Fall 2018. The Council members then requested that the committee pause to develop a clear rationale for the student progress reporting system to present to faculty, as well as to gather relevant data on the use and success of such systems at other institutions. Members of the committee were charged with doing this research.

Current Status:

On 1/16/18, the Student Progress subcommittee met at the District Office. Unfortunately, once again, the first agenda item was the draft of a new Board policy. Vice Chancellor Mays stressed that both Vice Chancellor Lonon and Chancellor May expect the new policy to be in effect for Fall 2018. Matt Henry and Matt Hinckley reiterated that this was all moving too fast, pointing out that the necessary research had not yet been done and that adequate time was needed to both inform faculty about these pending changes and to solicit feedback from them before further action was taken. This successfully moved the conversation moved away from policy document language and onto the overall timeline and interim steps to be taken during the spring semester.

On behalf of the Faculty Council, Matt Henry and Matt Hinckley will develop a survey instrument to send to faculty to solicit feedback on the Student Progress Reporting System plan. It will contain links to relevant research and include both open- and closed-ended questions. The Faculty Council expects to have this ready and available at the beginning of February.

At the next TILT meeting (scheduled for Monday, January 22), the Council will discuss with the Academic Vice Presidents a communication strategy for disseminating information to all impacted stakeholders and gathering input from faculty. Faculty who wish to know more should speak with their Faculty Association representative or their college Vice President. We will keep faculty informed of all developments on this issue as they occur.