| _X_ Compliance | ___ Partial Compliance | ___ Non-Compliance |
| Narrative |
Statement of Rationale for Judgment of CompliancePalo Alto College (PAC) evaluates success with respect to student achievement consistent with our mission to inspire, empower, and educate our community for leadership and success. Criteria include completion rate, persistence rate, Productive Grade Rate (PGR), graduation, job placement rates, and state licensure examinations.
The case for compliance is structured as follows:
Student Success Data SourcingPalo Alto College utilizes the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB) Accountability System[1] as its main data source. The Accountability System[2] tracks the performance of all Texas colleges and universities on a number of critical measures. These measures are distributed across three categories: 1) Key Accountability Measures, 2) Contextual/Explanatory Measures, and 3) Institutional Explanations and Description. These measures include (but are not limited to) course completion, performance on licensure examinations, and job placement rates.
The THECB Accountability System is used to create the President’s Performance Protocol[3]. This is an annual publication of college performance delivered to the College's Board of Trustees and features key metrics such as course completion, persistence, graduation, and employment rates. The President's Performance Protocol provides an important source of publicly accessible student achievement data, facilitates institutional evaluation of student success, and provides the data-driven foundation for designing College Action Plans (CAPs) which address gaps in student achievement. Student Success IndicatorsIn accordance to Board Policy F.6.1[4], PAC routinely reports student success measures to administrators, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders. Criteria for determining the acceptability of student success results are determined by comparisons of relevant metrics from the other institutions associated with the Alamo Colleges District (ACD) as well as other institutions in Texas and the United States. When comparable measures are not available, internal targets are developed by PAC leadership in consultation with internal subject matter experts specific to each metric. A sample of PAC student success indicators are summarized as follows: Completion RateCourse completion rates, defined as courses completed (not withdrawn or "dropped") regardless of student letter grade, provide a means of assessing student progress. Figure 4.1-1[5] compares course completion data for PAC against the ACD overall average (ACD course completion is used as a benchmark for comparison for all measures where said figure is available). Completion rates demonstrate that PAC students are increasingly likely to complete a course over the past six years. While PAC lags slightly behind the ACD average in this metric, the difference between the two trend lines is less than 1%.
Please note, figures summarizing student course performance are drawn directly from the Student Information System, the College's raw data source for the THECB Accountability System. The Student Information System allows comparison of PAC students to students enrolled in other ACD institutions. Similar figures from other potential comparison institutions are not currently published by State or Federal data clearinghouses, so comparisons of course performance are limited to other ACD institutions. Persistence RatePersistence rate, the extent to which students continue from one academic year to the next, is a common measure of student performance in higher education and can be considered a precursor to graduation. Using ACD figures as a basis of comparison, Figure 4.1-2[6] summarizes Full-Time (FT) First Time in College (FTIC) persistence rates for PAC and ACD. Data show that persistence rates for PAC have increased 10.4% over six years. By comparison, ACD persistence rates have improved 9.2% over the same timeframe.
Similar analysis of persistence rates for part-time students is summarized in Figure 4.1-3[7]. This metric is monitored as a large proportion of PAC students are enrolled part-time (83.2% part-time enrollment as of the most recent PAC FactBook[8]). Review of this data illustrates that part-time students are less likely to persist year-to-year than full-time students. Though PAC lags the ACD average by 8.2% in Fall 2016, College Action Plans aimed at improving this metric have yielded moderate increases. Productive Grade RateProductive Grade Rate (PGR) is a function of student course grades and better assesses student course performance than completion rates. Student grades are only considered “productive” if they earned a letter grade of A, B, or C; a student earning a D or F could still be included in completion rate, but they would not be included in PGR calculations. Figure 4.1-4[9] summarizes PGR figures for PAC. ACD figures are included for comparison. PAC students' PGR is comparable to ACD students. More importantly, however, these figures demonstrate a consistent, if gradual, increase in performance over time such that students are increasingly more likely to earn a productive grade in their courses. For PAC specifically, efforts to increase PGR have yielded a modest gain of 2.3% over the past six years. For a detailed overview of improvement actions taken, please refer to CR 3.3.1.1. 3-Year Graduation RateThe proportion of FTIC students earning a degree in three academic years is a common standard for monitoring graduation rates, allowing for direct comparison across institutions of higher education. Figure 4.1-5[10] summarizes 3-year graduation rates for full-time PAC students over the past six academic years. Review of these data indicate improvement in 3-year graduation rates for full-time PAC students, exceeding the ACD average by 5.9% and the Texas Community College Average by a wider margin; ACD benchmarks are used for comparison against peer institutions.
Reviewing the same measure for PAC part-time FTIC students reveals a similar positive trend over time with gradual increases in this metric for PAC students over the past six years. Over this timeframe, graduation rates for part-time PAC students increased 8.8% while ACD part-time graduation rates increased 4.6%. Three-year graduation rates for part-time FTIC students are summarized in Figure 4.1-6[11]. Graduation rates for part-time students are not published by external data aggregation entities, so a statewide comparison figure is not available. Job Placement RatesJob placement is one of the THECB key measures of success and reflected in the President's Performance Protocol. The THECB standard for this measure is "85% of workforce education program completers are employed or pursuing additional education within one year of graduation." Overall, PAC's workforce programs meet or exceed this standard. As reported on page 26[12] of the President's Performance Protocol[3] and summarized in Figure 4.1-7[13], PAC currently boasts a 98.5% placement rate for technical students. This result represents the best among ACD and the best in the State of Texas.
A similar review of placement rates for students graduating from PAC reveals performance slightly below those enrolled in technical programs and is summarized in Figure 4.1-8[14]. Over the past five years, PAC students have either entered the workforce or continued their education at higher rates (15.8% improvement). This performance exceeds both the ACD and Texas average for the most recently reported year. Licensure ExaminationsLicensure examinations provide an independent measure of student success. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board[15] publishes the Statewide Annual Licensure Report[16], which includes the number of students from each institution who took a licensure exam and the number of students who passed. According to the most recent report, 100% of Palo Alto College students taking licensure examinations passed the exam. Data here is limited to the three instructional programs subject to licensure examinations: Airline/Commercial Pilot and Flight Crew, Petroleum Technology/Technician and Veterinary/Animal Health Technology/Technician and Veterinary Assistant. Use of Student Success Data in Decision-MakingStudent success data is disseminated college and district-wide to administrators, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders and used to inform College Action Plans (CAPs), data-driven strategies designed to improve student outcomes. DisseminationStudent success metrics are disseminated college-wide through routine reports, presentations, and other platforms, ensuring all College personnel are data-informed when designing student academic and support services. Primary reporting methods include:
College Action PlansStudent success data is used to inform College Action Plans (CAPs), data-driven strategic initiatives designed to impact a student success metric within a specified timeframe. CAPs provide a mechanism to address student achievement gaps and are developed as a direct response to student success metric reporting practices. CAPs incorporate the specific student success metric the plan is designed to improve. For example, the Required Tutoring CAP was designed to increase student PGR in high-risk math courses while the Career and Technical Education Program CAP developed strategies to improve CTE completion and student job placement rates. CAP progress is reported to PAC leadership every fall and spring semester and are summarized in the annual FactBook[20] published on the PAC website[21]. CAPs are discussed in detail in CR 3.3.1.1. EquityTo ensure all students have the opportunity to succeed at PAC, and in compliance with Board of Trustees Policy F.6.1[22], PAC monitors several critical student access and success indicators segmented by key student demographic characteristics. These population segments include gender and ethnicity but also include other college-specific characteristics, such as enrollment in developmental coursework. Routine reporting of these comparisons is included on page 23[23] of the President’s Performance Protocol[3], and the annual FactBook[24]. Data for these reports are primarily sources from the THECB Accountability System[1]. A discussion of a select number of these comparisons follows. Access EquityFigure 4.1-9[25] illustrates the changes in the ethnicity of students enrolled at PAC. Over time, PAC students increasingly identify as Hispanic while students identifying as white have decreased as a proportion of total enrollments. As a comparison against regional peer institutions, analysis of ACD enrollments by ethnicity demonstrate a similar trend, summarized in Figure 4.1-10[26]. To facilitate data clarity, student ethnicity groups with smaller populations are aggregated into a single other category.
A similar analysis of student enrollment at PAC by gender reveals general stability in the proportions of male and female students over time. Though students at PAC are more likely to identify as female, the proportion has not changed substantially over time (data summarized in Figure 4.1-11[27]). A similar pattern is observed in ACD data though the gender ratio is smaller (see Figure 4.1-12[28]).
Analysis of fall-to-fall student persistence at PAC reveals moderate differences across student ethnicities. The most meaningful difference is the slightly better persistence results for students identifying as white relative to their Hispanic counterparts. Notably, this difference has decreased over time though both groups demonstrate a general trend towards improved fall-to-fall persistence (see Figure 4.1-13[29]). Analysis of ACD persistence rates show a similar trend such that white students are more likely to persist relative to Hispanic students. Data for ACD persistence by ethnicity are summarized in Figure 4.1-14[30]. To facilitate data clarity, student ethnicity groups with smaller populations are included only in the overall category.
As articulated in Board Policy A.1.1[31], the College District is known by the assumed names of “Alamo Colleges” and “Alamo Colleges District” or the “Alamo Community College District.” References to these assumed names in the narrative and any supporting documentation are equivalent. |
| Evidence | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
