ELAC Educational Master Plan - East Los Angeles College

East Los Angeles College 

East Los Angeles College empowers students to achieve their educational goals 

to expand their individual potential, and to successfully pursue their aspirations 

for a better future for themselves, their community and the world.

EPSC adopted July 17, 2012 

ESGC adopted September 24, 2012 

EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE 

EDUCATIONAL MASTER PLAN 

2012 – 2018

Administrative Members 

Board of Trustees 

Steve Veres, President 

Tina Park, First Vice President 

Nancy Pearlman, Second Vice President 

Kelly Candaele, Legislative Affairs 

Mona Field, Institutional Effectiveness 

Miguel Santiago, Capital Construction 

Scott J. Svonkin, Finance and Audit 

Daniel Campos, Student Trustee 

Los Angeles Community College District Administration 

Dr. Daniel J. LaVista, Chancellor 

Dr. Adriana D. Barrera, Deputy Chancellor 

Dr. Yasmin Delahousssaye, Vice Chancellor for Educational Programs and Institutional Effectiveness 

Dr. Felicito Cajayon, Vice Chancellor for Economic and Workforce Development 

Jeanette Gordon, Chief Financial Officer/Treasure 

Camille A. Goulet, General Counsel 

James D. O’Reilly, Executive Director, Facilities Planning and Development 

East Los Angeles College Administration 

Farley Herzek, Interim President 

Tom Furukawa, Vice President of Administrative Services 

Dr. Richard Moyer, Vice President of Liberal Arts and Sciences 

Laura M. Ramirez, Interim Vice President of Workforce Education and Economic Development 

Oscar Valeriano, Vice President of Student Services/Special Programs 

Jeremy Allred, Dean of Admissions and Records 

Gayle Brosseau, Dean of Academic Affairs 

Selina Chi, Dean of Resource Development/Community Relations 

Dr. Ryan Cornner, Dean of Institutional Effectiveness 

Danelle Fallert, Dean of Student Services 

Sonia Lopez, Dean of Student Services/Activities 

Vi Ly, Dean of Academic Affairs 

Kerrin McMahan, Dean of Academic Affairs 

Dr. Adrienne Anne Mullen, Dean of Continuing Education 

Al Rios, Dean of Academic Affairs/South Gate 

Angelica Toledo, Dean of CalWORKs 

Dr. John Rude, Associate Dean of Resource Development 

Martha Ermias, Assistant Dean of Grants Management 

Erlinda De Ocampo, Associate Vice President of Administrative Services 

Gonzalo Mendoza, Manager of College Information Systems 

Karen Rapp, Director of Vincent Price Art Museum

Acknowledgments 

Educational Planning Subcommittee 

Current and Past Members 

Pauletta Daw, Distance Education Coordinator 

Suzette Morales-Guerra, Matriculation Coordinator 

Amanda Ryan-Romo, Learning Assessment Coordinator 

Veronica Jaramillo, Learning Assessment Coordinator 

Steve Wardinski, Curriculum Committee Chair 

Cathleen Rozadilla, Articulation Officer 

Paulina Palomino, Transfer Director 

Ran Gust, Library Representative 

Dennis Villacorte, Noncredit Representative 

Daniel Ornelas, Chair of Counseling Department 

Gayane Godjoian, Career/Technical Faculty Representative 

Rahim Faradineh, Liberal Arts and Sciences Representative 

Alex Immerblum, Academic Senate President 

Jeff Hernandez, Academic Senate Representative 

Armando Rivera-Figueroa, AFT Representative 

Danelle Fallert, Dean of Student Services, EOP&S 

Al Rios, Dean of Offsite, South Gate 

Adrienne Ann Mullen, Dean of Academic Affairs 

Carol Kozeracki, Dean of Academic Affairs 

Karen Daar, Dean of Academic Affairs 

Richard Moyer, Vice President of Academic Affairs 

Laura M. Ramirez, Interim Vice President of Workforce Education and Economic Development 

Renee D. Martinez, Vice President of Workforce Education and Economic Development 

Oscar Valeriano, Vice President of Student Services 

Ryan Cornner, Dean of Institutional Effectiveness 

Special Thanks to the Office of Institutional Effectiveness for their valuable contributions in the development of the 

Educational Master Plan: 

Maribel Carbajal-Garcia, Sr. Office Assistant and José “Alfred” Gallegos, Research Analyst

Table of Contents 

COLLEGE HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 

COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND ENROLLMENT GROWTH ................................................................................................. 1 

CAMPUS TRANSFORMATION .................................................................................................................................................... 2 

COLLEGE PLANNING STRUCTURE .......................................................................................................................................... 3 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE EDUCATIONAL MASTER PLAN .............................................................................................. 5 

Overall Student Completion .................................................................................................................................................. 7 

How Successful Are Students When They Take the Class That They Are Placed Into? Can They Get 

Into That Placed Class? ......................................................................................................................................................... 10 

For Sequential Courses, How Does the Grade in the Previous Class Affect Success in Next Class? ...... 12 

What is the Success of Acceleration Models and Compression Models in Math and English 

Sequences? ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15 

What is the Success of Specialty Programs (Adelante, Puente, etc…)?............................................................. 15 

Adelante Data....................................................................................................................................................................... 15 

Athletics Data ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17 

Honors Data .......................................................................................................................................................................... 18 

Puente Data .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 

How Successful are Students Who Pass English 101 in All Other Areas? ....................................................... 20 

Are Teachers Using Effective Practices/Pedagogy? ................................................................................................. 21 

Pedagogy Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 

Suggested Methodology .................................................................................................................................................... 21 

What Courses Do New Students Taken in Their First Year? ................................................................................. 22 

What Do Enrollment Date (Fill Rate, Time of Day, Location) Say About Student Need? .......................... 23 

What is the Impact of Counseling on Student Success? .......................................................................................... 26 

How Effective is the Faculty Transfer Advisor? ......................................................................................................... 27 

How Does Financial Aid Impact Student Success? .................................................................................................... 27 

How Does Fulltime Status Impact a Student’s Success Rate? ............................................................................... 28 

Ongoing Data Needs .............................................................................................................................................................. 29 

EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE ............................................................................................................................................... 30 

Implementation and Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................ 41

COLLEGE HISTORY 

East Los Angeles College (ELAC) is a large urban college which serves more Latino students annually than 

any other community college in the California Community College System. ELAC serves an important role 

in its community through its academic, career-technical, noncredit, student support service and Public 

Service Academy programs. These offerings serve as gateways to a better life for many in the community 

and as a primary access point to higher education for a population that has traditionally been 

underrepresented in post-secondary education. ELAC’s primarily Hispanic/Latino and Asian/Pacific Islander 

student body reflects its service area population and is indicative of the college’s dedication to increasing 

access and success in higher education for underrepresented populations. The college offers a full spectrum 

of degree programs, career certificate programs, and transfer curriculum that allows students to successfully 

complete their educational goals. In addition, the college offers the opportunity for students to engage in an 

educational plan that promotes individual personal development. In this manner, ELAC represents the 

promise of new opportunities to the community and a gateway to success for many students. 

East Los Angeles Junior College was established in June 1945 by the Los Angeles City Board of Education. 

The college opened its doors for the Fall 1945 semester in September in a wing of Garfield High School, 

boasting nineteen faculty members and 117 students, many of whom were World War II veterans. 

The college quickly outgrew the borrowed high school facilities. In 1947, the Board of Education was able to 

purchase eighty-two acres of agricultural land in what was then East Los Angeles, thanks to funding from a 

bond issue. Two years later, in January 1949, classes began at the college’s present location in wooden 

bungalows moved to the campus from the Santa Ana Army Air Base. More than 1,700 students enrolled that 

year. 

An evening program that began in 1947 was expanded and offered at many locations. By 1954, the popular 

program offered classes at twenty-five different locations. The Civic Center program alone enrolled over 

1,900 students that year. 

In 1948 a name change was proposed. Angeles Bella Vista College, Ramona Hills College and Hillview 

College were considered. It wasn’t until 1959 that the name change occurred when the “Junior” was dropped 

and the name East Los Angeles College (ELAC) was firmly established. 

COMMUNITY SUPPORT AND ENROLLMENT GROWTH 

In 1951, the stadium and auditorium were built. Over the next twenty years permanent buildings were 

constructed to accommodate growing enrollment. More classrooms, an administration building, a library, a 

planetarium, men’s and women’s gyms, a swim stadium, a theater, and an art gallery – to name a few – 

followed. 

Today’s Vincent Price Art Museum began with a gift from Vincent Price – noted actor and art collector – 

who donated ninety pieces from his collection to establish the first “teaching art collection” in 1957. Over the 

years, the collection has grown to more than 9,000 pieces including works on paper, paintings and threedimensional 

art work. This collection provides an extraordinary and unique resource for students to see 

original art firsthand in order to supplement courses in art history and art appreciation. 

In 1969, the California State Legislature clearly defined higher education in the state and designated the 

(then) eight community colleges of the Los Angeles Unified School District as the Los Angeles Community 

College District (LACCD). A seven-member Board of Trustees was elected to govern the new district. 

Today, the ELAC service area, home to more than 1.5 million people, includes the communities of 

Alhambra, Bell, Bell Gardens, City of Commerce, Cudahy, East Los Angeles, Huntington Park, Los 

Angeles, Maywood, Montebello, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel, South San Gabriel, South Gate, 

and Vernon. 

1 Page Educational Master Plan 2012

During the 1970s, more buildings were added to the campus to keep up with growth of student enrollments. 

In 1975, the unduplicated enrollment count of credit students was 18,544. A gymnasium, including 

classrooms, a lecture hall, offices and lockers, and outdoor ball-court spaces were built in 1972. The swim 

stadium, with two twenty-five yard swimming pools, was also built that year. To house the nursing program 

a Nursing Education Building was built in 1977 and a new library followed two years later. 

In 1972, the City of Monterey Park annexed the College and surrounding neighborhood, officially changing 

the main campus address. ELAC began growing, adding faculty members, programs and classes as demand 

for higher education increased. 

During the 1984 Olympic Summer Games, ELAC hosted swimming and field hockey events, welcoming 

thousands of spectators to campus and increasing the international visibility of the College. Despite funding 

challenges that limited growth during the 1980s, ELAC continued to offer a variety of vocational and transfer 

programs. 

Throughout the 1990s the Automotive Technology and Child Development Centers were built. Many of the 

original bungalows were still used as classrooms until 2007 when they were finally demolished to make way 

for new campus structures. 

CAMPUS TRANSFORMATION 

During the 1990s ELAC experienced unprecedented growth and change. Enrollment grew from 13,000 to 

approximately 30,000 students and the number of permanent faculty almost doubled. Outreach programs 

were located throughout the service area for the convenience of students who could not easily travel to the 

main campus. In August 1997, the full-service South Gate Educational Center was established in the 

southern part of the service area so that students could complete a transfer curriculum and several career 

programs without attending the main campus. In 2007, a third site was opened in Rosemead to serve students 

in the northeastern portion of ELAC’s service area. 

Growth during the first decade of the 21st century was not limited to increasing enrollment. An emphasis on 

student-centered education and on providing support that engendered student success increased ELAC’s 

graduation numbers. Between 2000 and 2005, East Los Angeles College graduated the highest number of 

Hispanics/Latinos in California. Nationwide, in 2011, ELAC, ranked 6th, continued to be one of the highest 

Associate Degree producers of Hispanics/Latinos. 

In 2000, two bond issues, Propositions A and AA, initiated by the LACCD, were approved by voters. 

Funding of over $281 million allowed ELAC to begin the most ambitious building program in its history to 

substantially improve the College’s infrastructure. In the fall of 2004, a state-of-the-art technology building 

opened that was started with state funds and completed with bond money. This building was the first of many 

buildings and improvements that are planned or under construction. 

By the spring of 2011, after almost a decade of planning and construction, more than 240,000 square feet of 

classroom, student services and administrative space were added to the college facilities. In addition to 

buildings, a 1,800 space parking structure was constructed to provide access to the heart of the campus. The 

Baum Center, located on the east side of the college’s new entry plaza, was remodeled to be a comprehensive 

facility for administrative services, complete with a six-room faculty conference center. Across the entry 

plaza is the newly completed Student Services Center that houses admissions, testing, counseling, and 

financial services under one roof to maximize student access to enrollment services. 

The Visual and Performing Arts Center, a $65 million, three-building complex located at the eastern gateway 

to the campus, is anchored by a 77,000 square feet two-story building that is now home to the Dance, Music, 

and Visual Arts disciplines. The Theater Department is housed separately in a two-story building that 


includes a traditional proscenium stage theater and a flexible black box performing space. The facility also 

includes workshops for costuming and stage design as well as classrooms to allow for instruction to occur 

simultaneously with performance preparation. The Vincent Price Art Museum, the third building in the 

center, is equipped with seven galleries, the Thomas Silliman Vault for storing the collection, and a 129-seat 

“smart” lecture hall to accommodate art history classes and guest lectures. 

Currently, construction continues on a replacement classroom building, the renovation of the Helen Miller 

Bailey Library, a second 1,500 space parking structure located on the northeast corner of the campus, a 

Transit Mall, and modernization of the sports stadiums and playing fields. In addition, an off-campus 

building in nearby Corporate Center has been purchased and is undergoing renovation to serve as the Health 

Careers Center. 

Funding from a third bond approved in 2008 will continue campus transformation into the coming decade. 

The South Gate Educational Center acquired a 19-acre site across the street from its current location. The 

new site, which is projected to open in 2015, will be developed into a campus complete with a parking 

structure, a new classroom building and a retrofitted space that will accommodate various student services. 

On the main campus, plans for a Science Career & Mathematics Building, Student Success and Retention 

Center, Campus Student Center/Bookstore and gardens, plazas, and additional classrooms are moving 

towards approval and construction. With these enhancements, East Los Angeles College will be positioned to 

provide the highest quality education and services to its students and community for decades to come. 

COLLEGE PLANNING STRUCTURE 

The strategic planning structure at ELAC reflects the college’s commitment to shared governance and to 

obtaining campus‐wide and community input on college goals and objectives that will shape the college’s 

future. The ELAC Shared Governance Council (ESGC) serves as the central governing body for all planning 

decisions and makes recommendations directly to the college president as part of the shared governance 

process. In addition to the ESGC, the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC), Educational Planning 

Subcommittee (EPSC), Facilities Planning Subcommittee (FPSC), Technology Planning Subcommittee 

(TPSC), Program Review and Viability Committee (PRVC), and the Budget Committee also play key roles 

in the development and implementation of the college planning agenda. The Office of Institutional 

Effectiveness (OIE) facilitates the development of the college planning documents and assists in the 

implementation and evaluation of the planning agenda. 


Academic Senate 

ELAC Shared Governance Council 

Budget 

Committee 

Strategic Planning 

Committee 

Educational 

Planning 

Subcommittee 

Facilities Planning 

Subcommittee 

Technology 

Planning 

Subcommittee 

Program Review 

and Viabilility 

Committee 

Distance 

Education 

Committee 

Enrollment 

Management 

Committee 

Matriculation 

Advisory 

Committee 

Off-Site 

Committee 

Learning 

Assessment 

Committee 

Student Success 

Committee 

Transfer 

Committee 

Figure 1: ELAC Planning Structure 

All college planning agendas are created through data-driven processes that include national, state, local, and 

campus-level data. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness provides comprehensive college data on student 

outcomes and college core indicators of success. The college is also guided by the objectives set forth in the 

District Strategic Plan. Through the use of quantitative and qualitative data, and the direction of the District 

Strategic Plan, the college regularly reviews its own strategic and planning objectives. In addition, the 

Program Review process is used to substantiate the efforts made by departments to improve student learning 

and to identify the needs of ELAC students and the surrounding community. The Program Review and 

Viability Committee reviews and updates the college’s Program Review Plan every six years. This plan 

includes the schedule for conducting Comprehensive Program Review and Annual Update Plans. The 

Comprehensive Program Review Questionnaire focuses on the manner in which each program is supporting 

the agenda items listed in the Strategic Plan. In addition, the Comprehensive Program Review and Annual 

Update Plans utilize Learning Outcomes to assess the degree to which departments and programs are 

working to improve the student learning process and creating improvements in student outcomes. Annual 

Update Plans are completed in between comprehensive reviews to determine the progress made in 

responding to Comprehensive Program Review recommendations and the program or department’s own unit 

goals. The Annual Update Plans serve as the basis for resource allocation decisions, such as hiring of new 

faculty and staff, purchase of new equipment, and increases or decreases to a unit’s base budget. The 

Comprehensive Program Review and Annual Update Plans provide essential data in the development, 

implementation, and evaluative planning processes. 

All college planning is conducted using evaluation cycles focused on continuous quality improvement for all 

instruction, student services, and administrative programs. ELAC enters into six-year planning cycles in 

which the college progresses through phases of Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation (PIE). By 

incorporating formative evaluations into operational decision-making, ELAC ensures that these annual 

processes are subject to self-reflective examination on an ongoing basis and that lessons learned contribute to 

improvements in these processes. Data-driven measures and formative evaluations contribute to a summative 

evaluation of the strategic plan implementation at the end of its six-year cycle. The link between the 

formative evaluations and summative evaluation ensures that continuous quality improvement is ongoing and 

is the driving force for revisions to the strategic plan. Through this model, the college ensures that all 

programs, as well as the college’s governing and decision-making processes, are regularly and thoroughly 

evaluated. 


The Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) is a standing committee that serves to regularly review and revise 

the College’s Mission, Vision, and Strategic Goals as needed. Membership on this committee ensures 

representation from all vital constituent groups and those with the requisite knowledge to formulate the 

college planning agenda. The SPC is responsible for overseeing the implementation process of the strategic 

and master plans and reviewing ongoing formative evaluations. The committee is convened every six years 

for a formal review of the college’s current planning agendas and relevant data in order to determine if 

revisions are needed and, should it be determined to be warranted, construct a revised College Mission and 

Strategic Plan. The committee works to ensure that there is a thorough evaluation of the current planning 

agendas and that the Strategic Plan includes a review of all relevant data. To this end, the committee reviews 

a standard set of vital data elements and meets to select additional elements that are deemed needed for the 

college’s planning efforts. The standard data elements include: 

1. District and state strategic plans 

2. The formative evaluations and implementation history of the previous strategic plan 

3. The college external scan, internal scan, college profile, and core indicators 

4. Student surveys 

5. Comprehensive program review and annual update results 

6. Program learning outcomes and college core competencies to institutional learning outcomes 

7. Any additional information relevant to the revision of the strategic plan 

The goals developed for the Strategic Plan serve as broad objectives that all areas of the institution should 

strive to meet. In this manner, these goals serve as guidance in the development of specific college plans as 

well as those actions planned through the departmental or unit specific efforts. Each planning subcommittee 

(Educational, Technology, and Facilities) creates objectives or planned actions that will lead to the 

fulfillment of the Strategic Goals. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE EDUCATIONAL MASTER PLAN 

The Educational Master Plan is created by the Educational Planning Subcommittee (EPSC). The EPSC 

operates under the auspices of the Academic Senate and is made up of college faculty, administrators, staff, 

and students. The committee serves as the central planning committee for all educational matters, including 

those administrative and student service areas that overlap with or support educational goals. The purpose of 

the EPSC is to complete the Educational Master Plan, determine the needs of the college, and make 

recommendations of its revisions and funding for components from ESGC. The EPSC discusses and makes 

recommendations regarding academic matters related to educational programming, including issues related 

to enrollment. In order to include relevant leadership committees related to the educational needs of students, 

the following committees report to the EPSC: Distance Education Committee, Enrollment Management 

Committee, Matriculation Advisory Committee, Off-Site Committee, Student Learning Outcomes 

Committee; Student Success Committee, and Transfer Committee. 

The Educational Master Plan serves as the college’s guiding strategy on educational issues and seeks to 

fulfill the College Mission and Strategic Goals through the implementation of educational objectives. These 

objectives are broad-based principles that can serve as guidance for all departments and units on campus. 

Furthermore, these objectives are used in the Program Review process to assist departments and units in 

establishing relevant plans that will lead the college to the fulfillment of its Educational Master Plan and 

consequently its Strategic Plan and College Mission. Each activity undertaken by departments or units will 

be aligned with the stated Educational Master Plan objectives and tracked to determine their overall 

effectiveness in improving targeted measures of success. In addition, specific recommended actions are 

offered for objectives by the EPSC to provide focus and prioritization in college planning in a manner that 

will best lead the college to a successful completion of its Strategic Goals and associated targets. 


The EPSC began its planning work upon college approval of the Strategic Master Plan on May 23, 2011. To 

begin its evaluation cycle, the EPSC reviewed the Strategic Plan and the evidence used to develop the 

college’s Strategic Goals. All relevant data from this report was compiled to identify areas of focus for the 

Educational Master Plan. In addition, the committee created a list of questions to be answered in order to 

inform the development of the Educational objectives and action items. Driven by the concepts of Achieving 

the Dream (ATD), the college developed these data questions to determine why students are failing to meet 

educational milestones and academic goals. The committee also sought to identify successful elements of the 

college programs for use in developing planned actions during the current planning period. These data are 

used to drive the committee to strategies that directly target the underlying factors that inhibit academic 

success. 

Data Areas –Why Questions 

How successful are students when they take the class that they are placed into? 

Can they get into placed class? 

For sequential courses, how does the grade in the previous class effect success in next class? 

What is the success of acceleration models and compression models in math and English sequences? 

What is the success of specialty programs (Adelante, Puente, etc…)? 

How successful are students who pass English 101 in all other areas? 

Are teachers using effective practices/pedagogy? 

What courses do new students take in their first year? 

What do enrollment data (fill rate, time of day, location) say about student need? 

What is the impact of counseling on student success? 

How effective is the faculty transfer advisor? 

How does financial aid impact student success? 

How does fulltime status impact a student’s success rate? 

What data exist to inform curriculum development? 

Why are students completing 0 units in first semester? 

How well do GE and transfer requirements align? 

Why do students fail to get an AA degree? 

Lack of accessibility 

Lack of knowledge of direction 

AA has no value 

What data exists to prioritize reductions in a time of economic crisis? 

The committee met over the course of a year to review data and develop objectives based on the perceived 

needs of students. The following data provides a summary of the findings of the committee used through this 

process. 


% Students 

Overall Student Completion 

In an effort to inform campus discussions on the development of a new ELAC Educational Master Plan, the 

Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE) presented a cohort-based pipeline report on ELAC student 

progression over a 3 year period towards completion of a certificate, degree, or transfer to a 4-year 

university. “Leakage points” were identified that showed where students were most likely to be delayed in 

completing one of the above outcomes, and/or where they were most likely to leave the college altogether 

without completing. 

Cohort Analysis 

2007 Cohort 2008 Cohort 

N % N % 

Cohort 3,729 100.0% 4,127 100.0% 

Completed First Semester Units 2,539 68.1% 3,049 73.9% 

Fall to Spring Persistence 2,352 63.1% 2,784 67.5% 

Fall to Fall Persistence 1,980 53.1% 2,334 56.6% 

Completion of Math Competency 891 23.9% 988 23.9% 

Completion of English Competency 814 21.8% 959 23.2% 

Completion of Both English and Math Competency 563 15.1% 636 15.4% 

Completion of Degree, Certificate or Transfer 414 11.1% 417 10.1% 

Transfer to a Four-Year Institution 236 6.3% 198 4.8% 

Completion of an On-Campus Degree or Certificate 279 7.5% 310 7.5% 

100.0% 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

Pipeline Comparison 

68.1% 

73.9% 

53.1% 

56.6% 

15.1% 11.1% 

15.4% 10.1% 6.3% 

4.8% 

7.5% 7.5% 

The initial data suggest that students are having great difficulty completing their educational goals within a 

three-year period. The committee determined that completion of units in the first semester of a student’s 

academic career has a tremendous impact on the overall completion rate. The initial cohort indicated that 32 

% of students withdrawal or fail all of their courses in their first semester. Further analysis indicated that 

these early setbacks have a substantial impact on overall completion. Failing to complete units the first 

semester reduce completion rate to 2.6% for the 2007 cohort and 1.2% for the 2008 cohort. 


Additionally, the committee found that completion of the English and math sequence was a substantial 

barrier to student success. The following data represent the impact of initial math and English placement on 

the overall completion of a degree, certificate or transfer program. The data indicate that students beginning 

lower in the English and math sequence succeed at a far lesser rate than those students placing at or able the 

college competency level (English 101 and Math 125). 

Cohort Analysis by First English 

First English 2008 Cohort Completions % 

Transfer Level 31 13 41.9% 

English 101 333 83 24.9% 

English 28/60s 614 87 14.2% 

English 26/57 527 58 11.0% 

English 21 492 35 7.1% 

Reading 20 275 17 6.2% 

ESL 384 53 13.8% 

Other Reading 57 3 5.3% 

None 1,414 68 4.8% 

Total 4,127 417 10.1% 

Cohort Analysis by First Math 

First Math 2008 Cohort Completions % 

Transfer Level 190 83 43.7% 

Math 120/125 420 104 24.8% 

Math 115 681 80 11.8% 

Math 110/112 1,155 79 6.8% 

Math 105 183 7 3.8% 

None 1,497 64 4.3% 

Other 1 0.0% 

Total 4,127 417 10.1% 

The initial success completion data led to additional analysis on the math and English sequences. 

Specifically, all students who took their first math course at ELAC in Fall 2008 were tracked through Spring 

2011 (n = 2,465). These students could be of any academic level, but must have begun their math sequence 

in Fall 2008. To ensure that students with different initial levels of math knowledge were not all grouped 

together, students were placed into cohorts based on their first math course at ELAC (i.e. Math 105, 110/112, 

115, 125, Transfer Level). For example, the progress of students whose first math class at ELAC was Math 

105 in Fall 2008 was tracked for three years. Students who began at Math 110/112 in Fall 2008 were grouped 

into a separate cohort and their progress was also tracked through three years. The data below illustrate 

success through the math sequence as a function of initial math level. In addition, the average number of 

attempts that students needed to pass each math course in the sequence was calculated for each cohort. It is 

clear from the data that a substantial number of students fail to complete the math sequence within three 

years and that the lower the starting point, the more likely the student is to fail to reach transfer level. 

Furthermore, students average nearly 1.5 attempts per level, adding significant time to completion for a large 

portion of the student body. 


Success 

Success Through Math Sequence Over Three Years by First Math Course Attempted at ELAC 

Success in 

Success in 

Success in Success in 

Math 

Math 105 

Math 115 Math 125 

110/112 

N (%) 

N (%) N (%) 

N (%) 

First Math Course at 

ELAC (Fall 2008) 

Success in 

Transfer Level 

N (%) 

Math 105 (n = 167) 82 (49.1%) 50 (29.9%) 27 (16.2%) 11 (6.6%) 6 (3.6%) 

Math 110/112 (n=1003) 542 (54.0%) 300 (29.9%) 146 (14.6%) 57 (5.7%) 

Math 115 (n = 616) 414 (67.2%) 278 (45.1%) 151 (24.5%) 

Math 125 (n = 370) 248 (67.0%) 185 (50.0%) 

Transfer Level (n = 309) 162 (52.4%) 

Average Math Course Attempts Over Three Years by First Math Course Attempted at ELAC 

First Math Course at ELAC (Fall 2008) Math 105 Math 110/112 Math 115 Math 125 

Math 105 (n = 167) 1.25 1.40 1.45 1.47 

Math 110/112 (n=1003) 1.34 1.48 1.41 

Math 115 (n = 616) 1.30 1.37 

Math 125 (n = 370) 1.21 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

Math 105 

Success Through Math Sequence Over Three Years 

by First Math Course Attempted at ELAC 

Math 

110/112 

Math 115 Math 125 Transfer 

Level 

Math Course Sequence Through Spring 2011 

First Math Course 

Attempted at ELAC 

(Fall 2008) 

Math 105 (n = 167) 

Math 110/112 (n=1003) 

Math 115 (n = 616) 

Math 125 (n = 370) 

Transfer Level (n = 309) 

Using these initial completion figures as a base, the committee turned to a review of requested data. 

Through the Summer 2011 and Fall 2012 semesters, the EPSC met to refine its requests and prioritize the 

need for the data requested. In addition, the college’s Achieving the Dream Data Team reviewed elements 

of the data produced and assisted the Office of Institutional Effectiveness in developing appropriate data 

displays that are reflective of the college experience and that can be presented in a manner that informs 

college decision-makers. The final data are represented below. 


How Successful Are Students When They Take the Class That They Are Placed 

Into? Can They Get Into That Placed Class? 

The 2008-2011 Educational Master Plan called for the college to utilize computerized assessment 

processes. The collaborative work of the English and Math Departments led to the use of the Accuplacer 

and Compass assessment systems. The completion of this objective led to more effective placement and 

the removal of the referral process, which required an additional test during a separate testing period. The 

current testing procedures result in 88% of students testing below transfer-level in English and nearly 

93% of students testing below transfer-level in math. 

English Placement 

Placement Trends: English 

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 

2011-2012 

(to date) 

Students % Students % Students % Students % Students % 

English 101 1,476 12.7% 1,559 11.5% 1,481 11.0% 1,802 12.5% 793 11.9% 

English 028/060s 2,225 19.2% 2,511 18.5% 2,474 18.4% 2,363 16.4% 955 14.3% 

English 026/057 1,881 16.2% 2,283 16.8% 2,312 17.2% 2,342 16.3% 924 13.8% 

English 021 1,706 14.7% 2,078 15.3% 2,160 16.0% 2,311 16.0% 1,131 16.9% 

Reading 020 1,290 11.1% 1,632 12.0% 1,727 12.8% 2,276 15.8% 1,296 19.4% 

Referral 439 3.8% 432 3.2% 437 3.2% 286 2.0% 52 0.8% 

English 086/ 

ESL 006A 

425 3.7% 580 4.3% 545 4.0% 311 2.2% 108 1.6% 

English 085/ ESL 

005A 

323 2.8% 366 2.7% 390 2.9% 291 2.0% 185 2.8% 


004A 

286 2.5% 347 2.6% 283 2.1% 348 2.4% 207 3.1% 


003A 

285 2.5% 302 2.2% 257 1.9% 448 3.1% 205 3.1% 

ESL 41CE 211 1.8% 280 2.1% 228 1.7% 321 2.2% 161 2.4% 

ESL 40CE 124 1.1% 215 1.6% 176 1.3% 290 2.0% 108 1.6% 

No Placement 5 0.0% 8 0.1% 9 0.1% 2 0.0% 2 0.0% 

Not Assessed 904 7.8% 966 7.1% 991 7.4% 1,012 7.0% 552 8.3% 

Total 11,580 100.0% 13,559 100.0% 13,470 100.0% 14,403 100.0% 6,679 100.0% 


Placement Trends: Math 

Math Placement 

2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 (to date) 

Students % Students % Students % Students % Students % 

Math 261 281 2.4% 304 2.2% 346 2.6% 256 1.8% 59 0.9% 

TransfLevel2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 170 1.2% 108 1.6% 

TransfLevel1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 572 4.0% 321 4.8% 

Transf Level 235 2.0% 228 1.7% 282 2.1% 108 0.7% 0.0% 

Math 125/120 1,168 10.1% 1,283 9.5% 1,352 10.0% 1,901 13.2% 1,061 15.9% 

Math 115 1,779 15.4% 2,161 15.9% 2,219 16.5% 2,005 13.9% 847 12.7% 

Math 112/110 3,023 26.1% 6,032 44.5% 6,295 46.7% 5,642 39.2% 2,037 30.5% 

Math 105 1,891 16.3% 532 3.9% 572 4.2% 2,090 14.5% 1,632 24.4% 

Referral 1,236 10.7% 1,346 9.9% 1,260 9.4% 568 3.9% 0 0.0% 

No Placement 19 0.2% 23 0.2% 44 0.3% 19 0.1% 0.0% 

Not Assessed 1,948 16.8% 1,650 12.2% 1,100 8.2% 1,072 7.4% 614 9.2% 

Total 11,580 100.0% 13,559 100.0% 13,470 100.0% 14,403 100.0% 6,679 100.0% 

While the testing procedures have resulted in more appropriate placement of students and enhanced 

access to the placement process. The committee was concerned about the ability of new students to enroll 

in the placed course. Given the rate at which math and English classes fill, there was a need to determine 

whether students are able to enroll in the class that they are placed into. In Fall 2011, only 18% of 

assessed students were able to get into math courses and 14% in English courses that they were placed 

into. There is further evidence of this problem in Fall 2012. By the time new students were able to enroll 

in classes, 89% of math and English classes were full. In addition, Math 105, Math 110, Math 125, Math 

227, English 26, English 101, English 102 and English 103 were all closed. 

Placement Enrollment Pattern: Math 

Math Course 

Number Placed in Number Enrolled in % Enrolled in Placed 

Course 

Course 

Course 

Math 105 1,018 62 6% 

Math 110 1,312 150 11% 

Math 115 563 134 24% 

Math 125/120 713 192 27% 

Math 261 48 39 81% 

TransfLevel1 212 86 41% 

TransfLevel2 78 45 58% 

Total 3,944 708 18% 


Placement Enrollment Pattern: English 

English Course 

Number Placed in Number Enrolled in % Enrolled in Placed 

Course Course (First Semester) 

Course 

ENGLISH 021 725 82 11% 

ENGLISH 026 597 93 16% 

ENGLISH 028 624 130 21% 

ENGLISH 101 509 82 16% 

READING 020 857 74 9% 

ENL Referral 2 -- -- 

ESL Referral 25 -- -- 

Total 3,339 461 14% 1 

Table 1: Fall 2011 Placement and Fall 2011 Enrollments 

1 This percentage excludes ENL and ESL Referrals from the denominator 

For Sequential Courses, How Does the Grade in the Previous Class Affect 

Success in Next Class? 

An analysis of the math and English sequences was conducted to determine the impact of previous grades 

on the next course in the sequence. The data clearly demonstrate that the higher the previous grade, the 

more likely the student was to be successful in subsequent courses. 

English Course Sequence Analysis 

Fall 2010 English Course/Grade 

Next English Sequence Course 

N Retention Success 

READING020 

P 118 91.5% 75.4% 

ENGLISH021 

P 207 93.2% 74.9% 

ENGLISH026 

A 62 95.2% 88.7% 

B 191 92.1% 81.7% 

C 163 86.5% 66.3% 

ENGLISH028 

A 113 92.9% 83.2% 

B 204 92.2% 76.5% 

C 238 86.6% 68.5% 

Total 1,296 90.7% 75.3% 


Math Course Sequence Analysis 

Fall 2010 Math Course/Grade 

Next Math Sequence Course 

N Retention Success 

MATH105 

P 58 87.9% 69.0% 

MATH110 

P 446 79.8% 49.3% 

MATH115 

A 165 93.9% 83.6% 

B 139 83.5% 60.4% 

C 260 75.8% 41.2% 

Total 1,068 81.9% 55.1% 

Further analysis was conducted to determine how students progress through the sequence across 

semesters. General statistics indicate that only 38% of students attempting an English class are able to 

progress through that course and pass the subsequent course within two semesters. The results indicate 

that only 17% are able to do so in math. 

English Progression Analysis 

Fall 2010 

Fall 2010 English Course 

Next English Sequence Course 

English Course Attempted Retained Successful Attempted Retained Successful 

Reading 020 353 324 226 118 108 89 

English 021 613 547 390 207 193 155 

English 026 875 742 568 416 376 569 

English 028 1,344 1,176 866 555 499 413 

Total 3,185 2,789 2,050 1,296 1,176 1,226 

Math Progression Analysis 

Fall 2010 

Fall 2010 Math Course 

Next Math Sequence Course 

Math Course Attempted Retained Successful Attempted Retained Successful 

Math 105 336 269 140 58 51 40 

Math 110 1,260 1,026 581 446 356 220 

Math 115 1,790 1,398 892 564 468 329 

Total 3,386 2,703 1,613 1,068 875 589 

Following these results, additional analysis was conducted on specific courses. The focus of this analysis 

was on those courses which have been identified as targets for the Achieving the Dream initiative 

(English 28 and Math 115). The following data represents the success rates for those classes based on the 

student grade in the prerequisite course. 

Overall, both success and retention rates in Math 125 showed a positive approximately linear relationship 

to grades in Math 115 (e.g. students who received an A in Math 115 had a higher success rate in Math 

125 than students who received a B in Math 115). C students in 115 were successful at a rate of only 


36%. There appears to be no difference in the rate at which students delay taking the next course in the 

sequence based on their previous grade. Although there have been suggestions that students delay taking 

courses in their sequence, it appears that a large majority of students are entering directly into the next 

course in the sequence without delay. The data suggests that delaying taking the next course in the 

sequence lowers the success rate in the next course dramatically. This impact occurs regardless of the 

grade in the previous course. 

Grade in 

Math 115 

Took Math 125 Next 

Semester (N = 1554) 

Subsequent Success by Grade: Math 115 

Took Math 125 Two 

Semesters Later (N = 223) 

Took Math 125 Three or 

Four Semesters Later 

(N = 66) 

Retention Success Retention Success Retention Success 

A 92.9% 82.8% 85.1% 63.8% 77.8% 55.6% 

B 79.6% 53.9% 80.0% 35.7% 57.9% 26.3% 

C 72.8% 38.4% 64.2% 26.4% 65.5% 13.8% 

Total 80.1% 54.6% 73.5% 37.2% 66.7% 28.8% 

The majority of students who passed English 26/57 attempted English 28 in the next semester (79.5%). 

Students who received an A in English 26/57 were slightly more likely to take English 28 the next 

semester compared to students who received a B or C in English 26/57. Very few students waited three or 

four semesters to attempt English 28. Overall, both success and retention rates in English 28 showed a 

positive approximately linear relationship to grades in English 26/57 (e.g., students who received an A in 

English 26/57 had a higher success rate in English 28 than students who received a B in English 26/57). 

Also, students who waited two or more semesters to attempt English 28 had lower success and retention 

rates than those who took English 28 the next semester. This effect was most evident in students who 

received a B or a C in English 26/57. There is a somewhat strange pattern for students who got an A in 

English 26/57 and waited two or more semesters to take English 28. Their English 28 success rates were 

86.5%, 75%, and 90%, if they took English 28 the next semester, two semesters later, or three to four 

semesters later, respectively. This may be due to two reasons. First, there was a smaller sample size of 

students who received an A in English 26/57 compared to those who received a B or C. Second, the vast 

majority of students who got A’s in English 26/57 took English 28 the next semester. So, the number of A 

students who waited two or more semesters to take English 28 may have been too small to accurately 

measure retention and success rates. 

English 26/57 

Grade 

Subsequent Success by Grade: English 26/57 

Took English 28 Next 

Took English 28 

Semester Two Semesters Later 

(N = 952) 

(N = 171) 

Took English 28 Three or 

Four Semesters Later 

(N = 74) 

Retention Success Retention Success Retention Success 

A 94.5% 86.5% 87.5% 75.0% 90.0% 90.0% 

B 89.8% 74.0% 88.6% 68.6% 87.1% 51.6% 

C 82.5% 61.1% 79.2% 58.4% 75.8% 57.6% 

Total 87.4% 70.5% 84.2% 64.9% 82.4% 59.5% 


What is the Success of Acceleration Models and Compression Models in Math 

and English Sequences? 

The committee reviewed all relevant literature and data available on alternative models through the 3CSN 

network. The overall findings supported the need to create accelerated or compressed models for both 

math and English sequences. The college currently has programs in place to pilot both the acceleration 

and compression models. In addition, representatives of the Math and English Departments attended the 

Achieving the Dream strategies institute to determine successful models that could be implemented at 

ELAC. The lessons learned from this process have been integrated into the Educational Master Plan and 

labeled as ATD strategies. These include the use of common finals, acceleration and compression models, 

and possible curricular revisions. 

The English Department has piloted an acceleration model that attempts to use web-assisted teaching 

methods to move English 26 students to English 101 in one semester of instruction. There is an 

assessment plan in place which will garner an evaluation report in Fall 2012. This report will be made 

available to the committee at that time to guide in implementation of the new Educational Master Plan. 

The Math Department is attempting to compress their sequence with a pilot conducted in Spring 2012. 

The data evaluating this pilot will not be complete until the success rates of the subsequent math course 

are available. However, initial results are promising. Of the seventy-two students who entered the Math 

115 compression model, thirty-three were able to successfully complete two math courses (Math 115 and 

Math 125) in one semester. This means that 45.8% of students entering the course were able to pass both 

courses in one semester. As a broad comparison, only 18.4% of students enrolled in standard Math 115 

courses were able to complete 115 and 125 within two semesters. Success rates were 56.9% in the Math 

115 and 84.6% in Math 125. Both of these success rates are substantially higher than the general rates for 

these courses. These promising figures are being evaluated by the Math Department in order to continue 

their efforts in programmatic improvement. 

What is the Success of Specialty Programs (Adelante, Puente, etc…)? 

Adelante Data 

The Adelante program is a first-year cohort program that is committed to the educational success of 

students. Adelante is a comprehensive program involving student services, linked courses, a stimulating 

learning environment, and committed faculty which together will provide all Adelante first-year students 

with the very best opportunities to succeed in transferring to a four-year university. Data on the Adelante 

program shows improved success in the first year, enhanced persistence and increased completion rates. 

Success following the first-year experience in Adelante program falls to the college average. The 

following table shows success rates for Adelante students in Adelante courses and in standard courses. 


Adelante Success Rates by Ethnicity 

2007-2008 2008-2009 

Ethnicity 

Adelante 

Courses 

Non-Adelante 

Courses 

Adelante 

Courses 

Non-Adelante 

Courses 

American Indian, Alaskan Native 0.0% 50.0% 

Asian/Pacific Islander 45.5% 50.0% 40.0% 66.7% 

Black, African-American 33.3% 0.0% 

Caucasian, White 50.0% 83.3% 

Hispanic/Latino 73.1% 61.9% 66.0% 60.0% 

Unknown 33.3% 12.5% 0.0% 50.0% 

Total 71.7% 60.9% 65.4% 60.0% 

In the following table, a student was included in the cohort if he/she took at least one Adelante course in 

that fall term. The persistence data are based on graded enrollment in the subsequent spring and fall 

terms (unless otherwise noted).The data indicate substantial increases persistence compared to the general 

student body. 

Adelante Persistence 

Cohort 

Cohort Fall-to-Spring Persistence Fall-to-Fall Persistence 

N N % N % 

Fall 2007 161 143 88.8% 118 73.3% 

Fall 2008 187 164 87.7% 135 72.2% 

Fall 2009 160 140 87.5% 129 80.6% 

Fall 2010 159 143* 90.0%* 128** 80.5%** 

Overall 667 590 88.5% 510 76.5% 

*Data based on enrollments as of the census date for Spring 2011 

**Data based on non-dropped enrollments for Fall 2011 

The data also indicate that Adelante students progress through academic milestones with greater success 

than the general student body. 


Adelante Cohort Analysis 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

89.4% 

62.0% 

Fall to Spring 

Persistence 

73.9% 

Fall to Fall 

Persistence 

52.3% 

34.5% 

Completion of 

of Math and 

English 

14.3% 

15.5% 

10.9% 

Any 

completion 

10.6% 

Transfer 

6.2% 

Adelante 

General student body 

Athletics Data 

The college offers thirteen sports. A unique characteristic of the college athlete is that these students are 

required to maintain fulltime student status in-season and have minimum GPA requirements. In addition, 

the restrictions on the number of years that an athlete can compete, forces an acceleration of the academic 

program, if that student wishes to compete at the university level. Lastly, each team has specific 

regulations and programs to assist students in their scholastic efforts. The data indicate that student 

athletes have increased success rates throughout the educational milestones. 

ELAC Athletics by Sport 

Sport 

Students 

Badminton 7 

Baseball 19 

Basketball 18 

Cheer 9 

Cross Country 9 

Football 42 

Soccer 25 

Softball 12 

Track and Field 8 

Volleyball 5 

Wrestling 10 

Total Athletes 164 

General Student Body 3,565 

Total 3,729 


Cohort Analysis: Athletics 

100.0% 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

100.0% 

100.0% 

72.6% 

62.6% 

61.6% 

52.7% 

22.6% 

17.7% 

10.6% 

5.8% 

Athletes 

General Students 

Honors Data 

The college has a comprehensive Honors Program. The program guarantees priority consideration for 

admission to UCLA, UC Riverside, UC Santa Cruz, UC Irvine, Occidental College, Pitzer College, 

Pomona College, Chapman University, Whitman College, Loyola Marymount University and Mills 

College. The program offers academically enriched classes, stressing critical thinking and written 

expression. The courses offered include increased student-instructor interaction, and more frequent 

association with other academically motivated, transfer-oriented students. Students entering the program 

must have a cumulative “B” average (3.0 GPA), eligibility for or completion of English 101, and 

completion of twelve transferable units or a cumulative “B” average (3.0 GPA) in high school and 

eligibility for English 101. All students from the 2007 cohort were included in the analysis. Any student 

successfully completing any honors course was included in the honors group. The results indicate 

significant increases in student success throughout the educational milestones. 


100.0% 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

0.0% 

100.0% 

Fall to 

Spring 

Persistence 

62.4% 

95.5% 

Fall to Fall 

Persistence 

52.3% 

Cohort Analysis: Honors 

85.1% 

13.8% 

Completed 

English and 

Math 

Competency 

59.7% 

Any 

Completion 

10.2% 

38.8% 

Transfer 

5.7% 

Honors 

General Student Body 

Puente Data 

The mission of the Puente Project is to increase the number of educationally underserved students who 

enroll in four year colleges and universities, earn degrees, and return to the community as leaders and 

mentors to future generations. Puente is open to all interested students. The program utilizes English 

instruction, counseling and mentoring to assist students in their educational pursuits. Puente students take 

two consecutive writing classes, English 28 (Fall) and English 101 (Spring). These classes provide a 

supportive and stimulating environment for Puente students with an emphasis on developing writing skills 

through an exploration of the Mexican American/Latino experience. Below are the Puente in course 

success rates and program completions. 

Puente Success Rates 

Graded 

Retention 

Retained Successful 

Enrollment 

Rate 

Success Rate 

English 065 116 106 70 91.4% 60.3% 

English 101 88 72 45 81.8% 51.1% 


Cohort Analysis: Puente 

80.0% 

80.0% 

71.4% 

70.0% 

62.9% 

60.0% 

52.9% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 

10.0% 

31.4% 

14.9% 

14.3% 

11.1% 

11.4% 

6.3% 

Puente 

General Student Body 

0.0% 

Fall to 

Spring 

Persistence 

Fall to Fall 

Persistence 

Completed 

English and 

Math 

Competency 

Any 

Completion 

Transfer 

The data indicate that all of the college’s special programs have greater completion rates than the general 

student body. However, the success of students who were fulltime in their first year surpasses the 

completion rate for many of these special programs. These findings clearly place an emphasis on 

strategies that allow students to maintain a fulltime status. 

Fall 2007 Cohort 

Cohort Analysis: Special Programs 

Fulltime 

College 

Adelante Athletes Honors Puente 

First Year 

N Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate N Rate 

Students 3,729 861 142 164 67 35 

Fall to Fall 

1,980 53.1% 

45.1% 105 73.9% 101 61.6% 64 95.5% 25 71.4% 

Persistence 

388 

Any completion 414 11.1% 244 28.3% 22 15.5% 37 22.6% 40 59.7% 5 14.3% 

Transfer 236 6.3% 150 17.4% 15 10.6% 29 17.7% 26 38.8% 4 11.4% 

How Successful are Students Who Pass English 101 in All Other Areas? 

The data indicate that completion of English 101 significantly improves a student’s ability to complete 

other courses. The success rate in non-English courses for those passing English 101 is 75.6%, nearly ten 

points higher than the college average. In addition, an analysis of co-enrollment indicates that success in 

many of the courses is greatly affected by English levels. 


Success Rates by English Enrollment 

English Courses 

ESL/English 

80's 

Reading 20 English 21 English 26 English 28 English 101 

CO SCI201 0.82 (n = 28) 0.47 (n = 17) 0.68 (n = 25) 0.71 (n = 17) 0.77 (n = 26) 0.56 (n = 9) 

CO SCI291 0.75 (n = 28) 0.65 (n = 17) 0.80 (n = 20) 0.87 (n = 15) 0.62 (n = 26) 0.56 (n = 9) 

HEALTH008 0.67 (n = 3) 0.42 (n = 31) 0.49 (n = 59) 0.67 (n = 45) 0.61 (n = 44) 0.67 (n = 12) 

HEALTH011 0.82 (n = 22) 0.58 (n = 58) 0.59 (n = 87) 0.72 (n = 54) 0.66 (n = 74) 0.86 (n = 22) 

MATH110 0.39 (n = 33) 0.41 (n=125) 0.42 (n=125) 0.58 (n=120) 0.56 (n = 84) 0.50 (n = 12) 

MATH115 0.83 (n = 24) 0.62 (n = 13) 0.46 (n = 48) 0.55 (n = 58) 0.63 (n = 96) 0.67 (n = 49) 

MATH125 0.77 (n = 39) 0.55 (n = 11) 0.70 (n = 27) 0.55 (n = 20) 0.60 (n = 50) 0.72 (n = 39) 

PERSDEV001 1.00 (n = 1) 0.64 (n = 45) 0.88 (n = 26) 0.90 (n = 30) 0.98 (n = 61) 0.73 (n = 11) 

PHYS ED726 0.89 (n = 9) 0.69 (n = 35) 0.70 (n = 10) 0.64 (n = 11) 1.00 (n = 10) - 

POL SCI001 0.63 (n = 8) 0.31 (n = 26) 0.43 (n = 60) 0.52 (n = 62) 0.57 (n = 77) 0.77 (n = 47) 

PSYCH001 0.57 (n = 7) 0.57 (n = 23) 0.57 (n = 49) 0.59 (n = 44) 0.78 (n = 80) 0.76 (n = 38) 

SPEECH101 - 0.28 (n = 40) 0.62 (n = 45) 0.58 (n = 53) 0.61 (n = 76) 0.74 (n = 50) 

SPEECH113 0.87 (n = 31) 1.00 (n = 2) 1.00 (n = 5) 1.00 (n = 1) - 1.00 (n = 1) 

Are Teachers Using Effective Practices/Pedagogy? 

The committee recognized the intricacies of effective teaching and the different strategies used across 

disciplines. Given the differences in curriculum, student success is a poor indicator of comparative 

efficacy. To address this concern, the following plan has been approved by the Academic Senate. The 

Office of Institutional Effectiveness is already working with USC to develop a research relationship. 

Pedagogy Evaluation 

One of ELAC’s core goals is to increase student success and academic excellence through studentcentered 

instruction, student-centered support services, and dynamic technologies. Intrinsic in this goal is 

the need to utilize effective and promising pedagogy that target the needs of the underrepresented students 

that ELAC serves. While the college has made many efforts to increase the use of effective pedagogy, it 

has never established a systematic way of assessing the use and efficacy of these effective pedagogical 

strategies. 

The college recognizes that the faculty collectively represents a great source of practical and technical 

expertise. However, the current trends in effective teaching techniques and learning theories often require 

experts in the field of education. To this end the college will seek a partnership with universities with the 

expressed purpose of developing a method for assessing effective pedagogy and linking this to success 

with underrepresented student populations. 

Suggested Methodology 

The College will seek a group of university doctoral candidates who wish to investigate the impact of 

effective pedagogy on minority success rates. These students will bring with them an expertise in teaching 

and learning theories and practices. Through their literature review, they will be able to inform the college 

of the hallmarks of effective pedagogy. This group will meet with the academic senate and utilize the 


practical experience of the faculty to develop a rubric for assessing, through observation, the presence of 

different effective pedagogical techniques. 

The Academic Senate and the students will solicit faculty volunteers for observation. The students will 

observe class sessions and complete evaluations of the techniques used. These evaluations will be shared 

with the faculty member being observed, but be blinded in other analysis. The data will be linked to 

student success in those classes and be compared with the general success rate for similar courses. 

Through this method, the college will be able to determine the use and effectiveness of different 

techniques. 

What Courses Do New Students Taken in Their First Year? 

The most frequently taken courses in Fall 2008 for first-time students are presented in the following table. 

In general, the courses represent general education requirements or electives for degree or transfer 

programs. In addition, the students attempt to complete courses in the math and English sequences. The 

data indicate a large range of success rates with some courses as low as 45.7% and as high as 86.8%. 

First Semester Enrollment for New Students 

Course Enrollments Success Rate 

MATH110 698 45.7% 

MATH115 464 63.4% 

HEALTH011 439 70.8% 

POL SCI001 381 53.0% 

PSYCH001 351 64.1% 

ENGLISH021 342 62.9% 

ENGLISH057 324 60.8% 

MATH125 266 77.1% 

PERSDEV001 255 82.0% 

ENGLISH065 255 59.2% 

CH DEV001 243 67.5% 

SPEECH101 212 48.1% 

HEALTH008 206 54.9% 

ENGLISH101 194 52.1% 

SOC001 182 51.1% 

READING020 160 64.4% 

PHYS ED690 136 64.7% 

HISTORY011 127 61.4% 

CO SCI291 125 55.2% 

CO SCI201 121 53.7% 

CHICANO007 119 62.2% 

ENGLISH086 114 86.8% 


What Do Enrollment Date (Fill Rate, Time of Day, Location) Say About Student 

Need? 

The committee indicated a concern that students have difficulty completing bottleneck courses, especially 

in the math and English sequence. The Office of Institutional Effectiveness ran an analysis to determine 

what would be required should every new student progress through the sequence without skipping a 

semester. Given the current success rates and placements, the required offerings are well beyond the 

college’s ability to offer. As an example, more than 3,000 seats would be required in English 101 and 

only 1,600 are currently offered. 

Projected English Demand 

Success Rate 

64% 63% 65% 64% 65% 

Reading 020 English 021 English 026 English 028 English 101 

Students from Placement 859 761 603 636 515 

Students Repeating 309 551 775 918 966 

Students Progressing 

from Previous Course 

0 748 1,595 1,925 2,232 

Total Space Needed 1,168 2,060 2,973 3,480 3,713 

Success Rate 

Projected Math Demand 

41% 46% 50% 47% 55% 

Math 105 Math 110 Math 115 Math 125 

"Transfer 

Level" 

Students from Placement 1,061 1,334 574 714 212 

Students Repeating 625 1,092 1,010 1,327 906 

Students Progressing 

from Previous Course 

0 693 1,438 1,793 1,804 

Total Space Needed 1,686 3,119 3,022 3,834 2,921 


Current English and Math Capacity 

Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 

Course 

Sections 

Enrollment 

Enrollment 

Enrollment 

Sections 

Sections 

Capacity 

Capacity 

Capacity 

READING020 10 405 8 308 10 405 

ENGLISH021 16 720 17 760 16 720 

ENGLISH026 23 945 26 1,170 23 990 

ENGLISH028 33 1,395 34 1,485 32 1,305 

ENGLISH101 41 1,745 47 1,928 38 1,610 

ENGLISH102 7 270 7 315 7 270 

ENGLISH103 28 1,215 31 1,295 27 1,170 

MATH105 9 355 11 495 6 270 

MATH110 23 990 26 1,112 19 810 

MATH112 1 40 1 40 1 40 

MATH115 38 1,565 38 1,630 35 1,470 

MATH120 5 225 4 180 5 180 

MATH125 35 1,450 36 1,537 33 1,400 

MATH215 2 90 2 90 2 90 

MATH216 1 45 1 45 1 45 

MATH227 27 1,150 26 1,026 27 1,130 

MATH230 2 85 2 85 2 85 

MATH235 1 45 1 45 1 45 

MATH236 1 45 1 45 1 45 

MATH241 4 180 6 270 5 225 

MATH245 6 265 11 490 5 220 

MATH260 9 400 9 400 11 490 

Additional analysis was conducted on all courses. The results indicate that a majority of seats are filled 

more than a month prior to the start of classes. In addition, the data indicate that online and South Gate 

courses fill at a greater rate than the college average. Whereas time of day has had a major impact on fill 

rates in the past, all courses appear to be filling across the board. These data have also been given to the 

Enrollment Management Committee for use in their efforts at prioritization efforts. 

College Enrollment Trends 

Relative Day Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 

-60 24,711 29,337 16,858 

-30 14,142 17,401 11,473 

-15 11,745 13,726 9,359 

-7 10,524 12,714 9,167 

0 10,484 12,596 8,201 


35,000 


30,000 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

Fall 2010 

Spring 2011 

Fall 2011 

5,000 

- 

-60 -30 -15 -7 0 

College Enrollment Trends Fill Rate by Location 

Relative Day Main Campus Off-Site Online Rosemead South Gate 

-60 75.6% 27.3% 85.5% 77.8% 91.7% 

-30 83.1% 34.8% 91.4% 85.5% 97.4% 

-15 86.2% 53.3% 92.7% 88.6% 98.8% 

-7 86.8% 53.6% 93.1% 88.4% 98.4% 

0 88.4% 56.7% 93.4% 81.8% 98.2% 

100.0% 

90.0% 

80.0% 

70.0% 

60.0% 

50.0% 

40.0% 

30.0% 

20.0% 


Fill Rate by Location 

-60 -30 -15 -7 0 

Main Campus 

Off-Site 

Online 

Rosemead 

South Gate 


Fill Rate by Relative Time of Day 

Relative 

Day 

6AM-8AM 

Start 

8AM-10AM 

Start 

10AM-Noon 

Start 

Noon-2PM 

Start 

2PM-4PM 

Start 

4PM-6PM 

Start 

6PM or 

Later Start 

-60 81.0% 88.6% 88.0% 89.4% 82.1% 81.0% 82.2% 

-30 88.3% 94.4% 94.3% 97.3% 89.9% 88.3% 92.0% 

-15 92.1% 95.9% 97.0% 99.6% 92.1% 92.1% 95.0% 

-7 92.7% 95.8% 97.3% 99.4% 90.3% 92.7% 95.2% 

0 95.5% 96.9% 98.0% 102.0% 91.1% 95.5% 93.2% 

Course Availability by Time of Day 

Time of Day 

Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2011 

Sections Sec Limit Sections Sec Limit Sections Sec Limit 

10AM-Noon Start 210 8,043 205 8,079 207 7,965 

2PM-4PM Start 135 5,516 172 6,112 144 5,789 

4PM-6PM Start 105 3,514 114 4,151 104 3,617 

6AM-8AM Start 152 4,917 170 5,395 163 5,204 

6PM or Later Start 334 13,281 359 14,228 329 13,253 

8AM-10AM Start 345 13,524 361 13,786 341 13,648 

Noon-2PM Start 253 9,603 271 10,329 271 10,317 

TBA 346 18,458 346 20,036 320 17,640 

Total 1,880 76,856 1,998 82,116 1,879 77,433 

What is the Impact of Counseling on Student Success? 

The Educational Planning Subcommittee requested data to determine the impact of receiving counseling 

and/or an educational plan on student success. The only available data that could be used in this type of 

analysis comes from the Counseling Department’s scheduling system (i.e. SARS). Unfortunately, the data 

in this system suffers from a number of flaws, some of which are serious. First, the data simply lists the 

appointments that were made. There is no variable in the data system which indicates whether a student 

actually showed up for the appointment or not. Next, assuming that a student did go to the Counseling 

session, there is no information on what Counseling services the student received at the session (i.e., 

received an educational plan, discussed transfer options, discussed different majors, etc.). There is a code 

which indicates the reason a student made the appointment, but there are a few problems with it. First, 

there is no indication that a student’s reason for making an appointment was the same as what was 

actually discussed at the session. Further, many of the students came in for “general advisement”, which 

gives very little usable information. 

Looking beyond the SARS system, OIE found out that the Counseling Department does not keep 

computerized records of the students that have received an educational plan. Rather, the department only 

keeps hard copies of educational plans for three years. Given the length of time it takes many students to 

complete their educational goals at ELAC, even if the educational plans were entered into a computer 

system, we would not have complete data for a large percentage of students. 


How Effective is the Faculty Transfer Advisor? 

The Faculty Transfer Advisor program provides workshops to interested faculty on transfer and financial 

aid related issues. These faculty work with students to help guide them through the transfer process. In a 

detailed evaluation of the Faculty Transfer Advisor program, the committee found that a majority of 

faculty were overwhelmingly satisfied with the program. In addition, most faculty reported seeing more 

students and having more confidence in the information that they were providing to these students. 

Faculty comments included: 

The Faculty Transfer Advisor program has been very useful for me. I am much better 

equipped to answer students' questions and can serve as a better guide and mentor for 

them. Thanks! 

More than ever students need role models that know the path that lies ahead of them and 

can provide them with a clear vision of what the transfer process entails. As a transfer 

student myself, I appreciate the opportunity to provide students with useful and accurate 

information in hopes that their transition is not only successful but also invigorating. We 

want our transfer students to hit the ground running and not stumble their way through 

university life. The Faculty Transfer Advisor Program at ELAC promotes contact 

between a student in need of advice and an instructor who is well informed in the current 

transfer process and experienced in the student's field of interest. The FTAP provides the 

training necessary to assure advisors are up to speed on the latest transfer issues and 

technologies. I support the program wholeheartedly. 

How Does Financial Aid Impact Student Success? 

The data indicate that financial aid has a substantial impact on student completion. All forms of aid, with 

the exception of the Board of Governors Grant Fee Waiver (BOGG), improve student completion. An 

overwhelming number of students qualify for the BOGG, which only waves tuition. It appears that more 

substantial aid that can cover other educational costs provide more support for student success than tuition 

waivers alone. 

Financial Aid 

Students 

Cohort Analysis by Financial Aid Status 

Completed 

Completed 

First 

Completed 

Both Math 

Semester 

60+ Units 

and English 

Units 

Completion 

Completion 

Rate 

BOGG Only 1,391 890 160 174 119 8.6% 

Need Based 

(Pell, etc.) 

766 674 180 193 134 17.5% 

No Aid 1,568 972 222 181 160 10.2% 

Other Award 

or Loan 

4 3 1 1 1 25.0% 

Total 3,729 2,539 563 549 414 11.10% 


How Does Fulltime Status Impact a Student’s Success Rate? 

As indicated previously, maintaining a fulltime status increases a student’s chance of completing a 

degree, certificate or transfer program. In addition, fulltime students have greater in-course success than 

other students. The success rates below indicate the success of the Fall 2007 cohort students each 

semester depending on their enrollment status. If the students maintain fulltime status for two-years, their 

completion rate reaches nearly 40%. 

Success Rates Fall 2007 Cohort by Enrollment Status 

Fall 2007 

Status Enrollment Retention Success Success Rate 

Fulltime 6,304 5,674 4,196 66.6% 

6-11 3,349 2,849 1,722 51.4% 

Under 6 942 779 435 46.2% 

Spring 2008 


Fulltime 5,055 4,483 3,404 67.3% 

6-11 2,341 1,929 1,215 51.9% 

Under 6 384 333 192 50.0% 

Fall 2008 


Fulltime 4,283 3,781 2,976 69.5% 

6-11 1,889 1,528 984 52.1% 

Under 6 346 283 180 52.0% 

Spring 2009 


Fulltime 3,985 3,494 2,770 69.5% 

6-11 1,661 1,309 921 55.5% 

Under 6 314 251 159 50.6% 

Fall 2009 


Fulltime 2,693 2,392 1,870 69.4% 

6-11 1,370 1,129 817 59.6% 

Less than 6 605 495 331 54.7% 

Spring 2010 


Fulltime 2,290 1,994 1,631 71.2% 

6-11 1,408 1,152 818 58.1% 

Under 6 301 223 154 51.2% 


Fulltime First 

Two Years 

Hall to Fulltime 

First Two Years 

Students 

Cohort Analysis by Enrollment Status 

Completed Completed 

Completed 

First Semester Both Math 

60+ Units 

Units and English 

Completion 

Completion 

Rate 

476 468 299 336 187 39.3% 

1,152 1,087 478 505 284 24.7% 

Ongoing Data Needs 

The committee will continue to gather detailed information through student surveys, focus groups and 

additional quantitative analysis. These efforts are part of the committee’s continuous work to improved 

educational programs and follow-through on the implementation the Educational Master Plan. 

Continuous Data Needs 

What data exist to inform curriculum development? 

Why are students completing 0 units in first semester? 

How well do GE and transfer requirements align? 

Why do students fail to get an AA degree? 

Lack of accessibility 

Lack of knowledge of direction 

AA has no value 

What data exists to prioritize reductions in a time of economic crisis? 

Following the completion of the data review, the EPSC constructed educational planning objectives using 

the College Mission, Vision, and Strategic Goals as a guide. Educational planning objectives are 

developed in a manner that meeting these objectives will lead to the fulfillment of the college‘s strategic 

directions and values. Each objective has accompanying action items that describe the manner in which 

the objective should be accomplished. Specific measurable outcomes are assigned to responsible entities 

and collaborators to assist in the implementation process. The completed educational plan is vetted 

through the campus community, including the Academic Senate, the Associated Student Union, and the 

faculty, staff, and general student body. The goal of the vetting process is to receive input from all 

constituent groups in a manner that promotes the development of a revised plan with college-wide 

support. Upon completion of the vetting process, the committee meets to finalize the draft to be sent to 

ESGC for approval. The ESGC-approved draft is then forwarded to the Board of Trustees for approval. 

The following pages provide the Educational Master Plan Objectives, and Action Items. In addition, 

alignment to the Strategic Plan Goals, underlying data and measurable outcomes are provided in an effort 

to provide a concise presentation of the Educational Master Plan from data collection through evaluation. 


EAST LOS ANGELES COLLEGE 

EDUCATIONAL MASTER PLAN 2012 – 2018 

OBJECTIVES AND ACTION ITEMS 


Goal 

Goal 1: 

Increasing 

student success 

and academic 

excellence 

through studentcentered 

instruction, 

student-centered 

support services, 

and dynamic 

technologies. 

Why Data/Underlying 

Factors 

32% of students fail to 

complete units in their first 

semester; lowering completion 

rates from 11.1% to 2.6%. 

Presentations on successful 

strategies and the ATD 

strategy institute. 

Presentations from cohort 

programs at Student Success 

Committee. 

Increased completion rates for 

fulltime students. 

Literature on campus 

involvement and student 

success. 

74% of students report 

attending no campus activities 

outside of class. 

Objective Actions Item Evaluation Target 

Ensure on-campus student 

engagement to increase 

academic achievement. 

Review and restructure existing 

college mentor programs to 

serve a greater number of both 

high-achieving and struggling 

students. 

Create strategies to increase the 

number of students participating 

in new and existing cohort 

programs. 

Develop enrollment management 

strategies to increase students’ 

ability to be fulltime students. 

Promote more work experience 

and volunteer opportunities 

throughout the campus. 

First‐year persistence 

Certificate rate 

Graduation rate 

Transfer rate 

Student Right-to-Know (SRTK) 

Completion/transfer rates 

ARCC student progress and 

achievement 




Transfer rate 




achievement 

In‐course retention 

In‐course success 





42% of student report never 

attending office hours. 

50-100% increase in 

completion rates for special 

cohort programs such as 

Adelante, Puente, Honors and 

Athletics. 

Extend the college hour to 

Monday-Thursday, 12:10-1:30 

PM., designated solely for 

activities and events to engage 

students in college life beyond 

the classroom and office hours. 





Goal 

Goal 1: 

Increasing 


and academic 

excellence 


instruction, 



and dynamic 

technologies. 


Factors 

Student focus groups report 

time management as a barrier 

to student success and a need 

for mandatory workshops on 

how to be a college student. 

Literature on the need for 

continuous advisement. 

20% of students report having 

no familiarity with the 

counseling office and only 

65% report having received 

counseling services in the last 

year. 





Over half the student body list 

uncertainty in personal or 

career goals a barrier to 

student success. 

82% of students report not 

having received services from 

the Career Center. 

Literature on the impact of 

college on employability. 


Ensure adequate student 

support services through the 

development and 

implementation of studentcentered 

interventions. 

Enhance student 

employability by expanding 

interdisciplinary 

opportunities on campus and 

strengthening campus career 

services. 

Maintain appropriate support 

services and create an evaluation 

plan to assess the effectiveness 

and efficiency of current 

offerings/availability of student 

support services, e.g. tutoring 

sessions and workshops; and 

implement successful lessons 

learned from it. 

Assist faculty in being more 

proactive in assessing students’ 

academic performance, 

providing them feedback within 

the first three weeks of 

instruction, and referring 

students to appropriate support 

services. 

Review effectiveness of current 

student orientation and expand 

its use online and within 

classroom sessions. 

Recruit industry-based 

professionals for advisory 

committees. 

Uniformly apply best practices 

in soliciting input from 

businesses to all career-focused 

education. 

Expand assessment tests on 

personal skills, aptitudes, and 

interests to a wider range of 

students, and integrate results 

into student advisement toward 

academic preparation and 

employment pathways. 




Transfer rate 




achievement 










Goal 


Factors 


Goal 1: 

Increasing 


and academic 

excellence 


instruction, 



and dynamic 

technologies. 

Presentations on successful 

strategies and the ATD 

strategy institute. 

50% increase in completion 

for current first-year program. 



success. 


time management as a barrier 

to student success and a need 

for mandatory workshops on 

how to be a college student. 

Too few students assess at the 

transfer-level: 

12% in English 

7.5% in Math 

Provide a comprehensive 

first-year experience that 

promotes and enhances 

student completion. 

Evaluate application deadlines 

and create new hard deadlines to 

incentivize time-management 

and completion of the 

matriculation process. {ATD} 

Realign student support services 

to target first-time college 

students (especially during the 

first two weeks of instruction.) 

Create an integrated pre-college 

guidance program that connects 

K-12 to First-Year Experience, 

including on-campus noncredit 

orientation and additional high 

school cohorts. 

Have students identify their 

“programs of study” by the end 

of the first year (may include 

creating strategies to advertise 

majors and immerse students 

into career and transfer options.) 

Develop a comprehensive 

summer bridge program for high 

school students that promote oncampus 

student services such as 

matriculation, financial aid, and 

counseling. 




Math improvement rate 

English improvement rate 

ESL improvement rate 













Transfer rate 




achievement 




Transfer rate 




achievement 


Goal 

Goal 1: 

Increasing 


and academic 

excellence 


instruction, 



and dynamic 

technologies. 


Factors 

Noted success of the college’s 

New Faculty Institute. 

Literature on the specific 

needs of first-generation 

college students. 

Noted differences in 

preparation in students 

entering at each level. 









Provide sustained 

professional development 

training for faculty 

Strengthen college response 

to struggling students. 

Develop a year-round 


program that provides faculty 

with effective instructional 

strategies related to the needs of 

first-year students. 

Develop a comprehensive series 

in research-based principles of 

instruction. 

Integrate successful strategies 

identified by course-and 

program-level Learning 

Outcomes assessments into 


programs. 

Identify and promote best 

practices in dynamic and 

interactive online learning. 

Work with faculty in providing 

effective and proactive 

intervention strategies to assist 

those who are struggling earlier 

in the semester. 

Implement methods to measure 

the success of students who were 

granted appeals to dismissal or 

who were reinstated via petition. 




Transfer rate 

Student Right to Know (SRTK) 



achievement 




Transfer rate 

Student Right to Know (SRTK) 



achievement 








Transfer rate 



achievement 




Goal 

Goal 2: 

Increasing equity 

in successful 

outcomes by 

analyzing gaps in 

student 

achievement and 

using this, to 

identify and 

implement 

effective models 

and programming 

to remedy these 

gaps. 


Factors 

Too few students test at 

Transfer-level: 

12% in English 

7.5% in Math 

Starting lower in the sequence 

diminishes chances of 

completing the sequence. 

(English 101-Reading 20) 73% 

sequence completion to 11%. 

(Transfer-level to Math 105) 

87% sequence completion to 

3%. 

Pilot data shows that bridge 

programs increase math and 

English Placement results. 

Large range in grading in 

sequential courses. 





barriers in skills related to: 

Grammar and Spelling 

Essay Writing 

Reading Comprehension 

Noted attrition between math 

and English sequences. 


Increase the proportion of 

students who progress 

through the developmental 

math and English sequences. 

{ATD} 

Utilize noncredit services in 

order to increase progress 

through the English and Math 

course sequences. 

Review, implement, and assess 

compressed/acceleration and 

alternative course models in the 

English and math course 

sequences, focusing on effective 

practices, e.g., increased timeon-task 

and tutoring support. 

Provide appropriate training and 

support implementation of grade 

norming. 

Develop strategies to encourage 

students to earn grades of “As” 

or “Bs.” 

Monitor students who have 

successfully completed a 

prerequisite math and English 

course—but have still not 

enrolled in the next requisite 

course the following semester— 

and develop methods to increase 

availability of courses for these 

students, e.g., additional 

sections, shadow seats. 

Review, implement, and assess 

successful student support 

models such as specialized 

centers, specialized tutoring, 

automated diagnostics, and 

remediated services. 

Hispanic/Latino math 

improvement rate 

Hispanic/Latino English 





Hispanic/Latino certificate rate 

Hispanic/Latino graduation rate 

Hispanic/Latino transfer rate 










Hispanic/Latino English 


Hispanic/Latino ESL 



Goal 

Goal 2: 

Increasing equity 

in successful 

outcomes by 

analyzing gaps in 

student 

achievement and 

using this, to 

identify and 

implement 

effective models 

and programming 

to remedy these 

gaps. 


Factors 

A 5% gap in success rates 

between Hispanic/Latino 

students and the general 

college rate. 

Over a 20% gap in the transfer 

rate between Hispanic/Latino 

students and the general 

college rate. 


Create strategies to recruit 

and support 

underrepresented groups and 

to eliminate the achievement 

gap. 

Improve the transfer rate for 

underrepresented groups. 

Target high-impact courses 

disproportionately representing 

an ethnic group or gender where 

success rates are significantly 

lower. 

Provide professional 

development training to support 

faculty in identifying the unique 

academic needs of the student 

population and addressing 

identified equity gaps. 

Tailor the presentation of the 

university transfer process to 

specifically address cultural 

concerns of students and their 

families. 

Hispanic/Latino in-course 

retention 


success Hispanic/Latino firstyear 

persistence 





retention 


success Hispanic/Latino firstyear 

persistence 






Goal 

Goal 3: 

Sustaining 

communitycentered 

access, 

participation, and 

preparation that 

improves the 

college's presence 

in the 

community, 

maximizes access 

to higher 

education and 

provides outlets 

for artistic, civic, 

cultural, scientific 

and social 

expression as 

well as 

environmental 

awareness. 


Factors 



success. 

Reduction in available courses 

to students. 

30% of students indicate that 

the college has improved their 

availability to contribute to the 

welfare of the community very 

little. 

Starting lower in the sequence 

diminishes chances of 

completing the sequence. 

More than 86% of students test 

below transfer level in English 

or math. 

The college transfer rate is at 

14.2% and has been in decline 

as traditional transfer partners 

have limited admissions. 

20% of students report having 

no familiarity with Financial 

Aid. 


financial factors as a major 

barrier to success. 


Develop opportunities for 

students to expand their 

educational experience at 

ELAC through nonclassroom 

activities such as 

scientific lectures, 

demonstrations, and cultural 

events. 

Create programs to prevent 

“cold assessment” and 

prepare students to take 

placement exams. {ATD} 

Enhance the Transfer 

Culture on campus. 

Expand awareness of nontraditional 

transfer pathways 

such as private colleges and outof-state 

colleges. 

Enhance advisement to students 

about financing a college 

education, including 

understanding university 

financial aid and scholarship 

award letters. 

Entering students will have a 

positive perception of ELAC as a 

center for academic excellence 

and community involvement. 

Number of high schools 

involved in formal partnerships 

in 2009-10 via grants or other 

special agreements and/or 

programs (not regular outreach 

activities) 

English preparation - % collegeready 

Math Preparation - % collegeready 

Entering students will have a 

positive perception of ELAC as a 

center for academic excellence 

community involvement. 

Size of summer bridge program 

Size of entering cohort 


Transfer rate 




achievement 


Goal 

Goal 3: 

Sustaining 

communitycentered 

access, 

participation, and 

preparation that 

improves the 

college's presence 

in the 

community, 

maximizes access 

to higher 

education and 

provides outlets 

for artistic, civic, 

cultural, scientific 

and social 

expression as 

well as 

environmental 

awareness. 


Factors 


commuting to school for more 

than eleven hours a week. 


Utilize the college’s online 

offerings and existing 

learning management 

systems to enhance student 

access for non-traditional 

students and accelerate 

progress for on-campus 

students. 

Create and implement an 

orientation for students that 

focuses on the utilization of 

online resources available at the 

college and ways to successfully 

complete online and webenhanced 

courses. 

Size of entering cohort 


Transfer rate 




achievement 


Goal 


Factors 


Increase in completion rates 

for special programs: 

Adelante-15.5% 

Athletics-17.7% 

Honors-59.7% 

Puente-14.3% 

Budget reductions requiring a 

need for efficient scalability. 

Identify and implement 

successful elements within 

special programs (Honors, 

Adelante, Athletics, 

Distance Education, etc.) 

into other scalable campus 

programs. 

Budget linked to mission 

Data use and awareness 


Transfer rate 




achievement 

Goal 4: 

Ensuring 

institutional 

effectiveness and 

accountability 

through datadriven 

decisionmaking 

as well as 

evaluation and 

improvement of 

all college 

programs and 

governance 

structures. 

Need to determine the manner 

in which professional 

development strategies are 

applied in the classroom and to 

determine their effectiveness. 

46.48% agree that data is 

available and usable. 

Faculty report lower levels of 

satisfaction with data than 

administration. 

Lack of data on job placement 

rates for college programs. 

Need to increase efficiency in 

disseminating data to the 

college public. 

Develop a method to 

evaluate the effectiveness 

and classroom application of 

student-centered instruction 

strategies offered through 

Professional Development. 

Develop methods to promote 

the use of data at the 

departmental level to 

enhance decision-making. 

Use the results of course- and 

program-level Learning 

Outcomes that were derived 

from robust assessments. 

Determine the relationship 

between class size and student 

success for each discipline. 

Develop and roll out a dynamic 

interactive dataset for faculty 

online use. 

Develop methods to assess job 

placement rates for 

Career/Technical programs. 














Goal 

Goal 4: 

Ensuring 

institutional 

effectiveness and 

accountability 

through datadriven 

decisionmaking 

as well as 

evaluation and 

improvement of 

all college 

programs and 

governance 

structures. 


Factors 

Senate Bill creating Transfer 

Model Curriculum. 

Reduction in transfer 

opportunities at local transfer 

partners and a need to increase 

the number of transfer 

partners. 

Divergent state, national and 

local definitions of student 

completion and the calculation 

of rates. 

A noted need to expand use of 

Learning Outcomes in 

programmatic improvement. 


Develop and revise 

curriculum to demonstrate 

that disciplines are up-todate 

and to expand 

articulation to more instate/out-of 

state/private 

four-year 

colleges/universities. 

Create a college consensus 

defining “completion.” 

Expand campus dialog on 

student outcomes. 





Number of courses changed as a 

result of CLOs 

Number of programs changed as 

a result of PLOs 


Implementation and Evaluation 

The approved Educational Master Plan will be fully integrated into the college Program Review process. 

Each department and unit will be asked to align their plans with the objectives of the Educational Master 

Plan. Their plans will be added an action items to each objective and tracked through the Annual Update 

Plan process to determine the degree to which each Objective is being achieved. The committee will 

annually review the degree to which an action item has been completed and the trends of each associated 

measurement. Through this implementation process, the Educational Planning Subcommittee will be able 

to track which actions are being implemented and how much impact each action has had on the college’s 

evaluation targets. The college views this process as an ongoing system of quality improvement. Through 

each annual review of the Educational Master Plan, the committee will seek to determine ways to improve 

efficiency and effectiveness as the college works toward successful achievement of all of its strategic 

measurements.

ELAC Educational Master Plan - East Los Angeles College

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?