2001-2002 Affirmative Action
and Cultural Diversity Committee
Dibakar Barua, Chair, Golden
West College
Mike Anker, Contra Costa College
Norma Espinosa-Parker, Compton College
Ann Holliday, Coastline College
Gary Holton, San Diego Mesa College
Renee Reyes Tuller, Grossmont College
1992 -93 Ad Hoc Student
Equity Committee
Mike Anker, Co-Chair Contra
Costa College
Bill Scroggins, Chabot College
Linda Webster, Santa Monica College
Marina Valenzuela Smith, Antelope Valley College
Jacqueline Dodd, Pasadena City College
Jane Hallinger, Pasadena City College
Patricia Deamer, Skyline College
Ron Selge, Chancellors Office
Kaleta Brown, Cypress College
Regina Stanback Stroud, Co-Chair, Rancho Santiago
College
INTRODUCTION
California community colleges
provide open access to higher education for all
students irrespective of ethnicity, gender, age,
disability, or economic circumstances. This objective
is enshrined in law. A directive issued by the
California Legislature in 1991 charged all levels
of public education, including California community
colleges, to provide educational equity "[n]ot
only through a diverse and representative student
body and faculty but also through educational
environments in which each person…has a reasonable
chance to fully develop his or her potential (Education
Code §66010.2c)."
This directive is also reinforced
in §66030:
66030. (a) It is the intent
of the Legislature that public higher education
in California strive to provide educationally
equitable environments which give each Californian,
regardless of ethnic origin, race, gender, age,
disability, or economic circumstance, a reasonable
opportunity to develop fully his or her potential.
(b) It is the responsibility
of the governing boards of institutions of higher
education to ensure and maintain multicultural
learning environments free from all forms of
discrimination and harassment, in accordance
with state and federal law.
In keeping with these legal
requirements, in September of 1992, the Board
of Governors of the California Community Colleges
adopted a Student Equity Policy to ensure that
groups historically underrepresented in higher
education have an equal opportunity for access,
success, and transfer, enjoining all districts
to develop, implement, and evaluate a student
equity plan. Subsequently, at its November 1996
meeting, the Board of Governors amended its Student
Equity Policy and Regulations to:
1. Establish the adoption of
a student equity plan as a minimum standard for
receipt of state funding; and
2. Expand its focus beyond historically underrepresented
groups in order to promote student success for
all students.
(See Appendix 3: Student Equity:
Regulations & Guidelines)
The Board of Governors also
recommended a set of student equity indicators
to assist districts in identifying equity issues,
namely, access, course completion, ESL and basic
skills completion, degree and certificate completion,
and transfer rate. As these indicators were the
same ones already collected by the Chancellor's
Office, the new regulations did not require additional
MIS reporting by the districts. It did, however,
require the districts to focus on student achievement
by disaggregating the data by demographic group.
In response to the Board of
Governors' adopted policy on student equity, the
Academic Senate developed and the plenary body
adopted the 1993 document Student Equity: Guidelines
for Developing a Plan. This original paper was
intended as a reference for local senates in creating
student equity plans. The Senate understood that
conscious and careful planning was the first and
necessary step toward reaching the highest possible
rates of student success. Only if colleges and
districts have a plan will they be able to focus
the attention of everyone-faculty, administrators,
staff, students, and community members-on the
challenging but attainable goal of improving the
success rates of California's students. More importantly,
the Senate understood that only if there is a
plan would resources be allocated to achieve this
goal.
The Academic Senate has always
argued that student equity should be used to evaluate
all aspects of the institution from the classroom
to the boardroom. Achieving student equity begins
with the college writing an effective student
equity plan that is focused on increasing access,
retention, course completion, and transfer rates
for all its student groups, especially those who
have traditionally been underrepresented. Under
current regulations, district governing boards
are required to consult collegially with their
local academic senates in developing and implementing
student equity plans. Since 1992-1993, when the
first edition of this handbook was written, the
Academic Senate has taken a leadership role in
pursuing the adoption of the student equity regulations,
and has strongly urged their implementation.
Furthermore, the Academic Senate
has consistently maintained that colleges and
districts should regularly evaluate, revise and
update their student equity plans. In Fall 2000,
the Senate passed resolution 6.01 urging the Board
of Governors to strengthen Title 5 Regulations
on student equity plan creation and revision.
6.01 F00 Therefore be it
resolved that the Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges urge the Board of Governors
to revise Title 5 Regulations §54220 to
require that districts submit a current student
equity plan no later than one year after revisions
are developed and approved by the Board of Governors
and that districts revise their plans every
three years thereafter.
At the time of writing this
document, the Chancellor's Task Force on Equity
and Diversity is considering two important issues:
student equity and diversity in faculty hiring.
The soon-to-be-published final report of the Task
Force emphasizes the link between student equity
and faculty and staff diversity, and articulates
the need for renewing the mandate for student
equity plans:
Through a [college] workforce
that is diverse, we benefit students of all
backgrounds, by exposing them to different ideas,
experiences, and worldviews. We thereby improve
student success and educational quality.
The Academic Senate for California Community
Colleges will lead efforts to update by October
2002 the 1993 Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges document "Guidelines
for Developing a Student Equity Plan" and
with the assistance of the Chancellor's Office
promote and distribute the revised edition.
…The Chief Executive Officers will lead
efforts with Local Governing Boards to adopt
a Student Equity Plan by March 2004.
(Chancellor's Task Force on
Equity and Diversity, Fall 2002)
Now, ten years after the adoption
of the Board of Governors' Student Equity Policy,
there is a need to revisit its implementation.
This paper revisits that document and is intended
to provide an updated guideline for developing
a student equity plan.
The ideas in this paper are
presented in five sections as summarized below.
Section One: The Process of Developing Student
Equity Plans-the Basics
This section provides a recommended process
for developing the student equity plan-the "Who,
What, and Why" of plan development, a brief
discussion of the components of the plan, and
a look at some possible reservations about developing
a student equity plan.
Section Two: Campus Climate
This section addresses considerations of campus
climate including the type of research necessary
in considering the impact of campus climate
on student persistence and success.
Section Three: Research and Data Collection
This section defines student equity indicators
and the means of their measurement. This section
also highlights the fact that much of the data
needed for developing a student equity plan
may already be collected for other required
state reports.
Section Four: Student Equity And Institutional
Finances Resource Information Other Considerations
This section includes a discussion of funding
approaches and sources.
Section Five: Success Components
This section outlines various areas of effort
on the part of the faculty and the institution
that may have an effect on student success,
including recognition for faculty
who participate in activities specifically designed
to foster student equity.
SECTION ONE: The Process of
Developing Student Equity Plans-the Basics
This section provides some basic
responses to key questions asked regarding student
equity plans. The response to these questions
provide a recommended process for developing the
student equity plan, particularly the "Who,
What, and Why" of plan development, as well
as a brief discussion of the components of the
plan. We will consider the "Why, What, and
Who."
Why Develop a Student Equity
Plan? Title 5 (§51026 and §54220) requires
college districts to produce a student equity
plan. However, more important than regulatory
requirements is the fact that the state's economic
and social future depends on integrating all groups
into the economic mainstream. The community colleges
have an important part to play in that task because
most of the students from all population groups
begin their higher education at community colleges.
Student equity is an investment
in a college's future. When they receive effective
matriculation services that include orientation,
counseling and correct placement in courses with
validated pre-requisites, students are likely
to complete their courses, make progress toward
their educational and career goals, and complete
degrees, certificates, and/or transfer to a four-year
university. When the college provides student
services such as financial aid and special services,
along with a positive academic climate that motivates
students to achieve academically, it sets up a
positive upward spiral of students leaving the
college with career or transfer potential that
will enrich the community and economy. Successful
education also provides students with an increased
sense of personal efficacy, empowering them to
contribute to community and civic life. They develop
as well inner resources for living richer, more
satisfying lives, and resiliency for facing adversity.
The cultivation of critical capacities and literacy
across all populations is critical to a successful
multicultural society for the future. The cost
of failure, on the other hand, could be the perpetuation
of a permanent underclass with little hope for
upward economic and social mobility.
What is a Student Equity
Plan? "A student equity plan is a written document
in which a district's student population is analyzed
and specific result-oriented plans and procedures
are set forth for ensuring equal opportunity,
promoting diversity, and achieving expected representation
of qualified members of all population groups"
(see Glossary in Appendix 4).
The components of a student
equity plan are specified in Title 5 §54220
(See Appendix
3):
1. Campus-based research as
to the extent of student equity in the five indicator
areas of access, retention, degree and certificate
completion, ESL and basic skills completion, and
transfer;
2. Goals to address any adverse impact noted in
the five indicator areas for the overall student
population and for each population group of students
as appropriate ("each population group of
students" means American Indians or Alaskan
natives, Asians or Pacific Islanders, Blacks,
Hispanics, Whites, men, women, and persons with
disabilities);
3. Strategies for attaining goals including increased
coordination among existing programs;
4. Sources of funds to support implementation
of the plan;
5. Process and a schedule for evaluation; and
6. An executive summary, which identifies the
district contact persons, target groups, strategies
for accomplishing goals, and funding resources.
These components can be grouped
into four broad categories: (1) research, (2)
goals, (3) implementation, and (4) evaluation.
(1) Research: A meaningful student
equity plan begins with an analysis of the current
rates of enrollment, transfer, and completion,
and the identification of barriers to student
success. Research used to develop a plan should
include as a minimum:
surveys of campus climate;
reviews of existing data; and
analysis of potential college barriers to
student success.
Additionally, the research should
include
the extent to which additional student support
services such as counseling, financial aid,
employment, and tutoring can increase student
success in the equity indicators; and
the effect of instructional methodology (i.e.,
classroom assessment, learning styles assessment,
supplemental instruction, mentoring, peer tutoring,
group learning environments, or different configurations
of the curriculum) on student success in the
equity indicators.
If the college carefully analyzes
the data and devises programs to address local
needs, or adapts successful practices that have
worked in analogous situations in other districts,
the college is likely to make progress.
(2) Goals: Student equity goals
must be elevated to the maximum level of visibility
and importance. They should be integrated into
the mission statement, master planning and accreditation.
Goals should be set at a level that would allow
significant progress in achieving student equity
and that are also realistic and attainable. Goals
and objectives for a student equity plan should
be developed for each of the five indicator areas
discussed below in Section Three (access, course
completion, degree and certificate completion,
ESL and basic skills completion, and transfer
rate). Baseline data should be established to
evaluate the progress and the success strategies
in advancing institutional success goals for all
students and which may illuminate the extent of
student success among diverse sets of student
populations.
(3) Implementation: Colleges
need not only to develop a good plan but also
to implement the plan effectively. Steps for implementing
the college's student equity plan should include
identifying specific activities (new or existing
activities), person(s) responsible for coordinating
the activities, and a timeline. For maximal effect,
the plan should be very specific about who is
doing what and when the activities should be completed.
Faculty, students, and staff are all important
in achieving these goals. Celebrating progress
on student success-for example, publishing regular
updates on how the college is doing and making
frequent reports to the governing board and to
newspapers-can be very effective in helping the
equity effort move forward.
(4) Evaluation: The Chancellor's
Office has established criteria for reviewing
and evaluating student equity plans. Plans are
evaluated for having achievable and measurable
goals (in the five indicator areas) based upon
well-founded research and viable implementation
strategies and institutional outcome measures
for achieving the stated goals. (Please see Appendix
1 for details of these review procedures and criteria.)
Who Should be Involved in
Developing a Plan? It is very important that all groups, including
faculty, students, administrators, and staff be
involved in developing the plan so that all groups
support and accept responsibility for its success.
Additionally, the oversight for planning should
be done at the highest governance levels to ensure
the maximum support of all groups and the most
effective implementation. Only then will we have
the best coordination of activities and the widest
involvement of everyone on campus in fostering
student achievement and success.
Local academic senates have
special responsibility for much that is at the
core of any student equity plan. Strategies for
student success, educational programs, curriculum
as well as processes for budget development and
institutional planning are all keys to student
equity, and are among the "ten-plus-one"
listed items in Title 5, §53200. Indeed,
each of these academic and professional matters
relates broadly to student equity plans, and thus
local academic senates must be active in planning
and implementing student equity.
Thoughtful participants will
want to maximize the effective participation of
staff and students while consulting collegially
in the myriad academic and professional matters
that will intersect in any well-written student
equity plan. The senate needs to play a key role
as well in ensuring that otherwise disparate planning
efforts are mutually reinforcing and reflect a
common focus on student equity.
Possible Reservations About
Developing a Student Equity Plan
Why develop a plan when legal
requirements are uncertain?
Regardless of future legal decisions, community
colleges have the major responsibility for educating
most of the adults in higher education. Colleges
must develop programs that meet the indicators
of student success. Access, course completion,
degree and certificate completion, ESL and basic
skills completion, and transfer are integral parts
of the college mission, goals and objectives.
Planning provides the best strategy for colleges
to offer a positive college environment and meaningful
programs for their students and communities. Identifying
obstacles, planning new programs, and coordinating
our efforts can best be done effectively if we
develop plans.
Why develop a plan if Title
5 Regulations do not require that the plan be
implemented? Solid student equity plans based on sound
research afford local colleges an opportunity
to coordinate existing efforts, validate successful
programs and activities, identify problems, set
goals, and make further plans. A good, comprehensive
plan can mobilize the whole faculty and staff,
and can bring the real satisfaction and excitement
that comes from attaining a meaningful goal. A
good planning process can, at very little dollar
cost, develop considerable new energy.
Will increased student success
entail weakening academic standards? This question is based on a common misperception.
Increasing student success does not mean lowering
standards or "giving away" grades. We
can have both high standards and equity as long
as we do not expect the students to do all the
changing. Faculty ought to examine their pedagogy
to assess whether their teaching results in genuine
learning for all students; we all need to examine
if the "way we do our business" disenfranchises
the very students we seek to serve. The task is
to find ever better ways to help students succeed
in securing a challenging college education. With
the right plan, adequate support, and effective
implementation, success can be improved while
increasing access.
SECTION TWO: Campus Climate
Communities, educational or otherwise, which
care for and reach out to [their] members and
which are committed to their welfare, are also
those which keep and nourish [their] members.
Their commitment to students generates a commitment
on the part of students to the institution.
That commitment is the basis of student persistence.
(Vincent Tinto, 1988)
Research has shown that a key
factor for student persistence and success is
a campus that is receptive and supportive. Therefore,
a vital part of the research behind a successful
student equity plan is to review the campus climate.
Recent studies suggest that
California community colleges have had uneven
success in promoting educational goals of non-traditional
and underrepresented students. The campus climate
must be assessed through the eyes of these students
to determine just how receptive and supportive
each campus is perceived to be. Do students find
the campus community-faculty, staff, students
and administrators-as well as the physical plant
to be friendly or hostile, warm or impersonal,
welcoming or inhospitable? The campus climate
is inclusive of the entire college-all programs,
departments, services, and staff. Therefore, the
entire institution should be welcoming and supportive
of students. A survey or some other form of assessment
should be done in a manner that reveals the students'
perception of the campus and specific programs
and services.
Since student satisfaction is
highly contextual, colleges should look at local
variables as well as assess student perceptions
of their campus experiences in areas that include,
but are not limited to, the following:
instructional effectiveness,
academic advising/counseling,
administrative effectiveness,
registration effectiveness,
safety and security,
academic services,
admissions and financial aid,
campus support services,
responsiveness to diverse populations,
physical and environmental factors that may
adversely affect some populations.
Many colleges have already conducted
local student satisfaction research, hired private
research firms, or developed program review processes
to assess campus climate. Colleges may utilize
existing instruments in designing their own campus
climate surveys.
A campus climate committee can
be entrusted with the task of planning and implementing
student satisfaction assessment surveys and studies.
The City College of San Francisco research team,
commissioned by the State Chancellor's Office
to conduct a statewide study of effective and
replicable diversity projects, identified several
available models. These can be found in the study
report, We Could Do That! A Users' Guide to Diversity
Practices in California Community Colleges.
The campus climate committee
should look at various existing campus climate
surveys before coming up with its own instrument.
A good resource is Campus Climate : Understanding
the Critical Components of Today's Colleges and
Universities edited by Karen W. Bauer. Another
highly recommended source is James B. Boyer's
Multi-Cultural Inventory for Enhancing College-University
Curriculum. Boyer's inventory is designed to discover
whether the college creates a welcoming environment
for a diverse population. The Boyer inventory
can help a college to determine if it encourages
esteem and communicates in ways that are relevant
to diverse and non?traditional student populations
in order to promote their learning experience.
SECTION THREE: Research and
Data Collection
The Board of Governors has identified
five measurable student equity indicators. Furthermore,
four of the five areas in which statewide goals
have been articulated and outcome measures established
for the Partnership for Excellence (PFE) program-successful
course completion, degrees and certificates awarded,
basic skills improvement, and transfers-closely
parallel four of the five student equity indicators
contained in the Board's student equity policy.
The PFE data, however, is not disaggregated by
gender, race, ethnicity, etc., so this will have
to be done locally. A number of reports submitted
annually by each district to the Chancellor's
Office can also be useful in laying the research
groundwork for the construction of one's student
equity plan: the staff data report, the expenditure
report, the performance report, the matriculation
report, MIS data and transfer center reports.
The five student equity indicators
and the means of their measurement are:
Access
Access can be determined as the percentage of
each group enrolled compared to the percentage
of each group in the adult population within the
community served. Information regarding enrolled
students is reported in the California Community
College Accountability Model report as item 1.11
(General Participation: Credit) and item 1.12
(General Participation: Noncredit).
Course
Completion
Course completion can be determined as the ratio
of the number of courses that students-by group-actually
complete at the end of the term to the number
of courses in which students in that group are
enrolled on the census day of the term.
Note that "course completion"
means the successful completion of a credit course
for which a student receives a recorded grade
of A, B, C, or Cr. The number of courses in which
students are enrolled is determined by the total
attempted number of credit courses for which each
student ultimately receives a recorded grade of
A, B, C, D, F, CR, No-Credit, I, or W.
Degree
and Certificate Completion
Degree and certificate completion can be determined
as the ratio of the number of students-by group-who
receive a degree or certificate to the number
of students in that group with the same declared
matriculation goal.
ESL and
Basic Skills Completion
ESL and basic skills completion can be determined
as the ratio of the number of students-by group-who
complete a degree-applicable course after having
completed the final ESL or basic skills course
in the sequence to the total number in the group
who have completed such a final course.
Completion of a final ESL or
basic skills course here means the "successful"
completion of a pre-collegiate ESL or basic skills
course for English equivalent to one level below
English 1A with a grade of C or better; or the
"successful" completion of a pre-collegiate
basic skills course for math equivalent to one
level below elementary algebra.
Completion of a degree applicable
course currently means the "successful"
completion of English 1A, elementary algebra or
any collegiate course which is transferable to
a four-year institution, has a value of three
or more units, and meets established academic
requirements for rigor in literacy and numeracy.
Transfer
Rate
In 2001, the Chancellor's Office defined the cohort
of transfer-potential students as consisting of
those students who have completed a minimum of
12 units in the community colleges and who have
attempted a transfer level course in mathematics
or English. The transfer rate, as a student equity
indicator, is determined as the ratio of the number
of students-by group-who actually transfer to
a four-year college or university to the total
number of students in that group who are in the
transfer-potential cohort.
It is important to recognize
that data collection and analysis should not be
viewed as mere technical compliance. The data
collection component of any student equity plan
must be ongoing in order to evaluate the qualitative
effectiveness of the plan and to determine what
works versus what does not work. All data should
be shared with all areas of the campus and the
community. Programs or services that do not achieve
both the goals of the campus and the community
should be identified and jointly considered in
an effort to reassess student needs, reevaluate
goals, and determine new strategies.
SECTION FOUR: Student Equity
and Institutional Finances
Since student equity requires
institution-wide commitment, funding for student
equity is implicit in the use of all institutional
funding streams such as general fund, categorical
funds, PFE allocations, faculty and staff development
allocations, and grants (both internal to the
system such as Fund for Instructional Improvement
(FII) and Fund for Student Success (FSS), and
external to the system as discussed below). In
short, because an institution-wide response to
student equity is appropriate, we must view all
institutional funds as resources to achieve student
equity.
It has been noted that PFE data
is not disaggregated. PFE goals do not include
any requirement for or sub goals that address
equity of student achievement. However, local
Partnership and/or Student Equity committees can
work to ensure that equity is built into PFE programs
and projects. If this is done consistently, PFE
funding can essentially be used to fund student
equity plans. This will be a critical resource
particularly given pending budget cuts to many
categorical programs.
Several programs in the student
services areas already serve functions closely
related to student equity; wherever appropriate,
their funded programs should be seen as furthering
the campus' student equity goals. Some of these
programs are:
Extended Opportunity Programs and Services
(EOPS)
Cooperative Agencies Resources for Education
(CARE)
Disabled Students Programs and Services (DSPS)
Matriculation
Transfer Centers
Financial Aid
Mathematics, Engineering and Science achievement/Minority
Engineering Program (MESA/MEP)
CalWORKS
Puente
The California Tomorrow study,
cited earlier, found that these programs were
among the important supports referenced by students.
For vocational education and
employment training, the Vocational and Technical
Education Act (VTEA) and the Workforce Investment
Act (WIA) both include provisions for and support
of underrepresented and economically challenged
students. Additionally, they fund training opportunities
for faculty and staff to help them meet the needs
of these targeted populations.
Most faculty do not have the
time or resources on their own to research and
write grants. However, if an equity plan identifies
common funding priorities, it can recommend that
the college work to provide resources to underwrite
the work involved in seeking grants.
Resource Information
When internal funds are limited,
a college may identify and apply for foundation
or other grant funding. Careful consideration
of student equity concerns can be built into virtually
any grant obtained by the college. Local senates
are sometimes required to sign off on grant applications,
and even where they are not, the Academic Senate
has always urged that local senates create grant
review processes that include a role for local
senates in development or approval of grants that
impact student success. We would recommend that
local senates work to ensure that student equity
concerns are integral to such grant proposals.
The Foundation Center is a national
non-profit service organization founded and supported
by foundations to provide an authoritative source
of information on foundation and corporate giving.
The Center's programs are designed to help grant
seekers as they begin to select those funds from
the over 68,000 active U.S. foundations which
may be most interested in their projects. The
Foundation Center offers a wide variety of services
and comprehensive collections of information on
foundations and grants.
The quickest and most convenient
source of information about all the services of
the Foundation Center is its online service (http://www.fconline.fdncenter.org).
For varying fees, the Center provides four online
subscription plans: Basic, Plus, Premium, and
Platinum.
Online Basic includes information on the
giving priorities of the 10,000 largest U.S.
foundations by total giving.
Online Plus includes the above and also a
searchable grants database with approximately
150,000 records of grants of $10,000 or more
awarded by the largest 1,200 foundations.
Online Premium expands the file of foundation
records to 20,000 and includes the set of 150,000
searchable grants.
Online Platinum greatly expands the foundation
file to include over 68,000 entries in all.
In addition to all known U.S. foundations, it
features two categories of funds that can only
be found in Online Platinum: direct corporate
giving programs, and public charities grants.
A typical foundation record
will include the name of the foundation, the mailing
address, contact name, telephone number and, where
available, an email address and Website link.
To provide subscribers with a sense of a foundation's
grant priorities, records include such crucial
data as the establishment date; names of donors;
purpose and activities statements; fields of interest;
types of support; application information; a link
to the foundation's 990-PF (IRS return); and,
where available, a selected grants list.
Grant records feature vital
facts about the grant recipient: the name of the
organization, the city and state in which it is
located; and the type of recipient. Grant details
include: the amount, the duration where applicable,
a brief description of the grant (in most cases),
the type of support provided, and the subject
classification of the grant. The foundation and
grants information is updated monthly.
Other Resource-related Considerations
In creating or revising student
equity plans, many existing community college
services and functions could be modified to increase
their impact on student equity. Ideally, all disparate
pieces of the institution should be analyzed to
determine how to advance student equity goals.
The following illustrate existing possibilities:
Use of Facilities/Facility Development: Monitor
the impact that clustering classrooms by academic
area might have on some student equity target
groups. For example, all vocational education
automotive courses held in a remote facility
might isolate female students from their peers
and student services.
Ensure that the physical environment and logistical
arrangements for enrollment and study are "user-friendly"
and supportive of student access, retention
and success. For example, consider placing the
career/transfer center near counseling.
Student Mentoring: Integrate students more
effectively into the institution and community
through a mentor program, as modeled by Puente,
in which students are matched with faculty or
community members representing a discipline
or occupational areas of interest to the students.
Mentors provide an occasion for students to
understand the demands of a career area while
gaining self-esteem through the support of a
role model with whom they can identify.
Advisory Committee: Incorporate the promotion
of student equity into the mandates of advisory
committees, such as basic skills, vocational,
and matriculation advisory committees. Have
committees review results of the climate surveys
as they plan the year's goals; ensure that those
committees reflect the diversity of the college
community.
Personnel Assignments: Consider the creation
of a position of "Student Equity Ombudsperson"
in the community college with the responsibility-and
authority-to advocate in all aspects of institutional
operations to promote student equity.
Community Activities/Community Outreach:
Shape the community college's relationship with
the external community to achieve an outcome
needed for student equity, through, for example,
the creation of internships with minority owned
businesses, outreach to high schools, or community
service.
Personal Development Courses/Life Skills:
Develop curriculum and programs to prepare all
students, including re-entry students, for the
transition from high school or work to college
and for the rigors of college. Help students
understand the support services available as
well as their options for careers, majors, and
occupational/vocational and transfer programs.
SECTION FIVE: Success Components
This section describes a number
of activities colleges can initiate or improve
upon to promote student equity.
Matriculation
Matriculation is at the core of the mission of
the California Community Colleges in that a primary
mission of the colleges is to provide open access
to any California resident over 18 years of age
who is capable of profiting from the instruction.
In 1986, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill
3-the Seymour-Campbell Matriculation Act-which
established the matriculation program in the California
community colleges, and is currently incorporated
in the Education Code in §§78210-78218.The
major component areas of a matriculation program
as specified in the Seymour-Campbell Act are Admissions,
Assessment (placement testing), Orientation, Counseling
and Advising, Student Follow-Up, Coordination
and Training, Research and Evaluation, and Prerequisite
Validation & Enforcement. Five of these components
designate services provided directly to students
to enhance their educational success. Two components
relate to efforts of colleges and districts to
improve institutional effectiveness and accountability
and to develop capabilities for evaluation, coordination,
and training.
The purpose of matriculation is to provide students
with accurate, timely information and to help
them define educational goals that are realistic
and attainable. The matriculation process is intended
to assure all students access to higher education
opportunities. An additional purpose is to increase
institutional effectiveness and to more efficiently
utilize taxpayer support for community college
students by ensuring that students are appropriately
placed in courses.
The matriculation process requires
that the colleges assist students to make their
course placement and other educational choices
with professional guidance, emphasizing the use
of multiple assessment measures and conscientiously
applied support services. Students should be offered
access to tools designed to help them identify
their attitudes, interests, values, personality
types and abilities. Considerations of instructional
style and learning style may be major factors
in student success. Consequently these same considerations
necessitate attention at the time of placement
and advising.
Supporting Students with
Limited English Proficiency (LEP) An individualized approach is required for
LEP students because they come with such diverse
educational histories. Some students have foreign
degrees and established professional careers,
while others are not literate in their native
language. Like all students, LEP students need
to know how the community college system works
and to have ready access to information about
classes, programs, services, processes for enrollment,
petitioning for special requests, and obtaining
permits for the use of facilities.
ESL programs should be targeted
to the demographic needs of the local population.
If possible, the college should publish and distribute
second language materials to homes and businesses
in targeted neighborhoods. Providing these materials
would encourage potential students to investigate
and enroll in college programs.
Access for LEP students could
be increased through specific efforts to transition
them successfully from adult education programs.
Due to the large population of LEP students working
multiple jobs and long hours, flexible course
offerings on weekends, late evenings, and at convenient
sites should be considered. We also recommend
publishing the application and portions of the
class schedule and college catalog in other languages,
and providing bilingual taped telephone messages
giving general information.
Orientation should include information
that outlines programs and services specifically
intended to support non-native English-speaking
students. LEP students need information regarding
specialized curriculum offerings, pre-collegiate
basic skills courses, and programs in English
as a Second Language. Audiotapes, videotapes,
CD-ROMs, and printed information in the students'
first languages would be very helpful. Supportive
orientation information specifically designed
for the LEP student may include a description
of the ESL (or LEP) program; telephone number,
location, hours of operation of the ESL office;
names, office numbers and telephone numbers of
bilingual counselors, faculty and staff; information
about appropriate clubs; and how to access these
activities.
Assessment is required of all
matriculating students. In the case of non-native
English speakers, the colleges may provide modified
or alternative measurement processes as necessary
to accurately assess language ability. Appropriate
multiple measures for placement of LEP students
will take into account the cultural and linguistic
differences between second language learners and
other students. Counseling and advisement should
be required of all entering LEP students, regardless
of their educational intentions. Caution is required
in the area of LEP student advising since services
must be based on the full range of students' listening,
speaking, reading, and writing skills, and not
just on perceived communication abilities.
Learning Styles Research indicates that people do not all
learn in the same way. Some learners find certain
methods of learning more appealing and effective
than attending lectures or reading texts, preferring
a visual approach to studying. Others learn better
from physical activities and the manipulation
of objects. Litzinger and Osif describe these
learning styles "as the different ways in
which children and adults think and learn"
(1992, 73). A number of people have tried to classify
and categorize the ranges of learning styles.
Two of the best known are David Kolb (1984) and
Howard Gardner (1989, 1991).
Kolb thought of learning styles
as a continuum that one moves through:
Concrete experience: being involved in a
new experience;
Reflective observation: watching others or
developing observations about one's own experience;
Abstract conceptualization: creating theories
to explain observations; and
Active experimentation: using theories to
solve problems and make decisions.
However, most people come to
prefer one style over the others, and these styles
are what instructors have to be aware of when
creating instructional materials. In order to
find out more about Kolb's analysis of learning
styles and how to teach to them, we recommend
The User's Guide for the Learning-Style Inventory:
A Manual for Teachers by Donna Smith and David
Kolb (1986).
Howard Gardner (1983) chose
to look at learning styles in a different light,
through a theory of multiple intelligences. Gardner
expanded the concept of intelligence to also include
such areas as music, spatial relations, and interpersonal
knowledge in addition to mathematical and linguistic
ability. Amy Brualdi (1996) provides the following
summary of Gardner's Multiple Intelligences:
Logical-Mathematical Intelligence-consists
of the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively
and think logically. This intelligence is most
often associated with scientific and mathematical
thinking.
Linguistic Intelligence-involves
having a mastery of language. This intelligence
includes the ability to effectively manipulate
language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically.
It also allows one to use language as a means
to remember information.
Spatial Intelligence-gives one
the ability to manipulate and create mental images
in order to solve problems. This intelligence
is not limited to visual domains-Gardner notes
that spatial intelligence is also formed in blind
children.
Musical Intelligence-encompasses
the capability to recognize and compose musical
pitches, tones, and rhythms. (Auditory functions
are required for a person to develop this intelligence
in relation to pitch and tone, but it is not needed
for the knowledge of rhythm.)
Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence-is
the ability to use one's mental abilities to coordinate
one's own bodily movements. This intelligence
challenges the popular belief that mental and
physical activities are unrelated.
The Personal Intelligences-includes
interpersonal feelings and intentions of others-and
intrapersonal intelligence-the ability to understand
one's own feelings and motivations. These two
intelligences are separate from each other. Nevertheless,
because of their close association in most cultures,
they are often linked together.
These various ways of classifying
learning styles tell us that it is essential in
early planning to give attention to the characteristics,
abilities, and experiences of the learners as
a group and as individuals. There are examples
of instructional strategies that can accommodate
different learning styles. For a detailed discussion
of teaching methods, we recommend Paulsen (1995).
Colleges should make an effort
to educate both students and faculty in assessing
their own learning styles and about learning strategies
for various types of learners. This can be done
though training seminars for faculty and students
and through interactive web pages. (For an example
of a community college website on learning styles
see Diablo Valley College online at http://www.metamath.com/lsweb/fourls.htm.)
Developing Classroom Assessment
Techniques
Thomas Angelo and Patricia Cross (1993) developed
an approach to facilitate ongoing assessment of
teaching and learning within the classroom. One
of the purposes of classroom assessment is to
improve student learning, especially in higher
cognitive skills such as synthesis and evaluation,
and to revitalize faculty engagement in their
students' learning. Such attention to classroom
assessment can help faculty discover whether and
how they are addressing the needs of the many
diverse students in a given class.
There are different classroom
assessment techniques (CATs) for faculty that
are simple to use and easy to interpret-for example,
the one-sentence summary, self-assessment, the
minute paper, the muddiest point and so on. CATs
are aimed at course improvement rather than at
assigning grades. The primary goal is to better
understand students' learning and to improve teaching.
For faculty, frequent use of CATs can:
Provide short-term feedback about the day-to-day
learning and teaching process when it is still
possible to make mid-course corrections.
Provide useful information about student
learning with a much lower investment of time
compared to other means of learning assessment.
Help foster good rapport with students and
increase the efficacy of teaching
and learning.
Encourage the view that teaching is a formative
process that evolves over time with feedback.
For students, frequent use of
CATs can:
Help them become better monitors of their
own learning.
Help break down feelings of anonymity, especially
in larger courses.
Point out the need to acquire study skills.
Provide concrete evidence that the instructor
cares about learning.
Angelo and Cross recommend that
to begin this kind of assessment only one or two
of the simplest CATs be tried in only one class.
Trying out a simple CAT will require only five
to ten minutes of class time. After trying one
or two quick assessments, the decision as to whether
this approach is worth further investments of
time and energy can be made. They suggest a three-step
process for starting small:
Step 1: Planning
Select one, and only one, of
your classes in which to try out the Classroom
Assessment. Decide on the class meeting and select
a Classroom Assessment Technique. Choose a simple
and quick one.
Step 2: Implementing
Make sure the students know
what you are doing and that they clearly understand
the procedure. Collect the responses and analyze
them as soon as possible.
Step 3: Responding
To capitalize on time spent
assessing, and to motivate students to become
actively involved, "close the feedback loop"
(Cross and Angelo, 1994)
Learning Communities
As noted before, Tinto has found that a sense
of connection is one of the most critical factors
in enhancing student success. Learning communities
create cohorts of connection that can positively
reinforce student retention. Breaking down a sense
of isolation for both students and faculty is
a key benefit of learning community approaches.
A learning community is a curricular
structure that links together two or more existing
courses. A typical learning community may involve
several instructors in different disciplines working
with the same students in order to facilitate
connections betweens subjects or disciplines and
a curriculum often based on a common theme. The
concept suggests that learning is multi-dimensional
with the students performing some instructional
functions and the faculty engaging in the learning
process along with the students. Students find
greater coherence in what they are learning, as
well as increased intellectual interaction with
faculty and fellow students. Learning communities
are powerful curricular innovations and certainly
help to revolutionize the learning process.
Learning communities were first
offered in the Experimental College at the University
of Wisconsin in 1927. More recently, the community
colleges in Washington State, Daytona Beach Community
College in Florida, and LaGuardia Community College
in New York have been leaders in developing various
forms of learning communities.
"Leaning Community Commons,"
a website for the National Learning Communities
Project at http://learningcommons.evergreen.edu,
contains a searchable learning communities directory,
an online Learning Communities journal and other
resources.
Academic Mentoring
The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
has developed a "Primer on Faculty Mentoring."
This paper is designed to help faculty in local
districts plan and implement faculty-student mentoring
activities. The paper can be downloaded from the
Academic Senate Website http://www.asccc.org.
Faculty can be matched to students
based on institutional assessment, local resources,
and probability of failure without intervention.
Early alert systems may identify students who
are at risk for dismissal or failure. The objectives
of the mentoring should be developed locally,
but developing "self-reliance" techniques
for coping more effectively with academic and
other demands of college life will ordinarily
be a part of the mentoring activity.
A rapport between the mentor
and student ought to be characterized by open
communication, responsibility, and motivation.
The mentor and the student should be the major
decision makers regarding the duration of their
interactions. Expectations, interest, and academic
ambitions should be taken into consideration as
the faculty and students are matched. It would
be ideal if the students requested particular
faculty members and the latter were aware that
the students had chosen them based on experience,
accomplishment, or academic preparation.
Clearly, participation in the
mentor relationship should be strictly voluntary.
The mentorship program should make clear to all
its participants the general philosophy and guidelines
of the activity. Guidelines may include information
regarding suggested interactions, lengths of meetings,
activities, reporting functions, and a mutual
respect for commitments made.
Studying Effects of Distance
Education and Technology on Student Equity
While there have been many studies on the success
of students who have taken courses in a non-traditional
distance education modality, little attention
has been given to the equity dimension of distance
education and technology. Many community college
students come from families that do not have computers
or up-to-date technology in their homes, and this
is particularly true of students who are currently
underrepresented in the community college system.
The term "digital divide" is used to
refer to a gap between those who can effectively
use new information and communication tools, such
as the Internet, and those who cannot. While a
consensus does not exist on the extent of the
divide (and whether the divide is growing or narrowing),
researchers are nearly unanimous in acknowledging
that some sort of divide exists at this point
in time. More research to determine the impact
of technology on student equity would be useful.
Support for Faculty
Finally, it is also desirable that faculty are
supported in their efforts to promote student
equity as well as to integrate cultural diversity
into the curriculum, including their efforts to
address differences in learning styles and increase
students' effective use of instructional technology.
Colleges should recognize faculty who acquire
a new language, take additional courses in their
discipline that emphasize diverse contributions
and perspectives, or expand methodological approaches
deemed effective for all students, and especially
for students from historically underrepresented
groups in higher education.
Staff development programs on
many campuses recognize teaching excellence. New
or existing programs can be tailored to support
faculty for taking part in activities that enhance
student equity. Additional incentives, like the
following, may also be offered:
1. Credit toward rank change;
2. Consideration of activities that increase student
equity as part of basic teaching load;
3. Flex day credit for workshop development and
participation;
4 Reassigned time or stipends for mentoring activities;
5. College foundation funds devoted to mini-grants
for faculty projects that integrate cultural diversity
into courses;
6. An honorary dinner with tributes for outstanding
service and projects that further student equity;
and
7. A departmental system of awards for the development
of activities that increase student equity within
disciplines.
Some of these incentives will
have to be negotiated, and thus consultation with
the bargaining units will be necessary.
CONCLUSION
Student equity is not a new goal for California
community colleges. The ideal is as old as the
Master Plan for Higher Education in California,
1960-1975, which designed the community colleges
to be open access institutions. If we are truly
open to all, then we must serve all our students
well, leaving no one behind. That is the essence
of student equity. Everything else we do in the
name of student equity is merely a means to that
end.
To further that end, the Academic
Senate endorses the recommendation of the Chancellor's
Task Force on Equity and Diversity that the Board
of Governors reinvigorate and reinforce the student
equity planning process by requiring colleges
to periodically reevaluate and revise their student
equity plans. Further, we recommend that the Board
of Governors review the existing criteria for
evaluation of these plans by the Chancellor's
Office. Finally, we recommend that the Board of
Governors enforce the regulation that development
of a student equity plan that meets those criteria
be a minimum condition for receipt of state funds.
Even absent a requirement from
the state, however, planning for student equity
is essential. Only with planning can we hope to
achieve student equity and success. Only then
can we ensure that no one and no group is left
behind. Regardless of mandates from above, planning
for student equity is essential, simply because
the cost of failing any part of California's population
would be a disaster for all Californians.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations to the Board
of Governors and Chancellor
1. The Chancellor and the Board
of Governors must assert that in creating or revising
an equity plan, the intent is not mere production
of a plan, but to make a difference in the lives
of our students.
2. The Board of Governors should
again require districts and colleges to re-evaluate
and review periodically their student equity plans.
The Board should also specify a time period for
such review and evaluation.
3. The Board of Governors should
require districts and colleges to implement and
develop those plans as a minimum condition for
funding and should direct the Chancellor's office
to enforce that condition.
Recommendations to Local
Senates The Academic Senate for the California Community
Colleges recommends to local academic senates
that they:
1. conduct research to establish
baseline data in the 5 student equity indicator
areas.
2. set high but reasonable,
achievable, measurable goals in the 5 student
equity indicator areas.
3. implement their college student
equity plan by establishing a timetable and identifying
individuals responsible for implementation.
4. raise the visibility and
progress of the plan and its implementation within
the college community.
5. recommend that multi-language
materials, information, orientations, and services
for non-English speaking populations are provided
and that courses are offered at more flexible
times and at convenient sites.
6. include learning styles inventories
as part of student matriculation and placement
services.
7. ensure that faculty and staff
development programs provide training in the following:
Needs of target populations;
Learning and teaching styles;
CATs;
Use of technology and issues of access;
Innovative teaching styles.
8. conduct periodic reviews
by including student equity goals as part of program
reviews and establishing periodic review of the
student equity plan, revising as necessary or
as called for by any existing Board of Governors
regulation.
9. foster academic mentoring
and job shadowing for students, particularly those
in targeted populations or at risk groups.
10. examine, as part of facilities
master planning, the impact of facilities on equity
goals or objectives.
11. work to ensure that sufficient
numbers of basic skills classes are offered to
meet student needs.
12. incorporate student equity
as a primary focus of their staff development
programs and orientations of all faculty.
13. research the link between
student equity and faculty and staff diversity.
References
Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges. A Primer on Faculty Mentoring.
Academic Senate for California
Community Colleges. (1993). Student Equity: Guidelines
for Developing a Pla
