THE PUENTE PROGRAM:
Latino Student Outcomes in English 96 and 1A,
1993-1995

CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO
  Office of Research, Planning and Grants

   December 1996



Hard copies of this report are available from

Office of Research, Planning and Grants
City College of  San Francisco
50 Phelan Avenue  E207
San Francisco, CA  94112
Phone:   415-239-3014
Email:   ataylor@ccsf.org

INTRODUCTION

 Background.  Co-founded by Chabot College counselor Felix Galaviz and English instructor Pat McGrath  in 1981, Puente was designed to improve the transfer rate of Chicano/Latino students to senior institutions.  Puente established co-sponsorship with the University of California in 1985 and has grown to 38 community college campuses and 18 high schools in California today.

Program Model
     Curriculum.  In both the course prior to Freshman Composition (Advanced Intermediate Reading and Composition, English 96 at CCSF) and Freshman Composition (University Reading and Composition, English 1A at CCSF), the Puente Program provides a supportive and stimulating environment for Puente students to build confidence in their writing skills through an exploration of the Mexican American/Latino experience.

     Counseling.  Puente students work closely with their Puente counselor until they graduate, exploring career options, developing an academic educational plan and identifying lifetime goals.  Students visit UC and CSU campuses and attend an annual Puente student transfer conference.

     Mentoring.  Each Puente student is matched with a mentor from the business or professional community.  Mentors share with students their personal, academic and career experiences, and provide a window into “real-life” work environments.  The network of trained Puente mentors provides many resources for the Puente students, their families, their colleges, and the community.

City College of San Francisco
     Puente was established at City College in 1989.  In these 8 years, one instructor has taught the two sequential English courses and 3 different counselors have organized the mentoring and counseling components.  Both faculty serve as co-coordinators of the program which has consisted of a single section each term since 1989.

 The City College Puente cycle starts in the Spring of each year with English 96 (prior to 1995, the course number was English 6) and ends with English 1A (University Reading and Composition) the following Fall term.  English 96 is the immediate course prerequisite to English 1A for students who do not place directly into 1A.  This study compares the background characteristics of Puente and non-Puente section Latinos, their successful completion rates, rate of progress to Freshman Composition within the same year, and successful completion of English 1A.

 Participant Eligibility,  Selection, and Waiting List.  Students who are eligible for English 96 are eligible to participate in the Puente Program.  Students are selected to participate in Puente on a “first come, first serve”  basis within the general priority registration system at City College.  Interested students attend an orientation where they receive an Intent to Register Form.  The form elicits a commitment from the student to enroll in both English courses (Spring and Fall), to attend class sessions regularly, to participate in mentoring activities, and to participate in occasional evening and Saturday program activities.  Students completing the form are selected to participate on the basis of their priority registration date.  Over the last several years, about 20-25 students who complete the Intent to Register Form are placed on a waiting list when the single section is filled.  Demand in Fall 1996 again left 25 eligible students unserved, although the instructor made an exception  to the enrollment cap and enrolled 36 students in the Puente section.
 

The Study
This study is organized to answer the following questions:

1. Do Latinos in Puente and regular sections of English 96 have similar  background characteristics?

2. Do Latinos in Puente and non-Puente sections have similar success rates in English 96?

3. Are there significant differences in English 96 mean grades?

4. How Many non-Puente Latinos Enroll in English 1A Fall 1993, Fall 1994, and Fall 1995?

5. Do Puente and non-Puente Latinos progress to English 1A at the same rate?

6. Do Latinos in Puente and regular sections of English 96 who progress to English 1A have similar  background characteristics?

7. Do Latinos in Puente and non-Puente sections have similar success rates in English 1A?
 
 

The Data
     The dataset provides unduplicated course enrollment and student characteristics of Puente and non-Puente Latino students enrolled in English 6 Spring 1993, 1994, and 1995* and matched enrollments in English 1A Fall 1993, 1994, and 1995.  This study focuses on Latinos who enroll in Advanced Intermediate Reading and Composition in the Spring, then continue to University Reading and Composition the Fall term immediately following.  Analyses are restricted to Latinos, although persons of other ethnic backgrounds have participated in the Puente Program.

“W” Grade Included in Evaluating Grade Outcomes
      Because key objectives of the Puente Program are to enhance retention and successful completion of the English sequence, the W grade becomes an essential measure of program success.   In other instances it might be appropriate to disregard the W grades because community colleges do attract a large number of underprepared and overtaxed students with multiple responsibilities that detract from the student role and cause many to withdraw.  It can be argued that a large part of the withdrawal problem is beyond the control of the institution. However, in this situation, the Puente Program is designed to combat this very problem.  Since one of the key missions of the Puente Program is to motivate Latino students to successfully complete the English sequence in spite of competing demands, it is appropriate to include the W grade to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in meeting this goal.
 


RESULTS

1.  Are Latinos in Puente and regular sections of English 96 similar in background?

Yes.
     Results indicate that Puente enrollees are, for the most part, “typical” of the larger pool of Latino students enrolled in English 96 on every characteristic examined except age.  The mean age difference between these two groups is only 2.25 years.

     The overall similarity of these two comparison groups provides some assurance that any differences in student outcomes after participation in Puente can be attributed to the Puente Program.  Grade outcome differences are not due to the background characteristics measured.

    On the basis of these background characteristics, there is no evidence that selection bias--intentional or unintentional--enters into the decision to accept students into the Puente Program.
 

*Spring 1995 the English 6 course was renamed English 96 which, for simplicity, is the reference used throughout the report.   English 96 is a composition course one level below the traditional freshman composition, or “University Reading and Composition”, English 1A at City College..

    Latino participants and non-participants for all semesters of English 96 were compared on the following characteristics:

2.  Do Latinos in Puente and non-Puente sections have similar success rates in English 96?

No.
     Latino students not enrolled in the Puente Program are twice as likely to end English 96 with a W grade (24% vs. 12%) when compared Puente program participants .  Table 1 A on the following page summarizes the final grades received over the three terms included in the study.
 


Table 1A
English 96
Puente vs. Regular Sections
Latino Final Grade Distribution
Three Term Summary:
Spring ‘93, ‘94, and ‘95


Number
Final Grade
Regular Sec
Puente Sec.
Total
A
10
6
16
A-
9
9
18
B+
19
3
22
B
48
13
61
B-
23
10
33
C+
20
12
32
C
41
14
55
C-
12
8
20
D+
7
 
7
D
44
 
44
D-
1
1
2
F
18
1
19
W
81
10
91
Total N
333
87
420
Row %
79.3
20.7
100%
 
Percent
Regular Sec.
Puente Sec.
Total
3.0%
6.9%
3.8%
2.7%
10.3%
4.3%
5.7%
3.4%
5.2%
14.4%
14.9%
14.5%
6.9%
11.5%
7.9%
6.0%
13.8%
7.6%
12.3%
16.1%
13.1%
3.6%
9.2%
4.8%
2.1%
 
1.7%
13.2%
 
10.5%
0.3%
1.1%
0.5%
5.4%
1.1%
4.5%
24.3%
11.5%
21.7%
100%
100%
100%
 
 
 
 
    The consequences of the grade distribution for these two groups is clearer when it is divided into success and failure outcomes.  The following Table 1.B. provides a summary of success/fail grade outcomes and Graph 1 on the following page illustrates the data for each term.

     Data represented in Table 1.B. indicate that over this three year period, 86% of Latinos enrolled in the Puente English 96 section earned a C minus or better grade compared to 55% of Latinos enrolled in regular sections of English 96. The Chi Square values are significant, indicating that this outcome is not due to chance.*   Puente participation does have a positive impact on grade outcome of Latinos in English 96.
 


Table 1 B
English 96
Puente vs. Regular Sections
Latino Successful Grade Outcomes
Three Term Summary:
Spring ‘93, ‘94, and ‘95


Number & Percent
Grade Outcome
Regular 
Classes 
Puente
Classes
Total
FAILURE N
%
151
45.3%
12
13.8%
163
38.8%
SUCCESS N
%
182
54.7%
75
86.2%
257
61.2%
Col Total N
333
87
420
Col Total %
100%
100%
100%
Row Total %
79.3%
20.7%
100%

 3.  Are there significant differences in English 96 mean grades?

Yes.
     The mean grade difference between Puente and non-Puente Latinos in English 96 is statistically significant whether W grades are included or not.  Including W’s, the mean difference is about seven-tenths of a grade point.  Excluding W’s, the mean difference is about half a grade point.

*This outcome holds when the larger group is sampled to obtain cell sizes equal to those in the Puente sections.
 

Summary to Questions 1, 2, and 3.

     Latino students enrolled in Puente sections of English 6 have a significantly greater probability of completing the course with a successful grade than do Latinos enrolled in regular sections of English 6.  Even when withdrawals are eliminated from analyses, Puente students still earn higher grades than non-Puente students.  From our Question 1 results, we know that this difference is not due to differences in student background.

4.  How Many non-Puente Latinos Enroll in English 1A Fall 1993, Fall 1994, and Fall 1995?

     Four hundred and eighteen non-Puente Latinos from all possible sources enrolled in English 1A over these three Fall terms.  The 418 enrollees include:  those who placed directly into 1A,  those coming directly from the prior Spring semester pool of English 96 students, and those progressing from English 96 courses taken in other  terms.  From all these sources, the overall success rate (grade C- or better) of non-Puente Latinos in English 1A is 50% (208 out of 418).
 

5.  Do Puente and non-Puente Latinos progress from English 96 to English 1A at the same rate?

No.
     Ninety-five percent of Puente students successfully completing English 96 enroll in English 1A the following Fall term compared to 58% of non-Puente Latinos.

Non-Puente Progression.   In the Spring terms prior to Fall 1993, 1994, and 1995, 55% (182 of 333) of all non-Puente Latinos succeeded in English 96.  Of these 182 successful English 96 students, 105 (58%) enrolled in English 1A in the Fall term immediately following.

Puente Section Progression.   Seventy-five of eighty-seven (86%) Puente students enrolled in English 96 succeed in that course and, of the 75 succeeding, 71 (95%) progress to English 1A the following term.  This is considerably higher than the 58% of Latinos progressing from regular sections of 96 to 1A.  This progression to English 1A is consistent with the program objective of improving successful completion and progression rates.

Why do only 58% (105 out of 182) of Latinos successfully completing regular Spring sections of English 96 progress to English 1A the following Fall term?

     Not every student needs to take English 1A to graduate with an AA degree or to transfer to a senior institution.  The English requirements for both objectives depend on the student’s initial English placement and, for transfer, upon the specific requirements of the senior institution.

    Students completing English 96 in the Spring term who do not progress to English 1A the following Fall term may have:

     Enrollment data are insufficient to determine the reasons non-Puente Latinos fail to make the Spring-Fall progression from English 96 to English 1A--but, we can examine the characteristics of  both groups of students making the progression to see how similar they might be.  Given the many reasons one might not progress from English 96 to English 1A, background characteristics are re-visited to see if non-Puente students who do progress to English 1A are distinguishable from those who do not enroll in English 1A the subsequent Fall term.
 

6. How similar are the characteristics of Puente and non-Puente Latinos who progress from English 96 to English 1A when compared to their own pool of English 96 successful completers? When compared with each other?

 Those students who successfully complete English 96 are similar to each other on the characteristics measured--whether or not they progress to English 1A the next term.  Students from this pool who enroll in English 1A immediately after English 96 are not significantly different from those successful students who do not enroll.

 Age.  The age of regular section students who progress is not significantly different from the age of the original pool of regular section English 96 students. The mean age of non-Puente Latinos who enrolled in English 96 is 27 years, as is the mean age for the sub-group of regular section students that advances to English 1A.  (To be specific 26.8 for the pool of regular section English 96 Latinos and 26.9 for those who advance to English 1A.)

Difference in mean ages of Regular section and the Puente section students progressing to English 1A reflect the original difference found in the pool of English 96 enrollees.  Puente students who advance to 1A tend to be younger with less age variation (mean age is 24 years and the standard diviation--a measure of the age range--equals 4.2 compared to  26.9 years and a standard diviation of 6.8 among non-Puente students).  The difference between these two groups of students progressing to English 1A is 2.9 years,  the difference in the original pool of English 96 was 2.24 years.

 Primary Language.  There is no significant difference between the Regular section and the Puente section students progressing to English 1A in their response to the City College application item that asks if English is their primary language.
 High School of Origin.  When high school origin is collapsed into four categories:  S.F. Public, S.F. Private, San Mateo, and Other, about 54% of both groups have San Francisco high school origins.  However, the Puente students progressing to English 1A are more likely to originate from private high schools (mainly parochial).  However, these data are not as complete as other data collected via the College application.

 Grades In English 96:  Mean Comparison.   Latinos making the Spring to Fall progression in these three selected years earned virtually equivalent grades in English 96, whether they were in the Puente or Regular sections of English 96.  The mean English 96 grade for Puente students (71 cases) is 2.68 with a standard deviation of .79, for Regular Section Latinos (105 cases) it is 2.67 with a standard deviation of 1.09.
 

7. Do Latinos in Puente and non-Puente sections of English 1A have similar grade outcomes?

No.
 As indicated in Table 2 which summarizes the data for three Fall terms, and in Graph 2 on the following page which provides a picture of successful and unsuccessful outcomes for each of the three Fall terms for both Puente and non-Puente students, Puente students have a considerably higher probability of success in English 1A.

Table 2
English 1A
Puente vs. Regular Sections
Latino Successful Grade Outcomes
Three Term Summary:
Fall ‘93, ‘94, ‘95



 
 
Number and Percent 
Grade Outcome 
Regular Sections 
Puente Sections 
Total Sections 
FAILURE N 
                 %
44
43.1
13
18.8
57
33.3
SUCCESS N 
                 %
58
56.9
56
81.2
114
66.7
Col Total N
102
69
171
Col Total %
100
100
100
Row Total %
59.6
40.4
100

Grades In English 1A:  Successful Outcomes.   Puente students outperform Latinos from other sections of English 1A.  When the W is included as an unsuccessful outcome, the success rate  is 80% Puente vs. 55% regular sections.  When the W is not included in the analyses, the outcome changes very little, to 82% success for Puente and 58% success for the Regular sections.

Grades In English 1A:  Mean Comparison.  When the W grade is included as a failure, mean grades for these two groups are significantly different. The mean final grade for Puente students (71 cases) is 2.55 with a standard deviation of 1.6, for Regular Section Latinos (105 cases) it is 1.87 with a standard deviation of 1.9.   The mean difference is .69 and a t-test for equality of means indicates this difference is statistically significant.

    When withdrawal grades are excluded from the calculations, the total number of cases drops 26% (a loss of 9 cases from the Puente pool=13% and a loss of 36 cases from the non-Puente pool=34%).  The mean grades for those Regular section Latinos remaining in 1A are not significantly different than those in the Puente section.  The non-Puente Latinos in English 1A don’t fail, they bail with a W grade to repeat another day.
 


CONCLUSION

    Based on the student characteristics available on the student database, Puente students are not significantly different from other Latinos who enrolled in regular sections of English 96, but they significantly outperform the regular section Latino students in:
 

     There is no evidence that selection bias contributes to this grade outcome.  The Puente Program participants have equivalent initial G.P.A.s and are similar on every variable measured except age, and that difference is small.  Nor is there any evidence from the “progressor” dataset that grades are inflated relative to the larger body of students progressing to English 1A.  Puente students who progress to 1A have the same mean grades as non-Puente Latinos who progress.

In this three year time frame, these single sections of the Puente Program are responsible for:
 

    Evidence from the last three years indicates that the Puente Program is successful in serving the needs of both Latino students and the institution by substantially increasing the numbers of Latinos successfully completing the English 96--English 1A course sequence.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

    Unsuccessful Students:  Follow-Up Study.   In preparing the dataset for this study, a significant number of duplicate (between terms) names had to be removed.  These are students who repeatedly enroll in the same course term after term without earning a grade.  It would be useful to contact a sample of these students to determine the reasons for repeated, unsuccessful enrollments.

    Successful English 96 Completers Not Advancing to English 1A

    Institutional Costs     Personal Costs     Beyond English 1A of a computer.

Homepage (or Web Page): A virtual site on the Internet, usually referring specifically to a site accessible through the World Wide Web. Contains basic information about an individual, institution or product. Created using hypertext language.

Hypertext: Enables rapid access to various pieces of information stored separately from the main document, but cross-referenced.

Information technology: Any or all of a number of digitally-based technologies ranging from fax machines to computers.

Instructional designer: A technical expert who develops or assists in developing “courseware” and multimedia products for educational use.

Internet: A world-wide network of computer networks. A “router” connects the network to the Internet. Many resources and means for sharing information are available through the Internet, including e-mail, data repositories, bulletin board services and user groups for sharing information.

ISP (Internet Service Providers): Third-party providers of Internet services.

ITS (Information Technology Services): An administrative department at CCSF providing hardware and programming support to the college’s administrative, faculty and student users.

ITUG (Intech usersgroup): Faculty-based group formed to support “Innovations in Information Technology for Teaching & Learning.”

IUG (Internet usersgroup): A group of faculty and staff interested in the use of the Internet for instructional and educational purposes.

Lan administrator: A member of the technical staff responsible for the functioning of a single or small number of local area networks.

Laptop computer (or laptop): A portable, personal computer.

LCD: A device which allows output to a computer monitor to be displayed on a large screen for group viewing.

MIS (Management Information Services): A standard phrase usually referring to a data management and/or reporting system. The State Chancellor’s Office for the California Community Colleges requires all its colleges each semester to submit tapes with student, course, and student services data.

Modem: A device which allows “dial-up” access to a single computer or computer network.

Multimedia (also Multi media, Multi-media or Multiple media): A single collection of both audio and video in one storage medium, usually a CD-ROM disk. Can include graphics such as still photographs as well as video clips, in addition to basic text.

Network (Computer Network): An interconnection of workstations and servers with physical links (e.g., hard-wired together or to a hub) and logical links (i.e. use the same protocols to communicate). May be referred to as a LAN (Local Area Network) or WAN (Wide Area Network).

Network administrator: A member of the technical staff responsible for oversight of all aspects relating to the interconnection of computer systems throughout the enterprise and to the larger Internet, including, but not limited to 1) coordination the LAN administrators, 2) the planning, design, and implementation of network architecture to acheive enterprise goals, 3) the management of installation, configuration, and maintenance of network equipment, such as routers, switches and hubs.

OMR (Optical Mark Reader): Used to process “bubble” forms such as those produced by Scantron Corporation.

On-line: A phrase which refers to being “on” (also “logged onto”). Frequently used in reference to the Internet or the World Wide Web.

PPP (Point-Point Protocol): Standardized internet protocol for modems. Supersedes SLIP.

Scanner: A machine that “reads” text and/or graphics from a printed page into a computer file.

Server: 1) A computer which services requests from client machines in a computer network 2) A program that services requests from client programs, e.g. Web server, Oracle server.

SLIP (Serial Line Internet Protocol): Software that makes it possible to use the same Internet facilities over a phone (“dialup”) connection that are available over a direct network connection. Superseded by PPP.

Smart classroom (or computer classroom): A classroom which contains multiple, networked computers for students use and a large screen display. This classroom may or may not be wired for Internet connectivity.

Software: The programs, such as word processing, database, spreadsheet, that “run” on computer hardware.

System administrator: A member of the technical staff responsible for various duties on a computer system with multiple concurrent users, including by not limited to: 1) addition and removal of user accounts, 2) addition and removal of hardware on the machine, 3) scheduling and execution of file system backups, 4) the installation of new software, patches, and software upgrades, 5) analysis of problems occurring within the system, 6) maintenance of system documentation.

Technical support: Any of various services provided to computer users, from installing a computer to helping produce “courseware.”

User: A computer user.

Web administrator: A technical support person responsible for maintaining World Wide Web access and supporting the creation of homepages. (See homepage.)

Wired classroom: A classroom which contains an Internet connection.

Workstation: Roughly equivalent to “personal computer,” the basic building block of an integrated campus technology system. Either in a fixed location or portable; connected to a network or used as a standalone machine. Most simple form includes a central processing unit (see CPU), a hard disk (central memory repository), keyboard, monitor (“screen”), floppy drive(s). Permits entry of text and/or data by keystroke or transfer from a floppy diskette. Software can be used to manipulate and format the presentation of this text/data, displayed on the monitor, printed in “hardcopy” format, stored on the hard drive or on a floppy diskette. Software ranges from basic word processing to complex scientific simulations. Depends on the capacity of the machine (e.g., speed of the chip) and the software.

World Wide Web (WWW or the Web): A world-wide network which provides graphics as well as the text provided by the text-only lynx. See GUI.
 
Home Page
Ed Plan Summary
Important Links
Feedback Form
with others and utilize the recruitment, screening, orientation, counseling and/or job placement services of community-based organizations which serve particular neighborhoods or groups of students.

The Task Force has two general recommendations to enhance the career decision-making and educational planning in existence:

3.  Connecting Activities
The School-to-Work Opportunities Act recognizes the employers and educational providers must be helped to work together on workforce education systems.  The Act's third program element, in addition to School-Based and Work-Based Learning Activities, is Connecting Activities.  These activities include:
  Many programs in various parts of the country have developed valuable connecting activities which have contributed greatly to their success.  Three representative examples include:
  Craftsmanship 2000 is a four-year skilled metalworking program started in 1992 by the Tulsa, Oklahoma Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce in partnership with the Tulsa Public Schools, the Tulsa Technology Center (formerly the local “vo-tech"), Tulsa Junior College, and a number of employers.  Craftsmanship 2000's connecting activities have enabled them to provide stipends and bonuses to students paid for by employers.

The impetus for this program came from the Hilti Corporation, a manufacturer of metal fasteners headquartered in Liechtenstein.  Hilti established its western hemisphere headquarters in Tulsa in 1980, then could not find the quality of craft employees it was used to in Europe.  In 1990, Hilti arranged for a group of Tulsa Chamber members and their spouses to visit European apprenticeship programs.  Discussions based on this experience led in 1992 to the first group of 16 high school juniors in Craftsmanship 2000.

Selection for the program depends on a combination of achievement, aptitude and interest tests.  During their junior and senior years in high school, Craftsmanship 2000 participants spend eight hours a day at the Technology Center--four hours in academic classes and four in the machine shop.  They are taught a rigorous, outcome-based curriculum by a team of high school and Technology Center instructors.  Each student receives a stipend, furnished by employers, and works full time in the summer at a participating firm.  After graduation, many go on to Tulsa Junior College and earn an associate's degree.  The college awards the apprentices 25 credit hours for their Craftsmanship 2000 experience after they complete 12 units on the campus.

Project Protech was started in 1991 by Boston hospitals which were worried about turnover among their lab technicians, physicians assistants and other support personnel.  New employees would complete extensive training at the hospitals' expense, work diligently and leave within the year.  In cooperation with the city's schools and Private Industry Council, Protech helps recruit and support at risk students through completion of high school and matriculation in postsecondary education.  Of 54 seniors in the Protech class of 1994, 49 had accepted enrollment at postsecondary schools by September and at least 60% were studying for health industry careers.  Protech now grooms students for business, finance and utility company careers, and has received a $1.2 million federal School-to-Work implementation grant for reaching 380 students in Boston schools in the next two years.

Protech's most notable connecting activity is a large staff which provides extensive, personal support services for participants--helping them get to school and work on time, referring them to community agencies for needed assistance, and assisting them with college application forms.  This support is essential for the population Protech serves, which includes many people from troubled urban neighborhoods.  Also, much of Protech's  instruction happens at workplaces, providing another important connection.

The Lehigh Valley Business-Education Partnership was started in the late 1980s by school superintendents and the recently retired Chief Executive Officer of a Fortune 500 company who has been Chairman of the American Council of Education, United States Chamber of Commerce, and the national chamber's Education Committee. As of mid-1995, the partnership, renamed the Lehigh Valley 2000:  Business-Education Partnership has completed action plans, published a variety of resource documents, provided summer internships for teachers at local companies and created a Lehigh Valley Leadership Academy.  Its Roads to Success, available in both English and Spanish, describes approximately seventy enrichment opportunities for children and youth in the Lehigh Valley.  Its annual Business Education Fall Showcase is a one-day event open to the public, and its Strategic Planning Tools handbook is used by at least six Lehigh Valley school districts.

This partnership is a national model of the kind of cooperation possible between education, business and community leaders.  Its comprehensive range of connecting activities should encourage similar efforts in San Francisco.

City College Connecting Activities
City College is already working on important connecting activities of its own.  The most significant and promising may be the Bay Area Transition to Career Center, an effort to strengthen and coordinate the college's capabilities for facilitating internships and broad partnerships with industry, other education providers and community based organizations.  The Walter S. Johnson gave the college a two-year, $150,000 grant to start the Center in 1995.

The new Center is becoming a common contact point for all City College paid and volunteer internship activities and for employer involvement with internships.  This fall it will publish an Internship Program Handbook that will support new internship development efforts, standardize program procedures and data collection, and document the range of existing and proposed internship opportunities.  The Center is also building relationships around internships and other workforce education activities with the San Francisco Unified School District.  Under the name “The Career Connection," the Center will market the colleges' programs and students to potential internship sponsors while educating City College faculty, staff and students about internships.  Next year the Center will develop and sponsor a model seminar series for interns from a variety of programs, so that they can help each other with communications skills and other work competencies, reflect on what they are learning from their assignments and be supported in integrating what they learn from their internships with their on-campus study.

The Transition to Career Center will continue to help develop college-wide capacities for improving the school-to-work transition through internships and other work-based learning.  They will also manage some innovative programs directly, involve other community colleges and regions of the Bay Area in its programs and services, and research work-based learning and communicate its results to the college community and to the larger Bay Area.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS
In creating an integrated workforce education system, City College faces an enormous challenge:  developing career clusters; delivering programs which integrate connecting activities with school-based and work-based learning activities, including career decision-making and educational planning; and tailoring these programs for various student populations, working all the while with a wide variety of employer, educational and community partners.  Accomplishing these tasks will require significant changes in the College's support systems and infrastructure.  While many different aspects of the college will be affected, this discussion focuses on seven key items:
1.  funding
2.  facilities
3.  educational delivery systems
4.  skill standards and portable credentials
5.  performance assessment
6.  job placement
7. staff development
8.  partnerships

1. Funding
Federal and state moneys to support Workforce Education are likely to be modest and very competitive.  To create effective School-to-Work programs, the colleges will have to free up money by restructuring and redesigning many existing programs and services, reallocate existing revenues and acquire new sources of support.  They will need funds for staff development and faculty training in new careers.  They will need staff to create and manage partnerships and programs, to redesign curricula, to develop and facilitate internships and other work-based learning, and to develop jobs for graduates.  They may need fund-raising staff to help them meet partnership requirements and grant matches.

The Task Force recommends that the college concentrate whatever funds it has for Workforce Education in the next few years on pilot projects that come as close as possible to including every aspect of the Learning Activities and Career Decision-Making and Educational Plan models we propose.  It believes that the most effective pilot projects will be in cluster areas where high-paying career openings are available.  Once established, the programs will provide a model to be used to establish programs in other career clusters throughout the college.

2. Facilities
Most of City College's facilities were designed for a kind of learning that is disappearing.  It will have to retrofit buildings, adding flexibility, responsiveness and a capacity for customization to as many facilities as possible.  City College also needs to create a network of community locations for work-based and school-based learning in space which is either donated or made available to colleges for nominal fees.  Finally, the college needs to maximize its capability for all kinds of distance learning and probably create some “virtual campuses" for learners who are unable to come to college facilities.

3. Educational Delivery Systems
The number of students who can take on-campus, full-time day programs over several years is relatively small.  Today's students need access to modularized learning at their homes, workplaces, and local community centers.  Distance learning and other forms of technology can make learning possible for people unable to come to the college.  Various scheduling arrangements are also needed.  Some people want to be part of learning communities, others need great flexibility and independence to meet their goals.  More and more, education will be available anytime, anywhere, and delivered many different ways.

There are numerous examples of effective teaching and learning strategies being used by community college faculty across the country that are moving in this direction.  Two examples are “Learning Communities,” where faculty coordinate courses and assignments in blocks for cohorts of students and “Open-entry/open-exit” courses that facilitate self-paced learning for students whose learning styles and preference do not match traditional structures.  Classes coordinated with community-based organizations also are often more flexible and increase accessibility.

4. Skill standards and portable credentials
Employers complain that high school diplomas or community college degrees do not tell them what skills graduates have.  Oregon and other states are mandating various certificates of mastery for all high school students, and the federal government has funded twenty-one different efforts to develop voluntary national skills standards in fields as diverse as printing, electronics, retail trade, and biotechnology.  California's School-to-Work Plan commits the state to similar efforts.

City College students need workforce education programs which will give them demonstrable, measurable skills and portable credentials that employers recognize.  The faculty should document the students’ skills at various points during a program, so that students have proof of their skill and competency levels.

5. Performance assessment
Performance standards raise important questions about accurate methods of assessing whether a student has learned a skill or has mastered a competency.  Traditional assessment methods such as teacher-created paper and pencil objective tests provide limited information on students' real skills.  A broader kind of assessment has many purposes, including seeing if people can use what they've learned appropriately in the real world; giving students and teachers information on students' ability to solve problems and apply what they know to new contexts; and giving students feedback on what they've learned so that they can improve their skills.

Assessment practices that give students and teachers useful information on skill mastery are often described as “performance assessment" tools and strategies.  Examples include open-ended tasks, observations of students at work, and individual and group portfolios or projects.  Writing is frequently involved, because writing clarifies and reveals thinking.  Video simulations, multimedia presentations, panel discussions, and other forms of presentations are also common.  A combination of these approaches can accommodate individual preferences for different media and/or differences in communication styles.

One national effort to create a variety of examinations for a Certificate of Initial Mastery proposes three components:  performance examinations, assessments of student projects, and assessments of a portfolio of student work.  This New Standards Project describes these assessments as very much like the scout merit badge system.  Students will be able to accumulate “badges” over a period of years, work at their own pace, and compare their own performances against a set of published criteria.

Figure 3 (page 41) shows how a foundation skills certificate could be the basis of a system of certification for high schools in California.  Young people could have a variety of routes for workforce education after completing a Certificate of Foundation Skills at 16, including entering a community college, completing a recognized certificate similar to today's vocational program certificates and/or an associate's degree, then transferring to a four-year college, going to work, or both.

Figure 3
A MODEL FOR CAREER PATHWAYS AND CERTIFICATION LEVELS

6.  Job Placement
Job placement builds accountability and feedback into workforce education programs, giving faculty continuous readings on the demand for the skills they are helping people learn.  It will also be a requirement for programs which receive School-to-Work funding, for which City College will compete with private proprietary schools and non-profit training agencies which document their placements carefully.

Several units of the college now have job placement activities.  These efforts, which are generally grant-funded, usually address narrowly defined student populations and may be regarded as peripheral to the college.  Currently, representatives of the various job development and placement programs meet regularly to work at coordinating services.  This ex-officio coordinating group is developing methods for sharing job and employer information, resources, and databases.  Group meetings provide a forum for identifying placement system needs and developing collaborative strategies for addressing needs.  this voluntary effort should be recognized and supported by the college.

The college should work towards moving job placement from the periphery to full integration into workforce preparation programs.  In doing so, the college also needs to create a more effective system for tracking placement in order to respond to increasing demands for accountability and to provide a measure of program currency and effectiveness.

7.  Staff Development
The provision of staff development for faculty is crucial to making the changes we propose.  In order to create new curriculum, work effectively with partners, and develop new evaluation tools, faculty will need training and assistance.  This training must be flexible in time and place.  It should also provide incentives for faculty such as stipends and release time so that faculty realize that the college values their spending time on making this system work.

8.  Partnerships
City College already has many different partnerships, with K-12 schools and four-year colleges, foundations and other public and private funders, individual employers and
employer groups, industry organizations and community groups, and local, regional and state agencies  Often these partnerships are informal and depend on personal relationships between a very small number of college and partner staff.  The college needs partnerships that are more strongly institutionalized, that are organized and funded for success and longevity, and that involve many different programs, personnel, and students.  It is in the interest of City College and its students to expand and strengthen the institutional capacity to develop and sustain effective partnerships.

Integrating All the Elements--the Program Worksheet
The CityWorks Program Worksheet (see Appendix, pages 73-76) presents all the elements of the Task Force's Model for Excellence in Workforce Education--student populations, career clusters, program elements, and support systems--in one display.  Pilot projects which include all these components will be developed during 1995-6 and give City College a sense of the usefulness of this model.  The Strategic Plan in Chapter VI presents the Task Force's recommendations for how to move toward experimenting with the model in several clusters and adopting it across the college over time.

VI. USING THE CITYWORKS MODEL:  A STRATEGIC PLAN FOR HIGH- QUALITY WORKFORCE EDUCATION

This section presents five goals for strengthening workforce education throughout City College.  As used here, goals are broad statements desired by City College and its individual and organizational constituents.  They are operationally specified by a set of strategies and related actions from Chapter V.  As the implementation plan moves forward, strategies and actions will be modified, added, or deleted.
Goal 1:  Promote a collegewide commitment to a new workforce education plan.
Goal 2: Establish a collegewide infrastructure to support the plan
Goal 3:  Establish working model of the CityWorks plan.
Goal 4:  Promote the highest levels of student success, student learning and teaching excellence.
Goal 5:  Disseminate CityWorks to other CCSF Departments and Schools

Goal 1:  Promote a collegewide commitment to a new workforce education plan.
City College has a long and successful history of providing educational services to students seeking to enter the workforce for the first time and to those wishing to retrain and upgrade their skills.  The CityWorks plan recognizes that the college must take some additional steps to align CCSF programs with the new dramatic developments occurring in the workplace.  The first step has been taken with the completion of the CityWorks plan.  The second step is the building of a working consensus among members of the CCSF community about the plan and a strong stated commitment from the leadership of the college endorsing the goals and objectives of the CityWorks plan.  This would include a statement of support from the Board of Trustees.

Goal 2:   Establish a collegewide infrastructure to support the plan

The CityWorks plan requires an institutional commitment of human and financial resources over a five year period.  Once the Board of Trustees and the Chancellor have resolved to support the plan, strategies would need to be established to build the appropriate internal support for the plan.  This would include creating:

Special fund to support faculty
The Office of Institutional Development will work with school deans and faculty to raise funds from federal, state and local sources to support the design, piloting and implementation of the plan.  The refinement, piloting and implementation of the City Works model will likely take three to five years.  At each phase, college faculty will need direct support for training, curriculum development, evaluation of alternative modes of instructional delivery, and extensive links with professionals outside the college.  To support this effort we suggest establishing a Workforce Education Fund created from the college general fund and alternative funding sources.  This fund would be used to seed pilot projects based upon the CityWorks model.  Faculty could utilize these funds for: CityWorks Coordinator
The position of CityWorks Coordinator would give an individual overall responsibility for creating and implementing the CityWorks model.  This person would report directly to the Chancellor and work with an array of groups set up to help successfully launch and create projects.  (See Organizational Chart page 46.)  The college should seek an individual with experience at community colleges, who possesses excellent organizational skills and has a clear understanding of current workforce development philosophies.

Organizational Groups
In addition to establishing a special fund and a coordinator’s position, the college would create several organizational structures to plan, implement, manage, and oversee workforce education programs.  These groups would not require bringing on additional staff but would represent a reconfiguring of current staff:

CityWorks Coordination Council
This Council would help assure the implementation of the CityWorks model and plan within the college.  Individuals on this Council would solve problems, act as advocates, and be a liaison to their units.  This would promote effective coordination and efficient use of resources.  A CityWorks Coordination Council must be established with representation from the faculty, instructional and student service program involved in the implementation as well as administrators from the three administrative chains.  Students should also be represented on this council.

Technical Assistance Workgroup
The Technical Assistance Workgroup would facilitate the work of specific pilot projects, especially as it applies to implementation of new learning activities and career decision making and educational planning.  This group can provide assistance to faculty and staff who are responsible for implementing parts of the plan. Included in the Workgroup would be faculty and staff who have successfully implemented workforce education courses and programs, representatives from the Office of Staff Development, Information Technology Services, Admissions and Records, Financial Aid, and Matriculation, members from other colleges, and employers from the cluster area.
 

Chancellor's Advisory Panel on Workforce Education
CCSF would establish a group to ensure a high level of visibility within the employer sectors as the workforce plan is implemented.  A quarterly meeting convened by the Chancellor and her staff would be held to exchange information, report on new developments, provide progress reports and hear new ideas with private and public sector employers in and around the City and County of San Francisco.

Council of Partnerships
A Council of Partnerships would be established to pursue linkages with education institutions, employers, public agencies, and community based organizations.  It would coordinate discussions between external organizations and CCSF programs interested in pursuing the CityWorks model.  Working with the new Career Connection program, the Career Development and Placement Center, and other well-established college programs with partnerships, the office would act as a broker to create new projects and programs between City College and employers throughout the region for internships, other work-based activities, and connecting activities.  A database of employers interested in providing work-based learning opportunities would be available to all CCSF programs.

Goal 3:  Establish working model of the CityWorks plan.

The CityWorks plan we are suggesting will, of course, be modified and refined as it is disseminated throughout the campus.  After this input, a pilot program can be implemented.  A piloting strategy enables the college to focus resources on a limited number of projects and allows the faculty to test and improve the model before it is established in other clusters.

To review, chapter V discussed the program elements that would be part of our model including:

We also identified three levels of skills illustrated in Figure 1 on page 28 that the curricula should include: To create the base of the learning activities for students, faculty would work in consultation with industry, community-based organizations, or other appropriate partners to design a pilot program incorporating the SCANS competencies.  A foundation skills framework would ensure that students have basic communication and computational skills, good work habits and other personal management skills, problem-solving and teamwork skills, and some exposure to computers and related technology.  A core competencies framework within each cluster would identify the common background, information, and skills needed by students preparing for any of its programs.  In many cases, the core competencies will build upon existing “Introduction to Cluster X” courses.  The content of the competencies, the school--and/or work-based learning experiences, and methods of documenting accomplishments will vary among the clusters.  A program-specific skills framework will include the more advanced SCANS competencies.

The next element of the model includes the career-decision making and educational planning activities.  To be successful in careers, many community college students need a variety of services including extensive assistance in developing personal career education goals.  A Task Force subcommittee has worked on identifying the elements of a comprehensive system of student services, describing how these services could be improved and integrated with one another and with learning experiences.  Current services, particularly recruitment, counseling and career advising would be strengthened.

Another part of the plan calls for enhancing college job placement operations.  We can improve coordination of activities and allocate additional resources to ensure that all students receive appropriate job placement services.

Connecting activities are an essential part of workforce education.  To have a successful program, City College must provide technical assistance and services to employers in designing work-based learning components and case management services while also training teachers, workplace mentors, and counselors.  Connecting activities might also include providing assistance to schools to integrate academic and occupational learning.

Once these program elements are in place, the pilot program will be ready to be tested.  Students can begin taking classes that systematically integrate workforce learning into the curriculum.

Goal 4:  Promote the highest levels of student success, student learning and teaching excellence.
The CityWorks model and plan rests upon the college’s commitment to reaching the highest possible levels of student learning, student success, and teaching excellence.  These are the foundation blocks for creating an attractive and inspiring workforce program at the college.  Ultimately the CityWorks plan will be adopted and supported by faculty and students if it can be shown to be a better alternative than the current programs.

Establishing this reputation rests on careful evaluation.  The CityWorks model focuses on competency based curriculum which will require faculty to develop student outcome measures.  We must evaluate and assess what students have learned, how well they utilize what they have learned, and what its relevance is to their career choices.  Student satisfaction measures will also need to be established as well as satisfaction measures of employers.

To carry out this assessment a group of faculty from the pilot clusters and the Office of Research will work together to design appropriate measures.  Measures should include wherever possible and appropriate, the use of the portfolio assessment approach to evaluating student work.

As student progress is monitored through the new curricula, data will be provided to our Management Information System.  This data would be organized into user-friendly reports based upon what faculty need to understand about students’ progress through the program.  Reports would be made available each term.  In addition, the Office of Research would disseminate to all cluster faculty annual reports on all measures.  Annual meetings of all cluster faculty, members of the Office of Research, the cluster partners from the employer and community based organization sector would focus on a discussion of student progress and approaches to improve student learning and success.

Goal 5:  Disseminate CityWorks to other CCSF Departments and Schools
After at least two years of testing and implementing the CityWorks model,  a dissemination phase could begin.  Other occupational clusters could begin to adapt the CityWorks model to their program and utilize the experience of the pilot clusters to guide their work.  Cluster faculty who do not wish to wait until the pilot clusters are completed testing their curriculum, could begin the design phase of the plan.  Some piloting could begin even before the final results are know from the pilot clusters.  The focus, however, is on a careful incremental approach to disseminating the CityWorks model to avoid making the same mistakes over again.  The goal of the CityWorks plan is to complete the dissemination phase within five years of the completion of the pilot programs.