Program Planning and Action

Program Review and Action Planning – YEAR ONE

Division Science & Math Program Astronomy Contact Person Scott Hildreth Date March 2012

Section A – Data Review and Analysis

I. Basic Success and Equity (Data from 3 previous years)

1 1) Program-wide trends based on available data:

Overall Astronomy program success/failure/withdrawal rates from Fall 2008 – Spring 2011, based on statewide program data collected from the California Community College Chancellor’s Office, “Program Retention/Success Rates for Credit Enrollments, Physical Sciences (19), Astronomy Data.” give us a glimpse at our program overall, and compared to statewide figures:

Chabot College Astro : Success 55% Failure 20% Withdrawal 25% Astronomy Statewide: Success 63% Failure 19% Withdrawal 18%

While the failure rate is similar to the statewide data, our introductory astronomy program has a higher withdrawal rate than the average across the state. Looking closer to home, at Chabot College success/retention rates, Astronomy still seems to be experiencing worse than average success compared with campus-wide data, averaged over the past three years of data (Fall 2008 – Fall 2011, not including summer)

Success Non-Success Withdrawal Total # % # % # % # Astronomy 973 55% 348 20% 445 25% 1,766 Campus - wide 66% 16% 17%

We see from this data that on average over the past three years, more students are withdrawing, and more are not successful, than campus averages. Whether this reflects the inherent difficulty of the material, or other factors, is more difficult to assess. One immediate question that came to mind was whether using the newly renovated Chabot College planetarium, with its vastly superior audiovisual experience for our students, has resulted in improving student retention and success, and for the first time we can use the data to examine that question.

Success Non-Success Withdrawal # % # % # % Total Astro 10/20 799 53% 329 22% 410 25% 2010-2011 Astro 10/20 (all classes in new planetarium) 238 56% 86 22% 108 23% 2008-2010 Astro 10/20 (most classes in regular lecture halls) 561 51% 243 22% 302 27%

Although the data pool is small, there is a suggestion here that using the new planetarium for the past year has resulted in an overall 5% improvement in success, and a similar increase in retention. Relative to the prior values, this is overall a 10% positive change. We’ll keep looking at this data over the next review cycle.

We also looked at similar introductory science courses at Chabot, presumably taken by similar students looking to satisfy GE Science Lecture Course requirements for graduation/transfer. These included Anthropology 1, Environmental Science 10, and Geography 1 (all 3-unit lecture only courses) and Biology 10, Chemistry 10, and Environmental Science 11 (all 4-unit lecture/lab courses):

2 Success Non-Success Withdrawal # % # % # % Astro 10 490 51% 202 21% 262 28% 954 Astro 20 309 54% 127 23% 148 23% 584 Average Astro Lecture classes 53% 22% 25%

Anthro 1 (lec only) 1555 71% 307 14% 320 14% 2182 Env Sci 10 (lec) 101 68% 21 15% 24 17% 146 Geog 1 (lec) 1801 67% 633 24% 242 9% 2676 Bio 10 w/ lab 658 70% 154 17% 133 14% 945 Chem 10 wl lab 110 68% 21 14% 30 18% 161 Env Sci 11 w/lab 105 65% 23 14% 32 21% 160 Average for all Other Sciences 68% 16% 16%

Here the three-year trend seems to indicate that Astronomy is indeed harder for the average GE student taking an introductory science course. We did not see any significant difference in success, non-success, or withdrawal by gender:

Success Non-Success Withdrawal Total # % # % # % # Female 473 56% 154 18% 215 26% 842 Male 482 54% 188 21% 218 25% 888

And the pattern of lower than campus average success, and higher non-success & withdrawal rates, was mirrored across the board in terms of ethnicity:

Success Non-Success Withdrawal Total of Population Astro Campus Astro Campus Astro Campus Astro Campus African- American 33% 55% 31% 23% 37% 22% 13% 18% Asian 67% 76% 13% 11% 20% 13% 13% 19% Fillipino 52% 69% 18% 14% 30% 17% 10% 9% Hispanic 55% 66% 22% 18% 24% 16% 26% 31% Caucasian 62% 76% 19% 12% 19% 13% 24% 20%

The above data suggests that every ethnic group found astronomy more difficult.

Looking at levels of English correlated to Astronomy Course Success, using available data from Fall 2011, while some English definitely seems to help, the data doesn’t seem to indicate that English 1A should be made a pre-requisite for success:

Success Non-Success Withdraw # % # % # % Astro 10 Eng 1A/4/7 34 69% 8 16% 7 14% 101/102 8 57% 2 14% 4 29% None 16 53% 7 23% 7 23% Total 58 62% 17 18% 18 19%

3 Astro 20 Eng 1A/4/7 15 68% 4 18% 3 14% 101/102 13 76% 2 12% 2 12% None 29 53% 9 16% 17 31% Total 57 61% 15 16% 22 23% Astro 30 Eng 1A/4/7 12 92% 1 8% 13 100% 101/102 3 100% 3 100% None 8 73% 2 18% 1 9% Total 23 85% 2 7% 2 7%

However, the difference in student success and withdrawal rates does suggest that a curriculum advisory “At least English 101/102 is Recommended” might be appropriate. We will look at this over the next program review cycle.

Online vs. On-campus Comparisons

Astronomy also has offered one of the longest running fully online courses at the college (first established in 1995 as a variation of a telecourse offering, with a locally maintained course management system supported by the planetarium’s computer. We do not have success/retention data available for the online vs. on-campus sections of the same course, but anecdotally our observations from the Astro 10 online classes taught by Dr. Billy Smith and the Astro 20 online classes taught by myself include:

 Retention is worse in our online sections than the on-campus courses, due in part we believe because of the number of students who pre-register for the online class but who then very quickly decide not to participate once the demands of the class mount. Both Dr. Smith and I typically would see 25-30 students active in an online section at the midterm, measured by those taking the midterm exam, out of 55-60 admitted to the class, and perhaps 40-45 who actually start participating. On-campus versions of the same classes will have 40+ students taking the midterm exam, out of the same approximate number admitted to the class.

 Success rates for students who seriously and authentically engage in the class material (measured by those in the class *after* the census data to the number who actually finish) is at least as high, or higher, in online classes. This reflects that students who are ready for online learning, who are self-sufficient and can manage their time, do well. Comparing Chabot with Other Astronomy Programs around the Bay Area and State

In our Final Year 3 Program review completed in March 2011, we looked at success data for one term only (Fall 2008) for a dozen Astronomy programs in the Bay Area. We created a continuing goal of looking at retention AND success data across a longer period of time, and across more schools, as a focus for the next review cycle.

Using the CCCCO data from Fall 2008 through Fall 2011, we can now report on our retention and success data compared with other California Community Colleges in a variety of ways (Spreadsheets supporting the analysis are attached in the Appendix.)

1) Comparison within the 21 colleges in the Greater SF Bay Area (San Jose to Sonoma)

2) Comparison with ~20 colleges in California with similar sized Astronomy programs,

4 based on enrollment data from Spring 2011

3) Comparison with ~20 colleges in California with similar sizes based on credit FTES

4) Comparison with ~22 colleges in California with similar Basic Skills credit FTES

5) Comparison with 15 colleges in California with similar ratios of Basic Skills to FTES

6) Comparison with the statewide averages as a whole over 3 years

7) Comparing Summer programs in Astronomy from 2009, 2010, and 2011

Analysis

1) Comparison within the 21 colleges in the Greater SF Bay Area (San Jose to Sonoma)

Chabot ranks in the bottom 1/3 of nearby colleges in student success within Astronomy programs. Retention is similar. The nearby colleges with consistently better retention and success data from 2008 onwards include DeAnza, Foothill, Marin, Canada, Solano, and San Mateo. Nearby colleges with lower retention and success in the last three years include Laney, West Valley, Ohlone, and San Francisco; Las Positas College, Contra Costa, and San Jose City has similar rates.

2) Comparison with ~20 colleges in California with similar sized Astronomy programs

Using Spring 2011 data as a basis, statewide astronomy program data was sorted to capture programs with a comparable number of students enrolled, +/- 20% Chabot’s Spring 2011 enrollment in Astronomy was 281 students, and ompared with schools in California enrolling between 200 and 300 students, Chabot’s astronomy program shows about average retention and success rates for Spring 2011, but over the past three years, similarly in the lowest third of the group. In the last three terms, Canada and Monterey led the way in terms of consistently high success rates.

3) Comparison with ~20 colleges in California with similar sizes based on credit FTES

Based on Spring 2011 Credit FTES numbers from the State Chancellor’s Office, Chabot’s Astronomy program similarly places about average in terms of success for comparable schools supporting between 10,000 and 12,000 FTES for Spring 2011, but over the past 3 years in the lowest third. There were no Greater Bay Area schools in this grouping other than Chabot.

4) Comparison with ~22 colleges in California with similar Basic Skills credit FTES

One of the questions raised in the prior phase of our program review was how Chabot’s students’ reading skills affect their performance and success in Astronomy. Unfortunately we don’t have accessible data to tell us whether our current astronomy

5 students took Basic Skills courses at Chabot, from which we might look at their success compared with other students. We hope that such inquiries might be examined in the future, if there is increased bandwidth in our Institutional Research department.

One thought at how to consider this problem was to look at how we are doing compared with other schools with similar credit FTES rankings in Basic Skills courses. The hypothesis being explored is whether we might tell if Chabot is doing better (or worse) with its Astronomy program compared with schools that have a similar number of students in Basic Skills courses – with the assumption being made that those schools, too, would have a similar type of student taking astronomy as an introductory science. This is a large, and as yet unfounded, assumption.

Chabot’s reported Basic Skills FTES from Spring 2011 was 845, and after comparing schools from around the state with similar numbers +/- 150 (from 700 to 1000) nothing markedly different from the earlier comparisons is apparent. Chabot’s astronomy program still ranked about the middle of this group of schools in terms of success for the most recent term, but in the lowest third overall for the past 6 semesters, than the average of twenty other colleges across the state with similar Basic Skills credit FTES. Canada and Solano again ranked higher on average for the past 3 years.

5) Comparison with 15 colleges in California with similar ratios of Basic Skills to FTES

One result of the previous comparison was that the institutions with the same approximate amount of Basic Skills FTES as Chabot were still quite different in size. Consequently, normalizing the question to look at colleges with a similar percentage of Basic Skills to general FTES was done to see whether that might provide even more insight about our Astronomy program’s success related to Chabot’s student body. The results from this inquiry did not show a difference from prior analysis – our program seemed to produce a lower retention and success relative to the average of 13 schools with an 8% ratio of Basic Skills to overall FTES.

6) Comparison with the statewide averages as a whole over 3 years

Statewide data shows no significant difference in average retention (82%) and success (63%) between semesters, and both statistics are about 7-8% higher than Chabot’s averages over the past three years (retention average of 75%, success average of 55%).

7) Comparing Summer programs in Astronomy from 2009, 2010, and 2011

We were able to offer Astronomy classes in Summer 2010 and 2011 terms, but not 2009. In the last two years, both student retention and success were higher than our semester levels (Retention 81%, Success 63%), although both statistics are still lower than the statewide averages for summer astro classes (86% retention, 75% success).

Summary:

6 Comparing Chabot’s success/retention data is just one way to look at our program’s effectiveness, and not necessarily the best way. One idea we want to explore is to make contact with other colleges with similar planetarium systems and investigate in more detail what makes them successful.

Data Source: California Community College Chancellor’s Office, “Program Retention/Success Rates for Credit Enrollments, Physical Sciences (19)” DataMart. Accessed 3/10/12 from http://www.cccco.edu/SystemOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/MIS/DataMartandReports/tabid/282/Default.aspx .

II. Course Sequence (Data from 2 previous years)

While Astronomy 10 and 20 are separate courses, we do see students who take the Astronomy 30 lab at the same time as they take either lecture class do better in that lecture course – a long- standing trend that we reinforce in our lectures at the start of the term. We will continue to monitor and quantify this success with help from Institutional Research over the next program cycle, with an eye to sharing the data with counseling colleagues who might then guide students to the lab class in their SEPs.

III. Course Review (Data from 5 previous years)

Course outlines for Astro 10, 20, and 30 were last revised in 2006, and will need to be updated in the next curriculum cycle. We do not anticipate changing the curriculum significantly for these courses, although adding an advisory note about recommended English could be one possibility.

IV. Budget Summary (Data from 3 previous years)

Our Astronomy program faces two key budget issues:

1) Planetarium Equipment/Upkeep

Planetarium equipment maintenance contracts to cover our new projector and AV systems are extremely expensive. While we knew the planetarium projector upgrade would require more than the original system’s $3500 per year maintenance agreement, the additional requirements for the new AV system are significantly more than expected:

a. Spitz Planetarium Projector: $ 6,300 per year

b. Crestron AV system: $ 9,970 per year

7 We need to establish whether these amounts are necessary to budget each year, or whether we might skip a year and spread these costs out. We need to establish whether we can find less-expensive service providers for the Crestron systems, as the remaining lecture hall rooms in Building 1900 also use similar gear, and cost an additional $8000 a year in PMA fees.

To help offset some of these costs, we have already begun to increase the number of evening community planetarium shows (with 4 held already this academic year that generated revenue). However, creating these shows, programming them, arranging for ticketing, prepping the facility, running the show, and cleaning up requires many, many hours of faculty time which has been donated by the team. Shows seating about 45 people generate about $200-250 for the program, and to pay for the Spitz contract alone we would have to run 30-35 shows (or almost one a week). It is not feasible to do this level of production, nor expect faculty to donate so many hours of their time over and above full-time teaching and collegial responsibilities. We would also have to purchase at least 4 new shows (which cost between $4000 and $8000 each) to offer the community sufficient variety.

With these issues in mind, our highest budgeting priority for the program is generating revenue, both through creative fundraising and through investigating ways to hold a reasonable number of public programs during the academic year. We also need to build the endowment for the planetarium so that some of the annual maintenance costs can be paid through interest. Studying these will be a continued activity in our next plan.

2) Instructional Program FTEF

We continue to lack sufficient FTEF in the subdivision to offer enough sections to meet demands for GE physical science lecture requirements in Astronomy and at the same time to serve the intended transfer majors in allied health/biology/engineering populations with complete Physics sequences. We are routinely cutting sections of Astronomy to allow us to offer physics classes, and due to the increased CAH lab loads, we are further forced to reduce our offerings of Astronomy by 1-2 sections a year.

V. Enrollment Data (Data from 2 previous years)

Enrollment in Astronomy 10/20 lecture courses, held in the planetarium, is historically very high – averaging over 120% at Census for all 10:30 AM sections, and well over 110% at Census as a whole, including the often less-attended afternoon and evening sections. In past years we successfully offered and filled as many as 8 lecture sections during each term, but due to FTEF restrictions imposed upon our division and subdivision, we have had to cut back on astronomy lecture sections to 4-5 per term.

We offer morning and afternoon sections, MW and TTh, and in the past three years have tried to offer two fully-online sections, to meet the needs of Chabot’s various students. The online classes fill instantly, and are obviously extremely popular vehicles for many students to complete their GE lecture science requirements. But the online sections suffer greater attrition, and they are also much more work to teach than the on-campus sections. Both of the faculty teaching the

8 online sections have shared a growing displeasure with that delivery mode, in comparison to what we can do in person in the multi-media rich planetarium.

In the past year, we felt a great need to take advantage of that incredible pedagogical power, and serve more of our on-campus students. In Spring 2012 we reduced our online class offerings to a single section (20% of the Astro lecture course load) and instead added another daytime course. While we could undoubtedly fill another online section, we don’t have sufficient FTEF allocation in this current budget cycle.

We have in the past offered a one-night per week lecture class to meet the needs of working students hoping to make progress on their degree and transfer plans. The last time the class was offered was Spring 2010, and while that class historically did not fill completely (averaging 88% at Census), we feel it is still important to offer the opportunity at least once a year. Consequently, we have scheduled a section of it in Fall 2012, to be led by Dr. Smith.

Unfortunately, because our overall FTEF allocation has been reduced, and the subdivision’s allocation further squeezed by the increased lab load factor, we will not be able to offer this evening section as a net addition to the schedule. We have made the decision for 2012 to suspend the online sections of Astronomy in favor of trying the evening course and keeping our daytime courses as numerous as possible. We’ll monitor both of these decisions in the coming review cycle.

Enrollment in Astronomy 30 is relatively flat – we consistently have demand for more than one section of the lab course each term, but don’t always fill both to 100% of capacity. Because the lab is offered only at night, a large number of daytime students cannot take the class.

We are confident that – with a larger FTEF allocation – we could serve an additional 100-150 students per term needing GE science lecture credit, cost effectively, by hiring additional adjunct colleagues. We need to continue to recruit additional faculty who have experience with digital planetarium systems to take advantage of this opportunity.

9 VI. Student Learning Outcomes Inventory

 100% of our Astronomy courses have the required minimum number of CLOs and rubrics developed (3 for Astro 10/20, and 1 for Astro 30).

 100% of our Astronomy courses were reviewed in the past term. While we are required to do this review once every three years, it is our intent to review all of our courses every term. We have developed a quiz taken by all students in the lecture classes and share results from that quiz to help us look at overall student success by topic.

 100% of our Astronomy courses have had all the CLO assessments reflected upon (discussed with colleagues) but all need to have an action plan developed as we look over the results.

 What percentages of your courses assess each of the following CWLGs?

1. Critical Thinking 100% 2. Global & Cultural Involvement 3. Civic Responsibility 4. Communication 100% 5. Development of the Whole Person

PROGRAM LEVEL ANALYSIS: Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that have arisen from the course level discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.

Program: Astronomy Lecture Courses for GE Physical Science Students

 PLO #1: Students will be able to explain key principles of astronomy using applicable vocabulary; including employing the scientific method to organize, prioritize, and problem solve. Astronomy (10, 20)

 PLO #2: Students will explain how and where the human species fits into the immense, complex and ever-changing universe. Astronomy (10, 20)

What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?

We have investigated two key areas related to our program goals:

1) Textbooks and How Students Learn Astronomy. 2) Continued Use of Online Multimedia Tools to engender and track student success.

We continue to wrestle with what textbook choices and online tools might affect student success, and their ability to reach our overall program objectives. Whether a customized book, or a completely new book, or an even more revolutionary e-book accessible on a tablet, might help students succeed, is an issue we will continue to investigate in the next review cycle.

10 What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? Actions planned:

1) Investigate creation of new custom publishing textbook offering.

2) Investigate creating our own e-textbook with multimedia resources.

3) Continue to evaluate online tools such as those used with Mastering Astronomy to assess student success.

Program: Astronomy Lab Course for GE Physical Science Students

 PLO #1: Students will be able to explain key principles of observational and theoretical astronomy using applicable vocabulary and relating them to hands-on laboratory activities; including employing the scientific method to organize, prioritize, and problem solve. Astronomy (30)

What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?

We have yet to evaluate this PLO, and plan to do so in the next cycle.

What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of students completing your program? Actions planned:

1) Install the portable observatory equipment and start to use it in the lab classes. Continue to lobby for a permanent location atop a new building to provide greater access to the sky, and an opportunity to create a robotic telescope data acquisition system to bring live images to the lab.

2) Develop a new solar physics sunspot lab in conjunction with the SDO-HMI team at Stanford, and try out the lab in our classes in 2012-2013.

3) Continue to update current hands-on labs incorporating new technology and new simulation tools.

11 VII. Academic Learning Support

What kinds of academic learning support does your discipline use or require to help students succeed (e.g., tutoring, learning assistants, student assistants, peer advisors, lab support, supplemental instruction, peer-led team learning, peer advisors)? How many hours per semester do you use and/or how many hours per semester do you need?

We do not typically get many students seeking tutoring in Astronomy, but hope to encourage more with the new Building 1800 facility with the physics/astronomy student center. We do not have lab support for Astronomy 30. We would like to encourage more work-study students to help us develop new shows in Astronomy for the public, and have started that effort this year.

VIII. External Data  Cite any relevant external data that affects your program (e.g., labor market data, community demand, employment growth, external accreditation demands, etc.).

The surrounding community, including K-12 schools, consistently ask about the opportunity to attend Planetarium programs at Chabot College. There is obvious demand, and appreciation for, such programming that would re-establish the college as an important element of the community.

12 Section B – Data Summary & Future Program Needs

Questions that have emerged from our Program review that will drive our action plans include:

1. How can we support our students’ needs for GE physical science lecture credit in the face of severe budget cuts that continue to limit the number of sections we can offer?

2. How can we improve our student retention and success numbers? Are our current results a consequence of expectations of rigor not shared by other science teachers? What could we do to bring them up to the levels of the other astronomy programs across the Bay Area and State, if anything?

3. How can we take even better advantage of the Planetarium to improve current student learning, as well as offer our campus and our surrounding community the opportunity to learn about Astronomy and Science?

4. How can we raise additional funds to underwrite expected maintenance and supply costs for the increasingly expensive equipment?

5. How can we improve our lab experience for on-campus students, taking advantage of telescopes and computers?

6. How can we promote student success through new textbooks, online tools, and resources?

Needed Improvements to the Astronomy Program include:

a) A permanent roof-top location to house our small observatory, with ample safe access for a class of 25 students, to permit viewing above the campus lights, has been a requirement shared on previous program reviews for years. Because the redesigns of Building 1900 and 1700/1800 did not allow for structural reinforcements required to support rooftop access for students, we continue to be left trying to observe the increasingly bright skies from the main campus courtyard, which has become almost impossible. We did actively participate in the plans for the Building 1600 BCP, but that does not seem likely to be funded in the near or far future.

With the possibility of another Bond or Parcel Tax measure, we would like to advance this requirement even more strongly.

b) Lab Tech Support (shared with Physics) to assist with the organization, maintenance, and preparation of lab equipment for our program.

13 Data Summary and Plan of Action Description/Rationale:

0) Prepare for and Move Astronomy Lab to New Building 1800 (This is a necessity, and must be accomplished before other items in our program review can be addressed.)

1) Increase Planetarium Shows to the Public This includes researching available shows to purchase, development of new content, growing skills within the department to develop new shows, investigating ticketing options, fundraising to pay for new content as well as underwriting equipment.

2) Astronomy Curriculum Update Another requirement for accreditation

3) Astronomy PLO review We need to address “closing the loop” as well as development of a lab class PLO

4) Astronomy Lab Improvements

5) Continued Student Success Research

6) Textbook/Online Resources Research & Development

7) Fundraising

Section C – Action Planning

Please propose a two-year plan of action and timeline to address any immediate and/or long-term concern(s). Include specific activities that address improving CLO(s) and their assessment, that is to say evaluating the CLO(s) and the assessment activities.

EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES INCLUDE:  Research and inquiry project – Why is this happening?  Innovation and Pilot Projects – This is something I want to try?  Intervention activities such as support services – This is what I want to do about it.  Program and curriculum modification – This is what I want to do about it.  Professional Development Activities – We need more information about this; we need to work as a group on this

14 I. Action Plan Timeline: Detail the timeline for accomplishing your goals

15 Support Needed to Accomplished? PLOs and/or Program Person(s) Timeline Activity Accomplish These Outcome(s) Expected Yes/No/In Goal(s) Responsible Activities* Progress

0) Prepare for and Move Fall 2012 - a) Work with project Ample worktime Use of equipment in lab classes Scott/Tim Astronomy Lab to New Spring 2013 management team to as expected. (flex-days alone will not Building 1800. prepare for move. be sufficient for this (This is a necessity, and b) Movie telescopes, lenses, activity – it will take the must be done before we can lab equipment, better part of a week to do hope to address any other computers. the move alone, plus elements in our program significant time during the c) Organize new lab review) term to get things situated. facilities 1) Increase Planetarium Fall 2012 - a) Continue to seek funds Time to develop and adapt Increased revenue to help offset Scott/Tim Shows to the Public Spring 2015 to underwrite acquisition programs (20-50 hours of planetarium costs. of new planetarium faculty time are required) shows. Increased presence in the b) Develop new in-house Funds to purchase new community. show programming shows. c) Develop student support for delivery of shows. Funds to help in the d) Continue to investigate advertisement and hosting cost-effective ticketing of shows. options. e) Explore improved Funds to compensate advertising for the faculty for time spent shows. developing/hosting shows. YEAR 2) Astronomy Curriculum Fall 2012 Update curriculum for all Astro Updated Curriculum Scott/Tim ONE Update classes. LEAVE 3) Astronomy PLO review Fall 2012 Add Lab PLO; complete review Adherence to Accreditation Scott/Tim BLANK -Spring 2013 cycle for current CLOs and “close standards. the loop” forms. Continue to evaluate and revise assessments 4) Astronomy Lab Fall 2012 – a) Develop new Solar Lab Push for new location for Improved lab experiences for Scott/Tim Improvements Spring 2014 Observatory. students. b) Use Small Observatory Telescope where possible c) Update existing labs to incorporate new access to robotic telescopes. 5) Continued Student Fall 2012 – Look at nearby schools using Improve student success Scott/Tim Success Research Spring 2014 planetariums to see what they are 16 doing well, and what we can borrow. 6) Textbook/Online Fall 2012 – a) Work with publisher on Improved currency and Scott/Tim II. Strategic Plan Goals and Summaries: Which Strategic Plan goals and strategies does your action plan support?

X Awareness and Access X Increase familiarity with Chabot Reach out to underrepresented populations Promote early awareness and college readiness to youth and families X Multiple ways to deliver instruction and services for all X Student Success Strengthen basic skills development Identify and provide a variety of career paths X Increase success for all students in our diverse community Assess student learning outcomes to improve and expand instruction and services X Community Partnership X Increase experiential learning opportunities Initiate/expand partnerships among the college, businesses and community organizations X Promote faculty and staff involvement in college and community activities X Engage the community in campus programs and events

17 X Vision Leadership and Innovation Improve institutional effectiveness Streamline academic and student support services Professional development to support teaching, learning and operational needs Support effective communication both in the college and the community X Provide safe, secure and up-to-date facilities and technology

Statewide Data Comparisons of Astronomy Program Success from Fall 2008- Spring 2011 – sh 3/12

10-Mar-12 Spring 2011 Fall 2010 Spring 2010 Reten Succ Reten Succ Reten Succ Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate College Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) 6 Alameda 86 71 82.56 58 67.44 56 39 69.64 29 51.79 73 59 80.82 44 60.27 Allan Hancock 264 209 79.17 154 58.33 243 216 88.89 166 68.31 234 198 84.62 147 62.82 American River 214 174 81.31 143 66.82 276 218 78.99 164 59.42 305 258 84.59 222 72.79 Antelope Valley 175 160 91.43 145 82.86 182 144 79.12 120 65.93 185 167 90.27 149 80.54 Bakersfield 179 107 59.78 70 39.11 186 126 67.74 71 38.17 140 98 70 65 46.43 Barstow 52 44 84.62 34 65.38 59 45 76.27 33 55.93 190 145 76.32 130 68.42 Berkeley City 44 34 77.27 31 70.45 Butte 51 43 84.31 22 43.14 80 76 95 49 61.25 62 59 95.16 42 67.74 Cabrillo 226 180 79.65 136 60.18 254 192 75.59 161 63.39 221 186 84.16 145 65.61 15 Canada 195 185 94.87 162 83.08 164 148 90.24 127 77.44 170 148 87.06 114 67.06 Canyons 334 309 92.51 233 69.76 304 285 93.75 226 74.34 297 257 86.53 179 60.27 Cerritos 597 471 78.89 345 57.79 731 573 78.39 439 60.05 604 434 71.85 320 52.98 Cerro Coso 49 45 91.84 38 77.55 47 45 95.74 41 87.23 33 29 87.88 28 84.85 Chabot 1 Hayward 281 214 76.16 173 61.57 215 166 77.21 115 53.49 333 256 76.88 188 56.46 Chaffey 250 205 82 156 62.4 245 187 76.33 153 62.45 158 132 83.54 121 76.58

18 Citrus 316 291 92.09 216 68.35 314 277 88.22 191 60.83 291 260 89.35 184 63.23 Coastline 281 190 67.62 150 53.38 232 142 61.21 108 46.55 138 87 63.04 63 45.65 Compton 140 122 87.14 99 70.71 120 103 85.83 86 71.67 111 88 79.28 68 61.26 7 Contra Costa 162 148 91.36 96 59.26 163 146 89.57 98 60.12 179 141 78.77 97 54.19 Copper Mountain 65 41 63.08 25 38.46 88 68 77.27 39 44.32 95 78 82.11 59 62.11 Cosumnes River 297 241 81.14 176 59.26 257 212 82.49 168 65.37 269 206 76.58 140 52.04 Crafton Hills 158 123 77.85 93 58.86 123 64 52.03 43 34.96 24 10 41.67 9 37.5 Cuesta 312 287 91.99 251 80.45 311 281 90.35 262 84.24 367 319 86.92 282 76.84 Cuyamaca 173 162 93.64 131 75.72 184 164 89.13 136 73.91 173 160 92.49 119 68.79 Cypress 376 326 86.7 273 72.61 459 401 87.36 358 78 468 399 85.26 311 66.45 13 Deanza 863 777 90.03 671 77.75 895 816 91.17 715 79.89 734 663 90.33 577 78.61 Desert 114 100 87.72 70 61.4 80 66 82.5 53 66.25 65 58 89.23 50 76.92 8 Diablo Valley 772 635 82.25 554 71.76 662 522 78.85 445 67.22 764 610 79.84 520 68.06 East LA 371 274 73.85 168 45.28 404 328 81.19 225 55.69 351 268 76.35 179 51 El Camino 614 436 71.01 358 58.31 658 471 71.58 371 56.38 713 552 77.42 456 63.96 10 Evergreen Valley 393 329 83.72 272 69.21 352 276 78.41 189 53.69 344 294 85.47 214 62.21 Folsom Lake 378 321 84.92 256 67.72 22 20 90.91 15 68.18 317 262 82.65 211 66.56 14 Foothill 350 310 88.57 268 76.57 292 268 91.78 228 78.08 341 317 92.96 287 84.16 Fresno City 144 124 86.11 94 65.28 448 411 91.74 310 69.2 147 126 85.71 102 69.39

10-Mar-12 Fall 2009 Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Reten Succ Reten Succ Reten Succ Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate College Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) 6 Alameda 108 85 78.7 66 61.11 54 37 68.52 34 62.96 109 82 75.23 65 59.63 Allan Hancock 261 227 86.97 167 63.98 235 214 91.06 192 81.7 182 171 93.96 155 85.16 American River 293 241 82.25 167 57 369 307 83.2 228 61.79 312 241 77.24 187 59.94 Antelope Valley 208 185 88.94 135 64.9 410 325 79.27 240 58.54 382 305 79.84 239 62.57 Bakersfield 136 95 69.85 48 35.29 136 85 62.5 39 28.68 111 75 67.57 48 43.24 Barstow 239 180 75.31 152 63.6 203 140 68.97 113 55.67 202 139 68.81 121 59.9 Berkeley City 79 63 79.75 55 69.62 44 35 79.55 32 72.73 40 34 85 28 70 Butte 74 69 93.24 56 75.68 47 40 85.11 34 72.34 64 58 90.63 54 84.38 Cabrillo 251 223 88.84 160 63.75 236 196 83.05 138 58.47 246 218 88.62 183 74.39 15 Canada 163 144 88.34 126 77.3 174 153 87.93 136 78.16 126 110 87.3 104 82.54 Canyons 255 215 84.31 154 60.39 338 293 86.69 210 62.13 360 308 85.56 231 64.17 Cerritos 675 522 77.33 378 56 577 446 77.3 295 51.13 642 501 78.04 341 53.12 Cerro Coso 32 31 96.88 29 90.63 29 29 100 28 96.55 29 29 100 28 96.55 Chabot 1 Hayward 322 253 78.57 179 55.59 327 237 72.48 175 53.52 288 195 67.71 145 50.35 Chaffey 172 143 83.14 119 69.19 173 152 87.86 123 71.1 152 119 78.29 109 71.71 Citrus 371 322 86.79 236 63.61 275 252 91.64 173 62.91 271 244 90.04 166 61.25

19 Coastline 38 29 76.32 19 50 337 247 73.29 158 46.88 265 231 87.17 142 53.58 Compton 82 62 75.61 49 59.76 76 58 76.32 48 63.16 60 49 81.67 40 66.67 7 Contra Costa 169 120 71.01 85 50.3 139 107 76.98 88 63.31 130 113 86.92 81 62.31 Copper Mountain 66 45 68.18 24 36.36 82 57 69.51 40 48.78 68 52 76.47 34 50 Cosumnes River 236 185 78.39 150 63.56 249 188 75.5 153 61.45 226 172 76.11 108 47.79 Crafton Hills 148 103 69.59 70 47.3 99 63 63.64 51 51.52 109 80 73.39 61 55.96 Cuesta 332 305 91.87 266 80.12 345 300 86.96 269 77.97 328 279 85.06 250 76.22 Cuyamaca 154 134 87.01 101 65.58 164 149 90.85 119 72.56 145 127 87.59 99 68.28 Cypress 410 370 90.24 292 71.22 346 280 80.92 203 58.67 355 299 84.23 248 69.86 13 Deanza 711 663 93.25 592 83.26 702 652 92.88 576 82.05 859 773 89.99 641 74.62 Desert 69 58 84.06 47 68.12 122 107 87.7 82 67.21 166 148 89.16 105 63.25 8 Diablo Valley 721 574 79.61 468 64.91 746 617 82.71 509 68.23 714 591 82.77 496 69.47 East LA 452 342 75.66 247 54.65 426 315 73.94 230 53.99 367 293 79.84 204 55.59 El Camino 802 608 75.81 447 55.74 809 651 80.47 471 58.22 830 646 77.83 448 53.98 10 Evergreen Valley 319 265 83.07 185 57.99 365 300 82.19 228 62.47 319 262 82.13 198 62.07 Folsom Lake 18 16 88.89 8 44.44 325 247 76 185 56.92 301 268 89.04 229 76.08 14 Foothill 313 272 86.9 230 73.48 332 321 96.69 272 81.93 317 291 91.8 243 76.66 Fresno City 384 348 90.63 275 71.61 140 117 83.57 87 62.14 138 117 84.78 80 57.97

10-Mar-12 Spring 2011 Fall 2010 Spring 2010 Reten Succ Reten Succ Reten Succ Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate College Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Fullerton 427 369 86.42 310 72.6 137 131 95.62 90 65.69 373 330 88.47 299 80.16 Gavilan 88 77 87.5 74 84.09 435 347 79.77 291 66.9 117 96 82.05 80 68.38 Glendale 224 186 83.04 126 56.25 82 71 86.59 63 76.83 309 258 83.5 195 63.11 Golden West 325 300 92.31 258 79.38 265 231 87.17 183 69.06 292 231 79.11 206 70.55 Grossmont 627 503 80.22 422 67.3 322 264 81.99 225 69.88 604 491 81.29 381 63.08 Hartnell 334 295 88.32 237 70.96 615 481 78.21 389 63.25 349 293 83.95 259 74.21 Imperial 136 68 50 40 29.41 344 317 92.15 287 83.43 128 64 50 38 29.69 Irvine 305 273 89.51 242 79.34 146 74 50.68 44 30.14 268 246 91.79 213 79.48 LA City 455 372 81.76 305 67.03 261 221 84.67 174 66.67 534 426 79.78 355 66.48 LA Harbor 145 132 91.03 123 84.83 501 401 80.04 368 73.45 123 114 92.68 98 79.67 LA Mission 180 142 78.89 119 66.11 135 112 82.96 100 74.07 232 184 79.31 126 54.31 LA Pierce 505 421 83.37 288 57.03 198 143 72.22 97 48.99 494 407 82.39 284 57.49 LA Trade 350 262 74.86 226 64.57 610 486 79.67 342 56.07 294 229 77.89 188 63.95 LA Valley 276 239 86.59 174 63.04 337 253 75.07 206 61.13 274 239 87.23 188 68.61 Lake Tahoe 25 23 92 19 76 381 323 84.78 237 62.2 24 21 87.5 18 75 4 Laney 35 27 77.14 13 37.14 48 40 83.33 32 66.67 75 27 36 17 22.67 2 Las Positas 202 131 64.85 107 52.97 179 129 72.07 96 53.63 207 152 73.43 113 54.59 9 Los Medanos 510 434 85.1 326 63.92 517 450 87.04 364 70.41 21 21 100 21 100

20 19 Marin 267 248 92.88 192 71.91 174 155 89.08 133 76.44 512 406 79.3 325 63.48 Mendocino 58 58 100 54 93.1 47 45 95.74 40 85.11 195 183 93.85 143 73.33 Merced 113 103 91.15 95 84.07 193 156 80.83 132 68.39 36 33 91.67 27 75 5 Merritt 42 41 97.62 34 80.95 60 58 96.67 45 75 77 66 85.71 52 67.53 MiraCosta 265 199 75.09 141 53.21 254 188 74.02 122 48.03 41 35 85.37 26 63.41 Mission 328 292 89.02 244 74.39 315 271 86.03 230 73.02 271 178 65.68 140 51.66 Modesto 150 127 84.67 72 48 223 188 84.3 131 58.74 278 243 87.41 223 80.22 Monterey 296 276 93.24 237 80.07 268 244 91.04 212 79.1 150 140 93.33 102 68 Moorpark 972 807 83.02 641 65.95 998 861 86.27 658 65.93 308 264 85.71 243 78.9 Moreno Valley 59 46 77.97 42 71.19 52 48 92.31 38 73.08 1,103 925 83.86 755 68.45 Mt San Antonio 644 528 81.99 446 69.25 732 637 87.02 514 70.22 724 635 87.71 519 71.69 Mt. San Jacinto 103 87 84.47 63 61.17 99 92 92.93 71 71.72 99 86 86.87 63 63.64 20 Napa 110 93 84.55 77 70 105 86 81.9 67 63.81 111 93 83.78 79 71.17 3 Ohlone 110 75 68.18 48 43.64 81 52 64.2 31 38.27 109 77 70.64 44 40.37 Orange Coast 290 221 76.21 202 69.66 313 258 82.43 228 72.84 364 307 84.34 274 75.27 Oxnard 83 65 78.31 40 48.19 100 81 81 43 43 87 72 82.76 61 70.11 Palo Verde 29 25 86.21 23 79.31 47 39 82.98 30 63.83 32 25 78.13 23 71.88 Palomar 480 416 86.67 273 56.88 563 485 86.15 298 52.93 478 417 87.24 285 59.62

10-Mar-12 Fall 2009 Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Reten Succ Reten Succ Reten Succ Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate College Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Fullerton 136 115 84.56 75 55.15 347 314 90.49 265 76.37 422 338 80.09 290 68.72 Gavilan 369 304 82.38 282 76.42 99 79 79.8 60 60.61 122 99 81.15 84 68.85 Glendale 75 63 84 54 72 271 220 81.18 151 55.72 280 248 88.57 206 73.57 Golden West 261 227 86.97 174 66.67 294 256 87.07 217 73.81 283 253 89.4 213 75.27 Grossmont 287 233 81.18 189 65.85 550 442 80.36 337 61.27 471 364 77.28 291 61.78 Hartnell 595 467 78.49 367 61.68 281 247 87.9 218 77.58 281 256 91.1 232 82.56 Imperial 340 315 92.65 289 85 103 35 33.98 22 21.36 156 72 46.15 45 28.85 Irvine 146 76 52.05 42 28.77 228 214 93.86 189 82.89 229 194 84.72 160 69.87 LA City 224 209 93.3 191 85.27 343 274 79.88 225 65.6 404 342 84.65 298 73.76 LA Harbor 487 385 79.06 324 66.53 134 109 81.34 100 74.63 141 115 81.56 99 70.21 LA Mission 137 112 81.75 96 70.07 168 126 75 80 47.62 146 116 79.45 68 46.58 LA Pierce 151 120 79.47 85 56.29 562 437 77.76 294 52.31 552 435 78.8 317 57.43 LA Trade 577 456 79.03 333 57.71 262 202 77.1 168 64.12 250 188 75.2 152 60.8 LA Valley 321 262 81.62 218 67.91 307 270 87.95 187 60.91 436 362 83.03 254 58.26 Lake Tahoe 429 356 82.98 279 65.03 70 34 48.57 21 30 4 Laney 82 38 46.34 26 31.71 79 38 48.1 32 40.51 289 173 59.86 126 43.6 2 Las Positas 226 172 76.11 110 48.67 243 148 60.91 106 43.62 20 18 90 15 75 9 Los Medanos 567 500 88.18 397 70.02 23 19 82.61 7 30.43 483 384 79.5 269 55.69

21 19 Marin 151 125 82.78 107 70.86 463 370 79.91 266 57.45 136 136 100 121 88.97 Mendocino 49 39 79.59 31 63.27 181 158 87.29 123 67.96 127 95 74.8 55 43.31 Merced 207 168 81.16 127 61.35 142 112 78.87 78 54.93 125 109 87.2 76 60.8 5 Merritt 51 47 92.16 38 74.51 74 68 91.89 56 75.68 62 51 82.26 35 56.45 MiraCosta 256 197 76.95 152 59.38 39 33 84.62 26 66.67 218 138 63.3 97 44.5 Mission 334 291 87.13 252 75.45 226 158 69.91 99 43.81 303 258 85.15 217 71.62 Modesto 170 155 91.18 104 61.18 330 275 83.33 247 74.85 225 181 80.44 128 56.89 Monterey 302 266 88.08 230 76.16 380 334 87.89 276 72.63 287 279 97.21 248 86.41 Moorpark 1,138 964 84.71 734 64.5 999 843 84.38 699 69.97 1,110 950 85.59 778 70.09 Moreno Valley Mt San Antonio 680 574 84.41 473 69.56 671 558 83.16 424 63.19 588 485 82.48 413 70.24 Mt. San Jacinto 93 78 83.87 59 63.44 97 83 85.57 67 69.07 90 85 94.44 63 70 20 Napa 79 79 100 70 88.61 126 106 84.13 79 62.7 88 65 73.86 61 69.32 3 Ohlone 109 66 60.55 52 47.71 105 67 63.81 44 41.9 139 95 68.35 58 41.73 Orange Coast 353 306 86.69 249 70.54 649 551 84.9 444 68.41 551 478 86.75 413 74.95 Oxnard 85 69 81.18 51 60 87 72 82.76 51 58.62 55 37 67.27 33 60 Palo Verde 24 23 95.83 22 91.67 48 45 93.75 40 83.33 42 38 90.48 32 76.19 Palomar 557 488 87.61 285 51.17 528 456 86.36 262 49.62 555 480 86.49 255 45.95

10-Mar-12 Spring 2011 Fall 2010 Spring 2010 Reten Succ Reten Succ Reten Succ Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate College Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Pasadena 182 147 80.77 95 52.2 189 155 82.01 118 62.43 194 125 64.43 102 52.58 Porterville 32 28 87.5 23 71.88 36 34 94.44 29 80.56 60 49 81.67 31 51.67 Redwoods 329 297 90.27 207 62.92 332 300 90.36 202 60.84 381 342 89.76 216 56.69 Reedley College 31 30 96.77 26 83.87 37 35 94.59 30 81.08 30 27 90 25 83.33 Rio Hondo 482 335 69.5 213 44.19 540 392 72.59 267 49.44 494 401 81.17 244 49.39 Riverside 327 272 83.18 206 63 323 277 85.76 193 59.75 371 298 80.32 237 63.88 Sacramento City 398 307 77.14 254 63.82 484 360 74.38 272 56.2 529 424 80.15 297 56.14 Saddleback 553 443 80.11 326 58.95 614 535 87.13 390 63.52 559 456 81.57 309 55.28 San Bernardino 206 152 73.79 102 49.51 186 143 76.88 110 59.14 46 12 26.09 10 21.74 San Diego City 393 343 87.28 254 64.63 355 308 86.76 241 67.89 343 290 84.55 215 62.68 San Diego Mesa 687 565 82.24 403 58.66 663 541 81.6 394 59.43 497 422 84.91 310 62.37 San Diego Miramar 170 120 70.59 103 60.59 123 90 73.17 81 65.85 202 154 76.24 142 70.3 18 San Francisco 1,020 780 76.47 578 56.67 932 692 74.25 476 51.07 862 570 66.13 378 43.85 San Joaquin Delta 185 108 58.38 58 31.35 203 121 59.61 62 30.54 196 99 50.51 56 28.57 11 San Jose City 283 223 78.8 152 53.71 185 143 77.3 108 58.38 177 157 88.7 118 66.67 16 San Mateo 514 454 88.33 379 73.74 461 393 85.25 321 69.63 532 455 85.53 376 70.68 Santa Ana 410 313 76.34 229 55.85 497 394 79.28 284 57.14 445 360 80.9 280 62.92

22 Santa Barbara 922 820 88.94 699 75.81 977 911 93.24 775 79.32 961 880 91.57 759 78.98 Santa Monica 650 584 89.85 477 73.38 667 596 89.36 462 69.27 632 577 91.3 445 70.41 21 Santa Rosa 1,190 1,041 87.48 801 67.31 1,230 1,089 88.54 828 67.32 1,174 1,025 87.31 770 65.59 Santiago Canyon 584 450 77.05 337 57.71 599 509 84.97 370 61.77 522 444 85.06 334 63.98 Sequoias 56 42 75 23 41.07 52 38 73.08 27 51.92 58 50 86.21 32 55.17 Shasta 157 139 88.54 95 60.51 325 278 85.54 205 63.08 251 231 92.03 190 75.7 Sierra 786 673 85.62 549 69.85 719 621 86.37 465 64.67 708 600 84.75 467 65.96 Siskiyous 29 26 89.66 17 58.62 21 17 80.95 9 42.86 27 23 85.19 17 62.96 17 Skyline 159 136 85.53 114 71.7 121 97 80.17 82 67.77 135 108 80 86 63.7 22 Solano 348 291 83.62 258 74.14 354 311 87.85 270 76.27 371 314 84.64 262 70.62 Southwestern 608 537 88.32 378 62.17 600 518 86.33 341 56.83 436 394 90.37 240 55.05 Taft 34 31 91.18 27 79.41 35 32 91.43 21 60 24 18 75 12 50 Ventura 377 298 79.05 200 53.05 374 309 82.62 187 50 384 310 80.73 197 51.3 Victor Valley 255 227 89.02 161 63.14 221 188 85.07 155 70.14 218 193 88.53 140 64.22 West LA 97 81 83.51 46 47.42 57 48 84.21 27 47.37 98 75 76.53 37 37.76 12 West Valley 127 91 71.65 53 41.73 171 104 60.82 62 36.26 237 194 81.86 120 50.63 Woodland 18 15 83.33 12 66.67 Yuba 114 38 33.33 29 25.44 75 53 70.67 34 45.33 86 47 54.65 36 41.86

10-Mar-12 Fall 2009 Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Reten Succ Reten Succ Reten Succ Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate College Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Pasadena 187 167 89.3 121 64.71 140 126 90 85 60.71 140 107 76.43 74 52.86 Porterville 37 36 97.3 32 86.49 32 29 90.63 20 62.5 42 39 92.86 26 61.9 Redwoods 330 309 93.64 219 66.36 332 300 90.36 222 66.87 Reedley College 32 32 100 31 96.88 35 33 94.29 29 82.86 42 39 92.86 36 85.71 Rio Hondo 512 377 73.63 251 49.02 546 420 76.92 288 52.75 507 417 82.25 313 61.74 Riverside 460 382 83.04 271 58.91 385 300 77.92 204 52.99 397 326 82.12 208 52.39 Sacramento City 562 426 75.8 294 52.31 491 380 77.39 255 51.93 591 420 71.07 307 51.95 Saddleback 515 437 84.85 315 61.17 579 489 84.46 385 66.49 527 456 86.53 351 66.6 San Bernardino 159 123 77.36 78 49.06 141 105 74.47 84 59.57 132 90 68.18 66 50 San Diego City 330 278 84.24 208 63.03 324 258 79.63 181 55.86 329 267 81.16 196 59.57 San Diego Mesa 536 449 83.77 352 65.67 704 578 82.1 441 62.64 552 458 82.97 347 62.86 San Diego Miramar 122 104 85.25 91 74.59 121 103 85.12 93 76.86 121 110 90.91 97 80.17 18 San Francisco 823 576 69.99 432 52.49 895 674 75.31 496 55.42 980 746 76.12 501 51.12 San Joaquin Delta 224 84 37.5 59 26.34 172 115 66.86 59 34.3 206 117 56.8 68 33.01 11 San Jose City 201 137 68.16 107 53.23 236 186 78.81 139 58.9 149 109 73.15 86 57.72 16 San Mateo 620 537 86.61 426 68.71 545 462 84.77 400 73.39 505 432 85.54 349 69.11 Santa Ana 505 371 73.47 293 58.02 378 284 75.13 227 60.05 369 262 71 202 54.74

23 Santa Barbara 1,020 927 90.88 797 78.14 981 887 90.42 784 79.92 1,033 959 92.84 848 82.09 Santa Monica 669 577 86.25 454 67.86 610 532 87.21 423 69.34 588 516 87.76 431 73.3 21 Santa Rosa 1,263 1,136 89.94 851 67.38 1,055 930 88.15 707 67.01 1,108 983 88.72 765 69.04 Santiago Canyon 578 482 83.39 371 64.19 628 533 84.87 416 66.24 580 467 80.52 343 59.14 Sequoias 57 40 70.18 26 45.61 50 36 72 27 54 45 25 55.56 20 44.44 Shasta 319 285 89.34 217 68.03 341 301 88.27 210 61.58 314 267 85.03 186 59.24 Sierra 664 560 84.34 461 69.43 740 583 78.78 448 60.54 641 515 80.34 375 58.5 Siskiyous 39 33 84.62 23 58.97 38 33 86.84 21 55.26 42 35 83.33 27 64.29 17 Skyline 125 103 82.4 85 68 78 65 83.33 54 69.23 75 61 81.33 49 65.33 22 Solano 233 196 84.12 162 69.53 344 305 88.66 256 74.42 348 323 92.82 277 79.6 Southwestern 607 534 87.97 324 53.38 569 569 100 377 66.26 496 382 77.02 294 59.27 Taft 25 21 84 14 56 14 12 85.71 10 71.43 13 11 84.62 8 61.54 Ventura 377 317 84.08 221 58.62 312 232 74.36 125 40.06 424 333 78.54 219 51.65 Victor Valley 229 205 89.52 146 63.76 213 203 95.31 151 70.89 214 194 90.65 151 70.56 West LA 41 33 80.49 18 43.9 90 75 83.33 41 45.56 78 61 78.21 41 52.56 12 West Valley 76 40 52.63 19 25 307 260 84.69 216 70.36 268 228 85.07 174 64.93 Woodland Yuba 120 78 65 50 41.67 94 43 45.74 30 31.91 123 66 53.66 44 35.77 17 14 82.35 6 35.29

24 Statewide Data Comparisons of Astronomy Program Success from Fall 2008- Spring 2011 – sh 3/12

10-Mar-12 Spring 2011 Fall 2010 Spring 2010 Reten Succ Reten Succ Reten Succ Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate Statewide Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) 30,87 Totals 31,493 26,052 20,307 32,001 26,546 20,443 3 25,496 19,806 Averages 303 251 82% 195 64% 311 258 82% 198 63% 297 245 81% 190 63% Std. Deviation 10% 13% 9% 12% 12% 13%

Chabot Hayward 281 214 76% 173 62% 215 166 77% 115 53% 333 256 77% 188 56%

10-Mar-12 Fall 2009 Spring 2009 Fall 2008 Reten Succ Reten Succ Reten Succ Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate Total Rate Rate Statewide Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) Enroll Reten (%) Succ (%) 30,94 Totals 31,708 26,234 20,168 31,390 25,877 19,802 5 25,406 19,619 Averages 308 255 82% 196 63% 308 254 81% 194 62% 300 247 81% 190 63% Std. Deviation 10% 13% 10% 13% 10% 13%

Chabot Hayward 322 253 79% 179 56% 327 237 72% 175 54% 288 195 68% 145 50%