Introduction
The PRVC has established the structure through which identified programs or departments will enter into a viability review (Appendix A). Possible reasons for the initiation of a viability review include:
A) Decline of 30% or more in census enrollment throughout the program over a 5 yr period (excluding winter & summer sessions) B) Consistently low enrollments of 50% below the maximum fill rate capacity over a 5 yr period C) A new program never reached the 50% fill rate D) Poor rate for student achievement of program goals (e.g. completion rate, number of degrees and certificates, transfer, transfer readiness) E) A major shift in the field/discipline F) Personnel changes that will leave, or have left the department without a full time faculty member G) Declining market/industry demand or community needs H) Program no longer central to the college mission and educational master plan I) Program no longer in line with current technology J) Unresolved problem or issue for which all other administrative remedies have been exhausted -Please explain in attached narrative K) Other condition(s)
The College President, the Academic Senate President or the supervising Vice President can request a review of a program for any of these reasons. The PRVC reviews the documentation submitted by the requesting party and enters into a dialog centered on the programs ability to meet its mission and promote student learning. Should the committee determine that a viability review is warranted, a viability review will be initiated. The goal of the review is to determine whether modifications in programming could improve the reviewed program in a manner that enhances the College mission. Following approval of the PRVC, a Viability Committee is created with the following constituencies:
The Supervising Vice President of the reviewed unit 2 Deans 3 Academic Senate representatives (at least 1 chair from similar type of department: Vocational Education or Liberal Studies) The Curriculum Chair 1 AFT representative 1 Classified representative (if department employ classified instructional assistants or Laboratory Technicians) 1 Research and Planning Facilitator
1 | P a g e
A viability review for the Program for Adult College Education (PACE) was initiated by the Program Review and Viability Committee (PRVC) on September 23, 2008. The viability review was initially requested by Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Richard Moyer. Dr. Moyer collaborated with the supervising Dean of PACE, Vy Li, to prepare an initial report requesting a viability review on the PACE program (Appendix B). The report indicates a continuous decrease in PACE enrollment that fits condition A for requesting a Viability Review: Decline of 30% or more in census enrollment throughout the program over a 5 year period (Appendix C). In addition, the report indicates a concern that PACE has deviated from its stated model and moved away from the pedagogy focusing on a cohort model. Given these concerns, the PRVC approved the creation of a viability committee to review PACE, determine the viability of the program in its current state, and make recommendations for programmatic improvements that will assist PACE in best meeting the needs of its student population.
Following the approval of the viability process, a viability committee for PACE was created with the following representation:
Vice President Richard Moyer Deans Vi Ly and Karen Daar Academic Senate Representative Robert West Academic Senate Representative Helen Sarantopoulus Academic Senate Representative and PACE Director Kirk Olsen Curriculum Chair Steve Wardinski AFT Representative Viviana Castellon Research and Planning Facilitator Kim Misa
The viability structure calls for a data collection period in which the Viability Committee works to decide which data elements will be used in the viability decision- making processes. The stipulated elements may include:
A) Enrollment-- current and projected B) Class retention C) Term-to-term persistence of students in major (compared to college & state-wide norms for discipline over 3-5yrs) D) Program completion / transfer readiness / transfer rates / articulation efforts E) Rate for student achievement of program goals (i.e. Completion rate) F) Number of degrees and certificates awarded G) Student learning outcomes H) Frequency of course offerings to assure reasonable opportunity for completion of the program I) Relationship to College mission J) Relation of the program to the Educational Master Plan K) Program Review recommendations L) Importance of service to related programs
2 | P a g e
M) Quality and the breadth of the curriculum, teaching, & learning process; Currency of course outlines N) Percentage of faculty who have participated in professional development activities in their discipline over the last three years O) FTES generated by the program P) Budget/cost factors (but not primary consideration) Q) Comparison of WSCH to cost (when appropriate) R) State and other external regulations and requirements; outside accreditation S) Impact/service/needs to the community T) Demand for program U) Staffing Levels V) Outside expert opinion W) Student perceptions (position papers) X) Any additional data requested by the Viability Review Committee
Given the diversity of programming offered at ELAC, the Viability Committee must determine the most appropriate data based on the program under review and the cause for review indicated in the initial request. The approach used reflects data from a broad range of constituents across campus and the District. This approach served multiple purposes: to collect formative and summative feedback on the program, to understand the PACE program from start to present day, and to provide students, staff, faculty, and administrators a structured opportunity to reflect on and share their experiences with respect to PACE. Data was collected from various perspectives. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed.
The specific data included:
Research and Planning Office data from the past 3 years on: a. Section counts and course offerings b. Enrollment c. Student Headcount and demographics d. Estimate of PACE students (using PACE admissions requirements) Position papers from the interim director of PACE, past director of PACE, and the supervising Vice President a. Both the current and former directors of PACE were solicited for position papers. They were requested to define the original conception of the program, where the program has deviated from the original concept, and a current assessment of the program. Testimonials from PACE faculty Phone Interviews with Chairs and Administrators Student surveys Information from other campuses within the District
3 | P a g e
Over the course of several months, the Research and Planning Office in conjunction with Dean Vy Li and PACE director, Kirk Olsen gathered the required data elements. The following report represents the major findings of the data collection process. General interpretations are offered to assist the Validation Committee in determining the strengths and weaknesses of the PACE program and in developing central recommendations for programmatic improvement.
PACE Description History The PACE program was developed in the 1970’s as a general education core curriculum meant for working adults (Appendix D). The original model called for half the classroom hours required in traditional courses with the remainder of required time dedicated to instructional television and participation in weekend conference lectures and activities. The PACE program was first initiated in the Los Angeles Community College District in 1981with complete core curriculum leading towards an Associate in Arts degree in five semesters.
The emphasis on working adults was determined based on the increase in non- traditional college students who were outside the traditional age range between 18 and 22. The goals are to provide high quality liberal arts-based education to fulltime working adults through interdisciplinary and team taught courses based upon themes oriented towards working adults. In doing so the program aims to qualify students for AA completion and/or transfer and develop student skills in reading, writing and critical thinking.
At East Los Angeles College, PACE was adopted in the mid 1980s. The program is described in the following manner:
PACE is a college program enabling people with daytime commitments who want to enroll in college and work towards transfer or completion of a degree. In five semesters, by following the pre-designed PACE curriculum, transfer requirements can be met. Upon completion of the program, students may also be able to earn an Associate in Arts and/or satisfy the general education transfer requirements and lower division requirements in teaching or business majors for some California State Universities and other private colleges and universities. The PACE student takes one or two courses at a time during an eight-week session. There are two eight-week sessions per semester; therefore, the student typically completes three or four courses each semester. Eleven to thirteen units are earned per semester and, 60 transferable units can be completed in five semesters. Attendance involves one weekday evening selected by the student, Monday through Thursday from 6 pm to 10 pm, and six to seven Saturdays per eight-week session. Students have the choice of taking the weekday evening classes at the ELAC campus as well as various off-campus locations. Saturday classes are scheduled from 8 am to 5 pm at the ELAC campus. In addition to classroom attendance, classes are augmented by alternative modes of instruction such as video tapes, internet assignments, or field trips. Entrance to the PACE Program requires completion of English 101, College Reading and Composition. English 101 and the English courses that precede English 101, and
4 | P a g e lower-level mathematics courses, are offered in the PACE Bridge Program. The Bridge Program consists of classes which aid students in need of strengthening their English and mathematics skills. The classes offered in the Bridge form the foundation for success in the PACE curriculum. Students can take up to two levels of English or Mathematics in one semester. Required mathematics courses may be taken concurrently with PACE courses. The Bridge Program operates during fall, spring, and summer.
The original goals of the PACE program are to provide a quality, liberal arts- based education to full-time working adults through interdisciplinary and team-taught classes, a curriculum based upon themes oriented to working adults, and a delivery system consisting of television, weekend conferences and class lectures.
The mission and pedagogical design of PACE was incorporated into the data collection process in order to determine the overall compliance with its programmatic vision and goals and adherence to its pedagogical design.
Section Counts
The course data indicate that PACE sections are offered predominantly in the primary (Fall and Spring) semesters. Few sections have been offered during the summer semester. Over the past four years the number of sections offered in the Fall semester have decreased from 52 to 40 sections, a 23.1 percent reduction. This Fall trend appears to have occurred gradually over the past four years. Spring offerings have not demonstrated the same trend and have exhibited only minor fluctuations over the past five years.
Figure 1: Fall Section Trends
5 | P a g e
Figure 2: Spring Section Trends
Figure 3: Summer Section Trends
6 | P a g e
Figure 4: Section Offering Offerings
7 | P a g e
The course offerings reveal a clear pattern. Between Fall 2004 and Fall 2008 English bridge courses (English 065 and English 101) have been offered more frequently than any other course in the PACE program. A third of the top courses offered are either Math or English bridge courses. The PACE description details the requirement of English 101 in order to enter into the program and allows for enrollment in bridge courses that assists a student in quickly progressing through the Math and English sequences. This allows PACE students to meet the PACE and transfer requirements and expedite the progress students make on the transfer track. However, the great number of non- transferrable Math and English courses offered through the PACE program may indicate an additional focus of the PACE program. Whereas PACE indicates a need for students to be college-ready in Math and English basic skills, the pattern of offerings indicate a concentration in assisting students through the basic skills sequence. This may represent a divergence from the original conception of the PACE program that should be evaluated through the viability process.
The remaining regularly offered courses fit within transfer requirements for the University of California or California State University System (Biology 003, Earth 001, English 102, Health 002, Philosophy 006, Political Science 001, Sociology 001, and Speech 101). The concentration on courses required for transfer and graduation fit with the original mission of PACE. The top offered courses are offered below.
Table 1: Top PACE Offerings Sections Held Fall 2004 - Fall Course 2008 ENGLISH 101 32 ENGLISH 065 25 POL SCI 001 18 SPEECH 101 18 BIOLOGY 003 17 MATH 105 16 MATH 112 16 HEALTH 002 15 SOC 001 13 EARTH 001 12 ENGLISH 102 12 PHILOS 006 10
8 | P a g e
In order to better depict the trends in bridge course offerings, the data was compiled indicating the section offerings disaggregated by category (bridge versus core courses). While Fall core course section offerings have decreased by 34.1% over the last five years, Math bridge courses have remained stable and English bridge Courses have increased slightly. This pattern indicates a trend toward increased bridge offerings during a time period in which the total number of PACE section offerings has decreased. As indicated below, the result of this trend is that a third of PACE course offerings are now bridge courses.
Figure 5: Bridge and Core Course Offerings: Fall Trends
9 | P a g e
Figure 6: Bridge and Core Course Comparison Fall 2008 (Sections Held)
67%
Core Courses Math Bridge Courses English Bridge Courses
13% 20%
Enrollment Trends
PACE enrollment has seen a similar decline over the past five years. Fall enrollment has decreased from 1,380 in Fall 2004 to 862 in Fall 2008, representing a 37.5 percent decline over the past five years. These figures represent students who were retained past the last day to drop without the course appearing on the record. This captures the students who continue through at least the first weeks of the course. Similar to the trends in section counts, enrollment in spring has remained mostly static with slight variations between semesters, resulting in a decline in 8.2 percent over the past five years.
Figure 7: Fall Enrollment Trends
10 | P a g e
Figure 8: Spring Enrollment Trends
Enrollment declines have resulted in declines in average section size for Fall and Spring semesters. These results indicate that although reductions in section counts can account for some of the declines in enrollment, overall, the average enrollment per sections has also exhibited a downward trend.
Figure 9: Fall Class Size Trends
11 | P a g e
Figure 10: Spring Class Size Trends
Bridge Course Enrollment Trends
The enrollment in bridge courses over the past five years has exhibited similar trends. English and Math bridge courses have represented an increased proportion of the PACE total enrollment. This may indicate that the PACE program is seeking to fulfill a need in the basic skills student population. However, as a program with an English 101 requirement, the concentration on basic skills curriculum should be evaluated in the context of the program mission and pedagogical framework.
Figure 11: Bridge and Core Course Enrollment Fall Enrollment Trends
12 | P a g e
Figure 12: Bridge and Core Course Enrollment Comparison
Student Demographics
In general, the demographic make-up of PACE students is similar to that of the College. However, there is an overrepresentation of Hispanic/Latino students in the program with a matching underrepresentation in Asian/Pacific Islander students. In addition, the gender gap in the PACE program is greater than that of the campus at large with approximately seventy percent of PACE students being female. The following figures represent the unduplicated headcount for all students enrolled in a PACE course regardless of their retention or success in the course.
Table 2: PACE Students by Ethnicity Unduplicated Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Headcount Ethnicity N % N % N % N % N % African-American 37 3.1 31 3.0 23 2.2 32 3.2 24 2.0 Asian 144 12.2 119 11.5 129 12.4 132 13.3 153 12.6 Caucasian 23 2.0 16 1.6 23 2.2 28 2.8 36 3.0 Hispanic 926 78.7 817 79.2 825 79.6 753 76.1 950 78.3 Other 9 0.8 10 1.0 11 1.1 11 1.1 10 0.8 Unknown 37 3.1 38 3.7 26 2.5 33 3.3 40 3.3 Grand Total 1,176 100.0 1,031 100.0 1,037 100.0 989 100.0 1,213 100.0
13 | P a g e
Table 3: PACE Students by Gender Unduplicated Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Headcount Fall 2008 Gender N % N % N % N % N % Female 835 71.0 724 70.2 718 69.2 696 70.4 826 68.1 Male 341 29.0 307 29.8 319 30.8 293 29.6 387 31.9 Grand Total 1,176 100.0 1,031 100.0 1,037 100.0 989 100.0 1,213 100.0
Of note is a trend in the age distribution of PACE students. Students under the age of 20 is the biggest growth category in the PACE program. This is accompanied by a decline in the proportion of students aged 25-34 and 35-55. This trend should be evaluated as the older nontraditional students are more befitting of the original PACE model. Attention should be paid to whether the program is reaching its target population (working adults) by recruiting younger working students or whether the program is tapping an alternative demographic.
Table 4: PACE Students by AGE Unduplicated Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Headcount Fall 2008 Age N % N % N % N % N % Under 20 85 8.2 29 2.5 131 12.6 150 15.2 361 29.8 20 - 24 293 28.4 292 24.8 290 28.0 280 28.3 313 25.8 25 - 34 396 38.4 502 42.7 372 35.9 339 34.3 332 27.4 35 - 54 248 24.1 336 28.6 234 22.6 209 21.1 198 16.3 55 and Over 9 0.9 17 1.4 10 1.0 11 1.1 9 0.7 Grand Total 1,031 100.0 1,176 100.0 1,037 100.0 989 100.0 1,213 100.0
Figure 13: PACE Student Age Trends
14 | P a g e
Based on the students enrolled in PACE courses over the past five years, the top cities and zipcodes were compiled. This list serves as an indicator of the communities from which the PACE program is recruiting.
Table 5: PACE Students by City RANK City Zip Code N % 1 EAST LOS ANGELES 90022 403 6.8 2 MONTEBELLO 90640 373 6.3 3 CITY TERRACE/HAZARD 90063 321 5.4 4 COMMERCE/LOS ANGELES 90023 250 4.2 5 EL SERENO/LOS ANGELES 90032 237 4.0 BELL/BELL 6 90201 236 4.0 GARDENS/CUDAHY 7 MONTEREY PARK 91754 233 3.9 BOYLE HEIGHTS/LOS 8 90033 210 3.5 ANGELES 9 ALHAMBRA 91801 207 3.5 10 SOUTH GATE 90280 199 3.3 11 ROSEMEAD 91770 195 3.3 12 ALHAMBRA 91803 162 2.7 HUNTINGTON PARK/WALNUT 13 90255 158 2.7 PARK 14 PICO RIVERA 90660 120 2.0 15 MONTEREY PARK 91755 113 1.9 16 LOS ANGELES 90031 110 1.9 17 SAN GABRIEL 91776 93 1.6 18 LOS ANGELES 90011 76 1.3 19 COMMERCE/LOS ANGELES 90040 75 1.3 20 LOS ANGELES 90001 71 1.2 21 LYNWOOD 90262 69 1.2 22 BALDWIN PARK/IRWINDALE 91706 67 1.1 HIGHLAND PARK/LOS 23 90042 66 1.1 ANGELES LA PUENTE/CITY OF 24 91744 63 1.1 INDUSTRY 25 MAYWOOD 90270 57 1.0 26 EL MONTE 91732 56 0.9 27 EL MONTE/SOUTH EL MONTE 91733 46 0.8 28 DOWNEY 90241 45 0.8 29 WHITTIER 90606 44 0.7 30 NORWALK 90650 42 0.7 All Other Cities Codes 1,544 26.0
Grand Total 5,941 100.0
15 | P a g e
The following tables represent the demographic make-up of students retained past census. The trends indicate that the tendency for younger students to enroll in PACE is not maintained when enrollment is evaluated at census.
Figure 14: Fall 2008 Census Headcount by Ethnicity
Table 6: Census Headcount by Ethnicity Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Ethnicity N % N % N % N % N % African-American 22 3.36% 19 3.35% 14 2.35% 14 2.55% 13 2.33% Asian 47 7.18% 46 8.11% 55 9.24% 54 9.82% 54 9.69% Caucasian 10 1.53% 10 1.76% 17 2.86% 20 3.64% 20 3.59% Hispanic 548 83.66% 475 83.77% 483 81.18% 437 79.45% 450 80.79% Other 5 0.76% 4 0.71% 7 1.18% 9 1.64% 3 0.54% Unknown 23 3.51% 13 2.29% 19 3.19% 16 2.91% 17 3.05% Grand Total 655 100.00% 567 100.00% 595 100.00% 550 100.00% 557 100.00%
Figure 15: Fall 2008 Census Headcount by Gender
16 | P a g e
Table 7: Census Headcount by Gender Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Row Labels N % N % N % N % N % Female 478 72.98% 422 74.43% 432 72.61% 399 72.55% 385 69.12% M 177 27.02% 145 25.57% 163 27.39% 151 27.45% 172 30.88% Grand Total 655 100.00% 567 100.00% 595 100.00% 550 100.00% 557 100.00%
Figure 16: Fall 2008 Census Headcount by Age
Table 8: Census Headcount by Age Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Age N % N % N % N % N % Under 20 44 6.72% 38 6.70% 51 8.57% 39 7.09% 56 10.05% 20-24 129 19.69% 122 21.52% 146 24.54% 146 26.55% 157 28.19% 25-34 274 41.83% 245 43.21% 234 39.33% 201 36.55% 192 34.47% 35 -54 200 30.53% 158 27.87% 158 26.55% 157 28.55% 142 25.49% 55 and Over 8 1.22% 4 0.71% 6 1.01% 7 1.27% 10 1.80% Grand Total 655 100.00% 567 100.00% 595 100.00% 550 100.00% 557 100.00%
17 | P a g e
Retention and Success
In all semesters, PACE courses appear to have higher retention and success rate. The data below depicts the trends in success and retention for the PACE program in comparison with the campus.
Figure 17: Fall PACE Outcomes
Figure 18: ELAC and PACE Retention Trends
18 | P a g e
Figure 19: ELAC and PACE Success Trends
Retention within the program demonstrates small differences between core and bridge courses, with slightly lower retention in Math bridge courses and slightly higher retention rates in English Bridge courses.
Figure 20: PACE Bridge and Core Course Retention Trends
19 | P a g e
Similar patterns have been exhibited in PACE success rates. However, the success trends in Math bridge courses are more dramatic, exhibiting a nearly ten percent difference between Math bridge and core courses.
Figure 21: PACE Bridge and Core Course Success Trends
While there is some divergence in the retention and success rates within the PACE program, these rates are consistently higher than the campus average in all areas. The difference between Math and English rates campus-wide and PACE bridge rates is demonstrated in the following graphs.
Figure 22: ELAC and PACE Bridge Retention Trends
20 | P a g e
Figure 23: ELAC and PACE Bridge Success Trends
Who is a PACE Student? In addition to general descriptive data, the Research and Planning Office sought to identify who PACE students really are. There is no specified manner with which a student applies to become part of the PACE program. Other specialized programs, such as Honors, require a counselor to sign off on participation before being admitted to the program. In the absence of this formalized procedure, there are several methods with which to determine whether a student enrolled in a PACE course is in fact a PACE student and not a student taking the course for convenience without programmatic participation. The first method is to assume that all students in PACE courses at any point are part of the program, in which case the previous demographic headcounts would be representative of PACE students (Tables 2-4). A second method would consist of identifying students enrolled in more than one PACE course during the course of the term. This would assume that a student enrolled in two courses would be less likely to have enrolled for solely convenience. Enrollment in two courses would suggest knowledge of the program and a willingness to participate as a PACE student. Using this method, it would appear that PACE students only represent approximately half of the students enrolled in PACE courses. Overall, the number of students, using this method, has increased over the past five years. However, this has occurred with large fluctuations over this period. This method is limited, as students who consider themselves part of the program may take only one PACE course and would be excluded from this analysis. Conversely, some students may take two or more courses without considering themselves part of the PACE program. In addition, this method does not include the requirement of English 101 listed in the PACE program description.
21 | P a g e
Figure 24: PACE Students Enrolled in 2 or More PACE Courses
An alternative method for calculating the number of students in the PACE program is using the prerequisites listed by the program. According to the PACE program description, students need to complete English 101 prior to entering into the PACE program. Although this would exclude students in the bridge program, it does represent the students enrolled in PACE courses who meet the stated program requirements. These trends indicate a significant reduction in PACE qualified students. This may be indicative of the number of students assessing into basic skills course at East Los Angeles College. The downward trend should be evaluated in order to determine whether the English requirement is being utilized in the PACE program and if so, whether it is appropriate to have a program requirement for which a majority of students do not qualify.
Figure 25: PACE Students Meeting English Requirement
22 | P a g e
PACE Outcomes
Using the students meeting the English requirement a cohort was developed to track success in attaining an AA/AS degree or certificate. The following data represents an approximation of success outcomes in the PACE program. Students were only counted in the first cohort in which they appeared in order to prevent duplication. In addition, all awards conferred prior to the end of the cohort semester were excluded from analysis. If a student was awarded multiple degrees and/or certificates, all conferrals were included. This data is based on Fall cohort data and does not include all students in the PACE program, nor does it seek to determine whether a majority of classes were taken within the PACE program. Although there are limitations, it does appear that cohort students who had already completed English 101 are working towards an award of some type. The AA and AS degrees are reflective of the PACE mission, while the certificates may represent an alternative population that is utilizing the PACE program.
Award Type Fall 2004 Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Grand Total AA 179 129 131 84 34 557 AS 5 3 3 3 14 C 6 4 11 3 5 29 CS 19 10 26 25 16 96 Grand Total 209 146 171 115 55 696
Based on the quantitative data, it appears that concerns over PACE enrollment are warranted. There have been consistent declines in Fall enrollments with smaller declines demonstrated in Spring semesters. In addition, there is a trend toward a focus on bridge courses in Math and English. The proportion of student enrollment in Bridge courses has increased from 26 percent to nearly 38 percent. This change in concentration should be evaluated as it relates to the PACE mission. Although there has been little change in the demographic makeup of those enrolled in PACE in terms of ethnicity and gender, the increased proportion of students under the age of twenty should be considered. In addition, the significant gender gap should be highlighted in order to determine who to better reach male students. In general, PACE has better than average retention and success rates. This trend is seen when compared to the broad campus community and when Bridge courses are compared to equivalent discipline wide rates. These and other noted quantitative trends should be considered when reviewing the following qualitative data.
Student Surveys In addition to the quantitative data collected for this study, a small survey was conducted in order to determine the degree to which students enrolled in PACE courses are aware of the program attributes and the level of satisfaction with various components of the program. The survey focused on key areas including, the PACE mission, the reasons for attending a PACE course and level of desirability of several components of the program (Appendix E). A total of 270 students completed the survey and the results for each question are reported below.
23 | P a g e
The survey of students indicates that students feel that they are aware of the PACE mission. Nearly eighty percent of those enrolled in PACE courses stated that they were aware of the mission. However, fewer students are aware of all aspects of the PACE pedagogical goals. Only 62.6 percent of students reported that they were aware that PACE was taught in themed cohorts. This may be indicative of a trend in which students understand the mission of the program as it relates to completing a degree or transfer curriculum in an accelerated manner, but fewer students are aware of the intention to use themed cohorts and team teaching.
1. Were you aware of the mission of PACE?
Response N % Yes 212 78.52% No 56 20.74% Unknown 2 0.74% Grand Total 270 100.00%
Over eighty percent of students surveyed indicated that they consider themselves part of the PACE program. This is inconsistent with the quantitative data, which indicates that approximately 25 to 40 percent of students enrolled in PACE courses meet the English requirement for being a PACE student. In addition, the survey indicates that only 46 percent of students are taking a fulltime PACE load (2 classes per eight-week session). The divergence in these indicators should be considered when determining the current nature of the PACE program. While a large majority of students feel a part of the PACE program, fewer are utilizing the intended fulltime model.
2. Do you consider yourself part of the PACE program?
Response N % Yes 225 83.33% No 44 16.30% Unknown 1 0.37% Grand Total 270 100.00%
3. Are you a fulltime PACE student (taking 2 classes per session and 2 sessions per semester)?
Response N % Yes 125 46.30% No 142 52.59% Unknown 3 1.11% Grand Total 270 100.00%
24 | P a g e
The surveyed students indicate knowledge of the PACE mission, some awareness of the teaching model, and consider themselves part of the PACE program. However, when asked to endorse their main reason for selecting a PACE course, convenience seemed to be the primary factor in course selection. Over 50 percent of students surveyed indicated that they selected a PACE course, because it fit their schedule. An additional 28.9 percent of students selected PACE courses, because of its eight-week accelerated model. This lends some support of the PACE model as an accelerated model, but few endorse the other core components of the program as a primary reason for selecting a PACE course. Additional support of the PACE model comes from the selected goals of students in the program. Over ninety percent of students indicate a desire to attain an AA and/or transfer. This is higher than the overall student population, which fits with the desired demographic of the PACE program.
4. Were you aware of the manner in which PACE is taught (themed cohorts)?
Response N % Yes 169 62.59% No 101 37.41% Grand Total 270 100.00%
5. Why did you choose to enroll in a course offered through the PACE program?
Response N % Eight-week accelerated 78 28.89% Fit in my schedule 138 51.11% Pre-selected courses 35 12.96% Space available 9 3.33% Teaching philosophy 6 2.22% Unknown 4 1.48% Grand Total 270 100.00%
25 | P a g e
In an effort to gage some aspects of student needs, students were asked to endorse how desirable alternative scheduling models would be. In general, the greatest support was for a PACE model (one weeknight, one Saturday). Similar support is reported for eight- week sessions during week days. These results may be indicative of the earlier support of an accelerated model. The most undesirable scheduling mode for PACE surveyed students was weekend college with more than a third of students stating that weekend only scheduling would be undesirable or extremely undesirable. Online offerings represent moderate support with approximately half of students surveyed indicating that online courses would be desirable.
6. Rate each of the following formats on a scale from extremely desirable to not desirable at all. Extremely Extremely desirable Desirable Indifferent Undesirable undesirable Unknown Attribute N % N % N % N % N % N % PACE model (one weeknight and Saturdays) 128 47.41% 94 34.81% 20 7.41% 20 7.41% 5 1.85% 3 1.11% Weeknights only 94 34.81% 96 35.56% 38 14.07% 26 9.63% 14 5.19% 2 0.74% Online courses 76 28.15% 71 26.30% 62 22.96% 37 13.70% 17 6.30% 7 2.59% Weekends only 43 15.93% 59 21.85% 65 24.07% 59 21.85% 40 14.81% 4 1.48% Eight-week sessions during week days 99 36.67% 108 40.00% 33 12.22% 16 5.92% 11 4.07% 3 1.11%
26 | P a g e
7. What goal do you hope to reach by entering the PACE program?
Response N % Earn AA 20 7.41% Earn AA and Transfer 151 55.93% Other 17 6.30% Transfer 76 28.15% Unknown 6 2.22% Grand Total 270 100.00%
When surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the PACE program, a majority of students endorsed strong satisfaction with all areas. Among the surveyed attributes, there was very little variance. However, times when courses are offered and the quality of teaching were endorsed most strongly. Students reported being least satisfied with availability of courses with approximately 75 percent of students feeling satisfied with the availability and 13 percent voicing dissatisfaction. Students seemed to be most indifferent with their satisfaction of appropriate academic counseling with nearly a quarter of students indicating that they were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
8. How satisfied are you with the following aspects of the PACE program?
Extremely Extremely Satisfied Satisfied Neither Unsatisfied Unsatisfied Unknown Attribute N % N % N % N % N % N % Times the courses are offered 106 39.26% 134 49.63% 15 5.56% 13 4.81% 1 0.37% 1 0.37% The cohort model 68 25.19% 144 53.33% 47 17.41% 2 0.74% 0.00% 9 3.33% The pre-selected transferable courses 76 28.15% 157 58.15% 22 8.15% 10 3.70% 1 0.37% 4 1.48% Appropriate academic counseling 56 20.74% 122 45.19% 66 24.44% 19 7.04% 3 1.11% 4 1.48% Availability of course 58 21.48% 145 53.70% 25 9.26% 35 12.96% 2 0.74% 5 1.85% Accessibility of PACE instructors 88 32.59% 142 52.59% 32 11.85% 5 1.85% 0.00% 3 1.11% Quality of teaching 130 48.15% 124 45.93% 10 3.70% 3 1.11% 0.00% 3 1.11%
27 | P a g e
Administrative Interviews
Administrative interviews were requested from several former and current program directors and administrators. Included in this analysis are responses from LAVC. The comments from LAVC come from the experience of reviewing the PACE program and developing an alternative model, VCAP. The central findings from this interview indicate that the PACE model is strong, but that there are concerns regarding the integrity of the program unless faculty strictly adhere to the PACE framework. Overall, LAVC indicated that the PACE model was not flexible enough to meet the needs of the students and faculty. In addition, faculty were concerned about the TBA hours included in the PACE program and preferred a model that allowed for hour by hour teaching in place of the TBA hours. Lastly, LAVC indicated that their current VCAP program uses hiring policies similar to standard adjunct, allowing for greater flexibility in hiring and assigning courses.
Former ELAC PACE director reported similar beliefs. She indicates that the PACE program does fulfill a need by offering classes for transfer at times during which working students can attend. However, she indicates several concerns with the program. First, she states the change to a three track system creates a hindrance for students. She describes this as a moving sidewalk that students must get on at a certain point. If they are delayed or come at a bad point, they may need to wait for similar courses to be offered. These tracks also make it more difficult to work within the team teaching and cohort model. Second, some courses may be difficult to offer in eight weeks. She states that some 4 or 5 unit courses had to be compromised in order to meet the eight-week model. Third, the hiring policy for PACE limits the directors ability to retain desirable faculty, since faculty with greater than a 60 percent load for two semesters are ineligible for rehire for two years. Fourth, she states that the needs of the students seem to be more diversified than the PACE curriculum allows to be addresses. Lastly, she states that working adults need basic skills courses prior to enrollment in the PACE prerequisite of English 101 and that more of these courses should be offered. She recommends that PACE be replaced with “requisite classes for completing an AA degree at times and in locations convenient for working adults. Also, eliminate the TBA hours.” Concerns were also noted that the PACE program was no longer cost effective and has lost its “specialness”. Similar to the comments from the former PACE director, it was noted that the PACE program has moved away from its original conception and mission. In addition, there may be problems related to the tracking of TBA hours that are built into the PACE model.
The current PACE director speaks of the strength of the PACE model and asserts that many students would not have attended college without PACE. In addition, he indicates that PACE has had excellent outcomes in way of transfer and believes that increased marketing would help reverse the current trends. All positions should be taken into account in relationship with the presented quantitative data and other forms of qualitative data.
28 | P a g e
Department Chair Surveys Using a questionnaire designed by the viability committee, PACE Director, collected data from department chairs at ELAC. The following data represents some of the findings from this data source.
A majority of Department chairs interviewed had had experience in hiring faculty members for the PACE program and by assisting in the scheduling of adjunct faculty used in PACE courses. In addition, several had had other experience in working with PACE, including serving as PACE faculty for a time period ranging from one semester to eleven years. They indicate that the following characteristics of PACE are favorable and represent strengths of the program.
1. The PACE program and curriculum are a strength that assist students in meeting their educational goals.
2. Students in the PACE program are the strength of the program.
3. The schedule is convenient for students
4. The ability to finish in 5 semesters is a major strength of the PACE program for some Department Chairs
They indicate that the following characteristics of PACE represent weaknesses of the program.
1. Department Chairs have noted some problems with the organization of the PACE program on the ELAC campus and issues with communication between faculty, Chairs, Directors and students.
2. Lack of fulltime staff and problems with preparation
3. The program has deviated from its mission leading to a less effective program
4. Some of the Department chairs voiced concern about the rigor of courses and grading processes. However, other chairs indicated that the PACE programs are a strength of the program. The data will have to bear out the accuracy of each statement with the committee determining the best way to interpret the data.
5. Some department chairs were concerned that short-term courses make it difficult for some students to succeed 6. Some chairs felt that there was not enough effort made toward recruitment.
The Department Chairs were asked about PACE’s adherence to its mission and indicate that they perceive that the PACE program has deviated from its original mission. While some chairs voice continued support, most find that the current program is different from its past version.
29 | P a g e
1. Some Department Chairs voice support of the PACE program’s ability to meet the mission of the college and its educational planning objectives.
2. Overall, the Department Chairs indicated that finding faculty to teach PACE courses was relatively easy, but that there was a need for more fulltime faculty.
3. Overall, Department Chairs indicated minimal impact on their disciplines with some stating that the PACE program had a positive effect on discipline recruitment. Faculty
30 | P a g e
Surveys The faculty responding to the survey came from a variety of disciplines including Child Development, Biology, Mathematics, English, History, Political Science, Humanities and Philosophy. There was a range of experiences with six instructors working with PACE less than two years, four instructors working for more than two years and two instructors having had current experience in addition to work when the program was first developed. The following data represents the trends in their responses to questions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the PACE program.
1. A majority of faculty members stated that they had no experience in team teaching in PACE.
2. Some instructors found team teaching to be a positive aspect of the PACE Program.
3. Many faculty members stated that they had not had experience teaching in a cohort model.
4. Some faculty voiced a positive experience in cohort models within PACE.
5. Many of the faculty stated that PACE is good model that meets the needs of students; however, many of the comments included clarifiers indicating a need to return to the original conception of the PACE model.
6. Some faculty indicated that the PACE program’s use of cohorts was a strength and that the student’s themselves are a strength of the program.
7. The faculty was evenly split with its thoughts on the adherence to the overall PACE mission.
8. Overall the faculty indicate that the PACE program meets the needs of nontraditional students that may be working fulltime while attending college. However, some faculty have stated that the students enrolled in PACE must be, and for the most part are, more prepared and dedicated in order to meet the rigor of short-term courses
9. The faculty indicate the students in the PACE program represent a strength of the program and that the cohort model includes methods that create support and peer pressure to succeed.
10. The faculty indicated a need for additional support from the administration in order to improve PACE, including assisting in areas concerning outreach and recruitment
11. The faculty indicated that the PACE program is not following its pedagogical roots and has deviated from the its original conceptions with less emphasis on the cohort model and team teaching. In addition, the faculty voiced support of the original PACE model and a need to have greater adherence to this mission.
31 | P a g e
Comments and Open Forums As part of the viability process, the committee has solicited public response from faculty, staff and student constituents. The purpose of these solicitations is to ensure that all those with a stake in the program have ability to have their comments and concerns regarding the program under review heard. Public notice for comments on the PACE program began in Spring of 2009 and carried through the summer. In addition, those attending one of two hosted open forums were informed that they could forward written comments to the committee in addition to their comments made during the forum. All submitted responses can be found in appendix (J).The public comments indicate that the following characteristics of PACE are favorable and represent strengths of the program.
1. PACE gives working adults (with or without families) an opportunity to pursue higher education. a. [PACE gave me] my chance to complete my college education. b. I was a non-traditional student having decided to return to school in my early thirties having to confront and overcome the challenges of working while also being a full-time student…I’m very happy to have accomplished my goal of completing my B.A. and now looking ahead to pursuing an advance degree. But none of this could have been possible if not for the essential opportunity PACE presented to someone like me. c. [PACE is a] crucial program to this community and the people it serves with a great majority being Hispanic. d. PACE is the only way I can still attend school e. The beauty of PACE is that I can take care of my children and still attend college. f. PACE allowed me to still make a living without giving up on my education. 2. PACE offers a convenient schedule a. …was very convenient b. PACE offers accelerated classes so that I can earn up to twelve transferrable units per semester by attending one night a week and on Saturdays. c. Providing classes at night, and on the weekends 3. PACE allows working adults to be around similarly situated, non-traditional students. a. I was trying to complete my college education earlier in day classes, but the time of classes was not convenient for me. Also, most students were high school graduates and the topics that we were discussing were about current teenagers topics. b. Also, attending PACE classes is not humiliating like it was while he was going with teenager kids. c. Most of the students attending [PACE classes] are focused adults who encourage each other. 4. PACE offers quality faculty and instructions.
32 | P a g e
a. The teachers of PACE are excellent, full of knowledge to share with the students and very demanding. b. This is thanks to awesome PACE professors, fellow PACE students and my commitment to education.
In addition, the open comments include recommendations for improvements in current PACE programming. 1. The PACE program has not been well advertised and should be better supported in recruitment efforts a. I learned very late about your program from my friend, and cannot believe that such an important program is not advertised much better. b. I never knew that program existed, before this year. My husband learned about this program from his friend. ELAC never advertised this program, and also it is hard to access PACE info on your web page. c. Also, I want to point out that I was not aware of this program. I can’t help but wonder how many other people, who could benefit from it, do not know about this great program either. 2. Recommend PACE students receive a counseling appointment to avoid enrolling in courses not needed for CSU or IGETC and Major requirements. 3. If PACE would better integrate with the campus, it would improve.
The following comments were received indicating problems with the PACE model. 1. Tardiness of students in PACE evening classes is problematic 2. The PACE program is too rushed and does not adequately serve students who are taking the courses 3. Saturday courses have frequent absences, since there are many other activities that occur on Saturday.
33 | P a g e
Academic Affairs hosted two open forums. Notice for these forums was sent to all student emails (ELAC accounts), faculty, and staff. The notice indicated:
To the ELAC community:
Academic Affairs invites you to participate in 1 of 2 public forum sessions to discuss the viability of the Program for Adult College Education (PACE) Program. Viability Review is a process meant to assure that the College’s instructional resources are used in response to the College’s Mission, its Educational Master Plan, the needs of its students, and the requirements of the community it serves. The goal of a viability review is to improve programming and better meet student needs. The results of viability range from formal recommendations for improvements to program discontinuance. Your input is greatly appreciated and fundamental in the viability review process.
The forums will be held on:
Day: Thursday, September 17, 2009 Day: Saturday, September 19, 2009 Time: 5:15-6:15pm Time: 12-2:30pm Location: E5 105 Location: E5 106
Draft copies of the summary PACE viability report will be electronically distributed the week of the forums. Please submit any comments or questions regarding the public forums to Kim Misa-Escalante ([email protected]) and Ryan Cornner ([email protected]).
Your participation in this process is greatly appreciated.
During the forums, a summary of the preliminary report was presented (Appendix K) to all in attendance. Following this presentation, the floor was opened to questions, comments and concerns. In addition to summarized responses, the recording of each forum is available to committee members who wish to review the forum comments in total.
A majority of those attending the Thursday forum were current or past ELAC faculty. A majority of those attending on Saturday were students in the PACE program. Attendees included people who have taught in PACE, PACE graduates, PACE students and traditional faculty. The following statements represent a summary of the responses during the open forums.
Comments regarding the strength of the PACE program: 1. PACE is the only way I would have been able to attend college and continue my education. 2. The PACE courses offer me a way to take courses while still working, without having to come to school every night. 3. The PACE faculty are excellent and care about their students.
34 | P a g e
4. PACE makes students successful. 5. PACE allows working adults to come to school with other working adults and not with younger more traditional students. 6. The program is essential to working adults who may not come to ELAC if the program were not here. Comments regarding the viability process: 1. It is ridiculous for PACE to be going through viability when it is more important than ever to be serving working adults. 2. PACE is only being considered for viability because the administration needs to make cuts and wish to ensure the continuance of other programming. 3. The PACE student survey was unfair and biased. a. Only half of PACE students were surveyed b. The survey did not indicate that discontinuance was a possibility. 4. There are no PACE students on the viability committee. 5. PACE students were not notified soon enough in the viability process. Comments regarding improvement: 1. There is a need to return to the original model. 2. Faculty in attendance volunteered to serve on an advisory committee. 3. There has been insufficient advertising for the PACE program. 4. PACE has been mismanaged.
During each open forum, the contact information for the Office of institutional Effectiveness was given. Any person wishing to provide additional information was directed to send comments via email. All additional comments are included in Appendix L (Appendix not included to maintain student confidentiality).
Conclusions
The quantitative and qualitative data reveal some converging trends. First, the PACE model appears to be desirable. Faculty, administrators and Department Chairs indicate that the cohort and team teaching model is a strong pedagogical model. However, these individuals also voice concerns regarding the current programs adherence to the original model. The data is supportive of this view as many students report not being aware of the manner in which the PACE courses were taught. In addition, a large proportion of the offerings and of the corresponding enrollment are found in the Math and English bridge courses, which represents a divergence from the stated PACE requirements. Some administrators indicate a need for greater flexibility and for a program that better meets the time needs of working adults. This seems to be supported as half of students surveyed indicated that scheduling needs are the primary reason for selecting a PACE course. This report is meant as a tool for the viability committee to use when evaluating the PACE program. The viability committee is asked to review the data and determine the key findings based on the conducted study and to construct formal recommendations. These findings and recommendations will be incorporated into the final report. The Research and Planning Office is available to facilitate the development of the final report and to support the viability committee.
35 | P a g e
36 | P a g e
Appendix A
37 | P a g e
Appendix B
38 | P a g e
Appendix C
39 | P a g e
Appendix C
40 | P a g e
Appendix C
41 | P a g e
Appendix C
42 | P a g e
Appendix C
43 | P a g e
Appendix C
44 | P a g e
Appendix C
45 | P a g e
Appendix C
46 | P a g e
Appendix C
47 | P a g e
Appendix C
48 | P a g e
Appendix D
49 | P a g e
Appendix D
50 | P a g e
Appendix D
51 | P a g e
Appendix D
52 | P a g e
Appendix E
53 | P a g e
Appendix E
54 | P a g e
Appendix E
55 | P a g e
Appendix F
56 | P a g e
Appendix G
57 | P a g e
Appendix H
58 | P a g e
Appendix H
59 | P a g e
Appendix H
60 | P a g e
Appendix H
61 | P a g e
Appendix J – Open Responses
PUBLIC NOTICE COMMENTS PACE VIABILITY REVIEW (Comments rec’d between 6/2009 – 9/2009)
Recommend PACE student receive a counseling appointment to avoid enrolling in courses not needed for CSU GE or IGETC and Major requirements. I met with several PACE students within the last year and noticed over enrollment of units. In the area of Arts and Humanities students have completed 12 or more units and only need 9 units. Same for the Social and Behavioral Sciences students have completed 12 or more units and only need 9 units. Recommend PACE student receive copies of the CSU GE and IGETC advising forms from Counseling.
Hopefully this will assist students in the articulation process to a university.
---
My only comment would be that I have no knowledge of the activities in PACE since the late 1990’s. Back then, the PACE Director would share success stories, would hold a PACE graduation ceremony, and would hire tutors through the Learning Center to work with the PACE students.
---
I'm a long-time adjunct faculty. My department chair matriculated through PACE, and I have mostly positive impressions of the program for many years.
HOWEVER, if the PACE program/staff/ concept/ courses/ students can be integrated better into the overall college atmosphere, I feel it would improve.
PACE is too insular, much like the Jesuits in the Catholic Church, or the Gestapo in the former Nazi regime in Hitler's Germany. It is to an outsider like me, a clique of cognoscenti.
---
I have spoken to few students and staff and came to know about the tardiness in pace evening classes. As Pace focuses on working adults, these students need to rush from the work to school and some time they may need to work longer and then traffic, etc. So, I think Weekend classes are best for the Pace students for example Saturday and Sunday 9:00am to 12:30pm or say 1:00 to 4:30 pm. This way students can still take two courses at a time and still be on time to their classes and focus better. Tardiness is on all classes, but I think the change in class timings will at least give the sincere students an opportunity to be on time and learn better.
---
The PACE program is too rushed and does not adequately serve the students who are taking the courses. The program is condensed into 2 years in an attempt to "hurry through" students, but
62 | P a g e
Appendix J – Open Responses this is not conducive to learning. I've had more than one student drop out, telling me "the classes are too fast and I don't have enough time to devote to them" and "another teacher also complained to me that the class was too rushed and she couldn't teach the class properly." Instead of a rushed 2 year course, why not have these adult students take classes on a regular schedule? For instance, I was asked to teach Public Speaking--a course which takes time to develop expertise in--in a mere 8 weeks. A normal semester is 15 weeks. The class was set up so that students came on a week night, i.e, Mon, Tues, Weds or Thurs, for 2 hours and then 4&1/2 hours on a Saturday. This does not work well. Many adult students have things to do on Saturdays, i.e, weddings, family gatherings, childrens' activities, funerals, vacations, etc, and missed class. I had several students miss important lectures on Saturday and they were not able to keep up with the class, having not processed or learned important information relevant to public speaking. Why not have these students attend once a week, for 3 hours, on a week night as is currently done with undergraduates? I see no reason why they should have to "rush"-- although I know that is a selling point for the college and it makes the courses look attractive. In my opinion, it's a bogus selling point. What's the good of rushing if failure is the end result?
Also, in addition to the classes being super-rushed, a daunting effort even for gifted students, they were asked to complete 11 OUTSIDE classroom hours as part of the required time needed for completion of the course. Once again, this is a big waste of time for students. Why not simply have those 11 hours be incorporated into the regular class semester where they can have in-classroom training and practice rather than doing work on their own (which really was "busy work" only done to complete requirements for the time the District requires for each student's education).
---
There is a rumor circulating that the PACE program may cease to exist. I implore you to rethink this. The PACE program has been extremely beneficial to working adults (with or without families). Several students that I spoke to expressed these same sentiments.
As a former PACE student, I enjoyed meeting with like-minded adults, research, studies, sharing ideas, going to events, learning more about the college and the resources that it offered, and ultimately, obtaining my associaties degree. Had I tried to attain this without the PACE program it would have been nearly impossible. Getting time off during the day to attend day-only classes would have been extremely challenging. Plus, I would have found myself surrounded by younger students who perhaps didn't have the same goals and concerns as I had. The PACE program offered a schedule that was do-able. That's what made it so attractive and in my opinion, popular.
The PACE program allowed me to be the wife/parent/student that I needed to be while expanding my knowledge.
As economic times are becoming more challenging, I find that the PACE program will be a gateway (and necessity) for working or recently displaced adults.
Bottom line is that we NEED the program. Responsible adults WANT the program. And it
63 | P a g e
Appendix J – Open Responses would be a real shame for the administration to cut this program any time soon.
---
I am writing this letter, because I've heard you are considering closing the PACE program. I attended the PACE program and I could have never graduated without it. The Pace program allows working adults to accomplish their dream! Providing classes at night, and on the weekends. Pace allowed me to still make a living without giving up on my education. So many grants and budget cuts are being make already. Please don't take away more!!!!! I graduated from ELAC with my A.A. in Liberal Arts. I then transferred into Occidental College starting my studies there in August of 2007 and graduating this past May with my B.A. in English and Comparative Literature. I was a non-traditional student having decided to return to school in my early thirties having to confront and overcome the challenges of being a working adult while also being a full-time student. I'm very happy to have accomplished my goal of completing my B.A. and now looking ahead to pursuing an advance degree. But none of this could have been possible if not for the essential opportunity PACE presented to someone like me... a working adult, non-traditional student. PACE proved essential to my success and at this time when its efficacy is being evaluated, I would like to convey my strong support for this program. I understand you will be holding a couple meetings to discuss the future of PACE at East Los Angeles College and if you will allow me, I would like to attend and contribute my story as an example as to why this program is essential to our community. I plan to attend the meeting scheduled for Thursday.
64 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
65 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
66 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
67 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
68 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
69 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
70 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
71 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
72 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
73 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
74 | P a g e
Appendix L – Mailed Responses
75 | P a g e