2018-19 Unit Plan
Natural Resources

Mission Statement

The Butte College Natural Resources Management Program prepares students for employment in the areas of forestry, wildlife, range, environment, and park/recreational-land management, including ecological restoration, or transfer to a higher institution. The Program also meets the needs of community residents and industry employees (government and/or private sector) requiring vocational enhancement, updating and/or training in the areas mentioned above.

Program Description

This program currently serves approximately 97 full-time students in an AS degree program and a number of others moving through one of four, one-year certificate programs with full and part-time faculty. Students not transferring to universities move into paid employment immediately following the completion of our program. 

The Program currently has one primary full-time instructor to meet the instructional needs for students to obtain classes. However, there is a need for additional sections and part-time instructors to meet future needs. As always, the Farm Technician plays an integral part in helping Natural Resources Management Program students in utilizing the Main Campus’ Wildlife Refuge as an outdoor classroom and for laboratory activities as well as NR 99 work experience. The Nursery Technician also plays an important part in the Program by caring for plants to be used in the restoration class and by helping students with science projects involving plants for the environmental management class.

The Program’s Advisory Committee will meet this winter and will be brought up to date on all previous recommendations with recent progress towards their implementation. The importance of communication skills (written and oral), proficiency in using digital technology, a good understanding of work-place safety, proficiency in the use of hand tools, and GPS/GIS skills have been and will continue to be part of the Program and Certificate curriculum. Résumé writing, interview, and other job attainment skills have been implemented as well. Job experience such as seasonal employment, internships, ride-along, and job shadowing are ongoing parts of the curriculum.
A dendrology/native plant identification course and a forestry technician certificate of achievement has be added to the Program.


Accountability for Previously Funded Items


Accountability Item 1

No augmentations were funded for Natural Resources Managment from the 2017-18 unit plan requests.


Amount: 0.00
Used For Intended Purpose: Yes
Benefit

Zero


Student Learning/Administrative Unit Outcomes

Spring 2017 Outcomes Assessed:


NR 65 SLO D- Evaluate recreation facilities and resources, identifying maintenance requirements, potential hazards, traffic and people flow.


NR 65 PLO 2- Identify basic environmental problems and describe how they affect the environment's biotic and abiotic components.


Assessment Plan: Embed 10 questions in laboratory assignments regarding environmental problems associated with recreational facilities and their maintenance and assign a research project on safety in various recreational activities.


Assessment Results: Students scored an average of 84% on laboratory activity questions related to NRM PLO 2 and 97.5% on recreational activity safety research projects for NR 65 SLO D.


Collective Dialogue: Don't fix what isn't broken.


Planned Improvements: No improvements are planned at this time but monitoring will continue.


Fall 2017 Outcomes Assessed:


NR 70 SLO H- Compile information from GPS data, aerial and topographical maps to analyze and present spatial configurations of natural resources.


Assessment Plan: Students will demonstrate proficiencies in the areas described in SLO H by completing the midterm and final on the laboratory computers and presenting them to the instructor.


Assessment Results: Fall 2017 NR 70 SLO H could not be assessed entirely due to the inadequacy of the new computer sytem installed in LRC 121 over the summer of 2017. The new "Thin Client" computer system lacks power, file storage capabilities, and hardware to properly use the ArcGIS and Google Earth Pro software packages, and thus, hinders student learning and assessment. Natural Resources Management and Geography was not consulted as to the requirements of their software packages resulting in the installation of inadequate machines. 


Collective Dialogue: Fall 2018 NR 70 can not be taught in a computer lab with a "Thin Client" system because SLO's cannot be assessed and those computers are a barrier to student learning where ArcGIS and Google Earth Pro software packages are concerned. These software packages evolve rather quickly and require newer machines and operating systems (Microsoft Only) with ample power, graphics cards, and stand alone computational capabilities.


Planned Improvements: Request for one-time augmentation in this unit plan for a computer lab with 28 new, stand-alone computers with a Microsoft operating system, ample power, and graphics cards to teach not only NR 70 but GEOG 20 as well.

Standards/Goals for Student Achievement (OSLED Departments)

2012FA

81

52

64.2 %

29

35.8 %

0

0.0 %

3

3.7 %

39

48.1 %

36

44.4 %

3

3.7 %

0

0.0 %

2013FA

98

71

72.4 %

27

27.6 %

0

0.0 %

3

3.1 %

52

53.1 %

38

38.8 %

5

5.1 %

0

0.0 %

2014FA

98

70

71.4 %

27

27.6 %

1

1.0 %

4

4.1 %

59

60.2 %

30

30.6 %

5

5.1 %

0

0.0 %

2015FA

92

65

70.7 %

25

27.2 %

2

2.2 %

2

2.2 %

60

65.2 %

25

27.2 %

5

5.4 %

0

0.0 %

2016FA

97

74

76.3 %

20

20.6 %

3

3.1 %

1

1.0 %

60

61.9 %

33

34.0 %

3

3.1 %

0

0.0 %

Program: Natural Resources (NR)   Part A - Demographics Student Characteristics - Unduplicated Student Headcount - Program Term                           Total            Male                    Female                  Unknown          Age 17 & Under          Age 18-24                                   Age 25-49    Age 50+              Unknown     Term                           Total           White                   Hispanic                  Asian             African American    American Indian                                   Pacific Islander                      Unknown/Other   2012FA 81 61 75.3 % 7 8.6 % 3 3.7 % 3 3.7 % 4 4.9 % 0 0.0 % 3 3.7 % 2013FA 98 73 74.5 % 9 9.2 % 6 6.1 % 2 2.0 % 6 6.1 % 0 0.0 % 2 2.0 % 2014FA 98 69 70.4 % 10 10.2 % 4 4.1 % 2 2.0 % 7 7.1 % 1 1.0 % 5 5.1 % 2015FA 92 74 80.4 % 5 5.4 % 4 4.3 % 0 0.0 % 5 5.4 % 0 0.0 % 4 4.3 % 2016FA 97 59 60.8 % 14 14.4 % 8 8.2 % 0 0.0 % 12 12.4 % 1 1.0 % 3 3.1 %   Term                           Total           DSPS                 Foster Youth             Veteran            Econ Disadvantg   2012FA 81 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 7 8.6 % 44 54.3 % 2013FA 98 3 3.1 % 2 2.0 % 8 8.2 % 54 55.1 % 2014FA 98 5 5.1 % 1 1.0 % 9 9.2 % 57 58.2 % 2015FA 92 5 5.4 % 4 4.3 % 10 10.9 % 40 43.5 % 2016FA 97 10 10.3 % 5 5.2 % 8 8.2 % 55 56.7 %       Student Characteristics - Unduplicated Student Headcount - College Term                           Total            Male                    Female                  Unknown          Age 17 & Under          Age 18-24                                   Age 25-49    Age 50+              Unknown   2012FA 13,065 6,100 46.7 % 6,833 52.3 % 132 1.0 % 625 4.8 % 7,809 59.8 % 3,987 30.5 % 644 4.9 % 0 0.0 % 2013FA 12,774 6,078 47.6 % 6,584 51.5 % 112 0.9 % 633 5.0 % 7,693 60.2 % 3,851 30.1 % 597 4.7 % 0 0.0 % 2014FA 12,803 6,114 47.8 % 6,548 51.1 % 141 1.1 % 596 4.7 % 7,896 61.7 % 3,748 29.3 % 563 4.4 % 0 0.0 % 2015FA 12,689 6,039 47.6 % 6,476 51.0 % 174 1.4 % 640 5.0 % 7,644 60.2 % 3,769 29.7 % 635 5.0 % 1 0.0 % 2016FA 12,419 5,812 46.8 % 6,410 51.6 % 197 1.6 % 676 5.4 % 7,523 60.6 % 3,607 29.0 % 613 4.9 % 0 0.0 %   Term                           Total           White                   Hispanic                  Asian             African American    American Indian                                   Pacific Islander                      Unknown/Other   2012FA 13,065 8,476 64.9 % 2,121 16.2 % 814 6.2 % 402 3.1 % 316 2.4 % 61 0.5 % 875 6.7 % 2013FA 12,774 8,044 63.0 % 2,309 18.1 % 802 6.3 % 411 3.2 % 383 3.0 % 71 0.6 % 754 5.9 % 2014FA 12,803 7,824 61.1 % 2,622 20.5 % 788 6.2 % 451 3.5 % 356 2.8 % 73 0.6 % 689 5.4 % 2015FA 12,689 7,479 58.9 % 2,975 23.4 % 762 6.0 % 465 3.7 % 334 2.6 % 60 0.5 % 614 4.8 % 2016FA 12,419 7,081 57.0 % 3,103 25.0 % 794 6.4 % 449 3.6 % 361 2.9 % 62 0.5 % 569 4.6 %   Term                           Total           DSPS                 Foster Youth             Veteran            Econ Disadvantg   2012FA 13,065 381 2.9 % 179 1.4 % 430 3.3 % 6,073 46.5 % 2013FA 12,774 364 2.8 % 248 1.9 % 451 3.5 % 5,788 45.3 % 2014FA 12,803 442 3.5 % 328 2.6 % 408 3.2 % 5,742 44.8 % 2015FA 12,689 428 3.4 % 360 2.8 % 369 2.9 % 5,228 41.2 % 2016FA 12,419 447 3.6 % 373 3.0 % 360 2.9 % 4,630 37.3 %     Part B - Program Success, Retention, Efficiency Course Enrollment (Duplicated) - Productivity - Outcomes - Program Enrollments                                                                                                                                        Success                                                                                                                                        Retention Term                      Sections  Census      End        Students/Section                Fill Rate       FTEF      FTES            FTES/FTEF                             #                               %           #                                        %                Denominator   2012FA 5 127 112 25.40 85.8 % 0.54 15.40 28.69 92 72.4 % 112 88.2 % 127 2013FA 6 154 148 25.67 85.1 % 0.75 20.93 27.95 129 84.3 % 146 95.4 % 153 2014FA 6 155 148 25.83 85.6 % 0.75 21.47 28.66 122 79.7 % 146 95.4 % 153 2015FA 6 152 148 25.33 94.4 % 0.75 20.93 27.95 121 79.6 % 148 97.4 % 152 2016FA 6 144 137 24.00 89.4 % 0.75 19.80 26.44 113 79.0 % 136 95.1 % 143     Part C - Degrees and Certificates Awarded       Program - Number of Degrees and Certificates Awarded Year                             Total            Male                    Female                  Unknown          Age 17 & Under          Age 18-24                                   Age 25-49    Age 50+              Unknown   2012-13                                     AA/AS 13 9 69.2 % 4 30.8 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 6 46.2 % 7 53.8 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %   CC 2 2 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2013-14                                     AA/AS 11 5 45.5 % 6 54.5 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 3 27.3 % 8 72.7 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %   CC 10 6 60.0 % 4 40.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2 20.0 % 7 70.0 % 1 10.0 % 0 0.0 % 2014-15                                     AA/AS 10 8 80.0 % 2 20.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 5 50.0 % 4 40.0 % 1 10.0 % 0 0.0 %   CC 5 4 80.0 % 1 20.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 20.0 % 4 80.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2015-16                                     AA/AS 10 8 80.0 % 2 20.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 3 30.0 % 7 70.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %   CC 4 2 50.0 % 2 50.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 25.0 % 2 50.0 % 1 25.0 % 0 0.0 % 2016-17                                     AA/AS 14 10 71.4 % 4 28.6 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 8 57.1 % 4 28.6 % 2 14.3 % 0 0.0 %   CC 19 12 63.2 % 7 36.8 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 5 26.3 % 14 73.7 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %   Year                             Total           White                   Hispanic                  Asian             African American    American Indian                                   Pacific Islander                      Unknown/Other   2012-13                                 AA/AS 13 8 61.5 % 2 15.4 % 0 0.0 % 1 7.7 % 1 7.7 % 0 0.0 % 1 7.7 %   CC 2 0 0.0 % 2 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2013-14                                 AA/AS 11 10 90.9 % 1 9.1 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %   CC 10 9 90.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 10.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2014-15                                 AA/AS 10 8 80.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 10.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 10.0 %   CC 5 4 80.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 20.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2015-16                                 AA/AS 10 8 80.0 % 1 10.0 % 1 10.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %   CC 4 4 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2016-17                                 AA/AS 14 12 85.7 % 2 14.3 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %   CC 19 13 68.4 % 2 10.5 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 4 21.1 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %       Year                             Total           DSPS                 Foster Youth             Veteran            Econ Disadvantg   2012-13                                     AA/AS 13 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 5 38.5 %                   CC 2 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2 100.0 %                 2013-14                                     AA/AS 11 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 9 81.8 %                   CC 10 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 10.0 % 9 90.0 %                 2014-15                                     AA/AS 10 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 10.0 % 3 30.0 %                   CC 5 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 20.0 % 4 80.0 %                 2015-16                                     AA/AS 10 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 3 30.0 % 5 50.0 %                   CC 4 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2 50.0 % 2 50.0 %                 2016-17                                     AA/AS 14 2 14.3 % 0 0.0 % 3 21.4 % 7 50.0 %                   CC 19 4 21.1 % 0 0.0 % 5 26.3 % 16 84.2 %                   College - Number of Degrees and Certificates Awarded Year                             Total            Male                    Female                  Unknown          Age 17 & Under          Age 18-24                                   Age 25-49    Age 50+              Unknown   2012-13                                     AA/AS 1,461 569 38.9 % 878 60.1 % 14 1.0 % 1 0.1 % 794 54.3 % 605 41.4 % 61 4.2 % 0 0.0 %   AA- T/AS-T 20 8 40.0 % 12 60.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 19 95.0 % 1 5.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %   CA 426 228 53.5 % 192 45.1 % 6 1.4 % 0 0.0 % 208 48.8 % 200 46.9 % 18 4.2 % 0 0.0 %   CC 1,517 1,003 66.1 % 508 33.5 % 6 0.4 % 2 0.1 % 891 58.7 % 557 36.7 % 67 4.4 % 0 0.0 % 2013-14                                     AA/AS 1,400 585 41.8 % 809 57.8 % 6 0.4 % 1 0.1 % 691 49.4 % 642 45.9 % 66 4.7 % 0 0.0 %   AA- T/AS-T 63 29 46.0 % 34 54.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 41 65.1 % 21 33.3 % 1 1.6 % 0 0.0 %   CA 399 182 45.6 % 216 54.1 % 1 0.3 % 0 0.0 % 184 46.1 % 194 48.6 % 21 5.3 % 0 0.0 %   CC 1,472 805 54.7 % 663 45.0 % 4 0.3 % 5 0.3 % 855 58.1 % 560 38.0 % 52 3.5 % 0 0.0 % 2014-15                                     AA/AS 1,242 530 42.7 % 704 56.7 % 8 0.6 % 1 0.1 % 637 51.3 % 557 44.8 % 47 3.8 % 0 0.0 %           AA- T/AS-T 179 72 40.2 % 106 59.2 % 1 0.6 % 0 0.0 % 123 68.7 % 53 29.6 % 3 1.7 % 0 0.0 %   CA 519 311 59.9 % 205 39.5 % 3 0.6 % 0 0.0 % 269 51.8 % 219 42.2 % 31 6.0 % 0 0.0 %   CC 808 403 49.9 % 398 49.3 % 7 0.9 % 1 0.1 % 476 58.9 % 290 35.9 % 41 5.1 % 0 0.0 %   CE 6 2 33.3 % 2 33.3 % 2 33.3 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 6 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2015-16                                     AA/AS 1,280 498 38.9 % 771 60.2 % 11 0.9 % 1 0.1 % 634 49.5 % 588 45.9 % 57 4.5 % 0 0.0 %   AA- T/AS-T 264 118 44.7 % 142 53.8 % 4 1.5 % 0 0.0 % 190 72.0 % 67 25.4 % 7 2.7 % 0 0.0 %   CA 523 332 63.5 % 182 34.8 % 6 1.1 % 1 0.2 % 230 44.0 % 268 51.2 % 24 4.6 % 0 0.0 %   CC 734 356 48.5 % 367 50.0 % 10 1.4 % 1 0.1 % 445 60.6 % 253 34.5 % 35 4.8 % 0 0.0 %   CE 16 2 12.5 % 14 87.5 % 0 0.0 % 2 12.5 % 5 31.3 % 9 56.3 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2016-17                                     AA/AS 1,154 500 43.3 % 642 55.6 % 11 1.0 % 0 0.0 % 589 51.0 % 516 44.7 % 49 4.2 % 0 0.0 %   AA- T/AS-T 303 135 44.6 % 167 55.1 % 0 0.0 % 1 0.3 % 217 71.6 % 80 26.4 % 5 1.7 % 0 0.0 %   CA 519 318 61.3 % 191 36.8 % 7 1.3 % 0 0.0 % 254 48.9 % 248 47.8 % 17 3.3 % 0 0.0 %   CC 885 399 45.1 % 475 53.7 % 6 0.7 % 4 0.5 % 532 60.1 % 316 35.7 % 33 3.7 % 0 0.0 %   CE 13 3 23.1 % 10 76.9 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 7.7 % 8 61.5 % 4 30.8 % 0 0.0 %   Year                             Total           White                   Hispanic                  Asian             African American    American Indian                                   Pacific Islander                      Unknown/Other   2012-13                                 AA/AS 1,461 956 65.4 % 209 14.3 % 114 7.8 % 39 2.7 % 24 1.6 % 5 0.3 % 114 7.8 %   AA- T/AS-T 20 18 90.0 % 1 5.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 5.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %   CA 426 298 70.0 % 58 13.6 % 24 5.6 % 7 1.6 % 7 1.6 % 4 0.9 % 28 6.6 %   CC 1,517 1,132 74.6 % 175 11.5 % 72 4.7 % 21 1.4 % 31 2.0 % 6 0.4 % 80 5.3 % 2013-14                                 AA/AS 1,400 928 66.3 % 172 12.3 % 99 7.1 % 40 2.9 % 32 2.3 % 4 0.3 % 125 8.9 %   AA- T/AS-T 63 36 57.1 % 11 17.5 % 5 7.9 % 1 1.6 % 2 3.2 % 0 0.0 % 8 12.7 %   CA 399 282 70.7 % 43 10.8 % 22 5.5 % 8 2.0 % 17 4.3 % 0 0.0 % 27 6.8 %   CC 1,472 1,068 72.6 % 191 13.0 % 68 4.6 % 31 2.1 % 38 2.6 % 8 0.5 % 68 4.6 % 2014-15                                 AA/AS 1,242 788 63.4 % 179 14.4 % 122 9.8 % 42 3.4 % 24 1.9 % 4 0.3 % 83 6.7 %   AA- T/AS-T 179 99 55.3 % 35 19.6 % 20 11.2 % 6 3.4 % 5 2.8 % 0 0.0 % 14 7.8 %           CA 519 376 72.4 % 72 13.9 % 26 5.0 % 5 1.0 % 13 2.5 % 3 0.6 % 24 4.6 %   CC 808 535 66.2 % 142 17.6 % 45 5.6 % 11 1.4 % 23 2.8 % 2 0.2 % 50 6.2 %   CE 6 0 0.0 % 4 66.7 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2 33.3 % 2015-16                                 AA/AS 1,280 777 60.7 % 238 18.6 % 112 8.8 % 37 2.9 % 24 1.9 % 5 0.4 % 87 6.8 %   AA- T/AS-T 264 168 63.6 % 53 20.1 % 17 6.4 % 7 2.7 % 6 2.3 % 1 0.4 % 12 4.5 %   CA 523 368 70.4 % 82 15.7 % 22 4.2 % 9 1.7 % 8 1.5 % 6 1.1 % 28 5.4 %   CC 734 490 66.8 % 143 19.5 % 35 4.8 % 10 1.4 % 18 2.5 % 1 0.1 % 37 5.0 %   CE 16 0 0.0 % 8 50.0 % 7 43.8 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 6.3 % 2016-17                                 AA/AS 1,154 688 59.6 % 221 19.2 % 112 9.7 % 39 3.4 % 24 2.1 % 7 0.6 % 63 5.5 %   AA- T/AS-T 303 181 59.7 % 78 25.7 % 20 6.6 % 7 2.3 % 5 1.7 % 2 0.7 % 10 3.3 %   CA 519 329 63.4 % 106 20.4 % 38 7.3 % 7 1.3 % 14 2.7 % 1 0.2 % 24 4.6 %   CC 885 556 62.8 % 198 22.4 % 41 4.6 % 25 2.8 % 25 2.8 % 3 0.3 % 37 4.2 %   CE 13 1 7.7 % 8 61.5 % 1 7.7 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 3 23.1 %   Year                             Total           DSPS                 Foster Youth             Veteran            Econ Disadvantg   2012-13                     AA- T/AS-T 20 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 11 55.0 %   AA/AS 1,461 40 2.7 % 13 0.9 % 71 4.9 % 676 46.3 %   CA 426 10 2.3 % 3 0.7 % 25 5.9 % 203 47.7 %   CC 1,517 24 1.6 % 4 0.3 % 63 4.2 % 525 34.6 % 2013-14                     AA- T/AS-T 63 1 1.6 % 0 0.0 % 2 3.2 % 34 54.0 %   AA/AS 1,400 38 2.7 % 1 0.1 % 73 5.2 % 632 45.1 %   CA 399 5 1.3 % 3 0.8 % 27 6.8 % 214 53.6 %   CC 1,472 39 2.6 % 13 0.9 % 105 7.1 % 634 43.1 % 2014-15                     AA- T/AS-T 179 4 2.2 % 1 0.6 % 6 3.4 % 76 42.5 %   AA/AS 1,242 48 3.9 % 7 0.6 % 64 5.2 % 559 45.0 %   CA 519 13 2.5 % 6 1.2 % 30 5.8 % 231 44.5 %           CC 808 21 2.6 % 16 2.0 % 38 4.7 % 390 48.3 %   CE 6 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2015-16                     AA- T/AS-T 264 10 3.8 % 3 1.1 % 10 3.8 % 131 49.6 %   AA/AS 1,280 40 3.1 % 22 1.7 % 74 5.8 % 576 45.0 %   CA 523 17 3.3 % 15 2.9 % 37 7.1 % 216 41.3 %   CC 734 30 4.1 % 14 1.9 % 25 3.4 % 316 43.1 %   CE 16 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 2 12.5 % 2016-17                     AA- T/AS-T 303 10 3.3 % 5 1.7 % 18 5.9 % 146 48.2 %   AA/AS 1,154 48 4.2 % 16 1.4 % 68 5.9 % 497 43.1 %   CA 519 10 1.9 % 7 1.3 % 37 7.1 % 204 39.3 %   CC 885 42 4.7 % 19 2.1 % 39 4.4 % 407 46.0 %   CE 13 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %   Program (Major Requirements Only) - Median Months to Complete for Degrees Awarded     2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Type Median Median Median Median Median       AA/AS   36   46   37   35   29     Program (All Requirements) - Median Months to Complete for Degrees and Certificates Awarded     2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Type Median Median Median Median Median           AA/AS   66   53   58   56   36 CC   10   19   41   17   29       AA-T/AS-T   29   34   29   29   29 AA/AS   34   34   34   34   31     College (Major Requirements Only) - Median Months to Complete for Degrees Awarded     2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Type Median Median Median Median Median         2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 Type Median Median Median Median Median     College (All Requirements) - Median Months to Complete for Degrees and Certificates Awarded         AA-T/AS-T   35   46   34   36   34 AA/AS   46   46   47   46   46 CA   22   22   12   10   11 CC   17   10   8   5   8 CE           25   15   84       Part D - Number of Courses Offered: Enrollment/Fill Rates     Fall 2012                                            Fall 2013                                            Fall 2014   Course                     Mode    Title                                                         Sects   Enrlmts Success  Fill Rate      Sects   Enrlmts Success  Fill Rate   Sects   Enrlmts Success  Fill Rate   NR-20   Intro-Forestry & NR 1 31 64.5 % 91.2 % 1 28 92.9 % 82.4 % 1 33 81.8 % 97.1 % NR-26   Environmental World 0 0     1 26 73.1 % 100.0 % 1 29 69.0 % 111.5 % NR-28   Environmental Management 0 0     1 18 72.2 % 60.0 % 1 16 62.5 % 53.3 % NR-28   Environmental Managemnt 1 24 66.7 % 80.0 % 0 0     0 0     NR-55   Wildlife Management 1 30 80.0 % 107.1 % 1 26 84.6 % 92.9 % 1 31 96.8 % 110.7 % NR-56   Wildlife Mgmt Lab 1 23 78.3 % 82.1 % 0 0     0 0     NR-60   Natural Resources Law 0 0     1 34 84.8 % 97.1 % 1 27 80.0 % 77.1 % NR-70   Geospatial Data Applications 1 19 73.7 % 67.9 % 1 22 95.5 % 78.6 % 1 19 78.9 % 67.9 %                           Fall 2015                                             Fall 2016 Sects   Enrlmts Success  Fill Rate      Sects   Enrlmts Success  Fill Rate   1 28 75.0 % 116.7 % 1 26 80.8 % 108.3 % 1 27 66.7 % 103.8 % 1 24 58.3 % 92.3 % 1 21 71.4 % 87.5 % 1 22 72.7 % 91.7 % 0 0     0 0     1 23 91.3 % 95.8 % 1 22 90.9 % 91.7 % 0 0     0 0     1 25 76.0 % 71.4 % 1 28 92.6 % 80.0 % 1 28 96.4 % 100.0 % 1 22 77.3 % 78.6 %   Part E - Student Success Student Success - Program       Gender                                                  Age                                                 Local Cumulative GPA at Start of Term   Term                           Total       Male   Female                       < 18      18-24       25-49          50+                       < 2.0  2.0 - 2.5  2.6 - 3.0  3.1 - 3.5  > 3.5  No GPA   2012FA 72.4 % 75.8 % 63.9 %   66.7 % 68.3 % 75.0 % 100.0 %   54.5 % 61.9 % 91.7 % 87.5 % 94.1 % 38.5 % 2013FA 84.3 % 83.3 % 86.7 %   50.0 % 81.3 % 89.6 % 100.0 %   58.8 % 78.1 % 100.0 % 96.7 % 95.5 % 57.9 % 2014FA 79.7 % 80.7 % 75.7 %   66.7 % 76.1 % 83.0 % 100.0 %   60.0 % 73.0 % 88.6 % 88.0 % 91.7 % 63.6 % 2015FA 79.6 % 76.6 % 85.7 %   50.0 % 72.7 % 89.1 % 100.0 %   33.3 % 84.6 % 89.1 % 92.6 % 88.2 % 58.3 % 2016FA 79.0 % 75.0 % 90.0 %   100.0 % 73.1 % 86.0 % 85.7 %   40.0 % 85.2 % 93.0 % 87.5 % 78.6 % 60.0 %   2012FA 72.4 % 70.8 % 81.8 % 66.7 % 75.0 % 85.7 %   66.7 %       72.2 % 79.2 % 2013FA 84.3 % 90.8 % 57.1 % 75.0 % 100.0 % 33.3 %   66.7 %   100.0 % 50.0 % 100.0 % 91.2 % 2014FA 79.7 % 81.6 % 100.0 % 60.0 % 100.0 % 50.0 % 0.0 % 90.0 %   100.0 % 100.0 % 75.0 % 86.2 % 2015FA 79.6 % 77.7 % 100.0 % 60.0 %   91.7 %   83.3 %   81.8 % 66.7 % 100.0 % 89.7 % 2016FA 79.0 % 77.9 % 70.6 % 88.9 %   86.7 % 100.0 % 80.0 %   85.7 % 85.7 % 90.9 % 81.7 %     African  Americn     Pacific Unknwn/                                              Foster    Econ Term             Total                     White Hispanic       Asian  Americn                       Indian  Islander                   Other                     DSPS     Youth  Veteran                                   Disadv       Student Success - College   Gender                                                  Age                                                 Local Cumulative GPA at Start of Term   Term                           Total       Male   Female                       < 18      18-24       25-49          50+                       < 2.0  2.0 - 2.5  2.6 - 3.0  3.1 - 3.5  > 3.5  No GPA   2012FA 71.9 % 69.0 % 74.7 %   74.9 % 69.8 % 74.6 % 83.7 %   40.5 % 60.5 % 73.6 % 84.2 % 87.8 % 70.5 % 2013FA 70.2 % 68.1 % 72.2 %   75.0 % 68.6 % 73.3 % 71.8 %   40.8 % 61.8 % 72.5 % 83.5 % 87.9 % 64.7 % 2014FA 69.5 % 67.0 % 71.8 %   72.7 % 67.9 % 73.0 % 72.4 %   43.5 % 61.2 % 73.7 % 82.9 % 88.0 % 61.6 % 2015FA 70.6 % 68.3 % 72.9 %   73.8 % 68.5 % 75.4 % 77.8 %   41.5 % 62.2 % 74.7 % 84.5 % 88.9 % 62.8 % 2016FA 73.1 % 71.7 % 74.4 %   77.2 % 71.3 % 76.8 % 77.8 %   47.6 % 65.0 % 76.9 % 85.6 % 88.9 % 66.8 %   2012FA 71.9 % 73.7 % 67.6 % 74.0 % 59.7 % 61.7 % 60.2 % 73.6 %   67.2 % 53.2 % 74.9 % 70.5 % 2013FA 70.2 % 72.1 % 66.3 % 70.9 % 61.8 % 62.4 % 66.2 % 71.1 %   64.9 % 51.8 % 70.7 % 70.3 % 2014FA 69.5 % 70.6 % 67.2 % 73.8 % 58.2 % 64.7 % 61.9 % 71.5 %   68.5 % 51.7 % 69.2 % 69.0 % 2015FA 70.6 % 72.2 % 67.7 % 74.2 % 60.9 % 66.0 % 70.5 % 72.7 %   71.8 % 51.9 % 71.8 % 71.1 % 2016FA 73.1 % 74.9 % 69.8 % 76.0 % 64.8 % 67.2 % 76.8 % 76.4 %   72.1 % 52.8 % 73.0 % 74.1 %     African  Americn     Pacific Unknwn/                                              Foster    Econ Term             Total                     White Hispanic       Asian  Americn                       Indian  Islander                   Other                     DSPS     Youth  Veteran                                   Disadv       Part F - Persistence Focused Persistence - Program (one year) Term                                Total                       Male                     Female                 Unknown          Age 17 & Under                                       Age 18-24              Age 25-49            Age 50+               Unkno   2012FA 72 48.6 % 49 53.1 % 23 39.1 % 0   3 0.0 % 37 40.5 % 29 62.1 % 3 66.7 % 0 2013FA 77 45.5 % 57 45.6 % 20 45.0 % 0   3 33.3 % 40 40.0 % 31 48.4 % 3 100.0 % 0 2014FA 86 48.8 % 60 48.3 % 25 48.0 % 1 100.0 % 4 25.0 % 52 46.2 % 27 59.3 % 3 33.3 % 0 2015FA 77 54.5 % 54 53.7 % 21 61.9 % 2 0.0 % 2 0.0 % 57 52.6 % 14 71.4 % 4 50.0 % 0 2016FA 82 42.7 % 63 39.7 % 16 56.3 % 0   1 0.0 % 53 34.0 % 25 60.0 % 3 66.7 % 0   Term                                Total                      White                   Hispanic                    Asian             African American                                       American Indian     Pacific Islander    Unknown/Other   2012FA 72 48.6 % 54 51.9 % 6 50.0 % 3 33.3 % 2 50.0 % 4 25.0 % 0   3 33.3 % 2013FA 77 45.5 % 55 45.5 % 9 55.6 % 5 40.0 % 2 100.0 % 5 20.0 % 0   1 0.0 % 2014FA 86 48.8 % 59 52.5 % 10 50.0 % 4 25.0 % 1 0.0 % 6 33.3 % 1 0.0 % 5 60.0 % 2015FA 77 54.5 % 61 50.8 % 4 50.0 % 4 50.0 % 0   5 100.0 % 0   3 66.7 % 2016FA 82 42.7 % 48 50.0 % 12 16.7 % 8 12.5 % 0   10 40.0 % 1 100.0 % 3 100.0 %   Term                                Total                      DSPS                 Foster Youth             Veteran            Econ Disadvantg   2012FA 72 48.6 % 0   0   7 57.1 % 41 61.0 %               2013FA 77 45.5 % 3 100.0 % 2 0.0 % 7 42.9 % 44 59.1 %               2014FA 86 48.8 % 5 80.0 % 1 100.0 % 7 42.9 % 51 54.9 %               2015FA 77 54.5 % 5 60.0 % 4 75.0 % 8 100.0 % 35 62.9 %               2016FA 82 42.7 % 9 44.4 % 5 60.0 % 7 57.1 % 47 46.8 %                 wn                                     Focused Persistence - College (one year) Term                                Total                       Male                     Female                 Unknown          Age 17 & Under                                       Age 18-24              Age 25-49            Age 50+               Unkno   2013FA 10,962 59.3 % 5,240 59.8 % 5,619 58.8 % 101 62.4 % 623 63.9 % 7,030 59.5 % 2,975 57.8 % 334 60.2 % 0 2012FA 11,232 57.6 % 5,308 57.0 % 5,811 58.2 % 110 57.3 % 618 64.2 % 7,100 57.6 % 3,121 56.4 % 393 57.8 % 0 2015FA 10,450 59.4 % 4,949 59.7 % 5,353 59.1 % 88 61.4 % 607 62.9 % 6,807 60.6 % 2,750 55.7 % 286 59.4 % 0 2016FA 10,078 59.7 % 4,690 60.4 % 5,219 58.7 % 73 78.1 % 633 63.8 % 6,607 60.6 % 2,573 56.3 % 265 58.9 % 0 2014FA 10,914 58.6 % 5,219 58.2 % 5,571 59.0 % 122 58.2 % 588 62.2 % 7,197 60.0 % 2,844 54.7 % 285 55.8 % 0   Term                                Total                      White                   Hispanic                    Asian             African American                                       American Indian     Pacific Islander    Unknown/Other   2013FA 10,962 59.3 % 6,842 58.7 % 2,003 58.8 % 715 64.9 % 369 59.9 % 337 56.1 % 64 51.6 % 632 63.6 % 2012FA 11,232 57.6 % 7,320 56.7 % 1,782 58.2 % 704 64.5 % 356 54.8 % 280 57.5 % 57 59.6 % 733 59.8 % 2015FA 10,450 59.4 % 6,087 58.4 % 2,513 61.7 % 652 65.2 % 389 54.2 % 285 56.5 % 48 56.3 % 476 59.7 % 2016FA 10,078 59.7 % 5,611 58.6 % 2,618 60.6 % 686 65.6 % 384 60.4 % 312 57.1 % 51 66.7 % 416 59.4 % 2014FA 10,914 58.6 % 6,612 58.1 % 2,282 62.3 % 683 60.2 % 392 53.1 % 322 53.4 % 67 41.8 % 556 57.2 %   Term                                Total                      DSPS                 Foster Youth             Veteran            Econ Disadvantg   2013FA 10,962 59.3 % 343 70.0 % 236 55.5 % 398 66.6 % 5,362 65.3 % 2012FA 11,232 57.6 % 348 65.8 % 171 54.4 % 381 62.7 % 5,619 64.2 % 2015FA 10,450 59.4 % 395 66.1 % 324 51.9 % 336 64.3 % 4,859 65.4 % 2016FA 10,078 59.7 % 407 66.1 % 333 55.9 % 312 66.7 % 4,225 68.6 % 2014FA 10,914 58.6 % 398 67.3 % 307 51.5 % 364 60.2 % 5,331 63.5 %     Part G - Faculty Demographics Faculty Gender/Age - Program Term                           Total            Male                    Female                  Unknown          Age 35 & Under          Age 36-49                                  Age 50+       Unknown   Fall 2012                               Full-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Fall 2013                               Full-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Part-time 1 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % Fall 2014                               Full-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Part-time 1 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 %   wn         Fall 2015                               Full-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % Part-time 1 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % Fall 2016                               Full-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % Part-time 1 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 %   Faculty Ethnicity - Program Term                           Total           White                   Hispanic                  Asian             African American    American Indian                                   Pacific Islander                      Unknown/Other   Fall 2012                               Full-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Fall 2013                               Full-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Part-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Fall 2014                               Full-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Part-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Fall 2015                               Full-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Part-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Fall 2016                               Full-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % Part-time 1 1 100.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 % 0 0.0 %     Part H - Faculty Load Faculty Load - Program Term                           Total               Full-Time  Overld/Load Bank               Part-Time      Voluntary Overld  Contract Services                      Admin Load   2012FA 0.54 0.54           2013FA 0.75 0.62 0.03 0.10       2014FA 0.75 0.62 0.03 0.10       2015FA 0.75 0.54 0.11 0.10       2016FA 0.75 0.50 0.15 0.10         Faculty Load - College Term                           Total               Full-Time  Overld/Load Bank               Part-Time      Voluntary Overld  Contract Services                      Admin Load   2012FA 169.75 64.33 9.92 83.41 0.65 10.95 0.50 2013FA 176.84 64.13 9.00 90.47 1.06 11.78 0.38 2014FA 182.15 64.36 9.85 89.31 0.56 17.67 0.39 2015FA 192.73 65.14 10.62 89.85   26.71 0.42 2016FA 196.08 67.96 11.00 83.57 0.25 32.83 0.43     Part I - SURE Report Data Year                                     Revenue                       Cost  Rev to Cost Ratio   2012-13 $141,972 $107,032 1.33 2013-14 $151,134 $119,692 1.26 2014-15 $171,921 $141,010 1.22 2015-16 $187,505 $129,324 1.45 2016-17   $155,064       Part J - Program Percentage of Total Distict FTES Term                         % of Total FTES   2012FA 0.30% 2013FA 0.40% 2014FA 0.42% 2015FA 0.42% 2016FA 0.40%

Standards/Goals for Student Achievement (All Other Departments)



DistrictStandards and Goals (2017)


 


Purpose. This document consolidates information about standards and goals that the District must provide to the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) as part of its annual report and to the state through the Institutional Effectiveness Partnership Initiative (IEPI).


Background.  The Educational Master Planning Committee reviews and refines the Connection/Entry, Progress/Completion, and Program standards and goals each year as part of its process to determine the annual Strategic Direction.  The Planning and Budget Committee reviews and refines the Compliance Standards and Goals. These standards and goals are then approved through the general governance process. Performance against these standards and goals is provided to the Board using the Balanced Scorecard. Units are asked to align their performance with the District’s standards and goals during unit planning.


Description.  This document is formatted into three parts – 1) Connection and Entry Outcomes, 2) Progress and Completion Outcomes, 3) Compliance Outcomes, and 4) Program Outcomes. For each indicator there is a description, the data source for the indicator (State Datamart – DM, State Student Success Scorecard – SC, IEPI – I, Perkins Reporting – PK, District – D, or Program – PM), current performance, standards where these are required for accreditation or defined by the District, six-year and one-year goals where these are required by IEPI or defined by the District, and performance over the previous four years where this is available. See notes for explanation of asterisks and highlights.


Connection and Entry Outcomes


 








 


Indicator




 


Data




Current Performance, Standards and Goals




Past Performance








2015-2016


Performance




Standard




SixYearGoal




One YearGoal




2014-2015


Performance




2013-2014


Performance




2012-2013


Performance




2011-2012


Performance








Course Success - Fall




 








-      Overall (ACCJC, IEPI)*




DM




72.1%




70%




74%




73%




70.6%




71.1%




71.8%




70.6%








-      Transfer/GE




DM




72.9%




 




74%




73%




71.7%




72.5%




72.9%




72.0%








-      CTE




DM




77.4%




 




78%




77%




75.3%




75.6%




75.6%




75.1%








-      Basic Skills (IEPI)




DM




55.7%




 




58%




56%




51.7%




56.9%




61.6%




57.0%








-      Distance Ed – All




DM




64.5%




 




67%




65%




62.6%




63.1%




64.4%




60.4%








Persistence– Three Term – Six Year Cohort (ACCJC)




SC




74.2%




67%




76%




75%




71.8%




72.5%




70.1%




72.5%








Developmental Strand Completion (IEPI) -




 








-      English




SC




41.5%




 




45%




44%




43.7%




42.0%




38.7%




40.1%








-      Math




SC




36.1%




 




40%




37%




33.9%




30.7%




29.2%




27.8%








-      ESL




SC




Suppressed




 




45%




35%




42.9%




25%




33.3%




Suppressed










 




 








TransferLevel Math and English Completion (IEPI) -




 








-      English within 1 Year




SC




66.5%




 




75%




70%




67.4%




63.2%




55.4%




42.5%








-      English within 2 Years




SC




79.4%




 




86%




83%




79.2%




77.7%




71.3%




61.7%








-      Math with 1 Year




SC




24.8%




 




28%




25%




20.6%




14.8%




16.7%




21.0%








-      Math within 2 Years***




SC




38.6%




 




42%




39%




37.1%




32.1%




31.4%




33.9%








 


Progressand Completion Outcomes








 


Indicator




 


Data




Current Performance, Standards and Goals




Past Performance








2015-2016


Performance




Standard




SixYearGoal




One YearGoal




2014-2015


Performance




2013-2014


Performance




2012-2013


Performance




2011-2012


Performance








CTE Completion (IEPI)




SC




60.2%




 




63%




61%




57.7%




58.4%




56.7%




57.5%








CTE Skills Builders – median percentage change in wages (IEPI)




SC




+46.4%




 




 




 




+24.5%




NA




NA




NA








Certificates(ACCJC,IEPI)




I




502




400




575




530




527




366




383




391








-      Low unit Certificates




I




601




 




 




 




742




1,454




1,477




1,395








Degrees(ACCJC,IEPI)




I




1,541




1,150




1,600




1,550




1,420




1,455




1,472




1,274








Median Time to Degree




D




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 








-      AA/AS Degree




D




46




 




 




 




47




46




46




46








-      ADT Degree




D




36




 




 




 




34




46




35




NA








CompletionRate (IEPI)




 








-      Overall




SC




45.7%




 




49%




46%




43.2%




43.6%




45.4%




45.3%








-      Prepared




SC




69.1%




 




72%




70%




68.0%




65.9%




65.6%




67.7%








-      Unprepared **




SC




38.9%




 




43%




40%




36.4%




37.6%




39.4%




39.6%








Transfer (IEPI)




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 








-      UC




D




48




 




 




 




46




47




37




50








-      CSU




D




877




 




 




 




711




847




755




696








-      UC+CSU (Accred)




D




925




750




1,100




950




757




894




792




746








-      CSU, Chico




D




750




 




 




 




606




739




660




575








-      In-State Private




DM




23




 




 




 




25




36




29




39








-      Out-of-State




DM




84




 




 




 




74




112




122




99










 




 


 


 


ComplianceOutcomes








 


Indicator




 


Data




Current Performance, Standards and Goals




Past Performance








2015-2016


Performance




Standard




SixYearGoal




One YearGoal




2014-2015


Performance




2013-2014


Performance




2012-2013


Performance




2011-2012


Performance








Accreditation (ACCJC)(IEPI)*




D




Reaffirmed (FA-RA)




Reaffirmed (FA-RA)




FA-RA




FA-RA




Reaffirmed (FA-RA)




Reaffirmed (FA-RA)




Reaffirmed (FA-RA)




Reaffirmed (FA-RA)








 




DistrictParticipation Rate,




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 








 




18-24 population (IEPI)




 








Fund Balance (State)(IEPI)*




I




29.3%




25%




25%




25%




30.6%




27.9%




25.6%




26.2%








Cash Balance (IEPI)




I




29,061,446




 




 




 




42,087,331




28,539,164




15,755,532




13,252,852








Annual Operating Excess/(Deficiency) (IEPI)




I




1,950,305




 




 




 




2,060,498




1,604,099




292,889




(1,083,168)








Audit Findings (State)(IEPI)*




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 








-      Financial Statement




D




Yes Unmodified




Yes




Yes




Yes




Yes Unmodified




Yes Unmodified




Yes Unmodified




Yes Unmodified








-      State Compliance




D




Yes Unmodified




Yes




Yes




Yes




Yes Unmodified




Yes Unmodified




Yes Unmodified




Yes Unmodified








-      Federal Compliance




D




Yes Unmodified




Yes




Yes




Yes




Yes Unmodified




Yes Unmodified




Yes Unmodified




Yes Unmodified








FTES (IEPI)




I




10,865.4




 




 




 




10,596.2




11,143.0




10,877.8




11,636.6








Salary and Benefits (IEPI)




I




89.0%




 




 




 




88.7%




90.1%




89.3%




89%








 




OPEB Liability(IEPI)




 




D




 




 




 




 




 




 




 




 






 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 






 


ProgramOutcomes








 


Indicator




 


Data




Current Performance, Standards and Goals




Past Performance








2015-2016


Performance




Standard




SixYearGoal




One YearGoal




2014-2015


Performance




2013-2014


Performance




2012-2013


Performance




2011-2012


Performance








Licensure Pass Rates (ACCJC)




 








-      Registered Nursing




PM




84%




80%




90%




85%




92%




86%




96%




96%








-      Licensed Vocational Nursing




PM




98%




85%




95%




90%




87%




86%




100%




100%








-      Respiratory Therapy




PM




76%




70%




85%




80%




97%




100%




97%




97%








-      Paramedic




PM




100%




75%




100%




90%




85%




75%




100%




100%










 




 








-      Cosmetology




PM




95%




75%




95%




85%




86%




85%




87%




86%








-      Welding




PM




93%




85%




95%




93%




92%




94%




91%




91%








EmploymentRates. The data below looks at Perkins IV core indicator 4 to examine CTE program employment outcomes. Because this indicator looks for employment in a program area for one year following a cohort completion, employment outcomes data for CTE programs are one year behind outcomes in other categories. THE METHODOLOGY WAS CHANGED FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE CHANGE IN STANDARDS REFLECT A CHANGE IN THE METHODOLOGY RATHER THAN PROGRAM PERFORMANCE








 


Indicator




 


Data




Current Performance, Standards and Goals




Past Performance








2014-2015


Performance




Standard




SixYearGoal




One YearGoal




2013-2014


Performance




2012-2013


Performance




2011-2012


Performance




2010-2011


Performance








-      Agriculture Technology and Science




PK




69%




60%




71%




 




87%




63%




65%




80%








-      Horticulture




PK




56%




45%




65%




 




63%




64%




31%




65%








-      Natural Resources




PK




93%




50%




72%




 




69%




54%




67%




57%








-      Accounting




PK




71%




65%




79%




 




75%




69%




67%




77%








-      Business Admin




PK




79%




50%




80%




 




68%




68%




60%




77%








-      Business Management




PK




64%




55%




72%




 




61%




68%




72%




68%








-      Office Technology




PK




72%




50%




70%




 




54%




42%




50%




66%








-      Digital Media




PK




50%




40%




58%




 




52%




52%




50%




56%








-      Computer Software




PK




50%




45%




58%




 




57%




Suppressed




43%




80%








-      Computer Infrastructure




PK




57%




35%




60%




 




Suppressed




44%




44%




50%








-      Diesel Technology




PK




94%




55%




72%




 




59%




55%




57%




78%








-      Automotive Technology




PK




93%




60%




74%




 




68%




49%




63%




68%








-      Welding




PK




87%




70%




90%




 




72%




72%




83%




89%








-      Respiratory Care




PK




90%




70%




87%




 




79%




79%




73%




85%








-      Nursing




PK




90%




80%




93%




 




88%




87%




91%




91%








-      Paramedic




PK




85%




80%




88%




 




86%




72%




74%




82%








-      Child Development and Early Childhood Education




PK




76%




65%




78%




 




64%




73%




68%




76%








-      Admin of Justice




PK




90%




75%




92%




 




86%




76%




77%




83%








-      Fire Technology




PK




83%




75%




88%




 




79%




73%




74%




85%








-      Cosmetology




PK




62%




50%




65%




 




62%




49%




45%




60%










 


Notes


 


 


All ACCJC items must be reported annually.


IEPIitemsmarkedwith an asterisk (*) must be reported to IEPI


IEPIitemmarked with twoasterisks(**) is required basic skills IEPI indicator


IEPIitemmarked with three asterisks (***) is the other required optional IEPI indicator Standards and/or goals highlighted in Green have been increased


Standards and/or goals highlighted in Yellow are new based on changes to ACCJC or IEPI indicators or requirements


Standards and/or goals highlighted in Red/Orange have been lowered based on changes in methodology, data patterns, and the way the standards and goals are attained (e.g. licensing process for RN and RT were changed to be more rigorous and changes will impact licensure results)


Areas highlighted in Yellow are indicators for which data is not yet available

Strategic Direction

The Natural Resources Department supports the college in meeting its Strategic Direction and Priorities in the following ways:


Strategic Initiative 1 - The Natural Resources Managment department is focused on getting students to complete the program or transfer to four year colleges and universities (1.d). We prepare students with the necessary skills for employment with agencies (NGOs) in the natural resources industry. The department advisor has actively engaged students in planning their academic and career goals.


Strategic Initiative 2 - The Natural Resources Managment department is actively participating in professional development for its faculty member so that training, experience, and opportunities are passed on to the student to make their education relative to demands of the industry.


Strategic Initiative 5 - The Natural Resources Managment department provides educational opportunities in the area of sustainability with its curriculum focusing heavily on sustainable development and wise use of our natural resources. The 928 acre "classroom" is used extensively in all of our courses and labs to emphasize sustainable resource use. We focus on natural resource conservation through practical application of concepts learned in the classroom. We apply these concepts to the wildlife refuge at Butte College.

Program Review

Natural Resources Management program review was completed during the 2013-14 academic year with the following outcomes. Past Advisory Committee recommendations and recommendations from the Curriculum Committee and Technical Review Committee have been implemented in the past few years with the creation of NR 70, Geospatial Data Applications, NR 40, Watershed Ecology and Habitat Restoration, and now NR 12, Dendrology and Native Plant Identification, along with supplements to the curriculum of previously existing courses.


Also, the program now has only one degree, an AS in Natural Resources Management, to avoid student confusion and to increase or decrease the amount of units required from the old degrees in Natural Resources or Natural Resources/Parks and Recreation, respectively. With this new degree there are four new certificates of achievement; Parks and Recreation, Wildlife Technician, Ecological Restoration, and (NEW)Forestry Technician. New certificate requirements will published for the first time in the 2018-2019 catalog.


 


 

Department Goals

Equip students with the necessary skills and education to obtain employment in the vast field of natural resource management. We are also striving to increase enrollment and student completeion in the degree and certificate programs.

Future Development Strategies

Strategy 1 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 1

  • Equip students with the skill sets and encourage them to complete their degrees and certificates and move on to employment or a four year institution.

 

 


Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Enhancing a Culture of Completion and Academic Achievement
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Using Data-Informed Processes for Continuous Improvement
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning
  • Enhancing a Culture of Inclusiveness

Supporting Rationale
  • Above strategies support the most recent program review recommendations as well as those recommendation of the Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee.
  • Student success in this program relies on teaching the skills and knowledge base to meet employer needs in the broad field of natural resources management.

Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: Yes
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: No

Strategy 2 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 2

  • Use data to revise teaching and classroom assignments to improve success rates of SLO's, PLO's, and GELO's.

Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Enhancing a Culture of Completion and Academic Achievement
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Using Data-Informed Processes for Continuous Improvement
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning

Supporting Rationale

  • Student Learning Outcomes have been assessed and assignments and teaching methods have either been revised or reaffirmed according to the data collected.
  • Student success in this program relies on teaching the skills and knowledge base to meet employer needs in the broad field of natural resources management.

Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: No
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: Yes

Strategy 3 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 3

  • Development of on-campus Agriculture/Natural Resources training facility for students.

Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning

Supporting Rationale

  • Above strategies support the most recent program review recommendations as well as those recommendation of the Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee.
  • Student success in this program relies on teaching the skills and knowledge base to meet employer needs in the broad field of natural resources management.
  • Since a new facility is a long way off, perhaps an update on antiquated facilities in the classroom is in order.

Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: Yes
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: No

Strategy 4 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 4

  • Continued collaboration with governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations (i.e., CDFW, DWR, State Parks, USF&WS, USFS, BLM, NRCS, River Partners, the Nature Conservancy, et cetera).

Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Enhancing a Culture of Completion and Academic Achievement
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Using Data-Informed Processes for Continuous Improvement
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning
  • Enhancing a Culture of Inclusiveness

Supporting Rationale

  • Above strategies support the most recent program review recommendations as well as those recommendation of the Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee.
  • Student success in this program relies on teaching the skills and knowledge base to meet employer needs in the broad field of natural resources management.

Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: Yes
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: No

Strategy 5 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 5

  • Continued implementation of recommendations by Program's Advisory Committee.

Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Enhancing a Culture of Completion and Academic Achievement
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Using Data-Informed Processes for Continuous Improvement
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning

Supporting Rationale

  • Above strategies support the most recent program review recommendations as well as those recommendation of the Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee.
  • Student success in this program relies on teaching the skills and knowledge base to meet employer needs in the broad field of natural resources management.

Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: Yes
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: No

Strategy 6 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 6

  • Expand Natural Resource Program to cover all aspects of natural resources and keep up with technological advancements to meet the needs for employees by government agencies and the private sector.

Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Enhancing a Culture of Completion and Academic Achievement
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Using Data-Informed Processes for Continuous Improvement
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning
  • Enhancing a Culture of Inclusiveness

Supporting Rationale

  • Above strategies support the most recent program review recommendations as well as those recommendation of the Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee.
  • Student Learning Outcomes have been assessed and assignments and teaching methods have either been revised or reaffirmed according to the data collected.
  • Student success in this program relies on teaching the skills and knowledge base to meet employer needs in the broad field of natural resources management.
  • Butte College fosters community by actively promoting an environment that celebrates the uniqueness of each individual. The Campus climate is characterized by diversity, understanding, mutual respect, and inclusiveness.

 


Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: Yes
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: Yes

Strategy 7 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 7

  • Expand outreach and recruitment to underserved demographics at the high school level.

Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Enhancing a Culture of Completion and Academic Achievement
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Using Data-Informed Processes for Continuous Improvement
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning
  • Enhancing a Culture of Inclusiveness

Supporting Rationale

  • Butte College fosters community by actively promoting an environment that celebrates the uniqueness of each individual. The Campus climate is characterized by diversity, understanding, mutual respect, and inclusiveness.

 


Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: Yes
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: No

Strategy 8 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 8

  • Articulate Program's courses with four year institutions that have not yet been articulated (still in progress).

Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Enhancing a Culture of Completion and Academic Achievement
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Using Data-Informed Processes for Continuous Improvement
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning
  • Enhancing a Culture of Inclusiveness

Supporting Rationale

  • Above strategies support the most recent program review recommendations as well as those recommendation of the Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee.
  • Student Learning Outcomes have been assessed and assignments and teaching methods have either been revised or reaffirmed according to the data collected.
  • Student success in this program relies on teaching the skills and knowledge base to meet employer needs in the broad field of natural resources management.
  • Butte College fosters community by actively promoting an environment that celebrates the uniqueness of each individual. The Campus climate is characterized by diversity, understanding, mutual respect, and inclusiveness.

 


Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: Yes
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: Yes

Strategy 9 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 9

  • Continue to emphasize sustainable development and conservation in all Natural Resources Management coursework. 

Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Using Data-Informed Processes for Continuous Improvement
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning

Supporting Rationale

  • Above strategies support the most recent program review recommendations as well as those recommendation of the Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee.
  • Student success in this program relies on teaching the skills and knowledge base to meet employer needs in the broad field of natural resources management.

Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: Yes
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: No

Strategy 10 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 10

  • Provide transportation accomodations to all students, including disabled and economically disadvantaged students, both temporary and permanent, so they can reach laboratory activities on our 928 acre outdoor classroom.

Initiatives
  • Enhancing a Culture of Completion and Academic Achievement
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning
  • Enhancing a Culture of Inclusiveness

Supporting Rationale
  • Students have the right to request reasonable modifications to college requirements, services, facilities or programs if their documented disability imposes an educational limitation or impedes access to such requirements, services, facilities or programs. Health and safety should also be a top priority here.

Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: No
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: No

Strategy 11 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 11

  • Provide a computer lab with computers that are sufficient to run the ArcGIS and Google Earth Pro software packages so that student learning can be achieved.

Initiatives
  • Enhancing a Culture of Completion and Academic Achievement
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Using Data-Informed Processes for Continuous Improvement
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning

Supporting Rationale
  • Recent computer lab accomodations have been sorely inadequate to efficiently run the GIS software packages.

Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: Yes
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: Yes

Strategy 12 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 12

  • Provide bus transportation to and from field trips for laboratories. 

Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning
  • Enhancing a Culture of Inclusiveness

Supporting Rationale
  • This is much safer and more efficient and sustainable than using a 15 passenger van for 24 students. Half of the student are currently driving their own vehicles to field trip destinations and back.

Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: No
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: No

Strategy 13 - Natural Resources Management Program Strategy 13

Bring Ag techs and mechanics back to full time for the enhanced support of student learning.


Initiatives
  • Modeling Sustainability
  • Enhancing a Culture of Completion and Academic Achievement
  • Supporting Student, Faculty and Staff Success
  • Maximizing Resources to Support Student Learning

Supporting Rationale

Student learning depends on support from our Ag Techs and Mechanics. There have been several instances where we needed them to do something for class suport and they were off due to their reduced contracts. It has come to our attention that all other support position contracts that were cut back in 2008 have all been reinstated. The only ones that haven't are our Ag Techs and Mechanics. 


Supporting Rationale Alignment
Supports Previous Program Review Recommendations: No
Supports Changes from Student Learning Outcomes Assessment: No

Requested Non-Financial Resources

None at this time.

Current Financial Resources

The Natural Resources Management program’s modest budget of $16,070 per year is not sufficient to alow replacement of outdated equipment and increase capabilities, including travel and conferences for faculty. Some of the items requested in augumentation may be funded by outside sources such as Perkins but it seems these funds are impossible to get. None of the augumentation requests from 2017-2018 were funded. The department requests an increase of the department budget to $55,000 for equipment replacement, increase in capabilities, and for new computers to run GIS software packages.

Augmentation Requests

Original Priority Program, Unit, Area Resource Type Account Number Object Code One Time Augment Ongoing Augment
Description Supporting Rationale Potential Alternative Funding Sources Prioritization Criteria
1 NRM, Ag/Env.Sci., CTE Personnel $0.00 $35,000.00
Restore Ag/EH/NRM Supporting Staff to 100% Contract Most staff on Campus have been restored to the pre-2008 budget crunch 100% contract from the 10% reduction of the time. Our programs suffer due to the staffing shortfalls which means our students are missing out on potential educational opportunities. Those affected are the Ag Mechanics (also sharing time with Auto and Welding), the Farm Technician, and the Greenhouse Technician, all critical to the Natural Resources Management program.
  • Instructional Equipment
  • Addressing Health/Life/Safety issues
  • Maintaining ongoing operations at current levels (excludes grants)
  • Meeting Standards and Goals for Student Achievement
  • Implementing the 2018-2019 Strategic Direction Priorities
  • Addressing Program Review Recommendations
  • Implementing improvements identified during Outcomes Assessment
  • Continuing to implement Learning Outcomes (Course, Program, General Education, Administrative and Student Services) to include disaggregating data by student characteristics
  • Meeting standards and working to achieve goals for course success, retention, degree achievement, certificate completion, transfer, and credentialing
  • Providing comparable support services for online students and students attending at off-campus centers
2 NRM, Ag/Env.Sci., CTE Equipment $30,000.00 $0.00
28 New Computers to adequately run the software for NR 70 Assessment Plan: Students will demonstrate proficiencies in the areas described in SLO H by completing the midterm and final on the laboratory computers and presenting them to the instructor. Assessment Results: Fall 2017 NR 70 SLO H could not be assessed entirely due to the inadequacy of the new computer sytem installed in LRC 121 over the summer of 2017. The new "Thin Client" computer system lacks power, file storage capabilities, and hardware to properly use the ArcGIS and Google Earth Pro software packages, and thus, hinders student learning and assessment. Natural Resources Management and Geography was not consulted as to the requirements of their software packages resulting in the installation of inadequate machines. Collective Dialogue: Fall 2018 NR 70 can not be taught in a computer lab with a "Thin Client" system because SLO's cannot be assessed and those computers are a barrier to student learning where ArcGIS and Google Earth Pro software packages are concerned. These software packages evolve rather quickly and require newer machines and operating systems (Microsoft Only) with ample power, graphics cards, and stand alone computational capabilities. Planned Improvements: Request for one-time augmentation in this unit plan for a computer lab with 28 new, stand-alone computers with a Microsoft operating system, ample power, and graphics cards to teach not only NR 70 but GEOG 20 as well.
  • Instructional Equipment
  • Maintaining ongoing operations at current levels (excludes grants)
  • Implementing the 2018-2019 Strategic Direction Priorities
  • Meeting Standards and Goals for Student Achievement
  • Addressing Program Review Recommendations
  • Implementing improvements identified during Outcomes Assessment
  • Continuing to implement Learning Outcomes (Course, Program, General Education, Administrative and Student Services) to include disaggregating data by student characteristics
  • Meeting standards and working to achieve goals for course success, retention, degree achievement, certificate completion, transfer, and credentialing
3 NRM, Ag/Env.Sci., CTE Operating Expenses $5,000.00 $5,000.00
Bus Expenses for Field Trips The Ag field trip van has become problematic in that not all students can ride in a 15 passenger van when there are 24 students in a class. The liability issues with students driving themselves is insane. Also, students get lost while driving themselves and do not make the destination for the learning experience. Additionally, other classes or clubs use the van and it is not always available. We have asked for an additional van for a few years now and have received nothing. Lastly, we had a student that made 4 other students miss the bus home following a field trip last semester because we had to go back for him.
  • Transportation Fee
  • Addressing Health/Life/Safety issues
  • Providing comparable support services for online students and students attending at off-campus centers
4 NRM, Ag/Env.Sci., CTE Facilities $8,215.00 $0.00
LS 127 needs 30 new chairs for students: TSNAU--/BL--NFR-/PBL-/NFR-GRD2-2BUPHBRACKET-/2BGL-/NGL Torsion Sled Base Chair,Armless,Uph Seat/Back OPTION: /BL:Black OPTION: -NFR:No Fire Retardant OPTION: /PBL:Black OPTION: /NFR:Compliance to TB 117-2013 OPTION: GRD2:Fabric Grade 2 OPTION: 2BUPHBRACKET:2B BRACKET OPTION: /2BGL:GULL OPTION: /NGL:No glides Student chairs in LS 127 are uncomfortable relics from what I believe is the Durham Campus. Most have some sort of structural issue and students tend to struggle with sitting for any length of time. This results in reduced attention to lecture or lab activities and therefore, reduced learning.
  • Scheduled Maintenance (Facilities)
  • Maintaining life-cycle replacement for computer labs, smart classrooms, and faculty and staff computers
  • Maintaining ongoing operations at current levels (excludes grants)
  • Implementing the 2018-2019 Strategic Direction Priorities
5 NRM, Ag/Env.Sci, CTE Equipment $18,000.00 $0.00
1-2017 Kawasaki Mule Pro-FXT EPS LE The NR program needs its' own dedicated "Mule". Frequently, the other quads and mules on campus are unavailable. We have many classes that need accessibility to the over 900 acres for laboratory work on our campus that cannot be reached by standard pickup truck (plus accessibility for disabled students). Also, due to the lack of restroom facilities at the far reaches of Campus, we need a transportation vehicle to move students to and from facilities throughout the duration of laboratory activities.
  • Career and Technical Education - Perkins
  • Addressing Health/Life/Safety issues
  • Meeting Standards and Goals for Student Achievement
  • Implementing the 2018-2019 Strategic Direction Priorities
  • Addressing Program Review Recommendations
  • Continuing to implement Learning Outcomes (Course, Program, General Education, Administrative and Student Services) to include disaggregating data by student characteristics
  • Meeting standards and working to achieve goals for course success, retention, degree achievement, certificate completion, transfer, and credentialing