Skip to Content

American River College Integrated Planning System Reports

2021 Disproportionate Impact for Art New Media Overall
Drop Rate Metric (F18-S21)

The following is intended to provide an overview of where disproportionate impact (DI) exists in the Drop Rates (% W notations) of different racial/ethnic groups within your planning unit. Greater detail can be found in the Department DI Detail Spreadsheets which are available for each of the course designators in your department (ARTNM). These nine-tab spreadsheets show your DI data at the department and course level, disaggregated by race, gender, and gender within race. (To protect the identity of faculty, DI statistics are provided only for courses that have been taught by at least three faculty members during the three years we merge for these reports. An unrestricted report may be obtained if all of a planning unit’s faculty are agreeable, and doing so typically results in DI data being reported for additional courses beyond those shown in the restricted version of the reports.)

Please refer to ARC’s DI Interpretation Guide for assistance in understanding and differentiating between ARC’s two DI reports (the web-based report shown here and the Dept DI Detail Spreadsheet(s), linked above)

Course African/
American
Asian Filipino Hispanic/
Latino
Multi-
Race
Native/
American
Other/
Non-White
Pacific/
Islander
White Unknown
ARTNM 302 red green yellow red red yellow yellow yellow red yellow
ARTNM 303 green yellow yellow red green yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 305 red green yellow green green yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 320 yellow yellow yellow green yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 322 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 324 green green yellow red green yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 325 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 326 yellow green yellow lightred P yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 328 green green yellow green red yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 330 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 332 green yellow yellow red yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 352 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 354 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 358 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 359 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 370 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow
ARTNM 372 yellow yellow yellow green yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 373 yellow green yellow green yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 401 red green yellow lightred P red yellow yellow yellow red yellow
ARTNM 402 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 404 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 405 red green yellow green lightred P yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 420 yellow yellow yellow green green yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 421 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 422 yellow green yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow lightred P yellow
ARTNM 423 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 429 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow
ARTNM 431 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 450 yellow yellow yellow green yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow
ARTNM 498 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow
ARTNM 499 yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow yellow green yellow

The Disproportionate Impact methodology shown here reflects the four different methodologies recommended by the State Chancellor's Office, including the most recent, the Percentage Point Gap Methodology with Margin of Error. Applied to the success rates of the courses your unit has offered over the last three years, the above table shows the following:

  • red     Groups with success rates showing Definite DI
  • lightred P     Groups with success rates showing Potential DI (rates within 3 points of the group’s DI threshold)
  • yellow     Groups with success rates that may possibly have DI, but for which too little data exists to be sure (<10)
  • green     Groups with success rates showing No Measurable DI

Download PDF