Data: Spring 2024 – Spring 2026
Student Education Plan Analysis Dashboard
Analyzing ed plan coverage, demographic equity, academic performance impacts, and the case for limiting concurrent academic plans across the district.
Data: Spring 2024 – Spring 2026
Analyzing ed plan coverage, demographic equity, academic performance impacts, and the case for limiting concurrent academic plans across the district.
| Ethnicity | Total Students | With Any Plan | % With Plan | With Comprehensive | % Comprehensive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Native American | 4,091 | 1,346 | 32.9% | 1,101 | 26.9% |
| Black/African-American | 13,809 | 4,351 | 31.5% | 3,535 | 25.6% |
| Pacific Islander | 516 | 161 | 31.2% | 137 | 26.6% |
| Asian | 21,916 | 6,586 | 30.1% | 5,427 | 24.8% |
| Hispanic/Latinx | 54,609 | 16,397 | 30.0% | 13,259 | 24.3% |
| Unknown | 2,196 | 470 | 21.4% | 378 | 17.2% |
| White | 72,020 | 9,549 | 13.3% | 7,677 | 10.7% |
White students are the largest population (72,020) but have the lowest ed plan rate at 13.3% — a 19.6 percentage point gap from the highest-performing group. Equity programs like UMOJA and Puente are demonstrably reaching targeted populations; the gap now is in general-population advising infrastructure.
The 18–24 cohort leads at 37.2%. Dual enrollment students (under 18) and adult learners (50+) are especially underserved.
Female students (24.3%) slightly outpace male students (21.7%). All groups remain critically below target.
The GPA lift from ed plans is universal — every ethnic group shows a 1.1 to 2.1 point improvement. White students show the largest gap (+2.13), driven by an unusually low 0.53 GPA among those without plans.
Students with 2–3 plans show the highest GPAs (~2.74–2.97), suggesting moderate exploration correlates with engagement. Students with only 1 plan average just 1.08 — many are system-assigned without counselor intervention.
| Ethnicity | N (With Plan) | GPA (With Plan) | N (No Plan) | GPA (No Plan) | GPA Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| White | 9,549 | 2.666 | 59,694 | 0.533 | +2.133 |
| Pacific Islander | 161 | 2.501 | 328 | 0.857 | +1.644 |
| Asian | 6,586 | 2.765 | 14,148 | 1.465 | +1.300 |
| Hispanic/Latinx | 16,397 | 2.341 | 35,285 | 1.043 | +1.298 |
| Black/African-American | 4,351 | 2.190 | 8,789 | 0.944 | +1.246 |
| Native American | 1,346 | 2.411 | 2,535 | 1.297 | +1.114 |
The Plan Change (PLNC) system tracks every academic plan and its advisement status. "Include" plans are active for advisement reporting. "Do Not Include" plans were previously active but have been deactivated. Together, they reveal the full scope of plan accumulation and churn.
| PLNC Status | Records | Students | Mean Plans/Student | Max Plans | >3 Plans | >6 Plans |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Include (Active) | 45,099 | 34,979 | 1.29 | 8 | 545 | 16 |
| Do Not Include (Deactivated) | 6,534 | 4,527 | 1.44 | 9 | 176 | 8 |
| Optional | 40 | 37 | 1.08 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Combined (All Statuses) | 51,673 | 35,000 | 1.48 | 11 | 1,174 | 49 |
| Active Plans | Students | % | Cumul. % | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 plan | 27,361 | 78.2% | 78.2% | ✓ |
| 2 plans | 5,996 | 17.1% | 95.4% | ✓ |
| 3 plans | 1,077 | 3.1% | 98.4% | ← Limit |
| 4 plans | 316 | 0.9% | 99.3% | Exceeds |
| 5 plans | 142 | 0.4% | 99.7% | Exceeds |
| 6 plans | 71 | 0.2% | 99.9% | At NSC max |
| 7–8 plans | 16 | 0.05% | 100% | ⚠ Over NSC |
| DNI Plans | Students | % | Cumul. % | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 plan | 3,248 | 71.7% | 71.7% | — |
| 2 plans | 832 | 18.4% | 90.1% | — |
| 3 plans | 271 | 6.0% | 96.1% | — |
| 4 plans | 109 | 2.4% | 98.5% | Exceeds |
| 5 plans | 41 | 0.9% | 99.4% | Exceeds |
| 6 plans | 18 | 0.4% | 99.8% | At limit |
| 7–9 plans | 8 | 0.2% | 100% | Over limit |
When both active and deactivated plans are counted together, the cumulative system burden becomes clear. Each plan — active or historical — consumed counselor time, generated degree audit records, and added processing load.
| Total Distinct Plans | Students | % of Total | Cumulative % | >3 Threshold | >6 NSC Limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 plan | 23,473 | 67.1% | 67.1% | — | — |
| 2 plans | 8,307 | 23.7% | 90.8% | — | — |
| 3 plans | 2,046 | 5.8% | 96.6% | — | — |
| 4 plans | 683 | 2.0% | 98.6% | Exceeds | — |
| 5 plans | 309 | 0.9% | 99.5% | Exceeds | — |
| 6 plans | 133 | 0.4% | 99.9% | Exceeds | At max |
| 7–11 plans | 49 | 0.1% | 100% | Exceeds | ⚠ Over max |
Combined, 1,174 students have been associated with more than 3 distinct plans — over double the 545 seen in active plans alone. 49 students have touched more than 6 programs total, with one reaching 11.
Nearly all "Do Not Include" students (4,508 of 4,527) also have active "Include" plans — confirming that deactivations represent plan cycling, not just dropouts.
Example: A student may carry Business Administration with CSU GE, IGETC, and CalGETC patterns simultaneously — three plans that all lead to the same degree but differ only in GE pathway. This inflates plan counts and confuses degree audit without benefiting the student.
| Campus | Include (Active) | Do Not Include (Deactivated) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Students | Plans/St. | >3 | >6 | Students | Plans/St. | >3 | >6 | |
| City College | 10,591 | 1.26 | 119 | 2 | 1,660 | 1.38 | 44 | 2 |
| Mesa College | 14,483 | 1.18 | 52 | 0 | 1,220 | 1.30 | 27 | 1 |
| Miramar College | 9,905 | 1.48 | 374 | 14 | 1,647 | 1.61 | 105 | 5 |
Miramar leads in plan accumulation across both statuses: the highest mean active plans (1.48), the most students exceeding 3 active plans (374), and the highest deactivated plan rate (1.61 per student). Miramar's 105 students with more than 3 deactivated plans signals particularly high plan churn.
NSC/NSLDS limits enrollment reporting to 6 academic programs per student. 16 students currently exceed this limit and 529 are approaching it. A 3-plan limit provides a safe buffer below the federal ceiling.
Title IV (34 CFR 668.2) and GI Bill regulations require aid disbursement only for courses applicable to a student's program. Multiple plans make verification exponentially harder, risking audit findings and return-of-funds.
Each plan generates records across Academic Advisement, degree audit, enrollment, and plan stack tables. Excessive plans slow degree audits, graduation batch processing, and near-completion identification for all students.
CCRC research shows that excessive exploration without pathway commitment leads to excess unit accumulation and higher attrition. Unlimited plans contradict the Guided Pathways philosophy of structured, focused academic progress.
SCFF ties apportionment to completion outcomes and unit efficiency. Students with excessive plans are more likely to exceed the 90-unit threshold that triggers funding penalties, directly impacting district revenue.
Reviewing 7–8 plans per student reduces time for meaningful advising. Conflicting prerequisites and overlapping requirements across many plans make accurate guidance nearly impossible.
Behavioral economics research demonstrates that excessive options cause decision paralysis and reduced satisfaction. Three plans allow a primary pathway, a related certificate, and one exploratory option — ample flexibility without overwhelm.
Excessive plans create false positives in completion identification, prevent accurate near-degree tracking, and slow batch processing that impacts the entire student population — not just the affected individuals.