developing a student flow model to project higher education degree production: technical and policy...

Developing a Student Flow Model to Project Higher Education Degree Production: Technical and Policy Consideration

Takeshi YanagiuraResearch Director

Tennessee Higher Education Commission

5/21/20092009 SHEEO/NCES Network Conference

Main Points

• Tennessee’s policy issues

• Student Flow Model Development

• Findings

• Policy Implications

Tennessee Public Higher Education System

Main Roles of THEC

• Coordinating Board• Develop a statewide master

plan for higher education, reinforced by funding formula and performance funding

• Develop higher education budget request and recommend tuition levels

• Program approval

THEC Divisions• Academic Affairs• Fiscal Affairs• Policy, Planning, and Research• Legal and Regulatory Affairs• P-16 Initiatives/GEAR UP TN

Tennessee’s Policy Interest and Issues

Increase in Educational Attainment LevelIncrease in Degree ProductivityLimited Financial Support from Public

Preparation are underway for 2010-2015 Master Plan

• MOA• Listening tour across the state • NCHEMS Policy Audit

Tennessee’s Policy Issues: 1. Educational Attainment

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

COCT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MTNE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

ORPA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VTVA

WA

WV

WI

WY

US

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

$2

0,0

00

$2

5,0

00

$3

0,0

00

$3

5,0

00

$4

0,0

00

$4

5,0

00

$5

0,0

00

$5

5,0

00

Ad

ult

s a

ge

25

-64

wit

h B

ac

he

lors

De

gre

e o

r H

igh

er

(%)

-2

00

6

Personal Income per Capita - 2006

Figure 1:Educational Attainment and Personal Income per

Capita, 2006

Orange-Coded States:Top 10 states on the New Economy Index

Source: NCHEMS

• Direct correlation between personal income and educational attainment of residents

• TN is ranked among the bottom 10 in the nation in educational attainment

Tennessee’s Policy Issues: 2. Increase Degree Productivity

66.9

42.5

28.7

18.8

68.6

42.3

28.419.6

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

Graduate from High School

Enter College Still Enrolled Their Sophomore Year

Graduate within 150% Time

P- 16 Educational Pipeline, 2006For every 100 Ninth Graders...,

TN US

Source: NCHEMS (2008)

Tennessee’s Policy Issues: 3. Prospect of Declining Public Funding for

Higher EducationTotal Revenue per FTE - Universities

Inflation Adjusted

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Tuition Incr

Tuition

ARRA

State

Projections of Educational Attainment Level in US, SREB*, and Tennessee: 2007-2025

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

20212022

20232024

202530.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

30.1%

41.2%

34.8%

44.6%

37.7%

49.0%

TN SREB*

US

Source: NCHEMS*SREB figures exclude Tennessee

Projected Tennessee's Gaps in Educational Attainment Relative to SREB and US Averages: 2007 - 2025

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

20212022

20232024

2025 -

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

153,246

117,660

247,150

269,164

SREBUS

Source: THEC, NCHEMS

Tennessee ImperativeImprove higher education productivity

Defined as “graduating more students with certificates and degrees for the money available to invest”

Participation in Making Opportunity Affordable (MOA) initiative.

MOA provides resources and a three-pronged framework to help states increase their public degree productivity:

• Recast state finance systems to reward institutions for graduating students, not just enrolling them

• Increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of academic programs and administrative operations; and

• Align resources or creating new models to serve more students.

Student Flow Model

• Track progress patterns of various cohorts across the state’s public higher education system

• Develop enrollment and completion projections for out-years based on patterns observed in the past

Methodology

• Cohort Survival Ratio – Generates enrollment and graduation projections for different

student groups, based on past performance

– The progression of each cohort was tracked from the fall 1997 term through spring 2007

– For each term during this time period, retention and graduation rates were calculated for every cohort

– For projections of enrollment and completion beyond spring 2007, the exponential smoothing method was used

Exponential Smoothing Method

• The previous two years’ retention and graduation rates were used to estimate both retention and completion rates for each future term

Projection at year t+1= (a*actual data at year t) + (1-a)*(Actual data at year t-1)

= 0.9a

Data Used to Build the Tool

• Enrollment and Completion Data– All Undergraduate Fall 1997 – Spring 2007– Following data are used:

• THECID• System• Institution• Year and Term• Registration Code• Previous Registration Code• Student Level• Residency• Number of credit hours taken

» College level» R&D

Cohort

• A total of 12 cohorts – each cohort progresses differently - See handouts

• Freshman Cohort– Recent high school graduates enrolled as first-time freshmen

• with dual enrollment credit• remedial or developmental education required• non-residents• Other

– Adult Students (Age 25 and Up)– 20-24 years old

Cohort (Continued)

• Non-Freshman Cohort– Returning Students– Readmitted Students– Non-Degree seeking– TN Community College Transfers– Transfer from Other than TN Community Colleges– Dual Enrollment Students

High School Graduation Rate (9th

Grade)Attend College

Not Attend College

In-state Institutions

Out-state Institutions

Private Institutions

Public Institutions

Remedial & Developmental

Education Needed

College-Ready (R&D Not Needed)

UT, First-time Freshmen, Recent HS Graduate

TBR 2-yr, First-time Freshmen, Recent HS

Graduate

TBR 4yr, TBR 4-yr, First-time Freshmen, Recent HS

Graduate

First-time Freshmen, Recent

HS Graduate, NonResident

UT, First-time Freshmen

TBR 2-yr, First-time Freshmen

TBR 4yr, First-time Freshmen

Adult Population (Age 25-44)

without College Degree

Population (Age 20-

24) without College Degree

UT, Non-Freshman

Cohort

TBR 2-yr, Non-Freshman

Cohort

TBR 4yr, Non-Freshman

Cohort

Non-Degree

Returning

Readmitted

Dual Enroll

Still Enroll at TBR 4yr

Still Enroll at TBR 2-yr

Still Enroll at UT

Graduate from TBR 4-yr

Graduate from TBR 2-yr

Graduate from UT

Other Transfer

Workforce

Still Enroll at Private

Institutions

Graduate from Private

Institutions

Student Flow Model: Conceptual Image

Transfer from TN Community

Colleges

Cohort DistributionUT Universities: Fall 2007

38%

9%7%

13%

1%

6%

1%2%1%3%

9%

10% HSGradRDHSGradnrHSGtradDualHSGradAdultDualReadmitOtherReturningNonDegreeCCTransferOtherTransfer

Cohort DistributionTBR Universities: Fall 2007

33%

9%

6%7%2%2%

2%3%

1%3%

14%

17% HSGradRDHSGradnrHSGtradDualHSGradAdultDualReadmitOtherReturningNonDegreeCCTransferOtherTransfer

Cohort DistributionTBR Community Colleges: Fall 2007

12%

20%

1%2%

7%

17%

5%

8%

1%

12%

14% HSGrad

RDHSGrad

nrHSGtrad

DualHSGrad

Adult

Dual

Readmit

Other

Returning

NonDegree

Transfer

Cohort Distribution SummaryUT TBR 4-yr TBR 2-yr

Top1 HSGrad (38%) HSGrad (33%) R&D HSGrad (20%)

2 DualHSGrad (13%) Other Transfer (17%)

Dual Enroll (17%)

3 Other Transfer (10%)

CC Transfer (14%) Transfer (14%)

4 R&D HSGrad (9%) R&D HSGrad (9%) HSGrad (12%)

5 CC Transfer (9%) DualHSGrad (7%) Non Degree (12%)

% of 1-5 in Total 77% 80% 75%

Accuracy of the Projection

• Compared predicted values to actual figures from 1997 to 2007

Actual vs. Predicted:University of Tennessee System

(Enrollment)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 -

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

ActualProjected

Average Error Rate = 0.2%

Error Rate (%)= (Actual – Projected)/Actual

Actual vs. Predicted:University of Tennessee System

(Completion)

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

ActualProjected



Actual vs. Predicted:Tennessee Board of Regents Universities

(Enrollment)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 -

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

ActualProjected

Average Error Rate = -0.1%



(Completion – Bachelor Degrees)

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

ActualProjected




(Completion – Associate’s Degrees)

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

-

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

ActualProjected



Actual vs. Predicted:Tennessee Board of Regents

Community Colleges(Enrollment)

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 -

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

ActualProjected



Actual vs. Predicted:Tennessee Board of Regents

Community Colleges(Completion – Associate’s Degrees)

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

ActualProjected



Projection Assumptions• Enrollment

• Non-freshman cohort , except Community College Transfers and Dual Enrollees, will enter higher education at the same rate as in the past

• For freshman cohort Age 20-24: students will enroll at the same rate as in the past

• For adult students:• For-profit private institutions will increase adult

enrollment by 5% every year (CAGR 2004-07 = 6.9%)• Not-for-profit private institutions will increase adult

enrollment by 1% every year (CAGR 2004-07 = 4.4%)• The ratio of Fall Cohort to Spring Cohort will remain the same level

of the average of previous three years

Projection Assumptions(Continued)

• Completions– Private institutions’ productivity remains the same

• OLS: Degree Production = intercept + *a first-time freshman fall enrollment in the same year

– Productivity of the Non-Freshman cohort remains the same

– Degree production of for-profit institutions is not included in the completion model

Projection Assumptions(Continued)

• Transfer from Community Colleges to TBR Universities and UT

• Each cohort group in TBR 2-yr institutions will transfer to these systems in the same manner in the past

Variables

• A Total of 14 Variables– High School Graduation Rate (9th Grades –data source: WICHE)– College-going rate (including students attending for-profit

institutions and out-state institutions. Spring cohort freshmen are also included – data source: public – THEC, others - IPEDS)

– Out-migration rate of Tennessee resident, recent high school graduates

– % of Recent HS Grad, Resident First-time Freshmen Attending TICUA institutions

– % of freshmen (recent HS grad first-time freshmen) needing at least one remedial/developmental course

– Enrollment distribution of remedial freshmen in public institutions

Variables (Continued)

– Enrollment Share of Non-remedial Freshmen in Public Institutions

– Non-Resident Freshmen (Recent HS Grad) as a % of Total First-time Recent HS Grad Freshmen

– Age 25-44 student enrollment as a % of the same age population with high school diploma only

– Enrollment Distribution of Adult Students– Dual Enrollment Participants per 100 Seniors (Both

Public and Private High School)– 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Year Retention Rate

Retention Assumptions

• Even if retention rates of freshman cohorts increased, retention rates of non-freshman cohorts would remain constant

• For spring freshman cohorts, their retention rates increase to the extent that the retention rate of fall freshman cohort increases

Student Flow Model as a Policy Tool

Policy Goal

Long Term Goal• To reach the national average of educational

attainment by 2025

Short-term Goal: Focus of Master Plan • To get on the “right track” in terms of degree

productivity by 2015 to reach the goal by 2025

20072008

20092010

20112012

20132014

20152016

20172018

20192020

20212022

20232024

202530.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

30.1%

41.2%37.7%

49.0%

TN US

Projections of Educational Attainment Level* in US and Tennessee: 2007-2025

Source: NCHEMS* Associates and up

269,164 additional degrees needed

Additional degrees Tennessee will need to produce every year to reach average regional and national educational attainment levels by 2025

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,0001,

574

2,48

4

3,83

1

5,27

5

6,82

1

8,41

6

9,95

7

11,6

29

13,3

02

15,0

43

16,8

62

18,7

26 20,6

62 22,6

68 24,7

39 26,8

84 29,1

04 31,4

00

US Total: 269,164

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

27,318 27,626 28,263 28,684 29,051 29,146 29,064

8,076 7,458 7,187 7,288 7,517 7,796 7,738 1,574 2,484 3,831 5,275 6,821 8,416 9,957

Extra Degrees Needed to Reach US Avg by 2025Associates - Current ProjectionBachelor - Current Projection

Results:Current Projections of Degree Production

(Both Public and Private*)

*For-profit private institutions are not part of this analysis

Scenario 1Improvement in Pre-college factors

• High School Graduation increases from 71% to 76% by 2015

• College-going Rate increases from 65% to 70% by 2015

• Out-migration rate decreases from 13% to 8% by 2015

• Dual Enrollment per 100 high school seniors increases from 16 to 26 by 2015

Scenario 1 Results:Projections of Degree Production


2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

27,492 27,979 28,801 29,507 30,331 30,964 31,435

8,076 7,490 7,286 7,478 7,802 8,182 8,233 1,400 2,098 3,194 4,262 5,258

6,211 7,091

Extra Degrees Needed to Reach US Avg by 2025Associates - New ProjectionBachelor - New Projection


Scenario 2Improvement in College factors

• % of freshmen (recent HS grad FTF) who need at least one remedial or developmental class decreases from 33% to 23% by 2015

• Increase Retention ratesSystem 2nd 3rd 4th 6yr GradRate

UT 78 88 77 82 76 81 5570

TBR4 73 83 71 76 7075 4357

TBR2 54 64 38 48 2737 2034



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

27,318 27,626 28,308 30,105 32,119 33,065 33,606

8,078 7,622 7,953 8,867

9,579 10,403 10,133 1,572 2,319 3,020

2,275 1,692

1,890 3,020

Extra Degrees Needed to Reach US Avg by 2025Associates - New ProjectionBachelor - New Projection


Scenario 3Combinations of Scenario 1 and 2



2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 -

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

27,492 27,980 28,847 30,962 33,525 35,133 36,371

8,078 7,657 8,070 9,111

9,959 10,935 10,824

1,398 1,931 2,364

1,174 -

- - Extra Degrees Needed to Reach US Avg by 2025Associates - Current ProjectionBachelor - Current Projection


Student Flow Model: Usefulness as Policy Tool

• Data-based tool for goal-setting• Establishes a goal for increasing degree

production and a “roadmap” for getting there• Shows importance of improving performance in

both K-12 and higher education• Allows responsibility for increased degree

production to be assigned to various systems• Shows where improvement gives the state the

greatest “return” in terms of additional degrees

Tennessee Policy Goals:To reach the regional average by 2025, how

many degrees do we need to produce by 2015? AY

Default Goal % Default Goal % Default Goal % Default Goal % Default Goal %

2009 6,216 6,216 0% 10,862 10,862 0% 7,254 7,256 0% 11,062 11,236 2% 24,332 24,334 0%

2010 6,396 6,396 0% 10,948 10,949 0% 6,623 6,802 3% 11,117 11,490 3% 23,967 24,147 1%

2011 6,669 6,688 0% 11,342 11,378 0% 6,373 7,212 13% 11,067 11,640 5% 24,384 25,278 4%

2012 6,909 7,584 10% 11,666 12,574 8% 6,462 8,214 27% 10,936 11,702 7% 25,037 28,372 13%

2013 7,141 8,690 22% 11,893 13,966 17% 6,698 9,031 35% 10,836 11,797 9% 25,732 31,687 23%

2014 7,181 9,258 29% 11,962 14,842 24% 6,989 9,989 43% 10,810 11,979 11% 26,132 34,089 30%

2015 7,193 9,765 36% 11,953 15,486 30% 6,942 9,861 42% 10,715 12,083 13% 26,088 35,112 35%

Total 47,705 54,597 14% 80,626 90,057 12% 47,341 58,365 23% 76,543 81,927 7% 175,672 203,019 16%

UT TBR4 TBR2 TICUA Total

Contact

Takeshi Yanagiura615-532-8017

[email protected]

Student Flow Model can be found at http://thecreports.state.tn.us/FileControl.aspx

mailto:[email protected]

http://thecreports.state.tn.us/FileControl.aspx

http://thecreports.state.tn.us/FileControl.aspx

developing a student flow model to project higher education degree production: technical and policy...

Documents