higher education conference. enrollment management in a national context: challenges and responses...
TRANSCRIPT
Higher Education Conference
Enrollment Management in a National Context: Challenges and Responses for States and Institutions
Oklahoma Enrollment Management Conference
Oklahoma City
February 20, 2007
Peter Ewell
National Center for Higher EducationManagement Systems (NCHEMS)
A National Challenge
“Student Success” = Access + Persistence/Completion + an Outcome of Value (Learning)
Payoffs of Earning a College Credential to Both Individuals and Society
U.S. Falling Behind Leading Nations in the Proportion of Young Adults with a College Credential
Percent of Adults with an Associates Degree or Higher - 2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Can
ada
Japa
n
Kor
ea
Sw
eden
Fin
land
Nor
way
Bel
gium
Un
ited
Sta
tes
Spa
in
Fra
nce
Irel
and
Aus
tral
ia
Den
mar
k
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
New
Zea
land
Sw
itze
rlan
d
Icel
and
Net
herl
ands
Gre
ece
Ger
man
y
Pol
and
Mex
ico
Lux
embo
urg
Hun
gary
Por
tuga
l
Aus
tria
Slo
vak
Rep
ubli
c
Ital
y
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Tur
key
25 to 3445 to 54
Source: Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, American Community Survey
A National Challenge
“Student Success” = Access + Persistence/Completion + an Outcome of Value (Learning)
Payoffs of Earning a College Credential to Both Individuals and Society
U.S. Falling Behind Leading Nations in the Proportion of Young Adults with a College Credential -- Largely Because of Our Comparatively Poor Collegiate Completion Rates, Especially for Under-Served Student Populations
Educational Attainment of the US’ Young Workforce (Ages 25 to 34) Indexed to the Most Educated Country - 2000
Sources: US Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Samples (Based on the 2000 Census), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Females
Males
White
Females
Males
African-American
Females
Males
Hispanic/Latino
Females
Males
Native American/AK Native
LEGEND
Females
Males
Asian/Pacific Islander
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.40.3
0.4
1.2 1.2
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.61.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Norway Canada
Bachelor’s Degree or Higher All College Degrees (Associates or Higher)
US Index = 0.86
US Index = 0.77
A National Challenge “Student Success” = Access + Persistence/Completion
+ an Outcome of Value (Learning)
Payoffs of Earning a College Credential to Both Individuals and Society
U.S. Falling Behind Leading Nations in the Proportion of Young Adults with a College Credential -- Largely Because of Our Comparatively Poor Collegiate Completion Rates, Especially for Under-Served Student Populations
Graduate Abilities Appear to be Eroding
Prose Literacy Levels for College Level Populations
2
4
1
2
3
1
16
20
11
10
14
6
58
56
65
49
53
56
23
19
23
40
31
38
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Associate Degree Holders 1992 (NALS)
Associate Degree Holders 2003 (NAAL)
Current 2-Year College Students (NSACS)
Bachelors Degree Holders 1992 (NALS)
Bachelors Degree Holders 2003 (NAAL)
Current 4-Year College Students (NSACS)
Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
States Differ Substantially in Student Success Rates (www.higheredinfo.org)
6
9
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
14
14
15
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
21
21
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
25
25
26
26
26
27
29
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Alaska
Nevada
Texas
Georgia
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Mississippi
Kentucky
Alabama
Louisiana
Arkansas
Tennessee
Oregon
Arizona
Florida
Haw aii
South Carolina
West Virginia
Utah
Maryland
Montana
Ohio
Idaho
Colorado
North Carolina
Washington
California
Michigan
New York
Missouri
Kansas
Illinois
Wyoming
Minnesota
Delaw are
Virginia
South Dakota
Wisconsin
Indiana
Maine
New Jersey
Nebraska
Vermont
New Hampshire
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Iow a
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Massachusetts
Otherwise Similar Institutions Can Differ Substantially in Graduation Performance
[Data from www.collegeresults.org]
Main Grad Rate Median SAT Pct Pell Pct UR Min Size
University A 84.1% 1,215 7.20% 6.90% 3,412
University B 84.0% 1,240 14.50% 2.90% 2,997
University C 81.2% 1,265 14.50% 12.60% 5,778
University D 80.1% 1,220 15.90% 5.60% 14,841
University E 79.5% 1,245 16.50% 7.70% 1,168
University F 77.8% 1,290 12.50% 14.40% 2,384
University G 77.4% 1,280 9.60% 4.50% 1,234
University H 75.7% 1,185 18.20% 5.50% 6,013
University I 75.5% 1,260 13.20% 9% 1,865
University J 74.4% 1,238 14.30% 6.20% 2,580
University K 74.3% 1,225 9.50% 6.60% 3,739
University L 72.4% 1,205 14.80% 8% 13,356
University M 69.9% 1,260 16.60% 5.30% 1,324
University N 67.1% 1,240 13.70% 5.90% 5,529
University O 57.4% 1,200 18.40% 9.70% 9,311
University P 54.3% 1,305 20% 10.80% 692
A Summary of the National Challenge
To Attain “World Class” Collegiate Attainment Rates, We Need to:
Get More Citizens Through the “Educational Pipeline
With Particular Attention to “New Majority Students” and the Quality of Student Learning Outcomes
At a Cost the Nation Can Afford
Approaches to Improving Success AND Conserving Resources at All Levels
Design and Implement More Cost-Effective Systems
Reduce Per-Student Demands on the System
Change the Academic “Production Function”
Reduce “Leakage” at All Stages of the “Educational Pipeline”
Design and Implement More Cost-Effective Systems
Expand Enrollments in Institutions/Entities Where Per-Student Unit Costs are Historically Low
Create New Kinds of Providers or Instructional Units Organized on Alternative Educational Designs
Promote More Effective Collaboration Across Institutions or Units
Articulation and Transfer Across Institutions; Curricular Coherence within Institutions
Reduce Per-Student Demands on the System
Early Assessment and Directed Placement Programs to Ensure Readiness
Accelerate Student Progress through PLA, Test-Out and Mastery-Based Approaches
High School/College Dual Enrollment Programs
Reduce “Re-Work” and Provide Incentives for Early Completion
Change the Academic “Production Function”
Utilize Underused Instructional Assets and Capacity (e.g. Year-Round Attendance)
Remove Subsidies from Unproductive Programs and Units
Redesign Curricula toward Core Requirements (as Opposed to Distribution Requirements)
Limit Excessive Credits at Graduation
Re-Engineer Large-Enrollment Courses
Themes from the National NPEC Student Success Conference
Act on What We Already Know About Student Success
Intentionality and Alignment
Need for More “Fine Grained” Analyses and Research Approaches
Need for “Action Research” About Student Success
Student Success Approaches that Research has Established as Effective
Use of Active and Engaging Pedagogies, Including Learning Communities and Collaborative Approaches
High and Clear Expectations for Students
Proactive Early Warning and Intervention Strategies
Mandatory Assessment of Basic Skills and Directed Placement of Students with Deficiencies
Student Success Approaches that Research has Established as Promising
Early Assessment Programs in Early Years of High School with Tailored Intervention
Faculty Development for New Teaching Staff in Pedagogies Established as Effective
Electronic Portfolios as an Alternative Means to Assess Student Achievement
More Sophisticated and Carefully Targeted Financial Aid and Assistance Strategies
Dimensions of Program and Research Alignment Identified by Participants
Between K-12 and College Study (and Between Community Colleges and Four-Year Institutions)
Across Jurisdictions (e.g. Federal, State, Institutional)
Within Institutions, Between Academic Affairs and Student Affairs
Within Institutions: The Problem of “Project-itis”
Fine-Grained Models and Approaches
Alternative Definitions of “Student Success”
Contextualized Models and Interventions Designed to Fit Particular Student Populations
Models of Student Progress that Emphasize “Swirl” Instead of “Pipeline”
More Detail About Educational “Treatments” and Experiences
Research Models from within Particular Cultural Contexts and Settings
Demand for “Clinical” Action Research
Clear Distinction Between Policy Variables and Contextual Variables in Research
Search for “Root Causes” Beyond Correlation
Research on Implementation
Need for a “Research Translation” Function
Need for Collaboration Between Academic Researchers and Student Success Practitioners in Specific Settings
A Summary of Factors Associated with Student Success at All Institutions
Integrated, “Best Practice” Programming that Distinguishes Key “Student Bodies”
A Pervasive Campus Culture that Puts Student Success at the Forefront
A Flexible, Accessible, Student Information Infrastructure
Effectiveness Requires All Three of These
Aspects of Campus Culture Related to Student Success
High Expectations and the Presumption that All Students Can Meet Them
A Culture of Inclusiveness and Belonging
Organizational Cultures that Emphasize Cross-Unit Cooperation and Continuous Improvement
Leadership at All Levels that Supports Risk-Taking and Visibly Models Student-Centered Values
Characteristics of an Effective Information Infrastructure for Student Success
Longitudinal Student Databases Capability that is “Beyond Student Right-to-Know”
Ability to Identify Combinations of Student Characteristics and Disaggregate Them On Demand
An Interpretive Staff Role—Reports and Displays that Compel Action
Broadly Participatory Interpretation of Results and What they Mean
To Close the Credentials Gap, We Must:
Make Use of Both the Traditional College “Pipeline” and the “Adult Re-Entry Pipeline”
Use the Best Practices We Already Know About on a Greater and More Systematic Basis to Improve Student Success Rates
Find Ways to Multiply Postsecondary Capacity through More Effective Uses of Existing Resources and Greater Use of Technology
Keep at It for Long Enough to Make a Difference
The Bottom Line for Improving Student Success
There is No “Magic Bullet” to Improve Retention and Graduation Rates. Success is Instead a Product of Many Little Things, Done Consistently by Diverse Individuals, Who Share a Common Vision of Student Success and a Constantly Reinforced Commitment to Make it Happen…
Some Questions to Ponder
1. Are We Sending a Consistent Message About Student Success?
2. Are Resources Directed Visibly and Effectively Toward Student Success?
3. How are We Using Faculty/Staff Recruitment Processes to Reinforce a Student-Centered Culture?
4. Are We Investing in Appropriate Academic Management Information?
5. What am I Doing Every Day that Can Further this Vision?
Higher Education Conference
[Registrars’ Material]
“Milestone Events” in Student History
Figure 2
“Milestone Events” in a Student Enrollment Pathway
ABEESL
GED First College Credit
X Credits –1 Term
College-Level[“College Path”]
Y Credits – 1 Year College-Level
[“Transfer Ready”][“Workforce Ready”]
Certificate Associate Degree
Employment[Field Earnings]
BA Degree
Basic Skills Conversion Rate
SRK Completion Rate
“Workforce Ready” Employment Rate
Skills-Deficient Completion Rate
Start Developmental
WorkReadingWritingMath
Complete Developmental
WorkReadingWritingMath
“College Path” Completion RateDevelopmental
Completion Rate
Some Recurring Data Problems Trade-offs Between “Currency” and
Consistency: File Freeze Dates and Analytical Databases
How “Accurate” Does Accuracy Have to Be?
The Challenge of “Guerilla Databases”
Data Capture for Non-Academic or Other Non-Recurring Events (e.g. Tutoring, Advising)
Others?
What Can You Do with These Databases
Complex Long-Term Longitudinal Studies Involving Many Different Kinds of Outcomes
Analyses of Developmental Placement Levels and Collegiate Readiness
Evaluations of the Effectiveness of New Policies, Practices, and Approaches to Instruction
Studies that Link Outcomes with Student Engagement and Experience (e.g. NSSE/CCSSE)
Some Lessons from Experience
Data Systems Can Acquire a “Logic of their Own”
Data Use Drives Data Quality
Just “Having Good Data” Doesn’t Guarantee Good Policy or Sound Action
You Can’t Disaggregate Enough
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words
[Concluding Questions]
Closing Exercise
1. What is the Single Most Important Thing I Learned Today?
2. What Will I Do Tomorrow to Act on What I Learned?