the evidence on student success in california higher education –what, why, & how
DESCRIPTION
CCCCIO Spring Conference Monterey, California March 24, 2010 Presentation by: David Longanecker President, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). The Evidence on Student Success in California Higher Education –What, Why, & How. The Case Again for Whopping Big Change - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The Evidence on Student Success in California Higher Education –What, Why, & How
CCCCIO Spring Conference
Monterey, California
March 24, 2010
Presentation by:David LonganeckerPresident, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)
The Case Again for Whopping Big ChangeWith or Without Disruption
Why Whopping Big Change Is Required
Total Quality Management – Continuous Improvement
Booz-Allen: Stable State Management SystemNot a crisis management strategy
Your challenge50 percent productivity gain almost immediatelyProductivity gain = Quality improvement
The Case for Change
AASCU’s TOP ISSUES RevisedThe Fiscal Crisis: State Support, Tuition Policy & Prices, Student AidStudent Access & Success: Enrollment Capacity, Veterans Education, the Graduation InitiativeEducational Improvement: College Readiness, Focus on Community Colleges, & Teacher EffectivenessAccountability: Data Systems and Reporting Metrics.
The Case for Change
AASCU’s TOP ISSUES RevisedThe Fiscal Crisis: State Support, Tuition Policy & Prices, Student AidStudent Access & Success: Enrollment Capacity, Veterans Education, the Graduation InitiativeEducational Improvement: College Readiness, Focus on Community Colleges, & Teacher EffectivenessAccountability: Data Systems and Reporting Metrics.
The Case for Change
AASCU’s TOP ISSUES RevisedThe Fiscal Crisis: State Support, Tuition Policy & Prices, Student AidStudent Access & Success: Enrollment Capacity, Veterans Education, the Graduation InitiativeEducational Improvement: College Readiness, Focus on Community Colleges, & Teacher EffectivenessAccountability: Data Systems and Reporting Metrics.
The Case for Change
AASCU’s TOP ISSUES RevisedThe Fiscal Crisis: State Support, Tuition Policy & Prices, Student AidStudent Access & Success: Enrollment Capacity, Veterans Education, the Graduation InitiativeEducational Improvement: College Readiness, Focus on Community Colleges, & Teacher EffectivenessAccountability: Data Systems and Reporting Metrics.
The Case for Change
AASCU’s TOP ISSUES RevisedThe Fiscal Crisis: State Support, Tuition Policy & Prices, Student AidStudent Access & Success: Enrollment Capacity, Veterans Education, the Graduation InitiativeEducational Improvement: College Readiness, Focus on Community Colleges, & Teacher EffectivenessAccountability: Data Systems and Reporting Metrics.
The Case for Whopping Big Change An Emerging Perfect Storm
Wave One: Our Economic Competitiveness
Wave Two: Who We Are – Can We Be Competitive
Wave Three: What We Have in Resources
The Liberal BorrowingsKnocking on the College Door (WICHE)
Beyond Social Justice (WICHE)
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) : www.higheredinfo.org.
State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), SHEF Report, February 2010.
The Converging WavesWave One: Our Economic Competitiveness
Wave Two: Who We Are – Can We Be Competitive
Wave Three: What We Have in Resources
Relationship Between Educational Attainment, Personal Income, and Economic Strength
Source: NCHEMS
AL
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE IL
INIA
KY
LA
MDMA
MS
NJ
NY
NDOK
OR
SC
SDUT
VA
WAMNNH
TN TX
WV
WI
WY
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Pers
onal
Inco
me
Per C
apita
, 200
0
Percent of Adults Age 25-64 with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
MT
HI
AK
GAKS
ME NE
NV
NCOH PA VT
ID
MI
MO
NM
RIFL US
Low Income, High Educational AttainmentLow Income, Low Educational Attainment
High Income, High Educational AttainmentHigh Income, Low Educational Attainment
State New Economy Index (2002)Top TierMiddle TierLow Tier
Percent of Population Ages 25-64 with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey. Via NCHEMS
Percent of Population Ages 25-64 with an Associate Degree
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey. Via NCHEMS
Differences in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between Younger and Older Adults - U.S. and OECD Countries, 2005
Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Education at a Glance 2007
Differences in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between Younger and Older Adults - U.S., 2005
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 ACS
The White Caps on the First Wave
We’ve Been A LeaderBut Slip-Sliding Away
Losing Ground:The West, and California in particular, are the U.S. ProblemFalling Internationally
The Unique CCCCIO Challenges/Opportunities: Making Wave One, Wave Won
With Respect to College EntryNot so bad – clear state MissionPlacement has not been synchronized
But underwayThink Common Core
Low hanging fruit – Adults With Some College But No Degree
4.4 Million – 22.7% of Adults in CaliforniaRamp up Production of High Value Certificates
The Unique CCCCIO Challenges/ Opportunities:Making Wave One, Wave Won
With Respect to Progression Through College
Need higher thru put: More Transfer and Terminal Associate DegreesThe Good News (or so it seems): Transfer and Articulation progressingConsider more aggressive remunerated coop work study programsFocus on being adult friendly – use CAEL’s ALFI assessment.Eliminate time as the enemy
Less is more – a default curriculumGuaranteed curriculum if full-time/on-time
The Unique CCCCIO Challenges/ Opportunities:Making Wave One, Wave Won
With Respect to CompletionSame/same as progressionPlus:
Accept legitimate Prior Learning Assessment (PLA)Better Yet: Encourages PLADo Degree Audits & Grant Degrees Where Appropriate (Win/Win Project)Intentionally partner with non-public institutions
(Yup; I mean private for and not for profit places)Triage almost demands this
The Converging WavesWave One: Our Economic Competitiveness
Wave Two: Who We Are – Can We Be Competitive
Wave Three: What We Have in Resources
Projections of California High School Graduates
High School Graduation Rates - Public High School Graduates as a Percent of 9th Graders Four Years Earlier, 2006
0
20
40
60
80
100
Source: Tom Mortenson, Postsecondary Opportunity Via NCHEMS
College-Going Rates – First-Time Freshmen Directly Out of High School as a Percent of Recent High School Graduates, 2006
0
25
50
75
Mississippi
New
York
North D
akotaSo
uth D
akotaM
assachusetts
New
Mexico
Con
necticutN
ew Jersey
Minn
esotaG
eorg
iaVirginiaKan
sasM
aryland
North C
arolinaLo
uisianaM
ichig
anN
ew H
ampsh
ireM
aineN
ebraskaD
elaware
South C
arolina
Tennessee
Indiana
Colorado
Alabama
Pennsylvania
Nation
Kentucky
Wisco
nsinIow
aIllino
isFloridaO
hio
Haw
aiiO
klahom
aM
ontana
Wyom
ingW
est Virg
inia
Missouri
ArkansasC
alifornia
TexasVerm
ont
Rho
de IslandN
evadaW
ashington
Oreg
onU
tahAlaskaIdahoArizo
na
Source: Tom Mortenson, Postsecondary Opportunity Via NCHEMS
Difference Between Whites and Next Largest Race/Ethnic Group in Percentage of Adults Age 25-34 with an Associate Degree or Higher, 2000
0
10
20
30
40
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PUMS (based on 2000 Census), Via NCHEMS
Not Much Happens After the Age of 24
Patterns of U.S. High School and College Participation and Completion by Age (Average Annual from 2005 to 2007)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-07 American Community Survey (Public Use Microdata Sample)
High School Participation
Undergraduate College Participation – Peaks at Age 19, Levels off at Age 30
Earn High School Diploma or Equivalent – Levels off at Age 21
Complete Undergraduate College Degree – Peaks and Levels off at Age 31
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40AGE
We are left with 13 percent of adults with no high school diploma, and 60
percent with no college degree.
Note: Includes associate and bachelor’s degrees, but not certificates.
The White Caps on the Second Wave
Those with whom we have succeeded are decliningThose with whom we have not succeeded are increasing“Average” won’t sustain us, and may not even be achievable
The Unique CCCCIO Opportunities/ Challenges: Wave Two, Too, Being Won
With respect to College EntryMuch the same as with Wave Won
Improve Placement – build on Common CoreThink “Adults with some college, no degree”
Market research & intention works hereThink high-value certificates
Even post-bachelaureate – i.e. Red Rocks PA program
Demand evidence as basis for chage, butBe willing to adapt rapidly – tradition is your enemy here
The Unique CCCCIO Opportunities/ Challenges: Wave Two, Too, Being Won
With respect to ProgressionREINVENT REMEDIATION
Problem is not what we call it; it’s how we do itApproaches to consider
Technology blended (National Center for Academic Transformation)Replace prerequisites with co-requisitesModularized self-paced instructionNix Learning Communities for this purpose
Know thyself – get the evidenceBy: race/ethnicity, major, gateway courses, etc.
The Unique CCCCIO Opportunities/ Challenges: Wave Two, Too, Being Won
With respect to ProgressionMany of the same as with Wave Won
Improve transfer/articulation (under way)Coop work studyAdult friendlyGarner greater student commitment through incentives – incentivize full-time, continuity (again, time is everyone’s enemy)
Develop Cohort approach(and backup cohort)
Streamline curriculum – less is moreDefault curriculum STEM specific curriculum
The Unique CCCCIO Opportunities/ Challenges: Wave Two, Too, Being Won
With respect to CompletionSame As Wave Won
Encourage PLADegree AuditsPartner with non-public sector institutions
Reward Steps Along The Way – Momentum Points.Mine your data
To prevent dropoutsTo re-attract recent dropouts
The Converging WavesWave One: Our Economic Competitiveness
Wave Two: Who We Are – Can We Be Competitive
Wave Three: What We Have in Resources
Life could have been worsePublic FTE Enrollment, Educational Appropriations,
and Total Educational Revenue per FTE, U.S., Fiscal 1985-2010
Publ
ic F
TE E
nrol
lmen
t (m
illio
ns)
$12,000
Dollars per FTE
Educational Appropriations per FTE (constant $) Net Tuition Revenue per FTE (constant $) Public FTE Enrollment (millions)
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Note: Net tuition revenue used for capital debt service is included in the above figures. All figures are adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA).Source: SHEEO SHEF 2010.
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
02010
$7,4
79
$7,8
55
$6,9
12
$6,9
94
$7,2
27
$7,3
11
$7,5
47
$7,7
70
$7,2
11
$6,7
40
$6,6
62
$6,9
86
$7,1
95
$7,3
25
$6,9
51
$6,4
54
$2,2
45 $2,3
41
$2,4
03
$2,4
69
$2,5
18
$2,5
75
$2,6
57
$2,8
66
$3,0
43
$3,1
46
$3,2
30
$3,3
43
$3,3
75
$3,3
87
$3,3
84
$3,2
93
$3,2
78
$3,2
88
$3,3
60
$3,5
24
$3,7
18 $3,8
91
$3,9
82
$4,0
27
$4,1
08
$7,9
93
$7,9
88
$7,8
69
$7,8
25
$7,6
07
$7,1
71
$7,9
61
$8,0
35
$7,9
79
$7,6
82
$2,2
74
$2,3
71
$2,4
34
$2,5
01 $2,5
50
$2,6
08
$2,6
91
$3,2
71
$3,3
87
$3,4
19
$3,4
31
$3,4
28
$3,3
37
$3,3
56
$3,4
31
$3,6
11
$3,7
60
$4,0
68
$4,1
16
$4,1
78
$4,3
21
$2,9
03
$3,0
82
$3,1
86 $3,3
48
$14,00014.0
$3,1
46
Public FTE Enrollment, Educational Appropriations and Total Educational Revenue per FTE, California, Fiscal 1985-2010
Dollars per FTE
Educational Appropriations per FTE (constant $) Net Tuition Revenue per FTE (constant $) Public FTE Enrollment (millions)
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Publ
ic F
TE E
nrol
lmen
t (th
ousa
nds)
Same trend; lower amounts in CA
$949 $9
74
$947
$949
$873
$917 $9
88
$1,6
87
$1,5
62
$1,4
67
$1,4
45
$1,4
19
$1,0
13 $932
$1,5
98$1,1
98
$1,4
57
$1,6
49
$878
$7,6
82
$8,0
26
$6,6
90
$6,4
86
$7,1
32
$7,2
27 $8,3
02
$7,5
96
$7,0
95
$6,5
85
$7,2
04
$7,4
04
$7,3
93
$6,9
29
$6,0
65
$8,7
30
$8,5
34
$8,2
92
$7,7
41
$8,3
02
$7,5
46
$7,9
61
$7,7
73
$8,2
40
$8,2
93
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0
Note: Constant 2009 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment. 2009 Educational Appropriations include ARRA funds. (HECA) Source: SSDB
$1,8
14
$1,4
45
$1,5
06
$1,4
87
$1,4
04$1,2
30$899
$6,8
15
Revenues Per Student from Net Tuition, State, & Local Appropriations Public Research
$29,172$24,184
$23,263$22,095
$21,640$21,384
$20,010$19,865$19,783$19,721$19,545$19,227$18,989$18,843$18,773$18,657$18,537
$17,610$17,360$17,267$16,974$16,774
$16,275$16,195$16,172$16,155$16,092$16,059$16,057$15,837$15,774$15,714$15,568$15,541$15,406$15,180$15,125$15,093$15,003$14,865$14,777
$14,018$14,006$13,675
$13,121$12,666$12,449$12,324
$11,620$11,243
$9,682
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
AlaskaM
innesotaHaw
aiiConnecticutNew
YorkVerm
ontNorth CarolinaM
assachusettsKentuckyW
yoming
Maryland
NebraskaAlabam
aCaliforniaIow
aDelaw
areNew
JerseyTennesseeW
ashingtonSouth CarolinaM
ainePennsylvaniaNew
Mexico
NationIdahoIndianaM
ichiganM
issouriRhode IslandKansasVirginiaGeorgiaUtahW
isconsinO
klahoma
NevadaO
hioW
est VirginiaArizonaArkansasIllinoisFloridaNorth DakotaNew
Hampshire
TexasLouisianaM
ississippiO
regonSouth DakotaM
ontanaColorado
Sources: NCES, IPEDS 2006-07 Finance Files; f0607_f1a and f0607_f2 Final Release Data Files. NCES, IPEDS 2007-08 Institutional Characteristics File; hd2007 Final Release Data File. NCES, IPEDS 2006-07 Enrollment Files; ef2006a, effy2007, and efia2007 Final Release Data Files. Via NCHEMS
Revenues Per Student from Net Tuition, State, & Local Appropriations Public Masters and Baccalaureate
$17,984 $16,148 $14,587$14,440$14,426
$13,683$12,929
$12,324$12,105$12,011$11,862
$11,443$11,443$11,389$11,284$11,266$11,249$11,063$10,836$10,788$10,778$10,721
$10,464$10,405$10,370$10,343$10,312$10,275$10,251$10,179$10,162$10,039
$9,957$9,945$9,933$9,702$9,701$9,630$9,622$9,410$9,185$8,959$8,846$8,748
$8,414$8,400
$7,964$7,877
$7,209$6,311 $5,105
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000
Delaware
Hawaii
ConnecticutNorth CarolinaAlaskaNew
JerseyNew
Mexico
Iowa
Maryland
Massachusetts
Maine
Vermont
VirginiaRhode IslandAlabam
aM
ontanaIllinoisW
ashingtonNew
YorkFloridaM
ichiganSouth CarolinaKentuckyO
hioM
ississippiNation IdahoM
issouriDC KansasPennsylvaniaCaliforniaNew
Hampshire
Minnesota
TexasIndianaTennesseeO
regonNorth DakotaArkansasNebraskaW
isconsinNevadaO
klahoma
LouisianaGeorgiaW
est VirginiaSouth DakotaArizonaUtahColorado
Sources: NCES, IPEDS 2006-07 Finance Files; f0607_f1a and f0607_f2 Final Release Data Files. NCES, IPEDS 2007-08 Institutional Characteristics File; hd2007 Final Release Data File. NCES, IPEDS 2006-07 Enrollment Files; ef2006a, effy2007, and efia2007 Final Release Data Files. Via NCHEMS
Revenues Per Student from Net Tuition, State, & Local Appropriations Public 2-Year
$14,793$11,197
$10,683$10,287
$9,964$9,953
$9,125$8,844$8,801$8,705$8,625$8,480$8,449$8,411$8,378$8,214$8,067$8,044
$7,772$7,633$7,566$7,509$7,507$7,448$7,432$7,416$7,403$7,329$7,239$7,222$7,117$7,018$6,918$6,895$6,844$6,823$6,714$6,676$6,630$6,510$6,465$6,353
$6,082$6,028$5,970$5,945$5,939
$5,712$5,517
$5,297$3,369
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
Wisconsin
Hawaii
Wyom
ingM
arylandDelaw
areConnecticutVerm
ontKansasO
regonNew
YorkNew
Hampshire
IdahoM
assachusettsNew
Mexico
AlaskaM
ichiganPennsylvaniaNorth DakotaM
innesotaArizonaRhode IslandO
hioUtahNorth CarolinaTexasNationM
ontanaCaliforniaW
ashingtonM
aineNevadaAlabam
aIllinoisNebraskaM
issouriLouisianaTennesseeIow
aArkansasNew
JerseyO
klahoma
South CarolinaFloridaGeorgiaM
ississippiVirginiaSouth DakotaColoradoIndianaKentuckyW
est Virginia
Sources: NCES, IPEDS 2006-07 Finance Files; f0607_f1a and f0607_f2 Final Release Data Files. NCES, IPEDS 2007-08 Institutional Characteristics File; hd2007 Final Release Data File. NCES, IPEDS 2006-07 Enrollment Files; ef2006a, effy2007, and efia2007 Final Release Data Files. Via NCHEMS
Projected State and Local Budget Surplus (Gap) as a Percent of Revenues, 2016
Source: NCHEMS; Don Boyd (Rockefeller Institute of Government), 2009 Via NCHEMS
-2.1
-2.2
-2.3
-2.3
-2.4
-2.6
-2.7
-2.9 -3
-3.3
-3.5
-3.5
-3.8
-4.1
-4.6
-4.7
-4.8
-4.9 -5
-5.1
-5.2
-5.4
-5.7
-5.7
-5.8
-5.8 -6
-6.2
-6.3
-6.3
-6.7
-6.7
-6.8
-7.2
-7.4
-7.8 -8
-8.1
-8.1
-8.5
-8.5
-8.5
-8.7
-8.9
-9.1
-9.4
-9.5
-9.7
-10.
6-1
0.8
-10.
9
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Mar
ylan
dM
aine
Verm
ont
New
Jers
eyCo
nnec
ticut
New
Ham
pshi
reRh
ode
Islan
dNo
rth
Dako
taW
iscon
sinM
assa
chus
etts
Mic
higa
nW
yom
ing
Calif
orni
aO
hio
Dela
war
eKa
nsas
Ore
gon
Virg
inia
New
Yor
kM
inne
sota
Wes
t Virg
inia
Penn
sylv
ania
Illin
ois
Alas
kaNe
bras
kaM
onta
naUn
ited
Stat
esLo
uisia
naIn
dian
aHa
wai
iO
klah
oma
New
Mex
ico
Miss
ouri
Kent
ucky
Iow
aSo
uth
Dako
taW
ashi
ngto
nFl
orid
aSo
uth
Caro
lina
Arka
nsas
Geor
gia
Colo
rado
Tenn
esse
eNo
rth
Caro
lina
Idah
oUt
ahAr
izona
Neva
daAl
abam
aTe
xas
Miss
issip
pi
State Tax Capacity & EffortIndexed to U.S. Average
Source: State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO)
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CACO
CT
DE
GA HI
IL
IN IA KS
KYLA
ME
MD
MA
MSMT
NE
NV
NJ
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
PARI
SC
SD
UT
VT
VA
WA
FL
IDMI
MN
MO
NH
NM
TNTX
WV
WI
WY
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
State Tax Capacity (Total Taxable Resources Per Capita)
State Tax Effort (Effective Tax Rate)
US
OR
Productivity: Total Funding per Degree/Certificate (Weighted*, 2006-2007)
29,0
75
30,6
19
33,2
73
33,7
56
34,3
30
34,5
94
36,4
98
37,8
23
38,3
64
38,3
65
39,5
16
39,5
16
39,9
18
42,1
77
42,1
98
42,4
08
42,6
93
42,8
47
42,8
73
42,9
48
43,8
20
44,2
72
44,3
71
45,8
33
45,9
04
46,5
22
46,8
80
47,4
53
47,6
72
47,7
49
48,6
11
49,8
94
52,4
91
52,5
72
52,8
88
53,5
35
54,5
53
56,0
90
56,2
80
56,8
88
56,9
60
59,4
20
59,4
65
63,8
22
64,9
34
65,9
75
66,6
23
72,8
46
75,7
44
79,7
94
86,0
09
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
FloridaColoradoW
ashingtonUtahNorth DakotaO
klahoma
West Virginia
Montana
South DakotaKansasGeorgiaLouisianaW
isconsinIdahoNew
Hampshire
IllinoisM
ississippiArizonaArkansasM
innesotaO
regonKentuckyIow
aVirginiaM
issouriNationO
hioIndianaNebraskaTexasSouth CarolinaNorth CarolinaM
ichiganTennesseeNew
Mexico
CaliforniaM
ainePennsylvaniaAlabam
aNew
YorkNevadaM
arylandVerm
ontNew
JerseyM
assachusettsHaw
aiiConnecticutRhode IslandDelaw
areW
yoming
Alaska
Tuition and FeesState and Local
Sources: SHEEO State Higher Education Finance Survey 2008; NCES, IPEDS Completions Survey; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (Public Use MicrodataSamples)
*Adjusted for value of degrees in the state employment market (median earnings by degree type and level)
Sources: SHEEO State Higher Education Finance Survey 2008; NCES, IPEDS Completions Survey; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (Public Use Microdata Samples)
The White Caps on the Third Wave
Prospects look bleak for much more in the short termNew Normal suggests a very different future than past.Triage often sacrifices the most vulnerable
The Unique CCCCIO Challenges/Opportunities: Wave Three – Show me the money
With respect to Entry into CollegeTuition revenue, done smartly, is most of the answerBalanced by financial aid is key
With respect to Progression through College
Tuition and financial aid remain keyRevise the rewards to focus on student success
Pay only for successful remediation – regardless of modality usedPay only for completed courses -- tough love
The Unique CCCCIO Challenges/Opportunities: Wave Three – Show me the moneyWith respect to Completion
Know thyself – focus on gaps, not successes Clearly articulated pathways reduce student
and state costs Don’t enroll students in course that don’t
articulate to their degree goals Price by priority
Currently in place for resident/non-residentWhy not for core vs luxury/high vs low-value
Streamline programs – dropping the duds Where academic success is too low to justifyWhere ROI is too low to justify
Outsourcing or Pairing
The California story – Three Huge Converging Waves -- The Makings of A Perfect Storm
Demographics present a challenge, all else being equal
The finances are perilous
We have been educationally competitive, which has made us economically competitive and comparative just, but:
Were slipping And the good life has not been equitably distribute
Creating a New Business Model – What I Hear & See
Who Will Lead – Academic Leaders or Other Leaders?
From the Community College “Community”ACCT: Governance Institute for Student Success. Foundations:
Achieving the Dream – top down through data driven reform, and limited success to dateCompletion by Design – still in design
____________ -- meet the goal
Creating a New Business Model – What I Hear & See
TRIAGE happens, whether intentional or not.Lack of course availabilityLow success rates
In remedial/developmentalIn college level coursework
Particularly in STEM fieldAnd indefensibly biased by race/ethnicity
Justifiable within current business modelCan’t afford more coursesCan’t support resources necessary for course success
But unjustifiable in support of MissionSo must create a new business model
Is that possible?Disruptive technologies theory says noWe can’t live with that
Creating a New Business Model – Dave’s Nine Tenets of A New Way
Evidence based – data drivenImprovement imperative – Whopping big in the short term, continuous improve-ment, on benchmarks achieved.Well, nearly continuous improvement. Recognize periodic perturbations.Take reasonable risk & expect some failure.
Creating a New Business Model – Tenets of A New Way
Eliminate what can’t be done well enough.Be genius – borrow generously.
Follow the CASE study approachReward success and champions of success (make performance count for regular folk).Make this work fun
We work live, not live to work.Don’t have too many tenets
That’s all there is
Enough Already