Student Success Report
2013-2014
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... V
USING THIS REPORT TO IMPROVE STUDENT SUCCESS ......................................................................................................... VIII
Understanding the Student Success Report .......................................................................................................................viii
Using Data to Improve Student Success .............................................................................................................................. ix
First-Time Credit-Seeking Cohort Tracking ........................................................................................................................... x
STUDENT SUCCESS CATEGORIES, MEASURES, AND INDICATORS............................................................................ 1
SUCCESSFUL PROGRESSION ..............................................................................................................................................1
District High School Students................................................................................................................................................. 2
College-Level Enrollment of Feeder High School Students through First Year after Graduation ....................................... 2
Persistence ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Fall to Spring and Fall to Fall Persistence ........................................................................................................................... 3
Performance in Developmental Courses .............................................................................................................................. 4
Course Success: Developmental Courses ........................................................................................................................... 4
Success in Developmental Math ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Success in Developmental Writing ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Success in Developmental Reading .................................................................................................................................... 7
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion ............................................................... 8
The Milestone and Momentum Points Model ................................................................................................................... 8
Students Starting in any Developmental Math Course Completing Developmental and Gatekeeper Math ..................... 9
Students Starting in any Developmental Reading/Writing Course Completing Developmental and Gatekeeper English 10
Performance in College-Level Courses ................................................................................................................................ 11
Course Success: All Credit Courses ................................................................................................................................... 11
Success in Gatekeeper Math ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Success in Gatekeeper English ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Earning Credits Toward Completion ................................................................................................................................... 14
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: All Credential-Seeking Students................................................................................ 14
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Starting in Credit Courses .......................................................................... 15
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Starting in any Developmental Course ...................................................... 16
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Starting in any Developmental Math Course ............................................. 17
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Starting in any Developmental Reading/Writing Course............................................ 18
Student Engagement ........................................................................................................................................................... 19
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) ........................................................................................... 19
COMPLETION AND TRANSFER..........................................................................................................................................20
Credentials and Completers ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Number of Credentials Conferred .................................................................................................................................... 21
Number of Completers ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
Completion and Transfer Rates........................................................................................................................................... 23
Students Completing or Transferring ............................................................................................................................... 23
WORKFORCE AND EMPLOYMENT.....................................................................................................................................24
Employment of Harper Career Graduates.......................................................................................................................... 25
Employment in Field Related to Harper Program of Study................................................................................................ 26
Employment Status.............................................................................................................................................................. 27
i
DEMOGRAPHICS .................................................................................................................................................. 28
SUCCESSFUL PROGRESSION ............................................................................................................................................28
Persistence ........................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Fall to Spring Persistence by Gender ................................................................................................................................ 29
Fall to Spring Persistence by Race/Ethnicity..................................................................................................................... 30
Fall to Spring Persistence of Developmental Students ..................................................................................................... 31
Fall to Spring Persistence by Full-/Part-Time Status ......................................................................................................... 32
Fall to Spring Persistence by Age Group ........................................................................................................................... 33
Fall to Spring Persistence by Pell Status ........................................................................................................................... 34
Fall to Fall Persistence by Gender .................................................................................................................................... 35
Fall to Fall Persistence by Race/Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................... 36
Fall to Fall Persistence of Developmental Students ......................................................................................................... 37
Fall to Fall Persistence by Full-/Part-Time Status ............................................................................................................. 38
Fall to Fall Persistence by Age Group ............................................................................................................................... 39
Fall to Fall Persistence by Pell Status ................................................................................................................................ 40
Performance in Developmental Courses: Math ................................................................................................................. 41
Success in Developmental Math by Gender ..................................................................................................................... 42
Success in Developmental Math by Race/Ethnicity.......................................................................................................... 43
Success in Developmental Math by Full-/Part-Time Status .............................................................................................. 44
Success in Developmental Math by Age Group ................................................................................................................ 45
Success in Developmental Math by Pell Status ................................................................................................................ 46
Performance in Developmental Courses: Writing .............................................................................................................. 47
Success in Developmental Writing by Gender.................................................................................................................. 48
Success in Developmental Writing by Race/Ethnicity ...................................................................................................... 49
Success in Developmental Writing by Full-/Part-Time Status .......................................................................................... 50
Success in Developmental Writing by Age Group ............................................................................................................ 51
Success in Developmental Writing by Pell Status ............................................................................................................. 52
Performance in Developmental Courses: Reading............................................................................................................. 53
Success in Developmental Reading by Gender................................................................................................................. 54
Success in Developmental Reading by Race/Ethnicity ..................................................................................................... 55
Success in Developmental Reading by Full-/Part-Time Status ......................................................................................... 56
Success in Developmental Reading by Age Group ........................................................................................................... 57
Success in Developmental Reading by Pell Status ............................................................................................................ 58
ii
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math .......................................................... 59
Success Rate of Developmental Students in College-Level Math ..................................................................................... 60
Math Enrollment and Completion: Female Students ....................................................................................................... 61
Math Enrollment and Completion: Male Students .......................................................................................................... 62
Math Enrollment and Completion: Asian Students .......................................................................................................... 63
Math Enrollment and Completion: Black Students .......................................................................................................... 64
Math Enrollment and Completion: Hispanic Students ..................................................................................................... 65
Math Enrollment and Completion: White Students ......................................................................................................... 66
Math Enrollment and Completion: Full-Time Students .................................................................................................... 67
Math Enrollment and Completion: Part-Time Students ................................................................................................... 68
Math Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 18 and Under ...................................................................................... 69
Math Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 19-24 .................................................................................................. 70
Math Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 25 and Over ........................................................................................ 71
Math Enrollment and Completion: Pell Students ............................................................................................................. 72
Math Enrollment and Completion: Non-Pell Students ..................................................................................................... 73
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English ........................................................... 74
Success Rate of Developmental Students in Gatekeeper English..................................................................................... 75
English Enrollment and Completion: Female Students .................................................................................................... 76
English Enrollment and Completion: Male Students ........................................................................................................ 77
English Enrollment and Completion: Asian Students ....................................................................................................... 78
English Enrollment and Completion: Black Students........................................................................................................ 79
English Enrollment and Completion: Hispanic Students .................................................................................................. 80
English Enrollment and Completion: White Students ...................................................................................................... 81
English Enrollment and Completion: Full-Time Students ................................................................................................. 82
English Enrollment and Completion: Part-Time Students ................................................................................................ 83
English Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 18 and Under ................................................................................... 84
English Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 19-24 ................................................................................................ 85
English Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 25 and Over ..................................................................................... 86
English Enrollment and Completion: Pell Students .......................................................................................................... 87
English Enrollment and Completion: Non-Pell Students .................................................................................................. 88
Performance in College-Level Courses: Math ..................................................................................................................... 89
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Gender .......................................................................................................................... 90
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................................................... 91
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Developmental Placement ............................................................................................ 92
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Full-/Part-Time Status ................................................................................................... 93
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Age Group ..................................................................................................................... 94
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Pell Status ...................................................................................................................... 95
Performance in College-Level Courses: English .................................................................................................................. 96
Success in Gatekeeper English by Gender ........................................................................................................................ 97
Success in Gatekeeper English by Race/Ethnicity............................................................................................................. 98
Success in Gatekeeper English by Developmental Placement ......................................................................................... 99
Success in Gatekeeper English by Full-/Part-Time Status ............................................................................................... 100
Success in Gatekeeper English by Age Group ................................................................................................................. 101
Success in Gatekeeper English by Pell Status ................................................................................................................. 102
iii
Earning Credits Toward Completion ................................................................................................................................. 103
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Female Students ..................................................................................................... 104
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Male Students ......................................................................................................... 105
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Asian Students ........................................................................................................ 106
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Black Students ........................................................................................................ 107
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Hispanic Students ................................................................................................... 108
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: White Students ....................................................................................................... 109
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Developmental Students ........................................................................................ 110
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: College-Level Students ........................................................................................... 111
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Full-Time Students .................................................................................................. 112
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Part-Time Students ................................................................................................. 113
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Age 18 and Under .................................................................................... 114
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Age 19-24................................................................................................. 115
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Age 25 and Over ...................................................................................... 116
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Pell Students ........................................................................................................... 117
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Non-Pell Students ................................................................................................... 118
COMPLETION AND TRANSFER........................................................................................................................................119
Completers ......................................................................................................................................................................... 119
Number of Completers by Gender ................................................................................................................................. 120
Percentage of Completers by Gender ............................................................................................................................ 121
Number of Completers by Race/Ethnicity ...................................................................................................................... 122
Percentage of Completers by Race/Ethnicity ................................................................................................................. 123
Completion Rates ............................................................................................................................................................... 124
Completion Rates by Gender ......................................................................................................................................... 125
Completion Rates by Race/Ethnicity .............................................................................................................................. 126
Completion Rates of Developmental Students .............................................................................................................. 127
Completion Rates by Full-/Part-Time Status .................................................................................................................. 128
Completion Rates by Age Group .................................................................................................................................... 129
Completion Rates by Pell Status ..................................................................................................................................... 130
Transfer Rates .................................................................................................................................................................... 131
Combined Completion and Transfer by Gender ............................................................................................................. 132
Transfer Rates by Gender ............................................................................................................................................... 133
Transfer Rates by Race/Ethnicity.................................................................................................................................... 134
Transfer Rates of Developmental Students .................................................................................................................... 135
Transfer Rates by Age Group .......................................................................................................................................... 136
WORKFORCE AND EMPLOYMENT...................................................................................................................................137
Employment of Harper Career Graduates........................................................................................................................ 137
Employment by Gender, Six Months After Completion ................................................................................................. 138
Employment by Gender, One Year After Completion .................................................................................................... 139
Employment by Race/Ethnicity, Six Months After Completion ...................................................................................... 140
Employment by Race/Ethnicity, One Year After Completion ......................................................................................... 141
APPENDIX: DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................... 142
iv
Executive Summary
The purpose of this document is to provide data in actionable detail for improving student success at
Harper College. This report is organized around three key categories: Successful Progression, Completion
and Transfer, and Workforce and Employment. These categories are analyzed at the aggregate level by
several measures, then indicators, and finally they are disaggregated by selected target demographics.
Important findings are discussed in detail below.
Successful Progression
Persistence
Persistence is measured by the percentage of a student cohort that continues to re-enroll at Harper
during a given time period. Both fall to spring and fall to fall persistence are included in this report. Over
the time period analyzed, fall to spring student persistence has shown a slight but steady increase, but
fall to fall persistence decreased by 3.7 percent from the 2010 to the 2011 cohort. Females and males
tend to persist at similar rates. Persistence for black students lags overall college persistence, but in
recent years, fall to spring persistence has increased for Hispanic students. Persistence of developmental
students is similar to that of the College overall, while the youngest student age group (19 and under)
has the highest persistence rate of all demographic groups.
Performance in Developmental Courses
Success rates for developmental courses have remained steady over time but showed the highest rate
of success in five years for 2012-13. Success in developmental math and writing decreased for the most
recent cohort, while success for developmental reading has increased from the 2007 cohort to the 2010
cohort. Female students and students age 25-29 tended to have the highest completion rates for any
developmental math course within three years of starting at the College. Additionally, female students,
Asian students, and students age 19 and under had the highest rate of success in any developmental
writing course. Similarly, female students and Asian students had the highest success rate in any
developmental reading course.
Progression from Developmental to Gatekeeper
The Milestones and Momentum Points models indicate that approximately 75 percent of the students
who pass the highest level developmental math course continue on to enroll in a gatekeeper math
course. Of students who enroll in those gatekeeper math courses, approximately 70 percent are
successful. With respect to developmental students attempting gatekeeper math, female students are
more successful at progressing through the sequence than male students; Asian and white students
perform better than black and Hispanic students; and students 19-24 do better than other age groups.
Approximately 80 percent of students who pass the highest level developmental reading/English course
continue on to enroll in the gatekeeper English course, and over 80 percent of those who do enroll
eventually pass that course. Of those developmental students who attempt gatekeeper English, female
students again are more successful progressing through the sequence than male students; Asian
students have the highest rate of success amongst racial/ethnic groups; and students 18 and under are
more successful than other age categories.
v
Performance in College-Level Courses
Success rates for students in gatekeeper math (MTH101, MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and MTH165)
decreased in the most recent year, while gatekeeper English (ENG101) success rates have increased.
Female students consistently perform better than male students in both gatekeeper math and English.
Asian and white students tend to perform best in gatekeeper courses, but the results have been more
variable for gatekeeper math. Students who initially placed into developmental math do not perform as
well in the gatekeeper courses as do those who were not referred to developmental math. However,
students who were initially placed into developmental reading and/or writing generally perform as well
or better in gatekeeper English than do students who were not referred to developmental course work.
Earning Credits toward Completion
Using the Milestones and Momentum Points model to track the 2008 to 2010 cohorts of entering
students over three years reveals improved rates at which the 2010 cohort earned credentials compared
to the 2008 and 2009 cohorts. However, most other measures were fairly stable across the three
cohorts. Students who started in developmental courses had lower rates for completing these
momentum points, but those who started in developmental math were more likely to reach those
points than those who started in developmental reading/English. Females in these cohorts completed
credentials at higher rates than males, Asian and white students had higher success rates than black and
Hispanic students, and students age 25 and over performed better than other age groups.
Student Engagement
According to the most recent Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), Harper
College was lower than the mean score on all CCSSE benchmarks. In 2012, all categories but the
Student-Faculty Interaction score showed a decrease from the previous CCSSE benchmarks three years
earlier.
Completion and Transfer
The number of credentials conferred at Harper College increased from 2,426 in 2008-09 to 3,930 in
2012-13. In 2011-12, Harper achieved its highest number of credentials conferred: 4,487. All gender and
ethnic/racial groups also increased the number of completers that have earned credentials. However,
the number of completers decreased slightly from 2011-12 to 2012-13 for all groups except black
graduates. The large increase in credentials and completers over time is largely due to the College’s
Completion Concierge and efforts to stack career certificates that lead to degrees.
From the 2006 to the 2009 cohort, completion rates as measured by IPEDS increased. From the 2006
through the 2010 cohort, completion rates reported through AtD increased overall and for nearly all
demographic groups.
For many community college students, success is not only completing a degree, but also transferring to
another institution for continued study. The IPEDS combined completion and transfer rate decreased
after the 2008 cohort, from a 4-year high of 52.2 percent to 49.4 percent for the 2009 cohort.
Additionally, IPEDS transfer rates (excluding completers) have decreased since the 2007 cohort. By
contrast, overall transfer rates as measured through AtD cohorts have remained fairly steady. Large
variations in these transfer rates have been seen for some demographic groups such as black students
and students age 25 to 29. Additionally, transfer rates for certain demographic groups, such as Hispanic
students, developmental reading and writing students, and students age 30 and over, lag behind other
groups.
vi
Workforce and Employment
Overall, Harper career graduates are employed at lower rates than they were in 2008. However, over
time these rates have rebounded slightly for survey respondents who were employed in their related
field. Employment rates for all Harper Career graduates in any field of study are at the lowest point since
the economic recession of 2008-09.
Conclusion
The data in this Harper College Student Success Report indicate improvement in some areas of student
success over time as well as areas where more progress is needed. Over the time periods and cohorts
studied, the College has successfully increased the college-level enrollment of students from feeder high
schools, course success rates, and some persistence rates. However, gaps remain in the progress of
some developmental students and between different demographic groups. As such, this report is a
resource and reference guide intended to indicate where success is evident and improvement is needed
as the College goes forward with its commitment to student success and carrying out its mission to
serve the community.
vii
Using This Report to Improve Student Success
Understanding the Student Success Report
This report provides our student success data in four levels to help the College focus on the institutional
impact of our effects while providing the actionable detail for student success interventions. The four
levels of data include Student Success Categories, Measures, Indicators, and Demographics:
•
Student Success Category
o Measure
 Indicator
• Demographics
What are Student Success Categories?
Harper’s Student Success report groups student success data into three topical areas representing the
progression of students into and through the College and eventually into the workplace. These areas are
known as Student Success Categories and define the way the College determines how well our students
are performing throughout their relationship with the College. The three Student Success Categories
are: Successful Progression; Completion and Transfer; and Workforce and Employment.
What is a Measure?
Each Student Success Category encompasses multiple measures. As used here, a measure is a
conceptual definition of student progress within the general topical area. For example, Completion and
Transfer consists of two measures: Credentials and Completers as well as Completion and Transfer
Rates. Progression, however, is a much larger area and includes measures such as Persistence,
Performance in Developmental Courses, and Performance in College-Level Courses.
What is an Indicator?
Some measures further consist of one or more indicators. An indicator is a specific operational definition
of a measure and its results. For example, one of the measures under the Successful Progression
category is Persistence. Persistence is broken into two indicators, Fall to Spring and Fall to Fall. Each
indicator may have a slightly different outcome, population or time frame. Some indicators are more
useful depictions of student success than others depending on the student success barrier you are trying
to address.
Demographics
Finally, many indicators have additional demographic breakouts to help provide more in-depth
descriptive information about Harper College students. Fall to Spring Persistence, for example, is
provided in breakouts by gender, race/ethnicity, developmental status, full-/part-time status, age group,
and Pell status. This information helps the College determine whether there are any specific groups of
students that need particular attention within a given measure or indicator.
viii
Using This Report to Improve Student Success
Using Data to Improve Student Success
One of the most important functions of the Student Success Report is to explain the data underlying
each indicator so that the College can address the barriers to success our students face. These data are
provided as a resource to faculty, staff, and administrators at the College to help make decisions and
drive improvement across all levels and areas of the institution.
Common uses for this information:
Strategic Planning
Program Review
Program Development
Overall Institutional Effectiveness and Continuous Improvement
How, specifically, can we use data to make improvements at the College? Below is an example of how
results of a recent study helped the College work with area high school districts to develop a program to
improve college readiness.
Example: High School Testing and Math
In 2008, Harper College partnered with Illinois Township High School District 211 to conduct a study to
assess what factors predicted math course enrollment of District 211 graduates entering Harper College
in the fall term after graduating high school. The key finding of this study indicated that the most
significant predictor of college-level math course enrollment at Harper was whether a student had taken
a math course during their senior year of high school. Based on the findings of the study, Harper College
and District 211 began to pilot Partners for Success, a high school COMPASS testing program targeted at
juniors who were currently enrolled in Algebra II.
There are two major goals of Partners for Success. The first is to increase the number of students who
take Algebra II as juniors to enroll in a math course their senior year, and the second is to decrease the
number of students that begin math at Harper College at a developmental level. Preliminary findings
presented in fall 2010 indicated that there was an 8 percent increase in the number of Township High
School District 211 Algebra II students taking a math course in their senior year compared with fall 2009.
These findings, paired with the formation of the Northwest Educational Council for Student Success,
expanded the implementation of Partners for Success to Township High School District 214 and
Community Unit School District 220 for different groups of students.
Thus far, the results from the Partners for Success program have yielded promising results. The Partners
for Success program has made gains in addressing the two main objectives of the partnership. This
examination of data and the development of a related project to increase college readiness of high
school graduates serve as a concrete example of how Harper College can use findings from student
success data to drive improvement at the College.
Source: Student Success Matters, Issue 2, January 2012.
ix
Using This Report to Improve Student Success
First-Time Credit-Seeking Cohort Tracking
Cohort tracking is used to assess student success throughout the majority of this report. Cohorts are helpful when
examining student success informa on because they allow for tracking of students over me, instead of providing
snapshots of how all students are doing at a given point in me. A er the ini al semester of data has been determined
for that specific cohort, the students are con nually tracked in subsequent semesters on a variety of measures. This
report uses Achieving the Dream (AtD) cohorts for the majority of cohort tracking.
The cohorts are comprised of first- me creden al-seeking Harper College students enrolling in the fall term of a given
year. Both full- me and part- me students are included. Although these cohorts do not include all Harper students (for
example, those who first enroll in spring or are not creden al-seeking), they do reveal trends in overall student progress
that would not be possible without cohort tracking. Below are the demographic categories of students used in this
report, based on these cohorts.
Cohort
2006
Overall Number of Students in Cohort
2007
2,638
2008
2,740
2009
2,693
2010
2,778
2011
2,740
2012
2,688
2,359
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%
Female
1,365
51.7%
1,432
52.3%
1,379
51.2%
1,370
49.3%
1,403
51.2%
1,394
51.9%
1,279
54.2%
Male
1,273
48.3%
1,308
47.7%
1,314
48.8%
1,408
50.7%
1,337
48.8%
1,268
47.2%
1,080
45.8%
Asian3
279
10.6%
294
10.7%
267
9.9%
273
9.8%
203
7.4%
206
7.7%
200
8.5%
Black/African American,
non-Hispanic4
153
5.8%
156
5.7%
184
6.8%
224
8.1%
267
9.7%
289
10.8%
169
7.2%
Hispanic
334
12.7%
364
13.3%
377
14.0%
477
17.2%
439
16.0%
454
16.9%
464
19.7%
1,600
60.7%
1,695
61.9%
1,522
56.5%
1,678
60.4%
1,636
59.7%
1,489
55.4%
1,323
56.1%
272
10.3%
231
8.4%
343
12.7%
126
4.5%
195
7.1%
250
9.3%
203
8.6%
1,461
55.4%
1,512
55.2%
1,468
54.5%
1,488
53.6%
1,398
51.0%
1,448
53.9%
1,323
57.8%
1,044
39.6%
1,078
39.3%
1,080
40.1%
1,147
41.3%
1,213
44.3%
1,095
40.7%
900
38.2%
481
18.2%
485
17.7%
558
20.7%
553
19.9%
593
21.6%
560
20.8%
401
17.0%
297
11.3%
276
10.1%
336
12.5%
357
12.9%
384
14.0%
344
12.8%
238
10.1%
1,177
44.6%
1,228
44.8%
1,225
45.5%
1,290
46.4%
1,342
49.0%
1,240
46.1%
996
42.2%
Full-Ɵme
1,654
62.7%
1,749
63.8%
1,795
66.7%
1,795
64.6%
1,755
64.1%
1,675
62.3%
1,446
61.3%
Part-Ɵme
984
37.3%
991
36.2%
898
33.3%
983
35.4%
985
35.9%
1,013
37.7%
913
38.7%
1,678
63.6%
1,697
61.9%
1,697
63.0%
1,710
61.6%
1,651
60.3%
1,603
59.6%
1,437
60.9%
20 to 24
452
17.1%
520
19.0%
476
17.7%
453
16.3%
491
17.9%
478
17.8%
416
17.6%
25 to 29
178
6.7%
185
6.8%
199
7.4%
215
7.7%
200
7.3%
226
8.4%
178
7.5%
30 years or older
330
12.5%
337
12.3%
313
11.6%
400
14.4%
398
14.5%
379
14.1%
328
13.9%
Pell
405
15.4%
460
16.8%
479
17.8%
738
26.6%
932
34.0%
905
33.7%
722
30.6%
2,233
84.6%
2,280
83.2%
2,214
82.2%
2,040
73.4%
1,808
66.0%
1,783
66.3%
1,637
69.4%
Gender
Race/Ethnicity
White, non-Hispanic4
Other
College-level
Referred to
developmental math
Developmental Referred to
developmental reading
Placement
Referred to
developmental wriƟng
Referred to any
developmental course
Status
(First Term)
19 or younger
Age Group1
(First Term)
Pell/Non-Pell2
(First Term)
Non-Pell
Source: Achieving the Dream Analy cal Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Due to rounding, not all percentages will sum to 100 percent.
1. Missing demographics for students in some cohorts will result in the number of students not summing to the cohort total. Age groups are different for data that did
not come from AtD.
2. “Pell” refers to students who received a Pell grant of any amount during their first term at Harper. “Non-Pell” refers to students who did not receive a Pell grant
during their first term, either because they did not apply or because they applied but did not meet grant requirements.
3. Asian includes Pacific Islander for the 2006 and 2007 cohorts.
4. Herea er, “black/African American, non-Hispanic” is referred to as “black” and “white, non-Hispanic” is referred to as “white.”
x
Student Success Categories, Measures, and Indicators
Successful Progression
Successful Progression includes persistence, performance in developmental courses, progression from
developmental to gatekeeper courses, performance in college-level courses, earning credits toward
completion, and student engagement. The Progression section helps with understanding the students’
ability to move throughout their courses of study at the College and ultimately reach their academic
goals. This section can be used to help faculty, staff, and administrators at the College determine where
students may be having difficulty, and develop plans to assist students at those points.
This section uses data from several sources: Achieving the Dream (AtD) cohorts, Harper’s Milestones
and Momentum Points models, Institutional Research, and the Community College Survey of Student
Engagement (CCSSE). Each source and the specific use of that source are provided in the notes beneath
each graph. For additional information about AtD cohorts, see page x in the Introduction to this report.
1
Successful Progression
District High School Students
College-Level Enrollment of Feeder High School Students through First Year after Graduation
In recent years, Harper College has been partnering with district high schools to help improve the
percentage of students who are prepared for college-level courses. Despite a relatively low outcome for
2010, the percentage of students enrolling in college-level courses has been increasing over time. In
2013, 67.1 percent of students enrolling in math were college-level, an increase of more than 18 percent
since 2009. During the same period, the percentage of students enrolling in college-level English
increased more than 5 percent, from 81.4 percent to 86.8 percent.
100%
81.4%
78.8%
80%
81.8%
85.2%
86.8%
67.1%
57.1%
60%
48.8%
53.1%
45.8%
40%
20%
0%
% enrolled college-level math
N enrolled college-level math
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
48.8%
45.8%
53.1%
57.1%
67.1%
849
775
889
953
1165
% enrolled college-level English
81.4%
78.8%
81.8%
85.2%
86.8%
N enrolled college-level English
1457
1356
1383
1430
1489
Source: Enrollment Services and Institutional Research. Year is based on June graduation. Percentages are based on students
who enrolled in either math or English. Includes Township High School Districts 211 (Conant, Fremd, Hoffman Estates, Palatine, Schaumburg),
214 (Buffalo Grove, Elk Grove, Hersey, Prospect, Rolling Meadows, Wheeling) and Community Unit School District 220 (Barrington).
Data as of February 4, 2014.
2
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Spring and Fall to Fall Persistence
Persistence measures the rate that students enroll at Harper College in the fall semester and then reenroll in the spring semester of the same fiscal year or the fall of the following year. Although the
College’s fall to spring persistence rate shows an overall upward trend, persistence for the 2012 cohort
was the same as persistence for the 2009 cohort. Fall to fall persistence was at its lowest point in five
years for the 2011 cohort, dropping 3.7 percent from the 2010 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
74.9%
58.3%
78.1%
77.8%
76.0%
60.7%
59.3%
60.6%
76.7%
77.8%
56.9%
40%
20%
0%
% persisting fall to spring
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
74.9%
76.0%
77.8%
78.1%
76.7%
77.8%
1,835
N persisting fall to spring
2,053
2,046
2,160
2,140
2,063
% persisting fall to fall
58.3%
59.3%
60.7%
60.6%
56.9%
N persisting fall to fall
1,597
1,597
1,687
1,661
1,530
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts.
LINKS TO
RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
Persistence by
Gender
Page 29
Fall to Spring
Persistence by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 30
Fall to Spring
Persistence of
Developmental
Students
Page 31
Fall to Spring
Persistence of
Full-/Part-Time
Status
Page 32
Fall to Spring
Persistence by
Age Group
Page 33
Fall to Spring
Persistence by
Pell Status
Page 34
Fall to Fall
Persistence by
Gender
Page 35
Fall to Fall
Persistence by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 36
Fall to Fall
Persistence of
Developmental
Students
Page 37
Fall to Fall
Persistence of
Full-/Part-Time
Status
Page 38
Fall to Fall
Persistence by
Age Group
Page 39
Fall to Fall
Persistence by
Pell Status
Page 40
3
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses
Course Success: Developmental Courses
Course success rates in developmental courses have remained relatively stable since the 2008-09
academic year, but reached the highest point in 2012-13. These rates are approximately 4-7 percent
lower than overall Harper College course success rates, which are approximately 70-74 percent (see
page 11).
100%
80%
66.9%
65.9%
65.7%
66.0%
67.2%
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
% successful completions
66.9%
65.9%
65.7%
66.0%
67.2%
# successful completions
6,644
6,558
6,546
6,002
4,899
# course enrollments
9,927
9,951
9,968
9,091
7,289
60%
40%
20%
0%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Successful completions include those earning a C or better in a course.
Course Success:
All Credit Courses
Page 11
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
4
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses
Success in Developmental Math
Success is measured over a period of three years; students attempting developmental math courses
(those numbered below 90 at the College) are included as being successful if they passed any single
developmental math course with a C or better during this time period. Thus, these numbers do not
represent overall success rates in developmental math, but instead show the percentage of students
who are able to successfully complete a developmental math course within three years.
Developmental math cohort success rates have decreased 3.2 percent since the high of 70.2 percent for
the 2008 cohort. These success rates take into account only those students who are attempting
developmental courses. Students who placed into developmental courses, but did not attempt a
developmental course during their first three years at Harper, are not included in this figure.
100%
80%
67.7%
66.7%
70.2%
69.5%
67.0%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
% successfully completed any dev. math
66.7%
67.7%
70.2%
69.5%
67.0%
N successfully completed any dev. math
699
779
758
764
769
1,048
1,150
1,080
1,100
1,147
N attempted any dev. math
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental math
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental math courses numbered below 90. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental
Math by Gender
Page 42
Success in
Developmental
Math by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 43
5
Success in
Developmental
Math by Full-/
Part-Time Status
Page 44
Success in
Developmental
Math by Age
Group
Page 45
Success in
Developmental
Math by Pell
Status
Page 46
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses
Success in Developmental Writing
Success is measured over a period of three years; students attempting developmental writing courses
(English courses numbered 100 and below at the College) are included as being successful if they passed
any single developmental writing course during this time period with a C or better. Thus, these numbers
do not represent overall success rates in developmental writing, but instead show the percentage of
students who are able to successfully complete a developmental writing course within three years.
Developmental writing cohort success rates have varied greatly over time, from a low of 66.1 percent
for the 2007 cohort to a high of 75.3 percent for the 2009 cohort. The most recent three-year cohort,
2010, had a 70.7 percent success rate in developmental writing.
These success rates take into account only those students who are attempting developmental writing
courses. Students who placed into developmental courses but did not attempt a developmental writing
course during their first three years at Harper are not included in this figure.
100%
80%
74.4%
75.3%
70.7%
2007
2008
2009
2010
70.0%
66.1%
74.4%
75.3%
70.7%
296
254
311
339
326
423
384
418
450
461
70.0%
66.1%
2006
% successfully completed any dev. writing
N successfully completed any dev. writing
N attempted any dev. writing
60%
40%
20%
0%
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental writing
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental writing courses numbered 100 and below. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental
Writing by
Gender
Page 48
Success in
Developmental
Writing by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 49
6
Success in
Developmental
Writing by Full-/
Part-Time Status
Page 50
Success in
Developmental
Writing by Age
Group
Page 51
Success in
Developmental
Writing by Pell
Status
Page 52
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses
Success in Developmental Reading
Success is measured over a period of three years; students attempting developmental reading courses
(those numbered below 100 at the College) are included as being successful if they passed any single
developmental reading course during this time period with a C or better. Thus, these numbers do not
represent overall success rates in developmental reading, but instead show the percentage of students
who are able to successfully complete a developmental reading course within three years.
Developmental reading cohort success rates have increased over time, from a low of 67.8 percent for
the 2007 cohort to 78.1 percent for the 2009 and 2010 cohorts. These success rates take into account
only those students who are attempting developmental reading courses. Students who placed into
developmental courses but did not attempt a developmental course during their first three years at
Harper are not included in this figure.
100%
80%
78.1%
72.0%
67.8%
78.1%
72.7%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
% successfully completed any dev. reading
72.0%
67.8%
72.7%
78.1%
78.1%
N successfully completed any dev. reading
286
263
314
338
370
N attempted any dev. reading
397
388
432
433
474
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental reading
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental reading courses (those numbered below 100 at the
College). Successful completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental
Reading by
Gender
Page 54
Success in
Developmental
Reading by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 55
7
Success in
Developmental
Reading by Full/Part-Time
Status
Page 56
Success in
Developmental
Reading by Age
Group
Page 57
Success in
Developmental
Reading by Pell
Status
Page 58
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion
The Milestone and Momentum Points Model
The Milestones and Momentum Points model can be used as a framework to transform student-level
data into meaningful information about student enrollment and achievement. Instead of simply
assessing student achievement through persistence and completion rates, a Milestones and Momentum
Points model provides more detail about the specific points at which a cohort of students is being
successful and which areas show gaps where students are not completing their academic goals. Being
able to see these patterns allows an institution to use the data to inform policies or practices.
Harper College has implemented the Milestones and Momentum Points model as a way to depict and
measure student progress. The model documents the enrollment, completion, and degree attainment
for a cohort of credential-seeking students within three years. With this understanding, the College can
use the model to help develop strategies and interventions to address the points where a student leaves
the College prior to completing their goals.
This model has also provided valuable information about changes in student progress over time. Overall,
Harper’s credential-seeking students beginning in fall 2010 earned degrees and certificates at a rate 3.7
percent higher than the 2008 cohort.
8
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion
Students Starting in any Developmental Math Course Completing Developmental and
Gatekeeper Math
The Milestones and Momentum Points model was used as a framework for developing several Harper
student pipelines. This report includes pipelines that were developed for four groups of Harper students
from a 2010 cohort: credential-seeking developmental math students, credential-seeking
developmental English students, all credential-seeking developmental students, and college-level
credential-seeking students.
The figure below shows the pipeline for the 2010 cohort of credential-seeking students enrolled in any
type of developmental math at any time during the three years after their initial enrollment at Harper.
Of the initial group of 1,156 students, 43.4 percent were successful in attaining the momentum point of
completing the highest level of developmental math. Of the entire cohort, 23.2 percent completed
gatekeeper math within three years. The figure also shows that 19.4 percent of these credential-seeking
students achieved the milestone of graduation within 150 percent of normal time. The numbers below
the pipeline highlight the proportion of students from the 2010 cohort who did not reach each of the
momentum points within three years.
See Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math section of the
report for information comparing pipeline data from year to year and across demographic groups.
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2010 credential-seeking cohort that
enrolled in at least one developmental math course (those numbered below 90 at the College) through year three.
9
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion
Students Starting in any Developmental Reading/Writing Course Completing Developmental
and Gatekeeper English
The figure below shows a pipeline for the 2010 cohort of credential-seeking students enrolled in any
level of either developmental reading or writing (or both) at any time during the three years after their
initial enrollment at Harper. Of the initial group of 641 students, 65.8 percent were successful in
attaining the momentum point of completing the highest level of developmental English or reading. At
the next momentum point, 43.5 percent successfully completed gatekeeper English. The figure also
shows that 14.5 percent of these credential-seeking students achieved the milestone of graduation
within 150 percent of normal time. The numbers below the pipeline highlight the proportion of students
from the 2010 cohort who did not reach each of the momentum points within three years.
See Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English section of the
report for information comparing pipeline data from year to year and across demographic groups.
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2010 credential-seeking cohort
that enrolled in at least one developmental reading (below 100) or English (100 and below) course through year three.
10
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses
Course Success: All Credit Courses
Overall course success rates have shown improvement over time, from 71.2 percent during the 2008-09
academic year to 74.1 percent during the 2012-13 academic year.
100%
80%
71.2%
72.0%
70.9%
73.3%
74.1%
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
60%
40%
20%
0%
% successful completions
71.2%
72.0%
70.9%
73.3%
74.1%
# successful completions
70,007
76,278
75,278
73,239
71,764
# course enrollments
98,276
105,901
106,105
99,916
96,845
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Successful completions include those earning a C or better in a course.
Course Success:
Developmental
Courses
Page 4
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
11
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses
Success in Gatekeeper Math
Success rates for gatekeeper math courses have varied over time but reached a five-year low of 73.6
percent for the 2010 cohort. The 2007 cohort showed the highest success rate, 77.2 percent, during the
five-year period.
100%
80%
77.2%
75.1%
74.4%
75.5%
73.6%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
% successfully completed gatekeeper math
75.1%
77.2%
74.4%
75.5%
73.6%
N successfully completed gatekeeper math
613
688
659
716
678
N attempted gatekeeper math
816
891
886
948
921
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper math includes
MTH101, MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and MTH165. Successful completions include those earning a C or better in that course.
LINKS TO
RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Gatekeeper
Math by
Gender
Page 90
Success in
Gatekeeper
Math by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 91
Success in
Gatekeeper
Math by
Developmental
Placement
Page 92
12
Success in
Gatekeeper
Math by Full/Part-Time
Status
Page 93
Success in
Gatekeeper
Math by Age
Group
Page 94
Success in
Gatekeeper
Math by Pell
Status
Page 95
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses
Success in Gatekeeper English
Student success in gatekeeper English has remained relatively steady over time. Within three years of
beginning course work at Harper College, approximately 80 percent of students attempting gatekeeper
English are successful in that course. This percentage reached a 5-year high of 83.1 percent for the 2010
cohort.
Comparing these attempts to the overall cohorts (see page x) illustrates that approximately 55 to 60
percent of Harper’s credential-seeking students attempt gatekeeper English within their first three years
at the College. For the 2010 cohort, 1,650 students (60.2 percent) attempted gatekeeper English.
100%
82.6%
80.9%
80%
79.8%
83.1%
81.1%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
% successfully completed gatekeeper English
80.9%
82.6%
79.8%
81.1%
83.1%
N successfully completed gatekeeper English
1,231
1,342
1,312
1,383
1,371
N attempted gatekeeper English
1,521
1,624
1,644
1,706
1,650
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three.
Gatekeeper English includes only ENG101. Successful completions include those earning a C or better in that course.
LINKS TO
RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Gatekeeper
English by
Gender
Page 97
Success in
Gatekeeper
English by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 98
Success in
Gatekeeper
English by
Developmental
Placement
Page 99
13
Success in
Gatekeeper
English by Full/
Part-Time
Status
Page 100
Success in
Gatekeeper
English by Age
Group
Page 101
Success in
Gatekeeper
English by Pell
Status
Page 102
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: All Credential-Seeking Students
The figure below illustrates the differences between pipelines for all credential-seeking students in the
2008 to 2010 cohorts. The 2009 cohort performed slightly better than the 2008 cohort for all four
momentum points as well as the final milestone of earning a credential. The 2010 cohort performed
better than the 2009 cohort on the enrolled 15 college-level credits milestone as well as earning a
credential. Overall, Harper’s credential-seeking students beginning in fall 2010 earned degrees and
certificates at a rate 3.7 percent higher than the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
72.7%
71.9%
73.5%
56.2%
60%
54.4%
53.2%
55.8%
52.9%
51.8%
38.0%
38.0%
37.9%
40%
23.3%
24.3%
20.6%
20%
0%
Enrolled 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 all credential-seeking student cohort
71.9%
54.4%
51.8%
37.9%
20.6%
2009 all credential-seeking student cohort
72.7%
56.2%
53.2%
38.0%
23.3%
2010 all credential-seeking student cohort
73.5%
55.8%
52.9%
38.0%
24.3%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2010 credential-seeking cohort that enrolled in one
or more college-level credit course during a three-year tracking period but did not enroll in any developmental courses during that period.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30 College
Credits: Female & Male
Students
Pages 104-105
Earning 15 and 30 College
Credits: Asian, Black,
Hispanic & White
Students
Pages 106-109
Earning 15 and 30 College
Credits: Developmental &
College-Level Students
Pages 110-111
Earning 15 and 30 College
Credits: Full-Time & PartTime Students
Pages 112-113
Earning 15 and 30 College
Credits: Students Age 18
and Under, Age 19-24 and
Age 25 and Over
Pages 114-116
Earning 15 and 30 College
Credits: Pell & Non-Pell
Students
Pages 117-118
14
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Starting in Credit Courses
In the figure below, the 2010 cohort includes only credential-seeking first-time in Harper students with
no developmental placements at any time during the three years after their initial enrollment at Harper.
Of this group of 1,617 students, 51.4 percent were successful in attaining the momentum point, earning
15 college credits. However, only 35.7 percent successfully completed at least 30 college credits. The
figure also shows that 26.5 percent of credential-seeking students achieved the milestone of earning a
credential within 150 percent of normal time. The numbers below the pipeline highlight the proportion
of students from the 2010 credit student cohort who did not reach each of the momentum points within
three years.
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2010 credential-seeking cohort that enrolled in one
or more college-level credit course during a three-year tracking period but did not enroll in any developmental courses during that period.
15
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Starting in any Developmental Course
The figure below shows a pipeline for the 2010 cohort of credential-seeking students enrolled in any
developmental course at any time during the three years after their initial enrollment at Harper. Of this
group of 1,300 students, 54.9 percent were successful in attaining the completing 15 college credits
momentum point. 36.4 percent of the cohort successfully completed at least 30 college credits. The
numbers below the pipeline highlight the proportion of students from the 2010 cohort of all
developmental students who did not reach each of the momentum points within three years.
The figure also shows that 18.8 percent of credential-seeking developmental students achieved the
milestone of earning a credential within 150 percent of normal time. According to the National Center
for Education Statistics, one-third of students entering postsecondary education are required to take
remedial courses in at least one subject; at community colleges, nearly half of these students fail to
matriculate to the second year due to a lack of preparation to engage in college-level courses (2003).
These facts highlight the need to work more closely with high schools to develop strategies that will
better prepare students, moving them toward college readiness and ultimately college completion.
These pipelines allow Harper staff to see patterns and be able to use the data to inform policies or
practices.
See Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Developmental Students section of the report for information
comparing pipeline data from year to year.
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental student definition: students in 2010 credential-seeking cohort that enrolled in at
least one developmental course (math below 90, reading below 100, or English 100 and below) through year three.
16
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Starting in any Developmental Math Course
The figure below shows a pipeline for the 2010 cohort of credential-seeking students enrolled in any
level of developmental math. Of the initial group of 1,156 students, 56.6 percent were successful in
attaining the momentum point of completing 15 college credits. By contrast, only 37.4 percent
successfully completed at least 30 college credits. The numbers below the pipeline highlight the
proportion of students from the 2010 cohort who did not reach each of the momentum points within
three years.
The figure also shows that 19.4 percent of these developmental credential-seeking students achieved
the milestone of earning a credential within 150 percent of normal time. On a national level, math is the
subject that requires more remedial assistance than any other subject (Adelman, 2004). Specifically, 28
percent of community college students take at least one remedial course in any level of mathematics
(Attewell, Lavin, Domina, and Levey, 2006). This fact highlights the need to work more closely with high
schools to develop strategies that will better prepare students, specifically in the subject of
mathematics.
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2010 credential-seeking cohort that
enrolled in at least one developmental math course (those numbered below 90 at the College) through year three.
17
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Starting in any Developmental Reading/Writing Course
The figure below shows a pipeline for the 2010 cohort of credential-seeking students enrolled in any
level of either developmental reading or writing (or both). Of the initial group of 641 students, 47.0
percent were successful in attaining the momentum point of completing 15 college credits. However,
only 29.5 percent successfully completed at least 30 college credits. The figure also shows that 14.5
percent of credential-seeking students achieved the milestone of earning a credential within 150
percent of normal time. The numbers below the pipeline highlight the proportion of students from the
2010 cohort who did not reach each of the momentum points within three years.
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2010 credential-seeking cohort
that enrolled in at least one developmental reading (below 100) or English (100 and below) course through year three.
18
Successful Progression
Student Engagement
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE)
Harper College administers the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) every three
years. The most recent survey was administered in spring 2012 and includes benchmarks against three
years of colleges participating in the survey. According to CCSSE:
Benchmarks are groups of conceptually related items that address key areas of student engagement.
CCSSE’s five benchmarks denote areas that educational research has shown to be important in quality
educational practice. The benchmarks are active and collaborative learning, student effort, academic
challenge, student-faculty interaction, and support for learners.
Every college has a score for each benchmark, computed by averaging the scores on survey items that
comprise that benchmark. Benchmark scores are standardized so that the mean — the average of all
participating students — always is 50 and the standard deviation is 25. The most valuable use of
benchmarks is to see an individual college’s deviation from the mean, and the standardized score
provides an easy way to assess whether an individual college is performing above or below the mean (50)
on each benchmark. (Source: http://www.ccsse.org/benchmarkpopup.html)
Harper College was lower than the mean score on all CCSSE benchmarks in 2012. Additionally, all but
one score showed a decrease since both the 2006 and 2009 surveys were conducted. Student-Faculty
Interaction scored slightly higher than in 2009, but continues to fall below 2006 benchmark levels.
100
75
CCSSE benchmark
score (mean = 50)
50
25
0
Active and
Collaborative
Learning
Student Effort
Academic
Challenge
Student-Faculty
Interaction
Support for
Learners
2006
48.0
48.0
50.2
48.6
49.5
2009
46.2
48.4
50.3
47.9
49.2
2012
45.6
47.6
49.6
48.0
47.7
Source: CCSSE 2006, 2009 and 2012 Institutional Reports.
19
Completion and Transfer
Completion and Transfer are communicated through a variety of measures. The number of credentials
conferred as well as individuals earning credentials (completers) are provided by Harper College
Enrollment Services and Institutional Research and shown on pages 21 and 22. Completion and transfer
rates, using definitions from the Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS) are presented on page
23. Demographic breakouts for these measures are included in the Completers, Completion Rates and
Transfer Rates sections of this report. These breakouts come from a variety of sources, such as
Institutional Research, IPEDS and AtD.
The number of credentials conferred at Harper College increased from 2,426 in 2008-09 to 3,930 in
2012-13. In 2011-12, Harper achieved its highest number of credentials conferred: 4,487. The large
increase in credentials over time as well as the peak seen in 2011-12 is largely due to our Completion
Concierge and our efforts to stack career certificates that lead to degrees.
From the 2006 to the 2009 cohort, graduation rates as measured by IPEDS also increased, while IPEDS
transfer rates have decreased since the 2007 cohort. The combined completion and transfer rate
decreased after the 2008 cohort, from a 4-year high of 52.2 percent to 49.4 percent for the 2009 cohort.
20
Completion and Transfer
Credentials and Completers
Number of Credentials Conferred
In 2010, Harper College adopted a new Strategic Plan with a primary focus of degree and certificate
completion. Through the Strategic Plan, the College began several new initiatives such as the
Completion Concierge, which focused on helping students complete degrees and certificates. These
initiatives led to a large increase in the number of credentials conferred in subsequent years. Although
the number of credentials decreased from 2011-12 to 2012-13, the number of credentials conferred
remains higher than those earned prior to adoption of the new Strategic Plan.
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Number of credentials
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2,426
2,452
3,838
4,487
3,930
Source: Enrollment Services.
21
Completion and Transfer
Credentials and Completers
Number of Completers
This report defines a completer as a student who earned a degree and/or certificate within a given year.
A single completer can earn multiple degrees and/or certificates each year, giving the College a higher
number of completions than completers each year. The highest number of completers was reached in
2011-12, with a slight decrease to 3,482 in 2012-13. The large increase in completers over time, as well
as the peak in 2011-12, is largely due to the College’s Completion Concierge and efforts to stack career
certificates that lead to degrees.
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Number of completers
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
2,128
2,197
2,534
3,824
3,482
Source: Institutional Research, ICCB A1 files.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Number of
Completers by
Gender
Page 120
Percentage of
Completers by
Gender
Page 121
22
Number of
Completers by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 122
Percentage of
Completers by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 123
Completion and Transfer
Completion and Transfer Rates
Students Completing or Transferring
Current IPEDS graduation cohorts, unlike the AtD cohorts used throughout most of this report, include
only full-time students (those who attend 12 or more credit hours) during their first semester at the
College. Like AtD cohorts, only students beginning at the College during a fall semester are included.
Harper College’s three-year completion rate increased from 14.8 percent for the 2006 IPEDS cohort to
20.4 percent for the 2009 IPEDS cohort.
Transfer rates decreased 6.7 percent from the 2007 to the 2009 cohort. For the fall 2009 cohort, 29.0
percent of students transferred out of the College instead of obtaining a degree or certificate. In total,
approximately 50 percent of first-time full-time credential-seeking students receive a credential or
transfer out of Harper College within three years of beginning their course work at the College.
However, there was a 2.8 percent decrease in overall completion plus transfer rates from the 2008 to
the 2009 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
% completed
2006
2007
2008
2009
14.8%
13.9%
19.0%
20.4%
N completed
251
236
311
314
% transferred
32.3%
35.7%
33.2%
29.0%
N transferred
548
607
545
446
% completed or transferred
47.1%
49.6%
52.2%
49.4%
N completed or transferred
799
843
856
760
Source: IPEDS. Transfer includes only students who transferred without completing. See Appendix for full IPEDS definitions.
LINKS TO
RELATED
FIGURES:
Completion
Rates by
Gender
Page 125
Completion
Rates by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 126
Completion
Rates of
Developmental
Students
Page 127
Completion
Rates by Full-/
Part-Time
Status
Page 128
Completion
Rates by Age
Group
Page 129
Combined
Completion
and Transfer
by Gender
Page 132
Transfer Rates
by Gender
Page 133
Transfer Rates
by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 134
Transfer Rates
of
Developmental
Students
Page 135
Transfer Rates
by Age Group
Page 136
23
Completion
Rates by Pell
Status
Page 130
Workforce and Employment
Workforce and employment data are obtained through the Illinois Community College Board (ICCB)
Career Tech Education Analysis Portal and Follow-up Study of Career and Technical Education Program
Graduates. The Analysis Portal is a new tool that allows researchers to determine employment rates for
students after they have completed a career or technical credential at a community college using state
employment records. These data include employment in any field. The follow-up study is administered
once per year to Harper career graduates, and is therefore self-reported data. These data provide
employment in the field related to the program of study as well as breakouts by full- and part-time
status.
Overall, Harper career graduates are employed at lower rates than they were in 2008. However, over
time these rates have rebounded slightly for survey respondents who were employed in their related
field. Employment rates for all Harper Career graduates in any field of study remain at the lowest point
since the economic recession of 2008-09.
24
Workforce and Employment
Employment of Harper Career Graduates
Employment rates for career graduates, both six months and one year after completion have declined
since 2008. The largest decrease was seen in career graduates employed six months after completion,
which decreased 8.4 percent from 2008 to 2011. However, the number of career graduates as well as
the number of employed graduates has greatly increased during this same time period. In 2011, the
number of career graduates employed one year after completion increased by 751, from 939 in the
2008 cohort to a high of 1,690 in the 2011 cohort. The increase in career graduates is largely due to the
College’s Completion Concierge and efforts to stack career certificates that lead to degrees.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
% employed six months after completion
81.3%
77.0%
73.3%
72.9%
N employed six months after completion
958
1006
943
1641
% employed one year after completion
79.7%
76.1%
75.3%
75.1%
N employed one year after completion
939
995
969
1690
Source: Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) Career Tech Education Analysis Portal: https://informatics.niu.edu/iccb/.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Employment by
Gender, Six
Months After
Completion
Page 138
Employment by
Gender, One
Year After
Completion
Page 139
25
Employment by
Race/Ethnicity,
Six Months After
Completion
Page 140
Employment by
Race/Ethnicity,
One Year After
Completion
Page 141
Workforce and Employment
Employment in Field Related to Harper Program of Study
Career graduate employment was measured via the Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) graduate
survey question “How closely is your present job related to your former community college program?”
(Related, Not related). Harper’s most recent employment in related field, 46.5 percent, is slightly higher
than the 5-year low reached for 2010 graduates. Harper’s rate is currently below the national median of
57.5 percent, provided by the National Community College Benchmark Project (NCCBP).
100%
80%
60%
58.7%
45.9%
45.1%
47.8%
46.5%
40%
20%
0%
2008 graduates
2009 graduates
2010 graduates
2011 graduates
2012 graduates
% employed in related field
58.7%
45.9%
45.1%
47.8%
46.5%
N employed in related field
422
195
294
508
628
N completers responding
719
425
652
1062
1350
Source: ICCB Follow-Up Survey item “How closely is your present job related to your former community college program?” (Related, Not
related). Percentage calculated on number of students responding “related” to this item, divided by the total number of students completing
the survey.
26
Workforce and Employment
Employment Status
The majority of 2012 ICCB career graduate survey respondents were working either full-time (47.5
percent) or part-time (28.8 percent) after they left Harper. Although the proportion of graduates who
reported themselves as employed full- or part-time has increased since the surveys of 2009 and 2010
graduates, the 76.3 percent employment rate is still below the employment rate of 2008 graduates who
responded to this survey question (82.9 percent).
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008
graduates
2009
graduates
2010
graduates
2011
graduates
2012
graduates
Employed full-time – 30 hours or more per week
59.8%
47.3%
40.0%
49.5%
47.5%
Employed part-time – less than 30 hours per week
23.1%
26.1%
31.6%
26.7%
28.8%
Unemployed, seeking employment
9.9%
15.3%
11.0%
12.4%
14.7%
Unemployed, not seeking employment
7.1%
11.3%
17.3%
11.4%
8.9%
Number of respondents
714
425
652
1056
1343
Source: ICCB Follow-Up Survey item “What is your present employment status?” (Employed full-time; Employed part-time; Full-time military
service; Unemployed, seeking employment; Unemployed, not seeking employment). Graduates responding “Full-time military service” are
included in the “Employed full-time” category for the purposes of this report.
27
Demographics
Successful Progression
Persistence
Persistence is measured by the percentage of a student cohort that continues to re-enroll at Harper
during a given time period. Both fall to spring and fall to fall persistence are included in this report.
Students included in fall to spring persistence are those who enrolled as new Harper credential-seeking
students in a given fall semester and then re-enrolled in the spring semester of the same fiscal year.
Students included in fall to fall persistence are those who enrolled as new Harper credential-seeking
students in a given fall semester and then re-enrolled the following fall semester. Achieving the Dream
cohorts are used to track fall to spring and fall to fall persistence of Harper students (see page x).
Over the time period analyzed in this report, fall to spring persistence has shown a slight but steady
increase. However, fall to fall persistence decreased 3.7 percent from the 2010 to the 2011 cohort (see
page 3). The following pages provide more detailed information about persistence for demographic
groups by gender, race/ethnicity, developmental status, full-/part-time status, age group and Pell status.
Persistence is a vital measure of student ability and willingness to continue their studies at Harper
College. The decrease in fall to fall persistence from the 2010 to 2011 cohort indicates a need to further
examine reasons for the decrease as well as potential solutions for improving persistence for future
Harper students.
28
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Spring Persistence by Gender
Females and males persist from fall to spring at similar rates. Males 20-24, a group of students of focus
for the Harper College Strategic Plan, have a lower persistence rate than the overall College rate. The
male 20-24 fall to spring persistence rate falls approximately 8 to 12 percent below the College’s overall
fall to spring persistence rate.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Female % persisting
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
75.9%
78.2%
78.7%
78.3%
77.7%
Female N persisting
1,046
1,072
1,104
1,091
994
Male % persisting
76.1%
77.3%
77.5%
75.4%
77.9%
Male N persisting
1,000
1,088
1,036
956
841
Male 20-24 % persisting
68.1%
68.4%
68.7%
65.8%
66.3%
Male 20-24 N persisting
158
154
160
144
122
Overall % persisting
76.0%
77.8%
78.1%
76.7%
77.8%
Overall N persisting
2,046
2,160
2,140
2,063
1,835
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing
responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
29
Fall to Fall
Persistence by
Gender
Page 35
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Spring Persistence by Race/Ethnicity
Black and Hispanic students persist at rates below the College’s overall fall to spring persistence rates.
However, Hispanic students have decreased this gap, increasing persistence over time from a low of
69.2 percent for the 2008 cohort to 76.5 percent for the 2012 cohort. This rate now falls approximately
1 percent below the overall Harper College fall to spring persistence rate. Black student persistence is
more variable, likely due to the relatively small number of students included in this group. However,
over time black student persistence has been continually lower than overall Harper persistence. This
difference was largest for the 2011 cohort, when black persistence was 14.1 percent lower than the
overall Harper College fall to spring persistence rate.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Asian % persisting
81.6%
78.8%
81.3%
80.1%
77.0%
Asian N persisting
218
215
165
165
154
Black % persisting
74.5%
70.1%
69.3%
62.6%
63.9%
Black N persisting
Hispanic % persisting
Hispanic N persisting
137
157
185
181
108
69.2%
73.4%
74.0%
73.1%
76.5%
261
350
325
332
355
White % persisting
77.7%
79.9%
79.7%
79.7%
78.9%
White N persisting
1,182
1,340
1,304
1,187
1,044
Overall % persisting
76.0%
77.8%
78.1%
76.7%
77.8%
Overall N persisting
2,046
2,160
2,140
2,063
1,835
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Due to a small number of students, some racial/ethnic
groups such as American Indian/Alaskan Native are not listed separately in this report. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are
missing responses. Additional racial/ethnic groups and missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
30
Fall to Fall
Persistence by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 36
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Spring Persistence of Developmental Students
Students placing into developmental math persist at a similar rate to the overall Harper College fall to
spring persistence rate. However, students placing into developmental reading and writing tend to have
lower persistence rates than both the overall Harper rate and the persistence rate of students placing
into developmental math. Thus, in general, reading and writing developmental placement correlate with
lower fall to spring persistence rates.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Dev. math % persisting
78.2%
78.6%
77.8%
78.4%
77.9%
Dev. math N persisting
845
902
944
859
701
Dev. reading % persisting
73.8%
80.7%
76.1%
74.5%
74.6%
Dev. reading N persisting
412
446
451
417
299
Dev. writing % persisting
74.4%
77.6%
73.7%
71.2%
73.5%
Dev. writing N persisting
250
277
283
245
175
Any dev. % persisting
78.1%
79.5%
78.1%
78.3%
77.5%
Any dev. N persisting
957
1,026
1,048
971
772
Overall % persisting
76.0%
77.8%
78.1%
76.7%
77.8%
Overall N persisting
2,046
2,160
2,140
2,063
1,835
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Developmental courses are those numbered below 90 in
math, below 100 in reading, or 100 and below in English.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
31
Fall to Fall
Persistence of
Developmental
Students
Page 37
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Spring Persistence by Full-/Part-Time Status
Because all students within AtD cohorts are credential-seeking, part-time students should be expected
to continue their studies at a similar rate to full-time students in order to reach their goal of completing
a degree or certificate. However, the figure below shows that full-time students persist at a rate
between 20 and 27 percentage points higher than part-time students.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Full-time % persisting
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
84.0%
87.0%
85.5%
86.0%
86.7%
Full-time N persisting
1507
1562
1500
1441
1253
Part-time % persisting
60.0%
60.8%
65.0%
61.4%
63.7%
Part-time N persisting
539
598
640
622
582
Overall % persisting
76.0%
77.8%
78.1%
76.7%
77.8%
Overall N persisting
2,046
2,160
2,140
2,063
1,835
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Full- and part-time status are as of the student’s first
semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
32
Fall to Fall
Persistence by
Full-/Part-Time
Status
Page 38
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Spring Persistence by Age Group
Students age 19 and under consistently persist at higher rates than all other age groups. Students age
25-29 as well as students age 30 and over have similar persistence rates, which generally fall more than
10 percent below the overall average.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Age 19 and under % persistence
80.9%
84.8%
84.3%
83.5%
85.1%
Age 19 and under N persistence
1,373
1,450
1,392
1,338
1,223
Age 20-24 % persistence
72.3%
71.5%
68.0%
67.4%
68.8%
Age 20-24 N persistence
344
324
334
322
286
Age 25-29 % persistence
62.3%
62.8%
70.0%
66.4%
65.2%
Age 25-29 N persistence
Age 30 and over % persistence
Age 30 and over N persistence
124
135
140
150
116
64.9%
62.8%
68.8%
66.5%
64.0%
203
251
274
252
210
Overall % persistence
76.0%
77.8%
78.1%
76.7%
77.8%
Overall N persistence
2,046
2,160
2,140
2,063
1,835
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing
responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are included in the overall total. Age groups are as of the
student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
33
Fall to Fall
Persistence by
Age Group
Page 39
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Spring Persistence by Pell Status
Students receiving Pell grants consistently exhibited a higher persistence rate than did students who did
not receive Pell grants. For the 2012 cohort, the fall to spring persistence rate of Pell students was 85.2
percent, which was more than 10 percent higher than non-Pell student persistence.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Pell % persisting
Pell N persisting
Non-Pell % persisting
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
85.4%
84.0%
82.6%
82.1%
85.2%
409
620
770
743
615
73.9%
75.5%
75.8%
74.0%
74.5%
Non-Pell N persisting
1,637
1,540
1,370
1,320
1220
Overall % persisting
76.0%
77.8%
78.1%
76.7%
77.8%
Overall N persisting
2,046
2,160
2,140
2,063
1,835
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Pell status is as of the student’s first semester at the
College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
34
Fall to Fall
Persistence by
Pell Status
Page 40
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Fall Persistence by Gender
Females tend to have slightly higher fall to fall persistence rates than do males (for example, 3.8 percent
higher for the 2011 cohort). All groups showed a decrease in fall to fall persistence for the 2011 cohort;
male fall to fall persistence decreased 4.6 percent from the 2010 to the 2011 cohort. Males age 20-24
have persistence rates lower than the overall Harper fall to fall persistence rate; persistence decreased
dramatically for this group from the 2010 to the 2011 cohort (15.7 percent). This large decrease may be,
in part, due to the small number of males age 20-24 included in the AtD cohorts.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Female % persisting
57.5%
60.9%
61.5%
61.6%
58.8%
Female N persisting
824
840
842
864
819
Male % persisting
59.1%
57.6%
60.0%
59.6%
55.0%
Male N persisting
773
757
845
797
698
Male age 20-24 % persisting
44.4%
44.4%
44.4%
48.1%
32.4%
Male age 20-24 N persisting
108
103
100
112
71
Overall % persisting
58.3%
59.3%
60.7%
60.6%
56.9%
Overall N persisting
1,597
1,597
1,687
1,661
1,530
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing
responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
35
Fall to Spring
Persistence by
Gender
Page 29
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Fall Persistence by Race/Ethnicity
The overall fall to fall persistence rate decreased for all racial/ethnic groups from the 2010 to the 2011
cohort. Asian and black students showed the largest decreases, 9.3 percent and 12.1 percent,
respectively. The smallest decrease was in the white student population, with a change of 0.8 percent.
Beyond the trends that each group exhibits, there is a notable gap between overall persistence and
persistence for black students. Black student persistence has been extremely variable, trending
approximately 10-30 percent below the overall fall to fall persistence rate.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Asian % persisting
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
60.2%
61.0%
65.6%
73.4%
64.1%
Asian N persisting
177
163
179
149
132
Black % persisting
30.1%
49.5%
44.6%
40.8%
28.7%
Black N persisting
47
91
100
109
83
Hispanic % persisting
56.3%
51.5%
57.2%
57.6%
52.8%
Hispanic N persisting
205
194
273
253
239
White % persisting
61.4%
62.6%
62.9%
62.7%
61.9%
White N persisting
1,040
953
1,056
1,026
922
Overall % persisting
58.3%
59.3%
60.7%
60.6%
56.9%
Overall N persisting
1,597
1,597
1,687
1,661
1,530
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Pacific Islanders are included in the Asian group for the
2007 cohort. Due to a small number of students, some racial/ethnic groups such as American Indian/Alaskan Native are not listed separately in
this report. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses. Additional racial/ethnic groups and missing responses are
included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
36
Fall to Spring
Persistence by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 30
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Fall Persistence of Developmental Students
Like fall to spring persistence, the fall to fall persistence rate of students testing into developmental
math is consistent with overall persistence for Harper College. However, persistence rates of those
testing into developmental reading and writing tend to be lower than the overall Harper rates, with
developmental writing student persistence falling approximately 4-7 percent below overall Harper
persistence rates.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Dev. math % persisting
56.8%
60.0%
61.0%
61.1%
56.6%
Dev. math N persisting
612
648
700
741
620
Dev. reading % persisting
53.6%
56.8%
60.8%
57.5%
53.3%
Dev. reading N persisting
260
317
336
341
298
Dev. writing % persisting
51.8%
53.0%
56.3%
55.7%
50.7%
Dev. writing N persisting
143
178
201
214
174
57.1%
59.6%
62.1%
61.0%
57.1%
Any dev. % persisting
Any dev. N persisting
701
730
801
819
708
Overall % persisting
58.3%
59.3%
60.7%
60.6%
56.9%
Overall N persisting
1,597
1,597
1,687
1,661
1,530
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Developmental courses are those numbered below 90 in
math, below 100 in reading, or 100 and below in English.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
37
Fall to Spring
Persistence of
Developmental
Students
Page 31
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Fall Persistence by Full-/Part-Time Status
Credential-seeking full-time students persist from fall to the following fall at a higher rate than do their
part-time counterparts. The gap between persistence for full-time and part-time students has increased
from approximately 19 percent for the 2007 cohort to 25 percent for the 2010 and 2011 cohorts. Both
full-time and part-time student persistence decreased in line with the overall total from the 2010 to the
2011 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Full-time % persisting
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
65.0%
67.2%
69.1%
69.7%
66.2%
Full-time N persisting
1137
1206
1240
1223
1109
Part-time % persisting
46.4%
43.5%
45.5%
44.5%
41.6%
Part-time N persisting
460
391
447
438
421
Overall % persisting
58.3%
59.3%
60.7%
60.6%
56.9%
Overall N persisting
1,597
1,597
1,687
1,661
1,530
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Full- and part-time status are as of the student’s first
semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
38
Fall to Spring
Persistence by
Full-/Part-Time
Status
Page 32
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Fall Persistence by Age Group
Similar to the fall to spring persistence pattern, the fall to fall persistence rate for students age 19 and
under was consistently higher than all other cohort groups. Students age 20-24 as well as students age
25-29 have similar persistence rates, which generally fall more than 10 percent below the overall
average. Students age 30 and over have had the most variable fall to fall persistence rates, ranging from
a low of 38.7 percent for the 2008 cohort to 49.0 percent for the 2010 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Age 19 and under % persistence
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
66.5%
67.8%
70.2%
69.2%
67.6%
Age 19 and under N persistence
1,129
1,151
1,201
1,143
1,083
Age 20-24 % persistence
45.6%
48.5%
47.5%
47.7%
40.3%
Age 20-24 N persistence
237
231
215
234
192
Age 25-29 % persistence
45.9%
46.2%
46.5%
44.5%
41.6%
Age 25-29 N persistence
85
92
100
89
94
Age 30 and over % persistence
43.0%
38.7%
42.8%
49.0%
42.2%
Age 30 and over N persistence
145
121
171
195
160
Overall % persistence
58.3%
59.3%
60.7%
60.6%
56.9%
Overall N persistence
1,597
1,597
1,687
1,661
1,530
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing
responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are included in the overall total. Age groups are as of the
student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
39
Fall to Spring
Persistence by
Age Group
Page 33
Successful Progression
Persistence
Fall to Fall Persistence by Pell Status
Fall to fall persistence has remained fairly stable over time for both Pell and non-Pell students. However,
Pell student persistence decreased 8.2 percent from the 2010 to the 2011 cohort. With the exception of
the 2011 cohort, fall to fall persistence is comparable between the two sets of students, differing by no
more than 1 percent for any cohort from 2007 to 2010.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Pell % persisting
58.0%
58.5%
61.1%
61.3%
53.1%
Pell N persisting
267
280
451
571
481
Non-Pell % persisting
58.3%
59.5%
60.6%
60.3%
58.9%
Non-Pell N persisting
1,330
1,317
1,236
1,090
1,049
Overall % persisting
58.3%
59.3%
60.7%
60.6%
56.9%
Overall N persisting
1,597
1,597
1,687
1,661
1,530
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Pell status is as of the student’s first semester at the
College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Fall to Spring
and Fall to Fall
Persistence
Page 3
40
Fall to Spring
Persistence by
Pell Status
Page 34
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Math
In this report, performance in developmental math provides the percentage of a student cohort that
enrolls in developmental math courses and successfully completes at least one of those courses within
three years. Developmental math attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in
developmental math courses numbered below 90. Successful completion includes students who earn a
C or better in a course. Achieving the Dream cohorts are used to track Harper student developmental
math completion (see page x).
Overall developmental math success increased for the 2008 and 2009 cohorts. However, the 2010
cohort success rates fell to levels near the 2006 and 2007 cohort success rates. The following pages
provide more detailed information about developmental math completion for demographic groups by
gender, race/ethnicity, full-/part-time status, age group and Pell status.
Performance in developmental math is a measure of developmental students’ ability to progress on the
path needed to complete a degree at Harper College. The decrease in developmental math success from
the 2009 to 2010 cohort indicates a need to further examine reasons for the decrease as well as
potential solutions for improving success for future Harper students.
41
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Math
Success in Developmental Math by Gender
Female students’ developmental math success rates are consistently higher than developmental math
success rates for males. For the 2010 cohort, females succeeded in developmental math at a rate 12.5
percent higher than males. However, both females and males exhibited lower developmental math
success rates for the 2010 cohort than for either of the previous two cohorts.
The large variation in the success rates for males age 20-24 is likely due to the small number of students
in that group that attempted developmental math. Although males age 20-24 have lower success rates
in developmental math courses than do females, they do not consistently perform above or below
overall male success rates.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Female % completed any dev. math
Female N completed any dev. math
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
74.0%
71.4%
74.1%
76.0%
73.4%
381
404
389
403
414
Male % completed any dev. math
59.7%
64.2%
66.5%
63.3%
60.9%
Male N completed any dev. math
318
375
369
361
355
Male age 20-24 % completed any dev. math
61.2%
54.3%
71.3%
54.4%
63.8%
Male age 20-24 N completed any dev. math
41
44
62
43
51
Overall % completed any dev. math
66.7%
67.7%
70.2%
69.5%
67.0%
Overall N completed any dev. math
699
779
758
764
769
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental math
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental math courses numbered below 90. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are
missing responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Math
Page 5
Success in
Developmental Writing
by Gender
Page 48
42
Success in
Developmental Reading
by Gender
Page 54
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Math
Success in Developmental Math by Race/Ethnicity
On average, approximately 66 to 70 percent of students taking developmental math courses successfully
complete at least one of these courses within their first three years at Harper College. Among the
racial/ethnic groups, Asian and white students perform consistently above the overall Harper average,
while black students consistently perform below the overall Harper average. Black student success in
developmental math fell below 50 percent for all but one of the cohorts studied in this report. Despite a
small N affecting the variability of this outcome, it is clear that over time black students are less likely
than other racial/ethnic groups to successfully complete a developmental math course within their first
three years at Harper College.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Asian % completed any dev. math
77.8%
66.7%
76.5%
75.6%
80.3%
Asian N completed any dev. math
63
50
62
59
66
Black % completed any dev. math
44.4%
40.9%
56.7%
46.8%
45.9%
Black N completed any dev. math
Hispanic % completed any dev. math
Hispanic N completed any dev. math
40
38
59
59
68
70.2%
68.5%
71.9%
68.1%
64.2%
106
124
123
141
136
White % completed any dev. math
68.9%
72.6%
71.9%
74.2%
72.1%
White N completed any dev. math
424
512
425
482
473
Overall % completed any dev. math
66.7%
67.7%
70.2%
69.5%
67.0%
Overall N completed any dev. math
699
779
758
764
769
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental math
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental math courses numbered below 90. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Pacific Islanders are included in the Asian group for
the 2006 and 2007 cohorts. Due to a small number of students, some racial/ethnic groups such as American Indian/Alaskan Native are not
listed separately in this report. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses. Additional racial/ethnic groups and
missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Math
Page 5
Success in
Developmental Writing
by Race/Ethnicity
Page 49
43
Success in
Developmental Reading
by Race/Ethnicity
Page 55
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Math
Success in Developmental Math by Full-/Part-Time Status
Over time, part-time students are slightly less likely than full-time students to successfully complete a
developmental course in which they enrolled. The gap between full- and part-time students was largest
for the 2009 cohort (6.8 percent).
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Full-time % completed any dev. math
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
67.4%
67.5%
70.8%
70.7%
68.1%
Full-time N completed any dev. math
567
623
639
631
621
Part-time % completed any dev. math
63.8%
68.7%
67.2%
63.9%
63.0%
Part-time N completed any dev. math
132
156
119
133
148
Overall % completed any dev. math
66.7%
67.7%
70.2%
69.5%
67.0%
Overall N completed any dev. math
699
779
758
764
769
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental math
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental math courses numbered below 90. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Full- and part-time status are as of the student’s first
semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Math
Page 5
Success in
Developmental Writing
by Full-/Part-Time
Status
Page 50
44
Success in
Developmental Reading
by Full-/Part-Time
Status
Page 56
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Math
Success in Developmental Math by Age Group
The success rates for the completion of developmental math by age group show variation across cohorts
and age groups. However, students age 19 and under remained relatively stable over the course of the
five cohorts. Additionally, students age 25-29 tended to have higher developmental math success rates
than did other age groups.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Age 19 and under % completed any dev. math
Age 19 and under N completed any dev. math
Age 20-24 % completed any dev. math
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
66.6%
68.7%
69.6%
70.1%
66.8%
580
631
597
602
595
63.8%
58.8%
75.8%
58.5%
63.1%
Age 20-24 N completed any dev. math
81
90
113
83
101
Age 25-29 % completed any dev. math
74.1%
82.1%
76.5%
83.7%
80.0%
Age 25-29 N completed any dev. math
Age 30 and over % completed any dev. math
Age 30 and over N completed any dev. math
20
32
26
41
32
78.3%
66.7%
55.3%
76.0%
73.2%
18
26
21
38
41
Overall % completed any dev. math
66.7%
67.7%
70.2%
69.5%
67.0%
Overall N completed any dev. math
699
779
758
764
769
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental math
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental math courses numbered below 90. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Age groups are as of the student’s first semester at
the College. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing
responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Math
Page 5
Success in
Developmental Writing
by Age Group
Page 51
45
Success in
Developmental Reading
by Age Group
Page 57
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Math
Success in Developmental Math by Pell Status
For the majority of cohorts, Pell students and non-Pell students have exhibited similar developmental
math success rates. However, for the 2006 cohort, Pell student success rates were 6.0 percent lower
than non-Pell success rates, and for the 2010 cohort, Pell student success rates were 3.9 percent lower
than non-Pell success rates.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Pell % completed any dev. math
Pell N completed any dev. math
Non-Pell % completed any dev. math
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
61.8%
68.7%
69.0%
68.7%
64.7%
123
160
158
235
303
67.8%
67.5%
70.5%
69.8%
68.6%
Non-Pell N completed any dev. math
576
619
600
529
466
Overall % completed any dev. math
66.7%
67.7%
70.2%
69.5%
67.0%
Overall N completed any dev. math
699
779
758
764
769
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental math
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental math courses numbered below 90. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Pell status is as of the student’s first semester at the
College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Math
Page 5
Success in
Developmental Writing
by Pell Status
Page 52
46
Success in
Developmental Reading
by Pell Status
Page 58
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Writing
In this report, performance in developmental writing provides the percentage of a student cohort that
enrolls in developmental writing courses and successfully completes at least one of those courses within
three years. Developmental writing attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled
in developmental English courses numbered 100 and below. Successful completion includes students
who earn a C or better in a course. Achieving the Dream cohorts are used to track Harper student
developmental writing completion (see page x).
Overall developmental writing success increased for the 2008 and 2009 cohorts. However, the 2010
cohort success rates fell to levels near the 2006 success rate. The following pages provide more detailed
information about developmental writing completion for demographic groups by gender, race/ethnicity,
full-/part-time status, age group and Pell status.
Performance in developmental writing is a measure of developmental students’ ability to progress on
the path needed to complete a degree at Harper College. The decrease in developmental writing success
from the 2009 to 2010 cohort indicates a need to further examine reasons for the decrease as well as
potential solutions for improving success for future Harper students.
47
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Writing
Success in Developmental Writing by Gender
Although success in developmental writing decreased for the 2010 cohort, the gap between success
rates for female and male students also decreased. The 5.7 percent difference between females and
males in the 2010 cohort was the smallest exhibited for the five cohorts being examined.
The large variation in the success rates for males age 20-24 is due to the small number of students in
that group that attempted developmental writing courses. However, over time males age 20-24 have
lower than average success rates in developmental writing courses, falling below 60 percent for all but
one of the cohorts being examined.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Female % completed any dev. writing
78.1%
72.2%
83.1%
82.3%
74.0%
Female N completed any dev. writing
139
114
148
153
145
64.1%
61.9%
67.9%
70.5%
68.3%
Male % completed any dev. writing
Male N completed any dev. writing
Male age 20-24 % completed any dev. writing
Male age 20-24 N completed any dev. writing
157
140
163
186
181
60.6%
40.0%
48.3%
48.3%
58.8%
20
12
14
14
20
Overall % completed any dev. writing
70.0%
66.1%
74.4%
75.3%
70.7%
Overall N completed any dev. writing
296
254
311
339
326
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental writing
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental English courses numbered 100 and below. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are
missing responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Writing
Page 6
Success in
Developmental Math by
Gender
Page 42
48
Success in
Developmental Reading
by Gender
Page 54
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Writing
Success in Developmental Writing by Race/Ethnicity
Most racial/ethnic groups perform slightly better than the overall Harper developmental writing success
rate. Asian student success in developmental writing was higher than the overall success rate in all of
the years studied in this report. However, black student success in developmental writing was lower
than the overall success rate in all of the years examined. Despite small numbers of students affecting
the variability within the minority racial/ethnic groups, over time black students have been less likely
than other racial/ethnic groups to successfully complete a developmental writing course within their
first three years at Harper College.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Asian % completed any dev. writing
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
89.5%
77.8%
83.7%
92.3%
87.5%
Asian N completed any dev. writing
34
28
36
36
28
Black % completed any dev. writing
50.9%
40.8%
73.8%
58.7%
51.3%
Black N completed any dev. writing
27
20
48
44
39
Hispanic % completed any dev. writing
65.2%
66.7%
73.9%
83.8%
76.2%
Hispanic N completed any dev. writing
43
50
51
83
80
White % completed any dev. writing
73.7%
73.1%
73.3%
75.0%
72.1%
White N completed any dev. writing
168
144
143
168
163
Overall % completed any dev. writing
70.0%
66.1%
74.4%
75.3%
70.7%
Overall N completed any dev. writing
296
254
311
339
326
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental writing
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental English courses numbered 100 and below. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Pacific Islanders are included in the Asian group for
the 2006 and 2007 cohorts. Due to a small number of students, some racial/ethnic groups such as American Indian/Alaskan Native are not
listed separately in this report. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses. Additional racial/ethnic groups and
missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Writing
Page 6
Success in
Developmental Math by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 43
49
Success in
Developmental Reading
by Race/Ethnicity
Page 55
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Writing
Success in Developmental Writing by Full-/Part-Time Status
Over time, part-time students are less likely than are full-time students to successfully complete the
developmental writing courses in which they enrolled. The largest differences between full- and parttime students were shown for the 2009 and 2010 cohorts; the success rate of part-time students in the
2010 cohort was 13.7 percent lower than the full-time success rate for the same cohort. Note that small
numbers of part-time students may affect the variability seen in part-time success rates.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Full-time % completed any dev. writing
70.2%
66.4%
73.4%
77.5%
73.9%
Full-time N completed any dev. writing
236
200
251
262
261
Part-time % completed any dev. writing
69.0%
65.1%
78.9%
68.8%
60.2%
Part-time N completed any dev. writing
60
54
60
77
65
Overall % completed any dev. writing
70.0%
66.1%
74.4%
75.3%
70.7%
Overall N completed any dev. writing
296
254
311
339
326
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental writing
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental English courses numbered 100 and below. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Full- and part-time status are as of the student’s first
semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Writing
Page 6
Success in
Developmental Math by
Full-/Part-Time Status
Page 44
50
Success in
Developmental Reading
by Full-/Part-Time
Status
Page 56
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Writing
Success in Developmental Writing by Age Group
Students age 19 and under had developmental writing success rates comparable to or above the overall
Harper College rates. By contrast, students age 20-24 had developmental writing success rates 6.2 to
21.7 percent lower than the overall Harper success rates. However, the large variation in the age 20-24
group may be due to the small number of students from that group that attempted developmental
writing during the period under examination.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Age 19 and under % completed any dev. writing
Age 19 and under N completed any dev. writing
Age 20-24 % completed any dev. writing
Age 20-24 N completed any dev. writing
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
70.4%
69.3%
75.5%
78.1%
72.3%
254
223
268
286
266
63.8%
47.8%
65.2%
53.6%
60.3%
30
22
30
30
38
Overall % completed any dev. writing
70.0%
66.1%
74.4%
75.3%
70.7%
Overall N completed any dev. writing
296
254
311
339
326
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental writing
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental English courses numbered 100 and below. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Age groups are as of the student’s first semester at
the College. Due to a small number of students, age intervals with fewer than 10 students were excluded from the line graph; breakouts for
students age 25-29 and students age 30 and over are excluded from this figure. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing
responses. Additional age groups and missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Writing
Page 6
Success in
Developmental Math by
Age Group
Page 45
51
Success in
Developmental Reading
by Age Group
Page 57
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Writing
Success in Developmental Writing by Pell Status
Pell student success in developmental writing has been more variable over time than non-Pell student
success. However, both Pell and non-Pell students had similar developmental writing success rates for
the 2010 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Pell % completed any dev. writing
68.4%
62.2%
80.6%
77.5%
70.0%
Pell N completed any dev. writing
78
69
83
131
152
Non-Pell % completed any dev. writing
70.6%
67.8%
72.4%
74.0%
71.3%
Non-Pell N completed any dev. writing
218
185
228
208
174
Overall % completed any dev. writing
70.0%
66.1%
74.4%
75.3%
70.7%
Overall N completed any dev. writing
296
254
311
339
326
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental
writing attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental English courses numbered 100 and below.
Successful completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Pell status is as of the student’s
first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Writing
Page 6
Success in
Developmental Math by
Pell Status
Page 46
52
Success in
Developmental Reading
by Pell Status
Page 58
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Reading
In this report, performance in developmental reading provides the percentage of a student cohort that
enrolls in developmental reading courses and successfully completes at least one of those courses
within three years. Developmental reading attempts include all credential-seeking students who were
enrolled in developmental reading courses numbered below 100. Successful completion includes
students who earn a C or better in a course. Achieving the Dream cohorts are used to track Harper
student developmental reading completion (see page x).
Overall developmental reading success rates have increased since the 2007 cohort. The following pages
provide more detailed information about developmental reading completion for demographic groups by
gender, race/ethnicity, full-/part-time status, age group and Pell status.
Performance in developmental reading is a measure of developmental students’ ability to progress on
the path needed to complete a degree at Harper College. Students who cannot complete developmental
reading courses are at a disadvantage in their other Harper courses. The increase in developmental
reading success indicates an increased likelihood of success for future Harper students.
53
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Reading
Success in Developmental Reading by Gender
Success in developmental reading has shown improvement over time. However, a gap remains between
female and male students as well as between all students and males age 20-24. Female success rates
improved by 4.4 percent from the 2006 to the 2010 cohort, while male success rates improved by 8.9
percent during the same period. Despite the large improvements, males continue to have lower
developmental reading success rates than do females (73.0 vs. 83.3 percent for the 2010 cohort).
The large variation in the success rates for males age 20-24 is due to the small number of students in
that group that attempted developmental reading. However, over time males age 20-24 have lower
than average success rates in developmental reading courses.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Female % completed any dev. reading
78.9%
78.4%
76.9%
84.1%
83.3%
Female N completed any dev. reading
168
149
170
174
194
Male % completed any dev. reading
64.1%
57.6%
68.2%
72.6%
73.0%
Male N completed any dev. reading
118
114
144
164
176
63.6%
47.6%
50.0%
42.1%
66.7%
Male age 20-24 % completed any dev. reading
Male age 20-24 N completed any dev. reading
14
10
15
8
22
Overall % completed any dev. reading
72.0%
67.8%
72.7%
78.1%
78.1%
Overall N completed any dev. reading
286
263
314
338
370
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental reading
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental reading courses numbered below 100. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are
missing responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Reading
Page 7
Success in
Developmental Math by
Gender
Page 42
54
Success in
Developmental Writing
by Gender
Page 48
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Reading
Success in Developmental Reading by Race/Ethnicity
Although success in developmental reading has been increasing over time, this measure exhibits wide
variation from year to year. Most racial/ethnic groups perform slightly better than the overall Harper
rate. However, black student success fell below the overall Harper rate in all but one of the years
studied in this report. By contrast, Asian student success was higher than the overall Harper rate for all
five years examined.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Asian % completed any dev. reading
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
91.1%
81.0%
87.8%
84.8%
84.8%
Asian N completed any dev. reading
41
34
43
39
28
Black % completed any dev. reading
50.9%
30.6%
73.7%
60.0%
60.2%
Black N completed any dev. reading
27
15
42
48
50
Hispanic % completed any dev. reading
71.9%
68.7%
70.0%
80.9%
81.6%
Hispanic N completed any dev. reading
46
46
56
76
84
White % completed any dev. reading
73.5%
76.9%
70.2%
83.1%
82.0%
White N completed any dev. reading
147
153
144
167
187
Overall % completed any dev. reading
72.0%
67.8%
72.7%
78.1%
78.1%
Overall N completed any dev. reading
286
263
314
338
370
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental reading
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental reading courses numbered below 100. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Pacific Islanders are included in the Asian group for
the 2006 and 2007 cohorts. Due to a small number of students, some racial/ethnic groups such as American Indian/Alaskan Native are not
listed separately in this report. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses. Additional racial/ethnic groups and
missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Reading
Page 7
Success in
Developmental Math by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 43
55
Success in
Developmental Writing
by Race/Ethnicity
Page 49
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Reading
Success in Developmental Reading by Full-/Part-Time Status
Over time, part-time students are less likely than full-time students to successfully complete a
developmental reading course in which they enrolled. However, both full- and part-time students have
increased success rates over time, with part-time students in the 2010 cohort showing rates 4.2 percent
higher than the 2006 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Full-time % completed any dev. reading
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
74.0%
70.6%
73.9%
79.5%
80.7%
Full-time N completed any dev. reading
236
221
260
275
301
Part-time % completed any dev. reading
64.1%
56.0%
67.5%
72.4%
68.3%
Part-time N completed any dev. reading
50
42
54
63
69
Overall % completed any dev. reading
72.0%
67.8%
72.7%
78.1%
78.1%
Overall N completed any dev. reading
286
263
314
338
370
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental reading
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental reading courses numbered below 100. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Full- and part-time status are as of the student’s first
semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Reading
Page 7
Success in
Developmental Math by
Full-/Part-Time Status
Page 44
56
Success in
Developmental Writing
by Full-/Part-Time
Status
Page 50
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Reading
Success in Developmental Reading by Age Group
Students age 19 and under increased the rate of success in developmental reading courses from the
2007 to the 2010 cohort. Students age 20-24 had decreasing success rates from the 2006 to the 2009
cohort, but showed an increased success rate for the 2010 cohort. The large variation in the age 20-24
results may be due to the small number of students from that group that attempted developmental
reading during the period under examination.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Age 19 and under % completed any dev. reading
72.0%
69.1%
74.3%
79.9%
80.6%
Age 19 and under N completed any dev. reading
250
233
274
295
311
Age 20-24 % completed any dev. reading
70.7%
64.3%
63.5%
53.8%
63.1%
Age 20-24 N completed any dev. reading
29
27
33
21
41
Overall % completed any dev. reading
72.0%
67.8%
72.7%
78.1%
78.1%
Overall N completed any dev. reading
286
263
314
338
370
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental reading
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental reading courses numbered below 100. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Age groups are as of the student’s first semester at
the College. Due to a small number of students, age intervals with fewer than 10 students were excluded from the line graph; breakouts for
students age 25-29 and students age 30 and over are excluded from this figure. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing
responses. Additional age groups and missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Reading
Page 7
Success in
Developmental Math by
Age Group
Page 45
57
Success in
Developmental Writing
by Age Group
Page 51
Successful Progression
Performance in Developmental Courses: Reading
Success in Developmental Reading by Pell Status
Over time, the developmental reading completion rate for non-Pell students has been comparable to
the overall Harper College success rate in developmental reading. Pell recipients had a greater amount
of variation in success, including a low of 62.2 percent for the 2007 cohort and a high of 80.6 percent for
the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Pell % completed any dev. reading
Pell N completed any dev. reading
Non-Pell % completed any dev. reading
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
68.4%
62.2%
80.6%
77.5%
75.4%
78
69
83
131
169
70.6%
67.8%
72.4%
74.0%
80.4%
Non-Pell N completed any dev. reading
218
185
228
208
201
Overall % completed any dev. reading
72.0%
67.8%
72.7%
78.1%
78.1%
Overall N completed any dev. reading
286
263
314
338
370
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Developmental reading
attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in developmental reading courses numbered below 100. Successful
completions include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Pell status is as of the student’s first semester at the
College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in
Developmental Reading
Page 7
Success in
Developmental Math by
Pell Status
Page 46
58
Success in
Developmental Writing
by Pell Status
Page 52
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
In this report, performance of developmental math students moving to gatekeeper course work
provides the percentage of students that enroll in developmental math courses and subsequently enroll
in gatekeeper math. Demographic breakouts are reported using Harper’s Milestones and Momentum
Points model.
According to the data, overall success rates of developmental students in gatekeeper math courses have
increased since the 2011 reporting year. The following pages provide more detailed information about
enrollment and success rates for demographic groups by gender, race/ethnicity, full-/part-time status,
age group and Pell status.
Performance of developmental students in gatekeeper math is a measure of developmental students’
ability to progress on the path needed to complete a degree at Harper College. The increase in success
of developmental students in gatekeeper math indicates an increased likelihood that Harper students
are on the path to completing a credential.
59
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Success Rate of Developmental Students in College-Level Math
The percentage of students who successfully completed developmental course work in math and
subsequently successfully completed college-level math increased 2.8 percent from 2012 to 2013
reports. The 2013 reported percentage is the second highest in the five-year period, falling 4.3 percent
lower than 2010.
100%
80%
67.6%
59.2%
60.7%
60%
60.5%
63.3%
40%
20%
0%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
% successfully completing gatekeeper math
60.7%
67.6%
59.2%
60.5%
63.3%
N successfully completing gatekeeper math
188
263
258
216
247
N attempting gatekeeper math
310
389
436
357
390
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Two-year lag in data (data reported in 2011 is actual 2009 data). Includes students who
successfully completed developmental math and subsequently successfully completed first college-level math course within one year.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Female &
Male Students
Pages 61 & 62
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Asian, Black,
Hispanic & White
Students
Pages 63-66
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Full-Time &
Part-Time Students
Pages 67-68
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Students Age
18 and Under, Age 19-24
& Age 25 and Over
Pages 69-71
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Pell & NonPell Students
Pages 72-73
Success Rate of
Developmental Students
in Gatekeeper English
Page 75
60
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Female Students
Female credential-seeking students from the 2010 cohort performed better than the 2008 and 2009
cohorts in all areas of developmental and gatekeeper math enrollment and completion. Additionally, a
greater percentage of female students earned credentials for the 2010 cohort (4.4 percent higher than
2008 and 2.2 percent higher than 2009).
100%
80%
60%
59.2% 64.5%
60.7%
46.0% 49.6%
46.2%
37.1%
33.8%
33.2%
40%
20%
0%
26.4%
26.3%
24.3% 26.5%
25.6%
22.1%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 female dev. math cohort
60.7%
46.2%
33.2%
25.6%
22.1%
2009 female dev. math cohort
59.2%
46.0%
33.8%
26.4%
24.3%
2010 female dev. math cohort
64.5%
49.6%
37.1%
26.3%
26.5%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in CollegeLevel Math
Page 60
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Male
Students
Page 62
61
English Enrollment and
Completion: Female
Students
Page 76
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Male Students
Male credential-seeking students from the 2010 cohort successfully completed the highest level of
developmental math at a higher rate than their 2008 and 2009 peers. However, rates of enrollment in
gatekeeper math, success in gatekeeper math, and earning credentials were lower for males in the 2010
cohort than either the 2008 cohort or the 2009 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
58.9%
58.3%
56.1%
37.3%
37.5%
37.0%
40%
30.6%
30.1%
29.3%
21.4%
20%
0%
21.6%
20.2%
12.8%
12.5%
12.7%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 male dev. math cohort
58.9%
37.0%
30.1%
21.4%
12.7%
2009 male dev. math cohort
56.1%
37.3%
30.6%
21.6%
12.8%
2010 male dev. math cohort
58.3%
37.5%
29.3%
20.2%
12.5%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in CollegeLevel Math
Page 60
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Female
Students
Page 61
62
English Enrollment and
Completion: Male
Students
Page 77
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Asian Students
Asian credential-seeking students from the 2010 cohort had higher math enrollment and completion
rates than did Asian students from both the 2008 and 2009 cohorts. Students from the 2010 cohort also
earned credentials at a rate 3.7 percent higher than the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
66.3%
67.1%
72.7%
59.7%
60%
51.9%
48.8%
46.3%
38.8%
36.6%
40%
42.9%
31.3%
24.4%
20%
17.1% 20.8%
8.8%
0%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 Asian dev. math cohort
67.1%
46.3%
36.6%
24.4%
17.1%
2009 Asian dev. math cohort
66.3%
48.8%
38.8%
31.3%
8.8%
2010 Asian dev. math cohort
72.7%
59.7%
51.9%
42.9%
20.8%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
College-Level
Math
Page 60
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Black Students
Page 64
63
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Hispanic
Students
Page 65
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
White Students
Page 66
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Asian Students
Page 78
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Black Students
In all areas except developmental math enrollment, black credential-seeking students from the 2010
cohort had lower math enrollment and completion rates than did black students from the 2008 and
2009 cohorts. The largest decrease has been in enrollment in gatekeeper math, which was 8.4 percent
lower for the 2010 cohort than the 2008 cohort. Students in the 2010 cohort also earned credentials at a
rate 6.9 percent lower than the 2008 cohort. Additionally, enrollment and success rates for all three
cohorts are lower than enrollment and success for other racial/ethnic groups being studied in this
report.
100%
80%
60%
40%
41.2%
35.4%
30.6%
20%
24.5%
20.2%
19.0% 20.6%16.1%
12.2% 11.8% 11.3%
6.1%
0%
13.7% 12.9%
6.8%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 black dev. math cohort
41.2%
24.5%
20.6%
11.8%
13.7%
2009 black dev. math cohort
30.6%
20.2%
16.1%
11.3%
12.9%
2010 black dev. math cohort
35.4%
19.0%
12.2%
6.1%
6.8%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
College-Level
Math
Page 60
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Asian Students
Page 63
64
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Hispanic
Students
Page 65
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
White Students
Page 66
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Black Students
Page 79
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Hispanic Students
Math enrollment and completion for students in the Hispanic cohorts remained comparatively stable
across the 2008 to 2010 cohorts. Although gatekeeper math completion rates were somewhat lower for
the 2010 cohort than the 2008 cohort, the 2010 cohort earned credentials at a rate 3.9 percent higher
than the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
57.1%
56.2%
55.5%
39.4%
40%
37.8%
38.4%
28.2%
26.5%
25.3%
21.2% 16.3%17.4%
14.4% 19.2%
15.3%
20%
0%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 Hispanic dev. math cohort
57.1%
39.4%
25.3%
21.2%
15.3%
2009 Hispanic dev. math cohort
55.5%
37.8%
28.2%
16.3%
14.4%
2010 Hispanic dev. math cohort
56.2%
38.4%
26.5%
17.4%
19.2%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
College-Level
Math
Page 60
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Asian Students
Page 63
65
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Black Students
Page 64
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
White Students
Page 66
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Hispanic
Students
Page 80
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: White Students
White students showed relatively little variation in math enrollment and completion across the 2008 to
2010 cohorts. However, the 2010 cohort showed higher developmental math enrollment and
completion rates than the 2008 or 2009 cohorts. Additionally, a larger percentage of students from the
2010 cohort earned a credential than did their 2008 or 2009 peers.
100%
80%
64.3%
67.5%
62.1%
60%
45.6% 48.3%
45.5%
35.8% 37.9%
35.2%
40%
28.0%
26.6%
26.7%
22.1% 22.2%
19.6%
20%
0%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 white dev. math cohort
64.3%
45.5%
35.2%
26.6%
19.6%
2009 white dev. math cohort
62.1%
45.6%
35.8%
28.0%
22.1%
2010 white dev. math cohort
67.5%
48.3%
37.9%
26.7%
22.2%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
College-Level
Math
Page 60
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Asian Students
Page 63
66
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Black Students
Page 64
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Hispanic
Students
Page 65
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
White Students
Page 81
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Full-Time Students
Over time, full-time developmental math students have increased developmental math enrollment and
completion rates. Students in the full-time 2010 cohort completed developmental math at a rate 2.8
percent higher than the 2008 cohort. Additionally, full-time students have earned credentials at a
slightly higher rate over time, with an increase of 2.3 percent from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
61.1% 65.7%
62.5%
44.3% 46.3%
43.5%
36.0% 36.6%
34.0%
40%
26.9%
25.7%
24.9%
19.7%
17.4% 18.9%
20%
0%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 full-time dev. math cohort
62.5%
43.5%
34.0%
24.9%
17.4%
2009 full-time dev. math cohort
61.1%
44.3%
36.0%
26.9%
18.9%
2010 full-time dev. math cohort
65.7%
46.3%
36.6%
25.7%
19.7%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three. Full- and part-time status are as
of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in CollegeLevel Math
Page 60
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Part-Time
Students
Page 68
67
English Enrollment and
Completion: Full-Time
Students
Page 82
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Part-Time Students
Part-time students enroll in and complete developmental and gatekeeper courses at lower rates than do
their full-time counterparts. However, these students have made improvements in some key areas over
time. For example, part-time students in the 2010 cohort completed developmental math and earned
credentials at rates higher than their 2008 or 2009 peers.
100%
80%
60%
40.9%
45.4%
44.5%
40%
28.5% 32.4%
31.0%
14.0%
19.7%
19.0%
20%
0%
15.5%
18.1%
16.7%
16.1%
13.4%
9.9%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev.
math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
2008 part-time dev. math cohort
45.4%
31.0%
19.0%
15.5%
16.7%
2009 part-time dev. math cohort
40.9%
28.5%
14.0%
9.9%
16.1%
2010 part-time dev. math cohort
44.5%
32.4%
19.7%
13.4%
18.1%
Earned
credential
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three. Full- and part-time status are as
of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in CollegeLevel Math
Page 60
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Full-Time
Students
Page 67
68
English Enrollment and
Completion: Part-Time
Students
Page 83
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 18 and Under
Developmental math students age 18 and under performed slightly better for the 2010 cohort than the
2008 and 2009 cohorts for all of the momentum points being examined in this report. The 2010 cohort
earned credentials at a rate 2.3 percent higher than the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
63.3% 67.5%
63.8%
60%
45.6%
43.8%
49.8%
40%
37.5% 40.3%
34.6%
27.6% 28.3%
25.0%
17.0%
20%
0%
17.7%
19.3%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed
highest level
dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 age 18 and under dev. math cohort
63.8%
43.8%
34.6%
25.0%
17.0%
2009 age 18 and under dev. math cohort
63.3%
45.6%
37.5%
27.6%
17.7%
2010 age 18 and under dev. math cohort
67.5%
49.8%
40.3%
28.3%
19.3%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three. Age groups are as of the
student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
College-Level
Math
Page 60
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age
19-24
Page 70
69
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 25
and Over
Page 71
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 18
and Under
Page 84
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 19-24
Students age 19-24 have shown a decrease in math enrollment and completion from the 2008 to the
2010 cohort. Students in the 2010 cohort also earned credentials at a lower rate, decreasing by 1.6
percent from the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
54.2%
46.7%
49.7%
37.4%
40%
32.5%
30.3%
20%
0%
27.1%
21.2%
19.1% 20.9%
16.5% 16.1% 15.3%
14.5%
12.2%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev.
math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 age 19-24 dev. math cohort
54.2%
37.4%
27.1%
20.9%
16.1%
2009 age 19-24 dev. math cohort
46.7%
32.5%
21.2%
16.5%
15.3%
2010 age 19-24 dev. math cohort
49.7%
30.3%
19.1%
12.2%
14.5%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three. Age groups are as of the
student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
College-Level
Math
Page 60
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 18
and Under
Page 69
70
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 25
and Over
Page 71
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age
19-24
Page 85
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 25 and Over
Students age 25 and over have shown increases in math enrollment and completion from the 2008 to
the 2010 cohorts. Students in this age group also earned credentials at increasing rates, exhibiting an
increase of 10.5 percent from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
48.4%
42.9%
40% 37.9%
33.7% 34.1%
31.8%
36.3%
25.8%
19.8%
19.4%
17.6%
16.7%
16.7% 15.3%
20%
0%
31.6%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed
highest level
dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 age 25 and over dev. math cohort
37.9%
31.8%
16.7%
16.7%
25.8%
2009 age 25 and over dev. math cohort
42.9%
33.7%
19.4%
15.3%
31.6%
2010 age 25 and over dev. math cohort
48.4%
34.1%
19.8%
17.6%
36.3%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three. Age groups are as of the
student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
College-Level
Math
Page 60
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 18
and Under
Page 69
71
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age
19-24
Page 70
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 25
and Over
Page 86
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Pell Students
Math enrollment and completion for Pell student cohorts remained comparatively stable across the
2008 to 2010 cohorts. The 2010 developmental math Pell student cohort had an earned credential rate
3.5 percent higher than the 2008 cohort but 1.3 percent lower than the 2009 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
56.6%
56.7%
51.5%
39.0%36.3% 39.3%
40%
29.8% 27.8% 28.2%
21.9% 21.1%20.8%
20%
0%
20.2% 18.9%
15.4%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 Pell dev. math cohort
56.6%
39.0%
29.8%
21.9%
15.4%
2009 Pell dev. math cohort
51.5%
36.3%
27.8%
21.1%
20.2%
2010 Pell dev. math cohort
56.7%
39.3%
28.2%
20.8%
18.9%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three. Pell status is as of the student’s
first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in CollegeLevel Math
Page 60
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Non-Pell
Students
Page 73
72
English Enrollment and
Completion: Pell
Students
Page 87
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: Math
Math Enrollment and Completion: Non-Pell Students
Math enrollment and completion for non-Pell student cohorts remained relatively stable across the
2008 to 2010 cohorts. However, the 2010 cohort exhibited slightly higher enrollment and completion
rates than the 2008 and 2009 cohorts in nearly all categories. Additionally, the 2010 cohort had an
earned credential rate 1.9 percent higher than the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
60.4% 64.5%
60.6%
43.9% 46.3%
42.1%
36.5%
34.1%
32.1%
40%
20%
0%
25.2%
24.8%
23.8%
17.6%
19.7%
17.8%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. math
Passed highest
level dev. math
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
math
Passed
gatekeeper
math
Earned
credential
2008 non-Pell dev. math cohort
60.6%
42.1%
32.1%
23.8%
17.8%
2009 non-Pell dev. math cohort
60.4%
43.9%
34.1%
25.2%
17.6%
2010 non-Pell dev. math cohort
64.5%
46.3%
36.5%
24.8%
19.7%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental math student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts
that enrolled in at least one developmental math course numbered below 90. Results are through year three. Pell status is as of the student’s
first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in CollegeLevel Math
Page 60
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Pell
Students
Page 72
73
English Enrollment and
Completion: Non-Pell
Students
Page 88
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
In this report, performance of developmental reading and writing students moving to gatekeeper course
work provides the percentage of students that enroll in developmental reading and/or writing courses
and subsequently enroll in gatekeeper English. Demographic breakouts are reported using Harper’s
Milestones and Momentum Points model.
Overall success rates of developmental students in gatekeeper English increased substantially in the
2013 reporting year. The following pages provide more detailed information about enrollment and
success rates for demographic groups by gender, race/ethnicity, full-/part-time status, age group and
Pell status.
Performance of developmental students in gatekeeper English is a measure of developmental students’
ability to progress on the path needed to complete a degree at Harper College. The increase in success
of developmental students in gatekeeper English indicates an increased likelihood that Harper students
are on the path to completing a credential.
74
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
Success Rate of Developmental Students in Gatekeeper English
The success of students in gatekeeper English who successfully completed developmental course work
in English and subsequently successfully completed gatekeeper English increased substantially for
students reported in 2013. Harper’s most recent success rate for developmental students moving to
gatekeeper English, 75.5 percent, was more than 10 percent higher than any other year examined in this
report.
100%
80%
75.5%
65.3%
63.7%
64.9%
64.5%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
% successfully completing English 101
65.3%
63.7%
64.9%
64.5%
75.5%
N successfully completing English 101
181
158
137
158
188
N attempting English 101
277
248
211
245
249
60%
40%
20%
0%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Two-year lag in data (data reported in 2011 is actual 2009 data). Includes students who
successfully completed developmental English and subsequently successfully completed first college-level English course within one year.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
English Enrollment and
Completion: Female and
Male Students
Pages 76-77
English Enrollment and
Completion: Asian, Black,
Hispanic and White
Students
Pages 78-81
English Enrollment and
Completion: Full-Time and
Part-Time Students
Pages 82-83
English Enrollment and
Completion: Students Age
18 and Under, Age 19-24,
Age 25 and Over
Pages 84-86
English Enrollment and
Completion: Pell and NonPell Students
Pages 87-88
Success Rate of
Developmental Students
in College-Level Math
Page 60
75
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Female Students
The 2009 and 2010 female credential-seeking cohorts showed lower developmental English/reading and
gatekeeper English enrollment and successful completion rates than did the 2008 cohort. However, both
the 2009 and 2010 cohorts earned credentials at higher rates than did the 2008 cohort.
100%
90.2%
87.2%
86.8%
80%
73.3% 71.5% 72.1%
71.8%
60.9%
58.9% 57.1%
51.5%
51.6%
60%
40%
18.6%
20.9%
17.3%
20%
0%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 female dev. English/reading cohort
90.2%
73.3%
71.8%
57.1%
17.3%
2009 female dev. English/reading cohort
87.2%
71.5%
60.9%
51.5%
18.6%
2010 female dev. English/reading cohort
86.8%
72.1%
58.9%
51.6%
20.9%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental Students
in Gatekeeper English
Page 75
English Enrollment and
Completion: Male
Students
Page 77
76
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Female
Students
Page 61
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Male Students
The male credential-seeking cohorts from 2008 to 2010 showed variation in enrollment and success
rates across the four English/reading momentum points. However, the 2009 cohort performed best in
all but one measure, including the rate at which students earned a credential.
100%
87.1%
80%
82.7%
77.1%
61.8%
60.7%
59.3%
60%
52.2%
50.0%
46.6%
40.0% 37.0%
40%
33.1%
20%
7.3%
0%
10.4%
9.3%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
2008 male dev. English/reading cohort
87.1%
59.3%
50.0%
33.1%
7.3%
2009 male dev. English/reading cohort
82.7%
61.8%
52.2%
40.0%
10.4%
2010 male dev. English/reading cohort
77.1%
60.7%
46.6%
37.0%
9.3%
Earned
credential
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental Students
in Gatekeeper English
Page 75
English Enrollment and
Completion: Female
Students
Page 76
77
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Male
Students
Page 62
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Asian Students
Asian credential-seeking student cohorts have shown decreases in developmental English/reading and
gatekeeper English enrollment and success rates in most areas from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort.
However, the 2010 cohort exhibited the highest rate of credentials earned, increasing 5.3 percent from
the 2008 cohort.
100%
93.1%
91.1%
85.4%
80%
79.3%
79.2%
78.6%
77.6%
67.9%
62.5%
64.6% 65.5%
60.7%
60%
40%
20.8%
20%
15.5%
8.9%
0%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 Asian dev. English/reading cohort
93.1%
79.3%
77.6%
65.5%
15.5%
2009 Asian dev. English/reading cohort
91.1%
78.6%
67.9%
60.7%
8.9%
2010 Asian dev. English/reading cohort
85.4%
79.2%
64.6%
62.5%
20.8%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
Gatekeeper
English
Page 75
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Black Students
Page 79
78
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Hispanic
Students
Page 80
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
White Students
Page 81
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Asian Students
Page 63
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Black Students
Black credential-seeking students have exhibited marked decreases in enrollment and completion of
English courses over time. The largest percentage point difference occurred within the enrolled in
gatekeeper English momentum point (29.1 percent lower from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort). The 2008
cohort also showed a 5.7 percent higher earned credential completion rate than the 2010 cohort.
100%
83.8%
80%
70.2%
67.7%
64.9%
60%
54.1%
47.5%
44.2%
40%
35.4%
25.0%
20%
33.8%
23.2%
16.3%
9.5%
0%
7.1%
3.8%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 black dev. English/reading cohort
83.8%
64.9%
54.1%
33.8%
9.5%
2009 black dev. English/reading cohort
67.7%
47.5%
35.4%
23.2%
7.1%
2010 black dev. English/reading cohort
70.2%
44.2%
25.0%
16.3%
3.8%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
Gatekeeper
English
Page 75
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Asian Students
Page 78
79
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Hispanic
Students
Page 80
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
White Students
Page 81
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Black Students
Page 64
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Hispanic Students
Hispanic credential-seeking students had higher developmental English/reading and gatekeeper English
enrollment and success rates for the 2008 and 2009 cohorts than the 2010 cohort. The largest
percentage point difference occurred within the enrolled in gatekeeper English momentum point (19.1
percent lower from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort). However, the 2010 cohort showed a higher earned
credential rate than the 2008 and 2009 cohorts, up 5.7 percent from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort.
100%
88.8% 88.5%
80%
76.4%
68.4% 69.2%
66.3%
63.2%
60%
53.8%
47.2%
40%
43.9% 43.1%
40.3%
20%
0%
12.3% 16.9%
11.2%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 Hispanic dev. English/reading cohort
88.8%
68.4%
66.3%
43.9%
11.2%
2009 Hispanic dev. English/reading cohort
88.5%
69.2%
53.8%
43.1%
12.3%
2010 Hispanic dev. English/reading cohort
76.4%
63.2%
47.2%
40.3%
16.9%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
Gatekeeper
English
Page 75
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Asian Students
Page 78
80
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Black Students
Page 79
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
White Students
Page 81
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Hispanic
Students
Page 65
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: White Students
White students in the 2010 cohort performed better than the 2008 and 2009 cohorts in successfully
completing developmental English/reading and in successfully completing gatekeeper English course
work. However, the 2010 cohort earned credentials at a rate 2.1 percent lower than the 2009 cohort.
100%
90.0% 88.0%
86.1%
80%
68.8%
63.8%
71.5%
60%
62.0%
61.4%
57.3%
50.3% 50.9%
42.3%
40%
18.2%
20%
0%
12.5%
16.1%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 white dev. English/reading cohort
90.0%
63.8%
57.3%
42.3%
12.5%
2009 white dev. English/reading cohort
88.0%
68.8%
62.0%
50.3%
18.2%
2010 white dev. English/reading cohort
86.1%
71.5%
61.4%
50.9%
16.1%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
Gatekeeper
English
Page 75
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Asian Students
Page 78
81
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Black Students
Page 79
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Hispanic
Students
Page 80
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
White Students
Page 66
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Full-Time Students
Full-time credential-seeking students have been completing developmental English at increasingly high
rates; 70.3 percent of students in the 2010 cohort successfully completed the higheset level of
developmental English/reading. The 2010 cohort also exhibited higher rates of earning credentials, up
3.1 percent from the 2008 cohort.
100%
90.0%
86.5%
84.6%
80%
68.9% 70.3%
66.5%
62.1% 60.5%
60%
56.7%
48.6%
47.6%
46.3%
40%
20%
12.8%
0%
15.6% 15.9%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 full-time dev. English/reading cohort
90.0%
66.5%
62.1%
46.3%
12.8%
2009 full-time dev. English/reading cohort
86.5%
68.9%
60.5%
48.6%
15.6%
2010 full-time dev. English/reading cohort
84.6%
70.3%
56.7%
47.6%
15.9%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three. Fulland part-time status are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental Students
in Gatekeeper English
Page 75
English Enrollment and
Completion: Part-Time
Students
Page 83
82
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Full-Time
Students
Page 67
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Part-Time Students
Part-time credential-seeking students had lower enrollment and success rates for the 2010 cohort than
the 2008 and 2009 cohorts. The largest percentage point difference occurred within the enrolled in
gatekeeper English momentum point (15.0 percent lower from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort). However,
the 2010 cohort showed a slightly higher earned credential completion rate than the 2008 and 2009
cohorts.
100%
80%
82.1%
78.7%
71.1%
63.2%
60%
56.6%
51.0% 51.9%
41.2%
36.9%
35.8% 33.1%
30.2%
40%
20%
8.5%
0%
8.8% 10.1%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 part-time dev. English/reading cohort
82.1%
63.2%
51.9%
35.8%
8.5%
2009 part-time dev. English/reading cohort
78.7%
56.6%
41.2%
33.1%
8.8%
2010 part-time dev. English/reading cohort
71.1%
51.0%
36.9%
30.2%
10.1%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three. Fulland part-time status are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental Students
in Gatekeeper English
Page 75
English Enrollment and
Completion: Full-Time
Students
Page 82
83
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Part-Time
Students
Page 68
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 18 and Under
Age 18 and under credential-seeking students had fairly stable English/reading completion rates across
the 2008 to 2010 cohorts, despite decreases in enrollment rates for those courses. However, the 2010
age 18 and under cohort had a 4.2 percent higher earned credential completion rate than the 2008
cohort.
100%
92.3%
86.2%
83.8%
80%
70.5%
70.7%
70.1%
66.1%
60%
62.8%
58.5%
50.1%
50.1%
49.9%
40%
16.9%
15.0%
12.7%
20%
0%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 age 18 and under dev.
English/reading cohort
92.3%
70.1%
66.1%
49.9%
12.7%
2009 age 18 and under dev.
English/reading cohort
86.2%
70.5%
62.8%
50.1%
15.0%
2010 age 18 and under dev.
English/reading cohort
83.8%
70.7%
58.5%
50.1%
16.9%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three. Age
groups are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
Gatekeeper
English
Page 75
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age
19-24
Page 85
84
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 25
and Over
Page 86
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 18
and Under
Page 69
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 19-24
Credential-seeking students age 19-24 decreased developmental English and reading enrollment and
completion from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort. The largest percentage point difference occurred within
the enrolled in gatekeeper English momentum point (8.7 percent lower from the 2008 to the 2010
cohort). The 2010 cohort showed an earned credential completion rate 1.6 percent lower than the 2008
cohort.
100%
80%
79.5%
81.8%
75.6%
60%
54.8% 54.5%
52.3%
44.5%
39.2%
35.8%
40%
30.8%
32.2%
27.8%
20%
9.6% 10.5%8.0%
0%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 age 19-24 dev. English/
reading cohort
79.5%
54.8%
44.5%
30.8%
9.6%
2009 age 19-24 dev. English/
reading cohort
81.8%
54.5%
39.2%
32.2%
10.5%
2010 age 19-24 dev. English/
reading cohort
75.6%
52.3%
35.8%
27.8%
8.0%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three. Age
groups are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
Gatekeeper
English
Page 75
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 18
and Under
Page 84
85
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 25
and Over
Page 86
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age
19-24
Page 70
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Students Age 25 and Over
Credential-seeking students age 25 and over increased developmental English/reading enrollment and
completion from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort. The earned credential rate was also higher for the 2010
cohort, increasing 4.1 percent from the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
81.6%
81.0%
79.5%
73.7%
61.5%
61.9%
60%
57.1%
55.3%
46.2%
38.5%
40%
42.1%
33.3%
17.9% 18.4%
20%
0%
14.3%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 age 25 and over dev.
English/reading cohort
81.0%
61.9%
57.1%
33.3%
14.3%
2009 age 25 and over dev.
English/reading cohort
79.5%
61.5%
46.2%
38.5%
17.9%
2010 age 25 and over dev.
English/reading cohort
81.6%
73.7%
55.3%
42.1%
18.4%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three. Age
groups are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental
Students in
Gatekeeper
English
Page 75
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 18
and Under
Page 84
86
English
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age
19-24
Page 85
Math
Enrollment and
Completion:
Students Age 25
and Over
Page 71
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Pell Students
For Pell students, English/reading enrollment and completion rates decreased in all areas from the 2008
to the 2010 cohorts. The largest percentage point difference occurred within the enrolled in gatekeeper
English momentum point (18.0 percent lower from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort). The 2010 cohort also
showed an earned credential completion rate 1.5 percent lower than the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
88.3%
81.6%
79.9%
71.9%
64.6%
64.8%
62.5%
60%
51.6%
46.8% 48.4%
41.7%
38.6%
40%
20%
0%
14.8% 15.2%13.3%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 Pell dev. English/reading cohort
88.3%
71.9%
64.8%
48.4%
14.8%
2009 Pell dev. English/reading cohort
81.6%
64.6%
51.6%
41.7%
15.2%
2010 Pell dev. English/reading cohort
79.9%
62.5%
46.8%
38.6%
13.3%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three. Pell
status is as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental Students
in Gatekeeper English
Page 75
English Enrollment and
Completion: Non-Pell
Students
Page 88
87
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Pell Students
Page 72
Successful Progression
Developmental Students Moving to Gatekeeper Course Work and Completion: English
English Enrollment and Completion: Non-Pell Students
English/reading enrollment and completion rates remained relatively stable over time for non-Pell
students. However, this group has earned credentials at increasing rates, up 4.4 percent from the 2008
to the 2010 cohort.
100%
88.6% 86.5%
82.8%
80%
67.1% 68.7%
64.1%
58.9% 58.8%
56.6%
60%
47.2% 47.7%
43.2%
40%
20%
0%
13.5% 15.5%
11.1%
Enrolled in
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Passed
highest level
dev. English/
reading
Enrolled in
gatekeeper
English
Passed
gatekeeper
English
Earned
credential
2008 non-Pell dev. English/reading cohort
88.6%
64.1%
58.9%
43.2%
11.1%
2009 non-Pell dev. English/reading cohort
86.5%
67.1%
58.8%
47.2%
13.5%
2010 non-Pell dev. English/reading cohort
82.8%
68.7%
56.6%
47.7%
15.5%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. Developmental English/reading student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking
cohorts that enrolled in at least one developmental English (100 and below) or reading (below 100) course. Results are through year three. Pell
status is as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success Rate of
Developmental Students
in Gatekeeper English
Page 75
English Enrollment and
Completion: Pell Students
Page 87
88
Math Enrollment and
Completion: Non-Pell
Students
Page 73
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: Math
Performance in college-level math provides the percentage of a student cohort that enrolls in
gatekeeper math courses and successfully completes at least one of those courses within three years.
Gatekeeper math attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in MTH101,
MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and MTH165. Successful completion includes students who earn a C or
better in a course. Achieving the Dream cohorts are used to track Harper student gatekeeper math
completion (see page x).
Overall gatekeeper math success has decreased since the 2007 cohort. The following pages provide
more detailed information about gatekeeper math completion for demographic groups by gender,
race/ethnicity, developmental placement, full-/part-time status, age group and Pell status.
Performance in gatekeeper math is a measure of college-level students’ ability to progress on the path
needed to complete a degree at Harper College. The decrease in gatekeeper math success indicates a
need to further examine reasons for the decrease as well as potential solutions for improving success for
future Harper students.
89
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: Math
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Gender
Success in gatekeeper math has remained fairly stable over time. There is a gap between females and
males, which ranges from 4.4 to 8.0 percent across the cohorts being tracked.
The large variation in the success rates for males age 20-24 is due to the small number of students in
that group that attempted gatekeeper math. Males 20-24 tend to successfully complete gatekeeper
math at a lower rate than the overall Harper average.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Female % completed gatekeeper math
Female N completed gatekeeper math
Male % completed gatekeeper math
Male N completed gatekeeper math
Male 20-24 % completed gatekeeper math
Male 20-24 N completed gatekeeper math
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
78.7%
79.6%
78.6%
78.8%
77.4%
318
331
330
341
345
71.6%
75.2%
70.6%
72.8%
70.1%
295
357
329
375
333
83.3%
66.7%
69.8%
65.0%
62.0%
30
28
37
26
31
Overall % completed gatekeeper math
75.1%
77.2%
74.4%
75.5%
73.6%
Overall N completed gatekeeper math
613
688
659
716
678
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper math attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in MTH101, MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and MTH165. Successful completions
include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing
responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
Math
Page 12
90
Success in Gatekeeper
English by Gender
Page 97
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: Math
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Race/Ethnicity
With the exception of white students, Harper’s racial/ethnic groups showed high variability in
gatekeeper math success from year to year. No group fell consistently above or below the overall Harper
average. The high variability is likely due to the relatively low number of students in each group for each
cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Asian % completed gatekeeper math
76.9%
85.1%
68.2%
83.0%
87.2%
Asian N completed gatekeeper math
80
86
58
73
68
Black % completed gatekeeper math
70.6%
43.8%
46.9%
66.7%
64.9%
Black N completed gatekeeper math
12
7
15
26
24
Hispanic % completed gatekeeper math
76.9%
64.3%
81.1%
66.4%
69.3%
Hispanic N completed gatekeeper math
70
63
77
93
79
74.7%
78.5%
76.5%
76.5%
72.3%
White % completed gatekeeper math
White N completed gatekeeper math
392
474
426
485
442
Overall % completed gatekeeper math
75.1%
77.2%
74.4%
75.5%
73.6%
Overall N completed gatekeeper math
613
688
659
716
678
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper math attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in MTH101, MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and MTH165. Successful completions
include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Pacific Islanders are included in the Asian group for the 2006 and
2007 cohorts. Due to a small number of students, some racial/ethnic groups such as American Indian/Alaskan Native are not listed separately in
this report. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses. Additional racial/ethnic groups and missing responses are
included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
Math
Page 12
91
Success in Gatekeeper
English by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 98
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: Math
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Developmental Placement
Students who were referred to developmental math prior to starting gatekeeper math tend to be
slightly less likely to complete gatekeeper math than students who were not placed into developmental
courses. However, this trend was not followed for the 2008 cohort, when students referred to
developmental courses performed slightly better in their gatekeeper course work than students who
were not referred to developmental courses. In this figure, referral to developmental math does not
necessarily indicate completion of a developmental math course.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Referred dev. math; % completed
gatekeeper math
74.1%
72.3%
74.5%
74.2%
67.4%
Referred dev. math; N completed
gatekeeper math
189
193
193
207
219
Not referred dev. math; % completed
gatekeeper math
75.6%
79.3%
74.3%
76.1%
77.0%
Not referred dev. math; N completed
gatekeeper math
424
495
466
509
459
Overall % completed gatekeeper math
75.1%
77.2%
74.4%
75.5%
73.6%
Overall N completed gatekeeper math
613
688
659
716
678
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper math attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in MTH101, MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and MTH165. Successful completions
include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
Math
Page 12
92
Success in Gatekeeper
English by
Developmental
Placement
Page 99
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: Math
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Full-/Part-Time Status
Due to a small number of part-time students attempting gatekeeper math, no significant trends were
revealed in the success rates of part-time students. For the five cohorts being examined, part-time
students did not fall consistently above or below the Harper College average, and part-time success
rates were more variable than overall success. However, it is important to note that part-time students
have been attempting gatekeeper math at rates much lower than full-time students.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Full-time % completed gatekeeper math
74.9%
77.8%
73.8%
76.1%
74.3%
Full-time N completed gatekeeper math
530
606
589
647
601
Part-time % completed gatekeeper math
76.9%
73.2%
79.5%
70.4%
68.8%
Part-time N completed gatekeeper math
83
82
70
69
77
Overall % completed gatekeeper math
75.1%
77.2%
74.4%
75.5%
73.6%
Overall N completed gatekeeper math
613
688
659
716
678
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper math attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in MTH101, MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and MTH165. Successful completions
include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Full- and part-time status are as of the student’s first semester at
the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
Math
Page 12
93
Success in Gatekeeper
English by Full-/PartTime Status
Page 100
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: Math
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Age Group
No age group maintained gatekeeper math success rates consistently higher or lower than the overall
Harper average. Students age 30 and older had the highest success rates for most cohorts, exceeding 85
percent for all cohorts except 2009. By contrast, students age 25-29 had success rates lower than the
Harper average for most cohorts, at approximately 70 percent for all cohorts except 2009. Students age
25-29 and students age 30 and over had low numbers of students attempting gatekeeper math courses.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Age 19 and under % completed gatekeeper math
74.8%
77.6%
74.0%
76.0%
73.8%
Age 19 and under N completed gatekeeper math
533
596
564
617
581
Age 20-24 % completed gatekeeper math
76.3%
72.7%
78.0%
67.1%
68.2%
Age 20-24 N completed gatekeeper math
58
64
71
51
58
Age 25-29 % completed gatekeeper math
69.2%
72.7%
69.6%
84.4%
71.4%
Age 25-29 N completed gatekeeper math
9
16
16
27
15
92.9%
91.7%
88.9%
75.0%
85.7%
Age 30 and over % completed gatekeeper math
Age 30 and over N completed gatekeeper math
13
11
8
21
24
Overall % completed gatekeeper math
75.1%
77.2%
74.4%
75.5%
73.6%
Overall N completed gatekeeper math
613
688
659
716
678
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper math attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in MTH101, MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and MTH165. Successful completions
include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Age groups are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are
included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
Math
Page 12
94
Success in Gatekeeper
English by Age Group
Page 101
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: Math
Success in Gatekeeper Math by Pell Status
Pell students maintained higher completion rates than non-Pell students for the majority of cohorts
being examined. The largest difference between the two groups occurred for the 2006 cohort (5.8
percent), while the 2008 cohort had a higher success rate for non-Pell students than for Pell students.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Pell % completed gatekeeper math
80.0%
79.0%
73.1%
79.1%
74.1%
Pell N completed gatekeeper math
100
113
114
197
212
Non-Pell % completed gatekeeper math
74.2%
76.9%
74.7%
74.2%
73.4%
Non-Pell N completed gatekeeper math
513
575
545
519
466
Overall % completed gatekeeper math
75.1%
77.2%
74.4%
75.5%
73.6%
Overall N completed gatekeeper math
613
688
659
716
678
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper math attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in MTH101, MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and MTH165. Successful completions
include those earning a C or better in one of those courses within three years. Pell status is as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
Math
Page 12
95
Success in Gatekeeper
English by Pell Status
Page 102
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: English
Performance in college-level English provides the percentage of a student cohort that enrolls in
gatekeeper English courses and successfully completes at least one of those courses within three years.
Gatekeeper English attempts include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in ENG101.
Successful completion includes students who earn a C or better in a course. Achieving the Dream
cohorts are used to track Harper student gatekeeper English completion (see page x).
Overall gatekeeper English success has increased since the 2008 cohort. The following pages provide
more detailed information about gatekeeper English completion for demographic groups by gender,
race/ethnicity, developmental placement, full-/part-time status, age group and Pell status.
Performance in gatekeeper English is a measure of college-level students’ ability to progress on the path
needed to complete a degree at Harper College. The increase in success of students in gatekeeper
English indicates an increased likelihood that Harper students are on the path to completing a
credential.
96
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: English
Success in Gatekeeper English by Gender
Success in gatekeeper English has remained fairly steady over time, with an increase for the 2010
cohort. However, there is a gap in success rates between female and male students as well as between
all students and males age 20-24. Males continue to have lower gatekeeper English success rates than
do females (77.4 percent vs. 88.8 percent for the 2010 cohort). Males age 20-24 have lower than
average success rates in gatekeeper English courses. However, the high variation in success rates for
males age 20-24 is likely due to the small number of students in that group that attempted gatekeeper
English.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Female % completed gatekeeper English
Female N completed gatekeeper English
Male % completed gatekeeper English
Male N completed gatekeeper English
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
84.8%
85.9%
83.4%
84.5%
88.8%
635
689
683
665
735
77.2%
79.4%
76.2%
78.1%
77.4%
596
653
629
718
636
Male 20-24 % completed gatekeeper English
78.9%
65.1%
75.5%
63.4%
68.0%
Male 20-24 N completed gatekeeper English
56
54
71
59
66
Overall % completed gatekeeper English
80.9%
82.6%
79.8%
81.1%
83.1%
Overall N completed gatekeeper English
1,231
1,342
1,312
1,383
1,371
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper English attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in ENG101. Successful completions include those earning a C or better in one of those
courses within three years. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses and categories do not always sum to overall
total. Missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
English
Page 13
97
Success in Gatekeeper
Math by Gender
Page 90
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: English
Success in Gatekeeper English by Race/Ethnicity
Black and Hispanic student success in gatekeeper English tend to fall below overall Harper success rates
in gatekeeper English. The smaller cohorts of black students increase the variability of outcomes for that
group, but over time black students have been less likely than other racial/ethnic groups to successfully
complete a gatekeeper English course within their first three years at Harper College.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Asian % completed gatekeeper English
89.6%
88.1%
84.7%
89.7%
89.8%
Asian N completed gatekeeper English
146
141
127
139
114
Black % completed gatekeepr English
64.2%
62.7%
69.8%
63.2%
70.1%
Black N completed gatekeeper English
43
37
67
67
75
Hispanic % completed gatekeeper English
80.2%
77.3%
75.4%
77.0%
80.1%
Hispanic N completed gatekeeper English
150
170
178
218
197
81.8%
84.2%
81.3%
82.1%
84.0%
White % completed gatekeeper English
White N completed gatekeeper English
766
893
786
885
882
Overall % completed gatekeeper English
80.9%
82.6%
79.8%
81.1%
83.1%
Overall N completed gatekeeper English
1,231
1,342
1,312
1,383
1,371
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper English attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in ENG101. Successful completions include those earning a C or better in one of those
courses within three years. Pacific Islanders are included in the Asian group for the 2006 and 2007 cohorts. Due to a small number of students,
some racial/ethnic groups such as American Indian/Alaskan Native are not listed separately in this report. This is a self-reported category;
therefore there are missing responses. Additional racial/ethnic groups and missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
English
Page 13
98
Success in Gatekeeper
Math by Race/Ethnicity
Page 91
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: English
Success in Gatekeeper English by Developmental Placement
Placement into developmental reading and/or writing does not appear to have a significant effect on
students’ ability to successfully complete a gatekeeper English course within three years. For the most
recent cohort (2010), students who had been referred to developmental reading had higher gatekeeper
success rates than did students who were not referred to developmental reading or writing.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Referred dev. reading; % completed
gatekeeper English
82.1%
81.0%
75.9%
81.2%
85.0%
Referred dev. reading; N completed
gatekeeper English
220
209
224
229
232
Referred dev. writing; % completed
gatekeeper English
85.2%
79.3%
78.5%
81.1%
82.9%
Referred dev. writing; N completed
gatekeeper English
104
88
106
120
126
Not referred dev. reading or writing;
% completed gatekeeper English
81.0%
83.0%
81.0%
80.9%
82.5%
Not referred dev. reading or writing;
N completed gatekeeper English
859
995
976
1,048
1,035
Overall % completed gatekeeper
English
80.9%
82.6%
79.8%
81.1%
83.1%
Overall N completed gatekeeper
English
1,231
1,342
1,312
1,383
1,371
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper English attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in ENG101. Successful completions include those earning a C or better in one of those
courses within three years.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
English
Page 13
99
Success in Gatekeeper
Math by Developmental
Placement
Page 92
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: English
Success in Gatekeeper English by Full-/Part-Time Status
Part-time students are slightly less likely than full-time students to successfully complete the gatekeeper
English course in which they enrolled. However, the difference between full- and part-time students was
only 0.7 percent for the 2010 cohort. For the 2009 cohort, part-time students showed gatekeeper
English success rates 7.7 percent lower than their full-time counterparts when given three years to
successfully complete the course.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Full-time % completed gatekeeper English
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
81.6%
82.8%
80.9%
82.6%
83.2%
Full-time N completed gatekeeper English
1,005
1,086
1,092
1,129
1,092
Part-time % completed gatekeeper English
78.2%
81.8%
74.8%
74.9%
82.5%
Part-time N completed gatekeeper English
226
256
220
254
279
Overall % completed gatekeeper English
80.9%
82.6%
79.8%
81.1%
83.1%
Overall N completed gatekeeper English
1,231
1,342
1,312
1,383
1,371
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper English attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in ENG101. Successful completions include those earning a C or better in one of those
courses within three years. Full- and part-time status are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
English
Page 13
100
Success in Gatekeeper
Math by Full-/Part-Time
Status
Page 93
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: English
Success in Gatekeeper English by Age Group
Students age 20-24 tend to complete gatekeeper English at rates below the overall Harper average. All
age groups other than students age 20-24 showed improvement for the 2009 and 2010 cohorts over the
success rates of the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Age 19 and under % completed gatekeeper English
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
80.8%
83.7%
80.3%
82.4%
84.5%
Age 19 and under N completed gatekeeper English
1,038
1,116
1,063
1,120
1,081
Age 20-24 % completed gatekeeper English
79.9%
70.6%
77.4%
69.9%
73.1%
Age 20-24 N completed gatekeeper English
111
125
147
121
141
Age 25-29 % completed gatekeeper English
80.9%
85.2%
81.0%
82.7%
85.9%
Age 25-29 N completed gatekeeper English
38
46
47
67
55
Age 30 and over % completed gatekeeper English
88.0%
91.5%
76.8%
80.6%
82.5%
Age 30 and over N completed gatekeeper English
44
54
53
75
94
Overall % completed gatekeeper English
80.9%
82.6%
79.8%
81.1%
83.1%
Overall N completed gatekeeper English
1,231
1,342
1,312
1,383
1,371
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper English attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in ENG101. Successful completions include those earning a C or better in one of those
courses within three years. Age groups are as of the student’s first semester at the College. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are
missing responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
English
Page 13
101
Success in Gatekeeper
Math by Age Group
Page 94
Successful Progression
Performance in College-Level Courses: English
Success in Gatekeeper English by Pell Status
Pell recipients and students who did not receive a Pell grant had comparable gatekeeper English
completion rates to the overall Harper College rate. The only deviation from this pattern occurred for
the 2007 cohort, when Pell recipients had the highest gatekeeper English completion rate (86.5 percent)
of all groups.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Pell % completed gatekeeper English
81.0%
86.5%
79.0%
80.4%
81.9%
Pell N completed gatekeeper English
200
243
244
373
470
Non-Pell % completed gatekeeper English
80.9%
81.8%
80.0%
81.3%
83.7%
Non-Pell N completed gatekeeper English
1,031
1099
1068
1010
901
Overall % completed gatekeeper English
80.9%
82.6%
79.8%
81.1%
83.1%
Overall N completed gatekeeper English
1,231
1,342
1,312
1,383
1,371
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Gatekeeper English attempts
include all credential-seeking students who were enrolled in ENG101. Successful completions include those earning a C or better in one of those
courses within three years. Pell status is as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Success in Gatekeeper
English
Page 13
102
Success in Gatekeeper
Math by Pell Status
Page 95
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
This section provides information about Harper students moving through their studies at the College.
Students are tracked at four Momentum Points (enrolling in 15 college credits, successfully completing
15 college credits, enrolling in 30 college credits, and successfully completing 30 college credits) as well
as the target milestone of earning a credential. The following pages provide more detailed information
about enrollment and success rates for demographic groups by gender, race/ethnicity, full-/part-time
status, age group and Pell status. This information was developed using demographic breakouts within
Harper’s Milestones and Momentum Points model.
Performance of Harper students in earning a credential at Harper College improved for most
demographic groups for the 2010 cohort. However, some groups such as male students, white students
and black students decreased the rate at which they earned a credential for the 2010 cohort. These
decreases in earned credential rates for the 2010 cohort indicate a need to further examine reasons for
the reduction as well as potential solutions for improving the ability for future Harper students to earn
credentials.
103
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Female Students
The figure below shows the percentage of female credential-seeking students in the 2008 to 2010
cohorts who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. Female credential-seeking
students had higher enrollment and success rates for the 2010 cohort than the 2008 and 2009 cohorts.
Additionally, the 2010 female cohort had a 4.5 percent higher earned credential success rate than the
2008 female cohort.
100%
80%
70.2% 73.0%
70.0%
56.8% 58.7%
55.2%
60%
52.0% 53.3%
50.7%
38.9%
40.1%
39.7%
40%
27.4% 30.1%
25.6%
20%
0%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 female cohort
70.0%
55.2%
50.7%
39.7%
25.6%
2009 female cohort
70.2%
56.8%
52.0%
38.9%
27.4%
2010 female cohort
73.0%
58.7%
53.3%
40.1%
30.1%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
104
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Male Students
Page 105
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Male Students
The figure below shows the percentage of male credential-seeking students in the 2008 to 2010 cohorts
who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. Male credential-seeking students had
fairly stable enrollment and success rates for the three cohorts being examined. However, the 2010
male cohort had a 2.9 percent higher earned credential success rate than the 2008 male cohort.
100%
75.2%
74.1%
73.8%
80%
54.2%
55.7%
53.6%
52.4%
52.7% 53.0%
60%
37.1%
36.0%
35.7%
40%
19.2% 18.3%
15.4%
20%
0%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 male cohort
73.8%
53.6%
53.0%
36.0%
15.4%
2009 male cohort
75.2%
55.7%
54.2%
37.1%
19.2%
2010 male cohort
74.1%
52.7%
52.4%
35.7%
18.3%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
105
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Female Students
Page 104
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Asian Students
The figure below shows the percentage of Asian credential-seeking students in the 2008 to 2010 cohorts
who earned either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. The 2010 Asian cohort consistently
showed higher success rates than the 2008 and 2009 cohorts over the four college-level credit
momentum points. Additionally, the 2010 cohort earned credentials at a rate 4.2 percent higher than
the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
73.4% 75.4%
69.9%
59.1%
60%
63.4%
61.2%
53.1%
52.0%
53.2%
50.4%
38.5%
35.7%
40%
22.4%
18.2%
14.7%
20%
0%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 Asian cohort
69.9%
53.2%
52.0%
35.7%
18.2%
2009 Asian cohort
73.4%
59.1%
53.1%
38.5%
14.7%
2010 Asian cohort
75.4%
63.4%
61.2%
50.4%
22.4%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Black Students
Page 107
106
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Hispanic Students
Page 108
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
White Students
Page 109
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Black Students
The figure below shows the percentage of black credential-seeking students in the 2008 to 2010 cohorts
who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. The 2010 black credential-seeking
cohort showed a lower rate of success than did the 2008 and 2009 cohorts for all four college-level
credit momentum points. The 2010 cohort also had a 1.2 percent lower earned credential success rate
than the 2008 cohort, although that rate was 0.9 percent higher than the 2009 cohort.
100%
80%
67.6%
60%
57.8%
56.6%
41.1%
40%
39.5% 36.8%
34.1%
30.0%
30.0%
20.0%
20%
0%
22.0%
16.1% 15.1%
13.0% 13.9%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 black cohort
67.6%
41.1%
39.5%
20.0%
15.1%
2009 black cohort
57.8%
34.1%
36.8%
22.0%
13.0%
2010 black cohort
56.6%
30.0%
30.0%
16.1%
13.9%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Asian Students
Page 106
107
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Hispanic Students
Page 108
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
White Students
Page 109
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Hispanic Students
The figure below shows the percentage of Hispanic credential-seeking students in the 2008 to 2010
cohorts who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. The 2008 to 2010 Hispanic
cohorts showed fairly stable enrollment and success rates for all four of the college-level credit
momentum points. However, the 2010 Hispanic cohort had a 4.2 percent higher earned credential rate
than the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
64.2%
65.1% 67.3%
60%
48.9%48.8%
46.4%
45.1%
43.5%
42.7%
40%
29.4%
29.9%
28.9%
17.2% 18.6%
20%
0%
21.4%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 Hispanic cohort
64.2%
46.4%
42.7%
29.4%
17.2%
2009 Hispanic cohort
65.1%
48.9%
45.1%
29.9%
18.6%
2010 Hispanic cohort
67.3%
48.8%
43.5%
28.9%
21.4%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Asian Students
Page 106
108
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Black Students
Page 107
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
White Students
Page 109
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: White Students
The figure below shows the percentage of white credential-seeking students in the 2008 to 2010 cohorts
who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. The 2008 to 2010 white cohorts
showed fairly stable enrollment and success rates for all four of the college-level credit momentum
points. The 2010 white cohort had a 3.1 percent higher earned credential rate than the 2008 cohort, but
that rate was 0.9 percent lower than the 2009 cohort.
100%
80%
76.6% 77.6%
75.2%
60.3%
60.2%
58.9%
60%
57.4% 57.1%
56.2%
43.0% 42.0% 41.6%
40%
27.4% 26.5%
23.4%
20%
0%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 white cohort
75.2%
58.9%
56.2%
43.0%
23.4%
2009 white cohort
76.6%
60.3%
57.4%
42.0%
27.4%
2010 white cohort
77.6%
60.2%
57.1%
41.6%
26.5%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Asian Students
Page 106
109
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Black Students
Page 107
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Hispanic Students
Page 108
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Developmental Students
The figure below shows the percentage of developmental credential-seeking students in the 2008 to
2010 cohorts who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. Across all four
momentum points and the three developmental cohorts, there are only slight differences in course
enrollment and completion. For example, enrollment in 15 college-level credits decreased from 78.0
percent for the 2008 cohort to 77.4 percent for the 2010 cohort. However, the 2010 developmental
cohort had a 2.1 percent higher earned credential success rate than the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
78.2%
77.4%
78.0%
56.7%
56.2%
55.6%
54.9%
54.6%
53.3%
60%
36.6%
36.4%
36.9%
40%
18.3%
18.8%
16.7%
20%
0%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 developmental cohort
78.0%
53.3%
55.6%
36.9%
16.7%
2009 developmental cohort
78.2%
56.2%
56.7%
36.6%
18.3%
2010 developmental cohort
77.4%
54.9%
54.6%
36.4%
18.8%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
110
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
College-Level
Students
Page 111
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: College-Level Students
The figure below shows the percentage of college-level credential-seeking students in the 2008 to 2010
cohorts who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. College-level students have
shown gradual increases in enrollment, success, and earned credential rates from the 2008 cohort to the
2010 cohort. The largest increase was in the earned credential milestone, where the 2010 cohort earned
at a 5.4 percent higher rate than the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
68.3% 70.1%
66.8%
56.2% 56.6%
55.4%
60%
50.2% 51.3%
48.7%
39.1%
39.3%
38.7%
40%
27.3% 29.2%
23.8%
20%
0%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 college-level cohort
66.8%
55.4%
48.7%
38.7%
23.8%
2009 college-level cohort
68.3%
56.2%
50.2%
39.1%
27.3%
2010 college-level cohort
70.1%
56.6%
51.3%
39.3%
29.2%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
111
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Developmental
Students
Page 110
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Full-Time Students
The figure below shows the percentage of full-time credential-seeking students in the 2008 to 2010
cohorts who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. The 2008 to 2010 full-time
cohorts showed fairly stable enrollment and success rates for all four of the college-level credit
momentum points. However, earned credential rates increased over time; the 2010 cohort had a 4.2
percent higher earned credential rate than the 2008 cohort.
100%
86.0%
86.5%
84.5%
80%
67.4%
65.3%
64.3%
68.1%
67.0%
65.8%
60%
49.1%
48.2%
48.1%
40%
26.5%
25.7%
22.3%
20%
0%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 full-time cohort
84.5%
64.3%
65.8%
48.2%
22.3%
2009 full-time cohort
86.0%
67.4%
68.1%
49.1%
25.7%
2010 full-time cohort
86.5%
65.3%
67.0%
48.1%
26.5%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three. Full- and part-time status are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
112
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Part-Time Students
Page 113
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Part-Time Students
The figure below shows the percentage of part-time credential-seeking students in the 2008 to 2010
cohorts who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. Students in the 2010 part-time
cohort had higher enrollment and completion rates in all four momentum points when compared to
their 2008 and 2009 cohort peers. The 2010 part-time cohort also had a higher earned credential rate,
up 3.3 percent from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
47.2% 50.5%
46.7%
40%
34.6%34.7%
39.0%
24.3% 27.9%
23.7%
20%
0%
16.6%
20.0%
17.6%
18.7%
20.5%
17.2%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 part-time cohort
46.7%
34.6%
23.7%
17.6%
17.2%
2009 part-time cohort
47.2%
34.7%
24.3%
16.6%
18.7%
2010 part-time cohort
50.5%
39.0%
27.9%
20.0%
20.5%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three. Full- and part-time status are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
113
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits: FullTime Students
Page 112
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Age 18 and Under
The figure below shows the percentage of credential-seeking students age 18 and under in the 2008 to
2010 cohorts who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. Students in the 2010 age
18 and under cohort exhibited higher enrollment and success rates than the 2008 cohort for all of the
college-level credit momentum points. However, the 2010 cohort had lower enrollment and completion
rates than the 2009 cohort. The 2010 cohort showed the highest earned credential success rate among
the three cohorts, 4.1 percent higher than the 2008 cohort.
100%
86.9%
85.0%
83.8%
80%
68.8%
67.4%
67.9%
66.4% 66.3%
64.3%
60%
49.7%
49.6%
48.4%
40%
24.8% 25.5%
21.4%
20%
0%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 age 18 and under cohort
83.8%
64.3%
66.3%
48.4%
21.4%
2009 age 18 and under cohort
86.9%
67.4%
68.8%
49.7%
24.8%
2010 age 18 and under cohort
85.0%
66.4%
67.9%
49.6%
25.5%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three. Age groups are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
114
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Students Age 19-24
Page 115
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Students Age 25 and
Over
Page 116
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Age 19-24
The figure below shows the percentage of credential-seeking students age 19-24 in the 2008 to 2010
cohorts who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. Enrollment and success rates
for students age 19-24 decreased from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort. The largest decrease was seen in
earning 30 college-level credits, which decreased 4.3 percent from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort.
However, the 2010 cohort had slightly higher earned credential rates, increasing 0.3 percent from the
2008 to the 2010 cohort.
100%
80%
67.0%
64.9%
66.6%
60%
47.0%
48.4%
45.2% 43.8%43.3%
42.1%
40%
31.4% 28.9%
27.1%
20%
0%
18.3%
19.5%
19.2%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 age 19-24 cohort
67.0%
48.4%
43.8%
31.4%
19.2%
2009 age 19-24 cohort
64.9%
47.0%
43.3%
28.9%
18.3%
2010 age 19-24 cohort
66.6%
45.2%
42.1%
27.1%
19.5%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three. Age groups are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
115
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Students Age 18 and
Under
Page 114
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Students Age 25 and
Over
Page 116
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Students Age 25 and Over
The figure below shows the percentage of credential-seeking students age 25 and over in the 2008 to
2010 cohorts who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. Students age 25 and over
have shown an increase in rates of enrollment in and earning credits from the 2008 cohort to the 2010
cohort. The 2010 cohort also had a 7.2 percent higher earned credential success rate than the 2008
cohort.
100%
80%
60%
54.8%
47.2%
44.8%
40%
44.1%
39.5%
35.3%
20%
0%
30.7%
27.8%
26.2%
25.2%
23.9%
22.0%
20.6%
19.8%
17.5%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 age 25 and over cohort
44.8%
35.3%
22.0%
17.5%
20.6%
2009 age 25 and over cohort
47.2%
39.5%
26.2%
19.8%
25.2%
2009 age 25 and over cohort
54.8%
44.1%
30.7%
23.9%
27.8%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three. Age groups are as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
116
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Students Age 18 and
Under
Page 114
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Students Age 19-24
Page 115
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Pell Students
The figure below shows the percentage of credential-seeking Pell students in the 2008 to 2010 cohorts
who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. Enrollment and success rates for Pell
students decreased from the 2008 to the 2010 cohort. However, earned credential rates were fairly
stable, increasing 1.4 percent from the 2008 to the 2009 cohort but decreasing 0.8 percent from the
2009 to the 2010 cohort.
100%
80%
80.3% 77.8%
75.3%
58.4%
55.7%
56.3%
54.0% 55.0%
51.2%
60%
39.7%39.7%
37.9%
40%
22.9%
21.5%
22.1%
20%
0%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 Pell cohort
80.3%
56.3%
55.0%
39.7%
21.5%
2009 Pell cohort
77.8%
58.4%
55.7%
39.7%
22.9%
2010 Pell cohort
75.3%
54.0%
51.2%
37.9%
22.1%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three. Pell status is as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
117
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
Non-Pell Students
Page 118
Successful Progression
Earning Credits Toward Completion
Earning 15 and 30 College Credits: Non-Pell Students
The figure below shows the percentage of credential-seeking non-Pell students in the 2008 to 2010
cohorts who achieved either 15 or 30 college-level credits in three years. Non-Pell students have shown
slight increases in rates of enrolling in and earning credits from the 2008 cohort to the 2010 cohort. The
2010 cohort also had a 5.1 percent higher earned credential success rate than the 2008 cohort.
100%
80%
70.9% 72.6%
70.0%
60%
54.0% 55.4% 56.7%
52.2% 53.7%
51.1%
37.5% 37.4% 38.0%
40%
23.4% 25.5%
20.4%
20%
0%
Enrolled in 15
college-level
credits
Earned 15
college-level
credits
Enrolled in 30
college-level
credits
Earned 30
college-level
credits
Earned
credential
2008 non-Pell cohort
70.0%
54.0%
51.1%
37.5%
20.4%
2009 non-Pell cohort
70.9%
55.4%
52.2%
37.4%
23.4%
2010 non-Pell cohort
72.6%
56.7%
53.7%
38.0%
25.5%
Source: Institutional Research, Banner system. College-level student definition: students in 2008 to 2010 credential-seeking cohorts during a
three-year tracking period. Results are through year three. Pell status is as of the student’s first semester at the College.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits:
All CredentialSeeking Students
Page 14
118
Earning 15 and 30
College Credits: Pell
Students
Page 117
Completion and Transfer
Completers
One method of considering Harper’s success in helping students graduate is to consider the number of
students who earn credentials each year in relation to the number of students who are attending the
College. Data from Institutional Research is used to report these comparisons.
The following pages provide detailed information about completers for demographic groups by gender
and race/ethnicity. Over the time period analyzed in this report, all gender and ethnic/racial groups have
increased the number of completers that have earned credentials. However, completers decreased
slightly from 2011-12 to 2012-13 for all groups except black graduates. The peak seen in 2011-12 is
largely due to the College’s Completion Concierge and efforts to stack career certificates that lead to
degrees.
119
Completion and Transfer
Completers
Number of Completers by Gender
Although the number of female and male credit students enrolling at Harper has decreased in recent
years, 2011-12 and 2012-13 showed substantially higher numbers of graduates for both groups of
students than were seen prior to 2011. Female students enroll and complete at a higher rate than do
males students.
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Female graduates
1,369
1,432
1,696
2,239
2,080
Female credit students
14,564
15,187
15,487
15,259
14,822
759
765
835
1,585
1,400
11,875
12,546
12,406
12,542
12,045
Male graduates
Male credit students
Source: Institutional Research, ICCB A1 file. Gender is self-reported; not all students report their gender when enrolling. Therefore, the
numbers above do not sum to the total number of completers listed on page 22.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Number of
Completers
Page 22
120
Percentage of
Completers by
Gender
Page 121
Completion and Transfer
Completers
Percentage of Completers by Gender
Females are consistently over-represented among Harper College graduates. Female credit students
represented 55.1 percent of credit students in 2008-09 but 64.3 percent of graduates during the same
year. In 2012-13, females represented 55.1 percent of the credit student population, but 59.7 percent of
graduates were female during the same year. In 2011-12 and 2012-13, the gap between male credit
student and graduate percentages decreased substantially, but remains near 5 percent.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Female graduates
64.3%
65.2%
66.9%
58.6%
59.7%
Female credit students
55.1%
54.8%
55.3%
54.9%
55.1%
Male graduates
35.7%
34.8%
33.0%
41.4%
40.2%
Male credit students
44.9%
45.2%
44.3%
45.1%
44.8%
Source: Institutional Research, ICCB A1 file.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Number of
Completers
Page 22
121
Number of
Completers by
Gender
Page 120
Completion and Transfer
Completers
Number of Completers by Race/Ethnicity
The figure below shows the number of credit students and graduates from 2008-09 to 2012-13 by
race/ethnicity. Across all years white students have accounted for the highest proportion of credit
students, followed by Hispanic students, Asian students, and black students. From 2011-12 to 2012-13,
however, there has been a decrease in credit students in all reported racial/ethnic groups; the most
substantial percentage decrease was in black credit students.
From 2011-12 to 2012-13, the number of black graduates increased slightly, while all other reported
racial/ethnic groups showed a decrease in number of completers.
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
202
230
234
373
332
2,967
2,994
2,960
3,009
2,942
73
87
109
158
168
1,068
1,292
1,472
1,556
1,308
184
221
273
486
425
Hispanic credit students
4,759
4,867
4,889
4,784
4,771
White graduates
1,472
1,455
1,717
2,515
2,278
White credit students
14,572
15,966
16,462
16,192
15,599
Asian graduates
Asian credit students
Black graduates
Black credit students
Hispanic graduates
Source: Institutional Research, ICCB A1 file. In this figure, Pacific Islander and Asian are combined. Race/ethnicity is self-reported; not all
students report their race/ethnicity when enrolling. Additional racial/ethnic groups and missing responses are included in the overall total.
Therefore, the numbers above do not sum to the total number of completers listed on page 22.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Number of
Completers
Page 22
122
Percentage of
Completers by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 123
Completion and Transfer
Completers
Percentage of Completers by Race/Ethnicity
White students graduated at higher than expected rates when compared to their share of the credit
student population. Asian and Hispanic students graduated at comparably low rates when compared to
their share of the credit student population. In 2012-13, the percentage of black student graduates
increased to 4.8 percent, bringing it near the same percentage as black credit student enrollment.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Asian graduates
9.5%
10.5%
9.2%
9.8%
9.5%
Asian credit students
11.2%
10.8%
10.6%
10.8%
10.9%
Black graduates
3.4%
4.0%
4.3%
4.1%
4.8%
Black credit students
4.0%
4.7%
5.3%
5.6%
4.9%
Hispanic graduates
8.6%
10.1%
10.8%
12.7%
12.2%
Hispanic credit students
18.0%
17.5%
17.4%
17.2%
17.7%
White graduates
69.2%
66.2%
67.8%
65.8%
65.4%
White credit students
55.1%
57.6%
58.7%
58.2%
58.0%
Source: Institutional Research, ICCB A1 file. In this figure, Asian and Pacific Islander are combined. This is a self-reported category; therefore
there are missing responses.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Number of
Completers
Page 22
123
Number of
Completers by
Race/Ethnicity
Page 122
Completion and Transfer
Completion Rates
Completion rates also help to demonstrate the extent of the College’s success in helping students earn
credentials. These completion rates include students who have completed a credential within three
years of first enrolling at Harper. However, IPEDS rates include only full-time students.
From the 2006 through the 2008, 2009 and 2010 cohorts, completion rates reported from both IPEDS
and AtD increased overall and for nearly all demographic groups. The following pages provide detailed
information about completers for demographic groups by gender, race/ethnicity, developmental status,
full-/part-time status, age group and Pell status. The gender information is reported using both IPEDS
and AtD as data sources. IPEDS data are not available for all demographic groups, limiting demographic
reporting to use of only AtD as a source.
124
Completion and Transfer
Completion Rates
Completion Rates by Gender
Both AtD and IPEDS data show a gap between female and male completion rates, with males
consistently completing at lower rates than females. Male completion rates remain well below 20
percent for all cohorts, while female completion has surpassed 20 percent for the 2008 to 2010 cohorts.
Males, however, improved IPEDS completion rates by 3.6 percent for the 2009 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
AtD Completion
40%
20%
0%
Female % completed
Female N completed
Male % completed
Male N completed
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
20.1%
18.9%
23.7%
24.5%
26.8%
275
270
327
336
376
12.8%
13.4%
12.8%
16.3%
15.3%
163
175
168
230
205
Overall % completed
16.6%
16.2%
18.4%
20.4%
21.2%
Overall N completed
438
445
495
566
581
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts.
100%
80%
IPEDS
Completion
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
Female % completed
17.1%
17.3%
25.0%
24.4%
Female N completed
132
133
192
162
Male % completed
12.8%
11.1%
13.7%
17.3%
Male N completed
119
103
119
152
Overall % completed
14.8%
13.9%
19.0%
20.3%
Overall N completed
251
236
311
314
Source: IPEDS. See Appendix for full IPEDS definition of completion.
125
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
Combined
Completion and
Transfer by
Gender
Page 132
Completion and Transfer
Completion Rates
Completion Rates by Race/Ethnicity
With the exception of white students, all of Harper College’s racial/ethnic groups fall below the College’s
overall completion rates. Although the large number of white students attending the College drives the
overall completion rate, the lower rates of minority racial/ethnic groups are notable. However,
completion rates have increased for all groups from the 2006 to the 2010 cohort. Note that variability in
data for some racial/ethnic groups may be due to the small number of students in those populations.
Overall, only one in five credential-seeking students completes a degree or certificate at the College
within three years. Thus, there is room for improvement in the overall completion rate as well as for
minority racial/ethnic groups.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Asian % completed
15.4%
14.6%
15.7%
13.9%
20.7%
Asian N completed
43
43
42
38
42
Black % completed
8.5%
7.1%
14.1%
11.6%
14.2%
Black N completed
Hispanic % completed
Hispanic N completed
13
11
26
26
38
12.0%
12.9%
14.6%
15.5%
18.2%
40
47
55
74
80
White % completed
18.6%
18.1%
21.0%
23.8%
22.8%
White N completed
297
307
320
400
373
Overall % completed
16.6%
16.2%
18.4%
20.4%
21.2%
Overall N completed
438
445
495
566
581
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Pacific Islanders are included in the Asian group for the
2006 and 2007 cohorts. Due to a small number of students, some racial/ethnic groups such as American Indian/Alaskan Native are not listed
separately in this report. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses. Additional racial/ethnic groups and missing
responses are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
126
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
Completion and Transfer
Completion Rates
Completion Rates of Developmental Students
Students entering the College after testing into developmental course work complete at a lower rate
than the overall Harper completion rate. However, completion rates for developmental students are
increasing over time, from 12.1 percent for the 2006 cohort to 15.9 percent for the 2010 cohort.
Developmental reading and writing students fair worse than developmental math students, with
completion rates ranging from 6.1 to 12.1 percent. Developmental math students have shown
completion rates between 11.7 and 15.9 percent.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Referred dev. math % completed
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
11.8%
11.7%
15.2%
15.9%
15.5%
Referred dev. math N completed
123
126
164
182
188
Referred dev. reading % completed
8.5%
7.8%
11.1%
11.6%
12.1%
Referred dev. reading N completed
41
38
62
64
72
Referred dev. writing % completed
6.1%
8.3%
10.1%
9.2%
9.9%
Referred dev. writing N completed
18
23
34
33
38
Referred to any dev. % completed
12.1%
11.3%
15.3%
15.6%
15.9%
Referred to any dev. N completed
142
139
187
201
214
Overall % completed
16.6%
16.2%
18.4%
20.4%
21.2%
Overall N completed
438
445
495
566
581
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Developmental courses are those numbered below 90 in
math, below 100 in reading, or 100 and below in English.
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
127
Completion and Transfer
Completion Rates
Completion Rates by Full-/Part-Time Status
Full-time students complete degrees and certificates at a higher rate than do part-time students. Within
three years, part-time students tend to complete at a rate of 12.6 to 17.5 percent, whereas full-time
students complete at a rate of 18.3 to 23.3 percent. However, part-time student completion has been
increasing in line with overall completion at the College.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Full-time % completed
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
18.6%
18.3%
20.5%
23.2%
23.3%
Full-time N completed
308
320
368
417
409
Part-time % completed
13.2%
12.6%
14.1%
15.2%
17.5%
Part-time N completed
130
125
127
149
172
Overall % completed
16.6%
16.2%
18.4%
20.4%
21.2%
Overall N completed
438
445
495
566
581
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Full- and part-time status are as of the student’s first
semester at the College.
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
128
Completion and Transfer
Completion Rates
Completion Rates by Age Group
Age may also play a role in students’ ability to complete their course work within three years. Over time,
students who start at Harper between the ages of 20 and 24 are less likely to complete than all of the
age groups. Although students age 19 and under had lower than average completion rates for the 2006
cohort, more recent cohorts have shown relatively strong completion rates for that group.
Relatively small numbers for some age groups mean that the fluctuation of those rates over time may be
due to the small number of students in each of those groups.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Age 19 and under % completed
Age 19 and under N completed
Age 20-24 % completed
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
15.9%
16.6%
19.0%
21.8%
21.8%
266
281
322
372
360
15.0%
13.5%
17.0%
14.3%
16.5%
Age 20-24 N completed
68
70
81
65
81
Age 25-29 % completed
18.5%
14.6%
19.1%
21.9%
18.0%
Age 25-29 N completed
33
27
38
47
36
Age 30 and over % completed
21.5%
19.6%
16.9%
20.5%
26.1%
Age 30 and over N completed
71
66
53
82
104
Overall % completed
16.6%
16.2%
18.4%
20.4%
21.2%
Overall N completed
438
445
495
566
581
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Age groups are as of the student’s first semester at the
College. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing
responses are included in the overall total.
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
129
Completion and Transfer
Completion Rates
Completion Rates by Pell Status
Students receiving Pell funding tend to complete at a slightly lower rate than do students who are not
receiving Pell funding.
Note that the number of new Harper students receiving Pell funding has increased over time. The 2006
cohort included 405 Pell students (15.4 percent), while the 2010 cohort included 932 Pell students (34.0
percent). The increase in the proportion of entering Harper students receiving Pell funding during these
years is likely related to the economic recession of 2008-09.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Pell % completed
15.8%
14.3%
19.4%
19.9%
19.3%
Pell N completed
64
66
93
147
180
Non-Pell % completed
16.7%
16.6%
18.2%
20.5%
22.2%
Non-Pell N completed
374
379
402
419
401
Overall % completed
16.6%
16.2%
18.4%
20.4%
21.2%
Overall N completed
438
445
495
566
581
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Pell status is as of the student’s first semester at the
College.
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
130
Completion and Transfer
Transfer Rates
For many community college students, success is not only completing a degree, but also transferring to
another institution for continued study. Using National Student Clearinghouse reports, this section
provides the percentage of AtD cohort students who transfer to another institution within three years of
beginning their studies at Harper. Unlike IPEDS, these transfer data include both completers and noncompleters.
The following pages provide detailed information about transfer students by gender, race/ethnicity,
developmental placement status and age group. Overall transfer rates have remained fairly steady
during the time period analyzed in this report, but large variation has been seen for some demographic
groups. As a community college that focuses on both completion and transfer, transfer rates should be
investigated to ensure the College is fully addressing the needs of its students.
We will expand this section as we increase our understanding of the ways in which transferring to other
institutions contributes to the success of our students. Future research will focus on traditional
demographic groupings, such as enrollment status and Pell Grant eligibility, as well as the various
transfer pathways available to students.
131
Completion and Transfer
Transfer Rates
Combined Completion and Transfer by Gender
The overall completion plus transfer rate at Harper College is approximately 50 percent. When
combining both completion and transfer, females perform better than males. Overall, completion plus
transfer rates have increased by 2.3 percent over time, from 47.1 percent for the 2006 cohort to 49.4
percent for the 2009 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Female % completed or transferred
Female N completed or transferred
Male % completed or transferred
Male N completed or transferred
2006
2007
2008
2009
48.5%
50.3%
56.7%
52.6%
374
388
436
348
45.8%
49.0%
48.2%
46.9%
425
455
420
412
Overall % completed or transferred
47.1%
49.6%
52.2%
49.4%
Overall N completed or transferred
799
843
856
760
Source: IPEDS. See Appendix for full IPEDS definitions of completion and transfer.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
132
Completion
Rates by Gender
Page 125
Transfer Rates
by Gender
Page 133
Completion and Transfer
Transfer Rates
Transfer Rates by Gender
Over time, males and females have transferred from Harper to other institutions at similar rates. For all
cohorts other than 2008, female transfer rates were slightly lower than male transfer rates.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Female % transferred
Female N transferred
Male % transferred
Male N transferred
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
35.3%
37.4%
37.1%
35.1%
35.4%
482
535
511
481
497
37.2%
37.8%
36.4%
36.2%
36.8%
473
495
478
509
492
Overall % transferred
36.2%
37.6%
36.7%
35.6%
36.1%
Overall N transferred
955
1,030
989
990
989
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. This is a
self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are
included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
133
Combined
Completion and
Transfer Rates
by Gender
Page 132
Completion and Transfer
Transfer Rates
Transfer Rates by Race/Ethnicity
Asian and white student transfer rates have been relatively stable over time. Hispanic transfer has also
been stable, but has lagged approximately 7 to 11 percentage points behind the overall transfer rate for
the College. Black student transfer rates have been the most variable, ranging from 34.0 percent for the
2007 cohort to 48.2 percent for the 2009 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Asian % transferred
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
39.4%
39.1%
37.8%
37.4%
37.4%
Asian N transferred
110
115
101
102
76
Black % transferred
43.1%
34.0%
41.8%
48.2%
40.8%
Black N transferred
Hispanic % transferred
Hispanic N transferred
66
53
77
108
109
25.1%
27.5%
28.6%
25.6%
28.7%
84
100
108
122
126
White % transferred
36.8%
39.4%
36.8%
36.7%
36.0%
White N transferred
589
668
560
615
589
Overall % transferred
36.2%
37.6%
36.7%
35.6%
36.1%
Overall N transferred
955
1,030
989
990
989
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts; results are through year three. Pacific Islanders are included
in the Asian group for the 2006 and 2007 cohorts. Due to a small number of students, some racial/ethnic groups such as American
Indian/Alaskan Native are not listed separately in this report. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing responses. Additional
racial/ethnic groups and missing responses are included in the overall total.
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
134
Completion and Transfer
Transfer Rates
Transfer Rates of Developmental Students
Developmental student transfer rates have been relatively stable over time but have lagged behind
transfer rates for the overall credential-seeking cohort populations. Developmental math student
transfer rates are only slightly lower than overall transfer rates (1.0 percent to 3.3 percent), but
developmental reading and writing students transfer at much lower rates than the overall population
(7.4 percent to 13.0 percent).
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Referred to dev.math % transferred
35.2%
35.1%
33.7%
34.0%
32.8%
Referred to dev.math N transferred
367
378
364
390
398
27.4%
29.1%
25.6%
28.2%
28.2%
Referred to dev.reading % transferred
Referred to dev.reading N transferred
132
141
143
156
167
Referred to dev.writing % transferred
23.2%
27.2%
24.1%
28.3%
26.0%
Referred to dev.writing N transferred
69
75
81
101
100
Overall % transferred
36.2%
37.6%
36.7%
35.6%
36.1%
Overall N transferred
955
1,030
989
990
989
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. Developmental courses are those numbered below 90 in
math, below 100 in reading, or 100 and below in English.
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
135
Completion and Transfer
Transfer Rates
Transfer Rates by Age Group
Transfer rates for students age 19 and under have been relatively stable over time, and these students
have been transferring at the highest rates of all age groups. Transfer rates for students age 30 and over
have also been relatively stable, but have lagged approximately 15 to 21 percentage points behind the
overall transfer rate for the College. Students age 25 to 29 have shown the most variation in transfer
rates, ranging from 21.9 percent for the 2006 cohort to 34.4 percent for the 2009 cohort.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Age 19 and under % transferred
40.6%
42.8%
42.4%
39.8%
41.8%
Age 19 and under N transferred
681
726
719
681
690
Age 20-24 % transferred
38.9%
37.3%
35.1%
33.6%
32.4%
Age 20-24 N transferred
176
194
167
152
159
Age 25-29 % transferred
21.9%
29.2%
26.1%
34.4%
28.5%
Age 25-29 N transferred
39
54
52
74
57
17.9%
16.6%
16.3%
20.8%
20.9%
Age 30 and over % transferred
Age 30 and over N transferred
59
56
51
83
83
Overall % transferred
36.2%
37.6%
36.7%
35.6%
36.1%
Overall N transferred
955
1,030
989
990
989
Source: Achieving the Dream (AtD) Analytical Tool. Years are based on AtD cohorts. This is a self-reported category; therefore there are missing
responses and categories do not always sum to overall total. Missing responses are included in the overall total. Age groups are as of the
student’s first semester at the College.
Students
Completing or
Transferring
Page 23
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
136
Workforce and Employment
Employment of Harper Career Graduates
Demographic breakouts for workforce and employment data are obtained through the Illinois
Community College Board (ICCB) Career Tech Education Analysis Portal. The Analysis Portal data include
employment in any field.
Overall, Harper career graduates are employed at lower rates than they were in 2008. Male graduates
tend to gain employment at slightly higher rates than do female graduates. Asian graduates tend to gain
employment at rates lower than their black, Hispanic or white counterparts.
137
Workforce and Employment
Employment of Harper Career Graduates
Employment by Gender, Six Months After Completion
In general, males tend to be more successful than females in obtaining employment within six months
after completing a career credential at Harper. However, this gap has decreased over time. The largest
difference between male and female employment was shown for the 2008 cohort; the success rate of
male employment was 5.9 percent higher than the success rate of females. In the 2011 cohort, the male
employment rate was 1.2 percent higher than the female employment rate.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Female % employed six months after completion
2008
2009
2010
2011
79.5%
76.6%
73.9%
72.5%
Female N employed six months after completion
Male % employed six months after completion
647
720
690
1083
85.4%
77.9%
71.7%
73.7%
Male N employed six months after completion
311
286
253
558
Overall % employed six months after completion
81.3%
77.0%
73.3%
72.9%
Overall N employed six months after completion
958
1006
943
1641
Source: Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) Career Tech Education Analysis Portal: https://informatics.niu.edu/iccb/
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Employment of
Harper Career
Graduates
Page 25
138
Employment by
Gender, One
Year After
Completion
Page 139
Employment by
Race/Ethnicity,
Six Months After
Completion
Page 140
Workforce and Employment
Employment of Harper Career Graduates
Employment by Gender, One Year After Completion
The employment trends for Harper career graduates one year after completion are very similar to the
trends noted for completers six months after graduation. The male employment rate decreased by 10.9
percent from the high of 84.3 percent reached in 2008 to the low of 73.4 percent in 2010. However, the
male employment rate increased by 2.8 percent in 2011. The percentage of females obtaining
employment within one year after completion has remained fairly consistent over time ranging from a
high of 77.6 percent in 2008 to a low of 74.6 percent in 2011.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
Female % employment one year after completion
77.6%
75.6%
76.0%
74.6%
Female N employment one year after completion
632
711
710
1113
Male % employment one year after completion
84.3%
77.4%
73.4%
76.2%
Male N employment one year after completion
307
284
259
577
Overall % employment one year after completion
79.7%
76.1%
75.3%
75.1%
Overall N employment one year after completion
939
995
969
1690
Source: Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) Career Tech Education Analysis Portal: https://informatics.niu.edu/iccb/.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Employment of
Harper Career
Graduates
Page 25
139
Employment by
Gender, Six
Months After
Completion
Page 138
Employment by
Race/Ethnicity,
One Year After
Completion
Page 141
Workforce and Employment
Employment of Harper Career Graduates
Employment by Race/Ethnicity, Six Months After Completion
The employment rates for all racial/ethnic groups of career graduates varied from year to year.
Employment rates for each group declined from 2008 to 2009, with the exception of Hispanic
employment rates, which increased by nearly 5 percent. Although the Hispanic employment rate was
followed by a 9.9 percent decrease the following year, employment rates for this group remain higher
than for all other ethnic/racial groups examined in this report. Black employment rates showed the most
variation over time, ranging from 87.8 percent in 2008 to 66.1 percent in 2010. These rates then
rebounded to 72.8 percent for 2011 graduates.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Asian % employed six months after completion
2008
2009
2010
2011
70.9%
68.1%
71.8%
70.0%
Asian N employed six months after completion
78
79
102
147
Black % employed six months after completion
87.8%
80.0%
66.1%
72.8%
Black N employed six months after completion
Hispanic % employed six months after completion
Hispanic N employed six months after completion
White % employed six months after completion
36
36
39
75
84.5%
89.4%
79.5%
78.0%
109
101
89
177
82.6%
76.6%
74.4%
72.6%
White N employed six months after completion
653
704
638
1122
Overall % employed six months after completion
81.3%
77.0%
73.3%
72.9%
Overall N employed six months after completion
958
1006
943
1641
Source: Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) Career Tech Education Analysis Portal: https://informatics.niu.edu/iccb/. Due to a small
number of students, some racial/ethnic groups such as American Indian/Alaskan Native are not listed separately in this report. Additional
racial/ethnic groups are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Employment of
Harper Career
Graduates
Page 25
140
Employment by
Gender, Six
Months After
Completion
Page 138
Employment by
Race/Ethnicity,
One Year After
Completion
Page 141
Workforce and Employment
Employment of Harper Career Graduates
Employment by Race/Ethnicity, One Year After Completion
Consistent with the data presented for career graduates six months post-graduation, from 2009 to 2011
Hispanic graduates were more successful in obtaining employment one year after completion than all
other racial/ethnic groups. Black students had the largest variation in employment rates over time, with
a high of 82.2 percent for 2009 graduates and a low of 62.7 percent for 2010 graduates.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
Asian % employment one year after completion
73.6%
65.5%
73.9%
72.4%
Asian N employment one year after completion
81
76
105
152
Black % employment one year after completion
78.1%
82.2%
62.7%
71.8%
Black N employment one year after completion
32
37
37
74
78.3%
84.1%
83.0%
81.9%
Hispanic % employment one year after completion
Hispanic N employment one year after completion
White % employment one year after completion
101
95
93
186
81.0%
76.3%
76.5%
74.9%
White N employment one year after completion
641
701
656
1158
Overall % employment one year after completion
79.7%
76.1%
75.3%
75.1%
Overall N employment one year after completion
939
995
969
1690
Source: Illinois Community College Board (ICCB) Career Tech Education Analysis Portal: https://informatics.niu.edu/iccb/. Due to a small
number of students, some racial/ethnic groups such as American Indian/Alaskan Native are not listed separately in this report. Additional
racial/ethnic groups are included in the overall total.
LINKS TO RELATED
FIGURES:
Employment of
Harper Career
Graduates
Page 25
141
Employment by
Gender, One
Year After
Completion
Page 139
Employment by
Race/Ethnicity,
Six Months After
Completion
Page 140
Appendix: Definitions
Achieving the Dream Definitions 1
Completed: Successfully completed a course with a grade of C or better
Developmental course: An instructional course designed for students deficient in the general
competencies necessary for a regular postsecondary curriculum and educational setting.
Developmental courses are also known as remedial courses, basic skills courses, preparatory
courses, or compensatory courses.
Developmental math: At Harper, include MTH courses numbered below 90.
Developmental reading: At Harper, includes RDG courses numbered below 100.
Developmental writing: At Harper, includes ENG courses numbered 100 and below.
Gatekeeper course 2: A college-level or degree-credit (non-developmental) course that students
are required to complete successfully before enrolling in more advanced classes in their major
field of study.
Gatekeeper math: At Harper, includes MTH101, MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and
MTH165.
Gatekeeper English: At Harper, includes only ENG101.
Full-time student: Student was enrolled for 12 or more credit hours during her or his first (fall)
semester at the College.
Part-time student: Student was enrolled for fewer than 12 credit hours during her or his first
(fall) semester at the College.
Pell student: Student received a Pell grant during their first term at Harper.
Non-Pell student: Student did not receive a Pell grant during their first term at Harper.
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) Definitions 3
Cohort: Generally, the group of students entering in the fall term established for tracking
purposes. This includes all students, regardless of their status as full-time/part-time/transferred,
entering as first-time, and award-seeking students at your institution during the first term of the
specified year.
Developmental Students: Developmental students were designated by either a developmental
math referral, developmental reading referral, or developmental English referral. Students can
be referred to developmental courses through a counselor, a developmental office, etc. Note
that referral does not equal attempt.
1
http://www.achievingthedream.org/sites/default/files/Data_Dictionary_AtD_Data_Access_Tool_5April2012.pdf
Achieving the Dream refers to these as “Gatekeeper” courses.
3
IPEDS is the source for U.S. Department of Education data and reporting. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/
2
142
Graduation Rate: This annual component of IPEDS was added in 1997 to help institutions satisfy
the requirements of the Student Right-to-Know legislation. Data are collected on the number of
students entering the institution as full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking
undergraduate students in a particular year (cohort), by race/ethnicity and gender; the number
completing their program within 150 percent of normal time to completion; the number that
transfer to other institutions if transfer is part of the institution's mission. This rate is calculated
as the total number of completers within 150 percent of normal time divided by the cohort. A
completer is a student who receives a degree, diploma, certificate, or other formal award. In
order to be considered a completer, the degree/award must actually be conferred.
Transfer-Out Students (NON-COMPLETERS): Total number of students from the cohort or
subcohort who transferred out at any time within 150 percent of normal time to completion. A
transfer-out student is a student who has not completed or graduated from the program in
which he or she was enrolled, but who has subsequently enrolled at another eligible institution
in any program for which the reporting institution provided substantial preparation. (Note that
the transfer data in this report from AtD/National Student Clearinghouse include completers.)
Milestones and Momentum Points Definitions:
Gatekeeper Math: At Harper, includes MTH101, MTH103, MTH130, MGT225 and MTH165.
Milestones: Educational accomplishments that students reach along their path to degree
completion. In the model, examples of milestones may include fulfilling developmental
education requirements, completing 15 college-level credits, or earning an Associates’ Degree,
but in this report refer specifically to earning a credential. Milestones include earning
credentials as well as intermediate outcomes.
Momentum Points: Building blocks to the completion of a milestone. For example, a
developmental math student at Harper College must complete Math 060 in order to complete
their developmental math sequence. In the preceding example the completion of Math 060
would be measured as a momentum point. If a student completes a momentum point, he or she
is more on track toward completing a milestone.
143
References
Achieving the Dream (2012). Data dictionary—AtD access tool.
http://www.achievingthedream.org/sites/default/files/Data_Dictionary_AtD_Data_Access_Tool_5April2
012.pdf.
Adelman, C. (2004). Principal indicators of student academic histories in postsecondary education,
1972–2000. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Education Sciences.
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. The Journal
of Higher Education. 77(5).
National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Condition of education 2003. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
U.S. Department of Education (2013). IPEDS online glossary. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/.
144