Replenishing Opportunity in America
Making Graduation Everyone’s Responsibility
2012 AACRAO SEM Conference
NOVEMBER 6, 2012
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
THE EDUCATION TRUST
WHO WE ARE
WHAT WE DO
The Education Trust works for the
high academic achievement of all
students at all levels, prekindergarten through college, and
forever closing the achievement
gaps that separate low-income
students and students of color
from other youth. Our basic tenet
is this — All children will learn at
high levels when they are taught to
high levels.
 Advocacy to help schools, colleges,
and communities mount campaigns
to close gaps
 Research and policy analysis on
patterns and practices that both
cause and close gaps
 Technical assistance to schools,
colleges, and community-based
organizations to raise student
achievement and close gaps
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
60%
THE
COLLEGE
ATTAINMENT
GOAL
Of 25-34 year olds with degrees by 2020
8,000,000
Additional degrees needed by 2020
5%
Total percent growth needed each year to meet 2020 goal
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
How are we doing?
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College-going is up for all groups.
© 2011 The Education
Trust
© 2011 THE EDUCATION
TRUST
Percentage of High School Graduates
Enrolled in College the Fall After Graduation
Immediate College-Going Increasing for All
Racial/Ethnic Groups: 1972 to 2010
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
African American
Latino
White
Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in college the October after completing high school
NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-3) and The Condition of Education 2012 (Table A-34-2).
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percentage of High School Graduates
Enrolled in College the Fall After Graduation
College-Going Generally Increasing
for All Income Groups
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Low-Income
High-Income
Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in college the October after completing high school
NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-1) and The Condition of Education 2012 (Table A-34-1).
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But substantial gaps in college access remain
Percentage of high school graduates immediately enrolling in
college, 1972-2010
82%
71%
66%
64%
60%
50%
50%
52%
1972
38%
2010
23%
White
Black
Hispanic
Low Income High Income
Note: Data for black, Hispanic, and low-income represent two-year moving average because of small sample sizes.
NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-3) and 2012 (Table A-34-2).
8
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
There is also the question of access to what?
© 2011 The Education
Trust
© 2011 THE EDUCATION
TRUST
1/5 of black and Hispanic students and 2/5 of Pell recipients
begin at for-profit colleges
Asian
7
White
9
34
41
35
Black
37
21
Hispanic
40
18
American Indian
Pell recipient
Non-Pell recipient
15
0%
For Profit
20%
25
Public 2-Year
21
Public 4-Year
60%
Ed Trust analysis of IPEDS Fall enrollment, Fall 2010 (by race) and IPEDS Student Financial Aid survey, 2009-10
(by Pell recipient status).
9
20
80%
Private 4-Year
1
9 1
10
39
40%
1
12
29
24
17
27
46
42
1
26
45
12
17
4
2
2
100%
Other
10
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Percent of Students who Undermatch
Low-income students are more likely to undermatch
into less selective institutions, with lower graduation rates
60%
54%
42%
27%
Bottom 25%
Second 25%
Third 25%
Income Level
Top 25%
Bowen, Chingos, and McPherson, Crossing the Finish Line, 2009.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And questions about access at what cost?
© 2011 The Education
Trust
© 2011 THE EDUCATION
TRUST
Low-income students must devote an amount
equivalent to 72% of their family income
towards college costs
Family Income
Average
Income
Cost of
Attendance
Expected
Family
Contribution
(EFC)
Average
Grant Aid
Unmet Need
After EFC and
Grant Aid
% of Income
Required to Pay
for College After
Grant Aid
$0-30,200
$17,011
$22,007
$951
$9,704
$11,352
72%
$30,201-54,000
$42,661
$23,229
$4,043
$7,694
$11,493
36%
$54,001-80,400
$67,844
$23,640
$10,224
$5,352
$8,064
27%
$80,401-115,400
$97,594
$25,050
$18,158
$4,554
$2,339
21%
$115,401+
$173,474
$27,689
$37,821
$3,822
$-13,953
14%
Source: Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:08 using PowerStats, http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/. Results based on full-time,
full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates at public and private nonprofit four-year institutions.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
From Priced Out: The Landscape of Opportunity
High net price, low grad rate
Net Price for Low-Income ($0-30,000) Students
2009-10
$40,000
Public
Private Nonprofit
For-Profit
$4,000
Low net price, high grad rate
$400
0
20
40
60
80
100
Six-Year Graduation Rate, 2010
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Federal Pell Grants have failed to
keep pace with rising college costs
100%
99%
Total Cost of Attendance Covered by
Maximum Pell Grant Award
77%
80%
62%
60%
40%
34%
20%
36%
14%
0%
Public 2-Year
Public 4-Year
1979-80
Private 4-Year
2010-11
American Council on Education (2007). “ Status Report on the Pell Grant Program, 2007” and CRS, Federal Pell
Grant Program of the Higher Education Act: Background, Recent Changes, and Current Legislative Issues, 2011.
15
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Non-need-based aid grew at nearly
5 times the rate of need-based aid
State spending on grant aid, millions of dollars
1993-94
2009-10
$245
$2,393
$6,338
Non-Need-Based
Need-Based
$2,216
NASSGAP 34th and 40th Annual Survey Report on State-Sponsored Student Financial Aid.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Institutional Grant Aid at Public 4-Year
Institutions, 1995-2007 (in millions)
Public 4-year colleges used to spend more than twice as much on needy
students, but now spend about the same as on wealthy students
$800
$744
$695
$700
$600
$500
$437
$400
$300
$200
$179
$100
$0
1995
Lowest income quintile
2007
Highest income quintile
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:96 and NPSAS:08 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year,
one-institution dependent undergraduates.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Institutional Grant Aid at Private NFP
4-Year Institutions, 1995-2007 (millions)
Private nonprofit 4-year colleges used to spend about the same amount
on low- and high-income students, but now spend twice as much on
wealthy students
$3,000
$2,673
$2,500
$2,000
$1,478
$1,500
$1,000
$919
$887
$500
$0
1995
Lowest income quintile
2007
Highest income quintile
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS: 96 and NPSAS:08 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year,
one-institution dependent undergraduates.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And what about success?
© 2011 The Education
Trust
© 2011 THE EDUCATION
TRUST
Black and Latino Freshmen Complete College at Lower
Rates Than Other Students
80
6 -year bachelor’s completion rates for first-time, full-time freshmen,
Fall 2004 cohort at 4-year institutions
Graduation Rates (%)
70
Overall rate: 58%
60
50
40
30
69%
62%
50%
20
40%
39%
10
0
White
Black
Latino
Asian
NCES (March 2012). First Look: Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2010; Graduation Rates, 2004
and 2007 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics Fiscal Year 2010.
American Indian
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Graduation rates at
public community colleges
100
3 - year completion rates (associate degrees and certificates)
for first-time, full-time freshmen,
Fall 2004 cohort at public two-year institutions
Graduation Rates (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Overall rate: 22.5%
20
10
25%
15%
20%
Black
Latino
27%
20%
0
White
Asian
NCES (March 2012). First Look: Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2010; Graduation Rates, 2004
and 2007 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics Fiscal Year 2010.
American
Indian
21
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Chance of
attaining a bachelor’s degree
within six years,
among students who
begin at community college?
n/a
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Only 12 percent.
100
Bachelor’s Attainment Rate (%)
90
Percent of students who started at a community college in
2003 and earned a BA degree by 2009
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
12%
0
Persistence and Attainment of 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students: After 6 Years First Look, December
2010.
23
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Add it all up...
© 2011 The Education
Trust
© 2011 THE EDUCATION
TRUST
Different groups of young Americans obtain
degrees at very different rates.
© 2011 The Education
Trust
© 2011 THE EDUCATION
TRUST
Some students are far more likely than others
to attain a college degree
Bachelor’s degree attainment of young adults (25-29 year olds)
39%
24%
2x
20%
11%
White
Black
3x
13%
1975
2011
9%
Hispanic
NCES, Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-22-1) and U.S. Census Bureau, Educational Attainment in the
United States: 2011.
26
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Young adults from high-income families are 7 times
more likely to earn bachelor’s degrees by age 24
Percent with Bachelor’s
Degree by Age 24
100%
80%
60%
40%
79%
20%
7x
11%
0%
Highest income quartile
Lowest income quartile
Tom Mortenson, Bachelor’s Degree Attainment by age 24 by Family Income Quartiles, 1970 to 2010,
Postsecondary Education Opportunity, 2012.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Changing demographics demand greater focus
on underrepresented populations.
Population Increase, Ages 0-24,
(in thousands)
Percentage Increase, Ages 0-24,
31,337
137%
White
Black
96%
Latino
50%
2,312
Asian
4,431
15%
669
-9%
American
Indian
-5,516
Closing racial gaps in degree attainment will create more than half of the degrees
necessary to raise America to first in the world in degree attainment.
Note: Projected Population Growth, Ages 0-24, 2010-2050
National Population Projections, U.S. Census Bureau. Released 2008; NCHEMS, Adding It Up, 2007.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Closing achievement gaps is key.
© 2011 The Education
Trust
© 2011 THE EDUCATION
TRUST
But, can we do anything about it?
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College Results Online
Similar schools, similar students, different results
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Florida Public Four-Year Universities
Source: College Results Online, 2010
32
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
A Tale of Two Schools
University of South Florida
Florida State University





Median SAT in 2010 was 1200
Classified as Research Very High
institution according to Carnegie
Classification
Classified as “Very Competitive” by
Barron’s
24% of students are URM
23% of freshmen receive Pell
Source: College Results Online, 2010





Median SAT in 2010 was 1155
Classified as Research Very High
institution according to Carnegie
Classification
Classified as “Competitive” by Barron’s
28% of students are URM
35% of freshmen receive Pell
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
FSU and USF are peers, with very different grad rates
Source: College Results Online, 2010
34
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
USF loses more students right from the start
Source: College Results Online, 2010
35
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Considerable improvement at FSU,
but USF is making gains too
80
70
63.3
62.9
65.5
66.4
68.3
68.7
69.5
71.4
46.7
47.5
48.7
49.3
48.1
48.2
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
73.6
60
50
40
45.9
49.2
51.4
30
20
10
0
2002
2003
Florida State University
Source: College Results Online, 2010
2010
University of South Florida
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Differences in graduation rates for
different groups of students
Source: College Results Online, 2010
37
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Similar students, different results
2010 Six-Year Graduation Rates FSU
80%
74%
2010 Six-Year Graduation Rates USF
80%
72%
70%
70%
60%
60%
53%
51%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
Overall
URM
Overall
URM
Note: URM stands for underrepresented minority students and includes African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians.
Source: College Results Online 2010 Dataset.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So, how do institutions
that improve do it?
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Colorado State University System | Connecticut State University System | Kentucky Council of Postsecondary Education | Minnesota State
Colleges and Universities | Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning | Montana University System| Pennsylvania State System of Higher
Education | Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education | South Dakota Board of Regents | State University of New York | State
University System of Florida | Tennessee Board of Regents | The California State University System | The City University of New York |
University of Hawaii System | University of Louisiana System | University of Missouri System | University of North Carolina System |
University of Texas System | University of Wisconsin System | Louisiana Board of Regents | New Jersey Commission on Higher Education
22 Systems, 311 Campuses, 3.5 Million Students
19% of Public Undergrads | 893K URMs | 976K Pell Recipients
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
It’s not all about programs.
It’s about creating conditions for
success on campus.
And moving from best practices to
best practitioners.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
1
(Really) make student success a top priority
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
“We replaced the revolving door
with a corridor to graduation.”
- Former President Stephen Weber
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
“It had always been our mission to serve these
populations. But we used to think it was just
about giving them the opportunity, not about
investing in them to succeed.”
- Former President Stephen Weber
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Raising grad rates and narrowing
gaps for minority students
Change in six-year graduation rates and gaps for first-time students
19
67
62
56
58
67
-58%
59
53
8
37
2005
2008
URM Rate (%)
Source: A2S dataset
2009
2010
Non-URM Rate (%)
2005
2010
Grad Rate Gap
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2
Foster a culture of success and
shared responsibility
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Student success team met weekly
Chief Academic Officer convenes the group and participates
Supported by Institutional Research
Core Services:
admissions, registration, financial
aid, career services, housing, health
center, and withdrawal services
Support Programs:
orientation, advising and coaching,
tutoring and study skills courses,
and special programs for
underserved populations
Cross-Campus Success
Team:
A group of approximately
20 professionals from
these areas convenes
weekly to talk about data
and “the students within
the data.“The group
makes detailed action
plans with specific tasks,
responsible parties, and
concrete deadlines
Academic Programs:
undergraduate studies, honors
program, undergraduate research,
library services, and fellowships
Student Representation:
Student government
representative. It is important to
have this group because it helps
student buy-in and can bring in
additional funds for programs
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
80%
75%
74.1%
70%
71.5%
65%
64.5%
60%
60.0%
55%
50%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Underrepresented Minority
2007
2008
2009
2010
White
Improving graduation rates for all
students while gaps remain small
Source: College Results Online
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST48
3
Mine and mind data to remove
(institutional) barriers to student success
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Narrowing gaps for low-income
students at UW-Eau Claire
First-year retention rates
75
81
83
Six-year graduation rates
80
61
60
66
49
2005
2010
Pell
Source: A2S dataset
Non-Pell
2005
2010
Pell
Non-Pell
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
“We didn’t look at the data through a
deficit model lens. We looked at the
factors we could influence.”
Patricia Kleine, Provost
University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Using leading indicators to help close
graduation gaps
Opportunity: Percent not completing indicator
66
Impact: Gap between success rates of those
completing and not completing indicator
Leading
Indicator
51
29
24
22
18
20
10
High
High
Earned 60 Credits in
First 2 Years
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Earned 30 Credits in Cumulative GPA Below Semester GPA Below
First Year
2.0
2.0
Source: University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Pathway analysis to identify and
remove roadblocks to graduation
4 Year
Graduation Rate
Credits
Attempted Per
Year
Credits Earned
Per Year
Perceived
Importance of 4
Year Graduation
Course F’s or
W’s
% of Students
with 4 Year Plan
Course Repeats
Mini-Session
Enrollment
Credits Counted
Toward
Requirement
Credits Required
for Degrees
Transfer Credits
Counted Toward
Degree
Credits Required
by Minor
Bottlenecks
Experienced
Credits Required
by Major
Number of
Major Changes
Credits Required
by Liberal Ed
Core
Positive Effect on
Graduation Rate
Negative Effect on
Graduation
Course
Availability
Source: University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Remediation:
 Begin coursework in first term
 Complete needed remediation
Gateway Courses:
 Complete college-level Math/English early
 Complete a college success course
Credit Accumulation and Related Behavior:







High rate of course completion (80%)
Complete 20-30 credits in first year
Earn summer credits
Enroll full-time
Enroll continuously
On-time registration for courses
Maintain adequate GPA
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
4
Raise expectations of students
while increasing support
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Don’t leave student success to chance
 Made programs like orientation mandatory
 Require remedial students to get an “early start” in
summer
 Force register students into gateway courses in first
year
 But, also provide a “bounce back” program for students
on probation
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Don’t leave student success to chance
 Changed policies to ensure successful student behavior
 Comprehensively reviewed services to target
interventions to the “right student at the right time”
 Routinely review data to determine which programs and
policies are working (and which are not)
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
5
Remember:
Students complete college one class at a time
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Course redesign at
Cleveland State Community College
 Redesigned three developmental math courses: Basic Math, Elementary
Algebra, Intermediate Algebra
 More than 1,200 students enrolled in these courses annually with a DropFailure-Withdrawal rate of 45%
 Courses shifted from lecture-based to computer-based, with all homework
and testing done online
 Students met one hour per week in class and two hours in a computer lab
staffed by faculty and tutors
 Courses divided into modules, which students progress through at their
own rate, even completing more than one course a semester
National Center for Academic Transformation (2009). Tennessee Board of Regents: Developmental Studies
Redesign Initiative. http://www.thencat.org/States/TN/Abstracts/CSCC%20Algebra_Abstract.htm
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Math redesign at Cleveland State
Community College
Pass rates for Elementary
Algebra
Pass rates for Intermediate
Algebra
74%
68%
57%
50%
Before Redesign
After Redesign
Before Redesign
Engle, Jennifer, Joseph Yeado, Rima Brusi and Jose Cruz (2012). Replenishing Opportunity in America: The 2012
Midterm Report of Public Higher Education Systems in the Access to Success Network. Washington, DC: Education
Trust, 2012.
After Redesign
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Math redesign at Cleveland State
Community College
Before course redesign
• Section size = 24
• 55 sections (Fall/Spring)
After course redesign
• Section size = 18
• 77 sections (Fall/Spring)
– 45 by FT faculty
– 10 by adjuncts
•
•
•
•
Faculty load = 10 sections
Faculty cost = $256,275
Adjunct cost = $14,400
Total cost = $270,625
– 77 by FT faculty
– 0 by adjuncts
•
•
•
•
Faculty load = 20 sections
Faculty cost = $219,258
Adjunct cost = $0
Total cost = $219,258
Savings = $51,418 or 19%
Short, Paula and Treva Berryman (2012). ‘A System Approach to Learning Support Redesign in Tennessee.’
Presentation at the U.S. Education Delivery Institute network meeting, January 2012.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Targeting underserved populations with highimpact practices to increase completion
Percentage of Freshmen who Intended to Complete Faculty-Led Research
Compared to Seniors Who Completed Faculty-Led Research
27.5
26.0
22.5
Freshmen Plan To
First Generation
Source: University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
21.0
Seniors Did
Non-First Generation
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
“If we can increase the number of students with
quality experiences, equity and quantity will result
from those high quality experiences.
Equity and quantity, through quality.”
- Associate Vice Provost Michael Wick
University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
In other words, what institutions do to help
their students succeed matters. A lot.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
It’s really not about boldness of reform.
It’s about intentionality and quality of execution.
© 2011 The Education
Trust
© 2011 THE EDUCATION
TRUST
People
Data
Strategies
Elements to Increase Student Success
Implementing effective strategies to improve institutional outcomes
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Graduation is everybody’s
business.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Institutions have a large effect on graduation
Retention (X) plotted against Graduation (Y) for all public 4-yr institutions
70
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Florida State established a cross-campus team whose mission was to
remove barriers that hindered student success.
Florida State Cross-Campus Team
Chief Academic Officer
Core Services:
Admissions, Registration,
Financial Aid, Career
Services, Housing, Health
Center, Withdrawal Services
Support Programs:
Orientation, Advising &
Coaching, Tutoring & Study
Skills Courses, Special
Programs For Underserved
Populations
Cross-Campus
Success Team
Central mission is to
remove barriers to
student success
Academic Programs:
Undergraduate Studies,
Honors Program,
Undergraduate Research,
Library Services, Fellowships
Student Representation:
Student Government
Representative
Institutional Research
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The team operated differently from typical committees by focusing on
analysis, action, and accountability.
Typical Committee
▪ Provide analysis and/or identify
Formal Charge
Accountability
Overall
Perspective
▪ Rich mix of people who work dayto-day serving students, includes
front-line practitioners
▪ Operates as a true workgroup,
work others on campus are to
undertake
▪ Vaguely defined, if at all
▪ Convene on an intermittent
Routines
hindering student success
usually several levels removed
from students
▪ Advisory in nature; outlines the
Function
▪ Remove institutional barriers
recommendations for an
institutional priority or issue
▪ Senior-level administrators,
Composition
Cross-Campus Team
basis, usually for a finite period
of time
▪ Not well-defined
defining tasks to be done and
completing them
▪ Defined by measurable and
specific changes in student
outcomes and performance
▪ Weekly, on-going meetings where
▪
progress is assessed continuously
Data-driven
▪ Driven by the mindset that all
students can succeed; studentcentered in their thinking
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
In addition to the core members of the team, there were other important
individuals who helped shape its work.
Provost, Assistant Provost, & IR



Provost
IR
Asst.
Provost
Core Team Members


Core CrossCampus Team
Members
Set the agenda
Define data needs
Decide who else should be in
attendance at meeting
Invited
Campus
Personnel

Share their expertise
Provide continuous focus on
student success
Work to remove barriers
Invited Campus Personnel



Share their expertise
Provide another perspective
Used to test hypotheses of the
team
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Every member of the team had specific responsibilities to move the
student success work forward.
Leader
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Institutional
Research
▪
▪
▪
Team
Member
▪
▪
Convene the team on a regular and frequent basis
Ensure institutional research capacity and facilitate access to data
Provide continuous push for improvement in practices, policies, and
programs
Model the mindset that every student is worth saving
Ensure that the cross-campus team has the data it needs in the
appropriate formats
Provide guidance on how to interpret data when needed
Help team members assess the efficacy of their interventions and
strategies
Work continuously to identify institutional barriers that impede student
success
Devise and implement specific strategies and interventions to remove
barriers
Provide regular updates on progress of their efforts and tasks
completed
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The team met weekly to address key questions, make decisions, and
sustain momentum.
Diagnose
Problems
ProblemSolve
Plan
▪ Which students are progressing as planned?
▪
Which students are not? Why?
What seems to be impeding student progress or
performance?
▪ Where should we intervene?
▪ What can we do that might make a difference?
▪ What additional supports can we put in place?
▪ What changes to our policies, programs or
practices might we make that would be helpful?
Evaluate
▪ Are our efforts having the impact we intended?
▪ Do we have the right strategies and supports in
place?
▪ What have we accomplished since our last
Report
▪
meeting?
What achievements or accomplishments can we
celebrate?
Followed by an
ACTION-oriented
line of questioning
WHO will take
responsibility for
intervening?
WHEN will that
happen?
HOW will our
progress be
assessed?
WHERE we will
see results?
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Data analyses to understand progress and underscore decision-making
were integral to the team’s work.
Moving Florida State Students with 110+ credits to Graduation
Diagnose
Problem
Institutional researcher conducts analyses and discovers that in
year 2000 the campus had 7,000 students with more than 110 credit
hours who have not filed their intent to graduate.
Team discusses how to move these students to graduate. What
can we do to change this situation?
ProblemSolve
Team develops policy that: (1) Places a hold on students’ registration;
(2) Mandates students meet with an advisor to have hold removed; and
(3) Has students attend workshop on choosing a major.
Plan
Regular progress check shows the policy change to be effective.
By 2006, the number of students with more than 110 credit hours is
reduced to 3,011. By 2009, the number of students drops to 1,540.
Evaluate
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Weekly meetings are a powerful routine that can drive progress on
student success goals forward.
Benefits of Florida State’s Weekly
Team Meeting

Intensive Focus: Everyone comes together
to focus on student outcomes and the larger
goal of student success

Drives Performance: Work is clearly
defined so team members know what they
have to do on a day-to-day basis

Provides Discipline: Weekly updates on
progress made or tasks completed helps to
hold the team accountable for their efforts

Ensures Consist Engagement: Team does
not go for long periods of time without
checking in on progress

Builds Momentum: Achievements or gains
reported in the meeting help the team stay
committed
Excerpts from Weekly Agenda
Advising First: Jane reported that advisors
are busy finishing registration. Exploratory
students have a mandatory advising hold. The
Coaching Center is occupied with last
meetings. Meeting rates are high.
Office of National Fellowships: Bill reported
that 2 more sophomore Hollings Scholars have
been chosen in addition to 3 juniors already
receiving the scholarship. Bill also noted that 3
graduating students have been awarded
$100,000 from the National Science
Foundation for graduate study. All of these
students were URCAA winners.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Engagement with colleagues and data prompted Florida State’s team
members to establish different approaches to their own work.
Florida State’s team developed a series of 93 action
steps tied to every month of the academic calendar.
Month
Timeframe
Action
Responsibility
January
By end of
January
Emails to students with 35 attempted hours who
have not been accepted into a major
Individual Responsible
January
Ongoing
Update department Degree Audit reports
Individual Responsible
January
Ongoing
Individual contact with students who have been
placed on probation
Academic Section
January
Ongoing
Individual contact with students who have been
placed on warning
Academic Section
February
1st week
Offer Workshop: Students Taking Exploratory Paths
to Success
Advising First
February
1st week in
the month
Email to all F coded students w/100+ hours inquiring
about graduation plans; email to all H coded
students w/100+ hours inquiring about
finishing/graduation plans
Individual Responsible
February
6th week of
term
New transfer—How are you doing— deadlines
Individual Responsible
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
For example, the team created a tracking system for advisors that
measured student contact: where, when, and how much.
Extent of advising
outreach activity
per month
Advising activity
and where it took
place on campus
Number of student
contacts made by
advisors
Source: Florida State University.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Convening a cross-campus team is not
easy but has many benefits.
 Generates urgency and ownership for student
success among the wider campus community.
 Brings varied perspectives and expertise to the
work which can translate into more well-informed
and effective strategies.
 Regular meetings by a cross-campus team allow the
early identification of problems and real-time
course correction.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Discussion: Creating (or Reinvigorating a) Student Success Team
What
How
▪ Discuss the following:
▪ In pairs/groups
Materials
Time
▪ Worksheet
▪ 15

Use the table in the handout to identify the goal, roles, composition, and
responsibilities of a new—or reinvigorated—student success team.

For existing teams, identify ways the work of the team or the team itself could be
strengthened or focused differently.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
People
Data
Strategies
Elements to Increase Student Success
Implementing effective strategies to improve institutional outcomes
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Florida State University used data to understand student
success and which students were lost along the way.
Six-Year Graduation Rates 2002-2010,
Underrepresented Minorities and White Students
80%
75%
74.1
70%
71.5
65%
64.5
60%
60.0
55%
Why were some students being
successful while others were not?
What could Florida State do to
make a difference for them?
50%
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Underrepresented Minority
2007
White
2008
2009
2010
Source: Florida State University.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Florida State University established a crosscampus team to dig into the data, identify
opportunities, shape strategies and actions,
and assess results.
 Understand the myriad pathways that students follow as they move
through the institution and determine where their progress stalled
 Define what Florida State had the power to change or do differently for
its students
 Shape the strategies and actions they would take to help students; and
 Continually monitor and refine their efforts.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
In looking at attrition rates, the team considered a range of time points
and student background characteristics.
Yearly Attrition Rates by Cohort:
1995-2005
White, Female, First-Time In-State Students
Traditional students experience the largest
attrition rates in the first year
MIN
MAX
10.2%
17.1%
6.7%
9.8%
2.1%
3.9%
0.9%
3.3%
0.5%
1.6%
Source: Florida State University
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Hispanic female Pell recipients exhibited very different attrition rate
patterns, suggesting the need for continued support over time to avoid
dropouts.
Yearly Attrition Rates by Cohort:
Hispanic, Female, Pell Recipient, First-Time
In-State Students
1995-2005
MIN
MAX
6.3%
17.6%
6.9%
17.7%
-1.2%
10.5%
0%
4.1%
-1.4%
3.9%
Source: Florida State University
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Black male Pell recipients also exhibited very different attrition rate
patterns, suggesting the need for continued support over time to avoid
dropouts.
Yearly Attrition Rates by Cohort: Black, Male,
Pell Recipient, First-Time In-State Students
1995-2005
MIN
MAX
6.0%
14.0%
3.3%
15.3%
-0.9%
13.6%
0%
11.0%
0%
11.1%
Source: Florida State University
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Status of Students Six Years after Withdrawing
GPA
No Record
AA/Cert.
BA/BS +
Cohort %
0-1.99
66.1%
23.2%
10.7%
NA
2.0-2.99
46.4%
16.1%
37.5%
67%
3.0-4.0
16.3%
9.7%
74.0%
82%
Total
45.4%
16.9%
37.5%
74%
Source: Florida State University
Note: 2004 and 2005 Entering Cohorts, Student Data Clearinghouse, n=3115
88
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The team also conducted retrospective analyses to better understand
how different groups of students progressed to graduation.
Example of Florida State University Retrospective Analyses
Retrospective
analysis of all
non-retained
students,
term by term
Retrospective
analysis of all
possible
subgroups of
students
Matched the
two analyses
and designed
interventions
to address
the observed
patterns
Discovered
summer
students who
have a GPA
of 2.0 or
below have
an attrition
rate greater
than 50%
during the
next two
terms
Randomly
assigning half
of the
students to a
mandatory
“success”
course
improved
term to term
retention by
12.3% and
year to year
by 9.1%
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The data identified chokepoints and bottlenecks on student progress
and illuminated steps for active intervention.
Change Implemented
by Florida State
Florida State
Student Patterns
110+ credits
Students amassing more credits than
needed; not declaring their intent to
graduate in a timely manner
POLICY CHANGE
Hold Registration
High Enrollment
courses/Low Pass
Rates
Low pass rates prevented students from
being able to move into a major or take on
higher level coursework
PROGRAM
CHANGE
Add more help
sessions
Undeclared Majors
Students not declaring a major in a timely
matter; losing out on the benefits of having
an academic home and connections to
faculty
CHANGE IN
PRACTICE
Academic Mapping
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
There are important lessons from the Florida State approach to using
data to increase student success.
 Start anywhere!
 Use data at every step in your student success work: to identify
barriers and problems; determine where best to intervene on
students’ behalf; and to evaluate the degree to which you have
been able to successfully remove barriers and improve student
outcomes.
 Dig deeply into the data, disaggregating it to see which student
groups are being successful, which are not, and where you can
make a difference.
 Use data regularly to test assumptions or notions about what is
really happening with students on your campus.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Discussion: Using Data to Drive Decision-Making
What
How
▪ Discuss the following questions: ▪ In pairs/groups
Materials
Time
▪ Worksheet
▪ 15

Use the table in the handout to identify additional indicators and
analyses related to student success and equity that your institution
should explore.

Teams should discuss data availability, capacity, and utilization
constraints and opportunities.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
People
Data
Strategies
Elements to Increase Student Success
Implementing effective strategies to improve institutional outcomes
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
There is no silver bullet.
You increase retention literally
one student at a time.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The Florida State team used data to identify strategies and made sure
that strategies covered students from the time they entered until they
graduated.
Overview of Florida State’s Student Success Strategies
Type of
Strategy
Description
Focus
Programs that help students
successfully make the transition from
high school to college
1st year
of college
Charting a
Course
Efforts that help students successfully
navigate the process of declaring a
major in a timely manner
2nd year
of college;
sophomore
status
Consistent
Support
Support services that aid students in
continuing to meet academic
requirements of the institution
BridgeBuilding
Example of Strategy


On-going basis,
throughout time
in college
Living Learning
Communities
Freshmen Interest
Groups


Academic Mapping
Choosing a Major
Workshop



Advising & Tutoring
CARE
Success Coaching
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Benefits of First-Year Residence on Campus Persist to Graduation
High Risk,
Living on campus
Low Risk,
Living off-campus
First-year retention
93.3%
83.4%
Four-year retention/
graduation
81.1%
73.9%
GPA
2.82
2.62
Source: Florida State University
Note: Average of 2004-2007 cohorts in FSU Housing Study
96
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Every strategy was regularly monitored and evaluated for its overall
impact on student success.
Impact of Living Learning Communities & Freshman Interest Groups
on Student Retention & Graduation
95.0%
90.0%
85.0%
92.0
91.6
87.8
88.1
80.0%
75.0%
76.1
70.0%
Retention
Living Learning Communities
Freshmen Interest Groups
73.1
Graduation
Non-Living Learning Residence Halls
Freshmen Not in Interest Groups
Source: Florida State University
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Academic maps: A simple, yet powerful retention tool
Source: http://www.academic-guide.fsu.edu/Maps/Mapaccounting.html
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Impact of instituting academic maps at FSU
Year
Students with Excess
Hours
Graduation
Rate
2000
7,382
70.8%
2006
3,011
-------
2009
1,540
73.9%
Source: Florida State University
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Florida State evaluated its strategies against important progress
metrics such as term-to-term attrition, grade point average, and major
selection rate.
Impact of Florida State’s Success Coaching Program
Program Description
Overall Impact
Program that provides support
for students around these 7 “soft”
factors that influence retention
and graduation:
 Commitment to graduation
 Managing commitments
 Finances
 School community
 Academics
 Effectiveness
 Health & Support
Source: Florida State University
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Many Florida State strategies were
inexpensive; few, if any, required additional
resources to initiate or maintain.






Academic Mapping for each Degree
Action steps aligned with the
academic calendar
Moving Advisors to where the
students are
Electronic contact
W.E.B. Du Bois Honor Society
Oscar Arias Honor Society





Partner with Student Government on
library tutoring
Freshmen Interest Groups (FIGS)
Learning Communities
Encourage strong attendance
policies in courses with high
percentages of D and F grades
Have Departments and Colleges
take responsibility for upper division
majors
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
However, other Florida State strategies
required more resources to implement.
 Residence Halls with Programming
 Re-engineer Low Success Courses
 Adding Advisors Centrally
 Adding Tutors in selected courses
– Drop in tutoring
Staff-intensive
initiatives
– Tutoring by appointment
 Add a “Successful Learning
Strategy” course
 Add Success Coaches
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Strategies for High End Students
•

•
• Expanded Honors Program
Expanded
Honors
Program
Expansion of Undergraduate Research
Expansion of Undergraduate Research
• Office of National Fellowships
 Undergraduate Research Symposia
Campus
Lecture Series
runProgram
by sudents
 Competitive
Grants
 Office of National Fellowships
 Campus Lecture Series Run by Students
103
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Significant gains in student success are possible but require sustained
commitment over time.
Implementation Timeline of Florida State’s
Strategies and First Year Retention Rates
94%
Coaching
92%
ACE
90%
Student
Contract
88%
Collect
86% Data
Mapping
New
Advisors
Drop-in
84%
82%
80%
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
Source: Florida State University
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Florida State offers lessons on how to
design and tailor strategies that increase
student success and narrow equity gaps.
 Ensure that the strategies implemented have an intensive
focus on changing the bottom-line in terms of student retention,
persistence, and graduation.
 Pay attention to how strategies align overall with the kinds of
support students need over the course of their time in college.
 Evaluate strategies on a regular basis to ensure they are being
implemented properly and producing the expected outcomes.
 Recognize that a “silver bullet” strategy does not exist. The
key is persistence; you have to commit to a strategy over a long
period of time.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Over the course of a decade, Florida State saw significant increases in
the number of degrees awarded to all students.
9,000
8,000
+47.6%
7,000
Additional
degrees =
Degrees
6,000
5,000
2,544
4,000
3,000
2,000
+31.2%
1,000
0
+176.2%
Total Bachelors'
Black Students
Hispanic
Students
1999-2000
5342
567
344
2010-2011
7886
744
950
Additional minority
degrees =
783
Source: Florida State University.
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Exercise: Institutional Strategies to Narrow Success Gaps and Raise
Student Success
What
How
▪ Discuss the following questions: ▪ In pairs/groups
Materials
Time
▪ Worksheet
▪ 15
 Use the table in the handout to identify three key strategies that will help narrow success gaps
and raise overall student success at your campus. (These could be new or recently launched
strategies.)
 For each of the existing strategies you list, have your team consider the following questions:
− What type of strategy is this?
− Which student subgroup(s) does this particular strategy target?
− How many students are served by this strategy?
− What changes in knowledge, attitudes, or behavior are expected by student? What changes
are expected at the institutional level?
− How will you know success?
− How does this strategy impact your institutional goals for attainment and for equity?
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Contact Us
Jennifer Engle
Larry Abele
Director of Higher Ed Research
Provost Emeritus
202.293.1217 x370
Florida State University
jengle@edtrust.org
labele@fsu.edu
www.edtrust.org
Stay connected with The Education Trust online:
www.twitter.com/edtrust
www.facebook.com/edtrust
1250 H Street N.W. Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20005
202/293-1217
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST