Retaining Students at Community
Colleges: An Update on the
Achieving the Dream Initiative
John B. Lee, JBL Associates Inc
Lana Muraskin, The Pell Institute
Derek V. Price, DVP-PRAXIS LTD
Kathleen Whitson, Brookhaven College
Presentation to the 2005 Annual Meeting
Council for Opportunity in Education
Washington, DC
September 20, 2005
What is Achieving the Dream?
• A national initiative to help more community
college students succeed
• Through the initiative, participating colleges
commit to closing achievement gaps by
assessing what is happening on their campuses
and make lasting changes in their own practices
and cultures
What is Achieving the Dream?
• The work of the initiative is premised on a datadriven institutional change model
• Participating colleges benchmark key student
outcomes - disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and
income – adopt strategies to close achievement
gaps, monitor their progress, and share their
results broadly
Who is participating?
• 35 community colleges in 7 states: Connecticut,
Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, North Carolina,
Texas and Virginia
• At least 50% of first-time freshmen were Pell
Grant recipients OR at least 33% of all students
were African-American, Native-American or
Hispanic
Achieving the Dream:
Key Outcomes
To increase the percentage of students who
accomplish the following:
• Complete remedial courses and move on to creditbearing courses
• Enroll in and complete “gatekeeper” courses such as
Introductory Math and English
• Complete courses with a “C” grade or higher
• Re-enroll from one semester to the next
• Earn certificates and/or degrees
The Framework for Institutional
Change
• Identify the achievement gaps with data
• Engage the broad campus community to
diagnose the arena for intervention
• Use evidence to select a strategy to close the
gap
• Evaluate the impact of the selected strategy
• If successful, scale the strategy institution-wide
We call this framework a
Culture of Inquiry and Evidence
To use data effectively, colleges need to:
•Ask the right questions
•Find the right data
•Analyze the data with a critical eye
A process of critical inquiry and self-examination using
data can:
•help identify equity gaps and guide us to solutions
•challenge our assumptions and confirm our
hypotheses
•benchmark our performance and
monitor our improvement
Types of data
•
•
•
•
•
Student longitudinal cohort file
Student survey data (e.g., Faces of the Future)
Faculty and student focus groups
Institutional assessment and evaluation reports
Community stakeholder dialogues
Support structure for Achieving the
Dream Colleges
• National Partnership organizations:
American Association of Community Colleges;
Community College Leadership Program –
University of Texas at Austin; Community
College Research Center – Teachers College,
Columbia University; Jobs for the Future;
KnowledgeWorks Foundation; Lumina
Foundation for Education; MDC; MDRC;
Nellie Mae Education Foundation;
and Public Agenda
Support structure for Achieving the
Dream Colleges
• Each college works with a coach to
develop strategies, set priorities, and
implement institutional improvements
• Each college also works with a data
facilitator –– to analyze student data, and
use these data to inform strategies for
improvement, monitor progress,
and evaluate results
Data on Retaining Students: the
2002 Achieving the Dream
Cohort
Data Base Design
• Longitudinal
• All first-time students entering the
institution
• Includes full and part-time
• Goal to determine how minority and lowincome students do in college
Beginning Students in the
Cohort
Starting Population in 2002
State
Florida
New Mexico
North Carolina
Texas
Virginia
Total
Part-time
Full-Time
Total
10,536
5,209
15,745
3,119
2,943
6,062
719
764
1,483
17,281
14,787
32,068
2,797
3,401
6,198
34,452
27,104
61,556
Percentage distribution of part-time and full-time
students: 2002 cohort, academic year 1
Unknown
6%
Full-time
41%
Part-Time
53%
Percentage distribution of AtD students by race/ethnicity
Cohort=2002
Native American
2%
Asian/Pacific Islander
Other/Non-resident alien
4%
6%
Black, non-Hispanic
16%
Hispanic
34%
White, non-Hispanic
38%
Percentage distribution of students (PT+FT) by age: 2002
cohort, academic year 1
age>=25
29%
age<25
71%
Percentage distribution of AtD students by age and race/ethnicity
Cohort=2002
80
70
Percentage
60
73.4
73.3
71.4
67.2
71.3
70.8
63.8
50
40
30
36.3
32.8
28.6
26.6
20
26.7
28.7
29.2
10
0
Native American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black, non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Less than 25
25 or older
Hispanic
Other/Non-resident alien
Total
Percentage distribution of students (PT+FT) by
Pell grant receipt: 2002 cohort, academic year 1
Received Pell
33%
Did not receive
Pell
67%
Percentage distribution of AtD students by age and Pell receipt
Cohort=2002
80
70
71.1
70.7
70.8
Percentage
60
50
40
30
29.3
28.9
29.2
20
10
0
Pell receipt
No Pell receipt
Less than 25
25 or older
Total
Percentage distribution of AtD students by major and race/ethnicity
Cohort=2002
70
60
Percentage
50
53
58
55
52
53
54
52
40
38
38
30
35
33
34
31
28
20
19
10
14
12
10
7
11
10
0
Native American
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black, non-Hispanic
Vocational/terminal
White, non-Hispanic
General education/liberal arts
Hispanic
Other/Non-resident alien
Undeclared/Missing
Total
Percentage distribution of AtD students by major and Pell receipt
Cohort=2002
60
54.7
53.6
50
54.4
Percentage
40
37.6
30
34.3
32.7
20
10
12.1
10.9
8.5
0
Pell receipt
No Pell receipt
Vocational/terminal
General education/liberal arts
Total
Undeclared/Missing
Percentage of AtD students full-time in first term by race/ethnicity
Cohort=2002
60
57.0
50
45.8
Percentage
40
41.6
38.7
30
39.0
41.5
30.9
20
10
0
Native American
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black, nonHispanic
White, nonHispanic
Hispanic
Other/Non-resident
alien
Total
Percentage of AtD students full-time in first term by Pell receipt
Cohort=2002
60
50
50.9
Percentage
40
41.5
36.8
30
20
10
0
Pell receipt
No Pell receipt
Total
Percentage of AtD students referred to any remedial eduction by race/ethnicity
Cohort=2002
80
70
69.5
Percentage
60
50
53.3
56.1
60.0
53.9
58.0
48.1
40
30
20
10
0
Native American
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black, nonHispanic
White, nonHispanic
Hispanic
Other/Non-resident
alien
Total
Remedial Referrals
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Not Referred
Missing
Total Referred
Multiple Referrals
50.0%
45.0%
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
referred to 1
remedial class
referred to 2
remedial classes
referred to 3
remedial classes
80
70
Percentage of AtD students referred to any remedial education by Pell receipt
Cohort=2002
71.5
60
Percentage
58.0
50
51.2
40
30
20
10
0
Pell receipt
No Pell receipt
Total
Second Year Results
Percentage of AtD students persisting to the second year by race/ethnicity
Cohort=2002
80
70
74.1
71.1
65.9
Percentage
60
57.3
50
40
57.2
56.3
43.6
30
20
10
0
Native American
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black, nonHispanic
White, nonHispanic
Hispanic
Other/Non-resident
alien
Total
Percentage of AtD students persisting to the second year by Pell receipt
Cohort=2002
61
60
59.9
59
Percentage
58
57
57.2
56
55.9
55
54
53
Pell receipt
No Pell receipt
Total
Average cumulative GPA at end of second year for AtD students, by race/ethnicity
Cohort=2002
3.00
2.50
2.6
Cumulative GPA
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.00
2.7
2.6
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Native American
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black, nonHispanic
White, nonHispanic
Hispanic
Other/Non-resident
alien
Total
Average cumulative GPA at the end of the second year for AtD students by Pell receipt
Cohort=2002
2.50
2.5
Cumulative GPA
2.45
2.4
2.40
2.4
2.35
2.30
Pell receipt
No Pell receipt
Total
Percentage of AtD students completing gateway math and English by race/ethnicity
Cohort=2002
40
35
36.9
37.2
36.7
Percentage
34.2
33.4
30
29.3
25
25.0
24.6
20
19.1
15
10
16.3
14.5
12.7
11.9
9.7
5
0
Native American
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Black, nonHispanic
White, nonHispanic
Math
English
Hispanic
Other/Non-resident
alien
Total
Percentage of AtD students completing gateway math and English by Pell receipt
Cohort=2002
40
37.6
35
Percentage
34.2
32.5
30
25
20
15
10
14.8
13.9
14.5
5
0
Pell receipt
No Pell receipt
Math
English
Total
Persistence in Remedial Math
35,000
30,000
25,000
students referred to
remedial math
20,000
Successful completion of
Level 1 remedial math only
(Cumulative)
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Fall 2002
Spring
2003
Fall 2003
Spring
2004
Figure X.--Percentage of AtD students that completed or transferred by the end of year 2
by Pell receipt
Cohort=2002
9
8
7.6
7
Percentage
6
7.2
6.3
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pell receipt
No Pell receipt
Total
Using Data to Accomplish Goals:
Lessons from Brookhaven College
Framing Achieving the Dream
• BHC student receiving tutoring one-on-one
tend to out perform those not participating
in tutoring
• Students in SLA and SI tend to do as well
as students utilizing one-on-one tutoring
Goals of Achieving the Dream
•
•
•
•
Developmental Education
Student Services
Professional Development
Learning Environment
Background- from a perception of great
to a perception of good in 6 months
• Disaggregating the data
– Before Achieving the Dream, Brookhaven had
not disaggregated data
– We believed we did not have any problems
based on “the data”
– We determined we had equity gaps and
performance gaps with our low socioeconomic students and students of color
Findings
• Statistically significant performance gaps exist
among the following groups when compared:
Hispanics and Blacks to majority and Asian
students, males to females, 18-24 year olds to
older students, first-generation students to nonfirst generation students, and academically underprepared students to the total college population.
• African-American and Hispanic students are overrepresented in the lowest level of developmental
studies including math, writing, and reading.
Findings continued
• Over 50 percent of Hispanics attending
Brookhaven are first-generation and 49 percent
of Blacks are first generation, compared to 37
percent of Anglo students.
• Brookhaven has an overall low graduation rate
(4.2 percent) even though over 30 percent of our
students indicate they intend to pursue an
associates degree or certificate.
Findings continued
• At a significant rate, Brookhaven students tend to
leave college after reaching 15 credit hours rather
than persisting toward educational goals.
• Evidence from student surveys of learning styles
indicate that nearly 60 percent of developmental
education students are visual learners needing
illustrations and graphics while many faculty use
lecture methods appropriate for auditory learners.
Findings continued
• Using CCSSE data, Brookhaven ranks
consistently below the national average for active
and collaborative learning, student effort,
academic challenge, and student faculty
interaction.
• Noel-Levitz data show significant variations from
national comparison groups for academic
advising/counseling, financial aid, student
orientation and information, career choices, and
faculty involvement and concern for students
including early notification of poor performance.
Brookhaven College Successful Completer
Percentage by Ethnicity - Cross Sectional Look
African-American
Non Res Alien/For Nat
Asian/Pacific Islander
White not Hispanic
Hispanic
80.0%
Percent Successful
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
2000fa
2001fa
2002fa
Fall Semester
2003fa
2004fa
Re-Enrollment Rates, Fall 2002 Cohort
First Time at Brookhaven College - Longitudinal Look
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
3,978 FTIC
students
4 semesters later
768 students remain
Fall 2002
Spring 2003
Fall 2003
Spring 2004
Fall 2004
Achieving the Dream and
TRIO
What can we learn?
What can we use?
•
Importance of Achieving the Dream
for the TRIO community?
Nationally visible advocacy for low income, first
generation, at-risk college students
• Model of campus-wide community college
initiative to improve academic outcomes for atrisk students
– Visibility of problems/challenges through
data
– Senior staff buy-in
– Aims to change overall policy
and practice
How is Achieving the Dream
like/unlike TRIO/SSS?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Goals
Planning process
Student targeting
Use of data
Instruction and services
Resources and staffing
Accountability and “strings”
Timing of interventions
Breadth/depth of reform
What will the Achieving the Dream
colleges do this year? (n=22)
• Intensify or change
orientation, advising,
counseling, advocacy (18
overall, 2 are structured
freshman year)
• Improve data, institutional
research, student tracking
(11)
• Start or expand learning
communities (11 overall,
3-4 link non-dev
academic courses)
• Reform dev education
curriculum (8)
• Expand, enhance college
success/fresh experience
course (8)
• Improve dev ed testing,
placement, exams (7)
• Provide prof development
for faculty (7)
• Provide SI for dev ed or
non dev classes (7-8)
• Provide tutoring (5)
What will the Achieving the Dream
colleges do this year?
(n=22)
• K-12 outreach: bridge,
dual credit, info (4)
• Financial aid changes:
info or incentives (3)
• Degree audit reform (2)
• Mentoring (2)
• Other: form study groups,
improve registration,
study reform of “gateway”
courses
• Service learning
• Continued planning
What can TRIO/SSS use?
•
•
•
•
Data on student performance
Findings about barriers to retention, completion
Findings about instructional and service reforms
Findings about how to bring about reform
Some important questions raised by
Achieving the Dream
• What explains current rates of retention and
completion in community colleges?
• How does an initiative become central to a
community college?
• How do you maintain momentum over time?
Adjust? Revise?
• What if you do it all and changes are modest?
If Achieving the Dream is on your
campus, get involved!
For more information
http://www.achievingthedream.org