Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010An Update

Association of Government Accountants2013 Southeast Region Professional

Development Conference

STATE FISCAL CONDITION &IMPACT ON HIGHER EDUCATION

2

3

Revenues and Expenditures in Tennessee, 1978 Base

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

$13,000

$14,000

78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10

Reven

ues a

nd

Exp

en

dit

ure

s (

mil

lio

ns)

$0

$17,000

$34,000

$51,000

$68,000

$85,000

$102,000

$119,000

$136,000

$153,000

$170,000

$187,000

$204,000

$221,000

Pers

on

al In

co

me (m

illion

s)

Tax Financed Expenditures Adjusted Revenues Personal Income

10,621

9,075

7,010 7,178 6,090

4,852 4,373

-

-

- -

563

1,441 1,669

3,350

3,917

5,175 5,104 4,970

4,696 4,864

804

917 2,536 2,844 2,999

3,559 3,860

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

1986-87 1996-97 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

State Appropriations ARRA/MOE Student Fees Less Grant Aid (TSAA, TELS, Pell) Grant Aid

Total Revenue per FTE – UniversitiesInflation Adjusted - 2011 Dollars

4

7,573

5,734 5,029 5,196

4,486

3,372 3,031

-

-

- -

298

617 745

806

1,366

1,746 1,728

1,573

704 526

974

1,001 2,148

2,355 2,652

3,577 3,958

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

1986-87 1996-97 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

State Appropriations ARRA/MOE Student Fees Less Grant Aid (TSAA, TELS, Pell) Grant Aid

Total Revenue per FTE - Community CollegesInflation Adjusted – 2011 Dollars

5

State, Local, Tuition and Fee Revenues per FTE Student Public Research, 2009-10

Percent of National Average1

90

%1

78

%1

61

%1

49

%1

41

%1

31

%1

27

%1

25

%1

20

%1

19

%1

12

%1

12

%1

12

%1

11

%1

10

%1

06

%1

06

%1

06

%1

05

%1

03

%1

02

%1

01

%1

01

%1

01

%1

00

%1

00

%9

8%

97

%9

6%

95

%9

3%

93

%9

2%

92

%9

2%

91

%8

9%

88

%8

6%

86

%8

5%

84

%8

4%

82

%8

0%

79

%7

2%

72

%7

1%

67

%6

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

Co

nn

ecti

cut

Ala

ska

Ne

w J

erse

yN

ew

Yo

rkP

enn

sylv

ania

Ver

mo

nt

Wyo

min

gM

inn

eso

taC

alif

orn

iaM

aryl

and

Okl

aho

ma

Del

awar

eH

awai

iK

en

tuck

yIo

wa

Was

hin

gto

nN

eb

rask

aM

ain

eN

ort

h C

aro

lina

Sou

th C

aro

lina

Ind

ian

aM

ich

igan

Mas

sach

use

tts

Wes

t V

irgi

nia

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Texa

sA

lab

ama

Wis

con

sin

Illin

ois

Ark

ansa

sM

isso

uri

Kan

sas

Uta

hA

rizo

na

Geo

rgia

Ne

w M

exic

oM

issi

ssip

pi

Rh

od

e Is

lan

dV

irgi

nia

Oh

ioN

ort

h D

ako

taN

ew

Ham

psh

ire

Lou

isia

na

Idah

oTe

nn

ess

eeO

rego

nN

eva

da

Flo

rid

aM

on

tan

aSo

uth

Dak

ota

Co

lora

do

Sources: NCES, IPEDS Completions and Enrollment Surveys

6

State, Local, Tuition and Fee Revenues per FTE Student Public Bachelor’s and Masters, 2009-10

Percent of National Average1

56

%1

52

%1

41

%1

34

%1

34

%1

32

%1

29

%1

29

%1

26

%1

25

%1

23

%1

15

%1

13

%1

12

%1

11

%1

11

%1

10

%1

09

%1

08

%1

06

%1

05

%1

04

%1

04

%1

03

%1

03

%1

01

%1

00

%1

00

%9

6%

95

%9

5%

94

%9

3%

93

%9

2%

91

%9

1%

89

%8

5%

84

%8

0%

80

%7

5%

75

%7

5%

75

%7

0%

42

%4

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

Del

awar

eA

lask

aV

erm

on

tC

on

nec

ticu

tN

ew

Mex

ico

Haw

aii

No

rth

Car

olin

aIll

ino

isIo

wa

Ne

w J

erse

yM

ain

eM

ich

igan

Mo

nta

na

Ala

bam

aM

assa

chu

sett

sM

isso

uri

Vir

gin

iaN

ew

Yo

rkM

aryl

and

Ke

ntu

cky

Cal

ifo

rnia

Rh

od

e Is

lan

dTe

xas

Ne

w H

amp

shir

eN

ort

h D

ako

taM

issi

ssip

pi

Sou

th C

aro

lina

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Ind

ian

aId

aho

Oh

ioK

ansa

sN

eb

rask

aO

rego

nSo

uth

Dak

ota

Wis

con

sin

Min

nes

ota

Was

hin

gto

nA

rkan

sas

Okl

aho

ma

Pen

nsy

lvan

iaTe

nn

ess

eeW

est

Vir

gin

iaFl

ori

da

Geo

rgia

Lou

isia

na

Uta

hN

eva

da

Co

lora

do

Sources: NCES, IPEDS Completions and Enrollment Surveys

7

State, Local, Tuition and Fee Revenues per FTE Student Public Two-Year, 2009-10

Percent of National Average5

25

%2

19

%1

63

%1

60

%1

55

%1

53

%1

41

%1

35

%1

32

%1

28

%1

28

%1

21

%1

21

%1

20

%1

20

%1

14

%1

13

%1

12

%1

08

%1

07

%1

07

%1

04

%1

04

%1

03

%1

01

%1

00

%1

00

%1

00

%9

9%

97

%9

4%

93

%9

3%

92

%9

2%

91

%9

1%

88

%8

3%

82

%8

0%

78

%7

7%

76

%7

3%

71

%7

1%

70

%7

0%

65

%6

4%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

Ala

ska

Wis

con

sin

Wyo

min

gO

rego

nM

aryl

and

Ne

w H

amp

shir

eD

elaw

are

Co

nn

ecti

cut

No

rth

Dak

ota

Haw

aii

Kan

sas

Ari

zon

aN

eb

rask

aN

ew

Yo

rkId

aho

Mic

hig

anR

ho

de

Isla

nd

Ne

w M

exic

oP

enn

sylv

ania

Ver

mo

nt

Min

nes

ota

Mas

sach

use

tts

Uta

hTe

xas

Oh

ioW

ash

ingt

on

Un

ited

Sta

tes

Illin

ois

Cal

ifo

rnia

Sou

th D

ako

taN

ew

Jer

sey

Iow

aA

rkan

sas

Mo

nta

na

No

rth

Car

olin

aO

klah

om

aM

ain

eTe

nn

ess

eeA

lab

ama

Vir

gin

iaM

issi

ssip

pi

Sou

th C

aro

lina

Co

lora

do

Mis

sou

riW

est

Vir

gin

iaK

en

tuck

yN

eva

da

Geo

rgia

Flo

rid

aLo

uis

ian

aIn

dia

na

Sources: NCES, IPEDS Completions and Enrollment Surveys

8

WHY WAS IT NECESSARY?Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010

9

10

Matthew N. Murray, UT Center for Business & Economic Research

Our human capital flow: the Tennessee student pipeline, 2008

86.0

59.6

41.7

30.2

69.5

44.0

29.8

20.5

71.1

43.8

28.9

19.3

Source: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. March 2011

Percent of 25-64 Year Olds with College Degrees – Associate and Higher, 2011

50

.84

74

6.6

46

.44

6.2

45

.84

5.4

45

.14

54

4.7

44

.64

3.3

43

.24

1.7

41

.64

1.5

41

.14

0.7

40

.34

03

9.6

39

.43

9.2

39

38

.93

8.7

38

.63

8.2

37

.63

73

6.8

36

.53

6.4

36

.43

6.2

35

.83

5.5

34

.53

4.4

34

.23

3.9

33

.83

33

2.1

31

.93

0.8

30

.33

02

8.2

27

.92

7.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Mas

sach

use

tts

Co

lora

do

Min

nes

ota

Co

nn

ecti

cut

Ver

mo

nt

New

Ham

psh

ire

Mar

ylan

dN

ew J

erse

yV

irgi

nia

No

rth

Dak

ota

New

Yo

rkW

ash

ingt

on

Rh

od

e Is

lan

dIll

ino

isH

awai

iN

ebra

ska

Iow

aK

ansa

sU

tah

Mai

ne

Wis

con

sin

Sou

th D

ako

taM

on

tan

aO

rego

nC

alif

orn

iaN

atio

nP

enn

sylv

ania

No

rth

Car

olin

aD

elaw

are

Flo

rid

aM

ich

igan

Idah

oG

eorg

iaM

isso

uri

Wyo

min

gA

rizo

na

Oh

ioTe

xas

Ala

ska

Sou

th C

aro

lina

New

Mex

ico

Ind

ian

aO

klah

om

aTe

nn

esse

eA

lab

ama

Ken

tuck

yM

issi

ssip

pi

Nev

ada

Ark

ansa

sLo

uis

ian

aW

est

Vir

gin

ia

11

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey

Comparing Tennessee with

Nations and Other States in the Percentage of Young Adult

Degree Attainment

(Ages 25-34)

U.S. States % OECD CountryKorea (65.0)

60

56 Japan, Canada

Massachusetts 54

North Dakota 52

Minnesota New York 50

New Jersey 48 IrelandNew Hampshire Norway

Connecticut Iowa 46 New Zealand, United KingdomVirginia Illinois Maryland South Dakota

Pennsylvania Nebraska Colorado Vermont 44 Australia, Luxembourg, Israel, BelgiumRhode Island Kansas FranceMontana Wisconsin 42 UNITED STATES, Sweden

Washington Netherlands, SwitzerlandMissouri Hawaii 40

Wyoming Maine Delaware Utah Finland, Spain, ChileOhio California Oregon 38 Estonia, DenmarkMichigan North Carolina Poland

Indiana Florida South Carolina 36 IcelandGeorgia

Alaska Kentucky Tennessee 34Arizona Mississippi Texas

Alabama Idaho 32Louisiana Slovenia, Greece

Oklahoma Arkansas West Virginia 30

Nevada 28New Mexico

26 Germany, HungaryPortugal

24 Slovak RepCzech Rep

22 MexicoAustria, Italy

20Source: 2012 OECD Education at a Glance; 2010 American Community Survey

Turkey (17.4)

12

Educational Attainment of Working Aged Adults, Ages 25-64 –Tennessee, U.S., and Most Educated State, 2011

Source: US Census Bureau, ACS

12.5

33.2

22.1

6.9

16.6

8.7

12.3

27.0

22.0

8.6

19.3

10.8

8.7

23.5

17

8.3

24.8

17.6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Less than HighSchool

High School Some College, NoDegree

Associates Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate,Professional Degree

Tennessee United States Massachusetts

13

AL

AKAZ

AR

CA

COCT

DE

FLGA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TNTX

UT

VTVAWA

WV

WI

WY

US

20

27

34

41

48

55

25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000

The Relationship Between Educational Attainment, Personal Income, and the State New Economy Index (2010)

Perc

en

t o

f A

du

lts

25

to

64

wit

h C

olle

ge D

egre

es

(20

09

)

Personal Income per Capita (2010)

High College Attainment, Low Personal Income High College Attainment, High Personal Income

Low College Attainment, Low Personal Income Low College Attainment, High Personal Income

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey; Bureau of Economic Analysis; Kauffman Foundation

State New Economy Index 2010

Top Tier

Middle Tier

Bottom Tier

14

Fraction happy about life by years of completed schooling before and after conditioning on income

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.800–11 13–15 16+12

Years of schooling

Fra

ctio

n h

ap

py

No income controls Conditional on income

Source: Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes,

K.G., “Priceless: The Nonpecuniary

Benefits of Schooling,” Journal of

Economic Perspectives, Vol. 25,

No.1.

15

Job satisfaction and years of completed schooling before and after conditioning on income

Source: Oreopoulos, P. &

Salvanes, K.G., “Priceless:

The Nonpecuniary Benefits

of Schooling,” Journal of

Economic Perspectives,

Vol. 25, No.1.

0.88

0.86

0.84

0.80

0–11 13–15 16+12

Years of schooling

Fra

ction o

f re

spondents

Before conditioning on income After conditioning on income

0.82

Are you satisfied

with your job?

16

Self-assessed health status and years of completed schooling before and after conditioning on income

Source: Oreopoulos, P. &

Salvanes, K.G., “Priceless: The

Nonpecuniary Benefits of

Schooling,” Journal of

Economic Perspectives, Vol. 25,

No.1.

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0–11 13–15 16+12

Years of schooling

Fra

ction o

f re

spondents

Before conditioning on income After conditioning on income

Fraction reporting

Very Good Health

17

Do you believe people can be trusted?

Source: Oreopoulos, P. &

Salvanes, K.G., “Priceless:

The Nonpecuniary Benefits of

Schooling,” Journal of

Economic Perspectives, Vol.

25, No.1.

0.60

0.50

0.30

0–11 13–15 16+12

Years of schooling

Fra

ction o

f re

spondents

Before conditioning on income After conditioning on income

0.40

18

Likelihood of divorce or separation

Source: Oreopoulos, P. &

Salvanes, K.G., “Priceless: The

Nonpecuniary Benefits of

Schooling,” Journal of

Economic Perspectives, Vol.

25, No.1.

0.15

0.10

0

0–11 13–15 16+12

Years of schooling

Fra

ction o

f re

spondents

Before conditioning on income After conditioning on income

0.05

19

Time preferences for today or the future: Do you live for today?

Source: Oreopoulos, P. & Salvanes,

K.G., “Priceless: The Nonpecuniary

Benefits of Schooling,” Journal of

Economic Perspectives, Vol. 25,

No.1.

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.30

0–11 13–15 16+12

Years of schooling

Fra

ction o

f re

spondents

Before conditioning on income After conditioning on income

0.35

0.40

20

HOW THE COMPLETE COLLEGE TENNESSEE ACT COME ABOUT

An Insider’s Story

21

Discussion Points• Why Interested?

– Governor Bredesen: Higher Ed represented “unfinished business”– Legislature: What do we get for our investment in higher ed?

• What was the Environment?– Great Recession’s impact on higher education funding– Race to Top competition– Status of TBR & UT System Heads– All members of TBR/UT/THEC boards were appointed by Governor Bredesen

• External Expertise & Resources Made Available• Process• Direction

– Initial Thoughts: “It about organizational structure”– Final thoughts: “Its about aligning higher educations goals and funding

structure to those of the State”

• Result: Complete College Tennessee Act

22

WHAT DID IT DO?Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010

23

Master Plan With a Purpose

• Establishes Master Planning with a Purpose– Address the state's economic development, workforce

development and research needs;

– Ensure increased degree production within the state's capacity to support higher education; and

– Use institutional mission differentiation to realize statewide efficiencies through institutional collaboration and minimized redundancy in degree offerings, instructional locations and competitive research

24

Common Core & Transfer Pathways• Requires 60 Hour University Track Program

– 41 Hours of General Education

– 19 Hours of Pre-Major

• Requires creations of Transfer Pathways

– Guarantees Transfer of A.A. or A.S. degrees to Public Universities as a Junior

– Guarantees Transfer of Completed Blocks of University Track

– Non-transfer Courses Will be Clearly Identified

25

Establishes a Comprehensive Community College System

• System Elements

– Coordinated Programs Statewide

– Consolidate Services and Standardize Processes

– Utilize Cohort Programs and Block Scheduling

– Develop More Cooperative Programs Between Technology Centers and Community Colleges

– Single Budget Line Item

26

Outcome Based Funding Formula• Directs New Funding Formula be Implemented

– Must be consistent with and further the goals of the statewide master plan – Funding recommendations shall reflect the priorities of the approved master

plan

• New Funding Formula:– shall emphasize outcomes across a range of variables;– be weighted to reinforce each institution's mission;– provide incentives for productivity improvements.

• Outcomes shall include:– end of term enrollment, – student retention, – timely progress toward degree completion, and – degree production

• Outcomes may include:– student transfer activity, – research;– student success, and– compliance with transfer and articulation principles.

27

Other Provisions

• Prohibits Remedial or Developmental Courses at Universities

• Mandates Dual Admission Policies

• Research Initiatives

• Various Reporting and Implementation Provisions

28

SummaryWhen Taken Together…

– Complete College Act of 2010

– First to the Top Act of 2010

– Tennessee Diploma Project and Achieve

…Will be Transformative for Tennessee

29

RESULTS SO FARComplete College Tennessee Act of 2010

30

Common Core &Tennessee Transfer Pathways

• Common Core Requirement – Completed

• Transfer Pathways – Completed

• Pathway example

http://www.tntransferpathway.org/

31

Community College System

• System Approach

– Creation of Vice Chancellor’s Office

– Marketing Plan

– Single Line Item Appropriation

– Program Coordination Among and Between Colleges and TTC’s

• Consolidate Services and Standardized Processes

– ERP Hosting Initiative – a consolidation activity

– Business Process Modeling – a standardization activity

32

Dual Admission

• THEC – established policy governing dual admission agreements

– Every university & community college has agreements in place with institutions within their geographic proximity

• Cohort / Block Scheduling Programs

33

Outcome Formula

• Developed by THEC with involvement of Systems and state leadership

• First used to make funding recommendation for FY 2011-12

• Transition Provisions

– Formula phased in over 3 years (FY 2013-14)

– Hold Harmless provision phased out over 3 years (FY 2013-14)

34

Higher Education Funding FormulaOutcomes Rewarded

35

University Outcomes Community College Outcomes

Students Accumulating 24 hours Students Accumulating 12 hours

Students Accumulating 48 hour Students Accumulating 24 hours

Students Accumulating 72 hours Students Accumulating 36 hours

Bachelors and Associates Degrees Dual Enrollment

Masters/Ed Specialist Degrees Associates Degrees

Doctoral/Law Degrees Certificates

Research and Service Expenditures Job Placements

Transfers Out with 12 hours Remedial & Development Success

Degrees per 100 FTE Transfers Out with 12 hours

Six-Year Graduation Rate Workforce Training (contact hours)

Awards per 100 FTE

“Premium” Outcomes

For Each

Low Income Student (Pell eligible); orAdult Student (age 24+)

Earning One of the Following Outcomes

University Outcomes Community College OutcomesStudents Accumulating 24 hours Students Accumulating 12 hoursStudents Accumulating 48 hour Students Accumulating 24 hoursStudents Accumulating 72 hours Students Accumulating 36 hoursBachelors and Associates Degrees Associates Degrees

Certificates

The Institution Earns a Premium of 40%(each outcome counts as 1.4 outcomes)

36

How the Outcome Formula Works –A Community College Example

37

Outcome

Raw

Data

Scaled

Data

Raw

Data

Scaled @

Premium

Total Scaled

Outcomes

Students Accumulating 12 hrs (Scale=2) 1,885 943 1,926 385.2 1,328

Students Accumulating 24 hrs (Scale=2) 1,557 779 1,685 337.0 1,116

Students Accumulating 36 hrs (Scale=2) 1,293 647 1,439 287.8 934

Dual Enrollment (Scale=2) 546 273 273

Associates (Scale=1.5) 716 477 847 225.9 703

Certificates (Scale=1.5) 159 106 198 52.8 159

Job Placements (Scale=.5) 224 448 448

Remedial & Developmental Success (Scale=5) 1,561 312 312

Transfers Out with 12 hrs (Scale=2) 370 185 185

Workforce Training (Contact Hours)(Scale=50) 5,610 112 112

Awards per 100 FTE (Scale=.05) 18.50 370 370

5,940

Outcomes Subpopulations

How the Outcome Formula Works –A Community College Example

38

Outcome Data Weight

Weighted

Outcomes

Students Accumulating 12 hrs (Scale=2) 1,328 4% 53

Students Accumulating 24 hrs (Scale=2) 1,116 5% 56

Students Accumulating 36 hrs (Scale=2) 934 6% 56

Dual Enrollment (Scale=2) 273 5% 14

Associates (Scale=1.5) 703 20% 141

Certificates (Scale=1.5) 159 20% 26

Job Placements (Scale=.5) 448 10% 45

Remedial & Developmental Success (Scale=5) 312 5% 16

Transfers Out with 12 hrs (Scale=2) 185 10% 19

Workforce Training (Contact Hours)(Scale=50) 112 5% 6

Awards per 100 FTE (Scale=.05) 370 10% 37

5,940 100% Total 467

Total Weighted Outcomes Avg SREB Salary Subtotal

467 x 54,782$ = 25,572,899$

M&O, Utilities + 4,719,866$

Equipment + 778,721$

Performance Funding + 1,659,607$ Deduct Out of State Tuition - 28,300$

Grand Total Calculation 32,702,800$

State Portion (66.7% of total) 21,812,800$

OUTCOME PERFORMANCE Outcome Funding Formula

39

Wei

ghte

d O

utc

om

es H

isto

ry

1,155

1,788

2,794

1,289 1,478

2,799

1,201

1,817

2,895

1,275

1,502

2,874

1,231

1,844

2,884

1,261

1,447

2,896

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2,400

2,600

2,800

3,000

APSU ETSU MTSU TSU TTU UoM

2012 2013 2014

40

75.5

56.3

89.2

(28.3) (30.9)

97.3

(60.0)

(40.0)

(20.0)

-

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

APSU ETSU MTSU TSU TTU UoM

Cumulative Change in Weighted OutcomesFY 2012 to FY 2014

41

Enrollment Trend – Universities(FTE)

60,000

62,000

64,000

66,000

68,000

70,000

72,000

74,000

76,000

78,000

80,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

42

Un

iver

sity

Ou

tco

me

Perf

orm

ance

FY

20

10

–2

01

2 (e

nro

llmen

t ad

just

ed)

(6)

(5)

(3)

(3)

(2)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1

3

3

3

3

4

5

2

6

6

(7) (5) (3) (1) 1 3 5 7

24 CH

48 CH

Grad Rate

72 CH

Doc & Law

Research & Serv.

Degrees Per FTE

Ed Spec & Masters

Assoc

Transfers Out

Bach

Number of Institutions

POSITIVE GROWTH RATENEGATIVE GROWTH RATE

43

Un

iver

sity

Ou

tco

me

Sum

mar

y(E

nro

llmen

t A

dju

sted

)Outcomes with Performance Increases at all Institutions

Average Low High

Bachelor and

Associates6.5% 0.9% 12.7%

Transfers Out with

12 hours19.0% 8.2% 33.4%

Annual Change

Outcomes with Performance Decreases at all Institutions

Average Low High

Students Accumulating

24 hrs.-6.9% -13.4% -3.1%

Annual Change

Outcomes with Mixed Performance Across Institutions

Average Low High

Students Accumulating 48 hrs. -1.7% -3.1% 0.9%

Students Accumulating 72 hrs. 0.3% -4.5% 6.9%

Masters / Ed Specialist

Degrees4.1% -17.2% 11.9%

Doctoral / Law Degrees 6.5% -3.8% 27.0%

Research and Service -0.9% -7.8% 9.4%

Degrees per 100 FTE 1.3% -1.4% 3.9%

Six-Year Graduation Rate 0.9% -2.0% 4.3%

Annual Change

+ -

+/-

44

Wei

ghte

d O

utc

om

es H

isto

ry

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

800.0

900.0

1,000.0 2012 2013 2014

45

172.6

104.0 90.0

59.7

14.3 9.7 2.2 0.6 (3.7) (8.3)

(15.8)(50.4)

(87.9) (100.0)

(50.0)

-

50.0

100.0

150.0

200.0

Cumulative Change in Weighted Outcomes2012 to 2014

46

Enrollment Trend – Community Colleges (FTE)

45,000

47,000

49,000

51,000

53,000

55,000

57,000

59,000

61,000

63,000

65,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

47

Co

mm

un

ity

Co

llege

Ou

tco

me

Perf

orm

ance

FY

20

10

–2

01

2 (e

nro

llmen

t ad

just

ed)

(13)

(13)

(11)

(5)

(2)

(1)

2

8

11

12

13

13

13

(15) (10) (5) - 5 10 15

12 CH

24 CH

36 CH

Contact Hrs

Certificates

Awards Per FTE

Assoc

Job Place

Transfers Out

Number of Institutions

POSITIVE GROWTH RATENEGATIVE GROWTH RATE

48

Co

mm

un

ity

Co

llege

Ou

tco

me

Sum

mar

y (E

nro

llmen

t A

dju

sted

)

Outcomes with Performance Increases at all Institutions

Outcomes with Performance Decreases at all Institutions:

Outcomes with Mixed Performance Across the Institutions

Average Low High

Dual Enrollment 15.0% 3.3% 34.9%

Remedial and

Developmental Success20.8% 14.2% 34.3%

Associate Degrees 14.6% 9.0% 21.6%

Job Placement 17.6% 6.5% 62.7%

Transfers Out 15.4% 3.4% 23.6%

Annual Change

Average Low High

12 Credit Hours -16.9% -22.1% -10.5%

24 Credit Hours -10.1% -13.3% -5.2%

Annual Change

Average Low High

36 Credit Hours -2.9% -6.7% 3.9%

Certificates 25.7% -23.5% 345.8%

Awards per FTE 8.9% -3.6% 20.3%

Contact Hours (1,000) 20.5% -23.5% 57.7%

Annual Change

+

-

+/-

49

How Are We Responding?

• Completion Academies

• Redesign of “Gateway” Courses

• Dashboards for Staff

• Staff connection of their work to outcome generation

50

Q & A