New England

2025Student flow and

productivity model guide

AcknowledgementsPrepared by:

Matthew Crellin, Director of Policy and ResearchNew England Board of Higher Education

Projection model developed in conjunction with:

Patrick Kelly, Senior AssociateNational Center for Higher Education Management Systems

With support from:

Lumina Foundation for Education

Download the state-level data summaries from NEBHE’s NE2025 website at:

http://www.nebhe.org/policy-research/new-england-2025/

The New England Board of Higher

Education, in conjunction with our partners

at the National Center for Higher Education

Management Systems and the Lumina

Foundation for Education, has developed a

series of state models for the New England

region aimed at calculating and predicting

the factors and conditions needed to

increase college completion. Degree

completion is increasingly becoming a

central issue in higher education,

particularly in light of stated national and

statewide goals. To that extent, NEBHE’s

New England 2025 project seeks to better

define the metrics, capacity, and action

plans needed for the New England region

to successfully realize a shared national

goal of reaching 60% degree attainment in

the population by the year 2025. College

completion is increasingly becoming the

bottom line for higher education, invested

stakeholders, and most of all for students

entering the workforce.

Leaders of education, business and

government in the New England states

agree on the importance of increasing the

number of degree holders, but

understanding the full arc of what most

contributes to completion requires a

systematic and data-driven examination of

the postsecondary degree production in

each of the respective New England states.

The projection models are aimed at further

understanding what best contributes to the

changing realities of degree completion,

especially as practice meets theory in

setting statewide and institutional goals.

The models alone are not the “silver bullet”

needed to realize degree completion

successfully; we believe it will require

engaged partnerships, a clear sense of

purpose, a thorough understanding of

educational and investment practices, and

real leadership to move the status quo

toward productive and efficient change.

However, by building the capacity to

approach this issue with a rich

understanding of what it takes, we believe

that real progress is possible.

The New England 2025 initiative at NEBHE has a big goal: to help

states increase the percentage of the regional population with high-

quality degrees and credentials by the year 2025.

The realities on the horizon for the region and higher education are quickly

approaching. By the year 2025, New England will have witnessed a measurable decline in the percentage of the population

that holds a postsecondary credential. Without deliberate and data-driven

intervention to spur degree attainment and productivity, the region may find itself in a

state of economic and social decline.

The forecasts and demands on demography, college affordability, productivity, and job

requirements begin to tell a story that challenges widely-accepted assumptions about the condition and strengths of New

England’s educational attainment rates. Postsecondary education has become more

than a luxury - it is increasingly a prerequisite to economic and social vibrancy

as well as personal well-being. The returns on educational investment cannot be understated, and many groups within

academe are shifting their attention and resources toward college completion in an

unprecedented fashion.

Yet, tackling college completion is no small task. The college leader, policymaker,

legislator, or key stakeholder must balance multiple demands, needs, trends, and

considerations. Leadership on this issue seems improvisational without the tools and

capacity to approach college completion seriously. There is no technical remedy to fix

this issue; it will require real leadership. At the heart of this challenge lies an incredible

promise of inventing the future of higher education toward New England’s sustained and new well-being for years to come. This

narrative will depend on how we address this issue now as a region through authentic partnership and sharing ideas and resources

toward this critical goal.

What is NE2025?

The specific objectives of NE2025 include:

• Identifying realistic, contextualized state goals for increased degree production by helping states to address required performance levels related to key variables and statewide goals;

• Provide support and assistance for state-based work on policies, programs, and other change levers by working individually with states and organizations to develop comprehensive metrics and data-driven practices.

NE2025 seeks to catalyze information and high-impact practices on how to form specific statewide goals and targets to achieve a significant increase in degree attainment by the year 2025. The project additionally aims to help states develop and implement their goals and visions for degree attainment.

MethodologyThe state models are derived from several calculations and

data points collected by NCHEMS and from various publicly

available data sources, such as IPEDS, WICHE, NCES, and

U.S. Census data. Prior to beginning, we recommend having

the following material available with you as you iteratively

manipulate the model:

• A framework for your statewide goal. The model is set

using the Lumina “Big Goal” framework of 60% degree

attainment by the year 2025. However, the model also

allows you to examine other situations, such as defining a

specific starting academic year for increasing degree

attainment, an ending academic year (calculated only

through 2025; it can be set for earlier, not later), and so

forth. Although the models can and should be used to help

set a goal, it can also be helpful to have several scenarios

in mind that you’d like to test.

• Current facts and figures for enrollment and graduation

rates. Although the models incorporate currently available

state-level data, if you have additional scenarios or data

that you feel are more appropriate as you perform this

scenario testing, we encourage you to enter your own

projected values. For example, if you feel that the high

school graduation rate in your state is expected to

dramatically change, try scenarios both with the current

number and a new projected number.

The state models for student flow and degree attainment rest

on several inputs and throughputs. In our analysis, we believe

that it is more beneficial to concentrate on manipulating the

throughput rates, as these are the rates which higher

education is responsible for in the narrative of college

completion. That said, the input rates and attention given to

earlier segments of the educational pipeline are extremely

important and should not be ignored. This guide also features

a section on college completion metrics that are not

specifically calculated in this model, but should be given

importance and consideration when arriving to a statewide

goal on degree attainment. The section on “central

measures” defines the variables calculated in the model.

Central Measures

All of the measures in the model are derived from publicly available sources; i.e. the U.S. census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. Descriptions of the variables and their sources are included in the final pages of this guide. Also included at the end are the major assumptions associated with the model.

Measures of Student

Progression[access to degree attainment across the educational

pipeline]

• High school graduation rates

• College-going rates directly from high school

• Participation rates of adults 20 to 39 years old

(not directly out of high school)

• Completion rates – undergraduate credentials

awarded per 100 full-time equivalent

undergraduates (by sector; for public research,

public bachelor’s and master’s, public two-year,

and private non-profit and for-profit institutions)

• Changing enrollment pattens (e.g., giving

students more – or less – access to community

colleges versus research universities, or to

private institutions, as a way to accommodate

access and attainment)

Cost Restructuring &

Revenue-Saving[closing budget gaps in the public sector]

• Student / Faculty ratios (for this measure alone,

less means more – lower student faculty ratios

cost more money; higher ratios reduce costs)

• Instructional salaries per FTE student

• Administrative expenditures per FTE student

• Student service related expenditures per FTE

student

• Employee benefits per FTE student (note the

model calculates these independently of

salaries, so the estimates of salary savings

above includes only the salary portion of

compensation)

• Tuition revenues (not sticker prices, but net

revenues realized after discounting)

• Tuition discounting per FTE student

• State and local revenues

• Credit hours earned toward a degree, estimated

based on average costs across levels and

disciplines

The models come in two

forms: interactive dashboards and

predictive spreadsheets.

With support from the Lumina

Foundation for Education, NCHEMS and

the Delta Cost Project have developed

the state-by-state models for calculating

the number of graduates needed to

meet the attainment goals states in

NE2025 and through the Lumina

Foundation’s “Big Goal.”

The Student Flow Projection Models and

Productivity Models illuminate several

realities of higher education: the cost

structures and funding realities of

increasing postsecondary degree

attainment are so vastly nuanced that it

requires state-level analysis and

consideration of individual state realities

to adequately address increases in

college completion. To assist in this

effort, the models can assist education

leaders and policymakers in iteratively

testing scenarios and changes related

the student degree production and

attainment rates.

How the models work

The projection models allow

policymakers to estimate how changes

to policy or management (or both) would

potentially impact costs and the number

of graduates. The models are based off

of major enrollment and attainment

drivers in education, demographic

projections, as well as major cost drivers

in higher education. The models further

disaggregate differences between

institutional type and sector.

Two levels of modeling

The models available through NEBHE

come in two forms. The first is an

interactive dashboard through the

PowerPoint / Flash-driven software that

enables users to iteratively gauge

measures of student progression and

levels of performance related to

transition of access to degrees are

needed from the state to meet a specific

college attainment goal. The second

model is an Excel sheet that serves as a

more technical analytic tool for helping

policymakers, institutional researchers,

strategic planners, and others who

require specific data captures or to more

closely examine a specific student

progression, performance, or

productivity metric.

The details of both models are explained

in detail throughout this guide, with a

summary of where your state stands

relative to national benchmarks on a

wide array of metrics related to college

completion, costs, and productivity.

Beyond predictions

At first glance, many of the projections,

when set at 60% degree attainment or

beyond, appear to be so high that they

may seem unattainable. However, by

segmenting each strategy for increasing

degree attainment into more specific and

manageable segments, we believe that

such a goal can be achieved. While

NEBHE will continue to provide thought

and analysis on college completion

through our NE2025 work, we also hope

that the models specifically inform or

help you develop your own statewide or

institutional strategic plan on increasing

degree attainment along with cultivating

the capacity to pay for the increases in

college completion.

Reaching this goal will require, first and

foremost, building the capacity and

understanding on how to most efficiently

tackle this essential challenge - the cost

of doing nothing at all would be a far

more grim reality. However, by making

efforts toward cutting spending,

increasing efficiency, and examining the

trends in population growth, migration,

and completion rates, we believe that

states can succeed through the use of

these models and policy briefs toward

progress in college completion.

Explanation and Prediction

The Interactive Dashboard:The state models, created from the more specific

models in Microsoft Excel, are imported and

built into a PowerPoint slide. To run them, your

computer must be equipped with a recent version

of Adobe Flash. When you initially open the model,

you will see a blank slide, which is normal. To

activate the content, go to the “View” pull-down

menu and click on “Slide Show,” then “Enable.”

The slide features tabs near the top for each of the

two dashboards: “Closing the Degree Gap” and

“Strategies for Reducing Budget Gap.” Because

the slide is interactive, you can test how various

policy options affect 1) student progression

to degrees and credentials and 2) the estimated

spending needed to produce these outcomes at

current and other levels.

From here, you will be able to move through the

various metrics and points to create a number of

scenarios related to both student flow projection

and budget realities to visually see the impact

an action or set of actions would have on degree

attainment. For added clarification, the models

also denote in each metric the value where the

highest-performing states sit, so as to place your

scenario-building into context relative to national

and state-level performance.

Changing assumptions:

You can change assumptions in the two

dashboards by clicking on and adjusting the red

and green “levers” on the sliding scales. For

example, you can investigate strategies for

increasing student participation and completion, or

test the potential effects of cutting costs tied to

specific strategies for graduating more students

with high-quality degrees and credentials.

There are several default conditions in the

baseline model, including:

• Either a projected reduction or increase in the

number of degrees produced by 2025. The

models include projections of high school

graduates from the Western Interstate

Commission for Higher Education and

projections of enrollment among adults 20 to 39

years old. These two populations represent the

majority of students who in the future will enroll in

postsecondary education. States projected to

lose residents will generate fewer graduates by

2025 at current graduation rates; states

projected to gain residents will generate more.

• An increasing gap between needed and

anticipated revenues to deliver public higher

education. The model includes 2 percent real

annual increases in employee benefits, a

conservative estimate based upon past trends.

• The default position for each lever reflects the

states’ current values for each measure. On the

“Degree Gap” dashboard, reference markers

(thick black lines on the sliding scales) show the

average performance of the top three states for

each student-progression measure; on the

“Budget Gap” dashboard, and the markers

illustrate the 25th and 75th percentiles among

states for the cost and revenue measures. These

should help keep your exercise within the

bounds of reality, because it’s often difficult to

improve performance or reduce costs beyond

the levels of best-performing states.

The Spreadsheet Dashboard The Excel spreadsheet models also contain a dashboard that is similar in function to the interactive dashboard. This dashboard

calibrates and sets the values for the rest of the predictions that follow through the spreadsheet. Within the Excel sheet are two

dashboards: Dashboard (for student flow) and Cost-Cutting (for productivity and performance). Subsequently, the

spreadsheet will produce several outputs that include the following measures: Enrollment and Degrees; Cost; Cost-Cutting

Yield; Budget Gap; Summary Degree Data; Degree Yield; Projections on Attainment; Attainment Goal. There are also two

tabs that describe the model in a flowchart form as well as calculated percent changes to degree attainment through an examination

of attainment rate analysis over time.

By default, the assumptions set in the Excel sheet reflect the current state values for each metric. You can change the assumptions in

the spreadsheet by modifying the YELLOW CELLS in each of the fields. For example, you can test the scenarios of increasing

student completion by modifying the “Credentials and Degrees Produced per 100 FTE Undergraduates” cells. Similar to the

interactive model, the dashboards provide benchmarks for the levels of performance relative to the average of the three best-

performing states on the various measures. Cost-cutting measures also are benchmarked in an interquartile range to keep the

iterative modeling within conservative estimates.

This model allows you to investigate alternatives and identify strategies for graduating more students with high-quality degrees and

credentials tied to cost strategies that account for the specific funding realities in your state. When choosing which lever to

purposefully modify, keep in mind that most of the levers that higher education can directly modify are found in the “Throughput”

section of the dashboard with regard to student flow; cost-cutting measures hold a zero increase in appropriation as an assumption

as well.

Summary of each output in spreadsheetThe Excel spreadsheet document for each state calculates several outputs, as mentioned previously. These metrics and outputs can

also be found in the interactive model. The models are ultimately restricted to the measures for which reasonably available data exists

from reliable sources. Additional opportunities for conversation and data are found toward the back of this guide, but one should

keep in mind that there are further points of consideration that the model cannot presently substantively answer. That said, the

models calculate the following changes relevant to college completion:

Enrollment and Degrees:

This section details information relative to the number of additional degrees needed to realize the degree attainment goal as defined in

the student flow dashboard. Each number captured in parentheses suggests the both the number of additionally enrolled students

and the degree produced as a result of the numbers set in the dashboard. Enrollment and degrees are separated out by sector and

degree type across the state (with the exception of for-profit institutions). These numbers should be read separately; for example, the

number of additional associates degrees needed in 2009-10 is 72 while in 2010-11 this number is now 233, this represents an

additional 233 in addition to the 72 gained in 2009-10. The rightmost column displays the number of additional degrees across all

sectors, reflecting the summative number needed in order to reach the percentage goal as you have defined it.

The chart below the degree output columns display a visual trend analysis of bachelor’s and associates produced relative to the red

benchmark line (which visually defines the set attainment goal). By going back to the student flow dashboard and changing the yellow

active cells, you should see this graph iteratively change up or down relative to the rates you define.

Cost:

This tab calculates out information relative to additional

revenues needed to maintain current dollars per FTE

student. This tab substantially differs from the other cost-

cutting measures in that this information is specifically

concerned with the additional state and local

appropriations and support needed to meet the

increased demand on the public higher education

system when holding tuition and fees constant.

The cost tab displays two scenarios relative to public

funding: annual additional state and local appropriations

when keeping tuition the same, and additional costs to

students/families per FTE if state and local appropriations

do not increase investment. While the reality of cost may

lie somewhere in between these two realities, these

scenarios display information specifically with or without

additional investment from the state for higher education.

A third box displays cost information relative to a 2%

annual increase in employee benefits across institutional

sector type. Displayed above this box are figures on

current aggregate employee benefits across institutional

sector in 2007-2008, again displayed in current dollars.

The 2% increase is relative to those figures as displayed

in the purple cells.

Cost-Cutting Yield:

This tab is impacted by changes made to the Cost-

Cutting Dashboard with respect to changes made

across these throughput rates. For example, changing

student/faculty ratios in the dashboard will translate to

either higher or lower overall costs. Cost savings will

result in a negative number displayed across these cells

by sector. A lower student-faculty ratio will cost more,

whereas a higher ratio will reduce costs. Keep in mind,

however, that the effect on quality here is not precisely

clear; what this will display is raw information on

expenditures when examining various scenarios.

Budget Gap:

This information relates to the overall budget gap as a

result of the measures taken in the Cost-Cutting

Dashboard for productivity funding. This tab provides an

overall summary of the effects of the strategies of paying

for increased attainment be they positive or negative.

Summary Data:

Based on the rates set in the Student Flow

Dashboard, this tab displays further information on a

variety of measures across institutional sector, including

participation rates, ratios of undergraduates to first-time

students, funding per FTE, E&R expenditures, salary

outlay per FTE, and other summary data. This particular

section provides an overall snapshot of changes made to

increased enrollment with additional considerations for

college leaders and policymakers.

Degree Yield:

This tab, which is also based off of the Student Flow

Dashboard, calculates the degree yield based on the

active rates defined in the dashboard. Based on the

distribution of students and degree types across each

sector, the yield displays the number of degrees needed

to meet the goal based on the awarded credentials.

Projections:

This tab displays information from WICHE’s “Knocking at

the College Door” 2008 report on direct-from-high school

enrollment into college alongside U.S. Census data

regarding population projections of 20-39 year olds in

your state. Lastly, this tab also displays state-level

information relative to current rates of students entering

college.

Attainment Goal:

This tab functions separately of either dashboard, but

calculates a degree attainment rate by the year 2025

across all 50 states. The orange cell containing the

attainment rate figure can be modified to reflect a

different goal; as a result, all of the state rates in this tab

will be modified as a result of the new number put into

this cell. This sheet allows for a state-by-state

comparison, which can be useful in comparing your

performance relative to other states in the region or in the

nation (if, for example, your goal is to be at the national

average, leading the region, at a specific benchmark,

etc.)

Outputs Explained (cont.)

Both the student flow and productivity models are restricted to currently existing data sets, while other measures of college completion and degree attainment are more difficult to accurately measure. Additional conversations and strategies should be considered when formulating a plan on completion:

Quality: The focus on increasing the number of degrees and credentials cannot be held in isolation - they must

retain and push for even greater levels of quality. Simply said, a degree must mean more than a signal of

proficiency, it represents a student’s knowledge and mastery of certain skills, concepts, and comprehension that

prepares them for entry into the workforce and in life. Quality ought to incorporate specific learning outcomes and

learning profiles that are tied to what a student knows and can demonstrate upon completion of a course of

study.

Time to degree: The proportion of students who are not completing their degree within a traditional time frame

seems to be increasing - a result of heavier demands on a student’s schedule, such as those that need to work

during college. Early-assessment programs that provide students with information on how to complete on-time

may be a start, but the new majority of students will likely come from those with increasing demands on their

schedules, not less.

Cost cutting: Cost-effectiveness is difficult to define in higher education; a cut to one area can have a significant

impact on another sector of the institution. The relationship between spending in higher education and results are

not well understood, largely because of the hidden costs necessary to educate a student. Spending on higher

education clearly does present a strong return investment for both the individual and society. Assessing cost-

effective strategies should fundamentally be designed to increase student access; student engagement, services,

and support all contribute measurably toward completion and retention.

Performance improvements: Creating a culture of evidence and inquiry requires more than a symbolic gesture

toward using data. Too often, data is made inaccessible to those who would seek to make improvements to

higher education. In order to make performance improvements most effective, they must be readily understood by

a wide audience of stakeholders. Benchmarking and standardizing data is one practice that helps drive data

toward performance and away from “counting apples and oranges in the same bunch.”

Tied to job demand: Increasing the number of degree recipients in the population will surely aid an economy that

is increasingly knowledge-based, but being critical about matching job requirements to degree output should be

given consideration. Looking for efficient methods of education is essential, but additional thought should be

given to the learning that students already possess when they enter the classroom.

Beyond the Models: additional points to consider

Additional Points (cont.)

Remediation & related costs: The barriers between higher education and high school can potentially hamstring

college completion, especially when college readiness is not linked to K-12 curriculum. Many students believe that

current high school requirements will prepare them for college, when adequate preparation requires often much

more. While rigorous classes predict college success, thought and resources must be given to remediation,

especially when such interventions significantly increase the likelihood of degree attainment.

The impact of financial aid: Financial aid can impact college completion with substantial breadth and depth, from

the pool of students entering college to the range of resources both needed by students and received to the

institution. To meet the college completion goal, higher education must be wary of trying to reposition their aid in

response to rankings and competition; rather, the repercussions of financial aid can move college completion

efforts away from a game of better quality inputs and toward significant progress in improving student learning.

Transfer rates: Most policies regarding attainment look at college completion along a single track. Colleges and

universities are often inefficient when it comes to transferring credits over from other institutions or otherwise view

transfer of credits from outside of college as a supplemental activity. Ineligibility to transfer credits from one

institution to the other or requirements to enroll in redundant coursework only hinder a student’s progress toward

completion. Articulation and transfer systems must be both available and transparent to the student.

The role of advising and student services: Building upon a student’s academic self-efficacy is a lever that should

not be ignored, and policies on college completion should focus on empowering self-efficacy. Encouraging

students to share their academic success stories while collaborating with college advisors on supporting both self-

efficacy and emotional support throughout college will aid in persistence toward a degree. Consistent evaluation

and assessment with students in a one-on-one basis can check whether or not a student is moving toward good

time management, choosing the right classes, and good academic performance.

The use of technology: The use of data analytics will prove essential to unpacking performing substantial trend

analysis in college completion. It is difficult to tell which data tool will ultimately prove the most useful, but a

common thread is their ability to interpret massive amounts of information into points that are easy to consume

and understand. As institutions and systems work with the college completion agenda, wielding data wisely will

require the use of new tools and an embracing of technology at all levels of the university.

Rethinking college credit hours: Credit hours will play a large role in ensuring higher college completion -

specifically their optimal use in application toward a credential. Consider that the average community college

student earns approximately 140 credit hours in pursuit of a bachelors degree despite that, on the average, only

120 are required. The extraneous credits represent both an additional investment of time, energy, and financial

resources despite their application across a student’s learning.

How to get startedThe student flow and productivity models take a lot of points into consideration, but where do you start if you are a college president, systemhead, legislator, or policymaker?

Although this guide is meant to help you navigate through using

the models, it may not be as clear on how to use them when

placing college completion into the user’s context. Said

differently, different constituents have different needs when it

comes to unpacking degree attainment. If you are an

institutional researcher, you may wish to drill down on trends

throughout the college completion spectrum to benchmark your

institution’s progress. As a policymaker, you may want to know

what levers are most suited toward generating policy around

cost-savings, degree yield, or enrollment distribution.

In response to these questions, NEBHE has put together a

preliminary decision tree to help you get started. We believe that

these models, without a substantial plan and course of inquiry,

may not realize their full potential to make a substantial impact

on raising college completion. Therefore, our approach here is

two-fold: the first is to pose some initial questions regarding

degree attainment and the second is to look toward common

outcome metrics that will articulate results to all stakeholders,

regardless of role.

Bringing a working definition of success and what it looks like in

higher education will fundamentally require us to use the same

metrics of quality, access, and attainment. The growing

consensus, especially among many foundation leaders and

policymakers, is that the “unknowable” returns on education

and what constitutes success is no longer acceptable.

That said, higher education policy fundamentally falls in the

domain of each state, not necessarily national policy. Changing

demographics in each state, along with shifting financial aid

priorities and policies, declining resources, economic realities,

new providers of higher education, and other forces will exert

themselves on the college completion agenda likely in

unforeseen ways. However, in light of these challenges, it is

imperative that we also continue to provide a quality education

to students, not simply transform higher education into

warehouses of credentials.

Utilizing a framework from Complete College America and the

National Governors Association, we preliminarily recommend

using these college completion metrics to begin to unravel this

policy knot from multiple vantage points. While this is not a

comprehensive list of progress and outcome metrics, we hope

these outcomes in conjunction with some beginning questions

will help to shape the use of these models around completion.

Decision Tree

• Degrees awarded

• Graduation rates

• Transfer rates

• Time and credits to degree

The following metrics come directly from Complete College America and NGA’s work on Common College Metrics.

Outcome Metrics

Outcome metrics tell the story of a

student’s education and end result

from their experience in higher

education toward a degree. Outcome

metrics are often what many

stakeholders in higher education look

to when assessing the effectiveness of

the educational process.

• Degrees awarded: annual number

and percentage of certificates,

associate degrees, and bachelor’s

degrees awarded;

• Graduation rates: number and

percentage of certificate- or degree-

seeking students who graduate

within normal program time (two

years for associate’s degrees; four

years for bachelor’s degrees) or

extended time (three years for

associate’s degrees; six years for

bachelor’s degrees);

• Transfer rates: annual number and

percentage of students who transfer

from a two-year to four-year

institution; and

• Time and credits to degree: average

length of time in years and average

number of credits that graduating

students took to earn a certificate,

an associate degree, or a bachelor’s

degree.

Outcome Metrics

• Enrollment in remedial education

• Success in remedial education

• Success in first year coursework

• Credit accumulation

• Retention rates

• Course completion

Progress Metrics

• First-time enrollment

• Completion ratio

• Market penetration

Context Metrics (student flow model)

Progress Metrics

Progress metrics take a closer

look within the completion

spectrum by assessing the

performance of students from

semester-to-semester and year-

to-year. This kind of trend analysis

can help educators and

stakeholders identify key areas in

the completion pipeline to drill

down on through targeted

intervention and increased support

services.

Enrollment in remedial education:

number and percentage of

entering first-time undergraduate

students who place into and enroll

in remedial math, English, or both;

Success beyond remedial

education: number and

percentage of first-time

undergraduate students who

complete a remedial education

course in math, English or both

and complete a college-level

course in the same subject;

Success in first-year college

courses: annual number and

percentage of entering first-time

undergraduate students who

complete entry college-level math

and English courses within the first

two consecutive academic years;

and

Credit accumulation: number and

percentage of first-time

undergraduate students

completing 24 credit hours (for full-

time students) or 12 credit hours

(for part-time students) within their

first academic year;

Retention rates: number and

percentage of entering

undergraduate students who enroll

consecutively from fall-to-spring

and fall-to-fall at an institution of

higher education;

Course completion: percentage of

credit hours completed out of

those attempted during an

academic year.

Context Metrics

Making choices about the

resources and trends across the

completion spectrum can present

a daunting challenge. The student

flow projection model can begin to

help with this by looking at it’s

three main throughputs and inputs

to better analyze and work toward

clarity with both the outcome and

progress metrics.

Enrollment: total first-time

undergraduate students enrolled in

an institution of higher education;

Completion ratio: annual ratio of

certificates and degrees awarded

per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE)

undergraduate students; and

Market penetration: annual ratio of

certificates and degrees awarded

relative to the state’s population

with a high school diploma.

Together, these measures help

create a narrative bent toward

completion that doesn’t come at

the cost of quality.

Initial questions to consider

As you go through the models and using them to formulate your own plan and understanding around college completion, consider the following questions listed below. The models will help reveal some answers to these questions and others as you iteratively work with both the student flow and productivity components

I. Growing accountability pressures

and a lack of readily accessible

institutional measures of

performance have ratcheted an

increased emphasis on student

completion and graduation rates.

Though previous research

focuses in on the factors

responsible for influencing a

student’s likelihood of success, it

does not pay significant attention

to how state contexts may

shape student outcomes. In this

instance, how does the

distribution of enrollment in

across institutional types

(two year, four year, public,

private, nonprofit, forprofit)

relate to degree attainment?

Does the presence of community

colleges facilitate a sorting of

students into higher education in

a way that is associated with

higher degree completion at

public four year institutions?

II. Increasing the college going

population will undoubtedly

challenge state and federal

resources in new and dynamic

ways. There is enormous

consensus that no student

should be denied access to

higher education simply because

it is too expensive. Multiple

researchers have found, for

instance, the positive association

between states that offer broad-

based merit scholarships and

need-based aid and an increase

in college graduation rates.

Investing in college completion

will require that funds are

optimized and directed to make

the most impact, especially in an

educational reality where we are

increasingly asked to do more

with less. How do changes to

enrollment and the allocation

of resources in a state result

in either increased or

decreased college

completion rates? Does

shifting enrollment to community

colleges save money in the long

run? Can investments in student

services rather than instruction

increase college completion?

Where should policy

recommendations focus with

respect to funding and capacity?

III. The process of education reform

and adjusting completion rates

begs to ask the question: who is

performing the best when it

comes to college completion?

Which institutions are presenting

the clearest paths to

opportunity? How does

opportunity and future job

demand coincide and which

institutions are best met to

meet this demand? Are states

respectively balanced to meet

this demand given the number of

educational institutions in their

state? Where should emphasis

be placed?

IV. The rising costs of tuition and

attendance leave many students

wondering if the ROI of college

makes sense, especially given

that the opportunity costs of

attendance are an extraordinary

source of concern for many.

What are state funding

realities like for college

students and what, given

various changes to state

budgets, will costs of college

look like in five years, ten

years, and beyond? What will

public universities be asking

students to pay if appropriations

are changed (positively or

negatively) or stay the same?

How can you make the case that

college is right for everyone?

V. Underserved populations and

minorities remain a constant

reminder of the size of the gap

in college completion. Drilling

down to examine how cohorts

of students achieve completion

with respect to racial / ethnic

background remains a critical

question for analysts and

policymakers. Yet, some

institutions and states are

making strides toward narrowing

the completion gap between

white students and minority

students. Are states serving

these populations well and what

gaps, be they large or small, will

need to be closed? How would

closing these gaps, holding all

other things constant, impact

college completion rates in a

state? What pathways make

the most sense and what are

institutions doing right when

it comes to closing the

achievement gap?

VI. Metrics remain something of a

debate when focusing in on

college completion, especially

when it comes to creating a

shared taxonomy of success

and comparing which levers are

the most effective in a particular

state given the myriad realities of

funding, population, migration,

and other factors. Using specific

state data to set calibrate levers

appropriately in combination

with an understanding of state

policy, states must identify

metrics in a shared context,

including multiple outcome

metrics (enrollment, time and

credits to a degree) and

progress metrics (remediation,

workforce demand). Information

on completion must allow state

leaders to further understand if

their policies are successful and

working toward successful

funding of future decisions. By

inputting the metrics and

predicted numbers of a

particular policy outcome into

the model, are you on target

for where you need to be

with a respective completion

goal? If not, what other levers

and dials can be adjusted to

ensure completion?

VII. Adult and experiential learning

are rapidly coming to the

forefront of the completion

discussion, especially given their

numbers – if a state is to reach

their goal of 60% degree

attainment in the population,

adult learners will ultimately

need to be a part of this

equation. What factors are

necessary to increase degree

attainment among the “21st

century” student population?

Which institutions are serving

them best and what factors best

promote their success (student

services, hours of instruction,

etc.)? Should credits earned for

prior learning and experience

count toward degree

attainment? How much of a

state’s population of learners

come from this age and

experiential range? How can

policies specifically target

completion for this group?

VIII. The complexity inherent in

enabling all students to achieve

requires an incredible amount of

resources and development of

mechanics that incentivize

institutions beyond simply

rewarding the ones that

graduate the most or putting

more courses online.

Increasingly, businesses feel that

many students leaving college

are ill-equipped to meet the

demands required of an

educated workforce; in turn,

many students are earning their

degrees at the expense of

mounting debt and

undermatching for their skill sets

they learned and earned while in

school. Where does state and

national need exist for skilled

workers? How does the

change in the number of

degrees completed in a state

impact the relationship

between workforce

development and economic

growth? What are the most

frequent indicators that a

student is on track to

employment and entry into the

workforce? What is the

relationship of a college

education beyond its monetary

value and its contribution to a

successful and fulfilling life?

IX. With so many questions on the

horizon, where should a state

even begin to unpack the

college completion issue? What

issues represent the greatest

challenges? Which ones

represent low-hanging fruit

for states to begin to tackle

first? What subtopics are ripe

for change and how might a

state go about cultivate a

ripening of this issue to provoke

and challenge the system

toward progress in the human

condition? What forces are at

play here that might prevent or

hinder progress and adaptive

work?

Decision Tree FlowchartDownload from NEBHE’s NE2025 website at:

http://www.nebhe.org/policy-research/new-england-2025/

The Decision Flowcharts are designed to visually lead users through outcome and progress metrics depending on a variety of

scenarios and tests. While the best use of the model is to employ all of its functionality toward an outcome, the flowcharts are

designed to help users think about various scenarios and levers to begin focusing on while building out the rest of the functions

iteratively. Further analysis with respect to each New England state’s standing on these metrics can be found further in this guide.

Examining College Completion Across the Six New England States

Research on retention and completion, in the words of Clifford Adelman, seeks “to discover those aspects of student

and institutional behavior that actually can be changed to improve the odds of attainment...we look for concrete and

practical suggestions that can be assigned to particular individuals and groups to carry out.” Through the models and

recommendations that they begin to unearth, state-level realities emerge as a critical lens to place over the

aforementioned aspects of student and institutional behavior. When considering how different each of the six New

England states are with respect to demography, migration, job demands, economic realities, and funding, it is vital to

look at each state separately and only in aggregate in so much as to benchmark progress.

The details of each state’s performance with respect to college completion and productivity can be compared with the

following tables and infographics. NEBHE’s New England 2025 website also features individual state-level data

summaries that capture some of this narrative as it is today with respect to college completion and productivity. These

benchmarks also may be useful to stakeholders who are looking for a place to start with respect to using these models

toward an attainment goal.

Download the state-level data summaries from NEBHE’s NE2025 website at: http://www.nebhe.org/policy-research/new-england-2025/

!

Degree Attainment at the Regional Level

Improving Performance at the State Level

STATEHIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE

COLLEGE-GOING OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL

PARTICIPATION RATE 20-39 YEAR OLDS

PUBLIC RESEARCH

PUBLIC BACHELORS/MASTERS

PUBLIC TWO-YEAR

PRIVATE (NON-PROFIT AND FOR-PROFIT)

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

Based on their relative performance to other states nationally

= bottom quartile of performance Undergraduate credentials awarded per 100 FTE

Improving Costs at the State Level: Public Research Institutions

STATESTUDENT/FACULTY RATIO

INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES PER FTE

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES PER FTE

STUDENT SUPPORT EXPENSES

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PER FTE

TUITION REVENUES PER FTE

TUITION DISCOUNTS PER FTE

STATE AND LOCAL APPROPRIATION

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

Based on their relative performance to other states nationally

= top quartile in costs & bottom quartile in revenues

Improving Costs at the State Level: Public Bachelors and Masters

STATESTUDENT/FACULTY RATIO

INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES PER FTE

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES PER FTE

STUDENT SUPPORT EXPENSES

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PER FTE

TUITION REVENUES PER FTE

TUITION DISCOUNTS PER FTE

STATE AND LOCAL APPROPRIATION

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

Based on their relative performance to other states nationally

= top quartile in costs & bottom quartile in revenues

Improving Costs at the State Level: Public Two-Year Institutions

STATESTUDENT/FACULTY RATIO

INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES PER FTE

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES PER FTE

STUDENT SUPPORT EXPENSES

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PER FTE

TUITION REVENUES PER FTE

TUITION DISCOUNTS PER FTE

STATE AND LOCAL APPROPRIATION

Connecticut

Maine

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Vermont

Based on their relative performance to other states nationally

= top quartile in costs & bottom quartile in revenues

PRIMARY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

(1)The model assumes linear progress toward all 2025 goals/

targets - incremental improvements rather than all at once.

For instance, a state may not be able to incrementally begin

work on various levers until significant capacity building,

therefore a more exponential curve would need calculation.

(2)All increases and reductions in expenditures and revenues by

2025 are in current dollars - no inflation taken into account.

Assumptions and Definitions

PRIMARY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS

(3) Included in the model are projections of high school

graduates and young adults aged 20 to 39 to the year 2025.

This leads to declines in degree production (at current levels of

performance) in states that have projected declines in

population - and vise-versa.

(4) A 2 percent annual increase in benefits costs is included in

the model (in current dollars). This is approximately the rate of

increase over and above inflation experienced in the last

decade (conservatively).

MEASURE: COLLEGE GOING ATTAINMENT RATE OF 25-64 YEAR OLDS

Definition: Percent of 25 to 64 Year Olds with Associate

Degrees and Higher

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community

Survey

MEASURE: HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE

Definition: High school graduates as a percent of 9th graders

four years earlier

Source: NCES; Common Core Data

Assumptions and Definitions (cont.)

MEASURE: COLLEGE-GOING RATE DIRECTLY OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL

Definition: Fall first-time students directly out of high school

(within the past year) as a percent of recent high

school graduate (the previous spring)

Source: NCES; Common Core Data; IPEDS Fall Residency

and Migration Survey

MEASURE: PARTICIPATION RATE OF 20 TO 39 YEAR OLDS

Definition: Fall first-time students not directly out of high school

as a percentage of 20 to 39 year olds

Source: NCES; IPEDS Fall Residency and Migration Survey;

U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates

MEASURE: UNDERGRADUATE CREDENTIALS AWARDED PER 100 FTE

Definition: Undergraduate credentials (certificates, associates,

and bachelor's) awarded per 100 full-time equivalent

undergraduates

Source: NCES; IPEDS Completion and Enrollment surveys

MEASURE: STUDENT / FACULTY RATIO

Definition: Number of Students per Faculty Member: Total FTE

students / Total FTE faculty (full-time plus 1/2

part-time)

Source: NCES; IPEDS Enrollment and Fall staff surveys

Assumptions and Definitions (cont.)

MEASURE: INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES PER FTE

Definition: Total instructional salary outlay / total FTE students

Source: NCES; IPEDS Fall Enrollment survey

MEASURE: ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES PER FTE

Definition: The Costs of Running the Institution: (institutional

expenditures + plant operation and maintenance

expenditures) per FTE student

Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance and Enrollment surveys

MEASURE: STUDENT SERVICE EXPENDITURES PER FTE

Definition: The Non-Instructional Costs of Serving Students:

(student services expenditures + academic support

expenditures) per FTE student

Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance and Enrollment surveys

MEASURE: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PER FTEDefinition: Employee benefits for all faculty and staff per FTE

student

Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance and Enrollment surveys

Assumptions and Definitions (cont.)

MEASURE: PERCENTAGE TUITION INCREASE PER STUDENT BY 2025

Definition: Percentage increase in net tuition revenues per FTE

student

Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance and Enrollment surveys

MEASURE: TUITION DISCOUNTING PER FTE

Definition: Non-Need-Based Tuition Discounting: (Gross tuition

revenues minus net tuition revenues per FTE

student) / 2. This assumes that half of the

discounting is based on need

Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance and Enrollment surveys

MEASURE: ANNUAL INCREASE IN STATE AND LOCAL REVENUES

Definition: Percentage increase in state and local revenues

(unrestricted - not restricted for research, agriculture,

etc.)

Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance survey

MEASURE: REDUCTION IN CREDIT HOURS TO DEGREE

Definition: Reduction in the number of credit hours students

earn toward an associates degree at two-year

colleges and a bachelors

Source: NCES; IPEDS Enrollment survey

Carnevale, A.P., & Smith, N. (2010). More than 2 million job vacancies forecast for ne by 2018 … but do our workers have what it

takes to fill them?. New England Journal of Higher Education, Retrieved from http://www.nebhe.org/2010/09/10/more-than-2-million-

job-vacancies-forecast-for-ne-by-2018-but-do-our-workers-have-what-it-takes-to-fill-them/

Harrington, P.E., & Sum, A.M. (2010). College labor shortages in 2018?. New England Journal of Higher Education, Retrieved from

http://www.nebhe.org/2010/11/08/college-labor-shortages-in-2018/

Hoffman, N. (2010). Time to completion: states and systems must tackle the time dilemma. Unpublished manuscript, Time to

completion, Jobs for the Future, Boston, MA.

Jones, S. (2010). Essential steps for states. Informally published manuscript, Complete College America, Washington D.C., Retrieved

from http://www.nebhe.org/wp-content/uploads/Complete-College-America-Central-Steps.pdf

Kearney, M.L., & Yelland, R. (2010). Higher education in a world changed utterly: doing more with less. Unpublished manuscript,

_OECD/IMHE Conference, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. Retrieved from http://

www.nebhe.org/wp-content/uploads/OECD-Doing-more-with-less.pdf

Kelly, P. (2010). Introduction to state student flow guide for california. Unpublished manuscript, National Center for Higher Education

Management Systems, Boulder, CO.

Lumina Foundation, The (2010). Goal 2025 strategic plan. Informally published manuscript, Goal 2025, The Lumina Foundation,

Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://luminafoundation.org/goal_2025/Lumina_Strategic_Plan.pdf

Lumina Foundation, The. (2010). Navigating the new normal. Informally published manuscript, Lumina National Productivity

Conference, The Lumina Foundation, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://www.collegeproductivity.org

Prescott, B. (2010). Promising practices in statewide transfer articulation systems. Informally published manuscript, Policy Analysis

and Research, Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, Boulder, CO.

Reyna, R. (2010). Complete to compete: common college completion metrics. Unpublished manuscript, NGA Center for Best

Practices, National Governors Association, Washington D.C., Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/

1007COMMONCOLLEGEMETRICS.PDF

SHEEO. (2010). The college degree gap. Unpublished raw data, Policy Analysis and Research, State Higher Education Executive

Officers, Boulder, CO.

Works Cited

Policy andResearch45 Temple PlaceBoston, MA 02111

T 617.357.9620F 617.338.1577

http://www.nebhe.org