THE STUDENT SUCCESS AGENDA - myLakeland...
136
THE STUDENT SUCCESS AGENDA Lakeland Community College 2010
Transcript of THE STUDENT SUCCESS AGENDA - myLakeland...
THE STUDENT SUCCESS AGENDALakeland Community College 2010
Student Retention
& Success
DiversifyRevenue Sources
AssessmentAnnual Goals
Learning Center Support Structures
Online courses
Instructional Delivery
Instruction
Institutional Research
Pilot Programs
Student Success
Access & Affordability Quality
Opportunity
Financial Capacity
Strategic Plan
Assessment
&
Placement
Strategic Planning Alignment
Retention AQIP 1.7 Mill
LevyUniversity Center
Facilities Master Plan
1
What We’re Here For…
Student SuccessContextWhat We’re DoingWhat We Need to DoThe Role of the Board
Supplemental Materials: Research Lakeland’s 5-year Strategic Plan Governance Institute for Student Success
2
Common Characteristics
Committed Leadership
Comprehensive / Coordinated Support
Systems
Coordinated Adult & Dev Ed Services
Career Pathways
Collaboration
High Quality Instruction
Use of Metrics / Data-Driven
Decision Making
3
Meeting Committed
eade
rship
port Systems
dinated Adu
ltev Ed Services
eer P
athw
ays
ollabo
ratio
n
‐QualityData‐
n Instruction
ulturalShift
Meeting Date Agenda Item
C L
Supp
Coor
& De
Care Co
High‐
Drive Cu
11/24/2009 03/25/2010 05/27/2010
Strategic Planning X X x
01/31/2008 University System of Ohio Xy y02/28/200901/29/2009
AQIP Update X
01/28/2010 10/29/2009
Trustee Engagement and Leadership Activities X
10/25/2007 Ohio Association of Community Colleges Perspective: Higher Education Strategic Planning
X XPlanning
10/25/2007 Trustee Perspective: Higher Education Strategic Planning X X10/07/2009 Changing Landscapes and New Horizons in Higher Education X X03/31/2010 Learning Center X X05/27/2010 Student Success Center / One‐stop Shop (The Collaborative, Inc.) X X06/06/2010 Promoting Student Success program X Xg p g10/01/2009 Recruitment Report X X X04/02/2009 Library Services X08/27/2009 Summary of Financial Planning X03/31/2010 Veterans’ Affairs X X06/05/2008 Career Services X X10/02/2008 k d & d l l d ff10/02/200810/01/2009
Weekend & Adult Accelerated Programs, Off‐site Locations X X X
02/05/2009 Healthcare Career Pathways Program X X03/27/2008 Fund for our Economic Future X03/27/2008 Ohio Skills Bank X X01/28/2010 Entrepreneurship Center and Academy X X/ / Entrepreneurship Center and Academy X X05/06/2010 Alliance for Working Together X X06/05/2008 Biotechnology Education X X10/30/2008 Accountability Measures and Metrics Report X X
4
What we know about student success, and barriers to success, at the community college.
Putting It Into Context
5
Education Pays
6
Finish High School
Enroll in 2 or 4
year schoolComplete Degree
In the State of Ohio,
For every 100 students who begin ninth grade:
7
26 Exit
74Earn a
HS diploma
Unskilled41%
of jobs by 2020
In the state of Ohio, for every 100 students who begin ninth grade:
Skilled Certificate
13% of jobs by
2020
AssociateDegree 16%
of jobs by 2020
Bachelor’s Degree21%
of jobs by 2020 BA
+ 9
%
226, 517 292,234 379,648Additional needed to meet 2020 demand: 166,501
Earn BA on time
44Enter a 2 year
or 4 year school
30 Exit
10 Attend2 yr school
34Attend4 year school
Earn AS 150% time
26Return for
second year
8 Exit
5 Return5 Exit
14
23
12
Source: Complete College America Ohio Alliance of States, based on institutional reports to US DOE IPEDS8
In the state of Ohio, for every 100 students who begin ninth grade:
• Out of the 60% of Ohio High School students taking the ACT in 2010, 75% did not meet at least one of the benchmarks
• Barriers to enrollment for prepared students who do not enter a 2 or 4 year school
• Cannot navigate support system
• Employed 11+ hours/week• Caring for dependents• Lack of engagement• Lack of family support/
aspiration• Educational attainment-
career disconnect
9
26 Exit
74Earn a
HS diploma
Unskilled41%
of jobs by 2020
In the state of Ohio, for every 100 students who begin ninth grade:
Skilled Certificate
13% of jobs by
2020
AssociateDegree 16%
of jobs by 2020
Bachelor’s Degree21%
of jobs by 2020 BA
+ 9
%
226, 517 292,234 379,648Additional needed to meet 2020 demand: 166,501
Earn BA on time
44Enter a 2 year
or 4 year school
30 Exit
10 Attend2 yr school
34Attend4 year school
Earn AS 150% time
26Return for
second year
8 Exit
5 Return5 Exit
14
23
12
Adult CC
ABLE
10
K-122 or 4 year
schoolDegree
There is more than one path to Lakeland…..
11
Enter/Return to Workforce
Earn Certificate
Transfers from other colleges
Community
Adult Career Centers
K-12
Workforce
CAUTIONMultiple Pathways Transfer
Earn Associate Degree
Community College
12
Who We Serve and Success Rates
4 Year Schools 2 Year Schools 4 Year Schools 2 Year Schools
Lower Percentage of..
Higher Percentage of...
student success rates
student success rates
55%
14%
Public 2 year colleges and Public 4 year colleges in Ohio in 150% of time 13
Different Populations, Different Challenges
Low Socioeconomic Status Rate of starting and persisting for high SES students was 5X the
rate for low SES students.
Student Engagement Low SES and URM students are typically less likely to be engaged
in purposeful activities Students who are not engaged in educationally purposeful
activities during their first year are less likely to enroll for a second year of higher education. Barriers to engagement include working, caring for dependents and not being able to navigate the available college support services.
Remediation Only 17% of high school graduates who require at least one
remedial reading course and 27% who require at least one remedial math course earn a bachelor’s degree, compared to the national bachelor’s degree completion rate of 56%
14
… and do all that stuff with less money.
Funding Issues
15
Methodology:1. Collect Resource Analysis Cost for Each Subject Field-Level of Instruction Combination
2. Adjust the historical Resource Analysis Cost per FTE for costs paid from sources outside of SSI or Student Fees
3. Normalize each of the years cost by inflating the costs to the last available years data using historical CPI-U data. Estimate cost for the funding period using estimated HECA.
4. Collect Subsidy Eligible FTE
5. Calculate the 2-year and 5-year average FTE.
6. Higher Education Funding Commission Priority Weightings for Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine, and Graduate by model.
7. Calculate the Uniform SSI by Campus, Subject Field, and Level of Instruction for both the 2-year and 5-year average FTE.
8. Calculate the Doctoral Set Aside for each institution with doctoral instruction
9. Calculate the NASF POM Protection for each campus.
10. Calculate the Stop Loss for each campus.
11. Calculate the Capital Deduction for Each Institution.
12. Notwithstanding the Calculation provide for sector level appropriations.
Ohio - State Support of Instruction
16
Funding Tied to Performance Success Points
Progressing from development education to college credit bearing coursework (separate points for math and English)
Achieving 15 credit hours
Achieving 30 credit hours
Achieving a degree or certificate
Transfer
17
Funding Tied to Performance
Year Success Points*
2011 5%
2012 7.5%
2013 10%
2014 15%
2015 20%
Success Points Five Year Phase-In
* Percentage of SSI distributed by Success Points
18
Breaking ThroughSSPIRE Initiative
Lumina Foundation’s Time to Completion
Achieving the DreamGovernance Institute for Student Success
Complete College AmericaAccess to SuccessShifting Gears
Workforce Development
Polic
yIn
stitu
tion
Indi
vidu
al
19
Why Now?
< 9th grade9th -12th grade,
no diploma
High school graduate, including equivalency
Some college, no degree
Bachelor’sdegree
AssociateDegree
Graduate orProfessional Degree
Levels of EducationState of Ohio
U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 Community Survey
IncreaseNeeded
EducationalAttainment
226,517 Less than associate degree
292, 234 Associate degree
379,648 Bachelor’s degree
166,501 Graduate orProfessional Degree
By 2020, Ohio will need an additional 1,064,900 college educated workers
20
Common Characteristics
Committed Leadership
Comprehensive / Coordinated Support
Systems
Coordinated Adult & Dev Ed Services
Career Pathways
Collaboration
High Quality Instruction
Use of Metrics / Data-Driven
Decision Making
21
A snapshot of Lakeland’s efforts toward addressing the needs of community college students; programs and services for all populations and specific populations
Student Success at Lakeland to Date
22
Across All Populations: Faculty-InitiatedContent and Delivery Modifications Coordinated classes between English 0221 and Psych 1500 using the
Psychology textbook to help students in a reading-intensive course. Many faculty use Blackboard as on-line assistance in face-to-face courses to
post supplemental learning materials on-line, such as PowerPoint notes, video clips, audio files, screen casting, reading assignments, YouTube...etc.
Some faculty members encourage and facilitate peer learning groups (learning community) to study together for exams and to work on projects, hence, to develop camaraderie and support systems that enhance retention and academic success.
“Peer Inspired Learning” provides peer tutoring and supplemental instruction in Introduction to Sociology classes
Biotechnology Department modularized the Skills Lab course into 4 one-credit hour courses to provide flexibility and incremental learning for students and to meet the industry needs.
Using Perkins Funds to offer on-line review courses for Med Lab, Respiratory, Medical Assistant, Dental Hygiene, and Radiologic Tech, so students are prepared for registry/certification exams.
23
Across All Populations: Faculty-InitiatedContent and Delivery Modifications Developed Health Career Pathways to guide students moving up the career
ladder one level at a time. The Open-Source College Algebra and Trigonometry textbooks
co-authored by Dr. Carl Stitz helps reduce textbook costs. The textbooks include many links to supplemental YouTube videos to help students learn the materials.
Self-paced developmental math redesign course helps students complete the developmental math sequence in an accelerated format successfully.
Developmental ITIS 0800 (Computer Skill Development) course was designed to assist students to succeed in subsequent IT courses, including the required ITIS 1005.
To reinforce basic and soft skills requirements for success in college and in the workplace, several courses were developed:
PARL 2700 - Legal Workplace Success Strategies ITIS 1006 - Soft Skills in the Information Technology Workplace
English 1111- one development education credit embedded into the course
24
Across All Populations: Career Pathways
Key Elements of Career Pathways*: Data driven Employers shape the design Serves full spectrum of workers Based on partnerships Integrates many funding streams Process philosophy, not program philosophy
Career pathway curricula on campus include: Healthcare, Manufacturing/AWT partnership, Criminal Justice, FirstEnergy program
* “Key Elements of Healthcare Career Pathways,” Division of Science and Health Technologies, 2010 25
Across All Populations: Healthcare Career Pathways
FISCAL YEARPARTICIPANTS
ENROLLEDIN CLASSES
PARTICIPANTSNOT ENROLLED
IN CLASSES*
2006 100
2007 210 8
2008 194 98
2009 134 135
2010 212 98
2011 68 19
* Not enrolled typically reflects outreach to prospective LPN students at Willoughby-Eastlake and Auburn
26
Across All Populations: Certificate Completion
Lakeland currently offers nearly 50 certificate opportunities. These include, but are not limited to: Basic Police Academy Certified Financial Planner Pharmacy TechWelding Early Childhood Educator Variety of Mental Health certificates
In the last year, 155 credit certificates have been awarded Over 1,400 non-credit certificates have been awarded
27
Across All Populations: Support Services and Interventions
Financial Aid Intervention program - moving from voluntary to mandatory Spring 2011
Nearly 1,000 students are on academic probation for the first time at the end of each fall semester, which threatens their ability to receive aid
Components of orientation will be embedded into the Compass Placement Testing for all students beginning this semester
28
Specific Populations
PATHFINDERS(2008)
FIRST RUNG(2009)
GATEWAY(2009)
TargetPopulation African American Men GED-seeking Students
Male first-time college students age 25+
ProgramSpeaker series, ten meetings a semester
College success course integrated into GED
preparation
“Test drive” a college course
Enrollment100 men since 2008 80 individuals 44 since 2009
Retention 75% return for a second semester
85% who completed earned their GED
60% return for a second semester
Funding PNC Bank, Karl Bernal Scholarship Fund
$15,000 literacy grant PNC Bank
Men’s Center Programs
29
Specific Populations
S.M.A.R.T.(2006)
W.I.S.E.(2009)
W.I.L.L.(2007)
TargetPopulation
Single MothersWomen in Science &
EngineeringWomen in transition returning to school
ProgramLearning cohort Learning cohort
Learning cohort with support group
Enrollment 112 women 10 women 53 women
Retention 61 currently enrolled, 8 transferred,
18 stopped in good standing,
4 graduated
All women still enrolled (started fall 2009)
34 still enrolled2 graduates
FundingPNC Bank
2 year grant from AAUW $10,000
PNC Bank
Women’s Center Programs
30
Lakeland Tomorrow
31
The Argument for Data
“Without evidence,innovation is just another word for fad.”
Bill Gates, 2008Bill and Melinda Gates Education Forum
“Data are useful only when they are transformed into actionable information that people are able to
access, understand, and use.”www.dataqualitycampaign.org
32
COMMITTED LEADERSHIP
Aligned Data Collection
Efforts
Fully Funded Programs
Career Pathways
Collaborative Efforts
High Quality, Data-Driven Instruction
Comprehensive & Coordinated
Support Services
AlignedP-16 System
Coordinated Adult & Dev Ed Services
Indi
vidu
alIn
stitu
tion
Polic
y
Degree orCertificateAttainment
Under-prepared Student
Prepared Student
33
Collaboration
Career Pathways
Coordinated Adult & Dev Ed
Services
CollaborationCareer
Pathways
High-Quality, Data-Driven Instruction
Comprehensive & Coordinated
Support Systems
34
How Do We Increase Student Success?
Committed Leadership
Comprehensive / Coordinated Support
Systems
Coordinated Adult & Dev Ed Services
Career Pathways
Collaboration
High Quality Instruction
Use of Metrics / Data-Driven
Decision Making
35
Strategic Plan Alignment AQIP AlignmentCommitted Leadership and
Informed Planning4.5 Improve Internal communication of college’s strategic priorities
Category 5: Leading and CommunicatingCategories 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9
Comprehensive and Coordinated Support
Systems
1.1 Continuously updated orientation1.2 Appropriate place, advising and faculty mentoring1.3 Maintain successful practices and adapt best practices1.4 Modify and expand cohort based learning2.2 Improve the efficiency of resources2.4 Reduce barriers for enrollment of un-served and underserved populations2.6 Increase access to and available funds from the Lakeland Foundation
Category 3: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs
Category 6:Supporting Institutional Operations
Coordinated Adult and Developmental Education
Services
1.5 Improve developmental education2.2 Improve the efficiency of resources2.4 Reduce barriers for enrollment of un-served and underserved populations
Category 3: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs
Career Pathways4.3 Develop programs in response to societal, business and industry needs5.2 Partner with business and industry
Category 2: Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives
Category 3: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs
Maximize Effectiveness through Collaboration
2.4 Reduce barriers for enrollment of un-served and underserved populations2.6 Increase access to and available funds from the Lakeland Foundation3.2 Increase private foundation and public support3.3 Increase private donors’ support of our mission3.4 Identify and pursue grant opportunities5.1 Partner with four year colleges5.2 Partner with business and industry5.4 Increase arts and cultural enrichment programming
Category 2: Accomplishing Other Distinctive Objectives
Category 3: Understanding Students’ and Other Stakeholders’ Needs
Category 9: Building Collaborative Relationships
High-Quality, Data-Driven Instructional
Methods
1.3 Maintain successful practices and adapt best practices1.4 Modify and expand cohort based learning1.5 Improve developmental education2.3 Increase the number of students served through alternative delivery systems4.1 Develop assessment strategies of learning outcomes4.2 Develop formalized continuous improvement process4.3 Develop programs in response to societal, business and industry needs4.4 Promote professional development opportunities4.6 Ensure technology and curriculum are up to date5.3 Prepare students for the demands and challenges for today’s globalized economy
Category 1: Helping Students LearnCategory 4: Valuing People
AQIP C
ategory 7: Measuring Effectiveness is a thread that ties each of these areas together
36
Making Progress Toward Increasing Student Success
Now that we know what we know, what are we going to do with it?
Colleges that are making progress demonstrate common practices…
Drawing upon our experiences, we need to look at what works for our students based on our existing practices as well as national benchmarks How do we take it to scale?
37
Increasing Success:
Colleges that are making progress: Are led by a board that is committed
to improving student learning, equity and success
Have leaders who made an explicit policy commitment to close achievement gaps in student outcomes
Foster a climate in which courageous conversations are held about student learning, equity and success
Develop strategic communication plans and inform stakeholders about data, plans, progress and concerns.
Lakeland can… Make student success the focus
of our work. Clearly define student success
goals and outcome measures Communicate the student success
agenda and the importance of metrics in planning and evaluation
Committed LeadershipIncreasing Success:
Best Practices:
38
Colleges that are making progress:
Integrate the student success agenda with other major initiatives (e.g., accreditation and planning)
Retain a relentless focus on institutional transformation to improved student equity and access
Offer early and continuous advising and counseling
Lakeland can… Create a model for coordinating the support
systems Integrate support services and academics to
reduce barriers and improve efficiency Indentify links among different initiatives and
align performance indicators Improve assessment, placement, and curricular
alignment among developmental education, credit courses, and relevant career paths
Use data to determine programming needs Coordinate support services and encourage
work across disciplines Encourage collaboration across the institution
on improvement efforts (e.g. curricular and assessment alignment, success interventions, contextual learning, and acceleration in developmental courses)
Comprehensive and Coordinated Support SystemsIncreasing Success:
Best Practices:
39
Colleges that are making progress:
Align developmental education and gateway competencies
Link student success courses with developmental education
Mandate assessment and placement
Lakeland can… Evaluate and transform
developmental education delivery to increase student success.
Expanded partnerships with local ABLE programs to align curriculum
Explore alternate delivery models and evaluate current statistics to establish success goals
Highly coordinate developmental education
Align developmental and college-level courses and assessments
Promote collaboration between, and provide professional development for, developmental and credit faculty (including adjunct faculty)
Increasing Success: Coordinated Adult & Developmental Education
Best Practices:
40
Colleges that are making progress:
Offer contextualizeddevelopmental education
Ensure that college support services and developmental education are comprehensive, high quality, and highly integrated with academic and career programs
Lakeland can… Develop and promote clear
career pathways Continue to develop
partnerships with other institutions to increase the number of opportunities for students who use Lakeland as their entry point for higher education
Reduce time and accelerate success by reducing unnecessary course taking, require students to have graduation plans and declare majors early
Increasing Success: Career PathwaysBest Practices:
41
Colleges that are making progress: Strive to break down silos and
foster collaboration in the work
Develop a shared vision for success through collaboration with multiple stakeholders
Build understanding of student success issues and create coalitions focuses on improving college and career preparedness.
Lakeland can… Make student success
everyone’s responsibility Build understanding of student
success issues and create coalitions (e.g., public schools, community organizations, area businesses) focused on improving college and career preparedness
Develop shared vision for student success through collaboration with multiple stakeholders
Increasing Success: CollaborationBest Practices:
42
Colleges that are making progress:
Empower faculty to provide leadership and meet regularly to:
Discuss achievement gaps
Implement strategies
Examine program outcomes
Refine their work
Lakeland can… Demand continuous improvement in student outcomes
supported by data Develop performance indicators, and regularly report
progress on outcomes (e.g., course completion, retention, persistence, and attainment rates) and closing achievement gaps
Insist that divisions/departments use data to improve practice (e.g., curricular alignment, assessment/placement, advising)
Insist on a comprehensive, ongoing evaluation of student outcomes and program impacts
Evaluate the success of intervention strategies Ensure that instructional practice targets the academic,
technical and affective needs of students with different learning styles
Create a strategic professional development plan for all employees (including adjuncts) that focuses on student learning and improvement. Allocate funds, time and incentives. Incorporate participation into employee evaluation.
Provide professional development (board, faculty, staff) on interpreting and using student learning and outcome data to improve practice and pedagogy
Increasing Success: High-Quality Instruction
Best Practices:
43
Colleges that are making progress: Share / present data in user-
and level-friendly formats Are serious about using evidence
to identify a limited number of priorities, goals and intervention strategies
Conduct thorough reviews of current programs for under-prepared students to determine student success rates
Stop ineffective initiatives Take effective strategies to scale
Lakeland can… Demand continuous
improvement supported by data to set direction of the college
Recommend funding based upon evidence of effectiveness in order to take promising innovations to scale
Integrate the student success agenda with strategic and quality improvement plans (AQIP)
Reproduced with permission from GISS presentation, Dublin Ohio, 2010.
Data-Driven Decision MakingIncreasing Success:
Best Practices:
44
Limitations
45
One Way to Increase Student Success
A 4.1% annual increase in degree and certificate production is needed in the state of Ohio to meet the 60% CCA goal by 2020
*degrees and certificates awarded by LCC Spring 2010
43
43 43
43 43 43
43 43 43 43
43 43 43 43 43
43 43 43 43 43 43
43 43 43 43 43 43 43
43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43
1,060 1,103 1,146 1,189 1,232 1,275 1,318 1,361 1,404 1,447 1,490
*Current Production
( Spring 2010)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total Annual Degrees/ Certificates
Additional Annual Degrees/ Certificates
46
Increasing Enrollment Alone Is Not The Answer
388
388 388
388 388 388
388 388 388 388
388 388 388 388 388
388 388 388 388 388 388
388 388 388 388 388 388 388
388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388
388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388
388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388
388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388 388
9,452 9,840 10,228 10,616 11,004 11,392 11,780 12,168 12,556 12,944 13,332 13,720
Fall 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Total Students
Additional Annual Student Increase
47
Enrollment and Degree Completion Increase by 4.1%
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Degrees AwardedEnrollment
48
The Role of the Board of Trustees
49
The Role of the Board
Own & operate a college Purchase/lease/sell & construct real and personal
property Employ president, other administrators, faculty Purchase insurance Prescribe policies for the effective operation of the
state community college, and Exercise such other powers as are necessary for the
efficient management of the college….
“Ohio Community Colleges: Board Authority And Trustee Responsibilities” – The Ohio Attorney General’s Office50
Other Duties As Assigned
Establish annual goals and priorities Insist on the use of data Ask questions Advocate for and promote the mission of the
college in the community
51
Student Retention
& Success
DiversifyRevenue Sources
AssessmentAnnual Goals
Learning Center Support Structures
Online courses
Instructional Delivery
Instruction
Institutional Research
Pilot Programs
Student Success
Access & Affordability Quality
Opportunity
Financial Capacity
Strategic Plan
Assessment
&
Placement
Strategic Planning Alignment
Retention AQIP 1.7 Mill
LevyUniversity Center
Facilities Master Plan
52
Questions?
53
Supporting Documentation
54
National Initiatives
The following pages reflect initiatives to which the state of Ohio has made some varying level of commitment
Categories: Overall Completion Community College Workforce Development Transition / College Readiness
55
Overall CompletionInitiative Online Resources Application to LCC
Ove
rall
Com
plet
ion
Ohio Strategic Plan for Higher EducationThe plan promises to raise the overall educational attainment of the state of Ohio.http://www.uso.edu/strategicplan/downloads/documents/strategicPlan/USOStrategicPlan.pdf
http://www.uso.edu/strategicplan/downloads/documents/strategicPlan/StrategicPlanUpdate_overview_WEB.pdf
Adult learners will represent the biggest portion of enrollment growth. In 2017, they will make up one half of the total enrollment in the state of Ohio
Complete College Americahttp://www.completecollege.org/
State report with statistics on current completion by type of institution
Shows LCC graduation rate as 8% (IPEDS 2007-2008 data)Sets the goal for 60% of Ohioans ages 25-34 to have a college degree by 2020
Access to SuccessThe Access to Success Initiative (A2S), a projectof the National Association of System Heads andThe Education Trust, works with 24 public highereducation systems that have pledged to cut thecollege-going and graduation gaps for low-income and minority students in half by 2015(The Education Trust). Includes: EducationDelivery Institute, Win-Win, and MathDevelopmental Education Redesign.http://www.edtrust.org/issues/higher-education/access-to-success
College results.com - LCC not included
2005 – 42% of entering associate degree freshmen were Pell grant recipients, as compared to 24% for bachelor degree seeking students.Associate degree seeking success rates compared by income and underrepresented minorities for Ohio. Demonstrates lower rates of success for low income and URM students when compared to peers and lower when compared to bachelor degree seeking peers.
56
Community CollegeInitiative Online Resources Application to LCC
Com
mun
ity C
olle
ge
Achieving the DreamAchieving the Dream is a multiyear national initiative to help more community college students succeed.http://www.achievingthedream.org/
National and State data related to Community colleges“Promising Practices” research in developmental education, degree completion, and accelerated learning
http://www.achievingthedream.org/CAMPUSSTRATEGIES/GUIDES/default.tpAchieving the Dream has compiled a set of guides for implementing student success programs at community colleges based on “best practice data”
Governance Institute for Student SuccessA national initiative to provide a governance model for community colleges that will lead to increased student success (ACCT and the CCLP). Ohio is the first state to participate in this project.http://www.governance-institute.org/
Currently there are not resources available on-line
Policies, strategies, and benchmarks have been identified for community colleges to implement in order to increase student success. Suggestions are a result of ongoing research from the University of Texas and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Four areas of focus: committed leadership, use of evidence, broad engagement, systemic improvement
Breaking ThroughBreaking Through, a multiyear demonstration project, promotes and strengthens the efforts of innovative community colleges across the country to help low-literacy adults prepare for and succeed in occupational and technical degree programs. (JFF)http://www.breakingthroughcc.org/
Case studies of student success programs with description of evaluation methodology - source for promising practices
Career pathways and contextualized adult and developmental education programs are explored. Successes in alternate delivery for developmental education programs are discussed in detail. Models for comprehensive and coordinated support services are provided.http://www.breakingthroughcc.org/BTBetterTogether.pdf
57
Workforce DevelopmentInitiative Online Resources Application to LCC
Wor
kfor
ce D
evel
opm
ent
Ohio Workforce CoalitionDeveloping a stronger workforce through training and education (Community Research Partners)http://ohioworkforcecoalition.org/
Papers, briefs, and analyses of issues important to coalition stakeholders
Suggestions for developing training and educational and career pathways connected to the needs of business and industry
Shifting Gears Workforce DevelopmentOhio and five other states are re-engineering adult education, workforce development and postsecondary education policies to support economic growth and expand job opportunities for low-skilled workers in the Midwest. (The Joyce Foundation)http://www.shifting-gears.org/
Policy reports and suggested reforms for linking careers to education
http://www.communitycollegecentral.org/Downloads/Developmental_Education_TOOLKIT.pdfA suggested toolkit for modifying developmental education delivery to increase student success.List common components of EFFECTIVE developmental education programs.
58
Transition / College ReadinessInitiative Online Resources Application to LCC
Tran
sitio
n /
Colle
ge R
eadi
ness
Developmental Education InitiativeThe Developmental Education Initiative is a three-year effort begun in 2009 to identify and develop programs that increase the number of community college students who complete preparatory classes and successfully move on to college-level studies. (Achieving the Dream)www.deionline.org/
Only available to those who are registered
Access would allow the college the opportunity to examine what practices are working and what challenges are being faced at other institutions.
59
Additional National Initiatives
The preceding pages reflect initiatives to which the state of Ohio has made some varying level of commitment.
There are additional efforts which have resulted in action plans, suggested policy changes and recommendations for systematic improvements to increase college completion, as follows.
A number of these projects provide useful data and serve as additional resources for examining promising practices related to student success.
60
Initiative Online Resources Application to LCCLumina’s Strategic PlanTo increase the proportion of Americans with high-quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by the year 2025 www.luminafoundation.org/goal_2025/Lumina_Strategic_Plan.pdf
The strategic plan offers policy changes to accelerate and increase degree attainment
The plan recommends “redesign, rebranding and improvement of developmental education” and calls for the use of data in improving student success
College Board A data driven set of suggestions for increasing college completion. Includes state data for benchmarking current status against the suggested policies and procedures.completionagenda.collegeboard.org/
State data k-12, two-year and four-year institutions.Description of ten recommendations for every state to increase college completion
Ten recommendations for increasing college completion, which include: align K-12 education system with international standards and college admission expectations (P-16), dramatically increase college completion rates (student success/ retention team),and provide postsecondary opportunities as an essential element of adult education programs (partnering with ABLE). For each recommendation there are suggested action steps organized by cost and time needed for implementation.
Southern Regional Education BoardAmerica’s first interstate compact for education. The SREB has also drafted a plan for increasing the number of degrees awarded.publications.sreb.org/2010/10E10_No_Time_to_Waste.pdf
Programs, models, policy papers, and research, all regarding advancing student success
Suggestions for state policies that could improve student success and/or degree attainment. Discussion of productivity as it relates to limiting number of hours needed to complete a degree may be of interest when examining increased efficiencies in delivery at LCC.
Time to Completion - Lumina FoundationThis is designed to help postsecondary education leaders learn more about the research on time to completion, what states, systems, and institutions are already doing to address this problem, and the innovative approaches that are being explored. www.collegeproductivity.org/page/projects/time-completion-ttc
Set of suggested policies for the institutional, state and federal level to accelerate degree completion
Research and reports organized by accelerating developmental education, reviewing program requirements and overall policy.
This site contains the most comprehensive collection of reports on student success initiatives.
In addition, there is a focus on the adult learner and barriers to persistence. Suggestions for improving developmental education offerings, accelerated instruction, and student engagement.
Overall Completion
61
Community CollegeInitiative Online Resources Application to LCC
SSPIRE InitiativeCommunity college success initiative in California exploring the impact of comprehensive student support services on retention. (James Irvin Foundation)www.irvine.org/evaluation/program-evaluations/sspire-initiative
Description of promising practices from three year study; includes number of students served and increase in success
Key Findings: “While faculty and counseling staff are the key student contacts, the evaluation showed the importance of having a strong program coordinator to bring everything together, and leadership from a dean or vice president to establish integration as a priority for the college.” [retention/ success team]
“By collecting and analyzing data throughout the initiative, program leaders were able to make timely program improvements, address midcourse corrections and make the case for institutionalizing SSPIRE innovations.”
62
Transition / College Readiness
Initiative Online Resources Application to LCC
Pathways to College NetworkAn alliance of national organizations that advances college opportunity for underserved students by raising public awareness, supporting innovative research, and promoting evidence-based policies and practices across the K-12 and higher education sectors.www.pathwaystocollege.net/
Numerous links to other sites using data to benchmark state progress in student success and access k-16
toolbox.pathwaystocollege.net/Provides a framework for creating a college readiness culture for all students. Calls for collaboration, use of data, and academic and social support. (P-16)
63
Additional Findings
Currently, 36 percent of Ohio’s adults aged 25-34 have a college degree. It is the state’s goal to increase this level to 60 percent by the year 2020. In order to achieve this, Ohio needs to award an additional 4,396 degrees or certificates per year (CCA: Goal Setting: Translating National Targets to Ohio).
By 2018, 57 percent of the jobs in Ohio will require postsecondary education. According to an analysis by the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, between now and 2018, Ohio will need to fill more than 1.7 million vacancies as a result of job creation, retirements or other causes. Of these jobs, 967,000 will require an education beyond high school, and only 742,000 can be expected to be filled by people with a high school credential or less.
Currently, more than 1.3 million Ohioans have completed some college without earning a degree. This accounts for 22 percent of the state’s population over the age of twenty-five (A Stronger Nation Through Higher Education, The Lumina Foundation). Finding a way to re-engage these non-traditional students could have a significant impact on moving Ohio closer to its degree attainment goal. The Win-Win initiative through Access to Success attempts to capitalize on this opportunity.
Growing the number of degrees and certificates earned is both a matter of enrolling more students and increasing the persistence rates for students who are already enrolled. Recent studies have illustrated a notable difference in the success rates of four-year colleges and the success rates of community colleges.
64
Barriers to Student SuccessWhy Research
Come to the
institutionsUnder-
prepared
• In 2008, 34 percent of all new entering college students required at least one remedial (developmental) educational course. For community college students, 43 percent required some remediation. This is an increase from 29 percent of community college students requiring remediation in 2003 (US Department of Education 2009).
• Out of the 60 percent of Ohio High School students taking the ACT in 2010, 75 percent of the participants did not meet at least one of the benchmarks; 28 percent met none of the four benchmarks (English, Math, Science, and Reading). 30 percent of white, 11 percent of Hispanic, and 4 percent of African American students taking the ACT met all four benchmarks in the state of Ohio (ACT 2010).
• Lowest SES quartile students are consistently underrepresented in the upper two quartiles in all academic ability areas tested. On the ACT And SAT, low-SES students are consistently below their top SES-quartile peers by a margin of 22 to 26 points. Lowest SES quartile students are more than twice as likely to enroll at a less than four year institution (Terenzini, P., Swimming Against the Tide: The Poor in American Higher Education).
• In the fall of 2008, 39 percent of the first time students at Ohio’s public two- and four-year higher learning institutions were enrolled in either developmental math or English. 32 percent were taking math only, 19 percent were registered for English only and 12 percent were enrolled in both developmental math and developmental English (Ohio Board of Regents: regents.ohio.gov/perfrpt/hs_2008/hs_trans_HS_rpt_AU08.pdf).
• Only 17 percent of high school graduates who require at least one remedial reading course and 27 percent who require at least one remedial math course earn a bachelor’s degree, compared to the national bachelor’s degree completion rate of 56 percent (Getting Past Go: www.gettingpastgo.org/docs/GPGpaper.pdf).
• The most powerful independent predictor of completing a BA is the rigor of high school courses (Department of Ed, 1999). For both high and low SES students, college attendance is related to achievement in high school. The higher the level of achievement in high school, the better the chance the student will attend college, whether from a background of wealth or poverty (College Board, College Keys Compact, 2010). 65
Barriers to Student Success
Why Research
Cannot Navigatethe support services
available on the college campus
due to a lack of familiarity with the higher educational
system.
• Less than half of low SES high school students report receiving help from an adult in preparing for college. They lack the social network that provides the framework for navigating support services within the institution (Ad Council, College Access: Results from a survey of low income teens and parents, 2006).
• Low SES students are less likely to have supportive peer, family and schooling networks during the college preparation process. (McDonough, P., Choosing Colleges: How Social Class and schools structure opportunity, 1997)
• Low SES and minority students are met with unfamiliar cultural norms upon entering the collegiate environment; they lack “cultural capital” (Green, D., Historically Underserved Students: What we know, what we still need to know, 2006).
66
Why Research
Barriers to Persistenceare reported
more frequently by
at risk learners.*
Students who are not engaged in educationally purposeful activities during their first year are less likely to enroll for a secondyear of higher education. (Purposeful activities include: asking questions in class, making a presentation in class, preparingmultiple drafts of an assignment, working with other students, using email to interact with an instructor, using an electronicmedium to discuss an assignment.) Less prepared students, minority students, and students from the lower SES quartilesare less likely to become engaged in educationally purposeful activities (Kuh, G. and Cruce, T. M., Unmasking the effects ofstudent engagement and first year grades and persistence, 2008).
In 2008, 67 percent of the CCSSE respondents (Community College Survey of Student Engagement) reported spending 10 orfewer hours preparing for class, while only 12 percent reported spending 21 or more hours preparing for class.In the same survey, when community college students were asked how likely is it that the following issues would cause youto withdraw from class or from college:• 45 percent of the students responded it would be likely or very likely due to lack of finances,• 38 percent responded it would be likely or very likely due to working full time, and• 29 percent responded it would be likely or very likely due to caring for dependents.
Also of note:• 33 percent of community college students spend 11 or more hours a week caring for dependents• 56 percent of community college students spend 20 or more hours a week working at a job• 64 percent of community college students are enrolled part time (CCSSE, High Expectations, High Support, 2008)
The rate of starting and persisting for high SES students was five times the rate for low SES students. When compared to highSES students, low SES students are more likely to work off campus (48 percent versus 19 percent). In addition, low SESstudents are more likely to work longer hours. 13 percent of low SES students as opposed to three percent of high SESstudents work 30 or more hours per week off campus. In addition, student engagement is shown to correlate withsocioeconomic status. The lower the socioeconomic status of the student, the lower the level of engagement (Terenzini, P.,Swimming Against the Tide: The Poor in American Higher Education, 2001).
*At risk learners are those students who display one or more of the following characteristics: families in the lowest socioeconomic quartile, from a single parent home, low high school grade point average, held back a grade, first generation college student.
Barriers to Student Success
67
Why Research
Some students never attempt
education beyond high
school due toBarriers to Enrollment
• The FAFSA takes an average of 10 hours to complete; the complexity disproportionately affects low income families (Dynarski, S. and Scott-Clayton, J., College grants on a postcard: A proposal for simple and predictable federal student aid, 2007).
• Families of low-income, college-qualified high school graduates face annual unmet need of $3,800 college expenses not covered by student aid, including work-study and loans. The shortage requires families to cover $7,500 (two thirds of college expenses at public four-year colleges and one third of family income), through work and borrowing. These financial barriers prevent 48 percent of college qualified, low income high school graduates from attending four-year college, and 22 percent from attending any college at all, within two years of graduation (Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Empty Promises: the myth of college access in America., 2002).
• Students can view themselves as “college material” as early as the seventh grade. Lack of aspiration, confidence and an inaccurate understanding of the costs and expectations of college can keep a student from enrolling (Ad Council, College Access: Results from a survey of low-income teens and parents).
• For non-traditional students, or underprepared adults, the time commitment and delivery method may prevent working adults from enrolling in post-secondary educational opportunities (Breaking Through, Better Together, Realigning Pre-College Skills Development Programs to Achieve Greater Academic Success for Adult Learners).
Barriers to Student Success
68
Barriers to Student SuccessWhy Research
Educational Attainment and
Career Disconnect
• As of 2008, secondary school counselors reported spending only 29 percent of their time on postsecondary admissions counseling (22 percent when looking only at public secondary school counselors) (College Board, The College Completion Agenda 2010).
• Students are more likely to talk to a high school teacher about college or career planning than their counselor. Few high school teachers have a high awareness of career technical education and the careers that require a skilled certificate as opposed to a two- or four-year degree (College Board, The College Completion Agenda 2010).
• A survey of high school teachers found that about one third of them believe their students could go to a four year college. The same survey found 71 percent of secondary school students sought to attend a four-year college while only 8 percent planned for a two-year community college (Metlife survey of the American Teacher 2000: Are we preparing students for the 21st Century?).
• Less that 35 percent of the low-SES parents believe that their children should start to think about college before the eighth grade (Ad Council, College Access: Results from a survey of low-income teens and parents.)
69
What does research suggest we do to address these challenges?How do we know?
Committed Leadership &
Informed Planning
• Intentional strategies are needed to address the needs of at risk learners (College Board, College Keys Compact).
• Metrics are needed to measure and benchmark success to set direction and policy - use of data is a key component of the Governance Institute for Student Success.
Comprehensive and Coordinated Support Systems
• Enhanced student services, including academic guidance and counseling, academic support, career counseling and supplemental services, have proven effective in increasing community college student success (Purnell, R., Support Success: Services That May Help Low-Income Students Succeed in Community College, 2004)
• While faculty and counseling staff are the key student contacts, the evaluation of impactful student success programs showed the importance of having a strong program coordinator to bring everything together, and leadership from a dean or vice president to establish integration as a priority for the college (SSPIRE Initiative).
Coordinated Adult &
Developmental Education Services
• 9.5 percent of the adults in the state of Ohio have less than a high school diploma (US Census Bureau, 2010).
• Low-skilled adults have proven more likely to persist from GED programs to skilled certificates and associate degrees and beyond when the adult education program has been contextualized, linked to a career path, and/or housed on a community college campus (The Breaking Through Practice Guide, 2010).
• Embed developmental education. (www.completecollege.org)
Career Pathways
• In order to reach the college attainment goal, the state will have to engage adult learners who are already in the workplace. Twenty-two percent of the adult population has some college, without a degree in the state of Ohio.
• Using labor market pay offs, credit for previous learning, stackable certificates, accelerated instructional delivery, outcome based instruction, and industry partnerships have proven successful at other community colleges. The development of career and educational pathways has been specific to the job growth in the area of the college (The Breaking Through Practice Guide, 2010).
• In addition, lowest SES quartile who have some college experience without a degree are one and a half times more likely to be unemployed 12 years after first enrolling in a higher education institution (Swimming Against the Tide: The Poor in American Higher Education). 70
What does research suggest we do to address these challenges? (continued)
How do we know?
Maximize Effectiveness
through Collaboration
• Moderate to high-risk youth whose parents frequently discussed school-related matters with them in high school had much higher odds of both 4 year college enrollment and enrollment in any postsecondary education, compared with their peers whose parents had no discussions with them. Moderate to high risk students who reported participating in college outreach programs increased their odds of enrolling in a 4 year college nearly two-fold. The odds of attending a 4 year college are six times as high if all or most of a student’s friends plan to attend college than if none of that student’s friends plan to attend (Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Horn, L. and Chen,X., Toward Resiliency: At-Risk Students Who Make It to College, 2000).
• The biggest break in the education pipeline is in high school; the greatest predictor or success in college is the rigor of high school preparation –this makes the argument for stronger p-16 collaborations (An Analysis of Barriers to College Access and Completion, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation).
High-Quality, Data-Driven Instructional
Methods
• Use of evidence at all levels - instructional to strategic planning for the institution is a key component of the Governance Institute for Student Success.
• Engagement in educationally purposeful activities can be “mandated” through instructional delivery methods.Project based learning that requires working in teams of individuals, oral presentations, and required ongoingpersonal communication with the instructor all increase student engagement (Kuh, G. and Cruce, T.M.,Unmasking the effects of student engagement and first year grades and persistence, 2008).
• Alternate delivery methods can increase student success and have other beneficial impacts. One study inFlorida found that credit hours taken in excess of graduation requirements cost the state $62 million a year. Astudy of Iowa community college students found that accelerated options saved families the equivalent of $30.7million in future college-related expenses. (www.completecollege.org) Designing clear paths for students tocomplete degree programs is a necessity.
Cultural Shift
• The use of data, working across divisions, and partnering with stakeholders will result in and demand a cultural shift that breaks down silos. All levels of education must view themselves as equally responsible for the success of all of our students.
71
Lakeland has begun to assess the extent to which student success initiatives are being implemented at the institution. In addition, the college has begun to identify other opportunities for improved student success.
These practices include:
leadership committed to student success
comprehensive and coordinated support systems
coordinated adult and developmental education services,
career pathways,
collaborations,
high quality instruction
The following inventory reflects only the initial framework for this assessment. This assessment will continue as the statewide initiatives are further implemented. Additional opportunities will be identified to improve student success in alignment with the direction being set by the state. This list does not represent a comprehensive examination of the work currently underway, or yet to be done, by the college.
Lakeland’s Student Success Inventory
72
Currently Engaged Early Implementation Opportunity
Committed Leadership
• LCC Strategic Plan with student success focus
• AQIP Process with student success focus
• Communicate the student success agenda and the importance of metrics in planning and evaluation
Ensure that mission, values, policies, practices and budget decisions reflect a focus on student success
Ensure that developmental education is a clearly stated institutional priority, and funding is adequate to support it.
Focus on strategic directions and long term impacts Support promising change initiatives with funding
recommendations. Present plans for board approval that identify the expected impact of improvement efforts
Board routinely considers equity goals when making strategic and funding decisions and monitors progress on student outcomes
Communicate with college and community about cultural sensitivity and competence
Implement employment and training practices that demonstrate a value for diversity
Use data and stakeholder conversations to inform planning, goal setting, outcome measures, and budget decisions
Focus on student success, including developmental education, in planning, accreditation, and budgeting
Integrate the student success agenda with strategic and quality improvement plans (AQIP)
Recommend resources to support promising student success initiatives
Share broadly and publicly report on progress and performance indicators
Routinely request and discuss data on student performance and learning outcomes. Identify gaps and discuss policy implications and impact.
Review and discuss disaggregated developmental education data, as well as reports of surveys and focus groups, to make strategic and budget decisions.
Clearly define student success goals and outcome measures, align with success points in community college funding
Approve funding based upon evidence of effectiveness in order to take promising innovations to scale
GISS 1- Committed Leadershipo GISS 2- Use of Evidence GISS 3- Broad Engagement GISS 4- Systemic Improvement
Complete College America Policy 73
Currently Engaged Early Implementation Opportunity
Comprehensive and
Coordinated Support Systems
• Cohorts• Faculty• Tutoring• Counseling• Student Activities• Orientation (voluntary)• Career Services• Athletics• Financial Aid• Admissions• Staff Promote cultural sensitivity
and equity for all students/employees, and ensure that goals address gaps for different sub groups (e.g., low income students and students of color).
Examine current policies and practices for barriers to student learning and success
• Mandatory assessment• Student Success team• Assessment and Placement team• Identify goals, identify benchmarks and collect data to
ensure high quality student support services.• Evaluate student needs to evaluate whether current
offerings are comprehensive Encourage collaboration across the institution on
improvement efforts (e.g. curricular and assessment alignment, success interventions, contextual learning, and acceleration in developmental courses).
Involve adjunct faculty in conversations and improvement efforts
Monitor changes to academic and support services designed to reduce barriers and determine their impact on student success
Implement learning assistance programs and instructional models of varied intensity to meet the needs of students with different skill levels
Integrate support services and academics to reduce barriers and improve efficiency
Identify links among different initiatives and align performance indicators
Improve assessment, placement, and curricular alignment among developmental education, credit courses, and relevant career paths
• Use data to determine programming needs
• Coordinate support services and encourage work across disciplines
• Integrate student support services with academic and career programs
GISS 1 - Committed Leadershipo GISS 2 - Use of Evidence GISS 3 - Broad Engagement GISS 4 - Systemic Improvement
Complete College America Policy 74
Currently Engaged Early Implementation Opportunity
Coordinated Adult and
Developmental Education Services
• First Rung• ESL/GED program• Extensive
developmental education opportunities on campus
• AQIP Quantum Leap Project• Self-paced developmental math
instruction• Review current developmental education
course offerings and delivery methods to determine barriers to success and identify opportunities for growth
Highly coordinated developmental education.
Align developmental and college level courses and assessments.
Promote collaboration between and provide professional development for developmental and credit faculty (including adjunct faculty).
• Expanded partnerships with local ABLE programs to align curriculum
• Explore alternate delivery models and evaluate current statistics to establish success goalsAlign math requirements with student needs (e.g. only STEM students need a pre-calculus curriculum; others are better served learning statistics and applied mathematics)For students with few academic deficiencies (just under the placement score): place directly in college-level work, embed remediation in college-level coursework, provide tutoring and self-paced computer labs to address deficiencies, utilize modular instruction and provide extended instructional timeFor students with significant academic deficiencies, provide alternate pathways to a career certificate or career related credential, embed remediation and adult basic skills into that instruction.
GISS 1 - Committed Leadershipo GISS 2 - Use of Evidence GISS 3 - Broad Engagement GISS 4 - Systemic Improvement
Complete College America Policy 75
Currently Engaged Early Implementation Opportunity
Career Pathways
• Career Services• Applied Health
Programs• Skilled Certificate
Offerings• College Tech Prep
articulation agreements
• JFS - Lake1Stop
• AWT Ensure that college support
services and developmental education are comprehensive, of high quality, and highly integrated with academic and career programs
• Continue to develop partnerships with other institutions to increase the number of opportunities for students who use Lakeland as their entry point for higher education.Reduce time and accelerate success by reducing unnecessary course taking, require students to have graduation plans and declare majors early
GISS 1 - Committed Leadershipo GISS 2 - Use of Evidence GISS 3 - Broad Engagement GISS 4 - Systemic Improvement
Complete College America Policy 76
Currently Engaged Early Implementation Opportunity
MaximizedEffectiveness
through Collaboration
• P-16 participation• Auburn Career Center• Lake County Family and
Children First Council Representation
• Lake County Educational Service Center
Develop community partnerships and coalitions with high schools, businesses, etc. to improve college and career readiness and stakeholder support.
Address issues associated with college readiness and the transition from high school to college and to careers
• Local High Schools - related to assessment and placement
• Lake/Geauga Educational Assistance Fund (LEAF)Communicate the vision, share evidence, and engage multiple stakeholder groups (faculty, staff, students, community) in strategic planning.Hold community conversations and focus groups to gather insights from stakeholders. Follow up with information on progress.
Develop shared vision for student success through collaboration with multiple stakeholders
Build understanding of student success issues and create coalitions (e.g., public schools, community organizations, area businesses) focused on improving college and career preparedness
Become more knowledgeable about practical steps for building public awareness and political will for student success
Encourage transparency by openly and honestly communicating about the college’s challenges and priorities
• With stakeholders and partners, identify goals, strategies, and benchmarks related to collaborative efforts targeting college readiness
• Share data with collaborative partners to shape student success initiatives
Interpret the student success agenda to external stakeholders, involving them in the discussions of college priorities and student outcomes.
Share data on student outcomes in ways that are meaningful and useful to different groups of stakeholders
GISS 1 - Committed Leadershipo GISS 2 - Use of Evidence GISS 3 - Broad Engagement GISS 4 - Systemic Improvement
Complete College America Policy 77
Currently Engaged Early Implementation Opportunity
High-Quality, Data-Driven Instructional
Methods
• Ensure the institution’s ability to collect, track and analyze data for the purposes of evaluation and planning as it relates to student success and instruction.
Promote faculty leadership in curriculum reform.
o Ensure capacity to track, analyze, and communicate disaggregated trend and cohort data. Ensure data integrity.
o Build capacity to collect, analyze, and interpret data by supporting and funding an institutional research function
Routinely evaluate teaching practices and provide assistance as needed
• Department and Program Review (DAPR)• Accountability Management Software (AMS)o Use data for policy decisions, strategic planning, and
resource allocation. Focus on disaggregated, longitudinal cohort data for continuous improvement.
o Develop performance indicators, and regularly report progress on outcome (e.g., course completion, retention, persistence, and attainment rates) and closing achievement gaps.
o Monitor success of both developmental education and college credit students to compare impact of interventions.
o Insist that divisions/departments use data to improve practice (e.g., curricular alignment, assessment/placement, advising)
o Allocate resources based upon evidence Promote and fund faculty/staff professional
development focused on student learning and success
Plan and budget for continuous institutional learning Encourage faculty and staff to engage in ongoing
curriculum review and promising practices research Encourage faculty to incorporate a variety of
instructional methods to accommodate multiple learning style
Review course offerings, faculty workloads, and teaching credentials to ensure that developmental students receive the services and instruction they need to be successful
Participate in professional development programs that support student success issues (including how to use data to evaluate and improve programs and services).
Monitor the performance evaluation process.
Provide professional development on analyzing, interpreting and presenting data and on evaluations and assessments.
o Professional development for faculty and staff regarding how to access and use data to form instruction and program delivery.
Involve adjunct faculty in conversations and improvement efforts.
Insist on a comprehensive, ongoing evaluation of student outcomes and program impacts
Evaluate the success of intervention strategies.
Ensure the instructional practice targets the academic, technical and affective needs of students with different learning styles.
Create a strategic professional development plan for all employees (including adjuncts) that focuses on student learning and improvement. Allocate funds, time and incentives. Incorporate participation into employee evaluation.
Provide professional development (board, faculty, staff) on interpreting and using student learning and outcome data to improve practice and pedagogy.Engage faculty with progression and completion metrics to reveal shortcoming and inform design of reforms.
GISS 1 - Committed Leadershipo GISS 2 - Use of Evidence GISS 3 - Broad Engagement GISS 4 - Systemic Improvement
Complete College America Policy 78
LAKELANDC O M M U N I T Y C O L L E G E
Strategic Plan2010-2015
79
LakelandCommunity College
2010-2015
Core PurposeTo impact lives through learning.
Core ValuesExcellence - ensuring high quality services and learning opportunities through assessment for continuous improvement
Accessibility - serving as a center of learning for all people by removing barriers, strengthening relationships, and maintaining affordability
Diversity - fostering civility by respecting and celebrating differences among individuals and communities
Integrity - committing to high standards of personal and professional behavior within a culture of honesty and trust
Innovation - empowering learners and communities to be creative and versatile in their thinking and performance
Joy - creating diverse and vibrant learning communities that inspire lifelong learning
VisionTo be the best in creating quality learning opportunities.
MissionTo provide quality learning opportunities to meet the social and economic needs of the community.
Stra
tegi
c Pl
an
80
Foster student success by providing service and support so that each individual student can achieve his/her educational goal
Prio
rity
Student Success1:
81
Stud
ent S
ucce
ssBackgroundWhether students view success as earning a two-year degree, obtaining a certificate, or completing a few courses, Lakeland provides the appropriate education and support to assist them in reaching their personal goal(s). In the national community college arena much attention has focused on improving student success through the development and implementation of new enrollment and retention strategies and programs. Likewise, Lakeland has piloted several new strategies such as new orientation sessions, changes to the assessment and placement process and the Ladders to Lakeland program (a cohort based program for at-risk students). Evaluating the success of these efforts provides opportunities to improve programs and to implement new ideas to meet the diverse needs of the student population.
Strategies• Prepare students for the college experience through participation in continuously
updated orientation modules and programs
• Position and assist students to be successful in their academic courses through appropriate placement, advising, and faculty mentoring
• Improve student retention by maintaining our existing successful practices and adapting new “best practices” to our culture and community
• Modify and expand our cohort-based learning communities based on evidence of success
• Improve developmental education in order to move students into college-level courses more quickly
Progress Indicators• Improved retention of new students
• Improved success of students in Math and English courses
• Increased number of degrees and certificates awarded each year
Strategic Plan2010 - 2015FOSTERstudent success
82
Prio
rity
Access & Affordability2:Expand access by building the college’s resource capacity and by maintaining affordability
83
Acc
ess &
Affo
rdab
ility
Strategic Plan2010 - 2015EXPANDaccess
BackgroundExpanding access requires not only the building of capacity, but also being diligent in continuing to find ways to maintain affordability to our students. Over the past 10 years, Lakeland’s FTE students increased by 54%, exceeding the state average for community colleges. Academic year 2009-2010 is the first time Lakeland has grown less than the state average, which is due in part to capacity issues. Meeting the increasing demand for instruction can be accomplished with qualified faculty teaching in additional classrooms or through the increased use of alternative course delivery which minimizes the use of physical space. Barriers of all types must be reduced to make it easier for un-served or underserved populations to access higher education.
Strategies• Identify opportunities for additional classroom space on-campus and at off-site
locations
• Improve the efficiency of our existing resources, both human and physical
• Increase the number of students served through alternative delivery systems
• Reduce barriers for enrollment of un-served and under served populations
• Work with the state and Higher Learning Commission to develop effective alternatives for adding capacity and increasing access
• Increase access to and available funds for Lakeland Foundation scholarships
Progress Indicators• Increased number of new students, including un-served and underserved
populations
• Increased number of students served through alternative delivery systems
• Increased number of students receiving scholarships through The Lakeland Foundation
84
Prio
rity
Financial Capacity3:Maintain the college’s financial stability by diversifying our sources of revenue to become more self-reliant
85
Fina
ncia
l Cap
acity
Strategic Plan2010 - 2015MAINTAINthe college’s financial stability
BackgroundThe University System of Ohio Strategic Plan for Higher Education calls for a diversification of revenue sources for public colleges. Given the status of the state budget, the need for all colleges and universities to become less reliant on state support has never been stronger. The state strategic plan states that private giving can play an integral role in lowering tuition and increasing financial aid. In addition, Lakeland is one of six community colleges in Ohio with local support. Within the time period covered by this strategic plan, Lakeland’s support from local property tax will be determined. Likewise, federal grants and appropriations can be used to supplement tax money. All revenue options need to be examined to reduce the burden on students and the reliance on state support.
Strategies• Align local taxpayer support with the benefits received from the college’s mission
• Increase private foundation and public government agencies’ support of our mission
• Increase private donors’ support of our mission in areas that make the college and the community strong
• Identify and pursue grant opportunities to support program development and capital needs
Progress Indicators• Continued local taxpayer support
• Increased revenue from donations to support our mission
• Increased number of grants from public and private organizations
86
Prio
rity
Quality4:Ensure high quality services and learning opportunities through assessment for continuous improvement
87
Qua
lityBackground
As an AQIP (Academic Quality Improvement Program) institution, Lakeland is committed to providing quality education and services that are continually enhanced through a quality improvement process. By assessing our processes for continual improvement, we will provide high-quality, up-to-date academic programs and support services. Developing metrics with effectiveness targets linked to outcomes will help to ensure quality in both the educational and operational aspects of the college.
Strategies• Develop assessment strategies for student learning and associated metrics that
include direct measures, especially those associated with individual learning outcomes
• Develop and implement a more formalized continuous improvement process that includes the identification of measurable outcomes with target metrics, data collection and analysis, and plans for systematic improvement
• Develop new credit or noncredit educational programs in response to societal and business and industry needs
• Promote professional development opportunities to increase the effectiveness of faculty and staff in the delivery of educational offerings and services
• Improve internal communication of the college’s strategic priorities and process improvements
• Ensure that technology and curriculum are up-to-date
Progress Indicators• Enhanced assessment of learning outcomes that includes direct measures
• Increased evidence of formalized continuous improvement processes
• Continued implementation of technology master plan
Strategic Plan2010 - 2015ENSUREhigh quality services
88
Prio
rity
Opportunity5:Expand educational opportunities for personal development to improve the overall quality of life in our community
89
Opp
ortu
nity
Strategic Plan2010 - 2015EXPANDeducational opportunities
BackgroundThe goal of the University System of Ohio’s Strategic Plan for Higher Education is to raise the educational attainment of Ohio citizens. By providing opportunities for learning to take place, citizens are able to achieve social mobility, which leads to expanded choices. To the extent that education prepares people for employment or better options within an economy, it is clear that education and the economy are linked. Thus, expanding the opportunities for learning might include: formal educational opportunities such as the opportunity to earn a four-year degree; customized learning opportunities such as updating skills in the workplace; or learning in a less formal environment such as an arts program.
Strategies• Partner with four-year colleges and universities to increase opportunities to obtain
a bachelor’s or master’s degree at a Lakeland site
• Partner with business and industry to promote economic and workforce development
• Prepare students for the demands and challenges of today’s globalized economy
• Increase arts and cultural enrichment programming
Progress Indicators• Increased number of students enrolled in university partnerships
• Increased clients served in workforce development initiatives
• Increased participation in arts, cultural and international activities
90
University System of Ohio
Among students entering associate’s programs as freshmen, there were more underrepresented minorities (23 versus 17 percent) and more low-income students (42 versus 37 percent) than would be expected if such students entered at the same rates as other students in the state.
Among students entering as transfers, there were more underrepresented minorities (19 versus 17 percent) and fewer low-income students (27 versus 37 percent) than would be expected if such students entered at the same rates as other students in the state.
Among graduates who had entered the system as freshmen, there were fewer
and completed at the same rates as other students in the state. Among graduates who entered the system as transfers, there were fewer
underrepresented minorities (13 versus 16 percent) and fewer low-income students (22 versus 34 percent) than would have been expected if such students entered and completed at the same rates as other students in state.
Access Does the system’s entering class reflect the socioeconomic and racial/ethnic diversity of the state’s high school graduates?
SuccessHow do the success rates of low-income and underrepresented minority students compare with those of others within the system?
Access+SuccessDo the system’s completers reflect the diversity of the state’s high school graduates?
In fall 2007, the leaders of nearly two dozen public higher education systems—all members of the National Association of System Heads—came together to form the Access to Success Initiative (A2S). With support from The Education Trust, the chief executives of 24 systems have agreed to pursue aggressive goals aimed at improving student success and cutting in half by 2015 the gaps in college-going and completion that separate low-income and minority students from their peers. These leaders recognize that increasing quality, attainment, and equity on their campuses is essential to the well-being of their states and our nation. By voluntarily addressing these challenges, these leaders are setting an example of transparency, accountability, and responsibility for the higher education community.
Freshman students from underrepresented minority groups succeeded— by transferring or by earning credentials—at lower rates than other students, 12 versus 25 percent. Low-income students, identified by having received Pell Grants, succeeded at lower rates than other students, 19 versus 25 percent.
Among students entering as transfers, underrepresented minorities earned associate’s degrees at lower rates than other students, 12 versus 17 percent. Low-income students earned associate’s degrees at lower rates than other students, 16 versus 17 percent.
ACCESS TO SUCCESS BASELINE METRICS ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE PROGRAMS
underrepresented minorities (10 versus 16 percent) and fewer low-income students (32 versus 34 percent) than would have been expected if such students had entered
91
2 NASH/THE EDUCATION TRUST | ACCESS TO SUCCESS BASELINE METRICS | UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF OHIO | ASSOCIATE’S PROGRAMS
The Education Trust promotes high academic achievement for all students at all levels—pre-kindergarten through college. We work alongside educators, parents, policymakers, and community and business leaders to help transform schools and colleges into institutions that serve all students well. Lessons learned in these efforts, together with unflinching data analyses, shape our state and national policy agendas. Our goal is to close the gaps in opportunity and achievement that consign far too many young people—especially those who are black, Latino, American Indian, or from low-income families—to lives on the margins of the American mainstream. WWW.EDTRUST.ORG
The A2S metrics measure access and success within the entire system. Unlike in the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and most other public reports on higher education, all A2S metrics include full-time and part-time students who enroll in or graduate from any institution within the system.
Associate’s cohort refers to an entering class of students who are seeking associate’s degrees. In most cases, students in the associate’s cohorts attend two-year colleges in the system, but some attend four-year colleges.
Underrepresented minority students (URM) include African-American, Hispanic, and American-Indian students. Non-URM students include white and Asian/Pacific Islander students. (Note: In Hawaii, Native Hawaiians and Filipinos are included as URM students.) Students whose race was classified as unknown or other were excluded from the race metrics. Nonresident aliens were excluded from all metrics.
Pell Grant recipient status is used as a proxy for students’ income status because family income data are not available across all systems. Pell Grant recipients are considered to be from low-income families. There are limitations to using Pell Grant recipient status as a proxy for income status; see Technical Appendix for more information.
Freshmen are those students who were not previously enrolled in a postsecondary institution inside or outside of the system (with the exception of students earning dual enrollment credits in high school).
Transfer students are those who previously attended a postsecondary institution outside the system from which the current institution accepted college credits as well as those who moved from a baccalaureate-level program to an associate-level program anywhere within the system.
A ratio is calculated by dividing the performance of the target group (URM or Pell students, for example) by the performance of the reference group (non-URM or non-Pell students) on a given indicator. A ratio below 1 indicates that the target group lags the reference group, and a ratio of 1 indicates equity between the target and the reference group. Ratios are capped at a maximum of 1.
Where information is marked as not available, the system was not able to provide the requested data. Where information is marked as not applicable, the system does not have students who meet the specified criteria.
The National Association of System Heads (NASH) is a membership organization of chief executive officers of the 52 public higher education systems in 38 states and Puerto Rico that works to improve the governance of public higher education systems. Its member systems enroll the lion’s share of college students nationwide—about 70 percent of all four-year college undergraduates.
About University System of Ohio
Number of community colleges 23
Number of university campuses 14
Total undergraduate enrollment in Fall 2007 483,461
Community colleges 177,105
University campuses 306,356
Undergraduates attending system institutions as percent of all undergraduates attending college in the state 78%
Undergraduates attending system institutions as percent of all undergraduates attending public colleges in the state 100%
Underrepresented minority undergraduates attending system institutions as a percent of all underrepresented minority undergraduates in the state 73%
Pell Grant recepients attending system institutions as a percent of all Pell Grant recipients in the state 64%
Key Definitions and Notes for the Access to Success Metrics
RATIO
.66
Sources: Enrollment Data–Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, 2007; Pell Grant Data–Office of Postsecondary Education, 2007
92
Comparing the Profile of Entering Associate’s Students With State High School (HS) Graduates, 2005-06
These charts compare the economic and racial diversity of the system’s entering associate’s degree-seeking students with the state’s population. For income, the percentage of entering students who were Pell Grant recipients in 2005-06 is compared with the percentage of high school graduates in the state classified as low-income (below
200 percent of the poverty level) in 2005. For race/ethnicity, the percentage of entering students who were URMs in 2005-06 is compared with the percentage of high school graduates who were URMs in the state. The ratio is calculated by dividing these respective percentages. The charts combine part-time and full-time undergraduates.
* Data are three-year averages drawn from the “2003-05 American Community Survey.” Freshmen and transfer students are compared with 18-34 year-old high school graduates without associate’s degrees in the state.
3 NASH/THE EDUCATION TRUST | ACCESS TO SUCCESS BASELINE METRICS | UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF OHIO | ASSOCIATE’S PROGRAMS
AccessThe Access metrics compare the economic and racial diversity of the system’s entering
undergraduates with the diversity of the state’s high school graduates.
Low-Income (LI) Students
37% 17%
37% 17%
42% 23%
27% 19%
Underrepresented Minority (URM) Students
RATIO
1.00
Characteristics of Entering Associate’s Students, 2005-06
This table provides demographic and enrollment characteristics about the system’s entering first-time and transfer students in associate’s degree programs in 2005-06.
The data include income (by Pell Grant recipient status), race (by URM status), gender, and part-time status.
Number of Additional Associate’s Students Who Would Have Entered in 2005-06 if Access Gaps Were Halved
This chart illustrates the potential impact of A2S by showing the additional number of low-income (Pell) and URM students who would have entered associate’s degree programs in 2005-06 if the system’s access gaps had been cut in half in the baseline year.
Low-Income Students
Underrepresented Minority (URM) Students
Freshmen 0 0
Transfers 415 0
Freshmen, % Pell
HS Grads, % LI*
Transfers, % Pell
HS Grads, % LI*
Freshmen, % URM
HS Grads, % URM*
Transfers, % URM
HS Grads, % URM* RATIO
.73
Gap:10%
RATIO
1.00
RATIO
1.00
By Income Status By Underrepresented Minority (URM) Status
Freshmen Transfers Freshmen Transfers
Total Pell Non-Pell Total Pell Non-Pell URM Non-URM URM Non-URM
Total (#) 32,669 13,810 18,859 8,144 2,183 5,961 7,100 24,045 1,488 6,353
% Part-Time 42 34 48 49 41 52 39 43 46 50
% Female 54 65 47 56 62 53 58 54 61 54
% URM 23 36 13 19 39 12 – – – –
% Pell 42 – – 27 – – 67 35 55 20
93
4 NASH/THE EDUCATION TRUST | ACCESS TO SUCCESS BASELINE METRICS | UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF OHIO | ASSOCIATE’S PROGRAMS
SuccessThe Success metrics compare the success rates of low-income and
underrepresented minority students with those of other students.
Comparing Types of Success Attained by Low-Income and Underrepresented Minority (URM) Freshmen With Other Freshmen, Fall 2001 Associate’s Cohort
These charts detail the success outcomes within the system for Pell Grant recipients and URM students who entered associate’s degree programs as freshmen in fall 2001 compared with other students. The charts depict the percentage of students who (1) transferred
or transitioned into a baccalaureate program, (2) earned a certificate, or (3) earned an associate’s degree within the system within four years (by summer 2005). The charts combine part-time and full-time undergraduates.
Earned Associate’s Degree
Earned Certificate
By Income StatusTransferred to Bachelor’s Program
12%
4%
13%
8%
3%
10%
By URM StatusTransferred to Bachelor’s Program
11%
4%
14%
7%
4%
Gap: 4%
First-Year Retention and Fifth-Year Still-Enrolled Rates in Associate’s Degree Program for Students Who Entered in Fall 2001
This table compares the percentage of Pell Grant recipients and URM students who entered associate’s degree programs in the system in fall 2001 and maintained their enrollment in fall 2002 with the percentage of non-Pell and non-URM students who did the same. The table also compares the percentage of Pell Grant recipients and URM students who entered the system in fall 2001 and were still enrolled in the associate’s degree program five years later (in fall 2005) with the percentage of non-Pell and non-URM did the same. When added to the percentage of students who succeeded, the still enrolled rates provide an outside limit of potential success rates for this cohort. The table combines part-time and full-time undergraduates.
Number of Additional Associate’s Students Who Entered in Fall 2001 Who Would Have Succeeded if Success Gaps Were Halved
This chart illustrates the potential impact of A2S by showing the additional number of low-income (Pell) and underrepresented minority (URM) students who would have succeeded by 2005 if the system’s success gaps had been cut in half for the Fall 2001 cohort.
Low-Income Students
URMs
Comparing Low-Income and Underrepresented Minority (URM) Success Rates With Other Students, Fall 2001 Associate’s Cohort
These charts compare the percentage of Pell Grant recipients and URM students who entered associate’s degree programs in fall 2001 and who were successful in the system within four years with the percentage of non-Pell and non-URM students who were successful in the system within four years (by summer 2005). For freshmen, the success
rate is the percentage who (1) transferred or transitioned into a baccalaureate program, (2) earned a certificate, or (3) earned an associate’s degree in the system (unduplicated). For transfer students, the success rate is the percentage who received an associate’s degree in the system. The charts combine part-time and full-time undergraduates.
Pell
Non-Pell
Four-Year Rates by Income StatusFreshmen
17% 17%
19% 12%
16% 12%
Four-Year Rates by URM StatusFreshmen
RATIO
.48
Transfers
Pell
Non-Pell
Transfers
URM
Non-URM
URM
Non-URM
Pell
Non-Pell
Pell
Non-Pell
Pell
Non-Pell
Earned Associate’s Degree
Earned Certificate
URM
Non-URM
URM
Non-URM
URM
Non-URM
1%
Gap: 13%Gap: 10%
By Income Status By Underrepresented Minority (URM) Status
Freshmen Transfers Freshmen Transfers
Pell Non-Pell Pell Non-Pell URM Non-URM URM Non-URM
Number in Entering Cohort 8,705 14,349 812 2,757 4,023 18,285 597 2,820
1st Year Retention (%) 49 55 58 59 40 55 53 60
5th Year Still Enrolled (%) 17 21 20 17 16 21 19 18
Gap: 6% RATIO
.76
Gap:13%
Gap: 4%
Gap: 3%
Gap: 3%
Gap: 1% RATIO
.94 RATIO
.71
Gap: 5%
Gap: 1%
25% 25%
Gap: 12%
Freshmen 261 261
Transfers 4 15
94
Comparing the Profile of System Completers With State High School (HS) Graduates, Fall 2001 Associate’s Cohort
Number of Associate’s Degrees Conferred, 2005-06
These charts compare the percentage of Pell and URM students among those who succeeded within the system by 2005 with the percentage of low-income and URMs among the state’s high school graduates in 2001, when they entered associate’s degree programs. The ratio is calculated by dividing these respective percentages. The gaps displayed
in these charts represent the combined effects of gaps in both access and success for students entering the system in fall 2001. Note: This cohort entered in 2001 and does not match the 2005-06 cohort tracked in the Access metric. The charts combine part-time and full-time undergraduates.
These charts show the number of associate’s degrees conferred overall as well as to students who were Pell Grant recipients (at any time during their undergraduate tenure) and URMs in the baseline year 2005-06. To the extent that systems meet both their access and success goals without constraining enrollment, the number of degrees conferred to
Pell and URM students also should increase over the course of the Access to Success Initiative. The charts combine part-time and full-time undergraduates, and degree recipients come from multiple cohorts.
* Data are three-year averages drawn from the “2000-02 American Community Survey.” Freshmen and transfer students are compared with 18-34 year-old high school graduates without associate’s degrees in the state.
URMs Non-URMs Pell Students Non-Pell Students
5 NASH/THE EDUCATION TRUST | ACCESS TO SUCCESS BASELINE METRICS | UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF OHIO | ASSOCIATE’S PROGRAMS
Access+SuccessThe Access+Success metrics compare the diversity of the system’s
completers with the diversity of the state’s high school graduates.
Low-Income (LI) StudentsFreshmen
34%
Underrepresented Minority (URM) StudentsFreshmen
22%
34%
16%
13%
16%
1,892
11%
15,308
89%
Number of Additional Associate’s Students Who Would Have Succeeded if Access and
Who Entered in Fall 2001
This chart illustrates the potential impact of A2S by showing the additional number of low-income (Pell) and URM students who would have entered and succeeded in the system within four years if the system’s access and success gaps had been cut in half for the Fall 2001 associate’s cohort.
Low-Income StudentsUnderrepresented
Minority (URM) Students
By Income Status By Underrepresented Minority (URM) Status
Transfers
HS Grads, % LI*
Completers, % Pell
HS Grads, % LI*
HS Grads, % URM*
Completers, % URM
HS Grads, % URM*
Transfers
9,291
51%
8,927
49%
RATIO RATIO
RATIO
.81 RATIO
.65Gap: 3%Gap: 12%
Completers, % Pell Completers, % URM
Success Gaps Were Halved for Students
Freshmen 64 163
Transfer 37 8
32% 10%Gap: 2% Gap: 6%
.94 .63
95
Access Ratios: Entering Students / HS Graduates
Success Ratios: Low-Income or URM Students / Other Students
Success Rates, Fall 2001 Associate’s Cohort
Access+Success Ratios: Completers / HS Graduates
6 NASH/THE EDUCATION TRUST | ACCESS TO SUCCESS BASELINE METRICS | UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF OHIO | ASSOCIATE’S PROGRAMS
Across the InitiativeThese measures display the system’s performance and the average and
top performers among all systems in the Access to Success Initiative.
Low-Income (LI) StudentsFreshmen
It is important to provide a frame of reference for each system’s A2S data. Accordingly, this page shows how the system is performing in relation to the Initiative as a whole. Comparisons between different systems should be made with caution and consideration of the unique circumstances, such as size, student profile, and resources, that face each system.
These charts display the system’s access ratios and the average and top access ratios among all systems within the Initiative. The ratio compares the percentage of Pell Grant recipients and URMs among students who entered the system in 2005-06 with the percentage of low-income students and URMs among the state’s high school graduates in 2005.
These charts display the system’s success ratios and the average and top success ratios of systems within the Initiative. The ratio compares the percentage of Pell and URM students who entered in 2001 and who succeeded in the system within four years with the percentage of non-Pell and non-URM students who succeeded in the system within four years.
These charts display the system’s success rates for Pell and URM students and the average and top success rates of systems within the Initiative. The rate indicates the percentage of students who transferred or graduated in the system within four years. The charts combine part-time and full-time undergraduates.
These charts display the system’s access+success ratios and the average and top ratios of systems within the Initiative. For students who entered in 2001, the ratio compares the percentage of students who succeeded in the system within four years who were Pell Grant recipients or URMs with the percentage of high school graduates who were low-income or URMs in the state in 2001.
The “All Systems” data represent the average access and success rates and ratios across all students in the Initiative. In effect, the entire Initiative is treated as one system. For example, the Initiative-wide success rate is calculated by dividing the total number of students across all systems who succeeded within four years by the total number of students who entered across all systems in fall 2001. However, for the URM ratios, the average and the top system calculations omit the University of Puerto Rico System because this system does not have appropriate non-minority comparison groups. Systems with cohorts with less than 30 students also were excluded from the top system ratios and rates due to data reliability concerns.
1.00
Low-Income (LI) StudentsFreshmen
Underrepresented Minority (URM) StudentsFreshmen
1.00
0.80
0.73
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Top System
= 1.00Underrepresented Minority (URM) StudentsFreshmen
Top System = 1.00
Low-Income (LI) StudentsFreshmen
1.00
0.76
1.00
0.94
0.63
0.48
0.66
0.71
Top System
= 1.00Underrepresented Minority (URM) StudentsFreshmen
Top System = 1.00
Low-Income (LI) StudentsFreshmen
0.93
0.93
0.59
0.79
Top System
= 1.00Underrepresented Minority (URM) StudentsFreshmen
Top System = 1.00
32%
19%
22%
16%
24%
12%
19%
12%
Top System
= 0.80
Top System
= 52%
Top System
= 65%
Top System
= 53%
Top System
= 25%
System
All Systems
TransfersSystem
All Systems
Transfers
System
All Systems
System
All Systems
System
All Systems
System
All Systems
System
All Systems
System
All Systems
Transfers Transfers
System
All Systems
System
All Systems
System
All Systems
System
All Systems
All Systems
All Systems
All Systems
All Systems
Transfers Transfers
ASSOCIATE’S DEGREE PROGRAMS
System System0.94 0.63
Transfers TransfersSystem System0.65 0.81
96
