New England
2025Student flow and
productivity model guide
AcknowledgementsPrepared by:
Matthew Crellin, Director of Policy and ResearchNew England Board of Higher Education
Projection model developed in conjunction with:
Patrick Kelly, Senior AssociateNational Center for Higher Education Management Systems
With support from:
Lumina Foundation for Education
Download the state-level data summaries from NEBHE’s NE2025 website at:
http://www.nebhe.org/policy-research/new-england-2025/
The New England Board of Higher
Education, in conjunction with our partners
at the National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems and the Lumina
Foundation for Education, has developed a
series of state models for the New England
region aimed at calculating and predicting
the factors and conditions needed to
increase college completion. Degree
completion is increasingly becoming a
central issue in higher education,
particularly in light of stated national and
statewide goals. To that extent, NEBHE’s
New England 2025 project seeks to better
define the metrics, capacity, and action
plans needed for the New England region
to successfully realize a shared national
goal of reaching 60% degree attainment in
the population by the year 2025. College
completion is increasingly becoming the
bottom line for higher education, invested
stakeholders, and most of all for students
entering the workforce.
Leaders of education, business and
government in the New England states
agree on the importance of increasing the
number of degree holders, but
understanding the full arc of what most
contributes to completion requires a
systematic and data-driven examination of
the postsecondary degree production in
each of the respective New England states.
The projection models are aimed at further
understanding what best contributes to the
changing realities of degree completion,
especially as practice meets theory in
setting statewide and institutional goals.
The models alone are not the “silver bullet”
needed to realize degree completion
successfully; we believe it will require
engaged partnerships, a clear sense of
purpose, a thorough understanding of
educational and investment practices, and
real leadership to move the status quo
toward productive and efficient change.
However, by building the capacity to
approach this issue with a rich
understanding of what it takes, we believe
that real progress is possible.
The New England 2025 initiative at NEBHE has a big goal: to help
states increase the percentage of the regional population with high-
quality degrees and credentials by the year 2025.
The realities on the horizon for the region and higher education are quickly
approaching. By the year 2025, New England will have witnessed a measurable decline in the percentage of the population
that holds a postsecondary credential. Without deliberate and data-driven
intervention to spur degree attainment and productivity, the region may find itself in a
state of economic and social decline.
The forecasts and demands on demography, college affordability, productivity, and job
requirements begin to tell a story that challenges widely-accepted assumptions about the condition and strengths of New
England’s educational attainment rates. Postsecondary education has become more
than a luxury - it is increasingly a prerequisite to economic and social vibrancy
as well as personal well-being. The returns on educational investment cannot be understated, and many groups within
academe are shifting their attention and resources toward college completion in an
unprecedented fashion.
Yet, tackling college completion is no small task. The college leader, policymaker,
legislator, or key stakeholder must balance multiple demands, needs, trends, and
considerations. Leadership on this issue seems improvisational without the tools and
capacity to approach college completion seriously. There is no technical remedy to fix
this issue; it will require real leadership. At the heart of this challenge lies an incredible
promise of inventing the future of higher education toward New England’s sustained and new well-being for years to come. This
narrative will depend on how we address this issue now as a region through authentic partnership and sharing ideas and resources
toward this critical goal.
What is NE2025?
The specific objectives of NE2025 include:
• Identifying realistic, contextualized state goals for increased degree production by helping states to address required performance levels related to key variables and statewide goals;
• Provide support and assistance for state-based work on policies, programs, and other change levers by working individually with states and organizations to develop comprehensive metrics and data-driven practices.
NE2025 seeks to catalyze information and high-impact practices on how to form specific statewide goals and targets to achieve a significant increase in degree attainment by the year 2025. The project additionally aims to help states develop and implement their goals and visions for degree attainment.
MethodologyThe state models are derived from several calculations and
data points collected by NCHEMS and from various publicly
available data sources, such as IPEDS, WICHE, NCES, and
U.S. Census data. Prior to beginning, we recommend having
the following material available with you as you iteratively
manipulate the model:
• A framework for your statewide goal. The model is set
using the Lumina “Big Goal” framework of 60% degree
attainment by the year 2025. However, the model also
allows you to examine other situations, such as defining a
specific starting academic year for increasing degree
attainment, an ending academic year (calculated only
through 2025; it can be set for earlier, not later), and so
forth. Although the models can and should be used to help
set a goal, it can also be helpful to have several scenarios
in mind that you’d like to test.
• Current facts and figures for enrollment and graduation
rates. Although the models incorporate currently available
state-level data, if you have additional scenarios or data
that you feel are more appropriate as you perform this
scenario testing, we encourage you to enter your own
projected values. For example, if you feel that the high
school graduation rate in your state is expected to
dramatically change, try scenarios both with the current
number and a new projected number.
The state models for student flow and degree attainment rest
on several inputs and throughputs. In our analysis, we believe
that it is more beneficial to concentrate on manipulating the
throughput rates, as these are the rates which higher
education is responsible for in the narrative of college
completion. That said, the input rates and attention given to
earlier segments of the educational pipeline are extremely
important and should not be ignored. This guide also features
a section on college completion metrics that are not
specifically calculated in this model, but should be given
importance and consideration when arriving to a statewide
goal on degree attainment. The section on “central
measures” defines the variables calculated in the model.
Central Measures
All of the measures in the model are derived from publicly available sources; i.e. the U.S. census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. Descriptions of the variables and their sources are included in the final pages of this guide. Also included at the end are the major assumptions associated with the model.
Measures of Student
Progression[access to degree attainment across the educational
pipeline]
• High school graduation rates
• College-going rates directly from high school
• Participation rates of adults 20 to 39 years old
(not directly out of high school)
• Completion rates – undergraduate credentials
awarded per 100 full-time equivalent
undergraduates (by sector; for public research,
public bachelor’s and master’s, public two-year,
and private non-profit and for-profit institutions)
• Changing enrollment pattens (e.g., giving
students more – or less – access to community
colleges versus research universities, or to
private institutions, as a way to accommodate
access and attainment)
Cost Restructuring &
Revenue-Saving[closing budget gaps in the public sector]
• Student / Faculty ratios (for this measure alone,
less means more – lower student faculty ratios
cost more money; higher ratios reduce costs)
• Instructional salaries per FTE student
• Administrative expenditures per FTE student
• Student service related expenditures per FTE
student
• Employee benefits per FTE student (note the
model calculates these independently of
salaries, so the estimates of salary savings
above includes only the salary portion of
compensation)
• Tuition revenues (not sticker prices, but net
revenues realized after discounting)
• Tuition discounting per FTE student
• State and local revenues
• Credit hours earned toward a degree, estimated
based on average costs across levels and
disciplines
The models come in two
forms: interactive dashboards and
predictive spreadsheets.
With support from the Lumina
Foundation for Education, NCHEMS and
the Delta Cost Project have developed
the state-by-state models for calculating
the number of graduates needed to
meet the attainment goals states in
NE2025 and through the Lumina
Foundation’s “Big Goal.”
The Student Flow Projection Models and
Productivity Models illuminate several
realities of higher education: the cost
structures and funding realities of
increasing postsecondary degree
attainment are so vastly nuanced that it
requires state-level analysis and
consideration of individual state realities
to adequately address increases in
college completion. To assist in this
effort, the models can assist education
leaders and policymakers in iteratively
testing scenarios and changes related
the student degree production and
attainment rates.
How the models work
The projection models allow
policymakers to estimate how changes
to policy or management (or both) would
potentially impact costs and the number
of graduates. The models are based off
of major enrollment and attainment
drivers in education, demographic
projections, as well as major cost drivers
in higher education. The models further
disaggregate differences between
institutional type and sector.
Two levels of modeling
The models available through NEBHE
come in two forms. The first is an
interactive dashboard through the
PowerPoint / Flash-driven software that
enables users to iteratively gauge
measures of student progression and
levels of performance related to
transition of access to degrees are
needed from the state to meet a specific
college attainment goal. The second
model is an Excel sheet that serves as a
more technical analytic tool for helping
policymakers, institutional researchers,
strategic planners, and others who
require specific data captures or to more
closely examine a specific student
progression, performance, or
productivity metric.
The details of both models are explained
in detail throughout this guide, with a
summary of where your state stands
relative to national benchmarks on a
wide array of metrics related to college
completion, costs, and productivity.
Beyond predictions
At first glance, many of the projections,
when set at 60% degree attainment or
beyond, appear to be so high that they
may seem unattainable. However, by
segmenting each strategy for increasing
degree attainment into more specific and
manageable segments, we believe that
such a goal can be achieved. While
NEBHE will continue to provide thought
and analysis on college completion
through our NE2025 work, we also hope
that the models specifically inform or
help you develop your own statewide or
institutional strategic plan on increasing
degree attainment along with cultivating
the capacity to pay for the increases in
college completion.
Reaching this goal will require, first and
foremost, building the capacity and
understanding on how to most efficiently
tackle this essential challenge - the cost
of doing nothing at all would be a far
more grim reality. However, by making
efforts toward cutting spending,
increasing efficiency, and examining the
trends in population growth, migration,
and completion rates, we believe that
states can succeed through the use of
these models and policy briefs toward
progress in college completion.
Explanation and Prediction
The Interactive Dashboard:The state models, created from the more specific
models in Microsoft Excel, are imported and
built into a PowerPoint slide. To run them, your
computer must be equipped with a recent version
of Adobe Flash. When you initially open the model,
you will see a blank slide, which is normal. To
activate the content, go to the “View” pull-down
menu and click on “Slide Show,” then “Enable.”
The slide features tabs near the top for each of the
two dashboards: “Closing the Degree Gap” and
“Strategies for Reducing Budget Gap.” Because
the slide is interactive, you can test how various
policy options affect 1) student progression
to degrees and credentials and 2) the estimated
spending needed to produce these outcomes at
current and other levels.
From here, you will be able to move through the
various metrics and points to create a number of
scenarios related to both student flow projection
and budget realities to visually see the impact
an action or set of actions would have on degree
attainment. For added clarification, the models
also denote in each metric the value where the
highest-performing states sit, so as to place your
scenario-building into context relative to national
and state-level performance.
Changing assumptions:
You can change assumptions in the two
dashboards by clicking on and adjusting the red
and green “levers” on the sliding scales. For
example, you can investigate strategies for
increasing student participation and completion, or
test the potential effects of cutting costs tied to
specific strategies for graduating more students
with high-quality degrees and credentials.
There are several default conditions in the
baseline model, including:
• Either a projected reduction or increase in the
number of degrees produced by 2025. The
models include projections of high school
graduates from the Western Interstate
Commission for Higher Education and
projections of enrollment among adults 20 to 39
years old. These two populations represent the
majority of students who in the future will enroll in
postsecondary education. States projected to
lose residents will generate fewer graduates by
2025 at current graduation rates; states
projected to gain residents will generate more.
• An increasing gap between needed and
anticipated revenues to deliver public higher
education. The model includes 2 percent real
annual increases in employee benefits, a
conservative estimate based upon past trends.
• The default position for each lever reflects the
states’ current values for each measure. On the
“Degree Gap” dashboard, reference markers
(thick black lines on the sliding scales) show the
average performance of the top three states for
each student-progression measure; on the
“Budget Gap” dashboard, and the markers
illustrate the 25th and 75th percentiles among
states for the cost and revenue measures. These
should help keep your exercise within the
bounds of reality, because it’s often difficult to
improve performance or reduce costs beyond
the levels of best-performing states.
The Spreadsheet Dashboard The Excel spreadsheet models also contain a dashboard that is similar in function to the interactive dashboard. This dashboard
calibrates and sets the values for the rest of the predictions that follow through the spreadsheet. Within the Excel sheet are two
dashboards: Dashboard (for student flow) and Cost-Cutting (for productivity and performance). Subsequently, the
spreadsheet will produce several outputs that include the following measures: Enrollment and Degrees; Cost; Cost-Cutting
Yield; Budget Gap; Summary Degree Data; Degree Yield; Projections on Attainment; Attainment Goal. There are also two
tabs that describe the model in a flowchart form as well as calculated percent changes to degree attainment through an examination
of attainment rate analysis over time.
By default, the assumptions set in the Excel sheet reflect the current state values for each metric. You can change the assumptions in
the spreadsheet by modifying the YELLOW CELLS in each of the fields. For example, you can test the scenarios of increasing
student completion by modifying the “Credentials and Degrees Produced per 100 FTE Undergraduates” cells. Similar to the
interactive model, the dashboards provide benchmarks for the levels of performance relative to the average of the three best-
performing states on the various measures. Cost-cutting measures also are benchmarked in an interquartile range to keep the
iterative modeling within conservative estimates.
This model allows you to investigate alternatives and identify strategies for graduating more students with high-quality degrees and
credentials tied to cost strategies that account for the specific funding realities in your state. When choosing which lever to
purposefully modify, keep in mind that most of the levers that higher education can directly modify are found in the “Throughput”
section of the dashboard with regard to student flow; cost-cutting measures hold a zero increase in appropriation as an assumption
as well.
Summary of each output in spreadsheetThe Excel spreadsheet document for each state calculates several outputs, as mentioned previously. These metrics and outputs can
also be found in the interactive model. The models are ultimately restricted to the measures for which reasonably available data exists
from reliable sources. Additional opportunities for conversation and data are found toward the back of this guide, but one should
keep in mind that there are further points of consideration that the model cannot presently substantively answer. That said, the
models calculate the following changes relevant to college completion:
Enrollment and Degrees:
This section details information relative to the number of additional degrees needed to realize the degree attainment goal as defined in
the student flow dashboard. Each number captured in parentheses suggests the both the number of additionally enrolled students
and the degree produced as a result of the numbers set in the dashboard. Enrollment and degrees are separated out by sector and
degree type across the state (with the exception of for-profit institutions). These numbers should be read separately; for example, the
number of additional associates degrees needed in 2009-10 is 72 while in 2010-11 this number is now 233, this represents an
additional 233 in addition to the 72 gained in 2009-10. The rightmost column displays the number of additional degrees across all
sectors, reflecting the summative number needed in order to reach the percentage goal as you have defined it.
The chart below the degree output columns display a visual trend analysis of bachelor’s and associates produced relative to the red
benchmark line (which visually defines the set attainment goal). By going back to the student flow dashboard and changing the yellow
active cells, you should see this graph iteratively change up or down relative to the rates you define.
Cost:
This tab calculates out information relative to additional
revenues needed to maintain current dollars per FTE
student. This tab substantially differs from the other cost-
cutting measures in that this information is specifically
concerned with the additional state and local
appropriations and support needed to meet the
increased demand on the public higher education
system when holding tuition and fees constant.
The cost tab displays two scenarios relative to public
funding: annual additional state and local appropriations
when keeping tuition the same, and additional costs to
students/families per FTE if state and local appropriations
do not increase investment. While the reality of cost may
lie somewhere in between these two realities, these
scenarios display information specifically with or without
additional investment from the state for higher education.
A third box displays cost information relative to a 2%
annual increase in employee benefits across institutional
sector type. Displayed above this box are figures on
current aggregate employee benefits across institutional
sector in 2007-2008, again displayed in current dollars.
The 2% increase is relative to those figures as displayed
in the purple cells.
Cost-Cutting Yield:
This tab is impacted by changes made to the Cost-
Cutting Dashboard with respect to changes made
across these throughput rates. For example, changing
student/faculty ratios in the dashboard will translate to
either higher or lower overall costs. Cost savings will
result in a negative number displayed across these cells
by sector. A lower student-faculty ratio will cost more,
whereas a higher ratio will reduce costs. Keep in mind,
however, that the effect on quality here is not precisely
clear; what this will display is raw information on
expenditures when examining various scenarios.
Budget Gap:
This information relates to the overall budget gap as a
result of the measures taken in the Cost-Cutting
Dashboard for productivity funding. This tab provides an
overall summary of the effects of the strategies of paying
for increased attainment be they positive or negative.
Summary Data:
Based on the rates set in the Student Flow
Dashboard, this tab displays further information on a
variety of measures across institutional sector, including
participation rates, ratios of undergraduates to first-time
students, funding per FTE, E&R expenditures, salary
outlay per FTE, and other summary data. This particular
section provides an overall snapshot of changes made to
increased enrollment with additional considerations for
college leaders and policymakers.
Degree Yield:
This tab, which is also based off of the Student Flow
Dashboard, calculates the degree yield based on the
active rates defined in the dashboard. Based on the
distribution of students and degree types across each
sector, the yield displays the number of degrees needed
to meet the goal based on the awarded credentials.
Projections:
This tab displays information from WICHE’s “Knocking at
the College Door” 2008 report on direct-from-high school
enrollment into college alongside U.S. Census data
regarding population projections of 20-39 year olds in
your state. Lastly, this tab also displays state-level
information relative to current rates of students entering
college.
Attainment Goal:
This tab functions separately of either dashboard, but
calculates a degree attainment rate by the year 2025
across all 50 states. The orange cell containing the
attainment rate figure can be modified to reflect a
different goal; as a result, all of the state rates in this tab
will be modified as a result of the new number put into
this cell. This sheet allows for a state-by-state
comparison, which can be useful in comparing your
performance relative to other states in the region or in the
nation (if, for example, your goal is to be at the national
average, leading the region, at a specific benchmark,
etc.)
Outputs Explained (cont.)
Both the student flow and productivity models are restricted to currently existing data sets, while other measures of college completion and degree attainment are more difficult to accurately measure. Additional conversations and strategies should be considered when formulating a plan on completion:
Quality: The focus on increasing the number of degrees and credentials cannot be held in isolation - they must
retain and push for even greater levels of quality. Simply said, a degree must mean more than a signal of
proficiency, it represents a student’s knowledge and mastery of certain skills, concepts, and comprehension that
prepares them for entry into the workforce and in life. Quality ought to incorporate specific learning outcomes and
learning profiles that are tied to what a student knows and can demonstrate upon completion of a course of
study.
Time to degree: The proportion of students who are not completing their degree within a traditional time frame
seems to be increasing - a result of heavier demands on a student’s schedule, such as those that need to work
during college. Early-assessment programs that provide students with information on how to complete on-time
may be a start, but the new majority of students will likely come from those with increasing demands on their
schedules, not less.
Cost cutting: Cost-effectiveness is difficult to define in higher education; a cut to one area can have a significant
impact on another sector of the institution. The relationship between spending in higher education and results are
not well understood, largely because of the hidden costs necessary to educate a student. Spending on higher
education clearly does present a strong return investment for both the individual and society. Assessing cost-
effective strategies should fundamentally be designed to increase student access; student engagement, services,
and support all contribute measurably toward completion and retention.
Performance improvements: Creating a culture of evidence and inquiry requires more than a symbolic gesture
toward using data. Too often, data is made inaccessible to those who would seek to make improvements to
higher education. In order to make performance improvements most effective, they must be readily understood by
a wide audience of stakeholders. Benchmarking and standardizing data is one practice that helps drive data
toward performance and away from “counting apples and oranges in the same bunch.”
Tied to job demand: Increasing the number of degree recipients in the population will surely aid an economy that
is increasingly knowledge-based, but being critical about matching job requirements to degree output should be
given consideration. Looking for efficient methods of education is essential, but additional thought should be
given to the learning that students already possess when they enter the classroom.
Beyond the Models: additional points to consider
Additional Points (cont.)
Remediation & related costs: The barriers between higher education and high school can potentially hamstring
college completion, especially when college readiness is not linked to K-12 curriculum. Many students believe that
current high school requirements will prepare them for college, when adequate preparation requires often much
more. While rigorous classes predict college success, thought and resources must be given to remediation,
especially when such interventions significantly increase the likelihood of degree attainment.
The impact of financial aid: Financial aid can impact college completion with substantial breadth and depth, from
the pool of students entering college to the range of resources both needed by students and received to the
institution. To meet the college completion goal, higher education must be wary of trying to reposition their aid in
response to rankings and competition; rather, the repercussions of financial aid can move college completion
efforts away from a game of better quality inputs and toward significant progress in improving student learning.
Transfer rates: Most policies regarding attainment look at college completion along a single track. Colleges and
universities are often inefficient when it comes to transferring credits over from other institutions or otherwise view
transfer of credits from outside of college as a supplemental activity. Ineligibility to transfer credits from one
institution to the other or requirements to enroll in redundant coursework only hinder a student’s progress toward
completion. Articulation and transfer systems must be both available and transparent to the student.
The role of advising and student services: Building upon a student’s academic self-efficacy is a lever that should
not be ignored, and policies on college completion should focus on empowering self-efficacy. Encouraging
students to share their academic success stories while collaborating with college advisors on supporting both self-
efficacy and emotional support throughout college will aid in persistence toward a degree. Consistent evaluation
and assessment with students in a one-on-one basis can check whether or not a student is moving toward good
time management, choosing the right classes, and good academic performance.
The use of technology: The use of data analytics will prove essential to unpacking performing substantial trend
analysis in college completion. It is difficult to tell which data tool will ultimately prove the most useful, but a
common thread is their ability to interpret massive amounts of information into points that are easy to consume
and understand. As institutions and systems work with the college completion agenda, wielding data wisely will
require the use of new tools and an embracing of technology at all levels of the university.
Rethinking college credit hours: Credit hours will play a large role in ensuring higher college completion -
specifically their optimal use in application toward a credential. Consider that the average community college
student earns approximately 140 credit hours in pursuit of a bachelors degree despite that, on the average, only
120 are required. The extraneous credits represent both an additional investment of time, energy, and financial
resources despite their application across a student’s learning.
How to get startedThe student flow and productivity models take a lot of points into consideration, but where do you start if you are a college president, systemhead, legislator, or policymaker?
Although this guide is meant to help you navigate through using
the models, it may not be as clear on how to use them when
placing college completion into the user’s context. Said
differently, different constituents have different needs when it
comes to unpacking degree attainment. If you are an
institutional researcher, you may wish to drill down on trends
throughout the college completion spectrum to benchmark your
institution’s progress. As a policymaker, you may want to know
what levers are most suited toward generating policy around
cost-savings, degree yield, or enrollment distribution.
In response to these questions, NEBHE has put together a
preliminary decision tree to help you get started. We believe that
these models, without a substantial plan and course of inquiry,
may not realize their full potential to make a substantial impact
on raising college completion. Therefore, our approach here is
two-fold: the first is to pose some initial questions regarding
degree attainment and the second is to look toward common
outcome metrics that will articulate results to all stakeholders,
regardless of role.
Bringing a working definition of success and what it looks like in
higher education will fundamentally require us to use the same
metrics of quality, access, and attainment. The growing
consensus, especially among many foundation leaders and
policymakers, is that the “unknowable” returns on education
and what constitutes success is no longer acceptable.
That said, higher education policy fundamentally falls in the
domain of each state, not necessarily national policy. Changing
demographics in each state, along with shifting financial aid
priorities and policies, declining resources, economic realities,
new providers of higher education, and other forces will exert
themselves on the college completion agenda likely in
unforeseen ways. However, in light of these challenges, it is
imperative that we also continue to provide a quality education
to students, not simply transform higher education into
warehouses of credentials.
Utilizing a framework from Complete College America and the
National Governors Association, we preliminarily recommend
using these college completion metrics to begin to unravel this
policy knot from multiple vantage points. While this is not a
comprehensive list of progress and outcome metrics, we hope
these outcomes in conjunction with some beginning questions
will help to shape the use of these models around completion.
Decision Tree
• Degrees awarded
• Graduation rates
• Transfer rates
• Time and credits to degree
The following metrics come directly from Complete College America and NGA’s work on Common College Metrics.
Outcome Metrics
Outcome metrics tell the story of a
student’s education and end result
from their experience in higher
education toward a degree. Outcome
metrics are often what many
stakeholders in higher education look
to when assessing the effectiveness of
the educational process.
• Degrees awarded: annual number
and percentage of certificates,
associate degrees, and bachelor’s
degrees awarded;
• Graduation rates: number and
percentage of certificate- or degree-
seeking students who graduate
within normal program time (two
years for associate’s degrees; four
years for bachelor’s degrees) or
extended time (three years for
associate’s degrees; six years for
bachelor’s degrees);
• Transfer rates: annual number and
percentage of students who transfer
from a two-year to four-year
institution; and
• Time and credits to degree: average
length of time in years and average
number of credits that graduating
students took to earn a certificate,
an associate degree, or a bachelor’s
degree.
Outcome Metrics
• Enrollment in remedial education
• Success in remedial education
• Success in first year coursework
• Credit accumulation
• Retention rates
• Course completion
Progress Metrics
• First-time enrollment
• Completion ratio
• Market penetration
Context Metrics (student flow model)
Progress Metrics
Progress metrics take a closer
look within the completion
spectrum by assessing the
performance of students from
semester-to-semester and year-
to-year. This kind of trend analysis
can help educators and
stakeholders identify key areas in
the completion pipeline to drill
down on through targeted
intervention and increased support
services.
Enrollment in remedial education:
number and percentage of
entering first-time undergraduate
students who place into and enroll
in remedial math, English, or both;
Success beyond remedial
education: number and
percentage of first-time
undergraduate students who
complete a remedial education
course in math, English or both
and complete a college-level
course in the same subject;
Success in first-year college
courses: annual number and
percentage of entering first-time
undergraduate students who
complete entry college-level math
and English courses within the first
two consecutive academic years;
and
Credit accumulation: number and
percentage of first-time
undergraduate students
completing 24 credit hours (for full-
time students) or 12 credit hours
(for part-time students) within their
first academic year;
Retention rates: number and
percentage of entering
undergraduate students who enroll
consecutively from fall-to-spring
and fall-to-fall at an institution of
higher education;
Course completion: percentage of
credit hours completed out of
those attempted during an
academic year.
Context Metrics
Making choices about the
resources and trends across the
completion spectrum can present
a daunting challenge. The student
flow projection model can begin to
help with this by looking at it’s
three main throughputs and inputs
to better analyze and work toward
clarity with both the outcome and
progress metrics.
Enrollment: total first-time
undergraduate students enrolled in
an institution of higher education;
Completion ratio: annual ratio of
certificates and degrees awarded
per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE)
undergraduate students; and
Market penetration: annual ratio of
certificates and degrees awarded
relative to the state’s population
with a high school diploma.
Together, these measures help
create a narrative bent toward
completion that doesn’t come at
the cost of quality.
Initial questions to consider
As you go through the models and using them to formulate your own plan and understanding around college completion, consider the following questions listed below. The models will help reveal some answers to these questions and others as you iteratively work with both the student flow and productivity components
I. Growing accountability pressures
and a lack of readily accessible
institutional measures of
performance have ratcheted an
increased emphasis on student
completion and graduation rates.
Though previous research
focuses in on the factors
responsible for influencing a
student’s likelihood of success, it
does not pay significant attention
to how state contexts may
shape student outcomes. In this
instance, how does the
distribution of enrollment in
across institutional types
(two year, four year, public,
private, nonprofit, forprofit)
relate to degree attainment?
Does the presence of community
colleges facilitate a sorting of
students into higher education in
a way that is associated with
higher degree completion at
public four year institutions?
II. Increasing the college going
population will undoubtedly
challenge state and federal
resources in new and dynamic
ways. There is enormous
consensus that no student
should be denied access to
higher education simply because
it is too expensive. Multiple
researchers have found, for
instance, the positive association
between states that offer broad-
based merit scholarships and
need-based aid and an increase
in college graduation rates.
Investing in college completion
will require that funds are
optimized and directed to make
the most impact, especially in an
educational reality where we are
increasingly asked to do more
with less. How do changes to
enrollment and the allocation
of resources in a state result
in either increased or
decreased college
completion rates? Does
shifting enrollment to community
colleges save money in the long
run? Can investments in student
services rather than instruction
increase college completion?
Where should policy
recommendations focus with
respect to funding and capacity?
III. The process of education reform
and adjusting completion rates
begs to ask the question: who is
performing the best when it
comes to college completion?
Which institutions are presenting
the clearest paths to
opportunity? How does
opportunity and future job
demand coincide and which
institutions are best met to
meet this demand? Are states
respectively balanced to meet
this demand given the number of
educational institutions in their
state? Where should emphasis
be placed?
IV. The rising costs of tuition and
attendance leave many students
wondering if the ROI of college
makes sense, especially given
that the opportunity costs of
attendance are an extraordinary
source of concern for many.
What are state funding
realities like for college
students and what, given
various changes to state
budgets, will costs of college
look like in five years, ten
years, and beyond? What will
public universities be asking
students to pay if appropriations
are changed (positively or
negatively) or stay the same?
How can you make the case that
college is right for everyone?
V. Underserved populations and
minorities remain a constant
reminder of the size of the gap
in college completion. Drilling
down to examine how cohorts
of students achieve completion
with respect to racial / ethnic
background remains a critical
question for analysts and
policymakers. Yet, some
institutions and states are
making strides toward narrowing
the completion gap between
white students and minority
students. Are states serving
these populations well and what
gaps, be they large or small, will
need to be closed? How would
closing these gaps, holding all
other things constant, impact
college completion rates in a
state? What pathways make
the most sense and what are
institutions doing right when
it comes to closing the
achievement gap?
VI. Metrics remain something of a
debate when focusing in on
college completion, especially
when it comes to creating a
shared taxonomy of success
and comparing which levers are
the most effective in a particular
state given the myriad realities of
funding, population, migration,
and other factors. Using specific
state data to set calibrate levers
appropriately in combination
with an understanding of state
policy, states must identify
metrics in a shared context,
including multiple outcome
metrics (enrollment, time and
credits to a degree) and
progress metrics (remediation,
workforce demand). Information
on completion must allow state
leaders to further understand if
their policies are successful and
working toward successful
funding of future decisions. By
inputting the metrics and
predicted numbers of a
particular policy outcome into
the model, are you on target
for where you need to be
with a respective completion
goal? If not, what other levers
and dials can be adjusted to
ensure completion?
VII. Adult and experiential learning
are rapidly coming to the
forefront of the completion
discussion, especially given their
numbers – if a state is to reach
their goal of 60% degree
attainment in the population,
adult learners will ultimately
need to be a part of this
equation. What factors are
necessary to increase degree
attainment among the “21st
century” student population?
Which institutions are serving
them best and what factors best
promote their success (student
services, hours of instruction,
etc.)? Should credits earned for
prior learning and experience
count toward degree
attainment? How much of a
state’s population of learners
come from this age and
experiential range? How can
policies specifically target
completion for this group?
VIII. The complexity inherent in
enabling all students to achieve
requires an incredible amount of
resources and development of
mechanics that incentivize
institutions beyond simply
rewarding the ones that
graduate the most or putting
more courses online.
Increasingly, businesses feel that
many students leaving college
are ill-equipped to meet the
demands required of an
educated workforce; in turn,
many students are earning their
degrees at the expense of
mounting debt and
undermatching for their skill sets
they learned and earned while in
school. Where does state and
national need exist for skilled
workers? How does the
change in the number of
degrees completed in a state
impact the relationship
between workforce
development and economic
growth? What are the most
frequent indicators that a
student is on track to
employment and entry into the
workforce? What is the
relationship of a college
education beyond its monetary
value and its contribution to a
successful and fulfilling life?
IX. With so many questions on the
horizon, where should a state
even begin to unpack the
college completion issue? What
issues represent the greatest
challenges? Which ones
represent low-hanging fruit
for states to begin to tackle
first? What subtopics are ripe
for change and how might a
state go about cultivate a
ripening of this issue to provoke
and challenge the system
toward progress in the human
condition? What forces are at
play here that might prevent or
hinder progress and adaptive
work?
Decision Tree FlowchartDownload from NEBHE’s NE2025 website at:
http://www.nebhe.org/policy-research/new-england-2025/
The Decision Flowcharts are designed to visually lead users through outcome and progress metrics depending on a variety of
scenarios and tests. While the best use of the model is to employ all of its functionality toward an outcome, the flowcharts are
designed to help users think about various scenarios and levers to begin focusing on while building out the rest of the functions
iteratively. Further analysis with respect to each New England state’s standing on these metrics can be found further in this guide.
Examining College Completion Across the Six New England States
Research on retention and completion, in the words of Clifford Adelman, seeks “to discover those aspects of student
and institutional behavior that actually can be changed to improve the odds of attainment...we look for concrete and
practical suggestions that can be assigned to particular individuals and groups to carry out.” Through the models and
recommendations that they begin to unearth, state-level realities emerge as a critical lens to place over the
aforementioned aspects of student and institutional behavior. When considering how different each of the six New
England states are with respect to demography, migration, job demands, economic realities, and funding, it is vital to
look at each state separately and only in aggregate in so much as to benchmark progress.
The details of each state’s performance with respect to college completion and productivity can be compared with the
following tables and infographics. NEBHE’s New England 2025 website also features individual state-level data
summaries that capture some of this narrative as it is today with respect to college completion and productivity. These
benchmarks also may be useful to stakeholders who are looking for a place to start with respect to using these models
toward an attainment goal.
Download the state-level data summaries from NEBHE’s NE2025 website at: http://www.nebhe.org/policy-research/new-england-2025/
!
Degree Attainment at the Regional Level
Improving Performance at the State Level
STATEHIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE
COLLEGE-GOING OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL
PARTICIPATION RATE 20-39 YEAR OLDS
PUBLIC RESEARCH
PUBLIC BACHELORS/MASTERS
PUBLIC TWO-YEAR
PRIVATE (NON-PROFIT AND FOR-PROFIT)
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Based on their relative performance to other states nationally
= bottom quartile of performance Undergraduate credentials awarded per 100 FTE
Improving Costs at the State Level: Public Research Institutions
STATESTUDENT/FACULTY RATIO
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES PER FTE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES PER FTE
STUDENT SUPPORT EXPENSES
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PER FTE
TUITION REVENUES PER FTE
TUITION DISCOUNTS PER FTE
STATE AND LOCAL APPROPRIATION
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Based on their relative performance to other states nationally
= top quartile in costs & bottom quartile in revenues
Improving Costs at the State Level: Public Bachelors and Masters
STATESTUDENT/FACULTY RATIO
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES PER FTE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES PER FTE
STUDENT SUPPORT EXPENSES
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PER FTE
TUITION REVENUES PER FTE
TUITION DISCOUNTS PER FTE
STATE AND LOCAL APPROPRIATION
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Based on their relative performance to other states nationally
= top quartile in costs & bottom quartile in revenues
Improving Costs at the State Level: Public Two-Year Institutions
STATESTUDENT/FACULTY RATIO
INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES PER FTE
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES PER FTE
STUDENT SUPPORT EXPENSES
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PER FTE
TUITION REVENUES PER FTE
TUITION DISCOUNTS PER FTE
STATE AND LOCAL APPROPRIATION
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Based on their relative performance to other states nationally
= top quartile in costs & bottom quartile in revenues
PRIMARY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
(1)The model assumes linear progress toward all 2025 goals/
targets - incremental improvements rather than all at once.
For instance, a state may not be able to incrementally begin
work on various levers until significant capacity building,
therefore a more exponential curve would need calculation.
(2)All increases and reductions in expenditures and revenues by
2025 are in current dollars - no inflation taken into account.
Assumptions and Definitions
PRIMARY MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
(3) Included in the model are projections of high school
graduates and young adults aged 20 to 39 to the year 2025.
This leads to declines in degree production (at current levels of
performance) in states that have projected declines in
population - and vise-versa.
(4) A 2 percent annual increase in benefits costs is included in
the model (in current dollars). This is approximately the rate of
increase over and above inflation experienced in the last
decade (conservatively).
MEASURE: COLLEGE GOING ATTAINMENT RATE OF 25-64 YEAR OLDS
Definition: Percent of 25 to 64 Year Olds with Associate
Degrees and Higher
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community
Survey
MEASURE: HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATE
Definition: High school graduates as a percent of 9th graders
four years earlier
Source: NCES; Common Core Data
Assumptions and Definitions (cont.)
MEASURE: COLLEGE-GOING RATE DIRECTLY OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL
Definition: Fall first-time students directly out of high school
(within the past year) as a percent of recent high
school graduate (the previous spring)
Source: NCES; Common Core Data; IPEDS Fall Residency
and Migration Survey
MEASURE: PARTICIPATION RATE OF 20 TO 39 YEAR OLDS
Definition: Fall first-time students not directly out of high school
as a percentage of 20 to 39 year olds
Source: NCES; IPEDS Fall Residency and Migration Survey;
U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates
MEASURE: UNDERGRADUATE CREDENTIALS AWARDED PER 100 FTE
Definition: Undergraduate credentials (certificates, associates,
and bachelor's) awarded per 100 full-time equivalent
undergraduates
Source: NCES; IPEDS Completion and Enrollment surveys
MEASURE: STUDENT / FACULTY RATIO
Definition: Number of Students per Faculty Member: Total FTE
students / Total FTE faculty (full-time plus 1/2
part-time)
Source: NCES; IPEDS Enrollment and Fall staff surveys
Assumptions and Definitions (cont.)
MEASURE: INSTRUCTIONAL SALARIES PER FTE
Definition: Total instructional salary outlay / total FTE students
Source: NCES; IPEDS Fall Enrollment survey
MEASURE: ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES PER FTE
Definition: The Costs of Running the Institution: (institutional
expenditures + plant operation and maintenance
expenditures) per FTE student
Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance and Enrollment surveys
MEASURE: STUDENT SERVICE EXPENDITURES PER FTE
Definition: The Non-Instructional Costs of Serving Students:
(student services expenditures + academic support
expenditures) per FTE student
Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance and Enrollment surveys
MEASURE: EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PER FTEDefinition: Employee benefits for all faculty and staff per FTE
student
Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance and Enrollment surveys
Assumptions and Definitions (cont.)
MEASURE: PERCENTAGE TUITION INCREASE PER STUDENT BY 2025
Definition: Percentage increase in net tuition revenues per FTE
student
Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance and Enrollment surveys
MEASURE: TUITION DISCOUNTING PER FTE
Definition: Non-Need-Based Tuition Discounting: (Gross tuition
revenues minus net tuition revenues per FTE
student) / 2. This assumes that half of the
discounting is based on need
Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance and Enrollment surveys
MEASURE: ANNUAL INCREASE IN STATE AND LOCAL REVENUES
Definition: Percentage increase in state and local revenues
(unrestricted - not restricted for research, agriculture,
etc.)
Source: NCES; IPEDS Finance survey
MEASURE: REDUCTION IN CREDIT HOURS TO DEGREE
Definition: Reduction in the number of credit hours students
earn toward an associates degree at two-year
colleges and a bachelors
Source: NCES; IPEDS Enrollment survey
Carnevale, A.P., & Smith, N. (2010). More than 2 million job vacancies forecast for ne by 2018 … but do our workers have what it
takes to fill them?. New England Journal of Higher Education, Retrieved from http://www.nebhe.org/2010/09/10/more-than-2-million-
job-vacancies-forecast-for-ne-by-2018-but-do-our-workers-have-what-it-takes-to-fill-them/
Harrington, P.E., & Sum, A.M. (2010). College labor shortages in 2018?. New England Journal of Higher Education, Retrieved from
http://www.nebhe.org/2010/11/08/college-labor-shortages-in-2018/
Hoffman, N. (2010). Time to completion: states and systems must tackle the time dilemma. Unpublished manuscript, Time to
completion, Jobs for the Future, Boston, MA.
Jones, S. (2010). Essential steps for states. Informally published manuscript, Complete College America, Washington D.C., Retrieved
from http://www.nebhe.org/wp-content/uploads/Complete-College-America-Central-Steps.pdf
Kearney, M.L., & Yelland, R. (2010). Higher education in a world changed utterly: doing more with less. Unpublished manuscript,
_OECD/IMHE Conference, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France. Retrieved from http://
www.nebhe.org/wp-content/uploads/OECD-Doing-more-with-less.pdf
Kelly, P. (2010). Introduction to state student flow guide for california. Unpublished manuscript, National Center for Higher Education
Management Systems, Boulder, CO.
Lumina Foundation, The (2010). Goal 2025 strategic plan. Informally published manuscript, Goal 2025, The Lumina Foundation,
Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://luminafoundation.org/goal_2025/Lumina_Strategic_Plan.pdf
Lumina Foundation, The. (2010). Navigating the new normal. Informally published manuscript, Lumina National Productivity
Conference, The Lumina Foundation, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from http://www.collegeproductivity.org
Prescott, B. (2010). Promising practices in statewide transfer articulation systems. Informally published manuscript, Policy Analysis
and Research, Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, Boulder, CO.
Reyna, R. (2010). Complete to compete: common college completion metrics. Unpublished manuscript, NGA Center for Best
Practices, National Governors Association, Washington D.C., Retrieved from http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/
1007COMMONCOLLEGEMETRICS.PDF
SHEEO. (2010). The college degree gap. Unpublished raw data, Policy Analysis and Research, State Higher Education Executive
Officers, Boulder, CO.
Works Cited
Policy andResearch45 Temple PlaceBoston, MA 02111
T 617.357.9620F 617.338.1577
http://www.nebhe.org
Top Related