Concurrent Enrollment Board of Trustees Academic and Student - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

November 2016

Academic and Student Affairs

Concurrent Enrollment

Board of Trustees Academic and Student Affairs Committee

2

• Concurrent enrollment programs provide an

important pathway from high school to postsecondary education.

– Increases access to postsecondary education – Increases affordability of postsecondary education – Serves an increasingly diverse student population – Improves postsecondary success and completion

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

• Program quality is central to student success and

program sustainability.

– Curricular rigor and high standards for student achievement are critical to appropriately prepare high school students for postsecondary education – To ensure financial sustainability and the continued growth and strengthening of high-quality concurrent programs, pricing structures must reflect the cost of ongoing program development and delivery

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT’D)

4

• Faculty academic preparation and depth of content

knowledge is central to program quality.

– Concurrent enrollment instructors provide education for which Minnesota State awards academic credit – Like college and university faculty, their value to students lies in their advanced subject expertise – Focused graduate education in the subject area is a necessity – Mentorships with college and university faculty allow for exchange of creative ideas and best teaching practices

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT’D)

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (CONT’D)

• Minnesota State is working collaboratively with

faculty and administrative leadership across K-12 and higher education, and with local Concurrent Enrollment Advisory Committees to address important concurrent enrollment issues.

– Ensuring that all concurrent enrollment instructors meet the Higher Learning Commission’s standards for minimum faculty qualifications – Sustaining high quality programs through appropriate pricing structures

6

• 1. Create processes that support concurrent enrollment

instructors to meet the credentialing standards by 2022, the anticipated HLC extension timeline.

• 2. Create pathways to support concurrent enrollment

instructors to meet the minimum credentialing requirement.

• 3. Provide opportunities to award graduate-level credit to

high school teachers who elect to demonstrate graduate-level learning and experience through a portfolio evaluation process.

Draft comprehensive plan to sustain high- quality concurrent enrollment

7

• 4. Offer the option for concurrent enrollment instructors

and college or university faculty members to team- teach concurrent enrollment courses.

• 5. Work collaboratively to address concurrent enrollment

credentialing on an ongoing and sustainable basis.

• 6. Seek options and resources to support the long-term

sustainability of concurrent enrollment programs and to support concurrent enrollment instructors in meeting the minimum faculty qualification standards.

Draft comprehensive plan to sustain high- quality concurrent enrollment (cont’d.)

8

• Draft to be shared with Minnesota State campuses,

local concurrent enrollment advisory boards, and secondary stakeholders, November/December 2016

• Final plan for implementation, January 2017
• Implementation, Spring 2017 and ongoing

Next Steps on Comprehensive Plan

9

Questions on Background Materials?

10

• 1. What additional strategic considerations would you

suggest the colleges and universities consider relative to concurrent enrollment?

• 2. What specific policy questions would you suggest

the colleges and universities consider relative to concurrent enrollment?

• 3. Are there additional ways you would suggest that

concurrent enrollment be employed to help eliminate educational outcome disparities?

STRATEGIC QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

11

Background Materials

12

Dual Credit Options in MN

Advanced Placement International Baccalaureate Postsecondary Enrollment Options (PSEO) ‘Traditional’ PSEO On college campus or

• nline; taught by

college/university faculty Concurrent Enrollment In the high school; taught by high school instructors Examples: SMSU: College Now CLC: College in the Schools

13

Increased access to PSEO and Concurrent Enrollment over time

1985 11th and 12th graders only 2012 10th graders PSEO CTE courses; CE open to 9th and 10th graders 2014 Students in alternative settings

2015 Increased access for 9th and 10th graders

1994 MnSCU Board Policy 3.5 2003 MnSCU System Procedure 3.5.1 Upcoming Review

• f Policy 3.5 and

Procedure 3.5.1

14

2015 Legislative requirements for concurrent enrollment

• All postsecondary institutions offering

concurrent enrollment programs to meet accreditation standards of the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnerships (NACEP) by 2020-2021

• All postsecondary institutions offering

concurrent enrollment programs to establish local advisory boards

• Concurrent enrollment programs must submit

evaluative surveys annually

15

Minnesota State Concurrent Enrollment Programs

• Alexandria Technical and Community

College

• Anoka-Ramsey Community College
• Bemidji State University
• Central Lakes College*
• Century College
• Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College
• Hibbing Community College
• Inver Hills Community College
• Lake Superior College
• Mesabi Range College*
• Minneapolis Community and Technical

College

• Minnesota State Community and Technical

College*

• Minnesota State College- Southeast*
• Minnesota State University- Mankato*
• Minnesota West Community and Technical

College*

• Normandale Community College
• North Hennepin Community College
• Northland Community and Technical

College*

• Northwest Technical College
• Rainy River Community College
• Ridgewater College*
• Riverland Community College*
• Rochester Community and Technical

College

• Saint Paul College
• Southwest Minnesota State University*
• South Central College
• St. Cloud State University*
• St. Cloud Technical and Community College
• Vermillion Community College

*Accredited by the National Alliance of Concurrent Enrollment Partnership (NACEP)

16

DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT

17

Concurrent enrollment student racial ethnic diversity is increasing

• Am. Indian,

0.4% Asian & PI, 2.4% Black, 1.9% Hispanic, 3.3% Two or more, 2.7% White, 80.0% Other, 9.2%

Total Concurrent Enrollment Headcount = 25,627 fiscal year 2016

Source: System Office Research – Academic and Student Affairs

10.7% 6.6% 7.7% 6.9%

0% 5% 10% 15% 2007 2010 2013 2016

Percent Students of Color and American Indian Students

18

Increasing percentages of concurrent enrollment students are ninth to eleventh graders and females

18

60.5% 57.2% 52.9% 50.8% 38.1% 40.2% 43.1% 43.0% 0.3% 0.8% 3.6% 5.9% 1.1% 1.8% 0.5% 0.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007 2010 2013 2016

Percent by High School Grade

12th Grade 11th Grade 10th and 9th Grade Unknown

Source: System Office Research – Academic and Student Affairs

58.9% 56.0% 57.4% 57.2% 40.2% 42.5% 42.0% 42.6% 0.8% 1.5% 0.5% 0.2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2007 2010 2013 2016

Percent by Gender

Female Male Unknown

Concurrent Enrollment Student High School Grade Concurrent Enrollment Student Gender

19

ENROLLMENT TRENDS IN CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT

20

PSEO student headcount has increased by 86% since 2007 primarily due to growth in concurrent enrollment

5,481 5,450 5,440 5,499 5,758 5,905 6,453 6,557 7,333 7,720 12,118 14,070 15,092 17,087 16,610 17,998 19,217 20,801 23,631 25,627 2,826 2,135 2,181 1,903 2,670 2,733 2,993 3,144 3,422 4,726 20,425 21,655 22,713 24,489 25,038 26,636 28,663 30,502 34,386 38,073

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Fiscal Year

PSEO On-Campus PSEO Concurrent Enrollment PSEO Mixed Total PSEO 41% * 111% * 67% * 86% * * Increase since 2007

21

Almost one-half of concurrent enrollment students enroll in Minnesota State within 2 years after HS graduation

21

3.9% 43.3% 13.6% 14.3% 24.9% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Concurrent

Percent PSEO Students by Sector

Same MN State Another MN State U of MN MN Private Other States

Source: System Office Research – Academic and Student Affairs

47.2%

22

PERSISTENCE AND COMPLETION OF CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT STUDENTS

23

Colleges: Concurrent enrollment students who subsequently enroll at our colleges have substantially higher persistence rates and completion rates than other college students

23

81.7% 83.0% 80.1% 81.7% 78.0% 80.4% 80.6% 81.0% 69.1% 69.3% 68.8% 71.0% 68.3% 66.1% 65.7% 66.2% 12.6% 13.7% 11.3% 10.7% 9.7% 14.3% 14.9% 14.8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012

Persistence Rate

Took Concurrent Did Not Take Concurrent Difference

Source: System Office Research – Academic and Student Affairs

Persistence and completion rates for fall entering full-time undergraduate degree seeking students.

65.8% 67.1% 66.9% 52.9% 52.5% 51.7% 51.5% 48.9% 47.0% 46.3% 13.2% 15.5% 13.8% 15.0% 16.9% 20.1% 20.6% 66.5% 66.1% 65.5% 68.0%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011

Completion Rate

State Colleges: Persistence Rate (Second Fall) State Colleges: Completion Rate (Third Spring)

24

Universities: Concurrent enrollment students who subsequently enroll at our universities have higher persistence rates and completion rates than other university students

24

92.3% 92.5% 92.2% 92.4% 91.4% 91.3% 90.6% 89.7% 69.1% 69.3% 68.8% 71.0% 68.3% 66.1% 65.7% 66.2% 23.2% 23.2% 23.4% 21.4% 23.1% 25.2% 24.9% 23.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012

Persistence Rate

Took Concurrent Did Not Take Concurrent Difference

Source: System Office Research – Academic and Student Affairs

Persistence and completion rates for fall entering full-time undergraduate degree seeking students.

53.1% 52.1% 52.2% 51.0% 2.2% 8.4% 7.3% 8.1% 59.1% 55.3% 59.5% 60.5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008

Completion Rate

State Universities: Persistence Rate (Second Fall) State Universities: Completion Rate (Sixth Spring)

25

CURRENT CHALLENGES IMPACTING CONCURRENT ENROLLMENT

26

• The Higher Learning Commission (HLC) establishes

Criteria for Accreditation quality standards and articulates Assumed Practices for those criteria.

• In 2012-2013, HLC conducted a national study on

dual enrollment practices, including a focus specifically on concurrent enrollment.

• In 2015, HLC approved clarifications to Assumed

Practices, including language on faculty qualifications.

Background on Higher Learning Commission faculty qualifications

27

• In November 2015, HLC allowed for postsecondary

institutions with concurrent enrollment programs to apply for an extension that, if approved, could defer the implementation date up to 2022.

• In spring 2016, Minnesota State completed a

systemwide review of all concurrent enrollment instructor credentials.

– Of approximately 1,400 concurrent enrollment instructors, 24 percent currently meet the HLC faculty qualifications requirements.

Background on Higher Learning Commission faculty qualifications (cont’d)

28

• The Higher Learning Commission allows for the use
• f experiences outside the classroom in real world

situations, known as tested experience, to qualify faculty members to meet qualifications requirements.

• In spring 2016, a Minnesota State workgroup

developed a draft framework for tested experience.

Higher Learning Commission allowance for use

• f tested experience to meet faculty

qualifications

29

• Minnesota State will submit an application on behalf
• f all Minnesota State colleges and universities to

request a five year extension of the September 1, 2017 compliance timeline.

• Minnesota State universities are designing graduate

coursework and graduate programs that will provide for discipline-specific content offered in formats that meet the needs of working professionals across the state (online, cohorts, summer, etc.).

Current steps for addressing faculty qualifications

30

Background on Minnesota State pricing structure

• In response to concerns expressed by colleges and

universities about a variety of pricing structures and to ensure that concurrent enrollment programs are financially sustainable, Minnesota State agreed to resolve inconsistencies in concurrent enrollment pricing and pursue a common pricing structure or structures to meet the direct costs of concurrent enrollment.

31

• Systemwide workgroup was formed to develop

recommendations:

– The workgroup gathered and analyzed data from concurrent enrollment programs. – The workgroup recommended separate pricing structures for colleges and universities.

Background on Minnesota State pricing structure (cont’d.)

32

• Beginning in fiscal year 2018, all colleges will begin a five-year

phase-in period with the outcome of reaching a uniform charge of $3,000 per mentor-mentee relationship per course per term by fiscal year 2022.

• Beginning in fiscal year 2018, all universities will begin a

three-year phase-in period with the outcome of reaching a uniform price of $3,300 per mentor-mentee relationship per course per term, with the option to charge $110 per additional student if more than 30 students are enrolled in the course and/or students are enrolled in additional sections

• f the same course, by fiscal year 2020.

Pricing structures for colleges and for universities

33

• Minnesota State campuses will compile questions and

comments and the Leadership Council will review and consider feedback.

• If there are any changes to the pricing structures as a result of

that feedback, Minnesota State will communicate these changes with campuses to share with their programs, advisory boards, and secondary partners.

Current steps for addressing the pricing structure changes

34

• Advisory board discussions will help shape how

Minnesota State and our K-12 partners will work together to ensure faculty qualifications meet the Higher Learning Commission’s requirements, and how tested experience and the pricing structures will be approached.

Current steps for addressing faculty qualifications, tested experience, and pricing structures changes