Student Success: Progression and Completion Workgroup Patrick Perry - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

student success progression
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Student Success: Progression and Completion Workgroup Patrick Perry - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Committee on Measures of Student Success: Progression and Completion Workgroup Patrick Perry Margarita Benitez Wayne Burton 1 Tasks Prioritize major issues related to progress & completion measures Identify areas for potential


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

Committee on Measures of Student Success: Progression and Completion Workgroup

Patrick Perry Margarita Benitez Wayne Burton

slide-2
SLIDE 2

2

Tasks

  • Prioritize major issues related to

progress & completion measures

  • Identify areas for potential

recommendations

slide-3
SLIDE 3

3

Domain

  • Federal data collection instruments

(IPEDS):

  • Graduation Rate Survey
  • Fall Enrollment Survey
  • Completions Survey
  • All two-year institutions (public,

private, for-profit)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4

Environmental Scan of Issues

  • IPEDS Technical Review Panels
  • Think Tank publications
  • Foundation funded studies
  • NPEC Study on GRS
slide-5
SLIDE 5

5

Student Right To Know

  • Federal/public accountability measure
  • Focused on rates (GRS), not on volumes

(C)

  • SRTK conceived as “one size fits all”

methodology across all sectors and segments

  • Greatest difficulty in measurement when

applied to two-year college sector

  • Different missions, student intentions
slide-6
SLIDE 6

6

IPEDS GRS

  • The further away you get from

“traditional” college populations, the less appropriate the instrument becomes

  • “traditional”=degree-seeking, full-time,

starting in a fall term

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

GRS Issues

  • First-time
  • Starting term
  • Degree-seeking
  • Cohort identification
  • Tracking term
  • Outcomes hierarchy
  • Reporting subpopulations
slide-8
SLIDE 8

8

Other Progress/Completion Issues

  • Intermediate Measures of Progress
  • Institutional Comparisons
slide-9
SLIDE 9

9

GRS: Who Gets Tracked?

  • First-time, full-time degree-seeking

students starting in fall (if on semesters, quarters) or year-round (if continuous enrollment)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

10

GRS: Who Gets Tracked?

  • Leaves out:
  • Students that are not full-time in first term
  • Non-Fall starters (for semester/qtr based

schools)

slide-11
SLIDE 11

11

GRS: Who Gets Tracked?

  • Requires you to somehow determine:
  • Student degree-intent, generally based

solely upon enrollment behaviors in first- term

  • Whether a student is truly first time in

higher education

slide-12
SLIDE 12

12

Workgroup Issue: Defining First-Time

  • Clear by definition (first-time

anywhere)

  • Uneven in practice
  • The higher the data aggregation level,

the more opportunity an IPEDS respondent has to “match” and eliminate non-first-timers

slide-13
SLIDE 13

13

Potential Suggestions

  • Promulgate a best practice of performing a

Nat’l Student Clearinghouse (NSC) match to eliminate prior enrolled students

  • Change the definition of first-time to “first-

time at your institution only”

  • Place a “stop-out” limit time period on

“first-time” status (student is first-time if he/she was not enrolled anywhere for X yrs)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

14

Workgroup Issue: Defining Start Term

  • Fall term or full year?
  • Counting only Fall starts can leave out

many students from the tracking cohort

  • Counting all starters in an academic year

potentially adds reporting burden and complexity

slide-15
SLIDE 15

15

Defining Start Term

  • Fall starters cohort:
  • Easily tracked; has discrete start and end

points

  • Is it a representative sample?
  • Full Year starters cohort:
  • Has multiple start points and multiple end

points

  • Is the entire universe of students
slide-16
SLIDE 16

16

Potential Suggestions

  • Test Fall starting cohort for “sample

validity” of the universe (study).

  • Include all terms in a year, and track each

start term to its respective normal time to completion.

  • Include all terms in a year, but keep a single

end point.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

17

Workgroup Issue: Defining Degree-Seeking

  • IPEDS Glossary: “student needs to be

enrolled in courses creditable towards a degree”

  • Since GRS currently only tracks those

enrolled full-time as of start term, the “default” definition of “degree-seeking” is “attempted any 12 degree-applicable, transferrable, or remedial units in first term”.

slide-18
SLIDE 18

18

Defining Degree-Seeking

  • If GRS is recommended to include part-

time students, “enrolled in courses creditable towards a degree” becomes far too low of a threshold for comparability

  • The “common bar” needs to measure

the same discrete population at each institution

  • Regardless of the % that represents
slide-19
SLIDE 19

19

Potential Suggestions

  • Use Student self-stated intent.
  • Use some unit threshold (commonly 12-18

units attempted or completed) over the course of the tracking period.

slide-20
SLIDE 20

20

Potential Suggestions

  • Use behavioral intent as defined by

“gateway course” .

  • did student ever attempt collegiate/degree-

applicable math or English; or

  • program “gateway” course; or
  • clearly vocational/occupational course that

signifies behavioral intent.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

21

Workgroup Issue: Tracking Term

  • Currently, students tracked to 150%

and 200% “normal time to completion” (3/4 yrs)

  • Somewhat assumes that a first-time

starting cohort stays relatively full-time

slide-22
SLIDE 22

22

Potential Suggestions

  • If part-time students are added to the

cohort, lengthen the tracking period to 6 years.

  • Track cohorts to multiple end points (3, 6

and 10 years ; each GRS report would have 3 cohorts reported on.)

slide-23
SLIDE 23

23

Workgroup Issue: Tracking Cohort

  • Accountability emphasis is placed upon

the tracking of a small and non- representative cohort of students

  • This cohort also has the highest

likelihood of eventual success (rate inflation)

slide-24
SLIDE 24

24

Potential Suggestions

  • Include all students, regardless of units

attempted in first-term.

  • Should K-12 concurrently enrolled students be

included?

  • Set a lower units attempted threshold on the

starting cohort (6?)

slide-25
SLIDE 25

25

Potential Suggestions

  • If a full-year cohort is being tracked,

set a minimum units attempted threshold of units attempted in the first year.

slide-26
SLIDE 26

26

Potential Suggestions

  • Do not designate full-time/part-time status

in the cohort as many students move between these statuses during their academic history.

  • Increase the tracking period to accommodate

all students’ progress.

slide-27
SLIDE 27

27

Workgroup Issue: Outcomes

  • GRS does not differentiate outcomes

hierarchy of 4-yr institution vs 2-yr institution

  • Currently:
  • Degree/certificate attainment or “prepared to

transfer” (AA equivalent)

  • If no degree, transfer anywhere (upward or

lateral)

  • Also dictates a proper NSC match for xfer
slide-28
SLIDE 28

28

Outcomes

  • Many 2-yr institutions view upward (2

yr to 4 yr) transfer as a very high order

  • utcome and a primary mission
  • Is there a “threshold” of transfer?
  • “Lateral” (2 yr to 2 yr) transfer is not

high order (and in many cases is just “swirl”) and should not be claimed as progress

slide-29
SLIDE 29

29

Outcomes

  • Students are encouraged to get BOTH

an AA/AS/certificate AND transfer

  • These are separate functions, and not

hierarchical

slide-30
SLIDE 30

30

Potential Suggestions

  • Count outcomes separately and

independently

  • AA/AS/Certificate
  • Transfer to 4-yr institution (NOT lateral)
  • Transfer-Prepared
  • Transfer to other institution (lateral)
  • Students earning multiples can be counted

in each

slide-31
SLIDE 31

31

Potential Suggestions

  • Create a single “higher order” outcomes

“Achievement Rate”

  • Student earned ANY of the following:
  • AA/AS/Certificate; or
  • Transfer-Prepared; or
  • Transfer to 4-yr institution
  • Any of these outcomes is counted only once

in the achievement rate

  • Eliminate separate grad/transfer rates
slide-32
SLIDE 32

32

Potential Suggestions

  • Create separate reporting group for “lower-
  • rder” outcomes:
  • Lateral transfer
  • Still enrolled
  • [Cohort]-[exemptions] = [high-order
  • utcomes] + [low-order outcomes] +

[noncompleters]

slide-33
SLIDE 33

33

Workgroup Issue: Subpopulation Crosstabs

  • Many rate “cuts” desired
  • Race/eth, gender only ones currently

available

  • Desired:
  • Fin Aid status (Pell), remedial/collegiate

status, socioeconomic status, first gen status, student age upon entry, distance education program status…and more

  • All crosstabbed against each other
slide-34
SLIDE 34

34

Potential Suggestions

  • Add age group to gender/ethnicity
  • [<24, 25+] or [<20, 21-39, 40+]; broadly; or
  • Add detailed age group as separate table
  • Add remedial status: separate cohort into

[remedial/collegiate upon entry] groups

slide-35
SLIDE 35

35

Potential Suggestions

  • FinAid status: [Pell/No Pell] or other

locally defined “need-based” fin aid

  • Socioeconomic/First Gen status: would need

federal guidelines to define

slide-36
SLIDE 36

36

Workgroup Issue: Intermed. Measures of Progress

  • Only current one in IPEDS domain is

“Retention Rate” in Fall Enrollment Survey

  • Should IPEDS be a collector of

“momentum points”?

slide-37
SLIDE 37

37

Potential Suggestions

  • Retained until end of first term enrolled

(EF)

  • Unit threshold achievement: completed 12,

30 or some other level of units (GRS)

  • Completed remedial thresholds (completed

sequence)

  • Wage outcomes studies or employment

studies (gainful employment)

slide-38
SLIDE 38

38

Workgroup Issue: Institutional Comparisons/Peering

  • Outcome rates are highly correlated

with things outside an institutions control

  • Academic preparedness of students
  • Socioeconomic/first gen status of service

area

  • We need a better way to compare and

isolate the institutional effect on

  • utcomes and create true “peers”
slide-39
SLIDE 39

39

Potential Suggestions

  • In IPEDS-EF, instead of collecting

headcount by State, collect student headcount by zipcode, thus creating a linking field to census/ACS data

  • From this, create service area indices that

isolate factors out of the campus’ control, and use for peering, comparison, and participation rates