4. Ready to structure xxxOur goal is that you will leavethis workshop. . . Do you want this slide? If so, needs to be updated 2
5. Workshop Agenda Time 3 1:00 – 1:15 Welcome and Initiative Updates 8:30 – 9:00 Understanding the New Access and Success Data: Capabilities and Trends 9:00 – 9:30 What Are the Essential Elements of a Successful Change Effort? 9:30 – 11:00 Vehicles for Success: Proposed Initiative Strategies to Build Capacity 11:00 – 11:45 The Road Ahead: Supporting Systems in Engaging & Pressing Campus Leaders Into Action 11:45 – 12:30 Meeting adjourns; Lunch is available 12:30
6. 4 Workshop Agenda 1:00 – 1:15 Session 8:30 – 9:00 Time Welcome and Initiative Updates Understanding the New Access and Success Data: Capabilities and Trends 9:00 – 9:30 What Are the Essential Elements of a Successful Change Effort? 9:30 – 11:00 Vehicles for Success: Proposed Initiative Strategies to Build Capacity 11:00 – 11:45 The Road Ahead: Supporting Systems in Engaging & Pressing Campus Leaders Into Action 11:45 – 12:30 Meeting adjourns; Lunch is available 12:30
7. Understanding the New Access to Success Data: Capabilities and Trends Jennifer Engle September 2010
8. Goal: 24 State University Systems committed to cutting access and success gaps for low-income and underrepresented minority students in ½ by 2015 Access to Success (A2S) Initiative
88. Conservatively, A2S systems would graduate approximately 250,000 more low-income and minority students by 201533 Source: A2S Baseline Dataset
89. Contact Us 1250 H Street N.W. Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20005 202/293-1217
90. Workshop Agenda 35 1:00 – 1:15 8:30 – 9:00 Session Time Welcome and Initiative Updates Understanding the New Access and Success Data: Capabilities and Trends 9:00 – 9:30 What Are the Essential Elements of a Successful Change Effort? 9:30 – 11:00 Vehicles for Success: Proposed Initiative Strategies to Build Capacity 11:00 – 11:45 The Road Ahead: Supporting Systems in Engaging & Pressing Campus Leaders Into Action 11:45 – 12:30 Meeting adjourns; Lunch is available 12:30
91. Exercise: Please rate your system from 1 to 10 on the following elements Range of likert scale?
92.
93. Where do you need the most help? Needs to be updated per Richard
94. 38 Workshop Agenda 1:00 – 1:15 Session 8:30 – 9:00 Time Welcome and Initiative Updates Understanding the New Access and Success Data: Capabilities and Trends 9:00 – 9:30 What Are the Essential Elements of a Successful Change Effort? 9:30 – 11:00 Vehicles for Success: Proposed Initiative Strategies to Build Capacity 11:00 – 11:45 The Road Ahead: Supporting Systems in Engaging & Pressing Campus Leaders Into Action 11:45 – 12:30 Meeting adjourns; Lunch is available 12:30
98. Discussion Questions How are you engaging —or could you better engage—your campus leaders in pursuing access and success goals? And how can we better support your efforts? … … … 41
99. 42 Workshop Agenda 1:00 – 1:15 Session 8:30 – 9:00 Time Welcome and Initiative Updates Understanding the New Access and Success Data: Capabilities and Trends 9:00 – 9:30 What Are the Essential Elements of a Successful Change Effort? 9:30 – 11:00 Vehicles for Success: Proposed Initiative Strategies to Build Capacity 11:00 – 11:45 The Road Ahead: Supporting Systems in Engaging & Pressing Campus Leaders Into Action 11:45 – 12:30 Meeting adjourns; Lunch is available 12:30
Questions to ask of your access metrics:Has your entering class gotten more or less diverse over time?Has your state gotten more or less diverse?Has your system improved on your access gap and ratio?In this case, the system has increased the economic diversity of its incoming freshmen class (% Pell) while the percentage of low-income young adults in the state has remained the same. As a result, the system has both narrowed the absolute gap as well as the ratio gap. The ratio gap is the % Pell among Freshmen/ % LI among HS grads in the state. This system has nearly met its goal to cut the gap in half. They have a ratio goal target of .91.The ratio goal is the difference between the baseline ratio (.82) and 1, which would indicate equity, divided by 2 to cut it in half, and added to the baseline ratio. Baseline shows they were serving about 82% of the low-income students they could be while the goal is to serve 91%.
Questions to ask of your Success metrics: Have success rates increased or decreased for your Pell and URM students? Have success rates increased or decreased for your non-Pell and non-URM students? Did your system improve on your success gap and ratio?In this case, the system has increased six-year graduation rates for both Pell and non-Pell students by 4-5%. Despite improvements for both groups, the system has not narrowed the gap between them. Absolute gap is still around 12%. Ratio gap is at .8. Ratio goal is .9.
Questions to ask of your Access+Success metrics: Have your graduates become more diverse over time?Did your system improve on your access+success gap and ratio?This metric captures the impact of both access and success gaps in your system. Since the access gaps are historical for these cohorts, your system can improve these numbers in the near term by decreasing success gaps, which hasn’t happened yet in this system and which is why they’ve not yet seen improvement here.Over time, as more recent cohorts are included in this metric, your efforts to improve access as well as success will be reflected here.
This table in the data collection report shows baseline, progress, and goal ratios for each student group (e.g. Pell FTF, Pell TT, URM FTF, URM TT).Ultimately, progress is determined on whether systems make progress on their ratios, but systems need to use the data underneath it to understand where and how they are making progress (or not). For instance, your access ratio can go down even if you enroll more LI or URM students if the state is getting more diverse at a faster rate than your system. Or, like the example before, your system may be increasing grad rates for all students, but not closing gaps, so your ratio stays the same.
A new development this year is the collection of in-progress cohorts in order to help systems facilitate goal-setting and to track progress while there is still time to intervene.This table shows six-year graduation rates for Pell students in this system. The top row is the baseline. The bottom row is the most recent cohort for which we have data available; this row will extend to the Fall 2010 cohort – this year’s freshmen – as data become available. (Mention Pell lag time if needed).Can look across the rows to see trend for a particular cohort; can look down the columns to see trends across cohorts over time.In this case, the system boosted six-year rates for both the 2002 and 2003 cohorts, which were in their sixth and fifth year respectively when the initiative started in 2007. This system also boosted five year rates for the 2003 and 2004 cohorts, which were in their fifth and fourth year; and four year rates for the 2004 and 2005 cohorts, which were in their fourth and third years.Can set goals to fill in the rest of the table for progress cohorts in order to reach both your overall goals and gap-closing goals.
Example of type of table you can produce with this data in order to view your success rate trends over time for different cohorts.
Like success rates, this table shows yearly retention rates for baseline, progress, and in-progress cohorts in order to help systems facilitate goal-setting and to track progress while there is still time to intervene.This table shows the percentage of students from the cohort who persist (remain enrolled) to year two, year three, year four, etc. These numbers decrease over time as students graduate or drop out. Need to combine with graduation rates for a better understanding of this data, but can also be instructive on its own. As with success rates, you can look across the rows to see trend for a particular cohort; can look down the columns to see trends across cohorts over time. In this example, you can see that first- to second year retention rates have been relatively flat since the 1999 cohort entered, but the system has made progress with its two most recent cohorts since the initiative started in 2007 and 2008. You can use this table to set goals for increasing yearly retention for each cohort, especially in the first several years.
Visual representation of retention rates
This chart combines the data from the retention and graduation tables to show trends over time. The first chart shows the retention and graduation – or persistence rates – for the baseline cohort. In this example, the baseline data show that this system, with a graduation rate of 42%, loses 58% of its students over the six year period. This system loses 31% of these students – which equate to over half of students lost – in the first year alone. That is signficant since many systems plan to focus their efforts on the first year, but it is also noteworthy that this systems loses the other half along the way, suggesting other intervention points too, especially since many of your cohorts are already underway.Also noteworthy in this system’s baseline data, is that 10% of their students are still retained after the fifth year, which means they are enrolled in the fall of their sixth year. However, they only boost their graduation rate from the fifth year to the sixth year by 4%, which means that there were an additional 6% of students enrolled at the start of the sixth year who they did not convert into graduates. Some of these students may remain enrolled beyond the sixth year – we don’t collect that data – but others leave. What can systems do to retain those students?The progress cohort was in its fifth year when the initiative began. In this example, the system boosted its five-year graduation rate by 3% over the baseline and boosted its six-year graduation rate by 4% over the baseline.
This table shows the number/percentof degrees conferred overall and by student characteristics (e.g. Pell/Non-Pell, URM/Non-URM).
This chart provides a visual representation of trends in the number of degrees conferred to all, Pell, and non-Pell students. In this example, the number of degrees conferred to each group has increased over time, but the number conferred to Non-Pell students has increased at a faster rate (11%) than the number conferred to Pell students (5%).Not sure whether/how to discuss that, based on baseline data, this system would increase the number of degrees conferred to Pell students by 15% if they closed both access and success gaps (not taking into account other projected increases in enrollment or degree production), so they are not making progress despite having increased the number of degrees conferred to Pell students.
Key question: What can you learn from your success whether system-wide, in some institutions, or with some groups of students? What can you learn that you can replicate?Related, has our success been intentional? If not, what can we learn from what we are doing well so we don’t accidentally change course?
![[object Object]]()