a new perspective on student success new perspective on... · ©2015 the advisory board company •...
Post on 07-May-2018
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
A New Perspective on Student Success Central Michigan University Annual Conference July 8, 2015
Student Success Collaborative
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
ROAD MAP
1
2
3
4
2
The Murky Middle Project
The New Challenge
Targeted Campaigns
Where Do We Go From Here?
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
3
Bringing Universities Together Around a Shared Best Practice Solution
The Student Success Collaborative
Best Practice Research
Change Management Consulting
Analytics & Technology
160+ Member Institutions
38 States Represented
5,900 Total End Users
6M+ Student Records
250M+ Course Records
Diversity of Schools Working Together
AAU Members
Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Historically Black Colleges & Universities
Institutes of Technology
Liberal Arts Colleges
Private Research Universities
Public Flagships
Religious Affiliates
State Systems
Urban Universities
SSC
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com • 30818
4
Platform Enables Better Decision Making, Smarter Advising
Unpacking the SSC Technology
1 Institution Reports 2
360-Degree Student View 3
Major and Career Guidance 4 Advanced
Filtering
Key Components
5 Comprehensive Case Management 6 Usage and
Effectiveness Tracking
ALL M
EM
BERS
SSC—
CAM
PU
S
MEM
BERS
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
5
Multiple Approaches to Generating Results from the Collaborative
Three Paths to Value
Resources in the Student Success Collaborative
Historical Student Analytics
Advising Platform
Current Student Analytics
Dedicated Consulting
Student Success Research & Best Practices
Impacting Student Success in Three Ways
Making Data-Driven Systemic Changes Changing the environment in which students operate to eliminate barriers and facilitate success
Targeting Students for Strategic Intervention Identifying student populations with the greatest need or the highest potential impact and intervening with those students to maximize results
Empowering Student Success Specialists Equipping advisors and other change agents with the data, tools, and strategies to inflect success in each individual student interaction
1
2
3
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
6
1
The New Challenge
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
7
Despite Efforts, Root Cause of Attrition Remains Frustratingly Elusive
So, Why Don’t Students Complete?
Hours spent in campus meetings and town halls
Hundreds of new student success administrators
Countless presentations on improving completion
Thousands of pages of task force recommendations
In my interviews with students, I have found that the biggest reasons for a delay in graduation are that students switch majors, fail out of courses, cannot get required courses, do not qualify for their intended majors; they have to work to pay for their living expenses, do not think there are any jobs for them after graduation, pursue double majors, do not receive adequate advising, have medical problems and personal issues.
Faculty Member, Large Public Research University
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
8
Intense Pressure to Improve Coming From All Sides
Feels Like the Stakes Have Never Been Higher
Increased Oversight from Governments
National Rankings and Reputation
Pushback from Parents on Value
Concern for the Achievement Gap
Moral Imperative to Fulfill Our Promise
Public Scrutiny Over Rising Student Debt
External Pressures
Internal Pressures
A Public Crisis of Confidence
Total amount of student loan debt across the nation
$ 1 trillion
Underemployment rate for recent college graduates
44%
Americans who say that college is worth the investment
32%
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
9
Slowing Growth and Emerging Alternatives Ratcheting Up Competition
Facing a Tough Enrollment Environment
2.8%
1.2%
1996-2010 2011-2021 (projected)
Undergraduate Enrollment
Annual Growth
26.1%
29.3%
35.5%
46.8%
1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Shortfall of 3.8M students
Historic 11-point increase in three years following recent recession
Tuition as a Percentage of Educational Revenues for Public Universities
Online programs For-profits MOOCs(?) Community colleges
No Shortage of Alternatives Competing for Students’ Attention
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
10
Three-Fifths of Institutions Missed 2014 Enrollment or Revenue Targets
The Enrollment Crisis Hits Hard
“Goals for Enrollment and Tuition Revenue Elude
Many Colleges”
October 13, 2014
57% of surveyed public institutions missed target
62% of surveyed private institutions missed target
43%
11% 13%
34%
38%
9% 10%
43%
Both enrollment andrevenue goals
Enrollment goals butnot revenue goals
Revenue goals butnot enrollment goals
Neither revenue norenrollment goals
Percent of Institutions Meeting Goals
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
Council of Independent Colleges
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
11
Bolstering Enrollment Hurts Margins, Reduces Graduation Rates
The Enrollment Dilemma
Source: Education Advisory Board interviews and analysis
Raise Enrollment Lower Price,
Lower Selectivity
Raise Selectivity Lower Enrollment,
Lower Price
Raise Price Lower Selectivity, Lower Enrollment
How Do We Break the Enrollment “Iron Triangle”?
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
12
Peripheral Markets More Promising Than Core
Finding High-Growth “Adjacencies”
Degree
Completers
Transfers
English
Language
Learners
Low-Income,
High-Ability
Professional
Master’s
International
Students
Traditional
Age Under-
Graduates
Working
Adults
Graduate
Students
Under-
Represented
Populations
Core
Markets
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
13
Four Emerging Student Segments
Adjacencies Offer Potential for Big Growth
Market Size
Net
Revenue
Potential
Low-Income,
High-Ability 2.8K 35K
English Language
Learners
?
35K 500K
Degree
Completers 3M 20M
Current Potential
Transfers
3M 5M
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
14
Modeling Enrollment Changes
Retention Is a Also a Growth Strategy
Source: Education Advisory Board interviews and analysis
EAB’s Enrollment Revenue Calculator
0-29
credits
30-59
credits
60-89
credits
90-119
credits
120+
credits
Transfers Transfers Transfers Transfers Transfers
Drop outs Drop outs Drop outs Drop outs Drop outs
Graduates
New
Students Retained Retained Retained Retained
Enrollment, flow rate,
and revenue inputs 28
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
15
Retention Improvements Promise Meaningful Revenue Gains
Doing Well by Doing Good
Source: Education Advisory Board interviews and analysis
Revenue Gains from an Annual 1% Improvement in Institution-Wide Retention Over Three Years
$1.6 M
$3.7 M
$6.2 M
$7.4 M $7.9 M
Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Fall 2018 Fall 2019 Fall 2020
Central Michigan University 21,700 undergraduates
183 additional students in Year One
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
16
Current Practices Focused Very Early and Very Late, Not in the Middle
Where Are Schools Investing in Success?
Noel-Levitz “2013 Student Retention and College Completion Practices Report for Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions”. http://www.noellevitz.com/BenchmarkReports
94%
29%
76%
98%
20%
67%
First-yearstudents
Second-yearstudents
Third-yearstudents
Fourth-yearstudents
Students closeto completion
Prevalence of Retention Practices Targeted to Specific Students
Percent of Private Univeristieswith Retention Practice
Percent of Public Universitieswith Retention Practice
Not
reported
Not
reported
? ? ? ?
Just 9% of privates and 7% of publics report that their second-year retention
practices are ”Very Effective”
Prevalence of Retention Practices Targeted to Specific Students
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
17
2
The Murky Middle Project
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
18
Student Success Practice Poorly Aligned to Real Patterns of Attrition
Missing Most of the Story
4.5% 3.0%
4.2% 4.7%
8.5%
22.7%
1st YearAttrition
2nd YearAttrition
3rd YearAttrition
4th YearAttrition
5th YearAttrition
6th YearAttrition
TotalStudents
Timing of Dropout SSC National Data Set
Official Metric:
First-to-Second
Year Retention of
FT/FT Students
Official Metric:
Graduation Rate of
FT/FT Students
Within Six Years
The Dark Times
No widespread collection
or reporting of interim
attrition rates
Over half of all attrition
goes untracked until as
much as five years later
24.9%
First-year dropouts
2nd – 6th year dropouts
>6 years, outcome
unknown
Six-year graduates
22.7%
4.0%
48.4%
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
19
Murky Middle Might Be Relatively Easy to Assist Compared to Others
A New Way Forward?
Source: EAB Interviews and Analysis
Academically Adrift
Severe academic difficulties, may need remediation and
time to mature before completing
Poor Fit for Campus
Not well-matched to campus culture and
offerings, will likely transfer to another school
Unknown Causes
Academically qualified and well-matched to campus, causes of attrition poorly
understood
Predominant First-Year Attrition Second-Year and Third-Year Attrition
Too costly to remediate? Too difficult to engage? Best chance for ROI?
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
20
Historical Insights from National Dataset
Source: EAB Murky Middle Project: http://www.eab.com/technology/student-success-collaborative/members/white-papers/the-murky-middle-project
Uncovering an Untapped Opportunity
Large Numbers of “Murky Middle” Students Leaving Later in College
*Non-Transfer = do not have transfer indicator based on admit code, if available, or based on term-level data **Full time = attempting at least 12 credits in first semester
0 K
10 K
20 K
30 K
40 K
50 K
60 K
70 K
80 K
90 K
0.0 -0.2
0.2 -0.4
0.4 -0.6
0.6 -0.8
0.8 -1.0
1.0 -1.2
1.2 -1.4
1.4 -1.6
1.6 -1.8
1.8 -2.0
2.0 -2.2
2.2 -2.4
2.4 -2.6
2.6 -2.8
2.8 -3.0
3.0 -3.2
3.2 -3.4
3.4 -3.6
3.6 -3.8
3.8 -4.0
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
First-Year GPA
Histogram of All Students by First-Year GPA SSC National Data Set
Graduates within 6 Years (357,405 students)
Continued Enrollees Past 6 Years (29,826 students)
2nd to 6th Year Departures (183,827 students)
1st Year Departures (167,697 students)
The Murky Middle 84% return for
a second year
48% graduate
within six years
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
21
2.9% 3.0%
3.0% 4.3%
9.5%
22.1%
1st YearAttrition
2nd YearAttrition
3rd YearAttrition
4th YearAttrition
5th YearAttrition
6th YearAttrition
TotalStudents
Timing of Attrition by Year
Could a Bigger Focus on Years 2-6 Generate Gains?
Central Michigan Historical Insights
22.7%
First-year dropouts
2nd - 6th year dropouts
>6 years enrollment, outcome unknown
Six-year graduates
22.1%
3.1%
52.1%
Timing of Attrition
N= 10,383, FTIAC Students First Term Fall 2006-Spring 2008
14.0%
22.3%
14.0%
8.7%
4.4% 3.6%
3.6% 2.0%
7.6%
56.1%
1st YearAttrition
2nd YearAttrition
3rd YearAttrition
4th YearAttrition
5th YearAttrition
6th YearAttrition
TOTAL
Timing of Dropout Native, Full-time Students
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
22
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
0.0 -0.2
0.2 -0.4
0.4 -0.6
0.6 -0.8
0.8 -1.0
1.0 -1.2
1.2 -1.4
1.4 -1.6
1.6 -1.8
1.8 -2.0
2.0 -2.2
2.2 -2.4
2.4 -2.6
2.6 -2.8
2.8 -3.0
3.0 -3.2
3.2 -3.4
3.4 -3.6
3.6 -3.8
3.8 -4.0
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
First-Year GPA
Histogram of All Students by First-Year GPA SSC National Data Set
Graduates within 6 Years
Continued Enrollees Past 6 Years
2nd to 6th Year Departures
1st Year Departures
Central Michigan Historical Insights
Source: EAB Murky Middle Project: http://www.eab.com/technology/student-success-collaborative/members/white-papers/the-murky-middle-project
Right In-Line With the Nation
CMU Murky Middle Numbers Remarkable Similar to the Rest of the Country
*Non-Transfer = do not have transfer indicator based on admit code, if available, or based on term-level data **Full time = attempting at least 12 credits in first semester
The Murky Middle 85% return for
a second year
48% graduate
within six years
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
23
Very Difficult to Differentiate Who Will and Won’t Graduate
The Central Dilemma of the Murky Middle
Source: EAB Interviews and Analysis
2.0 -2.2
2.2 -2.4
2.4 -2.6
2.6 -2.8
2.8 -3.0
First-Year GPA
• Biology Major
• 2.5 First-Year GPA
• 30 Earned Credits
• Eventual Graduate
• Biology Major
• 2.5 First-Year GPA
• 30 Earned Credits
• Eventual Dropout
A Tale of Two Students
Billy
Bobby
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
24
Academic Probation
Term 3 dropouts
Term 4
dropouts
Term 5
dropouts
Term 6
dropouts Term 7
dropouts
Term 8
dropouts
Term 8
grads
Term 9
dropouts
Term 9
grads
Term 10
dropouts
Term 10
grads
Term 11
dropouts
Term 11
grads
Term 12
dropouts
Term 12
grads
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
Averag
e T
erm
GP
A
Murky Middle Term GPA Trends Over Time Students With First-Year GPA 2.0 to 3.0
GPA Trends Foreshadow Departure Several Terms in Advance
Looking for Reliable Indicators
Surprise finding: Academic probation policies won’t catch many dropouts until it’s too late
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
25
Historical Insights from National Dataset
Downward Trends Driven by Fs, not an Overall Decline in Grades
Drilling Into GPA Trends
Source: EAB Murky Middle Project: http://www.eab.com/technology/student-success-collaborative/members/white-papers/the-murky-middle-project
Grade Distribution for Murky Middle Students Over Time
SSC National Data Set
C 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f C
s
Term of Enrollment
A B
F 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f A
s
Term of Enrollment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f B
s
Term of Enrollment
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f F
s
Term of Enrollment
Graduates Dropouts
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
26
Central Michigan Historical Insights
Top 10 Highest DFW Rate Courses
Poor Course Completions Suggest Opportunities for Support, Redesign
32.9%
21.0% 17.4% 18.5% 19.3% 17.6% 18.1% 16.3% 16.3% 14.9%
5.3%
7.1%
7.6% 5.1% 4.2% 5.7% 2.9% 3.8% 2.9% 4.1%
PSY330 PHL140 ENG201 PSY383 STA282 REL334 BIO392 PSY100 PHL318 HDF110
% of Ds or Fs % of Ws
Top 10 Highest DFW Rate Courses, Central Michigan University Top 50 Most Enrolled Courses Fall 2007-Spring 2010
207 Count
Ns 210 327 195 88 210 171 264 172 368
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
27
3
Targeted Campaigns
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
28
CMU’s Office of Student Success Among Earliest Pioneers of SSC Campaigns
Targeted Advising Outreach and Intervention
Identify a high
ROI target
population
Campaign
Process
How SSC
Helps
Send proactive
multi-channel
outreach
Intervene with
students, refer
to specialists
Filters Easily make lists of
students who meet
specific criteria
Risk analysis Triage students
based on severity
of need
Communications* Send batch email
and texts, schedule
appointments online
Progress Tracking* Quickly see how
many students have
responded
360° student view Allows advisor to
quickly review each
student’s situation
Case Tracking* Easy referrals to
specialized support,
closed-loop notes
Escalate
systemic issues
to leadership
Consultant Dedicated support
to enable change
management
Research Best practice ideas
for resolving many
common challenges
* New or enhanced with SSC Campus migration
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
29
SSC Members Using Filters to More Precisely Target Their Advising Efforts
Campaigns Proving to Be Very Popular
Sample Campaigns
Different types of campaigns run by SSC members in 2014-15
61+
• Encourage Major Declaration
• Connect to Tutoring
• Create Degree Plans
• Re-Enroll Returning Students
• Apply for Graduation
• Send “Keep it Up!” Encouragement
• Murky Middle
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
30
88.2% 89.1%
87.8%
90.3%
88.1%
91.3%
83.0%
89.9% 90.2%
89.5%
92.0%
89.8%
92.4%
84.3%
Spring 2014 Spring 2015
MTSU Using SSC to Make an Immediate Impact on Enrollment Revenue
Impressive Campaign Results from MTSU
FTFT Freshman
+2.2%
New Transfers
+4.5%
Fall to Spring Persistence Up Across All Colleges
Overall Results
Increase in Overall Fall to Spring UG Persistence
Additional UG Students Enrolled in Spring 2015
Estimated Spring Tuition and Fees Revenue
+1.5% Points
390
$1.5+ Million
Sophomores
+2.1%
Basic
&
Applied
Scie
nces
Behavio
ral
& H
ealth
Scie
nces
Busin
ess
Education
Lib
era
l Art
s
Mass
Com
m.
Univ
ers
ity
College
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
31
4
Where Do We Go From Here?
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
32
New Technologies and Processes to Scale the Student Success Enterprise
The “Coordinated Care Network”
Academic Support
Advisors
Financial Aid
Tutoring
Case Referrals
Proactive Campaigns SSC
Advisors manage cases and triage care
Analytics prioritize cases based on need
Support offices provide specialized interventions
Better advice More targeted outreach
Feedback loops continuously improve system
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
33
Efforts Hindered by Lack of a Shared Case Management System
Lack of Coordination Limiting Front-Line Impact
Student Success Collaborative
“Campus” System
Risk Analytics Student Success CRM
Communications
Advising Notes Early Warning
Appointments
Advisors
Academic Support
Tutoring
Financial Aid
Instructors
Networking Together the Front Lines
©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com
34
Supplement Typical Strategy with Focused Approach Beyond First Year
A New Perspective on Student Success
Typical Approach to Student Success
Target resource intensive support services and staff to highest risk students
Focus efforts and programs on first-year students
Deploy staff to cover broad populations of students
Expanded Approach to Student Success
Recognize “murky” middle students as attrition risks with opportunity for improvement
Address sophomore and upper division attrition
Focus proactive outreach efforts on strategic subgroups
Optimize strategy to first-year retention rate
Optimize to enrollment and institutional persistence
Advisors make “blind” referrals to support services
Advisors coordinate care management for at-risk cases
Education Advisory Board
2445 M Street NW, Washington DC 20037
P 202.266.6400 | F 202.266.5700 | eab.com
top related