delivery bootcamp delivery primer
DESCRIPTION
DELIVERY BOOTCAMP Delivery Primer. Session Objectives. Our goal is for participants to: Learn the history of Delivery and of EDI Be introduced to the Delivery Framework Learn about the Access 2 Success Network and EDI’s involvement - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
DELIVERY BOOTCAMPDelivery Primer
2 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
3 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Session Objectives
Our goal is for participants to: Learn the history of Delivery and of EDI Be introduced to the Delivery Framework Learn about the Access 2 Success Network and EDI’s
involvement Learn California State University has employed Delivery in
their system
4 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
The CSU Story
Today’s Agenda
The Access 2 Success Network
Overview of EDI
5 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
EDI was created to help bring the delivery methodology to implementation of education reform in the US
From the remarks of Tony Blair after winning his second election in June 2001
Prime Minister Blair issued a call for change in June 2001…
PMDU responsibilities
Monitor and report on the delivery of the Prime Minister’s top priorities
Identify key barriers that prevent improvements and actions needed to strengthen implementation
Strengthen departmental capacity to deliver through better planning and sharing knowledge about best practice
…He founded the Prime Minster’s Delivery Unit (PMDU) in 2001 to help the British government implement his agenda…
…and within four years, the government was on track to hit over 80% of its high-priority targets
Dec 03 Jul 04 Dec 04
“…a mandate for reform…and an instruction to
deliver”
Delivery is based on the methodology the PMDU innovated in doing this work
Percent of targets on track
4762
83
6 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
A Delivery Story: Leaves on the Line
The Problem of Autumn: Grinding out improved rail
reliability
7 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Rail punctuality varies seasonally and reached an all-time low after the Hatfield crash in October 2000
National actual PPM (period data)
PPM
55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%
Mar 97Mar 98 Mar 99 Mar 00 Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 040%
Hatfield crash
8 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Rail varies seasonally but punctuality reached a post Hatfield peak that year
National Public Performance Measure (PPM) – actual data against Moving Annual Average (MAA)
National actual PPM (period data)National moving annual average
PPM
55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%
Mar 97Mar 98 Mar 99 Mar 00 Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 040%
Post Hatfield peak
Hatfield crash
9 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Rail punctuality varies seasonally and reach a post Hatfield peak – for autumn - that year
Source: Department of Transport
National Public Performance Measure (PPM) – actual data against Moving Annual Average (MAA)
National actual PPM (period data)National moving annual average
Mar 97Mar 98 Mar 99 Mar 00 Mar 01 Mar 02 Mar 03 Mar 04
PPM
55%60%65%70%75%80%85%90%95%
0%
Post Hatfield peak
Hatfield crash
Autumn performance almost at pre-Hatfield levels
10 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Rail reliability: The messages are clear
1.Establish a shared goal Demanding and realistic Align key players around the goal
2.Manage performance Don’t just connect the data, use it Monthly reviews with each train operating
company
3.It’s all in the detail Whistles and watches Joint Control Centres
4.Autumn shouldn’t be a surprise The weather is a variable Preparation should be constant
11 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
EDI serves state systems of public education and higher education across the United States
Current EDI Partner Systems K-12Higher EducationBoth
Our mission is to partner with K-12 and higher education systems with ambitious reform agendas and invest in their leaders' capacity to deliver results. By employing all or parts of a proven approach, known as delivery, we help state leaders maintain the necessary focus to plan and drive reform.
12 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
In addition to states, EDI partners with a number of organizations and on discrete projects
▪The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)– Implementing Common Core
Support (ICCS)– Network for Transforming Educator
Preparation (NTEP)– Cross-State Learning Collaborative
(CSLC)– Deputies support– Strategic planning
▪Complete College America (CCA)
Current EDI organizational partners and projects
▪Kentucky Personal Growth and Effectiveness System (KY PGES)
▪EL Haynes Charter School▪Investing in Innovation Fund (i3)▪Reform Support Network (RSN)
– Communications– Sustainability– Turnaround– Standards
▪Race to the Top – District (RTTTD)▪Helmsley Foundation
13 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
The delivery approach produces results by focusing leaders on four fundamental questions
“delivery” (n.) is a systematic process through which system leaders can drive progress and deliver results.
It will enable a system to answer the following questions rigorously:
1 What is our system trying to do?
2 How are we planning to do it?
3 At any given moment, how will we know whether we are on track?
4 If not, what are we going to do about it?
14 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Plan for delivery
With the help of the original practitioners and EDI’s own early experiences, the delivery approach has been distilled into 15 essential elements
Develop a foundation for delivery
Understand the delivery challenge
A. Evaluate past and present performance
B. Understand drivers of performance and relevant activities
A. Determine your reform strategy
B. Set targets and establish trajectories
C. Produce delivery plans
A. Establish routines to drive and monitor performance
B. Solve problems early and rigorously
C. Sustain and continually build momentum
Drive delivery
A. Define your aspiration
B. Review the current state of delivery
C. Build the delivery unit
D. Establish a “guiding coalition”
2 3 41
Create an irreversible delivery culture
5
A. Build system capacity all the timeB. Communicate the delivery messageC. Unleash the “alchemy of relationships”
Help system decide what it is trying to
do for its students
Help system understand its current state and
why
Help system remain
focused on its priorities
Help system connect
current work to goals for
students
Help stakeholders inside and outside of the system understand the work underway and how they connect to the work
15 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
We believe that a committed leadership team using the delivery tools will achieve significant results for students
Results for students
Bold, committed leadership
Building the skillset of a small group within the agency
Rigorous and consistent application of 15 elements across the agency
16 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
At EDI, you may here people make references to a linchpin
linchpin (n.) 1. A pin passed through the end of an axel to keep a wheel in
position2. Used figuratively to mean something, or someone, that holds
the various elements of a complicated structure together
17 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
EDI has 3 main types of support for partner systems
Intensive engagement
▪ Dedicated Engagement Manager who provides on-the-ground and virtual support
▪ 12-18 months of support▪ Available to systems that
commit to fully implementing the delivery approach
Network of deliveryleaders
▪ Create a professional learning community ofdelivery practitioners
▪ Support via face-to-face convenings, webinars, and conference calls
▪ Available to prospective partners, intensive engagement systems,and “alumni”
Tools, resources, and bestpractices
▪ Manage a continuously evolving body of knowledge about delivery, including:– Case stories– Exemplars of work in
partner systems– Tools such as rubrics,
templates, exercises, and training materials
– Short video lessons on each element of delivery by Michael Barber
▪ Available to network systemsvia online learning portal
18 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
A typical intensive engagement focuses on capacity-building, especially in the early stages
“Typical” Engagement Timeline
JanActivities
▪ Delivery capacity review
▪ Initial training
▪ Facilitate delivery planning
▪ Train and coach delivery unit
Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct
▪ Creation of delivery unit
▪ Public kickoff: integrating delivery and project mgmt
▪ Establish delivery routines:– Stocktakes– Monthly notes
Resources required for intensive engagement
▪ 40% of an FTE dedicated to state▪ Support from CEO/Deputy Director and other program staff▪ Two 1-2 day trips per month▪ Resources may be more intensive in early stages and taper off
later
Critical success factors
▪ State chief commitment▪ Access to senior team▪ Established delivery
leader/unit
19 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
EDI Organization Chart, Eff. March 20, 2014
Chief Executive Officer: Kathy Cox
K-12 Engagement Manager:
Corey Sullivan
K-12 Engagement Manager:
Tom DeWire
K-12 Director: Nick Rodriguez
Accounting Manager: Marc Raffel
Executive Assistant:Lisa Smith
Executive Assistant:
Krissy Haynes
Director of Finance and Operations:
Mike DiConti
K-12 Engagement Manager:
Catherine Cullen
Program Associate:
Duncan Robb
Program Director: Ellyn Artis
HE Engagement Manager:
Omari Burnside
HE (50%) Senior Engagement
Manager: Monica Martinez
Higher Education Director & Executive
Director of NASHRebecca Martin
K-12 (50%) Senior Engagement
Manager: Monica Martinez
EDI EM (50%); NASH Coordinator (50%):Jonathan Gagliardi
Program Manager: Sara Kerr
K-12 Engagement Manager:
Lauren Kurczewski
Program Associate: Ashleigh
McFadden
Program Associate:
Lauren Strickland
Program Associate: Aasha
Rajani
K-12 Engagement Manager:
Richard Eyre
20 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
The CSU Story
Today’s Agenda
The Access 2 Success Network
Overview of EDI
Delivery in the California State University System
22 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
In 2009, the California State University system joined the Access to Success Initiative and set ambitious goals
They committed to increase graduation rates an additional six percentage points, while cutting in half the gap for underrepresented students by 2015
CSU Graduation Rates Current 2015 goal IncreaseOverall 46% 54% 8%
URM 41% 51% 10%Non-URM 48% 55% 7%
23 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
The system held a “Graduation Initiative” kickoff with campus leaders from the 23 CalState institutions
Goals:▪Agree on goals▪Identify preliminary
strategies▪Establish planning
timeline
Participants:▪System Chancellor▪Chief Academic Officer▪All 23 campus
presidents▪All 23 campus provosts
24 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Campus leaders agreed to achieve grad rates that would put them in the top quartile of national averages of peer institutions
This would raise the overall system graduation rate to 54 percent.
25 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Leaders prioritized system- and campus-level strategies based on projected impact
These high-priority strategies were included in campus delivery plans
Online courses recognized all CSUs
What are the key actions to increase graduation rates and narrow gaps?
Ease of implemen-tation
Impact High Medium
System and Campus
Identify student success as highest value for campus
Incentivize students through fees
Simplify Gen Ed
Common transfer course structure –including CCs
Shift funding to incentivize graduation
No more than 120 units (some lower)
Campus
• Advising – Peer advising – Electronic advising
• Road maps • DARs
Career pathways
• Block registration for 1 year medium/ high)
Midterm freshman differentiation systemOperational optimization of curriculum
Link learning outcomes to instructor evals
Earlier remediation – online
Improve/create system of out of class student engagement opportunities
1st/2nd year programs
Academic guidance• For profit model • Advisor and block scheduling
Decouple seat time and recognition of skills by credit
System
Mandatory application for financial aid
System inactivesfor graduation improvement
Common transfer course structure –including CCs
2
1
2
Declare any course transferable between the different campuses
Common student number system (K to end of college)
Mandating EAP
Early major declaration
Cap major units
Easy
Hard
Ease
of
Impl
emen
tatio
n
Lower “cut scores” in Math and English
Common academic calendar and start and end dates
1
Impact
• Advising -Peer advising -Electronic advising
• Road maps
• DARs
• Block registration for 1 year (medium/high)
26 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Leaders prioritized system- and campus-level strategies based on projected impact
These high-priority strategies were included in campus delivery plans
Online courses recognized all CSUs
What are the key actions to increase graduation rates and narrow gaps?
Ease of implemen-tation
Impact High Medium
System and Campus
Identify student success as highest value for campus
Incentivize students through fees
Simplify Gen Ed
Common transfer course structure –including CCs
Shift funding to incentivize graduation
No more than 120 units (some lower)
Campus
• Advising – Peer advising – Electronic advising
• Road maps • DARs
Career pathways
• Block registration for 1 year medium/ high)
Midterm freshman differentiation systemOperational optimization of curriculum
Link learning outcomes to instructor evals
Earlier remediation – online
Improve/create system of out of class student engagement opportunities
1st/2nd year programs
Academic guidance• For profit model • Advisor and block scheduling
Decouple seat time and recognition of skills by credit
System
Mandatory application for financial aid
System inactivesfor graduation improvement
Common transfer course structure –including CCs
2
1
2
Declare any course transferable between the different campuses
Common student number system (K to end of college)
Mandating EAP
Early major declaration
Cap major units
Easy
Hard
Ease
of
Impl
emen
tatio
n
Lower “cut scores” in Math and English
Common academic calendar and start and end dates
1
Impact
• Advising -Peer advising -Electronic advising
• Road maps• DARs
• Block registration for 1 year (medium/high)
27 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Delivery plans varied in depth and quality, but guided campuses to kick-start or formalize student success efforts
Strategies
Key stakeholders
Interim milestones
Progress monitoring
Each campus plan included elements of delivery taught at the meeting
Improving Six-Year Graduation Rates: A Preliminary Plan in Coordination with a CSU-Wide Initiative
California State University, Fullerton December 2009 (Revised February 25, 2010) Task Force: Chair
Ephraim Smith, Vice President, Academic Affairs Faculty Susamma Barua, Associate Dean, College of Engineering and Computer Science
Scott Hewitt, Professor of Chemistry and Chair, Academic Senate
Larry Johnson, Professor and Chair, Department of Art Dawn Person, Professor, Educational Leadership Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty (vacant due to recent resignation)
Students Joseph Lopez, Executive Vice President, Associated Students, Inc.
Juan Moreno, Student, Humanities and Social Sciences Administrators Claire Cavallaro, Dean, College of Education
Bridget Driscoll, Director, Academic Advising Nancy Page Fernandez, Director, Freshman Programs Lea Jarnagin, Assistant to the VP, Student Affairs Robert Miyake, Assistant Dean, Mihaylo College of Business and Economics
Jessica Schutte, Director, Financial Aid Office Ed Sullivan, Acting Assistant VP, Institutional Research and Analytical Studies
Ed Trotter, Acting Associate VP, Undergraduate Programs
Jessica Wagoner, Director of Admissions
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, EAST BAY CLOSING THE GRADUATION GAP – A Working Action Plan February 22, 2010
Universities are increasingly judged on their graduation rates both within the CSU system and
nationally. Accreditation agencies and the CSU Board of Trustees have expressed a long-
standing interest in improving student success along with increasing access. In this spirit, the
California State University Executive Council met with external consultants on October 26-27,
2009 and agreed to support a systemwide initiative to increase graduation rates by 2015. The
goals are that each university should improve its overall graduation rate to the top quartile of its
peer group (or six percentage points, whichever is greater), and reduce the gap between
traditionally under-represented groups and other students by half. Each university was directed
to prepare a plan designed to achieve these goals and submit it to the Chancellor’s Office by
December 25, 2009. Cal State East Bay has a continuing interest in improving graduation rates for all segments of its
student population. The University recently renewed its commitment to timely remediation,
improved retention, reduced time to degree and increased graduation rates during its educational
effectiveness review by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) in 2007. Cal
State East Bay has taken numerous steps to help increase graduation rates and is on the verge of
implementing several more programs that are intended to raise the current six-year graduation
rate for entering freshmen (43%) by six percentage points to 49% by 2015 (for the entering
freshman class of 2009). The following plan addresses retention and graduation rate issues at Cal State East Bay, and
provides a series of actions intended to raise existing rates. To provide context, the plan outlines
the recent history of the University’s efforts to assist students and describes the steps to be taken
in the future to augment its graduation rates. This plan offers a quantitative model that will be
used to measure the relative success of those steps taken by the University in the coming years.
28 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
As campuses began their work, the CSU Delivery Team simultaneously developed a system-level delivery plan…
The team solicited suggestions for system-level actions from campus stakeholders
▪Automated Degree Audit▪New Funding Models▪Improving College Readiness▪Online Courses▪Highlighting Innovative Campus
Actions▪Affordable Learning Solutions▪Equity Scorecard▪GE Reform▪Improved Transfer Curriculum▪Common CSU Course Numbering
System▪Community College Outreach▪Making Excellence Inclusive▪Reduction in Units to Degree▪Transfer Course Articulation▪Universal CSU Calendar
29 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
…and strengthened connections with campus teams to build capacity and drive progress
▪Campus visits– Initially with all 23, now with select campuses
▪Workshops for campus leaders– Leading Indicators & Using Data– Strategies Targeting URM Students– Engaging Faculty in the Student Success Agenda
▪Bimonthly campus notes– What did your team commit to completing during the past two
months?– What did you do and how did it help?– What will you accomplish in the next two months?
▪Graduation Initiative Summit– Reconvened all provosts to revisit data and refocus on strategies
30 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Example: Early bimonthly note from CSU campus
31 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Focused, sustained efforts to promote student success led to promising early results
After a year of delivery, CSU saw the highest overall graduation rate and the highest URM graduation rate it had ever seen…but the equity gaps continued to widen
CSU Graduation Rates 2000
cohort2001
cohort2002
cohort2003
cohortOverall 48% 47% 49% 51%URM 40% 38% 40% 43%Non-URM 51% 51% 53% 55%
32 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
They went back and refocused their efforts to target strategies toward gap-closing…
The team has sustained momentum through continued routines and targeted strategies▪Automated Degree Audit▪New Funding Models▪Improving College
Readiness▪Online Courses▪Highlighting Innovative
Campus Actions▪Affordable Learning
Solutions▪Equity Scorecard▪GE Reform▪Improved Transfer
Curriculum▪Common CSU Course
Numbering System▪Community College
Outreach▪Making Excellence
Inclusive▪Reduction in Units to
Degree▪Transfer Course
Articulation▪Universal CSU Calendar▪Data-driven Decision
Making
▪Early Start Initiative▪Graduation Calculator▪Require declaration of major by 60
units▪Additional charges for units over
132▪Create a common student
numbering system▪Reward campuses that increase
URM grad rates and those who exceed grad rate target
▪Lower cut scores in Math and English to national averages
▪Suspend all academic programs over 120 Units
33 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
Leading indicators suggest their efforts are paying off
Data shows a continued increase in graduation rates and leading indicators suggest that gaps are beginning to narrow
CSU Graduation Rates
2003 cohort
2004 cohort
2005 cohort
2006 cohort
2007 cohort
Overall 51% 52% 51% 51% 51%URM 43% 44% 42% 42% 43%Non-URM 55% 56% 56% 56% 56%
Campuses focus on the 2009 cohort’s year-to-year retention given differences in freshman cohort composition
First and second year retention data show improvements are being made to close the achievement gap
34 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
The CSU delivery team continues to sustain momentum by ‘reinventing’ their delivery effort
▪Bid out $7.2M dollars to campuses to support strategies related to increasing student success and closing the achievement gap
▪Engaged their new chancellor in this effort so that it remains a priority for the system
▪Chartered a path to reset the goals in this next phase
The team has successfully…
35 ©2014 U.S. Education Delivery Institute
The CSU Story
Today’s Agenda
The Access 2 Success Network
Overview of EDI
© 2009 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The Access to Success Initiative:
Charting a Necessary Path
Ellyn Artis, Simon Day, & Richard Page-Jones March 8, 2010
© 2009 THE EDUCATION TRUST
WHO WE ARE WHAT WE DO
The Education Trust works for the high academic achievement of all
students at all levels, pre-kindergarten through college,
and forever closing the achievement gaps that separate
low-income students and students of color from other
youth. Our basic tenet is this — All students will learn at high
levels when they are taught to high levels.
Advocacy to help schools, colleges, and communities
mount campaigns to close gaps Research and policy analysis on
patterns and practices that cause or close gaps
Technical assistance to schools, colleges, and community-based organizations to raise student achievement and close gaps
The Education Trust
©2014 Access to Success Provosts Meeting 38
Colorado State University System | Kentucky Council of Postsecondary Education | Louisiana Board of Regents | Minnesota State Colleges and Universities | Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning | Montana University System | New Jersey Higher Education | Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education | Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education | State University of New York | State University System of Florida | Tennessee Board of Regents | The California State University System | University of Hawaii System | University of Louisiana System | University of Missouri System | University of North Carolina System | University of Texas System | University of Wisconsin System |
19 Systems, 300 Campuses, 3.5 Million Students18% of Public Undergrads | 866K URMs | 1 million Pell Recipients
© 2009 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The A2S Commitments Cut current gaps in half by 2015 for college entry
and completion
Reflect the economic & racial diversity of the state
Count students who are not always counted
Improve overall student access and success
Report on progress publicly each year
39
© 2009 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Need to produce more college graduates to compete in the
global economy Changing demographics
demand focus on underrepresented populations
Current trends moving in the wrong direction in terms of real progress on access and success
The Access to Success Imperative
© 2009 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Measuring progress toward A2S goals
ACCESS: Does the system’s entering class reflect the economic and racial diversity of its state’s high school graduates?
SUCCESS: How do the success rates of low-income and underrepresented minority students compare with those of other students in the system?
ACCESS+SUCCESS: Do the system’s graduates reflect the diversity of its state’s high school graduates?
©2014 Access to Success Provosts Meeting 42 42
Include all students, not just first-time, full-time
Include part-time and transfer students, many of whom are low-income and underrepresented minorities
Report retention and success rates for low-income and transfer students at institution and in system
A2S Metrics Count All Students
©2014 Access to Success Provosts Meeting 43 43
Are we increasing success rates for underrepresented students?
GAP: Are we increasing success rates for underrepresented students relative to peers?
Benchmarking Progress on Success
©2014 Access to Success Provosts Meeting 44 44
The data handouts answer
these and other questions
about student success on
your campus.
Benchmarking Progress on Success
©2014 Access to Success Provosts Meeting 45 45
What is the overall freshmen rate?
What is the rate for transfer students?
How have these rates changed over time?
Are we increasing overall graduation rates?
Change in the Freshmen graduation rate since 2005 0 pts + 15 ptsChange in the Transfer graduation rate since 2005
State University
Bachelor's Programs
SUCCESS: IS THE CAMPUS IMPROVING THE RATE AT WHICH UNDERREPRESENTED STUDENTS COMPLETE?
OVERALL GRADUATION RATES
Freshmen graduation rate in 2012 51% 65%Transfer graduation rate in 2012
©2014 Access to Success Provosts Meeting 46 46
Non-Pell graduation rate in 2012 (cohort)
53% (1,123)
Change in the Non-Pell graduation rate in since 2005
+ 3 pts
Gap between Pell and Non-Pell graduation rates
10 ptsChange in Pell/Non-Pell graduation rate gap since 2005
Widened 13 pts
LOW-INCOME FRESHMEN
Pell graduation rate in 2012 (cohort)
43% (315)
Change in the Pell graduation rate in since 2005
-10 pts
53%
52% 52%50%
44%43%
50%
56% 57%
53% 54% 53%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
1999/05 2002/08 2003/09 2004/10 2005/11 2006/12Pell Rate Non-Pell Rate
Are we increasing graduation rates for underrepresented students?
What is the grad rate of Pell freshmen?
What is the grad rate of non-Pell freshmen?
How do rates for these student groups differ?
©2014 Access to Success Provosts Meeting 47 47
Non-Pell graduation rate in 2012 (cohort)
53% (1,123)
Change in the Non-Pell graduation rate in since 2005
+ 3 pts
Gap between Pell and Non-Pell graduation rates
10 ptsChange in Pell/Non-Pell graduation rate gap since 2005
Widened 13 pts
LOW-INCOME FRESHMEN
Pell graduation rate in 2012 (cohort)
43% (315)
Change in the Pell graduation rate in since 2005
-10 pts
53%
52% 52%50%
44%43%
50%
56% 57%
53% 54% 53%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
1999/05 2002/08 2003/09 2004/10 2005/11 2006/12Pell Rate Non-Pell Rate
How have graduation rates for Pell and non-Pell freshmen changed over time?
Are we increasing graduation rates for underrepresented students?
©2014 Access to Success Provosts Meeting 48 48
Non-Pell graduation rate in 2012 (cohort)
53% (1,123)
Change in the Non-Pell graduation rate in since 2005
+ 3 pts
Gap between Pell and Non-Pell graduation rates
10 ptsChange in Pell/Non-Pell graduation rate gap since 2005
Widened 13 pts
LOW-INCOME FRESHMEN
Pell graduation rate in 2012 (cohort)
43% (315)
Change in the Pell graduation rate in since 2005
-10 pts
53%
52% 52%50%
44%43%
50%
56% 57%
53% 54% 53%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
1999/05 2002/08 2003/09 2004/10 2005/11 2006/12Pell Rate Non-Pell Rate
How has the Pell freshmen rate changed over time? How has the non-Pell freshmen rate changed? Has the graduation rate gap between these groups
narrowed or widened over time?
Are we increasing graduation rates for underrepresented students?
Thank You