Concurrent Enrollment as a Vehicle for Recruitment & Retention: Does Tinto’s Model Apply to...

Concurrent Enrollment Concurrent Enrollment as a Vehicle for as a Vehicle for

Recruitment & Retention: Recruitment & Retention: Does Tinto’s Model Apply to CE?Does Tinto’s Model Apply to CE?

USU Concurrent Enrollment ProgramUSU Concurrent Enrollment ProgramVINCENT J. LAFFERTY MS, Executive DirectorVINCENT J. LAFFERTY MS, Executive Director DANIEL R. JUDD PhD, Assessment SpecialistDANIEL R. JUDD PhD, Assessment SpecialistHEATHER THOMAS MS, DirectorHEATHER THOMAS MS, Director

CEPs are being asked toCEPs are being asked to

QuantifyQuantify their their

ContributionContribution to the to the

Sponsoring InstitutionSponsoring Institution

Student-Centered MeasuresStudent-Centered Measures

It is It is less costlyless costly to to

keepkeep

an existing customeran existing customerthan to attract than to attract

a new onea new one

Tinto - 1993Tinto - 1993

Generally, the more satisfying Generally, the more satisfying those (college) experiences those (college) experiences are felt to be, the more likely are felt to be, the more likely

are individuals to persist are individuals to persist until degree completionuntil degree completion..

Tinto’s Model of IntegrationTinto’s Model of Integration

Degree CompletionDegree Completion

IntegrationIntegration

Student SatisfactionStudent Satisfaction

Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991

Apply Tinto’s Model to CE?Apply Tinto’s Model to CE?

1.1. HS Students & Parents HS Students & Parents

2.2. Teachers, Counselors & Teachers, Counselors & AdministratorsAdministrators

3.3. NACEP’s 1 Year & 5 Year NACEP’s 1 Year & 5 Year for Accreditationfor Accreditation

Conditions Supportive of Retention

1. Expectation = Parents2. Advice = HS Counselors3. Support = HS Teachers4. Involvement = CE Credits5. Learning = Satisfaction

Overview USU CE ProgramOverview USU CE Program

Legislated State funding in 1991Legislated State funding in 1991

2006-07 had 6,774 students2006-07 had 6,774 students

Class titles for CE credit = 118Class titles for CE credit = 118

HSs in Utah and Idaho = 75HSs in Utah and Idaho = 75

Study #1 Study #1

CEP Stakeholders:CEP Stakeholders:

HS Students & ParentsHS Students & Parents

CE Student StudyCE Student Study

Three HS located nearbyThree HS located nearby

Census of 64 CE classesCensus of 64 CE classes

CE ≈CE ≈ 50% HS Students 50% HS Students

N = 1,000 HS StudentsN = 1,000 HS Students

Results HS StudentsResults HS Students

Overall student satisfaction with Overall student satisfaction with the CE program was 93%the CE program was 93%

Of the decided Seniors, Of the decided Seniors, 93% said 93% said that they would attend USUthat they would attend USU

Parents of CE StudentsParents of CE Students

Random sample of 436 households Random sample of 436 households

Mail with telephone follow-upMail with telephone follow-up

n = 253 completed questionnaires n = 253 completed questionnaires

58% response rate.58% response rate.

Results Parent StudyResults Parent Study 87% of Parents87% of Parents agreed satisfied with agreed satisfied with

the education student received the education student received through CE, through CE, 47% strongly agreed47% strongly agreed. .

90% of Parents90% of Parents agreed that agreed that they they recommend CE to other parents, recommend CE to other parents, 62% 62% strongly agreedstrongly agreed..

What is What is MOST IMPORTANTMOST IMPORTANT to to Students and Parents Students and Parents

in choosing an in choosing an Undergraduate Program?Undergraduate Program?

Factors Important in Factors Important in Choosing a CollegeChoosing a College

Social opportunitiesSocial opportunities Education for a better jobEducation for a better job Faculty show concern for studentsFaculty show concern for students Quality program for chosen careerQuality program for chosen career Affordable tuitionAffordable tuition Availability of scholarshipsAvailability of scholarships

Dan Jones & Assoc. ’02 Focus Groups

Ranking of Decision FactorsRanking of Decision FactorsIdentical ResultsIdentical Results

Students Parents

1 Education for better job 1

2 Affordable tuition 2

3 Quality program for

chosen career3

Study #2 Study #2 Focus Groups: Focus Groups:

CE Teachers and CE Teachers and HS CounselorsHS Counselors

Focus Group ResultsFocus Group Results

HS Counselors are the Gatekeepers

Policy & Procedure to ADMIT-DROP

Notify HS of Students on Probation

Strategies for Students NOT in CE

Counselors’ DilemmaCounselors’ Dilemma

How to advise students as they take AP classes, CE classes, and the ACT/SAT so that all credit sources work together to give students maximum credits, but not so many that some have to be counted as electives.

Study #3 Study #3 NACEP AccreditationNACEP Accreditation

5 Year & 1 Year 5 Year & 1 Year SurveysSurveys

How Many Credits Earned?How Many Credits Earned?

1-Yr. Follow-up Study (2006-07):1-Yr. Follow-up Study (2006-07):

3,447 credits earned (n=200)3,447 credits earned (n=200) Average was 17 creditsAverage was 17 credits Median was 12 creditsMedian was 12 credits Mode was 6 creditsMode was 6 credits

Attended College After HSAttended College After HS

1-yr. 5-yr.

Yes 78% 92%

18% of CE students in 1-yr were going or were on LDS mission

Attended Sponsor After HSAttended Sponsor After HS

1-yr. 5-yr.

Yes 35% 57%

SLCC, BYU, & SUU increased enrollment of USU CEP students

Recommendation

Use the NACEP Accreditation Surveys to Quantify

Your CE Program’s Contribution to Your Sponsoring Institution.

Quantifying Contributions What does the Sponsor give?

– Avg. Credits Earned X % CE Student at Sponsor

What does the Sponsor get back?– Number of Freshman or New Admits– Avg. Semesters CE Students Retained– Tuition Dollars Earned– Public Support – Satisfaction

Benefit of CE to Disadvantaged Students?– Low-income– First-Generation College

Comparison Current StatusComparison Current Status

Study n USU

Other4 yr.

2 yr Coll.

Vol.Svc. Work

5-yr. 196 55% 29% 10% 0% 7%

1-yr. 200 35% 30% 13% 18% 7%

Comparison of SatisfactionComparison of SatisfactionOverall satisfaction (combined “Excellent” and “Good”) remained at 95%

5-yr. 1-yr.

Excellent 62% 64%

Good 33% 31%

Fair 6% 3%

Poor 0 2%

Total 100% 100%

Comparison Credit/SatisfactionComparison Credit/Satisfaction 2006-07 1-Yr. Follow-up Study:2006-07 1-Yr. Follow-up Study:

USU credits earned n Excellent Good Fair Poor

1-6 credits 60 55% 35% 8% 2%

7-13 credits 52 52% 40% 2% 6%

14-24 credits 41 71% 29% 0 0

25-62 credits 47 83% 17% 0 0

Does greater Does greater involvement in CEinvolvement in CE

increase the likelihoodincrease the likelihoodthat students will attend that students will attend

Sponsor Institution?Sponsor Institution?

Credit by Where EnrolledCredit by Where Enrolled 2006-07 1-Yr. Follow-up Study:2006-07 1-Yr. Follow-up Study:

Credits earned n USUOther4 yr.

2 yr.Coll.

Vol.Svc Work

1-6 credits 60 20% 35% 13% 20% 12%

7-13 credits 52 29% 35% 14% 19% 4%

14-24 credits 41 46% 27% 10% 12% 5%

25-63 credits 47 49% 23% 13% 11% 4%

Summary #3 ResultsSummary #3 Results• 55% of USU CEP students attended Sponsor 55% of USU CEP students attended Sponsor

5 years after HS 5 years after HS > 3,000 students> 3,000 students

• Both surveys had Excellent ratings > 60% Both surveys had Excellent ratings > 60%

• Both surveys had overall satisfaction > 90%Both surveys had overall satisfaction > 90%

• Average CE credits earned was 14 - 17Average CE credits earned was 14 - 17• As credits earned increased so didAs credits earned increased so did

– overall satisfaction andoverall satisfaction and – likelihood of attending Sponsorlikelihood of attending Sponsor

Overall FindingsOverall Findings• Student & Parent expectations sameStudent & Parent expectations same

– Emphasis on career goalsEmphasis on career goals

• HS Counselors are CE gatekeepersHS Counselors are CE gatekeepers

• Majority of CE students go to SponsorMajority of CE students go to Sponsor

• Students earning more CE creditsStudents earning more CE credits– More satisfiedMore satisfied– Attend Sponsor in greater numbersAttend Sponsor in greater numbers

Recommendations for Retention

Support Student Satisfaction

Continue strengthening class quality Offer career-oriented courses Network ongoingly with counselors Perform annual satisfaction studies Benchmark student satisfaction results

Recommendations for Retention

Apply for and stay current on NACEP Accreditation Status

Use the NACEP Accreditation Surveys to quantify the contribution of CE to your sponsoring institutions

Confirm retention figures and contribution of CEPs by creating a NACEP database

It is It is less costlyless costly to to

keepkeep

an enrolled studentan enrolled studentthan to attract than to attract

a new onea new one

Thank You

Dan Judd, PhD, MPA

dan.judd@usu.edu

c 435-770-0139