A2 s liaison meeting sept 2010 10 09 07

© 2009 THE EDUCATION TRUST

Setting Goals, Testing

Actions, Achieving Results

Liaison Meeting September 9, 2010

THE ACCESS TO SUCCESS INITIATIVE

• Understanding

• Prepared to

• Ready to structure xxx

Our goal is that you will leavethis workshop. . .

2

Do you want this slide?If so, needs to be

updated

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

Meeting adjourns; Lunch is available 12:30

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


4

Workshop Agenda

Session Time1:00 – 1:15 Welcome and Initiative Updates 8:30 – 9:00


9:00 – 9:30


9:30 – 11:00



11:00 – 11:45

The Road Ahead: Supporting Systems in Engaging & Pressing Campus Leaders Into Action

11:45 – 12:30


Understanding the New Access to Success Data: Capabilities and Trends

Jennifer Engle September 2010


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


The Access to Success Systems

California State University System Connecticut State University System State University System of Florida University of Hawaii System Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Ed Louisiana Board of Regents University of Louisiana System Southern University A&M College System University of Missouri System University System of Maryland Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Mississippi Institutions of Higher Learning

Montana University System City University of New York State University of New York University of North Carolina System University System of Ohio PA State System of Higher Education University of Puerto Rico System Rhode Island Board of Governors South Dakota Board of Regents Tennessee Board of Regents Vermont State Colleges University of Wisconsin System

24 Systems, 378 Campuses , 3 Million Students


Source:

The Access to Success 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?


Need to produce more college graduates to compete in the

global economy Changing demographics

demand focus on underrepresented populations in

higher education

Current trends moving in the wrong direction in terms of real progress on access and success

The Access to Success Imperative


Baseline Trends in Access to Success Systems: Four-Year Colleges

A2S institutions are more diverse than other public institutions nationally

But, there are still access gaps for low-income and underrepresented minority (URM) students

Low-income and URM students also graduate at lower rates than their peers

As a result, graduates from A2S systems are not as diverse as high school graduates in A2S states

10


Baseline Trends in Access to Success Systems: Two-Year Colleges

Low-income and URM students are “overrepresented” at entry in most systems

Yet, URM students succeed at much lower rates than their peers and are underrepresented among completers

However, low-income students who receive Pell Grants succeed at higher rates than those who do not


Source:

The A2S Baseline Report http://www.edtrust.org/issues/higher-education/access-to-success

Main reportDescribes the initiative in the current landscape of higher ed reform, provides a composite portrait of A2S systems, highlights the courage of A2S leaders and the challenges they face

System profilesGraphic depictions of each system’s baseline data for access and success at the associate’s and bachelor levels.

Technical appendixDocuments our methods and assumptions; the data sets and authorities consulted; and the criteria used for groundbreaking decisions

http://www.edtrust.org/issues/higher-education/access-to-success


Source:

A2S Data System http://a2s.edtrust.org

Online data system for data upload and report download

Revised data collection templates with automated quality control checks

“Automatic” progress report on top-line system metrics

Detailed interactive progress report on system and institutional metrics and supporting data

NEW

http://a2s.edtrust.org/


Source:

Key Features of Online A2S Data System

Login page About your system

Baseline system profile Data submission files Data collection report

Baseline metrics Progress metrics


Source:


Source:


Source:


Source:

A2S System Progress Metrics

Within 48 hours of successful data upload, view progress on your top-line A2S system-level metrics:

Access Success Access+Success

Top-line system-level metrics available for: Low-Income (Pell) Students Underrepresented Minority (URM) Students Freshmen and Transfer Students


Source:

Progress on A2S Access Metric

2005-2006 2007-2008 2008-2009

Freshmen, % Pell

31% 32% 34%

HS Grads, %LI 38% 38% 38%

Gap 0.07 0.0600000000000001 0.04

Ratio 0.820000000000001 0.850000000000001 0.890000000000001

33%

38%

31%32%

34%

38% 38% 38%

Goal .91


Source:

Progress on A2S Success Metric

2005-2006 2007-2008 2008-2009

% Pell 42% 44% 46%

%Non-Pell 53% 55% 58%

Gap 0.11 0.11 0.12

Ratio 0.79 0.81 0.8

43%

48%

53%

57%

42%44%

46%

53%55%

58%

Goal .9


Source:

Progress on A2S Access+Success Metric

2005-2006 2007-2008 2008-2009

System Grads, % Pell

30% 29% 29%

HS Grads, % LI 39% 39% 39%

Gap 0.09 0.1 0.1

Ratio 0.770000000000001 0.740000000000001 0.740000000000001

28%

33%

38%

30% 29% 29%

39% 39% 39%

Goal .89


Source:

2010 Data Collection Report

System-level and institution-level data Baseline, progress, and in-progress years Metrics tables and supporting data tables Detailed race/ethnicity data Interactive PivotTable feature


Source:


Source:

Progress on System Gaps

2005-06Baseline

2007-08 2008-2009 2015-16Goal

Access Ratio .82 .85 .89 .91

Success Ratio .79 .81 .80 .90

Access+Success Ratio .77 .74 .74 .89


Source:

Success Rates

FieldFall Cohort

YearCohort (#)

One Year (%)

Two Year (%)

Three Year (%)

Four Year (%)

Five Year (%)

Six Year (%)

PELL 1999/05 1,731 0 0 2 17 38 42

2002/08 1,984 0 0 2 17 38 44

2003/09 1,998 0 0 2 17 41 46

2004/10 1,951 0 0 2 20 43

2005/11 1,661 0 0 3 22

2006/12 1,732 0 0 4

2007/13 2,062 0 0

2008/14 2,003 0


Source:

Pell Success Rates Over Time

1999/05 2002/08 2003/09 2004/10 2005/1115

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

17 17 1720

22

38 3841

434244

46

Four Year (%) Five Year (%) Six Year (%)


Source:

Retention Rates

FieldFall Cohort

YearCohort (#)

Year Two (%)

Year Three (%)

Year Four (%)

Year Five (%)

Year Six (%)

PELL 1999/05 1,731 69 58 50 31 10

2002/08 1,984 68 57 49 31 10

2003/09 1,998 69 57 50 32 10

2004/10 1,951 68 57 49 33 10

2005/11 1,661 68 56 51 33

2006/12 1,732 68 58 51

2007/13 2,062 72 60

2008/14 2,003 74


Source:

Yearly Retention Rates Over Time

1999/05 2002/08 2003/09 2004/10 2005/11 2006/12 2007/13 2008/140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Year Two (%) Year Three (%) Year Four (%) Year Five (%) Year Six (%)


Retention and Graduation RatesBaseline Cohort (1999/05)

One Year

Two Year

Three Year

Four Year

Five Year

Six Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

6958

50

31

10

2

17

38

42

Retention Graduation

Progress Cohort (2003/09)

One Year

Two Year

Three Year

Four Year

Five Year

Six Year

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

69

5750

32

10

2

17

41

46

Retention Graduation

58% lost

31% lost


Source:

Degrees

30

2005-2006

2007-2008

2008-2009

# % # % # %

Total 8,997 9,506 9,768

Pell 3,484 39 3,539 37 3,674 38

Non-PELL 5,513 61 5,967 63 6,094 62


Source:

Degrees Conferred Over Time

2005-2006 2007-2008 2008-20090

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

8,9979,506 9,768

3,484 3,539 3,674

5,5135,967 6,094

Total Pell Non-PELL

+9%

+5%

+11%


Source:

Overall Questions to Ask About Your A2S Data Where does your system have gaps?

Are gaps system-wide? Do some institutions have especially large gaps?

Has your system made progress on its gaps? Has progress been made system-wide? Are some institutions making faster or larger gains?

Where does your system NOT have gaps? Which institutions or student groups have no gaps? Doing equally well or doing equally bad?


The Road Ahead

If access and success gaps were already cut in half, A2S systems would have…

Enrolled and graduated 16,500 additional low-income and underrepresented minority students from the baseline cohorts – an increase of 20 percent

Conservatively, A2S systems would graduate approximately 250,000 more low-income and minority students by 2015

33Source: A2S Baseline Dataset


Contact Us

1250 H Street N.W. Suite 700Washington, D.C. 20005202/293-1217

Jennifer EngleAsst. Director, Higher Education

[email protected](202) 293-1217 x370

mailto:[email protected]

Workshop Agenda

35



9:00 – 9:30


9:30 – 11:00



11:00 – 11:45


11:45 – 12:30

Session Time

Exercise: Please rate your system from 1 to 10 on the following elements

Establish System Level Goals

Set & Negotiate Campus Goals

Campus Leadership Feels Accountable

Data Driven Focus on Goals

Range of likert scale?

37

Is this the right set of elements? If no, what else is needed?

How likely is system to adjust current infrastructure to move toward these elements?

Where do you need the most help?

Discussion: Essential Elements of a Successful Change Element

Needs to be updated per Richard


38

Workshop Agenda



9:00 – 9:30


9:30 – 11:00


11:00 – 11:45

Session Time



11:45 – 12:30

Vehicles for Success: Supporting Systems as Drivers of Change

39

Deliverology: An Implementation framework

The Delta Project: Cost Management Tools & Analyses

Leading Indicators & Creating a Data Driven Culture

Workshop Agenda

40



9:00 – 9:30


9:30 – 11:00



11:00 – 11:45

Supporting Systems in Engaging & Pressing Campus Leaders Into Action

11:45 – 12:30

Session Time

Discussion Questions

1. How are you engaging —or could you better engage—your campus leaders in pursuing access and success goals?

2. And how can we better support your efforts?3. …4. …5. …

41


42

Workshop Agenda



9:00 – 9:30


9:30 – 11:00


11:00 – 11:45

Session Time



11:45 – 12:30

43

Strong Weak1. Establish system

level goals Ambitious, challenging, and equitable goals for both access and success Goals for 2015 and longer term Benchmarked goals against other states and data available to track

progress Goal is clear and shared across system, including sub-level indicators

Lack of ambition and goals are vague No use of benchmarked data to compare goals against other

systems/campuses Data unreliable on which to base judgements Numerous aspirations that do not present coherent goal

2. Set/negotiate campus goals

Benchmarked performance and goals against other campuses and/or minimum level of aspiration

Clear expression of metric, including sub-level indicators

Lack of ambition and goals are vague No use of benchmarked data to compare goals against other

campuses Data unreliable on which to base judgements

3. Campus Leadership feels accountable for reaching goal

Leadership owns goals for both access and success goals President’s, Provost’s, and Student Affair leadership are fully engaged in

raising overall access & success, while closing gaps. Campus goals are communicated regularly and widely with multiple

constituents

Leadership has ambitious and challenging goals for either access or success

Leadership do not feel accountable to system or board for meeting targets

Goals are not known to campus leadership and/or most administrators

4. Data-driven focus around goals at system and campus levels (know where you are and going)

Data systems provide readily accessible historical, longitudinal, and close to real-time data on target metric or leading indicators by student group and institution

Data are used to drive decision-making at numerous levels. Strategy or planning decisions or meetings are reliably accompanied with

evidence and analysis Trends and patterns are identified in the data through rigorous analysis,

and performance is benchmarked against history, within your system, and within other systems

Performance comparisons are used to identify areas contributing most to poor performance and inform decision making

System has a set of target metrics and leading indicators

Data are difficult to access or is not useful for decision-making Little or no identification of trends and patterns in data Data cannot uncover largest contributors to poor performance System relies only on target metrics for performance data, despite

the relatively long lag time.

5. Others (Aligned funding choices/strategy)

Core Elements for System Improvement

End of Slides

44