The Evidence on Student Success in California Higher Education –What, Why, & How

The Evidence on Student Success in California Higher Education –What, Why, & How

CCCCIO Spring Conference

Monterey, California

March 24, 2010

Presentation by:David LonganeckerPresident, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)

The Case Again for Whopping Big ChangeWith or Without Disruption

Why Whopping Big Change Is Required

Total Quality Management – Continuous Improvement

Booz-Allen: Stable State Management SystemNot a crisis management strategy

Your challenge50 percent productivity gain almost immediatelyProductivity gain = Quality improvement

The Case for Change

AASCU’s TOP ISSUES RevisedThe Fiscal Crisis: State Support, Tuition Policy & Prices, Student AidStudent Access & Success: Enrollment Capacity, Veterans Education, the Graduation InitiativeEducational Improvement: College Readiness, Focus on Community Colleges, & Teacher EffectivenessAccountability: Data Systems and Reporting Metrics.

The Case for Change


The Case for Change


The Case for Change


The Case for Change


The Case for Whopping Big Change An Emerging Perfect Storm

Wave One: Our Economic Competitiveness

Wave Two: Who We Are – Can We Be Competitive

Wave Three: What We Have in Resources

The Liberal BorrowingsKnocking on the College Door (WICHE)

Beyond Social Justice (WICHE)

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) : www.higheredinfo.org.

State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), SHEF Report, February 2010.

The Converging WavesWave One: Our Economic Competitiveness



Relationship Between Educational Attainment, Personal Income, and Economic Strength

Source: NCHEMS

AL

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE IL

INIA

KY

LA

MDMA

MS

NJ

NY

NDOK

OR

SC

SDUT

VA

WAMNNH

TN TX

WV

WI

WY

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Pers

onal

Inco

me

Per C

apita

, 200

0

Percent of Adults Age 25-64 with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

MT

HI

AK

GAKS

ME NE

NV

NCOH PA VT

ID

MI

MO

NM

RIFL US

Low Income, High Educational AttainmentLow Income, Low Educational Attainment

High Income, High Educational AttainmentHigh Income, Low Educational Attainment

State New Economy Index (2002)Top TierMiddle TierLow Tier

Percent of Population Ages 25-64 with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey. Via NCHEMS

Percent of Population Ages 25-64 with an Associate Degree

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey. Via NCHEMS

Differences in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between Younger and Older Adults - U.S. and OECD Countries, 2005

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Education at a Glance 2007

Differences in College Attainment (Associate and Higher) Between Younger and Older Adults - U.S., 2005

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 ACS

The White Caps on the First Wave

We’ve Been A LeaderBut Slip-Sliding Away

Losing Ground:The West, and California in particular, are the U.S. ProblemFalling Internationally

The Unique CCCCIO Challenges/Opportunities: Making Wave One, Wave Won

With Respect to College EntryNot so bad – clear state MissionPlacement has not been synchronized

But underwayThink Common Core

Low hanging fruit – Adults With Some College But No Degree

4.4 Million – 22.7% of Adults in CaliforniaRamp up Production of High Value Certificates

The Unique CCCCIO Challenges/ Opportunities:Making Wave One, Wave Won

With Respect to Progression Through College

Need higher thru put: More Transfer and Terminal Associate DegreesThe Good News (or so it seems): Transfer and Articulation progressingConsider more aggressive remunerated coop work study programsFocus on being adult friendly – use CAEL’s ALFI assessment.Eliminate time as the enemy

Less is more – a default curriculumGuaranteed curriculum if full-time/on-time

The Unique CCCCIO Challenges/ Opportunities:Making Wave One, Wave Won

With Respect to CompletionSame/same as progressionPlus:

Accept legitimate Prior Learning Assessment (PLA)Better Yet: Encourages PLADo Degree Audits & Grant Degrees Where Appropriate (Win/Win Project)Intentionally partner with non-public institutions

(Yup; I mean private for and not for profit places)Triage almost demands this




Projections of California High School Graduates

High School Graduation Rates - Public High School Graduates as a Percent of 9th Graders Four Years Earlier, 2006

0

20

40

60

80

100

Source: Tom Mortenson, Postsecondary Opportunity Via NCHEMS

College-Going Rates – First-Time Freshmen Directly Out of High School as a Percent of Recent High School Graduates, 2006

0

25

50

75

Mississippi

New

York

North D

akotaSo

uth D

akotaM

assachusetts

New

Mexico

Con

necticutN

ew Jersey

Minn

esotaG

eorg

iaVirginiaKan

sasM

aryland

North C

arolinaLo

uisianaM

ichig

anN

ew H

ampsh

ireM

aineN

ebraskaD

elaware

South C

arolina

Tennessee

Indiana

Colorado

Alabama

Pennsylvania

Nation

Kentucky

Wisco

nsinIow

aIllino

isFloridaO

hio

Haw

aiiO

klahom

aM

ontana

Wyom

ingW

est Virg

inia

Missouri

ArkansasC

alifornia

TexasVerm

ont

Rho

de IslandN

evadaW

ashington

Oreg

onU

tahAlaskaIdahoArizo

na

Source: Tom Mortenson, Postsecondary Opportunity Via NCHEMS

Difference Between Whites and Next Largest Race/Ethnic Group in Percentage of Adults Age 25-34 with an Associate Degree or Higher, 2000

0

10

20

30

40

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, PUMS (based on 2000 Census), Via NCHEMS

Not Much Happens After the Age of 24

Patterns of U.S. High School and College Participation and Completion by Age (Average Annual from 2005 to 2007)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-07 American Community Survey (Public Use Microdata Sample)

High School Participation

Undergraduate College Participation – Peaks at Age 19, Levels off at Age 30

Earn High School Diploma or Equivalent – Levels off at Age 21

Complete Undergraduate College Degree – Peaks and Levels off at Age 31

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40AGE

We are left with 13 percent of adults with no high school diploma, and 60

percent with no college degree.

Note: Includes associate and bachelor’s degrees, but not certificates.

The White Caps on the Second Wave

Those with whom we have succeeded are decliningThose with whom we have not succeeded are increasing“Average” won’t sustain us, and may not even be achievable

The Unique CCCCIO Opportunities/ Challenges: Wave Two, Too, Being Won

With respect to College EntryMuch the same as with Wave Won

Improve Placement – build on Common CoreThink “Adults with some college, no degree”

Market research & intention works hereThink high-value certificates

Even post-bachelaureate – i.e. Red Rocks PA program

Demand evidence as basis for chage, butBe willing to adapt rapidly – tradition is your enemy here


With respect to ProgressionREINVENT REMEDIATION

Problem is not what we call it; it’s how we do itApproaches to consider

Technology blended (National Center for Academic Transformation)Replace prerequisites with co-requisitesModularized self-paced instructionNix Learning Communities for this purpose

Know thyself – get the evidenceBy: race/ethnicity, major, gateway courses, etc.


With respect to ProgressionMany of the same as with Wave Won

Improve transfer/articulation (under way)Coop work studyAdult friendlyGarner greater student commitment through incentives – incentivize full-time, continuity (again, time is everyone’s enemy)

Develop Cohort approach(and backup cohort)

Streamline curriculum – less is moreDefault curriculum STEM specific curriculum


With respect to CompletionSame As Wave Won

Encourage PLADegree AuditsPartner with non-public sector institutions

Reward Steps Along The Way – Momentum Points.Mine your data

To prevent dropoutsTo re-attract recent dropouts




Life could have been worsePublic FTE Enrollment, Educational Appropriations,

and Total Educational Revenue per FTE, U.S., Fiscal 1985-2010

Publ

ic F

TE E

nrol

lmen

t (m

illio

ns)

$12,000

Dollars per FTE

Educational Appropriations per FTE (constant $) Net Tuition Revenue per FTE (constant $) Public FTE Enrollment (millions)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Note: Net tuition revenue used for capital debt service is included in the above figures. All figures are adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment (HECA).Source: SHEEO SHEF 2010.

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$0

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

02010

$7,4

79

$7,8

55

$6,9

12

$6,9

94

$7,2

27

$7,3

11

$7,5

47

$7,7

70

$7,2

11

$6,7

40

$6,6

62

$6,9

86

$7,1

95

$7,3

25

$6,9

51

$6,4

54

$2,2

45 $2,3

41

$2,4

03

$2,4

69

$2,5

18

$2,5

75

$2,6

57

$2,8

66

$3,0

43

$3,1

46

$3,2

30

$3,3

43

$3,3

75

$3,3

87

$3,3

84

$3,2

93

$3,2

78

$3,2

88

$3,3

60

$3,5

24

$3,7

18 $3,8

91

$3,9

82

$4,0

27

$4,1

08

$7,9

93

$7,9

88

$7,8

69

$7,8

25

$7,6

07

$7,1

71

$7,9

61

$8,0

35

$7,9

79

$7,6

82

$2,2

74

$2,3

71

$2,4

34

$2,5

01 $2,5

50

$2,6

08

$2,6

91

$3,2

71

$3,3

87

$3,4

19

$3,4

31

$3,4

28

$3,3

37

$3,3

56

$3,4

31

$3,6

11

$3,7

60

$4,0

68

$4,1

16

$4,1

78

$4,3

21

$2,9

03

$3,0

82

$3,1

86 $3,3

48

$14,00014.0

$3,1

46

Public FTE Enrollment, Educational Appropriations and Total Educational Revenue per FTE, California, Fiscal 1985-2010

Dollars per FTE

Educational Appropriations per FTE (constant $) Net Tuition Revenue per FTE (constant $) Public FTE Enrollment (millions)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Publ

ic F

TE E

nrol

lmen

t (th

ousa

nds)

Same trend; lower amounts in CA

$949 $9

74

$947

$949

$873

$917 $9

88

$1,6

87

$1,5

62

$1,4

67

$1,4

45

$1,4

19

$1,0

13 $932

$1,5

98$1,1

98

$1,4

57

$1,6

49

$878

$7,6

82

$8,0

26

$6,6

90

$6,4

86

$7,1

32

$7,2

27 $8,3

02

$7,5

96

$7,0

95

$6,5

85

$7,2

04

$7,4

04

$7,3

93

$6,9

29

$6,0

65

$8,7

30

$8,5

34

$8,2

92

$7,7

41

$8,3

02

$7,5

46

$7,9

61

$7,7

73

$8,2

40

$8,2

93

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0

Note: Constant 2009 dollars adjusted by SHEEO Higher Education Cost Adjustment. 2009 Educational Appropriations include ARRA funds. (HECA) Source: SSDB

$1,8

14

$1,4

45

$1,5

06

$1,4

87

$1,4

04$1,2

30$899

$6,8

15

Revenues Per Student from Net Tuition, State, & Local Appropriations Public Research

$29,172$24,184

$23,263$22,095

$21,640$21,384

$20,010$19,865$19,783$19,721$19,545$19,227$18,989$18,843$18,773$18,657$18,537

$17,610$17,360$17,267$16,974$16,774

$16,275$16,195$16,172$16,155$16,092$16,059$16,057$15,837$15,774$15,714$15,568$15,541$15,406$15,180$15,125$15,093$15,003$14,865$14,777

$14,018$14,006$13,675

$13,121$12,666$12,449$12,324

$11,620$11,243

$9,682

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

AlaskaM

innesotaHaw

aiiConnecticutNew

YorkVerm

ontNorth CarolinaM

assachusettsKentuckyW

yoming

Maryland

NebraskaAlabam

aCaliforniaIow

aDelaw

areNew

JerseyTennesseeW

ashingtonSouth CarolinaM

ainePennsylvaniaNew

Mexico

NationIdahoIndianaM

ichiganM

issouriRhode IslandKansasVirginiaGeorgiaUtahW

isconsinO

klahoma

NevadaO

hioW

est VirginiaArizonaArkansasIllinoisFloridaNorth DakotaNew

Hampshire

TexasLouisianaM

ississippiO

regonSouth DakotaM

ontanaColorado

Sources: NCES, IPEDS 2006-07 Finance Files; f0607_f1a and f0607_f2 Final Release Data Files. NCES, IPEDS 2007-08 Institutional Characteristics File; hd2007 Final Release Data File. NCES, IPEDS 2006-07 Enrollment Files; ef2006a, effy2007, and efia2007 Final Release Data Files. Via NCHEMS

Revenues Per Student from Net Tuition, State, & Local Appropriations Public Masters and Baccalaureate

$17,984 $16,148 $14,587$14,440$14,426

$13,683$12,929

$12,324$12,105$12,011$11,862

$11,443$11,443$11,389$11,284$11,266$11,249$11,063$10,836$10,788$10,778$10,721

$10,464$10,405$10,370$10,343$10,312$10,275$10,251$10,179$10,162$10,039

$9,957$9,945$9,933$9,702$9,701$9,630$9,622$9,410$9,185$8,959$8,846$8,748

$8,414$8,400

$7,964$7,877

$7,209$6,311 $5,105

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

Delaware

Hawaii

ConnecticutNorth CarolinaAlaskaNew

JerseyNew

Mexico

Iowa

Maryland

Massachusetts

Maine

Vermont

VirginiaRhode IslandAlabam

aM

ontanaIllinoisW

ashingtonNew

YorkFloridaM

ichiganSouth CarolinaKentuckyO

hioM

ississippiNation IdahoM

issouriDC KansasPennsylvaniaCaliforniaNew

Hampshire

Minnesota

TexasIndianaTennesseeO

regonNorth DakotaArkansasNebraskaW

isconsinNevadaO

klahoma

LouisianaGeorgiaW

est VirginiaSouth DakotaArizonaUtahColorado


Revenues Per Student from Net Tuition, State, & Local Appropriations Public 2-Year

$14,793$11,197

$10,683$10,287

$9,964$9,953

$9,125$8,844$8,801$8,705$8,625$8,480$8,449$8,411$8,378$8,214$8,067$8,044

$7,772$7,633$7,566$7,509$7,507$7,448$7,432$7,416$7,403$7,329$7,239$7,222$7,117$7,018$6,918$6,895$6,844$6,823$6,714$6,676$6,630$6,510$6,465$6,353

$6,082$6,028$5,970$5,945$5,939

$5,712$5,517

$5,297$3,369

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

Wisconsin

Hawaii

Wyom

ingM

arylandDelaw

areConnecticutVerm

ontKansasO

regonNew

YorkNew

Hampshire

IdahoM

assachusettsNew

Mexico

AlaskaM

ichiganPennsylvaniaNorth DakotaM

innesotaArizonaRhode IslandO

hioUtahNorth CarolinaTexasNationM

ontanaCaliforniaW

ashingtonM

aineNevadaAlabam

aIllinoisNebraskaM

issouriLouisianaTennesseeIow

aArkansasNew

JerseyO

klahoma

South CarolinaFloridaGeorgiaM

ississippiVirginiaSouth DakotaColoradoIndianaKentuckyW

est Virginia


Projected State and Local Budget Surplus (Gap) as a Percent of Revenues, 2016

Source: NCHEMS; Don Boyd (Rockefeller Institute of Government), 2009 Via NCHEMS

-2.1

-2.2

-2.3

-2.3

-2.4

-2.6

-2.7

-2.9 -3

-3.3

-3.5

-3.5

-3.8

-4.1

-4.6

-4.7

-4.8

-4.9 -5

-5.1

-5.2

-5.4

-5.7

-5.7

-5.8

-5.8 -6

-6.2

-6.3

-6.3

-6.7

-6.7

-6.8

-7.2

-7.4

-7.8 -8

-8.1

-8.1

-8.5

-8.5

-8.5

-8.7

-8.9

-9.1

-9.4

-9.5

-9.7

-10.

6-1

0.8

-10.

9

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

Mar

ylan

dM

aine

Verm

ont

New

Jers

eyCo

nnec

ticut

New

Ham

pshi

reRh

ode

Islan

dNo

rth

Dako

taW

iscon

sinM

assa

chus

etts

Mic

higa

nW

yom

ing

Calif

orni

aO

hio

Dela

war

eKa

nsas

Ore

gon

Virg

inia

New

Yor

kM

inne

sota

Wes

t Virg

inia

Penn

sylv

ania

Illin

ois

Alas

kaNe

bras

kaM

onta

naUn

ited

Stat

esLo

uisia

naIn

dian

aHa

wai

iO

klah

oma

New

Mex

ico

Miss

ouri

Kent

ucky

Iow

aSo

uth

Dako

taW

ashi

ngto

nFl

orid

aSo

uth

Caro

lina

Arka

nsas

Geor

gia

Colo

rado

Tenn

esse

eNo

rth

Caro

lina

Idah

oUt

ahAr

izona

Neva

daAl

abam

aTe

xas

Miss

issip

pi

State Tax Capacity & EffortIndexed to U.S. Average

Source: State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO)

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CACO

CT

DE

GA HI

IL

IN IA KS

KYLA

ME

MD

MA

MSMT

NE

NV

NJ

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

PARI

SC

SD

UT

VT

VA

WA

FL

IDMI

MN

MO

NH

NM

TNTX

WV

WI

WY

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

State Tax Capacity (Total Taxable Resources Per Capita)

State Tax Effort (Effective Tax Rate)

US

OR

Productivity: Total Funding per Degree/Certificate (Weighted*, 2006-2007)

29,0

75

30,6

19

33,2

73

33,7

56

34,3

30

34,5

94

36,4

98

37,8

23

38,3

64

38,3

65

39,5

16

39,5

16

39,9

18

42,1

77

42,1

98

42,4

08

42,6

93

42,8

47

42,8

73

42,9

48

43,8

20

44,2

72

44,3

71

45,8

33

45,9

04

46,5

22

46,8

80

47,4

53

47,6

72

47,7

49

48,6

11

49,8

94

52,4

91

52,5

72

52,8

88

53,5

35

54,5

53

56,0

90

56,2

80

56,8

88

56,9

60

59,4

20

59,4

65

63,8

22

64,9

34

65,9

75

66,6

23

72,8

46

75,7

44

79,7

94

86,0

09

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

FloridaColoradoW

ashingtonUtahNorth DakotaO

klahoma

West Virginia

Montana

South DakotaKansasGeorgiaLouisianaW

isconsinIdahoNew

Hampshire

IllinoisM

ississippiArizonaArkansasM

innesotaO

regonKentuckyIow

aVirginiaM

issouriNationO

hioIndianaNebraskaTexasSouth CarolinaNorth CarolinaM

ichiganTennesseeNew

Mexico

CaliforniaM

ainePennsylvaniaAlabam

aNew

YorkNevadaM

arylandVerm

ontNew

JerseyM

assachusettsHaw

aiiConnecticutRhode IslandDelaw

areW

yoming

Alaska

Tuition and FeesState and Local

Sources: SHEEO State Higher Education Finance Survey 2008; NCES, IPEDS Completions Survey; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (Public Use MicrodataSamples)

*Adjusted for value of degrees in the state employment market (median earnings by degree type and level)

Sources: SHEEO State Higher Education Finance Survey 2008; NCES, IPEDS Completions Survey; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey (Public Use Microdata Samples)

The White Caps on the Third Wave

Prospects look bleak for much more in the short termNew Normal suggests a very different future than past.Triage often sacrifices the most vulnerable

The Unique CCCCIO Challenges/Opportunities: Wave Three – Show me the money

With respect to Entry into CollegeTuition revenue, done smartly, is most of the answerBalanced by financial aid is key

With respect to Progression through College

Tuition and financial aid remain keyRevise the rewards to focus on student success

Pay only for successful remediation – regardless of modality usedPay only for completed courses -- tough love

The Unique CCCCIO Challenges/Opportunities: Wave Three – Show me the moneyWith respect to Completion

Know thyself – focus on gaps, not successes Clearly articulated pathways reduce student

and state costs Don’t enroll students in course that don’t

articulate to their degree goals Price by priority

Currently in place for resident/non-residentWhy not for core vs luxury/high vs low-value

Streamline programs – dropping the duds Where academic success is too low to justifyWhere ROI is too low to justify

Outsourcing or Pairing

The California story – Three Huge Converging Waves -- The Makings of A Perfect Storm

Demographics present a challenge, all else being equal

The finances are perilous

We have been educationally competitive, which has made us economically competitive and comparative just, but:

Were slipping And the good life has not been equitably distribute

Creating a New Business Model – What I Hear & See

Who Will Lead – Academic Leaders or Other Leaders?

From the Community College “Community”ACCT: Governance Institute for Student Success. Foundations:

Achieving the Dream – top down through data driven reform, and limited success to dateCompletion by Design – still in design

____________ -- meet the goal

Creating a New Business Model – What I Hear & See

TRIAGE happens, whether intentional or not.Lack of course availabilityLow success rates

In remedial/developmentalIn college level coursework

Particularly in STEM fieldAnd indefensibly biased by race/ethnicity

Justifiable within current business modelCan’t afford more coursesCan’t support resources necessary for course success

But unjustifiable in support of MissionSo must create a new business model

Is that possible?Disruptive technologies theory says noWe can’t live with that

Creating a New Business Model – Dave’s Nine Tenets of A New Way

Evidence based – data drivenImprovement imperative – Whopping big in the short term, continuous improve-ment, on benchmarks achieved.Well, nearly continuous improvement. Recognize periodic perturbations.Take reasonable risk & expect some failure.

Creating a New Business Model – Tenets of A New Way

Eliminate what can’t be done well enough.Be genius – borrow generously.

Follow the CASE study approachReward success and champions of success (make performance count for regular folk).Make this work fun

We work live, not live to work.Don’t have too many tenets

That’s all there is

Enough Already

Documents

The Evidence on Student Success in California Higher Education –What, Why, & How