mississippi graduation rate task force kevin crockett president/ceo and principal october 1, 2009

Mississippi Graduation Rate Task Force

Kevin Crockett

President/CEO and Principal

October 1, 2009

I would like to cover three broad topics during our time together

1 2 3

Let’s review recent trends in retention and completion in MS compared to

national data

Let’s start with data on student retention

First-to-second year retention rates for public colleges and universities in MS: Fall 2002 through Fall 2006

FTFT cohorts

71.0%71.0%72.0%

74.0%75.0%

60.0%

58.0%59.0%

62.0%

65.0%

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

4-Year 2-Year

Source: IPEDS Enrollment Surveys

Fall 2006 to fall 2007 same school retention rates in the four-year sector by classification

78.0%

64.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

75.0%

80.0%

85.0%

Research Univ. Regional Univ.

Mean=71%


How does Mississippi compare to national norms?

ACT selectivity classifications

Selectivity Level ACT SAT

Highly Selective 25-30 1710-2000

Selective 21-26 1470-1770

Traditional 18-24 1290-1650

Liberal 17-22 1230-1530

Open 16-21 1170-1480

Source: Compiled from ACT Institutional Data File, 2008.2008. ACT, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Rough selectivity classifications for Mississippi four-year institutions and average retention rates

(2006 cohort)

Open/Liberal Traditional/Selective

Alcorn State MS State

Delta State MS Univ. for Women

Jackson State Univ. of MS

MS Valley State Univ. of Southern MS

66% 76%

Mississippi public first-to-second year retention rates for the fall 2006 cohort were: 76% (Traditional/Selective),

66% (Open/Liberal), 60% (two-year)

Admissions Selectivity

AA BA MA PhD

Highly Selective NA 87.3 91.5 90.2

Selective NA 90.7 80.5 81.8

Traditional 56.6 70.7 70.5 73.1

Liberal 54.8 62.4 64.1 60.3

Open 53.6 60.3 64.4 74.8


Let’s look at completion data

next

Total six-year (BA) graduation rates for the fall 1998 through fall 2002 cohorts (enrollment weighted)


150% time completion rates (2001 cohort, four-year; 2004 cohort two-year)


Note: Two-year data includes all completions; AA rate is 16.6%

Rough selectivity classifications for Mississippi four-year institutions and their average five-year

graduation rates (2001 cohort)

Open/Liberal Traditional/Selective

Alcorn State MS State

Delta State MS Univ. for Women

Jackson State Univ. of MS

MS Valley State Univ. of Southern MS

33.6% 37.9%

Mississippi three and five year graduation rates for the fall 2001/2004 cohorts were: 37.9% (Traditional/Selective),

33.6% (Open/Liberal),16.6% (Two-year)

Admissions Selectivity

AA BA MA PhD

Highly Selective NA 65.3 73.5 78.2

Selective NA 71.5 50.4 52.5

Traditional 24.4 39.5 37.8 39.7

Liberal 37.6 42.5 35.0 55.7

Open 26.2 27.6 32.6 42.8


There is considerable variation in graduation rates at the institutional level (two-year schools)

Based on the 2004 Cohort Completed a Completed a Completed a Public 2-Year Colleges <2 year 2-year but <4-year 2-year or <2-year

degree/certificate degree/certificate degree/certificatein 150% of in 150% of in 150% of

Institution Name usual time usual time usual timeEast Central Community College 4.1% 27.3% 31.4%Jones County Junior College 22.9% 22.9%Pearl River Community College 13.6% 22.9% 36.4%Southwest Mississippi Community College 8.5% 21.1% 29.6%Northeast Mississippi Community College 0.7% 19.0% 19.7%Copiah-Lincoln Community College 0.9% 18.3% 19.2%Copiah-Lincoln Community College-Natchez Campus 3.1% 18.1% 21.2%Itawamba Community College 1.5% 17.5% 19.0%East Mississippi Community College 5.6% 17.4% 23.1%Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College 2.8% 15.2% 18.1%Northwest Mississippi Community College 2.2% 15.1% 17.2%Holmes Community College 1.4% 13.0% 14.4%Coahoma Community College 8.2% 8.2%Mississippi Delta Community College 3.3% 7.5% 10.8%Hinds Community College 4.7% 5.7% 10.4%Meridian Community College 24.8% 24.8%

The same is true for four-year schools

Based on the 2001 CohortPublic 4-Year Colleges 150% ofInstitution Name # Entrants usual time In 4years After 5 years After 6 yearsMississippi State University 1,826 58.2% 26.5% 52.6% 58.3%University of Mississippi Main Campus 2,126 53.3% 18.9% 23.2% 53.3%University of Southern Mississippi 1,346 47.6% 21.3% 40.8% 47.6%Delta State University 430 44.9% 17.9% 35.8% 44.9%Alcorn State University 495 43.2% 19.6% 38.6% 43.2%Jackson State University 930 36.3% 16.6% 30.3% 36.4%Mississippi Valley State University 258 36.0% 16.3% 29.5% 36.1%Mississippi University for Women 183 36.1% 24.0% 34.9% 36.0%

Complted a 4-year degree

Graduation rates rise substantially in the four-year sector when a full 6 years are considered (150% time)

22.7%

37.9%

48.8%

40.2%

33.6%

17.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

4 Years 5 Years 6 Years

More selective Less selective


What’s missing from the preceding data?

• Rates on transfer students, part-time students, and students who entered via other means

• Taken together, these groups account for 66% of the degrees produced in AY0708 at the four-year schools

• It is important to understand the persistence, progression, retention, and completion patterns among these students and not just focus on the FTFT students

• The same can be said for part-time students at the community colleges

Observations on retention and completion trends among MS public institutions

• 1st to 2nd year retention rates are fairly mainline but there are pockets of underperformance at the institutional level

• Completion appears to be a bigger problem than retention

• The state has not seen improvement in either set of metrics over the last five years and retention rates appear to be on the decline


• Additional data should be compiled on institutional level performance compared to peers (see www.collegeresults.org).

• Use these data to inform institutional goal-setting designed to improve statewide performance

• Build a database to track non-FTFT performance, they are two-thirds of your market for degree production

http://www.collegeresults.org/


• Additional data on the two-year to four-year transition process and student success rates should be assembled

How do retention practices in MS compare to a

national sample of public colleges and

universities?

Survey goals and methodology

Survey goals

• Use the May 2009 Noel-Levitz national report on retention practices and strategies to benchmark MS against other public colleges and universities

• Identify potential areas of institutional and statewide focus for inclusion in the Task Force Report

• The national report included data from 316 institutions including 60 four-year publics and 88 two-year publics

Mississippi responses

• The survey was a 76-item Web-based poll

• Seven out of 8 four-year institutions responded to the survey (87.5%)

• Eleven out of 15 two-year institutions responded (73.3%)

Results are reported in three broad categories

• Organizational issues and planning

• The use of data and information to support student success planning and decision-making

• Student success practices and strategies

A caution, throughout the dataset MS institutions tended to report higher rates of usage and effectiveness than the

national sample. This is probably a function of the context in which the survey was administered

“Effectiveness” ratings can be interpreted in several ways

• A strategy or tactic has been implemented, assessed and deemed to be more or less effective than other strategies

• A strategy has been implemented and the respondent is assessing how well the strategy is being implemented by his/her institution

“Below is a list of retention strategies and tactics. For each, indicate how effective this has been in

retaining students.”

Organizational issues and planning

While MS four-year institutions reported the presence of a retention plan in greater numbers than the national sample, they are suspect about quality. In fact, none rated their plans as “excellent” in quality

67.2%

85.7%

36.1%42.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Yes Yes

Has a current, written retention plan to guide its efforts Yes - of good/excellent quality

National Institutions Mississippi Institutions©2009 Noel-Levitz, Inc.

2009 Student Retention Practices and Strategies at Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions

National Institutions Mississippi Institutions ©2009 Noel-Levitz, Inc.


A lower percentage of MS two-year institutions reported the presence of a retention plan and they were also suspect about quality with none

rating it as excellent and less than 30% rating it as good

What percentage of institutions update their retention plans annually?

©2009 Noel-Levitz, Inc.2009 Student Retention Practices and Strategies at Four-Year and

Two-Year Institutions

Four-year Public Two-year Public

MS four-year institutions were less likely to report that they had an individual to lead retention initiatives; they were

fairly typical with regard to a retention committee

70.0%

48.3%43.9%

28.6%

88.3%

53.3%

85.7%

42.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Yes YES - of good/excellentquality*

Yes YES - it’s of good/excellentquality*

Position to lead/coordinate retention activities Retention committee to lead/coordinate retention activities

National Institutions Mississippi Institutions©2009 Noel-Levitz, Inc.


*These percentages indicate the percentage of respondents who rated the quality of these items as “good” or “excellent” as opposedto “fair,” “poor,” or “no” (nonexistent)

MS two-year institutions were similar to the national sample in their retention leadership and committee structure. Both groups were

suspect about the effectiveness of their positions and committees

National Institutions Mississippi Institutions ©2009 Noel-Levitz, Inc.


*These percentages indicate the percentage of respondents who rated the quality of these items as “good” or “excellent” as opposedto “fair,” “poor,” or “no” (nonexistent)

What percentage of institutions report that their retention committee is empowered to make decisions that affect multiple

areas of campus (only includes those that had committees)?



Four-year Public Two-year Public

“God so loved the world he didn’t send a committee”

Sign outside a church in Mount Vernon, Ohio

Master Marketing/Recruitment Plan

Detailed Action PlansObjectives - TimetablesResponsibility - Budgets

Evaluation

Key Strategies

Clear Goals

Master RetentionPlan

Master Enrollment Plan

Institutional Strategic Plan

Master Marketing/Recruitment Plan

Detailed Action PlansObjectives - TimetablesResponsibility - Budgets

Evaluation

Key Strategies

Clear Goals

Master RetentionPlan

Master Enrollment Plan

Institutional Strategic Plan

Annual retention plans should be informed by the strategic enrollment plan and contain measurable goals

and key enrollment strategies

The value of not planning

“The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise and is not preceded by a period of worry and depression.”

John PrestonBoston University

Potential opportunities in the organization and planning arenas

• Implement a uniform student success planning process (at the institutional level) that supports statewide goals for improved graduation rates and degree production

• Consider forming regional planning councils to enhance coordination and collaboration between the two-year and four-year sector


• Provide statewide training on the role and purpose of effective retention planning teams designed to improve their effectiveness

• Develop a process to help campuses define the best organizational model for student success planning and implementation (e.g. audits, training, presentation of various institutional models)

The use of data and information

to support student success

planning and decision-making

Four-year public institutions effectiveness of tracking and goal-setting (% very or somewhat effective)

Four-Year Public Institutions National Mississippi

We track persistence and progression patterns of all students who matriculate

78.7% 57.2%

We systematically and regularly conduct internal and external evaluations of our student life programs and services

72.1% 85.7%

We have developed means to measure student learning outcomes

70.5% 85.7%

We use the results of our student life evaluations to make changes in student life programs and services

68.3% 100%

We use the learning outcomes measurements to make changes

58.3% 71.4%

We set measurable goals to improve the retention rate for each term, semester, or year

52.5% 42.9%

©2009 Noel-Levitz, Inc.2009 Student Retention Practices and Strategies at

Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions

Two-year Public Institutions National Mississippi

We have developed means to measure student learning outcomes

69.3% 81.8%

We use the learning outcomes measurements to make changes

56.5% 90.9%

We systematically and regularly conduct internal and external evaluations of our student life programs and services

54.5% 90.9%

We use the results of our student life evaluations to make changes in student life programs and services

53.4% 90.9%

We track persistence and progression patterns of all students who matriculate

51.1% 63.6%

We set measurable goals to improve the retention rate for each term, semester, or year

45.5% 54.5%

Two-year public institutions effectiveness of tracking and goal-setting (% very or somewhat effective)



Potential opportunities to improve the use of data and information to support student success


• The MS respondents reported a strong data-orientation (unusually high). For example, 100% of the respondents in both sectors responded affirmatively to each data and information question. This finding should be confirmed



• The preceding finding is interesting because two core data questions receive relatively low effectiveness scores – We track persistence and progression

patterns of all students who matriculate– We set measurable goals to improve the

retention rate for each term, semester, or year

Student success practices

Before looking at the data, what do we know about the most important retention and completion strategies

nationally?

Ten critical elements of successful retention, progression and completion programs

1. Collect, compile, and analyze pertinent retention/completion-related data, information, and research to aid and abet planning and strategy development

2. Implement an early identification/alert system and appropriate student intervention strategies

3. Commit to both a “front-loading” and “progressive responsibility” philosophy in prioritizing action plans and determining degree of proactiveness

4. Focus on the importance of the teaching/learning process

5. Emphasize a deliberate strategy of student engagement and involvement

Ten critical elements of successful retention, progression and completion programs

6. Enhance the organization and delivery of academic advising services

7. Create programs and services based on meeting students’ individual needs and differences

8. Design institutional systems, policies, and processes to be more student-centered

9. Monitor, on a systematic basis, student expectations, levels of satisfaction, and educational outcomes

10. Establish a permanent organizational structure to pursue quality of student life and learning initiatives and an institutional change process

Let’s look at the four-year data first

Top ten retention strategies at four-year schools: National versus MS

National Public Four-year Colleges MS Public Four-year Colleges

Retention Strategy Very

Effective Retention Strategy

Very Effective

*1. Honors programs for academically advanced students

40.0% 1. Faculty development and

support in online technology and online teaching pedagogy

66.7%

*2. Academic support program or services

37.7% 2. Mandatory online interaction

between faculty and students 66.7%

*3. Technical support to address online connection issues

34.5% *3. Technical support to address

online connection issues 66.7%

*4. Orientation program for first-year students

32.8% *4. Honors programs for

academically advanced students

57.1%

5. Programs designed specifically for first-year students

32.8% 5. Surveys or interviews to

determine students’ levels of engagement

57.1%

Top ten retention strategies at four-year schools: National versus MS

National Public Four-year Colleges MS Public Four-year Colleges



Very Effective

6. Institution-wide emphasis on the teaching of undergraduates and undergraduate learning

31.7% 6. We have developed means to

measure student learning outcomes.

57.1%

*7. First-year experience program

31.2% *7. Academic support program

or services 42.9%

8. Programs designed specifically for at-risk students

28.3% 8. Financial aid and scholarships

aimed at retention 42.9%

9. Use of Web-based course engagement tools such as Blackboard, WebCT, etc

25.4% *9. First-year experience

program 42.9%

10. We track persistence and progression patterns of all students who matriculate.

24.6% *10. Orientation program for

first-year students 42.9%

Ten least used strategies: MS four-year publics

Survey item Proportion used

Requests for intended re-entry dates from students who are leaving

14.3%

Orientation program for adult/non-traditional students 42.9% Programs designed specifically for online learners 42.9% Requests for permission to remain in contact with students who are leaving

42.9%

Use of Web-based tools such as Blackboard, WebCT, etc., for engaging students in co-curriculars

42.9%

Academic support services specifically for online learners 50.0% Early-alert and intervention system for online learners 50.0% Required training program for adjunct faculty 57.1% Title III or Title V funding 57.1% Written plan to facilitate faculty/student engagement 57.1%

Other retention strategies that received low effectiveness ratings

Four-Year Public Institutions % Very Effective

Programs designed specifically for at-risk students 28.6%

Academic advising program 14.3%

Mandatory one-on-one advising 28.6%

Use of engagement data to make changes 0.0%

Early-alert and intervention system 28.6%





Learning communities that combine two courses under a common learning objective

28.6%

Orientation program for transfer students 28.6%

Orientation program for adult/non-traditional students 0.0%

Use of satisfaction assessment to make changes 14.3%

Comprehensive plan for communicating with current students

28.6%





Use of student employment as a strategy to retain students

28.6%

Early-alert for on-line learners 16.7%

Online student services including registration and financial aid

16.7%



There may also be an opportunity to increase the focus on specific population segments

Four-Year Public Institutions % Not Used

Programs specifically designed for on-line students 57.1%

Programs specifically designed for 2nd year students 42.9%

Programs specifically designed for international students

42.9%

Programs specifically designed for adult/non-traditional students

28.6%



What do these data points suggest about opportunities for improvement in the

four-year sector?

• Improved programs designed specifically for at-risk students (early-alert)

• Tracking persistence patterns of students who matriculate

• Recruit-back programs

• Improved academic advising (14% very effective)


four-year sector?

• Improved use of data and information to make changes (satisfaction/engagement)

• Improved use of learning communities

• Enhanced communications for currently enrolled students

• Improved on-line student services


four-year sector?

• Improved programming in the second year (major selection and transition, support for the deciding student)

• Enhanced support for adult/non-traditional learners (e.g. orientation programs)

• Enhanced support for online learners (special programs, early alert)

What can we learn from the two-year survey responses?

Top ten retention strategies at two-year schools: National versus MS

Public Two-year Colleges MS Two-year Public Colleges



Very Effective

1. Title III or Title V funding 23.3% 1. Use of Web-based course

engagement tools such as Blackboard, WebCT, etc

72.7%

*2. Faculty development and support in online technology and online teaching pedagogy

39.4%

*2. Faculty development and support in online technology and online teaching pedagogy

63.6%

*3. Academic support program or services

34.5% *3. Academic support program

or services 54.6%

4. Programs designed specifically for first-year students

20.7%

4. Comprehensive plan for communicating with current students via e-mail, the Web, regular mail, etc.

54.6%

5. Use of Web-based course engagement tools such as Blackboard, WebCT, etc

24.4%

*5. Institution-wide emphasis on the teaching of undergraduates and undergraduate learning

54.6%

Top Retention Strategies are identified by the proportion of respondents who find a strategy “VERY EFFECTIVE”.

Top ten retention strategies at two-year schools: National versus MS

Public Two-year Colleges MS Two-year Public Colleges



Very Effective

*6. Institution-wide emphasis on the teaching of undergraduates and undergraduate learning

24.4% 6. Orientation program for

online learners 54.6%

7. Surveys or interviews to determine students’ levels of engagement

24.4% *7. Surveys or interviews to

determine students’ levels of satisfaction

54.6%

*8. Surveys or interviews to determine students’ levels of satisfaction

26.7% 8. Technical support to

address online connection issues

54.6%

9. Programs designed specifically for at-risk students

21.6% 9. Use of satisfaction

assessments to make changes

54.6%

10. Technical support to address on-line connection issues

22.4%

10. We systematically and regularly conduct internal and external evaluations of our student life programs and services

54.6%

Top Retention Strategies are identified by the proportion of respondents who find a strategy “VERY EFFECTIVE”.

Ten least used strategies: MS two-year publics

Survey item Proportion

used Learning communities that combine two courses under a common learning objective

18.2%

Programs designed specifically for international students 18.2% Programs designed specifically for second-year students 36.4% Requests for intended re-entry dates from students who are leaving

36.4%

Co-curricular programs aimed at retention 45.5% Programs designed specifically for adult/non-traditional students

45.5%

Programs designed specifically for transfer students 45.5% Requests for permission to remain in contact with students who are leaving

45.5%

Orientation program for transfer students 54.6% Use of financial literacy programs to assist students and parents with managing their personal finances

54.6%



Academic advising program 36.4%

Mandatory one-on-one advising 36.4%

Early-alert and intervention system 18.2%

Orientation program for FY students 27.3%

Orientation program for transfer/on-line students 18.2%/18.2%





Early-alert and intervention system for on-line learners 18.2%

On-line students services for registration and financial aid

27.3%



In the two-year sector, development education is critical to improving progression and completion

MS has a slightly greater percentage of development education delivered through academic departments at

two-year schools



Developmental math participation is similar to national averages in the two-year sector



Self-reported math pass rates are slightly higher than national averages but we know these figures are

inflated nationally

Pass rate for developmental math courses

1.3% 0.0%

5.1%9.1%

20.5%

36.4%39.7%

18.2%

33.3% 36.4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

National Institutions Mississippi Institutions

> than or equal to 90% 80 to 89.9% 70 to 79.9% 60 to 69.9% < than 60%©2009 Noel-Levitz, Inc.


Developmental reading/writing participation is slightly better than national averages in the two-year sector



And reading/writing pass rates are very similar to national averages



Given the previous findings, it is disconcerting that a third of the two-year schools reported no special programs for

students in high-failure courses



What do these data points suggest about opportunities for improvement in the two-year sector?

• Explore implementation of programs specifically for first-year students

• Collect student engagement data (e.g. CCSSE) to augment student satisfaction data

• Improve intervention programs for at-risk students (early-alert)


two-year sector?

• Expansion of learning communities

• Second-year programs designed to encourage completion and transition to a four-year institution (where appropriate)

• Implement stronger recruit-back programs

• Strengthen academic advising

• Improved on-line student services


two-year sector?

• Look at transfer orientation in response to increased student swirl (and orientation programs generally)

• Undertake a complete review of developmental education trends and delivery models and develop strategies in response to the findings (e.g. K-12 cooperation, summer bridge programs, supplemental instruction programs)

What did the campus

representative say is most important

this morning?

What did the campus representatives say is most important?

• Database to track non FTFT• Data on 2-year to 4-year transition• Regional planning councils to improve 2-

year/4-year transitions• Improved institutional data tracking

– We track persistence and progression patterns of all students who matriculate

– We set measurable goals to improve the retention rate for each term, semester, or year

What did the campus representatives say is most important?

• Early alert programs for at-risk students• Improved academic advising• Implement/enhance recruit-back programs• Implement/enhance learning communities• Implement/enhance 2nd year programs• Undertake a complete review of

developmental education trends and delivery models and develop strategies in response to the findings

Questions and Discussion

Let’s prioritize the recommendations (campus group)

Exercise (IHL staff, results to be presented at task force meeting)

• For each cluster of identified opportunities, pick your top two from each list

• We will use this to surface the issues that are most important to highlight in the task force report

Let’s review recent trends in retention and completion in MS compared to

national data

What’s missing from the preceding data?

• Rates on transfer students, part-time students, and students who entered via other means

• Taken together, these groups account for 66% of the degrees produced in AY0708 at the four-year schools

• It is important to understand the persistence, progression, retention, and completion patterns among these students and not just focus on the FTFT students

• The same can be said for part-time students at the community colleges


• 1st to 2nd year retention rates are fairly mainline but there are pockets of underperformance at the institutional level

• Completion appears to be a bigger problem than retention

• The state has not seen improvement in either set of metrics over the last five years and retention rates appear to be on the decline


• Additional data should be compiled on institutional level performance compared to peers (see www.collegeresults.org). 4

• Use these data to inform institutional goal-setting designed to improve statewide performance

• Build a database to track non-FTFT performance, they are two-third’s of your market for degree production 8

http://www.collegeresults.org/


• Additional data on the two-year to four-year transition process and student success rates should be assembled -- 8

Organizational issues and planning


• Implement a uniform student success planning process (at the institutional level) that supports statewide goals for improved graduation rates and degree production -- 5

• Consider forming regional planning councils to enhance coordination and collaboration between the two-year and four-year sector -- 12


• Provide statewide training on the role and purpose of effective retention planning teams designed to improve their effectiveness -- 4

• Develop a process to help campuses define the best organizational model for student success planning and implementation (e.g. audits, training, presentation of various institutional models) -- 2

The use of data and information

to support student success




• The MS respondents reported a strong data-orientation (unusually high). For example, 100% of the respondents in both sectors responded affirmatively to each data and information question. This finding should be confirmed



• The preceding finding is interesting because two core data elements receive a lower effectiveness score than the national average in both sectors -- 10– We track persistence and progression

patterns of all students who matriculate– We set measurable goals to improve the

retention rate for each term, semester, or year

Student success practices


four-year sector?

• Improved programs designed specifically for at-risk students (early-alert) - 8

• Tracking persistence patterns of students who matriculate

• Recruit-back programs -- 6

• Improved academic advising (14% very effective) -- 8


four-year sector?

• Improved use of data and information to make changes (satisfaction/engagement) 3

• Improved use of learning communities -- 4

• Enhanced communications for currently enrolled students -- 4

• Improved on-line student services -- 1


four-year sector?

• Improved programming in the second year (major selection and transition, support for the deciding student) -- 5

• Enhanced support for adult/non-traditional learners (e.g. orientation programs) -- 2

• Enhanced support for online learners (special programs, early alert) -- 1

What do these data points suggest about opportunities for improvement in the two-year sector?

• Explore implementation of programs specifically for first-year students -- 2

• Collect student engagement data (e.g. CCSSE) to augment student satisfaction data -- 1

• Improve intervention programs for at-risk students (early-alert) -- 8


two-year sector?

• Expansion of learning communities -- 5

• Second-year programs designed to encourage completion and transition to a four-year institution (where appropriate) - 4

• Implement stronger recruit-back programs - 12

• Strengthen academic advising -- 7

• Improved on-line student services -- 2


two-year sector?

• Look at transfer orientation in response to increased student swirl (and orientation programs generally) -- 2

• Undertake a complete review of developmental education trends and delivery models and develop strategies in response to the findings (e.g. K-12 cooperation, summer bridge programs, supplemental instruction programs) -- 11

Not on list either sector

• Tracking student attendance -- 6

• Mandatory FY housing -- 2

• FY experience for transfers -- 3

• Centralized academic advising or reward system for faculty advisors 7

• 90+ hour target (recruit-back + finish line)

• Funding and commitment for change

Questions and Discussion

mississippi graduation rate task force kevin crockett president/ceo and principal october 1, 2009

Documents