retaining students at community colleges: an update on the achieving the dream initiative john b....
TRANSCRIPT
Retaining Students at Community Colleges: An Update on the Achieving the Dream Initiative
John B. Lee, JBL Associates IncLana Muraskin, The Pell Institute Derek V. Price, DVP-PRAXIS LTDKathleen Whitson, Brookhaven College
Presentation to the 2005 Annual MeetingCouncil for Opportunity in EducationWashington, DCSeptember 20, 2005
What is Achieving the Dream?
• A national initiative to help more community college students succeed
• Through the initiative, participating colleges commit to closing achievement gaps by assessing what is happening on their campuses and make lasting changes in their own practices and cultures
What is Achieving the Dream?
• The work of the initiative is premised on a data-driven institutional change model
• Participating colleges benchmark key student outcomes - disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and income – adopt strategies to close achievement gaps, monitor their progress, and share their results broadly
Who is participating?
• 35 community colleges in 7 states: Connecticut, Florida, New Mexico, Ohio, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia
• At least 50% of first-time freshmen were Pell Grant recipients OR at least 33% of all students were African-American, Native-American or Hispanic
Achieving the Dream: Key Outcomes
To increase the percentage of students who accomplish the following:
• Complete remedial courses and move on to credit-bearing courses
• Enroll in and complete “gatekeeper” courses such as Introductory Math and English
• Complete courses with a “C” grade or higher• Re-enroll from one semester to the next• Earn certificates and/or degrees
The Framework for Institutional Change
• Identify the achievement gaps with data• Engage the broad campus community to
diagnose the arena for intervention• Use evidence to select a strategy to close the
gap• Evaluate the impact of the selected strategy• If successful, scale the strategy institution-wide
We call this framework a Culture of Inquiry and Evidence
To use data effectively, colleges need to:•Ask the right questions•Find the right data•Analyze the data with a critical eye
A process of critical inquiry and self-examination using data can:
•help identify equity gaps and guide us to solutions•challenge our assumptions and confirm our hypotheses•benchmark our performance and monitor our improvement
Types of data
• Student longitudinal cohort file• Student survey data (e.g., Faces of the Future)• Faculty and student focus groups• Institutional assessment and evaluation reports• Community stakeholder dialogues
Support structure for Achieving the Dream Colleges
• National Partnership organizations: American Association of Community Colleges; Community College Leadership Program – University of Texas at Austin; Community College Research Center – Teachers College, Columbia University; Jobs for the Future; KnowledgeWorks Foundation; Lumina Foundation for Education; MDC; MDRC; Nellie Mae Education Foundation;
and Public Agenda
Support structure for Achieving the Dream Colleges
• Each college works with a coach to develop strategies, set priorities, and implement institutional improvements
• Each college also works with a data facilitator –– to analyze student data, and use these data to inform strategies for improvement, monitor progress,
and evaluate results
Data on Retaining Students: the 2002 Achieving the Dream
Cohort
Data Base Design
• Longitudinal
• All first-time students entering the institution
• Includes full and part-time
• Goal to determine how minority and low-income students do in college
Beginning Students in the Beginning Students in the CohortCohort
Starting Population in 2002
State Part-time Full-Time Total
Florida 10,536 5,209 15,745
New Mexico 3,119 2,943 6,062
North Carolina 719 764 1,483
Texas 17,281 14,787 32,068
Virginia 2,797 3,401 6,198
Total 34,452 27,104 61,556
Percentage distribution of part-time and full-time students: 2002 cohort, academic year 1
Full-time41% Part-Time
53%
Unknown6%
Percentage distribution of AtD students by race/ethnicity
Black, non-Hispanic16%
White, non-Hispanic38%
Hispanic34%
Native American2%
Other/Non-resident alien6%
Asian/Pacific Islander4%
Cohort=2002
Percentage distribution of students (PT+FT) by age: 2002 cohort, academic year 1
age>=2529%
age<2571%
Percentage distribution of AtD students by age and race/ethnicity
67.2
73.4
63.8
71.473.3
71.3 70.8
32.8
26.6
36.3
28.626.7
28.7 29.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Black, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Hispanic Other/Non-resident alien Total
Perc
enta
ge
Less than 25 25 or older
Cohort=2002
Percentage distribution of students (PT+FT) by Pell grant receipt: 2002 cohort, academic year 1
Did not receive
Pell67%
Received Pell
33%
Percentage distribution of AtD students by age and Pell receipt
71.1 70.8
28.9 29.2
70.7
29.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pell receipt No Pell receipt Total
Perc
enta
ge
Less than 25 25 or older
Cohort=2002
Percentage distribution of AtD students by major and race/ethnicity
53
28
38
3135
38
3433
5255
58
53 5254
14
19
710
1210 11
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Native American Asian/Pacific Islander Black, non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Hispanic Other/Non-resident alien Total
Perc
enta
ge
Vocational/terminal General education/liberal arts Undeclared/Missing
Cohort=2002
Percentage distribution of AtD students by major and Pell receipt
37.6
32.734.3
53.6 54.7 54.4
8.512.1 10.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Pell receipt No Pell receipt Total
Perc
enta
ge
Vocational/terminal General education/liberal arts Undeclared/Missing
Cohort=2002
Percentage of AtD students full-time in first term by race/ethnicity
57.0
38.7
30.9
41.6
45.8
39.041.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Native American Asian/PacificIslander
Black, non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Hispanic Other/Non-residentalien
Total
Perc
enta
ge
Cohort=2002
Percentage of AtD students full-time in first term by Pell receipt
50.9
36.8
41.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Pell receipt No Pell receipt Total
Perc
enta
ge
Cohort=2002
Percentage of AtD students referred to any remedial eduction by race/ethnicity
53.356.1
60.0
48.1
69.5
53.958.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Native American Asian/PacificIslander
Black, non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Hispanic Other/Non-residentalien
Total
Perc
enta
ge
Cohort=2002
Remedial Referrals
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Not Referred Missing Total Referred
Multiple Referrals
0.0%5.0%
10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%30.0%35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%
referred to 1remedial class
referred to 2remedial classes
referred to 3remedial classes
Percentage of AtD students referred to any remedial education by Pell receipt
71.5
51.2
58.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Pell receipt No Pell receipt Total
Perc
enta
ge
Cohort=2002
Second Year ResultsSecond Year Results
Percentage of AtD students persisting to the second year by race/ethnicity
43.6
71.1
57.3
74.1
56.3
65.9
57.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Native American Asian/PacificIslander
Black, non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Hispanic Other/Non-residentalien
Total
Per
cent
age
Cohort=2002
Percentage of AtD students persisting to the second year by Pell receipt
59.9
55.9
57.2
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Pell receipt No Pell receipt Total
Perc
enta
geCohort=2002
Average cumulative GPA at end of second year for AtD students, by race/ethnicity
2.4
2.6
2.2
2.6
2.3
2.7
2.4
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
Native American Asian/PacificIslander
Black, non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Hispanic Other/Non-residentalien
Total
Cum
ulat
ive
GPA
Cohort=2002
Average cumulative GPA at the end of the second year for AtD students by Pell receipt
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.30
2.35
2.40
2.45
2.50
Pell receipt No Pell receipt Total
Cu
mu
lative G
PA
Cohort=2002
Percentage of AtD students completing gateway math and English by race/ethnicity
11.9
24.6
9.7
16.3
12.7
19.1
14.5
25.0
36.9
29.3
36.7
33.4
37.2
34.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Native American Asian/PacificIslander
Black, non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Hispanic Other/Non-residentalien
Total
Perc
enta
ge
Math English
Cohort=2002
Percentage of AtD students completing gateway math and English by Pell receipt
13.9 14.8 14.5
37.6
32.534.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Pell receipt No Pell receipt Total
Perc
enta
ge
Math English
Cohort=2002
Persistence in Remedial Math
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Fall 2002 Spring2003
Fall 2003 Spring2004
students referred toremedial math
Successful completion ofLevel 1 remedial math only(Cumulative)
Figure X.--Percentage of AtD students that completed or transferred by the end of year 2 by Pell receipt
6.3
7.67.2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Pell receipt No Pell receipt Total
Perc
en
tag
e
Cohort=2002
Using Data to Accomplish Goals: Lessons from Brookhaven College
Framing Achieving the Dream
• BHC student receiving tutoring one-on-one tend to out perform those not participating in tutoring
• Students in SLA and SI tend to do as well as students utilizing one-on-one tutoring
Goals of Achieving the Dream
• Developmental Education
• Student Services
• Professional Development
• Learning Environment
Background- from a perception of great to a perception of good in 6 months
• Disaggregating the data– Before Achieving the Dream, Brookhaven had
not disaggregated data– We believed we did not have any problems
based on “the data”– We determined we had equity gaps and
performance gaps with our low socio-economic students and students of color
Findings• Statistically significant performance gaps exist
among the following groups when compared: Hispanics and Blacks to majority and Asian students, males to females, 18-24 year olds to older students, first-generation students to non-first generation students, and academically under-prepared students to the total college population.
• African-American and Hispanic students are over-represented in the lowest level of developmental studies including math, writing, and reading.
Findings continued• Over 50 percent of Hispanics attending
Brookhaven are first-generation and 49 percent of Blacks are first generation, compared to 37 percent of Anglo students.
• Brookhaven has an overall low graduation rate (4.2 percent) even though over 30 percent of our students indicate they intend to pursue an associates degree or certificate.
Findings continued• At a significant rate, Brookhaven students tend to
leave college after reaching 15 credit hours rather than persisting toward educational goals.
• Evidence from student surveys of learning styles indicate that nearly 60 percent of developmental education students are visual learners needing illustrations and graphics while many faculty use lecture methods appropriate for auditory learners.
Findings continued• Using CCSSE data, Brookhaven ranks
consistently below the national average for active and collaborative learning, student effort, academic challenge, and student faculty interaction.
• Noel-Levitz data show significant variations from national comparison groups for academic advising/counseling, financial aid, student orientation and information, career choices, and faculty involvement and concern for students including early notification of poor performance.
Brookhaven College Successful Completer Percentage by Ethnicity - Cross Sectional Look
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
2000fa 2001fa 2002fa 2003fa 2004fa
Fall Semester
Pe
rce
nt S
ucc
ess
ful
African-American Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic
Non Res Alien/For Nat White not Hispanic
Re-Enrollment Rates, Fall 2002 CohortFirst Time at Brookhaven College - Longitudinal Look
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Fall 2002 Spring 2003 Fall 2003 Spring 2004 Fall 2004
3,978 FTIC students
4 semesters later 768 students remain
Achieving the Dream and TRIO
What can we learn?
What can we use?
Importance of Achieving the Dream for the TRIO community?
• Nationally visible advocacy for low income, first generation, at-risk college students
• Model of campus-wide community college initiative to improve academic outcomes for at-risk students
– Visibility of problems/challenges through data
– Senior staff buy-in– Aims to change overall policy
and practice
How is Achieving the Dream like/unlike TRIO/SSS?
• Goals• Planning process• Student targeting• Use of data• Instruction and services• Resources and staffing• Accountability and “strings”• Timing of interventions• Breadth/depth of reform
What will the Achieving the Dream colleges do this year? (n=22)
• Intensify or change orientation, advising, counseling, advocacy (18 overall, 2 are structured freshman year)
• Improve data, institutional research, student tracking (11)
• Start or expand learning communities (11 overall, 3-4 link non-dev academic courses)
• Reform dev education curriculum (8)
• Expand, enhance college success/fresh experience course (8)
• Improve dev ed testing, placement, exams (7)
• Provide prof development for faculty (7)
• Provide SI for dev ed or non dev classes (7-8)
• Provide tutoring (5)
What will the Achieving the Dream colleges do this year?
(n=22)• K-12 outreach: bridge,
dual credit, info (4)• Financial aid changes:
info or incentives (3)• Degree audit reform (2)• Mentoring (2)• Other: form study groups,
improve registration, study reform of “gateway” courses
• Service learning
• Continued planning
What can TRIO/SSS use?
• Data on student performance• Findings about barriers to retention, completion• Findings about instructional and service reforms• Findings about how to bring about reform
Some important questions raised by Achieving the Dream
• What explains current rates of retention and completion in community colleges?
• How does an initiative become central to a community college?
• How do you maintain momentum over time? Adjust? Revise?
• What if you do it all and changes are modest?
If Achieving the Dream is on your campus, get involved!
