Draft Draft Recommendations for Measuring Completion: Success is earning the credential sought by the student Completion should be measured both when students.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
FBOE K-20 Accountability Project CEPRI Workgroup June 13, 2002 Orlando, Florida.
Advertisements

The State, DHE, and CCHE Context. Colorado Context Colorado is a growth state- 8 th in the nation 47% of population (25-64) have at least an Associate.
Overview of Performance Funding Model for Ohio’s Community Colleges
Success is what counts. A Better Way to Measure Community College Performance Presentation about the ATD Cross-State Data Workgroup NC Community College.
Promoting Degree Completion Through Financial Incentives Teresa Lubbers, Commissioner November 9, 2009.
Perkins IV National Definitions and State Reporting: The Impact on Data Collection in Texas Gabriela Borcoman Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.
Leading the Way : Access. Success. Impact. Board of Governors Summit August 9, 2013.
Using the National Student Clearinghouse for Outcomes Data Mary Ann Coughlin Jean Wyld Joseph R Bjerklie Rachel Albert.
Funding Formula Data Work Session Student Information System Website: ▬►Resources ▬►CompleteCollegeTN.
How College Shapes LivesFor detailed data, see: trends.collegeboard.org. SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, 2013, Tables 222, 306, and.
Illinois High School to College Success Report High School Feedback Reporting In Cooperation with ACT, Inc. Illinois Community College Board Illinois Board.
Measuring Up 2006: The Nation and Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Education Policy Forum Capital Breakfast Series November 15, 2006.
Jonathan H. Stroble, Senior Manager K-12 Student & School Services.
Success is what counts. A Better Way to Measure Community College Performance: An Achieving the Dream Cross-State Data Initiative 2009 SHEEO/NCES Network.
STUDENT EQUITY PLAN PROGRESS PRESENTATION TO BOARD FEBRUARY 28, 2012.
Postsecondary Performance Funding Plans Cheyenne, Wyoming February 20, 2014 Matt Gianneschi, Ph.D. Vice President of Policy and Programs Education Commission.
The Voluntary Framework of Accountability for community colleges, by community colleges.
Indicators of Opportunity in Higher Education Fall 2004 Status Report COE Annual Conference September 14, 2004.
Indiana’s P–16 Plan for Improving Student Achievement.
The High School – College Disconnect G. Donald Allen Department of Mathematics Texas A&M University presented to: The Coastal Bend Mathematics Collaborative,
Ivy Tech Community College Indiana’s Education Roundtable May 24, 2011.
Colorado’s Preschool to Postsecondary Alignment Act, SB (CAP4K) Co-convened Meeting Gunnison, CO – Western State College November 10, 2008 Dept of.
Illinois Higher Education FY15 Performance Funding Recommendations IBHE Board Presentation February 4, 2014 Dr. Alan Phillips.
Analysis of States’ Use of Student Enrollments and Performance Criteria in Higher Education Funding May 2012 R EPORT FOR THE N EVADA L EGISLATURE ’ S C.
Measuring Up 2004 Oregon. EXHIBIT A Measuring Up: The Basics Looks at higher education for the entire state, not individual colleges and universities.
Graduation Attainment Efficiency
Institutional Effectiveness 2010/2011 Core Indicators Institutional Research Wendy Dove – October 2011 COMMON GROUND “Progress towards a decade of student.
Measuring Up 2004 Texas. Measuring Up: The Basics Looks at higher education for the entire state, not individual colleges and universities. Focuses on.
Ivy Tech Community College Adjunct Faculty Conference March 26, 2011.
ILASFAA: 2014 MAP ADVISING RECOMMENDATIONS Background MAP Task Force – Illinois General Assembly – 2013 Concluded that students would benefit from.
A Comprehensive Analysis of a PrOF Instructional Data Packet To illustrate the data analysis process CRC Research Office 2009.
National Accountability Initiatives and Their Impact on NCCCS J. Keith Brown CCPRO Fall Conference October 18, 2010.
Student Success Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges September 2011.
California State University, Sacramento Increasing Opportunities for Student Success: Changing the “Rules of the Game” Nancy Shulock Institute for Higher.
“Building an Inclusive Community” Presented by Dr. Mordean Taylor-Archer Vice Provost for Diversity and International Affairs 1 University of Louisville.
IBHE Presentation 1 Proposed Four-Year University Performance Funding Model Performance Funding Steering Committee Meeting October 24, 2011 Dr. Alan Phillips.
2009 Closing the Expectation Gap Fourth Annual 50-State Progress Report on the Alignment of High School Policies with the Demands of College and Careers.
Certificates: Findings from National Research and Implications for Indiana Brian Bosworth, FutureWorks November 16, 2011.
Tennessee Higher Education Commission Fall 2012 Enrollment & Completion Update Tennessee Higher Education Commission Fall Quarterly Meeting November 15,
REMEDIATION IN COLORADO. COLORADO GEAR UP SUCCESS.
IBHE Presentation 1 Illinois Higher Education Performance Funding Model IBHE Board Meeting February 7, 2012 Dr. Alan Phillips.
1 System Level Accountability Measures Sept. 17, 2003.
State Contexts for Setting Goals for the Higher Education Enterprise Patrick Kelly National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Developing a Student Flow Model to Project Higher Education Degree Production: Technical and Policy Consideration Takeshi Yanagiura Research Director Tennessee.
The Voluntary Framework of Accountability for community colleges, by community colleges.
Education Writers Association Conference May 18, 2012 Philadelphia, PA Ryan Reyna, Program Director Using Data for Higher Education Accountability.
P-20 Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) Update Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI)
Low-income Adults in Profile: Low-income Adults in Profile: Improving Lives Through Higher Education Bryan Cook ACE Center for Policy Analysis.
One System…One Mission Florida’s Student Success Dashboard 2011 American Association of Community Colleges John Hughes, Ph. D.
The Voluntary Framework of Accountability for community colleges, by community colleges.
Monitoring and Oversight: College Completion and Attainment Dr. Kevin Reilly & Dr. Sheila Stearns AGB Consultants December 7th, 2015.
The Voluntary Framework of Accountability for community colleges, by community colleges.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Major Policy Discussion Achieving the Goals of 60x30TX: College Readiness and Dual Credit April 28, 2016 College.
SUPPORTING DATA 1 Pipeline Subcommittee Draft - 5/12/2010.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Data Highlight: Completion CAAP Meeting March 30,
September 2006NYS Education Department1 A Review of Higher Education Data Comparison of the Four Sectors of Higher Education New York State Education Department.
SUPPORTING DATA 1 Pipeline Subcommittee June 29, 2010 DRAFT.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH, PLANNING, AND PERFORMANCE BETH BEAN Remedial Education Policy Review Task Force and Advisory Board.
Performance Funding Dilemma: Developmental Education 38 th Annual TAIR Conference February, 2016 Bret Appleton, Director Institutional Research and Data.
Summer Data Conference – June 6, (2008) National Completion Goals (Lumina’s Big Goal: 60% of those will have an Associate Degree or above.
April 28, 2016 College Readiness and Success
The Voluntary Framework of Accountability
Trends in Public US Education: Challenges & Opportunities
Student Success Scorecard and Institution-Set Standards 2014
THE PATH FORWARD KCTCS Strategic Plan
Joshua Garrison Director of Policy and Legislation
2016 Taft College Student Success Scorecard
Defining and Measuring Student Success Dr
2017 Taft College Student Success Scorecard
Student Success Scorecard & Other Institutional Effectiveness Metrics
Presentation transcript:

Draft Draft Recommendations for Measuring Completion: Success is earning the credential sought by the student Completion should be measured both when students exit (outcomes) and during higher education (progress) Completion should be measured against the accessibility goals and other specified needs of the state (context) Completion should use measures comparable to others nationally and internationally Completion measures should be clear, public, transparent, and used by students, educators, and policy makers to make decisions about higher education 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION1

HESP Accessibility Subcommittee: Measuring Completion Principles –Access requires a strong oversight body that drives behaviors important to state goals and policy. –Access translates into and is measured by the completion of a higher education degree or certificate. Recommendation –Student Educational Completion: Success is earning the credential sought by the student. 7/27/20102DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

Considerations for Measuring Completion NCHEMS (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems) “The focus should be on completion not graduation. This is the dominant and growing pattern across the country (because of the President's 2020 goal and the Gates and Lumina initiatives). – The first measure should be the percentage of the population age with an associate degree or above benchmarked against the U.S. and the best performing countries (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). – The second level of benchmark(s) should be the number of certificates or degrees granted related to the relevant population groups. – The third level should be the number of degrees granted per 100 undergraduates (differentiated by sector). – Graduation "rates" should NOT be used because they lead to all sorts of problems. Above all, they can be easily gamed (changing the denominator by increasing selectivity) and are not indicators of an increase in the number of people getting through the system--the most important goal. You can increase rates but never increase the numbers getting through to degrees.” 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION3

Considerations for Measuring Completion National Governor’s Association (NGA) – Clarify definitions for completion measures – Collect college completion data system wide – Break down data into completion measures for targeted demographic groups – Report data publicly and annually by institution and system in easy to understand formats and broad venues 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION4

Consideration National IPEDS (Integrated Post-secondary Data System) Graduation Rates are collected on the number of students entering the institution as full-time, first-time, degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate students in a particular year (cohort), by race/ethnicity and gender; the number completing their program within 150 percent of normal time to completion; the number that transfer to other institutions if transfer is part of the institution’s mission. 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION5

Consideration Department of Higher Education SOURCE: SURDS (Student Unit Records Data System)Enrollment, Fall 2003; Degrees Awarded FY 2004‐2009 and Summer 09; Report run May 2010 The Graduation Rate of transfers only includes degrees attained by transfers to Colorado institutions reporting to SURDS. Transfers to private schools not reporting to SURDS or out‐of‐state transfers are not counted. At 4‐year institutions, "Graduated at Transfer Institution" includes only 4‐year to 4‐year transfers At 4‐year institutions, counts are students receiving a degree(s) i.e. double majors are only counted once. For 2‐year institutions, "Graduated at Transfer Institution" includes only 2‐year to 2‐year transfers, therefore the Community College mission of transfer‐to‐ 4YR‐schools is not assessed here. At 2‐year institutions, counts are degrees, i.e. a single student that received a certificate as well as an Associates is counted twice. For two‐year transfers, the rate only includes those that attained an associate degree or certificate after transfer, at Colorado institutions reporting to SURDS. 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION6

Consideration University of Denver Job offer before completion of degree or certificate Employed in major area within 6 months of completion Currently employed in major area Currently attending the next level of education Salary if currently employed Colorado resident 2007 * 36% had a job offer before they graduated * 77% were employed within six months of graduation * 82% are currently employed * 91% are either employed or continuing education * 41% who are employed full-time are earning more than $40,000 * 62% reside in Colorado 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION7

Consideration The Community College System Current measures only include a very small cohort of its students – 8.8%. The graduation rate data only include full- time, first-time, degree-seeking students and the vast majority of community colleges students do not fit in this definition, nor is it their goal to graduate per se. Transfer data include transfer only to public two-year institutions. Community college transfers to public four- year institutions or to private institutions such as Regis University, Colorado Christian University and Colorado Technical University are not included in this measure. May make sense to increase the graduation time band to 6 years and to include part-time students as well as to add a measure of the relevant goals of students and how they are doing in regard to those goals. 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION8

Consideration Alternative Measures for Community Colleges Degrees and credentials awarded per 100 enrolled – In 2005, Colorado was ranked 9th highest in the country for two-year colleges with 18.9 degrees awarded per 100 students enrolled and 23rd highest for four-year colleges with 10.3 degrees awarded per 100 students enrolled. – The most recent data (2007) for this measure, developed by NCHEMS, show Colorado Public 2-Year Institutions at 23.1% with a National 2-Year Institutions rate of 19.9% Community college success rate – The proportion of students who either completed a degree or certificate, transferred to a four-year institution, or were still enrolled three years after first attending. Transfer metric – Measuring the number of students who transfer from two-year to four-year colleges. Concurrent enrollment metric – Measuring the number of students who are concurrently enrolled in high school and college as a proportion of high school students. Remedial course completion rates 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION9

Considerations National Governor Association “Complete to Compete: Common College Completion Metrics” LLEGEMETRICS.PDF LLEGEMETRICS.PDF Purpose: A set of common college completion metrics that can be used to monitor system performance and inform future policy decisions. Comparable higher education outcome and progress data are necessary to meet the guiding priorities of increased graduates, decreased minority and low-income attainment gaps, and improved performance using existing resources 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION10

NGA Definitions Completion rate: The percentage of individuals who complete a certificate or degree (e.g., associate and bachelor’s). Attainment rate: The percentage of a population that has obtained a certificate or degree. Productivity: Awarding more higher education certificates and degrees within the same resources, while maintaining quality. 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION11

Outcome Metrics The outcome metrics quantify the end-product of the educational process, informing policymakers and the public on how students, institutions, and the state are performing on the goal of increased postsecondary attainment. The common measures that all states should track include: – Degrees awarded: annual number and percentage of certificates, associate degrees, and bachelor’s degrees awarded; – Graduation rates: number and percentage of certificate- or degree- seeking students who graduate within normal program time (two years for associate’s degrees; four years for bachelor’s degrees) or extended time (three years for associate’s degrees; six years for bachelor’s degrees); – Transfer rates: annual number and percentage of students who transfer from a two-year to four-year institution; and – Time and credits to degree: average length of time in years and average number of credits that graduating students took to earn a certificate, an associate degree, or a bachelor’s degree. 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION12

Progress Metrics The progress metrics measure student movement from semester-to-semester and year-to-year toward the completion of an academic program. Such measures help policymakers identify specific challenges and opportunities for improvement in higher education. The measures also enable institutions to target intervention and support services to increase the likelihood of completion. The common measures that all states should track include: – Enrollment in remedial education: number and percentage of entering first-time undergraduate students who place into and enroll in remedial math, English, or both; – Success beyond remedial education: number and percentage of first-time undergraduate students who complete a remedial education course in math, English or both and complete a college-level course in the same subject; – Success in first-year college courses: annual number and percentage of entering first-time undergraduate students who complete entry college-level math and English courses within the first two consecutive academic years; and – Credit accumulation: number and percentage of first-time undergraduate students completing 24 credit hours (for full-time students) or 12 credit hours (for part-time students) within their first academic year; – Retention rates: number and percentage of entering undergraduate students who enroll consecutively from fall-to-spring and fall-to-fall at an institution of higher education; – Course completion: percentage of credit hours completed out of those attempted during an academic year. 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION13

Context Measures These measures are particularly important for policymakers because they provide: a check to ensure that access to higher education is not sacrificed in favor of completion; a system wide snapshot of higher education productivity; and a method to track the growth in the overall level of education in the state. The additional measures that NGA recommends states should track include – Enrollment: total first-time undergraduate students enrolled in an institution of higher education; – Completion ratio: annual ratio of certificates and degrees awarded per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate students; – Market penetration: annual ratio of certificates and degrees awarded relative to the state’s population with a high school diploma. 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION14

Data System Requirements for Completion Measures A unique statewide student identifier; Student-level data for all public colleges and universities on: enrollment, demographics, financial aid, transfer, persistence, course/transcript, remediation, degree completion, and graduation; Privacy protection for all individually identifiable student records; and A data audit system to assess data quality, validity, and reliability. 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION15

Lumina’s Big Goal and Other Thoughts To increase the proportion of Americans with high- quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by the year 2025 Regaining the lead in postsecondary attainment would mean, at a minimum, moving from the current 39 percent of Americans with postsecondary education, to 50 percent by While the proportion of individuals enrolled in college in the United States has grown since the 1970s, the proportion of students receiving diplomas has declined during the same period. Currently less than 60 percent of students entering four-year institutions earn a bachelor’s degree, and barely one-fourth of community college students complete any degree within six years. As a result, the United States now ranks 10th in college attainment for its 25- to 34-year-old population, down from third in 1991, according to the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development. 7/27/2010DRAFT--NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION16