1. Concurrent Enrollment as a Vehicle for Recruitment & Retention: Does Tinto’s Model Apply to CE? USU Concurrent Enrollment Program VINCENT J. LAFFERTY MS, Executive Director DANIEL R. JUDD PhD, Assessment Specialist HEATHER THOMAS MS, Director

2. CEPs are being asked to Quantify their Quantify their Contribution to the Sponsoring Institution

3. Student-Centered Measures

4. It is less costly to keep an existing customer than to attract a new one

5. Tinto - 1993 Generally, the more satisfying those (college) experiences are felt to be, the more likely are individuals to persist until degree completion.

6. Tinto’s Model of Integration Degree Completion Integration Student Satisfaction Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991

7. Apply Tinto’s Model to CE? 1. HS Students & Parents 2. Teachers, Counselors & Administrators 3. NACEP’s 1 Year & 5 Year for Accreditation

8. Conditions Supportive of Retention 1.Expectation = Parents 2.Advice = HS Counselors 3.Support = HS Teachers 4.Involvement = CE Credits 5.Learning = Satisfaction

9. Overview USU CE Program  Legislated State funding in 1991  2006-07 had 6,774 students  Class titles for CE credit = 118  HSs in Utah and Idaho = 75

10. Study #1 CEP Stakeholders: HS Students & Parents

11. CE Student Study  Three HS located nearby  Census of 64 CE classes  CE ≈ 50% HS Students  N = 1,000 HS Students

12. Results HS Students  Overall student satisfaction with the CE program was 93%  Of the decided Seniors, 93% said that they would attend USU

13. Parents of CE Students  Random sample of 436 households  Mail with telephone follow-up  n = 253 completed questionnaires  58% response rate.

14. Results Parent Study  87% of Parents agreed satisfied with the education student received through CE, 47% strongly agreed.  90% of Parents agreed that they recommend CE to other parents, 62% strongly agreed.

15. What is MOST IMPORTANT to Students and Parents Students and Parents in choosing an Undergraduate Program?

16. Factors Important in Choosing a College  Social opportunities  Education for a better job  Faculty show concern for students  Quality program for chosen career  Affordable tuition  Availability of scholarships Dan Jones & Assoc. ’02 Focus Groups

17. Ranking of Decision Factors Identical Results StudentsParents 1 Education for better job1 2 Affordable tuition2 3 Quality program for chosen career 3

18. Study #2 Focus Groups: CE Teachers and HS Counselors

19. Focus Group Results  HS Counselors are the Gatekeepers  Policy & Procedure to ADMIT-DROP  Notify HS of Students on Probation  Strategies for Students NOT in CE

20. Counselors’ Dilemma How to advise students as they take AP classes, CE classes, and the ACT/SAT so that all credit sources work together to give students maximum credits, but not so many that some have to be counted as electives.

21. Study #3 NACEP Accreditation 5 Year & 1 Year Surveys

22. How Many Credits Earned? 1-Yr. Follow-up Study (2006-07):  3,447 credits earned (n=200)  Average was 17 credits  Median was 12 credits  Mode was 6 credits

24. Attended College After HS 1-yr.5-yr. Yes78%92% 18% of CE students in 1-yr were going or were on LDS mission

25. Attended Sponsor After HS 1-yr.5-yr. Yes35%57% SLCC, BYU, & SUU increased enrollment of USU CEP students

26. Recommendation Use the NACEP Accreditation Surveys to Quantify Your CE Program’s Contribution to Your Sponsoring Institution.

27. Quantifying Contributions  What does the Sponsor give? –Avg. Credits Earned X % CE Student at Sponsor  What does the Sponsor get back? –Number of Freshman or New Admits –Avg. Semesters CE Students Retained –Tuition Dollars Earned –Public Support – Satisfaction  Benefit of CE to Disadvantaged Students? –Low-income –First-Generation College

28. Comparison Current Status Studyn USU Other 4 yr. 2 yr Coll. Vol. Svc.Work 5-yr.196 55 % 29%10%0%7% 1-yr.200 35 % 30%13%18%7%

29. Comparison of Satisfaction Comparison of Satisfaction Overall satisfaction (combined “Excellent” and “Good”) remained at 95% 5-yr.1-yr. Excellent 62% 64% Good 33% 31% Fair 6% 3% Poor 0 2% Total 100%

30. Comparison Credit/Satisfaction 2006-07 1-Yr. Follow-up Study: USU credits earned n ExcellentGoodFair Poor 1-6 credits 60 55%35% 8% 2% 7-13 credits 52 52%40%2%6% 14-24 credits 41 71% 29%00 25-62 credits 47 83% 17%00

31. Does greater involvement in CE increase the likelihood that students will attend Sponsor Institution?

32. Credit by Where Enrolled 2006-07 1-Yr. Follow-up Study: Credit by Where Enrolled 2006-07 1-Yr. Follow-up Study: Credits earnedn USU Other 4 yr. 2 yr. Coll. Vol. SvcWork 1-6 credits 6020%35%13%20%12% 7-13 credits 5229%35%14%19%4% 14-24 credits 41 46% 27%10%12%5% 25-63 credits 47 49% 23%13%11%4%

33. Summary #3 Results 55% of USU CEP students attended Sponsor 5 years after HS > 3,000 students55% of USU CEP students attended Sponsor 5 years after HS > 3,000 students Both surveys had Excellent ratings > 60%Both surveys had Excellent ratings > 60% Both surveys had overall satisfaction > 90%Both surveys had overall satisfaction > 90% Average CE credits earned was 14 - 17Average CE credits earned was 14 - 17 As credits earned increased so didAs credits earned increased so did –overall satisfaction and –likelihood of attending Sponsor

34. Overall Findings Student & Parent expectations sameStudent & Parent expectations same –Emphasis on career goals HS Counselors are CE gatekeepersHS Counselors are CE gatekeepers Majority of CE students go to SponsorMajority of CE students go to Sponsor Students earning more CE creditsStudents earning more CE credits –More satisfied –Attend Sponsor in greater numbers

35. Recommendations for Retention Support Student Satisfaction  Continue s trengthening class quality  Offer career-oriented courses  Network ongoingly with counselors  Perform annual satisfaction studies  Benchmark student satisfaction results

36. Recommendations for Retention  Apply for and stay current on NACEP Accreditation Status  Use the NACEP Accreditation Surveys to quantify the contribution of CE to your sponsoring institutions  Confirm retention figures and contribution of CEPs by creating a NACEP database

37. It is less costly to keep an enrolled student than to attract a new one

38. Thank You

39. Dan Judd, PhD, MPA dan.judd@usu.edu c 435-770-0139