1. Developing a Student Flow Model to Project Higher Education Degree Production: Technical and Policy Consideration Takeshi Yanagiura Research Director Tennessee Higher Education Commission 5/21/2009 2009 SHEEO/NCES Network Conference

2. Main Points Tennessee’s policy issues Student Flow Model Development Findings Policy Implications

3. Tennessee Public Higher Education System Main Roles of THEC Coordinating Board Develop a statewide master plan for higher education, reinforced by funding formula and performance funding Develop higher education budget request and recommend tuition levels Program approval THEC Divisions Academic Affairs Fiscal Affairs Policy, Planning, and Research Legal and Regulatory Affairs P-16 Initiatives/GEAR UP TN

4. Tennessee’s Policy Interest and Issues  Increase in Educational Attainment Level  Increase in Degree Productivity  Limited Financial Support from Public Preparation are underway for 2010-2015 Master Plan MOA Listening tour across the state NCHEMS Policy Audit

5. Tennessee’s Policy Issues: 1. Educational Attainment Direct correlation between personal income and educational attainment of residents TN is ranked among the bottom 10 in the nation in educational attainment

6. Tennessee’s Policy Issues: 2. Increase Degree Productivity

7. Tennessee’s Policy Issues: 3. Prospect of Declining Public Funding for Higher Education

8. Projections of Educational Attainment Level in US, SREB*, and Tennessee: 2007-2025 Source: NCHEMS *SREB figures exclude Tennessee

9. Projected Tennessee's Gaps in Educational Attainment Relative to SREB and US Averages: 2007 - 2025 Source: THEC, NCHEMS

10. Tennessee Imperative Improve higher education productivity Defined as “graduating more students with certificates and degrees for the money available to invest”  Participation in Making Opportunity Affordable (MOA) initiative.  MOA provides resources and a three-pronged framework to help states increase their public degree productivity: Recast state finance systems to reward institutions for graduating students, not just enrolling them Increase the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of academic programs and administrative operations; and Align resources or creating new models to serve more students.

11. Student Flow Model Track progress patterns of various cohorts across the state’s public higher education system Develop enrollment and completion projections for out-years based on patterns observed in the past

12. Methodology Cohort Survival Ratio – Generates enrollment and graduation projections for different student groups, based on past performance – The progression of each cohort was tracked from the fall 1997 term through spring 2007 – For each term during this time period, retention and graduation rates were calculated for every cohort – For projections of enrollment and completion beyond spring 2007, the exponential smoothing method was used

13. Exponential Smoothing Method The previous two years’ retention and graduation rates were used to estimate both retention and completion rates for each future term  Projection at year t+1= (  *actual data at year t) + (1-  )*(Actual data at year t-1)  

14. Data Used to Build the Tool Enrollment and Completion Data – All Undergraduate Fall 1997 – Spring 2007 – Following data are used: THECID System Institution Year and Term Registration Code Previous Registration Code Student Level Residency Number of credit hours taken » College level » R&D

15. Cohort A total of 12 cohorts – each cohort progresses differently - See handouts Freshman Cohort – Recent high school graduates enrolled as first-time freshmen with dual enrollment credit remedial or developmental education required non-residents Other – Adult Students (Age 25 and Up) – 20-24 years old

16. Cohort (Continued) Non-Freshman Cohort – Returning Students – Readmitted Students – Non-Degree seeking – TN Community College Transfers – Transfer from Other than TN Community Colleges – Dual Enrollment Students

17. High School Graduation Rate (9th Grade) Attend College Not Attend College In-state Institutions Out-state Institutions Private Institutions Public Institutions Remedial & Developmental Education Needed College-Ready (R&D Not Needed) UT, First-time Freshmen, Recent HS Graduate TBR 2-yr, First-time Freshmen, Recent HS Graduate TBR 4yr, TBR 4-yr, First-time Freshmen, Recent HS Graduate First-time Freshmen, Recent HS Graduate, NonResident UT, First-time Freshmen TBR 2-yr, First- time Freshmen TBR 4yr, First- time Freshmen Adult Population (Age 25-44) without College Degree Population (Age 20- 24) without College Degree UT, Non- Freshman Cohort TBR 2-yr, Non- Freshman Cohort TBR 4yr, Non- Freshman Cohort Non- Degree Return ing Readmi tted Dual Enroll Still Enroll at TBR 4yr Still Enroll at TBR 2-yr Still Enroll at UT Graduate from TBR 4-yr Graduate from TBR 2-yr Graduate from UT Other Transfer Work force Still Enroll at Private Institutions Graduate from Private Institutions Student Flow Model: Conceptual Image Student Flow Model: Conceptual Image Transfer from TN Community Colleges

18. Cohort Distribution UT Universities: Fall 2007

19. Cohort Distribution TBR Universities: Fall 2007

20. Cohort Distribution TBR Community Colleges: Fall 2007

21. Cohort Distribution Summary UTTBR 4-yrTBR 2-yr Top1HSGrad (38%)HSGrad (33%)R&D HSGrad (20%) 2DualHSGrad (13%)Other Transfer (17%) Dual Enroll (17%) 3Other Transfer (10%) CC Transfer (14%)Transfer (14%) 4R&D HSGrad (9%) HSGrad (12%) 5CC Transfer (9%)DualHSGrad (7%)Non Degree (12%) % of 1-5 in Total77%80%75%

22. Accuracy of the Projection Compared predicted values to actual figures from 1997 to 2007

23. Actual vs. Predicted: University of Tennessee System (Enrollment) Average Error Rate = 0.2% Error Rate (%)= (Actual – Projected)/Actual

24. Actual vs. Predicted: University of Tennessee System (Completion) Average Error Rate = 0.4% Error Rate (%)= (Actual – Projected)/Actual

25. Actual vs. Predicted: Tennessee Board of Regents Universities (Enrollment) Average Error Rate = -0.1% Error Rate (%)= (Actual – Projected)/Actual

26. Actual vs. Predicted: Tennessee Board of Regents Universities (Completion – Bachelor Degrees) Average Error Rate = -1.4% Error Rate (%)= (Actual – Projected)/Actual

27. Actual vs. Predicted: Tennessee Board of Regents Universities (Completion – Associate’s Degrees) Average Error Rate = 1.0% Error Rate (%)= (Actual – Projected)/Actual

28. Actual vs. Predicted: Tennessee Board of Regents Community Colleges (Enrollment) Average Error Rate = -0.5% Error Rate (%)= (Actual – Projected)/Actual

29. Actual vs. Predicted: Tennessee Board of Regents Community Colleges (Completion – Associate’s Degrees) Average Error Rate = -1.8% Error Rate (%)= (Actual – Projected)/Actual

30. Projection Assumptions Enrollment Non-freshman cohort, except Community College Transfers and Dual Enrollees, will enter higher education at the same rate as in the past For freshman cohort Age 20-24: students will enroll at the same rate as in the past For adult students: For-profit private institutions will increase adult enrollment by 5% every year (CAGR 2004-07 = 6.9%) Not-for-profit private institutions will increase adult enrollment by 1% every year (CAGR 2004-07 = 4.4%) The ratio of Fall Cohort to Spring Cohort will remain the same level of the average of previous three years

31. Projection Assumptions (Continued) Completions – Private institutions’ productivity remains the same OLS: Degree Production = intercept +  first-time freshman fall enrollment in the same year – Productivity of the Non-Freshman cohort remains the same – Degree production of for-profit institutions is not included in the completion model

32. Projection Assumptions (Continued) Transfer from Community Colleges to TBR Universities and UT Each cohort group in TBR 2-yr institutions will transfer to these systems in the same manner in the past

33. Variables A Total of 14 Variables – High School Graduation Rate (9 th Grades –data source: WICHE) – College-going rate (including students attending for-profit institutions and out-state institutions. Spring cohort freshmen are also included – data source: public – THEC, others - IPEDS) – Out-migration rate of Tennessee resident, recent high school graduates – % of Recent HS Grad, Resident First-time Freshmen Attending TICUA institutions – % of freshmen (recent HS grad first-time freshmen) needing at least one remedial/developmental course – Enrollment distribution of remedial freshmen in public institutions

34. Variables (Continued) – Enrollment Share of Non-remedial Freshmen in Public Institutions – Non-Resident Freshmen (Recent HS Grad) as a % of Total First-time Recent HS Grad Freshmen – Age 25-44 student enrollment as a % of the same age population with high school diploma only – Enrollment Distribution of Adult Students – Dual Enrollment Participants per 100 Seniors (Both Public and Private High School) – 2 nd, 3 rd, and 4th Year Retention Rate

35. Retention Assumptions Even if retention rates of freshman cohorts increased, retention rates of non-freshman cohorts would remain constant For spring freshman cohorts, their retention rates increase to the extent that the retention rate of fall freshman cohort increases

37. Policy Goal Long Term Goal To reach the national average of educational attainment by 2025 Short-term Goal: Focus of Master Plan To get on the “right track” in terms of degree productivity by 2015 to reach the goal by 2025

38. Projections of Educational Attainment Level* in US and Tennessee: 2007-2025 Source: NCHEMS * Associates and up 269,164 additional degrees needed

39. Additional degrees Tennessee will need to produce every year to reach average regional and national educational attainment levels by 2025 US Total: 269,164

40. Results: Current Projections of Degree Production (Both Public and Private*) *For-profit private institutions are not part of this analysis

41. Scenario 1 Improvement in Pre-college factors High School Graduation increases from 71% to 76% by 2015 College-going Rate increases from 65% to 70% by 2015 Out-migration rate decreases from 13% to 8% by 2015 Dual Enrollment per 100 high school seniors increases from 16 to 26 by 2015

42. Scenario 1 Results: Projections of Degree Production (Both Public and Private*) *For-profit private institutions are not part of this analysis

43. Scenario 2 Improvement in College factors % of freshmen (recent HS grad FTF) who need at least one remedial or developmental class decreases from 33% to 23% by 2015 Increase Retention rates System2nd3rd4th6yr GradRate UT78  8877  8276  8155  70 TBR473  8371  7670  7543  57 TBR254  6438  4827  3720  34

44. Scenario 2 Results: Projections of Degree Production (Both Public and Private*) *For-profit private institutions are not part of this analysis

45. Scenario 3 Combinations of Scenario 1 and 2

46. Scenario 3 Results: Projections of Degree Production (Both Public and Private*) *For-profit private institutions are not part of this analysis

47. Student Flow Model: Usefulness as Policy Tool Data-based tool for goal-setting Establishes a goal for increasing degree production and a “roadmap” for getting there Shows importance of improving performance in both K-12 and higher education Allows responsibility for increased degree production to be assigned to various systems Shows where improvement gives the state the greatest “return” in terms of additional degrees

48. Tennessee Policy Goals: To reach the regional average by 2025, how many degrees do we need to produce by 2015?

49. Contact Takeshi Yanagiura 615-532-8017 Takeshi.yanagiura@tn.gov Student Flow Model can be found at http://thecreports.state.tn.us/FileControl.aspx