A New Perspective on Student Success New Perspective on... · ©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com A New Perspective on Student Success Central Michigan University Annual

©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com

A New Perspective on Student Success Central Michigan University Annual Conference July 8, 2015

Student Success Collaborative


ROAD MAP

1

2

3

4

2

The Murky Middle Project

The New Challenge

Targeted Campaigns

Where Do We Go From Here?


3

Bringing Universities Together Around a Shared Best Practice Solution

The Student Success Collaborative

Best Practice Research

Change Management Consulting

Analytics & Technology

160+ Member Institutions

38 States Represented

5,900 Total End Users

6M+ Student Records

250M+ Course Records

Diversity of Schools Working Together

AAU Members

Hispanic-Serving Institutions

Historically Black Colleges & Universities

Institutes of Technology

Liberal Arts Colleges

Private Research Universities

Public Flagships

Religious Affiliates

State Systems

Urban Universities

SSC

©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com • 30818

4

Platform Enables Better Decision Making, Smarter Advising

Unpacking the SSC Technology

1 Institution Reports 2

360-Degree Student View 3

Major and Career Guidance 4 Advanced

Filtering

Key Components

5 Comprehensive Case Management 6 Usage and

Effectiveness Tracking

ALL M

EM

BERS

SSC—

CAM

PU

S

MEM

BERS


5

Multiple Approaches to Generating Results from the Collaborative

Three Paths to Value

Resources in the Student Success Collaborative

Historical Student Analytics

Advising Platform

Current Student Analytics

Dedicated Consulting

Student Success Research & Best Practices

Impacting Student Success in Three Ways

Making Data-Driven Systemic Changes Changing the environment in which students operate to eliminate barriers and facilitate success

Targeting Students for Strategic Intervention Identifying student populations with the greatest need or the highest potential impact and intervening with those students to maximize results

Empowering Student Success Specialists Equipping advisors and other change agents with the data, tools, and strategies to inflect success in each individual student interaction

1

2

3


6

1

The New Challenge


7

Despite Efforts, Root Cause of Attrition Remains Frustratingly Elusive

So, Why Don’t Students Complete?

Hours spent in campus meetings and town halls

Hundreds of new student success administrators

Countless presentations on improving completion

Thousands of pages of task force recommendations

In my interviews with students, I have found that the biggest reasons for a delay in graduation are that students switch majors, fail out of courses, cannot get required courses, do not qualify for their intended majors; they have to work to pay for their living expenses, do not think there are any jobs for them after graduation, pursue double majors, do not receive adequate advising, have medical problems and personal issues.

Faculty Member, Large Public Research University


8

Intense Pressure to Improve Coming From All Sides

Feels Like the Stakes Have Never Been Higher

Increased Oversight from Governments

National Rankings and Reputation

Pushback from Parents on Value

Concern for the Achievement Gap

Moral Imperative to Fulfill Our Promise

Public Scrutiny Over Rising Student Debt

External Pressures

Internal Pressures

A Public Crisis of Confidence

Total amount of student loan debt across the nation

$ 1 trillion

Underemployment rate for recent college graduates

44%

Americans who say that college is worth the investment

32%


9

Slowing Growth and Emerging Alternatives Ratcheting Up Competition

Facing a Tough Enrollment Environment

2.8%

1.2%

1996-2010 2011-2021 (projected)

Undergraduate Enrollment

Annual Growth

26.1%

29.3%

35.5%

46.8%

1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012

Shortfall of 3.8M students

Historic 11-point increase in three years following recent recession

Tuition as a Percentage of Educational Revenues for Public Universities

Online programs For-profits MOOCs(?) Community colleges

No Shortage of Alternatives Competing for Students’ Attention


10

Three-Fifths of Institutions Missed 2014 Enrollment or Revenue Targets

The Enrollment Crisis Hits Hard

“Goals for Enrollment and Tuition Revenue Elude

Many Colleges”

October 13, 2014

57% of surveyed public institutions missed target

62% of surveyed private institutions missed target

43%

11% 13%

34%

38%

9% 10%

43%

Both enrollment andrevenue goals

Enrollment goals butnot revenue goals

Revenue goals butnot enrollment goals

Neither revenue norenrollment goals

Percent of Institutions Meeting Goals

American Association of State Colleges and Universities

Council of Independent Colleges


11

Bolstering Enrollment Hurts Margins, Reduces Graduation Rates

The Enrollment Dilemma

Source: Education Advisory Board interviews and analysis

Raise Enrollment Lower Price,

Lower Selectivity

Raise Selectivity Lower Enrollment,

Lower Price

Raise Price Lower Selectivity, Lower Enrollment

How Do We Break the Enrollment “Iron Triangle”?


12

Peripheral Markets More Promising Than Core

Finding High-Growth “Adjacencies”

Degree

Completers

Transfers

English

Language

Learners

Low-Income,

High-Ability

Professional

Master’s

International

Students

Traditional

Age Under-

Graduates

Working

Adults

Graduate

Students

Under-

Represented

Populations

Core

Markets


13

Four Emerging Student Segments

Adjacencies Offer Potential for Big Growth

Market Size

Net

Revenue

Potential

Low-Income,

High-Ability 2.8K 35K

English Language

Learners

?

35K 500K

Degree

Completers 3M 20M

Current Potential

Transfers

3M 5M


14

Modeling Enrollment Changes

Retention Is a Also a Growth Strategy


EAB’s Enrollment Revenue Calculator

0-29

credits

30-59

credits

60-89

credits

90-119

credits

120+

credits

Transfers Transfers Transfers Transfers Transfers

Drop outs Drop outs Drop outs Drop outs Drop outs

Graduates

New

Students Retained Retained Retained Retained

Enrollment, flow rate,

and revenue inputs 28


15

Retention Improvements Promise Meaningful Revenue Gains

Doing Well by Doing Good


Revenue Gains from an Annual 1% Improvement in Institution-Wide Retention Over Three Years

$1.6 M

$3.7 M

$6.2 M

$7.4 M $7.9 M

Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Fall 2018 Fall 2019 Fall 2020

Central Michigan University 21,700 undergraduates

183 additional students in Year One


16

Current Practices Focused Very Early and Very Late, Not in the Middle

Where Are Schools Investing in Success?

Noel-Levitz “2013 Student Retention and College Completion Practices Report for Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions”. http://www.noellevitz.com/BenchmarkReports

94%

29%

76%

98%

20%

67%

First-yearstudents

Second-yearstudents

Third-yearstudents

Fourth-yearstudents

Students closeto completion

Prevalence of Retention Practices Targeted to Specific Students

Percent of Private Univeristieswith Retention Practice

Percent of Public Universitieswith Retention Practice

Not

reported

Not

reported

? ? ? ?

Just 9% of privates and 7% of publics report that their second-year retention

practices are ”Very Effective”

Prevalence of Retention Practices Targeted to Specific Students

http://www.noellevitz.com/BenchmarkReports

http://www.noellevitz.com/BenchmarkReports


17

2

The Murky Middle Project


18

Student Success Practice Poorly Aligned to Real Patterns of Attrition

Missing Most of the Story

4.5% 3.0%

4.2% 4.7%

8.5%

22.7%

1st YearAttrition

2nd YearAttrition

3rd YearAttrition

4th YearAttrition

5th YearAttrition

6th YearAttrition

TotalStudents

Timing of Dropout SSC National Data Set

Official Metric:

First-to-Second

Year Retention of

FT/FT Students

Official Metric:

Graduation Rate of

FT/FT Students

Within Six Years

The Dark Times

No widespread collection

or reporting of interim

attrition rates

Over half of all attrition

goes untracked until as

much as five years later

24.9%

First-year dropouts

2nd – 6th year dropouts

>6 years, outcome

unknown

Six-year graduates

22.7%

4.0%

48.4%


19

Murky Middle Might Be Relatively Easy to Assist Compared to Others

A New Way Forward?

Source: EAB Interviews and Analysis

Academically Adrift

Severe academic difficulties, may need remediation and

time to mature before completing

Poor Fit for Campus

Not well-matched to campus culture and

offerings, will likely transfer to another school

Unknown Causes

Academically qualified and well-matched to campus, causes of attrition poorly

understood

Predominant First-Year Attrition Second-Year and Third-Year Attrition

Too costly to remediate? Too difficult to engage? Best chance for ROI?


20

Historical Insights from National Dataset

Source: EAB Murky Middle Project: http://www.eab.com/technology/student-success-collaborative/members/white-papers/the-murky-middle-project

Uncovering an Untapped Opportunity

Large Numbers of “Murky Middle” Students Leaving Later in College

*Non-Transfer = do not have transfer indicator based on admit code, if available, or based on term-level data **Full time = attempting at least 12 credits in first semester

0 K

10 K

20 K

30 K

40 K

50 K

60 K

70 K

80 K

90 K

0.0 -0.2

0.2 -0.4

0.4 -0.6

0.6 -0.8

0.8 -1.0

1.0 -1.2

1.2 -1.4

1.4 -1.6

1.6 -1.8

1.8 -2.0

2.0 -2.2

2.2 -2.4

2.4 -2.6

2.6 -2.8

2.8 -3.0

3.0 -3.2

3.2 -3.4

3.4 -3.6

3.6 -3.8

3.8 -4.0

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

First-Year GPA

Histogram of All Students by First-Year GPA SSC National Data Set

Graduates within 6 Years (357,405 students)

Continued Enrollees Past 6 Years (29,826 students)

2nd to 6th Year Departures (183,827 students)

1st Year Departures (167,697 students)

The Murky Middle 84% return for

a second year

48% graduate

within six years


21

2.9% 3.0%

3.0% 4.3%

9.5%

22.1%

1st YearAttrition

2nd YearAttrition

3rd YearAttrition

4th YearAttrition

5th YearAttrition

6th YearAttrition

TotalStudents

Timing of Attrition by Year

Could a Bigger Focus on Years 2-6 Generate Gains?

Central Michigan Historical Insights

22.7%

First-year dropouts

2nd - 6th year dropouts

>6 years enrollment, outcome unknown

Six-year graduates

22.1%

3.1%

52.1%

Timing of Attrition

N= 10,383, FTIAC Students First Term Fall 2006-Spring 2008

14.0%

22.3%

14.0%

8.7%

4.4% 3.6%

3.6% 2.0%

7.6%

56.1%

1st YearAttrition

2nd YearAttrition

3rd YearAttrition

4th YearAttrition

5th YearAttrition

6th YearAttrition

TOTAL

Timing of Dropout Native, Full-time Students


22

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

0.0 -0.2

0.2 -0.4

0.4 -0.6

0.6 -0.8

0.8 -1.0

1.0 -1.2

1.2 -1.4

1.4 -1.6

1.6 -1.8

1.8 -2.0

2.0 -2.2

2.2 -2.4

2.4 -2.6

2.6 -2.8

2.8 -3.0

3.0 -3.2

3.2 -3.4

3.4 -3.6

3.6 -3.8

3.8 -4.0

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

First-Year GPA

Histogram of All Students by First-Year GPA SSC National Data Set

Graduates within 6 Years

Continued Enrollees Past 6 Years

2nd to 6th Year Departures

1st Year Departures



Right In-Line With the Nation

CMU Murky Middle Numbers Remarkable Similar to the Rest of the Country

*Non-Transfer = do not have transfer indicator based on admit code, if available, or based on term-level data **Full time = attempting at least 12 credits in first semester

The Murky Middle 85% return for

a second year

48% graduate

within six years


23

Very Difficult to Differentiate Who Will and Won’t Graduate

The Central Dilemma of the Murky Middle

Source: EAB Interviews and Analysis

2.0 -2.2

2.2 -2.4

2.4 -2.6

2.6 -2.8

2.8 -3.0

First-Year GPA

• Biology Major

• 2.5 First-Year GPA

• 30 Earned Credits

• Eventual Graduate

• Biology Major

• 2.5 First-Year GPA

• 30 Earned Credits

• Eventual Dropout

A Tale of Two Students

Billy

Bobby


24

Academic Probation

Term 3 dropouts

Term 4

dropouts

Term 5

dropouts

Term 6

dropouts Term 7

dropouts

Term 8

dropouts

Term 8

grads

Term 9

dropouts

Term 9

grads

Term 10

dropouts

Term 10

grads

Term 11

dropouts

Term 11

grads

Term 12

dropouts

Term 12

grads

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Averag

e T

erm

GP

A

Murky Middle Term GPA Trends Over Time Students With First-Year GPA 2.0 to 3.0

GPA Trends Foreshadow Departure Several Terms in Advance

Looking for Reliable Indicators

Surprise finding: Academic probation policies won’t catch many dropouts until it’s too late


25

Historical Insights from National Dataset

Downward Trends Driven by Fs, not an Overall Decline in Grades

Drilling Into GPA Trends


Grade Distribution for Murky Middle Students Over Time

SSC National Data Set

C 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f C

s

Term of Enrollment

A B

F 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f A

s

Term of Enrollment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f B

s

Term of Enrollment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f F

s

Term of Enrollment

Graduates Dropouts


26


Top 10 Highest DFW Rate Courses

Poor Course Completions Suggest Opportunities for Support, Redesign

32.9%

21.0% 17.4% 18.5% 19.3% 17.6% 18.1% 16.3% 16.3% 14.9%

5.3%

7.1%

7.6% 5.1% 4.2% 5.7% 2.9% 3.8% 2.9% 4.1%

PSY330 PHL140 ENG201 PSY383 STA282 REL334 BIO392 PSY100 PHL318 HDF110

% of Ds or Fs % of Ws

Top 10 Highest DFW Rate Courses, Central Michigan University Top 50 Most Enrolled Courses Fall 2007-Spring 2010

207 Count

Ns 210 327 195 88 210 171 264 172 368


27

3

Targeted Campaigns


28

CMU’s Office of Student Success Among Earliest Pioneers of SSC Campaigns

Targeted Advising Outreach and Intervention

Identify a high

ROI target

population

Campaign

Process

How SSC

Helps

Send proactive

multi-channel

outreach

Intervene with

students, refer

to specialists

Filters Easily make lists of

students who meet

specific criteria

Risk analysis Triage students

based on severity

of need

Communications* Send batch email

and texts, schedule

appointments online

Progress Tracking* Quickly see how

many students have

responded

360° student view Allows advisor to

quickly review each

student’s situation

Case Tracking* Easy referrals to

specialized support,

closed-loop notes

Escalate

systemic issues

to leadership

Consultant Dedicated support

to enable change

management

Research Best practice ideas

for resolving many

common challenges

* New or enhanced with SSC Campus migration


29

SSC Members Using Filters to More Precisely Target Their Advising Efforts

Campaigns Proving to Be Very Popular

Sample Campaigns

Different types of campaigns run by SSC members in 2014-15

61+

• Encourage Major Declaration

• Connect to Tutoring

• Create Degree Plans

• Re-Enroll Returning Students

• Apply for Graduation

• Send “Keep it Up!” Encouragement

• Murky Middle


30

88.2% 89.1%

87.8%

90.3%

88.1%

91.3%

83.0%

89.9% 90.2%

89.5%

92.0%

89.8%

92.4%

84.3%

Spring 2014 Spring 2015

MTSU Using SSC to Make an Immediate Impact on Enrollment Revenue

Impressive Campaign Results from MTSU

FTFT Freshman

+2.2%

New Transfers

+4.5%

Fall to Spring Persistence Up Across All Colleges

Overall Results

Increase in Overall Fall to Spring UG Persistence

Additional UG Students Enrolled in Spring 2015

Estimated Spring Tuition and Fees Revenue

+1.5% Points

390

$1.5+ Million

Sophomores

+2.1%

Basic

&

Applied

Scie

nces

Behavio

ral

& H

ealth

Scie

nces

Busin

ess

Education

Lib

era

l Art

s

Mass

Com

m.

Univ

ers

ity

College


31

4

Where Do We Go From Here?


32

New Technologies and Processes to Scale the Student Success Enterprise

The “Coordinated Care Network”

Academic Support

Advisors

Financial Aid

Tutoring

Case Referrals

Proactive Campaigns SSC

Advisors manage cases and triage care

Analytics prioritize cases based on need

Support offices provide specialized interventions

Better advice More targeted outreach

Feedback loops continuously improve system


33

Efforts Hindered by Lack of a Shared Case Management System

Lack of Coordination Limiting Front-Line Impact

Student Success Collaborative

“Campus” System

Risk Analytics Student Success CRM

Communications

Advising Notes Early Warning

Appointments

Advisors

Academic Support

Tutoring

Financial Aid

Instructors

Networking Together the Front Lines


34

Supplement Typical Strategy with Focused Approach Beyond First Year

A New Perspective on Student Success

Typical Approach to Student Success

Target resource intensive support services and staff to highest risk students

Focus efforts and programs on first-year students

Deploy staff to cover broad populations of students

Expanded Approach to Student Success

Recognize “murky” middle students as attrition risks with opportunity for improvement

Address sophomore and upper division attrition

Focus proactive outreach efforts on strategic subgroups

Optimize strategy to first-year retention rate

Optimize to enrollment and institutional persistence

Advisors make “blind” referrals to support services

Advisors coordinate care management for at-risk cases

Education Advisory Board

2445 M Street NW, Washington DC 20037

P 202.266.6400 | F 202.266.5700 | eab.com

Documents

A New Perspective on Student Success New Perspective on... · ©2015 The Advisory Board Company • eab.com A New Perspective on Student Success Central Michigan University Annual