430 likes | 451 Views
Join the Office of Enrollment Management in a presentation discussing strategies to improve retention rates at Kentucky State University. Learn about retention research, comparison data, and models of student persistence.
E N D
Kentucky State University The Commonwealth’s Uncommon University Office of Enrollment Management
Retention Retention Retention Retention ! Retention Retention
Presentation Goal: To engage all stakeholders in an open dialogue regarding retention at KSU, resulting in deliberative strategies that will significantly improve our current retention rates.
Overview: • Background on OEM’s Retention Research • OEM’s Retention Comparisons • Retention as a Strategic Issue
Models of Student Persistence • Tinto’s Student Integration Model . The degree of student-institutional “fit” plays an important role in student persistence.
Models of Student Persistence • Bean’s Student Attrition Model . Students’ beliefs about their institutional experience affect persistence. Recognizes the influence of external factors on student persistence.
Models of Student Persistence • Liz Thomas’ Five Spheres of Integration . • Academic • Social: peer interaction and mutual support • Economic • Support Systems (Advising, Counseling, etc.) • Democratic (student organizations and representation on various institutional bodies)
Implications: Confirm, deny or integrate basic tenets of these models • Focus on particular student populations • Identify factors affecting student persistence
OEM’s Retention Comparisons Cohort-to-cohort (internal) • Trends in retention and graduation through multiple cohorts • Identify changes within and between groups of students
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 New Student Cohorts ØWhile the number of New Freshmen slightly decreased the number of Transfer students significantly increased.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Freshman Persistence Rates ØThe relative Persistence Rate for the Fall 2004 cohort increased by 27%.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts ØThe number of Continuing Sophomores increased by 12.4%.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts: ØThe average GPA for the 2004 cohort increased by 7%.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts: ØThe percentage of Kentucky residents increased by 5%.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts: ØThe percentage of dismissals decreased by 50%
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts: Ø The percentage with remaining Developmental Experiences decreased.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Junior Cohorts ØThe percentage of Continuing Juniors decreased by 12.0%.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Junior Cohorts: ØThe average GPA for the 2004 cohort decreased by 7%.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Junior Cohorts: ØThe percentage of Kentucky residents decreased by 4.7%.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Junior Cohorts: ØThe percentage of dismissals increased.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Junior Cohorts: Ø The Percentage with remaining Developmental Experiences increased.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Senior Cohorts ØThe number of Continuing Seniors decreased by 24.0%.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Senior Cohorts: ØThe average GPA for the 2004 cohort increased by 5%.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Senior Cohorts: ØThe percentage of Kentucky residents increased by 4%.
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis 2003 and 2004 Senior Cohorts: ØThe percentage of dismissals decreased by 68%
OEM’s Retention Comparisons • External Comparisons • Track and compare the magnitude of retention or graduation with multiple external benchmarks.
OEM’s Retention Comparisons • External Comparisons • ACT:2004 ACT Institutional Data Questionnaire (IDQ) • The Consortium of Student Retention Data Exchange(CSRDE): 2004-05 CSRDE Report on the Retention and Graduation Rates of 1997-2003 Entering Freshman Cohorts in 421 Colleges and Universities
Attrition in Terms of Lost Tuition Revenue • A 1st to 2nd Year Retention Rate of 67% for 04-05 • An Attrition Rate of 33% (82 Residential and 87 Non-Residential Students) • A Loss of $145,550 in Residential Tuition • A Loss of $434,652 in Non- Residential Tuition • A Total Loss of $580,202 in Tuition Revenue
Attrition in Terms of Lost Tuition Revenue • Each Attrition Percentage Point Equates to $18,000 in Tuition Revenue
Future Retention Comparisons • Longitudinal retention • Track the magnitude of retention or graduation of one cohort, or set of cohorts through multiple enrollment years. • Identify patterns of retention and graduation within particular cohorts or groups of students
What Next/Now What? • Establish Student Retention as a Strategic Issue • Strategic issues have serious consequences for the long-term success of the institution.
Challenges to All Stakeholders • Immediate Dialogue • Overcome obstacles that impede progress. • Implement desirable and undesirable change.
Kentucky State University The Commonwealth’s Uncommon University Questions and Dialogue Office of Enrollment Management