1 / 50

Back to Basics: Bolstering Bachelor’s Degree Completion

Back to Basics: Bolstering Bachelor’s Degree Completion. Academic Resources Conference Wednesday, March 21, 2012 Ventura, CA Lori Varlotta Vice President for Student Affairs Sacramento State. Overview. CSU Systemwide Graduation Initiative (GI) Sacramento State’s Response

virgo
Download Presentation

Back to Basics: Bolstering Bachelor’s Degree Completion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Back to Basics: Bolstering Bachelor’s Degree Completion Academic Resources Conference Wednesday, March 21, 2012 Ventura, CA Lori Varlotta Vice President for Student Affairs Sacramento State

  2. Overview CSU Systemwide Graduation Initiative (GI) Sacramento State’s Response Examples from the audience

  3. Goals of the Systemwide Initiative Raise the six-year graduation rate for CSU FTF by 8 percentage points by 2015 – 2016 Halve the gap in degree attainment between underrepresented minority (URM) and non-URM students Expect campuses to establish graduation targets for FTF and transfers that place them in the top quartile of peer institutions Maintain CSU’s focus on access

  4. Understanding the Terminology:URM Students According to the CSU Office of the Chancellor, underrepresented minority student groups include: Hispanic/Latino African American/Black American Indian/Alaska native Some campuses (including Sac State) include Pacific Islander and other selected groups as part of the URM population.

  5. Terminology: Non-URM Students According to the CSU Office of the Chancellor, non-URM student groups include: Caucasian/White Asian Pacific Islander Non-Resident Aliens Unknown Students

  6. Understanding Key Terms A “cohort” is a group of students who started in a campus or system at a particular time (e.g. Fall 2010). Cohort data can be subdivided in many different ways (e.g., by URM status, FTF or TFR status, etc.).

  7. Retention Rates The retention rate for a particular cohort is the percentage of that cohort which is retained from one year to the next. E.g., if the first year retention rate for all Fall 2009 FTF is 84%, that means that 84% of those FTF who started in Fall 2009 begin their 2nd year in the CSU.

  8. Retention Rates (cont.) Furthermore, if the 2009 2nd Year retention rate for FTF is 79%, that means that 79% of the original 2009 FTF cohort began their 3rd year in the CSU. Put simply another way: 100% of the cohort begin their first year; ~84% begin their 2nd year; and ~79% begin their 3rd year.

  9. Specific Systemwide Goals • Raise the six-year graduation rate of CSU FTF by 8 percentage points by 2015 – 2016 • Baseline (Fall 2000 cohort): 46% overall CSU FTF graduation rate • 2015 target: 54% overall CSU FTF graduation rate

  10. Systemwide Goals (cont.) • Cut in half the existing gap in degree attainment by CSU’s under-represented minority (URM) students • Baseline: 11 percentage points achievement gap • ~51% non-URM grad rate • ~40% URM grad rate • 2015 target: 5.5 percentage point achievement gap

  11. Systemwide Goals (cont.) Additionally, encourage campuses to establish FTF and transfer graduation targets comparable to the top quartile of peer institutions.

  12. Individual Campus Goals Each CSU campus has targets set by the Chancellor’s Office that are meant to: Contribute to increasing the systemwide graduation rate, and Close their campus achievement gap Additionally, the Chancellor’s Office asked each campus to set its own target (within the top quartile) for transfer graduation rates, and monitor its progress.

  13. Individual Campus Goals (cont.) Campus goals vary by campus size and demographics, but in general: Most campuses need to improve their non-URM graduation rate by 4 – 9 percentage points Most campuses need to improve their URM graduation rate by 7 – 14 percentage points

  14. Preliminary Successes CSU FTF six-year graduation rate has improved over the last 4 years All student populations are doing better Graduation rates of some non-URM groups are ahead of national averages

  15. Preliminary Successes (cont.) Number of Latino freshmen has doubled over the last 8 years, and their retention and graduation rates are improving.

  16. CSU Retention Rates CSU retention rates are improving overall as illustrated on the following slides.

  17. First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen1st Year Retention Rates Source: Chancellor’s Office, Sept. 2011

  18. First-Time, Full-Time Freshmen2nd Year Retention Rates Source: Chancellor’s Office, Sept. 2011

  19. Transfer Student Success • Slow, but steady, improvement in transfer graduation rates over the past five years. • For the Fall 2005 TFR cohort, 72% of transfer students graduate within 4 years of entering the CSU.* • CO team plans to work with campuses to identify, share, and scale exemplary practices. *Source: CSU Analytic Studies

  20. Emerging Challenges Some student populations lag behind national graduation rates (both URM and non-URM groups) Achievement gap gains overall are small and unevenly distributed—the achievement gap is stubborn

  21. CSU Trends • Most recent graduation data: 52% rate for 2004-2010 FTF cohort • For Fall 2009 cohort to reach its 54% target, its 2nd year continuation rate must be 77% • If current trends continue, its actual rate will likely be ~73% • Not enough data yet to tell whether CSU will meet its target

  22. Systemwide Initiative in Action Campus Example: Sacramento State

  23. Sacramento State Specific Goals • Increase the six-year graduation rate of first time freshmen by 8 percentage points • Current (2003 FTF cohort) = 43% • Target (2009 FTF cohort) = 51% • Increase the four-year graduation rate of transfer students by 5 percentage points • Current (2003 TFR cohort) = 63% • Target (2011 TFR cohort) = ~68%

  24. Sacramento State Goals (cont.) Close the URM/non-URM FTF achievement gap by 5 percentage points (current gap is ~10%) Close the URM/non-URM TFR achievement gap by ~2.5% percentage points (current gap is ~5%)

  25. Our Approach • A thematic organization • A truly joint venture between Student Affairs and Academic Affairs • The use of URM and other targeted programs and services as prototypes for more generalized programs and services

  26. Our Five Themes: Services that Support Classes that Count Faculty Roles that Promote Retention and Graduation Incentives that Motivate Recruit-Back Strategies that Re-Engage Students Who Stopped Out

  27. Integrated Leadership Executive Team Leaders Joseph Sheley, Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Lori Varlotta, Vice President for Student Affairs

  28. Integrated Committee Structure Committee Co-chairs Marcellene Watson-Derbigny, Associate Vice President, Student Retention and Academic Success—Academic Affairs Ed Mills, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, Enrollment Management

  29. Integrated Approach The five themes, jointly formulated and operationalized by Student Affairs and Academic Affairs, identify, organize, and prioritize programs and services that facilitate progress to degree. The five subcommittees who work on action plans associated with each theme are cross-divisional ones that include broad representation.

  30. Integrated Approach (cont.) Now that the GI is well underway at Sacramento State, University Advancement and Development has joined the effort to spread the word about our successes. The University Foundation Board has committed to “co-sponsor” the GI effort and use it as the theme for their fundraising efforts.

  31. Generalizing Targeted Programs Campus-level data shows that particular groups of students (e.g., freshmen, EOP participants, athletes, veterans, and probation students) who receive targeted advising, support, tutoring, and mentoring do better than the overall student population in terms of continuation and/or graduation. Therefore, we are interested in expanding many of these “special programs” to a more general student population.

  32. Programs and Services that Work • “One Stop” Success Centers: • Student-Athlete Resource Center (SARC) • Veterans Success Center (VSC) • Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) • College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) • Mandatory Freshman/Transfer Advising • Intrusive advising for “at-risk” students on academic probation • Leadership Initiative

  33. Student-Athlete Resource Center The SARC contributes to the success of Sac State student athletes: • 86% average first-year retention rate is higher than the average all-freshman average rate (78%) • The six-year graduation rate for student-athletes is 50%—higher than the overall student rate (42%)

  34. Veterans Success Center The Veterans Success Center contributes to the success of Sac State veterans: • 85% veteran FTF one-year retention rate is higher than overall FTF rate (79%) • 86% veteran TFR one-year retention rate is also higher than overall TFR rate (84%) • Average veteran GPA of 3.11 is higher than average GPA of overall population (2.94)

  35. EOP Graduation Rates EOP students graduate on average at a rate equal to the University in general, though they come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (i.e., during 1997–2002, both 6-year rates were ~41%).

  36. College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) CAMP helps students from migrant and seasonal farm worker backgrounds succeed at Sacramento State. Avg. overall college GPA for CAMP students as of Spring 2010 (2.80) was significantly higher than non-CAMP first generation FTF students with similar backgrounds (2.33). “Good Standing” rates for CAMP students as of Spring 2010 (91.3%) were significantly higher than those of non-CAMP students in the same term (63.8%).

  37. First Year Advising (FYA) Students who complete all phases of the first year orientation and advising program have higher retention rates than those who do not. For example, for the Fall 2006 cohort:

  38. Orientation and Advising The mandatory second year advising program for probation students has helped to double the “good standing” rates for students in the program (from an average of 18% in 2001 – 2003 to 43% in 2009)

  39. Leadership Initiative (LI) • The LI engages students in co-curricular activities which tie into their academic studies and helps them develop their leadership skills. • Students progress through a series of certificates, earning one after another at their own pace depending on their goals. • Students advance through the program by becoming increasingly engaged in programs and activities.

  40. Student Leaders and Success Much of the national data on student leaders focuses on residential students. A recent campus study of Student Club Leaders suggests a strong correlation between leadership activities and graduation, retention, and performance success.

  41. Student Leaders and Success The next slide shows a comparison of the 6-year Graduation Rates of native freshmen “Club Leaders” and “Other” students, controlling for High School GPA (≥ 3.0 or <3.0), and with both groups entering as commuters. When controlling for HS GPA and commuter status, club leaders’ graduation rates are still higher than those of other students.

  42. Student Leaders and Success N=163 N=916 N=30 N=206

  43. Measureable Progress Activity on the CSU Graduation Initiative started at Sacramento State in late 2009. The 2009 cohort will be measured for the 6-year graduation rate in 2015. It appears that campus measures associated with the GI are making a difference; students in 2009 in general are starting off stronger in 2009 than they did in 2004. Relative progress remains to be seen.

  44. Next Steps Most campuses have implemented programs similar to those just described. What else are they doing to increase graduation and retention as part of the GI? What kinds of questions are they asking?

  45. Audience Examples What are some promising practices your campuses are using to increase retention and/or graduation rates?

  46. Key Questions What are the implications of the CSU operating on a 6-year graduation model, when most people still conceive of a “traditional” 4-year model? • E.g., the 4-year model leads to the common misperception that a 2nd year student is a “sophomore,” has completed a certain amount of units, and has made a certain amount of progress toward a degree

  47. Key Questions (cont.) • How are CSU campuses identifying who and who is not making timely progress toward degree? • In times when classes are more restricted, advisors and students often struggle to build viable schedules that help students progress to degree. • In these times, it appears that students enroll in “non-viable” graduation credits, those that count only toward financial aid eligibility, compared to “viable” graduation credits which count toward graduation.

  48. Key Questions (cont.) • To what extent and how do CSU campuses incentivize students to make timely progress toward the degree? • Incentives could include those implemented through: • Registration policies • Financial aid policies • Degree-attainment policies

  49. Key Questions (cont.) • How many units do students have upon graduation, and how many should they have? • E.g., at Sacramento State, we have a disproportionate amount of “seniors,” and no clear definition between classifications of seniors • Any student with 90+ units is technically a senior, but many students, referred to as “super seniors,” graduate with many more units than they need for the degree.

  50. Thank you.

More Related