Strategies for Enhancing Reten1on CWU Board of Trustees November, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Strategies for Enhancing Reten1on CWU Board of Trustees November, 2015 Sarah Swager and Mindie Dieu, Student Success Daniel MaChews and Elizabeth Lee, InsHtuHonal EffecHveness 1

Presenta1on Outline 1. Last year’s research and investment laid groundwork for retenHon success. 2. CWU’s is maintaining big improvement in retenHon 3. Factors that affect retenHon Need • Academic readiness and status • Demographics • Transfer status • 3. What happens to students who drop out? 4. Next steps to improve retenHon 2

2014-15: Restructuring the Advising Program Enhance the Quality and Quan1ty of Advising • Intrusive advising: Employ “exploratory” and • “intensive” advising prior to major declaraHon Launch new more targeted and intensive advising • program Improve consistency of advising: Partner upper- • division advisors with faculty Arm advisors with predic1ve analy1cs •

Research: Risk Index For All Incomi ming Students RISK INDEX FIRST YEAR TRANSFERS TOTAL % Very high 316 860 1176 12.06 High 1644 516 2160 22.15 Moderate 1006 411 1417 14.53 Low 2071 2733 4804 49.27 Uncoded 0 4 4 <1 Total 5037 4524 9561 100

Remi minder: Key Study Fi Findings Pr Predic edic=v =ve A e Analy=c naly=cs 2014 s 2014 We can iden=fy accurately which students are most at risk and in which quarter. Drop-outs are most likely to leave aRer quarter 13 Disciplinary suspensions represent <1% Student Academic Progress (SAP) Suspensions <3% High student account balance suspensions <3%

CWU Advising Ini1a1ves • Data Driven Intrusive Advising • PredicHve analyHcs • MAPWorks • Major declaraHon hold at 75 credits • Professional Advisors in Partnership with Faculty • Reduce Hme to degree • Consistent advising messages • Earlier degree audit 6

Advising Ini1a1ves cont’d… • Early Alert • Academic recovery • Sophomore retenHon iniHaHves • Advising Notes • Advisor/student raHos 7

Advisor/Student Ra1os • Averages for special populaHons, 2011-15 • TRiO raHo 1/95 (mean retenHon 93%) • CAMP raHo 1/60 (mean retenHon 91%) • STAR raHo 1/95 (mean retenHon 70%) • RaHo general populaHon, undecided students 1/336 • RaHo general populaHon, professional advisors 1/572 • NaHonal norm 1/296* *NACADA, 2013 8

CWU Reten1on Compares Very Well Na1onally First to second year retenHon 84 82 2016 CWU First Year Reten1on Goal (83%) 80 78 2015 Mean for Public PhD UniversiHes 78.6% 76 74 72 70 2015 Mean for Peers 69.9% 68 66 64 2011 2012 2013 2014 Cohort 73.6 73.9 78.9 78.4 Source: Na4onal Collegiate Reten4on and Persistence-To-Degree Rate, 2015, ACT 9

First Year to Junior Rates Trend Upward Also First Year to Junior Year 68 67 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 2011 2012 2013 Cohort 61 62.1 64.2 10

First Year Reten1on Comparisons Statewide First Year to Second Year Reten1on (%) Ins1tu1on Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015* UW 93 93 93 93 92 WWU 85 84 85 83 82 WSU 82 84 82 80 79 CWU 75 78 74 74 78.9 78.4 EWU 73 75 76 75 77 TESC 73 71 72 74 71 Source: NCES, IPEDS 11

me: Increasingly a Factor Online and Part-Time 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 In-Person FT In-Person PT On-Line FT On-Line PT Series1 Series2 Series3 Series4 Series5 Series6 Academic Load Descrip1on Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 N (UGRD Excluding Online Students) 10,388 10,163 9,812 9,306 9,126 N (UGRD Online Students) 0 184 374 646 780 12

Low-income Students: Take Longer to Graduate GraduaHon year 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 N (Undergrads only) 1420 1489 1472 1622 1551 Mean Time to Degree 4.27 4.28 4.25 4.36 4.42 Mean NO Pell 4.23 4.23 4.20 4.24 4.27 Mean Pell/ 4.34 4.38 4.32 4.34 4.61 State Need Grant 13

Low-income Students: Less Likely to Graduate 4 Years or Less Within 5 Years Fall Cohort N No Pell Pell/SNG No Pell Pell/SNG 2007 1407 31.9% 26.6% 50.5% 45.0% 2008 1551 33.3% 26.4% 51.8% 41.5% 2009 1645 32.0% 23.1% 48.2% 39.4% Mean 1534 32.4% 25.4% 50.2% 42.0% 14

State Comparisons of Student Need Freshman Pell Grant Recipients (%) Ins1tu1on Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 EWU 29 34 40 40 43 CWU 21 29 31 34 36 TESC 19 27 32 31 32 WSU 16 25 26 30 32 WWU 14 19 23 22 23 UW 18 22 24 23 22 Source: NCES, IPEDS 15

CWU Freshman Academic Readiness Constant Over Time Fall Freshman SAT Composite (75 th & 25 th Percen1les) 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Ins1tu1on 75th 25th 75th 25th 75th 25th 75th 25th 75th 25th UW 1330 1100 1330 1100 1350 1100 1350 1080 1360 1100 WWU 1230 1010 1230 1010 1230 1000 1230 1020 1220 990 TESC 1230 960 1230 970 1220 970 1230 970 1210 950 WSU 1200 970 1190 980 1180 950 1170 930 1150 910 CWU 1090 880 1100 890 1120 890 1110 890 1100 880 EWU 1070 850 1070 850 1080 850 1070 860 1090 850 Source: NCES, IPEDS 16

Notable findings from Predic1ve Analy1cs 2014 Characteris1cs of First Year Students who Persist* (most to least influen4al) Early major declaraHon • Full Hme • Some remedial coursework • Higher family income/lower financial need • At least one parent college-educated • Entry GPA above 2.8 • Veteran • 17

Degree Non-Completers by Race/Ethnicity All First Year Students First Year who did not graduate 2008 -2015 2005-2014 Source: CWU, Data Warehouse Source: Na1onal Clearinghouse 51.0% Female 50.0% Female 48.9% Male 49.6% Male 0.4% NaHve American 3.2% NaHve American 3.7% Black 3.2% Black 5.9% Asian & Pacific Islander 6.8% Asian & Pacific Islander 9.3% LaHno/Hispanic 8.0% LaHno/Hispanic 59.8% White 73.4% White 4.8% MulHracial 13.0% Unknown 5.3% Unknown 18

First-Year Students - Transfer Out Behavior 2005-2014 3904 4500 70.3% 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1077 1500 19.4% 1000 224 202 148 13 th Qt 4.0% 3.6% 2.7% Loss = 500 1120 0 Complete Returned to 2 Yr College 4 Yr College Research Dropout CWU Transfer Transfer Intensive Transfer Source: Na4onal Clearinghouse 19

Evidence-based Strategies: Next Steps • Code and analyze Advising Notes • Quarter 13 research project • Enhance early alert and academic recovery program • QualitaHve advising research • Robust senior survey and exit survey analysis 20

mmary Summa • New Research • Advising/Student Responsiveness • Student Engagement • Financial Aid/Enrollment Policy • Faculty and Staff Engagement • ConHnued Support of Targeted Programs (CAMP, TRiO, etc.) 21