CCC Task Force on Student

Success: Where Are We At?

1
 A Quick Overview…
• Of national goals
• Of where the US ranks internationally
• Of where California ranks nationally
• Of the CCC’s “production” over time

2
 The Goals
• Obama: By 2020, US shall have highest
% of college grads in the world
• Lumina’s “Big Goal: By 2025, 60% of
Americans shall have a college
credential

• Both estimate we need 8-16 million

• CA, 1960=8th/50 in % of 25-34

4
 The Goals
• 36% of 25-34 yo’s in CA have at least an
AA/AS

• To get to top 10 status, that figure needs

5
 The Goals
• There is currently no general consensus
in CA on CA’s proportion, nor is there
agreement between the sectors on how
many each are to produce.

6
 Degree Production
• Table, Page 2.
• Since 93-94:
• Student headcount up 35.7%
• FTES up 51.8%
• Awards conferred up 66.3%

• Awards per 1,000 headcount and FTES

7
 Degree Production
• Chart, Page 3.

• CA awards the highest volume of

8
 Degree Production
• Chart, Page 4.
• In terms of degrees/headcount and
degrees/FTES, CA is 46th out of 50.

• “Quantity is our business.”

9
 Participation & Degree
Production
• Chart, Page 5.
• The ideal system is one with high
participation and high outcomes.
• “The Golden Quadrant”
• 10 states occupy “The Golden
Quadrant”
• KY, WI, FL, NC, MN, KS, WA, IL, IA, AZ

10
 Participation vs. Outcomes
High Student
550 degrees per FTE
Outcomes
GA
KY

SD WI
LA FL
UT ND High
AR
CO NC MN
KS
AZ Participation
Low NH
NE
SC
OK
WA IA
IL Rate
TN
Participation MT
ME
WV MA
OH DE
AL MI
WY
12%
0% ID
Rate VT PA
IN MO
NY
CT
VA OR TX
MD
MS NM
HI
NJ
CA
AK RI
NV

0
Low Student
Outcomes

11
 The Golden Quadrant
• Study looked at system properties of
high participation/high outcome states

• Fees? FinAid? Reimbursement Rate?

• No relationship at all

12
 The Golden Quadrant
• Properties:
• Strong articulation/transfer agreements
• Common core curriculum
• Common course numbering systems
• Statewide AA transfer guarantee or GE
guarantee

13
 The Golden Quadrant
• CTE pathways
• Strong online student academic
planners and support
• Common assessment tools
• Statewide transfer scholarships

14
 Transfer
• Is as high-order an outcome as
degrees/certificates
• Transfers frequently acquire an AA
equivalent but do not get counted as
degree recipients
• Is a function not completely within the
CCC’s control
• Supply and demand

15
 Transfer
• Table, Page 6
• Transfers to CSU are the most volatile
• To UC: stable and slow growth
• Recent gains have been to for-profit
institutions
• Most to UPHX
• Almost 50% of UPHX transfers are
underrepresented
16
 Transfer
 Transfers to UC and CSU have gone up
35% since 1992-93.
 UC/CSU are also constrained by budgets.
 (headcount: +35%, FTES= +51%)

 Transfers to the University of Phoenix

17
 Transfers: In State (not
CSU/UC), 07-08
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX 8,825
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY 1,185
CHAPMAN UNIVERSITY 960
DEVRY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 925
ITT TECHNICAL INSTITUTE 789
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 687
ACADEMY OF ART UNIVERSITY 597
AZUSA PACIFIC UNIVERSITY 505
CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY 405
FRESNO PACIFIC UNIVERSITY 399

18
The Rise of The Phoenix
96-97 2,190
98-99 3,430
00-01 5,160
01-02 5,716
03-04 8,388
05-06 8,352
07-08 8,825

19
Who Transfers to Phoenix?

Ethnicity UC CSU Phoenix

Asian 29.3% 14.2% 4.6%

African American 2.4% 5.2% 16.8%

Hispanic/Latino 13.6% 23.8% 28.6%

White 39.1% 43.6% 37.5%

Percent
Hisp/AfrAm 16.0% 29.0% 45.4%

20
 Delivery Mode
• Last Year:
• Growth in higher ed student population:
1.2%.

• Growth in online enrollment: 17%.

21
 Course Retention and
Success
• Retention: student enrollment retained
until end of term, did not withdraw or
drop

• Success: enrollment ended in grade of

22
 Course Retention
• Has steadily improved over time

• Not a huge gap in retention between

23
 Course Success
• Hasn’t changed much over time at all
• Is significantly lower for basic skills
• Increasing gap between retention and
success means…
• More failing grades
• F’s and W’s/D’s each have different long-
term properties
• Higher in-term retention vs lower long-term
persistence
24
25