Tab A October 7, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: State Board of Regents FROM: William A Sederburg SUBJECT: Utah State Board of Regents’ Strategic Goal Progress Reports—Completion and Retention Issue This progress report for the Regents is to summarize, in a very brief format, some of the most significant retention activities on the USHE campuses. A list of the ten most effective national practices for both four- year and two-year institutions was identified by the Noel-Levitz group. Campuses in Utah were then queried to match this list with retention activities currently offered students. In every case, all activities were operational; and, in most instances, multiple comparable activities were being implemented. Additionally, each campus set a retention benchmark for 20l0. Attempting to predict retention in the current economic climate is difficult; and the benchmarks, as seen in the IPED’s charts, are conservative. Recommendation The Commissioner recommends the Regents review the report and provide comments and/or recommendations. No action is required. ______________________________________ William A Sederburg Commissioner of Higher Education WAS/LS/MJL Attachments Attachment 1 Following are the results of a study that identifies the most effective retention practices of four-year and two-year colleges. Subsequently, the nine USHE institutions were surveyed to determine how many of these practices were being implemented on their campuses. Every campus responded positively on all retention strategies. Moreover, all reported multiple related practices not detailed in the list. A significant void in this list of practices is their not reporting financial assistance practices, inasmuch as financial issues is one of the two most significant reasons students leave college, the other being academics. Particularly concerning is the omission of those financial assistance strategies targeting minority and disadvantaged populations. It is clear from both the survey and the discussions that all campuses are working diligently to assist and retain students. Most effective retention and completion practices: Below, for each sector, are the “top 10” items respondents rated most effective among 60 items that were measured for their effectiveness in supporting student retention.i 4-Year Public 4-Year Private 2-Year Public Faculty development and support Honors programs for Orientation program for first-year in online technology and online academically advanced students students teaching pedagogy Institution-wide emphasis on the Academic support program or Academic support program or teaching and undergraduates and services services undergraduate learning Surveys or interviews to Institution-wide emphasis on the Technical support to address determine students’ levels of teaching of undergraduates and online connection issues satisfaction undergraduate learning Use of Web-based course Orientation program for first-year Academic advising program engagement tools such as students Blackboard, WebCT, etc. Institution-wide emphasis on the Surveys or interviews to Programs designed specifically teaching of undergraduates and determine students’ levels of for first-year students undergraduate learning engagement First-year experience program First-year experience program Title II or Title V funding Use of Web-based course Tracking of persistence and Programs designed specifically engagement tools such as progression patterns among all for at-risk students Blackboard, WebCT, etc. students who articulate Tracking of persistence and Use of satisfaction assessments Programs designed specifically progression patterns among all to make changes for first-year students students who articulate 1 2009 Noel-Levitz, Inc. 2009 Student Retention Practices and Strategies at Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions Attachment 2 IPEDS Retention Rate Data Full Time Fall 2007 Entering Cohort Projected Beginning adjusted Enrolled Retention Rate Institution cohort exclusions cohort Fall 2008 rate Increase Research Universities University of Utah 2,374 339 2,035 1,697 83% 2% £ Utah State University 2,817 580 2,237 1,612 72% 0% Comprehensive Colleges & University (For first-time freshmen in 4-year Degree programs).* Dixie State College of Utah** 126 6 120 68 57% 3% Southern Utah University 1,040 219 821 554 67% 3% Utah Valley University** 999 148 851 430 51% 2% Weber State University 1,468 298 1,170 814 70% 0% 2- year Colleges College of Eastern Utah 523 45 478 242 51% 1% Snow College 1,044 233 811 478 59% 2% Salt Lake Community College 1,866 138 1,728 1,112 64% 3% Part-Time Fall 2007 Entering Cohort Projected Beginning adjusted Enrolled Retention Rate Institution cohort exclusions cohort Fall 2008 rate Increase Research Universities University of Utah 369 60 309 194 63% 2% £ Utah State University 346 47 299 130 43% 0% Comprehensive Colleges & University (For first-time freshmen in 4-year Degree programs).* Dixie State College of Utah** 35 2 33 6 18% 3% Southern Utah University 58 9 49 43 88% 3% Utah Valley University** 513 54 459 150 33% 2% Weber State University 718 50 668 242 36% 0% 2- year Colleges College of Eastern Utah 51 51 7 14% 1% Snow College 152 26 126 37 29% 2% Salt Lake Community College 2,001 2,001 915 46% 3% £ Includes the data from The Logan and Regional Campuses (distance education reported separately in IPEDS) ** Long-term retention projections yield significantly higher numbers (as much as 10 percent in a 10-year period) because students leave and return again. Tab B October 7, 2009 MEMORANDUM TO: State Board of Regents FROM: William A Sederburg SUBJECT: K-16 Alliance Progress Report Issue The purpose of this report is to inform Regents of the current K-16 Alliance committee work, and to detail two significant initiatives in progress. The first is the new assessment process, recommended by the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission which was piloted by selected school districts in the 2008-2009 school year. This process is described in a narrative and also detailed in condensed, chart form. The second is the process which replicates the structure of the K-l6 Alliance for USHE institutions and networks them to regional school districts. The Alliance is progressing well. There appears to be more commitment to K-l6 than ever before, and the new committee structure is revitalizing membership. The next major focus will be addressing the Minority and Disadvantaged populations. In addition to the membership of this group from both USHE and USOE, Regent Davis and Regent Cespedes will be working with that Committee. Recommendation The Commissioner recommends the Regents review the report and provide comments and/or recommendations. No action is required. _______________________________________ William A Sederburg Commissioner of Higher Education WAS/LS Attachments Attachment 1 K-16 ALLIANCE PROGRESS REPORT BOARD OF REGENTS October l6, 2009 The K-l6 effort is gaining momentum as more personnel from both Secondary and Post-Secondary become involved and as the significance of the K-l6 model becomes apparent. The following groups are actively working to fulfill their charges, and they reported to the K-l6 Alliance at the September meeting. The remaining three, Access and Participation, Retention, and Minority and Disadvantaged, will report to the Alliance at the November meeting and to the Regents at either their December or January meeting. Counseling, Guidance and Advising Committee: The K-16 subcommittee on Counseling, Guidance & Advising has been meeting quarterly to pursue their charge. They recommended adding “Advising” to the subcommittee name in order to include clearly postsecondary academic advisors in their work. They also clarified several elements of their charge. They are focusing on connecting K-12 counseling and guidance with postsecondary advising so that students receive consistent advice that helps them achieve their educational goals efficiently. They have shared information among postsecondary and K-12 representatives on the subcommittee, including a charter school representative, and they are developing a process to systematize and institutionalize this sharing of information. They have reviewed the electronic tools available to support advisement. They have arranged joint presentations at statewide meetings of school counselors and of postsecondary academic advisors. They are developing a plan to follow up additional elements of their charge during the coming year and to provide for continuity in those aspects of their work addressed during the past academic year. Utah Math and Science Consortium: This group, chaired by former Commissioner Richard Kendell and former University of Utah Dean of Science, Hugo Rossi, includes the Deans of Math and Science from the USHE institutions, representatives from the Utah State Office of Education, members from business and industry, representatives from the public school sector, and the Governor’s office. They are in the process of setting benchmarks, but the core objectives of the group are to • Create more interest in math and science areas and prepare more math and science teachers • Create math and science centers in the USHE institutions • Increase the number of K-l2 students who take at least one advanced course in math and sciences • Collaborate fully with the K-l6 Alliance Curriculum Alignment and Assessment Committee: This Committee is chaired by Teddi Safman, Assistant Commissioner from USHE, and Brenda Hales, Associate Superintendent from USOE. They have been working for some time on their overarching objective