It’s a New Day!

From Abolishing Late Registration

to

Overhauling Student Support ServicesDr. Joy Gates BlackDr. David Wells

Tarrant County College District

• Established in 1965• 7th Largest College or University in Texas• 1 College, 5 Campuses + Health Professions Campus

+ Multiple Community Ctrs• 5 Campus Presidents• 3,000 Employees Including Adjuncts• 7 Member Board of Trustees (Single Member Districts)• Service Area: Tarrant County, Texas – 900 Square

Miles 1.8 M Population

The Way We Were

• Silos, Silos, Silos• Allowed students to do optional• Enrollment driven• Primary use of data was for reporting to regulatory agencies – (Institutional

Research office was staffed accordingly)• Often employees did not understand the data they were getting• Most advising was done by counselors• No student success/orientation course• Few decisions made on the basis of disaggregated data• Administrators concentrated on their silo• Minimal professional development and faculty renewal• The Institution suffered from a lack of focus and a singular vision

reating a Culture of Inquiry, Evidence and Accountability

Creating a Culture of Inquiry Evidence andAccountability

“The Rationale for Change”

Using Data to InformDecision-Making

TCC Students: Developmental Education (Ranking Based on Big Ten Community Colleges)

Percentage of Developmental Students Who Met aTSI Obligation within Two Years

Subject 2009 2010

Reading 9th 8th

Writing 8th 8th

Math 9th 9th

Texas Legislative Budget Board Report on Performance Measures

What We Learned From Our Students

2009 TCC - SENSE

• Only 13% of students reported that someone was assigned to them in case they needed information or assistance

Fall 2009 – Fall 2010

• First Time in College (FTIC) Student Retention = 57%

2010 TCC - CCSSE

• Only 23% of students indicated that they used peer or other tutoring sometimes or often

• Only 43% of students indicated that they used skill labs (math, writing, etc.) sometimes or often

• Only 49% of students indicated that they used academic advising/planning services sometimes or often

What We Learned From Our Students

Only 25% of students indicated that they had completed a college

orientation program

34% of the students surveyed indicated that they work more than 30 hours per

week

2011 TCC CCSSE

What We LearnedFrom Our Students

TCC 2011 CCSSE

Most Important Support Services

Academic Advising 91%Computer Labs 84%Career Counseling 81%Financial Aid Advising 81%Skill Labs (writing, math, etc.) 81%Peer or Other Tutoring 73%Job Placement 65%

Students need more structure, fewer options

and clearer pathways

Students don’t do optional

In community colleges engagement is not likely to happen by accident.

It has to happen by design

WHAT WE LEARNEDFROM OUR STUDENTS

USING DATA TO IN

FORM

DECISION M

AKING Creating a New Day at

Tarrant County College

Actions Taken

Implemented a mandatory remediation requirement for all students

Assigned advisors to FTIC students required to enroll in developmental courses, and required these students to meet with their advisor twice each semester

Implemented a mandatory Transition to College Success course for FTIC students requiring developmental coursework in two areas

Actions TakenSp

ring

– Fa

ll 20

11

Increased peer tutoring and advising through Title III grant

Expanded assigned advisors to all FTIC students

Assigned advisors to Transition to College Success courses

Expanded Transition to College Success Course to FTIC students requiring developmental coursework in one area

Student Engagement:Benefits of Changes

TO STUDENTS

• Earlier completion of developmental coursework

• Intentional connections with advisors

• Successful acquisition of the tools and self confidence necessary to succeed in college

TO THE COLLEGE

• Increased student engagement

• Increased interaction with advisors and faculty

• Increased persistence and retention

• Improved completion rates

Institutional Barriers

Late Registration and Attendance

Using Data to Inform Decision-Making

InstitutionalBarrier:

Students who register late often

enroll in any courses that are

still available without giving thought to the

course’s requirements, their personal obligations, or their academic preparedness.

Tarrant County College, 2010

LATE REGISTRATION

Late Registration

“Students who procrastinate and wait until just before the start of the term or after to enroll may not be as motivated as students who enroll early and this procrastination affects their overall chance of passing their courses.” Wetstein, Nguyen & Hays - San Joaquin Delta College, 2008

“Students who register late may be the most at-risk students, but are admitted at a time when the system is most overloaded and least capable of meeting their needs.”

Sinclair College, 2003

Late Registration

“A student who registers during pre-registration or regular registration has on average a 27% higher GPA than a student who registers during late registration.”

“A student who registers during late registration drops nearly 11% more credit hours before the six week census date than a student who registers during pre-registration or regular registration.”

Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College, 2006

The Impact of Late Registrationon Student Success at TCC

Students who registered late had an average success rate (receiving a grade of A, B, C) of 55% in their classes compared to a success rate of 61% for students who registered during regular registration.

TOMORROW STARTS HERE

(Based on TCC Fall 2010 data)

LATE

REG

ISTR

ATION

Effective Fall 2011TCC Discontinuation

of Late RegistrationAct

ion T

aken

Using Data to Inform Decision-Making

InstitutionalBarrier:

63% of students surveyed

indicated that they skipped

class sometimes, often or very

often.

CCSSE, 2010

ATTENDANCE

Attendance“Higher levels of attendance were associated with greater course success, especially for students with highly consistent attendance (2 or fewer absences), who scored more than one-half letter grade higher on average than those who attended less frequently.” Stuckey, 2008

“Grand Rapids Community College believes that attendance is essential to student success and sees excessive absenteeism as a very serious matter, but also believes the classroom instructor is the best evaluator of the impact attendance may have on student success in any given class.”Grand Rapids Community College, 2010

“Students who do not regularly attend their classes are not able to participate in classroom discussions and often do not complete their assignments, which significantly impacts their academic success.” Tarrant County College, 2011

ATTENDANCE

Summer/Fall 2011Instituted Attendance Requirements For Students Taking Developmental Education Courses

Spring 2012Expanded Attendance Requirements To All Students

Actio

n Tak

en

Late Registration and ATTENDANCE Requirements

Benefits of ChangesTO STUDENTS

• Finalized schedule before the start of classes

• More quality time for staff to assist with information and advising

• Early attendance at the start of the semester to receive course syllabi, materials and assignments

• Better understanding of the College’s expectations for attendance and timely registration

TO THE COLLEGE

• Earlier cancellation of course sections can be initiated

• Students can be notified earlier of course cancellations

• Faculty will have accurate class rosters and class sizes

• Bookstore can address any additional textbook needs in a more timely manner

• More strategic planning for enrollment, instruction and staffing

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND COMPLETION

Data Results

COMPLETION DATA

Number of Students Self ReportingCompletion of a Developmental Education

Course

Subject 2010 2011 Change

Reading 15% 17% +2%

Writing 13% 15% +2%

Math 40% 45% +5%

CCSSE 2010, 2011

SUCCESS DATA

Southeast Campus Math Tutoring Center

Fall 2011

Lab Use CoursesSuccess

Yes (A, B, C)

No

VisitedMath 66% 34%

Other 71% 29%

Did not Visit

Math 51% 49%

Other 63% 37%

South Campus Science LabFall 2011

Lab Use CoursesSuccess

Yes (A, B, C)

No

VisitedScience 69% 31%

Other 78% 22%

Did not Visit

Science 57% 43%

Other 63% 37%

SUCCESS DATA

Northeast Campus Math Tutoring Lab

Fall 2011

Lab Use CoursesSuccess

Yes (A, B, C)

No

VisitedMath 58% 42%

Other 80% 20%

Did not Visit

Math 51% 49%

Other 67% 33%

SUCCESS DATA

Student AdvisementFrequency of Advisement

  

 None

  One  Two  Three  Four  Five  Total

 2010 FL

 

 100.0%

  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%  100.0%

Percent Retained2011FL

 29%

  42%  50%  60%  67%  57%  43%

Loss 

71.2% 

 58%  50%  40%  33%  43%  57%

STUDENT RETENTION DATA

Disruptive Innovations

What ATD Leader Colleges Do

Disruptive Innovations at TCC

Changes in Math Curriculum and Modes of Delivery

Mandatory New Student Orientation

Intentional Advising and Faculty Advising

Early Academic Alert System

Mandatory Professional Development

Mandatory Remediation

Mandatory Student Success Course

Discontinuation of Late Registration

Disruptive Innovations Under Development

Academic Boot Camp

Review of Initial Student Assessment/Placement Testing Criteria

District-wide Coordination of Dual Credit

P-16 Initiatives

Are the Disruptive Innovations

Making a Difference????

Percentage of Remedial Students Who Met a TSI Obligation in Math

College District Rank

FY2009

Rank

FY2010

Rank

FY2011

Alamo Community College District 10 7.50% 7 19.90% 2 71.80

%

Austin Community College 4 31.00% 6 24.80

% 7 31.10%

Collin County Community College District 7 22.65

% 10 12.10% 9 25.20

%Dallas County Community College District 6 28.10

% 1 40.20% 1 76.30

%

El Paso Community College District 8 18.40% 8 16.70

% 8 28.50%

Houston Community College System 3 34.30% 3 37.50

% 3 71.50%

Lone Star College System District 1 54.35% 2 38.40

% 5 44.00%

San Jacinto College 2 39.95% 4 33.40

% 4 47.30%

South Texas College 5 30.40% 5 28.00

% 6 34.20%

Tarrant County College District 9 11.24% 9 12.50

% 10 21.50%

Statewide 30.90%

27.00%

47.90%

Source: LBB Performance Measures Feedback Report

Percentage of Remedial Students Who Met a TSI Obligation in Reading

College District Rank

FY2009

Rank

FY2010

Rank

FY2011

Alamo Community College District 10 31.10% 9 17.40

% 5 64.30%

Austin Community College 1 63.30% 1 57.70

% 2 71.40%

Collin County Community College District 7 50.53

% 10 6.50% 9 45.80%

Dallas County Community College District 6 50.70

% 5 44.60% 8 56.20

%

El Paso Community College District 2 61.50% 2 56.00

% 6 62.30%

Houston Community College System 3 57.60% 4 44.90

% 1 80.50%

Lone Star College System District 8 45.70% 3 55.00

% 3 67.70%

San Jacinto College 4 52.87% 7 40.60

% 4 64.60%

South Texas College 5 52.60% 6 43.80

% 7 57.30%

Tarrant County College District 9 33.30% 8 25.20

% 10 42.71%

Statewide 49.40%

38.20%

60.90%

Source: LBB Performance Measures Feedback Report

Percentage of Remedial Students Who Met a TSI Obligation in Writing

College District Rank

FY2009

Rank

FY2010

Rank

FY2011

Alamo Community College District 9 30.30% 9 20.00% 2 67.70%Austin Community College 2 62.10% 1 55.70% 5 58.40%Collin County Community College District 10 30.18% 10 7.30% 10 37.80%Dallas County Community College District 3 50.80% 4 43.20% 6 57.30%El Paso Community College District 4 49.90% 6 40.00% 3 64.70%Houston Community College System 6 44.80% 5 41.10% 1 82.80%Lone Star College System District 1 63.74% 2 46.90% 4 60.20%San Jacinto College 7 41.80% 7 28.90% 7 49.40%South Texas College 5 49.60% 3 44.70% 8 47.50%

Tarrant County College District 8 34.98% 8 26.60

% 9 44.44%

Statewide 45.70%

36.00%

58.90%Source: LBB Performance Measures Feedback Report

HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FORSTUDENT SUCCESS

SUCCESS