Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Charge 1 The Accessibility subcommittee is charged with developing recommendations to address the accessibility of the state’s system of higher education.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Charge 1 The Accessibility subcommittee is charged with developing recommendations to address the accessibility of the state’s system of higher education."— Presentation transcript:

1 Charge 1 The Accessibility subcommittee is charged with developing recommendations to address the accessibility of the state’s system of higher education. It is tasked with developing a clear standard for accessibility and goals to meet and maintain that standard. In addition, it will recommend goals to close achievement gaps and clearer pathways to success for students of all interests and backgrounds. How should Colorado define accessibility? What should be the accessibility standard for the following state categorizations of higher education institutions? Research institutions State colleges Community colleges Technical schools How can the system and individual institutions be held accountable for maintaining accessibility? Colorado has the nation’s largest gap between the college attainment of its largest ethnic group and other ethnicities and the nation’s second largest gap between low and high income groups. What should be Colorado’s 5 and 10 year goals to address this gap? 1DRAFT May 25, 2010

2 What problems are we trying to solve? 2 Higher education historically and increasingly leads to better jobs and a higher quality of life. In Colorado, we have a highly educated citizenry, most of whom were not educated in Colorado. We need to educate our own. Our “own” demographics are telling: 70% of Colorado 9 th graders are graduating from high school four years later; 63% of the graduates are going right on to college While Colorado exceeds the percentage of adults with at least an associates degree for all age groups, 35 and higher, it is on par with the US for the age group at about 40% and trails many industrialized nations In 2008, 33% of the population 20 and under were ethnic and racial minorities compared to 23% over the age of 20. In addition, Colorado has the nation’s largest gap between the college attainment of its largest ethnic group and other ethnicities and the nation’s second largest gap between low and high income groups. DRAFT 2DRAFT May 25, 2010

3 Change in the Percent of 25 to 34 Year Olds with College Degrees by Race/Ethnicity – from 1990 to % 50.8% 15.5% 14.9% 22.2% 26.3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% WhiteHispanic/LatinoAfrican-American The Largest Gap of Any State in the U.S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Public Use Microdata Samples (based on the 2000 and 1990 decennial census)

4 Who is being served today and where? 4 NCHEMS data and conclusions re: flow of funds Geography data – where is need Distance and ability – two key factors on where students go to school Conclusion? – Hispanic, first generation not being served. Barriers need to be addressed Draft Review state demographer presentation on website: take away - 1/3 of H pop attain less than HS, ½ attain HS only, 2/3s do not attain college 4DRAFT May 25, 2010

5 Access Defined 5DRAFT May 25, 2010 How should Colorado define accessibility? From a student perspective, Colorado provides an integrated higher education system which delivers viable post-secondary educational opportunities for all Coloradoans regardless of income level, geographic location, historic underrepresentation, and non-traditional background. Accessibility must address the following components: Awareness of the promise and possibility of higher education Academic preparation Financial affordability Remediation capacity Geographic considerations

6 Access Standards in Policy Draft May 25, 2010 Colorado School of Mines 13 Community Colleges in CC System Selective Open Moderately Selective What should the accessibility standards be for the following state categorizations of higher education institutions? Aims Colorado Mtn College Technical Schools Highly Selective State Colleges Research Community Colleges CU (Boulder, Denver, Co Spgs) UNC CSU (FC) Fort Lewis Adams Western Mesa Metro* * Metropolitan State College is considered a modified open enrollment institution 6 CSU (Pueblo) 6

7 Access Standards Draft May 25, 2010 Colorado School of Mines 13 Community Colleges in CC System Selective Open Moderately Selective Aims Colorado Mtn College Technical Schools Highly Selective State Colleges Research Community Colleges CU-D UNC CU-CS CSU-PAdams Western Mesa Metro* CU-BCSU-FC Fort Lewis 7 * Metropolitan State College is considered a modified open enrollment institution What should the accessibility standards be for the following state categorizations of higher education institutions? DRAFT 7

8 Principles Access to Colorado’s public higher education is based on student merit and desire Access translates into and is measured by the completion of a higher education degree or certificate Access recognizes that students begin higher education with different advantages and disadvantages Access requires removing various barriers to higher education completion including awareness, academic preparation, affordability, and mobility Access anticipates differences among institutional missions and capacities 8Draft May 11, 2010 Draft Need to add/revise. Also include regional responsibilities, collaboration/cross institutional responsibilities, “need to get more people through”, need to “educate our own”, needs to be viable aspiration to attend and complete, mentoring/advising work well 8

9 Recommendations Draft May 25, AdmittancePros/ConsImpact All qualified students should be guaranteed admittance into Colorado’s integrated system of public higher education institutions. Students who satisfy defined admission requirements for each tier of the system should be deemed to be admitted to a school in that tier. Notice should be sent, proactively, to students and families stating that, based on admittance criteria established for such tier, the student has been admitted to college. Targeted “awareness” campaign should be developed and implemented designed to “break” barrier that “higher education is not for us”. Best Practices Best practice: Examine MN, UT, MO Best practice: ACT testing for all 11 th graders – increased awareness and viability of higher ed for minority, low and middle income, first generation and male students. Best practice: “Qualified” requirements must be aligned with College and Career Ready effort (to include GPA/ACT/Class Rank). 9

10 Recommendations Draft May 25, Flexible Entry Points and Paths to CompletionPros/ConsImpact All qualified students should be able to move to public institutions with more selective admission criteria (up the pyramid) if they meet transfer requirements. Transfer to public institutions from two year to four year institutions of qualified students should be developed from the student’s perspective and should be seamless. Dual admittance in “sister” higher education institutions should be in practice statewide and supported. Concurrent enrollment with high schools should be statewide practice and supported. Career cluster/pathway models should be in practice statewide and supported. Actions and Best Practices Best practice: Transfers – CU Denver and CCD have instituted Transfer Center and developed affinity groups and approaches, including social media/networking for targeted populations. Best practice: Dual admission – Currently in place at Aims and UNC, and at Adams and Trinidad State Junior College. Content and assessment should be approved; delivery can then be by various avenues. Best practice: Career cluster/pathway models – CCCOES has developed and begun implementation of these approaches. 10

11 Recommendations Draft May 25, Affordable opportunities for studentsPros/ConsImpact Students – who qualify for admission to a public institution on merit – should find that institution affordable to attend. Students attending public institutions at the top half of the pyramid should be charged a competitive market tuition and fees. For qualified, low income students, 100% of their financial need should be met, through a combination of loans, grants and self help and without use of parent or private loans. Just as with federal Pell grants, need-based financial aid should be awarded to students directly and should be portable to any Colorado public higher education institution. “Opportunity slots” should be available at upper tier institutions, to be paid for by institutional subsidies. Institutions should be funded, in part, on the percentage of students from their geographic region who complete higher education certificates and degrees regardless of the institution attended. Actions and Best Practices Best practice: 11

12 Recommendations Draft May 25, Supportive servicesPros/ConsImpact “Supportive services” targeted to “window”, low income or first generation students should be the practice statewide, with emphasis on mentoring and advising. Supportive services should be in place before post secondary. Revenue generated by market rate tuition and fees at those institutions at the top of the pyramid should be shifted to students in other tiers to fund “supportive services” to help them stay on track and complete their education. Develop and implement “Individual Career and Academic’ plans 5. Remediation capacity Student “readiness” for college level work should be determined sooner, including using Accuplacer or other assessments in 11 th grade. Focus efforts on retaining students in first and second year. Best Practices Best practice: Supportive services – CU Denver and CCD - TRIO programs? Case management models? CU Succeeds? (at CU Denver only?). “Enrichment” activities. Best practice: Student incentives - CSU Pueblo has instituted incentives for students who graduate early or on time. Best practice: Shifting resources – California directs resources to community colleges 12

13 Recommendations Draft May 25, State Aid changesPros/ConsImpact ~$100 M in state financial aid needs to be used for higher impact Shift more dollars to work study, certificate, part time and adult learners Add student “incentives” – loans turn to grants if meet certain performance or if students graduate early or “on time”; incorporate “performance” component for last two years of financial aid; forgive loans if pursue certain careers Return to some “merit-based” loans/grants; assess impact on retention Institute “tuition pre-pay” mechanisms to encourage completion Include part-time and certificate attainment Do not provide state financial aid for graduate studies Shift to all loans (v. some grants)? State appropriations, Tuition policy, State financial aid and Institutional subsidies should be considered together when assessing policy changes. Best Practices Best practice: UNC – “opportunity scholarships”? Best practice: 13

14 Recommendations Draft May 25, Financial Aid process changesPros/ConsImpact Share information sooner through vehicles that reach targeted groups (e.g. social networking, multi-lingual). Simplify forms. Use one statewide application form. Align timing of Pell and state aid calendar. Assist students with financial planning for their education. Best Practices Best practice: 14

15 What other issues need to be addressed? Should Open admissions be limited (adult basic education)? Undocumented student access Role of and interrelationships with proprietary schools –Federal Pell/state aid issues Graduate education access To be addressed from Charge: How can the system and individual institutions be held accountable for maintaining accessibility? 15 DRAFT May 25, 2010


Download ppt "Charge 1 The Accessibility subcommittee is charged with developing recommendations to address the accessibility of the state’s system of higher education."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google