1. Kentucky State University
The Commonwealth’s Uncommon University
Office of Enrollment Management

2. Retention
Retention
Retention
Retention !
Retention
Retention

3. Presentation Goal:
To engage all stakeholders in an open dialogue regarding retention at KSU, resulting in deliberative strategies that will significantly improve our current retention rates.

4. Overview: Background on OEM’s Retention Research
OEM’s Retention Comparisons
Retention as a Strategic Issue

5. Relationship Between Enrollment and Retention$ $ $ $

6. Models of Student Persistence
Tinto’s Student Integration Model .
The degree of student-institutional “fit” plays an important role in student persistence.

7. Tinto’s Student Integration Model

8. Models of Student Persistence
Bean’s Student Attrition Model .
Students’ beliefs about their institutional experience affect persistence.
Recognizes the influence of external factors on student persistence.

9. Models of Student Persistence
Liz Thomas’ Five Spheres of Integration .
Academic
Social: peer interaction and mutual support
Economic
Support Systems (Advising, Counseling, etc.)
Democratic (student organizations and representation on various institutional bodies)

10. Implications: Confirm, deny or integrate basic tenets of these models
Focus on particular student populations
Identify factors affecting student persistence
These two theories have spawned an enormous amount of research on the area of student retention. Many of these studies were done to confirm or deny the basic tenets of the theories or have attempted to integrate these two approaches into a singular framework.

11. OEM’s Retention Comparisons
Cohort-to-cohort (internal)
Trends in retention and graduation through multiple cohorts
Identify changes within and between groups of students
1.   Internal Comparisons: This is the method of retention studies most commonly utilized by institutions and typically one of two methodologies, if not both:
Ø      Cohort-by-cohort comparison - where a set of cohorts are identified and their one-year retention and six-year graduation rates are compared.
Ø      Longitudinal Comparisons - where cohorts are tracked over multiple years of enrollment, allowing for the researcher to look at the time and magnitude of the losses to the cohort. For example, while the majority of losses to the cohort occur after the first-year, an equal percentage is lost between the second and sixth years, although the reasons for the losses may change.
These internal comparisons allow for discussions of improvements and also possible interpretations concerning the impact of various programs and changing contextual conditions.

12. 2003 and 2004 New Student Cohorts
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 New Student Cohorts
Ø   While the number of New Freshmen slightly decreased the number of Transfer students significantly increased.

13. 2003 and 2004 Freshman Persistence Rates
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Freshman Persistence Rates
Ø   The relative Persistence Rate for the Fall 2004 cohort increased by 27%.

14. Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts
Ø   The number of Continuing Sophomores increased by 12.4%.

15. 2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts:
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts:
Ø    The average GPA for the 2004 cohort increased by 7%.

16. 2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts:
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts:
Ø    The percentage of Kentucky residents increased by 5%.

17. 2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts:
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts:
Ø    The percentage of dismissals decreased by 50%

18. 2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts:
Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Sophomore Cohorts:
Ø The percentage with remaining Developmental Experiences decreased.

19. Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Junior Cohorts
Ø   The percentage of Continuing Juniors decreased by 12.0%.

20. Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Junior Cohorts:
Ø    The average GPA for the 2004 cohort decreased by 7%.

21. Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Junior Cohorts:
Ø    The percentage of Kentucky residents decreased by 4.7%.

22. Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Junior Cohorts:
Ø    The percentage of dismissals increased.

23. Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Junior Cohorts:
Ø The Percentage with remaining Developmental Experiences increased.

24. Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Senior Cohorts
Ø   The number of Continuing Seniors decreased by 24.0%.

25. Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Senior Cohorts:
Ø    The average GPA for the 2004 cohort increased by 5%.

26. Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Senior Cohorts:
Ø    The percentage of Kentucky residents increased by 4%.

27. Internal Comparison: Cohort to Cohort Analysis
2003 and 2004 Senior Cohorts:
Ø    The percentage of dismissals decreased by 68%

28. OEM’s Retention Comparisons
External Comparisons
Track and compare the magnitude of retention or graduation with multiple external benchmarks.
1.   Internal Comparisons: This is the method of retention studies most commonly utilized by institutions and typically one of two methodologies, if not both:
Ø      Cohort-by-cohort comparison - where a set of cohorts are identified and their one-year retention and six-year graduation rates are compared.
Ø      Longitudinal Comparisons - where cohorts are tracked over multiple years of enrollment, allowing for the researcher to look at the time and magnitude of the losses to the cohort. For example, while the majority of losses to the cohort occur after the first-year, an equal percentage is lost between the second and sixth years, although the reasons for the losses may change.
These internal comparisons allow for discussions of improvements and also possible interpretations concerning the impact of various programs and changing contextual conditions.

29. OEM’s Retention Comparisons
External Comparisons
ACT:2004 ACT Institutional Data Questionnaire (IDQ)
The Consortium of Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE): CSRDE Report on the Retention and Graduation Rates of Entering Freshman Cohorts in 421 Colleges and Universities
1.   Internal Comparisons: This is the method of retention studies most commonly utilized by institutions and typically one of two methodologies, if not both:
Ø      Cohort-by-cohort comparison - where a set of cohorts are identified and their one-year retention and six-year graduation rates are compared.
Ø      Longitudinal Comparisons - where cohorts are tracked over multiple years of enrollment, allowing for the researcher to look at the time and magnitude of the losses to the cohort. For example, while the majority of losses to the cohort occur after the first-year, an equal percentage is lost between the second and sixth years, although the reasons for the losses may change.
These internal comparisons allow for discussions of improvements and also possible interpretations concerning the impact of various programs and changing contextual conditions.

31. Comparative First to Second Year Retention Rates

33. Comparative Graduation Rates

34. Residential Status of All KSU Students Spring 2005

35. Are More Kentuckians Graduating From KSU?

36. Attrition in Terms of Lost Tuition Revenue
A 1st to 2nd Year Retention Rate of 67% for 04-05
An Attrition Rate of 33% (82 Residential and 87 Non-Residential Students)
A Loss of $145,550 in Residential Tuition
A Loss of $434,652 in Non- Residential Tuition
A Total Loss of $580,202 in Tuition Revenue

37. Attrition in Terms of Lost Tuition Revenue
Each Attrition Percentage Point Equates to $18,000 in Tuition Revenue

38. Classification Status of All KSU Students Spring 2005

39. Summary Trend Analysis

40. Future Retention Comparisons
Longitudinal retention
Track the magnitude of retention or graduation of one cohort, or set of cohorts through multiple enrollment years.
Identify patterns of retention and graduation within particular cohorts or groups of students

41. What Next/Now What?
Establish Student Retention as a Strategic Issue
Strategic issues have serious consequences for the long-term success of the institution.

42. Challenges to All Stakeholders
Immediate Dialogue
Overcome obstacles that impede progress.
Implement desirable and undesirable change.

43. Kentucky State University
The Commonwealth’s Uncommon University
Questions and Dialogue
Office of Enrollment Management