Study Questions

1. Student Success in Comparative Perspective: Bachelor Degree Completion in the US and UKThomas Weko This presentation is based upon research carried out in the United Kingdom between September 2003 and March 2004. The research was supported by the Atlantic Fellowship Programme of the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and hosted by the Higher Education Policy Institute.

2. Study Questions • Are rates of bachelor degree completion in the UK significantly higher than those in US? • If so, why? • What might the US learn from UK’s experience with respect to bachelor degree completion?

3. US bachelor degree completion rate is well below UK (and OECD average) (Survival rate in tertiary type A education, number of graduates divided by the number of new entrants in the typical year of entrance to the specified programme)

4. Low completion cannot be explained simply by wider entry. Many other OECD nations have wide access – and higher completion

5. CompletionAnd Its Measurement UK: Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) projects a completion rate for all full-time first degree (bachelor degree) students For individual HEIs, 1-39 percent of full-time first degree students projected to leave without transferring or completing a higher education qualification. For UK university system as a whole, 82 percent completion rate US: Many ways of measuring completion. For individual HEIs, calculated according to federal SRTK, definitions, average is 46 percent non-completion For entire starting cohort (defined below), NCES sample-based estimates range from 63-67 percent

6. Alternative Measures of Completion Rates in the US Number of Percent Completing Cohort Duration Completion At Postsecondary Bachelor's Degree Credits Completed freshmen beginning at four-year 1998- same 51.6 institutions 2003 institution first-time fulltime students 1995- same 54.0 beginning at four-year institutions 2001 institution all students in Beginning Postsecondary Study who began 1995- as full-time first-time students at any 4-year 65.6 2001 four-year institutions, with bachelor's degree goal all students in High School and 1982- Beyond sample who enrolled in any 4-year 62.9 1993 four-year institution all students in High School and Beyond sample who enrolled in 4- 1982- year institution at any time and any 4-year >10 credits completed 64.7 1993 completed > 10 postsecondary credits and all students in National Education Longitudinal Study who completed 1992- any 4-year >10 credits completed 67.3 >10 postsecondary credits and 2000 any credits from 4-year institution

7. England benchmarked performance indicators for HEIs press scrutiny, government scrutiny (NAO), and ministerial pressure completion-related funding US states no benchmarks of institutional performance institutional funding methodology typically input (FTE) based, not linked to completion US federal government Student Right to Know Act—Title IV institutions must report four and six-year graduation rates to prospective students—no benchmarks or comparisons Pell Grants –no completion related funding elements Why differences in rates of university completion? Due in part to how government incentives shape the operation of institutions

8. UK rate of participation in HE more than doubled with no systematic increase in bachelor degree noncompletion

9. 20 18 16 14 12 Percent Not Completing Degree 10 8 Performance Completion-related 6 indicators funding introduced y = 0.1792x + 14.576 introduced 4 2 0 83-84  84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95   95-96  96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 Year What was the impact of policy on rates of completion?

10. Do differences between UK/US completion rates result from who enters and how they progress? Entry • Limited and selective entry from secondary system closely aligned to demands of university study; • Sharp separation from other forms of post-compulsory education and training. Entry • Broad entry and highly variable selectivity; secondary system not aligned to the demands of university study; • Close links between university and other post-compulsory institutions. Progression • Homogeneous, motivated, and young student body; • Ecclesiastical study: continuous and full-time, to the exclusion of other activities; • Unitary course, and pedagogical frame set by instructors. Progression • Entrants range widely in age, academic preparation, motivation; • Credit transfer and modularization make possible variable patterns of attendance; many are not exclusively students; • Relatively open pedagogical frame marked by student choice Elite Model Mass Model

11. UK: Still elite entry? What proportion university entrants take traditional path of upper secondary academic preparation for university?

12. How closely joined is upper secondary education A-level curriculum and assessment to the demands of university education? • A-level originally “an entrance examination controlled by universities and geared to serve their needs.” • Changes to upper secondary curriculum and assessment in 1980’s diminish university control. • Example: in A-level maths, increased emphasis on statistics, diminished emphasis on calculus, resulting in mismatch between skill set of entrants and university curriculum in maths and engineering. • 1990’s: introduction of diagnostic testing for students entering university in maths, modern languages. Mike Tomlinson, (Review of 14-19 education) 2004: It isn’t that young people at university aren’t able to do this—it’s not been an integral part of their programme and it has not been encouraged and supported by the way in which they are assessed. It’s not their fault, and it’s not the fault of their teachers.

13. Emergence of students who are not yet fully prepared for their course upon entry to university -- and provision for them • Programs • Entry into year 1 of course if summer-length module(s) successfully completed; • Bridging Programs for students entering from years 2 or 3 from HND or foundation degree programs; • Remedial Instruction within year one, including lower level transition modules, additional assessed modules, supplementary lectures, etc. • How many students? • No national data available from HESA: data not kept at modular level, and no consistent definition of these modules across institutions. • >60 departments of Mathematics, Physics and Engineering give diagnostic tests in mathematics to their new undergraduates. • An estimated 15-20 percent on incoming students now assessed for readiness, and many of those need remedial instruction

14. Entry to university education in the US • Weak Alignment No distinct period of specialized study within “upper secondary” education. Students enter university, not course (England) or faculty (Scotland). Secondary curriculum and assessment not directly linked to university entry and curriculum. 2. No Common Standard of University Selectivity or Preparation • 2,000+ bachelor degree institutions with wide range of entry standards, open admissions to highly selective. • Most students enter moderately selective institutions: CSU system (319,000 UG) admits top 1/3 of HS class. University of California system (154,000 UG) admits top 1/8th of HS class. • Nearly one in three university entrants have not completed a notional university preparatory curriculum consisting of intermediate/advanced secondary coursework in maths, natural sciences, and modern languages (NCES longitudinal studies). 3. Low Exclusivity of Academic Secondary to University Path Students may enter from vocational secondary, or from tertiary type B institutions. In some US states nearly half of bachelor graduates begin at two-year institutions (WA state, 41%), while rates much lower in England (5%) and Scotland (13%).

15. 4. Remediation (rates based upon NCES sample-based data) 1/4 of US university entrants need some (one or more remedial modules) 1/6 need extensive remediation (i.e. reading, or more than two courses in maths or writing, shown to be associated with noncompletion). Rates vary sharply across institutions, from 0 to 75 percent of entrants requiring remediation. 27 percent of (moderately-highly selective) institutions do not provide remediation CSU system: 59 percent of entrants “not proficient in all subjects” CSU-LA, 74 percent need maths, 76 percent English Evidence weak, but about 25 percent of US students in entering cohort may not be fully prepared – as compared to 10-15 percent (?) in UK universities A significant proportion of students are not fully prepared for university at entry, the incidence of which varies sharply across universities.

16. Student Progression: The Persistence of Elite Practice in England? • Elite model of student progression: continuous and full-time study at the institution and on the course of origin; to the exclusion of other activities; within pedagogical frame set by instructors. • Since 1980’s, widespread adoption of semester, module, and credit in England. By 1995 HEQC estimates that “90 percent” of courses are modularized. • Critics say that there has been a change in nomenclature, but no increase mobility, choice, or flexibility for learners, and no move away from ecclesiastical model. • Evidence (see below) supports critics.

17. Progression in US and UK remains, in spite of modularization and credits—”one institution, fixed and limited time”UK: projected outcomes for fulltime first degree entrants; US actual outcomes bachelor degree graduates in BPS 96/01 cohort (col. 1-3) and NELS92/00 cohort (col. 4)

18. Why fewer interruptions to continuous fulltime study in UK?Example: alternating part- and full-time study • US: modularized, credit-based system; no full and part-time programmes, only students with varying credits loads, choosing rate of work that suits their needs. Student aid prorated according to credit load. • England: • Institutions may not make part-time study available (at pre-1992 universities few degrees available through part-time study); • Institutions may restrict ability to change FT to PT due to annual cycle for assessment of fee payment by local council; • Part-time students ineligible to participate in maintenance loan; • Institutions may be penalized for intermittent study or variation between full- and part-time study. UEL finance and accounting course: “no confidence in their academic standards” and “failing in quality of learning opportunities.” In part because "over the past three years between 25 and 30 percent of students have withdrawn, with an average of around 40 percent not completing within three years."

19. Who are the US students who depart from the path of continuous and fulltime study?

20. Benefits of greater flexibility in progression? Wider access for non-traditional students? (table one) Provision better adapted to adult needs (table two) At the cost of lowering completion rates. Flexibility results in a) high risk students; b) high risk behaviors (work, intermittent enrolment); c) diminished attachment to course and cohesion of cohort.

21. Do the benefits of increased flexibility outweigh its costs? US -- Benefits Outweigh Costs? US: “completion is best, but something is better than nothing” – evidence in econometric studies Why? • After one century of culture of credit accumulation and modularization: study is divisible, not unitary • High school diploma has very weak labour market returns Focus is on false negatives, or providing opportunity to any willing student with any promise of success UK – Costs Outweigh Benefits? England: “nothing is better than something” – borne out by labour market analysis Why? • The “course" is unitary; the culture of credit and module has not been assimilated into universities and labor markets. • A-level results Focus is on false positives; “it is in nobody’s interest…to provide incentives for institutions to recruit students who are unlikely to complete“ (Howard Newby, HEFCE)

22. For the US, what might be the best opportunities for policy borrowing from England? For the US states… • HEFCE-style benchmarking of completion indicators • 40 states now have student unit record data systems, some are highly developed. Those with SURs could, singly or collaboratively (through regional compacts) develop an agreed upon methodology of institutional benchmarking for completion. • Completion-related institutional funding methodologies • Alignment of secondary and higher education • Data (Kentucky—feedback reports) • curriculum and assessment (Washington—WASL as a criterion for university admission) • …While preserving wide entry and flexible progression.