Strategic Framework for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) Mission, Vision and Values

Transcription

1 FACT BOOK 2017

2 Strategic Framework for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (Minnesota State) play an essential role in growing Minnesota s economy and opening the doors of educational opportunity to all Minnesotans. To that end, we will: 1. Ensure access to an extraordinary education for all Minnesotans. 2. Be the partner of choice to meet Minnesota s workforce and community needs. 3. Deliver to students, employers, communities, and taxpayers the highest value/most affordable option. Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) Mission, Vision and Values Our Mission To provide collegiate-level education for employment that will empower individuals to enhance their opportunities for career advancement and success in a global economy. Our Vision Dakota County Technical College will be the leader in providing exceptional education and be the preferred partner for the diverse communities we serve. Our Values At Dakota County Technical College, we value: Excellence: Focus on quality in programs and services Diversity: Show acceptance, openness and fairness to everyone Innovation: Encourage and reward new ideas, proactive thinking and use of evolving technology Respect: Foster trust, courtesy and open communication Integrity: Promote ethical and honest behavior Accountability: Maintain effective and efficient programs and services Collaboration: Work cooperatively in a supportive environment About the Fact Book The Dakota County Technical College Fact Book aims to serve as a reference tool to provide general information about the college for use in planning, assessment, writing grant proposals, preparing reports, and other projects. Data is shown by fiscal year (July 1 June 30) unless otherwise noted. Fall 2017* data is based on 30 th day record, all other semesters use final record. If fall 2017 data does not have an asterisk, they are final records. Every effort is made to ensure that data are accurate, yet data used here may differ slightly from other college and system reports due to the use of different sources, the reporting time period for which the data was reported, dates on which a report was generated, or use of different data definitions. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page i

3 Minnesota State Colleges and Universities provides Enrollment and Student Reporting Standards and they are followed where noted beginning with fiscal year (FY) NOTE: Students who were enrolled exclusively in credit-bearing customized training courses such as ASEP courses numbered 2500 or higher, CHRY courses, and MFGM courses are excluded from this Fact Book. Explanation of Sources: Below each table, a source is listed describing where the data in the table originated. The following sources are most frequently used: Operational Data This is data obtained from REPL, Minnesota State s Oracle database. Data were obtained by querying one or more tables. Tables used will be listed where possible. EPM 11 This indicates that data was obtained using a query created by Minnesota State Information Technology Services (ITS), which can then be customized by the user to provide institutional-level data. Enrollment Analytic Tool This tool is created by the Institutional Research (IR) group at Minnesota State to allow enrollment data to be cut according to specified variables, providing more detailed information about student enrollment. Accountability Framework* Maintained by Minnesota State IR group. IPEDS Feedback Reports* IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) data are collected, compiled and reported by Minnesota State on a rolling calendar to the IES (Institute of Education Sciences, an agency of the Federal Government), who compiles our data along with that of institutions across the country. *Links to data at end of Fact Book Explanation of Terms: There is a glossary at the end of the Fact Book explaining the terms used that are unique to this kind of data reporting. In the 2017 Fact Book, in response to a Title III Grant focused on serving adult students, age groups have been changed from previous Fact Books to define traditional age students as and adult students as 25 and over. All reporting of age groups has been adjusted so that there is a split between students age 24 and 25 to reflect this definition of traditional/adult students. Questions? Questions about the data contained in this document should be directed to Institutional Research. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page ii

4 Table of Contents Strategic Framework for Minnesota State Colleges and Universities... i Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) Mission, Vision and Values... i Our Mission... i Our Vision... i Our Values... i About the Fact Book... i Explanation of Sources:... ii Explanation of Terms:... ii Questions?... ii DCTC Quick Facts Fall Enrollment Trends... 2 Credit Enrollment by Fiscal Year: Headcount and FYE... 2 Credit Enrollment by Semester... 2 Enrollment in Developmental Level Courses... 4 Enrollment in College Level Courses... 5 Course Offerings and Enrollment... 6 Course Offerings and Enrollment by Media Type and FY... 7 Sections Offered and Seats Sold by Course Media Type and FY... 7 FYE by Media Type and FY... 9 Course Offerings and Enrollment by Media Type Summary Tables... 9 Enrollment by Media Type and Semester Course Offerings and Enrollment by Course Level and FY Sections Offered and Seats Sold by Course Level and FY FYE by Course Level and FY Course Offerings and Enrollment by Course Level Summary Tables Enrollment by Course Level and Semester Courses by Day and Time Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) Students by Major Student Profile Credit Students New and Continuing Students Full-Time and Part-Time Status Trends across Time Gender Students of Color (SOC) Race/ethnicity International Students Age DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page iii

5 Students with Disabilities Veterans Low Income Status/Pell Eligibility First Generation Status Underrepresented Status Average Credit Load by Semester Admission Status Student Residence Top Feeder High Schools Awards Granted Student Outcomes Average Retention, Transfer, Graduation, Transfer-Graduation, and Success Rates Retention, Transfer, Graduation, Transfer-Graduation, and Success Minnesota State Accountability Dashboard Changes over Time Status at Third Spring Second Fall Persistence and Completion Rates Minnesota State Accountability Dashboard Graduate Follow-up Survey (GRFU) Employer Survey Student Engagement and Satisfaction Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) Federal Reporting IPEDS Graduation and Transfer-out Rates College Scorecard Gainful Employment Accreditation Glossary Useful Links to Data Sources DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page iv

6 Index of Tables Table 1 Credit Enrollment by Semester... 2 Table 2 Total Number of Sections Offered, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE by FY... 6 Table 3 Traditional (Face-to-Face) Sections, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE Table 4 Blended/Hybrid Sections, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE Table 5 Online Sections, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE Table 6 Enrollment by Media Type and Semester Table 7 Developmental Level Sections, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE Table 8 College Level Sections, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE Table 9 Enrollment by Course Level and Semester Table 10 Number of Courses by Semester and Offering Schedule Table 11 Majors by Fiscal Year Table 12 Number of Students by Gender (FY) Table 13 Unduplicated Headcount of Students by SOC Status by FY Table 14 Number of Students by Race/Ethnicity by FY Table 15 Headcount of International Students Enrolled by Home Country Table 16 Percentage of Traditional and Adult Students by FY Table 17 Number of Traditional and Adult Students by FY Table 18 Number of Students by Age Group by FY Table 19 Enrollment by Pell Eligibility by FY Table 20 First Generation Status by Federal Definition: Neither Parent Has a Bachelor s Degree by FY Table 21 First Generation Status by Minnesota Definition: Neither Parent Attended any College by FY Table 22 Underrepresented Students by FY Table 23 Unduplicated Headcount of Enrollment by Admission Status by FY Table 24 Average Credit Load by Admission Status by FY Table 25 Enrollment by ZIP Code of Student Residence Table 26 New First-time Students Top Feeder High Schools Table 27 Other New, First-Time Student Sources Table 28 PSEO Students Top Feeder High Schools Table 29 PSEO Enrolled Home School Students Table 30 Awards Granted by Type of Degree or Certificate (FY) Table 31 Associate Degrees Granted by Program (FY) Table 32 Certificates & Diplomas Granted by Program (FY) Table 33 New Full-time Regular and Transfer Students Table 34 Underrepresented Students: Second Fall Persistence and Completion for First-time Students Table 35 Students of Color Success DCTC vs. Minnesota State Table 36 Graduate Follow-up Survey DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page v

7 Index of Figures Figure 1 Credit Enrollment and FYE... 2 Figure 2 Fall Unduplicated Headcount and Seats Sold... 3 Figure 3 Spring Unduplicated Headcount and Seats Sold... 3 Figure 4 Summer Unduplicated Headcount and Seats Sold... 4 Figure 5 Seats Sold Developmental Level Courses... 4 Figure 6 Developmental Level FYE and % of Total FYE... 5 Figure 7 Seats Sold - College Level Courses... 5 Figure 8 College Level FYE and % of Total FYE... 6 Figure 9 Total Number of Course Sections Offered and Seats Sold by FY... 6 Figure 10 Number and Percentage of Course Sections Offered by Media Type... 7 Figure 11 Percentage of Seats Sold by Media Type and FY... 8 Figure 12 Number of Traditional Course Sections and Seats Sold by FY... 8 Figure 13 Number of Blended/Hybrid Course Sections and Seats Sold by FY... 8 Figure 14 Number of Online Course Sections and Seats Sold by FY... 9 Figure 15 FYE by Media Type and FY... 9 Figure 16 Number and Percentage of Course Sections Offered by Course Level Figure 17 Percentage of Seats Sold by Course Level and FY Figure 18 Number of Developmental Level Course Sections and Seats Sold by FY Figure 19 Number of College Level Course Sections and Seats Sold by FY Figure 20 FYE by Course Level and FY Figure 21 Percentage of Courses by Semester and Offering Schedule Figure 22 PLA Credits Earned by FY Figure 23 Headcount and Average PLA Credits Earned per Student by FY Figure 24 Percentage of New and Continuing Students in Fall Semesters Figure 25 Percentage of Full-Time and Part-Time Credit Students by Semester Figure 26 Percentage of Students by Gender (FY) Figure 27 Percentage of Enrollment by SOC Status by FY Figure 28 Percentage of Students by Race/Ethnicity by FY Figure 29 Percentage of Traditional and Adult Students by FY Figure 30 FY 2017 Students by Age Group Figure 31 Percentage of Student Age Groups by FY Figure 32 DCTC Percentage of Students with Disabilities Figure 33 Percentage of Students Reporting Disabilities at Metro Colleges in Fall Figure 34 DCTC Percentage of Veterans Enrolled Figure 35 Estimated Number of Military Personnel at Metro Colleges in Fall Figure 36 Percentage of Enrollment by known Pell Eligibility by FY Figure 37 Percent of Enrolled Students by Pell Eligibility by FY DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page vi

8 Figure 38 Comparison of First Generation Students by Federal and Minnesota Definition (FY) Figure 39 Percent of Enrolled Students by Federal First Generation Status by FY Figure 40 Percent of Enrolled Students by Minnesota First Generation Status by FY Figure 41 Percentage of Students by Underrepresented Status by FY Figure 42 Average Credit Load Summer Semesters Figure 43 Average Credit Load Fall Semesters Figure 44 Average Credit Load Spring Semesters Figure 45 Percentage of Enrollment by Admission Status by FY Figure 46 DCTC Fall 2017 Enrollment by ZIP Code Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Figure 47 Average Retention, Transfer, Graduation, and Success Rates Entering Cohorts Figure 48 Underrepresented Students: Second Fall Persistence and Completion for Fist-time Students Figure 49 Students of Color Success DCTC vs. Minnesota State Figure 50 DCTC Persistence and Completion: Students of Color vs. White Students Figure 51 DCTC Completion: Students of Color vs. White Students Figure 52 Graduate Follow Up Survey Figure 53 Consider Hiring a DCTC Graduate Again Figure 54 DCTC CCSSE Benchmark Areas Figure 55 MN Colleges CCSSE Benchmark Areas Figure 56 Comparison of DCTC and National SSI Scale Importance Ratings Figure 57 Comparison of DCTC and National SSI Scale Satisfaction Ratings Figure 58 IPEDS Graduation and Transfer-out Rates by Fall Cohort year using IPEDS Peer Group Comparison55 Figure 59 DCTC Characteristics Figure 60 Average Annual Cost, Graduation Rate, and Salary After Attending Figure 61 Average Annual Costs by Family Income Figure 62 Financial Aid and Debt Figure 63 Graduation and Retention Figure 64 Earnings After School DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page vii

9 Credit Enrollment 2,292 unduplicated headcount 907 full-year equivalent students 43% new students, 57% continuing 61% full-time; 39% part-time Demographics 42% female; 57% male 59% traditional age (18-24); 38% adult (25 or older) 22% students of color (of total) 37% low income (Pell eligible of total) 58% first generation Federal (of total) 20% first generation - MN (of total) Students by Race/Ethnicity <1% American Indian/Alaskan Native 4% Asian 9% Black/African American 8% Hispanic/Latino <1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 71% White 4% Two or more races 1% Nonresident Alien 2% Unknown Student Residence Top Zip Codes Top Feeder High Schools (first time students) Farmington Senior High School Hastings High School Rosemount High School Apple Valley High School Eastview High School DCTC Quick Facts Fall 2017 Credit Sections Offered: % Traditional/classroom 17% Online 15% Hybrid Most Popular Programs of Study by Enrollment Individualized Studies (AAS) Practical Nursing (Diploma) Networking Administration (AAS) Automotive Technician (AAS) Accountant (AAS) Average Credit Load Full-Time Students: 15.2 credits Part-Time Students: 6.7 credits Retention Rates (Fall 2015 entering cohort- new first-time full-time students) 82.4% retained to first spring 43.4% retained to second fall 3-Year Graduation & Transfer Rates (Fall 2014 entering cohort- new first-time full-time students) 37.8% Graduated 14.4% Transferred Data includes students enrolled in credit courses, excluding Customized Training unless otherwise noted. Sources of data: Operational data, EPM 11 Students by Course, EPM11 Student Persistence and Completion Tool; 30th day record. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 1

10 Enrollment Trends Credit Enrollment by Fiscal Year: Headcount and FYE Figure 1 shows for-credit enrollment by headcount (duplicated and unduplicated) and FYE (full-year equivalent). Unduplicated headcount is when a student is only counted once during a year, no matter how many semesters they attended. Duplicated headcount counts each student each semester they attend. The wider the gap between the two lines, the higher the amount of students attending more than one semester during a Fiscal Year (if all students attended the same number of semesters the gap between the two lines would be the same). FYE is calculated by dividing total credits taken by 30. Figure 1 Credit Enrollment and FYE Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records Credit Enrollment by Semester Table 1 shows for-credit student enrollment by full-time (fall/spring- 12 or more credits; summer- 6 or more credits) and part-time students and unduplicated headcount by semester for the past five fiscal years. Seats sold are the number of total course enrollments for all students. Table 1 Credit Enrollment by Semester Semester Full Time Part Time Fiscal Year Duplicated Headcount Unduplicated Headcount FYE Total Unduplicated Headcount DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 2 Seats Sold Average Seats Sold per Student Fall ,669 1,347 3,016 11, Fall ,497 1,319 2,816 10, Fall ,359 1,279 2,638 9, Fall ,322 1,186 2,508 9, Fall , ,262 8, Spring ,486 1,488 2,974 10, Spring ,297 1,361 2,658 9, Spring ,247 1,224 2,471 8, Spring ,195 1,179 2,374 8, Spring , ,174 8, Summer ,

11 Semester Full Time Part Time Total Unduplicated Headcount Seats Sold Average Seats Sold per Student Summer , Summer , Summer , Summer Summer , Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Figure 2 through Figure 4 show total unduplicated headcount (full-time and part-time) and seats sold for the past 10 years by semester. Figure 2 Fall Unduplicated Headcount and Seats Sold 6,000 5,000 12,000 Undup HC 4,000 3,000 10,000 Seats Sold 2,000 8,000 1,000 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall ,000 Total Unduplicated Headcount Seats Sold Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Figure 3 Spring Unduplicated Headcount and Seats Sold 6,000 5,000 12,000 Undup HC 4,000 3,000 10,000 Seats Sold 2,000 8,000 1,000 Spring 2008 Spring 2009 Spring 2010 Spring 2011 Spring 2012 Spring 2013 Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Spring 2016 Spring ,000 Total Unduplicated Headcount Seats Sold Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 3

12 Figure 4 Summer Unduplicated Headcount and Seats Sold 2,000 2,000 Undup HC 1,000 1,000 Seats Sold 0 Summer 2008 Summer 2009 Summer 2010 Summer 2011 Summer 2012 Summer 2013 Summer 2014 Summer 2015 Summer Summer Total Unduplicated Headcount Seats Sold Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Enrollment in Developmental Level Courses In the past five years, seats sold in developmental level courses (course numbers below 1000) have decreased by 47% and total FYE in developmental level courses has decreased by 49%. Developmental level FYE has decreased from 5% to 3% of total FYE in that time. See Figure 5 and Figure 6. Figure 5 Seats Sold Developmental Level Courses 1, Fiscal Year Source: Operational Data. EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. FYE is calculated by dividing total credits sold by 30. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 4

13 Figure 6 Developmental Level FYE and % of Total FYE % 5% 4% 4% 54 3% Fiscal Year Developmental FYE Developmental % of Total FYE Source: Operational Data. EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Enrollment in College Level Courses In the past five years, seats sold in college level courses (course numbers 1000 and up) have decreased by 26% and total FYE in college level courses has decreased by 23%. College level FYE has increased from 95% to 97% of total FYE in that time. See Figure 7 and Figure 8. Figure 7 Seats Sold - College Level Courses 23,176 21,408 19,410 18,837 17, Fiscal Year Source: Operational Data. EPM 11 Students by Course, final records DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 5

14 Figure 8 College Level FYE and % of Total FYE 95% 95% 96% 96% 97% 2,227 2,076 1,901 1,863 1, Fiscal Year College Level FYE College Level % of Total FYE Source: Operational Data. EPM 11 Students by Course, final records Course Offerings and Enrollment Over the past five years, there has been a decline in the number of course sections offered and the number of students enrolled (see Figure 9 and Table 2). From FY 2013 to FY 2017, the number of course sections offered has decreased by 17% and the number of seats sold has decreased by 25%. Figure 9 Total Number of Course Sections Offered and Seats Sold by FY 23,749 21,868 19,827 19,021 17,799 1,382 1,284 1,258 1,217 1, Fiscal Year Num Sections Num Seats Sold Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Table 2 Total Number of Sections Offered, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE by FY FY Total Sections Total Seats Sold Total Credits Sold Total FYE ,439 58,738 1, ,442 58,840 1, ,628 62,807 2, ,761 68,836 2, ,142 69,557 2, ,744 68,221 2, ,749 68,876 2, ,868 63,710 2,123.7 DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 6

15 FY Total Sections Total Seats Sold Total Credits Sold Total FYE ,829 58,505 1, ,022 56,619 1, ,799 53,083 1,769.4 Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Course Offerings and Enrollment by Media Type and FY Media type is how the Minnesota State system defines the method of course delivery. Courses are delivered by traditional (in-person, classroom), online, or hybrid (a combination of online and traditional) means. Independent study courses have been included with traditional courses when no information about the delivery method was available. Figure 10 shows the number and percentage of course sections offered by media type by fiscal year. While the total number of course sections offered has decreased in recent years, of the courses offered, the percentage of hybrid sections has increased from 12% to 17%. Figure 10 Number and Percentage of Course Sections Offered by Media Type 19.0%, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, Fiscal Year Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Traditional Sections Hybrid Sections Online Sections Sections Offered and Seats Sold by Course Media Type and FY From FY 2013 through FY 2017 the number and percentage of seats sold by media type has varied for traditional, online and hybrid courses (see Figure 11 through Figure 14). Traditional, in-person sections have decreased over the past 5 years from 951 in 2013 to 753 in The seats sold have also declined with 15,331 sold in 2013 and 11,402 sold in Similarly, online sections have decreased from 263 to 202 and seats sold have fallen from 5,466 to 3,658. Contrarily, hybrid courses have seen an increase in the number of sections offered, from 168 in 2013 to 192 in 2017, but have had a decline in seats sold, from 2,952 in 2013 to 2,739 in DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 7

16 Figure 11 Percentage of Seats Sold by Media Type and FY 64.6% 63.0% 63.20% 64.00% 64.10% 23.0% 23.4% 23.40% 22.10% 20.60% 12.4% 13.6% 13.40% 14.00% 15.40% Fiscal Year Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Traditional % Seats Sold Hybrid % Seats Sold Online % Seats Sold Figure 12 Number of Traditional Course Sections and Seats Sold by FY 15,331 13,782 12,530 12, , Fiscal Year Traditonal Sections Traditional Seats Sold Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Figure 13 Number of Blended/Hybrid Course Sections and Seats Sold by FY 2,952 2,973 2,654 2,659 2, Fiscal Year Hybrid Sections Hybrid Seats Sold Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 8

17 Figure 14 Number of Online Course Sections and Seats Sold by FY 5,466 5,113 4, , , Fiscal Year Online Sections Online Seats Sold Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. FYE by Media Type and FY Full year equivalent (FYE) is a standardized measure of course enrollment, calculated by dividing the total credits sold by 30. FYE by media type is shown below in Figure 15. In comparison to last year, there has been a decline in the number of FYE by FY within Traditional and Online courses and an increase in Hybrid FYE. Figure 15 FYE by Media Type and FY 1, , , , , Fiscal Year Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Traditional FYE Hybrid FYE Online FYE Course Offerings and Enrollment by Media Type Summary Tables The number and percentage of course sections offered, seats sold, credits sold, and FYE are shown for FY and semester by media type in Table 3 through Table 5. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 9

18 Table 3 Traditional (Face-to-Face) Sections, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE Traditional FY Semester # Sections % Sections # Seats % Seats # Credits % Credits FYE Sold Sold Sold Sold % 15, % 44, % 1,472.6 Summer % % 1, % 64.7 Fall % 7, % 22, % Spring % 6, % 19, % % 13, % 39, % 1,310.1 Summer % % 1, % 43.9 Fall % 7, % 20, % Spring % 6, % 17, % % 12, % 36, % 1,212.2 Summer % % 1, % 51.4 Fall % 6, % 18, % Spring % 5, % 16, % % 12, % 36, % 1,205.5 Summer % % 1, % 50.0 Fall % 6, % 18, % Spring % 5, % 16, % % 11, % 33, % 1,130.0 Summer % % 1, % 39.0 Fall % 6, % 17, % Spring % 4, % 15, % Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Table 4 Blended/Hybrid Sections, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE Blended/Hybrid FY Semester # Sections % Sections # Seats % Seats # Credits % Credits FYE Sold Sold Sold Sold % 2, % 9, % Summer % % % 30.7 Fall % 1, % 3, % Spring % 1, % 4, % % 2, % 9, % Summer % % % 29.0 Fall % 1, % 4, % Spring % 1, % 4, % % 2, % 8, % Summer % % % 17.3 Fall % 1, % 4, % Spring % 1, % 3, % % 2, % 8, % Summer % % % 13.0 DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 10

19 Blended/Hybrid FY Semester # Sections % Sections # Seats % Seats # Credits % Credits FYE Sold Sold Sold Sold Fall % 1, % 3, % Spring % 1, % 3, % % 2, % 8, % Summer % % % 14.1 Fall % 1, % 3, % Spring % 1, % 4, % Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Table 5 Online Sections, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE Online FY Semester # Sections % Sections # Seats % Seats # Credits % Credits FYE Sold Sold Sold Sold % 5, % 15, % Summer % % 2, % 68.6 Fall % 2, % 6, % Spring % 2, % 6, % % 5, % 15, % Summer % % 2, % 81.0 Fall % 2, % 6, % Spring % 2, % 6, % % 4, % 13, % Summer % % 1, % 64.9 Fall % 1, % 5, % Spring % 2, % 6, % % 4, % 12, % Summer % % 1, % 57.4 Fall % 1, % 5, % Spring % 1, % 5, % % 3, % 10, % Summer % % 1, % 43.7 Fall % 1, % 4, % Spring % 1, % 4, % Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 11

20 Enrollment by Media Type and Semester An unduplicated headcount of enrolled students and number of seats sold by media type and semester is shown in Table 6. Table 6 Enrollment by Media Type and Semester Semester Unduplicated Headcount Seats Sold Traditional Hybrid Online Traditional Hybrid Online Fall ,854 1,232 2,379 Fall ,197 1,345 2,130 Fall ,592 1,307 1,925 Fall ,246 1,283 1,820 Fall ,024 1,180 1,583 Fall ,414 1,191 1,633 Spring ,819 1,408 2,435 Spring ,108 1,344 2,201 Spring ,426 1,181 2,097 Spring ,361 1,238 1,841 Spring ,961 1,414 1,682 Summer Summer Summer Summer Summer Summer Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Course Offerings and Enrollment by Course Level and FY Developmental level (pre-college level) courses are offered at DCTC in English, Math, and Reading for students who enter under prepared in those areas. While the total number of courses offered decreased from FY 2013 to FY 2017, the percentage of courses offered at the developmental and college level have remained similar (see Figure 16). DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 12

21 Figure 16 Number and Percentage of Course Sections Offered by Course Level 96.6%, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, %, Fiscal Year Developmental Level Sections College Level Sections Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Sections Offered and Seats Sold by Course Level and FY From FY 2013 through FY 2017 the percentage of seats sold in developmental level courses has decreased while the percentage of seats sold in college level courses has increased (see Figure 17). However, the number of courses offered and seats sold at both developmental and college levels has decreased (see Figure 18 and Figure 19). Figure 17 Percentage of Seats Sold by Course Level and FY 96.2% 96.3% 96.4% 96.5% 97.4% 3.8% 3.7% 3.6% 3.5% 2.6% Fiscal Year Developmental Level % Seats Sold College Level % Seats Sold Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 13

22 Figure 18 Number of Developmental Level Course Sections and Seats Sold by FY Fiscal Year Developmental Level Sections Developmental Level Seats Sold Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Figure 19 Number of College Level Course Sections and Seats Sold by FY 22,848 21,050 19,113 18,361 17,332 1,335 1,237 1,211 1,171 1, Fiscal Year College Level Sections College Level Seats Sold Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. FYE by Course Level and FY Full year equivalent (FYE) is a standardized measure of course enrollment, calculated by dividing the total credits sold by 30. FYE by course level is shown below in Figure 20. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 14

23 Figure 20 FYE by Course Level and FY 2, , , , , Fiscal Year Developmental Level FYE College Level FYE Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Course Offerings and Enrollment by Course Level Summary Tables The number and percentage of course sections offered, seats sold, credits sold, and FYE are shown for FY and semester by course level in Table 7 and Table 8. Table 7 Developmental Level Sections, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE Developmental Level FY Semester # Sections % Sections # Seats % Seats # Credits % Credits FYE Sold Sold Sold Sold % % 2, % 95.8 Summer % % % 9.2 Fall % % 1, % 45.9 Spring % % 1, % % % 2, % 85.5 Summer % % % 8.0 Fall % % 1, % 44.7 Spring % % % % % 2, % 75.2 Summer % % % 5.2 Fall % % 1, % 40.1 Spring % % % % % 2, % 70.9 Summer % % % 4.1 Fall % % 1, % 38.0 Spring % % % % % 1, % 51.5 Summer % % % 2.0 Fall % % % 29.5 Spring % % % 20.0 Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 15

24 Table 8 College Level Sections, Seats Sold, Credits Sold, and FYE College Level FY Semester # Sections % Sections # Seats % Seats # Credits % Credits FYE Sold Sold Sold Sold , % 22, % 66, % 2,200.1 Summer % 1, % 4, % Fall % 11, % 31, % 1,049.4 Spring % 10, % 29, % , % 21, % 61, % 2,038.2 Summer % 1, % 4, % Fall % 10, % 29, % Spring % 9, % 27, % , % 19, % 56, % 1,875.0 Summer % 1, % 3, % Fall % 9, % 27, % Spring % 8, % 25, % , % 18, % 54, % 1,816.4 Summer % 1, % 3, % Fall % 8, % 26, % Spring % 8, % 24, % , % 17, % 51, % 1,717.8 Summer % % 2, % 94.8 Fall % 8, % 25, % Spring % 7, % 23, % Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Enrollment by Course Level and Semester An unduplicated headcount of enrolled students and number of seats sold by course level and semester are shown in Table 9. Table 9 Enrollment by Course Level and Semester Unduplicated Headcount Seats Sold Semester Developmental College Developmental College Fall ,031 Fall ,241 Fall ,440 Fall ,994 Fall ,517 Fall ,952 Spring ,279 Spring ,342 Spring ,426 Spring ,175 Spring ,877 DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 16

25 Unduplicated Headcount Seats Sold Semester Developmental College Developmental College Summer ,538 Summer ,467 Summer ,247 Summer ,192 Summer Summer Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records. Courses by Day and Time Figure 21 and Table 10 depict credit courses offered Monday through Friday during the day (starting before 5:00 PM), Monday through Friday in the evening (starting at 5:00 PM or after), and on Saturday. The percentage of courses offered during the day has increased over the past 5 years from 82% to 87% while the percentage of evening courses offered has decreased from 17% to 12%. Saturday courses have remained stable, ranging between.4% and 1.4% of all courses offered. Figure 21 Percentage of Courses by Semester and Offering Schedule Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Source: EPM 11 saved shells: ST06 CT Excluded F record & MC Day Time Table 10 Number of Courses by Semester and Offering Schedule Course Time Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017 Fall 2017 Day Evening Saturday Total Spring 2015 Source: EPM 11 saved shells: ST06 CT Excluded F record & MC Day Time. Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017 Fall 2017 Day 82.3% 81.9% 84.2% 81.9% 83.8% 83.0% 85.7% 85.2% 85.3% 86.3% 86.8% Evening 17.3% 17.7% 15.4% 17.0% 15.1% 15.9% 13.6% 14.1% 13.3% 12.9% 12.3% Saturday 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 1.1% 1.1% 1.1% 0.7% 0.7% 1.4% 0.7% 0.9% DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 17

26 Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) The prior learning assessment (PLA) process helps post-traditional adult students and traditional adults with work/military experience match learning gained outside the classroom to actual college courses. Credits may be given for experience gained in a variety of settings including: work, non-college courses, volunteering, or military service. DCTC uses several methods to assess prior learning including: standardized exams - such as CLEP, DSST, and AP Exams, portfolio assessment, military transcripts, and evaluation of licenses and certifications to determine if the prior learning is equivalent to DCTC s course learning. Credit is obtained using pass/no pass grading. The total number of PLA credits earned for the past 10 years is shown in Figure 22. PLA credits were relatively unchanged until 2017 when there was a 136% increase in PLA credits earned compared to Beginning in FY2017, licensed practical nursing (LPN) students were able to obtain five PLA credits for a previously earned certified nursing assistant (CNA) certification, resulting in the spike seen in Figure 22 PLA Credits Earned by FY Fiscal Year Total PLA Credits Earned Source: Operational data The number of students who earned PLA credit has increased by 158% from FY 2008 to FY 2017, for average credits earned and an unduplicated headcount see Figure 23 below. Figure 23 Headcount and Average PLA Credits Earned per Student by FY Fiscal Year Average PLA Credits Earned Unduplicated Headcount Source: EPM 11, Operational data DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 18

27 Students by Major Table 11 shows the number of students enrolled for credit per FY by major. Students are counted only once per FY no matter how many semesters they were enrolled (unduplicated headcount). Students with multiple majors are counted under their highest ranked major (Major 1). Only majors listed in the last reported year s academic catalog are included, with majors no longer actively offered excluded. If a program changed significantly (to the point that the registrar issued a different major ID for the new program), data for the old version of the program is not included. Majors are listed alphabetically. Excluding students listed as blank or undecided, the top five majors in FY 2017 were: Individualized Studies AAS, Practical Nursing Diploma, Networking Administration AAS, Automotive Technician AAS, and Accountant AAS. Table 11 Majors by Fiscal Year Major (Blank) & Undecided Accountant - AAS Accountant - Diploma Accounting Clerk - Diploma Administrative Assistant-Diploma Advanced Personal Training - Certificate Architectural Technology - AAS Auto Body Collision Technology - AAS Auto Body Collision Technology - Diploma Automotive Maintenance & Light Repair - Certificate Automotive Service Ed Program (ASEP) - AAS Automotive Technician - AAS Automotive Technician - Diploma Biomedical Equipment Tech - AAS Biomedical Equipment Technology - Certificate Body Technician - Certificate Brakes, Suspension & Electrical - Certificate Brewing & Beer Steward Technology - Certificate Business Administration - AS Business Management - AAS Business Marketing Specialist-AAS Child Development - AS Child Development - Certificate Child Development - Diploma Child Development-AAS Child Life Assistant - AAS Civil Engineering Technology - AAS Dental Assistant - AAS Dental Assistant - Diploma Desktop Programming - Certificate Digital Animation - Certificate DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 19

28 Major Digital Imaging Technician - Certificate Digital Marketing Specialist - AAS Drivability - Certificate Electrical Construction & Maintenance Technology - AAS Electrical Construction & Maintenance Technology - Diploma Electrical Lineworker - AAS Electrical Lineworker - Diploma Electrical, Electronics, & HVAC - Certificate Energy Tech Specialist - Nuclear - AAS Energy Technical Specialist - AAS Engines/General Automotive - Certificate Estimator - Certificate Executive Administrative Specialist - AAS Exercise and Sport Science - AAS Exercise and Sport Science - AS Geriatric Advanced Nursing Assistant - Certificate Geriatric Health and Fitness - Certificate Graphic Design Technology - AAS Group Fitness - Certificate Heavy Construction Equipment Maintenance - Certificate Heavy Construction Equipment Mechanic - Diploma Heavy Construction Equipment Technology - AAS Heavy Duty Truck Technology - AAS Heavy Duty Truck Technology - Diploma Hospitality Lodging Business - Certificate Hospitality Lodging Management - AAS Human Resources Development-Certificate HVAC & Refrigeration - Diploma Individualized Studies - AAS Industrial & Energy Plant Main - Diploma Information Systems Management - AAS Information Systems Management - Diploma Interactive Media Design - Certificate Landscape Horticulture - AAS Landscape Horticulture - Diploma Legal Administrative Assistant - AAS Legal Administrative Assistant - Diploma Legal Receptionist - Certificate Management for Airline Professionals - AAS Marketing Communications Specialist - Certificate Marketing Design Specialist - AAS DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 20

29 Major Marketing Design Specialist - Diploma Medical Administrative Specialist - Diploma Medical Administrative Specialist-AAS Medical Assistant - AAS Medical Assistant - Diploma Medical Coding Specialist - Diploma Medical Coding Specialist AAS Medical Receptionist - Certificate Meeting and Event Management - Certificate Multicultural Human Resources - Diploma Multicultural Leadership - Diploma Multicultural Supervision - Certificate Nanoscience Technology - AAS Networking Administration - AAS Networking Administration - Diploma Nursing Assistant - Certificate Paint Preparation - Certificate Patient Care Technician - AAS PC Technician - Certificate Personal Training - Certificate Photographer Assistant - Certificate Photographic Imaging Technology - AAS Practical Nursing - Diploma Pre- Civil Engineering Technology Pre-Accounting Pre-Architectural Technology Pre-ASEP Pre-Auto Body Collision Repair Pre-Automotive Technician Pre-Biomedical Equipment Technology Pre-Business - AS Degree Pre-Child Care Careers Pre-Computer Careers Pre-Dental Assistant Pre-Electrical Construction & Maintenance Pre-Electrical Lineworker Pre-Energy Technical Specialist Pre-Exercise and Sport Science Pre-Health Care Technician Pre-Heating, Ventilation, and AC Pre-Heavy Construction Equipment Mechanic DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 21

30 Major Pre-Heavy Duty Truck Pre-Interior Design Pre-Landscape Horticulture Pre-Marketing Design and Sales Pre-Medical Assistant Pre-Medical Coding Specialist Pre-Nanoscience Technology Pre-Office Careers Pre-Photographic Technology Pre-Practical Nursing-Diploma Pre-Supervisory Management Pre-Welding Technology Quality Improvement - Certificate Railroad Conductor Technology - Certificate Receptionist Sales Management Specialist - AAS Sales Specialist - Certificate Small Business Entrepreneur - Certificate Software Development - AAS Software Development - Diploma Spa and Resort Management - AAS Spa and Resort Operations - Certificate Sport Management - Diploma Supervisory Leadership-Certificate Surveying and CAD Drafting - Diploma Sustainable Food Systems - Certificate Technical Management - AAS Truck Fleet Maintenance - Certificate Web Design - Certificate Web Programming - Certificate Welding Technology - Diploma Source: EPM 11 Students by Course, final records Student Profile Credit Students New and Continuing Students Each fall, approximately half of DCTC students are new to DCTC and half are continuing students. The percentage of new students enrolled in fall semesters has been increasing since 2013 (see Figure 24). DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 22

31 Figure 24 Percentage of New and Continuing Students in Fall Semesters 62% 58% 55% 57% 52% 38% 42% 44% 43% 48% Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* % New % Continuing Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL * Fall 2017 data based on 30 th day record, all other semesters use final record Full-Time and Part-Time Status Trends across Time Full time students are identified as those taking 12 or more credits in a fall or spring semester and 6 or more credits in a summer semester. The proportion of full-time and part-time students by semester has remained consistent with approximately half of students being enrolled part-time during fall and spring semesters and approximately two-thirds of students enrolled part-time during summer semesters (see Figure 25). Figure 25 Percentage of Full-Time and Part-Time Credit Students by Semester 60% 49% 50% 62% 48% 50% 62% 44% 45% 64% 39% 40% 51% 50% 38% 52% 50% 38% 56% 55% 36% 61% Summer 2014 Fall 2014 Spring 2015 Summer 2015 Fall 2015 Spring 2016 Summer 2016 Fall 2016 Spring 2017 Summer 2017 Fall 2017* % Full-Time % Part-Time Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL * Fall 2017 data based on 30 th day record, all other semesters use final record Gender Across all DCTC students, approximately 50% are female and 50% are male. The percentage of female students has decreased from FY 2014 (48%) to FY 2017(44%) (see Figure 26 and Table 12). DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 23

32 Figure 26 Percentage of Students by Gender (FY) 56% 50% 51% 52% 55% 42% 48% 48% 46% 44% Fiscal Year Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Table 12 Number of Students by Gender (FY) FY Female Male Unknown Total Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL. Students of Color (SOC) The percentage of students of color has increased from 2013 (19%) to 2017 (26%) (See Figure 27 and Table 13). In keeping with Minnesota State reporting, students self-reporting as two or more races are counted as SOC, and students identified as non-resident aliens are not counted as SOC. Figure 27 Percentage of Enrollment by SOC Status by FY % Female % Male 5% 3% 3% 3% 3% 77% 75% 73% 73% 71% 19% 22% 23% 24% 26% % SOC % Not SOC % Unknown Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 24

33 Table 13 Unduplicated Headcount of Students by SOC Status by FY FY SOC Not SOC Unknown Total Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Race/ethnicity As shown in Figure 28 and Table 14, while white students continue to comprise the largest percentage of the DCTC student population, there has been an increase in students of color (SOC) from 19% in FY13 to 26% in FY17, an increase of 36%. Students who identify as Hispanic of any race have seen the highest increase by percentage, from 4.6% in FY13 to 7.6% in FY17. Figure 28 Percentage of Students by Race/Ethnicity by FY American Indian or Alaska Native 0.6% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.2% Asian 3.0% 3.9% 3.5% 3.9% 4.7% Black or African American 7.7% 8.3% 9.8% 9.9% 9.4% Hispanic of any race 4.6% 5.5% 5.8% 6.8% 7.6% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% Two or more races 2.9% 3.4% 3.8% 3.2% 3.5% White 76.2% 74.4% 72.4% 71.9% 70.4% Nonresident Alien 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 0.7% 0.9% Unknown race and ethnicity 4.6% 3.2% 3.4% 3.2% 3.2% Fiscal Year Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 25

34 Table 14 Number of Students by Race/Ethnicity by FY Race/Ethnicity American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic of any race Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Two or more races White Nonresident Alien Unknown race and ethnicity Total Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Note: Data based on reporting race/ethnicity. International Students International students are identified by their recorded country of citizenship or birth country. Table 15 shows international student metrics over the past 5 fall semesters. The number of international students has stayed stable with the largest percentages of individuals coming from Canada, Kenya and Nigeria. Table 15 Headcount of International Students Enrolled by Home Country Country Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* Australia Bangladesh Bosnia and Herzegovina Brazil Bulgaria Burma Cameroon Canada China Colombia Ethiopia France Ghana Ivory Coast (Cote D'Ivoire) Kenya Lao People's Democratic Republic Liberia Nepal Nigeria Pakistan Peru Philippines DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 26

35 Country Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom (Great Britain) Vanuatu Vietnam Total Source: Fact Book 2017 database on CAP: Queries IHCC Enrollment tbl Term List & IHCC Intl Students * Fall 2017 data are based on 30 th day record, all other semesters use final record Age The percentage of traditional age (18-24) students has steadily increased over the past five years. The percentage of students 17 and younger has increased by 95% in that period, and the percentage of adult students (25+), has decreased 23% (See Figure 29 through Figure 31 and Table 16 through Table 18). In previous Fact Books, traditional age students were reported as age In order to align this reporting with the reporting required for the Federal Title III grant received by DCTC, the age groups have been adjusted so traditional age students are and adult students are 25 and older. Figure 29 Percentage of Traditional and Adult Students by FY 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 54% 48% 46% 45% 42% 42% 49% 50% 51% 54% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% Fiscal Year Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Table 16 Percentage of Traditional and Adult Students by FY Age Group Year % Change 17 and younger 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 95% % 49% 50% 51% 54% 27% 25 and older 54% 48% 46% 45% 42% -23% Unknown 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% -63% Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL 17 and younger and older Unknown DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 27

36 Table 17 Number of Traditional and Adult Students by FY Age and younger and older Unknown Total Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Figure 30 FY 2017 Students by Age Group Age Group 17 and younger and older Unknown 4% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 0% 1% 9% 15% 16% 39% Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Figure 31 Percentage of Student Age Groups by FY Fiscal Year % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 17 and younger and older Unknown Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 28

37 Table 18 Number of Students by Age Group by FY Age and younger and older Not reported Total Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Students with Disabilities Over the past 5 years, the percentage of the DCTC student population with disabilities has increased by 31%, from 4.56% in fall 2013 to 5.52% in fall Of the Metro Colleges in 2016, MCTC (8%), Normandale (8%), Century (6%), and IHCC (6%) have higher percentages of students with disabilities. Hennepin Tech (4%), North Hennepin (4%), St. Paul College (4%), and Anoka Tech/Anoka CC (3%) have lower percentages than DCTC (See Figure 32 and Figure 33). Figure 32 DCTC Percentage of Students with Disabilities 4.56% 4.65% 4.91% 5.35% 5.52% Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* Source: Operational Data, ODS_CT_ST_MULTIYEAR, ISRS_PS_DISAB_NEED, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL * Fall 2017 data based on 30 th day record, all other semester use final record DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 29

38 Figure 33 Percentage of Students Reporting Disabilities at Metro Colleges in Fall % 8% 6% 6% 5% 4% 4% 4% 3% MCTC Normandale Century IHCC DCTC Hennepin Tech North Hennepin St. Paul College AnokaTech/ Anoka CC Source: Minnesota State System Office Research Veterans As shown in Figure 34, the percentage of the veteran students at DCTC has steadily increased over the past five years. Each fall, except 2017, less than 5% of the student population has been a known veteran as identified by the Veteran Services Office, with fall 2017 showing a large spike. The Minnesota State system Research Office reports an estimated number of veterans, active military personnel, and National Guard members by campus. Figure 35 shows estimates for Metro area colleges. DCTC has the fewest estimated number of enrolled military personnel at 240. Figure 34 DCTC Percentage of Veterans Enrolled 6.6% 4.3% 3.7% 4.0% 2.8% Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* Source: Operational Data, ODS_CT_ST_MULTIYEAR, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL, ISRS_ST_COHORT * Fall 2017 data based on 30 th day record, all other semester use final record DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 30

39 Figure 35 Estimated Number of Military Personnel at Metro Colleges in Fall Source: Minnesota State System Office Research *Students included if any of the following sources indicate the student is a National Guard member, veteran, or on active duty: application to the institution, FAFSA, financial aid award, institution cohort code, institution program code, or accounting deferment code. Low Income Status/Pell Eligibility Pell eligibility is often used as a way to identify low-income students. The number and percentage of students eligible for Pell grants peaked in FY 2013 and has been decreasing since. Over one-third of DCTC students have an unknown status that is, the college does not know if they are Pell eligible or not because they have not completed a FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid). Per Minnesota State convention, the percent of students who are Pell eligible are shown as a percent of students with known status. Figure 36 shows the percentage of Pell eligible students out of the total with known eligibility; Table 19 shows the total number known eligible, known not eligible, and unknown and Figure 37 show percentages including all Pell statuses. Figure 36 Percentage of Enrollment by known Pell Eligibility by FY 63% 61% 59% 57% 54% Fiscal Year Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 31

40 Table 19 Enrollment by Pell Eligibility by FY Pell Status Pell Eligible Not Pell Eligible Unknown Total Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Figure 37 Percent of Enrolled Students by Pell Eligibility by FY 43% 32% 36% 38% 38% 21% 26% 26% 26% 28% 36% 41% 38% 35% 34% Fiscal Year Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL % Pell Eligible % Not Pell Eligible % Unknown First Generation Status First generation status describes the educational attainment of a student s parents or guardians. There are two definitions of first generation. The Federal definition is students who come from families where neither parent has achieved a bachelor s degree. The Minnesota definition is students who come from families where neither parent has had any college education. In 2017, the percentage of students whose first generation status was unknown was approximately 6%. Per Minnesota State convention, the percent of students who are first generation are shown as a percent of students with known status (See Figure 38). Figure 38 Comparison of First Generation Students by Federal and Minnesota Definition (FY) 68% 67% 65% 63% 62% 23% 22% 22% 22% 22% Fiscal Year First-Gen (FED) % of Known First-Gen (MN) % of Known Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 32

41 First Generation Federal Definition: Neither parent has a bachelor s degree In 2017, 58% (1,836) of DCTC students of known status came from families where neither parent has a bachelor s degree. This is a slight decrease from previous years. Figure 39 and Table 20 show the number and percentage of enrolled students by federal first generation status. Figure 39 Percent of Enrolled Students by Federal First Generation Status by FY 55% 26% 62% 60% 59% 58% 31% 33% 34% 35% 19% 7% 7% 7% 6% Fiscal Year % First-Gen (FED) % Not First-Gen (FED) % Unknown Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Table 20 First Generation Status by Federal Definition: Neither Parent Has a Bachelor s Degree by FY First Generation (FED) First Generation Not First Generation Unknown Total Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL First Generation Minnesota Definition: Neither parent attended any college In 2017, 21% (659) of DCTC students of known status came from families where neither parent attended any college. This is a slight decrease from previous years. Figure 40 and Table 21 show the number and percentage of enrolled students by Minnesota first generation status. Figure 40 Percent of Enrolled Students by Minnesota First Generation Status by FY 63% 73% 74% 74% 74% 19% 21% 21% 21% 21% 18% 5% 6% 5% 5% Fiscal Year % First-Gen (MN) % Not First-Gen (MN) % Unknown Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 33

42 Table 21 First Generation Status by Minnesota Definition: Neither Parent Attended any College by FY First Generation (MN) First Generation Not First Generation Unknown Total Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Underrepresented Status A student is considered underrepresented if he or she fits into at least one of the following categories: (1) student of color; (2) low income; or (3) first generation. Because there are two definitions of first generation, there are two definitions of underrepresented. Minnesota State reports underrepresented status using the Minnesota definition of first generation (neither parent/guardian having attended any college). Approximately 1,000 DCTC students each year have an unknown status that is, the college does not have data about their race, Pell eligibility status, or parents educational attainment. Consequently, the college cannot determine whether they are underrepresented students or not. Per Minnesota State convention, the percent of students who are underrepresented are shown as a percent of students with known status. Underrepresented MN Definition of First Generation In 2017, 54% (1,699) of DCTC students were identified as underrepresented. Figure 41 and Table 22 show the total number and percentage of enrolled underrepresented students by status. Figure 41 Percentage of Students by Underrepresented Status by FY 51% 34% 58% 56% 54% 54% 24% 26% 27% 26% 15% 18% 18% 19% 20% Fiscal Year % Underrespresented % Not Underrespresented % Unknown Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Table 22 Underrepresented Students by FY Underrepresented Underrepresented Not underrepresented Unknown Total Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 34

43 Average Credit Load by Semester Average credit load is the average number of credits that students register for in a semester. Average credit load has remained relatively flat; Figure 42, Figure 43 and Figure 44 show average credit load for full-time and part-time students by semester. Figure 42 Average Credit Load Summer Semesters Summer 2013 Summer 2014 Summer 2015 Summer 2016 Summer 2017 Full-Time Part-Time Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Figure 43 Average Credit Load Fall Semesters Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* Full-Time Part-Time Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL * Fall 2017 data based on 30 th day record; all other semesters use final record DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 35

44 Figure 44 Average Credit Load Spring Semesters Spring 2013 Spring 2014 Spring 2015 Spring 2016 Spring 2017 Full-Time Part-Time Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Admission Status The percentage of students in each admission status has been consistent across fiscal years (see Figure 45 and Table 23). Undergrad regular refers to a student who is pursuing their undergraduate degree without having previously gotten credits from another university/institution. Those individuals who have transferred to DCTC with previous credits are referred to as undergrad transfer. Undergrad previous degree are students who are attending DCTC who already hold a previously attained degree. Postsecondary enrollment options or PSEO are those students who are in high school and are earning credit towards high school graduation while simultaneously earning college credit. High school non-pseo students are those that are attending high school and also getting college credit however, they are paying out of pocket for their enrollment due to not being in the PSEO program. Undergrad Unclassified are those individuals who are not seeking a degree, but are taking college credits. Uncoded responses were those that were left blank. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 36

45 Figure 45 Percentage of Enrollment by Admission Status by FY Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Undergrad Regular 30.4% 35.0% 34.8% 33.2% 35.6% Undergrad Transfer 40.0% 46.8% 43.6% 43.4% 44.7% Undergrad Previous Degree 2.4% 3.3% 2.8% 3.4% 3.6% PSEO 1.0% 1.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.9% High School Non-PSEO 0.4% 0.3% 0.8% 1.2% 1.5% Undergrad Unclassified 25.5% 13.4% 16.7% 16.9% 13.4% Uncoded 0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.9% 0.3% Table 23 Unduplicated Headcount of Enrollment by Admission Status by FY Admission Status Undergrad Regular Undergrad Transfer Undergrad Previous Degree PSEO High School Non-PSEO Undergrad Unclassified Uncoded Total Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL The average number of credits students register for, broken down by admission status and fiscal year can be seen below. As shown in Table 24, regular, transfer, and PSEO students have the largest average credit load, followed by undergraduate students with a previous degree. Over the past five years, the average credit load has steadily increased from 15 in 2013 to 17.4 in A full time course load is 30 credits per FY. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 37

46 Table 24 Average Credit Load by Admission Status by FY Admission Status Undergrad Regular Undergrad Transfer Undergrad Previous Degree PSEO High School Non-PSEO Undergrad Unclassified Uncoded Average for all Types Source: Operational Data, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL Student Residence Figure 46 gives a visual representation of the ZIP codes DCTC students identify as their residence. The darker blues indicate more individuals with that response. Table 25 shows the number of DCTC students enrolled in fall semesters for the past five years for the top 50 current ZIP codes of residence, in descending order based on the most recent fall. Figure 46 DCTC Fall 2017 Enrollment by ZIP Code Minneapolis-St. Paul Metro Source: Operational Data, DCTC Enrollment tbl Term List, DCTC Residence ZIP * Fall 2017 data based on 30 th Day Record DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 38

47 Table 25 Enrollment by ZIP Code of Student Residence ZIP Code Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 39

48 ZIP Code Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* Source: Operational Data, ODS_CT_ST_MULTIYEAR, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL, ISRS_ST_TERM_DATA * Fall 2017 data is based on 30 th day record, all other semesters use final record Top Feeder High Schools Table 26 and Table 28 show the numbers of new first-time and Post-Secondary Enrollment Option (PSEO) students enrolled at DCTC each fall for the past five years for the top 25 feeder high schools, in descending order based on the most recent fall. Among incoming new, first-time students a small number come from Minnesota high schools other than those listed in Table 26. DCTC also enrolls a small number of international students, home schooled students, and GED students (see Table 27 and Table 29). Table 26 New First-time Students Top Feeder High Schools High School Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* Farmington Senior High School Hastings High School Apple Valley High School Rosemount High School Eastview High School Northfield High School Lakeville North Senior High School Burnsville Senior High School Lakeville South High School Henry Sibley High School Richfield Senior High School New Prague High School Park High School Eagan High School Prescott High School Cannon Falls Jr-Senior High School Roosevelt High School South Saint Paul High School Faribault High School Prior Lake High School Ellsworth High School DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 40

49 High School Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* Humboldt Secondary School Jordan High School Shakopee Senior High School White Bear Lake High School South Subtotal (top 25) Total Source: Operational Data, ODS_CT_ST_MULTIYEAR, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL, ISRS_ST_TERM_DATA * Fall 2017 data is based on 30 th day record, all other semester use final record Table 27 Other New, First-Time Student Sources High School Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* GED International Home School Total Source: Operational Data, ODS_CT_ST_MULTIYEAR, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL, ISRS_ST_TERM_DATA * Fall 2017 data based on 30 th day record; all other semesters use final record PSEO students are high school students enrolled in college level courses at DCTC. Table 28 shows PSEO students for the top 10 feeder high schools. In addition, Table 29 shows home school PSEO enrolled students. Table 28 PSEO Students Top Feeder High Schools High School Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* Apple Valley High School Edvisions Off Campus High School Farmington Senior High School Hastings High School Northfield High School Rosemount High School Simley High School Arcadia Charter School Burnsville Alternative High School Eagan High School Total Source: Operational Data, ODS_CT_ST_MULTIYEAR, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL, ISRS_ST_TERM_DATA * Fall 2017 data based on 30 th day record, all other semesters use final record Table 29 PSEO Enrolled Home School Students High School Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017* Home School Source: Operational Data, ODS_CT_ST_MULTIYEAR, APPSODS_V_DASH_ENROLLMENT_DTL, ISRS_ST_TERM_DATA, cohort_pp report * Fall 2017 data based on 30 th day record, all other semesters use final record DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 41

50 Awards Granted Table 30 shows how many awards were granted by FY. The Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degree has shown the largest decrease in awards granted, from 466 in 2013 to 366 in Percentages are calculated as a percentage of the grand total. Table 30 Awards Granted by Type of Degree or Certificate (FY) Award Type AAS 466 (45%) 460 (45%) 409 (44%) 391 (37%) 366 (38%) AS 41 (4%) 58 (6%) 45 (5%) 55 (5%) 35 (4%) Total Degrees 507 (49%) %) 454 (49%) 446 (43%) 401 (45%) Certificates 283 (27%) 261 (25%) 262 (28%) 334 (32%) 255 (29%) Diploma 242 (23%) 247 (24%) 220 (24%) 269 (26%) 227 (26%) Grand Total Source: EPM 11 STUDENT_ACADEMIC_AWARDS. The number of degrees (see Table 31) and certificates (see Table 32) are shown below. Programs listed only if listed in the FY 2017 course catalog. Programs are sorted in descending for FY Table 31 Associate Degrees Granted by Program (FY) Program Heavy Construction Equipment Technology (AAS) Accountant (AAS) Networking Administration (AAS) Electrical Construction and Maintenance Technology (AAS) Individualized Studies (AS) Biomedical Equipment Technology (AAS) Dental Assistant (AAS) Automotive Technician (AAS) Automotive Service (ASEP) (AAS) Management for Technical Professionals (AAS) Heavy Duty Truck Technology (AAS) Electrical Lineworker (AAS) Graphic Design Technology (AAS) Architectural Technology (AAS) Information Systems Management (AAS) Landscape Horticulture (AAS) Technical Management (AAS) Medical Assistant (AAS) Early Childhood and Youth Development (AAS) Civil Engineering Technology (AAS) Auto Body Collision Technology (AAS) Software Development (AAS) Patient Care Technician (AAS) Early Childhood and Youth Development (AS) Photographic Imaging Technology (AAS) DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 42

51 Program Business Management (AAS) Meeting and Event Management (AAS) Multi-Media and Web Page Design (AAS) Exercise and Sport Science (AS) Interior Design (AAS) Child Life Assistant (AAS) Medical Administrative Specialist (AAS) Executive Assistant (AAS) Nanoscience Technology (AAS) Photography (AS) Applied Visual Arts (AAS) Energy Technical Specialist Nuclear (AAS) Exercise and Sport Science (AAS) Energy Technical Specialist (AAS) Health Care Technician (AAS) Business Management (AS) Supervisory Management (AAS) Business Marketing Specialist (AAS) Marketing (AS) Marketing Design Specialist (AAS) Sales Management Specialist (AAS) Business Administration (AS) Digital Marketing Specialist (AAS) Electronic Health Information Management (AAS) Source: EPM 11 STUDENT_ACADEMIC_AWARDS. Table 32 Certificates & Diplomas Granted by Program (FY) Major Name Nursing Assistant (CERT) Welding Technology (DIP) Electrical Lineworker (DIP) Practical Nursing (DIP) Automotive Maintenance and Light Repair (CERT) Dental Assistant (DIP) Medical Assistant (DIP) Brewing & Beer Steward Technology (CERT) Supervisory Leadership (CERT) Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration (DIP) Human Resource Development (CERT) Quality Improvement (CERT) Early Childhood and Youth Development (CERT) Electrical Construction and Maintenance Technology (DIP) DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 43

52 Major Name Business Entrepreneur (CERT) Meeting and Event Management (CERT) Photographic Imaging Technology (DIP) Small Business Entrepreneur (CERT) Accounting Clerk (DIP) Automotive Technician (DIP) Heavy Duty Truck Technology (DIP) Multi-Cultural Leadership (DIP) Multi-Cultural Supervision (CERT) Personal Training (CERT) Truck Fleet Maintenance (CERT) Auto Body Collision Technology (DIP) Brakes, Suspensions and Driveline (CERT) Desktop Programming (CERT) Digital Animation (CERT) Engines and Transmissions (CERT) Industrial and Energy Plant Maintenance (DIP) Marketing Communications Specialist (CERT) PC Technician (CERT) Photographer Assistant (CERT) Professional Gardener (CERT) Web Design (CERT) Body Technician (CERT) Commercial Design (CERT) Digital Imaging Technician (CERT) Drivability (CERT) Electrical, Electronics and HVAC (CERT) Estimator (CERT) Heavy Construction Equipment Maintenance (CERT) Interactive Media Design (CERT) Marketing Design Specialist (DIP) Medical Administrative Assistant (DIP) Multi-Cultural Human Resource Management (DIP) National CDA Training Program (CERT) Networking Administration (DIP) Railroad Conductor Technology (CERT) Sales Specialist (CERT) Small Business Accounting (CERT) Web Programming (CERT) Source: EPM 11 STUDENT_ACADEMIC_AWARDS. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 44

53 Student Outcomes Average Retention, Transfer, Graduation, Transfer-Graduation, and Success Rates Averages shown for the five most recent cohorts for which data is available; (see Figure 47). Averages for second spring, third fall, and third spring do not include all cohorts as that data is not yet available for the most recent cohorts. Figure 47 Average Retention, Transfer, Graduation, and Success Rates Entering Cohorts % 73.4% 71.5% 66.0% 65.3% 1st spring 2nd fall 2nd spring 3rd fall 3rd spring Avg. Retained Avg. Transferred Avg. Graduated Avg. Transfer-Graduated Avg. Success Source: EPM 11 Accountability Framework/Student Persistence and Completion. Note: Retention measured from the beginning of the semester; transfer, graduation, transfer-graduation and total success measured at the end of the semester. Retention, Transfer, Graduation, Transfer-Graduation, and Success Minnesota State Accountability Dashboard Entering full-time, degree-seeking students are tracked in cohorts to determine retention, transfer, graduation, and transfer-graduation rates. Cohort years refer to the first fall semester of students entering DCTC, students entering in summer are included in the following fall cohort. The success rate is the percentage of students who have graduated, transferred, transferred and graduated, or have been retained. Table 33 presents outcomes for the five most recent cohorts for which data is available. Outcome rates are shown from first spring through third spring. Table 33 New Full-time Regular and Transfer Students Fall Cohort # in cohort Measure First Spring Second Fall Second Spring Third Fall Third Spring % Retained 79.9% 46.9% 41.1% 16.9% 12.0% % Transferred 1.7% 6.2% 7.0% 11.3% 11.5% % Graduated 16.1% 20.6% 32.4% 38.9% 43.8% % Transfer-Graduated 0.3% 0.6% 0.7% 0.6% 1.1% % Success 84.9% 73.0% 69.3% 63.7% 63.5% % Retained 76.6% 42.8% 36.6% 15.4% 10.3% % Transferred 2.0% 6.4% 7.9% 10.0% 10.6% % Graduated 16.2% 24.1% 37.1% 43.5% 47.2% % Transfer-Graduated 0.0% 0.6% 1.2% 1.4% 2.3% % Success 82.1% 72.0% 69.9% 67.0% 66.5% DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 45

54 Fall Cohort # in cohort Measure First Spring Second Fall Second Spring Third Fall Third Spring % Retained 82.7% 42.3% 37.6% 12.9% 8.5% % Transferred 1.4% 8.5% 9.6% 12.6% 12.1% % Graduated 15.4% 23.4% 37.6% 43.6% 46.7% % Transfer-Graduated 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 1.1% 1.9% % Success 85.7% 72.6% 71.5% 67.6% 66.2% % Retained 82.3% 41.2% 37.5% % Transferred 2.0% 5.9% 7.3% % Graduated 23.4% 29.1% 47.8% % Transfer-Graduated 0.5% 0.8% 1.2% % Success 86.8% 76.0% 75.5% % Retained 82.5% % Transferred 1.5% % Graduated 22.5% % Transfer-Graduated 0.3% % Success 87.9% Source: EPM 11 Accountability Framework, Student Persistence and Completion. Data is not available for shaded cells. Note: Retention measured from the beginning of the semester; transfer, graduation, transfer-graduation and total success measured at the end of the semester. Changes over Time Status at Third Spring From 2012 to 2014, 3 rd spring success rates have been consistent. Rates of retention gradually decreased between 2012 and Transfer, graduate, and transfer-graduated rates fluctuated slightly over the period. Second Fall Persistence and Completion Rates Minnesota State Accountability Dashboard Underrepresented Students The second fall persistence and completion rate for underrepresented students (MN definition) is a Minnesota State accountability measure. Also known as the success rate, it shows the percent of students who are either persisting at DCTC (retained), have transferred to another institution, or have graduated at the cohort s second fall semester. This measure includes only full-time regular and transfer students who are underrepresented and were new entering students in the summer or fall semester of the indicated year. The point of measurement for student success is determined based on a student s entering (cohort) year. At this time, cohorts are defined as: new/new transfer full-time, degree-seeking students entering in the summer or fall semester of a fiscal year. In the past five years, the student success rate at DCTC ranged from 70% in 2011 to 74% in 2015 (see Figure 48). The data is shown in comparison to the average for Minnesota State 2-year institutions. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 46

55 Figure 48 Underrepresented Students: Second Fall Persistence and Completion for Fist-time Students 73.4% 69.5% 70.2% 71.4% 68.6% 69.5% 70.9% 66.9% 69.3% 67.4% 66.0% 65.5% 65.3% 65.6% 67.3% 66.8% DCTC Minnesota State 2-year colleges Source: EPM 11 Accountability Framework/Student Persistence and Completion. Note: Retention measured from the beginning of the semester; transfer, graduation and total success measured at the end of the semester. Table 34 shows retention, transfer, graduation, transfer-graduation and success rates for DCTC underrepresented students in comparison to those rates for MN State 2-year colleges. Since 2008, DCTC cohorts have graduated at a higher percentage than the Minnesota State Colleges average. Since 2009, DCTC student success has been higher than the Minnesota State Colleges average. Table 34 Underrepresented Students: Second Fall Persistence and Completion for First-time Students Fall # in Transfer- Institution Retained Transferred Graduated Success Cohort Cohort Graduated 2008 DCTC % 8.9% 16.8% 0.3% 69.5% Minnesota State 2- year colleges 13, % 11.3% 9.4% 0.5% 70.2% 2009 DCTC % 9.2% 14.4% 0.5% 71.4% Minnesota State 2- year colleges 17, % 10.1% 9.8% 0.6% 67.4% 2010 DCTC % 9.1% 18.1% 0.0% 68.6% Minnesota State 2- year colleges 16, % 9.2% 9.0% 1.0% 66.0% 2011 DCTC % 10.7% 16.1% 0.2% 69.5% Minnesota State 2- year colleges 15, % 9.0% 9.2% 0.9% 65.5% 2012 DCTC % 7.9% 19.2% 0.7% 70.9% Minnesota State 2- year colleges 14, % 9.3% 9.7% 0.5% 65.3% 2013 DCTC % 6.1% 21.5% 0.6% 66.9% Minnesota State 2- year colleges 13, % 9.3% 10.6% 0.6% 65.6% 2014 DCTC % 8.6% 23.2% 0.0% 69.3% DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 47

56 Fall Cohort Institution # in Cohort Retained Transferred Graduated Transfer- Graduated Success Minnesota State 2- year colleges 12, % 9.3% 10.6% 0.5% 67.3% 2015 DCTC % 7.3% 27.5% 1.2% 73.4% Minnesota State 2- year colleges 12, % 9.5% 11.0% 0.5% 66.8% Source: EPM 11 Accountability Framework: Persistence and completion, Underrepresented students. Note: Retention measured from the beginning of the semester; transfer, graduation, transfer-graduation and success measured at the end of the semester. Students of Color Another accountability measure is persistence and completion rates for students of color. The overall success rate for students of color at DCTC has been similar to, or slightly higher than the success rate for Minnesota State 2-year colleges as a whole. Figure 49 shows the DCTC and Minnesota State success rates for the past five cohort years for which data are available. Table 35 includes the number of students of color in the last eight entering cohorts and the percentages retained, transferred, or graduated at the second fall semester for DCTC and for Minnesota State colleges. Figure 49 Students of Color Success DCTC vs. Minnesota State 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Cohort Year DCTC SOC Minnesota State SOC Source: EPM 11 Accountability Framework: Persistence and completion, Students of Color. Table 35 Students of Color Success DCTC vs. Minnesota State Fall # in Transfer- Cohort Institution Cohort Retained Transferred Graduated Graduated Success 2008 DCTC % 13.5% 10.8% 0.9% 71.2% Minnesota State 2-year colleges 5, % 13.2% 7.0% 0.6% 68.6% 2009 DCTC % 14.3% 7.1% 0.0% 61.9% Minnesota State 2-year colleges 6, % 12.0% 7.0% 0.5% 63.7% 2010 DCTC % 11.9% 10.4% 0.0% 58.2% Minnesota State 2-year colleges 6, % 10.2% 5.7% 0.9% 60.6% DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 48

57 Fall # in Transfer- Cohort Institution Cohort Retained Transferred Graduated Graduated Success 2011 DCTC % 12.3% 10.9% 0.7% 69.6% Minnesota State 2-year colleges 5, % 10.1% 6.6% 0.7% 61.8% 2012 DCTC % 11.3% 12.7% 0.0% 71.3% Minnesota State 2-year colleges 6, % 10.8% 6.3% 0.4% 62.1% 2013 DCTC % 6.0% 13.7% 0.9% 59.8% Minnesota State 2-year colleges 5, % 11.3% 7.2% 0.6% 62.9% 2014 DCTC % 14.6% 16.2% 0.0% 66.2% Minnesota State 2-year colleges 5, % 10.0% 7.4% 0.6% 64.6% 2015 DCTC % 13.6% 22.7% 0.8% 75.0% Minnesota State 2-year colleges 5, % 11.2% 7.7% 0.4% 64.0% Source: EPM 11 Accountability Framework: Persistence and completion, Students of Color. Note: Retention measured from the beginning of the semester; transfer, graduation, transfer-graduation and success measured at the end of the semester. Figure 50 compares persistence and completion rates for students of color (SOC) and White students at DCTC. Overall, White students have higher persistence and completion rates than do SOC. For the fall 2008 cohort, the gap between the combined persistence and completion rate for SOC and White students was 3%. The gap between White students and SOC has fluctuated by cohort with no discernable trend, but has shown a recent uptick. Figure 50 DCTC Persistence and Completion: Students of Color vs. White Students 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Cohort Students of Color White Students Source: EPM 11 Strategic Framework Performance Measures. Completion rates for DCTC SOC have been consistently lower than completion rates for White students (see Figure 51). The difference in completion rates has ranged from 4% in 2007 to 24% in In the most recent completion data for fall 2014, the percentage difference had closed to 5%. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 49

58 Figure 51 DCTC Completion: Students of Color vs. White Students 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Fall 2005 Fall 2006 Fall 2007 Fall 2008 Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Cohort Students of Color White Students Source: EPM 11 Strategic Framework Performance Measures. Graduate Follow-up Survey (GRFU) DCTC graduates are surveyed within one year of graduation to determine their employment status. Figure 52 shows alumni responses for the past five years. Percentages have fluctuated over this time with employed as the most common response followed by related employment and continuing education. Table 36 gives values for each of the graduation years broken down by status. Figure 52 Graduate Follow Up Survey 52% 44% 24% 48% 42% 38% 38% 37% 31% 61% 55% 25% 51% 45% 31% Graduation Year (AY) Employed Related Employment Continuing Education Source: System Office: Status of Graduates within One Year of Graduation Report. Table 36 Graduate Follow-up Survey Graduating Class Total Graduates Employed In Related Employment Continuing Education Source: System Office: Status of Graduates within One Year of Graduation Report. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 50

59 Employer Survey In an effort to better understand the needs of those who employ recent Dakota County Technical College (DCTC) graduates, the Office of Institutional Research conducted a survey among employers of 2015 DCTC graduates. The survey sample included all 2015 DCTC graduates who indicated the following: employment in a field related to their area of study at DCTC, and not self- employed. They self-reported the name, city and state of their employer on the aforementioned graduate follow-up survey. Of the 34 employers who responded to the 2017 survey, all but one employer indicated they would consider hiring a DCTC graduate again (97%). This is a decrease of 3% from 2014 (100%) and an increase of 4% from 2012 (93%) (see Figure 53). Figure 53 Consider Hiring a DCTC Graduate Again Consider Hiring a DCTC Graduate Again 92% 93% 100% 97% 2% 5% 7% 0% 0% 2% 0% 3% (blank) No Yes Source: IR Office Research, Employer Survey Student Engagement and Satisfaction Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) is a national survey that focuses on student engagement (the amount of time and energy that students invest in meaningful educational practices). DCTC first administered the CCSSE in spring 2008, and continues to administer it every other year during spring semester, with the most recent administration in spring Five key scales, or benchmarks, provide an overview of the critical areas of student engagement: Active and Collaborative Learning, Student Effort, Academic Challenge, Student Faculty Interaction and Support for Learners. DCTC s benchmark scores below are in comparison to the Minnesota State Colleges that participated that year (see Figure 54 and Figure 55). Since the 2010 survey administration, the Minnesota State Colleges cohort has performed higher than DCTC. Minnesota State no longer mandates the administration of the CCSSE every other year, beginning in DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 51

60 Figure 54 DCTC CCSSE Benchmark Areas Score Active & collaborative learning Student effort Academic challenge Student-faculty interaction Support for learners Source: CCSSE Institutional Report, 2011, 2013, and Each benchmark score is calculated by averaging the scores on survey items that comprise the benchmark. All means are weighted by full-time and part-time status to compensate for oversampling of full-time students. Figure 55 MN Colleges CCSSE Benchmark Areas DCTC 2008 DCTC 2010 DCTC 2012 DCTC 2014 DCTC 2016 Score Active & collaborative learning Student effort Academic challenge Student-faculty interaction Support for learners MN Colleges 2008 MN Colleges 2010 MN Colleges 2012 MN Colleges 2014 MN Colleges 2016 Source: CCSSE Institutional Report, 2011, 2013, and Each benchmark score is calculated by averaging the scores on survey items that comprise the benchmark. All means are weighted by full-time and part-time status to compensate for oversampling of full-time students. Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) Administered at DCTC in 2015, the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI) is a national survey asking students to rate the importance of and their satisfaction with services provided by the school in several areas. Participants, using two seven-point rating scales, rate first the importance (IMP) of the item to the student where 1= not important at all and 7= very important, and rate second their level of satisfaction (SAT) with the item where 1= not satisfied at all and 7= very satisfied. As with the CCSSE, items are aggregated into scales, which receive an overall score between one and seven. The comparison of the scales between DCTC and the national cohort is shown in Figure 56 and Figure 57. DCTC respondents found the items making up the scales overall as more important than the national cohort, and they were also more satisfied. The SSI is scheduled for administration spring semester DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 52

61 Figure 56 Comparison of DCTC and National SSI Scale Importance Ratings Campus Climate Concern for the Individual Service Excellence Registration Effectiveness Academic Services Admissions and Financial Aid Academic Advising/Counseling Safety and Security Campus Support Services Responsiveness to Diverse Populations (SAT only) Instructional Effectiveness Student Centeredness NATL IMP DCTC IMP Source: DCTC SSI Results. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 53

62 Figure 57 Comparison of DCTC and National SSI Scale Satisfaction Ratings Campus Climate Concern for the Individual Service Excellence Registration Effectiveness Academic Services Admissions and Financial Aid Academic Advising/Counseling Safety and Security Campus Support Services Responsiveness to Diverse Populations (SAT only) Instructional Effectiveness Student Centeredness NATL SAT DCTC SAT Source: DCTC SSI Results. Federal Reporting In addition to metrics at the Minnesota State level, the federal government also compiles data about the performance of colleges that provide Title IV (financial) aid to students. IPEDS Graduation and Transfer-out Rates Graduation and transfer-out rates within three years (150% of normal time to graduate) are calculated based on cohort groups for new first-time full-time degree and certificate-seeking students who enter DCTC each fall. Data is reported to the US Department of Education Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) each year, and is part of the Student-Right-to-Know information. Comparison data is provided for similar institutions. See Figure 58 below for a breakdown of these data. DCTC has generally seen higher graduation rates than other similar institutions. It is useful to note that the IPEDS cohorts are smaller than the Minnesota State cohorts used for System reporting. Minnesota State includes transfer students new to the institution in the fall cohort. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 54

63 Figure 58 IPEDS Graduation and Transfer-out Rates by Fall Cohort year using IPEDS Peer Group Comparison 35% 16% 27% 22% 38% 14% 26% 23% 30% 28% 20% 20% 39% 32% 32% 33% 16% 13% 15% 15% DCTC Peers DCTC Peers DCTC Peers DCTC Peers DCTC Peers 2009 Cohort (2013 Report) 2010 Cohort (2014 Report) 2011 Cohort (2015 Report) 2012 Cohort (2016 Report) 2013 Cohort (2017 Report) Graduation Rate Transfer-out Rate Source: IPEDS Feedback Reports. College Scorecard College Scorecard data are compiled by and maintained by the U.S. Department of Education and are provided through their website to help consumers make good decisions about higher education. DCTC s most recent College Scorecard data are shown below (see Figure 59 through Figure 64). Figure 59 DCTC Characteristics DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 55

64 Figure 60 Average Annual Cost, Graduation Rate, and Salary After Attending Figure 61 Average Annual Costs by Family Income DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 56

65 Figure 62 Financial Aid and Debt Figure 63 Graduation and Retention DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 57

66 Figure 64 Earnings After School Gainful Employment Gainful employment data are compiled by the U.S. Department of Education for career training programs offered by colleges across the country. These data are used to help students make more informed decisions about college enrollment and to protect students from career training programs that lead to poor outcomes yet receive taxpayer-funded federal student financial aid. Programs at DCTC that have gainful employment data can be viewed on the website at the program level. An example can be seen by going to the Electrical Lineworker site and scrolling down the page to where the link to the gainful employment report can be found. Programs with <10 graduates during the reporting period will not display data. Accreditation For an institution to be eligible to dispense Title IV (financial) aid, they must be accredited with a regional accrediting agency. For DCTC, that agency is the Higher Learning Commission. DCTC was first accredited in 1996, with its most recent affirmation of accreditation in , and its next reaffirmation of accreditation in DCTC is on the Open Pathway, one of three pathways institutions have for maintaining their accreditation. DCTC 2017 Fact Book Page 58