Technical Report 1997-98 to 2001-02 April 2003 The Metropolitan Community Colleges Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment
MCC Student Retention Patterns: 1997-98 to 2001-02 Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment The Metropolitan Community Colleges 3200 Broadway Kansas City, MO 64111 Prepared by: Jennifer R. Ebeling Charles Van Middlesworth
Table of Contents Section Page Summary of Findings...1 Figure 1: Fall to Spring Retention...3 Figure 2: Spring to Fall Retention...4 Figure 3: Fall to Fall Retention...4 Figure 4: Disposition of Fall 2001 Enrollment...6 Figure 5: Spring 2002 Enrollment...7 Technical Report...8 Methodology...8 Results...10 MCC District...10 Table 1: MCC District Fall to Spring Retention...10 Table 2: MCC District Fall to Spring Retention by Attendance Category...11 Table 3: MCC District Fall to Fall Retention...12 Table 4: MCC District Fall to Fall Retention by Attendance Category...13 Table 5: MCC District Spring to Fall Retention...14 Table 6: MCC District Spring to Fall Retention by Attendance Category...15 Blue Springs/Independence...16 Table 7: Blue Springs/Independence Fall to Spring Retention...16 Table 8: Blue Springs/Independence Fall to Spring Retention by Attendance Category...17 Table 9: Blue Springs/Independence Fall to Fall Retention...18 Table 10: Blue Springs/Independence Fall to Fall Retention by Attendance Category...19 Table 11: Blue Springs/Independence Spring to Fall Retention...20 Table 12: Blue Springs/Independence Spring to Fall Retention by Attendance Category...20 Longview...22 Table 13: Longview Fall to Spring Retention...22 Table 14: Longview Fall to Spring Retention by Attendance Category...23 Table 15: Longview Fall to Fall Retention...24 Table 16: Longview Fall to Fall Retention by Attendance Category...25 Table 17: Longview Spring to Fall Retention...26 Table 18: Longview Spring to Fall Retention by Attendance Category...27 Maple Woods...28 Table 19: Maple Woods Fall to Spring Retention...28 Table 20: Maple Woods Fall to Spring Retention by Attendance Category...29 Table 21: Maple Woods Fall to Fall Retention...30 Table 22: Maple Woods Fall to Fall Retention by Attendance Category...31 Table 23: Maple Woods Spring to Fall Retention...32 Table 24: Maple Woods Spring to Fall Retention by Attendance Category...33
Penn Valley...34 Table 25: Penn Valley Fall to Spring Retention...34 Table 26: Penn Valley Fall to Spring Retention by Attendance Category...35 Table 27: Penn Valley Fall to Fall Retention...36 Table 28: Penn Valley Fall to Fall Retention by Attendance Category...37 Table 29: Penn Valley Spring to Fall Retention...38 Table 30: Penn Valley Spring to Fall Retention by Attendance Category...39 Academic Success of Students Not Retained...40 Table 31: Not Retained Demographic Characteristics by Success Fall 1997 Spring 1998...40 Table 32: Not Retained Student Characteristics by Success Fall 1997 Spring 1998...41 Table 33: Not Retained Demographic Characteristics by Success Fall 1999 Fall 2000...42 Table 34: Not Retained Student Characteristics by Success Fall 1999 Fall 2000...43 Table 35: Not Retained Demographic Characteristics by Success Spring 2000 Fall 2000...44 Table 36: Not Retained Student Characteristics by Success Spring 2000 Fall 2000...45 Retention by program area:...46 Summary...47 Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I
Preface This is a technical report produced by the Research, Evaluation and Assessment Office to show how student retention influences MCC enrollment. Retention figures are presented in 3 formats: from fall to spring, fall to fall and spring to fall. Retention rates are broken down by demographic characteristics and by several enrollment characteristics. In addition, the academic success of those students not retained is examined. The appendices of the report provide retention rates by program area. Additional copies of this report can be obtained from our website: http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/research Comments regarding this report should be directed to its authors: Jennifer R. Ebeling Research Analyst Jennifer.Ebeling@kcmetro.edu (816) 759-1003 Charles Van Middlesworth Director of Research, Evaluation and Assessment Charles.VanMiddlesworth@kcmetro.edu (816) 759-1085 The Metropolitan Community Colleges Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment 3200 Broadway Kansas City, MO 64111
Part I. A Summary of Findings A Technical Report MCC Student Retention Patterns: AY1997-98 to AY2001-02 Why Provide a Report about Student Retention? This is a technical report written for the district community to show how retention influences MCC enrollment. Retention is about students, their enrollment patterns, selection of courses and use of campus services. The term retention is always seen as a number or percentage that is compared with other numbers and percentages from like-institutions often called "peers". Institutional leaders are concerned about retention, especially if "the number" or "percentage" of students "carried over" from one reporting period to another does not meet a requisite percentage. Admissions personnel have always known that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to "out recruit retention". What they are saying is that as students leave the institution, a like number should be entering so as to create a harmonious cycle of student entry and exit. Institutions that are "open admissions" have greater difficulty understanding the concern, especially when employees see long lines during semester registration. Open admissions institutions also have the benefit of returning "stop-outs", or those students that may have attended a fall semester but did not return for the spring. Several semesters later they appear for enrollment and lessen the financial burden of leaving students by their infusion of tuition dollars. On the other hand, private institutions understand very well the importance of retention because the loss of a student is reflected in monetary terms, such as reduced tuition income. Institutions that are selective either through their admissions policy or cost do not have the benefit of large numbers of students who return after "stopping-out". Their enrollment must be "managed" so as to insure those students they admit and receive institutional funds for are comfortable with their institution; in other words the students have institutional "fit". What is Retention and How is it Defined and Reported? Retention is a means of showing student commitment to a college as well as implied course, program, service and institutional satisfaction. Students show commitment to an institution by spending their dollars for tuition, books, fees and other activities associated with college learning; in other words, students are educational consumers and in our community they have many choices. Retention is generally reported using three measures: fall-to-spring retention, spring-to-fall retention and fall-to-fall retention. Each measure has a definite way of presenting how the figures were developed and reported. For instance, fall-to-spring retention refers to the number of students enrolled during the fall semester that re-enrolled for the subsequent spring semester. The figure to calculate the retention excludes any students that completed an award. Excluding students who earned an award provides what is called the "adjusted retention rate". A similar calculation is used to determine both spring-to-fall and fall-to-fall rates of retention. Retention is always reported as a percentage; such as, the adjusted fall-to-spring rate of retention for the college was 65 percent. 1
Why Use only Three Retention Rates? Although retention is a term that is used universally within higher education there are only three established enrollment patterns that are used to measure retention rates: fall-to-spring, spring-to-fall and fall-to-fall. Additional patterns of attendance are normally seen through longitudinal studies or studies of student persistence. For instance, the Graduation Rate Survey (GRS) is a federally mandated survey that reports the number of first-time, full-time students that have either graduated, transferred, continue to be enrolled, or are not enrolled after six consecutive semesters. The GRS differs from this report in that it [GRS] is a report based on the persistence of a cohort of first-time, full-time students rather than retention. Other studies have examined specific characteristics that are associated with a student's propensity to remain enrolled; such as, studies of departure, conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate attrition, and student engagement, to name a few. Why is Retention Important for a College? As has been stated, retention is measured through the tendency of students to continually enroll at a college or university. The goal of any retention effort is to insure that once a student makes a financial, personal and temporal commitment to attend, an institution will do everything it can to insure that student continues to enroll. The continuous enrollment is important on several levels: first, it keeps students enrolled in courses and programs; second, it provides an indication of the recruitment efforts to maintain current enrollment patterns; and third, it reflects the time-tocompletion patterns of students. A favorable rate of retention speaks to institutional viability by creating an atmosphere of engagement that encourages students to stay enrolled and complete programs. Favorable retention rates also enable the institution to maintain or expand its current staffing of both instructional and support personnel. It should be noted that a high retention number might suggest a commitment to the institution but does not speak to student ability or motivation. Student motivation is an essential ingredient for student persistence and courses and programs are strengthened by a student's commitment to "stay the course" and complete a program of study. However, open admissions institutions must also deal with retention rates and the perplexities of dealing with a student population of which 70 percent are part-time students. Part-time students pose considerable challenges because in addition to the academic rigor required, there are other issues such as, they are older, work while attending, have the complications of young children and access to affordable daycare, to name a few. 2
MCC Retention: As mentioned previously, retention rates are measured several different ways; fall-to-spring, springto-fall and fall-to-fall retention. Fall-to-spring retention is calculated by finding all students who enrolled for the fall semester and re-enrolled for the spring semester. The percent enrolling in spring represents the proportion (or percent) that are continuing their education experience; thus, the fall-tospring retention rate. However, a more precise figure would be to count the students returning in the spring less graduates; this figure becomes the "adjusted retention rate". Fall-to-spring adjusted retention rates for MCC as a whole were stable over the past 5 years, ranging from 62% to 63%. Figure 1 provides an overview of the adjusted retention rates for the district and its four colleges. Notice that, with few exceptions, the adjusted retention rate for MCC and its colleges are within the range of 62 to 66 percent. The district-wide adjusted retention rate average is 63 percent, which is typical of an urban community college. Figure 1. Fall-to-Spring Retention Adjusted Retention Rate (%) 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 District Blue River Longview Maple Woods Penn Valley Source: Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment. Spring to fall adjusted retention rates ranged from 50% to 51%. Figure 2 shows the adjusted rate of retention for spring-to-fall students from 1997 to 2001. Readers should note that the springto-fall rate of retention for the district, as well as for its colleges, all exhibit the same pattern rate for the five years noted. 3
Figure 2. Spring-to-Fall Retention Adjusted Retention Rate (%) 60 55 50 45 40 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 District Blue River Longview Maple Woods Penn Valley Source: Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment Fall to fall adjusted retention rates for MCC ranged from 45 to 46 percent. This figure refers to the number of students that were enrolled for the fall semester and returned for the subsequent fall semester. Figure 3 shows the adjusted rate of retention patterns for fall-to-fall for the district and its colleges. Note the similarity in adjusted retention patterns. Figure 3. Fall-to-Fall Retention Adjusted Retention Rate (%) 55 50 45 40 35 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 District Blue River Longview Maple Woods Penn Valley Source: Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment 4
Other Observations The following information represents an overview of student retention based on demographic and attendance variables. This information is helpful because it provides the reader with a view of the mosaic that represents the MCC student. Females and white students were retained at a higher rate than their counterparts (e.g., males students and minority students, respectively). Retention by age group was determined by using three groups as the point of analysis: traditional aged students, aged 24 years or less; students aged 25 to 34 years; and students aged 35 years or above. Traditional aged students (aged 24 or less), regardless of the campus, have retention rates that exceed the district and college average for all three measurement periods. While older students have lower rates of retention than the district or college average, those rates are not appreciably lower (2 to 4 points lower). Full-time students had considerably higher retention rates than those enrolled part-time. For instance, full-time students have fall-to-spring rates of retention that are 20 to 29 percentage points higher than part-time students. Spring-to-fall and fall-to-fall rates of retention vary from 15 to 20 percentage points when comparing full-time to part-time student retention. Students enrolled in both day and evening courses had higher retention rates than those enrolled exclusively during the day or the evening. Those enrolled in at least one developmental course tended to have higher retention rates than those not enrolled in a developmental course although there was no discernable pattern when examining fall to fall rates. An examination of semester GPA s of those retained versus those not retained revealed that traditional age students, males and black students were more likely than their counterparts to exit MCC with a GPA less than 2.0. Full-time students were more likely than part-time students to leave MCC with a semester GPA of 2.0 or less. Students enrolled in a developmental course were more likely than those not enrolled in a developmental course to exit MCC with a semester GPA less than 2.0. Students enrolled exclusively during the day were more likely than those enrolled exclusively in the evening to leave MCC with a semester GPA of 2.0 or less. Impact of Retention To describe the impact of this retention study in practical terms the following illustration may be helpful. From an enrollment management point of view, the analysis of each semester's enrollment needs to include data about several groups: first-time students, returning students, graduates, transfer students and stop-outs. First-time students are as their name implies, a first semester student at MCC. A returning student would be a student who attended the previous semester and elected to enroll in the current or subsequent semester. A transfer student is as the name implies, a student who attended another institution prior to attending MCC. The last group, the "stop-outs" are the most elusive attendance group at any college. Stop-outs are students that have attended MCC and have 5
exited the institution and did not return for the subsequent semester. In fact, many stop-outs do not return for several semesters or years; but fortunately, there are enough MCC stop-outs returning to make significant contributions to each semester's enrollment. As an example, during fall 2001 the MCC student enrollment could be divided into three very basic groups: first-time students, all other students and graduates. Figure 4 shows the disposition of the fall 2001 semester by student enrollment groups. Figure 4. Disposition of Fall 2001 Enrollment N = 17,375 All Other 68.1% Graduate 2.9% First-Time 29.0% Source: Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment. The total Fall 2001 enrollment highlights the contribution of the three enrollment groups. As can be seen from the graph, first-time students represent 29 percent (5,056 students) of the Fall 2001 enrollment, all other students represent 68 percent (11,818 students), and graduates (501 students) are 3 percent of the total. However, when one takes into account the non-returning students from fall to the spring semester (6,000 to 7,000 students) MCC must look to other student sources to populate our courses. The loss of the graduates and the number of students who choose not to enroll for the spring semester present a challenge to colleges to meet the "gap" realized by student stopouts. Figure 5 illustrates how Spring 2002 enrollment would look as a result of Fall 2001. Notice that of the state-aid headcount enrollment that was reported for Spring 2002 (17,049), returning and entering first-time students will only represent 13,648 students or 80 percent of the number of students needed to meet spring enrollment expectations. The remaining number of students (3,401) needed to meet spring enrollment expectations will be a combination of stop-outs and reverse transfers. Bridging the gap to meet enrollment expectations is a bigger challenge than may be perceived. Our analysis shows that the number of non-returning students from fall-to-spring can vary from 6,000 to 7,000 students. 6
Figure 5 Spring 2002 Enrollment N = 17,049 First-Time 18.5% Stop Out 19.9% Returning 61.6% Source: Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment. To meet Spring 2002 enrollment expectations, first-time students will make up 50 percent of the gap with the remaining 50 percent coming from stop-outs and reverse transfers. It is not surprising that at the current rate of retention for spring-to-fall and fall-to-fall, the number of non-returners will increase accordingly; 8,000 to 9,000 for spring-to-fall and 9,000 to 10,000 for fall-to-fall. As has been stated previously, to make up the headcount difference between continuing and first-time students, it is necessary to focus on those student enrollment groups that historically are the most unpredictable: stop-outs and reverse transfers. The challenge to maintain student enrollment is significant and it is our hope that this report provides some insight into MCC retention patterns. 7
Part II. Technical Report Methodology: Semester cohorts were developed that included all students enrolled in that particular semester. All students who enrolled in at least one academic credit hour and completed 25% of the course were included. Cohorts were tracked to determine what percentage returned the following semester, both from a fall semester to the following spring and from a spring semester to the following fall. The fall semester cohorts were also tracked to determine what percentage returned one year later in the following fall semester. The retention rates were adjusted for the number of graduates from each semester cohort by subtracting the number of non-returners who graduated from the total number of non-returners (referred to as the Adjusted Retention Rate in the tables that follow). Retention rates were also broken down by specific demographic characteristics, by full- or part-time enrollment status, by whether or not they enrolled in a developmental course and by the time of day they took classes. In addition, retention rates are provided by program area in the appendices. Program areas include Business, Computers, Health, Human Sciences, Social Services, Industrial/Technical, Arts, Transfer and Undeclared. Reading the Tables The Technical Report contains an array of tables that analyze retention from various vantage points. Each table contains an assortment of data that are numbers of students and proportions. To understand these tables it is important for the reader to remember what each category and number means with regard to the total number of students counted for the semester. For instance, Table 1 contains information about the number of students enrolled for each fall of the academic years noted; e.g., 1997-98, etc. The caption that reads "Fall Students" refers to the unduplicated headcount for that semester. The caption that reads "Students Returning in Spring" refers to the number of "Fall Students" that enrolled for spring. The italicized percent refers to the relative proportion of fall students enrolled for spring; thus, 59 percent refers to the percentage fall students that enrolled for the subsequent spring. The caption that reads "Number of Graduates" is as the term implies. "Non- Returners" are those students that enrolled in fall but did not enroll for spring. The bold italics "Adjusted Retention Rate" is the percent of fall students that enrolled for spring, less graduates. Within the table, the caption "Adjusted Retention Rate by Category" refers to retention based only on the number of spring returning enrollees less graduates. It is important to note that when reading 8
the table under the category items, the integers refer to the number of students enrolled with that characteristic. For instance, in Table 1 students with an "Age Less than 25" (8,886), represents the number of students enrolled for the fall semester with that characteristic. The Adjusted Retention Rate, noted in italics, represents the proportion (65%) of the "Age Less than 25" that enrolled for the spring semester. In other words, 65 percent of the 8,886 students aged 25 years or less that attended the fall semester re-enrolled for spring. The key point is the adjusted retention rate refers to the proportion of students in the category that re-enrolled for spring. 9
Results MCC District: The following tables show the results for MCC districtwide. Table 1 displays the retention rates of fall students returning the following spring. Overall retention rates were steady over the five-year period at 62% or 63%. Among specific demographic populations, retention rates were higher for traditional age students (less than 25 years of age), female students and white students than their counterparts. Table 1 MCC District Fall to Spring Retention 1997-98 to 2001-02 Characteristic 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Fall to Spring- Fall Students 16,828 17,598 17,917 17,767 17,375 Students Returning in Spring 9,872 10,561 10,707 10,742 10,495 Percent 59% 60% 60% 61% 60% Number of Graduates 532 469 496 509 501 Non-Returners 6,424 6,568 6,714 6,516 6,379 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 63% 63% 63% 63% Age: Age Less than 25 8,886 9,473 10,014 9,700 9,596 Adjusted Retention Rate 65% 66% 65% 66% 68% Age 25-34 3,903 3,831 3,753 3,841 3,676 Adjusted Retention Rate 58% 60% 58% 60% 60% Age Over 34 4,038 4,293 4,150 4,225 4,103 Adjusted Retention Rate 59% 58% 58% 59% 56% Gender: Female 10,443 10,750 10,844 10,784 10,661 Adjusted Retention Rate 64% 64% 64% 65% 65% Male 6,385 6,848 7,073 6,983 6,714 Adjusted Retention Rate 59% 60% 60% 61% 61% Ethnicity: White 13,432 13,696 13,996 14,004 13,627 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 63% 63% 64% 64% All Minorities 3,396 3,902 3,921 3,763 3,748 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 60% 60% 62% 62% Black, Non-Hispanic Only 2,320 2,606 2,589 2,477 2,425 Adjusted Retention Rate 61% 59% 60% 61% 60% 10
Table 2 displays fall to spring retention rates by key attendance categories. Those students enrolled full-time had considerably higher retention rates than those enrolled part-time. Students enrolled in a developmental course were more likely to return the following semester than those who had not enrolled in a developmental course. Students who attended both day and evening classes had the highest retention rates followed closely by students who attended exclusively during the day. In comparison, students who attended evening classes exclusively had considerably lower retention rates. Table 2 MCC District Fall to Spring Retention by Attendance Category 1997-98 to 2001-02 Characteristic 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Fall to Spring- Fall Students 16,828 17,598 17,917 17,767 17,375 Students Returning in Spring 9,872 10,561 10,707 10,742 10,495 Percent 59% 60% 60% 61% 60% Number of Graduates 532 469 496 509 501 Non-Returners 6,424 6,568 6,714 6,516 6,379 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 63% 63% 63% 63% Load: Full-time 5,057 5,682 5,872 5,682 6,163 Adjusted Retention Rate 78% 79% 78% 79% 79% Part-time 11,771 11,916 12,045 12,085 11,212 Adjusted Retention Rate 55% 55% 55% 56% 54% Developmental Course(s): Enrolled in a Dev. Course 2,153 2,456 2,684 2,670 2,910 Adjusted Retention Rate 64% 66% 67% 66% 67% Did not enroll in a Dev. Course 14,675 15,142 15,233 15,097 14,465 Adjusted Retention Rate 61% 62% 62% 63% 63% Attendance Pattern: Day Classes 8,545 8,928 8,957 8,453 7,489 Adjusted Retention Rate 67% 66% 65% 70% 70% Evening Classes 5,939 6,087 5,452 5,895 5,239 Adjusted Retention Rate 51% 54% 55% 56% 54% Day and Evening Classes 2,343 2,583 3,504 2,351 3,592 Adjusted Retention Rate 72% 72% 71% 79% 71% 11
Table 3 displays retention rates for fall cohorts returning the following fall semester. Overall retention rates were steady over the five-year period, ranging from 45% to 46%. Age-related differences in retention fluctuated over the period although there was a trend for those in the 25 to 34 age category to have slightly lower retention rates than those in the higher and lower age categories. As with fall to spring retention, females had higher retention rates than males. White students tended to have slightly higher retention rates than those in other ethnic categories. Table 3 MCC District Fall to Fall Retention 1996-97 to 2000-01 Characteristic 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Fall to Fall- Fall Students 16,749 16,828 17,598 17,917 17,767 Students Returning in Fall 6,351 6,451 6,640 6,748 6,828 Percent 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% Number of Graduates 1,180 1,229 1,195 1,241 1,277 Non-Returners 9,218 9,148 9,763 9,928 9,662 Adjusted Retention Rate 45% 46% 45% 45% 46% Age: Age Less than 25 8,590 8,886 9,473 10,014 9,700 Adjusted Retention Rate 44% 46% 45% 45% 48% Age 25-34 4,052 3,903 3,831 3,753 3,841 Adjusted Retention Rate 45% 44% 41% 43% 43% Age Over 34 4,107 4,038 4,293 4,150 4,225 Adjusted Retention Rate 46% 47% 45% 45% 44% Gender: Female 10,313 10,443 10,750 10,844 10,784 Adjusted Retention Rate 48% 48% 48% 47% 48% Male 6,436 6,385 6,848 7,073 6,983 Adjusted Retention Rate 40% 42% 40% 41% 41% Ethnicity: White 13,393 13,432 13,696 13,996 14,004 Adjusted Retention Rate 45% 46% 45% 45% 46% All Minorities 3,356 3,396 3,902 3,921 3,763 Adjusted Retention Rate 44% 46% 42% 44% 45% Black, Non-Hispanic Only 2,372 2,320 2,606 2,589 2,477 Adjusted Retention Rate 44% 46% 41% 43% 44% 12
Table 4 displays fall to fall retention rates by attendance category. Full-time students had considerably higher retention rates than part-time students. Differences between those enrolled in and those not enrolled in developmental courses fluctuated over the five-year period. Students attending both day and evening classes had the highest retention rates while those attending classes exclusively in the evening had the lowest retention rates. Table 4 MCC District Fall to Fall Retention by Attendance Category 1996-97 to 2000-01 Characteristic 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Fall to Fall- Fall Students 16,749 16,828 17,598 17,917 17,767 Students Returning in Fall 6,351 6,451 6,640 6,748 6,828 Percent 38% 38% 38% 38% 38% Number of Graduates 1,180 1,229 1,195 1,241 1,277 Non-Returners 9,218 9,148 9,763 9,928 9,662 Adjusted Retention Rate 45% 46% 45% 45% 46% Load: Full-time 5,160 5,057 5,682 5,872 5,682 Adjusted Retention Rate 55% 57% 55% 55% 58% Part-time 11,589 11,771 11,916 12,045 12,085 Adjusted Retention Rate 41% 41% 40% 40% 40% Developmental Course(s): Enrolled in a Dev. Course 2,184 2,153 2,456 2,684 2,670 Adjusted Retention Rate 43% 45% 45% 46% 47% Did not enroll in a Dev. Course 14,565 14,675 15,142 15,233 15,097 Adjusted Retention Rate 45% 46% 44% 44% 45% Attendance Pattern: Day Classes 8,669 8,545 8,928 8,957 8,453 Adjusted Retention Rate 47% 48% 46% 42% 45% Evening Classes 6,043 5,939 6,087 5,452 5,895 Adjusted Retention Rate 39% 39% 40% 38% 41% Day and Evening Classes 2,037 2,343 2,583 3,504 2,351 Adjusted Retention Rate 53% 54% 51% 51% 51% 13
Table 5 shows district spring to fall retention rates. Overall retention rates were stable over the five-year period, ranging from 50% to 51%. Age-related differences were slight although there was a trend for those in the over 34 age category to have higher retention rates than those in the younger age categories. Female students and white students had higher retention rates than their counterparts. Table 5 MCC District Spring to Fall Retention 1997-2001 Characteristic 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Spring to Fall- Spring Students 16,307 16,484 17,587 17,908 17,895 Students Returning in Fall 7,323 7,615 8,035 8,088 8,225 Percent 45% 46% 46% 45% 46% Number of Graduates 774 791 773 794 804 Non-Returners 8,210 8,078 8,779 9,026 8,866 Adjusted Retention Rate 50% 51% 50% 50% 50% Age: Age Less than 25 8,119 8,461 9,277 10,224 9,471 Adjusted Retention Rate 49% 50% 50% 49% 51% Age 25-34 3,999 3,936 3,984 3,577 3,962 Adjusted Retention Rate 49% 51% 48% 51% 49% Age Over 34 4,189 4,086 4,325 4,092 4,462 Adjusted Retention Rate 51% 53% 52% 50% 50% Gender: Female 10,135 10,166 10,663 10,653 10,754 Adjusted Retention Rate 51% 53% 52% 52% 53% Male 6,172 6,318 6,924 7,254 7,141 Adjusted Retention Rate 47% 48% 47% 46% 46% Ethnicity: White 12,942 12,825 13,664 13,949 14,209 Adjusted Retention Rate 50% 51% 51% 50% 50% All Minorities 3,365 3,659 3,923 3,958 3,686 Adjusted Retention Rate 47% 49% 47% 50% 50% Black, Non-Hispanic Only 2,353 2,489 2,642 2,601 2,426 Adjusted Retention Rate 46% 49% 45% 48% 49% 14
Table 6 displays spring to fall retention rates by attendance category. Full-time students had higher retention rates than part-time students and those enrolled in a developmental course had higher retention rates than those not enrolled in a developmental course. Students enrolled in both day and evening classes had the highest retention rates followed by those enrolled exclusively in day classes and then those enrolled exclusively in evening classes. Table 6 MCC District Spring to Fall Retention by Attendance Category 1997-2001 Characteristic 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Spring to Fall- Spring Students 16,307 16,484 17,587 17,908 17,895 Students Returning in Fall 7,323 7,615 8,035 8,088 8,225 Percent 45% 46% 46% 45% 46% Number of Graduates 774 791 773 794 804 Non-Returners 8,210 8,078 8,779 9,026 8,866 Adjusted Retention Rate 50% 51% 50% 50% 50% Load: Full-time 4,547 4,431 5,003 5,119 5,160 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 64% 62% 63% 64% Part-time 11,760 12,053 12,584 12,788 12,735 Adjusted Retention Rate 45% 46% 45% 45% 45% Developmental Course(s): Enrolled in a Dev. Course 1,580 1,607 1,963 2,018 2,024 Adjusted Retention Rate 51% 53% 53% 53% 53% Did not enroll in a Dev. Course 14,727 14,877 15,624 15,889 15,871 Adjusted Retention Rate 50% 51% 50% 49% 50% Attendance Pattern: Day Classes 8,277 8,077 8,154 8,705 8,608 Adjusted Retention Rate 52% 52% 52% 49% 52% Evening Classes 5,964 6,024 5,866 5,521 5,629 Adjusted Retention Rate 43% 46% 47% 45% 47% Day and Evening Classes 2,065 2,382 2,346 3,681 2,602 Adjusted Retention Rate 60% 60% 64% 58% 65% 15
Results Blue Springs/Independence Campus: Table 7 provides fall to spring retention rates specific to the Blue Springs/Independence campus. Retention rates vary from a low of 61% in 1997-98 to a high of 66% in 2000-01. Traditional age students and female students had higher retention rates than their counterparts. There were no consistent patterns in retention among the ethnic categories. Table 7 Blue Springs/Independence Fall to Spring Retention 1997-98 to 2001-02 Characteristic 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Fall to Spring- Fall Students 1,940 2,070 2,150 2,102 2,157 Students Returning in Spring 1,122 1,249 1,339 1,340 1,287 Percent 58% 60% 62% 64% 60% Number of Graduates 71 70 56 56 89 Non-Returners 747 751 755 706 781 Adjusted Retention Rate 61% 64% 65% 66% 64% Age: Age Less than 25 1,176 1,211 1,349 1,340 1,337 Adjusted Retention Rate 64% 67% 69% 70% 67% Age 25-34 376 396 370 369 376 Adjusted Retention Rate 60% 62% 59% 62% 59% Age Over 34 388 463 431 393 444 Adjusted Retention Rate 54% 56% 59% 60% 57% Gender: Female 1,248 1,276 1,259 1,301 1,325 Adjusted Retention Rate 65% 65% 66% 67% 65% Male 692 794 891 801 832 Adjusted Retention Rate 55% 61% 63% 66% 63% Ethnicity: White 1,816 1,905 1,984 1,938 1,983 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 64% 65% 66% 64% All Minorities 124 165 166 164 174 Adjusted Retention Rate 55% 66% 66% 72% 63% Black, Non-Hispanic Only 38 59 53 42 52 Adjusted Retention Rate 47% 59% 62% 76% 54% 16
Table 8 displays fall to spring retention rates by attendance category for the Blue Springs/Indepedence campus. Full-time students were retained at a higher rate than part-time students. Those enrolled in a developmental course were retained at a higher rate than those not enrolled in a developmental course. Students taking both day and evening courses tended to be retained at a higher rate followed by those enrolled exclusively during the day and then those enrolled exclusively in the evening. Table 8 Blue Springs/Independence Fall to Spring Retention by Attendance Category 1997-98 to 2001-02 Characteristic 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Fall to Spring- Fall Students 1,940 2,070 2,150 2,102 2,157 Students Returning in Spring 1,122 1,249 1,339 1,340 1,287 Percent 58% 60% 62% 64% 60% Number of Graduates 71 70 56 56 89 Non-Returners 747 751 755 706 781 Adjusted Retention Rate 61% 64% 65% 66% 64% Load: Full-time 665 725 787 790 807 Adjusted Retention Rate 77% 84% 78% 81% 81% Part-time 1,275 1,345 1,363 1,312 1,350 Adjusted Retention Rate 53% 53% 57% 57% 53% Developmental Course(s): Enrolled in a Dev. Course 327 342 367 345 367 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 65% 68% 71% 67% Did not enroll in a Dev. Course 1,613 1,728 1,783 1,757 1,790 Adjusted Retention Rate 61% 63% 64% 66% 63% Attendance Pattern: Day Classes 884 935 957 957 849 Adjusted Retention Rate 69% 68% 70% 74% 71% Evening Classes 712 755 688 666 709 Adjusted Retention Rate 50% 55% 52% 56% 53% Day and Evening Classes 343 380 504 343 496 Adjusted Retention Rate 65% 70% 73% 85% 74% 17
Table 9 displays fall to fall retention rates for the Blue Springs/Independence campus. Retention rates ranged from a low of 44% in 1996-97 to a high of 47% in 2000-01. Traditional age students generally had higher retention rates than non-traditional age students. Female students had consistently higher retention rates than their male counterparts. There was a trend toward white students having higher retention rates than other ethnic categories. Table 9 Blue Springs/Independence Fall to Fall Retention 1996-97 to 2000-01 Characteristic 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Fall to Fall- Fall Students 1,813 1,940 2,070 2,150 2,102 Students Returning in Fall 689 715 774 814 829 Percent 38% 37% 37% 38% 39% Number of Graduates 102 150 163 151 161 Non-Returners 1,022 1,075 1,133 1,185 1,112 Adjusted Retention Rate 44% 45% 45% 45% 47% Age: Age Less than 25 1,080 1,176 1,211 1,349 1,340 Adjusted Retention Rate 44% 46% 47% 47% 50% Age 25-34 354 376 396 370 369 Adjusted Retention Rate 42% 44% 41% 41% 40% Age Over 34 379 388 463 431 393 Adjusted Retention Rate 43% 42% 51% 41% 44% Gender: Female 1,151 1,248 1,276 1,259 1,301 Adjusted Retention Rate 47% 47% 48% 48% 49% Male 662 692 794 891 801 Adjusted Retention Rate 39% 41% 40% 40% 45% Ethnicity White 1,715 1,816 1,905 1,984 1,938 Adjusted Retention Rate 44% 45% 45% 45% 47% All Minorities 98 124 165 166 164 Adjusted Retention Rate 39% 42% 43% 42% 51% Black, Non-Hispanic Only 31 38 59 53 42 Adjusted Retention Rate 39% 47% 37% 32% 50% 18
Table 10 displays fall to fall retention rates for the Blue Springs/Independence campus by attendance category. Full-time students had higher retention rates than part-time students and students enrolled in a developmental course had higher retention rates than those not enrolled in a developmental course. Students attending both day and evening classes had the highest retention rates followed by those enrolled exclusively during the day and then those enrolled exclusively in the evening. Table 10 Blue Springs/Independence Fall to Fall Retention by Attendance Category 1996-97 to 2000-01 Characteristic 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Fall to Fall- Fall Students 1,813 1,940 2,070 2,150 2,102 Students Returning in Fall 689 715 774 814 829 Percent 38% 37% 37% 38% 39% Number of Graduates 102 150 163 151 161 Non-Returners 1,022 1,075 1,133 1,185 1,112 Adjusted Retention Rate 44% 45% 45% 45% 47% Load: Full-time 630 665 725 787 790 Adjusted Retention Rate 56% 59% 56% 55% 58% Part-time 1,183 1,275 1,345 1,363 1,312 Adjusted Retention Rate 37% 37% 40% 39% 40% Developmental Course(s): Enrolled in a Dev. Course 337 327 342 367 345 Adjusted Retention Rate 47% 46% 48% 49% 48% Did not enroll in a Dev. Course 1,476 1,613 1,728 1,783 1,757 Adjusted Retention Rate 43% 44% 45% 44% 47% Attendance Pattern: Day Classes 755 884 935 957 957 Adjusted Retention Rate 46% 48% 48% 48% 51% Evening Classes 743 712 755 688 666 Adjusted Retention Rate 36% 39% 40% 36% 40% Day and Evening Classes 315 343 380 504 343 Adjusted Retention Rate 58% 49% 50% 51% 64% 19
Table 11 shows spring to fall retention rates for the Blue Springs/Independence campus. Retention rates ranged from 47% in 2000 to 50% in 2001. There were no consistent age or ethnic differences; however, female students were retained at a higher rate than male students. Spring to Fall- Table 11 - Blue Springs/Independence Spring to Fall Retention 1997-2001 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Spring Students 1,912 2,070 2,212 2,310 2,278 Students Returning in Fall 857 910 982 977 1,022 Percent 45% 44% 44% 42% 45% Number of Graduates 76 92 100 101 106 Non-Returners 979 1,068 1,130 1,232 1,150 Adjusted Retention Rate 49% 48% 49% 47% 50% Age: Age Less than 25 1,096 1,233 1,336 1,542 1,491 Adjusted Retention Rate 50% 47% 50% 46% 49% Age 25-34 399 406 411 345 371 Adjusted Retention Rate 48% 53% 45% 49% 49% Age Over 34 417 431 465 422 416 Adjusted Retention Rate 47% 49% 51% 47% 51% Gender: Female 1,197 1,293 1,335 1,354 1,347 Adjusted Retention Rate 52% 50% 52% 50% 53% Male 715 777 877 956 931 Adjusted Retention Rate 43% 45% 45% 42% 44% Ethnicity: White 1,802 1,929 2,026 2,133 2,109 Adjusted Retention Rate 49% 48% 49% 47% 49% All Minorities 110 141 186 177 169 Adjusted Retention Rate 42% 50% 48% 48% 50% Black, Non-Hispanic Only 27 35 55 50 52 Adjusted Retention Rate 44% 49% 45% 28% 37% 20
Table 12 displays spring to fall retention rates by attendance category for the Blue Springs/Independence campus. Students enrolled full-time had higher retention rates than those enrolled part-time. Students enrolled in a developmental course had higher retention rates than those not enrolled in a developmental course. Students enrolled in both day and evening classes had the highest retention rates. There were no consistent differences between those enrolled exclusively during the day and those enrolled exclusively in the evening. Table 12 - Blue Springs/Independence Spring to Fall Retention by Attendance Category 1997-2001 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Spring to Fall- Spring Students 1,912 2,070 2,212 2,310 2,278 Students Returning in Fall 857 910 982 977 1,022 Percent 45% 44% 44% 42% 45% Number of Graduates 76 92 100 101 106 Non-Returners 979 1,068 1,130 1,232 1,150 Adjusted Retention Rate 49% 48% 49% 47% 50% Load: Full-time 581 531 615 678 712 Adjusted Retention Rate 61% 62% 64% 62% 66% Part-time 1,331 1,539 1,597 1,632 1,566 Adjusted Retention Rate 43% 44% 43% 40% 42% Developmental Course(s): Enrolled in a Dev. Course 251 241 247 279 252 Adjusted Retention Rate 50% 50% 57% 51% 56% Did not enroll in a Dev. Course 1,661 1,829 1,965 2,031 2,026 Adjusted Retention Rate 49% 48% 48% 46% 49% Attendance Pattern: Day Classes 802 938 968 1,061 1,107 Adjusted Retention Rate 51% 44% 49% 43% 47% Evening Classes 794 801 734 688 622 Adjusted Retention Rate 40% 48% 46% 43% 50% Day and Evening Classes 316 331 345 561 412 Adjusted Retention Rate 63% 60% 67% 57% 68% 21
Results Longview Campus Table 13 provides Longview s fall to spring retention rates. Retention rates were stable over the five-year period, ranging from 62% to 63%. Traditional age students, female students and white students had higher retention rates than their counterparts. Table 13 Longview Fall to Spring Retention 1997-98 to 2001-02 Characteristic 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Fall to Spring- Fall Students 5,970 5,987 6,051 5,964 6,125 Students Returning in Spring 3,525 3,622 3,645 3,569 3,635 Percent 59% 61% 60% 60% 59% Number of Graduates 181 162 186 158 139 Non-Returners 2,264 2,203 2,220 2,237 2,351 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 63% 63% 62% 62% Age: Age Less than 25 3,140 3,236 3,406 3,390 3,642 Adjusted Retention Rate 65% 67% 67% 65% 67% Age 25-34 1,327 1,223 1,149 1,140 1,086 Adjusted Retention Rate 56% 58% 57% 59% 58% Age Over 34 1,503 1,528 1,496 1,434 1,397 Adjusted Retention Rate 60% 58% 60% 59% 50% Gender: Female 3,653 3,543 3,543 3,421 3,565 Adjusted Retention Rate 63% 65% 64% 65% 62% Male 2,317 2,444 2,508 2,543 2,560 Adjusted Retention Rate 60% 61% 63% 60% 60% Ethnicity: White 5,104 5,009 5,032 4,909 4,998 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 64% 64% 63% 62% All Minorities 866 978 1,019 1,055 1,127 Adjusted Retention Rate 60% 60% 59% 60% 60% Black, Non-Hispanic Only 664 731 749 767 777 Adjusted Retention Rate 58% 60% 57% 59% 57% 22
Table 14 shows fall to spring retention rates by attendance category for the Longview campus. Students enrolled full-time had higher retention rates than part-time students. Those enrolled in a developmental course had higher retention rates than those not enrolled in a developmental course. Students enrolled in both day and evening classes tended to have higher retention rates than those enrolled exclusively in day classes and those enrolled exclusively in evening classes. Table 14 Longview Fall to Spring Retention by Attendance Category 1997-98 to 2001-02 Characteristic 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Fall to Spring- Fall Students 5,970 5,987 6,051 5,964 6,125 Students Returning in Spring 3,525 3,622 3,645 3,569 3,635 Percent 59% 61% 60% 60% 59% Number of Graduates 181 162 186 158 139 Non-Returners 2,264 2,203 2,220 2,237 2,351 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 63% 63% 62% 62% Load: Full-time 1,881 1,974 2,056 1,862 2,239 Adjusted Retention Rate 78% 77% 80% 79% 78% Part-time 4,089 4,013 3,995 4,102 3,886 Adjusted Retention Rate 55% 56% 55% 55% 52% Developmental Course(s): Enrolled in a Dev. Course 806 929 1,050 1,013 1,144 Adjusted Retention Rate 64% 67% 68% 63% 67% Did not enroll in a Dev. Course 5,164 5,058 5,001 4,951 4,981 Adjusted Retention Rate 62% 62% 62% 62% 60% Attendance Pattern: Day Classes 2,726 2,727 2,676 2,648 2,546 Adjusted Retention Rate 68% 67% 68% 69% 70% Evening Classes 2,407 2,348 2,003 2,181 1,845 Adjusted Retention Rate 53% 56% 53% 57% 53% Day and Evening Classes 837 912 1,371 760 1,376 Adjusted Retention Rate 70% 71% 70% 75% 66% 23
Table 15 shows fall to fall retention rates for the Longview campus. Overall fall to fall retention rates were stable, ranging from 45% to 46%. Traditional age students, female students and white students were retained at a higher rate than their counterparts. Table 15 Longview Fall to Fall Retention 1996-97 to 2000-01 Characteristic 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Fall to Fall- Fall Students 6,081 5,970 5,987 6,051 5,964 Students Returning in Fall 2,351 2,336 2,286 2,299 2,360 Percent 39% 39% 38% 38% 40% Number of Graduates 406 439 421 412 398 Non-Returners 3,324 3,195 3,280 3340 3,206 Adjusted Retention Rate 45% 46% 45% 45% 46% Age: Age Less than 25 3,082 3,140 3,236 3,406 3,390 Adjusted Retention Rate 46% 48% 47% 46% 48% Age 25-34 1,474 1,327 1,223 1,149 1,140 Adjusted Retention Rate 44% 42% 41% 41% 42% Age Over 34 1,525 1,503 1,528 1,496 1,434 Adjusted Retention Rate 45% 48% 46% 45% 46% Gender: Female 3,634 3,653 3,543 3,543 3,421 Adjusted Retention Rate 48% 48% 48% 45% 49% Male 2,447 2,317 2,444 2,508 2,543 Adjusted Retention Rate 41% 44% 41% 43% 42% Ethnicity White 5,229 5,104 5,009 5,032 4,909 Adjusted Retention Rate 46% 47% 46% 45% 47% All Minorities 852 866 978 1,019 1,055 Adjusted Retention Rate 42% 45% 41% 43% 44% Black, Non-Hispanic Only 650 664 731 749 767 Adjusted Retention Rate 40% 44% 40% 42% 42% 24
Table 16 displays fall to fall retention rates by attendance category for the Longview campus. Fulltime students were retained at a higher rate than part-time students. There were no consistent retention differences between those enrolled in a developmental course and those not enrolled in a developmental course. Students attending classes in both the day and the evening had the higher retention rates followed by those enrolled exclusively during the day and then those enrolled exclusively in the evening. Table 16 Longview Fall to Fall Retention by Attendance Category 1996-97 to 2000-01 Characteristic 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 Fall to Fall- Fall Students 6,081 5,970 5,987 6,051 5,964 Students Returning in Fall 2,351 2,336 2,286 2,299 2,360 Percent 39% 39% 38% 38% 40% Number of Graduates 406 439 421 412 398 Non-Returners 3,324 3,195 3,280 3340 3,206 Adjusted Retention Rate 45% 46% 45% 45% 46% Load: Full-time 1,905 1,881 1,974 2,056 1,862 Adjusted Retention Rate 56% 57% 56% 56% 58% Part-time 4,176 4,089 4,013 3,995 4,102 Adjusted Retention Rate 41% 41% 40% 39% 41% Developmental Course(s): Enrolled in a Dev. Course 745 806 929 1,050 1,013 Adjusted Retention Rate 42% 46% 45% 48% 48% Did not enroll in a Dev. Course 5,336 5,164 5,058 5,001 4,951 Adjusted Retention Rate 46% 46% 45% 44% 46% Attendance Pattern: Day Classes 2,836 2,726 2,727 2,676 2,648 Adjusted Retention Rate 47% 49% 48% 47% 51% Evening Classes 2,487 2,407 2,348 2,003 2,181 Adjusted Retention Rate 41% 41% 40% 37% 42% Day and Evening Classes 758 837 912 1,371 760 Adjusted Retention Rate 51% 53% 51% 51% 57% 25
Table 17 shows spring to fall retention rates for the Longview campus. Retention rates ranged from 51% in 2000 to 54% in 1998. Traditional age students, female students and white students were retained at higher levels than their counterparts. Spring to Fall- Table 17 Longview Spring to Fall Retention 1997-2001 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Spring Students 5,690 5,549 5,765 5,882 5,924 Students Returning in Fall 2,664 2,704 2,749 2,763 2,864 Percent 47% 49% 48% 47% 48% Number of Graduates 261 285 265 237 260 Non-Returners 2,765 2,560 2,751 2,882 2,800 Adjusted Retention Rate 51% 54% 52% 51% 53% Age: Age Less than 25 2,740 2,774 2,979 3,365 3,167 Adjusted Retention Rate 52% 55% 54% 52% 55% Age 25-34 1,400 1,266 1,253 1,100 1,249 Adjusted Retention Rate 49% 51% 47% 48% 48% Age Over 34 1,550 1509 1,533 1,414 1,508 Adjusted Retention Rate 50% 55% 53% 50% 51% Gender: Female 3,406 3,323 3,387 3,399 3,358 Adjusted Retention Rate 54% 56% 54% 52% 55% Male 2,284 2226 2,378 2,482 2,566 Adjusted Retention Rate 48% 51% 50% 49% 49% Ethnicity: White 4,882 4,707 4,832 4,910 4,917 Adjusted Retention Rate 52% 54% 53% 51% 53% All Minorities 814 842 933 971 1,007 Adjusted Retention Rate 47% 53% 46% 49% 51% Black, Non-Hispanic Only 610 624 694 699 723 Adjusted Retention Rate 45% 54% 45% 48% 49% 26
Table 18 displays spring to fall retention rates by attendance category for the Longview campus. Full-time students were retained at a higher rate than part-time students. Those students enrolled in developmental courses were generally retained at a higher rate than those not enrolled in a developmental course. Students attending classes in both the day and in the evening had the highest retention rates followed by those enrolled exclusively during the day and then those enrolled exclusively in the evening. Table 18 Longview Spring to Fall Retention by Attendance Category 1997-2001 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Spring to Fall- Spring Students 5,690 5,549 5,765 5,882 5,924 Students Returning in Fall 2,664 2,704 2,749 2,763 2,864 Percent 47% 49% 48% 47% 48% Number of Graduates 261 285 265 237 260 Non-Returners 2,765 2,560 2,751 2,882 2,800 Adjusted Retention Rate 51% 54% 52% 51% 53% Load: Full-time 1,622 1,573 1,708 1,807 1,741 Adjusted Retention Rate 65% 66% 65% 63% 67% Part-time 4,068 3,976 4,057 4,074 4,183 Adjusted Retention Rate 46% 49% 47% 46% 47% Developmental Course(s): Enrolled in a Dev. Course 544 551 679 725 752 Adjusted Retention Rate 50% 54% 55% 55% 56% Did not enroll in a Dev. Course 5,146 4,998 5,086 5,156 5,172 Adjusted Retention Rate 52% 54% 52% 51% 52% Attendance Pattern: Day Classes 2,660 2,449 2,329 2,607 2,687 Adjusted Retention Rate 53% 57% 58% 51% 55% Evening Classes 2,338 2,308 2,279 1,883 2,015 Adjusted Retention Rate 47% 49% 48% 46% 50% Day and Evening Classes 691 791 754 1,391 846 Adjusted Retention Rate 60% 61% 65% 58% 65% 27
Results Maple Woods Campus: Table 19 displays fall to spring retention rates for the Maple Woods campus. Overall retention rates ranged from 61% in 1997-98 to 65% in 2001-02. Traditional age students, female students and white students were retained at a higher rate than their counterparts. Table 19 Maple Woods Fall to Spring Retention 1997-98 to 2001-02 Characteristic 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 Fall to Spring- Fall Students 4,807 4,972 5,094 5,140 4,529 Students Returning in Spring 2,786 3,049 3,079 3,132 2,790 Percent 58% 61% 60% 61% 62% Number of Graduates 134 110 114 145 138 Non-Returners 1,887 1,813 1,901 1,863 1,601 Adjusted Retention Rate 61% 64% 63% 64% 65% Age: Age Less than 25 2,917 3,107 3,250 3,152 2,685 Adjusted Retention Rate 64% 66% 65% 68% 69% Age 25-34 949 894 903 947 853 Adjusted Retention Rate 55% 61% 57% 58% 57% Age Over 34 940 970 941 1041 991 Adjusted Retention Rate 56% 58% 61% 57% 59% Gender: Female 2,794 2,854 2,884 2,909 2,505 Adjusted Retention Rate 63% 64% 65% 66% 66% Male 2,013 2,118 2,210 2,231 2,024 Adjusted Retention Rate 57% 62% 60% 61% 63% Ethnicity: White 4,423 4,547 4,676 4,793 4,112 Adjusted Retention Rate 61% 64% 63% 64% 65% All Minorities 384 425 418 347 417 Adjusted Retention Rate 59% 61% 58% 60% 65% Black, Non-Hispanic Only 125 146 143 119 132 Adjusted Retention Rate 52% 58% 58% 61% 58% 28