Admissions, Attrition, Retention and Excel: Data Matrix and Report

Presented by Director of Enrollment and Academic Services Barb Miller

IMSA Board of Trustees Data Retreat - Focus on the Questions

January 21, 2011

Enrollment, Attrition, Retention, Excel- Data Matrix
Admissions (1 of 4)
Stakeholder What were the key questions,
explicit and/or implied, for
which the data were collected?
What other key questions have
emerged along the way?
Program staff & Who applies, who are selected
Administrators and who enrolls at IMSA?
Why do 8th graders defer their
enrollment?
What causes students who have
completed the application and all
that is required, are accepted and
then turn down the invitation to
enroll at the Academy?
Policy-makers (e.g.,
IMSA Board, external
world)
How well do the data What new questions do we want/ need to answer going
answer these questions? forward?
What are the implications of new questions for data to be
collected?
Adequately As technology consistently changes and the best practices for
doing business in Admissions relies heavily on new, creative,
innovative marketing techniques, web based communication
including video conferencing, blogging, and multi-media imaging,
etc;. what processes are in place to in-sure that IMSA is a leader in
these areas as we reach out to our constituencies and
stakeholders?
What is the growth in standardized test scores from enrollment to
graduation?
How does participation in STEM activities, prior to application,
impact admission rates particularly in under-resourced areas?
Using our limited financial resources and technical capabilities, how
are we addressing our deficiencies in these areas to afford us the
ability to continue to effectively recruit, admit and enroll a
quality/diverse student population thus allowing us to remain the
leader in STEM education in the State?
Attrition (2 of 4)
Stakeholder What were the key questions,
explicit and/or implied, for
which the data were collected?
What other key questions have
emerged along the way?
Program staff & Who leaves IMSA prior to
Administrators graduation?
When do students leave IMSA?
Why do students leave IMSA?
Policy-makers (e.g.,
IMSA Board, external
world)
How well do the data What new questions do we want/ need to answer going
answer these questions? forward?
What are the implications of new questions for data to be
collected?
Adequately Using enrollment data, courses taken, grades earned and student
demographic information; can we profile/predict the students most
vulnerable and likely to leave IMSA prior to graduation?
Enrollment practices are supported by the ability to make informed
decisions based on abundant and available data. What means are
utilized and/or needed to effectively and accurately gather, analyze,
and report current and historical data which holds the critical
information to in making informed decisions related to attrition and
retention?
How can we effectively and accurately inform the Academy and our
constituencies of our efforts and successes in attracting, retaining
and graduating the students selected to attend IMSA?
Staff should have access to cutting edge technology to maximize
capacity for authentic problem solving, strategic decision making,
and deeper conceptualization of current issues and trends. How do
we ensure practices and processes are in place for continual
upgrades and/or improvements to provide effective and efficient
systems of data retrieval, analysis, and reporting?
Page 3
Retention (3 of 4)
Stakeholder What were the key questions,
explicit and/or implied, for
which the data were collected?
What other key questions have
emerged along the way?
Program staff & What support measures are in
Administrators place to assist students who are
struggling academically, socially,
and or emotionally?
Are they effective? How do we
know?
Who graduates from IMSA? What
do we know about these students?
What factors attribute to students
persistence?
Policy-makers (e.g.,
IMSA Board, external
world)
How well do the data What new questions do we want/ need to answer going
answer these questions? forward?
What are the implications of new questions for data to be
collected?
Adequately How do we use data, best practices, professional judgment and
experience in assessing, evaluating and informing our practices and
programs in retaining students (particularly those who may be at-
risk/struggling academically, socially/emotionally etc.)?
Enrollment practices, programs and policies related to the
matriculation, attrition, retention and persistence of students are
based on data driven information. As our students and the
technology to gather and utilize information about students
consistently change, what additional resources/tools are necessary
and/or critical to assist in addressing the needs of the institution?
How can we collaboratively utilize our resources to access and
share information in making data driven, informed decisions to
enhance the desired outcomes of our enrollment and retention
efforts?
Page 4
Excel (4 of 4)
Stakeholder What were the key questions,
explicit and/or implied, for
which the data were collected?
What other key questions have
emerged along the way?
Program staff & What is the attrition/graduation
Administrators rate of all IMSA students and
Excel students?
Policy-makers (e.g.,
IMSA Board, external
world)
How well do the data
answer these questions?
Data is available to answer
the questions.
What new questions do we want/ need to answer going
forward?
What are the implications of new questions for data to be
collected?
Does the Excel program complement and address the goals and
expected outcomes of the program?
Are the needs of the incoming students participating in the Excel
program met? Does the Excel program make a difference with the
intended target population?
What evidence is available to evaluate the effectiveness of the
academic and residential program components of Excel?
How does the Excel experience increase the academic competency
and confidence of underserved populations?
How do Excel students perform in their sophomore year courses,
junior year courses?
How might we improve the program to better meet the desired
outcomes and the needs of the student participants?
Do additional skill sets need to be addressed during the program to
prepare the participants for their transition to IMSA?
What is the growth in test scores from enrollment to graduation?
How does this differ from non-Excel students?
How does STEM course selection, completion and grade
distribution equate to non-Excel students?
How do we assess the value added component of Excel related to
student participation, staff involvement, and a three-week time
frame?
How does the attrition rate at IMSA for all students, at-risk
students, and URM students compare to that of other residential
academies?
Page 5
What are the measurable consequences of not admitting significant
numbers of qualified students?

What are the measurable consequences of continuing to have an

attrition rate of 12 14%?

What are the costs of providing student support services that might
be necessary to reduce the attrition rate?

Page 6
 Admissions, Attrition, Retention and Excel

Admissions: The following charts provide an overview of the Class of 2013.

Overview of Class of 2013 -Sophomores

Applicants Qualified Decision WaitListed

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N

SATM 618 682 624 610 675 236 634 43

SATCR 560 682 564 610 612 236 578 43

GPA 3.76 682 3.77 610 3.90 236 3.89 43

RCE 61 682 62 610 66 236 64 43

Applicant Pool
Geographic Distribution

State Pool
Northern (9.0) 6.6%
Central (8.5) 9.7%
East Central (4.0) 1.7%
West Central (2.6) 1.1%
Metro-East (4.5) 2.4%
Southern (4.9) 1.1%
Chicagoland (66.5) 77.3%
Chicago (20%) 6.1%
**Source 2000 Illinois Census data

Applicants Qualified Decision WaitListed

Percentile 25 Percentile 75 Percentile 25 Percentile 75 Percentile 25 Percentile 75 Percentile 25 Percentile 75

SATM 550 690 560 690 620 740 590 680

SATCR 510 630 510 630 560 670 540 590

GPA 3.66 4.00 3.66 4.00 3.90 4.00 3.90 4.00

RCE 55 65 55 68 65 70 60 70

Page 7
 Applicants Qualified Decision WaitListed

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N

SATM Gender F 594 288 601 254 646 121 621 22

M 637 392 641 355 708 115 647 21

SATCR Gender F 557 288 562 254 603 121 575 22

M 561 392 565 355 621 115 581 21

GPA Gender F 3.79 288 3.79 254 3.90 121 3.87 22

M 3.74 392 3.75 355 3.89 115 3.92 21

RCE Gender F 61 288 62 254 65 121 61 22

M 60 392 61 355 66 115 67 21

Applicants Qualified Decision WaitListed

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N

SATM Grade 8th 625 200 633 173 729 41 .

9th 615 481 621 436 661 195 634 43

th
SATCR Grade 8 562 200 564 173 630 41 . 0

9th 558 481 563 436 607 195 578 43

GPA Grade 8th 3.82 200 3.82 173 3.95 41 .

9th 3.73 481 3.74 436 3.88 195 3.89 43

RCE Grade 8th 61 200 62 173 68 41 .

9th 61 481 61 436 65 195 64 43

Page 8
 Applicants Qualified Decision WaitListed

Mean Valid N Mean Valid N Mean Valid N Mean Valid N

Black GPA 3.52 56 3.54 51 3.80 20 . 0

SATM 506 62 520 52 575 19 . 0

SATCR 479 62 487 52 527 19 . 0

RCE 57 72 59 55 61 21 . 0

Asian GPA 3.82 269 3.82 258 3.95 102 3.93 20

SATM 657 258 660 247 722 88 642 20

SATCR 571 258 572 247 629 88 579 20

RCE 61 268 62 247 66 88 63 20

White GPA 3.74 279 3.75 265 3.86 101 3.90 20

SATM 609 270 615 252 659 89 620 20

SATCR 572 270 576 252 625 89 572 20

RCE 61 287 62 255 67 90 65 20

Latino GPA 3.61 40 3.61 40 3.70 19 1

SATM 562 35 562 34 611 14 1

SATCR 509 35 508 34 529 14 1

RCE 60 38 60 36 64 15 1

Page 9
 Applicants Qualified Decision WaitListed

Mean N Mean N Mean N Mean N

Region Central SATM 606 69 610 63 646 28 2

SATCR 562 69 565 63 616 28 2

GPA 3.83 69 3.83 63 3.94 28 2

RCE 59 69 60 63 65 28 2

Chicagoland SATM 631 511 636 454 691 168 653 31

SATCR 564 511 566 454 612 168 590 31

GPA 3.76 511 3.76 454 3.89 168 3.87 31

RCE 61 511 62 454 66 168 64 31

East Central SATM 571 14 576 13 633 5 1

SATCR 508 14 513 13 570 5 1

GPA 3.81 14 3.81 13 3.98 5 1

RCE 60 14 61 13 63 5 1

Metro East SATM 459 18 486 15 530 5 1

SATCR 451 18 473 15 475 5 1

GPA 3.54 18 3.54 15 3.93 5 1

RCE 58 18 59 15 58 5 1

Northern SATM 578 47 587 42 612 17 594 7

SATCR 560 47 568 42 613 17 544 7

GPA 3.76 47 3.78 42 3.79 17 3.96 7

RCE 61 47 62 42 66 17 63 7

Out of State SATM 2 2 1 . 0

SATCR 2 2 1 . 0

GPA 2 2 1 . 0

RCE 2 2 1 . 0

Southern SATM 597 7 597 7 4 . 0

SATCR 544 7 544 7 4 . 0

Page 10
 GPA 3.81 7 3.81 7 4 . 0

RCE 65 7 65 7 4 . 0

West Central SATM 637 8 637 8 676 5 1

SATCR 593 8 593 8 642 5 1

GPA 3.90 8 3.90 8 3.99 5 1

RCE 66 8 66 8 65 5 1

Comparable information for 7 previously admitted classes

Application year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

SAT-M Mean 645 642 639 631 652 651 665

Standard Deviation 80 91 94 85 85 95 92

Percentile 25 590 580 560 580 600 580 610

Percentile 75 700 710 710 690 710 720 740

Application year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

GPA Mean 3.84 3.86 3.86 3.88 3.88 3.88 3.87

Standard Deviation .22 .20 .18 .15 .18 .16 .19

Percentile 25 3.76 3.80 3.80 3.84 3.83 3.82 3.80

Percentile 75 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

Page 11
 Application year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

SAT-V/CR Mean 599 585 588 587 587 591 590

Standard Deviation 82 84 83 83 80 91 85

Percentile 25 550 520 520 530 530 520 535

Percentile 75 650 640 650 640 640 650 650

Review of the Invited Classes of 2007-2012

SAT-M SAT-CR GPA
Avg 75% 25% Avg 75% 25% Avg 75% 25%
2007 642 (710) (580) 585 (640) (520) 3.86 (4.0) (3.80)
2008 639 (710) (580) 588 (650) (520) 3.86 (4.0) (3.80)
2009 631 (690) (580) 587 (640) (530) 3.88 (4.0) (3.84)
2010 652 (710) (600) 587 (640) (530) 3.88 (4.0) (3.83)
2011 651 (720) (580) 591 (650) (520) 3.88 (4.0) (3.82)
2012 665 (740) (610) 590 (650) (535) 3.87 (4.0) (3.80)
2013 675 (740) (620) 612 (670) (560) 3.90 (4.0) (3.90)

Each year approximately of the invited 8 th grade students defer their admission to IMSA. The 8th
grade defer rate for the 2010 application year was nearly 75%.

8th Grade Applicants 2004-2010

Year 8th Grade % of Accepted % of Enrolled % of Enroll

Pool Pool Class Class %

2004 176 31% 42 17% 31 13% 73%

2005 186 31% 38 15% 32 13% 84%

2006* 187 30% 40 16% 25 10% 62%

2007* 189 30% 33 14% 20 9% 60%

2008* 263 40% 70 35% 34 14% 49%

2009* 269 35% 35 14% 12 5% 37%

2010* 260 35% 41 18% 11 5% 27%

th
* Self Defer option available for 8 grade applicants per amended Admission Policy

Page 12
Through a survey of 8th graders who defer their enrollment to IMSA, nearly 100% responded that they have
every intent on attending IMSA for the next academic year. The reasons stated for deferring admission include
not ready to live away from home, want to take additional math and science classes before enrolling, did not
want to skip a grade, I want to spend more time with family and friends before attending boarding school and
my parents want me stay home one more year. Nearly 60% of the 8th grade applicants who were accepted
intended to defer their admission to IMSA.

Accepted students who do not attend IMSA site various reasons for not accepting the invitation to enroll. The
most noteworthy include not wanting to live away from home, connections made and positive experiences at
home school and in their communities, and parents fostered the idea to apply to IMSA.

A formal review and revision of the Admission Policy was instituted for the class of 2010. Some have felt the
attrition of students and an increase in at-risk grades for sophomores was due to the change in the Admission
Policy. Following is pre and post admission policy change data used in the selection of IMSA students.
Overall, the average SAT scores have increased including the 75% and 25% and the average modified GPAs
have remained consistent with a slight increase.

Pre Admission Policy Change

SAT-M SAT-CR GPA
Avg 75% 25% Avg 75% 25% Avg 75% 25%
2007 642 (710) (580) 585 (640) (520) 3.86 (4.0) (3.80)
2008 639 (710) (580) 588 (650) (520) 3.86 (4.0) (3.80)
2009 631 (690) (580) 587 (640) (530) 3.88 (4.0) (3.84)

Post Admission Policy Change

SAT-M SAT-CR GPA
Avg 75% 25% Avg 75% 25% Avg 75% 25%
2010 652 (710) (600) 587 (640) (530) 3.88 (4.0) (3.83)
2011 651 (720) (580) 591 (650) (520) 3.88 (4.0) (3.82)
2012 665 (740) (610) 590 (650) (535) 3.87 (4.0) (3.80)
2013 675 (740) (620) 612 (670) (560) 3.90 (4.0) (3.90)

Page 13
Attrition

Students leave IMSA for a variety of reasons including homesickness, social/emotional concerns, academics
and discipline related issues.

Attrition for the IMSA Classes 2007-2012

Class of Enrolled Attrition

2007 229 11%
2008 235 13%
2009 234 14%
2010 213 16%
2011 243 18% (as of 1-5-11)
2012 245 8% (as of 1-5-11)
2013 224 2% (as of 1-5-11)

Students Who Leave IMSA

Class of # WD Graduate Dismissed Non Re-invitation Withdrew

2007 22 89% 2 2 18

2008 27 88% 5 0 22

2009 29 86% 3 9 18

2010 34 84% 3 9 22

2011 45 82% 1 16 28

2012 25 92% 2 3 20

2013 4 98% 1 3

Overview of At-Risk Sophomores and Retention

The transition to IMSA can be more challenging for some students (and families) then for others. As a
community we understand that our sophomores are experiencing a new learning, living and social environment
often with different expectations and consequences than at home. The academic success and retention of
sophomores is critical to the health of the Academy. Members of the faculty and staff and especially our
sophomore teachers, Resident Counselors and members of the Strategies team, have created, introduced and
implemented numerous intervention strategies to assist our sophomores with their transition to IMSA. This
need arose when reviewing the following data regarding the academic success and attrition of our sophomore
students.
At Risk Students End of Semester 1 Sophomore Year
Class N=Enrolled Acad. Prob. 3 Cs Total # Ds
2008 235 7 (3%) 5 (2%) 11 (5%) 9
2009 234 7 (3%) 10 (4%) 16 (7%) 7
2010 213 14 (7%) 19 (9%) 33 (15%) 28
2011 245 23 (9%) 23 (9%) 46 (19%) 30
2012 245 20 (8%) 5 (2%) 25 (10%) 25
2013 224
Academic probation status is initiated at IMSA whenever a student receives a failing semester grade (D-less than 70%).
Page 14
 The Number of Sophomores who Received Ds for First Semester

Class N=Enrolled 1D 2 Ds 3 Ds
2008 235 7 0 0

2009 234 7 0 0

2010 213 5 4 5

2011 245 14 3 1
2012 245 14 6 2
2013 224

Sophomore Year Comparative Student Retention Data

Class N=Enrolled WDs Sem. 1 WDs Sem. 2 Total*

2005 238 4 (2%) 13 17 (7%)

2006 212 5 (2%) 7 12 (6%)

2007 229 3 (1%) 7 10 (4%)

2008 235 8 (3%) 11 19 (8%)

2009 234 3 (1%) 13 16 (7%)

2010 213 9 (5%) 15 24 (5%)

2011 245 8 (3%) 26 32 (13%)

2012 245 7 (3%) 11 18 (7%)
2013 224 5 (2%)

Total* is cumulative % of students who withdrew and did not return for junior year

Page 15
Retention

Utilizing data including the data displayed above, as an Academy we have taken a serious look at how we
support our students academically, socially and emotionally.

Teachers support students using a variety of methods including formal and informal monitoring in the
classroom, individual meetings with students outside of the classroom, communication with adults in the IMSA
community including RCs, parents, Academic Support staff, helping students connect with available resources
and personalization/communication with students. Results of survey of IMSA faculty during spring 2010
exhibits strategies our teachers use when students are not meeting expectations.

What strategies do you use when students are not meeting your expectations? (based on 24 faculty
responses 40%)

Several collaborative responses to aid in retaining our sophomores have been implemented including monthly
meetings with sophomore teachers and members of the Residence Life Staff; additional means for parent,
student and teacher conferences to occur; a faculty/staff development opportunity to work with Ellen Winter, a
speaker on motivating gifted adolescence and a Community Development Day with Dr. Freeman Hrabowski on
retaining and working with at-risk gifted and talented students.

Strategies and interventions have been implemented to provide additional structure for struggling students
which include evening study hours in the IRC extended to include four evenings; Wednesday I-Day morning
study sessions are required for students on academic probation; Project Steps a structured academic support
program to meet the needs of struggling sophomores; a mandatory Intersession class for sophomores on
academic probation; the re-working and revision of the Navigation program; the newly implemented lights out
and the 11:30p.m. turning off the Internet for sophomores have all been instituted to address the academic and
social/emotional needs of the sophomores. Additional academic support and guidance from the Residence
Counselors, an extensive peer tutoring program, Wednesday study and review sessions for sophomore
classes, and a fresh look in the Writing Center with increased training of the Writing Center tutors, expanded
hours and satellite locations in the residence halls and IRC during evening study have all provided additional
support and assistance for our students. It takes the entire Academy to educate, support and encourage our
students.

Page 16
Excel

Excel is a three-week residential program for students who have already been selected for admission to IMSA
with the condition that they successfully complete Excel. Students required to attend are fully qualified, but
may not have been exposed to some key educational opportunities as evidenced in their application and
placement tests. The curriculum focuses on the skill development, critical thinking and problem solving in
mathematics, science, and English, along with the interpersonal and cultural aspects of IMSAs residential
learning environment that will prepare students to be successful as IMSA students. Occasionally there are
students who participate in Excel, and in spite of individual guidance and instruction, do not show the progress
necessary to be successful within the IMSA curriculum. These students are not enrolled as sophomores.

The summer Excel program is highly structured, with math, science and English classes both morning and
afternoon, workshops, academic and residential field trips, scheduled study times, and residential
programming. Inquiry based learning and collaboration is key, as is using evidence to support findings in
writing and oral presentations. A major component of the Excel experience is learning to live and work with
talented students with diverse backgrounds from all over Illinois. Peer Tutors who are current IMSA students
serve as mentors and guides. The Excel program is an opportunity for incoming sophomores to encounter the
academic and residential experiences, resources, and support that will enhance their three-year IMSA
experience.

Excel Attrition

Classes 2007-2013

# Did not
Entering # Excel % Excel IMSA % IMSA Complete
Class of Enrollment # Participants Attrition Attrition Attrition Attrition Excel

2007 229 40 2 5% 25 11% 0

2008 235 46 3 6% 30 13% 0

2009 234 50 12 24% 32 14% 0

2010 213 43 11 26% 35 16% 5

2011-Sr. 245 47 14 30% 45 18% 0

2012-Jr. 245 46 10 22% 20 8% 1

2013-So. 224 45 2 4% 4 2% 0

as of 1/5/11

The Excel program is reviewed and revised each year to address the perceived needs of the students through
an evaluation of the transition to IMSA for the previous few classes including the attrition of Excel participants,
grades, courses enrolled, residential living experience and participation in leadership opportunities. Examples
of recent changes include the addition of a second science teacher, the RC facilitation of a Sunday evening
Excel study group with peer tutors, increased introductions to academy personnel and intentional course
scheduling. A program review will be conducted this summer by outside evaluators to assist us in our efforts to
decrease the attrition of Excel students and assess the academic mission of the program.
Page 17
EXCEL Students- SAT Growth
Students in the EXCEL program generally make gains in their SAT-Math and SAT-Critical Reasoning scores while enrolled
at IMSA. For the 160 EXCEL students in the last four graduating classes (2006-2009), their average SAT scores are
detailed here:

Table 1: EXCEL- SAT growth for graduating classes of 2006-2009

Class of 2006:
SAT-M SAT-M Range SAT-CR SAT-CR Range SAT Average
Entering score-2003 574 450-750 544 350-710 1118
Score at graduation-2006 673 530-790 619 460-770 1292

Class of 2007:
SAT-M SAT-M Range SAT-CR SAT-CR Range SAT Average
Entering score-2004 526 410-660 516 410-690 1042
Score at graduation-2007 622 450-780 588 430-770 1210

Class of 2008:
SAT-M SAT-M Range SAT-CR SAT-CR Range SAT Average
Entering score-2005 540 360-690 543 410-750 1083
Score at graduation-2008 639 520-780 603 440-770 1242

Class of 2009:
SAT-M SAT-M Range SAT-CR SAT-CR Range SAT Average
Entering score-2006 528 410-620 538 360-710 1066
Score at graduation-2009 653 510-800 612 440-800 1265

Page 18