Success Coaching
Leveraging Persistence: A New Strategy for Reducing Attrition by 20%.
Agenda - Today
Enrollment & Persistence Math
A Viable Investment: InsideTrack Coaching
Conclusions, Questions & Answers
2
Increased competition and rising costs make persistence worthy of attention and investment
“Rapid increases in discounting have resulted in losses in net revenue, have not improved retention or graduation rates, and have caused institutions to decrease spending on instruction and other vital services to students."
- Kenneth E. Redd, director of research and policy analysis, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
"It's a very crowded and competitive space, and the organizations that have a lot of money are the ones that are doing well." - Nan Dawkins, RedBoots Consulting, in McLean, Va., advises clients on Internet-marketing strategies. Dec. 1, 2006, By GOLDIE BLUMENSTYK
“[Online Marketing] is both more expensive and less effective because more people are doing it." - Margee Ensign, dean, University of the Pacific School of International Studies
“The stakes are getting higher.“ - Bob Sevier, Stamats
1 “Kenneth Redd: Tracked the Downside of Discounting.” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 15, 2005 2 “Marketing The For-Profit Way,” CHE, December 1, 2006. 3 “Marketing The For-Profit Way,” CHE, December 1, 2006. 4 “Breaking Through the Noise of a Crowded Field,” CHE, May 19, 2006.
3
Enrollment Management – Rising Costs Cost of Recruiting Report – Noel Levitz, 2006: Median Cost to Recruit One Student at a 4-year Private Institution
2004: $1,901 2005: $2,073 … 9% increase 25% Spend More than $2,500/student
4
Math Problems
Persistence Math
How many terms does the average student stay in your school? ______ What is your annual net tuition/student/term? $______ Multiply these numbers to get your average lifetime tuition revenue/student $______
6
Persistence Math - Example
How many semesters does the average student stay in your school? 5.81 What is your net tuition/student/semester? $8,000 Multiply these numbers to get your average lifetime tuition revenue/student $46,480
7
An Effective Persistence Program Scenario 1:
Sem 1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
Scenario 2:
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 88.0% 74.0% 68.0% 61.0% 59.0% 55.0% 53.0% 12.0% 11.0%
100 88 74 68 61 59 55 53 12 11
1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
5.8
Average Semesters Attended
Scenario 3:
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 90.0% 79.0% 73.0% 66.0% 63.0% 60.0% 58.0% 13.0% 12.0%
100 90 79 73 66 63 60 58 13 12
1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
Average Semesters Attended
6.1
Sem
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 91.0% 80.0% 74.0% 67.0% 64.0% 61.0% 59.0% 13.0% 12.0%
100 91 80 74 67 64 61 59 13 12
Average Semesters Attended
6.2
Sem
Net tuition per student per Sem
$8,000
Tuition revenue per student/Sem
$8,000
Tuition revenue per student/Sem
$8,000
Lifetime Value of a student
$46,480
Lifetime Value of a student
$49,120
Lifetime Value of a student
$49,680
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts
$4,648,000
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts % increase over Scenario 1 $ increase over Scenario 1
8
$4,912,000 5.7% $264,000
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts % increase over Scenario 1 $ increase over Scenario 1
$4,968,000 6.9% $320,000
An Effective Persistence Program Scenario 1:
Sem 1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
Scenario 2:
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 88.0% 74.0% 68.0% 61.0% 59.0% 55.0% 53.0% 12.0% 11.0%
100 88 74 68 61 59 55 53 12 11
1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
5.8
Average Semesters Attended
Scenario 3:
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 90.0% 79.0% 73.0% 66.0% 63.0% 60.0% 58.0% 13.0% 12.0%
100 90 79 73 66 63 60 58 13 12
1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
Average Semesters Attended
6.1
Sem
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 91.0% 80.0% 74.0% 67.0% 64.0% 61.0% 59.0% 13.0% 12.0%
100 91 80 74 67 64 61 59 13 12
Average Semesters Attended
6.2
Sem
Net tuition per student per Sem
$8,000
Tuition revenue per student/Sem
$8,000
Tuition revenue per student/Sem
$8,000
Lifetime Value of a student
$46,480
Lifetime Value of a student
$49,120
Lifetime Value of a student
$49,680
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts
$4,648,000
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts % increase over Scenario 1 $ increase over Scenario 1
$4,912,000 5.7% $264,000
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts % increase over Scenario 1 $ increase over Scenario 1
Q: What Can Produce a Sustained Improvement Like This? 9
$4,968,000 6.9% $320,000
A Viable Investment – InsideTrack Coaching
InsideTrack Basics
Founded 2000
Core Services – Success Coaching (retention-focused) – Enrollment Coaching (enrollment-focused)
Students Served – Over 32,000 by Dec. 2006 (Success Coaching) – Nearly 50,000 by July, 2007
Coaching operations in Portland, San Francisco, and on campuses in S. California & San Antonio, TX 11
Success & Enrollment Coaching Impact of InsideTrack Programs Along the Student Lifecycle
Lead
Applicant
Admit
Enrollment Coaching Increase starts 10-15%
First-year student
Contg. student
Graduate
Success Coaching Increase continuing enrollments 10-15%
Enrollment Coaching (since Oct-04) Weekly phone and email contact prior to start of school to motivate and prepare students to start at client college Price: $8,333/Coach/Month
New Student Success Coaching Weekly in-person or over-phone sessions that increase student success and satisfaction in “8 Areas of Focus” Price: $27/Session ~ $115/Student/Month ~ $1,000/Student/Year
12
Coaching results (1 of 2): Success Coaching1 Cumulative retention rates (n = 15 pilot and control groups) 89.4%
Non-coached
InsideTrack 16% reduction in status quo attrition
82.9% 79.1% 70.3%
15% more students after 12 months
72.0%
59.9% 61.4%%
52.2%
Month 3
Month 6
1 Bars and percentages represent cumulative enrollment rates of InsideTrack coached students versus matching control groups created that did not receive coaching. Sample size = 2283 students in 15 separate pilot programs
Month 9
13
Month 12
Coaching results (2 of 2): Success Coaching – student funded1 Percentage of students who opt in for coaching in their second year 49%
47% 38%
Chap-FA03
Chap-FA04
1 Bars and percentages represent the percent of coached freshmen who opted to pay for coaching in their sophomore year 2 Sample sizes: ChapFA03 = 225 freshmen; ChapFA04 = 345 freshmen; and MmtFA04 = 150 freshmen
14
Mmt-FA04
Highly selective recruitment process brings outstanding Coaches InsideTrack Coaches share 5 important attributes:
Drive for success, performance orientation: – –
Strong communication and management skills: – – –
Confident; having and exercising good judgment; flexible and able to adapt; emotionally stable Easy to talk with: able to connect with and appeal to a broad range of people
Strong organization and time management: – –
Clear and direct, able to organize thoughts and communicate them Able to deliver constructive feedback effectively Great listening skills/good at asking questions/persuasive
Strong interpersonal skills: – –
Self motivated with strong initiative and work ethic (strives for excellence) Comfortable with accountability and being measured (takes ownership for performance)
Able to prioritize effectively and follow through on responsibilities Able to keep track of many projects at once and stay organized
Connection to InsideTrack mission and culture – –
Passion for helping students succeed Balance of ambition with fulfillment by coaching role
15
Coach Certification Achievement
Level I Certification – Successful completion of InsideTrack 8-day initial training – Demonstrated knowledge of InsideTrack Coaching Model (3 hour written exam) – Demonstrated ability to deliver InsideTrack Coaching Model in multiple observed coaching sessions
Level II Certification (1 year) – Full integration of Coach Core Objectives into all daily activities – Coaching is observed regularly and exceeds expectations for 70% of evaluation metrics
Level III Certification (2 years) – Demonstrated mastery of InsideTrack’s coaching model – Certifiers have no suggested improvements for 30% of evaluation metrics
Level IV Certification (3 years or more) – Design of training seminars to improve coach delivery – Demonstration of coaching on demand to an audience 16
Active focus on seven areas keeps students in school InsideTrack’s Seven Focus Areas 1. Commitment to graduation 2. Managing commitments 3. Finances
≈ Student satisfaction
4. School community
≈ Student success
5. Academics
≈ Degree completion
6. Effectiveness 7. Health & support
17
Powerful, Proactive Engagement Approach Always active
According to need
1. Build relationship
3. Solve problems • Work directly with the student to address and resolve urgent issues
• Listen, support and ask questions • Create a respectful, professional and enjoyable environment
4. Develop student
• Establish trust
• Improve student independence by building their problem solving skills
2. Evaluate student • Gather information from meetings and school systems (grades, attendance)
5. Motivate student • Building student desire to take positive action and succeed in school
• Determine areas of focus for student • Identify most effective coach action 18
Expectations – Coach Core Objectives
Generate Strong Results: Maximize the retention of your assigned roster of students – – –
Master the Coaching Process: Structure meetings flexibly but consistently Maximize Meeting Attendance – –
Track information Project results Prioritize action to get results
Pro-actively attract students to meetings: Be persistent in getting students to attend meetings
Play Your Role: Understand and correctly position your role in relation to the student, the school and InsideTrack Contribute to Team and Individual Development: Support the culture of InsideTrack as a learning organization
19
Catalyst – Student Management System
20
Catalyst – System for Managers
21
Student self-management - RightTrack
22
Student self-management - RightTrack
23
Impact on Schools - Deep Understanding Attrition factors for ALL cohorts not retained Sep 06 to Nov 06 Dropped during the first week (not contacted) 2%
6% last session
Other 6% Unknown 21%
Academics (Dismissal) 3% Dissatisfied 3% External commitmentsOther 4% Health 5%
Finances - can not afford 16%
Commitment to Degree 5%
4% last session
Effectiveness 5%
Finances - Customer Service 6%
Likely Graduate 7%
24
External commitmentsWork 9% External commitmentsFamily 8%
Note: N = 1291 drops in Mar 05 – Sep 06 cohorts; “Other” includes tech issues, natural disaster, future plans, community on campus, financial holds not removed, students unable to succeed in an online format, military and transfer students
We have proved our effectiveness with a wide variety of schools and programs
25
Active Advisory Board • Tom Abrahamson, Managing Director & Principal, Lipman Hearne • Lloyd Armstrong, Jr., University Professor & Provost Emeritus, University of Southern California • Robert Atwell, President Emeritus, American Council on Education • David Breneman, University Professor and Dean of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia • Ann Duffield, Principal, The Presidential Practice • Ellis Gedney, Past Chair, Career College Association; Vice Chair, Board of Directors, Ex'pression College for the Digital Arts • Albert "Hank" Greenstone, Director Emeritus, Education Management Corp. • Don Hossler, Professor of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies, Indiana University • Paul Jansen, Director of the Global Non-Profit Practice, McKinsey & Co. • Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-chief, Science Magazine; President Emeritus, Stanford University • Ted Marchese, Senior Consultant, Academic Search • Margaret "Peg" Miller, Director, Center for the Study of Higher Education, UVA; Editor-in-chief, Change magazine • Michael Nettles, Senior Vice President for Policy Evaluation and Research, ETS • Muriel Oaks, Dean, Center for Distance and Professional Education, WSU; President Emerita, UCEA
26
Questions?
Thank You!!
Agenda - Today
Enrollment & Persistence Math
A Viable Investment: InsideTrack Coaching
Conclusions, Questions & Answers
2
Increased competition and rising costs make persistence worthy of attention and investment
“Rapid increases in discounting have resulted in losses in net revenue, have not improved retention or graduation rates, and have caused institutions to decrease spending on instruction and other vital services to students."
- Kenneth E. Redd, director of research and policy analysis, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
"It's a very crowded and competitive space, and the organizations that have a lot of money are the ones that are doing well." - Nan Dawkins, RedBoots Consulting, in McLean, Va., advises clients on Internet-marketing strategies. Dec. 1, 2006, By GOLDIE BLUMENSTYK
“[Online Marketing] is both more expensive and less effective because more people are doing it." - Margee Ensign, dean, University of the Pacific School of International Studies
“The stakes are getting higher.“ - Bob Sevier, Stamats
1 “Kenneth Redd: Tracked the Downside of Discounting.” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 15, 2005 2 “Marketing The For-Profit Way,” CHE, December 1, 2006. 3 “Marketing The For-Profit Way,” CHE, December 1, 2006. 4 “Breaking Through the Noise of a Crowded Field,” CHE, May 19, 2006.
3
Enrollment Management – Rising Costs Cost of Recruiting Report – Noel Levitz, 2006: Median Cost to Recruit One Student at a 4-year Private Institution
2004: $1,901 2005: $2,073 … 9% increase 25% Spend More than $2,500/student
4
Math Problems
Persistence Math
How many terms does the average student stay in your school? ______ What is your annual net tuition/student/term? $______ Multiply these numbers to get your average lifetime tuition revenue/student $______
6
Persistence Math - Example
How many semesters does the average student stay in your school? 5.81 What is your net tuition/student/semester? $8,000 Multiply these numbers to get your average lifetime tuition revenue/student $46,480
7
An Effective Persistence Program Scenario 1:
Sem 1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
Scenario 2:
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 88.0% 74.0% 68.0% 61.0% 59.0% 55.0% 53.0% 12.0% 11.0%
100 88 74 68 61 59 55 53 12 11
1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
5.8
Average Semesters Attended
Scenario 3:
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 90.0% 79.0% 73.0% 66.0% 63.0% 60.0% 58.0% 13.0% 12.0%
100 90 79 73 66 63 60 58 13 12
1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
Average Semesters Attended
6.1
Sem
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 91.0% 80.0% 74.0% 67.0% 64.0% 61.0% 59.0% 13.0% 12.0%
100 91 80 74 67 64 61 59 13 12
Average Semesters Attended
6.2
Sem
Net tuition per student per Sem
$8,000
Tuition revenue per student/Sem
$8,000
Tuition revenue per student/Sem
$8,000
Lifetime Value of a student
$46,480
Lifetime Value of a student
$49,120
Lifetime Value of a student
$49,680
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts
$4,648,000
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts % increase over Scenario 1 $ increase over Scenario 1
8
$4,912,000 5.7% $264,000
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts % increase over Scenario 1 $ increase over Scenario 1
$4,968,000 6.9% $320,000
An Effective Persistence Program Scenario 1:
Sem 1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
Scenario 2:
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 88.0% 74.0% 68.0% 61.0% 59.0% 55.0% 53.0% 12.0% 11.0%
100 88 74 68 61 59 55 53 12 11
1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
5.8
Average Semesters Attended
Scenario 3:
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 90.0% 79.0% 73.0% 66.0% 63.0% 60.0% 58.0% 13.0% 12.0%
100 90 79 73 66 63 60 58 13 12
1 (start yr 1) 2 3 (yr 2) 4 5 (yr3) 6 7 (yr 4) 8 (end yr 4) 9 (5th yr) 10
Average Semesters Attended
6.1
Sem
Sem-by-Sem retention
Students attending
100.0% 91.0% 80.0% 74.0% 67.0% 64.0% 61.0% 59.0% 13.0% 12.0%
100 91 80 74 67 64 61 59 13 12
Average Semesters Attended
6.2
Sem
Net tuition per student per Sem
$8,000
Tuition revenue per student/Sem
$8,000
Tuition revenue per student/Sem
$8,000
Lifetime Value of a student
$46,480
Lifetime Value of a student
$49,120
Lifetime Value of a student
$49,680
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts
$4,648,000
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts % increase over Scenario 1 $ increase over Scenario 1
$4,912,000 5.7% $264,000
Revenue per cohort of 100 starts % increase over Scenario 1 $ increase over Scenario 1
Q: What Can Produce a Sustained Improvement Like This? 9
$4,968,000 6.9% $320,000
A Viable Investment – InsideTrack Coaching
InsideTrack Basics
Founded 2000
Core Services – Success Coaching (retention-focused) – Enrollment Coaching (enrollment-focused)
Students Served – Over 32,000 by Dec. 2006 (Success Coaching) – Nearly 50,000 by July, 2007
Coaching operations in Portland, San Francisco, and on campuses in S. California & San Antonio, TX 11
Success & Enrollment Coaching Impact of InsideTrack Programs Along the Student Lifecycle
Lead
Applicant
Admit
Enrollment Coaching Increase starts 10-15%
First-year student
Contg. student
Graduate
Success Coaching Increase continuing enrollments 10-15%
Enrollment Coaching (since Oct-04) Weekly phone and email contact prior to start of school to motivate and prepare students to start at client college Price: $8,333/Coach/Month
New Student Success Coaching Weekly in-person or over-phone sessions that increase student success and satisfaction in “8 Areas of Focus” Price: $27/Session ~ $115/Student/Month ~ $1,000/Student/Year
12
Coaching results (1 of 2): Success Coaching1 Cumulative retention rates (n = 15 pilot and control groups) 89.4%
Non-coached
InsideTrack 16% reduction in status quo attrition
82.9% 79.1% 70.3%
15% more students after 12 months
72.0%
59.9% 61.4%%
52.2%
Month 3
Month 6
1 Bars and percentages represent cumulative enrollment rates of InsideTrack coached students versus matching control groups created that did not receive coaching. Sample size = 2283 students in 15 separate pilot programs
Month 9
13
Month 12
Coaching results (2 of 2): Success Coaching – student funded1 Percentage of students who opt in for coaching in their second year 49%
47% 38%
Chap-FA03
Chap-FA04
1 Bars and percentages represent the percent of coached freshmen who opted to pay for coaching in their sophomore year 2 Sample sizes: ChapFA03 = 225 freshmen; ChapFA04 = 345 freshmen; and MmtFA04 = 150 freshmen
14
Mmt-FA04
Highly selective recruitment process brings outstanding Coaches InsideTrack Coaches share 5 important attributes:
Drive for success, performance orientation: – –
Strong communication and management skills: – – –
Confident; having and exercising good judgment; flexible and able to adapt; emotionally stable Easy to talk with: able to connect with and appeal to a broad range of people
Strong organization and time management: – –
Clear and direct, able to organize thoughts and communicate them Able to deliver constructive feedback effectively Great listening skills/good at asking questions/persuasive
Strong interpersonal skills: – –
Self motivated with strong initiative and work ethic (strives for excellence) Comfortable with accountability and being measured (takes ownership for performance)
Able to prioritize effectively and follow through on responsibilities Able to keep track of many projects at once and stay organized
Connection to InsideTrack mission and culture – –
Passion for helping students succeed Balance of ambition with fulfillment by coaching role
15
Coach Certification Achievement
Level I Certification – Successful completion of InsideTrack 8-day initial training – Demonstrated knowledge of InsideTrack Coaching Model (3 hour written exam) – Demonstrated ability to deliver InsideTrack Coaching Model in multiple observed coaching sessions
Level II Certification (1 year) – Full integration of Coach Core Objectives into all daily activities – Coaching is observed regularly and exceeds expectations for 70% of evaluation metrics
Level III Certification (2 years) – Demonstrated mastery of InsideTrack’s coaching model – Certifiers have no suggested improvements for 30% of evaluation metrics
Level IV Certification (3 years or more) – Design of training seminars to improve coach delivery – Demonstration of coaching on demand to an audience 16
Active focus on seven areas keeps students in school InsideTrack’s Seven Focus Areas 1. Commitment to graduation 2. Managing commitments 3. Finances
≈ Student satisfaction
4. School community
≈ Student success
5. Academics
≈ Degree completion
6. Effectiveness 7. Health & support
17
Powerful, Proactive Engagement Approach Always active
According to need
1. Build relationship
3. Solve problems • Work directly with the student to address and resolve urgent issues
• Listen, support and ask questions • Create a respectful, professional and enjoyable environment
4. Develop student
• Establish trust
• Improve student independence by building their problem solving skills
2. Evaluate student • Gather information from meetings and school systems (grades, attendance)
5. Motivate student • Building student desire to take positive action and succeed in school
• Determine areas of focus for student • Identify most effective coach action 18
Expectations – Coach Core Objectives
Generate Strong Results: Maximize the retention of your assigned roster of students – – –
Master the Coaching Process: Structure meetings flexibly but consistently Maximize Meeting Attendance – –
Track information Project results Prioritize action to get results
Pro-actively attract students to meetings: Be persistent in getting students to attend meetings
Play Your Role: Understand and correctly position your role in relation to the student, the school and InsideTrack Contribute to Team and Individual Development: Support the culture of InsideTrack as a learning organization
19
Catalyst – Student Management System
20
Catalyst – System for Managers
21
Student self-management - RightTrack
22
Student self-management - RightTrack
23
Impact on Schools - Deep Understanding Attrition factors for ALL cohorts not retained Sep 06 to Nov 06 Dropped during the first week (not contacted) 2%
6% last session
Other 6% Unknown 21%
Academics (Dismissal) 3% Dissatisfied 3% External commitmentsOther 4% Health 5%
Finances - can not afford 16%
Commitment to Degree 5%
4% last session
Effectiveness 5%
Finances - Customer Service 6%
Likely Graduate 7%
24
External commitmentsWork 9% External commitmentsFamily 8%
Note: N = 1291 drops in Mar 05 – Sep 06 cohorts; “Other” includes tech issues, natural disaster, future plans, community on campus, financial holds not removed, students unable to succeed in an online format, military and transfer students
We have proved our effectiveness with a wide variety of schools and programs
25
Active Advisory Board • Tom Abrahamson, Managing Director & Principal, Lipman Hearne • Lloyd Armstrong, Jr., University Professor & Provost Emeritus, University of Southern California • Robert Atwell, President Emeritus, American Council on Education • David Breneman, University Professor and Dean of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia • Ann Duffield, Principal, The Presidential Practice • Ellis Gedney, Past Chair, Career College Association; Vice Chair, Board of Directors, Ex'pression College for the Digital Arts • Albert "Hank" Greenstone, Director Emeritus, Education Management Corp. • Don Hossler, Professor of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies, Indiana University • Paul Jansen, Director of the Global Non-Profit Practice, McKinsey & Co. • Donald Kennedy, Editor-in-chief, Science Magazine; President Emeritus, Stanford University • Ted Marchese, Senior Consultant, Academic Search • Margaret "Peg" Miller, Director, Center for the Study of Higher Education, UVA; Editor-in-chief, Change magazine • Michael Nettles, Senior Vice President for Policy Evaluation and Research, ETS • Muriel Oaks, Dean, Center for Distance and Professional Education, WSU; President Emerita, UCEA
26
Questions?
Thank You!!
