Introduction
Students may self-identify a language other than English as their native language on the admissions application. Throughout this report, this is referred to as ESL (English as a Second Language). Students may also request admissions materials translated in Spanish. This is referred to as SMR (Spanish materials requested). Neither of these data points are included in the Student Information System and have not been used in prior analyses. The purpose of this report is to examine demographics, student success, and institutional support program participation by ESL or SMR status.
Representation of English as a Second Language or Spanish Materials Requested Status
Approximately 300 to 500 students in each FTFT cohort identify as ESL or SMR. Over the last five fall cohorts (including summer starts) this group has increased from 374 in FA21 to 513 in FA25. Table 1 displays the headcounts for FTFT cohorts by ESL or SMR status. This table also presents headcounts across ESL and SMR categories. For instance, in FA25 there are 513 ESL or SMR students. Among these students, 227 are ESL only, 154 are SMR only, and the remaining 132 are both ESL and SMR.
Table 1. FA21 through FA25 FTFT Cohort Headcounts by English as Second Language or Spanish Materials Requested Self-Identified Status
| FA21 | FA22 | FA23 | FA24 | FA25 | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESL or SMR | 374 | 393 | 454 | 492 | 513 | 2,226 |
| ESL only | 186 | 191 | 230 | 210 | 227 | 1,044 |
| SMR only | 106 | 122 | 119 | 156 | 154 | 657 |
| Both ESL and SMR | 82 | 80 | 105 | 126 | 132 | 525 |
| Not Identified as ESL | 4,721 | 5,088 | 4,770 | 4,925 | 4,816 | 24,320 |
| Total FTFT Cohort | 5,095 | 5,481 | 5,224 | 5,417 | 5,329 | 26,546 |
Table 2 displays the representation of students by ESL and SMR status. About 10% of the FA25 cohort has ESL or SMR status. Among students with ESL or SMR status, just under half are ESL only (indicating a native language other than English) and about a quarter are both ESL and SMR. The remaining 30% indicated that English is their native language but requested admissions materials in Spanish.
Table 2. English as Second Language or Spanish Materials Requested Representation among FA21-FA25 FTFT Cohorts
| FA21 | FA22 | FA23 | FA24 | FA25 | Overall | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent FTFT Cohort that are ESL or SMR | 7% | 7% | 9% | 9% | 10% | 8% |
| Percent only ESL among ESL or SMR | 50% | 49% | 51% | 43% | 44% | 47% |
| Percent only SMR among ESL or SMR | 28% | 31% | 26% | 32% | 30% | 30% |
| Percent both among ESL or SMR | 22% | 20% | 23% | 26% | 26% | 24% |
Table 3 displays the representation of student attributes across ESL or SMR status. Students with ESL or SMR status are more likely to be first-generation (FG), Colorado residents, from rural areas, and limited-income or Pell Grant recipients. Among students with ESL or SMR status, those with both statuses show the highest representation across all five of these attributes. For instance, over 80% of students who are both ESL and SMR are FG and limited income compared to under a quarter of the students that are neither ESL or SMR.
Notably GPA does not differ substantially for students with either ESL or SMR status compared to students who did not identify as either on their admissions application. Additionally, there little variation in HS GPA among the ESL and SMR combinations. This suggests that differences in success are not well explained by differences in HS GPA (as a measure of academic preparation).
Table 3. FA21-FA25 FTFT Cohort Demographics by English as Second Language or Spanish Materials Requested Status
| HS GPA | FG | Resident | Rural | Limited Income | Pell Recipient | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESL or SMR | 3.6 | 64% | 76% | 15% | 61% | 49% |
| ESL only | 3.6 | 49% | 65% | 12% | 44% | 35% |
| SMR only | 3.6 | 71% | 81% | 16% | 71% | 62% |
| Both ESL and SMR | 3.6 | 86% | 90% | 19% | 83% | 62% |
| Not Identified as ESL | 3.7 | 21% | 61% | 9% | 24% | 19% |
| Total FTFT Cohorts | 3.7 | 24% | 62% | 9% | 27% | 21% |
Persistence and Graduation by English as Second Language or Spanish Materials Requested Self-Identified Status
Table 4 displays second- and third-fall persistence rates, as well as four-year graduation rates by ESL and SMR status.
Table 4. FA21-FA25 FTFT Cohort Persistence and Graduation Rates by English as Second Language or Spanish Materials Requested Status
| 2nd Fall Persistence | 3rd Fall Persistence | 4 YR Graduation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESL or SMR | 83.8% | 73.0% | 39.3% |
| ESL only | 85.3% | 74.6% | 41.4% |
| SMR only | 82.7% | 70.6% | 32.1% |
| Both ESL and SMR | 82.2% | 72.3% | 43.9% |
| Not Identified as ESL | 85.7% | 77.2% | 52.0% |
| Total FTFT Cohorts | 85.6% | 76.9% | 51.1% |
- 2nd Fall Persistence includes FA21-FA24 FTFT cohorts
- 3rd Fall Persistence includes FA21-FA23 FTFT cohorts
- 4YR Graduation includes FA21 FTFT cohort
Table 5 displays the differences between ESL/SMR status and the overall rate to demonstrate which groups have rates above or below the overall rate and the magnitude of that difference (measured by percentage points). Generally, students with ESL or SMR status have persistence and graduation rates that are below the overall rate. Among the ESL or SMR students, the students who are ESL only have slightly higher success rates compared to SMR only or students who are both ESL and SMR.
Table 5. FA21-FA25 FTFT Cohort Persistence and Graduation Rates by English as Second Language or Spanish Materials Requested Status
| 2nd Fall Persistence | 3rd Fall Persistence | 4 YR Graduation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESL or SMR Gap | -1.8 | -3.9 | -11.8 |
| ESL only Gap | -0.3 | -2.3 | -9.7 |
| SMR only Gap | -2.9 | -6.3 | -19.0 |
| Both ESL and SMR Gap | -3.4 | -4.6 | -7.2 |
| Not Identified as ESL Gap | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.9 |
Institutional Supports by English as Second Language or Spanish Materials Requested Self-Identified Status
Table 6 displays the proportion of students in an institutional program (Key, C4E, or AAC) as well as students identified as needing support based on the academic assessment of their admissions application (Student Recommended for Support, SRS). Students with ESL or SMR status are slightly more likely to be assigned SRS. This is particularly true for the segment of students who are both ESL and SMR (about a quarter are SRS compared to 16% overall). ESL or SMR students are much more likely to receive an institutional support compared to the overall population.
Table 6. Institutional Supports and SRS status by English as Second Language or Spanish Materials Requested Status
| SRS | Key | C4E | AAC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ESL or SMR | 21.1% | 32.1% | 36.3% | 7.2% |
| ESL only | 19.4% | 19.5% | 21.7% | 3.8% |
| SMR only | 20.9% | 36.1% | 39.7% | 8.5% |
| Both ESL and SMR | 24.8% | 52.2% | 61.1% | 12.4% |
| Not Identified as ESL | 15.3% | 5.8% | 5.5% | 0.8% |
| Total FTFT Cohorts | 15.8% | 8.0% | 8.1% | 1.3% |
Table 7 displays the success rates of students with ESL or SMR status who are participants in either Key, C4E or AAC. The purpose of showing the success rates for ESL or SMR students with these supports is to explore the correlation between success rates and these supports. ESL or SMR students with these supports do have higher rates of success. The overall 2nd fall persistence rate is 85.6% (table 4) and ESL or SMR students have approximately a -0.2 percentage point gap (table 5), but when the SMR or ESL group is limited to just those with supports the gap reverses to a +0.1 percentage point difference (85.7% for ESL or SMR with support). Similarly, the magnitude of the gaps decreases at 3rd fall and 4-year graduation.
Table 7. Persistence and Graduation Rates for ESL or SMR students with Institutional Supports (Key, C4E or AAC)
| 2nd Fall Persistence | 3rd Fall Persistence | 4 YR Graduation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ESL or SMR | 85.7% | 75.5% | 38.6% |
| ESL only | 86.5% | 75.9% | 35.5% |
| SMR only | 86.9% | 75.3% | 34.7% |
| ESL and SMR | 83.9% | 75.3% | 45.0% |
Summary
Students with ESL or SMR status represent a notable proportion of the FTFT cohort (about 10%) and this group has lower success rates compared to the overall population. This group also has higher representation among rural, first-generation, and limited-income students. These students are also more likely to be in institutional support programs like Key, C4E or AAC.
There is variation within the ESL/SMR population. Students who are SMR, with or without ESL status, tend to be more diverse and have larger gaps. These students also are more likely to participate in programs like Key, C4E, and AAC.
ESL and SMR status are likely useful attributes to collect in the student information system to help inform student success activities. However, these attributes are not currently being collected, and these students are still effectively enrolling in our main institutional support programs. Considering the staffing demands of data warehousing, adding these variables to the ODS might not be the best use of limited resources.