MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
SPECIAL GOVERNING BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
A Special Board Meeting of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 5:00 p.m. at the District Support Services Center, 2411 West 14th Street, Tempe, Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice having been duly given.
Colleen Clark, President
Randolph Lumm, Secretary
Debra Pearson, Member
Don Campbell, Member
Jerry Walker, Member
Absent: Gene Giovannini
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
Welcome and Overview
The special board meeting was called to order at by Board President Colleen Clark. President Clark welcomed everyone present and stating that six weeks had passed since the efficiency review had started and this evening a report would be made regarding the progress made to date.
PHASE I SUMMARY REPORT TO GOVERNING BOARD BY SAJAN GEORGE, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ALVAREZ AND MARSAL
Mr. George introduced the twelve members of the A&M Team responsible for conducting reviews at each of the ten colleges. They were:
• Trey Sutton
• Amy Heintz
• Chris Toscano
• Mike Cross
• Mark Jacobs
• Nancy Zielke
• Bhavin Shah
• Brent Wise
• Lillie McMahan
• Kevin McMahon
• Carl Kiefer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW
ALVAREZ AND MARSAL PRESENT PHASE I SUMMARY REPORT TO GOVERNING BOARD
On September 30, 2009, Alvarez and Marsal's team of consultants providing a third-party external review of Maricopa's efficiency and effectiveness presented its Phase I Report to the Maricopa Community Colleges Governing Board.
The team's charge for Phase I – capture the voice of the 21st Century Maricopa student:
• Map out current state of student recruitment, retention and achievement.
• Document major supporting functions and activities
• Engage student focus groups to review and obtain feedback
One of the most eye-opening findings in a District-wide survey of students: 82% of all students say they aim to be completers*, but only 11% reach their goal within three years.
In an effort to help the District increase completion rates, the A & M team identified 92 best practices already in place at one or several Maricopa colleges supporting student recruitment, retention and achievement. A best practice is defined as:
|Observable||Defined by events and procedures that positively affect student satisfaction|
|Demonstrable||Identified practices that follow specific paths and procedures|
|Student-Focused||Practice is designed to directly affect a student's academic life.|
|Outcome-Driven||Focus towards specific goals and targets for potential and current students.|
|Replicable||Practices that can be standardized and integrated across the college systems with the same consistent, desired outcome.|
The resulting goals presented to the Governing Board, Chancellor and his Executive Council:
1. Proactively recruit and retain learners who become completers through targeted recruitment strategies, applying remediation strategies for student retention, and enhancing existing services and resources for student achievement.
2. Mandate the replication of observed best practices across the colleges using a "one-door" enrollment process and student service centers, enhancing academic advising and counseling, refining financial aid processes, and using enhanced tools.
3. Drive accountability for best practice implementation with the use of data by creating an accountability plan, leveraging relationships with local employers to maximize Service Learning opportunities, and seeking continuous feedback from, and collaboration with students and stakeholders.
The copy of the powerpoint presentation included with these minutes provides a complete overview of the A & M findings. Additionally, Maricopa Colleges Television (MCTV) is posting the complete video recording of the meeting.
Additional comments and ideas may be submitted directly to A & M at Maricopa@alvarezandmarsal.com.
Phase II of the firms work is already underway and will be reported out on November 24, 2009.
*Completers are defined as learners who transfer and/or attain a degree or certificate.
Student success is the fundamental goal at the Maricopa Community Colleges.
On August 24, 2009, the Maricopa Community Colleges began an aggressive four month effectiveness and efficiency review designed to help students succeed like never before.
The first phase of the project focuses on recruitment, retention, and student achievement - finding the best ways to support student success.
Alvarez and Marsal team of independent consultants, will blueprint a new organizational design for the Maricopa Community Colleges that:
• A. Captures the "voice of the 21st century student" at Maricopa with regard to their needs and aspirations from a multi-faceted, multi-location, single community college system.
• B. Re-examines the three critical processes to Maricopa students' future success: student recruitment, student retention, and student achievement (graduation/transfer/employment).
Develop redesign options on these processes to further enhance student success and satisfaction.
• C. Provide a high-level redesign of the remaining MCCCD organizational structures, interfaces, departments, processes, policies and functions that support student recruitment, student retention, and student achievement.
The project scope includes an exploration of key operational functions across the ten colleges and two skill centers with an assessment of opportunities for consolidation, centralization, and increased shared service delivery between and across the different colleges and the District. Updates on the project will be provided on this website at periodic intervals
PHASE I SUMMARY REPORT POWERPOINT PRESENTATION
Mr. George covered the following topics:
• Project Overview
• Voice of the Student
• Interim Findings
• Best Practices: Student Perspective
• Best Practices: College Perspective
• Driving Best Practice Implementation
Mr. George commented that the final report of the A&M team is expected to be completed on December 8. Tonight’s report was an interim look after six weeks. This phase was intended to capture the voice of students and to map out the current state of student recruitment, retention, and achievement. It was the firm’s desire to figure out how to do this as a system and be a model for the country. During Phase I major supporting functions and activities were documented and student focus groups were engaged to obtain feedback. The objectives were to present a potential new vision and framework for redesigning MCCCD around these core processes (recruitment, retention, and achievement) from the perspective of students and how to serve them more efficiently and effectively.
Mr. George followed with comments pertaining to Phase II which was scheduled to be completed by November 24 and Phase III which was intended to be completed by December 8. Phase II will include a review of administrative, financial and operational functions. The team will identify functions that should more closely align to the emerging vision of a student-centered MCCCD, and review best practices at selected college system facing similar challenges. Phase II will result in a complete re-designed blueprint of 21st Century Maricopa. Recommendations and a final report will be presented to the Board for approval, as well to the community.
Project Overview: Phase I Process
During Phase I ten colleges were visited, 300 people were interviewed, 9 student focus groups 16 employee groups spoken to, and 35 e-mails as well as 3800 student responses received. The data received during the aforementioned interviews, conversations, and e-mail was analyzed and compared against MCCCD colleges and national survey data and benchmarks. Best practices that were observable, demonstrable, student-focused, outcome-driven and replicable would be recommended for implementation. Furthermore, the design of a metric dashboard to focus on relevant measures of student success was designed.
Voice of the Student: Current State
Mr. George reported that 82% of student aim to be completers (learners who transfer and/or attain a degree or certificate), however, only 11% reach their goal within three years. After three years return rates are very low. Within Maricopa a number of departments and function are set and all drive into high level processes. The Maricopa student body is highly engaged or intentional. The 11% completion rate is an opportunity for Maricopa to work on raising.
Voice of the Student: Student Survey Results
Mr. George stated that as of Monday, September 28, 3800 student surveys had been returned. These surveys revealed a 99% confidence level. Surveys were analyzed according to age, gender, ethnicity, and college representation. Every college participated. Survey results showed that 83% of students very satisfied and majority of student live within ten mile of colleges they attend due to proximity and affordability. Students who were dissatisfied indicated that financial aid, academic advising, and faculty were factors. This presents an opportunity for improvement. The surveys also revealed that students identified with the college they attended and therefore used this information on their resumes. An opportunity exists to have them identify with Maricopa as opposed to individual colleges. The system is not leveraging that.
Voice of the Student: Ideal State
A focus on recruitment, retention and achievement would capture information about students and what remediation or advising is needed. Attention should focus on helping/making every student complete. Need to retain and help them achieve. Want them to persevere and be successful in completing for the workplace.
• Great people at colleges but not enough of them.
• Student experience rises or fails because of advising.
• A very decent system.
• Ten colleges can be high touch and develop strategies that fit each college due to different populations.
• Weakness would be a failure to leverage substantial footprint of the Maricopa System.
• Limiting potential by not stating they are attending MCCCD rather than individual college.
• Experiences need to be uniform and consistent.
• Have system market dual enrollment, workforce development.
• Much different level as a whole versus individual college.
Best Practices – Student Perspective
Focus groups and survey information were used to create three hypothetical but representative student profiles. The following profiles were presented:
|Assessment & Testing|
|Tutoring/Learning and Writing Centers|
Best practices at Maricopa include:
• One-stop admissions, orientation, financial aid, registration.
• Enrollment services for regular, dual and continuing education
• Retention services include financial aid, counseling, assessment and testing, academic advising, course registration, and student services. It is important that all the data gathered in this aspect of student assistance be used to gather an overall profile of students to assist them in completing their desired outcome or goals.
• Individual colleges within Maricopa have best practices, however, may not be part of practices at other colleges. CGCC has a good example of project engagement, EMC tracks students who use tutoring services, at SMC tutors are available when students are available not when they are in class, GWC conducts information sessions with students.
Best Practices: College Perspective
Mr. George stated that colleges need to follow best practices that meet the following criteria:
• Observable: defined by events and procedures that positively affect student satisfaction.
• Demonstrable: identified practices that follow specific paths and procedures.
• Student-focused: Practice is designed to directly affect a student’s academic life.
• Outcome-driven: Focus towards specific goals and targets for potential and current students.
• Replicable: Practices that can be standardized and integrated across the college systems with the same consistent, desired outcome. Need to enable 82% of students to succeed; not based one person’s expertise.
The Maricopa system is not organized to be student focused. The organization cannot be great at everything. Need to pick a few things that it wants to be world class.
Best Practices: College Perspective
Goal One: Proactively recruit and retain learners who become completers.
• Implement targeted recruitment strategies
• Apply standardized remediation strategies for student retention.
• Enhance existing services and resources for student achievement.
• 92 best practices were identified, however, only twelve were external.
Goal Two: Mandate the replication of observed best practices across the colleges.
• Create a “One-Door” enrollment process.
• Create One-Stop Enrollment Student Service Centers.
• Enhance academic advising and counseling services.
• Refine financial aid processes.
• Employ enhanced tools.
• 44 best practices were identified.
Goal Three: Drive accountability for best practice implementation with the use of data.
• Create an accountability plan.
• Leverage relationships with local employers to maximize service learning opportunities.
• Seek continuous feedback from and collaborate with “customers” and “stakeholders.”
• 12 best practices were identified
Driving Best Practice Implementation: Recruitment
• 93% of all MCCCD students take classes exclusively at one college location that is within a six to nine mile radius of their residence. Each college’s recruitment strategy should focus on the local population within their six to nine mile radius.
• Each college’s recruitment strategy should focus on attracting a student population is demographically representative (age and ethnicity) of its local population using census data.
• Each college should track recruitment performance and the demographic characteristics of their student body against the local market. Opportunities to increase market penetration of underrepresented groups should be pursued to ensure that the college best reflects the local community and its needs.
Driving Best Practices Implementation: Recruitment
Mr. George displayed a dashboard that compared Census Data versus MCCCD Data according to Age and Ethnicity at all ten colleges. (Refer to page 18 of handout for specific data.)
Driving Best Practices Implementation: Retention
Mr. George displayed the following four metrics, comparing MCCCD data to NCCBP (National Community College Benchmarking Project Reports for 2008) Data:
Course Withdrawal Rate (Dropout)
|Course Retention Rate (Completion)||2008||81.0%||88.8%||91.4%||92.9%|
|Fall to Spring Persistence Rate (Semester)||2008||61.0%||68.7%||71.5%||74.5%|
|Fall to Fall Persistence Rate (Year)||2008||45.0%||46.8%||50.7%||53.9%|
Information indicates MCCCD is not performing as well as rest of country. Opportunity to improve. No consistent way to retain students.
Driving Best Practice Implementation: Achievement
Percent completed in 3 years (Full time)
|Percent completed in 3 years (Part time)||2008||5.2%||5.1%||10.5%||15.0%|
|Percent transferred in 3 years (Full time)||2008||5.6%||18.2%||23.8%||30.3%|
|Percent transferred in 3 years (Part time)||2008||2.4%||11.8%||17.7%||26.0%|
Information indicates an opportunity to improve. Data not being managed consistently. Trying to simplify ability to lead Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, and College Presidents to drive the colleges. What to focus on? Student Recruitment, Student Retention, and Student Achievement. How do you track and how do you drive?
Goal One: Proactively recruit and retain learners who become completers.
Goal Two: mandate the replication of observed best practices across the colleges. 89% of best practices identified are not implemented at the individual colleges.
Goal Three: Drive accountability for best practice implementation with the use of data. The three broad goals above can be broken down into 92 individual best practices. Implementing these 92 best practices across all ten colleges through a single data dashboard will drive substantial improvement in student recruitment, retention, and achievement.
Board Member Comments
• Mr. Walker thanked Mr. George for his professional presentation. He noticed some things that he has noticed on some occasions which include the failure to leverage strengths of students. Need to find a way to draw on strength of entire system and not an individual school. Some colleges have strengths that others don’t. Would like to find a way that individual colleges could do things better.
• Dr. Campbell commented that he would like to focus on three aspects that we need to work on. This district started as different colleges and doesn’t feel they could work together as one. ASU was main part but then it expanded. MCCCD started out as individual colleges and must now be brought together. Focus on One Maricopa.
• Mrs. Pearson spoke about the dropout versus completers. She referenced page 19 and asked what is the validity of 19% What categories are included. Are these only degree seeking students? Questioned if MCCCD data is compared with similar data across the country. With reference to three things we do best, are we talking about three things at each campus? Mr. George responded that no organization can be great at everything. You have to pick things that you can be really good at. Three things that MCCCD should do well are recruitment, retention, achievement. Mrs. Pearson responded that she was not talking about the certificate or graduate people. Her understanding was that we have students at ten different accredited colleges. Everything has to work around that best practice. Can’t go from MCCCD to ASU. Has to state that it is from a particular college. Mr. George responded a student should be able to graduate from a large system. College experience is about that campus. Mrs. Pearson stated that as she works with chambers of commerce, workforce development center at the District Office meets with them already.
• Mr. Lumm commented that large employers are the largest taxpayers and vest in their employees. Was interested in hearing from college presidents.
Vice Chancellor and College President Comments
• Vice Chancellor Dr. Maria Harper-Marinick indicated that she wished to provide clarification about comments made on page 12 indicating that only college mandated assessment in math, reading, and English. All colleges do that because it is a district policy. She also asked if the data by fulltime and part-time was de-segregated, would any difference be noticed in the patterns and behaviors? How does that information compare to information across the country? Information is similar at ten colleges.
• CGCC President Dr. Linda Lujan commented that she thought she heard that if MCCCD name could be leveraged, she did not hear about a single accreditation or single name. Each college is individually accredited. Mr. George responded that accreditation not part of scope. That is a policy issue.
• Vice Chancellor Dr. Steve Helfgot commented that page ten referenced three types of students but nowhere was reference made to students who come for career training such as nursing and dental certificate seeking. Mr. George responded that not all students are going to fit the prototypes. Best practices for each service need to be constantly delivered across the board. Dr. Helfgot commented that there are many students who fit this prototype. The chart was not comprehensive for what you have to do for every student. Suite of serviced that a student needs.
• Phoenix College President Dr. Anna Solley thanked Dr. George for identifying the many services that MCCCD offers. In terms of best practices, she asked what type of process is A&M going to be suggesting for financial aid and advisement? Mr. George responded that they will come back with recommendations on how to enable best practices. They plan to spend time with central administration to see how they support student functions. They will continue to have regular meeting the Chancellor and CEC. The intent is to be as bi-directional as possible.
• Chancellor Glasper thanked A&M for the time that they have been with MCCCD these past six weeks. It has been an opportunity for us to showcase what we do. He asked, in terms of the next step in moving to the district office, what part will they link back to analyze the administrative services provided at the colleges? Mr. George indicated they would be looking at food services, auxiliary services, and the bookstores and how administrative services support those processes. Need to focus on these processes. Best practices not always codified. The hope is that the plan will be the model and how to adapt the central system to the colleges’ systems. Orient central system as it exists and how it enables college processes (finance, IT, HR). How should colleges interact and accountability. Hopefully define linkages between District and colleges.
• Chancellor Glasper also made reference to NCCBP and how some colleges may exceed percent at NCCBP. Could the college that exceeds be used as the benchmark? Take best practices of ten colleges and replicate. The Chancellor also asked out they planned to roll out recommendations? Would they be suggesting policies to move to implement? Mr. George responded that they would have recommendations as to what systems should look like, timelines, policy implications, framework, and accountability. They would state that if these things were going to happen, this is how they should happen. The Chancellor asked if replication across the system was desired, when would there be an opportunity to look at data for replication. Mr. George responded that Page 15 listed the only best practices that were replicable and would be recommended.
• Dr. Glasper reminded everyone about what will be reviewed for District functions and to be mindful of next meeting on November 24. He commented that this would be common sense. During this phase, would ask all of us in terms of their profile versus our profile, size, multi-college, unique characteristics that makes us different. Take their ideas and make them even better. Showing us that there is always room for improvement. Challenges that we might be having will be dependent on ability to be flexible. We are open access and numbers continue to drive up – and we may not able to address.
• Female Faculty Member: Asked is we can change data to stretch out over four years. Can we aspire to three years? Most want to complete in three years. We can do better than bottom of the country. Any improvement should be a plus. Part-timers will never be 90%. Third of part-timers complete in three years.
• Randy Kimmens, GCC, 82% of students take two or three courses. They feel they are completers because they came and completed what they wanted. Mr. George responded that this population would be in 18%, not in 11% but they are completing in their own terms.
• Barry Vaughan: Questioned data on national statistics. When you look at Districtwide data, how do high school testing rates factor into these. Data comparison needs to be the same. Mr. George responded that there is no standard way. Answer is if one state has a higher bar, they will outperform. Where should bar be set. Chancellor and Board will decide what appropriate bars will be. We don’t need to be in the bottom bar when they leave us. Mr. Vaughan commented that identifying with College, 11% success rate would you ask why are they not achieving their goals. If a large percent if because of development, children, loss of job, maybe it will take them longer. Need to kow reasons why they are not completing. Mr. George responded that there is a need to improve financial aid and develop retention. You can spend light years trying to figure this out. There are some things we can about best practices. Ignore national benchmarks and use college that has most success rate and hold that as a model. Increase satisfaction.
• Christine Hall: Served on strategic planning team for many years and they also identified 82% and 11%. 82% said they want to get a degree or they don’t need financial aid. Not a good premise. Mr. George asked how to get it as high as practical. Ms. Hall responded that this was an inaccurate measure.
• Mel Hannah: Very concerns abut two more meetings and filtered surveys. Not much disagreement if that is the pattern. Concern is how we get there. With that kind of expense, introduce team by name, how do we get to the objectives? Allow that body to comment to the report so they form a public standpoint.
• Catherine Mendoza: Missing link she sees is instruction that happens in the classroom. Disappointing. Would likw to know if recommendations will align with vision and mission. Wants life-long learns to come back. They completed their goals. Mr. George responded that this scope was not part of RFP. Colleges presented their own vision and mission and they did not tie back to Maricopa vision and mission. Not systemically implemented. Chancellor Glasper stated that we will have discussion with Governing Board when recommendations come out. Recommendations will come out in December and we will take those recommendations and bring out an inclusive process to implement. A&M will bring recommendation and the Chancellor will work within organization. The Vision/Mission statements are different because they are ten individually accredited colleges. Therefore, each one has a different vision/mission that links to the District Vision/Mission. Areas linked. What the charge of A&M is based on is student success. What we are looking at right now is view from a third party. Are we meeting needs of community? Charged was codified by Governing Board for RFP. This will give us an opportunity to be in a position the next thirteen weeks for us to be more articulate in items of interest. If we use the data and recognize we are in Arizona, we need to remembers that two years ago the P-12 alignment took plan to the universities. Dr. Glasper reminded everyone about the next meeting scheduled for November 24.
Adjournment of Special Board Meeting: The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Randolph Elias Lumm
Governing Board Secretary