OCOTBER 15, 1996
A work study session/strategic conversation of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 6:30 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.
Donald R. Campbell, President, Nancy Stein, Secretary, Roy Amrein, Member, Linda B. Rosenthal, Member
William F. Waechter for Paul A. Elsner, Alfredo G. de los Santos Jr., Rufus Glasper, Ron Bleed, Janice Bradshaw, Gina Kranitz for Raul Cardenas, Gil Gonzales for Larry Christiansen, John Cordova, Irwin Noyes for Art DeCabooter, Oscar Gibbons for Stan Grossman, Homero Lopez, Morris Johnson for J. Marie Pepicello, Linda Thor, Tessa Martinez Pollack, Patty Johnson for Arnette Ward
GOVERNING BOARD - Ed Contreras (Mr. Contreras was present for Executive Session)
ADMINISTRATION - Phil Randolph
STATE BOARD - Jim Ullman
CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by President Campbell.
EXECUTIVE SESSION - President Campbell called for a motion convening an executive session, notice SESSION having been previously given.
Linda Rosenthal moved that an executive session be convened. Motion carried 5-0.
The meeting recessed at 6:01 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 6:35 p.m.
I. STRATEGIC CONVERSATION - STRATEGIC ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH LONG RANGE TRACKING OF STUDENTS - The anticipated outcome for this conversation was to explore the value of student tracking, why it must be done, and why it should be done. Dr. Waechter welcomed the group and introduced Mary Day, who gave provided an overview of the information provided in the background paper and presented information on longitudinal student tracking systems. Ms. Day described longitudinal student tracking systems as a means to an end and that they answer certain types of questions, some of which relate to institutional effectiveness and some relate to student outcomes. Ms. Day went over a student flow model, which are one of the types of questions that student tracking answers.
Questions asked in these models are such as, what percent of students complete courses, of those who complete, what percent obtain a grade of "C" or above?, what percent of students go from term-to-term? what percent return for a second year?, what percent transfer?, etc. Ms. Day presented information that she and members of her team had gathered in answering questions in the model. Two cohorts examined to obtain this data are 1) the student-right-to-know cohort, and 2) new high school graduates. Information was provided on the long-standing data exchange between Maricopa and Arizona State University. She also indicated that a data exchange had previously been developed with the Arizona Department of Economic Security and the third data exchange is currently in process and statistics and data were given relative to that data exchange.
Glendale Community College will be piloting a data exchange with high schools. Mary went over a State-required report that provides information on every high school that sends students to the District. Information on this report was provided to the group, including that 40-45 percent of all high school graduates enroll in the Maricopa Community College District within one year of high school graduation. Some of these students may be co-enrolled in the District and the universities. Some of the statistics given were percentages of students taking beginning English courses or no English courses and percentages of students taking classes in the mathematics area, including under 100 level courses. Mary indicated that the data stays fairly consistent from year to year.
The group was provided a handout of a model, Core Indicators of Effectiveness, regarding a series of thirteen core indicators and measures used nationally, some of which had been covered previously in her presentation. It was related that Linda Hawbaker, Bonnie Welsh and Jean Staten had worked to develop some measures of how students do after they transfer. There are a number of reports that were developed from these measures specific by discipline. One example of the results of the analysis performed showed that transfer students who took 36 hours or more of math and science had higher GPA's than those students who did not. Problems with long range tracking systems include data security and costs. It was indicated that Estrella Mountain had adopted the model, Core Indicators of Effectiveness, with good success, that the model addresses mission and purpose and is easy to adapt. It was recommended that other campuses look into using the model. Cathy Urbanski indicated that Chandler-Gilbert Community College used this model and it worked well with its accreditation. The measures in longitudinal student tracking for student outcomes can have an effect on answering the questions regarding institutional effectiveness.
Small groups were formed to discuss two questions and report back as follows:
GROUP ONE: Facilitators: Ann Barrett and Cathy Urbanski
GROUP TWO: Facilitators: Rene Willekens and Juan Marquez
GROUP THREE: Facilitator: Ken Hart
GROUP FOUR: Facilitator: Linda Hawbaker
QUESTION ONE: What questions related to longitudinal student tracking would you like answered? Rank the two most important questions.
GROUP ONE: * Define characteristics and data elements for attrition factor (codes 44 and 12) * Current data - one year * Retention of receiving institutions - tied to advisement and retention services, Semester data, Accessibility, Second language, Actual data on students who did transfer, Design a system to measure that personal factor
GROUP TWO: * Success of students taking classes part-time over a long duration * Program completion of students that need to repeat core courses * Require data collection of students across colleges, Students who take English and math classes early versus those who take them later, Student satisfaction over time after graduation, Success rate of students who transfer using math and science credit hour data, Track elementary students, high school students, tcommunity college students, universities students to employment, Success of high school students top 5% - honors programs vs. no honors programs, Do students that receive community college scholarships, continue to receive them at universities, New university scholars without previous community college scholarships, Tracking multi-goals over time, Mandatory placement - need it Academic suspension policy - have none, Mandatory advisement of students after so many accumulated hours vs. per semester
GROUP THREE: * Number and rate of students who complete with degree
GROUP FOUR: * How do we use the longitudinal data/can it be used * What kinds of profiles do we have, What data do we have on non-completion (courses, programs, degrees), How often do we assess student intent, Do we have post-grads, How do students do at out-of-state colleges, What happens to alumni
QUESTION TWO: Name a policy issue that IS, WILL or SHOULD be raised. What information from a longitudinal student tracking system should be developed to better explore the policy implications? Rank the two most important policies or issues.
GROUP ONE: * Articulation (programs). For example, ASU decided not to accept engineering credits from MCCCD * Incentive in policy development based on longitudinal findings, Feedback on services and instruction ,Professional development policy
GROUP TWO: * Data access policy. Students access to statewide data - to their own data * Advisement for students taking under 7 hours, Does the completion of an AA guarantee success at the university? Develop a policy around it
GROUP THREE: * Definitions of success tied in with Mission - determines longitudinal questions * Subjective and objective measures need to be included, Definitions of success come from many different perspectives
GROUP FOUR: * Prepare students for jobs with free or almost free tuition * Use data to drive change Articulation process, Retention, Space use, Employment and certification of faculty Mission Community college bachelor's degree
No plus plus/delta was conducted.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.