MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD RETREAT
NOVEMBER 13, 2007
A retreat of the Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board was scheduled to be held at 8:00 a.m. at the Rio Conference Center in Tempe, Arizona, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice having been duly given.
Linda Rosenthal, President
Don Campbell, Secretary
Colleen Clark, Member
Jerry Walker, Member
ABSENT: Scott Crowley, Member
Rufus Glasper, Chancellor
Jean Ann Abel for Velvie Green
Paul Dale for Mary Kay Kickels
Karen Mills for Linda Thor
Andrea Buehman for Maria Harper-Marinick
SPAC AND OTHER ATTENDEES
Jean Ann Abel
CALL TO ORDER
The retreat was called to order at 8:04 a.m. by Governing Board President Linda Rosenthal. Mrs. Rosenthal commented that she was looking forward to a very productive morning reviewing information as to what has been done for students.
Vice Chancellor of Business Services Debra Thompson provided an overview of the agenda which included:
• Monitoring Report on Institutional Effectiveness
• Assessment Report
• Diversity Report
Presentations were made by Linda Hawbaker, Polly Miller and Rory Gilbert on the above topics, followed by table discussions centered around the following questions:
1. What are the 1-3 most important findings that you heard in the presentation?
2. How did the presentation related to the three CEC “Areas of Focus” which are:
a. Increase successful course completion
b. Focused effort to increase successful completion of developmental math courses
c. Heightened efforts to help prepare students for college
3. What recommendations do you have that would ensure that the actions we take are
Monitoring Update – Linda Hawbaker
Linda Hawbaker commented that her presentation would include information pertaining to:
• Follow up from last year
• Fact Book 2006-07
• Performance Dashboard
• Monitoring Update
Follow up From Last Year
Benchmark Options – Did we want to set the national benchmark as a target? Although there is general agreement that benchmarks should be used there is concern about the small number of institutions participating in NCCBP, finding valid peers, and interest comparing our colleges to MCCCD. Three basic options for comparisons were identified. These were:
1. Compare District to national benchmark
2. Compare District to national peers
3. Compare Colleges to MCCCD
When asked if one option was more useful and/or feasible than the others, the IR Council said that national benchmarking is critical to expanding what we can already know internally, they see trend of comparisons becoming more public, and the NCCBP allows for all three benchmarking options. 2007 was the first year all ten colleges participated in NCCBP and they continue to submit data for MCCCD as a whole. NCCBP created custom reports comparing each college to MCCCD and targets were based on 2006 NCCBP medians and Carl Perkins III 2004-05 Performance Reporting. Six peers were identified using 2006 NCCBP Participation. They were:
• Alamo Community College District
• Florida Community College System
• Houston Community College System
• Kentucky Community & Technical College System
• New York Suny Community Colleges
• Miami Dade College
MCCCD Fact Book Changes:
• Added headcount comparison of 45th day to end of term for both Fall 2006 & spring 2007
• Simplified format
• Printed in gray scale
• Added HR data
• Indicators were summarized, as well as targets and actuals
• Created “at-a-glance” for each monitoring area
• Noted key finds for each monitoring area which included student progress, general education, development education, workforce, and transfer
• Challenges were identified for student progress, general education, and developmental education. These included institution wide credit course withdrawal, student persistence, development math and English success rate, and first college-level math success rate.
• The following performance gaps were noted:
o Institution Wide Credit Grades Withdrawals: Target 12%
Developmental: 7% Enrollment 25% Actual 13% Gap
- 100-Level: 67% Enrollment 19% Actual 7% Gap
- 200-Level: 25% Enrollment 15% Actual 3% Gap
Credit Student Persistence:
- Fall-to-Spring: 69% Target 61% Actual 8% Gap
- Fall-to-Fall: 47% Target 44% Actual 3% Gap
Underperforming characteristics included:
- Part-time, male, under-represented minority, under 25, and did not graduate from high school.
General Education Performance Gaps:
- College Algebra: 59% Target 55% Actual 4% Gap
- English Comp I: 72% Target 69% Actual 3% Gap
- English Comp II: 69% Target 60% Actual 9% Gap
- Communication: 77% Target 71% Actual 6% Gap
o Underperforming characteristics included:
- Part-time, male, under-represented minority
Developmental Education Performance Gaps:
- Dev Math: 56% Target 50% Actual 6% Gap
- Dev English: 66% Target 62% Actual 4% Gap
- 1st College level math: 66% Target 63% Actual 3% Gap
o Underperforming characteristics included:
- Part-time, male, under-represented minority, under 25
- Actions that other community college systems were undertaking were described.
- Although more in-depth indicators provide some insight, it was reported that we need to increase our understanding by exploring more in-depth student persistence indicators and looking to states participating in the Lumina Achieving the Dream.
Recommendations: the successes noted in the 2007 SHEEO Report titled “More Student Success, A Systematic Solutions were described. These included:
• Early outreach programs
• Curriculum and assessment systems
• High quality teaching
• Student financial assistance
• Data and accountability systems
• Postsecondary policies, programs and practices intentionally designed to increase students’ chances for success
It was noted that the most promising state efforts have:
• Made college preparatory curriculum the “default” curriculum rather than the “honors” curriculum for high school graduation;
• Made the college preparatory curriculum a condition of eligibility for basic scholarship assistance or for merit scholarships;
• Forged agreements between K-12 and postsecondary institutions about the requirements for college study;
• Clearly aligned high school assessments of student ability with the qualifying examinations used by colleges and universities, particularly in the areas of mathematics and English language skills;
• Incorporated end-of-course assessments to help assure consistent rigor and essential content across classrooms.
Concluding Remarks regarding Monitoring Report:
• We need to continue working to provide data/analysis supporting CEC focus areas; continue work identifying peers; explore use of IPEDS for additional benchmarks; request NCCBLP to calculate institution wide credit success rate to include withdrawals in the denominator
• implement a real dashboard with greater precision.
• Dr. Glasper asked if it was known what ACCA was planning to do with measurements passed on to them and if any discussion had been held with them. He asked if we were gathering data for possible future funding. Response: The difficulty here was that they wanted current indicators for most fiscal years and it was hard to determine to measure with just one year of data.
• Dr. Campbell remarked that we were still failing to address the critical years in grade school. There is a need to focus on students when they are in grade school.
• Dr. Helfgot commented that performance needed to be looked at differently for students who transfer and transfer students. Data needed to be analyzed system wide as opposed to college by college. He questioned if we were looking at data in the same way as other institutions.
• Dr. Giovannini questioned if dual enrollment students were being factored out and being counted as transfer students.
Assessment Report – Polly Miller
Polly Miller provided an overview of the Maricopa Community college Assessment of Student Learning practices for 2006-2007. She made the following comments pertaining to areas of strength, challenge, and conclusions:
• The colleges value assessment o improve student learning.
• The colleges identify curricular outcomes and indicators
• The colleges develop and refine structures to support assessment.
• The colleges identify and evaluate various tools and activities to assess student learning at course, program or department, and institutional levels.
• The colleges collect, analyze and report data on established cycles, support ongoing assessment, and closing the loop.
• The colleges initiate new efforts and/or make changes in existing approaches and activities based on the data.
• The colleges must systemically incorporate assessment of student learning results into strategic planning and budget decision processes; integration of assessment data as a decision making tool.
• The colleges must move the assessment dialogue beyond the assessment committee and into the mainstream college culture.
• Involve all stakeholders in closing the loop which directly address the student learning outcomes and areas for improvement.
• Education all stakeholders that assessment is not perfect, it is a process but we can make educated decisions with assessment data and move forward.
• Assessment is a cyclic process for educational improvement; all colleges are actively engaged in the assessment of student learning.
• Assessment of General Education learning outcomes is a major focus at all colleges and The Higher Learning Commission.
Concluding Questions and Comments Pertaining to Assessment Report:
Dr. Glasper stated that in the areas of challenge section there was no mention of the District. How do we connect the budget process into the picture? He was interested in recommendations from this group on how to address assessment on a system wide basis.
Dr. Barry Vaughn commented that colleges learn from each other. The role of the District is not to come up with one plan because each college is different. One plan for all will not work. Colleges should share their approach on assessment and learn from best practices. The District could foster conversation on best practices as opposed to single approach.
Vernon Smith remarked that the one thing that is shared is curriculum since there is one common course bank. Improve curriculum learning. It should be competencies versus outcomes.
Dr. Atwater commented on common challenges to all campuses. There is a benefit to talking about this on a district wide basis.
Dennis Shaw says he does not see problem being addressed from budget perspective. As a district, what type of money are we allocating to the issues?
Pedro Rodriguez questioned how the data was evaluated and what was the relative split? Indirect data is much more plentiful. Look for healthy balance to provide to HLC.
Jim Mancuso stated that assessment results at MCC play an important part in planning. Strategic planning for each department links to assessment results. Dollars are allocated on this basis.
Dr. Glasper remarked that colleges are doing a great job on making decisions. On a district wide basis not given any money but maybe more could be given to get better results. Need strategies to close the gaps. From district perspective need to see assessment in closing the gap.
Diversity Report – Rory Gilbert
Rory Gilbert provided the following remarks:
• The Diversity Monitoring Report compiles information about Maricopa’s diversity efforts from across the district. It also focuses the data from the annual indicator report in specific arenas that impact the unique student populations of our colleges. The community college’s role in equalizing opportunity for traditionally underserved members of the community based on race, ethnicity, socio-economic class, first generation status, new immigrant status or re-entry students provides us with greater challenges than teaching content. We teach people.
• The report is informed by Maricopa’s vision, mission and values which are committed to an inclusive environment, Maricopa’s strategic plan and strategic directions, the framework inspired by the Association of American Colleges and Universities Inclusive Excellence Initiative and CCSSE perspectives, among others. They all dictate that to be effective, we must recognize who is walking in the door and adapt our practices to meet their needs so that they can be successful.
• The Diversity Monitoring Report was comprised of the following four sections:
• The first section is an overview that links strategic directions, student and employee needs, and current initiatives.
• The second section looks at a sample of indicators that have been addressed consistently in diversity strategic plans across the country, some of which disaggregate data in different way from the Indicators report. We are appreciative of Institutional Effectiveness for providing the extra time and effort to do this, as well as Employment and Recruitment, EEO/AA and others who contributed data.
• The third section provides reports from current diversity initiatives at Maricopa serving the whole community, targeted strategies for employees, and those for students.
• An appendix section includes supplemental information as well as a list of contributors to the report.
• We have reviewed the Indicator Report, Fact Book and Assessment Report. This report will take a closer look at specific indicators. In presenting this information, I will pose some questions for your reflection as we continue to dialogue about the intersection of diversity and student success.
• The first indicator is enrollment subdivided by race and gender. We know that we reflect trends across the country in the percentage of males and females who attend are institutions. Is there value in looking more closely at those groups where the numbers are most out of balance? Just a few weeks ago the Student Success Conference addressed the Vanishing Minority Male in Higher Education. In our Native American and Hispanic communities, these males are vanishing before our eyes. What are the consequences? Not having peers and role models impacts engagement and success. If we know that there is a need to challenge social expectations and stereotypes, do we need to focus targeted recruitment and retention efforts for particular student populations? And, note the disparity in the Asian population as well. We will see that in enrollment and several other factors, our Asian men may be looking more like our other men of color and not fulfilling presumed stereotypes.
• The second indicator also looks at demographics, this time comparing our county population over the age of 18, with our Maricopa student population and our faculty and staff. How well do we reflect our community? How does this impact our students in terms of belonging, of seeing themselves in professional positions in the future? 50 – 70% of faculty come from the adjunct ranks. When we look at our adjunct demographics, how well can we predict the future in changing representation?
• CCSSE addresses the importance of faculty in student engagement and as the most sought after source for advisement. And underprepared students need more advisement and support than other students. How does faculty and staff representation impact engagement for students of color and other students of difference?
• 60% or more of classes are taught by adjunct faculty, will that impact how and if students receive the support they need?
• 75% of our students are part-time. CCSSE notes that “part-time students are less likely than full-time students to use e-mail to communicate with instructors, talk about career plans with an instructor or advisor and discuss grades or assignments with an instructor.” How available are our resources for part-time students?
• These next slides address the compounding impact of being part-time, male and a person of color.
• Persistence – our full time students all persist from fall to spring at a rate of 85% or better, ranging from 85% for African American and white men to 93% for Native American women.
• Fall to fall persistence ranges from 65% for Native American men to 75% for Hispanic women. How wide a gap are we comfortable with between groups whether based on race/ethnicity or gender or other factors?
• When we look at part-time numbers, as we all know the persistence numbers drop significantly with the highest fall to fall persistence being 43% for Hispanic women, and no men’s group being higher than 40%.
• How do our numbers compare to the national benchmark numbers? What will we be satisfied with at the district level? At the college level? At the group level – whether race, ethnicity, gender or attendance status?
• How does this impact success looking at disaggregated data? For college level courses for full time students the range is from 84% - 93% with little variation by gender (1 – 2 percentage points and not uni-directional across gender)
• For part time students the range is twice as wide (51% - 71%) with Asian and White students successfully completing at a much higher rate than African American and Native American Students. Hispanic students are somewhat in the middle. The gender difference becomes somewhat more pronounced from 4 – 7% points different favoring women except for the Native American population where the men were successful completers at 55% (2% more than the women).
• When we move to the developmental level the variations widen even more and gender appears to take an even greater role.
• While full-time Native American men are 10% points higher than women in English, in all other categories women are higher than men ranging from 4 – 15 percentage points.
• At the part-time level, all men lag behind women with percentages ranging from 6 – 37%. None of the men’s ethnic racial groups exceeds 49% success rate, and in math the same pattern persists with no male race/ethnic group exceeding 38% success rate. Only Asian and White women succeeded in developmental math more than 50% of the time.
• The trend of greater success by women continues in reading although the ranges show some different patterns with white, Asian and Hispanic men being further behind in the part-time category and Black and Native American men being further behind in the full-time category.
• And finally when we look at completion data we see that race and enrollment status really add to a greater impact. Both part-time and full-time Native American and Black men and women withdrew from all classes or failed all classes at a higher rate than other groups, part-time students withdrew from all classes at twice the rate as full-time students, and Native American and African American part-time students withdrew from or failed all classes at a rate of more than one in four students. Hispanic men and women were just behind at over 20% White and Asian men and women were all under 10%.
• Clearly we are most successful with full-time students, more successful with women and people who are white and Asian.
• Where do we need to focus our energy? On part-time students; on men – including white men in developmental programs whose part-time success rates in all three areas still do not reach 50%, and students of color.
• As we begin to turn our attention to what we are doing to address these issues, let’s look at some CCSSE data addressing student engagement. A comparison of selected diversity and inclusiveness related questions of six Maricopa colleges that completed CCSSE in the past three years with CCSSE benchmark data demonstrates that overall, Maricopa as a district, equals or exceeds CCSSE benchmarks.
• Our students exceeded benchmarks in being encouraged to have contact and serious conversations with students of different races or ethnicities, they have learned to work effectively with others and understand people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
• They also exceeded benchmarks on the quality of their relationships with administrative personnel.
• As a point of reference Maricopa scores equaled benchmarks on relationships with faculty and other students.
• What are we doing to make a difference already? This diagram is designed to bring together efforts in diversity with Maricopa’s strategic directions to achieve student success.
• First, (looking at the orange section – quality and diverse employees) with a focus on faculty as the key, we find targeted and collaborative efforts in recruitment through the FCRRC committee, the Faculty Recruitment Coordinator, the efforts of Employment and Recruitment and EOLT through strategic outreach, marketing and training.
• There are efforts to enhance learning environments in the green, expanding pedagogic skills through:
• The Diversity Infusion Program (training 180 faculty in the past ten years).
• MCLI dialogue days, forums, Learnshops, Learning Grants, Fellowships, International and Intercultural Innovation grants that address cultural competency, active learning and a variety of other engaging teaching strategies.
o These programs are open to both adjunct and residential faculty.
o They are all voluntary.
• Additionally MCLI supports the Maricopa Faculty Internship program providing faculty candidates with teaching experience, mentorship and professional growth experiences to better prepare them to apply to be MCCCD faculty. 5 candidates were selected for 2006 – 2007. Of the five candidates, was hired as residential faculty, two were selected as OYO faculty and one was selected as an OSO.
• Effective staff are also critical to a positive student experience.
• Employee and Organizational Learning provides training for all staff and faculty. Their report includes:
• Hiring the Best and Movin’ On Up in collaboration with Employment and Recruitment to address recruitment and retention.
• MOSAIC, Maricopa’s six session inclusiveness training – over 600 employees have attended at least one session of MOSAIC and 103 have completed the entire series.
• Supervisory training – providing critical management skills to creating an inclusive environment.
• Safe Space Training – providing knowledge and information to provide an inclusive atmosphere for LGBT students and employees.
• Other special requests and diversity skill related programs including conflict management, communication, etc.
• Maximizing Access in yellow identifies intentional and strategic programs working directly with students.
• These include ACE for students identified as “at risk” and Hoop of Learning for Native American students. Both are high school bridge programs to assist students in making a successful transition to college. Students earn college credits in high school, have solid GPA’s in high school and college, and are much better prepared for the demands of college. We have expanded these programs to all ten colleges.
• Gateway and SMCC are both working on college-level support programming to help sustain part-time students from ACE or Hoops.
• Other examples of focused programs include GCC’s Multicultural Affairs Office and MCC’s Multicultural Services. Both offices provide a broad spectrum of support primarily focused on students of color but also serving students with other targeted needs. Both offices assist with registration, financial aid, advisement, tutoring and other resources as well as creating a safe atmosphere for students who may not yet feel comfortable on campus. They interface with student clubs and provide information and training to the college.
• Highlighted programs include an early alert program, titled Triumph that began at MCC in August as a vehicle to retain students, a text book loan program to ensure students could have the books they needed regardless of financial constraints, and a campus wide mentoring program at GCC.
• Other programs and initiatives are addressing targeted needs as well and should be included in future reports.
• Each of the programs contacted is working on providing current data on outcomes and should be available for future reports.
• Finally in blue, there are collaborative efforts at the district level to continue to monitor and enhance the culture and responsiveness of the institution. The Chancellor’s Advisory Committees, The Diversity Advisory Council and Diversity Coordinators and Committees at each college and the Constituency groups all are working to create a more inclusive and supportive environment for students and employees.
• These strategies respond to Maricopa’s strategic plan for student success and provide a foundation for more intentional and targeted efforts. Where and how do we focus our efforts and attention?
• How do we balance seat time and quality time? How do we balance the bigger bang we get from success with full time students from the greater number of part time students we serve? Who deserves the quality education?
• As we consider how we proceed, I will conclude with a quote from CCSSE. “Every program, every service, every academic policy is perfectly designed to achieve the exact outcome it currently produces. (pause) If a program isn’t producing the desired outcome, the only rational action is to modify or discontinue it.”
Debra Thompson commented that access and success were being experienced by certain people . She indicated that she hoped the work this year had laid solid groundwork for next year.
Dr. Glasper stated he felt considerable progress had been made in terms of monitoring how we measure. Questioned if other institutions that we compare our numbers with have the same demographic numbers. One goal from CEC was to have definitive plan and outcomes. Need to agree on one thing. There needs to be one level of competencies that can be measured across all colleges. It is important to think about progress made and bring additional people that fit into this picture. The District Office should not be let off the hook. Need to ask what the role of District Office is. Next year when the State Community College board is in place, we need to give them the measures by which they will look at us.
Mrs. Rosenthal thanked everyone who had a part in planning this retreat.
Ms. Clark commented that she heard a lot of comments pertaining to persistence and financial aid.
Dr. Campbell agreed that everyone had done an outstanding job of working with the community and it was most critical to look at the decline of minority student who are achieving. Need to reach number of minorities who don’t pursue education.
Retreat adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
Donald R. Campbell
Governing Board Secretary