MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
GOVERNING BOARD RETREAT AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
NOVEMBER 14, 2006
MINUTES

A retreat and executive session 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.

PRESENT

GOVERNING BOARD
Don Campbell, Member
Linda Rosenthal, Member
Ed Contreras, Secretary
Jerry Walker, Member

ABSENT: Scott Crowley, President

GUEST: Colleen Clark, Newly Elected Board Member

ADMINISTRATION

Rufus Glasper, Chancellor
Debra Thompson
Anna Solley
Darrel Huish
Albert Crusoe
Larry Christiansen
Maria Hesse
Gene Giovannini
Mary Kay Kickels
Ken Atwater
Homero Lopez
Linda Thor
Maria Harper-Marinick
Velvie Green
Ginny Stahl for Art DeCabooter

SPAC
Georgia Gudykunst
Damita Kaloostian
Sue Tavakoli
Lionel Diaz
Casandra Kakar
Donna Silber
Pat Case
Christine Hall
Jeanne Christen
Linda Lujan
Laura Helminski
Pete Kushibab
Pat Honzay
Earl Monsour
Janice Reilly
Bryan Tippett
Teresa Toney
Ruth Unks
Linda Hawbaker
Jane Saldana-Talley
Nancy Osborne
Donna Silber
Bill Guerriero
Dean Hermanson
Jim Mancuso
Jean Ann Abel
Karen Mills
Margi Schultz
Reyes Medrano
Jolyne Ghanatabadi
Gloria Smith

CALL TO
ORDER The retreat was called to order at 8:04 a.m.by Vice Chancellor of Business Services Debra Thompson. Ms. Thompson commented that during this annual monitoring retreat several documents would used as points of discussion. These documents included:

• Maricopa Facts 2005-2006
• Assessment Update, November 2006
• Monitoring Update Summary of Student Progress

Overview of Ballot Initiatives
A brief presentation was made by Governing Relations Director Matt Ortega who provided a summary of the Propositions voted upon in the recent State Elections. These included:

• Proposition 107 – Legal Definition of Marriage – Failed to pass.
• Proposition 101 – Proposed Amendment to the Arizona Constitution by the legislature relating to State Lands - Passed by small margin. MCCCD has been held harmless from this one but will affect other community college districts.
• Proposition 300 - Referred to the people by the legislature relating to public program eligibility – Passed by 72%. Affects MCCCD

Understanding Enrollment & Population Trends
Linda Hawbaker provided information pertaining to enrollment and population trends. The levels of analysis included the Western United States, Arizona, Maricopa County; Pinal County, and Mesa.

• Information pertaining to the Western United States included information from California, Utah, Washington, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. The analysis indicates that despite overall population growth throughout the west, community colleges are experiencing flat or declining enrollment trends. Contributing factors to this are the strong economy, low unemployment rate, demographic changes, and increasing tuition.
• The trend for Arizona community colleges shows declines from 2005 to 2006 in five Arizona community college districts and statewide. In general, urban districts are down and most rural districts are experiencing small increases. The contributing factors towards this are the same as other Western states.
• In Maricopa County, continued population growth is projected for Arizona and for Maricopa County. The projected rate of growth for the East Valley is slower than the county overall. In the case of MCCCD, the share of Hispanic students attending Mesa Community College rose from 12% to 17% in the last ten years. The Hispanic population in the Mesa Community College service areas is projected to grow at three times the rate of the overall population. Student trends indicate the composition of the student population is changing; younger students, transfer students and Hispanic students are increasing; decreases in older students and students attending for career-related reasons or personal interest.
• In Pinal County there is rapid growth taking place and could impact MCCCD’s enrollment in the future. The population of Pinal County is estimated to grow from its current 270,000 to 1.9 million by 2025.
• The following question was posed: “How does this information influence strategic planning, enrollment management, program development, and marketing?”

Enrollment Discussion
Table groups engaged in discussion pertaining to the following:

• District-wide enrollment trends
  o New, former, continuing
  o Day/evening headcount
  o Full-time/part-time headcount
  o Gender
  o Ethnicity
  o Age
  o Highest level education
  o Fiscal year FTSE
• External Influences
  o Competitive Trends
  o Students coming with iPods, computer notebooks, cell phones, PDAs
  o Colleges adjusting communication methods
  o Colleges providing for social networking (Facebook and MySpace)
  o University of Phoenix Axia College awards associate degrees, designed for first-generation college students, provides more academic counseling and assists in developing learning skills, offers flexibility of on-line classes, considering lowering tuition for some programs.
  o ASU Advantage covers direct costs for eight full-time consecutive semesters minus EFC for Arizona resident, Arizona high school graduate, admission to ASU as a degree-seeking freshman for the fall 2006 semester, demonstration of total family income of $18,850 or less on FAFSA, full-time enrollment at any of ASU’s campuses in fall 2006 and full-time enrollment for seven consecutive semesters thereafter.
  o Measure Up 2006
  
• Group Breakout & Discussion
  Facilitators led table discussions on the following questions, including a discussion on what would the concept look like if implemented and what would be the potential policy implications of the recommendation.:

Table 1
Explore ways to become better data informed about barriers and
opportunities for recruitment and retention of our students.
Explore quarter system.

Table 2
Explore the “Ideal Maricopa” experience.
Explore cost saving measures for students.

Table 3
Explore alternatives to existing tuition structures.
Explore cost saving measures for students.

Table 4
Explore financial support for persistence programs.
Explore the establishment of a district-wide enrollment goal that all
colleges and district office would benefit from if achieved.

Table 5
Explore the establishment of “Centers for Excellence”/Regionalization
Explore the “Ideal Maricopa” experience.

Table 6
Explore whether current assessment and placement tools are adequate
and effective.
Explore ways to become better data informed about barriers and
opportunities for recruitment and retention of our students.

Table 7
Explore the establishment of a district-wide enrollment goal that all colleges
and district office would benefit from, if achieved.
Explore alternatives to existing tuition structures.

• Report outs are attached.

Changes in the Monitoring Report
Ms. Thompson commented that the monitoring report had been restructured and redesigned. She explained that trend data had been removed and was now compiled into a small handy booklet called Facts for 2005-2006. She also explained that although indicators of student success were still located in the monitoring report, data was now presented in a “dashboard” format coupled with more analyses. Six-year MCCCD trends and changes in performance were being monitored from previous years.

Facts for 2005-2006
Nancy Osborne went through each page of the Facts for 2005-2006 which includes information pertaining to an overview of the Maricopa Community College District and its colleges, Fall 2006 45th Day data, enrollment data, student demographics, FTSE, awards, transfer data, financial data, college information, and web resources. (See Powerpoint presentation copy, pages 1-3)

Monitoring Report – Student Progress Indicators
Damita Kaloositan presented information pertaining to the monitoring report. (See Powerpoint presentation copy, page 3-14)

Table Discussion – Student Progress Indictors
Another breakout discussion was held pertaining to Student Progress and Benchmarks. The following questions were discussed:
Part 1. Student Progress Indicators
1. What are one or two questions the data answers?
2. Are there additional data we need?

Part 2. Performance Targets
Do we want to use national benchmarks as targets?
If yes, What do we need to do to use national benchmarks as targets?
If no, What benchmarks do we want to use?

Report outs are attached.

Closing Comments
Debbie Thompson stated that next steps would include synthesizing information gathered at this retreat and preparing a report, then putting a plan in place.

Chancellor Glasper commented that one of the things that was spoken about in his group is that we have come a long way. We have made the determination that we are not timid with data involved with national project. Having a plan becomes more critical. We need to use data to show some level of progress. If we have established goals, we may not be at the national benchmark level and we may need to develop our own internal goals. We need to keep a competitive edge. Notion is about students we are getting from K-12. At recent P-20 meeting there were five different committee reports. In December there will be recommendations. As recommendations comes out that impact our system, there will be a need to incorporate that data into our organization. We need to redefine what a transfer student is and that may be someone transferring with an associate’s degree. How does our data help us get to that goal? What timeframe is needed to develop a plan. We need to make recommendations to the Governing Board that will be endorsed. Collaboration, state growth, persistence, and retention. How do you use the numbers to see if a student is successful? Where do we begin to look at qualitative data as well as quantitative data to see if we are successful. ASU, UofA, NAU, Axia, UofP – what do they have on our students. Can we use their data to evaluate our own and then put a process in place? IR Department needs to be bolstered to gather data.

Governing Board Remarks
Mrs. Rosenthal stated she agreed with the Chancellor in that a plan is needed. We have a lot of data. By 2007-2008, we are going to be at a certain place. She would like to see more collaboration among colleges. We need to target certain markets.

Dr. Campbell commented that one of the things he does is to listen to what people are saying and what they are not saying. Why are students leaving programs? We need to expand involvement throughout the entire community. Need to start at the elementary school level and instill thoughts there. We need to become more involved with teachers and parents so that children can concentrate on reading levels.

Mr. Contreras stated that he enjoyed the discussion on factors related to student programs and enrollments. As Mrs. Rosenthal stated, he believes that we need to establish benchmarks. What is student success? We need a business model as well as how we expand our outreach. Need to go further. See how markets are changing and how revenue source is spread. How do we get students to use our services more. Look outside of academic model and combine with business model.

Mr. Walker expressed his thoughts in terms of expectations of ourselves and the community, application, and what direction do we go.

Chancellor Glasper closed by saying that there were lots of positive things occurred in the room this morning. We need to be in the papers for other reasons. We do many positive things relative to student success and we need to showcase these successes in our communities and partnerships.

The retreat adjourned at 10:58 a.m. Board members proceeded to go into Executive Session.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

The executive session was called to order at 11:15 a.m..

Ed Contreras
Governing Board Secretary