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:
| Characteristic |
Measure |
| 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
• Recap
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.
Interim Findings:
• 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:
| |
Mark |
Mary |
Maria |
| Goal |
|
|
|
| Functions/Services |
|
|
|
| Recruitment |
X |
X |
|
| Dual-Enrollment |
X |
|
|
| Enrollment |
X |
X |
X |
| Orientation |
X |
|
|
| Financial Aid |
X |
|
|
| Assessment & Testing |
X |
|
|
| Advising |
X |
|
|
| Counseling |
|
X |
|
| Course Registratin |
X |
|
|
| Tutoring/Learning and Writing Centers |
|
|
|
| Experiential Learning |
X |
|
|
| Career Services |
X |
X |
|
| Workforce Development |
|
X |
|
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:
| |
|
|
NCCBP Percentile |
| Metric |
Year |
MCCCD |
50th |
75th |
90th |
Course Withdrawal Rate (Dropout) |
2008 |
19.0% |
11.5% |
8.8% |
6.8% |
| 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
| |
|
|
NCCBP Percentile |
| Metric |
Year |
MCCCD |
50th |
75th |
90th |
Percent completed in 3 years (Full time) |
2008 |
16.9% |
17.4% |
25.7% |
33.1% |
| 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?
Recap:
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.
Audience Comments
• 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 Meetng: The meeting adjourned
at 7:35 p.m.
