March 17, 2021

Retention Subcommittee Minutes

Members present: Paul Hoffman, Jessica Shelton, Herman Tucker, Claudette Jackson, Brian Jackson, Corey Stone, Starlen Roddy, Mario Leal, Staci Taylor, John Baughman, Tisha Monsey, Tamara Culver, Chad Eggleston, Estella Lopez

Members absent: Mandy Morrison, Tina Lyles, Paula Unger

Members met on 3/17/21 via Zoom.  Members discussed the draft of recommendations and gave suggestions for edits and improvements. They expressed a lot of energy about the ideas, as well as a readiness to stop talking about it and start implementing the ideas.  

Learning Framework:

  • New coordinator starts soon.
  • Is there a tool or some method we can develop to make sure students will be placed into the best section of LF for their needs? Not just by schedule or TSI status, but by peer group, interests, etc.?
  • Some institutions use a “menu” style course structure. “What grade do you want?  Here is a menu of items to choose from.  Complete ____ number of these items to earn the grade you want.”
  • This course needs to be academically viable since we give credit for it. We have to balance ACGM learning objectives with what our students truly need from the course.

Process evaluation:

  • MCC is in the process of hiring external consultants to review our processes and make recommendations.
    • We need to implement the suggestions they give us.
  • It’s a “heavy lift” to tell people what they are doing wrong in their offices.
  • Some of what needs to change can be improved with the use of technology.
  • Some processes don’t necessarily need to change, but we need to increase the communication among the processes.
  • We need to be specific about what needs to change.

General comments:

  • We need to remember our “why” with each of our recommendations.
    • Improve retention. Increase degree/certificate completion.  Increase student employability.  Change the lives of our students and their families (and therefore our community).  Increase revenue for institution.
  • Let’s combine the 2 separate recommendations on our draft into 1 main recommendation with multiple strategies/action items.
  • We also need to set a goal. Perhaps a 10% increase in retention?
  • We need to remember that even if we do things as well as we can, we won’t be able to achieve 100% retention. When we don’t retain a student, we need to have a method to find out if it was something in their own life, or if it was something on our end that got in the way.
    • How can we get this information from students? The College Success Team is already doing some of this. We could get them to share info with us.
  • We also need to survey students about their expectations earlier in their time on our campus. We need to implement what we can, and then make sure they see that we take their feedback seriously. 
    • To avoid survey fatigue, we could use focus groups via New Student Orientation, Learning Framework courses, other student groups, etc.
  • Another source of information is program-level evaluation data. We can look that up in MyMCC.  We can identify programs with effective processes, communication, etc., and then investigate the feasibility of expanding those methods to other departments.
  • We need to utilize predicative analytic technology to identify at-risk students earlier. (Note: this is different from early alert efforts once they’re enrolled.  The DL committee is looking at effective Early Alert programs.)
    • The programs that offer predictive analytics usually quote an expected rate of improvement in retention.
    • Title V and/or COVID funds can help with this.
      • Sometimes you have to spend money to make money.
      • We simply don’t have the time to create this program ourselves.

Next meeting: TBD