|
 |
List of all Retention Council Agendas & Minutes
Agenda & Minutes for April 14, 1999
| |
Agenda of the Retention Council
Bartlett Room, Newhouse II 10:30 - 12:00
| I. |
Announcements |
|
| |
Welcome |
Horace Smith |
| |
Review and Approval of 2/10/99 Minutes |
Seth Tucker |
| |
Review of Focus for Future Meetings |
Horace Smith |
| II. Attrition of Students in Good Academic Standing |
| |
Presentation and Discussion of Financial Aid Data |
Anne Shelly
Chris Walsh
Barbara Yonai |
| III. Other Issues |
Minutes of the Retention Council
In Attendance: Chuck Barletta, Ronald Cavanagh, Peter DeBlois, Rosanna Grassi, Judy Hamilton, Judy O'Rourke, Lena Rose Orlando, David Potter, Lois Schroeder, Anne Shelly, Corinne Smith, David Smith, Horace Smith, Stacy Tice, Seth Tucker, Anastasia Urtz, Chris Walsh, Mike Wasylenko, Barry Wells, Barbara Yonai
I. Announcements
The Council considered the minutes from the 2/10/99 meeting and approved them without revision.
Horace Smith thanked David Potter for his efforts to include the ACC in the Vice Chancellor selection process. He announced that the finalists would be meeting with the ACC in the near future.
Horace again reviewed the schedule for future meetings and announced that the next meeting will be in June. The agenda committee will be meeting soon to consider policy objectives.
II. Guidelines for Responding to Requests for Retention Data
Horace Smith presented the proposed Guidelines for Responding to Requests for Retention Data. (Please see attached)
Judy O'Rourke provided the context for the proposed guidelines. These include:
They are designed to address external requests for data.
They respond to several changes in the campus environment regarding retention including the new AVP of Undergraduate Studies and Retention, the Retention Council, and more frequent requests for this type of data.
They replace previous ad hoc approval through the vice-chancellor's office.
Peter DeBlois indicated that the guidelines should comply with student right-to-know requirements that start at the latest in the year 2001. Among other requirements, prospective students must be provided with 6yr. cohort retention data. Peter will work with Barbara Yonai to develop a statement for inclusion in the guidelines that acknowledges this new requirement.
David Potter expressed concern that the document as written was ambiguous with regards to necessary legitimate internal sharing of information. It should be explicit that this document dealt solely with external requests. He also asked if the policy distinguished between proprietary studies produced at the behest of particular offices and those produced for the institution as a whole.
Anne Shelly stated that the policy raises larger issues about data ownership. The most obvious of these concerns the rights of study producers to ownership over data generated from populations under another unit's custodianship. SAIP was used as an example. The rights of various parties should be discussed.
Peter DeBlois was concerned that institutional interest not be overshadowed by parochial concerns of individual units.
David Smith advocated for the creation of a CAT team to consider the ramifications of the policy. Who resolves conflicts between units concerning data release issues? David indicated that there should not necessarily be veto power but there should be some recourse for appeal.
David Potter advocated that any unit specifically affected by the release of data should concur before data is released without having a veto. References to specific units should be removed form the policy.
Judy O'Rourke reiterated that the policy concerned release requests form external parties and does not address internal issues.
Peter DeBlois stressed the importance of managing data release for even publicly available information.
Corinne Smith requested that the Associate Vice President of Undergraduate Studies and Retention produce a "cheat sheet" for Deans and other officials with talking points on retention issues and data.
III. Attrition Study and Financial Aid Data
Barbara Yonai presented financial aid data as an addition to the attrition study. She presented the following charts:
Distribution within parent's AGI and financial need categories for the total fall 1997 cohort and the Dropout cohort.
Dropout rates for the fall 1997 cohort within each parent's AGI category and financial need category.
Cross-tabs of parent's AGI and financial need for the total fall 1997 cohort, all dropouts, and sub-groups of dropouts.
Distribution of GPA and credits earned for the fall 1997 cohort dropouts.
Members of the Council would like to see the following additional data:
Cross-tab of cumulative GPA by financial need for total 1997 cohort.
A finer breakdown of higher-end GPAs in the cross-tabs.
Chris Walsh suggested that the non-FAFSA category includes athletes, ROTC, dependents, and the wealthy who do not expect financial aid.
David Potter inquired whether there was a relationship between the type of financial aid received and attrition.
Ronald Cavanagh advocated examining dropouts in a context sensitive fashion to allow for a deeper understanding of the reasons for their departure.
Michael Wasylenko advocated using more advanced statistical techniques to analyze the data. Barbara Yonai indicated this was planned for the future.
Chris Walsh summarized the data and highlighted the following:
Higher need students do persist at a lower rate than other categories
60k - 80k in parent AGI is a high stress category where aid begins to phase out but the financial burden of college is still high.
Chris Walsh encouraged the Council to forward additional concerns or information needs.
|
| |
|
