|
 |
List of all Retention Council Agendas & Minutes
Agenda & Minutes for January 24, 2001
| |
Agenda of the Retention Council
Schine 304C 11:00 - 12:00
| I. |
Announcements |
|
| |
Welcome |
Horace Smith |
| |
Introduction of Bea Gonzalez, Assistant Dean, SUCE |
|
| |
Introduction of Report |
Horace Smith |
| |
Discussion |
|
| II. Preliminary Report of the 5 yr. Retention Plan Steering Committee |
Minutes of the Retention Council
In Attendance: Marlene Blumin, Ronald Cavanagh, Peter DeBlois, Thomas Ellett, Norm Faiola, Bea Gonzalez, Rosanna Grassi, Judy Hamilton, David Kohr, William McPeak, Judy O'Rourke, Lena Rose Orlando, David Potter, Amie Redmond, Hanna Richardson, Barbara Settel, Anne Shelly, David Smith, Horace Smith, Eric Spina, Seth Tucker, Anastasia Urtz, Mike Wasylenko, Barry Wells, Barbara Yonai,
I. Announcements
Horace Smith welcomed Bea Gonzalez to the Retention Council.
II. Preliminary Report of the Five-Year Plan steering Committee
Horace Smith introduced the Preliminary Report of the five-year plan steering committee.
Rosanna Grassi expressed concern about the focus of the preliminary report on summer. Summer not appropriate for all students. Academic year alternatives should be explored at greater depth.
David Potter pointed out a perceived pattern that students perform well in the summer and then do not do well in the fall term. Thus, the efficacy of the summer is an issue.
Bea Gonzalez requested that one of the sub-groups examined should be IUTs.
Requests further discussion on possible sub-groups for study and intervention.
Marlene Blumin inquired whether action must await assessment?
Horace Smith replied that action and assessment will move ahead concurrently.
Hanna Richardson inquired as to how sub-groups were identified?
Anne Shelly indicated they were chosen based on available retention data.
Peter DeBlois asked whether it was possible to support students for extra-term study particularly high-risk or high-potential students.
Barb Settel questioned the summer - academic year relationship. The summer has appeared effective at helping marginal students succeed during the summer but less so at continuing this success into the academic year. What are the climate issues in the academic year that might be impeding student success.
Hanna Richardson seconded this question.
Eric Spina cautioned against a broad criticism of the summer term. ECS has been very happy with both SAIP and SummerStart.
Rosanna Grassi responded that the critique was intended to point out the report's lack of focus on the academic year and not to indict the merits of summer for particular students.
Horace Smith stated that the report did not intend to privilege the summer over the academic year and that the final report could be adjusted to change this perception.
David Potter raised the issue of a healthy level of attrition. Some students must need the time away from college. He sees the need for a pre-freshman and perhaps post-freshman program but believes there must be some form of reckoning during the sophomore year.
Hanna Richardson seconded the need to help marginal students (agreeing that some do need to depart) but reminded the Council of the high-achieving leavers issue.
David Smith stated the need for balance between student performance issue and student satisfaction. Their experiences must be good enough for them to want to stay. Reiterated the need for action.
Horace Smith stated that the report was not intended to reflect emphasis on the remedial. The final document will be adjusted to reflect a balance of concern for both high and low achievers.
Bea Gonzalez questioned the failure to include part-time students as a sub-group.
Bobbi Yonai indicated that part-time students were not included in retention cohorts unless they started full-time and became part-time.
Barb Settel, Amie Redmond, and Hanna Richardson questioned the ability to set a retention target without data. Questioned how the target was established.
Dave Smith indicated that targets were established to benchmark the "end zone" not to assign specific deductive targets for the schools and colleges.
David Potter supports initiatives undertaken without compelling data so long as they are funded with soft money.
Tom Ellett stated that the Council needs to pick a few targeted issues and recommend action now.
Horace Smith proposed reviewing the exit interview process.
Barry Wells accepted the information value of exit interviews but advocated more proactive items for immediate attention.
Judy O'Rourke recommended study sessions in the residence halls.
Ron Cavanagh recommended continuation interviews after each year to assess satisfaction and progress.
Rosanna Grassi was concerned about such an effort being too diffuse.
Amie Redmond indicated that the School of Education does such an interview at the end of the first semester.
Barry Wells recommends the members attend the student forums for the academic plan.
Hanna Richardson expressed frustration at the process leading to the preliminary report. She felt the Council was being rushed to approve the document without time to study it and that the Council had not been consulted sufficiently during its creation.
David Potter advocated more regular meetings for better focus. Also, if the group is to continue then it needs a more defined role.
Tom Ellett recommended a retreat or something similar to further discussion about the plan. Stressed the importance of thoughtful discussion since the group would have to implement the plan.
Horace Smith stated he understood the Council's interest in greater involvement in the process. Indicated that such involvement had been minimized previously out of respect for their time. Indicated that a revised process that more directly involves the council would be presented at next meeting.
The next meeting will be held on February 7, from 10:30 -12:00, location TBA
|
| |
|
