Hi, Joel. I attended my first meeting of the Committee just last week. I believe this to be a creative, invested group of folks invested in working on student retention. It appears the group has been stymied in their work; several people remarked to me that this meeting was one of the most productive in the last year.
Let me set some context. Leanne (sp?) in Institutional Research is a new member of the committee and was able to provide insight on data sources. It’s clear that different college departments (housing, student services, advisement, not academic departments) keep their own data on retention, etc. and that it’s not easily shared across departments. Leann provided ideas for coordinating all the data through her office. We identified several concrete items that she will be able to do before the next meeting, and will help us take steps towards action.
Currently, the Committee is chaired by the VC of Enrollment Management, who to my understanding oversees a number of members of the committee (Director of Academic Advisement, First Year Program, etc.). This Committee has the potential to reflect a staff meeting, rather than a campus committee. I wonder if the Committee might appropriately be co-chaired by a faculty person and director of IR. Why? It may reflect a broader perspective on the issues of student retention and avoid conflicts of interests between the VC and staff.The Director of IR would also have the perspective of all the data, not just pieces, and be able to coordinate information used to develop concrete actions.
The Retention Plan reviewed by the Faculty Senate did not include any faculty actions, nor did it include concrete actions. I believe we need more than two faculty. I would suggest at least one, if not two, additional faculty members to help communicate the faculty perspective. It would help establish balance.
I understand that the Director of Academic Advisement is no longer serving on the committee. As this department serves an important campus function, I do believe it is important to hear their perspective. This might be provided in a short report each month of strengths and issues they see regarding advisement as it relates to retention.
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this, Joel. Thanks!
Monica Roth Day
think that I was only able to attend one or two meetings last semester (not many were held), so my observations will be largely from the 2008-2009 academic year.
My first observation is one of logistics. With that many staff, faculty, and students on the committee and no set meeting time at the beginning of the semester, it is very difficult to find a time that will work with everyone. Perhaps a set time could be made so that faculty and students know before they sign up for the committee whether it is even feasible for them to be on it or not. It seemed like we were trying so hard to accommodate the students’ schedules that in the end we just threw our hand up in the air and decided not to even meet. I would say that needs to be worked out if it hasn’t already.
I agree with Monica that the meetings are sometimes run more like a staff meeting due to the makeup of the committee.
Last year, I felt like we were spinning our wheels a little. Like Monica observed, no real concrete actions were outlined in the retention plan. I feel that the members of the committee are dedicated to student retention, but we could have had more focus on developing concrete actions to benefit student retention. In the end, I’m not sure what we even accomplished.
Take care,
Brett
I think that this looks good. I really like the charge about recruitment. I feel that that wasn’t dealt with enough in the past. Retention was always discusses, but not recruitment. I like having that clearly stated in the charge. I wonder if there should be more clarification about the final report and what it should entail. Should it contain suggestions for improvement during the next two academic years? That part of the charge just seems too vague to me to assure the Cabinet gets the kind of ‘product’ it will need to make decisions for the university.
The make-up of the committee seems okay to me.
Take care,
Brett
On 2/11/10 10:42 AM, "Sipress,Joel M" <> wrote:
Monica and Brett,
Thanks for you thoughts on the retention and enrollment committee. Could I ask one other thing. I’ve attached below a copy of the current committee charge and composition. Could you (very briefly) tell me the following, to the extent you are able:
-Do you believe that the current charge is appropriate? It not, how should it be changed?
-To what extent is the committee actually following its current charge?
-Do you believe the current make-up is appropriate? If not how should it be changed?
-Do those who attend and participate in the meetings actually reflect its formal composition as indicated below?
Thanks.
Joel
Student Retention & Enrollment Committee
Develop and implement a coordinated program of activities with campus-wide impact which will attract and retain a maximum number of qualified students who are integral to the vitality and maintenance of the University, renew recruitment plans for the new first year students, undergraduate transfer students, extended degree students, develop and assist in implementing plans and activities that increase UW-Superior's persistence rate and graduation rate.
The SR& E Committee will submit a final report at the end of each academic year to the Chancellor for circulation among the Cabinet.
Members consist of two (2) faculty, two (2) academic staff, the Director of Academic and Career Advising, the Director of Continuing Education/Distance Learning, the Vice Chancellor Enrollment Management, the VC Student Life and Dean of Students, and the Provost
Faculty (2)
Academic Staff (2):
Director, Academic and Career Advising
Director, Continuing Education/Distance Learning
Vice Chancellor  Enrollment Management:
Vice Chancellor Student Life and Dean of Students
Provost and Dean of Faculties:
Students (3)
Thanks, Joel. I agree with Brett. There needs to be more specificity regarding the product from the committee, and the parameters regarding actions/plans we might make.
I think 3 students may be too many. It’s hard to schedule around their class times; we really struggled with that last meeting. One thing that could change it is setting the meeting time and dates, then seeing which students would be available. The meeting times and dates are a moving target.
I did not see the Director of Institutional Research there. I believe that is someone critical to have as part of the discussion. Leanne added a lot of context and ideas. I also did not see a firm indicator as to who chairs the committee. Brett, do you know how the current chair was chosen?
I’m not sure how the chair was chosen, or if that is part of the job description. Joel may know that better than me.
I totally agree about the number of students and trying to fit meetings times around student schedules. That was a HUGE frustration of mine last semester! They should set the meeting time, and then find students (perhaps two would be sufficient) that would be helpful to the cause that can make the meetings.
Anyway, good thoughts, Monica.
Brett