College Planning Council - Big Meeting - June 2, 2011
Morning Plenary Session Notes – Goals 1 and 2
(Presented in the order of the objectives. Each objective was addressed by at least two tables.)
Table: 1
Objective: 1.1
Recorder: Beverlee Andrews
Facilitator: Melissa Pedone
Q1: Progress on Objective
 Math and science – shared learning objective experience with two year schools and with
UCF. Learning objectives and curriculum alignment piece of the UCF partnership – last
year. Added the HS faculty to the alignment. Includes pre-assessment for courses in
chemistry for example. There may be an impact on the end of course assessments in high
school. Making the connection with secondary in a curriculum aspect, not just
recruitment. Opens up pathways to career options for high school students.
 Learn from the calling campaigns, such as the applicant to enrollment campaigning,
analyze the data and elements of demographics. What does this data show?
 Disabilities offices – High school transition team relationships, ESE, GRS and SRS.
Interest in Valencia, qualified to attend, what accommodations are made. Meets with
these teams twice per term. May need more publicity – brand it.
 College transitions activities are happening in earnest, but it’s difficult to measure why
someone chooses Valencia. A “college is possible” message is a good one, but how does
it feed into the 1.1 objective – Valencia enrollment or go to college in general?
Q2: Learned for future practice? Which action?
 High school teachers are passionate about what students need to know.
 There is a difference in high school “end of course” requirements with the Valencia
course requirements in science and math.
 Continue the curriculum alignment work and discipline meetings.
 Adding interdisciplinary math and science labs.
 Recognize that Transitions is bigger than the Transitions office, but that it is broad, and
that faculty and curriculum alignment are a part of transitions.
 Encourage Teach-in – Face of Valencia.
Q3: Changes needed to objective
 Yes, is it a “college going rate” to any college or to Valencia? (First part of objective is
unclear.)
 Who are the others?
 Will a stronger definition focus our efforts?
1
Table: 11
Objective: 1.1
Recorder: Liz Gombash
Q1: Are we making progress and how do we know?
 Yes.
 Bridges expansion , increased number of students.
 Strong college transitions team, contacts all high schools and many middle schools.
 Orientation numbers are up.
 Strong Career Pathways.
 Consider increasing parent involvement to help nurture students as they transition from
high school to college, partner with the family, especially for first generation students.
Q2: What have we learned that can be used to improve future practice and on which we can take
action?
 Need to supplement our strong school connections.
 Families/students do not necessarily rely on schools for information anymore, e.g.
increased social media approach to tell our story.
 Does our communication need more detail about pathways?
 Dual enrollment is expensive, consider exploring more hybrids.
 Can we connect more with AP students?
 Many students are both dual enrollment and AP but balance swings. This is a complex
political issue that should be explored by Legislature. May need to focus more on
academy model vs. individual courses.
 What about possibility of student housing as a support service? Transportation also an
issue but a long-range challenge.
 Transitions team could benefit from looking at changing role of high school counselors.
Q3: Are any changes needed in the objective?
 Consider enrollment trends when scheduling summer courses, better alignment between
timing of high school graduation.
 Should objective refer to increase in the number of college-ready students? (Considering
Senate Bill 1908).
2
Table: 21
Objective: 1.1
Recorder: Ruth Prather








Market share is strong. However, high risk schools have seen a decline in going to
college. This is a concern. Need more work in this area.
Transitions and Bridges do good work.
Late start classes have helped to provide options to those who come late.
Sometimes we need more faculty.
Transitions program is very good.
Still, some high school faculty speaks poorly of Valencia. How can we fix this?
Need more partnerships with community groups and schools at the campus president
level. Relationships matter.
More we engage with students (high school and middle school) and teachers the campus
is stronger.
3
Table: 2
Objective: 1.2
Recorder: Kurt Ewen, Facilitator: Joe Bivins
Q1: Progress?
 We appear to be making progress.
 Concerns about the connection to withdrawal policy.
 Need to maintain focus on Gateway courses.
 How do we know?
 Data trending upward.
Q2: Future Practice
 Focus on Gateway courses.
 Concern about withdrawal policy.
 Take closer look at successful initiatives and apply to “all” students.
 Reconsider recommendations from FOE.
 Research new initiatives (Reach, etc.).
 Need data on other thresholds.
Table: 12
Objective: 1.2
Recorder: Michelle Foster
















We need to consider “next steps” and continuing work (to continue to be “the envy” of
other colleges).
While we see increase in persistence we need to continue to work on learning outcomes
and individual student achievement.
Realization, there is “no one” strategy that works for all. There are a myriad of programs
and services needed to increase persistence. Students need “tools” to be successful.
Transition “college” needs to start earlier in middle school with educational career and
financial planning. Allows students to be more prepared.
Are students being assessed properly in middle school, high school, and at Valencia’s
doorstep
How do we align with OCPS, Osceola?
How do we introduce/offer LifeMap and curriculum to OCPS and Osceola partners?
How can we align curriculum with OCPS/Osceola? Consider pilot.
Persistence could be positively impacted by educating potential and current students on
benefits of direct connect and dual enrollment.
Continue momentum on efforts that increase persistence.
Data presented today on persistence does not seem to match 1.2 objective statement.
Data needs to include academic and financial aid.
Is the reason students do not persist academic or financial?
How many students who leave depart because of money?
Student morale is low when they are not successful.
Level of student’s preparation.
4
Table: 22
Objective: 1.2
Recorder: Jennifer Robertson
Persistence: Increase the percentage of students who persist through academic thresholds.
Q1: Are we making progress and how do we know?
 Valencia has the highest pers. rates in the country (Jeff’s present).
 From a faculty, Comp I, II perspective, she sees the challenges.
 She tries to encourage students to participate in supplemental learning.
 Data on SL is mixed campus to campus.
 Faculty has experienced success and not success.
 It seems to be showing improvement.
 Campus presidents have been asked to look at the data.
 SL was based on interest (one factor); another fact is how campus is scheduling them
(some are extended learning of another course); have high part - rates. When scheduled
at a different time, lower attendance rates; demographics of students different (college
ready and prep).
 Faculty did have one semester of very strong writers and SL wasn’t needed.
 Have students with mixed feelings about being in class. Not everyone “feels” that it is
voluntary. Students didn’t know they were signing up for course with SL session part of
it. Varies by instructor as to how this is communicated.
 Some saw the SI Coordinator doing the liaison with the SL leader other faculty saw it as
their role.
 It works sometimes. Need to look at variations. Have seen declines in success rates at
times.
 Students felt like they were in a “prep” class. Students may need more education on what
these courses are.
 Maybe have grad. TA in classroom. So an “aid” in the room means “special help” perceptions.
 English and math have different needs for the student leader. It means extra work for
faculty to ensure SL is prepared. Example, novel and sure have SL read if, other faculty
not.
 We have made progress when you look at the retention rates.
 Comment – “It’s not any one thing.” So, “how do we know?” Have to look at many
different things since not just one thing is a contributor.
 There are fewer non-mandated students taking Student Success.
 Students under mandate by scholarship to have certain funding (grade required).
 Parent involvement – added parent orientations now. Parents are linked to persistence.
Lots of kids still living at home with parents. Parents are part of the student success.
Q2: What have we learned and where can we take action?
 S.L. we have some levels of success. Dig deeper to see what model or models are
scalable. Due diligence.
 Parent orientations can continue that work and do follow-up to see if it makes a
difference.
 Faculty should pick their Student Success leader.
 Scheduling is a challenge – students, faculty, and Student Success leaders. Some student
leaders have more than one course. Prescheduled in certain blocks of time.
5

What will improve persistence, consider and improve logistics for student leaders; and
better undersand how to track student’s persistence. Are we measuring correctly?
Course to course, term to term, single students.
 Look at work we are on the verge of doing related to assessment. Need to be sure
students have achieved the learning outcomes.
 Ensuring curriculum links learning to real life, real world experience to keep students
engaged and motivated.
Q3: Changes?
 Some data presented on data and semester.
 Use LifeMap model to track persistence to get a sense of where we are losing students
and why.
 Am I following my academic plan? Is my course progression moving me toward my
goal?
6
Table: 3
Objective: 1.3
Recorder: Valerie Burks
Q1: Are we making progress and how do we know?
 The data showes we are making progress, though we do not have data for the impact of
the new withdrawal policy.
 Many students are eligible for graduation but do not apply for graduation.
 Need to define different levels of “withdrawals” – build a pathway to the achievement of
their goals (graduation is a measure, not a goal).
 How do we capture their goals?
 “Dismal performance” with regard to students who place in developmental.
 If we admit them, we have an obligation to BUILD A PATHWAY.
 One of the measures of success is the connections a student makes.
 Consistency of message is important; everyone needs to get it right.
 LifeMap is key.
 Family issues that affect success and completion.
 SL must be managed correctly (before and after class).
 Decrease withdrawal rates.
 Withdrawal loophole.
 Incomplete (student gaming).
 Faculty can still issue withdrawal for absences after the student deadline.
 Online courses have negative impact on withdrawal rate.
 EAP
 We do not capture reasons for withdrawal.
 If we do not know why students withdraw --- how do we improve it?
Table: 13
Objective: 1.3
Recorder: Josh Murdock
Josh Murdock
Christina Hardin
Marjorie McKillop
Derek Harris
Margaret Gonzalez
Q1 - Are we making progress on this objective, and how do we know?
Making progress and having the stats to prove the withdrawal policy is working. Too early to
tell?
Conditions have changed and we need to have additional time to see if the changes have made
any kind of impact.
7
Q2 - What have we learned that can be used to improved future practice on which we take
action?
More data needed from various angles.
Students surveyed on why they are withdrawing - why?
Educating students ahead of time, including financial aid policies & services to support them
Clearly articulated expectations concerning expectation of services to support students outside
the classroom that can effect withdrawals
Faculty more aware of how withdrawals affect students
Q3 - Are any changes needed in the objective?
Do we need to look at more than withdrawal rates, including D’s and F’s?
If addressing solely withdrawal rates, this objective is well worded.
8
Table: 4
Objective: 1.4
Recorder: Bob Gessner
Q1: Are we making progress on this objective? How do we know?
 Yes.
 Bachelors programs – we make sure we have the right program for the needs of the
community.
 Before we open a new AS program we look at the targeted occupations list to make sure
the salaries are at a certain level for our graduates.
 We eliminated two AAS programs that are not designed for transfer.
 We have many certificate programs that fulfill needs for specific industries.
 We have transfer plans so students do not take courses they do not need (so they can save
money)
Q2: What have we learned that can help future practice . . . ?
 Continued research and collaboration with community partners is important – annual
review recommended.
Q3: Are any changes needed in the objective?
 No.
 But we should look at the AA pre-major programs. Some of the entertainment degrees
areas could be looked at further.
Table: 14
Objective: 1.4
Recorder: Gloria Hines

















Work with WFD statewide online.
Where is the Florida economy going – keep up with this.
What work is going on with the AA? Research.
Know program outcomes for AA now.
Will AA students have jobs after they graduate.
Progress on AS but not on AA.
Workforce Development is good, but AA still needs work. Research.
Certificates will go on to AS degrees.
Articulation agreements have grown.
Working on 21st century skills as AS degrees.
Continue research on national/regional needs.
Define alignment between AA and AS.
Are we looking at degrees that are no longer needed?
Working on alignment AS – AAS.
4.4 - We are not doing a good job of encouraging students in the AA to complete
prerequisites for their major.
Need more work on developing ways for students to explore a career and identify a major
before they leave for college - do this in the first year.
Impact completion rate and the length a student spends on getting into the workforce
when doing an AA.
9
Table: 5
Objective: 1.5
Recorder: Amy Bosley
1.5: Increase access to associate degree and higher programs through university partnerships,
scholarships and financial supports and through the addition of Valencia campuses and locations
in growing service district areas that are relatively distant from existing campuses.
Q1: Are we making progress on this objective and how do we know?
 Increase in financial aid is tangible improvement toward access.
 Not just about getting the student a check, but the FLIRT program helps students develop
life skills.
 Number of students in Direct Connect Pipeline (need to know how many students
successfully move through UCF not just in the pipeline).
 If Direct Connect brings them to Valencia, how many are successfully moving through to
completion on the other end.
 Are we still talking about a campus in Apopka?
 Could we develop a survey of the community to determine where need is unmet within
the area?
 Opening a Lake Nona campus in an underserved and developing part of the community –
how will the program mix reflect the medical and aviation communities.
Q2: What we have learned through UCF partnerships is that it works, we can do it, and we
should pursue it with other universities.
 Significant advantage when we “package” programs to make them clear to potential
students. “Package” = online, Direct Connect.
 “Make a map for the pathways”.
Q 3: Objective only speaks to physical locations – should we consider tweaking the language of
the objective to reflect alternative (distance) learning methods/delivery methods.
 Do we have fully online degree programs? If not, consider this as an underserved
population?
 Package and market degree programs for online.
 Are there other university partnerships that exist and would appeal to students? How do
we market and communicate these options to students? Not just UCF . . .
 If the economy improves, we may find ourselves in a more competitive position – our
capacity will be freed up and we may “seek” students actively rather than the reverse.
 The objective focus on university partnerships – are there other opportunities for
workforce partnerships?
 Would an increased focus on job placement benefit students and pathways?
 Is our value proposition somehow “guaranteed” in certain disciplines/areas? Heath care?
 To share:
o Significant advantage when we “package” programs of study to make the
pathway clear for the students.
o “Develop Maps for the Pathways” - Objective focuses on university partnerships,
and we wander.
o Would an increased focus on job placement and workforce partnerships benefit
students?
10
o Objective speaks to adding physical locations for some students. Should the
objective also reflect access through other means such as online learning/degree
programs?
Table: 15
Objective: 1.5
Recorder: Cathy Penfold Navarro
Access
Q1: Are we making progress? How do we know?
 Yes, number of students in Direct Connect enrollment is increased.
 Enrollment in online/hybrid.
 Lake Nona campus.
 Largest regional campus for UCF.
 UCF presence on West and Osceola.
 Funding for partnerships.
 Baccalaureate degrees.
 But, fewer students are going to college, particularly from lower income backgrounds.
Q2: What have we learned that can be used to improve future practice?
 Branding of Valencia as a “first choice” college.
 High school graduates decreasing.
 Name change will present even better image for Valencia as a first-choice college.
 Still lose a lot of people between orientation and enrollment. We need to know why and
improve this number. Are these students going somewhere else or not going to college at
all.
 Do students who apply early (junior year) have consistent connection with Valencia?
 What is working: Bridges to Success, College Reach Out, Talking Stock in Children?
Because of the support networks, hands on, scholarships, exposure to college lire.
 Recruit students from Florida virtual school
 What impact does it have that we do not offer the “college experience” with sports teams,
intramurals, big concerts, etc.
 Some students do not think Valencia is good enough, and some students do not think they
are good enough. We need to address both these mindsets in marketing transitions.
 FAFSA, Frenzy Fridays is very successful.
 Need to continue to expand online courses, to offer full degrees.
 Instate tuition to out-of-state online courses?
11
Table: 6
Objective: 2.1
Recorder: Mike Bosley
Co-curricular Student Development (Student Leader Team) learning outcomes for groups specific L.O. toward tangible learning outcomes.
Q1: Are we making progress . . . how do we know?
 Measure in individual classrooms.
 How do we share what we are trying.
 Do we all have the same understanding of the outcomes?
 Publicize the outcomes so that everyone knows what they are.
 Be more clear.
 What are appropriate assessments for course outcome?
Q2: What have we learned?
 IR – relationship to data, how do we be more clear.
 Good opportunity for someone to put a plant together – how do we tell everyone about it.
Q3: Are any changes needed?
 No.
 Revisit in 2,013.
Table: 16
Objective: 2.1
Recorder: Elizabeth Renn
Q1: Making progress, what have we learned for improvement suggested changes? Are we
making progress and how do we know?
 Course outline builder used by all departments.
 Push to use Learning Outcomes in Student Services.
 Some Student Development offices are using PDP to develop learning outcomes.
 Budgets are requiring integration of learning outcomes.
 PRFs, professional development too.
 Use of LifeMap infusion to help students with FTIC for helping set personal learning
outcomes (i.e., financial literacy).
Q2: Improvement on future practice
 Use of SLS to incorporate outcomes (i.e., financial literacy).
 Provide professional development for faculty to learn about SLS, LifeMap and advising.
 Bring together learning outcomes for Student Development and faculty.
 Focus on Front Door Experience and create learning outcomes for this population of
students (<15 hours).
 Focus on “connection” and “direction”.
 Learning outcomes for specific groups of students (i.e., veterans).
 Concentrate resources on new students.
 Coordinate learning outcomes to focus on bridging levels of courses (i.e., K-16, or within
ENC prep to 1102).
Comments:
 Learning outcomes are making progress. Curriculum mapping is being completed.
Support systems are in place.
12



Co-curricular activities enhance learning and we need to further expand crossinvolvement of faculty and staff from disciplines and student affairs.
We learned that financial literacy is important in order that students do not have
distractions related to finance and can instead focus on their learning.
Recommendations: More involvement in classes from visiting advising representatives
in order that students can build connections and get accurate direction.
13
Table: 7
Objective: 2.2
Recorder: Daryl Davis
Q1: Progress?
 Uncertain if we have achieved college-level writing.
 As a college, we should define what is college level-writing.
 When should college-level writing be achieved after Comp 1?
 Carefully consider course sequences, i.e., math prep sequence apply to writing courses
and across disciplines.
 Carmen commented on when working with business and industry to place students into
internships our business partners are looking for students at the college level.
 Develop a rubric for determining college-level writing.
 This should come from comp faculty, as well as faculty from other disciplines.
 How should this be done?
Q3: Changes to the Goal
 Include a definition of college-level writing like in Objective 2.3.
Table: 17
Objective: 2.2
Recorder: Donna Marino
College-level writing – define. Assumption Comp 1 completion could be the college-level
writing qualifying data.
Q2: Why is it not sufficient (completion)?
 Well, if Comp 1 is basis then writing in humanities and Comp 2 are continuing
developing.
 Completion of these classes could be part of data.
 Once completed, the writing rubric should be shared to incorporate into other areas that
have college-level writing.
 Employers (workforce development noted) still note writing and communication skills
need improvement (please note: interns are students, still learning and developing).
 How do we continue, bring forth, collaborate the conversation on what college-level
writing is?
 Online reflections and discussion boards is another location where college-level writing
can be stressed.
Q2: What have we learned?
 Comp professors are on the cusp of developing strategies that can cross other disciplines
to hone and prepare students in other class work.
 This good work has a broader application, when defined; the rubric of college-level
writing can be polished in student classes.
 “Scaffolding” idea to help students “bridge” from where they are.
 Integrated learning experience around writing sequencing.
 Build a progressive requirement.
 Look at correlation between Comp 1 pass rates and follow-up graduates in writing
humanities class.
14

Connecting students to learning support. Faculty encouraging and weaving supplemental
learning.
 Delve in more to what actually happens.
 Still more to learn about what makes a difference in SL leaders (are we trying to show a
math model)?
Q3: Are changes needed in the objective?
 Like with Objective 2.3, a definition is needed. What does college-level writing look
like?
 Objective also should cross disciplines.
 Element of this work, learn more about writing outcomes from high school academic
standards.
 Comp 1 exit exam had a rubric for old writing requirement.
 Regarding Building Pathways objective, on completion as a review of effectiveness of
pathway.
15
Table: 8
Objective: 2.3 & 2.5 – these two tables combined to discuss both objectives
Recorder: Craig Blazejewski
Objective 2.3
Q1: Are we making progress in this objective and how do we know?
 No baseline data to begin with – what will our baseline data be?
 How do we plan on capturing baseline data?
 Comment: AS Programs have a mandate - discussion of a State mandate.
 Depends upon where a student begins – (challenge) = moving target.
 College has no way to track what is the highest level class for that program?
 We lack the sophistication for the full program in two years.
 Response: We are seeing a trend toward an increase in completion of with courses, but
the objective cannot be definitely confirmed without baseline data defined.
 Need to assume so, because we are seeing a trend in graduation rates at completion of
math courses.
 But cannot know for certain based on the definition of the objective.
 What specifically are the financial investments being made?
Q2: What have we learned that can be used to improve future practice and on which we can take
action?
 We are seeing that they persist (trend) ATC, but … we need to learn ways to measure the
impact.
 First investments have been made in support services for Math, but … each campus
handles supplemental learning sessions differently – inconsistent.
 Unconventional Answer: We need to learn if those substantial investments are impacting
student learning in the Math sequence.
 Investments have been made in support services for Math.
 We first need to learn ways to measure the impact.
Q3: Are any changes needed in the objective?
 Yes.
 Better clarification.
 Need to find a consistent way to capture data (first 2 years).
 Do we read years in there?
 Do we need program in the investment?
 How do we handle students who change programs?
Objective 2.5 - Closing the Achievement Gaps
Q1: Data equals success rate in six Gateway courses.
 Targeted by the ATD initiative.
 Average has improved from 64.8% to 66.3%.
 Easy to track on a course to course basis.
 Are we making progress?
 Yes, but it’s inconsistent and in some cases the gap is getting bigger (easy to track in
course by course basis).
 We rely on self-reporting for ethnicity.
16
Q2: What have we learned that can be used to improve future practice on which we can take
action?
 By focusing more on math, students are graduating.
 Math is a stumbling block.
Q3: No changes needed.
Table: 18
Objective: 2.3
Recorder: Joe Sarrubbo
Q1: The details of the objective changed “required for a program of study vs. required for the
student’s declared major.”
 Data is hard to measure because it is a moving target of students.
 We do not really know if we are making progress because we do not have all the data. It
is a challenge to measure it as defined.
Q2: Needs to be more specific (i.e., substantial investments have been made . . . what are these
substantial investments)?
 We need to do more work for the prep-students.
Q3: The program they are in at the end of the second year period determines the math courses
that must have been completed to achieve the goal.
 Take into account the new PERT and how the cut-off scores impact placement. It will
impact the data and trends.
 Maybe a better way to measure the data? It gives you a benchmark measuring point.
17
Table: 9
Objective: 2.4
Recorder: Wendy Givoglu

Increase percentage of students mandated into developmental courses who complete
within three years, the first 15 college-level hours of their program of study.
Q1: Are we making progress on this objective, and how do we know?
 Future pilot: Osceola campus – REACH initiative could give us a baseline.
 Future pilot: REACH – Developmental courses and other courses will yield completion
of 21 hours.
 Yes, data tells us so and there are lots of pieces to it.
 A student in two different developmental levels are in aligned pairs/accelerated levels.
 Yes, intensive EAP courses, LinC courses.
 50% of our students need developmental courses.
 Completion and progression through developmental courses depends on a combination of
all strategies, intensive courses, LinC, Financial Literacy, Answer Center, Academic
Success Centers, SL, Tutoring labs.
 Let’s look at each campus plan and see what works for every campus, different models
can be applied.
 Baseline date is important.
 It is everyone’s responsibility.
 Writing, reading, math across curriculum - is there data to support the benefits of this?
2.4 – Top Ideas
 Completion percentage of 15 college credits.
 Baseline data is important.
 Data shows students are progress.
 Students taking developmental courses.
 Many pieces.
 Progression/completion of developmental courses depend on a combination of all
strategies.
 Intensive courses, LinC, Financial Literacy, Answer Center, Academic Success Centers,
SL, Tutoring, Labs.
 Campus planning could provide an opportunity for different models on each campus.
 It is everyone’s responsibility.
 We have an opportunity as we are mapping courses.
 Reading, writing, math, LifeMap, college success skills can be reinforced so students can
progress and have reinforcement in all areas over time.
 It is everyone’s responsibility.
 Opportunity as we are mapping courses.
 Writing, reading, math across curriculum and college success skills can be reinforced so
students can progress in these areas.
 Can integrate this reinforcement with LifeMap.
 Withdrawal rates, we do not always know why students withdraw.
 Student perspective is important, “why did you withdraw?”
 Could be good to survey students at point of withdrawal.
18
Table: 19
Objective: 2.4
Recorder: Chara Young
Q1: Yes, we are making progress, but do the SL/LinC courses make a big impact.
 For SL we question the validity of putting resources in SL if it is not required for all
students. The design principle of attending SL is flawed by making it optional and
ignoring “the why are you better than me” in reference to using student leaders.
 Have we compared this to writing and other tutoring centers to determine if the increase
in percentage is the same or higher?
 If the same effort was made into putting resources into tutoring centers, would we get
increased results?
 The idea of cohort supported learning is successful (Jane Wiese gave an example in Fin.
Acct. and Mng. Acct.).
 Make it easier for cohort registration in all courses, ex. Health Programs, CJI.
 Starting cohort for veterans in College Success.
 Has experienced a large amount of success, can be applied to the first 15 college level
hours.
 Providing the proper tools to students and adjuncts.
 Distinguish between fulltime and part-time students.
 It could take part-time longer than three years.
 We did not see anything in the report about providing virtual support.
 Counseling and tutoring for those students who may not be available during campus
operating hours.
19
Table: 10
Objective: 2.5
Recorder: Suzette Dohany
Her table combined with Craig’s and they discussed both 2.3 and 2.5, with the notes under 2.3
above.
Table: 20
Objective: 2.5
Recorder: Rob McCaffrey








Difficult to do this in 20 minutes, but we agree we are doing it.
Focus on math = more graduates.
Modes of delivery may help access/success.
Hybrid shows most promise.
A “college-level” writing sample should be independent of ethnicity, should be quality
with diversity.
Achievement gap in addition to.
We need to work on improvement.
Additional rationale that supports progress is needed.
20