Inventory of Policies, Procedures and Practices
That Directly Impede Student Success
Submitted to Pat West, CPCC Liaison to Achieving the Dream
By the
2010 - 2011 Process Review Team
February 15, 2011
Team Members
Employee
Department
Steve Corriher
Hugh Dussek
Mel Gay
Gary Gilbody
Maha Gingrich
Patty Hill
Helen Kolman
Gregg Miller
Carrie Konczal
Mary-lynn Mitchell
Lockwood Ray
Dena Shonts
Greg Stanley
Barbara Tejada-Koulsar
Laura Temples
Barbara Whitt (resigned from the team)
Construction Technology Division
Behavioral and Social Sciences Division
Student Services
Networking Technology/Information Technology Division
Community Relations and Marketing Services
English, Reading and Humanities Division
Mathematics Division
Mathematics Division
Career Services
Institutional Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Security Services
Service-Learning
Admissions and Registration
Advising and Student Success Centers
ITS-Administrative Information Services
English, Reading and Humanities Division
1
SUMMARY
The CPCC Cabinet charged the 2010-2011 Process Review Team to compile an inventory of CPCC policies, procedures, and
practices that directly impact student success. The inventory is to be used as groundwork to assist the Achieving the Dream
Core team in determining the effect of procedures and practices on student success in order to build a consensus on 3or 4
problem areas to address. Originally, the assignment was to be completed and presented to Cabinet by May 2011.
Subsequently, it was realized that the Achieving the Dream timeline required an earlier completion date. The due date was
changed to March and finally to February 11, 2011.
The Process Review Team began by requesting available relevant data on student success, most of which reported results
rather than what factors caused the results. Responses from 8 data dialogues on what thwarts student success were
compiled for frequent trends. All official CPCC policies were reviewed for impact on student success. To examine all
processes and practices, a list of primary college functions and a list of common practices of the college were created to
consider all the processes inherent within them. The team also responded to 29 guiding questions from the national
Achieving the Dream Policy and Procedure Analysis form. As a result, a master chart was compiled of 113 processes or
practices among 12 functional areas of the college that impede student success. The barriers were further scrutinized to
determine which of them have direct impact. The consensus was that 27 of them have direct impact on student success.
Lastly, Process Review Team members prioritized the 27 direct barriers as first, second or third priority (Appendix A).
The strongest consensus on priority barriers directly impeding student success was found to be for those listed below. It is
important to note that they are not presented in any particular order; therefore, it should not be concluded that the first
one is top priority, the next one second priority, and so on.
Fragmented approach to student success
 ‘Student success’ is addressed in a fragmented manner instead of in one coordinated effort. Multiple areas,
departments and positions address the same issues in isolation of each other (Student Intake, Achieving the Dream,
Process Review Team, Advisory Management Team, First Year Program, etc.).
Lack of mandatory procedures for program placement
 An enrollment training session for first-time curriculum students is not required.
 Although it is planned for 2012, academic advisement is not mandatory.
 Students are not required to pass an assessment of online proficiency to be able to take online classes. Students are
allowed to enroll in online classes without the computer skills necessary for online courses.
 A lack of awareness exists of the importance of the ACCUPLACER Test and the need to prepare for it. The high stakes
nature of the placement test is not adequately conveyed to the students.
Lack of required procedures for registration
 No deadline for admissions applications or denial of late registration exists. Students are permitted to apply after
classes start as if the first week of class does not count.
 Students are permitted to take classes they do not want or need to collect Financial Aid, when classes they really
need are not available. Lack of clarity about the practice exists among the college community. Students want to
maximize their Financial Aid resources with full class loads, regardless of their readiness for available courses. Students
may be advised to choose a major for Financial Aid purposes without a true commitment to the major.
 The ACA-Academic Student Success course is not required for all developmental students.
Inadequate emphasis on active learning
 Students are not fully engaged in classes due to a lack of active learning techniques. More emphasis is needed on
engaging faculty in processes for continuous quality improvement.
An overall conclusion drawn from much learned contemplation among team members is that college functions responsible
for initial placement, course advisement and program indoctrination most directly impact student success. As would be
expected in a process review, results of the team’s work primarily identified “low hanging fruit” found at the students’ entry
point to the college, i.e. most of the priority items relate to student intake and the ability to correctly choose classes
contributing to completion of a program. It should be understood that this is the natural flow of process review and other
more obscure factors may emerge as these process- related items are addressed.
2
REPORT DETAILS
Clarifications
Initial discussion by the team concluded that if anything done at the college did not impact students, it should be of no
value to the college. Also questioned, was how student “success” should be defined or measured as a result of policies,
procedures and practices. Two clarifications to the wording of the charge statement were requested and received: 1) The
specific intent of the term “impact” and 2) the intended definition of “student success”. The term “impact” was clarified to
mean only an impediment to student success. Student success was defined specifically as student retention and/or
program completion.
The Process
A. Relevant available data was examined.
The Process Review Team reviewed compiled responses from eight data dialogues which took place among all CPCC
campuses as a part of the Achieving the Dream initiative (Appendix G). The dialogues were in response to 2 questions, one
or which was: What policies, procedures and practices at the College may be inadvertently thwarting student success? The
110 responses from those dialogues were sorted into 11 categories, based on the nature or topic of the responses. The
most frequent types of responses from data dialogues on what thwarts student success, in order, were:
1. Inadequate use of or allocation of resources (21 responses)
2. The student placement process (16 responses)
3. Ineffective communication or understanding among college areas and/or by students (14 responses)
The team also briefly viewed 10 sets of data regarding student success provided by CPCC Institutional Research or posted
on the college website. Team members noted that data show results, but most often do not measure the cause of the
results, unless specifically created to do so. Two data sets were found to include causative factors:
1) Registration Cohort Performance data showed less successful grades and less retention the later students registered
2) Two causative conclusions were drawn from the Retention Data Set for the Board of Trustees Retreat:
a) Students who received financial aid are retained at higher rates all three years, and
b) Previously dual-enrolled students are retained at higher rates.
B. All CPCC official policies were reviewed for their direct impact on student success.
The college’s 135 official policies are segmented into 7 sections. The highest team consensus on policies with the most
direct impact on students fell into 2 of those sections: Section #5 - Education Programs and Section #7 - Students. The
team felt that 9 policies directly impact student success. They unanimously felt that 2 polices had direct impact: Policy
5.00-Admission to the College and Policy 5.03-Academic Advisement. There was strong consensus (90% agreement) on 3
policies: Policy 5.01-Credit from other Institutions and Agencies, Policy 5.02-Credit by Examination and Policy 5.05-Coursework. The team had 80% agreement on 4 policies: Policy 5.04-Program Status of Students, Policy 5.09-Withdrawal from
Classes, Policy 5.10-Grading Policy and Policy 7.00-conduct of Students.
C. Processes for basic college functions and common practices of the college were identified.
The team brainstormed to identify any procedures within the 13 primary college functions that impede student success.
(Appendices F). They also brainstormed procedural barriers within processes for common practices of the college to
identify those which have barriers to student success (Appendix E).
D. The Achieving the Dream Analysis Chart for Policies and Procedures was completed.
Consensus responses to 29 guiding questions were compiled using the Achieving the Dream Analysis Chart for at-risk and
minority students (Appendix D). Although the focus of the national form was at-risk and minority students, use of it was
adapted to the purpose of the Process Review Team’s assignment. The team responded to all the guiding questions in
terms of examining processes and practices that impede student success.
E. A master chart of categories of policies and procedures was compiled from all sources: CPCC policies, college functions
common practices, and the Achieving the Dream Process Analysis Chart.
As a result of examining all 4 sources of policies, practices and procedures, the team developed 15 overarching categories
of procedures and practices that thwart student success. In responding to the guiding questions from the Achieving the
3
Dream process analysis, and in examining college policies, functions and common practices to develop a master chart, the
Process Review Team identified 113 impediments to student success (Appendix C).
Final Inventory
The team scrutinized the 113 identified barriers by group consensus to select only those which directly impact student
success. As a result, 27 were specified as direct impediments to student success (Appendix B). They are listed below within
their respective categories:
ORGANIZATON of the COLLEGE: MISSION, PLANNING, RESOURCES and BUDGETING (1)
1. ‘Student success’ is addressed in a fragmented manner instead of in one coordinated effort. Multiple areas,
departments and positions address the same issues independently of each other (i.e., Student Intake, Achieving
the Dream, Process Review Team, Advisory Management Team, First Year Program, etc.)
ADMISSIONS and ENROLLMENT (1)
2. No deadline for admissions applications or denial of late registration exists. Students are permitted to apply after
classes start as if the first week of class does not count.
STUDENT ASSESSMENT and PLACEMENT (2)
3. Students are not required to pass an assessment of online proficiency to be able to take online classes. Students
are allowed to enroll in online classes without the computer skills necessary for online courses.
4. A lack of awareness exists of the importance of the ACCUPLACER Test and the need to prepare for it. The high
stakes nature of the placement test is not adequately conveyed to the students.
COURSE ADVISEMENT (7)
5. Although it is planned for 2012, academic advisement is not mandatory.
6. Course sequence information, including the program start year and developmental courses needed, is not readily
available in a centralized location in a standardized format for all advisors and students.
7. Current faculty training focuses on advisement tools, but not on program-specific advising. A lack of consistent
accountability for advisement exists, based on the different types of advisement needed. Appropriate programspecific advisement is not required each semester.
8. Appropriate program-specific advisement is not required each semester.
9. Inconsistent information exists between the catalog and Datatel. Many changes are made at end of summer after
the catalog is printed.
10. Students are permitted to take classes they do not want or need to collect financial aid, when classes they really
need are not available. Lack of clarity about the practice exists among the college community. Students want to
maximize their Financial Aid resources with full class loads, regardless of their readiness for available courses.
Students are advised to choose a major for Financial Aid purposes without a true commitment to the major.
11. Not enough advisors are available to advise students. Some departments are not present on all campuses.
FINANCIAL AID (3)
12. A required structure or established practice is needed to proactively address students who lack commitment in
addition to existing strategies in place after they are struggling.
13. Financial Aid only pays for a maximum of 30 remediation hours, but students may need more hours to complete
developmental requirements than Financial Aid will cover; For example, English as a Foreign Language requires 65
hours.
14. Twelve hours are required for full-time status, but a sixteen-hour program is required for financial aid eligibility.
REGISTRATION (2)
15. Confusion exists throughout the college about Drop/Add. Even if a class has not met within the first 2 days,
students have no option to drop/add without special approval. Students will not drop classes if they cannot be
admitted to others, so they remain in classes that are not a fit because they need the credit hours.
16. Classes are not guaranteed for all who need them. Since the state permits only a limited number of additional
courses, advanced or capstone classes in curriculum programs often are sacrificed, due to low enrollment, budget,
or demand for developmental courses. This prevents students from completing their programs.
ORIENTATION (2)
17. The orientation for new curriculum students is not required.
18. The ACA-Academic Student Success course is not required for all developmental students.
4
COMMUNICATING INFORMATION (1)
19. Specific web pages are difficult to find and search. The CPCC Website is difficult to navigate. Lots of good
information cannot be found easily. Information is not updated or consistent. Lack of knowledge exists of the
iCAN website and how to access resources and information on it. The iCAN acronym is unknown.
PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS and PROGRAM DELIVERY (5)
20. Online classes may be taught without required instructor training or understanding of the challenges involved.
21. Only outcomes or number of completers are evaluated. Causative factors may not be evaluated, such as course
delivery and how online courses are taught, how well prepared students are for online classes, or if the class is
appropriate for online delivery, etc.
22. Students are not fully engaged in classes due to a lack of active learning techniques. More emphasis is needed on
engaging faculty in processes for continuous quality improvement.
23. Accelerated courses are not available for all levels. It takes a year or more to complete developmental courses
before taking degree courses. Remediation is too lengthy in a semester environment.
24. Early alerts are not automatically generated with mid terms or online attendance and therefore, are dependent on
instructor initiative.
STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES (1)
25. The Academic Learning Center has restricted hours for specific types of tutoring. Too few qualified tutors are
available to support statistics level courses.
DEGREE AUDITING and GRADUATION (1)
26. A lack of knowledge exists about outdated course and program requirements as they are changed under new
catalog years. Changes are downloaded from the state through the common course library. Students wait to take
courses which are then no longer offered.
INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT (1)
27. A quick-fix approach too often is taken without long-range plans in place to look at future intervention results.
Quick solutions do not ensure real solutions. A lack of follow-through on long range plans exists without
constantly changing how things are done.
Of the 27 practices deemed as direct barriers to student success,
 7 were in the area of course advisement
 5 were in the area of program requirements and delivery
 2 were in the area of registration
 2 were in the area of financial aid
 2 were in the areas of assessment and placement
 2 were in the area of orientation
The remaining 6 were single direct barriers among the areas of college organization, admissions and enrollment,
communication, student support services, degree auditing and graduation, or research and policy development.
Priority Ranking of Barriers to Student Success
Process Review Team members prioritized the 27 direct barriers to student success as first, second or third priority
(Appendix A). The strongest consensus on barriers directly impeding student success was found to be for the following
practices:
1st priority direct barriers (9):

‘Student success’ is addressed in a fragmented manner instead of in one coordinated effort. Multiple areas,
departments and positions address the same issues in isolation of each other (Student Intake, Achieving the Dream,
Process Review Team, Advisory Management Team, First Year Program, etc.).
 No deadline for admissions applications or denial of late registration exists. Students are permitted to apply after
classes start as if the first week of class does not count.
 Students are not required to pass an assessment of online proficiency to be able to take online classes. Students are
allowed to enroll in online classes without the computer skills necessary for online courses.
 A lack of awareness exists of the importance of the ACCUPLACER Test and the need to prepare for it. The high stakes
nature of the placement test is not adequately conveyed to the students.
 Although it is planned for 2012, academic advisement is not mandatory.
5




Students are permitted to take classes they do not want or need to collect Financial Aid, when classes they really
need are not available; Lack of clarity about the practice exists among the college community Students want to
maximize their Financial Aid resources with full class loads, regardless of their readiness for available courses. Students
are advised to choose a major for Financial Aid purposes without a true commitment to the major; Lack of clarity about
the practice exists among the college community.
An enrollment training session for first-time curriculum students is not required.
The ACA-Academic Student Success course is not required for all developmental students.
Students are not fully engaged in classes due to a lack of active learning techniques. More emphasis is needed on
engaging faculty in processes for continuous quality improvement.
2nd priority direct barriers (10):
 Course sequence information, including the program start year and developmental courses needed, is not readily
available in a centralized location in a standardized format for all advisors and students.
 Current faculty training focuses on advisement tools, but not on program-specific advising.
 Appropriate program-specific advisement is not required each semester.
 Inconsistent information exists between the catalog and Datatel.
 Not enough advisors are available to advise students.
 Confusion exists throughout the college about Drop/Add.
 Online classes may be taught without required instructor training or understanding of the challenges involved
 Classes are not guaranteed for all who need them. Since the state permits only a limited number of additional courses,
advanced or capstone classes in curriculum programs often are sacrificed, due to low enrollment, budget or demand
for developmental courses, which prevents students from completing their programs.
 Early alerts are not automatically generated with mid terms or online attendance and therefore are dependent on
instructor initiative.
 The Academic Learning Center offers restricted hours for specific types of tutoring and too few qualified tutors are
available to support statistics level courses.
3rd priority direct barriers (8)
 A required structure or established practice is needed to proactively address students who lack commitment in
addition to the strategies in place after they are they are struggling.
 Financial Aid only pays for a maximum of 30 remediation hours, but students may need more hours to complete
developmental requirements than FA will cover.
 Twelve hours are required for full-time status but a 16 hour program is required for financial aid eligibility.
 The CPCC Website is too difficult to navigate. Lack of knowledge exists of the iCAN website and how to access
resources and information on it- the acronym is unknown.
 Only outcomes or number of completers are evaluated. Course delivery and how online courses are taught, how well
prepared students are for online classes, if the class is appropriate for online delivery, etc. may not be evaluated.
 A lack of knowledge exists about outdated course and program requirements as they are changed under new catalog
years.
 A quick-fix approach too often is taken without long-range plans in place to look at future intervention results. A lack
of follow-through on long range plans exists without constantly changing how things are done.
 Accelerated courses are not available for all levels. It takes a year or more to complete developmental courses before
degree courses may be taken. Remediation is too lengthy in a semester environment.
Conclusions
About 26% of the 27 direct barriers to student success are in the area of course advisement, which appeared among data
dialogues, as well. However, that is not simply to imply course advisement from a Student Services perspective. Initial
program placement is contingent upon timely, updated program information every semester from all learning departments.
About 22% of the direct barriers identified are in the areas of registration, financial aid, orientation, and assessment or
placement, and about 19% involve program requirements and course delivery. Ineffective college-wide communication,
lack of knowledge of processes and lack of mandatory student intake procedures are barriers that repeatedly surface.
Equally significant are an inadequate use of active learning and the inability to offer additional courses as needed, due to
registration demand.
6