CQI Steering Committee - Commissioned Teams Edison Community College

CQI Steering
Committee

AQIP

Agendas

Discussion

Meetings

Minutes

Process
Improvement
Teams

Dr. Yowell's
CQI e-mail

Academic Deficiency Notices - Minutes

March 23, 2001

1. Those attending: Maggie Myers, Nancy Cooper, Jim Funkhouser, Truman
Bashore, Cathy Barrow, Beth Culberton, Becky Pepiot, Rhonda Rich, Jane
Salisbury

2. Jane Salisbury was selected team leader.

3. Considerable discussion revolved about the current use of the academic
deficiency notice. Questions were asked about process and overall
goal of the notification. It was decided the goal was to make students aware of their academic predicaments so that actions could be taken to allow successful completion of courses, and hopefully continued enrollment in the college, if that was a part of the overall goal.

4. Jim Funkhouser shared comments he and Nancy Cooper had received from
Forum members regarding the notices. Comments indicated a lack of understanding on the part of some staff regarding intent and process of the academic warning.

5. The following questions surfaced:

a. Shall we continue using the warning? Is it worth the effort?
b. Does it really work? Is it doing what we want it to?
c. How is the intervention followed up?
d. Whose responsibility is it?
e. Is this considered a last resort?
f. How does this relate to mid-term grades? Could we do that?
g. Can we improve the initial advising?

Truman Bashore reported his interviews with faculty regarding the at risk committee indicated several faculty believe this to be a last resort Many indicated there are no responses from students about the alert and he wonders what can really be done within the last six weeks when such a situation has been developing over the term.

Bashore indicated his concern of students failing to take responsibility for their actions/performance. He estimates only 5 – 10 % respond to his personal contact. He always wondered what we can be expected to do with chronic absences and their resulting impact on academic achievement.

6. It was mentioned that academic advisors are not notified if an alert is sent and
May, therefore, not be prepared to adequately address student needs.

7. Other questions included whether or not the academic warning is an
effective retention tool? Does it need to be structured in a more effective
manner?

8. It was determined a FIRST STEP would be to assess the effectiveness of the
warning as it now stands. Truman Bashore and Becky Pepiot will evaluate
fall’s data to determine if students stayed in class after a notice,
and if they were able to complete the class successfully. They would also
identify which faculty seemed to be issuing warnings and if students re-
enrolled for second semester classes.

9. Information on the fall data will provide a foundation for discussion at the next
meeting.

Next Meeting: April 16, 2001
3:45 PM

Agendas | Meetings | Minutes