1. Background and Data Student Success Committee

2. MECC Definition of Student Success Retained Complete 2/3 of credits With 2.0 GPA or higher

3. Definition of “Gatekeeper” Course Two general views: The first follows a prescribed series of courses to achieve a degree. The gatekeeper in this system is the course in the series that most students find particularly challenging and they tend to fail the course and not continue with the series. The second general view for gatekeeper courses are those with the most sections of high volume, high risk courses from which students often withdraw or do not pass. These courses are developmental or freshmen level math and English. At MECC, the “gatekeeper” courses are developmental courses. BIO 101-102, ENG 111, and to a lesser extent, ITE 115.

4. A. Preparedness, B. Income, C. Full-time/Part-time D. Student Selections of Course Options 1. MECC Student Success Factors: The Things We Influence the Least

5. A. Preparedness We can influence: Dual Credit enrollment Financial Incentives for completing rigorous courses in high school Alignment of curriculum

6. Dual Credit Enrollment for Achieving the Dream Cohorts (#/%) 2002200320042005200620072008 Non-Dual Enrollment 492 84.7% 427 76.0% 390 77.8% 390 75.6% 382 69.7% 322 60.2% 360 59.1% Dual Enrollment 89 13.3% 135 21.4% 111 19.7% 125 21.8% 166 30.3% 213 39.8% 249 40.9% TOTAL581 100% 562 100% 501 100% 516 100% 548 100% 535 100% 609 100%

7. Financial Incentives for Rigorous Curriculum –AIMS Higher Scholarship Percentag e of AIMS Higher Recipients testing into one or more develop- mental courses Percentag e of All Program- Placed Students testing into One or More develop- mental courses Percentag e of AIMS Higher recipients testing Into Develop- mental English Percentag e of All Program- Placed Students testing into Develop- mental English Percentag e of AIMS Higher recipients testing Into Develop- mental Math P ercentag e of All Program- Placed Students testing into One or Develop- mental Math 2003-2004 through 2007-2008 34.7%74%6.6%42%31.7%72%

8. Level of Financial Need of AIMS Higher Scholarship Recipients Students with high need; only received $50 AIMS Higher Students with moderate need who received some aid Students with low financial need who received full tuition award Total Number of students in AIMS 2003-2004 Cohort 25 (39.0%)17 (26.6%)22 (34.4%)64 (100%) 2004-2005 Cohort 31 (50.8%)22 (36.0%)8 (13.1%)61 (100%) 2005-2006 Cohort 33 (49.3%)13 (19.4%)21 (31.3%)67 (100%) 2006-2007 Cohort 42 (56.0%)19 (25.3%)14 (18.7%)75 (100%) 2007-2008 Cohort 48 (67.6%)9 (12.7%)14 (19.7%)71 (100%)

9. Alignment of Curriculum MATH Pays Goals are to strengthen alignment from middle school to four-year college Improve professional development for teachers at high schools Support the development of future teaching workforce

10. A. Preparedness Developmental Trends (based on AtD data) Smaller numbers of students in developmental courses over time 71.2% drop in MTH 2 enrollment between 2003 and 2008 19.4% overall drop in developmental enrollment between 2003 and 2008 Outcomes in courses are highly variable year-to-year due to low “N”; change in version of Compass may have changed profile of students in math courses Developmental courses with largest numbers of students: MTH 3 (Algebra 1); lowest outcomes ENG 4(Reading Improvement I) Developmental success is the greatest for those who need the most developmental courses

11. Developmental Math Cohort Enrollment and Success Cohort Year 200220032004200520062007 Passed MTH 2 61.1%71.5%70.8%77.7%69.4%72.2% Passed MTH 354.8%57.1%59.2%61.9%43.5%53.5% Passed MTH 468.8%62.0%50.0%64.3%46.7%38.3%

12. MTH 2 Enrollment and Success in Course Progression Cohort Year 200220032004200520062007 # Students started in MTH 2 1461441201128536 Success Rate MTH 2 Only/N 95/65.1%103/71.5%85/70.8%87/77.7%59/69.4%26/62.2% Success when started MTH 2; ended MTH 2 44 (46.3%)48 (53.9% )17 (32.7%)44 (63.8%)26(50.0%)13 (56.5%) Success when started MTH 2; ended MTH 3 16 (37.2%) 13 (36.1% )21 (46.7%)16 (48.5)6 (22.2%)5 (41.7%) Success when started MTH 2; ended MTH 4 3 (37.5%) 12 (63.2% )12 (52.2%)7 (70.0%)3 (50.0%)1 (100%)

13. MTH 3 Enrollment and Success in Course Progression Cohort Year 200220032004200520062007 # Students started in MTH 3 10692795491101 Success Rate MTH 3 Only- N/% 62/58.5%52/56.5%43/54.4%34/63.0%42/46.2%55/54.5% Success when started MTH 3 ended MTH 3-N/% 30/40.5%30/42.9%15/29.4%21/52.2%21/30.0%28/37.8% Success when started MTH 3; ended MTH 4-N/% 27/84.4%14/63.6%18/64.3% 10/76.9%/ 14/66.7%4/14.8%

14. MTH 4 Enrollment and Success in Course Progression Cohort Year 200220032004200520062007 # Students started MTH 4 243021193332 Success Rate MTH 4 Only- %/N 14/58%18/60.0%6/28.6%10/52.6%11/33.3%18/56.3%

15. Cohort Enrollment and Success in Developmental English Cohort Year 200220032004200520062007 Passed ENG 1 48.6%62.9%61.9%42.9%53.3%70.6% Passed ENG 363.3%62.7%67.2%64.1%64.6%70.0% Passed ENG 440.0%38.9%18.2%72.7% 50.0% Passed ENG 571.8%72.5%70.6%73.1%60.9%67.9%

16. ENG 1-3 (Writing) Enrollment and Success in Course Progression Cohort Year 200220032004200520062007 # Students started in ENG 1 373521 3017 Success Rate ENG 1 Only/N 18/48.6%22/62.9%13/61.9%9/42.9%16/53.3%12/70.6% Success when started ENG 1 ended ENG 1 4/(17.4%) 4/(23.5%)3/(27.3%) 2/(14.3%)3/(17.6%)4(44.4%) Success when started ENG 1; ended ENG 3 10/71.4% 8 (44.4% )6 (60.0%) 7(100.o%)7 (53.8%)6(75.0%)

17. ENG 3 Enrollment and Success in Course Progression Cohort Year 200220032004200520062007 # Students started in ENG 3 1441241099610092 Success Rate ENG 3 Only/N 90(62.5%)81(65.3%)74(67.9%)59(61.5%)66(66.0%)64(69.6%)

18. ENG 4 (Reading) Enrollment and Success in Course Progression Cohort Year 200220032004200520062007 # Students started in ENG 4 251811 8 Success Rate ENG 4 Only- N/% 10/40.0%7/38.9%2/18.2%8/72.7%8/72.2%4/50.0% Success when started ENG 4 ended ENG 4-N/% 4(21.1%)2(15.4%)0 (0.0%)3(50.0%)2(40.0%)1(20.0%) Success when started ENG 4 ended ENG 5- N/% 5 (83.3%)4(80.0%)2 (100.0%)4(80.0%)5/(83.3%)2/(66.7%)

19. ENG 5 (Reading) Enrollment and Success in Course Progression Cohort Year 200220032004200520062007 # Students started in ENG 5 657566626353 Success Rate ENG 5 Only/N 46/70.8%54/72.0%46/69.7%45/72.6%37/58.7%36/67.9%

20. BIO 101 SI Pilot, Fall 2007 Fall Term# StudentsAverage Course Grade Withdrawal RateFall GPACredit Hrs Pass Rate Day SI Day Non-SI 14 64 2.0 1.25 7% 12.5% 2.43 1.84 78% 57% Off-Campus 172.636%2.5472% Night 163.1019%2.2557% Web 332.030%2.562%

21. B. Income Developmental Courses -2003 CourseEFC 0EFC Other than 0All students, all incomes MTH 264%71%68% MTH 340%55%50% MTH 444%77%64% ENG 153%63%58% ENG 355%63%60% ENG 433% ENG 559%71%65% Total55%65%60%

22. B. Income Developmental Courses -2008 CourseEFC 0EFC Other than 0All students, all incomes MTH 248%69%56% MTH 328%46%39% MTH 49%38%30% ENG 144%60%52% ENG 350%71%60% ENG 480%50%62% ENG 533%79%53% Total39%58%49%

23. C. Full-time/Part-time for AtD Cohorts 2002 Cohort2003 Cohort2004 Cohort2005 Cohort Full-time452/67.5%450/72.3%432/76.6%394/68.0% Part-time218/32.5%181/28.7%132/23.4%185/32.0% TOTAL670/100%631/100%564/100%579/100%

24. C. Full-time/Part-Time Enrollment Part-time enrollment is associated with lower completion rates AIMS Higher only supports full-time enrollment for that reason Take away: Incentive programs can push full-time enrollment)

25. D. Student Selections of Course Option Review the document in Appendix 3

26. A. Quality of First Year Experience B. Quality of Classroom Engagement C. Mandatory requirement for academic supports D. Campus Culture (article sent in advance) 2. MECC Student Success Factors: The Things We Can Influence

27. A. Quality of the First Year Experience – Improved Advising MECC established a Student Advocate, FOX through Achieving the Dream Revised curriculum for SDV 100 Encouraging the completion of approximately 30 credit hours appears to be the tipping point

28. B. Student Engagement in the Classroom Patrick Henry CC focused on cooperative learning, not just in gatekeeper courses, but campus-wide Opportunity for Committee: “Scaling up” cooperative learning this year; budget is available for more training – it needs to be scheduled Opportunity for Committee: Support of QEP’s focus on increasing student engagement through technology

29. C. Mandatory Requirement of Use of Academic Supports MECC has been slow to “scale up” and require supports shown to increase student success, both due to money, availability of personnel BIO 101 and PLTL experience As resources allow, this committee should advocate for scale- up of successful interventions that have been piloted

30. D. Campus Culture Four-year colleges: Satisfaction with the campus climate is especially crucial for first-year student retention. First-year students are also most likely to persist when they are satisfied with their advisor's availability, are impressed with the course content in their major, believe that student fees are used wisely, and feel that the campus is a safe place.