Improving Student Readmission Through Efficient Processes ABSTRACT The research tackled the problem of a slow and sometimes

tedious readmission process that affected the attendance of students. A time-in-motion observation, survey forms, observation and analysis of process were used to come out with the results. The study was conducted over a two week period, after the implementation of new procedures put in place at the start of the semester. I concentrated on this area because it is easily the one that consumes the time of both the staff who work in this area and students who seek readmission. The Office of Student Affairs has readmission as one of its core services along with discipline, student organizations and activities, performing arts, and religious services. A seventh domain is marketing and promotions. Of the seven services, readmission takes considerable time and had consumed most of the working hours even of the student assistants. In addition, staff members who have other responsibilities and job descriptions occasionally would have to help in readmitting students. Moreover, students, instead of being given the opportunity to continue their learning would find that they would have to miss the class because of the no attendance monitoring card (AMC), no admission policy. Students whose AMCs were dropped were being told to secure them before being allowed to re-enter the current session. After the short research, I found that not only did the time to get readmitted become shorter, but the number of students seeking readmission has become fewer lately. This area needs to be studies further to see the effect of other interventions that have been enacted by the office. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK One of the visions of the University of Baguio is to provide balanced quality education by nurturing academic excellence. I believe that academic excellence would be hard to nurture if students are subjected to procedures that take away from the time devoted to learning in the classroom. Student attendance and academic performance are related positively (Oghuvbu, 2010 and Roby, 2004). Such studies I believe mean that students should be diverted away from the classroom to a minimal level, that is, limited to formal school-sanctioned activities. Some academic institutions can be rather lax in attendance requirements, such as when attendance is at the discretion of the instructor (http://usm.maine.edu/reg/academic-policies#AttendancePolicy.htm). The University of Baguio has more stringent attendance requirements as enumerated in the Student Handbook (2010 edition). The importance of written policies underscores the role that attendance plays in academic performance. Such policies are effective in reminding students of the importance of attending classes. In addition, policies have been found to be effective in making students attend their classes (Golding, 2011).

THE STUDY First Cycle I am a middle-level manager whose area of responsibility is the Office of Student Affairs of the university. As such, one of my key oversight functions is one exercised over the readmission office. As a sometime part-time instructor, I am familiar with the hassles that a student has to undergo in order to retrieve an Attendance Monitoring Card (AMC). As a graduate school student, I can be subject to readmission for failure to attend classes. Therefore I hold a unique three-point perspective involving three key personalities involved in readmission procedures. The readmission division is manned by two full-time staff and at least two student assistants at any given time. The data was obtained by a time-in-motion observation, actual observation of students undergoing readmission, actual readmission of students, and the use of a survey form answered by staff and student assistants. I also studied current policies and the flowchart that I had created. This gave me several ways of generating my insights for the research. The study started with an observation of the readmission process during its peak last November 2011. I noticed that there were long lines, students milling about and student assistants seemingly confused by the number of students in the readmission area. This despite distinct procedures discussed and implemented the previous semester. During the time of the study, the head for readmissions had an accident that left her unable to report for work for at least a month. I had to realign the staff, meaning that I had to transfer someone from another department to take over, although he was familiar with the process. There were two new student assistants (SA) who were still in the adjustment period. Added to this was the high number of AMCs being received each day for logging and filing. The office receives on the average 200 AMCs daily. The assistant has to log them in a computer, and then file them in the file cabinets the same day. Incoming AMCs were placed in a holding box. I noted that every time an AMC was not found in the file cabinets, the assistant would go search in the holding box, which contained the unsorted AMCs. This took away time to attending to the students. The procedure called for the student to submit their IDs to the student assistant for verification. The SA, upon finding the card, would give the student forms to fill. The student, once he filled up the forms, would give them back to the SA, who would then encode the subject, dates of absences, and other data on a computer. He then waited for an available staff who would talk to the student. During a time-in-motion observation of students, one student spent 17 minutes getting her AMC. Another took 13 minutes. By the time the third student was in the office for 10 minute, I had enough. I felt no need to observe more students. Ten minutes was already considerable for me. I then planned and enacted several measures to help shorten the procedures and time. First, the student assistants said they tried to practice the first-come-first served policy, but that students would simply drop their IDs on the

reception desk. They were hesitant to enforce the rule because they felt a little shy. The result was that someone who came later would be served earlier because the SAs would pick whatever ID they could see in front of them. To address this, students would not be allowed to place their IDs on the desk. Instead, once they come in, they would fall in line. The only time they would give their IDs would be when they would have their turn. The first-come-first-served basis was implemented, ensuring that the right student would be helped at the right time. The SAs were also instructed not to encode all information after the forms had been filled, but to do so before handing the forms to the student. In addition, they were not to encode all information, especially some information that only a staff should encode. Students were also not to submit forms to the SA after filling them. They were instead to wait for a staff to call them talk to them. So far two procedures have been eliminated, shortening the process. I also instructed the SAs not to look for the AMCs in the holding box when they could not find them in the holding box. They were to tell the student to check with the deans office. Second Cycle I thought that the matter was simply a problem with the process. It turned out that there were others that did not necessarily involve process. These problems came out during the study and had to be addressed in a second cycle. The first involved the AMCs not in the office or those in the holding box. As earlier explained, the SAs would search in the holding box for AMCs not in the file cabinets. At the same time, we could not simply instruct the student to check the deans office. This was because of the no AMC, no admission rule. We could not risk the student absenting himself because of this. So I created a temporary admission form good for one session/class. We gave this to students to present to the instructor signifying that the AMC was not yet in the office and that the student should be readmitted nonetheless. There was also a problem with policy. The office sends students with more than 5 absences to the Center for Counseling and Student Development (CCSD) for counseling. This takes the time of students. They have to go to the CCSD to talk to a counselor then go back to the office to retrieve their AMCs. Because some students need more time to talk to a counselor, the CCSD has been scheduling students for a session. For students who, as the staff may discern, do not really require counseling, the staff has been told to forego referrals. This means that if a student cites transportation or sickness as an excuse, he may simply be reminded to wake up early or see the doctor. The OSA practice of avoiding giving advice stemmed from a misunderstanding of RA 9258. I and the staff had been advised by a former guidance director that only guidance counselors could dispense advice since a license was now required for doing such. This led the readmission staff to refer

students with even minor concerns to the CCSD for counseling. There was the fear that dispensing quick advice might be seen as a violation of RA 9258. In a talk with staff members concerned, I gave the go ahead for the giving of a minor reprimand and advice, not counsel to students. Another policy that hindered the attendance was the No AMC, no admission policy. Teachers who strictly implemented the rule were following the policy. The office could not change the policy when the semester was already underway. There were times when the AMC is not in the office. The solution was the use of a temporary readmission slip good for one meeting. The students were told to present the slip to their instructors so that they would be admitted to their coming class. However, they were warned that the slips would only be issued once. Their AMCs would be the requirement for their next class. The result There were several noticeable differences in the readmission area after the imposition of the measures. A new time-in-motion revealed the following results: Student 1 (female): 4:47.3 seconds total from start to finish Student 2 (male): 4:15.6 seconds Student 3 (male): 3:13.4 seconds Student 4 (female): 4:19.0 seconds Student 5 (female): 3:27.9 seconds One student was timed in terms of each step: From giving of ID to issuance of form to be filled up: 28.7 Filling up of form and waiting for the staff: 27 Conversation with staff: 12 The SAs and staff informed me that generally, the procedures have lessened the overall processing time for each student. This is affected is when there are a lot of students trying to get their AMCs or when they are sent to the CCSD for counseling and they are instructed to return immediately after in order to get their AMCs. Another effect is that the office is now able to send more letters to parents of students who have not been attending classes. It used to be that the office had to wait until the weekend to be able to do this. Even then, not all letters could be sent out. At present, with the quicker and more efficient procedures, we can print out letters during lulls in admission, which have become more frequent lately. While the effect on the academic side cannot be measured, it is hoped that this will at the very least, help the student to a certain extent.

Resources http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/S-HCS/HCS-04-0-000-10-Web/HCS-04-1-000-2010-AbstPDF/HCS-04-1-021-10-083-Oghuvbu-E-P/HCS-04-1-021-10-083-Oghuvbu-E-P-Tt.pdf http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchVal ue_0=EJ714746&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ714746 http://usm.maine.edu/reg/academic-policies#AttendancePolicy The Role of Attendance in Lecture Classes: You Can Lead a Horse to Water, Jonathan M . Golding http://top.sagepub.com/content/38/1/40.full