Foundations of Excellence Experiences Catherine Andersen Gallaudet University Washington, DC John Lanning University of Colorado Denver Sally Roden University of Central Arkansas, Conway Arkansas Dorothy Dixon Lone Star College, North Harris Texas 7 th Annual Foundations of Excellence Winter Meeting 17 February 2012

Foundations of Excellence and Beyond  FoE and Accreditation, Strategic Planning and Budget  FoE the vetting process and words of wisdom from the trenches  FoE and state wide initiatives  FoE and lessons learned

Foundations of Excellence Gallaudet University was a member of the FoE cohort, finishing the Final Report in December  co-liaisons – Dean of College and Director FYE  9 dimension committees and over FoE participants  Campus was in turmoil during the process  Dean left and Director became Dean  In the middle of Accreditation probation  Final Report serving as implementation blue print

Gallaudet out of compliance with 8 of the 14 standards –Spring 2007  Standard 1 (mission)  Standard 2 (planning)  Standard 4 (governance)  Standard 6 (climate)  Standard 8 (admissions and retention)  Standard 11 (academic rigor)  Standards 7 and 14 (assessment)

Time was of the essence -make use of existing knowledge and data  Work with the National Resource Center on the First-Year and Students in Transition, and the Policy Center on the First-Year of College had already resulted in change. First year retention rates had improved 10% in 10 years, but did not result in increased graduation rates. In 2006, Gallaudet began its participation in the Foundations of Excellence Project.

6 Foundations of Excellence themes that supported MSCHE accreditation challenges Foundations of Excellence resulted in a number of themes that supported MSCHE accreditation challenges Improve Student retention learning and Graduation Become data driven Train support and reward most engaging faculty Be explicit and Intentional in First-year Review admissions And support program

Standard Eight – critical elements  Admissions Standards must support the mission of a high quality education.  Recommendations  Review admissions standards and base criteria on a profile of a successful student.  Actions  Admissions criteria raised

Standard Eight – critical elements  Programs and services to ensure that admitted students who marginally meet or do not meet the institution's qualifications achieve expected learning goals and higher education outcomes  Recommendations  Require programs for marginal students  Actions  Summer Bridge Program established with criteria for participation.  Plus (Performance Learning Undergraduate Success) Program established with criteria for participation.

Standard Eight – critical elements  Ongoing assessment of student success, including but not necessarily limited to retention, that evaluates the match between the attributes of admitted students and the institution's mission and programs, and reflects in its findings in its admission, remediation, and other related policies:  Recommendations  Use data in all decision making  Actions  Developed assessment and action plans for support programs  Analyzed ACT scores with student placement and progress.

Standard Eight – Critical Elements Drilling Down to Action Plans  Recommendation:  Identify courses with High DFWD rates. This is a required part of the Foundations process.  Action:  Developed targets and action plans for reducing the high DFWD rates. That resulted in higher pass rates for developmental math classes.

October 2007 MSCHE Report  “The team finds that Gallaudet University now meets this standard (Eight), which states that “The institution seeks to admit students whose interested, goals and abilities are congruent with its mission and seeks to retain them through the pursuit of the students’ educational goals.” the team commends Gallaudet fro establishing new and more rigorous admissions standards based on evidence of student success...  … The team also notes that the enrollment management work group were able to cite an impressive array of evidence for recent decisions on strategies to recruit qualified students and to improve student retention”  We could not have achieved this had we not participated in Foundations in the months prior.  All 14 standards were met in June 2008.

FoE became the foundation Revised Strategic Plan GSP Accreditation Accreditation & Long Range Strategic Plan & Budget Process; a culture of accountability Foundations of Excellence

Foundations of Excellence UC Denver UC Denver was a member of the FoE cohort, finishing the Final Report in June,  co-liaisons – Student Affairs and Academic Affairs  9 dimension committees and 77 FoE participants  very weak student participation for survey  8 of 9 DC reports filed with Policy Center on time  extensive vetting process while compiling Reports  Final Report serving as implementation blue print

FoE Emotion Check-Up

FoE Structure Change The CU Denver co-liaisons adjusted the FoE structure by splitting the Steering Committee into DC chairs as the functional, get-it-done, body of the FoE process.  met every two weeks mid-Feb through mid-May  provided internal review of draft DC reports  supported DC chairs after receiving PC comments  communicated progress to campus community  developed Final Report format  reviewed Final Report drafts

Writing and Vetting Reports Do not underestimate the emotional reactions.  pressures of deadlines  frustration for liaisons getting everyone organized  disappointment when PC comments are not in the form of the Nobel prize for literature  concern with loss of faculty and students near end of semester

FoE Writing Team The co-liaisons initiated a Writing Team to write and edit the FoE Final Report.  co-liaisons, DC chair, assistant, editor/writer (paid)  divided writing responsibilities  edited DC reports for Final Report  prepared working draft for Policy Center comments  reviewed each other’s formatting and writing  (proof) N FoE Final Report in absence of most FoE participants

Report Vetting CU Denver used an extensive vetting process for all stages of report writing.  internal review of DC working draft reports before hitting ‘send’ button to Policy Center  permission from Policy Center for internal web site.  three-week campus-wide review of DC final drafts  three-week campus and administrative review of Final Report draft  continuous Final Report review in June by Provost

CU Denver Recommendations  establish multiple stages/deadlines for all reports  provide statistical help for FoEtec data analysis  create an FoE administrative ‘team’ for support and for pressure on deadlines  consider a writing team for Final Report  if possible, hire a writer/editor for Final Report  create campus review team, some members of which were not part of FoE in any way  develop continuous communication with Provost  initiate implementation quickly

Tidbits of Wisdom Every FoE institution is different, and we conclude with our tidbits of wisdom.  Make structure and deadlines work for your campus and for your FoE participants.  The goal is not the FoE Final Report, but implementation of prioritized action plan.  FoE Final Report IS worth the investment in time and money.

FoE Final Report and Action Plan

Foundations of Excellence University of Central Arkansas Phase I  Supported by Academic Administration  Co-liaisons for Self-study  9 Dimensions Committees  Self Study Final Report The University of Central Arkansas was a member of the FoE cohort.

UCA Dimension Report Card 9 DimensionsGrade 1. PhilosophyC 2. OrganizationD 3. LearningB 4. FacultyC 5. TransitionsC 6. All StudentsB 7. DiversityB 8. Roles and PurposesC- 9. ImprovementD

Key Recommendations  Adopt an explicit statement of philosophy for the first year.  Increase cross-campus communication about and collaboration on first-year issues.  Coordinate resources for first-year programming.  Establish learning goals for the first-year.  Include in the curriculum the why of learning and the importance of higher education.  Commit to increasing first-year awareness regarding diverse ideas, cultures, and world views.  Evaluate first-year initiatives.

Phase II Action Plan  Supported by Academic Administration.  Co-coordinators.  9 committee Members.  Recommended Action Plan

2007 – Provost left – 9/30/ – President resigned – 8/08 Foundation of Excellence Final Report and Recommendations never received consideration and implementation. Changes at UCA

Foundations of Excellence Foundations Dimensions constitute a model that provides institutions with a means to evaluate and improve the first year of college.

Partnerships in Arkansas Foundation of Excellence Rockefeller Foundations 2 Year Colleges

Foundation of excellence Rockefeller Foundation Two Year Colleges State Legislator Subcommittee Task Force

Foundation of excellence Student Success Symposium Rockefeller Foundation Two Year Colleges State Legislator Subcommittee Task Force State of Arkansas

Student Success Suggestions Statewide Gathering Outcomes Communication Educational Sharing Retention of Students Graduation Rates Better Careers Better Economy for Arkansas

1 st STUDENT SUCCESS SYMPOSIUM Palaski Technical College 2008 Speakers: Phyllis Curtis-Tweed Tom Carskadon Wendy Troxel Sybill Hampton John Gardner Greg Lampe

Dr. Catherine Andersen Dr. George KuhDr. Debra Humphreys Dr. Bradley Garner Dr. John Gardner Mr. George Niebling Dr. Kathleen Cushman University of Central Arkansas March 30-31, 2011 Dr. Mickey Davis

The Pre-Planning Process The Launch Meeting Planning/Advertisement with PR/Media The Process FoE Retreat/Celebration Culture Created

The Pre-Planning Process Vision/Idea Came From Top Position Created Director, Foundations of Excellence Reported Directly to President

Launch Meeting in Ashville Given a Template Team Development Starting Working On-Site Building Relationships Encouraged To Continue Inquiry Encouraged!

Inspired!

FoE at LSC-North Harris Letter to all employees from President FoE Launch at North Harris Nine Dimensions with Two Co-chairs CPI Information Gathering & Sharing More Relationship Building Many great working meetings

Faculty vs. Students on Connections

Leveraging FoE vs. SENSE Data

Celebrating Excellence!

FoE Self- Study Process SENSE and CCSSE Visioning LSCS Strategic Goals Completion by Design AtD Student Persistence, Success, & Completion Culture Created for Student Success!

Time for Questions