Transcript UCDHSC New Student Orientation Summer 2007

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
7th 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 20062007 FoE cohort, finishing the Final Report in
December 2010.
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.
Foundations of Excellence resulted in a number of themes that
supported MSCHE accreditation challenges
Become
data driven
Review
admissions
And
support
program
Improve
Student
retention
learning and
Graduation
Be explicit
and
Intentional in
First-year
6
Train support
and
reward most
engaging
faculty
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
2011 - 2020
Accreditation & Long Range Strategic
Plan & Budget Process; a culture of
accountability
2007-2011
Foundations of Excellence
2006-2007
Foundations of Excellence UC
Denver
UC Denver was a member of the 2008-2009 FoE
cohort, finishing the Final Report in June, 2009.
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
The University of Central Arkansas was a member of the 2005-2006 FoE cohort.
Phase I
 Supported by Academic Administration
 Co-liaisons for Self-study
 9 Dimensions Committees
 Self Study Final Report
UCA Dimension Report Card
9 Dimensions
Grade
1. Philosophy
C
2. Organization
D
3. Learning
B
4. Faculty
C
5. Transitions
C
6. All Students
B
7. Diversity
B
8. Roles and Purposes
C-
9. Improvement
D
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 2006-2007
Action Plan
 Supported
by Academic Administration.
 Co-coordinators.
 9 committee Members .
 Recommended Action Plan
Changes at
UCA
2007 – Provost left – 9/30/07
2008 – President resigned – 8/08
Foundation of Excellence Final Report and
Recommendations never received consideration
and implementation.
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
Rockefeller
Foundations
2 Year
Colleges
Foundation
of
Excellence
Two Year
Colleges
State
Legislator
Subcommittee
Task Force
Rockefeller
Foundation
Foundation
of excellence
State of
Arkansas
State
Legislator
Subcommittee
Task Force
Two Year
Colleges
Rockefeller
Foundation
Foundation
of
excellence
Student Success Symposium
Student Success Suggestions
Statewide Gathering Outcomes
Communication
Better
Economy for
Arkansas
Educational
Sharing
Better Careers
Retention of
Students
Graduation
Rates
1st 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 Kuh
Dr. Debra
Humphreys
Dr. Bradley
Garner
Dr. John
Gardner
Mr. George
Niebling
University of Central Arkansas
March 30-31, 2011
Dr. Kathleen
Cushman
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 SelfStudy
Process
Visioning
Culture
Created
for
Student
Success!
LSCS
Strategic
Goals
Student
Persistence,
Success, &
Completion
Completion
by Design
SENSE
and
CCSSE
AtD
Time for Questions