Foundations of Excellence ExperiencesCatherine Andersen

Gallaudet University Washington, DCJohn Lanning

University of Colorado DenverSally 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 2006-2007 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.

6

Foundations of ExcellenceFoundations of Excellence resulted in a number of themes that themes that supported MSCHE accreditation challenges supported MSCHE accreditation challenges

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 Identify courses with High DFWD rates. This is a required part of the Foundations process.is a required part of the Foundations process.

Action: Developed targets and action plans for Developed targets and action plans for

reducing the high DFWD rates. That resulted reducing the high DFWD rates. That resulted in higher pass rates for developmental math in higher pass rates for developmental math classes.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

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 ReportsDo 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 andAction Plan

Foundations of ExcellenceUniversity of Central Arkansas

Phase ISupported by Academic Administration Co-liaisons for Self-study9 Dimensions Committees Self Study Final Report

The University of Central Arkansas was a member of the 2005-2006 FoE cohort.

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 2006-2007Action Plan

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

2007 – Provost left – 9/30/07

2008 – 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

Student Success Suggestions Statewide Gathering Outcomes

1st STUDENT SUCCESS SYMPOSIUM Palaski Technical College

2008

Dr. Catherine Andersen

Dr. George Kuh

Dr. Debra Humphreys

Dr. Bradley Garner

Dr. John Gardner

Mr. George Niebling

Dr. Kathleen Cushman

University of Central ArkansasMarch 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

StudentPersistence, Success, &

Completion

Culture Created

for Student Success!

Time for Questions