Worcester State University
•
•
•
•
Public, state-operated university
Located in Worcester, MA
Second-largest city in New England
Total headcount 6,221
(graduate and undergraduate)
• 30 percent resident students,
70 percent commuters
1
Acknowledging the Institution’s Role in
Student Success:
It’s Not You, It’s Us. How Does Institutional Culture
Influence Perceptions and Decisions about Diversity and
Student Success?
Angela E. Quitadamo, Director of Retention
Patricia A. Marshall, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
Participant Outcomes:
1. Deepen understanding of socioeconomic factors that impact
institutional culture and behavior.
2. Consider institutional practices and organizational narratives that may
be in conflict with the needs of our increasingly diverse student bodies.
3. Acquire practical examples of how Worcester State University has
engaged in campus-wide, self-reflective practices that are transforming
how we interact with students.
I.Socioeconomic factors that
impact institutional culture and
behavior.
Basic Premises about Institutional Culture
A. “Schools and businesses operate from
middle-class norms and use the
hidden rules of the middle class. These
norms and hidden rules are not directly
taught in schools or in businesses.” (Payne, 7)
B. “Colleges and universities are distinctive
organizations. They are loosely coupled
systems with diffused decision making, as
well as goal ambiguity.” (Kotter, 120)
Two contradictory assumptions about the causes of poverty
that inform how students come to us and how we serve
them.
1. Cultural poverty theory: Certain behaviors are
incompatible with success (blame the student model argues
that people find themselves in poverty due to their own
actions).
2. Situational theory: Genesis of poverty is located in social
structures (Shared realization that certain organizational
structures perpetuate poverty and are not conducive to
student success).
 No. Poverty is a complex sociological phenomenon and
either/or assertions “have not served us well; it must be
recognized that causes of poverty are a both/and reality.
Poverty is caused by both the behavior of the individual and
political/economic structures—and everything in between.”
(Payne, 258)
Cultural vs. Situational poverty theories and the Deficit
Model: The “fix it” mentality and the “righting reflex”
Payne, Deval, and Smith highlight the questions that we need to ask
when we approach problem solving from the framework of a “fix it”
mentality:
1. Who is it that names the problem?
2. Who is it a problem for?
“The deficit model names the problem and blames the individual;
the individual must change, whereas society can be left unaltered.”
(Payne, 262)
The Deficit Model in Action
Labeling that is hard to shake
Defines the design of programs (many times focused on staff needs and not
student needs):
--each department is expected to fix the piece of the pie that falls under
its purview (silos)
--random approach to problem solving that results in remedial
programs focused on behaviors of the individual while losing sight of
the whole system made up of families, neighborhoods, communities,
and sociopolitical/economic structures
Alternatives to the “Deficit Model”: The
additive model when it comes to our lowincome students.
--Many names: positive model, developmental assets,
competency, value-based, strength-based.
What would the additive model look like when
applied to our low-income students? How can
we validate the skills and experiences that our
low-income students bring to campus?
-- “To survive in poverty, individuals must have reactive,
sensory, and non verbal skills. This means they have the
ability to read situations, establish relationships, and
solve immediate and concrete problems quickly.” (Payne, 265)
II. Consider institutional practices and organizational
narratives that may be in conflict with the needs
of our increasingly diverse student bodies.
How might we unintentionally be undervaluing the
importance of relationships and other strengths that
our low-income students bring to campus?
“DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL.”
“I CAN’T HELP YOU. . . GO TALK TO …”
“THIS WAS COVERED AT ORIENTATION.”
“WHO TOLD YOU THAT?”
Some Hidden Rules Among
Classes: Time, Education, and Destiny
Poverty
Middle Class
Time
Present most important. Decisions
made for moment based on feelings of
survival.
Future most important.
Decisions made against
future ramifications .
Education
Valued and revered as abstract but not
as reality
Crucial for climbing success
ladder and making money
Destiny
Believes in fate. Cannot do much to
mitigate chance (“fixed mindset” and it
might even be perceived as negative to
change one’s destiny.)
Believes in choice. Can
change future with good
choices now.
Adapted from Bridges out of Poverty,
changes in italics.
Hidden Rules Among Classes on Campus
Poverty
Example
Time
Present most important.
Decisions made for
moment based on
feelings of survival.
If you are having trouble finding
money to pay for food or medical care,
it is difficult to focus on the future.
The basic needs in the present are the
student’s priority. Just-in-time
delivery.
Education
Valued and revered as
abstract but not as reality
Student has every intention of
returning to school, but never does.
Destiny
Believes in fate. Cannot
do much to mitigate
chance
Student gives up and justifies his/her
actions by saying that it wasn’t meant
to be or it wasn’t his/her fault.
Adapted from Bridges out of Poverty
And Demystify the Jargon!
S.A.P.
Judicial
Provost
Priority Deadline
Eligibility
FERPA
Syllabus
Catalog
PNG
Bursar
Blackboard
Registrar
FAFSA
Add/drop
Appeal
Probation
A.D.A Accommodation
Degree Audit
CLEP
GPA
Semester
Advisor
CPT
III. Acquire practical examples of how Worcester State
University has engaged in campus-wide, self-reflective
practices that are transforming how we interact with students.
Transforming institutional narratives
Addressing hidden rules through improved
communication and relationship building
Raising awareness of the power of language and
how we communicate
Kotter’s Eight-Stage Process of Creating Major Change
• Establishing a Sense of Urgency
• Creating the Guiding Coalition
• Developing a Vision and Strategy
• Communicating the Change Vision
• Empowering Broad-Based Action
• Generating Short-Term Wins
• Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change
• Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture
Kotter, Leading Change, Page 23
SUCCEED IN 4
“Every member of the campus community adopts an attitude
toward all students of, ‘Yes, you can succeed. And I will help you
do so.’”—Dr. Charles Cullum, Provost (WSU)
4 year plans
Early Semester Information Centers
Faculty Fellow  Director of Retention
Increased training across university
Increased focus on advising: Drop in advising
How are we programmatically validating
relationships?
“. . . organizations with metaphors that recognize interdependence, connectedness, flexibility, process, and
relationships will be positioned to work more effectively with
people from poverty.” (Payne, 77)
Moving from a deficit model to an additive model: Noel Levitz CSI
RMS+: Predictive Retention Model
How have we addressed our “fix-the
student approach to doing business?
“DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL.”
“I CAN’T HELP YOU. . . GO TALK TO …”
“THIS WAS COVERED AT ORIENTATION.”
“WHO TOLD YOU THAT?”
Cutting the Red Tape:
•Increased direct student support and outreach
•Tracking questions to assess and close the loop
•Communication audits: Are we communicating effectively
with all of our students?
•Process audits
•Internal cross-divisional operations calendars
21
Mapping communication and adapting
the messages that we are sending to our
students.
Early Results: Is it working?
• WSU had an unexpected revenue increase comparable to 80 new students
in the 2012-13 Academic Year
• In the fall preceding our electronic early alert system implementation, 5.6%
of WSU students were not in good academic standing. By the spring of
2013, that number decreased to 4.6%
• Fall 2013 semester saw a 33% increase in the number of tutor requests in
our Academic Success Office
• Our semester to semester retention rates after implementing our early
alert system and Noel Levitz surveys indicate a positive trend:
Semester
Persistence Rate
Spring 2012 to Fall 2012
78.1%
Spring 2013 to Fall 2013
80.3%
Fall to Spring 2012 & 2013
80%
23
• WSU has seen an increase in our six-year graduation rate from 45.1% (2004)
to 51% (2006)
• WSU has seen undergraduate enrollment of Hispanic students rise from
6.5% in 2010 to 7.2% in 2012
Expanding the definition of “at-risk”
students via CSI data
Self-reported desire to transfer
35%
83%
Students that returned following
year
25
facebook.com/WSUStudentSuccess
@WSUSuccess
starfish@worcester.edu
Angela E. Quitadamo
Director of Retention
Worcester State University
aquitadamo1@worcester.edu
Patricia A. Marshall
Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs
pmarshall@worcester.edu
26