Achieving the Dream
Winter Strategies Institute – 2010
Terri Manning, Carol Rush and Lane Glenn
 This workshop will:
• present the common requirements of the six
regional accrediting agencies and
• show how Achieving the Dream strategies can
be constructed, delivered and evaluated to
provide evidence of compliance with key
accreditation standards and
• show how Achieving the Dream can drive an
institution’s quality improvement agenda
• examples from Achieving the Dream colleges
will be presented
72% of AtD colleges are accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the
Southern Association or the Higher Learning Commission or North Central

While there are some differences among the accrediting
agencies, all of them follow institutional quality
improvement frameworks that require colleges to:
• Determine the conditions that affect the college’s faculty, staff, and
•
•
•
•
•
students, and the local community through needs assessment and
environmental scanning.
Establish appropriate goals and outcomes, with an emphasis on
learning outcomes for courses, programs, and support services.
Measure progress toward attaining the goals and desired
outcomes.
Analyze the results of assessments and evaluations to document the
need for improvements in programs and services.
Develop interventions or strategies to increase student, faculty,
staff, and community success, and improve programs and services.
Demonstrate how these interventions and strategies have improved
institutional quality.
 NC
– Higher Learning Commission has two
processes: PEAQ (self-study, compliance
certification) and AQIP. The college can choose
but must apply to be an AQIP college. They only
do one – not both.
 SACS – Commission on College has two
processes: the self-study, compliance certification
and the QEP (quality enhancement plan). All
colleges do both.
 Because all six include language such as
• … strengthening educational quality
• …. improving institutional quality
• …. ensure the quality and integrity of its academic
programs

It has become critical that institutions are
able to prove and document their processes
for improving institutional quality. Where is
that more important than:
• Student success
• Student learning
 If
we improved the quality of student
learning, what would it look like? What
would we observe? What could we
measure?
 If we could improve the quality of a
student’s experience at the college, what
would need to change? What would we
observe and measure?
 Assessment
(especially student learning
outcomes, more specifically, general
education learning outcomes)
 Quality – demonstrating it is hard – not
part of our culture to say “look how great
we are”
 Tying strategies to planning and
budgeting
 Surveyed
all round 1, 2, and 3 colleges in
2008.
 One-third responded (N=20)
 We asked them questions about how they
were using their data, strategies, etc. for
accreditation, strategic planning,
obtaining additional funding and for
institutional effectiveness issues at their
colleges.
 Of
the 20 who responded to our survey:
• 11 SACS, 2 NC, 2 NE, 3 MS, 2 NW
 14
of the 20 core team leaders were
directly involved in the accreditation
process at their college.
 8 are going through or have gone
through the accreditation process since
becoming an Achieving the Dream
college.
 Colleges
are reporting that AtD has helped
them launch an IE plan at their college
….or has guided or strengthened their IE
processes (18 of 20).
 Currently, all six accrediting agencies
mention institutional effectiveness in their
criteria. North Central only once - Middle
State is throughout the document.
Institutional
Effectiveness Definition
• an ongoing, integrated and systematic set of
institutional processes that include planning,
the evaluation of programs and services, the
identification and measurement of learning
outcomes, the use of data and assessment
results for decision-making that results in
improvements in programs, service and
institutional quality.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Higher profile for IR and use of data
generally (9)
Policy and budget decisions (7)
Helped define and prioritize problems in
gatekeeper and developmental courses
Matched learning gaps to appropriate
teaching strategies
Targeted the most appropriate teaching
strategies
Continued, refined, strengthened or
eliminated programs and practices
 Half
(10) of the responding colleges have
developed a new college plan since
becoming involved in Achieving the
Dream.
 Five colleges said they used Achieving
the Dream goals and measures as a part
of the annual strategic plan.
AtD influenced colleges to:
 Provide
focus for annual planning retreats –
analyze the data, consider the true state of
student success at college
 Places focus on reaching existing learning
goals
 Impetus to modify parts of the strategic plan or
realign with AtD
 Update college mission and goals – more
student focuses, success oriented
The Language of Institutional
Effectiveness (not all agencies call it institutional
effectiveness)
Planning and evaluation processes that are:
systematic, comprehensive, broad-based, on-going or
continuous, integrated, and appropriate to the
institution, involve individuals and groups, short- and
long-term, realistic analyses of internal and external
opportunities and constraints, use of data necessary to
support planning, to improve the quality of education,
responding to future challenges and opportunities, to
influence resource allocation and to improve its
instructional programs, institutional services, and
activities, systematic review of institutional mission,
goals and outcomes.
The Emphasis on Learning Outcomes
Appears to be the hardest part of accreditation
for most colleges. The assessment of learning
outcomes needs to:
•be clearly stated for each educational program
• values teaching and learning
•be worthy of the students’ investment
•result in continuing improvement in institutional
quality
•provide evidence of improvement based on analysis
assessment results.
•be done at various levels (course, program and
institutional level)
 Achieving
the Dream has established a set of
performance measures to guide colleges in
their work. These include the rates at which
students:
• successfully complete the courses they take,
• advance from developmental to credit-bearing
courses,
• enroll in and successfully complete initial collegelevel, or “gatekeeper” courses,
• continue enrollment from one semester to the next,
• earn degrees and/or certificates
 Successful
course completion
• All accrediting agencies want institutions to determine
what barriers exist for their students, collect and
analyze data about student learning to guide program
development and service delivery, evaluate programs
and services, use the evaluation results to improve
programs and services, and finally, observe increases
in course completion rates.
• Southern (SACS) and New England (NEASC) explicitly
address course completion in their standards.
 Advancement
from developmental education
to credit courses
• All accrediting agencies are interested in institutions
developing special services, based on analysis of student
outcome data, to help students attain the learning outcomes in
their courses, including developmental courses. Since
developmental courses prepare students to master essential
basic skills required for success in college-level courses,
analyzing their effectiveness is an essential part of the
institutional effectiveness processes required for accreditation.
• Northwest (NWCCU) is the only regional agency that cites
developmental coursework in its accreditation criteria.
Western (WASC) and New England (NEASC) mention student
ability levels, and programs and services designed to improve
deficiencies.

Successful gatekeeper course completion
• All six agencies are very concerned about student success in general
education courses, including gatekeeper courses. Their major concern
is not simply with the numbers of students who complete the courses,
but with the rates of success based on tracking the progression of
cohorts of students over time. The latter is a key focus of Achieving the
Dream.
• Accrediting agencies also want colleges to measure their students’
learning outcomes to ensure that they are mastering college-level
competencies in the gatekeeper and general education courses. Much
variation exists among agencies in the detail required to measure
student learning outcomes. Southern and North Central give colleges
the freedom to define their student learning outcomes. Middle States,
New England, Northwestern and Western list specific outcomes the
colleges must measure.
• SACS and NEASC criteria directly address course completion.

 Term-to-term
persistence
• All six agencies want colleges to take steps to
strengthen course content, classroom strategies,
student orientation, and counseling, advising,
and other student support services to improve
learning and encourage student persistence.
• NEASC and Middle States specifically address
student persistence.
 Completion
of degrees and certificates
• All six agencies are interested in whether students
attain program outcomes, which can include
completion of credentials as well as licensure,
employment, and baccalaureate transfer.
• NEASC is the sole agency that explicitly mentions
attainment and other measures of successful
completion in its standards.
http://betablog.necc.mass.edu/neasc/
NECC Self-Study Blog
http://www.necc.mass.edu/irp/planning/neasc.php
“Data First”, “S Series”, and other Forms
http://www.necc.mass.edu/achievingthedream/datareports.php
Achieving the Dream Data Reports
 Member
of New England Association of
Schools and Colleges – Commission on
Institutions of Higher Education (NEASC
– CIHE)
 Self-Study Site Visit in October 2010
 Process Began in January 2009
Appreciative
Inquiry
StrengthsQuest
Process
Management
Increased
“Data
focus on student success
First” Forms
Student
Success “E Series” and “S
Series” Forms
Institutional
Effectiveness Statements
“Data
First” Forms
• Complete First
• Supporting Data for Each Standard
 “S
Series” Forms
• Retention and Graduation Rates
• Other Measures of Student Success
• Licensure Passage and Job Placement
Rates
• Completion and Placement Rates for
Short-Term Vocational Programs
 Institutional
Effectiveness
• 4.51 The institution’s principal evaluation
focus is the quality, integrity, and
effectiveness of its academic programs.
Evaluation endeavors and systematic
assessment are demonstrably effective in
the improvement of academic offerings
and student learning.
 “S
Series” Forms
• Course Completion
• The “Maryland Model”
• Supplemental Data Reports



Fall 2007 = 69.3%
Fall 2008 = 68.5%
Fall 2009 = 72.5%*
* Highest Total Completion Rate Recorded
 “S
Series” Forms
• Course Completion
• The “Maryland Model”
• Supplemental Data Reports




Fall 2007 – 2008 = 66%
Fall 2008 – 2009 = 70%
Fall 2009 – 2010 = ?
4-Year Goal = TBD
 “S
Series” Forms
• Course Completion
• The “Maryland Model”
• Supplemental Data Reports
 Data Team
Reports
• Effect of Age on Course Completion Rates for
Developmental and Gatekeeper Courses
• Effect of Taking Developmental Courses
Immediately When Prescribed
• Effect of Gender on Course Completion Rates
for Developmental and Gatekeeper Courses
• Comparison of Supplemental Instruction v.
Traditional
 Response
to Specific Standard Criterion
• 4.45 The institution’s approach to
understanding student learning focuses on the
course, program, and institutional level. Data
and other evidence generated through this
approach are considered at the appropriate
level of focus, with the results being a
demonstrable factor in improving the learning
opportunities and results for students.
 Response to Specific Standard Criterion
• A variety of alternative instructional models and
interventions have been put in place for math courses
in response to Achieving the Dream information
regarding low completion rates for math students.
Examples include supplemental instruction, a modular
section format, self-paced/individualized instruction,
accelerated options, and short refresher courses. An
inter-departmental math retention team is working on
professional development in these areas and on the
continuum of skills from developmental through
college-level math.
 Key
Performance Indicators (KPIs)
• Transition and Developmental Course
•
•
•
•
Completion Rates
Gatekeeper Course Completion Rates
Retention
Degrees and Certificates Conferred
Diversity of Faculty and Staff
Public
Disclosure (Standard Ten)
• Program Review and Outcomes
Assessment
• Data Team Reports
• “Community Conversations”
• Only Mass. college to share CCSSE
results
A
New Vision
A New Focus on Student
Success
A Search for Data
 Only
58 % of the Applicants were given a
Placement Test = ACCUPLACER
 Students who placed into developmental
courses were not required to take those
courses – it was only recommended
 The lower the ACCUPLACER score, the less
likely a student was to take the course
recommended
 Low numbers of students passed the
developmental courses
Nearly 85% of the
students who took the
ACCUPLACER test,
placed into at least one
developmental course.
COURSE
 RDG 050
 RDG 080
 ENG 030
 ENG 070
 ENG 161
 MTH 050
 MTH 052
 MTH 100
 MTH 157
Placed
9%
42%
8%
25%
67%
61%
67%
20%
13%
Enrolled
56%
66%
52%
60%
85%
25%
58%
58%
26%
Successful
62%
74%
60%
70%
66%
70%
53%
55%
75%
2192 new students enrolled, 1289 took ACCUPLACER (58.8%), 120
placed into RDG 050 (9.3%), 67 enrolled in RDG 050 (55.8%), 42 of
them earned an A, B or C (63 %)
 ATD Year
1 - 2006-2007 was focused on:
 Design
and implement an integrated
developmental education program
 Design
and implement processes and
interventions to enhance achievement of student
learning outcomes
 Design
and implement a “transition to college”
intake process with a comprehensive orientation
for all first-time students
 Collection
in use
of data from support strategies already
 ATD Year
2 - 2007-2008 was focused on:
 The increased use of ACCUPLACER test




for applicants
The use of ACCUPLACER scores for
placement in developmental courses
Identification of Gatekeeper Courses
The use of Supplemental Instruction and
other strategies in more courses
Pilot use of an Orientation Program for
entering students
COURSE
Enrollment
D, F, W Rate
CPT 150
Microcomputer Concepts 1,041
26.42 %
PSY 160
General Psychology
855
25.26 %
ENG 161
College Writing
856
27.10 %
MTH 100
Intermediate Algebra
356
47.75 %
BIO 171
Anatomy & Physiology I 325
42.15 %
BUS 120
Math of Business
304
18.75 %
MTH 157
College Algebra
165
29.45 %
BIO 107
Human Biology
163
39.27 %
 ATD Year
3 focused on: Developing
strategies to implement new policies
 Common course syllabi, learning outcomes and
common outcomes based finals were implemented
for the 4 math courses
 Data analysis identified outcomes in each math
course that were not being mastered by the students
 Data collection and analysis were required of
each ATD team, but project design did not always
have a plan for data collection and analysis
 3 Learning communities were piloted
Course
outcomes were being
reviewed for the first time
Development of assessment tools for
learning outcomes
Use of data to inform decisions
Course redesign and instructional
strategies
 Upgraded
the Institutional Research
capacity
• Hired a programmer/analyst
• Upgraded a programmer/analyst to full-time
 Infrastructure
capacity extended
• LAN upgrade
• Bandwidth increase
• PBX upgrade
• Help desk added
 Software
DataTel extensions and additions
• Data Orchestrator – end user direct query of data
• Business Objects/Crystal Reports - data dashboards
• iStrategy – will freeze data at different points in time,
comparative data analysis and longitudinal studies of
cohort groups
• Retention Alert – case files for at-risk students and
enables strategies such as mid-term reports
• Provides the ability to collect, retrieve and manage
raw data as well as display it through the portal site
Provide
evidence of Mission
Achievement
Data collection to provide evidence
for all Middle States Standards
Continuous Quality Improvement
A
new IE Plan was adopted in Fall 2009.
 The data systems are in place and the
support staff is working well as a team
 Additional developmental course
sections were scheduled (thinking
ahead of the budget required)
 Systematic
processes of planning,
budgeting, implementation, and
assessment
 Strategies of ATD have inspired the use
of systematic processes across many
other campus initiatives
 These systematic processes have been
integrated into the IE Plan that was
submitted to Middle States
 ALL
incoming students have to take
ACCUPLACER
 ALL first-time, full-time, students who place
into developmental coursework have to
enroll in developmental course work
 ALL students who require two or more
developmental courses are required to
enroll in a Personal Development Student
Success Course (PDV 160) for one credit
 No registration after first week
To increase by 2% the percentage of first-time
degree-seeking students who complete
ACCUPLACER testing
Now = 84% (2005 = 59%)
2. To increase by 2% the percentage of first-time
degree-seeking students who immediately take
the developmental course work as
recommended
Reading = 85% (2005 = 61%)
English = 83%
(2005 = 56%)
Math = 76%
(2005 = 40%)
3. To increase retention by 2.0%
Now = 3.6% increase overall over 2008-2009
1.
4. To increase student success in the fourteen
5.
6.
7.
8.
developmental and gatekeeper courses using
common course outcomes and a common
assessment tool
Now = 0 – 20% depending on the course
Developmental = 4% increase on average
To have all 2D and 3D entering students take a PDV
course
(683 completed in Fall 2009)
To develop more cohort groups of
developmental students
(160 students in 8 different groups)
Orientation program available for all entering
students
SSSA’s = team that provides case management
advising for all first semester students
 Elimination
of most 1 day/week for 3 hours
sections
 Common Student Outcomes
 Common Course Syllabus
 Common multiple choice final exam based
on outcomes
 Comparison of grade on final exam and
final course grade (good correlation)
 Identification of poorly learned outcomes
 Working to develop teaching strategies to
help students to learn these outcomes
Course
Enrollment
Fall ’05 Fall ’09
Success
Fall ’05
Fall ’09
RDG 050
67
258
42 (62%)
184 (71%)
RDG 080
354
578
261 (74%)
443 (77%)
ENG 030
50
56
30 (60%)
38 (68%)
ENG 070
187
518
132 (68%)
341 (66%)
MTH 050
177
597
124 (64%)
383 (64%)
MTH 052
451
496
238 (53%)
299 (60%)
 Nearly
200 more developmental sections
were taught by adjunct faculty
 Students in the eight developmental
learning communities were not as
successful as hoped
 Case management advising system very
effective for “intake” but ineffective for
registration after first semester
 Two
new “blended” math courses
developed
 65 of the college’s 95 faculty involved in
ATD
 Faculty not involved in ATD have
developed their own student success
strategies
 Two local high schools using
ACCUPLACER tests and a summer
bridge program was piloted last summer.
 A Title
III Grant was obtained in October
2008
 New curriculum development (funding was
pursued because of the ATD success)
(AACC/NSF – MentorLinks grant)
 A mentor program for training the adjunct
faculty in better teaching methods
(College of the Canyons – NSF)
 Simulators are being used to help students
in allied health courses to be more
successful
 More student clubs, activities, and sports
teams
 Faculty
are interested in creating an
honors program, a leadership program
and an undergraduate research program
to provide tools for the success of nondevelopmental students as well as for the
newly successful developmental students
 Ultimately, the ATD grant will lead to the
development and implementation of
success strategies for all students at
WCCC
1. Use the Achieving the Dream
improvement process as the basis for
your self-study and quality improvement
efforts.
2. Include on the self-study team people
who are familiar with or serve on the
Achieving the Dream core team, data
team, or strategy implementation team.
3.
4.
5.
Obtain broad institutional
involvement in strategy development
and implementation.
Ensure that Achieving the Dream
strategies will help the college further
its mission and strategic goals.
Establish outcomes for each Achieving
the Dream strategy, assess whether the
outcomes are met, and use the
assessment data to document
improvement
6.
7.
8.
Don’t confine your assessment
measures to grades and retention.
Use and document formative
evaluation (indicators that occur along
the way) to inform programmatic
changes.
Cite the evaluation reports for
Achieving the Dream strategies as
sources in your accreditation report.
9.
Use one of the Achieving the Dream
strategies for the QEP topic if it has the
potential for improving student
learning in a significant way
10. Use one of the Achieving the Dream
strategies as an Action Project for AQIP.
11. Use the Achieving the Dream “culture
of evidence” continuous improvement
process as the basis for the college’s
institutional effectiveness function.
12. Use Achieving the Dream as an
“umbrella” for student success efforts
across the college.
13. Integrate Achieving the Dream into
the college’s strategic planning
processes.
 http://www.cpcc.edu/planning
 Click
on “studies and reports”
 Title: AtD Accreditation Session
 Contact information
•
•
•
•
•
•
Terri Manning
terri.manning@cpcc.edu
Lane Glenn
lglenn@necc.mass.edu
Carol Rush
rushca@wccc.edu