Abstract
The Institution and Its Students:
North Seattle Community College was established in 1967 as part of the three-college Seattle Community
College District. The college serves students from throughout the metropolitan Seattle area, with the majority
coming from the city’s north end. North Seattle awards associate transfer degrees, a wide range of
professional-technical degrees and certificates, and a high school completion certificate. In 2007-08, the
college employs 85 full-time faculty and approximately 200 part-time faculty to serve over 6,000 creditseeking students (approximately 3,200 FTE students) each quarter (excluding summer quarter whose figures
are much smaller). The student body comprises 62% female, 35% students of color, 71% part-time, 58%
employed, x% evening and x% distance learning. Total student enrollment, on average, is comprised of x%
academic transfer, x % professional-technical and x% basic skills students. Fifty percent of students taking
the English placement exam place into developmental (below college-level) English; 75% who take the math
placement exam place into developmental math.
Project Title:
Strengthening Academic Programs and Services to Promote Student Engagement
and Success
The Problem:
Declining enrollments and high student attrition affect the long-term sustainability of North Seattle
Community College.
Don’t think that the problem stated here is adequate to the solution. Mentioning what might be some
causes of the problem – inadequate student support (first quarter success and instructional support for
transition points and “high risk” courses) – in the discussion of it would help connect the two, I think. I
do not see that the problem(s) related to the professional-technical programs are not mentioned. Is
item 2 c. below and related to items 3 and/or 4 in the solution? This is not clear to me. Maybe when
more discussion is included it will be clearer but in the abstract these relationships need to be crisper
than what I see here.
1. Overall college enrollments declined by 10% in the five-year period ending 2006-07. During that
same period, professional-technical enrollments dropped by 20%, or 259 FTE students.
2. Large numbers of students leave the college prematurely:
a. Forty percent of students who intend to study for a year or more leave after only one quarter
never to return.
b. Although more than half of all ESL students express the desire to progress into college-level
coursework, over the past ten years only 4% have done so.
c. Over the past x years, only x% of all NSCC degree or certificate seeking students attain the
research-based “tipping point” of 45 college credits and award.
The Solution
The proposed activity—Strengthening Academic Programs and Services to Promote Student Engagement
and Success—is driven by four inter-related goals: (1) implement a first quarter success initiative to include
multiple “college-success modules” integrating student support services and academic success strategies into
key courses serving large numbers of statistically at-risk students (2) increase instructional supports targeting
critical student transition points and “high risk” courses – methods proposed include Supplemental Instruction
(SI), tutoring, and a basic skills/career exploration lab for ESL/ABE students; (3) revitalize several
professional-technical programs per current industry standards incorporating the career pathway model; and,
(4) increase the use of evidence-based instructional best practices in more classrooms across campus to
increase student engagement in learning and campus life.
This Proposal: North Seattle Community College requests $2.0 million over five years to: (1) increase from
60% to 70% - I suggest using whole numbers with the percentages. This makes the objective more specific. the number of first-quarter students who re-enroll for a second quarter; (2) increase from 64% to 75% the
number of students successfully completing pre-college level math courses and increase from 77% to 82% the
number of students successfully completing pre-college English courses; (3) increase by 15% (from 3,258 in
2006-07 to 3,747 in 2012-13) the number of students successfully completing their first 15 college-level
credits, their first 30 college-level credits or their first 45 college-level credits and an award; Maybe I am
dense about this but objective 3 here as 2 c. in the problem is unclear. We can discuss it. (4) increase from
4% to 15% the number of ESL students who progress into college-level coursework; and, (5) increase
enrollment in targeted professional-technical programs by 30%s. All measures are over the five-year duration
of the grant.
Comprehensive Development Plan
A. Institutional Narrative
B. Strengths, Weaknesses, and Processes for Identifying Them
The strengths are good. Remember that weaknesses and problems are now one and the
same. Seems that most of what is mentioned in the abstract for the problem is discussed
here in weaknesses.
Academic Strengths:
1. Well regarded and award winning Coordinated Studies program (documentation?)
2. Well regarded and award winning Undergraduate Research program in the sciences. Three NSCC students
were selected to present research findings at the 2007 “Posters on the Hill” event held by the National
Council for Undergraduate Research in Washington D.C. NSCC was the only Community College
invited to participate in this national event.
3. Reputation for a strong Transfer Degree program, especially in math and science (stats about NSCC grads
going to UW)
4. A regional leader in Distance Learning (something showing we’re leaders in the state – number of courses
or something?)
5. New energy, vitality and commitment from a new generation of full- and part-time faculty (xx new faculty
hires over the past 5 years)
6. Multiple competitive grants awarded in the past three years: Department of Labor Community-based Jobs
Training Grant for an expansion of healthcare training programs (2005 - $1.3 million for 3 years);
National Science Foundation planning grant for developing a Nanotechnology program (2005 - xx ); Lead
agency for The Seattle Transition Math Project funded by WA State and private foundations. (2006 and
renewed in 2007 - $x ). Recruiting Washington Teachers Grant to increase the diversity of students
pursuing careers as K-12 math and science educators (2008 - $128,000)
Academic Weaknesses:
1. A number of Professional-technical Programs have not kept pace with the rapid changes in industry trends
resulting in outdated curriculum. (show declining enrollments but what else?) Can also discuss why this is
happening. Are there gaps in technology needs of industry and what NSCC has? Is there insufficient
faculty development for these programs?
2. High student attrition rates across college programs, especially during a student’s first quarter (some
additional stats stated differently than in the abstract?)
3. High student failure rate in “gatekeeper” courses (need stats for this)
4. Lack of attainable, well-designed, step-by-step pathways for students to advance beyond ABE/ESL
programs creating barriers for low skilled and ESL students to transition into college-level courses. (x% of
profession-technical programs and all academic transfer programs require English 101 equivalency.
Illustrate the English-level progression requirements for a typical ESL or ABE student to attain entry into
these programs)
5. SOMETHING ABOUT POCKETS OF EXCELLENCE/INNOVATIVE INSTRUCTION
INSUFFICIENTLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS ALL PROGRAMS AND CLASSROOMS (BUT WHY?)
Institutional Management Strengths:
1. A strong, respected Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) that supports faculty and staff professional
development. The TLC was established under previous Title III funding in 1995. You do not need to
mention this here.
2. Strong Student Development Services offering a wide range of student support programs and resources
(stats here – ask Marci for some language)
3. Extensive self-knowledge and campus-wide planning through recently completed (1) three-year
institutional self-study and (2) four-year facilities master planning study. The self-study was completed in
2007 for the college ten-year accreditation and the master planning study was completed xx – both with
multi-year planning processes soliciting input from stakeholders across campus and the local community.
4. Strong executive-level leadership team and new leadership within instruction (stats on our executive
team’s tenure, Mary Ellen’s appointment as VP and # of new divisional deans)
5. Strategic Enrollment Management Initiative begun in Winter 2008 (data for this? What do we want to
say?)
6. Highly diverse campus faculty, administration and staff supporting a commitment to multi-culturalism,
anti-bias and tolerance as an institutional value (stats here of employee to student ratios, DAC and
Director position for student multicultural programs)
Institutional Management Weaknesses:
1. Too few full time faculty on campus to sustain instructional continuity (stats for % of PT faculty campus
wide and within targeted divisions) How has this changed over the years?
2. Lack of systemic, pro-active first quarter supports to help identify and address the needs of potentially atrisk students
3. History and culture of “siloed” student services that result in duplication of efforts and/or piecemeal or
disconnected services (student support services offered through workforce education programs for special
populations, international student programs, advising services at the departmental level and through
student services; department level tutoring as well as centralized tutoring, etc.)
4. Lack of campus-wide coordination of tutoring services and lack of collaboration between faculty and
tutors (how document).
Fiscal Stability Strengths:
1. Recently emerged from significant financial debt to a position of growing financial reserves (stat?)
2. Recently “right-sized” the college budget by releasing xxx FTEs and reducing x# faculty positions
accordingly through an offer of early retirement
3. Strong and growing International Student and High School Running Start contract programs that generate
additional resources for the college. In 2006-07, International Student Programs earned the campus a total
of $xx and Running Start earned a total of $xx over the equivalent per-student state-funded formula.
4. Annual Budget Planning Team process with campus-wide representation. Currently x staff and faculty
serve on the team representing x different divisions, offices and departments across the college.
Fiscal Stability Weaknesses:
1. Continuing to miss quarterly enrollment targets creating a danger of losing more FTEs (fall 2007 - 96% of
target and winter 2008 - 94% of target)
2. High number of students in Basic Skills programs which generate a fraction of tuition revenue compared
to traditional college-entry students ($xx compared to $xx per full time student). These same students
tend to require a high level of support services to succeed on campus but come with fewer resources.
3. Insufficient funds available for staff and faculty professional development (can we compare budget for
staff development to number of staff/faculty and show a paltry per-person allocation for PD?) - Could also
show how NSCC’s ratio of faculty professional development funds compares to any recommended
standards for institutions of higher education. Maybe the National Institute of Staff and Organizational
Development – hope I got the name correct, but it is a professional organization out of the University of
Texas at Austin, I think, that helps promotes professional development – has such information.
4. A growing number of “unmet needs” requests over the past x years during the campus budgeting cycle.
The 2006-07 unmet need requests totaled $x and the college was able to support only x% of the requests.
The majority of unmet request result in lost opportunities for instructional innovation, upgrades of basic
technology or the piloting of new programs and/or services Is NSCC, however, able to maintain the
basics? This item basically struck me as something most colleges face.
5. Poor fiscal efficiently due to high student turn-over rate. Finding new students to replace those who leave
is more costly than better serving and thereby retaining the ones we already have.
Process for Identifying Strength and Weaknesses – Good outline. Be sure to cite all who has been
involved in planning – faculty, staff, administration, students, Board members. Title III looks for broad
participation. Looks like it is here.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Institutional Self-Study 2004-07
Master Planning 2004-08
Strategic Plan 2005-2010
Title III Planning
a. November 2007 Executive Team deliberations
b. November 2007 Faculty Coordinators’ meeting
c. December 2007 Open meetings for input
d. December 2007 Data mining (iterative process)
e. January 2008 meeting with Strategic Enrollment Management Committee
f. January 2008 meetings with SDS Council and Instructional Council
g. Meetings with targeted groups as grant activity began to take shape
C. Key Goals for Title III Proposal
In the CDP you will likely need goals by Academic Programs, Institutional Management and Fiscal Stability.
When we see the guidelines this may change, i.e., you will only need to present key goals related to the Title
III proposal. For now, though, I am thinking all 3 areas. I do not see goals related to Fiscal Stability. This is
o.k. for now. We can deal with the first two areas and then see if we need to add a third later.
Before I looked at your chart below I tried to put together a framework of the goals and objectives. Here is
what I saw. You are asked in the instructions to relate the goals and objectives to the weaknesses/problems.
You will see that I looked at this too.
Goal 1 – Academic Program Goal – related to AP Weakness 2 – Develop First Quarter Success Initiative:
Ensure all students experience an engaging, comprehensive introduction to their new learning
environment during their first quarter on campus.
Objective 1 – Suggest that you put in the objectives the year, i.e., By September 30, 2013, increase from 60%
to 70% the number of first-quarter students who re-enroll for a second quarter.
Goal 2 – Academic Program Goal – related to AP Weaknesses 2 and 3– Increase Instructional Supports
for High Risk Students: Ensure a wide variety of instructional supports are available to students
across program.
Seemed objectives 2 and 4 supported Goal 2 to me.
Objective 2 - As above, suggest that you put in the objectives the year, i.e., By September 30, 2013, Increase
from 64% to 75% the number of students successfully completing pre-college level math
courses and increase from 77% to 82% the number of students successfully completing precollege English courses Suggest that you make this two objectives, one for math and one for
English.
Objective 4 - Increase from 4% to 15% the number of ESL students who progress into college-level
coursework
Goal 3 – Academic Program Goal – related to AP Weakness 1 - Revitalize Professional-technical
Programs: Revise specific professional-technical programs - You will need to be specific about
which programs. - to meet current industry standards and better serve non-traditional students
through the development of career pathways
Objective 5 - Increase enrollment in targeted professional-technical programs by XX%.
Goal 4 – Support and Expand Innovative, Learning-centered Instructional Models and Methods: Increase the
number of classrooms incorporating evidence-based best-practices into their curriculum Which
weakness/problem does this goal address? This was not clear to me.
Objective 3 - Increase by 15% (from 3,258 in 2006-07 to 3,747 in 2012-13) the number of students
successfully completing their first 15 college-level credits, their first 30 college-level credits or
their first 45 college-level credits and an award
While I understand that some objectives may support more than one goal, given that Title III called for
showing a relationship between objectives, goals and weaknesses/problems I thought it
important to try to do that here. Hope this is clear. We can discuss it.
D. Measurable Objectives
Objective 1 - Increase from 60% to 70% the number of first-quarter students who re-enroll for a second
quarter.
Objective 2 - Increase from 64% to 75% the number of students successfully completing pre-college level
math courses and increase from 77% to 82% the number of students successfully completing
pre-college English courses
Objective 3 - Increase by 15% (from 3,258 in 2006-07 to 3,747 in 2012-13) the number of students
successfully completing their first 15 college-level credits, their first 30 college-level credits or
their first 45 college-level credits and an award
Objective 4 - Increase from 4% to 15% the number of ESL students who progress into college-level
coursework
Objective 5 - Increase enrollment in targeted professional-technical programs by XX%.
Table 1. Relational Matrix of Institutional Goals and Grant Objectives
GOALS
Objectives
2
3
2. Increase Instructional Supports for High Risk Students


3. Revitalize Prof/Tech Programs


1. Develop First Quarter Success Initiative
4. Expand Learning-centered Instructional Models
1
4
5








F. Plans for Institutionalization
1. The college anticipates that the Title III retention and student progression interventions (goals 1, 2, and 4)
will result in an increase of approximately 300 annualized FTE students. Title III interventions will help
retain students and result in their enrolling in more quarters and completing more credits than is currently
the case. Each annualized FTE student represents $5800 in revenue from state-support and student
tuition/fees. Thus an annual increase of 300 FTE represents an additional $1,740,000 for the college each
year.
2. Through revitalization of professional-technical programs (goal 3), the college expects to increase
enrollment by 100 FTES each year. Again, at $5,800 per FTE, the college will realize an annual increase
of $580,000.
3. The NSCC Master Planning Study from 2004-08 projected a population and employment increase of 40%
in the Northgate neighborhoods surrounding the college. Conservatively, the college projects an
additional 100 annualized FTE by the year 2010 based on these significant population and economic
activity increases in the college’s primary catchment area. An additional 100 FTEs corresponds to an
annual increase of $580,000.
4. Over the life of the Title III project, projected increases of 550 student FTEs will result in an annual
increase of $2,900,000 in college revenues. Incremental FTE increases may well be realized prior to the
five-year horizon of the Title III grant, generating additional funds beyond the summative five-year
analysis. Even without taking incremental FTE increase in to account, Title III interventions will generate
sufficient recourses to institutionalize grant initiated activities by the end of the funding cycle.
Good start at institutionalization. Beyond increases in FTE and funds, are there other things you could
say that would help ensure funding post grant? Has the Board approved salaries for the budget in year
6? Might the Board earmark any funds freed up by additional early retirements for Title III efforts?
Weakness/Problem to be addressed
GOALS
1. Develop First Quarter
Success Initiative
A = academic, M = management, F = fiscal
A 2 – high student attrition rate, especially during first
quarter
Related Objectives
1-5
#1 – Increase first quarter retention by x
M 2 – lack of first quarter support systems campus-wide
F5 – fiscal inefficiency due to high turn-over
2. Increase Instructional
Supports for High Risk
Students
A 3 – high failure rate in gatekeeper courses
# 2 – Increase pass rates of developmental
level courses
M 4 – lack of coordinated tutoring supports
# 3 – Increase # of students
attaining momentum point benchmarks
(college level work)
#4 – Increase # of ESL students
transitioning to college level work
3. Revitalize Prof/Tech
Programs
4. Expand Learningcentered Instructional
Models
A 1 – “outdated” prof tech programs out of sync with
industry needs
# 5 – Increase targeted prof/tech
enrollments
A 4 – lack of clear pathways for students to progress through
# 4 – increases the number of ESL students
transitioning into college-level work
NEW – A 5 – pockets of excellence only
# 3 – Increase # of students
attaining momentum point benchmarks
(college level work)
F 3 –insufficient Prof Dev funds (how does this goal solve
this problem?)