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. NSCC data shows low student completion and progression rates (for certain types of students?) compared to state-wide averages. Over the past 2 years, since the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges began measuring student progress against the framework of researched-based Momentum Points1, only x% of all NSCC degree or certificate seeking students reached the critical benchmarks of earning 15, 30 or 45 college credits and an award. This compares to the state-wide institutional average of x% of students reaching these milestones over the same time period. 2. Inadequate curriculum alignment between levels and uneven access to instructional supports for high-risk courses contribute to the failure rate of students in the developmental-level pipeline. Developmental math courses show an average pass rate of 64% over the past five years. For developmental English, the passage rate is 77%. However, to accurately define student success in developmental courses, Momentum Points are part of the Washington State Student Achievement Initiative – cite achieving the dream report here 1 corresponding student performance in “next step” college-level classes must also be measured. In math, 24% of students who successfully passed a developmental-level course proceeded to fail their first college-level course in the same subject. In English, the percentage of students mimicking this trend is 22%. Taken together, the number of students either failing developmental level courses or passing but then failing their first college-level course equates to x numbers of students each year (combined for Math and English). 3. A lack of integrated, well-supported career and educational pathways designed for all students, including those who enter college at the basic skills level, has resulted in an alarmingly low transition rate of ESL/ABE students into college-level courses. For our ESL population, although fifty percent of students consistently express the desire to progress into college-level coursework, over the past ten years, only 5% have successfully done so. During the same period, only x percent our ABE/GED population made the transition to college level courses. This compares to illuminating data state-wide which shows an average of 13 percent of students starting at the ESL level earning at least some college credits within five years and 30 percent of ABE/GED students. To just meet the state average (the publishing of which prompted the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to declare war on business-as-usual for educating our state’s basic skills population [cite David Prince]) NSCC must overhaul it’s programs and curricula to offer more basic skills support integrated at the college-level. Currently, over x% of our professional technical certificate programs, and virtually all transfer-degree programs, require English 101 as a pre-requisite for entry. An English 101 entry requirement for a student beginning their education at even the upper-level basic skills classes can translate to more than x quarters of full-time enrollment in tuition-based, remedial courses before earning any college credit (based on the average student’s progression through the pre-college level English sequence). New integrated pathways must be available to our basic skills population so their time in school results in more immediate, tangible benefits towards meeting their educational and career goals. 4. 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. 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 (in 2007-08 the campus-wide percentage of PT faculty is at an all time high at 41 percent. In some departments it is as high as 85 percent. 2. Lack of systemic, pro-active first quarter supports to help identify and address the needs of potentially atrisk students. Over the past five years, Forty percent of students who intended to study for a year or more left after only one quarter never to return (equating to an average loss of x students per year). 3. Systems that focus on student enrollments instead of student progression and attainment have impede too many NSCC students from reaching their academic goals. 4. 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.) 5. Uneven availability of resources among tutoring programs resulting in varying levels of quality and service depending on the discipline. Lack of campus-wide system to design, implement and assess the impact of tutoring/instructional support interventions. 6. 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) 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 $xx over the equivalent per-student state-funded formula. 4. Annual Budget Planning Team process with campus-wide representation. Currently x staff and faculty serve on the team representing x different divisions, offices and departments across the college. Fiscal Stability Weaknesses: 1. Overall college enrollments declined by 10% in the five-year period ending 2006-07. 2. Continuing to miss quarterly enrollment targets creating a danger of losing more FTEs (fall 2007 - 96% of target and winter 2008 - 94% of target) 3. High number of students in Basic Skills programs which generate a fraction of tuition revenue compared to traditional college-entry students ($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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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? Goals 1. Develop First Quarter Success Initiative to increase student retention Weakness/Problem to be addressed Mgmt weakness # 2 – lack of first quarter support systems campus-wide Related five-year Objectives #1 – Increase first quarter retention by x Fiscal weakness #6 – fiscal inefficiency due to high turn-over 2. Increase instructional supports to promote student progression and retention Academic weakness # 1 – low progression & completion rates compared to state averages Academic weakness #2 - High failure rates in highrisk courses across the developmental-level pipeline Mgmt weakness # 5 – lack of coordinated tutoring supports # 2 – Increase passage rates in developmental level math courses and improve developmental-level student success rates in ‘next step’ college-level courses. Developmental-level pass rates to increase from 64% to x and corresponding college-level failure rates to be reduced from 24% to 15%. #3 - Increase passage rates in developmental level English courses and improve developmental-level student success rates in ‘next step’ college-level courses. Developmental-level pass rates to increase from 77% to 85% and corresponding college-level failure rates to be reduced from 24% to 15%. # 4 – Increase # of students attaining momentum point benchmarks (college level work) 3. Tighten curricular alignment across key transition points and expand basic skills integrated learning opportunities to support student progression and retention. 4. Expand Learning-centered Instructional Models Academic weakness #2 – High failure rates in high-risk courses across the developmental-level pipeline Academic weakness #3 – low basic skills transition rate to college level courses NEW – A 5 – pockets of excellence only F 3 –insufficient Prof Dev funds (how does this goal solve this problem?) #4 – Increase # of ESL students transitioning to college level work # 2 – Increase passage rates in developmental level math courses and improve developmental-level student success rates in ‘next step’ college-level courses. Developmental-level pass rates to increase from 64% to x and corresponding college-level failure rates to be reduced from 24% to 15%. #3 - Increase passage rates in developmental level English courses and improve developmental-level student success rates in ‘next step’ college-level courses. Developmental-level pass rates to increase from 77% to 85% and corresponding college-level failure rates to be reduced from 24% to 15%. # 3 – Increase # of students attaining momentum point benchmarks (college level work)