Title III Framework
North Seattle Community College
Revised: February 27, 2008
-1–
Abstract
FROM EQUITABLE ACCESS TO EQUITABLE OUTCOMES
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:
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.
The Solution
The proposed activity—Strengthening Academic Programs and Services to Promote Student Engagement
and Success—is driven by four inter-related goals:
This Proposal: North Seattle Community College requests $2.0 million over five years to: All measures are
over the five-year duration of the grant.
Title III Framework
North Seattle Community College
Revised: February 27, 2008
-2–
Comprehensive Development Plan
A. Institutional Narrative
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.
Mention the context of several colleges within x number of miles… other important things to include?
B. Strengths, Weaknesses, and Processes for Identifying Them
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. 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 statewide averages. Over the past 2 years, since the Washington State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges began measuring student progress against a framework of researched-based academic
Momentum Points1, only x% of all NSCC degree or certificate seeking students reached the critical
Momentum Points are defined under the Washington State Student Achievement Initiative – cite achieving the
dream report here
1
Title III Framework
North Seattle Community College
Revised: February 27, 2008
-3–
benchmark of earning their first 15, 30 or 45 college credits and an credential/award. This compares to
similar institutions statewide reaching an average of institutional average of x% of students reaching these
milestones over the same time period.
2. Inadequate curriculum alignment between course 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 passage 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, 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 following
this pattern is 22%. Taken together, the number of students either failing developmental-level courses or
passing but then failing their first college-level corresponding course equates to x students annually
(combined for Math and English) or x percent of all students enrolling in these courses.
3. Insufficient development of integrated, well-supported career and educational pathways designed for all
students, including those who enter NSCC 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 50
percent of students consistently express the desire to progress into college-level coursework, over the past
ten years, only 5 percent 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
statewide data that 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 merely reach the average
transition rate (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. For the average
part-time ESL student entering NSCC with mid-level English skills, it can take more than x quarters of
ESL classes (subsidized by the state for $25 per quarter) followed by x quarters of tuition-based,
developmental-level English courses before being eligible to earn any college credit. Not surprisingly, the
majority of basic-skills students leave the college well before completing the lengthy sequence of precollege level work.
4. Something about pockets of excellence/innovative instruction insufficiently distributed across all
programs and classrooms
Institutional Management Strengths:
1. Strong Student Development Services offering a wide range of student support programs and resources
(stats here – ask Marci for some language)
2. 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.
3. 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)
Title III Framework
North Seattle Community College
Revised: February 27, 2008
-4–
4. 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. An absence of fully developed campus-wide planning and assessment systems driven by student
progression and attainment data rather than student enrollments.
4. Current levels of quality and access to tutoring/instructional supports are uneven across disciplines.
English skill support is quite developed through the Loft Writing Resource Center, while math and science
tutoring along with business, information technology and engineering professional-technical program
support is far less robust. Expanding and tailoring instructional supports across programs is a key
component to increasing student success.
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 $xx over the equivalent per-student state-funded formula.
4. Annual Budget Planning Team process with campus-wide representation. Currently x staff and faculty
serve on the team representing x different divisions, offices and departments across the college.
Fiscal Stability Weaknesses:
1. Overall college enrollments declined by 10% in the five-year period ending 2006-07.
2. High number of students in Basic Skills programs which generate a fraction of tuition revenue compared
to traditional college-entry students ($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. Poor fiscal efficiently due to high student turnover rate. Finding new students to replace those who leave
is more costly than better serving and thereby retaining the ones we already have.
Title III Framework
North Seattle Community College
Revised: February 27, 2008
-5–
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
Goal 1 – Academic Program Goal– Develop First Quarter Success Initiative: Ensure all students experience
an engaging, comprehensive introduction to their new learning environment during their first quarter
on campus.
Goal 2 – Academic Program Goal – Increase instructional supports to promote student progression and
retention
Goal 3 – Academic Program Goal – Tighten curricular alignment across key transition points and expand
basic skills integrated learning opportunities to support student progression and retention.
Goal 4 – Initiate a comprehensive faculty and staff professional development plan to promote an institutional
culture that is driven by student retention, progression and success.
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
Title III Framework
North Seattle Community College
Revised: February 27, 2008
-6–
Objective 5 – x % of all full and part time faculty will participate in training to incorporate instructional best
practices and evidence-based strategies know to improve student engagement and success. x
% of all student services and instructional administrative staff will …
Title III Framework
North Seattle Community College
Revised: February 27, 2008
-7–
Table 1. Relational Matrix of Institutional Goals, Grant Objectives and Institutional Weakness to be Addressed
Goals
1. Develop First Quarter
Success Initiative to increase
student retention
Related five-year Objectives
#1 – Increase first quarter retention by x
Weakness/Problem to be addressed
Mgmt weakness # 2 – lack of first quarter
support systems campus-wide
Fiscal weakness #6 – fiscal inefficiency due
to high turn-over
2. Increase instructional
supports to promote student
progression and retention
# 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)
Academic weakness # 1 – low progression
& completion rates compared to state
averages
Academic weakness #2 - High failure rates
in high-risk courses across the
developmental-level pipeline
Mgmt weakness # 5 – lack of coordinated
tutoring supports
Title III Framework
3. Tighten curricular
alignment across key
transition points and expand
basic skills integrated learning
opportunities to support
student progression and
retention.
North Seattle Community College
Revised: February 27, 2008
#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%.
-8–
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
#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. Expand Learning-centered
Instructional Models
# 3 – Increase # of students attaining momentum
point benchmarks (college level work)
NEW – A 5 – pockets of excellence
F 3 –insufficient Prof Dev funds (how does
this goal solve this problem?)
Title III Framework
North Seattle Community College
Revised: February 27, 2008
-9–
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?