Title III Framework
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
- 1 –
4/11/2020
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:
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
The Problem :
Despite NSCC reputation for a strong transfer-degree school too many of our students fail to meet their education goals. From our Basic Skills population to our college-ready students, our overall low progression and retention rates raise concern.
The Solution
The proposed activity—Promoting Student Progression and Retention—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
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
- 2 –
4/11/2020
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?
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 classes maybe?)
Academic Weaknesses:
1.
State Board data shows NSCC lagging behind their local peer-institutions for both full and part time student progression rates. Over a 5-year period from 2001-2005, the percentage of NSCC students making
“substantial progress 1 ” is 54%. This compares to a 60% average for our local peers and 59% state-wide for the same period. In addition, our “early leavers
2 ” rate -- students who enroll intending to stay but leave after only one quarter -- is high at 22% compared to the average of 17% for peer institutions and the
1 Substantial Progress : Students with degree plans graduating or earning some credit in four or more quarters over a two-year period. A data point tracked and reported each year for all community and technical colleges in
Washington State
2
Early Leavers: Students with degree plans not earning any credit or earning credit in only one quarter and not returning within two years’ time.

Title III Framework
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
- 3 –
4/11/2020 statewide rate of 16% measured over a 5-year period from 2001-2005. what about the 40% point Jerry calculated.
2.
Nearly 40% of all students who intend to study for a year or more leave after only one quarter never to return.
3.
Inadequate curriculum alignment between course levels and uneven access to instructional supports across programs contribute to the failure rate of students in the developmental-level pipeline and other gatekeeper courses. 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 “next-step” course equates to x students annually (combined for Math and English) or x percent of all students enrolling in these courses.
4.
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 report the desire to progress into college-level courses, over the past ten years, only 5 percent have successfully done so. During the same period, only 20 percent of our
ABE/GED population made the transition to college level classes. 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
3
. 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) NSCC must overhaul its 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 classes 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 pre-college level work.
5.
Only a small percentage of our developmental-level-pipeline and other gatekeeper courses are offered as integrated classes -- a well documented approach to improve student outcomes by increasing the context and relevancy of student learning. Despite a highly regarded coordinated studies program on campus which offers learning communities, seminar experiences and undergraduate research opportunities, only x percent of all first-year degree seeking students ever benefits of this innovative learning model. Rather than a “boutique approach” to best-practice instruction, largely reserved for the advanced student, we believe all students on campus should benefit from a classroom environment where teaching and learning is …..
3 [cite David Prince]

Title III Framework
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
- 4 –
4/11/2020
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)
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)
5.
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.
In 2007-08, campus-wide reliance on PT faculty is at an all time high at 41 percent. In some departments it is as high as 85 percent. High turn-over rates, which accompany high numbers of part-time faculty, exacerbate efforts to systemically engage in best-practice instruction and ensure continuity of learning outcomes. The number of part-time faculty has increased on campus over the past x years by x%.
2.
There are insufficient pro-active systems in place to connect students with campus resources, especially during their first quarter. Despite extensive support services being available, ensuring all students are aware of and actually access them when needed remains a challenge. Current orientation sessions are frequently poorly attended and campus efforts to highlight student services through offerings such as
“scholarship fairs” are ineffective at reaching large numbers of students. As an illustration of our service penetration, on the 2005 CCSSE, 47% of respondents reported never having met with an academic counselor or advisor, and 77% reported never having accessed campus resources to help with study skills and time management. 81% reported never having taken an interest inventory or survey to help identify career interests and/or goals.
3.
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. The absence of any campus-wide coordination of instructional supports contributes to the uneven quality of 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

Title III Framework
Beyond Open Access:
- 5 –
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC 4/11/2020
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.
Student enrollments have declined by 10% in the five-year period ending 2006-07, resulting in a x% reduction in resources to the college.
2.
The funds available for staff and faculty professional development are insufficient to the size and needs of the college (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.
3.
High student turnover rates (our 40% who leave after only one quarter) result in a cycle of fiscal inefficiency. Finding new students to replace those who leave is more costly than better serving and thereby retaining the ones we already have. Funds spent to recruit, register and orient new students are funds lost for program development work and institutional capacity building efforts.
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.
Institutional Self-Study 2004-07
2.
Master Planning 2004-08
3.
Strategic Plan 2005-2010
4.
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
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

Title III Framework
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
- 6 –
4/11/2020
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.
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 – 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, Institutional Weakness to be Addressed by Title III and Grant Objectives
Goals Related five-year Objectives Weakness/Problem to be addressed
1. Develop First Quarter Success
Initiative to increase student retention
2. Increase instructional supports to promote student progression and retention
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
#1 – Increase first quarter retention by x
# 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)
#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)
Mgmt weakness # 2 – lack of first quarter support systems campus-wide
Fiscal weakness #6 – fiscal inefficiency due to high turn-over
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
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
F 3 –insufficient Prof Dev funds (how does this goal solve this problem?)

Title III Framework North Seattle Community College
Revised: February 27, 2008
- 8 –
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?