Title III Framework
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
-1–
7/12/2016
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:
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.
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–
7/12/2016
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. 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 its 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 progress1” is 54%. This compares to a 60% average for our local peers and 59% state-wide
for the same period.
2. Nearly 40% of all students who report they intend to study for a year or more leave after only one quarter
never to return.
3. High attrition rates in developmental-level pipeline courses and other key gatekeeper classes impede the
progress of too many students. 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
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
Title III Framework
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
-3–
7/12/2016
classes must also be measured. In math, 24% of students who successfully passed a developmental-level
course proceeded to fail their first college-level class 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
classes. CAN WE MAKE ANY DATA CONNECTION TO SHOW FAILURE IN A CLASS LEADS
TO DROP OUT?
4. The transition rate of ESL/ABE students progressing into college-level courses is alarmingly low. For our
ESL population, although 50 percent of students consistently report the desire to enter into college-level
courses, over the past five 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
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 students2. 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 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 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. Despite a highly regarded coordinated studies program which offers learning communities, seminar
experiences and undergraduate research opportunities, only x percent of all first-year degree seeking
students regularly benefit from these innovative learning models. Rather than a “boutique approach” to
best-practice instruction – largely reserved for the advanced student – a greater percentage of our
developmental-level pipeline and other gatekeeper courses must be offered using innovative, researchbased models of teaching and learning.
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)
2
David Prince research under achieving the dream reporting a 13% transition rate for ESL students across the state - 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
Title III Framework
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
-4–
7/12/2016
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 steadily 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 are often 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 campus-wide oversight of all 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
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 (40% 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
Title III Framework
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
-5–
7/12/2016
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.
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
Table I on the following page shows relationship between goals, objectives and weaknesses
I–
Institutional Management Goals
IM GOAL 1 – Develop and implement a series of required First Quarter Success Workshops to
increase student retention and progression
Addresses Institutional Management Weakness #2, Academic Weakness #2 and Fiscal Stability
Weakness #3
II -
Academic Program Goals
AP GOAL 1 – Enhance course curricula to promote student retention and progression
Addresses Institutional Management Weakness #2, Academic Weakness #1, Academic Weakness # 3,
Academic Weakness #4, Academic Weakness #5
AP GOAL 2 – Increase instructional supports to promote student retention and progression
Addresses Institutional Management Weakness #3, Academic Weakness #1, Academic Weakness # 3,
Academic Weakness #4,
AP GOAL 3 – Initiate a campus-wide professional development initiative to promote student
retention and progression
Addresses Institutional Management Weakness #1, Academic Weakness #1, Academic Weakness # 3,
Academic Weakness #5, Fiscal Weakness #2
Title III Framework
Beyond Open Access:
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
-6–
7/12/2016
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
Table 1. Relational Matrix of Institutional Goals, Grant Objectives and Institutional Weakness to be Addressed Under Title III
Institutional Goals
IM Goal 1
Related five-year Grant Objectives
#1 – Increase first quarter retention by from 60% to 70%
Enhance course curricula to
promote student retention and
progression
Mgmt weakness # 2 – lack of first quarter support systems campus-wide
Academic Weakness #2 – 40% attrition rate after 1st quarter
Implement First Quarter Success
Initiative
AP Goal 1
Weakness/Problem to be addressed under Title III
Fiscal Weakness #3 – fiscal inefficiency due to high turn-over
# 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%.
Academic weakness # 1 – low progression & completion rates compared
to state averages
Academic weakness #3 – high attrition rates in developmental-pipeline &
gatekeeper courses
Academic weakness #4 – low ESL/ABE transition rates to college-level
Academic weakness #5 – uneven access to innovative learning structures
# 4 – Increase # of students attaining momentum point benchmarks
(college level work)
#4 – Increase # of ESL students transitioning to college level work
AP Goal 2
Increase Instructional Supports to
promote student retention and
progression
# 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%.
AP Goal 3
Offer campus-wide professional
development to promote student
retention and progression
# 3 – Increase # of students attaining momentum point benchmarks
(college level work)
Academic weakness # 1 – low progression & completion rates compared
to state averages
Academic weakness #3 – high attrition rates in developmental-pipeline &
gatekeeper courses
Academic weakness #4 – low ESL/ABE transition rates
Mgmt weakness # 3 – lack of coordinated instructional supports
Academic weakness # 1 – low progression & completion rates compared
to state averages
Academic weakness #3 – high attrition rates in developmental-pipeline &
gatekeeper courses
Academic weakness #5 – uneven access to innovative learning structures
Mgmt weakness # 1 – high percentage of PT faculty
Fiscal Weakness #2 – insufficient PD funds
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?