Title III Framework
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
-1–
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. Over a 5-year period from 2001-2005, 41% of all students who reported they intend to study for a year or
more left after only one quarter never to return. Over fifty percent of these first quarter “early exiters”
failed at least one course while on campus. This compares to a college-wide failure rate of less than 20%.
3. Academic failure in developmental-level pipeline courses and other key gateway classes impedes 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 adequately 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
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
-2–
7/12/2016
classes must also be measured. In math, 23% of students who successfully passed a developmental-level
course subsequently failed their first college-level class in the same subject. In English, the percentage of
students following this pattern is 19%. Taken together, the number of students either failing
developmental-level courses or passing developmental 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.
4. The transition rate of ESL/ABE students progressing into college-level courses is alarmingly low. For our
ESL population, although 30 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 and 30 percent of
those starting in ABE/GED courses earn at least some college credits within five years2. 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
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.
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 gateway courses must be offered using innovative, research-based
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 in 2008 – 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
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
-3–
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)
6. A strong, respected Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) that supports faculty and staff professional
development.
Institutional Management Weaknesses:
1. In 2007-08, campus-wide reliance on PT faculty is at an all time high at 42.5 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 percentage 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 CCSEQ,
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.
Title III Framework
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
-4–
7/12/2016
3. High student turnover rates (41% leave after only one quarter never to return) 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.
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 page 7 shows the 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
Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC
-5–
7/12/2016
D. Five-year Grant Measurable Objectives
1. 75% of first quarter students who are required to do so will enroll and successfully complete first
quarter workshops.
2. First to second quarter re-enrollment of degree seeking students will increase by 10 points from 50%
to 60%
3. “Early Exiter3” percentages will decrease by 10 points from 41% to 31%.
4. The percentage of students progressing from basic skills to college-level course work will increase as
follows:
 For ESL the increase will be from 5% to 15 %
 For ABE the increase will be from 20% to 30%
5. Passing rates in developmental level math courses will increase along with developmental-level
student success rates in ‘next step’ college-level courses. Math developmental-level pass will
increase from 64% to x and corresponding college-level failure rates will be reduced from 23% to
15%.
6. Passing rates in developmental level English courses will increase along with developmental-level
student success rates in ‘next step’ college-level courses. English developmental-level pass rates will
increase from 77% to 85% and corresponding college-level failure rates will be reduced from 19% to
15%.
7. 50% of developmental pipeline and gateway courses will link to human development courses or
embed student success strategies into their curriculum.
8. Passing rates and student GPAs in courses integrating student success methods will increase by
20% compared to 2005-06 baseline.
9. Passing rates and student GPAs in courses implementing SI and/or enhanced tutoring will increase
by 20% compared to 2005-06 baseline.
10. 85 % of developmental-level pipeline and gateway classes will implement the use of an academic
early alert system.
11. Passing rates and student GPAs in courses implementing the academic early alert system will
increase by 20% compared to 2005-06 baseline.
12. 70% of faculty (full and part-time) will attend professional development workshops around best
practices in student progression and retention, and 80% of those who attend will implement changes
in their classes.
13. Passing rates and student GPA in courses modified based using best practices in progression and
retention will increase by 20% as compared to 2005-06 baseline.
14. 80% of professional-level administrative and student services staff will attend professional
development workshops to increase their knowledge of student retention and progression issues and
interventions.
3
Early Exiter is defined as a degree seeking student who reports their intent to study for a year or more but leaves
after only one quarter – and doesn’t re-enroll within 3 years.
Table 1. Institutional Goals and Grant Objectives to be Addressed Under Title III
Goal
Develop and implement a series
of required First Quarter Success
Workshops to increase student
retention and progression
Results
Measurable Outcomes After Five Years
More students will access campus support services
that will lead to high retention and progression
75% of students who are required to do so will enroll and
successfully complete first quarter workshops.
More students will be retained beyond their first
quarter
First to second quarter re-enrollments of degree seeking
students will increase by 10 points from 50% to 60%
“Early Exiter4” percentages will decrease by 10 points from
41% to 31%.
Enhance course curricula to
promote student retention and
progression
A higher percentage of students will progress from
basic skills to college level coursework.
The percentage of students progressing from basic skills to
college-level course work will increase as follows:
 For ESL the increase will be from 5% to 15 %
 For ABE the increase will be from 20% to 30%
A higher percentage of students will progress from
developmental to college-level coursework in math
and English.
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 collegelevel failure rates to be reduced from 23% to 15%.
Increase the number of classes that link to human
development courses or embed success strategies
into their curriculum.
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 19% to 15%.
50% of developmental pipeline and gateway courses will link
to human development courses or embed student success
strategies into their curriculum
Passing rates and student GPAs in courses integrating
student success methods will increase by 20% compared to
2005-06 baseline.
Early Exiter is defined as a degree seeking student who reports their intent to study for a year or more but leaves after only one quarter – and doesn’t re-enroll
within 3 years.
4
Table 1 Continued - Institutional Goals and Grant Objectives to be Addressed Under Title III
Goal
Results
Increase instructional
supports to promote student
retention and progression
Increase retention and progress for students in
targeted science, math and business, engineering and
information technologies courses where tutoring and
supplemental instructional been introduced.
More transitional support systems will be in place and
as a result a higher percentage of students will
progress from basic skills to college-level coursework.
Increase retention and progression in developmental
pipeline and gateway courses in which the early
academic alert system has been implemented.
Measurable Outcomes After Five Years
Passing rates and student GPAs in courses implementing SI
and/or enhanced tutoring will increase by 20% compared to
2005-06 baseline.
The percentage of students progressing from basic skills to
college-level course work will increase as follows:
 For ESL the increase will be from 5% to 15%
 For ABE the increase will be from 20% to 30%
X percent of developmental level and gateway courses will
implement an academic early alert system
passing rates and student GPAs in courses implementing the
academic early alert system will increase by 20% compared to
2005-06 baseline.
Conduct a campus-wide
professional development
initiative to promote student
retention and progression
Increase the number of courses—especially
developmental pipeline and gateway courses—that
implement best practices shown to positively impact
student retention and progression.
70% of faculty (full and part-time) will attend professional
development workshops around best practices in student
progression and retention, and 80% of those who attend will
implement changes in their classes.
Increase knowledge amongst campus professional
staff of best practices in student retention and
retention strategies.
Passing rates and student GPA in courses modified based
using best practices in progression and retention will increase
by 20% as compared to 2005-06 baseline.
80% of professional support staff will attend professional
development workshops to increase their knowledge of
student retention and progression issues and interventions.
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?