Overview of Student Affairs Organization and Models Matthew Park EDHE 6730 Dr. Jack Baier Fall 2008 Introduction As the student affairs field continues to evolve, it becomes clear that different types of institutions have different student affairs needs. This presentation is designed to offer a range of approaches and models for student affairs departments and divisions. Established Student Affairs Models Co-Curricular Functional Silos Seamless Learning Competitive and Adversarial Extra-Curricular Student Services As the models are presented, think about the organization of student affairs at your current or previous institutions... Co-Curricular Model Academic affairs and student affairs are complementary. However, the two areas maintain distinct missions, functions, and pedagogy about student learning. Functional Silos Model Student affairs operates independently from academic affairs with its own independent units. Academic affairs operates in silos independent from student affairs. Can observe various student affairs functions occurring within academic silos. Seamless Learning Model Faculty members encourage student affairs involvement and are committed to out of class support opportunities. Focus on student learning within student affairs as extension of the classroom. Student affairs units collaborate with academic units on joint programs and services. High degree of knowledge about available services and programs. Competitive and Adversarial Model Strong “Us” versus “Them” mentality. The divisions/units prefer to exist separately. Although limited, mutual territories are clearly defined and understood. Functions may move back and forth within organizational structure depending on executive leadership and problems/successes. Extra-Curricular Model Student affairs has a predominant social focus on the development of students. Separate missions, functions, and pedagogy about student learning exist between student affairs and academic affairs. The overlap between student affairs and academic affairs is limited, if any. Student Services Model Student affairs views its work from a consumer-oriented perspective. Strong focus on service and satisfaction. Limited focus on student development or student learning perspectives. Forego the learning; make the students happy. Embraced in times of survival and waning enrollment. Shortfalls of Established Methods The models presented can lack congruency with institutional context. Provide incomplete contributions of student affairs in the context of student learning. Student learning approach sometimes absent. Instead of collaboration and focus on the students, staff energy can be invested in competition with academic units and even other student affairs units. Leads to an unfulfilled potential of student affairs. Need for New Models… Recent Intra-Field Developments Standards and Founding Statements Maturation of Field and Expanded Preparation Programs Development of Professional Associations (NASPA, ACPA) Increased Literature and Research Base Recent Extra-Field Developments Higher Tuition/Fees Tightening Resources (less flexibility for trial and error) Competitive Admissions Assessment and Accountability Towards Contributing to Institutional Goals Growing Diversity in Types of Institutions Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs Developed by ACPA and NASPA following the Student Learning Imperative and work of Chickering & Gamson. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Engage students in active learning. Help students develop coherent values and ethical standards. Set and communicate high expectations for student learning. Use systematic inquiry to improve student and institutional performance. Use resources effectively to achieve institutional mission and goals. Forge educational partnerships that advance student learning. Build supportive and inclusive communities. Emerging and Research-Based Models for Student Affairs Student Centered Ethic of Care Academic & Student Affairs Collaboration Academic Centered Directive Student Driven Student Agency Extra-Curricular Basket Weaving As the models are presented, think about similarities and differences between the aforementioned established models... Student Centered Ethic of Care Model Responsive to student needs. “One Stop Shop” attitude. Action emanates from student affairs administrators. Integrated services, policies, and programs. Services are geared toward the goal of facilitating student success. Prevalent in institutions serving historically underserved populations (e.g., women, students of color, first generation). Academic & Student Affairs Collaboration Model Student affairs and academic affairs are tightly coupled in their organizational and philosophical structures. Collaborate to achieve mutual goals and seamless student learning. Competition and territoriality are absent between academic and student affairs areas. Academic Centered Model Focus on rigorous academic environment with emphasis on preparing students for advanced study. Both academically and socially rich community with academic experiences at the core. Student affairs provides a role of structural support. Policies, programs, and services are highly responsive to academics. Holistic sense of community with de-emphasis on student affairs sponsored extra-curricular activities. Student-initiated intellectual discussions and activities are viewed as entertainment by students. Directive Model Intentional about increasing student success with clear maps for programs, services, and policies. Intensive feedback from all institutional areas (e.g., faculty to student, student to student, administrator to student, student to administrator, etc). Focus on assessment and performance. Can be paternalistic if overdone. Student Driven Model Utilizes student-centered leadership and involvement. Services and programs are coordinated and/or staffed by students. Observed in resource-limited institutions (restricted resources for staff). Born of necessity, but linked to institutional philosophy (students to drive the services). Student Agency Model Limited to no interference or intervention from administrators. Focus on student initiative and empowerment. High expectations about student participation. Looks disorganized to proponents of established models. Appearance can change from year to year. Extra-Curricular Model Focused on student leadership development. Student affairs takes lead on engagement and out-of-classroom focus. Based on established student affairs pedagogy and student development theories. Student affairs and academic affairs operate as separate entities with pockets of collaboration. Basket Weaving Model Reduction of boundaries between student and academic affairs where learning and engagement occur. The focus of all institutional efforts is the “total” student experience. Everyone is interested in making a contribution to student learning and the holistic student experience. Institutional expectation and orientation that everyone is involved in student learning. Minimal delineation of responsibilities for in and out of the classroom. Student affairs does some weaving, academic affairs does some weaving, and all of the weaving fits together to form the basket. Who does the weaving does not matter so long as it gets done. Various Nuances and Observations by Type of Institution Achieved through comparison of various organization charts and identification of predominant functional areas within student affairs and corresponding reporting structure. Two Year Institutions Liberal Arts Institutions Private Research Institutions Public Research Institutions Student Affairs: Two Year Institutions Common Functional Areas Include: Some Structures Include: Student Activities and Student Organizations Leadership, Multicultural Programs, International Services Health Services and Child Care Seldom Found: Career Planning and Placement Enrollment Management (Admissions, Records, Financial Aid, Veteran Affairs, Testing) Disability/ADA Compliance Counseling Educational, Instructional, and Learning Services Academic Advising and Registration Housing and Dining Safety and Security Greek Life and Recreational Sports Reporting Lines: President (most common), Vice Chancellor (system), or Executive Vice President (academic affairs or college operations) Student Affairs: Liberal Arts Institutions Common Functional Areas Include: Some Structures Include: Multicultural/Diversity Programs and International Services Bookstore Disability/ADA Seldom Found: Housing/Residence Life and Dining Services Health Services Counseling Centers and Career Planning/Placement College Union, Student Activities, and Recreation Service Learning and Community Outreach Judicial Affairs, Safety and Security Admissions and Records Financial Aid Testing/Assessment Academic Support and Academic Advising Reporting Lines: President or Provost/Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs (most common) Student Affairs: Private Research Institutions Functional Areas Highly Dispersed Across Institution. Uncommon to find a single unit or division encompassing most traditional student affairs functions. Lack of student affairs identity exists as focus is on academic performance/engagement and role of faculty. Reporting Lines: Provost or Vice Provost (student affairs does not maintain a senior cabinet position, nor report directly to the President). Student Affairs: Public Research Institutions Common Functional Areas Include: Some Structures Include: Multicultural/Diversity Programs/Centers Records, Financial Aid, TRIO Disability/ADA, Student Publications Safety and Security, Student Legal Services Health Services Seldom Found: Housing/Residence Life and Dining Services Counseling, Disability/ADA, Career Planning and Placement Union, Student Activities, Fraternities and Sororities, Leadership, Community Service, First Year Programs Recreational Sports and Wellness Judicial Affairs (non-academic cases) Admissions, Veteran Affairs, International Services, Athletics Academic Support and Testing Reporting Lines: Executive Vice President References Blimling, G., & Whitt, E. (1998, January). Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs. About Campus, 3(1), 10-15. Choosing the Student Affairs Model That Fits Your Campus. (2006, September). Student Affairs Leader, Retrieved November 10, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database. Manning, K. (2006, October). Choosing the Student Affairs Model That Suits Your Students. Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education, 20(10), 5-4. Manning, K., Kinzie, J. & Schuh, J. H. (2006). One Size Does Not Fit All: Traditional and Innovative Models of Student Affairs Practice. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.