Upload
sylvia-edwards
View
29
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Foundations of Excellence Experiences. Catherine Andersen Gallaudet University Washington, DC John Lanning University of Colorado Denver Sally Roden University of Central Arkansas, Conway Arkansas Dorothy Dixon Lone Star College, North Harris Texas - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Foundations of Excellence ExperiencesCatherine Andersen
Gallaudet University Washington, DCJohn Lanning
University of Colorado DenverSally Roden
University of Central Arkansas, Conway Arkansas Dorothy Dixon
Lone Star College, North Harris Texas
7th Annual Foundations of Excellence Winter Meeting 17 February 2012
Foundations of Excellence and Beyond
FoE and Accreditation, Strategic Planning and Budget
FoE the vetting process and words of wisdom from the trenches
FoE and state wide initiatives
FoE and lessons learned
Foundations of Excellence
Gallaudet University was a member of the 2006-2007 FoE cohort, finishing the Final Report in December 2010.
co-liaisons – Dean of College and Director FYE 9 dimension committees and over FoE participants Campus was in turmoil during the process Dean left and Director became Dean In the middle of Accreditation probation Final Report serving as implementation blue print
Gallaudet out of compliance with 8 of the 14 standards –Spring 2007
Standard 1 (mission) Standard 2 (planning) Standard 4 (governance) Standard 6 (climate) Standard 8 (admissions
and retention) Standard 11 (academic
rigor) Standards 7 and 14
(assessment)
Time was of the essence -make use of existing knowledge and data
Work with the National Resource Center on the First-Year and Students in Transition, and the Policy Center on the First-Year of College had already resulted in change. First year retention rates had improved 10% in 10 years, but did not result in increased graduation rates. In 2006, Gallaudet began its participation in the Foundations of Excellence Project.
6
Foundations of ExcellenceFoundations of Excellence resulted in a number of themes that themes that supported MSCHE accreditation challenges supported MSCHE accreditation challenges
Standard Eight – critical elements
Admissions Standards must support the mission of a high quality education.
Recommendations Review admissions
standards and base criteria on a profile of a successful student.
Actions Admissions criteria raised
Standard Eight – critical elements
Programs and services to ensure that admitted students who marginally meet or do not meet the institution's qualifications achieve expected learning goals and higher education outcomes
Recommendations Require programs for marginal
students
Actions Summer Bridge Program
established with criteria for participation.
Plus (Performance Learning Undergraduate Success) Program established with criteria for participation.
Standard Eight – critical elements
Ongoing assessment of student success, including but not necessarily limited to retention, that evaluates the match between the attributes of admitted students and the institution's mission and programs, and reflects in its findings in its admission, remediation, and other related policies:
Recommendations Use data in all decision
making
Actions Developed assessment and
action plans for support programs
Analyzed ACT scores with student placement and progress.
Standard Eight – Critical Elements Drilling Down to Action
Plans Recommendation:
Identify courses with High DFWD rates. This Identify courses with High DFWD rates. This is a required part of the Foundations process.is a required part of the Foundations process.
Action: Developed targets and action plans for Developed targets and action plans for
reducing the high DFWD rates. That resulted reducing the high DFWD rates. That resulted in higher pass rates for developmental math in higher pass rates for developmental math classes.classes.
October 2007 MSCHE Report “The team finds that Gallaudet University now meets this standard
(Eight), which states that “The institution seeks to admit students whose interested, goals and abilities are congruent with its mission and seeks to retain them through the pursuit of the students’ educational goals.” the team commends Gallaudet fro establishing new and more rigorous admissions standards based on evidence of student success. ..
… The team also notes that the enrollment management work group were able to cite an impressive array of evidence for recent decisions on strategies to recruit qualified students and to improve student retention”
We could not have achieved this had we not participated in Foundations in the months prior.
All 14 standards were met in June 2008.
FoE became the foundation
Foundations of Excellence UC Denver
UC Denver was a member of the 2008-2009 FoE cohort, finishing the Final Report in June, 2009.
co-liaisons – Student Affairs and Academic Affairs 9 dimension committees and 77 FoE participants very weak student participation for survey 8 of 9 DC reports filed with Policy Center on time extensive vetting process while compiling Reports Final Report serving as implementation blue print
FoE Emotion Check-Up
FoE Structure Change
The CU Denver co-liaisons adjusted the FoE structure by splitting the Steering Committee into DC chairs as the functional, get-it-done, body of the FoE process. met every two weeks mid-Feb through mid-May provided internal review of draft DC reports supported DC chairs after receiving PC comments communicated progress to campus community developed Final Report format reviewed Final Report drafts
Writing and Vetting ReportsDo not underestimate the emotional reactions.
pressures of deadlines frustration for liaisons
getting everyone organized
disappointment when PC comments are not in the form of the Nobel prize for literature
concern with loss of faculty and students near end of semester
FoE Writing Team
The co-liaisons initiated a Writing Team to write and edit the FoE Final Report.
co-liaisons, DC chair, assistant, editor/writer (paid) divided writing responsibilities edited DC reports for Final Report prepared working draft for Policy Center comments reviewed each other’s formatting and writing (proof)N FoE Final Report in absence of most FoE
participants
Report Vetting
CU Denver used an extensive vetting process for all stages of report writing.
internal review of DC working draft reports before hitting ‘send’ button to Policy Center
permission from Policy Center for internal web site. three-week campus-wide review of DC final drafts three-week campus and administrative review of
Final Report draft continuous Final Report review in June by Provost
CU Denver Recommendations
establish multiple stages/deadlines for all reports provide statistical help for FoEtec data analysis create an FoE administrative ‘team’ for support and
for pressure on deadlines consider a writing team for Final Report if possible, hire a writer/editor for Final Report create campus review team, some members of which
were not part of FoE in any way develop continuous communication with Provost initiate implementation quickly
Tidbits of Wisdom
Every FoE institution is different, and we conclude with our tidbits of wisdom. Make structure and deadlines work for your campus
and for your FoE participants. The goal is not the FoE Final Report, but implementation of prioritized action plan. FoE Final Report IS worth the investment in time and
money.
FoE Final Report andAction Plan
Foundations of ExcellenceUniversity of Central Arkansas
Phase ISupported by Academic Administration Co-liaisons for Self-study9 Dimensions Committees Self Study Final Report
The University of Central Arkansas was a member of the 2005-2006 FoE cohort.
UCA Dimension Report Card
9 Dimensions Grade
1. Philosophy C
2. Organization D
3. Learning B
4. Faculty C
5. Transitions C
6. All Students B
7. Diversity B
8. Roles and Purposes C-
9. Improvement D
Key Recommendations
Adopt an explicit statement of philosophy for the first year.
Increase cross-campus communication about and collaboration on first-year issues.
Coordinate resources for first-year programming. Establish learning goals for the first-year. Include in the curriculum the why of learning and the
importance of higher education. Commit to increasing first-year awareness regarding
diverse ideas, cultures, and world views. Evaluate first-year initiatives.
Phase II 2006-2007Action Plan
Supported by Academic Administration. Co-coordinators. 9 committee Members . Recommended Action Plan
2007 – Provost left – 9/30/07
2008 – President resigned – 8/08
Foundation of Excellence Final Report and Recommendations never received consideration and implementation.
Changes at UCA
Foundations of Excellence
Foundations Dimensions constitute a model that provides institutions with a means to evaluate and improve the first year of college.
Partnerships in Arkansas
Student Success Suggestions Statewide Gathering Outcomes
1st STUDENT SUCCESS SYMPOSIUM Palaski Technical College
2008
Dr. Catherine Andersen
Dr. George Kuh
Dr. Debra Humphreys
Dr. Bradley Garner
Dr. John Gardner
Mr. George Niebling
Dr. Kathleen Cushman
University of Central ArkansasMarch 30-31, 2011
Dr. Mickey Davis
• The Pre-Planning Process• The Launch Meeting • Planning/Advertisement with PR/Media • The Process• FoE Retreat/Celebration• Culture Created
The Pre-Planning Process
• Vision/Idea Came From Top
• Position Created
• Director, Foundations of Excellence
• Reported Directly to President
Launch Meeting in Ashville
• Given a Template• Team Development• Starting Working On-Site• Building Relationships• Encouraged To Continue Inquiry• Encouraged!
Inspired!
FoE at LSC-North Harris
• Letter to all employees from President• FoE Launch at North Harris• Nine Dimensions with Two Co-chairs• CPI Information Gathering & Sharing• More Relationship Building• Many great working meetings
Faculty vs. Students on Connections
Leveraging FoE vs. SENSE Data
Celebrating Excellence!
FoE Self-Study Process
SENSE and CCSSE
Visioning
LSCS Strategic Goals
Completion by Design
AtD
StudentPersistence, Success, &
Completion
Culture Created
for Student Success!
Time for Questions