Promoting Student Progression and Retention at NSCC12/6/2018

Title III Framework - 1 –

A. Comprehensive Development Plan

1. Institutional Narrative

NorthSeattleCommunity 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 credit-seeking 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?

2. Strengths, Weaknesses, and Processes for Identifying Them

Academic Strengths:

Well regarded and award winning Coordinated Studies program (documentation?)
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 WashingtonD.C. NSCC was the only Community College invited to participate in this national event.
Reputation for a strong Transfer Degree program, especially in math and science (stats about NSCC grads going to UW)
A regional leader in distance learning (something showing we’re leaders in the state – number of classes maybe?)

Institutional Management Strengths:

Strong Student Development Services offering a wide range of student support programs and resources (stats here – ask Marci for some language)
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.
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)
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)
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)
A strong, respected Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) that supports faculty and staff professional development.

Fiscal Stability Strengths:

Recently emerged from significant financial debt to a position of growing financial reserves (stat?)
Recently “right-sized” the college budget by releasing xxx FTEs and reducing x# faculty positions accordingly through an offer of early retirement
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.
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.

Significant Academic Weakness/Problem: Low rates of retention and progression for degree-seeking students.

State Board data shows NSCC laggingbehind itslocal 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 toa 60% average for our local peers and 59% state-wide for the same period.
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 thesefirst quarter “early exiters” failed at least one course while on campus. This compares to a college-wide failure rate of less than 20%.
Academic failure in developmental-level pipelinecourses 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 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. Add stat about key gateway courses failure rates somehow.
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 years[2]. 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.
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 regularlybenefitfrom 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 beoffered usinginnovative, research-based models of teaching and learning.

Significant Institutional Management Weakness/Problem:Current instructional and student-services support systems fail to reach adequate numbers students.

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 accessthem when neededremains a challenge. Current orientation sessions are frequently poorly attended and campus efforts to highlight student servicesare oftenineffective 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.
Current levels of quality and access to tutoring/instructional supports are uneven across disciplines. English skill support is quite developed through the LoftWritingResourceCenter, 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.SHOW HOW STUDENT ACCESS TO MLC IS LIMITED AND/OR THAT THERE ARE MORE REQUESTS FOR BEIT TUTORNG THAN THERE ARE SLOTS. SHOE DISPARITY IN PROGRAMS BETWEEN LOFT AND MLC DESIPTE SERVING SAME NUMBER OF STUDENTS -- NO TRAINING, NO OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ONE-ON-ONE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, ETC.?

Significant Fiscal Stability Weakness/Problem:Decreased enrollment and high student attrition ratesreducefinancial resources available toimplementcampus improvement initiatives.

Student enrollments have declined by 10% in the five-year period ending 2006-07, resulting in a x% reduction in resources to the college.
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.
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.

Institutional Self-Study 2004-07
Master Planning 2004-08
Strategic Plan 2005-2010
Title III Planning
November 2007 Executive Team deliberations
November 2007 Faculty Coordinators’ meeting
December 2007 Open meetings for input
December 2007 Data mining (iterative process)
January 2008 meeting with Strategic Enrollment Management Committee
January 2008 meetings with SDS Council and Instructional Council
Meetings with targeted groups as grant activity began to take shape

3. Key Overall Goals for the Institution

NSCC has identified the following goals to be addressed by Title III. These goals evolved from the findings of our exhaustive institutional planningand Title III preparationreferenced in Section B. The four goals are designed to respond directly to two of thesignificant problems/weaknesses identified in the CDP. These are:

Academic Weakness - low rates of retention and progression for degree seeking students.

Institutional Management Weakness - current instructional and student-services support systems fail to reach adequate numbers students

Our four goals in response to these two significant problems are:

Goal 1–Improvefirst to second quarter student retention rates

Goal2–Improve instructional supports and student services to promoteBasic Skills students’ successful entry into college-level courses

Goal 3–Improve instructional supports and student services to promotedegree-seeking students’ successful completion of developmental-level- pipeline and other key gateway courses

Goal 4–Improve overall educational progressionrates fordegree-seeking students

4. Measurable Objectives Related to Institutional Goals and likely to contribute to growth and self sufficiency.

First to second quarter re-enrollment of degree seeking students will increase by 10 points from 50% to 60%.(add baseline language and dates)

“Early Exiter[3]” percentages will decrease by 10 points from 41% to 31%.(add baseline language and dates)

The percentage of students progressing from basic skills to college-level course work will increase by:(add baseline language and dates)

ESL rate will increase from 5% to 15 %

ABE rate will increase from 20% to 30%

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%. (add baseline language and dates)

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%.(add baseline language and dates)

Key gateway courses overall passage rates to improve from 2006 baseline of x to x over 5 years.

The percentage of NSCC degree-seeking students making “substantial progress[4]” shall increase from baseline x in xxx to 60% by xxx, xxxx.(add baseline language and dates)

Table 1. Crosswalk of Institutional Problems, Goals and MeasurableObjectives to be Addressed Under Title III

Problems to be addressed / Goal / Measurable Objective after five Years
Low rates of retention and progression for degree-seeking students. / Goal 1
Improve first to second quarter degree-seeking student re-enrollment rates / First to second quarter re-enrollments of degree seeking students will increase by 10 points from 50% to 60%
“Early Exiter” percentages will decrease by 10 points from 41% to 31%.
Low rates of retention and progression for degree-seeking students.
Current instructional and student-services support systems fail to reach adequate numbers students. / Goal 2
Improve instructional supports and student services to promote Basic Skills students’ successful entry into college-level courses / The percentage of students progressing from basic skills to college-level course work will increase by:

ESL rate will increase from 5% to 15 %

ABE rate will increase from 20% to 30%

Low rates of retention and progression for degree-seeking students.
Current instructional and student-services support systems fail to reach adequate numbers students. / Goal 3
Improve instructional supports and student services to promote degree-seeking students’ successful completion of developmental-level pipeline and other key gateway courses / Increase passage rates in developmental level math courses and developmental-level student success rates in ‘next step’ college-level courses. Developmental-level passage rates to increase from 64% to x and corresponding college-level failure rates to be reduced from 23% to 15%.
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 80% and corresponding college-level failure rates to be reduced from 19% to 15%.
Key gateway courses overall passage rates to improve from 2006 baseline of x to x over 5 years.
Low rates of retention and progression for degree-seeking students.
Current instructional and student-services support systems fail to reach adequate numbers students. / Goal 4
Improve overall educational progression
rates for NSCC degree-seeking students / The percentage of NSCC students making “substantial progress” shall increase to 60%

5. Plans for Institutionalization

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.

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.

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.

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?

[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 WashingtonState