the power of partnerships: lessons for higher education john n. gardner
TRANSCRIPT
Two Decades of Leadership for First-Year Efforts
Thrust into University 101 leadership
University101: a vehicle for the creation of partnerships
Academic affairs and student affairs working together to support the academic mission
Collaborating to define first-year student success
This broad definition of first-year student success is achievable only through partnerships.
Academic Success/GPA
Relationships
Identity Development
Career Decision Making
Health & Wellness
Faith & Spirituality
Multicultural Awareness
Civic Responsibility
Retention – the baseline
Key Assumptions
The greatest influence on new students is that of other students.
Learning takes place anywhere there are students, faculty and staff members interacting.
We are more likely to achieve student success through partnerships that integrate learning, both inside and outside the curriculum.
The preeminent goal of partnerships is academic success.
Elements of a Student Success Partnership
A shared vision, jointly developed, for student successShared resources – including personnel and money Joint reporting linesFunctional integration; curricular/
co-curricular integrationA willingness to ask for and
offer helpA willingness to share
responsibility, credit,
and blame
Elements of Partnerships
Big picture thinkingA capacity for organizational
unselfishnessA willingness to come together for
what’s best for students, the institution, my unit, and others we serve
A willingness to plant the seed and let others run with it (and even take credit)
Official, Formalized Components
Formal agreements based on informal
understandings
A plan for public dissemination and
assessment of partnership agreements
A connection of the agreements to the institution’s mission statement and strategic plan
Elements of Partnerships
A willingness to give up something you started when it needs to be institutionalized somewhere else
Getting people to work together who ordinarily would not interact with each other
A decided preference for collaboration over competition
Practical Advantages of Partnerships
More available resources – people and moneyEach unit gets the benefits of talents, skills, capacity and
political support it wouldn’t have on its ownReduces or eliminates unnecessary duplication and waste
of resourcesIs a model of best practice for illustration and emulationTeaches students by exampleStudent success more likely to be the outcome
Partnerships to Enhance Student Success
Academic & Student Affairs Leaders’ Institute 2012
Jillian Kinzie, Associate Director Indiana University Center for
Postsecondary Research and NSSEnsse.iub.edu
Interdependent View of Undergraduate Education
12Undergraduate Education Experience
Intellectual
Development
Social/Emotion
al Develop
mentTransformative
Education
Interdependent View Propositions:• Believe:
– Students whole collegiate experience provides a platform for learning
– Learning is holistic, outcomes cross the cognitive-affective domain
– Student success is everyone’s business• Requires:
– Acknowledging many ways of learning– Synergistic relationships across institutional
divisions– Undo false dichotomies
14
Faculty – attending to students intellectual development
Student Affairs – focusing on students’ social & emotional development
Cognitive Affe
ctive Divide
Plotting A Course to Partnerships
Ways must be found to overcome the artificial, organizational bifurcation of our educational delivery systems – P. Terenzini
15
Partnership Lessons from Educationally Effective and Improving Institutions
1. Project DEEP – studied 20 high-performing institutions to document educational effectiveness
a. Project DEEP 5 year follow-up – what sustains educational effectiveness?
2. Learning to Improve – identify factors fostering institutional improvement
16
Project DEEP:A study of 20 High-
Performing Institutions
What do educationally
effective institutions do to
foster student engagement and
success?
Six Shared Conditions of Educationally Effective Institutions
1. “Living” Mission and “Lived” Educational Philosophy
2. Unshakeable Focus on Student Learning 3. Environments Adapted for Educational
Enrichment4. Clearly Marked Pathways to Student
Success5. Improvement-Oriented Ethos6. Shared Responsibility for
Educational Quality
Shared Responsibility for Educational Quality
• Students, all staff, and faculty are partners in educating students
• Faculty & student affairs educators fuel the collaborative spirit
• Caring, supportive community
19
SSiC Follow Up: Educational Effectiveness - Guaranteed to Last?Checked back with DEEP schools 5 years later… • NSSE results about the same – a few
slips, a few gains• Graduation rates comparable, or better
- 7 schools increased by 6%, & 3 by 10%• Six shared conditions still hold
a. Student success is an institutional priority when everyone--especially campus leaders--make it so.
b. Stay “positively restless” – pay attention to data that matters for student success
c. Enhanced partnerships between student and academic affairs
Keys to Sustaining the Student Success Agenda
21
22
1,500 baccalaureate institutions in NSSE 2000-2011600 institutions administered NSSE 4+ timesOPPORTUNITY: What can we learn about institutional improvement and change?
Studying Quality Improvement
Conditions that Fostered Improvement1. Grants, Pilots, External Initiatives2. Stability & Trust in Leadership 3. Physical space/creation of new learning spaces4. Comprehensive & Targeted strategic planning5. Data Informed & Culture of continuous
improvement6. Strong role of faculty – impact of generational
change
7. Intentional partnerships in administrative areas – Student and Academic Affairs
Partnerships: First-Year Focus“We have always done a lot to help students stay in college and think about how we move students out successfully.” -- Lynchburg College faculty member
• Low persistence rate in 2005 captured everyone’s attention… formed Student Success Team
• Sent dozens faculty & staff to FYE conference
25
Robust Partnerships Between Student & Academic Affairs
• Change facilitated by a robust partnership between academic & student affairs
Perplexing Question:
If partnerships are so essential to educational effectiveness and improved conditions for learning and success, then why are they so difficult to achieve? Why are partnerships the exception rather than the rule?
27
Context: 1992 University of Missouri
Major Triggering EventsDeclining enrollment…huge drop in freshman class (-29%)
& residence hall occupancy down 34% (6200 to 4100).Three large residence halls closed…debt rating in jeopardyCourse availability / scheduling a challengePoor legislative relationships…skepticism / angerCBHE establishes new retention (R) / graduation (G) rate
standards … R=85% vs. 78%; G= 65% vs. 59% Finding opportunity in adversity !
Compelling Aim
New Chancellor establishes a compelling aim:
“Recapture the public’s trust by rededicating the University to high quality undergraduate education”
Goals and objectives
Restore enrollment and residence hall occupancy.Improve course scheduling through more effective
curriculum management for first-year students.Elevate the intellectual climate of the campus by enhancing
first-year student engagement. Achieve the new CBHE retention / graduation rate
standards by 1998And, by the way, do all of this with limited funding!!!!
Primary strategy: Create a residential learning community program
Three institutional leaders : VPSA; Associate Dean A&S; Chair Biology Dept.
Cross-functional core team: residence life; registrar; English department; admissions & campus writing program
Developed 12 FIGS (Freshman Interest Groups) … three common courses & common assignment to floors.
Initial assessment led to creation of three residential colleges, 87 FIGs and 46 sponsored learning communities by 1999 (“70 by 99”).
Program Outcomes
Achieved CBHE performance standards (G=68%; R=85%)Increased enrollment & filled the residence hallsMuch higher NSSE scores on all five benchmarks70% (4200) of all first-year students now in learning
communitiesLC`s the “signature program” of MU-- 7%+ to graduationGraduation rates of “at-risk students” (family income
<48,000 and HSGPA < 2.75) FIG vs. non-FIG
45.6% vs. 34.2 % + 11.4%
Lessons learned
Triggering events and “self-interests” can be catalysts … focus on issues of consequence!
A shared vision and shared resources are criticalUnderstanding and acceptance of differences are key (i.e.
using and integrating the strengths of partners)Communicate, coordinate, collaborate constantly!Leadership is critical: Think big…plan long term Be flexible…adapt as necessary and take risks Examine prevailing mental models and embrace the notion
“To create the future, challenge the past”