PUTTING STUDENTS FIRST - IN CONNECTICUT FEBRUARY 2021 by Christopher Baldwin - Connecticut State Colleges ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
PUTTING STUDENTS FIRST
IN CONNECTICU T
FEBRUAR Y 202 1
by Christopher Baldwin
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVIEW OF STUDENTS FIRST............................................................................................................................................... 4
PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS FIRST FROM THE FIELD ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������12
HIGH-LEVEL LESSONS AT THE MID-POINT OF IMPLEMENTATION �������������������������������������������������������������������������19
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRESS AND KEY NEXT STEPS.................................................................................................20
ENDNOTES.. ......................................................................................................................................................................................22
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express deep appreciation
to the faculty, staff, and system leaders who participated
in the interviews for this project. This work would not
have been possible without their thoughtful and forthright
contributions. The author would also like to thank the
CSCU leadership for their partnership in developing a
publication that would present an honest assessment
of the Students First initiative, the challenges and
opportunities of implementing significant change for
Connecticut’s community colleges, and the long-term
prospects of success.
More specifically, the author thanks Greg DeSantis (Vice
President of Student Success and Academic Initiatives)
and Ken Klucznik (Vice President for Academic Affairs) for
their invaluable input and feedback throughout the project.
Finally, the author would like to thank Three Trees Studio
for designing the final report and Rachael Baldwin for her
meticulous copyediting.
hrough a reform strategy called concerns have arisen with the plan and its implementation,
T Students First, the Connecticut State Colleges
and Universities (CSCU) has embarked on a
and how system leadership might make adjustments that
will help the effort be more successful.
process of restructuring the 12 community colleges in
the state. This effort involves the consolidation of the . Before summarizing the main themes from the interviews,
12 separate colleges into an institution with a single the report begins with an overview of the Students First
accreditation and the adoption of the Guided Pathways plan including:
framework for student success across the campuses. chevron-circle-right The national trends that have influenced the work
The intent of Students First is to equitably improve the
outcomes of students enrolled in the system by chevron-circle-right The rationale for the changes in Connecticut
streamlining processes and procedures and centralizing chevron-circle-right The components of the Students First plan
back-office functions so resources can be reallocated to
chevron-circle-right The approach to organizing the implementation process
provide greater student supports at the campus level.
Following a rundown of the interview themes, a few high-
This report primarily aims to document how the
level lessons are shared about what has been learned at
work of Students First is occurring at the mid-point of
the rough mid-point of the Students First implementation.
implementation and to share some early lessons. The
The report concludes with a summary of the actions that
target audiences are the various stakeholder groups
have been taken and the items that have been put in place
within Connecticut (including college faculty and staff,
through Spring 2020 and an overview of the key next steps
policymakers, and community leaders) as well as
in the implementation process.
individuals across the nation who may be considering
similar initiatives. The core of this publication comprises It is important to note that the interviews summarized
insights about Students First drawn from individual in this report were conducted in early 2020 before the
interviews with faculty and staff across the system. COVID-19 pandemic took hold and upended everyday lives.
Fourteen interviews were conducted to gain an honest
assessment of how Students First is being received, what
INTRODUCTION 3
OVERVIEW
OF STUDENTS FIRST
NATIONAL TRENDS INFLUENCING While the number of college mergers has increased,
most of these consolidation conversations emerged first
STUDENTS FIRST among private, non-profit colleges that have small student
enrollments and whose financial margins have been
ven before the economic downturn
E
tight for some time. However, in the past few years, these
resulting from COVID-19, higher education conversations have become more pronounced among
institutions faced considerable financial public sector higher education institutions as well. One
challenges. In the public sector, state support for colleges of the more prominent examples has been the 10-year
and universities has not recovered from the 2008 Great process in Georgia to merge institutions in the University
Recession. In fact, in all but three states, 2018 funding per of Georgia System and the Georgia Technical College
student was still below the pre-recession level. In System. This effort has led to a decrease in the number .
Connecticut, the funding per student in 2018 was 20 of institutions from 35 in 2011 to 26 in late 2019.4
percent less than before the financial crisis.
Several other states are also contemplating merging
The diminished state funding has translated into an or consolidating public institutions including Alaska,
increased tuition burden for students, which on average Maine, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wisconsin, and, of
has risen by $2,651 nationally (36 percent) since 2008.1 course, Connecticut. A recent article in the Chronicle
During this same period, rising student debt has resulted of Higher Education notes that not all consolidations
in calls from state policymakers for tuition restraint. are the same and vary based on local context: “In some
Further exacerbating the financial problems community cases, like Georgia, it [consolidation] means a wholesale
colleges, in particular, have experienced decreased reorganization of the institutions in an existing public
revenue due to declining enrollments. Sinking state system into a smaller number of new ones. In others,
support, modest tuition increases, and dwindling student like Maine and, potentially, Pennsylvania, consolidations
enrollment have put institutions in an incredible bind involve merging a few colleges that are part of a larger
financially. Again, all this was before the pandemic. system. But the strategy can also call for combining
In 2018, the late Clayton Christensen famously predicted institutions under a single accreditation, an approach that
that “half of American colleges will be bankrupt in 10 is being pursued in Maine but was rejected in Alaska.
to 15 years.”2 Even before the enrollment drops due to Or it might be some combination of features, as is being
the pandemic, an analysis by the Chronicle of Higher considered in Connecticut.”5
Education indicated that 6 in 10 colleges or universities It is unclear what the best model or approach for
were missing their enrollment targets. These enrollment consolidating might be, but, given the deepening fiscal
declines have only exacerbated a precarious financial challenges in higher education due to the pandemic,
situation, leading some institutions to pursue mergers these deliberations are likely to emerge in other states .
or close their doors altogether. According to ongoing as well.
tracking by the Education Drive blog, 65 colleges have
closed or merged across 28 states since 2016.3 Given . Another important national trend that is also playing
the current environment, this number is projected to only out in Connecticut relates to increased questions
increase. These trends appear to confirm the beginning . about institutional graduation rates. Since the federal
of Christensen’s prediction. government began collecting graduation data in the .
OVERVIEW OF STUDENTS FIRST 4
NATIONAL TRENDS INFLUENCING STUDENTS Put simply, Guided Pathways is a holistic approach to
FIRST (CONTINUED) redesigning the student experience from initial enrollment
through the completion of a credential and into employment
late 1990s, there has been greater awareness among the or further education (for transfer students). This framework,
general public about mediocre student outcomes. This which was developed and endorsed by all major national
scrutiny has led to mounting pressure on higher education community college intermediaries and organizations, is
institutions — particularly community colleges — to focused on an institution-wide approach to streamline the
improve completion rates. These demands have gained students’ experience so they can make clear choices about
more urgency over the past decade as it has become their program of study and receive support when they
increasingly clear that some postsecondary education need it.6 The pull-out section on the next page provides a
is required for individuals to be competitive in the global concise summary of the four common-sense components
economy and secure a family-sustaining income. of the Guided Pathways framework.
In the past 15 years, there has been considerable federal Guided Pathways has truly become a reform movement.
and state policy action and substantial philanthropic As Figure 1 below emphasizes, there are hundreds
investment to help students complete a postsecondary of colleges across the country working to adopt this
credential. While these efforts have been met with modest framework. In 2015, the American Association of
success and led to an uptick in educational attainment, Community Colleges launched the first of two national
there are still wide disparities nationally along racial, ethnic, cohorts of colleges to implement the best practices
and socio-economic lines. One of the primary critiques described above. There are also a significant number
of early reform efforts is that they have been focused on of state-level initiatives aimed at implementing Guided
discrete pilot programs that focus too narrowly on isolated Pathways at all the community colleges. Similar to
student challenges and/or do not impact enough students. Connecticut, the 16 Student Success Centers (SSC) across
As reform efforts have evolved in the past decade, it has the country have played a leading role in supporting all the
become clear that adjustments on the margins would not colleges in their respective states as they embrace these
result in the needed changes to equitably improve student transformational reforms. These SSCs are small state-level
outcomes and that institution-wide transformation is organizations that are designed to help all community
needed. The Guided Pathways framework has emerged as colleges adopt evidence-based practices. There are also a
the most prominent college-wide reform effort. growing number of individual colleges implementing this
holistic approach to improving student outcomes.
FIGURE 1: GUIDED PATHWAYS COVERAGE MAP
WA
WA ND
MT
MN
ME
SD WI
OR
ID WY M
MI NY
N Y NH
NE IA
A MA
PA
IL IN OH
OH RI
NV
UT CO CT
KS MO
CA KY VA NJ
TN
T DE
OK NC
NC
NM AR
A R MD
AZ
A SC
MS AL
LA GA
TX
AK
FL
L
HII
Updated December 2020
Source: Unpublished map created by the Community College Research Center
OVERVIEW OF STUDENTS FIRST 5
THE FOUR PILLARS OF GUIDED PATHWAYS7
Pillar #1: Mapping Pathways to Student Pillar #3: Keeping Students on the Path
End Goals Reform efforts in this area focus on implementing
Reform efforts in this area focus on implementing clear processes and systems to know if students are on their
maps for all college programs to ensure students know chosen program path and ensure they have adequate
which courses they need to take in what sequence. supports along the way. Best practices for this pillar
Best practices for this pillar include: include:
chevron-circle-right Establishing meta-majors/career clusters to align chevron-circle-right Developing an approach for ongoing, intrusive
and communicate college programs. advising to proactively monitor and engage
chevron-circle-right Developing clear connections between programs students as they progress through their program .
and careers and transfer pathways/outcomes. of study.
chevron-circle-right Creating course schedules that align with program chevron-circle-right Establishing a system (including technology) for
maps and delineate the course sequences that students to easily track their progress.
include critical courses, embedded credentials, . chevron-circle-right Creating procedures to identify students at risk of
and progress milestones. falling off the path and protocols to provide needed
chevron-circle-right Aligning math requirements (and other core supports to get them back on track.
courses) with each program of study. Integrating chevron-circle-right Designing a structure to redirect students who are
streamlined information on the college’s website . not progressing to a more viable path.
to reflect the new program maps, meta-majors, .
and career/transfer information.
Pillar #2: Helping Students Choose and Enter Pillar #4: Ensuring that Students are Learning
A Pathway Reform efforts in this area focus on enhancing the
Reform efforts in this area are focused on making college learning environment and ensuring students
changes to the college’s processes and policies around possess the knowledge, skills, and competencies
onboarding students to ensure they have adequate that will help them succeed in their career or further
support and information to get the best start. Best education. Best practices for this pillar include:
practices for this pillar include:
chevron-circle-right Developing learning outcomes that are program
chevron-circle-right Developing a robust first-year experience to help specific and align with the requirements for
students explore career options and the connection success in further education and employment
to relevant programs of study. outcomes.
chevron-circle-right Implementing full program plans for students that chevron-circle-right Establishing systems and procedures for the
are based on requisite career exploration and college and students to track mastery of learning
include potential transfer pathways. outcomes leading to credentials, transfer, .
chevron-circle-right Integrating the use of multiple measures to assess and/or employment.
students’ needs and academic preparation for chevron-circle-right Creating a learning environment that allows
college-level courses. students to apply and deepen their knowledge
chevron-circle-right Adopting an approach for contextualized, integrated through project-based opportunities and promote
academic support to help students pass program collaborative learning.
gateway courses. chevron-circle-right Utilizing learning outcomes assessments (and
chevron-circle-right Extending partnerships with high schools to other data) to improve teaching and learning
motivate and prepare students to enter college-level through program review, professional development,
coursework in a program of study when they enroll and other intentional campus efforts.
in college.
OVERVIEW OF STUDENTS FIRST 6
RATIONALE FOR CHANGE In terms of the financial situation, CSCU and the colleges
have been challenged by several intersecting issues.
IN CONNECTICUT First, like many states, the Connecticut legislature has
disinvested in public higher education. Based on publicly
ith the national context in mind,
W
available CSCU data, funding had recovered somewhat
the underlying rationale for Students First . after the 2008 recession, but peaked in 2015-16 at $269
in Connecticut is to address two significant, million for the 12 colleges, and has since declined to $20
interrelated problems: Low student outcomes — million less in 2017-18.10
particularly among underrepresented groups, and
considerable financial constraints at colleges due to state Normally, when states cut funding, colleges partially .
budget cuts and enrollment declines. This section briefly cover the difference through tuition increases. Connecticut
elaborates on both of these issues. colleges have increased tuition some, but they have
attempted to hold tuition down to avoid shifting the .
In 2017, President Ojakian was charged by the Board of burden to students. This approach has been complicated
Regents to develop a management plan to put the CSCU by declining enrollments. Again, using CSCU data, the fall
system on a predictable and sustainable path for the 2018 enrollment was just under 48,000 students at the 12
future. As they outlined Students First, CSCU leadership colleges compared to more than 55,000 in fall 2014.11
focused in particular on the financial problems within the
community college system and efforts to avoid closing Some of the enrollment declines can be attributed to the
individual campuses, though student success was also improved economy that leads to fewer people pursuing
part of the charge. postsecondary education. However, Connecticut is also
contending with a decline in college-age students as a
As highlighted in the interview summary below, result of a declining population. It is projected that the
this initial emphasis on finances rather than student colleges, which are already struggling financially, are likely
outcomes became a considerable sticking point to see another 8 percent decline in enrollments over the
among the opponents of Students First. Regardless of next decade.12
the shortcomings in messaging, when you couple the
student outcome trends with the college financial issues,
it becomes clear why the CSCU leadership as well as
CONNECTICUT’S RECENT JOURNEY
policymakers in the state were looking for a new approach TO REFORM HIGHER EDUCATION
to providing postsecondary education in Connecticut.
efore turning to an overview of the
According to CSCU analysis, Connecticut community
colleges in 2017 had the lowest three-year graduation
B Students First plan, it is important to first .
place its development in a larger context for
rate compared to other states in the region. Furthermore, higher education policy in the state. Students First
NECHE flagged graduation rates at 9 of the 12 colleges emerged as a concerted strategy in spring 2017, but it .
in the state as a concern.8 A closer look at the student was preceded by substantial gubernatorial and legislative
outcomes data by race, illustrates that the state and changes to restructure higher education governance in .
colleges also have a significant equity problem. the state. The most prominent action was the creation of
the CSCU system, which was proposed in early 2011 by
Using publicly available data from CSCU for the 2018-19 then-Governor Dannel Malloy (D) and approved by the
academic year, the success rate (i.e. completions plus Democratic-controlled legislature that same year.13
transfer) for white students was 39 percent compared to
25 percent for Black students and 27 percent for Latinx The act merged two existing separate systems – the 12
students.9 You could argue that results for White students community colleges and the 4 state universities – with
are nothing to brag about, but the 14- or 12-percentage an online college (Charter Oak State College) under the
point difference between them and the Black and Latinx newly created Board of Regents for Higher Education
population is very problematic. It is even more alarming (BOR). The University of Connecticut, as the flagship
when you consider that two-thirds of minoritized institution, maintained its independent board.
postsecondary students attend community colleges
in Connecticut. Low student outcomes are leading to The governance changes were, in large part, a reaction .
legitimate questions about college performance from to the significant budget challenges resulting from the
policymakers and the general public. great recession from 2007-2009, but also frustration
among policymakers that student outcomes and transfer
OVERVIEW OF STUDENTS FIRST 7
CONNECTICUT’S RECENT JOURNEY TO REFORM
HIGHER EDUCATION (CONTINUED)
THE STUDENTS FIRST PLAN
s mentioned earlier, having been charged
between public institutions were not where they needed .
to be. The goal of the 2011 governance change was
to create greater oversight of public higher education
A by the BOR to come up with a plan to put the
system on sustainable path for the future in April
2017, Mr. Ojakian initially proposed two broad strategies to
institutions in the state and to realize cost savings from .
address the challenges CSCU faced:
the consolidation of the various system offices.
chevron-circle-right Administrative consolidation of non-student
In the four years following the adoption of the 2011
facing/administrative personnel across the CSCU
governance changes, the newly-formed CSCU experienced
college, university, and system offices.
considerable instability and turnover in senior leadership.
During this period, there were four different system heads chevron-circle-right Operational consolidation of the 12 community
before Mark Ojakian was named as the new President of colleges into one that is centrally managed and
CSCU in 2015. maintains its unique mission, geographic locations, and
local community connections.14
Ojakian has held this position since 2015 but announced
The first strategy, while not necessarily easy to accomplish,
his retirement in the summer of 2020. As the former chief
was largely within the purview of the BOR and the CSCU
of staff to Governor Malloy, Ojakian not only brought stability
leadership. The second strategy of consolidating the
to CSCU, but he also brought key political connections
community colleges, however, would require the approval
and firsthand knowledge of the thinking that led to the
of the regional accrediting agency — NECHE.
governance changes in 2011. With the new leadership in
place, Ojakian and his team turned their attention to the CSCU leadership and NECHE (at the time, still called New
lingering budgetary and performance challenges that had England Association of Schools and Colleges or NEASC)
led to the creation of CSCU four years earlier. staff held a series of informal conversations in the summer
and fall of 2017 for the purposes of communicating CSCU
The state budget was still problematic. State investments
Students First strategies to NECHE staff and receiving
in higher education had partially recovered from earlier .
advisement regarding how to proceed with the formal
in the decade, but those gains peaked in the 2015 fiscal
community college merger proposal. The NECHE staff
year as state policymakers again were wrestling with
recommended preparing a substantive change proposal,
budget constraints. At the same time, enrollments were
which CSCU then submitted in February 2018.
declining as the economy recovered and people went
back to work, which exacerbated the financial challenges The NECHE Commission, an elected body of at least 27
for community colleges. individuals from member institutions as well as the public,
reviewed the substantive change proposal. Two months
Amid these budget challenges, student outcomes were
later, in a setback for CSCU, the NECHE Commission did
not improving overall and the equity gap between Black
not approve this initial proposal. Two primary concerns
and Latinx students and White students was getting worse
were cited. First, despite the advisement to CSCU from
instead of better. CSCU leadership was primarily looking
the NECHE staff, the NECHE Commission argued that the
for a way to address the problem of financial instability,
substantive change framing was incorrect because they
but there was also growing concern about low student
perceived the change to be the establishment of a new
outcomes. Students First emerged as the main vehicle to
college, rather than a merger. Second, the Commission
address these issues.
felt the original two-year window, which was a little over
a year when they reviewed the proposal, was too short to
adequately address all the organizational, curricular, and
student support questions from the consolidation. As a
result of the NECHE Commission’s response, the CSCU
leadership had to regroup.15
In June 2018, the BOR approved a resolution that
reaffirmed their support for a singly accredited college
but with three regions and 12 local campuses as the best
approach to serving students in the state. The resolution
also extended the timeline for implementation to fall 2023.
OVERVIEW OF STUDENTS FIRST 8
THE STUDENTS FIRST PLAN (CONTINUED) chevron-circle-right Aligned college curricula statewide .
It was also at this point that student success became The plan called for continued work to align curricula
a much more central focus with the revised Students statewide. A general education core curriculum for
First plan calling for “a dynamic community college the merged community college is being developed
that leverages talents and capabilities to help students through relevant statewide committees. Faculty
attain their individual educational goals within available workgroups are engaged in making all curricular
resources and responds to community and state . decisions in consultation with campus faculty senates
needs.”16 The revised Students First plan, which is and academic administrators. The curriculum revisions
summarized below, was further refined, and resubmitted . are occurring in three rounds between September 2018
to NECHE in Spring 2020.17 and May 2021 to allow additional time for updating
registration and student data systems and addressing
chevron-circle-right New community college leadership any financial aid considerations ahead of the single
and regional structure college launch in August 2023.
To satisfy regional accreditor standards, the plan
chevron-circle-right Student enrollment and completion initiatives
maintains the 12 college-based chief executives, chief
The Students First plan uses Guided Pathways as the
financial and chief academic officers until the transition
framework to improve student enrollment, retention,
to a singly accredited institution in fall 2023. With the
and completion. Guided Pathways, as previous
transition to the single Connecticut State Community
described, is a national reform movement that involves
College there will be one CEO, CFO, and CAO that will
streamlining college processes and procedures to help
oversee all 12 campuses.
students navigate the institution more efficiently.
The plan also establishes a structure with three
Through various committees, faculty and staff are
regional presidents, who were hired in spring 2019.
collaborating with the CSCU Success Center to design
The 12 campuses will each have a local CEO who
new practices for the single college. In fall 2019, these
reports to one of the regional presidents. The role of the
efforts resulted in recommendations for a single
regional presidents is to promote greater connection
application to the community college and consistent
and collaboration within their respective regions. The
websites at both the system and the campuses to
three regions, which are illustrated below, are based
support enrollment, transfer, and transparency. The
on an analysis of the communities served, employer
work will also involve adopting technology to enhance
partnerships, and student enrollment trends. .
advising and student supports.
See Figure 2 Below
ASNUNTUCK
Enfield
NORTHWESTERN CT
Winsted
FIGURE 2 – MAP
QUINEBAUG VALLEY
Danielson
CAPITAL
Hartford
OF CONNECTICUT
MANCHESTER
Manchester
TUNXIS
Farmington
STATE COMMUNITY NAUGATUCK VALLEY THREE RIVERS
COLLEGE REGIONS
Waterbury MIDDLESEX Norwich
Middletown
GATEWAY
New Haven
HOUSATONIC
Bridgeport
Region 1: Capitol-East
NORWALK
Norwalk
Region 2: North-West
Region 3: Shoreline-West
OVERVIEW OF STUDENTS FIRST 9
Additionally, to reverse enrollment declines, improve
retention, promote timely completion, and generate
HOW THE WORK OF STUDENTS
revenue, CSCU hired a Vice President of Enrollment FIRST IS GETTING DONE
Management to serve the colleges and implement new
iven the magnitude of the changes that
G
strategies across the regions to support enrollment.
will be made to implement Students First, the
chevron-circle-right Shared services and shared resources CSCU leadership has created several statewide
across campuses. committees, workgroups, and taskforces to manage .
A core feature of the Students First plan is the the work.18 Figure 3 (see page 12) highlights the
integration and centralization of key administrative workgroup structure.
functions. Institutional research, marketing, facilities,
financial services, human resources, and information The group that is providing oversight for the whole process
technology will be consolidated with leadership is the College Consolidation Implementation Committee
provided centrally to functional teams at the campuses. (CCIC).19 The day-to-day work of implementation is
Cost savings from the consolidated functions are to be managed by two steering groups: The Students First
redirected to student supports on individual campuses. Academic and Student Affairs Consolidation Committee
In addition to the efficiencies to be realized through (SF ASA CC) and the Guided Pathways Task Force
statewide shared services, the regional presidents will (GPTF). The CCIC has 17 members and is primarily
also be working to achieve savings and economies composed of CSCU leadership and college presidents.
of scale by sharing resources across colleges in their This group receives reports from and provides approval .
areas including both administration and academic for all proposals from SF ASA CC and GPTF as required.
programming. By making better use of the talent in The CCIC also elevates proposals to the BOR as needed
the system, any savings identified in the region will be and appropriate.
reinvested in teaching and student supports. With 46 members, the SF ASA CC is focused primarily on
The plan also calls for building the capacity to identify needed changes to the curriculum and policies and sorting
new funding streams to support student success and through the process of consolidating the approaches at 12
programmatic initiatives and dedicated resources colleges into one.20 More specifically, this group, which is
for the hiring of a college-wide development officer composed of faculty, staff, and administrators from across
to lead these efforts. The individual campuses will the state, guides the alignment of academic programs,
maintain their local foundations to raise resources assessment, institutional data, websites, catalogs, etc.
from their communities. The regional presidents and The SF ASA CC was formed in January 2018. Several
campus CEOs will support the campus foundations workgroups are operating (or planned) under the purview
while looking for opportunities to share costs where of this committee:
appropriate as well as best practices.
chevron-circle-right Mission and Vision
As part of the ongoing work to implement Students First, chevron-circle-right General Education
CSCU provided progress reports to NECHE in April 2019
and June 2020 and continues to pursue a substantive chevron-circle-right Faculty Discipline
change to merge the 12 community colleges into a single chevron-circle-right Academic and Student Affairs Governance
accredited institution. Per feedback from NECHE, a critical
chevron-circle-right Academic and Student Affairs Policies
aspect of securing approval for the consolidation will require
that CSCU demonstrates that the “one” college is, in fact, chevron-circle-right Community Connections
operating as a single institution as 2023 approaches. chevron-circle-right Common Catalog
Arguably the biggest challenge the CSCU leadership faces
chevron-circle-right Concurrent Enrollment
is to maintain the 12 separate accreditations until 2023,
while simultaneously operationalizing the single college. chevron-circle-right Strategic Planning
This dual track creates a myriad of budgetary, staffing, and chevron-circle-right Assessment
communications issues, which will be explored in greater
detail later in the document.
OVERVIEW OF STUDENTS FIRST 10The CSCU Success Center established the GPTF . As we turn to how Students First is perceived among
to oversee the various workgroups formed to implement practitioners in the field, it is important to highlight that
Guided Pathways at scale for the Connecticut State there have been over 400 faculty, staff, administrators, .
Community College.21 With 29 members, the GPTF is and students who have been engaged in this process .
made up of faculty, staff, and administrators from across by serving on one of the various workgroups. While some
the state as well as CSCU System Office staff. . individuals were elected to serve by their peers and
Similar to the SF ASA CC, the GPTF supports the . others were appointed by the system or campus leaders,
following workgroups: there were also a considerable number of people who
volunteered to contribute their time and expertise.
chevron-circle-right Choice Architecture
chevron-circle-right Recruitment Architecture
chevron-circle-right Holistic Student Support Redesign
chevron-circle-right Maps and Plans
chevron-circle-right First-Year Experience
chevron-circle-right Website and Streamlined Application
chevron-circle-right Alignment and Completion of Math and English
chevron-circle-right Career and Transfer Readiness
chevron-circle-right Wraparound Services
FIGURE 3 – STUDENTS FIRST WORKGROUP STRUCTURE
College Consolidation
Implementation Committee
(CCIC)
Guided Pathways Students First Academic
Task Force and Student Affairs
(GPTF) Consolidation Committee
Banner and Technology (SF ASA CC)
Transition Team
(BATTT)
Choice Holistic Student Recruitment Shared
Architecture Support Redesign Architecture Governance
(Choice) (HSSR) (Recruitment)
Career and Faculty
First Year General
Transfer Discipline
Experience Education
Readiness Alignment
(FYE) (Gen. Ed.)
(CATR) (Round 1,2,3)
Program Maps
and Academic/
Alignment and Career Plans Website and
Completion of (Maps & Plans) Wrap Around Streamlined
Math and English Services Application
(ACME) (WASA)
OVERVIEW OF STUDENTS FIRST 11PERCEPTIONS
OF STUDENTS FIRST FROM THE FIELD
This section summarizes the major themes gleaned about the overall effort. All participants were
from the fourteen interviews conducted in early promised anonymity. Therefore, no individuals are
2020. Interviewees came from a variety of college identified by name.
faculty, staff, and leadership roles. Participants also
included a couple of individuals from the CSCU The themes and quotes below represent the
system office. Interviewees were identified in prominent views shared during the interviews and
partnership with system office staff and reflected reflect positive attitudes toward Students First,
a range of perspectives from those who strongly challenges that emerged throughout the process, and
support Students First to others who are skeptical suggestions for how implementation could be
improved so the entire effort can be more successful.
WHAT STUDENTS FIRST IS, WHY While some voiced reservations about creating “one”
college, they viewed the intent of the merger as eliminating
IT’S NEEDED, AND EARLY BENEFITS duplication and increasing efficiency in operations that will
hopefully lead to increased resources to support students.
his section explores what interviewees
T
Several participants in the interviews shared that they
perceived to be the purpose and core think Students First will allow the system to better meet
components of Students First. Participants’ . the needs of the state, communities, and students.
views of how the reform efforts are organized as well .
as the early benefits to the system are also explored.
If we step back a little bit, the impetus
for this is the equity gap and the
The primary purpose of Students First
achievement gap, and clearly our statistics
is to enhance student success for all
at both the university level and the
matriculants who are in Connecticut state
community college level — they’re abysmal.”
colleges and universities. It is basically a
focus on equity and excellence to ensure
that we provide not only access but the The quote above echoes a sentiment expressed by
opportunity for those students to finish.”
several participants that there is a growing recognition
among many of the college faculty and staff that the
As the quote above suggests, many of the individuals current situation in terms of student outcomes is neither
interviewed see the primary purpose of Students First to acceptable nor sustainable. They conveyed a sense of
be streamlining the student experience and eliminating urgency about equitably improving student outcomes and
structural barriers to improve outcomes — particularly for concern that the individual colleges are not in a financial
disadvantaged students. Furthermore, most participants position to accomplish the task. There was a hopeful
stated that the overall effort is also about creating “one” theme across the interviews that Students First, while
college through the consolidation of the 12 separate not perfect, is intended to shine a light on and organize
community colleges into a single-accredited institution. the system in a way to better address inequities among
student subgroups.
PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS FIRST FROM THE FIELD 12There are different processes at each
of the 12 colleges. Students have to
apply separately and there’s no ease of
transition from one campus to another
just to take courses to finish a degree.
That over-complication creates a lot of
barriers. So along with any economizing
that might happen because of consolidation,
I would hope that a more primary goal is
making things easier for students.”
Again, while not all the interviewees support
consolidation, most acknowledge the intent of
establishing one accredited college as enabling
students to move more freely among the campuses,
offering more programmatic options, and providing
the same level of support from location to location.
There was also a clear sense that, if done right, creating
one college might allow for greater collaboration and
knowledge sharing and also allow the colleges to
leverage resources in areas like technology, data, and
reporting, and shared purchasing power.
Most of the interviewees indicated that Students
First had created an opportunity to push people
out of their silos and has spurred dialogue across
campuses that have not happened in the past. While
several participants expressed concern that the “one
college” would diminish the mission and culture of the
individual colleges, others felt breaking down barriers
between institutions was a golden opportunity to better
serve students. In the end, several see the emerging
structures, such as standardized policies and practices
and centralized back-office functions, as helping
campuses change the way they operate for .
the better.
WHAT STUDENTS FIRST IS, WHY IT’S NEEDED,
AND EARLY BENEFITS (CONTINUED) Many described the numerous statewide committees
that have been organized to develop and implement
When asked about the core components of Students First,
the Students First plan. A number of those interviewed
most of those interviewed had a solid understanding
spoke of how these committees start at the ground-
of what the effort entails. The majority stated that
level with recommendations moving up the hierarchy
implementing Guided Pathways and the related framework
of committees and then onto system leadership, but
would lead to simplified structures that will make it easier
some indicated that the decision-making process was
for students to come to decisions about their educational
not clear. There was a broad acknowledgment that
and career options. Several participants shared a view
the committees have representation from across the
that Guided Pathways will help campuses shift from a
system; however, a subset suggested there are still
transactional mindset to one that is transformative for a
some groups that are not adequately engaged .
student’s experience.
(i.e. front-line staff, faculty).
PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS FIRST FROM THE FIELD 13KEY CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED communicate Students First messaging to their campus
constituents. Since this relatively young system, created in
DURING IMPLEMENTATION 2011, did not necessarily have the organizational structure,
norms, and expectations established at leadership levels
s with any sizable endeavor, there are
A
to ensure consistent messaging, the communication
likely to be challenges and set-backs. The challenges may have been amplified.
implementation of Students First is no different.
This section highlights the interviewee’s perspectives on . LEADERSHIP ISSUES/CHALLENGES
a variety of issues or challenges that have emerged. . A subset of the interviewees shared the view that system
The section is organized with subtitles to make it easier . leadership didn’t do enough to lay the groundwork at the
to follow. start of this effort. Examples mentioned include the lack
COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES/CHALLENGES of approval of the initial plan by regional accreditors and
the release of organization charts (or other documents)
without providing sufficient information that heightened
We haven’t found a way to really get people’s concerns and anxiety. With few exceptions, most
down in very common language that this
participants noted there is a lack of clarity about campus
is why we’re doing this, and this is what
we’re going to achieve for our students
leadership and the role of the regional presidents. As the
and our community. That’s just at the quote below indicates, interviewees said they have heard
core of what we have to say. We’re too from others that they don’t know who is actually in charge.
caught up in our procedures, process,
and structure that we haven’t gotten to
There is a lot of ambiguity in terms of
articulate the message at a very
leadership. Some of our campuses have
common, colloquial — or whatever term
a CEO in charge, and some still have
you want to use — way.”
Presidents in charge of the college. We
have Regional Presidents and no one
This quote is indicative of sentiments from most fully knows what their role is, or who
reports to whom, or who is truly leading
interviewees shared--that the communications and
the charge. Who is steering the ship?”
messaging around Students First has been totally
inadequate and primary reason for the resistance to the
reforms. Many stated that the early messaging focused too Due to the lack of clarity of roles, there was a sense
much on efficiencies and cost savings, rather than student among some participants that rather than reducing
success. This, in turn, created a strong counter-message administration and increasing supports for students,
for those who were not in favor of Students First. the system was adding more senior-level positions than
before. A few participants also mentioned the challenging
As the implementation process has progressed, several role of current college presidents. The presidents’ role
interviewees suggested there is a lack of a shared is changing so they are in a tough position. These
understanding about what’s happening throughout presidents have to do their current job and also be
the system, what the overall benefits are, and an open supportive of the changes that are coming. This has led
discussion about what the challenges are. Further, some to less than enthusiastic support from some campus
participants indicated that efforts to respond to criticisms leadership, which has also weakened the ability to rally
have not been particularly effective. They suggest that support on campus.
direct responses to controversial issues are needed,
but there seems to be a hesitation to address criticism GENERAL PERCEPTION/MINDSET ISSUES
head-on. Finally, several participants noted that because In various ways, all of the interviewees indicated that this
the consolidation is so closely connected with Guided process has created considerable mistrust across the
Pathways and the sense that it comes as a directive from state, making it more difficult to implement the changes.
the BOR and the system office, some resist all of it. Furthermore, the quote below represents a sense
expressed by most participants that the uncertainty about
System-level leadership pointed to another challenge
how the changes will impact individuals, their jobs, or
in communication: that the college leaders at each
their programs has caused significant anxiety.
individually accredited institution were not uniformly
supportive of Students First, and that the presidents
took it upon themselves to decide whether and when to
PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS FIRST FROM THE FIELD 14GOVERNANCE AND ACCREDITATION ISSUES
I think ultimately the best way to
summarize all the concerns is that the Several interviewees indicated that one of the major
message seems to be that this is about outstanding problems is the lack of clarity on governance
improving the institution’s effectiveness and that uncertainty surrounding this issue is feeding
and the student experience. But the a lot of the resistance. At the time of the interviews, the
bottom line is that it also has to save governance model for the one college had not been
money, and I think people worry about announced, and, as the quote below indicates, participants
how you save money without getting rid
highlight this as a major sticking point for faculty
of jobs?”
throughout the system.
Several people spoke about the need to do more to There’s the piece on what governance
support the champions of Students First while also looks like in this one college model. I
building support among those who are on the fence. Some think some of the individuals that are
said that not everyone can be convinced and . most vocal against Students First feel as
the system should not focus too much on the most vocal though they won’t have any say. And, so,
opposition. There were also several comments about I do think more time and emphasis needs
instances where individuals who have voiced support for to be placed on what a governance model
will look like.”
Students First have been ostracized by colleagues. This
dynamic has made it intimidating for others who .
are supportive to say so. Participants also articulated several accreditation-related
issues including the challenge of colleges maintaining
Most of the interviewees indicated that change of this their separate institutional accreditation while working
magnitude is difficult and resistance to change should not toward the transition and the outstanding question of how
be surprising — especially in higher education. Relatedly, programs with individual accreditation will be handled
several participants said that the amount of work involved to under consolidation.
implement these changes (on top of other responsibilities)
makes the 2023 implementation timeline unrealistic.
PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS FIRST FROM THE FIELD 15ISSUES WITH THE STATEWIDE COMMITTEES, THE this as appropriate given the magnitude of the changes.
INCLUSION OF OTHER VOICES, AND ADDRESSING However, as the quote below indicates, some also
RESISTANCE expressed concern because the system office staff don’t
Many of the interviewees highlighted the significant interact with students, don’t know what it is like to work
number of people involved in the various committees and on the front lines, and some don’t have a background in
groups working on Students First. The consensus was that higher education.
the system office has tried to be inclusive throughout this
process. While most acknowledged the open invitation to Most of the work isn’t happening at the
faculty and staff to join in the dialogue, some indicated that campuses. It’s happening in the system
more needs to be done to engage those on campuses who office and that’s another thing that I’m
are not involved, such as front-line staff (not just directors) concerned about. I know the vision is to
have this headquarters that is not on
and a broader representation of faculty from across the
campus. And I think that’s going to be
disciplines. To address this issue, there were suggestions
tough because I think then you’re
that other venues needed to be created for people to ask increasing the number of people that are
questions, share their concerns, and generally contribute not on a campus doing this work.”
to the conversation.
Many participants also talked about the vocal group of Relatedly, some participants highlighted the controversial
detractors (referred to as “reluctant warriors”) who are role of the Guided Pathways managers. Most of the
drowning out other points of view. As noted earlier, the interviewees indicated that the establishment of the
intensity of this opposition is making it uncomfortable managers’ role has been a good thing and these
for those who are supportive of Students First to say individuals have a strong background of working in
so publicly, but some of those interviewed also voiced the trenches with students. However, some have the
frustration that, despite invitations from system leaders, perception the managers, who have voting power on the
groups opposed to consolidation have not offered any statewide committees, are only representing the system
alternative approaches. office. As a result, the managers have been snubbed by
campus colleagues.
There probably could have been more NEED FOR DEEPER ENGAGEMENT WITH
active engagement with the union
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
leadership earlier on. Not necessarily
to try to get them on board, so to speak, In keeping with the sentiment that there are voices that
but just to make sure that that have not been adequately heard as part of this process,
communication was happening.” participants have encouraged more outreach to students,
their families, and alumni. As the quote below highlights,
In most of the interviews, the participants discussed the many of the interviewees also suggested that there
role the unions have played and the resistance they have should be a more concerted effort to engage community
organized to Students First. As the above quote suggests, organizations and leaders about how Students First will
some thought there could have been more done to involve impact them.
the unions in a more productive conversation. Some
also noted that the pushback from the unions has not We need to engage the local communities.
been particularly well organized, whether it was varying I mean high schools. Talking with the
approaches to votes of no confidence across campuses counselors because this impacts their
or more recent messaging pushing members not to students. Community organizations that
participate in statewide committees. serve many of the students that are coming
here. I mean grassroots organizations
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE AND VOICE OF THE and actual people that live in the
SYSTEM OFFICE community. So, talking to them about
what these changes mean for them.”
Several interviewees shared that there is a perception
in the field that the system office is dominating the
implementation process and has an outsized voice in
the process. Most who raised this issue generally saw
PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS FIRST FROM THE FIELD 16A handful of the participants pointed to the need for the their presence is seen as endorsing something that
system office to effectively engage state policymakers hasn’t been finalized or decided. Most noted that a richer
throughout the process. Interviewees noted that level of engagement will help to build deeper buy-in and
policymakers will not only make decisions about funding commitment to Students First.
for the system, but they also want to know that the system
of colleges is operating as effectively as possible for the Another important point several people raised was the
citizens and communities in the state. need to address questions and confusion about the
system, regional, and campus leadership. Interviewees
STEPS THE SYSTEM LEADERSHIP said bluntly, people need to know who is in charge and
what the relationship is between the different roles. As
CAN TAKE TO IMPROVE the quote below implies, the lack of clarity contributes to
IMPLEMENTATION the sense that there are simply a lot of new senior-level
positions under the new structure. Related to this, some
nterviewees were asked for suggestions of the participants indicated that the current campus
I that would make the implementation go more
smoothly and, ultimately, lead to Students First
leadership is not on board with the Students First plan
and that will need to change if the effort is going to .
being more successful. This section highlights these themes. be successful.
Following on the communication issues above, several
participants urged the system leadership to do more There’s a lot of bloat in the system office
storytelling that clearly articulates why all these changes right now. People are not understanding.
For example, why do you have college
matter, what progress is being made, and the challenges
presidents or CEOs and regional
ahead. They suggested getting away from jargon (ex. presidents. Why? Those are big-salary
Guided Pathways) and the focus on process or procedures positions. There are positions where you
and emphasize the underlying philosophy expressed in accomplish things, like counselors,
common language. advisors, faculty, financial aid people,
those kinds of people versus our regional
president. What is their function and
Going too fast can hurt you in the long why do you need to have the other one?
run. It’s all well and good to have a They need to really look at that extra
timeline as far as trying to make sure the layer of people.”
money works and all that. I know there’s
a lot to balance. But if you go too fast in
trying to create something that’s Finally, most of the participants acknowledged the
actually going to work, then you’re going
challenge of having to wait for the regional accreditors to
to create something that’s a mess.”
approve the consolidation. Several suggested that once
there is clarity on accreditation some of the resistance
In addition to the storytelling, many interviewees should settle down as things that have been abstract
suggested that the system leadership should be more to date (i.e. governance structures) can, importantly,
realistic about how they talk about the timeframe for become more concrete.
implementation. As the quote above suggests, it was
advised that the focus should be more about a period of
transition and less about the date when the “switch gets
flipped” to the one college.
Building on the previous comments about stakeholders,
many of the participants noted the need to deepen
authentic engagement with a range of voices, including
key groups within the system (especially the unions) as
well as the communities the campuses serve. Even among
people serving on the statewide committees, interviewees
noted that many are not taking ownership of decisions.
Furthermore, some people on the committees feel like
PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS FIRST FROM THE FIELD 17WHAT THE FUTURE WILL LOOK LIKE In several interviews, there were comments about how
consolidation will change what it means to be a system
FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGES IN of colleges, and to be successful, leadership at the
CONNECTICUT state and campuses will need to help faculty and staff
reconcile this shift. Furthermore, several noted that it will
he individuals interviewed were asked take some time and effort for communities to understand
T what they envisioned the future state would look
like once Students First was successfully
the changes.
Finally, while the majority of the interviewees were
implemented. This section reflects some themes from their optimistic about Students First, many said the key to
responses. It is worth noting again that these interviews success is to increase resources to support students.
occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic. A subset of the participants expressed concern about
the seeming growth in the administrative structures and
There was a strong sense among most of the interviewees
how this might work against the goal to boost frontline
that, if Students First is fully implemented as designed, the
student supports.
student experience will be greatly enhanced and outcomes
will improve. Relatedly, several participants, echoing the The intent of this publication and the interviews
sentiments in the quote below, noted specific aspects of summarized above has been to capture the perceptions
Guided Pathways that will lead to higher retention and about Students First at roughly the midway point in the
completion rates including the hiring of more advisors implementation process. The participants shared their
to guide students on their journey and building better honest assessments about what is working and what .
structures to monitor, track, and communicate with them. is not.
Interviewees revealed varying degrees of support for the
If we embrace Guided Pathways, I see a goals of Students First and the implementation process,
plethora of possibilities. I see my with some conveying considerable hostility to all or most
students, thriving and being resilient. If aspects of the work. Others were strong proponents of
we don’t put the support system in place the changes. Overall, it was clear each of the individuals
and we move in the direction of more interviewed was strongly committed to the students in
administrators, then this won’t work. It Connecticut and eager to see them succeed.
has to be about staff and faculty close to
the students.”
PERCEPTIONS OF STUDENTS FIRST FROM THE FIELD 18You can also read
