Improving Board Engagement with Educational Quality Institutional Case Report Templates Rhodes College Case Report 2013 Who We Are The institution, its mission and its board including composition and committee structure with particular attention to its committees and work focusing on student learning outcomes RHODES COLLEGE is a residential liberal arts college located in Memphis, Tennessee. Its origins are in the Clarksville (Tennessee) Academy, founded in 1837. The College has been through multiple name changes as well as a move from Clarksville to Memphis in 1925. The final name change, from Southwestern at Memphis to Rhodes, was made in 1984. Rhodes is a private, independent non-profit college; its Carnegie Classification is as a Baccalaureate College (Arts and Sciences). The college s mission statement reads in part as follows: Rhodes College aspires to graduate students with a lifelong passion for learning, a compassion for others, and the ability to translate academic study and personal concern into effective leadership and action in their communities and the world. Rhodes offers undergraduate degrees (B.A. & B.S.) in the following departments and interdisciplinary programs: Anthropology and Sociology, Art and Art History, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Biology, Chemistry, Commerce and Business, Economics, English, Environmental Studies and Sciences, Greek and Roman Studies, History, International Studies, Latin American Studies, Mathematics and Computer Science, Modern Languages and Literatures (Chinese, French, German, Russian, Spanish), Music, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Physics, Political Economy, Political Science, Psychology, Religious Studies, Theatre, and Urban Studies. The most popular undergraduate majors for students graduating in 2013 were: Commerce and Business (52), Biology (39), English (39), History (23), Psychology (21), Chemistry (20), and Economics (20). The above departments and programs also offer minors. In addition, there are interdisciplinary programs in the following areas that offer minors only: African-American Studies, Archaeology, Asian Studies, Film Studies, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Rhodes also offers a graduate (M.S.) degree in Accounting. In 2012-13 Rhodes had 207 Faculty members, of which 172 were full-time and 35 were part-time. Enrollment for 2012-13 was at 1927, with 1915 undergraduates (99% of whom were full-time) and 12 graduates (100% of whom were full-time). Rhodes College 1
The Rhodes College Board of Trustees (as reflected in Amended and Restated By-Laws of Rhodes College, effective January 19, 2007) The Rhodes College Board of Trustees consists of between 20 and 30 regular voting Trustees; there are also 3 non-voting Faculty Trustees and 3 non-voting Student Trustees. There are currently 29 regular voting Trustees on the Board. The Board has three Officers, which are the Chairman of the Board, the College President, and the Board Secretary. Trustees are elected for a 3-year term. They may serve up to 3 consecutive 3-year terms. At least 12 months must elapse before any Trustee may serve an additional 3-year term. Regular meetings of the Board are held at such time and place as the Board determines. Currently, the Board of Trustees meets three times a year (October, January, April) for a two-day session. Most meetings are held on the Rhodes campus. Committees of the Board are adopted by resolution (by a majority of the Trustees in office) on an annual basis. The current standing committees are: Committee on Trusteeship Committee on Student Learning (with academic oversight) Committee on Student Life Committee on Finance (including subcommittees on Investment and Building and Grounds) Committee on Audit The Committee on Student Learning is chaired by a regular voting Trustee and includes five other regular voting Trustees, one Faculty Trustee, and one Student Trustee. The Committee s meetings are also regularly attended by the Dean of the Faculty and one Associate Dean of Academic Affairs. The Dean of the Faculty sets the Committee s agenda in conjunction with the Committee Chair, who reports back to the full Board. In addition to the above committees, the Board has an Agenda Committee made up of the Chairman, the President (ex officio), and the chairs of all standing committees and sub-committees of the Board. This committee plans and guides Board processes and conducts, and develops agendas, formats, and schedules for meetings and other Board events. Between meetings of the Board, the Agenda Committee has supervision of the administration and property of the College except and unless specifically not empowered by the Board of Trustees to do so. In the absence of such limitations, the Agenda Committee has and exercises all the powers of the Board and the management of the business affairs of the College when the Board is not in session. Rhodes College 2
Our Starting Point Regarding Board Oversight of Student Learning (Summer 2012) Please describe your approach to board oversight of educational quality at the beginning of the project (Summer 2012) Our starting point in Summer 2012 was: 1. Board members expressed a general understanding of educational quality and the processes for ensuring that quality. Members were regularly presented with trend data and summaries of information related to high-impact practices, educational performance (e.g., GPA, retention, degree attainment), graduate success in entering graduate schools or acquiring employment, and rankings and ratings. 2. The process for learning these aspects of educational quality included (1) a packet of information in the board meeting preparation materials, including a balanced scorecard built to their specifications, (2) themes related to educational quality matters for every meeting, (3) Student Learning Committee reports and minutes, distributed to every trustee, (4) faculty and student presentations to the trustees at every meeting, and (5) orientation to educational quality for every board member upon joining the board. 3. Board members attitudes toward topics and issues in educational quality were exemplary. They stated their awareness of their responsibility for educational quality and accepted that responsibility, were eager to interact with faculty, staff, and students on matters of educational quality, and were careful to monitor the relationship between budgetary matters and educational quality. Moreover, trustees indicated a high level of satisfaction with educational assessment practices, efforts to improve learning, and program review policies and practices. 4. Trustees also expressed a desire to know more about the students in general, concerned to a minor degree that the students and faculty they met were not the norm but the exception. Their interest in the improvement of retention and degree attainment rates fueled this sentiment and the desire to meet more students and faculty members. Our goals and plans for the year were to: 1. Familiarize the board with the processes used to articulate, define, assess, and report the outcomes of specific student learning objectives, 2. Expose them to the norm of student achievement and educational quality, 3. Present to the trustees: (1) the foundations curriculum [i.e., general education curriculum], (2) a review of academic programs (e.g., majors and interdisciplinary programs), and (3) high impact practices (e.g., Fellowships, study abroad). For each of three major areas of student learning we planned to (1) explain and define the goals and/or expected outcomes, (2) demonstrate the variety of measurements designed and/or utilized, (3) explain the data collection procedures, (4) articulate the findings, (5) describe the dissemination of results to the campus community, and (6) explain how the results were used to effect changes. 4. Educate the board members given their lack of experience with the processes governing assessment. We planned to develop an approach for engaging the board in this area and assess its success. We anticipated a multi-method approach, in which we would survey board members concerning their interests on the various areas of student learning, their preferences for receiving information, and their satisfaction with the data presented. We knew that we might need to develop a more fine-grained understanding of their grasp and interest by conducting either a limited focus group or limited individual structured interviews with members of the Student Learning Committee of the Board. Rhodes College 3
Our Current Approach (Fall 2013) Please describe your approach to board oversight of educational quality at the conclusion of the project (Fall 2013) Board members receive all of the materials that they did in 2012, and they participate in all of the activities that they participated in 2012. Nothing of substance was removed from their materials or process. Added to their materials, however, are measures of academic progress to complement the general measures they received earlier. These measures are tied to the student lifecycle : The Student Lifecycle The student lifecycle is composed of four two-year phases: Pre-Rhodes Pre-Major Major Post-baccalaureate Each phase has milestones for the process during the period and the results of the period. The signs of success are negotiating the phase to the completion of all milestones and making the transition into the next phase. The indicators of each student negotiating the phase s milestones are documented transactions as the student completes courses on pace and with sufficient grades, pays bills, avoids debt, avoids conduct or Honor Code violations, and completes the culminating task or tasks. Above and beyond these minimal requirements are indicators of success such as participation in organizations, holding leadership positions, earning honors, fulfilling internship, fellowship, or study abroad requirements. Period Goals/Milestones Indicators Two years before Finish high school requirements, Confirmation of high school matriculation demonstrate understanding of Rhodes College and its expectations culminating in making a deposit and attending Open Rhodes transcript, diploma, enrollment deposit First two years of enrollment Second two years of enrollment Maintain satisfactory progress toward degree in terms of GPA, classes taken, hours earned, Foundation Requirements met, etc. culminating in declaration of major without conduct or honor violations Maintain satisfactory progress toward degree in terms of GPA, classes taken, hours earned, Major Requirements met, etc. culminating Earn Financial Aid SAP minimum requirements Complete four classes per term GPA at end of first year GPA at end of second year On track towards timely completion of the Foundation Requirements Avoid conduct violation Avoid Honor System violation Earn Financial Aid SAP minimum requirements Complete four classes per term GPA at end of third year Rhodes College 4
Two years after graduation in successful plan for graduate school or employment without conduct or honor violations Begin post-baccalaureate plan within 3 months of graduation GPA at end of fourth year Complete Foundation Requirements Avoid conduct violation Avoid Honor System violation Confirmation from alumnus/a of successful commencement of plan When we began this project, our trustees were most able to engage in issues of educational quality when the subject related to outcomes, especially persistence and graduation. The plan, as it stands now, is to attach discussions of educational quality to more frequent outcomes students achieve, especially on a term-by-term basis. For trustees, unless the students exhibit signs of distress that could reliably be associated with educational quality issues, there is little need for them to delve into the details of educational quality control. This perspective has been developed within board governance conversations in consultation with Dick Chait and other presidents, namely to keep trustee conversations at a strategic level and out of the managerial detail. Institutional assessment processes continue in the direction as planned, using a multi-method analysis. The benefits of this analysis are primarily related to process, namely the reflective discussions they promote, than the actual results. High Impact Educational Practices Per the plan, in addition to the finer measures of academic progress as indirect measures of educational quality, we are expanding the detail for high impact educational practices, as identified by George D. Kuh in High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter, (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2008). These practices include writing-intensive courses, internships, undergraduate research, service learning and communitybased learning, diversity and global learning, learning communities, collaborative assignments and projects, and capstone courses and projects. Because of the empirical support for the value of these practices, the board will receive an accounting of the students involved in each practice and the overlap as well as the timing of involvement. The Common Table Board and faculty interactions continue at the same frequency and in the same ways as before with one important exception. Trustees requested that the college develop a means for them to become more knowledgeable about the strategic issues of the college and informed by more parties on campus. Faculty members requested through their Faculty Governance Committee more contact with trustees and greater involvement with strategic concerns. In July 2012, President Troutt initiated the President's Common Table in response to these requests. The President's Common Table includes three trustees, three faculty members, a staff member, and a student. It functions as a conduit between the trustees, who charge it with strategic questions and tasks, and the internal college community, which offers feedback through related cross-functional common tables. In 2012-2013, the President's Common Table generated nine additional common tables composed of faculty, staff, and student members to discuss strategic matters of educational quality in response to the Rhodes College 5
board. These matters included (1) the alignment of personnel, energy, and funding to reduce obstacles to students in obtaining the educational resources they require; (2) the process by which students make connections to other students, faculty members, and other internal and external community members; and, (3) the future of teaching and learning in light of new pedagogies, tools, and means of scholarly communication. The results from this process offered trustees insight into the competitive environment for students, the challenges and obstacles facing the college and its students, and the opportunities available for resolving these problems. In short, the process accomplished much of the aims of the project we intended to submit for the Teagle study without overtaxing trustee time or attention span. Additionally, the process drew 75 more people into the conversations than would have been involved otherwise. Board processes for oversight of educational quality continue much as they were before, but they have better information drawn from more frequent samples and improved discussion opportunities while adhering to the perspective they have endeavored to establish at board meetings. Board-level student learning metrics Institutional assessment processes Ways and frequency in which the board and faculty interact (if they interact) Board processes for the oversight of educational quality How you got there The steps you took to increase board engagement with student learning outcomes assessment and educational quality and with what effect. We assessed the board members interest in educational quality assessment, and, as indicated above, they did express an interest, especially in terms of the entire student body. Our approach was to educate them in those processes and reassure them of the earnestness, professionalism, and comprehensiveness of our quality control processes. What we discovered was that the trustees trust the college and the accreditors, distrust their ability to comprehend the entirety of the process, and prefer a much higher level index or barometer of student success in order to determine whether there is any need for concern. This preference is similar to their preferences for other college reports, as well, including financial reports. Lessons from experience Please share the most salient lessons from your experience about how to further board oversight of educational quality What two or three things most facilitated your progress? What advice would you offer to others based on your experience? Instituting the Common Table and addressing discussion to matters of strategy made the biggest difference to board interest in and oversight of educational quality. The common Table gave them access to a broader cross-section of the campus and created a different kind of discussion in which staff, faculty, and students close to the detail of the college could view their concerns through a trustee lens and board members far from the detail could view their concerns through the perspective of the internal community. Most importantly, meeting the trustees needs in a way that acknowledged their limitations as well as their gifts and strengths; attending to their process and culture (i.e., Chait, Waller, etc.) and not Rhodes College 6
to ours; and respecting the difference in jobs and not trying to assimilate them nor trying to assimilate to them. Also making a big difference was attending to the importance of high impact educational practice as a differentiator for the college, given its urban location and tradition of experiential learning opportunities. The trustees could grasp quickly and easily the statistics related to these practices. The college could illustrate them in graphic form as well as in narrative and presentation. The trustees could also engage in conversation if presented with high-level indicators, as they had with retention and graduation rates before. What two or three things slowed progress? What lessons do you draw regarding pitfalls and sticky points? What advice would you offer to others based on your experience? The obstacles that slowed progress were entirely human and predominately cultural. The trustees have spent years refining their focus to high-level, non-operational information and discussions, and the mismatch of effort expended internally and the lack of expertise and time externally created problems. The college could easily overwhelm the trustees with information, especially new information. Recognizing the need for us to make the accommodations internally to the content, mode and manner of presentation, and pace of information made these obstacles less imposing. Additionally, we would offer the following advice based on our experience: Collaboration among diverse stakeholders is critical to a positive overall outcome; the role of Information Services/Institutional Research partners is especially essential Assess Board interest and expectations regarding educational quality matters and be responsive to Board interest/expectations Coordinate educational quality indicators to President s messaging and Institutional vision/mission Consider how national educational trends/high impact practices/best practices, etc. connect with Institutional markers of educational quality For further information contact: Name: Anita Davis Title: Associate Dean of Academic Affairs E-mail: adavis@rhodes.edu Phone number: 901-843-3989 Address: Rhode College, 2000 N. Parkway, Memphis, TN 38112 Assistant s Name: Judy Pierce Assistant s contact information: 901-843-3989; piercej@rhodes.edu Rhodes College 7