Running head: STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 1

Artifact C1: Student Success and Inclusive Excellence

Hope E. Howard

Seattle University
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 2

Introduction

This paper is the culmination of three site visits to a diverse range of institutions of higher

education in the state of Washington. The first, Seattle Pacific University (SPU), is a Christian

four-year university that is committed to engaging the culture and changing the world by

graduating people of competence and character, becoming people of wisdom, and modeling

grace-filled community (Mission, Signatures, and Vision, 2016). The second, the University of

Washington (UW), is a three-campus, four-year public flagship research university committed to

the preservation, advancement, and dissemination of knowledge (Role and Mission, 2016).

The third is Seattle Central College (SCC), a two-year community college serving over 16,000

students per year with the mission of providing opportunities for academic achievement,

workplace preparation, and service to the community (Our Mission, 2016). The following

pages integrate observations at the three sites with current research on student success and

inclusive excellence.

Integration & Synthesis

Student success for inclusive excellence is providing opportunity for students from all

walks of life to learn and grow. It is breaking down the current system of higher education and

adapting to more diverse student populations. It is integrating and centering the lives of the

underrepresented in order to equalize the playing field and give those students an equitable

chance at achieving their goals. For the institution, this requires significant change in mindset,

strategic goals, and leadership. For the student, this means overcoming a multitude of obstacles

physically and emotionally that tell them you cant do this. And for the community, this can

result in a more diverse range of talents to be utilized to better the workforce and our community

at large.
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 3

Kuh et al. (2015) argue that it is the job of the institution to ensure that the main thing is

student learning (p.195). Student engagement, according to Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt (2010) is one

of the best predictors of success because it is more likely students engaged in educationally purposeful

activities will benefit from college to the extent they should (p.8). By this reasoning, students who are

engaged in learning, in and outside of the classroom, should be successful. However, Student Affairs

professionals know that there are many barriers to student success: finances, familial commitments,

mental health, and so on (Kuh et al., 2006). The system of higher education was not built for diverse

identities, such as ethnic minority, low-income, and students with disabilities (Thelin, 2011). In order to

make college a more equitable experience for those students from marginalized backgrounds, the

institution and, thus, Student Affairs professionals must remove barriers to success. Successful

programs will address barriers in order to give students a more equitable start, continue to support

students in the unique ways they need it, and address institutional structures that create the barriers in the

first place. In the next pages, three successful strategies observed in the site visits are presented and

analyzed: (1) removing barriers to success, (2) equity-minded and intrusive approach, and (3) aligning

with the institutional mission.

Removing Barriers to Success

At UW, Britt Neff of Disability Resources for Students says by removing barriers we help

[students] show what they know and allow them to achieve their goals. Accommodations for students

with a disability give access to materials or classroom experience that puts them in a similar situation as

their peers. Similarly, the UW TRiO program works to build a community for the low-income, first-

generation students they serve because they know that familial and social contacts can provide

instrumental support for Students of Color to navigate through college (Yosso, 2005). Fowler and

Boylan (2010) state that developmental educators can increase student success and retention outcomes
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 4

by also addressing nonacademic and personal factors related to student success. The Completion Coach

who works through SCCs TRiO program works to get to the root of his students problems by

addressing their mental health needs. At SCC, the SAILS program works to support students on the

Autism Spectrum Disorder. Alison of the SAILS program says overlay disability over your regular

developmental place and its even harder to succeed. Many students on the spectrum lack social skills

and confidence, so the SAILS staff work to support and encourage their unique social and academic

needs, while allowing for the students independence and self-authorship (Baxter-Magolda, 2003).

According to Pizzolato (2003), self-authorship is a process that can be temporarily shut down by

privilege, so it is important that high-risk students receive support that encourages them to take

ownership of their educational journey rather than providing the formula for success on a metaphorical

silver platter.

All these programs work to remove barriers to equalize the playing field for their students.

These programs are successful because they address the root issue of why their students would

otherwise be behind their peers, providing support and accommodations that give their students an

equitable chance to succeed. These programs also provide support to the families of students, helping

them understand how to let the student be self-sufficient whilst providing support. Both DRS and

SAILS also mentioned that their work extends into the academic side, as they often partner with faculty

on academic accommodations and helping faculty as well as the wider campus community understand

their students unique needs.

These programs are successful in part due to their narrow focus on specific student populations.

With a narrow focus, they are able to concentrate their efforts and fully understand the students whom

they are working to support. In contrast, a program serving a wide range of students would need to cater

to all students, allowing for less specific programming and less focus on removing the barriers of
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 5

specific, unique groups of students. In adapting student services to another environment (SDA LO#5),

these programs would have to balance their narrow focus with the size of the institution. At a larger

institution, it becomes more necessary to focus on a smaller group of students in order to provide the

same quality of support.

While TRiO is required to track its students, DRS and SAILS should integrate evidence of

student success into their program in order to prevent initiative fatigue (Kuh et al., 2015). SAILS, being

a fairly new program, is situated to use assessment data to back up its efforts and secure long-term

funding. During our site visit, however, it did not seem that SAILS had a plan for collecting or

analyzing evidence of its success in helping students achieve their goals. Implementing the assessment

cycle as presented in Kuh (2015) would allow SAILS to create a plan, assess, and implement changes as

they grow into their third year of serving students. Additionally, within its small, two-year institutional

context, SAILS is primed to increase continued support with the graduates of its program. DRS, within

its larger institutional context could stand to increase its continued support and focus on building a more

transformative relationship (Heisserer & Parette, 2002) between DRS staff and the students they serve.

Equity-Minded and Intrusive Approach

Another strategy utilized to improve student success is an equity-minded approach in which staff

reject a deficit-view of students who are struggling and opt for the view presented in Yossos (2005)

Community Cultural Wealth. Viewing students as perfectly capable and apt, it becomes apparent that it

is not a lack of intelligence that is the reason for their struggle. Instead, this view of students allows

staff to highlight students capital and support them in building upon their weaknesses through a high-

touch, intrusive model of advising and/or teaching (Brock, 2010). Intrusive advising, a method that is

built on high student contact with faculty and staff, has been shown to improve the graduation rates in

community college student populations such as students who are ethnic minorities, are academically
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 6

underprepared, have disabilities, or are of low socioeconomic status (Fowler & Boylan, 2010; Heisserer

& Parette, 2002; Smith, 2007).

At the University of Washington, Ryan Burt of Academic Support Programs (ASP) says how to

be successful means something different at an R-1. He argues that UW students need to be more

proactive and they need to know how to ask for and utilize resources. ASP works primarily with

students who are not yet independent learners, approaching their instructional work with an intrusive,

high-touch approach that involves calling students who miss a class or do not turn in an assignment.

ASP provides an individualized, high-touch experience for students that is tailored to where the student

is currently in their developmental track (Vygotsky, 1978). Working in tandem with their tutor-mentors,

who role model good study behaviors, the ASP staff works more like a program at a small college or

community college to normalize failure and challenge students to push themselves to the next level.

At Seattle Central College, Project Finish Line is a Gates Foundation grant-funded program that

includes two full-time Completion Coaches, Meghan and Bo. They work to improve completion rates,

prioritizing students who have stopped out after completing most, but not all, of their degree. Meghan

says that a lot of her work is to address the places in our process that trip students up, such as not

completing a graduation application despite completing all degree requirements. One of Meghan and

Bos strategies is to call students who do not register for the quarter, checking in not only about

enrollment but other barriers and helping them find resources to assist them in returning to SCC. Bo and

Meghan also take intrusive measures to balance students short-term definition of success with an

explanation of the long-term effects of taking a job before finishing their degree. Meghan says

encouraging professional-technical students, who see a job as 100% success, to finish their degree

before leaving for a job opportunity requires intrusive advising. The historical open-access mission of

the community college, according to Brock (2010) is shifting to a focus on student success in the form
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 7

of completion due to new state funding model that focuses on the outcome of graduation. Meghan and

Bo express frustration that the shift toward funding associated with completion means community

colleges do not get the credit for the work they do.

One of the main reasons the intrusive approach is successful is that the staff are equity-minded

practitioners as presented in Dowd and Bensimon (2015). As equity-minded practitioners, they attend to

a more inclusive view of educational excellence that rejects colorblindness and works to address

institutionalized racism (Dowd & Bensimon, 2015). Equity-minded staff take the time to perform

individualized contact with each of their students, which takes a lot more time and effort than other

programs who do not reach out to students exhibiting early warning signs. Early warning systems,

according to Kuh et al. (2006), are especially important for students who start college with two or more

risk factors and are most effective if they provide a support network of faculty and peer mentors and

address academic as well as social difficulties adjusting to college. As such, this approach also focuses

on building an important, supportive relationship beyond the typical student-staff interaction, which

provides the student with the university champion which we know is vital to student success (Heisserer

& Parette, 2002; Klem & Connell, 2004).

The intrusive approach has many challenges: it requires more time per student, many staff feel an

intense concern about whether their students are okay, and many of these programs operate within a de-

centralized system of resources, such as the mini-city of UW, according to Leslie Ikeda of ASP. This

approach works best for programs with small numbers of students, as the staff are more likely to have

the time for intensive follow-up with each student. One way of improving this strategy would be to

integrate the use of technology (Macfadyen & Dawson, 2010) to track students and issue email follow-

up with early signs such as missing a deadline, perhaps allowing staff to free up some time and even

possibly to adapt this to larger populations of students (SDA LO#7). Even so, the addition of
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 8

technology could undermine the capacity for building the meaningful personal relationship that makes

intrusive advising so successful. Another suggestion would be to implement an assessment loop (Kuh et

al., 2015) in which the data each program has gathered on the success of their intrusive approach is not

only analyzed to identify areas for further improvement, but utilized to inform change. Kuh et al. (2015)

warns that the ease of assessment activity contributes to the widespread tendency to overemphasize the

collection of data and ignore the use of evidence (p.57). Many of these programs expressed that they

feel their students get more out of the intrustive approach, and some have gathered extensive data on

their students improved outcomes but no one discussed how to use the results of their assessment to

improve current programming and continue to fill gaps (Kuh et al., 2015).

Aligning with the Institutional Mission

Successful programs are those that not only align with institutional mission and strategic plan but

help to push forward the institutions goals for student learning (Kuh et al., 2015). In order to do so,

they center evidence of student learning, addressing gaps in the institutions work toward student

success. Kuh (2015) asks Does the campus have goals for student learning that are not being met at a

satisfactory level? Or that certain groups of students are finding difficult? (p.196). By aligning with the

goals of the institution, the programs are more likely to gain support and funding for a sustainable, long-

term program. In order to secure funding, they must prove their work is helping the institution move

toward its goals.

By aligning with the institutional mission, programs across campus can identify their common

goals and work together to provide stronger, more streamlined program/support to students.

Collaboration, according to Kuh et al. (2015), can help mitigate initiative fatigue by reassuring campus

leaders of the value of the connections and the potential synergies from their respective efforts

(p.194). Kuh (2015) says the bottom line is this: no initiative funded or unfunded should be
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 9

launched without clear connections to the whole (p. 195).

Programs also choose to get creative with funding through collaborations with other departments

working toward similar goals. One example of this is TRiO at the UW, which sits within the larger

Office of Minority Affairs and Diversity (OMA&D), providing TRiO access to grant funding, state

funding, and private funding. When limitations are put on grant funding, for example, TRiO can work

collaboratively with OMA&D and other campus partners to provide important student success resources

such as the Instructional Center for academic tutoring.

Guided pathways (GP) is a framework for student success initiatives that SCC has been

considering whether to implement for about one year now. Because it started at 4-year institutions, there

is not much evidence of its effectiveness, especially at 2-year schools. The definition of success in GP is

that students choose a program early, have an educational plan early, and know which classes they need

to take to execute the plan. Kate Krieg, Associate Dean in Arts & Sciences at SCC has a skeptical view

of GP. She says that there is a problem of deciding too early, which limits students options and this

disproportionately affects marginalized student populations. She asks of GP: How does it address

equity at all? Krieg doubts GP could be flexible and high-touch enough to achieve SCCs mission of

equity. These concerns highlight the tension caused by a shift in community colleges from access to

success as discussed in Jenkins (2011). Jenkins notes, in a review of research on strategies for

improving rates of student success, that improvements in organizational performance result from

implementation of complementary sets of organizational practices, (p. 30) not just one program or

departments efforts but a cohesive campus-wide policy and program change that aligns with the goals

of the institution. I believe that Kate is asking all the right questions at SCC, but its taken them a years

time and they are still considering whether to implement Guided Pathways.

Similarly, I believe that Jeff Jordan at SPU is effectively utilizing his relationships across campus
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 10

to create a cohesive Falcon Formation that dovetails academic and co-curricular realms to center the

student experience. Falcon Formation is a cohesive effort of the Student Life division to identify their

common goals and language, creating a framework with the goal of providing more unified student

services. However, the Falcon Formation framework is strictly internal, only being shared with staff and

faculty rather than transparent to students or other stakeholders such as parents or potential employers.

This type of framework for the student experience is ripe with potential to unite and excite students and

their families, allow them to market the student experience, and to use a common language for what

SPU defines as success, especially for its growing diverse student populations.

The process of aligning with institutional mission is key to securing funding and support from

institutional leadership. But this process can be a cumbersome one that requires much time and effort on

the part of Student Affairs professionals. This process also requires the analysis of evidence of student

success, which many Student Affairs professionals agree is not a strength of the field. A heavier focus

on gathering and utilizing evidence of student success would allow Kate to present her concerns with

Guided Pathways to leadership in a way that allows an evidence-based decision to be made (SDA

LO#7). Additionally, utilizing the NILOA Transparency Framework presented in Kuh et al. (2015)

would allow all programs discussed above to integrate evidence of student learning, to improve

programming, and to share their results with the community and leadership. For example, by sharing

student learning outcome statements, SPU could clearly outline the skills, knowledge, and habits

students are expected to acquire through Falcon Formation and their time at SPU. This would

intentionally design a campus environment that encourages learning (Kuh, 2006) where first-generation

students, for example, fully understand what to expect out of college beyond that of academic or content

knowledge. SPU prides itself on engaging the culture and changing the world (Mission, Signatures,

and Vision, 2016) and increasing transparency for what students should expect to gain from their college
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 11

experience would allow them to push their current efforts to an innovative best practice.

Reflection

Student success for inclusive excellence is making sure that all students reach the goals

of higher education, some of which include learning, professional preparation, and development

as a productive member of society. It became apparent throughout our site visits that different

departments focus on various outcomes for student success, depending on the mission and,

thus, funding of the institution. The three most meaningful concepts I learned from the site

visits and course readings include: students matter, funding matters, and size matters, which I

will explain in the following reflection. In order to help students succeed, we must consider the

students needs, what is needed to create a sustainable support program, and the size of the

institution and department. All of these factors, and many more, influence the success of student

services and, thus, student success.

Professional Interests

These site visits have allowed me to deepen my professional interest in small programs,

such as TRiO and Academic Support Programs (ASP), that operate under a student-centered

approach to success. I was surprised to see the success of these small programs at larger

institutions, which I had expected to pale in comparison to similar programs at smaller schools.

However, I found that, perhaps due to abundance of resources, programs like TRiO at the

University of Washington are doing equally well as TRiO at Seattle Central. I approach my

work with concern for getting to the root of the problem, which is similar to the Seattle Central

College TRiO Success Coachs concern for his students mental health and financial stability in

addition to the surface-level problems they readily present to him. These smaller programs align
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 12

well with my motivations for pursuing student development as I aim to see students grow in their

personal and professional endeavors while in college.

Experiencing these site visits has also encouraged me to explore my professional interest

in career services. I see career services as the intersection between students definition of

success, which often relates to job preparation, and administrators definition of success, which is

often retention. At the community college, the open access mission, student populations

enrolled, and abundance of professional-technical programs mean that many students are there to

get a better job and make a better life for themselves. One could argue that students attending

larger universities have a similar goal in mind, although for them it is more about thriving rather

than surviving. Career services is tasked with the work of figuring out the students core values,

motivations, and looking forward to building experience and finding opportunity to make an

impact on society.

Current Professional Practice

In regards to my current professional practice, the site visits have shown me that funding

matters and have encouraged me to examine the connection between funding at a private

institution, such as Seattle University, and student success. In comparison to the publicly funded

institutions, Seattle University has a lot of leeway in how it decides to spend money. Being a

private institution also allows for departments such as mine, Wellness and Health Promotion, to

take a holistic approach to student success as we are able to provide expensive trainings, invite

famous speakers, and discuss issues of religion and wellness. However, the allocation of money

at a private institution can have negative affects on students of marginalized identities. For

example, in the past year, at least one member of the Health and Wellness Crew (HAWC) had to

leave the team due to personal financial struggles. I have been challenged to question my idea of
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 13

student success for the members of the Health and Wellness Crew (HAWC) and look deeper into

the systematic causes of these challenges. In my recruitment for this years team, I began to

think about who is capable, financially, to apply to such a demanding volunteer position? This

has caused me to think about what I can, in my power, do to change the allocation of funding to

provide them a stipend so that low-income students too can grow in their leadership practice as a

member of HAWC.

Different funding models at private versus public institutions also mean that Student

Affairs professionals at private institutions are more readily able take a more holistic view of

student success. For example, at Seattle Pacific University, the holistic approach presented in the

Falcon Formation and emphasis in all departments on the growth and development of students is

a testament to privately funded programs which do not have to answer to state funding

definitions of success. Although my past work has been at the University of Washington, a

public school, this has me thinking about whether I would want to work at a private institution

because of the space to talk about students holistic development, the flexibility provided in

funding, and its alignment with what I want to do, which is to have an impact on students

personal and professional growth. Yet seeing how the Academic Support Programs staff at the

UW affect change and advocate for their students is also inspiring and I wonder if I am up for

that challenge if I find the right (likely small) office or department.

Future Professional Practice

As far as my future professional practice, I have realized that institutional size matters.

This course has allowed me to narrow in on what I want out of my future professional practice

and highlighted the fact that it must align with my values. I believe that I would be up to the

challenge of working at a larger institution, like the University of Washington, again given the
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 14

opportunity to work in a smaller, more narrowly-focused program. When I worked at UW, I

worked in the general advising office and felt tension between my generalist job description and

my desire to participate in high-touch, intrusive advising as described above. A small program,

even within a large school, allows for a focused definition of student success and ample

opportunity to have a deep, meaningful relationship with the students I serve. In the past, I

worked in a large office as a general adviser and it was unfortunately a rarity that I saw the same

student more than once. Thus, this did not fulfill my desire to see students grow. I also felt the

interaction between myself and students was more transactional than transformative, due to the

nature of academic advising and the expectations of the student. If I worked in a smaller office,

like Academic Support Programs (ASP) for example, students would expect me to invest more

time into them and they would likely seek out a meaningful relationship with me.

Continual Growth for the Future

Moving forward, it is important for me to gain professional experience in a myriad of

different offices, institutions, and departments in order to broaden my experience. Gaining

experience in new areas would allow me to deepen my understanding of higher education and

the challenges various offices face. With this experience, I would become a stronger practitioner

in that I would be able to more readily adapt strategies for student success to different

departments.

Additionally, I need to continue honing in on my values and motivations in order to

ensure that I am grounded in my reasoning for working in the field of Student Affairs. Working

in student services is not easy, so having a foundation in who I am and what I need to stay

motivated is key as a new professional. Another key piece for me is to continue introspection on

my identities, privileges, and biases to improve my cultural competence and, therefore, my

STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 15

ability to help underrepresented students navigate the university successfully. I will also need to

maintain a commitment to being a lifelong learner in order to strengthen my areas for

improvement and my abilities as a practitioner overall.

Lastly, I must continue to build and utilize a network of support. Prioritizing spending

time and putting effort into building supportive relationships with colleagues will help my

continual development as a practitioner. Maintaining relationships with old mentors and

building relationships with new mentors will allow me to learn from more seasoned

professionals within and around my immediate Seattle network so that I can continue to observe

promising practices for student success and inclusive excellence.

STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 16

References

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2003). Identity and learning: Student affairs' role in transforming higher

education. Journal of College Student Development, 44(2), 231-247.

Brock, T. (2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to success. The

Future of Children, 20(1), 109-132.

Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Engaging the" race question": Accountability and

equity in US higher education. Teachers College Press.

Fowler, P. R., & Boylan, H. R. (2010). Increasing student success and retention: A

multidimensional approach. Journal of Developmental Education, 34(2), 2.

Heisserer, D. L., & Parette, P. (2002). Advising at-risk students in college and university settings.

College student journal, 36(1).

Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student

engagement and achievement. Journal of school health, 74(7), 262-273.

Kuh, G.D., Ikenberry, S.O., Jankowski, N.A., Cain, T.R., Ewell, P.T., Hutchings, P., & Kinzie, J.

(Eds). (2015). Using evidence of student learning to improve higher education. Thousand

Oaks: Jossey Bass

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to

student success: A review of the literature. In Commissioned report for the national

symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success.

Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an early warning system

for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588-599.

Mission, Signatures, and Vision. (2016). Seattle Pacific University. Retrieved from:

http://spu.edu/about-spu/mission-and-signatures
STUDENT SUCCESS AND INCLUSIVE EXCELLENCE 17

Our Mission. (2016). Seattle Central College. Retrieved from:

http://seattlecentral.edu/about/mission.php

Pizzolato, J. E. (2003). Developing self-authorship: Exploring the experiences of high-risk

college students. Journal of college student development, 44(6), 797-812.

Role and Mission. (2016). University of Washington. Retrieved from:

http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/BRG/RP5.html

Smith, J. S. (2007). Using data to inform decisions: Intrusive faculty advising at a community

college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(10), 813-831.

Thelin, J. R. (2011). A history of American higher education. JHU Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the

development of children, 23(3), 34-41.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community

cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91.