Communications Update

1. Communications Update Carnegie Classification Community Engagement Created by Julie Elkins, Ed.D. Director of Academic Initiatives National Campus Compact www.compact.org

2. Overview Definitions History of Carnegie Classifications Transformational change Requirements Challenges Timeline Stories from successful applicants Resources

3. Definitions Service Learning Community Engagement Partnerships Community Impact Systematic Assessment

4. Brief History The Carnegie Classification (1970) advancing educational research efforts  The classification has become one of the most reputable, comprehensive, and accessible systems. It identifies the characteristics of an institution.

5. How is it Used? Defining institutional identity Benchmarking Metrics development Creating operational goals

6. Elective Category In 2006, Carnegie instituted its first elective category. Community Engagement This will be the first of several new classifications that can provide a flexible, multidimensional approach to better representing institutional identities.

7. Elective Carnegie Classification Community Engagement Foundational Indicators • Institutional Commitment • Institutional Identity and Culture • Curricular Engagement • Outreach and Partnerships

8. Transformational Change (1) Alters the culture of the institution • Changes underlying assumptions • Changes institutional behaviors, processes, and products (2) Deep and pervasive, affecting the whole institution (3) Intentional (4) Occurs over time

9. Typology of Change Depth Pervasiveness Adapted from Eckel, Hill & Green (1998)

10. Community Engagement Collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity.

11. Elective Classifications Elective classifications enable the Foundation's classification system to recognize important aspects of institutional mission and action that are not represented in the national data.

12. 2006 Community Engagement Classification 107 were accepted to apply 89 campuses applied for the “classification” 76 were granted the new elective status 67 were Campus Compact members

13. 2006 Community Engagement Classification 44 are public 32 are private 36 are doctoral granting universities 21 are master’s colleges or universities 13 are baccalaureate colleges 5 are community colleges 1 has a specialized arts focus

14. 2008 Elective Classifications Numbers • 120 successfully classified • 69 public • 58 private • 38 doctoral-granting • 52 masters • 18 baccalaureate • 9 community college • 3 specialized focus- arts, medicine, technology

15. Why seek the Community Engagement Classification? Legitimacy Accountability Catalyst for change Institutional identity and market niche Institutional self-assessment and self-study.

16. Challenges Assessing community’s perspective Roles for the community Demonstrating reciprocity Specific outcomes Support for faculty Changes in promotion and tenure Counting engagement as service

17. Classification Designations Curricular Engagement Outreach Partnerships Curricular Engagement and Outreach Partnerships

18. Curricular Engagement Teaching, learning and scholarship Address community identified needs Deepen student civic and academic learning Enhance community well-being

19. Outreach and Partnerships Outreach: Reciprocal benefits Partnerships: collaborative interactions mutually beneficial exchange

20. Self Study Process • Focuses institution-wide attention • Assures public of institutional quality • Supports institutional improvement • Creates critical data sets and ongoing record keeping • Facilitates decision making and planning • Spurs institutional strategic change

21. Important Components • Mission – Vision – Values • Marketing – catalogs, websites • Celebration, awards • Budgetary support • Infrastructure • Strategic plan • Leadership – Chancellor - President • Faculty development

22. Strengths of Successfully Classified Institutions • Alignment of institutional identity, culture, & commitments • Common definitions, language, and priorities • Attention to record keeping and reporting

23. Curriculum Challenges • Assessment that is intentional, systematic institutionalized, and used for improvement • Multi-levels of assessment – student learning outcomes, programmatic effectiveness, and institutional intentions • Support of and for recruit/hiring practices and promotion/tenure rewards

24. Tips from Recently Classified Institutions • Appoint a leader • Use as motivation for change or new directions • Conduct interviews, scan websites, develop instruments, etc. • Dedicated time and resources

25. Documentation Framework • Institutional Identity and Culture • Mission statement • Campus-wide awards • Assess community perceptions • Market community engagement • Executive leadership

26. Documentation Framework Institutional Commitment • Campus-wide coordinating infrastructure • Internal funding • External funding • System-wide tracking

27. Institutional Commitment Documentation Examples: • Commitment on the part of leaders • Strategic plan • Budgetary allocations (internal/external) • Infrastructure (Centers, Offices, etc.) • Community voice in planning • Faculty development • Assessment/recording mechanism • Promotion and tenure policies • Transcript notations of student engagement • Student “voice” or leadership role • Search/recruitment priorities

28. Time Line Registration- Feb.1 – March 31, 2010 Application Released April 1, 2010 Due - September 1, 2010

29. Meet the Recipients

30. Lesson Learned Decision to Apply Who decides? What process is used? Who oversees the process? What roles are important to designate? What resources are need to apply?

31. Lessons Learned Gathering Data Curricular • Identifying faculty-driven, student-affairs driven and student-driven work • Courses • Syllabi • Linkages to the community (local, state, national, global)

32. Lessons Learned Partnerships Participation from the beginning Transparent timeline with community partners Compelling evidence Outreach: application and provision of resources Partnerships: collaborative scholarship for the mutually beneficial exchange, exploration, and application of knowledge, information, and resources

33. Resources Campus Compact Website Re-thinking and Re-framing the Carnegie Classification Carnegie Community Engagement Attaining Carnegie Community Engagement Classification- NC State

34. Completed Applications Campus Compact Website 2008 • Miami Dade College • Mount Wachusett Community College • Occidental College • Otterbein College • San Jose State University • University of Louisville • University of Wisconsin-Madison • Villanova University • Weber State University

35. Critical Questions and Answers Q If we already have the classification do we need to reapply in 2010? A Campuses that have received the classification do not need to reapply in 2010. Q How long is our classification for? A All schools that seek the elective classification must apply in 2015, and subsequently every five years there after.

36. Still have questions? John Saltmarsh- New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE) (john.saltmarsh@umb.edu) Tel: 617-287-7743 Amy Driscoll-Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching driscoll@carnegiefoundation.org