The Frontier Set was a select group of high-performing, high-potential colleges, universities, state systems, and supporting organizations committed to eliminating race, ethnicity, and income as predictors of student success by transforming how institutions operate. They came together to understand transformation, collaborate, and share insights with the foundation and one another. The key insight: Equity-focused transformation is possible.

As you review the insights about the individual components of transformation, the key drivers that make it possible and help sustain it, keep in mind that while each is discussed separately, in practice they are very much interconnected.

The People Involved in Transformation

Transformation, as observed in the Frontier Set, is not just a technical challenge — it is a human one. A common theme among all Frontier Set institutions was the critical role and competencies of people effectively contributing to their institution’s transformation journey. Though individuals who drive transformation vary by institutional type, culture, and available resources, transformation happens when people demonstrate communication that fosters collaboration. The importance of people was consistent across all sectors of Frontier Set institutions and is highlighted in all four insight articles.

Senior leaders in cabinet-level positions, such as presidents or provosts, set bold visions for equitable student success that sparked transformative change. They supported these visions by setting goals in strategic plans, aligning appropriate structures, committing resources, and opening communication channels. Mid-level leaders, such as deans, department chairs, and vice-provosts, built relationships, fostered buy-in and collaboration, and coordinated key initiatives to expedite change. In departments such as advising, information technology (IT) and institutional research (IR), core and frontline staff provided the infrastructure, tools, and resources needed to identify and address student success barriers and monitor progress. While their job titles and actions varied by institution, people were the engine of the transformation process in all cases.

Senior Leaders Set the Vision

As discussed in Catalysts That Ignite Transformation, leaders should create and widely communicate a clear vision for equitable student success supported by goals prioritized in strategic plans. Institutional change requires leaders to help the individuals driving transformation connect to the institutional vision and to work collaboratively to take actionable steps toward progress. Clear and consistent communication of the vision is key: A leader who effectively opens communication channels, articulates their strategic priorities, and encourages and empowers others to act on that vision, sparks transformational change.

Mid-Level Leaders Do the Heavy Lifting

The Insights To Act On: Mid-Level Leader’s Role in Accelerating Equity-Focused Transformation, points out that the responsibility to implement senior leadership plans often falls to mid-level leaders. They sit at the intersection of the strategic vision set by leaders and the practical realities on campus. Mid-level leaders translate, communicate, engage, and act as a bridge between senior leaders, core and frontline staff, faculty, and students. Their ability to engage stakeholders across different departments to influence student success-related decision-making is essential to developing and implementing equitable change.

Sinclair Community College described the multi-faceted roles played by its mid-level leaders in this way: Mid-level leaders saw their role as “feeding information to senior decision makers.” They bridged communication between students, faculty, and senior leadership within the institution. Mid-level leaders worked to gather “frontline experience data” and ensured it was presented during senior leadership meetings. They had to effectively listen to students, peers, and their team. They relayed this valuable information to leadership. (AIR 2021 Institutional Case Summary)

Frontline Staff Implement Solutions

Student-facing staff, such as faculty and advisors, are on the front lines where the practical application of a strategic vision comes to life. Their proximity to the student experience allows them to maintain and model an equity-centered mindset and greatly influence the culture. Their ability to hear directly from students about the effects of specific initiatives and to communicate those stories back to their department chairs, directors, and/or deans is invaluable.
Many initiatives undertaken to improve the student experience in the Frontier Set involved these frontline staff, such as changes to advising practices, redesign of developmental education, and expansion of digital learning. Staff often had to learn new technologies and engage with students in new ways to advance these efforts.

Core Staff Provide Perspective and Essential Decision-Making Support

Core staff — those on the frontlines of an institution, such as advisors, IR/IT staff, and program managers — were most often cited as partners in the pursuit of student success. Specifically, Frontier Set institutions took steps to incorporate IT and IR staff into the decision-making process. IT and IR made data accessible and created tools for analysis and visualization that produced actionable information in support of student success.

A great example of this in action was observed at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College which added key positions within IR that helped departments and internal project teams ask the right data-backed questions (2020 AIR Institutional Case Summary).

The Importance of Competencies

Beyond individuals’ job titles and responsibilities, certain qualities effectively moved the student-centered agenda forward. These competencies went beyond the technical proficiencies and abilities required for their roles and included communication and collaboration skills, among others. For institutions in the Frontier Set, these skills also varied by role:

Senior leaders
For senior leaders, success increased based on their willingness and ability to widely communicate their vision for equitable student success, to encourage collaboration, and to leverage data in decision-making. An additional essential skill was the ability to help campus community members, such as mid-level leaders or frontline staff, understand how their roles contributed to accelerating a vision for change.

Mid-level leaders
Mid-level leaders needed to be especially adept at cross-functional collaboration, breaking down silos, and innovative problem-solving. These skills helped their role of consulting with senior leadership, while translating and working with frontline and core staff. Data fluency was also important in these roles, as it helped mid-level leaders use student success and outcome data to monitor the progress of key initiatives and to maintain accountability.

Enabling Factors That Support People Engaging in Transformation

Differentiated Decision-Making Structures Help Advance Transformation

Using both centralized and decentralized decision-making structures and processes helped Frontier Set institutions drive transformation efforts. Centralized decision-making, in which decisions occur within a single unit, was highly effective for strategic planning. This centralized approach to setting the vision for transformation allowed senior leadership to set the tone and direction for transformation efforts at the institution and to create consistent messaging on how that vision would be enacted.

On the other hand, decentralized decision-making, in which decisions engage multiple stakeholders and authority is distributed across the institution, was more effective when allocating resources to support transformation initiatives. Increasing the transparency of budgeting mechanisms allowed stakeholders to understand how resources were being deployed to support key efforts, and to ensure sustainability beyond the initial implementation phases.

Professional Development is an Important Link

Developing key competencies among faculty, staff, and administrators enabled people at Frontier Set institutions to meaningfully engage in transformation efforts. Common across all levels and functions were professional development programs that built data capacity and improved data literacy and used to inform decision-making.

Many professional development activities trained faculty and frontline staff in new pedagogies and technologies in order to deploy key student-success initiatives, such as digital learning and advising reform.

Overall, professional development opportunities were key to advancing teaching and learning initiatives, as well as building data and technology capacity on campus.

People Make the Difference

While their individual titles, roles, and responsibilities varied, it was clear that people — dedicated, passionate, empowered people — were the common denominator in making institutional transformation happen. The lived experiences of dedicated professionals across the Frontier Set underline that transformation is indeed a team sport that demands the engagement of all departments, especially the students themselves.

Reflection Questions

Use these questions to reflect on your own, or discuss with colleagues to inform and accelerate your institution’s transformation progress. For additional insights and guiding questions, please download our collection of Insights to Act On.

• How does your leadership express the institution’s vision and support for key initiatives on campus? Do these statements reflect a priority given to equitable student success? Are these priorities reflected in the institution’s strategic plan?
• How do current structures and processes support or detract from your ability to engage and collaborate across the campus community in order to take actionable steps toward achieving strategic goals?
• To what extent do mid-level leaders, core staff, advisors, and faculty understand your institution’s equity goals and know their roles in contributing to them?
• What mechanisms does your organization’s senior leadership have to bring the perspectives of mid-level leaders, core staff, advisors, and faculty into decision-making?

A note on citations: Examples from the Frontier Set institutions are cited from reports and case studies which may not be publicly available. Each example referenced has been approved by the institution for inclusion on this site.

The Frontier Set was a select group of high-performing, high-potential colleges, universities, state systems, and supporting organizations committed to eliminating race, ethnicity, and income as predictors of student success by transforming how institutions operate. They came together to understand transformation, collaborate, and share insights with the foundation and one another. The key insight: Equity-focused transformation is possible.

As you review the insights about the individual components of transformation, the key drivers that make it possible and help sustain it, keep in mind that while each is discussed separately, in practice they are very much interconnected.

A Focus on Equity

From its launch, the Frontier Set network was committed to eliminating race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as predictors of student success. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and demands for racial justice brought an even stronger sense of urgency across the Frontier Set network to take bold action to address the role systemic racism plays in the experiences of students in higher education across the country.

Defining Equity

The Frontier Set’s goal of eliminating race, ethnicity, and income as predictors of student success intentionally centered equity in its design. Centering equity for Black, Latino, and Indigenous students and students from low-income backgrounds is not something that happens by default; rather, it requires an ongoing commitment to action that recognizes and seeks to rectify historical injustice toward underserved student populations. How Frontier Set institutions chose to define, measure, and embed equity in their transformation efforts varied based on their context, history, and the students they served.

Clarifying definitions and measures of equity cultivated buy-in across institutional stakeholders and helped align transformation strategies. This process happened through messaging from institutional leadership, designated working groups, facilitated conversations, and conscious review of disaggregated student data.

For some institutions, defining equity by giving examples of what it does or does not look like in terms of data and student experience was effective:

For the HBCUs, which were founded specifically to meet the needs of Black students, defining equity required identifying the specific needs of different student groups for the various initiatives at the institution:

Participants from Fayetteville State University pointed out that because the institution is an HBCU, equity is embedded in its tradition, mission, and work. Equity is included in FSU’s strategic priorities that specifically reference supporting students from “diverse backgrounds” including rural, military, and community colleges. During the Frontier Set the demographic makeup of FSU students shifted, and the university adjusted its student support services to better meet the needs of more transfer students and adult learners from military families. (2021 AIR Institutional Case Summary)

Catalyzing Equity

Equity catalysts are policies, processes, practices, and events that initiate or sustain transformational change that seeks to address student outcomes and opportunity gaps. For many institutions in the Frontier Set, events in 2020, including the COVID-19 pandemic and demands for racial justice – and the resulting local and national calls for an institutional response – were an inflection point. Other catalysts preceded or coincided with these events; the interplay helped to accelerate the elevation and prioritization of equity in transformation. Here are a few examples…

• Messaging from senior leadership with a clear and compelling vision for equity, including plain-language commitments to racial equity goals.
• Increasing the use of disaggregated data of student success outcomes to understand the student experience across all student demographics.
• Hiring dedicated personnel and developing new institutional divisions, departments, and committees to address challenges to equity on campus.
• Investing in targeted support efforts aimed at improving student success outcomes for underserved and minoritized populations.

Guilford Technical Community College furthered its ability to advance equity by introducing a DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) initiative that provided educational and professional training opportunities and resources to its community advancing understanding and application of diversity practices. (2020 AIR Institutional Case Summary)

Centering Equity

For institutions and practitioners starting their transformation journey, race and socioeconomic equity must be an explicit operational priority. Members of the Frontier Set centered equity in their transformation efforts by:

• Defining, prioritizing, and reiterating their institution’s commitment to equity.
• Building a culture where data were regularly collected and used as evidence to inform decisions.
• Fostering trust and creating opportunities for authentic discussions.
• Prioritizing the inclusion of students’ voices.

Below are details on how these strategies were employed across the Frontier Set institutions.

Expressing Institutional Commitment

As discussed in The Role of Visionary Senior Leadership in Equity-Focused Transformation, equity should be embedded in an institution’s vision, mission, and strategic plan. It should reflect the voices of senior leadership, mid-level leaders, core staff, faculty, and students, and it should be widely — and consistently — communicated campus-wide.

An equitable future is one where every process, policy, and plan is analyzed for its impact on different groups of students, and decisions are made with the intent to mitigate any negative effects on any single student group. Achieving equitable outcomes in a system as complex as a university or college requires embracing the equity agenda across all departments and all roles, including administrators, faculty, and staff. While any single person can make a difference, the process is too complex to manage alone.

Building a Culture of Evidence

The importance of improved data infrastructure, capacity, and access is discussed in Models That Sustain Transformation. Beyond generating disaggregated data, Frontier Set institutions made strides in making data transparent and connecting it to institutional goals and priorities, and many implemented regular routines for reflecting on disaggregated data. Reviewing data paired with thoughtful analyses supported nuanced decision-making and generated buy-in from stakeholders across campus. It also helped individuals see their role in supporting an institution-wide commitment to pursuing equity.

Northern Arizona University’s emphasis on data governance and data-informed decision-making guided its robust use of data to support initiatives and improved common use of data across all levels of the institution. Bottom-up transformation from data-savvy staff and faculty led to the establishment of The Equitable and Inclusive Teaching Seminar. The Seminar equipped faculty with tools to explore their course outcomes with an equity-minded lens, by looking at disaggregated data to identify trends and develop solutions at the course level.

Fostering Trust Through Authenticity

Conversations around race and inequity can be difficult. When individual leaders showed up authentically and with vulnerability, it fostered trust and gave others permission to share more openly in group conversations. Some Frontier Set institutions took bold action to focus on racial equity and develop conversations and workshops rooted in anti-racism and racial justice. For example, Northwest Wisconsin Technical College developed a 10-part series for campus leaders centered around dismantling racism.

Elevating Student Voices

Student voices can provide important context and nuance to quantitative observations. Most Frontier Set institutions found ways to source student perspectives, such as using surveys and focus groups. The information gleaned from these tools illuminated barriers faced by students and allowed institutions to make deliberate decisions and take targeted action to improve the student experience. In some cases, this resulted in a curriculum change, flexible supports for students with out-of-school responsibilities, or new opportunities for students to connect on campus, growing their sense of belonging to the college community.

Just as the broader journey of transformation was, and is, unique to each participating Frontier Set institution, equity itself — how it’s defined, measured, and achieved — is highly dependent on the specific context within which an institution is operating. It’s important to start where you are — both personally and from an institutional perspective — because the transformation journey is an ongoing one.

Reflection Questions

Use these questions to reflect on your own, or discuss with colleagues to inform and accelerate your institution’s transformation progress. For additional insights and guiding questions, please download our collection of Insights to Act On.

• Does your institution have a clear definition of equity, including what equitable student outcomes are and a communication strategy that prioritizes equity in every campus office?
• Is equity an explicitly stated part of your institution’s mission, vision, and/or strategic plan?
• In what ways do your institution’s leaders champion equitable student outcomes?

 

A note on citations: Examples from the Frontier Set institutions are cited from reports and case studies which may not be publicly available. Each example referenced has been approved by the institution for inclusion on this site.

The Frontier Set was a select group of high-performing, high-potential colleges, universities, state systems, and supporting organizations committed to eliminating race, ethnicity, and income as predictors of student success by transforming how institutions operate. They came together to understand transformation, collaborate, and share insights with the foundation and one another. The key insight: Equity-focused transformation is possible.

As you review the insights about the individual components of transformation, the key drivers that make it possible and help sustain it, keep in mind that while each is discussed separately, in practice they are very much interconnected.

What Is a Transformation Model?

Transformation is a journey, along which incremental changes to the way an institution operates allow that institution to continuously improve and align its policies and practices to better serve students. Sustainable change takes time, intentionality, and a comprehensive approach to ensure reform efforts and activities are organized cohesively. With the help of Frontier Set institutions, we have a better understanding of models that can help other institutions sustain their transformation efforts.

For institutions in the Frontier Set, a transformation model reflected a shift in an institution’s structures, culture, and business model, and encompassed the systems, processes, practices, tools, and methods used to serve students equitably. Rather than defining a transformation model as a single unit, it’s helpful to consider it as being made up of parts that work collaboratively to address the student success priorities identified through a data-driven decision-making process.

How Does a Transformation Model Work?

Frontier Set institutions intentionally leveraged an organizing framework for transformation to integrate essential elements of their equity-focused transformation model. In doing so, they created a coherent and cohesive path forward, centered around the student experience, and embedded in the institution’s structures, culture, and business model. Although integrated frameworks varied by institutional size and context, the most effective integrated frameworks observed in the Frontier Set included, at a minimum, the following attributes:

• Equitable student success at the center
  Parity in educational outcomes is prioritized and communicated in an institution’s mission, explicit in strategic plans, and measured using disaggregated student data.
• Perspective on the student experience
  Mapping the student experience to identify barriers and chart a clear path from matriculation to completion.
• Targeted interventions to improve the student experience
  Implement evidence-based solutions that measurably improve the student experience.
• Operating capacities to enable interventions
  Strengthen structures and routines that enable effective implementation, tracking, and improvement of targeted interventions.

Elements of a Transformation Model

What transformation looked like varied greatly across the institutions in the Frontier Set. However, the components that contributed to transformation were similar across most institutions. Whether an institution built out its data infrastructure or restructured advising to create a more streamlined student experience, Frontier Set institutions demonstrated that certain elements were common in a cohesive transformation model.

The various components of the transformation model were divided into four categories: transformation capacities, core interventions, methods, and tools. The examples cited here are specific to the Frontier Set institutions and may not generally be essential to achieving transformation.

Transformation Capacities refer to an institution’s operating capacities and campus-wide engagements that enable change by creating the conditions necessary for transformation. Transformation capacities may include:

Data Capacity — an institution’s ability to collect, report, visualize, and use data to support transformation efforts. For Frontier Set institutions, data capacity was viewed as both the development of data infrastructure and data definitions within institutional technology (IT) and institutional research (IR), and the ability of faculty, staff, and administrators to use this data.

In the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities and the Coalition of Urban Serving Universities Essentials of Transformation case study, Portland State University’s leadership discussed how it leveraged quantitative and qualitative data while implementing initiatives to enhance the student experience as well as the experiences of staff and faculty. Integrating data and insights was essential to the institution’s ability to respond to changes, including leadership transitions.

Focus on Equity — an institution’s commitment to equity reflected in parity in student success outcomes. In many cases, Frontier Set institutions focused on data to identify institutional performance gaps in student success outcomes. Institutions also created new positions and committees charged with examining and improving equitable outcomes on campus.

Communication and Stakeholder Engagement — communication efforts, often from leadership, that provide direction to people across the institution about the vision for equitable student success and their role in that transformation. It also creates opportunities for those stakeholders to engage consistently and continuously.

Cross-Functional Collaboration — formal and informal joint efforts between leadership, staff, and faculty across divisions and institutional functions. In the Frontier Set, cross-functional collaboration created an environment where various stakeholders could directly engage in transformation efforts, allowing for distributed leadership and grassroots efforts. Realizing an institution’s student success and equity agenda is a team effort and requires engagement across departments, schools, and campuses.

Core Interventions refer to an institution’s targeted interventions and initiatives that quicken the pace of change, resulting in improved student success outcomes. These interventions were specific to the Frontier Set institutions where they occurred, and are not necessarily a requirement for transformation.

Advising Reform — restructuring departments, personnel, and processes to create a more streamlined experience for students, typically aligned with program maps to guide student decision-making. Advising reforms were also often tied to acquiring new technology platforms and to centralizing advisement personnel and processes.

Developmental Education Reform — redesign or elimination of developmental education courses to facilitate student transition to ensure that students complete gateway courses. Most institutions in the Frontier Set employed strategies to reduce or eliminate the amount of time students spent in developmental coursework, including self-paced modularized curricula, co-requisite models, and the use of multiple measures for placement. These reforms dramatically reduced equity gaps in which students completed gateway courses.

Digital Learning — the use of new technology software, and extensive faculty professional development on how to use software, to improve the teaching and learning process led to increased student outcomes in online courses.

For example, Wake Tech Community College launched a QEP (Quality Enhancement Plan) for digital learning to increase student success rates to match face-to-face coursework. The QEP is based on EPIC, which began in 2015. The overall goal of EPIC was to remove barriers and provide better support to students learning remotely. EPIC resulted in the narrowing of success rate gaps between seated and online courses in high enrollment gateway courses from over 5% to less than 3%, overall, with gaps in some courses closing entirely. Additionally, EPIC was a key factor in maintaining enrollment and quality of instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic (read the Transformational Change in Response to COVID-19 research brief).

Wake Tech also created a multidisciplinary team of faculty and staff dedicated to online learning. The team was responsible for orienting students and creating a faculty certification program. The institution even went as far as to develop a system that allowed certified peer reviewers to review each online course. (2020 AIR Institutional Case Summary)

Program Mapping — sequencing courses to facilitate student retention, progression, and completion of degree programs. In the most ideal scenarios, program maps are a core component of guided pathways (see below). Program maps were used to streamline course options so students completed coursework that would allow them to effectively complete a credential in a timely fashion, and ensure alignment to workforce skills and/or to ensure transfer to a partner university in junior standing.

Tutoring Centers and Academic Support — using tutoring centers, supplemental instruction, and other academic support services to support student learning. These academic supports were key in advancing developmental education reforms and improving gateway course success. In some cases, tutoring support occurred in tutoring centers or academic lab settings, while at some institutions, embedded tutors were utilized in courses with historically low success rates.

Methods refer to institutional practices, processes, and structures that support transformation.

Across the Frontier Set, institutions used common methods to support communication efforts, to ensure stakeholder engagement, and to promote collaboration by communicating core messages.

Meetings and Convenings — gatherings such as campus-wide or divisional meetings were used to regularly communicate core messages, develop urgency, and provide updates on the progress of transformation efforts.

Shared Artifacts — standardized talking points and data were used to ensure alignment on core messaging regarding transformation efforts.

Tools refer to technology, software, and platforms that support an institution’s transformation model.

Technology tools were key in building data capacity at Frontier Set institutions, as well as in advancing core interventions such as advising reforms.

Advising Technology — used to support new advisement processes and structures that allowed the implementation of early alert systems and interventions, as well as to facilitate streamlined communications to students.

Data Technology —used to collect, monitor, analyze, and display key performance metrics to support and strengthen institution-wide decision-making. These included new Enterprise Resource Planning systems, data warehouses, and data visualization tools.

As you’ve read, the journey of institutional transformation is a process that starts with incremental changes to impact how student populations are supported. Each core intervention or transformation capacity is an opportunity for progress. Consider your own institutional structures, culture, and business model to identify how a transformation model can work for you.

Reflection Questions

Use these questions to reflect on your own, or discuss with colleagues to inform and accelerate your institution’s transformation progress. For additional insights and guiding questions, please download our collection of Insights to Act On.

• Does your institution have a perspective about the student experience?
• What are the operating capacities that already exist at your institution that can be used to support a successful transformation model?
• Does your institution have a strong data infrastructure and culture of using data as a tool for transformation?
• How does your institution use disaggregated student data to prioritize equity and to ensure student success outcomes reflect students from all backgrounds?

 

A note on citations: Examples from the Frontier Set institutions are cited from reports and case studies which may not be publicly available. Each example referenced has been approved by the institution for inclusion on this site.

The Frontier Set was a select group of high-performing, high-potential colleges, universities, state systems, and supporting organizations committed to eliminating race, ethnicity, and income as predictors of student success by transforming how institutions operate. They came together to understand transformation, collaborate, and share insights with the foundation and one another. The key insight: Equity-focused transformation is possible.

As you review the insights about the individual components of transformation, the key drivers that make it possible and help sustain it, keep in mind that while each is discussed separately, in practice they are very much interconnected.

What Are the Catalysts of Transformation?

In the work of institutional transformation, a catalyst is anything that significantly impacts the forward momentum of transformation within an institutional setting. A catalyst can act as a spark that helps initiate transformation, or as something that helps it progress — and some catalysts can serve both roles.

Internal catalysts: These are institutional policies, processes, practices, and people. For example, common internal catalysts were visionary senior leadership, changes in senior leadership, board engagement, and changes to institutional structures, such as governance, a merger, or consolidation of departments.

External catalysts: These include state-, system-, or community-wide policy changes and/or legislation, and the external people participating in these activities. The most common external catalysts centered around student success-oriented partnerships, state or system policy mandates, and engagement with outside consultants or advisors.

Equity-focused catalysts: These are institutional structures, practices, and people that initiate or sustain transformational change specifically intended to improve equity in student outcomes. The most common equity catalysts focused on senior leadership’s vision for equity, the effective use of student outcomes data, as well as the role of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion personnel, committees, and structures.

The Three Most Prevalent Catalysts

While catalysts varied across institution types, we found that internal catalysts had the most impact because individuals within local organizations can influence institutional processes and culture change. Institutional transformation may be propelled by 1) a clear and actionable vision from senior leaders, 2) buy-in from mid-level leaders who are closer to the student experience, and 3) the support of trusted colleagues and formal support networks.

Visionary Leadership

It’s clear that catalytic leadership helps drive transformation. For example, when an existing president has built trust over time they can set forth a compelling vision, agenda, and resources for achieving equitable student outcomes. A newly installed leader acting on a mandate to create change — or building on the work begun by a predecessor — can also be effective in advancing transformation.

Delaware State University identified President Harry Williams (2010-17) and his administration as helping further transformation on campus beginning in 2013:

Multiple staff and faculty described how President Williams and his administration brought a specific focus to improving students’ degree completion by improving the student experience. With the student experience in mind, President Williams and his administration helped ready the institution for broader transformational change by communicating and emphasizing the need to create a student-centered model for advising going forward. (2020 AIR Institutional Case Summary)

When talking about catalytic leadership, we are often referring to a leader’s competencies; specifically, their ability to articulate a clear vision and to create a culture of buy-in through data-driven decision-making and self-reflection.

Leaders are everywhere. While the vision and actions of executive leadership are essential, strict hierarchical dynamics are ineffective. When leaders express a clear and compelling vision — and when it is effectively communicated — it contributes to a cultural shift that empowers individuals across the organization to take risks and act as advocates for student-centered institutional change. This is most significant among the people who are charged with helping realize an executive leader’s equity agenda or vision. Because they sit at the intersection between senior leadership and those in more student-facing roles, these mid-level leaders have the potential to exert tremendous influence over transformation initiatives.

Changes in Senior Leadership

A change in senior leadership, such as at the president or provost level, can create transformative culture shifts at an institution. A new leader may bring a student-centered agenda, have an opportunity to build on previous efforts, or act on a mandate to change the status quo. For the College of Staten Island, CUNY, a new provost ushered in structural changes and a support system to carry them out:

In 2015, the new provost of academic affairs prompted significant structural changes. These changes included the centralization of Undergraduate Studies and Student Success under Academic Affairs, which meant that CSI leadership could better coordinate student success efforts. The provost also created (and hired for) a new associate provost position. The new associate provost formed a team dedicated to student success. Much of the CSI student success team’s progress in transforming itself has been attributed to the associate provost’s championing of student success initiatives, as well as the team he built. (2021 AIR Institutional Case Summary)

Partnerships and Networks

No one can take on a challenge of this magnitude alone. The Frontier Set offered an opportunity to connect, engage, and learn from other institutions, including those from other sectors. We referred to this as a networked approach. Participants were able to openly discuss their respective challenges, insights, and possible solutions with one another as they embarked on their transformation journeys.

Student success-oriented partnerships or networks can help create a similar structure as the Frontier Set. Be sure to identify institutional networks that support data-driven decision-making and sharing of best practices for institutional reform.

Frontier Set appeared to serve as a catalyst for institutional transformation at William Rainey Harper College. The institution saw several visible changes related to improving student success shortly after the start of the initiative. (2021 AIR Institutional Case Summary)

We heard from Frontier Set participants that transformation is a team sport, and that there is value in reaching out to intermediaries and others for guidance and support. Many Frontier Set participants expressed that they benefited greatly from the personal connections, sharing, and support of others in the network. Taking advantage of student support networks, especially for community colleges, was a way to better understand and use disaggregated data from peer institutions, or to replicate models that worked for a similar population of students. Both Completion by Design and Achieving the Dream were cited as being especially helpful. To paraphrase the sentiment expressed by several leaders: Transformation is essential, and the process can be complicated and messy, but it’s also rewarding. Look for opportunities to collaborate.

Additional Insights

Beyond the most prevalent catalysts discussed above, several other observations are worth noting:

• There is no one-size-fits-all solution
  The Frontier Set cohort included a diverse set of colleges and universities, each with their own operating model and capacities. This influenced which catalysts they were able to leverage. For example, while visionary leadership was identified as being pivotal across the cohort, student success networks were most often cited within community colleges, and outside consultants were most popular with Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
• Context matters
  Assessing your institution’s capacity or readiness to leverage opportunities effectively is important. Because each Frontier Set institution was in a unique place in its transformation journey, some could leverage several catalysts concurrently, while others could only take advantage of a limited number. While there is an opportunity to learn from what others are doing, keep in mind that what worked for them may be specific to their context.
• Disaggregated data is a must-have
  The most common equity catalyst among all institutions was the disaggregated measurement of student success. Data is a powerful tool to inform decision-making, and disaggregated data specifically allowed institutions to see how groups of students were or were not thriving.

Davidson-Davie Community College examined data to identify gaps among different populations. For example, data they received from the Systems Office was disaggregated to show differences between African American students and their peers. That disaggregated data was the driver of some of the institution’s initiatives designed to address gaps in student success. (2020 AIR Institutional Case Summary)

It’s worth noting that, except for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, which were created with an explicit equity mission, many universities within the Frontier Set cohort are still at the very early stages of their equity journey. The fact that disaggregated measurement of student success was the most frequently noted equity catalyst indicates that most institutions have taken an important first step in understanding the challenge.

Capacity can be a barrier

The most prevalent barrier to transformation was that of limited capacity. For example, a lack of funding, a shortage of staff, or the inability to integrate a new technology platform could inhibit an institution’s ability to leverage a particular catalyst effectively. Understanding the realities of your context and taking advantage of existing capacity will help focus your efforts. It’s important to have a clear assessment of where you are and start there.

Reflection Questions

Use these questions to reflect on your own, or discuss with colleagues to inform and accelerate your institution’s transformation progress. For additional insights and guiding questions, please download our collection of Insights to Act On.

• Does your institution have a clear, compelling vision for student success?
• How might a change in leadership impact your institution’s current and future student success goals?
• Which membership organizations or other network partnerships does your institution belong to? Does your institution engage in their programs and services?

 

 

 

A note on citations: Examples from the Frontier Set institutions are cited from reports and case studies which may not be publicly available. Each example referenced has been approved by the institution for inclusion on this site.