The First-Year Experience: A Stealth Approach to
Institutional Transformation
William Mowder
Walt Nott
The Stealth Approach
Conventional wisdom says institutional changes only occur after broad
institutional buy-in.

Probably true; however, another approach may be necessary depending
on the institutional culture.

The “stealth” approach is a quiet—below the radar—strategy for
institutional change.

A stealth approach is necessary when strong opposition is present and
likely dangerous to the project.

The Stealth Approach in Action
Two examples of first-year programs that were quietly
implemented at KU and how their successes had equally quiet but
significant impacts on the university:

–
–
Early intervention program in the college of visual and performing arts
ULTRA program developed in the college of liberal arts and sciences
Kutztown University of PA:
A Brief Institutional Profile
A comprehensive regional state university

One of 14 universities in state system of higher education of the
commonwealth of PA

Approx. 9,000 students

400+ faculty

Location: Kutztown, PA
Location: Kutztown, PA
Demographic Environment
Students from w/i 100 miles of the University and three closest PA
counties

Primarily rural area

Urban areas to north and south

Major metropolitan areas to the northeast and southeast

Institutional Environment I: Union

Strongly unionized, CBA-defined faculty roles
–
Advising
Curriculum
–



Adversarial relationships between management and faculty
Shared governance
CBA-defined options
Institutional Environment II: Politics

Declining state funding

Performance indicators
–
Retention rates
Four- and five-year graduation rates
Internship percentages
Faculty productivity
–
–
–
Cultural Environment: A Place Where Change
Comes Slowly…..
Cultural Environment (cont’d.)




Traditionalist, long-term faculty
Long institutional memory with set procedures
Conservative geographic area, yet changing
Under external pressures to change
Failures

Implementation of first-year experience course

Previous attempt at restructuring general education

Extending first-year seminars to CVPA and CLAS.
The Stealth Approach in Action I:
CVPA Early Intervention Program


–
–





CVPA Background and Profile
EIP
History
Program Structure
First letter to faculty
Second letter with grade roster
Letter to EIP students
Active intervention
Dean visit
EIP Results I
Cohort 1st Year Rate 2nd Year Rate
2000 206 100% 158 76.6%
2001 208 100% 83 87.0%
2002 217 100% 189 87.0%
2003 207 100% 169 81.6% (Est.)
EIP Results II
2001-02 AY Retention Rates
100
90
87.5
82.7
90.5
86.8
80
% Returning
70
61.5
60
50
2001-02 AY
40
30
20
10
0
2001-02 AY
Overall
Retenion
Overall EIP
EIP Seen
EIP Not
Seen
Non-EIP
CVPA
87.5
82.7
86.8
61.5
90.5
EIP Impacts

Faculty

Programs

University
The Stealth Approach in Action II:
ULTRA Program

–
–
–
–
History of the ULTRA Program
Remedial courses and summer program
Provost’s charge
The “key” people
The process
ULTRA Profile


Student population
Academic characteristics
How ULTRA Works

Learning community model (1998)
60 students
1 community: UST 001, DVE 000, ENG 001, DVM 000, MAT 101, and
DVR 000
–
2 communities: UST 001, DVE 000, ENG 001, DVM 000, and MAT 015
–
–
How ULTRA Works
Learning community model (2004)
–
–
150 students
2 communities for College of Business:

BUS 001, ENG 023, and BUS 171
BUS 001, ENG 022, and BUS 171
–
4 communities:

UST 001, ENG 023, MAT 025, and HIS 026
UST 001, ENG 022, and MAT 021
UST 001, ENG 023, and MAT 021
UST 001, ENG 023, and MAT 025




ULTRA
Retention and Graduation Rates
1998-2002 Cohorts
100
% Returning
80
60
40
20
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1st yr 87.7
2nd yr 61.4
7
4 yr
35.1
5 yr
73.1
50.5
7.5
77.1
58.1
81.5
59.7
80.8
COHORT
ULTRA/DSP Retention & Graduation Comparison
% returning/graduating
1997 DSP vs. 1998 ULTRA
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1997 DSP
1998 ULTRA
1st yr
2nd yr
4 yr
5 yr
1997 DSP
70.1
47.4
4.1
27.8
1998 ULTRA
87.7
61.4
7
35.1
Retention - Graduation
General Rates
1998 Total Cohort vs. ULTRA
100
% returning/graduating
90
80
70
60
50
1998 Cohort
1998 ULTRA
40
30
20
10
0
1st yr
2nd yr
4 yr
5 yr
1998 Cohort
75.25
59.38
19.89
46.54
1998 ULTRA
87.7
61.4
7
35.1
Retention - Graduation
Five-Year Averages
First-Year Retention Rates 1998-2002
82
% Returning
80
ULTRA
78
All
76
DSP (98-01)
74
72
70
68
1998-2002
ULTRA
DSP (98-01)
All
80.04
73.33
75.32
Program
Impact of ULTRA on KU




DSP (directed self-placement)
Reliance on SATs
Spread of UST 001 course
End of remedial courses
The Stealth Approach:
Lessons Learned
Keep it small and cheap

Make it “experimental”—a pilot study

Tell everyone what you are doing—after you have been
doing it

Involve the “right” people

Lessons Learned (cont’d.)
Keep data to measure success

If it’s successful, talk it up; if not, forget about it and
move on

Make the initiative a "point of leverage” that has impact
beyond itself

Focus on the benefits, not the features

Contact Information
Dr. William Mowder
Dean, College of Visual and Performing Arts
[email protected]
Walt Nott
Assistant to the Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
[email protected]