Hostos Middle States Self-Study Design (SSD)

Eugenio MarĂ­a de Hostos Community College Institutional Self-Study Design

Submitted to: Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Higher Education

Prepared by: Middle States Self-Study Steering Committee

April 20, 2020

Table of Contents Institutional Overview

1

Institutional Priorities

6

Intended Outcomes of the Self-Study

8

Self-Study Approach

8

Organizational Structure of the Steering Committee and the Working Groups

9

Guidelines for Reporting

27

Organization of the Final Self-Study Report

29

Verification of Compliance Strategy

29

Self-Study Timeline

30

Communication Plan

31

Evaluation Team Profile

33

Evidence Inventory

34

Appendix A

35

I.

Institutional Overview

Eugenio Maria de Hostos Community College, one of 25 units of the City University of New York (CUNY), was established in 1968 as a direct result of protests and advocacy work by community leaders who demanded the creation of a college to meet the needs of South Bronx residents. At the time of the college’s founding, the South Bronx was largely a Puerto Rican and African American community, two groups historically excluded from the benefits of higher education.

The history of advocacy that led to the college’s founding is an integral part of the Hostos story.

The institution was created to serve the under-resourced and to celebrate the cultural vibrancy of a community too often known solely for being one of the nation’s poorest congressional districts. The college’s commitment to providing access to resources for the residents of the South Bronx is as much a part of Hostos’ identity today as it was when the college was founded.

In 1970, Hostos admitted a charter class of 623 students to an institution housed in a single building, the site of an abandoned tire factory. In 2018, Hostos marked its 50th birthday with celebrations that highlighted the college’s growth, which now includes six buildings, 27 degree and 2 certificate programs, over 7,000 degree-seeking students and 14,000 continuing education students. As the college has grown over the years and worked to align with students’ changing needs, it has remained steadfast in its commitment to the Hostos mission.

Pillars of the Hostos Mission      

Provide access to higher education Serve as a community resource Celebrate diversity and multiculturalism Facilitate socio-economic mobility Develop linguistic, mathematical, technological, and critical thinking proficiencies Foster intellectual growth and lifelong learning Hostos Community College Mission Statement

Consistent with the mission of The City University of New York to provide access to higher education for all who seek it, Eugenio María de Hostos Community College was established in the South Bronx to meet the higher educational needs of people from this and similar communities who historically have been excluded from higher education.

The mission of Eugenio María de Hostos Community College is to offer access to higher education leading to intellectual growth and socio-economic mobility through the development of linguistic, mathematical, technological, and critical thinking proficiencies needed for lifelong learning and for success in a variety of programs including careers, liberal arts, transfer, and those professional programs leading to licensure.

Statement Continued on Next Page

1|Page

Mission Statement Continued The College takes pride in its historical role in educating students from diverse ethnic, racial, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, particularly Hispanics and African Americans. An integral part of fulfilling its mission is to provide transitional language instruction for all English-as-aSecond-Language learners along with Spanish/English bilingual education offerings to foster a multicultural environment for all students. Hostos Community College, in addition to offering degree programs, is determined to be a resource to the South Bronx and other communities served by the College by providing continuing education, cultural events, and expertise for the further development of the communities it serves.

Key Environmental Factors In 2009 President Barack Obama announced his Completion Agenda, an initiative that challenged institutions of higher education to double the number of graduates by 2020. Since then, Hostos has been actively engaged in responding to this challenge with exciting results.

The three-year graduation rate for the college’s fall 2009 cohort was 10.3%. Over the next several years, the college slowly began to roll out a number of new initiatives to address barriers to student completion. For the first two years, Hostos saw incremental gains as the completion rate slowly increased by approximately one percentage point each year. Then, in 2015, our fall 2012 cohort achieved a 20.6% three-year graduation rate. By spring 2018, this number increased to 26.7%. While the upward trend in the college’s three-year graduation rate was encouraging, in fall 2016 the college’s one-year retention rate declined from 68% to 61%, a reduction experienced by all of the system’s community colleges. This decrease in retention rate led to an expected decrease in our three-year graduation rate for the fall 2016 cohort (23%).

While the decrease in retention and graduation rates was disappointing, the seven years of consistent gains yielded impressive outcomes. In his Completion Agenda challenge, President Obama called for institutions to double the number of college graduates over ten years. By spring 2017, Hostos exceeded this target. Since then, the number of graduates has continued to grow.

See charts below.

2|Page

Three-Year Graduation Rates of Full-time First-time Freshmen in Associate Programs by Year of Entry:* Cohort Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Fall 2013 Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016

Total Cohort (N) 1,081 1,000 1,091 805 1,100 907 976 900

Percentage 10.3 11.9 12.6 20.6 22.1 20 26.7 23

% Increase in Total Graduates from Spring 2009 Term

Total % Graduates Increase

AY 2008-2009 AY 2009-2010 AY 2010-2011 AY 2011-2012 AY 2012-2013 AY 2013-2014 AY 2014-2015 AY 2015-2016 AY 2016-2017 AY 2017-2018 AY 2018- 2019**

531 602 692 721 820 861 935 919 1215 1256 1258

13 30 36 53 62 76 73 129 137 139

*Data source: Hostos Office of Institutional Research and Assessment ** Preliminary data The gains achieved by the college are the result of a combination of campus-wide and university-wide initiatives. Highlights of key efforts include: 

Starting in 2012, the college began to focus resources and activities on strengthening advisement services. These efforts include hiring over 30 new full-time professional advisors, opening a new center for holistic and intrusive advisement, tripling enrollment in Accelerated Studies in Associate Programs (ASAP), and establishing a cross-divisional committee to improve communication and streamline services across advisement offices.



In 2013, the campus embarked on a complete redesign of all degree programs as part of the CUNY Pathways Initiative. Pathways established a new 30-credit Common Core General Education (Gen Ed) requirement to support seamless transfer from one CUNY institution to another.



In 2017, Hostos introduced a new five-year strategic plan centered around an aspirational goal to increase three-year graduation rates to 50% by 2022. The new plan established four institutional goals: Students enter college more prepared; Students get vested in college; Students keep the momentum going; Students set the stage for their future.



In 2018, in collaboration with Complete College America, CUNY introduced the CUNY Academic Momentum Campaign, a core feature of the Connected CUNY Strategic Framework. As part of the Momentum Campaign, CUNY established benchmark goals 3|Page

for key indicators, which include increasing the number of credits earned and the number of students who pass gateway English and math courses in years one and two.

In addition, all campuses are required to phase-out the use of non-credit developmental education classes and implement the use of co-requisite classes. The Hostos English Department has completed revisions to its curriculum to comply with this new requirement. 

In 2019, CUNY announced that it would no longer use high-stakes exams to determine placement for English and math for incoming students. Following research-based national best practices, effective spring 2020, all CUNY campuses are required to use a proficiency index that utilizes multiple measures to establish placement.

Student Body In fall 2018, Hostos served over 7,000 degree-seeking students. Of these students, 57% were Latinx, 21% Black, 18% Other, 2% Asian, 1% White, 0.4% American Indian/Pacific Islander. Over 80% enrolled with developmental education needs; 64% were Bronx residents; 67% were female; 89% were degree seeking; and 58% had parents whose highest level of education was a high school diploma; the average household income was $23,000.

Our largest degree programs were Liberal Arts, Nursing, Criminal Justice, Dental Hygiene and Early Childhood Education. In addition to the degree-seeking student body, Hostos served an additional 14,000 continuing education students.

Looking Forward While the institution has been definitively focused for several years on identifying and addressing barriers to student completion, faculty and staff have also been actively working to develop new degree programs and strengthen internal and external articulation agreements that are aligned with labor market demands and positioned to lead to greater opportunities for our students.

New Degree Programs The 2020-2021 academic year will mark the start of two new degree programs: a Computer Science A. S. degree in the Mathematics Department and a Construction Management A. S. degree in the Business Department. Both programs have broad support across the college and within CUNY. Support for the new programs has included funding from the CUNY Central Office and external foundations for curricula development, equipment and supplies.

New Degree Options The Liberal Arts A. A. degree has long served as the college’s largest degree program. Over the last three years, an interdisciplinary Liberal Arts Committee has worked to create a more structured learning experience for students through developing options for concentrations.

Since the group began their work, they have supported the creation of eight options (Black and 4|Page

African Diaspora Studies, Health Care Management, English, Theater, Teacher Education, Art, Physical Education and Linguistics). The next stage in the committee’s work is to develop articulation agreements with baccalaureate programs specific to the areas of concentration and advisement materials highlighting career opportunities for each option.

In spring 2020 the college approved the creation of a Health Care Administration track for our Public Administration program. The new track offers an alternative opportunity for students who aspire to enter one of our three highly competitive allied health degree programs (Nursing, Dental Hygiene and Radiologic Technology). Students who are unable to gain admittance into one of the allied health A. A. S. degree programs can utilize the new option to continue to pursue a career in healthcare.

Articulation Agreements Internally, the Division of Continuing Education and Workforce Development and the Division of Academic Affairs have been dedicated to strengthening pathways from certificate programs to degree programs. Through intentional collaboration the two divisions have aligned curricula and learning outcomes for select programs to provide students who earn certificates credits that can be applied toward a degree program. This alignment expands academic prospects for students who upon entry may have only considered a certificate program. The chart below illustrates recent agreements that have been developed.

Certificate and Degree Program Articulation Agreements Certificate Program Degree Program Medical Billing and Coding Up to 9 credits toward Business and Office Technology Culinary Arts and Food Protection 1 to 3 credits toward Liberal Arts and Food Studies Basic Construction Management Up to 6 elective credits toward Liberal Arts Health Information Technology Up to 3 credits toward Business and Office Technology Community Health Worker Up to 9 credits toward Education and Community Health Externally, the college has worked to increase both pre- and post-college articulation agreements. The Digital Media Unit manages the Digital Design, Game Design and Digital Music degree programs. Despite being several of our newest degrees, the digital media programs are among our fastest growing. The unit has been active in their outreach to community high schools with career and technical programs and has developed articulation agreements that will grant students credits toward a degree for work they completed in high school.

The college has also been active developing articulation agreements with baccalaureate programs. Recent achievements include:  

A 60-credit articulation between the Hostos Liberal Arts A. S. degree and the Applied Chemistry B. S. degree at CUNY’s New York City College of Technology.

The college is in the final stages of developing an articulation agreement between our RN program and the BSN program at the CUNY School of Professional Studies.

5|Page



In spring 2020 the college began developing an articulation agreement for Biomedical Engineering, which will serve as our sixth agreement with CUNY’s City College Grove School of Engineering.

These dynamic curricular developments represent the ownership faculty have of curricula and their commitment to offering students programs that are aligned with labor market demands and industry standards.

II.

Institutional Priorities

Hostos’ 2017-2022 strategic plan, A Bridge to Student Success, offers a conceptual framework that centers the college’s commitment to increase student completion rates. The plan was designed over the course of a year by a cross-divisional committee with broad participation from faculty, staff, students and senior leadership. The Strategic Planning Committee utilized an iterative design process that included multiple opportunities for community members to provide feedback via open forums, a public website and email. Analyses of data from the community feedback revealed five institutional capacities that needed to be strengthened to better serve students. These capacities were: assessment, communication, community engagement, professional development and systems alignment.

The strategic plan is organized in four phases that mark students’ progress toward graduation: pre-enrollment, entering, continuing and completion. Each phase includes priorities and fiveyear indicators of success specific to each phase. Undergirding the four phases, are the five capacities identified through community feedback. Within the plan’s framework, all operational activities should be informed and shaped by the college’s commitment to improve the campus in these areas.

Last spring as the college reached the plan’s mid-way point, two open forums were held to report progress toward the indicators of success and to identify areas where the college could improve its focus to strengthen the impact of activities. Out of these forums, three priorities repeatedly arose as areas needing additional focus. The priorities highlighted were not new areas of concern. They were growth opportunities identified during prior open forums related to the strategic plan design and all three priorities are prominently featured throughout the plan. While the college has sought to address these areas, the response from the community during the spring forums underscored the importance of narrowing the focus of operational activities. Given that all three priorities emanated from community feedback, are integral to the strategic plan, and are aligned with the college’s mission, they will serve as the institutional priorities for the self-study.

Institutional Self-Study Priorities 1) Systems Alignment: Enhance our coordinated efforts to better support student academic momentum and completion.

6|Page

2) Academic Competencies: Foster student development of General Education competencies and language and math skills to support success in subsequent academic steps and in the job market.

3) Community Resource Hub: Sustain and strengthen Hostos' role as a resource hub for our community These institutional priorities have been vetted and approved by various constituents including academic chairpersons, unit coordinators and directors, and the cross-divisional Senior Leadership Council.

Alignment of Institutional Priorities to Mission Priority 1: Priority 2: Pillars of Mission Systems Alignment Academic Competencies Access to Higher X 1 Education Diversity and X 2 Multiculturalism 3 4 5 6

English/Math Skills Development Intellectual Growth Socioeconomic Mobility Community Resources

X

X

X X X

X X

Priority 3: Community Hub X X

X

Alignment of Institutional Priorities to Standards of Accreditation Standards Priority 1: Priority 2: Priority 3: Systems Academic Competencies Community Hub Alignment 1 Mission & Goals X X 2 Ethics & Integrity X 3 Design/Delivery Student X Learning Experience 4 Support Student Experience 5 Educational Effectiveness Assessment 6 Planning, Resources & Institutional Improvement 7 Governance, Leadership & administration

X X X

X

X

7|Page

III.

Intended Outcomes

Hostos will use the self-study to engage the campus in a thoughtful, mission-focused exploration of our efforts to serve our students and community. Planning for the campus’ next strategic plan is scheduled to commence in fall 2021, the same term the college will submit our self-study report. The timing of the submission of our report provides a fortuitous opportunity for the campus to develop a new strategic plan that capitalizes on insights gained from the selfstudy.

Intended Outcomes 1. Reaffirm that Hostos meets the MSCHE Requirements of Affiliation and the Standards for Accreditation.

2. Enhance the alignment between Hostos’ mission, the Standards for Accreditation and our institutional practices and programs.

3. Strengthen the college’s evidence-based, decision-making culture through a self-study that documents the effectiveness of academic and non-academic programs and offices.

4. Produce recommendations that lead to an improved student experience and increased student completion and retention rates.

IV.

Self-Study Approach

The college is committed to using the self-study as an opportunity for reflection and selfassessment. In doing so, the self-study will serve as a valuable tool that will help shape our vision for the future of Hostos.

Hostos will utilize a standards-based approach for the self-study to enable a comprehensive review of our institution and alignment with MSCHE’s Standards for Accreditation. The use of the standards as a framework will also serve to deepen our exploration of our institutional priorities.

8|Page

V.

Organizational Structure of the Steering Committee and Working Groups

Self-Study Organizational Chart

9|Page

The work of the self-study will be overseen by a steering committee, co-chaired by two tenured faculty members selected for their experience in the execution and leadership of assessment work. In addition to having expertise in assessment within their disciplines, both co-chairs have served as assessment fellows for the Office of Academic Affairs and helped guide colleagues through annual program review and reporting cycles. The balance of the composition of the committee is a diverse representation of faculty, staff and students from across the college’s administrative divisions selected for their leadership roles and experience in assessment. Also represented on the committee are the chair of the College Senate and a senator.

Name Nelson NunezRodriguez

Hostos Self-Study Steering Committee Composition Title Department/Office Professor and Coordinator Physical Sciences Unit, Natural Sciences Department

Role Co-chair

Kate Wolfe

Associate Professor

Behavioral Sciences Unit, Behavioral and Social Sciences Department

Co-chair

Babette Audant

Assistant Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, Strategic Planning and Assessment Student

President's Office

Member

Nathaniel Cruz

Vice President for the Division of Student Development and Enrollment Management

Student Development and Enrollment Management

Member

Ernest Ialongo

Professor and Chair of the College Senate

Member

Karin Lundberg

Associate Professor and Chair of the Language and Cognition Department Provost and Vice President for the Division of Academic Affairs/MSCHE ALO Director of Academic Affairs Interim Dean for the Division of Continuing Education and Workforce Development Chief of Staff, CEWD, and Senator

Social Sciences Unit, Behavioral and Social Sciences Department Language and Cognition Department Academic Affairs

Member

Academic Affairs Continuing Education and Workforce Development (CEWD) CEWD

Member Member

Administration and Finance

Member

Henry Castillo

Christine Mangino

Amaris Matos Peter Mertens

Daliz Perez-Cabezas Esther RodriguezChardavoyne Maria Sime de Burgos Mohammad Sohel

Senior Vice President for the Division of Administration and Finance Student Professor

Member

Physical Sciences Unit, Natural Sciences Department

Member

Member

Member Member

10 | P a g e

Steering Committee Charge The Committee provides leadership to the entire self-study process. Its responsibilities include, but are not limited to: Steering Committee Co-Chairs:     

Constitute membership for each of the working groups in consultation with the college ALO and the president Manage flow of information between the Steering Committee, working groups, Board of Trustees and the college president Develop strong relationships with self-study stakeholders and participants Cultivate an environment of transparency, honesty and collaboration Design group work timeline and oversee progress

Steering Committee Members                

Consult with institutional stakeholders and identify areas of strength and opportunity associated with the achievement of the institution’s mission Work with institutional leadership to identify 3-5 institutional priorities to be addressed in the self-study Collaborate with the working groups to revise and approve research questions Select the organizational approach to the institution’s self-study Develop the Self-Study Design Ensure that the standards, institutional priorities and mission are adequately addressed in the working groups’ analyses Support working groups’ analyses of assessment materials Review interim reports that will be used to inform the final self-study report Identify shared lines of inquiry and facilitate communication between the working groups Ensure timeline is implemented as planned Employ the Communication Plan Identify the most important opportunities for improvement and innovation that will be included in the final report Arrange for institution-wide review of and responses to a draft of the self-study report Oversee the completion of the final report, including the refinement of the Evidence Inventory and completion of the Verification of Compliance materials Confirm final report is an accurate assessment of the institution with achievable recommendations Oversee arrangements to host the evaluation team visit

11 | P a g e

The Steering Committee established a number of tools and processes to support the smooth and effective operation of the working groups.

Common Meeting Time: The Steering Committee and all working groups are required to hold their meetings on Mondays at 3:30pm. The common meeting time reinforces the expectation that all groups are consistently convening and also facilitates collaboration between the working groups and with the Steering Committee.

Research Question Design Process: The Steering Committee created a multi-stage review process to aid the development of dynamic research questions that address the standards’ criteria, self-study priorities and the college mission. The multiple levels of review also support the identification of shared lines of inquiry to aid collaboration between the working groups.

The development of the research questions began with the working groups who were asked to submit a first draft of their questions to the Steering Committee. These questions were reviewed by the Steering Committee members and the co-chairs of the other working groups.

All reviewers were required to submit feedback to the groups that created the drafts. Upon receipt of feedback on their questions, the working groups were asked to revise their questions and submit a second draft to the Steering Committee using a template that requires that groups demonstrate how their research questions align with the college mission, self-study priorities and MSCHE standard criteria. The Steering Committee reviewed the second drafts and either sent approval or requested additional revisions.

Reports: All working groups are required to submit four reports (two each semester) using the format listed below. The groups are also required to attach to the report a completed Chart of Evidence, again utilizing a template (see appendix). The Chart of Evidence requires that each working group indicate the criteria and research questions that align with submitted evidence.

Imbedding a focus on the self-study priorities within the research questions facilitates the alignment of research questions with the self-study priorities.

A. B. C. D. E. F.

Standard title Members List of previous meetings/attendance/minutes Discussed points Next steps Future meeting dates

Structured Communication: Communication has been intentionally designed with the Steering Committee co-chairs charged to play a central role in supporting information and data requests as well as the flow of information between the working groups, Steering Committee, college president and Board of Trustees.

Information and data requests from the working groups to key administrative offices will be facilitated by the Steering Committee co-chairs to minimize the duplication of effort that would

12 | P a g e

occur were multiple requests for the same information submitted by the different working groups.

The working group co-chairs are required to meet with the Steering Committee co-chairs a minimum of two times each semester. During these meetings, the Steering Committee cochairs will address shared lines of inquiry and offer guidance on opportunities for collaboration.

The Steering Committee co-chairs will meet bi-weekly with the college president. These meetings will provide a regular forum to discuss the progress of the self-study and any sensitive issues that may arise. The CUNY Board of Trustees members assigned to support the self-study will be regularly invited to the meetings between the president and the co-chairs. Once a month, one of the meetings with the president will be extended to include members of the senior leadership and staff from the Office of Institutional Research to address Evidence Inventory questions as well as areas identified during formative assessment as needing immediate attention.

Working Group 8: Working Group 8 was created to provide technical support to the other seven groups. The group includes two faculty from the Library who are charged with developing a naming and tagging convention for documents entered into the Evidence Inventory. The librarians will provide training for all group members in the use of the naming and tagging convention. In collaboration with the Information Technology Department, the librarians will also develop guidelines and a training plan to support the creation of accessible PDFs for the Inventory. Working Group 8 is chaired by the assistant dean for institutional effectiveness, strategic planning and assessment, and includes the director and associate director of the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment whose secondary charge is to address data requests from the working groups in a timely manner and support related assessment and analysis activities.

13 | P a g e

Working Groups Seven of the eight working groups will be dedicated to researching one of the seven standards.

Each of those groups will be co-chaired by a member of the faculty and a member of the professional staff to facilitate a comprehensive review of each standard using a dynamic lens that integrates both academic and administrative perspectives. Additional group members were selected for their experience in the area related to the standard or in assessment activities. As noted earlier, the eighth working group will serve as a technical support group for the seven standard-based groups.

Name Francisco Fernandez Sarah Brennan

Thomas Beachdel Samuel Byrd Maria Cano Charles Drago Wendy Flores Diana Kreymer Idelsa Mendez* Leydi Ogando Eric Rodriguez Alisa Roost Pearl Shavzin Dulce* Toppenberg Victor TorresVelez

Working Group Composition WG #1/Standard 1: Mission and Goals Title Department/Office Professor and Chairperson Natural Sciences Department

Role Co-chair

Executive Associate to the Provost

Academic Affairs

Co-chair

Assistant Professor and Senator Transition and Advising Coordinator Director of College Discovery Professor and Chairperson Student Events Coordinator Development Coordinator Student and Senator Academic Student Support Counselor Associate Professor and Chairperson

Visual/Performing Arts Unit, Humanities Department Continuing Education and Workforce Development College Discovery

Member

Allied Health Department

College Discovery

Member Member Member Member Member Member

Humanities Department

Member

Administrative Coordinator Student Career Program Specialist Assistant Professor and Senator

Administration and Finance Career Services

Member Member

Latin American Studies Unit, Humanities Department

Member

President's Office Advancement

Member Member

* Hostos Alumni

14 | P a g e

Working Group Composition WG #2/Standard 2: Ethics and Integrity Title Department/ Office Associate Professor, Unit Teacher Education Unit, Coordinator and Senator Education Department Director Office of Compliance and Diversity

Role Co-chair

Rosina Asiamah Christine DiasSingh Allison Franzese

Student and Senator Interim Director of Human Resources

Member Member

Melanie GarcĂ­a

CUNY Administrative Assistant and Senator

Sean Gerrity Johanna GĂłmez

Name Jackie DiSanto Lauren Gretina

Assistant Professor

Human Resources

Co-chair

Physical Sciences Unit, Natural Sciences Department Continuing Education and Workforce Development

Member

Assistant Professor Assistant Dean of Students

English Department Student Development and Enrollment Management

Member Member

Dana Lennon

Senior Director, Allied Health Programs

Continuing Education and Workforce Development

Member

Tanya Navarro Toya Pigford Hector Soto

Confidential Executive Coordinator Financial Aid Specialist Assistant Professor and Senator

Labor Designee Financial Aid Public Administration Unit, Behavioral and Social Sciences Department

Member Member Member

Member

15 | P a g e

Working Group Composition WG #3/Standard 3: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience Name Title Department/Office Role Silvia Reyes Director of Special Projects Academic Affairs Co-chair and Student Academic Supports Catherine Lewis Associate Professor and Media Design Unit, Co-chair Senator Humanities Department Zeinah Ahmed Humberto Ballesteros Alisa Bush

Student Assistant Professor and Senator Student

Amani Cottoy Inmaculada Lara Bonilla Carlos Guevara*

Student Assistant Professor

Soldanela Rivera Lรณpez Javier Saldana Erik Smiles Malik Sullivan Elizabeth Wilson

Director of EdTech, Codirector of Center for Teaching and Learning and Senator Director of Presidential Strategic Initiatives

Modern Languages Unit, Humanities Department

Member Member Member

Modern Languages Unit, Humanities Department Academic Affairs

Member Member Member

President's Office

Member

Workforce Development Manager Director of Athletics

Continuing Education and Workforce Development Athletics and Recreation

Member

Student Records Coordinator Director of School-College Partnerships and Senator

Registrar Office of School College Partnerships

Member Member

Member

*Hostos Alumni

16 | P a g e

Name Diana Macri Carlos Rivera

Working Group Composition WG #4/Standard 4: Support of the Student Experience Title Department/Office Assistant Professor and Dental Hygiene Unit, Allied Senator Health Department Director of Admissions Admissions

Role Co-chair Co-chair

Wishart Alleyne Arnaldo Bernabe* Eduardo Camacho Evelyn FernandezKetcham

Bursar Chief of Public Safety Student Executive Director, Workforce Development

Bursar's Office Public Safety

Sandy Figueroa

Associate Professor, Coordinator and Senator

Office Technology Unit, Business Department

Member

Ana GarcĂ­a Reyes

Associate Dean for Community Relations

President's Office

Member

Leslie King Christiana Konadu Jason Libfeld

Director of Financial Aid Student Student Leadership Coordinator Executive Director, Center for Bronx Non-profits

Financial Aid

Member Member Member

Continuing Education and Workforce Development

Member

Ana Ozuna

Assistant Professor and Senator

Black Studies Unit, Humanities Department

Member

Raymond PĂŠrez

Director of Accessibility Resource Center

Accessibility and Resource Center

Member

Eileen Newman

Continuing Education and Workforce Development

Student Life

Member Member Member Member

*Hostos Alumni

17 | P a g e

Name Ann Mester

Working Group Composition WG #5/Standard 5: Educational Effectiveness Assessment Title Department/Office Associate Dean Academic Affairs

Anders Stachelek

Associate Professor and Deputy Chair

Elbagine Bonilla Juana Florentino

Strategic Planning and Assessment Specialist Student

Andrea GabbidonLevene Carmen GarcĂ­a Carl Grindley

Director, CUNY Start and Math Start Student Professor

Amanda Howard Linda Miles Mathew Moses

Mathematics Department Student Development and Enrollment Management

CUNY Start

Role Co-chair Co-chair

Member Member

English Department

Member Member Member

Associate Director of Grants Office Assistant Professor Lecturer and Senator

Grants Office Library English Department

Member Member Member

Emerald Nwanne

Institutional Research Analyst

Office of Institutional Research and Assessment

Member

Jason Pelosi

Director of Student Success Center

Student Success Coaching Unit

Member

Rocio Rayo* Lisanette Rosario* Aicha Traore

Early College Coordinator Director of Career Services Student

Office of School College Partnerships Career Services

Member Member Member

*Hostos Alumni

18 | P a g e

Working Group Composition WG #6/Standard 6: Planning, Resources and Institutional Improvement Name Title Department Office Vyacheslav Dushenkov Associate Professor Biology Unit, Natural Sciences Varun Sehgal Chief Information Officer and Information Technology Assistant Vice President for Information Technology Louis Bury Karina Castro

Fanny Dumancela* Safiyah Faustin Elizabeth Friedman Alba Lynch* Sherin Mathew Lillian Morales

Assistant Professor and Senator Coordinator of Immersion Workshops and Honor's Program Finance Budget Director Senior Student Success Coach and Senator Director of Campus Planning and Development Student Success Coach and Senator Registration Coordinator Executive Assistant to the VP of Student Development

Susan Pinamonti

Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations

Yudeiri RodrĂ­guez Ventura Fabian Wander

Student Director of Health and Wellness, and Senator

Role Co-chair Co-chair

English Department

Member

Academic Affairs

Member

Administration and Finance Student Success Coaching Unit Administration and Finance

Member

Student Success Coaching Unit Registrar's Office Student Development and Enrollment Management Advancement

Member

Student Life

Member Member

Member Member

Member Member Member

*Hostos Alumni

19 | P a g e

Working Group Composition WG #7/Standard 7: Governance, Leadership and Administration Name Title Department/Office Jefferson Barnes Deputy Chief Information Information Technology Officer Antonios Varelas Associate Professor Behavioral Sciences Unit, Behavioral and Social Sciences Department

Role Co-chair Co-chair

Ken Acquah Jason Buchanan Tameka Cassaberry Sarah Church Siddique Mohamed

Executive Director Assistant Professor Student Assistant Professor and Chair Assistant Director of Student Success Coaching Unit

Business Office English Department

Tina QuiĂąones-Cabrera

Director, Allied Health Programs and Contract Training

Continuing Education and Workforce Development

Member

Linda Ridley Sara Rodberg Gloria RodrĂ­guez Jerry Rosa Eugene Sohn

Lecturer Academic Advisor Administrative Coordinator Director of Student Activities Executive Counsel and Labor Designee Student Associate Professor, Coordinator and Senator

Business Department ASAP President's Office Student Activities Office of the Labor Designee

Member Member Member Member Member

Tara Tacneau Julie Trachman

Education Department Student Success Coaching Unit

Biology Unit, Natural Sciences Department

Member Member Member Member Member

Member Member

20 | P a g e

Babette Audant

Working Group Composition WG #8: Working Group Support Title Department/Office Assistant Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, Strategic Planning and Assessment President's Office

Chair

Madeline Ford Rhonda Johnson

Chief Librarian Assistant Professor

Library Library

Member Member

Piotr Kocik

Director of Office Institutional Research and Assessment

Institutional Research and Assessment

Member

Dereck Norville-Bowie

Associate Director of Institutional Research

Institutional Research and Assessment

Member

Name

Role

21 | P a g e

Working Group Charge Responsibilities include, but are not limited to: Working Group Co-chairs:           

Review Middle States documents related to the assigned standard as prescribed by the MSCHE Standards for Accreditation Monitor the analytical and research questions for the assigned standard guided by related criteria Ensure that group evidence and data needs are met Coordinate data requests and collection efforts Collaborate with other working groups researching shared lines of inquiry In collaboration with working group members, finalize outlines, preliminary and final drafts for submission to the Steering Committee Review and provide feedback on interim reports Participate in campus visits by the Middle States representatives Participate in college-wide forums Schedule and run meetings with group members Regularly meet with the self-study co-chairs regarding group progress

Working Group Members: 

  

Attend and actively participate in regularly scheduled group meetings (approximately eight 1.5 hour-meetings/per term) and reserve an additional 4-5 hours per semester for meetings related to the self-study Contribute to the group work collecting and assessing evidence Remain in communication with group co-chairs during the academic year Attend college-wide forum (one per semester)

CUNY Board of Trustees The chancellor of the City University of New York has assigned three members of the university Board of Trustees to support the college throughout the self-study. The members were selected based on their experience serving as leaders in the Bronx and in similar New York City communities. All three board members will receive a copy of the Self Study Design and additional college materials to deepen their understanding of the institution and enrich the support they provide during the self-study. All board members will attend the MSCHE liaison’s spring visit. The assigned board members are listed below.

Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez, Chair of the Committee of Faculty and Staff Relations Fernando Ferrer, Chair of the Fiscal Affairs Committee Charles Shorter, Vice Chair of the Fiscal Affairs Committee 22 | P a g e

Research Questions The following questions have been developed by each working group and approved by the Steering Committee. These questions will frame our self-study inquiry process.

WG #1/Standard 1: Mission and Goals Research Questions 1) How has the Hostos Community College mission evolved?

2) How do the Hostos Community College mission, strategic goals, and institutional learning outcomes address our students' needs and how are they used?

Institutional Priority P1: System Alignment P3: Community Resource Hub

3) How do our processes, procedures, ways of operating, and administrative structure fulfill Hostos Community College's mission, strategic goals, and institutional learning outcomes and adapt to the changing needs of our students?

4) In what ways does Hostos Community College communicate its mission, strategic goals, and institutional learning outcomes to both internal and external stakeholders?

5) How does the college periodically reassess and reaffirm its mission and strategic goals?

WG #2/Standard 2: Ethics and Integrity Institutional Research Questions Priority 1) How does the College foster transparency and accountability with P1: Systems regard to its tenure, promotion and hiring practices?

Alignment 2) How effectively does Hostos ensure affordability and accessibility for its students?

3) How does Hostos make sure that policies and procedures regarding established codes of ethics and integrity are communicated and followed by the college community?

4) How effective are the measures undertaken by the college to create an environment that embraces diversity and promotes inclusion?

5) How do the Hostos mission, policies and practices foster a culture of respect for ethics and integrity and encourage civic responsibility among faculty, staff and students?

23 | P a g e

WG #3/Standard 3: Design and Delivery/Student Learning Experience Research Questions 1)

How effective and rigorous is the design and delivery of the student learning experience in addressing the needs of the student population and foster retention, completion and graduation?

Institutional Priority P2: Academic Competencies

2) How are learning support resources made available to all students and how effectively do they meet student needs?

3) How effectively do the Hostos General Education Competencies and Academic Program offerings broaden student academic and intellectual interests including exploring other majors and transfer possibilities?

4) To what extent does each department, and the college in general, support the advancement and development of faculty (full time and part time) and staff to enhance teaching, scholarship, and service?

5) How effectively does the college respond to students' developmental education needs?

6) How effectively does the college respond to major CUNY systemwide curricular reforms that impact General Education, Developmental Education and Academic offerings?

WG #4/Standard 4: Support of the Student Experience Research Questions 1) How does Hostos communicate and ensure that students are aware of academic programs, support services, admission and graduation requirements?

Institutional Priority P2: Academic Competencies

2) How are decisions made about the prioritization and funding of critical student support areas and how are these decisions informed by the college's mission, institutional goals and students' needs?

3) How does Hostos ensure that student support services are properly coordinated, staffed and its personnel trained?

4) How does regular assessment of the effectiveness of our student support services inform how we serve our student population and how we allocate resources in support of student services?

24 | P a g e

WG #5/Standard 5: Educational Effectiveness Assessment Institutional Research Questions Priority 1) Are Hostos' assessment activities effectively aligned with the P2: Academic institution’s mission, institutional learning outcomes, academic, non- Competencies academic and continuing education program outcomes?

2) How effectively are college assessment activities organized, systematized, informed by properly trained faculty and staff expertise, and adequately resourced?

3) Are assessment results effectively used to inform our efforts to improve student learning and student success?

4) How have CUNY system-wide curricular reforms in Developmental Education and General Education/Pathways and third-party accrediting agencies informed Hostos programmatic assessments and impacted the learning experiences of our students?

5) How does Hostos periodically evaluate the effectiveness of its institutional assessment process in improving communication, educational effectiveness, student support systems, academic offering and continuing education offerings?

WG #6/Standard 6: Planning, Resources and Institutional Improvement Research Questions 1) How does Hostos demonstrate and practice a culture of data-driven decision making that is linked to the mission, strategic priorities and CUNY system-wide expectations?

2) How does Hostos develop, document and communicate the resource allocation process (fiscal, tech, personnel, infrastructure) and how does it ensure sustainable institutional improvement?

Institutional Priority P1: Systems Alignment P3: Community Resource Hub

3) What are the processes used to determine the resources (staff, facilities, tech, infrastructure) for new initiatives (programs, courses, and services) and how are the resources aligned with college's mission and strategic priorities?

4) How does Hostos identify and address potential opportunities and challenges with personnel, financial, technological and physical plant resources?

5) How does Hostos evaluate how effectively resources are allocated and what steps are taken as a result?

25 | P a g e

WG #7/Standard 7: Governance, Leadership and Administration Research Questions 1) To what extent does the governance structure of the college guarantee transparency and engagement regarding institutional decisions for and by stakeholders, including CUNY system-wide governance?

Institutional Priority P1: Systems Alignment

2) How does the college demonstrate that it is: a) Serving the public interest; b) Fulfilling its mission; c) Exhibiting fiduciary responsibility d) Demonstrating accountable academic quality; e) Promoting operational autonomy; and f) Adhering to established ethical practices.

3) How does the College ensure that the President exercises and possesses the authority, qualifications, and resources to successfully carry out the mission of the college?

4) To what extent does the college have a clearly defined, documented and well-supported administrative structure that enable effective communication with staff, faculty and students? How does the administrative structure advance the institution's goals and mission, and how are assessments conducted to enhance operations?

5) How does the college evaluate the effectiveness of institutional governance, leadership, and administration?

26 | P a g e

VI.

Guidelines for Reporting

On December 5, 2019 all working group members attended a meeting led by the Steering Committee co-chairs during which they outlined the working groups’ charge, self-study timeline, common evidence reporting template, interim report format, protocols for collecting evidence and resources available to support the members in their work. Below is an outline of the expected deliverables for the working groups.

Spring 2020 WG co-chairs are required to meet with the SC co-chairs two to three times WG and SC attend meeting to Working group (WG) codiscuss evidence. SC provides chairs submit draft of revisions to evidence list and research question to Steering alignment with research 24-Jan Committee (SC) 2-Mar questions Drafts of research questions are shared across working groups with request for 30-Jan feedback Working groups and Steering Committee send feedback on research questions to SC co4-Feb chairs WG co-chairs receive feedback on proposed 5-Feb research questions Working groups begin to identify evidence needs to 10-Feb address research questions WG co-chairs submit draft 2 of research questions to 11-Feb Steering Committee WG co-chairs receive (1) response to draft 2 research questions and (2) draft of the 14-Feb Self-Study Design (SSD) Working groups send (1) feedback to SSD and (2) a list of evidence aligned with 21-Feb each research question

Evidence list approval sent to WG co-chairs along with notification of shared lines of inquiry between 4-Mar groups WG with shared lines of inquiry meet and establish collaboration 9-Mar protocol Host Dr. Hilda Colon-Plumey, 13-Mar MSCHE VP

27-Mar WGs submit first interim report Working groups receive feedback 8-Apr from SC on first interim report

30-Apr College-Wide Open Forum

WGs submit second interim 1-May report

27-Feb College Wide Open Forum

Working groups receive feedback 14-May from SC on second interim report

28-Feb SSD submitted to MSCHE

WG co-chairs meet with SC to 18-May organize summer work 27 | P a g e

The schedule below provides a timeline for self-study activities after spring 2020. In summer 2020 specific deadlines for each of the activities listed will be established and communicated with all working groups.

Spring 2021 No meetings as draft of selfstudy is written

June

Summer 2020 Evidence verification

July

Evidence verification

March

Working groups meet to review and respond to drafts of report

August

Evidence verification

April

Working groups meet to address community feedback to self-study draft and submit response feedback to Steering Committee Working groups meet once to address pending items

Fall 2020

February

May

WG co-chairs are required to meet with the Steering Committee co-chairs two to three times this semester

Summer 2021

September

Working groups meet twice. Develop third interim report

June

Self-study revisions

October

Working groups meet twice. Submit third interim report

July

Self-study revisions

November

Working groups meet twice and review feedback on draft

August

Self-study completed

December

Working groups meet twice and submit final (fourth) report

January

Working groups meet as needed to address final questions regarding report

28 | P a g e

VII.

Organization of the Final Self-Study Report I. II. III.

IV.

V.

VIII.

Executive Summary Institutional Overview Overview of Self-Study Process a. Institutional Priorities b. Intended Outcomes c. Organization of the Steering Committee and Working Groups d. Communication with Stakeholders Standard X: Title X (REPEATED FOR EACH STANDARD) a. How Standards and Requirements are Met b. Analysis of Evidence of Meeting Standard and Requirements of Affiliation c. Response to Standard Research Questions d. Summary of Findings Including Strengths and Weaknesses e. Assessment of Findings Using Lens of Institutional Priorities f. Recommendations for Institutional Improvement Recommendations and Conclusions

Verification of Compliance (VoC) Strategy

The Verification of Compliance will be a centralized process coordinated by Wendy SmallTaylor, Director of Academic Advisement, with support provided by one of her staff. Ms. SmallTaylor was selected to coordinate the VoC due to her wealth of knowledge and experience interfacing with college and university policies and processes. Ms. Small-Taylor will report directly to the Steering Committee co-chairs, who will work closely with Provost Christine Mangino, the campus ALO. In January 2020, Ms. Small-Taylor presented a preliminary draft of the VoC to the co-chairs and Provost. In March 2020, a revised draft will be shared with the Steering Committee and working group co-chairs for additional feedback.

Throughout the self-study Ms. Small-Taylor will meet periodically with the Steering Committee co-chairs and present bi-annual reports to the committee. The Steering Committee co-chairs will establish a line of communication between Ms. Small-Taylor and the working group cochairs to ensure that the evidence gathered by working groups supports institutional compliance and fulfills the requirements of affiliation.

A final update of the VoC will occur in September of 2021 and all links will be tested.

29 | P a g e

IX.

Self-Study Timeline Hostos Self-Study Timeline

Spring 2019 Fall 2019

Spring 2020

Summer/Fall 2020 Spring 2021

Summer/Fall 2021

Spring 2022

Summer 2022

Self-Study Co-chairs Identified Hostos team attend MSCHE Self-Study Institute Campus-wide open forum and call for volunteers Steering Committee convened and charged Working groups convened and charged Self-study institutional priorities identified Working group evidence report format finalized SharePoint site for evidence inventory developed MSCHE liaison spring visit scheduled Define working group research questions Working groups begin identifying and evaluating evidence Steering Committee approves selected evidence Steering Committee establishes shared lines of Inquiry to inform collaboration between working groups Hostos self-study website launched Two self-study open forums held Self-Study Design submitted MSCHE liaison visit held Evidence evaluation and verification Evidence gaps identified and strategy developed to address gaps Working groups submit reports on findings Self-study report draft completed Community reviews draft and submits comments MSCHE selects evaluation team members and Hostos approves Hostos submits draft of report to MSCHE liaison Team chair preliminary visit Draft revision Draft submission MSCHE team site visit Team report Institutional response Commission determines action

30 | P a g e

X.

Communication Plan

The college’s self-study Communication Plan includes a website, a series of open forums, and regularly scheduled presentations and meetings with key stakeholders where feedback is solicited. The self-study website, scheduled to launch in spring 2020, includes both public and private components. The public website will include a welcome statement, self-study timeline, names of Steering Committee and working group members, videos of the open forums, an archive of the college’s accreditation history, as well as links to MSCHE. Using their Hostos login credentials, faculty and staff will also be able to access via the website the 2020 Self-Study Design, final report, SharePoint site and a portal to submit questions to the Steering Committee co-chairs regarding the self-study.

Objective Update the campus community about the Self-Study process

Self-Study Communication Plan Audience Method Board of Trustees Website; periodic debriefing meetings between college president, Self-Study cochairs and two trustees assigned to support Self-Study Students

Website; student representatives on Working Groups and Steering Committee; Self-Study Open Forums

Faculty

Website; Faculty representatives on Working Groups; Faculty Senate Chairperson on Steering Committee; presentations at Academic Council and Chair, Coordinator and Unit Director standing meetings; SelfStudy Open Forums

Staff

Timing

Ongoing

Website; Staff representatives on Working Groups; senator who is member of professional staff serves on Steering Committee; presentations at Senior Leadership Council meetings; Self-Study Open Forums

31 | P a g e

Gather feedback about Working Group reports

Self-Study Communication Plan Continued Board of Feedback gathered from periodic Trustees debriefing meetings between college president, Self-Study co-chairs and two trustees assigned to support Self-Study Students

Faculty

Staff

Feedback gathered from students on the Working Groups and Steering Committee, presentations by student representatives at Student Government Association meetings, and the Self-Study Open Forums Feedback gathered from faculty on the Working Groups and Steering Committee; presentations at Academic Council, Chair, Coordinator and Unit Director standing meetings and SelfStudy Open Forums Feedback gathered from staff on the Working Groups and Steering Committee, presentations at Senior Leadership Council meetings and SelfStudy Open Forums

Spring/Summer 2020 and Fall 2020

32 | P a g e

XI.

Evaluation Team Profile

Since its founding Hostos has served a student body that primarily identifies with Latinx and/or African American ethnic/racial origins. Other consistent features of our student demographics are:  High developmental education needs  Low-income  First in their family to attend college  Bronx residents  Speak a language other than English at home Hostos requests a visiting team with experience serving in institutions with the following characteristics:  A student body primarily of Latinx and African/African American origins  Public and open enrollment  History serving ESL students  Use multiple measures for English and math placement for incoming students  Serve communities that are educationally and economically under-resourced  Serve communities with students who have deep math and language developmental needs  Use co-requisite courses to address developmental learning needs  Part of large university systems with leadership from and reporting requirements to a central office  Large populations who transfer for BA/BS degrees Peer Institutions: Baltimore County Community College, Union County Community College and Community College of Philadelphia Our largest degree programs are liberal arts, nursing, criminal justice, dental hygiene and early childhood education.

33 | P a g e

XI.

Evidence Inventory

The Hostos Information Technology Department developed a self-study SharePoint site to support the organization and evaluation of evidence. The site includes eight sub-sites, one for each of the working groups and one for the Steering Committee. Working groups will provide a first-level evaluation of all potential evidence using both the MSCHE rubrics and the common evidence reporting template, which requires that members indicate the aligned standard criteria and research questions. Working groups will also be tasked with partnering with subject-matter experts for peer evaluation of select key evidence. Once the preliminary evaluation by the working group has been completed, members will upload evidence to their group’s SharePoint site.

All evidence uploaded to working group SharePoint sites will undergo a minimum of two additional levels of evaluation. Faculty from the Library will review all evidence to verify labeling, tagging and format, and ensure that working groups submit all evidence needed to address the standard’s research questions. Staff from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment will review evidence to verify alignment with the Evidence Inventory requirements and to evaluate the quality of the evidence using the MSCHE rubrics. The Steering Committee will routinely review submitted evidence to control for the quality of the artifacts, their appropriate analysis, and to check the working groups’ progress completing the Evidence Inventory.

34 | P a g e

Appendix A Standard Documents, Office/Location/ Group Status Evidence Comments, Gaps Suggested Criteria/ Processes, Contact Person Member Observations, Actions, Research Procedures Responsible Information Recommendations Questions Provided

Report Format: A. Standard title B. Members C. List of previous meetings/attendance/minutes D. Discussed Points E. Next Steps F. Future meeting dates G. Attach (above) Chart of Evidence 1|Page