• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Carnegie classification overview
 

Carnegie classification overview

on

  • 216 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
216
Views on SlideShare
216
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Agenda for the day Before I begin discussing the Engaged Campus series, I ’d like to tell you a bit about Campus Compact.
  • In 2006, Carnegie instituted its first elective category. Community Engagement Based on self-reports A Carnegie Classification committee reviews submissions through a set of measurements that identify Community Engagement as a central feature of institutional identity and culture. In 2006, UC, Kent State Owens; got the outreach & Partnerships; BGSU got Curricular Engagement In 2008: Hocking OSU, Otterbein & Akron In 2010: Oberlin, Miami, John Carroll, Hiram, Denison, UC For the 2015 classification cycle, campuses that received the classification in 2010 will not need to do anything. 2010 classified campuses will retain the classification until 2020. To be reclassified in 2020, the 2010 campuses will need to reapply as described in #2.
  • Community Engagement Based on self-reports A Carnegie Classification committee reviews submissions through a set of measurements that identify Community Engagement as a central feature of institutional identity and culture.
  • Institutional self-assessment and self-study : A way to bring the disparate parts of the campus together in a way that advances a unified agenda. At the same time, it allows for the identification of promising practices that can be shared across the institution. Legitimacy : Seeking a new level of legitimacy and public recognition and visibility for your work Accountability : A way to demonstrate that the institution is fulfilling its mission to serve the public good Catalyst for Change : A tool for fostering institutional alignment for community-based teaching, learning, and scholarship Institutional Identity : the classification is a way to clarify institutional identity and mission that distinguishes the institution from peers
  • Annual community perception survey???
  • Don’t have different people write different sections in different styles – it looks disorganized to reviewers. Fill empty space if you have something to say.
  • John Saltmarsh, co-director of NERCH Gail Robinson, Am Assoc of Comm Colleges Campus Compact features Carnegie Classification applications for Civic Engagement 2008 Miami Dade College Mount Wachusett Community College Occidental College Otterbein College (Partnership grid) San Jose University University of Louisville University of Wisconsin-Madison Villanova University Weber State University (Also download the partnership grid)

Carnegie classification overview Carnegie classification overview Presentation Transcript

  • Tools, resources & approaches to crafting a successful Carnegie Classification application Ohio Campus Compact State Conference August 7, 2013 Denison University
  • Goals • Offer overview of Classification • Offer “on the ground” perspectives and tips from institutions that previously received classification • Review available & tools resources • ID next steps for your campus •QUICK POLL
  • QUICK introductions • Name • Institution • If it is a first-time application or re- classification; and • Your role in the process…and where that process stands currently
  • Brief History • 2006 – First elective classification • 2008 • 2010 • 2015 Next Classification: 2020 May 30, 2012
  • Carnegie Community Engagement Classification • A Benchmarking Tool: • Mainly descriptive • Self-reported data/information • Institutions evaluate various aspects of their processes in relationship to standards of best practice (Documentation Framework) • Not a ranking tool – no hierarchy or levels of classification
  • May 30, 2012
  • Institutional Motivation • Institutional self-assessment & self-study • Legitimacy • Accountability • Catalyst for Change • Institutional Identity *QUICK POLL*
  • 2010 Classification • 305 campuses expressed an intent to apply and received the application • 154 campuses submitted an application (151 campuses withdrew) • 115 received the classification
  • Systematic Assessment • “Does the institution maintain systematic campus-wide tracking or documentation mechanisms to record and/or track engagement with the community?”
  • General Application Tips • Never too early to start • Write cohesively and with one voice • If something doesn’t exist, address how you plan to remedy it • Write up to the maximum character count, but don’t be redundant • Describe who your students are • Reviewers may not be familiar with tribal, community, or technical colleges, so spell out and define particular programs and courses
  • Impact of the application and classification • Provides a framework for understanding all service learning and civic engagement activities/initiatives on campus • Legitimizes activities related to service learning and civic engagement and demonstrates the institution’s accountability to these efforts • Documents the college’s impact and value to the community which can lead to broader participation in programming • Characterizes a college as being civically engaged, which helps with future grant funding, branding, and community outreach efforts • Creates a positive institutional identity that everyone can share and celebrate
  • Long term impact of the application and classification • Changes in institutional culture  Committee still meets  Course designations for service learning or civic engagement  Increased collaboration  “Active learning, community engagement, civic engagement is more desirable and acceptable now.” • Alignment of community engagement with mission • Learned more about institution and colleagues • Identification of what more needs to be done
  • Resources • Campus Compact pre-recorded webinar • Sample applications at: compact.org & ohiocampuscompact.org • NERCHE: www.nerche.org • Campus Compact virtual learning community starting in September May 30, 2012