Search Reslife.net				Tweet
		“On Common Ground” Freshman Community Standards at Western New England College By Thomas Wozniak, Director of Residence Life Western New England College “The Times, They Are A 'Changin” As with many colleges and universities, we at Western New England College are dealing with changing attitudes and behaviors with incoming students. By the mid-90's, we knew that tried-and-true approaches to student life and community development with first year students, particularly those in residence, were becoming less effective on our campus. We were experiencing an increase in both damage assessment and documented misconduct. And while matters were certainly not "out of control", we were starting to become a kind of place we did not want to be in terms of quality of life issues and educationally purposeful outcomes. This trend, a source of frustration and concern for both student leaders and professional staff, positioned us to literally rethink everything ... especially the fundamentals. In the spring of 1996, a new conceptual framework, initiated largely through the offices of the Dean for Freshman and Transfer Students (Theodore Zern) and Student Activities/Leadership Development (Maureen Keizer), was presented at summer orientation. The concept was then developed, with the involvement of Residence Life, into a pilot program in the traditional residence halls for the 96-97 academic year. Since that time, fine-tuned and further enhanced, it has become part of the foundation of the first year experience at the College. Rethinking the Basics While maintaining a commitment to student development, and its premise that students new to the college experience need definitive structure and support in order to succeed, we took a serious look not only at what we were doing in the first year, but how we did it. In reviewing "what" and "how", it was determined that a significant change needed to occur in both areas — and in doing so, we also recognized that the fundamental premise on which we approached working with new students had to change as well. Like many institutions, we depended on a set of prescribed expectations for behavior ... codified in the housing agreement and student handbook ... that students were expected to "buy into" as part of their lifestyle. We admitted that no matter how we packaged it, we were telling them what to do, and not do within our community. And "telling" was no longer working effectively. Increasing numbers of students were not "owning" the policies and expectations of a productive, respectful community we envisioned for them. And those who did were victimized (at worst) or intimidated (at best) by the disinterested, disruptive and/or defiant members of freshman corridor living. So we decided to abandon our approach of "telling" or "selling" a pre-determined product that we were invested in. The new approach involved forming a partnership with incoming students; enabling them to become actively involved in developing the behavioral standards they could invest in, live by, and be held accountable for. Developing the Model Our efforts began with a working definition of community. We agreed that community refers to a group of people who share a common purpose, live in close proximity and interact on a regular basis, and share in defining expectations. It is clear that corridor living, by its very nature, establishes the opportunity for community development. But we acknowledged that our incoming students played little to no role in defining expectations that would then form a common purpose, or blueprint, for them to live by. We shifted from concept formation to program design by having a group of successful, highly invested students discuss the "essential ingredients" of quality community life. They summarized their beliefs in a list of statements they felt were critical for productive group living. These statements ranged from issues of academic integrity to feeling safe and secure on campus. Fifteen value-based criteria were agreed upon, listed as follows: I expect my community to be a group of people who expect me to do all my own class assignments. I expect my community to be a group of people who allow me to express my opinions without ridicule. I expect my community to be a group of people who will abide by Massachusetts¹s law governing the use, possession, and sale of alcohol. I expect my community to be a group of people who will honor the safety codes on campus. I expect my community to be a group of people who take care to be physically safe on campus. I expect my community to be a group of people who will keep my personal property safe and will use it only after my consent. I expect my community to be a group of people who respect the college facilities and allow me to use them in the manner intended. I expect my community to expect me to treat others the way I want to be treated. I expect my community to be a group of people who respect my body with the same care and respect as I have. I expect my community to be a group of people who hold me accountable for the decisions I make. I expect my community to expect me to behave in a way so that others can trust me. I expect my community to be a group of people who would not use physical force. I expect my community to be a group of people who would expect me to refrain from taking advantage of others. I expect my community to be a group of people who would expect me to tell the truth even at my own expense. I expect my community to be a group of people who respect my right to say "no." Implementation: Part One These statements became the focal point of a community development session at summer orientation. Each student was asked (anonymously) to rank order the expectations based on their importance to him/her. To make the statements less abstract (an authentic part of the college experience), student leaders had also developed a reality-based question that accompanied each statement. Two examples: I expect my community to be a group of people who allow me to express my opinions without ridicule. How would you feel if you answered in class, and heard someone laugh at you? I expect my community to be a group of people who respect the facilities and allow me to use them in the manner intended. How would you feel if you wanted to go to sleep, and your roommate is having sex in the other bed? Survey results from each orientation session were tallied throughout the summer, to become a document representative of the priorities of the incoming class. In preparing the final document for the Class of 2000, each of the fifteen statements was listed according to the number/percent of students who indicated it as they're top priority. Subsequent classes have prioritized twelve of the original fifteen statements. For the four years the program has been in effect, there have been both similarities and distinct differences in the ranking of community expectations by each incoming class. For the Class of 2000 (the first group to participate in this activity), the three most important expectations — ranked "number one" by the largest number of students — were as follows: others shall respect my personal property (31%), I shall treat others the way I wish to be treated (21%), and the need to feel and be physically safe on campus (15%). In comparison, the top three community expectations for the incoming Class of 2001 were: expressing my opinions without ridicule (32%), others shall respect my personal property (27%), and others shall respect my body (12%). The final product, a "Community Affirmation for the Class of XXXX", is further enhanced by the Dean for Freshman and Transfer Students. The peer expectations are given greater "substance" in the narrative of the document. For example, the statement We expect to have our personal property safe and have it used only after our consent includes the following clarification: A commitment to this ideal rejects all forms of theft, vandalism, arson, misappropriation or malicious damage. Personal property extends beyond a room in a residence hall and includes that which is available for use by all members of the community; it includes property and facilities intended for the common good. That property is to be protected as if it were personally held. Implementation: Part Two The document, a "Community Affirmation for the Class of XXXX", is formally introduced to the new students as part of Fall Convocation on opening weekend. Equally important, the document is then shared with each incoming student as an opportunity for him/her to make a personal commitment to honor and abide by its terms, through his/her signature on the form. In the first year of the "On Common Ground: Freshman Community Standards" program, more than 85% of the students — both resident and commuter — validated their commitment to the standards agreed upon at summer orientation. Majority commitments have been the norm since then. It is an excellent example of personal investment and positive peer influence during a time when students are forming impressions and drawing conclusions that will affect their overall college experience, and how they contribute to it. With respect to Residence Life, the "Community Affirmation" of each incoming class has been incorporated into several aspects of freshman corridor living — from the most subtle/passive of approaches, to very directive means. The document is posted annually in the main recreational lounge of each residence hall. Every Resident Advisor is advised to utilize it as a focal point and theme within their initial floor meetings, and to revisit it (as appropriate) throughout the year. Experienced Resident Advisors have typically indicated that the document better positioned them to stress corridor living as a shared responsibility — not something that the residents believe begins and ends with the RA. Issues like "quiet hours", visitation and guests, and care and upkeep of shared space (problems like littering, minor acts of vandalism) are more readily addressed as a "we're in this together" mindset due to the presence of a peer-based community affirmation. While certainly not always the case, there are increasing number of times when it is clear the "On Common Ground" activity has empowered members of the sometimes silent majority to speak up — either in the public forum (floor meetings), small group interactions, or at least in private with their Resident Advisor. The activity and resultant document reminds individuals that they are not alone in valuing the right things ... that others collectively support expectations "X" "Y" and "Z" as well. Consequently, we are seeing first year students take a more active interest in, and more direct involvement with, the dynamics of corridor life — earlier in the course of the academic year. The "On Common Ground" activity also enabled us to expand the involvement of freshman hall councils (which served primarily as fun-and-games programming boards) to include peer accountability for unacceptable behavior adversely affecting the residence community. As Community Standards Boards, the students have responded first and foremost within the context of their established community expectations, rather than the housing contract or student conduct code per se. They have either provided recommendations for "in house" accountability or served as an appellate board, providing a recommended final outcome on decisions already rendered by an administrator. In either case, they have typically handled far more challenging matters with far greater investment of time and effort than we originally anticipated of first year students. They do not meet often, in that we reserve their efforts for matters that truly affect the quality of life for the living group as a whole (from a corridor to building-wide issue), but their impact is significant when they do respond. In a similar sense, the "On Common Ground" community expectations activity has added a new dimension to both formal and informal administrative interventions — from the "teachable moment" when a Resident Advisor responds, to a conduct review with a Hall Director. It has allowed us to focus on the student's failure to honor a personal commitment as a member of the Class of XXXX, rather than his/her negligence with respect to a college policy or regulation. This is a subtle but very critical difference — not only with respect to approach, but in terms of content and context as well. In terms of dialogue and learning, it makes it more difficult for the student to "distance" him/herself from the situation and the standard for conduct he/she has had a voice in determining. Depending on the circumstances involved, it is the judgment of the responding staff member whether the problematic behavior is tied strictly to the peer-based community expectation, or connected to a stated College policy as well. Other Tangible Outcomes One of the most rewarding outcomes of this venture is validation of our belief that it has empowered first year students with a vision of shared expectations, and has contributed to a better quality of life during their first year experience. In terms of the residence community, this has been demonstrated — over the course of four years — through a reduction in the number of formal conduct reviews and a decrease in misuse of college property (damage assessment.) In the year preceding the program's inception (the 95-96 year), there were 369 cases of resident student misconduct on file with the College, and $21,000 billed back to residents for replacement/repair costs campus wide. As one might anticipate, the majority of discipline cases and restitution billing involved first year students.  In the initial year of the "On Common Ground" Freshman Community Standards program (96-97), formal misconduct remained stable — a disappointing outcome — but damage assessment decreased by 20% to $16,800. Changes for subsequent years are listed as follows: Academic Year Documented Misconduct End of Year Damage Assessment # of Residents — Fall opening 95-96 369 $21,000 1157 96-97 362 $16,800 1145 97-98 243 $11,700 1194 98-99 320 $10,700 1282 The increase in documented misconduct for 98-99 resulted from a decision to record informal "in-house developmental chats" with students (to give these "teachable moments" more credibility) and expanded educational sanctioning. It is not an indicator that the program has been less effective. Even with a larger residential population, and an administrative decision to absorb some previously billable charges, end-of-year damage billing has continued to decrease. Other initiatives (such as "academic cluster" living-learning groups for first year residents) have been developed as part of the "guided journey" for new students. While these have certainly contributed to positive outcomes, peer-based community expectations remains the cornerstone of our program for personal investment and community development at Western New England College, and a catalyst for the progress we have made thus far. About the Author Tom is currently the director of residence life at Western New England College in Springfield, MA. He received a BA from Merrimack College and a M. Ed. in Educational Administration from Worcester State College. Tom served in the role of past president of the Northeast Association of College & University Housing Officers (NEACUHO) and received the Association's "Best of the Northeast" program presenter award in 1997 and the "Distinguished Service" award in 1998. Tom has presented on developmental and operational issues at regional and national conferences and, most recently, was selected to present a pre-conference program on effective supervision for new professionals at the 1999 NEACUHO annual conference, and the keynote address for delegates at the NEACUHO Fall Drive-in Conference. At Western New England College, Tom currently serves on the Strategic Oversight Committee and the College Facilities Master Plan Committee, as well as the "Lecture Series 2000" ad hoc committee of Faculty Senate.