Proposed adaptation of the Community Standards model emphasizing a developmental scaling of responsibilities and support.

1. Progressive Standards Model
Community Standards within a Progressive Adult Roles Framework
Rationale: While there is little argument that a significant portion of our students are not
developmentally ready to fully engage our current Standards Model, to scale it back across the
board may be more of an enabling measure. An intentionally progressive increase of
implementation corresponding to more complex and demanding adult roles may maintain the
integrity of the model and ultimately better support our educational mission.
Level 5 = Sole use of
standards, no-non-
negotiables; medium
support
Level 4 = Significant use of standards
with few or no non-negotiables;
significant support
Level 3 = Significant use of standards with limited non-
negotiables; significant level of support
Level 2 = Balance of Standards and Non-negotiables; medium level of support
Level 1 = Least use of standards, greatest use of non-negotiables; medium level of support
Highlights:
 Structured and progressive skill development curriculum, identifying key adult roles and
the skills they require
 Varying levels of support corresponding to degrees of readiness and challenge
 Less Challenge up front, greater challenge on the back end with smaller groups,
maintaining integrity with the overall concept and underlining theory.
 Structured and also progressive system of recognition (this is an added aspect to help
motivate progression)
 Starting at a level first semester and progress to next level second semester.
Level 1. Least use of standards, greatest use of “non-negotiables”– First Year residents,
OA’s, etc.:
 Challenge (Lowest):

2. o Mostly prescriptive policies – non-negotiable quiet hours, 24 hr courtesy hours,
non-negotiable trash in hallway, etc.
o Introduction to Community Standards through Roommate/Suitemate agreements,
option to extend quiet hours, and agreements on how to address conflict on the
floor.
 Support (Medium):
o Some support comes from decreasing the beginning level of challenge.
o Most of the support comes from Staff (and perhaps eventually Council member)
facilitation of roommate and suitemate agreements.
o Staff would continue to provide support via accompanying residents when
confronting peers.
o Conflict Management and assertiveness workshops would be embedded in floor
meetings and floor programming. Some event planning guidance would also be
provided as needed.
o Additional support may be found in enhanced literature and orientation efforts
preparing students and parents for the standards model and the “adult roles”
required of residential living.
o Student staff’s capacity for support may be enhanced further with more training
on how to build conflict management and assertiveness skills through advising
and coaching.
 RA/Supervisor Role
o RA’s/Sup assist/encourage students to confront peers, but have greater
responsibility to confront if student unwilling
o RA’s/Sup address developmental needs regarding conflict mgmt,
o RA’s/Sup educate floor about community living, adult roles, and progression
from level 1 to 2 at mid year.
 Non-negotiables (brainstormed possibilities)
o 24 Hour Courtesy Hours
o Specified Quiet Hours
o Trash is automatically removed
o Minimal floor funds or has to request funds from complex council
 Recognition (Modest)
o Staff will aggressively reward civic involvement
o Staff will recognize and reward investment in roommate/suitemate agreements
and relationships
o Staff will recognize personal growth
o Staff will reward involvement with invitations to leadership positions.
Level 2. Modest Implementation/Medium Support – Floor Council, maybe Complex
Council, maybe OA’s, maybe some mostly first year floors:
 Challenge (Low):
o Mostly prescriptive policies covering performance expectations, group
interactions, etc.
o Engagement of Community Standards revolves around setting basic (probably
somewhat superficial) expectations between group members regarding

3. professional behavior, interactions, budget management, and how to address
conflict within the group.
 Support (Significant):
o Some support derived from less challenge
o Introduction to the 7 C’s, along with role specific, basic skill development in
Conflict management and assertiveness, critical thinking, group facilitation,
personal risk management, event planning, and professionalism.
o Additional coaching and advising in the area of Leadership Development and
Teamwork and group dynamics.
o Some Train the Trainer focus could be given the training, to increase students’
capacity to coach and advise other residents.
o Professional and graduate staff would help facilitate the resolution of conflict and
model the standards significantly.
o Professional and graduate staff would regularly revisit standards in light of
ongoing training and familiarity with 7 C’s, group dynamics, etc.
o Additional support may be found in enhanced training materials and processes to
help articulate the roles and expectations required to help develop their capacity to
recognize, understand and reflect on the different adult roles they are undertaking
 Recognition (Moderate):
o Higher levels of civic engagement and investment in the group standards
o Community development
o Teamwork and leadership
o Certificate of Involvement, Leadership, etc. First of a tiered Series
Level 3. Medium Implementation/Significant Support – RHA, maybe Complex Council,
and thematic or mostly upper class floors:
 Challenge (Moderate):
o Less restrictive policies – greater expectation for group negotiation of meaningful
standards and shared decision making (negotiable Quiet Hours, group resolution
of conflict, shared event planning, and some negotiable performance expectations,
etc.) Basically what we have now on floors and on Complex Staffs
o Some increase in complexity of adult roles and the skills they require
 Support (Significant):
o In depth coverage of 7 C’s
o Extensive skill development in conflict management, assertiveness, critical
thinking, professionalism, leadership, group dynamics, personal risk management,
event planning and budget management
o Greater emphasis on Train the Trainer in the above skills
o Frequent discussion/revisiting of standards and expectations (as skills and training
progress) with more frequent systems of peer feedback
o Enhanced training literature identifying the adult roles more explicitly and the
skill and competencies required of them.
o Individual coaching from both peers (RA’s, ROMs, etc.) and Professional and
Graduate staff
 Recognition (Moderate)
o Leadership, teamwork and peer advising/coaching

4. o Community building, event planning
o Level 2 or 2nd Tier Certificate
Level 4. Significant Implementation/Significant Support – RA’s and ROMs, upper class
floors and maybe some thematic floors:
 Challenge (Significant):
o Less restrictive policies and much greater room for negotiation of living
standards, team interactions, shared decision making, and group resolution of
conflict.
o Some challenge comes from less support and more personal investment
o More complex adult roles and competencies
 Support (Significant):
o Higher order skill development in 7 C’s, critical thinking, conflict management,
assertiveness, professionalism, leadership, group dynamics, personal risk
management, and event and budget management.
o Individual coaching from peers (veteran staff and RHA) and professional and
graduate staff
o Even greater emphasis on train the trainer in the above skills
o More frequent discussion/revisiting of standards and expectations (as skills and
training progress) with more frequent systems of peer feedback
o Enhanced training literature identifying the adult roles more explicitly and the
skill and competencies required of them.
 Recognition (Moderate)
o Leadership, teamwork and peer advising/coaching
o Community building, event planning
o Level 3 or 3rd Tier Certificate
o Perhaps level 4 Certificate for the ROM if the position is a veteran RA.
Level 5. Maximum Implementation/Modest Support – Continued and enhanced focus on train
the trainer in terms of community standards, critical thinking, leadership development, and
conflict management/assertiveness skills. Higher order focus on use and modeling of
Community standards. Support in form of enhanced and well developed GA and Professional
training programs designed to enhance Campus Housing ability to utilize the model and develop
students skills and abilities within it.
Questions/assumptions:
How do we assess to see if levels fit?
How do we assess growth, skill achievement, etc?
Does this fit with Co-Curr.Agenda? What outcomes would we like to identify and focus on?
Can we assume natural growth regarding students RA applicants with no xp in council or RHA,
etc.?
Do the differences in interactions and roles between the RHA and RA jobs warrant different
levels of support and challenge?

5. Can we provide the support needed?
What effect would this have on our Judicial processes as they are now?
Are we really using the 7 C’s right now, and do we want to use them in the future?
Discussion notes:
 Self-Authorship and Learning Partnerships – would fit well
 Parents report students are concerned about reprisals resulting from peer confrontations
 Is it in the essence of our mission to make standards optional?
 It may be better to have standards remain an expectation throughout housing, but have it
implemented within an annual timeframe, where each month or other designated period
the standards are increasingly implemented
 Do students mature/develop according to a timeline?
 Students from other cultures deserve the support they need to succeed in our culture but
do not require exemptions from cultural norms
 Although it may appear to be contradictory to the essence of the Standards Model,
students may require some external controls upon their environment so that they can feel
comfortable and supported enough to accept the challenges inherent in the standards
process.
 We do need to enhance our efforts to support the development of these related skills in
via better training and better coaching/advising.