Running Head: DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL

Andrews University

School of Education

Action Plan Proposal

Pursuant to the Requirement for EDCI: 620 Improving Learning Organizations

Summer Semester 2017

by

Dawn C Peterson

August 5, 2017
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
2
Table of Contents

Section 1.......................................................................................................................................... 4

Problem Statement .......................................................................................................................... 4

Goal of Project ................................................................................................................................ 4

Section 2.......................................................................................................................................... 5

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 5

Studies relating to Adventists ...................................................................................................... 5

Precedence on collaboration........................................................................................................ 6

Collaboration study ..................................................................................................................... 8

Section 2........................................................................................................................................ 11

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................... 11

Schools as Learning Organizations ............................................................................................... 11

Three-box solution .................................................................................................................... 13

Section 4........................................................................................................................................ 16

PLAN FOR THE FUTURE .......................................................................................................... 16

Adventists and Collaboration ........................................................................................................ 16

The specifics ................................................................................................................................. 17

Phase 1....................................................................................................................................... 17

Phase 2....................................................................................................................................... 18

Costs .......................................................................................................................................... 18
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
3
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 18

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................... 21

References Cited.......................................................................................................................... 22
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
4
Section 1

Problem Statement

Historically, Adventist families that choose to home educate have not received support from the

local church and conference. This has created a rift that could have been a bridge. The

partnership that can be created between schools and home educating families can only be

beneficial to all. There is a need to create a bridge that includes home educating as a part of the

educational ministry of the church to young people. How the bridge is built may come in

different methods, but all would bring a better working harmony with the home educating

community as well as keep the families connected to the church as part of the church’s ministry.

Goal of Project

Determine what services Adventist home educators would find useful from the local church

school and conference. Determine the degree of interest in collaboration from principals,

superintendents and the NAD.

Design a new platform that would provide Adventist educators with a framework for

understanding and collaborating with the Adventist home educating community and allow

Adventist home educators a new method for participating in the Adventist education system at

the local school level.

DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
5
Section 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on home educating in general is sparse and little has been done in the area of

Adventist home educating. In a search on Google Scholar I found only four documents that

referred to Adventist home educating as it relates specifically to Adventist education.

Additionally, there were several studies that spoke to the issue of collaboration in general of

homeschools and brick and mortar schools that could be pertinent to this topic.

Studies relating to Adventists

Two existing studies that mentioned homeschooling are by LaBorde (2007) and DeVost

(2010). LaBorde seeks the answer to the reason Adventists choose schools other than Adventist.

DeVost asks the question, what do Adventists consider important in choosing schools. But

neither speak to the question of how church schools could work with and support home

educating families.

Two recent studies have marginally suggested exploration of collaboration possibilities.

The first one, Strengthening Adventist Education (Thayer & Coria-Navia, 2016) gave twenty-

seven recommendations covering seven thematic areas to strengthen Adventist education.

Although collaboration was not mentioned in the recommendations, it was mentioned in several

of the strategies not included in the recommendations later voted by the NAD. They are as

follows:
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
6
• “Educational Leaders Strategy #9: Have a system-wide strategic plan for providing some
Adventist Education for all SDA school –age children not in an Adventist school” (p. 43).

Focus group suggested that home educating parents would not be interested in this because the

basic assumption is that most families not participating in Adventist education prefer other

schools. The group also suggest this should be covered through technology.

• “Educational Leaders Strategy #34: Develop materials that can be used by Adventist
children not in Adventist schools (e.g., homeschools and other private/parochial/public
schools) (p. 46).

Focus group responses to this strategy were biased that if the materials were produced they

would not be used and would be a waste of resources.

The second source of information comes from the North American Division Education

Taskforce (NADET) report that includes their final recommendations presented to the NAD

Year-end meeting in October 2016. There were no specific recommendation made with

connection to home educating, but Recommendation #7 suggested that the Church grow distance

learning opportunities in order to provide “multiple strategies to ensure that all Adventist

students, both within our schools and those that make other educational choices, have access to

relevant denominational educational materials” (North American Division, 2016, p. 20). This

statement recognizes the need to reach a “broader swath of Adventist families” (p. 20).

Precedence on collaboration

Is there a precedence for collaboration between traditional education and home

educating families? In her article for DirectAdministration, Yaffe (2015) gives a large

overview of homeschool connections that have been made all over the country. Alaska

is well known for its large scale work with home educating families, but other states
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
7
such as Washington, Arizona, and Virginia just to name a few, have also learned to

collaborate. Kunzman states “districts have become increasingly attentive to their

homeschool population, they’re paying attention in terms of how we can draw them in

or collaborate with parents or provide different services” (as cited by Yaffe, 2015, p.

45). Public schools are learning the “most important prerequisite for success” in

collaboration is to embrace “a fundamentally different view of the parent -school

relationship” (p. 48). According to Cline, the director of Alaska’s IDEA program,

public education has recognized the importance of learning “customer service and

honoring the parents as the primary instructor of their children”(Yaffe, 2015, p. 48).

Lines, a former associate at the National Institute on Student Achievement,

Curriculum and Assessment, a part of the U.S. Department of Education, suggests that

in

the new paradigm, children can learn alone or in groups from 2 to 30; they can be
widely different ages. Schools, teachers, and other professionals would provide the
services; families would make the choices. Schools can advise them; offer
curricular support; offer classes–on and off campus– and provide testing,
transportation, and other auxiliary services. Parents and children can determine the
mix each individual child will have of on-and-off campus classes, of independent
study and guided study, of computer-assisted instruction, and of personal attention
from a teacher (Lines, 2000, p. 185).

Lines warns public schools to be “more flexible than school districts have been since

parents gathered together to construct the one-room country schoolhouse” (185). What

draws many home educating families to these programs?

For those who homeschool because of philosophical/religious reasons, creating a

partnership with public education is concerning. Homeschoolers who participate in

these programs are traditionally not allowed to use religious curriculum. That makes
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
8
public education programs unviable to many home educating families. Lines recognizes

that private Christian schools are in a unique position to collaborate because they do not

threaten the philosophical views of many home educators (Yeager, 1999, p. 78). She

suggests that “private schools also might consider part-time enrollment options for

home schoolers” (as cited by Yeager, 1999, pp. 14-15). But the question must be asked,

would homeschoolers want collaboration with private schools and would private

schools be interested in such collaboration?

Collaboration study

Another study that could prove useful to the concept of collaboration was done by Yeager

(1999). In this study he surveyed 500 public school superintendents, 500 private school

administrators, and 500 home educating families. Of these three groups he received back 46.2%

from the private school administrators, 56% from the public school superintendents and 32.8 %

from the home educating families. It was from this data set that he drew his conclusions.

In his dissertation Yeager (1999) asked if Texas home educators want public

and/or private school collaboration. From his findings he drew eight conclusions

regarding Texas home educating families. Of these eight conclusions, three relate to

the questions regarding an interest in private school offerings or collaboration. The

conclusions are as follows:

• Texas home educators indicated they would prefer the services and
cooperative programs offered by private schools, particularly private
Christian schools, rather than those offered by public schools.
• A narrowly confined area of cooperation between some local private
schools and local home educating families existed in Texas.
• The response to private school programs or services may have indicated
that a narrowly confined potential for home school / private school on a
state wide basis existed (Yeager, 1999, pp. v-vi).
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
9
The areas of interest questioned in Yeager’s study point toward seven private school

services that could be of interest to home educating families. They are listed in

descending order of significance;

• Participation in group activities such as band or choir at a private school

• To be able to enroll my child part-time in extra-curricular activities at a
private school
• Achievement testing at a private school
• Participation in sports programs at a private school
• Part-time enrollment in certain private school courses
• Participation in academic competition at a private school
• Special education testing or courses at a private school (p. 232)

From these findings we can see that there are indeed services that home schooling families

would be interested in participating. But the question about the private school administrator’s

willingness to offer such services still needs to be answered.

Yeager sent out 500 survey packets to private school administrators in Texas and

received 231 responses (Yeager, 1999, p. 98). From those surveyed he concluded that “many

Texas private school administrators were either offering or willing to offer cooperative programs

or services to local home educating families only with a narrowly confined area” (p. 241). Later

in his recommendations for further study he comments that

private school administrators should again be surveyed due to a misunderstanding

expressed by several of the private school respondents that they were being asked to
donate their private school services instead of marketing them to home educators on a
service rendered basis (p. 243-44).

It should be noted that some of the private school administrators answered these surveys with the

assumption that that they would be donating their services. Even with that assumption, they

were still willing on a “narrowly confined manner”. Their responses could be quite different

with the clarification made in regards to a fee for service format. Could this be a way to bring
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
10
about true authentic change? By shifting the thinking and changing the conversations we can

“create a possible new future” (Senge et al., 2012, p. 480) for Adventist education.

Angelis (2008) primarily focused on home educator’s collaboration with public schools

in Maryland. Angelis (2008) found that

the vast majority of home schooled families interviewed would be interested in the
opportunity to enroll their children in classes which they do not feel comfortable with or
have the expertise to teach such as higher level sciences, mathematics, and foreign
language courses (p. 124).

Angelis also noted that many

public school educators in these states are encouraging open communication with home
schooling families in an attempt to shed an adversarial atmosphere and forge new
alliances. Moreover, home schooling families are seeing the advantages associated with
these new partnerships through additional services and the recognition that their children
may eventually return to the public school system (p. 132).

Although this study is specific to public school, it is important to note that Adventist education

could see the same potential for future full-time enrollment by home educating families.

Romanowski (2001) believes that if educators work with instead of against home educating

families they would create a "climate of mutual understanding and respect” (Romanowski, 2001,

p. 2) that could realize benefits for both the school and the family. Adventist education could

benefit from the positive contributions that home educating families could offer.
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
11
Section 2

THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Schools as Learning Organizations

Peter Senge (2012) starts his book with the concept that learning is a “deeply personal

and inherently social” (p. 4) lifetime experience. He believes that “living and learning become

inseparable” (p. 4). Every new experience and setting gives us the potential to grow in our

understanding of the world around us and in God’s plan for our lives. We are admonished to

“never think that he has learned enough, and may now relax his efforts. His education should

continue throughout his lifetime; every day he should be learning, and putting to use the

knowledge gained” (White, 1915, p. 94.1). It is with this thought in mind that I want to look at

the concept of what a learning organization looks like as it pertains to education or to quote

Senge “schools that learn” (p. 4)

Community

A school that learns is made up of a wide group of individuals that have a stake in the

future success of the school. These stakeholders can be students, parents, teachers,

administrators, church members, pastors and local businesspeople. When these stakeholders

look beyond their own interests and see the need to work together for the best interest of their

school, they have the ability to participate in building a school that learns. Not unlike the

concept that it takes a village to raise a child, Senge believes that it takes a community to build a

better school.
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
12
Senge believes that the core idea behind building learning schools is

through the ongoing practice of five “learning disciplines” for changing the way people think
and act together. These disciplines— systems thinking, personal mastery, working with
mental models, building shared vision, and team learning provide a great deal of leverage for
those who want to foster and build better organizations and communities (Senge et al., 2012,
p. 5).

A learning school is not necessarily a place, but a thought process. A way of looking at the

possibilities, learning from mistakes, and becoming more aware of the needs of the community.

Systems thinking

One of the five disciplines Senge lists for changing the way people think and act is systems

thinking. “A system is any perceived structure whose elements “hang together” because they

continually affect each other over time. The word “system” derives from the Greek verb

sunistanai, which originally meant “to cause to stand together” (Senge et al., 2012, p. 124). This

is a growing area of theory that looks at the organization as a whole and views the dynamics (or

behaviors) that affect the growth and stability of the organization. Anderson and Johnson (1997)

describe it as

being able to step back from that immediate focus and look at the bigger picture. As you
know, whatever problem your involved in right now is a part of a larger system. To discover
the source of a problem, you have to widen your focus to include that bigger system. With
this wider perspective, you’re more likely to find a more effective solution (p. 18).

System thinkers tend to “focus less on the day-to-day events and more on the underlying trends

and forces of change” (Senge, 2011, p. 106). They look for the underlying patterns of behavior

that can be changed, avoid being reactive to an isolated event, and tend to look more toward the

process or long term future.

Recognizing responsibility

By looking at a learning organization from the perspective of systems, we recognize that

we are a part of an ever changing system. According to Senge (2012) in a school there are
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
13

three nested systems at play, interdependent with one another, and all with interwoven
patterns of influence. These systems— the classroom, the school, and the community—
interact in ways that are sometimes hard to see but that shape the priorities and needs of
people at all levels. In any effort to foster schools that learn, changes will make a difference
only if they take place at all three levels (Senge et al., 2012, pp. 16-17).

These three systems must learn to work together, be involved in the learning process, and

recognize that because this is a “living system…that is always evolving” (p. 65) there will be

changes and growth.

Schein refers to these human systems as “open,” in the sense of being perpetually

involved with their physical and social environment and, therefore, perpetually being influenced

and, in turn, trying to influence that environment” (Schein & Schein, 2017, Chapter 16, General

Change Theory, para. 2). This is important because the members of the system can and do

influence the system both positively and negatively. Anderson and Johnson remind us that this is

one of the more challenging aspects of systems thinking because we must recognize that “we

usually contribute to our own problems” (Anderson & Johnson, 1997, p. 20). We and the cause

of the problems are part of the same system (Senge, 2011, p. 106). Because we are part of the

problem, it becomes important look for ways to change the dynamics in order to make authentic

change possible. One framework that helps to look at what is not working is the three-box

solution.

Three-box solution

In Govindarajan’s (2016) three-box solution, Box 1 is important to the current daily

management of the school, using “linear ideas (those that conform to the past) tend to be adopted

easily” (Govindarajan, 2016, p. 16). These are the practices that have served well in the past and

made the school system successful. According to Govindarajan this box is comfortable even
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
14
tranquil because the “skills and expertise needed to thrive in the present is known and abundantly

available” (p. 11).

In Box 2, schools start to “build the future by creating space and supporting structure for

new non-linear ideas”(Govindarajan, 2016, p. 10). This box is important because it allows the

school to take stock of what is working and more importantly, discarding practices, ideas and

attitudes are no longer relevant.

The box 2 work of avoiding the traps of the past is difficult and painful. It may require
wrenching management decisions to divest long-standing lines of business or to abandon
entrenched practices and attitudes that are unwelcoming or even hostile to ideas that
don’t conform to the dominant model of past success (Govindarajan, 2016, p. 11).

Schools have a long history of avoiding change on the grander scale. One example of this is the

fact that schools are still functioning as they were designed during the industrial era, like an

assembly line with all the students expected to meet the same expectations regardless of

individuality (Senge et al., 2012, p. 44). Schools that learn are those that are willing to creatively

plan for the new future.

Planning with the future in mind means that schools are willing to learn in new ways, be

willing to innovate and step away from the tried and true. Experiment and learn from the failures

to create a better school. This is the work of Box 3. “Organizations that do not continuously

learn new things will die” (Govindarajan, 2016, p. 13). This is very difficult for schools or any

organization for that matter, because “nonlinear ideas (nonconforming and therefore both

uncertain and threatening) tend to be rejected easily” (p. 16). Many times these ideas are what

might be called “outside the box” and while schools may believe that the future will look

different, the reality many times shows that the ideas are dubbed to be too forward thinking and

thus thrown out.

According to Govindarajan,
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
15
nonlinear innovations, the domain of Box 3, create new business models by dramatically
(1) redefining your set of customers, (2) reinventing the value you offer them, and/or (3)
redesigning the end-to-end value-chain architecture by which you deliver that value
(Govindarajan, 2016, p. 18).

This is important because while Adventist education is struggling to see what the future will look

like, they also recognize that

significant innovation is needed to develop avenues for interaction with our children and
youth. We need innovation to enable the Church to pass along to them our beliefs and
our values, and to connect them in fellowship with our Church (North American
Division, 2016, p. 28).

Adventist education needs to look toward nonlinear innovations in order to fulfill its

“educational mission effectively, efficiently and excellently” (North American Division, 2016, p.

2). This will mean looking for ways to create new business models with new customers and

creating new practices in our schools that will be innovative and look different than “school as

usual”.
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
16
Section 4

PLAN FOR THE FUTURE

Adventist Education and Collaboration

Adventist education and the community of believers can learn from these studies and

frameworks. Adventist education must recognize that a significant number of Adventist home

educators have been disenfranchised instead rather than included and supported. These potential

new clients as Govindarajan calls them could be home education are interested in various

formats of collaboration, We have seen that many home educators have enrolled in outreach

programs from the public system; while many others avoid them mainly because of

philosophical differences. There is a gap that Adventist education can step into that will benefit

both Adventist education and the Adventist home educating community. Studies have shown

that there is an interest in collaboration from both the home educators and school administrators.

There is evidence that collaboration works within the public school system. With enrollment on

a decline, this is the time to creatively use nonlinear ideas to move Adventist education into the

future. Collaboration with home educating families is one way Adventist education can look to

the future and at the same time support a large segment of our non-attending students.

While we do not have the financial incentives or resources that the public system can

offer, we may be able to find other ways to collaborate. This could be a new marketing tool that

would be beneficial to both the home educators and the local school. Based on the research by

Yeager (1999) and Angelis (2008) Adventist education could explore the possibility of offering
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
17
single class enrollment, partial enrollment or hybrid program, enrollment for classes that require

group participation such as athletics and music. Making Adventist curriculum available to home

educators has the potential benefit of sharing our unique beliefs and values. This would allow

students to participate in a faith based, God-centered education. Another idea worth exploring is

allowing schools to act as a charter school or umbrella for home educating families which would

be helpful for those in states that are more regulated. These are just a few nonlinear ideas that

could create a new more inclusive future for Adventist education and home educating families.

The specifics

Phase 1

In order to know how to proceed with this plan, it is important to seek out the various

stakeholders in Adventist education. While studies indicate that school administrators have an

interest in collaboration, we need to find out how that applies to Adventist education’s

superintendents and principals. This would include a survey sent out to all union and conference

superintendents and all school principals in the Adventist school system.

Adventist home educators must be surveyed to determine the level of interest in

collaborating with Adventist education. This is an important part of the puzzle because if there

is not sufficient interest, this line of nonlinear thinking will not provide the desired results. This

step could prove to be one of the most difficult as there is no central list of home educating

families in the Adventist church. Creativity will be necessary in the procurement of this data.

Once the results of the surveys are tabulated, planning can then move forward outlining

services that could be offered and what are the potential obstacles could be presented. It would

be at this point that I would bring in the proposed project team (see Appendix A) to strategize on

possible services and offerings, using their combined expertise. For instance, if Adventist
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
18
education offers a hybrid program where the student could take some classes at the school and

some at home, how would that affect Adventist educations accreditation? Are there any legal

concerns that need to be alleviated? What would be the cost of such a program? These are just a

few of the possible questions that will need to be considered.

Phase 2

Once a plan is implemented, it will take time and many conversations with policy makers

from the NAD, union, and conference personnel as well as local stakeholders and home

educating families. This phase will start the implementation process within Conference X. This

plan includes visits to each school to train the school and community in how to implement this

collaboration plan.

Costs

In projecting the costs of this proposal, I roughly estimate it will cost $100,000 per year. I

recognize that this will need to be negotiated between different levels of administration within

Adventist education and possible outside funding options. I can envision grants and donations

covering a portion of the cost, NAD Office of Education, union and conference offices of

education and finally the local school picking up a small fraction of the cost. (see Appendix B)

Conclusion

Nothing can happen if we stay in status quo. Adventist education will need to learn how

to have different conversations with those served, and include all families so that authentic

change can occur.

DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
19
Change will only happen if Adventist education makes new partnerships, and creates a

shared vision for both Adventist brick and mortar schools as well as for Adventist home

educators. Adventist education will need to find ways to build bridges, but as Lines cautions,

“the greater burden of building bridges probably should fall on public officials [Adventist

education], however. They are, after all, the professionals in the partnership” (as cited by

Yeager, 1999, p. 16). Adventist education and Adventist home educators have much to offer

each other. Now is the time to build bridges that will be profitable in finishing the mission of the

Seventh-day Adventist Church.

DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
20

APPENDIX A

Potential Innovation Project Team

Because sustainable change must come from a shared vision from the stakeholders (Senge et al.,

2012, p. 342), I plan to include a cross-segment group of people that can provide input given

their expertise. This is not an inclusive list of people, but a sampling of people I would like to

have on my innovative project team.

Potential list of members:

• Bill Keresoma, Northern California Conference Superintendent

• Berit von Pohle, Pacific Union Conference Director of Education

• Beverly Benson, Pacific Union Conference Registrar, Retired

• Shelly Peterson, Co-founder of a home educating co-op and current parent of student at
Chisholm Trail Academy.

• Anneris Coria-Navia, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence (CTALE)
Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction

• Teacher

• Home educating Parent

DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
21
• Principal

• Student

• Pastor

• School Board Chair

APPENDIX B

Conference Schools (24)

X
Salary including $75,000.00 Conference cost $3225.33
benefits per school
Survey monkey $408.00
Annually
Technical $2000.00 Hotels x 2 nights/ $200.00
supplies: Cell school
phone, wifi,
computer,
projector, audio
equipment, etc
Travel: Airfare / $400.00
mileage
Per diem $86.00
Materials: $75.00
Presentation
materials, copies
Misc. $100.00

Total Projected $77408.00 Cost per school $4086.33 Overall cost of $98072.00
Costs Program
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
22

References Cited

Anderson, V., & Johnson, L. (1997). Systems thinking basics: Pegasus Communications
Cambridge, MA.

Angelis, K. L. (2008). Home schooling: Are partnerships possible? (Doctor of Philosophy),

University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.

DeVost, R. (2010). What Adventist parents consider important in choosing schools for their
children

Govindarajan, V. (2016). The three box solution: A strategy for leading innovation. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business Review Press.

LaBorde, I. C. (2007). Reasons Seventh-Day Adventist parents gave for not sending their
children to Seventh-Day Adventist elementary and secondary Schools. (Doctor of
Philosophy Dissertation), Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI. Retrieved from
[Link]

Lines, P. M. (2000). When home schoolers go to school: A partnership between families and
schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(1&2), 159-186.

North American Division. (2016). NAD education taskforce final report. Retrieved from
[Link]

Romanowski, M. (2001). Home school and the public school: Rethinking the relationship.
Streamlined Seminar, 19 (3)(Spring 2001). Retrieved from
[Link]

Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership [Kindle edition] The
Jossey-Bass Business & Management Series, (Kindle ed.) Retrieved from [Link]

Senge, P. M. (2011). The leader’s new work: Building learning organizations. In J. S. Osland &
M. E. Turner (Eds.), The organizational behavior reader (Ninth ed., pp. 96-115). New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2012).
Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who
cares about education [Kindle version]. (pp. 584). Retrieved from [Link]

Thayer, J., & Coria-Navia, A. (2016). Strengthing Adventist education report. Retrieved from
[Link]
DPETERSON PROJECT PROPOSAL
23
White, E. (1915). Gospel Workers [Digital edition] (pp. 534). Retrieved from EGW Writings
App

Yaffe, D. (2015). Homeschool connections: District leaders reach out to unenrolled students to
expand programs and maximize state funding. District Administration, 51, 44+.

Yeager, E. T. (1999). A study of cooperation between home schools and public and private
schools, K-12. Texas A&M University-Commerce.