|
(graphic)
(graphic)
Welcome back, colleagues, to the new academic year. This year, like the last several, promises to be one of excitement and meaning. I am particularly pleased to be working with Casey Hurley. He is a worthy successor to Terry Kinnear, who gave so much to the office of Chair of the Faculty. Today, as has become tradition, I will talk about the University-wide agenda for the year. Unlike previous years, this talk will focus on only one theme: student retention. As this talk develops, I will try to clarify the nature of the retention problem and how it directly affects our mission as a University. Part of this clarification will involve a discussion of data that can highlight some of the dimensions of the problem. I think that you will see how retention issues directly affect both you as an individual faculty member and your department.
Before delving into this issue, I think that it is important that we spend just a minute looking back at what you have accomplished. Each year, I become more excited about the degree to which your hard work is making a difference in this University. You are aware that Western was ranked 68th in the nation by Yahoo! Internet Life Magazine and that Western has received recognition by the National Merit Corporation as a collegiate sponsor of National Merit Scholars. (graphic) You may not be aware, though, that the Yahoo! ranking was based on a review of data from nearly 1300 institutions nationally. And, National Merit recognition is only shared with three other universities in North Carolina: Wake Forest, Davidson, and Chapel Hill. Also, last year, Western was again ranked in the top twenty universities in undergraduate research presented at the National Conference for Undergraduate Research this is the third year for such a ranking.
Many of you may also recall that the Pappas consulting group has been working with Western for the last two years on issues of admissions processes and retention. This last year, the Pappas group was hired by President Broad to work with several of the universities in the system that are targeted for growth. In June, Alceste Pappas reported to the Board of Governors about the progress being made by each university and the needs of that university for future assistance. (graphic) In her talk about Western, Dr. Pappas commented that Western is part way through the transition from a locally or regionally known university to a national university. And she noted that what was needed by Western was continuing support from the Board of Governors to complete this transition. This is a very important statement by a person who knows what is going on in higher education nationally and who is intimately aware of what you as a faculty have accomplished.
Because of your work, we are beginning to pass some major milestones. This year, our freshman enrollment will be up significantly. (graphic) You may recall that when we began raising admissions standards in 1996, our institutional average SAT was 965 and the average entering student had a "C+/B-" high school grade point average. As everything shakes out, the freshman class will have over 1210 students with an average high school GPA of more than 3.15. And, what is perhaps even more significant, for the first time ever in the history of the University, the average freshman SAT will be above 1000. We expect the official average SAT (which is not calculated until the 10th class day) to be around 1005. (graphic) To make the point more clearly in regard to our increased quality, our average SAT for provisionally admitted students this summer equals that of our regularly admitted students in 1996. The quality of student at Western, as measured by all standard indicators, has improved markedly in the last four years. Our SAT is up nearly forty points and our high school GPA is up nearly half of a letter grade. (graphic) At the same time, the number of entering students is increasing. This is a major achievement by the University, but it is only a milestone and not the goal. (graphic) You deserve to work with the best students we can attract, so we will continue to press to bring North Carolina's best and brightest to Western.
You also should be aware that your work with the Honors College continues to reap rewards. This year's entering Honors College class includes 139 students with an average SAT of 1217 and an average weighted High School GPA of above 4.0. Total enrollment in the Honors College this fall will exceed 650 students. Included in this freshman class are five National Merit Scholars, and more than 22 North Carolina Teaching Fellows. The highest SAT for an entering freshman this year is 1590.
I would also like to take this opportunity to introduce Dr. Jill Gnassia, the new Dean of the Honors College. Dr. Gnassia joins us from the University of Hartford. She is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Bucknell University and she holds a Ph.D. from Duke. I think that she will be a worthy successor to Brian Railsback who decided, despite a great deal of arm twisting, to rejoin the English department as its head. Brian has left a significant legacy in the college and we all should thank him for his excellent work. I also am excited about Jill's commitment to Western's honors model and her desire to develop a formal program to prepare our students for competition for Rhodes, Fulbright, Goldwater, and similar scholarships. Dean Gnassia will help us continue to raise the academic expectations of this campus. Welcome.
I also would like to introduce our new University Librarian, Bil Stahl. Bil joins us from UNC-Charlotte where he has had a long and distinguished career. Bil is very well respected across the entire UNC system for his knowledge of the library and its processes, and he is seen as one of the leaders in information systems in the state. Bil, we are really pleased that you decided to join us.
As I look back over the last several years, I am still amazed at what this faculty has been able to accomplish. This campus has a culture that has been willing to confront major issues, to discuss those issues and to identify reasonable solutions. In every case, this University has moved forward because you have been willing to take very significant actions. And you have been willing to engage in serious discussions within a campus culture that has promoted civility and open discourse. As I noted in the opening of this talk, your accomplishments are beginning to move this University to national prominence.
When I am around other chancellors and university presidents, the topic of conversation often turns to the quality of our universities' faculties and their willingness as groups to take on difficult tasks. Most of my colleagues shake their heads in disbelief when I tell them about you and what you have accomplished. Your review of general education, your willingness to raise the academic bar, your hard work on the structure of governance, your implementation of the residential honors college, your support for National Merit standing, and your ability to develop and implement a computing admission standard simply floors many of them. As I reflect on these conversations with colleagues, I find myself drawn to the poetry of Robert Frost as possibly providing the most succinct statement of who you are as a group. While he wrote this poem in the first person, I don't believe that it applies to me, but I know it applies to you. To somewhat paraphrase Frost:
You shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverge in a wood, and
You
You took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
Because this faculty has been so willing to take on significant issues, Western is most of the way through its critical transition. Although all major transitions are difficult, in the end, I think that you will see that this has been a very important process and that, through your actions, you will have assured a very strong future for your University. You have every reason to be proud of your work.
As I have reviewed the various consultants' reports, examined data from the Office of University Planning, and listened while the Board of Governors reviewed system-wide data on comparative performances of universities, it is clear that others think that Western is on the right track. Those of you who were in attendance last year at this event heard President Broad strongly endorse the direction you are taking this University. If we can continue making progress at the rate we have over the last several years, you will have created a national model for comprehensive universities. No one who has reviewed your work is coming to a different conclusion. I hope you appreciate the importance of this position with regard not just to Western, but with regard to national trends in higher education.
As excited as people are with what you are accomplishing, many external commentators also note that there is one very major impediment to your success. This impediment seems to be all that stands in the way of Western achieving its mission. The impediment is major and it will take a great deal of thought and work to solve it. It also will require us to look very closely at some of our most intimate approaches to our jobs. This critical issue involves student retention. Metaphorically, Western's very poor rate of student retention can be seen as the institutional equivalent of a "hemorrhage." Unless we can stem the flow, the institution's health must continue to suffer and all of your good work to date will be diminished.
Before discussing the questions surrounding retention in some detail, I want to be very clear about how I frame the issue. For several years now I have asked you to "raise the bar", and you have done so. I also asked you to help our students reach the bar. This is what true retention is about: setting high standards and assisting our students in reaching them. Let me be very clear about this, Western is blessed with an excellent faculty. Individually, the vast majority of you do your best as professionals to work with students, maintain an active scholarly development program, and provide service to our community. You are a very strong faculty. It is also important to note that it seems as if the quality of this University is based on what you as individuals do. Over the last several years, we have begun to work together to solve large-scale institutional problems. Under the leadership of such faculty members as Terry Kinnear, Jane Hall, Casey Hurley, Curtis Wood, and Gordon Mercer, among many others, we have made significant strides in developing shared governance. At the same time, we do not seem to have effectively developed models across the University where faculty can collectively exercise their academic responsibility with regard to teaching and learning. This is a most critical issue, because our academic freedom is tied absolutely and directly to our ability to exercise academic responsibility. I think that most of you understand this relationship, so today I am probably speaking to the choir. But, it is very important that this position be clear since most of the rest of this talk will focus on where we might, as a faculty, need to take additional collective responsibility. It is also important to note that when faculty members engage in systematic review of our curriculum and its implementation, they clearly see academic issues that can affect retention. For example, the Liberal Studies Taskforce noted in its conclusions that there was strong need for:
"An administrative structure designed to raise the status and visibility of the Liberal Studies and to reward faculty commitment to the program (p.1)." (graphic)
Members of this taskforce further clarified their findings by expressly calling for processes designed to "recruit appropriate faculty to participate in Liberal Studies course delivery;" to create and implement" an ongoing program of development for faculty committed to excellent teaching in Liberal Studies;" and to develop formal policies for allocating faculty positions and faculty rewards and for appropriate assessment (among other recommendations). Liberal Studies was widely debated and discussed by the faculty and the proposal was passed by the Senate and approved by the Vice Chancellor. What is particularly critical to the current discussion is the fact that the committee felt compelled to make such recommendations. In other words, they the Liberal Studies Taskforce specifically noted the need to raise the status of Liberal Studies at Western. I believe that their recommendations speak directly not just to Liberal Studies, but to the more general experience of freshmen with regard to the curriculum.
Please understand that this discussion is not intended in any way to say that the vast majority of full-time and part-time faculty who teach freshmen do not do a good job. That would be a very obtuse interpretation of this discussion. What I am saying is that when faculty members look closely at our academic programs, they will see that there are structural and functional issues that need to be addressed. The literature on retention, likewise, would lead to the conclusion that these same issues affect the student's experience with the first year. That is, these issues most likely affect retention.
The dimensions of the problem and it is a problem are significant. Western has a freshman academic suspension rate of thirteen percent. Our total non-retention rate is nearly 31 percent. This means that for every one student that fails out of Western, approximately 1.4 walk away in good academic standing. They could be here, but they make a choice not to return. And, of those who fail out, we have not idea how many "just gave up" and how many are not prepared to meet your high standards.
(graphic) Regardless of admissions standards, the only campus in the system that from time to time has a worse retention rate than Western is UNC-Pembroke. Western's retention rate is significantly below that of other regional comprehensive universities. It also is significantly below the rate for our chief competitors, and well below the average for the system as a whole. Poor retention has very significant impacts on this University and our academic reputation. But, even more importantly, it has very specific implications for you and your departments.
There are real issues associated with our poor retention rate. Many of them involve external expectations, but others are internal to the University. I think that it is very important that we share a common understanding of the context within which our retention issue needs to be viewed. I think you also will see why I believe that it is so critical to our future.
Think for a minute about the impact on our academic reputation. Nationally, graduation rates are viewed in many of the institutional rating guides as a "key indicator" of the effectiveness of a university. In several guides, graduation rates are seen as perhaps the most important indicator of whether a university is doing a good job. If students are walking away from this University in large numbers, they are not here to graduate. Therefore, poor retention "undoes" all that you have been working so hard to accomplish.
Consider also the fact that we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on admissions literature, advertising, visiting high schools, meeting high school counselors, visiting with parents, and conducting "Western on Tour" programs. All of this work is aimed directly at increasing awareness of this University and in enhancing its academic reputation. Now, if hundreds of students are walking away from the University and if they are unhappy with their experience, how effective do you think our advertising efforts can be? A few negative words from a neighbor, sister, or former classmate can totally overwhelm any positive message we are attempting to give.
The most important reason for concern about poor retention, I believe, is that it brings to serious question our institutional, academic, and even personal, ethics. Now, this is a very ethical faculty and I have never seen you as a group act in a manner that reflected anything but the highest standards of ethical practice. Over the five years that I have known you, you have, in every instance, made ethically appropriate judgements regarding the future of this University.
(graphic) Over the last several years, we have as an institution completed what is known as our "Level I Strategic Plan." This plan is composed of several critical sections including our institutional mission, values, aspirations, and goal statements. Development of this portion of the plan was not a mere exercise to satisfy the Board of Governors or an external accrediting body. This represented a campus-wide effort to develop a shared sense of the meaning of this University and to set a clear direction for the future. While some of you have joined the faculty since this portion of the process was completed, everyone who was on the faculty at the time was given the opportunity for input. There were public hearings, "forum assemblies," mailings, postings on the Web, and a full, frank and open discussion of each of the elements of the plan in the Faculty Senate. Upon approval by the Senate, the plan was forwarded to the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors for their review and approval. Again, the purpose of this process, and of including so many people in the discussion, was not to satisfy a bureaucratic requirement. The entire purpose was to determine if there was a consensus on the campus regarding direction and to create a clear, public statement that could be the basis for institutional development.
Achieving our stated mission is widely recognized as critical to our future. You will recall that, because of a strongly felt need on campus, we spent several years conducting a review of our participatory governance structure. Jane Hall chaired the taskforce that conducted this review and it widely engaged all major constituencies of this university community. As a major part of its findings and recommendations, the Taskforce on University Governance developed ten "Standards of Good Governance." (graphic) All of their principles are clear, well stated and profound. There is one in particular that is relevant here. To quote principle seven:
(graphic) "The University mission statement serves as the foundation for the structure and process, and there should be consistency between words and actions."
(graphic) Not too extend this discussion too long, but if you were to review our mission, aspirations, and goals, you would find a well-woven tapestry of themes that strongly emphasize the primacy of teaching and learning within a University "community of scholarship." This is the critical concept that defines our core mission. Yet, I think that as this talk progresses you will see that there may be a disconnection between our stated mission and the conditions that create poor retention rates. If this is so, then we have a major ethical dilemma. Our institutional actions may not be wholly consistent with our statement of mission. In fact, I would argue that if we do not make every effort to examine why we have such a poor retention rate and take actions to improve that rate, we are in real danger of compromising our academic ethics. But, I know this faculty, and I know that you will act as you develop a clear understanding of the nature of the problem.
The other reasons why we need to be concerned with student retention are more pragmatic and instrumental. As I mentioned in my summer letter, our staffing problems in many departments can be directly traced to poor retention. If we were to hold constant the number of new students and the number of returning students, increasing our retention rates could have a major impact on the number of faculty positions that Rick Collings would have available. (graphic) If we simply could increase student retention to the average for comprehensive universities in the UNC system, we could gain as many as 21 faculty positions over the next four years. If we could increase the retention rate to match the highest rate at a comprehensive university in North Carolina, we could gain as many as 34 faculty positions. Consider the impact of this on your department. Are you satisfied with the number of faculty? Think how we could impact program quality if we could increase the number of full-time faculty by ten percent? That is what improved retention could mean to this University.
The other pragmatic reasons all relate to the UNC system. First, we are expected to grow to 9,400 students by 2008 according to Board of Governors policy. So long as we are hemorrhaging students, we cannot achieve this enrollment. If we can correct this problem and continue to grow the numbers and quality of our incoming classes, we should easily make the target. You also should be aware that General Administration is requiring all universities in the system to begin the process of Planning and Performance Budgeting (P/PB). Under the P/PB process, we had to select several areas of the University for improvement, and we were strongly encouraged to select undergraduate retention. While it is unclear as to how their data will actually be used in setting budgets, there is no doubt that there will be very public reports to the Board of Governors and the press regarding performance improvements on the P/PB measures.
Finally, I mentioned President Broad earlier in the speech. Because of this faculty's stated commitment to student learning, President Broad and the Board of Governors were willing to modify the enrollment increase-based budgeting process for faculty positions. Because you were committed in writing in the Level I Strategic Plan to focus most of your professional work on teaching and specifically on teaching undergraduates President Broad and the Board were willing to support you directly. The funding formula provides faculty position enhancements to those institutions that keep their average undergraduate class sizes under 25 students. Because of the North Carolina Legislature's processes for generating faculty positions, such an average class size can only be achieved if faculty members are willing to teach three or four organized courses per semester. The decision to provide additional growth resources to promote teaching was based specifically on Western's Level I strategic plan and the representations that I was able to make on your behalf because of this plan.
If we cannot as an institution address the poor retention rate for undergraduate students, we will be in a very difficult position. We convinced the UNC system to support our efforts to keep class sizes small so that we can give personal attention to students. And, yet, even with our best personal attention, relatively large numbers of students have been unwilling to remain at the University. This, too, seems to create an ethical dilemma. We have asked for the ability to keep class sizes small, which requires the system to provide us with significant additional funding, yet we cannot show that this academic model is producing meaningful results. In fact, on their face, the results seem to be worse than the standard educational model.
Now, these are the dilemmas and something of an explanation of why I am bringing the issues to you. Poor retention is an impediment that we have to overcome if we are to progress. And, given the history and traditions of this faculty, I have no doubt that, as you begin to understand the dimensions of the issue, you will take appropriate actions.
I would like to turn now to a discussion of the causes of poor retention. As I mentioned in my summer letter, there is a very well developed academic literature on student retention and several of the key works have been placed on library reserve for you to review. Most of this literature focuses on internal institutional causes of retention issues. What is interesting, is that as I talk with members of this University community, when there is a recognition that we have a poor retention rate, the causes are nearly always assumed to be external to the institution. Reference is made to poor students, isolated location, lack of bars and nightlife, and the like. And, while I suspect that all of these issues play some role in retention, the literature suggests that most are marginal and not at the core of students' decisions to leave a university. These assumptions also cannot explain why other universities that are even more isolated than Western have been able to overcome poor retention and now are national leaders in undergraduate education. One only need look at such schools as Truman State in Missouri and Bloomsburg State in Pennsylvania to see examples of institutions that are truly on the road to nowhere that have become very high quality centers for teaching and learning.
A second explanation that is often heard is that the schools with better retention rates have better students. If we take a "cross sectional view" of them, this is a partial explanation. But, taking a longer-term view better retention is correlated with academic reputation, so improving the retention rate should improve the University's ability to attract better students. (graphic) Locally, we have significantly increased the quality of students who enter Western, but our retention rate has not improved above historical levels. Low retention rates have typified this University's experience for at least the twenty-six years for which there are reasonably reliable data. This is not a new issue, but it has not been systematically addressed.
Focusing on the quality of student as the predominant cause of poor retention seems also to create an ethical dilemma. Our admissions standards are not yet as high as we would like them to be. We are using an iterative process to raise standards rather than raising them all at once because faculty positions are directly tied to enrollment. To immediately move our standards to a level that would be more appropriate for a nationally renowned university would have a dramatic, negative effect on the number of faculty and even our ability to continue some of our academic departments. Therefore, we will continue to raise standards each year rather than making one "giant leap."
At the same time, we continue to admit better students, but, in a very significant number of cases, we do not meet their needs (for one reason or another). If we do not focus on helping these students achieve our high expectations, are we not creating a major ethical dilemma for ourselves? Have we not publicly pronounced that we are trying to create a "community of scholarship" focused on teaching and learning? If we are, then is it reasonable for us to define the needs of all of our students as not worthy of our best attention? Would ignoring retention issues be the same as "using the students" to protect jobs rather than to meet our mission of teaching and learning? Instead, shouldn't a community of scholarship focus on the student's needs and background and try to help them achieve our increasingly high academic expectations?
Now, while quality of student background and external influences might have some reasonable relationship to retention, we also know from the literature that both social support and academic program dimensions of a campus are more central to retention than any external variable. We have been working for nearly two years to improve the advising model, create learning communities, enhance student support services, better integrate residential life and student activities, and improve tutoring and academic assistance services. We are expanding the University Center to offer better activities spaces and we are beginning to plan a major expansion of the fitness center. All of these things are important and all of them should have an effect over time. But, we have not yet examined the academic core of the institution with regard to retention issues. And, there are substantial data regarding how the academic core might affect student retention at Western.
This is a propitious time for reviewing the retention issue. The Liberal Studies Program review was completed last year and implementation is underway. The Liberal Studies Committee, under the leadership of Curtis Wood, did an excellent job of creating an educational model. And, because many of the academic issues in student retention relate specifically to the experiences of individual freshmen, as we implement this new program we may be able to include in the implementation some significant policies that will assist with retention.
At this time, I want to shift gears a bit and turn to some very telling data. I suspect that as you have time to digest these data they will help you develop strategies for addressing our fundamental retention issues. As you are all aware, we are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). (graphic) In our last accreditation review SACS heavily criticized Western for "doing program assessment, but not using program assessment." They noted that we went to a great deal of trouble to study the University, but that these data rarely seemed to be the basis for decision-making regarding programs and there was little evidence that the data were widely shared or reviewed. (graphic) Much of the data that I am going to share with you today has been available for many years, but no one seems to have analyzed them. Therefore, I am not sure that you are aware of their implications.
Before turning to local data, I want to share with you UNC system information that is collected from both sophomores and seniors every two years. (graphic) Last spring, General Administration completed an analysis of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each campus based on results of these surveys. On the screen behind me is the GA summary of Western's strengths and weaknesses compared to our sister schools. This material was also shared with the Board of Governors in its July meeting, so it is already in the public domain. Based on this graphic alone, you can see a possible source of retention issues. Compared to our sister schools, Western has a great many strengths, but there are some significant weaknesses. For example, our health services and residential life functions need work. We have new directors in both of these areas and they are developing plans to address these issues. (graphic) But, with regard to instruction there are some significant surprises. Sophomores say, according to General Administration, that Western is weak in encouraging student/faculty interaction; respect for diverse talents; and the degree to which faculty care about student success. These issues are not repeated by seniors in fact, many of the same issues are seen as strengths.
General Administration's analysis of items from these surveys will be part of Western's performance budgeting review. Think of the implications. Given our mission and the average size of our classes, should sophomores feel that we do not respect them or that we do not encourage them to interact with us? Remember, these are the students who chose to come back for a second year what about the ones who left? Do these results not represent a disconnection between what we say in our mission statement and our apparent actions? Could this be an internal cause of low retention? Is this an accurate depiction of how our students see us?
Now, when you review other elements of the sophomore survey, the data provide a picture that is reasonably internally consistent. (graphic) Over seventy-five percent of sophomores say that they would choose to enroll in Western again; but sixteen percent are not sure or say they would not enroll again.
There are many areas in which Western has strength compared to our sister schools, but these data suggest that there is a great deal more to do. It will be very important this year that we fully explore the meaning of these data and that, once we understand the meaning, we take appropriate actions.
As I have talked with various people on campus about these issues, two responses were common. First, there is a belief that a very significant number of students enter Western intending to transfer. Or, people will raise questions about the number of part-time faculty that we have teaching freshmen. Both of these are possible explanations, but the data provide some interesting hints regarding their relative importance.
First, the UNC system has for many years produced a "student transfer matrix." This matrix shows that about five percent of Western's entering freshmen actually transfer to another UNC system school after their first year of study. (graphic) In the sophomore survey, only 5 percent of students planned to transfer. However, another eleven percent "were not sure." Generally, the transfer explanation is more of a myth than a reality. Increasingly, admissions data show that Western is a "first choice school." Moreover, even if students enter school expecting to transfer, their experience on campus can change their minds. But, there are questions that remain unanswered. Are we as a faculty taking actions to increase the willingness of students to stay on campus? Are we consistently giving students the message that we are interested in them and their needs? Are we truly treating freshmen as if they were welcome members of our community of scholarship?
The other response involves the use of part-time faculty. (graphic) Is poor retention caused by the use of part-time faculty? First, Western is no more dependent on part-time faculty than many other universities with higher retention rates. For example, both UNC-Wilmington and Appalachian State have higher retention rates than Western. Yet, 74 percent of our faculty are tenured or tenure track compared to 70 percent at Appalachian and 69 percent at UNC-Wilmington. However, the data indicates that we are less likely to use our full-time faculty in freshman/sophomore level courses. Since our faculty is composed of a somewhat higher percentage of full-time individuals, it does not appear that over-reliance on part-time faculty is a reasonable explanation for poor retention.
Second, many part-time faculty members are among our best teachers. Therefore, there is no inherent link between employing part-time faculty and poor teaching that could affect retention. At the same time, this summer the staff in Academic Affairs discussed the use of part-time faculty with the heads of eight academic departments. Results of these discussions were interesting and highlight some of the issues we face. In several departments, part-time faculty seem to be treated as members of the department's team. They meet with other faculty, they are evaluated by the department head, and there is significant effort taken to assure that they understand the curriculum that they are being asked to teach. In other departments that use part-time faculty, there is very little attention to setting expectations for performance. There is little or no coordination of multiple section classes, and as often as not, teaching performances of part-time faculty members were not evaluated by the department. If we truly value our freshmen as members of our community of scholarship, would it not be incumbent upon us to assure that part-time faculty understand our expectations, that they are trained and oriented to the course they are teaching, and that their performance should be assessed regularly? Would these actions not be most consistent with our mission as a University? Should we not reward those part-time faculty who do the best work? Do they not need to know that we value tem and their contributions to our community of scholarship?
While many part-time faculty members may be among our best teachers, our need to use substantial numbers of part-time faculty, as I mentioned in the summer letter, is directly related to student retention. Improved retention, with no increase in the number of new students, could produce between 21 and 34 additional faculty positions over the next four years. In other words, the number of faculty on campus could increase by nearly 10 percent. Would this reduce the reliance on part-timers? Not necessarily--the number of part-time faculty is not only related to student retention, but curriculum decisions made by individual departments with regard to their own majors. If one examines the academic majors at Western, there has been a long pattern of "curriculum creep". Very few majors reduce the number of hours required of students over time; most increase them. In January, the Board of Governors adopted a policy that set the minimum number of semester hours in a major at twenty-seven. We have majors on campus that have fifty and even sixty hours required of students and not because of accreditation pressures. We have increasingly moved away from "generalist" majors to specialized tracts within the undergraduate programs that both allow and require faculty to teach very small upper division classes. Unless we reverse this trend, adding faculty positions will not necessarily reduce our reliance on part-timers.
Even if we were to agree that adding hours to the undergraduate major is educationally sound, it also suggests that teaching freshmen is a low priority. That is, it becomes more important to add a specialty track or three more hours to the major than to assure that our best faculty and our most accomplished scholars are engaging our freshmen in learning and setting appropriate academic expectations. Surveys show that seniors are better satisfied with their academic experience at Western than are sophomores. This suggests that engagement with senior faculty is a key influence on student satisfaction. If that is so, should not we insure that engagement is the common experience of all students?
Referring back to the liberal studies report, the faculty on this taskforce also recommended that we needed to develop policies and processes that encouraged our most accomplished faculty to teach liberal studies. Should this conclusion have been necessary if we really value the freshman student? The question really seems to be one of the value we place on teaching upper division students versus lower division students. The data suggest that we need to take a very serious look at our University practices and values with regard to the importance of teaching freshmen.
A source of data that is available this year is the telephone calls to prospective students. These calls are conducted by the Office of Admissions to determine students' academic and social interests so that we can "tailor" the information that we send students. Another source of data is the analysis by the Paulien consulting group regarding major enrollment patterns at universities around the country that are very similar in situation to Western. According to the Paulien report, we have a number of majors that are significantly under-enrolled compared to our national peers. A follow-up study by Western's Office of University Planning also showed similar results when comparing Western to other UNC campuses. These data also seem to suggest an area that faculty may wish to examine. Why are some of our most critical majors under enrolled compared to both our peers and our sister UNC institutions?
The data from the Paulien report and the follow-up report are supported by studies of our own entering freshmen. Specifically, there appears to be a disjunction between entering students' expressed interests in academic majors and the actual enrollment in majors. (graphic) Nearly a third of entering students are totally undecided with regard to major, but the rest do indicate a major in which they have interest. In several cases, fields that have relatively high interest by new freshmen are the same ones that are identified as under-enrolled in comparative studies. Should this be so? Are the data reasonably correct? Are there actions that we need to take as a faculty to assure that we are not "turning students off" and that we are working to engage them in our disciplines? There is one final source of data that I want to share with you. These data have been produced on this campus by every registrar for more than a decade and sent to deans. There is little evidence, however, that these data have been analyzed by faculty in general or that they have been consistently reviewed by department heads or senior faculty. The UNC General Administration also requires that these data be submitted every semester. These data involve student performance in freshman classes especially general education classes. Yearly, the Board of Governors receives a report from GA showing the distribution of student grades by university and discipline. I want to be very clear that the source of these data is the UNC system data file that we are required to produce each semester and to transmit to the General Administration. While these data have been in the public domain for many years, it is time for us to analyze them and to discuss their implications for student retention. The purpose of this discussion should not be to single out individual programs, but to examine possible internal causes of poor retention. The data show a pattern of inconsistency of student achievement especially in multiple section classes.
(graphic) On the screen behind me are the average student grades in multiple section courses of general education across several departments. Course names are purposely not displayed the pattern is of interest. In all of these courses, there is a statistically significant difference between the lowest section grade and the highest section grade. Student academic preparation was reviewed as a causative factor, but did not explain the differences in performance between sections. What are the causes of these differences? I don't know, but together we can examine the data and develop a more clear understanding. As we begin to implement the new liberal studies program, it is very important that we build in mechanisms to assure that the program is being effectively implemented and regularly assessed. Otherwise, the hard work of Curtis Wood and his colleagues will not produce the quality of education that should define such an exciting program.
Now, I have raised a great many questions here, but I have not given many answers. Through the process of reviewing governance, creating the new liberal studies program, and beginning the computing admissions standard, I have learned that when you as a faculty review data, examine issues, and chose to address questions, you have produced excellent outcomes. You have largely transformed this campus and you can lead us through this current impediment.
You also should also remember that both the Board of Trustees and the General Administration and Board of Governors have abiding interest in our solving retention problems. (graphic) Our Board of Trustees has asked that both Casey and I report to them regularly on progress that you are making in addressing these issues. And, the General Administration will be tracking our progress both because we are a designated growth institution and because of the move to Planning and Performance Budgeting indicators. Therefore, it is very important that we act, and not just discuss.
To help move this process of review along, I have asked Casey to form an academic retention taskforce under the authority of the Faculty Senate. This taskforce should be composed mainly of faculty members since it will examine what are largely faculty concerns. I have asked that this taskforce effectively coordinate with the administrative taskforce that is reviewing academic services and student support systems. Also, we are scheduling a workshop for taskforce members, faculty senate members, liberal studies committee members, department heads, and any interested faculty. This retreat will take most of a day and it will involve presentations by Dr. Vincent Tinto, the foremost writer on academic retention issues; Dr. Mel Lockhart, the author of the Paulien report; and Dr. Noelle Kehrberg, who will present more detailed information regarding internal University data.
During the course of the academic year, I have asked Casey to keep all of you informed with regard to progress being made. I have offered the assistance of the Office of Public Information and I hope that there also are regular e-mail updates. During the year, summary information will be published in the Reporter and I will correspond with you as a faculty using the "Chancellor's Update" format. We need to bring this issue to a resolution in a timely manner and we need to assure that everyone is kept aware of the progress being made.
The fact that we are really beginning to take seriously the internal questions regarding student retention is a cause for celebration. For the first time in more than twenty-five years, we can as a faculty take control of our own future. Removal of the impediment of poor retention will allow you to complete the transformation of this University from one that is locally or regionally known to one that is a national model. This is a cause for celebration. Your hard work of the last four years will pay off.
You have so much to celebrate already that I hope you will attend the reception following the workshop on retention. Think about where we were four years ago. Our SAT was well below 1000; we did not have an honors college; there was no computing admission standard; and we did not have National Merit recognition. Not only were you able to make these changes, but in doing so you created many models that are being adopted by others in the system. You have invested so much of yourselves in this campus and its future, it is time for a bit of reflection. It is also time to consolidate these victories and to remove the final impediment in your way.
I want to end this talk where it began. I have utmost faith in this faculty's ability to solve this most critical problem or I would not have brought it to you today. It is critical that we work together to develop mechanisms that allow you to collectively exercise your academic responsibility to assure that the programs you have approved are being implemented and that the mission that you developed is being carried out.
Finally, you may recall that Cullowhee is a Cherokee word that means "Valley of the Lilies." Well, this is the year to celebrate your heritage and to bring this University to full flower. This faculty has shown itself, time and again, to be able to wrestle with difficult problems and to produce excellent results. Several of your solutions are becoming models both nationally and for the UNC system. I would never have brought these most difficult challenges to a lesser faculty. But you have proven yourselves, individually, to be the best there is. I don't believe that you collectively yet know how good you are. Lesser faculty would choose the easy road they would not be willing to be introspective and examine the meaning of their educational core and paradigm. But not you; you are taking the road less traveled and that will make all the difference. Thank you and have a great year. (graphic)
|
