ACADEMIC PLANNING
COUNCIL
Bulletin #60
February 14, 2003
Topics:
1. Compliance
with Government Regulation
2. Task
Force on Faculty Instructional Activities Update
3. Strategic
Review Panel Report
4. Accountability
1. Compliance with Government Regulation
Vice Provost Larry Coleman
discussed the Kennedy-Forrester Report, Executive Report on the Assessment
of University of California Research Compliance Programs that the
University conducted in cooperation with its external auditors, Pricewaterhouse
Coopers, LLP. The Report assessed how
the University assures compliance with the increasing number of statutes,
regulations, and circulars that apply to federally sponsored awards. The report noted that although the UC campuses
are very alert to research compliance, compliance activity (which encompasses
issues as diverse as environmental health and safety regulations, human
subjects, animal care, and select agents) is handled differently on each campus
and diffused across different offices and different reporting lines. In their view, neither the University as a
whole nor the individual campuses would be completely prepared for a
comprehensive governmental review.
Given this, the Kennedy-Forrester Report recommended that the University
establish a new position, Director of Research Compliance, which would report
to the Vice Provost for Research at the Office of the President, and which
would be responsible for coordinating research compliance activities at OP and
across the campuses. Establishing such
a position would enable the University to implement a framework of compliance
that is responsive to the changing environment at the campus, system, and
federal level; help assure accountability; share best practices; and address
and mitigate the risks associated with the University’s research endeavors.
The APC expressed concern that the
new coordinator position would require additional reporting at the campus
level, or would get involved in policy development. Vice Provost Coleman assured the APC that policy development
would continue to be done at higher levels.
He also does not see the new coordinator position as having any audit
functions or increasing campus reporting burdens, except where campuses may not
be already be in compliance with federal regulations.
2. Update on Task Force on Faculty Instructional Activities
Assistant Vice President Sandra
Smith described the progress of the Task Force on Faculty Instructional
Activity. The Task Force, which has met
monthly since November, has three basic objectives: to recommend sound, and easily understood, measures that reflect
faculty workload; to determine whether the University’s faculty workload is
comparable to its peers; and to propose systemwide guidelines for greater
consistency across the campuses. The
Task Force is currently looking at faculty workload practices in 17 different
disciplines across the UC system and gathering similar information from
comparable institutions. It is
considering how to develop a new measure that better reflects classroom and
individualized instruction.
Some APC members asked what
constituted an “independent study” and expressed concern that UC faculty have
not been properly credited for all the individualized instruction they do. AVP Smith acknowledged that the distinction
between “classroom” and “independent study” is sometimes difficult to
make. The Task Force is currently
reviewing different decision rules on class size as one way to make this
distinction.
A preliminary report from the Task
Force, to be shared with the campuses and the Academic Council, is due in
March; the final report is due in July
3. Strategic Review Panel Report: “Forging California’s Future Through Educational Partnerships: Redefining Educational Outreach”
Vice President Winston Doby
discussed the forthcoming report from the Strategic Review Panel, which is
still in draft form. In fall 2002, 17
external reviewers were charged with assessing the effectiveness of UC’s outreach
programs, defining desirable changes to the University’s overall outreach plan,
setting reasonable goals for the University to pursue, and recommending a new
working alliance with K-12 and the community colleges.
Believing it is important for UC to
continue to work with K-12 to improve opportunities for educationally
disadvantaged and underrepresented students, the Strategic Review Panel has
expressed concern about the fluctuating resources allocated to outreach and
recommended that UC find a way to fund the core infrastructure, possibly
through a combination of internal and extramural funds. Recognition of the
disconnect between UC’s and K-12’s accountability goals led the Panel to argue
that UC’s goal of increasing eligibility among underrepresented students was
too narrow and specific, especially given the depth of educational disparity
across California. At the same time,
they observed that none of K-12’s accountability goals relate to college-going
rates. Accordingly, the Panel will
recommend that UC and K-12 set long term outreach goals jointly, perhaps at a
regional level. They also feel that the
outreach enterprise should be brought more in line with the teaching and
research mission of the University, by involving faculty more.
Some APC members expressed concern
that increasing UC’s responsibility for K-12 education in California could be
interpreted to mean taking on more than UC could achieve, especially in a time
of budgetary constraints. They also asked
how many more new students could UC absorb, and discussed how students are
encouraged (or discouraged) from coming to UC.
In response to questions from members, Vice President Doby described an
extensive amount of coordination of outreach activity between UC, CSU, and the
community colleges, and relayed a suggestion from State Superintendent of
Instruction Jack O’Connell that UC could best assist California by preparing
more teachers, especially in math and science.
In response to members’ questions,
Vice President Doby also discussed some of the reasons why so few
underrepresented students are UC eligible: Many attend schools where
college-going is not the dominant culture; access to few advanced and honors
level courses; some teachers may not be well-trained; students may lack access to
academic support structures; and their parents and communities may not be
engaged in the educational process.
Because of funding challenges, UC, he said in conclusion, is at a nexus: Should we go back to earlier outreach
programs that focused more narrowly on helping disadvantaged students become UC
eligible (possibly at the risk of UC being perceived as not caring about K-12),
or should we accept the SRP challenge and work more closely with K-12 in trying
to close the achievement gap among California's diverse population (possibly at
the risk of trying to do too much and diffusing limited resources).
4. Accountability: Master Plan Implementation and Statewide Accountability Discussion
Coordinator Todd Greenspan
described the discussion on accountability that occurred at the January 2003
Symposium on Higher Education Accountability in Sacramento, hosted by Senator
Alpert. A paper by Nancy Shulock and
Colleen Moore of the Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy at
CSU Sacramento informed the discussion.
Participants at the discussion accepted Shulock’s and Moore’s premises
that state goals need to be clearly stated before specific performance measures
are developed; that performance data should be reported for the state as a
whole and for each system in the aggregate, but not for each campus; that the
number of measures should be kept small; and that a neutral agency should
coordinate the development of performance information in order to ensure the
integrity and accuracy of the data.
There was less agreement at the
meeting on measuring student learning.
Given the diversity of programs and outcomes, Shulock and Moore do not
believe that student learning can be assessed the same way in higher education
as in K-12. Others felt that graduation
rates could be a proxy for student learning, or that one could survey students
or employers to assess the quality of programs in higher education.
AVP Smith described two strengths
of Shulock and Moore’s paper: That it
distinguishes between accountability and assessment, and that it shifts the
discussion from segmental issues to what higher education as a whole should
accomplish for the State. APC members
suggested that UC advocate including measures of research productivity in the
accountability framework, as well as measures that value an institution’s
ability to provide a low cost education to many students.