ACADEMIC PLANNING
COUNCIL
Bulletin #62
June 6, 2003
1.
Outreach Update
2.
Statewide Accountability
Activities
3.
Enrollment Planning Issues
4.
Faculty Instructional
Activities
1.
Outreach Update
Vice President Winston Doby
returned to the Academic Planning Council to describe how the University will
respond to the report of the Educational Outreach Strategic Review Panel to The
Regents at their May, 2003 meeting.
(The panel’s report and related Regents’ Items can be found at http://www.ucop.edu/regents/regmeet/may03/302.pdf
and http://www.ucop.edu/regents/regmeet/mar03/305.pdf).
The external panel was convened to
review the University’s educational outreach efforts. They noted that the University has been “generally effective in
providing educationally disadvantaged and underrepresented students increased
access to UC,” and in improving educational conditions in some K-12 schools
through teacher professional development, leadership training and other
activities. They also noted that given
the significant disparity in educational opportunity and the widening
achievement gap among California students, UC’s programs alone could not be
expected to change overall patterns of K-12 achievement statewide.
The most significant recommendation
of the panel is for UC to direct more attention to improving the academic
achievement of all educationally disadvantaged and underrepresented students,
with less specific attention paid to helping students achieve UC
eligibility. The panel also noted that
the individual outreach efforts of higher education segments ought to be
coordinated, and that new alliances with school districts, businesses,
philanthropic organizations and higher education are essential to addressing
the serious educational deficiencies that face the state of California.
Vice President Doby added that in
addition to the recommendations of the panel, the significant budget cuts to
State-funded outreach activities are forcing the University to rethink how it
organizes and delivers its outreach programs.
In particular, the shift from State funds (provided to UC for overseeing
teacher professional development activities carried out by UC, CSU and
independent universities) to federal funds (provided to school districts to
contract with providers) requires UC to compete with others for funding. Vice President Doby acknowledged that it may
be difficult for UC to succeed in this new arena, as there are others, such as
commercial vendors, competing for professional development funds.
Vice President Doby itemized a
number of responses to both the panel and the new funding realities. First, the Academic Council has formed a
committee and will convene a summit in November 2003 of faculty already engaged
in outreach activities as well as others who might become involved. Second, the California Education Roundtable,
consisting of heads of the public segments of higher education, and
representatives of independent colleges and universities, the State Department
of Education and K-12, will assume more prominent leadership in working to
raise the level of achievement of all California K-12 students, and closing the
achievement gaps among various subgoups.
Simultaneously, campuses are
creating regional alliances—K-16 partnerships—working with county
superintendents of education, community colleges and CSU campuses to identify
educational priorities within the region and to develop collaborative
responses. The elimination of funding
to support the outreach infrastructure would make it difficult for UC to
maintain a presence in these regional conversations and collaborations.
Vice President Doby noted that the
top two areas in which K-12 superintendents want help from higher education are
in improving leadership (e.g., school principals) and providing excellent
teachers, particularly in math and science.
In response to APC questions about how UC can play a role, Vice
President Doby pointed out that UC can be a catalyst in forming regional
partnerships, with the locus of UC effort happening at the campus level; we can
encourage even more of our students, especially in math and science, to enter
the teaching profession (25 percent of California’s credentialed math and
science teachers have a UC undergraduate degree, although only 4 percent have a
UC credential); and, we can engage faculty in disciplines other than the
schools of education to become more involved in the University’s land grant
mission of serving the public good.
2.
Statewide
Accountability Activities
The APC received a report on the
activities of the advisory group of legislative staff, segmental
representatives, and higher education experts that is seeking to develop a
California higher education "accountability framework.” Coordinator Todd Greenspan, Office of the
President Academic Initiatives, described how the advisory group is attempting
to develop a process to inform state policymakers about how well California
higher education is meeting state policy goals. The advisory group’s work at this point is preliminary, and includes
recommended goals and a list of potential indicators that might be used to
measure those goals (including many from the "Measuring Up" report
card developed by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.)
APC members observed that the
advisory group seemed to be measuring the economic, intellectual and civic
health of California rather than measuring the efforts and achievements of
higher education. While such an
assessment may be desirable, members were concerned that public higher
education would be held accountable for broad results that are associated with
many factors besides higher education.
They were also concerned that many of the measures of student
preparedness were indicative of the health of K-12, not the health of higher
education.
There were suggestions to include
measures that demonstrate how higher education contributes to the economy, such
as the number of patents, start-ups, and college graduates employed from public
institutions in California. Another
suggestion was to look at how higher education fosters creativity in general,
with measures such as the extent to which California’s college graduates enter
the arts. APC members also noted that
whatever form the final accountability indicators take, it is appropriate that
the advisory group does not want to link them with the State budgeting
process.
3.
Enrollment Planning
Issues
Assistant Vice President Sandra
Smith described the difficulty of reassessing our long-range enrollments at
this time. More students than ever are
enrolling at UC at all levels (freshmen, transfers and graduate students). However, budget cuts are potentially of such
magnitude that UC may have to consider ways of limiting enrollment growth in
order to maintain quality.
APC members discussed a suggestion
aimed at minimizing the growth impacts on campuses by using community colleges
more effectively for freshmen students who are UC-eligible upon high school
graduation. Currently, virtually all
UC-eligible students attend four-year institutions upon graduation from high
school. Knowing this, the question was
raised whether a specific type of community college experience could be
designed to attract some students (e.g., a residential community college). If such a program could be designed, the
next issue would be how to make it work academically. One suggestion was to design a program that overcomes the
experience of community college simply being an extension of high school, which
might be accomplished by creating honors (or similarly selective)
programs.
Members acknowledged the difficulty
of attracting UC-eligible students to most community colleges. They also counseled against sending an
unwelcoming message to UC-eligible students.
4.
Faculty Instructional
Activities
APC members discussed two draft reports summarizing the work and recommendations of the Task Force on Faculty Instructional Activities. The first report addresses how to report total instructional activity in a way that is responsive to the State’s concerns about the amount of teaching done by UC faculty and comprehensive enough to provide proper credit to faculty for all their instructional efforts. The Task Force recommends some new distinctions in instruction: faculty-intensive instruction, which includes regular classes and other traditional teaching activities; faculty-led research, scholarship and creative discovery activities such as undergraduate honors study, topical research seminars, freshman seminars, field study, clinics, and group study meetings typical of graduate study; and, student-initiated (but faculty-guided) independent study. The Task Force recommends that all three be reported as the total instructional effort of UC faculty. They also recommended that both the number of classes and the number of student credit hours per faculty member be reported to the State, in addition to other indicators of institutional achievement, such as graduation rates and time to degree.
The second report compares teaching
policy and practice across UC campuses and disciplines, and with other
universities, to the extent possible.
While the data were difficult to compile, and there are differences in
definitions, the Task Force learned in 140 interviews that institutional
expectations are similar both at UC and other institutions at which UC faculty
have worked. However, 60 percent of the
respondents felt they were teaching more at UC than at other institutions, a
difference due not to the number of classes taught but to the number of
students taught, advised, graded and otherwise assisted academically.
The Task Force also documented the
wide variability in the number of classes taught per regular-rank faculty
across UC campuses and disciplines.
While some variability is to be expected, the Task Force recommends more
departmental adherence to consistent cross-campus standards. When completed, the report will delineate
specific issues for campuses to address, such as development of more congruent
course numbering systems (to identify the various types of classes being
reported and to improve cross-campus comparisons), and further investigation
into the practices of departments with below-average number of courses and/or
student credit hours per faculty member.