This Executive Summary, issued to the Ramapo College community on May 17, 2004, is abstracted from the Report of the Academic Structure Exploratory Committee (ASEC). Readers are urged to refer to and review the complete Report, which includes the entire Preamble and the rationale underlying the recommendations for the proposed reorganization of the academic division.

The committee charge from the provost and the Faculty Assembly leadership was "to recommend the most appropriate and cost-effective system for organizing the academic division." The committee comprised 14 total members, including eleven faculty members (two faculty representatives from each of the five schools, and one faculty member from the library), a professional staff representative, and two ex-officio members (administrative and professional staff).

Our overriding obligation in working toward recommendations for academic restructuring has been to come to conclusions that, on balance, are best for the academic division as a whole and for the future of the institution in building and maintaining quality programs, and in attracting and serving prospective students. Improved program quality, strengthened academic communities, streamlined academic decision making, and accountability for outcomes collectively represent a system of essential guiding principles that must serve as justification for and hence undergird any viable plan for restructuring the academic division.

Our analysis indicates that there is a need to do the following:

• Create stronger academic communities for students and faculty alike.
• Set priorities for faculty responsibilities.
• Move resources and decision making down the organizational structure.
• Build into the structure a means for allocating resources equitably.
• Establish a clear reporting structure.
• Bring about structural transparency.

Central to our concern is the longstanding scarcity of resources devoted to the academic division of the College. We suggest that aspects of the current structure–including a basic lack of faculty empowerment–have inhibited the ability of the academic division to focus on matters of strategic importance and to secure sufficient resources, from both internal and external sources, to support the academic endeavors of the College.

Resulting from its extensive analysis of the current structure, ASEC has concluded that the academic division of the College needs a coherent, transparent, and stronger structure. We therefore propose the creation of a fundamentally sound academic structure that will foster a self-regulating system and more effectively serve students, faculty, and the College into the long-term future.

The committee’s specific recommendations for academic reorganization are categorized into three areas:

1. Empowering Front-Line Academic Groups and Reconfiguring Schools
2. Defining Positions and Responsibilities of Academic Leadership
3. Placing Other Organizational Entities and Specifying Reporting Relationships

The entire set of recommendations constitutes a re-structuring package; as such, we caution against treating specific recommendations as modular components.

The key academic entities should be:

• Programs consisting of reconstituted convening groups.
• Schools comprised of related programs.

Front-line academic groups should be empowered as reconstituted convening groups called "programs." Each program should be placed in one school. Each larger grouping of programs should retain the title of "school."

Academic programs should represent the primary identification that students have within the institution. Compared with current convening groups, programs should have greater decision making authority and should be largely self-governing. Included within this greater decision making authority would be personnel recommendations (formal evaluation of peer faculty) and discretionary budget allocation. In return for this degree of autonomy, faculty in programs should collectively be responsible–and held accountable–for developing and reviewing courses, ensuring effective delivery of curricula, promoting academic rigor, maintaining academic standards, and working toward the achievement of student learning outcomes. Compared with current schools, programs would be substantially more cohesive and organic. A program’s faculty would hold regular meetings to discuss and make decisions on an integrated set of issues that they care deeply about and can directly influence.

Each program should be of sufficient threshold size to allow for appropriate decentralization of decision making from the school to program level, though programs may be home to varying numbers of permanent faculty. Programs should generally be larger in size and collectively fewer in number than current convening groups. Each program should house at least one undergraduate major and perhaps several related majors and/or minors.

Each degree major should have one academic home, that is, it should be housed in a specific program. Each currently split major should be consolidated in one program within one school. No major should be offered or administered by more than one program at the College.

Individual faculty should have one primary home (i.e., in a specific program), but may belong permanently or temporarily to a limited number (one or two) additional programs. Membership in programs should be based on the faculty member’s core teaching responsibilities upon initial hiring, the bulk of the faculty member’s teaching responsibilities in recent years, and otherwise the faculty member’s academic qualifications and professional expertise. These criteria should be weighed, though faculty members will also have an opportunity to make a case for themselves; this opportunity will not be available to incoming faculty who will be assigned to a primary home.

The role of faculty in their primary home should include such responsibilities as:

• Teaching core and other courses.
• Advising students.
• Developing and approving the curriculum.
• Voting on personnel matters.

A clear description of responsibilities for faculty who also reside in secondary and tertiary homes should be developed. Newly hired and tenure-track faculty in particular must have a clear understanding of their responsibilities, and should not be expected to work through conflicting priorities.

To be congruent with the goal of empowering front-line academic entities, schools in which programs are housed should be less curricular and more administrative (coordination, logistics, consistency, outreach, etc.) in character than they currently are. There should thus be a smaller number of reconfigured schools–perhaps three. Each school should house several academically related programs, though the number of programs housed in any school should be sufficiently small to promote efficient and effective communication and decision making between program chairs and the dean. Schools may encompass varying total numbers of faculty members and student majors. As decisions are decentralized to the program level, unit councils and unit committees would become increasingly less significant.

Individual faculty should belong to one school. School membership should be determined by the faculty member’s primary home (i.e., the specific program with which s/he has primary affiliation). Responsibilities to the school, however, would be greatly reduced if not eliminated as faculty participation in decision making decentralizes to the program level.

 
II. Defining Positions and Responsibilities of Academic Leadership

The key leadership positions should be:

• Chairs of programs.
• Deans of schools. 

Compared with current conveners, program chairs should have greater authority in:

• Planning course offerings and scheduling teaching assignments.
• Approving flex/release time under the new Unit Plan.
• Making personnel recommendations.
• Allocating the program’s discretionary budget to specific activities.

Chairs should in return be held accountable for program oversight, management, and assessment, including:

• Ensuring effective curriculum delivery.
• Building quality outcomes.
• Conducting thorough program reviews.

These front-line academic leaders should also coordinate advisement of students and mentor new faculty. Depending upon the size of the program they lead, chairs must be given release time under the new Unit Plan commensurate to their responsibilities. The number of program chairs should correspond to the number of academic programs (subsequent to the aggregation of convening groups).

 
IIB. Selection and Term of Program Chairs

Chairs should be selected by program faculty. Terms should be of three years’ duration, and chairs should be limited to two consecutive terms.

Deans should:

• Have a broad, visionary perspective.
• Undertake long-term planning efforts.
• Work to strengthen academic programs across the school and collectively at the institutional level.
• Engage in revenue generating/fundraising activities and other outreach endeavors critical in establishing mutually beneficial relationships with external partners.

Deans should also monitor the school’s overall budget and supervise non-academic personnel. It is essential that deans be given the authority to make difficult decisions that may run counter to popular faculty opinion. The number of deans should correspond to the number of reconfigured schools, perhaps three (see Recommendation IE).

Internal candidates should be groomed and promoted for deanship positions when such candidates are qualified and interested in applying. They should be encouraged to engage in developmental activities offered by professional academic administrative associations. Deans may be selected either from internal candidates or through national searches at the option of the faculty within the school. National searches should be required when only one qualified internal candidate applies. Deans should be appointed to renewable terms.

 
III. Placing Other Organizational Entities and Specifying Reporting Relationships

Certain academic areas or units with few or no permanent faculty members engage in activities requiring the "borrowing" of faculty and/or the coordination of course offerings in serving students across the spectrum of majors offered by the College. We were asked to evaluate three such curricular areas.

Our structural recommendations differ for:

• Teacher education
• International education
• Graduate education

Teacher education should be a separate entity (center or institute) having appropriate resources and led by a director who sits on the Deans’ Council.

No separate School of International Education should exist. However, the International Studies major would continue to exist. The Roukema Center should be a freestanding entity serving the College at large, and led by a director who reports to a Vice Provost.

There should not be a separate graduate school to house graduate programs. The leader of all graduate programs should be Coordinator of Graduate Programs, and the leader of each program should be a director who reports to the appropriate dean.