ASEC Preliminary Recommendations

Preliminary Recommendations From ASEC (April 19, 2004)

Following are ASEC’s generally agreed upon responses to the nine questions in the Committee’s charge concerning academic reorganization. Some specific questions, as noted, remain under discussion. Please note that these preliminary recommendations are *** for discussion only *** at this point in time; the final report will be generated subsequent to further input and consideration.

________________________________________________________________________

1. What organizational entities would work best at Ramapo (schools, departments, programs, convening groups, etc.)?

“Academic groups” and schools (appropriate terminology is under discussion).

Compared with current convening groups, academic groups should have greater decision making authority and should be largely self-governing. They should also be responsible for ensuring effective delivery of curriculum, be accountable for results, and represent the primary identification that students have within the institution.

Schools in which academic groups are housed should be less curricular and more administrative (coordination, logistics. consistency, etc.) in character.

Rationale: The academic structure should relate to the student’s curricular experience, and be designed so as to maximize responsiveness to student learning and related academic needs. Decisions should be made where they matter most, i.e., “where the rubber meets the road.” This will result in strengthening substantially the role of the academic groups as front-line entities and as the primary academic communities. It will also increase the likelihood of more effective delivery of curriculum and strengthened learning outcomes. More effective use of scarce faculty resources may result.

________________________________________________________________________

2. How many of these entities should there be, what shape should they take, what members should they have, and what criteria for membership should be established? Also, to what degree should the entities be either parallel or unique in structure, membership, number of programs, and other features?

Academic groups should generally be larger in size and fewer in number than current convening groups. Academic groups should be home to between one undergraduate major and several majors and/or minors, and may therefore house varying numbers of permanent faculty.

As reconfigured entities, schools might number five (same as current number) or less. Schools should house several related academic groups, and may encompass varying total numbers of faculty across these groups.

(Under discussion are the precise numbers of academic groups and schools, in addition to which academic groups should be housed in which schools. Further information is provided under #5 below.)

Rationale: Aggregating certain convening groups (i.e., majors with other majors, and minors with majors) in larger academic groups will result in more effective decision making concerning curriculum delivery and less conflicting activities among members (teaching responsibilities, service activities, and so on). The number and configuration of academic groups will in large part determine the appropriate number of schools. As the number of convening groups would decrease substantially, the number of schools needed to administer these groups would similarly shrink in number.

Membership in academic groups 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. School membership should be determined by the primary academic home of faculty members. (Further information is provided in #5 below.)

Rationale: To preserve academic integrity, meet accreditation requirements, and respond appropriately to stakeholder demands, the institution must ensure that the curriculum is professionally and reliably delivered, and that students are otherwise well-served (e.g., through advising).

________________________________________________________________________

3. What leadership positions would work best (deans, associate deans, department heads, program chairs, conveners, etc.)? And what general responsibilities and level of authority should each have?

“Leaders of academic groups” and Deans (appropriate terminology is under discussion).

Leaders of academic groups should have greater authority in, for example, scheduling classes and faculty to teach classes, approving flex/release time under the new Unit Plan, allocating budgeted resources to specific activities, and so on. These leaders should in return be held accountable for ensuring curriculum delivery, quality outcomes, etc. They must be given appropriate release time under the new Unit Plan to fulfill their responsibilities.

Deans should take a broad, visionary perspective; undertake long-term planning efforts; work to strengthen the role of academics in their school and collectively at the institutional level; and engage in revenue generating/fundraising activities and other critical outreach endeavors critical in establishing mutually beneficial relationships with external partners.

Benefits should be weighed in hiring professional staff as Assistants to the Dean versus promoting faculty as Assistant or Associate Deans.

(Further specifics concerning general responsibilities and levels of authority for leadership positions are under discussion.)

Rationale: Granting greater authority with appropriate release time to leaders of academic groups will help strengthen the groups and their impact, and enhance the probability that these leaders’ increased responsibilities to faculty, students, and more broadly the institution will be fulfilled. Increasing the authority and responsibilities of these front-line leaders will necessarily change the responsibilities of deans. Deans will likely require additional assistance in performing essential administrative functions, which may be performed competently by professional staff in assistant to the dean positions. This may be preferable to taking faculty members out of the classroom to serve as assistant or associate deans.

________________________________________________________________________

4. How many such leadership positions should we have and what method(s) of selection should we establish?

(The precise number of leadership positions is under discussion.)

Leaders of academic groups should be selected by the respective members. Terms should be of three years’ duration, and leaders should be limited to two consecutive terms.

Rationale: Members should be empowered to choose who will lead them and represent their group’s interests in the greater academic community. Leaders of academic groups will have appropriate levels of knowledge and experience, and be “of the faculty.”

Deans should be selected through national searches and be appointed to renewable terms. Internal candidates should be groomed and promoted for deanship positions when such candidates are qualified and interested in applying.

Rationale: National searches will expand the pool of highly qualified candidates. Internal candidates who possess appropriate experience at the institution, and are otherwise prepared to assume the post of deanship, should be given special consideration when they are members of the applicant pool.

________________________________________________________________________

5. If we retain the current organizational model, should we combine convening groups, and if so in what way? Relatedly, should faculty members be limited in the number of groups to which they can belong?

The 33 major and 21 minor/convening groups should be combined into a much smaller number of larger size aggregate academic groups based on criteria such as academic relatedness/compatibility, course/faculty overlap, and size of major/minor. Each academic group should house at least one major and potentially several related majors and/or minors. (Under discussion is a total of between 14 and 19 aggregate groups.)

Rationale: To as great a degree as possible, the academic structure should facilitate seamless movement of students from enrollment to entry into major of choice, and through their continued progress toward graduation. Academic groups should be of appropriate size to serve students effectively; to support teaching activities; to build and sustain a culture for faculty research; and to encourage innovative initiatives to emerge and be championed from within. Larger academic groups should therefore form where related or overlapping courses and curricula are currently taught among convening groups to allow for enhanced scheduling; greater curricular synergy; more effective student advising, career planning, and preparation for graduate school; and better overall use of faculty resources in meeting student and institutional needs.

Academic groups should, on the one hand, be sufficiently large to enhance sustainability/viability, and so that its members are empowered to make tradeoffs in decision making (i.e., where faculty have a clear stake in such decisions) rather than pushing decisions up to higher levels by default. Greater leverage in decision making could occur, for example, in personnel (hiring, tenure, promotion) recommendations, allocating operating budgets, and awarding grants and travel funds.

These groups should, on the other hand, be sufficiently small for their leaders and members to remain focused on serving students and delivering the curriculum effectively, as opposed to becoming predominately administrative entities. This tradeoff must be carefully considered in the precise aggregation of current convening groups.

In general, a move toward more decentralized decision making is expected to result in greater flexibility in meeting changing student and faculty needs, and greater impact on student outcomes and faculty productivity.

Faculty members should have one primary home, but may belong permanently or temporarily to a limited number of (one or two) additional academic groups. Parameters and guidelines should be established concerning specific responsibilities—teaching courses, advising students, developing and approving the curriculum, voting on personnel matters, etc.—in primary, secondary, and tertiary homes.

Rationale: Ensuring that faculty members have allegiance to one primary academic group will provide greater clarity to teaching and advising responsibilities and therefore enhance accountability; facilitate curricular planning and clearer identification of needs for new faculty lines; give increased attention to faculty research and scholarship; enable students to identify readily the specific set of faculty members who are responsible for delivering reliably the curriculum; encourage stronger bonds between faculty and student majors, such as by enhancing student advising and the potential for collaborative faculty-student research; and result in a transparent structure to internal constituencies, external stakeholders, and the general public. Participating in secondary and possibly tertiary groups will enable interested faculty to contribute to other institutional needs if responsibilities to the home base are fulfilled.

________________________________________________________________________

6. Should the teacher education program be free-standing or remain part of another entity, and what title should its leader hold?

Teacher education should be a separate entity (perhaps an institute or center) having appropriate resources and led by an administrative head (director rather than dean).

Rationale: Teacher education serves a wide spectrum of students who major in diverse academic fields and disciplines. As the program must meet strict external certification requirements, access to and coordination of in-house financial and human resources is necessary, keen attention to assessment and reporting of outcomes are required, and substantial outreach activities are essential.

________________________________________________________________________

7. Should the international education program be free-standing or part of another entity, and what title should its leader hold? What relationship should exist between the Roukema Center and other parts of the academic structure with respect to international education?

No separate School of International Education program should exist.

Rationale: International education should be infused into the curriculum as one of several “themes in teaching and learning” (Revised Mission Statement). This question should be resolved in the curriculum rather than through the structure.

(No recommendation is forwarded concerning the role of the Roukema Center in international education. The resolution of this question is highly dependent on both the level and timing of available resources.)

________________________________________________________________________

8. Should graduate programs be placed in a separate unit, and if so what title should the leader of all the graduate programs hold?

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.

Rationale: The institution’s mission has traditionally been and remains undergraduate education; housing graduate programs in a separate unit might change the character of the institution beyond what is currently envisioned. Graduate programs tend to strengthen undergraduate majors and thus are best tied to and housed in academically related schools. A coordinator is needed for administrative reasons (reporting, consistency, etc.). As the number of students enrolled in graduate programs is projected to grow considerably, these questions may need to be reconsidered in the future.

________________________________________________________________________

9. Should each degree major have only one academic home, rather than multiple homes as is sometimes the case in the current arrangement?

Each degree major should have one academic home. Split majors such as currently recognized should be discontinued. No major should be administered by more than one academic entity.

Rationale: Having one academic home for each degree major will provide greater transparency to and clearer identification for students, which will in turn assist students in selecting a major, knowing where to go for advice, establishing bonds with relevant faculty, and understanding and completing major requirements. This will eliminate an important source of confusion in students and others. Its effectiveness will be enhanced in conjunction with faculty belonging to one primary home (see #5 above).

________________________________________________________________________