View or download the full document.
Changes Made to the Draft Shape of the College Recommendations in Response to Feedback Received
Published 02/23/2021 -- This document is written to clarify the differences and similarities between the draft and final versions of the Shape of the College recommendations made by the Academic Program Prioritization Implementation Committee (APPIC) to President Collado and Provost Cornish.
In the public-facing APP timeline, it appeared as though the APPIC would have a very narrow window of time to review voluminous feedback on the draft recommendations. Most of the feedback was submitted ahead of the deadline and was made immediately available to the committee for consideration. In the end, APPIC had nearly a week to read much of the feedback, which allowed for a very thorough review. APPIC also met for 7.5 hours on February 16 to discuss the feedback as a committee and prepare the final recommendations.
The FTE reduction and program elimination recommendations from the draft version remain intact.
Given the assumptions provided to APPIC (a 12:1 student:faculty ratio, and a total student body of 5,000), the FTE reductions in the draft recommendations represented the minimum possible number of reductions, and therefore no alterations in these numbers were possible. Further clarity was provided on the contract types associated with the reductions, including the true impact on continuing faculty. (See detail below).
Most of the changes APPIC made to the document were oriented toward (1) clarifying content that readers had found unclear or where misunderstandings occurred based on wording in the draft, or (2) making modifications to recommendations in the draft, based on the feedback received.
- Sustainable Size. APPIC received many questions about the projected sustainable student size of 5,000. Although APPIC, as a committee, did not establish the sustainable size number, additional information was added to the final recommendations to offer more context for how the number was reached. (Page 4 of Shape of the College)
- Types of Faculty Reductions by Contract Type. APPIC added the following chart, which shows a clearer picture of the impact of these reductions on continuing faculty. (Page 8 of Shape of the College). In this chart, reductions are organized by contract type; whether they were already planned and scheduled prior to APPIC’s work or recommended by APPIC; and whether the reductions were voluntary or involuntary.
|Position Type||FY 20-21 Faculty Est
Total FTE as of
Reductions in Shape of
|Retirements and Other Departures
of all reductions
|Tenured and Tenure-Eligible||346||10||10||0||336|
|Non-Tenure Eligible (NTEN)||108||29||6||23||79|
|Full Time Term (one-year positions)||28||9||1||8||19|
|Part Time and Overload||60||38||0||38||22|
|Attrition/ Reassigned Time||0||30||0||30||(30)|
This chart above and the graph below show that of the recommended 116 FTE reductions:
- 73% are achieved through: voluntary retirements and departures already scheduled (14.6%); part-time, per-credit contracts that will not be needed moving forward and reductions in per-credit overload and reassigned time (38%); and voluntary future attrition which occurs normally when faculty retire or take other positions (20.7%).
- 7% are FTEs in one-year, temporary term appointments.
- 20% of the FTEs are full-time, continuing faculty in Non-Tenure Eligible (NTEN) lines (23 faculty members). It is important to note that this category of reduction is 4.2% of the total faculty FTE as of December 2020 (542 FTEs).
Recommended 116 FTE Reductions
|Voluntary retirements and departures already scheduled, part-time per-credit contracts, per-credit overload and reassigned time, voluntary future attrition||One-year temp term||Full-time continuing NTEN|
- Addressing the Perception That Cuts Were Not Strategic. APPIC provided additional context to reflect the impact that the preservation of tenured and tenure-eligible faculty had on our recommendations. (Page 9 of Shape of the College)
- Clarifications Regarding IC/Longview Partnership. APPIC added more information to reassure that the IC/Longview Partnership will continue to exist. (Page 10 of Shape of the College)
- Teacher Certification Programs. In response to feedback received and questions raised regarding the undergraduate teacher certification programs proposed for discontinuation, APPIC provided additional explanation to clarify that, of the 17 total programs slated for discontinuation, 10 of them are the H&S Teaching Option programs (sharing a common core) and three of them are the HPPE programs (that also share many courses in common). (Page 11 of Shape of the College)
- Clarifying “Streamlined Application Process.” The committee received many questions about the recommendation to simplify prospective students’ application experience at the College. Additional information was added here to help illustrate that such adaptations to simplify the experience are not meant to replace the direct application that must occur for some major areas. APPIC also wanted to indicate that this would be a process of collaboration between Admission and the deans and their school designees. In response to some concern from graduate programs, clarification was added, for graduate programs, that this process would continue to be led by faculty review of applicants. (Page 12 of Shape of the College)
- Equitable Faculty Workload. APPIC increased the specificity of this portion, recommending that tenured and tenure-eligible faculty move toward 20-21 credits in teaching load for AY 21-22 and that NTEN faculty move more consistently to 24 credits of teaching load. (Page 14 of Shape of the College)
- Course Caps. More detail was added to clarify the recommendation that course caps be reviewed on an ongoing basis in collaboration between the deans and the departments, and not reviewed more centrally, by the provost. (Page 16 of Shape of the College)
- Reassigned Time vs. Released Time. APPIC received requests to honor the work associated with faculty additional duties (completed within the 24-credit workload) by consistently referencing to it as “reassigned time” rather than “released time.” To better reflect the value of the work that is supported by reassigned time, APPIC made this change throughout. (Throughout Shape of the College)
- Removal of “Oversight.” Some in our community noted the troubling history associated with this term, and APPIC replaced the word, and its derivatives, throughout the final recommendations. (Throughout Shape of the College)