Consistent with the design of the
academic renewal process, a vibrant campus-wide discussion has developed
around the PCAR recommendations. The Faculty Senate, whose members
played a notably active and productive role on the commission, also
submitted independently a number of useful recommendations. Deans
and members of faculty bodies in the various schools and colleges
provided input regarding the University’s academic portfolio.
For this continuing engagement, I reiterate my deep gratitude to
the entire campus community.
The academic renewal design anticipated that my
final recommendations to the Board of Trustees would go beyond what
PCAR proposed. On numerous occasions, I informed the commissioners
that I did not expect them to make specific recommendations regarding
program elimination. From the outset, I indicated that the responsibility
for the final disposition of academic programs was mine. It is widely
understood that our current strategic academic goals and fiscal
circumstances no longer give us the luxury of offering programs
across such a wide range of academic areas. I recognize that many,
if not most, of our programs have deep roots in the University,
with faculty members and generations of alumni who over the years
have made major contributions in their chosen fields, often changing
the world in the process. Our past strategy of spreading our resources
across too many programs is no longer tenable. We must concentrate
on the programs that are most central to fulfilling our mission
and vision and enhancing our standing as a major metropolitan research
university.
In reaching my decisions, I have tried to remain
true to the spirit of PCAR and its approach to program assessment.
As you know, the commissioners agreed on an evaluation framework
with six broad criteria—enrollment data, academic quality,
research productivity, tie to mission and vision, academic centrality,
and sustainability—that are consistent with the evaluation
criteria employed in similar exercises at other research universities.
Commissioners also gathered quantitative and qualitative data from
the university’s information systems, surveys, and site visits
to the academic units.
The commission’s report serves as the starting point for my
evaluation of each program. I also went further, taking into account
comparative benchmarks of quality at other research universities
and applying additional criteria regarding threshold requirements
necessary to sustain program quality. Such criteria include the
minimum critical mass of students and faculty necessary to maintain
first-rate instructional and research environments, the level of
operating support and capital investment required to sustain excellence,
and the feasibility of gaining such support in the foreseeable future.
As I noted in my September 14, address, we must
continue looking for ways to reduce costs in both academic and non-academic
areas, while enhancing program quality. We have made notable advances
in this area over the past year and we must continue to exert the
fiscal discipline to achieve additional savings. Properly managed,
unspent dollars from the current operating budget may be leveraged
to access capital for infrastructure improvements. Such a strategy
will go far toward addressing a concern that the PCAR site visitation
teams found pervasive throughout the University.
Before turning attention to the specific programs
that, in my judgment, are strong candidates for closure or consolidation,
I wish to reiterate the broad areas of consensus about our degree
programs and academic support areas that emerged from the academic
renewal process led by PCAR. We have agreed to:
We have also come to understand that a phased
faculty retirement program must play an integral part in academic
renewal. As you know, considerably more than half of our tenured
faculty members are eligible to retire. In addition to providing
interested faculty members with the opportunity to decrease their
responsibilities gradually prior to retirement, the program will
assist academic units in preserving the integrity of their instructional
and research programs during the transitional period. As retirement-eligible
faculty members enter emeritus status, we must also provide better
for our colleagues who remain active and for the new faculty members
who will be hired. Simply put, our faculty salary structure and
new-faculty start-up packages must be more competitive if we are
to achieve our academic and research goals. I have appointed a group
consisting largely of members of the faculty to develop recommendations
for a phased retirement program and a competitive compensation strategy.
I will provide additional updates on the committee’s work
as it proceeds.
What Lies Ahead
One of the most important lessons learned from the PCAR process
is that we must institutionalize academic renewal such that it becomes
a natural rhythm of our academic life, with cycles of resetting
goals, planning and then implementing program changes, reviewing
performance, and assessing outcomes. To that end, I am asking faculty
members in every degree program to engage in this process. The Provost
and the Senior Vice President for Health Sciences will develop more
precise instructions to guide the process in their respective areas.
I urge us all to keep in mind that operational and fiscal constraints
must apply. We need to:
- Develop internally and externally referenced metrics by which
program performance will be assessed on an annual basis. Accredited
programs must use the standards established by accrediting bodies
as the starting point and not the ending point of excellence;
- Review each specialization (i.e., a recognized focus within
a discipline) and, as appropriate, sub-specializations offered
within each degree program and recommend those that might be eliminated
so that resources may be reallocated;
- Reduce the number of classes being offered with low enrollments
that are not dictated by pedagogical needs;
- Identify one-time savings opportunities and on-going cost reduction
strategies in the areas of departmental administrative processes,
deployment of faculty, staff and student assistants and the general
allocation of resources;
- Identify revenue enhancement opportunities, such as alumni-giving,
corporate support or sponsorship, in-kind gifts and equipment,
and externally funded faculty development opportunities; and
- Enhance scholarly and creative productivity and research, which
is vital to improving the quality of our academic programs.
President’s Recommendations for Academic
Renewal
The list that is posted on my Website identifies by name the degree
programs that I presently recommend for closure, consolidation or
restructuring. Consistent with sound academic practice and the express
desire of the Faculty Senate and the faculties of the respective
schools and colleges, I am recommending to the Board of Trustees
that we proceed with academic program and school and college vetting
before I make final decisions. Collectively, the programs range
across the university’s schools and colleges and program types.
In all but a handful of cases, my default assumption is that the
named program will be closed. More specific details regarding these
programs are available on my website.
As I noted in my September 14 address, the Provost and the Senior
Vice President for Health Sciences will lead the extended period
of review and on behalf of their respective faculties and deans
will forward to me recommendations that are academically and fiscally
sound by the close of business on December 1, 2010. I will make
the final decisions thereafter.
Recommendations should originate with the faculty
of a program with further input from the school/college faculty
committees and dean and from the Faculty Senate as prescribed by
applicable by-laws. A program closure/consolidation protocol will
be developed and distributed. Among other things, the protocol will
include projected timelines and the provisions that will be made
for current students, faculty, and staff. This protocol will also
address curricular adjustments that may be required by virtue of
the closure of specific programs.
Conclusion
As we enter the final stage of the formal vetting period of the
academic renewal process, I reiterate my thanks to the University
community for the work that has been done to date. The amount of
time and energy, the level of awareness generated about our programs,
and the overall spirit of collegiality that has characterized our
collective efforts are nothing short of phenomenal. Our challenges
are large and urgent, but as a community that pulls together, we
can and will successfully address them. Although difficult decisions
remain and the work of implementing change has only begun, I am
confident that your continuing dedication will see us through and
assure the strength of Howard University through the next generation
and beyond.
Sincerely,
Sidney Ribeau
President
|
