Portal Definition:

Document Sample
Portal Definition: Powered By Docstoc
					        Final Report

Portal of Entry Workgroup
        August 1, 2007

   Respectfully Submitted by:

   Diane Marker Convener/Chair
   Susan Batten
   Carol Bresnahan
   Maureen Conroy
   Mark Denham
   Sheila Doles
   Kevin Kucera
   Charles Lehnert
   Dennis Lettman
   Kenneth Long
   William McMillen
   Kaye Patten Wallace
   Pamela Pullella
   Alice Skeens
   Mary Jo Waldock
                               Portal of Entry Work Group

FIRST CHARGE: Work with OBOR to attain “Branch Campus” designation for the
Scott Park Campus, or seek clear implemental alternative that would allow us to use
Scott Park for a Portal of Entry and charge differential tuition there.

 Branch Campus Status/Differential Tuition:
      William McMillen has kept this committee updated on the many changes under consideration for
       higher education in the state of Ohio. The committee recognizes that the environment in the state
       legislature and OBOR does not make it possible to pursue the creation of a branch campus at
       this time.

      The committee discussed a number of ways to implement a differential tuition rate, but without
       the creation of a branch campus they were not pursued.

      We did not discuss a differential tuition charge for the professional colleges. At present, Ohio
       does not permit public universities to charge differential tuition.

 Portal Discussion:
      We recognize that there is a certain conflict between the goals of the Strategic Plan to obtain
       increased enrollment simultaneously with increasing academic standards.

      The committee felt strongly that admission to the University be as accessible as possible. This is
       not only a mandate of the state legislature but a community expectation.

      There was concern that increased admission standards could have a disparate impact on
       underrepresented groups.

 Portal Defined:
      Given both the institution of higher admission standards and the requirement of open admission,
       we recognize the need for and recommend the establishment of a Portal of Entry. This should be
       defined as a unit within University College which will be charged with serving all students
       otherwise admissible to UT, but inadmissible to their desired college or program. (Passed by
       committee 5/24/07)

      The adoption and implementation of increasingly selective admission standards as proposed by
       the Board of Trustees will substantially increase the number of students who will be admitted
       through the portal, perhaps by as many as ten times. ( see Appendix A) This will increase the
       need for resources for the Student Success Center.

      We recommend that the Student Success Center be reconstituted to serve as the POE for the
       University. ( see Attachment 1)

      The admission of students to the Student Success Center must be communicated in a clear
       consistent and positive manner. This pertains to all printed copy such as admission acceptance
       letters, catalog, websites, admission application and any other promotional or informational
       materials. We understand that Admissions Office has revised some of the materials. We would
       encourage reducing the number of acceptance letter templates from the current forty.

 Exploratory Students (previously called undecided) :
      These are students who are qualified for admission to the University without restrictions but have
       not decided on a major. It should be made clear this is a separate population from the POE
       student who is under prepared and who does not meet college specific admission requirements.
       These populations of students have successfully been served by the University College’s QUEST
       Program and should continue to be served there and are not to have combined services with the
       POE students. (Passed by committee 5/24/07)

      Current data indicates that 84% of QUEST students will be located in their college of choice
       within three semesters. Attachment 2 gives a seven year summary (1999-2005) of the percent of
       QUEST entering cohorts declaring a major by the third term marker. Also shown is a breakdown
       of the 2005 cohort group by college chosen.( see Attachment 2)

      Each college should work closely with University College/QUEST to be sure that students have a
       relationship with their potential college of choice. (Passed by committee 5/24/07)

SECOND CHARGE: Develop narrow mission and focus for University College.

 University College Student Population:
      The following student populations should be part of University College

              Student Success Center (POE as defined above)
              QUEST (Unconditionally admitted but exploratory)
              PSEOP and High School Academic Initiatives
              University College Majors:
                IDVP
                ALS
                B.S. in Administrative Services
                Assoc. of Technical Studies (shared with College of Business)

      We strongly recommend that University College administration, advisors and staff be physically
       located in Rocket Hall. Currently the Student Success Center including Quest and PSEOP are in
       Rocket Hall. The committee felt very strongly that the students in the Portal should not be
       segregated from other undergraduate students and therefore felt that moving University College
       to Bancroft campus would enable these students to better integrate into the general student
       population. In addition this move will enable University College to utilize the staff and resources in
       a more effective and manageable manner. Also, the current confusion that exists regarding which
       students go to Rocket Hall for service and which students go to Scott Park will be eliminated.

 University College Faculty, Advisors, Staff:
      Within University College, the Department of Interdisciplinary and Special Programs (ISP)
       currently has a chair and five faculty members. They serve two academic programs, the
       Individualized Program, and Adult Liberal Studies. The faculty in ISP also teach developmental
       writing and reading, college success/study strategies, career and self evaluation and FYI courses.
       Currently there is no desire to physically relocate the offices of this department, although the
       issue should be revisited in the future.

      The faculty and staff for Business Technology joined the College of Business on July 1, 2007.

       The following advisors and staff should remain in University College:
         Asst. Dean and Director of Student Success and one secretary and the positions below:
           In this division currently are:
                  Career and Academic Planning House Director
                  Advisors for QUEST and Transitional students: 4
                  Director of Rocket Athletic Academic Support: two Advisors and one Learning
                  Transfer Academic Advisor who works on behalf of UT at Owens CC and Monroe CC

           High School Academic Initiatives
                 One assistant director
                 One .5 FTE PSEOP advisor

           Senior Director Student Development
                Current Staff, 1 Assistant Director and 1 Advisor

           One College Assessment and Research Coordinator

           One Academic Skills Enhancement advisor

           University College Student Services supporting baccalaureate degree completion
                 4 Advisors who serve students in the degree programs
                 1 Public Inquiry Assistant
                 1 Secretary
                 1 Records Specialist

           Dean’s Office Staff
                Business Manager (note proposed to be shared with the co-located self-supporting
                   units shown below since they also need such services)
                College Relations Director
                College Recruiter
                Executive Secretary
                Secretary

       The following areas should continue as part of University College since they serve students
        across the University.
         Learning Enhancement Center
                 1 Director and 1 Assistant Director and ¾ clerical specialist

           Testing Center
                1 Director, 1 Assistant, 2 ¾ Test Monitors and 12 Work Study

   Self-Supporting Units:

       Consideration should be given to housing the following units of University College elsewhere:
         Workplace Credit Program
         Division of Community and Economic Development
         SkillsMax Center
         Continuing Education
         Workforce Development

       The determination of where best to relocate the outreach units of University College should be
        thoroughly considered by the Provost and President using operating facts and principles that
        should be provided by those who have operated and supervised the units, including the Provost's

        office staff that provided fiscal and other oversight. These operating facts and principles should
        be provided within a month and a determination made in the next few months

Third Charge: Establish clear strategic plan for use of Scott Park campus.

     The Scott Park campus must be used in a way that increases the status of that campus .

 Utilize Campus More Strategically:
       In order to make the Scott Park campus a more viable academic campus, alternative schedules
        need to be explored to enable travel time to and from other campuses.

       The addition of more busses will not compensate for the fact that students only have 15 minutes,
        on the average, between classes.

       Class scheduling for Scott Park campus must be more student centered, coordinating blocks of
        courses so that there is a reduced overall need to travel.

       Since the campus already contains 10 computer labs, Business Technology classes are offered
        there, and a Tech Center environment already potentially exists, expand the offering of
        technology based classes.

       Evaluate the long term space needs for the Toledo Early College High School

Fourth Charge: Develop strategic direction for UT’s two-year programs

   To develop a strategic direction for the two-year programs, the Provost’s office should consider
    having a person dedicated to two-year program development. They could function as coordinator
    between the various colleges to assist in development of cross-curriculum programs.

   Offer Incentive Awards (Grants) to selected majors to offset part of the difference in the cost of tuition
    in two-year institutions. This would be done for majors with high growth potential.

Fifth Charge: Assess impact of “Core” legislation on UT

   We have attached a discussion of S.B. 311. ( Attachment 3) However, since the convening of this
    committee we have been informed by William McMillen of potential revisions to the legislation as it
    receives more discussion at the state level. Because this legislation is under review in many arenas
    we feel that on-going study is necessary to see how the legislation may change.

   The legislation, as currently written, indicates that students who have not completed the Ohio Core
    are ineligible to enroll in the University.

   Students would be required to pick up missing course work at
        1. Branch Campus
                a) As discussed earlier this is not currently an option for the University.
        2. Community College
                a) Establish relationships with Community Colleges to offer appropriate courses

                        1. Downside of this is UT would lose tuition/subsidy
                        2. Student may not return to UT

   S.B. 311 will impact two segments of our population, students who do not complete the high school
    Core and students who meet the Core but require remediation. We wanted to provide an estimate of
    the potential impact of the bill as written. The Office of the Provost has assisted in providing
    information regarding the effect of S.B. 311 as passed.

       We have on the average 3500 incoming direct from high school students.

           Based on current student statistics, and assuming no change in current student behavior in
            high school, 30% (1050 students) will not have completed the CORE.

           Add another 250 who meet the core but require remediation giving us a total impact of 1300
            fewer students.

           This would result in a reduction in faculty. Assume 1300 students x 4.5 classes (12 to 15
            credit hours) per students = 5850 students. Divide this by an average of 30 students per class
            equals 195 fewer sections per semester.

           Various estimates of the foregone tuition, fee and auxiliary revenue impact indicate several
            million dollars would be lost

           If each faculty teaches 4 sections per class (since many of these classes are taught by
            lecturers), then that could mean 195/4= 48 fewer faculty in any given semester.

           This could potentially carryover to the second year given that students who may have gone to
            a community college for remediation may decide to continue there. Assuming half of 1300 do
            not come back, that is an additional 650 second year students lost. This could result in an
            additional loss of 24 faculty, making the total reduction 72 faculty.

   Regarding students who have completed the CORE but need remediation:

       It is anticipated that the University will be able to offer remedial classes and while losing subsidy
        receive tuition in a sufficient amount to operate the required courses for students who desire
        university access.

    Regarding students who have not completed the CORE:

       At present, the university will never receive state subsidy for such students.

The committee has included a summary of a brainstorming session we had while discussing the ways
that remedial coursework could be delivered. This list is not to be considered recommendations by this
committee. We were not charged with developing alternative strategies. We have not reviewed these
with administrators and faculty who actually teach this type of instruction. We are including them for
discussion in the future. See Attachment 4

Attachment 1 Proposed University College Structure (one page)
Attachment 2 QUEST student transition performance and colleges into which they transfer (four pages)
Attachment 3 Summary of S.B. 311 (one page)
Attachment 4 Discussion of Delivery of Remedial Courses ( two pages)
Appendix A Headcount of New Students with HS GPA < 2.0 and ACT < 18 and < 19 with no HS Core


Shared By: