Faculty Sub-Council

Response to Defining Our Future Document

November 29, 2001

The TBR Faculty Sub-Council members called a special meeting on November 29, 2001, for the purpose of responding to the Tennessee Board of Regents Defining Our Future document.

The Faculty Sub-Council appreciates the hard work that has been done by the Staff at the Tennessee Board of Regents to produce this document in a limited time frame. All the same, because of a lack of faculty input in all stages of the development of Defining Our Future document, we contend the following.

I. Many creative and practical cost savings ideas have not been identified.

II. The plan as presented has the potential to increase the cost of education while lowering the quality of education in Tennessee.

III. Many items in the draft directly affect students and faculty while the ignoring potential savings at administrative levels.

IV. The "what" cannot be separated from the "how". However, student and faculty input must be included in the "how" implementation of all areas.

On the following pages, we highlight some items in the document, which we either do or do not support, with justification, and make recommendations that would improve efficiencies and achieve our goal of Educating Tennessee

Remedial and Developmental Education

Action items do not address needs of adult learners (students over 25 years of age)

Action Item #1

While alternative delivery systems are effective for some students, others need the traditional classroom for success. Statistics show that the students in the B and D courses are the very students that need the hands on instruction by a faculty member in the classroom.

Web-based instruction is more costly. Instructors will still be necessary to facilitate the instruction, to be available in labs to tutor, and to provide supplemental instruction.

Lab tutorials will require a large capital outlay

Supplemental instruction is a concept that has been tried at several institutions with great success when the supplemental instructor attends the class. Students as supplemental instructors have not been successful. Thus, this would also be more costly.

Faculty, not administrators, should review delivery systems

Universities could limit courses to three hours but the community colleges serve a different student population.

To lower all Basic and Developmental Courses to 3 credit hours would result in a higher failure rate causing repeats and dropouts. This action would be detrimental to our students and would not save the state money.

TBR Faculty Sub-Council Recommendations for Remedial and Developmental Education

Provide a study guide for the student's use prior to placement testing

Tutorials on the Web for students prior to placement testing

Dual enrollment for high school seniors for basic and development courses

Align the General Education Development (GED) testing to the competencies required in remedial and developmental courses

Earning a Degree

Exceptions should include licensure requirements.

Accreditation societies mandate more than 120 hours or 60 hours on many programs.

An extensive list of exceptions to this requirement will be needed

Off-Campus Locations

Action Item #1

The Sub-Council supports this action with the exception where access to public higher education would be eliminated in rural areas. Several institutions serve many counties. If certain off-campus locations were closed, some students would have to drive over 100 miles to attend the nearest TBR institution. This would cause lower enrollment and a reduction of "college educated" Tennesseans in certain areas of the state

Transfers

Faculty support action items #1 and #2

Action item #3

Must insure that Tennessee Technology Centers' courses that transfer meet SAC's requirements including instructor qualifications and instruction minutes.

TBR Faculty Sub-Council Recommendations for Transfer

Assure that General Education courses for the Associate of Applied Science degree meet the general education course requirements for the University Parallel emphasis

Academic Programs

Action Item #1 & #2

Low producing/redundant programs need to be phased out over time so as not to negatively impact students' educational plans.

Coordinate phase-out so that programs are not totally eliminated in a particular region

Students will not come from one end of the state to the other especially when they can go to bordering states for the same program. Once students leave Tennessee they do not come back.

ACTIONS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION

The need for significant, meaningful faculty involvement in the implementation must be emphasized.

Remedial and Developmental Education

#3 - The Faculty expresses enormous reservations about teacher training through RODP

Earning a Degree

#1 - Discourages lifelong learning, second careers, etc.

- Encourages a drain on our best and brightest students to other states

Transfers

#1 - Specialized courses required for pre-professional programs need to be offered at the community college, otherwise, penalizing students who want to seek an associates degree

#3- Faculty supports and stresses that tracking is critical

Academic Programs

#4 - Measures should be taken to insure that data could not be corrupted at all levels of use

#5 - Faculty express concern about the vulnerability of programs/courses that have low production due to their very makeup.

#6 - Implementing a lecturer category creates an atmosphere for high turnover and compromises academic integrity

#8 - Expand the Regents Online Degree Program only as profitability warrants

Resources - Fiscal

#1 - Removing the fee caps will negatively impact retention, delay graduation causing higher cost eventually.