MEMORANDUM

TO: University of Oregon Faculty

FROM: C.R.B. Wright, Chairman Productivity Planning Committee

ABOUT: Academic Productivity--What's Next?

When I wrote to you last December I described how I thought the academic productivity planning process was shaping up. Now, almost five months later, I have no big surprises to report, but I would like to bring you up to date on what's been happening and what still needs to be worked out. Particularly in view of President Brand's impending departure, I think it's worthwhile taking stock of our situation and our prospects. As I'll try to make clear, I think we're in good shape, if we follow through on what's been built so far. Of course everything I say here is just my own unofficial opinion.

As you know, Myles Brand has played a major role in the process this year. He recognized early on that successful academic productivity planning at the UO would require integrating the faculty into every step of the process, and it was his idea to use the working group/steering committee structure--the mother of all ad hoc committees--to insure meaningful faculty participation. He has attended all of the steering committee meetings, where he has provided background information and concrete proposals as well as academic leadership. We will surely miss his thoughtful analysis.

Now we have the plans we need, though, and we're ready to go ahead on our own. The intensive strategic planning process of a couple of years ago led us to the Oregon Model, and now we also have a productivity plan and a workable business plan, both based on the principles of that model. Let me tell you a little about these new plans, and then invite you to read them yourself and see if you don't agree that we're on the right track.

First, though, let me recap the plot. Last fall the Chancellor told all the State System presidents to develop plans for improved academic productivity and educational reform, to be submitted by the end of March, with progress reports in December. At the UO, President Brand set up a core committee and laid out the elaborate working group structure, which included at least 80 people, mostly faculty and deans, but also a few students. The individual groups met several times to develop and refine proposals, which they then wrote up as working reports in late November. That's where things were in December when I wrote to you about the process.

The December Progress Report to the Chancellor was drawn from the themes that emerged from the working groups, together with discussions in the central steering committee, made up of the core group and the chairs of the working groups. In early January we put on a half-day session for department heads and program directors, to go over the ideas of the Progress Report with them, get their reactions, and give them background to work with their faculty units. Most departments subsequently met at least once to develop concrete proposals for moving forward in the broad directions laid out in the report. Departments then submitted short accounts of their initiatives to the Provost, who passed the lists on to the steering committee.

The departmental proposals included a wide range of ideas. The emphasis was on workability, not novelty, so it was not surprising that themes such as the 3-to-4-credit conversion and enhanced use of summer session came up repeatedly. Taken all in all, the list of departmental initiatives gives us a broad, concrete base of practical ideas for getting more out of our resources--ideas that we will surely implement as quickly as we can. A number of the departmental proposals were included as specific examples in the final Academic Productivity Plan, which we submitted to the Chancellor at the end of March.

The Plan itself is an elaboration of the Progress Report, which it includes as an appendix, together with both a "business plan" that shows how we'll make ends meet, and an extended account of the assessment and measurement issues involved. The main plan runs to 37 pages, with another 40-odd pages of appendices, so I can't really summarize it here, though I'll say a few words about the main themes. We have made a number of copies, enough for all of the working group members, department heads and deans, so you should be able to lay your hands on one easily. Moreover, the whole works, including the committee reports and everything except for three pages of charts and the appendix on resource fees, is available on gopher.uoregon.edu in the directory DuckScoop: Administration: Productivity Planning. You can read it on- line or save the pieces to files and print them out at your convenience.

In brief, the Plan sets out three main goals, with supporting operational goals. It then gives specific proposals toward reaching those aims and provides an account of how to measure progress. The main goals are to:

• o Serve the increasing numbers of Oregonians who are qualified for and need university educations;
• o Retain and build upon the University of Oregon's educational assets as a research-intensive AAU university, while enhancing its "traditional college" environment;
• o Establish financial stability.

Areas we have identified for potential productivity gains include:

•  o Mechanisms to Speed Progress Toward Degrees.
•  o Summer School and Short Courses.
• o Credit for Achievement.
•  o Three Plus Two Degrees.
• o Enhanced Master's Programs.
• o Participatory Learning.
• o Group Learning.
• o Curricular Streamlining and Departmental Changes.
•  o Increased Use of Technology.
•  o Off-Campus Programs and Distance Learning.

The fundamental idea is to increase the responsibility students have for their own learning, and then to provide them with the means to accept the added responsibility. Specific strategies include the effective use of technology, together with a variety of curricular and pedagogical changes designed to facilitate learning and speed student progress. Taken in isolation, each change would be a minor adjustment to a large educational operation; collectively, however, these changes represent a substantial new direction for the University of Oregon.

The business plan numbers describe three models, determined by funding. The Basic Productivity Plan, which will work if we can't do better, is built around a continuation of present tuition and fee policies, allowing, of course, for continued cuts in state support. The Technology Enhanced Productivity Plan adds $3 million per year dedicated to educational technology. A portion of the added money would come from a proposed Instructional Technology Fee of $50 per term, of which 20 percent would be reserved for financial aid to resident students. Finally, the Oregon Model Productivity Plan would include the instructional technology enhancements and also the full implementation of the Oregon Model, with special components for enhancing the freshman experience, providing career-based faculty advising, and offering participatory learning experiences for advanced students. Funding for this program level would come from an Undergraduate Resource Fee of $100 per term, to be phased in at $50 per term in 1995-96, with an additional $50 per term in 1996-97. Again, some fee money would be reserved for financial aid, perhaps including funding for a campus work study program.

At the moment, prospects for the added resources look pretty good, though the timing is not certain and the State Board has yet to consider the fees officially. Indeed, we've not had any official response at all to our Plan, and perhaps we won't get one as such. Whether we do or not, though, the real benefit of the planning process has been internal. We now have a good fix on what we need to do, and how to do it. Even if we don't get additional fees, we should be able to pull through on the strength of the proposals in the Basic Plan, which are under our control.

As I said above, I think the proposals are pretty realistic, but some of them will require substantial cultural shifts. For example, increased emphasis on learning, rather than spoon-feeding, may pose a problem for some of our students (and for some of our colleagues). Collaborative learning is different from cheating if we say it is, but we may need to rethink how we assign credit and determine grades. Distance learning presents another set of challenges that many of us aren't quite prepared for. Moving in the new directions will take our consistently best efforts. Not to move, though, is simply not an option. If we can't make the shifts, we'll lose our student base and the game will be over.

The next couple of years will probably be the hardest. We'll have to begin teaching in new ways, while our students are still used to the old patterns. Once we start getting Oregon students from the new K-12 programs that emphasize mastery learning, though, our job should be easier.

One of our challenges now is to coordinate the resources we have. In December I asked you to tell me if you either knew about or were interested in learning about a variety of topics on a little check list. I got a truly amazing number of responses, indicating not only a widespread interest in learning new tools but also a substantial pool of knowledgeable colleagues. We obviously need to take steps to bring people together, but right now I don't have a concrete mechanism in mind. John Moseley has put together a group to develop technology proposals, but that model doesn't seem suited to some of the other areas. I'll be discussing this question with the steering committee soon, but meanwhile I would genuinely welcome your suggestions.

The general problem of maintaining momentum is nontrivial. We surely don't want to carry on the working group structure much longer, but as we move into the implementation phases of our planning we need to be sure that someone is coordinating our activities. In my own view, this responsibility properly belongs with the faculty, who have the biggest stake in this, and not with the administration. Although the department is the right unit for developing and implementing many of the initiatives, since many of the areas for change cross departmental and college lines it seems that we need networks that reach across campus. Moreover, a number of proposed innovations raise problems of maintaining even-handed academic standards. Fairness to our students demands the kind of broad-gauge faculty oversight that comes from our traditional faculty committees, not necessarily with traditional assignments.

There is a role for the administration too, of course, but we cannot expect them to bring us together on an individual basis or to propose curricular changes. We can, and should, expect academic leadership from them, however, as well as support for faculty ideas, and I look forward to their help in setting directions and goals. Administrators might also consider offering pin money and staff support to self- determined faculty groups, as a way of establishing grass- roots networks.

For the near term, the steering committee will meet once more with President Brand, to take stock of where we are and to plan strategy. We have already begun to carry out some of the ideas proposed in the Plan, but many of the proposals will take some time to implement, and most of the details will have to be worked out during the coming academic year.

Next year will be a busy one, but we have no real alternative. The course we've taken, to rely on increased attraction and retention of undergraduates, was the only one open to us. The planning process that we've been going through gives us a leg up on other universities nationally, and if we can maintain our initial edge we should be in good shape to survive. It's up to us, the faculty, to follow through on this year's first steps and to control the future of our university. The enormous reservoir of faculty goodwill, dedication and knowledge that I've seen during the planning process this year gives me great confidence.

[Submitted by: C.R.B. Wright
Wed, 27 Apr 94 21:50:03 PDT]

[Copyright 1994, University of Oregon]