Public Higher Education Reform Five Years After The Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities John V. Byrne Former Executive Director Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities and President Emeritus, Oregon State University January 2006 National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges And the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Executive Summary The Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land grant Universities existed between January 1996 and March 2000 in order to create an awareness among public universities of the need for higher education reform. The Commission, consisting of the presidents and chancellors of 25 major public universities, produced six reports and held numerous meetings on campuses throughout America urging a return to the educational values and dedication of the past. The commission called for discussion and actions on campuses to reinvigorate the student experience, improve student access, energize and enhance partnerships with the public served by the university, address the role of public universities in a learning society, and attend to the culture of the campus. A final report called for a renewal of the partnership of the public university with the society it serves. At the time of their release all of the reports were well received by academe throughout the United States. Now, five years after the Commission’s final meeting it is appropriate to address the lasting impact the Commission had on higher education reform. An assessment is presented here of the influence of the Commission based on thirty-five responses to a letter sent to presidents, chancellors, and friends of public higher education. The presidents and chancellors were requested to express their views on the effectiveness of the Commission and to share examples of transformative changes on their campuses during the past five years. If possible, they were to relate those changes to the recommendations of the Kellogg Commission. All who responded indicated the work of the Commission was important to creating an awareness of the need for higher education reform. Several respondents said the Commission had stimulated and shaped discussion at a national level and had catalyzed action on their campus. Further, in a number of cases the Commission had validated changes already in the process of implementation on their campus. In commenting on the importance of the Commission, phrases were used such as: “provided a wake-up call”, “generated an important national discussion”, “accelerated the process of transformation”, “provided a clear articulation of issues”, “improved an understanding of academic issues”, “emphasized the importance of ‘learning, discovery, and engagement”, and “served as a guide for reform”. Several presidents called for an on-going Kellogg Commission-type effort to continue to stimulate reform. These campus leaders pointed out that the primary areas of change influenced by the Commission included engagement with society, internationalization of the campus with particular attention to overseas opportunities for students, holistic learning including residential and in-service learning, undergraduate research opportunities, and distant and lifelong learning. A number of campuses had revised their curricula with specific attention to the general core and to capstone in-service experiences. Several institutions reviewed and revised their guidelines for promotion and tenure in keeping with academic changes and greater engagement with society. Many indicated greater emphasis on diversity and attention to campus culture in general. Examples of these reforms are presented in this report. ii All who responded stated that at their university significant change was underway. A small number of universities were truly innovative in the changes they were making; most had adopted changes already implemented at other universities. All were attempting to better meet the educational needs of the 21st century society they serve; all indicated the work of the Kellogg Commission had directly or indirectly been of benefit to them and to higher education. ii Public Higher Education Reform Five Years After the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities Introduction June 1996: “Unprecedented problems confront our campuses. We face seismic shifts in public attitudes. We are challenged by new demographics and exploding technologies. We are beset by demands to act “accountably” toward students, parents, communities, and taxpayers. An increasingly skeptical press questions our priorities....We must take charge of change. That is what the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land- Grant Universities is all about.”1 With these words the Kellogg Commission introduced itself to the academic world. The purpose of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities was to increase the awareness of public university faculty and administrators throughout the United States of the urgent need for higher education reform. The Commission, consisting of the presidents and chancellors of twenty-five major public universities,2 met between January 1996 and March 2000. A group of lay advisors met with the Commission, providing a societal reality check. The Commission produced six reports3 and held numerous meetings on campuses throughout America, focusing on the educational values, principles, and dedication that made American public higher education successful in the past, the envy of educators throughout the world. Recognizing that we live in a new age and a different world, the Commission called for reforms to prepare America’s universities for effective service to society in the 21st century. The Commission’s first five reports urged discussion and actions on campuses to reinvigorate the student experience, improve student access, energize and enhance partnerships with the public, address the role of public universities in a learning society, and attend to the culture of the campus. Its sixth and final report called for a renewal of the partnership of the public university with the society it serves. Now, five years after the Commission’s final meeting, it is appropriate to ask the following questions and to answer them: “Did the Commission make a difference? Did it have a lasting influence on public higher education in America? And if it did, what was that influence?” 1 “Taking Charge of Change: Reviewing the Promise of State and Land-grant Universities”, Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-grant Universities, National Association of State Universities and Land-grant Colleges, June 1996 2 Appendix A: Kellogg Commission and Advisory Committee members 3 Appendix D: List of reports published by the Kellogg Commission 1 In order to assess any influence the Commission may have had, a letter was sent by Peter Magrath, President of the National Association of State and Land-grant Colleges (NASULGC), Graham Spanier, Chairman of the Kellogg Commission, and John Byrne, Executive Director of the Kellogg Commission, to the presidents and chancellors of forty universities, requesting their views on the effectiveness of the work of the Commission.4 The letter was also sent to thirty-one other people who had been involved in the Commission’s deliberations. The presidents and chancellors were asked to provide examples of transforming changes on their own campuses and where appropriate to relate those changes to the recommendations of the Kellogg Commission. Thirty-five responses were received; thirty-one of these were from presidents and chancellors.5 The assessment of the influence of the Kellogg Commission presented in this report is based on the letters received. Overview: “The Commission was one of the most effective efforts undertaken over the past several decades to refocus dialogue and programs on higher education, particularly public higher education....It is readily apparent that it [the Commission] changed the nature of the discussion.”6 Every response indicated the work of the Commission was important in creating an awareness of the need for higher education reform and that significant change or reform had been taking place at their institution. Several respondents said the Commission had stimulated and shaped discussion at a national level and had catalyzed specific action on their campus or that the Commission had validated changes already in process. Regarding the importance of the work of the Commission, they made comments such as: “provided a wake-up call”, “generated an important national discussion”, “accelerated the process of transformation”, “provided a clear articulation of issues”, “improved an understanding of academic issues”, “emphasized the importance of ‘learning, discovery, and engagement’”, and “served as a guide for reform”. Several presidents called for an on-going Kellogg Commission-type effort to continue the work of stimulating reform. These campus leaders pointed out that the primary areas of change occurring on their campus included engagement with society, internationalization of the campus with particular attention to overseas opportunities for students, holistic learning that includes residential and in-service learning, undergraduate research opportunities, and distant and lifelong learning. Several indicated their faculty had revised their curricula with specific attention to required general core academic courses and to capstone in-service experiences. In keeping with academic changes and greater engagement with society, a number of institutions revised their promotion and tenure guidelines. Many respondents indicated greater emphasis on diversity and attention to campus culture in general. A small number of universities were truly innovative in the changes they were 4 Appendix B: letter 5 Appendix C: List of Respondents 6 The unattributed quotations included in this report are from the responses received from the presidents and chancellors. 2 making; others adopted changes already implemented at other universities. All respondents indicated the work of the Kellogg Commission had directly or indirectly been of benefit to them and to higher education in their attempt to meet the educational needs of the 21st century society they serve. Fifteen institutions (48%) included transforming changes in their strategic, long-range, or academic plans. All respondents (100%) reported changes in the student experience; eighteen (58%) had revised their admissions standards and processes or had taken steps to improve retention; twenty-two (71%) had adopted or re-invigorated their engagement with society; fifteen (48%) highlighted changes in lifelong and/or distant learning; and fifteen (48%) indicated some effort to address the fragmentation of their campus culture. Several highlighted efforts to integrate all learning activities and to create a student-centered campus. “The six Commission reports clearly articulated the critical issues that face NASULGC universities and provided a sound blueprint for needed reforms.” The following assessment is organized according to the topics covered in the first five Kellogg Commission reports. The Student Experience The work of the Kellogg Commission started with the student experience. In its first report, “Returning to Our Roots: the Student Experience”, the Commission stated: “ (1) Our institutions must become genuine learning communities, supporting and inspiring faculty, staff, and learners of all kinds. (2) Our learning communities should be student centered, committed to excellence in teaching and to meeting the legitimate needs of learners, wherever they are, whatever they need, whenever they need it. (3) Our learning communities should emphasize the importance of a healthy learning environment that provides students, faculty, and staff with the facilities, support, and resources they need to make this vision a reality.” Included in the list of action commitments cited in that report were: “address the academic and personal development of students in a holistic way” and “strengthen the link between discovery and learning by providing more opportunities for hands-on learning, including undergraduate research.” Nineteen institutions (61%) highlighted both holistic approaches to learning and also an increase in opportunities for study abroad experiences. Sixteen institutions (52%) emphasized efforts to provide more opportunities for their undergraduates to participate in research as part of their learning experience. Several respondents cited programs in which students learned by providing services to the community (service learning) and mention was also made of efforts to create learning communities among students. Roughly a third of the replies indicated they had revised or were in the process of revising their curriculum, particularly the general education core requirements. 3 Holistic Learning includes learning a student experiences outside the classroom and laboratory as well as inside. It involves the development of the student socially, academically, and intellectually. Efforts to couple learning outside the curriculum with that inside include the use of specialized living arrangements dedicated to particular academic and other interests. These have been instituted at a number of universities. For example, the University of Georgia has a residence hall for language immersion, Oregon State University’s Weatherford Hall houses a program in which students develop their own businesses, and Purdue University involves students in entrepreneurial activities and engagement in their “Discovery Park”. Freshman seminars designed to create learning communities of new students are successful in improving student retention at the University of North Carolina, Washington State University, and Northern Illinois University, among others. Several universities organized freshman seminars or discussion groups about books that all new students are required to read before entering the university. Jump-start programs held during the summer before students matriculate are successful not only in giving freshman an early taste of college life, but also in helping them develop relationships with other students and in creating student learning communities that can provide support during their first year on campus, and later too. These have been successful at the University of West Virginia and the University of Alabama at Birmingham, for example. All of these programs enhance the development of students outside the boundaries of the academic curriculum. Undergraduate Research was also cited as an important learning experience by a number of presidents and chancellors. Students are given hands-on experiences in the discovery of new knowledge at many universities. The University of New Orleans reported that students engage in research with senior faculty in all seven of the university’s colleges. Auburn University provides year-long and semester-long competitive research fellowships. Northern Illinois University provides funds for creative activities by undergraduates in the arts as well as in scientific and technical research. Several universities, including Portland State, the University of Wisconsin, and Rutgers University, also make funds available to undergraduates for the conduct of research. The University of California at Davis reports that sixty percent of their undergraduates participate in research with faculty. At the University of Georgia, selected freshman are involved in research as soon as they are accepted to the university. A number of institutions, such as North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (North Carolina A&T), Wisconsin, and Arizona State hold symposia at which students present the results of their research. Student research papers are published in the “Journal for Undergraduate Research Opportunities” at the University of Georgia. The School of Life Sciences at Arizona State has three distinct levels of research experience: apprentice, researcher, and fellow. In this program, apprentices work on a faculty-initiated project, researchers participate in the design of experiments, and fellows design and implement an independent research project. International study abroad programs are coming of age. In the past, it was difficult to convince undergraduates that an overseas educational experience could pay off with great dividends to their future careers. Today, more and more universities are expanding opportunities for American students to experience other cultures, learn other languages, and appreciate the global 4 dimensions of social, political, economic, and environmental issues, and more and more American students are taking advantage of these opportunities. Several presidents mentioned that the Kellogg Commission stimulated them to revisit their international goals and ultimately to expand them. Iowa State University, Michigan State, UC Davis, University of Georgia, and Purdue all report an increase in the number of students studying overseas. Some schools, such as Georgia and Minnesota, have set goals for a certain percentage (some as high as 50%) of their undergraduate students to participate in studies in other countries. Virginia Tech, Iowa State, University of Georgia, University of Nebraska, Maryland Eastern Shore, and Auburn report increases in the number of educational partners overseas. Arizona State offers a winter session overseas program and Wisconsin has short-term international programs of three to four weeks. North Carolina A&T offers an international certificate for completion of a study program involving international courses and a study-abroad experience. Oregon State University offers a dual degree program in which a student may obtain a degree in his/her discipline along with an international degree. Oregon State also has an active international internship program in which a student can participate as an intern in a company or agency abroad. A number of universities recently reorganized their administrative structure in order to be more effective in administrating their international programs. Penn State combined its Office of Undergraduate Studies with its Office of International Programs. The University of North Carolina created the position of Associate Provost for International Affairs two years ago, and, at about the same time, launched the construction of its Global Education Center, a $34 million, 82,000 square foot building to house all their international activities. Other notable international activities include eight federally funded National Resource Centers at the University of Wisconsin, which are designed to train students in critical world languages and area studies. Wisconsin also initiated a “D.C. Semester in International Affairs”, which provides a small number of students with an internship experience in international offices, embassies, and governmental agencies in Washington, D.C. Student Access “The ‘Putting Students First’ focus of the first report effectively set the stage for a complete re-thinking of how we are fulfilling our missions, and, I believe, has resulted in major changes in our approach to student learning with a much greater emphasis on doing all we can to help students succeed.” Student Access has long been considered an area for improvement at many universities. In its second report, “Returning to Our Roots: Student Access”, the Kellogg Commission expressed its concerns about the need to improve in three areas related to student access: the policies and procedures by which students were admitted to institutions; diversity on campuses; and the success of students once admitted. The Commission recognized that admission to a university is not the only challenge facing students, but access to success within the university and 5 subsequently in life are. In order to provide access to success the Commission called for programs to meet the needs of both non-traditional and traditional students; to build new partnerships with public secondary schools; to validate admissions requirements; to encourage diversity; to improve inter-institutional transfer and articulation agreements; and to enhance support services to ensure that all students succeed in achieving their educational objectives. More than half the institutional leaders who responded emphasized their efforts to streamline admissions procedures, including working with high schools to better prepare students for university admission. In several cases they noted programs which pay particular attention to students who are disadvantaged due to socio-economic factors. As the Commission discussed the issue of student access it quickly became apparent that the issue was not only access or admission to the university, but also access to success after a student is once admitted, i.e. retention. The Commission focused its discussions on admission and transfer policies and procedures, and on the means to enhance the retention of students. Fifteen of the responses (48%) highlighted changes in admission and retention efforts. At a number of institutions, such as Nebraska, New Orleans, North Carolina, and Oregon State, admissions standards have been changed to accommodate more students. The University of North Carolina has eliminated binding early decision by applicants and gives every application for admission two readings. At Oregon State the “Insight Resume” has been added to the admission and scholarship application process. It consists of six short-answer response questions designed to assess student characteristics such as motivation, ability to set and achieve goals, and ability to meet personal adversity. By assessing these “non-cognitive variables” officials at Oregon State believe universities can achieve more accurate predictions of academic success. With the leadership of Rutgers University New Jersey has adopted a web-based, state-wide transfer system, “NJTRANSFER”, that helps community college students select courses, learn about 4-year degree requirements, and transfer information for virtually every college and university in New Jersey. Helping students achieve success within the university is a common high priority and special efforts are made by most universities to help incoming students adjust to their new environment. Portland State University offers special seminars for transfer students which are similar to freshman indoctrination seminars. The University of Minnesota monitors student progress and issues “midterm alerts” to help students address academic problems. The University of Nebraska has produced a multi-media orientation CD for new students. The University of Alabama at Birmingham promotes orderly progression within the university through a specific program of consistent advising. Florida International University, primarily a commuter university, proposes creating Virtual Student Centers using information technology to build student learning communities and to provide support services in an on-line environment. The centers will be organized around student majors such as Engineering, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Nursing. They report that students will be able to communicate directly with other students, find study partners, access faculty-generated tutorials, become involved in research projects, learn more about career opportunities in their major, and receive advising as they plan their term-by- term program - all online. 6 Other efforts to improve student retention include the academic success courses at Iowa State, the student “scorecard” system adopted at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, and West Virginia’s “Regents Bachelor of Arts Program”, offered only to students who have been out of high school for more than five years. Freshman seminars, interest groups, and other devices to create small group “learning communities” are all designed to improve student retention and were mentioned in the section on the student experience. Engagement “It is important to reiterate the positive role the Commission took to probe the issues that are vital to higher education. Further, its work signified our collective commitment to excellence and responsibilities to those inside and outside the academy.” The Kellogg Commission’s third report, “Returning to Our Roots: the Engaged Institution” received considerable attention and has been widely utilized. The Commission recognized the extensive contributions of service that universities have made to the people of our nation, but concluded that even greater service is possible and that it is time to go beyond outreach and service to what the Commission defined as “engagement”. In the report, the Commission stated, “Engagement goes well beyond extension, conventional outreach, and even most conceptions of public service. Inherited concepts emphasize a one- way process in which the university transfers its expertise to key constituents. Embedded in the engagement ideal is a commitment to sharing and reciprocity. By engagement the Commission envisioned partnerships, two-way streets defined by mutual respect among the partners for what each brings to the table. The engaged institution must * be organized to respond to the needs to today’s students and tomorrow’s; * bring research and engagement into the curriculum and offer practical opportunities for students to prepare for the world they will enter; * put its resources - knowledge and expertise - to work on problems that face the communities it serves.” The Commission urged that engagement as defined by the Commission become a central part of each institution’s mission; that each institution develop an engagement plan which would include interdisciplinary scholarship, research, and learning opportunities; that they provide incentives to encourage faculty involvement, and that they secure stable funding for engagement. As reported by the responding institutions, it is in the area of engagement that the Commission has had its greatest impact. At several institutions, virtually all the Commission’s recommendations concerning engagement have been implemented. Engagement is now recognized in the mission statements of a number of universities and the administrative structures of several universities have been modified to create leadership positions for 7