Office of the Dean

College of Letters and Science Office of the Dean 105 South Hall 1055 Bascom Mall Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1394

Gary Sandefur, Dean PHONE: 608/263-2303 FAX: 608/265-3564 www.ls.wisc.edu

Twitter: twitter.com/UWMadisonLS Facebook: facebook.com/UWMadisonLS Blog: http://news.ls.wisc.edu

November 17, 2011 To: Chair and Directors, L&S Departments, Schools, Programs and Centers From: Gary Sandefur, Dean Re: L&S Innovations initiative As discussed at the plenary chairs and directors meeting in October, the College is developing an innovations initiative that builds on the strategies being developed at the campus level. Our goal is to provide units in the College a range of opportunities to take advantage of new flexibilities and respond to the current fiscal challenges in a way that will maintain or enhance teaching and research excellence. We face a number of challenges given recent budget cuts and longstanding fiscal constraints. To retain our outstanding faculty and staff, foster research productivity, and to continue to provide excellent undergraduate and graduate education, we need to find new resources or reallocate existing resources to better meet critical needs. Given the diversity of programs within the College, imposing a uniform approach is unlikely to be productive. Instead, we hope each department, school, program and center within the college will consider the options and decide whether to propose an innovation plan. A primary motivation for pursuing innovations is to find efficiencies that will save resources or generate new resources to meet funding priorities. These priorities include hiring faculty in core areas as well as in new areas critical to assuring teaching and research excellence, recruiting and retaining outstanding faculty and staff by providing appropriate compensation (e.g. bringing faculty salaries to our peer median within five years), freeing up faculty time to pursue new research opportunities, and providing the technology and other resources needed to support excellence in teaching and research. General Principles

Innovations should preserve or enhance the overall quality of teaching and research, relative to what could be sustained in the absence of innovation.

When innovations generate new resources, or create efficiencies that save resources, the departments or programs responsible should retain most (two-thirds) of those new resources.

The College and campus will redistribute a portion (one-third) of the resources generated by innovations, to reflect College priorities and to adjust for differences across units in base resources and the potential to innovate.

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 2

Innovation plans will be reviewed by the College (and in some cases, campus) to help assure consideration of broad campus interests and coordination across units.

Plans for use of resources created through innovations will be developed by departments and other units, and reviewed for approval by the College (and in some cases, campus)

Planning Process The College will support departments and other units by providing information on examples of innovations and working with units to develop and evaluate options. Unlike the 8-percent budget cutting exercise, this is not simply an effort to reduce budgets and trim programs at the margin, but rather is an invitation to innovate and restructure in a more fundamental way. The planning process will necessarily be iterative, both because College and campus policy is evolving, and because aspects of most innovation plans will require College, and in some cases, campus, approval. Innovation plans will be evaluated relative to base budgets after the 8-percent budget reduction exercise. We expect units will retain two-thirds of resources newly saved or generated by innovations. Allocation decisions will be made by departments and other units, subject to College review and College and campus policies, as detailed below.

The College has begun to develop guidelines to help units assess the potential options for innovation. The attached materials highlight three possible approaches: (1) consolidation and redistribution of teaching assistant or project assistant resources; (2) new self-supporting degree options; and (3) curricular innovations to reduce faculty/staff commitments. Over the coming months the College will develop additional options, drawing on campus efforts as well as highlighting promising initiatives that we expect will emerge from departments and other units. While we expect some innovations to be developed and implemented this academic year, other options will require a substantially longer planning and implementation period. There are no set timeframes or standard requirements. Departments and other units are encouraged to meet with their Associate Dean and other College and campus staff early in the planning process to assess the feasibility of potential plans and access available supports for planning. Both the College and campus are committed to helping departments and other units navigate existing policies and develop and implement innovative approaches. Academic Associate Deans will provide an initial review of plans, which in most cases will also require review by the senior staff of the College, and in some cases by the L&S Academic Planning Council and other administrative and governance bodies, as well as the approval of the Dean. Reinvesting resources created by innovations As noted above, a primary motivation for pursuing innovations is to find efficiencies that will save resources, or to generate new resources, to meet critical funding priorities. Units will retain two-thirds of these new resources and will make allocation decisions, subject to College review and College and campus policies. Over time we will develop standard procedures for some standard allocations, but until these are determined, the following principles may be helpful.

Reinvestments need not match the source of savings. For example, savings generated by a reduction in faculty or staff could be used to fund graduate student fellowships, while savings generated from a reduction in the number of TA positions could be used for faculty or staff compensation.

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 3

Savings or new revenues do not need to be allocated immediately; the College/campus does not intend to capture unspent funds. This is a particularly important consideration when units generate resources to be distributed over time (for example, to address salary issues for faculty being reviewed over a number of years) or when units wish to make long term investments (for example, hiring new faculty) that require establishing a firm financial base.

Reinvestments must fit within College and Campus policies and priorities. For example, if a department decided to allocate savings to faculty salary adjustments, these could be made through the normal process (e.g. current 5 year reviews, new procedures to be developed). Departments with a pool of funds created through their innovations could use them to fund faculty compensation adjustments up to peer medians (or meeting other competitive criteria). In contrast, salary adjustments for departments without funds to reinvest would be limited by the availability of a pay plan and College and campus sources.

Notwithstanding the need to consult with the College, and follow College and campus policies, departments and other units will have substantial discretion in allocating resources. For example, funds generated through innovations could be used for:

Hiring faculty and staff in critical areas

Merit increases and retentions for current faculty

Salary adjustments associated with academic and classified staff promotions; staff merit increases if these are permitted in the new personnel system

Fellowship support for graduate students

Technology and other resources to support teaching and research

Each of these examples highlights areas in which traditional College and campus investments have been substantially constrained by cuts in state support. While some College and campus support will continue, units able to generate savings or additional revenues through innovations will be able to allocate those funds to make additional investments.

In undertaking this initiative the College aims to take advantage of the deep and diverse expertise of our faculty and staff, and our history of shared governance and responsibility for maintaining excellence. This is an opportunity for creative thinking at all levels. The fiscal climate demands that we reassess what we are doing and how we are doing it. We cannot stand still, nor can we take a “one size fits all” approach to change. We look forward to hearing your ideas and working with you to preserve and enhance the key strengths of our institution.

CC: L&S Administration, APC, CSIC, CASI, David Ward, Paul DeLuca, Darrell Bazzell, Becci Menghini, Steve Stern, Aaron Brower, Gilles Bousquet, Marion Brown, Anne Lucke

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 4

L&S Educational Innovations FAQs:

Q: If we innovate and save or generate new resources, will that just relieve the pressure on the State to

increase public support?

A: Given fiscal pressures in other areas, substantial increases in State support for higher

education are highly unlikely, regardless. The Chancellor has argued for a balanced approach

leveraging philanthropy, moderate tuition increases, and internally generated savings from

administrative redesign and innovations.

Q: Will any increased efficiency necessarily come at the expense of students?

A: Some innovations here and elsewhere have improved educational outcomes while freeing up

resources. Reallocation also reduces our need to ask students to pay even higher tuition.

Q: Small faculty-taught courses are resource intensive. Will innovations reduce the availability of the

ideal learning environment for freshmen through graduate students?

A: Small faculty-taught sections may be ideal for graduate seminars, special undergraduate

experiences, and specialized upper division courses, but that is definitely not true for many

courses; there is evidence on this.

Q: Departments and other units vary substantially in their ability to adopt innovations. Won’t this

approach lead to inequities and to uneven growth inconsistent with College priorities?

A: The College and campus will retain one-third of new resources generated by innovations to

redistribute to units that are particularly disadvantaged by the baseline (e.g. by the timing of the

8% budget exercise) or by limited ability to adopt innovations, as well as to make strategic

investments in departments and other units meeting College priorities.

Q: Many innovations will require a major commitment of faculty and staff resources, and may be risky.

Isn’t it more prudent to just keep doing what we are doing, and wait for better times?

A: In the absence of innovation, the College and campus will be unable to maintain excellence in

teaching and research given recent budget reductions. To retain and enhance excellence, we

will need to leverage additional external resources (philanthropy and tuition), find efficiencies

that free up resources, and identify new resources.

Q: Isn’t it more prudent to maintain our current structures and strategies, at least until there is more

certainty about the budget and the parameters of the innovations process?

A: If we wait, we may lose the advantage we currently have as the heart of a great research university. It is easier to maintain excellence than to regain it.

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 5

Teaching Assistant Budget Reallocation Sample proposal Department of Jurassic Studies The Department of Jurassic Studies proposes to reallocate some of its existing TA budget in order to provide greater support for a smaller number of graduate students and to provide funding for faculty and staff compensation. As described below, we are taking steps to make sure that we are able to maintain the quality of our undergraduate instruction, and the number of students served. Supporting fewer graduate students through teaching assistantships means that we will be recruiting a smaller group of graduate students each year since our Department is committed to providing at least four years of support for each of our graduate students. While our Ph.D. placement record continues to be strong, we, along with our many of our colleagues at peer institutions, have come to the conclusion that having a somewhat smaller group of PhDs entering the job market each year would be acceptable and perhaps advantageous to the overall health of the discipline. While we have had success in recruiting and retaining outstanding graduate students, we have lost some of our top candidates to peer institutions that generally are able to provide more support, most particularly fellowship support, to incoming and continuing graduate students. The proposed change will allow us to provide “top off” fellowship support to many graduate student TAs each year; this will be of great use in recruiting and retaining the best students even as we have a smaller overall group of graduate students. With a smaller graduate student cohort, we will offer slightly fewer graduate seminars each year. This will reduce the demands on our faculty, which is smaller than it was when our current graduate program was designed. Along with departments throughout the College and campus, our faculty and staff have continued to contribute a great deal to research and advancement of our discipline; many of our colleagues have been approached by outstanding programs at other universities. It has been a long time since the campus has been able to provide for a merit exercise; being able to use some of the savings to contribute to merit increases for our faculty and staff is imperative if we are to maintain our program at its current level. In order to make this change without harming the quality of instruction in our undergraduate courses, we are making a number of pedagogical and logistical shifts in our teaching. We will restructure the use of teaching assistant appointments in some of our larger courses. In some cases TAs will continue to lead sections, but other duties will be reduced or eliminated to maintain TA workloads within specified appointment percentages. In other cases the faculty member will take over the hour of class time currently devoted to TA-led discussion sections (to avoid affecting instructional contact hours) and the TA assigned to the course will have course-wide duties—office hours, review sessions, grading, etc. but will not be meeting discussion sections. Through following our on-going assessment plan, we will monitor our students’ learning outcomes to ensure that this new model is effective.

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 6

TA Budget Reallocation Sample Budget

Academic Yr

Heads FTE $ @C30K Notes Current Number of Teaching

Assistants in Dept 18 7.2 $216,000 Base appt. of .40 Reduction of 6 teach assts 12 4.8 $144,000

Salary savings:

$72,000

Savings: salary

$72,000 Savings: tuition remission

$48,000 $8.000/yr for 6 TAs

TOTAL savings:

$120,000

Distribution of Savings

$40,000 1/3 to College/campus

$80,000 2/3s to department

$120,000 Total

Use of Department Level Savings

Example A:

$40,000 $3,333 fellowships to 12 graduate students

$40,000 available for faculty/staff compensation

$80,000 Department Total

Example B:

$80,000 $10,000 fellowships to 8 graduate students

Example C:

$80,000 available for faculty/staff compensation

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 7

Professional Masters Program L&S Innovations Example Departments may consider establishing Fund 131 “Professional” Master’s degree tracks. These can be established as an academic track in an existing master’s program (shorter timeframe for approval—campus level only) or a new master’s program (longer timeframe for approval- UW System approval required). These cannot redirect existing students, but must be new programs clearly serving new students. The organization and content of these programs will vary. Factors to consider include:

Courses may be offered on-line or part-time evenings/weekends, etc.

Some courses may be shared with a traditional master’s program as long as there are

separate sections for registration.

Tuition may be set at “market” rates.

Program needs to cover all costs, including instruction, infrastructure, fringes, and

tuition remission if TAs are involved.

Excess revenue, beyond expenses, accrues to College/campus and program.

Instructors may be regular faculty and instructional academic staff. May allow new

faculty lines or additional staff to be hired in a department.

Some courses may be taught by short-term staff.

The attached budget provides a simplified example of a budget proposal for a part-time professional masters program. Please note that this example does not include estimated infrastructure costs.

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 8

Part Time Professional Master's Program Sample budget

Estimated Revenues

Per credit tuition $1,000 Market rate. (Current 1 credit tuition is $713.57 res and $1,573.46 non-res)

24 credit master's: 4 credits per semester and summer for two continuous years, including summers (six terms)

New cohort of 20 starts every fall Strict cohort model

Year 1: 25

Year 2: 25

On-going 50

50 students @ $4000 each: $200,000 summer Note: new students begin in summer

$200,000 fall

$200,000 spring

$600,000 TOTAL gross revenue per fiscal year

Instructional Needs: 1 course each of three terms (fall, spring, summer) X 2 cohorts = 6 courses per year; model assumes 3 course teaching load

Estimated expenses 2.5 FTE admin, advise, recruit, tech support $112,500 at C45K each

$56,250 50%avg of uncl and class

Faculty instructor AY total of four courses per year $118,800 at C90K, 4 @ 33% of AY load $52,272 44% Two faculty instructors summer

$20,000 at C90K, 1/9 each

$8,800 44%

TAs, 1 @ .50 AY/semester

$30,000

$8,190 27.30% Tuition Remission

$8,000

$0

TAs, 2 @ 100% of 1/9 summer

$6,667

$1,820 27.30% Total

$295,967

$127,332

$423,299 Direct Costs

Revenue after expenses

$176,701

1/3 to College/campus

-$58,311

Revenue to Department per FY

$118,390

Note: This model supports additional faculty, administrative staff and TAs, in addition to generating revenue after expenses.

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 9

Reformulating and updating curriculum Sample proposal Jurassic Studies Undergraduate Program The undergraduate major in Jurassic Studies has, for nearly ten years, required students to complete specific courses in Jurassic Geology, Biology, History, and Literature. Options in each of these areas were defined and programmed into the Degree Audit Reporting System, and after taking “Introduction to Jurassic Studies”, students are required to specialize in one of these options, and 5-6 highly sequenced courses in their specialty area, and 2 courses each of the other areas. Over the years, three of these subspecialties have grown, and one is more popular than all of the others, combined. The fourth option, which has never been an essential field within the discipline, has become more and more difficult to sustain as faculty hiring has been constrained and the pool of highly qualified candidates has narrowed. The curriculum, as a whole, has become difficult to manage:

The department relies on short term staffing to field courses required for the various options. (The department offers the “Introduction” course each semester, and at least one course in each of the four options at each of two or three levels, and usually 12-14 specific undergraduate courses – some, with multiple lectures/sections - offered each semester.)

When courses can’t be offered in sequence, students have to delay their studies.

When a suitable instructor for the “Introduction” course cannot be found, or when enrollment is capped, students sometimes cannot begin the major until their second year or later.

Students must increasingly be granted exceptions (or use directed study courses) to meet requirements; since there are no specific guidelines for using directed study, the faculty is concerned that students may not be learning all they need to know to be successful.

Students switch back and forth between options trying to find the best way to graduate. Since switching options requires un-declaring the old program and declaring the new program, this drains time from faculty advisors and deans.

The department proposes to renovate its requirements by:

eliminating the requirement that students must declare an option (reduces advising time, staff support to enter exceptions, issues that arise from need to declare/undeclared, etc.)

categorizing all courses into three groups that best represent the breadth of study in the discipline (reduces need to hire STS to deliver required courses in all four areas, at all levels needed)

although some sequences necessarily remain, other courses are examined carefully to see whether they can be categorized into “tiers” that could increase flexibility in scheduling courses

creating a few new courses in each category, each of which could serve as an introduction to the broader discipline, and which can be taught by faculty in each of the subspecialties

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 10

(reduces STS to cover “Introduction” course, increases flexibility by expanding pathways into the major, so students can enter earlier)

creating more flexible program requirements, asking students to complete any of the three introductory courses, and at least 3 more courses in each category, with at least two courses in one category taken in the “Advanced” tier/level (increases flexibility in setting schedule of courses by reducing “required” scheduling; also increases variation in courses offered)

articulating an Honors program (takes advantage of funding available for Honors courses)

requiring students to complete a flexible capstone experience that could consist of taking a Jurassic course, completing a directed study or Senior Thesis, or taking a course taken in a related department. All “capstone” students would enroll in a one-credit ‘capstone’ course that meets as a low-enrollment, faculty taught biweekly seminar. (Enhances undergraduate education by creating a “Senior Interest Group” integrating learning experience.)

These changes are intended not only to reduce or eliminate administrative problems, but also improve student learning by providing multiple pathways into the major, encouraging meaningful breadth of study, and helping students engage in mentored research to prepare them for graduate school or careers in the field. Savings: Two short-term staff instructors per AY @ .33 each @ C35,911= $11,851 No replacement for retiring faculty member= $70,000 (cost of replacement assistant professor) Total for re-investment: $81,851 1/3 to College/campus: $27,284 Total accruing to department: $54,567

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 11

Increasing curricular flexibility Several tools are available to foster flexibility in the curriculum. Program requirements can be developed to allow students to use the following to meet requirements, assuming that the department/program curriculum committee has reasonable procedures for ensuring that these tools are used appropriately: - Topics courses – see http://www.ls.wisc.edu/handbook/ChapterOne/chapter1-3-

topicscourses.htm Note:

Topics courses usually do not carry L&S breadth, unless a department/program can make a good case for assigning topics appropriately.

Using topics courses to create “temporary cross list” or “meets with” arrangements can work – but remember to avoid “meets-with messes” that link courses that do not have matching course designations. An Advanced-level Humanities course should not “meet with” an Elementary-level Social Studies course! (Sorting these issues out costs us a lot of time, effort, and student confusion!)

- Directed study (at multiple levels) Note:

Departments may want to establish 299, 499 and 699 courses, and have rules about what students can enroll in each. (For example, it is probably only appropriate to have majors enroll in 699, which should have some reasonable prerequisites.)

Best practices for Directed Study include: o Achieving department consensus on what constitutes appropriate directed study o Achieving department consensus on who may teach directed study (usually limited

to faculty and instructional academic staff, but emeritus faculty and visiting professors might also be appropriate)

o Achieving department consensus on how much work, and how many meetings with faculty, should be associated with each credit earned

o Achieving department consensus about evaluation of directed study work o Creating a template agreement for instructor and student to sign and file with

department office - “Thematic Course Groupings” (these are “tags” that can be applied in the Schedule of

Courses to help students find information about particular topics/areas of study, e.g., “Evolutionary Biology”, “Visual Cultures”, etc.)

Note:

This is a new tool that can be used to help students identify courses in the Course Guide and Schedule of Courses. Easier to manage than a Subject Listing, you can point students to elective courses.

L&S Innovations Initiative 11/17/11, page 12

- Subdividing Majors with Options and Tracks.

o Options are formally designated on Transcript. Creating options requires approval by Department, L&S APC, and University APC or Graduate Faculty Executive Committee. Because these are formally approved program requirements, changes to options in L&S must be approved by the L&S Curriculum Committee.

o Tracks do not appear on Transcript. They do not require approval by bodies outside the department, though substantive changes must be approved by the L&S Curriculum Committee.

Note:

Use either tracks or options to define discrete programs of study that share a fundamental core.

Options may be used to identify parallel, but different, program pathways. For example, a “professional” and “research” MA/MS.

Options must be used to identify “campus/traditionally delivered” and “distance-delivered” programs.

o UW-Madison is required to monitor and report distance education program activity to oversight agencies.

o UW-Madison is not currently authorized to deliver education to some states. Plans for new distance programs need to include attention to monitoring admissions and enrollments to help campus comply with regulations.

Because creating new options requires department, college, and campus-level approvals, please plan timelines accordingly – if the L&S APC receives a request in September, it can usually reach the University APC in October/November (via GFEC, if grad programs are involved). If approved in December, the Registrar’s Office and others may be able to address necessary programming matters to allow the program to be implemented by the subsequent Fall admissions/recruitment cycle. The first cohort would therefore likely be admitted in the subsequent Fall term.