Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Poshard on performance funding, marketing, enrollment

A more journalistic wrap up of Poshard's interview on WSIU.

Enrollment. The closest thing to news in the interview was Poshard's prediction that overall enrollment would be "about flat". The best he seems to be hoping for is that it will be better this time around than the 300 student decline we had last fall. Marketing, whatever its virtues, isn't going to help us retain students, which seems to be the biggest problem around here (unless, I suppose, marketing can land us more students with more staying power--better students).  More on performance based funding, logogate, and Poshard's goals after the break.


Performance based funding.  Jennifer Fuller was particularly interested in the State's performance based funding initiative and its possible impact on SIUC. Here I found Poshard's responses rather articulate and well thought out (though I am rather more suspicious of performance based funding than he is). He agreed that all the additional reporting mandated by the new state regulations could prove burdensome.  And he tried to respond to Fuller's question about the danger that higher ed would now face a "teach to the test" mentality similar to that in K-12. To his mind, the bottom line was that the new approach would require SIU to take a careful look at programs that were neither producing many majors nor serving the core curriculum in order to make more efficient use of its resources. Program elimination of course is a scary topic, but Poshard managed to avoid reducing everything to economics, saying that when we consider how to get the "biggest bang for the buck" we need also to consider academic quality, and the sort of student we wanted to recruit here.  I took this to mean that high quality programs that serve a few fine students might be able to survive even if they are inefficient.  I think everyone would agree that efficiency needs to be one metric when we decide which programs to fund; I count is as a victory when an administrator is willing to say that it shouldn't be the only metric.

The BOT kerfuffle and logogate. Rather like the Chancellor, Poshard was more defensive than apologetic on this front--perhaps revealing that our administrators tend to think that they, rather than the BOT, are the ones calling the shots. Poshard noted that the SIU system has had 21 logos in the past several years, and the BOT had never objected before. 21 logos in the last several years. Impressive: does US News & World Report count this toward university rankings? He angrily refuted the foul claim that $950,000 was spent on the new logo, though he did not go on to say how much the logo actually cost (which would seem the logical next step, if one were going to really put that rumor to rest). I'm on record agreeing that the logo could not have cost that much money to design, but of course once one begins to figure in the cost of everything with the new logo on it, if we were to replace everything marred with the clocktower with the new logo, we'd easily spend a million (we spent a million on signage in the last few years, and then of course there is letterhead, brochures, etc.). Poshard, as Cheng, also argued that we weren't spending any more on marketing than we had in the past, but were simply farming it out to the professionals. This is still a claim I'd like to see backed up on black & white, given the contrasting report earlier that we were doubling marketing spending, and Cheng and Poshard's emphasis on our increasing our marketing reach. Just what are the people in SIUC communications doing, if not marketing? Again, I don't hold it as self-evident that spending more on marketing is a bad idea, but I think the administration needs to be transparent about marketing costs.

Goals.  Asked about his own goals for the year, Poshard listed some excellent ideas: getting the $17 million to finish the library from the state (which would presumably include money for returning books?); negotiating the best contracts possible with faculty (GAs and Civil Service didn't merit a mention--but I am glad to see that Poshard volunteered this goal, rather than ignoring the unions, which seems to be Cheng's preferred approach); continue the building program--but rather than mentioning the administrative buildings (student services and alumni) or athletics Poshard spoke about the transportation center and the science building (not quite sure what he meant by the latter--perhaps Agriculture?). Finally, he noted that he was very worried about the federal budget, and would be spending a good deal of time, with other college presidents, trying to prevent cuts in federal funding for research or higher education.

17 comments:

  1. Enrollment is down again, surprised? The person who was given responsibility for increasing enrollment has been promoted with hefty salary, even before evaluating his performance. In a news article in DE a few days ago, he proudly spoke about great changes he made in enrollment management. Anyone can make changes when given power, and when you put your own people in various positions, they are going to sings songs about how great you are. What fruit these changes have brought for us; yet another year of declining enrollment. All these branding and marketing efforts are a waste until the campus climate improves. I don’t think this administration gets it. Low faculty and staff morale is obvious and students and parents know about this. Anyone who truly cares for improving situation at SIUC must support FA’s efforts reach a fair agreement quickly. In my opinion, RETENTION = Faculty and Staff Morale.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For many faculty and staff on this campus the low morale can be directly attributed to the unions and their individual pushes to increase their own compensation, particularly in matters other than salary, at the cost of all others on campus including the other unions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So, according to Anon at 7:42, enrollment will improve as soon as the FA and SIU come to terms on a new contract. Well, enrollment was declining when the FA did have a contract. So it would appear that theory is incorrect.

    I don't think morale on campus is down overall. Maybe among a few who are constantly unhappy. The theory put forth by Anon at 7:44 is probably closer to the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm curious as to what matters other than salary 7:44 has in mind. The usual beef about the union (as all unions) is that they are greedy for more pay. (The union, of course, sees things differently, but I leave that point alone for just now.)

    Surely the imposed terms last spring hurt campus morale, and caused some disquiet among at least a few potential students (and their parents), though the unions were relatively restrained in their response (IMHO). This is of course not the explanation for long term enrollment problems here, which began even before the campus was unionized, much less before the current imbroglio. You may blame the FA more than the administration for division and low morale on campus, but I think it is undeniable that both exist. "Low morale" doesn't mean I don't go to the classroom energized and enthusiastic about teaching my students. It does mean I'm rather less energized and enthusiastic about SIUC, however, which makes it harder to put full energy into our recruitment and retention issues (especially when it comes to retaining students thinking of transferring, rather than those thinking of dropping out of college altogether).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lets face it Dave, if SIU negotiators came to the table with an offer of a, lets say 3%, pay hike for each of the next three years, the FA would approve the contract before the end of the day.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is a note I sent to my chair

    Here are the ... "readiness test" scores for my class as percentage and letter grade on standard scale: A>=90, etc. They took it on Friday after I spent three days ... reviewing. Maybe even an Administrator can begin to see why they actually need to do their job in bringing in students who can do college level work. (Only about a third of these are Freshmen.)


    75.0    C
    60.0    D
    65.0    D
    65.0    D
    50.0    F
    40.0    F
    55.0    F
    55.0    F
    45.0    F
    40.0 F
    25.0 F
    40.0    F
    50.0    F
    75.0    C
    65.0    D
    95.0    A
    40.0    F
    40.0    F
    50.0    F
    45.0    F
    65.0    D
    50.0    F
    85.0    B
    65.0    D
    55.0    F
    100.0   A
    85.0    B
    95.0    A
    50.0    F

    ReplyDelete
  7. To 9:38. No, I think you are wrong about that. The FA bargaining team, I am confident, would advise rejecting any offer from the administration that allowed the administration to furlough us whenever they wanted (thus of course potentially negating the 3%) or left intact the current layoff provisions that gut tenure. The first the FA takes to undermine its right collective bargaining (which must include bargaining fixed salaries, perhaps along with a transparent process to adjust salaries should the fiscal situation change). The second would I hope be unacceptable to all faculty. There are other important issues as well (mainly surrounding work load and distance education).

    You are however on to something: the administration may well attempt to "bribe" the FA by offering decent raises, while not yielding on power issues (the power to unilaterally cut raises and jobs in a fiscal emergency as they define it). So far, however, no such luck--certainly nothing has been discussed comparable to the SIUE raises.

    A 3% raise, of course, is basically a cost of living adjustment. I don't mean to imply that we shouldn't be happy to be guaranteed something like that, given the fiscal and ideological climate, only that it isn't exactly extravagant.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Every time an administrator is promoted from one position to the other (even if they have poor record or lack experience), they are given big raises to bring their salaries in line with market rate? Why does that not apply to faculty when they are promoted from assistant to associate or from associate to professor? This administration has plenty of money for their own puppets (including the marketing firm that produced a lousy logo) and pet projects. They don’t have money for faculty and staff; in fact they are snatching money from them in the name of furlough and layoffs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Enrollment on this campus began to drastically decline once Poshard took over. In addition to the Chicago "boss" system of patronage and the cronyism involved, he is unfit to run a University as his "meal ticket" comment and plagiarism shows. What parent would want to send their son and daughter to a university run by a President who plagiarized his dissertation?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous (2:24 PM):

    Promotional raises were one of the few bright spots in the imposed terms. The favorable terms from the 2007-2010 contract with the FA were left intact.

    "Section 14.07. Promotional Raises. The Board shall increase a Faculty member’s base monthly salary for a promotion in academic rank as follows:
    a. Promotion from Assistant to Associate Professor with tenure - $600 per month or 12% of the median salary of the rank in the unit from which the candidate is promoted, whichever is greater.
    b. Promotion from Associate to Full Professor - $1,200 per month or 12% of the median salary of the rank in the unit from which the candidate is promoted, whichever is greater."

    Before you accuse me of being an administrative puppet, I will point out that the $500,000 that the chancellor says were spent on promotional raises amount to less than one eighth of one percent of SIUC's operating budget.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ...and it is not likely $500k additional when you consider that it is simply a process of rotating newer people into higher ranked positions, retirements of those in higher ranks, and replacements at the assistant professor level where applicable. I wouldn't think these combined effects result in a half a million dollar net increase in the budget.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The reduction of $2.8 million does include increased spending for promotional raises.

    My understanding is that the administration hasn't called for any increase in these raises going forward, however, so they will decline in inflation-adjusted terms. I mention this only because promotional raises, together with merit pay, are the sorts of pay the administration is most eager (least uneager) to raise.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe someone can explain the veterans grant portion of the deficit. There is an obligation to educate veterans, a worthy cause. Their tuition is not reimbursed, at least not fully. Is it unfair to say that this money is a deficit? After all, offices, classes, etc. Are going to remain whether the money is here or not. Should this not just be considered some in kind contribution rather than a deficit?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The FA tried to address the Illinois Veteran Grant stuff in our second White Paper (page 12), though not quite along the lines you suggest (which are themselves promising).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous (10:52 PM):

    The veterans' money could be budgeted as less revenue to the university because the students don't pay tuition, or it could be budgeted as revenue that comes in for their tuition and then be subtracted out as an expense that the university has to pay for their grants, with the same effect on the bottom line. (0 - 0 = 1 - 1.) Either way, if neither the student, the state, nor anyone else pays the tuition for a student veteran, it costs the university something to provide that student with an education.

    The university administration mostly has stopped talking about the veterans' funding this year because the state increased its funding for it from zero last year to some amount more than zero but still less than the full tuition this year.

    The administration already started quieting down about veterans' grants last fall because, according to the October 29, 2010 FA newsletter, "Since it was revealed that the decrease in revenues from last year due to loss of state funding for the Illinois Veterans Grant is not $3 million as reported in the BOT agenda item, but closer to $1.1 million, the administration is no longer using that as a reason for administrative closures."

    ReplyDelete
  16. I appreciate the last two responses. Thank you. I suppose my point is this. If the veteran's money is never fully restored, then the university will continue to educate deserving veterans and always be able to claim a deficit. At some point, isn't it worth acknowledging that this money will probably not fully come back and simply call it an in-kind donation that is part of the university's mission to educate all?

    ReplyDelete
  17. That's more or less what the FA argued in the White Paper. SIUC has been managing to pay the veterans' grant for some time, so shouldn't act as if this is a new expense.

    On the larger point, much of the difference between the administration and FA on finances amounts to the distinction between "structural deficits" and what I'll call "yearly deficits". According to the Chancellor (and the report to the Higher Learning Commission), SIUC has been balancing the books for years via one-time measures, leaving untouched a structural deficit. Cheng claims to have balanced the budget by instituting structural changes. In many cases I suspect this is as easy as confessing that various "open" faculty lines aren't ever going to be filled: now the short-term fix of delaying hiring has become a long-term fix.

    Returning to the Veterans. Of course SIUC wants to lobby to get the state to fund this grant as it once did. But leaving that aside, one could perhaps assume, at least for internal purposes, that some large chunk of these grants would be paid by SIUC. This money may well come out of something like the 2.2% cuts were seeing to colleges this year.

    ReplyDelete

I will review and post comments as quickly as I can. Comments that are substantive and not vicious will be posted promptly, including critical ones. "Substantive" here means that your comment needs to be more than a simple expression of approval or disapproval. "Vicious" refers to personal attacks, vile rhetoric, and anything else I end up deeming too nasty to post.