2011-12 Campus Affairs Committee Cover Sheet
Recommendations to the Faculty Senate
Charge 5: recommendation to the Senate:
A committee, provisionally called the "Online Portal Executive Committee," informally has
begun the work of establishing a comprehensive web portal for all online courses and
programs offered at UNR, and a plan for its ongoing operation. We recommend that the
Faculty Senate support the work of this group by asking the University Administration to
formally charge the committee. Further, we recommend that the committee consist of
Kerri Garcia and Shannon Brown (Online and Independent Learning), David Fenimore
(College of Liberal Arts) and Nancy LaTourrette (College of Engineering).
Also, we encourage the Faculty Senate to endorse the Academic Leadership Council's
recommendation to set up an "operational design committee" as described and outlined in
the memo to David Ryfe from the President and Provost dated 25 January 2012. As
described, this committee will engage the essential long-range strategic questions and
issues concerning online education. By all measures UNR is falling behind in online
education. Individual courses and a limited number of programs are being offered but it is
imperative that consistent academic standards and the further development of online
education become a Faculty Senate and institutional priority.
Charge 6: recommendation to the Senate:
Given the University’s investment in service learning and outside classroom activities, we
recommend that the Faculty Senate request University Administration to charge the VP of
Student Services or other appropriate office to collect, process, and report information
relevant to these activities. Such reporting should include assessments that evaluate the
impact of service learning and outside classroom activities on student success, including
student retention and graduation rates when appropriate.
1
Campus Affair Committee 2011-12
Members:
Duncan Aldrich, Jane Bessette, David Fenimore, Nancy LaTourrette, Cairn Lindloff, Eric Marchand, Patrick
McFarland, Ann Medaille, Howard Rosenberg, Shanon Taylor, Mark Walker, Chuck Price - Executive Board
liaison
The Faculty Senate Executive Board assigned the Campus Affairs Committee four specific charges this year.
Progress on each is reported below, along with recommendations for further action.
Charge 5: Work with the generator of the online learning report determining what is needed to maintain
the online portal where students interested in online coursework can find all online courses offered. Is
there an ability to do this utilizing PeopleSoft? If so, what are the current obstacles to overcome
(training, data entry, etc.)? If not, what is the alternative, including resources needed and cost?
[Fenimore, LaTourrette]
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
Thus far this subcommittee has tackled only the limited, but we believe crucial, step of focusing on the
development of an integrated and fully functional web portal for UNR online education. This specific charge
was the result of one of several recommendations contained in the CAC report on distance education
submitted to the Faculty Senate on October 21st, 2010. The broader issues regarding the goals,
organization, funding, design, implementation, and delivery of online courses at UNR are addressed in the
memo from President Johnson and Provost Hardy to Senate Chair Ryfe dated January 25, 2012 contained in
Appendix A of this report.
The subcommittee found four separate locations around the UNR website where information on online
courses and programs may currently be found. None of these locations offer a comprehensive, up-to-date,
or real-time overview of the UNR online academic landscape.
1. UNR website (http://www.unr.edu/academics/online-learning)
a. Maintained by Integrated Marketing.
b. Includes links to #2 and #3 below, with some, not all, links to the pages described in #4.
c. More of an overview than a list of course offerings
d. Seemingly directed inward (to “Nevada students”) rather than to a wider audience
e. Depends on #3 below for a list of current courses offered
2. Online & Independent Learning (http://www.unr.edu/academics/online-learning).
a. The list of courses here is not comprised of active links, nor does it include all online
courses offered at UNR.
b. It also includes some correspondence courses and non-academic courses.
c. The page is many levels down from the UNR home page, though it is more likely than #1
above to come up on a Google search for “UNR + online.”
2
3. MyNEVADA
a. Requires some familiarity with “Advanced Search Criteria,” among other functions
b. Provides no information on programs or courses not offered in a particular semester
4. Individual college, department, and program pages.
a. Scattered throughout the UNR websites
b. Some, not all, are listed on #1 and/or #2 above.
PROPOSAL:
The subcommittee met with Online and Independent Learning (Kerri Garcia and Shannon Brown) who
agreed in principle to spearhead an effort to create a comprehensive web portal for all online courses and
programs offered at UNR. We agreed on the following guidelines:





The web portal will reside on the main UNR webpage under “Academics” (like #1 above).
The site will be updated each semester to include all online opportunities for earning academic
credit at UNR, including those courses and programs not delivered through Online and
Independent Learning.
Taking into account the differing needs of current and prospective students who might use it, the
portal will be broken into well-organized and graphically distinct subtopics:
o A comprehensive list of all courses offered online at UNR
o All online programs leading to degrees or certificates
o Courses offered in the current or upcoming semester (spring, summer, or fall)
 This list will be generated by PeopleSoft, either directly or by means of a related
database, and so will update automatically as well as indicate course details and
current status
o Courses offered through Online and Independent Learning including year-long or “open
enrollment” courses
o Courses offered by colleges and departments
o Courses offered by degrees (including information on degree programs for which a
significant number of requirements may be completed online)
The site will feature active links to:
o Catalog descriptions
o Registration information
A blog may be developed to co-exist with and enhance the web portal.
o The blog will announce new programs, courses, sections, canceled courses, instructor
highlights, etc.
o Twitter and Facebook notifications will be triggered by blog entries
Recommendation to the Senate:
A committee, provisionally called the "Online Portal Executive Committee," informally has begun the work
of establishing a comprehensive web portal for all online courses and programs offered at UNR, and a plan
for its ongoing operation. We recommend that the Faculty Senate support the work of this group by asking
the University Administration to formally charge the committee. Further, we recommend that the
committee consist of Kerri Garcia and Shannon Brown (Online and Independent Learning), David Fenimore
(College of Liberal Arts) and Nancy LaTourrette (College of Engineering).
3
Also, we encourage the Faculty Senate to endorse the Academic Leadership Council's recommendation to
set up an "operational design committee" as described and outlined in the memo to David Ryfe from the
President and Provost dated 25 January 2012. As described, this committee will engage the essential longrange strategic questions and issues concerning online education. By all measures UNR is falling behind in
online education. Individual courses and a limited number of programs are being offered but it is imperative
that consistent academic standards and the further development of online education become a Faculty
Senate and institutional priority.
Charge 6: Work with the Vice Provost’s Office of Instruction and Undergraduate Programs to determine
ways that outside classroom activities assist in overall student success (such as increased graduation
rates). How do student community service activities affect student success? What are the variables
affecting graduation and retention rates? Determine what policies and practices the university currently
has in place to achieve the goals of increased graduation rate and retention. [Bessette, Lindloff, Medaille]
Upon further clarification of this charge with Faculty Senate President, David Ryfe, we narrowed our focus
to the impacts of outside activities and not the broader variables affecting graduation and success.
A list of outside activities was compiled by the subcommittee, and information on funding sources was
provided by Dane Apalategui, Principal Budget Officer in Planning, Budget & Analysis, both of which are
included in Appendix B of this report.
Meetings were held with Bill Cathey, Vice Provost of Instruction & Undergraduate Programs, and Shannon
Ellis, Vice President of Student Services, to review the list and inquire about potential data and research
that was available at the campus level regarding outside activities and retention/graduation rates. From
those meetings we learned that no centralized data is being collected regarding outside activities and their
impact on retention/graduation rates. However, both Cathey and Ellis indicated that profiles of successful
students consistently included outside activities as a major factor, and both highly support outside activities
and experiential learning as a means of retention and enhanced learning.
Research supports the importance of student involvement in outside activities, and a selective bibliography
is included at the end of this report.
The subcommittee also learned that in terms of service learning and community service, a new Service
Learning Center will be created in the fall with funds allocated from the 8% tuition increase.
The colleges have been assigned responsibility of retaining their students, and mandatory advising for the
first three semesters has been implemented across colleges. A retention specialist was brought in two years
ago to work with each individual college to document what activities and practices they had in place or
planned to implement to retain their students. There was no university wide program or uniform practice
that was encouraged outside of the documentation.
In addition, the undeclared advising center has a role in assisting students who have not yet declared. They
provide major exploration classes to undeclared students providing information on academic majors, study
skills and campus-wide resources.
4
Members of the committee consulted with other university resource providers including the Service
Learning Council, the Center for Cultural Diversity, Trio Scholars, Student Conduct, Student
Employment/Career Connections, Residential Life, ASUN, Tutoring/Supplemental Instruction, and MAPWorks/New Student Initiatives. The following findings were of interest.
Appendix B provides a bibliography of selected publications pertaining to service learning and community
service in higher education.
Service Learning/Community Service
There is no centralized point of contact on campus regarding service learning. As of the fall 2010 the
university became a member of Campus Compact, a coalition of higher education organizations that are
dedicated to promoting civic engagement. Individual faculty members incorporate service learning and
community service into their curriculum, but there is no centralized point of information regarding the
impact on retention or graduation on our campus. However, Margaret Ferrara in the College of Education
and Marlene Rebori from Cooperative Extension have been studying their own students in terms of the
impact of service learning.
Having just become a Campus Compact member in the fall of 2010, a new emphasis on service learning has
emerged and in fact, with the fall 2012 tuition increase, a Service Learning Coordinator will be hired.
Campus Employment
Campus Employment is handled by the university’s human resources department. Because they are not
responsible for academic retention, they do not have information regarding how campus employment
impacts retention of academic students. They do, however, require that student employees maintain a 2.0
GPA to stay employed.
TRiO Scholars
The mission of TRIO Scholars is “to assist low-income, first generation students to overcome the cultural,
academic, class, and social barriers to success in higher education and to assure that participants graduate
from the university.” TRIO Scholars provides services to 175 students annually in the form of individual
tutoring, writing support, counseling, lab space, peer mentors, orientations, and classes.
Ninety-four percent of first-year students in the program were retained from fall 2010 to fall 2011 (n=34),
and 97% of all participants were retained from fall 2010 to fall 2011 (n=175). TRiO’s six-year graduation
rates are listed below, in relation to a comparison of students of similar demographics and circumstances
who did not participate in the program:
Year
F0203
F0304
F0405
F0506
TRiO
49%
46%
57%
49%
Comparison
14%
0%
35%
20%
5
TRIO Scholars receives funding from the U.S. Department of Education.
BASICS (Brief Alcohol Screening Intervention for College Students)
BASICS provides education and one-on-one counseling services to students who have abused alcohol.
BASICS partners with Police Services and with the Reno Municipal Courts to provide services to students
who receive alcohol citations, and the program has won national attention for its community relationships.
BASICS also provides alcohol-free programming events for students and a “Be in the Know” phone app,
which received over 800, downloads in the fall of 2011.
Of all students receiving BASICS services in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, 84% of students were retained for
the following fall. Of those freshmen who received direct patrol violations in spring 2010 and then received
BASICS services, 94% returned for fall 2010.
Initial funding for BASICS was provided by a three-year grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention from the U.S. Department of Justice, although continued funding will be provided
an increase in student fees.
The Center for Student Cultural Diversity
The Center for Student Cultural Diversity promotes campus-wide diversity efforts. The Center met 7,465
requests for retention-based services in the fall of 2010 and spring of 2011. These services included
academic advising, financial aid advising, personal counseling, study halls, educational programs, and social
activities.
The Center offers College Life 101, which is an in-depth retention program for students who want an
additional level of service and grade-level programming. The program includes regular meetings with
center coordinators, a service-learning component, and mid-term progress reports, as well as academic,
career and financial aid advising. There were 280 participants in the Fall 2010 College Life 101 program, and
of these, 254 returned for the spring semester (91%) and 259 returned for the following fall semester
(93%). There were 280 participants in the fall 2011 program, which represents a 74% increase over the
previous year. The Center also sent out mid-semester reports to instructors of students in the retention
program and identified students making Cs or below so as to provide additional support. Sixty-eight percent
of interventions in the fall of 2010 and 55% in spring of 2011 were successful in helping students to pass
their classes with a C or above or to withdraw. More information is available in their 2011 Annual Report
online.
The Center is state funded through the Division of Student Services.
Residence Life
Residence Life as an operation and student support program has limited long-term data available that
directly addressed retention and graduation rates. The 2010-2011 MAP-Works data indicates that first
years students in the residence halls returned at 80.5% (fall to fall), which is 3% higher than the MAP-Works
6
recorded data of 77% for all first year students. Various programs within the Residential Life area, such as
Living Learning communities and academic intervention programs, have short-term data identifying
increased retention or academic performance information.
Orientation
Orientation as a program of the New Student Initiatives office does not have long-term data available that
directly addressed retention and graduation rates. The 2010-2011 MAP-Works data indicates that first year
students participating in a two-day orientation program returned at 82.7% (fall to fall), which is 5% higher
than the MAP-Works recorded data of 77% for all first year students.
ASUN & Supplemental Instruction
While both of these areas have a variety of “raw data,” they have not been able to find the necessary
support to run the data to identify retention, persistence, or academic performance information.
Recommendation to the Senate:
Given the University’s investment in service learning and outside classroom activities, we recommend that
the Faculty Senate request University Administration to charge the VP of Student Services or other
appropriate office to collect, process, and report information relevant to these activities. Such reporting
should include assessments that evaluate the impact of service learning and outside classroom activities on
student success, including student retention and graduation rates when appropriate.
Charge 7: Create a general faculty morale survey to be vetted by the Faculty Senate Executive Board
before delivery to the faculty early in spring 2012. Include questions that test the criteria for curricular
review and relative effectiveness so far regarding how budgets have been cut either validating what has
been done or creating a path to a different direction. In devising the survey, the committee should
consult the Accreditation Survey and Campus Affairs Faculty Morale Climate Survey to gauge differences
in faculty perception then and now. [Aldrich, Marchand, Taylor]
SUMMARY:
Distributed on 7 March 2012, the survey collected information from both administrative and academic
faculty regarding the curricular review / budget cutting process the administration employed this past year,
as well as information on the general level of morale among faculty. Nine of the questions were
quantitative, using a 1 to 10 ordinal scale. Additionally, four open-ended questions solicited descriptive
comments. The academic faculty responded to an additional 9 ordinal questions assessing the relative value
of criteria the administration used in the curricular review process. Owing to Spring Break, the survey
deadline was extended from 23 March to 30 March. Overall, 277 academic and 180 administrative faculty
responded to the survey.
Two analyses are being performed on the responses. The first analysis is being performed in collaboration
with Cleb Maddux of the College of Education. Dr. Maddux will apply his substantial experience with
statistical methods to develop a more refined analysis of the ordinal data. The second analysis will be a
7
qualitative analysis of the open-ended questions. A CAC member, Shanon Taylor, will plan and carry out
the qualitative analysis. It is expected that all analyses will be completed by June, 2012, and reported on by
early July.
Recommendation to the Faculty Senate Executive Board:
That the Executive Board charge the Campus Affairs Committee next year with summarizing in the autumn,
2012, the results of the analyses of survey data being undertaken this summer and recommend any actions
that might be indicated by the findings.
Charge 8: Of the faculty who received NNR’s and Notices of Lay off, how many were invited to apply for,
requested an opportunity to apply for, and/or were relocated into different positions? Explore how the
academic planning process could be revised to include a process for relocating faculty who received a
notice of layoff. [McFarland, Rosenberg, Walker]
SUMMARY OF LAY OFFS AND NNRs:
In response to the first part of Charge 8 the committee requested from Tim McFarling in Human Resources
(HR) the number of faculty who were either laid off or received Notices of Non-reappointment (NNRs) as a
consequence of the curricular review and budget cuts in the past several years. The following summarizes
the numbers HR reported, but also suggests further steps the CAC might take to glean a clearer impression
of the degree to which efforts were made on the part of the University Administration, Colleges, and
Departments to find alternative positions within UNR for dismissed faculty.
A few notes for clarification. Only tenured faculty can be ‘laid off,’ and they can be laid off only when a
curricular review process removes their unit or reduces it in size, or when a state of financial exigency has
been declared. NNRs are issued to non-tenured tenure track and administrative faculty whose contracts
are not renewed for budgetary or other reasons. Only six units, in the 2010 curricular review process, were
ultimately affected by curricular review; Resource Economics; Animal Biotechnology; Management Science;
Interior Design; Foreign Language and Literature; College of Education. Several other colleges and
departments initially targeted in the curricular review process negotiated budgetary agreements with the
administration and hence are not considered (for the purposes of this report) to have been affected by the
curricular review process because tenured faculty positions were not laid off. The numbers HR reported
(see below) as receiving NNRs for budgetary reasons include these faculty, but also include faculty given
NNRs in the previous two years in response to budget shortfalls or other reasons. A final note,
interpretation of the numbers is far from clear-cut. The terms, definitions and assumptions will vary by
individual and by groups making a common understanding of the numbers a challenge.
The ‘big picture’ gleaned from the numbers HR provided is that from the initial budget shortfalls in 2009
through the curricular review process in 2011, ninety-six faculty were either laid off or given NNRs. Twentyone faculty found other positions in the university for which they were professionally qualified. Additional
faculty affected by job loss later worked as Letters of Appointment.
Delving deeper, the breakdown of the numbers HR provided shows that as a consequence of the 2011
curricular review process, fifteen tenured faculty were laid off, three non-tenured tenure track faculty were
8
given NNRs, and five tenured faculty signed agreements to take phased in retirement. Ten tenured faculty
found other professional positions on campus.
NNRs issued for budgetary reasons in the 2009 through 2011 period were given to 14 non-tenured tenure
track faculty and 50 administrative faculty.
Numbers of Lay-Offs and NNRs Received from Human Resources
IMPACTED BY CURRICULAR REVIEW:
1) Number of Faculty Affected by Curricular Review: 33
This number reflects all tenured and non-tenured faculty members in units subject to curricular review.
(There were 6 departments affected and Tim McFarling is checking with the Provost before releasing the
names.)
2) Number of Tenured Faculty Issued Layoff Notice: 15
This number reflects tenured faculty who were issued layoff notices as a result of curricular review.
3) Number of Tenured Faculty Employed - Post Curricular Review Still Employed: 10
This number reflects the number of tenured faculty who are still employed and whose units were affected
by curricular review. (Faculty members that were moved from a tenured position to another tenured
position retained their tenure. There were no faculty members involved that had an active tenure clock.)
4) Number of NNR’s Given to Non-Tenured Faculty in Curricular Review Departments: 3
This number reflects the number of tenure track faculty who were issued NNR’s in units affected by
curricular review.
5) Number of Tenured Faculty Signing Agreements: 5
This number reflects the number of tenured faculty who signed an agreement in units affected by
curricular review. (All five of these “signed agreements” were considered phased retirement. It is worth
noting that there were an unknown number of faculty that took phased retirement before the curricular
review process began and are not counted in this number.)
IMPACTED FOR BUDGET REASONS:
6) Number of Academic Faculty affected by NNR: 14
This number reflects non-tenured faculty who were issued NNR’s for budgetary reasons.
7) Administrative Faculty NNR’s: 50
This number reflects administrative faculty who were issued NNR’s for budgetary reasons. (This number
includes the years 2009 – 2011)
8) Number of Administrative Faculty Employed - Post NNR: 11
This number reflects the number of administrative faculty who were employed on a faculty contract after
the effective date of an NNR. (This number includes the years 2009 – 2011. These faculty members found
other positions in the University system. Of note—generally speaking it is easier for Administrative Faculty
to find a similar position in another department in the University than Academic Faculty, with tenured
faculty being the most difficult due to their specified area of expertise.)
9) 2011 Layoff and NNR: 9
This number reflects the number of layoff notices and NNR’s issued in 2011. Final disposition unknown.
9
The committee finds that further analyses needs to be completed this summer in order to properly answer
the charge.
After receiving the information from Tim McFarling, the subcommittee realized that numbers alone do
not give an accurate picture of what actually did occur in many instances during the curriculum review
process and has requested that names be attached to these numbers noting that, in at least one case, the
numbers do not appear to compute correctly between individual components and summary totals.
Additionally, the subcommittee believes that it is important to talk with some of the individuals whose
positions were eliminated and new positions were found for them. How were they notified of new
possibilities? Were they contacted individually or as a group, etc. etc.?
We are finding some small difficulty in obtaining names; however, one member of the subcommittee has
contacted three affected faculty members, all of whom would be willing to talk with the subcommittee.
Finally, the subcommittee feels that the Curricular Review Process is one of the most serious and difficult
situations the University has faced and, from the looks of things, will face in the future and we feel it is our
obligation to provide the Faculty Senate and the University Administration with clear, concise, correct and
thoroughly researched and vetted information. We would like to clarify and verify the numbers.
PROCESS FOR RELOCATING IMPACTED FACULTY:
Regarding the second part of this charge – to explore how the academic planning process could be revised
to include a process for relocating faculty – the committee found that existing University and NSHE policies
and procedures affirmatively stipulate that faculty members laid off or furloughed for curricular reason, as
mandated in the NSHE Code, ‘shall be continued in employment in an appropriate qualified professional
capacity within the university if possible and if the employment does not result in the termination of
employment of another faculty member (NSHE Code 5.4.7).’ However, neither the University Bylaws nor
the University Administrative Manual specify a process – a set of procedures - for relocating faculty laid-off
owing to curricular review. They both merely refer back to the NSHE Code 5.4.7. policy with no mention of
a process to carry out the policy. Appendix C of this report provides links to pertinent policy documents.
In March, 2011 the University administration published the guidelines for the Academic Planning Process
(APP) that was used for last year’s Curricular Review process. While section V of the APP affirmed that
faculty laid off for curricular reasons would be continued in employment if possible in an appropriate
qualified professional position, the APP did not delineate a process to administer such placement.
Given the absence of a process – particularly a process that might entail reporting – the extent to which
efforts were made to relocate recently laid-off faculty is not at all clear. Without a defined process there is
no mechanism for verifying that sincere efforts have been or will be made by the University administration.
Likely steps in such a process might include:




keeping a definitive, web-based list of open positions into which laid-off faculty might be relocated;
establishing a (formal) channel for communication from Deans (department chairs?) to Human
Resources (Provost?) identifying faculty members about to be laid off;
designating an office (a person?) responsible for identifying possible matches between open
positions and faculty being laid off (HR? Provost?); and
facilitating those matches and keeping records of efforts made.
10
Likely governing document locations for the process:



a paragraph describing steps 1 through 4 could be inserted in the APP that was used in 2011
(possible problem - the 2011 APP was issued to address the 2011 budget environment and is not
specifically in place as an official process for similar future situations);
The current APP (with the new paragraph and other edits) could be incorporated into the University
Administrative Manual;
UNR Bylaws – NSHE Code 5.4.6 stipulates that each NSHE institution’s APP “may be set forth in the
institutional bylaws.” Is it feasible to amend the UNR Bylaws to assure that the paragraph
describing the process be included in future APPs? We could, for example, suggest that a second
sentence be added to section 3.5.5 of our bylaws stating that the process through which the effort
to place faculty in other appropriate positions will be carried out.
Recommendations to the Faculty Senate Executive Board:
1) that the current subcommittee devise and implement a strategy for interviewing faculty who were either
laid off, received NNRs, or were relocated as a consequence of recent budget cuts and curricular review to
determine the extent to which efforts were made to locate alternative professional positions in the
university.
2) that next year’s Bylaws Committee be charged to recommend changes to the University Bylaws and/or
Administrative Manual specifying the set of procedures to be used to facilitate the continuation of faculty in
employment in ‘appropriate qualified professional capacity within the university if possible and if the
employment does not result in the termination of employment of another faculty member’ as prescribed in
NSHE Code 5.4.7.
11
Appendix A. Memorandum from Marc Johnson to David
Ryfe
12
13
14
Appendix B:
Table Regarding Outside Classroom Events
15
16
Service Learning/Community Service Bibliography
Campus Compact National Office. (2006). A preliminary overview of the literature linking service-learning
and retention.
Eyler, J.S., Giles, D.E, Jr., Stenson, C. M., & Gray, C. J. (2001). At a glance: What we know about the effects of
service-learning on college students, faculty, institutions and communities, 1993-2000 (3rd Ed.).
Student Involvement in Activities and Student Success:
Astin, A. (1990). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College
Student Development 40(5).
Astin, A.W. (1997). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. In K. Arnold & I. C.
King (Eds.), College student development and academic life: Psychological, intellectual, social, and moral
issues (pp. 251-62). New York: Garland Publishing.
Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention.” In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student
retention: Formula for Success (pp. 215-43). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Bean, J. P., & Eaton, S. B. (2000). A psychological model of college student retention. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.),
Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 48-61). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
The Effects of Undergraduate Student Involvement on Critical Thinking: A Meta-Analysis of the Literature
1991-2000.
Habley, W.R., & McClanahan, R. (2004). What Works in Student Retention: All Survey Colleges. ACT White
Paper.
Hayden, M. (2010). Student attrition from higher education institutions. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B.
McGaw (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 467-72). Oxford: Elsevier.
Kelly, T., & Sauter, A. (2007). Student development theory chart. Retrieved from
http://www.freewebs.com/studentaffairs/collegeimpact.htm
National Survey of Student Engagement (2011). Fostering student engagement campus wide - Annual
results 2011. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, J., & McNeese, M.N. (2010). Student involvement/engagement in higher education based on
student origin. Research in Higher Education Journal.
17
Robbins, M. (2009, Fall). Student clubs and organizations: The heartbeat of the University. Nevada Silver &
Blue.
Robbins, M. (2012, Winter). Beyond classroom borders Experiential learning at Nevada. Nevada Silver &
Blue.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2006-7). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student
Retention 8(1), 1-19.
Webb, E. (1987). Retention and excellence through student involvement: A leadership role for student
affairs. NASPA Journal 24(4).
18
Appendix C. Responses to Curricular Review / Faculty Morale Survey
Academic Faculty
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
Administrative Faculty – Budgetary Cuts Responses
30
31
32
33
34
Appendix D.
Policy Documents Relating to Relocation of Tenured Faculty
1) The NSHE Code (section 5.4.6) stipulates that faculty may be 'laid off because an administrative unit,
project, program, or curriculum has been discontinued, reduced in size or reorganized for bona fide reasons
pertaining to the missions of the System institutions.’ The Code (section 5.4.6) further states that "Such
curricular revisions shall come as a consequence of the academic planning process as established in writing
and approved by the presidents of the member institutions affected, and which may be set forth in the
institutional bylaws."
http://system.nevada.edu/tasks/sites/Nshe/assets/File/BoardOfRegents/Handbook/T2-CH05%20%20Personnel%20Policy%20for%20Faculty.pdf
The Code (section 5.4.7) States that
"The faculty member shall be continued in employment, if possible and if such employment does not result
in the termination of employment of another faculty member, in an appropriate qualified professional
capacity within the System institution involved."
And "If a faculty member is laid off for the above stated reasons, the faculty member's position will not be
filled within a period of two years, unless a reasonable attempt to offer reappointment has been
unsuccessful or reappointment has been offered in writing and the faculty member has not accepted the
same in writing within 20 calendar days of the receipt of the offer. The reappointment referred to herein
shall be at the faculty member's previous rank or salary level."
2) The UNR Bylaws (section 3.5.4.b) says that termination for curricular reasons is described in section 5.4.6
of the NSHE Code - but that is rather circular as the Code refers to the institutional process, “which may be
set forth in the institutional bylaws.” But the Bylaws only describe the process after the academic planning
has occurred, as described in Bylaws section 3.5.4.b:
http://www.unr.edu/facultysenate/bylaws/UNR%20Bylaws/unr-bylaws-11-18-09.pdf
Termination of faculty members for curricular reasons is described in Subsection 5.4.6 of the Code. Formal
consultation as described in Section 2.1.3 of these bylaws shall include the following procedure:
(i) The department to be affected shall formally consider the proposed change and make its
recommendation to the appropriate elected major unit committee(s) as described in unit bylaws;
(ii) The appropriate major unit committee(s) shall formally consider the proposed change and make its
recommendation to its faculty;
(iii) Such faculty shall formally consider for approval, rejection, or modification the recommendation of the
appropriate major unit committee;
(iv) The recommendation of the department and of the major unit faculty shall be forwarded to the Faculty
Senate, which shall formally consider the matter and forward its recommendation to the President.
35
The decision to discontinue, deactivate, reduce in size, or reorganize a program or department of
instruction shall be based upon educational considerations, i.e., long-range judgments that the educational
mission of the University as a whole will be enhanced by such change.
3) The University Administrative Manual (section 6,067) has a clear delineation of consideration when
considering ‘reorganization of all academic units’. Off the top it looks like the recently espoused academic
planning process incorporated much of this.
http://www.unr.edu/administrative-manual/6000-6999-curricula-teaching-research/courses-andcurricula/6067-organization-of-existing-departments-schools-colleges-or-other-academic-units
4) The Academic Planning Process as described by the UNR administration, March, 2012:
http://www.unr.edu/curricular-review/academic-planning-process
36