navigator vi DIRECTIONS Cover story photos courtesy of MESA. • The USC Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis Published by CHEPA Volume 1 • Issue 1 • Fall 2001 the AND TRENDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY WANTED: Tools to Measure College Prep Success F By Anneliese M. Bruner or more than a quarter century, college access programs have toiled away on the margins of higher education in an effort to compensate for the myriad problems that confront urban schools. Typically staffed by sincere, hard-working individuals, these modestly funded programs have had one goal: to help participants, most of whom are urban teens, get into college. Since so much of this work is done on shoestring budgets, however, little money has been available to develop effective systems of program evaluation. Program directors, policy makers and funding agents, therefore, know little about which of these programs and strategies are effective and which are not. The national movement to reverse affirmative action and growing concerns about the lack of diversity on college campuses have triggered an upswing in college access programs. Educators, policy makers and funding agents are eager to maximize their performance by identifying effective tools with which to evaluate college access programs. The University of Southern California’s Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA), has long invested in college prep research. In recent years, it has identified programs and categorized them by type. Now, Drs. William G. Tierney, center director, and Linda Serra Hagedorn, asso- ciate director, are among a handful of experts leading the national effort to design new evaluation tools. “We now know what doesn’t work,” Tierney says. “We intend to spend the next few years outlining the specifics of what does work, and how to implement what works.” Tierney and Hagedorn have not only co-authored a new book featuring insights from key researchers and practitioners on the subject of college access programs, but Tierney is leading a team to create an evaluation prototype for use by one of California’s most esteemed access programs. The latter project is supported by a 3-year, $1.24 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education. Over the years, most of the resources available to college prep programs have been directed toward programmatic elements. The main benchmark of success was whether students enrolled in and were exposed to the program. “Programs claim a success rate of 80 or 90 percent,” Tierney says. “The problem is that these numbers are based on shifting sands.” In order to gauge success more accurately, CHEPA is involved in a longitudinal project to work with practitioners in the creation of more accurate and meaningful assessment measures. The Map THE COMPASS . . . . . . . . . .2 A note from the director. ON THE RIM . . . . . . . . . . .3 Meet CHEPA’s new partners in Melbourne, Australia. CHEPA WIRE . . . . . . .2,5,6 Updates on research, grants and other center developments. Continued on page 4 NEW VOICES . . . . . . . . . . .7 CHEPA alumni are on the move. FAST FORWARD . . . . . . . . .8 OFF THE SHELF . . . . . . . . . .6 Books, films, Web sites, etc... Events to mark on your calendar. C e Anonymous Donor Grants $1.8 Million for Governance Project F or the past decade, shared governance has been a hot topic in higher education, as colleges and universities have scrambled to create better systems of accountability and management without impeding academic freedom amid an increasingly fast-paced and complex post secondary environment. As robust as these conversations have been, much of the focus has been on leadership and policy related issues, such as student assessment, tenure and accreditation. Little of the discussion or research has centered on internal and external governance structures. Now, thanks to a $1.8 million, three-year grant from an anonymous donor, the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA) will embark on a study designed to provide higher education with a set of recommendations for improving decision-making structures and accountability at 21st century four-year institutions. “We’re excited about the project because it allows us to expand work that we’ve been doing on a smaller scale for several years to a scale that can have real depth and impact,” says William G. Tierney, CHEPA director. “It is not often that a center like ours is fortunate enough to have such a generous benefactor who not only shares our vision, but is willing to support such an extensive and important project without seeking recognition.” Many of the systems of governance currently used by post secondary institutions were created in the late 19th and early 20th century. While some of these are still appropriate and relevant to 21st century realities, others are obsolete. Technology, increased enrollment, the expanding range of institutional types and heightened institutional competition are just a few of the dynamics transforming higher education. Together with evolving perspectives on tenure, academic freedom, and racial and gender diversity, these dynamics demand a new generation of governance structures. Among the issues researchers will examine during the study are: the Compass▼ As director of the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the inaugural edition of our newsletter! When CHEPA was launched in 1994, ideas such as “globalization” and “the Pacific Rim” were sketchy; there was a firewall between K-12 and post secondary education; and no one could have predicted the ubiquitous rise of the Internet. Fortunately, we were in Los Angeles and at USC. LA is on the Rim and USC is on the move. We started CHEPA intending to advance new ideas in new ways. We brought in funding from the Ford Foundation, the Pew Endowment, and the Irvine Foundation as well as the state and federal government. Our goal is to suggest research-based solutions that will enable schools and post secondary institutions to develop more effective relationships, to increase opportunities for low-income urban youth to attend college, and to develop stronger, systemic relationships with our neighbors on the Rim so that greater communication, understanding and opportunities occur. Over the years, the research produced by CHEPA scholars has drawn recognition and respect from key policy makers, researchers and practitioners nationwide. Dr. Linda Hagedorn, our associate director, has won the Early Career Research Award from the Association for the Study of Higher Education and Dr. Estela M. Bensimon and I have been awarded Fulbrights to Mexico and Australia respectively. As proud as we are of these achievements, we recognize that the circle of people who are interested in and can benefit from our work is broader than our past outreach efforts have extended. The Navigator is a logical next step in our ongoing efforts to connect with an even wider swath of the education community. In each edition, we will offer a glimpse at the types of activities being pursued by CHEPA researchers; policy perspectives on national education issues; news about the grants and gifts that enable us to do this important work; and profiles on the achievements of our alumni, among other information that we hope will enrich your work. The cover story in this inaugural edition highlights research CHEPA is pursuing to develop practical evaluation instruments for use by college access programs. As the demand grows for programs that better equip under represented students for college enrollment, CHEPA aims to provide program coordinators, funding organizations and policy makers with better instruments for determining whether these programs are achieving their intended goals. In this edition you’ll also learn about a new $1.8 million grant the center received from an anonymous donor, a partnership we’ve developed with a peer institution in Melbourne, Australia, and a project we hope will assist community colleges in enhancing the success rate of their students. As an avid hiker, there are two things I always try to have before setting out on a trek: a compass, so that I always know which direction I’m heading; and a map, to have an overview of the terrain I’m venturing into and an idea of alternate routes in case something unexpected occurs along the path I’ve chosen. As you negotiate the challenging landscape of 21st century higher education, we hope you’ll count The Navigator among the resources you consider indispensable. We also invite you to check out our Web site at www.usc.edu/dept/chepa. Send us your comments about both so that we’ll know whether we’re on the right path. N PA Wir HE 2 ▼ William G. Tierney Wilbur-Kieffer Professor of Higher Education & Director Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis Rossier School of Education University of Southern California the Navigator • Fall 2001 • What are the institutional implications of distance learning? • How will institutions shift from facultycentered to learner-centered environments and what are the implications for faculty work, roles and rewards? Continued on page 8 CHEPA FORGES PARTNERSHIP BY SHERRY TIGGETT • The design and implementation of quality assurance policies and processes, particularly those concerned with the quality of teaching and learning; • The changing work roles, career paths and professional development needs of the academic profession; and • Approaches to monitoring and improving the student experience including the management of transitions and the first- year experience. n t he R Photo courtesy of CSHE. O AUSTRALIAN PEER IM T he Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA) has forged a firsttime collaboration with the University of Melbourne’s Centre for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE) in Australia. The primary objective of the alliance is to strengthen ties between both centers for the purposes of teaching and learning, student experience, and professional development of scholars. The center directors also intend the arrangement to stimulate an increase in policyoriented research that aims to improve higher education in general and that of the Pacific Rim in particular; and to encourage the two institutions to pursue research and development initiatives jointly. “I’m excited about [the arrangement] because it provides CHEPA faculty members and graduate students with a challenging opportunity to test their ideas and hypotheses in a whole new environment,” says Dr. William Tierney, CHEPA director. “If we’re really serious about shaping policies that will equip our institutions to operate competitively, yet credibly, in an ever more global learning environment, we must seek opportunities to think and conduct research on an international scale.” The idea for the alliance between the two institutions began while Tierney was on a sabbatical leave earlier this year, pursuing a Fulbright Fellowship in Australia. Part of his time was spent at the University Melbourne. “We discovered that we had a lot more in common than we realized,” says Craig McInnis, director of CSHE. CSHE has been a national and international leader in higher education policy research and educational development for more than 30 years. It provides independent, research-based advice and support in three principal areas: WITH CHEPA’s home away from home at the CSHE building in Melbourne, Australia. CHEPA is an interdisciplinary research unit of the Rossier School of Education at USC that was established in 1994 to engage the post secondary-education community actively, and to serve as an important intellectual center. Its mission is to improve urban higher education, strengthen school-university relationships, and to focus on international higher education with an emphasis on Latin America and the Pacific Rim. Among the research priorities of the new collaboration will be projects that advance knowledge and policy-making from a comparative perspective in four areas: • The improvement of academic work; • The enhancement of effective institutional governance and decision-making structures and systems; • The improvement of learner-based strategies for curricular development; and • The analysis of how higher education in the Pacific Rim might be improved by way of increased coordination, research and infrastructure. One of the common denominators that brought the two centers together is a shared interest in the relationship between student experiences and other important issues. “[Today’s] students are more disengaged, in that they put college in a different perspective than how we did 20 years ago,” McInnis says. “Students spend less time on campus and in class rooms,” for a variety of reasons including working full-time jobs, and the advent of computer/distance learning courses.” The arrangement between the two centers will give researchers on either campus an opportunity to examine how these challenges manifest in another country. For now, the ink is just drying on the contract. No funding has been set aside nor have any faculty proposals been submitted. However, McInnis plans to be in the United States in November trying to generate more interest in the project and exploring options for funding. Ultimately, McInnis says he would like the collaboration to become the authority on providing international management & senior leadership programs for academics throughout the Pacific Rim. “By putting [our] intellectual resources together, the research could lead to a reshaping and rethinking of higher education systems,” he says. N ▼ the Navigator • Fall 2001 3 WANTED: Tools to Measure College Prep Success Continued from page 1 Hagedorn and Tierney hope the upcoming book Increasing Access to College: Extending Possibilities for All Students, and the work they are doing to create an evaluation prototype will yield benefits for all of the stakeholders in the college preparatory community. those of the world of practice. It also will urge grant-makers and policy makers to be firm but patient with practitioners as they adapt to the new challenges and problems presented by evaluation results. “We have to be more proactive,” Hagedorn argues, “so that practitioners are able to use research findings, and researchers are able to be engaged with the daily concerns of those in the trenches.” MARRYING RESEARCH WITH PRACTICE 4 ▼ One of the problems with the few college prep evaluation models that have been in development in recent years is that they aren’t perceived as practitioner friendly. “You have to develop evaluative measures that are usable,” Tierney says. “We are in an age of globalization where family relationships, school relationships are changing. We need evaluation models that are suited to this new reality.” CHEPA’S work with California’s 30year-old Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement program (MESA) is expected to yield just such a prototype. Oscar Porter, associate director of research, evaluation and information management at MESA is among those prep program administrators who welcome the new focus on evaluation tools. He and Tierney will co-direct the prototype project. “Given that a lot of programs do not know how to self-evaluate, and funders are unsure what to ask, there needs to be a consensus about what you ought to do in terms of evaluating a blueprint or scorecard,” he says. “We hope to complete this project from the practitioners’ viewpoint.” Unlike many programs that have no evaluation tools, MESA has modest tools that simply don’t go far enough. Ideally, cohort models should enable practitioners to follow students from high school through college to determine what percentage actually go on to earn college degrees. Up to now, however, even programs as sophisticated as MESA have not been able to take the cohort approach beyond the high school level. the Navigator • Fall 2001 THE BASIC EVALUATION FRAMEWORK So, what does a good evaluation model look like? CHEPA research suggests that it should first seek to answer three basic questions: Who does the program serve? What are the indications of programmatic success? And what are the indicators of organizational effectiveness? The framework of the CHEPA model includes five basic components: Porter concedes that not everyone in the college prep community shares his enthusiasm about the new focus on evaluation. Historically, these programs have functioned autonomously in the communities from which they emerged. Many rely almost exclusively on external funding, but are skeptical about, if not resistant to, external review because they do not want outsiders treading on their success and potentially jeopardizing their funding. “If a funder says, ‘We want a successful program,’ what they’re suggesting is either you choose kids that are likely to succeed or you fluff the data,” Tierney says. Such considerations discourage practitioners from dealing with students who might need more help and from using more complex evaluation techniques. Ultimately, CHEPA hopes to marry the best practices from the research world with • Technology to capture and maintain accurate records of enrollment and attrition of any given cohort; • A longitudinal comparative database across organizations; • Multiple measures of effectiveness; • The analysis of one discrete evaluation component each year; and • An ongoing schema for evaluating costs and communicating effectiveness. These components are outlined in further detail in Tierney’s chapter of Increasing Access to College, which is scheduled for release in January by SUNY Press. Because the population of students served by urban college prep programs typically has numerous needs (educational, social C WALKING re A Wi HEP THE WALK ON FACULTY DIVERSITY BY CHERYL D. FIELDS Recognized as a premier college prep program, MESA seeks new evaluation model. and economic), it is not uncommon for program administrators to spread their resources in many directions. Tierney and his colleagues have generally found this practice to be counterproductive. “We cannot do everything,” he says. Instead, practitioners should focus on providing education skills and counseling services, and on involving family members in program activities. Hagedorn agrees that the emphasis must be on academics. “My work has specifically found that programs without an academic component are less effective than those with a strong focus on this important aspect of student life,” she says. “That is not to say that social support networks or programs to keep students ‘off the street’ are misguided or ineffective. Rather, I found that programs whose goal is to assist students to enroll in college are more likely to achieve their objective if they include an academic component.” “And we need to wrap these activities in cultural integrity, to honor the backgrounds of these kids,” Tierney says. “If we focus on that over time, these programs will have success.” N –Cheryl D. Fields contributed to this article. More details about college access evaluation models can be found on the CHEPA Web site: www.usc.edu/dept/chepa. CHEPA Staff Director: William G. Tierney, Ph.D. Associate Director: Linda Serra Hagedorn, Ph.D. Faculty: Estela M. Bensimon, Ph.D., director, CUE; Michael L. Jackson, Ph.D., vice president for student affairs; William Maxwell, Ph.D., associate professor; Melora Sundt, Ph.D., associate dean. Administrative Coordinator: Angela Yvonne Postdoctoral Researcher: Hye Sun Moon, Ph.D. Research Assistants: Phil Brocato, Dean Campbell, Julia Colyar, Zoe Corwin and Sion Lee Intern: Nurgul Kinderbaeva H igher education’s focus on diversity in the past decade has concentrated primarily on increasing the ranks of students of color. The greatest successes, though modest, have been at the undergraduate level. Over the years, CHEPA has maintained that real change in campus diversity requires a deeper commitment. In an effort to continue the University of Southern California’s movement toward a more substantive diversity commitment, CHEPA Director William G. Tierney co-wrote a proposal with Dr. George Sanchez, associate professor of history, for a grant that would enable USC to increase the presence of under represented faculty and graduate students while also engaging the wider campus community around diversity issues. “We believe that diversity begins at home,” Tierney says. The James Irvine Foundation responded with a $3.6 million, 3-year grant. CHEPA will receive $250,000 of these funds to serve as internal evaluator on the project, which will be administered by Sanchez at the university’s new Center for American Studies and Ethnicities. “I think one expected outcome from this grant, that of preparing the next generation of faculty, is critical to the continued viability of higher education,” says Dr. Karen Gallagher, dean of the Rossier School of Education. “But the tendency, at majority [White] institutions, when you get a grant like this, is to say, ‘good, the burden of dealing with diversity is off of us now.’ That’s why having CHEPA’s expertise on the evaluation side is so critical.” CHEPA’s goal is “to ensure that the project stays on target so that not only do we increase the number of graduate students of color who become faculty, but we increase dialogues about diversity on campus,” Tierney says. One reason higher education continues to struggle with the diversity question is that most predominantly White campuses have been satisfied that increasing the presence of people of color on campus is all that is needed. In reality, it is only the first step. “Once there, faculty and students of color must be able to affirm, rather than reject who they are,” Gallagher says. Certainly, opportunities for this affirmation improve as diversity increases, but institutions must take additional steps to ensure that these opportunities are more than superficial. “Minority faculty want to be involved in programs where they have access to and can mentor graduate students of color,” Sanchez says. The new program includes components designed to encourage this type of interaction. It also provides incentives for faculty and students to collaborate on research and scholarship that addresses urban issues, which should connect them to the surrounding community as well. “Campuses should not be sites of assimilation, but instead, sites of contestation and multiple interpretations,” Sanchez says. Which is why Gallagher expects CHEPA’s involvement to ensure that conversations about diversity extend beyond the fellows and faculty of color. “We’ve got to figure out ways to have this discussion in a larger forum because Whites have a responsibility in diversity as well,” she says. Sanchez plans to involve the faculty, deans and the provost, all of whom have demonstrated a willingness to buy into the program already by contributing funds to the five-year graduate student fellowships. In addition to broadening the pool of under represented faculty, Tierney, Sanchez and Gallagher seek ultimately to effect systemic transformation at USC that can serve as a model for other institutions to emulate. “We’ll examine how all of this fits into the broader question of higher ed and where it should be going,” Gallagher says. N –Anneliese M. Bruner contributed to this article. ▼ the Navigator • Fall 2001 5 “The TRUCCS project will highlight and bring credit to what our colleges are successfully doing to ensure student success,” says Dr. Daniel Castro, president of the Los Angeles Trade Linda Serra Hagedorn, Ph.D. Technical College, one of the campuses included in the study. “It will also identify what we need to do better and presents tremendous potential for positively informing our policies and practices for ensuring greater student success.” TRUCCS will attempt to determine how student goals and expectations align with such measurable factors as the transfer rates to four-year institutions, degree attainment, the learning of new skills, or being promoted at work. Hagedorn says getting a better handle on these factors is critical to creating appropriate policies that will encourage community college enrollment and success. She adds that the economic mobility that community colleges encourage is a critical component to channeling working poor people into the middle class. According to Hagedorn, current literature on community college students remains sketchy and inconclusive, while the characteristics of the community college experience The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization By Thomas L. Friedman A lucid analysis of globalization that helps us think through what’s happening and what’s not. Paperback: $15.00 Anchor Books 6 ▼ Ordinary Resurrections: Children in the Years of Hope By Jonathan Kozol An eloquent book about the challenges of public schooling and what we should do. Hardcover: $25.00 Crown Publishing the Navigator • Fall 2001 CINEMA/PERFORMANCE The Shape of Things By Neil LaBute A searing drama, soon to be staged in the U.S., about the shape of gender relations and the ongoing (re)definition of what is meant by “art.” The play is written and directed by the same innovative playwright/film director who gave us “In the Company of Men” and “Nurse Betty.” Commissioned by London’s Almeida Theatre On The Web www.epn.org Sponsored by a consortium of top public policy experts and advocacy groups, the Electronic Policy Network is a useful Web site that helps us stay in touch with important policy developments. OFF THE In order to create dynamic post secondary institutions, we need to get out of the higher ed box of literature and stay informed about trends that influence higher education. Here are four recommendations: BOOKS C are increasingly complex. Students come to these “open-door” institutions not only from a vast array of ethnic, age and educational backgrounds, but also with a diverse range of educational goals and needs. “At USC, everybody in a course has met the same criteria,” Hagedorn explains. “At open-door institutions, anyone with a high school diploma can take classes. The more heterogeneous a set of students, the more difficult it is for the faculty and administration.” Over the three-year grant period, Hagedorn fully expects to find that many of the students in the sample will not have completed their goals. “Three years is an insufficient time to trace community college students,” she says because many have other responsibilities and “studentship” is often secondary. For that reason, Hagedorn hopes to find additional funding to extend the longitudinal design for five or even ten years. The data generated by the TRUCCS study also will be used by many of CHEPA’s doctoral students. Ultimately, the TRUCCS researchers want the project to initiate change. “I want the results of our work to be widely disseminated so that it can benefit the more than 5.6 million community college students in the country,” Hagedorn says. N — AMB SHELF A s community college enrollment continues to grow in California and nationwide, the need to identify factors that will contribute to the success of twoyear students becomes increasingly important. Leading the way in new research about community college students is CHEPA researcher and program chair of the Community College Leadership Program, Associate Professor Linda Serra Hagedorn, Ph.D. Hagedorn’s familiarity and expertise with community colleges date back to her days as a community college student and instructor in an occupational program. She was recently awarded the directorship in a three-year, $1.1 million project titled Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students, or TRUCCS (pronounced “trucks”) as it is affectionately referred to at CHEPA. TRUCCS is the result of a collaboration between Los Angeles’ three educational giants: USC, UCLA and the Los Angeles Community College District. TRUCCS will follow 5,000 community college students from the nine campuses of the Los Angeles Community College District for three years. The study will investigate the factors (both organizational and individual) that promote success for community college students. Funding for the research is provided by a grant from the Field Initiated Studies program of the U.S. Department of Education. re Federal Grant Drives New Research on Community College Students A Wi HEP new VOICES ALUMNUS UNCOVERS NEW PERSPECTIVES ON GAY STUDENT IDENTITY W hile trying to make sense of the college experience of non-heterosexual males during his graduate research, CHEPA alumnus Patrick Dilley, Ph.D., found existing theory on how gay men understand themselves to be inadequate. In his upcoming book, Queer Man on Campus: A History of Non-heterosexual College Men, 1945 to 2000, scheduled for release by the end of the year, he provides a bold new theoretical framework for understanding gay male identity. The author also is a newly appointed associate professor of higher education at Southern Illinois University. The 57 men in Dilley’s study had attended college between the years 1945 and 2000. Initially, he used standard student identity development theory in an attempt to map out the different concepts of identity among the men he interviewed. He soon realized, however, that the framework was too narrow because it did not allow for how the men made sense of their own identities. Instead of honing in on the broader meaning that the men attached to their sense of themselves and to their experiences, the traditional framework focused only on what they thought of themselves or what they did. Frustrated by “a framework that essentialized identity based on sense and experience,” Dilley sought to capture “what something meant in their lives beyond their reason at a particular time.” From this work sprang the notion that there are seven distinct gay identities or patterns of development that constitute the nonheterosexual male college experience. In examining markers such as the patterns of denial and rejection common in the ’40s and ’50s, the development of a “gay” identity in the socially liberal ’60s and ’70s, and the rise HELPING STUDENTS SURVIVE THE BARRIO AND COLLEGE W ith a growing number of urban univerJun, who has lived in Los sities engaging in or Angeles for the last decade and is expanding existing college prepaof Korean descent, found that ration programs designed to help despite the students’ confidence inner city kids matriculate into and academic commitment comcollege, some experts are quesing out of NAI, once in college tioning the efficacy of these pro- Alexander Jun, Ph.D. they discovered that they were grams. As a graduate student, still less prepared than many of CHEPA alumnus Alexander Jun, Ph.D., their peers. “Calculus at their high school wondered how well students who’ve been was not of the same level as calculus taken through these programs perform once in by other students at suburban high college. schools,” he says. And though the students Jun’s new book, From Here to in his study struggled once in college, they University: Access, Mobility and Resilience did not use the retention-focused programs among Urban Latino Youth (Routledge that were available to them. Press, 2001), provides compelling insights Jun concludes that all college preparaon the topic by relating the experiences of tion programs (not just NAI) should require five Latino students who enrolled at USC in students to participate in retention programs 1998 after participating in the university’s while in college to ensure greater retention Neighborhood Academic Initiative (NAI). and degree attainment. “This should be Jun–who currently is assistant director done in a greater effort to create a seamless for undergraduate programs and an transition between high school and college, adjunct clinical professor at Rossier–fol- and to promote a spirit of collaboration lowed the students, all of whom were NAI between K-12 and higher ed,” he says. alumni and had graduated from the same The book also urges programs like NAI public high school in Los Angeles, over the to focus more intently on academic preparacourse of their sophomore and junior years. tion, while including a summer bridge comThe NAI program, had not only sup- ponent to help acclimate students to campus ported the students academically, socially life prior to freshman year. It is equally and culturally from the seventh through important that funding agents scrutinize 12th grades, but it had agreed to pay their how college preparatory programs are defincollege tuition as well, if they were admit- ing and measuring success, he says. ted to the university under the normal aca“Success has got to be measured by demic criteria. college graduation.” N — AMB of “queers” in the ’80s, Dilley concludes that while these domains have similarities they are independent and varied. “In one identity type, they thought of themselves as being like everyone else, having sex with someone of the same gender did not make them think of themselves as being different,” he says. Dilley hopes his work will provide student development theorists and program administrators with a new paradigm through which to study and design systems and programs to support gay students on college campuses. N — AMB ▼ the Navigator • Fall 2001 7 Governance Project Continued from page 2 • What kind of new relationships with external constituencies and across systems need to be created? The study also will examine the role of trustee boards and how higher education should adapt to the closer alliances it is being encouraged to form with K-12 institutions. “Unfortunately, current forms of academic governance were created during times of rapid growth and expansion in higher education,” Tierney says. This led to the creation of systems designed to create standards, monitor curricula and ensure that certain institutional totems such as academic freedom were upheld. “Such a culture is not receptive to an operating philosophy based on the creativity, innovation or timeliness that institutions now need,” Tierney says. The project will involve an overview study, site visits to representative institutions and emblematic case studies of governance structures that work and those that do not. An advisory board of higher education researchers and leaders from a variety of institutions and higher education associations also will consult on the project. At the end of the three-year project, CHEPA plans to host a working conference at which the strategies for improvement will be presented. N — CDF For more information about the governance project, visit CHEPA’s Web site at www.usc.edu/dept/chepa, or call 213/740-7218. October 14 Fast Forward American Association of University Professors and the American Conference of Academic Deans At this conference titled “Mission and Governance: Integrating a Shared Vision,” Bill Tierney will present “Cultivating Faculty Leadership.” Location: Howard University Law School, Washington, D.C. Contact: Dori Binsted by email at: dbinsted@aaup.org 29 Japanese Association of Private Colleges and Universities CHEPA hosts a meeting of this prestigious Pacific Rim group. Location: University of Southern California Contact: CHEPA at: 213/740-7218 31 Bill Tierney will speak on “Faculty Work and the Improvement of Teaching and Learning.” Location: University of Wyoming Oct.-Dec. Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students Linda S. Hagedorn and her TRUCCS colleagues will conduct focus groups with students, faculty and administrators at Los Angeles’ nine community colleges throughout the fall semester. Contact: Linda S. Hagedorn at: 213/740-7218 November 15-18 Association for the Study of Higher Education Julia Colyar and Bill Tierney will participate in symposia titled “Family Involvement in College Preparation Program” and “Textual Representation in Higher Education Research and Policy Studies.” Linda Hagedorn will present “Transfer Where You Least Expect It” and “The Quality of Faculty and Administrative Worklife.” Other presenters include Laura Perna and Marvin Titus, University of Maryland; and Michelle G. Knight, Teachers College, Columbia University. Location: Omni Richmond Hotel and the Crowne Plaza, Richmond, VA Contact: ASHE at: 573/882-9645, or visit www.ashe.missouri.edu/2001 conf.html For updates to the calendar, visit CHEPA’s Web site at www.usc.edu/dept/chepa. The Navigator is produced for CHEPA by Langhum Mitchell Communications. CHEPA WPH 701 University of Southern California Los Angeles, California 90089-0031 The Navigator is made possible by a generous grant from the Ford Foundation. Insert Permit Number