2007-08 Annual Report

JOINT MINORITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (JMAC)
ANNUAL REPORT
2007-2008

Narrative Statement

We believe that “diversity” is a commitment to create, develop, and nurture a community in which there is equal access and respect for all individuals regardless of cultural similarities and differences.  JMAC was created with a focus on U. S. Minorities, and while the thriving of minority students, staff, and faculty on our campus is still a primary concern, we recognize and appreciate the variety of characteristics that make individuals unique:  age, cognitive style, culture, disability (mental, learning, physical),  economic background, education, ethnicity, gender, geographic background, language(s) spoken, marital/partnered status, physical appearance, political affiliation, race, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation.  UW-L has made some progress in promoting and celebrating individual and collective achievements among a diverse population, and we can be encouraged by that progress, but there are still serious problems to overcome on our campus.  “Diversity” cannot be simply a redecorating or refurbishing of existing structures; in order for individuals with different characteristics to be actively included in academic community-building, there needs to be systemic change. We need to identify educational barriers to change on our campus and ways to deconstruct those barriers.  

Currently, our campus is in midstream of achieving a culture of inclusion.  We clearly have some solid leadership focused on issues of diversity in various pockets of our academic structure, including support for students, special programming, recruitment efforts, climate improvement, and academic requirements in general education.  What we do not have yet is an institution that embraces cultural change: an institution in which most groups, not just a few, are articulating how and why diversity is integral to the institution’s success, an institution in which the commitment to create and sustain a culture of equal access and respect is woven into all decision-making and planning, social interactions, and resource allocations. 

JMAC has worked this year to be more proactive in supporting implementation of new programs and initiatives related to diversity through our communication and collaboration with various units on campus. We have tried to encourage the continuation of conversations on how to promote and sustain more intentional inclusion.  Thanks to the UW-L Equity Scorecard Team’s findings in 2006-07, JMAC was able to make specific recommendations regarding access, retention, receptivity, and excellence in our last Annual Report (Appendix A) which we used in prioritizing our efforts for the 2007-08 academic year.  Also helpful in our planning was the Retreat sponsored by Campus Climate in May of 2007; this year, we have had a greater sense of the various stakeholders at UW-L and our common objectives.  Finally, the Joint Minority Affairs Committee is grateful for the visible support of Chancellor Joe Gow and Provost William Colclough concerning efforts to make our campus more inclusive and equitable.  As you will see in this report, institutional transformation cannot take place without highly visible institutional leadership on diversity.

The following information is organized to reflect an integrated view of what JMAC has accomplished this year coupled with what the Committee recommends for the next two to three academic years.  It is not a comprehensive report on all the diversity efforts,  activities, and assessments across campus for 2007-2008; there is not, at this time, any central accountability structure in place from which to make campus-wide assessments or to track campus-wide progress.


Academic Support for a Diverse Student, Faculty and Staff Population

There are many factors necessary to achieve a truly nurturing climate; one in which, for example, students with different backgrounds and orientations perceive themselves to be included in the academic community.  The perception of inclusion, according to research, is in fact a major factor in students achieving excellence and in the retention of faculty and staff.

A.  ACCESS

The numbers for multicultural student recruitment are up.  According to the Admissions Funnel Report of February 15, 2008 (see Appendix B), new “Minority (Domestic) student” applications increased from 361 for Fall, 2007 to 527 for Fall, 2008.  Acceptances also increased from 273 to 294 for the same years.  Applications and Acceptances for “Multiracial (Domestic) students” were also tracked, with 135 applications and 73 acceptances so far for Fall, 2008 as of February 15, 2008. We also note that while the overall admissions rate for UW-L applicants was 60.38% in Fall 2007, the admissions rate for Minority (Domestic) students for the same period was 75.62%.  Furthermore, according to the Admissions Office, 54.93% of Minority (Domestic) students currently accepted have ACT scores higher than the overall average ACT score for the Fall, 2008 accepted students.

JMAC commends the work of the Admissions Office, especially the efforts of Victoria Sanchez, in its efforts to increase access to a diverse student population. However, there remain significant student populations with whom UW-L could be building relationships through faculty and staff outside the admissions office.  It is unclear whether these unmet suggestions are the result of limited funding and resources or a communication disconnect between various segments on our campus.

Multicultural Faculty recruitment at UW-L continually faces the challenge of competition with other institutions offering lighter teaching loads, more resources allocated to research, and higher salaries, according to anecdotal evidence (word-of-mouth on searches).

Recommendations: 

1.   Create a campus-wide leadership approach that is more effective recruiting a diverse student population. Create a process which connects recruitment and admissions activities across offices, especially the Office of Multicultural Student Services, the Office of Admissions, and the Multicultural Recruitment Group.  We recommend this linked group be overseen by the Provost, Dean of Students, and Director of Affirmative Action.

2.   Continue to evolve strategies for more effective recruitment of multicultural faculty and staff. 

3.   Follow up on opportunities on student recruitment concerning contacts both in and out-of-state.  For example, Sheryl Ross and Joe Baker have conveyed information to the Admissions Office which has not been followed through.


B.   RETENTION

JMAC decided to make the improvement of Retention outcomes for UW-L multicultural students (See Appendix A for our 2006-07 list) a priority for the year, and we turned for collaboration in this matter to the Office of Multicultural Student Services (OMSS), which has provided quality advising, mentoring, and programming to Minority and Multiracial (Domestic) students. The OMSS Director, Barbara Stewart, has been working closely with JMAC in exploring different models of academic support for students that would pair them more closely with faculty mentors.  Results of JMAC’s pilot Diversity Liaison program of 2006-07 were taken into account in exploring what types of mentoring relationships would be most effective for students, and OMSS undertook interviews with  Multicultural students for their feedback on the matter this year.

This past Fall, 2007, JMAC also asked the Provost to pursue the initiative to have an academic mentor in all of the majors on campus for each multicultural student. The College of Business has a mentoring program (See Appendix C) that JMAC believed could serve as a model for the other colleges. As a result of our meeting with Provost Bill Colclough, the Provost’s Council was informed and a request for information went out to the College of Liberal Studies (CLS) and the College of Science and Allied Health (SAH) as to what, if anything, CLS and SAH had been doing to provide academic mentoring and/or advising to multicultural students.  The Provost’s Office set up, consequent to these queries, a half-day Retreat on January 16, 2008, to have various groups on campus meet to discuss and develop some suggestions.  The goal was to have answers to a number of questions about what individuals and groups on campus saw as good models for mentoring.

Discussion of mentoring was diffuse, but did produce several areas of focus:

·        Academic success for multicultural students can be improved through the development of a Collaborative Learning Center (see Appendix D), for research shows that students can learn effectively through peer studying

·        Academic success depends on classroom pedagogy to a great extent; how material is presented and how excellence is defined and coordinated, if students must collaborate on some of their grades, they have more motivation to excel.

·        Representatives from Deans’ offices for CLS and SAH did not articulate intentions to explore implementation of a student/faculty pairing for academic mentoring purposes; as stated above, the discussion became diffuse and more focused on tutoring versus collaborative studying.

  • In a discussion of this gathering by JMAC members during a February meeting, a request for clarification was made and implemented.  The Chair contacted the Provost’s office, with the result that a written report on the meeting and recommendations based on it should be made.  Barbara Stewart is producing this report this semester.

    Further efforts have been made in JMAC to document the value of one-on-one relationships between faculty and students, and here are some of our findings:

    ·        Students at UW-L are interested in pairing up with a faculty mentor, but only if there are specific academic and social contexts; research projects, research interests, social interactions with professors outside the classroom, which have something to do with diversity or other campus activities.

    ·        Research was undertaken on this topic for UW-L’s campus team presenting at the April 2008 Diversity Symposium at UW-Milwaukee, sponsored jointly by the Institute on Race and Ethnicity and the Office of Professional and Instructional Development.  See Appendix E, especially the sections on Campus and Faculty, for a summary of this research.

    The retention of UW-L multicultural faculty and staff is a topic that JMAC has not addressed with any formal assessment or planning, although we have discussed it.  Our discussions have included deliberation of what factors may cause multicultural faculty or staff members to leave UW-L, and what factors may cause them to stay.  The opportunities for junior faculty to continue with research and teaching interests that they developed in graduate school is one concern about which the Committee has heard.  The concern over institutional structures that are not conducive to teaching interests or methods of incoming faculty has been linked to the question of institutional change.  See Appendix E, especially the sections on Deans and Departments.

    Recommendations:  

    1.   This is a pivotal time for UW-L to continue to improve retention rates of multicultural students.  While many factors can make a difference, students’ relationships with faculty, especially faculty in their chosen discipline, is demonstrated to be a key factor.  Therefore, JMAC urges the Provost to hold the Colleges responsible for formulating a student/faculty mentoring program for multicultural students.  The College of Business Administration (CBA) has a good model in place (Appendix C), and OMSS is willing to help or advise in the training of faculty to become effective mentors.  This recommendation actually intersects the next section on Excellence; faculty and staff need high-quality training in developing and sustaining a community in which there is equal access and respect for all individuals regardless of cultural similarities and differences.  “Community” describes areas both in, and outside of, the classroom which can foster excellence.

    2.   The retention of multicultural faculty and staff should be studied further, either in JMAC or the Campus Climate Council, or both.  Multicultural faculty should be consulted about what constitutes educational barriers to change and what kind of systemic changes would improve the campus’ academic culture.


    C.  EXCELLENCE

    There is a maxim from the Roman poet, Vergil:  “They can who think they can.”  Again, the perception of succeeding is an important factor in students’ achievement of excellence.  This year, JMAC discussed several possible initiatives to foster excellence among multicultural students, faculty, and staff beyond the academic mentoring models described in the above section on retention. 

    One of the items we discussed at length was how to provide the general UW-L faculty with leadership and opportunities for curriculum development to create models of inclusivity, whether in terms of content or pedagogy.  The result is that, on August 26, 2008, UW-L will provide a training session on curriculum development:

    “Achievement, Equity and Retention: Three Pedagogical Changes that Can Make a Real Difference in ANY College Classroom”

    This event will be facilitated by Craig Nelson, who was named Outstanding Research and Doctoral University Professor of the Year 2000 by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (See Appendix F on Craig Nelson).  Nelson gives this summary of the session he will conduct here:

    When diversity issues are cast in content-centered ways, many faculty may view them as irrelevant to their own teaching. However, examination of pedagogical practices reveals a need for major changes in nearly all courses. We will examine at least three types of pedagogical changes that can make a real difference in achievement and retention in almost any college or university classroom. Specific topics will include:

    ·        How can I radically reduce or eliminate low grades in lecture courses without lowering standards?

    ·        How can I make my students brighter and harder working using only 1 hour of class time (in ways that level the playing field for all groups)?

    ·        Does my assessment system unfairly and unnecessarily favor particular groups? 

    Bill Cerbin has supported this seminar for the annual event on the Scholarship on Teaching and Learning (SOTL).  Additionally, The Office of Camus Climate has committed $2000 to this 2008 event with the condition that it be followed up with an additional event the following academic year, to which Campus Climate will commit another $2,000.  Sharon Jessee, Deb Hoskins, and Bill Cerbin are making arrangements for Nelson’s workshop, as well as planning some follow-up sessions throughout the next academic year for faculty to continue course development.

    Another area for enhancing opportunities for students and faculty to achieve academic excellence that JMAC has discussed is increasing the availability and visibility of undergraduate research opportunities.  We have done preliminary research into a model program, the Diversity Mentoring Award offered at UW-Eau Claire to low-income and multicultural students. Student recipients receive a $1500 stipend for research working with a mentoring faculty member (who also receives a small stipend).  These grants are separate from UW-EC undergraduate research grants but are evaluated and awarded in the same way as the undergraduate research grants.

    Plans have been formulated to contact the Undergraduate Research Committee (URC) here at UW-L, possibly creating a collaboration between JMAC and the URC in applying for a UW-System “Closing the Achievement Gap” Grant in the next grant cycle, applications for which will be due in Spring, 2009.

    Recommendations:

    1.   The Provost’s Office is supporting the Craig Nelson workshop this coming August; it needs to continue to commit resources to ongoing faculty training in this area of curriculum development.  We believe this can enhance both student and faculty achievement.

    2.   Continue to encourage and provide opportunities to explore other initiatives related to enhancing undergraduates’ experiences of academic disciplines outside the classroom, whether in research opportunities, internships, or service learning programs.  For example, the White Privilege Conference, WPC 11, may be hosted by the greater La Crosse community, which includes UW-L, in the Spring of 2010.  This would be an excellent opportunity for more UW-L faculty to become involved with students.

    3.   Develop annual rewards for staff, as well as faculty and students, who have demonstrated extraordinary commitment to create, develop, and nurture a community in which there is equal access and respect for all individuals regardless of cultural similarities and differences. 
     

    D.  INSTITUTIONAL RECEPTIVITY

     A critical truth in problem solving is that the goal is to solve the problem, not to implement a particular solution.  The discussion of institutional receptivity in JMAC has evolved into the realization that outcomes—what we want our campus culture to be like—are where we should begin our problem-solving and planning.

    The UW-L Equity Scorecard Report states that “Institutional Receptivity” “refers to goals and measures of institutional support that have been found to be influential in the creation of affirming campus environments for historically underrepresented students.” There are some important Scorecard findings to be addressed in the near future with rigorous planning and development.  According to the UW-L Equity Scorecard Team’s Report to the Chancellor:

    “When comparing University of Wisconsin-La Crosse with our peer institutions, equity indicators (UW-L share/Total Share) shows that African American and Hispanic employees are underrepresented or underutilized within the UW-L workforce while Native American and Asian/Pacific Islander employees at UW-L were equitably represented within the workforce.”  However, when the UW-L Equity Scorecard Team investigated the undergraduate student-to-full-time faculty ratios for African American, Hispanic, Native American and Asian students and faculty, all were below equity compared to our peer institutions. The limited number of faculty of color multiplies the responsibilities for those faculty beyond academic scholarship and teaching by adding extended service expectations for advising and mentoring students of color and serving on diversity related committees (UW-L Equity Scorecard Report: IV, Institutional Receptivity, emphases added).

    The Joint Minority Affairs Committee has consulted with Al Thompson, Director of the Office of Affirmative Action and Diversity, on how our campus can address these inequities.  Recommendations from the Affirmative Action Director that can impact these inequities, as well as additional issues, appear at the end of this section.

    Equally important are those measures of institutional receptivity that are “generally less quantitative than in areas of access, retention, and excellence” (UW-L Equity Scorecard Team Report).  JMAC, like other groups on campus, has benefited tremendously from the outstanding efforts and successes of the Resource and Research Center for Campus

    Climate in assessing and addressing the myriad qualitative factors that make up institutional receptivity.   

    While we eagerly await the results of the UW-L Campus Climate Survey, JMAC can make several observations at this time:

    ·        Clearly, more effective coordination among various Key Stakeholders (see Appendix G) remains an issue. Duplication of effort is one area in which improvement has been made as communication between various stakeholders has been improved through retreat opportunities. However, there is still room for improvement.

    ·        Accountability issues continue to arise in the effort to carry through various initiatives. One example: JMAC’s recommendations for improvement of the UW-L Diversity webpage. Progress on that goal was slowed this year by a lack of clear accountability. This has been solved recently, by the agreement between Information Technology and the Office of Affirmative Action and Diversity to have the Diversity webpage administered through the Affirmative Action Office, rather than through IT.

    ·        Awareness through Performance (ATP) is an excellent tool for improving institutional receptivity; faculty and staff as well as students seem, from anecdotal evidence and survey data, to have increased awareness of equity issues at UW-L. Moreover, ATP can continue to play a key role in creating not just awareness but the desire to improve equity on our campus.

    JMAC sees Institutional Receptivity as an integral dynamic of: equitable percentages of multicultural faculty, staff, students, and administrators; campus climate; and educational environment.  Along with the recommendations already made in this report, JMAC also makes the following suggestions to improve this dynamic.

    Recommendations:

    1.   UW-L’s administrative leaders should hold all of the university’s division officers accountable for their commitment to diversity.  The UW-L multicultural students who made their interests known in the open forum of February 21, 2007 to the Equity Scorecard Team said as much:  they called for a “Continuity of leadership – both at the highest level and at the team level” and also for an “expanding expectation of ‘leadership’ to include governance group leaders, deans, dept. chairs, and student leaders” (UW-L Equity Scorecard Team Report).

    2.   In order to facilitate this accountability structure, JMAC should be granted the leadership to request and review feedback reporting from Deans, Directors, and senior administration of efforts each academic year to effect improvement in inequities outlined in the Equity Scorecard Report.

    3.   Diversity Funding Proposal

          Training/Development Coordinator 

    1.  Located within Human Resources and Affirmative Action and Diversity to provide workshops and development opportunities for supervisors, faculty, and staff regarding personnel, employment, workplace communications, and legally mandated training.

                          2.   Staff position dedicated to providing employment support and services to faculty and staff,
                                particularly those from underrepresented groups.

                          Liaison for faculty/staff experiencing difficulties related to campus climate (e.g. a person with a
            newly diagnosed disability finding resources, options for accommodation, etc.).

                      Improving campus climate for faculty and staff (this would include addressing campus climate
             issues that are not specific to an individual’s situation).

                         3.   Increasing the staffing within the Pride Center

            To move toward a Director/Coordinator position within the Pride Center. This would give this
             particular student services the same equity as other diversity student services.

    4.   Universal Design/Curriculum Infusion

    ·        A position (faculty) that would focus on implementing and infusing the concepts of universal design throughout the curriculum and to provide the faculty the tools to design their curriculum with a universal design. It is also important that the position focuses on infusing an inclusive excellence model within the university’s curriculum


    Following Up on the Recommendations and Report

    We believe that several of the recommendations made here can have some measurable impact beginning in the Fall, 2008, semester; for example, charging the Deans of CLS and SAH to put in place an academic mentoring program for multicultural students for the 2008-09 academic year. The Joint Minority Affairs Committee would appreciate the Chancellor’s feedback on the recommendations outlined in this report, and representatives from the committee are willing to meet with the Chancellor over the summer of 2008. 

    Creating, developing, and nurturing a community in which there is equal access and respect for all individuals regardless of cultural similarities and differences has been an evolutionary process at UW-L.  New ideas stem from other ideas, fresh solutions from previous ones, and the new ones are slightly improved over the old ones.  However, incremental improvement is only one of the many ways in which change can occur.  For example, a teacher may ask, how can I make my lectures more effective?  That is an incremental improvement.  However, revolutionary change can also be a very good method of improvement, as when the teacher asks, what could I do other than lecturing to achieve the learning goals I want the class members to achieve?  Perhaps some of the recommendations here seem revolutionary, rather than incremental, but that should not deter us from moving forward with our goals.  Highly visible institutional leadership on diversity can make transformation a real possibility, research shows, and with the support of the Chancellor and other top leaders on campus, we not only can, we will.


    Appendix A:  JMAC Annual Report Recommendations, 2006-07

     The Joint Minority Affairs Committee considers the four areas researched by the Equity Scorecard Team to suggest clear objectives for the future.  We also consider the four areas to be integrally related; for example, “receptivity,” the fourth area of research, depends on the initiatives and actions in the other three areas.  For the purpose of making specific recommendations, however, we have them divided into four sections.

    ACCESS

    ·         Create a position for an additional, experienced recruiter of U.S. minority students in Admissions.  This is also Action Step I, in Goal I in Plan 2008.  A higher salary  is necessary to retain an experienced recruiter

    ·          Increase pre-college/bridge programs, especially locally.  La Crosse District has expressed interest in partnership and other districts are also open and ready for more partnerships   OMSS has had plans but no funding to follow through.  Need to increase in funding.

    ·           Implement the “holistic admissions” recommendations.  Report to the Committee on Academic Policies and Standards (CAPS) as well as other campus units concerning the Equity Scorecard team’s findings: ACT scores are not accurate predictions of retention for students of color.

    ·          Foster further, on-going discussions with administration, enrollment management staff, and admissions regarding the current perceptions off-campus about what it takes to be admitted to UW-L.  Recommend a Public Relations initiative to dispel the notion that one must have very high grades and test scores to be admitted to UW-L.

     RETENTION  

    ·         Recommend to higher administration that all three colleges should be required to immediately implement a faculty mentoring program for freshmen students of color in their majors.  This has been an Action Step under Goal 4 of Plan 2008 for several years.  The academic deans must be accountable for such a program. The CBA can share how their program functions.   Mentoring programs can help address the fact that students of color are not graduating at the same rate as the U-L average.

    ·         Complete the review and assessment of the pilot Diversity Liaison program conducted in Philosophy this year by the end of May, 2007. Recommendations from that assessment must be implemented this coming year.

    ·         Recommend an annual review of what does it take for students of color to succeed at UW-L.  The ongoing review process could be similar to equity scorecard team’s findings.

    ·         Follow-up by JMAC regarding the Action Steps under Recruitment/Retention Goal 4 that are not being addressed/implemented.  These address current retention practices and assessment of same. 

    ·         Recommend that the Chancellor consider an Enrollment Manger position at the Vice-Chancellor level.

     

    EXCELLENCE

    ·         Continue to evaluate recruitment and retention as factors in achieving excellence; recommend (to appropriate units) further investigation and assessment of why students of color  earn lower GPA’s than Caucasian students, even though ACT scores are comparable to those of Caucasian students..

    ·         Publicize the strong level of participation by students of color in internships, clinical programs, and international educational experiences.  These might be used in recruiting.

    ·         Encourage the university Honors Program Director’s plans to work with OMSS to attract students of color. Students of color are underrepresented in both university and departmental honors programs.

    ·          Promote knowledge to all-campus faculty that “success” is not merely determined by a student’s GPA. If the only consideration for appointment or acceptance for programs, awards, or recognitions is a student’s GPA, this may be discriminatory.

     RECEPTIVITY

    ·         Composition of UW-L Employees compared to our 24 peer institutions:

    Design and Implement Recruitment efforts to hire more African Americans in all employee categories.

    Design and implement recruitment efforts to hire Hispanic/Latinos in the non-instructional executives & professionals category and also in the clerical category.

    Address the ratio of Asian/Pacific students to Asian/Pacific full-time faculty.

    ·         NSSE respondents (freshmen and seniors only) from 2003, ’04 & ‘06

    Disseminate information (recommendations?) that diversity in UW-L curriculum   needs to include more Native American and Hispanic/Latino perspectives.

    Kudos to faculty for establishing quality relationships and having out-of-class discussions with UW-L students of color.

    Statistics indicating positive responses to “quality relationships” with other UW-L students should be correlated with open responses, which indicate less than positive evaluations.

    Kudos to Administrative Personnel and Offices for establishing quality relationships with UW-L students of color.

    Kudos to Academic Advising and Academic Assistance efforts for providing support to UW-L students of color  to succeed academically.

     ·         Voices of UW-L students of color about UW-L

     Equity Scorecard results will illustrate to administration, faculty, and staff the specific areas in which they need to improve as well as areas in which they have been doing well.

    We need to understand where we are as a campus and to identify specific strategies for achieving the goals of Plan 2008.

    The entire campus needs to claim responsibility for achieving diversity in faculty and staff as well as students.

    Find the means to increase visibility of equity/lack of equity in the campus and greater La-Crosse communities.


    Appendix B: Admissions Funnel Report

    This report is created by the UW-La Crosse Admissions Office to measure recruitment and admission efforts and trends.

    UW-La Crosse
    Freshmen
    New Minority (Domestic) Students Enrollment Funnels:  Fall 2008 YTD and Goals
    February 15, 2008

    Funnel Stage

    Fall 2006 YTD

    Fall 2007 YTD

    Fall 2008 YTD

    Fall 2008 Goals

    Inquiries

    1668

    1976

    1955

     

    Applications

    336

    361

    527

     

    Acceptances

    254 (-6)

    273 (-11)

    294 (-18)

     

    Deposits

    112 (-2)

    145 (-5)

    157 (-10)

     

    Enrolled

    87

    106

     

     

    Conversion Rate %*

     

    20.14%

     

    18.27%

     

    26.96%

     

    Admit Rate %

    75.60%

    75.62%

    55.79%

     


    UW-La Crosse
    New Multiracial (Domestic) Student Enrollment Funnels:  Fall 2008 YTD and Goals
    February 15, 2008

    Funnel Stage

    Fall 2006 YTD

    Fall 2007 YTD

    Fall 2008 YTD

    Fall 2008 Goals

    Inquiries

     

     

     

     

    Applications

     

     

    135

     

    Acceptances

     

     

    73 (-8)

     

    Deposits

     

     

    39 (-5)

     

    Enrolled

     

     

     

     

    Conversion Rate %*

     

     

     

     

    Admit Rate %

     

     

    54.07%

     

     The number within the parentheses are the number of students who have canceled their file.  For example, New Minority Acceptances is 294 with 18 cancelations, we currently have 276 who are still active.  The numbers on the next page is Multicultural Students in general, with consideration of both groups (above) and taking off the cancellations. 

    * - The figures for Fall 2007 and prior does not include the Multiracial (Domestic) this group distinction was not available at the time.
     

    UW-La Crosse
    Multicultural Student Enrollment Fall 2008 YTD
    February 15, 2008

     

    Fall 2007 YTD

    Fall 2008 YTD

    Inquiries

    1976

    1955

    Applications

    361

    662

    Acceptances

    262

    341

    Deposits

    140

    181

    Enrolled

    106

     

    Conversion Rate %*

    18.27%

     

    Admit Rate %

    75.62%

    54.93%

     

    UW-La Crosse
    First-Year Student Enrollment Funnels:  Fall 2008 YTD and Goals
    February 15, 2008                                             

    Funnel Stage

    Fall 2006 YTD

    Fall 2007 YTD

    Fall 2008 YTD

    Fall 2008 Goals

    Inquiries

    16,518

    17,102

    17,835

     

    Applications

    6547

    6843

    7522

     

    Acceptances

    4196 (-267)

    4132 (-307)

    4131 (-301)

     

    Deposits

    2412 (-110)

    2487 (-128)

    2383 (-120)

     

    Enrolled

    1681

    1719

     

    1750

    Conversion Rate %*

     

    39.64%

     

    40.01%

     

    42.18%

     

    Admit Rate %

    64.09%

    60.38%

    54.92%

     

    Inquiries – Prospective students that have expressed interest in UW-La Crosse.  These students may have expressed interest in various ways (college fairs, campus visits, ACT/SAT scores, application for admission).

    Applications – Prospective students that started the application process.  Students that did not complete the application process are included in this number.

    Acceptances – Total number of applicants offered admission.  The number in parentheses indicates students that have cancelled their admission.  This number may be subtracted from the total to determine the number of students currently admitted.

    Deposits – Total number of admitted student that have submitted the $100 enrollment deposit.  This deposit is refundable until May 1.  The number in parentheses indicates students that have cancelled their admission.  This number may be subtracted from the total to determine the number of students currently deposited.

    Enrolled – Total number of students that enrolled for the term.  This is different than the official enrollment for fall since it does not include summer.  Prior to the registration period, this is a final number.  During the registration period, this is a year-to-date number.

    Conversion Rate – The percentage of inquiries that submitted an application for admission.

    Admit Rate – The percentage of applicants that were admitted.


    Appendix C: College of Business Administration Mentoring Program

     Plan 2008 Phase II Programs & Initiatives

    Outcomes Reporting Form

    January 2007

     Please complete one form for each program/initiative on your campus for which you have demonstrated outcomes for Plan 2008 goals, particularly those that designed to increase enrollments and close gaps in, retention, and/or graduation rates for students of color.   The Plan 2008 goals and Phase II Campus Plans can be found on the OADD website, http://www.uwsa.edu/oadd/plan/index.htm .  Please enter your responses on this electronic form.  There is no text limit on this form.  The Office of Academic Diversity and Development will use this information to compile an interim report on systemwide progress toward achieving the goals of Plan 2008, with particular emphasis on progress to close gaps in enrollments and achievement. The report will be submitted to the Board of Regents in April 2007. Please submit this form to Debbie Dunn ddunn@uwsa.edu by Friday, February 23, 2007 to allow adequate time for the drafting and reviewing of the report. 

     

    Your Institution:                                           

    Program/Initiative:        College of Business Admin. Student Mentor Program      Year Established:       

     Target Audience (check all that apply): 

     Administration:    Faculty: X      Academic Staff:     Classified Staff:     Students: X     Campus Community:

    Other:     If other, please specify:        

     Race/Ethnic Groups Affected by this Program/Initiative (check all that apply):  

     African American/Black: X      American Indian: X      Latino/Hispanic: x      Southeast Asian: X      Other Asian: X     

    European American:      Other:       If other, please specify:        

    Cost of Program/Initiative:                                Funding Sources:       

     Description:       

    Pursuant to a Plan 2008 action item from Phase I, 1999-2003, directing the colleges to establish academic mentor programs for freshmen students of color, the College of Business Administration established its mentor program starting fall 2001.  The program is coordinated through the Dean’s Office. 

    Assigning faculty mentors to all incoming freshmen of color is also part of Phase II as one of three main recommendations to the chancellor, and Goal 4 under Recruitment and Retention.

    Faculty volunteers from the department are assigned to new freshmen students each fall, based on the students’ declared majors.  From 12-15 faculty serve as mentors each year,  in addition to their regular academic advising responsibilities.   Workshops on mentoring training have been conducted each year with the help of the OMSS Director.

                                                                           

                                                    

    Point Person(s):       Amelia Dittman                  Department/Unit(s):       College of Business Administration (CBA)

     Departments/Units/Groups Involved:       

    Faculty from each academic department in the CBA: Accounting, Finance, Economics, Information Systems, Management, Marketing. The Assistant to the Dean.  CBA freshmen of color. 

     Goals & Expected Outcomes: 

    Greater retention and persistence to earning degrees for students of color.  Encouragement of more students of color to earn business majors/degrees, and practice in business careers.

     Actual Measurable Outcomes for Plan 2008 Goals, Including Impact on Enrollment, Retention, and/or Graduation, and/or long term potential thereof.       

    College of Business Administration
    Retention of Freshmen Students of Color

    This table displays students of color who started as freshmen in the CBA and were assigned a faculty mentor for that year.  The retention numbers are for these students, whether they remained as business majors, or not.

    Year

     Fall semester

    # students

    Retained to 2nd year

    Retained to 3rd year

    Retained to 4th year

    Retained to 5th year/graduated

    2001

      14

    13 (92.8%)

    NA

    8 (57.1%)

    3 still here  /5 graduated

    2002

      13

    11 (84.6%)

    10 (76.9%)

    9 (66.6%)

    6 still here / 1 graduated

    2003

      10

     9 (90%)

    NA

    8 (80%)

     

    2004

      21

    14 (66.6%)

    12 (57%)

     

     

    2005

      16

    12 (75%)

     

     

     

    2006

      21

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     Intersections Across Plan 2008 Goals:       This effort works toward student recruitment and retention.  It meets one of three main recommendations to the Chancellor in 2004 by the Joint Minority Affairs Committee.  And,  the mentor program addresses the following Goals and Action Steps in UW-L’s Plan 2008: Phase II, specifically Recruitment and Retention Goal 4, Action Step 1.

     Assessment Practices and Program Changes in Response to Challenges:       Biggest challenge is getting more students to respond to the program and initiatives made by the faculty mentors.  We explore new ideas to increase that each year, among the mentors, former mentors and mentees, and Office of Multicultural Student Services.

    Prepared by:       Amelia Dittman                     Contact Info:       dittman.amel@uwlax.edu

     

     

    Appendix D:  A Proposal in Response to Equity Scorecard Findings on Grades and Retention:

    A Collaborative Learning Center with a Facilitator Training Program

    From the Faculty Seminar on Teaching for Diversity

    (Deb Hoskins)

     

    Goal and Rationale: 
    We propose that UW-L centralize its current tutoring programs into a single center, overseen by a coordinator who monitors student needs and facilitator schedules, and either provides or coordinates ongoing training for the students hired to facilitate subject-specific study groups (i.e., tutors).  Research indicates that carefully constructed collaborative study groups serve students of color more effectively than solitary study or more traditional tutoring programs. The tutoring model itself can trigger stereotypes in dominant-group students, making it more difficult for students of color to use them.  Moreover, although UW-L supports several tutoring programs in various units and departments, few of those programs provide more than cursory training on any aspect of working with peers.  A collaborative learning center with trained facilitators would better serve all students.

    Space:

     

    The Math Department uses a room in Whitney next to the sub shop;  only about half of that room is in use by Math tutors.  We will check out that space to see if it might be feasible.  Adequacy will depend on how many tutors/programs UW-L has.  Math, Biology, Chemistry, Modern Languages, OMSS, and Student Support Services all operate tutoring programs.  How many others exist?

    Structure of the Center and Training Program:

    Departments that currently select their own tutors would continue to do, since those faculty are best able to gauge a prospective facilitator’s level of skill and knowledge.

    Facilitator trainers would be selected by the Director of the School of Education or other appropriate person.  Or the training itself could be part of the Coordinator’s job.

    The Center will need a coordinator who maintains or monitors facilitators’ work hours and schedules, organizes the space, organizes and coordinates the training program, and assesses both the facilitators and the training program. 

    The Center Coordinator would work with the facilitator trainers to create the training program and select texts and other readings. 

    Training:


    Specific skills should include teaching skills (ie, don’t work the math problem for the tutee!), group processes, and the development of Treismanesque study groups in key courses.  The latter would be the goal of the center and the facilitator training program.

    We anticipate a semester-long program, meeting every other week, so that facilitators have the chance to develop and consolidate new skills in active collaborative learning relationships and to discuss any issues that arise in their work. 

    Funding:

    Questions:  do the various units that currently hire tutors want to continue to control the funding for their pay, or would that work better if it were centralized?  Can the funding source and the hiring process be separated, if that’s what works better?  Do the facilitator trainers get paid, and if so, where will that funding come from?

    FIPSE might fund this, especially if we fold in other tutoring programs in which we place UW-L students in K-12 schools (ie, Logan Middle School, the Boys and Girls Club).  If the proposal emphasizes STEM programs and diversity, FIPSE might (eventually) fund it. 

    Funding request would include the salary of the Center coordinator, books and supplies for facilitators, computers and other equipment the Center might need in order to take advantage of technologies such as D2L and those being developed by Bob Hoar’s Institute,

    Should it also include wages for facilitators?

    Initial funding might need to be internal. 
     

    Institutional Support:
     

    The Center and Facilitator Training Program should be housed under the Provost’s office.


    Appendix E:  Building Collaboration between Faculty and Multicultural Students (OPID/IRE Diversity Symposium at UW-Milwaukee April 17, 2008.  Charles Martin-Stanley, Deb Hoskins, Barbara Stewart and Sharon Jessee)

     Faculty Need to:

    • Realize that academic support for multicultural students cannot be solely left up to the Office of Multicultural Student Services
    • Become involved in university sponsored retention programs, such as faculty\student collaborative research opportunities and mentoring programs emphasizing out-of-classroom experiences
    • Educate themselves as to perceptions of them by students of color: that faculty often have low expectations of them; faculty assume students are experts on their cultural differences; faculty do nothing to improve classroom practices serve to make relations with their white peers difficult; faculty seem uncomfortable or afraid of them; that out-of-class interactions with faculty are nearly non-existent, and when made available, are often strained; faculty do not use a variety of pedagogical techniques in classrooms in order to respond to different learning styles
    • Realize that students’ intellectual self-concept will likely be enhanced if a socially complex and an active learning environment exists.

     Deans need to:

    • Create opportunities for college-wide discussions on diversity issues in both formal and informal settings
    • Provide rewards and recognition for faculty who are infusing diversity content into their courses
    • Provide support to departments and programs that are addressing diversity
    • Create and support academic mentoring programs
    • Create consensus across departments that diversity goals are achievable
    • Investigate and work to improve departmental climates that hinder progress in creating an inclusive academic community and curriculum
    • Identify department-level practices and policies which hinder change

     Departments need to:  

    • Monitor that the learning experiences included in departments’ missions and curricula reflect a broad range of cultural orientations
    • Reflect on best teaching practices for a diverse population
    • Embrace educational changes which can allow the research and teaching interests of junior faculty to flourish
    • Appoint a Diversity Liaison for the department (the Chair or other dept. member) who can collect and disseminate information relating to campus climate and equity issues
       

    The Institution needs to:

    • Really hear and understand the voices of the students in regard to what is best practice.
    • Don’t reinvent the wheel (you have plenty of plans on shelves all over campus – use them), but do be realistic;  empower the planners to actually DO what they think needs to be done (don’t create committees to “recommend” or “advise” institutional leaders – find ways to empower them to DO the job); and involve everyone
    • Change the institution, not just the students.  Change has to occur from a paradigmatic perspective, not just changing programs, or people. Through this paradigm shift, hopefully heart and minds will embrace change, not just tolerate it
    • Mentoring programs that work well on larger and/or more diverse campuses (liaison programs, mentoring programs) have not worked as well on our smaller and/or racially homogeneous campus.  Institutions would be well-served to review best practices and pilot a model to see what works best for their campus~The HBCU model of close relationships between faculty and
    • The HBCU model of close relationships between faculty and students don’t exist at many PWIs (Barker).  Research indicates that students seek same-race mentors (Barker) who are rarer at PWIs, and that cultural differences between HBCUs and PWIs mean that academically authentic relationships may not develop until junior or senior year.
    • Assess, assess, assess.  Not all diversity initiatives develop from data, but they should at least produce some.  Willingness to experiment is important, but assessment needs to ask WHY something did or didn’t work, not simple whether it did.  Assessment matters to the leadership role we need from chancellors, provosts, deans, Chairs and Directors too. 


 

Appendix  F:  “Achievement, Equity and Retention: Three Pedagogical Changes that Can Make a Real Difference in ANY College Classroom” (August 26, 2008 Workshop)

Craig E. Nelson is Professor Emeritus of Biology at Indiana University (IU) in Bloomington, where he has been since 1966. His biological research has been on evolution and ecology. In addition to several courses in biology, he taught intensive freshman seminars, great books and other honors courses, several collaboratively-taught interdisciplinary courses, and regularly taught a graduate course on "Alternative Approaches to Teaching College Biology." His articles on teaching address critical thinking and mature valuing, diversity, active learning, teaching evolution, and the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL). He has presented numerous invited workshops on these and related topics. He was founding Director of Environmental Programs in IU's School of Public and Environmental Affairs and instrumental in the development of IU's award-winning SoTL program (www.indiana.edu/~sotl/). He has received several awards for distinguished teaching from IU, including the President's Medal for Excellence, "the highest honor bestowed by Indiana University," in 2001, as well as nationally competitive awards from Vanderbilt and Northwestern. He has been a Carnegie Scholar since 2000, and was named the Outstanding Research and Doctoral University Professor of the Year 2000 by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education (CASE). He retired from teaching in 2004. In 2005-06, he was the founding President of the new International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. He has been a presenter at four previous sessions of our Faculty College.

Appendix G