Site
Index



Summer School Task Force Report

April 15, 2003



Task Force Members: Richard A. Saudargas, Chair; Monique Anderson; Don Cox; Denise Barlow; Carolyn Hodges; Kathy Warden; Anne Mayhew (ex-officio)


The summer school task force was appointed to consider several questions related to the governance of summer school. The Task Force arose from the Ad Hoc committee on Summer and Mini-terms that resulted in several recommendations. The Task Force examined several pieces of information including the summer school budget for 2002, student credit hours, student enrollments, courses offered, and class sizes. The enrollment data were examined for the last five years. The Task Force queried comparable universities about their summer school policies. The Task Force also asked department heads about priorities for summer school assignments and whether their department could offer additional courses.

The questions the Summer School Task Force considered were:

1. What financial arrangements should govern Summer School?
The Task Force believed that this question was asked because the Ad Hoc Committee had recommended a university wide salary cap of $6000 for an individual summer school course taught. Such a university wide salary cap had not been instituted before at this university and the recommendation engendered some discussion within the university. One purpose of the salary cap was to discourage senior faculty from teaching one summer course to a few students so that funds would be available to offer additional courses and allow, when appropriate, GTAs and junior faculty to teach both for the teaching experience and as an income supplement. In order to answer this question the Task Force examined income and expenditures for the summer 2002 session. By simply subtracting salary expenditures from tuition income it would appear that the university makes a substantial profit from the operation of summer school; indeed, the Task Force is aware that summer school is viewed by some faculty as a "cash cow" for the university. However, when overhead expenditures are factored into the budget, summer school is not the "cash cow" that some believe it to be (Attachment A Summer 2002 Income and Expenditures). The Task Force also polled comparable universities about their financial management of summer school teaching programs. Other universities have summer school salary caps with one being very explicit that the purpose of the salary cap was to discourage senior faculty from teaching in the summer. One university also uses cost per student credit hour as a standard metric for comparing instructional costs across departments as a way of tracking costs.

Recommendations on Summer School Financial Arrangements:
  1. Each college has a summer school direct teaching budget based on the total eligible Student Credit Hours generated in that college. Faculty salaries are calculated at one-ninth full-time salary for a three-hour course (or one-twenty-seventh full-time salary per course hour) or equal to a standard course stipend subject to departmental policy. The salary for any one three-hour course should be capped at $7000 which would be reached when a salary is $63,000. Exceptions to the summer school salary cap may be made by Deans with permission of the Provost, subject to the college's summer school direct teaching budget. Banking of release time in lieu of salary is also an option for faculty (see Faculty Handbook section 2.9).
  2. For GTAs a standard course stipend should be used.
  3. All summer salary teaching costs need to be specifically assigned to a departmental unit. Currently, some summer instructional salaries are subsumed under a college's administrative cost.

2. Should we seek to expand enrollments in summer school?
This question included several sub questions that required answers if the main question was answered affirmatively. If the question was answered negatively, then the sub questions became moot. In order to answer the question of whether the university should seek to expand summer enrollments, the Task Force looked at student enrollment and credit hour data by college and department from 1998-2002 in order to assess enrollment trends.
Undergraduate Enrollments (1998-2002). For the most part, enrollment has been fairly stable within colleges across the 5 years from 1998-2002. The College of Engineering was the only college to show a decreasing trend in enrollment, and the Colleges of Business and Communications showed increasing enrollment trends (Attachment B: Undergraduate Enrollment 1998-2002). Student enrollment by year in school (i.e. freshman sophomore, junior, senior) was striking in that in each college over half of the summer school students were seniors (>90 hours). The second highest group were sophomores (31-59 hours) followed by juniors (60-89 hours) and freshmen (1-30 hours) (Attachment C: Enrollment by Class 1998-2002).

Graduate Enrollment (1998-2002). Graduate enrollments from 1998-2002 were marked by more variability than undergraduate enrollments (Attachment D Graduate Enrollments 1998-2002). Arts and Sciences and Human Ecology had notable declines in enrollments. Engineering graduate enrollments declined from 1998-2001 but increased substantially in 2002. The Colleges of Business, Nursing, and Social Work all had enrollment increases. For Nursing and Social Work these were five year trends, but for Business, the substantial increases in enrollment occurred in the last two years.

Individual Course Enrollments. Summer 2002 enrollment data showed a large percentage of individual courses with below the recommended minimums at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Forty-four percent of undergraduate classes were below the recommended minimum of 15 students and forty-four percent of graduate classes were below the recommended minimum of 9 students.

Department Head Questionnaire. A brief questionnaire was sent to university department heads asking them to rate the importance of their decisions on which summer school courses to offer. (Attachment E: Department Head Questionnaire) We also asked if their department would or could offer additional summer school courses given the other responsibilities of faculty, such as research. Fifty department heads of 62 mailed returned the questionnaire. The majority of department heads indicated the budget was the most important consideration in deciding on summer school courses, closely followed by undergraduate program needs and anticipated enrollment. Department heads indicated very modest support for offering additional summer school courses with twelve of the department heads from across campus indicating they could offer more summer courses. Reasons for offering additional summer courses were to meet both undergraduate and graduate needs. Reasons given for not offering more summer courses were that the current summer offerings were sufficient, little faculty interest, the department traditionally did not offer summer courses, and lack of student demand.


Recommendations on Summer School Course Offerings:
  1. Given undergraduate and graduate the enrollment data and the department head comments, there seems to be no compelling reason to recommend expanding overall summer course offerings at the university level.
  2. Departments should give scheduling priority to courses that meet college and/or major requirements. It would be ideal if course offerings met both a college and a major requirement. Such offerings will typically be upper-division courses but would also include language courses, courses for which the demand is not usually met in the regular term, and courses that address the needs of particular groups for example, high school teachers, students seeking study abroad and graduate courses.
  3. Second priority should be given to scheduling courses that meet prerequisites to more advanced courses or a major; these courses will likely be lower division courses.
  4. The last priority should be given to scheduling courses that do not meet guidelines 1 and 2. These might be courses that often fall under the special topic rubric.
  5. Individual colleges need to examine their enrollment patterns and address questions about summer enrollments. While there are certainly overlaps among colleges regarding course requirements, individual colleges serve different students with different interests and agendas for attending or not attending summer school.
  6. All summer school courses should meet minimum enrollment requirements of 15 students for lower division classes, 12 students for upper division classes, and 9 students for graduate classes.
  7. GTAs should be given first priority to teach lower division courses. Some advanced graduate students with teaching experience could teach at the 300-level. In both cases, quality of instruction needs to be monitored in some fashion. However, professorial faculty, and, in response to special needs, non-tenure track faculty with credentials equal to those of the professorial faculty should teach 400-level courses.
  8. Departments should have a plan for rotation of Summer Session (including Mini session) courses among faculty. Teaching Summer Session (including Mini session) courses should be voluntary but should not be considered an automatic or inherited privilege for those who wish it. Department Heads should take an active role in making Summer Session assignments and should consider annual faculty evaluations in making these assignments. Departments should carefully consider the rotation or frequency of course offerings using the guidelines given above.
  9. Since the mini term and summer term have been administratively combined, faculty should teach no more than six hours in the combined mini term and summer school and no more than three hours in the mini term. (see Faculty Handbook on Summer Term Employment and Compensation section 2.8).


Attachments
  1. Summer 2002 Income and Expenditures
  2. Undergraduate Enrollment 1998-2002
  3. Enrollment by Class 1998-2002
  4. Graduate Enrollments 1998-2002
  5. Department Head Questionnaire



Attachment A

                     Educational and General Fund (E&G) Expenditures

                             And Revenues for May, June, & July 2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure Function

 

 

 

 

 

    Academic Support

 

 

 

$10,152,644

 

    Institutional Support

 

 

 

2,765,960

 

    Instruction

 

 

 

38,213,721

*

    Operation and Maintenance

 

 

11,727,104

 

    Other Expenditures

 

 

 

1,550,408

 

    Public Service

 

 

 

3,643,784

 

    Research

 

 

 

3,990,701

 

    Scholarships & Fellowships

 

 

2,465,883

 

    Student Services

 

 

 

3,467,443

 

        Total Expenditures

 

 

 

$77,977,648

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Less: 9 month academic salaries (incl benefits)

 

(21,720,484)

*

 

 

 

 

 

 

       May, June, & July Net Expenditures

 

$56,257,164

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Total Summer School Direct Pay

 

 

3,265,152

 

     Total Net Expenditures

 

 

 

 

$59,522,316

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summer Income

 

 

 

 

 

    F&A Charges May, June, & July 2002

 

$4,638,168

 

    Prorate State Appropriations

 

 

40,326,800

 

    Summer School Fee Income

 

 

12,070,046

 

     Total Income Summer

 

 

 

 

$57,035,014

 

 

 

 

 

 

      Net Expenditures Over Revenues for Summer 2002

 

($2,487,302)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Instruction expenditure function includes the salaries and operating for academic units.

 The 9 month salaries in the academic units are deducted after Total Expenditures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 




 

 


UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT ENROLLMENT                         Attachment C

 

 

 

 

 

COLLEGE

 

 

 

 

 

AGRICULTURE

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

19

47

32

121

219

1999

12

50

36

120

218

2000

9

50

23

110

192

2001

11

41

24

105

181

2002

12

42

17

100

171

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARCHITECTURE

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

11

31

12

37

91

1999

4

36

23

37

100

2000

4

26

21

35

86

2001

5

34

15

40

94

2002

4

20

11

35

70

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARTS AND SCIENCES

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

115

532

271

1172

2090

1999

86

524

261

1181

2052

2000

95

489

262

1097

1943

2001

111

528

251

1190

2080

2002

95

551

249

1226

2121

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUSINESS ADM

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

71

221

138

433

863

1999

54

257

156

477

944

2000

59

227

153

472

911

2001

49

233

138

485

905

2002

61

266

153

533

1013

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMUNICATION

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

17

134

43

208

402

1999

19

116

50

200

385

2000

18

109

63

233

423

2001

22

121

51

244

438

2002

24

134

59

273

490

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDUCATION

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

18

86

34

169

307

1999

31

55

45

196

327

2000

20

86

46

187

339

2001

15

80

38

188

321

2002

14

85

42

153

294

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ENGINEERING

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

34

136

88

307

565

1999

48

127

111

289

575

2000

33

120

83

272

508

2001

43

110

54

257

464

2002

27

112

67

207

413

HUMAN ECOLOGY

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

16

160

67

324

567

1999

14

138

72

338

562

2000

10

164

58

323

555

2001

17

126

56

350

549

2002

10

141

52

354

557

 

 

 

 

 

 

INFORM SCIENCES

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

 

 

 

 

 

1999

 

 

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

 

 

2002

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NURSING

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

16

57

44

58

175

1999

10

50

29

42

131

2000

7

43

25

40

115

2001

11

45

29

55

140

2002

18

49

31

80

178

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOCIAL WORK

FRESHMAN

SOPHOMORE

JUNIOR

SENIOR

TOTAL

1998

5

17

5

24

51

1999

5

10

9

28

52

2000

1

19

10

12

42

2001

1

11

5

20

37

2002

3

12

4

18

37



 



Attachment E
Memo
To: Department Heads

From: Richard Saudargas, Chair, Summer School Task Force

Re: Summer School Course Questionnaire
The Provost and Faculty Senate assembled a Summer School Task force to examine several questions related to the operation of summer school. One question is whether summer school course offerings should be expanded. In order to help us answer that question we would like you to answer a question about how you make decisions about what courses your department offers during summer school.

Please rate each of the following items on its importance when you decide whether to offer a summer course.

 

Very                                                                Not at All

Important                   Important                   Important      

       5                  4               3                   2                     1

 

 

______  Faculty Preference

______  Summer Budget

______  Anticipated Course Enrollment

______  Course was not offered during the regular academic year

______  Specific graduate program Need

______  Specific undergraduate program need

______  Part time student needs (e.g. teacher continuing education for certification)

______  Other (please specify)



If money were available and taking into account other faculty responsibilities such as research, would you want your department to offer more summer courses? If so, how many?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your Department:___________________________________________

Please Return by March 10 to:

Richard Saudargas

Psychology Department




Senate Directory
   Officers
   Committees
   Members
Governing Documents
   Senate Bylaws
   Faculty Handbook
   Tenure Policy
Search

Reports
Calendar

Archives
Resources

Senate Home


To offer suggestions or comments about this web site, please click here.