Questions about the Plan 2008 Implementation Plan

Presented to the UW-Madison Plan 2008 Steering Committee, November, 1998

Recruitment

Recruitment is an essential element of any diversity plan. Apparently, the UW-Madison’s Minority Undergraduate Recruitment Strategic Plan (May, 1997) constitutes an important component of what will be recommended. That document seems to be well conceived, and comes with a statement of vision, mission, and process, four strategic directives, activity, responsibility, and timeline charts, plus a series of data charts. While this may be the nature of strategic plans, the campus deserves something considerably more specific that what this document provides. For example, the strategic directives are stated in such general terms that they carry little meaning. The document lists a large number of specific recruitment programs or activities but does not elaborate them. How big will these programs be? How will they operate? What is the likelihood that these programs and activities will produce the various outcomes that are listed? What evidence is available to indicate that these programs and activities are capable of doing the job?

Accountability

While the document does not mention accountability specifically, it is implicit in the activity, responsibility, and timeline charts. Will there be any way to determine after some appropriate time whether success has been achieved in producing the various products and outcomes mentioned in the report. Unfortunately, the document offers no definition of accountability. Various point persons are named; so also are the participants involved in the various strategic directives. How will these people be accountable? Will full responsibility for success or failure rest on the shoulders of the two point persons? Or, will responsibility be shared with the other “participants”? If so, how will this sharing work?

These questions need to be asked because previous diversity plans have listed various programs, the names of responsible administrators, and timelines or completion dates. The original The Madison Plan (1988) contains such a list; so also does The Madison Plan Three Years Later (January 1991). For example, the Madison Plan lists 9 names, with that of then Chancellor Shalala heading the list. The followup Madison Plan Three Years Later lists 22 names. Were any of these people ever held accountable for any of these programs? In view of the persistence of large gaps in undergraduate enrollment, retention, and graduation rates, it would appear that ample opportunities existed for assessing and imposing accountability. If there was no exercise of accountability, does this mean that the language of accountability is meaningless? But, now, looking ahead, does the listing of point persons for each of the directives and the participants involved in each of the directives relating to recruitment mean anything? How will these people be held accountable in the year 2008? Of course, most of them will no longer be in their present positions and thus will escape judgment even if judgment were to be imposed. So, what does accountability mean for UW-Madison’s implementation of Plan 2008? Finally, how does the content of the Strategic Plan for Recruitment fit with Plan 2008’s Goal #7 which is to: “Improve accountability of the UW System and its institutions.” What specific information must be added to the Committee’s recommendations so as to give meaning to Plan 2008’s accountability goal?

The strategic plan is described as focusing on retention. What kind of guidance can the Steering Committee take from the Plan 2008’s recruitment Goal #1 which reads: “Increase the number of Wisconsin high school graduates of color who apply, are accepted, and enroll at UW System institutions.” What does that goal mean? Will any increase be described as indicating success? Will an increase of even one more minority student be called a success? 10 more students? 100 more students? 1000 more students? With Plan 2008’s vague language, how will anyone know whether that goal is reached or is not reached because of more and better recruitment programs? Even if there are no changes in the academic achievement of targeted minorities, the numbers of them applying to, being accepted at, and enrolling in the UW-Madison is almost certain to increase, if for no other reason that the big increase in college-age young people expected over the next decade. By how much will these numbers have to increase so that the key people involved can be held accountable, i.e., either praised and rewarded for their good work, or penalized in appropriate ways for not performing adequately?

Precollege Recruitment Programs

No significant attention is given to precollege programs in the Strategic Plan, but the issue has been discussed by the Working Groups. Again, much is made of the success of UW-Madison’s precollege programs. These programs date back to at least former Chancellor Shalala’s Madison Plan which began in 1988 and were continued under the 1994 Madison Commitment; these programs were also an important element in the Board of Regents’ Design for Diversity Program covering the period 1988-1998. These precollege programs are slated for even greater emphasis under the new UW System Plan 2008.

How successful are the precollege programs that have been in operation? When they are described as “successful,” what definition of success is being used? What evidence is available to document the success of these programs? Without hard evidence on the success of past programs, how can the Steering Committee know whether and how strongly to recommend an expansion of pre-college programs? What particular form should these programs take if they are to be expanded? What outcomes should be sought? To whom should these programs be directed?

What kinds of information are required to even begin to understand the effectiveness of these programs? It is essential to know for each year how many high school students participated. In addition, how many of these students were disadvantaged and how many were the sons and daughters of upper and middle class families who would very likely have gone to college anyway? How much does the program cost per student? Did the effectiveness of different programs vary? If so, how? It is also important to find out how many participants later attended college, and what colleges they attended; how many attended the UW-Madison, other UW System campuses, private-independent colleges in Wisconsin and elsewhere, other public colleges and universities in other states, and particularly the historically black institutions? Finally, how many of these participants would probably not have attended college had they not participated in these programs? In short, what is the evidence that precollege programs worked to increase college attendance rates for minorities versus simply pushing up the attendance rate at UW-Madison?

A compilation of data that might take the form of Table A (below) would be helpful in presenting the above information. Is information available to fill out this table? If not, can it be assembled? How much time will be required to assemble this information? What other information is available about the impact of these programs? Finally, who was to be accountable for assembling evidence on the success of precollege programs under The Madison Plan (1988) and later The Madison Commitment (1993), and also under the UW System Design for Diversity program?

The Working Group’s report of 11/17/98 on undergraduate recruitment and retention offers a long list of recommendations but without any evidence as to their possible effectiveness. Most of these recommendations have appeared again and again in previous UW-Madison plans to increase diversity. What would lead a skeptical reader to believe that these new efforts will be any more effective than similar efforts in the past?

Retention

The UW-Madison Minority Undergraduate Retention Strategic Plan (October 1998) has apparently served to trigger discussion about recommendations for the Plan 2008 response. Four recommendations are developed in that report, and they are discussed below in varying detail.

Mandatory Freshman Diversity Course

The first recommendation for improving the campus climate to enhance retention calls for a “mandatory, for-credit, Freshman Orientation Course that would provide a broad range of critically needed information, skills and curricula designed to foster awareness and sensitivity to issues of race and diversity. This recommendation, which deserves careful study, seems to fit more appropriately with the Plan 2008 Goal #6: “Foster institutional environments and course developments that enhance learning and respect for racial and ethnic diversity.” Whether and how much a mandatory course will increase retention is not made clear. If this course which everyone will be required to take is designed principally to increase retention for the less than 10 percent minority population, this requirement may be an example of overkill. If it is designed to indoctrinate (“foster awareness and sensitivity”) nonminority students, then one must question the appropriateness of such a course at UW-Madison.

With respect to retention, is there any evidence that such a course would increase retention? If it would, by how much might retention increase, for minorities and also for nonminorities? Which minority groups would be most affected? Aside from this issue, what would be the content of such a course? Who would teach the course and its many sections? How would students be evaluated and graded? Would the gains in retention, awareness, and sensitivity be sufficient to offset the costs of requiring this course for every freshman? How would this new requirement affect the undergraduate curriculum, given that several years ago the campus introduced a new one-year sequence of courses to meet the new Communications Requirement and another course to meet the new Quantitative course requirement? Will the addition of this new mandatory course reduce student choice and flexibility, and in turn contribute to lengthening the time to degree completion? Obviously, many questions need to be answered before this recommendation is adopted for presentation to the campus.

Academic Support

The Summer Collegiate Experience (SCE) program is described as having been “successful” and as a result, it should be expanded to accommodate more minority freshmen. What is the meaning of “successful”? What evidence is available about the effectiveness of this program? How has the program been effective in enhancing retention? Does this program serve only those disadvantaged minorities who may be in most need of academic support? Or does it serve all minorities, regardless of their “need” for such a program. The same questions asked about precollege programs could be asked about the SCE program.

Mentoring and Building Community

Various suggestions on these two topics are offered in the Strategic Plan but again, it is light on details; moreover, no assurances are offered that these program can or will work. Considerable emphasis is put on mentoring. Exactly how effective are mentoring programs? What factors determine their success? The Working Group on Undergraduate Student Issues advocates a system of personal advisers, based on the Athletic Department model. With the resources available to the Athletic Department and the high stakes involved, the existence and likely success of such a program is assumed. How transferable such a model will be to non-athletes is not clear. Perhaps it will work. The question remains: how will we know how well it works, aside from the fact that advisers made be appointed and students are indeed tracked? How big an improvement in second-year retention rates can be expected after two years, four year, six years, etc?

Ethnic Studies

The Working Group on Curriculum recommends the expansion and strengthening of the now decade-long ethnic studies requirement. How well does the existing ethnic studies requirement serve the goal of diversity? What do we know about the effectiveness of this requirement? Has any study been made of its effectiveness? Before expanding this program, some evidence is needed as to the requirement’s benefits.

Table B (below) is also included. It shows constant dollar expenditures on diversity by UW System and UW-Madison over the past decade.

Summary

Based on my observations at the 17 November meeting of the full Steering Committee, I was impressed by the great many issues that remain to be resolved, and that resolution of these issues will require gained agreement on a wide array of proposed recommendations. It was not at all clear that with the press of time there can be any real exploration of the feasibility, potential effectiveness, or cost of these various programs. Without such information, the Steering Committee’s recommendations will almost certainly resemble those of previous reports that usually offer enthusiastic endorsement of rehashed proposals, augmented by some new ones. The Steering Committee must bolster its recommendations so they will be more persuasive. If not, the campus groups to whom its report goes will not be equipped to give these recommendations the careful consideration they deserve. Nor will there be any appreciable advance in the University’s overall effort to promote diversity.