Transcript The LSU English Department: - Louisiana State University

Instructor Teaching Impact
University Writing Program

150 sections of required writing courses per semester, taught by Instructors and GTAs

33 Instructors– 132 sections of teaching power per semester

Spring 2010: 205 students on the waiting lists for the two required writing courses

Results of any substantial loss of Instructor teaching power:
o Delay of first required writing course, required for admission to senior colleges,
until the sophomore year
o Delay of entry into senior colleges
o Delay of the second required writing course until the junior or senior year
o Delay of graduation
o Reduced retention rates

Comprehensive Academic Tracking System—suspended?
English-as-a-Second-Language Program

LSU requires all international students to enroll in required ESL writing
courses in their first year.

By state law, international graduate students must take a spoken ESL course
before they are allowed to teach or staff lab sections, unless they are exempted
by an oral interview.

Results of loss of Instructor (6) teaching power (19 sections per semester):
o Reduction of required courses for international graduate students
o Reduction in international graduate student teaching power
o Further delays in graduate and undergraduate student graduation
o Reduction of retention rates for international graduate students
o Failure to comply with state law
General Education Program
State of Louisiana Board of Regents: Academic Affairs Policy 2.16
•
Statewide General Education requirements, including 6 hours of English
composition
LSU General Catalogue: General Education Requirements
•
Students must complete the 39-hour general education requirement prior
to graduating from LSU.
•
It is recommenced that students complete the requirement during their first
four semesters at the University.
SACS “Principles of Accreditation:
Foundations for Quality Enhancement”
Accreditation by the Commission on Colleges signifies that the institution
• has a mission appropriate to higher education,
• has resources, programs, and services sufficient to accomplish and sustain that
mission . . . .
Core Requirements [include]
• 2.7.3--In each undergraduate degree program, the institution requires the successful
completion of a general education component at the collegiate level that (1) is a
substantial component of each undergraduate degree, (2) ensures breadth of
knowledge, and (3) is based on a coherent rationale.
•
2.8--The number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of
the institution and to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs.
•
2.12--The . . . Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) . . . demonstrates institutional
capability for the initiation, implementation, and completion of the QEP.
LSU Quality Enhancement Plan 2004
Surveys and Assessments:
•
Findings [from The National Survey of Student Engagement 2003], supported by other
institutional student survey data, underscore the need to improve undergraduate education at
LSU with particular emphasis on the 1st-year.
Proposed Actions to Improve Undergraduate Learning Outcomes:
•
1st-year initiative—Service Learning, Residential Colleges, etc.
Undergraduate Program Outcomes:
•
The LSU student population will be highly competitive with peers (. . . freshman-to sophomore
retention rate 88-90%, 5-year graduation rate of 55%, 6-year graduation rate of 64%).
•
The percentage of enrolled transfer students will double . . . .
•
Students will satisfy key learning outcomes of being able to communicate ideas and
information; plan, organize and evaluate projects; work in teams and with diverse populations
and constituencies; apply mathematical concepts and problem solving techniques; and use
technology appropriate to their fields.
Instructor Impact on Implementing the QEP
A substantial loss of Instructor teaching power would mean that

LSU would not have “the number of full-time faculty members . . . adequate to support
the mission of the institution and to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic
programs”—especially the General Education and the ESL Programs (“Principles of
Accreditation.”)

Students would not be able to complete their General Education requirements in four
semesters (LSU General Catalogue).

LSU could not comply with the specific commitments made in the QEP:
o The First-Year Initiative will be compromised.
o LSU will attract fewer, not more transfer students.
o LSU’s current retention rate (freshman to sophomore, 83.6%) and graduation rate
(5-year, 53.8%, 6-year, 60.7%) will decline even further--thereby putting the QEP
goals out of reach: “freshman-to sophomore retention rate 88-90%, 5-year
graduation rate of 55%, 6-year graduation rate of 64%.”
Report of the SACS Reaffirmation Committee, 2004 draft
Part II. C. Assessment of Compliance with the Comprehensive Standards
 [Non-compliance in 3 areas, one of which focuses on the General Education core—
identifying competencies and providing evidence that graduates have attained those
competencies]
Part III. B.2.d.
 It is unclear whether the institution has the financial and physical resources to sustain
the QEP. . . . The QEP identifies the sources from which it expects to receive funding,
e.g. increased allocations from the state, student academic excellence fees . . . . Some
sources of funding seem reliable, whereas others appear to depend on many factors that
are not within the University’s control or power to predict.
Part III. C.
 Because LSU, like most public universities, is subject to fluctuations in the state’s
economy and relies heavily on state support, the committee recommends that LSU
prioritize its goals and identify internal and external sources of support for each of the
major action steps.
Conclusions

The required fifth-year report to the SACS Commission on
Colleges, due February 2010, must document
improvements, not declines, in our General Education
Program.

Because of its importance to our accreditation, LSU should
place a high priority on its General Education Program,
largely taught by Instructors, as it prioritizes funding.