Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Unclassified 1 Directorate for Joint Force Development (J-7), The Joint Staff Dr. Jerry West, JS J7 JEB Education Advisor Student to Faculty Ratio Study.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Unclassified 1 Directorate for Joint Force Development (J-7), The Joint Staff Dr. Jerry West, JS J7 JEB Education Advisor Student to Faculty Ratio Study."— Presentation transcript:

1 Unclassified 1 Directorate for Joint Force Development (J-7), The Joint Staff Dr. Jerry West, JS J7 JEB Education Advisor Student to Faculty Ratio Study 8 February 2012 (Draft Briefing)

2 Unclassified 2 Purpose –Respond to DJS request for rationale for OPMEP S/F Ratio Standard –Present recommendations for further study BLUF: –No changes recommended in the OPMEP S/F Ratio Introduction

3 Unclassified 3 Background Historic Rationale: Congressman Ike Skelton Panel Recommendation: Skelton Report, 1989 “…Small group seminar method used at the service and joint colleges warrants a relatively low student/faculty ratio overall ranging between 3 and 4 to 1 with the lower ratios at the senior schools… “… the SECDEF, with the advice of the Chairman, JCS, should assure comparability of the joint and service school student/faculty ratios.

4 Unclassified 4 External View – US News and World Report Rankings OPMEP student-to-faculty ratio standard cannot be modeled after top tier US Graduate Schools. Formula Weighting Value VariablesWeights Faculty resources for 2010-2011 academic year 20% Faculty compensation 35% Percent faculty with top terminal degree in their field 15% Percent faculty that is full time 5% Student/faculty ratio5% Class size, 1-19 students 30% Class size, 50+ students 10% US News And World Report Formula for Ranking US Colleges and Universities

5 Unclassified 5 Findings A steady state teaching environment built on a dedicated and highly qualified faculty remains the bedrock of high quality in- residence, graduate level education. Pedagogy Model ( Socratic, Seminar-based, Small Class Sizes ) Pedagogy Model ( Socratic, Seminar-based, Small Class Sizes ) Faculty Model (Teaching Expertise,Relevant Experience, Professional and Academic Credentials) Student/ Faculty Ratio Student Model ( Competitive, Well- educated,Functional Expertise )

6 Unclassified 6 Findings: Internal Assessment of Steady State Faculty Requirements Core curriculum faculty requirements:  Total# of students divided by # of students/seminar = A: (# of seminars for each core course)  # of core courses x # of seminars/core course =B: (# of seminar leads/year for core courses)  # of faculty leads/Per Field Studies seminars =C: (# of FS leads/year) Core and FS Curriculum Faculty Required = B + C (FTEs) Standard faculty annual teaching load = (# of core course & electives) + Curriculum/course development + Student advising/counseling/mentoring/evaluation + Management/administrative duties + Outreach, research/publication Available faculty resources:  Total faculty Authorized = D (Based on OPMEP Guidance) - X(new faculty @ half load) - Y(academic leadership @ Part-time load) FTE Adjusted = E@ full load: (X+Y) @ part-time load Can Maximum FTEs Available meet Faculty Required? Is OPMEP S/F Ratio acceptable

7 Unclassified 7 AWCUSAWCCNWUSMCWARNWCICAFJAWS Students 24236825127221321 42 Seminar Size 1516 14-16 or 10-12 13 15-1613 Seminars required 162318217213 Faculty per Seminar 23-42111 (note 1) 1 Total Faculty Required 72.5114158***11649312 Teaching Faculty Req’d 66 96 140*** 11 64 87 12 Non-Teaching Faculty Req’d 0 10 0 0 0 6 0 Part-time Faculty Req’d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adjunct FTEs Req’d 6.5 818*** 0 0 0 0 Total Faculty Authorized 6475150***116480 (note 2) 12 Total Faculty Assigned 66791195 (note 3) 12 Teaching Positions Filled via MOA/MOU 23 STFR (Unadjusted*) 3.78:14.13:1-- ***2.4:13.45:13.69:13.5:1 STFR (Adjusted**) 3.33:13.23:1-- ***2.4:13.45:1 3.5:1 *Unadjusted STFR includes assigned teaching faculty and excludes adjuncts, part-time, non-teaching faculty. **Adjusted STFR includes assigned, adjuncts, part-time, non- teaching faculty. ***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC 1.1 faculty per course, w/teaching team of 5 faculty(fall) & 3-4 faculty in spring 2.Includes 13 Faculty DOD MIPR funded (8 DAU + 5 DSLDP) 3.Includes 23 Faculty provided via MOA/MOU and 13 DOD MIPR funded(note 1) Senior Level College Assessment

8 Unclassified 8 AWCUSAWCCNWUSMCWARNWCICAFJAWS Students 24238024952221252 (note 1) 42 JAWS Seminar Size 151614-16 or 10-12 13 12 13 Seminars required 16241841721 3 Faculty per seminar 23-42111 (note 2) 1 Total Faculty Required (FTEs) 114158***156493 Teaching Faculty Req’d 66 96 140*** 15 64 87 12 Non-teaching Faculty Req’d 0 10 0 0 0 6 0 Part-time Faculty Req’d0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Adjunct Faculty Req’d6.5 8 18*** 0 0 0 0 Total Faculty Authorized66 77156480 12 Total Faculty Assigned TBD Teaching Positions Filled via MOA/MOU 23 STFR (*Unadjusted) 3.78:14.17:1-- ***3.47:13.45:12.90:13.5:1 STFR (***Adjusted) 3.33:13.28:1--***3.47:13.45:12.71:13.5:1 ***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC 1.Based on # of seminars and ideal # of students/seminar 2.1 faculty per course, w/teaching team of 5 faculty(fall) & 3-4 faculty in spring 3.Includes 13 Faculty DOD MIPR funded (8 DAU + 5 DSLDP) 4.Includes 23 Faculty provided via MOA/MOU and 13 DOD MIPR funded(note 1) Senior Level College Assessment Cont’d

9 Unclassified 9 ACSCCGSCCNCSMCCSC JCWS Students5141390 (note 1) 322204255 Seminar Size12-131610-16 (note 2) 14-1518-19 Seminars required4086-92181415 Faculty per seminar14 2 23 Total Faculty Required129366 (note 3) 105***50.25 Teaching Faculty Req’d 115 319 874063.75 Non-teaching Faculty Req’d 0 47 000 Part-time Faculty Req’d 0 0 000 Adjunct Faculty Req’d 13.75 0 1810.250.75 Total Faculty Authorized1153661504063 Total Faculty Assigned Teaching Positions Filled via MOA/MOU STFR (*Unadjusted)4.46:14.35:13.98:15.1:14.0:1 STFR(**Adjusted)3.99:13.83.33:14.05:14.0:1 NOTES: 1.Ranged from 1375 to 1439 2.Varies by trimester: Either 10-12 or 14-16 for core courses 3. Ranges between 344-368 ***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC Intermediate Level College Assessment

10 Unclassified 10 ACSC CGSCCNCSMCCSCJCWS Students5141400 (note 1) 322208255 Seminar Size12-131610-16 (note 2) 1316 Seminars Required4089-92 18 1615 Faculty per Seminar14 2 23 Total Faculty Required (FTEs)129366 (note 3) 105***49.563.75 Teaching Faculty Req’d 115 319 87 49.5 63 Non-teaching Faculty Req’d 0 47 0 0 0 Part-time Faculty Req’d Adjunct Faculty Req’d 13.75 0 18 0.75 Teaching Faculty Authorized11536615049.563 Teaching Faculty AssignedTBD Teaching Positions Filled via MOA/MOU STFR(*Unadjusted)4.474.38:1 3.98:1 4.2:14.0:1 STFR(Adjusted**)3.99:13.83.33:14.2:14.0:1 ***One Faculty for both ILC/SLC NOTES: 1.Ranges between1375 to 1439 2.Varies by trimester: Either 10-12 or 14-16 for core courses 3. Ranges between 344-368 Intermediate Level College Assessment Cont’d

11 Unclassified 11 Findings: Maintain OPMEP S/F Ratio for SLC 3.5 OPMEP Standard

12 Unclassified 12 Findings: Maintain OPMEP S/F Ratio for ILC OPMEP Standard

13 Unclassified 13 Recommendations for Future Study Retain the long-standing OPMEP S/F ratio standards of 3.5:1 or less for senior level JPME and 4.0:1 or less for intermediate level JPME. Task the MECC WG to examine whether establishing class size standards would potentially improve academic quality, and if so, would it be practical to do this, at what cost, and what would those standards be?

14 Unclassified 14 Supplemental Slides Case Study Results

15 Unclassified 15 MECC WG Participants The Joint Staff Joint Education Branch wishes to acknowledge the contributions of the following members of the MECC WG for their contributions to the study. COL Thomas Santoro, JS J7 Joint Education Branch Chief Dr. Harry Dorsey, Industrial College of the Armed Forces Dr. David Tretler, National War College Dr. Mark Conversino, Air War College Dr. Jeff Reilley, Air Command and Staff College Dr. Linda McCluney, Joint Forces Staff College Dr. Ken Pisel, Joint Forces Staff College Dr. Robert Mahoney, Marine Corps War College Dr. Jerre Wilson, Marine Corps Command and Staff College Dr. John Persyn, Army Command and General Staff College Dr. William T. Johnsen, Army War College Dr. William Spain, College of Naval Warfare Dr. Brenda Roth, National Defense University Dr. Charles McKenna, Marine Corps Command and Staff College Dr. Suzanne Logan, Spaatz Center for Officer Education Dr. Leslie Cordie, Air University Dr. Hank Dasinger, Air University Dr. Jerry West, JS J7 Joint Education Branch, Study Advisor Mr. Jack Roesner, JS J7 Joint Education Branch

16 Unclassified 16 Approach Assumptions: Rationale must comply with the law (10 USC) and JPME policy (OPMEP). Rationale must be consistent with fiscal policy constraints (current and projected) Rationale must be evidence-based and reflect a consensus position from MECC WG leads. The overall quality of JPME will not be degraded. Rationale must preserve active learning (seminar-based et al) in the context of a professional education environment. External View (15 Mar -15 Aug11) J7 JEB Survey (15 Aug-18 Oct 11) Case Studies (19 Oct-1 Dec11) Synthesis 2 Dec11 -15 Jan 12 MECC Brief 8 Feb 12 Phase I Phase II Phase III

17 Unclassified 17 Challenge: Services are challenged to meet JMPE requirements for resourcing sufficient quantity and quality of students and faculty to JPME schools in a period of prolonged fiscal austerity which threatens compliancy to and enforcement of the OPMEP student-faculty ratio standard (SFRS). –Academic Year 1987-88, student-to-faculty ratios ranged from 2.1:1 (College of Naval Command and Staff) to 7.7:1 (Marine Corps Command and Staff College) –1989 Skelton Report: recommended student-faculty ratios for JPME schools to be maintained between 3:1 and 4:1 with the lower ratio associated with senior level colleges (SLC) and the higher ratio with intermediate level colleges (ILC) –1990 to Present- CJCS Military Education Policy Documents formally established and preserved the student-faculty ratio standard (STFRS) as part of goal to deliver high quality JPME Senior-level– not more than 3.5:1 Intermediate-level and Armed Forces Staff College--- not more than 4:1 –Feb 2011 MECC: DJS tasked the MECC to develop a rationale to justify the student-faculty ratio standard introduced by the Skelton Panel Background

18 Unclassified 18 APPENDIX A Stage 1. Literature Review

19 Unclassified 19 External View – US News and World Report Rankings OPMEP STFRS cannot be modeled after top tier US Graduate Schools Formula Weighting Value VariablesWeights Faculty resources for 2010-2011 academic year 20% Faculty compensation 35% Percent faculty with top terminal degree in their field 15% Percent faculty that is full time 5% Student/faculty ratio5% Class size, 1-19 students 30% Class size, 50+ students 10% US News And World Report Formula for Ranking US Colleges and Universities

20 Unclassified 20 External View Cont’d CategoriesProfessional Military EducationUS Graduate School Education S/F Ratios JPME schools rely on S/F ratio as the primary organizational metric to maintain steady-state high quality in-residence professional educational. Civilian schools use S/F ratio primarily for marketing purposes; S/F ratios published by schools are used by US News and World Report (USNWR) to rank schools based on reputation and prestige. JPME schools are not ranked. Curriculum DevelopmentNo curriculum developers; since faculty members may be teaching outside their area of expertise, collaborative course development is required Individuals are experts in the areas they teach and develop their own curricula Teaching AssistantsFaculty responsible for all teachingTeaching assistants occasionally available in masters’ programs Research and WritingFaculty responsible for all research and writingResearch Assistants often provided Project and Field-Studies AdvisorsFaculty members Preparation and DevelopmentMuch required due to high faculty turnoverMinimal required due to small turnover of core faculty Higher Headquarters’ Support RequirementsSignificantTypically limited to the areas of grant application/execution Direct Support to Deployed ForcesRequiredNot Required DeploymentsRequiredNot Required Research and Project Support to Senior Leaders RequiredResearch is required but at the discretion of the faculty Functional Area of ExpertiseFaculty often times teach outside areas of specialization Faculty members teach within their areas of specialization Classroom ExperienceFaculty members routinely assigned with no prior teaching experience More stable faculty means few faculty members are without prior teaching experiences PME vs US Graduate School Faculty Considerations

21 Unclassified 21 External View Cont’d CategoriesProfessional Military EducationUS Graduate School Education Student Profile Students are 18-25 year professionals; Therefore requires higher level of faculty preparation. Students are between 23 and 30 years old with fewer than 5 years of professional experience Contact Hours Multi-disciplinary programs require students to work outside their academic backgrounds. This requires greater student-faculty interaction than in a single discipline program. Single discipline focus Learning Environment Laptop and I-Pads maybeSocial Engineering/ Mobile Devices probable Products Project Term PapersThesis Headquarter(HQ) Demands Administrators required to support HQ calls for data and project support. No HQ exists which allows administrators to focus primarily on managing programs in support of the faculty and students Administrative Requirements Administrative requirements (e.g., all mandatory annual Service training, such as safety, EEO, Information Assurance, SAEDA; having to act as your own personnel, time, pay, transportation clerks; contracting) Single discipline focus External Support Faculty requested to support requests from external oversight bodies (such as: MECC, MECC WG, USAWC Board of Visitors, DA Historical Advisory Committee, Army Learning Coordination Council) Minimal support to external bodies required PME vs US Graduate School Student Considerations

22 Unclassified 22 External View Cont’d CategoriesProfessional Military EducationUS Graduate School Education Headquarter(HQ) Demands Administrators required to support HQ calls for data and project support. No HQ exists which allows administrators to focus primarily on managing programs in support of the faculty and students Administrative Requirements Administrative requirements (e.g., all mandatory annual Service training, such as safety, EEO, Information Assurance, SAEDA; having to act as your own personnel, time, pay, transportation clerks; contracting) Single discipline focus External Support Faculty requested to support requests from external oversight bodies (such as: MECC, MECC WG, USAWC Board of Visitors, DA Historical Advisory Committee, Army Learning Coordination Council) Minimal support to external bodies required Selection of Military and Possibly Agency Faculty Members Limited control on selection. Personnel system- dependent. Results in increased teaching burden and decreased development time for core faculty. Faculty are selected for their expertise in the particular discipline. Technology TransformationOften severely limited because of accessibility of desired technology and information assurance requirements. Technology becoming more available and faculty development on use of technology is available. PME vs US Graduate School Administration Considerations

23 Unclassified 23 Bibliography Bedard, K., & Kuhn, P. (2008). Where Class Size Really Matters: Class Size and Student Ratings of Instructor Effectiveness. Economics of Education Review, 27(3), 253-265. doi: 10.1016/m.econedurev.2006.08.007 Brehman, G. E., Jr. (1978). A Study of Faculty Workload in Pennsylvania State-owned Institutions of Higher Education, 1975-77 (pp. 28). Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State Dept. of Education Burnsed, B. (2011). Liberal Arts Colleges with Lowest Student-Faculty Ratios. US News and World Report, (April 26, 2011). Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/04/26/liberal- arts-colleges-with-lowest-student-faculty-ratioshttp://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/04/26/liberal- arts-colleges-with-lowest-student-faculty-ratios Cartter, A.M. (1966). An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Chapman, L., & Ludlow, L. (2010). Can Downsizing College Class Sizes Augment Student Outcomes? An Investigation of the Effects of Class Size on Student Learning. Journal of General Education, 59(2), 105- De Paola, M., & Scoppa, V. (2011). The effects of Class Size on the achievement of college students. The Manchester School, 79(6), 1061-1079. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9957.2010.02208.x Edmonson, J. B., & Mulder, F. J. (1924). Size of class as a factor in university instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 9(1), 1-12. Englehart, J. (2007). The Centrality of Context in Learning from Further Class Size Research. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 455-467. Hinrichsen, B. B., Jackson, J. E., Johnson, C. E., Templeton, R. A., Flannigan, P. N., Lawrence, B. J. (2002). A Study of Faculty Workload as a Means of Improving the Student Learning Environment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Eduational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED470577 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED470577 Hofmann, J. M., & et al. (1994). Adult Learners: Why Were They Successful? Lessons Learned via an Adult Learner Task Force. Paper presented at the Adult Learner Conference, Columbia, SC. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED375269 http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=ED375269 Imel, S. (1999). Using Groups in Adult Learning: Theory and Practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 19(1), 54-61.

24 Unclassified 24 Bibliography Cont’d Jaciw, A. (2011). The Use of Moderator Effects for Drawing Generalized Causal Inferences (pp. 10). Evanston, IL: Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE) Johnson, I. Y. (2010). Class Size and Student Performance at a Public Research University: A Cross- Classified Model. Research in Higher Education, 51(8), 701-723. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9179-y Kokkelenberg, E. C., Dillon, M., & Christy, S. M. (2008). The Effects of Class Size on Student Grades at a Public University. Economics of Education Review, 27(2), 221-233. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.09.011 McKeachie, W. J. (1980). Class Size, Large Classes, and Multiple Sections. Academe, 66(1), 24-27. National Council of Teachers of English, U. I. L. (1998). NCTE Position on Class Size and Teacher Workload, K-College (pp. 10). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English Redlinger, L. J., & Valcik, N. A. (2008). Using return on investment models of programs and faculty for strategic planning. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2008(140), 93.108. doi: 10.1002/ir.272 Shea, C. (1998). Do smaller classes mean better schools? Economists aren't so sure. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(30), A17-A18. Sibley, J., & Parmelee, D. X. (2008). Knowledge Is No Longer Enough: Enhancing Professional Education with Team-Based Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008(116), 41-53. doi: 10.1002/tl.332 Sweitzer,Kyle, & Volkwein, Fredericks(2009). Prestige Among Graduate and Professional Schools: Comparing the U.S. News’ Graduate School Reputation Ratings Between Disciplines,

25 Unclassified 25 Appendix B. Internal View

26 Unclassified 26 Findings Cont’d First and Second Order Effects of Changing the Standard Reduced quality of seminar-based education as a result of increase in number of students per seminar. Forced larger class sizes which could not be accommodated with a number of colleges already operating at the limits of active, adult based learning. May require shifting personnel from other organizations into a greater teaching load, thereby degrading their ability to perform their primary missions. Affect curriculum development and evolution will suffer with fewer faculty. Reduce the opportunities for faculty and students of the Services’ schools to support the overall mission of the school. Diminish faculty development opportunities. All of the above will have an adverse effect on the ability to recruit and retain quality faculty.

27 Unclassified 27 Findings Cont’d Survey concerns include: – Large class sizes( 7 of 12 Schools reported class sizes of 15-16 students) – Ability of services to provide faculty with the requisite qualifications – Services ability to fill authorizations (JFSC authorizations filled at only 75% to 80%) – Agency budget cuts resulting in sustained losses in faculty provided by agencies and requirement to fill agency vacancies with Title 10 hires – Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) actions which reduce core faculty

28 Unclassified 28 JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys CGSCCNCSACSCUSMCCSCJFSC 1. What is your student to faculty ratio during a typical classroom period for one seminar? 16:1The ratio is 12 or 13:1 depending on the seminar size (i.e., AY 12 has a total of 514 students divided among 40 seminars 7-to-1. 14 students per seminar. Two faculty members usually attend a seminar. JAWS/ 5.25:1-14:1 JCWS/ 4.25:1-17:1 2. What is your preferred student to faculty ratio during an ideal classroom period for one seminar? 16:1JAWS/ 5.25:1-14:1 JCWS/ 4.25:1-17:1 3. How do you determine your student to faculty ratio? OPEP + SOP dated 8 Sep 10 4. Who counts as a fulltime equivalent (FTE) at your school? FTE teaches core and electives, curriculum development and research Faculty members conducting full-time teaching, curriculum development, research. Fulltime faculty who conduct only teaching duties must teach at least three courses to be considered a FTE. Full time faculty members include personnel assigned full- time as faculty Those that teach core and electives and curriculum developers count as one FTE.

29 Unclassified 29 JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d CGSCCNCSACSCUSMCCSCJFSC 5. How do you use adjunct faculty members? SMEs who teach IA part- time electives.2 FTE Adjuncts teach core and elective courses We do not count adjunct faculty external to Marine Corps University Primarily to teach electives 6. What other positions are used to determine your ratio? Basic Instructor: 1.00 Teaching FTE Faculty who are assigned to ACSC’s Research Department or are conducting full time research count as one FTE. Deployed resident faculty count as one FTE. Course directors, dean, director, deputy director/dean of students, and war- gamming personnel. Only faculty members who teach electives or a series of classes are counted in the partial count of faculty. Chairs, Senior Fellows, adjuncts, and others count a variable amount determined by the amount of time dedicated to JCWS, JAWS, and AJPME. 7. How do you determine the % each non-full time faculty counts in your ratio? Curriculum Developer:.33 Teaching FTE,.67 CD FTE Leader Digital Development Center (CPOF, and simulations education):.33 Teaching FTE;.67 non- Department Director:.67 Supervisory FTE,.33 Teaching FTE Library Support: 1.00 Research FTE, 0 Teaching FTE ACSC CF, Dean, and Director of Joint Education count as a FTE; Adjuncts receive a part time equivalent (PTE) credit of.25 for every core course or elective they teach. Partial count is awarded to personnel who teach electives and classes. Their contribution ranges from 0.25 to 0.75. MCU scholar teaches one elective he/she will count as 0.25. Faculty member teaches only an elective or only part of the year:.2 FTE

30 Unclassified 30 JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d CGSCCNSCACSCCSCJFSC 8. What has the trend been for the overall student/faculty ratios at your school over the last three years? AY 2011: 3.80:1 AY 2010: 3.86:1 AY 2009: 3.93:1 AY 08 4:01:1 (highest) AY 04 3.42:1 AY 12/ 3.99:1 AY 11 (ratio reported last year) 4.88:1 AY 10 (ratio reported year before last) 4.54:1 AY 12/ 4.1: 1 AY 11/4:1 AY 10/ 4:1 The only trend has been variability. JFSC has been in and out of compliance with the OPMEP standard 9. Do you feel the ratio is appropriate for your school? Yes. Yes, with full manning 10. If you could change it, what would you propose as justification? No Change. Current ratio provides sufficient manning to support quality education Recommend this study to determine whether the status quo, some adjustment, or a change would be in order No Change. I would not change the ratio, but allow for flexibility in counting personnel who develop, assess, or assist in the delivery of the curricula. No change. A change would only alter the threshold of failure 11. Is there pressure from your parent organization to raise the ratio NoYes. This entire study has its roots in a collaborative effort by the OPNAV staff and the Air Force staff to raise the issue of the CJCS requirement and its rationale NoIndirectly. the increase in student without an increase in authorized faculty. No 12. Are you expecting your budget to be reduced this academic year? Next year? Yes. Unknown USNWC took an end-strength decrement of 22 for FY 11 with more decrements planned for the out-years. Yes. Not so much this year, but definitely next year. Unknown in both cases. 13. Are you enhancing your current residence course this academic year through the use of multimedia, online materials, or social media? Yes. On-going Yes. Exploring more effective means of leveraging multimedia and online materials to enhance student learning. Yes, except for social media Have been for years.

31 Unclassified 31 JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d CGSCCNCSACSCUSMCSCJFSC 13. Are you enhancing your current residence course this academic year through the use of multimedia, online materials, or social media? Yes. On-goingYes. Exploring more effective means of leveraging multimedia and online materials to enhance student learning. Yes, except for social media Have been for years. 14. Would you consider adding blended learning opportunities to your course in the coming year if it could be moved from the non-resident section of the OPMEP to be acceptable additions to a resident course? N/A 15. What potential challenges do you see that would threaten your ability to meet the required STFR next year? Replacing civilian faculty losses from normal attrition with active duty military faculty Increase of 50 USN students in CNC&S (ILC) over the next three academic years. Faculty shortfalls will eventually occur. Non-forecasted SERB or RIF CMC has directed an increase in student attending resident ILS and CLS. Without additional faculty, CSC will not have sufficient faculty to meet the 4-to-1 ratio. Services filling authorizations at only 75% to 80% 16. What has been your greatest challenge for meeting the STFRS for the last 3 years Limited availability of active duty military faculty Meeting the 60:40 military mix required for a large faculty that teaches both ILC & SLC Filling rated billets. ACSC can expect 78% fill. ACSC can normally plan on a 90% entitlement fill of support officer billets. Obtaining qualified officers/USMC included) to deliver the curriculum. Lack of expertise to deliver a quality seminar to a very experienced group of students. JFSC has been in and out of compliance with the OPMEP standard. Services filling authorizations at only 75% to 80%

32 Unclassified 32 JPME Intermediate Level College Surveys Cont’d CGSCCNCSACSCCSCJFSC 17. What would be affected if the ratio were to be 5:1 Change would detract from accomplishment of the faculty domains USNWC would lose significant faculty billets; Faculty development and then curricula development would likely diminish; the institutional mission capacity would be degraded ACSC could not perform its curriculum development or research duties The obvious answer is that we would lose 10 faculty members. As far as second and third order effects, faculty would work harder, fewer electives would offered, faculty professional development off-sites (sabbaticals) would disappear—ultimately, some faculty would probably quit If we go to 5:1 and are manned at 80% we have the same problem, only more severe 18. Are you expecting student throughput to change significantly this AY? Next AY No. 8 more international students for ILC. Additionally, the Navy determined this past summer that it would grow the CNC&S (ILC) student body by 50 students over the next three fiscal years. In total, this would add 4 seminars to our ILC program. Reduction of 20 students per year for AY 12-13. Not this academic year. As described above we will increase 38 Marine students over the next four years. No.

33 Unclassified 33 JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey USAWCAWCCNW MCWAR 1. What is your student to faculty ratio during a typical classroom period for one seminar? Core: 16:1 Electives: 1-56:1 Core: 15:1; Electives: 6-12:1 Core: Varies between 5:1 and 14:1 depending on curriculum and Trimester Electives: 7.5-15:1 27 total students divided into two seminars. 2. What is your preferred student to faculty ratio during an ideal classroom period for one seminar? 16:115:110-16:113-14:1 3. How do you determine your student to faculty ratio? OPMEP; SOP Dtd. Jan 08OPMEP; SOP Dtd. Sep 10 JS J-7 SOP of 9 Jan 2008Metrics from the OPMEP. 4. Who counts as a fulltime equivalent at your school? 1 FTE teaches core and electives, curriculum development and research All assigned faculty count as 1 FTE including Deans and Dept Chairs Faculty principal duties for developing and teaching ILC & SLC PME are counted as 1.0 FTE. Each faculty member is counted as a full- time equivalent, including the Director, Dean and Associate Dean. 5. How do you use adjunct faculty members? Teach part-time electivesTeach electives and advise on research projects Teach electives and perform research We use outside faculty members for some classes. Not counted in the ratio

34 Unclassified 34 JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d USAWCAWCCNWMCWAR 6. What other positions are used to determine your ratio? Dean (1 FTE) Dept. Chairs(1 FTE) Director Institutional Assessment (1 FTE) Occasionally, we may include Vice Commandant Dean of Academics, our Associate Dean of Academics for Electives and Directed Research and our Institutional Research Professor meet the OPMEP definition and SOP requirements: However, not counted in ratio None. 7. How do you determine the % each non full-time faculty counts in your ratio? those who teach part-time electives.2 FTE adjuncts are rated at.25 up to.50 Adjunct faculty teach in the elective program count as 0.25 for each Trimester Non full-time faculty not counted in ratio 8. What has the trend been for the overall student/faculty ratios at your school over the last three years? FY 12/ 3.23:1 FY 11/ 3.46:1; FY 10/ 3.28:1 AY 12/ 3.4:1 AY 11/ 3.38:1 AY 10/ 3.42:1 Number of faculty available exceeds the number required, i.e. AY 11 < 3.5 AY 10 << 3.5 AY 09 <3.5 Steady. 9. Do you feel the ratio is appropriate for your school? Depends on Counting Rule: Faculty filling staff and administrative requirements are counted in STFR Yes. Faculty is fully employed and USNWC has adjusted workload expectations Yes. 10. If you could change it, what would you propose as justification? Before applying SOP 5:1; Applying SOP 3.5;; Seminar-based with seminar ratio of 16:1 Requires further study; AWC has only 64 Authorized faculty billets; Requires 70 FTE to support student throughput of 240-245 Requires study; civilian- military faculty mix has changed significantly since 1989; statutory and policy expectations have grown accordingly Wouldn’t. It is fine as is.

35 Unclassified 35 JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d USAWCAWCCNWMCWAR 11. Is there pressure from your parent organization to raise the ratio Yes. 8:1 or seminar Moderate: Alternatives considered including Navy Model which would result in loss of 70 Slots. Rejected by CSAF This entire study has its roots in a collaborative effort by the OPNAV staff and the Air Force staff to raise the issue of the CJCS requirement and its rationale No. 12. Are you expecting your budget to be reduced this academic year? Next year? No. Unknown Yes. 35% budget cut expected USNWC took an end-strength decrement of 22 for FY 11 with more decrements planned for the out-years. No for this year. Yes for next. 13. Are you enhancing your current residence course this academic year through the use of multimedia, online materials, or social media? Yes. On-going YesWe currently use IPADs, electronic and paper readings, and the Blackboard learning management system within our academic program. We use blackboard to deliver our entire curriculum and Microsoft Office for the calendar 14. Would you consider adding blended learning opportunities to your course in the coming year if it could be moved from the non-resident section of the OPMEP to be acceptable additions to a resident course? N/A Different topic for a different time

36 Unclassified 36 JPME Senior Level Colleges Survey Cont’d USAWCAWCCNWMCWAR 15. What potential challenges do you see that would threaten your ability to meet the required STFR next year? Services fail to provide JPME II faculty; 60:40 military faculty ratio; balance of military and Title 10 faculty Reliance on Academic Centers at Air Univ to meet faculty requirements. Officer force reductions Balancing operational currency with CJCS requirements for SLC faculty; Recent SERB will affect a significant number of the USNWC faculty Large budget crunch that could cause outside services/agencies to withdraw their faculty 16. What has been your greatest challenge for meeting the STFRS for the last 3 years Services fail to provide JPME II faculty; 60:40 military faculty ratio; balance of military and Title 10 faculty Force drawdowns such as O-6 Selective Early Retirement Board (SERB) and on-again, off-again freezes against Title X hiring Meeting the 60:40 mix required for a large faculty that teaches both ILC & SLC and meet SLC military faculty requirements. Budget shortfalls 17. What would be affected if the ratio were to be 4:1 Could lose 40 Faculty; program destroyed Could sustain the core but reduce outreach, slow curriculum changes, reduce number and variety of electives and actually force further reductions in our ability to respond to taskings USNWC would lose significant faculty billets: faculty development and curricula development would likely diminish as Dept. Chairs would have less flexibility: institutional mission capacity would be degraded; only one (educational) of four vital mission functions of the college could be achieved. If we went to 4:1, we would possibly use more guest speakers 18. Are you expecting student throughput to change significantly this AY? Next AY Yes. Current increase in 17 IF. Next year plus 13 IF; Could increase US Army students by 20 and still meet OPMEP and Law None. Remain at 245 students None. None

37 Unclassified 37 JPME Senior Level Colleges NWCICAF 1. What is your student to faculty ratio during a typical classroom period for one seminar? 13:115:1 2. What is your preferred student to faculty ratio during an ideal classroom period for one seminar? 13:112:1 3. How do you determine your student to faculty ratio?IAW OPMEPIAW OPMEP. 4. Who counts as a fulltime equivalent at your school?Everyone assigned to the NWC faculty counts as “1” FTE. Includes the Dean of Faculty, Associate Deans, Department Chairs, Course Directors and International Affairs Adviser Everyone assigned to the ICAF faculty counts as "1" FTE, although not all FTEs teach. Includes the Dean of Faculty, Associate Deans, Department Chairs, Course Directors and International Affairs Adviser. 5. How do you use adjunct faculty members? Not used.ICAF does not use adjunct faculty members. 6. What other positions are used to determine your ratio? NoneNone. 7. How do you determine the % each non-full time faculty counts in your ratio? the Commandant, Chief of Staff/Dean of Students, and Director of Institutional Research and Assessment not counted in ratio Per ICAF business case. 8. What has the trend been for the overall student/faculty ratios at your school over the last three years? AY 12 /3.35:1 AY11 /3.45:1 AY10 /3.68:1 FY 11/ 3.5:1 FY 10/3.4:1 FY 09/3.5:1 9. Do you feel the ratio is appropriate for your school? We believe 3.5:1 is appropriate for National War College Yes.

38 Unclassified 38 JPME Senior Level Colleges NWCICAF 10. If you could change it, what would you propose as justification? Would not change itNo Change. 11. Is there pressure from your parent organization to raise the ratio No.Yes. July 2010 SecDef budget efficiency cuts. Projected POM 13-17 cuts 12. Are you expecting your budget to be reduced this academic year? Next year? Unsure. Reduced ≈5% from FY10 to FY11─Programmed to reduce another ≈8% from FY10 levels in FY13, but may be directed to take that reduction this FY─ After FY 13, programmed to reduce another ≈3% from FY10 levels AY 11 - 12: Amount TBD. AY 12 - 13: $1.18M out of current 2.8. Impact – 3 faculty members and on support staff 13. Are you enhancing your current residence course this academic year through the use of multimedia, online materials, or social media? Yes; moving to deliver all our course materials via BlackBoard; Additionally continuing exploitation of a variety of multimedia applications as appropriate Yes; ICAF is moving to deliver all course materials via Blackboard 14. Would you consider adding blended learning opportunities to your course in the coming year if it could be moved from the non-resident section of the OPMEP to be acceptable additions to a resident course? N/A 15. What potential challenges do you see that would threaten your ability to meet the required STFR next year? Budget reduction and/or hiring freeze; Reduction in faculty from the Services and/or Agencies (e.g., State Department); NDU decision to shift military and/or agency faculty normally assigned to National War College for duties elsewhere within the University; Increase in student load without provision for proportional increases in faculty staffing ICAF faculty is funded from nine independent sources. Processes and cuts are not coordinated and have multiplier impact.

39 Unclassified 39 JPME Senior Level Colleges NWCICAF 16. What has been your greatest challenge for meeting the STFRS for the last 3 years Title 10 retirements/resignations coupled with Title 10 hiring delays/freezes imposed by NDU and/or DOD; Vacancies created by Title 10 retirements/resignations must be filled via new Title 10 hires because we can get no additional military or agency faculty Maintaining the number of MOU/MOA civilian agency faculty to ensure 3.5:1 ratio 17. What would be affected if the ratio were to be 4:1 Increasing our ratio to 4:1 would damage the quality of our educational program: Force us to assign new faculty as primary seminar leaders before they were ready─ And/or force us to increase the number of students per seminar; -would also significantly reduce, or even eliminate, opportunities for faculty sabbaticals First impact would be on amount of time available of professional development and research. Second impact would be to shift some current seminars to lectures. Would prefer to see throughput reduced after that to maintain the essential nature of current program. 18. Are you expecting student throughput to change significantly this AY? Next AY Yes. reduce the number of Navy students in next year's class by 5. without replacements from USMC or Coast Guard leave us well short of the OPMEP requirement that we must have approximately equal representation. DCPMS might pull all 13 of the DSLDP students. If so must offsite with other agencies in the national security arena AY 11-12: No. AY 13-17 reductions in DSLDP students.

40 Unclassified 40 SLC In-Residence Seminar-based Instruction Faculty (1-4 Faculty per Seminar) NWC, ICAF, JAWS ( 1/3, 1/3,1/3) Military JFSC (100% Military with ILC or SLC graduates with relevant joint experience (Services) 60/40 Host/non- host; non- host equally divided (Services) 75 % with SLC Degree or JQO Faculty Student Ratio =3.5:1 Students (13-16 Students per Seminar) NWC, ICAF, JAWS, (1/3,1/3,1/3) Military (Services) 60/40 Host/non-host (Services/ Seminars) >1 officer from each non-host Dept. JPME In-Residence Student Faculty Model (Senior Level Colleges)

41 Unclassified 41 ILC In-Residence Seminar-based Instruction Faculty (1-4 Faculty per Seminar) (Services) Non host >5% each) JFSC Military Mix (1/3,1/3,1/3)* (Services) 75 % ILC or SLC graduates or JQOs ** Faculty Student Ratio= 4.0:1 Students (12-16 Students per Seminar) JCWS(Allocated in accordance with Services JDAL billets) (Services/ Seminars) >1 officer from each non-host Military Depts *For JFSC, all military faculty should be graduates of an ILC or SLC program and have comparable joint experience **In PME institutions where a single faculty is indistinguishably responsible for both intermediate and senior JPME curriculum, total host military department faculty shall be no more than 60 percent of the total military faculty whose primary duty is student instruction of JPME; 75% of the military faculty should be graduates of a senior-level PME program or be JQOs…OPMEP JPME In-Residence Student Faculty Model (Intermediate Level Colleges)

42 Unclassified 42 APPENDIX C Stage 3. Case Studies Case Studies are available at https://jdeis.js.mil/jdeis/index.jsp?pindex=0 https://jdeis.js.mil/jdeis/index.jsp?pindex=0

43 Unclassified 43 Findings: Internal View Steady State Faculty Requirements Core curriculum faculty requirements:  Total# of students divided by # of students/seminar = A: (# of seminars for each core course)  # of core courses x # of seminars/core course =B: (# of seminar leads/year for core courses)  # of faculty leads/Per Field Studies seminars =C: (# of FS leads/year) Core and FS Curriculum Faculty Required = B + C (FTEs) Standard faculty annual teaching load = (# of core course & electives) + Curriculum/course development + Student advising/counseling/mentoring/evaluation + Management/administrative duties + Outreach, research/publication Available faculty resources:  Total faculty Authorized = D (Based on OPMEP Guidance) - X(new faculty @ half load) - Y(academic leadership @ Part-time load) FTE Adjusted = E@ full load: (X+Y) @ part-time load Can Maximum FTEs Available meet Faculty Required? Is OPMEP S/F Ratio acceptable

44 Faculty Workload (Typical) Duties Man-hours (per yr) Man-hours (per wk) Instructional Tasks 1147.0 22.9 Curriculum Development 136.0 2.7 Student Counseling 406.2 8.1 Faculty Development 388.0 7.8 Miscellaneous/Admin 553.2 11.1 Teaching Team 112.4 2.2 Additional Tasks 56.0 1.1 Total 2798.8 56.0

45

46 National War College Faculty Staffing Requirements Core curriculum faculty requirements  221 students @ 13/seminar= 17seminars/core course  6 core courses x 17 seminars=102faculty seminar leads (FSL)/yr 23 Field Studies (FS) @ 2 faculty/FS=46FSL/yr TOTAL FSL REQUIRED/YR=148 Standard faculty annual teaching load = 3 core course & 1-2 electives + Curriculum/course development + Student advising/counseling/mentoring/evaulation + Management/administrative duties + Outreach, research/publication Faculty resources available @ 3.5:1  Total faculty required for 221 students = 64 =192FSL/yr (@ std teaching load)  Adjusted for faculty @ half load: ≈ 16 new faculty/yr (average)- 24FSL/yr 13 faculty in academic leadership- 20FSL/yr TOTAL FSL AVAILABLE/YR @ 3.5:1=148(meets requirement, best case)

47 National War College Steady State STFR Justification Seminar-based Instruction (6 sequential core courses taught in 17 seminars + 23 Field Studies seminars + 4 electives) 64 Faculty 35 @ full load 29 @ half load 221 Students 13 students/seminar 1 faculty/seminar STFR 3.45:1 Military Land/Sea/Air 9/9/8 Civilian DoD/Non-DoD 25/13 Military Land/Sea/Air 43/44/43 Civilian DoD/Non-DoD 24/33/34 Faculty contact hrs/wk 13 Justification based on evidence of steady-state conditions satisfied by case study

48 Instructional Model Seminar-based Instruction (Staff Groups) Teaching Teams (12 Instructors per Team, 4 Staff Groups per Team) Faculty 366 Faculty (FTE) 12 Instructors per Team 70% Civ/30% Mil (Goal) 74.2% Civ/25.8% (Current) Non-host Ratio Sea Svc 8.5% Air Force 9.2% JQO Experience 75 % with ILC or SLC or S/F Ratio 3.80:1 OPMEP 5.33:1 Team 16:1 Classroom Students 1390 Students (2 starts) 16 Students per Staff Group 4 Staff Groups per Team 87 Staff Groups Host/Non-host Student Mix 71/29 (Current) Non-host/SG >1 officer from each service S/F Ratio Justification (U.S. Army Command and General Staff College)

49 United States Army War College USAWC Steady State Student-Faculty Ratio (AY12) Seminar-based Instruction (6 Core Courses taught in 23 Seminars 114 FTE Faculty (106@ 1 FTE; 8 @.2 FTE) Military (Land, Sea,Air) ( 30, 11, 9) (50 FTE) Civilian/Int’l (64FTE) STFR 3.23:1 368 Students (16 students @ 1 Faculty per Seminar) Military (Land, Sea, Air) (210,34,32) Civilians/IFs (DoD, Non-DoD, IFs) (21,4,67) Faculty Contact Hrs/wk (12 for planning; 15-22 in reality)

50 Unclassified 50 ACSC Steady State STFRS Justification Seminar-based Instruction (9 Core Courses taught in 40 Seminars) 66 Faculty (40@Full load; 26@ half load) Military AF/AR/MA/NA/IO) ( 68,8,4,2,3) Civilian ( DoD) (30) STFR 3.99:1 514 Students (12-13 students @ 1 Faculty per Seminar) Military (AF, AR,MA, NA) (341,43,10, 30) Civilian (DoD,Non- DoD,Int’l) (14,1,76) Faculty Contact Hrs/wk (15) Justification provided based on evidence of steady-state conditions satisfied based on case study.

51 Develop America's Airmen Today... for Tomorrow 51 The Intellectual and Leadership Center of the Air Force Aim High…Fly – Fight – Win AWC Steady State STFR Justification Seminar-based Instruction (6 Core Courses taught in 16 Seminars*) 64 Faculty (59@Full load; 5@ half load) Military (Air, Land,Sea) ( 21, 7, 9, 2 Int’l) Civilian (DAF,Non-DAF) (22, 3) STFR 3.78:1** 3.33:1*** 242 Students (15 students @ 1 Faculty per Seminar) Military (Air, Land,Sea) (132, 34,21) Civilian (DoD, & Non- DoD,Int’l) (9, 46) Faculty Contact Hrs/wk (12-15) * Includes Regional and Cultural Studies, with 2 faculty leads each) ** Using faculty AUTHORIZED to AWC; does not include adjuncts; *** w/adjuncts, 3.33:1

52 Seminar-based Instruction 154 Faculty Authorized Non host >5% each) 75 % with ILC or SLC or JQO Experience Faculty Student Ratio: 322 Students* 41/36 Host/non- host Military student mix >1 officer from each non-host *Includes international students College of Naval Warfare (CNW), US Naval War College (ILC)

53 Industrial College of the Armed Forces (SLC) Seminar-based Instruction 94 Faculty Military Faculty ( 1/3, 1/3,1/3) 75 % with SLC Degree or JQO or Joint Exp Faculty Student Ratio 3.41:1 321 Students Land,Sea, Air (62,61,61) Civilians (DoD,Non- DoD,IF,IndF*) (67,36,25,9) *IF (International Fellows); IndF (Industry Fellows).

54 JAWS: SLC Seminar-based Instruction (3 Core Courses taught in 3 Seminars/Individual Thesis Research 12.25 Faculty Military (Land,Sea,Air) 2/3/2 DOD Civilian 5 Academic Dean.25 STFR 3.43:1 42 Students (13 Seminar) Military (Land,Sea,Air) 9/9/9 Civilian (DoD,Non- DoD,IF) 5/6/3 Faculty Contact Hrs/wk 15-20 Justification provided based on evidence of steady-state conditions satisfied based on case study.

55 JCWS: ILC Seminar-based Instruction 3-instructor team/seminar 63.25 Faculty.75 Adjunct Military (Land/Sea/Air) 13/19/14 DOD Civilian 17 Academic Dean.25 STFR 4.03:1 255 Students/class 4 classes/year Military (Land/Sea/Air) 298/300/333 DOD Civilian/Int’l Fellows 13/72 Faculty Contact Hrs/wk 26


Download ppt "Unclassified 1 Directorate for Joint Force Development (J-7), The Joint Staff Dr. Jerry West, JS J7 JEB Education Advisor Student to Faculty Ratio Study."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google