Evaluation of Gerontology Program, College of Health and Social Sciences, San Francisco State University Evaluators: Cheryl Osborne, Sacramento State University, Sacramento, CA Frank J. Whittington, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA May 3, 214 Background This report is based on a thorough review of two documents: 1) the Academic Program Review Handbook, Sixth Cycle and 2) the Gerontology Program faculty s own Self Study, coauthored by Darlene Yee-Melichar and Brian de Vries and approved by Eileen Levy, Director of the School of Social Work, within which the Gerontology Program is located; and on our findings during a two-day visit to campus during which we held meetings with the program faculty, various administrators and other faculty, students, alumni, and interested community partners. Our report is divided into two parts: 1) this written summary of our observations and recommendations and 2) our responses to the questions posed in Appendix A of the Academic Program Review Handbook. We begin by noting several relevant facts: 1) The program is a nationally-recognized master s program of long standing (established in 1986) that awards the M.A. in gerontology. It has had several academic homes and reporting structures during its life including being a free-standing program. The program suspended admission of new students for two years (23-24) to allow for reconsideration of goals and structural and curricular reorganization. 2) The program currently resides within the School of Social Work, a constituent unit of the College of Health and Social Sciences. The School of Social Work has approximately 12 faculty (listing not available on website), including the three gerontology faculty members. 3) The three gerontology program faculty (de Vries, Pelham, and Yee-Melichar) are all full professors, with 15 or more years of service to the university. They also are the only full professors in the School of Social Work. Each is nationally known and highly regarded as scholars and academic leaders in the field of gerontology. 4) The program has a large number of alumni, most of who are working in the field of aging in the San Francisco or northern California area and are strongly supportive of the program.
Observations Based on our reading of the documents provided and our interpretation of the information we received from various informants during our visit, we have reached the following conclusions: 1. The Gerontology Program is extremely strong and well-regarded, both within the university and in the community. The master s curriculum is consistent with Association of Gerontology in Higher Education (AGHE) national guidelines and appropriate to accomplish its goal of educating and training planners, administrators, clinicians, and leaders to enter the aging services network of services and programs designed to support older people. 2. The faculty are experienced and respected within their department and college and across the university. They are productive senior scholars who have been successful in obtaining extramural grants to support their research and program development, and they regularly author books and publish articles in respected journals. They are well known for their scholarship and their leadership roles in state, national, and international gerontological associations and serve as well-known discipline-specific consultants both here and abroad. 3. The students in the gerontology program are outstanding. The 1 students we met with expressed a firm commitment to the program and were uniformly positive in their regard for the faculty, the curriculum, and their own job prospects upon graduation. Most are already involved in some capacity in the field of aging and are aware of the stellar reputation the program enjoys in the San Francisco metro area aging community. 4. Program alumni are incredibly appreciative of what the program has done for them and for its support of aging services in the San Francisco area, and they are completely supportive of the program faculty and their goals. Evidence of their enthusiasm was seen in the number of alums (6) in key administrative and leadership positions in the Bay Area who made a special effort to come to campus to meet with the two program evaluators on a weekday afternoon. Many of the alumni present also were employed by the program as lecturers, bringing their unique perspective and experience as direct service providers in the community. 5. We also met with 9 community partners of the program representatives of various public and private agencies, companies, and programs devoted to serving seniors in the Bay Area who also took time out of their busy days to meet with us. Each expressed unqualified admiration and support for the gerontology program, especially the three core faculty. These partners described a variety of working arrangements with the program, from hosting student internships to co-sponsoring annual outreach events, to providing guest lectures in appropriate courses, to employing graduates of the program. All provided credible testimony to the ongoing commitment and effort of the faculty to establish and maintain such healthy ties and to the value their organizations placed on the partnership. 6. We were impressed with the number of privately funded student scholarships that the program has managed to secure over the years. We know from experience that such 2
support and commitment does not come by accident, and we are aware of the amazing example that has been set by the program faculty themselves through their personal giving. 7. From our meetings with several university administrators and faculty outside the program and the School of Social Work, including the Provost, the Associate Dean of the College, officials of the university development office, we note that both the gerontology program and its faculty are warmly regarded and highly praised. The program enjoys a good reputation for having persevered over nearly three decades, through good times and bad, and for maintaining its strong commitment to its students and the field of gerontology. 8. However, we also were made aware that the program is facing several significant challenges and/or barriers to its continued effectiveness and growth. These include: The three core faculty are all senior professors and are either already planning for retirement or may soon be. No clear plan of succession is in place. The demands of a master s program of this size and orientation toward the community are heavy on the three faculty and especially on the coordinator. In fact, the faculty are so concerned about the impact of these duties on the program coordinator that they all have agreed to rotate that role among the three of them, so no one is asked to serve beyond 3-4 years. A related issue is that the coordinator receives no reduced teaching load or financial stipend for this extra administrative work, although we understand such compensation is not available anywhere in the university. This seems to us a particularly short-sighted policy that assumes extra work can be done for free, and we believe such budgetary savings are likely to be illusory in the long run as programs flounder for lack of the best leadership. Perhaps the greatest challenge to the health and future development of the gerontology master s program is its location within the School of Social Work. While under normal conditions, social work might provide a perfectly reasonable administrative home for a gerontology program and in other places, often has we discovered that the current arrangement at SFSU is not healthy, at least for gerontology. We note the following problems that were reported or observed: The gerontology program was essentially forced to join Social Work during a recent reorganization, not a fact conducive to amity. The stated reason for the move was that Social Work had no (or few) senior faculty to provide research leadership and mentor junior faculty, so the hope was that the gerontology faculty would be a positive influence on Social Work. Despite the fact that this hope appears to have been realized, resulting in several positive tenure outcomes for social work faculty and a general agreement that 3
gerontology has been and continues to be an asset to the School of Social Work, it now seems that the negatives are beginning to outweigh the positives of this arrangement. The gerontology program has no administrative support of its own and must depend on Social Work for such help. Whatever the intent or goodwill of the Social Work chair and faculty, this seems to be a dependency fraught with tension and disappointment. The gerontology program does not have its own website. While a clear link to its information is provided on both the college and Social Work websites, the heading Social Work and Gerontology conveys the impression that to study gerontology, one must prepare for a career in social work. This is misleading and potentially discouraging to interested students. Although no connection can be demonstrated, we do note a recent decline in the number of new applications for the program (see Recommendation 4, below). The fundamental contradiction of this arrangement is that any School of Social Work holds the training of students to be social workers as its highest goal, which naturally receives the faculty s loyalty and commitment. No matter how much goodwill may exist, the gerontologists in the department are not and never will be able to participate fully in that effort, and therein lies a further cause of alienation. Recommendations We are aware that a review of written documents and a brief visit to campus for even briefer conversations with a limited group of principals does not imbue us with special insight or expertise. Nevertheless, we find ourselves in full and firm agreement about a small number of recommendations that we offer the university. 1. The Gerontology Program is a major asset to San Francisco State University and the entire San Francisco region, and it enjoys a sterling reputation, both in the State of California and across the nation. The program should be supported, nurtured, and, if possible, expanded to take full advantage of its history, reputation, and current strong leadership. 2. The Gerontology Program does not appear to be optimally located within the School of Social Work and should be free to seek its own administrative home. We heard from more than one source that the Department of Public Administration and Community Engagement (PACE) would welcome Gerontology to join their unit. Whatever the outcome of such discussions with other units, we feel strongly that the Gerontology Program would be better served in another administrative location. 4
3. We note with some concern that all three gerontology faculty are senior scholars who could to retire within the next 5-1 years. In fact, Anabel Pelham, the program s founder, already has opted for the phased retirement plan (FERP) under which she will reduce her work load to half time for the next 4 years. We suggest a reasonable transition plan would include moving immediately to hire one additional junior faculty member to allow that person several years of experience and growth before Dr. Pelham fully retires. A second new hire should be triggered by any of the remaining full-time faculty member s announcement of retirement, either immediate or phased. 4. After an extended period of healthy enrollment and steady growth, we note a recent small decline in student applications and enrollment in the program. This is quite normal for programs/disciplines like gerontology without wide public recognition or natural constituencies among high school and college faculty, but it is nevertheless concerning. We suggest a concerted effort by program faculty to raise the public visibility of the program in the local area by forming a Community Advisory Council and redouble their efforts to use alumni and community partners as recruiting agents. 5. We also suggest the faculty consider the possibility of an undergraduate degree in aging studies, to be marketed to the large number of freshmen and sophomores who are looking for alternatives to their original planned major. 6. Finally, we were impressed with the ongoing efforts and success in securing private donations, especially for student scholarships and financial aid. We urge the faculty to continue their efforts in this area in support of student recruiting efforts. Summary As external reviewers of the Gerontology Program, our perspective and our insight into arrangements of long-standing are limited. Nevertheless, we could not fail to be impressed with both the structure and the operation of the program at SFSU, which enjoys the high regard of its students and graduates, as well as of key members of the aging community in the San Francisco region. Clearly, one of the main reasons for such esteem is the core faculty who are simply outstanding scholars, teachers, and leaders at both the local and national levels. San Francisco State, because of this program, has been nationally recognized for over 3 years as a leader in gerontological education, while many other institutions that established early programs have lost their vision and focus. We sincerely hope that SFSU will capitalize on the hard work and excellent foundation created by these faculty and invest in gerontology to build an even larger center of excellence in this emerging field. 5
Criteria 1: Capacity APPENDIX A Worksheet for Program Review External Consultants San Francisco State University 6 th Cycle of Program Review Suggested Rating for Criteria External Importance to Address at This Time 1 = Program does this well A = High Priority 2=Aspects of this need attention B= Lower Priority 3=This item needs significant attention C= Does not need to be addressed at =Does not apply or not enough evidence to address Criteria for Review Guidelines External 1A. Balance in course offerings Does the department offer sufficient graduate courses on a regular basis? Are paired courses available? Where do students take their electives? 1B. Faculty participation Number and percentage of faculty who participate in teaching grad courses. Number and percentage of faculty who have chaired theses over the last 5 years 1C. Space Availability of seminar rooms, labs, offices for faculty and students 1 C C What evidence is there or Not sure what is being asked here? C Ratings do not Need to add work here. A faculty All faculty participate. 3 A Observation 1D. Equipment Availability of computers, computer labs, lab equipment for faculty and students 3 A Observation 1E. Library Does the library contain adequate resources for graduate level students in this discipline? - 1F. Graduate Student Financial Aid Is adequate financial assistance available to students in the form of TAs, GAs, grants, and loans? 1 B Discussion 1E. Enrollment Given current resources, what is the maximum number of students the program can handle, the lower limit that the program needs, the number of students the program has enrolled now 1F. Diversity Does the student population reflect diversity of age, gender, and ethnicity? 2 A 2 B San Francisco State University Sixth Cycle Handbook 43
APPENDIX A - continued 2. Admissions Guidelines External 2A. GPA Requirement Do all enrolled students enter with 2.75 GPA or better (3. after 28) in the last 6 semester units or 9 quarter units? How many exceptions are there, if any? Section 3.1 2B. Writing Competence How does the department assess entry level writing competence? Do all enrolled students meet this requirement? If remediation is needed, how is it provided? 2C. Non-native speakers How does the department evaluate the English language proficiency of non-native speakers? Have all enrolled students met this requirement? If not, how many have not? If students need remediation, how is this provided? Section 3.2 & Remediation Plan Section 3.2 2D. Other admission requirements Does the department have any other admission requirements? If so, what are they and what is the standard for admission 3. Curriculum Guidelines External 3A.. Curriculum Requirements Are the course requirements consistent with trends in the field? 3B. Course Content Are the required readings and texts in courses consistent with trends in the field? 1 C Based on AGHE standards 1 C 3C. Student Work Product Requirements Are student assignments appropriate in complexity for graduate level work? Are expectations clear? Is the evaluation of the quality of work sufficiently rigorous? Not provided NOTE: External reviewers will be provided with samples of graded student work before their arrival. Samples will include a variety of types of student work products. 44 San Francisco State University Sixth Cycle
APPENDIX A - continued 3D. Class Size How many graduate classes are larger than 3 or smaller than 8? How many graduate seminars are larger than 15 or smaller than 5? 3E. Graduations Rates Do students graduate from the program in a timely manner? If not, what are the barriers? 1 B Report Section 4.5 Classes could be smaller Section 4.6 3F. Quality Indicators Does this program have sufficient indicators of quality? See 6 th Cycle PR Handbook for examples (Section 75) 4. Faculty Guidelines External Section 7.5 + recent fac book pub w/ 2 alums 4A. Requirements for faculty What are the requirements for teaching in the graduate program? Do all grad faculty meet these requirements? What percentage of the full department faculty teach in the grad program? 1 C Faculty CVs 4B. Quality indicators Are there sufficient indicators of faculty quality for this graduate faculty? 4C. Currency Is the faculty sufficiently current to teach at the graduate level? 4D. Diversity Is the faculty sufficiently diverse in terms of age, ethnicity, gender, theoretical perspectives, approaches to the discipline? 1 C Faculty CVs 1 C Faculty CVs 1 C 5. Planning Guidelines 5A. Strategic Planning Does the department have a strategic planning process and a strategic plan? 5B. Governance Does the department have a clearly defined governance structure? Is there sufficient rotation of duties within the governance structure? Section 6. In prog: 1 In dept: 3 C A Discussion San Francisco State University Sixth Cycle Handbook 45
APPENDIX A - continued 5C. Communication Does the department have regular faculty meetings? Are there other means of communication among faculty? Are part-time faculty included in the communication loop? How does the department communicate with graduate students? 1 Impossible to capture all questions with one rating. C Report Sections 6.2 & 6.5 6. Assessment Guidelines External 6A. Assessment Plan Does the department have an assessment with student learning outcomes? 6B. Assessment Implementation Does the department have both direct and indirect measure of student learning? Are they drawing data at the program level and reflecting on their findings? Sections 6.4 & 7.1 Sections 7.1, 7.2 & 7.3 6C. Grade Distribution Do grading patterns indicate a differentiation of good and excellent students 6D. Closing the loop Has the department made curricular or pedagogical changes based on assessment results? 6E. Comprehensive Exam If a comprehensive exam is an option, does the program use a rubric for scoring the exams? Do they discuss exam results holistically (i.e. How are most of our students doing on most of the rubric criteria?) Not provided Note: External consultants will be provided with a random sampling of student transcripts Not Done. Unable to determine Not mentioned 6F. Thesis If a thesis is an option, do faculty engage in a discussion of thesis expectations and requirements on a regular basis? 6G. Culminating Experience How does the department ensure equity and comparability between the culminating experience options? Thesis no longer req d Sections 7.4 & 7.6 46 San Francisco State University Sixth Cycle
APPENDIX A - continued 7. Other Guidelines External 7A. Advising Does the department offer sufficient academic and career advising for graduate students? 7B. Writing How does the department evaluate student writing after a student enters the program? Is there sufficient attention to writing proficiency in the grad program? How does the department provide assistance to students who need remediation in this area? Section 7.2 Section 7.3 + Remediation Plan 7C. Professional Engagement How does the department encourage opportunities for grad students to be engaged in their professional field? Section 8.1 + Internships 7C. Alumni Does the program engage alumni in appropriate ways? 7D. Civic engagement Has the department established appropriate linkages with the larger community? 7E. Equity and Social Justice Is the department appropriately engaged in issues of equity and social justice? 7F. Internationalization Is the department appropriately engaged in international endeavors and issues? 1 C Advisory Board + # of alums as prog lecturers Section 8.2 + Faculty CVs Section 8.3 + internships Section 8.4 + Faculty CVs San Francisco State University Sixth Cycle Handbook 47