March 11, 2025: Reductions to RWPD-170 Sections (Mermann-Jozwiak)

Requesting journalist: Chloe Williams

Respondent: Elisabeth Mermann-Jozwiak, Provost and Dean of the Faculty

1. Could you confirm whether the college is saving $182,000 by reducing the number of RWPD-170 sections from 14 sections to 4, as listed in the budget concepts that were sent out by President Bolton a few weeks ago?
   The information listed in the budget concepts is accurate.
2. Could you confirm whether the savings from RWPD-170 section reduction is from the savings in salary and OPE for those ten sections of the course? Do you know how many non-tenure track faculty have received modified course loads for next year as a result of these cuts?
   This information is correct. I cannot comment on specifics with respect to personnel decisions.
3. I have been told that there were both financial and pedagogical considerations that went into the cuts to the writing proficiency program. Could you tell me more about why the number of RWPD-170 sections has been reduced? Is the Writing Across Contexts distributional requirement a replacement for the Writing Proficiency Program?
   Yes, there were both financial and pedagogical considerations. On the one hand, there was a need to contribute towards reaching the College’s target for reductions. On the other hand, the Committee of Division Chairs recommended to end the required summer writing assessment since high stakes, one-time testing does not lead to students’ best work. We therefore determined that the assessment and RWPD 170 sections for students who did not pass the assessment is not the direction we want to continue with. – I look forward to working with the General Studies Committee to determine what will replace the writing proficiency requirement. 
4. Which came first, the elimination of the writing assessment or the reduction of RWPD-170 courses? Did one cause the other?
   The two were discussed in concert.
5. Were the changes to the Writing Proficiency Program voted on by the faculty? Did the writing faculty in the RWPD department have a say in the reductions to the writing proficiency program?
   The changes to the language about the Writing Proficiency program were voted by the faculty. Staffing requests are submitted to the Committee of Division Chairs by the department chairs/program directors. The committee then makes a recommendation to the Provost and Dean of the Faculty. In other words, the program director’s staffing request, in this instance, was not granted.
6. I have been told that the writing assessment data showed that each year more and more incoming students needed to take RWPD-170, as in there was an upward trend in the numbers of students placing in the course from at least the 2023-2024 academic year to the current academic year. Is this information correct? Is there any way that I could request access to the writing assessment data?
   The data shows that more and more students did not pass the exam. 
7. Some faculty are concerned that the initial RWPD-170 section expansion may not have been in compliance with principles of faculty governance, and that the subsequent reduction of those sections may have been issued in a manner where the timing was unjust to the non-tenure track faculty involved. Could you comment on these concerns?
   I don’t know whether the growth in the number of sections was in compliance with faculty governance as I was not here at the time. What I do know is that the growth was not planned. As mentioned above, the contraction of sections went through the appropriate process and governance system, ie., the Committee of Division Chairs.