Dr. Catherine R. Gira
President
Frostburg State University
Tuesday, April 3, 2001 Hall

I. Progress

Each spring about this time, when the State legislature is about to adjourn for another year, I use our spring Convocation to share with the University community a "state of the University" address similar to one which I share with legislators at the various hearings in which we take part.  Those of us who were here in the early years of the 1990's, when state appropriations to public institutions of higher education plummeted 20%, could hardly believe the change as we entered the new century.

By the end of the 1990's, fortunately, the economy in Maryland, which had been relatively slow in coming out of the recession, had begun to boom, and, suddenly, higher education became a high priority among major policy makers, from the Governor to members of the General Assembly.  Frostburg State University benefitted enormously from this turn-around, as we all know.  Funding for construction of a long-needed new science facility was accelerated by nearly a decade, and approval was given for the extensive renovation of Gunter Hall.  Funds were allocated to enhance faculty salaries, expand our technological capabilities, and move toward national accreditation of our programs in education and business.  All in all, we began the century with a heady infusion of resources, although we still had some catching up to do in a number of areas.

The State's rationale for approving the new science center was twofold:  1) our current facilities are so obviously antiquated as to prevent us from offering the level of instruction needed to serve the growing number of science and technology majors on our campus; and 2) the number of students who would be graduating from high school over the next several years would grow substantially, and we were expected to absorb some of that growth.  Accordingly, we projected a modest growth of 1 to 2% per year for the next few years, including enrollments in Hagerstown and Frederick. (I would add that this projection is much lower than that recommended by the Maryland Higher Education Commission.)

All that, of course, is preamble to what I would like to share with you today.  First of all, let me simply update information that we routinely report to the legislature.  If you will look at the handouts distributed as you entered, you will see that:

• The source of our students remains virtually unchanged, with the exception that Frederick is growing each year, in keeping with the growth of the County as a whole.  We continue to draw students from all over the state.
  
  
• Our alumni tend to return to the counties from which they came and in which, generally, they are more likely to find employment than if they were to remain in our area.  Each year, as we all know, many of those students would choose to live in western Maryland if they could find good jobs here.
  
  
• We continue to attract a growing number of minority students, despite the fact that, over-all, only 2% of the residents of the three westernmost counties are minorities.  The pie chart showing the distribution of this year's entering class indicates that 22% of that class was comprised of minorities, including 15% African American students. We were proud to report to the legislators not only that we continue to attract a diverse student population, but that many of our minority students assume positions of leadership on our campus.  This year, for example, approximately 50% of the students in Frost Hall, our Leadership hall, are African-American students, as are 40% of our AllenHallstars and the majority of the students on the executive committee of the SGA.
  
  
• Our private assets have grown exponentially in recent years, reaching thus far this year an all-time high of well over $12 million.  The gift of over $727,000 to support international students from the son of a former miner who lived with his  family in Eckhart has attracted widespread media attention. In addition, as you can see, the $750,000 received from our settlement with the Redskins will be deposited in a separate fund called the Common Trust; together, these resources total over $12 million in private assets to date.  We are also having success in acquiring additional gifts from private donors, to be matched by another $750,000 from the state under legislation passed last year.  By the end of this year, we should be adding approximately another $1 million to the figures you see in the chart.
  
  
• Our faculty and administrative offices continue to be active and successful in preparing grants, as reflected in the next chart.  The fluctuation from year to year is often the result of the actual date on which applications are processed and grants awarded.  Kudos to all who have attained these competitive awards.

After presenting this broad overview to the legislative committees before whom we appear, we are required to report each year on specific topics.  This year, those topics included strategies to address the teacher education shortage and the shortage in technology graduates; collaborative programs; and technology.  In addition, I noted our recognition as the first and only university in the nation to receive a model of excellence award from the Corporation for National Service.

The remaining charts in your packet indicate:

• The growing number of master's degrees we are awarding in the field of education and the decreasing number of undergraduate majors in education.  Some of the decrease is attributable to the rigorous screening required through the PRAXIS examinations, but we should be seeing a turn-around in the numbers soon.  Last year, only 72 students were eligible for and received one of the generous Hope scholarships in education from the state; this fall, that number rose to 206.  Clearly, there are some very able students in the pipeline who intend to prepare for a career in teaching.
  
  
• The number of majors in technological fields, including engineering and computer science, has grown by 80 in just one year, as you can see from the companion chart. 
  
  
• We continue to be among the most aggressive institutions in our System in seeking ways to expand opportunities for our students and for students in sister institutions through collaborative arrangements.   The lists provided in the handout were also shared with the legislature.  We consistently receive high marks from both the Regents and legislators for these initiatives.  As was the case when we inaugurated our engineering program with College Park, the System has provided resources in our base budget this coming year to begin a collaborative program in Occupational Therapy with Towson, a program that is badly needed in our region.

Depending upon final approval of the budget for next year, subject to an negotiated agreement between the House and the Senate and to any additional funds restored by the Governor, Frostburg will see an increase of approximately 9.5-10% over last year.  This is among the four or five highest increases in the System and will provide us with approximately $700,000 in enhancement funding to support salary increases, technology upgrades, and increased support to accommodate increased enrollments.  That is about $800,000 less than proposed by the Governor, who supported a 14% increase, but it is still very generous.  I would also point out that this increase is in addition to seed money for Occupational Therapy and a 4% COLA, plus applicable merit adjustments, allocated for salary increases.  Since FY 1995, state appropriations to our University have increased by approximately 53%. 

In addition to increases in our operating budget, the two major capital projects underway on our campus, the construction of the new science center and the renovation of Gunter Hall, have received supplementary funding of over $3 million to adjust for market conditions.  That brings the total cost of the science center alone to over $32 million.  Both projects are proceeding as projected.

The current legislative session, which is due to adjourn within the next week, has also taken up several issues that will directly affect our institutions.  The most significant is a bill to bring the option of collective bargaining to certain employees of the University System.  The bill excludes officers and senior administrators and full- and part-time faculty and other instructional personnel such as teaching assistants.  Before the legislation can take effect, it will require ratification by the employees affected.  At the time of this writing, several amendments had been proposed to the bill, so some of the details are still unclear.

Other legislation raises the family income cap to $95,000 from $65,000 for students to be eligible for Hope scholarships.  There is no income cap for students preparing to teach or to enter high-tech fields.  The award for prospective teachers was raised from $3,000 per year, the amount applicable to other Hope scholarship recipients, to $5,000 per year.

An increase in the State's contribution to optional retirement programs is still being discussed, and the final outcome of legislation on this issue is still uncertain.

Internally, progress has also been made in many areas.  One need only read State Lines each week to note the dramatic increase in activities, from musical events to lectures to dramatic performances and art exhibits to a variety of social events for students.  Some evenings and weekends, especially during this time of year, there are several events scheduled concurrently, testimony that the hills are, indeed, alive here in western Maryland.

The faculty have been extremely busy this year developing new programs to enrich our curricular offerings.  The last charts in your handouts list those that have been approved or are awaiting final approval just since the beginning of the current academic year.  We are indebted to all of those whose efforts have led to these increased opportunities for our students.  This year alone, our faculty produced twelve books, 42 refereed articles, and numerous musical compositions and performance and works of art.  They truly have earned their reputation as teacher-scholars.

In sum, then, the progress that we can claim for this academic year, which is only three-quarters over, is substantial, due to the tireless efforts of many, many individuals: faculty, staff, and students.  Congratulations and thank you to all of you who strive continually to make this fine institution even better.

II. Challenges

Now for a few challenges that we need to recognize as we plan for the future. 

• We need to strike an appropriate balance between pressures to grow and the ability to maintain quality in what we do.  We know that the approval of the new science building was predicated, in part, on an expectation that we would grow.  As noted earlier, our modest projections of 1-2% growth annually are less than that recommended by the Maryland Higher Education Commission, which based its projections on our traditional market share of high school graduates from Maryland.  With growth comes the challenge of increasing faculty and support staff and of providing adequate student housing, an issue that has a direct impact on the community at large.  And we need to do all that we can to encourage our students not only to reflect in their behavior a respect for the community in which we are located, but also a dedication to community service.   We will continue to work closely with the City of Frostburg in planning for the future, knowing that effective responses to these challenges are of extreme importance to all of us.
  
  
• Although the current economic health of Maryland is strong -- much stronger than that of many other states -- we cannot continue to expect double-digit increases forever.  As we invest the resources available to us now, we need to be sure that they reflect the priorities most important to the future stability and growth of our institution.  That challenge should involve candid discussions among our faculty, the deans, the Cabinet, and the Executive Committee, culminating in some of the decisions that will be made at our annual Cabinet retreat in August.  One concern that is often expressed by department chairs, for example, is the fact that many departmental budgets have remained flat during the past several years. despite the growth in our over-all budgets.  As Dr. Grontkowski noted in her recent comments on this issue, much of the enhancement money available in the last few years has gone into salary enhancements, technology, and increases in the budgets of the College of Education and the College of Business as they pursue national professional accreditation.  We need to examine carefully the adequacy of all departmental budgets.
  
  
• The content of our general education program, an issue about which there has been some concern for several years, is currently being reviewed by a faculty committee.  Dr. Grontkowski has identified this as a priority for Academic Affairs, and it is one in which we all have a stake.  In large measure, our students' ability to pass the PRAXIS examination required of students seeking admission to our education programs is a reflection of their preparation in general education, specifically in the ability to read, write, and do basic mathematics.  The adequacy of that preparation is the responsibility of the entire faculty, not just of one or two departments.  At the same time, we need to be confident that our general education program is appropriate for students of the 21st century and not a program designed primarily to protect the traditional "turf" of academic departments.
  
  
• Next, let me return to a topic to which I referred earlier in my remarks this afternoon.  Frostburg State University is proud of the fact that minority students are attracted to our campus and that many of them achieve positions of leadership in our community.  We continue to hold as an institutional goal attracting a more diverse faculty and staff, and we are making some progress in that regard.  As we do become more diverse, we must continue to be vigilant about maintaining a welcoming, supportive climate for all of our students, faculty, and staff, including minorities.  We often point out to prospective students and supporters the fact that our University is large enough to be diverse, yet small enough to sustain a closely knit community.  In that regard, we are the envy of many of our peers.  At the same time, we cannot be complacent about the fact that minority staff and faculty may perceive  us as less welcoming, less supportive, than we wish or believe ourselves to be.  It is an issue to which we need to give constant attention.
  
  
• As we have noted before, both the world of work and the world of academic research and study have become increasingly interdisciplinary, moving outside of independent, self-contained, discipline-based units (or academic silos as they are sometimes called).  That presents a challenge not only in the development of curricula, but also in the evaluation of faculty members engaged in interdisciplinary research and teaching.  Faculty evaluation is an issue of ongoing discussion here at the University, as it is in many institutions, but one dimension of that discussion that we have not really resolved is how to evaluate and credit the work of those who teach and/or do research in more than one disciplinary area.  We need to develop sound procedures for evaluating the efforts of faculty involved solely in one discipline versus those of faculty engaged in cross-disciplinary activities.  Who will evaluate them?  How can we be sure that they are not disadvantaged in reviews for merit salary increases, tenure and promotion?  All that I have said about the challenges of evaluating faculty engaged in emerging disciplines and pedagogy can be applied to research activities, as well, where disciplinary borders are increasingly being crossed. 
  
  
• A related challenge is how to evaluate and reward the work of faculty who are developing new courses or units to be delivered online or through other distance-learning methods.  How can we encourage and provide incentives for them to use the new technologies to improve the teaching-learning experience?  Again, how will we evaluate those efforts in reviewing faculty salaries and applications for tenure and promotion?  What are the implications with regard to intellectual property?  Who will own and possibly derive financial benefits from the products prepared by our faculty?  This question is still being sorted out in the courts and at the policy level of institutions and systems across the country.  How can we get ahead of the curve, since some of our faculty are already engaging in the preparation of these course materials even as we speak?

I do not intend in my remarks to denigrate or undervalue in any way the good work that is going on by faculty engaged in traditional research and teaching, by those whose scholarship is directed toward peeling away layers of accumulated knowledge within an academic discipline to reveal new insights and new understandings.  After all, it is that kind of scholarship that has provided the basis for sound education for centuries. 

What I am calling for are new paradigms, new ways of thinking about what we do as scholars and educators.  Like many of you, I have spent time over the past several weeks reading Dr. Barbara Hurd's new, highly acclaimed book, Stirring the Mud:  On Swamps, Bogs, and Human Imagination.  One reviewer of the book, a writer in the Los Angeles Times, notes the eclectic nature of her writing  -- the broad range of disciplines reflected in this amazing work.  Having identified Barb as an English professor at Frostburg State University, he writes, "Stirring the Mud is a difficult book to characterize.  Hurd is a consummate naturalist, writing with the grace and precision of a Peter Matthiessen or an Annie Dillard, but she is also remarkably curious about human nature, spinning her discussion to bring in Joseph Campbell, the I Ching and Thomas Edison.  One moment you're holding a bog turtle in the palm of your hand or watching a dragonfly unfold its wings, and the next you're learning how Monet went about exhibiting his water lily canvases in 1922 or why the cold acidic water of peat bogs so perfectly preserves a body."  Poet, teacher, naturalist, mythologist and myth-maker.  No one title, no one "box" can define who Barbara Hurd is, how her mind works.  Indeed, it would be a travesty to attempt to do so.

I do not mean in any way to trivialize the profound beauty of Barb's words and thoughts by applying them to mundane matters.  At the same time, much of what she has to say resonates deeply as I think about  the message we should be sending to those of our faculty who, like her, find themselves drawn to scholarly pursuits that transcend the boundaries of a single focus or a single discipline, that stretch the imagination to explore new ways of seeing and thinking.  Consider, for example, these passages from Stirring the Mud:

The paradox is that to see clearly, you must learn to see obliquely.  You must look ahead, and, at the same time, widen your peripheral vision so that it extends not just in great arcs around your head, but over the edge, into the margins where the visible and invisible, dreams and reality, land and water, emptiness and profusion mingle.  The sublime is like poetry; it will not be caught or chased down.  It exists at the edge of things -- in the vast margins . . . The imagination loves freedom first, and then form.  And there is an odd kind of freedom in the fringes that comes, in part, from jettisoning our love of function. . .  lack of function in our culture means lack of value.  "What's it for?" we want to know.  "What does it do?"  . . . . But what kind of cultural enlightenment will it take for us to freely say that we value this or that because it is beautiful, or because it nourishes the imagination, because it is good for the soul? (pp. 13-14)

It is embarrassing -- I would almost claim sacrilegious -- to attempt to say anything after sharing those passages.  I should probably just stop here and let us savor their beauty.  But I am compelled to bring my analogy to a conclusion, urging us all to encourage our colleagues who want to explore the margins, traverse the edges into territories that lie beyond traditional academic boundaries.  And, whatever we do, we must find appropriate ways to reward the results of those explorations, even as we reward more traditional scholarly work.

Let me conclude my remarks, then, with some obvious assertions.  We are living in a time of unprecedented support from the State, the Regents, and private donors; our faculty continue to be known widely for the excellence of their teaching and their attention to the needs of students; many of them have gained national and even international reputations for their distinguished scholarship; our students are diverse, interesting, and increasingly committed to community service; and we are fortunate to live and work in one of the most beautiful areas of the State.

Are we an Eden?  Of course not.  We face challenges -- many of them difficult, but not insurmountable.  And it is in addressing those challenges head-on that we will remain a vital institution, constantly growing in quality and stature.   In short, let us embrace, rather than fear, the implications of the familiar Chinese adage "May we live in interesting times."