The recommended processes are intended to maintain the department's efforts to assure equitable support to students in all divisions and to provide divisional autonomy in how support is awarded to individual students. They are designed to be flexible, establishing parameters, guidelines, and decision making processes rather than setting exact amounts or numbers. If the Task Force has been successful in this, then we should be able to implement the recommendations in a wide variety of funding, degree program, and enrollment circumstances.

In developing the student support model, we assumed that the Task Force recommendations adopted by the faculty at the June 9, 1994 meeting (see Appendix A) were being implemented. We agreed on five fundamental goals for student support:

To use the various sources of student support to enhance the academic development of Department of Education students

To provide student support in an equitable way to all divisions of the department

To encourage and reward faculty actions that promote widespread student support

To motivate students to make timely progress and faculty to assist them in doing so

To establish a workable system for obtaining and allocating student support funds, a system that faculty and students perceive to be fundamentally fair and supportive of our most important departmental goals

We recommend different ways of handling the three main types of support for our graduate students: (1) support that is developed by and/or under the control of individual faculty, administrators, and/or staff in the Department of Education (e.g., GSRs, GSIs, Dean's Scholars, Bilingual Fellowships), (2) support that is under the control of campus people and organizations outside the Department of Education, and (3) support that comes from the university to the department as a whole (i.e., unrestricted fellowship funds, In-Candidacy Fee Offset Grants (ICFOG), Non-Resident Tuition Fellowships (NRTF)). Here, we offer a broad overview of what is recommended. As you read, remember that the overview is broad; it omits qualifiers and details that may be important to an assessment of the desirability of any recommendation. Much relevant information is provided in later sections and appendices. In addition, near the end of the report we describe what remains to be done in order to implement the proposed model.

For support sources in the first category, we recommend public listing of every paid position (e.g., GSR, GSI) and fellowship with ample opportunity for all qualified students to apply. The choice of which student(s) would receive the support would be left to the responsible faculty member(s), administrator(s), or staff. What was available, who applied, and who was chosen would be open to review. We assume that this approach will open these positions up to more students in the Department, result in some cross-divisional hiring, and achieve some of the support distribution that has previously been handled through the so-called tithing. Parenthetically, our recommendations are very much in line with existing university policy and probably should be implemented no matter what.

For support in the second category, we recommend a public listing of known sources of such support, active development of such sources for our students, and vigorous promotion of our students as candidates for such support.

For support sources in the third category, we recommend that the funds be partitioned for different purposes and allocated to divisions who will award them to individual students who meet funding criteria for each purpose.

For unrestricted fellowship funds, we recommend that they be divided into four pools: (1) a small reserve pool that the Fellowship Committee would award to students or allocate to divisions late in the year; (2) an incentive pool that would be allocated to each division to reward its ladder faculty's efforts to support graduate students; (3) a general support pool that would be allocated to each division proportional to its percentage of PhD students; and (4) a targeted support pool that would be used to help support all PhD students in their full-time engagement year and Project 88 students in their second and third years. The incentive and general support funds would be allocated to divisions early in Winter Quarter. Divisions would decide how to use these funds to recruit new students and support continuing students. We assume divisional awards would follow departmental student funding priorities. Early in Spring Quarter, the targeted support funds would be allocated to divisions according to the demonstrated need of their eligible full-time engagement year and Project 88 students for additional funding to bring their total up to whatever UCLA has estabished as the minimum for a Project 88 student in the second or third year. Limits would be set up so that these targeted support allocations do not exceed departmental notions of equitable treatment of the different divisions. Any unrestricted fellowship funds remaining after all these uses would be allocated to each division late in Spring Quarter.

Starting this year, ICFOG funds will be given to the department rather than awarded by Graduate Division; they may only be used to support in-candidacy PhD students. We recommend that these funds be allocated to each division proportional to the divisional percentage of PhD students recently advanced to candidacy. Divisions would decide how to allocate funds among their PhD students who have recently advanced to candidacy.

Also starting this year, NRTF funds will be given to the department. There is no requirement that they be used to support graduate students who are not California residents; they may be used to support any graduate student. Task Force members agree that we should provide tuition funds to recruit excellent out-of-state applicants and to support international students. For 1996 decision making about 1996-97 awards, we recommend that the NRTF funds that come to the department be handled exactly as we handled them last year. If so, early in Winter Quarter, they will be distributed to the divisions proportional to each division's share of the NRTF awards from the previous year. The Fellowship Committee would agree on any adjustment to this distribution based on any anticipated changes in divisional plans for enrolling non-resident students. We also recommend that a new task force be established to develop recommendations for 1997-98 and thereafter about how much, if any, of the funds that used to be targeted to NRTFs should be specifically designated for these purposes and about how they should be allocated to divisions.

Graduate Student Researcher (GSR) positions are primarily funded from extramural contracts and grants obtained by individual faculty members. A few are funded by 19900 funds (e.g., to assist a senior administrator). Academic Senate Research grants are also a source of such funds. GSR positions provide salary according to hours worked. A GSR who is hired for at least 25% time must also have health insurance and educational fees paid by the funding source. GSR funds vary from year to year and depend on the efforts of individual faculty to bring contracts and grants into the department (and university) and to provide for GSR positions in them. The 1993-94 UCLA Graduate Programs Annual Report indicates that education students earned about $1,037,000 in GSR salary throughout the campus. In addition, they received about $217,000 in health insurance and fee remissions from these GSR positions. If all our faculty applied for Academic Senate Research grants entirely to support students, hired students at 25% time or more, and the funding pattern continues as it has in the past, we would bring in about $100,000 in student support.

Graduate Student Instructor (GSI) and other 19900-funded positions are funded by UC 19900 funds provided to the department by UCLA's central administration. The department receives them as one lump sum and then allocates them to particular departmental courses. So far as we know there is no departmental policy about the characteristics of courses that do and do not merit GSI support. Students hired as GSIs serve primarily as teaching assistants in undergraduate courses (a few), special readers in graduate courses (mostly SRM courses), and clinical consultants in the teacher education program. We estimate that in 94-95, our students earned about $200,000 as GSIs in the department and in other departmental positions supported with 19900 funds.

UCLA Employment Sources Outside the Department include GSI and GSR apprenticeship positions and various staff positions funded through UCLA departments, centers, and other units outside of education. Sample positions we know our students have held are teaching assistantships in undergraduate psychology and communication courses, research assistantships in psychiatry, staff positions in the International Center, and teaching and administrative positions in Extension. We have little knowledge of the extent or nature of such student support. Some divisions report that many of their students are employed on campus but not in education. It is likely that many students are supported on campus but not in education. The 1993-94 Annual Report indicates, for example, that our students earned about $1,315,000 in UCLA employment that was not GSR or GSI positions. Our best estimate is that a significant portion of that amount is accounted for by UCLA jobs outside the Department of Education.

Dean's Scholars Fellowships are provided from donor gifts to the department. The Dean is responsible for them. Although few were designated as such, these fellowships are traditionally reserved for teacher education students.

Spencer Fellowships are provided to the department by a grant from the Spencer Foundation. The Department Chair is responsible for them. They are used primarily to recruit new students interested in studying at-risk populations. Some continuing students also receive Spencer support. The total yearly support is about $200,000.

Community College Fellowships are provided by the state of California. They come to us as 19900 funds. Higher Education is responsible for them. They are used to recruit new students and support continuing students interested in studying community colleges. The total yearly support is about $60,000.

Bilingual Fellowships are provided by the U.S. Department of Education. Concepción Váladez is responsible for them. They are used to recruit new students and support continuing students interested in studying bilingual education. The total year support is about $95,000.

Special Fellowships Handled Outside the Department are mostly offered by or through the Graduate Division. Some are available through ethnic, area, and gender studies centers. Many are targeted for special purposes: recruitment, underrepresented minorities, dissertation year, research mentorship,and designated research topics or locations. Our students regularly apply for and receive such fellowships, particularly those handled by Grad Division. The two that figure most prominently in the rest of this report are Project 88 Fellowships and Chancellor's Fellowships. Both provide full funding for the recipient's first and fourth years and require the department to insure that the recipient is supported during the second and third years. Recently, that support has had a $16,000 minimum (fees, books, living expenses combined). GSRs and GSIs are the preferred support mechanisms. We have no knowledge of the extent of such support. Moreover, we believe that our students have not been active enough in seeking such support.

Unrestricted Fellowship Funds are awarded to the department by the Graduate Division. An allocation formula is used that guarantees every department 80% of what it received the previous year (assuming that UCLA continues to receive adequate funding for this). The remaining funds are allocated to departments according to a formula that does two things: (1) weights student head count by degree program with PhDs counting about 1, masters students counting about .1, and professional degree students counting nothing, and (2) does not count at all students who are not making timely progress toward their degree (up to 12 quarters before passing the preliminary doctoral dissertation oral examination and therefore advancing to candidacy and up to 9 quarters to finish the dissertation and graduate). With our past enrollment levels in the various degree programs and student rate of progress, we have received about $550,000 a year in unrestricted fellowship funds. If we continue to decrease PhD enrollment as we have been doing, we will reduce our unrestricted fellowship funds. If we increase our PhD students' rate of progress, we will increase our funds somewhat. These funds should be awarded to students on the basis of academic merit. Financial need is not supposed to be considered. Students receiving unrestricted fellowship funds may not be required to work for them. The Graduate Division sets a minimum dollar amount for a student award that includes any unrestricted fellowship funds. Recently that amount has been $5000. Any student receiving unrestricted fellowship funds must receive a minimum of $5000 for the academic year composed of any combination of unrestricted fellowship funds, a GSR appointment, and a GSI appointment.

In Candidacy Fee Offset Grant (ICFOG) funds will be given to the department for the first time ever this year. In the past, the Graduate Division handled these awards; our eligible students applied to the Graduate Division. Beginning this year, Grad Division will give us funds roughly equal to what our students were awarded in the recent past. Cary Whitcup estimates we will receive about $80,000 this year to support eligible students in 1996-97. The ICFOG funds may be used only to support students who have advanced to candidacy (passed their preliminary doctoral oral examination) and who have been enrolled for fewer than 18 quarters. They should be awarded on the basis of merit. Students receiving them may not be required to work for them. There are no restrictions on dollar amount of award.

Non-Resident Tuition Fellowship (NRTF) funds in the past were given to the department to be used solely for tuition support for students who were not California residents. In the recent past, we received about 24 NRTFs. Each NRTF covered all tuition costs for three quarters of the academic year. The value of the NRTFs awarded for 95-96 was roughly $185,000. This year we will be given about the same amount of money for 96-97 awards, but its use will not be limited to non-resident tuition. The department will have to decide how it wants to spend these funds. The funds should be awarded on the basis of merit. Financial need is not supposed to be considered. Students receiving NRTF funds may not be required to work for them. We assume that the Grad Division's requirements about minimum awards will also apply for the use of what have been NRTF funds.

Based on the information we have presented, we can estimate that approximately $3.8 million (see below) would be available annually for student support in the next few years. This is in the ballpark of the 1993-94 Graduate Programs Annual Report figure of $4.3 million in all merit-based and other UCLA employment support to our students. The $4.3 million includes the value of various university fellowships (e.g., Project 88) awarded to our students, but not counted in our totals. The Annual Report also showed that our students received about $1.6 million in loans and need-based financial aid. Together this represents about $6 million in student funding per year.

$440,000 Unrestricted fellowship funds
80,000 ICFOG funds
185,000 NRTF funds
1,250,000 GSR and other positions on extramural funds throughout UCLA
200,000 GSI and other 19900 positions in Education only
355,000 Special fellowships (Spencer, Community College, and Bilingual)
1,300,000 UCLA employment that is not GSR or GSI

$3,810,000 Estimated annual support

Estimated Funding Needed

The number of students likely to be eligible for support from the funds identified above is estimated to be 300-350 right now. According to Fall Quarter 1995 Education enrollment figures, there were about 310 PhD students who will not have exceeded the 7 year limit by next year and about 40 regular (non-Leadership) EdD students who began in 1994 or before and will not have exceeded this limit by next year. If our estimated annual support were divided equally among all 350 students, there would be about $10,900 per student from the conservative $3.8 million estimate, $12,300 from the Grad Division 1993-94 $4.3 million figure, and $17,100 when loans are added to reach the Grad Division 1993-94 $6 million figure. Recently, our PhD enrollments have been decreasing somewhat and the regular EdD enrollments have been decreasing dramatically (3 new EdD students this fall). So, the best guess for the near future is that the number of eligible students would decrease somewhat.

We have recommended that the department give special attention to supporting both PhD students during their full-time engagement year and special fellowship recipients during their second and third years. In the near future, the number of students eligible for such support is unlikely to be higher than 75. This is based on the following assumptions: a total PhD enrollment of 300, all PhD students finishing in 5 years, one-fifth of all PhD students involved in the full-time engagement year (this should include special fellowship students in either their second or third year), and 15 special fellowship students in the second or third year, whichever is not their full-time engagement year. If each of these 75 students received student support totalling $16,000, this would total $1.2 million in support costs. No matter what resource estimate we use, the $1.2 million should be available. Moreover, there should be at least $2.6 million available to support other eligible students. Even if we supported all 75 students at the maximum set by UCLA (now $26,500 per student or $1.988 million for 75 students), we would have funds left for other eligible students.

Based on the information available to us and several conservative estimates, we conclude that it is quite possible to target support to full-time engagement year and second and third year special fellowship students and to continue to support other eligible students. We note that in order to do so we must take account of our students' access to GSR, GSI, and other employment throughout UCLA not just in our department.

Research, instruction, and other positions controlled by the department and its faculty
Special fellowships controlled by the department and its faculty
UCLA fellowships and employment handled outside the department
Unrestricted fellowship funds -- reserve pool
Unrestricted fellowship funds -- incentive pool
Unrestricted fellowship funds -- general support pool
Unrestricted fellowship funds -- targeted support pool
In-candidacy fee offset grant
Non-resident tuition fellowships

Terminology

In the descriptions that follow and in the appendices, several terms are used with specific meaning. They are introducedand explained here.

Fellowship Committee Composed of the heads of each division in the Department of Education (or an alternate designated by the division head), the Chair of the Department, acting as Committee Chair, and the Director of Student Services for GSE&IS.

GD-required minimal award The dollar amount that the Graduate Division sets as the least that a student may receive when any unrestricted funds are awarded to him or her. In 1994-95, this amount was $5000. In meeting the minimal amount, the department is not required to use only unrestricted funds. It may, for instance, provide a student with less than the GD-required minimal award in unrestricted funds and add to it a GSR or GSI position with a dollar value sufficient to make the total award at least as large as the GD-required minimal award.

Student funding cap A maximum dollar value for support of one education graduate student during the academic year. Included in the calculation of dollar value would be any GSR and GSI positions, fellowships, and unrestricted fund awards. The university currently sets the cap at $26,500; there is a formula for calculating it. Not included would be any off-campus employment, loans, or gifts.

The recommended processes for identifying and hiring Education graduate students as Graduate Student Researchers (GSRs), Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs) regardless of title (e.g., Teaching Assistant, Special Reader), and all other paid positions within the Department are very much in line with current university policy. All positions would be openly listed for at least two weeks, permitting application by any graduate student in Education. Listings would be available in a notebook in the Office of Student Services, on a bulletin board, and on the Web. After the application deadline, faculty, administrators, or staff responsible for the position review all applications and select whom to hire. The Office of Student Services, which maintains the information, is told who was hired. A record of position listings, applicants, and hires would be available for departmental review. This system conforms to university policies about hiring practices for academic apprentice personnel, faculty, staff, and administrators. With the recommended process in place, there would be no tithing or other adjustments to divisional student support. If hiring possibilities, especially GSRs and GSIs, are openly announced and all applicants are fairly considered, then these sources of student support should be equitably distributed across the department.

The various departmental fellowships will be handled in a manner similar to that recommended for GSRs, GSIs, and other paid positions within the department. Each fellowship that could be awarded to a continuing student will be described in a listing kept in the Office of Student services and available on-line. Qualifications and deadlines will be described. All eligible continuing students may apply. A faculty committee chosen by the steward of the fellowship will review applicants and select recipients. A similar process will be followed for fellowships that could be awarded to new students, except that the faculty will be informed of the fellowship and they will recommend applicants to the review committee. Deadlines will be set so that the divisions and the Fellowship Committee will know which students will receive special fellowships at a time when they can take this into consideration in the allocation and award of unrestricted fellowship funds.

Fellowships and UCLA Employment Handled Outside the Department

A departmental reference book will be developed. It will be kept in the Office of Student Services; if possible, it will also be on-line. In it, the various campus, university, and external fellowships for which education students are eligible will be described, as will GSR, GSI, and other paid positions on campus. These descriptions will be easily available to education students, faulty, and staff. Faculty and staff will be vigorous in identifying opportunities for listing, working with other people on campus to identify such support sources for our students, encouraging students to apply, and promoting our students for such positions.

Unrestricted Fellowship Funds

When all elements of the proposed system are functional, then we recommend that the pool be divided as follows. For the reserve pool, set aside an amount of money roughly equivalent to 10% of all unrestricted fellowship funds (or about 10 GD-required minimal awards, without any implication that the funds would be distributed in this size award; this year it would be about $50,000). For the incentive pool, set aside 25-30% of the remaining funds (about $125,000-$150,000 this year). For the general support pool, set aside 20-25% of the remaining funds (about $100,000-$125,000 this year). For the targeted support pool, set aside 50% of the remaining funds (about $250,000 this year). Depending on how well divisions do in funding students eligible for targeted support funds, not all of the targeted support funds may be used up. The percentage allocations to the four pools would be reviewed every fall when an annual student support report is presented to the faculty. The faculty would have the opportunity to revise the size of the allocation pools.

At the end of this report, the Task Force will recommend what to do this year for 96-97 funding and how to transition to the new system.

For the reserve pool, we will set aside an amount of money roughly equivalent to 10% of all unrestricted fellowship funds or about 10 GD-required minimal awards. However, there is no intention that these funds must be distributed to divisions nor awarded to students as 10 minimal awards. How and when they are used would be decided by the Fellowship Committee. The funds will be set aside within two weeks of receiving our unrestricted fellowship funds allocation from Graduate Division. If possible, the Fellowship Committee would dispense them by the latter part of May. Otherwise, they would be dispensed right after the beginning of Fall Quarter.

Unrestricted Fellowship Funds: Incentive Pool (Appendix D)

After the reserve pool has been established, 25-30% of the remaining unrestricted fellowship funds will be put in the incentive pool. Every division will receive some of these funds as a reward for the efforts of its ladder faculty to support education graduate students. The amount will be proportional to effort. The funds will be distributed to divisions within two weeks after the department receives its unrestricted fellowship fund allocation for the coming year. Divisions will award these funds to their students following the departmental funding priorities. Given the relatively small amount of incentive funds compared to student need, this probably means the funds would be used for recruitment of new PhDs, underrepresented minority students in any degree program, and PhD students in their designated full-time engagement year.

A point system will be used to quantify the efforts of each division's ladder faculty to support graduate students. Points would be given for such activities as preparing and submitting a contract or grant proposal that included GSR funds, hiring education students as GSRs, and hiring education students outside your division into any position. Points could be given when eligible actions are promised (e.g., a quarter-time GSI commitment for the upcoming year) or after they have been carried out. Each division will be awarded a share of the incentive funds proportional to its percentage of the total incentive points of all divisions combined. Most likely, a floor is set so that each division receives some incentive funds. This process uses some of our funds to reward and to encourage special faculty efforts to support education students.

Continued in Part 2

UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies

pbe: 13Sep96

updated