|
Moving Forward
Joel Tabora, S.J.
Address
General Faculty Assembly
Ateneo de Naga University
8 June 2007
This is the last year of my third term. Last month, the Jesuits involved in University leadership gathered at AIM to learn how to run a university. Fr. Ting Samson, a doctor of chemistry, who’d been in university administration most of his Jesuit apostolic career, said he was happy to finally learn why an asset is but on the debit side of the accounting equation. Your president, a doctor of philosophy, was intrigued by ratio analysis and break-even calculations. It was an interesting workshop – which I guess ended up in the agreement that while finances are important in our operation, they are not everything, and that if our profit margin is not as high as that of other Ateneos, it may be a good indicator, and a sign that we are making our assets work to achieve our mission!
Perhaps this year, and this talk, may be an occasion of rededication to our mission. We are happy the elections are over. Cho lost, Louie won; Abang lost, Dato won. Jessie won; and so did Leni. I am glad we could express our indignation after the Comelec attempted to deprive the Naga electorate of its right to vote for the mayor it wanted. I am glad our University Trustee won – with his entire team of councilors. Seling Tuazon is getting a second term after graduating anew from Ateneo. On the other hand, Badette Roco gets her first term, while Cho will attempt being a man-in-green on his farm. In the national scene, the 8-2-2 score on the senatorial tallies convince all that the Lady in Malacanang is not unopposed. In this ambivalent scenario, all over, evidence of vote-buying, violence, cheating, and a corrupt and unreliable Comelec. At the same time, evidence of disorganization, lack of coordination, lack of technical preparedness in the non-partisan organizations which participated in this electoral exercise. So much room for improvement!
But more on this when Renne Gumba discusses the national situation. Suffice it to say that while we are happy the elections are over, we know it is impossible for a university in this country to abstract itself from the political life of a country. From our mission, we are about delivering integral formation of men and women who will contribute to the total development of the family and human society. We are committed to delivering education that is Filipino, Catholic and Jesuit. It is not indifferent who the local or national leaders are. These facilitate, or complicate, or when morally impelled, determine how the mission is pursued.
Corplan Revisited
It is in pursuit of this mission that we have set out towards achieving the goals of our Corplan 2010, reiterated or re-interpreted or revised in our Corplan 2010-Revisited. These include goals in areas such as governance and facilities; academic, instruction and research; community extension; student services, and Ignatian spirituality and formation. I have asked for widespread participation in these exercises; Ms. Dada Alarcon has been appointed to facilitate them. I continue to ask for this participation. For it is through our ongoing, shared, and concerted planning that we actualize our life as a university. In the light of our mission, we set goals, work toward their attainment, evaluate our performance, and continue to set more challenging goals, as they are impelled by our God and our self-understanding in our society; these enable us to deliver quality Filipino, Catholic and Jesuit education in this part of the world as the globe demands.
PAASCU
We do this, even as we voluntarily subject ourselves to the quality checks of an external accreditation agency such as PAASCU. In September 2004 years ago we were granted Level III accreditation for Liberal Arts, Commerce and Education. This did not come easy. We had to work hard at it. The quick expansion leading to university status had taken its toll in such as our instruction and student services. But as is wonderfully characteristic of our community, in times of great challenge, we pulled together, helped each other, and showed the world we can do it. We became, and still are, the only tertiary educational institution in the Bikol region granted Level III accreditation by such a reputable group as PAASCU. We had thought that this would bring us almost automatic institution autonomy. But the internal disarray of CHED in the areas of autonomy and institutional quality assurance hindered it from granting our autonomous status. Now, after a new CHED MO 22, Series of 2007 has been issued clarifying the requirements for institutional autonomy, and after a regional team of evaluators have found us worthy, earning for us the endorsement even of CHED Regional Director Dr. Dominador Peralta, we now stand at the threshold of institutional autonomy. For this I congratulate you all. When that day finally comes, praise God, congratulate each other, call a holiday, and drink, dance, sing and celebrate!
We have our mission. We believe our mission comes ex corde ecclesiae - from the heart of the Church. It is toward the accomplishment of this mission that we engage in corporate planning and coordinate our efforts towards ever-improved actualization of our university. Towards fulfilling this mission, we engage the help of external accreditors; through accreditation we are recognized by peers for our accomplishments; the same peers point out areas where we can improve our service. In fulfilling our mission, we stand today on the threshold of institutional autonomy…
Ignatian Formation Program
The pursuit of our mission is a work in progress. Within this, there are many other subordinated works in progress. Perhaps one of the most remarkable is the Ignatian Formation Program that has been developed under the Deputy Academic Vice President Janet Badilla for Administrators, Faculty, Staff Members and Students. We discussed this when we came together last semester. The Program is now supported by an Ignatian Formation Center. Through your inputs and feedback, the Program has improved. It embraces personal spirituality, communal/institutional spirituality, teaching spirituality, and social spirituality. It spans periods when people are new at the university to when people are about to leave the university. It offers formative activities that are required, and others that our optional. I am very elated that in the past year alone 394 of our Faculty and Staff benefited from retreat and formation activities under this program. This included 70 persons who made five-day directed Ignatian retreats and 10 persons who made 8-day directed Ignatian retreats. It also included some 13 persons who trained with the Center for Ignatian Spirituality on various levels to be able to direct Ignatian retreats bring the total number of lay persons available to give retreats to 21. Parallel to this, 3,569 of our students benefited from our formation activities including 61 of them who made directed 8-day Ignatian retreats in Sacred Heart Novitiate in Q.C.
Towards improved implementation of our mission we have recently called forth three parallel university councils.
University Academic Council
We are all familiar with the long-functioning University Academic Council chaired by the Academic Vice President. Next to the President advised by the Council of Administrators, this is the highest deliberative body on academic policy. It is a body which calls forth vibrant participation from various stakeholders in academics: the Deans of the Colleges, representatives of the Chairs, of the Faculty and of the Students of each College, representatives of the Faculty Club and of the Supreme Student Government. This body deliberates on issues such as academic standards, academic offerings and programs, consultation hours for students, and the like.
University Research Council
Another long-standing council has been the University Research Council. I created it on March 15, 2000 and missioned it to promote research on the collegiate level, especially, I thought, where previously there was no research. The Deans of the Colleges initially composed the membership of this Council. To stimulate research and provide an incentive against inordinate overloading, I appropriated a modest amount of money annually for research. The URC managed this fund, processed applications for research, and approved disbursement of funds in proportion to progress in research. In this period, the URC reported 25 different research projects completed, with another 12 ongoing. These achievements notwithstanding, there was room for improvement – for the magis. The level of research being done in the university had not increased dramatically as hoped. The Deans, with their busy schedules, could not be expected to accompany the researchers. Instruction seemed to enjoy a chronic priority over research projects – even though in universities of more developed nations it is the instruction that is eschewed in favor of the more exciting and creative research. The productive researchers in the university were not dovetailed with young researchers, some of them even felt alienated from the mainstream life of the University. Projects were approved, but not completed. That for me was warrant, after consultation, to revamp the URC and populate it with members of the community who had distinguished themselves through actual research. The idea was that this group of people had the best handle on research. They would work from experience. They would know how to accompany researchers and help them move forward. They would be able to set a standard for research for the university that was based not only on abstract theory but on solid experience. The standard could be used also for evaluating research of faculty members seeking rank promotion. More will be said about this later in the separate presentation on the URC.
University Social Involvement Council
The third council was totally new: the University Social Involvement Council. The organization of this Council on March 8, 2007 followed a question that was put to us by Mr. Joachim von Amsberg, country director of the World Bank. After the establishment of the Knowledge for Development Center in our campus, the question put to us was: How would you now wish to exploit your relationship with the World Bank for greater development in your area? It was a question which demanded an answer that was more than off-the-cuff; it demanded a well-thought out framework of social involvement. It was virtually the question which we were asking ourselves when in our Corplan Revisited we stated that it was necessary to coordinate all our outreach activities under one office. After consulting various groups of university people deeply involved in outreach, we decided on bringing together the heads of the key outreach institutions on campus to work out a University Social Involvement Framework. This framework has meanwhile been worked out [and will be presented to you]. I am happy that in the course of its gestation, we were able to recruit Atty. Mila Raquid-Arroyo, former Naga City Councilor, to serve the university and its communities full-time as Director and Chair of our integrated social involvement activities. We hope that through the interventions of Atty. Raquid and the smooth function of this Social Outreach Council we will be able to better marshal our resources, not only on the level of our special service institutes but also on the level of our colleges, to serve our communities better.
Three parallel university Councils – to catalyze and organize actualization of our university’s three major functions: instruction, research, and community involvement. You can imagine that a faculty member who is excellent in teaching, skilled in research, and is socially involved will be wooed by each of the three councils. You can imagine how a faculty member’s work, properly organized, can be “appreciated” [leveraged…] for its instructional, research and outreach value. He or she will be pulled for service into each of the Councils’ spheres. The tension created between the councils, but more important, within the faculty member him/herself, will be creative, like the tension on the string of a violin, without which no music, and no harmony, is possible.
Old Ranking System Inadequate
Another work in progress is a rethinking and restructuring of our system of rank and promotion. This was a consequence initially of a number of applications for full professor whose major descriptor was and still ought to be “eminence in one’s field.” Unfortunately, in the old ranking system, the road towards eminence was not laid out clearly enough. While it was clear that the doctorate was a requirement for full professorship and that a certain minimum in year in service at the Ateneo was also a requirement, it was not clear what the requirement was in research. There is no professor who is “eminent” in one’s field who has not done an appropriate quantum of research.
An application for full professorship, therefore, on the basis of seniority and a doctorate did not gain my approval, even though this may have been endorsed the College Faculty Ranking Committee, and even though earlier approvals of the rank of full professor did not adequately appreciate the objective research requirement for this rank. Re-examination of the old ranking system showed a major concern for the attainment of academic degrees, e.g., in it specification of doctoral units for advancement from the rank through the levels of Assistant Professor, as well as for seniority, specifying a rigid number of years required to move on from rank to rank, but it had little to say clearly on research. Indeed, it gave the impression that full-professorship was attainable simply with the doctorate and seniority. But this impression was wrong.
Today, as a university we must now move on from being a school where instruction is very good but research on the whole weak and social outreach uncoordinated, to a situation where we attain excellent instruction, very good to excellent research, and focused and effective social outreach. We must create a university culture that is supportive of this. Currently, the culture tends to support teachers who repeat instruction. The instruction may be good or even excellent. But if it is the same instruction that one has given over decades, it does not bespeak growth in the teacher, nor growth in the teacher’s contribution to the university. It is also in all probability instruction that has become stale with the yellowed pages of one’s notes. For it is instruction that has not been supported by reading and research in one’s field, or – in our interdisciplinary age – reading and research in the fields of others, and a disciplined dialogue with these in the interests of enlightened instruction.
Increased instruction through load accretion may bring increased income, but not increased personal growth, and possibly grave deficiency in the overall implementation of the university mission – which beyond instruction embraces also research and social involvement. Years of stale instruction amounts merely to seniority in stale instruction. Obviously, for this, no advance in rank nor premium in compensation is appropriate. Beyond this, however, as our numbers of doctors, associate professors and professors increase, as they ought to, the imperative that we be a source of truth for our immediate society, if not the world, intensifies. If as an institution we are decidedly ranged against poverty in Bikol, what is the way we recommend it should be overcome? If we are concerned about the health of our people, what interventions must be made to care properly for our people? If we are supportive of local entrepreneurs, what must be our considered attitude towards huge investments in the retail trade coming either from Manila or abroad? If we care about the wealth or poverty of our people, how can we deliver an ongoing assessment of the Bikol economy? What technologies must be developed to hasten the development of Bikol in such as housing, public works, software development, digital animation and information technology. What must we understand in order to become the local trading partners of businessmen on China? What is our Bikol-theological position relative to hybrid agriculture, stem cell research, and gay marriage? What interventions are necessary to improve basic and tertiary education in Bikol?
On the other hand, what action programs ought we be involved in to contribute optimally to Bikolano development? How do these action programs feed into our research and into our instruction? And how do these in turn enhance our social involvement?
As we have recognized that instruction belongs to our mission, so must we in policy and practice recognize that research and social involvement belong to our mission. There is perhaps no more pressing area to reflect this than in our Rank and Promotion System.
New Ranking System
My proposal then is to introduce a System that ranks and promotes people on the basis of specific career achievements and on the basis of ongoing performance. The major ranks mark specific career or milestone achievements recognized from within the university or beyond; they are once-in-a-career achievements. All ranks mark ongoing performance in key areas of university life.
Milestone Achievements
The major ranks are four: Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. What are the specific achievements or milestones that these represent.
The rank of Instructor marks competence to teach. Its specific requirement is an MA, an MS or equivalent.
Assistant Professor marks leadership service or potential, and institutionally recognized potential for doctoral achievement.
Associate Professor marks the ability to contribute originally to one’s field. Its specific requirement is the PhD or equivalent.
Professor marks eminence in one’s field.
Ongoing University Performance
In each of the major ranks, there are five sub-ranks. We here have Instuctor I, II, III, IV and V, and the same for Assistant and Associate Professor. For movement into each of these ranks, which require at least one year per rank, I propose a “standard” or “default” set of criteria, namely, personal or professional growth, instruction, social outreach and research.
I propose that Personal and Professional Growth refer to one’s personal appropriation of the Mission and Vision of our University; to one’s personal, family, and professional integration; to one’s observable ethical integrity; and to one’s spirituality.
I propose that Instruction encompass all the normal criteria for the competent teacher: accomplished syllabi for all taught courses; student, administrative, peer and self evaluations; punctuality (vs. tardiness); presence (vs. absenteeism); consultation hours; formative impact on students; creativity and innovativeness. These criteria are foundational criteria for all higher ranks.
I propose that Social Involvement include especially activities approved by the University Social Involvement Council, but also professional outreach, personal service to the Church and/or one’s community, and personal service to the university.
For Research I propose a major distinction between two levels of research based on one’s academic qualification. The MA or MS formally certifies that one is qualified to teach. The PhD formally certifies that one is qualified enough to contribute to one’s field. Therefore, for our purposes, Research can be differentiated according to this distinction. MA- or MS-level research would be research that augments instruction. Some examples would be: public reports on readings in one’s discipline, reports on readings related to one’s field, presentations on new pedagogical trends related to one’s discipline. PhD-level research, on the other hand, would be rigorous research that contributes to the expansion of knowledge or significant deepening of knowledge in one’s field. E.g. A serious presentation of the history of Naga or a scientific study on why mining activities in Rapu Rapu ought not be undertaken are examples of doctoral-level research. One research piece on either level would be one “MA-level-“ or one “PhD-level research unit.” It would be the responsibility of the newly-formed University Research Council to work out this distinction so that it become applicable to the various disciplines represented in the University as well as the requirements of each research unit.
Assuming this distinction, I now propose for every rank level of Instructor and Assistant Professor two MA- or MS-level research units. However, for all ranks of Assistant Professor, twelve completed doctoral units would be the equivalent of two MA- or MS-level research units, or a successfully defended doctoral thesis would be the equivalent of two MA- or MS-level research units.
For the ranks of Associate Professor, I now propose one PhD-level research unit per rank.
However, a PhD-level research unit accomplished prior to the rank of Associate Professor, as certified by the URC, substitutes for two MA- or MS-level research units, serves as the equivalent of a PhD-level unit in an Associate Professor rank, and cancels one-year residency requirement of an Associate Professor rank.
The College Faculty Ranking Committee would evaluate the overall performance of a faculty member applying for promotion for the entire length of one’s residency within a rank based on data coming from the academic administrators, the USIC and the URC. “Growth” would always be relative to a last evaluation period, if any.
I think this proposal is logical, clear, and, with your support, implementable. It presumes that the skills of teaching are taken care of on the level of Instructor, or on levels prior to this. As in the past it shows our value for academic degrees. But it now regularly rewards social involvement and research. A fast track for promotion is created: accomplished degrees trump residency; accomplished PhD-level research trumps residency on the Associate Professor level. For a pedagogue who wishes to move ahead fast on a career path that is normally thirty years, after one has an MA, full-professorship is theoretically possible in ten to fifteen years.
Of course, it is possible that in a full career here at the Ateneo de Naga one not reach the rank of Professor. One who is content with instruction and unwilling to do major research can stay on the level of Instructor or even Assistant Professor, and still contribute meaningfully to the university. One could move all the way to Assistant Professor V through leadership service and MA- or MS- level research units. And one could stay there, never having attained the PhD and never having done major research. In fact, for one who shows no promise of achieving the doctorate, one could stay on the Instructor level. What is possible, however, is not ideal. It is in the interest of the institution that the quality of its faculty improve; it is in furtherance of its mission that qualified faculty engage in meaningful outreach and research.
Compensation Adjustment
With the introduction of a new rank and promotion system, my proposal is that no one will receive a lower rank than where he or she now enjoys, nor will he or she receive less compensation.
However, no one will move from one’s present rank unless the requirements of the new System be fulfilled. Where one is on the level of Instructor II and does not have an M.A or M.S., one would remain in that level until one achieves this degree and does the research required of Instructor I and II. Where one is on a level of Associate Professor III but has not done any research, one would have to achieve that research in order to move on. One would not benefit from the compensation scheme I propose unless one has done the work, especially in research, required by the new system.
Our system of compensation today involves many often interlocked systems: basic compensation, merit increases, rank increases, premiums on acquired academic degrees, standard benefits, Pag-Ibig, health care, and especially retirement benefits. Increases in our basic compensation cause corresponding huge increases in our retirement expenses. It is not at all easy to overhaul this system without condemning our financial administration to chaos and perhaps even jeopardizing our future through a system that may not be sustainable.
Nevertheless, my proposal is to focus on the level of Instructor and the level of Associate Professor. Since MA or MS is a hard requirement of the Instructor, and the PhD is a hard requirement of the Associate Professor, I would like to merge the premium for acquired academic degrees into an increased compensation particularly for these two ranks. Where today, the acquisition of an MA or MS is rewarded by a basic compensation increase of PHP 1,600 I propose at the level of Instructor I, where the MA or MS is required, the rank compensation now be PHP 2500. But where today the PhD is rewarded by a basic compensation increase of PHP3,500, I propose that at the level of Associate Professor I, where the PhD is required, the rank compensation be PHP 7,000. Since both of these salary spikes go to basic, and are in addition to across the board and merit adjustments, I am sure you will agree with me that this is not insignificant.
There will also be less dramatic upward adjustments for the other major ranks. I propose PHP 1,000 for Assistant Professor, and PHP 2,000 for Professor.
It would be understood that for researchers who have a track record of completing research projects on time appropriate deloads would be granted, presuming concurrence of the academic officials and the endorsement of the URC.
Running A Good University
As you can see, even in the last year of my third term I am still concerned about running a good university. As I am sure you are. We must not sit on our laurels; other big investors in tertiary education may soon be providing major competition to our school. Yet, because of our mission, we need to implement our corporate plans. Because of our mission, we need to improve ourselves through the process of accreditation. Because of our mission, we need to cultivate a culture not only of outstanding instruction but now of excellent research and coordinated social involvement. Today, therefore, I ask you to support the structural changes in the university that would support this research and outreach.
Allow me to close by sharing with you one final concern. For the sake of the future of the students entrusted to us, we must meet the challenge of the newly awakened giant in our midst. That giant is China. The media is full of reports of China. As the Beijing Olympics come onto center stage, so will this country of 1.3 billion people. Recently I traveled to China. I had been under the impression that outside of Beijing and Shanghai there was great underdevelopment. I was wrong. I had opportunity to see just a few cities: Chengdu, Jiuzaigu, Chongxing, Fengdu and Wuhan and Xiamen. We were 3,500 m above sea level in the Ming Mountains; we saw incredibly beautiful mountain lakes, rivers and waterfall. In Chongxing we were actually in the biggest city in the world with its 38 million people and collection of foreign car manufacturers all in partnership with the Chinese. Everything is now manufactured in China. In the Yangtze River, we sailed into the largest engineering project in the world, the Three Gorges Dam, which has meanwhile raised the level of the Yangtze from 36 meters to 156 meters! In all of these places, urban and rural, I saw signs of the fastest-growing economy in the world with its US dollar reserves now at 1.2 trillion. Only 20% of the people are enjoying the benefits of progress, it is said. But if this is so, they were very adept at hiding the 80%. On the other hand, if this is so, imagine what a powerhouse China will be when the other 80% start benefiting from the economic upswing there. I believe we owe it to our youth to help prepare them for greater interaction with the Chinese in the future.
In this context, I have asked the Academic Vice President to encourage the study of China and things Chinese. First, I think, we must address our lack even of general knowledge about China. Who is its President? How many people live in China today? How did China develop from Communist backwardness just two decades ago to the Chinese -Capitalist Powerhouse it is today? How is its economy impacting on countries like ours in Southeast Asia? It is incredible how little we know of China.
I think we must not only learn more about China. We must interact with it more. We should use its hunger for English to be our bargaining chip for greater warm-body exchange. We should renew our willingness to enter into exchange
Anybody interested? I am appointing Ms Liway Torte, currently the head of InTours, to head a new Institute for International Student and Faculty Exchange. If you are interested, please sign up with her.
With the desire to travel to China, and to receive Chinese here, we must gradually promote and intensify the study of Mandarin. We already have Mr. Michael Azajar teaching. I am glad that Marlyn Tejada has taken special studies in teaching Mandarin. I wish to be counted among her first students. Perhaps those interested in joining the China trip in summer might join me in sitting at Marlyn’s feet.
Meanwhile, where Mandarin is being required, as in Business Management Honors, it must be taught for genuine academic credit, not merely as an audit course.
It was the dream of St. Francis Xavier to enter China. He died at its threshold. Perhaps we are now at China’s threshold. And it is now being given to us to enter!
|
