On August 24, 2022, the Dean of Faculty formally requested the formation of a Program Discontinuance Review Committee (PDRC), which per the UF Handbook, will evaluate academic programs and determine their discontinuance. Four programs were identified for evaluation: Chemistry, Philosophy, Sociology, and World Cultures & Languages – French and Spanish. The Gallaudet AAUP performed an analysis of Gallaudet’s personnel proportions and budget outlays as compared to institutions with similar personnel requirements.
We found that Gallaudet has three to four times more personnel than similar institutions across all three major categories of personnel (administrative staff, non-instructional staff, and faculty). Given students’ language access needs in the classroom, a higher proportion of faculty and interpreters align with our bilingual mission. However, there is no need for a higher proportion of administrative staff. In addition, Gallaudet spends less on faculty and more on administrators and non-instructional staff compared with similar institutions. Finally, cutting academic programs reduces Gallaudet’s potential to recruit and serve students and fulfill our mission as mandated by our charter. We argue that Gallaudet should look elsewhere for budget cuts, where there is ample opportunity, and where it would not impact our potential to recruit and serve students. For example, given Gallaudet’s robust staffing levels, there should not be a need to outsource so many projects to expensive consultants.
Appropriate staffing levels for colleges and universities are best estimated by the size of the college (defined by the number of students) as well as the type and setting (residential vs. non-residential and size of the city). Therefore, to perform the best preliminary analysis we could, we selected comparator institutions differently from our previous analyses. For this analysis, we chose four-year, small, highly residential colleges and universities, located in a large city or large suburb, and with a Carnegie Basic classification of R2, D/PU, M2, or M3. These factors gave us an appropriately large dataset of 30 institutions from which to base a comparison. Data were obtained from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), maintained by the U.S. Department of Education. Institutions participating in Title IV federal student financial aid programs must report data to IPEDS annually. This includes Gallaudet.
Table 1. Personnel Ratios of Gallaudet vs. Comparator Institutions. The comparator group ratios are median ratios. “Staff” are non-instructional staff. Ratios were rounded to the nearest whole number. The last row shows the proportion of Gallaudet’s personnel relative to that of comparable smaller institutions.
| n | student:faculty | student:staff | student:admin | |
| Comparable Smaller Institutions | 30 | 21:1 | 10:1 | 57:1 |
| Gallaudet University | 1 | 7:1 | 3:1 | 16:1 |
| Proportion | 3.1x | 3.6x | 3.5x |
Table 2. Salary Outlays (Budget) of Gallaudet vs. Comparator Institutions. Percentages of that category to total personnel outlays are shown, rounded to the nearest whole percentage.
| n | faculty | staff | admin | |
| Comparable Smaller Institutions | 30 | 32% | 53% | 16% |
| Gallaudet University | 1 | 26% | 57% | 17% |
| Difference | -6% | +4% | +1% |
Mitigating factors complicate a direct comparison with other institutions. Gallaudet serves a specialized population of students, many of whom need smaller class sizes to allow for direct language access, intensive services, and additional support due to a history of language deprivation. Additionally, our students include DeafDisabled students. A typical target for K-12 deaf education is 10:11. Additionally, more staff interpreters are needed than for comparable institutions.
The ratios in Table 1 show that Gallaudet has more personnel across all three categories than do comparable institutions. However, this excess is not distributed equally. Gallaudet’s uniqueness calls for a higher proportion of faculty and certain non-instructional staff, but not for administrative staff. Additionally, Table 2 shows that Gallaudet spends less of its budget on faculty, and more on its non-instructional staff and administrators than comparable institutions, even though this is not in line with the best practice for K-12 deaf education.
Therefore, we disagree that reductions in programs and faculty will save Gallaudet money over the long term. Reducing program offerings would reduce our ability to recruit and retain students. While these numbers of students are small for the programs under review, the same level of cuts to staffing or administration would not result in any reduction of students at all. We encourage the administration to look elsewhere for cuts. In particular, given our high staffing levels, we question why there are frequent contracts with expensive outside consulting firms for work that presumably could be done in-house.
Our dataset is available below for download.
###
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) defends academic freedom, promotes shared governance, and advances the economic security of faculty. The Gallaudet AAUP chapter is a member of Local 6741 of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), AFL-CIO.
Follow us on Facebook and Instagram and subscribe to our public listserv.
This letter was revised to correctly state “Program Discontinuance Review Committee (PDRC)”
1. Hogue, L. B., & Taylor, S. S. (2020). A review of special education caseload policies state by state: What impact do they have? Journal of Special Education Leadership, 33(1), 1-11.
Gallaudet AAUP 