150305 Report to Chancellor - Complete - Post 3

Memorandum
TO: Dr. Debra Saunders-White, Chancellor; Dr. Johnson O. Akinleye, Provost
FROM: Michael Provencher, Student
DATE: May 7, 2014
SUBJECT: Scholars Task Force Report: Student Feedback and Recommendations
Enclosed is the “Scholars Task Force Report: Student Feedback and Recommendations.” This
report, requested by Chancellor Dr. Debra Saunders-White, contains a review of the context and
content of the recommendations made in the “Scholars Task Force Report,” as well as several
conclusions and recommendations from additional research.
Among the recommendations of the “Scholars Task Force Report” is a partial merger of the
University Honors Program, Centennial Scholars Program, and Annie Day Shepard Scholars
Program into one Eagle Excellence Living Learning Community. Given the starkly distinct
target audiences, missions, resources, services, and activities of these programs, many student
members have become concerned about 1) the ability of such an entity to effectively serve the
needs of this incredibly diverse audience and 2) the culture clash that might ensue from combing
these students groups into one living-learning community. Furthermore, the report as a whole
seems to be missing critical support—i.e. data and rationale for the recommendations—which
would seem to suggest that the task force was unable to complete its mission.
It is my hope that this report will provide the Chancellor, Provost, and any others involved with
the information necessary to decide how to proceed with the recommendations made in the
“Scholars Task Force Report,” particularly by more fully understanding the scope and depth of
the impacts said recommendations can have on the students of North Carolina Central
University, to whom these changes are intended to benefit. Please let me know if you have any
questions about this report or if you need any further information. I can be reached at (910) 728-
1267 and at provencm0062@gmail.com.

SCHOLARS TASK FORCE REPORT:
STUDENT FEEDBACK AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Prepared by Michael Provencher
Student at North Carolina Central University
Report Distributed May 7, 2014
Prepared for
Dr. Debra Saunders-White, Chancellor
Dr. Johnson O. Akinleye, Provost

Scholars Task Force Report: Student Feedback and Recommendations
iii
ABSTRACT
This report examines the context and content of the recommendations made in the “Scholars
Task Force Report” for North Carolina Central University (NCCU) during the spring of 2014.
The purpose of this report is to provide the Chancellor of NCCU, Dr. Debra Saunders-White, and
the Provost of NCCU, Dr. Johnson O. Akinleye, with the information necessary to decide how to
proceed with these recommendations. Research methods include 1) interviews with key
stakeholders, 2) meetings with concerned and affected student groups, and 3) supplementary
secondary research. Conclusions include 1) that the Scholars Task Force did not share a common
vision for the report, 2) that the Scholars Task Force was not fully prepared to accomplish all of
its goals in the given timeframe, and 3) that the students of NCCU were not informed or involved
as much as they should have been in the creation of the “Scholars Task Force Report.”
Recommendations include 1) revising the “Scholars Task Force Report” before implementation
and 2) significantly incorporating quality student input into that revision.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... iii
ILLUSTRATIONS ..........................................................................................................................v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................3
Definition of the Problem ....................................................................................................3
Background..........................................................................................................................3
University College .........................................................................................................4
Aspiring Eagles Academy..............................................................................................4
University Career Services ............................................................................................4
University Honors Program...........................................................................................4
Centennial Scholars Program.........................................................................................5
Annie Day Shepard Scholars Program ..........................................................................5
Chancellor’s Scholars Program .....................................................................................5
“Scholars Task Force Report” Recommendations...............................................................5
RESEARCH METHODS AND FINDINGS...................................................................................7
Interviews and Meetings......................................................................................................7
Dr. Ontario Wooden.....................................................................................................7
Dr. Debra Saunders-White ...........................................................................................8
Mr. Ansel Brown..........................................................................................................8
Ms. Donna Hembrick ...................................................................................................8
Ms. Philina McCray and Ms. Brittany Smith...............................................................9
CSP General Body........................................................................................................9
SGA Senate ..................................................................................................................9
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................13
Conclusions........................................................................................................................13
Recommendations..............................................................................................................14
WORKS REFERENCED ..............................................................................................................15

v
ILLUSTRATIONS
Figures
1. Michael Provencher, “Organizational Chart of the Transition and Support Initiatives
Branch” ..............................................................................................................................11
2. Michael Provencher, “Organizational Chart of the Honors and Scholars Initiatives
Branch” ..............................................................................................................................12

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
proceed with these recommendations.
Definition of Problem
In September of 2013, the Chancellor charged the Scholars Task Force with an important
mission as a part of her comprehensive strategy to “foster Eagle Excellence” (Allen et al. 2013,
1). In response, the December 2013 “Scholars Task Force Report” made several
recommendations of how the Chancellor can achieve some of her goals; however, these
recommendations have received much criticism from students and staff. Some questions have
been raised as to their thoroughness and evidence base; others have been raised as to their
rationale and consequences for students. The Chancellor needs to make timely decisions on these
recommendations, and therefore is seeking additional quantitative and qualitative research in
these areas to better inform her decisions regarding the implementation of these
recommendations.
Background
In the fall of 2013, the Chancellor assembled three task forces to discern organizational and
programmatic improvements that can be made throughout the university to increase the quality
of the experience at NCCU for all students. The Scholars Task Force was one of the three
assembled. It examined programs such as the University Honors Program (UHP), Centennial
Scholars Program (CSP), and Annie Day Shepard Scholars Program (ADS), as well as
departments such as University College and University Career Services, looking for ways to
increase collaboration and reduce inefficiencies among these parts of NCCU. Some of the
recommendations made in the “Scholars Task Force Report”—particularly Recommendation
51
—were met with strong resistance, particularly from student groups, because of the possible
implications they can have for programs such as UHP, CSP, and ADS.
Methods Used
Research methods used in this report include 1) interviews with key stakeholders, such as
members of the Scholars Task Force and heads of the departments which would be significantly
affected; 2) meetings with concerned or affected student groups, such as the UHP, CSP, and
ADS; and 3) supplementary secondary research. The interviews and meetings were focused on
gathering more information on the context and content of the “Scholars Task Force Report” and
students’ feedback regarding its recommendations. The secondary research was focused on
supplementing the conclusions and providing greater support for the recommendations made in
this report.
1
The recommendations were not originally numbered; I have enumerated them simply by their order of appearance
in the “Scholars Task Force Report”.

2
Conclusions and Recommendations
From the evaluations of the context and content of the recommendations made in the “Scholars
Task Force Report,” three conclusions and two recommendations can be drawn. Conclusions
include 1) that the Scholars Task Force did not share a common vision for the report, 2) that the
Scholars Task Force was not fully prepared to accomplish all of its goals in the given timeframe,
and 3) that the students of NCCU were not informed or involved as much as they should have
been in the creation of the “Scholars Task Force Report.” Recommendations include 1) revising
the “Scholars Task Force Report” before implementation and 2) significantly incorporating
quality student input into that revision.

3
INTRODUCTION
proceed with these recommendations.
Definition of the Problem
In September of 2013, the Chancellor charged the Scholars Task Force with an important
mission as a part of her comprehensive strategy to “foster Eagle Excellence” (Allen et al. 2013,
1). In response, the December 2013 “Scholars Task Force Report” made several
recommendations of how the Chancellor can achieve some of her goals; however, these
recommendations have received much criticism from students and staff. Some questions have
been raised as to their thoroughness and evidence base; others have been raised as to their
rationale and consequences for students. The Chancellor needs to make timely decisions on these
recommendations, and therefore is seeking additional quantitative and qualitative research in
these areas to better inform her decisions regarding the implementation of these
recommendations.
Background
In the fall of 2013, the Chancellor assembled three task forces to discern organizational and
programmatic improvements that can be made in key areas throughout the university to increase
the quality of the experience at NCCU for undergraduate students. The three task forces were the
Four Year Graduation Challenge Task Force, the Transfer Imperative Task Force, and the
Scholars Task Force.
The Four Year Graduation Challenge Task Force was assembled to determine ways to ensure
that “the traditional first-time freshman . . . matriculate[s] successfully in a four-year time
period” (Brown et al. 2013, 1). The Transfer Imperative Task Force was given the even more
specific tasks of meeting a higher level of transfer enrollment at NCCU and developing a dual
enrollment program with a local community college (North Carolina 2013b, 2). While these two
task forces are not the primary focus of this report, their respective missions have a significant
relevance to that of the Scholars Task Force. Additionally, they provide valuable research and
insight into the specific needs of NCCU students.
On September 4, 2013, the Chancellor charged the Scholars Task Force “to examine scholarly
initiatives at [NCCU], explore how these areas can synergize and minimize duplication of
services, and optimize innovation for an improved undergraduate experience” (Allen et al. 2013,
1). The scholarly initiatives in question include University College, the Aspiring Eagles
Academy (AEA), University Career Services, the University Honors Program (UHP), the
Centennial Scholars Program (CSP), the Annie Day Shepard Scholars Program (ADS), and the
Chancellor’s Scholars Program. Most of these programs have distinct missions and target
audiences, although there is some overlap, particularly by University College and University

4
Career Services, since these two serve all NCCU students. Indeed, it was partially because the
Chancellor noticed that many of the active members of these different programs were, in fact, the
same people that the goal of minimizing duplication of efforts among the programs was created.
University College
In the fall of 2007, University College was designed to help facilitate the successful transition to
college for all new first-year and transfer students. University College then serves these students
until they transition into the department of their major, typically in the beginning of their Junior
year. To further help these students succeed, University College offers services, including
academic advising and support, personal and career counseling, social engagement, and
leadership opportunities. As a part of the academic advising component, all students are assigned
an advisor who assists them in planning and registering for courses each semester. This also
includes encouraging students to complete most, if not all, of their General Education
Curriculum (GEC) courses within their first two years at NCCU.
Aspiring Eagles Academy
The AEA is University College’s summer bridge program. This program serves high school
graduating seniors who are admitted to NCCU at the lower end of the minimum admissions
requirements. The AEA is an intensive summer program where students take a number of GEC
courses with a demanding class and study schedule to help them adjust to the rigor of college.
The program also includes many academic enrichment activities, as well as continued
monitoring of AEA members throughout their matriculation at NCCU. The AEA is a living-
learning community (LLC) because members are required to stay in the McLean residence hall
for the summer program. This LLC component increases members’ focus and support system,
and has been shown to have significant benefits for students’ performance and transition to
college.
University Career Services
University Career Services is designed to facilitate the career and professional development of
all students. Accordingly, it provides a number of services, including resume building and
critique, interview preparation and practice, career advising, academic counseling, and job and
internship searches. University Career Services also hosts many developmental programs, such
as the Career Fair, the Professional Development Network (PDN) Conference, and various guest
speakers from prospective employers, internship placement programs, etc.
University Honors Program
The UHP serves NCCU’s highest achieving students, many of them from the time they are
admitted to NCCU. The program has minimum GPA and other performance requirements for
admittance and matriculation. It also places an addition curriculum of rigorous, honors-level
courses upon its members, along with requirements to do peer mentoring and an honors thesis.
Furthermore, the UHP is a LLC because Honors students can elect to live in the Honors
residence hall, Annie Day Shepard Hall, where they have access to an Honors library, a smart
conference room, and tablet rentals, in addition to having a close community with fellow Honors
students.

5
Centennial Scholars Program
The CSP was founded to serve minority male students at NCCU because this demographic had
been the lowest performing demographic across the state of North Carolina for years. The CSP
has no minimum entry requirements—although there is an interview process—as it is designed
to uplift and empower lower performing or disadvantaged students. Services include tutoring by
CSP upperclassmen, professional coaching by CSP staff, a CSP library of class textbooks, social
programming, and more. The CSP is a LLC because most freshman and sophomore members
live in the CSP residence hall, New Res II, so that they may form social bonds and study groups,
helping to create a strong and mutually uplifting brotherhood.
Annie Day Shepard Scholars Program
The ADS is a program designed to serve female students at NCCU, particularly first-generation
college students. The program has no minimum eligibility requirements, other than that members
must join as a freshman and go through an interview process. ADS members enjoy a sisterhood
of high expectations, in which they work together to excel academically and adjust to college
socially. In collaboration with the Women’s Center, ADS regularly brings guest speakers to
NCCU, hosts professional development workshops, and has all members document weekly their
progress and experiences. The ADS is a LLC because members live together in the ADS
residence hall, Ruffin Hall.
Chancellor’s Scholars Program
The Chancellor’s Scholars Program consists of all the recipients of the Chancellor’s Cycle of
Success Scholarships, which are the Soaring Eagle, Rising Eagle, Eagle in Flight, Eagle in Flight
2, and AA/AS/AAS Degree Transfer scholarships. These recipients may also receive
paraphernalia, such as a Chancellor’s Scholars polo shirt, and may, from time to time, be called
upon to represent and serve NCCU in various capacities. However, apart from a welcoming
banquet at the beginning of each academic year, there are no regular meetings or other activities
for the Chancellor’s Scholars Program.
“Scholars Task Force Report” Recommendations
There were eight recommendations made in the “Scholars Task Force Report.” Recommendation
12
set up the organizational framework for the other seven recommendations: It called for the
creation of an Office of Undergraduate Studies which reports to the division of Academic
Affairs; this new office would include two main branches to coordinate 1) the transition and
support initiatives and 2) the honors and scholars initiatives (Allen et al. 2013, 9-10).
Recommendations 2–4 were assigned to the first branch and Recommendations 5–8 to the
second. Because of this division, the “scholarly initiatives” (Allen et al. 2013, 1) are only
affected by Recommendations 5-8; Recommendations 2-4 pertain to other areas of NCCU, such
as University College and University Career Services and programs within each of those
departments (Allen et al. 2013, 10-14).
Recommendation 5, in particular, has raised much concern among the students and staff of
NCCU. It calls for a partial merger of NCCU’s University Honors Program (UHP), Centennial
2
The recommendations were not originally numbered; I have enumerated them simply by their order of appearance
in the “Scholars Task Force Report”.

6
Scholars Program (CSP), and Annie Day Shepard Scholars Program (ADS) into one Eagle
Excellence Living Learning Community (EELLC), to be housed in two adjacent residence halls,
Annie Day and Rush (Allen et al. 2013, 14-16). The merger would also entail shared resources
and personnel among these programs and facilitate more interaction among their members, with
the purpose of creating an “elevator of excellence” (Allen et al. 2013, 15) among the students.
Given the impacts that each of these three programs have had on their respective members—as
well as the stark differences in their target audiences, missions, resources, services, and
activities—many students and staff have raised concerns about 1) the ability of the proposed
EELLC to effectively serve the needs of this incredibly diverse audience and 2) the culture clash
that might ensue from combining these three student groups into one LLC.

7
RESEARCH METHODS AND FINDINGS
The primary research methods used in this report were interviews and meetings with key
stakeholders to gather more information on the context and content of the “Scholars Task Force
Report” and students’ feedback regarding its recommendations. Secondary research was also
conducted to supplement the conclusions derived from the primary research, thereby providing
greater support for the recommendations made in this report.
Interviews and Meetings
This report examines the recommendations made in the “Scholars Task Force Report.” Key to
understanding the nuances of that context and reading between the lines of that content is
conducting interviews with stakeholders. These stakeholders include the Chancellor, members of
the Scholars Task Force, and the heads of the departments and programs to be affected by the
report (e.g. the directors of University Career Services and UHP). Moreover, it is important to
gauge students’ perceptions of and receptiveness to the recommendations of the “Scholars Task
Force Report” when deciding whether said recommendations are worth implementing. To gather
this information, I spoke at several CSP, UHP, and Student Government Association (SGA)
meetings and events about the “Scholars Task Force Report”; I also interviewed the president
and vice-president (students) of ADS. In all of these conversations, I presented the report as
thoroughly and objectively as possible, taking great care to hear all opinions about it and to
ensure that my affiliations with the UHP, CSP, Chancellor’s Scholars Program, University
College, and University Career Services did not bias or predispose this study towards any
particular outcome.
Interviews with Dr. Ontario Wooden, Dean of University College
On February 26, 2014, I briefly interviewed Dr. Wooden. During this interview, I got my first
glimpse of the difficulties the Scholars Task Force had in creating the “Scholars Task Force
Report.” I was told that the report “was never supposed to be published” (Wooden 2014a) and
that the task force was surprised when it was made public.
On April 9, 2014, I interviewed Dr. Wooden again, this time for approximately 1 hour. During
this interview, there were many findings regarding the unwritten content of the report, as well as
some of the rationales for the recommendations, as follows:
1. The structure of NCCU’s University College is unique compared to other colleges in that
it has 1) a transfer to college piece and 2) an academic success piece (Wooden 2014b).
2. Dr. Wooden contended that student success should be looked at as a four-year process
(2014b).
3. There was a sentiment expressed in the task force that it would be counterproductive to
have academic support programs residing in Student Affairs, as opposed to Academic
Affairs (Wooden 2014b).
4. The Chancellor’s challenge is to continue supporting students as much as possible while
making wise financial investments (Wooden 2014b).
5. There was a sentiment expressed in the task force that the numerous “pockets” of
students being supported (academically) could be contributing to the overall inefficiency

8
of academic advising at NCCU, particularly hurting the University College’s Academic
Advising (Wooden 2014b).
6. The question was posed: Given the [small] size of NCCU and the funding cuts NCCU
recently experienced, is it even possible—much less wise—to continue supporting so
many specialized organizations (e.g. UHP, CSP, ADS, and Summer Bridge) (Wooden
2014b)?
Interview with Dr. Debra Saunders-White, Chancellor
On February 26, 2014, I interviewed the Chancellor for approximately 45 minutes. During this
interview, I expressed my interest in becoming involved in the discussion surrounding the
“Scholars Task Force Report.” It was during this interview that I first detected the lack of student
input in this discussion and that the Chancellor charged me with gathering feedback from the
students of NCCU on the recommendations made in the report (Saunders-White 2014a).
Interviews with Mr. Ansel Brown, Director of University Honors Program
On March 25, 2014, I first interviewed Mr. Brown for approximately 10 minutes. As a member
of the Scholars Task Force and the Director of UHP, I wanted to hear his perspective on the
recommendations in the report and the rationale behind them. I learned that the Scholars Task
Force members were under the impression that the report was not intended to be a final
document, ready for publication, but rather a “brainstorming of ideas” intended to facilitate
further discussion on possible improvements (Brown 2014a). I also learned that some members
of the committee—i.e. Ms. Hembrick—were not brought on until later, thus creating room for
additional problems when crafting the report (Brown 2014a).
On April 1, 2014, I interviewed Mr. Brown again for approximately 15 minutes. NCCU’s SGA
Vice-President Norman Jones was also present and participating in this interview. During this
interview, Mr. Brown expressed a perspective that I had not heard before: that Recommendation
5 of the “Scholars Task Force Report” (calling for the creation of one EELLC) was not supposed
to entail a merger, partial or otherwise, of the UHP, CSP, and ADS, but simply increase
collaboration among these organizations (Brown 2014b). This was a surprising proposition given
that the wording of the report, intentionally or unintentionally, clearly calls for a merger of those
three programs, both in its direct language and its practical implications, e.g. the staffing
redistribution for the EELLC (Allen et al. 2013, 16).
Interview with Ms. Donna Y. Hembrick, Director of University Career Services
On March 31, 2014, I interviewed Ms. Hembrick for approximately 15 minutes. I interviewed
Ms. Hembrick to see if she had any new perspectives on the report’s recommendations or
students’ reactions to the report since she was brought on somewhat late to the task force (Brown
2014a). She did have some valuable insight, although it had nothing to do with when she was
brought on to the task force. Rather, Ms. Hembrick’s years of career services-related work, under
both academic affairs and student affairs divisions at several institutions of higher education,
allowed her to present a new perspective of looking at the recommendations. According to Ms.
Hembrick, one ought not to look first at how the recommendations may impact current
organizations, employees or students, but instead seek to determine whether they have the
potential to fulfill the critical needs of NCCU students. Only if this potential exists should there
be discussion as to the feasibility of the recommendations and the implications for specific

9
people or organizations (Hembrick 2014). The purpose of this approach is to avoid getting
caught up in premature worries that, in effect, inhibit a thorough, objective analysis of the
recommendations’ theoretical worth. For example, if a student is asked whether he would like his
program to be merged with others and restructured, he is likely going to be closed off to the
whole discussion; whereas, if he is brought in on a discussion of students’ needs, he is more
likely to be more open-minded to creative solutions to fulfill those needs.
Interview with Ms. Philina McCray, President of ADS, and Ms. Brittany Smith, Vice-President
On April 11, 2014, I interviewed Ms. McCray and Ms. Smith for approximately 1 hour. I
interviewed Ms. McCray and Ms. Smith to learn about ADS’s mission and activities and to
gather feedback from ADS on the “Scholars Task Force Report.” McCray and Smith’s biggest
concern was that the creation of the EELLC—with one director, as detailed in Recommendation
5—would necessarily entail one mission for the program; yet, it did not make sense (to McCray
and Smith) to have one mission and operation center for multiple programs which have such
distinctive missions and operations (McCray and Smith 2014; Allen et al. 2013, 16).
Meeting with the CSP General Body
On March 20, 2014, I went to a general body meeting for CSP. At this point, most of the CSP
students had heard about the “Scholars Task Force Report”; I had also begun working on this
report’s research. I was asked to speak to the general body about the report and its eight
recommendations. Afterwards, for approximately 30 minutes, I took questions from the audience
and stimulated discussion about these recommendations, attempting to discern what students’
initial perceptions of and receptiveness to the recommendations were.
The first key finding from this meeting was that the majority of CSP students—present and
elsewhere—did not support the report’s recommendations. It is important to note, however, that
many of these students had only heard about Recommendation 5—the creation of the EELLC—
and assumed that the implementation of the report would entail the dissolution of CSP. Due to
the significant amount of impact CSP has had on the lives of many of its members—as attested
to by many students during this meeting—members were naturally defensive of CSP and saw the
“Scholars Task Force Report” as a threat.
The second key finding was that the majority of CSP students were under the impression that the
“Scholars Task Force Report” was already being implemented, or was, in some other fashion,
past the point of no return. These students were not aware of what stage the report was in, nor of
how open the Chancellor was to receiving student feedback, until I spoke at that meeting.
The third key finding was that the CSP students expressed a strong interest in making their
voices heard and opposing the report, but in a very civil, respectful, and professional manner.
Meeting with the SGA Senate
On April 9, 2011, I attended the SGA Senate meeting where I was asked to present the “Scholars
Task Force Report” in its entirety to the Senate. During this meeting, I presented organizational
charts that I had created from a literal reading of the eight recommendations in the report.
Figures 1 and 2 show the organizational charts for the 1) Transition and Support Initiatives and

10
2) Honors and Scholars Initiatives branches of the recommendations, respectively, as detailed in
Recommendation 1 (Allen et al. 2013, 9).
One key finding from this meeting was that no one on the SGA Senate (except for Vice-
President Norman Jones, who invited me) knew of the “Scholars Task Force Report.” Moreover,
most of the Senate members were also UHP members. The Senate decided to organize an open
forum event where more students could be informed about the report and its implications. Also
of note, the Senate sought to inform the student body as objectively as possible; they did not
seem to want to let any personal biases they may have had into the forum planning.

11

12

13
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on my observations of and interactions with the students and staff of NCCU, there are
several conclusions that can be drawn to help determine the most appropriate course of action
regarding the implementation of the recommendations made in the “Scholars Task Force
Report.”
Conclusions
Conclusion 1: The Scholars Task Force did not share a common vision for the report.
Most, if not all, members of the task force that were interviewed had different interpretations of
what the recommendations made in the report entailed. While this is an understandable
phenomenon to have occurred during the project, the fact that it was still occurring after the
report had been published suggests that the members may never have fully reached the same
page as one another. Moreover, some members saw the report as a tool that can be used to
strengthen individual programs, while others saw it as a justification to centralize scholarly
initiatives into one program. These are fundamentally opposite ideas of what the report will
accomplish, which suggests that members may have been attempting to use the report to achieve
different ends.
Additionally, the conversations and recommendations of the report triggered territorial struggles
among the task force members and NCCU students. For one, many students’ initial reactions
were defensive, automatically rejecting the entire report based on a premature and [possibly]
wrong interpretation of one recommendation (i.e. Recommendation 5). Second, several members
of the Scholars Task Force were also directors of the scholarly initiatives under examination by
the report. While there certainly were no blatant or unprofessional efforts to sway the report in
favor of one organization over the others, it seems as though members might still have had
difficulty letting go of their organizational attachments to fully and objectively consider an
alternate future. This territorial struggle was occurring during the creation of the report and after
its publication, according to interviews.
Conclusion 2: The Scholars Task Force was not fully prepared to accomplish all of its goals in
the given timeframe.
Whether this was due to the members’ own faults or outside factors is unclear, yet irrelevant. The
fact of the matter is that the report is deemed by most members of the task force itself to be an
unfinished product. Every task force member interviewed said that they did not expect the report
to be published when it was. Furthermore, some believed the report was supposed to simply
facilitate more discussion among the administration, not become published or serve as official
recommendations to be implemented. The implication of this unpreparedness is that the
recommendations are much less likely to have been well-thought out, supported by evidence and
reason, or well-received by NCCU employees and students. That is not necessarily to say that
they are bad recommendations, but more so that there may still be work needed to make them
implementation-ready.

14
Conclusion 3: The students of NCCU were not informed or involved as much as they should
have been in the creation of the “Scholars Task Force Report.”
Despite the goal of the task forces being to improve the undergraduate experience, students were
scarcely involved creation of the “Scholars Task Force Report.” Consequently, students from all
reaches of NCCU—UHP, CSP, ADS, SGA, and even the general student body—were not only
caught off guard by the report, but felt threatened by it, as well. This caused many to inaccurately
assume and overgeneralize about the report, and thus inhibited productive discussions about its
revision and implementation.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The “Scholars Task Force Report” should be revised before being
implemented.
There are several deficiencies in the “Scholars Task Force Report,” especially when compared to
the “Four Year Graduation Challenge Task Force” or the “Transfer Imperative Report Findings
and Recommendations.” First, there is far less data or other empirical evidence supporting each
recommendation. Second, even the rationale for many recommendations is absent, making it
more difficult to evaluate their soundness. Third, the task force was not unified in its vision or
efforts, resulting in a deficient report. Therefore, the best option for NCCU and its students is to
continue the discussion and research on the ideas within the “Scholars Task Force Report” so
that revised recommendations can be later implemented without detrimental consequences.
Recommendation 2: The revised “Scholars Task Force Report” should significantly incorporate
quality student input.
This student element was largely missing from the first discussions and report. Consequently, the
report was met with strong resistance from many students and student groups. This not only
inhibited the Chancellor’s goals of a better undergraduate experience and operational efficiency,
but created further discord between students and administration, which might serve as another
barrier to progress during the revision. To prevent such reoccurrences, a high degree of
engagement with knowledgeable, dedicated, and concerned students should be incorporated into
the revision.

15
WORKS REFERENCED
Allen, Krystal, Ansel Brown, Jason Dorsette, Donna Hembrick, Terry Huff, Stefan Weathers,
and Ontario Wooden (Chair). 2013. Scholars Task Force Report. Durham, NC: North
Carolina Central University. http://www.nccu.edu/formsdocs/proxy.cfm?file_id=2455
(accessed February 25, 2014).
Analysis finds that historically black universities still come up short in state funding. 2008.
Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 59 (Spring): 30-30.
Arms, Janet Heiss, Alberto F. Cabrera, and Aaron M. Brower. 2008. Moving into students’
spaces: The impact of location of academic advising on student engagement among
undecided students. NACADA Journal 28, no. 1 (Spring): 8-18.
http://inpathways.net/moving%20into%20students'%20spaces.pdf (accessed September
5, 2013).
Bowman III, Nelson. 2010, September 30. Cultivating future fundraisers of color at historically
black colleges and universities. International Journal of Educational Advancement 10,
no. 3:230-234. http://www.palgrave-
journals.com/ijea/journal/v10/n3/pdf/ijea201019a.pdf (accessed September 18, 2013).
Brower, Aaron M., and Karen Kurotsuchi Inkelas. 2010. Living-learning programs: One high-
impact educational practice we now know a lot about. Liberal Education 96, no. 2
(Spring). http://www.aacu.org/liberaleducation/le-sp10/LESP10_Brower.cfm (accessed
April 10, 2014).
Brown, Ansel. 2014a. Interview by author. Durham, NC. March 25.
---. 2014b. Interview by author. Durham, NC. April 1.
Brown, Ansel, Tonya Gerald Goins, Claudia Hager, Janice Harper (Chair), Orkhan Hasanaliyev,
Karen Keaton Jackson, John Smith, Carlo Stoddard, George Wilson, and Robert
Wortham. 2013. Four Year Graduation Challenge Task Force. Durham, NC: North
Cheslock, John J., and Matt Gianneschi. 2008. Replacing state appropriations with alternative
revenue sources: The case of voluntary support. Journal of Higher Education 79, no. 2
(April): 208-229. doi:10.1353/jhe.2008.0012 (accessed September 18, 2013).
Develop successful living-learning communities. 2010. Student Affairs Today 13, no. 2 (May): 4-
5. doi:10.1002/say (accessed September 5, 2013).
Doxey, Tia Marie. 2014a. Interview by author. Durham, NC. March 31.

16
Gasman, Marybeth. 2013. The changing face of historically black colleges and universities.
Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education Center
for Minority Serving Institutions.
http://www.gse.upenn.edu/pdf/cmsi/Changing_Face_HBCUs.pdf (accessed September
10, 2013).
Graham, Frances. 2014. Interview by author. Durham, NC. February 25.
Hearn, James C., Michael K. McLendon, and T. Austin Lacy. 2013. State-funded “eminent
scholars” programs: University faculty recruitment as an emerging policy instrument.
Journal of Higher Education 84, no. 5 (September/October): 601-639.
doi:10.1353/jhe.2013.0028 (accessed September 18, 2013).
Hembrick, Donna. 2014. Interview by author. Durham, NC. March 31.
Inkelas, Karen Kurotsuchi. 2010. Lessons learned about one high-impact practice. College Park,
MD: University of Maryland.
http://sc.edu/fye/events/presentation/annual/2010/Inkelas%20FYE%20plenary%20addres
s%20-%20for%20distribution.ppt (accessed April 7, 2014).
Inkelas, Karen Kurotsuchi, Kristen E. Vogt, Susan D. Longerbeam, Julie E. Owen, and Dawn R.
Johnson. 2006. Measuring outcomes of living-learning programs: Examining college
environments and student learning and development. Journal of General Education 55,
no. 1:40-76. doi:10.1353/jge.2006.0017 (accessed April 10, 2014).
Kezar, Adrianna, William J. Genn, Jaime Lester, and Jonathan Nakamoto. 2008. Examining
organizational contextual features that affect implementation of equity initiatives. Journal
of Higher Education 79, no. 2 (March/April): 125-159. doi:10.1353/jhe.2008.0006
(accessed September 18, 2013).
Kuh, George D., Jullian Kinzie, John H. Schuh, Elizabeth J. Whitt, and Associates. 2005. Student
success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lardner, Emily Decker. 2004. Approaching diversity through learning communities. In
Sustaining and improving learning communities, Laufgraben, Jodi Levine, and Nancy S.
Shapiro, 114-129. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Laufgraben, Jodi Levine, and Nancy S. Shapiro. 2004. Sustaining and improving learning
communities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Love, Anne Goodsell. 2004. A campus culture for sustaining learning communities. In
Sustaining and improving learning communities, Laufgraben, Jodi Levine, and Nancy S.
Shapiro, 14-30. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

17
Mathews, Brian. What it takes to become a scholar: Helping students scale the taxonomy.
http://chronicle.com/blognetwork/theubiquitouslibrarian/2011/09/26/what-it-takes-to-
become-a-scholar-helping-students-scale-the-taxonomy/ (accessed April 11, 2014).
McCray, Philina, and Brittany Smith. 2014. Interview by author. Durham, NC. April 11.
National Center for Education Statistics. Look up an institution, North Carolina Central
University. http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/ (accessed April 11, 2014).
NC State University Honors Program. n.d. Profiles. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State
University. http://ncsu.edu/honors/pdf/program_brochure/HonorsBrochure_07.pdf
(accessed April 10, 2014).
North Carolina Central University. n.d. NCCU 2020: Strategic action plan. Durham, NC: North
---. 2002. IHE bachelor’s performance report: 2001-2002.
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/ihe/reports/2001-02/undergraduate/nccentral.pdf
---. 2009. IHE bachelor’s performance report: 2008-2009.
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/ihe/reports/2008-09/undergraduate/nccentral.pdf
---. 2011. 2011-13 Undergraduate Course Catalogue. Durham, NC: Office of the University
Registrar.
---. 2013a. Transfer Imperative action plan. Durham, NC: North Carolina Central University.
http://www.nccu.edu/formsdocs/proxy.cfm?file_id=2474 (accessed February 26, 2014).
---. 2013b. Transfer Imperative report findings and recommendations. Durham, NC: North
Carolina Central University. www.nccu.edu/formsdocs/proxy.cfm?file_id=2473
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. n.d. 2008-2010 biennial report: Career and
college; Ready, set, go! North Carolina State Board of Education.
http://stateboard.ncpublicschools.gov/resources/biennial-reports/biennial-reports/2008-
10biennialreport.pdf (accessed September 5, 2013).
Nwaokoro, Amaechi Nkemakolem. 2010. An investigation of institutional enhancement factors
on student college success. Contemporary Issues in Education Research 3, no. 8
(August): 1-8. http://journals.cluteonline.com/index.php/CIER/article/download/221/212

18
Overbaugh, Richard C., and Lynn Schultz. Bloom’s Taxonomy. Old Dominion University.
http://ww2.odu.edu/educ/roverbau/Bloom/blooms_taxonomy.htm (accessed April 11,
2014).
The persisting racial gap in college student graduation rates. 2004. Journal of Blacks in Higher
Education, no. 45 (Autumn): 77-85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4133624 (accessed
September 3, 2013).
Peterson’s. An honors program or honors college: Does the difference make a difference?
http://www.petersons.com/college-search/honors-college-program-difference.aspx
(accessed April 11, 2014).
Provencher, Michael. 2014. Scholars Task Force recommendations organizational charts.
Graphics presented at the month Senate meeting of the Student Government Association,
North Carolina Central University. Durham, NC. April 9.
River Oaks Academy. What is a scholar? Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools.
http://schools.cms.k12.nc.us/riveroaksES/Pages/Whatisascholar.aspx (accessed April 11,
2014).
Saunders-White, Debra. 2014a. Interview by author. Durham, NC. February 26.
---. 2014b. Interview by author. Durham, NC. March 31.
Schoem, David. 2004. Sustaining living-learning programs. In Sustaining and improving
learning communities, Laufgraben, Jodi Levine, and Nancy S. Shapiro, 130-156. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Special report: African-American college graduation rates; Intolerably low, and not catching up
to Whites. 2002. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, no. 37 (Autumn): 89-102.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3134303 (accessed September 3, 2013).
Stuart, Reginald. 2010. College completion movement helps spur academic intervention program
innovations. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, October 28.
http://diverseeducation.com/article/14334/# (accessed November 25, 2013).
Taylor, Barrett J., Brendan Cantwell, and Sheila Slaughter. 2013. Quasi-markets in U.S. higher
education: The humanities and institutional revenues. Journal of Higher Education 84,
no. 5 (September/October): 675-707. doi:10.1353/jhe.2013.0030 (accessed September 18,
2013).
Tindall, Natalie T. J., and Richard D. Waters. 2010. The relationship between fundraising
practice and job satisfaction at historically black colleges and universities. International
Journal of Educational Advancement 10, no. 3 (August 29): 198-215.
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ijea/journal/v10/n3/pdf/ijea201017a.pdf (accessed
September 18, 2013).

19
Thomas, Aaron. 2013. Graduation rates flatline: HBCU four-year graduation rates are
considerably low. The Nubian Message: Sentinel of the N.C. State African-American
Community. http://www.thenubianmessage.com/2013/02/13/graduation-rates-flatline/
(accessed October 25, 2013).
Tolk, Andreas. 2012. What are the characteristics of a scholar? SCS M&S Magazine, April, 54-
58. http://www.scs.org/magazines/2012-04/index_file/Files/Tolk.pdf (accessed April 10,
2014).
University of North Carolina. 2013. Developing alternatives for active portfolio management.
Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.
http://www.northcarolina.edu/sites/default/files/documents/activeportfoliomgmt.pdf
University of North Carolina General Assembly. 2013. Strategic directions: 2013-2018. Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.
http://www.northcarolina.edu/sites/default/files/strategic_directions_2013-2018_0.pdf
University of North Carolina Association of Student Governments. 2013. Response to draft
strategic plan.
https://www.northcarolina.edu/sites/default/files/documents/asg_response_to_strategic_pl
an_draft.pdf (accessed February 25, 2014).
Williams, Monica G. 2010. Increasing philanthropic support through entrepreneurial activities at
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. International Journal of Educational
Advancement 10, no. 3 (September 18): 216-229. http://www.palgrave-
journals.com/ijea/journal/v10/n3/pdf/ijea201018a.pdf (accessed September 18, 2013).
Wooden, Ontario. 2014a. Interview by author. Durham, NC. February 26.
Wooden, Ontario, Jason Dorsette, and Kisha Daniels. 2012. North Carolina Central University
enhancing retention and graduation rates: Destination . . . graduation; Collaborating for
student success. PowerPoint presented at the Annual National Association of HBCU Title
III Administrators Technical Assistance Workshop, New Orleans, LA. June 22.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact
=8&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhbcut3a.org%2Fwp-
content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F06%2FNCCU-Enhancing-Retention-and-Graduation-
Rates.ppt&ei=Jv5dU8W8NJffsASJp4Eo&usg=AFQjCNGW21K_3YmRqbC0RukAAsnd
XqfKNQ&bvm=bv.65397613,d.cWc (accessed October 15, 2013).
Youngblood, GeColby. 2014. Scholars Task Force feedback: Unreadiness regarding practical
implementation and essential qualitative factors for honors and scholars initiative. Paper

20
presented at the monthly Division of Student Affairs meeting, North Carolina Central
University. Durham, NC. January 15.

150305 Report to Chancellor - Complete - Post 3

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to 150305 Report to Chancellor - Complete - Post 3

Similar to 150305 Report to Chancellor - Complete - Post 3 (20)

150305 Report to Chancellor - Complete - Post 3