Search Reslife.net
		Staying Ahead of Student Issues as well as Legislative Mandates: Freshman Core Programming at Fordham University's Rose Hill Campus By Christopher Rodgers, Director of Residential Life for Judicial Affairs The Problem To the Student Affairs professional, it can sometimes appear as if successive waves of first-year students arrive at colleges and universities with problems, needs, and deficits in basic life skills that exceed those of their predecessors. Recent events as well as a growing body of recent research would seem to bear this out. Cureton and Levine point to the growing use of prescribed medication among college-bound seniors and of the effects of childhoods characterized by diminishing parental involvement. Wechsler's well-publicized findings warn of the danger of alcohol abuse once students arrive at institutions of higher education. As Student Affairs professionals are aware, state and federal legislatures have sensed a strong level of concern among constituents as to how institutions confront these problems. These bodies have passed a number of laws, notable among them the Campus Security Act and associated bills. These are designed to compel colleges and universities to confront the perceived hazards of life on the American campus. Recently, the first fines were levied by the federal government in response to the failure of an institution to comply with these laws. Staying ahead both of problems that students bring with them to campus and of legislative mandates has become a priority for professionals. How should a Residential Life department prepare students for the challenges this rather unusual lifestyle can pose? How can it also satisfy new and increasingly stringent mandates from local, state, and national legislatures? The following is a description of one solution for this common problem. While the Freshman Core Programming System has not been the problem-free panacea about which professionals fantasize, it has had an effect. The basic structure of the system, changes made to improve it, changes that are in the offing, and the challenges which remain are described below as an example to colleagues worried about the same issues. One Solution Fordham University's Office of Residential Life at Rose Hill has tried one way to fulfill both of these obligations. In response to the perceived need at our own institution, both among Resident Directors working most directly with students in the halls and among higher-level administrators, we developed what became the Freshman Core Programming System, so named because it seeks to provide, like a core curriculum, a foundation of skills, concepts, and information upon which students may build the lives they come to lead on our campus. This core is the first necessary information students receive when they arrive at our campus, and a basis upon which their experience may build. Importantly, this new program was not the re-invention of the wheel so dreaded by already overworked departments. It was, rather, a different way of providing programming that would widen the audience and reach a consistently higher percentage of the class. Previous programming had centered upon three basic areas: Security, Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD), and Relationship Education (known by its Fordham-native acronym "CARE," for Campus Assault and Relationship Education. Resident Assistants in the first-year halls worked collaboratively to arrange, in the first month of the academic year, one program for each of these topics. Authoritative speakers were recruited, usually our university's Director of Security, our Alcohol and Other Drugs Counselor, and the Assistant Dean of Residential Life (to provide the CARE program). Residents were invited and cajoled into participating, but never required. Unfortunately, attendance reflected this approach. Despite the importance of the issues discussed, participation was sparse, leaving the staff with nagging doubts as to whether those who needed it most ever got near the information being offered. The System While the subject matter and, significantly, the purveyors would remain the same in the new system, the way students received the information would change. First, Core Programming would be mandatory. As the advertising for the system noted "There are certain things all students who live on Fordham University's Rose Hill campus must know." The advertising, Resident Assistants, and Resident Directors sought to cast the option to refrain from getting this important as unacceptable. Each RA was responsible to gather his or her floor or wing to come, en masse, to the session earmarked for their area. In reminding and gathering resident students, staff reminded them that life within the community is a privilege for which there would be certain prerequisites. Participation in Freshman Core Programming would be one of them. While a simple measure, the step to make the sessions a requirement had an important twofold effect. First, and most predictably, it caused an immediate rise in participation. Second, it lent an air of importance to the information and to the sessions themselves. The university communicated that there were certain things upon which all of its students must be educated if they were to live in its halls. The familiar recoil many have observed in student and staff by the use of the word "mandatory" gave way to a sense that this was a serious expectation. Second, there would be abundant opportunity to attend the programs at a number of different times and dates. The three topic areas were presented upwards of a dozen times throughout the months of September and October, each session earmarked for one or more wings in a first-year hall. This was particularly helpful for students who had legitimate scheduling conflicts, such as those on sports teams or who had jobs outside the university. We coordinated closely with coaches and enlisted a number in the effort to get their players to the programs after or between practices. Third, students who could not (or merely did not) attend their floor/wing's designated session would be asked by their Resident Assistant immediately following the program to attend an alternate program. This request came directly from the RA who had taken attendance at the session and usually in-person. To add emphasis as well documentation, each student received a written reminder of the requirement from the RA upon his/her visit in the form of a "Referral." Lists of alternate programs, their dates, times, and locations were posted throughout the halls. The Resident Directors, in charge of the system for his/her hall, received completed attendance sheets from the RA immediately following the distribution of referrals. From this list, he/she tracked attendance at succeeding "alternate" sessions by those who missed. Changes and Challenges The Freshman Programming System is going into its third year as a part of Rose Hill's experience of first-year students. A number of changes have occurred between these first two years to improve the program and address problems. Though the great majority of the resident freshman class (approximately 900 students) attended the sessions, as one might guess, not all students were present. As previous efforts had failed to elicit participation, this fraction of the student population posed something of a challenge. In the Fall of 1998, the first year the system was put in place, a substantial number of students resisted the various opportunities to participate as well as the various requests, via letter (but outside of the university's judicial process,) that they write a paper to make up for the missed session. After discussion with the Resident Director staff, teeth were added to the system. The staff opted to adjudicate those students who ignore repeated requests to fulfill their obligation or an alternative option. This reduced the number of non-participants substantially (though it did not eliminate this phenomenon). Other challenges presented themselves. The move from a loosely-tracked scheme of optional programs to an elaborate system of upwards of 24 sessions on three topics, required attendance, referral forms, and tracking entailed a difference in the amount of time and effort required of staff. The spillover of FCP non-participants into the Resident Director staff's adjudication workload translated into an increase in this other job responsibility. It may be that greater emphasis on the part of Resident Assistants introducing the program would dampen absenteeism. Fuller and more explicit incorporation of such participation into each floor's community standards statement might also elicit better attendance. Where possible, student groups played a part in the presentation of sessions. Fordham's relationship and sexual assault education group, CARE Peer Educators, took responsibility for a significant portion of the CARE-related sessions, sharing presentation duties with the Dean of Residential Life. The Student-Life Action Players and the Fordham University Prevention Team helped our AOD counselor with the Alcohol and Other Drugs Programming. This participation has increased from 1998 to 1999, and has served not only to distribute the work of conducting sessions, but to accentuate students' perception of their own responsibility for such education and its effect on their community. Regardless of whether these efforts to reduce absentees are successful, the Freshman Core Programming System represents an increase in service. Increases in service, in turn, often represent increases in workload. Resident Assistants have greater responsibility for attendance and tracking. Session presenters are asked to spend more of their evenings on campus. As the administrator in overall charge, I felt a certain pressure to try and make as many of the sessions as possible, and had to spend a great deal of time in scheduling each of them with the recruited presenters, developing the administrative framework, and working with Resident Directors as problems arose. Future We plan to work to examine the program each year to address the issues mentioned, as the benefit of laying the foundation for students is worth the time invested. A number of improvements should be made to the program. First and perhaps most obvious, participating students should be surveyed to evaluate the impact of the sessions and information as well as the convenience of the system itself. Second, taking a cue from the increased participation of student groups in some sessions, the organizational structure supporting the FCP System should "devolve" some of the more burdensome administrative tasks to lower-level staff and students. In this way, the entire framework can eventually originate more directly from students (where it should come from) and staff struggle with the workload created can be lessened. About the Author Christopher Rodgers is the Director of Residential Life for Judicial Affairs at Fordham University's Rose Hill campus in New York City, where he began his career as a Resident Director in 1992. As Associate Director of Residential Life for Staff and Student Development for the last six years, Chris has, among other responsibilities, supervised Resident Directors, Resident Assistants, and overseen programming in the residence halls at Rose Hill. He earned a Bachelor's degree from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., holds a Master's Degree in Political Science from Fordham, and is a doctoral candidate in the Administration, Policy, and Urban Education Division of Fordham's Graduate Education Department. He and his wife, Regina Dougherty Rodgers, live just outside the university's gates in the Belmont section of the Bronx. Special thanks to the Resident Directors and Resident Assistants who made Freshman Core Programming possible.