Final Leadership Programs Paper

8/9/2019 Final Leadership Programs Paper

1/16

Student Leadership Programs

Anna Adams, Lauren Gehrke, Cory Headley, Bryan Hotchkins

University of Utah

Introduction to Student Affairs 6550

Functional Area Report- Student Leadership Programs

1


2/16


Abstract

University campuses as we know them could not exist without student

leadership programs. Each campus is unique with respect to the structure of

these programs. Two prevailing models used on campuses nationwide are

centralized and decentralized models of student leadership programs. There

are many benefits to each structure. Furthermore, there are numerous

variations on these models, with each campus deciding which model works

best for the population of students it serves. We will examine the University

of Utahs decentralized structure, in addition to providing Weber State

Universitys centralized system as a comparative model. We will begin

discussing the origins of leadership programs, then move on to discuss the

historical origins of the University of Utahs student leadership programs

specifically. Next, we will analyze several aspects of student leadership

programs and end by proposing recommendations for strategic direction for

this area.

2


3/16



Historical Origins

The historical origins of student leadership programs can be traced

back throughout the history of higher education. (CAS 2002, p. 320) In the

last century, huge improvements have been made in the construction and

evolution of student leadership programs. Starting in the 1970s, institutions

for higher education began to reconsider the importance of developing

student leadership skills in students. By the late 1990s, over 800 leadership

programs existed across the nation (CAS 2002, p. 320). According to

Gwendolyn Jordan Dungy, programs vary in that some are for credit, some

offer noncredit workshops for student leaders, and some are attached to

academic programs (Dungy, p. 350) If one looks at leadership programs

as campus organizations comprised of students, for students, and dedicated

to student leadership development, the programs will be presented in the

form of student governments, union programming groups, community

service organizations, etc. However, if one looks at leadership programs as

integrated academic programsa student affairs fusion in which a student

takes leadership courses to develop leadership skills and receive creditthe

programs exist as classroom-dominated programs. For the purpose of this

paper, we will examine student leadership programs as programs existing

outside of the classroom.

3


4/16


National Associations and Guiding Documents

Student Affairs professions in the 1970s re-examined student

leadership programs, however, student affairs professionals at the time also

bolstered the leadership programs by incorporating the management of such

programs into national organizations such as the American College Personnel

Association (ACPA), National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

(NASPA), National Association for Campus Activities (NACA), and National

Association for Women in Education (NAWE). In 1992, the leading national

association for student leadership programs, the National Clearinghouse for

Leadership Programs, put together a symposium series to aid educators in

creating improved student leadership programs for the new millennium.

The primary guiding document for student leadership programs comes

from the Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) guiding

documents. CAS prepares standards for different functional areas on campus

and the CAS standards for student leadership programs outlines specific

guidelines for the mission, program, leadership, financial resources, equity

and access of a successful student leadership program. Also, individual

schools will have other guiding documents incorporating unique aspirations

tailored to the needs of the school population. This is further explained by

Dungy, functional areas may be defined differently across institutions.

(Student Services, p. 355)

Code of Ethics or Standards of Practice

For student leadership programs (SLP), ethics codes and practice

4


5/16


standards depend on the institution. An institution that has created SLP in

conjunction with CAS guidance will also follow CAS ethical procedures. In the

section on SLP procedure, compliance with Equal Opportunity laws, it is

encouraged for SLP staff members to be up to date on current ethical laws in

addition to be knowledgeable in assessment of SLP programs and staff.

Student Leadership Programs at the University of Utah and Weber State

University

Historical Origins on Campus

This paper will focus primarily on the student leadership programs at

the University of Utah, however, to understand the unique structure of the

University of Utah SLP we will use Weber State University as a comparative

model adhering to a centralized model of leadership programming. The

University of Utah began as the University of Deseret in 1850. According to

Nancy Collinwood, Director of Student Involvement and Leadership at Weber

State University, all Utah universities except the University of Utah have

centralized models of leadership programming, (N. Collinwood, personal

communication, October 13, 2008). The University of Utah differed from

other universities from the inception of its student leadership programs in

the 1920s, with the creation of the Associated Students of the University of

5


6/16


Utah (ASUU)the student government. Other student leadership programs

have appeared on campus such as the Union Programming Council, an

executive committee of the Union Board, created in 2002, and the

LeaderShape program, a nationally recognized workshop, headed by the

Orientation and Leadership Development Office. These programs remain

decentralized and are scattered throughout the A. Ray Olpin Union.

Campus Organizational Chart

For the University of Utah, organization of student leadership programs

presents a distinctive challenge. Due to the fact that none of the SLP are

centralized, each SLP has its own organizational chart that it functions under,

however, both ASUU and the UPC fall under the umbrella of the student

affairs division organizational chart.

Organizational Chart for Student Leadership Programs

The functional areas organizational charts consist of the following three areas: the

University of Utah Student Affairs Office, the Associated Students of the University of Utah

(ASUU) and the University Programming Council (UPC). Organizational responsibility is

divided into quadrants, however, only two areas directly deal with the functional area directly:

Student Development and the Dean of Students. Reference Appendix A for a complete listing of

the organizational breakdown.

Role of SLP on campus

A successful SLP incorporates student learning, student development, and leadership

6


7/16


skills, which are in turn essential to meeting the mission statement for the University of Utah

(CAS, 2002, pg. 322).

Mission Statements from Student Leadership Programs

For example, ASUU exists to provide a voice for the student body, which in turn

provides leadership for the student population, (L. McDonald, personal communication,

September 30, 2008). The mission of the UPC is to provide leadership opportunities through a

programmatic atmosphere that builds community for the campus.

Primary Role Student Leadership Programs

The primary role of persons within student leadership programs are those of educators

and leaders primarily charged with serving University of Utah students by exposing them to

opportunities which foster experiential learning. This is accomplished by providing leadership

training that is, designed to improve performance of the individual in the role presently

occupied, through educational programs that, enhance participants knowledge and

understanding of specific leadership theories, concepts, and models, (CAS, 2002, 324).

Administrators working with students in leadership positions play the role of managers by

developing new programming for the students to experience can only benefit all who are

involved.

Financial Aspects of Student Leadership Programs

ASUU is funded in full by student fees. UPC is funded partially by money allocated to

them from the division of student affairs. Additional funding is self-generated. Sources of

funding for SLP vary depending on the campus they are housed in.

Analyze and Address the Following Topics for Student Leadership Programs

Challenges and successes of Student Leadership Programs

7


8/16


Whether or not we are looking at a centralized or decentralized

leadership program several of the challenges and successes are similar. For

student leadership programs to be successful there must have student buy

in. Student attitudes seem to change every year so the success of a specific

program will depend on how the students view its importance. Specific

leadership models are created based upon the needs of the institution.

There is no specific model of centralized or decentralized leadership to

follow. It often depends on what programs and services are being offered at

the institution and are best for the populations the SLP serve.

The following quote from our text helps explain the complexity of

student leadership programs: Leadership is one of the most observed and

least understood phenomena on earth (Rogers, 2003 448-449). Stogdill

came to the conclusion that there are almost as many definitions of

leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept

(Rogers, 2003, 448-449). With this being said we believe we will continue to

face this challenge until we have a definitive model for leadership programs.

If our SLP are successful, then the students involved will achieve the learning

outcomes outlined in the CAS standards.

Primary Campus and Community Partners

According to the CAS document, SLP should be staffed adequately by

individuals qualified to accomplish the programs missions and goals. The

professional members in this area must hold an earned graduate degree in a

field relevant to the position they hold. Faculty, staff, and students all hold a

8


9/16


vested interest in SLP. Faculty members are essential as they will most

likely be the ones teaching leadership classes. Administrators will be the

ones staffing the different leadership offices based upon how they are set up

on each campus. The students role in regards to SLP is the role of the

consumer. They are the customers that SLP are created for (CAS, 2002, 322-

323).

Involvement of Students in Leadership

As the title of the functional area states, students are the center of this

program. It is critical for institutions of higher education to provide

opportunities for students to be engaged and gain valuable leadership skills.

Campuses with centralized or decentralized leadership programs can be

equally successful. The overall leadership at the University of Utah is

decentralized, and it works well for the population it serves. This

decentralization allows other offices to tailor leadership programs to meet

the specific needs of the students. A few examples of offices providing these

leadership opportunities are the ASUU and the UPC. Each of these entities

allows students autonomy in gaining important leadership skills.

In contrast to the University of Utahs decentralized model of student

leadership programs is the centralized model utilized at Weber State

University. The program at Weber State still provides plenty of autonomy for

the students, and the centralized model works well for that campus. The

centralized model provides more of a one-stop shop for student leadership.

Even though the program at Weber is centralized, it isnt the only program to

9


10/16


provide leadership opportunities for students. Many of the academic

programs teach leadership classes within their respective colleges.

Programs and Services That Address Diversity

Administrators must be aware of recent issues when faced with the

task of addressing diversity on campus. The degree to which diversity issues

are discussed in ASUU each year fluctuates. (L. McDonald, personal

communication, September 30, 2008). Each year, new students are elected

to represent offices structured very similar to those of our federal

governments structure. With the advent of each new academic year, new

ideas, opinions, biases, and skills are brought forth. As indicated in the CAS

documents for Student Leadership Programs, leadership programs

addressing diversity, must promote educational experiences that are

characterized by open and continuous communication that deepens

understanding of ones own identity, culture, and heritage, and that of

others, (CAS, p. 327). Within the jurisdiction of is a student-run diversity

board. This board is responsible for ensuring that programs promoting

diversity awareness are being held, (W. Hollis, personal communication,

September 29, 2008). When in search of maintaining an appropriate balance

between raising awareness within the context of diversity and promoting

personal agendas, it is helpful to be reminded of the student learning

outcomes we are striving to obtain.

10


11/16


Support and Service that Impact Social Justice

ASUU and the UPC provide provides programs that raise awareness of

social justice issues, however, there is always room for continual efforts. Mr.

Hollis did point out that the religious culture in Utah is inherently non-

diverse. It is due to this fact that as students start out at the University of

Utah, they are very unaware of issues pertaining to diversity and social

justice. Mr. Hollis emphasized the importance of being knowledgeable about

diversity. He acknowledges that an increase of programmatic efforts in this

area will help our students catch up to students nationwide (W. Hollis,

personal communication, September 29, 2008).

Ms. McDonald drew our attention to an interesting distinction in

relation to diversity within the ASUU governing body. She notes that even

though there is diversity on the board in terms of genders, ethnic

background, class standing, and majors represented, this group is still

unique with respect to being privileged. Moreover, the students who usually

apply to be involved with ASUU are still a subset of the campus population.

These students have had the advantage of being aware of what ASUU does,

being familiar with campus programming, in addition to having previous

leadership experiences in high school or extracurricular activities, (L.

McDonald, personal communication, September 30, 2008). Being aware of

this fact can be empowering for administrators working directly with this

population. This is an opportune time for SLP to consider equity and access.

Student Leadership Programs staff members must ensure that services and

11


12/16


programs are provided on a fair and equitable basis, (CAS, p.327).

Theories that Inform Practice

According to Astin, The effectiveness of any educational policy or

practice is directly related to the capacity of that policy or practice to

increase student involvement, (Evans, Forney, Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p.27).

Being aware of the level of commitment a student feels towards their college

or university can help SLP when preparing and assessing their programs.

Kohlbergs theory is confined to an examination of moral reasoning,

the cognitive component of moral behavior, (Evans et al. 1998, p.172). This

knowledge will help inform our practice when considering types of training to

give students. We do know that, moral development increases with age and

educational level, (Evans et al. 1998, p.180). This fact should be considered

when working with students from all class standings.

General Conclusions - Strategic Issues and Planning

Trends and Issues Facing Student Affairs and Higher Education Impact SLP

Future directions SLP depend in a large part on the allocation of

student fees. If these fees start to increase each year, then it is predicted by

Mr. Hollis that the programs being offered will increase as well. However, it

is difficult to determine what the future of programs will be considering the

community view towards money and debt. Mr. Hollis has noticed that in

Utah students are not willing to pay as much in student fees compared to

12


13/16


other parts of the country; at a school as large as the University of Utah, it is

easy to see how this discrepancy of funds could translate to the quality of

programs being offered to our student population.

It is also necessary to take in to consideration the economic climate

outside of the university, in the real world. With the current economic

climate looking so dismal, it is quite possible that higher education is going

to become more costly for students.

The trend towards technology use is present in all aspects of student

affairs and higher education. Technology is becoming and will continue to

transform the way students market events to other students. With this

knowledge, future student leaders will be able to incorporate technology and

other aspects when communicating with students from younger generations.

Strategic Direction Recommended for SLP

When considering the future direction of student leadership programs,

it is important to note that students will be able to provide a plethora of

feedback on the direction they would like to see SLP move towards;

administrators should be allowed to advise students, yet allow student

leaders the autonomy to shape their programming.

What are the implications of the Student Learning Imperative for SLP

Higher education is in the throes of a major transformation. Forcing

the transformation are economic conditions, eroding public confidence,

accountability demands, and demographic shifts resulting in increased

numbers of people from historically underrepresented groups going to

13


14/16


college, (ACPA, 1996). It is evident from this statement that an increasing

demand is being placed on student affairs professionals being able to

provide evidence for student learning from programmatic efforts. This has a

direct impact for SLP because this is often the first place administrators look

to when evaluating whether or not students are able to demonstrate

evidence of learning. Students learn the most when their experiences are

dissimilar and occur across many different avenues. By continuing to be

intentional in planning activities, administrators can ensure student learning

will be accomplished.

14


15/16


References

ACPA. (1996, February 14). The Student Learning Imperative: Implicationsfor Student

Affairs. Retrieved September 4, 2008, from

https://online.uen.org/webct/urw/lc257461621151.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2006). CASprofessional

standards for higher education (6th

ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development incollege. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Komives, S.R., Woodard, D.B. (2003). Student Services: A handbook for theprofession. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Division of Student Affairs Mission Statement (2007). Retrieved October 20, 2008), from

http://www.sa.utah.edu/VPoffice.htm.

15


16/16

Student Leadership Programs 16

Final Leadership Programs Paper

Documents

Transcript of Final Leadership Programs Paper