]]>
Here you will find information about the work of the Planning Committee. Entries are organized sequentially reflecting the committee's eight work sessions. Additional entries highlight key diagrams and outcomes generated by the group.
The Strategic Planning Committee is composed of two faculty members from each Department and four administrative and technical staff members. They agreed to meet eight times for three-hour work sessions to develop a strategic plan for the School.
Science and Technology Strategic Planning Committee
Saeid Rahimi, Dean
Brian Jersky, SST Academic Planning
Murali Pillai, Biology
Nathan Rank, Biology
Stephanie Thibault, Biology Technician
Jennifer Lillig, Chemistry
Mark Kearley, Chemistry
Jennifer Whiles, Chemistry
Tia Watts, Computer Science
Lynn Stauffer, Computer Sciences
Dan Karner, Geology
Matt James, Geology
Ellen Carlton, Kinesiology
Wanda Boda, Kinesiology
Brigitte Lahme, Mathematics
Edith Mendez, Mathematics
Brigitte Lahme, Mathematics
Lakin Khan, Mathematics
Ben Ford, Mathematics (while Edie is on sabbatical)
Mellissa Vandeveer, Nursing
Wendy Smith, Nursing
Bryant Hichwa, Physics & Astronomy
Hong Tau Shi, Physics and Astronomy
Reza Khosravani, Physics and Astronomy
Lynn Cominsky, Physics and Astronomy
Cathi Cari-Shudde, School Office Staff
Jagan Agrawal, Science and Technology
The sequence of discussions followed a strategic planning framework composed of four stages:
1. External Scan
2. Internal Scan
3. Mission and Vision
4. Strategic Goals and Priorities
Members of the School of Science and Technology are encouraged to post your comments about any entry along the way.
]]>]]>
Who are the School's stakeholders? Who are those within SSU or the community who care a lot about this School? Whom do we exchange sources or information with in order to maintain the health of SST?
Stakeholder Analysis
|
Stakeholders |
Give SST |
SST Gives Them |
| Students | Purpose, Money | Life skills, diplomas |
| Alumni | Money, Feedback, Exposure | Pride, Employees/Internships, Network |
| High Schools & JCs | Students, Networks, Goals & Standards | Teachers, Continuing Education, Outreach Programs |
| Parents | Students, Money, Worries/Feedback, Reality Check (both ways) | Educated children |
| K-12 Schools | Potential students, Field placements, Research and Grant opportunities, Prepared or Unprepared students, Educational Opportunities | Teachers, Expertise, Role models (EYH), Expectations & goal clarity, Advanced Placement classes, Lecture Series |
| Tax Payers | Revenue, Expectations, Infrastructure | Educated citizens, tax base, resources, information, facilities |
| Global Society | Employees, Research topics and needed research, collaboration projects, cultural diversity | Expertise, Information, Access to local region, knowledge & engaged citizens |
| Post-Bac Programs | Goals for students & faculty, legitimacy, income via self support, access to research facilities | Qualified students, collaboration in research, cheap labor |
| Administration | Infrastructure support, expectations, network, feedback, external prospective, administrative support, student recruiting, secure resources, overhead, rules | Indirect costs, prestige, graduates, FTES, effort and energy |
| Statewide CSU | Negotiate rate of per student fee, MOU, politics, salaries & compensation, money for buildings, networking framework, mandates (eg Peoplesoft), glue for maintaining order and harmony statewide | SSU prestigious school, contribution to purpose, years of productive live and work, tools for politicking |
| Local Community | Feedback, Job network & loyalty, Quality of Life, Equipment and money donations, access to suppliers, exchange of information, temporary faculty, support staff | Professional skills, employees, trained students, intellectual resources and events |
| News Media | Publicity, Information outlet | News worthy information, expert speakers and interviewees |
| Industry | Donations of cash and in-kind, students, research and intern opportunities, part-time faculty and volunteers, cutting edge of current needs and research, consulting opportunities | Skilled workforce, Collaboration, Continuing education, access to facilities, new ideas, free labor, opportunities for giving, consulting |
| Granting Agencies | Prestige, resources, release time, motivation to do research, support educational mission, bend limitations, validation of ideas, curriculum, indirect costs (IDC) | Data from research, Publicity, Ability to generate more research, purpose, improve quality, reviewers |
| Other Collaborative Institutions | Facilities, intellectual stimulation, other opportunities | Expertise, students, reciprocal experience |
| Employers | Assessment feedback | Trained employees, references |
| Faculty and Staff | Prestige for good teaching, energy, effort, drive, character, personal responsiveness, representation on & off campus to the community, expertise | Social community, pride, framework, evaluation |
]]>
The group considered emerging trends and forces affecting the School in the following six areas:
• Science and Technology
• Organizations and Institutions
• Culture and Values
• Finance and Economics
• Population and Demographics
• Government and Politics
Based on this analysis, the group identified and prioritized key challenges facing the School in the next few years:
Priority challenges for the School, based on External Scan
15 stars - How do we provide quality education in an era of shrinking resources and increasing students?
11 stars - How do we do research & maintain FT teaching load with no dollars?
11 stars - How do we clarify and communicate to faculty and staff what is required, what is optional, and what is just nice to do?
11 stars - How do we maintain quality of work life for staff and faculty in light of increasing work load/higher enrollment?
11 stars - How do we develop a fair system to allocate resources to various departments? What is equity in this?
9 stars - How do we negotiate proactive planning with the University about resource allocation & enrollment?
6 stars - How do we raise the awareness of the University that we are visible to/important to the community & reverse the denial of our impact by the University?
4 stars - How to develop appropriate & clear priorities to guide decision we make, rather than o everything in crisis mode, so we can feel good about what we do, rather than bad about what we can never get to?
4 stars - Will we get adequate support from other organizations as we grow?
2 stars - How do we maintain balance between learning to learn + skill development with students?
2 stars - How do we recruit and advise students who will be successful at SSU?
2 stars - Can we define the distinction between SST & the JC?
2 stars - How do we reframe & reach agreement on our mission with the University as we grow?
1 star - How do we manage large classes that enable small majors classes?
What is special about this school (SST at SSU in Sonoma County in Northern California, etc)? What are the key strengths, resources, and accomplishments that define our unique character? What can we be proud of?
School is balanced: School values teaching, scholarship and service.
o Teaching: awards & grants, dedication
o Service: many faculty members in University government
o Scholarship: broad range of basic and applied scholarship.
Quality Instruction — Teaching
Quality of Faculty/Student Interaction
o Many departments provide a high-level of faculty-student interactions
o We have a strong personal relationship with students
o Unique makeup and small size of our school = increased opportunities for interaction
Dedicated & Hardworking Faculty and Staff
o Many faculty are devoted teachers
o Sheer dedication of faculty & good curriculums
o More hardworking faculty compared to other schools
o Involved, interested and hard working staff and administrators
o Most faculty truly interested in teaching
o SST has a dynamic group of faculty & staff who are supportive and respectful of each other.
o The school has a strong, proactive and visionary leader
o Our faculty exhibits excellence in teaching
- Forward thinking
- Positive relationships with students
- Supportive, resourceful staff
Quality Graduates
o Employers value our graduates
o We produce quality graduates
Quality Programs
o High quality graduate and professional programs
o More suggestions were to follow
Service
o Many faculty participate on high level committees
Community & External Relations & Collaboration
o Relatively unique: more than other schools, our faculty & administration secure what they need through external resources
o Proud of our ability to create & maintain valuable relationships with our communityÅfs industries, research institutions and outreach opportunities.
o Most faculty truly interested in teaching.
o Unique resources: Advanced Labs, Galbreath & FOP preserve, remodeled Darwin Hall
Achievements in Faculty and Student Research & Scholarship
o We enjoy external support from community and funding agencies
o Many (or some) departments strive to offer internship/research/independent study opportunities
What aspects of the School aren't working as well? This is not what we intend to happen.
Internal Working Conditions
o We regret a lack or cohesion & communication in governance within SST
o Low level of social and sports activities: faculty, departments
Workload Concerns & Expectations
o SST is under-staffed—overloads are expected
o Increasing faculty workload—including hidden workload
o We are sorry that our increasing responsibilities in teaching and service reduce our ability to maintain educational quality
Function/Structure of SST
o Outdated administrative structure
o Heavy emphasis on localized department issues
o Most departments are moving forward based on tradition & without planning for future
Resource Competition
Competition for scarce resources
o Large GE classes are hypocritical with proclaimed image of SSU as a college with small classes and low teacher-to-student ratio
o Positions
o Equipment
o We regret the lack of support for educational programs
o We are concerned about lack of sufficient support to provide quality teaching while maintaining scholarly activities
o SST programs are not sufficiently equipped
o Inequitable faculty workload distribution among departments, schools and campuses
o Sorry that we spend more time completing for limited resources and mere survival than for communicating and understanding other departments so we can grow as a school
RTP Expectations
o Inadequately defined and accessible RTP policies: department, school, university
o SST has inadequate amount of research and scholarship activities
o Different messages regarding balance of teaching, scholarship and service: departments, levels of review, administration
o Sorry that we feel that expectations are unclear yet seem higher than what can be physically accomplished without added support
o New faculty are often left adrift
Perception & Recognition of SST
o Perceived lack of respect from other parts of University—science is not liberal arts and it is expensive
o Relative lack of info about how ÅgUniversityÅh works
o Weaker level of interest in faculty governance with respect to other schools
o Weak marketing of our needs and accomplishments: brochures, websitesÅc
SST Relations with SSU
o SSU does not have a paper catolog
Don't have a way to get SST needs met
o Faculty have solutions to problems that are ignored or disregarded
o Faculty suggestions to improve processes have no weight or outcomes
o Need for a SSU feedback mechanism for responding to concerns of SST faculty/staff/administration
o Even with consultation & discussion with higher administration, decisions don't change
o Sorry with respect to SSU administration's communication with deans, faculty, staff, students
- e.g.—students who register during 1st Reg are affectively punished because they have to pay at the time they register: many students have to wait for financial reasons for 2nd Reg. creating an unanticipated, unplanned bulge which hurts scheduling & planning. (not to mention that those who are financially secure get first crack at classes, while those of lower incomes are affectively discriminated against as they have to settle for second or third choices in classes, or maybe not getting into required classes at all.)
- e.g.—growth not planned at department level, school level, university level
In making this vision a reality, faculty, staff, and administrators will work together to provide outstanding educational experiences for our students and to engage in quality scholarship.
2. (13 dots) develop strategies to obtain sufficient resources to support educational excellence.
3. (12 dots) develop strategy for recruiting high-quality science majors.
4. (8 dots) Recruit and retain a vibrant administrative and support staff sufficient to support the school’s programs.
5. (7 dots) Plan for development and acquisition of appropriate and necessary infrastructure and equipment.
6. (7 dots) Institute evaluation methods to facilitate improvement in methods (e.g. entrance and exit evaluations)
7. (6 dots) recognize the total employee workload so job can be done well.
8. (5 dots) charge school RTP committee to develop a SST RTP policy that is clear and
a. supports and rewards development of quality educational pedagogy and curriculum.
b. Supports, recognizes, and rewards quality discipline-based research, cross-discipline research, educational research, and professional practice.
c. recognizes SST faculty participation in university committees and initiatives as well as community service activities.
d. Maintains accreditation and acquires it for all departments
e. Supports and rewards student mentoring
9. (3 dots) Increase scholarship with 3 units of scholarship time to faculty
