11.15/05
SSU's
Planning Process, our Current Crises, the Provost's "Strategic Plan,"
and Recommendations for the Future
Background: Academic
planning has been continuous at SSU for over 25 years. In the late 1970s under President
Marjorie Downing Wagner, and with the direct support of the Chancellor’s
Office, SSU completed its first campus-wide assessment and turned its energies
to organized planning. Under the President’s Committee on Planning and
Priorities, comprised of appointed administrators and elected faculty and
staff, a number of subcommittees were formed to target critical planning areas.
The 1970s plan involved wide participation by all campus constituencies.
Because the administration funded the plan’s recommendations, virtually
all of its targets were implemented.
In the early
1990s the character of the campus as a small-sized institution devoted to the
Liberal Arts and Sciences was reaffirmed by an agreement between Chancellor
Barry Munitz and the SSU administration.
The chancellor's requirement at the time was that SSU must not be more
costly than other CSU institutions.
In 1992
Academic Vice President Donald Farish and his Advisory Council formed a new
group to draft a Long Range Academic Plan (LRAP) for the university. The group
was later assigned to the Academic Senate, which identified it first as a
subcommittee of the EPC and later as a standing committee of the Senate, giving
it the name Academic Planning Committee (APC). At every stage the APC had the
support of ongoing weekly liaison with Academic Affairs personnel. Its
recommendations did not receive commensurate funding from the Executive branch.
History of SSU Planning Activities
For
more than a decade the APC, increasingly drawn from elected campus-wide
constituencies, met weekly and held annual daylong work sessions devoted to
particular planning problems. It
sponsored several campus-wide discussions including two campus-wide retreats
attended collegially by faculty, staff and administrators.
After
five years of intense assessments and consultations across the university, the
committee generated the Long Range Academic Plan, accepted by the
administration in 1993, the Academic Senate in 1995, with a few minor changes
and reaffirmation subsequently approved by the Senate in 2000.
The
above approvals identified the LRAP as the “planning constitution”
for the University. It was intended to guide long-range curricular planning and
related enrollment projections, to offer proposals for student life initiatives
at a public residential campus, for planning goals, faculty allocations and
recommendations for faculty professional development. It provided a framework
for new program proposals. The Long Range Plan was also intended to avoid the
reactive process that increasingly characterized the development of proposals
affecting the teaching mission of SSU.
The
LRAP enjoyed the full support of the campus Academic Senate (by statute
responsible for the curriculum) and of the two Academic Vice-
President/Provosts responsible for Academic Affairs between 1994 and 2001. A
new Provost with his own agenda arrived in Fall 2001. In Spring 2002 he set out to create a “Strategic
Plan” for his division. Although the LRAP is still in effect, the
Academic Affairs office relegated it to a binder of materials distributed at
the outset to members of his administratively-appointed committee, which
neither consulted the LRAP nor referenced it during the ensuing two years of
discussions. In 2005, to respond to WASC concerns, the administration appointed
yet another “Strategic Planning” committee, this time a
University-wide committee composed primarily of non-faculty personnel. Neither committee produced a plan that
is in fact “strategic,” as will be discussed below. And neither committee included a Senate
membership elected specifically to serve on them.
In
April 2004, Professor Susan McKillop provided the APC with a “Comparison
of the Academic Affairs Division Strategic Plan and the SSU Long Range Academic
Plan. (Attachment 1; on line access " SSU Planning Documents" at: http://www.sonoma.edu/senate/apc) Had the LRAP been used to guide
decisions around the current crises in funding for academic programs, faculty
and staff support, a number of former APC members believe that SSU would not be
in the dire fiscal crisis it now faces nor endure the academic consequences
this crisis has produced. The present fiscal situation has been examined by Professor
Steve Orlick using CSU and SSU data from the official System-wide Academic
Planning Data Base (APDB) in a summary: “SFR and Average Class
Size” found on-line under current issues/information at http://www.sonoma.edu/senate.
His document identifies the annual Fall-to-Fall changes in faculty staffing,
enrollments, student faculty ratios, average class sizes, etc. from 1989 to
2004. The records show that numbers shifted dramatically at the times of the
President’s commitment to build the Green Center in 1999 and the arrival
of the current Provost in 2001.
The Provost's Committee Process
Although
the efforts of the Academic Affairs and University Strategic Planning
Committees (neither has met since Spring 2004) have been laudable, and a fresh
review of what we do is always helpful, it is important to note that both of
the Provost’s planning committees are administrative ones, that is, none
of their members were elected by representative constituencies. Nor did these
appointees include a substantive contingent of persons involved over time in
the long range planning process, familiar with SSU’s planning activities
and the process itself. Before
developing its conclusions, the Academic Affairs committee decided not to
assess uniformly our existing General Education (e.g. it made no effort to
assess GE areas C, D, and E before it proposed changes to the General Education
program, nor did it uniformly assess other campus constituencies in order to
derive basic assumptions and target areas).
Traditional
strategic planning requires uniform assessment, supporting data, articulated
criteria for decisions made, an action plan to implement these decisions, a
prioritization of issues, and embedded widespread consultation. The proposed
Academic Affairs "Strategic Plan" does not provide budget
projections; it does not consider the resource impact of new initiatives on
existing programs; nor does it prioritize planning issues or provide a
developed plan of action. Much the same can be said of the “University
Plan.” Without real numbers and prioritization of targets, these plans
are, in reality, “planning discussions,” rather than authentic
strategic plans,
Targeted Areas of the
“Strategic Plan” of Academic Affairs and the LRAP
Academic Quality and Campus
Mission and Identity:
In the
planning process of the 1970s and again in the early 1990s the President and
the Chancellor agreed that SSU would remain a small liberal arts and sciences
institution. Our LRAP articulates close human interactions (LRAP Universal
Principles, #2) and is committed to small classes (#3). As of last spring when
top administrators informed the Senate that SSU was to become a
"comprehensive" mid-sized campus of 10,000 students this goal appears
to have been abandoned. Neither the new Academic Affairs “plan” of
2004 nor the University “plan” of 2005 contains specific references
to teaching and learning–the primary mission of SSU. Absent is any
discussion of restoring, maintaining programs or developing new curricula--
particularly important in a period of rapidly expanding enrollments, now
targeted at a 10,000 head count by the year 2010. The University Strategic Plan anticipates 9000 full time
equivalent students (FTES) in 2010, a five-year increase of 2031 FTES from the
6969 FTES enrolled in the Fall of 2004. In light of this projected growth, the
University “plan” makes no mention of what is distinct about SSU's
academic mission, nor does it offer a plan for allocation of resources to retain
our small campus identity and our academic quality. Currently, some programs
and majors are under-funded, or even un-funded, a fact that potentially
constitutes their de facto elimination outside of EPC
guidelines and normal campus procedures. Current practice does not include
faculty participation in a genuine decision-making capacity on administrative
committees that deal with budget issues or with campus academic priorities to
insure that our curriculum–the purview of the faculty–is protected.
Future Growth
Given
that the president agreed with the chancellor to grow 5% a year, twice the
System’s agreement with the Governor to grow 2 1/2% per year, and that
the administration has offered no guarantee of a proportional increase in
faculty and staff allocations in line with System averages, what strategies are
in place to assure success of the Trustees’ priorities for effective
graduation, retention and student satisfaction? What strategies and priorities
are in place to govern and direct growth for the future? What strategies and
priorities are in place to guarantee that our budget decisions follow our
mission? What strategies are in place to guarantee that our SFR will return to
parity with the statewide averages or that faculty and staff workloads are
brought back into alignment with statewide practices? There is no assurance
that budget allocations will provide adequate staff and services for existing
and new students according to headcount needs. There is no assurance that SSU
faculty will receive a compensation that would allow them to live in Sonoma
County or the North Bay, an area with one of the highest housing costs in the
state. Presently initial SSU salaries are among the lowest in the system. Later rectification of low initial
salaries is rare. These are all critical–if not crisis–areas
already anticipated by the LRAP that currently need immediate consideration and
response.
Transparent and Shared Decision
Making
In response
to WASC criticisms and our own LRAP guidelines, it is essential that faculty and
staff participate with the administration in making key decisions.
Administrative-driven directives, made without campus-wide engagement and
assessment, compromise our teaching mission. For example, regressive
assessments on the academic budgets of the Schools to cover costs of overruns
and equipment for remodeling Darwin Hall are unprecedented in the history of
this campus and negatively impact our quality, mission and academic stability.
To date no campus-wide "crisis management" discussions have taken
place to address the administrative errors that led to our failure to meet
enrollment targets this Fall; our budget shortfalls; curricular decisions (e.g.
FYE, the Green Center), which have wide-ranging fiscal and academic
implications. The LRAP (Academic Senate policy) requires impact assessments for
all new initiatives, including budget, affect on all sectors of the campus,)
etc.
In
its call for transparency and consultation, the LRAP would anticipate full
disclosure and prior discussion with the Senate concerning the circumstances
that by which the campus reduced its Fall full time equivalent student
enrollments (FTES) by 6% between Fall 2002 and Fall 2004, yet reduced
its full time equivalent faculty (FTEF) by 16% (a loss of 54.7 actual FTEF
positions) leaving 289.7 FTEF to serve a full time student body of 6969. This
reduction produced a SFR of 24.7—a workload 13% above
the system average of 21.9 SFR. This astonishing loss of faculty allocations
does not serve well SSU’s self-defined mission that promotes the image of
small classes and close interactions between students and faculty. Nor does it
enhance timely graduation and student satisfaction.
A
strategic planning process needs to incorporate urgent issues rather than
focusing on special interests. The decade of work to develop the LRAP and its
incorporation as a standing committee of the Senate addressed the ongoing
problems created by a lack of planning, or reactive decision making. We live in
challenging times and the very survival of our academic programs and character
is at stake. A strategic initiative based on campus-wide inclusion and
collaboration that addresses these key issues with specific remedies and budget
priorities is overdue.
Recommendations
We have already done it correctly
once. In the 1970s the CSU
Chancellor and the SSU community were committed to let the planning process
inform SSU’s priorities. The President’s Planning and Priorities
Committee was able to focus the character of the campus and reflect its best
interests and the process was very successful. Now is another crucial time to
engage the campus in a widespread and inclusive planning and assessment effort
by using existing representative procedures. Two years ago I submitted a recommendation for expanded
assessment and planning that is currently under consideration by APC and EPC.
Given
the President’s announcement that SSU would grow to 10,000 student
enrollments, these concerns are even more critical now and in the near future.
The following Strategic Target Areas drawn from this report include campus-wide
articulated planning around Schools, programs, departments, majors, academic
and student support areas. At the
heart of the crisis is lack of transparency in administrative budgeting and
lack of adequate expenditure on present academic programs, which WASC has
critiqued as the lack of alignment of resources to SSU’s teaching
mission. (See WASC letter to SSU online at: http://www.sonoma.edu/Senate/WASC/WASC_3-04_report_on_SSU%202.pdf)
While the CSU is experiencing its own fiscal crisis, SSU’s situation is
rendered even more critical by a lack of genuine strategic planning, and
transparent priorities for revenue distribution.
1. Restoring and Preserving
Existing Programs
There is a campus policy with
guidelines for changing the status of any approved academic program which must
be followed in times of retrenchment or growth.
Resources,
facilities, equipment and personnel currently needed to bring SSU’s
curriculum into alignment with current CSU and COPLAC system standards and
where we have demonstrated need in order to restore academic programs and
quality include:
1.1 Reducing
our Student Faculty Ratio (SFR) = Ratio of Full Time Equivalent Faculty (FTEF)
to Full Time Equivalent Student Equivalent (FTES);
1.2.
Increasing allocations of FTEF to an acceptable level;
1.3 Reducing
Faculty Workload and increasing compensation at least to the CSU average to
allow SSU to retain quality faculty and to bring the campus into alignment with
equivalent institutions;
1.4.
Adequately funding for General Education and student remediation;
1.5.
Effectively addressing diversity;
1.6.
Supporting academic technology;
1.7.
Increasing academic and student support staff;
1.8.
Staffing campus academic facilities and providing adequate maintenance of them;
1.9.
Providing adequate student scholarships, financial aid, work-study, paid
assistantships, and internships;
1.20.
Establishing an appropriate balance between administration, faculty and
students based on CSU and COPLAC averages for institutions of equivalent size.
2. Future Growth
To address future enrollment growth
and as part of regular program assessment and planning focused around
SSU’s mission as a Liberal Arts and Sciences institution, each program,
major, School and administrative office at SSU should:
2.1.
Describe existing and new areas (programs, majors, disciplines, etc.) where
growth or redesign would be appropriate and can be supported by system or
discipline projections and rationales;
2.2 Identify
a breakdown of resources to implement such growth/redesign in 1, 2, 3, 4 and
5-year projections by the areas listed in #1 above;
2.3. Develop
recruitment and retention strategies to restore a balance and maintain existing
majors and programs and target areas for agreed-upon future change including
academic and student support services;
2.4. Develop
an assessment and projection for needs as a result of incremental growth for
the campus physical plant including classroom and office space, the
library/Learning Center, infrastructure and staffing, student housing and
services, parking and emergency services;
2.5.
Identify areas for collaboration, cooperation and shared resources on and off
campus, including academic programs.
An ongoing campus profile of
resources, personnel, budgets and actual expenditures should govern decisions
around maintenance and growth and should be a required part of all regular
assessments at all levels on campus.
*On-line reference
information:
•APC’s Long Range
Academic Plan: http://www.sonoma.edu/senate/lrps04.html
•Provost’s
“Strategic Plan”: http://www.sonoma.edu/uaffairs/s/
(now missing on line)
•Susan
McKillop, “Comparison of the Academic Affair’s Division Strategic
Plan and the
SSU Long Range Academic Plan,”
APC planning documents, http://www.sonoma.edu/senate./apc
•2004
WASC Report to SSU:
http://www.sonoma.edu/aa/wasc/wasc_3-04_report_on_ssu.pdf
•President's
"University Strategic Plan": http://www.sonoma.edu/uaffairs/s/
•Steve
Orlick, “SFR and Average Class Size: current issues/information”:
http://www.sonoma.edu/senate/
•Senate
Resolution on Assessment:
By Susan
Moulton, Professor and Member of Academic Planning (1993-2003); Chair
(1999-2002), 11.15.05