February 2, 2006
TO: APC
FROM: Art Warmoth, Co-Chair
RE: Implementation Recommendations for the
Academic Affairs Strategic Plan
It was clear
from the faculty convocation that faculty and our successful graduates value
small classes and close mentoring relationships. These are the process values that are the sine qua non of successful liberal arts
colleges. (The essential content
values lie in a balance between disciplines and interdisciplinarity.)
On
the face of the matter, it is impossible for Sonoma State to consistently offer
small classes to all of our students with one of the highest SFRs in the
system. Table 1 shows that in Fall 2004, Sonoma State had the
second highest SFR in the CSU System, 24.7:1. This position is confirmed in
Table 2, which shows Sonoma to be the lowest among small campuses in
student-related expenditures per student, using six-year averages as of 2003.
Most of Sonoma State’s high SFR appears to be attributable to the high
SFR for the lower division, 33:1, since the upper division SFR is very close to
the median.
The successful
implementation of the Academic Affairs Strategic Plan will require the
University to address the question of alignment of resources with mission, one
of the key concerns expressed by WASC.
Therefore, APC recommends the following implementation priorities in the
context of the Academic Affairs Strategic Plan.
Recommendation
#1. Develop a Strategic Resource
Development and Allocation Plan for lowering the SFR.
It
defies basic logic to believe that Sonoma State University can offer all of its
students the benefits of small classes and close student-faculty relationship
with one of the highest SFRs in the CSU system. Therefore a strategy should be identified for lowering the
SFR. While the SFR is the basic
statistic around which academic planning and CSU budgeting revolve, it is a
somewhat deceptive one, since small variations in SFR represent large dollar
values of faculty resources.
Recommendation
#2. Develop a comprehensive
Academic Affairs strategy for the
lower
division curriculum and co-curriculum
Much
of SSU’s excessively high SFR is accounted for in the excessively high
SFR in the lower division.
In addition to information that will b obtained from the evaluation of
the FYE Pilot Project, APC and EPC should review the 3003 “A New Path for
General Education at Sonoma State” Path document to determine whether
additional recommendations are needed in order to “Build
a coherent, effective and distinctive General Education Program.” This review should include a systematic collation of the GE
evaluation data that has already been gathered, and it should include a survey
of instructors currently teaching GE courses.
In
addition, APC and the Student Affairs Committee should conduct an assessment of
the adequacy of programs that serve the co-curricular needs of lower division
residential students. This review
should begin with the 2001
Residential
Life Review Report and develop additional recommendations as needed.
Recommendation
#3. Develop a Strategic Resource Development and Allocation
Plan for
investing in the lower division curriculum and co-curriculum.
Lowering
the SFR could largely address the need to commit additional resources to the
ongoing operation of the lower division
curriculum and co-curriculum.
However, program, faculty, and Staff development required to develop and
implement the a distinctive liberal arts and sciences curriculum and
co-curriculum at the lower division level will require a substantial additional
one-time investment of resources.
The University Strategic Plan should include a strategy for defining and
obtaining the investment resources needed.
|
ALL 24.8 MB 24.7 SON 24.3 SJ 23.8 EBY 23.4 POM 23.4 SD 23.3 SM 22.8 FUL 22.5 CHI 22.5 SF 22.3 DH 22.1 LA 22 SAC 21.7 FRE 21.5 LB 21 NOR 20.8 SLO 19.8 BAK 18.8 HUM 18.1 STA 14.7 CI 9.8 MA System Averages: 21.9 |
Lower Division 33.4 SD 33 SON 32.6 SM 32.3 MB 31.9 SF 31.4 FUL 30 DH 28.8 CHI 28.8 EBY 28.3 LA 27 LB 26.5 NOR 26.2 POM 26 SAC 26 SJ 26 SLO 24.9 HUM 23.6 STA 23.5 BAK 22.1 MA 21.7 FRE 17.3 CI 28 |
Upper Division 28.8 LB 27.9 POM 26.2 EBY 24.6 SF 24.1 SD 22.9 SAC 22.4 LA 22 SM 21.7 DH 21.5 SON 21.5 SJ 21.3 FUL 20.9 CHI 20.7 NOR 20.5 FRE 20.1 MB 19.7 BAK 17.8 SLO 17.2 STA 16.7 HUM 13.7 CI 9.4 MA 21.5 |
Graduate 19.9 MB 15.9 DH 14.9 EBY 14 BAK 13.6 SJ 12.9 LA 12.6 SON 12.6 NOR 12 SAC 11.6 CI 11.6 POM 11.6 SF 10.7 FUL 10.3 SD 9.8 FRE 9.3 SM 9.2 SLO 9.2 STA 8.9 HUM 8.3 CHI 7.3 LB 0 MA 11.6 |
TABLE
1. Student-Faculty Ratios for SSU and the Campuses Fall 04
Student Related
Humboldt
State University $9,576 6,296
California
State University-Stanislaus $9,098 4,836
California
State University-Hayward $8,395 8,240
California
State University-Dominguez Hills $8,276 6,148
California
State University-Bakersfield $7,940 5,176
California
State University-San Marcos $7,602 5,142
Sonoma
State University $7,204 6,423
2003-6 year data
Source: Graduation
Rate Ranking by Databank/Reporting Tool Developed by WebFirst ©2005 The Education Trust
(The only
campuses that spent less per student than Sonoma State are Long Beach,
Fullerton, Northridge, and San Francisco.
If Sonoma State spent the median–$8276–the budget would
increase by $6,885,456.)