Academic Programs Prioritization and Recovery Planning Committee: Charge



Download 32.71 Kb.
Date conversion29.01.2017
Size32.71 Kb.

Appendix I



Academic Programs Prioritization and Recovery Planning Committee:
Charge

The Charge for the Committee:

  • Identify all academic and nonacademic programs within Academic Affairs.”

  • “Identify any commonalities among the programs for the purpose of grouping the programs.”

  • “Set up the common criteria for each group of programs by which each program will be examined for recommending increased support, decrease support, restructuring, or discontinuing.”

  • Collect quantitative and qualitative data from various sources such as colleges, schools, departments, or institutional research, which could support such recommendations.”

  • Analyze data based on the criteria developed by the committee and propose recommendations.”

  • Report findings to the University President and the Academic Senate.”


Charge for the Prioritization Recovery Plan University Committee

The Prioritization Recovery Plan University Committee is to be an ongoing (trustee) committee of the University for the purpose of developing a process for reviewing and making recommendations to the University President and the Academic Senate in regard to the use of resources by all academic and

nonacademic programs within Academic Affairs. The PRPC does not make final decisions. The PRPC is an advisory group that can recommend:

Increased funding of a Program

Level funding of a Program

Decreased funding of a Program

Combine, reduce, or eliminate Programs
Process

1. Centrality to Mission / Validation



  • History, Impact, Justification, and Overall Essentiality of the Program,

2. Quality/Outcomes

  • To promote excellence in teaching, learning, and educational programs,

  • To promote and enhance research, scholarly, professional, and creative activities

  • To enhance support for students,

  • To improve the campus environment,

  • To increase community involvement,

3. Efficiency

  • To enhance effective acquisition, planning, and management of resources,

4. Opportunity Analysis of the Program

  • Opportunities for growth or enhancement in meeting the University Mission


Tools:

  • Focus Groups

  • Data Template

  • IRAP Supplied Data

  • College Supplied Data

  • Program Supplied Narratives

  • Surveys

  • Data Analysis

  • Identified Common Problems

  • Was found to have limitations

  • External Scan (Due Fall of 07)

Findings
The process revealed some very rich information about affinities and commonalities among programs that are hard to see without an “aerial view.” Several programs may serve as model programs in content and approach. There are systematic problems that are common across the /campus.
Findings – common problems

Enrollment Management: A major cause of inefficiency and declining quality

Rapidly growing programs

Declining quality of students

Increasing remediation

Ineffective advising

Increasing numbers of electronic applications with decreasing enrollment rates

Need for focused student recruitment efforts to support small programs
Faculty: Vital resource for continuous improvement

Need to provide expanded development funding

Need to replace retiring faculty

Difficulty recruiting faculty

Student to faculty ratios (driven by space availability)

Major to faculty ratio (very large and very small)
Redundancies: Opportunities for better use of resources

Redundant curriculum

Lack of communication across of Departments and Colleges

Inadequate understanding of work and related interests of colleagues in other disciplines

Lack of administrative incentive to reduce redundancies
Space: Major obstacle in resource allocation

Difficult to quantifyand manage

Need for technology (somewhat mitigated over the past two years)

Scheduling (exclusive use of space, shared space, lack of large lecture space)

Faculty offices

Location/proximity
Graduate Programs: Need to define the role of graduate studies

Very small class sizes

Low application and enrollment rates

Need for recruiting

Sub 3.0 GPA students admitted
Faculty Research and Creative Activities:

Rich in diversity but inconsistent in productivity

Lack of financial support

Lack of equipment or a major need to update outdated equipment

Findings – common interests and opportunities

Environmental concerns/application

Recognized quality and uniqueness of the environmental programs in the CSU

Projected growth in the state population (double the built space in the next 20 years)

Global warming

Generational interest in sustainability

Shared recruiting opportunity

High potential for external development funding

Regional location

Ranking environmental studies and application a priority

Integrating the environmental focus throughout the curriculum

Opportunity to capitalize on intercampus associations
Education/K-12 Teacher and Administrator preparation

Need to prioritize to align with the mission

Opportunity to recruit potential K-12 teachers from all disciplines

Further the environmental mission though the preparation of K-12 teachers

Opportunity to differentiate Cal Poly Pomona’s education program from other California State Universities
Life Sciences: Biology/Food/Nutrition/Health/Pre-Med/Pre-Vet/Biomedical

Opportunity for shared resources (Recruiting)

High opportunity for external development funding

Potential strong relationship with the environmental mission

Information Technology/ Computers

Computer design engineering and applications

Common use of technology as a communication tool

Desire to use technology as a synthesis tool

Desire to use technology as an application tool

Interest in entertainment / marketing / communications applications

Opportunity for shared resources (Recruiting)
Graphics/Marketing/Communications/Rendering

Common use of technology as a communication tool

Desire to use technology as a synthesis tool

Desire to use technology as an application tool

Interest in entertainment / marketing / communications applications

Opportunity for shared resources(Recruiting)
Liberal Arts Polytechnic

Integration of communication skills,

Humanities and social sciences with science and technology

Increasing demand from employers for well rounded graduates

Changing accreditation criteria

Outcomes assessment results

Phase One Recommendations
Timing

poor timing in terms of communication

poor timing in the disclosure of master-plan initiative
Message

lack of effective message describing the process

lack of alternative structures for discussion

lack of clear method for constructive dialogue and responses
Alternate Configurations

Issues that the Committee used in formulating organizational alternatives:

Affinities (Educational, Research &Development)

Opportunity for strong programs to provide leadership in advancing affinities

Provide opportunity for small or weak programs to play a role in the future

Recognition of noteworthy Programs of Distinction or Priority

Existing geographic location of programs and the need for expansion

What is the short and long-term consequences of “status-quos” as an



alternative?


Phase Two Recommendation Concerns
FTE Driven Culture:

  • Recommendations based on a two-year process where mission-driven criteria were used to assess individual programs.

  • The CSU is an FTE driven culture. FTE targets do not consider quality of education, quantity of graduates, resources spent on remediation, scholarly activity, or whether a class is being repeated for the third time.

  • Many programs with 25%-30% and even 40% of students with under 2.2 GPA. They generate FTE by remediation and repeating classes, but most will never graduate.


Enrollment Management:

  • Program recommendations do not make any sense without an effective enrollment management process in all academic units.

  • Need enrollment targets for each program based on Major-To-Faculty (MFR) ratios that make sense

  • More effective handling of at-risk students

  • Become more effective in admitting and retaining the best qualified students


Space:

  • Responses regarding space revealed a wide variety of space management practices across the colleges.

  • Problematic to recommend increased funding for programs that are out of space when increased funding alone will not provide more space.

  • A comprehensive study of space/time/technology usage and management is necessary.


Data:

Three sources:

  • Institutional (IRAP) supplied data was found to be the most consistent across programs. Data from 2005 is now two years old.

  • College supplied data was the most inconsistent or sometimes missing. The committee had to have some of this data reconstructed.

  • Narrative responses varied in depth, detail, and thoughtfulness, which benefited some programs and may not have helped others. Sometimes optional fields that were provided to give context were not used.


Environmental Scan (External Scan):

  • The Committee expected to have an updated environmental scan available to use in understanding economic, environmental, and demographic trends.

  • A consultant is working on the environmental scan as of this writing.

  • The expectation from the President is that environmental scan results will be folded in later in the process as appropriate.

What’s Next
Steering Committee:

Executive Committee of Academic Senate

President’s Cabinet
Steering Committee to:

Review recommendations from both committees

Evaluate results of campus side focus group discussions

Merge recommendations and environmental scan into a campus-wide proposal



Submit to the President for final decisions

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

I-





The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2016
send message

    Main page