“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,
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,
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
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 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
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
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.
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
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.
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