1 / 38

ad hoc Committee on University Strategic Planning and Assessment

ad hoc Committee on University Strategic Planning and Assessment. CUSP…. CUSP Members:. Laura Brady (ECAS) John Estep (SGA) Russell Dean (Provost's Office) Parviz Famouri (CEMR) Arthur Jacknowitz (PHAR) Keith Jackson (CAC) Michael Lastinger (ECAS, chair) Kevin Outterson (LAW)

avye-summers
Télécharger la présentation

ad hoc Committee on University Strategic Planning and Assessment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ad hoc Committee on University Strategic Planning and Assessment CUSP…

  2. CUSP Members: • Laura Brady (ECAS) • John Estep (SGA) • Russell Dean (Provost's Office) • Parviz Famouri (CEMR) • Arthur Jacknowitz (PHAR) • Keith Jackson (CAC) • Michael Lastinger (ECAS, chair) • Kevin Outterson (LAW) • Terry Nebel (Staff Council) • William Riley (BE)

  3. Charge, Phase I Phase I: Interim Report due on or before Sept 27, …: • Review and report on the nature and structure of comprehensive strategic planning and assessment processes at peer institutions... • Review in the contextof peer comprehensive strategic plans both the Provost’s June 10, 2004 “Challenges and Opportunities Report” as well as the draft strategic assessment document due to the BOG in September 2004. . .

  4. Charge, Phase 2 Phase II: Report due on or before November 25, 2004 to the FSEC: • Outline specific recommendations regarding the content areas and implementation of a comprehensive strategic planning and assessment process at WVU. . . • The function of this ad hoc committee is to inform the Senate and campus community . . . This committee is not itself a strategic planning entity.

  5. Peer schools evaluated • Peer universities reviewed by the Committee: • University of Wisconsin, Madison • Ohio State University • University of Minnesota • University of Kentucky • University of Florida • University of Missouri • Michigan State University • University of Arizona • University of Maryland, College Park • Virginia

  6. Other documents reviewed : “WVU 2010 Main Campus Challenges and Opportunities” presented by Provost Lang to the Faculty Senate,   June 14, 2004

  7. Other documents reviewed : • Final Team Report of Higher Learning Commission Site Visit, April 2004 “The stakeholders - faculty, staff, students, alumni - should enjoy a genuine ownership of the plan.”

  8. Other documents reviewed : • WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR PROGRAM CHANGE(Accepted by the President March, 1987, adjusted February, 2003) “It is the purpose of this policy statement to affirm program change as a tool for institutional enhancement…”

  9. Other documents reviewed : • “Dealing with the Future Now: Principles for Creating a Vital Campus in a Climate of Restricted Resources,”by Alan E. Guskin and Mary B. Marcy(Project on the Future of Higher Education) • Muddling Through… vs. • Transforming the institution…

  10. Transforming the institution… • Create a Clear and Coherent Vision of the Future • focus on student learning, • quality of faculty work life, and • reducing cost per student • Transform the Educational Delivery System • Transform the Organizational Systems(Future Now, page 13)

  11. Two models: • Ohio State University • University of Kentucky

  12. Surface Tangibles • Planning Committee Structure • Critical to buy-in and function • Representative and manageable • Often a Steering Committee w/ subcommittees(no more than the number of major goals) • Readability and Transparency • Critical to effective communication • Open and well designed web site • Clear and concise language, terms • Graphs, diagrams, illustrations…

  13. Three Substantial Components • Vision • Strategies • Assessment

  14. I. Vision • Realistic • Aspirational • “Challenges and Opportunities…”

  15. I. Vision • Mission • Goals • Values

  16. a. Mission • Review and/or Revise the Mission Statement • Keep these principles in mind throughout and at all levels • The Foundation for all other considerations

  17. The Mission of WVU “…West Virginia’s primary mission is to provide high-quality programs of instruction at the undergraduate, graduate, and professional levels; to stimulate and foster both basic and applied research and scholarship; to engage in and encourage other creative and artistic work; and to bring the resources of the University to all segments of society through continuing education, extension, and public services…”(Undergraduate Catalog, 2003-2005, page 11)

  18. b. Goals • Derive from the mission • Open the way to implementation • Set framework for effective decisions and choices

  19. b. Goals: Two classes • Means-Targeted: • “Build buildings” • “Raise money” • Mission-Targeted: • “Create Knowledge” • “Educate the people of …” • Hybrid: “Increase Enrollment” • Can provide more resources • Can educate more students of…

  20. b. Goals: Ohio State • Build a World-Class Faculty • Develop Academic Programs that Define Ohio State as the Nation's Leading Public Land-Grant University • Improve the Quality of the Teaching and Learning Environment • Enhance and Better Serve the Student Body • Create a More Diverse University Community • Help Build Ohio's Future

  21. b. Goals: Kentucky • Reach for National Prominence • Attract and Graduate Outstanding Students • Attract, Develop and Retain a Distinguished Faculty • Discover, Share and Apply New Knowledge • Nurture Diversity of Thought, Culture, Gender and Ethnicity • Elevate the Quality of Life for Kentuckians

  22. c. Values • “Universal”: • The Quest for Knowledge • The role of the university in the progress of humanity… • Local: • “Why Ohio needs a great university” • “Maryland relies on its Flagship…” • “Promote the Wisconsin Idea”…

  23. c. Values • “No great state has ever existed without a great university…”

  24. II. Strategies • Action oriented • Resource allocation • Organizational adjustments • Coordinated across the institution • Open to innovation(cf. our Curriculum/GenEd forms)

  25. Strategies: examples • streamline organizations and bureaucracies to facilitate innovation • streamline capital resources • enable new partnerships, both across the campus and in the community • manage enrollments (graduate-research / undergraduate-enrollment as per objectives) • increase funded research

  26. Strategies: examples • raise ACT/SAT scores of incoming students(a way to improve retention…) • focus on learning outcomes (jobs, life-long learning, school’s reputation…) • innovate and improve on delivery systems • recognize significant contributions in all forms • work with legislatures and policy commissions to increase support and flexibility

  27. Strategies: pitfalls • Balance between competing approaches: • “Increase student-faculty interaction”(mentoring, research, service learning, etc) • “Increase enrollment through larger class sizes…”

  28. III. Assessment • The key to accountability • Considers institutional history and current realities • Terminology may vary: • “Benchmarks” • “Targets” • “Steps”

  29. Assessment • Clear goals • Resource allocation • Environmental- and Performance-based • Specific measures(not just “improve,” “promote,” encourage,” etc.) • But recognizes both • Quantifiables and • Qualifiables

  30. Assessment Examples:Kentucky’s Key Indicators • Increase the first-to-second year retention rate of first-time, full-time, degree-seeking students to 83 percent. • Increase the six-year graduation rate to 60 percent.

  31. Assessment:Kentucky’s Key Indicators • Increase the average faculty salary to at least 90 percent of the benchmark median. • Increase the number of patent applications by 10 percent.

  32. Graduate Outstanding Students

  33. OSU’s Academic Scorecard • http://www.osu.edu/academicplan/scorecard_2003.pdf • Specific goals and measures • OSU’s performance • Benchmark universities’ average(Arizona, UCLA, Illinois, Michigan, Penn State, etc.) • OSU change from previous year

  34. OSU’s Academic Scorecard 2003 • Goal: Build a World-Class University • Measure: Academic Honors and Awards: • OSU: 39 • Benchmarks schools: 88.8 • Change from previous: NC

  35. OSU’s Academic Scorecard 2003 • Goal: Define OSU as a Leading Land Grant University • Measure:US News Academic Reputation Score • OSU: 3.7 • Benchmark schools 4.1 • Change from previous -0.1

  36. A Final Note: Scope • Three- to Five-year plans are typical • Kentucky: 1997-2020 • Yearly measures of some goals • Chronology as important as any other factor…

  37. Except…. • …exceptthe cultureof planning and assessment itself…

More Related