Navigation
Search

Final Report of the Senate Ad Hoc Study Team

Undergraduate Academic Program Classification
November 1, 2021

1. Senate Ad Hoc Study Team

The Senate Ad Hoc Study Team was charged to lead the College Senate’s role in Interim
Provost Delene’s 2021-22 Academic Strategic Planning (ASP) initiative by providing a concise report for Senate review and vote that addressed:

  • Background. Provide an overview and, if appropriate, commentary on documents and reports that have led up to the current phase of the ASP process;
  • Process. Assess and evaluate the current ASP process at Brockport, particularly the criteria/data used to classify all academic programs;
  • Peer processes. Identify how other institutions conduct academic program review and classification, and how they use that information to inform resource allocation;
  • Next steps. Reflect on and recommend general approaches to building on the ASP process to vitalize Brockport’s academic program portfolio; and
  • Constituent input. Include appendices with feedback, questions, and concerns from College Senate representatives about the ASP process and specific academic program classifications.

The Senate Ad Hoc Study Team included the following members:

  • Jason Morris (Chair, Department of Mathematics)
  • Denise Copelton (Senate Executive Committee rep, Department of Sociology)
  • Mark Noll (Department of Earth Sciences)
  • James Cordeiro (Department of Accounting, Economics, and Finance)
  • Summer Reiner (Department of Counselor Education)
  • Mary Jo Orzech (Drake Library)
  • Keith Nobles (Professional Education Unit)

2. Academic Strategic Planning (ASP) Background

The Academic Master/Strategic Planning process began at SUNY Brockport in academic year 2015-16, when then Provost Mary Ellen Zuckerman charged an Academic Master Planning (AMP) Committee with studying best practices, identifying criteria for evaluation, and making recommendations about the processes to be used in creating an academic master plan at Brockport (Appendix A.1 and Appendix A.2). This and subsequent developments in academic strategic planning described below are summarized in the June 2021 Academic Master Plan Task Force Report (Appendix B).

Initial Statement of Purpose of Academic Master Planning (AMP)

The 2015-16 AMP Committee Report (Appendix A.2) emphasized that academic strategic planning:

Is common practice. “[A]cademic master planning has become a widely used method of comparing programs … at institutions ranging from community colleges such as SUNY Orange County Community College to mega-universities such as the University of Arizona. Institutions have one of two primary interests in initiating an AMP process. Either they are primarily interested in reducing costs or their foremost goal is to define the strengths of the college and sharpen its identity. Both interests underpin efforts to build the future of the institution.”

Should be a regular process. “Experts on the process recommend that the totality of academic programs be simultaneously reviewed every five years. This routine allows time for choices to take hold and for priorities to shift as the institution adjusts to changing contexts.”

Involves careful study and resource allocation. “AMP is to help us ‘identify, from an academic affairs perspective, where are we and where do we want to go?’ This involves both careful gathering of information on ‘where we are’ and even more careful resource allocation decisions to help move toward ‘where we want to go.’”

Stage 1- Launching Academic Master Planning (AMP)

The 2015-16 AMP Committee Report recommended undertaking a four-step process:

  1. Determine program review criteria: (completed AY 2015-16)
    1. Relation to the Mission of the College;
    2. External Demand;
    3. Internal Demand;
    4. Instructional and Curricular Efficiency;
    5. Quality of Inputs;
    6. Productivity.
  2. Initiate a pilot AMP: develop the review process; test on 7 programs (completed AY 2016-17)
  3. Conduct peer review of academic programs (initiated 2020, resumed summer 2021, in progress)
  4. Implement review findings: Provost works with Deans and Program Directors to determine resource allocation (TBD)

The 2015-16 AMP Committee Report also defined what counts as a “program,” developed a template of criteria/data for program classification (developed after survey of Brockport faculty and study of peer institutions as well as a seminal book on “prioritizing” academic programs) 1 , and proposed (but did not pursue) a quantitative scoring system for that template.

1 Dickeson, R. C. (2010). Prioritizing academic programs and services: Reallocating resources to achieve strategic balance (Rev. and updated). Jossey-Bass.

Stage 2- Reviving Academic Master Planning

In 2020, then Provost Katy Heyning proceeded with Step 3 (peer review) and convened three groups:

  1. Program Review Task Force, which carried out data gathering and academic program review.
  2. Academic Innovations Task Force, which investigated how to develop new academic programs to attract new students to Brockport.
  3. AMP Guiding Committee, which received updates and advised the other two groups.

Program Review Task Force

According to its June 21, 2021 Final Report (Appendix B), the Program Review Task Force:

  • collected information about academic programs through chairs and directors using templates that were carefully designed to collect pertinent data in a consistent way;
  • qualitatively analyzed data collected via the templates and summarized this data into concise summary reports for each program (not attached to the public version of the final report);
  • wrote a general overview of common trends, themes, and patterns in the data;
  • organized programs into three tiers for each of 6 data points (related to “demand” and “program inputs”) with analysis and context;

  • recommended that future stages of the AMP process include clear goals and access to essential data (see quote below):

    “We believe that what we have here is a collection of data that must be viewed as one piece of the puzzle in an attempt to understand program (majors) strengths, challenges and opportunities. While it has been clear from the beginning that the intent of an academic master plan is to gauge the health of the academic programs at Brockport and to determine resource allocation, it has never been clear how exactly this data will be used to make those decisions. Although
    we obtained full participation in the process, there was a great deal of trepidation and a degree of distrust in the process. Committee members, all of whom are faculty members, remained committed to the process because we felt it is far better for programs to tell their ‘stories’ and to provide recommendations about their programs because they are in the best position to do so.
    We respectfully request that a clear and articulate plan of action be developed and communicated to faculty on the next steps in the process.”

The Ad Hoc Study Team would like to emphasize that the Program Review Task Force deliberately did not introduce a classification system for programs, nor any type of scoring system. The Program Review Task force devised and executed a means to collect pertinent program data, performed qualitative analysis and summary of this data, and communicated its findings to campus stakeholders. In addition, the Program Review Task Force shared thoughtful recommendations about the strengths and potential weaknesses of the budding strategic planning process itself, including unintended design flaws in the initial set of financial data. This was a massive undertaking, completed in just one academic year. We are grateful for this well executed initiative that is surely an essential first step in any strategic planning process.

Academic Innovation Task Force (AITF)

According to its May 2021 final report, the AITF researched possibilities for innovative new academic programming at SUNY Brockport and developed a system to score proposed programs. The final report (Appendix C) proposed:

  1. An “Eagle Speed” accelerated three-year undergraduate degree program;
  2.  A way to score potential new programs based on factors such as job outlook (external) and resource requirements (internal);
  3. Forms for use in proposing new programs;
  4. A review of one specific program proposal;
  5. Several new programs to consider (which were included in the next phase of academic program classification)

The Ad Hoc Study Team is appreciative of this effort, which sets forth a systematic way that we can quantitatively and consistently analyze key features of proposals for new programming. We understand that this is a valuable complement to the expert information held by faculty. Taken together, the new scoring system paired with faculty insight and expertise should help us understand the suitability of proposed innovations in academic programming for Brockport.

3. Current State of Academic Strategic Planning (ASP)

The unfolding ASP process, launched on August 6, 2021 by new Interim Provost Linda Delene (Appendix D), is focused on academic program classifications and recommendations, the first round of which are delineated in the ASP Steering Committee’s concise September 15, 2021 report (Appendix E). Dr. Delene charged the Steering Committee with reviewing collected data and classifying all academic programs into one of the four categories (see below).

ASP Steering Committee’s Report (September 15, 2021)

The ASP Steering Committee Report applies one of four classifications to every Brockport undergraduate academic program:

  • GROWTH: substantial demand by students and external partners which will require both additional internal and external resources (8 programs placed into this category);
  • AUGMENTATION: programs for which specific faculty positions and other resources may be needed in programs with steady and realistic growth or already substantial and stable enrollments (8 programs placed into this category);
  • RECONFIGURATION: programs where updated nomenclature or naming alternatives, the reconfiguration of programs, or the movement of programs into other organizational units more related to disciplinary roots (32 programs placed into this category); and
  • DISCONTINUATION: where student enrollment interest and demand show steady decline (3 programs placed into this category).

According to ASP Steering Committee Report, a combination of factors influenced each classification:

  • SUNY Brockport’s mission and goals.
  • prospective student interest and actual enrollment patterns.
  • student credit hours and tuition revenue by programs.
  • curricular and disciplinary relationships among programs including majors and minors.
  • resource availability including tuition, fees, and potential donor or program champions.
  • needed library and instructional technology support.
  • accreditation requirements; and facility resources.

The ASP Steering Committee Report also offers cursory recommendations for all Brockport undergraduate academic programs, such as:

  • “Explore collaboration with [another department]”
  • “Address staffing needs”
  • “Consider aligning with [other department(s)]”
  • “Review and streamline curriculum”
  • “Promote major to encourage recognition and growth”

These recommendations and suggestions are clearly preliminary; by design, few details are given, nor are specific justifications provided.

Office of the Provost ASP Supplement #1 (September 16, 2021)

The day after the ASP Steering Committee report (with program classifications and recommendations) was released, this communique (Appendix F) went out to all faculty and staff with the following information.

Process clarification: The ASP Steering Committee’s recommendations were intentionally general, and “the entire document is an open invitation for colleagues to intensely review curricular offerings in all academic programs, and in consultation with chairs and deans, to recommend appropriate changes.”

Examples of committee recommendations that faculty should consider:

  1. Reexamine tracks and concentrations. Given reasons:
    1. Many of these do not appear on transcripts and serve few students.
    2. The array of options is somewhat costly, including increased advising complexity.
  2. Examine curricular programs at other institutions. Given reasons:
    1. These comprise our competitors for students.
    2. Students choose institutions that offer programming that is attractive to them.

Office of the Provost ASP Supplement #2 (October 15, 2021)

Released in response to conversations with colleagues about the academic program classification process, made the following additional comments:

  1. Faculty should advocate for particular academic programs, articulate more clearly what they provide in terms of educational value, prospects for graduate school, initial or continued employment, and/or positive contributions to the human condition. Noted that “you may also wish to consider the accuracy of the initial program classification.”
  2. The ASP process, like any major plan, “will undergo revisions annually as developments occur.”
  3. The ASP process is an “opportunity to positively portray academic programs as ones of potential growth, grounded in our current reality, is the main thrust of our work together.”

4. Senate Ad Hoc Study Team

Analysis of ASP Process, Classifications and Recommendations

The College Senate Ad Hoc Study Team met frequently since early September, and worked tirelessly to complete its review within an aggressive timeline outlined by the Provost’s Office. This Team appreciates the value of effective academic strategic planning (ASP) and the need to examine carefully and strengthen program offerings at Brockport. The Team honors the incredible work, dedication, and professionalism of faculty and staff involved in the ASP process to date. Last, the Team takes seriously the important role of shared governance in helping to design a well-planned, clearly-communicated, and continuously-developed ASP process. In fulfilling its charge and role in this effort, the Team: studied documents attached as Appendices to this report; examined the ASP Steering Committee’s program classifications and recommendations; reviewed data and the dozens of academic program summary reports gathered by the SP Steering Committee; solicited and reviewed survey commentary from College Senate representatives and Department chairs; and discussed goals, processes, and best practices associated with Brockport’s academic strategic planning process.

In executing its charge, the Ad Hoc Study Team found some areas of question and concern in the academic strategic planning process so far. We were not surprised; to the contrary it would have been surprising to find that our campus’s first serious engagement with academic strategic planning was devoid of any opportunities for improvement. Questions and concerns are offered in the spirit of continuous improvement, and certainly not to disparage the impressive efforts of our colleagues. To the contrary, we recognize the challenge of grappling with such a complicated analysis on an aggressive timeline, and we are both impressed and thankful for the efforts of our colleagues on the ASP Steering Committee, as well as the Program Review and Academic Innovations Task Forces.

Analysis. The ASP Steering Committee’s concise report (Appendix E) noted that it reviewed the reports of the Program Review Task Force and Academic Innovations Task Force and that it refined program data before reaching a consensus on program classifications and recommendations.
It is unclear from the ASP Steering Committee report whether that committee was consulted on the development of the four classifications for academic programs (Growth, Augmentation, Reconfiguration, Discontinuation). In addition, the Senate Ad Hoc Study Team notes that there are: imprecise definitions for the four classifications; no explanation for the choice of these four classifications; and little justification as to why they apply to particular programs.

It is also unclear if the Steering Committee developed or used a standard rubric with clearly identified and weighted criteria to guide program classification and decision-making. Several respondents to the Senate Ad Hoc Study Group’s survey expressed this uncertainty. As one explained: “We did not find the criteria used to determine categorization to be clear or transparent.” Thus, the Senate Ad Hoc Study Team infers that the criteria included the following (Team concerns noted for each):

  • Enrollment patterns. While enrollment data is clearly pertinent to an ASP program review, the process to date tabulated program headcounts using first majors only, with enrollment trends based on net change over five years. Such a count does not accurately capture the annual enrollment volatility some programs experience, nor does it capture demand, which should include second and third majors. Therefore, a rolling average using first, second, and third majors should be considered to smooth out the volatility and give a clearer picture of enrollment trends and true demand.
  • Growth potential. Data used to measure the growth potential of programs may not be reliable or valid. Significant weight, for instance, seems to have been given to Bureau of Labor Statistics career data, which might be more pertinent for those professional majors that train students for a single job category than for those programs that prepare them for a wider variety of career fields (which are therefore more difficult to quantify).
  • Financial Data. It is unclear how program financial data influenced program classifications and recommendations. In addition, the program financial data provided to program chairs in late February 2021 and available to the Steering Committee when it made its program classifications only pertained to tuition generated from first majors. Program financials made no attempt to count second or third majors. Although a complex formula either credited or charged programs for general education credits (based on if that program does or does not contribute to the general education program), the formula was not well explained. There was also no attempt to credit departments who provided required or elective courses (i.e., service courses) to other majors. The ASP Steering Committee notes that new financial data (distributed in mid-October 2021) in response to faculty feedback is based on student credit hours. While this is more pertinent financial data, it remains unclear how it will be used and weighted moving forward.

In his widely cited text on academic strategic planning, Dickeson (2010: 94-5, emphasis added) states that although there is no universal criteria appropriate for all academic institutions, the chosen criteria should “enable consistent and comparative analysis among all programs” and that “once data are collected, analysis begins by rating the information according to categories previously announced.” It appears this was not the case in Brockport’s process: such criteria were not provided in advance; no justification was offered for the classifications; and it is unclear how any criteria were weighted and applied consistently across programs.

In addition to its questions about academic program classifications and the criteria used to classify programs, the Senate Ad Hoc Study Team is concerned that faculty and department chairs/directors were not consulted before the ASP Steering Committee recommended new program proposals (e.g., Department of Computing Sciences was not consulted on the idea to develop a gaming major).
Consequently, such recommendations did not benefit from the curricular wisdom and market insight of academic specialists. Relatedly, the Academic Innovations Task Force did not solicit broader faculty input for innovative program ideas. Had it been able to do so, the ASP Steering Committee would have had broader content specialist input and insight as it endeavored to recommend innovative new additions to Brockport’s academic program array.

The Ad Hoc Study Team believes that the ASP Steering Committee’s classifications and recommendations should be used to start a collaborative process to define overarching goals for academic strategic planning and identify clear weighted metrics for determining how current and potential new programs help the College achieve those goals. Like their colleagues who want SUNY Brockport to have a strong and vibrant array of academic programs, the Senate Ad Hoc Study Team believes such an intentional and inclusive process is essential going forward.

5. Recommendations

As noted in the June 2021 Final Report of the Program Review Task Force, there has been a degree of “trepidation and distrust in the [ASP] process.” These feelings have probably been exacerbated by the dual stressors of COVID-19 pandemic and fiscal challenges. In addition, many within Academic Affairs express skepticism and concern of the ASP process and its potential outcomes due to: an aggressive timeline since the ASP process was resumed this summer; lack of clearly stated goals and metrics for evaluating existing and new programs; and an insufficiently collaborative process. As Dickeson (2010) notes, academic strategic planning has its own built-in challenges even under the best circumstances. Thus, it is imperative that wider trust in the academic strategic planning initiative be engendered through sustained collaboration and information sharing.

The Ad Hoc Study Team recognizes the hard work, dedication, and good faith of those involved in the difficult process of academic strategic planning to date. It is equally important to recognize the good intentions of parties who wish to help achieve a strong academic program array through their earnest analysis, scrutiny, and even criticism of the ASP process. Rather than complaint and resistance, such collaboration and consultation is a valued form of shared governance that adds value to the ASP process.

Informed by its review of existing ASP processes, reports, and Senate survey feedback, and respectful of the dedication and hard work of all stakeholders involved in ASP to date, the Senate Ad Hoc Study Team recommends:

  • 5.1 Develop a clear communication plan to keep all stakeholders informed about goals, processes, metrics used for decision-making, and other developments.
  • 5.2 Develop, document, and communicate broadly within Academic Affairs the specific goals for the Academic Strategic Planning process at Brockport.
  • 5.3 Develop clear and measurable objectives for the portfolio of academic programs at Brockport, published in a culminating Academic Strategic Plan document that has been developed collaboratively and vetted by College Senate.
  • 5.4 Identify, document, publish, and communicate widely a clear process for future Academic Strategic Planning at SUNY Brockport.
  • 5.5 Evaluate, refine, and (where appropriate) adjust program classifications and recommendations through a deliberative and collaborative shared governance process.

Further explanation and detail for each recommendation

 

5.1 Develop a clear communication plan to keep all stakeholders informed about goals, processes, metrics used for decision-making, and other developments.

Such a communication plan should aim to over-communicate the overarching process, process changes, key developments, and decision-making involved and should include at a minimum multiple Division- wide and college-wide town halls, regular announcements in the Daily Eagle, regular presentations and updates to College Senate, establishing and regularly updating a public-facing website dedicated to academic strategic planning at Brockport that includes all official reports related to academic strategic planning dating back to at least the 2015-16 Academic Master Planning Committee.

Academic Affairs leadership should schedule a division-wide town hall meeting as soon as possible to discuss and present the rationale and goals for the current academic strategic planning process and to explain various facets of the process as they have unfolded to date. In particular:

  • Explain how program financial data (i.e., program revenue & expenses; cost ratios, etc.) originally made available to program chairs in late February 2021 were used in the current program classifications and explain how the newly calculated financial data made available to program chairs in mid-October 2021 will be used moving forward.
  • Explain the rationale for and value of the four program classification categories used (Growth, Augmentation, Reconfiguration, and Discontinuation).
  • Explain what criteria, rubrics or metrics were used for the evaluation and categorization of existing programs, including their relative weights.

5.2 Develop, document, and communicate broadly within Academic Affairs the specific goals for the Academic Strategic Planning process at Brockport

Faculty expressed confusion over the goals the College is hoping to achieve through the academic strategic planning process. Although the Senate Ad Hoc Study Team inferred several goals that seem to be driving the strategic planning process thus far (e.g. increase program enrollment and efficiency), administration has not clearly communicated its goals to those involved in the process. Consequently, some faculty have assumed the process is solely focused on cost-cutting through program cuts.
Identifying the goals and objectives of the strategic planning process at Brockport will minimize confusion and may increase faculty buy-in.

Such goals should be developed in consultation and collaboration with Academic Affairs leadership (i.e., Provost, Deans, Chairs and Directors) and College Senate. As primary stewards of the curriculum, College Senate should develop and submit recommendations concerning overarching goals for the academic strategic planning process at Brockport.

We should identify goals that currently seem to be driving decisions (e.g., cost-cutting, reducing inefficiencies, etc.), as well as others (e.g., program breadth and quality, accreditation, student persistence and time to completion, etc.). Once overarching goals have been identified and communicated, these should be used as the primary metrics by which to judge all proposed changes (e.g., new programs, modification of existing programs, etc.).

The enunciation of clear goals, and even incentivizing progress towards them (e.g., a model similar to the gain-share program previously implemented for special sessions tuition revenue), could increase faculty motivation to undertake the heavy lift of curriculum development and revision.

5.3 Develop clear and measurable objectives for the portfolio of academic programs at Brockport, published in a culminating Academic Strategic Plan document that has been developed collaboratively and vetted by College Senate.

The academic strategic planning process should culminate in the development and public dissemination of an ASP document that maps out the strategic direction for academic programs over a set period of time. This Academic Strategic Plan should include clearly articulated goals, measurable objectives to achieve those goals, and assessment benchmarks/metrics analogous to other existing strategic plans (including Building a Better Brockport). The goals of the academic strategic planning process should be stated outright in the plan and should reflect decision-making on what the division will do to achieve those goals (e.g., expand XYZ program; create XYZ new program; revise curriculum in XYZ program, etc.). Of course, benchmarks or specific metrics must be developed to assess whether those specific objectives have been achieved.

Included in this Academic Strategic Plan document should be an explanation of whether and when the academic strategic planning process will be repeated (whether the intent is to create a regular review cycle). Should a regular cycle be created, care should be taken to reduce redundancies by aligning it with both the larger college-wide strategic planning cycle and the regular cycle of periodic program reviews. It seems reasonable that work on a new Academic Strategic Plan should begin one year prior to the conclusion of the existing plan, as is happening currently with the larger college-wide Strategic Plan.

The Academic Strategic Plan report should be vetted through College Senate before it is accepted or ratified by Academic Affairs leadership and the College President.

5.4 Identify, document, publish, and communicate widely a clear process for future Academic Strategic Planning at SUNY Brockport.

One criticism of the current Academic Strategic Planning process at SUNY Brockport has been that the process was not well-articulated in advance and was changed multiple times. While changes in division leadership will understandably alter the process somewhat, it was also the case that the process was not clearly communicated at all levels within Academic Affairs in advance of beginning the current process. Since Strategic Planning is widely understood to be an ongoing process, and because that process has serious fiscal and personnel implications, as well as implications for students, a well-designed process should be worked out and shared widely within Academic Affairs in advance of the end of the period for which the current Strategic Planning initiative is designated.

The process developed for future Academic Strategic Planning should reflect best practices within academia for such activities (Dickeson, 2010), with an eye toward implementing best practices as demonstrated at other comprehensive colleges, rather than exclusively at research institutions. In keeping with the strong history of and stated administrative support for shared governance at SUNY Brockport, College Senate should have a strong, clear, and identifiable role in the next academic strategic planning process. Senate should be consulted at all stages, including the creation of the process, its implementation, and Senate review of all reports.

5.5 Evaluate, refine, and (where appropriate) adjust program classifications, suggestions, and recommendations, through a deliberate process of shared governance and active collaboration.

We suggest to refine and possibly expand program classifications to include a wider number of categories that better reflects the health and vitality, resource needs, and growth potential of existing programs. The existing four categories may not sufficiently differentiate programs, as reflected in the placement of over 60% of existing programs in the “reconfiguration” category. Moreover, current classifications appear to be neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, and recommendations should not be restricted by classification type. Any significant ramifications directly tied to program classification should be clearly enunciated. For example, if programs in the “reconfiguration” category are ineligible for additional resources to support their initiatives, this must be stated/documented. Refinement and expansion of the classifications used will necessarily require reassigning programs once such expansions are made. Departmental feedback regarding the classification or reclassification of their program(s) should be carefully considered in this process.

Faculty are the experts concerning their disciplines. Curricular proposals should actively involve faculty and their expertise through all stages of development. If a curricular proposal involves courses from multiple disciplines, faculty from those discipline should be involved as well. Distinct programs may contribute to our academic goals in dramatically different ways. Care should be taken to understand that a recommendation meant to improve a program’s success with respect to one goal (say enrollment), may impact that program’s success with respect to another goal (say accreditation).

Similarly, each program utilizes faculty, courses, space, equipment, etc. that may also be utilized by other programs or utilized by students in extra-programmatic ways (e.g., service courses, general education). Care should be taken that recommendations made for a program may have direct extra- programmatic impacts. It would be valuable to create a map of such inter-programmatic relationships.

It is reasonable to expect from this process that upon further analysis, communication, and collaboration that some suggestions/recommendations might be withdrawn and that new suggestions/recommendations might be embraced. Ideas that strengthen one program may well be relevant to other programs. Therefore, suggestions/recommendations should be broadly communicated throughout this process.

Consider all the potential needs for successful implementation of each suggestion/recommendation, and which institutional resources can most appropriately meet those needs. For example, a new program requires marketing and outreach beyond what an academic department can manage on its own.