Academic Priorities Work Group

1. Academic Priorities Work Group June 14, 2010

2. Overview of Today’s Presentation • Long Range Planning Process • Charge and Tasks • Mission, Goals of the University • HLC review • SWOT Analysis • Strategic Directions/Strategic Choices • Prioritizing Academic Programs • Enumeration of Programs • Selection of Criteria • Discussion and Request for Input

3. Charge from the Long Range Planning Steering Committee • Assess strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats facing the University’s academic endeavors • Identify strategic choices facing the University and the priorities that should govern decision-making in the future

4. Operative Assumptions provided by the Steering Committee • Assume steady or slightly increased enrollment • Assume at least 10% reduction in state appropriation beginning FY 2012 • Assume continuation of legislative constraints on tuition

5. Tasks • Recommend evaluative criteria for assessment of existing and proposed programs • Recommend academic priorities at curricular/program levels

6. Transparent Process • Initial report to Steering Committee by September 1, 2010 via public forum • Sustained review • Response • Follow up • Town Hall meetings • E-mail responses

7. Sources • Robert C. Dickeson, Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services (John Wiley and Sons, 2010) • David F. Shaffer and David J. Wright, A New Paradigm for Economic Development (Rockefeller Institute, March 2010) • Missouri State University, Long-Range Vision and Five Year Plan (2006-2011) • Eric R. Peterson, “Introduction,” Educating Globally Competent Citizens: A Toolkit for Teaching Seven Revolutions, xiii-ix, Eds. Dennis Falk, Susan Moss, Martin Shapiro, Center for Strategic and International Studies, April 2010, (citing AASCU’s Seven Revolutions Curricular Development Program of the American Democracy Project)

8. Outline of Tasks* • Reaffirming [and Refining] the Mission • Defining What Constitutes a Unit of Analysis • Selecting from Potential Criteria for Prioritization *Adopted and adapted from Dickeson, R. (2010)

9. Reaffirming [and Refining] the Mission [and Goals] • Two major components of the University’s mission • That which we share with other contemporary universities – developing educated persons, and beyond…. • The public affairs mission, which is uniquely ours

10. The Mission of the Contemporary University* • Developing Educated Persons • Creating New Ideas • Transfer of Knowledge • “Community Revitalization” *Adapted from David F. Shaffer and David J. Wright, A New Paradigm for Economic Development, Rockefeller Institute, March 2010, pages 2-3, www.rockinst.org and the University’s Long Range Vision and Five Year Plan (2006-2010)

11. The Public Affairs Mission • Historically, our public affairs mission has focused on issues of concern to our community and our world – public policy issues • Recently we added competencies to our mission: community engagement, cultural competence, and ethical leadership

12. Elements of the Public Affairs Mission: • Public Policy Issues • Global* • Domestic • Competencies • Effective community engagement • Ethical leadership • Cultural competence *Eric R. Peterson, “Introduction,” Educating Globally Competent Citizens: A Toolkit for Teaching Seven Revolutions, xiii-ix, Eds. Dennis Falk, Susan Moss, Martin Shapiro, Center for Strategic and International Studies, April 2010, (citing AASCU’s Seven Revolutions Curricular Development Program of the American Democracy Project)

13. The University’s Public Affairs Mission • Examples of Global policy issues • Population • Strategic Resource Management • Technology Innovation and Diffusion • Information and Knowledge Creation and Dissemination • Economic Integration • Conflict • Governance

14. The University’s Public Affairs Mission • Examples of Domestic Policy Issues • Health Care • Education • The Economy • Immigration • Terrorism • Environmental Stewardship • Conflict

15. Missouri State University’s Goals: Strategic Directions/ Strategic Choices Goals • Democratizing society • Incubating new ideas • Imagining Missouri’s future • Making Missouri’s future • Modeling ethical and effective behavior

16. SWOT Analysis and Strategic Directions • How well have we integrated the mission of the contemporary university into our efforts • How well have we implemented the Public Affairs Mission • What does the Higher Learning Commission’s Report tell us about our Strengths and Weaknesses? • APWG SWOT Review • Strategic Directions

17. SWOT Summary:MSU Integration of the Mission of the Contemporary University Strengths, but also Opportunities Creating New Ideas/ Innovation JVIC and Beyond: How can we better integrate research into our mission? Transfer of Knowledge Workforce Development, Demonstration Projects – How can we better integrate graduate education into our mission? How can we quickly respond to external opportunities? Community (Re)vitalization Can we learn to view engagement from the perspective of community needs and priorities

18. SWOT Summary: Implementing the Public Affairs Mission We need to move from a concern about the articulation of our public affairs mission, to a focus on how to best implement it, i.e., what do our graduates need to know and what skills should they have? Public Policy issues as Knowledge based Learning Outcomes; Competencies as Knowledge and Skill based Outcomes

19. SWOT Summary: Implementing the Public Affairs Mission • Outcomes-based improvements to curriculum and programs • Development of initiatives in international and domestic policy • Identification of competencies graduates should possess • Distinguish ourselves from other universities • Connect efforts to national programs and projects • Clarify learning outcomes for students • Greater interdisciplinarity, campus wide engagement and collaboration with the community

20. SWOT Summary: 2005 HLC Accreditation Report • The challenges still not adequately addressed in ten years of effort are: • Diversity among faculty and staff – Needs serious attention • Diversity included in curriculum - Ditto • Additional New Challenges needing “Organizational Attention”: • Funding of academic programs and services and means for assessing quality – Working on it • Assessment – Systemic approach and continuous quality improvement efforts needed – Working on it • External reviews of programs and faculty – Progress made • General education connection to and assessment of public affairs mission – Just started • Challenges and issues facing transfer students – More needed

21. APWG SWOT Analysis (building on the preceding material) Strengths Size: in student numbers, variety of student types and diversity of programs at both undergraduate and graduate levels Growth: gives us new opportunities Quality of Learning: Strong faculty in arts and sciences and professions, tradition of commitment to teaching and transformational value of A & S experience; growing quality of first year experience, FCTL, web learning; experiential learning, internships and service learning highly valued; Honors college; academic and co-curricular well integrated International interests Student Leaders

22. APWG SWOT Analysis Weakness Lack of institutional data for decision-making and management Our culture and decision-making/fiscal infrastructure is based on history, rather than the future We have a “check the box” mentality Internal Communication Education of Campus Community External marketing efforts Our general education program is dated, and not mission driven

23. APWG SWOT Analysis Opportunities Undergraduate and Graduate Programs with Student and Employer Demand Improved articulation and services to key populations Public Affairs mission not yet fully defined or implemented Diversity Compete on quality Our University system To achieve great efficiencies To move from community engagement to community vitalization JVIC and Idea Commons New Collaborations with Community Colleges

24. APWG SWOT Analysis Threats Declining support: in terms of funds and public perceptions Declining High School Graduates Increased Competition: for every type of student Cheaper, more accessible general education: at Community Colleges

25. Strategic Directions Discussion of the SWOT analyses has led us to identify strategic directions critical to Missouri State’s future success: We need to: 1)Become more Outcome Oriented, enhancing Institutional Research, Educational Outcomes and Accountability 2) Enhance our Infrastructure, supporting research; classrooms, clinics and laboratories and Communications 3) Increase Interdisciplinarity, reducing silos across functional units, and promoting cross disciplinary initiatives

26. Strategic Directions, (continued) Increase Campus Integration and enhance University System operations Enhance Communication and Understanding, both in both internally and externally 6) Build Organizational Agility/ Responsiveness to Changing Conditions and Demands (Nimbleness), so that we can move resources quickly and smoothly to meet student demands and make decisions quickly enough to meet external competition.

27. Our Task:Preparing for the prioritization of academic programs

28. Unit of Analysis for Program Prioritization • “Any activity or collection of activities in student or academic affairs that consumes resources”* • Identification and listing: • every degree program option, certificate, track, etc. • all research, education and service initiatives in Academic and Student Affairs * Dickeson, R. (2010), 56

29. Prioritization vis-a-vis Mission • Prioritization to occur based on application of criteria in the context of the University’s mission

30. Potential Criteria for Prioritization* 1. History, development and expectations of the program 2. External demand for the program 3. Internal demand for the program 4. Quality of program inputs and processes 5. Quality of program outcomes 6. Size, scope, and productivity of the program 7. Revenue and other resources generated by the program 8. Costs and other expenses associated with the program 9. Impact, justification, and overall essentiality of the program 10. Opportunity analysis of the program * Dickeson, R. (2010), 66

31. Desired Outcomes of Prioritization*(It’s not just about the Budget!) 1. Continued excellence of programs 2. Further support of learning community 3. Identification of funds for excellence and innovation 4. Ability to respond quickly and effectively to the learning needs of the community 5. Understanding of a clear, strategic sense of what we need to be as an institution *Dickeson, R. (2010), 118

32. Desired Outcomes of Prioritization* (continued) 6. Development of a strategic balance 7. Reduction of budgetary dependence on year-to-year enrollment numbers 8. Enhanced sense of the University community and the ongoing need for self-examination 9. Enhance community wide confidence that we are doing the right things and doing them well 10. More effective stewardship of the University 11. Enhanced sense of ownership in the institution’s future by all campus constituencies * Dickeson, R. (2010), 118

33. Discrete Programs*The definition of program should include all programs using the institution’s total resources. And the definition should be discrete enough to permit real analysis to take place. As an example, at a major state university that took on the prioritization process, the department of biology was found to engage in eleven different programs: • Bachelor of Science, general biology major • Bachelor of Science in Biology, botany emphasis • Bachelor of Science in Biology, zoology emphasis • Biology, baccalaureate minor • Biology, general education courses for other majors • Biology, service courses to other undergraduate programs • Master of Science, botany • Master of Science, zoology • Doctor of Philosophy, multiple emphasis within biology • Biology, services courses needed by other graduate and professional programs • Biology, research institute in specialized area • * Dickeson, R. (2010), 57,58 *

34. Conclusion • We have a charge and a timeline • We want to achieve maximum campus engagement • The questions we have to address are far reaching - Our task is huge

35. In summary: • Based on our mission and the broad goals we established in the last plan, what kind of university do we want to be, and how can we decide quickly enough to respond to growing budget problems in the state, emerging better and stronger than ever before?.

36. Our Prospects for the Future? • The answers lie, to a large extent, in the academic and student support programs we provide • The APWG members strongly believe that MSU has the faculty talent, the work ethic to develop and refine exactly what we need. • We need your help to realize this vision.

37. Where do we go from Here? Discussion

38. Input from June 14 Presentation • Identified MSU faculty/administrators who had participated in prioritization on other campuses – Dennis Kear and Bob Willenbrink: Are there more? Please let us know • Several comments were made about the need to more fully define and specify outcomes for the Public Affairs Mission. The Public Affairs Work Group is addressing this, building upon recommendations originally made by a Faculty Senate Committee. • Additional Questions and Responses: “How will Delaware Data be used?” The criteria employed will most definitely include program cost, revenue and efficiency items. The Delaware study provides such data, but it utilizes the department, rather than a program as the unit of analysis. That being said, it can be used as a means of assessing efficiency/productivity when departments have only one program.

39. Input, continued. • “Isn’t this going to take a lot of work (in the data gathering process) that faculty will not be recognized for in the merit system, tenure and promotion?” The prioritizing could use only a few (likely cost and demand related) or many criteria (more qualitative and complex measures) – depending on the input we receive. Institutional research should be able to provide considerable data to the process.

40. Input continued • “Who is going to be doing the prioritizing?” That decision will be made by the Long Range Plan Steering Committee, but the APWG assumes the process will begin in the departments and/or colleges, and be subject to several levels of institutional review. • “This process will take at least a year from start to finish.” That is the APWG expectation. • “Will their be an opportunity for student input?” Yes, there is student representation on the steering committee and many work groups.

41. Input, continued • “We need many more opportunities to hear and discuss this process – so the faculty and larger campus community can take ownership of the process.” We all agree on that one. This is the first of many such discussions to be held. • We need your suggestions regarding how to best communicate and the develop real understanding about the process, and furthermore, how to stimulate engagement. • Send input to the Provost’s Office or any APWG Committee Member