|
Description
Planning
CCSU engages in
comprehensive planning and evaluation processes, grounded in
Strategic Planning that outlines long-term goals and objectives
consistent with the University’s mission. Budget planning and
facilities planning are integrated into the Strategic Planning
process.
Since CCSU’s
last self study, the University has completed two iterations of
strategic planning. The first iteration grew out of new
priorities set in 2004, and the second grew out of the
appointment of a new President in 2005 and a new Provost in
2006. This second iteration of strategic planning was based on
the goals set forth in the 2004 Strategic Plan (Exhibit 2.1).
Our strategic planning process is vetted
through many constituencies but primarily through the University
Planning and Budget Committee (UPBC),
a senate standing committee composed of faculty, staff, and
administrators. The UPBC guides the development of the Strategic
Plan and monitors its implementation. Progress on goals and
objectives are reviewed and updated on an ongoing basis by UPBC
and senior administrators. Progress on the University’s
Strategic Plan is also maintained on a publicly available Web
site. Open forums that involve the CCSU community have been
conducted through online discussions and actual meetings to
increase awareness and solicit input in defining and
accomplishing planning goals.
The planning
process at the institutional level includes a broad base of
relevant stakeholders and campus decision-makers. Senior
administrators on the Executive Committee hold responsibility
for implementing initiatives in their specific units to achieve
the strategic goals and objectives and for measuring their
progress. In addition, various committees of administrators,
faculty and staff address specific concerns and contribute to
the planned advancement of the institution, including the
Curriculum Committee, the Information Technology Committee, the
Facilities Planning Committee, and the Retention and Graduation
Council. These groups issue reports to the Faculty Senate and/or
to the senior administration as appropriate.
The Facilities
Master Plan provides a ten-year roadmap for the implementation
of capital projects, improvements, and maintenance required to
meet strategic priorities; key elements of this plan incorporate
provisions of the
CSUS 2020
Program, a $950 million capital project plan. The Chief
Administrative Officer had open houses for the campus to provide
input on the CSUS 2020 Program and future bonding projects. In
November 2007 the CSUS 2020 Program was approved by the General
Assembly, which will lead to implementing CCSU’s plans for new
and renovated facilities. This should significantly improve the
campus and overall education experiences.
CCSU devotes significant resources to
planning and evaluation. Beyond the integration of
institution-wide budget planning with the strategic planning
process, the institution allocates over a third of a million
dollars a year for the Office of Institutional Research and
Assessment (OIRA, formerly the Office of Planning and
Institutional Effectiveness). The University also supports
activities of the UPBC and other committees with
responsibilities for planning and provides funds for planning
retreats at the institution, division, school, and department
levels.
In all instances strategic planning is based
on realistic appraisals of (1) the current and future needs of
all CCSU constituents and (2) perceived or anticipated needs in
the community. Planning processes are integrated and iterative.
In the development and ongoing review of the Strategic Plan,
administrators and the UPBC examine a wide range of internal
data about the University as well as data from the external
environment. These benchmarking activities include collection of
data from peer institutions and other institutions in the State,
as well as environmental scans of state and national trends and
economic needs. For example, CCSU has initiated new academic
programs to respond to Connecticut’s changing workforce needs.
Internally CCSU is focusing on student graduation and
persistence rates, improving student learning, improving
academic advising, and enhancing faculty and staff satisfaction
and success.
The Office of Institutional Research and
Assessment, working with other university offices, assembles
data for planning and evaluation. Much of this information is
posted on publicly available or secure areas of the
OIRA Web site. Some of these data include
key performance indicators (KPIs)
for enrollment; degree production and instructional activity,
including benchmarking with the Delaware Study of Faculty Costs
and Productivity; and survey data from nationally benchmarked
instruments, such as the
CIRP (The Cooperative Institutional
Research Program) Freshman Survey given during the summer
orientation program in 2006 and 2008, the National Survey of
Student Engagement (NSSE),
and the Noel-Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI),
last administered in 2004 and 2006.
Short-term
planning occurs on several fronts. The Chancellor and CSU Board
of Trustees jointly develop for the President an annual Letter
of Priority (Exhibit 2.2) to direct appropriate focus on goals
for the institution for the current year. It is meant to help
the University chart its course for the year. The President
generates a report on progress achieved. At the end of each
year, the Chancellor reviews and evaluates the attainment of the
goals in the Letter of Priority.
Another annual activity involves the
Spending Plan, which allocates resources to address priorities
outlined in the Strategic Plan and annual Letter of Priority.
The Spending Plan is submitted to the CSU System with
information on accomplishments of the previous year. The System
administration and the Board of Trustees review and approve the
annual plan; every two years the System submits a System-wide
budget to the legislature.
In 2004-06 the
Division of Student Affairs took part in a departmental
Accelerated Improvement Plan. The plan was a
procedural audit of all the departments within the Division of
Student Affairs, which included simultaneous assessment of
services, programs, and activities for students. The plan was
based on the goals of the University and the documented
strategic plan for the Student Affairs Division. Outcomes from
this plan assisted in determining allocation of resources.
An updated CCSU
Development and Marketing Plan was approved by the Board of
Trustees in 2003 to maximize institutional advancement and, in
particular, to align with Institutional Goal 6 contained in the
Strategic Plan.
Two campus-wide surveys by Noel
Levitz—the Student Satisfaction Inventory (SSI)
and the College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS)—are
administered to all students, faculty and staff on a regular
basis. Based on results of the CESS administered in October
2007 and the Survey about Strategic Initiatives administered in
February 2008, the President identified
three areas for the
administration to focus its efforts: establishing a process to
get feedback on “managerial leadership”, seeking input from
faculty and staff to improve service to students, and clearly
articulating the role of academic advising and increasing
awareness of that role. He then asked for specific suggestions
from faculty and staff to improve in the identified areas.
Other planning
takes place through focused committees that investigate methods
for reaching one or more specific objectives. Examples are
presented below:
·
The Office of Diversity and Equity develops Diversity and Equity
plans (formerly known as Affirmative Action) that guide our
hiring and promotion process (Exhibit 2.3).
·
A
CSU e-Learning Leadership Team was formed in 2007 to formulate
plans governing all aspects of e-Learning at the four
Connecticut State universities (Exhibit 2.4).
·
Enrollment Management Teams, which operated from 2004-2006, were
reconstituted in 2007 as an Enrollment Management Committee to
help CCSU develop and implement plans for recruiting and
enrolling a targeted class of students and to ensure that CCSU
is prepared to accommodate the needs of each incoming class.
·
The Retention and Graduation Council and the Academic Advising
Task Force were, respectively, established in 2006 to develop
plans to promote student persistence and success and to improve
academic advising.
·
The
President’s
Committee on Environmental Sustainability
was established in 2006 to develop and implement a
university-wide environmental sustainability plan (Exhibit 2.5).
Evaluation
The University evaluates its success in
achieving its mission through multiple and integrated systems of
assessment and dissemination of information. Evaluation systems
are designed to measure outcomes tied to indicators that have
been collectively identified. The University’s previous
Strategic Plan approved in 2004 set forth 12 goals with 39
objectives. An analysis determined that 14 objectives were
completely met or adequate progress had been made, leaving 25
objectives as only partially or not met. It indicates that those
planning initiatives that are championed by both faculty and
administrators result in successful implementation and that
campus buy-in is essential to accomplishing ends. Areas in which
goals were met include expansion of the First-Year Experience
courses and the development of learning communities, which
occurred in response to a need for a more cohesive experience
for our entering students; the repositioning of the School of
Graduate Studies to ensure internal quality control and to
distinguish graduate from undergraduate education; and efforts
to promote and expand incentives to encourage faculty and
student inquiry. Procedures are in place to ensure that progress
on goals in the new Strategic Plan is carefully monitored.
At the beginning
of each fall semester, the President makes a presentation to the
campus community about progress on specific educational
objectives, including progress on the strategic plan and its
respective goals. In addition, a university annual report is
published each year (Exhibit 2.6). Measures of progress on the
Strategic Plan are published on the
CCSU Web site.
Starting in 2000 and continuing through the
present, CCSU has been preparing an
annual accountability report
that details the University’s progress in five areas: enhancing
student learning and academic excellence; joining with
elementary and secondary schools to improve teaching and
learning at all levels; promoting the economic development of
the State and helping business and industry sustain economic
growth; responding to the needs and problems of society; and
ensuring the efficient use of resources (Exhibit 2.7).
Goals in the accountability report are
linked to measures of student learning outcomes, such as student
performance on licensure and certification exams; student
outcomes in General Education in the areas of English and
mathematics; and student success following remediation when
remediation is deemed necessary. An evaluation of CCSU’s system
for the assessment of academic programs is also included.
In 1999, CCSU assigned a task force to
develop procedures for departments to conduct annual reviews of
their academic programs. These guidelines called for the
development of an assessment plan for each degree program to
include: a list of student learning outcomes, identification of
curricular areas through which learning outcomes are primarily
delivered, and identification of performance measures by which
faculty would evaluate the extent of student learning. The
University’s annual Accountability Report contains
departments’ assessment findings and planned actions for
improvement. These reports are filed through a web-based
survey, summaries of which are placed on the
OIRA website and also
found in the document room (Also contained in Exhibit 2.7.)
Annual reports submitted by the deans of the
five schools and the directors of the Library and the Center for
International Education (the Provost’s Council) provide a
summary of accomplishments in their respective academic units
(Exhibit 2.8). Recognized University Centers also prepare annual
reports. In addition, the OIRA prepares reports each semester on
headcount and full-time equivalent enrollment in each program,
the number of majors in each program, and faculty load. A report
on the number of degrees awarded in each program is prepared
annually. Since 2000, CCSU has also participated in the
Delaware Study of Faculty Costs and Productivity
in order to compare all the institution’s programs to external
benchmarks.
Student Affairs also went through an
external review in 2006 by EBI - Educational Benchmarking
Inc. surveys. These surveys are recognized by Student Affairs
national affiliate organizations and focus on Residence Life,
Student Center, Student Activities, Bookstores, and Food
Services.
Additional
external evaluations
result from programs that are accredited by national accrediting
agencies, such as NCATE, ABET, COAMFTE (Exhibit 2.9) and others,
through their review cycles. External advisory boards also
provide another valuable external perspective on the success and
effectiveness of CCSU’s academic programs (Exhibit 2.10).
Consistent with the requirements of the
Affirmative Action Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies and
the University’s commitment to diversity, the Office of
Diversity and Equity conducts its annual review and evaluation
of CCSU’s Affirmative Action program. Members of the Executive
Committee, Provost’s Council, department chairs and directors
are asked to respond to questions having to do with affirmative
action hiring, promotional and program goals and objectives;
Central’s policy pertaining to sexual harassment and their
responsibility to assure its implementation; and grievance
procedures relating to complaints of alleged discrimination.
CCSU has a
commitment to the regular evaluation and measurement of outcomes
related to its overarching mission to “prepare students to be
thoughtful, responsible and successful citizens.” In the area of
classroom instruction, students provide evaluations of teaching
for every course at CCSU as mandated by the
CSU/AAUP
contract.
These evaluations are reviewed by instructors and in some
instances department chairs. The results are used for course and
programmatic improvement; they also factor in as an element for
faculty promotion and tenure. New promotion and tenure
guidelines were presented to the Senate that now include, among
other guidelines, a peer review of teaching.
The institution also has a regular schedule
for administration of the CIRP Freshman Survey, the SSI, and
NSSE. In 2007-08, as an early participant in the
Voluntary System of Accountability,
the University administered the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA)
to gather direct measurements of students’ skills in critical
thinking, analytical reasoning, problem solving, and written
communication and compare them to national benchmarks. The
School of Graduate Studies also has administered the Noel Levitz
Adult Student Priorities Survey for Graduate Students.
The
Connecticut State University System surveys recipients of
baccalaureate degrees from the four universities to ascertain
their perceptions of their alma mater. Results are shared with
each of the universities and survey responses are posted
to the
OIRA website.
Appraisal
Planning
A majority of respondents to
questions about strategic planning expressed dissatisfaction
with the process. The following responses to a survey
distributed at a “NEASC Town Meeting” in January 2008 were
fairly typical: “the strategic plan has a tendency to get bogged
down;” “the University Planning and Budget Committee process is
not open, accessible, or transparent;” “approaches need to be
coordinated and communicated throughout the campus.” However,
respondents generally agreed that planning, assessments, and
evaluations were becoming more evident on the campus.
When surveyed through the College
Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS),
respondents rated implementing strategic plans as important
(48%) or very important (39%). Satisfaction rates with this
same item were low in comparison, with 43% stating “not at all”
or “not very” satisfied. A majority of respondents also reported
that they were not involved in planning for the future (although
employees who have worked at the University for five or fewer
years were more satisfied with their involvement in planning
than their counterparts). Further analysis of the item listed as
involvement with planning and decision making reveals a
different level of perceived involvement depending on employee
status. The response to these CESS questions indicates the need
to ensure more widespread participation in the planning process.
Repeated requests from the UPBC for input
from the university community on proposed strategic goals and
objectives elicited virtually no response, except from members
of the Provost’s Council. Whereas some members of the university
community may rightly claim that they were not involved in the
planning process, their lack of involvement does not signify a
lack of opportunity to participate. The decision not to
participate in the planning process could be indicative of
apathy or a lack of confidence in the value of such
participation. The perception that management has been “too
involved” in planning and decision making may reflect the
conviction that contributing to the process will have minimal
impact.
The University has made considerable
progress in meeting its strategic goals and objectives over the
last three years. Two examples of progress include the steady
increase in the
one-year retention rates from 69% for
full-time, first-time students entering in fall 1997 to 79% for
those entering in fall 2006.
Six-year graduation rates
of full-time first time students also increased from a low of
40% for those entering in fall 1999 and graduating before 2005
to a nine-year high of 44% for those entering in fall 2001 and
graduating before fall 2007. Increasing the graduation rate was
also listed as one of four top priority goals by all employees
on the College Employee Satisfaction
Survey.
Evaluation
The
College Employee Satisfaction Survey
indicated that 45% of respondents were not satisfied or
not very satisfied with the institution having a mechanism for
evaluating progress towards meeting institutional goals; the
importance of this item was rated as important by 47% and very
important by 37%. Strides have been made to enhance our
evaluation process, and this information is being shared through
additional links that have been placed on the OIRA Web site,
which include data, reports, and other indicators of
institutional effectiveness. In addition, dedicated
information sessions have been held for the campus community to
describe and interpret results from such evaluation measures as
the CESS, NSSE, and SSI, as well as the findings from research
conducted by the Retention and Graduation Council. Although data
and information have been more widely publicized through web
pages and public presentations, greater effort will be needed to
ensure that all stakeholders feel they are adequately informed
about our progress in meeting institutional goals.
Projection
With the approval of a new Strategic Plan
and of the four distinctive elements of CCSU’s identity, CCSU
will be dedicated in the coming years to fulfilling the 48
objectives that support its seven principal goals. Baselines and
targets for each objective have been established and “enabling
activities” have been identified to help fulfill the goals and
attain the targets. Examples of enabling activities include 1)
working with AAUP to develop a learning-oriented student rating
instrument; 2) defining strategies to improve the quality of
services to different types of populations of students; 3)
formalizing interventions for at-risk students; 4) working with
the curriculum committees to propose instituting a "C"
designation for courses that focus on community engagement; 5)
pursuing opportunities to support faculty scholarship and
creative activity. A new program of Strategic Planning Grants
will be announced in fall 2008; the Provost’s office has set
aside $50,000 to fund 10 new initiatives to achieve strategic
objectives. A new strategic planning website will be launched by
fall 2008 that will allow UPBC as well as other constituencies
to systematically monitor progress. UPBC will begin reviewing
progress on each indicator, starting in 2008-09.
Specific
initiatives are also planned to help CCSU achieve and reinforce
its distinctive identity within the CSU System. To extend its
commitment to international education, CCSU will become a cohort
member of the American Council on Education (ACE)
Internationalization Laboratory for 2008-2009. The
Internationalization Laboratory will assist CCSU in this
commitment by 1) reviewing our array of international
activities, 2) further articulating our student learning goals
for international learning, 3) assessing our progress toward our
institutional goals for international education, and 4)
furthering our progress to broaden and deepen
internationalization on the CCSU campus. CCSU also plans to host
an International Education Conference in fall 2008. The goal of
the conference is to strengthen international education across
the Connecticut State University System and within individual
universities.
To support its commitment to community
engagement, CCSU plans to join “Campus Compact,” which is the
national organization that supports service learning; the
University has applied and has been accepted to the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) to become
one of 8-12 institutions to join a new “Civic Agency
Initiative,” which will focus on integrating citizenship into
core curricula. An RFP sent to faculty on February 25, 2008
about a new competition for
Summer Curriculum Community Engagement Grants
resulted in 15 faculty receiving community engagement grants for
the 2008-2009 semester. Continuing annually, these “Community
Engagement Grants” will support projects to develop courses that
integrate community partnerships. Plans tentatively call for
CCSU to apply in 2010 for the elective “Community Engagement”
Carnegie classification.
CCSU’s plans for
building on its strong commitment to support economic and
workforce development in the State include proposing a new
degree in Civil Engineering, emphasizing economic development
through its commitment to community engagement, promoting
expanded outreach to the business community through the
activities of the Institute for Technology and Business
development, and renewing our grant with the Small Business
Development Center. Interdisciplinary and cross-curricular
initiatives to be emphasized in the future will include further
integration of writing, community engagement, diversity, and
international education throughout the curriculum and
co-curriculum.
To improve communication and the sharing and
interpreting of data for the campus, OIRA will begin tracking
the number of enrolled majors in each department over time.
Although this has been a more complicated project than initially
anticipated, especially in terms of providing the drill-down to
specializations, the University believes that the information
will be particularly useful for departments and deans to monitor
their respective programs. In addition the Office of
Institutional Research and Assessment has begun to compile a set
of vital statistics or program metrics for the departments on
campus. These data are now online by department on the beta
website for OIRA. These reports on
program metrics provide
trend data for 12 semesters for: FTE Enrollment (by student
level and enrollment status); Faculty (FT headcount, PT FTE) and
Student-Faculty Ratios; and Degrees Awarded.
A new process is being planned for reviewing
departmental assessment programs as well as General Education;
this plan will encompass how to provide feedback to the five
deans, departments and the General Education Subcommittee of the
Curriculum Committee (see Standard 4). In addition the CCSU
Enrollment Management Team is considering the
profiles for
undergraduate and graduate students as a means of planning for
the upcoming years.
Student Affairs will continue to move
forward on assessment, utilizing quantitative and qualitative
data, such as SSI, CIRP, EBI and internally designed surveys and
focus groups, to evaluate its services and programs. Based on
current information, the Student Affairs unit will develop
measurable outcomes to help ensure continued quality and
improvement of student services, with the overarching goal of
increasing retention and student success.
Institutional
Effectiveness
The University Planning and Budget Committee
(UPBC) plays an influential role in tracking and monitoring the
University’s progress in fulfilling its goals and objectives.
It also is charged with identifying areas to be emphasized and
improved. UPBC has broad-based campus representation including
administration (Provost, CFO, V.P. Student Affairs, V.P.
Institutional Advancement, a representative from the deans);
faculty from each of the academic schools; and members of the
faculty senate. The revision of the strategic plan, which began
in 2005-2006, was followed by the UPBC formulating guidelines
for monitoring progress on the plan. Formal review mechanisms
for examining the effectiveness of planning and evaluation
processes have been a major focus of activity starting in
2006-2007.
UPBC also reviews proposed budgets from each
administrative unit on campus for their conformity with
institutional strategic priorities, making critical evaluation
for the alignment of resources with the strategic goals as well
as recommendations for changes before they are submitted to the
President for his approval.
In the area of assessment and evaluation, in
fall 2007 the University hired a new Director of Institutional
Research and Assessment who has experience with program review
processes for academic and non-academic programs. With his
leadership, the Faculty Senate approved both the charge and
structure for a new Assessment Committee and a formal Assessment
Plan for CCSU (Exhibit 2.11). The Faculty Senate also approved
provisional participation in the Voluntary System of
Accountability (VSA).
In addition, under the leadership of the President, the
University has improved in its dissemination of data and
information to its constituents.
|
