COE Home

Academic Planning and Policy COE Restructuring Response

March 23, 2012

COE Faculty and Staff,

As we head into spring break, I want to share with you the current status of the proposed reorganization of the College of Education for AY 2012/2013:

• The  Academic Resource Planning (ARP) committee and the Academic Policy and Planning (AP&P) committee have recommended that the Academic Senate approve the proposed reorganization of the College of Education. The AP&P committee recommendation Memo is available as a pdf download from the link at the end of this message. Text of the ARP Committee minutes that document approval of the reorganization plan will be posted on this Academic Planning web site once they become available.
• The Academic Senate is expected to discuss and act on the proposed reorganization of the College of Education at their April meeting.

I also want to re-emphasize that the proposed reorganization of the College of Education submitted to the Provost on February 12 (and shared with all faculty and staff in the College) includes the unqualified assurance that it requires "no reduction in permanent faculty or permanent staff."

Ric

Ric A. Hovda, Ph.D.
Professor and Dean
College of Education

Download PDF: AP&P Memo to Senate

Academic Planning and Policy COE Restructuring Response

March 12, 2012

COE Faculty and Staff,

In following University Policy, on February 10, 2012, the COE Proposed Organizational Structure Plan was submitted to the Provost. The Academic Planning and Policy (AP & P) Senate Committee reviewed the College of Education's proposal at their scheduled February 14th meeting. Subsequent to an initial discussion by the AP & P Committee, it was determined that the issue would be tabled for their March meeting. The AP & P Committee requested that the COE address a series of questions.

The document that is linked below is the COE's response.

Respectfully,

Ric Hovda

Ric A. Hovda, Ph.D.
Dean and Professor
College of Education

Download PDF: AP&P Response Restructure Proposal

COE Proposed Org Structure Proposal

February 10, 2012

COE Faculty and Staff,

The attached proposal details the reorganization plan for the College of Education. The plan is designed explicitly to position the College to address current and future challenges and maximize opportunities for continuous improvement. It is firmly grounded in our strengths and commitments as professional communities of practice to the College mission, while at the same time addressing the need for increased efficiencies and effectiveness.

The plan is the result of months of meetings, dialogues, deliberations, and planning. While there continue to be differences in viewpoints regarding the plan, it purposefully addresses many of the recommendations made by faculty and staff during the development process. It is my strong view that this plan will enable us to move forward in implementing strategies to stabilize our programs; enable greater levels of collaboration and resource sharing; develop new approaches to generating revenue; and, will enable us to move forward in continuing to provide our students the high quality learning experiences they expect from us.

The plan is designed to begin implementation in the fall of 2012. During the 2012-2013 academic year, the respective schools/departments will continue to offer the programs previously offered, and at the same time engage in the work detailed in the plan to determine the new mission, vision, and operations of the restructured units.

I am confident that the attached proposal will allow the College to meet the near term challenges while capitalizing on our long term program opportunities. I look forward to the many opportunities that the implementation of this plan will bring to our faculty, staff, students, and community partners.

Respectfully,

Ric Hovda

Ric A. Hovda, Ph.D.
Dean and Professor
College of Education

Download PDF: COE Proposed Org Structure

Recommended COE Organizational Structure

November 22, 2011

Dear COE Faculty and Staff,

After listening to the many voices of the College of Education and reflecting on the importance of finding "common ground" on which the College can build a sustainable future, I am proposing a new organizational structure for AY 2012/2013 (and beyond) made up of three Schools.

The three Schools are based on the professional "communities of practice" represented in the academic programs offered by the College (see chart below).

• School 1 includes academic programs that prepare professionals for roles critical to identifying, developing, and supporting the potential of all learners across the life span as individuals, families, and community members with a particular focus on exceptional and alternative learners.


• School 2 includes academic programs that prepare (a) professionals for leadership roles with a particular focus on educational organizations and (b) professionals who enable performance improvement through instructional technology applied in both educational and non-educational settings (public and private, business and government).


• School 3 includes academic programs that prepare (a) professionals for roles in public and private settings critical to the healthy development of children, their families and communities and (b) professionals as educators who teach primarily in pre-school and K-12 settings.

Faculty in each of the three Schools will find new opportunities for professional growth as they work together to:

• establish a "common core" of course work within their School;
• innovate in the design, delivery and evaluation of the clinical experiences offered by their School1;
• prepare an academic program plan for their School that incorporates (a) all pre-service and in-service professional preparation programs delivered by the School2 and (b) all community and/or campus partnerships entered into by the School.

Faculty across the College will have the opportunity to participate in College-wide, College-supported work groups to:

• develop and implement a plan that coordinates our undergraduate programs as a "gateway" to our professional preparation programs;
• identify, design, and implement "foundation courses" appropriate to all our professional preparation programs in order to improve the ability of our graduates to communicate and collaborate more effectively  outside their specialty;
• identify, design, and implement "interdisciplinary" coursework across appropriate disciplines in order to improve the ability of our graduates to communicate and collaborate more effectively across closely affiliated specialties;
• identify and pursue as a College opportunities to provide our degree and credential programs to new audiences using distance learning technology;
• identify and pursue as a College professional development, custom training, and program evaluation for public and private, business and government clients on a grant and/or contract basis.

Consistent with SDSU Policy, I will now appoint an ad hoc committee3 that will review the proposed new organizational structure and report their recommendation to the College Policy Council and the Dean  no later than Friday, December 10, 2011.

A reminder: you will find on this website the tentative timeline and outline of key activities related to the College restructuring through fall, 2012.

I look forward to continuing our sometimes difficult, always exciting conversations about change, sustainability, and a prosperous future when we return from our Thanksgiving holiday.

Ric

FOOTNOTES:
1 Taking full advantage of the performance improvement/technology expertise available in School 2 of the College;
2 Including programs delivered through the College of Extended Studies and the SDSU Research Foundation;
3 Consistent with SDSU Policy, the Dean will appoint an ad hoc committee consisting of at least five members, at least two of whom will be department chairs/directors, one of whom is from an uninvolved college.

Recommended Organziational Structure for AY 2012/2013 (and beyond)

(Click on School 1, 2 or 3 to view larger image; or Download Full PDF)

Interrelated Program Structures

Survey Results by Department

In response to a request from the Dean’s Advisory Group, the table below shows survey results by department. Green highlight depicts top two choices for each unit and the pink highlight depicts the bottom two choices for each unit. The data indicates that Options 1 and 3 were the most preferred by most departments.

Rankings by Department

COE Ranking Survey Results
(Click image to enlarge)

COE Ranking Survey Results

Dear COE Faculty and Staff,

I want to thank each of you who made your voice heard in the COE ranking survey.

Survey Results

The COE ranking survey was open from November 2nd through midnight November 11, 2011. Participants eligible to complete the survey were Tenure/Tenure Track faculty, full-time lecturers, and full-time and part-time staff. The survey required participants to enter a valid RED ID for authentication purposes. Those who were not eligible were NOT allowed to complate the survey.

There were 82 survey completers out of 132 eligible participants for a response rate of 62%.

Ranking. Options 1 and 3 received a rank of 1st or 2nd more frequently than any of the other options. (See Figure 1). Option 3 had an average ranking of 2.36 followed by Option 1 with an average ranking of 2.50. Option 5 was ranked as the least favorite (3.56 avg.). Note: a lower average indicates a higher preference.

Weighting. The weighting questions were more difficult to interpret. Figure 2 shows histograms of the weights given to each option using bins of “10.” Because of the highly skewed distributions, the mean is not the best measure of central tendency. However, it is the measure available to us. Consistent with the “ranking options” results, it indicates that Options 1 (34.23 average wieght) and 3 (21.44 average weight) were weighted more highly that the other three options. Option 4 received the lowest average weight (8.77 average weight).

Next Steps

With the completion of the ranking survey, we end the current phase of our College academic planning and restructuring conversation which began last winter/spring during our academic planning meetings and has continued this fall with “open” forums and the online “blog.”

I will draw on all our shared work over these many months before I make my recommendation for restructuring the College.

As a result, my recommendation may (or may not) be identical with any single model shared on the online “blog” and “ranked” in the survey just completed.

As promised, my recommendation for restructuring the College will be shared by November 23 when we will begin the formal campus process for review and approval.

Onward and forward,

Ric A. Hovda, Dean

Figure 1: Ranking the Options

Ranking the Options
(Click on the image for a larger view)

Figure 1: Results from the ranking questions on the survey show Options 1 and 3 receiving a rank of 1st or 2nd more frequently than any of the other options. Option 3 had an average ranking of 2.36 followed by Option 1 with an average ranking of 2.50. Option 5 was ranked as the least favorite most frequently. The average and Standard Deviation are also reported. A lower average indicates a higher preference.

Figure 2: Weighing the Options

Weighing the Options
(Click on the image for a larger view)

Figure 2: The graphs above show histograms of the weights given to each option using bins of size 10. Because of the highly skewed distributions, the mean is not the best measure of central tendency. As with the ranking question, this data seems to indicate that Options 1 (34.23 average weight) and 3 (21.44 average weight) were weighted more highly than the other three options. Option 4 received the lowest average weight (8.77 avg.).

Message on Restructuring

Dear COE Faculty and Staff,

As we approach the end of the current phase of the College of Education restructure efforts, I want you to know I have listened to and heard the many voices of the College and those we serve.

I heard them last spring at the academic planning meetings. 

I heard them again this fall at the recent open forums; in the online forum (the “blog”); at meetings with department chairs, department faculty, department coordinators, and retired faculty; at Policy Council; and at meetings with an advisory group of current faculty drawn from across the College.

I hope to hear from you again by way of the survey, which will remain open through tomorrow, Wednesday, November 9.

Two reminders:

1. This is a ranking exercise (including “weighted ranking”) and is NOT a vote. (https://sdsueducation.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_0CknhqPfoyalphG)

2. Frequently asked questions have been added to the Academic Planning website, including clarifying the implications of restructuring for RTP. (http://coe.sdsu.edu/apt/faq.php)

Once the ranking exercise closes, the results will be shared publicly and then considered along with the many other sources of faculty and staff input (blog, open meetings, department meetings, etc.). These results will further guide and inform my recommendation for restructuring the College, which will be made by November 23, 2011.

Below is a tentative time line and outline of key activities that will follow my recommendation. The conversations that ensue will be both difficult and exciting, as faculty and staff begin to plan the transition to our new structure and identify the support needed to make it a success.

Share your voice by completing the official COE Qualtrics survey before it closes. The path to our shared future is right in front of us. Let us move forward in a collective effort to ensure the College is prepared for the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead.

Ric

Formal campus process with tentative dates:

By November 23, 2011

Dean proposes new structure for the College of Education.

By December 30, 2011

Ad hoc committee* reviews the proposed new structure and reports their recommendation to the Dean and Policy Council.

By February 14, 2012

Dean submits the final recommendation to the Provost who, in turn, submits the final recommendation with comments to the Senate Committee on Academic Policy and Planning and the Senate Committee on Academic Resources and Planning.

March - April 2012

Senate Committees present their recommendations to the Senate as a whole, which makes its recommendation to the President.

Fall 2012

Following the schedule above, and with presidential approval, schools will be formally established and implemented.

College Transition Planning:

January 2012 – May 2012

(Governance)

Faculty work groups will review current College and department academic policies, committees and processes with recommendations for change consistent with the new College structure. 

(Operations and Logistics)

Faculty and staff work groups will review current College and department academic support services and non-academic work functions with recommendations for change consistent with the new structure. 

(Support for Change)

Faculty and staff work groups will recommend support needed to make transition to the new structure a success.

College Sustainability Planning:

Fast Track for 2012/2013

Admissions targets for degree and credential programs will be set based on anticipated enrollment demand.

Schedule building will be cost-tested to ensure we achieve the most benefit from courses with common content and consistent class sizes across programs.

A limited number of program/course specific changes may be implemented that 1) have been thoroughly discussed in prior years, and 2) are consistent with most recent College futures planning.

2013/2014 and beyond

Continue our work on developing Common Core options, Interdisciplinary options, and improvements to our Clinical Practice.

Seek out new opportunities and expand current revenue-producing initiatives.

*Consistent with SDSU policy, the Dean will appoint an ad hoc committee consisting of at least five members, at least two of whom will be department chairs/directors, one of whom is from an uninvolved college.

Sustainable Plan: Survery for Five Models

Dear COE Faculty and Staff,

Following a collaborative process extending back several semesters, and after having an opportunity to give feedback about possible models for restructuring the College, you now have an opportunity to examine the models that are available for review below:

• Model 1
• Model 2
• Model 3
• Model 4
• Model 5

After your review of the five models, please select this link to complete the Qualtrics survey where you will rank them in order from the model you most prefer (rank #1) to the model you least prefer (rank #5). In the survey, you will also be able to weight your preferences by giving each option a numerical weight that would altogether total 100. Please note that suggestions on the blog about ideas for revising models is reflected in the survey. The survey does require logging in with a RED ID for authentication purposes, however, survey results will not be paired with RED IDs. Please note that suggestions on the blog for revising models are reflected in the survey. The survey will be open today through Wednesday, November 9, 2011.

It is important to consider, as you rank, the underpinnings of each structure that center on facilitating work and engagement among shared communities of practice. Please remember that nothing will preclude cross-program and cross-faculty collaborations that bridge structures. However, the model ultimately chosen should facilitate opportunities for communities of practice to engage productively with one another to benefit our programs, students, and the communities we serve.

Ric

Sustainable Plan: Moving Forward

As we all know at this point, the focus for moving forward is to create a Sustainable Plan for the years ahead by developing a "plan of action” that holds to our strengths and commitments to the College mission, while at the same time representing increased efficiencies and effectiveness. The task this semester is to prepare a "plan of action" for each program to position us to continue to serve students with excellence in 2012-2013 and beyond. The plan is to be developed in consultation and collaboration with 2-3 other programs with close affiliation (within a PTLC or across PTLCs).

As I have noted previously, it will take all of us, our best thinking and collaboration, to create the plan to sustain us into the future. The Academic Planning we engaged in last spring produced clear strategies for change and a multitude of ideas to put into action.

I apologize for restating what has been said previously and what is by now likely obvious, but I believe it is important to reiterate that the urgency of this work is the result of dealing with a "structural deficit" financially across the University as well as responding to the changing needs and expectations of the communities and clients we serve. We don't have the funding needed to support the operation that has been supported in the past. Without using "reserve" one-time funds this year, we could not afford the programs we currently offer. Thus, heading into 2012-2013, we will need to have revised, reduced, replaced or redesigned what we do and how we do it. The timeline for this work is short; Academic Affairs requires that each College submit a plan for addressing the "structural deficit" by the end of fall semester.

Conceptually, the planning process is to 1) develop a plan for individual program change in collaboration with other affiliated programs that reflects an interdisciplinary, clinically-based, and core centered approach with specific efficiencies identified, 2) identify the short term changes that can be implemented in 2012-13 and an implementation timeline for those that will take longer, and 3) create an assessment plan to study the impact of the changes on student performance and client outcomes.

The alternative to this approach of program change to maintain effectiveness while incorporating financial and resource efficiencies is to cut programs. As I have said before, this is not where I choose to start. To avoid this as a strategy, our plans will need to reflect efficiencies (e.g., reduced WTUs/program units) sufficient to cover the structural deficit.

Finally, and critically important, are the following questions, designed to guide the thinking and discussions. The goal is for the questions to lead to answers that address areas related to desired outcomes of the planning. They are labeled as “PTLC Questions,” but they are just as relevant to conversations that occur across PTLCs. The process of answering these questions will help us productively meet the budget challenges as well as address academic program quality.

PTLC Questions

1. How does the plan ensure that our students engage our practice communities by focusing on specific client needs and outcomes?
2. How does the plan address cross-program and interdisciplinary connections that are designed as an integral part of all COE programs?
3. How does the plan identify what is across-College content in multiple programs and implement programmatic changes that put these essential elements in place?
4. How does the plan reflect using technology to strengthen clinically based practice (e.g., eSupervision)?
5. How does the plan assess the effectiveness of the proposed changes?

Pragmatic Questions

1. How does the proposed plan reduce faculty teaching units (WTUs)?
2. How does the proposed plan reduce the total number of units that students are required for program completion? (assumes that a program is not already at the minimum number of required units)
3. How does the proposed plan reduce total number of units for the College? (assumes reducing courses, blending courses, sharing courses across programs, etc.)

On this website, you will find three documents to provide support for momentum moving forward (see sidebar: Sustainable Plan). They are not new documents but are slightly revised to be clearer and perhaps more useful.

• “Overview” document - The purpose of this document is to give a 30,000 ft. view of critical elements of the planning process. I believe it is self-explanatory, but if you have questions, please don’t hesitate to ask.
• The Academic Planning Calendar - The calendar provides an overview of timelines relevant to addressing curriculum changes that emerge from the planning and are related to the planning process itself, both for the current academic year and 2012-13.
• Chart of the “Overall Planning Structure” - Please note that the chart lists programs under each PTLC. This should be viewed as an example of affiliated programs within a PTLC and can inform possible collaborations within and across PTLCs.

You will also find an outline of expectations and key steps for each program director (or lead faculty) to ensure a successful start to this phase of our academic planning process (see sidebar: Sustainable Plan).

Reports

Preliminary Status Reports (responding to the questions posed above) for each program will be due to me on October 21, 2011.

Final plans will be due to the Dean’s Office no later than Friday, December 9, 2011.

This work will be challenging but it will also be rewarding as we work together toward a sustainable future that is grounded in academic planning.

Ric

Ric A. Hovda
Dean and Professor
College of Education

• For Portable Document Format: Download Adobe Reader
• For Microsoft Word: Download Microsoft Word Viewer
• For Microsoft Excel: Download Microsoft Excel Viewer
• For Microsoft PowerPoint: Download Microsoft PowerPoint Viewer