I. Introduction & Brief History of the AMP Effort at Brockport
Academic Master Planning (AMP hereafter) plays an important role in academic affairs’ more general strategic planning efforts. It is used to simultaneously review and assess all academic programs and to gauge the overall “health” of programs. An essential intent of AMP efforts is to align resources (e.g., fiscal, staffing, facilities, etc.) with a university’s academic priorities, and here at Brockport, such efforts are an important objective related to Goal 1 of the University’s Strategic Plan - To be a Great Place to Learn. AMP is also encouraged by Middle States Accreditation. It differs, however, from the Periodic Program Review (PPR) process which assesses a certain number of programs every five years.
There have been several iterations of academic master planning at Brockport. Early efforts included the formation of an academic priorities committee which was in existence from 1999 to 2005. More recently, in 2015, Provost Mary Ellen Zuckerman assembled a committee consisting of two co-chairs who represented the arts and sciences and the professions (Greg Garvey & Cathy Houston-Wilson) to lead the university through its first, full review of all academic programs at Brockport. The initial committee consisted of individuals from the then five schools (Pam Beach, Denise Copelton, Susan Sites-Doe, Peter Veronesi & Doug Wilcox). Although Provost Zuckerman left the university, Interim Provost Jim Haynes continued to support the process. During this time, the committee reviewed the literature on AMP, attended trainings and contacted a number of colleges and universities who had undergone the process. Members of the committee also worked with Institutional Research on types of data that could be used to support the process. In addition, the committee hosted several open forums with the campus community to get their input on shared values which informed university-wide priorities. From that work, an academic master plan template for guiding programs’ self-studies was created and field tested by a number of programs across the university that represented small, medium, and large programs in terms of enrollment and complexity. The reports submitted were reviewed and scored by the committee with a subsequent follow-up meeting to discuss what worked well and areas that needed further adjustments or clarifications.
In 2018-2019, Provost Heyning arrived at Brockport and spent her first year conducting listening sessions to learn more about the university. In 2019-2020, she met with the co-chairs of the committee to continue the process. Due to COVID, the process was paused and in the Fall of 2020 the process was resumed. In this rendition, the Provost expanded the scope of the effort by forming an overall steering committee and two task forces: our group, the Program Review Task Force, co-chaired by Cathy Houston-Wilson and Jeff Lashbrook, and an Innovation Task Force. The University’s three Schools were represented with the following members of our committee: Paul Moyer, Eric Monier, Jennifer Ramsay, Pam Neely, Jackie Slifkin, Paula Barbel, Patti Follansbee, Christian Wilkins and graduate student representative Kathleen Phillips.
II. Overview of the Process
a. Charge
In 2019 Provost Heyning charged the committee with the following:
Using updated and revised AMP Template review all undergraduate and graduate programs on campus. Using supplied data (from IE, Budget, SUNY and other sources), each department or program coordinator will respond to prompts related to:
- Centrality and Consistency with University Mission and Strategic Plan
- Internal Demand
- External Demand
- Instructional and Curricular Efficiency
- Quality of Inputs
- Productivity and Outcomes
b. Methods and Procedures
Our task force met nearly every week in spring 2021. The following summarizes the most important decisions/activities in our work this semester:
- Studied some of the recommended AMP literature and reviewed previous AMP efforts so this new group was brought up to speed and what AMP involves
- Decided to review only undergraduate programs this semester due to time constraints and the work involved in review process. In addition, we realized there are some significant differences between undergraduate and graduate programs which meant the template and the data supplied for programs’ self-studies likely needs revisiting.
- Requested each program send us the contact information for the person who would be responsible for submitting the completed template for each program. Distribution lists were created from this information.
-
Revised template slightly to include the following criteria for programs’ self-studies (See Appendix A for a copy of the template):
- Program Alignment with and Contribution to University Priorities
- Internal & External Demand
- Program Inputs
- Program Outcomes and Accomplishments
- Financials
- Developed and conducted training via MS Teams for program writers and/or department chairs to help them understand what was being asked for in response to the criteria above. The training was also taped and available for anyone who could not attend the meeting.
- Created an MS Team for program submissions and to facilitate access amongst committee members
- Divided program submissions among pairs of committee members for review. Each pair was from a different school and no one reviewed a program in which there could be a perceived conflict of interest or bias. Each pair reviewed programs independently and summarized strengths, challenges and opportunities for each criterion.
- Pairs also then provided a “summary of their summaries” as well as recommendations on the process to help the co-chairs write the final report for the task force.
- For the substantive findings in this report, co-chairs reviewed each team’s “summary of summaries,” their reviews of individual programs, and every program self-study. See IV for more details on these findings.
III. General Overview of the Findings
Programs’ self-studies addressed the five criteria listed earlier and organized in the following. This section summarizes general findings based on the Task Force’s evaluation of programs’ responses to each of these criteria.
Program alignment and contribution to University priorities: Generally, programs professed close alignment with the University’s Mission, Vision, and Values and outlined substantial contributions to its strategic plan goals, not surprisingly, most of all Goal #1—“To be a Great University at which to Learn.” Programs tend to be very student-centered, engaging students through a variety of high impact practices for student success inside and outside of the classroom. Moreover, stemming from their own particular expertise and strengths, programs also contributed to other goals, particularly Goal #2—“To be a University engaged with its Community.” For instance, besides the University providing an important pipeline of people who live, work, and serve in our local community and beyond, many programs engage in their own unique types of outreach into the community (e.g., Computer science students engaged in service learning projects for local organizations; Art hosting exhibitions and workshops by local and national artists; multiple programs providing internships for students to in the local community, enabling the students to develop valuable skills while helping these organizations). Programs also reported on their own immediate strategic plans and most had clearly identified and achievable concrete objectives.
Program demand: There are (at least) two ways to think about “demand”—internal and external. Internal demand can be framed from the perspective of the institution by asking about the institutional need for this program. Number of majors is a common metric for internal demand but another central question is, to what degree is your program interconnected with other institutional programs, whether that takes the form of contributions to the University’s General Education (Gen Ed) curriculum or program courses are recommended or required in some fashion by other programs (e.g., pre-requisite, co-requisite, etc.)? These academic interconnections might be the most obvious, but we also could ask: are there other ways your program serves other areas of the university, i.e., are there other institutional claims on the program’s resources or services?
Before examining programs’ demand-related data, it is necessary to discuss the larger enrollment picture at the university. Significantly, UG enrollment has dropped 5.6% between falls 2015 and 2019 (N=7,069 to 6,673), but it fell most sharply for incoming transfer students compared to entering freshmen (-22.2% vs. -5.7%). In absolute numbers, the biggest decline was between 2018 and 2019 (-384 students). Our evaluation of enrollment data did not include fall 2020 due to the highly unusual situation the world found itself in due to the pandemic (but, surprisingly [and unfortunately], we duplicated that loss again in fall 2020 [UG N=6,289]). It is too early to tell exactly what the impact of the past one and a half years will be on longer trends, but we know the trend for the traditional university-going age demographic is troubling.
Despite the university experiencing this overall UG enrollment drop, some programs actually increased their number of majors. The following numbers are based on data for UG student headcount by 1st and 2nd majors posted on our Institutional Research & Analysis site (IRA). Partly because this IRA report captures historical information, it does not match exactly the number of programs completing self-studies for this AMP review as there have been some changes recently in academic offerings (e.g., program creation, some programs have moved to be graduate only, etc.). It provides a good snapshot, however, and allowed us to import programs’ figures into an Excel table and calculate their respective change in headcount between falls 2015 and 2019. The table (See Appendix B) shows that 12 programs showed increases in the 2015-2019 time period. Another half-dozen held virtually steady, while the rest experienced some loss (N=28). We note that “undecided” increased by 13%. (Note: Technically, three other programs registered positive growth, but these were for programs that did not actually exist in 2015. We also call attention to the fact that number of majors, and practically all of the other quantitative metrics used in the AMP review, often exhibit a fair degree of variability year to year. For summary trends like these, we are simply comparing 2015 numbers to 2019. Moreover, we chose a Delta of +/- 5% as our threshold for categorizing whether majors increased, decreased, or stayed the same because it approximates the 5.6% drop in total UG enrollment noted above.)
Turning to other indicators of internal demand, many programs contribute significantly to the Gen Ed curriculum and/or provide service to other programs in the form of pre- or co-requisites and/or electives. Mostly, STEM, humanities, and social science majors are the biggest contributors in both ways. The traditional professional programs (e.g., business, education) are modest contributors to Gen Ed. Within some departments that offer multiple majors, their courses often are needed by more than one of them (e.g., School of Business departments, Earth Sciences, KSSPE).
The key question for external demand is: which programs do students seek? Recent reports provide a glimpse into what students might be looking for as they come to university and choose their majors. According to the 2019 Freshman Survey, done by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA, the five most popular intended general major fields were: biological sciences, business, health professions, engineering, and social science. However, it is important to keep in mind that when asked their intended specific major, the largest percentage chose “undecided” (7%—a small share in absolute terms, but there were nearly 100 options from which to choose). External demand might also be gleaned from employment projections for the fastest-growing occupations. A report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics lists what are projected to be the fastest growing occupations between 2019-2029 (those projected to grow 20% or more in this time period). Major areas include jobs related to alternative energy production; STEM and related occupations, including computer science-related jobs and various types of data analysis jobs; and health-related occupations. Of course, national projections may not always match more local labor markets, and it is true that several jobs predicted to grow do not require a four-year degree (e.g., home health aides, derrick operators). However, closer to home, here in New York, demand for K-12 teachers has been on the rise and is projected to continue through this decade, a development quite relevant for SUNY Brockport given the university’s strong history of teacher preparation.
Based on these data, which were made available to programs for their self-studies, many programs estimate moderate to strong demand in the near future. Some, like nursing and computer science/information systems, obviously tie directly to potential job growth in those areas, while others may link more indirectly (e.g., research and data analysis skills taught in our social science disciplines). While their direct connection to particular occupational fields may be less obvious, virtually all of our other programs tout important, general career-readiness skills (e.g., critical thinking, intercultural fluency, teamwork, and more). Some of these are “discovery” programs, attracting students once they get here and who then learn more about them through initial exposure (e.g., taking an introductory course). Such programs are particularly important for “undecideds,” not to mention those students who fail to get into one of our “gatekeeping” programs with strict admission requirements (e.g., Nursing, Social Work). If they simply choose to go elsewhere, then we have lost their tuition dollars.
Looking at admissions data is another way to address external demand, specifically, number of applications to programs. Here too, we look at trends in these numbers between falls 2016 and 2019. Based on a quick survey of the absolute changes in these numbers, we found that demand increased for 16 programs, held steady for approximately as many (18), and declined for a dozen.
Virtually all programs suggest ways they might generate more demand, be it through establishing majors, minors, concentrations, certificates, or other programmatic offerings. Some programs have suggested partnering with one another in the university to create interdisciplinary offerings (e.g., Anthropology and Criminal Justice partnering to create a Community Justice Major and initial efforts to create a minor in sustainability), while others have plans for establishing partnerships with other institutions (e.g., Physics negotiating with other universities to develop 3+2 programs in engineering). Moreover, many programs cite the need for university assistance in their promotion to potential students through better marketing.
Program inputs: Faculty/staff are thoroughly committed to the success of our students. Faculty are experts in their fields; nine-in-ten of our full-time tenured/tenure-track faculty have terminal degrees (2019-20 Key Performance Indicators). Program self-studies report extensive faculty-student engagement through a variety of practices in and outside of the classroom (e.g., mentoring, supervising internships, faculty-student collaboration in conducting research or fashioning creative projects). The extent and scope of faculty support for student success is impressive, but many programs called attention to the increasing difficulty of continuing such efforts in a climate of “doing more with less.” Indeed, it can exact a toll on staff as one program noted the emotional labor that comes with such intensive involvement, especially with marginalized student populations. It often involves more than just discussing coursework or academic advising, but, sometimes, life counseling.
While some programs stated they had adequate staffing for their programs, a majority seek new or simply replacement staffing, which, in part, programs argue could also help them develop new avenues for increasing demand. A rough count finds that almost two-fifths of the programs (N=19) explicitly noted they need more faculty for multiple reasons (e.g., fill vacancies due to recent or impending retirements and/or other faculty turnover, hire new faculty with particular expertise currently lacking could advance creating new opportunities for student demand). Programs’ review of the adequacy of their facilities follows a similar pattern. Some see no issue with available facilities or may have even experienced recent upgrades (e.g., planetarium upgrade for Physics), but several other programs have facilities needing improving/expanding (e.g., science lab space) or resources for other material needs, especially the sciences (e.g., lab supplies, equipment, maintenance) and performing arts (e.g., practice spaces, performance areas, and other support areas [costume and scene shops for Dance and Theater respectively]). Other reports noted that while their program-specific facilities/equipment were fine, the buildings that house them definitely are not (e.g., Cooper, Holmes, Tower, Tuttle), reflective of their 1960s-70s origins.
Regarding student input, again, in the interest of providing context, we first note university-wide patterns. Here though, student quality trends are more difficult to interpret because different indicators show different patterns. Our entering freshmen (regardless of admit status) came in with a high-“B” average (between 88 and 89) for each of the 2016-2019 cohorts, but their average class percentile rank has fallen slightly from 66 to 62. SAT scores (new exam) also essentially held steady for the 2017 to 2019 cohorts (1110 to 1105). Transfer GPA is also consistently just over 3.00 for the past four entering cohorts. Although we cannot state unequivocally that we are witnessing a decline in student preparation based on these data, self-studies often mentioned challenges due to students’ university-ready abilities (e.g., students are challenged in math “heavy” programs, writing abilities among journalism students to name just two examples).
Program outcomes and accomplishments: Although teaching is our faculty’s priority, it is clear that Brockport instructors are heavily invested in scholarship and creative activities and service to the university and beyond. Indeed, our faculty exemplify the teacher/scholar model in higher education. All departments reported data from our faculty activity recording system, and the scholarship/creative and service output is impressive. Many faculty have also received awards of various types. There is simply too much to summarize adequately here. Access to all data is available via Activity Insight.
Other program quality indicators are accreditation and student accomplishments. Fourteen of our programs are accredited, which, to the best of our knowledge, represents most of those which are eligible for accreditation. Programs also report significant student accomplishments. Here, too, there is too much to summarize but includes things like: co-authoring publications with faculty, presenting at conferences (e.g., NCUR), winning awards, artwork accepted by juried exhibits, and more.
Two traditional measures of student success are the 1st year retention of students and their graduation rates within 150% time. Our university monitors these outcomes for both our first-time and transfer students, but just those full-time in both cases. Once again, providing university-wide figures puts program-specific numbers in context. Among first-time, full-time students, retention has fallen slightly from 82% for the 2015 entering cohort compared to 74% for those starting in 2018 (again, we are not including fall 2020 figures for the reason previously stated). We have retained three-quarters of our full-time transfer students for each of the past four applicable cohorts (77% for the 2018 cohort). Turning to graduation rates within 150% of “expected time,” we have graduated two-thirds of our freshmen students in each of the past three cohorts for whom such a metric is applicable (66% within six years for the 2014 entering cohort). In turn, 60% of our transfer students graduated within 150% time (three years) in each of the past four applicable cohorts.
It is difficult to summarize program trends in retention and graduation rates for a number of reasons. First, because these calculations use the entering cohort size as the divisor, many programs’ Ns are too small to generate meaningful analyses. Second, like with program headcount mentioned earlier but even moreso, year-to-year variability in figures makes conclusions tentative at best. To illustrate with just one example chosen largely at random, here are the retention rates for Computer Science freshmen cohorts entering in falls 2015-2019: 85%, 91%, 72%, 64%, 79%. Finally, and possibly of most concern, these rates are currently calculated for the university, not the program. In other words, using retention as the example, the analysis is for students who came back to the university for year two, notwithstanding whether or not they are still in the same program. This begs the question of whether we are looking at truly program outcomes. With that said, and only looking at a few programs with large enough Ns, retention largely mirrors the university pattern (i.e., slight dip), while others’ retention is holding steady. Graduation rates exhibit similar patterns.
How do our students fare upon graduation from their programs? Data on our alumni show that virtually all who respond to our in-house First Destination Survey are “placed.” Typically, they go on to decent-paying jobs and/or continue their education in graduate school. Other data on graduates’ wages collected by SUNY show that, five years out from earning a BA/BS degree at Brockport, our alums’ median salary is $45.5K. Of course, there is some variability by program as majors may be more conducive to some particular occupational pathways than others, and market forces shape pay (e.g., computer science versus social service-type careers).
Program financials: Administration and Finance staff carried out initial financial analyses of programs’ revenues and expenses, resulting in the calculation of a summary ratio indicating whether the program was a net revenue generator, neutral, or was operating “at a loss.” This type of analysis is a complex nut to crack, and from the start there were confounding data issues. Most notably, the unit of analysis is not necessarily the program since budget and staffing are tied to the academic department in SUNY HR databases. Yet we have a few instances of one department offering two or more programs. That said, 22 of 31 departments (71%) for which data were available generated a surplus, three were cost neutral, and six showed losses according to these calculations.
We believe these financial analyses must be seen as only preliminary. Besides the fundamental “data” issue just noted, there are several other concerns in the methodology used that warrant serious caution in drawing conclusions on exactly what these analyses show. We return to this point towards the end of this report and offer some recommendations for going forward.
IV. Specific Overview of the Findings
We move now to provide a more specific review of programs’ responses to template criteria. We included additional prompts with each criterion to guide program responses. It would be extraordinarily difficult to summarize all of this material, not to mention it would make this report unnecessarily lengthy. Moreover, evaluation of some criteria is made more difficult because they were answered solely in narrative fashion, and there were no data to review. Hence, in the following, we concentrate on those template criteria for which we can offer more specific evaluation—Demand (both internal and external) and Program Inputs, specifically adequacy of staffing and facilities/equipment to meet program needs.
Demand
1. ENROLLMENT TRENDS
In terms of Internal Demand, Appendix B provides information on program enrollment trends from 2015 to 2019. As noted above, program enrollment trends may have fluctuated from one year to the next, but our analysis presents overall enrollment trends over the five year span. Below presents program trends, using categories from the same thresholds as mentioned in our general summary from earlier in this report.
CHANGE IN MAJOR HEADCOUNT (INCLUDES 1ST AND 2ND) BETWEEN FALLS 2015 AND 2019
Increased
- African and African American Studies
- Art
- Biology
- Chemistry
- Childhood Inclusive Education
- Earth Science
- English
- Interdisciplinary Arts for Children
- Political Science
- Nursing
- Physical Education-Teacher Education
- Sport Management
Held Relatively Steady
- Adolescent Education
- Geology
- Kinesiology
- Physics
- Psychology
- Theatre and Music Studies
Declined
- Accounting
- Anthropology
- Biochemistry
- Business Admin
- Communication
- Computer Information Systems
- Computer Science
- Criminal Justice
- Dance
- Environmental Science
- Exercise Science
- Finance
- French
- History
- International Studies
- Journalism and Broadcasting
- Lberal Studies
- Marketing
- Math
- Medical Technology
- Meteorology
- Philosophy
- Recreation and Leisure Studies
- Social Work
- Sociology
- Spanish
- Water Resources
- Women and Gender Studies
In some cases, programs were overenrolled and could not handle capacity so requirements were changed to manage numbers (e.g., Exercise Science). In another unique situation, students majored in Health Science with concentrations in Alcohol and Substance Abuse and Healthcare Administration, but the department split in 2015 to the new Healthcare Studies Department, and those in the concentration were never switched to majors so the numbers for both Alcohol and Substance Abuse and Healthcare Administration are not a true reflection of total majors. See Appendix C for accurate information on these majors. Other factors that have contributed to overall declines in enrollments can also be attributed to declines in community college enrollments and overall demographics of college age students.
New programs where comparison data is not applicable at this time include International Business & Economics.
Next, we present results from our examination of trends in applications to programs. Admittedly only a preliminary analysis, we looked at “change” in absolute terms here and used a change of over +/- 10 “apps” to indicate that demand for that program “increased” or “declined” respectively. (Note: Education programs are not included in this analysis because students cannot declare their interest in these programs as part of their initial application to the university.)
CHANGE IN APPLICATIONS BETWEEN FALLS 2016 AND 2019.
Increased
- Art
- Biology
- Business Admin
- Earth Science
- English
- History
- Interdisciplinary Arts for Children
- Journalism & Broadcasting
- Kinesiology
- Math
- Nursing
- Physical Education-Teacher Education
- Political Science
- Psychology
- Sociology
- Sport Management
Held Relatively Steady
- African & African-American Studies
- Anthropology
- Computer Information Systems
- Computer Science
- Criminal Justice
- Dance
- Finance
- French
- International Studies
- Marketing
- Philosophy
- Physics
- Public Health Education
- Recreation, Therapeutic Recreation, & Tourism
- Spanish
- Theatre and Music Studies
- Water Resources
- Women & Gender Studies
Declined
- Accounting
- Biochemistry
- Chemistry
- Communication
- Exercise Science
- Geology
- Health Science
- International Business
- Liberal Studies
- Medical Technology
- Meteorology
- Social Work
2. General Education
The following provides a snap shot of the extent to which programs contribute to the university’s General Education curriculum. Our analysis used the online course schedule from Fall of 2019 and focused on course prefixes. Not all programs have a distinguishing prefix, however, so the data is based on the prefix associated, in most cases, with departments. The tally is broken down into high, medium and low contributors to general education. The tally represents total number of sections offered to meet general education requirements, and the course may cover more than one general education requirement.
PROGRAM (DEPARTMENT) CONTRIBUTION TO GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM—FALL 2019.
High (10 or more classes)
- African and African American Studies
- Anthropology
- Art
- Biology
- Communication
- Dance
- English
- History
- Journalism and Broadcasting
- Math
- Philosophy
- Political Science
- Psychology
- Public Health and Health Education
- Sociology
- Spanish
- Theatre and Music Studies
- Women and Gender Studies
Medium (5-9 classes)
- Business
- Chemistry
- Earth Science
- Environmental Science
- French
- Geology
- Physics
- Social Work
Low (4 or less classes)
- Accounting
- Childhood/Adolescent Education
- Computer Information Systems
- Computer Science
- Criminal Justice
- Healthcare Studies
- Nursing
- KSSPE
- Recreation, Therapeutic Recreation, & Tourism
3. Service Courses
The following provides a listing of programs/majors that offer courses that support other majors or programs, known as Service Courses. The tally is broken down into high, medium and low service course contributors. The tally represents the number of programs served. The tally is only specific to majors not minors. Some departments also offer electives that support other majors or that are free electives that aid in students obtaining credits in order to graduate, however, those were not included in the tally either.
PROGRAM SERVICE TO OTHER PROGRAMS—FROM PROGRAM REPORTS.
High (4 or more programs)
- Biology
- Business
- Chemistry/Biochemistry
- Computer Information Systems
- Computer Science
- Healthcare Administration/Healthcare Studies
- International Business
- Math
- Physics
- Psychology
- Sociology
Medium (2-3 programs)
- Accounting
- Earth Science
- Finance
- French
- History
- Marketing
- Public Health & Health Education
- Spanish
Low (0-1 programs)
- Adolescent Inclusive Education
- African & African-American Studies
- Alcohol & Substance Abuse
- Anthropology
- Art
- Bachelors of Liberal Studies
- Childhood Education
- Communication
- Dance
- English
- Environmental Science
- Exercise Science
- Geology
- International Studies
- Kinesiology
- Medical Technology
- Meteorology
- Nursing
- Philosophy
- Physical Education-Teacher Education
- Political Science
- Recreation, Therapeutic Recreation, & Tourism
- Social Work
- Sport Management
- Theater & Music Studies
- Water Resources
- Women & Gender Studies
Program Inputs
1. STAFFING
Staffing needs are broken down into adequate and inadequate. Those programs that identified the need for one or more faculty or staff members are identified as inadequate. While most programs stressed concern over the cutting of adjuncts and/or the reassignment of some faculty to administrative roles across the university, only those programs that identified a specific need are included as inadequate.
Staffing Adequacy (from program reports).
Adequate
- Accounting
- African and African American Studies
- Alcohol and Substance Abuse
- Anthropology
- Bachelor’s in Liberal Studies
- Biology
- Chemistry/Biochemistry
- Computer Information Systems/Computer Science
- Earth Science
- Exercise Science
- Finance
- French
- Geology
- Healthcare Studies/Healthcare Administration
- History
- International Business
- International Studies
- Kinesiology
- Meteorology
- Nursing
- Physics
- Public Health-Health Education
- Recreation
- Therapeutic Recreation & Tourism
- Social Work
- Sociology
- Spanish
- Water Resources
Inadequate (need additional lines)
- Adolescent Education/Childhood (Special Education, Field Experience Office)
- Art
- Business
- Communication
- Criminal Justice
- Dance
- English (World Literature)
- Environmental Science
- Interdisciplinary Arts for Children
- Marketing
- Math
- Medical Technology
- Philosophy (Ethics)
- Physical Education-Teacher Education
- Political Science
- Psychology
- Sport Management
- Theatre & Music Studies
- Women & Gender Studies
2. Facilities
Facility needs are also broken down into adequate and inadequate. Those programs that identified any concerns related to office space, the learning environment for students (classrooms, students lounge, labs) or their main building (Cooper, Holmes, Tower, Tuttle) are categorized as “inadequate.”
ADEQUACY OF FACILITIES (FROM PROGRAM REPORTS).
Adequate
- Adolescent Education/Childhood
- African and African American Studies
- Bachelor’s in Liberal Studies
- Chemistry/Biochemistry
- Computer Information Systems/Computer Science
- Earth Science
- English
- Exercise Science
- French
- Geology
- Healthcare Studies/Healthcare Administration
- History
- Interdisciplinary Arts for Children
- International Studies
- Kinesiology
- Meteorology
- Nursing
- Philosophy
- Physics
- Political Science
- Public Health-Health Education
- Recreation, Therapeutic Recreation & Tourism
- Social Work
- Sociology
- Spanish
- Women & Gender Studies
Inadequate
- Accounting
- Alcohol & Substance Abuse
- Anthropology
- Art
- Biology
- Business
- Communication
- Criminal Justice
- Dance
- Environmental Science
- Finance
- International Business
- Marketing
- Math
- Medical Technology
- Physical Education-Teacher Education
- Psychology
- Social Work
- Sport Management
- Theatre & Music Studies
- Water Resources
V. Recommendations for Future AMP Process
In the course of our work, the committee identified several issues for consideration going forward with AMP processes:
- Identification of programs to be evaluated: There will need to be consensus on just what constitutes a program. The Committee strongly encourages evaluation of programs university-wide since, at least according to one definition from a leading authority on such work, a program “is any activity or collection of activities…that consumes resources (dollars, people, space, equipment, time)” (Dickeson, 2010, p. 56).
-
Financial analysis: Both task force members and self-studies raised a number of concerns, at least one of which was mentioned earlier in this report. Another serious limitation is that revenues were limited to tuition from the number of majors a program had, but only “1st” majors. “2nd” majors ought to be figured into the calculation too. While some adjustment was made for programs’ general “service” through their contributions to the University’s Gen Ed curriculum, a more thorough understanding of the methodology used is needed. Moreover, Gen Ed offerings are not the only “service” that programs provide. There is a fair degree of interdependency across programs since many majors need their students to take courses offered by other programs (e.g., as pre-requisites, co-requisites, or elective choices). Finally, other limitations included inaccurate data on staffing (e.g., more than a few departments saw faculty included in their expenses despite that person no longer being at the University, people having joint appointments) and the exclusion of grant money brought in as a part of a department’s revenues.
Ultimately, other methodologies need exploring to enhance this initial effort with the aim of producing the most valid financial analysis of academic programs possible. While tuition from majors is certainly one element to be included, a more robust methodology likely needs to consider revenue based on student credit hours. - Reporting fatigue: If the AMP process is to continue, we also strongly recommend some strategizing be done in an attempt to minimize the reporting burden on programs/departments. While they do have different purposes, there is considerable overlap between AMP and PPR reporting. Department annual reports may figure into this too.
- Data needs for AMP: There is need for additional data and some summary statistical calculations to aid the evaluation of programs. A partial list would include: comparison of number of incoming students declaring a particular major with number of degrees granted by same; trends in faculty/staff (Ns and FTE) and faculty/student ratios; instructional activity, including number of sections, seats, student credit hours (SCHs), SCHs by faculty FTE, class fill rates; data for Gen Ed contributions (some of the same just listed for instructional activity more generally); retention in program (pool data across years to build larger Ns for small programs); calculate trend figures such as percent change in number of majors between T1 & T2; calculate means/medians/standard deviations where applicable; provide contextual information where possible for comparison (e.g., similar to what was done in our discussion of the UG enrollment trend earlier in this report). Importantly, we also encourage senior leadership to give sustained thought to potential data needs so we/they have the most relevant information for this process.
- Timeline and staffing for AMP: After this initial review process, the Task Force’s plan is to review graduate programs and any other not in this first round (e.g., Delta College), but no specific targeted timeline has been set as of this writing. Relatedly, how often do programs get reviewed? Also, for the committee itself, it is not clear what term lengths would be for members. We recommend a kind of staggered membership so there are always some people familiar with the process on the committee in any given year.
- Training/orientation: This would include training for those doing self-studies and for new Program Review Task Force members, the former to help guide programs regarding what is being looked for and the latter to enhance inter-rater reliability.
VI. Conclusions
This report attempted to summarize a process that occurred over an extended period of time. The work was stalled for a variety of reasons and then was conducted over a very short period of time (one semester). 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 Co-Chairs of this committee would like to extend our sincere thanks to all those who took part in the training and subsequent development of their program reports as well as our committee members whose commitment to this process never wavered.