Master Academic Planning

1. Master Academic Planning Fall Semester 2016

3. Pre-Plan: Need & “Givens” Need – Set our own course and put learning at the center of all university activities Givens • Financially sustainable programming • Global / international expansion • Creation of distinctiveness • Tie academic planning to USFSP Strategic Plan

4. Pre-Plan • Beliefs • Vision • Mission • Values • Priority Areas

5. Pre-Plan • Goal areas ≤ 5 • Actions • Grow / Sustain / Revise (or create) • Resources

6. 5 Phases I - Introduction of process & indicators w/ feedback Completed by September 30, 2016 II - Review of existing programs, SWOT-Wish & summaries to Deans Completed by November 15, 2016 III - Program category decisions, planning & summaries to Deans Completed by TBD IV - Master Academic Plan - First Draft Completed by TBD V - Master Academic Plan – Final Version Completed by TBD

7. Phase I:Review of Program IndicatorsCompleted by 09/30/16 • Deans will facilitate process • All information is open and will be posted in Canvas • Program and College meetings needed • Campus updates and forums scheduled

8. Phase I:Review of Program IndicatorsCompleted by 09/30/16 • Use indicators to help assess current majors • Quantitative and qualitative indicators draft • Point system created later for each indicator with weights for those connected to performance funding • Feedback on indicators due 09/30/16

9. Proposed Quantitative Indicators Undergraduate Programs • Student/Faculty FTE Ratio • FTIC Retention (Fall to Fall) • Transfer Retention (Fall to Fall) • Enrollment Growth Trend – past 3 years by SCH • 4 & 6 Yr Graduation rate (FTICs) • 2 & 4 Yr Graduation rate (Tnfr) • % of BA/BS graduates w/o excess hours • Enrollment growth in underrepresented populations (African American & Hispanic) over 3 years

10. Proposed Qualitative Indicators - Undergraduate Programs Self Assessment Area 1 Level of faculty engagement with students outside of class Number of external partnerships International / global activities & connections Faculty release time Faculty credentials & recognition among national peers Quality Matters implementation for online courses Self Assessment Area 2 Currency of program review Currency of accreditation (including USFSP SACS-COC efforts) Currency of student assessments Self Assessment Area 3 Mission essentiality (alignment with USFSP Strategic Plan)

11. Proposed Quantitative Indicators Graduate Programs • Student/Faculty FTE Ratio • SCH generation over past 3 years • Graduate completion rate by program • 3 years • 4 years • 5 years • % enrollment growth of underrepresented populations (African American & Hispanic) over 3 years

12. Proposed Qualitative Indicators - Graduate Programs Self Assessment Area 1 Placement of graduates Quality Matters implementation for online courses International / global activities & connections Faculty credentials & recognition among national peers Self Assessment Area 2 Currency of program review Currency of accreditation (including USFSP SACSCOC efforts) Currency of student assessments Self Assessment Area 3 Mission essentiality (alignment with USFSP Strategic Plan) Level of interdisciplinarity course contribution to other programs consortial/ cooperative program multiple pathways / options for students

13. Phase II: Department Review of Existing Programs/ SWOT-Wish Completed by November 15, 2016 • After Phase I – All quantitative indicators and current data will be shared • As a department, consider qualitative indicators • Confer with colleagues to draft SWOT – Wish List • Consider everything, exclude nothing • All ideas should be considered • Generate best thoughts

16. Phase II: Department Review of Existing Programs/ SWOT-Wish Completed by November 15, 2016 • Confer with colleagues to complete a SWOT-Wish Summary. • What does your program do to… • maintain strengths • deal with weaknesses • handle threats • capitalize on opportunities • realize wishes • Completed by 11/15/16

17. Phase III: Department / ProgramsDecision MakingCompleted by December 16 • Use data from the program indicators and SWOT-Wish analysis to categorize each program: • Grow • Sustain • Revise / Create • See sheet 4: Areas for Consideration when Planning

18. Phase III: Department / ProgramsDecision MakingCompleted by December 16 • As a general rule, programs that are below the average expectation on the majority of indicators should be considered for revision. There may be cases that do not conform to this. What are those? • Plans for programs to grow, revise or create new should be submitted to Deans by December 16, 2016. • On January 6, the Dean’s Council will meet to review all program information and develop a final program plan draft.

19. Phase IV: Master Academic Plan – First DraftCompleted by mid-January 2017 • Dean’s Council will review all information and begin to draft the Master Academic Plan • Continual vetting/feedback/revision • All-Faculty forum on January 13 will focus on MAP goals and distinctiveness • MAP forum on January 17 will focus on MAP revised draft • Comment period through January 31, 2017 • Faculty Senate • Canvas site & surveys • Dean Council Members (verbal or email) • Campus Forums • Directly to Deans or Provost

20. Phase V: Master Academic Plan – Final VersionCompleted by February 28, 2017 The Deans’ Council will be responsible for: • Revisions • Timeline • Work plan, with assignments An electronic copy of the MAP will be made available by February 28, 2017. The Master Academic Plan will be continuously assessed, evaluated, and revised as needed.

21. Critical Plan Elements • Consensus sought during entire planning process • All information posted and shared • Draft builds upon all feedback/information from meetings/forums/planning sessions, and from open calls for comments • Two majors per college can move forward ASAP and not wait until plan draft • One 80/20 program per college as a pilot may be proposed ASAP now and not wait until plan draft