Can you answer these questions?

1. Can you answer these questions? Can you describe in 100 words or less your vision of the ideal academic experience? What do you think needs to be done here at SUNY Oneonta to create the ideal academic environment you describe above? If you could strengthen just one aspect of the Oneonta academic experience what would it be and what would you do?

2. Academic Master Plan, Phase II Kick-Off Meeting, September 20, 2013 A discussion of where we have been and where we are going

3. The Academic Master Plan Timeline…so far • August 2011 Provost Thompson introduced the idea of an Academic Master Plan that: • Invited faculty involvement in its development • Reflected compatibility with College and SUNY Strategic Plans • Supported teaching, learning and scholarship • Supported departmental planning • Identified areas for research and multi-disciplinary study • Was useful: As an internal tool for academic planning and as an external tool for fundraising and building partnerships

4. …2011/2012… • The 13 elected and appointed task force members convened, co-chaired by John Schaumloffel, Associate Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry and William Proulx, Associate Professor of Nutrition and Dietetics. • Initial conversations explored the purposes of such a plan and the potential challenges and obstacles of the project • Development of the AMP was presented to the task force as a three-step process: Phase I – assess the values and academic culture of the college, define core values • Phase II – define specific action items and plans to help foster and develop these core values • Phase III – evaluate the impact and value of these initiatives • The Provost and administration were not direct participants in Phase I, this was envisioned as a “faculty-owned” process

5. 2012 • The task force designed an open response survey to assess campus beliefs about academic values. Members visited with offices and departments within Academic Affairs and began a dialogue about the role and potential uses of an Academic Master Plan, and the current concerns and aspirations of our faculty, staff and students. • Documents, including survey responses and goal statements gathered from academic departments, were evaluated using qualitative data analysis software to isolate keywords and ideas that were used consistently.

6. …in December 2012… • After a year of meetings, discussions, surveys, forums and data analysis, the task force chairs presented a final report to the Provost recapping the broad content of the data and describing the process. • They also presented a statement to the College Senate which was endorsed as a potential Mission Statement for the Division of Academic Affairs: The Division of Academic Affairs advances rigorous teaching, learning and scholarship in a student-focused environment by embracing experiential learning, engagement and collegiality within a diverse liberal arts tradition.

7. …by the spring of 2013 • The final report to the Provost was submitted and Phase I had come to a close – other activities, including all five Dean searches, dominated much of the spring and planning for Phase II was postponed. During this period some recommendations emerged from participants in Phase I: • Directly involve administrators in the discussion who are capable of dedicating resources to new initiatives • Expedite the process so that an Academic Master Plan can have influence during the development of the next Strategic Plan for the college, due in 2015.

8. Process remains a magnet for healthy debate • Why do we need it? What is this Academic Master Plan intended to demonstrate? How can it be misused or misrepresented? Why didn’t this happen before re-structuring? How open and democratic will decision-making ultimately be? Who is going to lose resources and gain resources? Who is behind this nefarious plot? Is this just about selling the college or raising money? How does any of this promote teaching, learning or scholarship? • WHY SHOULD I CARE ABOUT ANY OF THIS?

9. Provost’s discussion of summer developments between Phases I & II • The recommended Mission Statement from phase I defined five areas of development for the improvement and sustenance of the division of Academic Affairs. • As a starting point for Phase II these areas will be the focus of working groups charged with recommending initiatives in each area and presenting action plans for pursuing those initiatives. • To ensure that these working groups have enough influence and information to complete these tasks, each group will be chaired by a dean. Direct dialogue and administrative investment in the efforts of each working group will be critical to the success of this process.

10. Dean’s recommendations

11. Mission Statement comparison

12. Time to make choices • The Academic Master Plan task force can not travel back in time to meet the May 2013 deadline originally proposed for completing Phase II. • We can, realistically, present actionable recommendations to the college community and leadership by the close of this academic year. • Since Phase III is intended as a period of evaluation, it would be ideal if the college was prepared to enact initiatives developed for the Academic Master Plan by the summer of 2014. • Initiatives undertaken as part of the AMP would already be under way when work on the new Strategic Plan begins and could potentially be reinforced and developed

13. Questions to help shape the Academic Master Plan, revisited What steps should we take to strengthen our academic culture and community? How do we strengthen and support our academic culture and community in the face of decreasing state appropriated funding? How can we provide a high quality educational experience while controlling costs? What is the optimum balance of teaching, service and scholarship for the academic culture and community we desire to foster? What experiential learning activities are best for the type of academic culture and community we desire to foster? How should we respond to external factors that potentially impact our academic culture and community including: • economic trends? • market trends? • demographic trends? • technology trends? • competition from other colleges?

14. Planned working groups for Phase II

15. Task Force Steering Committee • Andrew Kahl, Associate Professor of Theatre, Co-chair • Patricia Francis, Associate Provost for Institutional Assessment and Effectiveness, Co-Chair • Dr. Maria Thompson, Provost (ex officio) • Five appointed/elected Senate representatives (each assigned to one working group) • Deans (each dean will also appoint a co-chair within each working group)

16. Proposed structure for Phase II

17. Working group membership • Self-nomination to participate in working groups will be open to all member of the division of Academic Affairs. • Preferences to work with particular groups will be observed with some concessions to balancing membership across all five groups. (Self nomination details will be announced soon)

18. Goals for the coming year • Get ahead of the strategic plan • High gear for real work in these five areas

19. Task force membership • Steering committee structure • Appointees • Elected or appointed representatives from the Senate • Voluntary membership in task force workgroups – volunteer for particular groups with priority choices for principal areas of interest

20. Get involved • During the coming weeks, while steering committee and working group members are being selected, preliminary schedules, work group deadlines, meeting times and procedures will be developed. • Now is the time to make your voice heard. The Academic Master Plan should be in place before a new Strategic Plan is drafted for the college. • Action plans from each work group will take shape over the coming year. If you want to influence the direction of this division and this college please be ready to join one of the groups.