Small Group Discussion #2: Developing an Agreement

Winter Symposium 2011

Small Group Discussion #2: Developing An Agreement

(Recommendations shown in bold were included in more than one discussion group.)

1.  What 4-6 components do you suggest for inclusion in the campus community agreement?

Clearly stated vision and goals

·  A clear vision, strategic plan; what are the institutional priorities?

·  We need to engage in an exercise of priority-setting versus adding more to the plates

·  Admit that we can’t do everything and need to choose carefully where to focus

·  Agreement on values that drive priorities

Enhanced transparency and consistency

·  Clarity of decision making process/transparency

·  Budgetary transparency (see Budget and Revenue)

·  Definition of transparency that includes 1) clear explanation of the process being used for decision making 2) the responsibility of leader to respond to faculty who participate, and 3) a realistic description of the impact of people’s input

·  Transparency vs disclosure (understand limitation of transparency)

Enhanced communication

·  More communication and discussion of vision, goals, priorities; build understanding

·  Deans and chairs must clearly state their support for this process and all the elements of the solution; their decisions need to reflect their support

·  More small group discussions vs. forums

·  Build in real understanding of contribution of all groups on campus (adjunct, staff,

·  academic professors, fixed term, tenure, tenure track, etc) and look at the real costs of our decisions for all groups

·  Process for prioritizing desired goals or outcomes, especially with resource allocation, since we likely cant pursue all goals at once with equal fervor

·  Process for piloting procedures to understanding their feasibility, the challenges they present, (process for piloting efforts at student success, measuring faculty productivity across disciplines, etc)

·  Taking a more communitarian approach between academic professionals and faculty in supporting our goals

·  Faculty should have ultimate say in the curriculum of their courses

·  We all agree to utilize the already existing policies, procedure tools in place to achieve our mutually agreed upon goals of the university

·  Increased communication in University – eg. Faculty had no input on D2L

·  Administration must engage faculty early and often

·  Encourage communication among faculty – we don’t know what others are doing; provide faculty dining hall or lounge

·  Connect faculty from various disciplines on a personal level (outside of PSU etc) to create relationships that will cross over academics

Other commitments from the administration (in addition to vision, transparency and communication)

·  Use best practice from corporate world for work of dept chairs – administrative training for all chairs in data based decision making; budgeting; curriculum development; master schedule building; faculty development

·  Provost should be appointed the executive VP as a sign that PSU’s academic mission and strategies are of paramount importance and reflected in the organizational structure

·  Provost responsibly exercises oversight of deans and achieves accountability

·  Administration must address the tension that faculty feel re: competing demands

·  Mend broken promises to create trust again between admin & faculty. Show follow through (funding in particular)

·  Facilitate communication between schools to determine common goals, joint focus, split responsibilities and costs

·  Need innovation not just reactivity; change paradigm of doing more with less to managing tension between faculty, fixed term, and tenure

·  Attention to procedural matters and paperwork that can be eliminated in order to free up faculty and staff time

Commitment from the faculty and staff

·  PSU faculty should recognize they are part of the solution and assume responsibility

·  Faculty should participate when engaged by the administration

·  Faculty satisfaction survey to use as a baseline – establish a metric we can share

·  Faculty should take collective responsibility for addressing tension between teaching, scholarship & research priorities within their departments/schools

Commitment to student success

·  Growth should not come at the cost of academic quality

·  Ongoing monitoring of student success ex: data dashboard, easy access to student profiles or records

·  Research must focus on the link between faculty, staff and student retention

·  Faculty and staff recognize shared responsibility to achieve university enrollment goals in recruitment, retention, and student success

·  Commitment to quality – joint accountability and support of students

·  Make space available for student collaboration for meetings of students and tutoring or conferences

Budget & distribution

·  Make budget more responsive to success – eg. departments that achieve excellence in priority areas (ex. attract out of state students) should see an addition in their budget

·  Administration is transparent about criteria for allocations of savings/revenue

·  Share incentives including indirect cost for shared benefit

·  A budget that is transparent for progressing toward common goals

·  The funding environment causes departments to be reactionary; a stable fiscal environment would achieve goals

·  Rational budget process/timeline based on state/university timelines

·  Solicit faculty input on how additional resources are spent

·  We need a transparent, revenue-driven budget model that works versus an expenditure-driven model with little relationship to goals

·  High-productivity units should continue to receive resources to be sustainable (vs throwing money at next new thing)

·  Consider distribution of resources based on a model of multi-faceted high productivity, high profile and minimum performance standards

·  Identify next marginal revenue à identify it, make best use of it

Awards based on fair assessments

·  Departments should benefit from productivity (scholarships or grants) develop standards

·  Faculty incentives must be allocated at the program level

·  Provide special acknowledgement of work

·  Exemplary service awards or simple ways of showing thanks; increase efforts in supporting and recognizing staff (not just faculty)

·  Evaluation of faculty inconsistent across campus – more rewards/acknowledgements of effective teaching

·  Student evaluation of instructors

·  Peer observation

·  Teaching portfolios as part of P&T

·  Showcase effective teaching

·  Support for scholarship of teaching

·  Link teacher evaluation criteria to university vision – eg GSE “conceptual framework”

·  Honor, leverage, and be creative about the differential talents of faculty, maybe increase quality & productivity

·  Rubric for assessment from faculty and student standpoint

2.  What campus community groups should be represented on a work group charged with drafting an agreement?

(Recommendations shown in bold were included in more than one discussion group.)

-  Faculty from each college

-  OIRP

-  AAUP, AFT, SEIU

-  Dept/Div/School/Chairs & Deans

-  Support staff that work on the front lines in dealing with students on a daily basis

-  OAA

-  Faculty Senate

-  Students/Student leaders (grad & undergraduate)

-  Local community & outside partners

-  OAA

-  OIA

-  XS

-  Administration

-  FADM

-  PSU foundation volunteers

-  OIT

-  Writing Center

-  CAE

-  University Studies

-  Faculty Senate Steering Committee

-  Alumni

-  Diversity Action Council

-  OSA

-  SHAC

-  DRC