The Revised Education Plan

September 2001

CP21 – Carrying out the Vision

In November 1998, the President and President’s Cabinet presented to the Board of Trustees a Comprehensive Plan for the 21^st Century (CP21) comprised of four planning streams:  Education, Endowment, Enrollment, and Facilities.  This plan was the result of a year and a half of conversation among all segments of the campus community, fully reviewed and approved by the President’s Cabinet before its submission to the Board of Trustees.  At this meeting the Board of Trustees unanimously endorsed the Plan and since that time CP21 has been the guiding strategic document for the University. CP21 is animated by this vision:

Seattle Pacific University seeks to be a premier Christian university fully committed to engaging the culture and changing the world by graduating people of competence and character, becoming people of wisdom, and modeling grace-filled community.

This vision continues to be enthusiastically supported by the Board of Trustees, administration, faculty, and alumni.  Three years after the plan was adopted, each plan has gone through extensive assessment and change.  Under the leadership of the Interim Chief Academic Officer, a committee of faculty governance leaders, academic deans, dean of student life, and key academic staff reviewed the achievements of the Education Plan (see page 8 for names and titles of committee members) and submit it now for approval by the President’s Cabinet.

Revising the Education Plan

Seattle Pacific University’s educational mission is to achieve a strong, focused academic core by aligning the academic program with the vision.

This committee’s review of the eight initiatives of the 1998 education plan revealed demonstrable achievements and helped to guide the revision of the plan that follows.  Increased enrollment and improved persistence among students are evidence that current educational programs are strong.  That strength derives in part from the accomplishments in meeting the goals of the eight initiatives of the Education Plan.  Yet these increases have also strained the material and human resources needed to sustain existing programs.

Therefore, the revised statement of initiatives to guide our planning and budget decisions in the next several years includes initiatives that reaffirm the central significance of current thriving educational programs.  While recognizing they are interdependent, we have placed priority on faculty development and Racial/Ethnic diversity. Most of the other initiatives are dependent on a faculty that is motivated and encouraged by a quality faculty development program. We assume that the goals in every initiative are achievable over the course of five years as part of the yearly budget planning cycle.  Two other assumptions guide our statement of goals:  (1) initiatives not specifically directed to particular programs are understood to include undergraduate and graduate programs; (2) the specific goals for each initiative reflect our judgment about the most significant needs.

A draft of the revised plan (as well as a review of accomplishments of the original plan) was presented to Faculty Senate at its May 3 meeting.  Faculty were invited to respond in writing at the meeting and on the faculty Internet discussion line the following day follows. .  Their responses were incorporated by the committee into subsequent revisions of the plan that

Implementing the Education Plan

In the fall of 2001, the President and the President’s Cabinet developed a plan to implement CP21. The work of Robert Zemsky at the Wharton School of Business and the Institute for Research in Higher Education became essential for this implementation plan. It became clear that in order to achieve the vision of CP21 we must strive to become a premiere national Christian University. This implementation plan did not change any of the initiatives of the Education Plan but did lead to several clarifications. These are as follows:

1. To implement the plan we must focus on all sources of revenue and seek to maximize these sources.
2. We must focus on outcomes assessment in all programs in order to align all programs with the vision and to assure quality.
3. We must focus on key indicators of success as identified in the Zemsky market segment research. In particular we must focus on graduation rates and other measures of academic quality.

The Revised Plan

1.  Faculty and Staff Development

Short-term Benchmarks (1 to 2 years)

• The President and VPAA will complete a review of structural and administrative options in order to establish a Center for Scholarship to coordinate all campus faculty development efforts.
• Two days of required faculty in-service programs focused on the improvement of instruction will be scheduled each academic year.
• The VPAA will provide support for individual faculty development needs identified in the post-tenure review process.
• The VPAA will implement a mentoring program for new faculty that builds upon the strengths of the New Faculty Seminar.
• The VPAA and Faculty Affairs Committee will revise guidelines for Faculty Research Grants and Academic Renewal Grants to align projects with the vision of engaging the culture.
• Funding for Faculty Research Grants will be increased by 25% each year for the next two years. 
• Funding for Academic Renewal Grants for curricular and instructional enrichment will be increased by 25% each year for the next two years.
• The Office of the VPAA will review faculty workload related to the various faculty review processes (third-year; tenure; promotion/rank/level; post-tenure) to determine impact on faculty workload.
• The Instructional Development Committee and academic deans will identify faculty IT needs for additional hardware, software, and training.
• We will continue to pursue funding for the Center for Scholarship and Faculty Development which includes funding for endowed chairs, visiting scholars and programs in scholarship and faculty development.
•  

Long-term Benchmarks (3 to 5 years)

• The academic deans and faculty affairs committee will review the effectiveness of post-tenure review practice and policies.
• The VPAA will review the effectiveness of the new-faculty mentoring program.
• We will provide full funding for faculty sabbaticals.
• We will improve the faculty housing assistance program.
• The university will provide development opportunities for staff whose functions relate to academic programs.

2.  Racial/Ethnic Diversity

Short-term Benchmarks (1 to 2 years)

• The VPAA and AVPSL will establish a process for identifying and assessing campus climate and majority student attitudes and minority student concerns.
• Various departments and programs (Campus Ministries, Student Life, School of Theology) will increase relationships and interactions with minority churches and other community organizations as a means for improving climate and increasing enrollment.
• Each department will review its curriculum and identify areas in which they can address racial/ethnic concerns.
• We will commit a faculty in-service to addressing racial/ethnic concerns

Long-term Benchmarks (3 to 5 years)

• We will implement strategies to make the campus more welcoming for racial/ethnic diversity.

• We will seek to increase number of ethnic students but set realistic enrollment goals based on a demographic analysis of those regions from which SPU students are drawn.  (See enrollment plan for specific numbers.)
• We will seek to increase the number of international students.  (See enrollment plan for specific numbers.)
• We will seek to increase the number of faculty representing racial minority groups.

3.  Undergraduate Education in the Liberal Arts and Professions

Short-term Benchmarks (1-2 years)

• The Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs (AVPAA) will be given oversight of assessment for all campus educational programs and responsibility for coordinating existing assessment efforts. The goal of this effort is to ensure that all programs are aligned with the vision of the University.
• Each program and department will systematize its assessment by measuring outcomes with a variety of assessment instruments, analyzing the data and making changes to the program, and assessing effect of the changes in achieving program goals.
• Departments and programs will receive information from campus-wide assessment instrument pertinent to their program (e.g., NSEE) as part of their assessment process.
• Results of assessments of the common curriculum will be used to revise particular courses.
• The academic deans and Associate VPAA will devise and implement a formula for determining staffing of the common curriculum from Schools and departments.
• The AVPAA will monitor the number of general education courses taught by adjunct faculty and work with department chairs to ensure the number of courses taught by adjunct faculty does not exceed 25%.

• Academic deans will review class sizes in their programs and identify pedagogically sound and cost effective course limits.
• Student Academic Services will analyze records of students who took more than four years to graduate; based on this analysis, departments will alter course schedules if data indicates lack of required courses was a significant factor in delaying completion.
• Structural relationships among Office of Academic Affairs, Office of Student Life, and Office of Campus Ministries will be clarified and redesigned in order to further integrate curricular and co-curricular programs, especially as they relate to meeting the goals of graduating students of character.

Long-term Benchmarks (3-5 years)

• Every undergraduate program (curricular and co-curricular) will include goals specifically related to the institutional vision.
• We will redesign the B.A. recipient survey to include measures of student competence and character.
• Directors of co-curricular programs will review data from the B.A. recipient survey to assess the impact of programs on students’ development of competence and character.
• Departments will review and update their mission, goals, and objectives every five years as part of their on-going assessment plan and the UPEC review cycle.  The VPAA will approve this information and incorporate it into President’s Cabinet assessment of CP21.
• Faculty will identify courses in which aspects of character formation may be incorporated into the objectives.

4.  Graduate Education

Short-term Benchmarks (1-2 years)

• All graduate programs will use data from assessment to review the degree to which the institutional vision is incorporated into program outcomes.
• We will standardize marketing, admissions, and academic policies in graduate programs.
• We will review current administrative and governance structures for graduate programs in order to find the most effective organization for assuring the quality and success of all graduate programs.
• Programs with licensure/certification examinations will use them as a means of assessment to change and strengthen programs.
• The Marriage and Family Therapy program will achieve final AAMFT accreditation.

Long-term Benchmarks (3 to 5 years)

• We will develop new programs based on our core competencies to implement the University’s vision to reach new audiences.
• The Ph.D. program in Psychology will receive APA accreditation.
• The School of Theology will present proposals for initiating post-baccalaureate and graduate training programs.
• Programs with secondary accreditation will follow assessment strategies prescribed by secondary accrediting organizations.

5.  Learning Resources

Short-term Benchmarks (1-2 years)

• The University Librarian and department chairs or program directors will review the resource allocation plan for achieving adequate holdings in strategic programs, including establishment of appropriate benchmarks and reallocation of resources where necessary to meet minimum standards.

• The Library will maintain a program for software upgrades for existing computer laboratories (e.g., EE, CS, FCS, ISM, SBE, Digital Art, Music).

Long-term Benchmarks (3-5 years)

• The Center for Learning will review needs of ESL students and formulate appropriate bridge programs to ensure student success.
• The Library will provide equipment for student production of educational materials.

6.  Non-Traditional Undergraduate and Non-Degree Programs

Short-term Benchmarks (1-2 years)

• The academic deans will continue their review of current administrative structures for evening/weekend programs and identify and implement changes that will ensure program quality.

• The CAS Dean will incorporate the Professional Studies degree program into the regular departmental and faculty structure.

• The academic deans and other campus service departments will continue to enhance services for non-traditional evening and weekend students.

Long-term Benchmarks (3-5 years)

• The University will recruit, develop, and retain faculty for non-traditional degree programs.
• SBE will develop an evening business administration degree program.
• The University will identify mission-centered and market-smart non-degree opportunities and conduct a thorough market analysis to use research and development funds strategically.

7.  Science and Arts

Short-term Benchmarks (1-2 years)

• We will provide increased staffing for laboratory and computer sciences (faculty, lab assistants).
• We will refurbish rehearsal space (CMB 211) for vocal and instrumental performing groups.

• We will seek grants to support a fund for students engaged in undergraduate research.

Long-term Benchmarks (3-5)

• We will seek grants to support a fund for students engaged in undergraduate research.
• We will complete projects for a new science building and a refurbished Miller Science Learning Center.
• The Casey and Blakely Island campuses will see increased use for diverse educational programs.

8. Global and Urban Education

Short-term Benchmarks (1-2 years)

• Various University departments will continue to develop relationships with Seattle community organizations to serve urban needs.
• We will increase global and urban educational opportunities for students through curricular and co-curricular programs.
• The academic deans and faculty will establish goals for increasing percent of students involved in global and urban educational programs for the next five years.
• We will monitor the effectiveness of the recently developed process for approving and funding off-campus programs for SPU credit that involve international study.

Long-term Benchmarks (3-5 years)

• We will establish additional partnerships with international educational organizations to provide opportunities for student participation in global venues.

The Eight Initiatives of the 1998 Education Plan:  What Has Been Accomplished

1.  The SPU Distinctives Initiative:  Common Curriculum and University Scholars

• Significant progress with all common curriculum courses implemented
• University Scholars program assessed and significant program changes effected
• Initial staffing projections included in the Plan were based on freshman class enrollment for 1995; increased enrollment by 200 freshman students per year requires additional faculty resources to meet the commitment that adjuncts do not teach in these programs

2.  The Spiritual Formation Initiative:  Uniting Knowledge and Vital Piety

• Significant progress with a Dean of the Chapel in place
• Significant revision of the Christian Faith Exploration Program
• Some progress in integrating curricular with co-curricular programs, but more needs to be done

3.  The Science and Arts Initiative:  Creation and Creating

• Significant progress as construction for a new science building begins
• Significant progress in the design of a performing arts/chapel space
• Continues as a significant priority (see below)

4.  The Cross Cultural Initiative:  Learning to be Neighbors

• Requires further elaboration and articulation
• Encompasses two separate initiatives to be separated in revised plan
• Receipt of a one million dollar gift for scholarships and programming for racial and ethnic students.

5.  The Graduate and Professional Studies Initiative:  Providing Tomorrow’s

     Leaders

• Requires clearer definition
• Encompasses two separate initiatives to be separated in revised plan

6.  The Learning and Technology Initiative:  Basic Building Blocks

• Alternative model for coordinating campus technology programs substituted for Director of Educational Technology
• Program for regular training of faculty instituted
• Graphics designer hired to help develop online course materials
• Equipment and computer upgrades for Learning Center institutionalized
• Student technology fee instituted with funds dedicated to technology improvements related to learning
• New initiatives flow from these accomplishments

7.  The Faculty and Staff Development Initiative:  The Scholarship of Wisdom

• Initial steps undertaken
• New Faculty Seminar program fully implemented and institutionalized
• Some stated goals yet to be achieved

8.  The Collaborative Learning Initiative:  Working Together for Change

• Significant progress in appointment of Dean of Student Life and structural link with Provost’s Office
• Leadership minor developed that links student life and academic programming.
• Separation of Office of Campus Ministries and Office of Student Life has modified goals for this initiative.

Education Plan Review Committee Members

Joyce Quiring Erickson, Interim Chief Academic Officer and Dean, College of Arts and Sciences, Chair

Ruth Adams, University Registrar

Tom Amorose, Director, Campus Writing Programs

Nathan Brown, Dean, School of Psychology, Family, and Community

Kevin Bolding, Assistant Professor of Engineering

Kathleen Braden, Dean of Student Life

Douglas Downing, Chair, Undergraduate Policies and Evaluation Committee (UPEC)

Gary Fick, Chair, Faculty Council and Senate

Alec Hill, Dean, School of Business and Economics

Lucille Kelley, Dean, School of Health Sciences

Mark Pitts, Dean, School of Education

Cindy Price, Director of General Education and Faculty Advising

Micheal Roe, Professor of Psychology

William Rowley, Chair, Graduate Policies and Evaluation Committee (GPEC)

Les Steele, Dean, School of Theology

Thomas Trzyna, Associate Provost; Accreditation Liaison Officer

Linda Wagner, Director, Center for Learning