BUILDING ON EXCELLENCE
West Chester University Strategic Plan
Strategic Plan Assessment and Advocacy Committee
Phase 1, Year 2 Full Report
2014-2015
SPAAC Phase 1, Year 2 Building on Excellence Assessment
AY 14-15
Introduction: Charge to the Committee
The Strategic Plan for West Chester University, Building on Excellence, was completed in the summer of 2013. The Strategic Plan Assessment and Advocacy Committee (SPAAC) was assembled during the fall semester of 2013 and was formally charged with duties on October 31, 2013. These duties included using designated technology to assess progress toward the plan, reaching out to the University Community and Cabinet to obtain information that could assist in advancing progress, developing and submitting to the President and Cabinet an annual report, sharing an executive summary of their report with the University and consulting with Divisions and units to identify their additional objectives and outcome measures to be pursued in the upcoming year.
In May of 2014, SPAAC presented to Cabinet a Phase 1, Year 1 report. Through the summer of 2014 into the early Fall 2014 semester, presentations were also given to the Council Of Trustees, President’s Council, and some Divisional retreats. The Report was also posted on the strategic planning website for public view.
Committee Membership and Structure
SPAAC is comprised of 13 members who serve the five Themes of the Strategic Plan:
Co-Chairs: Mary Braz and Peter Loedel
Academics: Jen Bacon, Nicole Cattano and Jack Weber (Co-chair Liaison Peter Loedel)
Enrichment: Kim Slattery and Susan Visoskas (Co-chair Liaison Mary Braz)
Sustainability: Bernadette Hinkle and Scott Sherman (Co-chair Liaison Peter Loedel)
Diversity: Tim Brown and Eli DeHope (Co-chair Liaison Mary Braz)
Engagement: Melissa Rudolph and Ray Zetts (Co-chair Liaison Mary Braz)
Two members left the committee and two new members (Kim Slattery and Susan Visoskas) were assigned toward the end of the academic year. SPAAC’s Cabinet Liaison, Mr. Larry Dowdy, retired at the end of December and the new Executive Assistant, Dr. John Villella, took over as a replacement. Undergraduate students were never assigned; with only several SPAAC meetings held in the school year, the lack of student participation was not a major factor in our work. Moving forward into Year 3, it is imperative that we have student representation on the committee.
Technical and Reporting Processes: An Update from Year 1
TracDat was continued from Year 1 as the designated system for reporting progress toward the completion of outcome measures. The Reporting Team entered the objectives and outcome measures for Phase 1, year 2 of Building on Excellence in the system and assigned them to outcome leaders. The reporting site data fields included an outcome action update, progress toward completion, notes, attached documents, continuation of the outcome into next year, resources allotted support advancing the outcome, and how the resources were spent. The management of this process has continued under the adept leadership of Scott Heinerichs and Laurie Bernotsky. Many of the technical glitches that occurred previously have been eliminated.
One of the challenges noted in the Year 1 report was that there were considerable up front challenges on the technical side as well as in the comfort level and understanding of individuals who were reporting outcome updates. We noted last year (p. 2) that “Year 2 reporting processes should be more streamlined because users are beginning the year with knowledge of the reporting site, understanding of their associated measures, and awareness of reporting structures.” In Year 2, individuals required to input outcome updates (in some cases, outcome leaders; in some cases, outcome supporters) had familiarity with the process from Year 1. Additional fields and clarifications were added to provide SPAAC with supplementary pieces of information and data. In addition, the centralized process and alignment of planning goals, as recommended by SPAAC in Year 1, led to a much more focused and streamlined process of review, assessment, and reporting. Many outcome leaders understood up front what measures and objectives they would be accountable for in terms of reporting. Some problems persisted with the reporting system, with missing or unassigned outcomes, but overall the reporting system continues to function well.
Additional recommendations from SPAAC to further operationalize and streamline objectives were closely followed by the theme teams over the Summer/Fall 2014 period. This process was coordinated with the theme teams and leadership by Laurie Bernotsky and Scott Heinerichs. Outcomes were refined, added, moved to different years, some were removed as they had been completed, and some were no longer relevant. Updating the outcomes was handled through varying approaches across the Theme Teams. Some processes (and theme teams) were more deliberative and engaged while others were managed differently depending on the Vice President in charge.
Overall, SPAAC would suggest that the overall record of implementation in Year 2 of the five themes, objectives, and specific outcomes advanced considerably and with notable successes. Many objectives are completed or in the mid- or later stages of completion. These accomplishments have continued to push the university forward on a number of fronts such as the growth of distance education, graduate student growth and program development (examples include professional doctorate programs in Nursing and Public Administration), internationalization, engagement with the campus and local/regional community, continued development of the university’s building infrastructure, environmental goals advanced via the geothermal project, General Education reform progressing, and assessment and accreditation program and planning monitored and managed closely. This is not an exhaustive list, but one that suggests a university strongly moving in the right direction.
However, with the successes, a number of serious challenges emanated including the ability to manage and serve effectively the large and projected growth in student enrollment and faculty growth. These challenges include developing a supportive infrastructure from parking and office/classroom space to keep pace with said growth, close monitoring of off campus sites such as services to students at the Philadelphia site as well as the new Exton Nursing site, transitions in university leadership that may alter the direction of university, notable controversies involving issues of campus climate and diversity, and the ever-present state-budget realities and contractual issues looming that threaten university finances. The 2016/17 WCU Budgeting Process, with its two core principles guiding, must also be further explained and developed across the campus community throughout the coming year. These challenges are in part, but not always, integrated into the strategic plan, but there are no easy or quick fixes to many of them. University leadership – and via the Theme Teams – should remain flexible, adaptable, and nimble to adjust plans and objectives to meet some of these threats to the overall health and direction of the university. Building on Excellence must remain a living and breathing document and guide the university’s direction in the coming years. If not, the plan will largely become irrelevant.
Year 2 SPAAC Operations
In some ways, the operation of the strategic plan reporting and assessment process advanced considerably, as noted above, while in other areas the process was at times a bit more confusing and unclear. SPAAC was notified that revisions to the Year 2 outcomes were completed late in the fall semester. A note was sent out to the campus community via the President’s newsletter in December of 2014 updating the timeline and status of Year 2. However, the timing perhaps was not supportive of the campus community fully digesting these changes. The process then delayed a mid-year reporting process from November (the original goal) to sometime in late January/early February. Unfortunately, the reporting data was not fully completed and since this was the first year of implementing the “Year 2” interim date, some constituencies were either unclear or more uneasy as to what was to be reported. Some reported in January/February but did not update in April because they had no new data to report. Additionally, some objectives were not assigned in TracDat, were not built in to TracDat, and outcome leaders wanted to wait for academic or fiscal year-end data before they did their final report; Finally, some people just did not submit anything. This data needs to be in the system so Year 3 revisions can take them into account, and so future assessment years can look back in the system and see the data over time.
This process did produce a visual diagram to identify an annual, cyclical model (Appendix 1) or review, assessment, and planning. The design and contribution from Dr. Bernotsky helped to provide a strong foundation and direction moving forward. However, at this point, the spring semester was already well underway and the need to focus on a good reporting process by April 30th, 2015, did not allow SPAAC time to more seriously consider and assess any half-year (or interim) reports from late January. Our attention shifted to the final reporting of outcomes.
Finally, a new piece was added to facilitate the gathering of input, opinions, and recommendations related to the strategic plan. This was the “Big Plan” days – two days, three hours each, held in one of the larger student affairs ballrooms. The event was marketed as an “open house” for which anyone could come by and provide their thoughts and feedback related to the five themes. In many ways, the two days were a marked success. Around 200 members of the campus community attended, from senior administration including many VP’s to staff members. SPAAC and the Theme Team members were placed at the five theme tables to receive and record ideas and suggestions related to the theme. Three Theme Teams, Engagement, Enrichment, and Academics, provided these suggestions to the strategic plan document-sharing site. Neither diversity nor Sustainability provided suggestions. Attendees were also able to listen to updates, meet and connect, and build a better understanding of some parts of the strategic plan overall. While notably a success, and we will recommend continuation with this general format, there was some uncertainty as to what was expected at the event. Moreover, while some participants maintained a very deep and nuanced understanding of some aspects of the Building on Excellence plan, others, many at the staff level, did not have much knowledge. Finally, students were not well represented.
SPAAC Process Recommendations
As a result of some of the issues noted above, SPAAC has developed several key process recommendations. Second, within the Executive Summary of each Theme Group below, additional specific theme recommendations are set forth for your consideration.
Relationship between Theme Teams and SPAAC
It has become clear to SPAAC that there exists some confusion as to the respective roles of SPAAC, the Theme Teams, and the Reporting Team. This confusion may not be entirely true for those involved in the intricacies of strategic planning, but for some of our members (especially new members) as well as those on the outside, it is not clear as to where the line is (or should be) drawn. This confusion arose noticeably during the “Big Plan” days. It is our recommendation that a sharper distinction and line be drawn between the two. SPAAC should revert primarily to its independent assessment role. Members on SPAAC that are on both committees should not assess the theme for which they are a theme team member. The three groups (Theme Teams, SPAAC, and the Reporting Teams) will continue to work at times together, coordinate and cooperate, and provide input. If one wants a truly independent and autonomous assessment, it is best to keep the assessment (SPAAC) and decision/implementation (Theme Teams) side of the plan separate.
Better Timing the Updates to Year 3 for Reporting Purposes
SPAAC recommends that any Phase 1 Year 3 updates or revisions be finalized earlier (at the earliest possible point at the beginning of the Fall semester so as to allow faculty input) and be shared and communicated earlier and extensively throughout the university and divisions. This would also allow for the SPAAC “interim” report to be completed at the end of November. With this format, SPAAC would have an opportunity to proceed with a proper mid-year update and assessment. Further, it would allow time for some course correction, funding to be identified, if needed, and additional advocacy committed to support areas where progress is not being made.
SPAAC also recommends continued training of outcome leaders and supporters, with additional emphasis placed on mid-year reporting by Theme Team and Division leadership. The assessment and reporting that SPAAC completes depends on the data reported to the system, and thus outcome leaders need to report as much “good” data and information as possible. Many reporters did not provide mid-year data, so SPAAC spent much of the two weeks that was allocated to writing the final report instead tracking down missing data and correcting assignments and outcomes in the reporting system. If mid-year reporting is completed in November, and completed by all reporters, SPAAC will have ample time to review the assignments and outcomes in the system, as well as provide feedback on missing elements in the reported data that are needed for the final reporting deadline. Many of these key points have been updated over the Summer 2015 period via Presidential Cabinet level discussions.
Timing is also an issue for Phase II (Years 4-6). It is imperative that as Theme Teams review Year 2 progress and revise outcomes for Year 3, they are simultaneously looking ahead to Phase II. Again, Appendix 1’s “Strategic Phase 2 Development Plan” should be closely followed. The Theme Teams should thus identify goals, objectives, and outcomes that will be active in Phase II and Year 3 as well as provide a roadmap for Years 4-6. The roadmap can be broad and general for now, but it must concretely connect to the process and planning for the Periodic Review Report for Middle Sates.
“Big Plan Day” recommendations/ideas for moving forward
As stated previously, the Big Plan Days were an overall success. We offer some recommendations for future events like these that may be implemented in Year 3. First, the Theme Teams were asked to collect suggestions and ideas shared at the tables and post the information to the SharePoint system. Thee Theme Teams shared their documents. As this seemed to be one of the major outputs of the Big Plan Days, SPAAC recommends that guidance be provided to the members of the Theme Teams collecting this information as to how it might be used. SPAAC recommends that ideas be linked, where possible, to existing outcomes and the people that shared the ideas be linked to outcome leaders to be able to discuss how their ideas fit into the work related to the outcome. Some of these points were accepted by President’s Cabinet and implemented in the Summer 2015 period via the theme teams. Ideas that do not link to existing outcomes should be considered by Theme Teams for how they might link to outcomes in future phases of the plan, or as new outcomes that support existing objectives.