
The 2005 Task Force on Academic/Curricular Planning was organized at the request of Provost Lucas and the Executive Committee of the Academic Senate to draft an academic plan for the University that includes new majors and credentials through 2015. The Task Force was charged with creating a plan that would build on the curriculum plan developed during 2003-2004 and which would facilitate the University meeting its projected enrollment growth of between 400 and 450 additional Full Time Equivalent Students (FTES) per year.
The Task Force has spent months researching our faculty’s program interests, costs of and enrollment in state support programs throughout the CSU, numbers of degrees granted in various programs, fastest growing programs across the U.S., fastest growing occupations nationally, the major interest areas of community college graduates, and potential job markets in the county. The Task Force also discussed Academic Plan goals with President Rush, met with all faculty and administrators interested in presenting or supporting program proposals, and met with representatives from the Ventura County Community Colleges.
The Task Force developed a series of reports (Appendix I) which include our major findings and recommendations for the future. In addition, we have prepared a planning grid for new programs which appears immediately following this summary. Based on our analysis, we have developed a plan we believe meets the mission and goals of CSUCI, supports our aggressive enrollment growth, proposes innovative programs, and prepares students for the 21 st century workforce.
The Task Force recognizes the hard work that was done to develop the Curriculum Plan draft that was presented to President Rush in June 2004 (Appendix II). This Curriculum Plan was developed through an open and democratic process that reflected faculty input from throughout academic affairs. However, the Task Force finds that the draft plan was overly ambitious in terms of the number of degrees to be offered, and would not adequately prepare the university for the rapid enrollment growth that is currently forecast as it does not include a sufficient number of large enrollment majors in the early years of the plan.
The Task Force concluded that the best, and perhaps only, way to accommodate anticipated enrollment growth of between 400 and 450 FTES per year is to create an Academic Plan that mixes large enrollment programs with a limited number of medium and/or smaller programs that are strongly supported by CSUCI faculty. In addition, because new programs do not begin at capacity enrollment, but must grow over time, and since the realistic time frame for design, approval and implementation of a new degree program is three years, the Task Force recommends that some existing programs be expanded in order to meet enrollment targets. The Task Force recommends that this be done through the creation of new “emphases” within existing academic programs.
The Task Force is concerned about the rapid pace of implementation of new Masters degree programs that was called for in the June 2004 plan and recommends instead that CSUCI follow the CSU Chancellor’s Office protocol for approving new Masters degrees. Masters degree programs are costly as they typically have much lower student faculty ratios (SFRs) than undergraduate programs, and the implementation of labor intensive Masters degree programs limits the resources available for the development of new undergraduate majors. The Task Force recommends that new Masters degree programs not be created until after the offering programs have undergone their five-year reviews, and then, as with all programs, they would be put on the Academic Plan according to the overall goals of curricular balance, enrollment targets, and community need.
In addition, the Task Force is concerned about the lack of cost and enrollment data that have been generated in the past by the academic planning process at CSUCI. We recommend that future planning include detailed cost analysis of the implementation and operating costs associated with new programs including new faculty salaries and benefits, equipment, supplies, facilities, and support staff as well as any costs resulting from accreditation or licensing. In addition, realistic forecasting of enrollment potential of new programs needs to be included in the planning process.
Finally, the Task Force recommends the adoption of a new three year planning process for new majors that allows time for curriculum planning, internal and external approvals and recruitment and hiring of faculty as well as marketing of the program prior to implementation. The Task Force also recommends the establishment of an academic planning group (composed of members of the Academic Senate Curriculum Committee and appropriate administrators) to ensure that the master plan in revisited on an annual basis and that data collection and analysis are institutionalized in the planning process.
The Academic Plan grid recommended by the Task Force follows this narrative. This plan differs from the June 2004 Curriculum Plan both in the earlier implementation of new large programs proposed to achieve balance and meet our ambitious enrollment goals, and in the postponement – or gradual inclusion - of smaller programs over the 2006-2013 period. The new large programs are a mix of previously proposed programs and programs the Task Force proposes based on our research and discussions with faculty, administration, and community college representatives. Undergraduate degrees with considerable doubt about the enrollment viability have not been placed on the plan at this time. However, we find that many of these programs can be initiated as emphases in existing or planned majors, and may warrant eventual placement on the plan as independent majors if demand appears to be sufficient to maintain a high quality academic program.
The Task Force does not offer any recommendations regarding new programs for 2014 and 2015.
In addition to the degrees, credentials and emphases that are included on our recommended plan, the Task Force identified a number of additional programs that should be studied for possible inclusion on the CSUCI academic master plan. These programs include several Masters degree programs: MA Speech and Language Pathology, MFA Creative Writing, MA History, MA Psychology, MA Clinical and Counseling Psychology, MA Marriage and Family Therapy, Masters of Social Work. These Masters programs should be evaluated not only for their potential to attract sufficient student interest, their relationship to our mission and the career potential of graduates, they need also be analyzed regarding whether the program should be initiated as a special sessions degree through extended education, or as a state supported degree program.
In addition, at the undergraduate level we recommend that CSUCI explore offering another foreign language or foreign languages. We are uncertain whether an additional foreign language will be sustainable as a separate academic major, and recommend exploration of creative ways to offer additional language instruction, perhaps in cooperation with the Center for International Affairs. In addition to the emphases included in our recommendations, faculty members are encouraged to explore additional emphases for inclusion on future iterations of the academic plan. We recognize that many potentially viable emphases are not included in our recommendations; we typically included emphases that would assist in meeting enrollment targets and emphases that at other universities might be separate degree programs.
CSU Channel Islands - One University Drive - Camarillo CA 93012 USA - Phone: (805) 437-8400
© 2005-2008 CSU Channel Islands. All rights reserved.