MASTER PLANNING: A GUIDE FOR ACADEMIC PROGRESS (JULY 2003)

Thoughtful and continuous academic planning is a characteristic of all healthy universities. Planning helps avoid crisis-based actions and knee-jerk responses, and more important, it enables institutions to properly and effectively allocate and manage resources. In August of 2001, President James Simmons announced during Lamar University’s annual convocation that the Division of Academic Affairs would immediately begin the process of Academic Master Planning (AMP) with the goal of developing a plan to strategically guide the university in accommodating anticipated growth during the next decade. President Simmons’ decision was motivated by the State’s Closing the Gaps initiative and early signs that Lamar University’s enrollment–which had declined by 2,000 students during the 1990's–would increase sharply over the next few academic years. Enrollment growth would generate additional student demand for courses and programs, as well as additional tuition, fee and State formula revenue for the university. To meet the demand, of course, additional faculty, section offerings, facilities, equipment, courses and programs would be needed. Shortly after his announcement, President Simmons formed and convened an Academic Master Planning Steering Committee and gave it the charge of identifying academic programs of excellence with the greatest need for additional resources. He continued by announcing that the new academic master plan would replace the academic portion of the 1995-2005 University Master Plan and the strategic recommendations from Lamar University’s Program Review conducted during the late 1990's.

As anticipated, the university’s enrollment has boomed. Following a fall, 1999 headcount of 8,143, enrollment jumped to 8,568 in 2000, 8,968 in 2001 and 9,803 in 2002.

Spring, summer and mini-session enrollments showed similar patterns of growth. Semester credit hours paralleled headcount growth and increased from 88,352 in 1999 to 106,478 in 2002. So-called “local” (i.e., tuition and fee based) and State appropriated funding increased also, albeit with a lag due to biennial funding. The anticipated growth became real and the question of how best to allocate growth-related funds fell to the new steering committee.

Meanwhile, other forms of momentum swept across campus. Using tuition revenue bonds and Higher Education Assistance Funds (HEAF), Lamar implemented the first phases of its Campus Building Master Plan, and several academic facilities were renovated. The Archer Building, Psychology Building and Chemistry Building, along with the outdoor pool house, were remodeled. The Geology, McFaddin-Ward, ROTC and Maes Buildings are scheduled for renovation in the next couple of years. In a partnership with private developers, the university built Cardinal Village I and II. These modern residence halls have contributed to the university’s growth by providing attractive, on-campus housing for students. So popular are the new halls that Cardinal Village III is being planned and should open in the fall of 2004.

Momentum has been evident, too, in Lamar’s academic division. New academic programs have been developed and approved, including Lamar’s third doctoral program, the doctor of audiology (AuD). New disciplinary and institutional accreditations and reaffirmations have been solicited and received. New faculty and academic administrators have been hired, major research initiatives have been launched, and the university developed and has taken the first steps toward fully implementing a faculty salary equity plan.

Indicators of student quality and achievement also have reflected Lamar’s momentum. Standardized test scores for entering students have risen, as have mean grade point averages for continuing students. The Lamar Honors Program and the Texas Academy for Leadership in the Humanities have grown in participant numbers and in curricular and extracurricular activities. Graduation and retention rates have improved as have professional school admissions, examination pass rates, and other achievement indicators. Lamar’s immediate future looks quite healthy and the potential for further excellence is clear. Enrollment estimates reflect this outlook. The university anticipates a fall, 2003 headcount of approximately 10,500, and a 2008 enrollment of 12,000 to 13,000 students. To effectively accommodate such growth, academic planning is essential.

Several key principles have guided Lamar’s Academic Master Planning. First, in his message to the campus and charge to the steering committee, President Simmons stressed that the planning process should be “positive and constructive.” No academic program was to be reduced or eliminated, and all programs would continue to receive resources for essential needs. That said, certain programs were to be identified by the planning process for their growth potential, visibility and excellence. New funds would be used to nourish them. Next, Dr. Simmons underscored the importance of collegiality and openness in the planning process. Every faculty member, every academic department, every college and every “non-college-based unit” was to have the opportunity to speak for enhancement, identify needs and submit “minority opinions.” To this end, the planning process began with disciplinary introspection and departmental self-studies. Third, Dr. Stephen Doblin, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, stated that all decisions and recommendations from the various committees should be “driven by data,” and that all Steering Committee members should adopt a “university vision” and “wear Lamar hats” when considering competing needs and rival interests. Participants kept these guidelines in mind throughout the process.

Externally, Academic Master Planning has been guided by the State’s Closing the Gaps initiative. In anticipation of tremendous enrollment growth statewide, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board developed and approved a 15 year higher education plan to “close the gaps” in participation, success, excellence and research. In the plan, it is asserted that “Across the state, and in comparison to other states, too few Texans participate and succeed in higher education, too few higher education programs are noted for excellence, and too few higher education research efforts have reached their full potential” (Closing the Gaps, THECB, 2000). Consequently, in addition to developing plans to accommodate growth, the Steering Committee identified two types of academic programs–“ellence” (PNRE) and “programs targeted for enhancement” (PTE), and made recommendations regarding which programs would receive these two designations, based on the belief that the university as a whole would benefit from using resources from future enrollment growth to aid these particular programs. Later in the process, the Steering Committee defined an additional category, “Programs of Pride” and selected programs to honor with that title.

The Academic Master Planning Steering Committee, chaired by Dr. Doblin, directed the review process. The original Steering Committee consisted of twenty voting members and two ex officio members. All six deans and the Library Director, along with seven elected faculty members, two elected department chairs, and the presidents of the Council of Instructional Departments, Faculty Senate and Student Government Association formed the committee. The Director of Institutional Research and Reporting, and the Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs (as Recording Secretary) served in ex officio capacities. The Steering Committee was expanded during the process as the new College of Business Dean Henry Venta was added as a voting member and Dr. Madelyn Hunt, Executive Director of General Studies, was added as an ex officio member. To divide the labor, members of the Steering Committee were sorted into the following five subcommittees: 1) Data Collection Team I [college-based units], 2) Data Collection Team II [non-college-based units], 3) Writing Team, 4) Communications Team and 5) Oversight Team.

During the review process, communication and information traveled up and down the institution. Requests for information flowed from the Steering Committee to the colleges, departments and programs, while information traveled from the programs, departments and colleges back to the committee. In keeping with President Simmons’ principle of collegiality, open meetings with the faculty were held on March 4, 2002 and May 1, 2002 to share and exchange information. Other faculty meetings were held in the departments and colleges.

To begin the planning process, mission statements were requested from each program, department and college. While this was occurring, Institutional Research and Reporting prepared and distributed enrollment and academic performance data summaries for each unit and college. Data Teams I and II solicited from faculty and committee members, criteria (or questions) that could be used to assess both academic and non-college-based units. Data Team I identified 48 evaluative criteria, while Data Team II formed 12 broad questions. After much discussion within and outside the Steering Committee, both teams developed “outlines” for use by the departments and programs in their self-studies (see the appendix).

The next major step in the process was the development of departmental, program and college self-studies. With the outlines and mission statements as guides, each departmental faculty carefully examined its programs. Needs, potential areas of growth or development, strengths and opportunities were identified, and departmental reports were drafted and forwarded to the colleges. From the college faculty, college academic planning committees were elected. These committees, chaired by the deans, reviewed the departmental reports and identified potential PNREs and PTEs within the college. College reports were drafted and forwarded, along with the departmental reports, to the Steering Committee. Faculty and departments dissatisfied with the recommendations were given the opportunity to file minority reports at both the college and Steering Committee levels.

Once all college and non-college-based reports had been received and reviewed by the Steering Committee, an all-day retreat was held (February 17, 2003) to hear formal presentations from both the dean (and Dr. Valentin Andreev representing the non-college-based units) and an appointed Review Team for each college and the non-college-based units, which were subcommittees of Steering Committee members. Following the presentations, Steering Committee members voted on PNRE’s. Presentations were also heard and votes taken at subsequent meetings, at which the Steering Committee voted on the Programs Targeted for Enhancement and programs designated Programs of Pride.