STRATEGIC PLANNING TASK FORCE
Meeting #27—August 31, 2006
Alumni Center
Members absent: Hanson, Kinghorn, Sabatine
Provost King convened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. and thanked the members for their attendance and diligence. He commented briefly on the next steps. The purpose of today's meeting is to reach a consensus on the Objectives. After that, the group will identify at least one quantifiable outcome measure for each objective. Decisions must also be made about who is responsible for each objective. These objectives will go to other groups as well, such as the President's Cabinet and the University Senate. The units will also have the opportunity to look at the outcome measures for concurrence. Sometime this semester President Gora and her cabinet will begin to develop a resource plan to complement the Strategic Plan. Action plans will be developed by units next semester.
Minutes:
The minutes of August 24, 2006, were approved. Upon the request of John Motloch, Jean Amman will re-check with Linda Hanson on the reference to "sustainability" in the Values and Culture Statement. Shaheen Borna requested that a different word be used for "metrics" in the May 11 agenda and minutes.
Objectives:
Provost King asked that each member take five minutes to read through the Objectives, making two lists: those Objectives that should be dropped, and those Objectives that require substantial change.
Discussion of Objectives under Goal I:
Some of the comments and questions were as follows:
- Objective G is duplicated in Goals 1 and 4.
- Objectives B and C could be combined.
- Objective A should be "divided out" into its components.
- Objective A: "Enroll" is missing. "Enroll" or "matriculate" is more important than "attract." (Some task force members spoke to the advantages of the word "attract.")
- Shouldn't we say how big we want to be? Do we want a stable undergraduate enrollment, or do we want to expand? Should we differentiate between on- and off-campus enrollment?
- Perhaps we need several numbers: Enroll how many? Retain what percentage? Graduate how many? Offices on campus need something specific.
- Maybe the enrollment size could be a part of the Strategies Statement. (There appeared to be a consensus for this placement.)
- Outcome measures could be such things as: "By 2012, 80% of our incoming students will have the Academic Honors Diploma." The current percentage is 57.3%. Another measure could be: "By 2012, Ball State will have a minority population of ___________." (Fill in the blank.) Right now it is 8.6%.
- Some of the verbs that begin the Objectives are not measurable. How do you count "Distinguish," for example? Also, Objective D says "Establish," but we have already done that.
- What does ""Optimize" mean?
- Objective C: "Cultivate" is more important than "Offer."
- Objective F could be written more clearly.
- Would writing fewer Objectives make it easier for units to respond? (Other members felt that in so doing, the Objectives would become so broad that it would be more difficult to respond.)
- "Local community engagement" should be listed as an immersion experience.
Most of the remaining discussion centered on Objective B (Goal 1):
- Do we need the bullets? How different are these items in terms of "immersion"? We need to simplify this objective.
- Perhaps we just want to say: "Significant immersion learning experiences such as study abroad, internships, . . . ."
- The Objective itself is fine. It should talk about "distinguishing" the institution; the bullets are ways that we can differentiate ourselves.
- We should be focusing on how we are going to make this kind of undergraduate experience happen. The "distinguishing" quality will come later.
- Won't departments/units tell us how they will identify immersive experiences?
- We need to review the seven points of President Gora's definition of "immersion" in her opening day faculty meeting speech. Her definition is more narrow and specific than that of some departments.
- What is "significant"? What is "meaningful"?
- The significance and meaning will come out of the action items.
- Let's omit "significant" and substitute "appropriate."
- The experience should be relevant to the student's discipline or career path.
- Others disagreed with the above statement. They expressed a more holistic view of the relevance of a student's immersion experience. Some students will be able to create connections in unique ways. An example was given of a student connecting business and art. This requires reflection on the student's part, and that's a good thing.
- It was pointed out that the Business Fellows program is not related to the student's major. It may take reflection on the part of the student to understand connections, but "it's all relevant and significant."
- Some sentiment remained for omitting the word "significant."
- The president's definition of immersion is more restrictive than what some of us are thinking, but if the experience meets most of the seven points, it can still be "immersive."
- Next semester we will get the units' ideas on immersion.
- Someone asked if there should be a statement on immersion experiences for graduate students. A response was that there is an assumption that graduate students already have had immersion experiences or are engaged in them presently
- We must not forget that the point is to offer to every student an immersion experience.
- What are the key words in Objective B? Is the word "Distinguish" related to the mission rather than to this specific objective?
- Succinct statements are important in approaching donors.
A short discussion followed on Objective F:
- At least three terms are unclear: "market-driven," "nationally ranked," and "fully integrated."
- Objective F relates well to some important issues surrounding Summer School.
- Some cost is involved.
- We need to recognize that the boundary between off- and on-campus programs is blurring.
Review and Adjournment:
Provost King said that a small sub-group will take today's suggestions, make some changes, and bring those back to the task force. He thanked the members for their patience with the process and assured them that the sub-group will try to accommodate as much as possible the ideas expressed today. He asked members to do some work on their own before the next meeting, that is, to continue to go through the Objectives, marking those to drop, those in which to make substantial changes, and those to combine with other Objectives.
Someone asked if the Values and Culture Statement is still part of the plan. Provost King said that it will be added to the materials brought to the next meeting. That meeting will be held on Thursday, September 7, 7:30 a.m., in the Student Center's Forum Room.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 a.m.