HIED 810: Discussion Posts
Introduction
For this assignment you will make an introductory post to this Discussion.
Your initial post should include the following:
1. Name
2. Academic/Professional background
3. An interesting fact about yourself
4. What most intrigues you about planning and resource management in higher education
5. Questions you have about the course or the syllabus
Your introduction post should be around 2-3 paragraphs long. Please respond to at least two of your classmates in the Discussion.
Hi everyone! My name is Emily Lane and I am currently a high school Chemistry and Biology teacher in Wuhan, China. I graduated from Meredith College in 2015 with a B.S. in Biology and a minor in Studio Art. I have been a science teacher for the past five years in China (3.5 in Beijing and 1.5 so far in Wuhan). I enjoy working with Chinese students and hope to eventually continue working with international students within a higher education setting. I also enjoy research, so I’m hoping to pursue the IR Certificate as well! I have not yet worked within a higher education institution, but I am looking forward to learning from all of you that have!
Something interesting about me is that I live about 1.5 kilometers from the infamous Wuhan seafood market. When Wuhan was locked down I was attending a wedding, so for the next nine months my fiance and I lived out of our backpacks (packed for three days) while working full time and continuing this master’s program. After 1 month in Taiwan, 4 in Vietnam, a postponed wedding, and some time in America, we finally got back to our home in Wuhan! What I’ve learned from this whole experience is to always take out the trash before going on a trip – no matter how “short”. All of that madness aside, I love penguins, traveling, and crafting and have been enjoying my Cricut cutting machine and teaching myself graphic design.
I am excited to learn more about planning and resource management because I am fascinated, although inexperienced, by predictive statistics. I also enjoy planning and am interested in the applicability of resource management within higher education following the events of the pandemic.
Currently I do not have any questions about the course or syllabus, but I will surely have some as the class progresses.
Defining Strategic Planning
Describe (shortly) your experience(s) with strategic planning in the past. Then, thinking critically about the introductory readings as well as your own experiences with planning, offer your definition of strategic planning. What grade would you assign overall to the value of strategic planning in a college or university setting? How successful (from a grade of A to F) has strategic planning been, in your opinion? Explain your rationale for assigning this grade. The actual grade you choose is not very important. What is important is the reasoning that you provide to support that grade. So, focus first on your reasoning, and then choose a grade.
Post your experiences in the discussion and respond to at least two of your classmates.
My experience with strategic planning is limited to secondary education. As a high school teacher, I work within my department to address issues such as student retention and strategies to increase students’ internal and external test scores. With these experiences in mind, I do agree with Dooris and Trainer’s belief that “the soul of strategic planning is this human capacity for intentionality – this ability to formulate goals and proceed toward them with direct intent” (2004, p. 5). Although this belief is broad, it encompasses the overall definition and description of the purpose of strategic planning. I, and my colleagues, develop a plan in the beginning of each semester with the purpose of articulating clear goals as well as outlining potential challenges to meet those goals. This is simply intentionality to better our students’ understanding of the material which will, in turn, better our department and our school’s reputation.
Although I have never worked within a higher education institution, I would assign the American higher education strategic planning a C+. Any successful organism or business relies on adaptation in order to overcome struggles. Surely, American higher education has changed drastically from its original form of being accessible to only the extremely wealthy or future members of the government or church. However, I do not think it has evolved at the same rate as its consumers have evolved – specifically in the decades following the computer and technological boom. Ballooning tuition rates, competitive development of non-academic programs, and the refusal to drastically restructure higher education are a few of the symptoms of problems facing higher education today. This is not to say that these institutions are not attempting to revise their strategic plans to compete in the newly technologically savvy world. As we saw in our readings, several universities have responded to periods of financial and situational crisis through employing strategic planning, acting on the plan, and frequently revising the plan as situations change. I am not sure how frequently innovative and intentional leadership is displayed like that seen in the 1980’s at Wesleyan College, but the more I learn about the financial situation of higher education today, the more I think firm leadership, or at least increased strategic planning, could be a solution (Keller, 1983).
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed, highlighted, and created areas of weakness as well as financial necessity for American universities and colleges. “Periods of serious scarcity . . . Tend to give more power to financial officials and to push a university toward centralized decision making” (Keller, 1983, p. 59). Although this could bring drastic changes that are uncomfortable, American higher education institutions are enduring a time of hardship that could highlight the importance of implementing intentional strategic planning. So far, I have not seen rapid adaptation and revision to strategies, so I have awarded a C+, an average grade, to a system that is experiencing many changes and surviving but not rapidly adapting and surely not thriving among the current hardships.
Dooris, M. J., Kelley, J. M., & Trainer, J. F. (2004). Strategic planning in higher education. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2004(123), 5–11. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1002/ir.115 (Links to an external site.)
Keller, G. (1983). Chapter 3 (pp. 40-71): “New Management Wine in Old Academic Bottles” in Academic Strategy: The management Revolution in American Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Initiatives Discussion
As you have read throughout this lesson, approaches to academic advising and relationship-building vary. In this assignment you will be asked to watch a TED Talk by educator Rita Pierson. The focus of the TED Talk is on the importance to cultivating a positive relationship with students. Watch the video and reflect upon Rita’s comments.
After you have watched the video consider the following questions.
- Why does she argue that ensuring that students like you is crucial?
- Do you agree with this sentiment?
- How does this apply to your role as an adviser?
- Can you think of an instance where an adviser (or another educator) made you feel like a champion? What happened?
Post your response, then engage your fellow students in conversation.
I am analyzing North Carolina State University’s (NCSU) strategic planning initiative “The Pathway to the Future”. Specifically, I will be looking at Goal 1: ” Enhance the success of our students through Educational Innovation”.
In short, institutional goal 1 is aimed at enhancing students’ ability to receive a quality education in a timely manner with respect to both academics and social civic growth that is representative of the university’s mission. Some strategies utilized to accomplish this goal include enrolling more transfer students, increasing geographic diversity, improvement in retention and graduation rates, improve mentoring of graduate students, and providing high-impact educational experiences for undergraduates.
Enrollment, demographic, and academic profiles of students, as well as student and alumni satisfaction, will be representative of the university’s progression, or lack thereof, towards Goal 1. A quick look at the graphs displaying these variables supports NCSU’s stated success thus far in Goal 1 and their plan to continue this initiative. The data shared reflects a steady increase in first-year retention rates, mean SAT scores, and undergraduate 6-year completion rates to name a few.
One specified instance of external restrictions Goal 1 must satisfy comes from the University of North Carolina Board of Governors and their limits regarding non-North Carolina resident undergraduate enrollment. As NCSU is a public, land-grant, research institution, they are surely restricted in their recruitment of non-resident students to increase their diversity and student talent pool. Balancing these regulations with the probable pressure to increase graduation rates from external governmental bodies that provide funding to the university surely is tricky.
Dickenson introduced many external factors that drive this sort of initiative including the National Center for Public Policy in Higher Education’s national and state report cards (2010). Of the five categories, Participation and Completion are in focus for NCSU’s Goal 1 initiative in that they evaluate institutional access, retention, and completion rates. The State Higher Education Executive Officers and the National Commission on Accountability in Higher Education are also likely external influences on this initiative in that they evaluate institutional goals, in this case, the mission-related civic growth and academic programs that align with public priorities. NCSU’s Goal 1 prioritizes the support of first-year students through high-impact educational experiences and encouragement of “internships and projects that address real-world problems from business and industry” for their graduate students (NC State Board of Trustees, Para. 14).
Goal 1 also articulates the aim of increasing graduate research and funding. This is likely a result of pressure from surrounding universities and the increase in technological companies who have established headquarters in the Surrounding Raleigh, “Research Triangle” area. In order to increase their new student enrollment and support the goal for smooth institutional transfers, NCSU must be relevant and effective in recruiting students in the first place.
References:
NC State Board of Trustees. (2011, April 22). The Pathway to the Future: NC State’s 2011-2020 Strategic Plan. Ncsu.edu. https://strategicplan.ncsu.edu/pathway-to-the-future/#goal-1 (Links to an external site.)
Dickeson, Robert C. (2010). Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 9780470559680
Leadership for Program Prioritization
Consider what you have read so far about the program prioritization process in this course. Which role groups would you make sure are involved in the program prioritization process? Whose voices must be heard in the process? Who must be involved in the final decision to invest, maintain, or disinvest in an academic program?
Post your perspectives and questions about which role groups should be involved. Then, thoughtfully respond to at least two classmates.
I have put the role groups I would make sure are involved in bold for clarity.
Program prioritization is a lengthy process that cannot be completed by any one individual, but rather requires a team with various strengths who are willing to work together and operate under a mindset that prioritizes the institution’s best interests (Northern Illinois University, 2015). First, academic vice presidents, or provosts must be involved in the program prioritization process because they can identify the need for prioritization and program reform through noticing “programs without adequate resources to deliver expected results,” and “competing demands for scarce resources” to name a few (Dickenson, 2010, p. 30). Next, a small team composed of faculty and administrators who are experts in institutional research, data analysis, state and national accreditation requirements, resource planning, and budgeting should be involved in the process. This team can identify, collect, analyze, and present relevant data to illustrate a narrative of what is going on in each program.
Leaders in faculty councils who participate in shared governance should be involved in the prioritization team. Flaherty (2016) described the importance of prioritization, but also the misconceptions and lack of clarity that accompanies the outcomes of the process. A biology teacher Flaherty (2016) interviewed reflected, “some administrators are saying that this (program prioritization) is about helping us save money and better organize things, when other administrators are hinging that heads will roll” (para. 9). Keeping the faculty informed about the procedure and purpose of prioritization is vital in fostering shared governance and stability within the university, so including leaders of the faculty council directly will foster this openness. Furthermore, these members can communicate faculty concerns and input to the team as well as influencing reluctant faculty to engage in the prioritization process (Lederman, 2010). Finally, the team should include faculty who frequently encounter students such as the Dean of Students as they could share input on student perspectives or possible student back-lash.
Members of the institution’s executive leadership such as the president, and the board of directors can also initiate the need for reform but have become “more external officers, raising funds or courting appropriations” so instead are likely to be involved in the final decision to invest, maintain, or disinvest in an academic program (Dickenson, 2010, p. 29). This final decision should be supported by data that has been collected, analyzed, and presented in a way that faculty, staff, and task-forces can prioritize the program based on the institution-specific prioritization criteria chosen (Northern Illinois University, 2015).
References
Dickeson, R. C. (2010). Prioritizing academic programs and services: Reallocating resources to achieve strategic balance. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Flaherty, C. (2016, August 16). Prioritization Anxiety. Inside Higher Ed. https://www. insidehighered.com/news/2016/08/16/how-can-increasingly-popular-academic-review-process-seem-more-meaningful-faculty
Lederman, D. (2010, November 11).The pressure to prioritize. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/11/pressure-prioritize (Links to an external site.)
Northern Illinois University. (2015, February 24). Program Prioritization Overview. YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDb2gBY4ZGI
Program Prioritization Criteria
The purpose of this discussion is to allow you to bounce ideas off of one another to aid in your understanding of the nuances of the various aspects of the program prioritization process. While it is a graded discussion, as long as you actively participate in the discussion this week, asking and answering questions of your classmates, you will receive points. Please interact with at least two classmates.
Note: While the due date for this assignment is listed at the end of lesson 6, you will receive a grade based on your participation in the discussion during lesson 5. The forum was set to span lessons 5 & 6 to allow for dialogue as you complete your written assignment. As always, you are encouraged to engage with the material early.
1. From your perspective how would you define “program” for program prioritization? Consider the following prompts in your definition:
o Is the M.Ed. in Higher Education a program?
o Is the Institutional Research certificate a program?
o Should the individual “areas of emphasis” in the M.Ed. (student involvement, administration, and institutional research) be considered separate programs?
2. What do you think of Dickeson’s criteria? Consider the following prompts in your position:
o Are you comfortable with these criteria?
o What other criteria would you propose?
o What do you find most difficult about criteria as envisioned by Dickeson?
o What don’t you understand about selecting and using criteria for academic program prioritization?
Program prioritization is a process utilized to identify how resources are being used and determine if resources could be reallocated to be used by a program with more “value to the institution and its future” (Dickeson, 2010, p. 60). With reallocation in mind, Dickeson (2010) provides “an operational definition of a program (as) any activity or collection of activities of the institution that consumes resources (dollars, people, space, equipment, time)” (p. 56). Based solely on this definition, yes, the M.Ed. in Higher Education is a program within Penn State’s Department of Education. It is one of six Master of Education degrees offered completely online through the World Campus, so it also fulfills Dickeson’s (2010) requirement that programs are not departments, but rather “narrow and disciplinary in nature” (p. 56; Penn State World Campus, n.d.a).
The individual “areas of emphasis” in the M.Ed. should be considered programs because they are “discrete programs” that receive institutional resources (Dickeson, 2010, p.57). In evaluating the eleven programs that made up the biology department at a major state university, the “Bachelor of Science in Biology, botany emphasis (and) Bachelor of Science in Biology, zoology emphasis” are identified as unique programs that shared common resources (Dickeson, 2010, pp. 57-58). Therefore, the Masters of Education in Higher education, student involvement emphasis, for example, is a separate program under the umbrella of the education department at Penn State University. Similarly, just as “Biology service courses needed by other graduate and professional programs” is considered an individual program by Dickeson (2010), the Institutional Research certificate should also be considered an aggregated program within the education department (p. 58).
I am comfortable with Dickeson’s criteria because they are a set of research questions posed to collect “quantitative and qualitative indicators” that follow a logical progression beginning with the program’s history and ending with its opportunity analysis (Dickeson, 2010, p. 66). Keeping resource reallocation in mind as the purpose for program prioritization, the criteria that encompass external and internal demand, as well as revenue and costs, will provide quantitative evidence to address key economic questions. However, the criteria that evaluate the quality, productivity, impact, and essentiality of a program will yield qualitative results that can support the prioritization team in “mission oriented decision-making” (Penn State World Campus, n.d.b, p. 7). They are systematically designed criteria to collect data that will provide a clear and comprehensive narrative of a program.
“Criteria 9: Impact, Justification, and Overall Essentiality of the Program…the catch-all criterion” could be broken into two more measurable questions specifically related to the institution’s mission (Dickeson, 2010, p. 84). Certainly, Criteria 9 alludes to the advancement or lack of advancement, a program has on an institution’s mission, but the generality of the criterion could invite criticism regarding how thoroughly the criteria are assessed. An argument could arise due to its ambiguity and prolong the prioritization process.
The time-consuming nature of evaluating a program from be beginning of its history to its predicted relevance is the most restricting aspect of Dickeson’s ten criteria. With “program proliferation” it does not seem feasible to evaluate the huge number of programs offered at each institution based on the criteria (Dickeson, 2010, p. 53).
I am curious if there are criteria that are understood to be used together such as the external and internal demands or the quality of input, processes, and outcomes (Dickeson, 2010). To use another example, when choosing specific criteria to evaluate, is it possible to gather a clear picture of a program’s future opportunities without also evaluating its history?
References
Dickeson, R. (2010). Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services: Reallocating Resources to Achi. John Wiley & Sons.
Penn State World Campus. (n.d.a). Master’s Degrees Online. https://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/degrees-and-certificates/masters-degrees
Penn State World Campus. (n.d.b). Lesson 3: Key Economic Concepts. In HIED 810 Canvas: Spring 2021. https://psu.instructure.com/courses/2110323/modules/items/30823475
Budget Simulation Discussion
In this lesson you were tasked with completing a budget trade off simulation. To begin this discussion, post your initial reflections of the trade off decision processes you used. Were the decisions regarding each trade off straight forward? Did you find yourself altering your decisions as you went along?
Then engage in discussion with your classmates about:
• Considering competing demands.
• Addressing budgetary needs with human needs.
• Responding to external mandates/compliance.
Given your final budget outcome (e.g. surplus, deficit, or balanced), if this were a real situation, what would you be worried about right now?
I really enjoyed this activity. I especially enjoyed being able to make decisions then “see their results” which connected the lesson materials to real world situations. I ended with a moderate surplus of $14,080 without allotting any funds to “Other”. I am satisfied with the amount of surplus because the budget is for a small private institution which relies heavily on fall enrollment numbers to be stable.
I began by exploring “new faculty orientation” and was surprised to see only one new faculty member was joining the college. This made the decision quite straight forward because the new faculty member can learn from his coworkers after a brief onboarding meeting, and luckily, there were not many classes that needed to be covered by a new faculty member or adjunct. This is the section where the most surplus was identified of $9,500 by deciding to hire an adjunct to teach the course that was not yet covered. I chose to hire an adjunct rather than not teaching the courses because institutions must be student focused in order to provide access to the best education experience they can. I chose not to assign professors to the courses because they are lower level courses which likely do not require a professors’ specific expertise.
I decided to maintain the “sabbaticals” operating budget after some deliberation because this way 3 of the 6 faculty members could have their sabbatical funded with the remaining 3 faculty members getting priority for their sabbatical in the following cycle. I found myself second guessing this decision because keeping faculty members satisfied and feeling supported is a vital aspect in retaining highly qualified faculty at an institution, however, approving all sabbatical requests would result in either a budget deficit or the inability to meet students’ needs which could harm the institution.
Finally, I decided to allot $1,000 more to “conference travel” By allotting $26,000 instead of $25,000 the decision is equitable to everyone. I was surprised by the funds needed for this category and was not expecting the need to meet the allotment going into this activity.
If this was a real world situation, I would be happy with the surplus and the amount of institutional constituents I was able to appease, but I would be worried that the fall enrollment numbers will not be high enough to cover the budgetary needs.
Excel Assignment #1 – Discussion
After reading the Lesson 10 Assignment, what are your first thoughts? Where will you start? Explain to your classmates why that starting point makes sense to you. We have set this discussion up so that you must first post your initial thoughts before you can see others’ posts. Once you post, we think you might find it helpful to respond and interact with your classmates. We encourage you to do that.
My initial approach is to reduce the Consultant from a twelve-month to an eleven-month appointment because the bulk of their responsibilities likely occur during the academic year. By reducing the consultant’s appointment by one month, they should still be able to retain their benefits and also have enough time to prepare for planning retreats, running workshops, writing communications, and stay up to date with the content for the office website without falling behind on the information that needs to be processed. I will also reduce the Staff Assistants to 10-month appointments for similar reasoning in that they would retain their benefits but still be available to work as full-time employees for 10 months of the year. These three reductions in appointments resulted in $18,500 saved which is $8,000 more than needed. So, I will change the staff assistants to 11-month appointments and maintained the consultant’s 11-month appointment resulting in $12,000 saved.
I do not think this is a viable solution, because supporting one’s staff is imperative to a department’s success, and staff or salary reductions should be some of the last categories to be cut. Instead, I want a clear point of reference to assess the overall severity that the 2% tax could cause on the budget if it became a yearly requirement. As a director, I need to be thinking ahead and predicting what the worst-case scenario could be for my department. In this case, the worst case would be reducing the salaries of my staff members. I need to keep the possible severe consequences in mind while communicating the budgetary cuts we will need to undergo to reinforce that we are a team and we must make sacrifices as a team. All too often, assistant positions are eliminated shifting the workload on other employees and leaving long-term employees out of work. Rather than considering this drastic cost-saving measure as a worst-case scenario, I want to explore reducing the appointments between the two assistants and one non-assistant position.
I will then proceeded with the intention of leaving staff salaries untouched, through identifying several categories that can experience small to moderate reductions in financial allocation and consider how the purpose served by those categories can still be accomplished.
Excel Assignment #2 – Discussion
Based on your reading of the Lesson 11 Assignment, we would like to know how realistic, easy, or difficult you found the lesson to be and why. Might you have handled your initial budgeting approach in Lesson 10 differently if you had known or anticipated that the 2% tax would continue into a second year? How would your strategies have changed? In addition to posting, we expect that you will read and respond to two classmates’ posts.
Generally speaking, I did not find this assignment to be difficult. The 2% cut presented a realistic situation with clear guidelines. Luckily, the budget contained several categories that could withstand a decrease in financial allotment without threatening the efficiency of the department. However, I do not need to deal with the repercussions of my choices, so it is difficult to say if I made cuts wisely or not. I decided to reduce “meeting refreshments” by 60% because although morale and support of my department is important, $6,892 is a substantial amount of money to allocate to this category. Instead, following the explanation of the possible implications of long-term budget cuts to the department we could develop a schedule for staff members to provide refreshments each week for the meetings.
In the end, no salaries were affected, the “Stationery and Office Supplies” and “Out of State Travel” categories were reduced by 10%, “Non-Capital Equipment $1,000-4,999” was reduced by 30%, “Association Memberships” were reduced by 50%, and “Meeting Refreshments” were reduced by 60%. This way, the “Non-recurring Accumulation Fund” remains untouched and can be saved to be applied to a true emergency. There is a $490 surplus that can be applied to the second year of paying the 2% tax.
My strategy wouldn’t have changed if I knew for sure that another 2% tax would be applied in the following year. In fact, my strategy was based around this possibility. Like my peers have mentioned, it’s much more common to undergo budgetary cuts than to deal with budgetary surplus. The only change I wish I made was to follow Kandy’s suggestion of increasing my staff’s salary by 1%. I will, however, likely increase their salaries this year.
Course Reflection Discussion
In addition to the synchronous session, we would like your input regarding the questions below on the Lesson 14 Discussion Forum. We strongly encourage that you complete your reflections prior to the synchronous session.
• What was the most challenging aspect of these assignments?
• What would you do differently if you could redo the assignments?
• What lessons did you learn from these assignments?
• These simulations could not capture a major part of the “real world”: How the individuals (above, below, and alongside you) in the organization respond to your decisions. What are some of the actions you should take while developing and implementing these sorts of budgetary decisions that would encourage individuals to act in ways that would aid the organization and/or your unit in the organization?
• What was the most challenging aspect of these assignments?
o The sheer amount of reading that was necessary to comprehend, synthesize and use as support for assignments was extremely challenging to keep up with. That being said, I learned a lot from those readings (and needing to sift through them numerous times while writing assignments), so I am thankful for them. I also found my lack of previous experience to use as a framework for the prioritization units particularly challenging. Luckily, I was able to find suitable examples online to use in assignments, but it would have been much more simple if I was currently working at an institution that I could use as the model for the assignments.
• What would you do differently if you could redo the assignments?
o Truthfully, I poured everything I had into these assignments, and I am proud of each one that I submitted. If I could redo the assignments I would try to get the readings done a week in advance so I could have more time to digest their contents. I also noticed that, for example, week 3’s assignments could be supported and understood more easily after reading week 4’s readings (choosing the week numbers randomly). So knowing this, I would have read ahead more often.
• What lessons did you learn from these assignments?
o I learned so much from this class. Of course, the financial deficits of budgets is a common problem analyzed throughout the HIED courses, so I knew that changes needed to happen and cutbacks are necessary when coming into this class. However, I didn’t know the framework or strategies surrounding assessing an institution and its programs based on criteria, identifying areas that can be prioritized, implimenting action to prioritize those programs, and merging short-term budgeting with long-term planning. Many of the ideas seem so intuitive now. Looking back, I really only knew “yes of course less successful programs that are bleeding money should be eliminated”, but now I think I know enough to at least assist in prioritization processes and hopefully lead them in the future.
• These simulations could not capture a major part of the “real world”: How the individuals (above, below, and alongside you) in the organization respond to your decisions. What are some of the actions you should take while developing and implementing these sorts of budgetary decisions that would encourage individuals to act in ways that would aid the organization and/or your unit in the organization?
o Communication and education seems to be the most intuitive answer to this huge question. A video of the Provost at the University of Illinois introducing and explaining the purpose, process, and key players of the program prioritization they were beginning comes to mind. In it, she addressed many of the major concerns that are likely to arise – “is my program on the chopping block?” “why do we need to change what’s always been done” “do I have a voice – am I powerless” “who is involved?” – to mention a few. If internal institutional constituents have access to information to uncomfortable questions that could ease their fears throughout the prioritization process, pushback should be minimized while maximizing constituent involvement in the process.
Youtube Video: Northern Illinois University. (2015, February 24). Program Prioritization Overview. YouTube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDb2gBY4ZGI