UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

ACADEMIC PLANNING COUNCIL

Bulletin #76

January 23, 2007

I. Universitywide Planning Activities

II. Report on Education Study

III. Planning for the Future of the Doctorate in California and UC

I. Universitywide Planning Activities

Provost Hume provided updated information to the Academic Planning Council about a number of planning activities currently underway at the University, focusing on three areas:  findings of the Long Range Guidance Team, progress in Health Sciences planning, and activities related to Systemwide Academic Planning.     

As noted at earlier APC meetings, the Long Range Guidance Team process, while not resulting in a published report, did produce findings of some significance that will guide the University’s planning.   Key concepts include the strength and excellence of our campuses, which, by working together as a system, can be leveraged to address the serious challenges facing the State and world.   The conclusion that no campus can do everything, but there is nothing the system as a whole cannot do, will direct planning efforts under the general rubric of “the power and promise of 10.”   Among the challenges facing UC that are of particular significance are the State’s fiscal situation and the crisis in K-12 education which is failing to produce a sufficiently well-educated workforce and citizenry, increasing inequities that exist across various population groups.  

In the area of health sciences planning, described at earlier APC meetings, The Regents approved in January 2007 a proposal to begin the planning process for a school of medicine at the Riverside campus, and endorsed Merced’s aspirations by encouraging them to develop academic programs that could eventually lead to creating a medical school.  Provost Hume also reported on support from existing schools of public health for the development of new schools, in keeping with analysis and recommendations about shortages in that field.   Planning will also continue for increases in nursing, pharmacy and veterinary medicine.  

The third area of planning activity, nearly completing its first year, is the systemwide academic planning process the Provost is leading.  Its first year has been relatively low-key with the Provost and staff visiting the Executive Vice Chancellors/Provosts at each campus to learn more about each campus’s academic planning process, and details of current plans already in use or in development.  The next steps will be to create summaries of the visits, invite the Executive Vice Chancellors, followed by the Chancellors and Academic Council, to share their planning information with each other in their respective groups.  The first year will end with a presentation to The Regents characterizing the major themes learned from campus discussions, and introducing the focus of the next year’s systemwide academic planning cycle.

Provost Hume also mentioned the The Regents’ approval of a new School of Law at the Irvine campus, the continued work to create an Undergraduate Education Planning Group, and the need to create a new long-range enrollment plan.

APC members noted that some of the academic planning challenges that might be addressed include faculty renewal and capital costs for new health sciences programs in particular and campus needs generally.  They also noted that there is a lot of planning going on, especially at growth campuses, but that The Regents were not generally aware of the substance of those plans.  There was support for the idea that “not doing” a particular academic program at a campus could be a successful strategy for excellence, and that academic planning decisions would be better informed by learning more about each other’s plans.

II. Report on Education Study

Harold Levine, Associate Provost for Education Initiatives, summarized work he is engaged in to expand and deepen the University’s connection with K-12 education, which he argued is consistent with the University’s original commitment to the betterment of society as a land grant institution.   He noted that the University is already engaged in a substantial number of programs at campuses, both within schools and departments of Education and across the campus, although knowledge about them is not generally widespread.

Associate Provost Levine’s efforts are directed to ways the system can add value to work already being done by campuses, and ways UC can work in partnership with CSU, school districts and business to improve the educational achievement of California’s K-12 students.   Some of the findings of his work to date include a study for PDPE (Task Force on Planning for Doctoral and Professional Education) that identified high priority needs in California that UC might contribute to through its doctoral programs in Education:  educational leadership, special education, and early childhood education.   

In educational leadership, UC will continue its Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs despite CSU’s newly-granted authority to offer an Ed.D. on its own.  In special education, there are not enough credential programs and there is a need for additional faculty to train special education teachers.   In early childhood education, there continues to be a push for universal preschool education, for which the State will also need more teachers.   UC’s role might be to prepare faculty for the community colleges, for CSU, and for private institutions that will be training pre-school teachers.

In discussion with APC members about other areas under study, Associate Provost Levine noted areas of UC strength, including experience with online instruction, ability to conduct relevant policy research and to build on existing links with the Legislature and Governor to share results, opportunities to expand intersegmental collaborations, and to influence the Education Roundtable to focus more on common goals with K-12 education.  Associate Provost Levine will report back on his continued progress and of possible new direction at future APC meetings.

III. Planning for the Future of the Doctorate in California and UC

Todd Greenspan (Educational Relations), Ami Zusman (Academic Planning and Budget), and Cathryn Nation (Health Affairs) presented to the APC a summary of issues related to non-Ph.D. doctoral education at UC, with a focus on how UC should seek to define the boundaries of the doctorate with respect to the California State University system.  Their presentations covered the Master Plan agreements, both at inception and as it has been revised over the years, national developments in doctoral education, and changes specific to health care education.

The intent behind the Master Plan was to educate “the baby boom” in a cost-effective way, which was to be accomplished through differentiation of function among the segments of higher education in California.   The most recent modification of the Master Plan occurred in 2005, when SB 724 passed, allowing CSU to provide a specific Ed.D. (in Education Leadership) without having to offer it as a joint degree with another university. 

The speakers pointed out that a recent change in American higher education is the development and proliferation of “professional doctorates,” degrees that generally require advanced professional practice, rather than research.  It was noted, however, that the distinctions between degrees are not always clear.   One area where there has been particular pressure to provide doctorates is in health care disciplines, especially in Audiology, Physical Therapy, and Nursing Practice.   In some cases the licensure boards are the force behind the proposals for increasing educational requirements.  

The Task Force on Planning for Professional and Doctoral Education (PDPE) is currently considering on a case-by-case basis the merits of these new health care doctorates as jointly awarded degrees with CSU.  Plans are underway, for example, to offer joint doctoral degrees in Audiology, which has recently approved new academic requirements.   However, the question arises as to whether it is always best for a campus’s academic programs to offer these new joint degrees, which promise to be expensive, have low enrollments, and may be peripheral to a campus’s research agenda.   A particularly difficult challenge is the proposed Doctorate in Nursing Practice, which could become the standard nursing faculty degree at CSU and the community colleges where most of California’s nursing education occurs.  There is a significant shortage of nursing faculty to train nurses who themselves are in short supply, and it would be a difficult challenge for UC’s existing schools of nursing to educate so many of them either separately or jointly with CSU.

On the other hand, the speakers noted that there are long-standing concerns about “mission creep” if more than one public institution offers independent doctoral level education in California.  The Master Plan provision for joint degrees was intended to prevent competition for resources, while also ensuring the highest standard of quality for doctoral level education.   It was also pointed out that UC has a long-standing commitment to providing service to California; not offering degrees that support the health and educational needs of the state could carry political consequences. 

APC members spoke in support of a proposal that PDPE should take the lead in considering the question of UC’s continued role in offering the non-Ph.D. doctorate.