UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

ACADEMIC PLANNING COUNCIL

Bulletin #78

June 20, 2007

I. Welcome and Introductions

II. “Courses Without Borders”

III. UC’s Place in an International Context

IV. Report from the Undergraduate Education Planning Group

V. “Educational Imperative”

VI. Long Range Enrollment Planning

VII. Planning Topics for 2007-08

I. Welcome and Introductions

This was the last meeting of the Academic Planning Council for 2006-07. New members for the next year were introduced: Bruce Schumm, incoming chair of CCGA and Keith Williams, incoming chair of UCEP. Other new members will join in the fall.

II. “Courses Without Borders” (Cross-Campus Courses)

Paula Murphy (Director, Teaching, Learning & Technology Center), Margaret Heisel (Deputy to the Vice Provost, Academic Information and Strategic Services), and Vice Provost Dan Greenstein raised APC questions about the adequacy of mechanisms and infrastructure to provide students with courses when they are either studying at a remote site (e.g., UCDC or EAP) or want to take courses provided at other UC campuses without leaving their home campus, such as online classes through the Consortium for Language Learning and Teaching. Academic program administrators have to resolve a number of issues related to course approval, academic credit, availability of course information and registration procedures. The question for the APC, since these programs may become more widespread in the future, was whether there was need to improve administrative processes that now overwhelm the resources of these small programs, distracting them from their academic missions.

APC members noted that in addition to administrative mechanisms there are important academic questions to consider, particularly preservation of academic quality. It was suggested that Senate committees consider standards for remote and online instruction since they represent a potentially growing part of instruction. Members supported the development of new procedures, and suggested that staff survey existing groups to identify the full scope of issues, and solutions that have already been implemented by some groups.

III. UC’s Place in an International Context

Following up on a discussion at the May APC meeting, APC member William Ladusaw reported on the Council of Senior International Leaders, an ad hoc group with representatives from each campus. He noted that international issues extend beyond instructional programs such as EAP, and because of the breadth of issues, it is difficult to identify a locus for leadership. For example, there are issues of homeland security; research data sharing; services for incoming foreign students and faculty – the list is extensive. The fundamental question is, “is the right type of leadership in place on the campuses to address these issues?” He referred the APC members to NASULGC’s report, A Call to Leadership: The Presidential Role in Internationalizing the University, (http://www.nasulgc.org/CIP/Task%20Force/Call_to_leadership.pdf)

Members suggested that addressing UC’s place in an international context is not an isolated function or a new box on an organization chart; rather, it is a perspective that is present in all parts of our mission – teaching, research and service. Provost Hume offered that his office would convene and charge a group of senior international leaders from each campus to share best practices, select common issues for problem solving, and communicate solutions to their campuses.

IV. Report from the Undergraduate Education Planning Group

Keith Williams reported on the first meeting of the Undergraduate Education Planning Group, which is charged with creating priority planning topics to be addressed in coming months and years. He reported that the group has set its first task as an articulation of the mission of undergraduate education at the University; this statement will serve as a guide and reference for its future work. The statement will encompasses basic common tenets shared by all UC campuses: What is unique about a UC undergraduate education? What are the benefits and strengths of an undergraduate education at a research university? What are our responsibilities as a Land Grant University?

APC members noted that while the statement should describe what distinguishes a UC education, it will not be couched in how UC compares to other four-year institutions, but instead will emphasize the distinguishing characteristics of a UC education. it is hoped that the statement will eventually serve the purpose of communicating to the public what and how undergraduates are expected to learn at UC.

One suggestion from the APC was to demonstrate how the education of undergraduates involves them in all aspects of the University’s mission: teaching, research and service. Members acknowledged the difficulty of describing what we do in part because data aren’t available, with words often being insufficient to convey more than mere platitudes.

The Undergraduate Education Planning Group will share its work plan with the APC, and will bring the draft Mission Statement to the group for discussion.

V. “Educational Imperative”

Harold Levine, Associate Provost for the P-12 Education Initiatives and Dean of the School of Education at UC Davis presented a draft of six strategies describing how UC could contribute to improvements in P-12 education in California, building on current UC capacity and strengths. The Long Range Guidance Team concluded that one of the greatest threats to UC’s continued quality was the crisis in K-12 education in California, and observed that solutions would require all segments of education to work together.

The strategies include: (1) Enhance and focus UC’s research capability, in part through the formation of an institute in Sacramento to focus on education policy research that addresses the most intractable problems. (2) Enhance UC’s web-based capacity to deliver online resources for California students, teachers, administrators, other educational leaders, and parents. (3) Optimize existing SAPEP programs and other educational resources (UC and non-UC) to address the achievement gap by developing coordinated and integrated plans for each school being served through SAPEP. (4) Build on UC’s investment in the production of classroom, administrative, and other leaders for California’s schools through its academic and professional programs. (5) Continue and expand UC’s articulation and alignment of its standards, admission requirements, and expectations for first-year students with K-12 curricula, standards, and graduation requirements. (6) Develop, using existing resources, an infrastructure in the Office of the President that supports these strategies and informs the public of our work in P-12 education.

It was noted that while the University has made substantial investments in agriculture and health, as part of our Land Grant charge to serve the people of California, education must be seen as just as important. UC could also take a statewide leadership role, working with the Governor’s Office and Superintendent O’Connell on initiatives being developed for 2008 (“the Year of Education”).

Associate Provost Levine announced that there will be a universitywide meeting during the summer to discuss the strategies, with Chancellors being asked to name people to attend and represent their campuses. APC members offered suggestions, including exploring ways to build on Cooperative Extensions to strengthen local links through the use existing infrastructure; creating an “educational forecast” along the lines of the UCLA Business Forecast; asking various K-12 constituents where they see needs in research; and identifying more clearly in the proposed strategies the specific problems that are being addressed in order to align the strategic goals more compellingly.

VI. Long Range Enrollment Planning

Nina Robinson, Director, Policy and External Affairs, described the process for developing a long-range enrollment plan for UC, which is driven in part by the supplemental budget language requiring an enrollment plan out to 2020 to be submitted to the Legislature by March 25, 2008. The President will make the final decision on campus enrollments in consultation with the Chancellors, based on proposals submitted by campuses by December. In order to make the process more collaborative and reflective of campus interests, the Provost will convene a group of people named by Chancellors on June 25-26^th to discuss the principles that guide long-range enrollment planning, and to provide input into the process for soliciting enrollment plans from the campuses. The four main topics to be discussed include undergraduate enrollments, graduate enrollments, diversity, and “alternative forms of enrollment,” a topic that includes summer enrollments, off-campus programs, and other approaches to accommodating students. The June 25-26 “kick-off” meeting will provide opportunity for discussing these topics in small groups and collectively.

A review of the participant list led to the recommendation that more Senate participants be included, through an invitation to the Divisional chairs. The APC will continue to be apprised of the issues raised in the long-range enrollment planning process.

VII. Planning Topics for 2007-08

Provost Hume outlined the planning topics for 2007-08, which will build on efforts already underway, including long-range enrollment planning, both general campus and health sciences (with proposals for nursing, public health and a possible initiative in global health); the educational imperative; IT Guidance committee recommendations, and undergraduate education. The Provost will continue meeting with campus provosts to build on Systemwide Academic Planning discussions held this past year. He will focus on learning more about unique profiles of complementary strengths – currents strengths and future plans for graduate programs, and how we can do better with diversity.