Spreadsheet: 0ccf948e-2d89-461c-abd8-c079e4a74785
Sheet: Sheet1

Unnamed: 0 | Unnamed: 1 | Unnamed: 2 | Unnamed: 3 | Unnamed: 4 | Unnamed: 5 | Seattle University Academic Strategic Action Plan | Unnamed: 7 | Unnamed: 8 | Unnamed: 9 | Unnamed: 10 | Unnamed: 11 | Unnamed: 12 | Unnamed: 13 | Unnamed: 14
 |  |  |  |  |  | Initiatives, Objectives, Timelines, Metrics and Benchmarks
 | Apr 13 2009 | Academic Strategic Initiative & On-Going Projects | Responsible Agent | Summer 2009 | Sep - Dec 2009 | Jan - June 2010 | July - Dec 2010 | Jan - June 2011 | July - Dec 2011 | Jan - June 2012 | July - Dec 2012 | Jan - June 2013 | July - Dec 2013 | Jan - June 2014
 |  |  |  |  | Academic Year 1 |  | Academic Year 2 |  | Academic Year 3 |  | Academic Year 4 |  | Year 5
 | Academic Strategic Initiatives | Curricular Renewal |  |  | Curricular Renewal Year 1 (2009-2010) |  | Curricular Renewal Year 2 (2010-2011) |  | Curricular Renewal Year 3 (2011-2012) |  | Curricular Renewal Year 4 (2012-2013) |  | Curricular Renewal  Year 5 (2013-2014)
 |  | Curriculum Renewal - Graduate Programs, Undergraduate Majors, | This initiative assures that each and every student’s degree program and learning experiences at Seattle University address the four broad educational goals and the core values of the University. This objective connects and grounds the delivery of an integrated Jesuit education for leadership and the discernment of one’s potential contributions in life with the student’s learning experiences at the degree program level, thus potentially touching every Seattle student.  This initiative also links curricular renewal to the vital academic processes of Program Review and Learning Outcomes Assessment, thus addressing important objectives including accreditation, continues quality improvement, and school level academic strategic planning. |  | Each dean offering graduate degree programs reviews, with the college/school's faculty, the BOT Academic Affairs Committee Feb 2009 goals for graduate degree programs statement, and articulates learning outcomes for the college's graduate programs in light of that document. | Graduate degree program learning outcomes submitted by each school are reviewed by the Provost, advised by University Learning Outcomes Committee. May 2010 report to BOT AA Committee on progress at graduate degree level. | Each dean offering undergraduate major programs reviews, with the college/school's faculty, the BOT Academic Affairs Committee Feb 2009 goals for graduate degree programs statement, and articulates learning outcomes for the college/school's undergraduate major programs in light of that document. | Undergraduate major program learning outcomes submitted by each school are reviewed by the Provost, advised by University Learning Outcomes Committee.  May 2011 - Report to BOT AA Committee on progress at undergraduate major level. | Assure a unified message in academic marketing materials reflecting the four broad educational goals of undergraduate and graduate degree programs - as reaffirmed and manifested by each college/school in the learning outcomes it has developed for its graduate degree programs or undergraduate majors - and, at the undergraduate level, as linked to the new University Core Curriculum to round out the Seattle University educational experience. |  | Continue close coordination of this goal with the functions of program review and learning outcomes assessment.  Link learning outcomes assessment data gathering and analysis to program review in ways that show how these data are used to engage in continuous quality improvement. |  | Continue close coordination of this goal with the functions of program review and learning outcomes assessment.  Link learning outcomes assessment data gathering and analysis to program review in ways that show how these data are used to engage in continuous quality improvement.
 |  | Curriculum Renewal - University Core Requirements |  |  | For the University Core - form a Provost Level Core-Renewal task force, develop scope and parameters of its charge. Metric: Task Force is launched and functional by the end of the first week of the Fall 2009 term. Articulate core learning outcomes (reference Board of Trustees Academic Affairs Committee degree program educational goals resolution.) | (1)  [NAME], vet, review and approve core learning outcomes. (2) Inventory Seattle University offerings in academic and non-academic areas to identify curricular and co-curricular programs which may, depending on how they are operated and on the level of deep and reflective learning which is demanded, support one or more core learning outcomes. E.g. Possible candidates for such a list might include study abroad, offerings by Mateo Ricci College, the learning communities program, the community engagement and service learning programs, the honors program, some programs offered by Mission & Ministry, leadership development programs, internship programs, etc. (3) Update BOT AA Committee on progress in Core Renewal. | (1) Translate learning outcomes into specific requirements. (2) Map current requirements onto new core requirements. (3) IR creates / updates enrollment forecasts based for 2011-12 and 2012-13 to assist decision making in transitional year. (4) Inform all curricular and co-curricular areas offering programs and learning experiences which may support the core learning outcomes about the proposed set of requirements, invite comment and input from all parties. (5) Refine the proposed new set of core requirements and publish those to the university community for the final round of reviews which will occur between Jan and June of this academic year. | (1) Conduct the final round of review in order to further refine, vet, and approve new core requirements. (2) May 2011 - Report to BOT AA Committee on progress of Core Renewal. | Summer: (1) Prepare admissions marketing materials for Fall 2012 launch of new core. (2) Invite colleges, schools & departments to submit courses for review and inclusion in the core. (3) Plan transition of current undergraduates to new core. (4) Plan support system changes (records, registration, advising, transfer students, etc.). (5) Mock up of 2012-13 schedule to assure capacity -- numbers of seats and sections needed to implement new core. Academic Year: (6) inform students, staff and faculty of new core and its implementation plan.  (7) Approve initial list of courses (current and new) for the core.  (8) Carry out plans, make necessary support system adjustments.  (9) Provide current students with web-based self-check on requirements fulfilled and needed, and other advising and assistance as necessary to ease transition and to graduate on time. |  | Launch new Seattle University core for all new and continuing undergraduates. | (1) Continue systematic review and approval of courses for new core. (2) Evaluate implementation process and make any necessary adjustments. (3) [NAME] methods for annual estimate of numbers of seats and sections required as additional courses are approved and introduced into the new core. | Establish policies and procedures which provide for (1) a recurring 4-year cycle to recertify and to validate the on-going quality of all courses which satisfy SU core requirements, and (2) the development, review and approval of core course changes and new core course proposal. | Announce policies and procedures for course reviews and quality validations effective with beginning of 2014-15 academic year.
 |  | Learning outcomes-oriented University-level set of core learning requirements which address the essential proficiencies, deep and integrated knowledge, and values-oriented goals of a Seattle University undergraduate degree including but not limited to: Global Education, Catholic Character, Environmental Sustainability, Leadership, Diversity, and Community Engagement.  This initiative, and creative ways in which programming directly or indirectly address its learning outcomes may eventually be offered, provides many opportunities for integrative learning experiences which maximally contribute to students' intellectual, personal, spiritual and social growth and development. This initiative has the potential to build stronger ties between Academic Affairs, Mission & Ministry, and Student Affairs. |  |  | Benchmark institutions: those six or seven statistical peer Jesuit universities with outcomes-oriented core requirements. |  |  | Metric: Assuming 40 courses for a 4-year undergraduate degree with the provision that a course which produces the intended learning outcomes fulfills requirements of both core and major - Split of requirements will be 15-18 core courses and 25-22 major courses, with a number of these fulfilling multiple requirements. | Benchmark: Fall 2012 schedule is published Oct 1, 2011. Metric: User-friendly web-based self-check system is running 100% error free by Dec. 1, 2011 for use by all students who will not have graduated by August 2012. | Benchmark: Budget plan approved for funding full-time and tenure- track FTE's in support of Core.  Key feature: Commitment of deans and departments to support core with full-time tenure-track faculty if position is awarded. No later than June 30, 2012, 100% of all support systems ready for implementation. | Metric: Sufficient numbers of seats and sections are provided each term to assure 100% of students can continue to make progress toward an on-time graduation. |  | Metric:  In each department and school, at least 66.7% of the sections of freshmen level core courses are taught by tenure-track faculty and at least 80% by full-time faculty). Metric: In each department and school at least 75% of all sections which count for the satisfaction of core learning outcomes requirements are taught by full-time faculty.
 |  | Comprehensive Faculty Development |  |  | Comprehensive Faculty Development Year 1 (2009-2010) |  | Comprehensive Faculty Development Year 2 (2010-2011) |  | Benchmark: |  | Comprehensive Faculty Development Year 4 (2012-2013) |  | Comprehensive Faculty Development Year 5 (2013-2014)
 |  | Comprehensive Faculty Development | Provost, Deans & Faculty | Develop organizational structure and related responsibilities for an office of faculty professional development reporting to the provost. | Review results of 2008-2009 faculty survey to assist determination of program needs and priorities.  Survey websites of statistical peers to determine scope and program content of comparable faculty development efforts. Clarify role of IRB as being proposal review only.  Assign the research design and proposal development functions as being college/school-level responsibilities along with initial budget and facilities reviews and signoffs. | 1. Review and enhance new faculty orientation programs at the university and school levels for entering full time and part time faculty. 2. Establish program supporting scholarly or teaching development of those tenure-track faculty who have a successful mid-probationary review (should this proposed change to the probationary review process proceed). 3. Working with deans, create an all-campus program to orient new department chairs and program directors to standard institutional and academic policies and procedures, e.g. budgeting, personnel evaluation, assessment, curriculum review. 4. Initiate a college/school-based and centralized support system for the development and preparation of new research grants and proposals. | 5. Enhance the competitive summer research or teaching awards program by expanding the number of awards. 6. Design a university-level faculty mentor program, outside of and separate from the personnel evaluation processes, to support full-time faculty of all ranks and schools with their teaching, scholarship, and academic leadership goals. Identify an initial cadre of faculty mentors. Confidentiality and trust are key elements for the success of this program. 7. create workshops for academic administrative teams which include academic staff, chairs and associated deans. Collaborate with the Senior Vice President to create a series of training programs and career development opportunities for academic staff members. |  | 8. Design and present workshops on how to properly conduct all elements of the faculty recruitment, evaluation, retention, tenure and promotion processes. Develop a series of fictional but illustrative cases for use in these workshops with deans, chairs and the faculty who serve on college/school-level and university-level promotion and tenure committees. Emphasize the institutional best practices and clarify the roles and responsibilities of various departmental and college/school-level personnel (faculty and staff included) in these processes. | 9 Design and present workshops to support full-time faculty who are candidates for tenure or promotion. Engage faculty mentors and other successful faculty as presenters. 10. Establish programs and policies which encourage emeriti faculty to remain engaged with Seattle University in ways that are productive for them and for the current faculty. | 11. Review college/school-level and university-level teaching effectiveness and career development programs for non-tenure track part-time and full-time faculty.  Identify and share information about areas of local best practice. |  | Conduct an evaluation of this strategic initiative. Compare the SU array of faculty development programs to those offered by statistical peer institutions. Determine future needs, modifications, and appropriate levels of administrative and budgetary support.
 |  | This initiative results in a coordinated, comprehensive and integrated set of programs and infrastructure at the university and college/school levels focused on faculty success and the core values and goals of the University. Through attention to enhancing faculty research this initiative supports the career development of the individual faculty member, extends the academic excellence of the institution, builds its reputation, and improves the quality of the teaching delivered to graduate and undergraduate students. In teaching, this initiative provides opportunities to expand the faculty's use of active learning pedagogies, contemporary teaching technologies, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teaching, and hybrid or blended applications of distance learning. In service, this initiative supports the development of collaborative, informed and effective faculty leaders in key roles, such as committee or department chairs, program directors, and associate deans.  Some of the programs envisioned already exist in one manifestation or another at SU. These are among the institution’s current assets and their presence will make it easier for the university to develop, fund and launch those additional programs which are still needed in order to achieve the requisite, comprehensive and interconnected faculty development support system. |  |  | Benchmark Year 1: Programs established for new faculty, successful mid-probationary faculty, and for new department chairs.  Funding in 2010-2011 budget for support of faculty research |  | Benchmark Year 2: Program developed and initial funding provided for the first annual round of summer research or teaching excellence competitive awards.  Faculty mentor program designed and initial group of teaching, research and leadership mentors identified. Metrics:  At least 20 competitive summer awards are made for 2011. Funding secured to support research leaves for newly tenured faculty.  [NAME]: Funding secured for comprehensive faculty development office and related programs and functions. |  | Benchmark Year 3: Case study workshops held for faculty on tenure and promotion committees. Metric: Faculty mentors are in contact with at least 10% of the full time faculty. | Metric: 90% of the candidates who anticipate applying for tenure in the Fall of 2012, 2013 and 2014 participate.  75% of the associate professors who are considering applying for full professor any time in the next five years participate. | Metric: At least 85% of all the individuals hired as adjunct faculty and non-tenure track faculty have the benefit of assistance with teaching effectiveness and, if they should seek it, guidance regarding their future faculty careers. | Benchmark: By 2012-13, when fully functional the research grants proposal development and support system will include mentoring the design of research proposals and grants, a process of internal critique aimed at improving proposal before they are submitted to the external agency for funding, support for the development of data gathering instruments and for advanced statistical analyses, and aid in the correct preparation of materials for IRB review. | Metrics: The number of proposals for external funding submitted by Seattle University faculty will have increased by 100% as compared to 2008-09.  The number of successful proposals will have increased by 150% as compared to 2008-09. And the amount of money awarded in these grants and contracts will have increased by 200% as compared to 2008-09.
 |  | Student Success and Enrollment Management |  |  | Student Success and Enrollment Management Year 1 (2009-2010) |  | Student Success and Enrollment Management Year 2 (2010-2011) |  | Student Success and Enrollment Management Year 3 (2011-2012) |  | Student Success and Enrollment Management Year 4 (2012-2013) |  | Student Success and Enrollment Management Year 5 (2013-2014)
 |  | Student Success and Enrollment Management | (1) Initiate planning for Summer 2010 programming to support new first-year, transfer, graduate/professional and at-risk student success, on-time graduation and significantly expand net positive revenue generation. (2) Update as needed the head count and student-credit-hour enrollment forecasting models by school, degree program and department, and enrollment category (e.g. new students, transfers, continuing students). (3) Begin process of establishing firm enrollment, retention and graduation targets at the undergraduate and graduate levels for each school. (4) Initiate dean level planning for incentives  which associate a college/school's resource allocation directly to its achievement of those targets. |  | (1) Generate 3-year predictions for enrollments by head count and student credit hours generated, by school, department, program and level.  (2) With priority to student support and enrollment management functions, review and update facilities plans for which programs and offices will occupy the Pavilion and University Services Building after the opening of the new library. Identify alternative locations on campus for programs or offices currently in those buildings which are not vital to these strategic academic priorities. (3) Centralize and completely restructure SU summer program pricing, compensation policies, class scheduling and marketing to improve competitive position of SU in new student recruitment, to assist more students to graduate on time, and to generate substantially more revenue. | Provost and deans establish multi-year new student enrollment, retention rate, and graduation rate targets for each school and related resource allocation incentive and disincentive policies. Student support services co-location plan formulated and approved for implementation in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Define an Associate Provost level position with oversight responsibilities for the streamlining, integrating, and improving the quality and student satisfaction with of all student support service services. Funding for necessary remodeling of interior spaces approved. | 1. New library building opens - selected student support functions are co-located. Associate Provost position filled, staffing and reporting relationship clarified. 2. Based on past performance, demographic trends, the macro-level enrollment goal, and anticipated program development, refine the enrollment projections by school at the graduate and professional, undergraduate transfers, and new freshman levels for each year out through 2020-21.  3. Establish a separate Transfer Student Center with responsibility for recruitment, pre-enrollment advising, and retention of transfers. | Workshops and staff training programs related to enhancing the already positive culture of quality service among personnel involved in enrollment services, academic support, and student support services. Working with learning outcomes assessment, determine measures of key academic proficiencies, and core dispositions and attitudes toward learning with a view toward using entry-level assessments to aid student academic advising. | Co-locate in the same or adjacent facilities, and reorganized as necessary, all the offices and service functions related to student success including advising and enrollment services, student academic services, and student support services and tutoring (math, writing, etc.). Special attention should be directed to assisting with the transition to the new university core curriculum. | [NAME]: 75% of students randomly surveyed will know exactly where to go on campus to find assistance with the 10 most commonly requested support services for their student group (differentiate graduate students, new transfer students, new freshman, and continuing undergraduates.) | [NAME]: 90% of students randomly surveyed will know exactly where to go on campus to find assistance with the 10 most commonly requested support services for their student group (differentiate graduate students, new transfer students, new freshman, and continuing undergraduates.) [NAME]: Summer 2013 program generates 4 times the net positive revenue as compared to Summer 2009. |  | Review and refine the long term enrollment goals and targets for 2020-21 and beyond. Reset interim enrollment targets for the forthcoming five years.  Update enrollment targets at the macro level extending the enrollment plan out another five years through 2025-2026. | Conduct a service quality evaluation identifying by student sub-groups their satisfaction with current services, their needs, and the importance which they attach to those services and needs.  Based on this assessment, establish short term and midrange goals and objectives with regard to student support services.
 |  | This initiative envisions the seamless integration of student support services to maximize student success to assure high student retention rates and timely graduation rates.  This initiative seeks to strengthen the SU culture of high expectations for student achievement, provides enhanced and proactive student academic support services for graduate, undergraduate, transfer and new first year students. And proposes these be organized and managed using client-centered and cost-effective delivery systems. This initiative calls for the development of long-term enrollment plans for each college/school, predict enrollment-related revenues and expenses, and effectively manage resources during the academic year and the summer session.  For educational purposes, improving the quality and diversity of the overall undergraduate and graduate student body are part of this planning. |  |  | Benchmark: Survey statistical peer institutions with special attention to cross-admit competitors to determine the quality and kind of student recreation facilities and fields and student residence hall options that are made available by those competitors and peers. Benchmarks: by 2010-2011 [NAME] will be in the top 10 among statistical peers in freshman retention and 6-year graduation.  By 2012-13 [two years later] [NAME] will be in the top 5 on both measures. | For retention and recruitment purposes, pursue the completion of a high-quality, adequately-sized, optimally-located, [NAME] certified student recreation facility and related recreational fields to serve undergraduate and graduate students, especially those not participating in intercollegiate athletics programs. | Benchmark: The ratio of staff FTE to enrollment headcount at statistical peer institutions. This benchmark measures SU against the ratio of staff dedicated to student academic support services at institutions which have co-located offices and functions. Separate analysis for graduate student support services and undergraduate student support services. | Establish baseline: Review SU data (e.g. NSSE) pertaining to student satisfaction with support services. Disaggregate data and analyses by major student groupings: e.g. graduate students, masters professional students, transfer students, continuing undergraduates, new freshman. | Metric: By 2011-2012, 75% of undergraduates will have had at least one organized learning experience, either co-curricular or curricular, which supports leadership development, community engagement, and the other dispositions and proficiencies established in Goals 1 and 4 for all students enrolled in baccalaureate degree programs.  [NAME]: Freshman to sophomore retention rate increases to at least 89%. | Metric: By 2011-2012,  60% of all graduate students will have had at least 1 organized learning experience, either co-curricular or curricular, which supports leadership and personal development, community engagement, global education, environmental sustainability, and the other dispositions and proficiencies established in Goals 1 and 4 for all students enrolled in graduate degree programs. | Metric: By 2012-2013, 90% of undergraduates will have had at least 1 organized learning experience, either co-curricular or curricular, which supports leadership development, community engagement, and the other dispositions and proficiencies established in Goals 1 and 4 for all students enrolled in baccalaureate degree programs. | Metric: By 2012-2013,  80% of graduate students will have had at least 1 organized learning experience, either co-curricular or curricular, which supports leadership development, community engagement, and the other dispositions and proficiencies established in Goals 1 and 4 for all students enrolled in graduate degree programs. [NAME]: 4-year graduation rate increases to 66%. | Metric: Summer program for 2013 generated four times the net positive revenue as compared to the summer program of 2009. | [NAME], Metrics and Indicators: Freshman to sophomore retention rate surpasses 90%.  4-year graduation rate surpasses 68%.  6-year graduation rate surpasses 75%. Undergraduate discount rate is 39% or lower. At the undergraduate level, the ratio of Freshmen to Transfers for Fall 2013 is 3.5 to 1.
 | Academic Strategic Initiatives | State of the Art Instructional Spaces and Campus Facilities |  |  | State of the Art Instructional Spaces and Campus Facilities Year 1 (2009-2010) |  | State of the Art Instructional Spaces and Campus Facilities Year 2 (2010-2011) |  | State of the Art Instructional Spaces and Campus Facilities Year 3 (2011-2012) |  | State of the Art Instructional Spaces and Campus Facilities Year 4 (2012-2013) |  | State of the Art Instructional Spaces and Campus Facilities 2013-2014
 |  | State of the Art Instructional Spaces and Campus Facilities | (1) Establish a 36-month design-permit-build plan for a new Science Teaching Lab Building to open Fall 2012. (2) Establish permit-design-build plans for sufficient new residence halls to achieve 2014-2015 target of 65% of SU undergraduates residing in SU housing. (3) Program ground floor uses of facilities along the perimeter of campus to support SU's community engagement, student retention, and revenue enhancement goals. (4) Assess program for campus non-athletics recreational facility and fields relative to long term enrollment management plan. Establish design, permit & build schedule to open new facility prior to Fall 2012. |  | 1: Assess the information available on each campus building and room.  Collect information on the adequacy or appropriateness of use, and on the quality and condition of the space. 2. Map the location of related spaces, grouping like spaces together to the extent permissible. 3.Develop a Gap Analysis to identify places where action is needed based on the quality of existing conditions, on future enrollment projections, and on anticipated program changes including revisions to the core curriculum which require science teaching labs.  4. In the case of buildings where modifications are necessary or desirable, a building condition analysis should be conducted to determine the adaptability, systems capacity, implications, secondary effects, and costs of modifying existing buildings to accommodate the recommendations of the space analysis.  This can be key in any cost-benefit analysis when determining the value of remodeling vs. building new. 5. Prioritize needs for renovations, relocations or reassignments of spaces in support of instructional programs. 6. First draft of facilities and programs clustering strategy to create academic neighborhoods linking programs and related student support services. |  | Survey the facilities at statistical peer institutions with special focus on direct cross admit competitors to evaluate Seattle University's position as compared to its peers with regard to (a) environmental sustainability, energy use, [NAME] certification levels, and related programming, (b) community engagement and neighborhood enhancement, (c) support for the undergraduate core curriculum, (d) student recreation and fitness facilities, (e) campus landscaping and exterior presence as these support enrollment management goals, (f) enhanced revenue generation, and (g) the availability, design and functionality of residence hall facilities for different segments of the Seattle University student population: graduate students, undergraduate seniors and juniors, undergraduate sophomores and freshman. | In support of the enrollment management initiative, (1) Determine in separate surveys the residence hall needs for graduate students, undergraduate juniors and seniors, and undergraduate freshman and sophomores.  (2) Integrate this analysis with the campus long- term facilities master plan, refining that plan as may be necessary.  (3) Implement an alternative funding strategy for residence halls which relies upon future room and board fees and future first-floor retail leases to fund the development, design, construction and operation of those facilities. Revisit the campus facilities master plan and establish priorities, phasing and funding strategies for major campus facilities and landscaping projects and include sustainability and [NAME] design in this review. | Revisit the minor capital projects (interior renovations, and program and office relocations) proposal, design, approval, sequencing and funding processes in order to refine these processes and to establish a strategic multi-year priority listing of projects that are well-designed, well sequenced, and affordable. Review adequacy of deferred maintenance budget in light of academic strategic priorities. |  | (1) Renovations of instructional spaces and program juxtapositions and relocations are occurring as per plans. (2) Plans for re-purposing space (academic and non-academic) updated and aligned with strategic institutional priorities. (3) New campus recreation facility opens for students not participating in intercollegiate athletics, staff and faculty. |  | (1) Renovations of instructional spaces and program juxtapositions and relocations are occurring as per plans. (2) Repeat the assessment, gap analysis and prioritization exercise conducted four years ago in 2009-10 to establish an appropriately-updated needs analysis and project prioritization and schedule. | Metric: By Fall 2014 Seattle University will have moved from 23rd out of 24 peers to the top half in terms of the number of full-time undergraduates who reside in campus controlled facilities (residence halls or apartments) that are supported by age-appropriate residence life programming and are located on campus or within walking distance from campus.
 |  | Instructional labs, studios, classrooms, technology, and scientific equipment to support the  institution's learning goals and enrollment projections; and the other facilities and campus improvements necessary for attracting excellent students, faculty, and staff, achieving academic excellence and becoming known as the premier independent university in the Pacific Northwest.  This strategic initiative builds closer links between Academic Affairs and Facilities Management and campus master planning. From the academic strategic planning perspective the three most critical major projects are: Student Recreation and Fitness Center, a Residence Hall, and a Science & Technology Lab Building. Two key benchmarks: By 2014-2015, 65% of SU undergraduates will reside in SU Housing. SU undergraduate retention rate will surpass 90%. |  |  | Metric: The assessment shall include all campus academic spaces used for instruction, laboratory, office, studio, exhibition, performance, and support to assess a) its existing physical condition, b) adequacy of space, and c) appropriateness and efficiency of use.  This would result in a room-by-room matrix of conditional rankings.  Simultaneously, given each department’s current enrollment, faculty, and staff, assess if the academic department has a) enough space, b) the right mix and use of space types, c) the appropriate equipment within the space and, d) the right location of that space to function at an optimally productive level. | Metric: For a more holistic, creative and strategic analysis, include all Seattle University buildings which might be able to be used, with appropriate renovations and relocations, as instructional spaces. Benchmark this against statistical peer institutions. ( A lesser version of the analysis would include only those spaces currently assigned to the academic affairs division, and the schools, colleges, departments and programs for instructional uses.)  Using the academic strategic priorities as the drivers, integrate space and facilities planning and budgeting processes all the way from maintenance through major projects. |  |  | Metric: Refine prioritization of instructional space needs which was done in 2009-2010 in light of the final version of the core curriculum requirements.  100% of the needed instructional spaces to support the new core curriculum requirements will be prepared and ready for use by the  launch of the new core in the Fall of 2012. | Metric: The recreational facilities and fields project and at least one new residence hall project will have been designed, funding secured, plans approved as may be necessary by the city's permitting and building ordnances, and those projects will be moving into the design and construction phase. | Metric: At least one major new academic facilities project (e.g. one related to undergraduate science instructional labs) will have been designed to the level which permits major fundraising to be successfully undertaken. [NAME]: SU's deferred maintenance budget will be in top 40% of statistical peers. [NAME]: Ratio of office spaces to full-time faculty FTE will be in top 40% of statistical peers. |  | Metrics: None of the instructional spaces which had formerly been identified as substandard will be currently classified in that way because the problems associated with those spaces will have been adequately addressed in the intervening years.   The number of instructional spaces found now to be substandard will be less than 15% of all instructional spaces.  At least 50% of the instructional spaces will now be classified as exceeding the minimum requirements for fulfilling their instructional purposes.  [NAME]:  65% of SU undergraduates will reside in SU Housing.  Graduate student housing will be available on-campus or in SU off-campus facilities for 20% of SU's full time graduate students.
 |  | Centers, Institutes and Signature Programs |  |  | Centers, Institutes and Signature Programs Year 1 (2009-2010) |  | Centers, Institutes and Signature Programs Year 2 (2010-2011) |  | Centers, Institutes and Signature Programs Year 3 (2011-2012) |  | Centers, Institutes and Signature Programs Year 4 (2012-2013) |  | Centers, Institutes and Signature Programs Year 5 (2013-2014)
 |  | Centers, Institutes and Signature Programs | President, Provost, Deans & Faculty |  | 1. Survey faculty of the university to determine areas of expertise, interest and experience as pertains to the core values, goals and priorities of the university, such as: global education, community engagement, leadership development, ethics and justice, environmental sustainability, diversity, Catholic and Jesuit character, societal and personal development. 2. Survey statistical peer institutions to determine the number of university-level strategic centers or institutes which are supported, their key functions on behalf of the institution, the principles upon which they are expected to operate, and the array of programs and services offered. | 3. Develop a university-wide policy framework for reviewing proposals to form a strategic university center or institute. This framework should address the essential functions of advancing scholarship, learning, community engagement, and positive public visibility for the university around its core values, goals and priorities.  In addition, the framework should provide for clear expectations regarding the necessity for the effective engagement of a planned center or institute with faculty and staff from multiple schools and colleges and the administrative division. The framework should include expectations that proposals would specify the staffing and start-up costs associated with the envisioned center or institute, the business plan for the center or institute including multi-year plans, projected revenues and expenses, and the standards by which the success of the center or institute may be evaluated in future years.  4. Engage in a comparable process within academic affairs to assist schools and colleges with the policies relative to the identification, operation and evaluation of signature curricular programs. | Identify the 3-5 most promising concepts for the initial university-level strategic center or institute. Evaluate those concepts in terms of their contribution to enhanced academic excellence at Seattle University and in terms of their potential for effective marketing of the university and fundraising for core institutional goals and priorities.  Invite one or more full proposals which respond to the questions, conditions and expectations expressed in the policy framework. Select one, or at most two, of the proposals for implementation. | Within each school or college, follow a comparable process for identifying, reviewing, funding and operating the signature programs of that school or college.  In some schools or colleges there may already be in existence one or more programs which are recognized as signature programs of that school or college. | 1. In those cases where an endowed chair or professorship is required to inaugurate a strategic center or signature program, engage in active and carefully planned fundraising to secure needed resources.  Review within academic affairs the special search and hiring processes that will be necessary to recruit and hire outstanding individuals of national and international stature to endowed professorships and chairs. | In those cases where approval has been received to conduct a special search for a candidate to fill an endowed chair or professorship in support of a university strategic center or institute or a school-level signature program, the dean(s) of the school(s) which may be awarded that position  commence that process. | The first university strategic center or institute begins offering programs and services. |  | The second university strategic center or institute begins offering programs and services.
 |  | To highlight the core values and mission of the institution and its schools, and to draw together educational and scholarly energy, expertise and interest from multiple academic units, this initiative calls for identifying a limited number of strategically significant university level and college/school level programs, centers and institutes.  As the saying goes, “People do not care what you know until they know that you care,” the identification and promotion of strategic centers and signature programs demonstrates that the university and its schools and colleges embrace a set of core values which are of importance not only internally but to the external community as well. Through the greater visibility these strategic and signature centers, programs, and institutes can achieve for the university and for the schools, this academic initiative can assist leadership at the dean, vice president, president and board levels with institutional advancement. They build reputation, enhance academic excellence, and assist the university and the schools in attracting faculty, students and outside funding, and promote scholarly productivity and community engagement.  Thus, this initiative connects directly to institutional fundraising and to positioning the university through marketing and communications efforts to known and appreciated for those issues, topics and community-based activities which it most cares about. |  |  | Benchmark: Based on institutional size and peer group analysis, target between one and three university-level strategic centers or institutes to be launched by June of 2014.  [NAME]: by June 2011 each school or college will have identified and been approved for the development of one or more signature curricular programs. |  | Metric: By June 2011 each school and college with fewer that 50 FTE faculty will have identified, proposed, gained approval for and begun to resource at least 1 signature curricular program. Those with more than 50 FTE faculty will have identified, proposed, gained approval for and begun to resource 3 signature curricular programs.  These programs shall support the core values and priorities of the university and shall advance those areas of the school's or college's offerings which provide the school or college, as well as the university, with additional distinctive and warranted academic recognition at both the regional and national levels. |  | Metrics: By June 2012 the university will have launched at least 1 strategic center or institute which is closely identified with one or more of its central institutional values and priorities (e.g. Jesuit & Catholic identity, leadership, global education, environmental sustainability, or community engagement). This strategic center or institute is intended to present the university in a strong and positive way to the community, region and nation, and to connect and engage faculty, students and staff across multiple schools, colleges, and major divisional units. |  | Metric: By June 2013 the university will have launched its second strategic center or institute which affirms a core value or priority of the university, presents the university in a strong and positive way to the community, region and nation, and connects and engages faculty, students and staff across multiple schools, colleges, and major divisional units. |  | Metric: By June 2014 the university will have launched its third strategic center or institute which affirms a core value or priority of the university, presents the university in a strong and positive way to the community, region and nation, and connects and engages faculty, students and staff across multiple schools, colleges, and major divisional units.
 |  | Strategic Fundraising and [NAME] |  |  | Strategic Fundraising and Celebrating Success Year 1 (2009-2010) |  | Strategic Fundraising and Celebrating Success Year 2 (2010-2011) |  | Strategic Fundraising and Celebrating Success Year 3 (2011-2012) |  | Strategic Fundraising and Celebrating Success Year 4 (2012-2013) |  | Strategic Fundraising and Celebrating Success Year 5 (2013-2014)
 |  | Strategic Fundraising and [NAME] |  |  | (1) Initiate planning for the next Seattle University capital campaign using student scholarships, the vision for the new core curriculum, the strategic university centers and institutes and signature curricular programs which respond to the university's core values and priorities (and their related needs for endowed chairs and professorships), and projected instructional facilities needs to drive and energize the campaign's central priorities. (2) Revisit the institution's marketing and communications plan with special attention to how it can use the energy around the revision of the core curriculum and the identification of signature curricular programs.  Identify students, faculty and staff whose learning, teaching, scholarship, research, or work contributions best represent the central values, goals, priorities and ideals of Seattle University and tell those persons' stories to internal and external audiences. |  | Articulate a comprehensive institutional marketing and communications plan, based on academic priorities, core institutional values and the enrollment management objectives of the university and each of its schools and colleges. Survey Board of Trustee members and other important friends and benefactors of the university and its schools and colleges with regard to potential campaign priorities and their own giving-capacity and willingness to fundraise in support these priorities. | Using an experienced firm, conduct a donor-base capacity analysis to assist the university in establishing a realistic fundraising target for the next capital campaign. Determine the staffing needs for the next capital campaign.  Begin developing the case statement.  Metric: Increase alumni contacts at the departmental and school levels by 5% over the previous year; increase the alumni giving rate by 2%. | (1) Integrate fundraising priorities and plans with the facilities plans so that fundraising efforts will focus on those major capital projects for which other methods of financing are either insufficient or do not apply. (2) Begin the silent phase of the next Seattle University capital campaign. | Continue the "Silent Phase" of the next Seattle University capital campaign. | (1) Continue the silent phase of the campaign. (2). Affirm the fundraising target for the next capital campaign, design campaign materials, refine the assignment of prospects and gift targets, organize for the active involvement of deans, trustees, and other key university leaders in the public phase of the campaign, form a campaign committee and identify its co-chairs. | Complete the plans and preparations for the launch of the "Public Phase" of the next Seattle University capital campaign at some point during the forthcoming academic year. | When the silent phase (which is now in its third year) has reached the threshold of pledges greater than 50% of the overall campaign target, celebrate that achievement with the launch of the public phase of the next Seattle University capital campaign.
 |  | This initiative engages prospective benefactors as partners in building the premier independent university in the Pacific Northwest using the University’s core values as these are manifested in: the educational goals articulated by the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board, the graduate/professional degree programs and undergraduate majors, the renewed University Core Curriculum, the Enrollment Management and Student Success programs of the University, the priority given to state of the art instructional spaces and student facilities, the work being done in the University’s strategic centers and institutes, the signature programs of each of the schools and colleges, the successes experienced by students, alumni and faculty. Celebrate SU and its people both internally and externally in order to tell the university's story, and to project the positive reasons and generate the de facto case statement establishing that SU is achieving ever greater academic excellence. |  |  | Review the annual giving program with special attention to increasing the alumni participation rate.  Use academic departmental level contacts with their program alumni to reestablish and build initial relationships.  Use decanal level strategies to strengthen relationships and assist in the solicitation of small and medium sized gifts and pledges. | Benchmark: Survey the internal publications of the statistical peer institutions and, using an informed and representative set of Seattle students, staff and faculty, rate the quality and kind of SU's internal publications relative to those of the statistical peer institutions'.  Metric: the ratings should locate the SU's internal publications in the top half, if not the top third relative to the comparison group.   Conduct the same rating exercise using members of the Board of Trustees and other key external friends and benefactors of the university.  Again the ratings should locate Seattle in the top half, if not the top third. | Metric: 100% of the members of the Board would be willing to make a financial pledge in support of the next SU capital campaigns goals and priorities. Metric: The number of positive stories appearing in Seattle area or national mass communications venues (such as newspapers, TV and radio shows) which feature SU students, faculty or staff engaged in activities which represent the central goals, priorities and values of the university will increase by 5% over the previous year. |  | Metric: Increase alumni contacts at the departmental and school levels by 5% over the previous year; increase the alumni giving rate by 2%. Metric: The number of positive stories appearing in Seattle area or national mass communications venues (such as newspapers, TV and radio shows) which feature Seattle University students, faculty or staff engaged in activities which represent the central goals, priorities and values of the university will increase by 5% over the previous year. |  | Metric: Increase alumni contacts at the departmental and school levels by 5% over the previous year; increase the alumni giving rate by 2%. Metric: The number of positive stories appearing in Seattle area or national mass communications venues (such as newspapers, TV and radio shows) which feature Seattle University students, faculty or staff engaged in activities which represent the central goals, priorities and values of the university will increase by 5% over the previous year. |  | Metric: Increase alumni contacts at the departmental and school levels by 5% over the previous year; increase the alumni giving rate by 2%. Metric: The number of positive stories appearing in Seattle area or national mass communications venues (such as newspapers, TV and radio shows) which feature Seattle University students, faculty or staff engaged in activities which represent the central goals, priorities and values of the university will increase by 5% over the previous year.
 | Other projects Identified in Feb 19, 2009 resolution of  BOT Academic Affairs Committee | On-Going Assessment and Program Review |  |  | On-Going Assessment and Program Review Year 1 (2009-2010) |  | On-Going Assessment and Program Review Year 2 (2010-2011) |  | On-Going Assessment and Program Review Year 3 (2011-2012) |  | On-Going Assessment and Program Review Year 4 (2012-2013) |  | On-Going Assessment and Program Review  Year 5 (2013-2014)
 |  | Learning Outcomes Assessment | Linked to Curricular Renewal and Academic Program Review and to the four educational goals of SU baccalaureate degrees and the four educational goals of SU graduate degrees. | Metric: Learning outcomes at the program and degree level are assessed (data gathered and analyzed) at least once every 3 years.  Base line exit levels are established and used as benchmarks. | Baseline student exit level data gathered at the graduate degree and undergraduate major levels with regard to the learning outcomes associated with Goal 1 (proficiencies) and Goal 2 (depth of learning within a field or discipline). |  | Gathering base line student exit level data at the program (including the core) and degree level with regard to Goal 3 (deep integrated knowledge across the liberal arts and sciences) and Goal 4 (values, attitudes and dispositions). |  | Gather baseline entry and exit level data at the program and degree level with regard to Goals 1 and 2. |  | Gather entry level data with samples of new freshman and new transfer students on the learning outcomes associated with the new core. Code so that matched exit data can be gathered in future years. |  | Gather baseline entry and exit level data at the program and degree level with regard to Goals 3 and 4.
 |  |  |  |  | Complete self-study document | Successful accreditation site-visit | Analyze data gathered in 2009-2010 to establish initial local benchmarks for Goals 1 and 2. |  | Analyze data gathered in 2010-2011 to establish initial local benchmarks for Goals 3 and 4. |  | Analyze entry and exit data gathered in 2011-2012 and compare to exit data gathered two years earlier.  Recommend areas of potential improvement. |  | Analyze new core entry level data gathered in 2012-13.  Plan for exit data gathering on core learning outcomes in the term prior to students' expected graduation.
 |  | Academic Degree Program Review | Linked to Curricular Renewal and Outcomes Assessment | Metric: Every program undergoes a full and fair-minded review at least once every 5 years. Cycle #1 spans 2009-10 through 2013-14. | Update Program Review schedule to 5 year cycle. Include explicit criteria relating to academic priorities: Leadership, community engagement, diversity, environmental sustainability, ethical decision making, etc. Include specific criteria relating to the adequacy and use of vital resources such as instructional technology, research support, library holdings, classrooms and labs. | Initial year of 5-year program review cycle. | Second year of 5-year program review cycle. |  | Third year of 5-year program review cycle. |  | Fourth year of 5-year program review cycle. |  | Fifth year of 5-year program review cycle.
 |  | Purposes: To assure the effectiveness and the quality of all academic programs offered at the graduate or the undergraduate level, to affirm and support programs of quality and to identify programs that may no longer be viable, essential, or of sufficient priority given the resources available and given the institution's mission and goals. |  | Note: A "program" for purposes of this function designates a complete curricular experience culminating in the award of a graduate or undergraduate degree, rather than to administrative sub-units which offer only some element required in that degree experience. For example, the MBA, [NAME], and Ph.D are "programs" in this sense of the term.  The BS is a program.  The BA is another program. A complete program review of the BA degree, for example, would focus on the 4 broad educational goals of that degree program and include the core and those majors which are BA majors. There may be special reasons which require a special "program review" for the core or for a given major. And there may be special reasons to conduct an administrative review of a given department, college or academic unit.  But these processes can be distinguished from on-going academic program review. | Link Program Review to Learning Outcomes Assessment by including provision for the gathering, analysis and use of outcomes assessment data for continuous quality improvement of degree programs and majors. Link cycles to professional accreditation. Focus process on strategic planning, emphasize brevity of reports and creation of actionable items, benchmarks and metrics. The administrative unit of measure for program review should be at the school / college level in order to focus on the complete curricular programs it offers, rather than on the departmental or sub-unit levels where (except for departmentally contained majors) only parts of a given program are offered. The purpose is to examine the integration of the parts to form the totality of the student's curricular learning experience. | Metric: 10% of eligible programs undertake program review responding to updated standards and criteria. | Metric: 20% of eligible programs undertake program review responding to updated standards and criteria. |  | Metric 25% of eligible programs participate in program review. |  | Metric: 25% of eligible programs participate in program review. |  | Metric: the remaining 20% of eligible programs participate in program review. | Metric: Between 2009-10 and 2013-14, 100% of the academic departments will have participated in program review on the five year cycle either as part of a complete review of the BS degree or the BA degree or one of the other baccalaureate degrees, [NAME], and / or the core.