2000-2004 MASTER PLAN

THE STATE UNIVERSITYof NEW YORK

For additional copies, please contact:

O ffice of the Pro v o s tThe State University of New Yo r k

State University PlazaA l b a n y, New York 12246

h t t p : / / w w w. s y s a d m . s u n y. e d u / p ro v o s t /

Mission of The State University of New Yo r k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Message from the Chancellor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

The State University of New York Master Plan 2000-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Mission Review – An Overarching Structure to Enhance Academic Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

O v e rview of Mission Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Mission Diff e rentiation: Market Niche and Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

E n rollment Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0

Access and Opport u n i t y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

Student Retention and Graduation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

A rticulation and Tr a n s f e r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5

B e n c h m a r k i n g . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6

Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6

Faculty Scholarship and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7

I n t e r-Campus Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9

Academic Program Dire c t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

General Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 0

Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

Academic Te c h n o l o g y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2

Linking Funding to Academic Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4

Service to Local Regions, the State, and the Nation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

Business, Industry and Economic Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

Community College Wo r k f o rce Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6

C h a rter Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7

R e s e a rch Foundation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7

Financial Management – A Structure to Enhance Academic Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9

New Budget Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9

General I F R and Supplemental Tuition Reimbursable Account . . . . . . . . . 3 0

Residence Hall Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0

Campus-Related Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

General Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

Hospital Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2

Operations – An Administrative Structure to Enhance Academic Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3

C o n c l u s i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4

Table of Contents

A p p e n d i c e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5

List of Campuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6

Mission Review: Recognized by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (A A S C U) as a Best Practice in Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 7

The Community Colleges of The State University of New Yo r kStrategic Plan for 2001-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8

R e p o rt of the Pro v o s t ’s Advisory Task Force on the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes (Executive Summary ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9

New Programs of Study Tentatively Planned for Introduction 2000-2004 . 6 5

Master Plan Amendments 1996-2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 0

Memo on 2001 Guidelines for the Submission of Underg r a d u a t eAcademic Program Pro p o s a l s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 1

R e p o rt of the Pro v o s t ’s Advisory Task Force on General Education . . . . . . . . . . 7 3

S U N Y Pass Rates on the New York State Teacher Certification Examinations 1999-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6

P ro v o s t ’s Advisory Council on Teacher Education Report and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s (Executive Summary ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8

A New Vision in Teacher Education: Agenda for Change i n S U N Y’s Teacher Preparation Pro g r a m s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2

The State University of New York Budget Allocation Pro c e s s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7

Quantitative Inform a t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 7

Capital Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 9

B o a rd of Tru s t e e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1

System Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1

A d v i s o ry Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1

Mission of The State University of New Yo r k(Chapter 552, Laws of 1985)

“ The mission of the state university system shall be to provide to the people ofNew York educational services of the highest quality, with the broadest possibleaccess, fully re p resentative of all segments of the population in a complete range

of academic, professional and vocational post-secondary programs including suchadditional activities in pursuit of these objectives as are necessary or customary.These services and activities shall be off e red through a geographically d i s t r i b u t e dc o m p rehensive system of diverse campuses which shall have diff e rentiated anddesignated missions designed to provide a comprehensive program of highereducation, to meet the needs of both traditional and non-traditional students andto address local, regional and state needs and goals. In fulfilling this mission, thestate university shall exercise care to develop and maintain a balance of its humanand physical re s o u rces that:

a . recognizes the fundamental role of its responsibilities in undergraduate education and provides a full range of graduate and professional educationthat reflects the opportunity for individual choice and the needs of society;

b . establishes tuition which most effectively promotes the university’s access goals;

c . encourages and facilitates basic and applied re s e a rch for the purpose of thec reation and dissemination of knowledge vital for continued human, scientific,technological and economic advancement;

d . s t rengthens its educational and re s e a rch programs in the health sciencest h rough the provision of high quality care at its hospitals, clinics, and re l a t e dp rograms;

e . s h a res the expertise of the state university with the business, agricultural, g o v e rnmental, labor and nonprofit sectors of the state through a program ofpublic service for the purpose of enhancing the well-being of the people of thestate of New York and in protecting our environmental and marine re s o u rces;

f . p romotes appropriate program articulation between its state-operated institutionsand its community colleges as well as encourages regional networks and cooperative relationships with other educational and cultural institutions forthe purpose of better fulfilling its mission of education, re s e a rch and serv i c e . ”

1

Message from the Chancellor

In 1995, the Legislature called upon the Board of Trustees to craft a series of

recommendations to enhance the quality and operational perf o rmance of the

State University of New York. That work coalesced into the Board ’s landmark

plan: Rethinking SUNY. As is made abundantly clear in this Master Plan, much of

Rethinking SUNY has been translated into action that has dramatically stre n g t h e n e d

the State University. For example, the first cycle of Mission Review — the

U n i v e r s i t y ’s core academic strategic planning process, now nationally re c o g n i z e d

as a “Best Practice” in higher education — was brought to a successful conclusion

in spring 2001. And, the University has adopted a system of perf o rm a n c e - b a s e d

b u d g e t i n g which allows campuses to retain the tuition they generate and cre a t e s

new incentives for the distribution of State funding to the campuses in ways that

p romote quality. Both initiatives rest on principles articulated in Rethinking SUNY.

But there is more work to be done, and that too is described in this Master Plan.

When I joined the State University as Chancellor, I knew that the major objective

of the Board of Trustees was to move the University into the front ranks of

American higher education. That is a goal I enthusiastically embrace. The better

the University becomes, the more successful it will be in attracting the top faculty,

re s e a rchers, and students necessary for our State’s economic vitality. Fort u n a t e l y,

I joined the State University while Mission Review, an unprecedented and massive

p rocess involving all 64 campuses, was underw a y, allowing me to work with

c a mpuses to shape their goals and, through the campuses, the goals of the

U n i v e r s i t y. The executed final planning documents (Memoranda of Understanding)

will be critically important as we continue to strengthen and improve the quality

of the State University.

In addition to Mission Review, several new eff o rts launched recently continue t o

enhance the University’s strength. We are taking steps to give the State University

a new presence in Washington and to refocus the Research Foundation to support

m o re directly re s e a rch eff o rts on SUNY’s campuses. We are developing pro g r a m s

that will help the University match — and perhaps exceed — the levels of support

given to other great public university systems. And, we created an Office for

Business and Industry Relations to make the intellectual expertise of the

University more readily available to companies, small businesses, and non-pro f i t

endeavors across New York State and beyond its bord e r s .

With each of these initiatives underw a y, we must now set new goals for the

f u t u re, cognizant of the fact that we need not be defined by the limits of the State

3

resources available to us. Accordingly, we intend to raise, across the breadth of

the University, $1 billion in the next four years from private sources, including

alumni, private corporations, and foundations. We also seek to increase sponsore d

re s e a rch at the University to $1 billion per year within five years. Finally, it is our

intention to increase campus-generated revenues by over $500 million in the

next four years by, for example, growing out-of-state and international enro l l m e n t

and by increasing the entre p reneurial activities of our campuses.

Unlike any other institution of higher learning in New York State, the State

U n i v e r s i t y is literally every w h e re, from Niagara Falls to the top of the Adiro n d a c k

Park, from the heart of one of the most vibrant cities on Earth to the last lighthouse

on Long Island. Given our geographic and intellectual breadth, our success is

the State’s success. As the State University moves to the front ranks of American

higher education, we also join in the greater eff o rt to assure a strong future for

the Empire State.

R o b e rt L. King, Chancellor

4

The State University of New York M AST ER PL A N 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 4

In December 1995, the State University Board of Trustees responded to a callf rom the New York State Legislature requesting a “multi-year, compre h e n s i v e ,system-wide plan to increase cost efficiency in the continuing pursuit of the

highest quality and broadest possible access consistent with the state universitymission.” The Board of Trustees, in its plan entitled Rethinking SUNY, re a ff i rm e dthe statutory mission of the University. It endorsed additional pro p o s i t i o n s t h a tThe State University of New York Master Plan 2000-2004 also carries forw a rd :

✦ The State University exists to provide access to educational services of thehighest quality;

✦ I n c reased diff e rentiation of campuses is fundamental to realizing the synerg i e sachievable as a System;

✦ Graduate, professional, and re s e a rch programs are essential to the mission ofthe State University of New York and to the economic vitality of New York; and

✦ C l e a rer academic standards and better means for measuring perf o rmance arecentral to increasing accountability.

The direction of the University established by the Board of Trustees in R e t h i n k i n gS U N Y has been pursued diligently in the succeeding years and continues to drivethe priorities presented in this Master Plan: quality, access, eff i c i e n c y, eff e c t i v e n e s s ,and accountability. To ensure access to the highest quality education in a climateof constrained re s o u rces, the University will continue to become more self-suff i c i e n t,m o re focused, more creative, and stro n g e r. The priorities of the State UniversityB o a rd of Trustees assume a particular significance given the goals in the plan ofthe Board of Regents, Excellence and Opportunity for All New Yorkers: The StatewidePlan for Higher Education, 1996-2004.

Underscoring the momentum of Rethinking SUNY, this Master Plan sets out specific forw a rd-looking objectives which will contribute to the statewide goals.The Master Plan is organized around four principal foci of eff o rt across theU n i v e r s i t y, each of which is intended to enhance academic quality:

✦ Mission Review✦ S e rvice to Local Regions, the State, and the Nation✦ Financial Management✦ O p e r a t i o n s

In addition to the plans and activities described in the body of the text under thefour foci, there are several re p o rts and other supporting materials in the Appendixthat provide more detail about the University’s future direction.

In short, The State University of New York Master Plan 2000-2004 is a description ofthe successes the State University of New York has achieved during the past fiveyears in implementing Rethinking SUNY. More import a n t l y, it sets out how the StateUniversity will continue to translate the principles of Rethinking SUNY into action.

5

Mission Review – An Overarching Structure to Enhance Academic Quality

S ince 1998, Mission Review has been the core academic strategic planningp rocess of the State University. It is an on-going, campus-based eff o rt thatincludes all 64 SUNY institutions both individually and collectively as part

of geographic regions and sector groups. The aim of the process is to enhanceacademic quality by helping campuses clarify institutional goals, determine how best to pursue those goals, and identify specific benchmarks of success.Envisioned by Rethinking SUNY, Mission Review seeks to:

✦ E n s u re the highest levels of academic quality across the University;

✦ Focus on the fundamental aspects of campus missions;

✦ Encourage campuses to think strategically about their roles within SUNY, New York State, and the nation;

✦ Enhance campus distinctiveness and diff e re n t i a t i o n ;

✦ Enhance the reputation of each campus relative to regional and national peers;

✦ Foster cooperation with other campuses; and

✦ Identify goals and benchmarks to monitor success.

Mission Review is an unprecedented eff o rt—in terms of its scope and detail—that has received broad support and is recognized by the American Association ofState Colleges and Universities (AASCU) as a “Best Practice” in Quality Assurance(see Appendix, Mission Review Recognized). It is characterized by, and pre m i s e don, iterative dialogue between System Administration and the campuses.

The Mission Review Process (shown on the next page) illustrates the iterative,b a c k - a n d - f o rth nature of the eff o rt, its comprehensiveness (i.e., includes planningat the institution, sector, and regional level), and its inclusiveness (bringing togetherall diff e rent constituencies).

Overview ofMission Review

6

The first cycle of Mission Review included more than 70 meetings, both individualvisits to campuses and broader gatherings of campuses by geographic region andinstitution type. Results of Mission Review are brought together in Memoranda of Understanding (MOU); these documents—signed by campus and Systemleadership—lay out campus goals, plans, and benchmarks of success. The MOUsp rovide a framework for facilitating changes in and enhancements to campusm i s s i o n s .

The Memoranda of Understanding articulate commitments on the part of campuses and System Administration toward the goal of achieving the highest possible academic quality for the State University. In the aggregate, they chart a course that is focused on high standards for academic quality and publicaccountability on the one hand, and campus autonomy and self-determinationon the other. Where clear quantifiable goals could be specified, campuses havedone so (e.g., retention and graduation rates). In other instances, campuses havecommitted to put in place and/or enhance campus-based procedures that willimprove quality (e.g., regular external review of all academic programs). Someof the commitments made in MOUs will be fully realized once complementarySystem-wide initiatives are fully implemented (in such areas as general education,research, and assessment). The MOUs will serve as important reference and policy documents for stakeholders throughout the University. Examples ofongoing efforts that will rely extensively on the Memoranda of Understandinginclude presidential evaluations, academic program proposal review, enrollmentplanning, and performance funding.

Mission ReviewP r o c e s s

7

Customized questions aboutmission sent to all 64 campuses

in Misson ReviewG u i d a n c e

d o c u m e n t s

Interlocutor teamsset for each

campus

System analysis ofcampus strengthsand weaknesses

b e gi n s

D e tailed responseto G u i d a n c equestions

submitted by campuses in

Mission Summaryd o c u m e n t s

Evaluation ofMission Summarydocuments begi n s ,

System analysisc o n t i n u e s

Visits to each campus for

focused discussionabout campusdirection and

Dialogue Points

Draft M e m o r a n d aof Understanding(using a common

template) proposed for

campus review

Re gional andSector Meetings

of sets of c a m p u s e s

D e tailed Dialogue Pointsdeveloped for campus visits

Continued dialoguewith campusesover content of

M e m o r a n d a

P r o v o s tRe v i e w

C h a n c e l l o rRe v i e w

Board Re v i e w

M e m o r a n d af i n a l i z e d

and signed

Although each Memorandum of Understanding lays out a plan specific to a campus, the complete set of these documents establishes a vision for enhancedacademic quality throughout the State University. Certain key themes emerg ea c ross these planning documents; the following pages highlight some of the components anticipated to have the most dramatic impact on quality.

P e rhaps the most important step in Mission Review was the first: each campuswas asked to clarify its mission and role within the University. Clear delineationof mission “envelopes” is useful, both to campus constituencies and to the

b ro a d e r constituency base of the State University. Campuses have defined theirmarket niches in relation to their historic mission, geographic considerations, therange of academic degrees that are off e red, and particular institutional stre n g t h s .This information is made explicit in the Memoranda of Understanding which, int u rn, serve as useful re f e rence documents for determining the appropriateness ofnewly proposed academic programs.

In addition to mission diff e rentiation at the institutional level, Mission Reviewalso sought to clarify missions of various campus sectors across the State University.The SUNY system includes eight distinct categories of institutions (see Appendix,List of Campuses) which maximize the provision of quality higher education toNew Yorkers. Having such a broad range of institutions enhances each citizen’sability to contribute to society, participate in the workforce, and take advantage of lifelong learning opportunities. Mission Review re a ff i rmed the value of diff e re n tsectors, which include:

Four University CentersThe four university centers—at Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, and Stony Bro o k —a re, first and foremost, re s e a rch institutions where the creation of new knowledge is a central part of campus mission. In addition to wide-rangingu n d e rgraduate and graduate programs leading to baccalaureate and master’sd e g rees, each university center has doctoral programs and professional schools.

Thirteen Comprehensive Arts and Sciences CollegesThis group comprises twelve traditional institutions, mostly located in small citiesand towns, with academic offerings that include liberal arts and sciences and p rofessional programs such as business and teacher education. In addition to a fullrange of undergraduate curricula, including honors programs, the compre h e n s i v ecolleges offer masters degrees. The thirteenth—less traditional—compre h e n s i v ecollege is Empire State College, which enrolls a high pro p o rtion of workingadults at extension centers throughout the state and via distance learn i n g .

Four Health Science CentersThe State University’s four health science centers (HSCs) include two fre e s t a n d i n gcenters, in Syracuse and Brooklyn, and two university-based centers at theUniversity at Buffalo and the University at Stony Brook. Three of the HSCs(Syracuse, Brooklyn, and Stony Brook) include University-owned hospitals. Each health science center has a college of medicine, nursing programs, and arange of other health-related undergraduate and graduate programs. SUNY off e r s ,

M i s s i o nD i f f e r e n t i a t i o n :

Market Niche and Role

8

t h rough these centers, some of the highest quality health-related education,re s e a rch, and patient care in the nation.

Six Colleges with Special MissionsThe six specialized colleges include the College of Environmental Science andF o re s t ry, Farmingdale (focusing on technology and applied sciences), MaritimeCollege, the College of Optometry, the Institute of Technology at Utica/Rome,and the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT). FIT, a unique community collegewithin the System, offers associate through master’s degrees. Each of these collegesfocuses on degree programs related to their special mission and ro l e .

Five Partnership CollegesKnown also as statutory colleges, the five partnership colleges include four colleges affiliated with Cornell University: the Colleges of Agriculture and LifeSciences, Human Ecology, Ve t e r i n a ry Medicine (graduate schools only) and theSchool of Industrial and Labor Relations. A fifth institution, the New York StateCollege of Ceramics, is affiliated with Alfred University. Each partnership collegeenjoys the benefits of being part of the State University of New York while beingconnected to, and located at, a private university. These colleges are exemplars of productive public-private part n e r s h i p s .

Five University Colleges of Te c h n o l o g yThe five University Colleges of Technology (UCT)—located in Alfred, Canton,Cobleskill, Delhi, and Morr i s v i l l e — a re linked through a consortium that facilitatescooperative planning and delivery of academic programs and services. This cre a t i v ep a rtnership allows students at any one of the five campuses to participate incourses originating from another campus using distance learning technology.Thus, UCT students benefit from a wider array of academic offerings and faculty.The five UCT campuses offer associate degree programs, and an expanding number of baccalaureate programs in technology and applied science appro p r i a t eto their missions.

Thirty Community CollegesThe State University’s 30 community colleges are located in every region of thestate. Students study in a range of two-year programs leading to the associate degre e ,and in certificate and other non-degree programs. Many of SUNY’s communitycollege graduates transfer to four-year institutions to earn a baccalaureate degre e ,while other graduates begin work immediately. The community colleges alsohave a wide range of offerings and re s o u rces supporting p rograms in lifelongl e a rning and skill development for part-time students alre a d y in the workforc e ,either individually or through employer- s u p p o rted, tailored courses. A numberof community colleges offer residential living, and several operate in more thanone location. SUNY’s community colleges are diff e rent from its state-operatedcampuses in that governance and operation are shared between the state andlocal sponsor (i.e., a single county or a group of counties). State-local shared g o v e rnance is reflected in the membership of community college boards oft rustees: they include both Govern o r-appointed and local sponsor- a p p o i n t e dmembers. Even though this governance diff e rence exists, the community collegesa re fully involved in a comprehensive planning process that is completely consistent and fully coordinated with the overarching system-wide strategic goals.

9

Related Educational CentersThe University’s related educational centers include the statewide network ofEducational Opportunity Centers (EOCs). With more than a 33-year history,EOCs have pioneered providing urban communities with innovative academicp rograms leading to higher education, and with vocational training pro g r a m sleading to gainful employment and economic self-suff i c i e n c y. In 1999-2000, the EOCs off e red training and support to over 16,000 individuals.

W ith enhanced academic quality as its guiding principle, Mission Reviewa d d resses enrollment planning from multiple angles, including setting realistic enrollment goals, specifying selectivity aspirations, and identifying

benchmark institutions for comparative data. Campus plans to attract stro n g e rstudents through initiatives such as merit scholarships and honors programs arealso outlined in the Memoranda of Understanding.

As part of Mission Review, campuses were asked to consider carefully their short -and long-term enrollment plans in terms of both the size a n d the academic p rofile of their admitted student body. One of the outcomes of Mission Review isthat a very rigorous enrollment planning process—one that takes into accountcampus goals and aspirations and pro g ress toward those goals and aspirations—has been adopted by the Enrollment Planning Group in System Administration.This broadly re p resentative group engages campuses in dialogue as needed anda p p ropriate, and approves campus plans that are in concert with the thrust of the Memoranda of Understanding. Enrollment plans are evaluated for consistencywith overall State University goals, previously expressed campus goals, demographic trends, campus capacity, workforce needs, funding constraints, and prior success in campus-based enrollment planning.

P rojections for 2004-05 are that enrollments will rise to 174,240 full-time equivalent students in state-operated institutions (nine percent increase over2000-01) and to 145,151 full-time equivalent students at community colleges(five percent increase over 2000-01), for a total of 319,391 full-time equivalentstudents (seven percent increase over 2000-01). Planned total headcount will rise to 400,737 students (seven percent increase over 2000-01). The table on thenext page summarizes State University planned enrollment growth from 2000-01to 2004-05, a c ross sector, and in the context of projected New York State publichigh school graduates.

E n r o l l m e n tP l a n n i n g

1 0

P r o j e c t e d P r o j e c t e d C u r r e n t P r o j e c t e dA p p r o v e d P r o j e c t e d To ta l A n n u a l P r o p o r t i o n P r o p o r t i o n2 0 0 0 - 0 1 2 0 0 4 - 0 5 C h a n g e C h a n g e of SUN Y of SUN Y

University Centers1 5 9 , 0 6 0 6 4 , 5 6 1 9 . 3 1 % 2 . 3 3 % 1 9 . 73 % 2 0 . 2 1 %C o l l e g e s 67 , 9 3 6 7 1 , 9 2 0 5 . 8 6 % 1 . 47 % 2 2 . 70 % 2 2 . 5 2 %Health Science Centers 7 , 478 8 , 4 5 9 1 3 . 1 2 % 3 . 2 8 % 2 . 5 0 % 2 . 6 5 %S ta t u t o ry Colleges 6 , 6 07 6 , 6 6 8 0 . 9 2 % 0 . 2 3 % 2 . 2 1 % 2 . 0 9 %Colleges of Te c h n o l o gy 11 , 4 3 8 1 2 , 5 0 0 9 . 2 8 % 2 . 3 2 % 3 . 8 2 % 3 . 9 1 %Specialized Colleges 7 , 977 1 0 , 1 3 2 27. 0 2 % 6 . 76 % 2 . 67 % 3 . 17 %Community Colleges 1 3 8 , 772 1 4 5 , 1 5 1 4 . 6 0 % 1 . 1 5 % 4 6 . 37 % 4 5 . 4 5 %TOTA L 2 9 9 , 2 6 8 3 1 9 , 3 9 1 6 . 72 % 1 . 6 8 % 1 0 0 . 0 % 1 0 0 . 0 %New York Sta t ePublic HS Graduates2 1 3 9 , 4 0 0 1 47 , 1 0 0 5 . 5 2 % 1 . 3 8 % - -

1Excluding Health Science Centers2U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data Surveys and State Public High

School Graduates Model, Table 34, June 2000.

SUNY continually seeks to improve quality and increase the transparency of thee n rollment planning process. To this end, clear guidelines describing the process andp roviding details about the methodologies used by the Enrollment Planning Gro u pa re distributed to all campuses. At the conclusion of the annual planning cycle, eachcampus is provided with a summary of all approved plans, as well as the plans a n d actual enrollments for all campuses for the previous two years. In this way,campuses receive more detailed information to support their own enro l l m e n tplanning eff o rt s .

The profile of an admitted class is another indicator of academic quality. Amongthe goals of Mission Review is enhancing the quality of students admitted to theState University of New York while maintaining the University’s long-standingcommitment to access. To that end, all state-operated campuses have pledged towork toward enhanced selectivity and have committed to precise selectivity goalsfor entering classes. Campus-driven selectivity goals—informed by state andnational peer comparison data—are made explicit in the Memoranda of Understanding. The following chart illustrates the rubric used by campuses and System Administration to determine the selectivity goals for underg r a d u a t eadmissions. With a defining criterion of “at least 60% of students” (admitted asfull-time freshmen) for each selectivity group, the matrix leaves considerableroom for access to even the most selective State University campuses.

P r o j e c t e dEnrollment in

Annual Average Fu l l - t i m e

E q u i v a l e n t sthrough 2004-05

A d m i s s i o n sSelectivity Matrix

1 1

Up to 60 70 80 90 100High School Av e r a g e

1 6 0 0

1 4 0 0

1 2 0 0

1 0 0 0

8 0 0

6 0 0

Most Selective:at least 60% of students are in Group 1

Highly Selective:at least 60% of students are in Group 2

Very Selective:at least 60% of students are in Group 3

S e l e c t i v e :at least 60% of students are in Group 4

General Admission:not meeting any of the above categories

As a result of Mission Review, the Memoranda of Understanding will be re l i e dupon to determine not only whether a given campus is reaching its targ e t e de n rollment goals but also its goals for undergraduate selectivity. Campuses will be asked to provide updated information on selectivity annually, as part of thee n rollment planning process. All indications suggest that the integrated MissionReview and enrollment planning process is successful in meeting State Universitygoals for 1) more accurate enrollment planning consistent with MOU goals, 2) raising selectivity (where appropriate) and maintaining access, and 3) facilitatingcollaborative and more transparent planning.

In addition to the profile of an admitted class, another indicator of academicquality is campus success in attracting students from a wide geographic area. As institutional reputation rises, applications from outside the campus’ local are aexpand. Accord i n g l y, in the Memoranda of Understanding many campuses havecommitted to expanding their geographical “draw.” Their effectiveness in doingso will be monitored over time.

A s a public institution, the University has a strong commitment to ensuringb road access and opportunity for New York State residents and that commitment was re a ff i rmed in Mission Review. In the coming years, the

University plans to:

✦ s t rengthen and build upon existing programs for access;

✦ enhance outreach eff o rts to under- s e rved populations;

✦ p romote diversity among faculty, staff and students;

✦ a d d ress the technological needs of disadvantaged students;

✦ p roduce graduates well-pre p a red in fields corresponding to state needs (e.g., teaching);

✦ expand collaborative eff o rts with public schools in at-risk communities; and

✦ continue to support initiatives that combine the principles of access, serv i c e ,and excellence at all levels of study.

At the center of the range of programs that serve as mechanisms for access, d i v e r s i t y, and student support is the University’s highly successful EducationalO p p o rtunity Program (EOP). Designed for undergraduate students who have the potential to succeed in higher education despite economic and academic disadvantages, each year this program provides financial assistance, academicd e v e l o pment skills workshops, advisement, and counseling to more than 11,500s t u d e n t s who might not otherwise have the opportunity for college-level study.As a complement to its undergraduate support programs, tuition waivers forstudy at the master’s, doctorate, and first-professional level at selected SUNYcampuses dramatically expand career options for successful graduates from disadvantaged backgrounds. Students enrolled in the University’s opport u n i t yp rograms come from a variety of backgrounds—urban and rural—that is re p resentative of the diversity found in New York State.

Access andO p p o r t u n i t y

1 2

Though traditional forms of student support remain at the core of the University’so p p o rtunity program operations, improvement of student perf o rmance, e n h a n c ement of the educational experience and promotion of innovation in serv i c ed e l i v e ry a re current priorities. New campus programs will include projects aimedat: increasing student-faculty interaction outside the classroom; pro v i d i n gg reater access to and ease with technology; developing leadership skills amongp rogram students; integrating learning and living environments; fostering mentoring relationships; structuring opportunities for student participation inre s e a rch and internships; encouraging alumni involvement; facilitating transferf rom two-year to four-year programs; and encouraging graduate study.

The University’s Opportunity Programs group works jointly with the Search forEducation, Elevation, and Knowledge (SEEK) program in the City University andoccupies a leadership role in the Tri-State Consortium of Opportunity Pro g r a m s —comprising access programs in the public and private institutions of New Yo r k ,New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

Enhancing academic quality extends beyond attracting strong and capable students to include providing excellent instruction and a supportive learn i n ge n v i ronment until timely graduation. Consistent with Rethinking SUNY’s

focus on time-to-degree, State University campuses will continue to impro v etheir retention and graduation rates. Through Mission Review, campuses havecommitted to raising first-year retention rates, and four-year and six-year graduation rates.

S t u d e n tRetention and

Graduation

F i r s t -Ye a rRetention Rates

1 3

1 0 0 %

9 0 %

8 0 %

70 %

6 0 %

5 0 %

4 0 %

3 0 %

2 0 %

1 0 %

0 %

National Mean(Public) 74 %

■ C u r r e n t■ 5-year Goal

U n i v e r s i t y C o m p r e h e n s i v e S p e c i a l i z e d Colleges ofC e n t e r s C o l l e g e s C o l l e g e s Te c h n o l o gy

Most of SUNY’s state-operated campuses meet or exceed the national mean first-year retention rate for public universities and colleges (see chart on pre v i o u spage). Likewise, the average SUNY community college first-year retention rate(62.2 percent) far exceeds the national mean for public community colleges (52 percent). Nevertheless, each campus will strive to improve perf o rmance evenf u rther in this area. Initiatives include expanded first-year studies programs (e.g.,F reshman Seminars), faculty mentoring of new students, placing students in s u p p o rtive learning communities, and improved academic advisement. SystemAdministration is committed to doing all that it can to support such eff o rt s ,including funding innovative approaches. Indeed, as part of Mission Review,campuses have received funding to support highly promising approaches toi m p roving student retention. For example, the Colleges at Oswego and New Paltz will use Mission Review funds to invest in improved and enhanced academicp rogramming for first-year students. Both campuses will adopt multi-pro n g e da p p roaches that include faculty development and innovative, supportive p rogramming aimed at beginning students. In this way, students will be betterp re p a red to face academic challenges and more likely to persevere in their studiesat the institution where they first enrolled.

The State University’s six-year graduation rates at state-operated campuses alsooutpace the national mean for public colleges and universities (see chart below).Likewise, average SUNY community college four-year graduation rates (30.8 p e rcent) substantially outpace the national mean (21 perc e n t ) .

Once again, as part of the Mission Review process, all state-operated campuseshave committed to specific goals for improving graduation rates. Where individualcampus graduation rates fell below the SUNY mean, campuses committed tom o re careful analysis of attrition patterns (by interviewing withdrawing students,analyzing transcripts of students who leave prior to graduation, and care f u lreview of student and alumni survey results, for example) in order to helpi m p rove their perf o rmance.

S i x -Ye a rGraduation Rates

1 4

1 0 0 %

9 0 %

8 0 %

70 %

6 0 %

5 0 %

4 0 %

3 0 %

2 0 %

1 0 %

0 %

National Mean(Public) 45%

■ C u r r e n t■ 5-year Goal

U n i v e r s i t y C o m p r e h e n s i v e S p e c i a l i z e d SUN YC e n t e r s C o l l e g e s C o l l e g e s M e a n

For community colleges in part i c u l a r, retention and graduation rates must bei n t e r p reted in the context of student goals. Many community college students do not enroll seeking a degree but rather to acquire specific skills or knowledge(for example, by taking a set of specific courses related to one’s job). Consistentwith national eff o rts to focus on achievement of student goals in gauging successat community colleges, the Mission Review process has spawned an initiative todevelop more comprehensive analyses of student intentions upon admittanceand at subsequent points in their academic care e r. This System-wide eff o rt willp rovide more accurate measures of community college effectiveness in helpingstudents reach their academic goals.

Student retention and graduation are, of course, affected in important ways byfinancial pre s s u res facing SUNY students. Consistent with its access mission, theUniversity remains concerned about economic barriers that may prevent a studentf rom attaining a quality higher education in New York. SUNY will continue toseek adequate levels of financial support through federal, state, local, and privates o u rces so that students can stay in school and graduate in a timely manner, consistent with individual educational goals.

In addition to tracking retention and graduation rates as a matter of course thro u g hthe System’s Office of Institutional Research, campuses and System Administrationwill now also monitor these trends as part of the enrollment planning process.

A major function of the University’s 30 community colleges is to provide students with access to an educational pathway leading to the baccalaure a t ed e g ree and beyond. Each year, approximately 8,000 SUNY community

college students transfer to upper-division SUNY institutions. More o v e r, dataindicate that transfers from SUNY’s community colleges fare exceptionally well at our upper-division institutions, often outperf o rming those who began theireducation at these institutions as freshmen. Independent colleges also activelyre c ruit and welcome SUNY community college graduates.

Each of SUNY’s community colleges has negotiated detailed articulation a g reements with their most prominent transfer partners, including both upper-division SUNY campuses as well as independent colleges. In addition to a rticulation agreements, many SUNY community colleges and their transfer p a rtners offer jointly re g i s t e red programs. Students in these programs are e ffectively admitted to the upper-division campus at the same time they areadmitted to the participating community college.

Seamless articulation between community colleges and four-year institutions—apillar of the University’s mission—continues to be a high priority for the SUNYB o a rd of Trustees and System Administration, and it was a major goal of MissionR e v i e w. Board policy ensures that students with an A.A. or an A.S. degree whoa re accepted into a parallel program by a SUNY baccalaureate institution will be granted full junior status and have the opportunity to complete their degre ewithin two years of full-time study. Consistent with the high priority given toa rticulation, the Memoranda of Understanding include campus commitments

Articulation and Tr a n s f e r

1 5

to tighten existing articulation agreements, develop new articulation agre e m e n t s ,develop more jointly re g i s t e red programs, and increase inter-campus collaboration.This approach to seamless transfer is re i n f o rced in the emerging community collegestrategic plan (see Appendix, The Community Colleges of The State University of NewYork Strategic Plan for 2001-2004) .

As follow-up to Mission Review discussions, System Administration has formed a Transfer and Articulation Committee that is charged with monitoring andensuring the implementation of relevant University policy as well as form u l a t i n grecommendations for System-wide approaches to facilitate student movementwithin the University. Seven regional meetings were held in 2001 bringingtogether major transfer partners. Recommendations are fort h c o m i n g .

A s part of Mission Review, each SUNY state-operated campus identified bothc u rrent and aspirational peers. Identifying benchmark institutions for thepurpose of making appropriate comparisons enhances academic quality by

p roviding national context for viewing oneself. Also, implicit in the identificationof “selected benchmark institutions” is the notion that evaluation of campuse ffectiveness must be supported by data. These benchmark institutions will beused to gauge individual campus quality improvement over time. The initial setsof benchmark indicators include: undergraduate enrollment; acceptance rate;S AT scores of entering students; high school grade point average; percent of full-time faculty; retention rate; graduation rate; and re s e a rch funding. In the future ,as more data become available and as campuses become more comfortable withthe approach, the University will expand and refine the benchmarking pro c e s s .And, of course, “peer” institutions will change as the quality and reputation ofS U N Y ’s campuses are enhanced furt h e r.

In 1999, the Pro v o s t ’s Advisory Task Force on the Assessment of StudentL e a rning Outcomes was charged with recommending a process for assessingstudent learning outcomes and intellectual growth in general education and the

major across the State University. Following extensive re s e a rch and deliberationand broad consultation with the University community, the Task Force submittedits Report to the Provost in November 2000 (see Appendix, R e p o rt of the Pro v o s t ’sA d v i s o ry Task Force on the Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes) .

The Task Force re p o rt clearly identifies outcomes assessment as a cooperativev e n t u re between the faculty of the University and the academic leadership ofcampuses and System Administration. Recommendations call for a SUNYAssessment Initiative consisting of both campus-based and University-widestrategies. Consistent with the principles of Rethinking SUNY, emphasis is placedon campus-based assessment focusing on program improvement, and University-wide assessment focusing on accountability and advocacy. The proposed initiativeis now well underw a y. Guidelines for the implementation of campus-basedassessment of general education and the major were developed and distributed to campuses in December 2000. Campus-based assessment of the major will

B e n c h m a r k i n g

Assessment ofStudent Learning

O u t c o m e s

1 6

begin in fall 2001, and campus-based assessment of general education will beginin 2002-03.

P receding and concurrent with the Task Forc e ’s work on assessment, MissionReview emphasized the importance of comprehensive assessment in enhancingacademic quality. Consistent with the recommendations of the Task Force, campuses have committed in their Memoranda of Understanding to meaningfulassessment eff o rts, specifically including regular assessment of academic d e p a rt m e n t s / p rograms, and participation in System-wide surveys of students andalumni. System Administration and campuses are committed to working togetherto ensure the validity of data interpretation through, for example, consistent andclearly delineated pro c e d u res for administering survey instruments so that dataa re comparable year-to-year and across the System. Many SUNY institutions,especially the community colleges, will rely increasingly on employer satisfactiondata as a key component of their assessment eff o rts, properly reflecting the w o r k f o rce-training element of their mission. By using such surveys within a c o m p rehensive assessment framework, campuses seek to ensure that they successfully meet expectations—held by recipients and beneficiaries alike—of a State University of New York education.

E xpanding the level and distinction of the re s e a rch enterprise within theUniversity is an essential component of the University’s mission. Making new contributions to knowledge is and will remain at the heart of what the

University does. It is also undeniable that world-class re s e a rch promotes thes t a t u re of the State University and that enhancing the re s e a rch environment on all campuses will enable the University to continue to attract the best and brightestfaculty from around the world. Finally, University-based re s e a rch directly andi n d i rectly benefits the economy of New York (see also Research Foundation section under S e rvice to Local Regions, the State, and the Nation).

Enhancing the re s e a rch enterprise also enriches student learning. Superb re s e a rc hand teaching are closely interrelated and synergistic. Faculty who are activelyengaged in creating new knowledge bring those insights to their teaching, at botha graduate and undergraduate level, and students are attracted by the opport u n i t yto work with top-notch faculty re s e a rchers from whom they learn to do originalwork. Faculty re s e a rchers, in turn, benefit from explaining the importance andd i rection of their work to bright and inquisitive students. Indeed, student curiosityand fresh perspective can be catalysts for faculty re s e a rc h .

Mission Review provided an ideal forum for discussion of re s e a rch goals with all campuses. During campus visits and in regional and sector meetings, theintellectual and pedagogical value of re s e a rch and its positive impact on the stateand national economy were priority topics for discussion. State-operated cam-puses were asked to look thoughtfully at their current re s e a rch expenditures andto set specific goals for increasing re s e a rch over a five-year period. Overall, the University has set an aggressive goal of reaching $1 billion per year in sponsore d -re s e a rch expenditures within the next five years. Each of SUNY’s campuses willplay an important role in achieving this goal.

Fa c u l t yScholarship

and Development

1 7

As a system, the University is carrying out a number of key initiatives to raise thelevel of funded re s e a rch, including:

✦ Hiring faculty committed to re s e a rch and giving a high priority to facilitatingtheir re s e a rch eff o rt s ;

✦ P roviding a 20% match for every dollar of externally funded re s e a rch activity(see also Financial Management – A Stru c t u re to Enhance Academic Quality) ;

✦ Working with the State University Construction Fund to secure capital fundingfor re s e a rch (especially startup costs for new faculty) in future planning;

✦ Enhancing collaboration across SUNY and with peer institutions outside of the System;

✦ Working with New York businesses to emphasize the importance of re s e a rc hand the building of a state-wide re s e a rch infrastru c t u re ;

✦ Working with the Legislature and the Govern o r ’s Office to promote University-based re s e a rch and the establishment of re s e a rch initiatives in the 2001-02budget and beyond; and

✦ M o re aggressively seeking federal support for re s e a rch, in part through establishing a direct SUNY presence in Washington, DC (see Researc hFoundation section under S e rvice to Local Regions, the State, and the Nation) .

Academic quality and strong and distinguished faculties go hand in hand. TheState University of New York is profoundly enriched by its faculty, who rankamong the most accomplished educators and scholars in the nation. Their contributions are essential to fulfilling the University’s tripartite mission ofi n s t ruction, re s e a rch, and service. As part of Mission Review, campuses havemade commitments to enhance the quality of faculty by:

✦ I n c reasing the pro p o rtion of faculty holding the Ph.D. degree at StateUniversity community colleges;

✦ Expanding external review of faculty scholarship in making promotion andt e n u re decisions;

✦ Expanding the use of student evaluations of the quality of faculty teaching; and

✦ Facilitating faculty scholarship.

System Administration has also committed re s o u rces to help support facultydevelopment through the creation of a unit within the Pro v o s t ’s Office charg e dwith developing new programs and overseeing current initiatives that re c o g n i z eand re w a rd extraord i n a ry perf o rmance by SUNY faculty. Recognition pro g r a m sinclude the Chancellor’s Aw a rds for Excellence and the Distinguished Faculty ranksin re s e a rch, teaching, librarianship, and service. New eff o rts involve expansion ofs u p p o rt for collaborative faculty re s e a rch and greater involvement of distinguishedfaculty in planning and framing State University policy. In addition, the University’sConversations in the Disciplines will be expanded to facilitate more cro s s - c a m p u scollaboration within disciplines. Tuition support for faculty and staff seekingadvanced degrees is another area that will receive greater attention, to incre a s ethe pro p o rtion of faculty holding the Ph.D. degre e .

1 8

Th rough joint and cooperative programming, the State University provides awider range of instruction, re s e a rch, and public service for a larger number of New York citizens than would otherwise be possible. In addition to intra-

System collaboration, many State University campuses actively participate inregional organizations that involve non-SUNY institutions, including the AssociatedColleges of the Mid-Hudson Area, Hudson-Mohawk Association of Colleges andUniversities, Long Island Regional Advisory Council on Higher Education, A s s o c iated Colleges of the St. Lawrence Va l l e y, Rochester Area Colleges, andWe s t e rn New York Consortium of Higher Education. These organizations pro v i d ea vehicle for collaboration in the form of student cro s s - registration at part i c i p a t i n gc a m p u s e s ; joint workshops, symposia, exhibitions, and special projects; ands h a red use of expensive equipment and services among member institutions.

C o o rdinated inter-institutional activities have long had a place in SUNY, but theUniversity now seeks to capitalize further on its s y s t e m - n e s s by expanding suche ff o rts. Incre a s i n g l y, re s o u rces are shared, services jointly contracted for andother consortial arrangements established between State University campuses. In the area of campus operations, there are many vibrant cooperative businesspractices within the University. For example, campuses in the We s t e rn New Yo r kregion have had a cooperative agreement since 1997 which commits them to collaborate in areas such as library storage, trademarks/licensing, legal serv i c e s ,printing, purchasing, training/staff development, and physical plant serv i c e s .Joint purchasing is used among the campuses along the I-81 corr i d o r, and thecolleges of technology have undertaken a strong program of jointly developedmarketing and outreach. In Rochester, the SUNY Student Resource Center is ajoint venture between Monroe Community College, SUNY Bro c k p o rt, EmpireState College, and the Rochester Public Library that serves all of the re s p e c t i v ecommunities. And, new facilities are increasingly being constructed with theneeds of multiple communities (and campuses) in mind; the planned baseballfacility at Hudson Valley Community College, with anticipated heavy usage by allof the counties in the Capital District, is a case in point. Many campuses intendto strengthen their ties to sister SUNY institutions in the area of facilities andoperations, and these plans are specified in the MOUs.

As a result of Mission Review and other campus-driven initiatives, inter-institutional relationships are being further enhanced through such mechanismsas jointly re g i s t e red programs and articulation agreements, scholarly exchanges,and multi-campus interd i s c i p l i n a ry re s e a rch. For instance, while there are c u rrently almost 500 jointly re g i s t e red academic programs in the University, theMission Review process encouraged campuses to increase that number as well asthe number and specificity of articulation agreements, so that seamless transferbecomes a reality for more students. Jointly re g i s t e red programs and detaileda rticulation agreements are particularly important in disciplines such as educationand nursing, where shortages of professionals across the state and nation arereaching critical levels. Besides facilitating transfer and enhancing access, thesep rograms are effective re c ruitment mechanisms for participating campuses, t h e reby increasing the mutual benefits of such collaboration.

I n t e r - c a m p u sC o l l a b o r a t i o n

1 9

R e s e a rch is another increasingly important area of cooperation, as illustrated bythe success of SUNY–private institution partnerships in newly funded academicre s e a rch centers. State University campuses have led a number of such initiatives,often on a regional basis, aimed at fostering highly productive, cutting-edge collaborative re s e a rch and development. For instance, in 2001 the University atA l b a n y, in partnership with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, was designated as aNew York State Strategically Ta rgeted Academic Research (STAR) Center to pro v i d ethe science and technology re s o u rce base for the development of micro- andn a n o - e l e c t ronics. Similarly, several other SUNY campuses, including the Universityat Buffalo, the University at Stony Brook, Cornell, the College of Enviro n m e n t a lScience and Fore s t ry, the Health Science Center at Syracuse, and Alfred State College,received support for collaborative initiatives from the New York State Office ofScience, Technology and Academic Research (NYSTAR). In the MOUs campuseshave committed to expanding collaborative re s e a rch, and System Administrationintends to facilitate such eff o rts (see Faculty Scholarship and Development) .

The range and mix of academic programs in the State University of New York isever evolving, aimed at meeting student and state needs while staying abre a s tof intellectual currents. Campuses periodically add new programs (see Appendix,

New Programs of Study Tentatively Planned for Introduction 2000-2004), modify existingp rograms, and discontinue ones that are no longer appropriate. As part of theMission Review process, each campus identifies priorities for program developmentthat are consistent with its current and projected intellectual strengths and mission.

Consistent with long-standing SUNY and State Education Department practice,p roposals for new programs and/or revisions to existing programs are re v i e w e dand approved by the University Provost on behalf of the State University Board ofTrustees, before being submitted to the State Education Department for re g i s t r a t i o n .With Rethinking SUNY’s call for streamlining administrative pro c e d u res, theU n i v e r s i t y ’s review process for new undergraduate programs was revised ands t reamlined in 2000-01 (see Appendix, Memo on 2001 Guidelines for the Submissionof Undergraduate Academic Program Pro p o s a l s). The new guidelines re q u i re thatp roposed programs be consistent with campus mission, reflect market need, andhave demonstrable quality. System Administration has also committed itself to be accountable for meeting specific timeframes for various stages of the re v i e wp rocess, and program proposals may now be submitted electro n i c a l l y. Similarenhancements to the graduate program review process are planned for 2001-02.

The State University believes that its graduates should have the general k n o w ledge and skills necessary to participate in and contribute to a democratics o c i e t y and to continually enrich their lives as educated individuals. The

University seeks to inculcate such knowledge by a broad-based and cohere n tp rogram of general education.

Resolution 98-241 of the State University Board of Trustees, passed in December1998, mandated a minimum of 30 credit hours of general education coursework—

A c a d e m i cP r o g r a m

D i r e c t i o n s

G e n e r a lE d u c a t i o n

2 0

in 10 specified subject areas and two learning competencies—for all baccalaure a t ecandidates within the University. This policy took effect for students entering infall 2000, and every campus with undergraduate programs committed to meetingthe re q u i rements of this policy in the signed Memoranda of Understanding. In1999, the University’s Provost convened an Advisory Task Force on GeneralEducation, comprised of faculty and administrators from across the University, to develop learning outcomes for each of the content areas and guidelines forimplementation of the general education re q u i rement (see Appendix, R e p o rt ofthe Pro v o s t ’s Advisory Task Force on General Education). Subsequently, the Pro v o s tempanelled an Advisory Council on General Education (PACGE) to help re v i e windividual campus implementation plans to ensure that the letter and spirit of theresolution would be met.

Ongoing activities involving general education include:

✦ System interaction with newly formed SUNY General Education Dire c t o r sA s s o c i a t i o n ;

✦ Development and recommendation of policies on transfer as it relates to general education;

✦ Identification of best practices in general education; and

✦ Refinement and improvement of extant guidelines for implementation of theB o a rd policy.

T eacher education was historically the centerpiece of many of the StateU n i v e r s i t y ’s senior campuses, most of which originated as normal schools totrain public school teachers. Although the missions of these institutions have

evolved, the 16 campuses with teacher education programs remain committed to preparing superbly qualified teachers. The University takes justifiable pride inthe strong reputation of its graduates who become teachers—a reputation builton outstanding perf o rmance on teacher certification examinations (see Appendix,SUNY Pass Rates on the New York State Teacher Certification Examinations 1999-2000)and, more import a n t l y, success in the field.

T h rough its formal teacher preparation programs, the State University educatesabout 25 percent of the teachers certified through college and university pro g r a m sin New York State each year. Additionally, a large number of SUNY graduateswith non-education degrees later become certified as teachers through altern a t i v ep rocesses. This accounts for an estimated additional 15 percent of the New Yo r kState certifications, bringing the total pro p o rtion of State University graduates to approximately 40 percent of the teachers certified annually through highereducation institutions.

To help ensure the University’s continued leadership in the field of teacher education, the Provost established the Advisory Council on Teacher Education inDecember of 1999. The Council was asked to examine and make re c o m m e n d a t i o n son: 1) aligning the supply of and demand for teachers (especially in high-demandsubject areas such as math and science and in school districts with the greatest need),

Te a c h e rE d u c a t i o n

2 1

2) ensuring that teacher education programs re q u i re intensive and re l e v a n t f i e l dexperiences, 3) identifying re s e a rch on issues of teaching effectiveness and learn i n g ,and 4) attracting the most academically capable students and accommodatingwell-educated individuals seeking to change careers and become teachers.

In March 2001, the Advisory Council issued its final re p o rt (see Appendix, P ro v o s t ’sA d v i s o ry Council on Teacher Education Report and Recommendations) and theUniversity now intends to vigorously pursue programmatic and policy dire c t i o n sset forth in that document. To w a rd that end, in June 2001, the Chancellor p roposed and the Board of Trustees endorsed an action agenda outlining specificsteps the University will take to facilitate the implementation of the Council’s recommendations. The three overarching goals of the agenda include: ensuringthat all SUNY students pursuing teaching careers receive the best possible p reparation to become effective teachers; addressing New York State’s need forteachers (particularly in high-need schools and specific disciplines); and continuing to accurately assess and improve SUNY’s teacher education pro g r a m s .(See Appendix, A New Vision in Teacher Education: Agenda for Change in SUNY’sTeacher Preparation Pro g r a m s for further details.)

The State University is committed to harnessing technology for the enhancementof instruction and learning, including innovative uses of technology in campusc l a s s rooms, laboratories, and libraries and through distance learning. The

University has made significant pro g ress in this re g a rd during the past five years.Technological advancements for the near future include planning for the nextiteration of SUNYNet—the University’s universal data communications network—and increased participation across the System in the rapidly growing Internet 2c o m m u n i t y, linking the University with all the major colleges and universities,and re s e a rch centers in the United States.

SUNY Learning NetworkSince 1995, the University has emerged as a leader in online education as evidenced by the tremendous growth of its distance learning program: the S U N YL e a rning Network (SLN). SLN’s roots can be traced back to the Mid-HudsonRegional Learning Network—a project aimed at providing community collegegraduates in the Hudson Valley a means of completing their bachelor’s degre e swithout having to move to a state-operated campus. Although early plans calledfor instruction delivered exclusively by two-way video, following discussionswith the Sloan Foundation (an early and generous supporter of the SLN initiative)the pro j e c t ’s emphasis shifted to delivering courses via the Intern e t .

In keeping with the tenor of Rethinking SUNY and a separate re p o rt of the StateUniversity Presidents Task Force on Distance Learning (1995), a number ofstrategic decisions were made to launch SLN, including:

✦ Campus participation would be voluntary ;

✦ SLN would serve as a support infrastru c t u re, not as a degree-granting entity;

✦ Campuses would emphasize full-degree programs, not just stand-alone courses;

A c a d e m i cTechnology

2 2

✦ Campuses would retain complete academic authority over offerings and wouldhave responsibility for program, course, and faculty selection;

✦ Courses would be fully asynchronous, faculty-led and class-cohort-based; and

✦ SLN would ultimately become a self-sustaining pro g r a m .

The SUNY Learning Network, now six years old, has one of the longest and most successful track re c o rds in online education. At its core, SLN provides acomplete support infrastru c t u re of faculty training and course development,course-management software and server infrastru c t u re, and student and facultyhelp-desk services. It also provides SLN-wide marketing, promotion, and pro g r a mmanagement services to participating campuses. Course enrollments in SLN have increased from 119 in 1995-96 to more than 25,000 in 2000-01, andcourse offerings have grown from eight courses to more than 1,500 during thesame timeframe (see chart, depicting growth in SLN courses). In addition, system-wide participation is up from just two campuses in 1995-96 to 47 campuses in2000-01, and 53 campuses will offer courses in 2001-02.

Ta rgeted growth in SLN offerings is one of the key components of the MissionReview Memoranda of Understanding. Many MOUs contain commitments fordeepened involvement in the program. Over time, it is expected that SLN willalso develop non-credit and non-degree learning modules aimed at businesses.

L i b r a r i e sLibraries are not only repositories of our collected knowledge, they are an essential tool for scholarship. Providing full access to that knowledge is an ongoing challenge — one which the State University is meeting head on by h a rnessing technology through its automated library initiative.

In 2000 the State University launched SUNYC o n n e c t, a bold new eff o rt that e l e ct ronically links all the libraries of the System, creating the largest library collection of any public university in the world (totaling over 18 million volumes).A major part of SUNYC o n n e c t is the installation of library management softwarethat will create an Internet-accessible catalog of library materials, allowing searc h e s

SUN Y L e a r n i n gNetwork Courses

2 3

1 6 0 0

1 4 0 0

1 2 0 0

1 0 0 0

8 0 0

6 0 0

4 0 0

2 0 0

01 9 9 5 - 9 6 1 9 9 6 - 97 1 9 97- 9 8 1 9 9 8 - 9 9 1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 - 0 1

■

■

■

■■■

Ye a r

of all State University library collections. This software also provides a common c i rculation process enabling students to directly access and borrow materialsf rom any SUNY library and receive them within two days. Significant savings a re anticipated from the creation of a common library management system andreduced (unnecessary) duplication in library holdings.

The new system will organize and highlight journals and data provided thro u g hthe State University’s Office of Library and Information Services, and also off e rd i rect access to hundreds of online journals now available at State Universitylibraries. Other projected features of SUNYC o n n e c t include: a comprehensive collection of full-text, full-image and multimedia digital publications and serv i c e sthat will be available at any time and from anywhere; a web-based inform a t i o nliteracy course; and shared regional storage and pre s e rvation facilities that willease space pre s s u res in individual libraries. Additionally, the University is part ofa statewide, comprehensive, coordinated system of higher education re s o u rc e sand distance learning programs, to which all New Yorkers will have access viatelecommunications and local libraries.

Steps Toward a Performance-Based Funding ModelThe University’s new budget model—driven by Rethinking SUNY and implemented i nFY1998-99 (see section, A Financial Management Stru c t u re to Enhance AcademicQ u a l i t y)—gives campuses more autonomy, while still insisting on an a p p ro p r i a t elevel of accountability. This model also re w a rds successful perf o rm a n c e in are a ssuch as re s e a rch productivity and enrollment management, and thus is p e rf o rmance-driven in important ways. One of the long-term directions the University plans to pursue in refining the budget model is a more explicit categoryof funding that re w a rds campus achievement of goals relating to academic quality.

In 1997, as an offshoot of the budget model planning group, the Provost empanelledan Advisory Task Force on Perf o rmance Indicators to develop measures to drivethe allocation of merit-based funding that recognize outstanding perf o rm a n c eand the achievement of campus goals. This task force conducted extensive deliberations and proposed a series of measures based on analyses of SUNY datasets as well as data from national sources.

The State University seeks to recognize outstanding perf o rmance in three are a s :(1) student achievement (e.g., graduation rates, student evaluations of the qualityof academic experience, and transfer student success); (2) faculty achievement(e.g., scholarly productivity in terms of re s e a rch and publication, and teachinge ffectiveness); and (3) institutional services and environment (e.g., the quality of campus services and facilities). Relying in large part on the work of this Ta s kF o rce, the University began a pilot program of perf o rmance awards in FY2000-01.Because SUNY views enhancement of academic quality as its top priority, it plansto expand and refine the perf o rmance indicator model, relying on re c o m m e n d a t i o n sf rom its campus leaders. In the future, the model will re w a rd improvement as wellas current high levels of perf o rmance; it will also incorporate more sophisticatedmeans for recognizing scholarship in the humanities and the perf o rming arts.

Linking Fu n d i n gto Academic

Q u a l i t y

2 4

Mission Review Fu n d i n gA commitment to academic quality has driven the entire concept of MissionR e v i e w, including the funding awards made through this initiative. Indeed, oneof the foundations of the Mission Review process is that many campuses needadditional—and transitional—financial support to achieve some of the goals they set for themselves. Put simply, Mission Review funding is used to supportcampuses in their eff o rts to realize the aspirations outlined in their Memoranda of Understanding.

In 2000-01, campus submissions for Mission Review funding totaled over $45million. With $11.5 million in accumulated funds, support was provided to 29campuses. Proposals were selected on the basis of academic merit, following r i g o rous review by a broadly re p resentative System Administration committee,using the following criteria: demonstrable impact on academic quality; consistencywith core mission; evidence of institutional commitment; extant institutionals t rength; sustainability of proposed project or initiative; measurability of outcomes/mechanism for accountability; positive extra-institutional effect; and potential forreplicability as a “best practice.” Within this larger pool, a sub-pool of $2.5 millionwas earmarked to bolster doctoral programs by enhancing the competitiveness of Ph.D. student stipends; proposals for this sub-pool also underwent rigoro u sre v i e w, this time by a committee of campus experts (see Appendix, M i s s i o nReview Stipend Committee under Advisory Committees).

Mission Review awards necessarily entail precise conditions and terms, includingthe specification of how pro g ress toward achieving project goals will be monitore d .Because many campuses requested multi-year funding commitments, somea w a rds were made over a period of three or more years; these campuses will have to achieve specified milestones before subsequent installments of fundinga re re l e a s e d .

The University intends to make annual awards of Mission Review funding,always on a fully competitive basis, to SUNY campuses. Follow-up monitoringand re p o rting on the effectiveness of these awards will ensure that these investments yield maximum benefit—not the least of which is enabling the s u p p o rted programs to be recognized as “best practices.”

2 5

Service to Local Regions, the State, and the Nation

The economic impact of the State University is vast. Indeed, one might evenre g a rd the University as a $6 billion industry with 64 locations around theState. In many instances the State University campus is a re g i o n ’s largest

e m p l o y e r, providing a solid base of employment, educating the citizenry, workingto build business and industry, and enriching the quality of life through culturalo fferings. In addition, SUNY campuses draw students from outside the communitywho in turn add to the local economic base. The University also strengthens thebusiness environment in New York via its Small Business Development Centers,t h rough the creation of incubator facilities to foster high-tech industries, andt h rough eff o rts to transfer the fruits of University re s e a rch to industry.

Small Business Development CenterSince its establishment in 1984, the Small Business Development Center (SBDC)has helped create and save over 68,500 jobs in New York State. It has workedone-on-one with 156,000 clients who have, in turn, invested over $1.6 billion in their New York State businesses. Funded in part by the U.S. Small BusinessAdministration and host campuses, the SBDC has 23 regional offices and 21 o u t reach offices located at the State University, CUNY, and private college campuses. In addition to providing business advice to New Yorkers, the SBDCworks in partnership with other government agencies to open up opport u n i t i e sfor New York entre p reneurs.

S t r a t e gic Partnership for Industrial ResurgenceIn 1996, the University’s engineering schools formed the Strategic Partnership forIndustrial Resurgence (SPIR) to provide a vehicle for delivering advanced technicalassistance to foster development of high-tech regions similar to Californ i a ’sSilicon Valley or North Caro l i n a ’s Research Triangle. These regions grew thro u g hs t rong bonds between industry and universities, manifested most powerf u l l yt h rough university engineering schools. SUNY’s engineering schools hope toachieve similar results in New York. Since its inception, more than 2,600 SPIRp rojects have involved more than 1,000 companies. In 1998 alone, over 3,000jobs were either retained or created due to 700 SPIR projects.

C entral to the missions of the State University’s 30 community colleges istheir role in workforce development. The Community College Wo r k f o rc eDevelopment Training Grants program, aimed at stimulating economic gro w t h

t h roughout New York, provides funding for such eff o rts. The goal of the pro g r a mis to promote and encourage the location and development of businesses in thestate, and to create greater employment opportunities for individuals. Between1999-2001, funding through the State University to 131 employer- a p p roved p rojects provided job training for more than 12,000 employees. Most of the p a rticipating companies are small- to medium-sized businesses, from diversefields such as manufacturing, building trades, health, e-commerce, service industries, tourism, and the fashion industry, to name a few. Every State Universitycommunity college has participated in this program and, as a result, in 2000-2001

B u s i n e s s ,Industry and

E c o n o m i cS u p p o r t

C o m m u n i t yC o l l e g e

Wo r k f o r c eD e v e l o p m e n t

2 6

an estimated 470 jobs were created and 6,000 positions retained. A re q u i red matchof at least 25% from participating business multiplied the effect of these grants.SUNY will continue to seek support for this program. This pivotal role in workforc edevelopment is prominently reflected in the Community College Strategic Plan(see Appendix), which calls for further enhancement of these eff o rt s .

The New York State Charter Schools Act of 1998 granted the State UniversityB o a rd of Trustees authority to approve up to 50 new public charter schools.C h a rter Schools are innovative public schools of choice created by parents,

educators, civic leaders and other community leaders, open to all students anddesigned to improve learning. Operating under a five-year license, or chart e r, theseschools are freed from most of the state laws, rules, and regulations contro l l i n gpublic education. This allows them greater flexibility in determining curr i c u l u m ,s t a ff i n g , hours, budgeting, and other features. In re t u rn for this flexibility, publicc h a rter schools must set measurable goals for student achievement or face revocation of their chart e r.

The SUNY Board of Trustees created the Charter Schools Institute to administerits responsibilities under the Charter Schools Act. The Institute oversees thereview of applications and monitors the pro g ress of schools that have been grantedc h a rters. To date, the Institute has received nearly 160 applications for chart e r s ,of which the University Trustees have approved 25.

R e s e a rch conducted at the State University not only contributes new knowledgeand understanding, and leads to economic growth, but also fre q u e n t l ya d d resses significant social problems. Thus, SUNY re s e a rch is a vehicle for

s e rvice to the people of New York, the nation, and the world.

The Research Foundation of the State University of New York is a private, non-p rofit educational corporation whose primary responsibility is the administrationof externally funded contracts and grants for and on behalf of the University.Since its establishment in 1951, the Research Foundation has facilitated re s e a rc h ,education, and public service at SUNY’s state-operated campuses. Consistentwith the principles of Rethinking SUNY, the Research Foundation provides theadministrative flexibility and expertise to respond quickly to the special demandsand needs of sponsored programs. To support campuses eff e c t i v e l y, the Foundationis governed by a Board of Directors which includes faculty re s e a rchers, campusleaders, and re p resentatives from System Administration, as well as re p re s e n t a t i v e sf rom private business and industry.

In 1999-2000, SUNY’s re s e a rch expenditures for more than 7,500 sponsored p rograms (funded by governments, corporations, foundations, and other entities)totaled over $440.5 million, an eight percent increase over 1998-99. Pro j e c t ss p o n s o red by the federal government totaled $243.4 million, or 55 percent oftotal revenues, bringing substantial federal dollars to New York. Such re s e a rc hactivity provided more than 16,000 full- and part-time re s e a rch jobs statewide.

Charter Schools

R e s e a r c hFo u n d a t i o n

2 7

The Research Foundation works with SUNY faculty to move discoveries into themarketplace; its technology transfer program protects re s e a rch findings and helpsfaculty market new technology and ideas by linking them to business firms. In1999-2000, gross royalty income on University inventions reached a new high of $16.2 million and the State University was ranked among the top 12 U.S. universities for royalties collected from inventions licensed to industry. TheUniversity also reached a re c o rd level of patent activity in 1999-2000, with 68U.S. patents awarded. With a total of more than 500 patented inventions, SUNYranks among the top ten U.S. re s e a rch institutions in the number of patentsissued annually on inventions and discoveries.

S U N Y ’s re s e a rch eff o rts also gain strong support from ongoing state initiatives.New York has recently substantially increased its investment in the re s e a rch i n f r a s t ru c t u re that will enable its universities to become national leaders in keyfields. For example, two incubator programs—the Center for Enviro n m e n t a lScience and Technology Management (CESTM) at the University at Albany andthe Long Island High Technology Incubator (LIHTI) at the University at StonyB ro o k — p rovide important educational re s o u rces for training scientists, engineersand re s e a rchers in such diverse areas as atmospheric chemistry and art i f i c i a lintelligence. At the same time, these state-of-the-art facilities give start-up companies access to university libraries, computing support, and other import a n tscientific and technological tools.

P romoting re s e a rch is vital to enhancing the academic quality and stature of theState University, and in increasing the University’s contribution to the economichealth of New York State and beyond. As noted pre v i o u s l y, the State Universityintends to increase total sponsored activity to $1 billion per year within the nextfive years. Through Mission Review, campuses set specific goals for re s e a rch andthese goals are included in the Memoranda of Understanding. To ensure campussuccess in reaching re s e a rch goals, the University will continue to provide supportfor re s e a rch through its budget process and through initiatives such as MissionReview Funding. The Research Foundation will also play an increasingly i m p o rtant role in supporting the University’s aggressive re s e a rch goals. Its eff o rt sto establish a stronger SUNY presence in Washington, D.C. will help to maximizecampus success in attracting federal grants.

2 8

Financial Management – A Structure to Enhance Academic Quality

T he State University has a responsibility to be an efficient and effective stewardof the public re s o u rces entrusted to it. Rethinking SUNY was premised upondevolving more fiscal and operational control to campuses. Its guiding

principles were increased management flexibility, better realization of Systems y n e rgies, and reinvestment of savings in support of academic quality.

By 2000, several important initiatives begun as an outgrowth of Rethinking SUNYw e re fully operational, re t u rning significant dividends to the campuses and theSystem. These initiatives showed results in the areas of budget, residence halloperations, campus-related foundations, general management practices and hospitals, as described below.

In light of Rethinking SUNY, the University designed and has put in place a newbudget methodology for allocating and distributing the funding that support sUniversity operations (see Appendix, State University of New York Budget

Allocation Pro c e s s). Fiscal year 2000-01 marked the final year of a thre e - y e a rphase-in of the University’s new budgeting process—a process designed to foster campus autonomy, recognize improved perf o rmance, and re w a rd campussuccess in achieving their educational missions. Underpinning development ofthis perf o rmance-based budgeting was the goal of allowing campuses to re t a i nand manage their own fiscal re s o u rces. (Conversely, campuses are re q u i red toassume greater responsibility for the costs of local decisions.) Key characteristicsor objectives of the new methodology are :

✦ The campuses retain all tuition monies and other campus-generated re v e n u e ,encouraging entre p reneurial activity;

✦ The method for distributing student-enrollment support has been simplified:instead of categorizing enrollment level and type among 40 categories, e n rollments are grouped into a cleaner and more predictable set of 12 categories based on actual and historic data on cost of instru c t i o n ;

✦ The University matches every dollar of external re s e a rch funds with 20% ofadditional funding, thus encouraging further growth in sponsored activity and an overall rise in SUNY’s re s e a rch stature;

✦ The link between mission and funding has been tightened;

✦ Mission Review-based funds are distributed to enhance academic quality (see Mission Review Funding) ;

✦ Adjustments for the extraord i n a ry costs of special programs are included;

✦ Campuses in metropolitan NYC receive a funding adjustment reflecting thehigher costs they incur;

New BudgetM e t h o d o l o g y

2 9

✦ SUNY continues to recognize and support State-initiated institutes and landgrant and fore s t ry activities;

✦ The predictability of funding distributions (within the approved State budgetlevels) has been increased; and

✦ P e rhaps most import a n t l y, a high degree of transparency has been intro d u c e dinto the pro c e s s .

The State University core instructional budget for 2000-01 was $1,761.8 million.This was an increase of $110 million, or approximately seven percent, from the previous year. Tuition and fee revenue for the state-operated campuses and s t a t u t o ry colleges increased by $18 million in 2000-01, largely due to enro l l m e n ti n c reases.

F u t u re eff o rts to continue the refinement of budget methodology will focus, amongother matters, on enhanced perf o rmance-based funding (see Steps To w a rds aP e rf o rmance-Based Funding Model) and the distribution of state funds for University-wide programs. All new or improved distribution methodologies will be characterizedby pre d i c t a b i l i t y, simplicity, accountability, campus involvement in methodologydevelopment, and constant emphasis on promoting academic quality.

The State University budget stru c t u re includes separate accounts for campusactivity that is not included in the core instructional budget, generally re f e rre dto as Income Fund Reimbursable or IFR accounts. These accounts were

p reviously charged maintenance and administrative overhead fees, set by SystemAdministration. In an eff o rt to move more fiscal control to the campuses, theseo v e rheads, which were previously pooled centrally, are now credited directly tothe campuses along with interest earnings on the fund balances. Campuses nowset the overhead rates for their IFR programs.

SUNY implemented new policies and guidelines for residence hall operationsin fiscal year 1997-98, aimed at increasing efficiency by permitting campusesto manage directly more of their financial and program activities. Import a n t l y,

the guidelines re q u i re student participation in decisions pertaining to re s i d e n c ehalls operations. With the new guidelines and policies in place, student demandfor on-campus housing and residence hall rehabilitation and construction haveall increased dramatically. Approximately $500 million in projects are scheduledover the next five years to meet the students’ needs for safe and comfort a b l ehousing. In 1999-2000, residence hall revenue increased $21.8 million, or 12 percent, over the previous year, as a result of increased occupancy and reasonable rate increases of approximately 4 percent overall.

General IFR andS u p p l e m e n ta l

Tu i t i o nR e i m b u r s a b l e

Account

Residence HallO p e r a t i o n s

3 0

C onsistent with the need for the University to do effective fund-raising, solicits u p p o rt from alumni, friends, and other patrons, foundations are assuming am o re prominent and central role in the University’s future. Campus-related

foundations derive the majority of their revenue from gifts and contributions ins u p p o rt of campus educational activities. In 1999-2000, support for campus-related foundations totaled $179.2 million, a 19 percent increase from the pre v i o u sy e a r. Total campus-related foundation net assets increased to $545 million, a13.5 percent increase over the previous year. Of the $106.5 million expended in1999-2000, about 73 percent supported scholarships, academic programs, andspecial events on SUNY campuses. The Chancellor has set a specific goal of $1billion in private fund raising over the next four years and many campuses are inthe midst of, or are planning, capital campaigns. A new council of SUNY ChiefAdvancement Officers has recently been established to share expertise re g a rd i n gdevelopment programs and the Research Foundation has created a unit to helpp romote the quality and impact of campus-specific development eff o rts.

The State University achieved significant budgetary appropriation and executionauthority in the mid 1980s, providing for a level of budgetary flexibility gre a t e rthan that of other state agencies. Enhanced control over position management

was also gained in the early 1990s. However, the University has made a continuinge ff o rt to acquire greater authority from external agencies in the execution of itsfinancial and personnel re s o u rces and to delegate this authority to the campuses.These eff o rts can all be traced back to Rethinking SUNY, which called for enhancedmanagement flexibility and devolution of authority to local, campus d e c i s i o n -makers. This thrust will continue to be a high priority for the University.

Over the past five years, the State University has been able to establish highert h resholds with external control agencies related to the competitive biddingp rocess. As a result of these eff o rts, SUNY campuses need not acquire competitivebids for purchases below $30,000; must receive three written quotations for p u rchases between $30,000 and $75,000; and must receive at least five sealedbids for purchases over $75,000. Other state agencies are re q u i red to perf o rm a formal competitive process for any purchases over $15,000.

The approval of contracts is another area in which the University has been able to obtain greater flexibility. The University is now only re q u i red to obtain priora p p roval from external agencies for contracts valued at over $150,000 (cert a i nexceptions exist). Other agencies must receive prior approvals for contracts atsignificantly lower amounts.

In addition to greater authority from external agencies, policies internal to theUniversity have been modified to give the campuses greater authority. For example,a p p roval by System Administration for certain telecommunication, computerequipment, medical equipment and consulting services was necessary five yearsago; campuses now have the authority to make these purchases without SystemAdministration re v i e w. Likewise, in the area of human re s o u rces, campus pre s i d e n t snow have the authority to provide administrative leaves and additional sick leaveto employees, which previously re q u i red the Chancellor’s appro v a l .

C a m p u s - r e l a t e dFo u n d a t i o n s

G e n e r a lM a n a g e m e n t

Practices

3 1

Work in this area is not yet done. The University intends to continue to seek less restrictive limits on the competitive bidding process and on pre - a p p rovals for contracts. Greater authority for the campuses to classify positions and as t reamlined process for the creation of new position titles will be pursued withthe Department of Civil Service. Within the University itself, there will be continuedemphasis on reducing or eliminating cumbersome appro v a l / review pro c e s s e s(e.g., streamlined program review process, described under Academic Pro g r a mD i re c t i o n s) .

The University’s hospitals were given additional management authority underlegislation enacted in mid 1990s. That legislation sought to address operationalc o n c e rns arising from the hospitals’ state agency status, environmental changes

in health care financing (including deregulation of the health care industry at federal and state levels) and financial difficulties related to the financing of theU n i v e r s i t y ’s operating budget. Although the legislation provided what, at thetime, was perceived as the necessary authority to address major concerns of theU n i v e r s i t y ’s three hospitals, changing market dynamics and unexpected re d u c t i o n sin the funding of graduate medical education offset enacted legislative benefits.

The University’s hospitals have remained hampered by their inability to accessworking capital and capital financing. This, in turn, has limited their ability to take advantage of new business opportunities. Over the last five to ten years, thehospitals have essentially maintained their current market share, with some slighti n c rease in volume attributable to brand re c o g n i t i o n .

The University’s current legislative agenda seeks to broaden the existing flexibilitylegislation by addressing issues such as access to capital financing, establishingm o re realistic purchasing rules, increasing healthcare worker salaries to attractand retain skilled patient care staff, and facilitating the formation of full-serv i c eh e a l t h c a re networks. More generally, the agenda seeks to enhance the ability ofS U N Y ’s hospitals to compete successfully in a rapidly changing market and tocontinue to provide superb patient care .

H o s p i ta lFlexibility

3 2

Operations – An Administrative Structure to Enhance Academic Quality

In Rethinking SUNY, the Board of Trustees called for the Chancellor and Systemo fficers to examine System Administration and to increase the efficiency ande ffectiveness of the central office. By implementing the recommendations in

that plan, the size of the support functions at the State University Plaza wasreduced by almost 30 percent in the mid- to late-1990s.

As a more recent step in streamlining and improving services and perf o rm a n c e ,in 2000-01 the State University conducted (with the assistance of IBM’s Educationand Consulting Services) a joint planning exercise, entitled “Realigning forExcellence,” for the three entities which make up the State University Plaza (i.e.,the Research Foundation, the Construction Fund, and System Administration).Specific attention was paid to business services, human re s o u rces, facilities management, telecommunications, and information technology. The immediatechallenge was to improve the inter- relationships among these three entities (while retaining their separate corporate status), thereby enhancing their jointe ffectiveness and improving the quality of services to campuses. A second focusof this eff o rt has been to help all of the entities housed at State University Plaza to use technology more effectively in their operations, including the promotion of e-commerce in dealings with campuses and extra-University constituents. The fundamental thrust of the Realigning for Excellence (RFE) initiative is to addvalue to the University by structuring central administrative functions in ways thata re more supportive of the University, especially the campuses. The University’ssenior leadership plans to implement many of the RFE recommendations in thecoming months, with particular attention to:

✦ C reating internal councils, organized around core administrative functions, to promote cooperation and communication within the State University Plaza;and

✦ C reating campus advisory committees to work with such internal councils to ensure productive partnerships and collaboration in the development andd e l i v e ry of serv i c e s .

Looking to the future, SUNY’s leadership will—with considerable campus andfaculty involvement—continue its strategic planning eff o rts by crafting new andsharper mission and vision statements for the University and identifying specificactions which should be taken to ensure SUNY’s success. The Memoranda ofUnderstanding that were signed with campuses as part of Mission Review willp rovide a campus-based and academically oriented foundation for this eff o rt .

3 3

C o n c l u s i o n

The State University of New York has made tremendous strides since R e t h i n k i n gS U N Y. As called for in that planning document and described in this MasterPlan, key efficiencies have been realized and attention has been focused on

achieving academic excellence. The Mission Review process re p resents a significantplanning and evaluation eff o rt—unparalleled in SUNY’s history and unrivaled inAmerican higher education—that has defined the University’s academic agendafor the next four years. Memoranda of Understanding will guide planning andpolicy making for campuses and System alike, and will provide a mechanism forensuring accountability in the coming years.

S e rvice to local regions, the state, and the nation will continue to be a priority for the University. From charter schools to workforce development, from basicre s e a rch to technology transfer and incubator centers, the State University iscommitted to using its expertise for the betterment of citizens of New York andb e y o n d .

Management flexibility and devolution of authority has freed our campuses fro msome of the constraints entailed by a state bure a u c r a c y. Along with incre a s e da u t o n o m y, campuses have assumed greater accountability for their academic and non-academic decisions. More than ever before, goals and expectations areexplicitly stated and successful perf o rmance is recognized and re w a rded acro s sthe University.

At its heart, the University is fundamentally about excellence in learning andteaching. SUNY judges itself on the quality of the education that it provides to its students and on how that education transforms and empowers students’ lives.Our faculty and institutions take equally seriously their obligation to push theboundaries of knowledge and human understanding through re s e a rch and scholarship. Fulfillment of academic goals is how the State University bests t rengthens and serves New York State.

3 4

A p p e n d i c e s

List of Campuses

Mission Review: Recognized by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) as a Best Practice in Higher Education

The Community Colleges of The State University of New York Strategic Planfor 2001-2004

R e p o rt of the Pro v o s t ’s Advisory Task Force on the Assessment of Student Learn i n gO u t c o m e s (Executive Summary )

New Programs of Study Tentatively Planned for Introduction 2000-2004

Master Plan Amendments 1996-2001

Memo on 2001 Guidelines for the Submission of Undergraduate AcademicP rogram Pro p o s a l s

R e p o rt of the Pro v o s t ’s Advisory Task Force on General Education

SUNY Pass Rates on the New York State Teacher Certification Examinations1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0

P ro v o s t ’s Advisory Council on Teacher Education Report and Recommendations(Executive Summary )

A New Vision in Teacher Education: Agenda for Change in SUNY’s Teacher P reparation Pro g r a m s

State University of New York Budget Allocation Process

Quantitative Inform a t i o n

Capital Facilities

B o a rd of Tru s t e e s

System Administration

A d v i s o ry Committees

3 5

University CentersUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at BinghamtonUniversity at Buff a l oUniversity at Stony Bro o k

C o l l e g e s

C o m p rehensive Arts & SciencesB ro c k p o rtB u ff a l oC o rt l a n dE m p i re State CollegeF re d o n i aG e n e s e oNew PaltzOld We s t b u ryO n e o n t aO s w e g oP l a t t s b u rg hP o t s d a mP u rc h a s e

S p e c i a l i z e dE n v i ronmental Science and Fore s t ryF a rm i n g d a l eInstitute of Technology

at Utica/RomeM a r i t i m eO p t o m e t ry

S t a t u t o ryCeramics at Alfred UniversityA g r i c u l t u re/Life Sciences

at Cornell UniversityHuman Ecology

at Cornell UniversityIndustrial/Labor Relations

at Cornell UniversityVe t e r i n a ry Medicine

at Cornell University

Health Science CentersHealth Science Center at Bro o k l y nHealth Science Center at Syracuse

Colleges of Te c h n o l o g yA l f re dC a n t o nC o b l e s k i l lD e l h iM o rr i s v i l l e

Community CollegesA d i ro n d a c kB ro o m eC a y u g aC l i n t o nC o l u m b i a - G re e n eC o rn i n gD u t c h e s sE r i eFashion Institute of Te c h n o l o g yFinger LakesF u l t o n - M o n t g o m e ryG e n e s e eHerkimer CountyHudson Va l l e yJ a m e s t o w nJ e ff e r s o nMohawk Va l l e yM o n ro eN a s s a uNiagara CountyN o rth CountryO n o n d a g aOrange CountyR o c k l a n dSchenectady CountyS u ffolk CountySullivan CountyTompkins Cort l a n dUlster CountyWe s t c h e s t e r

Educational Opportunity CentersB ro n xB ro o k l y nB u ff a l oCapital DistrictLong IslandM a n h a t t a nN o rth Bronx Career Counseling

and Outreach CenterQ u e e n sR o c h e s t e rSUNY College and Career

Counseling CenterS y r a c u s eWe s t c h e s t e r

List of Campuses

3 6

Mission Review: Recognized by the AmericanAssociation of State Colleges and Universities( AAS CU) as a Best Practice in Higher Education

A t its November 1999 annual meeting, the American Association of StateC o l l e g e s and Universities (AASCU) released an Action Agenda entitled, “ACommitment to Students, Community and Society.” The Action Agenda calls

for public comprehensive colleges and universities to “…ensure that they re m a i naccessible and aff o rdable, to communicate their vision and their success, and to continue to provide higher education opportunities that will ensure an enlightened and educated citizenry … "

In conjunction with communicating this Agenda, AASCU felt it important to recognize the significant pro g ress currently being made in these areas. The Agendahighlighted 100 examples of best practices in four areas: Quality Assurance,Public Engagement, Advocacy and Communications, and Access and Inclusion.

Responding to AASCU’s request for submissions, the University was award e dt h ree citations for the following programs/initiatives: Mission Review (QualityAssurance), Campus-Wide Assessment and Institutional Accreditation atF redonia (Quality Assurance), and the Center for Social Responsibility andCommunity at Oneonta (Public Engagement).

A) Mission Review – cited for its intention to position campuses to competemost successfully for students and to deliver high-quality programs; to enableSUNY institutions to leverage re s o u rces; to avoid unnecessary duplication ofre s o u rces; and to achieve more consensus on the mix and level of teaching,re s e a rch, and service on each campus.

B) SUNY College at Fedonia – cited for combining campus-wide assessmentand institutional accreditation. The campus has embarked on an institutionalself-study as the accreditation for the Middle States begins. A compre h e n s i v ea p p roach to institutionalizing the assessment process will be developed andi m p l e m e n t e d .

C) SUNY College at Oneonta – cited for its Center for Social Responsibility andC o m m u n i t y. The Center works to develop a strong sense of social re s p o n s i b i l i t yin undergraduate students through a range of service, volunteer, and p h i l a n t h ropic experiences.

3 7

The Community Colleges of The State University of New York S t r a t e gic Plan for 2001-2004

The SUNY Community Colleges have completed the development of this five-year Strategic Plan and submits it to its many publics herewith. This re p resents the first strategic plan in the history of the system of community

colleges. The planning process began in 1998 when the Association of Pre s i d e n t sof Public Community Colleges (APPCC) and the New York Community CollegeTrustees (NYCCT) commissioned a study on the community colleges from theNational Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). Thiss t u d y, which recommended the development of a vision and strategic plan for thesystem of community colleges, became an impetus for undertaking this majorplanning initiative.

The Strategic Plan was developed by the Office of the Vice Chancellor for CommunityColleges and involved the collaboration of many constituent groups, includingthe Chancellor and senior staff, the Advisory Committee to the Vice C h a n c e l l o rfor Community Colleges, the APPCC, the NYCCT, the Faculty Council o fCommunity Colleges, and the Committee on Community Colleges of the SUNYB o a rd of Trustees, as well as several other community college staff committeesand other individuals.

This document delineates a set of activities designed to guide the growth anddevelopment of the SUNY community colleges as a system of colleges over thenext five years. The development and adoption of the new Mission and Vi s i o nstatements for the community colleges preceded the process of development ofthis plan. These statements are included here. The strategic plan outlines the p r i m a ry activities that will be undertaken in the next several years to achieve thevision for the community colleges.

Implementation of the strategic plan will be a challenging yet most exciting andp romising undertaking. Strategic planning is intended to competitively positionthe organization, and the conditions are ideal for strengthening the communitycolleges in higher education in New York State. It is about developing strength asa system and improving our capability to respond to state needs, demonstratingour willingness and ability to think out of the box, especially where new types ofp rograms and delivery systems are concern e d .

In many ways, we are already well positioned to achieve our vision—many of the items proposed in this plan are well underw a y. I was recently asked how, inaddition to everything else we presently do, we would possibly mobilize and findthe time and re s o u rces to implement our vision. My response is this: first, wemust believe our vision is achievable, and most of us genuinely believe it is.Second, it will have commitment, participation and leadership at all levels tooperationalize it—including college, system, SUNY and college trustees, statepolitical leadership, community, and business and industry. Third, it will haveconsiderable sustained time and eff o rt on the part of college presidents, facultyand staff, with the support and assistance of system administration, and there s o u rces sufficient to enable it to happen.

I n t r o d u c t i o n

3 8

Our Strategic Plan is dynamic in that it will change and grow as conditionschange and our experience evolves. The driving force behind the success of thisplan will be the shared belief in and support for the vision. I hope this is mere l ythe beginning of a long tradition of strategic action by the SUNY communitycolleges as a system.

R o b e rt T. Bro w nVice Chancellor for Community CollegesSeptember 2001

The SUNY Community Colleges ensure open access to high quality postsecondaryeducation and contribute significantly to the development of an educated citizenryand skilled workforce. They offer comprehensive learning opportunities

ranging from transfer and career degrees to programs customized to serve specific individual, community, business and economic development needs. All share adedication to instruction and services that nurt u res the academic and personalachievement of individuals with diverse backgrounds and aspirations.

The SUNY Community Colleges, individually and as a system, are leaders inhigher education in New York State and in the nation. They are highly eff e c t i v ein responding to the educational needs of all people and the local, regional,

state and global communities to which they belong. Innovative and flexiblel e a rning options, strategies and technologies characterize their array of constantlyevolving programs and services in general education, workforce training, community service and economic development.

✦ Achieve a greater system identity and the capability to act as an effective system, including coordinating and facilitating system-wide activities

✦ I m p rove local governance and state coordination roles and re l a t i o n s h i p s

✦ Achieve broad-based recognition and promotion of the SUNY Community Colleges

✦ Develop the role of SUNY’s community colleges in statewide and re g i o n a lw o r k f o rce and economic development

✦ E n s u re responsiveness to statewide needs by expanding the capabilities of acommon framework for joint program development and delivery

✦ E n s u re adequate re s o u rces to support the development and operation of theCommunity Colleges, including physical facilities and technology, in a mannerconsistent with the system mission and vision

✦ Develop and recognize the talent of college faculty, staff, presidents, administrators and tru s t e e s

✦ Implement and evaluate pro g ress toward achieving the vision for theCommunity Colleges, and ensure overall perf o rmance effectiveness and measurable outcomes

M i s s i o nS ta t e m e n t

Vi s i o nS ta t e m e n t

S t r a t e gic Goals

3 9

4 0

4 1

4 2

4 3

4 4

4 5

4 6

4 7

4 8

4 9

5 0

5 1

5 2

5 3

5 4

5 5

5 6

5 7

5 8

Report of the Provost’s Advisory Task Force on theAssessment of Student Learning Outcomes

In Fall 1999, the Provost established an Advisory Task Force on the Assessmentof Student Learning Outcomes as a committee broadly re p resentative of theSUNY community. Membership included faculty, campus academic leadership

and professional staff, students, and System Administration staff. The Task Forc ewas charged with the responsibility to:

✦ Examine and discuss the issues involved in implementing undergraduate student learning outcomes assessment today—specifically, in the context of al a rge and diverse university system such as the State University of New Yo r k ,

and to make recommendations re g a rd i n g :

✦ A process for assessing student learning outcomes and intellectual growth inGeneral Education and the Major that will provide the faculty and academicleadership with an important and effective way of improving the quality ofu n d e rgraduate education, and the University with a coherent and meaningfullongitudinal data base with which to be accountable to its stakeholders.

The Task Force began its work on the SUNY Assessment Initiative in Novemberwith a general discussion about the many practical and philosophical issuesinvolved in outcomes assessment, particularly as it affects the State University.S u b s e q u e n t l y, it formed a number of working groups to study the issues in gre a t e rdetail. At every step, the Task Force has endeavored to keep the University community informed, by publishing summaries of its meetings, meeting withg roups such as the University Faculty Senate, the Faculty Council of CommunityC o l l e g e s , academic vice presidents, vice presidents for student affairs, and theP ro v o s t ’s Advisory Council on General Education, and sharing its Interim Reportwith campus presidents and campus communities. It has been the Task Forc e ’sgoal to maintain a very transparent and collegial process so as to be able to developrecommendations that will find broad support across the State University.

The Task Force believes that assessment serves two complementary functions in higher education today: “Assessment as improvement” and “Assessment asa c c o u n t a b i l i t y,” and that both of these functions have an appropriate place in

the SUNY Assessment Initiative and can strengthen the University’s institutionsand the system as a whole.

Assessment as ImprovementThe SUNY Assessment Initiative places foremost emphasis on assessment as ameans of improving student learning. Outcomes assessment is based upon thebelief that improvement in practices is a healthy aspect of institutional life. Anumber of colleges and universities across the nation have acted systematicallyon this belief and, in the process, enhanced their programs, student learning outcomes, and their academic reputation. Assessment of student outcomes is

E x e c u t i v eS u m m a r y

A s s e s s m e n t ’sDual Fu n c t i o n s :

Improvement andA c c o u n ta b i l i t y

5 9

also in the best interests of faculty, who have a great stake in knowing whether or not their teaching eff o rts are effective in promoting student learning. There is ag ro w i n g l i t e r a t u re on the advantages of the assessment process in facilitatingcommunication among faculty and providing them an opportunity to collaboratere g a rding the intended outcomes of their curricular pro g r a m s .

Assessment as Accounta b i l i t yAs a publicly supported institution, SUNY has a responsibility to demonstrate toits stakeholders that it is fulfilling its mission. These stakeholders include: TheB o a rd of Trustees, College Council members and the Boards of Trustees of Community Colleges, executive and legislative officials, students and their p a rents, the public, employers and the communities served by campuses, anda c c rediting and re g u l a t o ry bodies.

The Task Forc e ’s recognition of these two functions of assessment is dire c t l yreflected in the following re c o m m e n d a t i o n s :

✦ The SUNY Assessment Initiative should place foremost emphasis on assessmentas a means of improving academic programs, pedagogy, and student learn i n g .

✦ The SUNY Assessment Initiative should consist of both campus-based andUniversity-wide strategies, with campus-based assessment focused primarilyon program improvement and University-wide assessment used primarily tos e rve accountability and advocacy functions.

The State University, largest in the nation, is also one of the most diverse, c o n s i s ting of 64 campuses that have unique missions and which have operatede ff e c t i v e l y over the years according to their own governance and curriculum

p rocesses. Just as campuses have been allowed to implement the SUNY GeneralEducation re q u i rement in ways that are consistent with their own stru c t u res andp ro c e d u re s , so must they be given flexibility to assess their programs “in accordwith their own characteristics.” The Task Force there f o re re c o m m e n d s :

✦ The SUNY Assessment Initiative must respect the diversity that exists amongSUNY institutions, especially their unique missions.

✦ All activities carried out as a part of the SUNY Assessment Initiative shouldincorporate and respect existing governance and curriculum stru c t u res andp ro c e s s e s .

Individual campuses and programs cannot be expected to implement c o m p rehensive and effective campus-based assessment of General Educationand the Major without new funding set aside for that purpose. A paramount

responsibility for System Administration is to work assiduously with the campusesand the Trustees to guarantee that assessment eff o rts receive adequate re s o u rc e s ,s t a ff assistance, and funding on a sustained basis. Furt h e r, the SUNY AssessmentInitiative provides System Administration with an invaluable opportunity to use

R e s p e c t i n gC a m p u s

D i s t i n c t i v e n e s sand Autonomy

Resources and Support

for Assessment

6 0

assessment information to inform the teaching and learning process, highlightingthe various campus-based assessment approaches so that communication acro s scampuses is enhanced and faculty from diff e rent institutions can learn from eacho t h e r. The Task Force there f o re re c o m m e n d s :

✦ SUNY System Administration should make a commitment to providing adequate re s o u rces on a sustained basis so that campuses are able to developand implement effective modes of assessment of student learning outcomes.

✦ Individual campuses should support assessment eff o rts by making assessment-related funding needs a priority in their budgets.

✦ SUNY System Administration should assume responsibility for coordinating andfacilitating assessment eff o rts across the 64 campuses and should provide multiplef o rums for the purpose of highlighting and publicizing best assessment practices.

✦ SUNY System Administration should commit itself to the provision of databasesthat are reliable, coordinated, and available to appropriate persons.

E ach campus is responsible for determining the particular stru c t u re and contentof its campus-based General Education assessment plan, following existingg o v e rnance and curriculum processes. Similarly, individual campuses should

have autonomy in determining how to disseminate the results of their campus-based General Education assessment program to their own communities. Some external review of assessment plans is desirable, preferably by faculty,administrators, and System Administration re p resentatives who have a goodworking knowledge of assessment. It is also desirable that there be some u n i f o rmity among campuses in the format of the assessment plans as well as inthe re p o rting of assessment results. To w a rd these ends, the Task Force makes thefollowing re c o m m e n d a t i o n s :

✦ Campus-based assessment plans of General Education should be developedand implemented primarily by faculty members who teach in the pro g r a m ,with the assistance of professional staff and students when appropriate, andsubmitted to and approved by the campus’s Faculty Senate or Council.

✦ Campus General Education assessment plans should be approved and re v i e w e dregularly by a group consisting of University faculty, campus chief academico fficers, and re p resentatives from System Administration. This General Education Assessment Review (GEAR) group should be formed jointly byUniversity Faculty Senate and Community College Faculty Council leadershipand System Administration, and should include individuals who are knowledgeable about assessment.

✦ Campuses should use a standardized format, developed jointly by the campuses and System Administration, in re p o rting the results of their GeneralEducation assessment program to System Administration. Reported re s u l t sshould indicate the percentage of students exceeding, meeting, approaching, and not meeting the delineated learning outcomes.

C a m p u s - B a s e dAssessment of

G e n e r a lE d u c a t i o n

6 1

SUNY University-wide assessment is governed by the assumption that academicassessment is primarily a campus-based responsibility of the faculty as theyconduct the educational programs of their institutions and participate

significantly in the initiation, development and implementation of those educational programs. Although campus-based assessment should be the focus of the SUNY Assessment Initiative, the Task Force believes that there is an a p p ropriate place for University-wide assessment as well. Information derived fro mUniversity-wide assessment will be used primarily by System Administration foraccountability purposes—enabling it to re p o rt on the status of General Educationoutcomes in SUNY as a whole—and to advocate on behalf of the University. TheTask Force specifically re c o m m e n d s :

✦ University-wide assessment should periodically assess, using common measure s ,a re p resentative sample of students from across SUNY in order to gauge students’attainment in the learning outcomes of the Implementation Guidelines in Mathematics, Basic Communication, Critical Thinking (Reasoning),I n f o rmation Management, and the understanding of the methods scientistsand social scientists use to explore phenomena.

✦ A University-wide Assessment Implementation Working Group, comprised of faculty and students from across SUNY, with re p resentatives from SystemAdministration, should be formed to develop the actual assessment instru m e n t ( s )to be used, as well as the pro c e d u res to be followed.

✦ University-wide assessment should utilize a variety of evaluation appro a c h e s ,all of which are demonstrated to be valid and re l i a b l e .

✦ Campuses should have sufficient time to develop and implement their ownassessment programs before implementation of University-wide assessmentp ro c e e d s .

E ach campus is responsible for overseeing the process through which theassessment of academic major programs takes place, following existing c u rriculum and g o v e rnance pro c e d u res. It is desirable that individual campuses

establish a uniform f o rmat for programs to follow in developing their assessmentplans, that program assessment take place on a regular basis, and that there beexternal review of programs when practicable. The Task Force does not recommend University-wide assessment of academic majors. Instead, the role of System Administration should focus on revising extant program review policies and on monitoring the frequency with which program review takes placea c ross the Univ e r s i t y. To w a rd these ends, the Task Force makes the following re c o m m e n d a t i o n s :

✦ Campuses and programs should have maximum autonomy in the development of assessment plans for academic majors, and should include the input of faculty, professional staff, and students.

✦ Assessment of academic programs should take place every five to seven years,should incorporate external review whenever feasible, and should includedelineation of the programmatic goals and objectives for the major with an

6 2

U n i v e r s i t y - W i d eAssessment of

G e n e r a lE d u c a t i o n

Assessing the Major

emphasis on the programmatic activities that are intended to accomplish thesegoals and objectives and the learning outcomes students should demonstrateas they pro g ress through the program to completion, as well as a strategy formeasuring change in students’ knowledge and skills over time.

✦ Academic programs should use a standardized format and consistent p ro c e d u res developed by their campus in developing and implementingtheir assessment plans, although latitude should be granted for programs also undergoing accreditation or cert i f i c a t i o n .

✦ Each year institutions should submit a re p o rt to System Administration p roviding a summary of the academic programs that underwent review duringthat year and the major findings, as well as a listing of programs scheduled for review during the next academic year.

✦ Recommendations for assessing student learning outcomes in the Major shouldbe carried out within the broader framework of the University Faculty Senate’sGuide for the Evaluation of Undergraduate Academic Pro g r a m s.

✦ System Administration should renew its eff o rts to track campus-based assessment and program review eff o rt s .

A ssessment is not evaluation, nor is it competition. Assessment is a pro c e s s ,first and foremost, for understanding and improving student learn i n g .F u rt h e r, a true “culture of assessment” re q u i res that assessment re s u l t s —

for campus-based assessment of General Education and the Major, and forUniversity-wide assessment—be shared only with appropriate stakeholders. The Task Force there f o re makes the following recommendations with respect tothe utilization and re p o rting of assessment data gathered as part of the SUNYAssessment Initiative:

✦ System Administration should only re p o rt data gathered through University-wide assessment for accountability purposes after adequate reliability andvalidity estimates of the measures being used are demonstrated.

✦ Stringent guidelines should be developed and adhered to in order to ensurethat confidentiality of assessment data is maintained.

✦ Assessment results should never be used to punish, publicly compare, ore m b a rrass students, faculty, courses, programs, departments, or institutionseither individually or collectively, or to make public comparisons among gro u p sof students based on gender, race, ethnicity, or other demographic factors.

✦ System Administration should publicly disseminate assessment data onlyt h rough aggregate re p o rting for SUNY as a whole, or by sector.

✦ While individual programs are free to use their own assessment results in waysthey see fit, individual campuses should publicly disseminate assessment data onlyt h rough aggregate re p o rting for the institution as a whole, or by school or college.

Utilization andReporting ofA s s e s s m e n t

R e s u l t s

6 3

Just as System Administration and individual campuses must provide adequates u p p o rt for the actual implementation of effective assessment, they must alsoconvey to faculty and staff across the State University that participation in a s s e s sment is worthy of recognition and re w a rd. In this way, assessment is

a c k n o w l e d g e d as a valuable—and valued—activity. The Task Force there f o re re c o m m e n d s :

✦ System Administration should support State-operated/funded institutions withre s o u rces for campus-based assessment through Perf o rmance Funding, basedupon a determination of the extent to which campuses have implementedtheir assessment plans for General Education and the Major. An altern a t i v eincentive process will need to be established for community colleges.

✦ Individual campuses should re w a rd academic programs for assessment activities through their budgeting process to the greatest extent possible andrecognize the assessment-related eff o rts of faculty and professional stafft h rough appropriate personnel processes and incentives.

November 28, 2000

Incentives forE n g a ging inA s s e s s m e n t

A c t i v i t y

6 4

New Programs of Study Te n tatively Planned forIntroduction 2000–2004

C A MPUS PR OGRAM NAME AWA RD

A l b a n y Nonprofit Management & Leadership A d v. Cert.

A l b a n y / Social Wo r k /L a w M . S . W. /J . D .Albany Law School Urban & Re gional Planning/L a w M . R . P. /J . D .

B i n g h a m t o n A c c o u n t i n g B . S . /M . S .B i o l o gical Sciences B . A . /M . A .Biomedical Anthropology M . S .Computer Engi n e e r i n g /Electrical Engi n e e r i n g B . S . /M . S .Computer Science/Information Science B . S . /M . S .Electrical Engi n e e r i n g B . S . /M . S .Philosophy, Politics & Law/Philosophy (SPEL ) B . A . /M . A .

Buffalo (Center) Acute Care Nurse Practitioner M . S .Aerospace Engi n e e r i n g /Business Administration B . S . /M . B . A .Applied Economics: Information & Internet Economics A d v. Cert.Assistive & Re h a b i l i tative Te c h n o l o gy A d v. Cert.B i o t e c h n o l o gy B . S .Chemical Engi n e e r i n g /Business Administration B . S . /M . B . A .C o m p u tational Physics/P h y s i c s B . S . /M . S .C o m p u tational Science A d v. Cert.Computer Science B . S . /M . S .E c o l o gy, Evolution & Behavior A d v. Cert.Exercise Science B . S . /M . S .Exercise Science/N u t r i t i o n B . S . /M . S .Geographic Information Science A d v. Cert.G e o l o gical Sciences B . S .Geriatric Nurse Practitioner M . S .Industrial Engi n e e r i n g /Business Administration B . S . /M . B . A .I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a ry Social Sciences/Social Wo r k B . A . /M . S . W.Management Information Sy s t e m s M . S .Manufacturing & Operations Management M . S .Mechanical Engi n e e r i n g /Business Administration B . S . /M . B . A .Media Arts Production M . F. A .Physical Th e r a p y D . P. T.Public Health M . P. H .Temporomandibular Disorders & Orofacial Pa i n A d v. Cert.

Stony Brook American Studies B . A .B i o c h e m i s t ry / C h e m i s t ry B . S . /M . S .B i o e n gi n e e r i n g B . E .C h e m i s t ry B . S . /M . S .Computer Integrated Engi n e e r i n g A d v. Cert.E n gineering Chemistry / C h e m i s t ry B . S . /M . S .E n v i r o n m e n tal Studies B . A .Health Sciences/Occupational Th e r a p y B . S . /M . S .Industrial Management A d v. Cert.Physical Th e r a p y M . S .Physical Th e r a p y D . P. T.Political Science/Public Po l i c y B . A . /M . A .Public Po l i c y M . A .

Stony Brook/ Applied Mathematics B . S .Fa r m i n g d a l e Applied Mathematics B . S . /M . S .

6 5

C A MPUS PR OGRAM NAME AWA RD

B r o c k p o r t Early Childhood Education B . A .Early Childhood Education B . S .E n v i r o n m e n tal Science B . S .

Buffalo College Applied Economics M . A .Business Administration B . S .Music Education M u s . B .

C o r t l a n d Childhood Education M . S . T.Musical Th e a t e r B . A .Professional Wr i t i n g B . A .Second Language Education M . S . E d .Special Education M . S . E d .Special Education - Childhood/Childhood Education B . S .

Fr e d o n i a Business Administration: Finance B . S .Business Administration: Management B . S .Business Administration: Management Information Sy s t e m s B . S .Business Administration: Marketing B . S .Communication: Audio/Radio Production B . S .Communication: Communication Studies B . S .Communication: Media Management B . S .Communication: Public Re l a t i o n s B . S .Communication: TV /D i gi tal Film Production B . S .Early Childhood Education B . S . E d .Middle Childhood Specialist: Mathematics B . S .Visual Arts: Art History B . A .Visual Arts: Ceramics B . F. A .Visual Arts: Ceramics B . A .Visual Arts: Drawing B . F. A .Visual Arts: Drawing B . A .Visual Arts: Graphic Design B . F. A .Visual Arts: Graphic Design B . A .Visual Arts: Illustration B . F. A .Visual Arts: Illustration B . A .Visual Arts: Pa i n t i n g B . F. A .Visual Arts: Pa i n t i n g B . A .Visual Arts: Photography B . F. A .Visual Arts: Photography B . A .Visual Arts: Sculpture B . A .Visual Arts: Sculpture B . F. A .

G e n e s e o Musical Th e a t e r B . A .

O s w e g o A c c o u n t i n g /Public Accounting B . S . /M . B . A .Global & International Studies B . A .Public Accounting M . B . A .

P l a t t s b u r g h Communication Disorders & Sciences C e r t .J o u r n a l i s m B . A .Wo m e n ’s Studies B . A .

Po t s d a m Business Administration B . S .Early Childhood Education B . A .

P u r c h a s e Arts Management B . F. A .Cinema Studies B . A .J o u r n a l i s m B . A .

Brooklyn HS C Molecular & Cell Biology P h . D .Urban Health M . P. H .

Syracuse HS C M e d i c a l - S u r gical Clinical Specialist A d v. Cert.Nursing Education A d v. Cert.

6 6

C A MPUS PR OGRAM NAME AWA RD

Fa r m i n g d a l e Architectural Te c h n o l o gy B . S .Computer Programming & Information Sy s t e m s B . S .D e n tal Hygi e n e B . S .Management of Te c h n o l o gy B . S .

M a r i t i m e International Tr a n s p o r tation & Tr a d e B . S .Marine Environmental Science B . S .

C e r a m i c s Biomedical Materials Engineering Science M . S .

Agriculture & Atmospheric Sciences B . S .Life Sciences Crop & Soil Sciences B . S .

Human Ecology Human Biology, Health & Society B . S .

Alfred Computer Te c h n o l o gy B . S .Computer Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .Te c h n o l o gy Management B . B . A .Ve t e r i n a ry Science Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .

C a n t o n Te c h n o l o gy Management B . B . A .

C o b l e s k i l l Geographic Information Systems Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .Te c h n o l o gy Management B . B . A .

D e l h i Heating, Ventilating & Air Conditioning Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .Physical Education Studies A . S .Te c h n o l o gy Management B . B . A .

Morrisville Massage Th e r a p y A . A . S .Te c h n o l o gy Management B . B . A .

Adirondack (ACC) M u s i c A . S .Precision Machining C e r t .

ACC/Glens Falls Hospita l R a d i o l o gic Te c h n o l o gy A . S .

B r o o m e M a n a g e m e n t A . S .P h l e b o t o m y C e r t .

C a y u g a Computer Hardware/Software Design A . A . S .Computer Hardware/Software Design C e r t .

C l i n t o n Computer Information Sy s t e m s A . A . S .Computer Support C e r t .Web Page Design C e r t .

C o l u m b i a - G r e e n e E n v i r o n m e n tal Studies A . S .

C o r n i n g Early Childhood A . A . S .Educational Interpreting A . A . S .

D u t c h e s s Advanced Science & Mathematics Studies C e r t .Exercise Science & We l l n e s s A . S .Performing Arts A . S .

E r i e - C i t y Geographic Information Sy s t e m s C e r t .Human Serv i c e s C e r t .

E r i e - N o r t h Geographic Information Sy s t e m s C e r t .Human Serv i c e s C e r t .

E r i e - S o u t h Geographic Information Sy s t e m s C e r t .Human Serv i c e s C e r t .

FI T Cosmetics & Fragrance Marketing & Management M . P. S .

Finger Lakes B i o t e c h n o l o gy A . S .

6 7

C A MPUS PR OGRAM NAME AWA RD

Fu l t o n - M o n t g o m e ry Legal Office Clerk C e r t .Medical Re c e p t i o n i s t C e r t .Medical Tr a n s c r i p t i o n i s t C e r t .Spatial Information Te c h n o l o gy C e r t .Spatial Information Te c h n o l o gy A . S .

G e n e s e e Computer Re p a i r C e r t .D a tabase Support C e r t .End User Support C e r t .General Education C e r t .Liberal Arts & Science: Sport Management Studies A . S .Musical Th e a t r e C e r t .Teaching Assista n t C e r t .Web Development C e r t .

H e r k i m e r Computer Information Systems: Electronic Commerce for Business A . A . S .

Hudson Va l l e y B i o t e c h n o l o gy A . S .D e n tal Assisting C e r t .Emergency Medical Technician: Pa r a m e d i c A . A . S .

J a m e s t o w n - M a i n Criminal Justice A . A .Individual Studies C e r t .Information Te c h n o l o gy C e r t .Information Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .Network Administration C e r t .Network Hardware C e r t .Network Programming C e r t .Professional Piloting A . A . S .We b m a s t e r C e r t .

J a m e s t o w n - C a t ta r a u g u s Criminal Justice A . S .Individual Studies C e r t .Information Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .Information Te c h n o l o gy C e r t .Network Administration C e r t .Network Hardware C e r t .Network Programming C e r t .Special Studies C e r t .We b m a s t e r C e r t .

J e f f e r s o n Emergency Medical Technician: Intermediate A . A . S .Emergency Medical Technician: Pa r a m e d i c A . A . S .Networking Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .

Mohawk Va l l e y - U t i c a Clinical Allied Health Care C e r t .CNC Machinist C e r t .Electrical Service Technician: Fiber Optics A . O . S .English as a Second Language C e r t .Fine Arts A . S .Individual Studies: Allied Health C e r t .Individual Studies: Business & Industry C e r t .Medical Assisting A . A . S .Private Pilot A . A . S .Professional Pilot C e r t .Professional Pilot A . A . S .Web Site Design & Management C e r t .

Mohawk Va l l e y - Ro m e Web Site Design & Management A . A . S .

M VCC/St. Luke’s Memorial Hospita l Emergency Medical Serv i c e s /Pa r a m e d i c A . A . S .

6 8

C A MPUS PR OGRAM NAME AWA RD

M o n r o e - B r i g h t o n Massage Th e r a p y A . A . S .Telecommunications Services Te c h n o l o gy C e r t .

Monroe-Damon City Court Re p o r t i n g C e r t .Public Administration A . A . S .Public Administration C e r t .

N i a g a r a C u l i n a ry Arts A . A . S .D i gi tal Media C e r t .D i gi tal Media A . S .E n v i r o n m e n tal Studies A . S .Food Serv i c e C e r t .Liberal Arts & Sciences A . A .

O n o n d a g a E n v i r o n m e n tal Te c h n o l o gy: Biology A . A . S .E n v i r o n m e n tal Te c h n o l o gy: Chemistry A . A . S .E n v i r o n m e n tal Te c h n o l o gy: Emissions Monitoring & Te s t i n g A . A . S .E n v i r o n m e n tal Te c h n o l o gy: Geoscience A . A . S .Medical Tr a n s c r i p t i o n C e r t .

Ro c k l a n d Medical Tr a n s c r i p t i o n C e r t .

S u f f o l k - A m m e r m a n Information Te c h n o l o gy C e r t .Information Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .

S u f f o l k - A m m e r m a n /St. Joseph’s College Liberal Arts & Sciences: Education/Child Study A . A . /B . A .

S u f f o l k - E a s t e r n Information Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .Information Te c h n o l o gy C e r t .Technical Communication A . A . S .

S u f f o l k - E a s t e r n /St. Joseph’s College Liberal Arts & Sciences: Education/Child Study A . A . /B . A .

S u f f o l k - We s t e r n Information Te c h n o l o gy C e r t .Information Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .

S u f f o l k - We s t e r n /St. Joseph’s College Liberal Arts & Science: Education/Child Study A . A . /B . A .

S u l l i v a n Commercial Art A . O . S .C u l i n a ry Arts A . O . S .E l e c t r o n i c /Electrical Engineering Te c h n o l o gy A . A . S .Legal Studies A . A .Office Applications C e r t .P h o t o g r a p h y A . O . S .Travel & To u r i s m C e r t .We b m a s t e r A . O . S .

Tompkins Cortland Aviation Science A . S .Computer Fo r e n s i c s A . A . S .P h o t o g r a p h y A . S .Sport Management A . S .

U l s t e r Computer Music C e r t .Electronic Commerce C e r t .Network Administrator A . A . S .Sign Language Interpreting C e r t .

U l s t e r /M a r i s t Individual Studies/Pa r a l e g a l A . S . / C e r t .

We s t c h e s t e r Computer Applications Specialist C e r t .Help Desk Support C e r t .Web Development for E-Commerce C e r t .

6 9

Master Plan Amendments 1996–2001

DAT EA PPR OV ED BYC A MPUS PR OGRAM NAME AWA RD B OA RD OF TRUST EES

University at Binghamton N u r s i n g P h . D . 1 2 / 1 5 / 9 8

Buffalo College Business Administration B . S . 4 / 3 0 / 0 1

College of Te c h n o l o gy Computer Programmingat Fa r m i n g d a l e & Information Sy s t e m s B . S . 5 / 2 2 / 0 1

College of Te c h n o l o gyat Fa r m i n g d a l e D e n tal Hygi e n e B . S . 11 / 1 4 / 0 0

Colleges of Te c h n o l o gy atA l f r e d / C a n t o n / C o b l e s k i l l /D e l h i /M o r r i s v i l l e Information Te c h n o l o gy B . Te c h . 1 / 2 6 / 9 9

College of Te c h n o l o gy Health Services at Canton M a n a g e m e n t B . Te c h . 11 / 1 6 / 9 9

College of Te c h n o l o gy Public Safety Te c h n o l o gy: at Canton Criminal Investigation B . Te c h . 6 / 2 4 / 97

College of Te c h n o l o gy at Delhi H o s p i tality Management B . B . A . 4 / 2 1 / 97

Adirondack Community College M u s i c A . S . 9 / 2 6 / 0 0

Clinton Computer Information Community College Sy s t e m s A . A . S 9 / 2 6 / 0 0

Columbia-Greene Community College E n v i r o n m e n tal Studies A . S . 9 / 2 6 / 0 0

Corning Community College Early Childhood A . S . 4 / 3 0 / 0 1

7 0

State University of New Yo r k_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Memorandum to Presidents__________________________________________________________

D a t e : J a n u a ry 3, 2001 Vol. 01 No. 1

F ro m : O ffice of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Aff a i r s

S u b j e c t : 2001 Guidelines for the Submission of Undergraduate AcademicP rogram Pro p o s a l s

To : P residents, State University of New Yo r k

E ffective Febru a ry 1, 2001, the attached 2001 Guidelines for the Submission ofU n d e rgraduate Academic Program Proposals will apply to all State Universitycampuses for proposed new programs at all undergraduate award levels. Theserevised Guidelines supercede the Guidelines issued as Memorandum to Pre s i d e n t s ,Vol. 96 No.1. Program Announcements and Program Proposals begun under the1996 pro c e d u res remain governed by that pro c e s s .

The 2001 Guidelines are a result of the State University’s Mission Review pro c e s sin that they recognize campus mission, academic planning, quality enhancementand continuous assessment, as well as the need for System to facilitate campusi n t roduction of new academic programs.

N o t e w o rthy features of the 2001 Guidelines include:

✦ the establishment of clear criteria for the expedited review for all pro g r a m s ;

✦ implementation of an internal process for streamlining the Program Pro p o s a lreview process, including reducing the number of possible review decisionsf rom seven to thre e ;

✦ consistency with current eff o rts at the State Education Department to s t reamline its process for program registration. A thoughtful preparation ofmaterials under the 2001 Guidelines will meet SED’s revised re q u i re m e n t s ;

✦ the resolution of questions related to the mission appropriateness at the Pro g r a mAnnouncement stage, as well as the use of e-mail for the announcement, withSystem Administration responsible for its electronic distribution;

✦ simplification of the Program Proposal form with tables for curriculum, faculty,and re s o u rc e s ;

Memo on 2001Guidelines

for theSubmission

of AcademicP r o g r a m

P r o p o s a l s

7 1

✦ the re q u i rement for external review for all new baccalaureate programs, withthe possibility of a waiver for campuses with highly developed campus facultyg o v e rnance and program re s o u rces already in place;

✦ the establishment of an electronic address for the Program Review and PlanningG roup (pro g r a m . re v i e w @ s y s a d m . s u n y.edu) to improve communication, andthe regular (weekly and monthly) sharing of program announcements, n e w s ,updates, information, and decisions through e-mail broadcasts and by postson the Office of the Provost webpage (www. s y s a d m . s u n y. e d u / p ro v o s t /p ro g r a m review/); and

✦ a comprehensive handbook, with guidance to campuses on the various form sand compliance with SED re g u l a t i o n s .

G reater accountability of the Program Review and Planning Group to campuses isa s s u red by the establishment of clear goals for the timely completion of its work,i n c l u d i n g :

✦ the study of Program Announcements within 30 days of the date when theannouncement is received; and

✦ the review of complete Program Proposals that qualify for fast-track re v i e wwithin 30 days of the date when the proposal is received, and complete, non-expedited, proposals within 60 days.

Our eff o rts this past year to refine the process have been grounded by the goodcounsel of an advisory committee of State University academic officers and ourcolleagues in the State Education Depart m e n t ’s Division of College and UniversityEvaluation, to whom I am grateful.

If there are any questions about this document or process, please don’t hesitate tocontact me or Dr. Donald Steven, Associate Provost, Office of Academic Affairs, at(518) 443-5663 or stevendo@sysadm.edu.

Peter D. SalinsP ro v o s t

E n c l o s u re s

This memorandum addressed to:P residents, State-operated CampusesP residents, Community CollegesDeans, Statutory Colleges

Copies for information only to: P resident EdmondsonP rovost Mart i n

7 2

Report of the Provost’s Advisory Task Force on General Education

Implementation Guidelines for the State University of New Yo r kB a c c a l a u reate Candidate General Education

S p r i n g / S u m m e r, 1999

The State University of New York Board of Trustees, in December 1998, adoptedResolution 98-241 establishing a General Education Requirement for allb a c c al a u reate degree candidates at the University’s state-operated campuses.

Both in conjunction with the Trustees’ action and in response to requests from theC h a n c e l l o r and senior campus leadership, Provost Peter D. Salins appointed TheP ro v o s t ’s Advisory Task Force on General Education. Specifically stru c t u red top rovide broad system re p resentation, the Task Force includes campus pre s i d e n t s ,chief academic officers, faculty and students, and is drawn from all sectors of thes y s t e m .

The charge of the Task Force focused primarily on four areas. Its re s p o n s i b i l i t ywas to:

✦ consult with the campuses to identify their concerns in the implementation ofthe Trustees’ Resolution;

✦ i n t e r p ret both the letter and the spirit of the Trustees’ Resolution;

✦ develop guidelines to assist campuses as they adapt their General Educationp rograms to the Trustees’ resolution in ways consistent with campus and p rogram missions; and

✦ identify re s o u rces that will be needed to implement the Trustees’ re s o l u t i o nand suggest ways that these may be developed and allocated.

In carrying out its charge, the Task Force divided into four work groups, eacha d d ressing a specific aspect of implementation. These four subcommittees were :the Academic Subject Areas Subcommittee, charged with describing the learn i n goutcomes re q u i red by General Education programs; the Instructional ModalitiesSubcommittee, charged with exploring and recommending methods for pro d u c i n gthe desired learning outcomes; the Two-year College/Transfer Issue Subcommittee,c h a rged with analyzing and making recommendations re g a rding the impact of theGeneral Education policy at two-year institutions; and the Resource A l l o c a t i o nSubcommittee, charged with examining and making re c o m m e n d a t i o n s re g a rd i n gthe financial implications of the new General Education policy. The Task Forc edeveloped its guidelines within the context of the State University of New Yo r k ’sdistinctiveness as a large system of diverse institutions, each with its own mission,goals, and needs. Eff o rts were made to allow campuses the flexibility to implementthe policy in accord with their own unique characteristics. In this re g a rd, curr i c u l a rcontent is described in terms of learning outcomes, consistent with re c o m m e n d a t i o n sof the University Faculty Senate and the Faculty Council of Community Colleges

I n t r o d u c t i o n

7 3

Joint Task Force on General Education3 and with Provost Peter D. Salins’ re p o rton General Education.4

In developing these guidelines, the Task Force recognizes the significance of otherfactors, such as assessment and budget allocations, that may have an impact onGeneral Education policy implementation. Consequently, these guidelines wouldcomplement rather than supersede the recommendations of the Pro v o s t ’s Ta s kF o rce on Learning Outcomes, the principles governing the Budget AllocationP rocess, or individual campuses’ Mission Review Memoranda of Understanding.Consistent with the Board of Trustees’ resolution, the Task Force guidelines recognize other extant and unique circumstances that might justify waivers fro m ,or deferment of, specific aspects of implementation.

The Task Force believes that in delineating learning outcomes and in setting aframework for implementation of recommendations, it is being faithful to theintent of the Board of Trustees’ resolution and sensitive to campus circ u m s t a n c e s .M o re o v e r, this General Education initiative is a work in pro g ress and will re q u i recontinuous review of both curricular content and assessment methods to ensurethat it is fully and effectively implemented.

The Interpretive Guidelines component of the Task Forc e ’s re p o rt summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Academic Subjects and Instru c t i o n a lModalities Subcommittees. This section delineates the learning outcomes

re q u i re d by the General Education program and presents a set of precepts toguide campuses in implementing their pro g r a m s .

The State University of New Yo r k ’s General Education Requirement applies to all state-operated institutions offering undergraduate degrees. It re q u i res b a c c a l a u reate degree candidates, as a condition of graduation, to complete aGeneral Education program of no fewer than 30 credit hours specificallydesigned to achieve the student learning outcomes in ten knowledge and skilla reas and two competencies, as specified below:

I . Learning Outcomes

KNOWLEDGE AND SKILL AREAS

1 . Mathematics Students will show competence in the following quantitative reasoning skills:✦ a r i t h m e t i c ;✦ a l g e b r a ;✦ g e o m e t ry ;✦ data analysis; and✦ quantitative re a s o n i n g .

I n t e r p r e t i v eG u i d e l i n e s

7 4

____________ 3Final Report of State University of New York University Faculty Senate and Faculty Council of Community CollegesJoint Task Force on General Education (January, 1998).

4General Education: Overview and Recommendations (Fall, 1998).

2 . Natural SciencesStudents will demonstrate:✦ understanding of the methods scientists use to explore natural

phenomena, including observation, hypothesis development, m e a s u rement and data collection, experimentation, evaluation of evidence, and employment of mathematical analysis; and

✦ application of scientific data, concepts, and models in one of the natural sciences.

3 . Social SciencesStudents will demonstrate:✦ understanding of the methods social scientists use to explore

social phenomena, including observation, hypothesis development, m e a s u rement and data collection, experimentation, evaluation of evidence, and employment of mathematical and interpretive analysis;a n d

✦ knowledge of major concepts, models and issues of at least one discipline in the social sciences.

4 . American HistoryStudents will demonstrate:✦ knowledge of a basic narrative of American history: political, economic,

social, and cultural, including knowledge of unity and diversity inAmerican society;

✦ knowledge of common institutions in American society and how theyhave affected diff e rent groups; and

✦ understanding of America’s evolving relationship with the rest of thew o r l d .

5 . We s t e rn CivilizationStudents will:✦ demonstrate knowledge of the development of the distinctive feature s

of the history, institutions, economy, society, culture, etc., of We s t e rncivilization; and

✦ relate the development of We s t e rn civilization to that of other re g i o n sof the world.

6 . Other World CivilizationsStudents will demonstrate:✦ knowledge of either a broad outline of world history, or✦ the distinctive features of the history, institutions, economy, society,

c u l t u re, etc., of one non-We s t e rn civilization.

7 . H u m a n i t i e sStudents will demonstrate:✦ knowledge of the conventions and methods of at least one of the

humanities in addition to those encompassed by other knowledgea reas re q u i red by the General Education pro g r a m .

8 . The Art sStudents will demonstrate:✦ understanding of at least one principal form of artistic expression and

the creative process inherent there i n .

7 5

9 . F o reign LanguageStudents will demonstrate:✦ basic proficiency in the understanding and use of a foreign language; and✦ knowledge of the distinctive features of culture(s) associated with the

language they are studying.

1 0 . BASIC COMMUNICATION Students will:✦ p roduce coherent texts within common college-level written form s ;✦ demonstrate the ability to revise and improve such texts;✦ re s e a rch a topic, develop an argument, and organize supporting details;✦ develop proficiency in oral discourse; and✦ evaluate an oral presentation according to established criteria.

C O M P E T E N C I E S

The following two competencies should be infused throughout the GeneralEducation pro g r a m :

1 . Critical Thinking (Reasoning) Students will:✦ i d e n t i f y, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in their own

or others’ work; and✦ develop well-reasoned arg u m e n t s .

2 . I n f o rmation ManagementStudents will:✦ p e rf o rm the basic operations of personal computer use;✦ understand and use basic re s e a rch techniques; and✦ locate, evaluate and synthesize information from a variety of sourc e s .

II . Precepts for Implementa t i o n

As campuses develop or modify their General Education programs forimplementation, they should be guided by the following pre c e p t s :

✦ Campuses shall demonstrate commitment to General Education in the following ways:

✦ encourage the assignment of excellent teaching faculty to GeneralEducation courses;

✦ p rovide courses specifically designed for and dedicated to GeneralEducation where appro p r i a t e ;

✦ consider faculty commitment to the teaching of General Education in the promotion and tenure process; and

✦ a rticulate a coherent philosophy and pedagogy for their GeneralEducation pro g r a m ( s ) .

✦ Campuses, in including assessment as a necessary component of theirGeneral Education implementation plans, shall:

✦ review their entire General Education programs periodically to evaluate and strengthen perf o rm a n c e ;

7 6

✦ establish assessment programs for the specified student learning o u t c o m e s ;

✦ derive evidence from the application of such assessment programs toshow that the intended learning outcomes are being achieved; and

✦ use the results of assessment programs to improve the quality ande ffectiveness of General Education pro g r a m s .

✦ Campuses may deliver General Education in a variety of formats, asjudged appropriate by the campus faculty, and justified on curr i c u l a rand pedagogical grounds. Campuses may also offer more than oneGeneral Education curr i c u l u m .

✦ For purposes of General Education, the campuses shall interpret theknowledge areas according to conventional or common definitions, butm a y, as appropriate, teach them through a variety of perspectives.

✦ The formats and methods of delivery for General Education coursesshall be appropriate to each knowledge and skill area. Those coursesthat have been approved by a campus for its General Education pro g r a mshall be monitored regularly by the campus faculty.

✦ Campuses are encouraged to conceive of and implement GeneralEducation programs that approach the goals of General Education as af o u r-year experience, thereby providing students with greater optionsfor planning their courses of study, allowing for the needs of transferstudents, and allowing faculties to devise curricula appropriate to individual majors and to institutional missions.

✦ General Education programs shall recognize diff e rences in the levels of student preparation and build curricula both to assess and achieve a level of college competency. Campuses may waive individual re q u i rements for students who can demonstrate college-level pro f i c i e n c yin specific knowledge and skill areas or competencies.

✦ Waivers will be available for specific programs with specialized missionor accreditation demands that would constrain a student’s ability to fulfill the General Education Requirement without extending the time tograduation. Campuses with such programs may also propose altern a t i v ec u rricula designed to incorporate an appropriate portion of the GeneralEducation Requirement within their professional curricula, there b yre i n f o rcing and enriching, rather than diverting from their mission anda c c reditation demands.

✦ Campuses that have re s o u rce constraints preventing them from fulfillingp o rtions of the General Education policy by Fall 2000 may request additional time for implementation of specified portions of the policy.

✦ In keeping with Trustees’ Resolution 87-114 (and prior re s o l u t i o n srelating to Transfer Policy), courses certified as fulfilling part i c u l a rGeneral Education re q u i rements by any institution in the system willfulfill those re q u i rements at any other institution in the system, withoutthe necessity of individual articulation agreements.

7 7

✦ Students transferring from community colleges may complete as manyas 30 credits of the General Education Requirement prior to transfer.Students planning to transfer into baccalaureate programs would be welladvised to complete as much of the General Education Requirement aspossible within their programs of study.

The Procedural Guidelines section of this re p o rt reflects the findings and recommendations of the Task Force Subcommittees on Resource Allocationand on Community College/Transfer Issues. It outlines the process for campus

p re p a r a t i o n of General Education curr i c u l a .

Campuses should use the following procedural guidelines when preparing theirGeneral Education program pro p o s a l s :

✦ Campuses are charged with devising distinctive and varied ways of achievingthe goals of General Education in the spirit of and within the parametersdefined by the Trustees’ resolution. Each campus will develop one or moreGeneral Education curricula. Documents describing these programs willinclude analyses of re s o u rce needs and implementation timetables, and will bef o rw a rded to the Pro v o s t ’s Office between September 1 and December 31, 1999.After the initial implementation, campus General Education programs shouldbe reviewed periodically, and within the context of the Mission Review pro c e s s .

✦ The resolution re g a rding General Education carries re s o u rce implications.S h o rt - t e rm consequences derive from the necessity of investing in faculty ands u p p o rt re s o u rces in order to mount new courses by the fall of the year 2000.Over the long term, once the General Education policy is fully in place, campuses may find that course enrollments have shifted toward knowledgeand skill areas where the costs of instruction are higher than in courses inwhich students currently enroll. Circumstances differ from campus to campus;t h e re f o re, campuses should carefully identify new instructional needs, and thecosts associated with them as follows:

✦ Each campus should provide an analysis of the costs associated with deliveringthe full General Education curriculum to its students beginning with theFall 2000 semester.5

✦ Each campus should identify any significant start-up costs (i.e. library materials, hiring new faculty, technology, academic advisement, re p r i n t i n gof catalogues).

P r o c e d u r a lG u i d e l i n e s

7 8

____________ 5The following method, with appropriate variations, may be employed as an approximate way of estimating costs.

D e t e rmine the number of “seats” re q u i red by the General Education Reqirement and the number of “seats” curre n t l yo ff e red. The number of students who will be waived from portions of the General Education curriculum because of priorl e a rning should be considered in this calculation. Convert the diff e rence between the number re q u i red and the numberavailable into FTE students not being served. Multiply the number of FTE students not being served by the fundinglevel within the Budget Allocation Process for the type of course being taught to yield the State support projected for thenew mix of students.

✦ Each campus should look for alternative and collaborative ways to pro v i d ei n s t ruction, when appropriate and practical.

✦ Each campus will determine college-level proficiency in order to waiveindividual students from specific General Education re q u i rements on thebasis of prior learning. Such determination shall be made according to thecriteria specified in the campus’ General Education program pro p o s a l .

✦ Campuses requesting waivers on the basis of mission or accre d i t a t i o ndemands should submit written justification to the Pro v o s t ’s office no laterthan December 31, 1999.

✦ Campuses that have re s o u rce constraints preventing them from fulfillingp o rtions of the General Education Requirement by Fall 2000, may re q u e s tadditional time for implementation of specified portions of the policy byincluding appropriate justification and a timetable for compliance in theirGeneral Education program pro p o s a l s .

✦ Though not bound by the Board Resolution, Community Colleges will alsosubmit their General Education curricula so that courses can be certified assatisfying specific General Education re q u i rements without the need for anyf u rther articulation agre e m e n t .

This section proposes a format campuses are to follow in submitting their p roposals to the Office of the Provost. The General Education proposals submitted to the Pro v o s t ’s Office should include:

✦ C u rriculum OutlineCampuses shall submit an overall outline of the General Education curr i c u l u mor curricula, including catalog descriptions and summaries of topics and readings to be covered for courses that satisfy each of the re q u i red knowledgeand competency areas. These curriculum submissions shall also state criteriafor waiving individual students from particular re q u i rements on the basis of p re v i o u s academic achievement (e.g., Regents exams, AP tests, campus-basedm e a s u re s ) .

✦ P rogram Waiver RequestsRequests for program waivers or deferments of full implementation of theGeneral Education Requirement may be submitted when warranted by specialmission and/or accreditation re q u i rements (see second “Resolved” clause ofResolution 98-241 [Appendix A]). Waiver and deferment requests mustinclude justification, and in the case of deferments, proposed dates for fullimplementation.

✦ Statement of Resource ImplicationsThe proposal should include an analysis of re s o u rce re q u i rements for theimplementation of General Education, as described in the Pro c e d u r a lGuidelines section of this document.

Campus GeneralE d u c a t i o nP r o g r a m

Proposal Fo r m a t

7 9

1 Submission of Campus General Education Program Proposals (including institutional and program waiver requests, and re s o u rce analyses) –September 1-December 31, 1999

2 Review of Campus General Education Program Proposals – October 1, 1999-April 30, 2000

3 Initiate implementation of General Education at state-operated campuses –Fall 2000

The Task Force appreciates fully the impact of this General Education R e q u i rement on the campuses, and to ensure that the proposed implementationmodel functions smoothly, the Task Force makes the following re c o m m e n d a t i o n s :

✦ that the Provost appoint an advisory group to make recommendations re g a rd i n gGeneral Education program and waiver proposals. It would be appropriate f o rthis Pro v o s t ’s General Education Review Advisory Council to meet fre q u e n t l yduring the first year of implementation, and periodically there a f t e r ;

✦ that campuses be advised orally at once, and by letter within ten working days,as proposals for programs and waivers are approved. Programs and waiversthat receive conditional approval, contingent upon changes or additions,should also receive written confirmation within ten working days;

✦ that sufficient staff in the Pro v o s t ’s Office be assigned to support system-wideimplementation of the General Education Require m e n t ;

✦ that additional designated State re s o u rces be made available to help supportthe implementation of General Education at two-year colleges, (e.g. hiring language or history instru c t o r s ) ;

✦ that, within the framework of the Budget Allocation Process, funds be madeavailable to support the implementation of General Education pro g r a m s ;

✦ that System Administration and the campuses collaborate in exploring ways tominimize costs;

✦ that funds be made available for pilot demonstration projects and for modelp rograms involving the implementation and assessment of General Education;a n d

✦ that—after initial system-wide implementation of the General EducationR e q u i rement—the Pro v o s t ’s Office should, in the context of the MissionReview process, review both (1) the design of General Education pro g r a m sand (2) campus assessment programs and evidence that pertinent studentl e a rning outcomes are being achieved.

I m p l e m e n ta t i o nTi m e l i n e

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

8 0

State University of New York Board of Trustees’ Resolution 98-241 Regard i n gGeneral Education

W h e re a s setting the standards of knowledge possessed by the State University’sstudents when they graduate is one of the premier responsibilities of the Board ofTrustees; and

W h e re a s the State Education Commissioner and State Board of Regents havemoved to raise academic standards of New York State’s secondary schools whichhigher standards should be re i n f o rced by rigorous academic standards in theS t a t e ’s institutions of higher education; and

W h e re a s the Joint Task Force on General Education of the State University ofNew York Faculty Senate and Faculty Council of Community Colleges has re p o rt e dthe need for enhancing General Education curricula and recommended the adoption of common system-wide learning goals; and

W h e re a s the Board of Trustees’ Committee on Academic Standards, over a two-year period, has conducted public meetings in which General Education standard shave been discussed, and re p resentatives of the faculty and noted nationale x p e rts have taken part; and

W h e re a s the Board of Trustees’ Subcommittee on General Education and CoreC u rriculum has reviewed and discussed the re p o rts of the Faculty Senate andFaculty Council of Community Colleges and University Provost concern i n gGeneral Education, including programs at other leading universities; and

W h e re a s the State University Board of Trustees possesses broad authority overthe curriculum of its institutions under Section 355(2)(h) of the New York StateEducation Law; now, there f o re, be it

R e s o l v e d that the Board of Trustees hereby adopts a General Education R e q u i rement applicable to all state-operated institutions of the State Universityo ffering undergraduate degrees which shall re q u i re candidates for a bachelorsd e g ree, as a condition of graduation, to complete an academically rigorous andc o m p re h e n s i v e c o re General Education curriculum of no fewer than 30 cre d i thours including, but not limited to, at least three credit hours of course work toinstill knowledge and skills in each of the following key academic subjects: mathematics, natural science, social science, American history, We s t e rnCivilization, Other World Civilizations, humanities and the arts, foreign languages, basic communication and reasoning, and information management,and be it furt h e r

R e s o l v e d that implementation of the General Education Requirement be subjectto the following principles:

1 . The faculty of each institution will retain the responsibility for establishingthe specific course re q u i rements and content of a General Education c u rriculum reflective of the best practices in American higher education.

A PPENDIX A –Tr u s t e e s ’

Resolution 98-241: G e n e r a l

E d u c a t i o nR e q u i r e m e n t

8 1

2 . Individual campuses are encouraged to allow faculty to develop more thanone curriculum which meets the General Education Require m e n t .

3 . Each institution’s General Education curriculum shall complement and b u i l d on students’ foundation of secondary school or other prior academic p re p aration, especially with respect to mathematics, science and foreign l a n g u a g e .

4 . Each institution shall devote sufficient re s o u rces to the General Educationp rogram to assure effective instruction and successful learn i n g .

5 . Institutions offering Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees shall design their General Education Requirement so as to facilitate the ability of such Associates degree graduates to transfer into State Universityb a c c a l a u reate degree programs consistent with Trustees’ Resolution 90-196,dated September 27, 1990.

6 . Such General Education curriculum courses shall be broad, high-qualitycourses that provide students with a set of non-specialized, coherent andfocused educational experiences throughout the college years aimed atenabling students to acquire knowledge and skills that are useful andi m p o rtant for all educated persons re g a rdless of their jobs or pro f e s s i o n s .

7 The Provost of State University may establish additional guidelines and p ro c e d u res for implementation of these re q u i rements as appropriate andn e c e s s a ry, which guidelines may permit waiver or modifications of port i o n sof these re q u i rements for the Specialized Colleges, Colleges of Te c h n o l o g y,p rograms awarding two-year vocational degrees and for other special c i rc u m s t a n c e s .

8 . The re q u i rements shall apply to students entering the State University asf reshmen beginning in the fall of 2000.

and, be it furt h e r

R e s o l v e d that, in accordance with Section 6306(2) of the State Education Law, theState University Board of Trustees urges the boards of trustees of the communitycolleges operating under the program of the State University to adopt GeneralEducation Requirements and curricula consistent with the aforementioned principles; and, be it furt h e r

R e s o l v e d that the Provost of the State University will work with the leadershipand faculty of the University’s campuses to develop a means for assuring thatdemonstrable learning in specified General Education subjects is taking place,that a campus’ implementation of General Education standards set forth in thisresolution is considered in the allocation of re s o u rces to campuses and to exploreways to recognize and re w a rd faculty who make major commitments to s t rengthening General Education at their campus so as to encourage the involvement of outstanding junior and senior faculty; and, be it furt h e r

8 2

R e s o l v e d that the Provost of the State University will work with the leadership andfaculty of the State University’s campuses to implement this resolution, consistentwith the Mission Review process. The Provost will advise the Board of any additional steps that may need to be taken to insure the smooth implementation ofthis resolution in a fashion that enhances access and quality at the State University.

B a c k g r o u n dThis Board, under the leadership of the Academic Standards Committee and the Subcommittee on General Education and Core Curriculum has taken a keeni n t e rest in the issue of General Education standards for the campuses of the State University of New York. This interest has been in keeping with a national discussion on the subject and, within the University, is reflected in eff o rts u n d e rtaken by the Joint Task Force on General Education of the State Universityof New York Faculty Senate and Faculty Council of Community Colleges. ThatTask Force issued a re p o rt in January 1998 which expressed the need for enhancing General Educational curricula and recommended the adoption ofcommon, system-wide learning goals.

Over a two-year period, the Trustees’ Committee on Academic Standards hasconducted public meetings in which General Education standards have been discussed and re p resentatives of the faculty and noted national experts havetaken part. Additionally, the Trustees’ Subcommittee on General Education andC o re Curriculum has reviewed and discussed the above-mentioned re p o rt of theJoint Task Force and a Report pre p a red by the Provost of the State Universitydated December 1, 1998, which includes descriptions of General Education p rograms at leading universities around the country. This resolution is the re s u l tof these discussions and will establish for the state-operated institutions of theState University a General Education Requirement which will become a conditionof graduation for the class of students entering as freshmen in the Fall semester2000. The re q u i rement consists of a minimum of 30 credit hours covering anumber of specific skill and knowledge areas. The specific courses and contentwhich will comprise the General Education curriculum at each State Universitycampus will remain the responsibility of campus faculty and administrators.

This resolution also urges the boards of trustees of the community colleges operating under the program of the State University of New York to establishGeneral Education curricula and re q u i rements which will facilitate the transfer of their graduates into State University baccalaureate degree pro g r a m s .

W h e re a s this Board by Resolution 72-302, adopted November 29, 1972, established a transfer policy guaranteeing graduates with Associate in Arts (A.A.)and Associate of Science (A.S.) degrees from two-year State-operated and community colleges within the State University of New York (SUNY) an o p p o rtunity to continue their education on a full-time basis at State University b a c c a l a u reate campuses and by Resolutions 80-53 and 87-114 adopted March 26,1980 and June 24, 1987 re s p e c t i v e l y, further extended this policy to pro v i d e ,among other things, that such students be accorded full junior status and cre d i ttransfer for general education courses; and

A PPENDIX B –Tr u s t e e s ’

Resolution 90-196:

Transfer andA r t i c u l a t i o n

Po l i c y

8 3

W h e re a s the University’s transfer policy has served well SUNY’s goal and missionof providing full access to the State’s citizens to higher education and in order torenew and strengthen the University’s commitment to the goals underlying thisp o l i c y, it is desirable to re a ff i rm and extend the policy by making further p rovisions re g a rding its implementation; now, there f o re, be it

R e s o l v e d that the principles constituting the transfer policy of State University ofNew York as outlined in Resolutions 72-302, 80-53, and 87-114 be, and here b ya re, re a ff i rmed as follows:

1 . New York State residents who are graduates of a State University two-yearcollege, including the community colleges operating within the program ofthe University, and who possess an A.A. or A.S. degree, shall be guaranteedan opportunity to continue his or her education on a full-time basis at ab a c c a l a u reate campus of the University; and

2 . Graduates of two-year colleges within SUNY with an A.A. or A.S. degre e ,when accepted in parallel programs at baccalaureate campuses of the U n i v e r s i t y, shall be accorded full junior status and be given the opport u n i t yto complete the re q u i rements for a bachelor’s degree within four additionalsemesters of full-time work; and

3 . Graduates of two-year colleges within SUNY , when accepted with juniorstatus within parallel programs at baccalaureate campuses of the University,shall be granted full credit for general education courses taken and not bere q u i red to repeat successfully completed courses with similar curr i c u l a rcontent; and

4 . Only those admissions re q u i rements to institutions or to particular pro g r a m sapplicable to continuing and re t u rning students shall be applied to SUNYA.A. and A.S. transfer students; and

5 . These transfer students shall not be accorded, as far as possible, o p p o rtunities in areas such as housing, advisement and registration comparable to those of re t u rning and continuing students; and be it further

R e s o l v e d that, beginning with the fall of 1991, the following additional principlesshall pertain in the implementation of the SUNY’s transfer policy

1 . New York State residents who are graduates of a City University two-yearcollege and who possess an A.A. or A.S. degree shall be guaranteed thesame opportunity to continue his or her education on a full-time basis at ab a c c a l a u reate campus of the University as is accorded graduates from SUNYtwo-year colleges;

2 . B a c c a l a u reate campuses of SUNY in their enrollment planning shall givepriority to A.A. and A.S. graduates of State University and City University ofNew York over other transfers;

8 4

3 . Academic decisions on admissions for such transfer students shall be basedsolely on their previous collegiate re c o rds;

4 . B a c c a l a u reate camuses in making these admissions’ decisions shall pay p a rticular attention to applications from A.A. or A.S. transfer students f rom their region who cannot relocate to another part of the State;

5 . B a c c a l a u reate campuses and two-year colleges of SUNY in close geographicalp roximity shall expand joint articulation agreements and, where appro p r i a t e ,establish joint admission agreements; and, be it furt h e r

R e s o l v e d that these policy extensions to address place-bound transfer students donot diminish the expectation that SUNY baccalaureate campuses shall continueto provide access for A.A. and A.S. graduates from two-year colleges thro u g h o u tthe State, and bet it furt h e r

R e s o l v e d that the Board re a ff i rms its intention that SUNY shall continue to p rovide access to first-time students at both its baccalaureate campuses and itstwo-year colleges; and be it furt h e r

R e s o l v e d that the document entitled “Guidelines for the State University of New York Transfer Policy” dated June 27, 1990 (copy on file in the Office of theS e c re t a ry of the University) be, and hereby is, approved and the Chancellor, ordesignee, be, and hereby is, authorized to amend and supplement said guidelinesf rom time to time, in such manner as shall be determined to be appro p r i a t e .

8 5

SUNY Pass Rates on the New York State Teacher Certification Examinations 1999–2000

P r o g r a m # % # of P a s s S ta t e w i d eC a m p u s / C a t e g o r y C o m p l e t e r s Te s t e d Te s t e d P a s s e s R a t e Pass Rate

A l b a n yAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 2 5 2 170 6 8 170 1 0 0 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 2 5 2 1 6 8 67 1 6 6 9 9 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 2 5 2 173 6 9 17 1 9 9 94

B i n g h a m t o nAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 8 4 6 8 8 1 6 8 1 0 0 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 8 4 6 5 77 6 5 1 0 0 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 8 4 6 8 8 1 6 8 1 0 0 94

Buffalo UniversityAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 11 0 1 07 97 1 07 1 0 0 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 11 0 1 0 8 9 8 1 0 8 1 0 0 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 11 0 1 0 9 9 9 1 0 9 1 0 0 94

Stony BrookAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 175 173 9 9 17 1 9 9 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 175 174 9 9 172 9 9 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 175 174 9 9 17 1 9 8 94

B r o c k p o r tAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 3 1 8 2 8 4 8 9 270 9 5 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 3 1 8 2 87 9 0 274 9 5 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 3 1 8 2 9 0 9 1 2 6 8 9 2 94

Buffalo Sta t eAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 8 6 9 5 5 8 6 4 5 4 1 97 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 8 6 9 5 6 0 6 4 5 2 3 9 3 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 8 6 9 5 6 8 6 5 5 27 9 3 94

C o r t l a n dAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 6 3 3 5 9 1 9 3 5 8 0 9 8 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 6 3 3 5 9 3 94 579 9 8 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 6 3 3 5 94 94 573 9 6 94

Fr e d o n i aAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 2 6 1 2 49 9 5 2 4 5 9 8 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 2 6 1 2 5 0 9 6 2 4 6 9 8 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 2 6 1 2 5 2 97 2 4 5 97 94

G e n e s e oAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 5 3 3 4 2 4 8 0 4 2 2 1 0 0 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 5 3 3 4 2 6 8 0 4 2 5 1 0 0 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 5 3 3 4 27 8 0 4 2 5 1 0 0 94

8 6

P r o g r a m # % # of P a s s S ta t e w i d eC a m p u s / C a t e g o r y C o m p l e t e r s Te s t e d Te s t e d P a s s e s R a t e Pass Rate

New PaltzAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 3 5 2 3 17 9 0 3 07 97 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 3 5 2 3 2 1 9 1 3 11 97 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 3 5 2 3 2 1 9 1 3 0 6 9 5 94

Old We s t b u r yAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 1 0 5 9 3 8 6 8 9 9 6 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 1 0 5 94 9 0 8 8 94 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 1 0 5 9 5 9 0 8 8 9 3 94

O n e o n taAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 3 3 8 3 1 0 9 2 3 0 4 9 8 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 3 3 8 3 1 5 9 3 3 1 0 9 8 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 3 3 8 3 17 94 3 07 97 94

O s w e g oAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 3 3 5 278 8 1 2 6 8 9 6 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 3 3 5 2 8 6 8 5 273 9 5 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 3 3 5 2 8 6 8 5 270 94 94

P l a t t s b u r g hAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 3 4 3 272 79 2 6 9 9 9 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 3 4 3 275 8 0 273 9 9 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 3 4 3 278 8 1 273 9 8 94

Po t s d a mAssessment of Teaching Skills-Wr i t t e n 2 47 2 11 8 5 2 0 8 9 9 97Liberal Arts and Science Te s t 2 47 2 1 6 7 2 1 6 1 0 0 9 6S u m m a ry To ta l s 2 47 2 1 8 8 8 2 1 5 9 9 94

8 7

P r o v o s t ’s Advisory Council on Teacher EducationReport and Recommendations

M a rch 2001(Executive Summary )

T eacher Education was historically the central function of many of the SUNYs e n i o r campuses, 11 of which were founded as Normal Schools specifically top re p a re teachers. The State University has enjoyed an excellent reputation for

its graduates who become teachers. Although missions have expanded andchanged, each of the 11 original campuses has retained its commitment to educating teachers, and today 16 SUNY institutions grant degrees accompaniedby teacher certification. Currently the State University of New York educatesabout 25% of the teachers certified in New York State each year through collegeand university programs.

Teacher education continues to evolve in response to re f o rm initiatives. Nationalre p o rts have focused on: (1) the re f o rm of teacher preparation as a complementto rising expectations for students in the schools, and (2) on the need for field- and perf o rmance-based teacher preparation. The need for alignmentbetween preparation of teachers and the K-12 standards for learning is also anational concern. In 1988 the New York State Board of Regents adopted s t a n d a rds for l e a rning at every level in K-12 schools, and in 1999 new re g u l a t i o n sw e re adopted for teacher preparation pro g r a m s .

In fall 1999, University System Provost, Peter Salins, appointed and charged anA d v i s o ry Council on Teacher Education (ACTE). The Council was charged withinvestigating and making recommendations on a wide range of issues that areencompassed by four major goals. These four goals constitute the outline of this,the Council’s first re p o rt, coming at the conclusion of over one year of deliberations.

S t rengthen and enhance all State University teacher education curricula and p rograms by:

Recommendation 1 – Assuring that all students who are candidates for teaching cert i f i c a t i o nhave completed majors or concentrations whose content or disciplineconstitutes a “central content” area to be taught in the classro o m .

SUNY teacher education institutions must pre p a re beginning teachers who have depthof study in one or more academic content fields that relate directly to their classro o mteaching. Breadth of knowledge that an excellent General Education program canp rovide is essential for new teachers, and interd i s c i p l i n a ry majors with content essentially like that re q u i red of all students who undertake the program are a p p ro p r i a t e .

I n t r o d u c t i o n

Goal A

8 8

Recommendation 2 – Assuring that all pedagogy courses are based on tested and defensibleconcepts and methods that give candidates for certification the qualityand breadth of skill they need to teach students with varied needs.

C l a s s room teachers must have command of the principles of best practice in pedagogy,and teachers must continually incorporate new findings from re s e a rch that impro v ei n s t ruction and student learning. Teachers must demonstrate skill in classroom management as well as assessment of learning and curr i c u l u m .

Recommendation 3 – Requiring more extensive clinical experiences and greater integration of theoretical and clinical education for students preparing for teacherc e rtification.

S t rong consensus exists that greater emphasis than at present is needed on clinicalexperiences and on the integration of theoretical and clinical education. Experiencesin diverse school settings, with eff o rt and dedication of full-time faculty, are re q u i rements for effective teacher education. The system of incentives and accountabilityb o t h for faculty and for classroom teachers who collaborate in preparing futureteachers should be improved. Close collaboration among colleges, schools, and teachers is essential to effective teacher pre p a r a t i o n .

Recommendation 4 – Combining baccalaureate and master’s degree programs so studentspursuing careers as teachers may complete re q u i rements for both initial and professional certification more efficiently and in a moreintegrated manner.

Combined baccalaure a t e - m a s t e r ’s degree programs will be in greater demand as newB o a rd of Regents regulations take effect. Combined programs can pre p a re pro s p e c t i v eteachers more eff e c t i v e l y, allowing sufficient time for both liberal arts education andpedagogical education.

State University teacher education programs should respond to state needs by:

Recommendation 5 – I n c reasing the number of State University candidates for teacher c e rtification in titles with high need and in districts with high need.

Demographic analysis predicts a shortage of teachers in the U.S. and in New Yo r kState. Needs are already high in urban areas and in some certifications, including thenatural sciences, mathematics, special education, early childhood education, English asa second language, and in languages other than English. In 1998-99 almost 16,000New York State teachers were not certified in their fields, and almost 30,000 teachersin the state were over 55 years of age. Attrition among new teacher is also high.

Goal B

8 9

Recommendation 6 – Facilitating the transfer of community college students to StateUniversity baccalaureate programs leading to teaching certification.

T h e re is evidence of a high interest among community college students in pursuingteaching careers. Community colleges have the capacity to provide lower- d i v i s i o nstudy in high-demand areas such as mathematics and the natural sciences. Community colleges can provide pre-student teaching field experience and may p rovide intro d u c t o ry education coursework, thereby facilitating completion ofdemanding teacher education curricula at the senior colleges. Access to teacher c e rtification for place-bound community college students is a concern in somere g i o n s .

Recommendation 7 – Developing programs for “career changers,” individuals who have pursued another career and/or have later reached a decision to enterteaching as a care e r.

Some campuses can meet regional needs through such campus-based programs, anda SUNY-wide program should be developed to serve widely dispersed geographicneeds. Many career changers have excellent undergraduate education and p rofessional experience, and re p o rts of their success as teachers are very positive.

State University teacher education programs should dedicate greater eff o rt top reparing teachers for the State’s urban school districts, where student and schoolneeds call for special attention, by:

Recommendation 8 – Collaborating with the New York City Board of Education to establisha SUNY Urban Teacher Education Center (SUTEC) in New York Cityand supporting similar eff o rts in other cities.

If the state is to meet the need for qualified teachers in New York City and otherurban areas, then SUNY must provide an increasingly larger number of teachers.Various factors in urban schools make it difficult to meet higher learning standard sand school perf o rmance, as now mandated. Historically, the City University of NewYork provided a large pro p o rtion of the city’s teachers but at present meets only abouto n e - q u a rter of the need.

State University’s teacher education programs must sustain quality of perf o rm a n c eand continuously strive for improvements by:

Recommendation 9 – P romoting re s e a rch on the degree to which teacher education pro g r a m ssuccessfully pre p a re teachers to effect learning in the classroom.

Goal C

Goal D

9 0

R e s e a rch offers the best hope to enable improved design of programs and enhancedteacher perf o rmance in the classroom. Expansion of re s e a rch re q u i res impro v i n gi n f o rmation systems for accumulating, analyzing and sharing data. Reasonable balance of faculty workloads is essential if re s e a rch on teacher education programs is to be successful.

Recommendation 10 – F a c u l t y, campus administrators and System Administration takingactions to assure the continuing quality and improvement of teacherp re p a r a t i o n

P rogram review by external consultants should be undertaken on a regular scheduleby all teacher education programs. Accreditation is one endorsement of quality andhelps to assure maintenance of high standards in teacher education programs. Thep roposed in-state accreditation option should be supported as it provides opport u n i t yfor an integrated approach to accreditation, designed in conjunction with state s t a nd a rds and regulations. Campuses will assess, through collaboration with schools y s t e m employers, the quality of pre p a redness of new teachers who are SUNY graduates and respond to any concerns of employers. Campuses will accurately p romote the quality of SUNY’s teacher preparation programs. The quality of SUNYteacher education programs should be publicly promoted.

E ffective implementation of these recommendations and actions re q u i res, first, strong agreement from all sectors of the university on the issues to bea d d ressed. Second, the cooperation of campus leaders, including Presidents,

P rovosts, program administrators and faculty, is essential in implementing thecampus-level recommendations. Third, the System Administration must implement the system-wide recommendations and actions. Finally, this ambitiousagenda re q u i res the support of SUNY System Administration and campus leadersworking with state officials to re f o rm policy and acquire essential funding.

Implementing theR e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

9 1

A New Vision in Teacher Education: Agenda forChange in SUN Y ’s Teacher Preparation Programs

The State University of New York will fulfill its commitment to educate excellentteachers through a System-wide action agenda with the following components.

✦ Assuring that students are thoroughly grounded in the subjects they teach

1 . Students preparing to teach secondary or specialized subjects (i.e., English,B i o l o g y, Spanish, Music, etc.) will major in the relevant discipline, completingall re q u i red courses for the major. Additional courses in the major may bespecifically designated for students preparing to teach.

Responsibility: C a m p u s e sTimeframe: Applicable to students entering in fall 2001

2 . Students preparing to teach in the elementary grades will complete ana p p roved major or concentration directly related to the elementary c u rriculum (i.e., language arts/English, mathematics, etc.) of at least 30 credits with at least 18 credits at the upper division level.

Responsibility: C a m p u s e sTimeframe: Applicable to students entering in fall 2002

✦ Assuring that students have completed integrated programs of clinical andpedagogical education that give them the skills to make their own K-12 students successful learn e r s

1 . SUNY will convene a series of forums involving SUNY faculty and administrators on best practices in (a) methods for teaching content areas; (b) integration of technology into instruction; (c) skills for classroom management and assessment of learning; and (d) integrating pedagogy with clinical education.

Responsibility: System Pro v o s tTimeframe: First forum to be convened during 2001-2002

2 . Students will complete not less than 100 hours of clinical experience in aschool classroom before and exclusive of time spent in student teaching.

Responsibility: C a m p u s e sTimeframe: Applicable to students entering in fall 2001

3 . Student teaching will consist of a minimum of 75 days in classrooms andschools, [with 90 days being desirable] in two separate experiences, at leastone of which is in a high-need school. Campuses should explore ways toenhance further and expand clinical experiences.

Responsibility: Campuses and System Administration working with theNew York State Education Department and school districts.

Timeframe: Applicable to students entering in fall 2002

Give all SUNY students pursuing

teaching careersthe best possible

preparation tobecome effective

teachers by:

9 2

4 . Experienced clinical faculty will supervise all field experiences. At manycampuses additional costs are likely to be incurred to accomplish this goal.

Responsibility: Campuses, with support of System AdministrationTimeframe: Applicable to students entering in fall 2001.

5 . SUNY campuses will design integrated programs for qualified students thatp rovide continuity from entry as freshmen through the Master’s degre e .Coursework credited toward the Master’s degree will sustain balance amongstudy in the subject matter to be taught, discipline-specific pedagogy, andclinical experience.

Responsibility: Campuses in consultation with the System Provost Timeframe: P rogram design begins during 2001

✦ F o rming partnerships with schools to accomplish SUNY’s educationalgoals and to meet the schools’ needs for excellent teachers and pro f e s s i o n a ldevelopment for teachers

1 . SUNY will promote, both within the System and with State officials, systematic involvement and recognition of the professional contributions of classroom teachers and schools in educating new teachers.

✦ SUNY will work with the State Education Department to develop waysto extensively involve school districts and their teachers to assist in educating new teachers.

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : System Administration and campus leadersTi m e f r a m e : Initial discussions will be held during fall 2001

✦ SUNY will increase the stipend for cooperating classroom teachers whowork with student/pre - s e rvice teachers by 50%, and other non-monetaryincentives will be sought. Incentives will also be sought for cooperatingteachers who supervise pre-student teaching experiences.

Responsibility: System Administration for stipends, campuses for n o n - m o n e t a ry incentives

Ti m e f r a m e : Stipend increase beginning in fall 2001

✦ SUNY teacher education faculty, in collaboration with schools and teachers,will devise methods of evaluating the contributions of classroom teachersto educating new teachers.

Responsibility: C a m p u s e sTimeframe: By fall 2003

✦ Enabling more SUNY two-year college graduates to become teachers

1 . A group of two- and four-year college faculty and administrators will beconvened to design an academic program at two-year campuses for qualifiedstudents pursuing teacher education programs. The program would then be accepted by senior campuses as fulfillment of a portion of the teacherp reparation curriculum. The two-year curriculum will be sensitive toa c c reditation issues and include:

Address New York Sta t e ’s

growing need for excellentteachers by:

9 3

✦ SUNY General Education Require m e n t s ;✦ I n t ro d u c t o ry education courses and pre requisites for teacher education

p rograms; and ✦ Initial practical experience or observation in a school classroom.

Responsibility: System Provost will convene group; campuses pro v i d eadvisement and program art i c u l a t i o n

Timeframe: Convene the group during fall 2001

2 . Two-year and baccalaureate colleges will negotiate revised and jointly re g i s t e red programs to bring more qualified two-year students into teacher education programs.

Responsibility: Pairs of collaborating campusesTimeframe: To be completed by fall 2003

3 . Two-year and baccalaureate colleges will collaborate to assure expert counseling and advisement of qualified two-year college students pursuingteaching certification programs.

Responsibility: Pairs of collaborating campusesTimeframe: Begins with students entering in fall 2001

4 . P a rtnerships of two-year and four-year campuses will be organized to a s s u re broad geographic access to SUNY teacher preparation programs forplace-bound students.

Responsibility: The System Provost will survey the need and conveneg roups of collaborating campuses

Timeframe: A p p ropriate regions to be identified by the end of 2001-2002; meetings to be convened by fall 2002

✦ Enabling working professionals and other educated adults to becomet e a c h e r s

1 . System Administration will work with individual campuses or groups ofcampuses to develop alternative certification programs for candidates whohold a baccalaureate degree and demonstrate competence in an appro p r i a t econtent field. These programs will provide clinical experience in the c l a s s room and instruction in relevant pedagogy.

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : Campuses working with the System Pro v o s tTimeframe: Development begins immediately with first pro g r a m ( s )

o ff e red in fall 2002

2 . Campuses will obtain formal agreements with school districts: to pro v i d ec l a s s room mentor-teachers; to accommodate the integration of instru c t i o nin pedagogy for candidates; and to assure support for successful candidatesuntil they obtain professional certification.

Responsibility: C a m p u s e sTimeframe: Integrated into administration of programs

3 . C reation of alternate certification programs will be targeted at high-needschool districts and subject areas, and may also serve geographic areas without access to SUNY teacher certification programs.

9 4

Responsibility: System Administration will furnish background data andanalyses, campuses will develop pro g r a m s

Timeframe: Analysis to be conducted and interested campuses identifiedduring 2001-2002

✦ P reparing more SUNY students to teach high-need subjects such asmathematics, science, special education and languages other than English

1 . SUNY will advocate expansion of government incentive programs, such asNew Yo r k ’s Teachers of To m o rro w, to include undergraduates who pursuehigh-need teaching cre d e n t i a l s .

Responsibility: System Administration, with support from campus leadersTimeframe: Begins immediately

2 . Campuses will undertake aggressive re c ruitment of students to pursue c e rtification in high-need subjects.

Responsibility: Campuses, with support from System Enrollment ManagementTimeframe: Ongoing as long as need exists

3 . Campuses will pursue private funding for scholarships and incentives toa d d ress teacher shortages in high-need subjects.

Responsibility: Campuses, with support of SUNY Research FoundationTimeframe: Ongoing as long as need exists

✦ Meeting the special challenges of urban public education in New Yo r k ’s cities

1 . SUNY will establish an Urban Teacher Education Center in New York Citywith the purpose to both increase the number of SUNY-educated teacherswho take positions in the city’s schools and to serve as a laboratory forenhancing the effectiveness of teacher preparation for urban schools.

Responsibility: System Pro v o s tTimeframe: I m m e d i a t e l y

2 . SUNY will promote increased service to the urban schools in other cities,such as Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse and others, including the possibleestablishment of teacher education centers in these cities.

Responsibility: The System Provost will initiate discussions with re g i o n a lcampus leaders

Timeframe: Beginning during 2001-2002

✦ Subjecting them to rigorous external review and by earning accre d i t a t i o n

1 . All programs will be accredited by a recognized agency

Responsibility: C a m p u s e sTimeframe: P rograms will be accredited by December 2004

2 . The University supports the establishment of alternative accrediting agencies to provide choice for campuses.

9 5

C o n t i n u o u s l yassessing and

i m p r o v i n gSUN Y ’s teacher

education programs by:

Responsibility: System AdministrationTimeframe: I m m e d i a t e l y

✦ Conducting ongoing re s e a rch on SUNY’s graduates and on best practices ine l e m e n t a ry and secondary education

1 . Campuses will survey school systems that employ SUNY-educated teachersand use information derived from surveys to respond to concerns andi m p rove programs.

Responsibility: C a m p u s e sTimeframe: Dialogue between campuses and schools to begin during 2001,

s u rveys for collecting data will be completed by fall 2002

2 . Both as a System and through the work of its faculty, SUNY will conductre s e a rch on best practices for preparing teachers, for gauging teaching e ffectiveness, and on identifying the characteristics of successful teachers.Results of re s e a rch will be shared with the Board of Trustees and there a f t e rwidely disseminated.

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : System-wide re s e a rch eff o rts will be organized by theSystem Provost, in consultation with appropriate facultyand administrative groups.

Timeframe: O rganization for re s e a rch will be determined during 2001-2002

✦ Standing behind the professional competence of every graduate of SUNYeducation programs teaching in the State’s schools

1 . On behalf of SUNY, the Chancellor aff i rms the University’s confidence in itsteacher education programs. The System guarantees that every graduate ofS U N Y ’s teacher education programs is fully pre p a red to assume re s p o n s i b i l i t yas a teacher in the area of his or her certification. To this end the Systemwill fund, during the candidate’s first two years of teaching, further education if needed.

R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : System Administration, in consultation with campus facultyand administrators, will develop a guarantee statement. TheSystem Administration will use such statement to publiclyp romote and support the quality of its teacher educationp rograms, and campuses will provide further education ifn e e d e d

Timeframe: I m m e d i a t e l y

2 . SUNY will engage its collaborating schools as partners in educating newteachers and will provide continuing professional development for in-serv i c eteachers.

Responsibility: C a m p u s e sTimeframe: O n g o i n g

9 6

S tate University of New Yo r kBudget Allocation Process

Implemented June 1998

The State University of New York is a system that is larger and more diversethan any other state system in the nation. Its 64 colleges include re s e a rch universities, land grant colleges, health science centers, comprehensive

colleges, specialized colleges, technical colleges and community colleges. Thesecolleges offer pro g r a m s as varied as ceramics engineering, philosophy, fashiondesign, optometry, economics, maritime studies, and medical education.

The Budget Allocation Process, a combination of formulaic and non-form u l a i cm e a s u res, distributes State support to the 34 State-operated and statutory colleges,System Administration and University-wide programs (the 30 community collegesa re funded by a diff e rent methodology). The distributed State support, in combination with campus tuition and certain other revenue, comprise theU n i v e r s i t y ’s operating budget fund. Other self-supporting funds (e.g., re s i d e n c ehalls, hospitals, most fee-based programs) are accounted for separately. The campuses have full discretion in the use of both State and campus generated revenue within State and University fiscal guidelines.

Allocation Methods

F or almost 40 years, the State University’s budget was defined by the a p p ropriation of relatively detailed categories within each campus. To supportrequests for academic program initiatives, the University began in the late

1 9 7 0 ’s to use the “40-Cell Matrix,” a faculty/student ratio model based on fouri n s t ruction levels and ten discipline groups. In 1985, the “flexibility legislation”p rovided the System and campuses more budgetary autonomy, and the“Benchmark” emerged as the primary method for allocating appropriations. TheBenchmark incorporated the basic stru c t u re of the earlier FTE-based, 40-cellmatrix, but also included funding in relation to headcount enrollments, s p o n s o red program activity, square footage of campus facilities and the actualcost of utilities. Funding for the statutory colleges (Cornell and Ceramics) wasnot determined using the Benchmark model.

The Benchmark focused on overall campus conditions and, through a process ofphased distribution of funding support among the campuses, brought the re l a t i v ecampus funding levels closer to the total University average support condition.H o w e v e r, by 1994-95, the total funding available to the University was out ofline with the normative level indicated using the Benchmark. Eventually, theBenchmark was perceived to be too complex and less effective in establishingcampus allocations, especially in light of changes in administrative re g u l a t i o n sand funding patterns; the need for a new methodology was evident.

I n t r o d u c t i o n

A l l o c a t i o nH i s t o r y

9 7

Allocation Methodology Committee

A committee of the State University Business Officers Association (SUBOA), in conjunction with System Administration staff, was formed in 1992 toinvestigate the issues and concerns surrounding the Benchmark. Three

factors provided motivation for the initial work of the SUBOA AllocationMethodology Committee:

✦ campus pre s s u re for an allocation process that was simpler, easier to understand, and more predictable over time

✦ the need for clearer demarcation of the funding support provided for the fundamental missions of instruction, re s e a rch, and public serv i c e

✦ an interest in treating State tax dollar support separately from tuition re v e n u e ,opening the potential for campuses to retain their tuition and fee income

In 1995, the Committee was reconstituted as a joint eff o rt of SUBOA, theAcademic Officers (ACAO) and System Administration (Budget and Finance,P ro v o s t ’s Office, and Construction Fund); later, a re p resentative of the UniversityFaculty Senate joined the Committee (see Attachment 1).

In Spring 1996, the Committee drafted a conceptual proposal, identifying specificissues for further examination. After an initial presentation of the Committee’sdeliberations and pro g ress to the Board of Trustees, the Committee was temporarily expanded to include four task groups charged with reviewing severalc o re issues: campus groupings and peers, organized re s e a rch and public service, geographic issues (i.e., salaries and utilities), and facilities investment (includingdebt service, rehabilitation and maintenance and capital costs; this was notincluded in the final version of the methodology). Additional campus staff members were asked to assist the Allocation Methodology Committee in thework of the task groups as they examined relevant data, existing practices andpolicies, and developed re c o m m e n d a t i o n s .

The Committee’s initial results were first presented to the Board of Trustees andthen to the Presidents’ Planning and Priorities Committee. Based on these meetings,adjustments were made and a draft document was distributed to campus p residents for comment and discussion at a Chancellor’s Forum held in December,1996. In May, 1997, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Board ofTrustees was designated Board liaison to the Allocation Methodology Committee.

The Committee submitted a re p o rt to the Vice Chancellor for Finance in October,1997, and a series of meetings was held with the Board of Trustees, SystemAdministration senior officers, campus presidents and officers, Legislative andDivision of the Budget staff and the Faculty Senate. Based on the discussions andcomments by the various University constituencies and after consultation withthe Committee, the Vice Chancellor for Finance and the University Provost recommended a new budget allocation process in May, 1998. The new allocationp rocess was used as the basis for the State University’s Financial Plan adopted bythe Board of Trustees in June 1998.

Process for Change

9 8

Budget Allocation Process

The new allocation methodology was developed to:

✦ relate the allocation of State support to campus missions and the re s u l t sachieved in the pursuit of those missions

✦ p rovide incentives to improve the quality of instruction and re s e a rch, enhanceaccess and promote eff i c i e n c y

✦ continue the sharing of financial responsibility between the System and campuses

✦ distribute State support to all State-operated and statutory colleges in an equitable, open and predictable manner

✦ p e rmit campuses to retain and manage their re s o u rces and assume responsibility for the costs of local decisions

Under the new allocation process, funding for the University’s operating budgetis allocated according to five major components:

Campus Retention of Tu i t i o n

✦ Campuses retain all tuition and fee revenue currently pooled in the operatingb u d g e t .

E n r o l l m e n t

✦ Total funded enrollment is categorized into a 12 cell matrix by student leveland discipline gro u p .

✦ State support is based on the relative cost and percent of State support for each cell.

✦ C o re funding for a complement of basic staff is provided to campuses below5,500 FTE students (funding is phased out for campuses between 3,000 and5,500 students).

✦ A geographic adjustment is provided based on cost of living variances by campus location.

✦ Graduate support and tuition support is pro v i d e d .

Research and Public Service

✦ Campuses are encouraged to seek outside funding for re s e a rch and public s e rvice by the provision of a 20% State match for both direct and indire c te x t e rnal support .

✦ R e s e a rch and public service institutes currently supported in the campus budgets that have a history of State-initiated funding, select programs, andland grant and fore s t ry activities are funded in the new allocation pro c e s s .

M e t h o d o l o g yO b j e c t i v e s

M e t h o d o l o g yS t r u c t u r e

9 9

Mission Adjustments

✦ P ro g r a m - related mission adjustments are provided to a limited number ofcampuses with unique and extraord i n a ry re s o u rce needs.

✦ Campus-specific adjustments include statutory mandates or unique costs thatconstitute a significant portion of the campus budget.

✦ University-wide activities and System Administration are supported based ons t a t u t o ry re q u i rements or levels set by the Board of Tru s t e e s .

✦ Mission Review funding provided assistance to campuses implementingchanges in their missions.

Pe r f o r m a n c e

✦ The new allocation process incorporates perf o rmance incentives within thep revious components.

✦ In addition, a separate perf o rmance component will provide “bonuses” forachievement and improvement in campus quality.

The greater simplicity reflected in the new methodology’s funding componentsc o m p a red to the Benchmark is consistent with the movement toward gre a t e rcampus autonomy in the internal distribution of re s o u rces. As campuses exerc i s em o re authority in academic and fiscal matters, they also assume greater responsibility for the cost variations which result from local decisions.

In addition to the direct State General Fund support appropriated to theU n i v e r s i t y, the new allocation process treats as State support for distribution,moneys collected from self-supporting operations (hospitals, residence halls andother activities) for the payment of their fringe benefit and debt service expenses.I n t e rest earnings that can not be attributed to a specific campus are also distributed under the new allocation pro c e s s .

With the implementation of the new budget allocation process, campuses:

✦ a re credited with all tuition re v e n u e

✦ retain all fee revenue previously pooled in the University Income Fund in s u p p o rt of campus operations. Such fees include those for late registration, latepayment, bad check charges, add/drop, transcript, library fines, graduate andp rofessional admissions

✦ collect or pay interest based on individual campus fund balances

The new allocation process was developed based on the current tuition policieswhich re q u i re standard, system-wide tuition rates for each degree. While campuses are credited with their own revenue, State law re q u i res that the revenue be deposited in the State tre a s u ry and expended through the Office ofthe State Comptro l l e r.

C a m p u sRetention

of Revenue

1 0 0

Annual Average FTE Generated Support (Enrollment Matrix)

The new allocation process includes recognition of high, medium and low costfactors for four levels of instruction (12 cells) and separate factors for health-related professional degree programs. Relative weights and State support

p e rcentages are assigned to each cell:

L e v e l We i g h t S tate Support

Lower Division-Low Cost 1 . 0 2 0 %Lower Division-Medium Cost 1 . 1 3 0 %Lower Division-High Cost 1 . 4 3 4 0 %

Upper Division-Low Cost 1 . 2 3 3 0 %Upper Division-Medium Cost 1 . 4 4 0 %Upper Division-High Cost 1 . 8 5 0 %

B e ginning Graduate-Low Cost 1 . 4 3 0 %B e ginning Graduate-Medium Cost 1 . 8 4 0 %B e ginning Graduate-High Cost 2 . 4 5 0 %

Advanced Graduate-Low Cost 2 . 0 6 5 5 %Advanced Graduate-Medium Cost 3 . 2 6 5 %Advanced Graduate-High Cost 4 . 1 75 %

M e d i c a l 1 2 . 9 75 %D e n ta l 8 . 0 75 %P h a r m a c y 5 . 7 75 %O p t o m e t ry 6 . 8 75 %Vet Medicine 6 . 0 75 %

The relative cost of each cell is based on the combination of the cell’s dire c ti n s t ructional costs and a flat amount per student for academic and institutionals u p p o rt costs. These relative costs are indexed to the lower division, low costc a t e g o ry (index value of 1.0) to generate the weights reflected in the above chart .The weights will be reviewed periodically, possibly every three years, to ensurethat they continue to reflect accurately cost relationships within the cells and theU n i v e r s i t y. However, the relative costs for the cells will be updated annually toreflect collective bargaining agreements and inflation. These revised costs aremultiplied by the State support percentages, resulting in a net State support percell which includes the incre a s e s .

State support percentages reflect the approximate tax dollar support levelsre q u i red to maintain tuition rates at current levels. By including the State supportp e rcentages, the new allocation methodology recognizes both the diff e rences ini n s t ructional costs and the university-wide standardization of tuition rates. Theassigned State support percentages approximate the remaining support levelsre q u i red after tuition and fees.

An academic discipline is placed in a high, medium or low cost group based onthe average cost per FTE student for that discipline throughout the University.The grouping of disciplines is specific to student level, making it possible to havethe same discipline listed as high cost at one level and low cost at another level.Attachment 2 lists the distribution of disciplines into the 12 cells used in the new

The EnrollmentC o m p o n e n t

1 0 1

allocation process. The health-related first professional values were developedusing both campus data and, where available, information from collegiate associations in each field.

The academic and institutional support cost included in the 12 cells is calculatedas a uniform amount throughout the University and covers libraries, student s u p p o rt, organized activities, maintenance and operations, administration andinstitutional services based on the National Association of College and UniversityBusiness Officers (NACUBO) classifications.

The campus funded enrollment is distributed into each cell based on the campus’smost recent actual percent distribution by student level and discipline. The fundedannual average full-time equivalent (AAFTE) enrollment is a weighted, averagee n rollment for three years. Year one, weighted at 50%, is the planned enro l l m e n tfor the year to which the new allocation methodology is being applied. Year two,weighted at 30%, is the official enrollment for the preceding year. Year thre e ,weighted at 20%, is the official enrollment for the year prior to year two. In ord e rto temper enrollment fluctuations, in years two and three of the funded enro l l m e n tcalculation, actual enrollments will be limited to 2% above the planned enro l l m e n t s.Campuses will retain the tuition benefit from enrollment which exceeds theplanned enrollment, but additional State support to those campuses will be limited in future distributions by the 2% cap.

The new allocation methodology is sensitive to enrollment fluctuations and tre n d s ;t h e re f o re, sound fiscal management will re q u i re effective enrollment management.The new allocation process re q u i res close campus attention to enrollment p l a nning but allows for modest fluctuations in achieving enrollment targ e t s .S i g n i f i c a n t s h o rtfalls from planned enrollment levels are discouraged thro u g hsubsequent adjustments in State support the following year. Enrollment planningoccurs in a collaborative manner between the campuses and System Administration.

Core Institutional SupportE v e ry institution of higher education has administrative and institutional costsre q u i red to support the educational activity of the campus. Such expenditure sinclude the salaries of a president, vice-presidents, clerical support staff, etc. Mostcampuses can support the core staff once the campus has reached an appro p r i a t elevel of enrollment or total budget; the new allocation methodology re c o g n i z e sthis enrollment level at 5,500 AAFTE. Campuses below 5,500 AAFTE, butg reater than 3,000 AAFTE, receive a partial level of core support in direct p ro p o rtion to the enrollment above 3,000 AAFTE. Campuses below 3,000AAFTE receive full core support (set at $1.7 million for 1998-99). However, ifthe core funding re p resents less than 5% of the campus operating budget, itsvalue is not considered significant in relation to the overall campus budget; inthis case the core adjustment is not provided. The core support is in addition tothe support generated in the enrollment-based component.

Geographic DifferentialA key part of the University’s mission is to provide the broadest possible access to students across the State. This results in campuses being located in a variety ofregions, with significant diff e rences in costs of living and wage levels. A consultant

1 0 2

was engaged to establish a cost of living index for each campus. Based on there p o rt, a geographic adjustment is applied to campuses whose cost of livingindex is at least 10% above the lowest campus index, but caps the diff e rential at23% above the lowest campus index (resulting in a maximum adjustment of13%). The enrollment generated support and core funding are increased by thea p p ropriate campus percentage since these are derived from system averages. Theother components of the new allocation process are not adjusted since their costsa re campus-specific and already reflect the impact of geographic diff e re n c e s .

Graduate Support/Tuition SupportThe State support percentages assigned in the enrollment component assume thatcampuses collect all tuition revenue; however, tuition waivers currently pro v i d e dto many graduate students, and to other categories of students and staff, diminishthe amount of tuition revenue collected by the campuses. The new allocationp rocess provides graduate tuition support at a level determined by the P ro v o s t ’sO ffice to offset the impact of waivers. In addition, since the State support perc e n t a g e sassume a baccalaureate level tuition, this category includes support to eliminatethe impact of the lower tuition rates charged for associate degree students at campuses with a substantial portion of enrollment in associate degree pro g r a m s .

R e s e a rch, scholarship and creative activity are essential components of theU n i v e r s i t y ’s mission, and provide critical learning experiences for both graduateand undergraduate students. They are essential to the success of the nation’s

leading universities, and contribute significantly to the State’s economic, culturaland social development. The new allocation process supports re s e a rch and publics e rvice through incentive-based funding and the recognition of certain existingp ro g r a m s .

Support for Sponsored ProgramsSuccess in attracting external funding for re s e a rch and other sponsored activity is an indication of the academic strength and vitality of our campuses. The newallocation process, there f o re, encourages this activity and the pursuit of extern a lfunding. As an incentive to re w a rd both the expansion of sponsored activity andthe maximization of indirect support, the new allocation process provides a States u p p o rt match at 20% of the total direct and indirect expenditures from sponsore dfunds. The level of sponsored activity is determined based on a thre e - y e a rweighted average of expenditures. Year one, weighted at 50%, is the most re c e n t l ypublished data. Year two, weighted at 30%, reflects the expenditures for the priory e a r. Year three, weighted at 20%, is the year prior to year two.

Campus Budgeted Research & Public ServiceMany campuses have designated programs or institutes that have been support e din the operating budget. Eventually, such critical work will be funded through acombination of mission funding and a richer level of overall support for sponsore dre s e a rch. The shift to incentive-based support has the potential of changing existing levels of support for campus re s e a rch and public service operations. This is especially the case for existing programs that are supported primarily byi n t e rnal University funds, such as those previously distributed in the Graduate

The Research andPublic Service

C o m p o n e n t

1 0 3

R e s e a rch Initiative. To minimize this impact, the first year of implementationcontinues to support the direct cost of a number of these activities and pro v i d e si n d i rect support at an additional 30% of direct support. It is anticipated that themission review process will consider the perf o rmance and funding of these p rograms. In addition to these internally funded programs, a number of p rograms within the campus budgets have legislative, executive or statutory origins. The direct support for these institutes has been continued as well, withan additional 30% for indirect support .

Funding for specific re s e a rch and public service programs is categorized as follows:

✦ University Research Initiative – Programs or institutes that had received at least partial funding from the Graduate Research Initiative. The Pro v o s t ’sO ffice, with assistance from the University Research Council, will examine themost effective application of these funds in the future .

✦ State-initiated Funding – Programs or institutes initially supported by theState as Govern o r ’s initiatives, legislative programs or member items, or recognized as University-wide pro g r a m s .

✦ Land Grant and Fore s t ry Missions – The Statutory Colleges at Cornell a re designated as New York State’s land grant institution as authorized in theFederal Morill Act. In a similar manner, Environmental Science and Fore s t ryand Cornell receive federal funds for fore s t ry programs under the McIntire -Stennis Act. These institutions have specifically chart e red re s e a rch and publics e rvice programs which are included in their operating budgets. These specificmission-based programs are designed to address critical State needs that oftena re not priorities for sponsors that provide external support .

M ission adjustments and Mission Review funding provide a means of recognizing the reasonable and appropriate support re q u i rements of campuses within a system as diverse as the State University of New Yo r k .

✦ Mission Adjustments – A limited number of campuses have academic p rograms which re q u i re extraord i n a ry educational re s o u rces to meet their a c a d e m i c re q u i rements. The allocation process supports these expenses, butrestricts them to reasonable costs which are not supported in the enro l l m e n t -based calculations. An example is the maintenance costs of the training shipsat the Maritime College. In addition, a number of University-wide activities a re budgeted separately and distributed to the campuses in the financial planp rocess (e.g., academic equipment, student financial aid, programs for disadvantaged). These programs and support for System Administration arefunded at levels set by the Board of Tru s t e e s .

✦ Mission Review – The Mission Review process, launched in April, 1998, isintended to achieve clarity and consensus on the mix and level of teaching,re s e a rch and service on each campus. Some campuses may re q u i re ongoings u p p o rt, others may need assistance in implementing changes in their missions.The University’s financial plan includes a pool of re s o u rces which will be usedto support funding adjustments identified during the Mission Review pro c e s s .

M i s s i o nA d j u s t m e n t s

1 0 4

L inking perf o rmance and outcomes to funding should be a fundamental characteristic of a planning and re s o u rce allocation method. In public highereducation, attempts to incorporate perf o rmance funding in re s o u rce allocation

a re relatively new and have met with varied success.

The major components of the new allocation process already incorporate p e rf o rmance in several elements of the methodology. For example, by offering a high quality educational opport u n i t y, a campus enhances its ability to meete n rollment goals and is then re w a rded both in the new allocation process e n rollment component and by the retention of the tuition revenue. More o v e r, byp roviding State s u p p o rt for sponsored program expenditures (a 20% State match),the new pro c e s s encourages campuses to attract these outside dollars. Finally,e ffective campus management is encouraged by allowing campuses to retain anysavings generated by cost containment.

In addition to these elements, a distinct perf o rmance component will be intro d u c e dbeginning in 1999-2000. It will include measures to identify and re w a rd :

✦ student achievement✦ faculty achievement✦ academic ro b u s t n e s s✦ quality of campus services and enviro n m e n t

New State support is recommended for the first phase of perf o rmance funding.This introduces perf o rmance review in a positive manner, and is an eff e c t i v emeans of re w a rding current levels of achievement and encouraging significanti m p rovements yet to be attained. The second phase, incorporating the use ofsome existing funds with new funding, would demonstrate the University’s commitment to a higher level of perf o rmance. The Office of the Provost has recommended a set of perf o rmance indicators and will collaborate with the Vi c eChancellor for Finance, with the advice of the University Allocation MethodologyCommittee and the Perf o rmance Indicators Task Force, in determining the moste ffective way of introducing perf o rmance in the total re s o u rce allocation pro c e s s

Implementation is a crucial aspect of any change to a new allocation method. Toavoid major disruptions in campus funding, a “collar” has been established sothat no campus’s allocation is reduced by more than 2% in any one year due to

the new budget process (1% in the first year). Initially, it is proposed that the newallocation process be phased in over a three year period. However, the “collars”will be evaluated periodically to ensure that movement towards targeted campusallocations will occur within a reasonable time frame. Since the new budget allocation process distributes State support, which in total can vary from year toy e a r, the desired enhanced predictability is in the application of the process, notin the specific amount of State support provided to campuses. There f o re, thephase-in of significant changes is essential.

The annual budget request process will continue to seek State funding for n e g o t iated salary increases, inflationary price increases and specific University

The Pe r f o r m a n c eC o m p o n e n t

I m p l e m e n ta t i o nP r o c e d u r e s

1 0 5

i n i t i a t i v e s . The methodology will then be used to allocate the State funding enactedin the State budget. Initiatives which are restricted for a specific use will be held asuniversity-wide programs and will be distributed based on the designated purposeor intent. The stru c t u re of the new allocation methodology, with its various components, provides the University with a mechanism to request additionalState support related to enrollment increases, re s e a rch growth and improved p e rf o rm a n c e .

The new allocation method will be carefully reviewed to ensure that it is operatingin a manner consistent with the overall policy direction of the University. It isexpected that further refinements, within the existing overall stru c t u re will occurover the next few years, especially as the University completes the MissionReview pro c e s s .

The five components of the new budget allocation process—campus re t e n t i o nof tuition, enrollment-based funding, re s e a rch and public service, campus and mission related adjustments, and perf o rmance—constitute a balanced

allocation method that recognizes both the similar and unique characteristics ofthe most diversified university system in the nation. Taken as a whole, the newallocation process recognizes quality, encourages management decisions at thelocal level, re w a rds effective stewardship and provides access to all students.

The State University wishes to thank the following for their support and adviceduring this eff o rt :

✦ The Allocation Methodology Committee✦ SUBOA and ACOA leadership✦ The Task Gro u p s✦ The Perf o rmance Indicators Task Forc e✦ The Office of Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business and Staff✦ The Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Staff✦ The Faculty Senate✦ The Presidents’ Planning and Priorities Committee✦ The Campus Pre s i d e n t s✦ The Finance Committee of the Board of Tru s t e e s✦ The Board of Tru s t e e s

October 30, 1998

C o n c l u s i o n

1 0 6

Q u a n t i tative Information

What follows is a summary re g a rding University perf o rmance in key operationala reas. Data shown is the most recent available as of this re p o rt .

With 374,377 students enrolled in fall 2000, the State University reached itsl a rgest student body since 1995.

Fall 2000 Fall 1999 Percent IncreaseTo tal Enrollment 374 , 377 372 , 4 4 3 0 . 5 %S ta t e - O p e r a t e d 1 9 2 , 9 2 9 1 9 0 , 74 6 1 . 1 %

In total, the State University added 221 employees between 1999 and 2000,i m p roving services to our students and helping to support the New York Statee c o n o m y.

Fall 2000 Fall 1999 Percent Increase

All Employees 73 , 2 3 6 72 , 8 8 4 0 . 5 %Fu l l -Time Fa c u l t y 1 3 , 676 1 3 , 72 1 - 0 . 3 %

As noted earlier, the Chancellor is committed to increasing the re s e a rch enterprisea c ross the University and looks forw a rd to working with the State UniversityTrustees and System and campus leadership to build on pro g ress made to date.Total sponsored activity at SUNY campuses (including the Partnership Colleges)continued to rise between FY 98/99 and FY 99/00.

Total Campus Sponsored Program Activity by Fiscal Year (Dollars in Millions)

FY 99/00 FY 98/99 Percent Increase

To tal Expenditures $ 5 1 2 . 0 $ 4 67. 6 9 . 5 %

The Sponsored Programs Office, within the Office of the Provost, is re s p o n s i b l efor administering funds awarded to the University’s Research Foundation in s u p p o rt of re s e a rch, training, programs and activity conducted by SystemA d m i n i s t r a t i o n .

System Administration Sponsored Program Activity by Fiscal Year

FY 99/00 FY 98/99 Percent Increase

To tal Expenditures $ 4 3 , 1 0 4 , 0 8 5 $ 3 8 , 0 17 , 5 9 1 1 3 . 4 %

E n r o l l m e n t

E m p l o y e e s

R e s e a r c h

Sy s t e mS p o n s o r e d

Program Activity

1 0 7

The State University grants more than 69,000 degrees each year. For the periodJuly 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000, the University award e d :

✦ 29,228 Associate’s Degre e s ;

✦ 28,443 Bachelor’s Degre e s ;

✦ 8,039 Master’s Degre e s ;

✦ 1,021 Doctoral Degre e s ;

✦ 1,063 First Professional Degre e s ;

✦ 1,499 Undergraduate Certificates; and

✦ 581 Graduate Cert i f i c a t e s .

The 1999 Undergraduate Alumni Survey was administered on behalf of the State University by ACT. With a 4 percent +/- margin for erro r, a total of 99,894alumni of both state-operated and community college alumni were sampled.Demographic characteristics of the 19,682 respondents were as follows:

✦ 65% female, 35% male;

✦ 88% white, 12% minority;

✦ 73% employed full-time;

✦ 15% employed part time; and

✦ 4% continuing with full-time education.

Alumni responses included the following: when asked if they would begin again,80 percent said they would choose the same State University college; 87 perc e n trated their institution overall as “good” or better; and 97 percent said they wouldrecommend the college to a friend.

In a rating of their respective colleges on multiple factors, the highest rankingcategories were: (1) high quality academic programs; (2) cultural/ethnic diversityin student body; (3) opportunities for student involvement; and (4) opport u n i t i e sfor student/faculty interaction.

Degrees Granted

Alumni Survey

1 0 8

C a p i tal Fa c i l i t i e s

I n fiscal year 1997-98, the State Legislature approved a $2.15 billion capitalplan for the State University: $1.7 billion for educational facilities, $250 millionfor residence halls, and $200 million for community colleges. The plan

p rovided a fully funded multi-year process to address the capital facilities needsin support of the University’s long-range academic goals. As a result, the StateUniversity has significantly increased the level of its capital programs for bothnew construction and rehabilitation and repairs. Reflecting the expanded pro g r a mand delivery of construction awards, expenditures increased dramatically in the1999-2000 fiscal year; $274.7 million was disbursed for construction and rehabilitation of academic facilities, and $54.8 million was disbursed for c o n s t ruction and rehabilitation of residence halls. An additional amount of $5million was disbursed to provide equipment for new facilities and land acquisition.

Funding for capital construction and rehabilitation of academic facilities of theState University is supported principally through the issuance of bonds by theD o rm i t o ry Authority of the State of New York (DASNY), the debt service forwhich is provided through a direct State appropriation. In FY1999-2000, theState University entered into agreements with the DASNY to issue obligations inthe amount of $246 million for the purpose of financing new construction foracademic facilities. In addition, the State University entered into agreements withthe DASNY to issue obligations in order to refinance certain existing educationalobligations in the amount of $261 million to reduce future aggregate debt serv i c epayments through lower interest costs.

Funding for capital construction and rehabilitation of residence halls is pro v i d e df rom the issuance of bonds by the Dorm i t o ry Authority and from re s e rve fundsaccumulated by each campus from operating revenues. The State University’s residence halls program is completely self-supporting, with debt service and

C a p i ta lC o n s t r u c t i o n

D i s b u r s e m e n t s(in millions)

1 0 9

$ 4 0 0

$ 3 5 0

$ 3 0 0

$ 2 5 0

$ 2 0 0

$ 1 5 0

$ 1 0 0

$ 5 0

$ 01 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 1 9 9 8 - 1 9 9 9 1 9 97- 1 9 9 8

■ ■ ■A c a d e m i c Re s i d e n c e E q u i p m e n tFa c i l i t i e s H a l l s

operating costs paid from occupancy fees charged to the resident students at eachcampus. During 1999-2000, the State University entered into agreements withthe DASNY to issue obligations in the amount of $187 million for the purpose of financing new construction for residential facilities.

As of April 2001, 130 projects (valued at $346 million) were under design and12 projects, with a construction value of $20 million, were in the bid awardp rocess. In addition, 196 projects were under construction; these projects have acontract value of $626 million.

O u t s tanding Debt(in millions)

1 1 0

$ 4 , 5 0 0 . 0

$ 4 , 0 0 0 . 0

$ 3 , 5 0 0 . 0

$ 3 , 0 0 0 . 0

$ 2 , 5 0 0 . 01 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 1 9 9 8 - 1 9 9 9 1 9 97- 1 9 9 8

■ Equipment – Certificates of Participation and Capital Leases

■ Residence Halls

■ Academic Fa c i l i t i e s

Board of Trustees, System Administration, Advisory Committees

Thomas F. Egan, C h a i rm a nRandy A. Daniels, Vice Chairm a nAminy I. AudiE d w a rd F. CoxCandace de RussyG o rdon R. Gro s sDaniel J. Hogart y, Jr.Christopher HollandLou HowardPamela R. JacobsCeline R. PaquetteNelson A. Rockefeller, Jr.Patricia Elliott StevensH a rvey F. Wa c h s m a n

R o b e rt L. King, C h a n c e l l o rR o b e rt T. Brown, Vice Chancellor for Community CollegesR. Wayne Diesel, Vice Chancellor for Business and Industry RelationsR i c h a rd P. Miller, Jr,. Vice Chancellor and Chief Operating Off i c e rJohn J. O’Connor, Vice Chancellor and Secre t a ry of the University,

P resident of the Research FoundationPeter D. Salins, P rovost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Aff a i r sBrian T. Stenson, Vice Chancellor for Finance and BusinessJohn H. Murphy, University AuditorD. Andrew Edwards, Jr., University CounselPatrick J. Wi a t e r, University Contro l l e rTimothy Murphy, Executive Vice President, The Research Foundation

Mission Review Campus InterlocutorsMission Review System InterlocutorsMission Review Stipend CommitteeCommittee on Academic Program Review Process RedesignP ro v o s t ’s Advisory Task Force on General EducationP ro v o s t ’s Advisory Council on General EducationP ro v o s t ’s Advisory Council on Teacher EducationSUNY Learning Center Advisory BoardBudget Allocation Methodology Committee Members

Board of Tr u s t e e s

Sy s t e mA d m i n i s t r a t i o n

A d v i s o r yC o m m i t t e e s

1 1 1

Mission Review Campus Interlocutors

S tate University of New York at AlbanyK a ren R. Hitchcock, P re s i d e n tCarlos Santiago, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sJudy L. Genshaft, Past Pro v o s tR o b e rt R. Ashton, Vice President for University AdvancementChristopher F. D’Elia, Vice President for Researc hJames P. Doellefeld, Vice President for Student Aff a i r sSue Faerman, Dean of Undergraduate StudiesWilliam Hedberg, Associate Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sH e n ry G. Kirc h n e r, Associate Vice President for Student Aff a i r sWendell G. Lorang, D i rector of Institutional Researc hK a t h ryn Lowery, Associate Vice President for Financial Management and Budget Sheila A. Mahan, Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs

and Director of Enrollment ManagementR o b e rt D. McFarland, Executive Assistant to the Pre s i d e n tPaul T. Stec, Vice President for Finance and BusinessFrank Thompson, Interim Provost, Rockefeller College

S tate University of New York at BinghamtonLois DeFleur, P re s i d e n tM a ry Ann Swain, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sFrances Carr, Vice President for Researc hR i c h a rd McLain, P rofessor and Dire c t o r, Graduate Program in EnglishA n d rew Milnor, P rofessor of Political ScienceMichael A. Scullard, Vice President for AdministrationSandra Starke, Assistant Vice President for Finance and Strategic PlanningRodger Summers, Vice President for Student Aff a i r s

S tate University of New York at BuffaloWilliam R. Gre i n e r, P re s i d e n tElizabeth D. Capaldi, P ro v o s tR o b e rt J. Wa g n e r, Senior Vice Pre s i d e n tMichael E. Bern a rdino, Vice President for Health Aff a i r sAlexander N. Cartwright, Associate Pro f e s s o r, Department of Electrical EngineeringWilliam H. Coles, III, C h a i rman, Professional Staff SenateK e rry S. Grant, Dean, College of Arts and SciencesB ruce A. Holm, Senior Associate Dean, Research and Graduate Studies,

School of MedicineMark Karwan, Dean, School of Engineering and Applied ScienceKenneth J. Levy, Senior Vice Provost and Interim Dean, Graduate School of EducationPeter Nickerson, C h a i rman, Faculty SenateSean P. Sullivan, Vice Provost for Enrollment and PlanningDavid J. Triggle, Past Provost and Dean, Graduate EducationClaude E. Welch, C h a i rman, Faculty Senate Academic Planning Committee

and SUNY Distinguished Service Pro f e s s o r

U n i v e r s i t yC e n t e r s

1 1 2

S tate University of New York at Stony BrookShirley Strum Kenny, P re s i d e n tR o b e rt McGrath, P rovost and Executive Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sRollin Richmond, Past Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sPaul Armstong, Past Dean, College of Arts and SciencesN o rman Edelman, Dean, School of Medicine and Vice President, Health Sciences CenterSarah Fuller, P rofessor of MusicGail Habicht, Vice President for Researc hR o b e rt Kerber, P rofessor of ChemistryM a rg a ret Parker, P rofessor of Pediatrics, Health Science CenterYacov Shamash, Vice President, Economic Development

and Dean, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences

Health Science Center at BrooklynJohn C. LaRosa, P re s i d e n tRandall Barbour, P resident, Faculty Assembly and Pro f e s s o r, Department of BiologyJoAnn Bradley, Vice President for Academic Affairs

and Executive Dean for Allied Health and NursingRoss Clinchy, Senior Assistant to the Pre s i d e n tJack DeHovitz, D i rector of HIV Pro g r a m sEugene B. Feigelson, Senior Vice President for Biomedical Education and Research,

and Dean, College of MedicineBarbara Lawrence, D i rector of Institutional Research and Education EvaluationSuzanne Mirra, C h a i r, Department of PathologyJohn O’Hara, Chief Financial Off i c e rSusan Schwartz-Giblin, Dean, School of Graduate StudiesL o rraine Te rracina, Associate Vice President and Dean for Student Aff a i r sBarbara Vi rgil, Assistant Vice President for Planning

Health Science Center at Sy r a c u s eG re g o ry L. Eastwood, P resident and Dean of the College of MedicineKenneth L. Barker, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sHugh W. Bonner, Dean, College of Health Pro f e s s i o n sSteven C. Brady, Vice President for Finance and ManagementPamela Gramet, C h a i r, College of Health Professions Faculty CouncilPaul L. Gro v e r, Vice Provost for Academic Aff a i r sJohn McCabe, Vice President and Vice Dean for Clinical Aff a i r sMaxwell M. Mozell, Dean, College of Graduate StudiesTom Poole, C h a i r, Medical College AssemblyElvira Szigeti, Dean, College of NursingM a rg a ret Turk, C h a i r, Faculty Org a n i z a t i o n

Health ScienceC e n t e r s

1 1 3

S tate University College at BrockportPaul Yu, P re s i d e n tTimothy J. Flanagan, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sThomas Bonner, P rofessor of Biological Sciences, Campus Governance LeaderRay Di Pasquale, Vice President, Enrollment ManagementColleen Donaldson, D i rector of Grants DevelopmentE d w a rd J. Kumar, Vice President for Administrative Serv i c e sFaith Prather, Assistant Professor of Public Administration

S tate University College at BuffaloMuriel A. Howard, P re s i d e n tG a ry Marotta, P rovost and Vice President, Academic Aff a i r sDennis K. Ponton, Associate Vice President for Academic Aff a i rGail Dinter-Gottlieb, Dean, Natural and Social SciencesG e o rge Hole, Chair and Distinguished Teaching Pro f e s s o r,

D e p a rtment of Philosophy and Religious StudiesJanet Ramsey, P rofessor and Chair, Communication Department

and Chair, College Senate Governance Leader

S tate University College at Cortland Judson Ta y l o r, P re s i d e n tWilliam Sharp, Past Provost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sV. Lawrence Bell, Associate Professor of Education and Chair, Faculty SenatePatricia Francis, Executive Assistant to the Pre s i d e n tHelen Giles-Gee, Past Dean, School of Professional StudiesJohn Ry d e r, Dean, School of Arts and Sciences

S tate University Empire State CollegeJoseph Moore, P re s i d e n tJane Altes, Past Interim Pre s i d e n tJoyce Elliott, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sMarjorie Lavin, Past Interim Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sR o b e rt Care y, P rofessor and Mentor, Historical Studies and SUNY Faculty SenatorWilliam C. Ferr a ro, Vice President for Administration and Records Access Off i c e rElizabeth Lawrence, P rofessor and Mentor, Science, Mathematics and Te c h n o l o g y,

and Chair, College SenatePatricia Lefor, Senior Dean and Vice President for Educational Te c h n o l o g y

S tate University College at Fr e d o n i aDennis L. Hefner, P re s i d e n tUna Mae Reck, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sG e o rge Bro w d e r, P rofessor and Chair, History Depart m e n tR o b e rt Deming, P rofessor and Chair, English Depart m e n tWilliam Foeller, P ro f e s s o r, Psychology Depart m e n tA l b e rto Rey, P ro f e s s o r, Art Depart m e n tStephen D. Stahl, Dean, Natural and Social Sciences and Professional Studies

C o m p r e h e n s i v eC o l l e g e s

1 1 4

S tate University College at GeneseoChristopher C. Dahl, P re s i d e n tBarbara B. Dixon, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sWilliam L. Caren, Associate Vice President for Student Affairs

and Enrollment ManagementK u rt Cylke, P rofessor of Sociology and College Senate ChairWilliam Edgar, Distinguished Teaching Professor and Chair, Department of PhilosophyThomas A. Greenfield, Dean of the CollegeA rthur E. Hatton, Vice President for College Advancement

and President, Geneseo FoundationLinda House, C h a i r, Department of Communicative Disorders and SciencesKenneth H. Levison, Vice President for AdministrationJames L. McNally, D i rector of Institutional Researc h

S tate University College at New PaltzRoger W. Bowen, P re s i d e n tDavid K. LaVallee, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sCarlton Bacon, D i re c t o r, Institutional Researc hGerald Benjamin, Dean, Liberal Arts and SciencesJohanna D'Aleo, Vice President, Administration and FinanceDavid L. Eaton, Vice President for Enrollment ManagementGail Gallerie, Executive Assistant to Pre s i d e n tRose Rudnitski, Campus Governance Leader

S tate University College at Old We s t b u r yCalvin O. Butts, III, P re s i d e n tW. Hubert Keen, Past Interim Pre s i d e n tA u b rey Bonnett, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sJacqueline Ray, Past Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sM a u reen Dolan, Associate Pro f e s s o r, Mathematics Department

and University Faculty SenatorJesse Fernandez, Distinguished Teaching Pro f e s s o r, Humanities and LanguagesElaine Frazier, Past Vice President for Student Aff a i r sR o b e rt Hoyte, Distinguished Teaching Pro f e s s o r, Chemistry Depart m e n tEileen Landy, Associate Pro f e s s o r, Sociology Department

and Campus Governance LeaderRuni Muhkerji, P rofessor of Psychology and Chair of Faculty Govern a n c ePatrick O’Sullivan, P ro f e s s o r, Business Depart m e n tL a w rence Poole, Past Associate Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sA l b e rt Smith, Past Vice President for Administration

S tate University College at OneontaAlan B. Donovan, P re s i d e n tF. Daniel Larkin, Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sC a rol A. Blazina, Assistant to the Pre s i d e n tWi l l a rd Harman, D i re c t o r, Biological Field StationLeif S. Hartmark, Vice President for Finance and AdministrationVi rginia Hard e r, C h a i r, Secondary EducationA rmand LaPotin, C o - C h a i r, Middle States Assessment Task Forc eFrank O'Mara, C h a i r, Faculty Senate

1 1 5

S tate University College at OswegoDeborah Flemma Stanley, P re s i d e n tJohn W. Pre s l e y, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sH o w a rd Gordon, Executive Assistant to the Pre s i d e n tJoseph Grant, Jr., Vice President of Student Affairs and Enro l l m e n tDavid W. King, Campus Governance LeaderLinda Rae Markert, Dean, School of EducationMehran Nojan, D i re c t o r, Institutional Researc hCelia Sgroi, P ro f e s s o r, Department of Public JusticeA l f red Stamm, P rofessor of Earth Sciences

S tate University College at PlattsburghHorace A. Judson, P re s i d e n tCynthia Hirtzel, Past Provost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sBen Corpus, Senior Executive Assistant to the Pre s i d e n tPatricia Bentley, L i b r a r i a nJohn R. Homburg e r, Vice President for Business Aff a i r sDavid Mowry, D i re c t o r, Honors Pro g r a mKathleen Whittier, Campus Government Leader

S tate University College at Po t s d a mJohn A. Fallon, III, P re s i d e n tPeter Bro u w e r, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sWilliam Amoriell, Dean, School of EducationKimberly Bouchard, D i rector of General EducationNancy Dodge-Reyome, D i rector of Sponsored Researc hWilliam Fisher, Assistant Vice President for Physical FacilitiesTom Fuhr, D i rector of Continuing EducationJohn Horan, D i rector of Residence LifeMichael Lewis, Executive Assistant to the President for Administrative Aff a i r sJune Peoples, Vice President for Enrollment ManagementK a t h ryn H. Perry, Special Assistant to the President for Aff i rmative Action and DiversityGalen Pletcher, Dean of Arts and Sciences Gerald Ratliff, Associate Pro v o s tScott Shewell, Assistant Vice President for Public Aff a i r sSusan Smith, Vice President for College AdvancementJames Stoltie, Dean of the Crane School of MusicChristine Strong, Dean of Student Affairs

S tate University College at PurchaseBill Lacy, P re s i d e n tG a ry Wa l l e r, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sWilliam Baskin, Associate Dean of the CollegeMichael Cesario, Personnel Policies Committee ChairJan Factor, Faculty Presiding Officer John Gitlitz, Educational Policies Committee Chair R o b e rt Goldsmith, Vice President for Finance and AdministrationRon Herron, Vice President for Student Aff a i r sJudith Korn b e rg, D i rector of Continuing EducationJoseph Skrivanek, Head of Natural Sciences M a rg a ret Sullivan, Vice President for External Affairs and DevelopmentC a rol Wa l k e r, Dean, C o n s e rv a t o ry of Dance

1 1 6

College of Environmental Science and Fo r e s t r yC o rnelius B. Murphy, Jr., P re s i d e n tRoss S. Whaley, Past Pre s i d e n tWilliam P. Tu l l y, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sDouglas C. Allen, P rofessor of Environmental and Forest Biology,

Distinguished Service Pro f e s s o rJames M. Heff e rnan, Vice President for Student Affairs and Educational Serv i c e sConnie S. Webb, Vice President for Administration/Records Access Off i c e r

S tate University College of Technology at Fa r m i n g d a l eMichael J. Vi n c i g u e rra, Past Acting President, Past Pro v o s tJohn Burkart, Acting Pro v o s tAngela Blass, P rofessor of Business AdministrationAnn Diehl, Dean of Academic and Public Serv i c e sG e o rge P. LaRosa, Vice President, Administration and FinanceR o b e rt Mark, P ro f e s s o r, ChemistryFrank Pellegrini, Dean, School of Arts and ScienceM a rg a ret Porciello, Chairperson, Business & Computer Te c h n o l o g y

S tate University Maritime CollegeDavid C. Brown, P re s i d e n tPhilip Smukler, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sKimberly R. Cline, Vice President for Administration/Chief Operating Off i c e r /

Chief of StaffR i c h a rd S. Bizar, Past Vice President for AdministrationH o w a rd L. English, Jr., Past Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sH a rtley Spatt, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs R o b e rt We a v e r, Past Vice President for Vessel Operations and Student Aff a i r s ,

and Commander of CadetsConrad Yo u n g ren, University Faculty Senate

S tate University College of OptometryAlden N. Haff n e r, P re s i d e n tSteven Schwartz, Vice President and Dean of Academic Aff a i r sJoseph Boorady, D i re c t o r, Continuing Professional EducationDavid A. Bowers, Vice President, Administration and Financial Aff a i r sKenneth J. Ciuff reda, C h a i r, Department of Vision SciencesMitchell Dul, C h a i r, Department of Clinical Optometric Science

and Dire c t o r, Glaucoma InstituteJ e rome Feldman, Associate Dean, Research and Graduate StudiesMichael Heiberg e r, D i re c t o r, Institutional Research and Analytical StudiesS i ret Jaanus, C h a i r, Biomedical Sciences Depart m e n tClaudia Perry, Assistant Dean, Educational Information Serv i c e sAnn Wa rwick, Vice President, Institutional Advancement and Records Access Off i c e rR i c h a rd C. We b e r, Vice President for Clinical Aff a i r sElaine Wells, D i re c t o r, Harold Kohn Vision Science Library

S p e c i a l i z e dC o l l e g e s

1 1 7

S tate University Institute of Technology at Utica/R o m ePeter J. Cayan, P re s i d e n tShirley Va n M a rt e r, Past Executive Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sElizabeth Kellogg-Wa l k e r, Dean of NursingBrij Mullick, University Faculty SenatorR o s e m a ry Mullick, Interim Dire c t o r, Information Serv i c e sDaniel Murphy, Dean, Arts and SciencesRonald Sarn e r, Interim Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Michael Spitzer, Past Dean of Arts and ScienceSanjay Va r s h n e y, Dean, School of Management

College of Technology at AlfredWilliam D. Rezak, P re s i d e n tJohn Anderson, Vice President, Academic Aff a i r sCraig Clark, Dean, Vocational Te c h n o l o g i e sJames Grillo, Interim Dean, Marketing and Enrollment ManagementC a rol A. Lucy, Past Vice President, Academic Aff a i r sDaniel Neverett, Vice President, Student Aff a i r sH a rry P. Snoreck, Vice President, Administrative Aff a i r s

College of Technology at CantonJoseph Kennedy, P re s i d e n tSue S. Rummel, Interim Vice President, Academic Aff a i r sJohn Crary, Dean, Engineering Te c h n o l o g yChristine Gray, Assistant to the Vice President for Administration, Budget Control Off i c e rB ruce Kenna, P rofessor of PsychologyDavid Klosner, P rofessor of AccountingM a ry Loomis, P rofessor of Ve t e r i n a ry Science Te c h n o l o g yAlex Neubert, P rofessor of Engineering Science

College of Technology at CobleskillKenneth E. Wing, P re s i d e n tMac Donald J. Holmes, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sAngelika Hoeher, P rofessor of Humanities Te rry R. Hughes, University Faculty SenatorAnne C. Myers, Dean of Liberal Arts and SciencesClayton A. Smith, D i rector of Admissions and Marketing

College of Technology at DelhiCandace Vancko, P re s i d e n tM a ry Rittling, Past Interim Pre s i d e n tDennis Callas, Academic Vice President David Addison, P rofessor of Science and EngineeringWilliam Campbell, P ro f e s s o r, English and HumanitiesWilliam J. Harniman, Vice President, AdministrationL o rraine Horn e r, Financial Aid Dire c t o rMichael McKenna, P ro f e s s o r, HumanitiesThomas Nesbitt, Assistant Dean of Enrollment Serv i c e sJoel Smith, D i rector of Communications and Records Access Off i c e r

Colleges ofTe c h n o l o g y

1 1 8

College of Technology at MorrisvilleRaymond Cross, P re s i d e n tCharles D. Blaas, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sJohn J. Angerosa, Assistant Vice President for Administration Services

and Records Access Off i c e rMarion E. Hildebrand, D i re c t o r, LibraryF l o rence Mitchell, Vice President of Student Serv i c e sWilliam Snyder, Associate Professor of Aquaculture and Aquatics Science

New York State College of Ceramics at Alfred UniversitySusan Strong, Past Interim Provost and DeanC a rol Wood, D i re c t o r, Statutory Administration

and Interim Director for External Aff a i r sL. David Pye, Past Dean, Professor of Glass ScienceCarla C. Johnson, D i re c t o r, Scholes LibraryR i c h a rd W. Ott, Past Provost Alfred UniversityJames S. Reed, Past Dean, School of Ceramic Engineering and Materials ScienceR i c h a rd Thompson, Dean, School of Art and DesignB ruce Weigman, D i re c t o r, Business Aff a i r s

New York State Statutory Colleges at CornellHunter R. Rawlings, III, P re s i d e n tBiddy (Carolyn) A. Martin, P ro v o s tDon Randel, Past Pro v o s tC a roline N. Ainslie, Vice President for Planning and BudgetPatsy M. Brannon, Dean, College of Human EcologyHenrik N. Dullea, Vice President for University RelationsNathan Fawcett, Associate Vice Provost for Statutory College Aff a i r sFrancille M. Firebaugh, D i rector of Special Pro j e c t sSusan Henry, Dean, College of Agriculture and Life SciencesE d w a rd J. Lawler, Dean, School of Industrial and Labor RelationsD a ryl Lund, Past Dean, College of Agriculture and Life SciencesDonald F. Smith, Dean, College of Ve t e r i n a ry Medicine

Adirondack Community CollegeJay Fennell, Past Interim Pre s i d e n tJane M. Harmon, Past Pre s i d e n tR o s e m a ry Castelli, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the CollegeWilliam R. Gehring, Past Dean of the CollegePatricia Pietropaolo, Past Acting Dean of Academic Aff a i r sPatricia Duncan, C h a i r, Department of EnglishJoan Kubricky, Past Tru s t e eJ e ff rey C. Peck, P rofessor of Political ScienceColleen Massa, C o o rdinator of External Studies

S ta t u t o r yC o l l e g e s

C o m m u n i t yC o l l e g e s

1 1 9

Broome Community CollegeDonald A. Dellow, P re s i d e n tKeith J. Cotroneo, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sPatricia Franks, P rofessor of BusinessG e o rge H. Higginbottom, Dean of Liberal Arts and Human Serv i c e sJulia Peacock, Dean of Applied SciencesCharles J. Quagliata, Vice President for Student and Community Aff a i r sHelen C. Ve res, Vice President for Administrative and Financial Aff a i r sJo Van We l y, Dean of Business and Business Te c h n o l o g i e s

Cayuga County Community CollegeDennis Golladay, P re s i d e n tA l f red V. Hanley, Dean of Academic and Student Aff a i r sScott Barnes, P resident of Faculty AssociationWilliam E. Berry, Jr., Dean of Planning and Institutional InitiativesThomas A. Nagle, Dean of Administrative Services and Records Access Off i c e rDavid Richards, C h a i r, English/Humanities/Telecommunications DivisionJudith Va l e n t i - F o x , B o a rd of Trustees Repre s e n t a t i v e

Clinton Community CollegeC a rol Eaton, P re s i d e n tT h e rese Bushner, Past Pre s i d e n tAgnes Pearl, Past Interim President, Past Vice President of Academic Aff a i r sJames Brazil, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sWilliam Berman, Vice President for Student Serv i c e sJudy Cavanaugh, Associate Professor of HumanitiesNina D. Coulidge, Chairperson, Board of Tru s t e e sL o rna Foster, P rofessor of SociologyMichael Schwartz, Associate Academic Dean, and Director of Continuing Education

and Community Serv i c e s

Columbia-Greene Community CollegeJames R. Campion, P re s i d e n tTe rry A. Cline, Past Pre s i d e n tM u rray Block, Dean, Academic Aff a i r sAnton Kasauof, B o a rd of Tru s t e e sB e rn a rdine J. Lamantia, Dean of StudentsPhilip Mancha, Dean of Academic Aff a i r sA. Joseph Matties, Dean of Administration and Records Access Off i c e rSusan Powell, Chairperson, Faculty CouncilThomas Wright, D i rector of Institutional Researc h

Corning Community CollegeJonathan C. Gibralter, Past Interim President, Past Dean of Academic Aff a i r sE d u a rdo J. Marti, Past Pre s i d e n tPeter Bacalles, P ro f e s s o r, Business Administration

and Representative, Faculty Council of Community CollegesJoan Ballinger, D i rector of the Learn - t o - E a rn Pro g r a mMichael Beykirch, Assistant Professor of Modern Languages,

and Chairperson of the Faculty AssociationB a rry Garrison, D i rector of Institutional Effectiveness

1 2 0

Dutchess Community CollegeD. David Conklin, P re s i d e n tM a ry Louse Van Winkle, Past Dean, Academic Aff a i r sAnita Voogt, Associate Dean, Academic Aff a i r sJohn Dunn, Dean of AdministrationMatthew Finley, Associate Dean of Academic Aff a i r sJackie Goffe-McNish, Vice Chair, Professional Staff Organization, English Depart m e n tWilliam Harwood, M e m b e r- a t - l a rge, Professional Staff Organization,

C h a i r, Business and Paralegal Depart m e n tH o w a rd Himelstein, Dean of Student Personnel Services and Enrollment ManagementWesley Ostertag, C h a i r, Professional Staff Organization, Mathematics Department June Pierson, Faculty Council Repre s e n t a t i v eElliott Rudoy, Dean of Community Serv i c e s

Erie Community CollegeWilliam Mariani, P re s i d e n tS a l v a t o re Manuele, Executive Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sBooker Edgerson, D i rector of Aff i rmative ActionDaniel Penfold, Executive Vice President for Student Aff a i r sThomas Quatroche, Assistant to the Pre s i d e n tWilliam Reuter, Chief Administrative Fiscal Off i c e r

Fashion Institute of Te c h n o l o g yJoyce F. Brown, P re s i d e n tDario A. Cortes, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sI rene Buchman, Acting Dean of Business and Te c h n o l o g yJoseph Costelli, P resident of the Faculty AssociationHelena Glass, R e g i s t r a rDiane Phillips, D i rector of Institutional Researc hAnnette Piecora, Executive Assistant to the Pre s i d e n tH a rvey Spector, Vice President for Finance and Operations, and Tre a s u re r

Finger Lakes Community CollegeDaniel T. Hayes, P re s i d e n tJames W. Wa re, Vice President of Academic Affairs and Dean of the CollegeR o b e rt Belmont, Tru s t e eJean M. D’Abbiacci, P rofessor of NursingMichele Howland, Assistant Dean for Institutional Grants R i c h a rd Larkin, Assistant Pro f e s s o r, Hotel and Resort Management/Business Depart m e n t

Fulton-Montgomery Community CollegeJoseph Bulmer, Past Interim Pre s i d e n tPriscilla J. Bell, Past Pre s i d e n tR o b e rt W. Kusek, Vice President and Dean of the CollegeJudy A. Allen, D i rector of Financial Aid and Co-Chair of the Planning CommitteeWilliam Lomanto, D i rector of the Learning Center, and Chair, Assessment CommitteeA rthur Recesso, P resident, Faculty Association of College EducatorsAnna D. Weitz, Vice President for Student and Community Serv i c e s

1 2 1

Genesee Community CollegeS t u a rt Steiner, P re s i d e n tClaudia Moore, Executive Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sRuth Andes, Acting Assistant Dean for Assessment and Special Projects Joanne Cepelak, Dean for Curriculum and Instru c t i o nPeggy Curry, Dean of Off- Campus Instruction, The Center for Business

and Community EducationB ruce Hilyard, P rofessor of EnglishL a rene Hoelcle, Vice President for Human Resources and PlanningMel Wentland, B o a rd of Tru s t e e s

Herkimer Community CollegeRonald F. Williams, P re s i d e n tPatricia Pietropaolo, Past Dean of Academic Aff a i r sJennifer Boulanger, Associate Dean of Academic Aff a i r sJohn D. Bullis, Dean of Institutional AdvancementJames Hayes, Dean of StudentsR o b e rt Kane, Dean of Administration and Vice Pre s i d e n tDavid Mahoney, Tru s t e ePeter Tu rn e r, Assistant Professor for Humanities and Social Science

Hudson Valley Community CollegeJohn L. Buono, P re s i d e n tJames J. LaGatta, Past Interim Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sJames Macklin, D i rector of Institutional Research and PlanningG e r a rd McEneaney, P resident, Academic SenateHolly Pennock, D i rector of School Programs and Educational Outreach

(Assisting Academic VP on Pro j e c t )

Jamestown Community CollegeG re g o ry T. DeCinque, P re s i d e n tG a ry F Port e r, Dean of Academic Aff a i r sC. Berkeley Adams, P rofessor of PsychologyR o b e rt L Barber, Dean of Continuing EducationM a ry Ellen Bonno, Trustee (Vi c e - c h a i r )G a ry W. Wi n g e r, Dean of Administration and DevelopmentMarilyn A. Zagora, Dean of Student Development and Marketing

Jefferson Community CollegeJohn W. Deans, P re s i d e n tKatherine F. Fenlon, Academic DeanPatricia Clark, Assistant Registrar Gail C. Phillips, C h a i r, Jefferson Community College Board of Tru s t e e sDavid Reid, P rofessor of English Penny R. Sweredoski, Dean of AdministrationAlexander Pope Vickers, Assistant Professor Hospitality and To u r i s m

1 2 2

Mohawk Valley Community CollegeMichael I. Schafer, P re s i d e n tJohn K. Bolton, Jr., Vice President for Instru c t i o nJosephine Alexander, C h a i r, Education and Social Serv i c e sJ e rome M. Alvermann, Vice President for Administrative Serv i c e sDenise DiGiorgio, Vice President for Student Serv i c e sR o b e rt Jubenville, C h a i r, Life SciencesDenis Kennelty, D i rector of AdmissionsRebecca Lo, D i rector of Institutional AssessmentWilliam Perrotti, P rofessor of Life SciencesDonald Reese, Executive Director of the Center for Community

and Academic Development

Monroe Community CollegeR. Thomas Flynn, P re s i d e n tPeter A. Spina, Past Pre s i d e n tVicky Smith, Past Vice President of Academic Serv i c e sJ e ff rey P. Bartkovich, Vice President, Educational Technology Serv i c e sTony Caizza, P resident, Faculty SenateR i c h a rd J. Degus, Executive Assistant to the Pre s i d e n t

Nassau Community CollegeSean A. Fanelli, P re s i d e n tJohn Ostling, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sM a ry Adams, S e c re t a ry of the Board of Tru s t e e sSidney Becker, C h a i r, Reading and Basic EducationWilliam Domroe, C h a i r, Board of Tru s t e e sJoann LaPerla, Dean of Instru c t i o nLynn Rubin, P resident, Student Government AssociationThomas Sands, C h a i r, Academic Senate

Niagara County Community CollegeAntonette Cleveland, P re s i d e n tPaul Ferington, Dean of Academic Aff a i r sM a ry Jane Feldman, D i rector of Institutional Researc hAnthony Gullo, P rofessor and Chair, Social Science DivisionG reg MacConnell, Dean of Student Affairs Jean McKenna, Dean of Life Long Learn i n gCatherine Peuquet, Acting Associate Dean of Instructional Development and Evaluations M a rcy Stoll, Past Associate Dean of Academic Aff a i r s

North Country Community CollegeGail Rogers Rice, P re s i d e n tDouglas Wilmes, Dean of Academic Aff a i r sSandra Baker, Administrative Assistant to the Dean of Academic Aff a i r s ,

and Records Off i c e rJane Carpenter, Associate Professor of Business and Office Te c h n o l o g i e sMichael DeVincentis, I n s t ru c t o r, Social SciencesM a rgot Gold, I n s t ru c t o r, Community Mental HealthDana Wood, E n rollment Management Assistant

1 2 3

Onondaga Community CollegeDebbie L. Sydow, P re s i d e n tJoseph J. Bulmer, Past Interim Pre s i d e n tKevin Moore, Interim Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sJ. Robert Johnson, D i rector of College K-12 Outre a c hS h a ron Testone, P rofessor and Math Diagnostics Coord i n a t o r

Orange County Community CollegeP reston Pulliams, P re s i d e n tYolaine Armand, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sJohn Cummins, Past Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sA rthur Anthonisen, C h a i rman, Board of Tru s t e e sKirk A. Manning, Vice President for Student DevelopmentM o rton Meyers, Past Executive Vice President and Vice President for AdministrationMindy Ross, President, Campus Governance System

Rockland Community CollegeG e o rge Hamada, P re s i d e n tHelen Chun, Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sJosephine Figueras, Dean of Enrollment ManagementRay Hart e r, Past Vice President for Finance and AdministrationThomas Judd, D i rector of Institutional Researc hElaine Padilla, P ro f e s s o r, Anthropology and SociologyPaul Shiffman, Vice President of Planning and AdvancementMaria Vallejo, Vice President of Student Aff a i r s

S c h e n e c tady County Community CollegeGabriel Basil, P re s i d e n tThomas J. Nelson, Dean of Academic Aff a i r sR o s e m a ry Castelli, Past Dean of Academic Aff a i r sB e rnice Dunn, Counselor III, Student Aff a i r sJohn Schro e d e r, P ro f e s s o r, Department of Mathematics, Science and Te c h n o l o g yStanley Strauss, Associate Dean, Planning and Development

Suffolk County Community CollegeS a l v a t o re J. LaLima, P re s i d e n tJames F. Canniff, Vice President for Academic and Campus Aff a i r sJessica Allen, Deputy to the Pre s i d e n tJoanne Braxton, Executive Dean, We s t e rn CampusAllie Parrish, Executive Dean, Eastern CampusWayne Pevey, Executive Dean, Ammerman CampusEric Ricioppo, Vice President for Marketing and Public Aff a i r sSteven Schrier, Vice President for Administration and Information Serv i c e sCharles Stein, College Financial Off i c e rMichael We i s s b e rg, Vice President for Student Aff a i r s

1 2 4

Sullivan County Community CollegeMamie Howard Golladay, P re s i d e n tJonathan Gonder, Vice President for Academic and Student Serv i c e sPaul Goldstein, Past Associate Vice President for Academic Aff a i r sL a rry Barrett, D i rector of Admissions and Registration Services Elizabeth A. Kubenik, Vice President for Administrative Services

and Records Access Off i c e rRosa Mason, D i rector of Human Resourc e sR i c h a rd M. Sush, Dean of Student Services and Records Access Officer

Tompkins Cortland Community CollegeCarl E. Haynes, P re s i d e n tJohn Reed Conners, Dean of Academic Aff a i r sJane Hammond, Associate Dean, Academic Planning and Researc hScott Ochs, Associate Professor and Chair, Sociology and Social Sciences Depart m e n tWalter Poland, Dean of Student Services Janet Swinnich, P ro f e s s o r, Physics and EngineeringR i c h a rd Van Donsel, C h a i r, Board of Tru s t e e s

Ulster County Community CollegeDonald C. Katt, P re s i d e n tBarbara A. Adams, Past Pre s i d e n tJohn Ganio, Past Interim Vice President and Dean of the FacultyL a w rence Berk, D i rector of Library and Information Serv i c e sAnn M. Marrott, Associate Dean for Enrollment ManagementM a rg a ret Ord a n s k y, Associate Professor and Chair of Biology,

and Chair of General Education CommitteeSteven Plumb, Assistant Professor of Engineering and President of Faculty AssociationDennis Swauger, P rofessor of Chemistry and Title III Activity Dire c t o r

Westchester Community CollegeJoseph N. Hankin, P re s i d e n tJohn F. M. Flynn, Vice President and Dean, Academic Aff a i r sIris Cook, C h a i r, Middle States Accreditation Steering Committee (Biology Depart m e n t )Nelson Huang, Assistant to the President M a rcia M. Lee, D i re c t o r, Institutional Research and PlanningJay Paisley, P rofessor and Counselor, Student Personnel Serv i c e s

1 2 5

Mission Review System Interlocutors

Manuel Alguero, D i re c t o r, Office of Hispanic American Aff a i r s

Anthony Belcher, Associate for Opportunity Pro g r a m s

Craig Billie, Associate for Data and Analysis, Institutional Research and Analysis

R o b e rt Blanton, Data Manager, Institutional Research and Analysis

G a ry Blose, Assistant Provost for Data and Analysis, Institutional Research and Analysis

Peter Brickman, Senior Programmer Analyst, Institutional Research and Analysis

Elizabeth Bringsjord, Assistant Provost for Academic Aff a i r s

K e rry Brousseau, Assistant University Financial Analyst

R o b e rt Brown, Vice Chancellor for Community Colleges

Ronald Brown, D i re c t o r, Information Technology Exchange Center

Ginette Chambers, D i re c t o r, Faculty Aw a rds and Development

D e i d re Clark, Assistant Provost for Opportunity Pro g r a m s

A. Jennifer Clarke, Associate Provost for Campus Liaison

M a ryann Corsetti, D i re c t o r, Contract Development

Joseph DeFilippo, Assistant Provost for Academic Program Review and Planning

David DeMarco, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Resource and Systems Planning

M a ry Edgerton, Senior Network Liaison Off i c e r, Nylink

L a rnell Flannagan, Associate for Research, Opportunity Pro g r a m s

Te resa Foster, Associate for Data and Analysis, Institutional Research and Analysis

C a roline Forsberg, D i rector of Disability Services and Information, University Life

Eric Fredericksen, Assistant Provost for Advanced Learning Te c h n o l o g y

S h a ron Gallagher, D i re c t o r, Academic Finance and Administration

John Ganio, Assistant Provost for Academic Program Review and Planning

William Gehring, Associate Provost for Campus Liaison

Wendy Gilman, Associate for University Financial Analysis

R o b e rt Giuffrida, P roject Staff Associate, Center for Academic and Wo r k f o rce Development

Gladys Gould, D i rector of Student Life Programs, University Life

Christine Haile, Associate Provost for Technology Serv i c e s

C a rey Hatch, Assistant Provost for Library and Information Serv i c e s

R o b e rt James, Associate Provost for Opportunity Pro g r a m s

Lynne Kraus, Senior Network Liaison Off i c e r, Nylink

R o b e rt Kraushaar, Associate Provost, Engineering and Technical Education

David Lamphere, Associate for Data and Analysis, Institutional Research and Analysis

L a rry Levine, Senior Programmer Analyst, Nylink

M a ry-Alice Lynch, Executive Dire c t o r, Nylink

Deborah Aydt Marinelli, P roject Administrative Off i c e r, Diversity and Aff i rmative Action

F red Matthews, D i re c t o r, Financial Analysis for Health and Hospitals

1 2 6

Leslie Mayville, Interim Dire c t o r, SUNY Training Center

B ruce McBride, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Public Safety

William Murabito, Associate Vice Chancellor, University Life/Executive Dire c t o r, University Colleges of Te c h n o l o g y

Laura Murr a y, Local Systems Implementation Specialist, O ffice of Library and Information Serv i c e s

Tom Neiss, Associate Provost for Network Technology Serv i c e s

Marion Newton, D i rector of Child Life Services, University Life

Michael Notarius, Associate Dire c t o r, Information Technology Exchange Center

Marianna O’Dwyer, Associate Vice Chancellor, Office of the Chancellor

Jacqueline Davis Ohwevwo, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Aff i rmative Action

Barbaraann Owad, D i rector of University Budget

Jon Penn, Senior Network Liaison Off i c e r, Nylink

J e ff rey Perez, D i rector of Communication Serv i c e s

T h e o d o re Phelps, D i re c t o r, Network Planning and Development

Peter Pileggi, Associate Provost for Hospital and Clinical Serv i c e s

Steven Poskanzer, Vice Provost for Academic Aff a i r s

Cynthia Pro c t o r, Executive Assistant to the Pro v o s t

Catherine Regan, Associate for Data and Analysis, Institutional Research and Analysis

Peter Salins, P rovost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Aff a i r s

John Schumacher, Senior Staff Assistant, Office of Library and Information Serv i c e s

William Snyder, Executive Dire c t o r, New York Network

Donald Steven, Associate Provost for Academic Aff a i r s

Peter Thomas, Assistant Provost for Campus Liaison

Evelyn Ting, D i re c t o r, Center for Learning and Te c h n o l o g y, Empire State College

K a t h ryn Van Arnam, Assistant Provost for Academic Pro g r a m s

1 2 7

Mission Review Stipend Committee

Steven Poskanzer, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, System Administration (Co-chair)

William Tu l l y, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, College of E n v i ronmental Science and Fore s t ry (Co-chair)

Walter Cohen, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School, Cornell University

J e rome Feldman, Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research, College of Optometry

Ronald Gordon, Dean of the School of Ceramic Engineering and Materials Science, NYS College of Ceramics at Alfred University

Mark Karwan, Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, State University of New York at Buff a l o

L a w rence B. Martin, Dean of the Graduate School, State University of New York at Stony Bro o k

Maxwell Mozell, Dean of the College of Graduate Studies, Health Science Center at Syracuse

J e ryl Mumpower, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs and Dean of Graduate Studies,State University of New York at Albany

David Payne, Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School, State University of New York at Binghamton

Susan Schwartz-Giblin, Dean the School of Graduate Studies, Health Science Center at Bro o k l y n

SUNY System Administration Sta f fElizabeth Bringsjord, Assistant Provost for Academic Aff a i r s

Jennifer Clarke, Associate Provost for Campus Liaison

David M. DeMarco, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Resource and Systems Planning

1 2 8

Committee on Academic Program Review Process Redesign 1999-2000

Charles Blaas, Vice President for Academic Affairs, College of Agriculture and Technology at Morr i s v i l l e

Peter Bro u w e r, P rovost, College at Potsdam

Allen Eller, Assistant Provost, University at Binghamton

John Flynn, Vice President and Dean of Academic Affairs, Westchester CommunityCollege (Co-chair)

Judy Genshaft, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, University at Albany (until 7/1/00)

J e ryl Mumpower, Associate Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies, University at Albany (as of 7/6/00)

Patricia Pietropaolo, Dean of Academic Affairs, Herkimer County Community College

Donald Steven, Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, System Administration ( C o - c h a i r )

K a t h ryn Van Arnam, Assistant Provost for Academic Programs, System Administration

Shirley Va n M a rt e r, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, Institute of Technology at Utica/Rome (until July 2000)

System Administration Sta f fElizabeth Bringsjord, Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs

Jennifer Clarke, Associate Provost for Campus Liaison

Joseph DeFilippo, Assistant Provost for Program Review and Planning

John Ganio, Assistant Provost for Program Review and Planning

William Gehring, Associate Provost for Campus Liaison

Lenora German, S t a ff Assistant

R o b e rt Kraushaar, Associate Provost for Campus Liaison

Peter Pileggi, Associate Provost for Campus Liaison

Peter Thomas, Assistant Provost for Campus Liaison

Diane Dalto, Academic Affairs Fellow, System Administration (Summer 2000)

Paul Gro v e r, Academic Affairs Fellow, System Administration (Summer 2000)

1 2 9

P r o v o s t ’s Advisory Task Force on General Education

C o - c h a i r sMuriel A. Howard, P resident of State University College at Buff a l o

Peter Salins, P rovost and Vice Chancellor of the State University of New Yo r k

Campus PresidentsG e o rge Hamada, P resident of Rockland Community College

Shirley Strum Kenny, P resident of State University of New York at Stony Brook

Kenneth Wi n g , P resident of State University College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill

Paul Yu, P resident of State University College at Bro c k p o rt

Chief Academic OfficersCharles Blaas, Vice President for Academic Affairs, State University College of

A g r i c u l t u re and Technology at Morrisville

Barbara Dixon, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, State University College at Geneseo

Jonathan Gibralter, Dean of Academic Affairs, Corning Community College

M a ry Ann Swain, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, State University of New York at Binghamton

G a ry Wa l l e r, Vice President for Academic Affairs, State University College at Purc h a s e

Fa c u l t yN o rman Goodman, Distinguished Service and Distinguished Teaching Pro f e s s o r,

D e p a rtment of Sociology, State University of New York at Stony Brook

G e o rge Higginbottom, Dean of Liberal Arts and Related Careers, B roome Community College

M a rvin LaHood, Distinguished Teaching Pro f e s s o r, Department of English, State University College at Buff a l o

Michael Murphy, Distinguished Teaching Pro f e s s o r, Department of Natural Sciences, State University College of Agriculture and Technology at Cobleskill

Miles Wolpin, P ro f e s s o r, Department of Politics, State University College at Potsdam

S t u d e n t sJoanne Freeman, F u l t o n - M o n t g o m e ry Community College

Naomi Long, State University College of Technology at Delhi

S taff SupportGinette Chambers, Executive Assistant to the Pro v o s t

Anthony Chase, Assistant to the President, State University College at Buffalo

Joseph DeFilippo, Assistant Provost for Program Review and Planning

John Ganio, Assistant Provost for Program Review and Planning

1 3 0

P r o v o s t ’s Advisory Council on General Education2 0 0 0 - 0 1

R i c h a rd Collier, Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Studies, University at Albany

M. Thomas Cooper, P rofessor of Visual and Perf o rming Arts, Monroe Community College

Barbara Dixon, Vice President for Academic Affairs, SUNY College at Geneseo ( C o - C h a i r )

Sue Faerman, Dean of Undergraduate Studies, State University of New York at Albany

Jonathan Gibralter, Interim President, Corning Community College (Co-Chair)

N o rman Goodman, P rofessor of Sociology, State University of New York at Stony Bro o k

K e rry Grant, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Graduate School, State University of New York at Buff a l o

Paul Griffin, Dean, School of Liberal Arts, State University College of Agriculture and Technology at Morr i s v i l l e

G e o rge H. Higginbottom, Dean of Liberal Arts and Related Careers, B roome Community College

Kathleen Lavoie, Dean, School of Arts and Sciences, SUNY College at Plattsburg h

Jennifer Lloyd, D i rector of Wo m e n ’s Studies, SUNY College at Bro c k p o rt

Cathleen McColgin, D i rector of Assessment, Cayuga County Community College

Una Mae Reck, Vice President for Academic Affairs, SUNY College at Fre d o n i a

Rose Rudnitski, Associate Professor of Education, State University College at New Paltz

G a ry Wa l l e r, Vice President for Academic Affairs, SUNY College at Purc h a s e

Joseph G. DeFilippo, Assistant Provost for Program Review & Planning (System Liaison)

Patricia Pietropaolo, Interim Assistant Provost for Program Review and Planning (System Liaison)

December 27, 2000

1 3 1

P r o v o s t ’s Advisory Council on Teacher Education

Julius Gregg Adams, D i rector of the School of Education, College at Fre d o n i a

William Amoriell, Deal of the School of Education, College at Potsdam

Betsy Balzano, Distinguished Service Pro f e s s o r, Education, College at Bro c k p o rt

Linda Biemer, Dean of the School of Education and Human Development (until 7/00), University at Binghamton

Christopher Dahl, P resident, College at Geneseo

R i c h a rd Hoffmann, Dean of Arts and Sciences, University at Albany

Donald Katt, P resident, Ulster County Community College

H u b e rt Keen, Special Assistant to the University Provost (Chair, ACTE)

Dan King, Dean of the Faculty of Applied Science and Education, College at Buff a l o

David Lavallee, P rovost, College at New Paltz

Judith Lloyd, P rofessor of Chemistry, Department Chair, College at Old We s t b u ry

Michael Merilan, Dean of Science and Social Science, College at Oneonta

Suzanne Miller, Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Education, University at Buff a l o

Galen Pletcher, Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, College at Potsdam

John Pre s l e y, P rovost, College at Oswego

Judson Ta y l o r, P resident, College at Cort l a n d

Paul Teske, P rofessor of Political Science, Graduate Program Dire c t o r, University at Stony Bro o k

Kathleen Whittier, P rofessor of Education, College at Plattsburg h

SUNY System Administration Sta f f :Ginette Chambers, D i rector of Faculty Aw a rds and Development

Jennifer Clarke, Associate Provost for Campus Liaison

K a t h ryn Van Arnam, Assistant Provost for Academic Pro g r a m s

1 3 2

SUNY Learning Network Advisory Board

J e ff rey Bartkovich, Vice President, Educational Technology Services, M o n roe Community College

Raymond Cross, P resident, College of Agriculture and Technology at Morr i s v i l l e

William Ferre ro, Vice President for Administration, Empire State College

Eric Fredericksen, Assistant Provost for Advanced Learning Te c h n o l o g y, State University of New York System Administration

Christine Haile, Associate Provost for Technology Services, State University of New York System Administration

Carl Haynes, P resident, Tompkins Cortland Community College

Voldemar Innus, Senior Associate Vice President, University Services, University at Buff a l o

Donald Katt, P resident, Ulster County Community College

Joseph Kennedy, P resident, College of Technology at Canton

Steven Poskanzer, Vice Provost, State University of New York System Administration

Janet Potter, D i rector of Library Services, College at Oneonta

Carlos Santiago, P rovost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, University at Albany

Ronald Williams, P resident, Herkimer County Community College

Paul Yu, P resident, College at Bro c k p o rt

1 3 3

Budget Allocation Methodology Committee Members

Campus Representa t i v e sG e o rges E. Berube, F o rmer Director of Business Affairs and Information Services,

C a n t o n

Ram L. Chugh, Distinguished Professor of Economics, Potsdam ( re p resenting University Faculty Senate)

John A. Falcone, F o rmer Vice President for Administration, Utica-Rome

Nathan Fawcett, D i rector of Statutory College Affairs, Cornell (Co-Chair)

Leif S. Hartmark, Vice President for Finance and Administration, Oneonta

Voldemar A. Innus, Senior Associate Vice President for University Services, B u ffalo Center

Stanley Kard o n s k y, Vice President for Finance and Management, Buffalo State College

Thomas Leamer, F o rmer Vice President for Academic Affairs, Morr i s v i l l e

Ivan M. Lisnitzer, Senior Vice President for Administration, Health Science Center at Brooklyn (Co-Chair)

E. Thomas Moran, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Plattsburg h

Rollin C. Richmond, P rovost & Vice President for Academic Affairs, Stony Bro o k

Michael A. Scullard, Vice President for Administration, Binghamton

Barbara P. Sirvis, F o rmer Vice President for Academic Affairs, Bro c k p o rt (Co-Chair)

M a ry Ann Swain, P rovost & Vice President for Academic Affairs, Binghamton ( C o - C h a i r )

William P. Tu l l y, P rovost & Vice President for Academic Affairs, Environmental Scienceand Fore s t ry

System Administration SupportTommy Annas, Assistant Provost for Institutional Researc h

G a ry L. Blose, Associate for University Financial Analysis

David M. DeMarco, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Finance and Management

Wendy C. Gilman, Associate for University Financial Analysis

S h e rwin L. Iverson, F o rmer Assistant Provost, Academic Planning, Policy & Evaluation

William Messner, F o rmer Vice Pro v o s t

Barbaraann H. Owad, D i rector of University Budget

Charles A. Thompson, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Finance and Management

K a t h ryn Va n A rnam, Assistant Provost, Academic Planning, Policy & Evaluation

1 3 4